HR001125S0007_MICA_QandA_3.4.25.docx

HR001125S0007

Microsystems Induced CAtalysis (MICA) Questions and Answers Document 3/4/2025

Q1: Can you clarify which, if any, of the following scenarios are permitted: a performer priming both TAs, a performer priming one TA and subbing another, or a performer subbing both TAs?

A1: With one exception, a performer cannot participate in more than one proposal in a given TA. For example, one organization cannot prime one proposal and be a subcontractor in a second proposal in TA1. However, that same performer can prime in one TA and sub in the other TA. The exception is an organization offering foundry services in TA2. A foundry could be a sub on multiple TA2 proposals as long as the proposed approaches do not overlap. Overlap is determined by the Government Scientific Review Officer.

Q2: Can you specify the meaning of “control physics”? Table 1 notes: “Control physics refers to the force(s) generated by the microsystem that control the activity of the catalyst.” If a single microsystem creates an electrical field, and catalyst A is switched by the electrical field, catalyst B is switched by a polarization of the electrode induced by the electrical field, and catalyst C is switched by a pH change induced by an electrochemical reaction induced by a current induced by said electrical field, would these three be considered different “control physics”, or would all three be “electrical field”.

A2: The government does not intend to over specify approaches. It is the performer’s responsibility to clarify and justify the proposed microsystem and the physical forces generated by the microsystem used to control catalytic activity.

Q3: Will we get a list of all the Proposers Day attendees?

A3: After Proposers Day, DARPA will email the list of Proposers Day attendees who attended and opted in to share their information.

Q4: What is the overall program budget, and how many performers are you planning to fund?

A4: DARPA anticipates multiple awards for each TA with down selects at the transition to phase 2. The overall program budget is approximately $40M over both TAs and both phases combined.

Q5: The metrics assume that the interfacing microsystem is macroscale. For example, there are metrics about multiple attachment points on the microsystem. An alternative is the interfacing microsystem is also microscale (< 10 um), giving it new ways to attach to molecules and interface to biomolecular systems. Would such an approach be responsive for TA2 and can the metrics be adjusted accordingly?

A5: We will not over specify the microsystem. No, metrics will not be adjusted.

Q6: Are there any restrictions on how energy is harvested and used in the microsystem? Can chemical energy or light energy be harvested?

A6: No restrictions will be placed on how the energy is delivered or harvested. Yes, it can be harvested.

Q7: Are organizations limited to one proposal submission as lead?

A7: Yes, a given organization can propose as prime on only one proposal per TA. Please see question 1 above.

Q8: The BAA states that “In most cases, organizations can not be part of multiple proposal teams” with no distinction between prime or sub. This seems to contradict the statement during the proposer’s day on slide 31 that performers can be subs on multiple teams. Which is correct?

A8: Subs are limited to teaming up with one team per TA. The exception is proposers offering foundry services. See Q1 above.

Q9: Will the Q&As from proposers day also be shared with the slides?

A9: Yes, questions from proposers day will be shared on the BAA’s Sam.gov website. The government slides will be uploaded to the BAA’s Sam.gov website.

Q10: Are carbon nanotubes in scope as a microsystem?

A10: The government does not intend to over specify the microsystem. It is the performer’s responsibility to clarify and justify the proposed microsystem and the physical forces generated by the microsystem used to control catalytic activity.

Q11: Is reversibility of catalyst activation a requirement?

A11: The catalyst needs to be controlled by the microsystem, which the government interprets as being turned on and off on demand, repeatedly.

Q12: Can one lead organization submit multiple abstracts?

A12: There are no limitations to abstract submission but be mindful when submitting that your ideas are significantly different. DARPA is expecting proposals with well-thought-out approaches.

Q13: Do 3 different physics need to be demonstrated on a single, integrated device? (In phase I?) (In Phase 2?)

A13: No, different physics do not need to be demonstrated on a single, integrated device in either phase 1 or phase 2.

Q14: Is experimental demonstration of multiple cascade required in either Phase 1 or Phase 2?

A14: Catalyst cascades are required only in Phase 2. Phase 2 metrics call for 6 catalyst types to be demonstrated in Phase 2 in at least 1 reaction cascade. It is left to the performer to define the number of cascades that will be demonstrated to achieve the BAA metric of at least 6 catalyst types.

Q15: The BAA specifies that multiple control physics are used. Presumably, at least some of these control physics must be molecule-specific to tune/control the operation of individual catalysts. Do all of the physics need to be molecule-specific? For example, if our solution has specific control over molecules with one physical principle, could another physics be global temperature change?

A15: Control physics are forces generated by the microsystem that turn the activity of at least 1 catalyst type “on” and “off”. The control physics can be used to control the activity of more than 1 catalyst type and does not need to be molecule-specific. The government does not intend to over specify the microsystem and control physics. It is the performer’s responsibility to clarify and justify the proposed physical forces generated by the microsystem used to control catalytic activity.

Q16: Do you envision the placement accuracy metric to be “absolute” accuracy (with respect to the microsystem substrate) and/or “relative” accuracy (with respect to other biomolecules)? You could imagine the one or the other might be more critical for different solutions.

A16: Placement accuracy will be measured with respect to the microsystem.

Q17: Is the restriction on UARC/FFRDC’s submitting proposals specific to this BAA (or solicitation) or is this now in effect for all DARPA new programs?

A17: The eligibility requirements listed in the MICA BAA are MTO specific.

Q18: Will the abstract require a ROM cost be provided?

A18: Refer to the Abstract attachment, which requests estimated total cost (base and option).

Q19: How long between Abstract submission and feedback? Or specific time when feedback to all is provided?

A19: Maximum 2 weeks but the government team will attempt to provide feedback sooner.

Q20: Regarding TA1 and TA2 interactions, TA2 proposers are to propose their catalyst, but when interacting with TA1, would TA2 transition to working with catalyst designed by TA1 or conversely, would TA1 transition to modeling, catalysts from TA2’s proposed work?

A20: In section B, the BAA states. “Modeling and simulation tools are expected to meet program accuracy methods for each TA2 approach. Therefore, TA1 approaches should accommodate a wide range of (i) molecular catalysts, (ii) microsystem designs and control physics, and (iii) device integration approaches.”

Q21: Is the $40M program budget inclusive of work by government partners? (for FFRDC, UARC) A21: $40M program budget is for performer teams only.

Q22: Can government, FFRDCs and UARCs support abstract and proposal development directly?

A22: Government labs, FFRDCs and UARCs can serve as vendors supplying material and/or services that are available to all performers. These entities are prohibited from being performers, either primes or subcontractors, or consultants. These entities may be vendors (suppliers/service providers) only for the services that were presented at Proposers Day.

Q23: When do government labs, FFRDCs and UARCs need to confirm to government team whether they will provide services to performers teams or be part of IV&V?

A23: A service supplier to a proposer will not be considered for IV&V support. IV&V support will be selected based on capabilities and budgetary considerations, after abstracts are reviewed. Government labs, FFRDCs, and UARCs should not expect automatic inclusion as IV&V suppliers.

Q24: What is the threshold for Gov, FFRDC and UARC “services”?

A24: A service is defined as a vendor relationship between the performer team and the service-providing entity. Vendors supply materials and/or services that are available to all performers. For MICA, services that were communicated at Proposers Day are acceptable. The Government Scientific Review Officer will determine if a government lab, FFRDC or UARC is providing a service (acceptable) or doing research and co-developing technology (not acceptable).

Q25: Is the purpose of the control physics primarily to control assembly, patterning, and functionalization of the microsystem with biomolecules? Or are we required to demonstrate use of control physics to dynamically modulate the catalytic activity of enzymes in real-time (during "production" mode of the microsystem)?

A25: The government does not intend to over specify approaches. It is the performer’s responsibility to clarify and justify the proposed microsystem, the assembly approach, and the physical forces generated by the microsystem used to control catalytic activity.

Q26: Is it licit for Foreign-based collaborators to be on proposals?

A26: Yes, it is licit for a foreign-based collaborator to be on a proposal: as indicated in the BAA, all responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs, including both U.S. and non-U.S. sources, may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. However, it is critical for performers to be compliant with the CUI guide and particularly with the Export Control clause. As a reminder, the threshold for information control is when performers attach two or more molecules. This reminder is not a substitute for the CUI guide and does not supersede it.

Q27: Can TA1 proposals simulate catalysts and control mechanisms offered in a specific TA2 proposal?

A27: Per the BAA, TA1 proposals must have provisions to demonstrate simulation capabilities for each TA2 technical approach.

Q28: Do we need to decide in the current submission stage who the validators/verifiers are going to be, and if so, do we need to include a budget for this?

A28: No, the government independent validation and verification (IV&V) team will be determined and paid for by the MICA PM.

Q29: Can we choose a different proposal title for the full submission?

A29: Yes, proposal titles can be different than the abstract title.

Q30: Does the page limit apply to sections 13 and 14 "Representations and Certifications" and "Intellectual Property"? If sections 13/14 are counted, may we move the bibliography to the end to help manage page count?

A30: Sections 13 and 14 are considered as a part of the page limit. The Bibliography section may be moved to the end of the template if needed.

Q31: When meeting the “CMOS-compatible” aspect to the innovating technology, is this referring to demonstrating the technology within an existing foundry CMOS process? Or is it sufficient to demonstrate that the innovating technology can be implemented in a future CMOS process?

A31: Demonstrate the technology provides clear path to compatibility with standard microelectronics manufacturing and assembly flows, while meeting the goals and metrics as stated in the BAA

Q32: When creating the innovating technology, does DARPA MICA have a preference of whether the innovative technology supports a vertical or lateral integration?

A32: DARPA does not have a preference. The offeror should provide a clear justification for their choice of approach, while meeting the goals and metrics as stated in the BAA.

Q33: When creating the innovating technology, does DARPA MICA have a preference of whether the innovative technology supports batch processing or continuous processing?

A33: DARPA does not have a preference. The offeror should provide a clear justification for their choice of approach, while meeting the goals and metrics as stated in the BAA.

Q34: Will the deadline for the full proposal be extended beyond 3/20/25 following the longer than anticipated time to the abstract response?

A34: The deadline remains March 20, 2025.

Q35: Under the functional co-design program metric, does the structural accuracy need to be met by only TA1 performers, or also by TA2 performers?

A35: The BAA requires TA1 performers to achieve the structural and functional accuracy metrics stated in the BAA, through collaboration and cooperation with TA2 performers. Structural accuracy is a measure of a TA1 performer’s ability to predict the physical instantiation by each TA2 performer.

Q36: Should the Principal Investigator meetings be priced to occur in the Washington, DC area/near DARPA?

A36: PI meetings are typically held in person and occur at the performer’s facilities. Therefore, there should be no additional cost to the performer.

Q37: Are the End-of-Phase meetings as described in the BAA anticipated to be remote teleconferences or to be in-person meetings? If the meetings are anticipated to be in-person, will they occur at the performer site, at DARPA, or at another location?

A37: End-of-Phase meetings would be in-person. Please plan to travel to the DCA area.