BAA_Q As-_5-7-2013.pdf

No. Question DNDO Response

If the proposed R&D is a collaboration between a for-profit company (prime) and university (sub) and national laboratory (sub) what type of document need to be attached to the full proposal to show that the subcontractor partners are interested and authorized to perform the outlined tasks for the collaboration? Is a letter of intent is sufficient for the full proposal? Is it required to submit a signed joint development agreement between the company and the institution?

For the proposal, a letter of intent from the subcontracted partners is sufficient.

National labs should also provide, if possible, documentation of their ability to work for others (WFO) as part of the effort.

In case the phases of proposed technical work would fit a longer time period than a year (say 18 months vs 12 months) would DNDO recommend structuring the program to 12 months intervals rather than 18 months? I.e. if the work would fit two 18 months phases would you recommend to plan and submit the full proposal comprised of three 12 months phases?

As disclosed in the solicitation, no individual phase shall exceed 12 months. As you recommend, the effort should be scoped into three 12 month phases, adhering to the guidance in Section 3 of the broad agency announcement.

Regarding RTA-05: Does the desired radiographic imaging system have a requirement for material separation?

Tools that help general contraband detection, such as material separation, are desired but not required.

Regarding RTA-05: In a case where the Offeror is entirely capable of producing a complete prototype radiographic imaging system, does the government prefer that the complete system is proposed, or only one or more key components, recognizing that the proposed cost for a complete system, in Phases following Phase I, would be substantially higher?

As stated in the BAA, proposals may address entire systems or enabling component technology. If an Offeror wants to propose both enabling technology and an entire prototype system, then it is recommended that Offeror propose the prototype system as a separately funded option. Please note, however, that the Exploratory Research program cannot support substantial engineering costs unrelated to demonstrating the core transformational technology.

Section 5.2.4.5 suggests that the page limit for Volume II is 40 pages when a small-business subcontracting plan is included. This contradicts section 5.2.2 and section 5.2.4, where it says that the Volume II page limit is 30 pages. Section 5.2.4 also says that only Resumes and Statements of Work are required, but 5.2.4.5 says that a small-business subcontracting plan is required for large businesses. Which is correct? And if a small-business subcontracting plan is in fact required and not optional, is it correct to assume that the total page limit for Volume II is 40 pages rather than 30?

The Volume II page limit is 30 pages. If a small business subcontracting plan is required in accordance with 5.2.4.5. it must be included within the 30 page limit.

There is confusing language in the solicitation regarding the required sections for Volume II.

Section 5.2.4 says that only Resumes and Statements of Work are required. Does this mean that the sections mentioned under 5.2.4.6 (employment eligibility verification) and 5.2.4.7 (assertion of data rights) are optional despite the language stating “failure to submit and complete the identifications and assertions required by this provision may render the Offeror ineligible for award”?

As stated in the solicitation, only the Resumes and Statement of Work are mandatory and the other sections, to include Employment Eligibility Verification and Assertion of Data Rights, are optional

The section with bulleted header: “Extent of subcontracting commitment” seems to be unrelated to the data rights section 5.2.4.7 in which it appears. Is this section supposed to be part of 5.2.4.5?

section 5.2.4 is entitled "Volume II, Supplemental Data Proposal. Each subparagraph of section 5.2.4 is indepenendent of each other. Both 5.2.4.7 and

5.2.5.4 are sub requirements of 5.2.4 "supllemental Data proposal"

Section 6 seems to imply that “the following information” is required to be provided within 4 days after award. But no such types of information are listed in this section. What is this information, if any?

The Government will notify you of additional information regarding information that may be required to determine price reasonableness

RTA-05, Section 2.5 states that “The system must have a minimal exclusion zone...”. Current NRC public exposure regulations require no more than 2 mrem dose in any one hour and an average of no more than 100 mrem per year. U.S. Customs and Border Protection imposes a much more restrictive limit of 50 microrem per hour, but this is based on at least 2000 hours of operation per year at a fixed location. This high duty-factor assumption does not match the “strategic surge” mission described in Section 2.5. What exposure guidelines and CONOPS (scans/hour and scans/year) are to be used in calculating the exclusion zone for the highly mobile systems? Can the NRC dose limit values be used in place of the CBP limits understanding that operational logs would be used to track and maintain compliance?

Presumably, performance scales with dose. Because this transformational technology may be suitable for multiple CONOPs, it is more important to understand this scaling relationship rather than to meet a specific dose requirement. With that said, dose equivalents at the boundary of the exclusion zone, (or the unrestricted/uncontrolled area) should be consistent with recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements in their Commentary #20 for annual dose equivalent limits, and the Conference on Radiation Control Program Director’s suggested state regulations for control of radiation, Section D.1301, for total dose equivalent in any one hour.

5.2.5 Volume III, Cost Proposal states, "cost category by calendar/fiscal year…". Please clarify if the cost breakdown should be provided by calendar year, contractor fiscal year or government fiscal year.

The cost breakdown should be provided by government fiscal year.

Volume II, Supplemental Data Proposal states, “Volume II shall not exceed 30 pages.” Section

5.2.4.5 Small Business Considerations states, “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is included in the 40 page limit.” Please clarify if the Volume II page limit is 30 or 40 pages.

The Volume II page limit is 30 pages.

Section 5.2.3.1 of the CFP states "An official transmittal letter with authorizing official signature shall include the full proposal title, the Offerors’ addresses, and the Exploratory Research Topic Area. This page shall also serve as the title page." Although it refers to a "cover sheet" template, the template itself does not have a space for a signature. Are the transmittal letter (1 page) and cover sheet (2 pages) both required? Or is it better to add a signature line to the cover sheet template?

Both a transmittal letter and a cover sheet are required.

Questions for BAA13-101 and CFP13-100: Exploratory Research (Full Proposals)