Q&A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Opportunity number
- FA8650-24-S-5210
About this file
This document contains questions and answers from a pre-proposal industry day event for a federal grant opportunity focused on accelerating the development and testing of materials for low Earth orbit environments.
The opportunity will result in a cooperative agreement between the Air Force Research Laboratory and one or more educational institutions to establish a Center of Excellence. The Center's goals are to develop workforce skills in both experimental testing and computational modeling of materials behavior under multiple degradation mechanisms expected in low Earth orbit. Proposals can involve multiple university partners and are encouraged to engage AFRL researchers. A total of $5.5 million is available over 5 years. The primary emphasis is understanding material performance rather than discovery or specific material systems. Cost sharing from universities is anticipated but not required. Successful proposals will define a notional space system to provide context for material choices.
Questions & Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions | Answers | |
| 1 | Should the cost share be in the form of real cash or can it be in other valuables needed for the projects such as materials and software licenses contributed by industry partners, faculty time release, etc. | see https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-D/section-200.306 for types of allowable cost share (explicitly called out in the FOA). |
| 2 | It is suggested to be a multi-university center or a single university center? | We encourage collaboration between universities where it makes sense, and the University Day will be an opportunity to network and form such collaborations. |
| 3 | Are industry partners encouraged? | Industry partners are not encouraged/discouraged, but the primary emphasis should be on working with students and "developing knowledge and skills", as discussed in Section 1 of the SOO. |
| 4 | Is the focus on building the experimental and computation approaches on space environmental effects (rather than studying/modeling material responses)? | Emphasis should be placed on understanding material behavior in the LEO environment under multiple forms of environmental degradation. |
| 5 | Is the call looking to specific material systems and their property evolution in space? | The call is not focused on any specific material |
| 6 | Can non-generic subsystems, e.g., structures that deployed out from the satellite or structures constructed on satellites, be considered? | Yes |
| 7 | Is the focus on materials discovery (rather than using existing material systems) using integrated computational and experimental approaches? | Emphasis should be placed on understanding material behavior in the LEO environment under multiple forms of environmental degradation |
| 8 | Is the calling looking for a particular material system (polymer or metal) ? | The call is not focused on any specific material |
| 9 | Will the discussions be at a CUI level | This discussion will be at a Distribution A level only |
| 10 | Can a small business share about program that could partner with a univeristy? | We are limiting presentations to Universities only. |
| 11 | To attend industry day, dese it mean need to have a presentation or talk? | You do not need a presentation to be able to attend the event on the 29th. |
| 12 | Are these presentations meant for overview of university research capabilities, or are they meant for a brief view of proposal ideas? | You are free to structure your talk however you'd like. Our objective is to provide this forum to answer any questions that proposers might have and to give potential proposers a chance to connect with different universities to help form ideas and white papers collaboratively, where appropriate. I will note that this is a Distribution A forum, however, and that proprietary information should not be shared at the meeting. |
| 13 | Would the participants have a chance to listen to the program directors & program leads from AFRL on the context of the program and how it is positioned in relation to other parallel activities within the RX directorate, and perhaps across agencies? | The agenda is not finalized, but we are planning to have the morning portion of the meeting dedicated to AFRL perspectives, both from leadership as well as from technical POCs from the different directorates. |
| 14 | One question I have (if you can answer) – is does it add it add value to build in access to launch and payload processing capabilities to the accelerator concept, or do we assume those would be provided through AFRL? | If there is an opportunity to advance science in this area, the yes. |
| 15 | Also – is there something analogous to the NASA TX’s that identifies AFRL’s specific materials development needs / objectives? | Could be partnered on launch platforms, |
| 16 | US citizens only refer to students involved in this CoE or all PI/Co-PIs and other senior personnel? | The FOA discusses this, but the intent of the COE is to develop US citizen graduate students, and thus grad students have to be US citizens. Foreign Nationals can participate, but they will only have access to data that would be publically available, as laid out in the FOA; Primarily the students, who are expected to spend a portion of their time working in AFRL. |
| 17 | Is there any role for non-profits (focused on workforce development) in this configuration? | The cooperative agreement will primarily be between the government and one or more educational institutions. However, it is reasonable to expect that the program will include explicit partnerships with other types of organizations. |
| 18 | Is the CoE going to be in one university, or can there be multiple universities teaming together? | There can be multiple universities |
| 19 | Would university associated research centers (e.g., JHU/APL or USU/SDL) be considered an acceptible university colloborator? | The cooperative agreement will primarily be between the government and one or more educational institutions. However, it is reasonable to expect that the program will include explicit partnerships with other types of organizations. |
| 20 | In the FOA, you list several satellite subsystems. Should a proposal focus on one subsystem or multiple subsystems? | It can focus on one or multiple. The primary goal is to focus on the materials challenges in qualifying a material for application in the LEO environment. |
| 21 | Is the emphasis on systems deployed once or multiple LEO re-deployment systems, or both? | There is no emphasis either way, the focus is understanding materials behavior in LEO under multipysical loading using combined ground testing and computational modeling; We do not specify a particular system. Proposals should describe how the proposed work will impact a notional space system. |
| 22 | Program cost appears to be decreasing. I think I first saw $5.5 M as gov portion. Then 3.3, not in presentation I see $ 1.1 M. Are multiple CoEs now the vision? | The program cost is 1.1M/year, with a 3 year base period and 2 years of option pending program performance, for a total of $5.5M |
| 23 | Are manufacturing-centered proposals welcomed? | Manufacturing considerations are an important factor in technology maturation, but proposals should address the technical objectives in the FoA. |
| 24 | The FOA references that a notional system will be defined. Will that be shared before the WP, or before full proposal is due, or what otherwise does it mean in the context of proposal and program development? | The system should be defined as part of the proposal/white paper. This should give context to the particular choice of materials. The system is not a real system provided by AFRL. |
| 25 | How rigid is the requirement for a $0.5M/yr university match? | It is not required, it is anticipated that the University partner would contribute cost share to show mutual investment in the activity |
| 26 | Can we engage AFRL scientist and engineers to build collaborative projects for the proposal. | The intent of the COE is to build a partnership with the AFRL team leading the COE, and the proposal should outline at a minimum how they will engage researchers at AFRL. However, it is acceptable to call out other existing collaborations where appropriate. AFRL cannot actively participate in writing white papers or proposals |
| 27 | What government facilities will be available to a successful team? | These are listed in attachment 4 of the FOA. Other facilities could become available as AFRL partners are identified and project scopes become more clear |
| 28 | Are biological materials within scope? | Biological materials are not expressly out of scope, but this COE will not focus on manned systems or missions |
| 29 | Will you team adjustments after the award? Meaning, bring other institution into the team when AFRL feel there are weaknesses in the team composition. | This is not anticipated |
| 30 | Do you need partners at AFRL for the proposal? | No |
| 31 | Do you have expectations of the university team role to lean more on testing or modeling? | Developing workforce capable in both skillsets is critical to the COE; Proposals should address every aspect of the technical scope of the Center of Excellence. |
| 32 | Is the CoE going to be in one university, or can there be multiple universities teaming together? | There can be multiple universities |
| 33 | Will you be distributing the chat questions and answers at the conclusion of the day? | Yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .