Q&A_updated 18 Dec.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Opportunity number
- FA8650-24-S-5210
About this file
This document contains questions and answers from an industry day event for Air Force Solicitation Number FA8650-24-S-5210, titled "Lab-to-Orbit: Accelerating the Development and Testing of Materials for Low Earth Orbit." The solicitation seeks proposals from universities for a Center of Excellence to develop workforce skills and conduct research on material behavior and qualification for applications in the low Earth orbit environment. Eligible proposals may include partnerships between multiple universities as well as research centers. The cooperative agreement will be awarded by the Air Force Research Laboratory to support research over a five-year period including a three-year base and two option years. The estimated total value is $5.5 million with $1.1 million provided annually by the Air Force and an anticipated cost share from the recipient university. The associated federal grant program is the Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program. White papers are due in accordance with instructions available from a point of contact and should include a five-page technical summary and rough order of magnitude budget, including any proposed cost share.
Questions & Answers_Updated 18 December
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q&A.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Q&A_updated 13 Dec.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| University Day_Virtual.pdf.pdf | ||
| University Day_Virtual.pdf.pdf | ||
| Attch 8_S&T Protection Initial Risk Review.pdf | ||
| Attch 7_Data Assertion Table.pdf | ||
| Attch 6_Technical Background.pdf | ||
| Attch 5_Statement of Objectives.pdf | ||
| Attch 4_Base Support List.pdf | ||
| Attch 3_Assistance Instrument Certifications.pdf | ||
| Attch 2_Model Contract.pdf | ||
| Attch 1_Supp Instructions for Assistance Props.pdf | ||
| FOA_FA8650-24-S-5210_rev1.pdf | ||
| FOA_FA8650-24-S-5210.pdf |
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 |
| Updated 12/6/2023 | ||
| 34 | Do you know what the next steps are? Are we supposed to figure out teams ourselves, or is there a chance of someone reaching out to us. | We are not explicitly connecting teams at AFRL. We sent the list of attendees, however, and you are free to reach out to any of the other groups you saw there to connect teams, if you feel it would be appropriate. |
| 35 | Am I correct in understanding that the White Paper should be submitted directly to the Technical Points of Contact, Josh Kennedy (william.kennedy.21@us.af.mil) and Matthew Cherry (matthew.cherry.2@us.af.mil) via email. The submissions should be in Word and PDF format. | White Papers should be submitted in accordance with the FOA instructions. Please request a DOD Safe link from Jay Phillips at jay.phillips.4@us.af.mil |
| 36 | Should the white paper ROM budget address a 3 year or 5 year proposed project/budget? | The ROM should address the 5 year budget |
| 37 | Can you be more specific about the level of detail expected in the ROM budget to be included with the White Paper? | The ROM should include any major items but does not have to include quotes or detailed work breakouts. |
| 38 | Does the White paper require information about estimated cost sharing to be included in the White Paper ROM? Comments during the University Day suggested that cost sharing need not be addressed in the White Paper. However, in IV.2.a on p. 9 of FA8650-24-S-5210 it states “The FIRST STEP requests a white paper and a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost to include cost share if proposed.” Further, in IV.2.c(4) on p. 10 of FA8650-24-S-5210 it states “Section D: Cost of Task (Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) – including cost share if proposed).” Please clarify this, so I can be sure to include the necessary information. | Yes, the white paper should document anticipated cost share. We interpreted the question on University Day as asking whether cost share was required in general. It is not, but we are “anticipating cost sharing from the Recipient to the maximum extent practicable”. If you anticipate cost share, it should be laid out in the white paper. |
| 39 | Is the funding for the graduate summer internships at AFRL provided separately by AFRL or should this be included as part of the Recipient proposed funding? | The internships are intended to be funded under this program. Other opportunities may be leveraged as appropriate to help fund internships, but these should not be part of the planned budget unless they fall under the cost-share portion of the budget. |
| 40 | Details in IV.2.c on p. 10 of FA8650-24-S-5210 list four Sections A-D. Is all this information to be contained within the 5 page limit of the White Paper, or does the 5 page limit only pertain to the Technical Portion referred to in IV.2.d on p. 10 of FA8650-24-S-5210? | The 5 page limit is for the entire white paper |
| 41 | Are references included in the 5 page limit of the White Paper? | The 5 page limit is for the entire white paper |
| 42 | Is it permissible for the graduate summer internships to potentially take place at AFRL in Albuquerque? | The majority of the internships should take place at the Materials and Manufacturing Directorate at WPAFB, but internships in Albuquerque are allowed as well. |
| 43 | The conflict that has arisen is whether this means that the white paper should be 10 written digital pages (or 5 double-sided printed pages) or should be 5 written digital pages (2.5 double-sided printed pages). Can you please clarify this point for me? | 5 written digital pages (2.5 physical pieces of paper, when printed double sided) |
| 44 | Are copies of the presentations available from University Day or a recording of the sessions? | We did not record the sessions or collect presentation material from any of the presenters other than our slides. These can be made available upon request. |
| White Paper Deliver instructions: | White Papers should be submitted in accordance with the FOA instructions. Please request a DOD Safe link from Jay Phillips at jay.phillips.4@us.af.mil |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .