NexGen_UAS_PH_II_QA_30_Jul_2018_v2.pdf

W911W6-18-R-0011- Q&A dated July 30, 2018

Questions and Answers

Broad Agency Announcement: W911W6-18-R-0005

Call Number: W911W6-18-R-0011

Next Generation Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Technology Demonstration

Conceptual Design and Technology Assessment (CDTA)

Issued By:

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - REDSTONE

BUILDING 401 LEE BOULEVARD

FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA 23604-5577

Date: July 30, 2018

Item Reference/Location Question Response

1 Call

Section A-9 (h)

Referenced section requires a draft of the Program

Management Plan to be included in the technical volume.

Does the draft Program Management Plan count toward the Volume I 40-page limit?

The draft PMP will not count against the 40 page limit.

2 Call

Section A-3(a)

Referenced section states that “the Government intends to directly choose Phase III demonstrators from Phase II concepts…”. Does this mean that there is a planned

“down-select” from the Phase II awardees?

The Government does intend to choose one or more demonstrator(s) depending on such factors as: available funding; government schedule constraints; degree to which Phase II design meets objective performance specifications;

and assessed technical risk to achieve TRL 6 of critical enabling technologies by FY23. However, the Government does not offer any guarantee and this intent does not commit the U.S. Government to future contracts.

3 Call

Section A-8

Referenced section requires, at a minimum, Government purpose rights (GPR) to all technical data, deliverables, and computer software to be delivered. This section also states that it is the Offeror’s responsibility to acknowledge or take exception to the requirement for at least

Yes, the Government will consider a limited rights addendum to the GPR final report that includes the detailed substantiation of the objective aircraft design containing that limited set of data. However, the offeror needs to be very specific on what is pre-existing and how it applies to

Government purpose rights. Since much of the technology offerings are likely based on existing proprietary items, will the Government consider a limited rights addendum to the GPR final report that includes the detailed substantiation of the objective aircraft design containing that limited set of data?

the approach, and concur that limited rights pertains only to that portion.

4 Call

Section B

This section appears to have a dual purpose. Section B-1.a in conjunction with the System Performance Specification

(SPS) describes the design specifications for the desired objective aircraft. The rest of Section B appears to be a description of the detailed information expected to be delivered from the Conceptual Design and Technology

Assessment (CDTA) contracted work. Is this a correct interpretation of Section B?

Yes. Although the specific aircraft capabilities/ requirements are still being refined, Table B-1 provides key Objective Aircraft attributes to allow initial configuration definition and sizing for proposal purposes. The refined and complete description of desired attributes and capabilities will be provided as GFI following award. The remainder of Section B-1 describes the content of the final data deliverable describing the baseline Objective Aircraft that meets the specified capabilities.

Section B-2 describes design excursion conditions and data deliverable.

Section B-3 describes requested information regarding the technology assessment and proposed demonstration plan for key enabling technologies needed to achieve stated vehicle performance goals.

5 System Performance

Specification, para 3.2.5

Referenced SPS paragraph requires the NexGen UAS to interface with the “Scalable Control Interface IAW TBD”.

Will the Government provide a description of the Scalable

Control Interface and if so, when is that expected to be available?

The Government is requesting conceptual level aircraft designs that meet the desired attributes listed in Table B-1.

The System Performance Spec (SPS) is a draft document subject to change, including requirements, descriptions, and reference data. An updated SPS will be provided as GFI at/after award, however, offerors will not be expected to account technically for “TBD” items in the SPS.

Regarding SCI specifically, the NexGen UAS TD program team does not expect that SCI requirements will significantly affect vehicle design considerations. An SCI Capability Development Document is anticipated in the FY21 timeframe.

System Performance

Specification, para

3.3.8.11

Referenced SPS paragraph specifies the avionics system weight. Is a more detailed weight allocation available, breaking out the Comm, Navigation, Processing, and

Installation systems within the avionics group? Are the

BLOS transmitter and receiver included in the Comms

Relay weight (31 lbs)? Is the Comms Relay weight included in the Avionics Comm weight?

The Government is requesting conceptual level aircraft designs that meet the desired attributes listed in Table B-1.

The System Performance Spec (SPS) is a draft document subject to change, including requirements, descriptions, and reference data.

7 System Performance

Specification, para

3.3.12.2

Referenced SPS paragraph states that the airframe shall be ballistically tolerant to a single RPG or MANPADS impact as a non-tradeable requirements. Offeror is not aware of any current Army aircraft that are tolerant to those threats. Please clarify the definition of “tolerant”.

Will the Government accept alternate forms of vulnerability reduction to those threats?

The Government is requesting conceptual level aircraft designs that meet the desired attributes listed in Table B-1.

As stated above, the System Performance Spec (SPS) is a draft document subject to change.

8 Master BAA W911W6-

18-R-0005, para 4.4

Foreign Entities

This clause states “Participation is limited to U.S. Firms as

Prime Contractors; however, foreign owned entities can participate as subcontractors/recipients to U.S. prime contractors/recipient.”

Is it the intent of this statement to restrict contractors with unmitigated foreign ownership from participating as Prime contractors or rather is the intent to restrict all foreign-owned companies, regardless of Special Security

Agreements (SSA), proxies or other mitigating instruments, from acting as Prime contractors?

In general, as the language implies, foreign owned entities acting as prime contractor are prohibited. However, if offeror possesses an SSA or such other ‘mitigating instrument’ and wishes to submit that document with their proposal for consideration, they may do so and contractor’s ownership status will be evaluated to determine if it meets the intent of the stated language.

Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or is this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

There is no incumbent contractor currently performing this effort.

10 Call para A-6, Security

Requirements and para

A-10, Evaluation

Criteria, para (2)(a)

Does this section preclude an organization from responding to the RFP as prime if the organization does not have SECRET facility clearance?

Does this section preclude an organization from responding as a subcontractor if the subcontractor does not have a SECRET facility clearance but the prime does?

While offerors are not required to have a SECRET facility clearance to submit a proposal, offerors should recognize that performance will likely require access to, generation of, and storage of classified information in order to meet CDTA objectives. The lack of a DSS SECRET facility clearance at the time of proposal submission will be considered when evaluating the "Suitability and availability of facilities and qualified personnel to generate necessary data and conduct Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) conceptual designs" evaluation criteria. Potential risk in terms of completing the required tasks; meeting the technical approach criteria;

and meeting the Call performance period will be assessed.

The process to obtain a classified facility clearance can be lengthy and could hinder or delay completion of the required technology assessments. If offerors choose to team with a partner or subcontractor that possesses a SECRET facility clearance where all classified aspects of the study will be conducted, doing so will likely mitigate any perceived risk.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to determine how to posture themselves to meet the technical approach criteria to include facilities qualification criteria.

11 Master BAA W911W6-

18-R-0005, para 3.3, Type of Contract/

Instrument

Is there a preferred contract type? Is cost share a positive selection criteria?

Per the Master BAA, paragraph 3.3, a variety of funding instruments are available for award. Offerors should clearly state the instrument they are proposing. While cost sharing is viewed favorably, proposals will be evaluated only on the criteria stated in the Call (para A-10).

12 Call para A-9, Proposal

Preparation and

Submission Instructions

What is the page limit for Volume I – Technical Proposal? See referenced Call Section which states “The Technical Volume shall not exceed 40 pages”.

13 Master BAA W911W6-

18-R-0005, para 5.2.3, Proposal Content

How long should the proposal be valid for? See referenced Master BAA Section which states “Proposal validity period (180 days requested) and proposed funding instrument shall be clearly identified.”

14 Call para A-6, Security

Requirements

“Offerors shall submit as part of the proposal evidence that the Offeror has a current SECRET facility clearance with the Defense Security Service.”

If we are ITAR, but do not have a secret facility clearance, than are we prohibited from submitting a finalize proposal? As a small business, this is not something we have been required to get, but have worked on ITAR, Security Clearance Programs (where secret information was just left out and summarized in an ITAR format), and

OPSEC directly or with major OEM’s. We are also currently performing concept design work directly for people such as USAF, SOCOM, and NASA, and it is disheartening that just because a small business does not currently have secret clearance, that it would remove us from doing a Concept design for the government

See answer to question #10.

15 System Performance

Specification, para

3.3.7.1.2.2, Mission

Equipment

Referenced paragraph is blank. Is the paragraph purposely blank and if so, should offeror assume that the Mission

Equipment definition for R2 is the same as R1?

Yes; the information was inadvertently deleted. The Mission Equipment paragraphs should be the same:

3.3.7.1.2.2 Mission Equipment.

Non-tradeable: A terrain following sensor(s) to accomplish low-level terrain flight defined in section 4.2.5.1 shall be installed and retained for the entire flight profile.

Non-tradeable: The NexGen UAS shall carry a 300 lb weight and 1 sqft of equivalent flat plat drag area allocation for Aircraft Survivability Equipment. The electrical power consumption is 0 kW.

16 Call para A-11, Additional Instructions

Request a due date extension of the BAA Call The proposal due date—August 9, 2018-- will not be extended due to the criticality of the award timeline for this requirement.

17 Master BAA Tech

Proposal and Call para

A-8, Data Rights

Limited rights for pre-existing data funded exclusively at company expense will be asserted as an Addendum called the Data Rights Assertion Table described in DFAR

252.227-7013. Please confirm the Data Rights Assertion

Table can be included as an addendum to Volume I –

Technical, and please confirm the Data Rights Assertion

Table will not be included in the page count limit.

Offerors should include a summary of any assertion of Offeror restrictions on Government use of any technical data or computer software that will be developed or delivered under any resultant award. See DFARS 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions for further information and the Table to utilize. This information should be identified/included in the cost proposal.