W911W624R0002 0003 02 ACDC QnA.pdf

Advanced Composite Development Challenges (ACDC)

Questions and Responses

W911W624R0002 0003 02

Question 01 Received 03 May 2024

Section 2 "Research Opportunity Description" paragraph 1 - "ACDC seeks weight-efficient methods for improving the interlaminar mechanical properties of existing continuous CFRPs that are integrable with the existing lamination production processes of two or more existing composite material systems."

Please clarify that only continuous carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminate structures, i.e.

thermosets, are in scope for this solicitation. Thermoplastics are viable alternatives, but these appear to be out of scope, correct?

Government Response Question 01, 08 May 2024

Continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastics are considered a type of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and they are in scope; however, any proposed performance improvement should not be the result of changing the fiber/resin system (e.g. changing a thermoset matrix baseline to a thermoplastic matrix to achieve higher toughness). A baseline system is not prescribed in the Call because the baseline should be dependent on the proposed technology to isolate the effect of the proposed interlaminar enhancement.

Question 02 Received 03 May 2024

Section 2 "Research Opportunity Description" paragraph 3 - "The ACDC technical requirement is that the proposed technology solution will advance at least one Technical Objective that is primarily or secondarily impacted by structures technology, listed below."

Please clarify how proposers will advance technical objectives without provided baseline metrics.

As stated, it appears that offerors must have verifiable baseline data on current design and manufacturing practices to meet solicitation intent.

Government Response Question 02, 08 May 2024

A baseline fiber/resin system is not given because it is dependent on the proposed technology (see Question 1); therefore, the baseline metrics relating to Technical Objectives must be proposed and proposals should substantiate expected performance with and without the proposed interlaminar enhancement. Examples of potentially suitable metrics are provided in Attachment 1 ACDC SORE Task 3.2. Justification may originate from public or private data; however, per Attachment 1 ACDC SORE, proposals should either include coupon testing per Task 3, or a TRL Substantiation Report to provide that information to the Government if such data has already been collected.

Question 03 Received 14 May 2024

(Condensed) Statement of Research Effort (SORE) Task 6.3 indicates that the program will be executed under Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) protocol; however it is not explicitly stated. Is ACDC anticipated to be a Controlled Unclassified Information program?

Government Response Question 03, 16 May 2024

If the Contractor expects to generate CUI, any contracted effort will include the identified DFARS clause; partners/subcontractors that have access to CUI would be expected to comply with CUI Clauses.

Question 04 Received 15 May 2024

Can potential offerors be provided with the DEVCOM AvMC OPSEC plan, that must be adhered to?

Government Response Question 03, 15 May 2024

The OPSEC plan has been added as an attachment to the Call on a request only basis.

Question 05 Received 16 May 2024

Based on information in the CIO DoD website (https://dodcio.defense.gov/CMMC/about/) CMMC

2.0 is still in the rulemaking process and the intent of the DoD is that CMMC 2.0 will not become a contract requirement until rulemaking is complete.

With that in mind, is the Government willing to re-consider this requirement, and remove DFARS 252.204-7021 for the ACDC program until CMMC 2.0 rulemaking concludes?

If the Government is unwilling to remove the requirement, is the Government willing to allow a phased time in period to meet the certification requirements? DFARS 252.204-7021(b) requires a current CMMC certificate, as a result, few Offerors (and their subcontractors) will likely be able to comply with the requirement by a planned August 2024 award.

Government Response Question 05, 24 May 2024

This issue is proposal specific and can be addressed during negotiations.

Question 06 Received 17May 2024

Please confirm anticipated funding allocation for the program. Should offerors assume that $1M is available for the program and could be allocated evenly across the PoP? Or will funding truly be distributed by FY as stated in Section 3.2?

The planned distribution of funds as described in Section 3.2 of the call is not intuitive -- it states that $200K is available in FY24, $500K in FY25, and $300K in FY26. Section 3.1 states the anticipated award date is August 2024. This means that the anticipated burn rate for Aug/Sep 24 would be $100K per month ($200K divided by two months remaining in FY24 at time of award), but the anticipated burn rate for 2025 would be approx. $41.6K ($500,000/12).

Section 3.4 states that PoP completion should be NLT 2Q FY27 (March 2027), however Section 3.2 does not state that any funding is available in FY27. Should offerors assume that PoP needs to end in FY26?

Government Response Question 06, 24 May 2024

Per Sections 3.2 and 3.4, the funding profile is as follows: $200k becomes available in FY24, an additional $500k becomes available in FY25, and an additional $300k becomes available in FY26.

The cumulative not-to-exceed (NTE) expenditures are as follows: $200k at the end of FY24, $700k at the end of FY25, and $1M at the end of FY26. Spending more slowly than the NTE value is acceptable; however, all expenditures must be made by the end of the PoP (maximum 32 months, but less is acceptable). This example is for one award; per Section 3.3, multiple full and partial awards may be pursued.

Question 07 Received 17 May 2024

[Condensed] If a potential Offeror plans to partner with a Non-Profit Educational Institution conducting "Fundamental Research" (as defined in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 189)) in the performance of this project and if the project will be treated as CUI, is it acceptable to sanitize all project data/information sent to the Educational Institution so that they will not be in contact with CUI/Export Controlled data? If so, would the Government agree that CUI / Export Control, NIST 800-171, and CMMC requirements would not need to be flowed down in the Educational Institution subcontract in this instance?

Government Response Question 07, 24 May 2024

This issue is proposal specific and can be addressed during negotiations.

Question 08 Received 17 May 2024

Section 6.0 states that test plans must be approved by the Government prior to component/article testing.

To plan the proposed project schedule accurately, what is a typical/standard time frame that should be expected for the Government's review/approval process, once a test plan is submitted?

Government Response Question 08, 24 May 2024

Test plan review time is dependent on the scope and complexity of testing. The offeror should substantiate that the approach and time allocated is sufficient to allow the government the ability to review and approve or provide informed feedback that can be incorporated by the contractor for the specific test(s).

-end-