Question & Answer #3

Transcription

1 DARPA Blackjack Pit Boss Reference: HR001119S0012 Question & Answer #3 Question 53: Please clarify the WBS level the cost volume and Excel file should presented. Page 8 says Phase 1 should be broken down to WBS level 4 and Phases 2 & 3 should be at WBS level 3. Page 41 says cost should be provided at the major task. We anticipate pricing at major task level with BOE substantiation to the level 4 and level 3, respectively. Answer 53: Page 8 requests that Proposals for Phase 1 Base and Phase 1 Options 1 and 2 should provide task-level descriptions (typically Level 4) in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Statement of Work (SOW) to provide the Government adequate insight into the task breakdown and resources proposed to accomplish the work. Because the Government intends to ask for proposal updates for Phases 2 and 3 during Phase 1 options, proposers should submit a SOW and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs for Phases 2 and 3 at one higher level (e.g. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Level 3) at this time. As stated on page 38, part C. SOW the major Phase 1 tasks / subtasks to be performed including major hardware and software component development and test activities shall be detailed to Level 4. Per BAA page 41, part B. Cost Breakdown, the costs should be broken down by major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs; overhead charges, etc.) and further broken down by task and Base or future phases. Proposers should provide sufficient WBS breakdown and substantiation in the cost volume to allow full understanding of how cost relates to SOW tasks. Question 54: Please clarify the expectation for HMSI HW delivery of 1 EDU and 2x flight units at the end of Phase 2 and 18 flight units to be delivered at the end of Phase 3 (CDRL 16). It is our expectation that we will deliver a single ground station HMSI and an unquantified number of 'user' HMSI terminals that will be available for procurement. Please quantify the number of HMSI terminals required for Phase 3 demonstrations and the cost per terminal. Answer 54: A single HMSI design is envisioned to serve all 3 roles from the BAA (subscribers, commanders, satellite managers). Proposers should include their estimate for HMSI terminals in their Phase 2 and 3 ROM costs. It is expected that there will be 5 HMSI EDUs delivered as soon as possible in Phase 2 and 2 final units at the end of Phase 2. In Phase 3, there will be an additional 25 final units for a total of 27 final units and 5 EDUs. In Table 3, Item 16: HMSI Hardware Option, will change from stating EDU + 2 Flight Units and 18 Flight Units under End of Phase 2 and End of Phase 3 respectively, to state 5 EDU + 2 Final Units and 25 Final Units. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change. The user terminals described in TA3 refer to the compact antenna/radios developed by commercial companies to provide user up and downlinks into the CDDTL. These will be March 14,

2 available for the Pit Boss performer to procure from commercial companies and will be integrated with the HMSI to provide a complete Blackjack ground terminal. Question 55: Please clarify the need to deliver Encryption and IA Approach Flight Units (CDRL 21) in addition to the Encryption Hardware (CDRL 22). It is unclear why an Encryption and IA Approach would have a hardware component. Answer 55: Proposers are encouraged to offer innovative solutions to the Encryption and IA approach, if a hardware based solution was proposed then the corresponding hardware would be requested as a required deliverable. Question 56: Table 4 Indicates the HMSI is a deliverable, including optional hardware. Page 23 (Phase 3 section) indicates the "performer will support the deployment of the HMSI to a ground control facility" and indicates they will need to be in a facility capable of handling data up to TS/SCI. Given those stipulations is the Government intending to allow the use of a commercial facility to host the required deliverable HMSI or intending for it to be hosted in an existing Government facility? If the latter, many existing Government Ground Control Facilities have very explicit and comprehensive site integration/interfacing documents to govern introduction of hardware to their facility. Some of these may even have a direct bearing on design approaches. If a Government facility is intended, can DARPA provide the intended Ground Control Facility site integration documentation? Answer 56: At this time, a ground support facility has not been selected and no related site integration documentation can be provided. Proposers should document their approach to supporting the deployment of the HMSI to a ground control facility in their technical volume, including any information that would be requested of the government to facilitate that deployment. Question 57: What is the expected level of data processing to be achieved by the Payloads prior to hand off to massless payload processing? Proposer's day material suggested the data to be passed from the Payload would be detected observations not simply raw sensor data, is that still the anticipated model? Answer 57: It is anticipated that the payload would pass detected observations and raw sensor data to the Pit Boss, although the final answer to this question is dependent on yet to be completed payload designs. Proposers should document what level of data processing their massless payload processing capability can achieve documenting any assumptions about the incoming data. Question 58: Table 1 includes a reference in the Payload provider column to a Scene Simulator. Will the payload providers be providing sample sensor output data to the Pit Boss providers at a particular point in the schedule? Answer 58: Data will be provided as it becomes available and releasable. It is anticipated that Pit Boss performers will work Non-Disclosure (or similar) agreements with the other Blackjack performers to facilitate sharing of needed information. Assume all payload providers will provide sample sensor output data by the end of 4QFY19. March 15,

3 Question 59: Does DARPA require that ground elements, including HMSI, adhere to ICD 503 requirements for accreditation including encryption (at rest and in motion) as well as multiplelevel security operations? Answer 59: All encryption elements should provide a path to NSA accreditation, however, no specific requirements have been levied in Phase 1. Question 60: Please confirm the number of HMSI hardware options to be delivered (reference Table 3, Item 16). Answer 60: Please see Answer 54. Question 61: The BAA implies (Figure 2 Notional diagram and TA3 description) that there are multiple types of HMSI. TA3 describes a Commanders Interface, a Satellite Manager, and a Tactical Interface with Figure 2 showing a ground station and a handheld terminal. Is there a breakout of for the number of each of those elements that are to be delivered in Phases 2 & 3 and which of those elements the EDU should be representative of? Answer 61: Please see Answer 54. Question 62: Table 3- Primary Deliverables of the BAA lists 5 deliverables that are due upon proposal delivery. Section B. Content and Form of Application Submission though does not state where most of these deliverables should be placed. Should Item 3: Risk Management Plan, Item 5: Pit Boss Metric Table, Item 8: Pit Boss Software Module Development Plan and Item 21: Encryption and Information Assurance Approach be attached as appendices to the proposal? The proposal format section does not call out deliverables regarding format or page count. Can we assume there is no page count? Can we assume these deliverables are submitted as 1 additional attachment? Answer 62: Item 3: Risk Management Plan, Item 5: Pit Boss Metric Table, Item 8: Pit Boss Software Module Development Plan and Item 21: Encryption and Information Assurance Approach should be included within Volume 1, but are not subject to the Volume 1 page limit. A single attachment to the Technical Volume is acceptable. Question 63: What type of communication interface is envisioned for the "Data thru Bus" payload parameter in Table 2? Answer 63: The communication interface is dependent on the selected Blackjack Bus. Proposers should provide insight into their CONOP to handling the types of representative payload missions. Question 64: What is the concept of operations of the link between the massless payload and payloads to the bus and its envisioned function? Answer 64: Please see answer to question 63. Question 65: Is the Pit Boss Satellite Manager HMSI station the only means by which bus TT&C commands can be sent and data can be received? Does DARPA plan to have the Bus providers March 15,

4 (or another party via a new BAA) provide conventional TT&C ground support during satellite tipoff, initialization, on-orbit checkout, and anomaly resolution? Answer 65: It is envisioned that the HMSI would support all aspects of the mission including bus TT&C commands, however proposers are encouraged to provide innovative solutions to the Pit Boss BAA. Should a proposer have a different approach, it should be clearly documented in their proposal. Question 66: Appendix A specifies (in Table 1) a data rate range for the satellite bus network link. That range substantially exceeds what would be possible with the gigabit Ethernet interface discussed at the September proposer's day. What does this data rate mean? Does it specify the maximum available speed for the CDDTL? Does it specify total data rate (for both directions) or is this rate required in both directions simultaneously? Is this data rate required for the initial Pit Boss delivery, or is it an objective for the nominal 90-satellite configuration? Does the program have a desired common hardware interface to support this network interface? Answer 66: This question appears to be referencing Appendix C (Table 1). Proposers should provide substantiation to how their proposed approach would address representative bus parameters. If there is a limit to the proposed solution, it should be documented in Volume 1 of the proposal response. Specific numbers provided in Appendix C are provided as guidelines not definitive requirements. Question 67: Appendix C specifies a data rate for the potential inter-satellite link payload in Table 2. That rate seems rather low for such a payload. Is this anticipated to change for the 2-satellite or 18-satellite demo configurations? Answer 67: Table 2 in Appendix C provides representative payload missions. These are not anticipated to change for the various demo configurations. Question 68: Appendix A calls for a capacity of network nodes. This exceeds the subscriber count specified for HMSI in the BAA (page 18, TA3). Which specification is definitive? Answer 68: Proposers should provide substantiation to how many subscribers their approach can handle. Specific numbers in the BAA related to this topic are provided as guidelines not definitive requirements. Question 69: Appendix A specifies key management for tactical data at a classification that differs from the classification level for ground terminal use specified in the BAA (page 18, TA3). Which specification is definitive? Are there security and data handling distinction between HMSI terminals for constellation operators and for field use? Answer 69: Proposers should document the capabilities of their proposed systems. Information in the Appendix is provided as supplemental information to the BAA. Question 70: FOUO details for this question have been removed. Summary: Appendix A provides additional detail on TA6, which raised questions about several aspects of management and HMSI design. March 15,

5 Answer 70: Proposers should document their approach to meeting TA6 Encryption and Information Assurance for Autonomous Tactical Systems. Proposals should document capabilities and limitations of the proposed approach in meeting TA6. Question 71: How does DARPA envision that the demo constellations can obtain definitive information about security clearances of HMSI user in order for the on-orbit MLS mechanisms to be able make appropriate classification-based decisions for releasing data products to those users? For example, would DARPA consider it sufficient for demo purposes that the constellation operators (using their HMSI terminals) would assert clearances for commander and subscriber users as an aspect of authorizing those users to communicate with the constellation? Answer 71: The approach to protection of multiple levels of classified data through the Pit Boss and HMSI should be provided in the proposal. Question 72: Section IV.B.2.b, Volume II, Pit Boss Subsystem Interfaces, asks that the proposal "identify and document the payload interface". Identifying and characterizing the interfaces is practical, but it seems out of scope to require that the interfaces be documented in the proposal. That task, for detailed interface documentation, would seem to be the province of the ICDs that are to be developed during the execution phase, in significant part through joint analysis and development activities performed in concert with the payload (and bus) performers. What is the correct interpretation of this specification of proposal content? Answer 72: Content for Volume II should identify and document the payload interface and related resources to be controlled between the Pit Boss edge processor and up to three interfacing payloads (e.g. mechanical, electrical, thermal, command and telemetry, user data, environments, as applicable) using the example parameters referenced in HR001119S0012 Appendix C Payload Information. Question 73: In table 3, Primary Deliverables, line 15 refers to the HMSI Hardware Option. Is it correct to interpret this as the physical hardware of the ground terminal, which is responsible for presenting the HMSI interface as well as protecting the HMSI data and providing cryptographic protection for HMSI communication? Also, line 15 calls for EDU + 2 Flight Units (and also 18 flight units ) for the HMSI hardware option. Since the HMSI hardware is presumed to be a ground-based terminal, can DARPA clarify what flight units means in this context? Is this just a copy-and-paste error from line 18, and if so, what should line 15 call for? Answer 73: Please see answer 54. Question 74: Is Pit Boss required to implement red-black power separation and/or supply red power to the Blackjack payloads? Answer 74: Yes. Question 75: During the 60 day outage, what tasks shall Pit Boss handle that the operations center and/or spacecraft bus would normally be responsible for? March 15,

6 Answer 75: The primary functions of the operations center are provided in Part II.I.C Design Reference Mission. Proposers should detail the capabilities and limitations of their approach, operating without operations center input for up to 60 days. Question 76: Can you please clarify the content for Volume II, Pit Boss Subsystem Interfaces to be submitted with the proposal given that the Pit Boss ICD isn t a deliverable until SRR and associate agreements have not been established with all the Blackjack payload contractors? Answer 76: Please see Answer 72. Question 77: Figure 2 shows the presence of a Comm Antenna as subsystem in the Ground Segment and the TA3 description mentions that user terminals providing links will be available for procurement. Can you confirm our assumption that purchase of CDDTL user terminals are part of the Pit Boss scope and not the integrator scope? Does the Government have a preferred CDDTL vendor? Answer 77: Any required hardware for the HMSI should be included in the Pit Boss scope. The government does not have a preferred CDDTL vendor, however the proposer should consider that the CDDTL will need to work with the selected Blackjack bus. Question 78: Can the autonomy/crop seedling results be made available to bidders? Or are the results currently available and if so can the Government provide guidance on where the information can be found? Answer 78: No additional information on the autonomy/crop seedling is required to provide a response to this BAA. Question 79: What will the contractor receive from the payload in terms of data? Answer 79: See answer to question 57. Question 80: What level of processed data will the payload provide to the Pit Boss hardware? Answer 80: See answer to question 57. March 15,