Question #1: How many total submissions are allowed from each university? The guidelines state no more than two PPPs and no more than one PPP for Topic 5. Does that mean our university can put a total of three applications forward or does that mean we can only put two forward and only one of those two can be for Topic 5?
Answer #1: A university may propose to a maximum of 2-topics in any combination for Topics 1-5; however, only one submission may be proposed by each university for Topic 5.
Question #2: I wanted to get some clarification about PIs who are green card holders. I see that the new call says PIs should be U.S. citizens, but it also sounds like that could change on a case by case basis. Is a green card holder eligible?
Answer #2: All participants must be United States citizens and approved by JHTO through the request to participate process located on the UCAH website, https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/membership/. JHTO makes eligibility consideration for citizenship from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. All requests undergo a risk assessment completed by JHTO which takes 30-60 days. JHTO highly encourages universities who are seeking foreign participation, as described above, to submit their participation applications with adequate time for review. If your proposal is received without fully approved participants, your proposal will be annotated as not correctly submitted due to ineligible performers.
Question #3: In the eligibility section, the RFP has the following statement: “As a general matter, all participants must be United States citizens. Participation of foreign member universities and individuals may be permitted on a case-by-case basis. However, a candidate and its teaming partners must be capable of complying with all safeguarding requirements and export controls associated with any such entities/individual’s participation.”
Can we get some clarity on this? In the past, all UCAH members have been eligible to participate, including those from Five Eyes countries. Has this changed? What about those who are US Permanent Residents? A few of my faculty colleagues who have participated in UCAH projects previously are UCAH members, citizens of Five Eyes countries, and US Permanent Residents. Are they still allowed to participate or is there a process for getting them approved to participate?
Answer #3: See Answer #2.
Question #4: On p. 11, Section 3.3.2 Prototype Project Proposals, the following two sentences appear: “Topics 1-4 PPP is limited to a maximum of four PIs and no university may exceed leading two PPPs. No university may submit more than one PPP for Topic 5, Grand Challenge.”
Does this mean the university could field two teams aiming at Topics 1-4 and one team aimed at Topic 5, for a total of three teams? Or is it a total of two teams, and one of those teams cannot be aimed at Topic 5?
Further, is there a limit for the number of PIs that can be included in Topic 5? I ask because there is a limit on PIs for Topics 1-4, but the call is silent for Topic 5.
Answer #4: See Answer #1 regarding proposal numbers.
Question #5: I see on page 13 paragraph (e.) that the solicitation asks the proposers to indicate if the government partner will be funded as a subaward by the university or government to government funding process (e.g., MIPR, IAA). Does UCAH have experience with implementing IAAs for these types of supporting efforts with government partners? How long does it take to get a mechanism like that executed.
Answer #5: JHTO has the requisite knowledge and responsibility to establish and execute government to government funding processes (e.g.: MIPRs, IAAs, etc…) for selected UCAH Projects. The Consortium Manager, as a university, defers this action to JHTO. The time to establish these agreements is dependent on the completion of required paperwork by the performer and meeting the Terms and Conditions set forth by the Technology Protection Plan.
Question #6: Our interpretation is that a university is limited to submitting 2 total Prototype Project Proposals (PPP) for all topics (Topics 1-5). This means an institution could submit one (1) PPP for Topics 1-4 and one (1) PPP for Topic 5, or, an institution could submit 2 PPPs for topics 1-4, but again, only 2 total proposals from the institution.
However, we had a question raised about whether a university can submit 3 total proposals, meaning 2 PPPs in topics 1-4, and 1 PPP for Topic 5. Are universities eligible to submit 2 PPPs for Topics 1-4 and 1 for Topic 5, for a total of 3 PPPs?
Answer #6: See Answer #1
Question #7: Our division has immense interest in the latest UCAH RFP. In our efforts to construct a proposal, we’ve made great headway with a professor whose background in CFD and passion for hypersonic investigation has made him a great candidate to lead our proposal. However, he does not comply with the clause written in section 1.1.6 requiring him to be a United States citizen. Written at the end of this clause is that certain exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis. We believe him to be too good of a candidate to refuse due to citizenship technicalities, given that he is a green card holder, and is both eligible and planning to apply for citizenship sometime in the next 16 months. Please let us know what we can do to ensure he can submit a proposal for this year’s project call.
Answer #7: See Answer #2
Question #8: Can JHTO share additional flight test resources?
Answer #8: Additional flight test resources are available here: https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/distro-a-resources-for-flight-test-payloaders-2024-001-project-call-resource/
Question #9: The call states that a flight test is not a requirement, but the UCAH announcement mentions ‘the grand challenge includes expectation of a flight test’. Can you clarify?
Answer #9: The selected performer will not be expected to execute a flight test within the budget and timeline outlined in this solicitation. The expectation is to conduct preliminary testing, instrumentation, integration of the flight article, flight test planning, and deliver an experiment that is ready to fly. The execution of the flight test, and post-test processing may need to be accomplished by follow-on means.
Question #10: Why is this a $9M project if it does not include funds to integrate and possible fly unlike BOLT which had a similar cost?
Answer #10: JHTO is accepting proposals for experiments of all cost and complexity levels, not to exceed $9M. Simpler and less expensive flight test experiments that can be executed within the budget and timeline are also welcome. We believe $9M is a robust estimate for the cost of building a one-off flyer/experiment with a jet interaction test. This experiment could be much more complicated than BOLT and will require NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) development and testing for various aspects, such as the CONOPS of jet activation and its impacts to flight stability and safety. The $9M does include integration (i.e., assembly of the flight article) costs, which are comparable to BOLT integration costs.
Question #11: Can JHTO specify the specific ranges for speed and altitude regimes of interest? This would help scope the work significantly.
Answer #11: The intent of the applied research is to demonstrate effective technologies for relating jet interaction phenomena from flight test and ground test, as well as understanding physics of jet interactions. Therefore, the chosen altitude and speed regimes should be relevant to those where hypersonic jet interactions are most important.
Question #12: Who do we coordinate with to prepare our experiment for integration and flight test?
Answer #12: Proposers are encouraged to use whatever flight test provider is most appropriate for their proposed experiment and coordinate using the specific program’s defined processes. A general understanding of available flight test vehicles, trajectories, and timelines should be accounted for in the proposal. The MACH-TB program is an available resource for the execution of a flight test. JHTO will facilitate coordination with appropriate MACH-TB teams for awarded projects. Contact Kegan Miller ([email protected]), MACH-TB Director of Strategic Planning for more information.
Question #13: We are ready to fly our experiment with MACH-TB. What happens next?
Answer #13: Coordination for experiment integration into the MACH-TB flight test manifest occurs via the MACH-TB Strategic Planning process. Experiments are allocated to a MACH-TB flight test (in a specific quarter/year given their ready to test date) during the Strategic Planning team’s test design process. The MACH-TB test planning and execution team begins efforts at Launch – 15mo at the Experiment Selection Review (ESR). At this point, the manifest for a flight is baselined and the flight is transitioned from Strategic Planning to Test Planning and Execution.
Question #14: When do we need to start the integration process with MACH-TB?
Answer #14: While integration will probably happen as your project matures into something suitable for flight experimentation, we recommend that awarded projects review the integration requirements early in the project to properly resource and identify areas where ground test and physics-based modeling will increase the probability of flight success. MACH-TB’s timeline is mission-specific, but as a rule of thumb, detailed performance and integration requirements should be locked down at Launch – 12 months and experiments will need to be delivered to MACH-TB at Launch – 9 months. MACH-TB will provide an Experiment Payload User’s Guide (EPUG) with more detail on this process and associated requirements.
Question #15: Are there standards we must adhere to, to ensure we integrate successfully?
Answer #15: Integration standards will be vehicle dependent. Successful integration with your chosen flight provider will be critical to the success of your program. If you opt to fly with MACH-TB, MACH-TB will provide a detailed Experiment Payload User’s Guide (EPUG), a Test Vehicle Payload User’s Guide (TVPUG), and lessons learned to ensure awarded projects can minimize Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs and effectively integrate with their flight platforms.
Question #16: How much funding should we set aside for flight-testing and what fraction will be provided by MACH-TB?
Answer #16: The fraction depends on the ending trajectory and complexity of integration required. Depending on the details and depth of the proposal, each proposer should get expert advice from testing professionals to determine that cost share. Proposers are expected to budget for the integration costs of the experiment; not to exceed $1.0M. MACH-TB will provide the rocket and launch operations.
Question #17: If we choose a different hypersonic test-bed other than MACH-TB, will the government negotiate and contribute to a cost-share?
Answer #17: Regardless of flight test provider, certain integration and analysis costs may require a follow-on effort. JHTO does not plan to fund the cost of a dedicated flight test vehicle but is open to innovative proposals for flight test execution. Due to the complexities of negotiating government support and the timelines involved, proposers would be responsible for securing arrangements outside of MACH-TB.
Question #18: How should we budget for post-flight data analysis? Is this included in the 9M budget?
Answer #18: Post-flight analysis may be included as part of a follow-on effort, beyond the budget and timeframe outlined in this solicitation. A plan for the execution of post-flight data analysis should be included as part of the overall proposal. MACH-TB experimenters are required to provide a brief reporting the details of the experiment data collected (assuming the requested environment was met), major test results, significant lessons learned, next steps, etc. at the MACH-TB post-mission Data Analysis Review (DAR) at ~Launch + 8weeks.
Question #19: We have an established working relationship with an Australian flight-test provider and/or want to partner with an International university. Will this be allowed?
Answer #19: JHTO looks forward to working with our UCAH approved International Universities and Business on all UCAH proposals. To avoid slippage in contracting due to delays in CUI/ITAR determination JHTO recommends all proposers outline a clear path working with our international partners in their proposal where CUI/ITAR mitigations are resolved prior to project kick-off. See Question 17 for working with flight-test providers other than MACH-TB.
Question #20: Can JHTO share lessons learned from other flight-test projects?
Answer #20: Yes, we will share lessons learned in accordance with security classification guidance and distribution protocols after an award is made.
Question #21: To aid in proposal creation, can you provide relevant geometries to us now?
Answer #21: JHTO has three geometries available to UCAH Approved Members: Boost Glide, X-51, and AIT (Atmospheric Interceptor Technology). Approved members must submit their request to the Consortium Manager for review and approval by JHTO. Additional information about the AIT geometry is available in open literature (e.g., Seiner AIAA-2000-2035). MACH-TB will provide interface geometries to awarded projects.
Question #22: What is meant by ‘workforce development impact’? How will this be considered in the selection process?
Answer #22: A key goal of this project is to inspire and equip the next generation of hypersonics technicians, engineers, and scientists with the drive and the skills needed for the future. Proposals will be graded equally on their technical approach to gathering good data and their approach to involving students and new professionals in a way that provides meaningful knowledge and experience. Examples include opportunities to lead efforts and teams within this project, and meaningful time spent with partner organizations to gain hands-on experience.
Question #23: How many projects does JHTO intend to fund?
Answer #23: The number of projects awarded depends on the total cost of the selected proposals and availability of funds. The cost of each proposal should be appropriate for the experiment’s scale and complexity and the amount and types of data being gathered. Cost reasonableness will be a highly scrutinized scoring criterion.
Question #24: The proposal states “the test article may be an experiment for integration on a sounding rocket, a full representative front end, or another novel solution.” Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that we can use an existing test article that integrates onto a sounding rocket and integrate our experiment into it?
Answer #24: Without knowing the specifics, there’s nothing precluding this approach in general. Any valid way of gathering the requested data in flight will be considered.
Question #25: Is there a limit on the number of PIs that can be involved in topic 5? The RFP does not specify.
Answer #25: The maximum number of PIs are limited to four. There are no limits to the number of Co-PIs.
Question #26: Is the cost of fabricating the flight intended to be part of the $9M or will this be (tentatively) funded as part of the flight test execution as a follow up contract after the team passes CDR?
Answer #26: The cost of fabricating the payload should be part of the $9M. The fabricated payload is a deliverable. The cost of fabricating the launch vehicle is not included in the $9M, since this will be provided separately by the launch provider.
Questions 27-31 are regarding TOPIC 1: Rotating Detonation Engine Advancement
Question #27: The solicitation is unclear, in the Description and Scope it suggests that a manufacturing solution will be identified which will then be used to produce and test a component at a government testing facility. However, in the Milestones / Deliverables, it suggests that a component will be fabricated for subsequent testing.
Answer #27: It is expected that the performer will deliver a component for testing at a government facility. The component testing at a government facility is potential follow-on activity that would be administered by the government after the completion of the project scope. It is not intended to be included in the proposed effort, but it is instead intended to provide some context for the expected deliverables.
Question #28: Are the performers expected to have testing at a government testing facility included in their budget?
Answer #28: No. Any testing at a government facility would not need to be included in the proposed effort. The discussion of government testing is intended to provide a goal for successful proposals to achieve and to ensure the development of relevant manufacturing approaches.
Question #29: Who will provide the component designs to be fabricated or are the performers expected to select a component for demonstration and perform design of said component?
Answer #29: It is expected that the performers would select a component design where their manufacturing approach could improve the cost, quality, scalability, or performance of the selected component. The focus of the proposed efforts should however be on the scalable manufacturing approaches that would enable RDE production.
Question #30: Would the exploration of novel materials testing methodologies (to work in parallel with current government RDE test facilities) be within scope?
Answer #30: The exploration of novel materials testing methodologies to enable rapid qualification and validation of manufactured components in addition to the development of a scalable manufacturing process would be within scope.
Question #31: Are all of the Q/A going to be posted on the project call web page? If not we have additional questions we would like to ask confidentially.
Answer #31: All Q&A questions will be posted on the project call web page unless they involve proprietary or CUI material. Since the solicitation is already posted, confidential Q&As are not permitted as they may provide an unfair advantage.
Questions 32-35 are regarding Topic 5:
Question #32: How important is it to have reacting jets in the ground testing and in flight?
Answer #32: The importance of reacting jets will depend on the jet interaction phenomenon your team will be investigating. Reacting jets add to realism and complexity. It will be incumbent upon the team to propose the relevant evaluation (including ground tests) to sufficiently characterize the research claims.
Question #33: Can you provide details on data rates, bandwidth, redundancy, recovery options, size of payload (diameter, length, volume, weight), connector to payload, number of instruments?
Answer #33: Proposers are encouraged to identify their requirements as early as possible and coordinate with MACH-TB. See Question #24 on “Q&A from Fall Forum Solicitation Panel”
Question #34: How will the collaboration with MACH-TB be structured?
Answer #34: Details of the MACH-TB collaboration have been answered in multiple questions.
Question #35: Does JHTO plan to transition the results of other similar projects into this grand challenge?
Answer #35: Proposers are free to collaborate with previously funded teams as desired. JHTO can facilitate introductions but will not force collaborations. JHTO does not plan to transition results of other projects into the grand challenge. See #27 on “Q&A from Fall Forum Solicitation Panel”
Question #36: Can a PI lead/submit two proposals?
Answer #36: Yes, as long as no more than two are submitted per university.
Question #37: What are the rules regarding funding distribution? How much has to go to the prime and how much has to go to the university?
Answer #37: JHTO regards the Prime as the Leading university for this project. Majority of the award must go to university led efforts.
Question #38: How many awards will be made?
Answer #38: See #23
Question #39: Under milestones, second item: what is meant with the “scene generator” there. Do you mean a scene generator software capable of generating scenes and forwarding to an actual scene projection system or something else?
Answer #39: The milestones described in the project solicitation are just example milestones. The intent of that example milestone is to provide an example of an approach that shows that the developed system is able to correct for the distortions caused by high-speed turbulence in a representative laboratory environment. One potential way to do this is to generate an artificial scene that would be representative of resolving a target through turbulence and demonstrate that the proposed approach is able to resolve the target. The approach that performers choose to pursue will however be specific to their developed technology and the proposed milestones should represent the unique system proposed and how to best demonstrate its efficacy.
(Topic 5) Question #40: I have one final question about topic 5 in the RFP. In the Q&A and at the Fall Forum, it was stated that the 3 year POP is intended to include “instrumentation, integration of the flight article, flight test planning, and deliver an experiment that is ready to fly.” However, in the RFP states that there will be a CDR at the end of the POP. Usually, you would not start fabricating a test article until after CDR, so these two statements appear to be at odds with one another. How should this be interpreted?
Answer #40: While flight will not occur during the PoP, the goal is to be flight ready at the end of PoP. The CDR will need to show that the design is stable and flight integration ready, meeting system performance requirements and integration readiness criteria. The chosen flight test provider will support these criteria and requirements early in the technology maturation and risk reduction phase.
(Topic 5) Question #41: In the TEES/JHTO-RPP-2024-001 Project Call, the following budgeting requirement is included: “Proposers are expected to budget for the integration costs of the experiment; not to exceed 1.0M. Proposers should justify the budgeted amount based on the experiment objectives and complexity.” Please define “integration” as intended here. Also, can you provide information on anticipated experiment integration costs as a function of experiment objectives/complexity based on MACH-TB Program experience?
Answer #41: Working with the MACH-TB team and your government project managers, your team will define and develop hardware and flight parameters consistent with the knowledge goals of the project. Even though this project will not fly during the PoP, a complete description and cost breakout of the expected costs to ready the test article for flight should be included during the PoP. If those costs are greater than $1.0M, your project costs are capped at $1.0M and funds will be supplied for the excess. See Q18 and 19 in “2024-001 Solicitation Panel_Topic5_Final_091624.docx”
Question #42: Do you consider a PI to be the same as a Co-PI?
We are asking because the project call states that Topics 1-4 are limited to a maximum of four PIs. Does that mean, one PI and three Co-PIs? Or does that mean four lead PIs, with no limit on the number of Co-PIs? Or does that mean four lead PIs, with no Co-PIs allowed?
We are confused because of the response that is given for FAQ #25, which states that Topic 5 is limited to a maximum of four PIs and that there is no limit on the number of Co-PIs. In a sense, you are stating the same limitation that is given for Topics 1-4 so do all 5 topics have the same PI/Co-PI limitation?
Typically research project teams are comprised of one lead PI, a few Co-PIs, a few other Sr./Key personnel, other non-senior personnel, research staff, students, etc.
Are you wanting applicants to identify their project teams in the typical fashion, or are you allowing project teams to propose a multi-PI model, where the project is lead/overseen by up to four lead PIs?
Answer #42: Projects are limited to four lead PIs with no limit on the number of Co-PIs.
Question #43: “Regarding Topic 3, is a there required or desired angular field of view?”
Answer 43: There is no specific requirement for field of view for this topic and it is up to the discretion of the proposer to offer a solution that would be useful for integration into a future hypersonic system.
Question #44: I am interested in responding to Topic 4 of TEES/JHTO-RPP-2024-001. Are DoD Service Labs (e.g., NRL, ARL and AFRL) considered acceptable transition partners for the technology proposed in the prototype project proposal? how about other DoD labs (e.g., JHU APL)? Or would transition partners only be considered primes or private entities?
Answer #44: All of the mentioned would be considered transition partners. While it is important to develop a relevant technology and to have initial concepts for potential transition pathways, JHTO may also assist in providing additional transition opportunities throughout the course of the effort.
Question #45: If a proposal is selected for award, what clauses concerning intellectual property and data rights will be in the contract e.g., FAR 52.227, DFARS 252.227, etc.? Would a private, for-profit company that partners with a university have rights to the IP they produce in performance of the contract or subcontract?
Answer #45: Awards will be issued subject to the the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of the government agreement, which include Intellectual Property and Data Rights. Requests for T&Cs can be sent to [email protected].
Question #46: I am hoping for clarification on what constitutes a PI vs. a partner/key personnel on a proposal effort. For example, if four faculty members spread across multiple institutions would like to propose to one of the topic areas, would they be precluded from partnering with members of industry or national labs?
In other words of the following examples what would be acceptable teaming and nonacceptable teaming:
1. three members of academia and one from industry – assume this is okay
2. two members of academia, one from industry, and two from national laboratories
3. four members from academia and one from industry
Answer #46: Projects are limited to four lead PIs with no limit on the number of Co-PIs or partnership/key personnel.
