2025-001-RPP Questions and Answers

 Question #20: The project call announcement indicates that we are required to use the Proposal Template and RPP Budget template provided by on the UCAH website; however, I am being told that others on our team are unable to access these forms because the solicitation is not active. Can you please confirm whether or not we can get access to these templates yet? 

 

• Answer #20:  The templates will be posted on the UCAH website on August 21st.  

Question #21: The award ceiling for this project call is $1.5M over 3 years, does that mean we must only have $500K each year of the award or can the yearly amounts be more/less than that as long as we stay at or under the $1.5M ceiling? 

 

• Answer #21: See answer #19. 

Question #22:  Could you please clarify whether the agreement ceiling for Task 7 is “Approximately $1,500,000 per year/per award” as stated on page 1, or “approximately $1,500,000 over the 3-year period of performance” as stated on page 3? 

 

• Answer #22:  Topic 7 is approximately $1,500 per year/ per award.   

Questions #23 – Topic 4: EXPERIMENTAL & MODEL BASED ENDOTHERMIC FUEL PROPERTIES.  From the RPP “The desired outcome is to develop equation of state and transport property models for new fluids and/or components of decomposed fuel products using a Helmholtz energy equation of state or other method with equal or higher fidelity.”  Later language seems to be fuel-agnostic. Is the primary interest in the new fluids (fuels) or the development of improved experimental methods that can be applied to develop equations of state (EOS) for a range of fuels? i.e. Is the fluid or the method of greater interest? 

 

• Answer #23: The method of measure as its applied to an already developed endothermic fuel and its successors is of interest. The fuel is fairly novel, and there may be future iterations for optimizing for manufacturing or specific properties.  

Question #24: – Topic 4: EXPERIMENTAL & MODEL BASED ENDOTHERMIC FUEL PROPERTIES.  Is there greater interest in EOS for the neat (not decomposed) fuel, or for the decomposed fuel products?  We can do both, but the scope of work is dramatically different if we start with a novel, high energy density molecule for which little to no physical properties or kinetics data is available than if we start with a known fuel where only parts of the database are missing. 

 

• Answer #24: There is a need for experimental measurement and/or modeling of thermal and physical transport properties of fuel or fuel components. These properties are needed across the range of pressures and temperatures expected in engine heat exchangers, including the supercritical fluid state. There is also interest in models for pyrolysis and the properties of the cracked products after thermal decomposition. There are fuels with a broad range of properties already measured, but not across the wide spectrum that might be seen in operation of cycles. 

Question #25: – Topic 4: EXPERIMENTAL & MODEL BASED ENDOTHERMIC FUEL PROPERTIES.  Carbon deposition (coking) is a major concern for all endothermic fuels.  The topic seems primarily concerned with an EOS and fluid properties, and does not specifically mention an analysis of coking behavior (although that would be part of the decomposition products).  So, would an analysis of coking properties be a valuable addition to a proposal’s scope of work? 

 

• Answer #25: See answer #24.   

Question #26: Topic 6: Mitigation of Thermal Degradation in Hypersonic Windows question about the application.  Is the window positioned immediately adjacent to a movable structure, such that the movable structure induces relative motion that must be accounted for? 

 

• Answer #26: It can be assumed that the window opening is surrounded by a rigid ceramic material and that the opening for the window is not being actuated but is only changing due to relative differences in coefficient of thermal expansion. Concepts that actuate to mitigate the thermal effects to the window are within scope of the solicitation, but considerations of system integration and additional requirements that that subsystem imposes on the overall flight system should be considered. 

Question #27: Since the yearly award is $500k/year for three years, can I budget a purchase of an equipment of about +$500k to be paid in three installment for three years as part of the project? 

 

If yes, would that have a counter effect on the proposal? As compared with those not including such purchases? This is because I may include one of the most important fabrication machines that we don’t have it in house currently. 

 

• Answer #27: There is no limit to equipment budgets in proposals. The proposal should focus on the acceleration of hypersonics technology development, develop the nation’s future hypersonics workforce, and facilitate the transition of ready technologies into operational capabilities. Any proposed equipment purchases should clearly support these goals.    

Question #28: I see in the budget template from previous year that I can budget a post-doctoral research fellow. Is there a limit? 

 

• Answer #28: There is not a limit to what type of personnel are included on a proposal. The post-doctoral research fellow’s role should be clearly defined and their costs justified in the budget narrative. All team members are subject to review based on justification, reasonableness, budget, and project specifics.  

Question #29: If I want to submit proposal for more than sub project as the PI, each needs to have a full proposal packet? 

 

• Answer #29: Yes, each submission to a topic area requires its own proposal packet with its own performance work statement, budget, and all requirements as outlined in 3.5.1 of the RFP.  

Question #30: I see that there could be a limit of four PI for each project. The question is all there four PI are PI’s or just one PI and the rest co-PI’s similar to NSF proposals? 

 

• Answer #30: There should be one lead PI and up to three co-PI’s.  

Question #31: The “1.1.6 CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY” per proposal call requires the “Candidate must be a University Consortium Member prior to submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI),..” 

 

Can you please provide some information regarding this “University Consortium Member” or Affiliation to University Consortium Member. 

 

• Answer #31: Consortium membership is held at the institutional level, but all researchers need to submit a request to participate found on the UCAH membership page to be reviewed and approved by JHTO.  

Question #32: How important is it for the selection process to have an industry partner as part of the proposal team? (from our reading, Topic 4 is a bit more fundamental than the other topics). 

 

• Answer #32: While an industry partner is not a requirement for proposal submission, their presence can significantly strengthen the transition potential of a proposal. The core requirement is a comprehensive description of the proposed research to be performed by all partners. It is crucial for proposals to detail any potential transition pathways for adoption into operational Government or private sector application. Strong proposals will detail clear transition pathways, actively coordinated with identified stakeholders, regardless of whether an industry partner is directly involved. 

Question #33: Does UCAH have preferred industry liaison working on endothermic fuels that you would recommend we partner with? 

 

• Answer #33: The government sponsor of this topic is AFRL UCAH/JHTO has no specific preferences with respect to industry partners developing endothermic fuels.  

Question #34: The call says that non-citizens can participate if they can comply with information safe-guarding.  The relevant language is below the questions.   My questions are:  We have a non-citizen that does CUI and export controlled work at our university already.   Does this count? Will we need preclearance (ie an email saying it is fine) or is this something we can do after submission? 

 

• Answer #34: The fact that the non-citizen researcher already handles CUI and export-controlled work at the university is a positive indicator, but it doesn’t automatically guarantee compliance with the specific information safeguarding requirements of this program. UCAH and JHTO will need to confirm that the researcher’s current safeguards meet the program’s specific requirements before submitting the NOI. Each Candidate researcher must be a UCAH member prior to submitting a Notice of Intent. Candidates must be a member prior to submitting, research team members should submit a request to participate on the UCAH website and be approved by JHTO as soon as possible. All requests should be submitted prior to the Notice of Intent.   

Question #35: Please clarify the funding for Topics 1-6 is $500K/year/award (as shown on cover page), which implies $1,500K for each topic, or $500K total for each project (as stated in paragraph 1.1.5). And similar question regarding $1,500K for Topic 7

• Answer #35: See answers #19 and #22.

Question #36: Under paragraph 3.5.1, Volume VI section, regarding statement, “At least 51% of the estimated price shall directly fund “Consortium Member(s).” Does “Consortium Member(s)” refer to just university members, or does it include the affiliate members such as industry members?

• Answer #36: Consortium member is referring to domestic university members. All other members are affiliate members.

 Question #37: Under paragraph 3.5.1, is there additional information and/or link to the “Proposal Template and RPP Budget Template” provided on the UCAH website?

• Answer #37: The templates referenced can be found on the project call page.

Question #38: Is there a minimum percentage of the budget that must remain with the proposing prime university consortium member, versus what may be allocated to a subaward consortium university?

• Answer #38: Per Volume VI: Pricing (page 14), at least 51% of the estimated price shall directly fund Consortium Members(s). This includes the total of funding going to university members.

Question #39: Our university is not currently a consortium member and are interested in becoming a member to potentially answer the noted call and others in the future. I see the process outlined for University Members on your website. What is the timeline for this process?

• Answer #39: The interested university would receive the consortium membership agreement for review within 30-45 days of the first researcher participant request. Execution of the agreement is dependent upon review and possible negotiations.

 Question #40: Is it possible for UCAH to accept projects that address the topic areas, but do not require these terms? We’re interested in the development of low-order models and simulation tools with TRL between 1-3. We’re primarily interested in computational modeling, and all of this can be accomplished on canonical flow problems and operating conditions. Therefore, our proposed research would not require CUI and would use open data that is publishable, and is fundamental research.

• Answer #40: Under paragraph 1.1.3, this solicitation is not requesting projects focused on fundamental research. “The JHTO is seeking solutions that are considered Advanced Technology Development, which surpass the threshold of Basic or Applied Research. All results and publications will be subject to review for Controlled Unclassified Information and dissemination controls.”

Question #41: Would it be possible to be awarded work under Distribution A if the research and modeling work was clearly fundamental?

• Answer #41: See answer #40.

 Question #42: If the lead proposer is a member, do all subawards need to be members also?

• Answer #42: Yes, all parties working on the project need to be members.

Question #43: Regarding Topic #3, does UCAH want responses to be focused on metallic or ceramic materials? Or is it the proposer’s choice?

• Answer #43: See answer #8.

Question #44: Regarding Topic #6, is UCAH only interested in an IR window and C/C interfaces? Or are other TPS materials of interest (SiC, phenolics, etc.)?

• Answer #44: See answer #10 in relation to IR windows. Other CMCs would be considered valuable especially if they can be shown to be mission applicable.

Question #45: Regarding Topic #6, is UCAH referring to strictly IR windows or is it referring also to radiofrequency radar apertures or radomes and C/C?

• Answer #45: See answer #10 and #44 in relation to IR windows. We would accept alternate material solutions but need to focus on IR window capability since CTE stress distortion has a larger impact on IR/Optical systems.

Question #46: Regarding Topic #6, what is the source of truth for materials design information? Government or contractor database information?

• Answer #46: Proposers are encouraged to include citations or sources for the materials design information. The Government may choose to suggest alternate materials and will work with potential contractors to provide necessary data to complete design efforts if possible. Laboratory measurements of potential solutions will also help establish ground truth inputs for potential solutions.

Question #47: Regarding Topic #6, what is the temperature band or reference heating trajectory over which this solution must operate?

• Answer #47: The temperature ranges included in the solicitation should serve as a baseline, but proposers are welcome to suggest other relevant thermal profiles or trajectories.

Question #48: Topic 1 – While the team may be allowed to quantify and track uncertainty as they see fit, is there a preferred standard or method by which UCAH would like to see uncertainty to be quantified after it is identified?

• Answer #48: There is no preferred standard or method by which UCAH would like to see uncertainty quantified. What will be critical is that once quantified, sufficient detail will be documented to understand the methods applied so that proper analysis of the data can be understood.

Question #49: Topic 1 – Is a direct connect test required or will any suitable subscale test suffice, as long as it is relevant to Dual Mode Ramjet (DMRJ)? If any sub-scale test related to DMRJ will suffice, is a direct connect test preferred? More broadly, are there specific DMRJ-relevant sub-scale tests that are preferred? If so, what are they and what is their order of preference?

• Answer #49: Direct-connect testing is not required. The proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria in Section 4.1 of the RPP. This topic does not specify components or test facility types on purpose to open the aperture on the number of facilities capable of evaluating DMRJ system components. Better correlation of sub-scale direct-connect facilities are of interest, but so are more unique solutions using other types of facilities.

Question #50: Can you elaborate more on the specific rubric and criteria governing grading and selection for a successful proposal? What guidance, if any, will be provided to evaluators when they are looking over a given proposal for the purposes of scoring, selection, etc.?

• Answer #50: Section 4 of the solicitation provides information related to the evaluation criteria and process.

Question #51: Topic #2 “Digital Twin Architecture for Hypersonic Air-Breathing System and Mission Design Trade Studies”. Specifically, what does TEES/JHTO consider to be a digital twin? For example, should project participants consider the digital twin deliverable to be a digital surrogate for a specific “as built system”?…or more so a framework for developing digital twins for any hypersonic flight vehicle architecture?

• Answer #51: Solutions likely will include the development of a digital twin of a specific system so that evaluation of the digital twin performance can be assessed, but it is expected that the example solutions will also serve to provide a future framework for other digital twins.

Question #52: Topic #2 “Digital Twin Architecture for Hypersonic Air-Breathing System and Mission Design Trade Studies”. Is data assimilation considered part of the digital twin deliverable?

• Answer #52: Data assimilation will likely be necessary to build and validate the efficacy of the digital twin model.

Question #53: Topic #2 “Digital Twin Architecture for Hypersonic Air-Breathing System and Mission Design Trade Studies”. Should project participants consider specific interfacing between different computational platforms as part of the project outcome? For example, your typical CFD software package does not interface easily with typical structural analysis software.

• Answer #53: It is up to the discretion of the proposer how or if they choose to handle the interfacing of systems as a part of their solutions, but the final digital twin model is the primary focus.

Question #54: Topic #2 “Digital Twin Architecture for Hypersonic Air-Breathing System and Mission Design Trade Studies”. The description and scope section for Topic 2 mentions HiFire-2C as an example of a program that has generated both ground a flight test data. The milestones/deliverables state that project participants will need to validate the digital twin framework. So, should project participants assume that validation data will be provided by TEES/JHTO?

• Answer #54: HiFire-2C was provided as a representative data set that could be used to construct and validate, but it is up to the proposer which data set and example problem they would like to pursue.

Question #55: Regarding the Description and Scope for Topic 3, is the expectation that a proposal should address all the four listed bullet points? (i.e., Experimental Material Characterization, Predictive Modeling, Novel AMM and Techniques, Application to Hypersonic Systems)

• Answer #55: A proposal should address all four of the listed bullet points to be considered a strong, complete response to the solicitation.

Question #56: We understand that all the proposal partners need to be members of UCAH. Should the subcontractors, if any, be or become members of UCAH as well?

• Answer #56: All subawards should also be UCAH members.

Question #57: In the RFP, Topic 3, it is mentioned in a paragraph, “Materials of interest should focus on AMMs that have demonstrated potential for hypersonic applications.” In another paragraph, it is mentioned, “Explore additive manufacturing techniques and develop new materials with enhanced shock resistance”. We interpret this as AMMs that exist or are new (can be developed during the project) and have or demonstrated potential for hypersonic applications. Is our interpretation correct?

• Answer #57: Predictive models are needed for existing AMM’s that have potential for hypersonic applications, but we are also interested in exploring new techniques and materials for enhancing shock resistance. Priority should be placed on the former, but a unique path for the latter could allow the proposal to stand out.

Question #58: Can a small for-profit business be the main applicant, or for this call the expectation is that the main applicant is a university?

• Answer #58: Only consortium members (universities) can lead on proposals. Affiliate members can partner.

Question #59: Are collaborations industry – academia expected/encouraged?

• Answer #59: Yes.

Question #60: One of the evaluation criteria is the contribution to workforce development. Will the education of undergraduate and graduate students (vs. incumbent workforce) be considered a very good fit? Will internship of students (school or university) at an industrial laboratory be considered as a contribution to workforce development for the purpose of this proposal?

• Answer #60: Yes, the education of undergraduate and graduate students and their internship experiences at an industrial laboratory are considered a highly valuable and direct contribution to workforce development. In the context of this proposal, our plan to engage students is not merely a supplemental activity but a core component of how we will address the national need for a skilled technical workforce.

Question #61: Which budget spreadsheet should we use for this proposal for topics 1 through 6? The ones listed on the website appeared to be for a lower ceiling ($25K and $50K), so we would appreciate your guidance.

• Answer #61: The $25K and $50K budget templates refer to the indirect charged on subawards. Depending on the university’s negotiated rates, the appropriate template should be used.

Question #62: How does UCAH program managers view university interactions with government labs such as AFRL?

• Answer #62: The solicitation strongly encourages collaboration between universities and a variety of partners, including government laboratories like AFRL.

Question #63: Furthering question #14, specifically for topic 7 is the anticipated total award approximately $4.5M for the three year period?

• Answer #63: Yes.

Question #64: Is ok to include a national lab, Oakridge, as part of the team?

• Answer #64: Yes, labs can be included. Per the solicitation, “Candidates and team members are generally responsible for determining the extent to which their participation in PPP submissions is appropriate and consistent with their own entities’ authorities and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Submissions including an FFRDC, however, must include a statement from the FFRDC representing (1) that their participation in the competition is consistent with federal law and policy as well as their governing contract(s) (2) the rationale under which they are able participate in the competition given restrictions on FFRDCs competing with the private sector.”

Question #65: Topic 5: Testing Conditions: What testing conditions should we plan for (e.g., temperature, Mach number, altitude)? Should we replicate existing test profiles, or are new conditions of interest?

• Answer #65: See references provided for relevant testing work
  • 2nd Lt. A. R. Cabri, “Fatigue of two oxide/oxide ceramic matrix composites at 1200 F in air and in steam. Effect of diamond effusion holes”, WPAFB: Air Force Institute of Technology, March 2021.
  • Capt. Matthew T. Pope, “Creep behavior in interlaminar shear of a cvi sic/sic composite at elevated temperature in air and in steam”, WPAFB: Air Force Institute of Technology, March 2021.
  • Testing relevant conditions are those for internal and external conditions for vehicles traveling from Mach 3 to Mach 6 and with numerous applications from structure to thermal protection. These examples reference 1200 C, 1400 C – 1600 C test conditions for cycling damage and creep under load (25-150 MPa) in air and inert atmosphere.

Question #66: Topic 5: Material Scope: Are you seeking evaluation of new materials, or comparative testing of the same class of state-of-the-art materials from different vendors? Should we focus on baseline materials, or is testing of next-generation materials also encouraged? If baseline materials need to be tested, where to source them?

• Answer #66: The solicitation is seeking the evaluation of a variety of materials. It encourages the testing of next-generation materials and also allows for the comparative testing of state-of-the-art materials.

Question #67: Topic 5: Test Frequency and Purpose: Is the testing intended only for first use qualification, or should it also address material performance prior to each reuse cycle?

• Answer #67: Topic 5 focuses on developing standard tests and protocols for advanced hypersonic air-breathing propulsion components and systems. The purpose of the testing is to develop and validate procedures, not just for a one-time qualification. Therefore, proposals should address material performance over a comprehensive range of conditions, which would logically include addressing performance before each reuse cycle.

Question #68: Topic 5: Test article size: From the topic description “Standard test samples for evaluation should be 6”x6” or 12”x12” “. Considering testing at nearly hypersonic conditions, in a long duration, high-enthalpy, high-Mach flow, specimens of this size are accommodated in a very few US facilities. The cost of each of them is out of the budget that can be allocated to the project’s testing efforts. In the context of this project (method and procedure development), could the testing be conducted on smaller test articles?

• Answer #68: Proposals should provide a strong justification for the use of a scaled-down test article, explaining how the data from the smaller article will still allow for the development of valid methods and procedures as required by the topic. Testing flight like conditions in all respects is not the objective here but subjecting materials to stresses that approximate cycled conditions that materials used for reusable systems could test to baseline performance or maintenance cycles or approximate lifetime limits.

Question #69: Topic 3; Materials of Interest: The solicitation notes that materials should be AMMs with potential for hypersonic applications. Could you clarify whether the Government has specific material classes in mind (e.g., metallic alloys, ceramic matrix composites, or others), or whether proposers should justify their choice of AMMs as relevant to hypersonic conditions?

• Answer #69: See answer #8.

Question #70: Topic 3: Strain Rate Regimes: Could you clarify the range of strain rates of highest relevance for this topic, or should proposers plan to address a broad spectrum of dynamic loading conditions?

• Answer #70: Strain rates should be commensurable to strain rates occurred during an impact of, or on, a hypersonic system. More data at a range of relevant conditions is always a benefit.

Question #71: Topic 3: Senior Personnel: While the solicitation limits proposals to a maximum of four PIs, is it acceptable to include additional senior personnel as co-investigators or collaborators (without PI designation) to strengthen the team? Is there a limit on how many Senior Personnel can be included in addition to the PIs?

• Answer #71: No, there is not a limit to additional senior personnel.

Question #72: Topic 3: Material Models and Simulation Packages: Do you anticipate that material models will need to be integrated into specific modeling and simulation packages already in use by the DoD, or is the choice of platform left to the proposer?

• Answer #72: The project should provide models that are ready to be implemented into commonly used M&S packages for DoD applications. The project is not required to implement the developed models into those packages as a part of the scope.

Question #73: Topic 3: Type of Material Model: Should proposers focus on calibrating/tuning an existing constitutive model or EOS for AMMs, or is the development of a new model framework preferred?

• Answer #73: Per the final deliverable, we are expecting validated constitutive models and equation of states ready to be implemented in commonly used M&S packages for hypersonic flight and terminal impact applications in DoD community. Transition should be a priority within the scope of the work, so that the models can be integrated appropriately. The proposer should plan to utilize existing DoD Frameworks.

Question #74: Can there be two co-leads (i.e., two PIs and two co-PIs) on a proposal?

• Answer #74: Yes.

Question #75: Can a faculty member from Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) be the PI (or one of the lead PIs, if yes for 1 above)?

• Answer #75: AFIT is an affiliate member and can partner on proposal but cannot lead.

Question #76: The RPP description for Topic 5 says, Standard test samples for evaluation should be 6”x6” or 12”x12”. These are very large samples for intended CMC materials and also can be very expensive. It will limit the number of possible tests, too. Also, the square samples are not the typical standard for the types of mechanical testing requested (typically, rectangular specimens are used). Do all standards in this RPP solution be developed for 6”x6” or 12”x12” samples or can they be scaled down?

• Answer #76: See answer #68.

Question #77: Should physical prototype(s) of the developed standard test apparatus also be a deliverable?

• Answer #77: The solicitation does not explicitly state that physical prototypes are a required deliverable. The primary focus of the call is on methods, procedures, and data. However, the delivery of a physical prototype would likely be viewed as a strong contribution and a viable way to demonstrate the project’s success. You should propose it as a deliverable if it fits within your budget and project scope.

Question #78: On the candidate eligibility: It is stated in the solicitation that ” 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. ” Currently I’m a non-US person working in a US institution. Can I still submit a proposal as the PI? Or although it is technically possible to approve my participation, you would disencourage foreign nationals to submit proposals for this solicitation?

• Answer #78:  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 #79: Can one university member submit more than one NOI?

• Answer #79: Yes, the limit applies to the total submitted by a university.