Question 1
Question 1: How many white papers were selected to move forward? Were the other two from our institution moving forward?
Answer 1: The government selected 51 white papers to move forward, with on average, three per topic area. All lead principal investigators were notified on January 18, 2021, if they were invited to submit a full prototype proposal.
Question 2
Question 2: Can additional principal investigators be added to the proposal, if they were not on the white paper? Is approval or notification required?
Answer 2: Yes, PIs can be added to the prototype proposal submission. The government does not require approval or notification at this stage.
Question 3
Question 3: Can we change or add principal investigators for Phase 2 proposals?
Answer 3: Yes, PIs can be added or changed to the prototype proposal submission. The government does not require approval or notification at this stage.
Question 4
Question 4: How much more technical detail is required in “Section I: Statement of Work” for the Phase 2 proposal relative to the Phase 1 white paper?
Answer 4: The review criteria are in the request for prototype proposals. If applicable, additional guidance will be provided by the government to clarify the objectives.
Question 5
Question 5: Is there any guidance for “reporting and delivery requirements?” How often are reports and updates requested by the government?
Answer 5: This requirement will be removed from the Statement of Work in Amendment No. 2. If your proposal is selected for award, the government will address reporting and delivery requirements during the contracting period.
Question 6
Question 6: Can you provide more guidance on “payable events for the prototype project?” Is there a minimum or maximum number of events recommended per year?
Answer 6: The government interprets “payable events” as milestone payments. If this is the case, there is no minimum or maximum number of milestone payments per year. However, milestone payments should be tied to deliverables.
Question 7
Question 7: “Section IV Key Personnel” requests key personnel contributions and significance. Are past contributions and significance of personnel requested or planned future contributions and significance for the proposed work?
Answer 7: In this section, the focus is on defining the experience of the research team.
Question 8
Question 8: Security requirements are requested in “Section VII: Security Requirements” and also in “Section I: Statement of Work, General Requirements to include Safety, Environmental, Security.” Are different security details requested in each section?
Answer 8: In Amendment No. 1, security has been removed from the statement of work. Please include security requirements in the security section.
Question 9
Question 9: “Section 4.4 Potential for Follow-On Production” of the project call mentions “success metrics.” Do success metrics need to be explicitly described in the Phase 2 proposal?
Answer 9: Yes.
Question 10
Question 10: What type of contract can we expect through a project sub agreement? Fixed price, cost reimbursable, etc.?
Answer 10: The sub awards will be fixed price.
Question 11
Question 11: Is the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station/the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics planning for a secure (controlled unclassified information and covered defense information compliant) file storage and transfer system that will be available to project sub agreement performers to use for research once an award is made? Or, is this the responsibility of the performers? I am interested in file/data exchange between principal investigators, government, etc.
Answer 11: In the security section of the proposal, faculty should address how they plan to handle secure file storage and data transfer between the lead institution and sub awards. TEES/UCAH’s Research Security Office can help provide guidance on best practices and associated security requirements. Deliverables that may contain secure transfers will be coordinated directly with the government.
Question 12
Question 12: My Phase 2 proposal will contain Distribution C data. Is it acceptable to submit an encrypted PDF proposal via the project call website and email a separate password to Kevin Gamache?
Answer 12: Yes, this is an acceptable way to submit a proposal with Distribution C data.
Question 13
Question 13: Can the lead university conduct basic research but the sub award can handle applied research?
Answer 13: No, per the request for prototype proposals, “Research projects may include International Traffic in Arms Regulations or Distribution C information, which means that universities responding to this solicitation must be able to appropriately maintain and handle sensitive data.”
Question 14
Question 14: Budget Template: Is there a budget template available that we should be using to put together our proposed costs? When I inquired at the white paper stage, there wasn’t, but I wanted to double check for this stage.
Answer 14: There is not a required budget format, but a template can be provided by the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics office upon request.
Question 15
Question 15: For Section VIII: Affirmation of Business Status Certification (I’m looking specifically at page 22 of the entire PDF). We submitted our information with our white paper, and the information has not changed, only perhaps with the exception of updating when our SAM number has expired. However, I noticed the request for proposal language mentions “other participants.” Do we need to provide the same information for our partners at this time then? I wanted to double check either way. I am also not sure what “certifications” entails; when we submitted for our white paper, we merely provided the information requested in list format on page 16 (name, DUNS, etc.) via a typed, Word Doc. Will this work again?” If different from information submitted in the white paper, updated certifications for each participant shall be provided.” (page 22)
Answer 15: This section has been amended. Please include the information that is requested for all of the participants.
Question 16
Question 16: On your request for white papers frequently asked questions, Q&A 7, 19, and 66 concerning cost sharing and traditional defense contractors are confusing. Numbers 7 and 19 state “Cost-sharing is unlikely to be a concern” and “As a project lead, you can partner with traditional defense partners as well. As long as the traditional partner is not providing what is termed “significant participation,” cost sharing will not be an issue.” No. 66 definitively states “…any work performed by a traditional defense contractor will need to include one-third cost share.” Which is it?
Answer 16: Thank you for highlighting this. We will go back and revise our FAQs as there is incorrect information on this issue. The key is for a non-traditional entity to provide significant participation. “Significant” is subjective and is not tied to any percentage of work or dollars. It simply means that without what the non-traditional is providing, the prototype would be unsuccessful. A traditional partner can provide significant participation, as well. For a traditional to be eligible as a prime or lead, they must either team with a non-traditional that provides significant participation, participate in cost-share, or receive a waiver from the head of contracting agency or head of the agency, which is highly unlikely.
Question 17
Question 17: Do technicians who operate facilities for University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics projects need to become members (or associate members), or do only the researchers on the project have to do that? Also, will all students working on the projects have to become members (or associate members)?
Answer 17: Everyone working on the project (paid or unpaid) needs to meet the government’s citizenship requirements. This is tracked via the request to participate form on the UCAH website.
Question 18
Question 18: Do industry partners have to be named as co-investigators if their role is primarily giving advice and guidance?
Answer 18: No. However, see answer No. 17.
Question 19
Question 19: Is a nontraditional defense partner a requirement for the prototype project? On page 5, the following paragraph seems to suggest that having a nonprofit research institution is sufficient. “Proposal awards are made under 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, and as such all awardees must meet at least one of the following conditions:
At least one nonprofit research institution or nontraditional defense partner is participating to a significant extent in the prototype project;
OR
“At least one-third of the total cost of the project is to be paid for out of funds provided by participants in the project.”
However, the following on page 21 seems to suggest that a non-traditional defense contractor is a requirement. Which is correct?
“Section IV: Key Personnel:
Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b prototype authority for this prototype project is contingent on the significant participation of at least one nontraditional defense contractor (NDC). The proposed non-traditional contractor for this project is/are identified below.”
Answer 19: We expect all projects to be led by a nontraditional defense partner, such as a non-profit institution of higher learning. Traditional defense partners may play a significant role in a proposal, but a significant role must also be played by a nontraditional partner.
Question 20
Question 20: For the Section VI: Pricing, it says a detailed budget justification must be provided for each year of the proposed effort. Should this be broken into separate sections for each year (with each section including all of the line items in a year)? Or can it be done by listing each line item and then the costs for each year under that line item?
Answer 20: Either method is acceptable, as long as it is clearly presented.
Question 21
Question 21: Should the sub award cost proposal come after the lead institution’s cost proposal? Or be inserted at the sub award line item?
Answer 21: Please insert at the sub award line in the budget and then provide the sub award cost proposal as support for the budget request.
Question 22
Question 22: It also mentions that we need to do a Milestone Payments section (Section VII). Can you provide a little more explanation as to what you are looking for with this?
Answer 22: See answer No. 6.
Question 23
Question 23: Pertaining to the amended funding opportunity announcement on page 20 (Section I, Statement of Work), can you provide more details on these items and how many pages to address these items?
Reporting and Delivery Requirements
General Requirements to include Safety and Environmental
Answer 23: Both of the above requirements will be removed in Amendment No. 2. Please see answer No. 5.
Question 24
Question 24: We did not receive any comments on these sections from our submitted white paper and budget. Does this mean that no cost-share is required?
Answer 24: Cost sharing is not required as long as a non-traditional defense partner (such as a non-profit institution of higher learning) plays a significant role in the project.
Question 25
Question 25: Does my university meet the 10 U.S.C. § 2371b requirement as a non-profit research institution?
Answer 25: If your university is designated as a non-profit organization, then yes, it would meet the requirements and not require cost share.
Question 26
Question 26: We would like to confirm if we need to identify this invitation in the proposal that we submit; do we need to use an invitation reference number or state that this is Phase II of the TEES/JHTO-RPP-2020-001 Project Call?
Answer 26: You can state that this is a prototype proposal submission for the TEES/JHTO-2020-001 Project Call.
Question 27
Question 27: In the Key Personnel section, are university researchers considered non-traditional contractors?
Answer 27: Yes. See Question No. 22 from the white paper stage.
Question 28
Question 28: Our university created the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics account to submit the Phase 1 submission. Do we need to create a new account or can we use the same login information to submit Phase 2?
Answer 28: You will use the same login information for the prototype proposal submission. If you need more than one account, please contact the UCAH office at [email protected] to make that request. Accounts can take up to one week to establish, so please allow time for us to process.
Question 29
Question 29: Based on Amendment 1 and then 2, some of the Phase 2 submission requirements mirror those of Phase 1. Are we to use the same documents among those that do not change, i.e., biographies, current and pending, budgets and notes, etc.? We understand that the technical write-up as well as other sections include additional requirements.
Answer 29: Yes, as long as the long information has not changed and includes the requested information, you may use the same documents.
Question 30
Question 30: Amendment 1 indicates that a program specialist will be assigned to each member to ensure all submission requirements are completed properly. When will we know who this person is and how will the contact be made?
Answer 30: In your white paper notification email, a program specialist with contact information was provided. If you are unsure of who this person is, please contact us at [email protected] or 979-845-0103.
Question 31
Question 31: Please confirm – Phase 2 new requirements include:
Cover Page: Facility Clearance Level (if required) and Proposed Validity Date
- Section I: Additions include Abstract, Statement of Objectives, Expanded Research Narrative to 12 pages max, Places of performance and government furnished property requirements; Amend 2 removes the requirements for reporting and delivery; and safety and environmental from inclusion in the section.
- Section II is now the bibliography and references
- Section III is now facilities
- Section IV: Key Personnel includes a significance chart; Does this replace the narrative format in the Phase I submission?
- Section V is now Security Requirements; Do we solicit these yes/no answers from each partner?
- Section VI is now Pricing
- Section VII – Milestone Payment Schedule
- Section VIII remains the same with the Affirmations for each partner
- Section IX Data Rights Assertions
- Section X Appendices.
Answer 31: Changes were highlighted in the Amendments. Section IV should consist of the participant table, resumes, and current and pending sponsored research projects. For Section V (Security), please include yes/no answers from each partner.
Question 32
Question 32: In the call, it states that one person from the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics will be assigned to work with us to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements. Do you know if this is still the case and who that person is that we should work with?
Answer 32: See Question 30.
Question 33
Question 33: What kind of restrictions will be on the award in terms of foreign nationals working on it and in terms of information restrictions (e.g. will the project be International Traffic in Arms Regulations restricted)?
Answer 33: Individuals participating in an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process, whether paid or unpaid, must be U.S. citizens prior to award. Case-by-case exceptions may be made by the Joint Hypersonics Transition Office for members of Five Eyes countries (United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand). Legal permanent residency is not sufficient.
Question 34
Question 34: Are the deliverables defined or will they be defined during the award phase?
Answer 34: Your proposal should indicate milestones as the project progresses, along with any deliverables associated with those milestones and at project end. Reporting requirements will be addressed during subcontracting, but will address issues such as project toward proposal milestones, insights gained, and funding expenditures and issues.
Question 35
Question 35: Can the title of the submission change from what it was in the white paper (proposed work remains the same)?
Answer 35: Yes, as long as the work proposed remains the same.
Question 36
Question 36: A nontraditional defense partner (NTDC) is an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least one year preceding the issuance of a prototype project solicitation, any contract or subcontract for the U.S. Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the Federal Acquisition Regulation-based cost accounting standards (CAS).
If my institution has received Department of Defense funding in the last year, does that mean we would be considered a traditional defense contractor?
Answer 36: It does not mean that your institution would be considered a traditional defense contractor. Per your question, if you are currently performing, or have performed, for at least one year preceding the issuance of a prototype project solicitation, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the Federal Acquisition Regulation-based cost accounting standards, then your institution would be considered a traditional defense contractor. The defining element IS NOT whether your institution has received DOD funding, but rather whether the contract or subcontract you were funded for is subject to full CAS coverage.
An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DOD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DOD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section (see 10 U.S.C. 2302(9)).
Note: Per the statutory definition, NDCs are all entities that have not performed under a narrowly defined set of circumstances within one year of solicitation of the current other transaction opportunity. In order for an entity to not qualify for NDC status, it would need to meet all elements of the prescribed definition within that time period. This includes performance of a DOD contract or subcontract subject to full cost accounting standards (CAS) coverage within one year prior to solicitation of the prototype other transaction opportunity. The effect of this narrow definition, is that a large number of entities will fall into the NDC category, including nearly all small business concerns, and even those firms that work exclusively with the DOD. This is in part due to the exemptions to CAS coverage under 41 U.S.C. § 1502 and FAR Part 30, which exempt commercial contracts, firm fixed price contracts based on adequate price competition, and any contract or subcontract with a small business concern, among other exemptions. Further, even where an entity is not outright exempt from CAS coverage, the entity may not have been subject to “full” CAS coverage. This is because full CAS coverage only applies to firms that receive a single CAS-covered contract award of $50 million or more; or received $50 million or more in net CAS-covered awards during its preceding cost accounting period.
Question 37
Question 37: When projects are awarded, will universities have to identify and hire students to work on the projects? Those students will need to submit membership requests to the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics, but will there be issues in the timing of those events? Can universities start students working on the project before UCAH has completed its approval process?
Answer 37: We anticipate the projects beginning on Aug. 1, which should allow ample time between award notification and the period of performance to allow for any necessary hiring and approvals. No one will be able to work on the projects that have not been approved
Question 38
Question 38: Could you please elaborate who qualifies as a non-traditional defense contractor (NDC)? As per a Google search, the participating investigator should have not received any federal funding in the past year. Is it only the listed participant or their whole organization? Do the universities qualify as NDC? Do the small defense contractors qualify as NDC?
Answer 38: Please see response to Question 36.
Question 39
Question 39: On the cover page, we are required to report “Facility Clearance Level.” What should we say here? Our project will be conducted at four different sites.
Answer 39: Please list facility security level for each site.
Question 40
Question 40: In Section IV (Key personnel), the call asks for “Include a description of contributions and significance of each, highlight any updates from the white paper. Indicate what percentage of their total available time each will devote to this project.” We have two questions regarding this: (I) How should we “highlight any updates from white paper? Does this mean that if we have added another person, we should highlight them?; (II) The second question is regarding the percent of time each person will devote to this project. For us, the percent of time will be different during different years of this project. Should we list the percent of time each year?
Answer 40: (I) Please make a note that there has been a change from the white paper team. You do not need to literally highlight the section, but can do this with an asterisk and a footnote. (II) Regarding time devoted to project, yes, please list the time per year.
Question 41
Question 41: We want to confirm that universities are considered as non-traditional defense contractors within the context of the request for prototype proposals. Language in the RPP (page 21) related to key personnel states: “Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b prototype authority for this prototype project is contingent on the significant participation of at least one non-traditional defense contractor (NDC).”
Answer 41: Please see response to Questions 25 and 36.
Question 42
Question 42: We plan to include several sub awards on our proposal. It is not clear in the guidelines where we should attach the sub award documents (statement of work, budget, justification, letter of intent from institution/company) in the application. Can you please confirm where we should include the sub award documents? Most proposals submitted typically have the sub award documents separate from the main documents. The only thing I can think of is maybe as an appendix?
Answer 42: Yes, you may upload these documents in the appendix.
Question 43
Question 43: Are letters of support from related government laboratories appropriate? We are somewhat concerned that such support letters might limit the pool of reviewers.
Answer 43: Add letters of advocacy when they require that organization’s participation. General letters of endorsement are marginally useful to the scoring of the proposal and could introduce a conflict of interest for the review team.
Question 44
Question 44: We want to confirm that universities are considered as non-traditional defense contractors within the context of the request for prototype proposals. Language in the RPP (page 21) related to key personnel states: “Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b prototype authority for this prototype project is contingent on the significant participation of at least one non-traditional defense contractor (NDC)”.
Answer 44: Please see response to Questions 25 and 36.
Question 45
Question 45: We are working on a full proposal for the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics call and I have a quick question about the instructions on page 21 of Amendment 2 for the call.
On page 21, the instructions state “… project is contingent on the significant participation of at least one nontraditional defense contractor (NDC).” The suggested table then asks which members are traditional versus nontraditional. On page 5, however, it states that there needs to be “at least one nonprofit research institution or nontraditional defense partner participating to a significant extent.” If you read 10 U.S.C. 2371b, it also states that “There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.” Is there an omission on page 21? Should the instructions also allow nonprofit research institutions as well? Should we add an extra checkbox for “nonprofit research institution” into the table?
Answer 45: Yes, you may add an extra checkbox for non-profit research institution.
Question 1
Question 1: In the recent request for proposal (RFP) (TEES/JHTO- RPP-2020-001), the “1. Project Overview” has the following limitation:
Phase 1: Project white paper submissions must be submitted through the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics website proposal call link and must be received no later than Dec. 14, 2020 at 5 p.m. (CST). Submissions received after the deadline will not be considered. The government is interested in receiving top applied research proposals; hence white paper submissions are limited to three per university, and a maximum of seven principal investigators (PI) are authorized per proposal.
Is the “three per university” on a per-topic basis, per technology area basis, or for the entire request for proposal spanning all topics?
Answer 1: The three submissions per university is for the entire request for white papers/request for prototype proposals, spanning all topics.
Question 2
Question 2: The instructions say to submit questions through the website. However, I could not find a link or instruction on how to do it on the website. Can this be clarified?
Answer 2: Please email your questions to [email protected].
Question 3
Question 3: In addition, do these projects have citizenship requirements? Is permanent residency sufficient, or strict citizenship?
Answer 3: Individuals participating in an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process, whether paid or unpaid, must be a U.S. citizen prior to award. Case-by-case exceptions made by the JHTO for members of FVEY countries (United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand). Legal Permanent residency is not sufficient.
Question 4
Question 4: Are there plans to implement a young investigator program similar to how Air Force Office of Scientific Research conducts its award process? If not, would it be possible to propose in the future to also include a young investigator exception to the three white paper limit per institution?
Answer 4: In the coming months, strategies for developing the hypersonic workforce will be developed. A young investigator program, along with other innovative strategies could be applicable to that strategy, and we will take that into consideration.
Question 5
Question 5: We assume team-based responses are appropriate, both internal and multi-university. We can encourage teams to form first, then respond, if appropriate. Do you anticipate mixing and matching of teams following the evaluation of white papers? We can also encourage individuals to respond, if they might be matched with a team at a later time.
Answer 5: No, we expect the teams to form organically in response to the solicitation. During the white paper review process; however, if proposed solutions seem to offer collaborative opportunities or a more multidisciplinary solution, we may consider suggesting teams for a proposal submittal.
Question 6
Question 6: The call states the applicant must be a U.S. citizen. Is it just the principal investigator who must be a U.S. citizen, and can non-U.S. citizens work on and be paid by the project? Or is this an outright restriction on foreign national participation?
Answer 6: On a case by case basis, as determined by JHTO, citizens from FVEY countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) can be approved as affiliate members in the UCAH and participate as members in research project awards. Approved citizens of FVEY countries at FVEY universities outside the US and citizens of FVEY countries at US universities can lead UCAH projects of there is significant US university contribution and participation. The JHTO will evaluate significant contributions based on several factors to include monetary investment, technology content and underlying inherent capabilities to determine suitability for award in these cases.
Question 7
Question 7: Applicant eligibility – At least one nonprofit research institution or nontraditional defense partner is participating to a significant extent in the prototype project; OR at least one-third of the total cost of the project is to be paid for out of funds provided by participants in the project. Is this implying a cost sharing commitment? What is the expected cost sharing contribution for the participants?
Answer 7: Cost-sharing is unlikely to be a concern, but for formal reference, please refer to 10 U.S. Code § 2371b, Authority of the Department of Defense, to carry out certain prototype projects. This is the authority which facilitates our ability to easily engage with nontraditional partners such as nonprofit research institutions. Cost sharing isn’t required for those nontraditional partners. In addition to nonprofit research institutions, a nontraditional defense partner is an entity that hasn’t for at least a year been under a U.S. Department of Defense contract subject to federal acquisition regulations cost-accounting standards. As a project lead, you can partner with traditional defense partners as well. As long as the traditional partner is not providing what is termed “significant participation,” cost sharing will not be an issue. “Significant” is not necessarily determined in terms of monetary value, but is based on the level of importance of participation. An example would be supplying a new key technology or product, or unique capability. Each consortium member will need to provide evidence that their institution is a nonprofit organization. See question 22 for additional discussion of non-traditional partners.
Question 8
Question 8: Section II Pricing Page 15 – This section is referring to labor rates and categories. What type of awards will be issued? Would these be cost reimbursement awards?
Answer 8: Funding will be issued to the awarded university through the master “Other Transaction” agreement under which the consortium operates. Awards should be firm-fixed price. White papers/proposals should include support documentation such as labor categories and rates, and hours will be needed to support firm-fixed price awards. If the white paper/proposal is proposing other than a firm-fixed price arrangement, justification must be made for doing so.
Question 9
Question 9: Security issues – What are the anticipated security requirements?
Answer 9: Research projects may include export control information or information categorized by Department of Defense instruction 5230.24 as “Distribution C” (distribution authorized only to U.S. government agencies and their contractors). Universities responding to this solicitation must be able to appropriately maintain and handle information having these restrictions. The University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics works closely with The Texas A&M University System Research Security Office and Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station Ethics and Compliance Office, which can be contacted for assistance with these regulations by emailing [email protected].
Question 10
Question 10: Security issues – What are the expectations for universities with regard to those tasks where classified work and export controlled information will be included in a specific task?
Answer 10: If a research project includes export control information or information categorized by Department of Defense Instruction 5230.24 as “Distribution C” (distribution authorized only to U.S. government agencies and their contractors), the awarded universities must be able to appropriately maintain and handle this information. The UCAH works closely with The Texas A&M University System Research Security Office and Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station Ethics and Compliance Office, which can be contacted for assistance with these regulations by emailing [email protected].
Question 11
Question 11: Security issues – Additionally, as an educational institution performing fundamental research, restrictions on foreign national participation and pre-publication approval requirements bump up against university policies and National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 189).
Answer 11: We welcome all solicitations, recognize NSDD 189 requirements and our obligations pursuant to that directive, and realize that some universities may not be able to perform applied research. In the Security Requirements section of the white paper submission, please address any policy considerations relevant to the proposed research so they can be considered by the government.
Question 12
Question 12: Security issues – Will a university be free to publish without prior approval?
Answer 12: No. Publications are encouraged, but there will be a publication review and approval process described in the Consortium Membership Agreement.
Question 13
Question 13: Security issues – Will all foreign national participants paid or unpaid need to be approved before being allowed to participate in the program?
Answer 13: Yes, all non-U.S. citizens paid or unpaid will need to be approved by the government before they can participate.
Question 14
Question 14: Milestone payments – Will all payments be based on approval of delivered milestones or is payment based on acceptance of such milestones?
Answer 14: Payment structure will be outlined in each subproject agreement. Payments will be made based on the Government Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) review and concurrence that deliverables/milestones are being met in accordance with the subproject agreement.
Question 15
Question 15: Milestone payments – Would monthly cost reimbursement invoices be acceptable?
Answer 15: See answers to questions No. 8 and No. 14.
Question 16
Question 16: In the solicitation for proposals sent out today, it’s mentioned that individuals supported by an award must be U.S. citizens. Further down, it says that universities from Canada can team up with a U.S. university and write a proposal together. This is confusing. I am a Canadian citizen and an associate professor. In what capacity am I allowed to team up with a U.S. citizen and write a proposal?
Answer 16: See question No. 6.
Question 17
Question 17: Are NASA centers permitted to participate?
Answer 17: The JHTO intent is not to fund government agencies or government affiliated organizations through UCAH grants, to include Service Laboratories, UARCs, FFDRCs, or National Laboratories. However, in unique cases where government or government affiliated expertise exists and no parent organization funding can be made available, JHTO may on a case by case basis direct-fund these institutions to partner in related research. In these cases, a sufficient case must be made in the proposal for the value and cost of such partnership, and that funding will be removed from the university grant.
Question 18
Question 18: In the project call, it states “Individuals supported by an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process must be U.S. citizens prior to award.” I am not a U.S. citizen. Can I still apply as an unsupported co-principal investigator? That is, I will not be paid from the grant, but will use the grant to support my graduate student (U.S. citizen). Is that possible?
Answer 18: No, all participants on the research project must be U.S. citizens with case by case exceptions made by the government for residents of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As the faculty advisor supervising the graduate student research, you must also meet the citizenship requirements. Also see questions No. 3 and No. 6.
Question 19
Question 19: With regard to the cost sharing, the call states it as one-third of the total cost of the project, with a maximum funding of $500,000 per year. Is the cost sharing based on the requested amount from the government (say $500,000) or on the internal cost of the program.
Answer 19: Cost sharing is unlikely to be a concern, but if required is based on the proposed price of the individual project. For formal reference please refer to 10 U.S. Code § 2371b, Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects. This is the authority which facilitates our ability to easily engage with nontraditional partners such as nonprofit research institutions. Cost sharing isn’t required for those nontraditional partners. In addition to nonprofit research institutions, a nontraditional defense partner is an entity that hasn’t for at least a year been under a Department of Defense contract subject to federal acquisition regulations cost-accounting standards. As a project lead you can partner with traditional defense partners as well. As long as the traditional partner is not providing what is termed “significant participation,” cost sharing will not be an issue. “Significant” is not necessarily determined in terms of monetary value, but is based on the level of importance of participation. An example would be supplying a new key technology or product, or unique capability. Each consortium member will need to provide evidence that their institution is a nonprofit organization. See
Question 20
Question 20: Is there a way for us to know in advance when such data will be made available to our faculty and what its control status is? (i.e. will it be clearly marked as International Traffic in Arms Regulations controlled?)
Answer 20: The U.S. Department of Defense will determine the export control classification during the proposal process and/or when the award is made. In addition, the agreement will contain standard export control language that if either party determines that the project contains additional export control classifications, each party should notify that information to the other party.
Question 21
Question 21: Do you have an idea of how such data would be disseminated or provided to our faculty? (i.e. access to an electronic portal, hard copies, etc.?)
Answer 21: The dissemination of information will be dependent on the classification of the information and guidance from the Department of Defense.
Question 22
Question 22: What is a “nontraditional defense partner”?
Answer 22: A nontraditional defense partner (NTDC) is an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least one year preceding the issuance of a prototype project solicitation, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the Federal Acquisition Regulation-based cost accounting standards (CAS). A subsidiary or a division of a traditional defense contractor may still qualify as an NTDC.
Significant participation is determined on a project basis and is based on the importance of the NTDC contribution to the overall execution or outcome of the proposed project. Other Transaction (OT) authority statute does not prescribe a monetary threshold or percentage value to justify significance. Examples of “significant” participation are:
Supplying a new key technology or product, or unique capability;
Causing a material and quantifiable reduction in the project cost or schedule;
Causing a measurable increase in the performance of the prototype;
Accomplishing a significant amount of the effort;
Value-added analysis not based on percentage of project work or value.
Since contracts and subcontracts with small businesses are exempt from full CAS coverage, small businesses are deemed NTDCs under OT authority. An entity is considered a small business based upon its applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) designation (as described at 13 C.F.R. §121.201) for the specific nature of the work being proposed.
Question 23
Question 23: Noting that as an Australian university we can only be an affiliate consortium member, do we need to apply for this membership (via the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics website) in the same way that a full university consortium member does, or is it a different process?
Answer 23: Yes, the membership request process is the same.
Question 24
Question 24: If we join a successful project proposal led by a U.S. university consortium member, are funds able to be transferred to Australia for our work?
Answer 24: Yes.
Question 25
Question 25: Is there a list of current university consortium members that we can access to explore potential collaborations – beyond the ones that we know through our existing contacts?
Answer 25: The University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics office will post (on the UCAH website) a list of universities that have expressed an interest in joining the consortium. Since we are still early in the membership process, please note that membership is contingent on a signed consortium membership agreement.
Question 26
Question 26: On page 5, it states “Individuals supported by an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process must be U.S. citizens prior to award.” I’ve often seen participation restricted to U.S. persons, which allows permanent residents to participate. Is the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics really restricted to citizens only? It seems odd to pair that requirement with allowing that foreign entities “may team with an eligible principal bidder”.
Answer 26: Due to the sensitivity of this technology and program, it is critical to protect and restrict access to sensitive data. Only properly authorized U.S. citizens are to participate in funded projects with case-by-case exceptions for universities, professors, and students from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Also see questions No. 3 and No. 6.
Question 27
Question 27: In the solicitation for proposals sent out today, it’s mentioned that individuals supported by an award must be U.S. citizens. Further down, it says that universities from Canada can team up with a U.S. university and write a proposal together. This is confusing.
I am a Canadian citizen and an associate professor at a U.S. university. In what capacity am I allowed to team up with a U.S. citizen and write a proposal?
Answer 27: See question No. 6.
Question 28
Question 28: I was informed that the request for proposal for funding projects under your consortium was released and I noticed the following eligibility: “Individuals supported by an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process must be U.S. citizens prior to award.” Does this mean that only faculty who are U.S. citizens can participate in the project as a team member? Or as long as I don’t receive any salary support and my students are citizens, am I eligible? I am currently a permanent resident and I am curious whether I am eligible to participate in the team or not.
Answer 28: See question No. 3, No. 6 and No. 18.
Question 29
Question 29: Can a U.S. person (green card holder) serve as one of the university principal investigators for the cases that she or he is paid or unpaid by the grant?
Answer 29: See question No. 3.
Question 30
Question 30: Is the $500,000 per year the funding cap for the whole program or per proposal?
Answer 30: The $500,000 year funding cap is per proposal.
Question 31
Question 31: How many proposals are expected to be funded under this call?
Answer 31: The exact number of proposals will be a function of the value of selected proposals and the budget available from the Department of Defense. At present, 17 proposals have been solicited and expect to be awarded. We also expect another round of proposals in this fiscal year and the value will depend on the factors explained above.
Question 32
Question 32: Is it true that if a proposal team is led by a university and includes a small business, the team is not required to meet the one-third cost share requirement, ii on page 5, in accordance with 10USC 2371b(d)(B)?
Answer 32: As noted in 10 U.S. Code § 2371b, authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects, is the authority which facilitates our ability to easily engage with non-traditional partners such as non-profit research institutions. Cost sharing isn’t required for those non-traditional partners. In addition to nonprofit research institutions, a nontraditional defense partner is an entity that hasn’t for at least a year been under a Department of Defense contract subject to federal acquisition regulations cost-accounting standards, which typically includes small businesses. As a project lead, you can partner with traditional defense partners as well. As long as the traditional partner is not providing what is termed “significant participation,” cost sharing will not be an issue. “Significant” is not necessarily determined in terms of monetary value, but is based on the level of importance of participation. An example would be supplying a new key technology or product, or unique capability. Each consortium member will need to provide evidence that their institution is a nonprofit organization. See question 22 for additional discussion of non-traditional partners.
Question 33
Question 33: Must government facility costs be included within the proposed cost of the project, e.g. wind tunnel operations?
Answer 33: All costs must be included in the proposal. If costs are good faith estimate, state as such and give a point of contact for the partnership.
Question 34
Question 34: Can a faculty member with U.S. permanent residency join as a participating member, while the leading principal investigator is a U.S. citizen?
Answer 34: See questions No. 3 and No. 6.
Question 35
Question 35: It seems like you are only requesting the authorized organizational representative to create the account. Can a department sign up for the portal? If so, would they be able to create, develop, edit and submit the proposal?
Answer 35: Each university has its own process for limited submission proposals. Please check with your college and/or sponsored research before requesting an account. It is the university’s responsibility to ensure that no more than three are submitted.
Question 36
Question 36: Can a user save the application and come back later to submit the application?
Answer 36: Yes.
Question 37
Question 37: Is this only proposal site or also the award management system, system for final report and etc.?
Answer 37: For this solicitation, this system will be used only for proposal submission.
Question 38
Question 38: Does the industry partner included on the white paper have to be a member of the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics or is external industry partnership allowed?
Answer 38: All industry partners must be an affiliated UCAH member by the time of proposal award on March 29, 2021.
Question 39
Question 39: If a university affiliated research center (UARC) is a unit of a university and not a separate legal entity (same Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE), Dun & Bradstreet (DUNS) and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)), can the UARC submit a white paper/proposal as the university lead and not an affiliate member?
Answer 39: UARCs are not eligible to respond directly to the project solicitation but may team with an eligible principle bidder (i.e. consortium member). The university consortium member will submit the proposal and detail how the UARC is contributing to the project.
Question 40
Question 40: Do you know if Industry Day is going to be recorded and made available to people who cannot attend during the designated time slot?
Answer 40: We will publish elements of Industry Day for future use on our website
Question 41
Question 41: Regarding the current call for proposals, is it possible to have a foreign partner in the hypersonics consortium (i.e., Australia, UK, etc.) as a co-principal investigator or a sub-contracting member? It states in the solicitation that affiliate consortium members (including foreign entities) can team with an eligible principal bidder in the solicitation, but does not specify in what capacity.
Answer 41: See question No. 6.
Question 42
Question 42: If I submitted a letter of commitment in the proposal phase of the consortium, do I still need to submit a membership request?
Answer 42: Yes. Due to the citizenship requirement, we are requesting that each individual researcher complete the form. This will allow us to simultaneously route the request to our security, compliance and contracting teams. From the contracting standpoint, the university consortium membership agreement request will be initiated by the first submission.
Question 43
Question 43: What if my university submits more than three white papers?
Answer 43: The solicitation states that the whitepapers be submitted by an authorized University representative to avoid this situation. Proposals over limit submitted by someone other than the representative will be declined.
Question 44
Question 44: In general, non-U.S. citizens can work on International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)/export controlled projects with an appropriate license. Can you please clarify if a non-U.S. citizen could participate in a supporting role (i.e. non-principal investigator or lead) under such a license exemption?
Answer 44: As affiliate members, the government may make some case by case exceptions for residents from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In the security requirements section of the white paper submission, please address any ITAR/export control relevant to the proposed research so it can be considered by the government.
Question 45
Question 45: I wanted to check whether the U.S. permanent residents, who are allowed to work on International Traffic in Arms Regulations grants, can be supported on the contract?
Answer 45: See answer No. 44.
Question 46
Question 46: I know participation requires U.S. citizenship but our director is hesitant to provide this information electronically (Social Security number, birth certificate, etc.). Is there an alternative to doing this? Can the university send a letter certifying his citizenship?
Answer 46: The University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics (UCAH) office understands your concerns in sharing this personal information. However, we are required to verify participant citizenship. In order to do so, we need a copy of either the birth certificate or passport. The Laserfiche system uses secure sockets layer (SSL)/transport layer security (TLS) encryption, TLS 1.2 configured on servers, and data at rest encryption using Thales Vormetric encryption application, to ensure that your information is secure and safe. Additionally, we have protocols in place where access to this information is restricted to select UCAH staff. Alternately, this document could be mailed to our office for verification. Please contact our office directly for an address. A Social Security number is needed to verify security clearance, but we have made this a non-mandatory field in our data form. If you choose not to include this information and we need to verify a security clearance, we will contact you directly. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept a letter from the university certifying citizenship.
Question 47
Question 47: For the recent call for proposal, is it necessary to attach letter of intent or support from team members?
Answer 47: Letters of intent/support are not required. If you choose to include them as a part of your proposal, please include them with Section I (Technical Requirements). These letters will not count against your page limit.
Question 48
Question 48: The first page of the call states: “Your university’s authorized organizational representative will need to create an account and submit the white paper/proposal documents.” What is meant by “authorized organizational representative?” Is the usual university contracts and grants office responsible for submitting proposals?
Answer 48: Each university has its own process for limited submission proposals and whose role it is to submit white papers/proposals. Please check with your college and/or sponsored research. It is the university’s responsibility to ensure that no more than three are submitted.
Question 49
Question 49: In the call the differences between a white paper and a proposal appear to be “blurred.” Pages 15 and 16 of the call, Section II Pricing requires: labor rates, fringe benefits, travel, material/equipment, subcontracts, etc. These items are usually required in a proposal. Based on our experience, white papers usually require a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of the cost with some details, but not multiplicity of detail described on pages 15 and 16. The question is are all these details required for the white paper?
Answer 49: A ROM is required for the white paper phase, but please provide a breakdown within the categories listed on pages 15-16 (ie: labor, fringe, travel, materials, etc). One of the evaluation factors for the white paper is “the degree to which the project costs are reasonable for the effort being undertaken,” so the ROM budget should reflect the scope of work proposed.
Question 50
Question 50: Will the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics fund category 6.1 research?
Answer 50: Funding will be focused on applied research (6.2 funding) and advanced technology development (6.3 funding).
Question 51
Question 51: The project call states, “Individuals supported by an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process must be U.S. citizens prior to award.” Can non-citizens who are not supported by the award work on the project?
Answer 51: See question No. 3.
Question 52
Question 52: Even though the call states “U.S citizens” is there by any chance an accommodation for a U.S. person (e.g. permanent resident etc.)?
Answer 52: See question No. 3.
Question 53
Question 53: Is there potential to have a faculty team member (co-principal investigator type collaborator) who is not a citizen or U.S. person? I am asking because there is an accommodation for some foreign universities to partner with a U.S. based entity as stated in the third paragraph on page 5, and I am hoping that would extend to co-principal investigator?
Answer 53: See question No. 3 and No. 6.
Question 54
Question 54: Will the topics that were funded for one year under CRANBAA-20-0002 have opportunity for additional funding under this consortium?
Answer 54: There is a possibility that additional one-year solicitations will be sought. This would not preclude extensions of previously funded topics showing promising results.
Question 55
Question 55: My university is partnering with an external nonprofit organization. Can the nonprofit submit the white paper with my university listed as a sub award site?
Answer 55: Only institutions of higher education can lead projects.
Question 56
Question 56: Can the project team change between the white paper submission and the full proposal submission? That is, if a university submits the white paper as the lead institution, can the university change to a sub award site for the full proposal submission?
Answer 56: It would be preferable not to change the project team between white paper submission and full proposal submission as the evaluation process includes an assessment of the team’s experience and expertise relevant to the topic. Nonetheless, we understand that such changes may be required and will not bar them. Any changes in the project team must meet citizenship requirements.
Question 57
Question 57: Is it anticipated that awards from the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics will be subject to the Department of Defense Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements?
Answer 57: The CMMC requirement will not be implemented in Other Transactions (OTs) until after the period of performance for this agreement expires. Therefore, this is not an item that needs to be addressed.
Question 58
Question 58: Do we anticipate the inclusion of DFARS 252.204-7000 “Disclosure of Information” in agreements under the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics? If so, are we anticipating unclassified research activities that do not fall under the “fundamental research” exemption?
Answer 58: While research may be unclassified in some instances, classification and distribution statements will be evaluated by the government based on presiding security guidance.
Question 59
Question 59: Is there an intent to present limited distribution and classified results of research to the broader (qualified) community? If so, by what mechanism (conference, journal, etc.)?
Answer 59: The University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics with the government is investigating the best venues for presenting results to the community; for example, Joint Army Navy NASA Air Force (JANNAF) meetings and perhaps Department of Defense classified journals.
Question 60
Question 60: Limiting white paper submissions to three per university may limit diversity and the participation of researchers who don’t traditionally do hypersonics research. Would JHTO and the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station be willing to relax this limit?
Answer 60: No, for this solicitation, JHTO and TEES are not willing to change the submission limit. Teaming is strongly encouraged and would be the perfect opportunity to introduce non-traditional members.
Question 61
Question 61: May white paper submissions contain International Traffic in Arms Regulations or Distribution C information?
Answer 61: No, white paper submissions should not contain ITAR, Distribution C or classified information.
Question 62
Question 62: When will responses to questions be posted on the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics website?
Answer 62: Questions are collected daily. Once all responses are complete, they will be posted on this page
Question 63
Question 63: Can in-kind cost share be used toward the required cost share? If so, are there limits and/or restrictions?
Answer 63: Yes, in-kind cost share is allowed.
Question 64
Question 64: Can the members of the team (principal investigators) be changed between the white paper and the proposal stage?
Answer 64: See answer No. 56
Question 65
Question 65: Are there any particular forms for the budget, biosketch and Current and Pending (C&P) or we are free to submit in a format of our choice?
Answer 65: There is no required format.
Question 66
Question 66: Can industry partners be paid from this grant? If yes, what are the limits and/or restrictions?
Answer 66: Yes, but all awardees must be members (consortium or affiliate) by the time of the award. There are no limits, but in your technical approach, please define what work will be done by whom. In addition, any work performed by a traditional defense contractor will need to include one-third cost share.
Question 67
Question 67: Is it necessary to include International Traffic in Arms Regulations/Distribution C statement?
Answer 67: See answer No. 61.
Question 68
Question 68: Can we include an industry support letter?
Answer 68: Letters of intent/support are not required. If you choose to include them as a part of your proposal, please include them with Section I (technical requirements), but it will not count against your page limit.
Question 69
Question 69: I think I could contribute significantly to this effort through direct experimental observations of particle impact and shock. But the U.S. citizenship requirement may be a non-starter for my institution. My question is whether the same requirement applies to subcontracts. If I team with someone elsewhere and my university proposes a subcontract from the lead principal investigator’s institution, can only U.S. citizens participate at the subaward?
Answer 69: The citizenship requirements are the same for project lead and subawards. See questions No. 3 and No. 6.
Question 70
Question 70: Is there a limit on how much/percentage of funding can be subcontracted to a non-university entity?
Answer 70: Not specifically, but it is possible that significant participation by a traditional defense partner may lead to a cost-sharing requirement. See questions No. 7 and No. 22.
Question 71
Question 71: Are transition partners ( Original Equipment Manufacturer/OEMs) recommended to be included as funded or un-funded partners?
Answer 71: Either is appropriate depending on the project needs.
Question 72
Question 72: What is the anticipated starting and ending Technology Readiness Level/Manufacturing Readiness Level (TRL/MRL)?
Answer 72: The projects are 6.2/6.3 applied research.
Question 73
Question 73: I am planning to submit a white paper which includes a subaward to a “.org” research institute. They read the request for proposal as not requiring (in the white paper) detailed pricing data for subawards. Are they correct?
Answer 73: A ROM is required for the white paper phase, but please provide a breakdown within the categories listed on pages 15-16 (ie: labor, fringe, travel, materials, etc). One of the evaluation factors for the white paper is “the degree to which the project costs are reasonable for the effort being undertaken,” so the ROM budget should reflect the scope of work proposed.
Question 74
Question 74: I had a question regarding the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)/Distro-C sensitivity of this call. Is there a blanket requirement that any university responding must be able to conduct ITAR-restricted work, or does this apply to particular topics/areas? Is the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics following any of the guidance laid out in the materials-related class guide developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Materials Architectures and Characterization for Hypersonics (MACH) program?
Answer 74: There is no blanket requirement, but any university responding to a request for proposal, or proposing research involving International Traffic in Arms Regulations shall be required to have procedures in place for proper protection. The Joint Hypersonics Transition Office will be providing the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics with a classification guide specific to this effort. That guide will be provided to members as appropriate upon receipt.
Question 75
Question 75: Regarding inclusion of Distribution Statement C and/or International Traffic in Arms Regulations-controlled information in proposals: I’d appreciate knowing whether or not you have processes and procedures in place to safeguard such information during the submission and evaluation stage so that I can appropriately advise other researchers going forward.
Answer 75: We will develop procedures that can accommodate submission of ITAR sensitive data.
Question 76
Question 76: The call included a statement that “Individuals supported by an awarded agreement as a result of this solicitation process must be U.S. citizens prior to award.” What is the legal basis for the citizenship restriction? In particular, I’m wondering why it is more restrictive than is required under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Answer 76: The government sponsor established the requirement for U.S. citizenship. Dr. Bussey articulated her rationale for that decision during the Industry Day.
Question 77
Question 77: I understand the intent behind the general statement that “universities responding to this solicitation must be able to appropriately maintain and handle sensitive data” and appreciate that different research programs and fund sources may have different requirements. However, I would like to know whether or not you anticipate that awards from this call will include NIST SP 800-171 safeguarding requirements?
Answer 77: We anticipate that contracts associated with the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics will have the NIST 800-171 requirement as well as the standard Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement requirements for protection of federal information on non-federal systems.
Question 78
Question 78: Could you please clarify whether the Air Force Institute of Technology or the U.S. Air Force Academy needs to request any type of waiver to receive funding?
Answer 78: The Joint Hypersonics Transition Office intent is not to fund government agencies or government affiliated organizations through University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics grants, to include service laboratories, university affiliated research centers, FFDRCs, or national laboratories. However, in unique cases where government or government affiliated expertise exists and no parent organization funding can be made available, the Joint Hypersonics Transition Office may on a case by case basis direct fund these institutions to partner in related research. In these cases, a sufficient case must be made in the proposal for the value and cost of such partnership, and that funding will be removed from the university grant.
Question 79
Question 79: I am a civilian at Air Force Research Laboratory. I am wondering if I collaborate with a university, can I use a cooperative research and development agreement to get funding from the university, or I need to work “pro bono” for this project?
Answer 79: The Joint Hypersonics Transition Office intent is not to fund government agencies or government affiliated organizations through University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics grants, to include service laboratories, university affiliated research centers, FFDRCs or national laboratories. However, in unique cases where government or government affiliated expertise exists and no parent organization funding can be made available, the Joint Hypersonics Transition Office may on a case by case basis direct-fund these institutions to partner in related research. In these cases, a sufficient case must be made in the proposal for the value and cost of such partnership, and that funding will be removed from the university grant.
Question 80
Question 80: About the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics white paper submission: Are there any restrictions on number of proposals that one principal investigator/co-principal investigator can be involved?
Answer 80: No, there are only submission restrictions at the institution level.
Question 81
Question 81: I dialed into the Industry Day today, but wasn’t able to catch the whole thing. I was curious, are the slides that were shown available to be distributed and/or going to be posted somewhere?
Answer 81: The slides will be posted on the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics website.
Question 82
Question 82: I have an additional question about foreign participation. As a Canadian citizen and U.S. permanent resident working at a U.S. institution, I understand that I can participate in the consortium if I get approval. But can I be principal investigator on a proposal? From today’s questions and answers, I was under the impression that I could but I wish to be absolutely certain.
Answer 82: See question No. 6.
Question 83
Question 83: I see we can have an industry partner on our white paper team. Do you actually encourage us to include a budget allocated to an industry partner out of $500,000 per year?
Answer 83: Yes, we encourage teaming with industry, as well as with other universities, university affiliated research centers/FFDRCs, minority serving institutions and nontraditional members. All partner funding should be called out in the white paper budget and except for any industry cost share, will come out of the total project estimate.
Question 84
Question 84: Regarding the team formation, there is a limit of seven principle investigators. Does unfunded collaboration/teaming with industry or FFRDCs count toward the limit of seven principal investigators?
Answer 84: The limit of seven PIs is for funded PIs.
Question 85
Question 85: Are the topics fixed or finalized, or new topics could be added to the technology area? Related to this, if the topics are fixed, how broad is Topic 17 ? What is defined as disruptive?
Answer 85: The 16 topics are finalized for this solicitation. New topics will continue to be developed and will be advertised in the future. Disruptive technologies (or more specifically topics in solicitation No. 17), are meant to provide solutions to technical challenges that may be presented to future hypersonic systems but not necessarily allocated to one of the six technology focus areas.
