UCAH FORUM 2023 2023-001 Solicitation Panel Q&A
August 2, 2023
Question #1. From the forum presentations, it looks like TPS is still a major challenge. It’s been top of the charts on a lot of these presentations but is not covered in the UCAH solicitation topics. Do we assume that box is checked or that we ran out of money? What is the explanation?
Answer #1. There has been significant investment across the DoD in thermal protection and we are looking at making investments in other areas in the gaps in the road map.
Question #2. Will there be a cap on proposals per university?
Answer #2. There will be 3 per university.
Question #3. Could you clarify about the financial arrangements of a UARC? Can you pass money through the contract or is it parallel, or do you make it a degree part of the option on the agreement for financial parts of the teaming with the government agency or a UARC?
Answer #3. Universities are the lead. The UARCs are university led. So the money will go from university to university. If you have a government or industry contractor, they will be a sub to the lead university. The university can agree to just pass the money or trade services.
Question #4. How would the labs get paid?
Answer #4. We would pay them through an IAA process.
Question #5. We would need a good estimate of the lab costs? And is that included in the award amount?
Answer #5. Yes, you would need a good estimate. It would be included in the award amount.
Question #6. What are the secret selection criteria that will be applied that you are not telling us? Example: 3 years ago, having an Australian university on your team turned out to be a huge advantage. Then in subsequent rounds it wasn’t. Is there anything like this in the solicitation that we should know?
Answer #6. Of course not. We are truly just looking for the best solutions for these challenges and they are wide open to ideas. We are looking for collaborations but there are not bonus points given. We have an ecosystem of collaborators to use. The government is very clear about when we write solicitations how they are evaluated. The criteria are in the solicitation. We talked about the collaborative nature and workforce development which are already listed in the solicitation.
Question #7. Will we hear back about the proposals pending right now before the deadlines for the new solicitation?
Answer #7. You will know about the award decisions before the proposals are due for the new solicitation. Questions are due August 7th.
Question #8. Can you elaborate on the energy harvesting topic? What is the motivation for that? It seems we have some solutions today that work well for these flight regimes and durations. Just wondering what was behind that topic.
Answer #8. This topic was brought to us by a partner organization. There are multiple applications for this. There is not one specific driver of a certain technology we are trying to enable. We want to push the envelope of what we are able to do through thermal energy harvesting with the new ideas. Also trying to figure out how to get the universities involved to fill the critical gaps. Long term of UCAH is what do we need 10-20 years from now when we want to go faster. If we can harvest energy what does that enable in the future. This is a far-reaching idea out there. There has definitely been work done in the energy harvesting but there are probably some really good ideas out there that we can take benefit in a 2040 plan. That type of work requires early on research that we need to start now to be successful in the future.
Question #9. The radome topic seems to focus on new materials and what we have found is new materials are indeed very interesting. They offer some performance advantages. We are also finding these new materials require new manufacturing processes. The same tools, techniques and procedures produce unexpected results. Would manufacturing techniques for new materials be included under this topic?
Answer #9. Absolutely. Manufacturing is one of our major challenges and we welcome proposals that improve manufacturability
Question #10. Reviewers- if UCAH non-government members will not be submitting a proposal, is it possible for us to be reviewers or is that government only?
Answer #10. No. This is government only.
Question #11. If we skip the white paper step, you will get 100 proposals per solicitation instead of white papers. Will that work?
Answer #11. Yes.
Question #12. Is there a blackout period? If so, when will it start? Where decision makers are no longer allowed to talk about the solicitation itself, the focus of the topics’ new technology, etc.
Answer #12. August 7th deadline that we will not provide any feedback on the need statement or on any ideas or things that you have already answered. Any questions about the topics themselves after that date.
Question #13. After the discussion, it seemed like a proposition to do any CUI work with an international university. Does anyone have an example of a CUI project that is done in conjunction with an international university?
Answer #13. The U.S. Air Force Academy is working with an Australian university. So yes, the Air Force Academy is in the process of applying for their export license.
Question #14. Is the exportation license different from the TAA?
Answer #14. A Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) differs from an export license in the sense that a license defines a specific, known transfer of defense items, services, or technical data. It’s usually a one-time authorization to export. A TAA is frequently used to authorize a continuous process of sharing defense-related technical data, usually encompassing a longer period of time than the relatively short-term associated with an export license.
Question #15. Topics that have opportunities like Mach TB proposing a flight test component. What are your thoughts on that? Would that be seen as a positive or perhaps too aspirational?
Answer #15. I would see that as a positive. The contracts are set up to add supplemental funding. If you can demonstrate throughout the life of the project that the next step is a flight test. That is one of the things we can add money to through the contract potentially to get it across the finish line or work with our transition partners to make that happen. Any of the high-level demonstration possible if you are doing a technology development project is a positive.
Question #16. Would that apply to the international component also?
Answer #16. The project proposal needs to clearly articulate what you want to do in your milestones and how it will be accomplished. Then let the evaluators assess realism. It is one of the criterions but if you can connect realism through your milestones and cost then you would not meet the criterion.
Question #17. NGC Algorithms: How are you going to do flight ready hardware? Are you expecting the proposers to be tied to some existing program in the country that has hardware in the loop that they can utilize and test their algorithms? Or are they expected to create their own software in the loop or maybe even a processor in the loop simulator that allows them to test out their algorithms? What is the expectation?
Answer #17. We want to advance the development of the algorithms to demonstrate that it would be realizable on flight ready hardware. So, either through a hardware-in-the-loop setup if you have access (via a partner or in–house) or development of a processor-in-the-loop kind of capability. We want clear ties to understanding the computational requirements, power requirements that would make it to where it would be relevant to be run on flight ready hardware.
Question #18. The difficulty or access to CUI computer systems.
Answer #18. Contact [email protected] These projects will be CUI. To start work you must be CUI compliant.
Question #19. The low-cost ground and flight test enablers: Is there a preference in terms of kind of types of facilities or quantifying what low-cost is? Is being at a university low cost enough compared to testing at industry? Is there more guidance on this?
Answer #19. We received specific inputs from a couple of working groups on the MDA test team and on the materials IPTV, they provided examples. We do not want to be restrictive into what exactly we are looking for but again it is important if you are able to articulate that it adds value by lowering costs, increasing access, or speeding up the design cycle we are open to any ideas. If you have more specific questions, please submit them and we will post those for everyone.
Question #20. In terms of tying the flight testing to jet interactions and predicting them, addressing that in the ground test and trying to help guide more accurate prediction even though it’s not directly tied to flight tests but to the relevant conditions, would that be relevant enough?
Answer #20. Correct. It does not have to be directly tied to flight tests. It is either lowering costs, increasing access, or giving us a capability that we do not already have.
Question #21. After the blackout period, are we still able to discuss with other facilities/ organizations about their kinds of facility challenges?
Answer #21. Yes. You should be collaborating with your partners.
Question #22. How do you define the number of students? Is that included in this proposal? If so, how do we quantify the number of students?
Answer #22. The key is incorporation. Tell the story of how you are incorporating workforce development. When the evaluators are reading your proposal they understand the level of incorporation of the students, what they are doing, how they are doing it and the value they get out of the project. If you provide a number EX: 40 you still need to answer the question of incorporation.
Additional Questions received for RPP (2023-001):
Question #1: Evaluation Criteria: Are the listed evaluation factors weighted equally?
Answer #1: All evaluations have a minimum threshold where the reviewers will be able to answer ‘yes’ that the proposal meets the need per each criterion. Once viability is established, proposals are selected based on their impact to the hypersonics community and availability of funding.
Question #2: Can distinct proposals be submitted by the same researchers/organizations in more than one technology area?
Answer #2: Yes.
Question #3: Topic 4: Low Cost Ground and Flight Testing Enablers: Can more than one exploratory approaches be presented in the same proposal?
Answer #3: Yes, as long as they are both achievable within the funding limits and other requirements. Note that both will be evaluated and scored as a whole.
Question #4: If a proposer has two distinct technologies to submit in the same topic, do we submit two separate proposals with their own corresponding costing?
Answer #4: YES
Question #5: With the $500k per year limitation, can higher cost one year be proposed but a lower cost another year, as long at the $1.5M ceiling is met and not exceeded?
Answer #5: YES
Questions 6-9 are for Topic 3
Question #6: Is the application for topic 3 for airbreathing systems such as scramjets?
Answer #6: Applications include all types of propulsion and ordnance systems. There is not one expected application being targeted.
Question #7: Are the objective methods to adjust the thrust and hence speed and/or altitude of the vehicle or adjust the vehicle flight path?
Answer #7: Any application that could improve system effectiveness is viable.
Question #8: Is the application liquid and solid propellants?
Answer #8: All fuels and energetics are applicable. There is not one expected application being targeted.
Question #9: Is the application for a vehicles prime propulsion system or for the control system to maneuver the vehicle?
Answer #9: Any application that could improve system effectiveness is viable.
Question #10: Are teams encouraged to include U.S. small businesses team members?
Answer #10: YES. UCAH affiliate members are listed on the UCAH website, https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/affiliate-members/.
Question #11: Are teams encouraged to include major U.S. OEMs team members?
Answer #11: JHTO encourages collaboration with all approved small, medium and large industry partners.
Question #12: Are teams encouraged to include national lab team members?
Answer #12: Yes. A list of UCAH Federal and National Laboratories are on the UCAH website, https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/affiliate-members/.
Question #13: Will computational resources be provided for simulation efforts by the soliciting organization?
Answer #13: If government high performance computing is required, it should be included in Volume I, section e.
Question #14: Is China Lake allowed to join us? They are a government lab just like AFRL. (Suggested rewrite of question: Are government labs able to join on projects?)
Answer #14: All participants on a project, need to submit a request to participate with the consortium (https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/membership/) and be approved by JHTO. The lead university should clearly define in the proposal, how the government employee will support the project and any funding associated with the support.
Question #15: Can the proposal be submitted by a FFRC, or does it have to be submitted through a university?
Answer #15: FFRCs, who are consortium affiliate members can partner on awards, but the lead must be a university consortium member.
Question #16: Will the collaboration be Distribution C or above?
Answer #16: Yes
Questions 17-19 are for Topic 5
Question #17: Based on the milestones for technical progress. Design and development of a relevant material or design test article. What is the beginning TRL and the desired TRL at the end of the program?
Answer #17: There is no specific TRL or MRL being targeted. The proposal should include plans for evaluating viability of the proposed material or design for the proposed application.
Question #18: Modeling and quantification of effects on sensor performance. What is the beginning TRL and the desired TRL at the end of the program?
Answer #18: There is no specific TRL or MRL being targeted. The proposal should include plans for evaluating viability of the proposed material or design for the proposed application.
Question #19: Modeling and quantification of effects on sensor performance. Is there a specific % improvement threshold for the sensor performance?
Answer #19: No. Proposals should show an understanding of the current state of the art and challenges experienced by these systems, and clearly articulate how they will improve over the state of the art for performance, size, weight, and power, design and testing processes, etc.
Question #20: Section 3.3.2 states that “No University Exceeds leading three PPP’s.” Does this mean that each University should submit no more than three proposals as the lead, or that this limitation will be enforced at the award stage?
Answer #20: The proposal submission is limited to three per university.
Question #21: Section 3.3.2 states that “TEES will assign a program specialist to assist each proposing University Consortium Member with the PPP documentation and submission process.” When is this resource assigned? After NOI is received?
Answer #21: A program specialists will be assigned after the NOI.
Question #22: What is the process for engaging this resource [the assigned program specialist]?
Answer #22: The program specialist is a resource if there are questions about the proposal templates or submission process. The preferred communication method is email.
Question #23: Can UCAH expand on the case-by-case basis for participation of a US-located but non-US-citizenship individual in a US teaming partner? The US teaming partner currently meets the relevant safeguarding requirements and export controls.
“Section 1.1.6 CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY – As a general matter, all participants must be United States citizens. Participation of foreign member universities and individuals may be permitted on a case-by-case basis. However, a candidate and its teaming partners must be capable of complying with any and all safeguarding requirements and export controls associated with any such entities/individual’s participation.”
Answer #23: JHTO identifies case-by-case exceptions for universities, professors and students from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Case-by-case reviews are used to allow JHTO to consider extraordinary circumstances that go beyond the normal parameters for a US-located but non-US citizenship individual in a US teaming partner.
Question #24: We are considering a response to Topic 1: Thermal Energy Harvesting of the project call TEES/JHTO-RPP-2023-001. In the Description and Scope section, the call states that “Efforts that are responsive to this topic will conduct development and experimentation to accurately assess the size, weight, and performance characteristics of a pyroelectric or thermoelectric power supply systems for relevant aircraft or missile applications.”
Are technologies for consideration under this topic limited only to pyroelectric or thermoelectric devices?
Answer #24: No, other concepts for power generation via thermal energy harvesting are welcome.
Question #25: Specifically, would proposals focused on other direct heat-to-electrical power devices such as thermophotovoltaic converters or thermionic converters also be considered as competitive under Topic 1?
Answer #25: Yes
Question #26: Question on eligibility for recent project call and all other UCAH proposals, as a PI I am a U.S. citizen. However, one of my research team members (a Postdoctoral Research Associate) is a green card holder with Vietnamese citizenship. Will he be allowed to contribute on the scientific aspects of the research should we get awarded or do all performers have to be U.S. citizens?
Answer #26: All performers must be approved UCAH participants. Participation is limited to US citizens, with case-by-case exceptions made for citizens of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Question #27: I notice that the eligibility requirements say that US citizens are required, but that foreign collaborators can be added on a case-by-case basis. My team is looking to add a modeler who is a permanent resident. Would it be possible to add them to the team without disqualification? We could focus their modeling efforts on conditions relevant to small scale, fundamental experiments and keep their activities separate from the more applied experiments.
Answer #27: See answer #26.
Question #28: I am a permanent resident but not a citizen. Does it preclude me from initiating this application?
Answer #28: See answer #26.
Question #29: I would appreciate your clarification regarding my eligibility/participation as a government employee.
Answer #29: All participants on a project, need to submit a request to participate with the consortium (https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/membership/) and be approved by JHTO. The lead university should clearly define in the proposal, how the government employee will support the project and any funding associated with the support.
Question #30: Reaching out today for some clarification on the project call. As we understand the RFP, submissions are limited in the following ways:
1. No more than 4 PIs per PPP
2. No more than 3 PPP’s per institution, regardless of topic.
Can you confirm that these are the expected guidelines?
Answer #30: Yes, that is correct.
Question #31: Are classified submissions permitted?
Answer #31: No.
Question #32: What is the distribution statement required on reports and the annual technology review?
Answer #32: The funded work is expected to be CUI/CTI. At the time of award, you will have a Technical Manager who can provide distribution guidance.
Question #33: A colleague of mine is thinking of writing a proposal to UCAH and wants me as a coPI on it. Does my institution need to be a member of UCAH for me to be involved?
Answer #33: Yes, your institution would need to be a member by the Notice of Intent deadline.
Question #34: If my institution is to be a member of UCAH, who would be the right person to initiate the membership process at https://hypersonics.tamu.edu/membership/university-members/
Answer #34: Each membership request is initiated by the first person who submits for their institution. There is a second part of the form where you would complete the institutional information. Note that participant requests are individual and anyone who would like to join would need to submit the request. Yes, the referenced form/link is correct.
Questions 35-37 are for Topic 3: Controllable Propellants and Energetics
Question #35: Is the focus on solid or liquid propellants?
Answer #35: All fuels and energetics are applicable. There is not one expected application being targeted.
Question #36: Would the use of plasmas satisfy being of “reasonable cost” and being “readily integrated”?
Answer #36: Plasma-based solutions could be viable but it is incumbent on the proposer to understand and convey the reasonableness and ease of integration. We may not be aware of advances in the field.
Question #37: Is the focus on propellants within rocket or airbreathing engines or combined cycle engines?
Answer #37: Either. Topic is intentionally open to encourage innovation.
