Back to Sandblaster
Questions and Answers
Round 4
Download the Q&A's (PDF, 40KB)
My colleagues and I have developed an acoustic sensor concept to provide navigation/guidance information for rotary wing aircraft. Based on our simulations, it will meet many program needs and will not be degraded by dust, sand, rain, or snow. However, since it is a sensor and not a complete system, would you have any interest in a whitepaper/proposal? If not, do you know if there are full-system proposers that are looking to enhance their sensing capability?
Recommend that you use the potential bidders list to make direct contact with possible full-system proposers about your sensor technology.
Section 1.3 of BAA06-45 states that "The Government also reserves the right to select for award some portion(s) of the proposals received; in that event, the Government may select for negotiation all, or portions, of a given proposal." Given this statement, will a proposal that only addresses part of the solution be considered non-responsive?
As stated in the BAA, DARPA is looking for a complete system solution to the brownout problem.
In section 4.2 Formatting Characteristics, page 13 of the BAA, it states that the Technical Proposal shall contain no smaller than 12 point font type. Does the 12 point font restriction in the Technical Proposal include the text that is part of a "Graphic?"
No.
In PIP Section 2.1, paragraph 3 states that "Initial assessments of system effectiveness will be evaluated in a Government specific flight simulator (such as NASA Ames VMS) and in the ………..RASCAL testbed." Later in the same paragraph it states that "Rather than using military helicopters and pilots, the Government may elect to conduct field evaluation………….at the US Army Yuma Test Center dust range."
Is it to be understood that evaluation testing will consist of three sequential and distinct activities, namely Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) testing at NASA Ames, RASCAL flight testing at NASA Ames and brownout flight testing at Yuma on a TBD helicopter? Alternatively, is the proper interpretation that there will be only one flight test to go along with the VMS simulations, either at NASA Ames or at Yuma? Note that the mandatory meetings listed in section 3.5 include three planning meetings for simulation and flight testing: one for the VMS simulation, one for RASCAL simulation and one at Yuma.
Is it to be understood that evaluation testing will consist of three sequential and distinct activities, namely Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) testing at NASA Ames, RASCAL flight testing at NASA Ames and brownout flight testing at Yuma on a TBD helicopter? Alternatively, is the proper interpretation that there will be only one flight test to go along with the VMS simulations, either at NASA Ames or at Yuma? Note that the mandatory meetings listed in section 3.5 include three planning meetings for simulation and flight testing: one for the VMS simulation, one for RASCAL simulation and one at Yuma.
The three test activities cited are intended to evaluate different aspects of the proposed Sandblaster system solution. The intention of the YPG tests is to evaluate the system in an actual full-scale brownout environment. Display and control aspects of the system solution will be assessed in the VMS and RASCAL facilities. VMS and RASCAL tests will not include actual brownout environments.
Official Transmittal Letter. We want to clarify the information DARPA wants to see in this portion of the proposal. How does it differ from the cover sheet?
The Cover Sheet should contain the information listed in the Proposer Information Pamphlet, (Section 4.2.1.1, Paragraph 1.a through 1.j). The Official Transmittal Letter that is located behind the cover sheet, represents the formal submission of the proposal to the Government, and should be signed by an authorized representative for the company. Contractor format for the letter is acceptable.
Additional Information
