September 17, Proposer s Day questions

Transcription

1 September 17, 2018 Proposer s Day questions Note: The BAA and its associated documents, including this file, are the authoritative source of information about the SHRIMP program and should be consulted over all other sources of information. 1. For TA1 TA2 phase 3, do the high and long jump events count as untethered ambulation for the purposes of CUI? a. No. These events are from a resting or standing position. They are not configured to be mobile platforms. 2. For universities unable or unwilling to meet CUI, can you describe some scenarios where they can contribute to TA3? a. Team with a proposer (prime contractor) who is willing and able to handle CUI. Design actuator or power systems as components (under TA1 and/or TA 2) to be incorporated into TA3. The key aspect of CUI restriction is the full design. 3. Are there reliability and environmental requirements for all three TAs? a. There are environmental statements in the BAA, but not a performance metric. Reliability must be good enough to compete in multiple events. Most events average multiple iterations of each event. 4. Possible to submit to TA1 + TA2 track A only? a. Yes. 5. Is the size requirement for all configurations of a system or just the most-compressed configuration? a. Volume is the static volume of the system and or platform. If the system or platform unfolds, that is fine. 6. How will volume and length be evaluated? a. We will put a cubic volume over the device or platform. 7. Is it possible to submit multiple proposals? a. Yes. No limit unless you overburden yourself. Must be distinct we will not pay for same effort multiple times. 8. Does power density of actuators matter for TA1 in terms of traceability to TA3 platforms? a. No, if only proposing to TA1 only. If you are jointly proposing to both, then yes, it needs to be traceable. 9. What are the power requirement limits for actuators in TA1? a. From a TA1 perspective, there is no requirement or limitation, but the power requirement needs to be traceable to phase 3 of the combined TA1 and TA If proposing to TA1, do you need to have a power supply in mind, or can you assume TA2 specs will be met? a. Proposal only needs to consider a power supply if planning to go to phase 3. Need to be cognizant of what would be traceable to phase Does a TA1 proposal need to identify a TA2 partner to address phase 3? a. It does not need to. These relationships will be done with ACAs.

2 12. If TA2 batteries and actuators share packaging, how will energy densities and other metrics be calculated? a. Only pertinent to Phase 3. In previous phases, only an actuator or power system should be reported. If they are not separate, the metrics will be divided proportionally. 13. What are the anticipated commercial applications of SHRIMP tech that are expected to drive cost? a. Disaster relief and emergency search and rescue 14. What plans does DARPA have to make program results available to future users? a. Future government users will be invited to program reviews, the end-of-program competition, and government evaluation of prototypes. Results not restricted by CUI are expected to be published in the open domain by the performers. 15. Will the posters be made available electronically? a. No. 16. If a team consists of TA1 plus TA3, how can the TA3 team know the performance of the TA1 actuator at start of phase 1? a. If you are proposing to multiple TAs, you are determining those details. Later in the program, the ACA process is available if more relevant technology is developed. Any combination of TAs can be proposed. 17. For TA2, why is the duration of power different for track A and track B? a. Track A is how long can the power converter work short duration to make sure it can operate. For track B, it is sustained mission power. If it is a secondary battery approach, the charging cycle and method of charging should be included. 18. Is there a maximum amount of money that can be requested for a proposal? a. No formal rule in the BAA. There are limits to program funding and a cost realism aspect of the review. 19. Are proposals addressing all three TAs viewed more favorably? a. No. 20. Can jumping be flight? a. We don t distinguish between jumping or flying to meet the targets. 21. Is tug of war attached or does it need its own adhesion? a. We will provide a preferred attachment method to the force sensor once the competition descriptions are finalized within Phase 1 of the program. 22. Will there be a website for teaming? a. No. 23. At what point are the competition details public? a. We will define and finalize competition details during phase 1 of the program. 24. If a platform has modular components that can be swapped, is that considered the same vehicle? a. No, it is a different fundamental platform. 25. Is it ok to use an actuator mechanism with a limited number of cycles (chemical reaction for thrust) as long as it meets requirements? a. Yes, and it can be refilled or reset between events. 26. TA3 biathlon can we choose all beacons be the same type?

3 a. Yes, but preference will be given to those who can have multiple varieties through higher scoring in the competition. Scoring rules will be released during phase 1 of the program. 27. From the information in the BAA, the development of new actuation tech is seemingly limited to electrical technologies. Does an actuator need to be electrical-based? a. No. The metrics for actuators in TA1 include volume, weight, largest dimension, operating frequency, and force-displacement/work density. None of these metrics require an electrical-based actuator. 28. Can direct chemical reactions be utilized? a. Yes, as long as they meet the other performance metrics. 29. For flying vehicles in TA3, how are they judged for the vertical ascent and the steeple chase, i.e. flying over rough terrain and obstacles? a. If you can traverse the path, you meet the objectives. For steeple chase, obstacles will include challenges for all types of vehicles. 30. With respect to CUI/CTI, would a radio-only link be considered tethered? a. If it is a platform and untethered for power, it is CUI/CTI. b. If it is an actuator system and non-ambulatory, then it is not CUI/CTI. 31. Is there a mechanism for a partnered TA1 and TA2 to participate in phase 3 if neither can handle CUI/CTI? a. They do not require CUI/CTI unless you build a mobile untethered platform in TA1 and TA2. It is possible to compete without crossing that threshold. 32. Will the results of government evaluation be made public? a. No. However, performers in the TA1 and TA2 parts of the program will potentially publish their results. 33. Do you expect downselects between phases? a. Options will be exercised (future phases will be funded) based on performance. It is possible that some performers will not have their future phase options exercised, but there is no expectation or requirement that this happens. 34. If a university performer has work under other funding, can TA1/TA2 results be used in the performer s other work? a. TA1/TA2 results can be used in other funded work as long as the results are not considered CUI/CTI. CUI/CTI restrictions apply to all uses of the technology developed in the SHRIMP program. Within the evaluation criteria, there is a request for letting us know about other activities to prevent duplication of efforts (Section V.A.1). 35. For 80 degree slope, is the surface smooth, rough, etc.? a. All surfaces start smooth. Roughness will progress as performers compete in the event. 36. Can open source hardware/software be used instead of an ACA? a. The ACA is a precondition of award, but how the exchange of information takes place is up to the performers. The exchange of data in this program is anticipated to require communication between performers not simply passing of data. Therefore, we view the ACA instrument as valuable to this process.

4 37. Can the CUI/CTI design information be published and then available for university collaborators to use? (Feet might depend on system dynamics) a. No, full design information cannot be published publically. Please see the Controlled Unclassified Information Guide that is provided as an attachment to the BAA. The purpose of CUI/CTI restrictions is to control the information and prevent public release of critical, system-level design information. b. Universities are able to choose whether or not they trigger the CUI/CTI restrictions with their work. The CUI/CTI restrictions are on the full designs. As long as it is compartmentalized appropriately, universities can work on components. Refer to CUI guide for further guidance. 38. Given that autonomous mm-to-cm robots are an active area of academic research, and many academic posters showed existing systems that trigger CUI restrictions, is there some way that academics can have a separate non-cui version of TA3 in which to participate and compete? a. No, the CUI restrictions cover all of TA3. Our restrictions only apply to our program funding. The structure of the program should encourage collaborations between universities, industry, and government laboratories to aid the transition of SHRIMP technologies. 39. Is it possible to add videos to the proposal submission package? a. No. Only written materials will be reviewed as part of the proposal submission package. 40. Can you submit more than one proposal to an individual TA? a. Yes. 41. Within TA3, will the universities be able to participate with component design relative to the platform design? a. Yes, they can work on component design, and that would be unrestricted. However, if they needed platform design information, that platform information would be covered by CUI restrictions. 42. Please provide clear guidance on publication restrictions and processes for CUI information. a. Any information considered CUI cannot be disclosed to the public. However, DARPA can choose to make information originally designated to be CUI by DARPA available to the public through its public release process (DISTAR). From part2002.pdf: "(ll) Public release occurs when the agency that originally designated particular information as CUI makes that information available to the public through the agency's official public release processes. Disseminating CUI to non-executive branch entities as authorized does not constitute public release. Releasing information to an individual pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 or disclosing it in response to a FOIA request also does not automatically constitute public release, although it may if that agency ties such actions to its official public release processes. Even though an agency may disclose some CUI to a member of the public, the Government must still control that CUI unless the agency publicly releases it through its official public release processes." 43. Are TA1 and TA2 solely 6.1 funded?

5 a. The funding type information in the BAA is to convey DARPA s intent regarding the scope under each TA. However, the funding types available in each TA could be modified by DARPA if it is advantageous to the program. 44. Within TA1, are we focused on piezoelectric actuation? a. No, TA1 is open to any actuation material and mechanism development. 45. Can you define ambulatory in more detail? Does multiple jumps count? Oscillatory systems? a. Ambulatory, for the purposes of the SHRIMP program, is defined as being able to move from place to place in a controlled manner (e.g. direction and distance) and in more than a single, discrete, step. Multiple jumps and oscillatory systems are considered ambulatory. 46. Are TA3 untethered systems operating as tethered systems considered CUI? a. Yes. 47. TA2 Track A required time is 180s is there a dead time associated that time (i.e. duty cycle)? a. No. The 180s operation time milestone is for 100% duty cycle. 48. Publication restrictions on CUI/CTI is there a time limit on restrictions? a. Please see the answer to question 42. Whether SHRIMP program information is designated CUI and for how long is up to DARPA s discretion. Information originally designated CUI may be released through the DISTAR public release process once DARPA determines the information is no longer CUI. 49. It seems like TA3 implies ASIC components is this a requirement? a. ASICs are not a requirement. Proposers are free to propose any method of control that meets SHRIMP program metrics. 50. If a proposal offers a microrobotic entry to a competition that uses flying as its method of movement and can only efficiently compete in two events, such as high jump and long jump, will it be viewed less favorably than proposals that offer entries that can efficiently compete in all of the events? a. Proposals will be judged against the BAA, not against other proposals. It is reasonable to enter platforms that are specific to one or two events, but ideally platforms should compete in all events, even if they are optimized for a subset of them. From open question session: 1. Are phase 3 teams forced or suggested? a. Phase 3 teaming arrangements will be highly suggested based on performance. Progress to Phase 3 of the program will require a team only addressing either TA1 or TA2 during Phases 1 and 2 to be teamed. 2. Does recharging matter, or is one-time use battery OK? a. One time use is OK. 3. Can a tether be used to initiate motion? a. Yes, remote triggering is fine. A wireless trigger can be used in TA3 as well.

6 From HR0011 address: 1. For this BAA, can you please confirm that individuals may participate on any number of teams as a subcontractor? a. Individuals may participate on any number of teams as a subcontractor as long as they don't overburden themselves with an infeasible amount of work. 2. For this BAA, can individuals be Principal Investigator (PI) on more than one proposal? If yes, can the work for each proposal be similar? a. Individuals can be Principal Investigator on more than one proposal. The work for each proposal can have some similarities but we will not pay for the same effort multiple times. 3. Voltage kv. Does it mean that we can pick any number in this range for output voltage or should the converter be able to generate output voltage in whole range from 0.05kV to 3kV? a. The goal is to cover the entire range. You can pick any number in this range for the output voltage. However, being able to output a range of voltages or having traceability to the requirements of an actuator technology from TA1 are desirable capabilities. 4. Frequency > 20Hz, Duty cycle 50%. Does this mean that output voltage should be pulse waveform with 50% duty cycle and frequency more than 20Hz and swing from 0V to whatever is the rating voltage (asked in previous question)? If so, is there any requirement regarding rise and fall time of output pulse voltage? Does this mean that it should be at fixed duty cycle of 50% or should duty cycle vary from 0% up to 50%? a. Yes. There is no requirement regarding rise and fall time of the output pulse voltage. However, faster is always better and will increase the number of TA1 actuators that the technology is able to be paired with for a potential Phase 3 teaming arrangement. Either a fixed 50% duty cycle or a variable 0-50% duty cycle is responsive to the BAA. An advantage of having a variable duty cycle is for potential Phase 3 teaming arrangements. For example, if a Phase 3 actuator-power source combination requires four actuators to move with 25% duty cycle to complete its motion, duty cycles other than 50% would be required to work with that actuator. 5. Delivered average power 100mW. Since required duty cycle should be 50%, does it mean that output power for first half (due to 50% duty cycle) of cycle should be 200mW and for the second half cycle 0mW to give overall average power of 100mW? a. Yes, you are correct. 6. Is a pure square wave required or whatever waveform that works with the actuator? a. There is no requirement on the waveform type for the actuator. 7. Would you be able to tell me if there is an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If so, could you please provide the contractor name and the contract number that was awarded? a. There is no incumbent contractor related to BAA HR001118S From our reading, you are looking for focused teams that specifically target one major thrust. Is this true, or are you also open to broad teams with members who specialize in actuation, power, and robotics with the ultimate goal of integrating the thrusts together within the team?

7 a. Potential program performers may propose to any combination of the Technical Areas (TA1, TA2, and TA3). Therefore, we are open to narrow teams focusing on one Technical Area as well as broad teams focusing on multiple Technical Areas. However, please note the program CUI restrictions related to integrated platforms described in an attachment to the BAA. 9. Do you have an idea of the target team size / anticipated funding per project for this call? a. There is no target team size or anticipated funding per project for this BAA. However, we anticipate funding for each technical area to follow the following distribution from page 4 of the BAA: o $9-$12M for Technical Area 1 (TA1), three phases, 36 months, 6.1 funding; o $4-$6M for Technical Area 2 (TA2), three phases, 36 months, 6.1 funding; o $10-$14M for Technical Area 3 (TA 3), three phases, 36 months, 6.2 funding. Multiple awards per Technical Area are anticipated. 10. I am writing to enquire if there are any slides/webinar from the proposer s day, which can be made available for online viewing? a. The slides that Ron presented and a FAQ from the event have been posted at the following website under the SHRIMP heading: Can a different design variation be used for each type of task? Or must each team present just one design that is able to do one or more tasks? a. A different design variation can be used for each type of task, but designs that have the capability to compete in multiple tasks will be viewed more favorably. 12. For weightlifting, does the robot need to be able to pick up the object itself, or will the object be placed on the robot? a. Currently we anticipate allowing the weight to be placed on the actuator for the weightlifting event. We will have complete competition rules and details early in the first phase of the program. 13. Does the robot need to be able to walk while carrying the object? a. The actuator system does not need to be able to move while carrying the object for any of the open events associated with Phase 3 of TA1 and TA2 (weightlifting, shotput). In Phase 3 of TA3 (which has CUI restrictions), the platform will need to move with a weight in the rock piling event. 14. Regarding the budget, is there a rough budget limit that a TA1 project is expected not to exceed? a. There are no budget limits placed on TA1 proposals. However, we expect the funding profile of the program on page 4 of the BAA, which includes a bullet point that says $9-12 million will be available for TA1, to be an accurate amount of total money that will be available. The number of projects that this will fund will depend on the distribution and quality of the proposals. Multiple awards per Technical Area are anticipated.

8 15. With this letter we would like to start a dialogue with you, as the Program Manager, to determine the applicability of our technology and experience towards the development the next generation of small scale robotics. a. At this stage in the program, the program manager cannot engage in closed discussions with potential program performers about proposals or technology assessments related to the SHRIMP program without posting the discussion publically. The best way to be a part of the SHRIMP program at this point is to submit an abstract. The abstract process is meant to be a succinct method for the program manager to preliminarily evaluate ideas and technologies fairly before potential performers put in the large effort required of a full proposal. 16. On page 11 of PM's proposer s day briefing, a force-displacement plot is shown. However, there is no mentioning of the volume or mass of the system. Could you clarify? A related question is TA1 Phase I metric. It requires 10-7 Nm, which is also shown on the page 11 plot. Is this normalized for 1 cm3 volume? Finally, if I read this correctly, the energy density will increase from 1e-7 to 1 J/cc from Phase I to Phase II? a. The volume and mass requirements for TA1 can be found on page 10 of the BAA document in the table called DARPA SHRIMP TA1 Metric Table. For phase 1, the volume and mass requirements are 1 cm^3 and 2 g, respectively. The 10^-7 Nm required in phase 1 of TA1 is for the same volume and mass. You are correct about the change in metric from 10^-7 Nm to 1 J/cm^3 from phase 1 to phase We are forming a team to respond to the SHRIMP program, and have a question about the Phase I metric of Force-displacement > 10^(-7) Nm. This is a very small energy compared to the target actuator performance of 1 J/cm^3, which corresponds to 2 Nm for the 2 cm^3 volume. Could you clarify the Force-displacement metric? a. The metrics for force displacement and work density in Phases 1 and 2 that you wrote about in your are correct. The metrics are designed to provide a large challenge between phases 1 and 2 with the intent of providing desired capabilities by phase 3 while allowing opportunity to investigate interesting concepts that may bear fruit during phase Technical Area 2 Integrated Multi-Mode Power Solutions. I have a question regarding the Track A: Integrated Power System. The Voltage is kv, Does this mean the input voltage is 0.05 kv (50V) DC and output voltage is 3 kv DC with >20 Hz and 50% duty cycle and the change is from 0V ~ 3 kv? Or, the output voltage is 0.05V dc 3 kv DC with 50% duty cycle > 20 Hz change, and the input voltage is 1.2V-3.7V which is aligned with the battery? Is there Galvanic isolation requirement on this high voltage and high gain dc sources? a. Your second interpretation of the TA2 metrics is correct - the output voltage is 0.05V dc - 3 kv DC with 50% duty cycle > 20 Hz change, and the input voltage is 1.2V-3.7V which is aligned with the battery. The output voltage does not need to be tunable over the entire 0.05 Vdc 3 kvdc range if the TA2 technology is aligned with a TA1 technology that does not require the entire range. However, supplying the entire range will make a TA2 technology applicable to a wider range of TA1 technologies, which is beneficial for any potential Phase 3 teaming arrangements. There is no specific requirement for Galvanic isolation in TA2. However, weight will be placed on traceability to potential Phase 3 operability. 19. Is there a limit on the number of robots that a team can enter per test? That is, is there a limit on the number of copies that can be used for one type of robot, in case one robot breaks down

9 between trials? Or is there a limit on the different types of robot designs that a team and enter into each test? a. There is currently no limit on the number of entries that a team can enter per test or the number of types of designs that a team can enter into each test. However, although the rules of the competition will not be set until sometime in Phase 1 of the program, each team/project will most likely be given a time limit for each competition to allow finishing in the planned amount of time, which will naturally limit the number of attempts that can be made. It is important that survivability be considered for Phase 3 events. Entries that can perform repeated trials will be looked upon more favorably than entries that are do not survive multiple event attempts. 20. For item E on page 25, it mentions breaking the project down by Government fiscal year. If the fiscal year is October to September, does that mean that the cost of the first year of the project must be broken up into two parts, as March 1 - September 30, and then October 1 - February 28? a. Yes, please break the cost of the first year of the project into two parts accordingly to the government fiscal year. 21. Item E gives examples of labor and materials. But what about equipment? If equipment is required, can equipment be listed? Are there any types of equipment that cannot be included? E.g. computers or software? What about LabView modules and software? a. We intended "materials" to include equipment, so yes, please list any required equipment, software, and/or recurring software license costs to successfully execute the SHRIMP program. 22. Regarding TA1, what if an innovative mechanism (phase 2) can achieve the required metrics by using a commonly-available material? That is, what if the creation of a new type of material is not required? How should phase 1 be handled in that case? a. In the case that achieving the desired Phase 1 metrics does not require significant work for a specific technology, please plan for a simple demonstration of the phase 1 metrics and then continue to phase 2 work. If progress can be made faster than the program timelines, we have no intention of slowing it down. 23. We are considering proposing to TA3 and TA2. Based on language in the BAA indicating different page lengths for proposals that propose to 1, 2 or 3 areas, we re assuming that responses to multiple areas should be under a single proposal. Is the same true for the abstract phase? Given that we are planning on proposing to TA3 and TA2, should we send in 2 separate abstracts, or a single combined abstract? Is the page limit for the abstract different if you are proposing for more than one technical area? a. Responses that address multiple Technical Areas should be under a single abstract or proposal if the work in each Technical Area forms a cohesive project. For example, for a team responding to both TA2 and TA3, if the TA2 technology will be used in the TA3 platform during the project, a single abstract or proposal is desired. However, if the TA2 concept will most likely not be used in the TA3 platform and is a separate development, separate abstracts or proposals are more appropriate. The page limit for the abstract is the same regardless of the number of Technical Areas addressed. 24. Some programs that are funded exclusively with 6.1 funding have an indirect cost limitation on the costs that may be bid. There s nothing in the solicitation indicating this will be the case for

10 HR001118S0048, but could you please confirm that there will be no indirect cost limitation (an arbitrary ceiling %, for example) required for the full proposal/resulting contract? a. It is correct that the BAA does not establish an indirect cost/percentage limitation for any of the awards that will result to include those using 6.1 funding, and there is no intent to do so during negotiations (e.g., include such rate caps in any resulting award instruments) Please note: The funding type information in the BAA is to convey DARPA s intent regarding the scope under each TA. However, the funding types available in each TA could be modified by DARPA if it is advantageous to the program. 25. The BAA s Section IV.B.1. Abstract Format indicates: For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.10. The referenced form is the DFARS certification that DFARS indicates is to be provided at time of an offer (i.e., full proposal). Since the white paper is not an offer, is the signed certification actually required in the white paper or is it sufficient/responsive to include a statement concerning anticipated restrictions on deliverables, if any? a. It is sufficient to include a statement concerning anticipated restrictions on data/software deliverables, if any. Completing a formal Data Rights Assertions Certification per DFARs is not necessary. 26. For academic teams, or academic teams partnered with industry and/or research labs, if the vehicles developed jointly trigger CUI (based on autonomy and BAA specs), is it possible for the academic team to develop/use a version of the same vehicle in their own research and outside of CUI restrictions if it is modified such that it does not meet SHRIMP specs? For example, if the vehicle is slightly larger than the 1cm^3 specification or if it is unable to meet some of the TA3 metrics. a. Any team member not willing or able to comply with the CUI guidelines is free to work on components and platforms that do not cross the CUI threshold associated with the SHRIMP program. Specifically modifying a platform that is capable of crossing the CUI threshold so that is below the CUI threshold is prohibited. 27. If a university team produces a tethered (or untethered) platform at scale that serves as a component that an integrator brings together with sensing, intelligence, power, etc., does that trigger CUI on the part of the university? a. Any tethered or untethered platform within the SHRIMP program is subject to the CUI guidelines. 28. The BAA indicates that CUI is triggered when the device is autonomous for power. Is this the case if it does not meet other (e.g., size) requirements? For example, we have an existing platform that is fully autonomous and can perform some of the TA3 tasks, yet is 3X-4X larger than the 1cm^3 requirement. Would this platform be considered CUI, whether used as part of the SHRIMP program or not? a. See the CUI update. The SHRIMP CUI guidelines are only relevant for the SHRIMP program. Prior efforts or other funded research activities are not subject to the SHRIMP CUI guidelines. 29. We currently have platforms that can do some of the TA3 goals and meet or come close to the size, weight, and power specs indicated in the BAA. Some of these have been published so I assume

11 those cannot be CUI. How will past or current work that was done outside of the SHRIMP program be treated with respect to CUI if the same or similar goals/specs/capabilities are met (relative to the goals stated in the BAA)? a. The SHRIMP CUI guidelines are only relevant for the SHRIMP program. Prior efforts or other funded research activities are not subject to the SHRIMP CUI guidelines. 30. Related to the above question: we have a current program with an industry partner that is developing small robots to climb vertical and inverted surfaces. Size goals for that project are nearly identical to what is described in the SHRIMP BAA, including the goal of autonomy. Is it possible that products of that separate sponsored research project could be considered CUI since they would (inadvertently) accomplish some of the SHRIMP goals? a. The SHRIMP CUI guidelines are only relevant for the SHRIMP program. Prior efforts or other funded research activities are not subject to the SHRIMP CUI guidelines. 31. Will performers be given guidance on the rock piling event? e.g., size, shape, and weight of the rocks" a. Final details for all Phase 3 events will be finalized during Phase 1 of the program. 32. Here at <laboratory> (edited for privacy), we are planning to respond to this BAA but due to new contract rules on reimbursable programs, we are not going to get all the required signatures in time to meet the Sept. 26th deadline. I was wondering if we can send you an unofficial copy by the deadline and submit an identical one (in technical content) after all the signatures are obtained. I am told the process takes about 4.5months at best since the start. a. The submission deadline is fixed for all performers regardless of internal process limitations. Complete, official proposals are due on September 26, Are radioisotope battery technologies something you are interested in? a. DARPA is interested in any technology that can meet the program metrics without additional significant disadvantages. 34. We have never submitted through the BAA website that is indicated on this announcement that the abstract must be submitted through. It is telling us that our organization is not registered. Does our Central office need to register our organization or is this just for the PI to fill out indicating his organization he works for? Can you please verify if this is submitted via the PI or is it requested that our central office actually submit this through the system? a. Anyone can fill out the organization field in the BAA website submission form. Its purpose is simply to indicate the lead organization submitting the proposal. 35. What amount do you anticipate a typical TA1 award to be? Alternatively, how many awards for TA1 do you anticipate? How do you anticipate award amounts to be split across the three phases? Equally? Front loaded? Back loaded? a. There is no anticipation of the size or number of TA1 awards other than an anticipation that there will be multiple awards. The split of funding across phases will be approximately equal.

12 36. We plan to submit a white paper to HR001118S0048 for Technical Area 1. In the solicitation Section IV.B.1.II.C refers to Section IV.B.10. Intellectual Property. For the abstract-only phase of proposal submission, do we need to include the table in Section IV.B.10.a? a. For the abstract, it is sufficient to include a statement concerning anticipated restrictions on data/software/deliverables, if any. Completing a formal Data Rights Assertions Certification per DFARs or the table in Section IV.B.10.a is not necessary in the abstract. 37. I m about to submit an abstract and I assume that any references won t count towards the 10 page limit. Correct? a. Correct, the 10 page limit is for items II.A through II.F listed in the BAA. 38. Are there constraints on where we can have chips made? Given that a chip integrating power management and robot control would contain a substantial part of the design information, are there restrictions on the countries or companies that may be used to make the chip? a. No, there are not constraints on where you can have chips made. 39. Eleven months would be a very short cycle time for chip design and fabrication in a multi-project wafer. Are working physical chips expected for phase one testing in February 2020, particularly for technical area TA2 track A Integrated Power Systems? a. Chips are potentially expected if your approach requires them to meet the Phase 1 target specifications. If you can meet the specifications without the chips, they are not required. 40. Regarding performance metric for TA1 Phase II of Work Density > 1 J/cm3, does that mean the actuator should be capable of performing 1J of work per one single stroke?! Or is that the amount of work it can perform over multiple strokes before it fails? Or the work it can perform within a certain timeframe? a. The actuator should be capable of performing one Joule of work per single stroke if its volume is 1 cm3. The work density is what is specified. 41. Is the abstract required in order to submit to the full submission? a. No, submitting an abstract is not required to submit a full proposal. The purpose of the abstract phase is to get feedback from the program manager before writing a full proposal, but it is not required. Full proposals will be due on September 26th. 42. Our team at <FFRDC> (edited for privacy) is exploring the possibility of sub-contracting for <University> (edited for privacy) on SHRIMP (since we could participate in TA 3 as an FFRDC). Would you be open to directly funding <FFRDC> through a military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR) if that Berkeley proposal were selected? a. DARPA cannot provide assistance/information pertaining to teaming issues. As a reminder, guidance regarding FFRDCs and Government Entities (whether serving as prime or subcontractor/team member) can be found in the BAA (starting at page 20). Any assumptions regarding the inclusion of FFRDCs or Government Entities should be provided in the proposal submission along with other documentation/information required by the BAA, such as the Sponsor Letter (FFRDCs). 43. Can the Olympic themed competitions be participated in by foreign institutions?

13 a. For the SHRIMP program, the competition is only open to the program performers. Foreign institutions can participate in the TA1/TA2 combined competitions only if they are selected to be performers on the program. TA3 is not open to foreign institutions. 44. Can you clarify whether the biographies of the Key Personnel being proposed are included in the total pages allowed for Section II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal? a. Yes, biographies are included in the allowed total page count of Section II of Volume 1 of the Technical and Management Proposal. 45. It seems that the deadline for abstract submission has passed already. We checked that the abstract submission is not mandatory, but would it be useful to still submit the abstract? a. No, it would not be useful to still submit the abstract. The program manager has completed the abstract review phase and will not review additional abstracts. Please note that as you said, abstract submission is not mandatory and will not affect the review of any potential full proposal. 46. Reading through the BAA and the Q&A file, I realized that I am not completely sure of what constitutes an Untethered Mobility Platform (CUI). For example, regarding the high jump event, I am assuming that if a non-ambulatory system (i.e., incapable of autonomous or remotely-controlled navigation) is designed to interact with the surrounding air in order to generate lift (flight) so that it follows a single predefined trajectory carrying its own power (untethered), that system would not be considered an Untethered Mobility Platform; and therefore, it would be considered untethered but not subject to CUI regulations. The rationale is that such a system would start at a fixed point and then follow a fixed single trajectory; then by definition it would be incapable of leaving a predefined volume of operation, i.e., it would be constrained in space (not ambulatory) but still be an untethered combination of power and actuator (thus complying with the Phase 3 requirements for combined TA1 and TA2 teams). Am I right? a. Yes, you are correct. One way to think of it is the following: a jumping platform capable of a single unguided jump is what we are looking for in the Phase 3 TA1/TA2 competition. In contrast, a platform capable of several coordinated jumps would cross the CUI threshold. Please see the CUI guide for additional details. 47. As we prepare to submit applications, we would like your advice as to how to proceed. Our options are to apply as subcontractors, to apply directly as prime, or all of the above. Given our small size and first-time working with DARPA, we want to find the most efficient way to deal with contracting and managing the program. Could you offer some insights into DARPA s preference for this? Also, if we were to apply as prime, what would be the likelihood of being able to enter into a more straightforward to manage contract such as an Other Transactions Fixed Price? a. DARPA cannot provide advice about teaming arrangements and does not have a preference. Requested contract/instrument type is to be listed on the Cost Proposal cover page (Volume II, item (10)). The final details of the award instrument (contract, other transaction, etc.) are negotiated after proposal selection (if the proposal has been selected). It is noted that both cost reimbursement type and firm fixed price type award instruments (whether procurement contract or other transaction) can be proposed; however, as indicated in the BAA, the final award instrument type determination is made by the contracting officer during negotiations (for those proposals that have been selected).

14 48. Page 4: "Types of instruments that may be awarded: Procurement contract or other transaction", I wanted to confirm if a Grant or Co-Operative agreement is part of "other transaction"? Page 30: From reading this page it appears we are being requested to reflect a budget in government fiscal year, my institutional (UCB) fiscal year, as well as a calendar year. Can you please confirm if I am reading this correctly or if I can just reflect the budget in government fiscal years. a. Grants and Cooperative agreements are not Other Transactions. Grants and Cooperative agreements are not available in HR001118S0048. As noted in the BAA (starting at page 30), "the proposer shall provide, for both the prime and each subcontractor, a "Summary Cost Breakdown" by phase and performer fiscal year, and a "Detailed Cost Breakdown" by phase, technical task/sub-task, and month. 49. What is the frequency metric requirement for TA1 phases 1 and 2? Is it 20 Hz and 40 Hz respectively? We have read the BAA very carefully, the frequency requirement is unclear to us. One source of confusion is that the schedule of milestone in page 16 mentions the metrics in TA1 metric table, which does not have frequency requirement for TA1 phase 1, and has a frequency requirement <500 khz for TA1 phase 2. A frequency of 1 Hz thus satisfies both metrics listed in the table. From compatibility of the actuators with the power solution TA2 requirements, it seems that it needs to be 20 Hz. This is based on this statement from the proposal: However, to ensure that the frequency of operation is relevant to the power solutions of TA2, actuator frequencies should be able to operate at frequencies greater than 20 Hz. The other relevant information is the metrics table of TA 2 phase lists > 20 Hz and phase 2 lists > 40 Hz. Further, TA1+TA2 phase 3 requirements can be achieved without the need for > 20 Hz frequencies, if one loads an energy storage device at 1 Hz. I believe this is the second source of confusion. Our team now is assuming that one needs to achieve the frequency metrics of TA1 phases 1 and 2, which are 20 Hz and 40 Hz respectively, even if these frequencies are not needed for the Olympics-themed challenges of phase 3. a. Our motivation for suggesting 20 Hz and 40 Hz operation of TA1 actuators is to potentially make them attractive for types of mobility that are projected to be of interest to TA3 performers, such as crawling and flying. While operation at such frequencies would be attractive, as you said, it is not required to meet the metrics in the TA1 table or compete in the TA1/TA2 events. It is understood by DARPA that some forms of movement will not require these frequencies of operation for the actuator.