Ctrl-P to Print
Integrated Micro Primary Atomic Clock Technology (IMPACT)
Questions and Answers
Q: Could you please clarify what is expected in Section III Letter H: “Detail support enhancing that of Section II, including formal teaming agreements which are required to execute this program.”
A: An amendment will be issued no later than COB 28 July 2008 revising the proposal preparation instructions. Please continue to check the FedBizOpps reference or MTO Solicitation page for this amendment.
Q: Section III, Letter I, Cost, Schedule, Milestones appears to be a repeat of section II Letter C, with the same page length {2} and same description. But at the end of the description there is the following statement: “Additionally, proposals should clearly explain the technical approach(es) that will be employed to meet or exceed each program metric and provide ample justification as to why the approach(es) is/are feasible. All Table 1 (and additional) metrics should be described in detail so reviewers can assess risks associated with meeting them.” Does this statement go with this section or is it a general instruction for the entire proposal?
A: An amendment will be issued no later than COB 28 July 2008 revising the proposal preparation instructions. Please continue to check the BAA 08-32 FedBizOpps reference or MTO Solicitation page for this amendment.
Q: Are there any ITAR Restrictions on Phase I or is it all basic research?
A: Export control is solely the performer's responsibility and, as such, it is not proper for DARPA, especially prior to receipt of proposals (not knowing what each proposer has, in fact, proposed), to state what restrictions would or would not apply.
Q: Is it possible to receive some more precise benchmark figures for an academic research project within the framework of DARPA-BAA- 08-32 "Integrated Micro Primary Atomic Clock Technology (IMPACT)"?
A: All of the benchmark requirements are listed in the BAA. Also, presentations from the IMPACT Industry Day are available on the MTO Solicitations page which may also be useful.
Q: Is the phrase “Time Loss” in Table 1 referring to the “Time Error” (i.e. positive and negative values)?
A: Yes, Time Loss does refer to Time Error
Q: The time error figures will be related to Fractional frequency, ADEV, and phase noise figures. Due to the extremely long measurement time (minimum 3 months, ideally 10 months) required to definitively show ADEV for a one month time period. Would a proposal having only measurements over a shorter period and verify compliance by extrapolation be and considered acceptable and meeting all requirements?
A: This is not acceptable. You have to include testing period to show that indeed the clock meets the ADEV at long integration times.
Q: A potential strategy exists for conducting the fractional frequency retrace measurements during a measurement period following a warm up period. Preliminary analysis demonstrates that for phase one, these two periods (warm up and measurement) can be contained within one hour. However for phases two and three, the metrics are such that the accuracy required for the retrace measurements exceeds the one hour stability estimate, resulting from the Q*S/N requirement. A possible path to overcoming this would be to extend the one hour turn-on time to a value necessary to enable accurate characterization against the retrace metric. Is this approach acceptable, or do you have an alternative recommendation for making this measurement?
A: The waiting time of 1-hour before making retrace is acceptable, but justification for why it has to be as long as one hour should be given, and possible strategies to make the period shorter should be elaborated.