Questions & Answers – ATRQ

Q1. Where can I locate the Concept Tool for the project call?

A1. Under Available Resources located at the bottom of the project call page https://www.americamakes.us/project-call-atrq/

Q2. The concept tool asks for relevance to a USAF potential customers or organizations in 2.2 and 2.3.  Shouldn’t it be revised for this DoD wide project call to reflect relevance to other than USAF problems or organizations?

A2. Yes, and updated concept paper has been uploaded to the website. As long as the questions are filled out correctly, the review team will understand it is for DoD and not just the USAF.

Q3. Are there any restrictions against non-U.S. citizens participating in the project?

A3. No

Q4. Where will we have access to Industry Day (Live Recording)? Do you have a URl link to share? 

A4. The Live Industry Day recording can be found under Available Resources located at the bottom of the project call page https://www.americamakes.us/project-call-atrq/

Q5. If we ask a question about the call, will the question and answers be open to public? 

A5. Yes. As an unbiased convener for the project call, all questions asked regarding the project call will be released via the ATRQ Q&A form.

Q6. If the questions and answers are open to public, where can we access those asked by others? 

A6. The questions and answers can be found under Available Resources located at the bottom of the project call page https://www.americamakes.us/project-call-atrq/

Q7. Could you please clarify what organizations qualify as a “DoD organization” for partnering on slide 3 of 14?  Does this refer to OEMs doing business with the DoD or research organizations such as ONR or engineering directorates such as NavSea? 

A7. It can be contractors or agencies such as NavSea. (See answer 10 for response during live industry day.)

Q8. The RFP states defects in Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) and throughout the RFP it talks about Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) Additive Manufacturing, just to be sure it’s only LPBF and not E-Beam as well?

A8. That is correct, only Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF)

Q9. The RFP strongly encourages teaming with DoD agencies, but I didn’t see anything in the RFP regarding using federal funds as cost share. Can federal funding be used as cost share.

A9. No, federal funding cannot be used as cost share.

Q10. The RFP strongly encourages teaming with DOD agencies, are you speaking of organizations like DoD contractors or organizations like AFRL or AFOSR? Do you mean federal agencies, contractors or both?

A10. Certainly, contractors will have some understanding of the organizations they are working with or directly with user organizations. The closer you can get to the people who are going to take the product of your research and put it into practice to help them qualify a part or understand the risk analysis or use a polymer part for Topic 2, the more highly valued that teaming or support letter is going to be.

Q11. On Topic 1 is the intent of the government to have these defects flaws be put into parts from say a typical LPBF production type system such as an EOS or something similar  or would systems that are either open source or more research and development system with more system flexibility be acceptable hardware to use?

A11. Certainly, production level system is great, we are open to any method that will give us representative results that we can confidently say the method processing shown can also be applied and start to go to production; that’s where the rubber meets the road and accelerates the qualification.

Q12. Is there any intelligence about where some of the major “uses” are that are fielded already and some of the experiences associated with how durable or not durable those instances have become from the people who have produced those parts?

A12. There are some public examples, probably most relevant for Topic 2. The relationships with potential team members are going to have more examples and we expect them to have some insight into what others needs are that may not be as widely known.

Q13. For Topic 1 and Topic 2, is there going to be preferences or more interest in testing like part family geometry’s more so than just a coupon type test?

A13. Topic 1 – The focus of this topic is to repeatably generate and characterize representative defects. Respondents should carefully consider whether targeting part family geometries add value to this specific goal of the program when weighed against the potentially complicating factor of printing a more complex geometry.

Topic 2 – The requirements for this topic lend itself more to testing service condition of relevant geometries. Certainly there can also be coupon based testing that informs those geometries that are already being fielded by the Services.

In general, we’d prefer not to foreclose potential ideas and would look to the proposing teams to justify why their approach adds value toward addressing the identified requirements.

Menu