REQUEST FOR INFORMATION NASA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST GAME CHANGING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION GAME CHANGING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM | Apply Online

FAQs: NASA Game Changing Development Program (GCDP) RFI (NNH10UA007L)

1) What is this opportunity?

This notice is a NASA Headquarters Request for Information (RFI) connected to the planned launch of the Game Changing Development Program (GCDP) under the Office of the Chief Technologist Space Technology Program (planned for fiscal year 2011). It is an information-gathering effort to help NASA shape a future solicitation and design a high risk, high payoff technology portfolio.

2) Is NASA awarding funding through this RFI?

No. This RFI is not a request for proposals, bids, or quotations, and it is not intended to award funding immediately. It is strictly for planning and program design purposes.

3) What is NASA trying to accomplish with GCDP?

The stated goal is to mature early stage, high impact aerospace technology concepts and build a program portfolio focused on technologies that can substantially change how missions are done or dramatically reduce the cost of meeting mission objectives.

4) What kinds of ideas is NASA looking for?

NASA is looking for "game changing" technologies that plausibly enable a new system paradigm, unlock missions that would not be feasible with conventional approaches, or improve performance so radically that it changes what an established system can do.

5) Are incremental improvements to existing systems eligible?

No. Incremental performance improvements are explicitly described as out of scope. The intent is revolutionary change rather than step-by-step upgrades.

6) What Technology Readiness Level (TRL) range is targeted?

The program goal described is to mature concepts from roughly TRL 2 or 3 up to TRL 4, generally within about two years.

7) Can projects go beyond TRL 4?

Potentially. NASA notes the possibility of adding a third year if reaching TRL 5 or 6 is realistic and justified (for a demonstration appropriate to that maturity level).

8) How bold can a submission be, and what does NASA consider too speculative?

NASA is open to significant technical risk, but still expects ideas to be grounded in credible science and engineering, to have already demonstrated basic feasibility, and not to rely on speculative discoveries that are unlikely within a five year horizon. The concept can be ambitious, but it needs a believable path to TRL 4 in about two years.

9) What information is NASA requesting in this RFI?

NASA requests information in two categories: (1) candidate technologies that could be developed under GCDP, and (2) feedback on the processes NASA plans to use to evaluate, select, and mature technologies.

10) Why is NASA collecting candidate technology ideas now?

NASA states these responses will help it understand what is technically plausible, set the right scope for future calls, identify sensible evaluation criteria, and select appropriate subject matter experts (SMEs) to review future submissions.

11) What is the purpose of process feedback submissions?

NASA is seeking feedback to improve fairness, reduce conflicts of interest, and increase the likelihood that the highest impact ideas move forward effectively from concept to demonstration.

12) What is NASA's planned pipeline from idea to development?

NASA describes an initial solicitation anticipated to fund concept studies. The main deliverable would be a summary concept paper that NASA plans to release publicly. A peer panel of SMEs would review the concept papers, and promising concepts may be used to form the basis of future technology development projects.

13) Will concept study deliverables be made public?

Yes, NASA indicates the main deliverable from concept studies is a summary concept paper that it plans to release publicly.

14) What if my concept study includes proprietary or restricted details?

NASA instructs submitters to separate proprietary or restricted information into a distinct volume so the main summary can still be shared publicly.

15) Are concept study products meant to be proposals for immediate follow-on funding?

No. NASA states these products are not meant to be proposals for immediate follow-on funding. They are intended as quantitative assessments of what could be achieved in the near term and what it would take to achieve it, rather than advocacy for a single preferred solution.

16) Who reviews the concept papers?

NASA describes review by a peer panel of subject matter experts (SMEs).

17) Can ideas outside the concept studies influence future development projects?

Yes. NASA notes that promising concepts may come from concept studies or other sources such as internal research, conversations, or unsolicited ideas, and these may inform future technology development projects.

18) How will development projects be managed if they proceed?

NASA expects a project manager to be assigned to define and lead the effort, run follow-on solicitations, and manage performers, supported by a team of SMEs.

19) What is the expected oversight style for development efforts?

The program emphasizes speed and learning through frequent, informal reviews rather than heavy, slow oversight.

20) Does NASA expect some projects to fail?

Yes. NASA explicitly anticipates that failure is expected given the high risk nature of the program, and estimates roughly 30 to 40 percent of funded efforts may not deliver expected benefits and could be terminated early.

21) What is the planning horizon for systems considered in concept studies?

NASA indicates concept studies should focus on systems that could realistically be ready for full-scale development within about five to ten years.

22) Who is eligible to participate?

Participation is broadly open. NASA encourages responses from NASA Centers, universities, university-affiliated research centers, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), private or public companies, and government laboratories. Team leads are allowed from any of these sectors.

23) Is NASA looking for both large and small efforts?

Yes. NASA states the portfolio is intended to include both large and small efforts.

24) How often does NASA expect to solicit new ideas?

NASA expects to solicit new ideas at least semiannually, while leaving room to pursue compelling opportunities as they emerge.

25) What funding levels are described for later phases?

Although not part of this RFI, NASA describes typical later-phase funding levels of about $300,000 to $500,000 for concept studies and roughly $3 million to $12 million per year for technology development projects, usually for two years (and sometimes three if a TRL 5/6 demonstration is appropriate).

26) Will NASA reimburse the cost of preparing an RFI response?

No. NASA states it will not reimburse any costs incurred to respond to this RFI.

27) Does submitting an RFI response obligate NASA to take action?

No. Submitting does not obligate NASA to take further action beyond protecting properly marked proprietary or trade secret information.

28) Can NASA contact respondents after submission?

Yes. NASA may contact respondents for clarification.

29) Will NASA accept classified submissions?

No. NASA states it will not consider classified submissions.

30) Are oral submissions allowed?

No. NASA states it will not accept oral submissions.

31) Will NASA release individual RFI responses?

No. NASA states it will not release individual RFI responses or proprietary details identified as such.

32) How does NASA plan to manage conflicts of interest for reviewers?

NASA indicates that SMEs who review proprietary submissions may be excluded from later activities that would create a conflict with respondents.

33) What are the formatting limits for RFI responses?

Responses must be no more than two pages per individual item, in 12-point font, and submitted as a .doc or .pdf file.

34) What should be included in a technical (candidate technology) response?

Technical responses should include: a summary of the technology and its mission or system use case, a comparison against current practice explaining why the improvement is truly radical (performance and/or cost), and a discussion of major risks plus how a development effort would retire those risks.

35) What should be included in a process feedback response?

Process responses should: identify the specific part of NASA's planned GCDP process being addressed, provide a comment, and propose an improvement.

36) When were responses due?

Responses were due by midnight on September 12, 2010.

37) How were responses submitted and what subject marking was requested?

Responses were submitted via email to hq.gcdrfi.2010@mail.nasa.gov with the marking "RFI, Game Changing Technology Development."

38) What is the opportunity number and posting date?

The opportunity number is NNH10UA007L, and it was posted August 24, 2010.

39) Who is the point of contact listed for this RFI?

The listing provides the point of contact as Jean Francois M. Barthelemy, Acting Game Changing Development Program Manager.