Additive Manufacturing for Flexible Electronics

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Questions Added:** - Q1: Clarification that Specification 9's "1 picohenry" likely should be "1 nanohenry" - Q2: Request for target environmental class/mission profile (e.g., ground benign, airborne) to anchor reliability testing per MIL-STD metrics **Questions Renumbered:** Previous Q1-Q5 became Q3-Q7 due to insertions above **No Answer Changes:** All previously answered questions retained identical responses. The accuracy goal (Q7/A7) remains: 0.1% is desirable, but proposers may demonstrate best achievable with their technology.

# Q&A Changes Summary **Answers Added to Previously Unanswered Questions:** - **Q1:** Proposers encouraged to demonstrate as many specifications as feasible; DMEA prioritizes production capability using target processes and system reliability over comprehensive specification coverage. - **Q2:** DMEA weights reliability and production capability most highly; one holistic study addressing multiple goals/specifications recommended over partial studies. - **Q3:** Physical flexibility preferred but not required; rigid, organic, and glass substrates acceptable if objectives met. - **Q4:** Specified RF range 100MHz–450MHz required (100MHz–1GHz desirable); DMEA will provide reference design/data. - **Q5:** Confirmed 0.1% tolerance is a desirable goal; proposers may propose best-achievable accuracy with their technologies, allowing flexibility for capacitors/inductors below 0.1%.

This Q&A clarifies key technical flexibilities for applicants: specifications need not all be demonstrated in a single module, substrate type is negotiable if performance targets are met, and the 0.1% tolerance requirement may be adjusted per component type (resistors vs. capacitors/inductors) based on physics constraints.

New opportunity: Additive Manufacturing for Flexible Electronics