PHMSA RFP 693JK325R0002 Questions and Responses Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- PHMSA's Risk Assessment for HAZMAT Packages in an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Environment
- Solicitation number
- 693JK325R0002
About this file
This document is a Questions and Responses file for PHMSA Solicitation 693JK325R0002, addressing a contract to evaluate hazardous materials (HAZMAT) package safety in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) environments. The contract is anticipated to be a fixed-price solicitation seeking a contractor to assess dangerous goods packaging requirements for UAS delivery, with tasks including landscape analysis, package delivery operations review, testing of package performance under various drop conditions, and evaluating potential thermal runaway risks during UAS accidents.
Key details include a flexible approach allowing various research methodologies, with testing potentially involving 324 tests across hazard classes, goods states, and battery types. The solicitation is open to small businesses, academic institutions, and other qualified entities, with no specific budget ceiling. Contractors will be expected to evaluate HAZMAT package performance at different drop heights, consider packaging types compliant with 49 CFR Part 173, and assess potential UAS delivery capabilities up to 5 years in the future. Subcontracting is permitted up to 50% of the total contract value, and contractors may use government labs as subcontractors. The work will focus on UAS operations up to 400 feet above ground level, examining safety standards and risk mitigation strategies for HAZMAT package transportation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment D - Terms and Conditions (Provisions).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment C - Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment A - Notice Conerning Request For Proposal (RFP).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment B - UAS Risk Assessment Work Statement Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| SF-18.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Response | ||
| 1. | The T&Cs indicate an IT Security Plan would be due 30 days after contract award, however it is not listed in the Deliverable Table of PWS. Should it be added to the Deliverable table or deleted from T&Cs? | ||
| o | If the IT Security Plan is required (e.g., need to connect to DOT network), is there an associated Data Item Description (DID) to be imposed? | ||
| o | If an IT Security Plan is required, would CMMC Level 2 be acceptable equivalence? | Yes, the IT Security Plan should be added as a deliverable. Yes, the Data Item Description will be imposed. Yes CMMC Level 2 is acceptable. | |
| T&Cs: Is there a DID or format expectation for the Subcontracting Plan? | No there isn’t. | ||
| 3. | There seems to be conflicting references to the location of this contracted work. The PWS indicates the contracted work shall be performed at the location of the contractor. The T&Cs indicate that the government will provide “hotel” space to be occupied by contractor staff Monday through Friday. Please confirm the location/expectation to performance of this work. | The work shall be performed at the location of the contractor, however, if there is a need for the contractor to come into DOT headquarters, there is “hotel” space in the building designated for the contractor to sit. | |
| T&Cs: Does the government intend to provide laptops as described in Section F.1 DOT Resources, Computing Assets, and other areas of the signable T&Cs? Or will company issued laptops be acceptable? | The Government will provide laptops if needed, specifically if the contractor will be accessing the DOT network. | ||
| 5. | PWS: Is the contractor expected to evaluate all nine hazard classes or are some classes, like explosives, not under consideration? | No, we recognize that there will be some hazardous classes that still won't be allowed to be shipped via air, (i.e., class 1) | |
| PWS: Should the contractor evaluate hazmat that is not permitted on cargo aircraft? | No, we recognize that there will be some hazardous classes that still won't be allowed to be shipped via air, testing or evaluating those hazmats wont be necessary. During Task 2, Landscape Analysis, the contractor may assess what HAZMAT are likely to be transported via UAS. | ||
| PWS: FAA regulations at 14CFR § 107.36 prohibit the carriage of hazmat by sUAS. How does PHMSA anticipate the contractor conducting drop tests of hazmat with sUAS in compliance with FAA regulations. | Although 14 CFR 107.36 prohibits sUAS from carrying hazardous materials, PHMSA anticipates that contractors may use non-aircraft methods, such as cranes or elevated platforms, to conduct the tests. As outlined in Section 5.5 of the PWS, surrogate materials may be used in place of actual hazardous materials, allowing testing to meet objectives without violating FAA regulations or requiring an exemption. | ||
| PWS: Should the contractor anticipate that sUAS will be able to carry heavier payloads in the future? If so, how far into the future? | The contractor may assess potential for a range of payload weights and volumes in Task 2 - UAS landscape review. The landscape review should consider current delivery schemes and up to 5 years of future technology development as possible. Last-mile delivery needs are expected to drive future payload requirements, with capacities potentially approaching 110 pounds over the next five years. | ||
| The RFP states that the “The proposed hourly rates must not be higher than those in accordance with the Department of Labor Statistics rates.” Can you provide a reference to the DOL rates? | https://www.bls.gov and you can search by labor category. | ||
| 10. | The RFP states that the “The proposed hourly rates must not be higher than those in accordance with the Department of Labor Statistics rates.” We assume that this refers to pay rates. Please confirm. | Yes, it does. | |
| 11. | Please confirm that the use of “off-site” rates means the contractor site rates. | Yes, it does. | |
| The pricing template calculates the total contractor cost. Is it anticipated that the resulting contract is a cost type contract? | It is anticipated that this will be a fixed price contract. | ||
| Neither the pricing template nor the RFQ mentions the costs of materials to perform this work. Will the materials/ODCs be priced separately? Or should we add the materials cost to the template? | Yes, add materials to the cost template and any other costs to perform the work. | ||
| Neither the pricing template nor the RFQ mentions the costs of travel to perform this work. Will the travel be priced separately? Or should we add the travel cost to the template? | Yes, if travel is nesscary to complete or perform the work, add travel to the cost template. | ||
| Should the option taskings be a separate cost spreadsheet or should it be combined with the base tasking costs? | Option tasks should be separated from the base tasking costs, but do include the subtotals and total amounts for the entire effort. | ||
| Should the contractor make recommendations on which hazardous materials should be authorized to be transported by UAS based on a risk-based approach? | Yes | ||
| PWS: The project description addresses several package delivery methods. Does PHMSA or FAA have data or information on which methods have been used and any that have been approved by FAA. | The FAA does have information on which package delivery methods are currently being used and have been approved by operators. However, this information is publicly available. As noted in Section 2 (Introduction) of the PWS, examples of commonly used delivery methods include: lowered via tether, parachute deployments, free-fall drops, and landing with the UAS. | ||
| PWS: Does PHMSA and FAA intend to consider authorization to transport hazmat via UAS through special permits until experience can be gained? We envision that specific hazmats would be more likely to be authorized than others, | This question falls outside of the parameters of the objectives of the RFP. | ||
| PWS: Is PHMSA or FAA aware of UAS vehicles powered by other than lithium batteries? We have knowledge of a company using hydrogen fuel. | PHMSA recognizes there may be other power sources for UAS outside of lithium-ion batteries. Power sources may be addressed in Task 2, UAS landscape review. | ||
| PWS: Should the contractor evaluate transporting hazmat with UAS larger than what the FAA classifies as small UAS (sUAS) at 14 CFR Part 107? | Yes, the contractor should evaluate transporting hazardous materials with UAS larger than those defined under 14 CFR Part 107. Although UAS size is relevant, especially as technology evolves, the focus should remain on packaging. Robust and reliable packaging is critical to ensure safe transport and delivery of hazardous materials, particularly in last-mile operations, where the UAS delivers directory to the end user rather than between controlled facilities. | ||
| The NAICS code classification for offerors is noted as “336413 - Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing.” Can US companies with different NAICS codes (but meeting the eligibility requirements / technical and organizational qualifications) bid for this opportunity? | Yes they can | ||
| Is there an established total budget ceiling for the duration of project or per year of performance? | No there isn’t. | ||
| Are there limits on minimum or maximum amounts of work / budget that can be subcontracted to qualified small businesses and US universities? | There is no minimum, however, the maximum amount of work/budget for subcontracting is 50% per FAR 52.219-14. | ||
| The RFP specifies drop heights but not speeds. Are there drop speed ranges of interest, or do you expect the awardee to determine this? | Awardees will be expected to measure/determine drop speeds. | ||
| Are all the tasks of project restricted to US persons? | No, however, entities (i.e. subcontractors) must be eligible to do work with the Government and have an active registration in SAM.gov | ||
| Can we add more categories to the pricing table (e.g., testing, travel)? | Yes | ||
| The team at Wichita State University has a lot of experience developing and using numerical models to support and streamline research programs. Based on the large test matrix required to satisfy this research, the team would like to know if it would be possible to propose a hybrid approach of testing + high-fidelity numerical analysis to answer some of the research questions posted on this RFP | The government is open to all different approaches that would answer the objectives of the solicitation, including any approaches that reduce testing volume while maintaining robustness of test data. | ||
| Specific for Task #5 |
Is there any requirement regarding the type of impact surface? Should more than one type be considered?
Assuming weight and size allow for it, would it be possible to drop multiple packages at the same time?
The proposal talks about different hazardous goods and different states. If we consider 3 hazard classes (flammable, toxic, and corrosive) and 3 different states (gas, liquid, and solid) for the different goods being delivered, the test matrix will be very large, including the statistical requirement from the RFP.
It is the intent of the research to conduct this large amount of testing (3 hazzard classes x 9 heights x 3 goods state x 3 repetitions = 243 tests).
In addition, the proposal also calls to look into different types of lithium batteries for different products, so if we consider the three items described in the proposal, this will be an additional (9 heights x 3 types of products with lithium batteries x 3 repetitions = 81 tests).
This will result in a total of 324 tests for just one UAS flying condition.Is there any requirement regarding the size/weight of the packages to be considered?
| Packages that meet 49 CFR Part 173 come in a lot of different varieties. Is there interest in evaluating different packaging “types/methods” that are CFR Part 173 compliant, or should the focus be on just one unique packaging “type/method”? | The Performance Work Statement does not prescribe impact surface types; the offeror may consider multiple impact surface types. At this time, dropping multiple packages simultaneously is not within the scope of the requirement. The Performance Work Statement specifies a minimum of 4 drop heights. The offeror is welcome to make a case for additional drop heights with an accompanying technical justification. The test matrix will be informed by Task 4, UAS Package Delivery Operations Flight Conditions Analysis. There are no prescribed size/weight requirements for packages to be considered; however, the offeror must consider the limitations of the UAS as well as results from Tasks 2 and 3. The offeror should consider a variety of packaging types; there is no one unique packaging type/method that should be focused on. | |
| 29. | Specific for Optional Task |
Is the intent to crash several UAS and determine the probability of thermal runaway depending on the heights and impact conditions?
Is there an expected number of impact conditions that would like to be evaluated? Are they the same heights as for Task #5?
Would it be possible to test just the batteries of the UAS to reduce costs?
| The intent of this task is to explore the risks from an accident (impact/mechanical or electrical from a short-circuit). There are no prescribed requirements on the number of impact conditions for this task. Testing solely the batteries of the UAS would not meet the requirement of this task. However, to reduce costs, it would be acceptable to test batteries independently using controlled methods that simulate crash forces, only if the approach reflects credible impact scenarios and supports valid risk analysis. | |
| Can you provide any more context about this PHMSA contract opportunity. Who is leading this (looks like Stephen Jones?) and what are you guys looking for? We want to pass this on to CDA and provide some more context. | This contract opportunity looks to evaluate the safety performance of existing dangerous goods packaging requirements in an unmanned aerial systems environment. Further background and details on tasks are available in Attachment B. |
| 1) Can a small business like Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM) apply or is it geared towards academia or larger companies? |
2) Is there any limitation on the budget per year or the total budget?
3) Can the contractor use a government lab as a subcontractor? 1. Small businesses are eligible to apply.
2. It is anticipated that this will be a firm-fixed price contract. The proposal should justify costs based on the methods and requirements. 3. Yes
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .