SBIR_FY_18_Industry_Questions_and_Government_Responses.pdf

FY 18 DHS SBIR

Questions from Industry and Government Responses

Question Number

Topic Number Industry Question (S&T) Government Response

1 General

On page 7 of the solicitation it says "Final page of the Technical Proposal shall contain the SBA Registration and no other content". Does this mean we need to scan the SBA registration and add it to the end of the pdf file for the technical proposal? So the file will have 19 pages of our writing, plus one page for the SBA registration?

The technical proposal will have 19 pages of technical writing, plus one page for only the SBA registration to total 20 pages.

2 General Can/Should the technical proposal include letters of support and/or collaboration?

The inclusion of letters of support etc. is at your discretion.

Please note that these letters will count against your technical page limit of 20 pages.

3 General

The Cover Sheet and Cost Proposal do NOT count toward the 20 page limit for the Technical Proposal (and therefore the technical proposal should be numbered starting with page 1, rather than page 3).

The System Generated Cover Sheet and the System Generated cost Proposal are not counted toward the 20 page limit for the technical proposal.

4 General

The SBA Registration DOES count toward the 20 page limit for the Technical Proposal (and therefore all other technical proposal content should end on page 19, rather than page 20).

See response to Question 1

5 General

We are small company of 23 employees mostly research scientist, Chemist and electronic/mechanical engineers. So we do qualify as a small business entity.

Can we submit the proposal to your attention? Please advise.

The DHS SBIR portal is open and is ready to receive submissions

The submission procedures have been outlined in the DHS SBIR FY 18 Solicitation Document.

Please be sure to read the instructions and follow them correctly.

For complete details, please visit FBO.gov, via the links below.

Solicitation External Reference:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS- OCPO/70RSAT18R0000010/listing.html Solicitation External Reference To Packages:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS-OCPO/70RSAT18R0000010/listing.html https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS-OCPO/70RSAT18R0000010/listing.html https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS- OCPO/70RSAT18R0000010/packages.html

6 H-SB018.1-001

Could DHS labs or designated potential partner help with testing airborne Fentanyl sensors that we intend to develop under this SBIR proposal solicitation?

It would be up to the offeror to make those arrangements and we would expect to see documentation of those arrangements in any submission to the SBIR topic.

7 H-SB018.1-006

1. Is a visualization interface required, and would new research into gesture-based (or other) data visualization methods be within scope?

2. Similarly, does the topic require new research into CT segmentation methods?

3. Will performers be required to generate their own data, or will a dataset be provided

DHS is interested in any approach to improve visualization of threats in CT images.

DHS is seeking approaches to improve operator threat recognition and decrease processing time. Proposals should be related to improving the human-systems interface, not simply improving threat discrimination (which in turn could improve operator performance).

DHS will be providing a set of Computed Tomography images during Phase I.

8 H-SB018.1-008

1. Would we have to develop an entire end-to-end application that is able to meet each goal? I'm curious what the scope of work looks like.

2. What kind of data will be made available? Several thousand examples are required to train an algorithm to detect vulnerabilities, malware, etc.

No. You do not have to meet an end to end application to meet each goal. The solution should be holistic enough to meet the stated goals. This could be through partnerships or accounting for other solutions that are necessary to complete the stated goals. Also, inclusion of 3rd party resources is allowed to be incorporated in your approach.

Data sets will not be provided. However, you may propose the various firmware and technologies of interest in the area of mobile and IoT. The end selection may vary based on customer inputs and feedback before/after the project kicks off.

9 H-SB018.1-002

1. Is DHS interested in collaborative Search and Rescue, meaning the use of TDOA with multiple receivers, or are you interested in possibly a single SAR receiver locating the distressed cell signal location? Or the possibility of either option?

2. Can we assume GPS for time synchronization and position for each SAR unit (assuming collaboration)?

DHS is seeking innovative solutions that could benefit the search and rescue community. We encourage anything that could be beneficial in support of this SBIR request. GPS is only one of several GNSS capability as there are other alternative means of time synchronization.

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS-OCPO/70RSAT18R0000010/packages.html https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS-OCPO/70RSAT18R0000010/packages.html

3. What is considered too expensive?

4. Would it be acceptable if we demonstrated technology in Phase I using a system that does far more than what you want and then show what we need to trim from the system to get it closer to your expected cost and performance?

It is difficult to elaborate on price point until capabilities have been determined. What is considered as too expensive is relative and look forward to your proposed solution.

Demonstration of a technical capability is up to the performer and to make any trade-offs based on the innovative capability. We are seeking innovative solutions to assist first responder agencies to better meet their search and rescue missions.

10 H-SB018.1-003

1. The solicitation is title "Device to Detect...", with the key word being "detect," and the general description and the Phase I description appears to be consistent with that reading. However, for the Phase II description the concepts of direction of the interference and location of interference are introduced by "Provide directional/bearing visual cues as to location and signal strength of the interference source." Can you please clarify this requirement? Is the direction/location to be determined by a single sensor and/or multiple sensors working together (possibly with post-processing)?

2. The general description asks for the device to support the 700/800 MHz band and the Phase I description asks for a design/feasibility study.

However, the Phase II description asks to "Expand coverage to detect interference on other spectrum used by public safety, such as VHF, UHF, band 14 LTE, cellular and GPS." It seems that we should be designing the device for this extended coverage from the get-go.

Otherwise, we may need to throw out our Phase I design. Can you please clarify?

The performers are required to define the state of the possible given the requested form factor of the device, cost and the end users (i.e., first responders). As there are always trade-offs that must take place. Please offer the best solution that would meet objectives whether it is single sensor or multiple sensor. Ideally, rough estimation of bearing or distance in near real time (with refinement with post processing) is preferable.

Focus of Phase I effort was to target public safety radio bands in the 700/800. The expectation is that design planning stages of Phase I should account for the other bands in Phase II.

11 H-SB018.1-004

1. Would a solution that does not modify the actual non-PNT emitter signal, but that augments/modifies the received non-PNT signal at another location and re-broadcasts it be responsive to the solicitation?

A proposal, that augments/modifies a received non-PNT signal at another location and re-broadcasts it, would not be immediately considered non-responsive.

The solicitation refers to "The solution may include augmenting the data content of the transmission, augmenting the modulation, coding, or other baseband features of the transmission, or augmenting the RF waveform directly." One perspective would be that the emitter itself has to be modified to be responsive.

However, another reading would allow one to modify a received copy of the signal.

I would prefer not to respond if the solution I'm thinking of is immediately going to be thrown out for being non-responsive.

Having a device that listens to non-PNT transmissions and rebroadcast those transmissions with additional information, possibly on another frequency, would not degrade the performance of legacy systems that rely on those non-PNT emissions in any way. However, those rebroadcast/augmented signals can be used by PNT systems that are capable of turning the direct and in-direct signals into differential measurements. The advantage, of course, is that existing infrastructure does not need to be modified in any way.

2. Assuming the above concept is responsive, can the PNT system make use of two-way comm with the rebroadcasting device just mentioned above? Or should the PNT systems remain passive (like GPS receivers)?

A successful proposal would discuss the cost-performance trade space of the solution (i.e., a justification of why certain design choices were made). This trade space would include resulting device form factors, cost to deploy a system, cost to manufacture and integrate receivers into systems/devices, performance in various environments, etc.

12 H-SB018.1-003

Question 1: The solicitation mentions a size constraint, a weigh constraint, and a battery power requirement for the interference detection solution. Is there a device run-time requirement (period between battery charges or replacement) as well?

Question 2: The solicitation outlines a number of desirable features for the interference detection

The requirement for device run time was not specified at the time of the posting because an assumption was made that charging was possible from a vehicle power source. However, we encourage responders to specify device run time and period between battery charges.

At this point we cannot specify a production volume.

solution, as well as a per unit production price target of under $500. In order to propose an appropriate technical solution that still meets the target budget, can DHS provide any insight regarding the projected volume they're associating with this price point?

Question 3: There are a number of more advanced denial of service attacks that involve protocol-level jamming or spoofing rather than RF signal blocking/interference. Is it desirable to have the proposed interference detection solution be capable of supporting this class of attack in addition to the interference detection modes described in the proposal?

We are looking for innovation.

Adding the capability to address more advanced electronic threats would certainly be desirable, provided that the proposal still meets all other topic requirements.

13 H-SB018.1-008

Are there any suggested data sets that are available for using as test sets for evaluating the algorithms? If the data sets have existing firmware analysis results it can be extremely useful.

When solving the core problem, the resulting product could be tweaked for other purposes that will have commercial viability. If we propose alternative applications that have a higher commercialization potential, should those be described. And if so, can we add this as appendices that are in addition to the Technical proposal?

We do not recommend or have any data sets available at this time to provide. It is the proposer’s responsibility to determine applicable resources or data sets. Given the breadth of applicable technology in mobile and IoT, the data sets may widely vary.

Yes. Commercial viability for other applications is always great to include. Beyond the R&D we do for the government, the solution should have a viable path to commercialization and sustainment. You may add appendices to the Technical Proposal, however, the page count for the technical proposal and overall proposal is still limited and must be adhered to.

14 General

Section 3.1 of the solicitation (p.6) includes a table that specifies the length of the Phase I Technical Volume, to be uploaded as a PDF file, is limited to 20 pages. The table also states that “Final page of the Technical Proposal shall contain the SBA Registration and no other content”.

Question: Does the SBA registration page count toward the 20 page limit?

See response to Question 1.

15 General

1. Is there any specific paperwork that must be submitted with the Phase I proposal, such as a letter or statement of work?

2. Is it true that up to 34% of the Phase I contract value and up to 50% of the Phase II contract value can be allowed for subcontractors?

3. Are there any limitations on subcontractors that are individual consultants (as opposed to organizations)?

1.Please review the solicitation document carefully, all mandatory elements are contained therein.

2.See Section 5.8 Research and Analytical of the Solicitation

3.See Section 3.3 Technical Proposal Format and Content

16 H-SB018.1-002

Based on our understanding, in order to be able to calculate the angle-of-arrival, the system would have to be above the ground level. In the case of a ship, it could be attached to a mast.

On the other hand, in order to operate in remote wooded regions, the system would have to be airborne. In this scenario, there are at least 2 possibilities: a helicopter, or a UAV. Furthermore, the choice of platform would dictate SWaP constraints, as well as processing constraints.

Could you please let us know what is host platform for the proposed system? In addition, are our assumptions correct?

For the US Coast Guard, it can be any number of shore units, small patrol boats to larger cutters. In addition airborne platforms include helicopters, C-27,C-130 and C-144 aircraft and small UAS. In addition, if expanding to other first responder agencies, there are fire apparatus and law enforcement vehicles. We are seeking innovative solutions to better meet search and rescue missions and the capability could potentially be platform agnostic.

17 H-SB018.1-007

We were interested in responding to the SBIR TOPIC NUMBER: H-SB018.1-007 but it states that the Topic is “RESERVED.” We are new to this process and are not sure what that means. Can you please let us know so that we understand if we need to work on a response this week?

SBIR TOPIC NUMBER: H-SB018.1-007 has been reserved.

The Department of Homeland Security is not accepting proposals under this topic.

18 H-SB018.1-007

1. What is the main driver behind the DHS wanting to look into a more resilient e-voting system?

SBIR TOPIC NUMBER: H-SB018.1-007 has been reserved.

The Department of Homeland Security is not accepting proposals under this topic.

2. Does the DHS have people on the project that are familiar with the EAC VVSG voting requirements and will this voting system need to comply with those requirements? If so, what version, v 1.1 or v2.0?

3. Does DHS have any jurisdictions lined up that are interested in working with us (or whatever vendor is chosen)?

4. How will specific state/county election laws be incorporated into this project or will this focus on UOCAVA (military and overseas voting)?

5. Since this is our first SBIR bid, what is the process / next steps at this point?

19 General

We have a couple of letter of supports to be included in the proposal.

Can you please advice where and how we should include it and whether it will count towards the 20 page limit of the proposal?

Letters of support may be included in the technical proposal if you choose to do so. Please note- the letters of support will count towards the 20 page limit for the Technical Proposal.

Question Number

Topic Number Industry Question Government Response

1 H-SB018.1-009 Estimated weight and price budget per unit?

The solicitation topic does not specify an estimated weight or price per unit.

2 H-SB018.1-009

Search pattern optimization is to minimize time (finite horizon problem) or energy for battery consumption or other task-based optimization?

The search pattern should minimize the time required to inspect the aircraft.

3 H-SB018.1-009

What would be the desired accuracy threshold (as a function of the separation distance between the robot and aircraft) for detection and localization of the radiological source?

The focus of the topic is to develop a system capable of performing an automated screening of general aviation aircraft.

The topic specifies the use commercially-available radiation detection equipment that can be integrated with a commercially-available ground-based robotic platform. Detection thresholds are not specified and instead will be based on the detection equipment chosen, which in turn will be based on the size/load capabilities of the ground-based robotic platform.

4 H-SB018.1-009

What is the safe distance the robot should maintain between the aircraft and itself?

The robot should be capable of avoiding the aircraft (e.g. landing gear) and be of sufficient height to traverse under a stationary general aviation aircraft on the airport apron without touching.

5 H-SB018.1-009

Is there a maximum time constraint for a single inspection?

There is no maximum inspection time specified. However, please note that the goal of the optimized search pattern is to minimize the time required to inspect the aircraft.

6 H-SB018.1-009

Can you provide additional requirements for primary and secondary screening?

Primary screening should detect and localize radiation anomalies in the general aviation aircraft. Secondary screening should identify the radioactive isotope(s).

7 H-SB018.1-009

Can we assume ADS-B Out is mandated in all general aviation by the time of Phase 3?

Yes following 14 CFR § 91.225, ADS-B Out can be assumed to be mandated by the time of Phase 3. However, please note that the aircraft to be inspected will be stationary on the airport apron.

8 H-SB018.1-009

Is the concept strictly restricted to ground-based robots? Can it be a ground-aerial multi-agent robot?

The topic is limited to ground-based robots.

9 H-SB018.1-009

What kind of airport (national, regional, local, basic etc.) is the concern?

The type of airport is not specified. The purpose of the topic is to develop a robotic system capable of performing an automated and optimal primary and secondary screening of general aviation aircraft while they are stationary on the airport apron.

10 H-SB018.1-009

Subjected aircraft is in the apron at a full stop during screening?

Yes, the aircraft will be at a full stop on the apron.

11 H-SB018.1-009

Screening in low light (night) is required or desirable?

The robotic system should be capable of performing an automated and optimal primary and secondary screening of general aviation aircraft in all light conditions ranging from day to night conditions.

12 H-SB018.1-009

The current solicitation does not reference the types of radiation exposed. Sensors of this nature often have specialized isotopes that are isolated in the crystal array (assuming sophisticated sensor) Is there an envisioned spectrum or is it desired for general gamma and neutron counts? As far as this question goes, is there an additional sensitivity level required?

The robotic system should be capable of both detecting and identifying the radioactive source producing the anomalous signature.

13 H-SB018.1-009

Is the source considered “hot” enough to be detected? There are known issues with certain concretes, rocks, damns, quarries nearby that actually possess high readings. Is it safe to assume that in Phase 1 and preliminary development in Phase 2 a 1/R^2 model is sufficient?

Yes

14 H-SB018.1-009

In the solicitation you reference the detection, localization, and identification. Is the identification component expecting us to isolate the isotope type based on the spectral data or just a Boolean response of anomaly detection? Is localization referencing just relative position within some local reference frame of the aircraft of where the anomaly reading was detected?

Identification should identify the radioactive source by its characteristic radiation signature. Localization should inform where the anomaly is located on the aircraft.

15 H-SB018.1-009

Similar to the previous question, are we envisioned to be performing the scan relative to the underbody/payload of the aircraft or is the scan supposed to encompass the entire shell of the aircraft (possibly to include interior spaces of cargo area)?

The scan should focus on the exterior of the aircraft.

16 H-SB018.1-009

Much of the Phase 1 solicitation appears to be a system integration design. Would you be interested in a hybrid proposal where some initial research is done to help narrow down sensor requirements and capabilities as may be required in Phase 2? Demonstrating some of the technical aspects such as localizing readings relative to the coordinate frame of the aircraft and optimizing search path is somewhat unique and may place adverse requirements of the sensory systems placed on the UGV.

The objective of the Phase I effort is to complete a conceptual design for ground-based robotic system capable of performing primary and secondary screening of general aviation aircraft.

17 H-SB018.1-010

Is the offeror required to find a partner VMS vendor prior to responding to the solicitation? Or is this a deliverable for Phase I?

Per the solicitation, in Phase I, the Offeror shall assess the current landscape of commercial VMS and related security systems, and establish a partnering relationship with two or more of these vendors to explore the topic concept.

18 H-SB018.1-010

To demonstrate feasibility, is there a specific success metric that we need to hit? For example, does our software need to detect radiation with a certain accuracy? Or will the deliverable simply be a written report containing our action plan for Phase II?

Solutions proposed should support the detection, identification, and tracking of nuclear/radiological objects moving within the monitored environment as well as generate actionable information about the object that is carrying/conveying the threat materials.

Deliverables include monthly progress reports and a comprehensive final technical report for Phase I addressing the objectives indicated in the topic area.

19 H-SB018.1-010

What kind of data will DNDO provide for us to train an algorithm?

DNDO will not be providing data.

20 H-SB018.1-010

What types of environments are targeted for monitoring? E.g., is the intent to cover entry points to a city, public venues such as city squares/parks, large unsecured venues such as shopping malls or train stations, or secure facilities such as concert/sports arenas or airports?

The indicated venues are representative of the relevant environments for this topic.

21 H-SB018.1-010

Is the intention to focus on pedestrians, vehicles, left objects, all of the above?

There is no specific class of object the topic is focused on.

22 H-SB018.1-010

Do you have performance metrics in mind for various scenarios? E.g., detection, identification, and false positive rates for a range of source types and effective strengths?

The focus of the Phase 1 topic is more on aspects of exploitation of existing VMS and security systems, versus absolute detection performance. This would likely be venue specific.

23 H-SB018.1-010

Do you have a target cost in mind for a system capable of achieving the above results in a given venue?

It should be cost effective as a potential “option” to augment existing security and video management systems.

24 H-SB018.1-011

Do I understand correctly that the statement “Standard available purity of lithium-6 metal is not sufficient for adequate performance” is to be taken in the context of lithium indium di-selenide crystals and refers both to residual, non-lithium impurities as well as to typical isotopic enrichment limits for lithium-6?

Yes. The lithium-6 metal should be at a purity level on a reliable basis in volumes sufficient to sustain an aggressive program for developing the proposed neutron detector modules.

25 H-SB018.1-011

Do I understand that the first performance objective “neutron intrinsic efficiencies better than 90%” refers to thermal neutrons only?

Yes.