70RWMD23R00000004 Amendment 004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE

DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Questions for CWMD OBAA Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004 – Thallium- Bromide HPRDS Objective Resolution (THOR)

# Reference Question Response 1 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

Amendments 001 and

Amendment 003 did not update the TRL levels indicated in Amendment 001 that would be changed, do 001 changes still take precedence?

Amendment 001’s TRL levels are correct. Amendment 003 contains errors for the TRL levels and Attachment A, Section 5 of Amendment 004 have been updated to have the correct TRL levels. The TRL levels are as follows:

Technology Readiness Level at Project Beginning: TRL 4.

Technology Readiness Level Desired at Project Conclusion: TRL 6.

2 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

Pg. 46 in file (or #10), item 8. Anticipated Ceiling

Since the CDMs have such a long lead time (7-10 months), can we order CDMs for the prototypes to be delivered at the end of Phase 2 in month 4 of Phase 1, which necessitates moving some funds from the notional Phase 2 ceiling of $900K to Phase 1 to cover the costs of the CDMs for the prototypes needed for Phase 2?

The Base Period/ Phase I POP has been updated to be 20 months and Option Period II POP has been updated to 15 months to accommodate long lead times to acquire Thallium Bromide and/or acquire CMDs, if that is part of the Offeror’s proposal These updates in POP are reflected in Topic Solicitation 14 Section B, Section F, and Attachment A.

There will be no provision for moving funds from Phase 2 to Phase 1. It will be up to the Offeror to propose in accordance with their chosen solution and to be responsible for the associated timeline.

3 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

Pg. 44 in file (or #8), Phase 1 (14 months)

Will the government consider adding at least 6-months to Phase 1 in order to mitigate the long lead times of 7-10 months for the CDMs?

Refer to the response in number 2.

4 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

General

Both CDM suppliers (H3D and BTI/BNL) have advised us that they require NRE funding to support the development of a CDM that will be suitable for this program. They propose to charge the integrators for this NRE thus reducing the available funds to support the development of the RIID prototypes. Was the government aware of the fact that additional CDM NRE would be sought from the integrators by the CDM suppliers when they adopted the acquisition strategy described in the RFP? If not, what is the government’s cure to provide a level competitive landscape?

Topic Solicitation 14 Attachment A has been revised to detail the expectations and to extend the PoP. The Government encourages the potential offerors to determine if they will require CDMs, or CDM components, and technical support through individual vendor-to-vendor agreements with any CDM developers. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to negotiate their own agreements with CDM suppliers if the Offeror chooses this particular solution for their proposal. If this is determined to be advantageous to their proposal, then the cost estimate should reflect these costs. However, this is not to preclude an Offeror from submitting their own TlBr solutions. It will be up to the Offeror to propose in accordance with their chosen solution and to be responsible for the associated timeline.

5 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

General

We have been advised that the CDM suppliers consider that they are not obligated to supply the integrator with the most up to date CDM that they may develop during this program, as they may hold this for only their prime contract offering. This is likely to result in the integrators having a lower performance CDM than is actually available. Are we correct in assuming that the CDM suppliers have no obligation to provide

It is the offerors’ responsibility and discretion to determine if they will acquire the CDMs or their various components. The government does not intend any involvement in this process. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to negotiate their own agreements with CDM suppliers, if the Offeror chooses this particular solution for their proposal.

However, this is not to preclude an Offeror from developing their own TlBr integrators with the most up-to-date CDM that will be available during this program, nor to supply any performance specifications or hardware guarantees?

What will CWMD do to ensure a level playing field in competing this program?

solutions. It will be up to the Offeror to propose in accordance with their chosen solution and to be responsible for the associated timeline.

See Topic Solicitation, Section 5, Page 4: "The Government encourages the potential offerors to determine if they will require CDMs, or CDM components, and technical support through individual vendor-to-vendor agreements with any CDM developers."

6 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

Amendments 001, Q&A Response #1

Can the government please provide data to support the government’s assertion that the TlBr CDMs are at TRL 4, as it appears they are not at this level of maturity given the NRE funding requests being put forth by both CDM suppliers specifically for additional work on the

CDM?

TRL 4 is the Component and/or Breadboard Validation in a Laboratory Environment that is achieved when “Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together.

Examples include integration of modules and components in the laboratory.” The basic components of the CDMs which have been previously developed and presented at Industry Day have been tested in a laboratory and is the reason for the TRL 4 assignment. At the last THOR Industry Day, CWMD presented performance results for the CDMs that were developed under the Research and Development contract;

however, Offerors are free to use the same version, a different one or no CDM in their design.

7 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

Pg. 132 in file, Phase 1 Deliverables table, deliverable 004

Does the government really want deliverable 004 “updated schedule including DCMA 14-pt assessment” every 2 weeks rather than

The topic solicitation will be amended to adjust the schedule deliverables from every 2 weeks to once a month.

monthly along with the progress reports (every 2-week reporting is an excessive programmatic burden)?

8 Solicitation

70RWMD23R00000004,

General

This question is being asked in the context that the CDM supplier(s) has stated that they will not be sharing any proprietary or confidential information with the integrator(s) during the course of this program. It is assumed that the USG has government use rights to the CDM IP elements for which they have funded development. Will the government make this IP be available to integrators on an as-needed basis so that we can best understand how to develop and fine-tune our ID templates, calculate dose rates, determine sensitivity, etc.? (IP e.g., correction algorithms, Compton suppression, spectrum and/or pixel calibration process, which pixels are summed for one event, etc.)

The Government’s data rights are determined by previous contracts and the Government will not be sharing any IP rights. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to establish their own agreements and respective IP rights with their chosen supplier as applicable and needed for their proposal.

9 Attachment F: Non-disclosure agreement with Mayvin

Despite three (3) attempts we have not heard back from Mayvin. Requests were sent to CWMD_NDA@Mayvin.co

m. Please advise another avenue of approach to ensure our submitted partially executed NDA is acceptable and that a fully executed version is returned.

The government received fully executed NDAs from all those that submitted pitch papers. NDAs should be only submitted once for this topic.

In the event fully executed NDAs were not submitted during the pitch paper phase, Offerors should courtesy copy the OBAA Mailbox at CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov, in their email request to Mayvin to execute the NDA.

10 70RWMD23R00000004

+Amendment003.pdf

On page 3 of this amendment, it was noticed

Amendment 001’s TRL levels are correct. Amendment 003 mailto:CWMD_NDA@Mayvin.com mailto:CWMD_NDA@Mayvin.com that under 5. Research Opportunity Description, that the TRL levels reverted back to their prior levels of 5 & 7 and not the 4 & 6 levels that they were changed to in amendment 001. Please advise which is correct and if there are other changes where amendment 003 has reverted from the latest requirement.

contains errors for the TRL levels and Attachment A, Section 5 of Amendment 004 have been updated to have the correct TRL levels. The TRL levels are as follows:

Technology Readiness Level at Project Beginning: TRL 4 Technology Readiness Level Desired at Project Conclusion: TRL 6.

11 70RWMD23R00000004

+Amendment003.pdf Attachment A page 9 of .pdf

Given the “10 months” both CDM Primes are now quoting for delivery of their modules is it possible to extend Phase 1 so that more time is available to ensure successful integration into the breadboard, prior to the Preliminary Prototype Review?

Refer to the response in number 2.

12 TOPIC SOLICITATION

NO. 14:

70RWMD23R00000004,

Attachment A, pages 21 and 22

Instructions state that we should include copies of quotes/pricing lists or estimates etc (page 21 second to last sentence) to justify our materials numbers. Should those documents be incorporated into the excel file? Or is it OK to have a vol III PDF file with all of the cost justification info in it? Rates agreement letter (page 22 in the indirect costs bullet point) and descriptions of the subcontractor work (Page 22 in the subcontract bullet point) are also called out as things that should be provided, so I’m wondering about how to incorporate those items as well.

In accordance with Attachment A, Section 12, the only acceptable format for Volume III is excel format.

The Offeror is welcome to take screenshots and have them as tabs within the excel document or provide any supplemental information as a part of Volume II.

13 In TOPIC

SOLICITATION NO. 14:

70RWMD23R00000004,

Page 3, Section B the charts give a 14 month pop for phase I and a 9 month pop for phase II;

however, on page 8 of attachment A, on the Phase II bullet point line, it says “12 months.” On page 11 of attachment G, under section 4.2, 4 lines down, it gives a phase II pop of 12 months also. We assumed a 12 month pop for phase II in our planning so far, but we just want to confirm that is accurate.

Please refer to the response in number 2 for the updated period of performance.

14 In TOPIC

SOLICITATION NO. 14:

70RWMD23R00000004,

Attachment A, pages 13- 22 (section 12- proposal format and submission process)

I can not find any mention of any forms or letters of support or letters of commitment that we need to request from subcontractors.

Nothing that they need to sign. It looks as if we just need to get labor/materials/etc. numbers from them so that we can use them in our cost proposal, and we would obviously need to be able to describe the work that they are going to do for us. Is that all that is needed? We don’t have to submit any documents for this proposal that are provided by the subcontractors?

There is no requirement, but any information that provides a better understanding of a submission is welcomed.

Offerors should provide the basis for cost estimate for their subcontractor, which should include all applicable items in Attachment A, Section 12, Subsection Volume III Cost Proposal.

Dra ft

70RWMD23R00000004

Conformed Unofficial Copy

1. Listing of Incorporated Purchase Requisitions

Incorporated Purchase Requisition Numbers:

2. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs

Item Number Base Item Number

Supplies/Services Quantity Unit

0001 Phase I for THOR effort (20 months)

Contract Type:Cost Plus Fixed Fee Total Estimated Cost

Fixed Fee Total Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Description:

Purchase Requisitions

IDC Type: Not Applicable

Item Number Base Item Number

Supplies/Services Quantity Unit

1001 Phase II for THOR effort (15 months)

Contract Type:Cost Plus Fixed Fee Total Estimated Cost

Fixed Fee Total Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Description:

Purchase Requisitions

IDC Type: Not Applicable

Clauses incorporated by reference

None

Clauses incorporated by full text

70RWMD23R00000004

Conformed Unofficial Copy

Section F - Delivery or Performance

Period of Performance (Estimated) Base Period (Phase I): 20 months Option Period (Phase II): 15 months Note: Specific dates TBD prior to Award.

Section I - Clauses and Provisions

1 | P a g e

Attachment A. Topic Solicitation Information

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION OPEN BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (CWMD OBAA) TOPIC

SOLICITATION NO. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004

1. Topic Solicitation Number: Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004

2. SAM.gov Solicitation Number: 70RWMD23R00000004for Topic Solicitation No. 14 and SAM.gov Solicitation Number: 70RDND19R00000003 for the OBAA

3. Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004 Event Dates/Time (Local Eastern Time)

• Notification to Submit Pitch Papers – April 17, 2023

• Deadline for Submission of Pitch Paper Questions – April 24, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Pitch Paper Submission Deadline – May 16, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Pitch Paper Notifications – on or about May 30, 2023

• Notification to Submit Proposals – on or about May 30, 2023

• Deadline for Submission of Proposal Questions – June 6, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Proposal Due Date – June 26, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Notification of Selection/Non-selection of Proposals – on or about July 24, 2023

• Award date (estimated) – on or about September 26, 2023.

Any proposal submissions received by the Government after the submission deadline will not be accepted unless receipt of the proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition and it was the only proposal received.

Note: This topic solicitation will be conducted in accordance with the two phased evaluation process as described under Section 1.6 of the OBAA. This topic solicitation is being issued in accordance with the notice and solicitation requirements set forth in FAR 5.201 and FAR 5.203 for the FAR 35 Research and Development solicitation. The OBAA Solicitation 70RDND19R00000003 was posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO.gov) on April 17, 2019. Effective November 12, 2019, FBO.gov is retired, and the OBAA Solicitation 70RDND19R00000003 can now be found on https://sam.gov

This evaluation process will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of the pitch papers and proposals. Under this evaluation, the first stage of the evaluation process will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of the pitch papers from potential performers. Entries in the various sections of the pitch papers should be concise and conform to the specified formatting and word count limitations as indicated in this topic solicitation. Repetition of presentation materials should be avoided or minimized as much as possible. No formal transmittal letter is required for pitch paper responses. Once the pitch paper peer/scientific review process has been completed, potential offerors will be notified in writing, typically via email, whether the potential offeror is “encouraged” or “not encouraged” to submit a full proposal.

A down-selection process will then be conducted by Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Offerors will be given the opportunity to participate in the second stage of the evaluation. Stage 2 will consist of the receipt and evaluation of the Volume I proposal limited to 16 pages, excluding the cover sheet, Volume II, and Volume III. (More information on the Volumes can be found in Section 10.) Once the proposal peer/scientific review process has been completed, offerors will be notified in writing, typically https://sam.gov/

2 | P a g e via email, that their proposal has either been selected, selected but not funded, or not selected for the award.

Potential offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the pitch paper process, but they are not required to submit a pitch paper in advance of a proposal.

Offerors not selected for the award may request feedback regarding the peer/scientific review findings of the submitted proposal. Within 3 calendar days of the date the non-selection notification was sent to the offeror, the contracting officer (CO) must receive a written request.

4. Topic Solicitation Research and Development Focus Areas

CWMD.05 – Nuclear Sensing: Technologies that provide cross-cutting improvements to nuclear threat detection through dramatically improved performance and/or reduced costs when compared to commercial off-the-shelf systems.

5. Research Opportunity Description

Title: Thallium Bromide Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems Objective Resolution (THOR)

Objective: The goal of the THOR Program is to increase the technology readiness level (TRL) for thallium bromide (TlBr) as a semiconductor gamma ray detection material for radioisotope identification devices (RIID). While not a procurement program, this research opportunity (if successful) could provide the technological basis for future CWMD procurements.

Technology Readiness Level at Project Beginning: TRL 4 Technology Readiness Level Desired at Project Conclusion: TRL 6 (Note: TRL definitions can be found in Attachment B-1.)

Background

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is committed to using cutting-edge technologies and scientific talent in their mission to make America safer. In December 2018, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act authorized the creation of the DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD). The mission of CWMD is to lead DHS efforts and coordinate with domestic and international partners to safeguard the United States against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and health security threats. The DHS CWMD Research and Development (R&D) appropriation provides resources necessary to identify, explore, and demonstrate new technologies and capabilities that will help enable DHS and stakeholders to prevent, protect against, respond to, and mitigate nuclear, chemical, radiological, and biological threats and incidents.

Priority needs of DHS’s Operational Components drive CWMD’s R&D investments. CWMD looks for the following types of solutions within the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear mission space:

• Over the horizon, future innovations that will transform the way homeland security operators accomplish their missions.

• Near-term capabilities that will solve current operational challenges and meet DHS’s R&D needs.

• New applications of technologies to respond to emerging threats to the homeland.

3 | P a g e

As the threat of terrorism evolves, DHS intends to assess a wide spectrum of potential technologies that can enhance their capabilities. This topic solicitation directly addresses a need for higher performing, lower cost RIID devices that are more ruggedized for operational conditions.

Description of Opportunity

CWMD is striving to work with industry in a joint R&D effort for the THOR Program, which has the objective to increase the TRL for TIBr as a promising material that could support RIID enhancement.

While the THOR Program is not an acquisition program, the effort does support CWMD’s overarching objectives to:

• acquire higher performing detection and identification devices at a lower cost.

• increase operational efficiency by increasing detection and identification capability and reducing operational size, weight and power.

• decrease lifecycle costs of existing RIIDs.

• increase reliability by acquiring devices that are more ruggedized for operational conditions.

It is anticipated that TlBr has the potential to significantly increase the detection and identification performance of RIIDs at a significantly reduced cost. As a result, CWMD seeks to maximize the speed of TlBr transition into the commercial marketplace. A future acquisition program for next-generation RIIDs would benefit from inclusion of this technology in the competition for this (and future) procurement contracts. The THOR Program’s approach is to work with industry partners to integrate the detector material technology into handheld RIID prototype form factors suitable for testing in a laboratory environment and limited demonstration in an operational environment.

CWMD has been pursuing the development of TlBr as a detector material for many years. Currently, ongoing transformational R&D is pursuing two different development approaches, one using a Pixelated detector and the other using a Position Sensitive Capacitive Frisch Grid (PS CFG) detector. Each of these detector development approaches will culminate in the packaging and integration of these detector stacks with associated electronics into Core Detector Modules (CDMs) that can be used as a basis for developing prototype RIIDs, however offerors are not obliged to use these and can propose their own TlBr solution.

A detailed description of the CDMs is provided in the following information.

The objective of THOR phase I is to develop one breadboard (per contract) and conduct in-house testing that demonstrate key performance advantages of TlBr and a detailed plan for Phase II prototypes. A Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will be held near the conclusion of the Phase 1 to review the test results and assess performance against a subset of the THOR CTM criteria as indicated in Attachment B- 2a.

The objective for Phase II is to deliver three (3) TlBr RIID prototypes that are provided to CWMD for government testing to demonstrate compliance with the CTM criteria specified in Attachment B-2 and inform a TRL assessment.

The T1Br prototypes (per prospective contract award) integrated into a field usable RIID form factor informing important attibutes of the planned commercialized versions. The prototypes will demonstrate

4 | P a g e the capability of the TlBr technology through vendor testing followed by CWMD-sponsored testing and operational demonstration supporting the subsequent TRL assessment.

Offerors are responsible to determine if they will require CDMs, or CDM components, and technical support through individual vendor-to-vendor agreements with the CDM developers. If this is determined to be advantageous to their proposal then the cost estimate should reflect these costs. This is not to preclude a third-party vendor (proposal offeror) from developing their own TlBr solutions.

Schematic Descriptions of the Two CDM Types

The CWMD R&D Division led the development of two types of TIBr CDMs. The two types of detectors are as follows:

Description of Pixelated CDM (as of January 2023) The Pixelated CDM consists of the semiconductor detector with readout components needed to generate a calibrated and depth corrected gamma ray spectrum.

Figure 1. Block Diagram of the Pixelated Full-up Version of the CDM

Figure 1 shows the following basic components of the Pixelated full-up version of the CDM:

1. Pixelated TlBr Array with interconnect board.

2. Application-specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).

3. Readout Electronics: Analog-to-digital Converter (ADC), Field-programmable Gate Array (FPGA), MicroProcessor.

4. Single-board computer (SBC).

The TlBr array represents a semiconductor crystal with an array of electrodes to generate electrical signals from the interaction of gamma rays with the dense, high-Z TlBr material. The front-end electronics uses

1 2 3 4

5 | P a g e an ASIC and is designed to generate waveforms for implementing advanced signal processing techniques.

The micro-processor block contains ADCs and serves as an interface between the signals from the front-end electronics and the SBC, which processes the signals and provides a standard network interface to access the calibrated and depth-corrected gamma ray spectrum.

Description of CFG CDM (as of January 2023)

The Position-Sensitive Capacitive Frisch-Grid (PS-CFG) CDM is based on an array of 16 PS-CFG TlBr crystals. Each PS-CFG is based on a TlBr crystal with dimensions of 5 × 5 × 12 mm3. For the CFG CDM, the signals from the TlBr devices are read out using front-end electronics including the AVG3Dev ASIC, and an analog device that includes a 32-channel bank of charge-sensitive amplifiers. The amplified signals are digitized on a motherboard, then sent to an SBC. The SBC runs 3D correction software, which corrects non-uniformities in the detector response by virtually dividing each crystal into 3D voxels, then normalizing the response from each of the voxels. The output of the CDM is a data stream which includes the corrected energy spectrum. The prototype CDM is available (directly from the CDM provider)in a simple mechanical enclosure that includes connectors for AC power and data transfer using Ethernet and/or Universal Serial Bus (USB). A block diagram of the system is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Block Diagram of the PS-CFG TlBr CDM

Availability of CDMs

The Government does not plan to make CDMs available as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

Offerors are free to arrange how they will acquire previously developed CDMs, alternate versions, or their various components as needed.

Alternatively, offerors have the opportunity to obtain a so-called “primitive” CDM, limited to the crystal(s) packaged with interconnect boards. The offeror would provide their own front-end electronics.

6 | P a g e

The Offeror’s request, if needed for their proposal, should be stated in the pitch papers and/or full proposal. Offerors should specify what assemblies they will purchase and from whom.

As another option, the Offeror can consider initially acquiring only the current version of the full-up CDM shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. This version CDMs would not have optimized size, weight, and power (SWaP) but would provide enough of the functionality so the technology could be evaluated and integrated into a breadboard Phase 1 prototype. The Offeror would then work with the CDM suppliers to decide how they would want to proceed regarding a more optimized solution for Phase 2. The integrator may elect to develop an optimized solution, either procuring components from the CDM suppliers or developing their own solutions all together to achieve THOR Phase 2 goals. The desired approach should be stated in the pitch papers and/or full proposal.

Additional Information Available via White Papers

There are several “White Papers” (WP) posted with this topic solicitation that were created to address numerous areas/questions brought up by vendors during Industry Day in April 2020 and follow-on Industry Days in October 2021 and February 2023. These short (1-3 page) papers cover the following topics:

1. WP1: Long-term Stability of TlBr

2. WP3: Temperature Stability: Dependence of spectra, energy resolution, gain, dark current vs

Temperature

3. WP4(A and B): Intellectual Property Rights claimed by CDM suppliers and Commercialization (two white papers covering the two different CDM versions)

4. WP5: Production (Supply Chain Capability to Support Future Procurements)

5. WP6: Further References (published journal articles covering various aspects of this technology)

Performance Metrics

The complete list of high-level performance metrics (criteria) for the envisioned prototype(s) is provided in the THOR Criteria Traceability Matrix (CTM) Attachment B-2 included with the topic solicitation.

Offerors are requested to indicate in their pitch paper submissions and proposals if their proposed approach will result in a prototype RIID and/or design that can meet or exceed thresholds/objectives listed in the CTM Specifically, the pitch papers and/or proposal should specify which criteria will be met at which phase (Breadboard Phase 1, Prototype RIID Phase 2, or Post THOR)

Timeline

The following timeline has been revised.

7 | P a g e

Figure 3. Tentative Schedule

Phase Structure and Objectives

Each offeror will specify their preferred version of the TlBr design (Pixelated,CFG, or other) they would like to pursue and clearly identify their chosen approach in the pitch paper and the proposal.

Research to be conducted under this topic solicitation will be a phased applied development activity. A nominal phase structure and objectives are described below:

• Phase 1 - “Breadboard” Integration (20 months): Upon the award of the THOR contracts to selected RIID integration vendors, the necessary components will be integrated into breadboard gamma radiation design by THOR partners. The intent of the breadboard is to allow for initial research, design, and evaluation of the major components and functions of a RIID (i.e, CDM, processor, algorithm, display, power supply, etc). The first articles produced as a result of the Breadboard Integration phase will be tested/evaluated by the vendors against a subset of the THOR criteria to demonstrate progress and potential for meeting the THOR prototype criteria set. The main deliverables of Phase 1 are results of the testing/evaluation of the breadboard and a preliminary design of a TlBr RIID prototype for Phase 2. A Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will be held near the conclusion of the Phase 1 to review the Phase 1 deliverables and the prototype assessment against a subset of the THOR CTM criteria as indicated in Attachment B-2a. The results of the Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will support a decision on exercising the option to continue into Phase 2.

• Phase 2/ - Initial RIID (prototype) Integration (15 months): During the initial 12 months of Phase 2, vendors will continue RIID integration, prepare a final RIID design, and deliver three prototype RIIDs/detectors for a Phase 2 Final Prototype Review and the following Government-led testing .

After the Phase 2 Final Prototype Review, during the last three months of the PoP, the Government will conduct prototype criteria testing of the 3 prototype RIIDs at a Government selected test facility to demonstrate a TRL 6. The basis for the testing will be the Government approved criteria developed by the THOR Program (See Attachment B-2). An operational demonstration of the prototypes will

8 | P a g e also be conducted in the same facility in an operationally relevant environment or scenario.

6. Deliverables: The following minimum deliverables will be required under traditional procurement contracts awarded to those offerors whose proposals are selected for the award. Performers should define additional program-specific deliverables as appropriate for their proposed approach.

Progress Reviews (PR) – The PRs will be held monthly unless otherwise directed by the CWMD PM and the briefing slides are due 1 week prior to the PR. A PR briefing will be comprehensive in nature and must include, where appropriate:

Executive Summary

1. Conceptual Overview

2. Capabilities, Performance targets, and Goals

3. Development Approach (technical tasks, teams, schedule)

4. Key Challenges/Issues to Address

5. Risks and Mitigation

6. Accomplishments and Highlights

7. Milestones (MS): List all and progress towards each

8. Remaining Issues

9. Schedule: Gantt chart with MSs and deliverables indicated

10. Cost (planned, actual, actual plus commitments)

11. Effort for next reporting period (month/phase) as appropriate

Detailed technical and programmatic discussion (as long as required)

12. Accomplishments: Plan vs Actual, per Task activities

13. Prototype RIID Design Description

14. Performance Prediction relative to THOR prototype requirements

15. Schedule: Gantt chart by major task with WBS-tracked list of milestones and deliverables included

16. Cost: Expenditure burn over period of performance – monthly plan, actuals, actuals plus commitments (to date) in tabular and graphical form

17. Proof of Concept (Breadboard/Brassboard RIID)

18. Proposed Follow-on Effort

19. Key Objectives

20. Technical issues: Risks and mitigation strategy

21. Plans to complete phase

22. Technical Plans for next reporting period/to complete phase, as appropriate

23. Cost and Schedule to include variance

24. Questions (as needed)

25. Any additional information required by the CWMD program manager (PM)

Meeting minutes shall be generated within 1 week after the PR. The PR does not replace the monthly progress report.

Prototype Reviews –A Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will be held near the conclusion of the

9 | P a g e

Phase 1. The outcome of the Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review and review of provided test and evaluation results of the breadboard prototype will be the basis for determining continued funding for the follow-on phase. Phase 2 Final Prototype Review is to be held prior to the conclusion of Phase 2.

The Phase 2 Final Prototype Review is also intended to include elements of a test readiness review in preparation for the CWMD-led testing.

Project Schedule Updates – schedule file submissions due 2 weeks after the last day of each calendar month.

• Updated schedule (MS Project file with file name indicating version number)

• Schedule compliance check (DCMA 14-point assessment)

Monthly Progress Report – Written report (see Attachment H) due 2 weeks after the last day of each calendar month, including at minimum:

• Accomplishment and Highlights since last review

• 90-day look-ahead of scheduled activities

• Schedule critical path (within the 90 days reported)

• Schedule watch items (within the 90 days reported)

• Schedule Variance Report (regarding major milestones)

• Comprehensive accounting of all funds expended

• Cost Variance Report

• Risk Status

• Key Challenges

• Technical Highlights

• Status of monitoring Government-provided sensitive data and compliance with data retention requirement

• Questions (as needed)

• Any additional information required by the CWMD program manager

• Management Plan - Within 2 weeks after the contract award, the vendor shall provide a management plan, updated from the proposal, and laying out the approach for accomplishing the project. A kickoff meeting shall be held within the first 3 weeks after the contract award to discuss the management plan.

Vendor In-house Test and Evaluation Plans – Internal test and evaluation plan for Phase 1 provided to CWMD 1 month after the Phase 1 kickoff to be reviewed and approved by CWMD T&E. Internal test and evaluation plan for Phase 2 provided to CWMD 1 month after the Phase 2 kickoff to be reviewed and approved by CWMD T&E.

Vendor In-house Test and Evaluation Reports – Internal test and evaluation results and data due 2 weeks prior to Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review. Internal test and evaluation results and data due 2 weeks prior to Phase 2 Final Prototype Review.

Preliminary and Final RIID Designs – Preliminary and Final RIID Design documentation shall be provided 2 weeks prior to the Phase I Preliminary Prototype Review and Phase II Final Prototype Review, respectively.

10 | P a g e

Additional Phase I Deliverables

• Any additional information as requested by the CWMD PM.

Additional Phase II Deliverables

• Three copies of final THOR Prototype RIIDs due 2 weeks prior to Phase 2 Final Prototype

Review. The Prototype RIIDs are to be shipped directly to address to be specified by the PM.

• THOR Prototype RIID operator manual.

• Example data files from the instrument.

• Providing CWMD test team support, including training the CWMD test team on the prototype

RIID instrument and answering questions from the test team via email exchanges or short meetings and instrument trouble shooting support during test integration and execution as needed.

• Algorithm Replay Tool compliant with the CWMD Replay Tool specifications (Attachment B3).

• THOR RIID Commercialization Plan, steps needed to get from TRL6 to a COTS product and notional timeline.

• Final Technical Report including Lessons Learned.

• Any additional information as requested by the CWMD PM.

7. Number of Selections: CWMD anticipates up to three awards under this OBAA topic solicitation.

8. Anticipated Ceiling: Although subject to appropriations and funds availability, it is anticipated that no more than $2,551,000 funds will be available for an individual resultant award for this OBAA topic solicitation for Phase I and Phase II combined. This amount includes up to $1,651,000 estimated for the Phase I Base Period and up to $900,000 estimated for Phase II Option. The aforementioned estimate assumes three awards granted.

Note: The Government will reserve the right to incrementally fund any resultant contract line-item numbers awarded from this OBAA topic solicitation as provided by the FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds.”

9. Anticipated Award Type: The Government intends to award cost plus fixed fee contracts. See

Section 1.6 of the overarching OBAA #70RDND19R00000003 for a list of contract vehicles that are possibilities for award under this topic solicitation.

10. Anticipated Award Dates: Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2023 (Q4FY23) is when the Government anticipates making a resultant award for this topic solicitation. However, the award date may vary based on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

11. Pitch Papers: Pitch papers are being requested for this topic solicitation. Potential offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the pitch paper process, but they are not required to submit a pitch paper in advance of a proposal. Pitch paper submission instructions and formatting guidance can be found in Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of this topic solicitation.

11.1 Pitch Paper Submission Instructions

Pitch papers must be submitted on or before the deadline listed in the topic solicitation (no later than 30 calendar days from the topic solicitation posting), in electronic format and emailed to inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. See page 1 Section 3 for the specific date pitch papers in which pitch papers need to be received. Pitch paper submissions consist of one attachment in the email submission.

Specific guidance is provided below regarding the email and pitch paper file name format.

mailto:CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov

11 | P a g e

In the email subject line, please use “CWMD OBAA Pitch Paper Submission for <organization>, Topic Solicitation No. 70RWMD(FY)R00000014”

Each pitch paper file name will include the following: “CWMDOBAA-PP-0#-XXXX,” where “0#” = number of pitch paper submission, and “XXXX” = four letter character shortcut for organization name

Example: Company A, Inc.’s submission for one pitch paper comprised of one file in the attached email:

Subject: CWMD OBAA Pitch Paper Submission for Company A, Inc.

The email submission should at least include the following information:

• Organization: Company A, Inc.

• Submitted by: <first last name>, <title>, <email of submitter>

• Topic Solicitation No.: 70RWMD(FY)R00000014

• Attached file for submission:

1) Pitch paper: CWMDOBAA-PP-01-COMA.pdf

• Request for receipt confirmation? (YES or NO)

Hard copy, facsimile, or hand delivered pitch papers will not be accepted.

Pitch papers should be submitted in advance of the deadline for submission, to ensure completion of the electronic submission process by the date and time of the deadline, as stated in this topic solicitation. Any pitch paper submissions received by the Government after the deadline for submission will not be accepted. It is highly encouraged that offerors do not wait until the last minute to submit their pitch paper(s). Receipt of pitch papers will be handled in accordance with FAR

15.208 and FAR 52.215-1.

11.2 Format and Content of Pitch Paper

Pitch papers should capture the essence of a complete proposal and are designed to permit potential offerors an opportunity to obtain feedback from CWMD on their proposed project without having to go to the expense and effort of writing a full proposal. Such exchanges are to improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities, thereby allowing the potential offerors to judge if they can satisfy the Government’s requirements and to enhance the Government’s ability to obtain quality supplies and services, at reasonable prices, and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, and contract award. A pitch paper shall consist of a maximum of three pages, including all pictures, figures, tables, and charts in legible size. The quad chart described below is included in the three-page limit. The cover sheet will not be included in the three-page limit.

A pitch paper is a single electronic file in PDF format, viewable by Microsoft Windows-7 compatible machines. The individual pitch paper file size must be no more than 5 MB. Pitch papers shall not exceed three pages (standard size: 8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins and 12-point fonts or larger for text and 9-point fonts or larger for pictures, figures, tables and charts. The pitch paper should include the following information in this order:

12 | P a g e

• Cover Sheet (see Attachment C for format, not included in page limit).

• Quad Chart (see Attachment E for format, included in page limit).

• One-page summary capturing information not included in the quad chart or cover sheet abstract to include:

o Technical Approach and Critical Path: Describe the main research goals, and main tasks and methodologies to be employed to achieve these goals. Point out the critical research path to the proposed investigation, to include what will specifically be accomplished during the initial phase(s) of the effort to achieve research objectives.

o Team Capability and Experience: List and describe the extent of your team’s experience and current capabilities to successfully execute the proposed research project.

o Management Approach: Provide a summary description of the management structure and approach for the effort.

o Cost: Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude cost to accomplish the technical approach.

If the pitch paper is found to be responsive to the topic, CWMD will schedule a brief (no more than 20 minutes) scientific engagement discussion with the offeror. The primary purpose of the scientific engagement discussion is for the Government to learn more about the proposed prototype, the potential offeror, and its capabilities. The Government will not be obligated by these discussions and nothing discussed will authorize the potential offeror to work, start work, or bill for work. During these scientific discussion engagement sessions, CWMD:

• Will ask clarifying questions about the information provided in the pitch paper. This includes questions to obtain a better understanding of the advantages and issues associated with a technical approach.

• Will not attempt to replace the potential offeror’s original ideas with their own.

• Will not provide information concerning the objectives/criteria of the topic to one potential offeror without providing the information to all potential offerors.

• May note that a particular proposed feature or capability is not required by the Government to meet topic objectives or criteria and will provide that information regarding such functions or capabilities to all potential offerors.

• Will not share ideas of technical solutions that were provided by another potential source.

After this review, CWMD will notify potential offerors, either encouraging or not encouraging submission of a proposal. It is anticipated that responses will be provided no later than 10 days after the pitch paper deadline. If a proposal submission is not encouraged, the general basis for the opinion to not encourage further participation will be provided. If a proposal submission is encouraged, comments and questions regarding the pitch paper submission will be provided, which may include comments regarding the potential offeror’s apparent capability and experience and management approach.

Pitch papers will be reviewed against 2 criteria, in descending order of importance:

Strategic Impact and Technical Approach. If a proposal submission is encouraged, comments and questions regarding the pitch paper submission will be provided, which may include comments regarding the potential Offeror’s apparent Capability and Experience and Management Approach. A description of these criteria can be found in Section 13.

13 | P a g e

12. Proposal Format and Submission Process:

CWMD will not reimburse offerors for any proposal preparation costs. Proposals shall remain valid from the date of submission for at least six (6) months.

Offerors shall submit proposals no later than the deadline set forth in the topic solicitation and the notification letters encouraging proposal submission. Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic format and email their proposals to inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. An offeror may choose to alter their ideas, concepts, technical approaches, etc. or expand on their original ideas reflected in the offeror’s pitch paper (if submitted) at any time after the submission of the offeror’s pitch paper and prior to the offeror’s submission of their proposal. Exchanges between the Government and a potential offeror regarding the potential offeror’s pitch paper are not binding.

Proposals consist of three separate documents described in detail below:

• Volume I: Technical and Management proposal (Not to exceed 16 pages. The cover sheet (Attachment D) will not be included in the 16-page limit).

• Volume II: Supplemental Data (Not to exceed 30 pages).

• Volume III: Cost proposal (No page limit).

Volume I is the primary document to be evaluated by the technical reviewers, with Volumes II and III providing supporting information. Note that Volume I should be a standalone document describing, consistent with the sections below, the material aspects of the proposed effort. The supplemental material in Volumes II and III are intended to support Volume I’s statements and ensure compliance with non-technical aspects of the solicitation. All volumes will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer to ensure compliance with the requirements of the OBAA. For instance, Volume III will serve as the formal cost submission for future contracting discussions should the proposal be recommended for the award from a technical aspect.

Specific guidance is provided below regarding the email and proposal file name format.

Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic format and email their proposals to the inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. In the email subject line, please use “CWMD OBAA Proposal Submission for <organization>, Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004”.

Each proposal file name will include the following: “CWMDOBAA-VOL#-FP-0#-XXXX,” where “VOL#” = volume number, “0#” = number of proposal submission, and “XXXX” = four letter character shortcut for organization name.

Example: Company A, Inc.’s submission for one proposal comprised of the three separate files in the attached email:

Subject: CWMD OBAA proposal Submission for Company A:

• Volume I file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL1-FP-01-COMA (.pdf file)

• Volume II file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL2-FP-01-COMA (.pdf file)

• Volume III file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL3-FP-01-COMA (.xls or .xlsx file)

14 | P a g e

The email for the proposal submission should at least include the following information:

• Organization: Company A, Inc.

• Submitted by: <first last name>, <project title>, <email of submitter>

• Topic Solicitation No: Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004

• Attached Files for Submissions:

1. Volume I – CWMDOBAA-VOL1-FP-01-COMA.pdf

2. Volume II – CWMDOBAA-VOL2-FP-01-COMA.pdf

3. Volume III –…