Attachment_1_-_ITF_IDEA_BAA_No._70T04018K9NSTD105.pdf

Transportation Security Administration Innovation Task Force IDEA BAA 2018

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

70T04018K9NSTD105

FOR

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

FOR

Innovative Demonstrations for Enterprise Advancement (IDEA) 2018

I. Introduction

This request for Innovative Demonstrations for Enterprise Advancement (IDEA) constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d) (2) and 35.016, further referred to in this document as “IDEA.” A formal Request for Proposal (RFP), other solicitation, or additional information regarding this announcement may not be issued.

II. Purpose

In accordance with the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) 2018 – 2026 Strategy and the Five Year Technology Investment Plan, this BAA is meant to encourage the demonstration of diverse, forward-looking solutions to increase the probability of achieving enhanced security effectiveness, threat detection, operational efficiency, and passenger satisfaction across the transportation security ecosystem. Through this BAA, TSA seeks to improve its understanding of existing market capabilities and identify vendors capable of enhancing the transportation security system.

Consistent with the TSA Administrator’s second strategic priority, “Accelerate Action,” this BAA seeks to identify those solutions that increase TSA’s security capabilities and work with industry partners to demonstrate capabilities in live airport environments.

III. Innovation Task Force Overview

The Innovation Task Force (ITF) is a division within Requirements and Capabilities Analysis (RCA) at TSA created to identify and demonstrate emerging security capabilities in the field. These field demonstrations are intended to provide stream of commerce data to inform future TSA requirements as well as support vendors in refining and advancing their capabilities.

ITF demonstrations are intended to be limited installations of people, process, or technology solutions in live airport environments. In some cases, solutions may go through formal detection and/or integration testing in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or TSA facilities prior to the field demonstration, while in other cases solutions are demonstrated in series with existing systems of record. ITF seeks to identify new capabilities and solutions, and so vendors should not be constrained to the existing security structure and venues, though solutions must be demonstrable in a live airport environment.

Past ITF solutions have covered the full spectrum of the passenger screening journey, including Automated Screening Lanes, Computed Tomography for Accessible Property Security Screening at the Checkpoint, Biometric Identity Verification capabilities, integrated explosive trace detection tools, and passenger communications tools. ITF is especially focused on capabilities that have a measurable impact to the transportation security system and are feasibly demonstrated in a live airport environment.

ITF collaborates with stakeholders across the aviation security ecosystem to identify and demonstrate emerging solutions. Through industry exchange efforts, ITF encourages a security journey-focused approach in order to expand beyond the traditional security checkpoint. ITF also works to engage with non-traditional TSA and government vendors to find capabilities that are emerging or applicable in other industries yet that might have applicability in aviation security.

ITF has also designated several airports in the U.S. as “Innovation Sites” to demonstrate emerging capabilities. Following selection of solutions for demonstration, capabilities are matched with innovation sites that partner with ITF for the field demonstrations.

IV. IDEA BAA Scope

TSA is focused on people, process, and technology solutions that address the following, while taking into account the feasibility of implementation for the duration of the assessment:

• Align to the TSA mission

• Address TSA capability gaps

• Improve security effectiveness

• Improve screening efficiency

• Enhance the passenger experience

To address these areas of focus, TSA seeks individual solutions or processes that are applicable to a component of the system or a solution that integrates multiple elements of the screening process (integrated systems). The solution(s) submitted needs to accommodate deployment of future capabilities and the modification of security processes or procedures. TSA recognizes the breadth of solutions may necessitate unconventional teaming and assumes that individuals/groups may partner with each other (e.g. a design firm partnered with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and a System Integrator (SI)).

This BAA is not intended to fund development of solutions. These efforts may help inform or be a catalyst for future development or the procurement of advanced/emerging capabilities under separate contract vehicles.

This BAA seeks solutions for government-led demonstrations. TSA will collaborate closely with vendors and other stakeholders in the demonstration process, but solution providers will not independently lead solution demonstrations in the TSA mission space as part of this BAA.

V. BAA Problem Statements

In order to identify the solutions most applicable for the needs of the agency at this time, ITF consulted with stakeholders across TSA to establish a series of problem statements for this BAA. These problem statements are intended to focus vendors on the most pressing needs of TSA, but solution providers should still consider any applicable solution that innovates aviation security. In the BAA submission, vendors should identify the one (1) problem statement that their solution addresses. In the rare cases when a solution addresses multiple problem statements, it should be submitted to the problem statement with the highest level of applicability. The same solutions submitted to different categories will not be considered more than once.

The problem statements for this BAA are as follows:

1. Alarm Resolution:

Problem: How can TSA more expeditiously and definitively locate the source of alarms triggered during primary screening and/or other screening activities as part of the resolution process?

Context: When primary screening equipment, such as a passenger screening Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) system or a checked baggage Explosives Detection Systems (EDS), alarms during the screening process, TSOs must have an effective means to address the alarm and determine if a threat is present.

Current alarm resolution technology may not directly address the original alarms, may not be capable of testing certain substances or materials, and may not allow for a positive identification of an object or substance in question. Manual resolution processes can be invasive, such as the need to open passenger property or physically patting-down passengers, creating uncomfortable experiences for passengers. TSA needs to effectively clear screening alarms to ensure confidence in the security process in the lease invasive way possible.

2. Identity Verification:

Problem: How can TSA effectively determine the validity and authenticity of a passenger’s purported identity and definitively link that identity to the passenger when they present themselves for screening and throughout the screening process?

Context: TSA has a responsibility to confirm the identity of each passenger at the security checkpoint and ensure that the identity matches of that on a confirmed travel reservation. TSOs currently review credentials (e.g., driver’s license) and compare them to boarding pass information at the security checkpoint. This manual process has the potential to open security gaps and can cause passengers to bottleneck at security checkpoints.

3. Emerging Threat Detection:

Problem: How can TSA more effectively detect emerging security threats and/or improve detection for current threats throughout the passenger journey in a manner that reduces passenger divestment requirements, increases efficiencies, and improves the passenger experience?

Context: In order to protect the traveling public, TSA faces adversaries that are continually evolving their methodologies, tactics, and destructive capabilities.

TSA’s detection technology, both for the checkpoint and at other points in the passenger journey, must evolve to address these threats, especially related to new forms of explosives, weapons, and harmful substances that are challenging for existing equipment to detect. As new threats emerge, TSA systems and procedures need to adapt to these challenges without having to be wholly replaced every time and without hindering the free movement of our transportation system.

4. Automated Security Design:

Problem: How can TSA leverage technology integration and/or process design to automate aspects of security screening to be more intuitive, self-managing, minimally complex, and situationally responsive, in a way that enhances the passenger experience while improving security efficiency and effectiveness?

Context: The security checkpoint often requires a number of manual and repetitive tasks to achieve successful operations, such as pushing bags into x-rays, calling passengers into and through screening equipment, and providing corrective feedback to passengers based on equipment alarms. TSOs are often asked to perform many of these repetitive tasks, which reduces the time they spend applying their expertise to security-specific screening activities.

5. Passenger Communications:

Problem: How can TSA facilitate more effective, responsive, and reciprocal communication with passengers throughout the security journey in order to facilitate a better understanding of TSA security policies and procedures?

Context: Transportation Security Officers (TSO) struggle to effectively communicate TSA’s policies and procedures at security checkpoints and other points in the passenger journey. Factors contributing to this challenge include loud checkpoint environments, language barriers, passenger unfamiliarity with security policies, periodic procedural changes, variations in security requirements by vetting status and/or location, and the introduction of new technology.

6. Officer Tools:

Problem: How can TSA integrate tools that provide real-time support to TSOs and other TSA employees (e.g., Federal Air Marshals) during the execution of their mission into a live environment in order to reduce cognitive burdens, enhance and/or augment existing capabilities, increase security effectiveness, and improve standardization?

Context: During the security operations process, TSOs and other TSA employees (e.g., Federal Air Marshals) are required to manage a multitude of roles and responsibilities. Employees must often simultaneously execute complex and varying alarm resolution processes, interpret interactions with passengers for potential risk indications, maintain positive control of passengers and their property, communicate status information to team members, document information for reporting purposes, and maintain situational awareness of their surroundings. TSOs can struggle balancing these cognitive burdens in a way that is conducive to making informed decisions that apply experience and instinct in the security mission.

7. Passenger Load Distribution:

Problem: How can TSA better direct passenger volume across available screening locations and/or reduce the amount of time passengers spend waiting in physical lines?

Context: During peak hours of operation, TSA security checkpoints can often have a high number of passengers waiting in line to receive screening. Often, passengers will enter security lines at the first checkpoint or screening lane they encounter, even when other security locations are in the nearby vicinity that could accommodate them more quickly. It is also often the case that a passenger could have avoided waiting in line altogether if they had arrived at the checkpoint during a less congested period, sometimes just a few minutes earlier or later, or at an alternate nearby checkpoint that has less volume. Because passenger loads are not distributed economically across checkpoints and across available operational hours, security resources are often not optimized. Additionally, passengers standing in crowded physical lines at checkpoint while they are waiting to receive screening presents potential security vulnerabilities and is detrimental to a positive passenger experience.

8. Vendor-Identified Problem:

Vendors may submit a problem statement that was not otherwise addressed but which they feel characterizes a significant challenge to TSA that their solution is capable of addressing. ITF offers this option to remain open to receiving solutions that may diverge from current security paradigms and provides an opportunity to collect information on what the vendor community sees as TSA’s most significant challenges.

VI. Submission Process

A. Questions

All questions related to this BAA, including both content and submission process questions, should be directed to InnovationTaskForce@tsa.dhs.gov. Solution providers should expect a response no later than 48 hours after the question has been submitted.

Do not include any classified or Sensitive Security Information (SSI) as defined in 49 CFR 1520) in questions. If offerors must ask questions that contain classified or SSI, please email InnovationTaskForce@tsa.dhs.gov and additional instructions will be provided.

Answers to contractual questions related to this BAA will be addressed in the form of an Amendment and will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPPS) Webpage at https://www.fbo.gov. Answers to technical questions will be provided solely to the requester.

B. Vendor Response Procedure

Solution providers shall submit responses to this IDEA BAA by email to IDEA@tsa.dhs.gov no later than the final submission date as identified in the FebBizOpps posting. All submissions must be accompanied by the required cover page posted on FebBizOpps. (See Attachment 3 – IDEA Cover Sheet.) Solutions submitted without a cover page will not be considered.

C. White Paper Submissions

In order to submit to TSA’s IDEA BAA, solution providers shall submit a “white paper” response describing the proposed solution. The white paper responses may take one (1) of three (3) formats:

• Traditional Paper: White paper of no more than five (5) pages, not including a cover page.

• Slide Deck: Slide deck presentation of no more than fifteen (15) slides, not including a cover slide.

• Video Submission: Video of no more than five (5) minutes describing or demonstrating the proposed solution. Videos must be submitted with an accompanying transcript.

Agnostic of format, each white paper response must include the following elements to be considered for review:

• Company Information: Company name, Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS) number, and business size. Please also include a brief description of any past involvement your company has had with TSA.

mailto:InnovationTaskForce@tsa.dhs.gov mailto:InnovationTaskForce@tsa.dhs.gov mailto:IDEA@tsa.dhs.gov

• Company Point of Contact: Point of contact for all BAA submission-related activity, including name, telephone number, and email address.

• Solution Description: Describe the proposed solution, including its applicability to TSA’s mission, expected impact, and relevance under this BAA. The solution description should include the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the “Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance.” (United States Department of Defense. April 2011.) Submitted solutions should be at TRL Level 6 or above.1

• Problem Statement Resolution: Identify the one (1) specific problem statement (from Section V of this BAA) that the proposed solution addresses, and include a brief discussion of how the proposed solution addresses the identified problem.

• Solution Performance: Please identify any existing deployments or pilots of the solution that have occurred, regardless of location or industry, including the results of these efforts. Please also identify any past testing the solution has undergone and/or any relevant certifications received.

• Solution History with TSA & DHS: Please describe any past involvement with TSA or DHS for the proposed solution, such as testing, past submissions, or involvement with other TSA offices/entities. Please also disclose any work or collaborations with U.S. government labs for the proposed solution.

• Demonstration Feasibility: Describe how the solution can be feasibly demonstrated in a live airport/field environment within six (6) months of solution selection.

• Demonstration Goals: Discuss specific goals in demonstrating the solution in the field and submitting under this BAA.

• Metrics: A brief description of any specific metrics to be evaluated during the demonstration to measure solution impact and the ideal method by which they can be measured.

• Cost: Explicitly identify any costs that would not be covered by the vendor necessary to demonstrate the proposed solution.

TSA is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with any BAA submission.

However, in the event that a small business finds funding to be a barrier to participation in an ITF assessment, TSA may consider funding incidental costs, such as training development, travel, or labor for equipment installation, on a case-by-case basis and dependent upon available funding. Vendors should provide the cost to demonstrate the solution in the white paper submission only if that cost will not be borne by the vendor. TSA will consider requests from small businesses on a case by case basis.

All of the above elements must be included in white paper submissions no matter which submission format is selected.

Each solution provider also must submit the designated “BAA White Paper Cover Page”

1 Vendors should be as accurate as possible in the TRL designation of their solution. In cases where vendors are proposing integrated or prototype capabilities, the integrations/prototypes should already exist. Vendors should not propose independent components in an integrated form that have not been previously integrated by the vendor. TSA will seek to validate the vendor-identified TRL level during the review and selections process of the BAA.

along with their submission. The cover page does not count toward any page or slide limit.

If desired, vendors may submit a technical addendum of no more than two (2) pages to their white paper submission. The technical addendum should outline key solution details, if applicable, including measurements, testing certifications, detection rates, relevant operational information, etc. The technical addendum should be primarily numerical in nature and not a replacement for solution descriptions in the white paper.

This addendum does not count toward any page or slide limits.

Vendors should not submit catalogs for multiple solutions or general marketing materials. White papers should focus on specific Concepts of Operations (ConOps) for the capabilities proposed.

D. Demonstration Proposals

Following review of the white paper submissions, TSA may select specific solution providers to advance forward in the BAA selection process by requesting a Demonstration Proposal. The TSA Contracting Officer will provide written notification to the vendor if a Demonstration Proposal is requested.

The Demonstration Proposal will request similar information to the white papers, however the focus will be on the specific demonstration process for the proposed solution. The Demonstration Proposal may also request additional information on vendor past performance, additional solution details, or additional information on the solution’s relevance to TSA’s mission. Vendors may also have the opportunity to deliver an oral presentation about their proposed capability during the Demonstration Proposal selection phase. Specific details will be included in a formal Request for Demonstration Proposal to be released to specific vendors selected based on white paper submissions.

E. Submission Schedule and Due Dates

All due dates for white papers and Demonstration Proposal submissions will be as specified in the FedBizOpps posting. TSA will not review white papers or Demonstration Proposals submitted outside of the submission window.

TSA may conduct rolling reviews on submitted solutions in order to provide vendors with more immediate feedback. Solution providers will not be notified if their solution is reviewed in advance of the defined review period, but may receive feedback on their solution in advance of the decision release date.

While all dates are subject to change, the notional schedule for this BAA is as follows:

• White Paper Submissions Due: October 12, 2018

• Review Period: October 12, 2018 – November 29, 2018

• White Paper Decisions Released to Vendors & Requests for

Demonstration Proposals Released: November 30, 2018

• Demonstration Proposals Due: December 21, 2018

• Demonstration Proposal Review Period: December 21, 2018 – February 8,

• Demonstration Proposal Decisions Released to Vendors: February 11, VII. Review of Vendor Responses

TSA will review white papers received within the specified submission window and Demonstration Proposals received as a result of TSA’s request. Submissions will be reviewed based on the information listed below. There are no specified quotas for the number of solutions to be selected as part of this BAA. Vendors will be notified whether or not their white paper is selected to be developed into a full Demonstration Proposal.

Key review criteria for submitted solutions are as follows:

• Mission Alignment: Importance, relevance, and timeliness of technical approach to TSA’s mission and applicability for an ITF demonstration

• Solution Impact: Ability to address capability gaps, improve efficiency, improve the passenger experience, and address the specific problem statement identified in the submission

• Feasibility: Feasibility of demonstrating the proposed solution in a live airport/operational environment within six (6) months of selection

• Vendor Capabilities: Vendor’s capabilities and related experience

• Resources & Funding: Reasonableness of any funding requested, feasibility of lifecycle costs required for solution implementation, and/or reasonableness of time and financial cost required from TSA to demonstrate the proposed solution

While the review criteria is the same for the white paper and Demonstration Proposal submissions, white paper reviews will focus primarily on the proposed solution while Demonstration Proposal reviews will focus more heavily on the demonstration process for the proposed solution.

Submissions may be reviewed by various TSA stakeholders outside of the Government, as well as TSA support contractors or other private/commercial entities in order for TSA to improve its understanding of existing market capabilities and identify capable vendors.

Note that any parties that TSA shares submissions with will have non-disclosure agreements in place.

VIII. Procurement Instrument

The procurement instrument type will be determined by the TSA Contracting Officer at the time of award. TSA’s intent is to enter into agreements, including but not limited to bailment agreements, other transaction agreements, and memorandums of agreement, at no cost to the Government. TSA may decide on a case by case basis to award contracts.

TSA does not intend to provide funding for any resulting solutions. All costs will be the responsibility of the vendor, unless otherwise determined by TSA.

IX. BAA Disclaimer

This BAA is issued for information and planning purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation. The Government will not return or pay for any information provided in response to this announcement; no basis for a claim against the Government shall arise as a result from a response to this notice or Government use of any information provided.

Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this announcement.

The TSA will not issue paper copies of this announcement. The TSA reserves the right to award all, some or none of the proposals received in response to this BAA. Contracts based on responses to this BAA are considered to be the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of Public Law (PL) 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984.”

X. Federal Civil Rights Compliance

Solution providers should ensure that submissions promote Federal Civil Rights Compliance. Solutions should ensure access and equal opportunity as required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 6 C.F.R. Part 15, and DHS Directive No. 065-01 (Sept. 25, 2013) and DHS Instruction No. 065-01-001 (Mar. 13, 2015) for individuals with disabilities, and to improve screening of headwear and hair in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Vendors are also encouraged to submit solutions that address capability gaps in civil rights compliance, including upgrades to improve screening of transgender passengers.

XI. IT Security

Solution providers should be aware of existing TSA cybersecurity requirements and TSA’s overall commitment to Open Architecture. Vendors are encouraged to submit any applicable solution to this BAA, but should be aware that some level of cyber security review and compliance may be required prior to a solution demonstration. Vendors should review the DHS Sensitive Systems Policy Directive 4300A requirements when crafting their submissions, especially for technology-driven or network-driven solutions.

More detailed cybersecurity information may be requested in the Demonstration Proposal for solutions that advance through the review process.

XII. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

All offerors and proposed subcontractors must affirm whether they are providing scientific, engineering, and technical assistance (SETA) or similar support to any TSA or

DHS technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must state which office(s) the offeror supports and identify the prime contract numbers.

Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposal submission. All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. The disclosure shall include a description of the action the offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. In accordance with FAR 9.503 and without prior approval, a contractor cannot simultaneously be a SETA and a research and development performer.

Proposals that fail to fully disclose potential conflicts of interests or do not have acceptable plans to mitigate identified conflicts will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award. If a prospective offeror believes that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise), the offeror should promptly raise the issue with TSA by sending his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict by email to TSA- BAA@dhs.gov before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan. If, in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, any conflict situation cannot be effectively avoided or mitigated, the proposal may be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award under this BAA.

XIII. Data Rights

Data rights to be obtained by the Government shall be negotiated under an awarded procurement instrument after solicitation.

By submitting a response to this BAA, prospective vendors grant to the Government an exclusive right to use and distribute all data produced through any demonstration of a vendor’s proposal.

XIV. Potential Clauses for Resultant Awards

Attachment 2 provides a list of potential clauses that may be included in any resultant award. Vendors are encouraged to review the clauses in advance. The list of clauses is not meant to be all inclusive. Other clauses may be applicable depending on the specific award.

70T04018K9NSTD105