Attachment A-A0001 OPS T-BAA 70T04021BAA7573N001.pdf

Transportation Security Administration Requirements and Capabilities Analysis Attachment A- A0001 OPS T-BAA 70T04021BAA7573N001

On-Person Screening Capability Targeted Broad Agency Announcement (T-BAA)

70T04021BAA7573N001

Section A: General Information

A.1 Introduction

This announcement is being made to support the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Requirements and Capabilities Analysis (RCA), Requirements, Human Performance and Engineering Division (RHPED) to open a Targeted-Broad Agency Announcement (T-BAA) 70T04021BAA7573N001. The TSA RCA is interested in receiving concept papers for development projects that support the TSA mission of ensuring the safety and freedom of movement for people and commerce. To achieve its mission, the TSA seeks development opportunities across targeted strategic areas related to On-Person Screening (OPS) processes for potential advancement and improvement to strengthen the agency’s ability to respond to shifting adversarial threats, detect emerging and evolving threats concealed on-person, and enable efficient and effective targeting of screening resources. The TSA is specifically interested in development that will provide for near term improvement of current security operations and capabilities, as aligned with RCA’s OPS Roadmap, by addressing several Technical Topic Areas (TTAs) as shown below and further defined in Section B:

• B.3.2 Enhanced Detection Performance and Throughput (TTA 0001)

• Footwear Screening

• Material Discrimination

• Improved Data Visualization

• Synthetic Data Creation

• New Countermeasure Systems/Process

This document supports a T-BAA as contemplated under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016. Contracts based on responses to this T-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.”

TSA will not issue paper copies of this announcement. TSA reserves the right to select for award and fund all, some, or none of the submissions received in response to this Window. TSA will not provide funding or reimbursement for proposal development costs. Full submissions or any other material submitted in response to this T-BAA will not be returned. All submissions shall be unclassified.

The TSA is soliciting concept papers which will be evaluated in accordance with this T-BAA and if selected by the applicable TSA RCA Capability Manager (CM), will form the Statement of Work (SOW) for a contract award. Offerors’ concept papers selected by the RCA CM will be submitted for consideration on the TSA RCA spend plan for the current fiscal year. If funding is provided on the spend plan, the TSA Contracting Officer (CO) will invite the Offeror to deliver an oral presentation over WebEx with collateral back up to RCA CM and applicable stakeholders and if found acceptable to RCA’s needs, the Contracting Officer may initiate negotiation for a contract award.

Offerors who submit concept papers that have no direct application to the TSA RCA OPS present mission will be declined. Proposals must present a coherent concept/detailed plan for accomplishing the objectives of the RCA OPS mission to continue to the final review and potential contract award.

A.2 Additional T-BAA Instructions

Work funded under a T-BAA may include applied research, advanced technology development, prototyping, pilot demonstrations, and testing. FAR Part 35 restricts the use of funding in cases such as this to the acquisition of basic and applied research and that portion of advanced technology development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. Procurement instruments awarded under this T-BAA are strictly for those purposes;

directed towards advancing the state of the art and increasing knowledge or understanding related to transportation security. Specifically, this T-BAA is not for the acquisition of technical, engineering, and other types of support services, nor is it for the acquisition of development or production of specific programs or objectives. The TSA will not accept or consider submissions of concept papers that are similar to or identical to the TSA’s or the Department of Homeland Security Science & Technology (DHS S&T) Directorate’s on-going/completed efforts, or on-going/planned acquisitions. The TSA reserves the right to decline submissions that were previously proposed to the TSA or to DHS S&T and declined. The TSA reserves the right to decline submissions to the T-BAA if the submissions are identical to submissions currently undergoing evaluation by the TSA or DHS S&T. TSA works very closely with DHS S&T and other federal agencies on matters of research and development.

Technologies that have attained a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 or higher component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment is the minimum scope of the T-BAA.

Submissions without a clear path to practical TSA applications within 12 to 18 months will be declined. In addition, submissions whose sole purpose is to request an evaluation of a product (both new and old) will not be considered for award under this T-BAA. TSA will accept concept papers containing commercial services and items as long as the proposed concepts are consistent with the development opportunity description found within this T-BAA.

The TSA is seeking to accelerate the design, realization and delivery of new capabilities to the field. Concept papers that align closely with the strategic direction, investment priorities and details of this T-BAA will have a higher likelihood of being selected. Offerors who submit concept papers that have no direct application to the TSA RCA OPS present mission will be declined.

Proposals must present a coherent concept/detailed plan for accomplishing the objectives of the RCA OPS mission to continue to the final award process.

The TSA reserves the right to reject submissions that meet the objectives of the RCA OPS roadmap and or mission covered by this T-BAA, but do not meet current TSA mission needs as determined by the TSA or whose estimated cost exceeds current budget constraints.

Section B: T-BAA Objectives

B.1 Background TSA must ensure that its security screening checkpoints are both effective and efficient. The critical aspect of checkpoint screening is making sure that all individuals seeking entry to the airport sterile area are screened for person-borne threats to aviation. These include explosives, non-explosive prohibited items, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats.

TSA is continuously evaluating and modernizing the On-Person Screening processes to strengthen the agency’s ability to respond to shifting adversarial threats, detect emerging and evolving threats concealed on-person, and enable efficient and effective targeting of screening resources. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 directs TSA to screen all passengers and property that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft. Accordingly, TSA recognizes two categories of individuals under the Screen People mission area. They are:

• Travelers/Non-Traveling Individuals are those who are screened at a TSA security checkpoint for items not permitted aboard a passenger aircraft. Travelers are defined as boarding pass holders and working crew members authorized to enter the sterile area to travel on a passenger aircraft and listed on the flight manifest. A Non-Traveling Individual is an individual to whom a covered aircraft operator seeks to issue an authorization to enter the sterile area of an airport to escort a minor, or a passenger with disabilities, or for some other purpose permitted by the TSA.

• Aviation Workers are defined as employees, contractors, or representatives of an airport, domestic or foreign airline, concessionaire, tenant, government agency (Federal, State, local, or tribal), entity in the air cargo supply chain, or other entity working or operating at an airport regulated under 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1542. An Aviation Worker may be required to pass through a TSA screening checkpoint or may be permitted to use another sterile area entry point subject to Aviation Worker screening standards, depending on the airport operator’s security plan and access privileges granted to the individual.

TSA’s OPS activities are focused on improving, acquiring, and deploying capabilities and technologies to enhance the operational efficiency and security effectiveness of on-person screening. TSA’s current primary solutions for on-person screening utilize Advanced Imaging Technology units (AITs) and Walk Through Metal Detectors (WTMDs).

Currently, to meet TSA’s screening objectives, both OPS screening systems require divestiture of a person’s outerwear prior to being screened. Similarly, when an individual triggers an alarm during screening, a pat-down typically is required to resolve the alarm, which is uncomfortable to many individuals. Both the divestiture of a person’s outerwear and part-downs for alarm resolution increase the time required to screen passengers and often increase passenger wait times.

RCA’s role in TSA’s acquisition of transportation security equipment (TSE), such as AIT and WTMD units, includes identifying needs, defining user objectives, analyzing alternatives, and demonstrating new capabilities/solutions. Technology solutions borne from these activities may be procured by the Government or obtained by other aviation stakeholders. This approach requires an architecture and solution set that is flexible and involves significant work in the areas of objectives definition, policy development, test and evaluation, and compliance. The potential technology solutions defined, evaluated, and planned with the support defined in this T-BAA must at minimum:

• Align to ongoing plans for integrating checkpoint OPS systems with other checkpoint systems

• Maintain the checkpoint’s robust cybersecurity posture

• Promote connectivity, modularity, and open architecture to support enhancements (e.g., 3rd party algorithms, common interfaces, standardized data formats, etc.)

• Improve the security effectiveness of OPS

• Reduce manpower requirements at the checkpoint

• Accelerate the OPS process timeline for passengers

B.2 Opportunity Description In a diverse and rapidly evolving threat environment, TSA’s security effectiveness strategies must achieve maximum future-state efficiency. To enable this mission objective, TSA and the CM for OPS are looking to establish the next generation of OPS solutions with a focus on moving passengers through the checkpoint in a continuous manner, enhancing threat detection capabilities with reduced false alarm rates, installing display image standardization, and enabling operational connectivity through secure data transmission. With these objectives, TSA OPS will advance the checkpoint towards a future state of continuous screening, improving threat detection, and ensuring compatibility across screening checkpoints.

The following sections sets forth the objectives for various specific tasks related to enhancing OPS capabilities. The identified tasks for the objectives presented herein have a direct impact on meeting the objectives outlined in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, PL 107-

71. The TSA seeks to mature threat detection technology and deliver aviation security checkpoint screening equipment that may be acquired by subsequent TSA programs.

To achieve these goals, TSA has defined six TTAs listed in Error! Reference source not found..Table 1. Concept papers must address at least one TTA for consideration and evaluation.

Table 1: List of Technical Topic Areas TTA Title

0001 B.3.2 Enhanced Detection Performance and Throughput (TTA 0001)

0002 B.3.3 Footwear Screening (TTA 0002)

TSA is looking to develop equipment capable of rapidly screening footwear without requiring removal or modification by the person being screened. The speed of screening, which should not slow individuals down, and final unit cost are major factors for the adoption of this type of OPS technology. Foot anatomical details may not be shown to a TSO, so an automated threat detection algorithm must be used. TSA is currently not interested in using any active ionizing radiation systems for OPS.

The technology must fit in the current screening lane space and either be integrated with or placed in front of the current AIT/WTMD systems. It is understood that certain types of footwear may be more difficult to screen than others as a result of the materials used in their construction. At a minimum, 80% of the footwear of the traveling public must be capable of being screened and meeting requirements listed in the latest applicable detection standard. The type of footwear that is not able to be screened must be identified by the Contractor. More information on footwear worn by the traveling public can be found in the attached Shoe Study Research Briefs.

Desired threshold and objective end-states are provided below:

• Systems that meet threshold performance shall meet at least one of the threshold criteria in Table 5.

Table 5: Threshold Performance Criteria for Footwear Screening

Detection Standard

Throughput (Minimum Average)

Level 2 equivalent 150 passengers/hour Level 1 equivalent 360 passengers/hour

TTA Title

• Systems that meet objective performance shall meet at least one of the objective criteria in Table 6.

Table 6: Objective Performance Criteria for Footwear Screening

Detection Standard

Throughput (Minimum Average)

Level 3 equivalent 150 passengers/hour Level 2 equivalent 360 passengers/hour

B.3.4 Material Discrimination (TTA 0003)

0004 B.3.5 Improved Data Visualization (TTA 0004)

0005 B.3.6 Synthetic Data Creation (TTA 0005)

0006 B.3.7 New Countermeasure Systems/Processes (TTA 0006)

B.3 Objectives for each TTA

B.3.1 Project Management and Support (Applicable to all TTAs) TSA is not providing a separate monetary award for Project Management and Support. The Project Management and Support is considered as Not Separately Priced (NSP); if a concept paper is selected and a proposal is requested as a result of this T-BAA as outlined in Section C, the Contractor will be required include the elements outlined below in sections B.3.1.1 through B.3.1.6 to perform project support activities and complete deliverables to enable project progress and milestone achievements. The Contractor shall maintain the formal organization to continue the project support and management to efficiently and effectively execute the objectives outlined in sections B.3.1.1 through B.3.1.6.

B.3.1.1 Post-Award Conference A post-award conference will be conducted at a site specified by the Government within ten (10) days after award. The TSA will designate Government conference attendees and will identify any unique conference support objectives. The Government will develop an agenda and the Contractor shall provide the minutes for the conference within 2 days after the conference.

During the post-award conference, the Contractor shall be prepared to address, at a minimum, a review and status of the following topics:

• Overview of the deliverable submissions status

• Invoicing procedures

• Project schedule with milestones

• Organizational status

• Cost, schedule, and performance (technical) aspects of the SOW

• Subcontractor’s technical progress on all assigned tasks (if applicable)

• Lines of communication

B.3.1.2 Status Tracking and Reporting The Contractor shall be responsible for project management throughout the entire project period of performance. The Contractor shall provide all labor, materials, planning, managing, and the equipment necessary to complete the tasks for design, development, integration, and/or testing objectives in accordance with this SOW and all applicable State and Federal codes and laws. The Contractor shall identify a Project Manager who shall be the Contractor’s focal point for all required security technology related project tasks. The Project Manager can also be a technical lead on the project, thus wearing multiple hats in performing contractual tasks.

The Contractor shall perform monthly project status tracking and reporting, project management reviews, and technical interchanges during the life of the contract. An annual technical report will be provided to TSA covering all technical aspects of the project. These meetings will occur mostly via teleconference; however, they can be in person at a location as directed by Government CO or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

If required, the Contractor will support Project Management Reviews (PMRs) where the project status is discussed in depth, and further discussion can take place on issues most critical at the time. A Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) can be called by the CO, COR, or Contractor to discuss design updates and/or evaluate merits of proposed technical changes. PMRs and TIMs can satisfy status reporting and the CO or COR may cancel the regular project status reporting as a result.

The Contractor shall be responsible for identifying and obtaining all required and necessary badges/permissions needed to accomplish installation requirements throughout all associated project phases and for all required labor personnel.

B.3.1.3 Project Risk Management The Contractor shall identify cost, schedule, and technical risks and describe how it will effectively manage these risks throughout the period of performance of this SOW.

The Contractor shall develop and maintain a list identifying, analyzing, classifying, and prioritizing project risks and a recommended course of action to address those risks. Project risks shall be classified as low, medium, or high priority and include supplier risks. The Contractor shall conduct risk mitigation and contingency planning for risks considered medium or high priority.

The Contractor shall quantify risks with respect to their impact on integration, installation, design, performance, technical parameters, schedule, cost, manufacturing, and maintainability of existing prototype fleet. Risks will be included on the status reports and regularly updated and discussed in detail with the CO or COR at least once per quarter.

B.3.1.4 General Test and Evaluation Support In support of any Contractor’s internal testing and Government laboratory and field testing for the development and completion of the work, the Contractor shall:

• Plan, communicate, and conduct Contractor tests

• Support Government-conducted testing and continuous assessment

• Prepare and deliver all scan and test plans, training sets (for machine learning algorithms), procedures, necessary Government forms, and report results and associated deliverables for each test activity as required or directed by the COR.

The Contractor shall maintain a single point of contact (POC) as the lead for all testing activities related to this SOW. The single POC shall deliver and/or receive all test reports and schedules to/from the Government as required and participate in technical meetings. Additionally, this single POC shall be responsible for coordinating all test activities and shall relay pertinent reports and schedules to the site-specific project managers and internal Contractor stakeholders as required.

The Contractor shall:

• Provide the necessary test equipment and ensure its availability, proper calibration, fully operational status, and operation as documented by the test equipment manufacturer.

• Obtain prior written approval from the Government before using unique or modified commercial test equipment not specified in the approved test plans and procedures.

• Provide the Government, if asked, with the proof of proper calibration of test equipment provided by the Contractor.

• Conduct, or support the Government in conducting, a Test Readiness Notification (TRN) and Test Readiness Review (TRR) prior to performing any formal test.

• Notify the Government at least ten (10) business days prior to commencement of all formal Contractor conducted Acceptance Testing and permit the Government to witness the test.

• Perform all data collection and analysis associated with Contractor testing and furnish original data and analysis methods and results to support claims of Test and Evaluation (T&E) success. If requested by the Government, the Contractor shall provide the data collection report, inclusive of data, methods and results, within fifteen (15) days after the completion of a Government-directed and Contractor-conducted test.

The Contractor shall record all inputs, outputs, and test results as described in any approved test plans and/or procedures. Anomalies, test deviations, test equipment substitutions, members of the test team, any other significant events, and the start and stop time for each test shall be documented.

The TRN is a notification from the Contractor to the Government stating that the system will be ready for testing on the specified date. The Contractor shall provide the Government a TRN at least ten (10) business days prior to the conduct of each formal test. A formal test includes any test that the Government deems as formal and demonstrates operational capabilities to verify machine (hardware and/or software) functionality. TRN shall be submitted via email to the Government COR and any other representative as designated by the CO.

The TRR is a formal review of the Contractor’s software or equipment, as specified in the TRN, and related documentation to verify readiness for test. The Contractor shall conduct a TRR and submit the TRN to the Government and designated Government representative at least ten (10) business days prior to the conduct of each formal test. The Contractor shall submit these documents via email to the Government COR and any other representative as designated by the

CO.

If requested by the Government, a Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix (VRTM) shall be included in a test plan or procedure, clearly listing each specification and lower-level derived requirement to be verified in that test with a reference to the appropriate requirement paragraph, including test location and test method.

The Contractor shall support Government-conducted test events at Government test facilities (such as the Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL)) with or without representative field operators in the intended operational environment, or at an Operational Demonstration site when directed by the Government. These events may include the integration testing or conducting integration Site Acceptance Testing (iSAT) for capabilities developed and deployed under this SOW such as automated screening lanes or networking. The Government will conduct laboratory testing and/or an Operational Demonstration on OPS systems with new or updated algorithms, to include various configurations and/or software and hardware components desired by the Government, to assess operational effectiveness and suitability of the algorithms and/or any proposed software or hardware modifications or integration. The level of testing effort will be determined by the Government. The Contractor shall support the Government’s developmental testing by providing at a minimum the following support as directed by Government:

• Attend and participate in on-site planning meetings and test preparation at the designated test sites

• Prepare, review with the Government, and deliver applicable test plans

• Conduct operator training and provide updated operational manuals

• Provide on-site technical support

• Support configuration management activities as required

• Assist with all data collection, including interpretation/analysis of Field Data Reporting

System (FDRS) data

The Contractor shall provide a schedule outlining the following milestones and deliverables to support general T&E activities as listed below:

• Kickoff Review and Schedule

• Test Plan

• Test Readiness Review

• Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

• Critical Design Review (CDR)

• System Design Document

• Close Out Presentation / Stage Gate – Determine Execution of Option Year, if applicable

• Final Technical Report

The scope will include a Government evaluation of technical reports and/or briefings through System Design Reviews (e.g., System Concept Reviews [SCR], Preliminary Design Reviews [PDR], Critical Design Reviews [CDR]), test plans, test results, and other design documentation.

The Government reserves the right to witness all Contractor-conducted test activities. The Contractor(s) shall provide the Government written notice at least 10 business day prior to conducting testing.

B.3.1.5 Configuration Management The Contractor is responsible for meeting configuration control requirements as documented under TSA’s Configuration Management Guidance Version 2 and as applicable to the developmental systems and environments in accordance with this SOW. The Contractor is required to maintain its Configuration Management Program established under this contract and manage the configuration baselines established for all equipment purchased.

The outline below provides key terminologies to establish common understandings for specific TSA Configuration Management artifacts:

• CSAR - The Configuration Status Accounting Report (CSAR) provides text and (marked-up) technical documents (e.g., specifications, engineering drawings) that identify discrepancies between the material (including software) and the requirements delineated in the applicable technical documents. Depending on the type of audit, the identified discrepancies may be attributable to the material, the technical documents, or both.

• MCIL - The Master Configuration Item List (MCIL) establishes and maintains the definitive, current basis for control and status accounting of a system and its designated hardware, software, and firmware configuration items (CI) throughout their lifecycle that are being developed for and/or used in the TSA security system inventory. This information is needed to manage and support those items during their lifecycle.

• DEP - A Deviated Engineering Proposal (DEP) describes a proposed (prior to manufacture) departure from configuration documentation for a specific number of units or for a specified period of time. A DEP enables the Government to determine the impact on performance, operational readiness, logistics support or other affected areas.

• ECP - An Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) includes both the engineering change and the documentation by which the change is described and suggested. It describes changes to configuration items and associated configuration documentation that are affected by the proposed engineering change.

The Contractor shall make available the following required documents as evidence of maintaining the baseline:

• CSAR

• MCIL

• Design documents

• Engineering drawings

• Bill of Materials (BOM)

• Source code documents

• Product data sheets

• Software release notes

• Approved Change Requests

The Contractor shall retain all documentation for identification, control and status accounting of any CI throughout the program life cycle. The CI identification shall be available in the MCIL and provided on monthly basis. The Contractor shall apply configuration change management measures to each baseline CI and its configuration documentation. The Contractor’s configuration change management system shall provide effective means, as applicable, for proposing changes to CIs and ensuring implementation of the approved change. The Contractor shall maintain configuration change management of hardware; software; firmware; and developmental, commercial, and training documentation. The Contractor shall maintain configuration change management of hardware to the Lowest Replaceable Unit (LRU) level and software to the version level.

Change requests represent opportunities for improvement or correction of deficiencies and must be documented and submitted to the Government for review and approval. Desired changes are documented in Requests for Change (RFC) in the form of ECPs or DEPs. All change requests shall be entered, tracked, controlled, and documented by the Contractor.

The Contractor shall support Government-conducted Functional Configuration Audits (FCA) and Physical Configuration Audits (PCA) on the equipment purchased under this contract, as needed.

The FCA shall verify system functional performance requirements. Upon successful completion of the FCA, a PCA will be performed. The PCA shall be conducted after successful completion of each FCA. The PCA shall verify system physical performance requirements.

B.3.1.6 Project Management and Support Deliverables Table 2 outlines expected milestones and deliverables for the Project Management and Support

TTA.

Table 2: Milestones and Deliverables for Project Management and Support TTA # Deliverable Frequency of Delivery

3.4.1 Post Award Conference (PAC) and Materials One, within ten (10) days after award

3.4.2 Status Calls and Reporting Materials Recurring on a bi-weekly cadence

3.4.2 Project Management Review (PMR) As needed to be directed by CO and COR

3.4.2 Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) As needed to be directed by CO and COR

3.4.2 Presentation Materials Five (5) days prior to PAC, PMRs, TIMs, or other major meetings

3.4.2 Meeting Minutes Two (2) days after PAC, Status Calls, PMRs, TIMs, or other major meetings

3.4.3 Risk Reports Recurring on a bi-weekly cadence

3.4.4 Test and Evaluation Schedule Recurring on a bi-weekly cadence

3.4.4 Test Readiness Notification (TRN) Recurring based on testing

3.4.4 Test Readiness Review (TRR) Recurring based on testing

3.4.4 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Three (3) months after reward

3.4.4 Critical Design Review (CDR) Six (6) months after reward

3.4.4 System Design Document One, within two (2) weeks of contract closeout

3.4.4 Final/Annual Technical Report One, annually

B.3.2 Enhanced Detection Performance and Throughput (TTA 0001) TSA is pursuing advances in the detection performance characteristics of OPS systems. TSA is currently not interested in using any active ionizing radiation systems for OPS. Methods to enhance detection performance and throughput may include, but are not limited to:

• Developing/improving machine learning algorithms o Proposals for algorithm development should include data collection plans, including who will be collecting/providing the data o Proposals for machine learning algorithm development should include details on the methodology the Contractor intends to use

• Screening options that utilize non-ionizing portion of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum or non-EM technologies that enable non-contact passenger screening

• Employing gender-agnostic algorithms that remove the need for the Transportation

Security Officer (TSO) to select gender when initiating a scan

• Implementing automated/high throughput design by o Providing feedback to the passenger to confirm correct stance o Increasing tolerances to be more forgiving for stance during scans o Automatically starting the scan when a passenger is in the correct stance o Providing an option for a relaxed stance o Integrating electronic gates to streamline passenger flow o Reducing divestiture requirements o Screening near or at-speed while moving

• For avatar-based systems (example shown in Figure 1), providing improved identification of the anomaly to support TSO resolution via o An option to fully view system identified anomalies o Scalable avatar to more closely mirror the passenger’s physical dimensions o Integration of video cameras to assist TSO in visually matching alarm location

Figure 1: Example Avatar Rendering for Anomaly Detection

Desired threshold and objective end-states are provided below:

• Systems that meet threshold performance shall meet at least one of the threshold criteria in Table 3.

Table 3: Threshold Performance Criteria for Enhanced Detection & Throughput

Criteria Detection Standard1

Throughput (Minimum Average)

Additional Criteria

Threshold 1 Level 2 150 passengers/hour -

Threshold 2 Level 1 150 passengers/hour No need to divest light outerwear2

Threshold 3 Level 1 360 passengers/hour -

• Systems that meet objective performance shall meet at least one of the objective criteria in Table 4.

1 TSA will provide technical guidance and data, as appropriate, to vendors who do not have the ability to access current detection standards.

2 Light outerwear refers to headwear (e.g., hats) and light coats or jackets (e.g., windbreakers).

Table 4: Objective Performance Criteria for Enhanced Detection & Throughput

Criteria Detection Standard

Throughput (Minimum Average)

Additional Criteria

Objective 1 Level 3 150 passengers/hour -

Objective 2 Level 2 150 passengers/hour No need to divest light outerwear

Objective 3 Level 2 360 passengers/hour -

B.3.3 Footwear Screening (TTA 0002) TSA is looking to develop equipment capable of rapidly screening footwear without requiring removal or modification by the person being screened. The speed of screening, which should not slow individuals down, and final unit cost are major factors for the adoption of this type of OPS technology. Foot anatomical details may not be shown to a TSO, so an automated threat detection algorithm must be used. TSA is currently not interested in using any active ionizing radiation systems for OPS.

The technology must fit in the current screening lane space and either be integrated with or placed in front of the current AIT/WTMD systems. It is understood that certain types of footwear may be more difficult to screen than others as a result of the materials used in their construction. At a minimum, 80% of the footwear of the traveling public must be capable of being screened and meeting requirements listed in the latest applicable detection standard. The type of footwear that is not able to be screened must be identified by the Contractor. More information on footwear worn by the traveling public can be found in the attached Shoe Study Research Briefs.

Desired threshold and objective end-states are provided below:

• Systems that meet threshold performance shall meet at least one of the threshold criteria in Table 5.

Table 5: Threshold Performance Criteria for Footwear Screening

Standard3

Throughput (Minimum Average)

Additional Criteria

Threshold 1 Level 2 equivalent 150 passengers/hour - Threshold 2 Level 1 equivalent 360 passengers/hour -

• Systems that meet objective performance shall meet at least one of the objective criteria in

Table 6.

3 TSA will provide technical guidance and data, as appropriate, to vendors who do not have the ability to access current detection standards.

Table 6: Objective Performance Criteria for Footwear Screening

Standard

Throughput (Minimum Average)

Additional Criteria

Objective 1 Level 3 equivalent 150 passengers/hour - Objective 2 Level 2 equivalent 360 passengers/hour -

B.3.4 Material Discrimination (TTA 0003) The intent of this task area is to develop and/or integrate material discrimination capability into On-Person Screening systems. TSA is currently not interested in using any active ionizing radiation systems for OPS.

Methods to enhance detection performance may include, but are not limited to:

• Developing/improving machine learning algorithms

• Screening options that utilize non-ionizing portion of the EM spectrum or non-EM technologies

Desired threshold and objective end-states are provided below:

• Systems that achieve threshold performance will have the ability to detect the full list of threats, per detection standards, and be able to classify anomalies as metallic or non-metallic objects.

• Systems that achieve objective performance will have the ability to identify additional material categories for anomalies, including but not limited to, ceramics, plastics, paper, leather, carbon fiber, and potential explosive material in accordance with the latest detection standard.

The proposed concepts and technologies must align to existing form factors of the screening system and should be able to be integrated onto existing TSA platforms without any additional screening steps being added for TSO review.

B.3.5 Improved Data Visualization (TTA 0004) The intent of this task area is to improve TSOs’ ability to process passengers by improving how data is displayed to them. The process for TSOs to review security scanning data is complex.

Improved data visualization tools can make a large impact on a TSO’s image interpretation performance, error rates, efficiency, and cognitive load. Two methods of interest for improved data visualization are a Common Graphical User Interface (CGUI) and alternative data visualization methods.

B.3.5.1 Common Graphical User Interface The TSA is using a combination of millimeter wave (MMW) and WTMD technology to screen people for explosives and prohibited items and may use different technologies in the future.

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have and will continue to develop innovative solutions intended to meet the evolving needs for OPS, yet each product is being developed with different

Graphical User Interface (GUI) designs. Utilizing an efficient and CGUI for all OPS systems will allow the TSA to achieve several benefits:

• More Effective and Efficient Screening: A GUI that is informed by human-in-the-loop research will be more effective and efficient than GUIs without this research. A CGUI is a means to ensure that systems from multiple vendors are designed to optimize operator performance, thus reducing human error.

• Ease of Switching: A CGUI can ease the process of switching between various vendors’ systems. This switching may occur within locations at the same airport, between airports or when systems are upgraded within an airport.

• Training Efficiency: A CGUI can create training efficiencies, as the TSA can use a standard curriculum and training tools for training the use of these systems.

• System Architecture Flexibility: A system architecture that is segmented between the system hardware, detection algorithms, and CGUI may allow for improvements to be made separately in each of these layers. Establishing a CGUI is one step in creating this more flexible architecture.

A successful CGUI should include, but is not limited to the following elements:

• Can be installed and run on a TSA “Common Workstation.”

• Can take inputs from various OPS scanning devices as well as 3rd party algorithms.

o This same workstation may also be used across other screening capabilities such as the screening of individuals’ accessible property.

• Can display information from screening devices that use any combination of EM radiation frequency range technologies and non-EM technologies o For instance, the interface could display data from a WTMD, an AIT, or both.

o This interface should accommodate future data inputs including material discrimination (e.g., metal vs. organic) and individual-specific risk status (e.g., Standard, TSA Pre®, or enhanced screening).

• Can be applied to both primary screening and secondary resolution station.

• Can be optimized for the TSO to process cleared passengers and perform accurate resolutions of potential threats detected.

o Note that individuals and anomalies come in all shapes and sizes, while many vendors use standard person avatars and threat indicators.

o It is anticipated that the more accurately size, shape and location of a potential threat is shown on an avatar, the better an officer will be able to quickly resolve the alarm.

• Can incorporate user-in-the-loop testing to refine the interface and validate its performance.

B.3.5.2 Alternative Data Visualization Methods The intent of this task area is to evaluate and demonstrate augmented reality tools/capabilities for the TSA checkpoint. Novel or emerging data visualization capabilities have the potential to enhance TSO operations by providing additional sensor capability and connectivity with multiple checkpoint systems, improved surveillance functions, and a means to improve Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) compliance. Current OPS technologies rely heavily on the TSO for material analysis and identification of abnormalities. Data visualization tools can support TSOs by enhancing visual inspection. An improved surveillance function could augment security by turning operators into a network of relayed information via analytical sensors and archived video feed to allow for “person to item” tracking that ensures accurate baggage custody (i.e., visual overlays of anomalies on closed circuit television feeds). Lastly, improved SOP compliance can be achieved by providing operators instructions in real time for unique scenarios faced at the checkpoint.

B.3.6 Synthetic Data Creation (TTA 0005) TSA is exploring concepts and approaches to quickly create annotated synthetic data, which will be used to supplement real data for training and testing of machine learning algorithms for OPS systems. The intent is to develop a software suite to give TSA a range of tools to effectively manipulate the body type and type of threats of existing scans of individuals. The system must be easily adapted for different system types, such as EM frequencies, antenna configurations, radiation patterns, and beam widths. The Contractor must show evidence that machine learning algorithms would reasonably not be able to tell the difference between the synthetic and real data.

Example body scans with and without threats from at least one type of OPS system may be provided by the TSA.4

Desired threshold and objective end-states are provided below:

• Systems that achieve threshold performance will result in a tool capable of removing and placing new threats of varying shapes and sizes on 3D and 2D scans of individuals of varying body shapes and sizes. The system must be capable of changing the threat’s location on the body and orientation, mimicking realistic concealment scenarios.

• Systems that achieve objective performance will result in a system that can accomplish the short-term goals, while also having the ability to make basic modifications to the size and shape of the threats and body.

Free and open-source software may be used to develop this synthetic data creation tool. For privacy reasons, synthetic data that does not start from a person’s image is particularly valuable.

B.3.7 New Countermeasure Systems/Processes (TTA 0006) This broad task area is intended to allow Contractors to propose novel countermeasure or checkpoint systems, processes, and/or designs. TSA is currently not interested in using any active ionizing radiation systems for OPS. Checkpoints vary with airport size and use different lane types and configurations to screen passengers. Figure 2: Current Standard TSA Checkpoint Design

4 Available annotated data will be made available upon request to the Contractor after signing a non-disclosure agreement. Please indicate what data might be necessary to support synthetic data initiatives in responses.

outlines the design of existing TSA checkpoint environment. Screening individuals begins with lane assignment, followed by the travel document validation and primary screening. Individuals alarmed during primary screening are directed to secondary screening.

Figure 2: Current Standard TSA Checkpoint Design

New countermeasure/checkpoint systems, processes, and/or designs may include, but are not limited to:

• Distributed Screening extends screening of individuals beyond the current primary screening portion of the checkpoint and could involve integration of collected information from multiple sources. This information is then used to inform the primary checkpoint OPS system.

• Dynamic Algorithm Switching is a risk-based security goal that provides the capability to screen individuals based on the system’s assigned individual risk level as the person traverses the airport. This solution conserves floor space by consolidating lanes and adjusting screening system detection parameters to an individual’s risk level. The number of adjustments possible per TSE is an important variable. Dynamic switching will improve detection for high risk individuals, while reducing the probability of false alarms for lower risk individuals. Dynamic switching assumes a system of systems screening technology that work together to adjust sensitivity and specificity.

B.4 Cybersecurity and Network Compliance (Applicable to all TTAs) TSA is interested in OPS solutions that can function in an interoperable and networked environment with the ability to align and be compliant with current DHS and TSA Enterprise Architecture and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework requirements. OPS capabilities and systems need to meet current Information Technology (IT) security requirements.

TSA is interested in OPS concepts that can achieve the following:

• Support networked "reach back" to TSOs in the field.

• Achieve compliance with current cybersecurity standards in accordance with requirements.

For example, does the proposed solution:

o Meet the 17 pillars of cybersecurity https://beta.sam.gov/opp/fdc87793ced04442b8a34cd6a913749f/view o Incorporate cybersecurity measures to discriminate access-levels of the operators.

o Allow tracking of operator log-ins/decisions.

Section C: Concept Paper, Full Proposal and Oral Presentation, and Submission Information

C.1 Submission and Award Information

C.1.1 Award Timeline

The following is a tentative award schedule. Review the beta.sam.gov announcement site for updates.

Activity Date Announcement Released May 6, 2021 Questions Due May 20, 2021 Concept Paper Submissions Due June 23, 2021 Oral Presentation July 14, 2021 Full Proposal Submissions August 2, 2021 Estimate Contract Award September 19, 2021

C.1.2 Questions

All questions for this T-BAA must be electronically submitted to the T-BAA Point of Contact (POC) at TSIC-BAA-MGMT@tsa.dhs.gov, referencing the T-BAA number, title, and company name “OPS TBAA 70T04021BAA7573N001 [company]” no later than 12:00pm Eastern Time on May 20, 2021. All communications shall be submitted via e-mail. Do not include any classified material or Sensitive Security Information (SSI) as defined in 49 CFR 1520. If Offerors must ask questions that contain classified material or SSI, please notify the T-BAA POC and additional instructions will be provided.

Answers to contractual questions related to this T-BAA will be addressed in the form of an Amendment and will be posted to the System for Award Management (SAM) webpage at https://www.beta.sam.gov. Answers to technical questions will be provided solely to the requester.

C.1.3 Submission Process

• Submission Window https://beta.sam.gov/opp/fdc87793ced04442b8a34cd6a913749f/view mailto:TSIC-BAA-MGMT@tsa.dhs.gov https://www.beta.sam.gov/ o The T-BAA is posted to the SAM webpage at https://www.beta.sam.gov and remains open to the submission of concept papers until June 23, 2021 at 3:00pm Eastern Time .

• Feasibility o Technical evaluators review concept papers and select submissions for the RCA

CMs to consider with the fiscal year’s Spend Plan.

o If selected by the RCA CMs, an email will be sent to the Offeror(s) with an invitation to provide an oral presentation accompanied by collateral material via WebEx to the RCA CMs. The email will contain a date for this presentation.

o If selected for funding, the Offeror will be invited via email to submit a full proposal and begin contract negotiations with Contracting and Procurement. The full proposal due date and submission instructions will be specified in the email.

C.2 Submission Instructions All concept paper submissions shall be sent electronically to the following email address TSIC- BAA-MGMT@tsa.dhs.gov no later than 3:00pm Eastern Time on June 23, 2021. All concept paper submissions shall have a subject line of the email that reads “OPS TBAA 70T04021BAA7573N001 Concept Paper” and includes the company name and a short title of the concept.

Due to TSA restrictions on the size of email, ensure that all emails submitted are less than 5MB. If the submission exceeds 5MB, please divide into multiple emails and include in the subject line the announcement number and # of # emails. All submissions must be in adobe pdf or Microsoft formats; links to documents on a cloud platform will not be accepted by TSA and TSA may not further consider such submission for consideration.

Offerors shall be solely responsible for knowing the limitations of their internet service provider. Offerors are encouraged to compress (e.g., zip) or separate large files into a number of smaller files and, if necessary, submit them within multiple emails. Offerors may not submit proposals on CD-ROM or other electronic media. Offers submitted via facsimile or in hard copy format will not be considered.

Prior to any evaluation, the TSA will check all files for viruses and ensure that all information is readable. In the event any files are defective (unreadable), the TSA may only evaluate the readable electronic files. However, if the defective (unreadable) media renders a significant deficiency in the Offeror’s submission, the TSA may consider the submission incomplete and may not further consider such submission for consideration.

The TSA will not award contracts on the basis of concept papers alone, and unsolicited full proposals will be rejected. Following an evaluation of submitted concept papers, the TSA may select Offerors to deliver an oral presentation via WebEx, and if selected after the oral presentation, will be asked to submit a full proposal and enter negotiations for a contract award as outlined above.

https://www.beta.sam.gov/ mailto:TSA-BAA@tsa.dhs.gov mailto:TSA-BAA@tsa.dhs.gov

Offers submitted under the T-BAA are expected to be unclassified. Proposal submissions will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 15.207 and applicable law/regulations. Offerors are expected to appropriately mark each page of their submission that contains proprietary information.

Offerors shall use a consistent title throughout the document which is descriptive of the work they cover and not be merely a copy of the title of this announcement.

Concept papers must be…