Response-CFS ATEC_26_01 - Questions and Answers.pdf

AOS W9128Z-25-S-A002

ATEC_26_01

Questions and Answers

Innovative Solutions for System Safety Evaluation

1. Question: If Contractor’s White Paper is selected to move on to Proof-of-

Concept, is that Proof-of-Concept funded by the Government or the Contractor?

Answer: Proof-of-Concept is funded by the Contractor.

2. Question: How many safety evaluations does ATEC process annually?

Answer: Approximately 900 annually with an upward trend of +100 evaluations per year.

a. Question: What is a representative number of documents in a nominal safety release or confirmation?

Answer: A representative number of reference documents typically ranges from 5 to 20 references, with most documents falling in the 8-

12 reference range.

b. Question: What is the nominal data volume estimated in GB?

Answer: For a typical safety document with 8-12 references consisting primarily of PDFs, technical manuals, and reports, the total reference data volume would likely range from 100 MB to 2 GB.

More complex systems with extensive test data, multiple technical manuals, and detailed engineering analyses could reach approximately 5-10 GB, but rarely more.

c. Question: What is the distribution of safety evaluations across unclassified, classified, and TS and above?

Answer: Safety evaluations are overwhelming published at the CUI level. Higher classification levels are treated on a case by case basis.

3. What is the estimated nominal time that it takes for an ATEC safety engineer or evaluator to:

a. Question: Generate and evaluate a PHA or similar artifact?

Answer: Preliminary research and analysis of reference safety information can range between 24-32 hours per evaluation.

b. Question: Generate and evaluate a FHA or similar artifact?

Answer: Preliminary research and analysis of reference safety information can range between 24-32 hours per evaluation.

c. Question: Generate, process and action “Memorandum of Observation”?

Answer: Approximately 24 hours is allotted for document preparation.

4. As it relates to Section 3 “Required Solution Attributes”:

a. Question: Beyond MIL-STD-882E, what other standards or instructions must the solution reference?

Answer:

Core System Safety and Risk Management Policy

• AR 385-10 (The Army Safety Program): The overarching regulation prescribing policies, responsibilities, and procedures for safeguarding Army resources.

• DA PAM 385-16 (System Safety Management Guide): Provides the mandatory procedures for implementing system safety programs throughout the lifecycle.

• DA PAM 385-30 (Safety Risk Management): The standard for practicing the risk mitigation management process and completing DD Form 2977 (Deliberate Risk Assessment

Worksheet).

• ATEC PAM 73-1 (System Test and Evaluation Procedures):

Defines ATEC-specific procedures for conducting technical and user tests to verify safety requirements.

• DoDI 5000.02 (Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework):

Establishes the high-level DoD policy for safety within the acquisition system and defines risk acceptance authorities

• MIL-STD-1316F (Safety Criteria for Fuze Design): Defines uniform

DoD requirements to ensure fuzes arm safely, function reliably, and avoid unintended activation.

• MIL-STD-1911A (Safety Criteria for Hand-Emplaced Ordnance

Design): Specifies safety, environmental, and testing requirements to prevent accidental detonation of hand-emplaced munitions.

b. Question: From what specific “applicable sources” or current data repositories the solution is required to accept data from?

Answer: Data and information support for development of Safety evaluations is provided to the evaluator in a non-automated manner.

It is documentation-based and provided through email or similar means. Evaluators then manually analyze the information with typical office desktop tools.

c. Question: For Phase 2, will the safety related documents from “applicable sources” be hosted in an IL4/5 environment?

Answer: YES, IL5.

5. As it relates to Section 4 “Desired Solution Attributes”:

a. Question: What specific DoW or Federal regulations define the referenced “Army approved information space”?

Answer: The "Army approved information space" refers to a hosting and data-processing environment that meets established Army cybersecurity and information assurance standards. To qualify, solutions must operate under a valid Authority to Operate (ATO) and demonstrate the capacity to secure sensitive data, such as

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

6. As it relates to Phase 2 - Proof of Concept:

a. Question: How long is Phase 2 expected to last?

Answer: To be determined based on Phase 1 results.

b. Question: Will Phase 2 be a “lab-based proof of concept” or will an active/real world program be used in the evaluation of the proposed solution?

Answer: To be determined based on Phase 1 results.

7. Question: Are figures, diagrams, tables, or architecture illustrations within the eight-page High-Level Solution/Concept section permitted to use a font size smaller than 12-point Arial for labels and annotations?

Answer: Yes, as long as it is legible.

8. Question: Please confirm that a table of contents is excluded from the page count.

Answer: Table of Contents is not included in the page count.

9. Question: What data classification and sensitivity level is expected for this solution, and what corresponding DoD Impact Level or security domain should offerors design to support (e.g., CUI at IL5 or classified at IL6)?

Answer: CUI at IL4/5.

10. Question: Section 4 identifies that the solution should “exist in Army approved information space.” Does the Government intend the solution to be deployed within an existing Army authorization boundary, or may offerors propose establishing a new authorization boundary for this capability?

Answer: Contractors should propose what they believe is the best approach.

11. Question: Does the Government expect offerors to provide in-house MIL-STD-

882E system safety subject matter expertise as part of the proposed solution, or is the expectation that offerors provide the technical platform while the

Government provides domain expertise, business rules, and authoritative review of hazard identification, severity, probability, and mitigation outputs? Clarification will allow offerors to align team composition, partnerships, and the technical approach with the Government’s intended operating model.

Answer: Offerors provide the technical platform while the Government provides domain expertise, business rules, and authoritative review of hazard identification, severity, probability, and mitigation outputs.

12. Question: Section 3 SEARCH requires the solution to “identify credible hazards” and “avoid false positives.” Will the Government provide definitions, criteria, thresholds, business rules, adjudicated examples, or authoritative references used by analysts to determine hazard credibility and reduce false positives?

Answer: The Government will not provide specific definitions, thresholds, or business rules for "credible hazards" and "false positives" during Phase

1 of the Call for Solutions (CFS) to avoid limiting innovative technical approaches. This initial phase evaluates high-level technical merit and the solution’s conceptual ability to address the broad problem statement. More granular requirements and criteria will be shared with vendors in subsequent phases.

13. Question: Section 3 SEARCH requires the solution to “gather data from all applicable sources.” Which Government systems or repositories should offerors treat authoritative inputs (for example, systems holding hazard tracking data, deficiency reporting data, test data, or prior safety evaluations)?

Answer: The Government will not specify systems or repositories during

Phase 1 of the Call for Solutions (CFS) to avoid limiting innovative technical approaches. This initial phase evaluates high-level technical merit and the solution’s conceptual ability to address the broad problem statement. More granular requirements and criteria will be shared with vendors in subsequent phases.

14. Question: Will interface specifications, schemas, or representative sample data exports be made available to inform the technical approach?

Answer: The Government will not provide interface specifications, schemas, or representative sample data exports during Phase 1 of the Call for Solutions (CFS) to avoid limiting innovative technical approaches. This initial phase evaluates high-level technical merit and the solution’s conceptual ability to address the broad problem statement. More granular requirements and criteria will be shared with vendors in subsequent phases.