Attachment 11 - Question and Answer Spreadsheet from Industry Questions Recd May 22.pdf

SOW Paragraph or RFQ Attachment Reference

Page Number

Contractor Question Government Response

SOW Para. 3.1.1 5

Can the Government remove the minimum requirements for the TPM role? While we agree that it is critical to have an experienced team support the Government, dictating the professional experience requirements of the TPM necessarily limits competition for commercial items and unduly places weight on a requirement that is not directly tied to the technical performance of the solution. For a program of this type, in which the delivery is FFP commercial items, there is no objective benefit to dictating the requirements of specific staff or personnel. Specifically the requirement for "radar systems" experience is not relevant if the contractor can provide a solution that does not rely on radar for detection.

Respectfully, for this acquisition, the AF is currently only interested in solutions consistent with the requirements identified in the SOW. As stated in Paragraph 3.1, comprehensive understanding of Department of the Air Force (DAF) airfield environments, wildlife biology, radar detection, aviation safety, airspace security, DAF airfield operations, and sUAS systems is required. Taking that into account as well as the varying locations and personnel of potential Ordering Activities, the Government considers this role necessary.

SOW Para 5.1.2 8

Can the Government remove the requirement for the BDR to be a "radar solution" as stated in Para

5.1.2 ‐ "BDR radar system configuration must provide a continuous radar solution (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year) for real‐time detection of bird hazards in support of safe aviation operations."? The Government is overly specific on the technology type used to detect birds or drones and this limits commercial competition for compliant solutions. Contractors should be given the ability to propose a bird/drone detection solution that does not use Radar as long as the solution meets all the performance requirements.

Respectfully, for this acquisition, the AF is currently only interested in solutions consistent with the technical requirements identified in this SOW.

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5.2

Do the BDR and B/DDR capabilities need to be physically combined in a single dual‐use radar, or can the B/DDR capability be provided with one or more additional sensor(s) that get fused together to provide a single stream of integrated bird and drone detections? Based on our experience and research, DAF will get the best performance if specialized sensors can be used and then fused. This is also consistent with the offerings of most commercial bird radar providers.

The AF recommends proposing this capability, if attainable and if it would achieve the requirements of the SOW, in vendor technical solutions for customer consideration. Ideally, the output would be combined into a single visualization with realized efficiencies in sensors.

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5

8‐12

The requirements do not distinguish between detection and classification. Are there classification performance requirements with regard to the range at which a BDR or B/DDR solution needs to accurately classify targets as a bird or a drone that differ from the detection ranges stated?

Delineation between birds and sUAS is required. Additional radar calibration may be required for sUAS detection and is included in this SOW.

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5.2.1

Would DAF consider requiring additional categories (e.g., 2 nmi in addition to the stated 4 nmi) of B/DDR that allow for lower detection ranges for sUAS? The specified range for small commercial sUAS may eliminate several of the commercially available drone detection solutions. Splitting the requirement to multiple classes of drone radars would enable vendors to bid different, less costly solutions when less range is required.

Language in paragraph 5.2.1 modified to accommodate range of detection for sUAS targets identified in this SOW. Vendors are encouraged to describe their capabilities beyond or in addition to the minimum performance requirements of the SOW for sourcing competition among Ordering Activities.

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5.1.1, 5.3.3, 5.4.4

8, 12, 13

Mobility will add significant cost to the offered solutions. How does the mobility requirement fit with DAF's operational concept? Based on the "site planning and site selection" requirements (the SOW requires that "the contractor identify optimal placement of the radar unit" and be responsible for "final setup at the designated site"), the concept suggests fixed installations but this is in conflict with the mobility requirements.

The requirement is for a mobile solution, not a static radar.

Adoption of static (i.e., fixed) radar solutions is outside the scope of this SOW. Mobility is necessary so a radar unit may be utilized to the future benefit of the AF. Moreover, the performance specification of this SOW identifies critical requirements while allowing opportunity for each vendor to demonstrate proprietery solutions to mobility.

SOLICITATION: FA9401‐22‐Q‐Z001

Requirement: Bird/Drone Detection Radar and Services Basic Ordering Agreement

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5.2

Based on the answer to our previous question about the B/DDR capability being contained in a separate physical component (or components), does the B/DDR also need to be mobile as per SOW 5.1.1?

All detection antennas and unit components must be mobile, consistent with the SOW.

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5.4.8, 5.7.7

14, 18

Please confirm that the contractor is responsible for defining, planning and executing the "detection demonstration". Please specify what defines a "successful radar detection of a deliberate test flight for a target sUAS".

This requirement is defined in paragraph 5.7.6 in the revised SOW dated 17 Nov 22, describing a successful demonstration as one that will meet the performance requirements of this SOW.

Attachment 1 Bird Drone Detection Radar Enterprise BOA SOW, Section 5.7.5

17‐18

The rights of the government and contractors should be governed by the appropriate FAR and DFAR clauses such as 52.227‐14, 252.227‐7013, 252.227‐7014, 252.227‐7015, 252.227‐7017, in particular since this BOA is for the acquisition of commercial items. Those clauses provide the basis for determining what rights the parties have in technical data and software delivered to the government, which are fact specific in each instance. We suggest revision of the SOW paragraph and the addition of relevant clauses to Attachments 2 and 5b.

DFARS 252.227‐7015 has been incorporated into Attachment 5b Model BOA, Sections 8.0 and 9.0. In addition, the SOW paragraph pertaining to data has been revised (reference paragraph 5.7.4 in SOW dated18 Nov 22).

Attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐Commercial Items;

Section 1.9 RFQ Deadline

Please specify any limitations to the total size of files to be submitted via email. The size per email shall not exceed 9MB. Contracting team will provide confirmation of receipt of documents. Contracting team can provide a DoD SAFE link if requested.

Attachment 4 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐2 Evaluation‐ Commercial Items ‐ Section 3.4

3‐4

Please confirm if the intent of the government is to exclude contractors that can only provide the capability sought in SOW 5.1.

At this time, the AF is currently only interested in solutions consistent with all technical requirements identified in the SOW.

5.7.4. DAF Safety System

Integration

As per the requirements that: "The contractor must collect and store all bird radar detection data in a format this is compatible, transferrable, and readable for integration into the DAF Bird Avoidance Model (BAM)/Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS)." What software formats are compatible, transferrable and readable by BAM and AHSA? Please define what exactly these required software formats are. We can not ensure compatibility of software output without knowing what formats are required.

The Government has removed requirement for AHAS integration at this time. This requirement will be considered for future modifications to this SOW.

3.1.2. Support Service Project

Manager

Our company will be offering a detection solution which does not incorporate/require a radar to perform detections. It does not make sense to require a Support Services Project Manager to have experience in radars if that is not included in the product being supplied. Is there flexibility in this requirement for companies offering alternative solutions to radars?

The SOW requirement is for a radar solution to hazard detection.

The support service option is specifically intended to facilitate implementation of radar detection solutions for sUAS and wildlife hazards, and therefore must meet the technical evaluation requirements for radar detection support.

General N/A

What is the planned acquisition timeline and expected RFP release date? The Government anticipates issuing the formal Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the Basic Ordering Agreements in FY23.

Contractors are encouraged to monitor SAM.gov for the RFQ.

Future acquisitions by Ordering Activities will be solicited separately based on their needs and available funding.

General N/A

Does the government have a cost target for the BDR production recurring unit cost? No, the Government does not have a cost target because ordering activities will have different needs and budgets. Acquisitions made under the BOAs will not be for production, but rather turnkey commercial products.

Sam.gov Notice "Requirement Introduction" section

N/A

The government notes that the purchase under this SOW "may occur as initial investments into detection radar technology". Is the government then looking to fund Nonrecurring engineering (NRE) development under this solicitation or a full turnkey solution?

The intent of this solicitation is to establish Basic Ordering Agreements in accordance with FAR 16.703 with companies that are able to provide a full commercial turnkey solution and an enterprise solution for sustaining support services. Multiple AF organizations currently field bird detection radars consistent with the SOW description. However, Ordering Activities may be making initial investments through orders placed under this SOW.

General N/A

Are there any specific considerations and/or restrictions for this solicitation under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)?

The clause DFARS 252.225‐7048 Export‐Controlled Items is included in the BOA and sample clause sets for orders. It is required for all solicitations and contracts released from Ordering Activities. It is the contractor's resposibility to comply with applicable requirements related for the pertinent export jurisdiction.

Att 1 ‐ Para 5.1.8 9

Coverage and capability: Excerpt "From the radar sensor, provide a three‐dimensional solution for avian radar detection..." Please define "three‐dimensional solution". A 3D radar for an airfield should scan the complete volume of airspace 360 degrees around the airfield and from the near‐ ground level up to and above aircraft operational altitudes in each single scan. The RFQ should also specify the scan rate (radar update rate). The typical scan rate required for bird and small drone detection and tracking is one scan of the complete covered airspace volume at least 2 times per second minimum.

SOW paragraph 5.1.8. has been modified to clarify the requirement is for a 3D bird radar.

Att 1 ‐ Para 5.1.8 9

There is no specification of radar frequency nor required for use of state‐of‐the art solid‐state radar and Doppler processing technology. Can any type of radar be used (e.g. older magnetron radar) and any frequency? Some frequencies such as X‐band are not ideal for bird or sUAS detection. S‐band is the most optimal frequency to reduce false positives and minimize insect contamination. X‐band systems can also cause interference with other USAF systems. Older technology such as magnetron radars use more bandwidth than solid‐state radars. Magnetron radars also have more spurious emissions, so often result in more interference in congested frequency space.

Are there any requirements for the system to have the ability to deconflict with other DoD systems (e.g. by electronically up or down shifting the frequency within the band?

The intent of this SOW is to define performance specifications that each prospective vendor must meet, regardless of the technical solution proposed. The cost/benefit of proposed solutions will be at the discretion of the Ordering Activity, and may influence how competative one vendor's approach may be within the vendor poool. The AF welcomes vendor proposals with technical solutions that exceed the peformance specification, increasing competition among Ordering Activities. The deconfliction comment is observed and will be included into Section 5.1.2.

Att 1 ‐ Para 5.1.8 9

Does the proposed system have to have a current DoD license to operate (e.g. J/F12)? A current license is preferred; however, if the contractor can demonstrate that a licensure is in progress, that will be taken into consideration. The Government will periodically offer on‐ramping to the BOA for companies that are not currently licensed but obtain a license in the future.

Att 1 ‐ Para 5.4.8 14 sUAS System Calibration: Excerpt "The contractor must coordinate with the Installation Primary Contact and is responsible for all administrative planning, travel, and execution of sUAS detection calibration or detection capability demonstration flights."

In our experience most installations require that local AF staff perform the sUAS calibration flights.

Please specify if the coordination can be executed by the contractor, but that actual flight operations will be done by the installation? Or if the SOW specifically requires that the contractor perform the sUAS flight operations?

SOW paragraph 5.4.8 has been modified to include language that stipulates that each Ordering Activity may require demonstration flights to be completed by a U.S. military member.

Att 1 ‐ Section 5.5.8. sUAS System Calibration

Note: This looks to be duplicate of Page 14 ‐ Para 5.4.8. sUAS System Calibration? This requirement is observed for both CONUS and OCONUS deliveries. The specification of the requirement is the same, but is observed twice to ensure clarity in the performance expectations of prospective vendors.

Att 1 ‐ Section 5.5.8. sUAS System Calibration, and 5.7.7.

sUAS Recurrent Calibration

14, 18

Please define the requirement and preferred methodology for 'Target classification"', such as 'Classify Aircraft, Biological (Birds and Bats), and Ground Vehicles targets in real‐time.

Target classification for sUAS is identified in paragraph 5.2.2. of the SOW dated 18 Nov 2022. This is also cited in 5.7.6. (formerly paragraph 5.7.7. in previous version). DAF will update language that requires delineation of birds from sUAS in the detection output.

Att 3 ‐ 4.0 Past Performance 5

The government sets a requirement for the Contractor's Project Managers (Att 1, 3.1.1. and 3.1.2.

Support Service Project Manager) but does not require Past Performance and an Evaluation Criteria.

Does this mean that a Contractor who has never built or successfully deployed a BDR, DDR or BDR‐ DDR system or upgraded a BDR to a BDR‐DDR system can be awarded a BOA?

Contractors must be able to demonstrate their capability to meet the minimum requirements of the SOW through their technical approach in order to receive a Basic Ordering Agreement. The Evaluation Criteria has been clarified to reflect this.

Att 4 ‐ 3.1 Factors 2

Past Performance is not included as an Evaluation Criteria. Does this mean that a Contractor who has no experience in or has never built or successfully deployed a BDR, DDR or BDR‐DDR system or upgraded a BDR to a BDR‐DDR system can be awarded a BOA?

Contractors must be able to demonstrate their capability to meet the minimum requirements of the SOW through their technical approach in order to receive a Basic Ordering Agreement. The Evaluation Criteria has been clarified to reflect this.

Att 1 ‐ General N/A

Is there any requirement for MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure), MTTR (Mean Time to Repair), or minimum operational uptime?

This is not specified in the SOW. The AF anticipates that each radar purchased will rely on the service support contract option for sustainment, to include repairs defined in the SOW.

Therefore, this service nullifies any failure/repair requirement.

The operational requirement for the radar is defined in the SOW.

SOW 5.7.5 17‐18

Will a Data Rights Assertion be acceptable as part of the Proposal? The Government only requires standard commercial data rights, in accordance with the clause DFARS 252.227‐7015 Technical Data‐ ‐Commercial Items, which has been added to the clause lists for the BOA and orders. The intent is to ensure Government access to detection data and ensure the Vendors coordinate with the Government prior to using the data in marketing, publications, presentations, etc. "Software" has been removed from the SOW (new SOW paragraph 5.7.4.)

General N/A Are there any NOFORN requirements that apply to Subcontractor participation and information sharing? No, there are not any NOFORN requirements for this effort

(reference DFARS PGI 204.4).

SOW 3, various

For the Support activities, we are assuming there is a difference between OCONUS and Expeditionary CONOPS (for example, Expeditionary might be in an active conflict area anywhere in the world [where contractors are restricted], whereas OCONUS would not be in active conflict area but is outside of the US [so requires a global support footprint] ‐ are we right to make this distinction?

The support activities identified in Section 5.7. (and all sub‐ paragraphs) are the same, regardless of unit deployment to a CONUS or OCONUS site. A unit may be purchased and utilized in an expeditionary environment, but this has not been considered for this SOW. The Government must evaluate contractor restrictions before entering into a service agreement in a expeditionary/HN environment.

Attachment 1. Scope of Works, paragraph 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

"Professional work experience within airfield safety or support for a US military organization" : We request if it would be acceptable if the Technical / Service project managers have gained experiences with other (Non‐US) Air Forces or government authorities. Being an European company, this would give us a levelled playing ground with US vendors.

The Government concurs. SOW language has been revised to include military organizations of U.S. Allies.

Attachment 1. Scope of Works, paragraph 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

In addition to the qualification requirements of staff supporting the BDR unit (and in particular to ensure the true effectiveness if the BDR units), we would suggest to include a Subject Matter Expert as member of the supporting team. This Subject Matter Expert (SME), should be either a professional biologist or ornithologist with Master degree in ornithology / bird ecology. Having a minimum of 5 years work experience working with radar or wildlife monitoring studies at military aerodromes as well as having 3 years of experience with BASH management at multiple military aerodromes.

The requirement is written to allow vendor competion for companies that may have a suitable technical solution but lack experience in the market place. The AF values the experience of personnel and encourages each vendor to include this information in the propsals for consideration by future Ordering Activities.

Attachment 1, Scope of Work, paragraph 5

An integrated system with both bird‐ and drone detection capabilities has obviously operational and efficiency benefits for the operator then two separate systems. Will this kind of feature be additionally acknowledged and thus rewarded? (especially as no additional hardware would be required to get to B/DDR performance).

The technical evaluation does not include higher‐tiered value for an integrated system. However, this is desired (but not required).

Ordering Activities may take this into consideration when sourcing local requirements if it is available.

Attachment 1, Scope of works, paragraph 5.1.8

Coverage and capability: To be more precise: The vendor should provide scientific proof based upon published papers and/or field test that the radar is able to detect 1 or 2 SAT at the requested distances.

Any of the identified approaches are acceptable. Qualified vendors may lack published work. However, unpublished work should include the rigor of a scientific approach that is repeatable and can be defended. Intent is to allow flexibility for all qualified vendors to compete.

Attachment 1, Scope of works, paragraph 5.1.12

In addition to these requirements: Questions: By whom should these reports be generated and supplied to the DAF personnel or is meant general software capability to generate such reports?

The intent of the question is unclear. The reports should be generated by the Vendor. The Vendor must be capable of synthesizing detection data into a functional and clear format for discussion and decision making with the Air Force customer. Use of this analysis will justify BASH management decisions in the program, and serve as a historical reference for continuity on specific wildlife hazard issues. The intent is not to report on software‐specific issues or capabilities, but the detection output (i.e., what hazards are detected).

Attachment 1, Scope of works, paragraph 5.1.12

In addition to the previous remarks: Would it be appreciated if the supplier is able to 'assist' in the data interpretation and convert this into meaningful information to the BASH team? With other words: create a bridge between radar data and operational actions? If so, would this be also appreciated and extra rewarded? Referring also to the remark in the Statement of work/Background (page 2): "No formal policies, Concept of Operations or requirements for BDR use in DAF/ BASH Programs exists." To our opinion bridging the gap between BDR data output and the conversion into meaningful information and actions, which ultimately mitigates the likelihood of a bird strike within the critical flight area (CFA), has been missing up to now. By implementing such 'service requirement' will enhance the effective operation of the BDR.

Yes, this would be appreciated, but the technical evaluation for the BOA does not include higher‐tiered value. However, Ordering Activities may take this into consideration when sourcing local requirements if it is available. See remarks above. This is a requirement that must include recommendations and analysis based on the SME assigned to each contract, identified in this SOW. This analysis will aid BASH programs in developing local CONOPS, in consideration of risk management for detected hazards that is compatible with the local mission. Language from this remark will be applied to section 5.1.12. to clarify intent of the requirement.

Attachment 1, scope of work, paragraph 5.2.1

Is meant: detection coverage 4 nM, 3000 ft. So, may we assume that at 4nM the detection altitude should be 3000 ft. AGL minimum. It is impossible for the radar beam to look straight up from where the radar is positioned, there is a cone of silence present.

The detection coverage parameters are based on bird detection specifications identified in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐25, market research, and the percieved needs of Air Force flight safety missions. The DAF welcomes vendor information that will clarify the capabilities as part of market research.

Attachment 1, Scope of works, paragraph 5.7

The training should cover data analysis, Bird Strike hazard and risk analyzing (risk assessment in critical flight areas) and mitigation strategies as part of the BASH system/program for each airbase.

DAF desires training on the use of the radar. This section of the SOW requires support from the vendor, to include analytics of detection data and recommendations for mitigation of hazards.

At this time, the intent is not to train DAF personnel to be local radar ornithology experts, but to contract this support to industry, as identified in this SOW.

Attachment 1, Scope of works, paragraph 5.7

We suggest that the service should include SME support in bird activity and flight safety risk assessment to assist to local (DAF BASH personnel/experts. This is to ensure maximum effectiveness of the BDR.

This acutally is a requirement for the SOW. Will be more deliberate by including language in of Section 5.7.2. to capture the intent.

Attachment 1, scope of works, paragraph 5.73

For how long should the contractor store the backup data from the BDR/B/DDR units? How many years?

Data will be delivered consistent with the SOW. Storage is required as long as a service support contract is sustained with the customer.

SOW 4.2 6

Will foreign nationals be authorized to perform duties on DOD facilities? This is dependent on site‐specific security requirements and vetting policy dictated by DoD, AF, and HN instruction. The SOW provides requirements for critical qualification requirements of personnel.

SOW 5.0 8

Will a supplier have to be compliant on full requirements for both 5.1 BDR as well as 5.2 B/DDR, or is just one (5.1) allowed?

Vendors must be capable of fulfilling all aspects of this SOW.

SOW 5.1.1 8

Will loading of full‐sized truck be achieved with an external lifting device? Refer to updated language in SOW dated 18 Nov 22.

SOW 5.1.8 9

Will it be allowed to obtain the local 3 dimensional coverage by using 2 overlapping sensors, or is the DOD expecting a real full 3D coverage? This will lead to XYZ information for each specific track

Vendors may propose any configuration of detection capability so long as the method meets requirements identified in this SOW, with specific detection coverage identified in section 5.1.8. and 5.2.1.

SOW 5.1.9 9

For reasons of safety, the current requirements for accuracy feel rather low. Can the DOD specify the origins of these specifications? The indicated high allowable may not lead to the required details needed with respect to actionable safety information.

Coverage specifications are derived from FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐25. DAF understands current industry capabilities may exceed the identified detection standard. However, the intent is to favor a high quality detection capability in a smaller seperation distance from the airfield rather than a moderate detection in a larger seperation distance. The intent is for end users to know what is happening within the local environment of the aerodrome for increased efficiencies when implementing avoidance procedures at a fair price.

SOW 5.2.1 11

Will DOD allow offers for networked sensors in order to cover the required ranges? The AF will accept technical solutions that meet the performance requirements of the SOW. If networked sensors are required for a vendor solution, the AF is amenable to these approaches. Any solution must be compatible with DoD/AF Information Security requirements, as defined in this SOW.

General N/A

What will be the expected refresh‐rate of the BDR? The higher the refresh‐rate, the more reliable the track information will be. Leading to increased awareness.

Time‐delay in detection standards are identified in 5.1.9. of this SOW. Language in this requirement has been modified, consistent with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐25. DAF encourages each vendor to provide specific efficiencies and capabilities that may be of interest to customers during order sourcing.

Para 5.1.3 8 and 9

Recommend you remove the word "array" (3rd word of this paragraph). The use of the word "array" can be interpreted to indicate that a certain type of antenna is required to meet the specs of the SOW. This also causes confusion as it is well understood that an "array" cannot generate 3‐D tracks from one or multiple linear antenna arrays. You removed the word "array" in the beginning of the second sentence and we recommend you stay consistent and use "antenna" vice "antenna array".

To be clear, the DAF is not fixated on one type of emitting device for detection and is seeking vendor‐proposed solutions to meeting high‐quality detection of hazards in the coverage seperations identified. The solution is for a radar capability, and the language included in the SOW is intended to clarify this point. Detection performance is the requirement. DAF has removed the word "array" from paragraph 5.1.3 of the SOW to reduce confusion about the requirement.

Para 5.1.8 9 Request you confirm the criteria you require in your 3D tracks generated by the BDR. (i.e. latitude, longitude, and altitude.) Recommend that you require each BDR to provide individual track trajectories consistent of latitude, longitude, altitude, speed, heading, and RCS size.

This recommendation has been adopted into the SOW under paragraphs 5.1.8. and 5.2.1.

Para 5.1.8 9

Recommend you add the requirement to have the BDR provide 3D coverage within a 360 degree field of view back into this paragraph. It is important for the BDR to be able to detect and track birds approaching from all directions within the airspace of the airfield that may be approaching the runway. Your current requirement of "At a minimum, detection must include the runway(s) and approach/departure corridor..." significantly increases the risk of a bird strike by allowing for a BDR that cannot provide 3D tracks of birds within all of the airfield space.

This is a requirement of the SOW: "From the radar sensor, provide a three‐dimensional solution for avian radar detection…" (paragraph 5.1.8.) and, "Provide continuous, real‐time, three‐ dimensional detection of sUAS intrusion and tracking within the runway approach/departure corridor" (paragraph 5.2.1.). 5.1.8 is revised to specify 360 degrees.