The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
BAA 10-03
February 2010
| 1. |
| Do you anticipate multiple awards under this BAA? |
| One award is anticipated under this BAA. |
Amendment 0001
| 2. |
| Provide the anticipated budget/funding profile for the BAA. |
| The Government will not provide a funding profile for the Wind Turbine BAA. |
| 3. |
| Do you anticipate follow-on phases associated with this BAA? |
| The development of this toolset is highly dependent upon the design approach. Phased/Incremental development seems the most logical approach, but it is ultimately dependent upon the vendor to deliver capabilities according to the timeline. |
| 4. |
| Section 3.4 asks that “The contractor shall recommend an approach for lifecycle maintenance of the system/software …”. |
Should the offeror include appropriate cost/price and schedule estimates for this recommended approach as part of their proposal? Or should Life Cycle Maintenance be costed as an option?
Lifecycle maintenance must be priced as an Option.
Amendment 0001
| 5. |
| Page 28, Section 4.1, Volume I Technical, first bullet states, Ability of proposed work to meet the program goals. This section must describe the overall methodology and how it will meet the threshold and objective requirements specified in Section 3.1 …”. |
The threshold and objective requirements cannot be located. Please clarify the expectations of this section.
Section 4.1 and Section 3.1 will be clarified to read “requirements” vice threshold and objective requirements, and, program goals.
Amendment 0001
| 6. |
| What contract type does the Government anticipate for this effort? |
| The Government is not soliciting a Time and Materials Contract for this award. |
| 7. |
| Para. 2.7 Application and Submission: |
What address are the 12 paper copies of the proposal to be delivered to?
ALL PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL to susan.eicher@dhs.gov no later than 18 February 2010; 11:59PM, EST.
Paper copies of the Proposal are no longer required.
Amendment 0001
| 8. |
| Para. 4.1 Layout of the Proposal |
Are 11 x 17 pages permitted and do they count as two pages?
No, please use the layout specified within the announcement.
Amendment 0001
| 9. |
| Para. 5.2 Evaluation Criteria |
Cites “The rating scale to be used to assess the merit of the Schedule Factor is not supplied.
This sentence was inadvertently included and will be deleted from the BAA in a forthcoming Amendment.
Amendment 0001
| 10. |
| Para. 3.3.12 System/Software Validation Requirements. Does the Government expect the contractor to go into the field and record data (4th bullet states “see Appendix C for sites suitable for recording actual data”) or will all recorded data be provided by the Government? |
| The data required for development/analysis/verification is highly dependent upon the design approach of the vendor. Data formats required, volume of data, etc. are expected to be quite different depending upon the design of the toolset. It is the Government’s intention to facilitate any or all data collection efforts after contract award in support of the development of the tool. This will most likely be a joint effort between Gov. and vendor. |
| 11. |
| Para. 3.6 Project Deliverables |
Will the Government provide the DIDs for the CDRLs or are the CDRLs to be contractor defined content?
No. It is up to the vendor to decide upon the content to include in CDRLs submitted under the BAA to meet or exceed the technical requirements.
| 12. |
| Can we use a foreign-owned subcontractor? |
| Yes – subject to the terms and conditions of this BAA, The Federal Acquisition Regulations, and DHS policies/regulations. |
| 13. |
| Can Contractors supply alternative proposals? |
| Vendors may only submit ONE proposal. Alternate proposals will NOT be evaluated. |
Amendment 0001
| 14. |
| Would the Government consider extending the due date of this BAA based on the release date being over the holidays which reduces the preparation time, the amount of questions needing clarification and the significant structure of this BAA? |
| The due date has been extended to February 18, 2010; 11:59PM EST. |
Amendment 0001
| 15. |
| The two population tests for model accuracy require either a detail probability distributions which represent the real world collections or a large set of collection data with associated truth from which you can estimate the distribution. Is it the Government’s intent to provide the necessary data as Government furnished information (GFI) or is it the responsibility of the contractors to acquire truth data and/or determine the real world distributions? |
| The data required for development/analysis/verification is highly dependent upon the design approach of the vendor. Data formats required, volume of data, etc. are expected to be quite different depending upon the design of the toolset. It is the Government’s intention to facilitate any or all data collection efforts after contract award in support of the development of the tool. This will most likely be a joint effort between Government and vendor. |
| 16. |
| In Section 3.3, the System Design Requirements “this tool shall model other obstruction types, to include, but not limited to the following: buildings, towers, antennas…” Please clarify the intent of this requirement, it does not specify the criteria to assess the impact of these onstructions on radar and C2 performance and is therefore open ended. We need a clear set of requirements to address this in our current approach. |
| The purpose of this tool is clearly the analysis of proposed wind farm impacts on search radar. The inclusion of geographic features are intended to support this analysis. Effects such as screening due to buildings, scattering effects, multipath, etc. are examples of how these other obstruction types is to ensure the most accurate model possible given the specific site environment. |
| 17. |
| Again in Section 3.3, “The contractor shall design the model to facilitate changes to: wind-turbine designs, wind-farm designs, radar hardware/software designs, target characteristics, RF atmospheric propagation, terrain databases, cultural databases, and other components that enable model flexibility.” This is also open ended and probably speaks more to some sort of object oriented design than any specific requirement. Additionally, more clarification of the Government’s desire to include cultural databases is requested |
This requirement is to specify the intent of the tool to be coded in a flexible and maintainable coding structure. For instance, using an approach where embedded parameters and algorithms are entwined throughout the software that only work with one type of turbine will not be acceptable. This is far inferior to a database concept that accurately captures the necessary characteristics to manage multiple different types of turbines, stores these in a manageable database, and then is queried when needed for analysis. The intent of this BAA is not to rigidly specify design level requirements. To modern professional developers, this requirement may seem overly simplistic. In the end, this statement is to convey the mindset that we expect the vendor to embrace during development so that the Government has a useable and maintainable product for years to come.
| 18. |
| In regards to weather options during simulation, would the Government like to be able to choose common weather occurrence for a specific location, specific weather conditions (thunderstorms, wind, hail, movement of volcanic ash, etc) and/or RMP rotation of wind farms? |
| NOAA will select the cases and can provide recorded Doppler weather radar (Level I and Level II). |
| 19. |
| Is it possible for the Government to provide contractors with any documentation on the signal processing and tacking system algorithms for the radars of interest? Any information that can be provided pre-bid would be very useful in developing the model requirements and thus the modeling effort and cost. |
| The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements. |
| 20. |
| The C2 tracking performance specs quoted in the BAA were to be within 10% or 5% of real world data for track acquisition, tracking continuity, track coast, track re-acquisition, and track position accuracy. This terminology is unclear to us. We request that the Government provide specifications for the exact metrics to be used when judging these quantities? For example, is track acquisition the time delay between fist contact and the time the track is “initiated” to firm status, or is it based on some number of updates? To operate the metrics, does the Government intend to provide real world data with “target truth” to test against? |
| The percentage is simply a percentage comparison from output of the tool to real world capture. For instance, track acquisition is the number of scans (not time) that a target must be declared before being considered a firm track. If a wind farm causes an impact delaying the track formation due to missed hits on target, lower quality/confidence, etc. this is undesirable. It is the intent of this tool to help predict these impacts. For the purposes of comparison, the Government specified a performance spec that would simply compare the performance of the tool output to the real world performance. It is ultimately up to the vendor to develop appropriate test plans in order to verify these statistics according to the design approach taken. |
| 21. |
| Is it possible for the Government to provide contractors with any information on the various C2 systems reference in the BAA, such as the Air Marine Operations Surveillance System, the Air Marine Operations Center or the Battle Control System – Fixed at the Air Defense Sectors? |
The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements.
| 22. |
| Can the Government specifically define key targets, such as ultra lights, helicopters, etc? |
| The solution must be flexible enough to model all common anticipated target classes. |
| 23. |
| Should the modeling tool/simulation include secondary radar returns and data tags? |
The intent of this tool is to study and predict the impacts to primary radar systems. If the secondary presentation provides improved analysis capability/comprehension, then it is certainly desirable—however, it is not a requirement.
| 24. |
| To what extent does DHS want to simulate radar reliability and operational status? For example, using multiple radar units with the ability to simulate operation malfunctions; simulate the additional of new radars or changing from one to another, etc? |
| Vendors should assume 100% radar availability as far as modeling is concerned. Turning radar on and off, and adding/removing radars should be a user-selectable option. |
| 25. |
| The BAA states that the contractor’s software shall be developed utilizing Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 approved software methodologies; this includes conducting requirements analysis, functional and design requirements, requirements, requirements definition and attributes. Does this requirement mean that CMMI Level 3 processes would be adequate, even if the contractor is not officially appraised at CMMI Level 3? |
| The BAA requirement as stated: “…the contractor’s software shall be developed utilizing Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 approved software methodologies; this includes conducting requirements analysis, functional and design requirements, requirements, requirements definition and attributes.” |
| 26. |
| Many different types of radar are required to be simulated using the simulated wind turbine reflection data. Will the contractor be provided access to all information required to simulate any of the specified radars? The required information would include radar hardware parameters along with details of the signal processing components (hardware and software). |
| Yes. The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements. |
| 27. |
| The BAA uses the term validate in several sections referring to data quality. The intent of the wind turbine simulation capability is to provide data that is “close” to what can be expected from individual radars. The Government wishes to have tool that is “valid” for a wide variety of wind turbines, radar systems, and environments. Real world data is lacking for most of these variations. Can the Government be more specific in describing a satisfactory validation process? |
| In order to satisfy the “validate” requirement, the contractor must plan for a test program to gather the necessary data and/or environment in order to achieve a confidence in the tool’s output on all cases that are currently available. |
| 28. |
| The BAA states that 12 hard copies of the proposal will be delivered in person and that there are four volumes. Is each volume to be in its own separate binder or can one binder hold all four volumes? If the answer is to have all four volumes in one binder, can the Cost/Price Volume be in its own binder? |
The Cost/Price Volume must be a separate binder. This information will be included in a forthcoming Amendment to the BAA. There is no longer a requirement for vendors to provide hard copies of Proposal Volumes.
| 29. |
| The due dates for the preliminary and final submittal of CDRLs are very unclear. Request DHS define the date that CDRLs are due. |
| There are no due dates specified in the announcement. The due dates for the CDRLs will be contingent upon the schedule that is proposed by the vendor. |
| 30. |
| Government comments are due within 30 days after receipt of a CDRL, is there a similar expectation as to when final submittals are due to the Government; example 30 days after comments? |
| Due dates/final submittals of CDRLs will be contingent upon the schedule that is proposed by the vendor. |
| 31. |
| The BAA lists a Systems Requirement Specification (CDRL 012) and also lists a System/Subsystem Specification (CDRL 013) –are these one and the same CDRL? If they are different can the Government explain when the SSS is due relative to the SRS? |
| No, they are not the same. The SRS can certainly be used as an input or source document to the SSS. The SRS is due before significant work commences as it is the document that finalizes and formalizes the requirements. The SSS is due prior to entering the FDR (see para 3.2.4). |
| 32. |
| Does the Government expect one S/SDD (System/Subsystem Design Document) or 1 per CSCI? |
| Yes. Due to the volume of information an S/SDD can potentially contain, one S/SDD per CSCI is required. |
| 33. |
| Does the Government expect one SPS or 1 per CSCI? |
| Yes. Due to the volume of information that an SPS can potentially contain, one per SPS per CSCI is required. |
| 34. |
| The Government requires all CDRLs to be in editable format utilizing the Microsoft Office Suite of tools. This is a very limiting requirement since it is probably that test reports are automatically generated documents (such as the SPS or Requirements Specification – depending upon the toolsets used by the contractor) maybe more easily produced in Adobe PDF. Will the Government consider the acceptability of Adobe PDF documents? |
| Test reports or any other document that does not require or is not subject to being edited by the Government can certainly be produced in Adobe PDF. |
All CDRLs and any other documents subject to being edited must be produced using the Microsoft Office Suite of tools.
| 35. |
| The BAA states that the System Requirements Specification (SRS) be approved 3 times (following the SRR, the FDR, and the PDR). This indicates an expectation by the Government that the requirements will be volatile; this would lead to (potentially) multiple deliveries of the FDS and the S/SDD? |
The requirement is not that the SRS should be approved at those points but in order for the FDR and PDR to be considered complete, the SRS must “have been” previously approved. It will be approved only one time. If updates are generated, updates will also require Government approval.
| 36. |
| Section 3.3.2 specifies model accuracy requirements. Some of these requirements seem extremely ambitious (e.g. “Throughout the volume of coverage, I/Q predictions shall exhibit the following accuracy: Over a typical wind farm, a high fidelity model shall be within 1 dB (I/Q values).”) or even unrealizable, based on model accuracies that have typically been observed within radar research and development community. |
How will the Government evaluate this aspect of the proposal and what weight will be given to the contractor’s stated/demonstrated claims regarding their ability to meet the specified accuracy requirements?
The intent of the accuracy requirement is that the results of the tool shall be sufficiently accurate such that operator’s can make reasonable assessments of impacts, and that the tool’s output product is accurate enough to be defendable in any contentious environment. The Government has been presented with a wide range of what is achievable with the current state of modeling and technology. The onus is on the experience and expertise of the vendor to provide the most accurate model that they can achieve, along with the approach that will be used for verification.
This acquisition is being conducted on a Best Value basis.
| 37. |
| Page 7, Section 2.7 – For the Schedule Volume, will the MS Project file be required separately? |
| Yes. |
Amendment 0001
| 38. |
| Are any soft copies of the proposal required? |
| One soft copy o fthe Proposal is required – ALL vendors shall email their Proposal to susan.eicher@dhs.gov. The maximum file size the DHS server will accommodate is 2MG. If a vendor submit its Proposal using more than one email, it SHALL identify each email as BAA 10-03 Proposal 1 of _. |
| 39. |
| There are areas of the BAA that refer to unclassified users, yet there are reference to classification guides and classified work products. Will there be a classified system required? |
| Classification guides were referenced, so that vendors could determine whether or not their solution set will move the model into classified territory. |
| 40. |
| While there is extensive knowledge in the community on the radar data processors, signal processors, and C2 system, for the radars listed on Page 17, will the Sponsor be providing specifications for each of the radars and modes of interest? |
| Yes. The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements. |
| 41. |
| Importing and processing site specific recordings, third-party data, and third-party database requirements is alluded to in various locations. To better understand the scope, what are the types and number of items with which the solution is required to interface? Specifically, the last bullet of Section 3.3.5, “import site specific recordings” refers to what types of recordings, and how many types? |
| The vendor must research and be ready to recommend data-collection schema as part of their response. At a radar site for example, it is likely that radar CD-2 formatted messages, ASTERIX formatted messages, IP data captures, and I/Q data captures may be necessary. |
| 42. |
| Section 3.3.9, page 23, how many applicable weather ICDs? |
| Anticipate two ICDs each for WSR-88D and TDWR. One for Level I (I&Q data) and one for digitized base data (Level II). |
| 43. |
| Section 3.3, page 15, Monte Carlo Processing Time. Monte Carlo analysis will increase processing time; are the timing requirements specific to each instantiation within the analysis, versus the set of trails in its entirety? |
| Monte Carlo analysis techniques employed to assess a given (static) wind-turbine/farm placement should be confined to the 15 min/8hr timeframes specified in the BAA for Low/High fidelity analysis. In this mindset, Monte Carlo analysis refers to the various radar/environmental/wind-turbine perturbations occurring between given sets of operational parameters. |
If a Monte Carlo technique is employed to accomplish a study on optimizing wind-turbine placement (i.e., moving the wind-turbine physical locations around), it would be realistic to expect much longer time-lines to complete the study, depending on number of turbines and complexity of the wind-farm environment.
| 44. |
| Section 1.2, page 5, Design Goals vs Requirements. How are requirements distinguished from design goals within this request, with regards to Section 1.2, pg. 5? |
| Design goals must be construed as requirements under this BAA. |
Amendment 0001
| 45. |
| Roughly, what is the maximum number of users that is expected to utilize high fidelity simulation simultaneously for the initial build out of the system? |
| The maximum number is five. |
| 46. |
| Similarly, what is the maximum number of simultaneous users of low fidelity simulation and of file access? |
| The maximum number is 20. |
| 47. |
| Roughly, what is the total number of users expected for the initial build out? |
| That would depend on your definition of “initial build out” …. the number would be approximately 20 for obstruction evaluation purposes only and approximately 150 when guest users are included. |
| 48. |
| If the prime contractor is CMMI Level 3 or greater, is that sufficient if sub-contractors are less then CMMI level 3? |
| No. |
| 49. |
| If the prime contractor is CMMI Level 5, do you give consideration in the award factor for running a process higher than required? |
| This acquisition is being conducted on a Best Value basis. |
| 50. |
| Per para 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 bullet # four "in-Phase…" do you require the high fidelity model to generate I/Q data in eight hours? This is a significant driver to the processing cost and load, this appears to be more of an engineering analysis than a performance impact analysis. |
| Yes. |
| 51. |
| Are the Key Performance Requirements specified for a single task or expected to be met for any number of simultaneous users? |
| Simultaneous users. |
| 52. |
| What is the number of overlapping radars that the model must accommodate? |
The Model must reflect operational environment and simulate corresponding radars.
Five maximum overlapping radars.
Amendment 0001
| 53. |
| Section 3.3.3, the 8th bullet appears to require that detailed high fidelity models need to be generated for each of the radar types listed below the bullet. If that is the case, will the Government be supplying the architectures, characteristics, scan patterns, waveforms for each category defined in Appendix A, and any other information that may be required for each of those radars in order to develop the model? |
| Yes. The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements. |
| 54. |
| Are there any requirements to model the effect on Interrogate Friend or Foe (IFF) performance? |
| No. |
| 55. |
| In order to develop the high fidelity radar models (bullet 8), will the Government provide any additional information required beyond the list in Appendix A for any given radar? |
| Yes. The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements. |
| 56. |
| Are there any radar models the Government can supply as GFI, and if so, which radars? |
| No. |
| 57. |
| Will GFI to the level required to model the radars at a high fidelity be provided by the Government at contract award or is assumed contractor will provide Subject Matter Experts (SME)? |
| Both SMEs and respective data will be provided. |
| 58. |
| Will radar locations for all systems be disclosed for mapping? Radars have multiple operation modes, is there a recommendation for default mode? |
| All radar locations will be provided for mapping. A day-to-day mode of operation within a nominal static environment would logically be the default mode. Parameters should be user selectable. However, the vendor must propose operation in a dynamic operational environment. |
| 59. |
| In a scenario with user defined Turbines (new RCS) is the calculation of the RCS to be included in the performance requirements (8 Hours High fidelity)? |
| No. The Government envisions that the turbines will be modeled through an independent approach and then stored in a database for retrieval during the high/low fidelity analysis. |
| 60. |
| Are there existing data bases that support OE/AAA process? Are they available? How to access these? |
| Yes. Access and interfacing details will be provided to the winning contractor. |
| 61. |
| Are there existing databases to build upon? Will they be available? |
What are their formats?
Yes, Largely Oracle based; will require some vendor research.
| 62. |
| For how many seats and at how many sites will there be the need to supply hardware to operate the modeling tool software? |
| 15 sites, 20 people low, 125 guests, |
And 5 people high.
| 63. |
| 3.3.14; where is the location "TBD"? When will this be defined? |
| The location is still To Be Determined (TBD). It is likely that a location will be identified at contract award. |
| 64. |
| How many system users and operators will be in the training class? |
| 30. |
| 65. |
| In Volume I, for the Schedules and Milestones Bullet it states that “The section for the schedule and milestones must be separate from the individual task descriptions and clearly marked.” In which volume should the schedule, milestones, and task descriptions be placed? Does this mean that “The section for the schedule and milestones” is part of Volume I and the individual task descriptions” is part of Volume III”? |
| The data requirements in Volumes I and III are separate. |
The schedule, milestones, and task descriptions must be placed in Volume I.
Volume III requires an Offeror to “Provide a schedule that clearly displays the tasks to be performed and the time required to complete each task. Provide a critical path schedule.”
| 66. |
| What is the weighting factor for each evaluation criteria? |
| The weights will not be disclosed. |
| 67. |
| The column "Type of Turbines" is blank. Is the Government going to define the "Type of Turbines" for each site in the BAA? If not, when will they be defined? |
| We anticipate that a given user will select from a “toolbox” (i.e., drop-down menu) that includes known turbine types. The solution must be flexible, and have the capability to model existing and future wind-turbine types |
| 68. |
| There appears to be no reference for Appendix H in the body of the BAA. Is that an omission? |
| Appendix H contains various turbine types. |
| 69. |
| Will the final completed model be considered classified, FOUO or unclassified? |
| We anticipate that the majority of the model construct and usability will be in the unclassified realm, with certain functionalities (modularized) that move into the classified realm.] |
| 70. |
| S3.3 (p14) Capabilities such as mitigation strategies and providing wind industry partners a “first-look” tool are future requirements. However, there seems to be a discrepancy between the future requirements of 3.3 and the specified requirements of S3.3.7 (p19), which outlines the provision of industry guest accounts. Are these expected to be delivered as part of the initial tool? |
| The initial paragraph for Section 3.3 reads: |
“The overall system design shall meet the immediate need to support obstruction evaluation assessments as outlined in Appendix E, while remaining open to future requirement capabilities such as addressing mitigation strategies as well as providing wind industry partners a “first-look” assessment tool.”
The “guest” accounts relate to the “first-look” portion of the tool.
Essentially, our immediate need is a system that will provide more fidelity when evaluating obstructions. Our goal here is to obtain an idea of the cost and effort to meet our immediate needs as well as our future capability requirements.
| 71. |
| S3.3 (second bullet) To be able to provide the required accuracies (outlined in S3.3.2), are the appropriate CAD models for things like buildings, towers and tanks etc… going to be provided? |
| No. The contractor must supply these models. |
| 72. |
| S3.3 (third bullet) What is meant by “readily adaptable to migrate to an application” in the context of the sentence? |
| The sentence in question reads: |
“The tool shall be designed to be readily adaptable to migrate to an application that will serve as an engineering analysis tool and support radar optimization studies, explore wind turbine placement/mitigation solutions, and investigate radar modifications.”
It means that the tool should be designed such that it is open to future enhancements such as serving as an engineering analysis tool…
| 73. |
| S3.3 What is the anticipated frequency of use and number of users at any one time? |
| High fidelity: one user at a time. Low fidelity, up to 20 users at a time. |
| 74. |
| S3.3 B1 What does the USG mean by near field analysis, is this the near field of the radar antenna or the near field of the turbine tower? |
Near field of the radar antenna.
| 75. |
| S3.3 What is the difference between the low and high fidelity models? Is the difference just model accuracy, or can the low fidelity, “first look” model be run without the generating IQ data, i.e. is the IQ data required to be outputted in the low fidelity model? As the 4th bullet of S3.3.2 only mentions high fidelity accuracy. |
| We believe that the wording within the BAA adequately addresses this. |
| 76. |
| S3.3.2 Is the USG going to provide the relevant information relating to the radar trackers, to provide the required accuracy (outlined in S3.3.2)? |
| The information will be provided to the vendor awarded the contract subject to non-disclosure requirements. |
| 77. |
| S3.3.2 What would be the maximum number of radars per project that would need to be run? |
| Typically, 1 to 3; up to 10. |
| 78. |
| S3.3.2 Are the specified times processing times, i.e. ‘modeling run times’ rather than project times, i.e. the time taken to run the model, produce a verdict and report the results? |
| Run times. |
| 79. |
| S3.3.2 Since this may impact on the processing times for the low and high fidelity models, what are the upper bounds on the period of synthetic data you would want modeled per run? |
| The vendor’s solution set will drive this requirement. |
| 80. |
| S3.3.2 Is the USG going to provide the Offeror with real radar data from the sites listed in Appendix C, as well as targets for the purposes of test and validation, to compare to the modeling outputs, or should the cost of this trials and data collection be factored into the proposal? |
| Depending on the solution, one or both data types may be necessary to validate model performance. This will likely be a joint effort depending on the vendor’s resources. |
| 81. |
| S3.3.2 Does “false targets” refer to the number of false targets per scan from wind farms rather than the number of false targets in the full coverage of the radar display? |
| “False targets” refers to the number of false targets in the full coverage of the radar given specific site and environmental factors. |
| 82. |
| S3.3.3 Will the USG provide radar signal processing information in addition to the characteristics listed in Appendix A? |
| Issues of non-disclosure will need to be worked prior to release of this type of information. |
| 83. |
| S3.3.3 Will the USG provide specific parameters for each of the different radars as per the list in Appendix A? |
| Issues of non-disclosure will need to be worked prior to release of this type of information. |
| 85. |
| S3.3.3 Can you specify what is the FAA/weather data formats, and what are the required output products? |
| NOAA can provide recorded Doppler weather radar (Level I and Level II). |
| 86. |
| S3.3.4 Will the USG provide formats of the databases for input into the models. |
| Yes. |
| 87. |
| S3.3.4 Will the USG provide information on what type of format the CAD models would be? |
| This will be driven by the vendor’s solution. |
| 88. |
| S3.3.5 Will the USG provide the format for recordings for the clutter environment? |
| Issues of non-disclosure will need to be worked prior to release of this type of information. |
| 89. |
| S3.3.8 Can the USG please define more clearly the relationship between the current OE/AAA capability/process and the new DHS Wind Turbine/Radar Modeling tool? For example, is the new DHS Wind Turbine/Radar Modeling tool intended to replace the existing OE/AAA capability, or is it intended to augment the existing capability? Is the new tool required to replicate all the existing capability of the existing OE/AAA process, or is the priority on improving Wind Farm analysis capability? |
| No, the new tool will not replace the current OE/AAA process as a whole. It will replace the portion currently utilized for assessing the impact of wind turbines as well as the administrative process currently in use by the Joint Program Office (JPO). |
| 90. |
| S3.3.6 What are the OE/AAA timelines and how does this relate to the 15min/8 hour low/high fidelity timescales? |
| There is no relationship here. |
| 91. |
| S3.3.7 Does “limited functionality account low fidelity modeling capability” mean producing an output similar to the current OE/AAA process of Appendix E, or literally limited access to the outputs of a low fidelity modeling run? |
| Generally, we anticipate vendor “ingenuity” to be applied towards a viable user-friendly, flexible, and accurate output report. Current reports are FOUO, so specific examples cannot be provided. However, a sample format (straw man) can be provided, which we would recommend to be used as a “starting point” only. |
| 92. |
| What is the anticipated volume of projects, i.e. industry first looks, low fidelity, high fidelity, to be run per day? |
| This is specified in the BAA. |
| 93. |
| S3.3.8 Is the “OE case” being managed outside of this proposed system? |
| Yes. |
| 94. |
| S3.3.8 Will the USG provide a fully populated table as indicated in Appendix F? |
| Yes. |
| 95. |
| S3.3.8 What does the USG mean by “support” the current OE/AAA process? The definition of the word ‘support’ is unclear and clarification is required to assist in costing the proposal. |
| The vendor’s solution must consider and replace the existing JPO assessment process. |
| 96. |
| S3.3.8 Are the four items in Appendix D the only business rules currently in use by the OE/AAA process? |
| No. Additional business rules have been added to the process. Note: this response only relates to the JPO portion of the overall OE/AAA process. |
| 97. |
| S3.3.8 This section seems to infer ownership of data in the OE system. Is this accurate, and if so, can the USG provide further elaboration on the OE data and all related processes in order to understand the scope of work? |
| Yes, but vendors must submit a specific request. |
| 98. |
| S3.3.8 Does “case or case projects” bullet point no. 4) refer to case or case projects submitted in the DHS? |
| Yes. Once in use, this tool is expected to apply automation for linking to OE-AAA cases, (downloading and uploading), using the OE-AAA system as a master database relative to case-numbering and tracking. |
| 99. |
| S3.3.8 Is the intent of S3.3.8 requirements to access the new DHS modeling capability as the surrogate modeling capability for OE cases? |
| Yes. |
| 100. |
| S3.3.8 Are the bullets in the lower half of page 21 related only to the new OE/AAA process? |
This question is a bit unclear. This is more of a tool change (adding automation) as opposed to a process change.
| 101. |
| S3.3.8 Page 21, top bullet seems unrelated to anything else? Is it the case that the new model will be required to alter cases in the current OE process? |
| This bullet is related to the preceding three bullets. “Project under study” may be the most used, especially by wind energy developers. |
| 102. |
| S3.3.10 The BAA asks the contractor to design an emulation of the primary C2 processing chains – this would require a significant amount of data/information to be provided (probably proprietary) about these processing chains, and would significantly increase the complexity and cost of the solution. Does the USG really want an mulation rather than a simulation, and if so will the data required to create emulation be provided free of charge? |
| The vendor shall propose “emulation” vs “simulation” |
| 103. |
| Is the “Draft Program Management Plan” required at proposal submission part of 75 page count? |
| No. |
Amendment 0001
| 104. |
| S3.3.14 Will the USG provide a list of “applicable security classification guidelines”? |
| Yes. |
| 105. |
| S3.3.14 “Provide a technical solution to process high fidelity engineering level modeling studies at a location TBD.” - What is meant by this? Is this referring to hosting the tool at a contractor facility? |
| No, it simply means that the location of the “server” is to be determined. |
| 106. |
| Given the anticipated time required to answer the questions and the subsequent time required for contractors to incorporate the answers in their offers, will the USG extend the proposal due date? |
The proposal submission date has been extended to 18 February 2010, 11:59PM, EST.
| 107. |
| This BAA is much different than our past BAA experiences. |
| This BAA reflects a “phased implementation” approach. This BAA also offers vendors the opportunity to invoke creativity. |
| 108. |
| How long after anticipated of selection would performance commence. |
| Performance will commence after contract award. |
| 109. |
| For how long should the submitted proposal remain valid? |
| Proposals must remain valid for 120 days after submission. |
Amendment 0001
| 110. |
| Is the “pre-award identification” attachment which is submitted as an attachment included in page count? Pg 29 |
No.
| 111. |
| In Section 4.1 under Volume I: Technical, the first bullet mentions threshold and objective requirements specified in section 3.1. Section 3.1 does not appear to classify requirements as threshold or objective. Please clarify. |
| Please refer to Response # 5. |
Amendment 0001
| 112. |
| Under section 5.2 Evaluation Criteria regarding Schedule, the rating scale used to assess the merit of the Schedule Factor appears to be omitted from the BAA text. Is this rating scale provided elsewhere or will it be included in a revised BAA? |
| This narrative is in error. The rating scale will not be provided. |
Amendment 0001
| 113. |
| In Section 1.2 Scope of Work is the statement: “Within this request are design goals that shall be modified to requirements at contract award based upon the contractor’s proposed design.” We do not see items defined as “goals” within the remaining text of the BAA. Please clarify the above statement with respect to the technical requirements in the BAA. |
| This section is referring to the requirements as listed. Requirements and goals are all “requirements”. |
| 114. |
| The bullet list of meetings, reviews and conferences in Section 3.2 does not correspond one-to-one with the meeting descriptions defined in subsections 3.2.1 through 3.2.9. Some in bullet list do not have a corresponding description and vice versa and some names are slightly different between the two places. Please clarify. |
The bulleted list should read:
· Post Award Conference
· Program Management Reviews
· Technical Interchange Meetings
· System Requirements Review
· Functional Design Review
· Preliminary Design Review
· Critical Design Review
· Test Readiness Review
· Implementation/Software Release Readiness Review
· Project Closeout Meeting
The only meeting listed above that does not have a corresponding description is the Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM). TIMs are periodic meetings hosted by the contractor and used to exchange technical information with the Government.
| 115. |
| Section 3.3.1 states performance requirements for low and high-fidelity simulations. Because there is the possibility that multiple users can be submitting jobs that run at the same time, are the performance requirements listed in Section 3.3.1 for a single user's project at a time? If not, how many users should the system be able to support concurrently and keep these performance requirements? |
| High fidelity – 1 user at a time; Low fidelity – up to 20 users at a time. |
| 116. |
| In Section 3.3.1 Key Performance Requirements: Is there a simulated time interval for a “project?” Is this for a single radar and how many other aircraft or objects generating a radar return would be in the project? What is the required fidelity of the aircraft models or other models? |
| To be proposed by the vendor. |
| 117. |
| Section 3.3.2 Model Accuracy Requirements under Probability of Detection, states model data will be compared to real-world data. How many different scenarios and environmental conditions will be represented by the real-world data? The characteristics of the objects to be detected and tracked are not provided. |
| To be researched by the vendor. |
| 118. |
| Section 3.3.2 Model Accuracy Requirements under Probability of Detection: states that “this requirement shall apply to multiple points within the radar model to include the signal processor and radar data processor” infers that the real-world data will also be available at these same “multiple points.” What are these other multiple points? If the model to be developed will be tested at multiple points, these points should be known to ensure their accessibility in the model design and implementation. |
To be researched by vendor
For weather radars, cases of recorded Level I and Level II data will be available for contractor verification use.
| 119. |
| In Section 3.3 Task Requirement: System design Requirements under the third bullet it states “The tool shall be designed to be readily adaptable to migrate to an application that will serve as an engineering analysis tool and support radar optimization studies, explore wind turbine placement/mitigation solutions, and investigate radar modifications.” The requirements for the Wind Turbine/Radar Modeling Tool in this BAA appear to already cover the capabilities of the engineering analysis tool to which it would be “migrated.” Please clarify. |
| Advanced engineering study capabilities at subsequent stages of development are desirable. |
| 120. |
| Are there existing digital models and/or documentation of the radar systems listed in section 3.3.3? If so, will these be provided as GFE? The documentation would need to include details of the radar transmitter, receiver, signal processing, data processing and track initiation and processing. |
| Issues of non-disclosure will need to be worked prior to release of this type of information. |
| 121. |
| Section 3.3.3 tasks us to Develop more detailed radar models based on the user-defined inputs described in Appendix A. Appendix A, however, only lists characteristics for the generic (low-fidelity) radar model. Please clarify. |
| Ultimately, more information will be provided, as specifically requested by the vendors for high-fidelity development. |
| 122. |
| Section 3.3.4 states: “Provide the capability to model a total aggregate depiction of a wind-turbine development”. What is meant by “development” in this statement? |
| Multiple wind-turbines within a given project. |
| 123. |
| In BAA section 3.3.3, pages 16~17, For the radar model requirements is high fidelity synonymous with in-phase / quadrature-phase (I/Q) data use/generation? |
| This is likely, but it depends on the vendor’s solution. |
| 124. |
| BAA section 3.3.6 implies that the software shall be designed to input data in three dimensions. Other requirements in section 3.3.5 discuss the need to import three dimensional data. Is it the Government’s intent that the contractor includes a CAD tool in the software suite or is that an import capability be developed? |
This is dependent upon the vendor’s solution.
| 125. |
| BAA section 3.3.13 references are made to “maintain user-changeable database libraries”. Are these user-specific or an indication that specific roles can change data in the databases? |
| Yes. |
| 126. |
| Also in BAA section 3.3.13, can the Government identify or quantify the wind turbine databases? This information will help define interface requirements. |
| For existing databases, “Yes.” Additional databases will likely need to be part of vendor solution set. |
| 127. |
| Section 5.2 Evaluation Criteria |
On page 32 of the BAA under the Technical section - Requirements for Government Furnished Resources. Is a request for Government Furnished Resources considered a positive or a negative in the evaluation criteria?
It depends on what the request entails.
The contract will be awarded on a best value basis.
| 128. |
| Section 4.1, Page 27 of the BAA states that “Times New Roman font 12 point” must be used. |
Does this guideline apply to tables, figures, and other graphics as well?
Yes.
| 129. |
| Development of Wind Turbine/Radar Modeling Tool for Assessing the Effect of Wind Turbines on Radars discusses a number of radars which will be affected by the presence of wind turbines. We have not seen any mention of HF radars, or the IOOS HFR (Integrated Ocean Observing System High Frequency Radars network. They would be severely affected by wind turbines, as some of them already are. The data quality for SAR and the ship surveillance programs would also be significantly impacted. Do we discuss this type of radars (sic), possible remedies of their problems caused by wind turbines and the final hardware systems implementing such remedies in our proposal, or would DHS issue a new BAA or RFQ covering this essential radar systems? |
| The radars mentioned are not within the scope of this effort. |
| 130. |
| The answer to question #45 states that the maximum number of simultaneous high fidelity users is 5. The answer to question #62 seems to support this. |
However, the answers to questions #73 and #115 state only 1 high fidelity user at a time.
Since this could effect the scaleability for the solution, please clarify the number of simultaneous users of the high fidelity capability.
To clarify, there are five potential high fidelity users of the system but only one will utilize the system at any one time.
| 131. |
| Q&A 62 says that the contractor shall provide hardware to operate the modeling tool software for 15 sites. BAA Section 3.3.6, bullet 2 says the software should “include capability to allow user access via the web”. |
Does the DHS expect a web based system that can be accessed from a users existing desktop platform or do they expect this contract to provide desktop hardware to support the tools use?
The primary users, those performing assessments for the OE/AAA process and the engineers, will require hardware. All other potential users will access the system via the web.
| 132. |
| Q&A 77 states that the maximum number of radars for a project is 10. Q&A 52 states that the number of overlapping radars that the model must accommodate is 5. Is the number 10 used in question 77 an error or does DHS envision a wind farm project that might require two sets of overlapping radars to cover it? |
| Five is the accurate number. |
| 133. |
| Q&A 4 states that the contractor must price life cycle maintenance as an option. |
How is this option to be priced: total cost for a specific number of years, cost per year, or in some other way?
Cost per year for up to 5 years.
| 134. |
| Q&A 103 states that the “Draft program Management Plan (PMP) is not part of the Technical Volume page count. |
Should this document be submitted as an appendix or a stand-alone document?
Is it the Government’s intent that this draft PMP be complete, ready to use to manage the program, at the time of proposal submittal?
Is there a page count limit to the draft PMP?
How will the PMP be evaluated and is there a weighting assigned to it?
The PMP must be submitted as a separate document.
Yes, the PMP should as complete as feasible.
No, there is no page limit.
The PMP will not be evaluated as separate criteria – the PMP will be evaluated under the Technical Factor.
| 135. |
| In response to Contractor Question #95, the Government stated the vendor’s solution must consider and replace the existing JPO assessment process. |
Can the Government supply a description of the current JPO assessment process prior to contract award?
The current process flow is depicted in Appendix E. The requirements, as written in the BAA, take into account what is necessary to be included to satisfy the current process.
| 136. |
| In response to Contractor Question #97, the Government’s answer indicated section 3.3.8 of the BAA infers ownership of OE system data, and the Government would provide further elaboration on the OE data and all related processes in order to understand the scope of the work. |
Is this information available prior to contract award?
The Government will work with industry to provide specific information to specific requests to the extent feasible, prior to and following contract award.
| 137. |
| The Government’s response to Questions #45, 73, and 115 are inconsistent with respect to the number of simultaneous High Fidelity Users. The answer to Question #45 indicates five simultaneous users while the responses to Questions 73 and 115 indicate only one user at any given time. |
Please clarify.
Please refer to Response # 130.
| 138. |
| The Government’s response to Question #52 is inconsistent with the answer provided to Question #110. The response to Question #52 indicated five maximum overlapping radars while Questions #77’s response indicates “up to 10”. |
| Please refer to Response # 132. |
| 139. |
| Section 3.3.6 bullet 2 specifies the system must allow user access via the web. Does this imply that the ability to execute all levels of model fidelity (low and high) as well as administrative functions must be accessible the web for any user (internal/external) of the system? |
| No; we anticipate a realistic solution that provides broad accessibility to low-fidelity model users, while high-fidelity runs will be restricted to engineering level users. Notional concepts of users, accounts, and execution of low/high fidelity model runs are adequate within the BAA language. Industry ingenuity should be utilized to recommend overall system design, including Web access where appropriate and advantageous. |
| 140. |
| The Government’s response to Question #89 states the new tool will replace the administrative process currently in use by the Joint Program Office (JPO). Can the USG provide details of the JPO administrative process? Does the administrative process account for the operational evaluations that lead to the determination of impact assessment. |
| Please refer to Response # 135. |
| 141. |
| Based on the Government’s response to Question #96 and the requirement of section 3.3.8 to support the OEAAA processes business rule does the new system need to incorporate and support all business rules in use by the OEAAA process or only the four in Appendix D? |
| The business rules of immediate concern are complete within Appendix D, but as stated in the appendix narrative, “Business rule process SHALL be designed to modify existing and add new rules.” |
| 142. |
| Section 3.3.8 lists the requirement to include the capability to maintain configuration control (check-in/check-out) of data, analysis, and products. Could the USG please provide additional requirements regarding the functionality of the configuration control feature? |
| We believe the notional concepts of configuration control are adequate within the BAA, and anticipate industry ingenuity to be demonstrated here. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.