BAA_13-05_Post_Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Q A_1_to_post.pdf

BAA 13-05

Questions and Answers

January 30, 2013

Q1: Will proposals X-Ray technology advancements for air cargo screening be considered or is the intent to focus exclusively on checkpoint and checked baggage use cases?

A1: The primary focus of BAA 13-05 is checkpoint and checked baggage use cases and the respective equipment platforms. BAA 13-05 technology and solutions for checkpoint and checked baggage potentially may be leveraged for future air cargo capability enhancement as noted in Task 5.1.1, paragraph 3.

Q2: How important is compatibility with existing legacy x-ray platforms; checkpoint and checked baggage screening?

A2: Reference section 1.8.3 BAA Overview (page 7, third paragraph):

“This BAA seeks new system solutions employing revolutionary technologies capable of offering significant enhancement to the overall detection capability metrics. Minor or incremental improvements are not of interest for this BAA.

Transition periods of 4-5 years are anticipated; however S&T has interest in technologies that may offer nearer term retrofit capability into the deployed EDS and AT platforms.”

Reference section 1.8.1, Background (page 5, first paragraph):

“…. Specifically, the programs pursue technologies that:

Significantly improve the capability to effectively detect current and emerging improvised explosive threats

Demonstrate the potential to deliver improved probability of detection (Pdet) and reduced probability of false alarm (Pfa) for an expanded improvised explosive library of threats, improve system reliability, and provide higher screening throughput with 0.5 m/sec as a goal

Reduce both procurement and lifecycle costs and require minimal modification of existing TSA CONOPS for deployment…

Significant performance enhancements are desired in BAA 13-05 as noted. The BAA goals may require substantial changes to equipment baselines or de novo approaches; however S&T has interest in technologies that may offer near term retrofit capability into the deployed EDS and AT platforms if a strong, justifiable business case is provided in the proposal.

Q3: Do test bed specifications represent program goals for advanced X-Ray technology? (i.e.

screening speed and spatial resolution) What is the relevance of these values?

A3: Reference section 1.8.3, BAA Overview (page 7, last paragraph):

“A specialized x-ray test bed employing new signature measurement techniques will be utilized to perform improvised explosive threat and clutter characterization. Additional characterization of stream-of-commerce clutter will occur from data collection at airports. The measured data, supplemented with airport-collected, stream-of-commerce data will be provided to multiple teams performing system architecture design, information theory analysis and algorithm development. Vendors’ EDS and AT equipment will also be used for signature data collection and evaluation on broad improvised explosive threat classes to thoroughly assess areas for improvement and provide insights to guide all task areas.”

Also reference section 1.8.4.1, Key Technologies (page 12, paragraph “e”):

“Information theoretic measurement framework, informed measurement. Generation of an information theoretic measurement framework is a central theme in this BAA in order to establish scientific rationale for cohesive research directions and priorities across task areas by establishing fundamental limits of performance and metrics for achievable goals in deployed systems retrofits and future de-novo architectures. The DHS enterprise will use the results and analysis to drive strategy, investment and priorities for aviation security technology for equipment development as well as test article development including the certification of equipment.”

As noted, a key use of the x-ray test bed is to collect signature data (scans) from improvised explosive threats and stream-of-commerce clutter. The test bed prototype may be considered as a laboratory measurement instrument whose primary purpose is providing high-quality, multiple signature-type measurements on objects in the test bed prototype baggage tunnel; therefore some “over design” may be appropriate to ensure adequate measurement capability and precision in support of BAA task areas.

The measured signature data is intended to support the BAA task areas and BAA performers in areas such as system architecture design, information theory analysis, test article development and algorithm development. The test bed prototypes should support some level of experimental prototyping (reference Appendix G, “X-ray Test Bed Description”) by organizations other than the test bed prototype development organization. The experimental prototyping, for example, may include the temporary addition of experimental hardware modules, to take signature measurements on improvised explosive threats and/or clutter.

As a BAA goal, future EDS/AT equipment hardware and software subsystem specifications will be informed and determined from various measurements, analysis and system trade-off studies from the BAA task areas.

Q4: In section 3.1.1: What is meant by the TSA tiered improvised explosive threat detection standard? Is this the same as previous 5.8 EBSP?

A4: Reference section 1.8.1 Background (page 6, second paragraph):

“TSA’s system requirements along with their cost and operational models must be met as new technologies are developed. TSA has a Mission Needs Statement (MNS), Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Functional Requirements Documents (FRD) for EDS1 and AT2 systems that will guide and frame the technology development on this BAA in order to successfully transition technology developed on a future system development acquisition and BAA. Access to the TSA documents will not be required by Performers on this BAA; DHS S&T will provide the technical direction on key technologies and needs to the Performers.”

DHS S&T will provide additional guidance after contract award on appropriate TSA detection standards and goals.

Technology from BAA 13-05 will enhance the detection capability (defined as reduced probability of false alarm with improved probability of detection and while maintaining or improving throughput). A goal of this BAA is to provide technologies to define next generation architectures and detection capability performance that can be validated in a future system development BAA. The system development BAA anticipates extensive equipment DT&E measurements that may explicitly inform new TSA detection standards for procurement (also reference Figure 1, page 8 of the draft BAA 13-05).

Q5: Is it anticipated that there will be multiple awards for each of the 5 Task Areas?

A5: Multiple awards are anticipated for each Task Area and Task.

Q6: The Task Areas appear to be tightly coupled, in the sense that results from one sub--‐task (or even directions of research in one task) impact decisions in another. Is it expected that the technical integration of the Task Areas will be at the project level or coordinated by S&T?

A6: The BAA was formulated to address challenges, develop multiple technologies by diverse performers, each with specific expertise that may lead next generation solutions desired by the

1 EDS: Explosive Detection System; TSA term for equipment used in Checked Baggage Screening utilizing X-rays and employing 3-D Computed Tomography, see http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/security-technologies#eds 2 AT: Advanced Technology; TSA term for equipment used in the Checkpoint employing X-rays to screen carry-on items and typically has only a few views unlike EDS that has many views representing the objects scanned. For more detail on the TSA Passenger Screening Program, see http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/recovery/tsa_recovery_passenger_screening_program.pdf

DHS stakeholders. Optimistically, results will be available that impact the future architectures.

Project to project coordination by performers is encouraged. DHS S&T will also require performers to participate in two industry days per year to foster interaction and share results to the extent possible being mindful of proprietary data and competition sensitive data.

Q7: At the white paper stage, is it expected that partnerships and collaborations submit joint proposals, or will DHS suggest partnerships for the full-proposal stage based on white-paper responses?

A7: Offerors may include partnerships at the white paper or full proposal stage. DHS will not suggest partnerships.

Q8: The goals and data sets of the 4 tasks in Task Area 2 are not clear. For example, how is classification (2.2) different than automated decision aids (2.3)?

A8: Classification task 2.2 is focused on EDS/Checked Baggage and will solicit joint work with EDS vendors with Appendix F, page 114 of the draft BAA 13-05 as an example. Task 2.3 is focused on the checkpoint and will not solicit vendor data by a separate FedBizOps posting.

Task 2.3 defines additional tasks to address risk-based screening and POMDP (Partially Observable Markov Decision Process) and KECoM technology for consideration with much of the work performed in a simulated environment.

Q9: Are the data to be used in 2.1 “real airport data” (presumably without threats) and the data for

2.2 and 2.3 lab-scale data (including threats or surrogate threats)?

A9: Yes

Q10: Can the proposer respond to multiple task areas with related tasks in a single proposal? For example, there could be some correlation between Task 1 and Task 2 and it may be clearer if they are proposed in conjunction with one another.

A10: Separate white papers/full proposals are requested and they may be cross referenced in each submission.

Q11: Can an alternate test system be proposed that only addresses carry-on bags and if so can the requirement on page 22 for the opening to fit TSA standards for checked bags be changed to allow the opening to meet the requirements for carry-on bags?

A11: The test bed objective is as noted in Task Area one.

Q12: Will this BAA allow funding of a separate coherent scatter add-on for an EDS or AT system?

A12: An integrated solution is preferable within the physical envelope (or less) of current EDS or AT systems meeting the objectives of this BAA. However, alternatives may be considered supported by a strong business case and high-performance detection capability metrics on multiple improvised explosive classes.

Q13: Re Task 5: How will the IP of the performers of task 5 be protected? Will the architecture/design proposals be proprietary or will they be published broadly and publicly, even if task 5 performers incorporate elements from tasks 1-4?

A13: DHS S&T will adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) policy on handling source selection information and proprietary proposals in accordance with any and all markings on the proposal. It is the policy of DHS S&T to treat all proposals as sensitive competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

BAA 13-05 requests that performers submit data rights assertions in Section H of their white papers and full proposals. This will allow the Government to include the appropriate data rights clause/s from FAR 52.227 in the contract to address intellectual property concerns.

Q14: Re Task 5: Could the result of this BAA reduce the OEM’s role to that of contract manufacturer or system integrator?

A14: The intent of this BAA is to develop technologies from multiple sources and inform equipment developers for transition into X-ray screening equipment for checked baggage and checkpoint applications as summarized in Figure 1, page 8 of the draft BAA 13-05. A system development BAA is planned to incorporate BAA 13-05 technology into vendor equipment platforms and perform extensive DT&E.

Q15: Re Task 5: Does task 5 allow for funding of evaluation of proprietary components (ie detectors/sources) for intended use by performer only?

A15: Yes. However, note the Task Area 5 Title is “X-ray System Architectural Design Concepts” and the task intent is to “develop Architectural Concept(s) for a next generation system supported by analysis, simulation, modeling and some level of prototyping [if/as appropriate] to verify key concepts. Actual system development with full-scale DT&E is not performed on this Architectural Concept task.”

Note key milestones are a PDR and Final Architecture review at month 22, supported by trade studies. As a goal, trade studies could be informed by other appropriate BAA task area results along with the performer’s innovation, capabilities and internal R&D activities supported by equipment development expertise. This task area is intended to provide preliminary specifications for the planned system development BAA.

Q16: Re Task 5: Task 5.1.2 …. Can the 20 days be broken into multiple sets of fewer days? Is there a possibility that additional time beyond the 20 days may become available during or after the period of performance (task 5)?

A16: Yes. A proposer may suggest alternatives with supporting rationale.

Q17: Re Task 5: Pg. 55 (task 5.1.2, Test Bed Experiments) Is the GFE test bed the one designed and produced as part of task 1?

A17: The GFE test bed prototype may be from Task Area 1 or other alternative test beds under consideration by DHS S&T.

Q18: Re Test Bed: When is the ICD and CONOPS for the test bed expected be available? How will it be disseminated?

A18: Assume availability within 100 days after contract award. Dissemination will be by DHS S&T.

Q19: Re Test Bed: When is proposed test bed in appendix G available for use?

A19: Assume October 2014, although earlier availability may be possible. Proposers may suggest an earlier desired date with rationale.

Q20: Re Test Bed: Will further specification details be provided regarding the required functionality of the test bed including such parameters as; source to detector distances, anticipated weight of sources, size and shape of detector systems possible? Assuming a fixed source configured design, what range and number of possible source positions, weight and size of potential source solutions?

A20: Additional details will be available in conjunction with the ICD and CONOPS as noted on page 116 of the draft BAA 13-05; assume availability within 100 days after contract award.

Q21: Re Test Bed: Who will provide systems integration services to support test bed configurations utilizing a variety of source and detector solutions? (Some source and detector design combinations require synchronization and sequencing).

A21: A third party organization will provide the support under contract by DHS S&T outside of this BAA as noted in paragraph 5, page 55 of the draft BAA 13-05. The performer on this BAA proposing use of the test bed prototype will be expected to provide technical support for proposed test bed use.

Q22: Re Test Bed: How well do you expect the GFI data from Test Bed Prototypes (CAXSI and from Task 1) to correlate to the data collected on existing EDS and AT systems so it can be used for enhanced discrimination? Is the intention to use the GFI as a purely orthogonal data set or to be correlated and/or combined in some way with the EDS and AT data?

A22: GFI data sets may be used to inform the improvised explosive signature, stream-of-commerce clutter discrimination techniques as well as support Task Area 2, “Supporting Analytical Tasks.” As a goal, EDS and AT future baselines may be able to incorporate additional discrimination techniques in vendor-selected, innovative approaches consistent with TSA CONOPS, deployment environments and rational business case justification.

Q23: Re: Task 2: Task 2.3 suggests options for adaptive screening in future systems based on priors. Is there a preliminary operations concept for system decision of an adaptive detection algorithm? How would risk-based priors be available to the EDS or AT? It is assumed that any adaptive screening would have to be performed on a passenger by passenger basis … is this consistent with DHS CONOPS for adaptive screening?

A23: The risk-based screening area is evolving and next generation sensor architectures should consider risk-based screening to the extent possible. Task 2.3 may explore possible technology, methods and potential benefits to inform future implementations relevant to the x-ray sensors and possible CONOPs.

Q24: Re: Task 3: Task 3.1.1 looks like DHS funding of HME detection periods (2 months each) at Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB). During this period will samples be collected on more that the initial 5 HME threats? Currently the initial 5 HME are collected at TSL (2 types) and TAFB (3 types) … will equipment need to be transported to two sites for this BAA effort?

A24: Assume all collection will be performed at TAFB. HME data collection will be broader than previous program activities.

Q25: Re: Task 3: Data from Task 3.1.1 will be provided to DHS and Performer (OEM). Will DHS have rights to provide this data to other third parties/OEMs? What format will this data be and will it be summary information or raw data?

A25: DHS rights to data will be governed by the Data Rights clauses negotiated in any resultant contracts. DHS S&T does not intend to provide proprietary or competition sensitive data to third parties/OEMs. Formats of data are anticipated to be in performer format and include summary information, meta data, image, sonogram and raw data.

Q26: Page 65 table shows 8 pages for the white paper, page 66 indicates 10 pages plus 2 quad charts. Are there specific expectations for the additional 2 pages?

A26: Page 66 should read 8 pages plus 2 quad charts for a total of 10 pages.

Q27: What format will stream-of-commerce data from EDS and AT systems be provided? (raw, sonogram, image, segmented features)

A27: The format is to be determined, but likely all formats: raw, sonogram, image, and segmented features.

Q28: Please clarify the reference to an additional fed biz ops posting on page 32 (scope, target audience).

A28: A general announcement will be made to solicit candidate participants. Appendix F, page114 of the draft BAA 13-05 is an example.

Q29: The conference announcement states that DHS S&T is seeking multi-disciplinary teams for the BAA. Does this mean solicitations addressing a single or subset of a major task area would not be awarded?

A29: Proposals addressing a single Task Area and/or task within a single Task Area are acceptable. For example, an offeror may propose only on Task Area 2, task 2.1. Some tasks may be appropriate for teaming, while some tasks may be adequately specialized for a single performer.

In general, DHS S&T is seeking wide expertise across the task areas, whose results can generate the desired next generation systems.

Q30: For all tasks – what will the messaging/meta-language and secure conduit be? (DICOS, DICOS header content, Public Domain Software)

A30: Instructions for the handling of secure information and specific data file formats will be provided after contract award.

Q31: For all tasks – what are the limits/restrictions/guidance on public domain software, commercial development environments, and on commercial proprietary systems/operating systems/subsystems? (DKOS [DICOS?] version, updates, maintenance, extensions; AD [“AD” term unknown])

A31: Public and TSA standards are desired where possible, and proprietary interfaces are to be used only as a last resort.

Q32: For all tasks – are multiple teams that overlap/compete allowed? By Task? By Institution?

By PI/Co-PI/by limited dollar amount/for KeCom PI and or institution?

A32: Except as noted in the draft BAA on page 18, where a proposer on task area 3, task 3.2, test articles, will not be permitted to propose or participate on other tasks and proposers on other tasks may not propose or participate in task area 3, task 3.2, yes, multiple teams are allowed.

Q33: If S&T is using TCO analysis to evaluate proposals, will a standard reference TCO model be published so that a proposer may conduct their own analysis and be confident of an apples to apples comparison?

A33: Total cost of ownership is not being used as an evaluation factor for this BAA.

Q34: Certain airports are identified in Appendix L (acronym list). What is the significance of these airports, if any?

A34: There is no significance to these airports.

Q35: Can separate white papers be submitted for sub-tasks within one of the five main tasks?

A35: Yes. Separate white papers may be submitted for individual Tasks within the five Task Areas.

Q36: Will it be necessary to submit separate white papers for each sub-task?

A36: No, it is not necessary, but it may be advisable to do so.

Q37: Certification standards are linked to a deployment of S/W under tight configuration management. How would adaptive algorithms allow for consistency with configuration rules?

A37: This is not an issue for this BAA. It is something that will be addressed in future BAAs.

Q38: Eric made a reference to a Test & Evaluation BAA and a TSA Information Session next week. Where are more details available on these items/events?

A38: There is a Federal Business Opportunities Notice from TSA about next week’s information session and their test and evaluation RFI.

Q39: If a group at one institution is proposing on Task 3.2 (Test Articles), is there a way for another group (same institution), sequestered from the first to propose on other tasks?

A39: No.

Q40: Is the period of performance limited to 24 months?

A40: No. The Government may consider shorter or longer periods of performance with adequate supporting rationale without sacrificing the goals of this BAA.

Q41: If a team was only proposing work on Task 2, would they have to wait for data generated from 1) GFE data collection or 2) Task 1 prototype based data collection before proceeding with information theory analysis and algorithm design and priors?

A41: Proposers may use alternate sources of data but GFI will still be provided.

Q42: Can we have a teaming conference prior to BAA release?

A42: A teaming conference will not be held. A list of the non-Federal Government attendees from the January 10th pre-solicitation conference and the September 18th and 19th industry days will be posted to FedBizOps at the same time that questions and answers are posted to FedBizOps.

Q43: Would full system development be part of BAA 13-05?

A43: S&T will be supporting limited system design efforts as outlined in Task Area 5 of BAA 13-05. S&T plans to release a BAA for development of commercial x-ray screening systems in the future, as illustrated in Figure 1 on page 8 of the draft BAA 13-05.

Q44: Will a list of the BAA 13-05 pre-solicitation conference attendees be made available?

A44: Yes, a list of the non-Federal Government attendees will be posted to FedBizOps at the same time that questions and answers are posted to FedBizOps.