BAA 2024 001 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.pdf

SBU – CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS

BAA-2024-DOS-ADS-01

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. If two foreign legal entities plan to submit a joint proposal how does this

„consortium“/team need to be setup? We understand that a lead organization is required.

Apart from being responsible for interactions with the funder are there any specific things only the lead organization can do? Does the lead organization necessarily have to be assigned the majority of work packages? Or the „lead“ a purely administrative function?

ANSWER: If a joint proposal is submitted, the Department of State (DOS) will deal with the

“primary bidder.” How the workload is split among the team members is for the bidder’s team to propose. Should a joint proposal be selected for funding, the Primary bidder will assume the responsibility of paying the sub(s).

2. In relation to the above-mentioned BAAs, the descriptions of topic 11 of BAA-2024-DOS-

ADS-01 (Developing Guidance for Responsible Military Use of AI) and topic 3 of BAA-2024-

DOS-ADS-02 (Emerging Technologies and AI) are very similar, with significantly more detail on effort sought contained in the cycle 1 description. Cycle 1 emphasizes developing guidance and cycle 2 on developing technical tools and approaches. Is this the key distinction between the two cycles, and/or are there any other distinctions that you would make between the types of activities or outputs you would like to see proposed under each cycle?

ANSWER: Topic 3 in BAA-02 encompasses the substance of both Topics 11 and 12 in BAA-01, but it is more general in scope to allow for potential proposals that might not fit exactly within the parameters of BAA-01 Topic 11 or 12. The different language on developing

“guidance” vs “technical tools and approaches” reflects the differences between BAA-01

Topics 11 and 12, not a difference between the two cycles.

The purpose of BAA-02 is to allow for a wider range of possible proposals to fulfill these broad objectives, and we welcome additional proposals under BAA-02 that might not fulfill the specific outputs described in BAA-01.

3. Can one organization submit two proposals, one for BAA 1 and one for BAA 2? (The team understood the answer to be yes from the webinar but appreciate your confirmation).

ANSWER: Yes.

4. Can one organization submit two proposals from BAA2?

5. A potential LANL bidder is developing atmospheric remote sensing techniques that sense electromagnetic perturbations associated with hypersonic movers; these techniques may be applicable for the remote detection of explosions. (a) Would a white paper on this concept be appropriate for the Space and Missile Defense topic in BAA-2024-DOS-ADS-02? (b) The bidder also asks if LANL-U.S. collaborations are allowed for this BAA.

ANSWER: (a) Yes. (b) Not sure what “LANL-U.S. collaboration” means. The LANL as we know was created by and for the United States. LANL can submit a proposal of its own. If you mean LANL-UK collaboration, the answer is YES in principle, but you need to check the transmissibility/non-transmissibility guidance. DOS will consult with NNSA/NA-222 as well, if necessary.

6. Topic T10: Preservation of Legacy Data from Geophysical Sensors to Facilitate Exploitation with Modern Signal Analysis Tools. We are developing hardware and software to read deteriorating legacy magnetic tapes (analog and digital), many of which contain seismic data from nuclear tests. Topic T10 specifically mentions paper seismograms as the medium of interest for this BAA. If we submit for recovering legacy magnetic tapes, would it be responsive to this BAA?

7. BAA-1 asks for lessons learned from nuclear arms control efforts from the particular perspective of the inspectors. The inspectors are at the bottom of the food chain wrt to lessons learned from nuclear arms control measures. Would it be out of scope to expand the focus beyond inspectors and include the longer food chain for lessons learned?

ANSWER: Policymakers, military operators, laboratory scientists, and other practitioners beyond inspectors who have insights and perspectives on the application and utility of on-site inspections can be included in the scope of any proposals.

8. Topic 8 Lessons learned from decades of nuclear arms control verification with the

Russian Federation.

The Effort/Research Sought section appears to focus on the “arms control inspection” aspect, this email wants to clarify whether this interpretation of the focus is indeed the case. Many lessons-learned on arms control comes from broad engagement of US lab scientists and their counterparts involved in arms control implementation and the development of monitoring and verification technologies. Their experience also involves first-hand observations of the nuclear enterprise in the Soviet Union and Russia, their processes, and their approach in nuclear matters. Is this knowledge base included in what is sought in the BAA, or are they beyond the scope?

ANSWER: That knowledge base can be included in the scope of any proposals.

9. My question is whether it is permitted to use funds to hire staff to work on an archiving/digitizing project and/or to subcontract work on a project - in this case, for digitizing seismograph records.

ANSWER: Technically, in-house staff and subcontractors make no difference in terms of providing services on a technical task. DOS deals with the “primary contractor.” Yes, labor hours of technical staff or subcontractors can be built into the cost structure if their services are really part of the project task(s).

10. We are a small business with DCMA-established Provisional Billing Rates and a DCAA-approved accounting system. We do not have negotiated Forward Pricing Rates, and DCMA has referenced DCMA INST-130, which states that DCMA is not required to establish Forward

Pricing Rate Agreements with organizations that do not exceed $200M in revenue. Can our approved Provisional Billing Rates be accepted as the most current and accurate rates available?

ANSWER: Yes. In addition, DOS will have ways to perform an independent government cost estimate, etc.

11. Topic 9 : "Quantification of Uncertainty in Seismic Origin Time Derived with The Improved

Wadati Graph That Incorporates Uncertainty in Phase Picks".

(a) It is stated that the Wadati Graph algorithms need to be "... added to the pool of tools for building up capacity/capability at various ...".

(b) Is this indicating that the deliverable for this topic is expected to be stand-alone self-contained software?

ANSWER: Yes, starting as a stand-alone algorithm. Once validated and accepted, it could then be included in a larger set of tools, beyond the current project’s scope.

(c) Is there a package of tools which this is expected to be part of/interoperable with? If so which packages?

ANSWER: Examples may include CTBT PTS/IDC’s “NDC in a Box.” This question may be premature, since DOS, IDC, and the U.S. NDC will go through many steps and consultations regarding inclusion of any individual tool.

(d) Would an online tool (accessible to only authorized users) meet the deliverable requirement?

ANSWER: No. The Government needs to receive the deliverable as a stand-alone first, and be able to carry out a careful evaluation. It is possible the Government might later make it accessible and useable on-line, but that would be further down the road, beyond the current scope.

(e) Is there a preference for the language it is written in?

ANSWER: Not really. FORTRAN is still being used at NASA as a reasonable scientific programming language, for example.

(f) Is there a preference for input format?

ANSWER: Bidders may try using an ASCII text file of phase picks to begin with, to make it simple.

(g) What timescale behind real time would it be expected to operate on?

ANSWER: For in-depth, detailed analysis of seismic events of high interest, let’s not worry about real-time processing at this point. If an algorithm is tested and proven to be helpful in deriving the improved source parameters off-line, our network operators will have ways to incorporate it into real-time applications.

(h) Would it be expected to use global or local velocity models?

ANSWER: The Wadati Graph is generally applicable in situations where the study region covered by the available regional or local stations can be described as a 1D - though often

(or possibly) unknown - velocity model. The Wadati Graph itself does not require a prior velocity model, regardless of whether it’s global or local.

(i) How many/which location codes is it expected to be compared to?

ANSWER: Comparison among different location codes is not as meaningful as comparing against Ground Truth of the test event(s).

12. T10: Preservation of Legacy Data from Geophysical Sensors to Facilitate Exploitation with Modern Signal Analysis Tools. When referring to “digital formats” or “digital form”, do you include both scanned analog (paper) seismograms saved as digital picture high-resolution files (ready for digitization) and digitized seismograms or only digitized seismograms?

ANSWER: We recognize there are situations when a 2-step rescue process is needed, and the BAA is open for either step, as well as single-step approach efforts. But we also recognize that ultimately, until digitized waveforms are obtained, the scanned images – no matter how high the resolution is – still cannot be analyzed with advanced DSP tools. There are other factors (such as the relevance of the data set – assuming we get the final digital format) to be considered.

13. Confirm that organizations can submit multiple proposals to the same BAA of the Key

Verification Assets Fund. As a secondary matter, if one project is selected, will that impact the likelihood that a second project is selected or the amount of funding that project might receive?

ANSWER: We confirm that organizations may submit multiple white papers/proposals. Each

BAA Topic has its own “gaps/needs” and we welcome white papers addressing the needs. In reviewing the white papers/proposals, we do not have any bias against a bidder who is capable of addressing multiple topics/requirements.