BAA-RQKS-2015-0008-IndustryDayQ As.pdf

AVAMP INDUSTRY DAY NOTES 21 MAY 2015

Notes:

• As of 21 May 2015, our acquisition strategy has not been approved.

• The answers below reflect our current intent.

• Proposals must be at the unclassified level.

Q: What TRL level are you looking for? Would you prefer 5 or 6 as opposed to 9?

A: In general we are looking at starting at TRL 3 and working it up to level 6. Our main goal is to find new and creative ideas/technologies; so level 5 is fine, we doubt anything would be transition ready at level 9.

Q: What is the structure and format for the proposal? Specifically will there be sections L and M (for an RFP/ RFQ) or will it be a BAA?

A: It will be a BAA for a Basic ID/IQ and two task orders. If a smaller company can’t propose to the basic ID/IQ, they can propose to one of the tasks or a subtask within the two task orders.

Q: Do you anticipate each task order to address only one research area or can they cross research areas?

A: Both task orders cross multiple research areas.

Q: Do you intend to discuss the technologies that have already been developed?

A: No we do not.

Q: Recently, there was an RYA BAA called PULSE which was a combination of an ID/IQ and “C” contract. They required you to bid on entire ID/IQ and only non-selects were considered for “C” contracts. Is that the case for this effort?

A: No, this is a different structure. To win the ID/IQ you must bid on the basic and both tasks.

However, you can bid on individual sub-tasks and potentially win a separate “C” contract.

Q: You mentioned seats for 30 in-house contractors. Are they all under this BAA?

A: We have the capacity to accommodate a total of 30 in-house contractors (that is, individuals not companies). This does not limit the number of offsite performers.

Q: Relative to auto software analysis and assurance techniques, you alluded to legacy systems.

How far back should we be looking?

A: It is a matter of value and return on investment. Our focus is on the research and development of innovative techniques and technologies. We are seeking solutions with broad application. We are not targeting a specific platform. However, it is acceptable to propose using a specific platform as a proof of concept. Keep in mind that the proposal must remain unclassified.

Q: You are requesting that we integrate with existing technologies in the lab; can you provide details?

A: Our current test beds consist of legacy and modern military and commercial avionics hardware. This includes hardware based on x86, PowerPC, and ARM architectures; and software based on RTOS, Linux and Windows.

Q: There seems to be a lot of overlap with Anti Tamper activities, where is the line?

A: Our primary focus is not AT, it is cyber solutions for protecting our avionics. AT is concerned with unfettered access (e.g. battlefield loss) to learn more about our technologies. We are concerned with physical access to influence the behavior of our systems.

Q: We are performing cyber security research in UAVs. Are you targeting a specific airframe or manufacturer?

A: No, this is a research and development effort and we are looking for cross cutting technologies. Tailoring for specific platforms would happen as the technology matures and reaches a higher TRL.

Q: Are you focused on a specific stage of the acquisition life cycle of avionics products?

A: No, we are not. You are free to propose solutions affecting any stage of the life-cycle. We are looking for innovative, cross cutting ideas. We want to maximize benefit to AF.

Q: Are you interested in software analysis of source code?

A: Yes, source code analysis is an important component of our research. We are interested in analysis of both source and binaries.

Q: Are you focused on specific avionics equipment? Should we be teaming with avionics manufacturers?

A: This is a research and development effort. We are seeking technologies that apply to avionics equipment in general. However, it is acceptable to propose using a specific component as a proof of concept. In that case, there may be advantages to teaming with a manufacturer.

Q: Are you going to provide an attendee list?

A: Yes. We will post the attendee sheet on the Fed Biz Ops website soon.

Q: Are you interested in inserting these technologies into LRUs? Are you looking to work with the LRU manufacturers?

A: The focus right now is to develop protection technologies. Eventually, these must be integrated into the various LRUs with the assistance of the manufacturers. It is acceptable to propose a technology solution for a specific LRU.

Q: You referenced two ID/IQ awards and possible “C” contracts. Are you limited to that number?

A: No.

Q: Are you amenable to using funds from this effort as SBIR funding to support portions of the task orders?

A: We anticipate creating one or more “C” contracts to accommodate small businesses that are not capable of competing for the Basic ID/IQ , but we are not setting aside any funds specifically for SBIR-based contracts.

Q: For the classified portions of the work, will you be creating any new special accesses?

A: No, any work requiring special access will be based on existing special access programs.

Q: Do we need to come in with TS/SCI clearances at the beginning of the contract or would you sponsor us?

A: The proposers only need to have personnel that are clearable when the contract starts.

When needed, we will sponsor the contractors and provide the appropriate billets.

Q: Can you comment on the level of effort and your desire for strong-in-house effort?

A: There is no specific team size or percentage of work that we expect in-house. However, there are several important considerations related to in-house contractor performance. First, we want to maximize productivity and effectiveness. Therefore some performance can occur remotely, but in-house presence is required to perform integration, test, etc. Second, we expect close collaboration between contractors if there are multiple awards. Finally, we expect contractors to work closely with government engineers on technical tasks.

Q: If “C” contracts are awarded with ID/IQs, would you remove the task the “C” contract would be performing from the ID/IQ?

A: Not necessarily. If the approaches presented by the basic ID/IQ awardee and “C” contract awardee are different, and both look promising, we may fund both.

Q: Will a funding profile be given for the two task orders?

A: Yes the BAA will contain a funding profile for the two task orders.

Q: Will you be accepting classified proposals or annexes?

A: No, all proposals are to be unclassified.

Q: Do you know how you will break up the budget ceiling over the 5 years of the contract?

A: We have specific funding profiles for the first two task orders and notional profiles for several others. The BAA will contain the profiles for the first two task orders once the acquisition strategy is released.

Q: Will the work done under this effort be publishable?

A: No, it will not. We anticipate that most of the results of this research effort will be export-controlled with other portions being classified.

Q: Can you elaborate on IP expectations?

A: We expect full source code; binaries; libraries; with the exception of 3rd party software. We need to be able use and modify it in the lab.

Q: The pre-solicitation (NOCA) referred to 2167A documentation. Will this be required for deliverables?

A: The “Deliverable Items” in the NOCA simply refer to deliverables that may be required on Task Orders or C contracts. Actual deliverable requirements will be specified in the BAA.

Q: When are you expecting to release the BAA and how long we will be given to write the proposal?

A: We anticipate the BAA being released in Jun and will give 30-45 days for the proposal.

Q: TS/SCI is required once on contract. Do you anticipate the security background investigations for the TS/SCI clearances to be single-scope or full-scope polygraphs?

A: Single-scope background checks

Q: There was a question regarding red-team capability related to attack modeling. Is attack modeling relevant? For example, attack modeling against a proposed technology.

A: Yes. Attack modeling is in scope and could be of value to the research.

Q: What do your lab set-ups look like? What type of equipment?

A: Our military test-bed is based on the 1553 bus architecture and PCs to simulate/stimulate the 1553 bus, unit under test, and various simulators/emulators to make the unit think it is flying. The commercial test-bed is based on the ARINC 429 bus architecture and contains the full avionics suite (flight, communications, navigation, etc.) of a small commercial jet. It too can be stimulated to act like it is flying.

Q: Can you elaborate on interface types? Is non-serial I/O relevant to this work?

A: Yes. If you have RF capabilities and feel it strengthens your proposal, it is valid to propose that type of effort.

Q: Can you give any specifics on the two task orders?

A: Because our acquisition strategy has not been approved yet, we are not releasing any specifics on the task orders. They will be contained in the BAA. However, the material presented at the Industry Day covers all of the objectives in the two task orders.

Q: Can you provide any insight regarding your vision for future avionics test bed.

A: Our purposes are very general. We’ve performed work understanding existing and legacy systems. We’re seeking to leverage technology advancements to develop avionics technologies for the future. Anything that could protect avionics in future systems is of interest.

Q: Regarding your definition of ‘avionics’, is it limited to things that fly or does it apply to components?

A: It applies to components as well. Our definition includes mission systems that fly on-board the platform.

Q: Emphasis seems to be on binary analysis and not source code analysis. If there was a breakthrough technology that does it without binary, would you be interested?

A: Yes.

Q: When question and answer session is done can we talk to each other?

A: Yes; we encourage teaming. Feel free to talk to as many industry participants as possible.

We will post the attendee sheet on the Fed Biz Ops website soon. FBO also has an interested parties list.

Q: Can you provide any additional details on the hardware/software in the lab?

A: Our commercial test bed is mostly hardware. Our military test bed has fewer hardware components due to limited availability and it uses more simulation/emulation.