CG-Raptor Industry Day RFI_QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CG-RAPTOR - COASTAL SENTINEL INDUSTRY DAY
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers document from the CG-Raptor Industry Day Request for Information process. It contains industry inquiries and government responses related to the U.S. Coast Guard's market research initiative seeking mature, operationally relevant technologies to strengthen the Coastal Sentinel capability portfolio. The RFI is not a binding solicitation but rather a pre-solicitation mechanism to gather technology input and down-select up to ten companies for an invitation-only industry day scheduled for September 29, 2026, in San Diego, California.
The Q&A document addresses procedural and technical clarifications regarding submission requirements, evaluation criteria, and technology scope for respondents. Key topics likely covered include submission formats, eligibility requirements, technology areas of interest, demonstration capabilities needed for the industry day event, and timeline expectations. The government seeks technologies that are already demonstrated in relevant operational environments, can show measurable operational value, and can be presented or demonstrated without extensive preparation. Responses may address individual technology areas or integrated solutions spanning multiple capability domains within the maritime domain awareness and command-and-control frameworks relevant to coastal sentinel operations.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CG-RAPTOR_Coastal_Sentinel_Industry_Day_RFI Amended_A00003.docx | DOCX document | |
| CG-RAPTOR_Coastal_Sentinel_Industry_Day__RFI Amended_A00002.docx | DOCX document | |
| CG-RAPTOR_Coastal_Sentinel_Industry_Day__RFI Amended.docx | DOCX document | |
| CG-RAPTOR_Coastal_Sentinel_Industry_Day__RFI.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Questions CG-Raptor Coastal Sentinel Industry Day RFI Q&A's
| Question # | Question/ Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | Section 6.1, 6.2, and 10 require the quad-chart to be non-proprietary and say that it will be distributed to event participants. Respondents could be more forthcoming regarding the technology, performance evidence, known limitations, and other requested information if respondents could submit proprietary information. Would the USCG consider amending the RFI so respondents can include and mark the quad chart proprietary? This will yield better, more comprehensive information to the USCG if respondents can protect this information from being released to other event participants which will include competitors that may use this information in other competitions to their advantage. Alternatively, if the quad chart must be non-proprietary, would the USCG consider allowing respondents to include any proprietary information in the white paper, shifting the "minimum" content in the quad chart to content that can be in either the quad chart or white paper depending on its proprietary nature? Or, if this is already the intent, please clarify. | Quad charts should be non-proprietary. White papers can contain proprietary information and will be protected as such. | |
| 2 | Are demonstrations showing operational User Interface associated in support of currently deployed maritime or TAK integrated systems acceptable content for demonstration purposes, or is the CG Raptor office exclusively interested in demonstrations of hardware physically present at the industry day event? | Only in what the respondent can provide. No integration with Government systems will be facilitated. | |
| 3 | Can we get specific definitions and possibly examples for these terms. In particular "Identity resolution", "Kinematic analysis", "Data enrichment for operational decision-making". | These specific terms are utilized as standard industry definitions that are available via open source search. | |
| 4 | Section 8 states "Cybersecurity and data-handling information needed to approve any connection to a Government-provided network, data feed, or system;". Would USCG please clarify what information vendors would need to provide to accomplish this? | Anything that aids the Government in attaining an Authority to Operate (ATO) and protect Government information will be considered relevant. | |
| 5 | -Please provide additional details regarding Coastal Sentinel and what it includes. Is it the USCG's COP? Does it include all systems and COPs used for maritime surveillance? | At this stage of the RFI process, the program details and background provided in Section 2 represent the most current and up-to-date information available regarding the Coastal Sentinel portfolio. | |
| 6 | -Is the USCG only looking for systems that can integrate into a pre-existing COP or is the USCG potentially interested in other COP solutions? | Please refer to Sections 4 and 7 of the RFI for the specific technology areas of interest and integration considerations against which all submissions will be evaluated | |
| 7 | "Vendors should expect an approximately 30-minute time slot." Would the USCG be amenable to longer time slots to demonstrate capabilities and discuss systems? Would the USCG consider lengthening the demo times at vendor request? Or would the USCG consider alternative demonstrations of already-deployed capabilities separate from the industry day? | To maximize engagement, the event will utilize an open, expo-style format where selected respondents will demonstrate their capabilities continuously from their designated stations to rotating groups of Government personnel. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes or less to allow Government personnel to attend presentations from all respondents. | |
| 8 | Attachment A recommends body text of at least 18 points, while the example provided uses 8.5-point Arial. Can respondents follow the example and use body text no smaller than 8.5 points, provided the quad chart remains legible, to sufficiently address the required content? | Yes. | |
| 9 | Do we need to complete a spectrum request beforehand, or should we simply mention it in our quad chart? | The Government will not facilitate any spectrum requests. | |
| 10 | Is there a list of more specifics for the Team Awareness Kit (TAK)? I see a list in Section 4.1, but I am hoping for more information so we can build more details into our proposed solution. | No. Respondents are referred to Section 4.1 of the RFI for the broad, standards-based integration goals. | |
| 11 | What geospatial platform(s) currently underpin operator workflows and maritime awareness functions, and what role does the USCG Geospatial Management Office play in stakeholder management in guiding the evaluation, integration, and long-term sustainment of new geospatial capabilities? | The Government will follow standard sustainment processes for long term investments. As such, the Government is interested in learning about technologies that support the four technology areas. | |
| 12 | What is the long-term vision and sustainment for the Coastal Sentinel Common Operating Picture, and what role do you expect vendors to play within that ecosystem? | ||
| The Government is still developing the long term vision and sustainment for Coastal Sentinel. As such, the Government is interested in learning about technologies that support the four technology areas. | |||
| 13 | Are there specific operator workflows the Government is most interested in improving? | Yes. The Government is specifically interested in improving the maritime surveillance, tracking, and command-and-control workflows outlined in Section 4 of the RFI | |
| 14 | Would the Government please provide additional insight into how Mission Relevance, Maturity and Evidence, Operational Utility, and Integration will be assessed and balanced when making down-selection decisions and evaluating solutions during Industry Day? | The Government will evaluate responses holistically against the criteria outlined in Section 7 of the RFI. No single criterion is weighted more heavily than another; rather, the criteria are balanced to assess overall solution feasibility and alignment with Coastal Sentinel objectives. Evaluation teams will conduct qualitative reviews of each submission based on the specific "Considerations" listed under each category in the Section 7 table. As a result, the Government will amend the RFI from "may be considered holistically" to "will be considered holistically." | |
| 15 | What data standards, interface standards, and interoperability requirements are most important for long-term transition and sustainment? | None are considered "most important". This is a technology discovery by the Government. | |
| 16 | What deployment environments and hosting models does the Government anticipate for Coastal Sentinel solutions (e.g., cloud, hybrid, edge, containerized/Kubernetes-based), and are there preferred architectural patterns vendors should consider? | None are preferred. | |
| 17 | As solutions are evaluated, what considerations related to user training, adoption, and sustainment will be most important to the Government? | None for this technology demonstration. | |
| 18 | Will each 30-minute demonstration slot be a closed one-on-one exchange with the Government evaluation team, or will sessions be open to other registered industry participants? This affects the level of technical detail vendors can present live. | To maximize engagement, the event will utilize an open, expo-style format where selected respondents will demonstrate their capabilities continuously from their designated stations to rotating groups of Government personnel. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes or less to allow Government personnel to attend presentations from all respondents. | |
| 19 | Will Government-furnished internet or Wi-Fi connectivity be available in the demonstration space, and are vendor-provided cellular hotspots or local wireless networks permissible at the venue for self-contained demonstrations? | The Government will not provide any equipment or connectivity. The respondent will provide. | |
| 20 | Will the Government provide displays, projectors, or other audiovisual equipment in the demonstration or presentation space, or should vendors plan to bring their own displays? | The Respondent will provide all equipment. | |
| 21 | Is there a limit on the number of attendees per selected company for the Industry Day? | Yes. Once selected, the Government will provide the maximum per company. | |
| 22 | Can the Government identify the TAK baseline relevant to Coastal Sentinel (for example, TAK Server version, ATAK and WinTAK client versions, and any Cursor-on-Target schema conventions) so vendors can mirror the operational configuration in their demonstrations? | Because this RFI is purely for market research to support an early-stage, developing program, a specific TAK or CoT schema baseline has not been established at this time. | |
| 23 | For live software demonstrations, will the Government make representative unclassified maritime data (for example, AIS feeds, radar tracks, or full-motion video clips) available for demonstration use, or should vendors plan to demonstrate exclusively with their own recorded or synthetic datasets? | No. The Government will not provide any data. | |
| 24 | For software and analytics solutions that require no radio-frequency transmission, flight, or water activity, is an indoor demonstration using live software with recorded or synthetic maritime data considered fully acceptable, or does the Government prefer over-water or live-sensor demonstrations where feasible? | Yes, using live software is acceptable. The Government does not have a preference for purposes of this RFI. | |
| 25 | Please confirm that the quad chart is submitted in both PPTX and PDF formats while the white paper is submitted in PDF only. | Confirming per Section 6.1 of the RFI. | |
| 26 | Please confirm that the required footer information counts within the one-page quad chart limit, and that the 18-point body text guidance in Attachment A is a recommendation rather than a compliance requirement. | Correct. | |
| 27 | May respondents adjust the Attachment A layout, for example cell sizing and header arrangement, provided all required content is present, consistent with the materially equivalent layout language in Section 6.2? | Yes. | |
| 28 | For a single integrated submission addressing multiple technology areas, will the response be evaluated holistically as one solution, or separately within each technology area for purposes of portfolio balance across the four areas? | A single integrated submission will be evaluated holistically against the criteria outlined in Section 7 of the RFI. | |
| 29 | Does the Government have a preferred structure for rough-order-of-magnitude cost information (for example, software licensing or subscription, integration non-recurring engineering, and annual sustainment), and should ROM figures assume a particular quantity or deployment scale? | There is no preferred structure for a ROM, so long as the information provided is clear and concise. | |
| 30 | Can the Government describe the anticipated hosting environment for Coastal Sentinel data and command-and-control workflows (for example, cloud environment and DoD impact level), so respondents can tailor hosting and edge-compute descriptions accordingly? | Because this RFI is for early-stage market research to support a developing program, the specific hosting environments and DoD Impact Level baselines have not been established at this time. | |
| 31 | Without prejudice to the reservation of rights in Section 13, can the Government share the anticipated acquisition pathway or general timeline for Coastal Sentinel capabilities following the Industry Day (for example, OTA, Commercial Solutions Opening, or FAR-based solicitation)? | No specific acquisition pathway or timeline can be confirmed at this time as the Coastal Sentinel program is currently under development. The primary purpose of this RFI is to conduct market research to inform that strategy. | |
| 32 | Will consolidated answers to questions and any amendments be posted publicly (for example, on SAM.gov), and if so, when should respondents expect them relative to the 14 August response deadline? | Yes. Questions and answers are posted publicly via this formal amendment on SAM.gov. | |
| 33 | 1. Scope of Technology Areas | ||
| Section 4 identifies four primary technology areas (TAK integration, maritime tracks/detections, EO/IR alternatives, and FMV/computer vision). Cybersecurity is referenced only as a cross-cutting attribute (Sections 4.1, 5, and 8). Would the Government consider a standalone modular network security / network detection and response (NDR) capability one that secures the sensor networks, TAK servers, and data feeds feeding the Coastal Sentinel common operating picture as a responsive submission, or must cybersecurity capabilities be presented only as a supporting feature of a submission primarily addressing one of the four named areas? | Cybersecurity capabilities must be presented only as a supporting feature of a submission that primarily addresses one of the four named Technology Areas in Section 4. | ||
| 34 | 2. Primary vs. Secondary Technology Area Designation | ||
| If a network security/NDR solution is submitted with cybersecurity listed as the primary technology area rather than a secondary one, will it be evaluated on equal footing with submissions addressing Sections 4.1–4.4 directly, or is portfolio balance (Section 7) weighted specifically toward the four named areas? | No, pursuant to the response in the previous question, cybersecurity capabilities cannot be submitted as a primary technology area and must be presented only as a supporting feature of a primary submission addressing Sections 4.1–4.4. | ||
| 35 | 3. Cyber-Resilience Test Conditions and Measures | ||
| Sections 5, 6.3, and 7 emphasize relevant-environment demonstrations, repeatable performance evidence, measurable operational value, and objective evaluation criteria. Should proposed technologies also be evaluated under representative cyberattack conditions such as a compromised sensor, unauthorized internal communication, or attempted service disruption and measured by their ability to preserve mission operations, including service availability, percentage of mission traffic maintained, time to containment, and time to restore trusted operation? | No. The Government will evaluate all demonstrations strictly against the criteria and considerations already outlined in Section 7 of the RFI | ||
| 36 | 4. Continuous Security Baseline and Lifecycle Monitoring | ||
| CG-RAPTOR intends to rapidly integrate new sensors, analytics, TAK-connected applications, and other emerging technologies, causing devices, services, interfaces, software versions, and communication relationships to change over time. Should Coastal Sentinel establish a pre-integration baseline of network behavior, exposed services, vulnerabilities, and risk, and require continuous monitoring for newly exposed services, anomalous behavior, and evolving security risk throughout the operational lifecycle? | Because this RFI is for early-stage market research to support requirements development, the Government has not established a lifecycle security monitoring framework or baseline requirements at this time. | ||
| 37 | 5. Cybersecurity Integration and Sustainment Burden | ||
| Section 7 evaluates integration burden, affordability, scalability, sustainment, and operator workload, but does not expressly require respondents to identify the cybersecurity burden introduced by their technologies. Should respondents describe the additional assets, ports, protocols, trust relationships, monitoring requirements, manual processes, and training their solutions would add, and should the Government evaluate the extent to which continuous assessment, prioritization, response, reporting, and recovery can be automated to reduce manpower and recurring sustainment costs? | Respondents may provide any of those integrations and/or burden reductions. | ||
| 38 | 6. Security of Automated Operational Workflows | ||
| Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 contemplate bidirectional tasking, automated cueing, AI-assisted watch standing, alerts, and model outputs integrated into the common operating picture. As these capabilities move from presenting information to recommending or initiating operational action, should the RFI require continuous monitoring and validation of the systems, devices, and communication relationships authorized to generate tasking, cueing, or automated response including the ability to detect anomalous behavior and prevent unauthorized actions from affecting mission operations? | The respondent may provide any of those. | ||
| 39 | Is there a specific target that will be available during the USCG CG-RAPTOR Coastal Sentinel Industry Day demonstration? | No target will be available during the industry day, vendors are responsible for providing everything they need to demonstrate their technology. | |
| 40 | Will there be maritime assets available to put sensors on? | No. | |
| 41 | What transmitter is available in the area (e.g. ASR 9)? | The Government will not provide or coordinate any transmissions. | |
| 42 | Is the Coast Guard interested in connecting vendors with complementary technologies for possible partnerships? | The Government cannot facilitate, advise on, or sponsor specific business partnerships or teaming arrangements between industry partners. | |
| 43 | In the USCG RFI “distributed sensing” is listed as one of the technologies of interest. Before proceeding to make a formal response we’re hoping to understand whether access to a subsea cable, containing optical fiber, will be organized by USCG for the demo day. Please consider and advise. | No. Respondents are entirely responsible for provisioning all necessary hardware, software, infrastructure, and simulated or live test environments required to demonstrate their proposed distributed sensing capabilities. | |
| 44 | Does the Coastal Sentinel initiative intend to replace or incorporate Rescue 21 SAR response capabilities? | Coastal Sentinel intends to enhance those capabilities. | |
| 45 | Does Coastal Sentinel need to be interoperable with DOW Homeland Defense initiatives such as Domestic Shield (C-UAS) or Golden Dome? | Coastal Sentinel will be interoperable with both of those programs, in addition to others. | |
| 46 | Should the Coastal Sentinel initiative be viewed as the C2 facilitation between future manned and unmanned teaming opportunities? | That is one aspect of Coastal Sentinel. | |
| 47 | Is Coastal Sentinel initially intended to safeguard the maritime approaches to the southern border or is it viewed more holistically and applicable to any geographic region? | All geographic regions. | |
| 48 | Does the review team prefer single-focus submissions or integrated multi-area solutions touching multiple tech areas? | There is no solution preference. All submissions will be evaluated holistically against the criteria in Section 7. | |
| 49 | Is the Government prioritizing TAK integration maturity above other attributes, given TAK’s central role in Section 4.1? | No. For purposes of this RFI and as stated in Section 7, down-selection criteria are not listed in order of importance and will be evaluated holistically. | |
| 50 | 1. Live buoy deployment |
| Will the Government permit a live surface deployment of a self-contained maritime tracking buoy near the anticipated Imperial Beach venue for demonstration purposes? And will water access or a Government vessel be available? | The Government will not provide water access or vessel support for this event, and live over-the-water buoy deployments are not permitted | |
| 51 | 2. AIS transmission approval |
| Will live AIS and EAIS transmissions from a demonstration buoy be permitted, and will prior coordination be possible in regards to MMSI assignment, and any government AIS receiver stations? | No. No coordination will be conducted with FCC by Government. | |
| 52 | 3. Product maturity |
| For a funded technology enhancement, will maturity be evaluated based on the capability available when the RFI response is submitted or the capability that will be available for demonstration on 29 September? | The technology will be evaluated based on the capability available for demonstration on 29 September 2026. However, the RFI package submitted must provide verifiable, existing test or deployment evidence proving that the proposed capability is fully mature and functional. | |
| 53 | 4. VHF beacon operation |
| May a low-power VHF locating beacon be operated during the demonstration, and what frequency-coordination process and approval timeline will apply? Again, if standard coast guard directional finding technology is available, can this be coordinated? | This will be a static display. The Government will not facilitate coordination with FCC. | |
| 54 | 5. TAK integration |
| Does the Government have a preferred Cursor-on-Target schema or TAK event type for displaying a deployable maritime buoy, drift datum, mobile Aid to Navigation or floating-object track? | No, there is no a preference. | |
| 55 | 6. Government TAK environment |
| Will the Government provide a TAK or ATAK Server or (A)TAK client environment for demonstrations? | No. | |
| 56 | 7. Deployment platform |
| Will aircraft deployment be relevant to the Industry Day evaluation, or should respondents demonstrate aircraft-deployment readiness through recorded Coast Guard test evidence and conduct only a surface deployment at the event? | Aircraft deployment capability is relevant to Coastal Sentinel mission objectives. Interested contractors have discretion on the methods utilized in this aspect; however, the Government cannot make available or coordinate live resources. | |
| 57 | 8. Participant selection |
| Does the Government anticipate selecting a balanced number of participants across the four technology areas, or will the strongest technologies be selected regardless of category? | The Government will evaluate all submissions based on the criteria in Section 7. However, as noted in Section 7, the Government reserves the right to consider overall portfolio balance across the four technology areas for purposes of complete market research resultant from this RFI. | |
| 58 | 9. Technology evaluation |
| Will an integrated solution addressing more than one technology area be evaluated as a single combined capability, and is there any preference for focused responses addressing one primary area rather than broader multi-area submissions? | All submissions will be evaluated holistically as a single capability against the criteria in Section 7 | |
| 59 | 10. Are hyperlinks permitted? |
| May the quad chart or white paper include publicly accessible hyperlinks to non-proprietary test reports, demonstration videos or product information, provided the response remains complete without requiring reviewers to access those links? | Yes; however, for the purposes of the down-selection and evaluation process, the Government will strictly evaluate only the information provided as required by the RFI. | |
| 60 | 11. Multiple variants within one product family? |
| May a single response describe a product family containing existing and funded variants, for example, AIS/VHF, Iridium and hybrid configurations, where they share a common platform and support one integrated operational concept? | Yes. | |
| 61 | 12. Will other vendors attend each demonstration? |
| Will individual company demonstrations and technical exchanges be conducted privately with Government personnel, or will other selected vendors and registered participants be present? | To maximize engagement, the event will utilize an open, expo-style format where selected respondents will demonstrate their capabilities continuously from their designated stations to rotating groups of Government personnel. Presentations should be limited to 30 minutes or less to allow Government personnel to attend presentations from all respondents. | |
| 62 | 13. Are foreign nationals permitted? |
| Are foreign-national employees or representatives permitted to attend, subject to advance review, and are there anticipated citizenship restrictions beyond normal facility-access requirements? | Pursuant to the physical security and facility-access regulations detailed in Section 8 of the RFI, all industry representatives attending the event must be U.S. citizens. | |
| 63 | 14. What venue conditions should be assumed? |
| Is the demonstration area expected to be indoors, outdoors or split between both, on land or water and will companies have access to the area before the event for setup, connectivity checks or rehearsal? | The primary demonstration area will be an interior space, with further logistical details regarding potential exterior spaces and setup times provided to selected respondents following the down-select process. The Government anticipates approximately two-hours for setup time on the actual date. | |
| 64 | 15. Is there an exhibition/static-display period? |
| In addition to the scheduled demonstration slot, will there be an opportunity for static display, informal discussion or continued operator engagement during the afternoon? | Access to the designated interior space for static displays will be available approximately 2 hours prior to industry day commencing. More specifics will be provided after down select. | ||
| 65 | 16. Does the USCG seek special buoy capabilities? | ||
| In addition to the use of drifting buoys being used for tracking floating objects on the water, does the USCG have additional functions or capabilities that drifting buoys should have? What are the goals of those types of missions? | While Section 4 outlines the core surveillance and tracking requirements of interest, respondents are encouraged to highlight any additional capabilities their platforms can support to inform future requirements development | ||
| 66 | The RFI implies that the USCG is looking for enhancements to their sensor data fusion architecture, do they want new SIGINT/EW/COMMs type sensors/payloads? | The Government is interested in enhancements and technologies that can successfully integrate with the standards and interfaces described in Section 4. | |
| 67 | What SIGINT/EW type sensors do they currently have for their platforms? Are they looking to procure new sensors for certain platforms? | Details regarding the current operational inventory of Coast Guard platforms are not publicly disclosable; however, the Government is interested in discovering any technologies that align with the capabilities outlined in Section 4. | |
| 68 | Please clarify the number of quad charts and white papers that can be submitted per company for evaluation | Interested companies may submit a single response package (consisting of one quad chart and one optional white paper) per unique solution; there is no limit on the number of separate, distinct solutions a company may submit. | |
| 69 | Will the Govt provide any funding in support of the planned demonstration if selected for the industry engagement? | No. | |
| 70 | Is a smaller, still legible (e.g. 8pt font) font allowed in graphics/charts/tables/etc.? | Yes. | |
| 71 | Area of responsibility: The RFI does not specify a priority area of responsibility for Coastal Sentinel. Is the Government's initial interest focused on CONUS coastal approaches, on the SOUTHCOM Eastern Pacific and Caribbean transit zones, or evaluated broadly across all Coast Guard operating areas? This affects which operational vignette and demonstration data set best represents our contribution. | The RFI intentionally does not specify a priority area. The intent is to discover novel technologies. | |
| 72 | Venue connectivity: Will reliable internet access (including Wi-Fi) be available at the Imperial Beach-area venue for a live, cloud-hosted software demonstration, or should respondents plan for a locally recorded demonstration as the default? | No. Respondents will be responsible for all connectivity. | |
| 73 | Teaming partner attendee coordination: If a respondent's demonstration includes a teaming partner providing a supplementary equipment display, does that partner's on-site representative need to be included in the attendee roster and badging process at the time of RFI response, or is that handled after down-select notification per RFI Section 8? | Attendee rostering will occur after the down-select process. | |
| 74 | Quad chart level of detail: Given the quad chart must be non-proprietary and suitable for broad distribution to reviewers and registered participants, is it acceptable to cite specific active contract numbers as past performance on the quad chart itself, or should that level of detail be reserved for the marked white paper? | It is acceptable, but not required. | |
| 75 | For companies with multiple technologies that would meet the RFI requirements, are companies allowed to make multiple submissions? | Yes | |
| 76 | Will the U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. Government have surface vessels in the vicinity of Imperial Beach, CA in order to demonstrate our sensor systems for detection? | Respondents are entirely responsible for provisioning all necessary hardware, software, infrastructure, and simulated or live test environments required to demonstrate their proposed distributed sensing capabilities. Any Government data, interface, network, vessel, range, test asset, or technical support must be specifically requested and is not guaranteed. | |
| 77 | What is the anticipated pathway for transitioning successful CG-RAPTOR technologies into operational Coast Guard acquisition programs or future Programs of Record? | There are numerous pathways. This technology demonstration is the first to discover relevant technologies. | |
| 78 | Should industry consider Counter-UAS, Counter-USV, and Counter-UUV capabilities to be within the intended scope of future CG-RAPTOR technology demonstrations and capability development? | For purposes of this RFI and the proposed demonstrations, the Government is interested in technologies that align with the specific capability descriptions outlined in Section 4. | |
| 79 | Is Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) considered a priority mission area for CG-RAPTOR, and how does the Coast Guard envision technologies being evaluated in support of protecting ports, waterways, and other critical maritime infrastructure? | While Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) remains a core Coast Guard mission, for the purposes of this RFI and the proposed demonstrations, the Government is interested in technologies that align with the specific capability descriptions outlined in Section 4. | |
| 80 | Does the Coast Guard anticipate a preference for modular, open-architecture, commercially available (COTS) solutions that can be integrated across multiple cutter classes and autonomous platforms, or will technologies be evaluated primarily within platform-specific architectures? | Yes | |
| 81 | What operational attributes are expected to carry the greatest weight when evaluating proposed technologies (e.g., integration readiness, interoperability, technology maturity, detection performance, scalability, cybersecurity, and lifecycle support)? | All submissions will be evaluated holistically against the criteria outlined in Section 7 of the RFI, with no specific operational attribute or structure weighted over another. | |
| 82 | Does the scope of this RFI include both sensor performance and the integration, fusion, and operational use of sensor data? | Yes. | |
| 83 | We build laser-based subsea communications modems to enable wireless, high speed, low latency bidirectional communications. We think our technology fits area 4.3 (i.e. maritime awareness, persistence, or coverage while reducing cost, manpower or operational burden), given our communications connect distributed sensing architectures, enable semi-persistent subsea coverage with uplink/downlink to surface, and eliminate need for tethers (lowers vessel requirements & operational burden). Can you provide feedback on whether we are in scope for 4.3 or if a different area fits better? | The Government cannot pre-evaluate specific technologies, advise respondents on scope applicability, or recommend a specific Technology Area prior to submission. Respondents are encouraged to review the Technology Areas of Interest outlined in Section 4 and utilize their judgment to determine if, and where, their solution aligns with the Coastal Sentinel operational objectives. | |
| 84 | Will selected participants receive representative maritime track data, sensor feeds, imagery, or full-motion video before the event for integration testing and demonstration preparation? | No. | |
| 85 | May the approximately 30-minute demonstration combine live technology, simulated sensor inputs, prerecorded maritime video, and representative operational data to demonstrate a complete end-to-end workflow? | Yes; respondents may utilize a combination of live technology, simulations, and prerecorded data to demonstrate their workflows, and should design their setups to run continuously throughout the afternoon session as rotating groups of Government personnel visit their stations. | |
| 86 | Should respondents assume the demonstration must be completely self-contained, or may selected participants connect to Government-provided networks, data feeds, TAK environments, displays, or other test assets? | Recommend removing last sentence | |
| 87 | Will Coast Guard operators directly interact with the demonstrated technology during the Industry Day session, or should respondents plan for a vendor-operated demonstration followed by technical and operational discussion? | Vendors should plan to operate and demonstrate their technology. | |
| 88 | May a lead systems integrator submit one integrated solution that includes multiple technology partners collectively addressing TAK integration, maritime tracks, distributed sensing, and AI-enabled video analytics? | Yes | |
| 89 | Are there specific performance measures the Government would prefer respondents to use for the proposed demonstration, such as detection accuracy, classification accuracy, false-alarm rate, track continuity, latency, bandwidth consumption, operator workload reduction, or detection-to-alert time? | There are no specific performance measures the Government prefers. All performance measures will be evaluated. | |
| 90 | For software and analytics solutions, will a self-contained demonstration using vendor-provided representative or simulated maritime data (no Government-network, RF, UAS, or water-access requirements) be considered a fully meaningful demonstration for evaluation purposes? | Yes; consistent with the evaluation considerations in Section 7, self-contained demonstrations utilizing simulated or representative data are permissible, though respondents are solely responsible for ensuring their chosen method effectively demonstrates the operational value of their solution. | |
| 91 | Within Technology Area 2, is the Government interested in enrichment of maritime tracks with non-sensor data such as vessel registry, ownership, historical behavior, and open-source risk indicators, in addition to kinematic and sensor-derived improvements? | The Government is interested in any and all enrichment that can take place. | |
| 92 | For solutions whose primary contribution is Technology Area 2 or 4, is mature TAK integration a prerequisite for selection, or is demonstrated interoperability via standard interfaces (e.g., Cursor-on-Target-compatible outputs, documented APIs, common data standards) sufficient at this stage? | No, a mature TAK integration is not a prerequisite for selection; demonstrated interoperability utilizing standard, open interfaces, including Cursor-on-Target (CoT) compatible outputs and documented APIs, is sufficient for this RFI and demonstration event. | |
| 93 | Where a single integrated solution addresses multiple technology areas (e.g., Area 2 track fusion with Area 4 computer-vision outputs feeding a common operating picture), will it be evaluated in each area, and does integration across areas strengthen consideration under portfolio balance? | All submissions will be evaluated holistically as a single capability against the criteria in Section 7 of the RFI, with no preference or additional weighting given. | |
| 94 | How important are transparent confidence scoring, data provenance, and model explainability to the intended operator workflows, and does the Government have a preferred framework for evaluating them during demonstrations? | These elements are important. Specifically, CG-RAPTOR is interested in mechanisms to transport those as metadata and what novel methods vendors have to do so. | |
| 95 | Should anomaly-detection capabilities emphasize particular mission threads, such as dark-vessel activity, AIS gaps or spoofing, loitering near critical infrastructure, or suspicious rendezvous in support of counter-drug and border-security operations, or should respondents propose representative vignettes? | Any and all anomaly detection capabilities should be presented. | |
| 96 | Will the Government provide any representative or sample maritime data (live or recorded) for demonstrations, or should respondents plan exclusively on vendor-furnished data? | The Coast Guard will not provide any actual data to vendors in support of this RFI. | |
| 97 | Following the Industry Day, what follow-on pathways does CG-RAPTOR anticipate for promising technologies, such as prototyping agreements, OTAs, CRADAs, or operational evaluations, and on what rough timeline given current capability-acceleration funding? | This RFI is strictly for market research and requirements-gathering purposes; however, the Coast Guard may utilize standard federal transition pathways to transition promising technologies as future program funding permits. | |
| 98 | Attachment A states the "Recommended PowerPoint body text: at least 18 points"; however the example (Attachment A) uses 8.5 points. Can you confirm the required text size for the Quad Chart is 18 points? | 18 points is recommended, but smaller text size is permissible per the example. |
&F
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .