AGSV CSOP Solicitation QA Government Responses - Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002
About this file
This file is a government responses document to vendor questions regarding the CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 Autonomous Ground Surveillance Vehicles (AGSV) solicitation issued by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The document addresses 52 numbered vendor inquiries with corresponding government clarifications across technical, contractual, and procedural matters. Key clarifications include: solution briefs are limited to 10 pages (1 page for compliance questions, 9 pages for solution briefing) with a response deadline of June 24, 2026; the base contract period is 12 months from award date followed by four optional 12-month periods for a total contract duration not to exceed 60 months; CBP seeks autonomous ground vehicle solutions with state-of-the-art autonomy capabilities for border patrol and port-of-entry missions, with the highest priority placed on self-directed platforms capable of navigating various environments; partial solutions addressing only autonomy will be considered, though autonomous surveillance and domain awareness will be preferred; vendors may submit software-only bolt-on autonomy stacks or integrated vehicle platforms, and teaming arrangements are acceptable provided one unified submission is made.
The government confirmed that no specific pricing ceiling applies, though the draft's $1.25 million reference was an oversight; vendors should provide rough order of magnitude (ROM) pricing for prototype and production variants with cost breakdowns valued positively in evaluation; solutions requiring brief integration periods (30–90 days) for CBP-specific sensors or communications will not be precluded; vendors retain ownership of proprietary background intellectual property while CBP receives limited data rights to operate all functions; foreign-owned companies and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parents may submit if registered in SAM.gov; Phase I consists of written solution briefs with possible concurrent virtual presentations and in-person technical demonstrations as warranted; Authority to Test (ATT) will be established initially with a pathway to Authority to Operate (ATO) if the capability matures to Program of Record status; and CBP is open to modular architectures, diverse sensing approaches, and solutions addressing subsets of identified capability gaps with autonomy as the primary focus. No Authority to Operate or Technical Reference Model approved product list will be provided in advance.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final - 6-18-2026.pdf | ||
| CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.pdf |
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
Sheet1
| CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - Vendor Questions with Government Answers | ||||
| No. | Solicitation Document | Document Section | Question | Government Answer |
| 1 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 3.2, 4.2.1 | I noticed in the CSO announcement it both references a 20 page limit and a 10 page limit for solution briefs. Can you please clarify? | This was corrected in the Final Solicitation. There is a 10 page limit (1 page for Section 1 - Compliance Questions, and 9 page limit for Section 2 - Solution Briefing Questions) for the written solution briefs. |
| 2 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | General Information / Background (1.1) | Is this a brand new contract or is there (was) an incumbent performing these services? If not brand new, could you please provide the current/previous contract number? | This is a brand new contract. |
| 3 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Does CBP envision one operator supervising a single vehicle, or orchestrating coordinated teams/swarms of heterogeneous autonomous ground vehicles and sensors under one mission plan? What operator-to-asset ratio is CBP targeting to reduce manpower burden? | CBP envisions many solutions being offered by vendors, and all will be considered. Although there is no operator-to-asset ratio, the overall intent is to reduce the burden of manpower hours to operate the asset(s). |
| 4 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | The solicitation states autonomy should let "agents function as mission planners"— does CBP want AI agents that autonomously execute and adapt the overall CONOP in real time, not just follow pre-set waypoints? | Fully autonomous solutions are most sought in this CSO. However, solutions that follow both pre-set waypoints and those that autonomously execute and adapt to the CONOP in real time will be considered since both may be needed. Hybrid solutions are also welcome. |
| 5 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | In comms- and GPS-denied austere areas, does CBP require fully on-platform (edge) autonomy with no reach-back? What minimum duration must a system sense, decide, and act while completely disconnected? | The autonomous vehicle must move and operate safely with minimal risk to equipment, personnel, environment, public, and property. Therefore, the vehicle's ability to autonomously manuveur is expected to be "edge computing." Capabilities that maximize duration while completely disconnected will receive preference. |
| 6 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Will CBP value platforms that fuse EO/IR, thermal, and radar to autonomously detect, identify, classify, and track items of interest in fog, smoke, dust, and darkness? And does CBP want a single orchestration layer that fuses those mobile vehicles with re-locatable fixed sensors (towers, aerostats, RVSS) into one common operating picture? | The critical technology for the solicitation is an autonomy for a vehicle. However, the additional ability of a solution to detect, identify, and track items of interest in various environments would be viewed positively. CBP is open to a common operating picture that is integrated with existing CBP technology. |
| 7 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions, 16 | Should orchestration software act as primary C2 or feed/receive tasking from existing systems (TAK, ICAD, RVSS), and can CBP provide the relevant APIs/ICDs? Will it need to run on CBP networks under an Authority to Operate, and which framework applies (NIST RMF/800 53, FedRAMP, or a DoD impact level), including any SBOM or FAR 52.240 90/91 requirements? | CBP is amenable to various C2 solutions. At the onset of the proposed solution, an Authority to Test (ATT) will be utilized with the end state of incorporating an Authority to Operate (ATO) once the capability is matured to the point of establishing a Program of Record for the technology. |
| 8 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Does CBP prefer a vehicle-agnostic autonomy/orchestration stack installable on its existing or preferred fleet (a "bolt-on" approach), or a vendor-furnished integrated vehicle? Will government-furnished platforms be available? | This CSO is open to all solutions. For those vendors providing a preferred fleet ("bolt-on") approach, submissions should handle how their system would interact with legacy fleet vehicles which are not control-by-wire-vehicles but would require manual manipulation of the vehicle. CBP may provide government-furnished platforms/vehicles, depending on the solution, for those vendors awarded contracts. |
| 9 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 1.1 Background, Table 1, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Of the four capability categories in Table 1, which is CBP's highest priority for initial fielding, and what two or three mission profiles are most common (e.g., persistent perimeter watch, responding to sensor cueing, patrolling named areas)? | This solicitation is focused on exploring state-of-the-art autonomy for land vehicles. The first category of self-directed platform designed to navigate and operate in various environments is the highest priority. For the border environment, patrolling and detection of items of interest are the common mission profiles. While at Port of Entry environments, permiter security would be the primary mission. |
| 10 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | What level of human supervision is required during autonomous missions (in-the-loop, on-the-loop, or unattended), and are there policy constraints on autonomous responses once an item of interest is detected? | Autonomy in the context of this program means fully unattended. Solutions with minimal or no human supervision is preferred. Items of interest will be flagged, and follow-on CONOP will depend on system capability. |
| 11 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 8.2 Intellectual Property | Section 8.2 defers IP terms to post Phase II negotiation and Section 1.1 states a preference for vendors retaining core IP. Can CBP confirm vendors retain ownership of background/pre-existing IP (e.g., proprietary autonomy and orchestration models) while licensing deliverables to the Government? What data-rights category (e.g., limited or government-purpose rights) does CBP anticipate? | The vendor retains ownership of proprietary products/technology. However, CBP will retain limited data rights to operate all functions of the proposed solution. |
| 12 | Draft General Solicitation - CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 | 4.5 Technical Demonstrations/Oral Presentations, 5.0 Full Proposal Submission | For the optional technical demonstration, what location, scenario, and government-furnished assets should vendors plan for? Beyond the $1.25M prototype, what production quantity, sectors, and timeline does CBP envision? | Location, scenario, and government-furnished assets will be determined based on field and test site availability. The Final Solicitation corrects the initial version misprint; there is no $1.25M restriction. |
| 13 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV DRAFT.docx | 3.1.1, 4.2, 3.2 | The due date for the solution brief appears in Section 3.1.1 as 6/24/2026 and in Section 4.2 as 6/5/2026. Please clarify the due date. Also, the page limit for the solution brief appears in Section 3.2 as 20 pages and in Section 4.2 as 10 pages. Please clarify the page limit. | Responses are due 06/24/26 with a 10 page limit (1 page for Section 1 - Compliance Questions, and 9 pages for Section 2 - Solution Briefing Questions), as corrected in the Final Solicitation . |
| 15 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Are you considering partial solutions, such as the autonomous platform by itself, or do you require an autonomous vehicle with the ISR capability? | Partial solutions may be considered; however, only those that address autonomy will receive consideration. We do not require the ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capability. |
| 16 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 5.0 Full Proposal Submission, General | What is the program's objective after Phase II? Is there a plan to go into Production? If so, is there allocated money in FY27? | Solutions/proposals that are received in Phase II and satisfy requirements may receive a contract award. Production may be considered during the contract in the option periods. No funding is currently allocated beyond FY26; solutions must be proven first in the Base period of the contract. |
| 17 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 5.0 Full Proposal Submission, General | How many vehicles would you anticipate procuring if production begins? | CBP does not have plans for production capabilities at this time. However, CBP may purchase solution capabilities as needed in the future to meet its requirements. |
| 18 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Will CBP consider solutions where the autonomy stack is provided by one entity and the vehicle platform by another as a teaming arrangement, or must both be offered by a single submitter? | CBP will consider teaming solutions. However, CBP is not interested in a vehicle platform only submission; the teams would have to make one submission for the entire solution. |
| 19 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | The solicitation references "bolt-on autonomy/self-driving stacks" and "integrated platforms." May a submitter propose bolt-on autonomy software only, without supplying the vehicle platform, and still be considered responsive? | Yes, submissions with software only will still be considered. |
| 20 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description | Does "production-ready and fieldable without significant hardware or software modification" preclude solutions that require a brief integration period (e.g., 30–90 days) to configure for CBP-specific sensors or communications? | No, solutions that require a brief integration period (e.g. 30-90 days) to configure for CBP-specific sensors or communications will not be precluded; they will still be considered. |
| 21 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.19 Foreign Nationals | Are foreign-owned companies or U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies eligible to submit, and are there any additional vetting or FOCI (Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence) requirements? | The Government is not restricting who is eligible to submit. However, a company must be registered in SAM.gov in order to receive a contract award. |
| 22 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 4.5 Technical Demonstrations/Oral Presentations | If invited to a Phase I technical demonstration, what is the anticipated geographic location(s), terrain type, and approximate duration of the demonstration event? | Phase I is expected to be a virtual presentation by the vendor. However, CBP may seek an in-person technical demonstration of the solution if warranted at a location TBD. |
| 23 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 4.2 Evaluation Timeline and Phases | Will all Phase I solution briefs be reviewed before any oral presentations are requested, or may demonstrations be scheduled concurrently with the review process? | Yes, written solution briefs will be reviewed first. Those written solution briefs that show promise and require the Peer Review team to get more clairty on the solution, may be invited to oral presentations or demonstrations, both of which may occur concurrently with the Phase I solution brief evaluations. |
| 24 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 4.2.1 Phase I Evaluation, Table 1 | For evaluation Criterion I (Capabilities Approach), how will CBP assess solutions that address only a subset of the four capability gaps in Table 1 versus solutions addressing all four? Will partial coverage preclude a "High Confidence" rating? | CBP understands that an all-inclusive solution may not be viable at this time. CBP will consider partial solutions that address various capability gaps. The criterion rating will be applied to each specific capability, as opposed to an overall rating for all of the capability gaps. However, an autonomous vehicle is the primary capability gap being considered for this solicitation. |
| 25 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 4.2.1 Phase I Evaluation | Section 4.2.1 lists four evaluation criteria in order of importance. Can the Government confirm the relative weighting or ranking between Criterion I and Criterion II, or confirm they are equal within that ordering? | There is no weighting; however, the criteria are ordered in importance from top to bottom for crieria I through III. |
| 26 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2 Written Solution Brief Requirements | Section 3.2 states "twenty (10) pages" — can the Government confirm the firm page limit is 10 pages, and whether cover page, proprietary markings page, and/or table of contents count toward that limit? | This was corrected in the Final Solicitation. There is a firm 10 page limit (1 page for Section 1 - Compliance Questions, and 9 pages for Section 2 - Solution Briefing Questions) for the written solution briefs. The Cover (or first) page counts toward the 10 page limit. The submission shall only include the information requested in the instructions. |
| 27 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2 Written Solution Brief Requirements | May figures, diagrams, and specification tables within the solution brief use font sizes smaller than 12pt, or does the minimum 12pt font requirement apply to all text including labels within graphics? | The text of the solution brief should be 12pt font. However, graphics may incorporate various font sizes, as long as it is legible on a standard 8.5"X11". |
| 28 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions, 18 | For Question 18 of the solution brief (ROM pricing), should pricing be provided as a range or a single estimate, and should it address a specific quantity of vehicles/systems or a reference quantity determined by the submitter? | CBP understands that solutions may be at various stages of manufacturing (prototype to full-scale production). Both ranges and single estimates for pricing will be acceptable. Including prices for various quantities will also be helpful for CBP in future procurement efforts. |
| 29 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2 Written Solution Brief Requirements | The solicitation states both MS Word and Adobe PDF formats are required. If there are any discrepancies between the two versions submitted, which format will be considered the official record for evaluation? | This has been updated in the Final Solicitation. Please provide only one submission in either format. |
| 30 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.2 Intellectual Property and Data Rights | Section 8.2 states IP and data rights will be negotiated prior to award. Can the Government provide a baseline or typical Government Purpose Rights (GPR) expectation so submitters can assess commercial viability before investing in a full proposal? | CBP does not want to limit innovative solutions by the technology community. Therefore, a baseline for IP and data rights will be negotiated prior to award. |
| 31 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.20 Term of the Contract | Section 8.20 sets a 180-day base period of performance. Is this intended to cover the prototype demonstration phase only, or is it expected to encompass delivery of production units as well? | This has been updated in Final Solicitation. The Base period is anticipated to be 12 months from the date of contract award. Delivery and demonstration of a prototype AGSV solution is anticipated to be within the 12-month Base period, with production units and end-user training anticipated to be delivered in four subsequent option periods, which would also be 12 months each. |
| 32 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.23 Test Equipment - CBP Approval of Proposed Equipment | For Section 8.23 (CBP CTO Technical Reference Model approval), what is the typical timeline for TRM testing and approval, and will this period be excluded from the 180-day period of performance? | The TRM may take up to 2-3 months for approval. However, the TRM will be approved prior to the period of performance. |
| 33 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.0 Terms and Conditions, Cybersecurity | Does CBP anticipate requiring an Authority to Operate (ATO) for the AGSV system under this contract, and if so, at what impact level (Low, Moderate, High) under FISMA/NIST 800-53? | Initially, an Authority to Test (ATT) will be utilized once an award has been established. However, if the AGSV becomes a Program of Record, an ATO will be pursued. |
| 34 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions, 16 | Solution Brief Question 16 references integration with TAK, ICAD, and Integrated Surveillance Towers. Will CBP provide interface control documents (ICDs) or API specifications for these systems to select Phase II submitters? | This information was provided to allow submitters to see CBP's end-state plans. Submitters must be capable of integration. Depending upon the capability solution submitted by the vendor, CBP will work with a submitter during negotiations to determine the pathway for integration with existing CBP technology in Phase II. For the initial submission in Phase I, the vendor should provide a pathway for integration to CBP technology, if applicable. |
| 35 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, Table 1, 4.2.1 Phase I Evaluation | Does the Government anticipate evaluating submissions that address only a subset of the identified capability areas (e.g., autonomous mobility and haulage), or is preference given to solutions that span sensing, autonomy, and multi-sensor tracking as an integrated system? | CBP will consider all solutions that address autonomy. A minimum level of autonomous target recognition is expected by the end user, but not required from the vendor. Proposals that include autonomous surveillance/domain awareness will be preferred. |
| 36 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | To what extent is the Government open to a modular architecture approach where vendors provide best-of-breed capabilities (e.g., autonomy/haulage, sensing payloads, or C2 software) that can be integrated with other partners or Government-furnished systems? | CBP is open to collaborative technology efforts among vendors. However, an autonomous vehicle is the primary capability gap being considered for this solicitation. |
| 37 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, Table 1 | Can the Government further clarify the scope of “remote sensing” within Topic 1, specifically whether the emphasis is on onboard sensor payloads, deployable sensing infrastructure, or integration of external ISR/data sources? | CBP does not want to limit innovative solutions by the technology community. All methods for "remote sensing" will be considered. |
| 38 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, Table 1 | For the multi-sensor threat tracking mission areas, is the expectation that vendors develop native sensor fusion and tracking capabilities, or integrate and operationalize existing sensing and data fusion technologies? | CBP does not want to limit innovative solutions by the technology community. All methods for "multi-sensor threat tracking" will be considered. |
| 39 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | What level of maturity is expected for the mission planner (C2) software—basic tasking and control of a single platform versus a fully integrated, multi-asset planning and sensor orchestration capability? | The minimum requirement for C2 is tasking and control of a single asset. It is preferred if the C2 is capable/can be expanded to handle multiple assets with a single controller. |
| 40 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 4.2 Evaluation Timeline and Phases, 5.0 Full Proposal Submission | Will the phased approach allow for incremental capability delivery (e.g., initial autonomy and haulage capability followed by enhanced sensing or tracking), or is a complete end-to-end solution required at initial submission? | The written submission for Phase I should describe an end-to-end solution of the product. The solution may be actual and/or notional. |
| 41 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 5.4 Price Information, 8.20, 8.22 | Section 5.4 states that "the proposed pricing for each respective option period must fall within the range of $1,250,000 or less." Does this $1,250,000 ceiling apply independently to the 180-day base period (§8.20), to each individual option period, or to each option exercise regardless of duration? | The Final Solicitation clarified that there is no $1.25M restriction; that was a Government oversight. Also, the 180-day base period is incorrect and has been updated. The Base period is anticipated to last 12 months from the date of contract award, with four 12-month options |
| 42 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions, 2.0 | Regarding Solution Briefing Question 18 (§3.2.1) - "prototype solution": Does CBP envision a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for a single AGSV platform variant, or should Submitters be offering more than one platform configuration (e.g., bolt-on autonomy stack vs. integrated platform per §2.0) price each variant separately? | CBP wants to provide the vendor with the flexibility for an innovative solution. A detailed ROM with cost breakdowns will be viewed positively in the evaluation-making process. |
| 43 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Regarding Solution Briefing Question 18 (§3.2.1) - "production system": At what quantity should the production ROM be based - a single unit, a small lot (e.g., 5-10 vehicles), or a fleet-scale quantity? | The ROM should include a minimum of a single unit. However, including prices for various quantities would be viewed positively. |
| 44 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.20, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions, 8.22 | Section 8.20 establishes a 180-day base period from date of contract award. Can CBP clarify the expected deliverables and milestones within this base period? Specifically, does CBP expect delivery and demonstration of a prototype AGSV solution within the base 180 days, with production units and end-user training (per Solution Briefing Question 18) to be delivered in subsequent option periods (§8.22)? | This Section of the Final Solicitation has been updated. The Base period is anticipated to be 12 months from the date of contract award. Delivery and demonstration of a prototype AGSV solution would be within the 12-month base period, with production units and end-user training anticipated to be delivered in four subsequent option periods, which are also anticipated to be 12 months each. |
| 45 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.25, 8.22 | Section 8.25 states the total contract duration, including options, shall not exceed 60 months. Section 8.22 states options shall be executed per the resulting CSOP contract terms. Can CBP clarify whether option periods are structured as annual option years, milestone-based options, or another structure? How many option periods does CBP anticipate within the 60-month maximum? | The contract is anticipated to have a 12-month Base period starting at contract award date, with 4 Option periods of 12 months each. |
| 47 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 8.23 Test Equipment - CBP Approval of Proposed Equipment | Section 8.23 states that new technology not currently on the CBP CTO Technical Reference Model (TRM) must be tested and approved prior to purchase. Can CBP provide the current TRM approved product list, or identify which product categories (e.g., autonomy stacks, sensors, C2 software, communications hardware) require TRM approval for AGSV solutions? | No, the Government will not provide a TRM-approved product list. |
| 48 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 1.1 Table 1, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Table 1 (§1.1) identifies four AGSV capability gap categories, including Category 2: "Autonomously/semi-autonomously navigate and transport persons and/or capabilities." Solution Briefing Question 10 (§3.2.1) requests specifications including cargo capacity. Can CBP clarify whether the "transport" mission profile is intended to include payload beyond the organic AGSV capability set - specifically, transport of personnel and/or operational gear - or whether the transport capability gap is limited to autonomous repositioning of the vehicle platform and its integrated sensor suite? | Yes, transport includes personnel and/or equipment. While not required for entry, we anticipate passenger vehicle systems will be proposed. CBP does not have a preference for larger passenger vehicle systems; all solutions are being sought. |
| 49 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 2.0 Project Description, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Section 2.0 describes the need for "persistent, unattended operation" in urban and austere environments, and Solution Briefing Question 4 (§3.2.1) asks Submitters to describe the type of power and "length of time for operations without human intervention." Can CBP provide threshold and objective requirements for a single autonomous mission duration (e.g., minimum hours of continuous unattended operation)? | Thresholds and objectives have not been defined/finalized yet. However, CBP anticipates that for self-charging systems, 1-2 hours is reasonable and for systems that require human support to recharge (refuel), operation of at least 4 hours is reasonable. Finalized thresholds and objectives will be provided in the contract. |
| 50 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 1.1 Table 1, 3.2.1 Solution Briefing Questions | Table 1 (§1.1), Capability Gap Categories 3 and 4, reference the ability to "detect, identify, and classify objects of interest" and "track persons or items of interest (IoI)." Solution Briefing Question 11 (§3.2.1) asks Submitters to describe how the solution will "detect, identify, track, and respond to items of interest (IoI)." Can CBP provide a representative list of intended surveillance targets or IoI categories (e.g., persons, vehicles, animals, contraband, environmental anomalies) to enable Submitters to tailor sensors and AI/ML detection descriptions in the Solution Brief? | Based on CBP use-cases, items of interest can include, but is not limited to, persons, vehicles, hazardous materials, physical anomalies, contraband, etc.). |
| 51 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 1.1 Table 1 | In Table 1, it states that CBP requires “an enhanced capability/vehicle to autonomously or semi-autonomously sense, monitor, and characterize predictable and hazardous environments across all land, maritime, air, and subterranean domains.” Can you clarify if CBP is requesting a vehicle that operates across all land, maritime, air, and subterranean domains; or an autonomous ground vehicle that has the ability to provide payloads or equipment that senses, monitors and characterizes predictable and hazardous environments across all land, maritime, air, and subterranean domains? | Table 1 lists various domains in which CBP operates. However, the AGSV solicitation focuses only on land domain, as stated in the updated solicitation. |
| 52 | CSOP-BP-GS-26-0002 - AGSV Final.docx | 4.2.1 Phase I Evaluation, 4.5 Technical Demonstrations/Oral Presentations | We'd like to understand how CBP plans to assess sensor and perception stack performance as part of the downselect process. | Sensors within the autonomy stack will be evaluated as a whole with autonomy. Surveillance/domain awareness will be evaluated for stationary and on-the-move utility. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .