DHS SBIR-2012.1 Q A Round 3.pdf

DHS SBIR-2012.1 Question and Answer Matrix As of December 16, 2011

ID

Date Answere

Topic Area Question Answer

1 11.22.201

12.1-001 Should the tunnel be continuously enclosed or can sections be open to the environment? The objective is to minimize aerosol transmission of microorganisms.

2 11.22.201

12.1-001 Will water be available onsite or should it be supplied with the unit? Assume water will be available from well, hydrant, municipality or tanker, however, the tunnel unit should have compatible fittings.

3 11.22.201 12.1-001 Will a power source be available onsite or should it be supplied with the unit? Assume the tunnel unit will be capable of connecting to a generator or generating its own power.

4 11.22.201

General The Phase I Option Cost proposal (not to exceed $50,000) is or is not included in the Technical Proposal portion of the document?

The cost proposal for the Phase I option must be included in the Technical Proposal (if an option is proposed and discussed in the Technical Proposal). The cost proposal for the option does not count against the Technical Proposal page limit.

5 11.22.201

General The Phase I Main cost proposal (not to exceed $100,000) is or is not included in the Technical Proposal portion of the document?

The Phase I cost proposal counts as 1 page towards the proposal page count no matter how it prints out. The cost proposal for the base effort (not to exceed $100,000) is entered separately via the SBIR portal when the proposal is submitted.

6 11.22.201

12.1-005 What is an average size of the security perimeter? For example is it an open market place that can be the size of a football field or larger? Or is it more like a small hallway?

There is no size specified for this individual SBIR topic. It is, however, desirable for Phase I that the offeror propose a solution that addresses a security perimeter similar to a covered spectator concourse at a sports venue or passenger concourse at a mid-sized airport terminal.

7 11.22.201

12.1-005 Are the security perimeters strictly indoor or strictly outdoor, or are you looking for solutions for both indoor and outdoor?

While a solution that addresses both environments is optimal, a solution that addresses the ability to track an individual in an indoor environment is permissible for Phase I. It is anticipated that the most successful proposals will define a clear path from Phase I to Phase III of this SBIR topic that indicates measureable progress toward tracking persons in both indoor and outdoor environments.

8 12.09.201

12.1-005, General

Can a C corporation with a MWBE and a HUB designation and the owner have more than 51% of the company shares is eligible to submit a proposal for this solicitation?

The SBIR Policy Directive defines an eligible corporation as one that is: (i) at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are citizens of the United States or permanent resident aliens in the United States; (ii) at least 51% owned and controlled by another business concern that is itself at least 51% owned and controlled by individuals who are citizens of, or permanent resident aliens in the United States; or

(iii) a joint venture in which each entity to the venture must meet the requirements of either (i) or (ii). The designations MWBE and HUB do not factor into the definition of corporate ownership. Subject to the above, your company as a C Corp would be eligible to submit.

9 12.09.201

12.1-005 Does excluding the use of RFID include other radio driven technologies and protocols such as bluetooth, zeegbee, inferred or UHF sensor technologies or just the specific protocols for 433 and 915 MHz RFID protocols technologies?

There is no intent to prohibit any particular technical approach to the solution of the requirement presented in this topic. This prohibition was placed in the topic to emphasize to any potential offeror that any solution proposed must provide a means of tracking persons who are not necessarily cooperating in their own tracking.

This means that a solution to track persons within a secure perimeter should not rely on the need for an individual to carry anything other than his/her own individual personal items.

10 12.09.201

12.1-005 Is voice analysis considered a biometric technology? The validity of voice analysis as a biometric is still much debated within the scientific community. However, any solution proposed by an offeror should be able to track a person within a secure perimeter without his/her cooperation. With respect to voice analysis in particular, the offeror should be able to clearly articulate the merits of including any particular sensor or technique in its proposed solution when an obvious countermeasure; e.g., not talking, is apparent. Also, an offeror should consider the potential privacy implications resulting from incorporation of voice analysis in a proposed solution and how those implications would be mitigated.

11 12.09.201

12.1-005, General

Regarding the review process mentioned in the solicitation, it states that the Phase I SBIR proposals will be evaluated on a competitive basis and will be considered to be binding for six (6) months from the date of closing of this Solicitation unless the proposer states otherwise. If selection has not been made prior to the proposal's expiration date, proposers may be asked to extend their proposal for an additional period of time.

Additionally, the Timing of Phase I Awards indicates the following “the anticipated time between the date that this Solicitation closes and the award of the Phase I contract is approximately four (4) months. Phase I award information is posted on the website generally four (4) month after the close of the solicitation.” Based on this information, would May 5, 2012 be an appropriate start date for the performance period?

The proposed date submitted by the offeror is only an approximate date. Historically, the DHS SBIR program has made awards in approximately 120 days from the closing date of the solicitation. It would not be appropriate to assume that the specific date stated in the question, even if approximate, is the exact date that the project will start. Start dates will be determined by the Contracts Officer.

12 12.09.201

General With regard to Section 3.7 Prior Awards Addendum on page 22 of the solicitation, I am not sure for some of the items listed if it should be with regard to a Phase I or a Phase II award. For instance the Phase I funding agreement number and Phase I Award amount are mentioned and I am wondering if this is really the Phase II funding agreement number and award amount. Could you tell us exactly what we should include in this addendum and for what phase each of these items is needed?

If your company has received more than 15 Phase II awards in the prior five fiscal years provide the following:

• Name of the awarding agency

• Date of Phase I and Phase II awards

• Phase I and II funding agreement numbers (i.e., Contract Number)

• Phase I & Phase II award amounts

• Phase I topic title

• Commercialization status for each prior Phase II award

13 12.16.201

General If we are including an option on a proposal, is the option budget to be included as an additional page on the technical proposal upload, though it will not be counted toward the page limitation?

Yes, the option budget is to be included as an additional page on the technical proposal upload, though it will not be counted toward the page limitation.

14 12.16.201 General How much funding can a company get for Phase I Option? Per the solicitation, "The option should not exceed $50,000 and four (4) months."

15 12.16.201

General Do I include the Phase I Option budget in the phase I budget (in the same form?)? The Phase I costs for the base effort (up to $100,000) and the costs for the Phase I option (up to $50,000) must be shown separately. Prepare the cost proposal for the base effort via the online submission system.

Include the cost proposal for the option as part of the Phase I technical proposal. The cost proposal for the Phase I option is not included in the page count.

16 12.16.201

General What kind of work is accepted in Phase I Option? Are analysis and simulation acceptable in this case? Does it require a separate interim report?

Section 3.5.b.(11) describes acceptable work for the option. Deliverables, including monthly and other reports, will be listed in the contracts. It should be expected that monthly/interim reports will be due for each month of contract activity (see section 5.3 of the solicitation).

17 12.16.201

12.1-005 The RFP states: “At the end of Phase I, it is desired that the performer be able to show that the proposed technology is feasible, low-cost, networkable – potentially in a distributed array – and is safe for use on humans. This may require the use of preexisting, commercial-off-the-shelf items that have been previously demonstrated or otherwise certified to be safe for use on human subjects.”

a. If a COTS solution previously demonstrated or otherwise certified to be safe for use on humans is proposed but is modified, does it necessarily require re-demonstration or recertification for human safety?

b. If a non-COTS solution but similar in signal intensity to common consumer electronics is proposed, does it necessarily require demonstration or certification for human safety?

c. What would cause something to need to be certified?

d. What process does DHS recognize as meeting the criteria for "previously demonstrated or otherwise certified to be safe for use on human subjects" for 1.) modified COTS and for 2.) non-COTS?

e. Is it acceptable for the monitored persons to given/wear a device for tracking and non-personal identification?

a. Yes

b. Yes

c. A device must be certified as safe for use on humans if there is a recognized and documented potential for harm to humans subjects resulting from its use. An example would be the use of lasers which could cause harm to humans if not certified as being “eye safe.” Note that this example does not represent the Government’s preferred solution to the SBIR topic and is included for illustration purposes only.

d. One means recognized by DHS is the use of an independent and objective third-party certification organization, using recognized national or international standards, to accredit the offeror’s proposed solution.

It is incumbent upon the offeror to determine the best means of documenting to the Government that its proposed solution is safe for use on human subjects.

e. No. The solution proposed must provide a means of tracking persons who are not necessarily cooperating in their own tracking. This means that a solution to track persons within a secure perimeter should not rely on the need for an individual to carry anything other than his/her own individual personal items.

18 12.16.201

12.1-005 The RFP states: “It is also highly desirable that the capability be able to detect other cues potentially diagnostic of malintent; e.g., gait, remotely”. Would a proposal concept where the core system had the following characteristics be of interest?

a. Capable of locating and continuously tracking virtually unlimited numbers of individuals

b. Capable of analyzing physical and behavioral traits of the tracked individuals or asset s(e.g., location, speed, past history, proximity to other tracked individuals or assets, etc.)

c. NOT, in itself, capable of assessing “body language” characteristics such as “gait” but capable of interfacing to additional remote sensors such as video oriented sensors capable of gait, suspicious movements, and other body language assessments and performing data fusion to merge the data and to perform analysis on the combined data set.

There is no intent to prohibit or endorse any particular technical approach to the topic as long as the solution proposed by the offeror addresses topic requirements in their entirety.

19 12.16.201

12.1-005 a. Is a network of high resolution video cameras a viable solution within your cost and operational constraints?

Any privacy concern on using visual data, in addition to face recognition technique? Is the use of facial features strictly prohibited even when no personal information is tagged or stored with the features?

b. Do you have any specific sensors in mind? Any direct relationship between this project and the Future Attributes Screening Technology (FAST) project at DHS?

c. Are you interested on technologies that exploit existing deployed sensors or technologies based on new sensors?

d. Is human operator intervention permissible during the tracking or does the system has to be completely autonomous?

e. Does the program provide any datasets for performance evaluation?

f. Do you want or have continuous coverage with the sensor network or is it possible to have gaps in the coverage? Also, are their areas of denied coverage in the area?

g. We are assuming that the use case of the desired system is that the person of interest is tagged or nominated by the user and then he is tracked by the system from that point on. Is it correct? Or could the user also nominate a person from a recorded video of say 5 minutes ago and would want to know his/her location at the current time?

a. There is no intent to prohibit or endorse any particular technical approach to the topic as long as the solution proposed by the offeror addresses topic requirements in their entirety.

There are potential privacy concerns regarding the use of visual data so any proposed solution intending to incorporate these features should address these concerns, as understood and articulated by the offeror, in their proposal and describe how those concerns would be addressed and/or mitigated.

No, the use of facial features is not strictly prohibited. However, the offeror should not interpret this response as Government direction to implement any particular technical solution in its proposal.

b. No; the Government does not have any specific sensors in mind. There is a potential connection to the FAST program.

c. There is no intent to prohibit or endorse any particular technical approach to the topic as long as the solution proposed by the offeror addresses topic requirements in their entirety.

d. Human intervention during tracking is permissible.

e. This is yet to be determined. If the demonstration of a technical solution relies upon the use of Government-provided information (GFI), that should be explicitly stated by the offeror in its proposal.

f. The objective of this topic is to develop an accurate, low-cost, reconfigurable capability that enables safe, continuous, high confidence tracking of persons within a security perimeter. If an individual within a secure cannot be continuously tracked; e.g., the subject has entered a restroom, the proposed solution must be able to reacquire the subject and confirm that the subject is the same person that entered the restroom.

g. The goal is to ultimately provide a means to track each and every individual within a security perimeter without necessarily being tagged or nominated by a user to initiate the tracking process. As for the exclusion of tracking within restrooms, it would be desirable if a proposed solution demonstrates the means to quickly restart the tracking process when a subject returns to the public area within the security perimeter from the restroom.

20 12.16.201

General In the on-line Cost Proposal section, I do not see placeholder for "Phase I Option Cost". Are we supposed to enter Phase I Cost ONLY (i.e., 6 month <100k) in the section?

Yes. Also, the cost proposal for the Phase I option must be included in the Technical Proposal (if an option is proposed and discussed in the Technical Proposal). The cost proposal for the option does not count against the Technical Proposal page limit.

21 12.16.201

General I am currently working with a researcher from US Naval Research Laboratory under Department of Defense.

Can Naval Research Laboratory be a subcontractor in Phase I and/or Phase II development?

See Section 1.5 of the Solicitation for a potential conflict of interest that may arise if the small business employs current or previous Government employees. In addition, Government wide SBIR policies restrict the use of any SBIR funds for the use of Government equipment and facilities. This does not preclude a small business from utilizing a Government facility or Government equipment, but any charges for such use may not be paid for with SBIR funds (Small Business Administration (SBA) Policy Directive, Section 9(f)(3)). DHS may not and cannot fund the use of the Federal facility or personnel for the SBIR project with non-SBIR funds. In rare and unique circumstances, SBA may issue a waiver to this provision after review of an agency’s written justification. DHS cannot guarantee that a waiver from this policy can be obtained from SBA. See Sections 3.5.b (8) and (9) of the Solicitation for additional details.

Sheet1