BRDEE_2024_Industry Day_QA_Combined_Final_18Feb2025.pdf

1. During the Industry Day, there was conversation about publications and being thought leaders, basically the Government being teammates with your contractor. Can you elaborate when you say publications? For example, is the contractor staff working hand-in-hand with one of your Government PI’s to publish or are you looking for a contractor that has office staff themselves and are collaborating with you?

• Our more traditional approach is that you're working together on a project, and everybody brought intellectual contributions and therefore deserves authorship on the work.

Historically, manuscripts and appropriately classified technical reports are deliverables under the contract, listed as a line item on the contract data requirements list (CDRL).

Further, since some of our work is basic science (6.1 work), it is expected that the work would be in peer-reviewed publications.

• In our statement of work (SOW) supplement, there will be information that guides the contractor on how to submit that information for review. Some of those instructions will be actually listed in the clauses themselves on the contract.

2. Is the contract structured for the whole lab or is it run on a project-by-project basis?

• It doesn't really change project to project. The contract is incrementally funded and as these projects go on, the incumbent company(s) is on the team, and we discuss those things for upcoming out-year stuff.

• From a contracting perspective, when we set up any activity, we request a funding profile that spans the entire effort, understanding that it’s an estimate. It's our best guess at what it's going to look like. We also typically request for the contractor to let us know, in the proposal, how they envision the funding structure and workflow to go based on the research that's going on. In addition, while we are planning to make some contract line item number (CLIN) structure changes, historically in R&D contracts we typically have a CLIN structure where we have research on one CLIN and then hardware/software on separately priced CLINs to facilitate the deliverables. We then incrementally fund that one CLIN with funds as needed and as available. Along these lines, in order to provide our program managers flexibility, they will track the projects within that CLIN structure. But we don't necessarily lock them in on contract, to give everybody the flexibility they need to regress with research as it ebbs and flows. Further, to follow-up on that, when we say funding profile, the Government asks for money and we say, “We think the money is going to look like this”, that's the money we see coming in. What the contractor has is a spend plan because spending can be lumpy and we try to marry those up as best as possible, such that we're always putting money ahead of the contract before we spend it.

3. Given that the Government is incrementally funded and there is this aspect of it being a long contract, how is the Government going to address the ebbs and flows of what I assume is some years you end up with more funding and some years you get less funding. How do we make it so that we can propose the appropriate amount of labor to an unknown amount of research for multiple years?

• The contract is incrementally funded, which means not all the money will be on contract day one. You'll be letting us know as you're running out money and we'll be tracking that progress pretty steadily and we'll see the burn rates and be tracking that.

• With one exception, it's been fairly stable for a long time. If you look at historic rates, you can get a good picture. The work that drove the big bump in the current contract was unexpected and we're not 100% sure how that's going to resolve itself but it's an aberration.

4. Will the awardee have to have a Federalwide Assurance (FWA) in place for their organization in regard to Human Research?

• Yes, the statement of objectives (SOO) paragraph for Human Research includes reference to the pertinent regulation, namely DHHS Regulations, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (45 CFR 46) “Protection of Human Subjects,” October 2004.

Comparing the Bioeffects Research of Directed Energy Exposures (BRDEE) requirement to 45 CFR 46.104, it does not seem likely that it would fall under one of the Exempt Research categories. Additionally, this contract will include the DFARS clause 252.235- 7004 Protection of Human Subjects which essentially mirrors the requirements of 45 CFR 46.

5. Regarding the BRDEE timelines, if we are ready to go with a white paper for BRDEE now, is it best to submit the white paper now, during the open period? Or should we wait to submit until after the request for proposals (RFP) is released during the closed call?

• While it is acceptable to submit white papers during the open period, the BRDEE solicitation will close paragraph 3.2 for the duration of the solicitation plus a six month moratorium. The Government can’t advise to submit or not submit, but it is unlikely that an award from a white paper could be completed prior to the solicitation of BRDEE. It is also possible to submit a white paper during an open period for read-ahead purposes, with the understanding that the Government may ask for a re-submission during the closed period.

6. It was mentioned during Industry Day that historically, 25 to 33% of the overall cost of the contract was material purchases and recently there was a large flux of add work. Moving forward with a re-compete, what assumptions should be made going into it? How should we be pricing it? What are you looking for?

• In the Government assessments of the proposal, we will be focusing on the technical first with cost second. In terms of cost realism assessments, we will be looking at the labor cost.

The right labor category mix i.e. PhD vs. tech levels etc. are considered under the technical aspect of the proposal review.

• The recent Add-work was a one-time, unexpected requirement. The Government has no insight as to whether another such event will occur during the new Period of Performance (PoP). For purposes of evaluation, the Government will only consider the base requirement as it currently solicited.

• Unless proposed equipment and material, or lack thereof, demonstrates a meaningful misunderstanding of the requirement, the Government will treat minor differences in proposed equipment between contractors as neutral.

7. Is there going to be three open/closed calls that will replace BRDEE or is there one closed call?

• The Continuing Human Enabling, Enhancing, Restoring, and Sustaining (CHEERS)

Multiple Authority Announcement (MAA) is three solicitation authorities (Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Procurement for Experimental Purposes (ARA), and Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO)) consolidated under a single announcement. At the moment, it is the Government’s best understanding that the BRDEE solicitation will be under a BAA.

Currently the plan is to do a closed call, and it will shut down that specific CHEERS SOO paragraph (section 3.2) for six months after the white paper due date.

8. Are you assuming the BRDEE effort will span 6.1 to 6.3?

• The BAA is structured for 6.1 to 6.4 but the BRDEE solicitation will be 6.1 to 6.3.

9. Is the CHEERS MAA microwave bioeffects and the next one will be laser bioeffects?

• The CHEERS MAA is the mechanism that the Government is using to solicit. It covers the entire 711 Human Performance Wing (711 HPW) which is this facility as well as facilities in Dayton, OH. The Bioeffects Division (RHD) is a part of the 711 HPW and is divided into two branches, the Radio Frequency Bioeffects Branch (RHDR) and the Laser Bioeffects Branch (RHDO). BRDEE will cover the RHDR mission and work, and Optical Radiation Bioeffects and Safety (ORBS) covers the RHDO mission and work. ORBS is not being solicited at this time, just BRDEE.

10. Will the BRDEE solicitation potentially have multiple awards?

• It could. The Government is allowed to award all, some or none to divide up the work for the best solution. Historically, the award has been made to a prime who had multiple subcontracts.

11. Regarding the answer to Q10, is the “some” aspect a negotiation that would occur post award?

• From a broad AFRL perspective, in previous two-step, closed call solicitations that have resulted in multiple awards the process can look like the following: The Government releases the closed call, and Industry responds via white paper. From there, the Government looks at the white paper, assesses, and responds to Industry with a decision to ask for a full proposal on the whole white paper or only a portion of the white paper.

Reason being is the Government is being challenged to be creative and open-minded in finding the best technical solutions. If a white paper covers the entire BRDEE SOO but it's in the Government's interest to award only a piece of work from this white paper, the Government could award that piece of the SOO work to company ‘A’ and award the rest of the work to company ‘B’ etc.

• One of the advantages Industry has on an R&D contract is that if your company is really good or really interested in a part of the of the BRDEE SOO, it can propose to just the part you're interested in, and you don't have to consider the entire SOO if that's not your wheelhouse; we can consider partial submissions in that respect.

12. We saw a lot of great capacity here today but, we also noted that it's shared capacity with Navy and Army efforts. Can you talk just a little bit about the contractors responsibility in terms of service contracts to keep equipment going, Other Direct Costs (ODC’s) in terms of the consumables that are used in the various different labs? Even purchases of different models for testing. With so much shared capacity how do you know what the Navy vs Air Force is funding?

• For the BRDEE contract, this is internal to the RHDR branch, specifically. Purchases will not be made for the other entities within the building. The laboratory spaces, radio frequency (RF) chambers, and vivarium are assigned by both entity i.e. AF, Navy, etc. and unit i.e. RHDR, RHDO thus, it is easy to keep supplies and equipment separate.

• Regarding the Tri-Service Research Laboratory (TSRL) facility, the AF is responsible for the facility as a whole. We work with our counterparts in the other services to make sure that we operate with memorandums of agreement and provide them the things that they need to operate in their parts of the building. We do have a few collaborative projects, but the logistics are all worked out ahead of time. It's more like a tenant/landlord arrangement, even though we don't technically own the building.

13. To clarify on Q12, there'd be certain resources assigned to the division but, is the contractor responsible for the ODC’s and the equipment upkeep in those designated areas?

• Yes, but that depends on what it is, how it's written, and what projects the Government has going on. The contractor will sometimes buy supplies and equipment, but the Government also stocks a lot of that in the labs.

14. A follow up on Q12 and Q13, how do we price that right? It's great that Industry knows the current

BRDEE contract value went from $30 to $55 million but does the Government intend to release historic labor, ODC, and service contract information?

• From a pricing perspective, we're looking for the solution to come from Industry. If company A has a level 3 scientist and company B has a level 2 scientist, we're looking for Industry to propose a solution in the labor rate. The contractor could compare labor rates to official sources, for example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics etc. There's a lot of ways to validate fair and reasonable on labor. As far as what your company proposes, that's the technical solution the Government is looking for. The Government is looking for your company to say, “I think this work needs this many of this labor, I think it needs this machine and these supplies”. A list of Government owned equipment for which the incumbent can utilize, on site, will be provided with the solicitation and will be available for any bidder to use or not use in their solution.

• For clarity, the $30 to $55 million was a plus up of new work and it was not an overrun. The BRDEE contract will be a cost plus fixed fee, that means things like ODC’s are reimbursable. Contracts under cost plus fix fee will usually have a forward pricing arrangements with DCMA or DCAA. Government contracting also has mechanisms in place to make sure that things are fair and reasonable, which is a range and not a number.

Usually, there's different systems that most companies, under this level of project, will have including an approved accounting system and approved purchasing system and we rely on those. If you have the system and you incur the cost, then that goes as a voucher to wide area workflow to get paid out.

• Further, the Government will add as much information as we can in the actual RFP solicitation to state what's available. Also, traditionally, once a proposal comes in house, we'll do a fact finding round. If there's something that doesn't make sense or is not as clear we’ll reach out, because we understand that a white paper is page limited. You're not going to give us a full blown pricing proposal. You're going to give us a technical approach and a rough order of magnitude (ROM) for cost in a white paper, assuming we go the two step route. If we go the one step route, it's a straight RFP and we will have that round of fact finding on the proposal to ask any questions and make sure that we are pursuing the best mix of cost, schedule, performance and technical solution and ensure that we clarify any questions.

15. As far as the CHEERS MAA being a unique model, first question: Is there a list/pipeline that was published with the original announcement? What's the expected pipeline activity level for the list of calls that are going to come out under it and is that something that's going to get refreshed on a regular basis? Second question: Do you conflict yourself out of any future opportunities that are in the pipeline? Is there any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) issues if you if are fortunate enough to get an award?

• For the first question, on SAM.gov, under the CHEERS MAA, if you scroll down into the attachments section, there is a solicitation tracker. This is a tool to help Industry, and the Government keep track of what's open/closed, we make sure that it's very clear what's open and what's been closed. When we release the solicitation for BRDEE, then we will adjust this tracker to show what is covered as a part of BRDEE and then what is still open under the MAA. This will be in essence, a living document that will show what's open, closed, and available for solicitation. That section of the SOO then stays closed for six months after the due date of the call.

• For the second question, CHEERS is open, and you can submit a white paper to any of those 3 solicitations, except for any piece that's closed for any specified period, which will be relatively infrequent; most of CHEERS will be open the entire time. As far as if you are awarded something within CHEERS, are you then ineligible for other sections of the MAA?

I don't think that's true.

16. Is there a requirement for facility clearances?

• Base and facility access requirements will be fully explained in the solicitation.

17. Is the Government leaning towards a two-step solicitation for BRDEE?

• Most of the Government R&D contracts are a two-step solicitation. It does not make total sense if you only have one bidder but, we expect quite a bit of interest in this solicitation.

18. If we have ideas for the different thrust areas in the BRDEE SOO, is it better to submit one white paper/proposal or would it be better to submit multiple white papers/proposals?

• That is something that the Government still needs to talk about internally and make sure it's clear on the solicitation. In the past, the solicitations have been very specific to address whether multiple submissions are acceptable. However, if one proposal is submitted, the Government reserves the right to award all, some or none; an award can be made to various parts of the proposal.

19. For clarity, the solicitation that is being released later this year/ early next (BRDEE) is completely focused on RF and any optical energy systems would be at a later time?

• Yes.

20. When we want to submit a white paper, how can we have an active discussion as a part of this MAA process? Is there any opportunity (prior to submission) to present a white paper/engage with the Government team for feedback to further gauge if the Government is interested?

• Communication between the Government and Industry is less formal because we are outside of FAR 15 however, when it comes to communications, we still have to be careful.

As kind of a “rule of thumb”, prior to white paper receipt there is freedom to ask questions and reach out and have those technical conversations however, once the white paper comes in, all communication needs to come through contracting. As a reminder, anyone outside of contracting cannot give any direction.

• Prior to white paper submission, the contracting staff prefer to stay involved but, Industry can have conversations with the technical folks and get an idea about what the Government's interested in or as just a way for you to express, as an Industry partner, what you have to offer.

• The best way to contact the Government is with the org box that we have listed in the CHEERS MAA (AFRL.711HPW.MAA@us.af.mil) and the website that we're launching (https://www.afrl.af.mil/711HPW/Opportunities/). There are multiple people monitoring the org box. If you have a technical question, describe as much specificity as possible in the question, that will help us get the question to the correct technical folks. For instance, telling us which SOO paragraph you're looking at.

21. Will there be small business goals in the BRDEE solicitation?

• There will most likely be a small business plan requirement and the only exception being threshold and/or if you already are a small business. There would be a requirement for a small business plan if the awardee is a large business and anything over $750,000. From there, we look at goals and see what's feasible, because there are sometimes very specific goals and very lofty goals within the small business, and we promote those as best we can.

However, in the research and development realm occasionally we have to make the argument that this type of small business doesn't exist yet; sometimes we have to make internal justifications.

22. From Industry perspective, it is a very uneven competition when you have the incumbent embedded with the Government; a competing contractor can't compete with an incumbent when we’re not given any of the specifics of what the makeup of a $53 million contract is. Is there any information that the Government can provide, as part of the RFP, that evens the playing field so that we can be more competitive? For instance, historical staffing numbers, personnel qualifications, service agreements in-place, ODCs, etc.

• Prior to the release of the RFP, the Government will have an internal discussion to determine what we can/should share because 1) we have to protect proprietary information and 2) we don’t want to share so much information that we are steering the new acquisition towards a unique technical solution. However, we do want to make sure that we give enough information that there is a level playing field.

23. How will past performance play into the BRDEE RFP?

• It will be outlined specifically in the solicitation however, typically we do a standard past performance check on Comprehensive Cost and Requirement (CCaR) system. Depending on how the solicitation's written, we could go further in a past performance, but we don't anticipate a deep dive.

24. What would subcontracting opportunities look like?

• Historically with the primes, they each have multiple subcontractors. Oftentimes in AFRL, subcontracting does go to educational institutions. Often times at certain thresholds, especially thresholds as high as BRDEE is likely to be, if it is feasible, there will be a requirement to have small business participation. The prime, if they're not a small business, would have to submit a plan that says something like “We will use 80% small business,15% small woman owned, small veteran disabled, etc.”. There will be a small business subcontracting plan with whoever the prime ends up being and it's up to them to source.

25. During today’s meeting the Government spoke about the potential for multiple awards where the Government may award the overall contract to say vendor A, and vendor B may get a niche piece of the work etc. Would the specific task that vendor B is being awarded be eliminated from the scope of vendor A, versus being duplicated?

• The solicitation will be written such that it allows the Government flexibility, as needed, so that we can pursue the solution set that makes the most sense. However, currently, the strategy would consist of removing the scope of work that is given to company B from the scope of work that is given to company A. We would not be creating more work in an effort to reduce risk i.e. if two vendors are equally great but they have different approaches.

26. The CHEERS MAA Industry Guide discussed “related experience and qualifications of the technical personnel”. How will the Government team assess/evaluate what the correct mixture is for technical personnel i.e. Quantity of PhD vs. tech level of experience and/or quantity of Biologists vs.

Engineers etc.?

• The Government cannot provide specifics on what type of qualifications will be needed as that would be putting you and your solutions into a box. When looking at evaluating the proposed type and quantities of personnel, the contracting officers will rely on the Government technical experts that will be evaluating the white paper/proposals. As subject matter experts in this field, the Government technical experts will be evaluating if your proposed mix of personnel accurately reflects the problem space and an understanding of the type of work that needs to be done.

27. Earlier today it was stated that BRDEE will not be a FAR 15 type contract, can you explain what that means?

• A FAR 15 contract is whenever the Government specifically dictates the solution. For example, if we wanted specific metrics of a can we’d state the exact parameters in size, color, material etc.; these are a lot of the Lockheed or Boeing contracts. BRDEE will be an

R&D contract. R&D contracts are not the same as traditional source selection contracts. In R&D contracts, contracting has a lot more flexibilities and is much more open-ended.

28. Are all the contracts under CHEERS planned to not be a FAR 15 contract?

• Yes, that is correct.

29. Will there be separate Industry Days for RHDO (ORBS) and RHB?

• We cannot speak for RHB but for RHDO (ORBS), this has not been decided yet, but the expectation is yes, there will be a separate Industry Day as we get closer to its re-compete timeline.

30. Do you have classified computing capabilities?

• Yes, we have access to Department of Defense (DoD) high performance computing assets up to the secret level, and we have computer labs that can support classified computing.

31. Do you anticipate any human use subject studies under the new contract or is it all animal and simulation?

• We have not done any in the recent past but, the potential always exists that we could.

32. Who runs the human and animal IRB’s? Are the contractors responsible for setting that up?

• IRB’s are run through AFRL at Wright Patterson in Dayton, Ohio. Contractors may need to assist the Government team in writing the protocols. The BRDEE SOO has sections discussing both human and animal studies as well as a new Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) that the 711 HPW has enacted for tissue/cell level studies.

33. Do you deal with Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC)?

• Yes, it is also run through AFRL Wright Patterson.

34. Can you elaborate on Digital Twin? Are you more interested in a human digital plan of like issues and those effects? Or you also mentioned fatigues. Are you also interested in cognitive and behavioral models as well?

• The program now has three different thrusts. For one thrust, we're starting with the generic models of human cognition i.e. how do they respond to visual dazzle and how does that affect their vision of engagement modeling efforts? A lot of it is going to be put into the various modeling i.e. engagement models and things that are out there like AFSIM. We get these basic cognitive models of situation awareness, fatigue, perception, decision making, etc. Then there's another thrust that will be more about implementing those models in specific scenarios to compare and contrast different technologies, etc. The biggest thrust, the thing that we see that’s the furthest out there, is this full idea of a human digital twin where we have a representation of an individual that we can for example say, this person is going through a divorce right now and is not going to be able to do this mission. That's a lofty goal, that's way down the road, but we start with these general models. We’d like to tell the tutoring system what knowledge the person has, what they're missing, and you can then tailor the training to what's missing. You can apply that same thing to the scenarios as well for instance, if they're missing a particular skill or if they have struggled with their skill.

You could put that into a scenario, specifically done for that particular individual or that group. We're starting with some of the more established cognitive modeling, but it is whole organism/human based.

35. Do you anticipate any design, construction, or installation of new RF equipment under the new contract?

• Yes, that's a good bet. We get requests to solve a particular problem, and we often don't have the tools required to investigate that problem, much less solve it. We have historically relied on the contract to provide hardware. The Government process, the Form 9 process, is really difficult to get what we need because these are typically one off things that have to be built from scratch, they're not commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) kinds of items. The fine line is, if it's for the lab as a whole we have to go a different route. If it is for BRDEE work, we can and have purchased. Again, the contractor's providing the solution and we're green lighting it but that can include equipment.

36. Are there any particular pain points that the Government anticipates, for ex). beam forming/focusing, and if so, what particular frequency bands?

• We are pushed by DoD research needs. Data gaps are often coming down from the DoD in support of systems that we're developing or systems that we know other nations are developing. If we have technologies in-house, we can apply those technologies, do the research to get a bioeffects answer in support of that research. At times, we need to do esoteric things. Sometimes we need a lot of energy; we might need enough energy on target to study a particular type of biological effect. Contractors could be relied upon to help develop those type of specific solutions, driven by the research need. Likewise, with the earlier question on source technologies, we had a number of technologies that you saw on the tour this morning. If there's a specific DoD research gap that we need to fill at times, a contractor will be part of the solution of identifying and purchasing in some cases. In many cases, there's commercial solutions that can be purchased. In many cases, there's not a requirement for some specific customized solutions, but that would include characterizing and quantifying the output for the purposes of dosimetry.

37. Do you anticipate any thrusts in medical diagnostics therapeutics for this contract or is that outside your lane?

• Typically, outside our lane. We sometimes work with other units across the DoD, but generally what we're doing in that partnership is we're creating the injury and they're doing the diagnostics.

38. Is the contractor responsible for day-to-day IT equipment within the lab? What about specialty high performance computing or specialty computing necessary for lab work?

• Within the facility, day-to-day computer/IT equipment is provided by the Government. It is a possibility, depending on the requirement, that the contractor will need to purchase specialty computing equipment.

39. In a follow-up to Q38, we heard about your team replacing a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster; is that a system, or things like that, that the contractor might have to build and assemble themselves? Or are you contracting out the clusters from another vendor to provide?

• We’re purchasing the clusters from another vendor and bringing them in-house to be set-up by our internal IT/technical teams.

40. In a follow-up to Q39, the contractor may simply use these systems and have access to the DoD HPC resources?

41. What are some new things that you're looking for from this next contract? What are your items that you would really like to see as part of the next vendor offer?

• The things that we get hammered on the most and you could probably guess these from reading the news is to go faster and do more with less. Those kinds of things require all of us to be innovative and forward leaning. If you were to look up this group on the internet, you would see we spent a very long period of time developing the active denial system.

Very carefully researched, very methodically researched. It did have some time surges, but we can't afford to take that approach. We have to be smarter and faster and more adaptive to the problem of the day, there's huge pressure for that. In technical approaches, that has to play a part.

• If you look at the open source reporting and the news, there’s a big push by the DoD for directed energy (DE) technologies. One of our main thrusts will be to remain responsive to anticipating those technologies and how we can provide health and safety perspectives and bioeffects perspectives. For example, if we have an operator for a system and folks are near a system, we need to characterize the health effects, if any, from those technologies. Then folks in the battlefield are being exposed to a multitude of stressors, DE/RF exposures being one of them. Then also combining that with a multitude of other physical stressors happening simultaneously in battlefield environments. We anticipate a continued thrust in multi scale multiphysics modeling in theory, that's been an ongoing growth area for us, and I would expect that to likely continue. The RF bioeffects literature is heavily dependent upon behavioral and cognitive studies so we anticipate that that type of work would continue to be a focus area for our group. We're always looking for novel approaches and new ways to get to the nuance of what's happening to biology. So, advanced microscopy approaches, transgenic animal models; those are just examples.

Any type of new way to get to the nuance of what is happening deep down into the biological level from the cellular level and then building up. Understanding how that translates up to the whole organism level, that translatability is a key part to us.

42. Can you share some information on the makeup of the RHDR branch?

• For the Government civilian and military staff, we have a little over 20 personnel currently.

Currently, our mix is mostly civilian staff and a few military staff (currently two or three military staff). The technical skills mix is a good number of biologists with a variety of biological expertise backgrounds, biomedical engineers, physicists, electrical engineers, and some psychologists that comes into play doing some of the behavioral research. We also have technicians who are well versed in RF technologies, running the variety of RF sources here.

43. Is it known beforehand what the award makeup will be regarding the percentage of basic versus more applied research or is determined by the solutions that you will see and award?

• The makeup could be a little bit different on the year-to-year flow. All the work we do is early by some definition, 6.1, 6.2,6.3, we're not doing prototype development of technology;

we're kind of in the early buckets but that makeup of 6.1 or 6.2 to 6.3 can change on a year-to-year basis. We've tended to have a healthy 6.2 portfolio, again that's basic to starting to get to more applied research activities. The workload for the very basic 6.1 work depends upon other interactions, mainly with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). That's kind of grants/proposal driven and can change on a yearly basis depending upon how many proposals we put in and how successful we are in getting those research dollars. The 6.3 is core-funded work that is looking to transition mostly models, driving models into mission and engagement level software technologies partnering across the wing and other agencies on those activities.

• Regarding the percentage of each, it is a little bit hard to split the money by branch because we work across branches on some of these things but 6.1 and 6.3 make up about half and

6.2 is the other half.

44. Regarding the security requirements, is the work all classified at secret or higher? Is there any Special Access Program (SAP) work?

• Historically, the highest classification is TS/SCI. Currently, there is no SAP work.

45. The Government team mentioned “other physical stressors”. Other than RF, is physical stressors as in DE sleep deprivation or is it kinetic effects or things like that?

• The branch’s core mission is RF bioeffects which supports the divisions core mission, which is DE in general. If you think DE, typically the DoD throws that term around to mean lasers and high power microwaves but there are other types of DE. The attention that we will pay to other types of DE will likely be driven by DoD research demands. For example, we have not engaged much in ultrasound exposures, but we have heard that there is some interest in that topic, and it could be possible that we'll be asked to dive in and do some ultrasound work. Likewise, ionizing radiation. You can imagine other types of DE type works are possible. They're not currently our focus and I don't anticipate they would be the primary focus in the next few years, but they're not outside the realm of what we might be asked to look at. While we are doing that work, we may be asked to align a personnel vulnerability to a structure used for kinetic or something like that. Having knowledge of those other things is valuable if you're trying to place the effect in terms of performance or vulnerability in the context of some other DoD models.

46. There was a lot of mention about brain slices and your normal models. What are the different organoids of interest?

• We use organoids as a tool so whatever the mission requires, we can try to grow an organoid to meet that requirement. Currently, our primary focus has been relative to the central nervous system (CNS) as initial efforts but, we're interested in the bioeffects to whole organisms, and we would develop/seek to develop organoids that could be responsive to any parts of anatomy/physiology.

47. Is there intent to piece together CNS organoids with organoids of the eye, skin, etc. to get an organism level response or organism level bioeffects?

• When submitting proposals, we'll be looking to Industry to think through that solution space and if you have a particular solution that speaks to RF bioeffects translatability from the cellular level up to the whole organism level, we would be interested in what those identified solutions are. I think the same is true for verifying and validating at the various levels as you progress up to a more whole organism perspective - Are we putting the pieces together properly?

• To reemphasize, organoids are tools that we use; whatever the problem set requires in terms of the question we need to answer, then we typically adapt our biology and our tools to answer that question. We do have several types of models, piecing multiple organoids together may be technically difficult and you might have easier solutions looking at animal models.

48. The Government mentioned a multi-species vivarium, I think we heard about rodents and rabbits, are there larger animals?

• Yes, there are larger animal capabilities. Our vivarium has the capability for animals all the way down to snakes and all the way up to non-human primates.

49. For the BRDEE effort, are you interested in other forms of DE, or is everything focused strictly on RF? What about infrasound?

• Our primary focus will certainly be RF exposures typically in the span of low megahertz frequencies up to gigahertz frequencies, up to about 300 gigahertz. We've also done a little bit of work in terahertz over the years. Research outside of the RF span would be on a case-by-case basis and would be dictated/ maintained by special DoD interest/research gaps in those areas. There's a possibility of ultrasound coming into play however, that would be not likely come from division push so much as from DoD pull. Infrasound is not impossible, but that's not a currently anticipated research area.

50. Does RHDR have any interest in nuclear environments or nuclear effects in this area? Anything with disturbed environments that would come out of EM frequencies? What about combined injury with radiation, injury combined with RF explosion?

• In the division, RHDO has a visual flash component so there's a direct translation i.e.

nuclear bent towards eye safety. For RHDR, electromagnetic pulse (EMP) devices could include a nuclear device in the atmosphere or those type of things. We would be interested in the EMP that’s radiated from such technology and use a surrogate exposure technique to generate an EMP and characterize the biological effects from it.

51. You mentioned a long term goal of a digital twin for the human body. Is RHDR looking for modeling based systems engineering or other ways of coupling lots of different codes that you are working on or are using to help work towards that?

• Yes, model based systems engineering has been an emphasis for the lab. It's more digital engineering strategies. We have made it a point to become fluent in those and we use those when we're designing a code. For example, you know you could bring different codes together and have them all face engineering model of that code base.

52. Can you describe what the different codes are that you're using? Are you using things that are developed by other DoD agencies? Are you scaling with in-house developed codes or models? Are you willing to share them?

• For computational approaches, all of the above strategy. We've done a lot of work developing our own custom software and those would be made available to contract employees. Those run anywhere from laptops to our in-house cluster to DOD HPC clusters.

Examples would be: multiphysics code, physics code, Maxwell's equation solvers, heat equation solvers, and thermoacoustic solvers. We have custom in-house solutions across those spaces that we've developed through SIBR activities, kind of what would be considered commercial codes, and the Government has access to those with SIBR rights.

Some of those are beyond the timeline, so they can be made available for companies doing research. We also purchase COTS software. For example, we’ve looked at Ansys and we have a license, PICO, XFDTD (the main solution for Maxwell’s equations). We will purchase access to COTS software where it's appropriate. For the model based systems engineering, we have access to Cameo and the repository that Cameo’s through, the digital laboratory environment, at the AFRL level.

53. Are you currently doing any classified computing? Is there a need for that in the near future?

• At the RHDR branch level, we are not currently doing any classified computing however, it is not out of the realm of possibilities that we could have a requirement for classified computing for certain applications on the horizon. If that were to happen, a typical approach would be to run simulations at the unclassified level, devoid of information that makes it classified. We can do that with normalized parameters and don't tie it to a particular source or system.

54. Are you familiar with the create RF century code? Have you used it?

• We are familiar with it as a capability, but we have not become experts. Our team has not been heavy users mostly because RF century code uses a different solving technique

(finite element, finite integration code) then what our team thinks is “appropriate” i.e.

Generally, finite difference time code is considered the standard/suggested approach for solving safety requirements and things of the sort.

55. When you're looking at your RF codes for deposition into tissues, what kind of bioeffects models do you use for chasing out the actual physiological effects?

• We have thermal models that tie into thermal physiological responses, thermal regulatory responses i.e. dilation, sweating, etc. Otherwise, we're coupling into damage rate process models, the Arrhenius equation and the CEM43 equation. We’re looking at even doing some research across branches to improve upon some of those rate process prediction models. Outside of damage predictions from bulk hyperthermia and then the thermal regulatory responses, we don't have much else in the way of a direct physiological response. We are working towards, for example, nerve activation models and we've done molecular dynamics models.

56. When RHDR is looking at human performance metrics and how performance might change based on what they're experiencing, are you using any augmented (AR) or virtual reality (VR) or war gaming approaches to understand or study any effects?

• We have not used artificial intelligence (AI)/AR/VR on the RF problem space. We have incorporated models into things like war games, wargaming activities, and tabletop exercises. We've incorporated human responses that have been mostly focused on, for example, is there a repel response for active denial type of technologies? And then, how would that play into a mission set that could be area denial? Some of that work has been running experimental war games with DE directorates.

57. Can you elaborate on active protocols you have with animal experimentation?

• Due to the fact that we have on-going research that has intellectual property rights we cannot give out specifics however, we can share themes of work. For example, one of the common themes in the RF safety world is work disruption and work stoppage so we have behavioral studies. We also have injury studies, for example burn injury studies, ongoing ocular work, biomarker discovery i.e. biomarkers associated with RF exposure from whole organism to the cellular level.

58. Have you studied the effects of EM polarizations?

• We've done studies across a pretty broad frequency span and for many of those, multiple different polarizations which has an implicit effect on the dose and therefore on the biological effects threshold. We've done studies that have looked at a variety of different exposure conditions, mostly plane waves, some near field, and then on the tour today we showcased the reverberation chamber, which has energy coming in from all directions with various polarizations as it bounces around the chamber.

59. You mentioned that the current BRDEE effort was plus-ed up by ~$24+ million and that this was new work. Did any of that funding simply extend the current work they were doing or was it strictly all new work? If it was new work, what was the thrust of the effort?

• Due to the nature of the work being highly classified, we cannot elaborate a whole lot.

However, what we can say is that a lot of it was new and the rest was an extreme acceleration.

60. Regarding the bioeffects modeling, do you simplify the models, or do you deal with antimaterial anisotropy in your models? Or are you more precise in your material makeup and biology and your models for computational modeling?

• We do everything from simple analytical solutions, one-dimensional approximations, one-dimensional models, numerically, up to three-dimensional body models heterogeneous.

We have not considered anisotropy in most situations; we're aware of those techniques but we've not adopted them for the dosimetry work that's done on the three-dimensional body models currently.

61. One of the topics that was discussed today was interest in cognitive assessments. Are injury mechanisms to the sensory systems also in scope for this effort?

• From a DE exposure perspective yes, mechanisms are certainly a part of the research portfolio. We're interested in biological effects from RF exposures but a key piece of that for us is in characterizing the mechanism of interaction. For instance, what is leading up to a change in cognitive capability or an adverse effect?

62. From the BRDEE SOO, we saw that there were three focus areas. Regarding the modeling and simulation focus area, is there any preferences in the available tools?

• We are open to a range of tools. What we're interested in is getting to characterizing the effects and then the modeling plays a key part of that. Understanding the dosimetry, very carefully characterizing that and also the physiological responses and mechanism of interaction. We're open to a range of solutions. We do have some software that are created custom, in-house. We anticipate that we'll continue to use those because we have them available and we have expertise there, but that should not preclude Industry from saying here's a solution that that we would seek to bring the table.

63. It was mentioned that the experiments should be on the premises; is Wright Patterson also considered on premises? Or do you mean here at JBSA in San Antonio, TX?

• There are a few discussion points on this topic. One of the challenges with doing RF work is access to the sources, the RHDR RF sources are all located within this facility.

Additionally, having the sources and the vivarium co-located in the same facility, is extremely useful for conducting many experiments.

• Regarding the animal work, we would prefer the work to be done here but there are exceptions. At times, there are things that drive our requirements to do work in other places, but the majority of the animal work is done within our facility. We currently own the vivarium at Wright Patterson however, it is in the process of being transitioned to NAMRU-Dayton and we may not have access to it in a few years from now. We think that we will have access to it, but access will be at a cost.

• However, we do recognize the exception to these situations and other situations can be considered. For instance, there are some sources that are small enough to be moved to various locations.

64. In the BRDEE SOO, there was discussion about supporting the set-up and maintenance of high performance computation. Does that include support for the procurement also?

• Yes. Depending on the research drivers, it is possible that procurement of this type of equipment will be a part of the BRDEE award.

65. In terms of the high performance computing, does your division work with the DoD Supercomputing Resource Center (DSRC) that we have at Wright Patterson? If yes, can hours be submitted by the contractor, with Government oversight?

• Yes, we have projects for which we have hours allocated and the contractor is a part of that team with access to those hours.

• Yes, the contractor is allowed to participate with it, just as they are allowed in procuring a system and giving input on specifications etc. If there's an input on “we need to stand up a project”, “it needs to have this kind of hours”, or “we want to use that machine” etc.

66. Is understanding both immediate and long term damage mechanisms of interest?

67. To confirm, this solicitation is looking for solutions across the spectrum of life? Basically, the sub-molecular to the whole system's model; that can include in vitro, in vivo, and potentially in human if the situation were correct?

68. In terms of the white paper/proposal, would an ideal proposal propose specific experiments? If so, would that be based off of what's published now in the literature and/or thinking of that next step?

• That is certainly one of the approaches. Seeking to stay on top of the scientific literature, what is established in the field, new findings, can new findings be replicated. The other components of that are, is there an AF DoD need for that inquiry? We overlap knowledge of the scientific field in general with DoD AF needs. That's kind of the internal generation of ideas, and we constantly go through those processes. At the same time, some of our research activities are driven by specific calls from AF, DoD levels, etc., and sometimes instead of us generating hypotheses based on scientific literature, we're told this is a special interest area and we will engage with that and figure out is there DoD interest here.

How do we take what we know and form hypothesis to begin answering that specific DoD interest?

69. In addition to proposing experiments, would there be a need to offer technical services in terms of data analysis? For example, during the tour, all the different transmitters and all the different exposures were showcased. Would there be a need to aggregate known findings into a single report or to summarize collective research findings, like a literature review?

• There might be but I would think that new solutions are probably more of what we're looking for than a summary of what's already been done.

70. What would be the best way to know where the current leading edge is at in order to propose something new?

• Going back to what our internal processes are and trying to stay on top of the published…