Attachment 5 - Questions and Answers - 23 Jun 26.pdf

1. Solicitation Structure A. The pricing schedule identifies Skydio X10D starter solution hardware and accessories with explicit “or equal” language for each line item. Can the government confirm that a configuration with an equivalent or superior payload package, including the 3CP camera, will be evaluated on equal footing with the named Skydio configuration? – Technical Evaluations will be made based on the technical information submitted. If the information provided shows the item to be of at least equal capability it will be determined to be acceptable.

B. The solicitation is issued as a commercial RFQ and states that this announcement constitutes the only solicitation, with quotes requested against the listed line items and the attached salient characteristics. Will the government evaluate alternate system architectures that satisfy the mission need even if the vendor’s bundle does not mirror the exact Skydio part-number structure? – Technical information submitted will be evaluated.

C. What were the market research findings that conducted to determine whether only

Skydio X10D could satisfy the requirement, despite the availability of other U.S.-made compliant small UAS platforms? – Market Research was conducted based on the customers’ requirements.

2. Mission Need and Market Research

A. The salient characteristics memorandum states that the objective is to replace an aging and unsupported sUAS used in support of airdrop missions at Altus AFB. What mission tasks, use cases, or operational deficiencies specifically drove the selection of X10D as the reference system rather than another platform? – We are aligning ourselves with most of the Airforce drone programs to facilitate easier cross flow and capabilities. The current platform we can no longer get parts for, the Drone is already 6 Years old, and the technology is showing its age. The Skydio was chosen specifically for its capabilities on the software side when the wing program is started this platform will be able to fit all possible needs for the wing mission.

B. The memorandum uses X10D-specific published characteristics including weight, deployment time, IP55 protection, flight duration, and sensor suite details. Did the requiring activity compare those characteristics against alternate systems that meet the same mission outcome at lower price points? – A number of different options were looked at prior to this solicitation being submitted.

3. Air Vehicle Performance

A. The salient characteristics specify under 4.75 pounds, deployment in under 40 seconds, IP55 environmental protection, operation from negative 4 degrees Fahrenheit to positive 113 degrees Fahrenheit, 40 minutes maximum flight time, 35 minutes hover time, and a 15,000-foot service ceiling. Which of these characteristics are mandatory minimums, and which are preferred objectives that could be met through alternate trade space? -The rapid deployment, water rating, and flight time were all factored and required.

B. There are other platforms that have published with 35 minutes hover at 9,000 feet density altitude, 45 minutes hover at 2,000 feet density altitude, up to 8 kilometers signal range, AES-256 encryption, and operation in harsh field conditions with a modular repairable design. If our solution meets the required mission profile for Altus airdrop support, how will the government weigh lower total ownership cost against differences in published ceiling or environmental ratings? – Technical data that is submitted will be given to our Subject Matter Experts who will evaluate to determine if the item is technically acceptable when compared to the solicitation.

4. EO/IR and Camera Capability A. The salient characteristics call for telephoto, narrow, and wide EO cameras plus radiometric thermal based on the FLIR Boson+ 640x512 sensor with less than 30 mK sensitivity. Is the government evaluating these as exact camera architecture requirements, or as desired outcomes for detection, recognition, identification, and situational awareness? – The wide camera was the desired outcome for our use case searching or assets during recovery and future uses across the wing.

B. The 3CP comparison material shows improved zoom and image utility over the legacy 2CP configuration at approximate slant ranges from 162 feet to 2,110 feet, including parking lot, doorway, water tower, and road scenes. Will the government accept equivalent EO performance demonstrated through mission-relevant imagery and stand-off performance, even if the camera package is organized differently from the X10D sensor stack? – As long as the item is of at least equal capability, it will be determined to be acceptable.

C. If our product plus 3CP configuration can demonstrate equal or superior useful imagery at the distances relevant to airdrop-zone assessment, drop-zone obstacle confirmation, and general mission overwatch, would that satisfy the EO portion of the salient characteristics requirement? – Yes.

5. Night and Contested Environment Capability A. The salient characteristics include NightSense autonomous obstacle avoidance in zero-light conditions, visible or IR illumination, GNSS-denied or spoofed navigation using visual inertial odometry, multiband radios, and channel switching to mitigate jamming. Are these exact proprietary feature names required, or will the government accept equivalent autonomous night and contested-environment performance from another compliant platform? – Desired but equivalent acceptable

B. Our product is documented as having AES-256 encryption, multiband radio operation across six bands, anti-jamming capability, onboard processing, MAVLink-based control, and TAK-integrated mission management. What quantitative thresholds or test methods will the government use to determine whether another platform is “equal” in contested RF and degraded-navigation environments? – Submitted technical date will be provided to Subject Matter Experts to determine if the item is of at least equal technical capability.

6. Compliance and Interoperability A. The salient characteristics identify Blue UAS cleared status, RAS-A compliance, and open MAVLink protocol support as compliance features. Can the government clarify whether Blue UAS listing is a mandatory requirement for award, or whether an NDAA-compliant, MAVLink-based, TAK-integrated alternative can be accepted under the “or equal” provision? -Blue is Mandatory requirement for our needs

B. Our product is Blue Listed and integrated with CivTAK/UAS Tool workflows using MAVLink and a ruggedized Android-based GCS. How will interoperability with existing mission systems, operator workflows, and sustainment practices be evaluated relative to the named X10D configuration? - Currently have no systems to link with the program is new but future proofing is desired when systems do get set up.

7. Price and Best Value A. The solicitation requests commercial quotations and identifies a modern, multi-mission UAS requirement with “or equal” flexibility. If our product with 3CP meets or exceeds the government’s required mission outcomes at a materially lower price point than the listed X10D bundle, how will that price advantage be treated in the evaluation? – Submissions will be evaluated based on whether they are technically acceptable. Once technically acceptability has been determined, we will rank lowest to highest price.

B. Because the current line items are written around Skydio part numbers with “or equal” language, vendors may reasonably conclude that alternate systems are permitted. Will the government issue any amendment or Q-and-A clarification defining how functional equivalency, lower pricing, and alternate accessory bundles will be assessed? – Questions and answers will be published to SAM.gov so all interested parties are aware.

8. Requested Clarification A. To support full and open consideration of equivalent small-business solutions, can the government clarify whether our product with the 3CP payload may be proposed as an “or equal” configuration where it meets or exceeds the mission need, salient characteristics, and required software outcomes at a lower overall cost to the government? – I can’t answer this question when we have no information on what the counter product being offered is or capable of.

B. If the government is open to alternate platforms, would it be helpful for offerors to provide a compliance crosswalk mapping each salient characteristic to the offered air vehicle, payload, software, and sustainment package so the evaluation team can compare the product, plus 3CP directly against the X10D reference configuration? – When submitting technical information, interested parties should assume we know nothing about your product. Sufficient information should be provided to allow the customer to fully evaluate your product. If you feel that providing that information provides a more complete picture of capabilities, you certainly can, however, it is not required.