FA6800-17-Q-S002_Questions_Answered_-_Final.pdf

FA6800-17-Q-S002 Questions & Answers

If we are reading the attribute description correctly, the system must support a minimum of four operational modes:

• Off – no RF emissions

• Command and Control jamming only

• GPS jamming only

• Command and Control and GPS jamming Based on the feedback we have received from operators, there is not a CONOP that would require GPS jamming only. Additionally, we have been advised that having extra operational modes without CONOPS only increases the chance of operator error during a combat situation. Would a solution that only includes the following three modes be compliant with the SOW?

• Off – no RF emissions

• Command and Control jamming only

• Command and Control and GPS jamming

Yes. SOW adjusted to clarify.

“Attribute: Effect Arc: The effect arc must be narrow, not to exceed 60 deg.”

The original RFP included an addendum that removed the directionality requirement for the 433MHz band. While some level of directionality is possible in the 433MHz band, a 60 degree arc would require a system significantly larger than described in the RFP. The system would need to be either much longer than 24 inches or so wide/tall that it would be unusable. Within the tight size/length limitation, a minimum effect arc would be approximately 180 deg.

SOW specification adjusted to “not to exceed 180 degrees”

Is the end use of this product for CONUS or OCONUS operations?

CONUS. However, we would expect an effective solution to be desired OCONUS by other entities (with commensurate frequency adjustments)

Does the government have desire for product to be FCC compliance for defense of national assets in CONUS?

Yes. However, we understand this may not be possible in the specified timeframe.

The government specifies a rifle like option. Are you willing to accept other technologies? Specifically, will you accept a portable device of the same size specifications that works completely autonomously?

Yes, we are interested in accepting other technologies as long as they disrupt the drones flying in the range of frequencies. Full autonomy is acceptable as long as the device can also be operated with a “man in the loop” (effect is able to be switched on and off by the operator).

Emerging Technology has advanced past broadband jamming that requires an operator to visually acquire the aircraft. Does the government desire the user to have to visually acquire the target before applying countermeasures? If so, what is the governments intended use during night or low visibility operations?

Yes, visual target acquisition is an undesirable but forced CONOP. As specified, a limited detection capability is desired on the device for limited visibility operations and the Government understands the limitations with this approach.

This solicitation calls for a broadband jam type of defeat mechanism. Is there any concern about high SNR?

No

Can the solution have two units? Specifically, can the technology use 1 unit to defeat

2.4 and 5.8, and another unit to defeat 433 and 915 MHz?

No

How does the government see initial target acquisition? Based on the SOW, the operator would have to visually locate the drone prior to using the weapon. Is this the preferred TTP? If not, will the government consider a fully autonomous solution?

Initial target acquisition is visual and audible. No, it is not the desired TTP. Full autonomy is acceptable as long as the device can also be operated with a “man in the loop” (effect is able to be switched on and off by the operator).

What is the preferred feedback mechanism after drone acquisition? E-mail, text, GUI, on screen display, ATAC, Kill switch or other API

Visual and/or audible feedback from the device itself.

The SOW identifies the technology must be effective against a majority of commonly proliferated drones. Does the government have a minimum percentage to be deemed technically acceptable?

No, but it must be able to disrupt the operation of any drone(s) operated at the frequencies specified in the SOW.

Please confirm that C-UAS, first article testing does not require training?

First article testing is not being performed by the Government. A Bid Sample is required to confirm the units meet the Government’s requirements. Training is not required for the validation of the Bid Samples; however, clear instructions and a quick use reference card are required to ensure the units are operated correctly during technical evaluation as well as preventing damage to the Bid Sample.

How long does the government intend to retain the demonstration product after December 5th?

If a bid is deemed acceptable, how long will the sample unit be needed?

We have been actively working range availability while pursuing this contract. That location and time window have now been identified as the last week of Jan 2017. The solicitation due date will change accordingly. It is the intent of the Government to return the Bid Samples as soon as possible after product validation.

Can the contractor request a representative to be present during 1st article testing, at no cost to the government?

First article testing is not being performed by the Government. Unfortunately, for Bid Sample/Technical validation the contractor cannot attend since we will be validating multiple units as part of the source selection and in order to maintain integrity of the source selection we cannot allow vendors to see other contractors’ bid sample.

Is there a list of drones the government plans to test 1st article functions? If yes, then can that list be provided?

First article testing is not being performed by the Government. However, the following drones will be used as Bid Sample validation.

• 3DR Iris

• DJI Phantom 3 advanced and 4

• Range Video Jet (RVJET)

Will the government, (AFGSC/A4S Security Forces Directorate, or Air Force Global Strike Command) generate a Radio Frequency Authorization (RFA) Request for the operation of the subject C-UAS system, for both 1st article testing and subsequent use? Will the contractor be listed as a C-UAS user?

Yes, except for the term “First article testing” as this is a technical evaluation of bid samples.

Is there a maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EiRP) for each RF Band of interest?

No

Does the drone Command and Control (C2) and First Person View (FPV) RF detection requirement have to specify which RF Band is active, or can a broad band detection circuit suffice? Example, when the C-UAS System is pointing at a drone, can a single indicator satisfy the drone “RF present” requirement?

Broadband detection will suffice. The Government understands the limitations of this approach.

Is there a requirement to be able to handle more than one drone? If so, what size of swarm must be defeated?

No, although greater capability will be accepted it is not listed as a requirement for contract award.

Can the system be vehicle mounted instead of carried by mobile personnel?

The system must be able to be carried by a person.

Can the system be backpack mounted?

Refer to the dimensions specified.

In a backpack mounted solution, can we use two pieces of technology to assist in triangulation?

See above

How many personnel in a fielded unit will carry this technology?

Not relevant to the acquisition.

Does the system have to detect both the operator and drone in all cases? Or, is the transmitter the only item required to be detected (either drone or controller depending on technology)?

Either/or is sufficient so long as it disrupts the intended flight of the drone(s).

The solicitation suggests multiple awards to test technology? Testing has recently been conducted at MITRE challenge and Black Dart. Was the result of these demonstration not a successful use of technology to meet this RFQ?

First article testing is not being performed by the Government. The results of these demonstrations may be relevant to your proposal to demonstrate the unit has the necessary capabilities. However, we intend to do simple validation of the requirements with simple flight profiles to ensure the conditions between the platforms and the CUAS devices are the same.

Darpa MFP has indicated that there is no currently fielded single solution capable of mobile acquisition, detection and defeat of drones using 433, 915, 2.4, 5.8 and GPS.

Based on the proposed DARPA timeline of 2 years to reach this phase, is the government willing to accept a scaled approach?

The government is pursuing a scaled approach. This effort seeks to field a gap filler (in spite of shortfalls) while that development activity takes place

Previous Solicitation FA6800-16-Q-S010 resulted in award. What was the result of the testing and why did the previous contractor not retain the contract? Or, what changed in the solicitation from FA6800-16-Q-S010 to FA6800-17-Q-S002?

The previous contract was terminated before testing, however we cannot reveal the reasons for termination outside of Government channels. A different strategy in contract structure and approach was re-evaluated based on foreseeable changes in demand. The overall specifications of the required units remain unchanged for the most part.

If solicitation FA6800-17-Q-S002 CLIN 002 calls for on-site training, why does the government expect for a standalone unit to be delivered on December 5th for validation without training from the contractor?

The personnel who will be operating the systems have technical qualifications above that of our defenders and we expect that written instructions and specifications will be sufficient. The training itself is designed as a “Train the Trainer” event for formal instruction to include use and long term care of the units.

Based on multiple emerging technologies, can contractors present multiple solutions to scale technologies? Specifically, in order to compete LPTA, can the contractor present a partial solution that meets minimum specifications as well as a proposal that more accurately reflects current and future threat detection and defeat?

Yes

Is there a maximum number of pages for this proposal? Do you require past performance?

No, there is no maximum/minimum number of pages. Past performance is not being evaluated.

Does the 24" length refer only to the antenna section and the platform to which they are mounted?

It applies to the entire unit, except for the accessories (charger cables/cigarette lighter power source, etc.)

Is the 9lb weight limit for the complete system or only the batteries and RF 5 band jammers?

It applies to the entire unit, except for the accessories (charger cables/cigarette lighter power source, etc.)

Will all of the HERO testing be handled by the Government as well as the related costs?

HERO certification will be handled by the Government.

“This system must also passively detect the RF signatures of drone equipment to aid the operator in detecting and locating UAS or their associated ground station.”

-Does this mean you're also requiring an RF receiver that will pick up 433 MHz, 910 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz? In addition, you'll also need a display to show the detected frequency(s).

-Of course, if the unit's on auto pilot, there should not be any RF signature emanating from the drone.

-With the 9lb weight limit there seems to be asking for quite a lot in such a small package.

-No differentiation between frequencies needed. A single indicator will suffice.

-We understand that a unit on autopilot may not be radiating but, that also constrains what a potential threat can do. We also understand that false alarms may be an issue.

- 9 pounds is the weight constraint we have set based on the equipment load our security forces are already carrying.