ICS QA - Industry Day FINAL 23Dec19 (JPM).pdf

ICS Q&A – Industry Day FA8650-19-S-6009 Call 1

[1] Should the prototypes be able to work in parallel to any existing communication system?

Yes, there should be no interference with any flight system.

[2] Should the prototypes be able to measure before and 24 hours after a physiological event?

There is no requirement for base-lining in the solicitation. Individual differences, and day-to-day differences are a factor, so it is a good idea to consider. Absent specific incidents, there is no requirement that the prototypes monitor continuously as it is unlikely the pilot community will be supportive of physiology monitoring while in a non-duty status.

[3] How many technical areas are there?

There are 5 technical areas in the Statement of Objectives (see SOO on beta.SAM.gov). All technical areas should be addressed in proposals. If a contractor cannot address all areas, teaming is encouraged to meet all requirements in the SOO.

[4] There was no funding profile in the solicitation. Was this an error?

No, this is not a level of effort (LOE) requirement - the Government is looking for a demonstrated, sound prototype at the end of this effort. Contractors should provide a good-faith estimate of the anticipated cost to deliver a viable system in their proposals.

[5] Will cost be evaluated? Is the Government looking for the Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solution?

Cost/Price will be evaluated in accordance with Section V. of the Solicitation (see page 12 of 15). Cost/Price is second in importance to the Technical evaluation criteria. The Government is looking for the best technical approach and value.

[6] Does the Government have any guidance on adhesive solutions?

The Government’s experience with adhesive solutions is that adhesives comfortable for the pilot tend to detach in the presence of heavy sweat. Conversely, stronger adhesives that work well in heavy sweat cause skin irritation after repeated use when applied to the same contact area.

[7] Who should we contact for follow-up questions?

Please contact the POCs listed in the solicitation.

[8] Is there a requirement to use the COG Pack open architecture platform?

There is no requirement to use COG Pack, however, all deliverables must be compatible with the COG Pack architecture. If you have a platform that works with COG Pack, you can use that platform or build on it. Additionally, since COG Pack is an open architecture, contractors are free to modify COG Pack for their proposed solutions as long as the Government has access/use of the modified code. The Government can make the COG Pack available if the offeror requests it in their proposal.

[9] Do we have to use the entire COG Pack system, or can we use components?

As long as the final deliverable is compatible with COG Pack, then you can use either the whole platform or individual components.

[10] Is the RMF (Risk Management Framework), ATO (Authority to Operate) relevant? Will this be a Government-led or a Contractor-led team, or a mix?

There will be a mix. The Government is responsible for shepherding the required artifacts through the RMF/ATO process. The Government will rely on the contractor to provide technical details and information required for the RMF/ATO process.

[11] What is the allocation of post-operation/offline analysis?

There is no relative priority on post-operation/offline analysis. The goal of this effort is to support and improve cockpit sensing that the pilot can use in real time. Real-time alarms are not within the scope of this current effort.

[12] Do you want a more processed product then?

We want whatever data is available, as rapidly as possible. The goal is to get as much information as possible in order to determine what actually occurred.

[13] Will the Industry Day slides be posted on beta.SAM.gov?

Yes.

[14] Can other vehicles such as a GSA contract be used for this effort?

The intent is to use our own vehicle for this effort to include either a C-type contract or an Other Transaction (OT).

[15] Is a SBIR contractual vehicle appropriate for this effort?

SBIR data rights are not adequate for this effort due to the requirement to transition. The Government intends to use its own vehicle for this effort.

[16] Does the Government want aircraft and pilot physiological data to be aligned and packaged together for easier analysis?

This would be outside the scope of this effort.

[17] Does the Government want the data to be shown in context of acceleration, cabin pressure, etc?

Yes, in accordance with Objective 3.2.4 of the Statement of Objectives, the selected and integrated sensors should account for the cockpit environment, to include acceleration and cabin pressure.

[18] Does the Government want flight profile/performance/maneuver data provided in addition to actual flight parameters; e.g., G-force.

No, this is not within scope of the effort.

[19] Is there a difference between training and operations? Should the prototypes focus on one or the other?

There are no big differences in terms of the requirements for this effort. Aeromedically, the symptoms and issues are the same.

[20] Is the Government interested in using the collected data as an instructional or training tool?

No, this is not within scope of this effort.

[21] Has the Government identified a specific data/cloud storage or data backbone solution – is there a data storage platform available or do we need to make one?

The Government has not identified a specific platform at this time. There should be local storage in the cockpit, which can be uploaded later. The ease of being able to off-load is important.

Logistical speed is a necessity.

[22] Is a 10 minute download of recorded data appropriate?

Time to download aircraft data for current systems is roughly 10 minutes. ICS downloads should be as good as or better than this.

[23] Is it more meaningful to field a system not having all sensors now and iterate future releases or to field a system three years out that has all the required sensors?

Refer to the solicitation and meeting the requirements in the solicitation. The prototypes, with all required capabilities, must be delivered by the end of the Period of Performance.

[24] Is a prototype that filters contaminants relevant?

A prototype that filters contaminants is not relevant, but a prototype that senses contaminants is relevant.

[25] Does the Government anticipate any additional calls under this ARA?

Yes, the Government anticipates separate calls under this ARA.

[26] If the sensor is not on the arm or in a garment—what is the most practical solution?

The Government is looking for a solution to integrate with flight. Broadly, the question is how the solution works with the pilot. Operationally, the device needs to be where the pilot can access without taking away from the mission.

[27] Does the Government have any pilot feedback on body-worn devices versus a separate unit?

The concern with a watch is detectability. If there is a visual on a watch, it would be better to be connected with a haptic and auditory alert. A watch platform is OK, it depends on how it is used in the overall solution. A watch may not have enough computing capability.

[28] Is the Government interested in mounted display options?

Aircraft mounted displays are not platform agnostic and require integration with the aircraft which conflicts with the requirement for a stand-alone system.

[29] Is something in the base layer desirable?

Not necessarily. The Government is looking for ideas.

[30] What is the proposal deadline? Is this a firm date?

Per the solicitation, the proposal due date is 22 January 2020 at 3:00 PM EST. Please review the submission requirements in the solicitation. Please send any additional questions on proposal submittals to the PCO, Mr. Joseph Mizzi.

[31] Is a Secret clearance required for this work? Can subcontractors work at the unclassified level?

Yes, a Secret clearance is required for the Prime Contractor. Subcontractors may work at the unclassified level if they are performing an unclassified aspect of the work. A DD 254 will be put on the contract as an Attachment.

[32] What are the travel requirements for this program?

The program team is manned out of WPAFB. Contractors should propose trips as they deem necessary to accomplish the program objectives.

[33] When will negotiations for data rights take place?

Regarding the proposal selected for negotiation, data rights negotiations will take place after the Government has received business clearance. The vendors’ position regarding what level of data rights the Government should have regarding (1) technical data/software developed under the ICS Program and (2) the Technical Data Package deliverable (refer to CDRL A010) should be stated in the proposal. See Section I, 6.d. of the solicitation for more information on data rights.

The Government desires sufficient data rights to successfully complete air worthiness requirements. The Technical Data Package requirement applies to pre-developed items.

[34] Does the Government have a list of preferred Bluetooth devices?

No.

[35] Is the Government open to ground testing?

No, this is not within the scope of this effort.

[36] Are there restrictions on exporting data to a cloud repository?

Cellular transmission cannot be used for classified data. There is a possibility to use cellular devices to transmit controlled unclassified information (CUI) data.

[37] What is the classification level for ICS data coming off the aircraft?

This depends on the aircraft platform and cyber security requirements.

[38] Are pilots able to feel haptics/watches against their skin and/or over clothes?

This depends on the platform and what the pilots are doing at that time. Generally, haptic devices would need to be touching the skin for max effectiveness.

[39] Is the Government looking at the data module being on-body or aircraft mounted?

Solutions that do not involve physical integration with the aircraft are sought.

[40] If we can meet 2 or 3 of the requirements, and another contractor can meet the remaining requirements, will the Government force us to partner?

No, the Government cannot force a contractor to partner with another contractor. In this case, vendors would need to form subcontracting relationships on their own to satisfy all the technical requirements of the Solicitation.

[41] Does the Government desire solutions under this proposal to integrate ICS data with aircraft data?

No, this is not within scope of this effort.

[42] What are the conditions for a FAR-based contract versus an OT for Experimentation?

OT’s are typically for non-traditional contractors. There is flexibility in that we would negotiate the clauses -- the FAR clauses would not apply. However, the negotiation and review process could take longer. Please mention if you would like an OT to be considered in your proposal.

The Government is looking for the shortest timeline to award.

[43] What is the anticipated color of money for this effort?

The majority of the funds will be Research and Development (R&D, 3600), with the potential for some Operations and Maintenance (O&M, 3400), as well as DHP R&D and/or DHP O&M. No Procurement funds (3010) are anticipated.

[44] Does the use of O&M (3400) money limit a contract?

There may be some scenarios that could use O&M. However, a contract as a vehicle does not limit the use of O&M in itself. The Purpose Statute must be analyzed in determining whether the use of O&M is appropriate. 3400 O&M funds could be used on both C-type and OTE awards provided the Purpose Statute is satisfied.

[45] What are the testing requirements to prove out a TRL7 prototype?

By the end of the program, the ICS prototype will be at or near planned operational capability and have been demonstrated in an operationally relevant aircraft and flight environment.

[46] Will the Government grant a 30 day extension to the proposal submission deadline?

No, the 22 January 2020 at 3:00 PM EST proposal submission deadline is firm.

[47] The Government states that the ICS prototype will be a stand-alone system (i.e., no integration required with the aircraft); however, the statement was made that integration with the communication system would be acceptable for pilot alerting. Can you clarify these potentially conflicting statements?

Solutions for alerting that operate in parallel with existing communication systems is reasonable and acceptable; e.g., additional speaker in headset ear cups.

[48] Is the Government interested in using collected data to fine tune personalization of alarms?

Yes.

[49] Is there a requirement for ICS to be integrated into the next generation helmet? It could potentially impact the technologies were considering in ICS.

We do not know at this time what the impacts are, if any.

[50] The ADEPT solicitation mentions that each Call will contain a budget. However, Call 1 does not list a budget. Was this a mistake?

The Government intentionally did not include a budget for Call 1. The Government wants vendors to propose what they think the program will actually cost. It’s possible that the Government will include a budget in future Calls.

[51] The ICS RFI # AFRL-711-RHX-002 has a closing date of 3 Jan 2019. Is that when the RFI responses are due?

As stated in Section 4 of AFRL-711-RHX-002, the RFI responses were due on 11 October 2019.

This does appear to be in conflict with the form data listing 3 Jan 2020, however the narrative deadline is the controlling date. The form data is pushed out further than the narrative in the posting because the Government wanted to keep the RFI open to adjust/update the Industry Day information. As stated, the date in Section 4 (11 October 2019) was the deadline. However, vendors who did not submit an RFI response are still able to submit a proposal under FA8650- 20-S-6009 Call 1.