QandA - Project Sabre.pdf

CSO Project Sabre

Call 001

Vendor Question and Answer

Feb 26th, 2026

Contents

General

Focus Area 1

Focus Area 2

Focus Area 3

Focus Area 4

Focus Area 5

General Question Answer

The base CSO has slightly different response requirements than the individual call. Do the base CSO Solution Brief requirements still apply such as a Cover Sheet (which is excluded from the page count), an Executive Summary (1 page), and Company Viability (summary of current fundraising, top line revenues, and commercialization and go-to-market strategy)? Or are responses strictly adhering to the required content in this specific call?

Where there appears to be a conflict, the individual call instructions take precedence over the base CSO instructions. The purpose of a specific call is to provide tailored instructions for that particular effort.

Therefore, responses should be limited to the five (5) pages or ten (10) slides and contain only the content explicitly required by the specific call.

Is the 1 page a not to exceed limit, or is one page to be designated for the Executive

Summary?

See above.

Can graphics, tables, charts, header/footer be exempt from the 12-point font requirement as long as they are readable?

Yes, that is allowable.

Will the Government please confirm that a .pdf submission of Briefing Slides in response to Step 1 is allowable?

Yes, that is allowable.

In Step 1: Solution Brief Submission Attributes, the Government states that, “Submissions are limited to either five (5) single-sided pages (12-point font) or ten (10) presentation slides.” Can the Government clarify if it intended to read, “…five (5) single-spaced pages…”? If not, please provide guidance for Offerors to submit single-sided digital documentation.

No, the line reads five (5) single-sided pages. 5 total pages of content, plus a cover-page.

Cover-page does not count towards 5 page limit.

Additionally, can the Government clarify if there are any formatting or font restrictions for the presentation slide submission format?

No restrictions.

Does the cover page/slide count towards the page/slide number limit?

No, see above.

Page 13 paragraph 3 describes that “The Government prefers an initial effort of approximately three (3) months that delivers a clear ‘minimum viable product’ before pursuing longer-term activities.” Is it assumed this excludes FA3 as the base period is only two months?

Yes, that is correct.

Will multiple awards be made for each topic? The Government has not yet decided how many awards it will make for each Focus Area.

This will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

Call 001 designates NAICS code 518210.

The contract vehicle may be either an OTA or a FAR-based contract. Could you please clarify when it will be determined whether the procurement will utilize a FAR-based contract or an OTA? If a FAR-based contract is selected, we want to ensure we are properly registered under the designated NAICS code?

This will partially depend on what instrument the offeror proposes. As stated on page 14 of Call 001, Step 1, Required content: "Contract Vehicle Eligibility: State if your company is seeking an Other Transaction (OT) agreement and, if so, the basis for such an award (e.g., Non-Traditional Defense contractor status)." In other words, if your company is seeking an OT award, you must state your justification for receiving an OT in your Step 1 submittal. The

USG will make a preliminary finding regarding OT status after reviewing Step 1 solution briefs and will make a final determination during Step 2 negotiations, prior to award.

What does the initial task order look like? Take Focus Area 4, for example: The 12-

Month PoP is for the intial Task Order. The USG inteds to structure these like an IDIQ to allow follow-on task orders.

We acknowledge that the Q&A window for the CSO – Call 01 has closed; however, we seek clarification regarding CUI handling.

Proposals derived from the Call 01 CUI files would be treated as CUI derivatives and marked as such. Please advise whether the government will offer a secure submission channel for proposals containing CUI derivatives.

The vendor will need to make sure the submission is encrypted. The method is up to the vendor who is submitting.

Focus Area 1

What are the target frequencies we intend to jam?

The target frequencies are up to the vendor to decide; an example of what could be done is provided in the CSO. Demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

How many nodes do we intend to jam? The number of nodes to jam is up to the vendor to decide; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

What range can the multiple nodes be from each other that we intend to jam?

The number of nodes and distance between is up to the vendor to decide; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Do we need to jam the uplink, downlink, or both?

The decision to jam uplink, downlink, or both is up to the vendor; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Do we need to jam the ground-based high-power transmitter, the forward low-power drone / hand-held node, or both?

The targets to jam are up to the vendor to decide; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Do we need to spoof, jam, deny, degrade, etc.?

The decision to spoof, jam, deny, degrade, etc.

is up to the vendor to decide; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

What power do we need to jam / what is the desired power output?

The power needed to jam will depend on the demonstration that a vendor provides;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

How long do we need to sustain jamming operations?

The length of sustained jamming operations is up to the vendor to decide; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

What range from our own drone do we need to be able to jam?

The range to jam is up to the vendor to decide;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

What range from our own operator does our own drone need to reach?

Range details are up to the vendor to decide;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

How long does our own drone need to be able to loiter at its max range?

Loitering details are up to the vendor to decide;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

What is the anticipated launch platform(s) for this use case?

Platform details are up to the vendor to decide;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

What is the maximum input power to the

HW payload?

Power details are up to the vendor to decide;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call; example power requirements mentioned are scalable between 1W-100W.

What is the maximum HW payload weight? Weight details are up to the vendor to decide;

demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Are the antennas separate from this volume? Front-ends are excluded from the form factor and volume restrictions (e.g., antenna is separate from SOSA Nano board)

How much payload volume relief for the month 12 flyable prototype demonstrator is acceptable if there is a design path to meet volume constraints?

Demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Please confirm that for the number of channels requested, front ends are excluded from the form factor restrictions.

Front-ends are excluded from the form factor restrictions (e.g., antenna is separate from

SOSA Nano board)

Please clarify if the request is for 16 independent tuners or a reconfigurable RF front end.

The key word is scalable (but reconfigurable is also desirable): "Scalable Number of full-duplex phase-coherent TX/RX channels: e.g., scalable from 1 up to 4 as the threshold with 16 as a goal"; demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Is a trailing long wire, or trailing wing-edge long wire acceptable to support HF frequencies?

Demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Is the surface of the wing and/or fuselage available to use as an RF antenna to support HF to C/X-band frequencies?

Demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Is an external wing or fuselage mounted RF power amplifier, to support RF transmissions greater than 5 watts, acceptable?

Demonstrations should prove functionality of the prototype and be as close as possible to the desired form, fit, and function as presented in the Call.

Focus Area 2

The solicitation implies that the customer desires a physical piece of hardware that validates a

PIC’s SOSA compliance. However, the only test harnesses specifically called out are an Out-of-

Band and In-Band System Management test harnesses. Would you be able to clarify what type of physical hardware you desire?

The desire is to test SOSA 3U PICs for conformance, which include testing all rules relevant to the 3U form factor;

vendors can propose testing all or part of

SOSA 3U PIC conformance.

Focus Area 3

Does the USG prefer solutions thar are hosted on-prem, cloud, or both?

The USG has no preference for the solutions provided; the environment will need to be able to process CUI.

Does the USG anticipate MBSE models being CUI, classified, or both?

MBSE models will be CUI or Unclassified.

What is expected at the end of each period in FA3?

The delivery of each period and length (e.g., 2-month vs 6-month) is up to the vendor to negotiate with the USG; as standards evolve, the amount of work that can be identified for an FFP award will vary.

Are the deliverables in FA3 intended to align with each of the 2-month periods? Is each deliverable expected at the end of each period? If so, there are only 5 deliverables. We can include final reporting each deliverable for the final period.

The delivery of each period and length (e.g., 2-month vs 6-month) is up to the vendor to negotiate with the USG; as standards evolve, the amount of work that can be identified for an FFP award will vary.

Focus Area 4

Focus Area 4 (FA4) description states that the base period is 3 months, potentially followed by 9 months (page 11). Does this mean that the overall PoP would potentially be 12 months or 9 months.

The intent to award X vendors 3-month award. At the end of the 3-months, we intend on awarding Y vendors 9 more months, where Y < X. Therefore, 12 month total PoP.

Will the exemplar IR/RF MPU(s) be delivered or made available? Can this be grabbed from

DLE, or do we need to create/provide the skills? (FA4)

All the documents the USG has deemed necessary to accomplish the objectives of each focus area on this call have been outlined in the shadow boxes throughout the call. A vendor who proves their CUI capability can request the call-outlined documents if they want to. The intention is for a vendor to take their existing Big Iron

4.0 MPUs and convert to AMS GRA MPUs.

The USG will NOT provide an MPU. A vendor needs to bring a capability to the table and show how to convert it.

Focus Area 5

To better align our proposed solution with the Government’s expectations, could you provide additional visibility on the desired balance between automated and manual processes in verifying MPU conformance to AMS GRA interfaces and behaviors?

Specifically, while the solicitation emphasizes a scalable tool for "maximally automated" verification and proposing change packages for non-automatable requirements, are we to understand that the AMS GRA standards documents describe the compliance tests you wish to automate? As an explicit example, the described tests in that (CUI) Compliance Assessment Approach - CDRL A093-

AMSGRA list numerous requirements that appear not fully set up for automated testing through software alone, potentially requiring manual analysis in some cases for the MVP and final deliverables.

The intention is to automate, as much as possible, AMS GRA rules. As mentioned, there are rules that are not fully set up for automated testing. The desire is for vendors to provide updates to AMS GRA rules that keep the intent the same and result in more automated testing.

Could you clarify what an AMS GRA change package consists of? Could you provide an example of one?

AMS GRA change packages consist of documented (e.g., PowerPoint) proposed changes to the AMS GRA standard that include, but are not limited to, updates to rules, addition of new rules, removal of rules, additional of new architectural elements, etc.

Will the tool need to fully implement as much automatable AMS GRA requirements verification as found to be possible by the end of the project, or just provide a framework and implementation of a subset of exemplar requirements?

The intention is to automate testing of, to the maximum extent possible, AMS GRA rules.

There are rules currently in AMS GRA that are not fully set up for automated testing. The desire is for vendors to provide updates to

AMS GRA rules that keep the intent the same and result in more automated testing.

Can you provide or work with us to create a list of prioritized AMS GRA requirements for the tool to implement automated verification of? We presume Tier 1 is higher priority than

Tier 2/3. Can you confirm?

The intention is to automate, as much as possible, AMS GRA rules. As mentioned, there are rules that are not fully set up for automated testing. The desire is for vendors to provide updates to AMS GRA rules that keep the intent the same and result in more automated testing.

Will exemplar AMS GRA MPUs be provided by the USG, or are offerors expected to develop or procure them?

The USG does not currently intend to provide exemplar AMS GRA MPUs, vendors are welcome to leverage any content we include in the AMS GRA starter kit, MPUs from their own portfolio, or MPUs from partner vendors. Offerors are expected to start with

Big Iron 4.0 MPUs, follow the provided Transition Guide, and end with AMS GRA

MPUs.

Can you provide us with access to and/or technical description of the USG pipeline the exemplar MPUs will be delivered to?

All the documents the USG has deemed necessary to accomplish the objectives of each focus area on this call have been outlined in the shadow boxes throughout the call. A vendor who proves their CUI capability can request the call-outlined documents if they want to.

Not all MPUs must meet all AMS GRA MPU requirements. An MPU only needs to meet a subset depending on the type, capabilities, and target tier of the MPU. Is there a preferred way to inform the tool which requirements an MPU under test will need to comply with?

This is up to the vendor to decide.

Does the AMS GRA have a model (Cameo SysML) representation of the UCI message standard or is it only the XML schema?

Many people have imported the UCI message standard in Cameo, but the UCI schema is provided as XML.

Is there a government usage implementation reference library (C++ source code) for the

UCI message set?

There are OMS CAL implementations that can be available during award kickoff if a vendor lists it as a dependency for their effort. Note that no awards are guaranteed for any vendor.

Does the AMS GRA have any preferred or currently used tools for generating FACE framework compliant source code?

AMS GRA does not have a preferred or current tools to generate FACE compliant software.

Can vendors receive Time & Material (T&M) contract-type awards?

No, pursuant to law/regulation, only Firm Fixed Price (FFP) or Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) instruments can be awarded under a

CSO.