Industry Day Questions and Answers.pdf

C-sUAS Industry Day Questions and Answers (Q&As)

24 AUG 2020

General Q&A Session:

1) Can the “Industry Partners” slide be added to the Technical Read Library?

a. Yes, this slide has been added.

2) Will the Industry Day list of attendees be provided?

a. Yes, this was sent out via email to all those who attended and is also posted on https://beta.sam.gov/

3) Will this contract vehicle be used by other DoD agencies?

a. This IDIQ is intended to be used for C-sUAS requirements across AFRL, other military services as well as DoD and other Federal agencies, as long as it approved by AFRL and within scope of the contract. All ordering will be centralized through AFRL/RIK.

4) Does the Technical Read Library contain both unclassified and classified information? And can it be accessed over the internet?

a. The Technical Read Library is unclassified only but some information is export controlled, so on-site viewing at AFRL/RI is the only access method available. If you wish to view, follow the process identified in the Pre-Solicitation Notice.

5) When will it be known if the acquisition is a Small Business Set-Aside?

a. The Government is still conducting the acquisition planning process. After completing the market research and obtaining necessary approvals, the Government will post the determination to the betaSAM site as an amendment to the presolicitation notice.

6) How do we as contractors handle policy issues that may arise?

a. The Contractor will not be involved with making, shaping or influencing Government policy. The Contractor will not serve as a liaison to any Government agency or to legislative bodies. The Government will work to resolve any policy issues or questions that may affect performance of the contract.

7) Are there any limitations for on-boarding (adding subcontractors)?

a. There are no limitations. However, if the effort is set-aside for small business, compliance with the clause at FAR 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting (JAN 2019)(DEVIATION 2019-O0003), will be required.

8) Why is there a requirement to have 20% of personnel cleared at the TS/SCI level at award?

a. It is expected that the successful Prime contractor will have access to specific data and information at award that requires clearance at this level.

9) Industry would prefer that a Draft RFP be released before the RFP as we will need longer than 30 days bid time, especially since the Set-Aside Determination has not been finalized.

a. The Government is determining whether releasing a draft RFP and having a shorter RFP period, or only releasing the RFP with a longer timeframe will be more beneficial.

10) Will the Industry Day slides be released?

a. Yes, with the exception of any Export Control/ITAR information which will be redacted/removed prior to public release. Some of the information from the slides is available in the Technical Read Library. A publicly releasable version of the slides are posted on https://beta.sam.gov/

11) Is this going to be a Multiple Award IDIQ?

a. No, in order to meet the users’ critical schedule to combat the UAS threat, and due to the required synchronicity and top level systems engineering between both the new capabilities to be developed and changes to fielded software baseline, this IDIQ is intended to be a single award.

12) Why did the Government choose an IDIQ as the contract vehicle? Why not use the Other

Transaction (OT) vehicle?

a. Use of a FAR-based IDIQ contract was determined the best acquisition method for this requirement based on the scope and nature of the requirements. There are statutory limitations on use of OTs (e.g., deliverables must be prototypes (OT for Prototype), or supplies needed for test and experimentation (OT for Experimentation)) that would limit the Government’s ability to satisfy the full spectrum of requirements set forth in the

SOW.

13) Is there a Command and Control (C2) integration platform like Medusa that industry should follow?

a. Medusa is an Air Force system of systems architecture and Medusa C2 is the C2 system being developed for use within the Medusa architecture. There is no specific C2 system selected to date for industry to follow, it will depend on our customers’ needs.

14) With respect to the Government as a larger entity, is AFRL/RI taking the lead with C-sUAS?

a. AFRL is working with the C-sUAS Executive Agent (EA) to coordinate our efforts with the comprehensive Government strategy.

15) What pre-coordination has AFRL/RI done with other organizations to make it known that this IDIQ will be available?

a. The Government has talked mainly with AFLCMC/HBUC at Hanscom and other AFRL Technical Directorates. AFRL is also continuing to discuss requirements with other organizations outside of AFLCMC and AFRL.

16) Is there any perceived risk with using a single integrator and what is the mitigation strategy for that risk?

a. The Government is assessing potential risks and mitigations of awarding a single award IDIQ through the acquisition planning process.

17) Are there going to be multiple solutions because of the other DoD organizations also working in the C-sUAS area?

a. The Air Force believes that the best solution for the C-sUAS mission is a system of systems approach, with multiple technologies needed across all modalities (sensors, effectors, etc.). These technologies can come from across the DoD, Federal Government, and Commercial sectors.

18) Do you see an opening for equipment providers to have access to testing ranges?

a. The Government cannot guarantee access to bases or ranges not identified in the

RFP/contract as Base Support. For major test ranges, this will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis as there are scheduling and cost factors, in addition to receiving the necessary approvals from the site owners. Access to Air Force test resources will be provided on a case-by-case basis as long as the appropriate plans and procedures are approved.

19) How does AFRL feel about partnerships between companies?

a. For this acquisition, AFRL requires a single prime contractor, but it is expected that teaming will be utilized by the prime contractor to fulfill the SOW requirements of this acquisition.

20) Do you see events where AFRL will have other Industry Days or RFIs?

a. No.

21) Can AFRL comment on the ability to be cost effective?

a. The successful awardee needs to be able to provide the best technical solution to Government users/customers on a task order by task order basis, at a cost that is fair and reasonable, without affecting quality, schedule or other performance requirements.

22) As we look at “Open System” is AFRL going to define what “OA” is?

a. The Government’s definition of Open Systems Architecture is: “An Open Systems

Architecture (OSA) is a characteristic of a system which uses a technical architecture that adopts consensus based standards supporting a modular, loosely coupled, and highly cohesive system structure that includes the publishing of key interfaces within the system and relevant design disclosure” (https://www.dau.mil/glossary/pages/3372.aspx)

23) Will AFRL define “Cyber Resiliency”?

a. Yes, cyber resiliency engineering aims to design, architect, and develop systems with the ability to anticipate, withstand, recover from, and adapt to adverse conditions, stresses, attacks, or compromises that use or are enabled by cyber resources. Source: “Draft NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-160 Volume 2, Developing Cyber Resilient Systems: A Systems Security Engineering Approach.”

24) Is there a Signature Library that can be shared?

a. No. There are libraries that exist, but the information resides within different areas of the DoD and it is not contained in a single location that is easily shareable.

25) What is AFRL’s desire on the training aspect of the C-sUAS technology?

a. If this question is referring to automated technology training in order to increase effectiveness while reducing false positives, then yes, this is of interest to AFRL. If this

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

Cite where this definition came from

ZALESKI, PHILIP J DR-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGD

That was our definition. Let’s change it to: “Cyber resiliency engineering aims to design, architect, and develop systems with the ability to anticipate, withstand, recover from, and adapt to adverse conditions, stresses, attacks, or compromises that use or are enabled by cyber resources.” Source: “Draft NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-160 Volume 2, Developing Cyber Resilient Systems: A Systems Security Engineering Approach” question is referring to training methods for operator training in the use of the C-sUAS technology, then AFRL is interested in the development of the most cost and operationally effective training for our operators. This would include self-paced electronic training modules, instructor-led training, and train-the-trainer training, where applicable.)

26) With the amount of effort it takes for Industry to create teams, how much time do you anticipate we will have to respond to the RFP when it is posted?

a. There is a 30 day response time that may or may not be extended by the Contracting Officer.

27) Upon release of the RFP, will there be two proposals due? One for the IDIQ and one for the initial Task Order?

a. No, there will be one proposal due for both the IDIQ and the initial Task Order (separated by sections).

28) Will companies be required to identify and propose mitigations for potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs)?

a. Yes.

One-on-one Q&A sessions:

1. What will the page limit be for the RFP?

a. This is still TBD, but it’s AFRL’s intent to keep the page limit manageable for the technical volume (i.e. 50 pages).

2. What were the number of responses to the RFI, how many were small business?

a. There were 21 responses received, 10 of which are a small business.

3. What part of the draft SOW is for Task Order 1?

a. The draft Work Description for TO1 was posted to the betaSAM pre-solicitation notice.

4. Is the TS/SCI personnel clearance rate required at the time of award and does it have to be met solely by the prime?

a. Yes - 20% of personnel must be cleared at time of award, and this can consist of prime and subcontractor employees.

5. Has the funding been secured for this effort?

a. Yes, funding is currently secured for the first Task Order.

6. Do you have any milestones besides the release of the RFP?

a. The Government anticipates award in SEP 2020.

7. Does Artificial Intelligence (AI) fit into the mix to interface with autonomy?

a. Since AI can assist in a system becoming more effective in decision-making, yes, AI fits. It is envisioned that AI and machine learning could greatly speed up the Rules of

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

Should state that there is a 30 day response time that may or may not be extended by the Contracting Officer.

ZAWISZA, MATTHEW A CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKD

Done.

Engagement (ROE) decision process, allowing the man-on-the-loop to receive actionable response action choices much faster than following a manual process.

8. Does AFRL have efforts with Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM)?

9. Do you know where the funding is being spread to technology areas?

a. No, the Government doesn’t have a percentage.

10. Do you plan on doing test coordination?

a. Yes, testing will be coordinated.

11. How will Intellectual Property (IP) issues be handled [for subcontractors]?

a. An identification and assertion of restrictions on software and data orm will be completed and submitted with each proposal by the prime which asserts on behalf of any subcontractors. This is attached to and forms part of the contract. Changes to assertion by the prime after award may only be made with agreement of the Contracting Officer. The prime is responsible for ensuring IP for deliverables by subcontractors are consistent with its assertions and the contract.

12. For a C2 system, do you have a timeline of when that could transition?

a. It will depend on what is being built, for which customer/mission, and when. There are a number of C2 systems that C-sUAS technologies could potentially integrate with.

13. How will the small business set-aside decision announcement be handled?

a. A determination will be posted on https://beta.sam.gov/

14. How do we better identify the intent of the UAS? Will it be defined by FAA or NASA?

a. For the DoD, the C-UAS Joint Program Office and Executive Agent will draft policy that may include guidance on deriving UAS intent. That policy will be shared as it is released.

15. Can industry assume that we would have a multiple integration wireless effort? How can you get information back to the Base Defense Operations Center (BDOC)?

a. All communication methods will be considered, but specific technical tasks and requirements will be addressed on a task order basis.

16. When will the Task Order 1 SOW be released?

a. It will be released with the draft RFP/full RFP.

17. Is there information on JWICS for this effort?

a. No.

18. What is the split of the work between classified and unclassified?

a. The majority of the work is intended to be performed at the Unclassified//FOUO level.

19. How are you expecting the prototyping to be furthered?

ZALESKI, PHILIP J DR-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGD

This is difficult to answer as “intent” will be derived based on Techniques, Tactics, and Procedures (TTPs), Concept of Operations (ConOps) and Rules of Engagement (RoE) policies of each agency, military branch, or operational location. I guess I would answer like this. “For the DoD, the C-UAS Joint Program Office and Executive Agent will draft policy that may include guidance on deriving UAS intent. That policy will be shared as it is released.”

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

This is poor wording but the question of “intent” is vague.

ZAWISZA, MATTHEW A CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKD

Brendon/Donna, can we re-word? Are there any updates since we originally answered this?

POLAND, BRENDON J CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGD

Re-worded answer for consideration: The intent of UAS will be difficult to determine. For aircraft legally operating in the NAS or in other nations’ air space the FAA or its equivalent will be working over the next years to provide policy and the needed technology to track these aircraft. This acquisition will be coordinating and collaborating as needed with those entities. For aircraft that are operating against policy or law both in nationalized airspace, international or contested airspace, intent will have to be determined by analysis of information provided by technology that will likely be developed under this effort.

a. It is AFRL’s intent to transition capabilities to AFLCMC or other Government agencies where they will address further development. Where required, AFRL will assist with these activities. This is on a task order basis.

20. What is your timeline for sustainment?

a. Intent of this IDIQ is not sustainment, it is to develop, prototype, test and transition (see above) C-sUAS technologies.

21. What is the level of built-in support that a company has to provide?

a. The successful contractor will complete all requirements and work in accordance with the resources proposed in response to the RFP. The only other support is any base support or specifically designated Government furnished information/equipment.

22. What major changes do you think there will be from the posted Draft SOW?

a. No major changes are anticipated, but it is best to wait for the final draft version that will be released with the Draft RFP.

23. What contracts are currently performing work under the area of C-sUAS?

a. There was an Industry Day slide titled “Program History” that displayed contracts that are currently working in this area.

24. Do you see this IDIQ being broader then what is currently being done?

a. There are 7-8 current efforts working concurrently. This IDIQ will have a similar landscape and a new Task Order will be issued as a new requirement arises.

25. What security classification guide do you expect this to operate under?

a. There are a number of Security Classification Guides (SCG) that the Government expects to operate under on a task order basis. The most important is the Mitigation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (MsUAS) SCG dated 20 November 2018.

26. Is there a timeline on how quickly you will need something to be developed?

a. Deliverable requirements and schedule will be determined in each task order.

27. Is the FAA aware of the work being done?

a. Yes, they are aware of AFRL’s work through continued coordination with Headquarters Air Force / Operations, Plans and Requirements (HAF/A3) and our ongoing work with the New York Unmanned Aircraft Systems (NYUAS) Test Site.

28. Is there favorableness if COTS materials are used in the approach?

a. DoD acquisition policy prefers commercially available supplies but for purposes of technical evaluation of an individual proposal for this acquisition there is no preference given to a particular technical solution.

29. Who is the “Ninja” contactor?

a. Black River Systems Company is the prime contractor for the “Operational Counter-sUAS

Open Systems Architecture” contract (FA8750-19-C-0040), and currently responsible for integration of Ninja software and hardware..

30. Directed Joint Venture amongst contractors. Will you tell us who we must work with?

a. No. At Industry day a list of all contracts that the AFRL C-UAS team has held or used in the past was both verbally presented and physically posted to ensure transparency. This acquisition is not a continuation of past work and it is not essential that any past performers be considered when teaming. Proposals with or without past performers will be equally evaluated.

31. Can you release a Draft Section L & M?

a. The Government will determine if a draft RFP will be released.

32. Does the Task Order SOW look like we have set the requirements for the contractors already doing the work for AFRL in the C-sUAS area?

a. A draft Work Description (WD) for Task Order 1 has been posted to the pre-solicitation notice on the betaSAM website. The Task Order WD will include areas for S&T development that have been deemed by the AFRL C-sUAS Team as high priority tasks that need to be executed. No incumbent contractors, A&AS contractors or other non- Government personnel have defined or influenced the work description.

33. Will AFRL consider requiring a DCMA Approved Purchasing System for this contract?

a. A DCMA approved purchasing system is not a requirement for this contract.

34. Are there specific certifications that the contractor should be required to have to bid?

a. Any required certifications will be stated in the draft RFP/RFP. Information Assurance certifications may be required for certain individuals performing on future task orders, but will not be required at time of proposal submission, contract award, or performance of Task Order 1.

35. Is there an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) with the system integrator doing production?

a. The prime contractor will not be a system integrator and as such the Government has not identified any OCIs for this effort, nor any restriction on future acquisitions. There shouldn’t be a broad restriction on the prime contractor further developing or providing C-sUAS technologies or capabilities in the future, unless there is a clear reason why it will adversely impact the Government. Reference FAR 9.505-2(a)(3). However, Offerors will be requested in the RFP to provide a statement in their proposals regarding any potential OCIs their organization may have, along with their proposed mitigation plan for the Government’s consideration.

36. Can the collaboration slide from the presentation be made available to attendees via email, technical read library, or other means?

a. The slide has been added to the technical read library and a scrubbed version of the slides are posted on https://beta.sam.gov/

37. Will a Subcontractor be required to receive ACO approval?

a. Yes, subject to the conditions in FAR 44.2.

38. Is the Cyber Mission going to be included for Intel?

a. Yes, the Cyber Mission for C-sUAS will be included in this acquisition.

https://beta.sam.gov/

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

I thought BRS was the lead integrator.

ZALESKI, PHILIP J DR-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGD

Brendon can chime in, but BRS is the OCOSA prime contractor and Ninja Lead Integrator. The IDIQ is much bigger than Ninja. Therefore, the answer to this question is correct.

ZALESKI, PHILIP J DR-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGD

Brendon can chime in, but if the tasks are created where other ongoing efforts are part of the requirement, then it’s assumed that any tasks that involve Ninja will most likely be required to work with BRS, at least early on.

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

Would they have to work with BRS?

POLAND, BRENDON J CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGD

Re-Worded Answer for consideration: At Industry day a list of all contracts that the AFRL C-UAS team has held or used in the past was both verbally presented and physically posted to ensure transparency. This acquisition is not a continuation of past work and it is not essential that any past performers be considered when teaming. Proposals with or without past performers will be equally evaluated.

39. Will there be GFE or Base Support?

a. Yes, base support letters will be part of the contract Award.

40. If you go small business set-aside, do the small business subcontractors count towards the at least 50% SB performance limitation?

41. What is the funding profile available upon award?

a. Funding will be incrementally available that are programmed to fund an estimated 36 months of performance for TO1 at the time of award.

Questions submitted via email:

1. Can you further explain the experimentation and validation at DoD facility and test sites referenced in the Government Industry Day briefing?

a. Is there a cost associated with these, in both dollars and time and how that may impact task orders executed under the IDIQ? Would the Government arrange? Or should a proposal include these costs?

Response: As the intent of this acquisition is to facilitate rapid prototyping and transition of C-sUAS capabilities, experimentation and validation will be required. Where feasible, this activity will be executed at the AFRL/RI test sites, but in some cases, there may be the need to test at other Government Owned ranges, which can result in a cost for each activity. The Section L Proposal Preparation Instructions will address how Offerors will be required to address costs.

2. Would the Government still look favorably on a small business Prime who may only have a few niche capabilities, relative to the requirements, leading a team made up of other niche companies and one or more large companies?

a. As this will be a single award, the strategy lessens the chance of failure by an awardee, and

b. Brings in those companies that do have single or just a couple strong niche capabilities.

Response: The Government is not limiting teaming. Proposals should address all requirements.

3. It was mentioned several times in the briefing that the Government expects “unique” partnering approaches as part of any successful approach. We understand there may be one Prime contractor, and potentially several subcontractors supporting various requirements. But beyond that, can the Government elaborate any more on hopes/thoughts with regard to successful, “unique” partnering?

Response: Unique partnering could include commercial vendors and/or other companies/organizations that do not routinely execute contracts with the Government.

4. One slide mentioned several anticipated system deployments, many OCONUS I think. Will these deployment requirements be part of the task orders issued under this IDIQ? If so, as part of an RFP, will offerors be required to propose a detailed deployment approach, and will this be considered a component of the evaluation criteria?

WILLSEY, REBECCA S CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKC

Revise response to specifically state that the Government has not identified any OCIs for this effort, and to address DFARS 209.571, from which this question is stemming.

ZAWISZA, MATTHEW A CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKD

Done.

WILLSEY, REBECCA S CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKC

I added more clarifying language. Please obtain RIJ input on this response.

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

I think the lead in sentence should state whether or not the prime will be a system integrator. I thought BRS was the lead integrator. If the prime is not (which is my understanding) then there wouldn’t be a restriction on producing the solutions. If the prime is a System Integrator then we would want them to identify any OCIs and a mitigation strategy. Wording can follow from making that distinction first.

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

Funding would be incrementally available but are programmed to cover an estimated 36 months of performance. Unless it’s accurate that you have a full 36 months of funds now which is probably not accurate.

Re-worded.

Response: It is anticipated that the offeror will be required to include a discussion of how they would address OCONUS deployments in the response to the SOW for the basic IDIQ contract, but it will be expected that the detailed deployment approach will be required in each task order proposal where OCONUS deployment is expected. Proposal instructions will be stated in Section L of the RFP.

5. “The Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate, Rome NY (AFRL/RI) has a requirement provide a focused yet flexible, rapid, agile contracting vehicle between Air Force Research Laboratory, its Products Centers, and the Operational Community to support rapid research, development, prototyping, demonstration, evaluation, and transition of Counter small Unmanned Aircraft System (C-sUAS) capabilities.”

a. How does this effort relate to other C-UAS efforts the USAF is pursuing? Specifically the Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) efforts and also the recent AFLCMC effort through the System of Systems Consortium (SOSSEC) Other Transaction Authority (OTA)?

b. Is this effort coordinating with other services for C-UAS, i.e. Army, Navy, USMC?

c. Does AFRL/RI have subject matter expertise in Directed Energy (DE) and other counter-

UAS technologies or are you learning as you go?

Response: As AFRL/RI has been working with all AFRL Technical Directorates, including SDPE, as well as interacting with HAF/A3, AFMC/A3, AFLCMC/HBUC, the MAJCOMS, other Services and Agencies, the Government has the subject matter expertise in all areas outlined in the SOW, but as this requirement changes, we are working to stay ahead of the threat.

6. “The NAICS code for this effort is Research and Development for Aircraft, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts (541715).”

a. Does this mean they are looking for an airborne cUAS capability?

Response: Airborne C-sUAS capabilities fit squarely within the SOW, as do non-airborne capabilities.

7. “At time of award, the successful Offeror must be able to provide approximately 20% of proposed personnel to be TS/SCI cleared and assigned at time of award, with graduated increases in proportion over time.”

a. Is this a Services only IDIQ or can prototyping activities be funded as well?

b. What will be the function of these personnel? Will they be performing the R&D?

Managing the contract?

Response: This effort will include RDT&E, program/project management, and rapid prototyping.

8. Today’s (12/19/19) Media reports that:

“Fielding counter-small unmanned aircraft systems (C-sUAS) is a priority for the Pentagon in 2020 and the defense secretary has designated the U.S. Army as the executive agent to ensure there are not duplicative efforts across the military services.”

Question: How does your C-sUAS procurement align with this new development? How are you ensuring your efforts are not duplicative with others happening concurrently within USAF and the other services? (see Question 5 above)

Response: AFRL/RI is working closely with the Army C-sUAS EA. This close interaction will ensure that our efforts under this acquisition are in line with the EA and available across the Government.

9. What is the funding profile planned across the 72-month IDIQ?

https://aviationweek.com/awin/company/13989

Response: The estimated funding profile is not publicly releasable. The Government anticipates a maximum ordering amount of $490M. The minimum guarantee is the amount to be obligated on the first order. The maximum and minimum amounts for any individual order issued under the contract are $100M and $100,000, respectively.

10. During the Q&A portion of the Industry Day, we learned the technical proposal will consist of a response to an awardable TO. The Draft SOW (NOV 2018) is exceptionally broad. The program briefing included a set of ~15 technical areas AFRL is focused on within the C-sUAS portfolio.

Five of those were specifically highlighted as being of primary interest moving forward. We are concerned that the lack of clarity will significantly hamper teaming and will limit competition on this procurement.

a. Will the Government please clarify whether the awardable TO will require a technical response covering the scope of the 1) Draft PWS, 2) the AFRL C-sUAS technical focus areas, or 3) the small subset of specifically highlighted technical areas?

Response: The TO Work Description will state performance requirements that should be addressed in the offeror’s proposal. It will include a subset of technical areas outlined in the basic contract SOW. A draft version of the TO WD was posted to the betaSAM presoliciation notice.

11. Industry voiced significant concern about the apparent intent of AFRL to go immediately to release of the Final RFP in FEB 2020 (anticipated). In the absence of a draft Section L, Section M and Awardable TO SOW, it is virtually impossible to conduct meaningful and productive teaming discussions.

a. Will the Government please consider releasing these draft documents in order to give industry some basic and vital insight so that appropriate teaming activities can take place and a fair opportunity competitive environment can be maintained?

Response: The Government will consider the possibility of releasing a draft RFP prior to the full RFP.

12. Are there specific systems identified for integration (e.g. radar systems, Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) systems) or is there a defined interface to develop to?

Response: It is expected that these interfaces could change depending on the intent of each task order, customer intent/mission, or as interfaces change over time.

13. Are there specific technical areas identified for development outside Electronic Warfare/Radio Frequency (EW/RF) attacks at AFRL/RI or will those technologies be brought in from outside agencies?

Response: It is expected that technologies will be developed that span the entire C-sUAS kill-chain, covering all modalities.

14. Is there a plan to integrate national capabilities?

Response: No, however specific capabilities will be addressed in each task order.

15. Does AFRL/RI intend to be the DoD repository of protocol libraries or will it work with DTRA-JD to create a Government-owned library for all service use?

Response: AFRL/RI will not be a DoD data repository but works closely with DTRA-JD and will continue to share protocol library information with all Government Agencies provided there is a benefit of doing so.

16. Have current programs been funded from AF Program Element lines, external customers or special Congressional interest items? What specific external partners does AFRL plan on using to develop future capability?

WILLSEY, REBECCA S CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKC

Per Slide 7 of ASP/AP.

WILLSEY, REBECCA S CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKC

See previous RIKC comment re. need for TO1 to be technically representative.

A draft WD was posted on betaSAM.

Response: All sources of funding have been utilized and this is planned to continue. AFRL will continue to partner across the DoD and Federal Government.

17. What test range(s) does AFRL plan on using for larger System of Systems tests, including kinetic and DE weapons?

Response: All Government test ranges are expected to be utilized on a case-by-case basis. AFRL has utilized China Lake, Dugway, Muskatatuck Urban Training Center, White Sands, Edwards AFB, as well as others.

18. Has AFRL targeted specific future deployment locations? Where are the likely deployment areas (e.g. CENTCOM AOR, CONUS)

Response: There is no exact location that the Government is targeting for deployments. These details will be coordinated through operational components.

19. What is the logistics plan to support sustainment and training for OCONUS locations?

Response: Requirements for training and sustainment for CONUS and OCONUS will be developed for each task order that requires it and will not be general to the IDIQ.

20. What is the plan to transition capability to materiel developers?

Response: A core mission of AFRL is to rapidly develop and transition capabilities to our transition partners, such as AFLCMC but AFRL will not transfer any technology or capability directly to a material developer. Transition partners and program offices are responsible for the execution of contracts with materiel developers to further develop and deliver capabilities once they are transitioned from AFRL.

21. Is there a technology transfer agreement (or agreements) in place?

Response: At this time, there are no technology transfer agreements in place. However, AFRL does have a number of Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) in place for C-sUAS capabilities with various organizations.

22. Is there a plan to deploy capability with a Weapon System Safety Review Board, especially weapons with lethal capability?

Response: No. However any capability that is to be developed and fielded will be determined on a case by case basis to meet Government requirements. The Government will ensure that all legal and policy issues are addressed and appropriate processes followed. This will happen on a solution by solution basis as required.

23. What are the expected revenue streams to make up for the delta between the ceiling and currently available funding?

Response: The Government will meet its legal obligation of funding to satisfy the minimum guarantee and any obligation of funding on task orders. The IDIQ contract ceiling is not a guarantee of funding to that amount but the maximum amount the Government may order over the life of the contract.

24. Is AFRL and are other agencies planning funding for this contract in their POM?

Response: Yes

25. Is there any expectation of a spinoff commercial capability? How will AFRL handle this?

Response: AFRL looks to transition capabilities to AFLCMC and other Government customers.

26. Is AFRL planning on unlimited or special purpose rights for software and hardware developed under this contract?

Response: The Government desires unlimited rights, other rights can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It will mainly depend on how the development is/was funded.

27. From the presentation at Industry Day, it was discerned that the Program History includes legacy from about a dozen or so contracts and four specific programs that didn’t appear in the legacy contract listing, all of which appear in various states of procurement. Is there a plan to merge all these efforts into this single contract upon award? If so, could the Government please provide the phased in timeline for the transition and if the Government will be requiring directed subcontractors from those efforts to the C-sUAS awardee?

Response: AFRL utilizes a number of different contract vehicles to execute S&T requirements. This is expected to continue. The on-going contractual efforts are expected to continue to conclusion and not merged or terminated based on award of this contract.. Further research, development, or other requirements deriving from those efforts may be accomplished via orders awarded under this C-sUAS contract. Prime contractors are responsible for successful contract performance and therefore will be responsible for selection of qualified subcontractors needed for performance. The Government will not be directing subcontractors.

28. Has the Government considered the risk associated with awarding a $490M contract to a Small Business Prime that will have to conduct at least 50% of the work for the contract? There is risk associated with a Small business taking on large amounts of credit, staffing and recruiting challenges, and a broad PWS that is extremely difficult for one single Small Business Prime to completely cover. If a small business set-aside, will the Government require the SB Prime to provide a letter of credit from a financial institution?

Response: The Government is assessing potential risks and mitigations through the acquisition planning process. Responsibility will be determined as part of the source selection decision. Prime and subcontractor SBs count toward fulfilling the minimum percentage in the FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting clause.

29. From the discussion and presentation at Industry Day, it seems like this contract will act as a vehicle that AFRL will use to help other AFRL Directorates and customers from outside organizations or services and that one of the roles of the Prime contractor would be to help AFRL/RI market this vehicle to bring capability and technology to these customers. Has the Government considered making this part of the procurement and how does the Government intend to capture this in the RFP?

Response: There will be no requirement for the Prime contractor to market the contract vehicle.

AFRL/RI will socialize the contract vehicle across all of AFRL, the DoD, and Federal Agencies.

30. How does the Government intend to evaluate the price/cost for this procurement?

Response: This will be contained within Sections L&M of the RFP. The cost/price analysis will consider whether the proposed cost/price is fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced.

31. Is the Government planning to provide a budget for the awardable Task Order either in dollars, hours, material, etc?

Response: Section M of the RFP will state how the proposed cost/price will be evaluated. It is anticipated that the proposed cost/price for TO1 will be an important factor. Section L of the RFP will provide information necessary for drafting a proposal for TO1.

WILLSEY, REBECCA S CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKC

If weapons will be developed and delivered under this effort, we will have to look deeper into associated clauses/language/requirements that might need to apply that we usually don’t deal with.

ZAWISZA, MATTHEW A CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKD

Per Brendon Poland: “Almost all of our AF systems we do research on are “weapons systems.” Cyber Weapon systems, Electronic Attack systems are weapon systems etc. These will be handled by HAF/JA on a prototype by prototype basis before employing these systems in support of any operational assessments.”

WILLSEY, REBECCA S CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/RIKC

Why not?

Per technical team: “We listed all of the contracts, so I’m not sure where they came up with four. And to answer that, no, the ongoing efforts will conclude as-is, and any follow-on activities will be executed on task orders under the new IDIQ.”

32. Has the Government considered making multiple awards? By doing so, TO competition would strengthen your technical capabilities and offerings.

Response: Multiple awards were considered, but the current acquisition strategy is that a single award is in the Government's best interest since task orders expected under the contract are so integrally related that only a single source can efficiently perform the work.

33. Will the Government provide the contract numbers for the NINJA, Guardian and CAA (Counter Autonomous Air - FY20-22) efforts?

Response: These contract numbers are part of the Technical Read Library. All program history contracts are as follows: FA8750-16-C-0206, FA8650-16-C-9205, FA8750-16-C-0293, FA8650-17-C-9205, FA8650- 17-C-9206, FA8650-17-C-9207, FA8650-17-C-9208, FA8750-17-S-0001, FA8750-17-C-0196, FA8750-17-C- 0190, FA8750-17-C-0197, FA8750-18-C-0041, and FA8750-19-C-0040.

34. The ceiling calculation only includes 10% for travel and material. For a program of this type, 10% is an artificial constraint to designing and delivering solutions. Will the Government consider revising this limitation on Other Direct Costs (ODCs)?

Response: The Government is not imposing a 10% limitation on ODCs. Actual ODC requirements will be determined on an order-by-order basis.

WHITMAN, WILLIAM S DO-03 USAF AFMC AFRL/RIJ

Significant is probably misleading. Cost/price is always an important factor and the relative weight of it compared to technical and management factors will be in Section L and M of the RFP when released.

Re-worded.