BAA Call 004 Questions final.pdf

BAA Call 004, FA9453-26-R-X012, Questions and Answers:

Question 1: Would the Call permit non-U.S.-citizen researchers located in Vietnam to perform strictly segregated, unclassified tasks under a U.S.-cleared prime contractor? If so:

Anwer 1: Per Section III. D. of the BAA, foreign participation requires prior written approval from the Contracting Officer and Foreign Disclosure Officer. Offerors proposing foreign national personnel (including overseas entities) must identify all foreign participation in their technical and cost proposals and demonstrate full compliance with U.S. Export Control Regulations (ITAR/EAR). The Government does not guarantee foreign disclosure or export approvals prior to award.

Question 1a: What Department of War or Department of State approval would be required?

Anwer 1a: Reference the answer to Question 1.

Question 1b: What qualifying international personnel exchange agreement would need to apply?

Anwer 1b: Reference the answer to Question 1.

Question 1c: Could a U.S.-cleared prime subcontract an approved unclassified scope to a Vietnamese university or research institution?

Anwer 1c: Reference the answer to Question 1.

Question 1d: What security, export-control, or information-segregation requirements should be addressed in the proposal?

Anwer 1d: Reference the answer to Question 1.

Question 2: Is if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services?

Answer 2: This is not brand new but is encompassed in the research areas that are outlined within the related Broad Agency Announcement.

Question 3:If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

Answer 3: N/A We Do not have a PIID. See answer to question 2.

Question 4: Is the method to reduce the intensity of geomagnetic storms is relevant to the current BAA call Answer 4: Please refer back to the topic areas outlined in Call 004 regarding relevancy.

Question 5: The Call letter lists four tasks; Attachment 1 (1 Oct 26) lists five, adding Tasks 3B, 3C and a standalone Task 4 (V&V). Which structure should the SOW and labor breakdown follow? Will proposals addressing a subset of tasks be considered.

Answer 5: This has been corrected in the RFP letter to match what is the SOW. It is up to contractor discretion to propose as they see fit within the limits set forth within the RFP letter.

Question 6: Is this a follow-on effort? If so, please identify the incumbent contract number(s).

Answer 6: Reference answer to Question 2.

Question 7: Will source code, documentation and test data for AFCAP, SEIM.STRES, OASIS, RIPE and HF-POET be furnished as GFI, and at what classification? Does the Government hold unlimited rights in these tools?

Answer 7: The government holds unlimited rights to these tools, access will be provided as a part of this contract. This is an on going project, so documentation may be incomplete at places, but all documentation that does exist will be provided. As indicated on the DD254 up to a Secret level.

Question 8: Please describe the SSC deployment environment for Task 2A, and state whether ATO support or DevSecOps pipeline integration is a contractor responsibility.

Answer 8: Tools are to be deployed in the Platform One (P1) pipeline. SSC is responsible for the ATO and DevSecOps pipeline integration, but contractor will be expected to work within this framework and submit products to pass this pipeline.

Question 9: Will the Government provide access to the remote-sensing data for Task 3A (ionosonde/sounder networks, OTHR data)?

Answer 9: Yes

Question 10: Do the laboratory, instrumentation and hazardous-material requirements ("Common to all programs," items E-G) apply to Call 004?

Answer 10: Yes as applicable

Question 11: Must all work be performed on-site at Kirtland AFB, or may unclassified development and V&V be performed at the offeror's facility?

Answer 11: No all work does not need to be performed at Kirtland.

Question 12: Does the SECRET requirement to respond refer to the facility clearance? Must personnel clearances be final at submission, at award, or before classified work begins? Is there a classified addendum?

Answer 12: As stated in the RFP letter: “Offerors must have a valid U.S. security clearance of SECRET or higher in order to respond to this Call because this Call may include information classified at the SECRET or higher level which will be released only to offerors possessing the appropriate clearance”.

Question 13: Does the Attachment 5 principal-investigator primary-employment requirement apply to Call 004?

Answer 13: Yes please reference the instructions within the RFP letter.

Question 14: Will the Government consider a CPFF award to an offeror without a DCAA-reviewed accounting system, subject to a pre-award survey? Is a fixed-price instrument acceptable?

Answer 14: A contractor's accounting system must be adequate before receiving a cost-reimbursement contract. A pre-award survey will be accepted but inability to have an approved accounting system cannot delay the award for an offeror to be considered. A fixed price instrument is an acceptable alternate.

Question 15: Is the $5,344,753.12 anticipated funding for a single award or multiple awards, and what start date should offerors assume for pricing?

Answer 15: The government reserves the right for multiple awards but anticipates a single award. Anticipated award is outlined in the RFP document .

Question 16: Please indicate anticipated travel, and confirm whether status reporting is monthly (Section II.I) or quarterly (CDRL A002).

Answer 16:Anticpated level of travel is based on offerors submission and location. The CDRL A002 has been updated to reflect monthly report.

Question 17: Will the Government accept offeror-owned software developed at private expense, delivered with restricted rights and listed in Attachment 6?

Answer 17: All reasonable submissions will be evaluated on their merits.

Question 18: Please confirm the solicitation number for the cover page; whether prior-work and facilities attachments count toward the 30-page limit; the submission method and file-size limits;

whether Attachment 3 requires only non-SAM fill-ins; and whether SF 424 profiles are required for consultants.

Answer 18:The solicitation number on the RFP and Call is FA945326RX012. The page limit and specific inclusions/exclusions are covered in the Proposal Format heading. Attachment 3 requires any non-SAM fills ins, assertions or requirements not displayed on SAM.gov. The SF 424 is required for Senior/Key Personnel, it is up to the vendor to make that determination based on their business practices.

Question 19: BAA Call 004 II.A (pg 4) states that “Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available”. We are also aware that funding was not made available during Government Fiscal Year 2026 for SETS BAA Call 003. BAA Call 004 also says the anticipated award date is March 31, 2027. Can the

Government please confirm whether funding is anticipated to be available prior to the anticipated award date for SETS BAA Call 004?

Answer 19: The Government anticipates that Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 funding will be available to support awards under SETS BAA Call 004. However, in accordance with Section II.A and FAR 52.232-18 (Availability of Funds), funding is not presently available, and no award will be made until funds are appropriated and allocated to this effort. The March 31, 2027 award date represents an estimated programmatic milestone and is contingent upon proposal evaluation and the timely receipt of appropriated funds. Each BAA Call represents an independent requirement;

prior fiscal year decisions regarding Call 003 do not govern the funding posture for Call 004.

Question 20: For SETS BAA Call 003, is there any possibility of funding for that in GFY 2027 or is Call 003 cancelled?

Answer 20: This Q&A is for SETS Call 004 only.

Question 21: BAA Call 004 II.C (pg 4) shows the projected funding for the single award program: FY 26 - $1,437,260.80 / FY 27 - $1,441,210.72 / FY 28 - $2,466,281.60 / Total anticipated $5,344,753.12. As this Call 004 was released 30 Sept 2026 when FY 26 had just completed, does this impact the total projected funding by decreasing it for FY26 or did the Government intend to reflect FY27, FY28, or FY29 instead of FY26, FY27, and FY28?

Answer 21: This is reflected in the updated RFP Letter update Section II. C.

Question 22: Attachment 8, SF 424: Attachment 8 includes the instruction at the bottom “To ensure proper performance of this form; after adding 20 additional senior/key persons, please save your application.” Can the Government please confirm this instruction is referencing the number of senior/key persons to add is up to 20 on the SF 424 (OMB Number 4040-0001) and not a requirement for 20+ Key Personnel on this specific effort?

Answer 22: The instructions at the bottom of the page are specific to the form itself.

Question 23: RFP Call Letter 004, IV., pg 7: Does the 30-page Technical Volume limit exclude the extra information if Government Furnished Property is requested?

Answer 23: The page limit and specific inclusions/exclusions are covered in the Proposal Format heading.

Question 24: RFP Call Letter 004: Does AFRL or SSC intend to provide a Government HPC, cloud, or on-premises hosting environment for this effort? If so, please identify the target platform, classification or impact level, Kubernetes, HPC (e.g. Slurm), or workload-management environment, container registry, storage services, network interfaces, and date of availability. If not, should offerors price contractor-provided CUI and/or IL-5 cloud hosting for development, test, demonstration, and residual operations?

Answer 24: Yes, there is a dedicated hosting environment for this effort run by SSC. The contractor should expect to work in established cloud environments run by SSC.

Question 25: Does AFRL want the development and enhancements of the proposal solution to focus on PACOM, or are they equally interested in the polar and other regions?

Answer 25: Worldwide coverage

Question 26: Do you expect a future SETS Call to open Topic 4's HANE-protection line to hardware and test efforts performed at a contractor's facility, or are Calls generally structured around on-site research at Kirtland?

Answer 26: This Q&A is only for the requirements related to Call 004.

Question 27: If this isn't a fit for SETS, is there another AFRL/RJ program you'd suggest for satellite hardening against an enhanced radiation environment?

Answer 27: This Q&A is only for the requirements related to Call 004. AFRL/RJ opportunities are posted on Sam.gov including the open Advanced Research Announcements (ARAs) or Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs)

Question 28: Must an offeror address all four Tasks (1–4) and associated subtasks, or may proposal focus on a subset of tasks (for example, model verification and validation, residual operations support, or data assimilation) provided it demonstrably contributes to the Call objectives of real-time HF ?

Answer 28: As outlined in the RFP, the intent is to make only one award, but the government reserves the right to issue more than one award. Any interested offeror is encouraged to follow the submission instructions as outlined in the RFP.

Question 29: What is the current maturity, baseline configuration, and ownership status of the named tools and capabilities (AFCAP for real-time OTHR simulation, SORcer, SEIM.STRES, OASIS, RIPE, and HF-POET)? Will the Government furnish existing source code, documentation, configuration baselines, or access to current operational versions as Government- Furnished Property or Information to support transition and enhancement work?

Answer 29: Reference the answer to Question 7.

Question 30: How much of the anticipated work is expected to consist of new model or software development versus enhancement, integration, verification and validation, residual operations support, and enterprise transition of existing tools into SSC solutions?

Answer 30: Different tools are at different levels of maturity. In general, tools are mid to high TRL (5-7), with the contractor responsible for pushing code towards operational readiness and deployment.

Question 31: Task 1 -What is the current capability baseline and desired end-state for AFCAP real-time Over-the-Horizon Radar (OTHR) simulation to Space Systems Command (SSC)? Are there specific interfaces, data formats, or enterprise environments that decision aids must meet?

Answer 31: AFCAP is currently a TRL 7 code with custom interfaces that work within the cloud environment. Requirements for the software are set through the working with stakeholders and end users, and will continue to be developed as the technology matures and sees wider adoption within the DOW

Question 32: Task 2 – What is the intended deployment architecture and integration path for SORcer-enabled SEIM.STRES, OASIS, and RIPE into SSC enterprise solutions? Are there existing APIs, data standards, or middleware that must be used or preferred?

Answer 32: These tools have significant portions of exquisite, custom built solutions and software, with containerized components. Working to bring these tools to industry standard and able to pass DevSecOps pipelines will be part of the work needed.

Question 33: Task 3 What data sources (remote sensing, in-situ, or other) are currently available or expected for assessments supporting HF-POET and related tools? What quantitative verification and validation metrics or standards are preferred for models, decision aids, and indications and warnings tools? How should the requirement to “simulate failure of models and tools and develop solutions to error modes” be interpreted?

Answer 33: The offeror is expected to propose to the attached Statement of Work for Topic 1 to be able to provide, develop and support the outlined technical areas. The government will not provide direction as we are seeking innovative and creative solutions as outlined in the overarching BAA.

Question 34: Task 4 – Integration and Transition / MASE Interface: What does practical interface with the Military Applications and Space Environment (MASE) program office entail (for example, recurring meetings, data exchanges, joint reviews, or co-location)? What is the expected scope and cadence of residual operations support for models, prediction tools, and space-environment specifications?

Answer 34: Interfacing with the MASE program office entails regular meetings, email communication, in person technical exchange meetings and reviews by independent evaluators and operational commands. This project currently follows the Agile workflow standard, with meeting schedules tailored to the team and reorganized at periodic intervals.

Question 35: Definition of Real-Time: What does “real-time” mean in the context of the modeling systems and decision aids (for example, latency targets, update frequency, or operational availability requirements)?

Answer 35: In DoW tactical and operational planning, "Real-Time" is not a single static number;

it is a mission-dependent performance threshold. The definition of real time will be dependent on development within each model and the requirement of the end user.

Question 36: Data Rights and Assertions: What data rights does the Government anticipate for software, models, and documentation developed or modified under a resulting award? How should offerors identify and assert rights on any proprietary models, algorithms, or data proposed for use, consistent with the Data Assertions Table requirement?

Answer 36: The government would anticipate unlimited government rights for all software developed under the award, but companies are welcome to bring proprietary solutions. This is captured in Atch 6 – Data Assertions Table.

Question 37: In-Situ Observational Data and Commercial Platforms: How does AFRL value in-situ measurements from the mesosphere/lower thermosphere (for example, electron density, composition, density, winds, and plasma parameters) collected via commercial suborbital platforms for verification and validation of HF propagation models, assimilation into tools such as SEIM.STRES, RIPE, or OASIS, or characterization of drivers for HF-POET and AFCAP? Are there recognized data gaps that regular suborbital flight opportunities could help address?

Answer 37: All sensors and models will be evaluated in their context based on the submission.

Technical reviewers are qualified and widely recognized as experts in the field, and will be able to evaluate any emerging technology and it’s ability to successfully complete the work laid out within the SOW. Potential submitters are encouraged to carefully read the SOW to see if they will be able to deliver on the work required.

Question 38: Place of Performance and Access: What level of on-site presence at Kirtland AFB or SSC locations is expected versus remote or hybrid performance? Will the Government provide workspace, network access, and staging areas for contractor personnel as described in the Call?

Is a facility clearance required at the time of proposal submission or only upon award?

Answer 38: On-site Kirtland presence is not required. Per the RFP letter: “Offerors must have a valid U.S. security clearance of SECRET or higher in order to respond to this Call because this Call may include information classified at the SECRET or higher level which will be released only to offerors possessing the appropriate clearance”.

Question 39: Deliverables and CLIN Alignment: How do the anticipated deliverables (software and documentation, presentation materials, monthly status and financial reports, final scientific and technical reports, and quarterly status reports) map to the four Tasks and the CLIN structure in the Statement of Work attachment? Are there preferred formats, templates, or acceptance criteria beyond the representative CDRLs?

Answer 39: There are not preferred formats or templates beyond the representative CDRLs.

Question 40: Complementary Approaches: Are complementary approaches that emphasize unique observational platforms, sensor integration, data collection campaigns, or residual operations support acceptable if they advance the overall Call objectives of transitioning and advancing real-time HF propagation modeling and ionospheric simulation capabilities?

Answer 40: All submissions will be evaluated on their merits and ability to accomplish the associated SOW. Submitters are encouraged to look at other contracting options, such as the STAR-ARA, for additional opportunities to provide to the government opportunities to evaluate funding emerging and advanced technologies.

Question 41: The Call 004 SOW CLIN Breakdown file includes five tasks to be addressed in the Technical Volume. The RFP Letter Call 004 Published file includes four tasks. Can the Government clarify which list of tasks is preferred to be addressed?

Answer 41: Reference the answer to Question 5.

Question 42: The Call 004 announcement and baseline BAA exclude the cover page and proposed Statement of Work (SOW) from the 30-page Technical Proposal limit. Please clarify whether a Table of Contents, List of Figures/Tables, Acronym List, and other preliminary administrative pages are also excluded from the 30-page limit, or whether these must be included within the allotted pages.

Answer 42: The RFP states which documents are excluded from the 30-page limit, please refer back to the Technical Proposal, Cost/Business Proposal and Proposal Format headings.

Question 43: Would the Government consider Calibri 10-point or equivalent for text within tables, diagrams, and charts,?

Answer 43: As stated in the RFP Letter, Proposal Format Section: “Font - Calibri 11+ point font or equivalent, to include tables, diagrams, and charts. Any other information (e.g. captions, restrictive markings) shall not be smaller than Calibri 10 point font or equivalent.”

Question 44: The solicitation permits supporting information regarding prior work, equipment, data, and facilities to be submitted as attachments to the Technical Proposal. Please clarify whether these supporting attachments are excluded from the 30-page Technical Proposal limit and whether any separate page limitations or formatting requirements apply to them?

Answer 44: Reference the answer to Question 42.

Question 45: Please confirm the required electronic submission method and packaging for the Call 004 proposal. Specifically, should the Technical Proposal and proposed SOW be submitted as separate files? Are there prescribed file-naming conventions, attachment-size limitations, or requirements for compressed files or multiple submission emails?

Answer 45: The RFP Letter section Proposal Due Date and Time was updated regarding the confirmation of the required electronic submission method. The packaging, including naming conventions, number of files or submissions is at the discretion of the vendor.

Question 46: Please confirm whether Attachment 3, Representations and Certifications, must be completed and returned with the initial proposal submission, or whether the Government will rely on the offeror's current SAM.gov representations and certifications and request any additional documentation separately?

Answer 46: Reference the answer to Question 18.

Question 47: Please clarify whether the required administrative forms and certifications, including the SF-424 Senior/Key Person Profile, Security Program Questionnaire, Contractor Verification of Proposal, Data Assertions, and Proposal Adequacy Checklist, should be submitted as individual attachments or consolidated into a single administrative volume.

Answer 47: This is up to vendor discretion and preference.

Question 48: The solicitation states that the Business section should include resumes of personnel participating in the proposed effort with SF-424 Senior/Key Person Profile for all proposed Senior/Key Personnel. Please clarify whether resumes are required for all proposed personnel or only those designated as Senior/Key Personnel. Additionally, are there any prescribed resume formatting requirements or page limitations?

Answer 48: The Cost/Business Proposal section states “…all business aspects to the proposed contract such as resumes of personnel…” It is not required and is up to vendor discretion. There is no formatting requirements or page limitations for resumes as it relates to this Call.