FY22_QA_BAA_DTRA.pdf

DTRA BAA HDTRA1-18-S-0002

FY 2022 Topic Call Q&A

Question 1: Administrative – I was not able to find on the SAM.gov website the templates for the phase I submission to HTDTRA1-18-S-0002. Can you provide or direct me to a copy of these? You were listed on the website (https://sam.gov/opp/ee18d29c2f9f473e974306f00d4a3292/view#attachments-links) as the POC.

Answer 1: The templates were posted to the SAM.gov website as attachments to the BAA solicitation and they are dated June 10, 2021. The templates appear directly below the solicitation and are in following file formats: MS Excel, MS Word and Portable Document Format (pdf) format.

Question 2: Administrative – The BAA communication guidelines (Section 3.2.2) indicate that DTRA supports direct technical dialog with Subject Matter Experts. We would also like to request the contact information of the DTRA SME for this topic for further clarification on objectives and requirements.

Answer 2: In accordance with Section 3.2.1 “Questions about this BAA” of the BAA solicitation, questions will only be accepted through the BAA e-mail address provided in that section.

Question 3: Topic NT-22-DET-01 – It is noted that an EMP detector topic was also included in the 2021 call. Is there a particular area of performance or shortcoming of existing technologies that proposers to the 2022 Call should focus on?

Answer 3: No, this topic does not focus on performance shortcomings of existing technologies.

Question 4: Topic NT-22-DET-01 – The topic description indicates that the EMP detector should be a “dismounted battlefield sensor”. Should this be interpreted as meaning a handheld or man-carried sensor? If so, are there specific goals for size, weight and network integration?

Answer 4: Yes, the intended application is for use as a handheld or man-carried sensor without facility or vehicle power. This sensor would be in addition to the warfighter’s normal combat load (e.g. weapon, load bearing equipment, ruck sack, etc…)

Question 5: Topic NT-22-DET-01 – The topic description goes on to describe requirements for “passive detection of gamma and neutron radiation” as well as for “EMP detection.” Could you describe the meaning of the term “passive” as it relates to topic?

Answer 5: Passive in this context indicates that the detection mechanism does not involve external stimulation.

Question 6: Topic NT-22-DET-01 – The topic description goes on to describe requirements for “passive detection of gamma and neutron radiation” as well as for “EMP detection.” Could long-endurance, low-power devices be considered “passive” for the purposes of this topic?

Answer 6: See answer to question #5.

Question 7: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – What is the complete list of thresholds and objectives for size, weight, and power?

Answer 7: Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Question 8: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Are approaches that satisfy objectives with multiple detection media acceptable, or is a single detector type envisaged?

Answer 8: Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Question 9: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Are spectroscopy, anomaly detection, and isotope ID added bonus if the sensor package meets thresholds and/or objective SWAP performance, or are these capabilities not desired?

Answer 9: The intended hazard alerting functionality is not enhanced by these additional capabilities.

Question 10: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – What is the complete list of thresholds and objectives for size, weight, and power?

Answer 10: Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Question 11: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Are there any other technical specifications or preferences? For example, is there guidance on the accuracy of the sensor? Should the sensor's response be energy compensated or is it acceptable for the sensor to over respond to low energy photons?

Answer 11: The topic includes all relevant descriptions.

Question 12: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Can we assume that standard mini USB power is available to the sensor and we do not need to include batteries in the size and weight budget?

Answer 12: Power will be provided externally to the detector by the host system over USB.

Only the power interface needs to be taken into account in the size and weight budget.

Question 13: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Does the volume objective of 15 cm3 include the housing and USB (or Ethernet) connector or is it for the sensor and electronics only?

Answer 13: Ideally, yes. It is understood that this is a tight requirement and flexibility will be allowed in the evaluation. As described in Section 4.2 of the solicitation, the evaluation will assess strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the proposal. Although a size larger than the requirement would be a weakness, it may be outweighed by other strengths.

Question 14: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Is gamma spectroscopy (isotope ID) an essential feature of the detection system?

Answer 14: No

Question 15: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – What is the range of air kerma dose rates over which the sensor should be able to 1) survive and 2) quantitatively operate?

Answer 15: Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Question 16: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Is there any desire or utility in providing some level of gamma energy discrimination?

Answer 16: Specific thresholds and objectives for dose and dose rate accuracy were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Question 17: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – What is the desired high dose rate capability of the sensor?

Answer 17: Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities. As a reference, general dose rate guidance is provided in Joint Publication 3-11.

Question 18: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – What is the relative importance of achieving a high dose rate vs. energy discrimination?

Answer 18: No specific value can be provided prior to the evaluation between achieving a high dose rate vs. good energy discrimination for a particular proposed effort. As described in Section 4.2 of the solicitation, the evaluation will assess strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the proposal. The evaluation will consider the tradeoffs between various factors to determine the final rating based upon the Phase I and Phase II evaluation criteria (Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the proposal).

Question 19: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Are there desired or objective performance capabilities related to dose rate and/or energy linearity?

Answer 19: Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Question 20: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Should the overall focus be on minimizing SWaP vs. rad performance parameters such as sensitivity, high dose rates, linearity?

Answer 20: The only requirement regarding SWaP is as specified in the topic and there is no other need to minimize it. Regarding the performance criteria listed, as described in Section 4.2 of the solicitation, the evaluation will assess strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the proposal. The evaluation will consider the tradeoffs between various factors to determine the final rating based upon the Phase I and Phase II evaluation criteria (Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the proposal).

Question 21: Topic NT-22-DET-02 – Could additional details of one or more mission CONOPs be provided?

Answer 21: An example CONOP to be considered requires routine automated perimeter patrols, such as base intrusion detection. The intent is to provide an integral capability on UGV to detect and warn warfighters of a potential radiological threat.

Question 22: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – How would DTRA help the awardee distribute and test with the warfighter? Can the Government furnish an appropriate location for ground truth testing?

Answer 22: The proposal should include a plan demonstrating how the Contractor will validate the capability without the Government’s support.

Question 23: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Can additional specification be given on the specific type of VR/AR hardware of interest? Is it desired to have the developed algorithms capable of running on standalone (i.e. untethered) VR solutions such as the Oculus Quest 2?

Answer 23: The intent is not to be prescriptive but to allow the offeror to provide innovative solutions to address the warfighter’s needs. Specific thresholds and objectives were intentionally unspecified to allow the offeror to determine their system’s best performance capabilities.

Compatibility with other DOD customers is a requirement.

Question 24: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – It is understood that the solution will enable dynamic radiation sources that administrators can add, configure, remove. But is this also an authoring tool where admins can manipulate the environment or we as developers design the environments as we presently do?

Answer 24: The Government desires to give the offeror the flexibility to manipulate the environment using various use cases and scenarios to train the warfighter in unique environments.

Question 25: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Can you provide additional input on which instruments you are most interested in simulating?

a. Is simulation for vehicle mounted equipment a high priority?

b. Is the simulation of dosimetry equipment desired? If so, is a system capable of simulating prompt events desirable?

Answer 25: The emphasis is on radiological and nuclear detection systems, all of equal priority;

specifically radioisotope identifiers (RIID), backpacks, other wearable devices, gamma imagers, and vehicle mounted systems. Dosimetry is not required.

Question 26: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Our previous focus has been more focused on the interdict side, but for the nuclear battlefield clearly contamination is a driving concern. Though pretty clear from the topic already, we wanted confirmation that in addition to a point source driven model inclusion of distributed sources is a requirement (i.e., you do not want contamination to be simulated with multiple discrete point sources).

Answer 26: Yes

Question 27: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Is any modeling consideration desired for Alphas and Betas?

Answer 27: This capability would be a desired feature under this topic.

Question 28: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Is fallout deposition or deposition caused by an RDD to be modeled as part of the simulation?

Answer 28: See answer to question #30.

Question 29: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Should a higher fidelity “static mode” be considered in existing to the dynamic simulation where, for instance, refined scatter approximations were done prior to run time but those sources were fixed?

Answer 29: This capability would be a desired feature under this topic.

Question 30: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Should we be thinking about compatibility with One World Terrain, or plan to put some attention toward loading geographical data in addition to having our custom build detailed environments?

Answer 30: Use of One World Terrain is not desired. The geographical data should be of similar capability and provide maximum flexibility with an open architecture.

Question 31: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – We also have experience simulating chemical hazards – bulk flow and trace models, largely targeted toward first responders thanks to our work with [a Government user]; would it be a positive discriminator to propose incorporating this as part of the solution?

Answer 31: Previous work with chemical detection is considered a tangential activity and not aligned to the current topic.

Question 32: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Is the AR/VR solution intended to be purely a training and evaluation tool with synthetic environments created for those purposes, or should it also incorporate data from contextual sensors in real-world environments (e.g., from LiDAR or depth-sensitive cameras)?

Answer 32: The flexibility to incorporate data from contextual sensors in real-world environments would be a highly desired feature under this topic.

Question 33: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – Will the training simulator be required to adapt to real, dynamic environments?

Answer 33: Yes, the training tool should adapt to both real static and dynamic environments.

Question 34: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – What types of objects/structures would be placed in the environment, and would any of these deeply shield radiation sources?

Answer 34: There will be multiple objects (e.g., buildings of various construction types, transit platforms, tunnels, and container stacks) in the field-of-view of the detector. These objects must demonstrate appropriate shielding within the demonstration environment.

Question 35: Topic NT-22-DET-03 – What level of fidelity is needed in estimating radiation detector responses in these scenarios (e.g., if a spectrum produced with a high-fidelity MCNP model were compared with the real-time radiation transport spectrum, what would be an acceptable reduced chi-squared if computed across the entire spectrum?)?

Answer 35: The detection algorithm must demonstrate accuracy within 1 meter of the source at any detectable distance.