TOPIC CALL 7 Q and A_Ph I.pdf

Approved for Public Release

Call 07 Technical, Administrative, and Award Questions & Final Responses

Part A: General and Administrative Questions

ID & Topic Question & Approved Government Response

Q1 General BAA

Question: Does the Government intend on making multiple awards on each topic under Call 7? If so, how many?

Government Response: DTRA may award one or multiple awards for each topic.

Q2 CBPD-02 (Second Wave

Question: Can the Government specify the anticipated period of performance for call 7 CBPD-02: Second Wave?

Government Response: The offeror should submit a timeline that they deem appropriate for the submission of their proposal. The duration of any resulting contract will not exceed 5 years/60 months.

Q3 General BAA

Question: Are there any restrictions on sub-contractor and consultants, such as federal government labs?

Government Response: No, please see BAA Sections 3.1 and 3.2 for additional detail.

Q4 General BAA / CBPD-02

Question: Are there any requirements or options for the timeline such as base and optional or split timelines? What is the period of performance?

Government Response: The offeror should submit a timeline that they deem appropriate for the submission of their proposal. The duration of any resulting contract will not exceed 5 years/60 months.

Q5 General BAA

Question: Will multiple awards be given for this opportunity?

Government Response: DTRA may award one or multiple awards for each topic.

Q6 CBPD-02 (Second Wave

Question: What is the estimated award value for this BAA/CBPD-02?

Government Response: The offeror should submit a budget that they deem appropriate for the submission of their proposal.

Call 07 Q&A

Q7 General BAA

Question: Can the government provide a prospective award date for planning purposes?

Government Response: Awards are estimated to occur in Government Fiscal Year 2027, 4th quarter.

Q8 CBPD-02 (Second Wave

Question: What is the anticipated timeline and duration of the program?

Government Response: The offeror should submit a timeline that they deem appropriate for the submission of their proposal. The duration of any resulting contract will not exceed 5 years/60 months.

Part B: Topic CBPD-01 (Advanced Triggers for Autonomous Biological Aerosol Collection)

ID & Topic Question & Approved Government Response

Q9

CBPD-01

Question: Is there a target threshold for operational runtime (e.g. 72 hours) to support the dismounted and unattended ground sensor application?

Government Response: 72 hours would be a start, but it would be best to leave unattended for a month, if possible.

Q10

CBPD-01

Question: What is the desired target aerosol particle size range and concentration that should be considered as the primary focus for trigger performance and evaluation?

Government Response: 1-10 microns

Q11

CBPD-01

Question: The example approaches span a range of technical maturity - will evaluations prioritize anticipated near-term transition readiness or longer-term disruptive capabilities?

Government Response: The longer term capability will later be paired with a collector and analyzer, one step at a time.

Q12

CBPD-01

Question: For industry to better understand the warfighter’s requirement for Advanced Triggers for Autonomous Biological Aerosol Collection, can the USG comment on the need: has a trial been performed comparing performance of biodetection systems with and without triggers indoor or outdoor? Would such trial be performed during a study under a BAA award? Are there any related references or a cost/benefit analysis available?

Government Response: We are unaware of any indoor trial. This is being developed for outdoor use.

Q13

CBPD-01

Question: (a) The threshold and objective metrics for size are listed in volume; can the USG further comment on desired length x weight x height?

ID & Topic Question & Approved Government Response

Government Response: The Government has not set specific length, weight, and height metrics. Offerors should focus on the volume and weight thresholds.

Q14

CBPD-01

Question: (b) Is performance to MIL-STD 810 and/or ATAK is required?

Government Response: Yes, MIL-STD 810, no ATAK

Q15

CBPD-01

Question: These requirements and objectives are similar to an earlier program award under SIniSTER, can the USG comment how these devices would be used in concert operationally?

Government Response: This Broad Agency Announcement is a standalone effort.

Proposals will be evaluated solely against the criteria specified within this announcement.

Q16

CBPD-01

Question: What are the specific values for “threat-relevant concentrations” and the required Limit of Detection (LOD)? Are these values expected to differ across different threats?

Government Response: these values may vary based on the threat

Q17

CBPD-01

Question: What level of taxonomic precision is required for identification (e.g., genus, species, or strain)?

Government Response: none, it only needs to trigger on biological nature, not dust, not soot, not laundry brightners.

Q18

CBPD-01

Question: What are the anticipated requirements for system shelf life and cold chain stability for sensing components?

Government Response: Expect system shelf life to last years, active in cold environs

Q19

CBPD-01

Question: For the response time, what specifically is meant by “particle introduction to trigger signal” – the introduction of a single biothreat particle to the overall collection system?

Government Response: Yes, the key is to know it is a biothreat

Q20

CBPD-01

Question: The objective states “analyze particles…in ambient air”. Does this mean that trigger devices should not include any dedicated collection or concentration components?

Government Response: No, first step is finding a trigger that is not LIF.

Q21

CBPD-01

Question: Are there established hardware or software interface standards for integrating the trigger device with the downstream higher-fidelity sensor system?

Government Response: Hardware and software interface standards have not been established.

Part C: Topic CBPD-02 (Second Wave)

ID & Topic Question & Approved Government Response

Q22

CBPD-02

Question: Are there specific fungi that should be included for genetic engineering screening?

Government Response: Specific organisms will be discussed with awardees

Q23

CBPD-02

Question: (a) What is the expected time to answer for a given sample?

Government Response: We expect a quick analysis of less than ten minute time frame

Q24

CBPD-02

Question: (b) Is this expected to be a continuous sequencing and analysis process, or a single batch analysis event?

Government Response: Single batch analysis

Q25

CBPD-02

Question: (a) Will the government provide example data during execution phase of any sort, inclusive of:

Examples of genomes with signatures of genetic engineering.

Government Response: yes

Q26

CBPD-02

Question: (b) Will the government provide example data during execution phase of any sort, inclusive of:

Example sequencing datasets of positive samples.

Government Response: yes

Q27

CBPD-02

Question: What is the expected depth of sequencing?

Government Response: enough to assemble the genome, where coverage is more important than depth.

Q28

CBPD-02

Question: Would an assessment of the result of genetic alterations to a pathogen with regard to how it affects pathogenesis for humans (e.g. more pathogenic, less pathogenic, no change) be desirable?

Government Response: yes

Q29

CBPD-02

Question: (a) Would it be desirable to provide the rationale for an assessment of change in pathogenesis?

Government Response: yes

Q30

CBPD-02

Question: Please offer current examples of “reactive, signature-based detection” from which offerors’ solutions are to shift.

Government Response: Current methods are Taxonomic identification without further charactrization

ID & Topic Question & Approved Government Response

Q31

CBPD-02

Question: Will the Second Wave program include T&E (Test & Evaluation) partners?

If so, are there scheduled deliverables to the T&E partners? Will the Government define those deliverables (software, hardware, compatibility, etc.)? Will the Government communicate the metrics for success? (Reassigned from Admin)

Government Response: Yes, all will be finalized with the awardee when writing the SOW

Q32

CBPD-02

Question: Are there any security requirements for data and software?

Government Response: Yes, CUI

Q33

CBPD-02

Question: Does this effort require the performer to integrate data, collaborate, or share deliverables with specific government labs or other contract performers?

Government Response: Yes, government testing labs.

Q34

CBPD-02

Question: Who are the intended end-users: DoD laboratory personnel, warfighters, or technical persons trained minimally on the software? Or a combination thereof?

Government Response: DoD reachback initially

Q35

CBPD-02

Question: Can the Government clarify whether CBPD-02 (Second Wave) is intended to be an independent technical effort, or whether it is envisioned as a follow-on or complementary capability to CBPD-01 (Advanced Triggers for Autonomous Biological Aerosol Collection)? If related, should offerors assume that the outputs of CBPD-01 (e.g., autonomous biological aerosol collection) serve as representative inputs or operational context for the computational capabilities sought under CBPD-02?

Government Response: These are independent efforts

Q36

CBPD-02

Question: Can the Government clarify the anticipated inputs to the software platform? For example, should offerors assume raw sequencing reads, assembled contigs, metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), taxonomic classifications, or multiple possible input formats? Should host depletion, quality control, assembly, and taxonomic assignment be considered within scope or assumed to occur upstream?

Government Response: We assume a complete assembly from raw reads to final output.

Q37

CBPD-02

Question: The solicitation emphasizes computational methods and identifies capabilities for detecting engineered sequences independent of known signatures.

Should offerors assume the analytical approach should remain sequencing-platform agnostic, or may proposals optimize performance around the characteristics of a specific sequencing technology where appropriately justified?

Government Response: Sequencing-platform agnostic approach

Q38

CBPD-02

Question: Does the Government have assumptions regarding expected sequencing quality (e.g., read accuracy, depth of coverage, assembly quality) for the

ID & Topic Question & Approved Government Response metagenomic datasets to be analyzed, or should offerors define and justify the data quality assumptions underlying their proposed approach?

Government Response: Offerors should define and justify the data quality assumptions

Q39

CBPD-02

Question: Is the intended operational workflow one in which the proposed platform performs fully automated screening with analyst review of flagged sequences, or is a human-in-the-loop analytical workflow anticipated?

Government Response: Fully automated screening so analyst can review flagged sequences

Q40

CBPD-02

Question: Can the Government clarify how offerors should assess and assign TRLs?

Specifically, should TRLs be based on the maturity of the underlying algorithms, the integrated software platform, or another basis appropriate for software-centric technologies? (Reassigned from Admin)

Government Response: 2005 DoD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook

Q41

CBPD-02

Question: Can the Government clarify what datasets will be used to evaluate proposed approaches? Should offerors assume Government-furnished datasets will be available, or should proposals include plans to construct representative benchmark datasets? (Reassigned from Admin)

Government Response: Datasets will be provided by the government to the awardee

Q42

CBPD-02

Question: Can the Government clarify the operational definition of an “engineered sequence” for purposes of this topic? For example, should offerors address only intentional laboratory modifications, or also naturally occurring recombination, reassortment, laboratory adaptation, and directed evolution?

Government Response: The point of this effort is to distinguish engineered from naturally occuring

Q43

CBPD-02

Question: For TA2, is the objective to attribute engineering methodology, laboratory practices, sequence provenance, or another level of attribution? How will attribution performance be evaluated?

Government Response: Atribution is out of scope for this project

Q44

CBPD-02

Question: Are there expected throughput or latency requirements associated with the target compute platform, or should offerors define acceptable processing timelines consistent with their proposed architecture?

Government Response: offerors should define acceptable processing timelines consistent with their proposed architecture

Q45

CBPD-02

Question: Should proposed approaches assume analysis of complex environmental metagenomic samples containing many organisms, or primarily near-complete genomes recovered from metagenomic assemblies? I.e., primarily ‘high-biomass / low-complexity’ samples, or ‘low-biomass / high-complexity’ samples?

Government Response: We will start with complete low biomass/high complexity genomes.

Q46

CBPD-02

Question: Does the Government have target operating characteristics for the tradeoff between sensitivity and false positive rate for engineering detection, or should offerors propose and justify an operating point appropriate for analyst triage?

Government Response: offerors should propose and justify an operating point appropriate for analyst triage

Q47

CBPD-02

Question: Can the government clarify the GPU posture of the cited edge compute resources. Can offerors assume there will be adequate GPU architecture to run inference on reasonably sized neural network models?

Government Response: Within Reachback there will be adequate GPU architecture available.

Q48

CBPD-02

Question: Can you comment on the requirement for scar identification? The RFP notes identifying scars from Gibson assembly for example, when Gibson was the first major scarless technique. As some engineering events can be shown to leave no scars, can you identify classes of scars or conditions for identification of scars that will be critical for this effort?

Government Response: Specific details of efforts will be discussed with awardees

Q49

CBPD-02

Question: Must our solution address scar identification, or can we solely focus on the other requirements? (Reassigned from Admin)

Government Response: If there are different approaches, please feel free to propose

Q50

CBPD-02

Question: Could you clarify the scope of the sequencing requirements? Specifically, is the focus limited to untargeted metagenomic DNA sequencing, or will multi-omic modalities be available?

Government Response: solely metagenomic sequencing

Q51

CBPD-02

Question: If Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) platforms are utilized, is the collection of methylation state data possible, in addition to the genomic sequences?

Government Response: the focus now is on sequence analysis

Q52

CBPD-02

Question: Which sequencer brands and models are envisioned (e.g., Illumina MiSeq/NovaSeq or ONT MinION/GridION/PromethION)?

Government Response: we are looking at fieldable sequencing technologies.

Q53

CBPD-02

Question: Are there specific requirements or targets for sequencing depth and maximum runtime per sample?

Government Response: no specific requirements

Q54

CBPD-02

Question: Is full genome assembly a required capability?

Government Response: yes

Q55

CBPD-02

Question: What are the expected sample types and matrices?

Government Response: environmental samples

Q56

CBPD-02

Question: What is the intended sampling cadence (e.g., periodic vs. continuous) and the operational trigger (e.g., baseline surveillance vs. event-driven)?

Government Response: periodic sampling

Q57

CBPD-02

Question: Regarding the edge compute requirements: is real-time analysis expected, and are there defined objectives for “time-to-detect” or “time-to-answer”?

Government Response: intended use is for reachback. No defined objectives

Q58

CBPD-02

Question: Is a GPU expected for the edge compute node? If so, what are the approximate specifications?

Government Response: intended use is for reachback

Q59

CBPD-02

Question: Regarding the 32TB of auxiliary storage: is this intended solely for hosting the analysis platform (software and reference data), or must it also accommodate storage of raw experimental data, intermediate analysis outputs, and final analysis results?

Government Response: The requirement is for 32TB of auxiliary storage as specified in the Topic Call. Offerors should design their platform architecture to operate within this defined storage limit.

Q60

CBPD-02

Question: If raw and analysis data must be stored locally, how many sequencing runs (and associated results) must the auxiliary storage retain prior to off-device export?

Government Response: left to the offeror to specify

Q61

CBPD-02

Question: Should the software suite encompass long-term data management, including export and transmission protocols?

Government Response: yes

Q62

CBPD-02

Question: What is the preferred operating system, and is containerization a requirement?

Government Response: no requirement at this time

Q63

CBPD-02

Question: Must all components be at or above TRL 3 at the time of award, or is a mix of TRLs acceptable across different components? (Reassigned from Admin)

Government Response: mix of TRLs will be acceptable.