Amendment_3.White_Papers_Question_and_Answers.pdf

Amendment #3

WHITE PAPERS Q&A - FOR SOLICITATIONS:

HSHQDC-14-R-B0011& HSHQDC-14-R-B00012

All questions that were received before 12pm EST on June 24, 2014 are addressed below.

Duplicate questions were omitted. Questions are listed below in black font and the government’s response is noted in red. The purpose of this Q&A is to clear up any ambiguity in the Solicitations. Submitted questions that do not have relevance to this procurement were not addressed.

1. In RTA-02, the performance was requested for detection of 8 kg high Z object. But the title and objective of the topic is to detect shielding. Is the objective to detect an 8 kg high Z object alone, or that 8 kg object and the additional material that would shield radiation from an 8 kg high Z object?

RTA-02 presents a detection requirement for an 8 kg high atomic number (Z ≥ 74) object.

This requirement encompasses the total object, to include shielding materials and high Z radiological and nuclear materials.

2. For RTA-02, there is guidance to estimate false alarm rates given a detection requirement of an 8 kg object. For concepts specifically intended to detect shielding material rather than SNM, what is the corresponding detection requirement?

There is no specific corresponding detection requirement. Rather, the Offeror should state and provide evidence for the anticipated detection performance and nuisance alarm (or false alarm) rates of the proposed approach in the white paper.

3. For RTA-03, will DNDO consider concepts that entail novel detection methodologies of low TRL that can be anticipated to ultimately achieve reduced cost relative to proven approaches?

As the RTA-03 topic title indicates, approaches must be specific to existing or near-term nuclear/radiological detection systems and not for low TRL, novel detection methodologies.

4. For RTA-04, what GNDA nodes are highest priority to DNDO for modeling?

As the RTA-04 topic describes, approaches are desired that can be readily adapted to any GNDA node of interest in the maritime, aviation or land domains.

5. For RTA-04, what other specific "DNDO-sponsored measurement campaigns" and "current and emerging large spatial and temporal data sets of detailed background radiation data" can be available? Also, can these data sets be made available now for the purpose of white paper or proposal preparation?

DNDO sponsored data sets that can be made available to the awardees include the Radmap data set from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC) website, and selected aspects of data gathered during several of DNDO’s Advanced Technology Demonstrations. These may include the Intelligent Radiation Sensing System (IRSS) data set, Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System (CAARS) data set, Shielded Nuclear Alarm Resolutions (SNAR) data set, and potentially others. These data sets will not be made available for the purposes of the white paper submission.

6. With respect to RTA-04, is the Government seeking a detection node modeling capability to integrate within an existing GNDA architecture simulation tool? If so, is there an available ICD for this tool?

No. There is no single simulation tool for the GNDA architecture. There have been a number of modeling tools or combinations thereof that help inform GNDA planning.

Software design of modeling tools that are forward compatible with existing and future modeling tools are preferred.

7. Is DNDO interested in reducing significantly the cost of x-ray sources under RTA-03? If DNDO is, would demonstrating a low cost prototype be within the scope for exploratory research?

As stated in RTA-03, proposed approaches could include research to substantially reduce the cost of component technology employed in nuclear/radiological detection systems. X-ray sources and source components fall into this category. Proposals are sought for reductions in cost of existing or near-term detection systems.

8. A delayed neutron is a neutron emitted by one of the fission products typically emitted from a few milliseconds to a few minutes after fission. Could you please explain the rationale for the delayed neutron detectors requirement “Rise time of better than 100 nanoseconds and fall time of better than 1000 nanoseconds”?

The rise time of better than 100 nanoseconds allows the detector to collect the neutrons present when the source isn’t powered on (i.e. between pulses). The fall time of better than 1000 ns provides sufficient time for the detector to collect the neutrons without being overburdened.

9. Under RTA-01: Sub-topic 1B, does “Prompt Neutron Detection” refer to detecting the fission neutrons during the irradiation or simply detecting the neutrons emitted during (within 10-14 s) fission?

This sub-topic refers to both.

10. Would a dual-particle detector capable of detecting prompt/delayed neutrons and delayed gamma rays qualify under RTA-01: Sub-topic 1B?

Yes.

11. For the white paper the directions state: Itemize any unusual or large cost items. Is the benchmark for itemization a value greater than $10,000 as in the full proposal?

Yes, the benchmark for itemization is a value greater than $10,000 for the white papers.

12. For topic RTA-02: Shielding Anomaly Detection: What type of object is being inspected? 8 kg is very small — is this envisioned to be 8 kg of SNM with additional (much heavier) shielding? Would cosmic ray muons tomography be of interest?

See Answer to Question 1. Approaches should have detection times comparable to existing scan times for current radiation sensing and radiographic scanning approaches.

13. For topic RTA-03: Reduction in Cost of Existing and Near-Term Nuclear/Radiological Threat Detection Systems: Are high-energy X-ray inspection systems of interest? Would efforts reduction in cost of certain key components (linacs or betatrons) be of interest?

See answer to Question 7.

14. RTA-01 - the CFP indicates that the POC demonstration should occur in Phase II, is this correct? If so, are research plans with more than two phases acceptable (assuming the proposer can justify additional phases)?

As stated in Section 3.1.1 of the solicitation, the proposed approach should include a Phase I leading to a Feasibility Evaluation Review. Following a successful Phase I, up to three additional phases could be proposed with the ultimate goal to demonstrate a scalable solution to a given technical challenge or capability gap through a Proof of Concept demonstration.

15. RTA-02 - the 2nd phrase in the 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph is confusing ("..., be integratable with current radiation detection technologies, ...) when compared to the 1st and 3rd phrases. Should there be a "should" (or possibly a "should not") at the beginning of this phrase?

The statement should read “…, should be integratable with current radiation detection technologies, …”.

16. RTA-02 - in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, does "with a detection time comparable to existing scan times for current radiation sensing and radiographic scanning approaches" mean 5 miles per hour (as in the drive-through RPMs and radiography systems) or something more like 1 minute or a few minutes (as in systems where the vehicle stops)?

Existing scan times should be those consistent with current drive-through primary sensing/scanning operations of vehicles or cargo.

17. RTA-04 - Is the concept to develop the tools such that extensive analyses can be done subsequently (potentially not by the performer) or is it to perform the analyses (the latter sounds a little more like the ad hoc work done previously)?

To clarify, the tools should be useful to both conducting the analyses, as well as those who may do subsequent or follow-up analyses on the modeling output. Those who perform the analyses may be the performer, the performer several years later, or someone other than the performer. In each case, the quality of the modeling documentation as well as the design characteristics greatly impact its extensibility.

18. RTA-04 - do you want proposals to develop one of the three modules described or all of the modules developed in a single proposal? Or is it acceptable to propose to develop any one or more of the modules depending on the team's capabilities?

It is acceptable to propose one or more modules depending on the team’s capabilities. It is expected that the development of an individual module may benefit from coordination with other modules as well as other relevant and previously developed modeling tools. It is also expected that any module will have a clearly defined application programming interface (API) to allow it to communicate with other federation models.

19. RTA-05 - could you be more specific regarding what is meant by "bulk materials" (possibly a size range or mass range)?

In general, we are interested in analyses that might be performed on interdicted materials.

While that could include anything greater than trace amounts (particles), you should consider the minimum available sample size to be 1 gram.

20. RTA-05 - for microstructural characteristics, is it only of interest to study the surfaces of the bulk materials or is destructive testing anticipated?

Destructive testing, as well as surface analyses, that improve upon current capability to determine and quantify important microstructural characteristics would be considered.