Attachment 5_N00164-22-S-C001 QA Document.pdf

N00164-22-S-C001- SCOUT CSO Questions and Answers

Q1: Presumably sources will contain classified and unclassified data?

A1: It will depend on what data is needed, but solutions certainly may require both classified and unclassified data.

Q2: What forms of data can we expect?

A2: Critical Movements Alerts (CMA) from various Law Enforcement Agencies and partner nations. New data may also be generated with new platforms, payloads, and technology solutions for the other problems.

Q3: Any specific case examples? / pain points?

A3: Multiple critical movement alerts can be generated from the same movement and the indexing ("matching socks" example from industry day) and correlation is currently manual and slow.

Q4: Do they have a specific output format they prefer?

A4: This really depends on what is being solved and the type of output being produced (for example we often use KML for geospatial data representation).

Q5: Will there be a software development environment available on the security fabric where the preponderance of the data resides?

A5: Software development environments are currently being evaluated and no decision has been made yet. An environment will be available with a representative data set.

Q6: What are the security clearance requirements for the project?

A6: The problems are unclassified to allow for a wide and diverse pool of problem solvers.

Access to the operational environment and/or operational data may be limited and assessed on a case by case basis.

Q7: a) What format will the data be stored in? b) A structured database or unstructured?

c) Will you accept proposals on how to secure and protect the data?

A7: a) TBD b) JIATFS has both structured and unstructured data; c) Yes

Q8: a) Can you provide the numerical TRL/IRL range for the solutions you will consider from proposals submitted for Phase I in January? b) Similarly, can you provide a specific TRL/IRL threshold for solutions readiness that will need to be achieved prior to Phase II?

A8: For proposals we will not be restricting the accepted proposals to TRL/IRL thresholds and objectives. Assessment metrics are still in development. The maturity description roughly equates to near term TRL 5-9. We may do a combination of simulated and real environments for risk reduction.

Q9: Cost references fieldable prototypes and seem to imply desired hardware solutions. Will SaaS offerings be accepted and how would that impact the language in Section 7.a.1?

A9: The desire is not to limit proposals to a technology area or hardware over software. At this point we are only focused on the problem statements and casting a wide net for potential solutions. SaaS offierings will be considered and the language will be reviewed for clarity.

Emphasis on fieldable prototypes comes from the desire to transition more problem solving solutions in a timely manner. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/on-dod/2021/10/dods-new-rd-chief-prioritizes-moving-prototypes-to-real-world-applications/

Q10: For software solutions, will the government allow solutions deployed from commercial cloud providers, such as AWS?

A10: It depends on the context, however, such proposals would be reviewed and considered.

Q11: Under the disputes Section 10.8 in the Standard CRADA template provided, would contractor be able to add as an edit: "No provision of this Agreement shall prevent either Party from exercising any right available under the law if interim relief from a court or other adjudicative body is necessary to prevent serious and/or irreparable injury".

A11: A language change may be requested but it will need to be approved through our legal and

CRADA points of contact if that request is submitted.

Q12: Please provide additional detail regarding "Information Assurance, or other requirements"

A12: General data consists of Critical Movement Alerts (CMA) examples here:

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Jan/30/2001714313/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2017-047.pdf Specific availability TDB based on proposals selected for experimentation.

Q13: Will a general or specific list of integration target systems and/or APIs on the watch floor be made available?

A13: Minimal integration currently exists with much of the coordination happening via phone and email traffic. API availability TDB based on proposals selected for experimentation.

Q14: Is SCOUT seeking AI/ML data-driven solutions to the logistics challenges listed in this problem?

A14: The desire is not to limit proposals to a technology area or hardware over software. At this point we are only focused on the problem statements and casting a wide net for potential solutions. AI/ML data-driven solutions will be considered for any/all problems.

Q15: Are more details available on the operational environments "immediately ready for demonstration in operationally relevant environments within 6 months."?

A15: Focus is on tear term problem solving innovations. Environments may be distributed, virtual, or Maritime locations within or similar to JIATF-S area of operations. Experimentation plans will be adjusted based on the proposals selected for experimentation.

Q16: Is there an SCG available to understand access controls and releasability?

A16: Yes and it depends. The problems are unclassified and the technologies not yet selected so much of this will be determined on a case by case basis.

Q17: Will a SCOUT participants list be made available?

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/on-dod/2021/10/dods-new-rd-chief-prioritizes-moving-prototypes-to-real-world-applications/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/on-dod/2021/10/dods-new-rd-chief-prioritizes-moving-prototypes-to-real-world-applications/

A17: TBD

Q18: Can SCOUT provide a list of the types of data that would be available for the data synthesis track?

Can this list include whether the data source is structured data (like a relational database or CSV) or primarily written reports?

A18: Critical Movements Alerts (CMA) from various Law Enforcement Agencies and partner nations. New data may also be generated with new platforms, payloads, and technology solutions for the other problems. There is both structured and unstructured data currently.

Q19: May performers bring in data sources that are not in the current JIATF-South portfolio? For example, an open source data set that may help in assignment of alerts for ships in an AOR.

A19: Yes, absolutely.

Q20: Say a performer has a machine learning (ML) based analytic. Will JIATF-South provide hardware in the lab environment where the performer may retrain the analytic on the specific data sets used by the watch floor? This question would be relevant for data sources no accessible via the envisioned virtual test bed.

A20: Test environments and data for analytics is currently in discussion. TBD. At a minimum, a representative environment and data set will be made available to select participants.

Q21: Will performers have access to watch floor SMEs who may describe details about data sets or review intermediate outputs of analytics to assess the value of a performers capabilities or help define use cases?

A21: JIATF South will make SMEs available at designated times

Q22: Will Participant’s technology need to achieve a RMF certification?

A22: For experimentation it may not be a requirement TBD based on the IT environment selected for the experiment. If selected for a contract and fielding then yes that is likely.

Q23: Will the Gov’t provide coordinated air space, water space, and subsurface water space clearances for during the final capstone event of Phase 1?

A23: Yes, we will work to handle all coordination of clearances and related issues.

Q24: Will the Gov’t provide ICDs for Test Bed integration? What are the “Major Interfaces” referenced in the Overview?

A24: If an ICD for integration is required for experimentation then yes it will be provided. Major

Interfaces TBD pending IT environment selection decision. "Targeting" ICD requirements will likely be more flexible for the purposes of targeting resources, not weapons.

Q25: Request the Gov’t provide reference to the Navy Key Operational Problems in Section 4 of the CSO.

A25: Navy Key Operational Problems are classified and will not be promulgated.

Q26: Request the Gov’t provide current systems involved in JIATF-South operating area to include MPA and Shipboard systems. This will ensure bidders/participants understanding the common operating environment.

A26: U.S. assets (including Navy and Coast Guard vessels and Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and

CBP aircraft and UAVs). Caribbean and South/Central American partner nation’s interceptors, naval assets, and MPAs. Canadian, French, Dutch, Spanish, British, and other allied MPAs and naval assets.

Q27: Request Gov’t provide minimum TRL to be considered ‘mature technologies’ for rapid fielding of technologies?

A27: No TRL threshold will be required at the proposal phase. Roughly speaking, the maturity level described in the announcement is TRL5-9.

Q28: Request the Gov’t provide SCOUT event locations for bidder/participant in order for bidder/participant to estimate travel costs, length of event(s), number of events (if more than one).

A28: Multiple locations and environments will be considered on a case by case bases to reduce cost and schedule requirements. Location determination will be made after selection of projects for experimentation.

Q29: Request the Gov’t provide estimated funding for the Phase 2 effort.

A29: Phase 2 funds are dependent upon budgets that are not set and will depend upon details of the results of this effort (value of technology, priority of operational problem, etc).

Q30: If a bidder has an existing Gov’t CRADA, will that be accepted by CSO?

A30: Possibly, depending on the current CRADA.

Q31: Does the Gov’t anticipate follow on work beyond Phase 2? If so what type of contract vehicle?

A31: We do anticipate the problems to require continued support via various contract vehicles as discussed in the CSO Industry Day presentation. Some solutions may be an interim problem solving technology and some may mature into more formal programs if transitioned to a program of record.

Q32: Is domestic or international travel required or desired in Phase 1 or 2? If so, to where?

A32: It depends on the proposed solution. International travel is not expected at this time.

Various costal Maritime environments are being considered for cost effective demonstrations of hardware such as platforms and payloads.

Q33: What is the expected time line for Phase 1 and 2?

A33: Timeline is posted on the 22 November Industry Day Presentation located on sam.gov.

Q34: What assets do you have? Are there any types of assets you would not want us to employ in the region?

A34: We do not constrain the type of asset that might be used for this effort. Current assets include the following: U.S. assets (including Navy and Coast Guard vessels and Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and CBP aircraft and UAVs). Caribbean and South/Central American partner nation’s interceptors, naval assets, and MPAs. Canadian, French, Dutch, Spanish, British, and other allied MPAs and naval assets.

Q35: Is it correct to assume the same classification for all messages and that it will be US-Secret?

A35: JIATF South works in all domains from unclassified to Top Secret.

Q36: What international partners are expected to share demonstration space?

A36: It will depend on the solution being proposed and the selected environment to experiment with the solution. There is a heavy emphasis on friendly sovereign nation data sharing and collaboration to include Central and South America. Experimentation and demonstrations will likely not be OCONUS.

Q37: What message standards are used between platforms? Do any platforms use Open Mission

Standards – Universal Command and Control Interface (OMS-UCI)

A37: Yes, likely. Joint All-Domain Command, Control Framework is planned for the future with inputs from various services and agencies. Can be discussed further if a proposal is selected for experimentation.

Q38: Are deployments possible from AWS GovCloud, or is there another expected method for software deployment?

A38: These deployment methods are/will be considered reviewed. No current expectation or limitation is set.

Q39: What is typical satellite time over region, and are commercial solutions being used for space-based

ISR that we could pull data from?

A39: Cannot answer in this format. This question will be considered and a response made as required if such a proposal is selected for consideration. We welcome such proposals and data utilization.

Q40: What data format/language/standard is available to be crunched at demonstration ops/command center?

A40: Various formats and language standards are used. Demonstration test environments are still being discussed for data analysis proposals.

Q41: Is ATAK an accepted and suitable UI for all of these capabilities? Will ATAK servers & connectivity be available for the exercise and JIATF-S’s operations?

A41: No UI requirements have been defined at this time. ATAK is acceptable for proposals. If

ATAK Servers are required in order to demonstrate then we will look at availability.

Q42: Is JIATF-S interested in a system that combines Data Synthesis, Hunting Without MPA, and MPA

Surface Asset Utilization? Or are they interested in a number of discrete systems?

A42: We are open to either option.

Q43: a) Are the desired decision tools to support positioning and employment of interdiction assets, or sensing assets, or both? b) regarding the multi-language capability – is this desired as i.) a tasking mechanism for assets, ii.) a means of acquiring target information from allies, iii.) a means for allies to process or understand track and/or targeting information for a target, or iv) coordination of interdiction assets? Other clarification?

A43: a) Both; b) All of the above.

Q44: a) What scale of demonstration or area of coverage would be of interest (in square miles or other metric) for the demonstration? Are there specific geographic areas of interest for monitoring?

b) What target types or characteristics are of interest?

c) What type of data is most useful to JIATF-S: location of suspect vessels? Vessel physical characteristics? Video/imagery? Tracking information (course, speed?)

A44: a) The problem is wide area search, but there isn't a specific coverage area designated.

The primary focus areas are the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Oceans.; b) Go-fast

Vessels/Panagas, Low Profile Vessels, Self-Propelled Semi-submersibles, Fishing Vessels, and aircraft are our primary targets; c) Confirmed target of interest with tracking information.

Q45: a) Do you have specific interfaces/systems we should push tracks into (e.g. Minotaur), or should we propose our own solution to display, analysis, and manipulation of the track data? b) What is the classification level (SECRET, UNCLAS, etc.) of the data and what is the expected level of data security?

A45: a) no specific interface requirements have been defined at this point and you may propose your own solutions. b) Various military and law enforcement classification levels are used depending on the data and source. Expected level of security depends however follows standard mil and LE standards for operational fielding (demonstration may be more flexible).

Q46: Are you looking to ingest “Big data analytics” and disparate data sources into a common data environment?

A46: We are looking to cast a wide net for innovation sourcing focused on the problem statements. All ideas are welcome.

Q47: Does this include the ability to mission monitor long distance UAS?

A47: Yes, it does include long range UAS but not limited to that technology or domain.

Q48: Are you interested in supporting just senor feeds/tools for detection and monitoring? Or, once detected, are you integrating detection/monitoring data into new/legacy data management systems?

A49: No, it is not limited to just sensor feeds/tools. We are currently sourcing a wide range of ideas and solutions. The end goal is to make the watch standers and Intel analysist life easier.

Legacy and new data management systems are also being considered.

Q49: Are you looking for a decision tool via overall SA awareness (federated planner across partner nations)?

A50: Both and not limited to. Mutual awareness and timely sharing of Critical Movement Alerts at the appropriate classification and agreement level is an important aspect. This problem was also compared to billiard sports where the resource planner is setting up for the first shot while also trying to plan for the second, and third most likely interdiction opportunity.

Q50: Is there interest in theater wide logistics planning? Or, is this more granular such as with RFID tracking, etc.?

A51: Mostly focused on reducing transit for repair downtime of MPA Surface Assets via spare parts delivery over long distances. Alternate innovative ideas related to the problem statement are welcome.

Q51: Is there an incumbent contract or contractor associated to the requirement? If any, please provide the contractor's name and contract number.

A52: No.