SAM.GOV Questions-Response_V2.0_11 Dec.docx

V2.0_11 Dec 25

Subj: ONRG E&A TOEE 26 RFI Questions/Responses

Questions-Réponse 11 Dec

1. Are all of the LOE/ACE for the three problem set exercises classified? To what level, if so? Would NATO clearances be acceptable for foreign nationals?

· The problem sets are not classified. Planning conferences, experiments, and reports may be at the classified level and we would limit involvement in those specific activities as appropriate.

2. Will WaveBreaker and BattleBox experiments co-occur? Can one technology proposed to address one problem set also address another problem set at the same time, or are they separate? Thinking of containerized payloads carrying sensors used in C-UxS applications.

· Please respond to all TOEEs that are appropriate for your technology and we will deconflict the dates if you are selected to both.

1. I noted that some funding for logistics, shipping, travel expenses and possibly onsite labor (integration, operational support) may be available. Please verify exactly what is fundable and when the window is to propose those costs? After being down-selected from the LTA?

· Yes, a ROM may be requested once a technology is selected to the LOE or ACE and you will include labor, travel and shipping. The planning team will support the on-site logistics so this cost shouldn't be significant.

1. As an experimental exercise, is the intention that USN personnel will operate the selected technology without any involvement from the supplier, for both LOE and ACE?

· We expect the supplier to support operations and the Navy or USMC operators to be the primary user of the system during the ACE, if possible, supported by the supplier.

1. Will the LOE be supplier-specific, evaluating one at a time, or... all together at one location? I would assume the ACE would test multiple

· The LTA is supplier specific and the LOE and ACE will be all together at one location, starting integration and tech assessments.

1. Please confirm that both LOE and ACE would be roughly 2 weeks each.

· Yes.

Questions – Response 9 Dec

1. Is there a specific Group size (1-3) that is being considered? Also, is there a level of interest in single agent platforms with a proven ability to operate in contested/congested environment, to act as the red cell in this demonstration?

· Group 1-3 are all needed. Platforms which can operate in contested environments are desired, as well as those that can conduct collaborative behaviors with multiple units (in permissive environments).

1. During the presentation, it was mentioned that the effort could potentially extend to two years. L3Harris would like to know: if Vanguard does indeed run for two years, will there be an opportunity to on-ramp next year for those who did not respond to this RFI?

· This will be the only RFI released in support of the FY26 TOEE topics. Technologies may “on-ramp” anytime in the process, but an initial submission is best even if the technology will not be mature enough for experimentation until later in the campaign.

1. Does ONRG have a priority breakdown for the number and size/type of UxS assets?

· No priority, all domains (air, surface, and undersea) are desired.

1. Do you have any existing UxS assets in your inventory that you need operators for? Or would you like us to propose providing all hardware + operators?

· We do not have existing systems that need operators. Technology teams are required to operate their assets unless they make it to the ACE for warfighters to operate.

1. Any expected budget you have in mind for red cell UxS support? The cost for this type of support can vary widely depending on your desired goals.

· We anticipate having to fund for these services’ dependent on capabilities available and form/fit with the specific event scenarios/use cases. We are interested capabilities that can be provided, access and scheduling, and rough order of magnitude costs. We understand any final costs will be result of event specifics, capabilities to support, duration, and other execution factors.

1. Echodyne radars are TRL 9, if incorporated into a multi-sensor/effector system the TRL would be lower and would meet the TRL requirements. Is it appropriate for Echodyne to respond to the RFI based on the above mentioned TRL comments?

· If the proposal is using a high TRL technology and federating it with another system to provide more capability then it is appropriate. We are familiar with the Echodyne radars so no need for a standalone proposal for the commercially available systems.

1. The quad template on sam.gov is in standard (4:3) format, but it looked like the one presented today was in widescreen (16:9) format. Can you post or share the widescreen format for us?

· No, all teams should respond with the format already provided at sam.gov.

1. When it comes to funding for the opportunity, would this include any funding for R&D of the technologies?

· We do not provide funds for technology development. Funds may be provided for technology integration costs and participation in the final event.

1. Are the Industry Day slides available for TOEE 26?

· No, all required information is in the sam.gov document.

1. I'm interested in the Battle Box focus area ... can you tell me if ONR might entertain containerized effector solutions?

· Yes, ONRG E&A is interested in containerized effectors.