Attachment C - RFI Questions and Answers 31 July 2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This document is an Attachment C containing Questions and Answers related to a Request for Information (RFI) for a Group 3 sUAS, Air-Launchable Swarm Carrier. The RFI is being issued by the U.S. Air Force Offensive sUAS Special Program Office (SPO) as part of its market research efforts to understand industry capabilities for supporting the Air Force Special Operations Command's Adaptive Airborne Enterprise (A2E) concept within 24-36 months.
The RFI seeks responses for a Group 3 sUAS capable of internally carrying and deploying Group 2 sUAS with ISR payloads. The SPO may use the information gathered to inform its acquisition strategy, including potential future RFPs or RFQs. The RFI provides details on submission instructions, including the requirement to request CUI information separately. Responses are due by August 9, 2024, and the SPO may request additional clarification or details from respondents.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions | USG Response |
| We found the RFI for "Group 3 sUAS, Air-Launchable Swarm Carrier Request for Information (RFI)" on SAM.gov and noticed in the documents that additional related RFIs are set to be released. Are there any dates available for when those RFIs will be released, or have they already passed? | The USG may issue subsequent RFIs but does not have a timeline to provide at this time. |
| For this RFI, is the Government requesting responses for only for the Group 3 Swarm Carriers? Or is it requesting responses for the Group 2 ISR platforms, Group 3 Swarm Carriers, and Group 3 Signature Managed platforms? | The USG is only requesting responses for the Group 3 Swarm Carriers for this RFI. |
| For clarification regarding scope, our company is not a platform provider; however, we do provide enabling capabilities, including ALT PNT, compact fly-by-wire, hybrid sat-com, etc. Are you looking for strictly a platform provider, or can we submit solutions that provide enabling capabilities? | This RFI is specifically looking at the platforms; USG is considering a future RFI for Enabling Capabilities. |
| I do not see any requirements around APNT and the M-Code requirement. Are their requirements for GPS Challenged or Denied? | This RFI is specifically looking at the platforms; however a future RFI for enabling capabilities makes sense and USG will consider releasing something in the future. |
| A general overview of capabilities in what you're looking for would be helpful. It seems you all are requesting a HEAVY LIFT platform. How many lbs does it need to be able to carry? | The CUI attachment addresses this. |
| Required communication range between Group 2 UASs and control vehicle (e.g., C-130 or GCS)? | The government is still determining the communications architecture. We welcome any |
low SWAP SATCOM solutions that may uniquely address the overall solution set. This RFI is specifically looking at the platforms; USG is considering a future RFI for Enabling Capabilities. Please note that Attachment B may be used to supplement Attachment A and may include any other information or enabling capabilities (i.e., radio, datalinks, etc) the vendor might provide with their platform solution.
| Type of data needed to move between nodes to hub and hub back out of the contested and/or denied areas. This helps to understand the amount of throughput required. | This RFI is specifically looking at the platforms; USG is considering a future RFI for Enabling Capabilities. Please note that Attachment B may be used to supplement Attachment A and may include any other information or enabling capabilities (i.e. radio, datalinks, etc) the vendor might provide with their platform solution. | |
| We are a Data link provider and want to provide the capabilities needed for these platforms in contested areas. We will include information in Appendix A. Is this good? | Please submit all responses In Accordance With (IAW) the guidance outlined in the RFI. Please note that Attachment B may be used to supplement Attachment A and may include any other information the respondent deems necessary to understand the proposed techology/solution. | |
| Is the Operational storage temp meant to be XXX F rather than XXX C? | F; Reference temps have been corrected in the CUI attachment. | |
| What is the intent of the section for “Alternative Cost Calculation”? | ||
| (Attachment A Rows 58-69: Alternative Cost Calculation) | This section is OPTIONAL and provided for vendors that wish to clarify any cost calculating methods as they see necessary. | |
| How is the Government intending to define sustainment for the purposes of calculating the costs in row 53 of Attachment A? | The USG is conducting market research to better understand sustainment needs without being overly prescriptive. When providing a sustainment cost estimate, vendors should base estimates on what they believe to be the proper sustainment strategy. The USG requests that interested vendors provide what is included in the sustainment cost in Attachment A, on the Platform Info tab, B55 (the response to "What is your methodology for deriving this sustainment cost?"). Additionally, if refresh costs are included, vendors are encouraged to provide recommendations on whether these costs should be funded separately. | |
| Will the Government please clarify how they define "commercial" or "standard" shipping? And will CONUS or OCONUS shipping be required? | Rather than the USG providing a definition of those terms, the USG asks Vendors to provide proposed shipping requirements and procedures for both CONUS and OCONUS; please also provide any known or perceived barriers to shipping the solution, either CONUS or OCONUS. | |
| It seems you all are requesting a HEAVY LIFT platform. How many lbs does it need to be able to carry? | Payload weight is provided in the CUI attachment. | |
| We are confused by the capability described: |
"Group 3 Swarm Carrier – To be deployed from a C-130 as an air-dropped, palletized effect, internally carrying and able to launch Group 2 ISR sUAS from CLTs."
| When USG says Group 3, does USG mean UAS? How does that mesh with the rest of the sentence (a palletized effect)? | The Group 3 refers to a sUAS category (group). Palletized effect means the Swarm Carrier will be deployed as part of a pallet system, air-dropped from an aircraft. | |
| Regarding the third RFI the USG plans to release (Group 3 Signature Managed—To be air-launched from a Group 5 system), is USG envisioning a Group 5 UAS like the RQ-4 Global Hawk carrying a small tactical UAS like my 121-lb Orbiter 4 and dropping it during flight? | Group 3 SM questions will not be addressed through this RFI. A future RFI may address this based on USG requirements. | |
| Which CLT is USG referring to? There are many out there. Does USG have a specification it can provide? | The language has been changed to CLT-like. There is no specific CLT requirement. The intent is to have a Group 2 launched from Group 3. The assumption is a "CLT-like" or tube-launched capability, but other potential solutions are being considered. | |
| Regarding Attachment A for the alternative cost calculation. Is this asking to specify the additional equipment cost that would be equipped on the UAS? | Not specifically, see row 12 above. | |
| Instructions state that Group 3 swarm is the carrier, to hold CLT with deployable class 2 UAVs. Is the expectation that the swarm carrier has a launch mechanism for the UAV or will that be part of CLT design? | USG is open to hearing the vendor's solution to deploying the Group 2s. Language has been updated to CLT-like vice CLT specific. However, USG is interested in hearing alternate solutions to deploying Group 2 sUAS. | |
| Is Attachment A – Group 3 Swarm Carrier RFI Response Template.xlsx meant for Group 3 only, or does it include questions for the other group responses? |
| There are questions that seem to relate to the air vehicle like ‘what is the range of the solution…’ included in the attachment required for submission. | This RFI and its attached templates are specifically for the Group 3 Swarm Carrier. | |
| Is there a desire to use the same system for drones that may not have the same aspect ratio to fit in the CLT (i.e. is there an expectation that there may be a need to deploy drones that may not fit in the CLT)? | No. The constraint to use CLTs has been removed from the RFI language. USG is interested in reviewing solutions that can internally carry, and deploy via air-launch, Group 2 sUAS. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .