CsUAS EW QandA Tracker.pdf

Question Government Response In an effort for the Government to obtain the most offers and competition on this RFWP, will the Government consider the option to allow companies with (out) Secret FCL to respond with the assumption that employees with Secret CL can access the SIPRNet system at a Government facility?

Yes, the government will not be requiring access to SIPRnet for submission of White Papers. However, see section 11.1 on Evaluation Criteria as having the ability to process SECRET information will be a factor. The RFWP will be updated to reflect this.

Can clarification be provided regarding the Secret requirement? Is the Prime required to have a Secret FCL? Or is the Prime having a subcontractor that has a Secret FCL sufficient?

Secret requirement will be modified. See RFWP Revision 1 for clarification. Yes, the Prime must have an FCL commensurate with the highest level of classified access.

No, the Prime having a subcontractor that has a Secret FCL is not sufficient.

If the contract has a Secret requirement, the Prime must have a Secret FCL. The prime, performing on their own, would not be able to perform the tasking required.

The Prime cannot delegate/flow down what it does have (Secret work).

Can the Government confirm at what point of the pOTA will SIPRNet access be required?

Yes, the government will not be requiring access to SIPRnet for submission of White Papers. However, see section 11.1 on Evaluation Criteria as having the ability to process SECRET information will be a factor. The RFWP will be updated to reflect this.

Can the Government confirm if the intent is to award one pOTA, or multiple pOTAs? The singular “offeror” is used in section 4.0, while the plural “offeror(s)” is used throughout other sections of the document.

The Government anticipates awarding one (1) pOTA, but may award more than one (1) or none, any award(s) are subject to the availability of funding.

Is the government willing to consider offerors’ solutions that are already at a TRL 7 or 8, or would they be considered unfavorable in the technical evaluation since much of the IP would be delivered with limited and restricted rights?

Vendors can propose alternative phases in their responses as outlined in RFWP.

Can the Government confirm the expected down selection timing for this opportunity?

The Government is NOT utilizing a down-select process. The Government anticipates it may make 1 or more award, beginning around Q3FY24, but that is mission and funding dependent.

As this RFWP is being prepared for an OTA, rather than a FAR based contract, will the Government reconsider the inclusion of FAR 52.227-23, Rights to Proposal Data (Technical) in an effort to obtain the most detail on offerors’ proposed solutions?

Even though the contract vehicle is an OTA, it will contain some FAR clauses. FAR 52.227-23 will be included.

Can the Government kindly reconsider this evaluation factor per DFARS 227.7103(c) Offerors shall not be required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed at private expense except for the data identified at 227.7103-5(a)(2) and (a)(4) through (9)?

DFARS 227.7103(c) does not apply to OTAs. Except as otherwise noted in the Q&A, the Government is not altering any evaluation criteria.

H-MIF C-sUAS Q&A

Given that offerors are required to submit a CSOW with our response, and the following caution statement “this RFWP will be used first to inform current and future requirements and might not be used to award any prototype projects. However, responses and evaluations may be shared with similar DoD agencies who may pursue this technology and the RCCTO may utilize this RFWP to assist with the formation of contracts in conjunction with or on behalf of those other DoD agencies,” can you please confirm how the Government plans to mitigate any OCI risk pertaining to Biased Ground Rules should this CSOW be used to inform a different requirement?

The RCCTO will treat any submittals which are shared with any other DOD entities as CUI. The RCCTO does not currently envision a situation where such sharing would result in biased ground rules OCI, but the RCCTO does not represent or speak for other DoD entities. The Vendor is free to weigh any perceived risks independently before deciding whether to respond to this requirement.

Can the Government confirm if the RFWP submission method should be via email or DoD Safe?

Yes by email as directed in the RFWP.

In order to expedite the NDA process, can the Government provide email contact information for each of the POCs in paragraph 5?

Yes, see RFWP Revision 1

In an effort to thoroughly portray our qualifications for evaluation, will the Government consider Past Performance of major subcontractors and/or partners?

The Government will NOT consider past performance in any manner. The Government will consider Qualifications and Experience of major subcontractors to the extent it is relevant to the requirement and IAW 11.1(2).

Can the Government confirm what material and quantities they desire to be delivered within 6 months?

The entire C-sUAS system (full quantities).

Please identify EMI standards for which the system needs to comply.

Objective: MIL-STD-464 and MIL-STD-461.

The system shall be electromagnetically compatible in its operational electromagnetic environment such that the operational performance requirements are met (4.1). The system shall be electromagnetically compatible within itself such that system operational performance requirements are met (5.2). The system shall control radiated fields necessary to operate with the other co-located systems and to limit threat capability to detect and track the system commensurate with its operational requirements (5.14).

Unintentional radiated emissions from the system shall be controlled such that antenna-connected receivers located in the operational vicinity of the vehicle are not adversely impacted (5.14.2).

Please provide email addresses for

1. Apex Sourcing, LLC, Glen Lakes, FL 34613, (443) 981-9557, (POC G.

Davies)

2. Radiance Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, AL (760) 717-5651, (POC Sean Dempsey)

3. The MITRE Corporation, McClean, VA (410) 272-4338 (POC Christine Rini)

4. Blue Sky Innovators, Tysons Corner, VA (202) 630-6632 (POC Brad Sams)

5. Exponent, Inc, Phoenix, AZ (703)581-8715) (POC Dan Kinsley) As each offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an NDA prior to the submission of proposals, we require another method of communication as we are leaving messages at some the above numbers and for others there is no answer.

Yes, provided in the RFWP Revision 1

Sheet1