TeUAS QandA Tracker.pdf

Question Government Response What is the contract type to be awarded. Would it be CPFF or FFP?

The preferred instrument type is a pOTA awarded as a firm-fixed price contract.

Is there a proposed value to this contract and POP?

The Government is not proposing a value for the contract.

See Section 8.3 Project Award Value and Section 3.10 PoP of the RWFP

Will the SIPRNet requirement still be enforced?

No this requirement was removed. See Revision 1 of the

RFWP

Is Fiber Optic Tether a Threshold or Objective Requirement?

The type of tether, e.g. Fiber Optic, is an Objective where the data over tether (regardless of tether type) is a threshold.

What are the bandwidth requirements of the fiber optic member of the tether?

Regardless of the tether type, 100 mbps is the threshold, 1000 mpbs is an objective with regard to bandwidth requirements.

In the situation where you have RF over fiber in the tether you still need a data connection. Is there a requirement to have fiber for data and RF over fiber in the tether together or is the requirement only that the tether meet low signature goals in which the data connection could be handled without fiber?

Threshold: RF is digitized and sent in parallel with other data on one fiber, Objective is multiple fibers for a payload to be able to send analog data over the fiber.

What is the anticipated input power available for the TeUAS platform on the vehicle (Volts AC or DC and Watts)?

Please provide your current offerings for power draw on your solutions. The power output varies by platform and will need to be adjudicated with other robotic payloads.

There is not currently a set power output dedicated for TeUAS.

What are the identified host vehicles?

Potential platforms identified for integration include:

-Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) -Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET) -Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) -Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV)

What is meant by “GPS Denied?” Should the respondent assume that no GPS signal available or the lesser case of GPS jamming/spoofing?

Threshold: assume GPS Jamming/Spoofing Objective: no GPS required for system operation

11.1 Evaluation Criteria #2: In an effort to thoroughly

portray our qualifications for evaluation, will the Government consider Past Performance of major subcontractors in the instance that the major subcontractor is the existing manufacturing partner of the offeror for TUAS?

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 please clarify their desire for laser designator payloads? Is their current requirement/desire ISR, SIGINT, COMMS, ONLY or do they also want LD – as in laser target designator? Follow-up If yes: Do they want STANAG 3733 LD or is low power LM adequate?

ISR, SIGINT, COMS use cases are priority. STANAG 3733/Laser designator is objective

H-MIF TeUAS 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 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 nor speak for other DoD entities. The Vendor is free to weigh any perceived risks independently before deciding whether to respond to this requirement.

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 Secret FCL to respond with the assumption that employees with Secret CL can access the SIPRNet system at a Government facility?

Secret requirement will be removed. See RFWP Revision 1 for clarification. However, U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware may potentially be rated higher at the Government's discretion IAW 11.1(1).

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 removed. 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).

Please confirm at what point of the pOTA will SIPRNet access be required? We ask that SIPRNet access be removed to allow for greater competition, without increased risk, as our business has successfully executed SECRET contracts without SIPRNet access.

Secret requirement will be removed. See RFWP Revision 1 for clarification. However, U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware may potentially be rated higher at the Government's discretion IAW 11.1(1).

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.

Section 3.2 allows offerors to submit alternative phases that will streamline or expedite program schedule. As such, can you reconsider this evaluation criteria as we submit that having a solution already at TRL 7 or 8, which was developed at private expense under IRAD, will benefit the Government by allowing for reduced development time and cost under OTA or Contract.

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

What is the expected down selection timing for this opportunity?

The Government is NOT utilizing a down-select process.

The Government anticipates it may make one (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 a pOTA, it will contain some FAR clauses. FAR 52.227-23 will be included.

We suggest you 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.

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.

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

Yes by email as directed in the RFWP.

In an effort to thoroughly portray our qualifications for evaluation, will RCCTO consider Past Performance of subcontractors?

As a point of clarification, 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 RFWP 11.1(2).

Please clarify your desire for laser designator payloads.

ISR, SIGINT, COMS use cases are priority. STANAG 3733/Laser designator is objective.

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

The entire TeUAS system (full quantities) to include platform, enclosure and relevant payloads. 6 months is the objective. Threshold is 8 months.

Please clarify the following about the 200 ft (T) and 300 ft

(O) requirement: Are the 200 ft / 300 ft values using ground level as the “0” point? When evaluating compliance to this requirement, are we to assume the host vehicle being on level ground, or are the height values based on the worst-case angles for the host vehicles, with height being measured with respect to ground level?

We prefer to use the enclosure/base station as the starting point for these values. However, using ground level as starting point is fine as well.

Is RCCTO invoking the GVSC GCIA architecture with the following statement: “H-MIF TeUAS solutions will adopt a modular open systems approach (MOSA) in their embodiments”?

Threshold: System meets RASG-IOP or AVMC TeUAS Message ICD. Objective is the vendor will work with the government to enable their UAS to interface with WMI.

If GCIA is not being mandated by the above statement, are respondents allowed to select from the list of available open standards without penalty?

Threshold: System meets RASG-IOP or AVMC TeUAS Message ICD. Objective is the vendor will work with the government to enable their UAS to interface with WMI.

Does RCCTO have a list of host platforms identified for integration?

Potential platforms identified for integration include:

-Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) -Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET) -Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) -Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV)

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

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

Option to say: "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)." Numbers are from 464. That said, this is at a system of systems level and will not really mean much to someone throwing a system over the fence.

1. WMI is the Warfighter Machine Interface. The software a soldier will use to interface with the vehicles.

2. See above question on IOP for threshold and objective.

3. ICDs will be delivered with a SOW after selection

Section 3.10 of the RFWP/CSOW H-MIF TeUAS refers to the Government’s desire for delivery of materiel within 6 months of contract award. Can you clarify what is meant by “material?”

The entire TeUAS system (full quantities) to include platform, enclosure and relevant payloads. 6 months is objective. Threshold is 8 months.

Is the SECRET storage requirement necessary at the time of White Paper submission or is it just required that we are compliant ahead of a contract start date?

Secret requirement will be removed. Updated RFWP to follow with clarification.

The RFWP solicitation states “Only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware are eligible to submit a white paper. All offerors must already have an active SIPRNet, RCCTO WILL NOT

SPONSOR an offeror for a SIPRNet.”

Would the Government provide the CSfC (Commercial Solutions for Classified Programs) terminals in order for us to satisfy this requirement?

Secret requirement will be removed. Updated RFWP to follow with clarification. The Government makes no promises to provide CSfC terminal access as access SECRET information is not required for this effort.

here be an extension of 14 days to April 26th for RFWP respo See RFWP Revision 1, WP submittal date is extended to 22

April

Clarification on ITAR in the CSOW. Will ITAR be required?

Yes with recognized exceptions and/or exemptions where applicable. Please see guidance in the CSOW: "This document contains technical data and/or technology whose export or disclosure to Non-U.S. Persons, wherever located, is restricted by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. Section 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. Section 730- 774). This document CANNOT be exported (e.g., provided to a supplier outside of the United States) or disclosed to a Non-U.S. Person, wherever located, until a final jurisdiction and classification determination has been completed and approved by the cognizant U.S. Army official, and any required U.S. Government approvals have been obtained.

Violations are subject to severe criminal penalties." The Government cannot provide any legal reading or interpretation as to ITAR requirements to Vendors.

Sheet1