FTUAS_Industry_Day_Questions_and_Responses_v1.pdf

Response No. Questions Responses FTUAS‐01 Will Satellite Communications (SATCOM) be a threshold requirement?

It is anticipated that SATCOM may be a recommended threshold requirement in the future for Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) operations.

FTUAS‐02 What is the relationship between TCM FVL and TCM RA, aside from coordination?

The relationship between TCM FVL and TCM RA is based on continuous coordination. TCM RA and other TCMS are focused on supporting the fielded systems, wheras TCM FVL is focused on future platforms.

FTUAS‐03 With the Information Assurance (IA) EXORDs regarding data protection produced, does the data link need to be Type 1 encrypted?

For future fieldings, the data link will need to Type 1 encrypted for operations and survivability.

FTUAS‐04 How does the S&T NEXGEN effort tie into the futures effort? This effort helps to inform the NEXGEN capability requirements, which is focused on the Advanced UAS (AUAS). The AUAS is the CAB variant (Division level) that will be composed of additional capabilities, such as electronic warfare (EW) payloads and Air Launched Effects

(ALE).

FTUAS‐05 Is a tactical data link capability being sought such as Link 16? For future fieldings, a Link 16 or comparable solution is needed to provide Situational Awareness (SA) to the Common Operating Picture (COP).

FTUAS‐06 Are SATCOM services accounted for in the RFP? The CLIN structure accounts for services such as SATCOM to be itemized.

FTUAS‐07 Is the sparing strategy provided by FTUAS? Since each vendor solution is unique, the sparing strategy is to be provided by the vendor.

FTUAS‐08 What is the fielding location? For the demonstration, the test site is currently designated as Dugway Proving Ground UT.

For evaluation sites for the selected systems, Fort Irwin and Fort Polk have been identified as possibilities. FORSCOM will determine the assigned Armor, Stryker, and Light Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to better inform the future BCT requirements.

FTUAS‐09 How many hours per month are expected? The Performance Work Statement (PWS) cites 300 hours per a 6 month period, which matches the current Shadow OPTEMPO.

FTUAS‐10 What are the expected data deliverables (safety, technical pubs, net, etc)?

The DD1423 CDRLs are specfied in PWS as part of the draft RFP. Deliverables will be finalized within final RFP.

FTUAS‐11 Will the test cards be provided in the final RFP? Test cards will be provided prior to the demonstration.

FTUAS‐12 Will satillite time be provided during the demonstration for vendors with a SATCOM capability?

There will be coordination with the Range based on vendor needs. Test cards will also determine the utilization of SATCOM during the demonstration based on the defined requirements.

FTUAS‐13 During the fly off, is it the expectation for the aircraft to fly the full 96 hours?

No. The 96 hour capability of the aircraft will be extrapolated from a defined segment of time from a single aircraft endurance (vendor specific).

FTUAS‐14 A 1 to 2 year evaluation was described as well as a replacment of the Shadow expected in the 2022 plus timeframe. What is the expectation?

The evaluation years are to inform a future material solution. The timeframe is dependent on the requirements documentation and technology maturation of a solution that meets the threshold/desired capabilties.

FTUAS‐15 On the topic of investing to add capability, how will low TRL level capability be viewed if included in proposal?

What is available/mature at the time of the demonstration will be evaluated.

FTUAS Industry Days

FTUAS‐16 Can video be included as part of the RFP submissions? Video or larger files can be provided as an input to the proposals. These are only going to be accepted as supplemental information to the written proposals. Complete video proposals will not be accepted. Instructions will be provided on the RFP site by Mr. Jeremy Deorsey, ACC Natick Specialist. Proposals will be reviewed per the RFP.

FTUAS‐17 What is the next phase for the Shadow replacement? This immediate effort is to collect information/data to inform future requirements for a Shadow replacement Program of Record. The TUAS BCT replacement will be a separate effort and contract.

FTUAS‐18 If proposing a BLOS capability, then is the vendor to propose the cost of the satellite time?

See response to FTUAS‐06.

FTUAS‐19 On vendor noted that the payloads were not clear in the draft RFP. Requested location of the RFI that included a set required/desired capabilities after FTUAS team referenced the RFI for initial requirements until the final RFP is released.

The RFI BizOps Solicitation number is W911QY‐18‐R‐FTUAS with a release date of 23 May 2018. The solicitation is located in the Archives. Link is located at https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=384e11782c29e45370ee990 a2ff201cf&tab=core&_cview=1

Draft FTUAS RFP link ‐ https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5dabeec09343fb899753853 ef26461d9&tab=core&tabmode=list&=

FTUAS‐20 If have upgrades occur during the 12 months of performance, can capabilities be added (self funded) to the aircraft?

The fly off aircraft will be what is available today in the proposal. If items are going obsolete, those type changes are accounted for in the PWS.

FTUAS‐21 Is there a consideration that the ground control segment would be proposed separately as a common controller?

No. GFE will not be a part of the FTUAS effort. FTUAS is looking for a total Group 2/3 system solution, including the ground control segment, for this effort. Funds are not available for integration efforts, but could be a consideration in the future.

FTUAS‐22 If an IRAD project is underway, can the capability be placed as an option in the RFP if the capability becomes available at the time of the demonstration?

Multiple configurations can be proposed for the demonstration in response to the solicitation in the form of separate proposals (existing proposed system(s), baseline with optional capabilities in work, etc). The system proposed needs to match the system brought to the flyoff demonstration.

FTUAS‐23 Can GFE be offered to the prospective vendors for use? See response to FTUAS‐21.

FTUAS‐24 Should the units' other material/crew needs be considered in the load out planning?

No. Only the proposed system and crew should be included in the load out planning.

FTUAS‐25 What is the 3 Year Period of Performance (PoP) described in the Industry Day briefing?

For the 3 year PoP, 1 year is allocated at a maximum for production and delivery; and 2 years for the field demonstration.

FTUAS‐26 Can obtain a copy of the Army Gold Master for interoperability testing be obtained?

The Secure Host Baseline (SHB) formally known as DoD Unified Master Gold Disk (UMGD) can be requested through Mr. Steve Laws at PEO AVN (stephen.w.laws.ctr@mail.mil).

FTUAS‐27 Is it expected that the Primes will test for MUM‐T? In the final RFP, the technical requirements and evaluation criteria will be provided.

FTUAS‐28 Regarding interoperability, what is the Level of Interoperability (LOI) for FVL, Apache, and OSRVT?

The RFI specifically addressed the AH‐64D/E at a minimum of LOI2. The technical requirements will be addressed in the final RFP. Increased LOI capabilities will be addressed in the future. See response to FTUAS‐19.

FTUAS‐29 What sensor models will be used to determine what is acceptable for this project?

Generally, the work and recommendations of the NGA Community Sensor Model Working Group is followed. NGA has also recently published guidance documentation on accuracy and predicted accuracy that gives guidance on how areas like error, covariance, etc. As far as the detection of targets, the Johnson Criteria is typically utilized. Other NGA documents are attached.

Community Sensor Model Working Group (CSMWG) ‐ http://www.gwg.nga.mil/csmwg.php

FTUAS‐30 There is an objective requirement for a laser designation (LD)? Is there a list of anticipated munitions that will be paired with the FTUAS to determine stand off distances, survivability, power of laser, etc?

See response to FTUAS‐27. With regard for LD, STANAG 3733 contains the Laser Pulse Repetition Frequencies (PRF), Pulse Energies and Effective Designation Range of Laser Systems for Target Designation and Weapon Guidance. (NATO Restricted)

FTUAS‐31 Regarding the flyoff demonstration, what is required to be satisfied prior to arriving at the site (e.g. safety review boards, etc)?

Range and safety requirements will be provided prior to the test and is dependent on the respective systems.

FTUAS‐32 Is a SAASM GPS receiver required? Government sponsorship is required.

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐33 Per the Industry Day discussions, is the RFI technical requirements to be utilized since the draft RFP did not contain the technical requirements?

Until the final RFP solicitation is issued, the RFI requirements can be used as a starting baseline. Reference the response to FTUAS‐19.

FTUAS‐34 In draft RFP, how is "system" defined? The system includes the equipment needed to support the 96 hour operations. The systems provided for training will also be used for the field demonstration.

FTUAS‐35 What are the correct terms regarding the flyoff and the 2‐year evaluation?

There are two parts. Part 1 is the paper evaluation and flyoff demonstration. Part 2 is field demonstration (up to 2 years).

FTUAS‐36 What are the dates of the flyoff? The schedule indicates October through November.

After the selection process is complete, the vendors will be contacted to schedule demonstration dates currently scheduled for an October start as presented.

FTUAS‐37 For planning purposes, how many days are expected for each vendor during the flyoff?

Five (5) days can be assumed for planning purposes. This will be further defined as range coordination is finalized.

FTUAS‐38 Are there minimum weather conditions for operations during the flyoff?

The minimum weather conditions will be defined in the final RFP in the technical requirements, as well as for the flyoff demonstration.

FTUAS‐39 Will competitors be visible to each other during the flyoff? Vendors will be staggered and/or separated by distance to avoid competitors from demonstrating capabilities within sight.

FTUAS‐40 For the field demonstration, will the systems be at the same location?

Two locations can be assumed for the purposes of the proposal.

FTUAS‐41 What equipment is expected at the flyoff demonstration versus what is needed to support the 96 hour operations?

See response to FTUAS‐13. A full complement of equipment to support the full 96 hour OPTEMPO is not required.

FTUAS‐42 What is the expecations for the data link? See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐43 Will MUM‐T be tested? See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐44 Is Type 1 encryption required? See response to FTUAS‐03 and FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐45 If an IRAD funds are utilized, can the capability be placed as an option in the RFP if the capability becomes available at the time of the demonstration?

See response to FTUAS‐22. The system proposed needs to match the system brought to the flyoff demonstration.

FTUAS‐46 Is there a push for utilizing STANAG 4586 for interoperability? See response to FTUAS‐27. Interoperability standards are not included in this effort, but could be as part of the future effort.

FTUAS‐47 What is the $99.5M total in the Industry Day briefing? The ceiling for the effort will be $99.5M FTUAS‐48 Is there a requirement(s) for operating in a GPS denied environment as mentioned in the Industry Day briefing?

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐49 In addendum to instructions, will the RFP contain sections L and M?

Traditional sections L and M will not be included. Instead, commerical procedures with addendums to the FAR clauses will be utilized.

FTUAS‐50 Can the MRL questionnaire be provided prior to the proposal submission?

The MRL questionnaire will be incliuded in final RFP.

FTUAS‐51 With the differences in TRL 8 definitions, will the TRL definition for this RFP be defined.

The reference for TRL and MRL definitions will be provided in the final RFP.

FTUAS‐52 Regarding the determination of competitive range, will the criteria be provided and is prequalification required?

The determination of competitive range will be based on criteria provided in final RFP. See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐53 Is the substantiatin documentation needed if certifications are in place?

Yes. Documentation is needed to support the Army Airworthiness determination.

FTUAS‐54 With consideration to airworthiness, is there a timeline to obtain? Documentation to obtaining an airworthiness certificate should be concurrent with proposal effort.

FTUAS‐55 With consideration to software required for airworthiness, is there a timeline?

See response to FTUAS‐54.

FTUAS‐56 Per the requirement of the modular/interchangeable payload, was the intent to provide for modularity of interchanging payloads or the payloads themselves?

The requirement is for the modularity of the payload, not the capability.

FTUAS‐57 Communications coordination was not mentioned. Is communications relay needed between 2 ground units (e.g. need for 2 channels)? Is retrans a single or dual band?

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐58 Should services be bid as a base with options? Will be utilizing an IDIQ with a 3 year ordering period. The specific Period of Performance will be determined at the delivery order level.

FTUAS‐59 What is the distinction between CLIN 1 and 2? CLIN 2 can be viewed to include attrition vehicles.

FTUAS‐60 Is there a concern for the DOD prohibition of COTS UAS? No.

FTUAS‐61 Is the downselect to three (3) vendors based on the number of systems desired or cost?

The current program is targeting 3 vendors for the field demonstration.

FTUAS‐62 Will the equipment independence be rated higher in the evaluation?

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐63 Could not locate AR 70‐62 Level 3 referenced in the draft RFP? The AR 70‐62 Level 3 definition will be referenced or provided in the final RFP.

FTUAS‐64 Will there be additional capability requirements written by the evaluation team into the criteria?

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐65 How will the Army assess the safety aspects of the proposed solution?

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐66 How will the Army evaluate the handoff capability? See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐67 With regard to the 82nd ONS, can the validated requirements be provided?

See response to FTUAS‐19.

FTUAS‐68 Does the Army anticipate the COTS system to be interoperable with the GCS and/or OSRVT?

See response to FTUAS‐27.

FTUAS‐69 Is the Army interested in phasing in work during the field demonstration?

See response to FTUAS‐22. The system proposed needs to match the system brought to the flyoff demonstration.