QA_1_UAS_MICC.pdf

W9124L‐15‐T‐0076/ UAS

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION #1

9/11/15

Q1. Are you looking for shortwave infrared (similar to a night vision goggle) or are you looking for Thermal Infrared (FLIR, or a system that can work without IR illumination)? If we use a FLIR/Thermal payload, the IR flood array may affect the sensors ability to see, essentially blinding the camera with infrared. I understand the scope of this project is to provide a Search and Rescue platform, we are just looking for clarification so we can quote properly and effectively and develop the solution as required.

A1. Thermal Infrared (FLIR, or a system that can work without IR illumination), will not need IR illumination.

Q2. Is there a brand or existing system that the Government has identified and prefers? In reading the specified requirements, we don't believe a current commercially‐available system meets 100% of the requirements without adaptation or supplemental engineering.

A2. No. The Government’s research has shown that there are commercial units available.

Q3. What is the minimum acceptable communication range from the GCS to the UAV?

A3. As per the solicitation, UAS requirements, “Shall require a minimum of at least two (2) miles communication range (both flight control and video feed) with the ground control station”.

Q4. What would be the maximum acceptable delivery schedule if a custom system development is necessary?

A4. 90 days from award.

Q5. How do I submit the proposal? Is it done electronically on SF 1449 or narratively? Can you please send guidance for me to submit the proposal?

A5. The proposal shall be submitted electronically via email to Quinton Ballard @ john.q.ballard.civ@mail.mil and William Boyer (KO) @ william.e.boyer10.civ@mail.mil.

Company letterhead or SF1449 will suffice. Be sure to provide information that will allow the government to evaluate the proposal.

Q6. Because these aircraft are very small and one of the requirements states that the system must have a minimum of a least two miles communications range for flight control and video the aircraft will not be visible at 2 miles. The RFP doesn't specifically identify an autopilot system as a requirement. Is it a requirement that the aircraft must be flown autonomously with an auto pilot?

A6. The aircraft does not need to be visible at all times. The requested system will be operated (flown) using the requested video equipment mounted on the aircraft and control station. If the system loses communication with the ground control station, as per the written solicitation requirements, it shall be equipped with an Emergency Operations Settings (Safety Feature) such as a “Lost Link to Return to Ground Station / a predesignated GPS Coordination” or whatever the feature is called for a particular unit a contractor is proposing.

Q7. We are unsure as the intended meaning of the following text in the solicitation: “Shall have Air Worthiness Release if experimental and FAA Certification”. Is an FAA Air Worthiness Certificate the intended meaning or is an Army Safety Release the intended meaning of this statement?

A7. The requirement has changed. Post‐award, Fort Sill will seek the UAS Army Air Worthiness release for Fort Sill, OK. This certification will be performed by the Department of the Army’s US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Aviation and Missile Research Development, and Engineering Center.

The offeror shall provide the percentage of the total contract value (award amount) that they shall reimburse to the government in the event that the failure to obtain the certification is due to a fault or deficiency in the the offeror’s UAS capabilities or design. This percentage will be part of the evaluation criteria.

Q8. To the best of our knowledge, an Army ATEC safety release is required for systems such as unmanned aerial systems when they are intended to be used by Soldiers. In the past, UAS system procurements for the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or other defense agencies have never specified a requirement for an FAA Air Worthiness Certificate for procurement, because in our experience, military testing processes such as the Army ATEC "safety release" replace and supersede the FAA Air Worthiness Certificate for the case of the military.

Additionally, the requirement of the solicitation that the UAS have an "FAA certification" is unclear since, in the case of UAS systems, it is the user and not the supplier that must obtain an FAA certificate of authorization (COA) from the FAA to operate a UAS. The U.S. Army use of a UAS system is generally considered to be governmental or public use, and our understanding is that the Army has blanket COAs from the FAA. Many of the UAS systems commonly used by the military have undergone extensive testing appropriate for the specific needs of the military, but no testing or certification whatsoever on the part of the FAA since the FAA testing is primarily applicable to civilian use and since the Army tends to have more stringent testing standards than the FAA.

Our UAS system has been granted an Army ATEC safety release, and it has also been granted certifications from European Union aviation authorities that are equivalent to U.S.FAA Air Worthiness Certificates. Our system meets or exceeds all of the safety requirements specified in the solicitation, and based on the built in safety features, it would be granted an FAA AWC if such were to be applied for by ourselves.

We are unsure as the intended meaning of the following text in the solicitation: “Shall have Air Worthiness Release if experimental and FAA Certification”. Is an FAA Air Worthiness Certificate the intended meaning or is an Army Safety Release the intended meaning of this statement? The requirement of the solicitation that the UAS system which is intended for use on the part of the U.S. Army shall have an FAA AWC or COA is quite confusing and will tend to severely limit options to the government to a very small range of UAS systems that already have FAA AWCs (but perhaps no military testing whatsoever). Potentially, this could result in a purchase of a UAS system that complies with the FAA rules for civil aviation yet is not compliant with Army ATEC safety requirements and thereby of no use to the Army.

Additionally, vendors are unable to obtain any FAA certification such as a COA on behalf of the Army since the Army is the operator of the UAS, and it is the operator that must obtain such a certificate. Due to the unclarity of the meaning of the text in the solicitation, we would like to request that the requirement of the solicitation that the UAS system “Shall have Air Worthiness Release if experimental and FAA Certification “should be deleted from the solicitation and replaced by more inclusive text that would open up a great range of options for the government on this procurement. Perhaps the text could be re‐written to reflect the requirement for "appropriate safety testing on the part of the U.S. Army or the FAA and shall be able to obtain an FAA Air Worthiness Certificate”.

Otherwise, would you be willing to accept a UAS system that already has been granted an Army ATEC Safety Release and EU aviation authority equivalents to the FAA AWC in lieu of a “Air Worthiness Release “ ?

A8. The requirement has changed. Post‐award, Fort Sill will seek the UAS Army Air Worthiness release for Fort Sill, OK. This certification will be performed by the Department of the Army’s

US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Aviation and Missile Research Development, and Engineering Center.

The offeror shall provide the percentage of the total contract value (award amount) that they shall reimburse to the government in the event that the failure to obtain the certification is due to a fault or deficiency in the the offeror’s UAS capabilities or design. This percentage will be part of the evaluation criteria.

A9. Would the Army consider a single‐rotor UAV if it meets all the requirements listed?

A9. No.

Q10. Would the Government consider a gas powered engine?

A10. No.

Q11. Must each of the 2 UAS systems be capable of operating independently in 2 separate locations?

A11. No.