Questions_Submitted_for_Soldier_Borne_Sensor.docx

Questions Submitted for Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) Solicitation Number: W91CRB-18-R-0065.

1. Question I was wondering if you have any idea what the dollar value of the Soldier Borne Sensor ID/IQ will be, or the number of unmanned aerial systems the ID/IQ may entail?

Answer A: The Government expects to order 2,362 systems and spares to sustain those systems. The contract ceiling allows for possible increase in the Army procurement objective and potential orders from other services.

2. Question A. - How long will offerors have to respond to the RFP with their proposals once the RFP has been officially released?

B. - Will the hardware for testing be due at the same time as the proposal?

Answer A: The RFP will be posted for 30 days. Responses will be accepted during that time. Responses will not be accepted after the RFP closes.

B: Sample hardware will be due at the same time of proposal submission.

3. Question Given the recent reprogramming request of $21M to equip seven IBCTs with SBS, will the program be accelerated to field these systems?

Answer At this point, the above threshold reprogramming request is not approved. The Army will execute that money as it is available. It will not affect the schedule of competition.

4. Question The previous Industry Days have confirmed the system requirements. Does the lack of an Industry Day indicate the requirements remain the same?

Answer Previous industry days provided advisory information on the requirements. The Draft RFP included the most current requirements. The final RFP will include final system requirements.

5. Question Prior SBS briefings have stressed that the average system price has to be under $15,000. Does that continue to be a requirement?

Answer The SBS program still has a program affordability cap on average system price of $14,997.00.

6. Question The requirement for SBS Soldier Borne Sensor system pack-out is to be under three pounds and 150 cubic inches. Does that continue to be a requirement?

Answer Yes. See Product Description paragraphs 3.3.6 and 3.3.7. Offerors should note the “additional notes to offerors” on the first page of the Product Description.

7. Question CLIN 0002 Spares and Sub CLINs include night air vehicles, day air vehicles, main and tail rotors and separate items for display and controller. Can these be modified for alternate (e.g combined day/night or quadcopter) configuration solutions or should they be included in 0002AJ Other?

Answer The final RFP CLINs will be modified to make completion clear for both combined day/night and separate day/night air vehicle configurations.

8. Question Scoring Matrix Between Thresholds and Objective:

Is it the intention of the Government to use the same evaluation model as used during the last Solicitation W91CRB-17-T-0999, especially regarding technical Sub-Factor 1 (Sample Hardware Evaluation) and 3 (SBS Performance)? Namely to give an incremental scoring from 1-5 between threshold and objective?

Answer No, the Government will use evaluate using an adjectival scale based on strengths and weaknesses consistent with DoD Source Selection Procedures (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3--Source Selection, dated March 31, 2016)

9. Question Weight of the Operational Test Score :

How will the Operational Test (OT) score be evaluated compared to Laboratory and Field Assessment requirements? Will the User Assessment phase with the Ranked Soldier Assessment test criterion be equal to the previous Fly-off?

Answer Performance will be evaluated according to Tables 2-3 and 2-4 on pages 125 through 127 of the draft RFP (Section M). Parameters evaluated in the User Assessment are evaluated equally with parameters tested in Laboratory/Field Assessment. The criterion and ranking are not the same as were used in the previous Fly-off.

10. Question Scoring and Evaluation of the Technical Description:

Several previously included technical evaluation factors appear to have been eliminated (from evaluation factor I -Technical) between the last Fly-off and the release of this document (e.g. Line of Sight Range, ... ).

· Will these eliminated technical factors be assessed during any of the technical evaluations?

· If the eliminated technical factors are to be assessed, what value or weight will performance of these eliminated technical factors be given?

Answer Only the parameters identified under the technical factor in section M will be evaluated.

11. Question SBS Solicitation Offer and Award:

In the "Quality System Requirement" it is referred to ''National Institute of Standards and Technology measurements standards". Is it the Government's intention that this is the only acceptable solution or are other similar Non-US National standards also acceptable?

Answer Similar, non-US standards are acceptable. The final RFP will be revised to clarify this.

12. Question Comments to Attachment 2, SBS Product Description:

Line-of-Sight Datalink Range requirement 3.3.8.1: SBS shall provide usable video and Air Vehicle (AV) control when the AV is within 900m from the GCS, between 10m and 100m above ground level, and there are no obstructions in the line of sight path between the GCS and the AV.

· We recommend changing Line-of-Sight Datalink Range requirement to 900m (T) and 1200m (0) to better reflect operational requirements. Reference the United States Army Infantry School - The Infantry Rifle Platoon:

· "The lnfantry Rifle squad must be able to.... effectively suppress threats out to 1200m. Additionally, the Squad must be able to overtly or covertly designate targets out to 1200mfor immediate or follow-on action from adjacent forces, systems, or fires. "

· Reference requirements: System volume 3.3.7, Weight 3.3.6 and Reliability 3.3.12.

Total Size Weight and Power (SWaP) in a tactical mission is highly critical for the Soldier. With less weight and mass, the soldier will gain e.g. mobility, endurance, and experience less fatigue during a tactical mission. One way to design a functional SWaP requirement for an operational mission can be the following: Conduct a 72 hours mission with a total of e.g. 20 flight missions where each mission will have the duration of e.g. 15 minutes. The total SBS mission weight and volume will be measured under the following thresholds and objectives: Weight <xx lbs. (T) and <xx lbs. (0) and Volume< xxx cubic inches (T) and <xxx cubic inches (0).

Answer This requirement will not be changed for the final RFP release. The Product Description has been reviewed and concurred with by the Infantry School.

Question and Comments to Attachment 7, Sample Hardware Measurement Instructions:

13. Question Requirement 3.3.1.4 Ground control system login.

Question: Does "authorized access" include use of system, or only access to mission data?

Comment: The system is designed to be set up to always allow use (without need for password) to enable execution of time critical missions even if a soldier forgets a password in the field, or if the system is handed over to a fellow soldier unfamiliar with the password. Mission data is encrypted, and a password is required, in order to protect potentially sensitive data. It is evaluated that mission data is less time critical by nature.

Answer:

Deployment of the system without entering a password is acceptable as long as all mission data saved on the GCS is encrypted and password protected. Paragraph 3.3.1.4 of the Product Description (Attachment 2) will be revised for the final RFP to clarify this.

14. Question Requirement 3.3.8.2 Non-Line-of-Sight range performance Remark: Test procedure as described seems to measure Line-of-Sight link budget. It is unclear if objective is evaluated with obstacle loss included (variable attenuation + cable/connector loss - calculated obstacle attenuation) A. Comment: Test procedure should include a table of RF attenuation for different relevant obstacles (brick wall, concrete etc.) for all relevant frequencies. Also, see Alternative Test Methods.

Answer:

The 2018 Fly-off procedure for non-line of sight range did not produce repeatable results, and the operational realism of the obstacles used could not be verified. The described test includes propagation through 300m of atmosphere, which will allow some differentiation for the penetrating capability of various wavelengths. The Government will consider converting the evaluated test result from attenuation in dB to an equivalent thickness of attenuating material (e.g., concrete, bricks, lumber) for that frequency band.

Requirement 3.3.10.4 Vibration

15. Question It is ambiguous if test is done in transport mode (stored in Pelicase) or in operation mode.

Answer As stated in Product Description paragraph 3.3.10.4, transport vibration will be tested in the shipping/transport case, not in the tactical configuration.

Alternative Test Methods :

16. Question Regarding testing of Non-LOS operational coverage, requirement 3.3.8.2:

Comment: Several factors will impact a radio link in presence of obstacles between transmitter and receiver. Most important is the frequency dependent RF absorption of the obstacles, and how well the radio receive chain and radio protocol handle weak, distorted and varying signals. The non-ideal components of these factors will be hard to emulate in a lab environment and to get realistic results, field experiments should be used.

Specifically, using a broadband RF attenuator to simulate obstacle RF absorption will miss the frequency dependency of the absorption. This is important as a lower bandwidth generally has significantly better penetration capability than a higher bandwidth transceiver, thus a better Non-LOS capability.

The test as it is described in the Draft RFP has a higher risk of only testing the LOS capability and not necessarily the Non-LOS capability.

Recommendation: To mitigate the previous mentioned risk, we propose to combine the lab tests with field experiments with real obstacles, where it is assumed that the HESCO test used before will give a fair and realistic result: "NLOS testing will be conducted in 1,000m by 100m field surrounded by woods. An obstruction will be placed within 5m of the operator. Systems must complete three flights to 300m without degraded video lasting more than 5 seconds OR loss of signal more than 5 seconds or resulting in landing, crash, or return to home."

Answer See response to question 14 above.

Regarding testing of Signature combined with Sensor Capability:

17. Question Recommendation: The SBS needs to be designed to detect targets outside its own signature range. The operational rationale is to gain Situational Awareness/ Situational Understanding without revealing own position or mission. The hypothesis is that this will reduce exposure to potential threat fires and gain a tactical advantage.

As a consequence of these considerations the Air Vehicle's signature range (Audible and Visual Detection) should be seen in combination with its target detection and recognition range.

Answer As stated in Table 2-3 on pages 125 and 126 of the RFP, detection range capability and acoustic signature are equally weighted (strengths can be earned for performance in each). Acoustic and visible signatures are strongly correlated, so the selection strategy does not reward improved detection performance at a disproportionate cost of detectability. Comparing detection and detectability directly is not feasible because all three tests are simulations with unique correlation to operational performance.

18. Question Have you decided for when the pre-solicitation conference will be held?

Answer Because the Government received relatively few questions from industry and all were very clearly communicated, the Government no longer intends to hold a pre-solicitation conference.

19. Questions/Statement Lastly, we have a comment and a recommendation to the test procedure for requirement 3.3.1.1 Visual Detectability: “Probability that an SBS in a picture hovering 30 m from the camera in front of foliage or urban background is not detected (assessed using two AVs).”With reference to section 4 in the test procedure: “An SBS candidate will be flown to the test position from the hold waypoint (see Figure 1). The SBS candidate will be oriented to present the largest cross sectional area to the camera.”

Since an operational mission is not static we recommend that the test procedure conducts test from several angles and not only the largest cross sectional area. Real life experience shows that AV will be looking at the target that can potentially see the AV. The way this test is designed now it will highly favor a quad design not a conventional helicopter design and have a very limited relevance to real life scenarios. By implementing more angles of the Air Vehicle you will get a more operational realistic test.

Answer The Government has considered a number of methods to evaluate the Visual Detectability of UAS. This method was selected to balance:

· Complexity of imagery acquisition

· Resources for perception testing

· Dimensionality of the data sets

· Replicability While the small front cross section of a helicopter design will reduce visual detectability in some circumstances, the Government believes the largest cross section will provide a better estimation of visual detectability in operational conditions. The SBS pilot will not have the ability to control orientation toward all targets during operation. Environmental and operational factors that prevent constant orientation toward the target include multiple targets, unknown target locations, need to gain situational awareness of a broad area, wind direction, and obstacles.

20. Question What is last day for submitting questions under this Draft RFP?

Answer 20 August 2018

21. Question Will Technical Requirements that have an applicable Objective value but are not listed as an item where a “strength” can be earned have a weighted impact on system performance assessment, and how will that be computed?

Answer As described in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 1 - Technical, Sub Factor 1 – SBS Sample Hardware (pages 124 through 127) of the draft solicitation, offerors can earn strengths for operationally significant performance above threshold in each of the following four parameters: NLOS range, daytime target detection, total flight time between charges of the tactical configuration, and audible signature.

Offerors can earn strengths for operationally significant performance above threshold in combinations of other tested parameters.

Strengths and weaknesses will be used to determine an adjectival rating in each (sub)factor.

22. Question No criteria for achieving a “strength” is presented in Sub Factor 3; can an offeror receive a good or outstanding in this Sub Factor, and how would that be achieved?

Answer Strength is defined as “an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.” In Sub Factor 3, offerors can earn strengths for evaluated aspect of the subfactor that meets this definition.

23. Question In the Statement of Work section, it states that “The Contractor shall pay for all shipping costs for warranty items.” Can we assume CONUS?

Answer The offeror will be responsible for shipping of warranty items within the Unisted States. The Warranty of Equipment paragraph in the Statement of Work in the final RFP will be revised to clarify this.

24. Question The CLINS identify AIR VEHICLE (DAY), AIR VEHICLE (NIGHT), AV COMPONENT; MAIN ROTOR and AV COMPONENT; TAIL ROTOR – if a proposed solution has day/night capabilities incorporated into a single air vehicle, and the air vehicle type does not incorporate a “main rotor” or “tail rotor,” how should Section B be completed?

Answer The final RFP CLINs will be modified to make completion clear for both combined day/night and separate day/night air vehicle configurations.

25. Question There are a number of inconsistencies between the Product Descriptions document (Attachement_0002_SB_Product_Description) and the tables in the Draft RFP Section M. Will another amendment to these documents be issued prior to release of the formal RFP? If not, may we submit additional questions for each of the noted inconsistencies to obtain clarification?

Answer Please submit additional questions identifying all perceived inconsistencies by 20 August 2018.

26. Question In the Full System section of the TEP excel document it states “The maximum order quantity in CY2 through CY5 must be at least 8,473.” Should this be interpreted as the maximum production capability of the offeror for the proposed system? If not, please provide additional interpretation information.

Answer The offeror’s proposal should identify its planned steady state and surge capacity, and plan to achieve that capacity. The surge rate does not need to be 8,473 per year, but the offeror’s discussion of ordering lead times should include lead times for orders up to the maximum order quantity for Government planning purposes.

27. Question For Section B of the Draft RFP, should the matrix of step pricing columns F through K of the TEP spreadsheet be transcribed with no “total” amount, or should an assumed quantity be used?

Answer No total amount should be transferred. The Government will provide a dollar value ceiling for each CLIN with matrix step pricing.