Remote Sensing for CBRN Detection

Request for Information - Remote Sensing for CBRN Detection I. DISCLAIMER This announcement constitutes a Request for Information (RFI) for the purpose of determining market capability of sources or obtaining information. It does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP), a Request for Quote (RFQ) or an indication that the Government will contract for any of the items and/or services discussed in this notice. Any formal solicitation that may subsequently be issued will be announced separately through Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps). Information on the specific topics of interest is provided in the following sections of this announcement. Neither JPEO CBD nor any other part of the federal government will be responsible for any cost incurred by responders in furnishing this information. All information received in response to this notice that is marked proprietary will be handled accordingly. II. BACKGROUND The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD) seeks innovative solutions for the use of remote sensing technologies in order to reduce the immediate Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) threats to the US Forces and interests. This enduring, immediate threat requires rapid solutions in support of Combatant Commander Efforts. This request is for interested parties to submit current capabilities information that have the potential to meet the Government's objectives of this effort. The JPEO-CBD is seeking mature, rapidly available technologies/systems with the following capabilities: 1)The ability to detect Chemical, Biological and Radiological threats, via the use of; 2)Remote sensing capabilities (e.g. unmanned platforms, electro-optical equipment) or any other potential capability that provides the warfighter the opportunity to avoid coming in contact with CBRN threats. Note: CBRN Remote Sensing is currently defined as the detection of a threat without the warfighter being put into contact or at immediate risk. III. SPECIFIC INFORMATION OF INTEREST a. It is anticipated that the papers received will reflect the best available technology assessments from those companies and government agencies that are particularly knowledgeable in the fields of military communications. The JPEO CBD will analyze the information papers received and reach its own independent conclusions regarding the wireless solutions that might be turned into a solicitation or incorporated into existing contracts with CBRN detectors. b. JPEO may host an Industry Day in conjunction with this RFI. IV. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION AND FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS a. Responders capabilities descriptions should include the following information: I. Technology type(s) and description II. Size, weight and power of system/capability III. Communications options IV. Current projections for: i. System cost ii. Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) iii. Known supportability advantages and issues V. Technology Readiness Level (self-assessment based on Attachment 1) VI. Summary of test plans/reports (including references to completed government testing if applicable) VII. Summary of environments (natural/man-made, materials) where the system has been tested b. Responses are requested by 30 days after release of this RFI. Any response received after these dates will also be considered but may not be included in initial reporting or assessments. c. All responses shall be submitted electronically in PDF format and emailed to the technical point of contact: Mike Mays (contact@example.gov). The subject line of the email should read as follows "RFI: Remote Sensing for CBRN Detection." d. All responses shall be unclassified. All information received in response to this RFI that is marked proprietary will be handled accordingly. Responses to this notice will not be returned. e. JPEO CBD is seeking from responder's information in the form of white papers, capability statements, product brochures, or power point charts focusing on one or more aspects of the JPEO Remote Sensing for CBRN Defense outlined above in section II. Remote Sensing for CBRN Defense Survey responses should not exceed five (5) pages. f. A suggested submission organization for this RFI is as follows: 1. Cover Sheet - RFI number and name, address, company, technical point of contact, with printed name, title, email address and date. 2. The informational charts should be non-proprietary and unclassified. 3. Executive summary. 4. Price information. This must be limited to published brochures and other information readily available. V. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION AND FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS Questions of a technical nature regarding this RFI may be sent to the following Technical Point of Contact: Name: Mike Mays Title: Special Projects Lead Organization: JPM NBC Contamination Avoidance Address: 5183 Hoadley and Blackhawk Rds. ATTN: SFAE-CBD-NBC-S Email Address: contact@example.gov ATTACHMENT 1 JPEO-CBD REMOTE SENSING FOR CBRN DETECTIONR\EQUEST FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS Technology Readiness Levels are a set of nine graded definitions or a description of states of technology maturity. They were originated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and adapted by the Department of Defense (DoD) for use in its acquisition systems. A copy of the definitions is provided below for convenience and can also be accessed at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/TRA2011.pdf TRL Definition Description Supporting Information 1 Basic principles observed and reported. Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development (R&D). Examples might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties. Published research that identifies the principles that underlie this technology. References to who, where, when. 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated. Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies. Publications or other references that out-line the application being considered and that provide analysis to support the concept. 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept. Active R&D is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative. Results of laboratory tests performed to measure parameters of interest and comparison to analytical predictions for critical subsystems. References to who, where, and when these tests and comparisons were performed. 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment. Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory. System concepts that have been considered and results from testing laboratory-scale breadboard(s). References to who did this work and when. Provide an estimate of how breadboard hardware and test results differ from the 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment. Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include "high-fidelity" laboratory integration of components. Results from testing laboratory breadboard system are integrated with other supporting elements in a simulated operational environment. How does the "relevant environment" differ from the expected operational environment? How do the test results compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? Was the breadboard system refined to more nearly match the expected system goals? ? TRL Definition Description Supporting Information 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment. Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment. Results from laboratory testing of a proto-type system that is near the desired con-figuration in terms of performance, weight, and volume. How did the test environment differ from the operational environment? Who performed the tests? How did the test compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before moving to the next level? 7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6 by requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in an air-craft, in a vehicle, or in space). Results from testing a prototype system in an operational environment. Who per-formed the tests? How did the test com-pare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before moving to the next level? 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) of the system in its intended weapon system to deter-mine if it meets design specifications. Results of testing the system in its final configuration under the expected range of environmental conditions in which it will be expected to operate. Assessment of whether it will meet its operational requirements. What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before finalizing the design? 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations. Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. OT&E reports Clarifying Definitions: BREADBOARD: Integrated components that provide a representation of a system/subsystem and which can be used to determine concept feasibility and to develop technical data. They are typically configured for laboratory use to demonstrate the technical principles of immediate interest and may resemble final system/subsystem in function only. HIGH FIDELITY: Addresses form, fit, and function. A high fidelity laboratory environment would involve testing with equipment that can simulate and validate all system specifications within a laboratory setting. LOW FIDELITY: A representative of the component or system that has limited ability to provide anything but first order information about the end product. Low fidelity assessments are used to provide trend analysis. MODEL: A reduced scale, functional form of a system, near or at operational specification. Models will be sufficiently hardened to allow demonstration of the technical and operational capabilities required of the final system. OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: Environment that addresses all of the operational requirements and specifications required of the final system to include platform/packaging.