Guidance

Clarifications to submitted questions

Updated 16 August 2023

IRC 2023 Technical Clarification Questions Received

Scenario Related

Can you provide examples of relevant sizes/attributes/materials for improvised explosive devices (IEDs)? Are there any that are more common, so we can focus on test cases using a few more common shapes etc.

Details of potential scenarios and applications are provided in the IRC 2023 Competition web page. 

What type of explosives need to be detected? Is there any information regarding their chemistry, form, etc.?

Detection of a wide range of explosives is of interest. The range includes plastic, military, commercial and homemade explosives, plus precursors and pyrotechnics. A number of well-established texts discuss their chemistry, a good introduction being ‘The Chemistry of Explosives – 4th Edition’ by Akhavan. In addition, the following sites also provide some further information which may be of relevance.

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_ied_fact_sheet.pdf

https://www.protectuk.police.uk/attack-methodology-improvised-explosive-devices-ieds

Solution Related

Can the solution be specific, for example just for “explosives in goods”, or “weapons in building” or does the solution have to be comprehensive and detect explosives and weapons in goods, buildings and vehicles?

A solution may be specific or address a range of potential threats in multiple scenarios. Solutions addressing multiple threats or scenarios should consider the balance of breadth and depth of capability.

For “goods”, do you require a portable solution or it can be a fixed one?

Both portable and fixed solutions are in scope.

Government Furnished Assets (GFA)

Is it possible to request material for testing as part of the application, such as dummy mines?

Any request for GFA must be clearly stated in your proposal along with the benefit these will provide. All requests will be considered on merit, but no guarantee of their provision should be assumed. Alternative supply options, such as commercial purchase, should also be considered. Further guidance on GFA can be found in the Additional Information section on the DASA submission Portal

Submission Process

Schedule 8 rate Card

On Schedule 8 rate card, under the labour section you can refer to individual grades and the daily rates for each. naming of individuals is not required at this stage. The rate should not include overheads. Only rates are required in the Schedule 8 form, not totals. There are no maximum limits applied by DASA but values should be within reason and reflective of the work being carried out.

Supplier Assurance Questionnaire

You should use the competition name for the Contract name and your proposal title as the contract description. Please note that although DASA suggest that consideration of cyber resilience is carried out prior to submission it is not mandatory to supply this information at submission. However, suppliers will have to comply with the cyber requirements before being put on contract.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 requirements

For Phase 1 of this competition suppliers are required to provide a proof of concept technology that addresses the competition challenges and deliver this within 6 months of contract start. As mentioned in Section 1.4 of the Competition Document this may be a project that requires minimal funding. (nb – It is necessary to have some costs entered into the submission portal for Phase 1; Section 11.2 of the Competition Document mentions the requirement to include costed attendance at kick-off and review meetings)

For the Potential future Tasking section (Phase 2) a description of the Phase 2 objectives should be provided with as much detail of a project plan as possible to allow the Panel to review the potential innovation being proposed.

If suppliers feel that it is not possible to describe the Phase 2 plans in detail at this moment they should explain how the information gained in Phase 1 will allow them to scope a Phase 2 and give a brief outline of the objectives. The more detailed this is the better.

It has been known for Phase 1 projects with a higher perceived risk to be accepted because of the potential described in the Phase 2 plans.