SOURCES SOUGHT
23 -- Enhanced Robotic Payloads (ERP)-Multi Spectral Imaging
- Notice Date
- 10/12/2017
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 334511
— Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, ACC - WRN (W56HZV)(DTA), 6501 EAST 11 MILE ROAD, Warren, Michigan, 48397-5000, United States
- ZIP Code
- 48397-5000
- Solicitation Number
- W56HZV-18-R-0017
- Archive Date
- 11/28/2017
- Point of Contact
- Delores V. Trotter, Phone: 5862820949, Jamie M. Waszak, Phone: 5862827296
- E-Mail Address
-
delores.v.trotter.civ@mail.mil, jamie.m.waszak.civ@mail.mil
(delores.v.trotter.civ@mail.mil, jamie.m.waszak.civ@mail.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- ENHANCED ROBOTIC PAYLOADS (ERP) Multi-Spectral Imaging SOURCES SOUGHT Attached (last pages of this document) is the U.S. Army Sources Sought Questionnaire related to potential new procurement of the Enhanced Robotic Payloads (ERP) Multi-Spectral Imaging (MSI) technologies. The paragraphs below contain additional information regarding the questionnaire and its subject. If you need further communications with the Army concerning this questionnaire, you may contact Delores Trotter delores.v.trotter.civ@mail.mil. We thank you in advance for your time and participation in this Sources Sought Questionnaire. Background: In order to inform the refinement of the draft Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for ERP, and to inform the parallel development of an acquisition strategy, cost estimate, cost benefit analysis, technical risk assessment, and performance specification, PdM UGV seeks to characterize the state of the market for ERP; a suite of modular capabilities designed with open architecture to provide and increased level of standoff, situational awareness, disruption capability and dexterity to respond to current and emergent Engineer, CBRN and EOD requirements. These multiple, modular robotic mission payloads will use open architecture to integrate with the MTRS Inc. II, CRS(H) and other future platforms to form the Army's next generation platform adaptable robotics systems. While a full set of requirements is not yet available (as it is partially dependent on the information obtained in this market survey), the ERP will: 1) Enhance an EOD Teams ability to detect, identify, locate, evaluate, render safe, exploit, and dispose of all Explosive Ordnance (EO), to include Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) at sufficient standoff to improve Soldier survivability and increase mission success. 2) Provide Soldiers the ability to increase operational range between the Operator and the hazard as well as provide the ability to detect, identify, and locate the hazard and transmit that data for use by follow-on site entry teams. ERP will enable CBRN Soldiers to perform site initial entry via unmanned operation thereby reducing Soldier exposure to unknown hazards, and enhancing the Combatant Commander's decision making process. 3) Consist of five capabilities that will mount on existing and programmed Host Unmanned Ground Vehicles (HUGVs) in EOD units: (a) Increased lift capacity and dexterity (b) Increased ability to detect hidden or camouflaged EO through multi-spectral imaging, (c) A render safe capability through selectable and accurate disruption of surface laid or suspended EO, (d) Limit Soldier cognitive burden through autonomous Obstacle Avoidance and Digital Modeling (OA&DM), and (e) Provides dynamic networking for Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) operation and 360 degree ISR capability. This market survey will focus on the ERP Multi-Spectral Imaging technologies ONLY. Separate market surveys will be conducted to assess the other desired ERP capabilities. I. Objectives a. This Sources Sought Questionnaire supports Market Research that will be conducted by the U.S. Army to better understand the availability and capabilities of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or other qualified equipment sources to provide ERP capabilities. The information gathered by the Army through this questionnaire, along with other market investigation data, is solely intended for use by the U.S. Army and will not be shared amongst competing companies. For instructions and more information regarding proprietary information, please refer to Section IV of this document. Participation in this Sources Sought Questionnaire by the various contractors is considered low risk to the commercial companies, as responses will be treated per Section IV as Proprietary. b. Participation in this Sources Sought Questionnaire provides an important opportunity to influence the solicitation provision and contract clauses, budget requests, and a full range of other elements that supports the acquisition strategy for the Army procurement programs. The U.S. Army will not provide compensation for any resources spent answering this QUESTIONNAIRE and participation is at the discretion of the equipment manufacturer respondent(s). II. Instructions a. Read the capability summary for this effort in Section III of this QUESTIONNAIRE. Responses to this survey should be provided within 30 calendar days of posting. b. Answer all of the questions in the QUESTIONNAIRE as concisely as possible. Due to the magnitude of questions being answered, it is imperative that only what is asked in the questions is part of you answer, please see letter (d) below for submission of additional information. If certain U.S. Army capabilities shown in this QUESTIONNAIRE are deemed not available, or not achievable according to the respondent's company knowledge, please include a concise alternate proposal(s) which would be intended to provide the intent of the capability described therein. It is the U.S. Army's desire to avoid "not applicable" (N/A) type answers. c. Please provide the projected development resources such as cost and timing to support the survey's objectives. This information is essential in understanding the scope of the project and it is understood by the U.S. Army that this information is strictly a rough estimate. The respondent's company is not contractually obligated to this information. Please avoid N/A, not applicable or blank information. The U.S. Army recognizes these are rough estimates and will use the information strictly as a means for gaining general knowledge. Please include development resource cost and timing estimates for all alternate proposals as well as the mainstream proposal. d. You may provide product brochures or other forms of information relevant to this QUESTIONNAIRE as is deemed appropriate within a separate attachment to your response, please entitle it "Additional Information". Additionally, it is encouraged to provide any additional information that enables the U.S. Army to gain insight into the company, product performance, reliability and warranty performance. III. Summary for the ERP Sources Sought Questionnaire This questionnaire applies to the U.S. Army's emerging requirement for plans to procure a set of capabilities that meets the operational requirements currently being refined by the TRADOC Capability Manager for EOD (TCM-EOD) and CBRNE Capability Developers (MSCOE / Capability Development Integration Directorate (CDID)/ Requirements Determination Division (RDD)). The Army intends to develop a performance specification reflecting TCM-EOD/CBRNE's operational requirements and informed by the performance, cost, availability, and supportability of systems in the commercial market. In order to ensure the best value to the U.S. Army and taxpayers, we are surveying the market place to determine if ERP capabilities could be procured competitively. IV. Proprietary GENERAL INFORMATION: The U.S. Government appreciates the time and effort taken to respond to this QUESTIONNAIRE. The U.S. Government acknowledges its obligations under 18 U.S.C. §1905 to protect information qualifying as "confidential" under this statute. (To avoid possible confusion with the meaning of the term "confidential" in the context of Classified Information," we will use the term "PROPRIETARY.") Pursuant to this statute, the Government is willing to accept any PROPRIETARY (e. g. trade secret) restrictions placed on qualifying data forwarded in response to the QUESTIONNAIRE and to protect it from unauthorized disclosure subject to the following: 1. Clearly and conspicuously mark qualifying data with the restrictive legend (all caps) "PROPRIETARY" with an explanatory text so the U.S. Government is clearly notified of the data needing to be appropriately protected. 2. In marking such data, please take care to mark only those portions of the data or materials truly proprietary (over breadth in marking inappropriate data as "PROPRIETARY" may diminish or eliminate the usefulness of your response - see item 6 below). Use circling, underscoring, highlighting or other appropriate means to indicate the portion of a single page to be protected. 3. The U.S. Government is not obligated to protect unmarked data. Additionally, marked data which is already in the public domain or in possession of the U.S. Government or 3rd parties, or is afterward placed into public domain by the owner or another party through no fault of the U.S. Government will not be protected once it is in the public domain. Data which is already in the possession of the U.S. Government will be protected in accordance with the government's rights in the data. 4. Proprietary data transmitted electronically, whether by physical media or not, whether by the respondent or by the U.S. Government, shall contain the "PROPRIETARY" legend, with any explanatory text on both the cover of the transmittal email and at the beginning of the file itself. Where appropriate for only portions of an electronic file, use the restrictive legends "PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS:" and "PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS. " 5. In any reproductions of technical data or any portions thereof subject to asserted restrictions, the U.S. Government shall also reproduce the asserted restriction legend and any explanatory text. 6. The U.S. Government sometimes uses support contractors in evaluating responses. Consequently, responses which contain proprietary information may receive only limited or no consideration since the respondent's marking of the data as "PROPRIETARY" will preclude disclosure of same outside the U.S. Government and therefore will preclude disclosure to these support contractors assisting the evaluation effort. The U.S. Government will use its best efforts to evaluate those responses that contain proprietary information without using support contractors consistent with the resources available. 7. The U.S. Government will not publish the results of this QUESTIONNAIRE. Respondents WILL NOT be notified regarding information obtained related to this QUESTIONNAIRE. If and when a solicitation is issued, it will be posted on www.fedbizopps.gov. It is the respondent's responsibility to monitor these sites for the releases of any synopsis or solicitation. (Intentionally Left Blank) Company/ Manufacture's Name: Company Mail Address: DUNS#: CAGE Code: Company Contact Name/Title: Contact's Office Email: Mobile Telephone #: Office Telephone #: A. General Company/Manufacturer Information ITEM # TITLE SOURCES SOUGHT QUESTION RESPONDENT'S CAPABILITY 1 Company/Manufacturer & Subcontractors List the manufacturing plants and locations (City, State/Province, and Country), building size in square feet and the number of employees per location. 2 Company as a Prime Contractor to the US Government Describe the company's experience with providing military equipment to the U.S. Government, currently or in the recent past. Include the dates and the U.S. Government agency /department. 3 Small Businesses Check the box as is appropriate. ☐ Small Business ☐ VOSB Veteran Owned Small Business ☐ SVOSB Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business ☐ HUBZ SB HUBZ one Small Business ☐ SDB Small Disadvantaged Business ☐ WOSB Woman-owned Small Business 4 Small Business Code Please list all applicable NAICS Codes identifying the company as a small business. 5 Security Clearance Does your company have a current facilities clearance? If so, can it handle classified information? B. Performance Capabilities For each requirement below, does your product portfolio contain a system that is able to meet the requirement? If YES, please list the model number(s). If NO, what is the performance gap and what would it take to close it (rough estimates on time, money, R&D, etc.)? Please be clear and concise with your answers. ITEM # TITLE SOURCES SOUGHT QUESTION Respondent's Capability 1 GENERAL 1.1 Does your company have existing multi-spectral imaging (MSI) candidate technologies? 1.2 Are you working on a new version of your candidate MSI technologies? If so, what will the upgrades be? 1.3 Who are the customers for your existing MSI technologies? (Commercial vs military; Who, how, how long (months, hours, quantity); operating environment) 1.4 Who are the end-users for your existing MSI technologies? (including platforms/systems they are integrated with) 1.5 How did you determine the requirements for your system(s)? 1.6 Does your system represent a mature system or a pre-production prototype? 1.7 What is the current unit cost of your existing candidate MSI technologies? 1.8 How much do you anticipate a production system will cost per unit? 1.9 What requirements, materials, or technology are the biggest cost drivers? 1.10 What are the biggest cost drivers for meeting expected ERP MSI technology requirements? 1.11 Is your system currently in compliance with the Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Ground (RAS-G) Interoperability Profile (IOP) and meets cybersecurity requirements? If not, how long would it take to develop your system into complying with the RAS-G IOP and meeting cybersecurity requirements? 1.12 How much would it cost to develop your system into complying with the RAS-G IOP and meeting cybersecurity requirements (this should include all costs including hardware and software development and program management)? 1.13 What impact would modifying your system into complying with the RAS-G IOP and meeting cybersecurity requirements have on your system's unit cost? 1.14 Describe the extent to which your system has undergone testing, to include any modeling & simulation, internal testing, third party testing, or Government testing. 1.15 Describe any previous test documentation that you would like to make available to the Government for the purposes of characterizing the ability of COTS systems to meet operational requirements. 2 SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES 2.1 Please explain the physical architecture of your system: where does HW reside (on the system, on the OCU, etc)? Where does software reside (on the system, on the OCU)? What physical interfaces are needed? 2.2 What is the weight (lbs.) of your system? Please explain any current efforts to reduce system weight. 2.3 What is the size (i.e. Length in. x. Width in. Height in.) of your system? How many separate components make up your system? 2.4 How is your system powered? 2.5 What are the additional power & energy attributes of the system? 2.6 Is your system capable of being integrated onto robotic system platforms? 2.7 Is your system capable of being integrated on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)? 2.8 How would you characterize the performance of your system while integrated onto a deployed UAV? 2.9 Are there any concerns with applying Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) to your system? 2.10 How do you address corrosion prevention & control for your system? 2.11 Does your camera provide a real-time Multi-Spectral Imaging (MSI) capability? (e.g. fused spectrum video from LWIR, SWIR and visible light cameras) If not, please explain what development would be required to achieve that desired capability and cost. 2.12 Does your camera system provide an operator with the ability to visually identify a 9-volt battery in all lighting conditions? If so, at what maximum distance? 2.13 Does your camera system have the capability to detect recently disturbed earth (e.g. an "ant trail") in all lighting conditions? If so, at what maximum time of being disturbed? 2.14 Does your camera system provide ability to remotely tilt and continuously pan to desired angle? Does your system have the capability to select a target on the OCU display and the system automatically center the camera on target? Please explain. 2.15 How would you characterize the visual accuracy of your system? 2.16 Does your system have a wide angle capability? If so, how many sensors are typically implemented for Horizontal and Vertical FOVs, what coverage angle for each sensor and where should they be positioned/placed on a vehicle? 2.17 How many sensor views can you export at the same time? (1, 2, 4, etc.) 2.18 Does your system (i.e. within the sensor package) do any software based video compression or processing prior to sending video data wirelessly? If so, please describe (and include how the SW is updated). 2.19 How would you recommend specifying user display color/contrast/clarity requirements (or enhancing the display image)? 2.20 Does your system offer real-time image enhancement capabilities? (e.g. contrast, noise reduction, image stabilization, etc.) 2.21 Does your system allow for user adjustability to control image enhancements? 2.22 What is the best display resolution your system can provide/support to an OCU? At what maximum distance? 2.23 Describe the security features of your systems. 2.24 How would you characterize your system's "end-to-end" processing latency (i.e. glass-to-glass latency)? 2.25 Describe your system's capability to optically zoom in on an area of interest. How much zoom can your system provide? Can your system provide zoom from all sensors and while the image is fused? 2.26 Does your system provide visible light and infrared illumination? If so, what is the lumen of the visible light illuminator? Is it beam focus adjustable? 2.27 Does your technology support dynamic compression of user-selected area of interest to maximize situational awareness under limited channel throughput? If not, how long and what would be the cost of developing this feature? 2.28 What other features do you believe will aid in maximizing a user's situational awareness? 3 MOBILITY 3.1 Are there any aspects of your system that would negatively impact the mobility of the robotic platform? 4 RELIABILITY 4.1 How would you characterize the current reliability of your system? 4.2 Describe any reliability testing that has been conducted. 4.3 Describe any reliability data or metrics that are tracked for your system. 4.4 What are the reliability cost drivers of your system? 4.5 What system or component failures result in the most downtime for your system? 4.6 What system or component failures result in the highest replacement costs for your system? 5 SYSTEM SURVIVABILITY 5.1 Is your system capable of tamper prevention to protect against corruption of your operating system? 5.2 Is your system capable of enduring the effects of CBRN agents & decontaminants? 5.3 Is your system capable of being decontaminated of CBRN residue & contaminants? 5.4 How rugged is your system? Has it been tested in extreme environmental conditions typical of military application? 5.5 Describe any other system survivability features of your system, to include cyber resilience. 6 OTHER PAYLOADS 6.1 Describe any other payloads or subsystems that your system has (i.e. sensors, emitters, etc.) or plans to integrate with. 6.2 Is your system able to integrate onto a robotic manipulator arm and function as intended? If not, please describe any concern areas. 7 CYBERSECURITY 7.1 What cybersecurity protections or controls does your system currently employ? What threat vectors does the system design protect against? (Replay attack, man-in-the-middle, denial of service, etc). 7.2 What cybersecurity enhancements would you propose to enhance your system's cyber-hardening? 7.3 Describe any anti-spoofing or anti-hacking features of your system. 7.4 Please identify the types of data used by your system (system status data, GPS, Calibration, etc.). 7.5 Does your system use encryption? If so, what type? 7.6 Does your system transmission utilize frequency agility? 7.7 Does your system use any message whitelisting to prevent unforeseen messages from affecting your system? 7.8 Describe any authentication features of your system. 7.9 Has your system conducted any cybersecurity stress testing? 7.10 Has your system conducted any penetration testing? 8 SOFTWARE 8.1 How would you describe the current software used on your system? 8.2 How was your current software developed? 8.3 Who owns your software? Describe which software elements are owned by your company, the government, and third parties. 8.4 Describe any software certifications that your organization possesses, such as achievement of a CMMI level or similar. 9 INTEROPERABILITY 9.1 Does your system comply with the RAS-G IOPs? If so, what evidence do you have to support this? 9.2 Does your system use the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) (SAE AS-4)? 9.3 Does your system have any IOP compliant physical ports? 9.4 Does your system support the IOP payload power levels? 9.5 How much time and funding would be required for you to convert your system to IOP compliance? 9.6 What concerns do you have with IOP compliance? 9.7 What would need to be done to allow your system to be controlled by the CRS(I) Universal Controller? 9.8 What is your previous experience and/or knowledge of SAE's Unmanned System Control Segment (UCS) and SPAWAR's Multi-Operator Control Unit (MOCU) software versions 3 & 4? 9.9 Does your system allow/support imagery to be ported to larger display screens? 10 SAFETY 10.1 How do you ensure safe operations of your system? 10.2 Do you use or require a "dead man" button / switch when the system is active? 10.3 Describe the top system safety risks to your system and how those risks are mitigated. 10.4 How is control terminated in the event of a safety issue that is noticed by the user? 10.5 Describe any safety testing that has been conducted for your system, and any safety certifications or safety releases that have been obtained for your system. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL 11.1 Describe any known environmental compliance issues with your system 12 MANUFACTURABILITY 12.1 How would you describe the manufacturing readiness level of your system? 12.2 How many types of MSI technologies have you produced?
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/a4fd756f64381aa06a475fcdcbafd858)
- Record
- SN04711821-W 20171014/171012230909-a4fd756f64381aa06a475fcdcbafd858 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |