Technical and Administrative Questions: U.S. DOT SBIR FY 2018 Solicitation

Technical questions pertaining to the U.S. DOT SBIR FY 2018 Solicitation research topics must be submitted to the U.S. DOT SBIR Program Office via email at dotsbir@dot.gov.

Please note that technical questions will be accepted through March 1, 2018, at 11:59 p.m. ET. Questions received after March 1, 2018, but before the solicitation close date and time may not be answered. The U.S. DOT SBIR Program Office will submit all technical questions to the research topic authors for response. Questions and answers will be posted below.

Go directly to questions and answers related to the following topics:

Administrative Questions
Technical Questions

Administrative Questions

Can a small business submit a proposal for more than one topic during the FY 2018 U.S. DOT SBIR solicitation?

Yes. You can submit more than one proposal, however, you cannot submit the same proposal to more than one topic. Per the solicitation Section II Part A, "An offer may respond to any of the research topics listed in Section VIII herein, but must be limited to one topic. No one offer may be accepted under more than one topic. A small business may, however, submit separate offers on different topics, or different offers on the same topic under this solicitation. Where similar research is discussed under more than one topic, the SBC shall choose that topic which appears to be most relevant to the SBC's technical concept."

The solicitation states that R/R&D work must be done in the United States, and it also states that the applying company may subcontract up to one third of the R/R&D effort. Must subcontractors also be in the United States?

Yes, subcontractors must also be in the United States. In very rare circumstances a Contracting Officer (CO) may approve the use of a foreign subcontractor, but it would have to be well documented as to why they are the only company capable of meeting a requirement, and requires preapproval in writing from a CO. The following excerpt is taken directly from the current SBIR Policy Directive:
“The R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. However, based on a rare and unique circumstance, agencies may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside of the United States, for example, if a supply or material or other item or project requirement is not available in the United States. The funding agreement officer must approve each such specific condition in writing.”

In the solicitation it is stated that the applicable NAICS 541715 size standard for this procurement is 500 employees. In October 2017, the U.S. Small Business Administration raised the small business size standard for NAICS 541715 to 1,000 employees. Which employee size standard (500 or 1,000 employees) is applicable to this procurement?

The size standard is 500. While the NAICS codes were increased, the SBIR program has kept the size at 500 for the purpose of its program. The NAICS of 541712 was replaced by 541715 in the most recent update. The archived solicitation document incorrectly stated NAICS 541712 instead of 541715, however, the size standard of 500 employees is now noted correctly throughout.

I have a proposal idea but I am not sure whether it fits within the topic. Can the SBIR Program Office tell me whether or not to submit a proposal?

If you are unsure whether your idea fits the given topic, we suggest you review the technical questions posted on our website that pertain to the topic to help you better understand the topic. You may also submit clarifying questions on the topic to us by March 1st, which may help you decide. Note: any questions submitted for a response will be posted on the website, so sensitive or proprietary information should not be included in any questions. The Program office will not comment on whether or not a company should submit a proposal.

In the solicitation, it is mentioned that a subcontractor can work on Phase I of the project, not exceeding 1/3 of the work, measured in contract dollars. Does the subcontractor have to be a small business or can it be a large entity?

Yes, a subcontractor may be a large business, a small business, a university, etc. so long as the SBIR Awardee contractor adheres to the ratio referenced in the solicitation.

We are thinking about subcontracting a European research center that, as far as we know, is the only possible supplier of the technology we need. What should we do to get the contracting officer's approval for this subcontracting? Is it enough to justify the need for this partner in the offer technical content or appendix C? Is there any risk that our offer may be administratively declined if we do so?

No, the offer would not be declined due to this and yes, it should be thoroughly explained somewhere within the offer as to why a foreign entity is proposed. If the particular offer is chosen for award based on the evaluation, then the details and approval by the CO to utilize the foreign vendor will be worked out during the negotiation/award process.

Our company is incorporated in Delaware, but we are physically located in Minnesota and we have Minnesota qualification. When we submit the application, should we use the DUNS number associated with the Minnesota business?

When you submit your offer to the Government the DUNS number that is established with the company’s System for Award Management (SAM) registration is the one that should be reflected in the offer. If your company has more than one physical location this should be annotated in the Representations & Certifications part of the SAM registration (provisions 52.214-14 and 52.215-6) AND should somehow be reflected in the offer. It is important for congressional reporting that the Government know where the preponderance of the work will take place; however, for tax purposes, the DUNS number on a Government award needs to be the same as the reporting of the business in SAM.

Our collaborators in public service are interested in providing a letter of support. If we do submit those along with our application, are they counted towards the 25 page limit?

Letters of support are allowed; however, they do count towards the page limit.

Within the technical section document, can we include images, graphs, diagrams, schematics, tables, and other visual aids in our application to further explain our thoughts? Does this count towards the 25 page limit?

Yes, this counts towards the 25 page limit.

Can we use the award money to hire additional employees to help in this effort? How should we list these additional not-yet-hired employees in the bibliography/team section?

Yes, it is acceptable to propose labor costs for employees not working at the company but who will be needed should a contract be awarded. The “bibliography” section discusses all proposed key personnel. If a new employee is going to be a key person on the job (i.e., electrical engineer) and/or have specific skills (i.e., master electrical license), these requirements should be discussed along with support as to why. Whether or not a new employee will be a key person, there should be reflection somewhere within the technical section discussing the need for the skill and what the individual will be doing. Additionally, the labor cost must be identified and accounted for within the Appendix C pricing section with rationale (i.e., salary.com report for work location) to support the proposed pricing.

We've received interest from several industry professionals who work full-time elsewhere and would like to dedicate some of their free time to help us with this SBIR Phase I project during the 6 month period. Can we have team members who do not work full time for us also help out and contribute to this project? How should they be listed in the bibliography section? Are there any SBIR requirements binding us to compensate them in any way if they are listed as part of the team and wish to donate their time?

Team members not working for the Contractor that work on the project need to be identified as consultants or subcontractors and are allowable. If such individuals are considered key personnel they can be identified in the bibliography section. There is no SBIR rule that prevents “in kind” contributions on a project. If this is occurring, it should be described within the proposal and contain a commitment letter from the company/individual offering the in kind support.

If a team of multiple companies is submitting an offer, do all of the companies need to be qualified as Small Business Concerns (SBCs)?

The Government interprets this question to mean a small business is submitting an offer that has consultant/subcontractor work. A subcontractor does not have to be a SBC, it may be a large business, a small business, a university, etc. so long as the SBIR Awardee contractor adheres to the ratio referenced in the solicitation (minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort, measured in total contract dollars, must be performed by the Awardee).

From the language of the solicitation it was difficult to determine if there is a requirement to partner with a non-profit research based educational entity, or if this was just an example shown with the maximum percentage of the budget allowed to partner with the non-profit entity?

There is no requirement in the U.S. DOT FY 2018 SBIR Phase I program solicitation to submit offers to partner with non-profit research based educational entities.

We have a solution concept for 18-FH1 that entails two complimentary ideas; each would work better under different conditions. Is it acceptable to present two ideas in one proposal? If so, how would funding work for the Phase II proposal? If it is not possible or advisable to include two ideas in one proposal, can we submit two different proposals for the same SBIR topic?

Yes you can submit more than one proposal, however, you cannot submit the same proposal to more than one topic. Per the solicitation:
"II. OFFER PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Overview
This is a solicitation for Phase I R/R&D offers on advanced, innovative concepts from small business concerns (SBCs) having strong capabilities in applied science or engineering. The Phase I R/R&D offers shall demonstrate a sound approach to the investigation of an important transportation related scientific or engineering problem categorized under one of the research topics listed in Section VIII.
An offer may respond to any of the research topics listed in Section VIII herein, but must be limited to one topic. No one offer may be accepted under more than one topic. A small business may, however, submit separate offers on different topics, or different offers on the same topic under this solicitation. Where similar research is discussed under more than one topic, the SBC shall choose that topic which appears to be most relevant to the SBC's technical concept."

Is a company allowed to submit more than one proposal in response to a topic? These proposals would of course be substantially different.

Yes. See the previous question and answer above.

Technical Questions

18-FH1 Machine Vision System to Support Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) Safety Applications

Can the system include the use of a variety of visible light sensing machine technologies with colored cement and concrete infrastructure that will not result in additional cost compared to the usual dull-grey colored cement and concrete? Different colors in cement and concrete can be used for a wider variety of visible light sensing machines that can be developed by other vendors, in order to make roads and pavements safer, especially with future use of autonomous vehicles, smart vehicles, and other smart conveying machines.

The concept provided is somewhat in scope with the problem statement. The "reading" of the pavement is a concept that could be considered assuming certain obstacles (e.g. amount of optical scan time, prevalence of asphalt pavement in more rural areas, effects of cracking) that could affect how the roadside conveys a message to a passing vehicle.

Is there a list of desired road conditions, hazards, and other information that you wish to have encoded in the proposed V2I system?

There is no prepared list of desired road conditions, hazards, and other information. Offerors are encouraged to consider available standards concerning connected vehicle technology. One resource for learning more about available standards is the U.S. DOT ITS Standards Program's List of Published Standards.

We would like access to a facility or test track where we can drive a vehicle (not necessarily an autonomous vehicle) to see how an on-board machine vision system will perform with respect to road side equipment (RSE). How do we get access to such a test track? And how do we budget the cost of such a test track into the proposal?

We do not offer access to a test track when the proposal is submitted. Should your proposal be recommended for contract award at that time we will negotiate access to a test track. The Government has established relationships with federal facilities for testing a proof of concept. The selection of which federal facility would depend on scheduling and availability of the facility. Testing at most federal facilities would be no cost. It’s important to consider that many federal facilities have restrictions on foreign nationals entering the premises, which may or may not affect a testing plan. Offerors may elect to work with other partners that have suitable testing facilities.

Can we assume that internet access is always available (through cellular, satellite etc.)?

No.

Is geo-fencing allowed for locating these special signs?

Offerors may propose geo-fencing or other geolocation items as they feel it suits the solution.

18-FH2 Use of High Resolution Imaging Techniques for Condition Assessment and Damage Detection of Bridges

Is this camera/system to be installed on the bridge permanently, or is it a mobile system? Is this imaging technique non-drone?

The cameras can be installed and fixed on a tripod from a distance or can be mounted on a drone.

We would like to know if the following proposed work would qualify for this topic: "The proposed work is the development of a noninvasive imaging and measurement system that assesses the quality of grouting material inside of external tendons on post-tensioned bridges. Post-tensioned bridges are constructed with tendons - sheaths which contain steel cables and grouting material - which hold the segments of the bridge together. Improper tendon grouting can lead to steel cable corrosion - and eventually breakage - within these tendons, which in turn compromises the bridge's overall integrity. The proposed system would entail an instrument capable of monitoring and imaging the grouting material inside these tendons, along with organizational software capable of locating grouting issues inside the bridge tendons using the data from the instrument."

The proposed topic is not aligned with the SBIR topic. The SBIR topic is about how global structural response information (displacement and deflection) of a bridge can be measured using multiple digital cameras positioned at proper stand-off distance from the bridge and how the damage can be localized within the bridge structure.

What is meant by numerical design?

Numerical design means numerical simulation and finite element modeling of the structure.

The solicitation talks about a simulated environment. Is this Phase I approach to be performed solely on a computer or is field testing permitted?

Phase I is finite element modeling and numerical simulation, which will be carried out in a computer laboratory.

Is the desired workflow to be an imaging system that can determine global variables (i.e. displacement and deflection) of a bridge, and then to use the same system to identify the specific locations and quantification of damage (material degradation, delamination, crack, corrosion, etc.), similar to what an inspector would do today?

Yes, the final outcome is the development of a working prototype (both software and hardware), which was simulated in Phase I, and is able to collect proper global responses and assess and localize damage and its criticality in actual bridges, all by using high resolution imaging techniques.

Is the DOT looking for a camera/visual system, LiDAR system, or some combination thereof?

It is not just the camera. The final outcome is the development of a working prototype (both software and hardware), which was simulated in Phase I, and is able to collect proper global responses and assess and localize damage and its criticality in actual bridges, all by using high resolution imaging techniques.

Is it desired to quantify global variables of deflection and displacement at locations other than the bridge deck and/or supporting girders?

It is desired to look at the bridge structure as a system. So, although the focus might be deck and superstructure, it is desired to look at other locations as well.

The solicitation states, "This technology has been demonstrated in laboratory settings and on actual bridges, but these demonstrations have revealed lower accuracy for field tests compared to a controlled laboratory setting." Can a list of references be provided?

There have been many studies done by research labs and universities, but those studies are limited to only global variables, not local damages.

What are the specific global and local variables?

Examples of global variables are displacement and deflection of a bridge. Local variables are, for example, local damage (material degradation, delamination, cracks, corrosion, etc.).

Can you provide specific articles that studied only the global variables?

The research to identify specific articles, if not named, is incumbent upon the offeror. Questions on SBIR topics are for clarification purposes, to better understand the topic being presented. Offerors may wish to do additional research to further inform their proposal.

Understanding that the topic focus is the use of imaging techniques for assessment and damage detection, is the successful deployment of imaging methods seen as independent of SHM (Structural Health Monitoring) systems that employ direct contact sensing, or is a combined approach a potential solution?

The goal of this study is to evaluate imaging techniques independent of SHM systems.

Would the following proposed work qualify for this research topic? - "Perform high-resolution/high-accuracy non-contact 3D scanning and image mapping of an entire bridge structure to identify global response and local damage using automated algorithms all prototyped, tested, and verified within a numerical simulated environment."

Yes, the objective is to use high-resolution imaging to measure global response and localize the damage within the structure.

Are the global response measurements to be collected over a specific time interval (i.e. seconds, minutes, days) to detect deflection and displacement as various loads are applied to the bridge structure, or can these measurements be measured from only one point in time (a snapshot) to create a static model of the current global structure without information on how the structure currently behaves to various loads?

Simulating actual conditions (various loads over a time interval) is preferable to extract global responses and localize damages.

Does our developed algorithm have to relate/correlate the existence of local deterioration (i.e. material degradation, delamination, cracks, corrosion, etc.) to explain observed global quantitative measures of displacement and deflection?

Yes, that is correct.

Is it desired to measure both global and local variables at the same time or are they mutually exclusive?

The objective is measuring global responses of the structure and locating damages which resulted in such global responses.

Should global responses be measured using digital image correlation or similar techniques to identify minute global deflection or displacement behavior as the structure is exposed to various loads?

Yes, that is correct.

What does "numerical design" refer to in the Expected Phase I Outcomes in the solicitation? Is it numerical design of the damage algorithm (the damage algorithm may use images but may be developed independently?), numerical design of the imaging techniques, numerical data generation for global and local assessment (for example from a finite element model), or something else?

It is finite element modeling of the structure, but numerical design of the imaging technique can be included. The damage algorithm will be included to localize the damage within the structure that results in such global response obtained in finite element modeling.

Can you please clarify "numerical simulated environment" in the Expected Phase I Outcomes? Is it simulated using finite element modeling, a numerical model of a bridge with damage, or something else?

Yes, it is finite element modeling. It can be a finite element model of an existing bridge with damage (since the second phase is field validation, it is beneficial to simulate an existing bridge with damage).

The high resolution image data can be collected and analyzed to obtain, say displacements. There might be a displacement-based local and global measure (index, algorithm) for assessing the bridge. We would like to understand where we will be able to include image based approaches and methods here in the numerical design and simulated environment.

The image based approaches can be included in the finite element modeling. The entire system (the structure, loading, imaging techniques) can be simulated and image-based measurements can be taken in finite element modeling.

The 18-FH2 topic implies inspection of above-water bridge features. Are there existing systems in place to inspect underwater bridge infrastructure? Is there an interest in new technologies for inspecting underwater bridge infrastructure?

This research topic is only for above-water bridge structures.

Is the camera system supposed to be installed permanently on the bridge or are they are supposed to be portable equipment for monitoring several bridges?

Both options are valid. The objective of this study is to measure global parameters (displacement, strain, etc.) using high resolution imaging and then localize the damages within the structure by using the global responses.

Was there any specific type of bridge in mind when writing this solicitation (e.g., iconic bridges such as cable-stayed or suspension bridges, in which the level of ambient deflections are larger than regular bridges)? Or, is the technology supposed to have the flexibility to be used with any type of bridge (e.g., highway bypasses, rail truss bridges, etc.)? For what type of bridges would this technology better serve the FHWA/DOT’s objectives?

The systems and algorithm should cover all types of bridges.

Are the bridges used for showcasing the technology (in Phase I using simulated data and Phase II using real data) going to be determined by FHWA/DOT, or does the vendor have the flexibility to choose these bridges?

The Contractor can choose the bridge; however, if the LTBP (Long-Term Bridge Performance) Program agrees, the bridge might be selected from one of the LTBP bridges.

Is the final product intended to have online/near-real-time data processing capabilities, or can the data be post-processed offline on office computers?

Near-real-time data processing is preferred.

Is the access to the areas around the bridge granted to install cameras on the ground? Does the vendor have the flexibility in securing specific locations on the ground near the bridge for installation of cameras?

Yes, the vendor has the flexibility to find the location on the ground near the bridge where it provides the most relevant type of data.

18-FH3 Integrated Sensor Unit for Signalized Intersections

Is the Phase II prototype expected to include sensors, or will the prototype interface with existing external sensors?

The prototype will include sensors.

How do you envision using cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals for determining vehicle tracks? Do you envision direct communication with an intersection device, or passive listening of these signals being emitted from conventional unconnected vehicles?

The prototype is envisioned to be a passive listening device for conventional unconnected vehicles.

Is pedestrian detection within the scope of this effort, or vehicles only?

Pedestrian detection is not within the scope.

We visualize including bicycle detection at signalized intersections for increased bike-vehicle safety; is this within the scope of 18-FH3?

We are not going to preclude bicycle detection at signalized intersections.

What are the required minimum and maximum vehicle detection distances from a signalized intersection?

It is up to the offeror to propose the capability of their detection system.

Is the intent to only detect vehicles approaching a signalized intersection, to also detect vehicles that have passed through the intersection, or a combination?

The intent is to track vehicles approaching the signalized intersection and detect which approach the vehicle leads into (i.e did the vehicle go through, turn left, or turn right?).

Is the “integrated sensor unit” focused on one intersection, or a network of intersections?

It is focused on one intersection.

Is the intended application for signal timing plan optimization or adaptive signal control?

It is not restricted to these two specific use cases, there are higher level applications that can use the trajectory level data.

Is there a requirement for trajectory estimation/prediction? Or, is this effort mainly focused on detected data fusion from multiple detection inputs?

Trajectory prediction is not a requirement of the current effort.

18-FH4 An Artificial Intelligence (AI) Based System for Advanced Freeway Data Collection and Analysis

Will the conceptual demonstration at the end of Phase I be table-top or live-code? If the conceptual demonstration is live-code, would FHWA provide simulated data to the vendor or is the vendor expected to create such data?

At the end of Phase I, the demo for data collection is expected to be live-code. Some TMCs already have a system to collect data from the cloud instead of from direct line connections to detection stations. This requirement is to demonstrate the functionality of collecting data from the cloud. However, due to the fact that incident data is rare and congestion data is not quite stable, the data used in the demo could be a hybrid of TMC field data and simulated data. For example, it could be a recorded regular TMC data set with an inserted data set including a simulated highway incident or a heavy congestion case. This way, the functionality of data analysis (such as incident detection, prediction of queues, etc.) will be demoed.

The solicitation mentions that the current data from TMCs are not well organized – can you provide more details? Is there detailed documentation on the data that you can make available?

Although TMCs’ missions are similar, each TMC may have its own data collection and analysis methods. There are many publications on TMC operations, processes, and methodologies which can be used as references. We expect that the contractor team is familiar with the fundamental TMC missions and data, and conducts a study on how AI could improve the performance of major TMC tasks such as prediction and assessment of problems in highway traffic operations (e.g., incidents, queues, etc.). Therefore, the contractor team needs to have expertise on both TMC operations and AI applications. FHWA will help coordinate between the contractor and TMCs, and the data collection shall be the contractor’s task.

Are there any current TMC data collection sources available through the cloud that we will be able to access during Phase I?

There are several in the nation, such as Delaware DOT’s TMC. This is a popular application and the trend of future data collection. There should be information posted on the internet by the TMCs with such a feature.

For the field performance evaluation at the end of Phase I, do you expect live CVs (real, actual CVs driven by the public) only or can we use a combination of available live CVs and virtual, simulated CVs for data sources?

No case of only having live CV data would be expected at the end of Phase I. The simulated traffic data along with some data from a roadside unit (RSU) is allowable. In Phase I, what is expected should be the ways to collect and process data, which would be the first step for AI applications. For example, possible outcomes of this step could include: the data sets ready for machine learning, or Expert System application for dealing with some highway operations cases such as incident detection/risk assessment, dynamic prediction for traffic demand, and heavy congestion sections, etc. In general, we expect a good concept on how to do it, and want to see a prototype case to demo the feasibility.

Does the SBIR program allow the subcontracting budget in the cost model to cover the cost of support/services provided by the state to the program (technical assistance integrating with the TMC, gathering/providing data, etc.)?

Referring to the second deliverable: "An integrated AI software for predicting locations prone to congestion, bottlenecks, and queues (locations and lengths), as well as high incident rate locations (also supporting incident detection task)." Is the intent of the solicitation for the SBC/state to provide the use cases and model objectives during the Phase I/II (showing novel or inventive usefulness of the AI), or is the solicitation looking for general purpose AI capabilities that might handle a wide variety of inputs from end users - where the end user is defining the data and model objectives to be input into the system?

We expect the project team to have the expertise in both AI applications and TMC operations/traffic engineering. In many TMCs, the traffic engineers did their best to add ITS components in the systems, including SW and HW such as fiber rings, video monitoring, wireless communications, data collection and processing, and even the coming CAV technologies. Now many have realized that AI may be another effective technology to improve operations, but TMCs lack the expertise in AI, and need help – that is the background of this SBIR project.

The contractor team has to work with DOTs to identify the effective and also feasible AI applications at the initial stage, and start a few prototype ones to show the concept of applications. In summary, the contractor and DOTs will define the use case together, with the lead of the contractor team.

Can the proposed solution use the data collected from field detection stations in the current format or available data now?

AI applications need a large amount of data for machine learning or knowledge building. With the coming of CV applications, it becomes obvious that the current data collection methods in TMCs may not meet the data needs. It is expected that the contractor team is familiar with TMCs’ data and the AI application data needs, and will provide a solution to meet the needs.

If we use a traffic collection data mechanism that worked oversees (outside of U.S.) what are the procedures or specifications that solution needs to address in terms of data collection and installations on US highways and Freeways?

Technologies from other countries are fine as long as the issue of compatibility in US is addressed.

On page 53 it is stated as “3. A demonstration with at least one TMC, and papers published in national journal to introduce the system.” What is the procedure for connecting with a TMC to collaborate on this initiative?

It is expected that the contractor team has certain knowledge and experience working in TE and TMCs, which is a factor in the rating. If the team has no experience or connection with TMCs, FHWA could provide assistance for establishing the communications between TMCs and the contractor team.

Will the Government require cloud services backing the solution to run within a particular secure enclave or region (i.e. AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, etc.)?

No.

How would the Government describe the quality, volume, and historical characteristics of the data? In what format will the Government provide data for the conceptual demonstration at the end of Phase I?

The demo at the end of Phase I will use the prototype system to show the concept of AI applications, including data collection, data processing, and the methods of using AI software for some simple TMC applications.

Does the Government have a preferred contract vehicle for purchasing the solution in Phase 3 and beyond?

No, there is no preferred contract vehicle for SBIR Phase III awards.

We are a seasoned Federal integrator deploying a COTS technology solution design. Can the Government provide guidance on how to represent this relationship relative to teaming v. subcontractor agreements for this solicitation?

The prime contractor must do at least 2/3 of the work and a subcontractor 1/3 of the work or less. Per the solicitation: "For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort, measured in total contract dollars, must be performed by the awardee. For Phase II, a minimum of one-half of the research or analytical effort, measured in total contract dollars, must be performed by the awardee."

The solicitation document expects a proof-of-concept paper containing, in part, a concept of operations. However, a conceptual demonstration hooking into a simulated database will also be conducted at the TFHRC. The concept of operations, system design, and conceptual demonstration seem to indicate a non-concrete prototype. However, a demonstration leveraging a database seems to require a functional prototype. Is the expectation for Phase I that a functional prototype be constructed?

It is expected that the contractor team understands what types of data are available from TMCs, what the operations tasks are, and what the current practices are. Based on such knowledge, the contractor team shall study how AI technology could help improve the performance of the tasks, and develop a concept of operations document to show the concept of AI applications in the tasks. The prototype should be a simple, straightforward system which is capable of demoing how the concept works. The system should include data collection SW and limited HW, a simple AI application SW, etc. It is not expected in Phase I that this prototype is ready for real TMC operations; instead, it is expected for this system to clearly show the promising concept and process.

The solicitation states, “The project will use several modern technologies to handle collection of large amounts of real-time data, generated by CVs, and to improve the data analysis.” So, is this topic focused on CV generated data only, or will other detector data will be included such as radar sensors, system detectors, Bluetooth, etc.?

All types of detector data shall be considered. Before CVs’ high market penetration, other data (not CV data) will be used first for TMC operations improvement.

The solicitation states, “To continuously monitor, in real time, the tiny variation of freeway traffic flow at each detection station…” What is the real time requirement? In minutes or sub-minute level?

A 1 minute polling interval is expected. Higher rates are welcome, if the rates could provide better improvement in operations, and it is practical with TMCs.

Will FHWA provide CV data for training the ANN?

FHWA can provide some sample CV data sets based on the FHWA’s CV testing data.

What sensor data could we assume to receive from a connected vehicle?

In Phase I, it is expected that the data from CVs’ BSM (Basic Safety Message) will be received for potential use.

18-FR1 Analysis of Acoustic Wheel/Rail Contact Signals

The 18-FR1 topic states that: "Few research efforts used vibration measurements and analysis, at the wheel/rail interface, to assess the adverse conditions of the wheel and/or track that may affect the train safety and performance." Could you please provide some references for these few research efforts in order to provide a better understanding of what is sought in this topic?

The references for this topic can be found on page 34 of the solicitation. The original version was an error and has since been corrected. There is a published Research Results Report on FRA's eLibrary here. Title: Autonomous Broken Rail Detection Technology for Use on Revenue Service Trains. Note: Overall, this project was not considered to be a technical success. The methods employed resulted in highly unacceptable levels of false positives. In this topic, we are asking for Acoustic Wheel/Rail Contact Signals, not vibration.

There appears to be considerable overlap between 18-FR1 and 18-FR2. Under the description of 18-FR1, it would seem possible or even likely that AI tools would be used for the analysis and evaluation of the selected signals. How are these two topics best separated?

As written in the solicitation under 18-FR1, "the envisioned system would provide the following features: Detects and records any abnormal acoustic signal/noise generated at the wheel/rail interface…" For 18-FR2, it is not necessary for the envisioned system to detect and/or record the abnormal signals (at least not in Phase I). The main focus is on the analysis of any existing data. 18-FR1 focuses mainly on acoustic signals, so it has to be more detailed in this type of noise/signals, while 18-FR2 focuses on any abnormal signals related to the vehicle/track interaction. Additionally, in 18-FR1, the focus is on the Wheel/Rail interaction, while the focus of 18-FR2 is on Vehicle/Track interaction, which includes other vehicle components (not limited to the wheel).

Should the device be located on the train, in the rails to check passing trains, on all rail cars, on the track inspection vehicle, or on the track? If it is on the train, is there a proposed mounting space, should we propose a space, or should we design for flexibility?

The device should not be part of the track inspection vehicle, and we do not think mounting the device on the track could achieve the intended objective. Otherwise, we have no particular preference – what is important is that the device is effective and implementable (so, you may want to check with a railroad to make sure the proposed device is implementable as suggested).

Is there a preferred method for powering the device? Will it have access to power, or will it be limited to battery power?

No, there is no preferred method. This is up to your innovation; we are flexible on this issue.

Is there a preferred method for getting data off the device?

No.

Can you share any research on the acoustic frequencies of interest?

We do not have any previous research in this area.

The solicitation states that the proposed solution “Detects and records any abnormal acoustic signal/noise...Compares the detected acoustic signal to the normal/standard acoustic signal and evaluates the level of divergence...and therefore provide a related diagnostic warning.” Are models or data files of the acoustic signal/noise, both normal/standard and abnormal, going to be available? If so, when, and can you provide a reference to this data? If not, is it to be developed by the proposer as part of Phase I?

No, models or data files are not going to be provided. The data is to be developed by the offeror as part of Phase I. There is a published Research Results Report on FRA's eLibrary here. Title: Autonomous Broken Rail Detection Technology for Use on Revenue Service Trains. Note: Overall, this project was not considered to be a technical success. The methods employed resulted in highly unacceptable levels of false positives. In this topic, we are asking for Acoustic Wheel/Rail Contact Signals, not vibration.

The Phase II section refers to FRA's equipment for detecting the acoustic signals. Can you provide any information on the capabilities or specifications of this system? Is this system currently deployed by the railroads?

The developed system, itself, is up to the vendor. As long as it satisfies the main objective as stated in the solicitation: "The prototype testing should prove the proposed concept and demonstrate its effectiveness." It also includes "extensive testing and demonstration of a working prototype installed on a rolling stock (running at 50 mph speed or more) and testing the effectiveness of the system over a period of 2-3 months."

No, this system is not currently deployed by the railroads.

18-FR2 AI Tools for Relating Various Sensor Data to Adverse Vehicle/Track Inspection

Is it possible to examine/obtain FRA sensor data before funding?

FRA does not allow anyone without an active contract with the FRA to examine/obtain unpublished FRA sensor data. Once a contract is in place for this topic, FRA would make any relevant sensor data available to the successful offeror.

Would a solution that uses limited ML techniques, such as clustering and PCA/LDA, be acceptable to the DOT?

If it will provide the solution we are looking for, then yes. We only care about the reliability and accuracy of the results.

What types of data do the FRA have?

Please see the first question and answer listed above for this topic.

Does this include accelerometer data, or engine performance data, etc.?

In this topic we are asking for Acoustic Wheel/Rail Contact Signals, not vibration.

Can you describe the type of FRA sensor data being collected on both on track and vehicles currently? Or site any public efforts that are being worked on in this field?

Please see the first question and answer listed above for this topic.

For FRA sensor data currently being collected, is it being done in a way that will allow for real-time access or in a way that is collected and stored?

There is no data currently being collected.

For the proposed AI tool, who is envisioned to be an end user(s) who will get the "related diagnostics warning"?

The user is the railroad provider (train engineer, control office, etc.).

From an answer to a question above: "For 18-FR2, it is not necessary for the envisioned system to detect and/or record the abnormal signals (at least not in Phase I). The main focus is on the analysis of any existing data." From the solicitation: "Use FRA-provided sensor data and/or develop and collect new data using their own sensors." Can you describe or give an example of the FRA sensor data being collected on the track or on vehicles? Or cite any public efforts that are being worked on in this field of existing data? Is the data being stored FRA sensor data that would be obtainable upon award, or is it just access to data that FRA knows exists but is not being collected?

Vibration data was measured during this previous FRA project. Title: Autonomous Broken Rail Detection Technology for Use on Revenue Service Trains. Note: Overall, this project was not a technical success. The methods employed resulted in highly unacceptable levels of false positives. It is possible there is some other data. The vendor is encouraged to look at the FRA list of technical reports on the eLibrary site.

Yes, the vibration data should be stored by ENSCO (who conducted the research few years ago), as there might be other data (heat, vibration, etc.) from previous projects.

18-FR3 System Design for Remote and/or Autonomous Operation of a Locomotive Hauled Consist

No questions yet.

18-FR4 Drone-Based Track Safety Inspection System

Will FRA provide the vendor a simulated rail environment for Phase I, or is the vendor expected to have or create a simulated rail environment?

The vendor is responsible for securing access to an actual rail environment, or creating a simulated environment, for system demonstration.

What type of location is the UAV inspection intended to be used (rail yards, remote areas, dense urban area etc.)?

We envision using the UAV change detection tool anywhere on the railroad, provided the equipment and flight plan comply with Part 107 and other FAA regulations. At this early stage of development, please consider only visual line of sight operation. Rail yards are a good test location as are areas of special track work on the mainline.

What kind of damages/defects/anomalies is the UAV required to detect?

Change detection can be made on any aspect of the track system in the right-of-way. High value change targets include any track feature that can directly impact the safe operation of trains, such as broken rail, buckled track, damaged or worn switch and frog points, damaged ties, missing fasteners, washouts, rockslides, track obstructions, etc.

How much autonomy do you envision the UAV to have, in terms of both UAV control and automated inspection?

Very little autonomy is expected at this stage of development. System autonomy would represent a very high level of technical readiness. As stated in the solicitation: "The goal of the project is to demonstrate the potential for drone-based safety inspection using commercial hardware and image analysis algorithms."

What is the typical duration of the inspection and the length of the railway to be inspected during a single flight operation?

These criteria are currently undefined and beyond the scope of this Phase I effort.

Are there any limitations on how high the drone can fly (minimum or maximum altitude)?

See FAA regulations, especially Part 107.

What are geo-location accuracy metrics and requirements?

The system must locate and report relevant changes with sufficient accuracy and precision to allow someone to navigate to the point of interest using standard tools, i.e. GPS navigation.

During Phase I, can the demonstration be performed in a virtual environment?

We prefer a practical demonstration. You may create a simulated railroad environment if this is more convenient and efficient for your work plan, but this should be a physical demonstration, not a demonstration in cyberspace.

Please quantify what “accurately and precisely geo-locate the data” means (page 61 of the solicitation).

The system must locate and report relevant changes with sufficient accuracy and precision to allow someone to navigate to the point of interest using standard tools, i.e. GPS navigation. Change information is not valuable if we cannot find the location. Also, geo-location provides a common data point for relating disparate data sets.

What are high-critical, high-priority track structure conditions you want to inspect in terms of the 49 CFR PART 213—TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS?

Rail breaks, significant alignment/gauge deviations, broken/degraded ties, significantly fouled ballast, track obstructions affecting safe operations, etc.

Do you expect real-time (or soft real-time) condition reporting?

Eventually the technology should lend itself to some type of automation that would allow for real-time processing and, in turn, real-time decision making.

What is the typical range (in distance and time) you are expecting to inspect?

These criteria are currently undefined.

Do you want the drone system to inspect in GPS denied environment (i.e., inside tunnels, bridge structure, etc)?

This is a long-term goal, yes.

If we train our machine learning algorithm for change detection in the Rail Defect Test Facility (RDTF), will it become classified?

The RDTF section of the DOT Test Center is designed for testing systems that can detect internal rail defects. This is not an ideal location for testing the change detection technology.

18-FT1 Virtual and Augmented Reality to Aid Transit Use by All Travelers

The topic covers two broad technical challenges which are somewhat distinct: (1) the pre-planning/trip familiarization process, which seems best addressed by Virtual Reality (VR) and (2) the in-transit assistance process, which could be addressed in a number of ways, but which seems better addressed by AR. Because these two problems are so challenging, would it be reasonable for a proposed system to focus only on one of AR and VR, and rely on conventional displays for the rest of the solution?

Proposed systems and solutions can be developed utilizing either virtual or augmented reality tools to address distinct challenges in the Complete Trip, from pre-trip planning, through en-route navigation and related steps (consider all elements of travel, origin to destination, pre-origin to post-destination, and anything in between). Applications need not combine VR and AR, nor address the Complete Trip as a whole in order to be considered; however, it is also acceptable if the proposal offers a solution that involves convergence of VR and AR technologies. Additionally, ideas or solutions with potential to be developed further to tie into other technologies such as MR are encouraged.

Are there any data sources that DOT will provide to inform route planning (for example, descriptions of available transportation options)? If not, are we encouraged to exploit open source and/or commercially available datasets and APIs?

While DOT is unable to directly provide access to data sources, and a knowledge of appropriate data sources is indicative of the quality of an application, we will work within our capabilities to facilitate conversations between selected projects and data sources (such as transit agencies) as appropriate.

The Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative (ATTRI) identified or awarded applications for the trip segments (smart wayfinding and navigation, pre-trip concierge and virtualization, robotics and automation, and safe intersection crossing) as part of a different solicitation. How is 18-FT1 related to that solicitation?

The June 2016 Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) sought to develop prototype technologies that address needs in the four ATTRI-identified application areas: smart wayfinding and navigation, pre-trip concierge and virtualization, robotics and automation, and safe intersection crossing. These application areas were determined through extensive user needs research. Through this SBIR solicitation, ATTRI intends to gauge the potential for VR/AR and MR technologies to meet user needs in any of the application areas identified, for any component of the Complete Trip, and for any disability group. ATTRI’s mission is to reduce barriers to mobility for all people, to allow them independent travel. The proposed solutions/ideas sought through this subject SBIR solicitation could be new technologies, complementary or collaborative technologies, or technologies that expand upon the BAA prototypes or any other prototypes that were developed outside of the ATTRI Program’s realm.

Is the purpose of the solution to allow users to experiment and become comfortable with all aspects of trip segments from the ATTRI program or usage in real time? Can you elaborate the scope of the solution?

This solicitation seeks potential VR/AR/MR solutions in any of the ATTRI application areas (smart wayfinding and navigation, pre-trip concierge and virtualization, robotics and automation, and safe intersection crossing). This encompasses both pre-trip planning and familiarization, as well as assistance en-route to promote independent travel for people with disabilities.

On page 63 of the solicitation, “detailed overview of potential use cases for the disability community and beyond” is stated as a deliverable for Phase I. Is the AR/VR solution specifically to address the transit of people with disabilities or all transit users in terms of Phase I deliverables?

Solutions should adhere to principles of Universal Design and inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). In short, this means that they should be usable by anyone, with or without a disability. ATTRI believes that universal design and ICT principles are key to ensuring that the tools developed to benefit the disability community will see widespread use and adoption.

If devices are included in the solution (e.g. smart glass or smart ear phone), what are the allowed specifications the solution provider needs to comply with?

While there are no specifications in place for hardware development, proposers should be familiar with ATTRI’s user needs research and related work to ensure their concepts can meet the intended goals. Additionally, it is expected that the proposers are familiar with the applicable industry standards (e.g., materials, durability, electronics, circuits, communication protocols) and refer to the relevant standards in their proposals.

Page 64 of the solicitation states, “(AR/VR) applications have shown particularly strong potential to address the wayfinding and pre-trip planning need areas." Is this part of the scope for applications that address the trip segments - smart wayfinding and navigation, pre-trip concierge? Or does the solution need to address these areas?

Proposed solutions may address any (or all) of the application areas identified under ATTRI, as well as any (or all) of the components of the complete trip.

The solicitation states, “The prototype will be developed in an open-source manner." So, if we use AR/VR technology that is a proprietary solution (both devices and software), will that be acceptable? Or this open-source requirement is mandatory for the solution?

Proposed systems and solutions developed using this SBIR contract would need to be open-source.

People with different cognitive, sensing, and motion disabilities have different needs. Which population is the main focus of this topic?

ATTRI seeks to promote the mobility of people of all abilities. Therefore, solutions developed under this solicitation can address any (or, to the extent feasible, all) impairment types. For further information regarding the user needs assessment, please refer to this document.

Are there any restrictions or requirements in terms of the consumer level hardware? Any preference for using a handheld device vs. glasses/headset?

There are no restrictions or requirements for any particular user interface. Applications should demonstrate an ease of use and appropriateness of the solution to the need. The specific way in which that is done is not mandated. However, although this subject solicitation is for Phase I, Phase II is more concerned with commercialization of the prototypes. It is advisable to consider practicality of the proposed solution/technology for commercialization in the future.

The technical section of the solicitation states, “key R/R&D conducted by others in the specific topic area." Can you elaborate on this requirement?

The small business concern (SBC) must demonstrate to the reviewers that they are aware of key recent research and R&D related to the research topic “Virtual and Augmented Reality to Aid Transit Use by All Travelers.” This includes providing summary information and appropriate references from the literature and other publications. This is an opportunity for the SBC to show that they completed their due-diligence and demonstrate their thorough understanding of the research topic at hand.

Do the references regarding Similar Offers and/or Awards need to be in the commercial sector or the Federal sector?

All similar offers and/or awards under federal program solicitations must be reported to the soliciting agency or agencies before award, and the SBC must include a statement on each individual offer.

On page 43 of the solicitation, the estimated number of anticipated awards for 18-FT1 is listed as “3” and the Award amount as “$150,000." Does each awardee get $150,000/- or is that the total amount available for all the three awardees?

Each individual awardee would receive up to $150,000. SBIR Phase I awards do not exceed $150,000 in total costs for 6 months.

Is there a specific geographical location, city, or streets that can be used as a test location for the proposed solution? What is the plan for gathering test data or testing the solution during Phase II?

No. Proposers should identify a plan for eventual testing of their solution. Regarding data gathering, it is important to note that all work conducted under this research must comply with Federal and U.S. DOT data access policies including those described at https://www.transportation.gov/data. Consistent with these policies, all data generated or acquired through this work shall be available to the public (“open by default”) unless specific privacy, confidentiality, and security risks are identified.

Do we need to provide a working prototype as part of the Phase 1 deliverables?

No. Phase I requires only a proof of concept.

18-NH1 Digital Application to Improve Consumers' Access to NHTSA Safety Information

The topic summary states that the scope of work shall cover Apple, Android, and Blackberry apps. However, Windows phones are a significant part of the market as well. Would this topic also include a Windows app?

The topic description has been updated in Amendment 0001 of the Solicitation, effective February 1, 2018. The update, which does not include Windows, states: “NHTSA is seeking research proposals on how to compile and make accessible this information in a web-based application and mobile applications (iOS and Android).”

Do you plan (at any stage) to charge users a fee for the use/access of this application?

Any fee associated with the app will be at the discretion of the small business, who will be the owner of the app.

Must all data sources be open-sourced or can we also use private, fee-based data sources?

Both options should be considered.

Is the application meant to be hosted on a .gov domain?

No, the application will not be hosted on a government domain.

Is the scope of this application to aggregate only safety data, or does it extend to publicly available information such as titles and previous owners?

The goal of this application to help inform safety-related purchasing decisions. Information on titles and previous owners is not publicly available and is not to be included; the safety of the vehicle is reported in other publicly-available means.

The solicitation states that data would be available "publicly on the NHTSA website or available on partner and manufacturer websites." What are these partner websites that are part of the data to be included? Will this be available as part of this SBIR solicitation?

Partner websites could include, but are not limited to, any site that provides consumer information that is relevant and important to possibly include in this one-stop shop to help inform consumers in their automobile buying decisions. Examples may include sources such as: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, National Safety Council, Carfax, etc. For the external partner data/information, the offeror recommended for award would be responsible for obtaining the rights/permission/access to such.

Is the overall expected outcome of this research topic a net-new application based on new technical solutions or an application based on the current code base and architecture?

Objective is to create a one-stop shop merging multiple data sources (public and private), if the proposal put forth makes a strong case to use current code base and architecture and build on it, we are open to exploring this for efficient use of resources, as long as it expands information included to meet the primary objective.

Regarding the 5 Star NCAP Ratings, how are those currently calculated and what systems do they leverage?

The current NCAP rating system is comprised of an overall rating score (also known as Vehicle Safety Score or Overall Vehicle Score), which is computed as the field-weighted scores from the full frontal crash, side crash (side MDB and side pole), and rollover resistance tests. It is based on a 5-star rating scale that ranges from 1 to 5 stars, with 5 stars being the highest. See the informational brochure and FAQs.

Are innovative ideas for the 5 Star NCAP Ratings in the scope of this research topic?

Ideas or feedback on innovative program improvements, NCAP Ratings or otherwise, are always welcome and if relevant to an open Agency proceeding will be added to the associated Federal Register docket for NHTSA and public consideration. Please note, however, that such ideas are not the central focus of this topic.

For Phase I, should the proof-of-concept report include high-fidelity wireframes?

Yes.

For Phase II, should the working prototype be an integrated prototype with all necessary data and information?

Yes. Per the solicitation, the expected Phase II outcome is a demonstration of a working prototype of one or more approaches that compiles and makes accessible the necessary vehicle information for consumers, as well as technology results and a marketing plan.

Are there any current web traffic statistics available for the Government sources/sites listed?

Yes, this can be provided to the awardee once the contract is awarded.

Is there a desire for the application to be hosted on the cloud?

Yes, NHTSA is currently in transition of all systems/applications into the cloud. The major portion (Safety Issues and NCAP Safety Ratings) of the nhtsa.gov website is currently hosted on the AWS cloud. Other systems that NHTSA integrated are currently in transition into the AWS cloud.

What are the current programming languages utilized within the Government sources/sites listed?

Java programming language in conjunction with other frameworks, JQuery, Javascript, HTML 5. Responsive design must also be considered.

Are there any application architecture information or documents available for the Government sources/sites listed?

Yes, source data and necessary application architecture information and or documents for the Government sources/sites provided will be shared with the awardee once the contract is awarded.

Will the small business have access to the current application codes within the Government sources/sites listed?

Yes, access will be given to the awardee once the contract is awarded.

18-NH2 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and Other Crash Data Visualization and Analysis Tool

Please elaborate on the "users/buyers" in the Phase II outcome.

Phase II users/buyers would be state and local governments, insurance companies, universities, research institutes, and the general public.

Is a live system expected to be built and demonstrated at the end of Phase II? If so, is the vendor expected to produce the users and buyers prior to the demo? Or is the vendor simply expected to identify and address the potential users/buyers in the marketing plan?

The vendor is not expected to produce a live system at the end of Phase II. The system should be in a developmental stage but able to show a prototype demonstration. The vendor is not expected to produce users or buyers, just a market plan explaining who the users and buyers are and why they would buy this system.

What are the original source(s) of crash reports?

Law enforcement officers fill out crash reports.

Who is responsible for completing these reports?

Law enforcement officers are responsible for completing crash reports.

How is this data obtained?

Crash reports are one data source for the Fatality Analysis Reporting System file. The FARS Brochure explains how the data is obtained.

How is missing data handled?

The FARS Coding and Validation Manual explains how missing data is handled.

What is the process for standardizing data from different sources?

This is explained in the FARS Coding and Validation Manual.

Who is responsible for entering data from these reports into FARS?

NHTSA has a cooperative agreement with an agency in each State government to provide specific information in a standard format on fatal crashes occurring in the State. The agreements are managed by NCSA’s FARS program staff. The State employees who gather, translate, and transmit the data are called FARS analysts. The number of analysts in each State varies according to the State. NHTSA provides each FARS analyst with formal training.

Will we have access to the analysts/users who enter data into FARS during a Phase I or Phase II effort?

No, there should not be a need to access the FARS analysts for this project.

What tools do State and/or local governments currently use to plan education and communication efforts based on fatal crashes in their area?

The data, tools and analysis varies greatly by state.

18-PH1 Innovative Technologies for Nondestructive Determination of Fracture Toughness for Pipeline Steels in Transportation Infrastructure

What is the root cause of reduction in fracture toughness (KIC) in pipeline steel (embrittlement, etc.)?

The goal of this solicitation is not to find root causes of fracture toughness in pipelines. Rather, the intended outcome is to explore the feasibility or methodology to obtain the material fracture toughness via nondestructive testing (NDT). While understanding the root cause of fracture toughness is important and may play a future role, the ability to establish pipeline fracture toughness with NDT is the expected outcome for 18.1-PH1.

Do these pipes fail from static or dynamic pressure loading?

Pipeline failures are seldom single source failures. The pipeline pressure scheme may contribute to this failure, but leading causes of pipeline failure include corrosion, excavation damage, material failure, and natural forces, and frequently a combination of factors results in failure.

What is the target accuracy/resolution of the NDT method for determining fracture toughness?

PHMSA has not set a target accuracy/resolution of the NDT method for determining fracture toughness. A successful NDT method will support the Phase I outcome describing feasibility and a methodology for a field deployable testing solution, or a Phase II outcome leading to full scale initial field tests. The proposal best suited to meet the outcomes stated in the solicitation is desired.

Is testing of a section of the pipeline representative of a large segment or must the technique easily inspect large areas?

Proposals are encouraged to follow best practices pursuant to the goal of feasibility for determining fracture toughness or deploying for field testing. A representative segment of pipe may yield useful results, but may not encompass all conditions under which operation of the pipeline may take place.

18-PH2 Dual Purpose Internal Integrity Assessment and Cleaning Tool for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

Could we develop our own cleaning pig system to be used with a GPR inspection system, or should we use only existing cleaning pigs?

Yes, a company could develop their own cleaning pig system with ground penetrating radar (GPR). As the solicitation is currently written, there is no language preventing them from developing their own pig, dictating what the platform needs to be (only what it needs to do), or whether it currently exists or would be developed. If they can adapt something that currently exists, they could probably save some time and costs, but that does not dictate whether they should or should not. In short, it’s up to them.

Can we develop an integrated internal pipeline inspection, repair, and cleaning tool?

From page 69 of the archived solicitation document: “Phase II may include a prototype ILI/Cleaning tool that is relatively light weight and limited in axial length to enable easy transport, deployable through existing cleaning pig traps, and retrieval. The ideal tool should have low initial and operating costs to enable frequent deployment and must be able to address a substantial percentage of pipelines that are currently inspected. One goal is the capability to use this ILI tool where cleaning tools are used.” An integrated internal pipeline inspection and cleaning device is sought. If it also integrated pipeline repair and did not interfere with inspection/cleaning, that would be beyond the scope of this solicitation. However, if a competitive proposal can be developed for a device that inspects and cleans, additional capabilities not detracting from those competencies would not necessarily be grounds for proposal dismissal.

Last updated: Tuesday, March 20, 2018

USA Banner

Technical and Administrative Questions: U.S. DOT SBIR FY 2018 Solicitation