Technical and Administrative Questions: U.S. DOT SBIR FY 2020 Phase I Solicitation

Please review the Q&A below as well as the frequently asked questions page before submitting your offer. Administrative questions and questions about Appendix C: Contract Pricing Worksheet will be accepted via email to dotsbir@dot.gov through March 2, 2020 and answers will be posted below. Technical questions pertaining to the research topics will not be answered during the solicitation period as technical questions were only permitted during the pre-solicitation period.

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

Administrative Questions
Technical Questions

Administrative Questions

In general, what percentage of Phase I awards receive Phase II awards?

The average number of Phase I awards that receive Phase II awards varies from 40-60% on a given year.

Who are the members of the technical evaluation panel? Does the panel constitute technical experts in the given topic or does the panel include U.S. DOT staff?

All evaluators are Government employed technical staff from the U.S. DOT with technical knowledge in the topic being evaluated.

Does the requirement for the PI to be 50% employed by the offerer also mean that they must be dedicated to the SBIR project for at least 50% of their time?

The PI does not need to be committed to the project for 50% of their time.

How does Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) status affect your process?

DBE status is not considered within the SBIR process.

Does affiliation include a mentor's personnel (even if the mentor is not part of the SIBR)?

No, it does not. The All Small Mentor-Protégé program is separate from employees or affiliates of a SBC.

What counts as "affiliates" in the definition of small business?

The Small Business Administration’s definition of “affiliates” can be found here: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--affiliation-guide-size-standards.

If the Small Business does not have a full time employee, can a proposal be submitted by a part time employee who is a university professor and at the time of funding hire a full time employee?

An offer can be submitted by anyone but SBIR contracts will only be made to entities that have a valid registration in the System for Award Management (SAM). There is no requirement for a small business to have a certain number of “full time” employees. The principal investigator must have “primary employment” with the SBC at the time of contract award and at all times during the conduct of the proposed research. “Primary employment” means that more than one-half of the principal investigator’s employment time is spent working for the small business. An offer may be submitted where not all proposed personnel are current employees of the business so long as it is clearly explained in the offer and, that upon award, the proposed PI will meet the primary employment requirement.

What will be the amount of time between when we are notified of being selected for Pitch Day and when we have to be there?

The U.S. DOT anticipates there being anywhere from four to six weeks’ notice to offerors that have been recommended to proceed on to the Pitch Day event. When such notice is provided there will be detailed information given on Pitch Day and the coordination/preparation for it.

What if the company is not currently owned by hedge fund or private equity investors but becomes acquired by such investors midway through a Phase II project?

If this occurs the SBIR Awardee would have to notify the Government and it may affect the ongoing Phase II award. The U.S. DOT elects at this time not to use the authority that would allow venture capital operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds or private equity firms to participate in the SBIR Program.

What would the scenario be if we a) received a Phase I award and then b) received funding from a venture capital or private equity firm that exceeds 50% ownership? At that point, are we allowed to continue execution of Phase I activities but are disqualified from an invitation to Phase II? Or, must we immediately halt and deactivate the Phase I project? If the latter is true, are we liable for returning any disbursed funds?

If this occurs the SBIR Awardee would have to notify the Government and it most likely would not affect the ongoing Phase I award, which has a six month duration. If the Government did need to stop (terminate) the Phase I then the full Firm-Fixed-Price for the effort would not be due to the small business concern (SBC) and a settlement would be reached in the termination. Additionally, consideration for a Phase II would likely not occur. The U.S. DOT elects at this time not to use the authority that would allow venture capital operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds or private equity firms to participate in the SBIR Program and therefore does not have authority to enter into contracts with these types of businesses.

The DOT does not require inclusion of an external TABA vendor in the Phase I application costs. If an external TABA vendor is selected, will the $6,500 in additional funds received count against the total allocation of subcontractor effort (maximum of 1/3 of total funding)?

No, TABA funds do not count against the maximum 1/3 of total cost limit for subcontracts/consultants.

Is it required to submit subcontractor cost proposals? If so, how should they be included with Appendix C? It is not clear to me how to include their proposal or if they should use a particular format. Should they complete a Schedule A form? Anything else?

Subcontractor quotes/proposals must be submitted as attachments to the offeror's Appendix C. This can be done by inserting the document(s) to the end of Appendix C after saving it as a PDF. The offeror shall also provide a written justification for the proposed subcontractor costs in the Schedule H Narrative. There is no particular format required for subcontractor quotes/proposals and subcontractors do not need to complete a Schedule A form, however, please see the Appendix C Instructions (last tab of the workbook) for details about what information must be included in subcontractor quotes/proposals.

How do we conduct meetings with DOT staff if we are awarded the Phase I contract? It appears DOT staff will not travel to our site and we are not sure if we can add our Travel estimated expenses as part of our costs. Video conferencing or phone calls?

Yes, meetings are typically done via video conference or phone call.

As part of Phase I we are required to product a “sample or prototype” if we are awarded the Phase I contract. Can we request DOT staff to travel to our place to see a demonstration of the “sample”?

A sample/prototype is normally not required for the Phase I effort. DOT staff may occasionally travel to visit an SBIR awardee, however, this is more common for Phase II or IIB projects and is at the discretion of the Government. A request can be made by an Awardee for the Government to visit its work site, however, this cannot be a “requirement” in a Phase I offer.

Since Phase I of the Solicitation is described as “feasibility-related experimental or theoretical research”, and the Phase I outcomes clearly do not require prototypes being developed, why is Section 7 in the Technical Section requesting a detailed description of the availability and location of instrumentation and physical facilities proposed for Phase I? Is it intended that the proposer submit the facilities and equipment that would potentially be utilized in the Phase II effort?

Section 7 in the technical section is required as one of the evaluation factors, as shown in the solicitation Part III Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria, is “experience, qualifications, and facilities.” An Offeror must determine the level of detail required for Section 7 based on the work it is proposing. If it is desired to provide details on items that may be used on a Phase II effort this is acceptable, but not required as this is a solicitation for Phase I offers only.

I am a university faculty and founder of a company outside the university. I am preparing an SBIR offer in response to SOLICITATION NO. 6913G620QSBIR1. How can I include my time in the budget of this SBIR offer? Shall I consider myself as a part time employee of the company, or a consultant who works at the university?

An Offeror must decide how it accounts for its proposed labor. It is important to assure to propose labor for individuals where they work. If they are employees of the Offeror they are normally direct labor and if they are not employees of the Offeror then they must be consultants/subcontractors. Also, take note of the PI primary employment requirement and maximum one-third subcontractor/consultant effort requirement found in Section I.C (page 8) of the Solicitation.

I am submitting the offer as the PI and if it is funded, at the time of award, will hire a full time employee. Do I need to put such a statement in any particular place in the offer?

You should state that you intend to hire a full time employee in the Schedule H Narrative section of Appendix C. You may also write something such as “TBD” or “New Hire” in the second column of Schedule B in Appendix C.

Technical Questions

20-FA1: Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) of Critical Nickel Turbine Engine Parts

Topic FA1, Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) of Critical Nickel Turbine Engine Parts, has been withdrawn. No offers will be accepted on this topic.

20-FH1: Physical Intervention System for Wrong-way Driving on Ramps

Is a physical sample required as part of the Phase I outcome?

Yes. Per the solicitation, the expected Phase I outcomes include “a prototype design or sample to demonstrate technical feasibility”.

What is the maximum wrong-way vehicle speed to be considered to design the Physical Intervention System?

This is an aspect that the system developer will need to evaluate. For “right-way” traffic, the initial speed of vehicles traversing the ramp, while decelerating, still could be nearly equal to the mainline (which may be posted at 55-80MPH). For “wrong-way” traffic, vehicles would presumably be accelerating and may have reached a high speed by the time the system is encountered.

Can it be assumed that electrical power connection will be available to operate the Physical Intervention System?

The assumption that electrical power is available is reasonable, but consideration for alternative energy sources such as renewable or stored may provide added flexibility to agencies.

Is there any weight restriction on the Physical Intervention System?

In terms of load carrying capability, if it is placed within the roadway, at a minimum the system should be designed to accommodate the weights described in 23 CFR 658.17; specifically paragraphs (c) and (d) that speak to axle weights.

Can the Physical Intervention System be buried in the road?

There is no requirement that would prohibit or disqualify this approach, provided it is consistent with the bulleted items listed in the solicitation (“Such a system would:...”).

Assuming we come out with a successful solution through Phase I and Phase II, is there FHWA funding to install these on the Exit ramps on federal highways around the country?

At this time, there is no set-aside or earmarked funding that would be available for this type of system. However, States and local agencies would be able to consider using the funding that they already receive (or will receive in the future) under Federal transportation programs. They would also be able to use their own funding.

Will the decision to install these on state highways be up to the state DOTs? Will FHWA assist us in this effort to convince state highways or is it up to the Small Business?

Yes, ultimately the decision will rest with the agency with jurisdiction over the ramp. In most cases, this is the State DOT, but there are also toll road agencies and even occasional local agencies that own interchange ramps that experience wrong way maneuvers. We expect the FHWA role going forward will be to help make agencies aware of the system and encourage them to consider it as part of comprehensive and multifaceted efforts to address wrong-way driving.

May the proposed solution not be limited only to wrong-way drivers traveling at “a high speed” but also those traveling at moderate and/or low speed which may also pose a danger to road users?

The proposer must determine and adequately explain under what scenarios and circumstances their system will be effective. However, it is expected that at a typical interchange ramp environment, vehicle speeds may be high.

May the proposed solution include and/or integrate devices which warn, divert, or otherwise redirect vehicles traveling in the right direction to assist them in avoiding the wrong-way vehicle?

Provided the system is otherwise consistent with the description in the Solicitation, this would be for the offeror to determine. However, such devices and messaging would need to conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). If the scenario the offeror is considering is not currently addressed by the MUTCD, it may require Experimentation (see MUTCD Section 1A.10).

May the proposed solution leverage available connected vehicle technology that may not yet be widely deployed?

Provided the system is otherwise consistent with the description in the Solicitation, this would be for the offeror to determine. The goal of this effort is to try to develop and bring a system to market soon.

May the proposed solution leverage available License Plate Recognition technology that could provide law enforcement agencies with actionable information to prosecute wrong-way drivers and provide an additional deterrent to this behavior?

Provided the system is otherwise consistent with the description in the Solicitation, this would be for the offeror to determine. If this is a feature of the system, the offeror should explain how it works and what additional infrastructure may be needed to support it.

Does the definition of “physical intervention system that could stop a wrong-way vehicle” include using Connected Vehicle Technologies between road-side units and on-board vehicle systems that could shut off and/or stop the wrong-way vehicle?

Provided the system is otherwise consistent with the description in the Solicitation, this would be for the offeror to determine. However, since not all vehicles may have the technology that would make this work, the offeror should account for this in framing the overall effectiveness.

Given the hazardous and extremely rapid nature of wrong-way driving incidents, does DOT have a specification for the requested interval between the “final warning system to the driver” and subsequent system deployment?

No, a specification for this time interval does not exist, so it will be up to the offeror to determine based on the specific characteristics of their system.

The description mentions, "In the past, physical intervention has been dismissed due to myriad concerns, including system durability and reliability..." Is is possible to get a list of previous physical intervention proposals?

The FHWA does not possess such a list. An offeror would need to conduct a proper literature review to determine what types of systems have been contemplated in the past.

20-FH2: Innovative Layered Composite Metal Deck System

Is this topic aimed at eliminating rebar and in place concrete pours for decks?

The solicitation does not provide any direction related to the use of rebar. “Mass production” and “prefabricated” does imply that it would be done in a factory setting as opposed to in place.

What different panel geometries are expected to be investigated for the Phase I outcomes?

This will be addressed once the concept is selected and a research workplan is developed.

Is there any preference to using materials other than Steel, like Titanium, as mentioned in the topic description (obviously using such material increases construction cost)?

There is no pre-preference for the type of metal. Commercialization potential is part of selection and research.

Is having a lighter weight deck more preferable than cost? In other words, is concrete more preferred than other foam type materials?

There is no pre-preference for the type of filler material. Commercialization potential is part of the selection and research.

Is there any preference for using a mechanical joint between the deck and existing girder or could we consider novel joint systems?

Connection viability and feasibility is a key part of the concept selection and research.

20-FH3: Real-time Monitoring and Modeling of Scour

Would an offer be responsive if a persistent aquatic sonar were proposed for data collection, along with the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model to predict scour at bridge foundations?

This could be responsive to the topic if it describes how the technology works and how it records detailed bridge foundation scour bathymetries during storm events.

For Phase I and II, is the proof-of-concept's data collection platform type limited to an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)? For example, would you consider an unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based solution?

A reliable UAS-based solution might be considered if able to demonstrate UAS platform or platform that can record underwater scour bathymetries at bridge foundation elements.

The topic description has listed the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the monitoring of scour. Are these the only technologies you are interested in using? In other words, do you have an interest in using unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) in the monitoring?

A reliable USV-based solution might be considered if able to demonstrate UAS platform or platform that can record underwater scour bathymetries at bridge foundation elements.

Could you please provide more details on the CFD model – input parameters, algorithms, etc.?

The product should work for any CFD model and research will answer these questions.

Does the scope include developing a CFD model or utilizing an existing one?

Utilize existing CFD codes.

What is the output expected from real-time monitoring/modelling?

This is explained in the solicitation.

Is it truly real-time or near real-time with respect to data collection and processing?

Can be near real-time.

What is the prediction period and resolution you are looking at?

Research will answer this question.

What is the expected frequency of the data collection by AUVs?

Research will answer this question.

Does the scope involve designing an AUV for this purpose?

No.

20-FR1: Autonomous Track Inspection Technology

What is the speed of FRA inspection vehicles DOTX225 and DOTX226?

DOTX 225 and 226 are standard freight cars that run in interchange freight service at speeds up to 80 mph (Class 5).

In the offer, is it required to provide a technique for generating power?

Phase I efforts should include an assessment of the power requirements of the proposed new inspection technology and an approach to satisfying these requirements given the space limitations associated with the FRA boxcars. Please review the FRA reports referenced in the announcement for details on the power system that services the Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement System (ATGMS). FRA expects that any new system will have similar power requirements.

Are there any limits in the usage of power for track inspection?

One major challenge in running an autonomous inspection system in freight service is the power source. All power generation must be contained within the railcar as there are no external sources of power available on the train. The power system used for the proposed new technology shall be self-contained. No external power sources are available. Your system power budget must be similar to that used for the ATGMS. Fossil fuel generators and similar systems require maintenance intervals that are not compatible with the operating profile of the railcars. Based on our experience, battery sources with solar re-charging are very reliable and require very low maintenance.

Please identify the definition of autonomous. Does autonomous mean there are no humans involved or partially human involved?

Autonomous means the system operates without direct human control.

Is DOT seeking a solution for a hyrail vehicle or for a self-propelled vehicle that can operate independently?

DOT is asking for technology that will deploy on DOTX225 or DOTX226, or similar, full-size rail vehicle.

Is DOT seeking an application that will work with existing technology to enhance the information they're gathering?

The new technology may operate independently from the systems installed on DOTX 225 or 226.

20-FR2: AI-Aided Machine Vision for Grade Crossing Safety

Locomotives are equipped with forward-facing cameras that provide a clear view of what is in front of the locomotive as it is in operation.
a) Do these cameras have the capability to do real-time streaming to a cloud service?
b) What is the latency for these cameras?
c) What is the quality, resolution, frames per second, etc.?
d) What is the nighttime capability of these cameras and crossings? Lights, etc.?
e) Are other sensors available for realtime Internet of Things (IoT) data gathering at crossings, on trains, and tracks?

a) At present, these cameras do not do real-time streaming to a cloud-based service.
b) Latency is irrelevant as the video information is saved directly to an onboard recording device.
c) Proposed regulation for passenger operations will require that forward-facing cameras record at a minimum recording rate of 15 frames per second (fps), or its equivalent. In terms of resolution, the same proposed regulation specifies that the camera have sufficient resolution to distinguish different wayside signal aspects, as these are first and foremost utilized in post-accident investigations. Outside of these parameters, it is expected that other details, such as quality, resolution, etc., would be dependent upon the specific product utilized by any given railroad. As such, this information would best be obtained from specific manufacturers of locomotive-based front-facing cameras.
d) With regard to passenger operations, forward-facing cameras must be able to function in both day and lowlight/nighttime conditions with illumination from the equipped locomotive’s headlights. See proposed regulation.
e) Presently, there are no other sensors available for real-time IoT data gathering at crossings, either on trains or on/in the track.

Under Phase I, would existing video from front-mounted cameras be provided? Do existing video systems tag videos with geolocation and time information?

Existing video from front-facing cameras will not be provided. If it is the intention of the offeror to use recorded locomotive-based front-facing cameras, the offeror must demonstrate a confirmed partnership with an operating railroad for access to such data for research purposes. Proposed regulation for passenger operations will require an accurate time and date stamp be on forward-facing image recordings, but geolocation may not presently be synchronized with recordings.

What are the typical video characteristics from the front-mounted cameras?
a) Rights/ownership of the video footage?
b) Associated metadata (time/geolocation)?
c) Frames per second?
d) Pixel dimensions, field of view, etc.?

a) Rights/ownership of the video footage belong with the railroads utilizing the recording devices.
b) It is expected that details, such as metadata, would be dependent upon the specific product utilized by any given railroad. As such, this information would best be obtained from specific manufacturers of locomotive-based front-facing cameras.
c) Proposed regulation for passenger operations will require that forward-facing cameras record at a minimum recording rate of 15 frames per second (fps), or its equivalent.
d) It is expected that details, such as pixel dimensions, would be dependent upon the specific product utilized by any given railroad. As such, this information would best be obtained from specific manufacturers of locomotive-based front-facing cameras. Front-facing cameras record the engineer’s eye-view from the front window of the locomotive.

If there is existing footage, is the data annotated to segregate based on desired detected classes? In other words, if there is existing video, is it already manually sorted by an analyst between conditions the FRA is looking to discriminate against with computer vision? This mostly scales to how much of that analysis work should be part of a Phase I offer in order to develop an algorithm prototype.

Presently, information from the locomotive-based front-facing cameras are not utilized in the fashion proposed in this topic; highway-rail grade crossings are primarily inspected manually. This topic presents a new approach to leverage a potential resource in assisting with these inspections.

It seems like the desired analysis could be done both post-trip, or at a higher level of maturity, on the locomotive itself. Is there an overall preference? For reference, the verbiage mentions “limitations … associated with autonomous technology deployment in the railway environment” which implies more than post-processing of video collected during a trip – at least eventually.

Initially, it is acceptable for the desired analysis to be post-processed to assess the viability for autonomous operation. Eventually, it would be ideal to reach that higher level of maturity and conduct the analysis as close to real-time as possible.

Is there an expectation of any installation of hardware/software on any locomotives during Phase I?

There is no expectation of any installation of hardware/software on any locomotives during Phase I.

Does the FRA anticipate the results of the analyses be stored in a new database – or shared to an existing Grade Crossing Database?

FRA does not anticipate the results of the analyses conducted for Phase I be stored in a new database or to an existing Grade Crossing database.

Does the FRA hope for a real-time analysis as forward-facing video is captured, or for post analysis after an inspection is completed?

For the Phase I effort, real-time analysis of forward-facing video footage is not required; post-analysis can be done to demonstrate the feasibility of a proposed approach to FRA.

20-FR3: Platform Edge Proximity Detection to Prevent Inadvertent Passenger Car Door Opening

Are the doors supposed to automatically open, or does it require a human to use the door controls to open a door? If automatic, does a conductor or engineer somehow signal that doors are allowed to open because the train is at a valid station stop?

A human manually requests the doors to open; it is not automatic.

The solicitation mentions doors opening on the wrong side. Is that a human error? An engineer or conductor somehow indicated that the doors on the right side can open, when it should have been the left side? It seems to me that detecting the platform or a bridge plate is only part of the problem. Somehow the system needs to know that the train has stopped and that it is indeed a valid stop where passengers can get on and off. Sensing that the train has stopped, and that it is safely near a platform is not sufficient. There must be some knowledge that it is a valid stop.

Opening on wrong side is human error. You only need to prevent the doors from opening when there is no adjacent platform or bridgeplate. Equipment already has protections to ensure the train is stopped.

If not automatic doors, do the doors only open when a human signals/commands the door to open through the door controls/levers? In other words, is it that human passengers physically open the doors, and the objective is to prevent the door from opening unless the door is safely near a platform? In that case there is no centralized command from a conductor or engineer that signals that it is ok for doors to open, and someone has to physically open the door and the doors will not open without someone trying to open the door?

A human requests the doors to open via pressing a momentary switch and electric motors move the doors to the open position. Passengers are not required to manually open doors. If true, a sensor as requested would still not solve the problem of an invalid stop: stopped at station, but passengers are not supposed to get on and off.

Is there currently some electronic indication that the stop is a valid stop? Non-electronic?

There is “No Motion” sensing to indicate the train is stopped.

What is an upper limit to the acceptable cost per door?

Cost per door is not a factor in the Phase I evaluation since a production-ready system is not expected. Obviously, in the context of a final commercial product, offerors should be mindful of cost-effectiveness.

I think that recognizing that there is an object within the correct proximity isn’t sufficient; what if it was a wall (in a tunnel, for example, while the train is stopped)?

The solicitation states that we want to detect platform edges and temporary bridge plates and allow doors to open when these features are detected.

Am I correct that the sensor will need to detect a horizontal support that a passenger could step onto, that may or may not have immediate vertical supports under it?

Correct.

The description mentions, "...the system will also be compatible with legacy equipment that uses discrete (analog) train lines..." Is there any public documentation of the legacy equipment?

Without providing information on proprietary design details, the legacy equipment uses discrete 27-pin trainline connectivity between cars and locomotives (or cab cars). Certain wires are used to transmit door open/close commands. Public information on this concept is available here: https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Standards_Documents/APTA-PR-E-RP-017-99.pdf.

20-FR4: Crushed Aggregate Gradation Evaluation System

The topic description says to develop an "optical system", however the expected Phase I outcomes mention linking the application to the smartphone camera. So is the objective primarily a mobile phone app and not any optical system?

The technical solution to obtaining the data necessary to make a reasonable determination of aggregate condition is up to the offeror. Whatever system that is proposed should link to a smartphone.

If it is desired to make a smartphone application, is the desired application limited to a certain mobile platform, or can we develop for either Android or iOS?

Any solution should be workable across mobile platforms.

Are there any regulatory requirements applicable to the cyber security of the smartphone application and associated system?

Typical precautions (precautions against hacking) should be taken reflecting the sensitivity level of the data.

Can we assume the application users will agree to terms and conditions that will allow sharing test results to support AI algorithms to improve performance?

This is hard to predict as it will be a decision made by the user and the administrator of the cell phone service at the time of application. If this technology finds application in industry, the requirements will be set by each company.

If the suggested additional measurements require a companion device, are there any mobile phone limitations to consider (e.g., lack of Bluetooth)?

No, there are no known limitations to consider.

Does the Phase I award include the deployment of the smartphone application for multiple users or is that considered part of the Phase II?

Multiple users would be in a more advanced phase. Phases I and II are targeted toward development of a solution and testing the solution in the field. Once the technology advances through these steps, work may begin on addressing commercialization issues like multiple users.

Is it possible to receive, prior to the offer preparation or after contract award, sample images of the good, bad, and ugly scenarios? These images can serve as the standard for assessing the success of Phase I.

FRA may be able to provide images of ballast post award, however, the resolution of the images provided may not be representative of expected SBIR results.

The topic description states, “An optical system or other rapid, hand-held imaging, photographic or other sensing technology is sought to quantify the level of contamination or percent of void space filled to help estimate the degree of gradation change.” AND “Ideally, but not limited to, this technology would utilize the camera in the smart phone to make an initial assessment using the application developed.” The two sentences suggest it would suffice to use images captured from a smart phone to make the initial assessment, without the use of “other” sensors. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. “Other sensing technology” is purposely broad to include ideas or technologies that can achieve similar results/assessments to optical systems.

20-NH1: In-Vehicle Occupant Detection System

How exclusive/important is image processing (vs. other solutions) for vehicle occupant detection?

From the Solicitation: “Using high resolution in-vehicle camera views (or alternative systems proposed by the vendor), this topic seeks the development of a comprehensive in-vehicle system capable of addressing a variety of functions beyond the single factor (e.g., weight sensors) detection of unattended children.” In accordance with the Solicitation, the occupant detection systems need not use image processing technologies. Additionally, combinations of more than one type of sensing (for example, visual, radar, weight, infra-red) may be used to increase the functions or reliability of the detection.

20-PH1: Development and Validation of Inline Inspection (ILI) Technologies for Circumferential Anomalies and Bending Stresses

Would this instrument/tool include web tools (web/cloud enabled and remote usable), software analysis, and data solutions?

A web-based component of the solution would be acceptable, provided it was complemented by a technology capable of measuring the circumferential anomalies and bending stresses. A technology to measure the anomalies/stresses would be acceptable, and a technology to measure the anomalies/stresses with web/cloud data solutions would be acceptable, however, a stand alone web/cloud data solution would not be acceptable without the anomalie/stress inputs.

Would this instrument/tool include web tools that would enhance the ability to understand and analyze ILI measurement data for circumferential anomalies and bending stresses?

This would be an acceptable part of the solution as indicated in the question above.

Are you interested in inspecting from inside or outside of a pipe?

Inline inspection is traditionally internal to the pipeline to reduce risk of pipe damage and excavation costs.

Can we use a robot for pipeline inspection?

This would be acceptable.

Could you provide any information regarding damage size?

The bend radii are described in 49 CFR 192.313 and 192.315. The size of the damage will be a function of the pipe and operating properties. Generally, features below a few millimeters would not necessarily pose a threat to the pipeline, but the ability to characterize them is desirable for integrity monitoring programs.

For stress measurement, the current XYZ mapping service can provide the pipe centerline position and thus analyze the bending strain and stress on the pipe. Is this considered insufficient? Is PHMSA looking for an alternative?

We are seeking a tool that can quantify both the stresses in the circumferential region, as well as the circumferential anomalies.

From ASME B31G and RSTRENG, we only found limited information on circumferential cracking. Should we follow standards like API 579 as the guideline to develop and validate the technology?

Applicable, appropriate standards like API 579 would be acceptable.

20-PH2: Internal Repair of Steel Transmission Pipelines

No questions.

20-PH3: Geohazard Identification and Quantification for Pipeline Risk Models

The ASME B31.8S-2018 code on Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, identifies various types of geohazard threats which include earth movement threats, subsidence, extreme surface loads, seismicity, earthquakes, fault movements, mining, and mud and landslides. Does topic PH3 aim at addressing: (a) a general approach which addresses all the above types of geohazards, or (b) specific methods and technologies which target monitoring and risk assessment of geohazards selected by the proposer (for example soil movement, excluding seismic and earthquake loads)?

PHMSA recognizes there will not be a one-size-fits-all approach to all geohazards. As such, technology solutions that can be applied to a geographic region with multiple threats, or a threat at the national level would be satisfactory.

There are already a number of studies conducted (and papers published) which focus on developing risk models for pipelines due to geohazards. Some municipalities (e.g. Los Angeles or San Francisco) are working on localized risk models. In addition, there are platforms like HAZUS that provide risk assessments similar to what is articulated in the topic description for topic PH3. Considering that risk modelling platforms (like HAZUS) are already available, what would be the objectives of developing a new platform? Is it acceptable to propose a scope that is focused on the gaps and address existing shortcomings (as mentioned above) in order to improve the current state of the practice?

Some commercial models are considered too simplistic and not comprehensive enough to address geologic threats in the broadest sense. In addition, the disconnect in data acquisition with its impact on risk indicators is commonly not addressed. Meaning, is the level of data adequate to assess risk in both a snapshot and over time? Your perception on addressing shortcomings in such gaps is appropriate.

The scope of this topic can be interpreted to be too broad (considering budget), especially mentioning developing a commercial product that can be used at any location (within the US). Would it be acceptable to propose a scope that focuses on a particular geographical area in Phase I?

We agree that the proposed topic is broad, providing for a range of focus in proposed solutions. It would not be recommended to focus the scope just on one geographic area.

One main input for risk assessment is the input geotechnical demands, including PGV, or liquefaction induced ground displacements (PGD), or landslide induced displacements. Is the expectation to have a model that estimates these input values for a given latitude/longitude, or assume these value as given? If the model is expected to estimate PGD, should it be site specific assessment or can general hazard maps (like liquefaction hazard maps, or landslide hazard maps) be used?

We agree that site specific focus would be acceptable knowing pipeline risk models can break down risk indicators on a segment basis but do identify potentially more than one threat.

20-PH4: Scaling up of Composite Metal Foam Manufacturing for HazMat Packaging