SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- BAA08-08, Synthetic Aperture LADAR for Tactical Imaging (SALTI)
- Notice Date
- 7/9/2008
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Contracts Management Office, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203-1714, UNITED STATES
- ZIP Code
- 22203-1714
- Solicitation Number
- BAA08-08
- Response Due
- 11/13/2008
- Archive Date
- 11/28/2008
- Point of Contact
- Larry C Stotts,,
- E-Mail Address
-
BAA08-08@darpa.mil
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Modification 3 TO BAA 08-08 Synthetic Aperture LADAR for Tactical Imaging (SALTI) (U) The purpose of Modification 3 to BAA08-08 (SALTI) is to make the following changes: 1. (U) Page 5, Section 1.1.1 entitled Phase 4: System Design and Demonstration is replaced in its entirety with the following: 1.1.1 (U) Phase 4: System Design, Development and Validation (U) During Phase 4, the contractor shall design, develop and test the critical components and subsystems, and then integrate them into a brassboard system for field testing on a contractor-supplied test aircraft. These field tests will be designed and executed to validate the program metrics (see Section 1.2 of this BAA) under various atmospheric conditions. The goal of Phase 4 is to verify the resolution at range requirements cited in program metrics in a configuration compatible with customer needs and able to compensate for aero-optics effects and any atmospheric effects induced by turbulence and atmospheric particulates, i.e., haze. The intent is to identify any remaining issues and resolve them prior to the Phase 5 POD design and fabrication. Testing will validate all specified program metrics, as well as validate the SALTI system model predictions using atmospheric parameters obtained during field testing. (U) This aforementioned design should be compatible with a military-certifiable POD, but the brassboard does not have to be packaged into a POD for Phase 4 testing and demonstration. Specifically, the brassboard’s size, weight and power (SWAP) should show traceability towards a seamless integration into the contractor-proposed POD, but is not expected to completely meet POD SWAP. (U) Phase 4 will have four major tasks that will lead to a successful flight testing and demonstration. They are: (1) POD Preliminary Design; (2) Critical component and sub-systems analysis, development and testing; (3) SAL image processing; and (4) and flight testing in a sample relevant environment. (U) The Contractor shall develop a Preliminary Design for the proposed POD system as well as a detailed systems model and its accompanying analyses to show the proposed system’s potential to meet program metrics in a POD configuration. Based on these analyses, the Contractor shall develop a Systems Requirement Document (SRD) for the proposed POD system that will identify critical technical performance and identify critical technology elements. Data Collection flights 2. (U) All references to “Conceptual Design” should be changed to “Preliminary Design.” Specifically, a. Page 5, Section 1.1.1., second and third paragraph b. Page 6, Section 1.1.1.1 c. Page 6, Section 1.1.1.1.1 d. Page 7, Section 1.1.1.1.4 d. Page 7, Section 1.1.1.2.1 e. Page 7, Section 1.1.1.3.1 3. (U) Page 6, Section 1.1.1.1.2 entitled System Performance and Signature/Imaging Modeling and Analysis, is replaced in its entirety with the following: 1.1.1.1.2 (U) System Performance and Signature/Imaging Modeling and Analysis (U) A complete systems model is required to predict sensor performance in the presence of atmospheric effects for both the Phase 4 test aircraft and final POD configuration. This model should include aero-optics effects and those effects induced by atmospheric turbulence and particulates, i.e., Haze. For all predictive analyses, the Contractor shall use typical atmospheric visibilities such as 10, 25 and 50 statute miles, and the 0.2x, 1x and 5x Huffnagle-Valley 5/7 atmospheric models, (see figure 1 for comparison of these models against Korean atmospheric data. (U) Figure 1 Multiples of Huffnagle-Valley Model Compared To Korean Turbulence (U) The Contractor shall demonstrate a systems model, validated by laboratory and field testing results from the previous SALTI Phases as well as data taken during Phase 4. This model must, as a minimum, include objective platform-based environmental factors. Signature/imaging models will be developed to predict sensor performance based on sensor platforms and targets expected to be seen during field testing and validation. These should include both intra-beam and sub-swath image prediction. Both the performance and signature models will be delivered to the Government at appropriate periodic intervals during contract. 4. (U) Page 6, Section 1.1.1.1.4 entitled Data Collection Flights is replaced in its entirety with the following: 1.1.1.1.4 (U) Data Collection Flights (U) Flight tests of a SAL sensor shall be conducted during Phase 4 to validate SALTI signature/imaging and system models, as well as verifying relevant program metrics can be met. Key to this validation is formation of SAL images using existing/upgraded SALTI from Phase 3 and preceding SALTI testing. The Contractor shall identify potential ranges for field testing and demonstration selection for unambiguous validation of SALTI models, predictions and program metrics. The Contractor also will identify any safety and testing issues, e.g., eye safety, flight safety, that need resolution and will work with the Government to resolve before flight testing. The Contractor shall develop a draft test plan for a set of proposed testing and demonstration for unambiguous validation of SALTI models, predictions and program metrics, and submit it to the Government for approval prior to any field tests. This test plan shall include proposed measurements from which the strength of atmospheric turbulence along the path and the integrated extinction due to Haze can be estimated. This data will also be used for improving SALTI image formation and processing algorithms. (U) As noted above, atmospheric characteristics / ground truth data taken during Phase 4 field testing shall be used in the referenced SALTI model to predict system performance and compared to SALTI measurements obtained during said tests. The goal is to show good agreement between experiment, models and the relevant program metrics. The Contractor will identify all ground truthing requirements, and is responsible for obtaining this equipment for the Phase 4 field trials. If such equipment is available from the government, the Contractor can propose its use as GFE in said field trials. However, the government is under no obligation to provide, and the Contractor needs to determine alternate sources. 5. (U) Page 7, Section 1.1.1.2.1 entitled Critical Technology Identification is replaced in its entirety with the following: 1.1.1.2.1 (U) Critical Technology Identification (U) Based on the Preliminary Design for the proposed POD configuration, the Contractor shall identify and document the critical technologies, components and sub-systems, necessary to achieve the required performance specified in the program metrics section. Identification and documentation shall be provided at a level sufficient to allow detailed evaluation of these subsystems by expert reviewers. All claims to prior performance demonstration of components (ie. laser systems, detectors, etc) shall be documented. The Contractor shall benchmark in detail the State-of-the-Art (SOA) for each and provide documentation supporting SOA claims, identify the technical challenges (if any) for maturing it to the level necessary for the SALTI Phase 4 brassboard integration, and outline the WBS tasking and budget (if any) needed to meet these challenges on the proposed Phase 4 schedule. The Contractor shall consider as a minimum, but not limited to, the following areas as critical to SALTI: lasers, circulators, detectors, pointing and tracking, payload stabilization, aero-optics effects, vibration and motion compensation, auto-focus algorithms, atmospheric and aero-optics effects compensation, signal processing, and data acquisition and storage systems. Such documentation is especially vital for critical path items such as laser systems, for which sufficient detail must be provided to allow evaluation of laser concepts by Government experts. For example, laser system design should be specified at sufficient level to allow evaluation of projected performance parameters such as power, linewidth, beam quality, and electrical efficiency in the presence of physical processes that constrain these parameters. All claims with regard to previous demonstration(s) must be substantiated in detail. (U) As noted above, the brassboard’s SWAP should show traceability towards a seamless integration into the contractor-proposed POD, but is not expected to completely meet POD SWAP. The Contractor shall provide a road map for how all mismatched critical components and subsystems can be fixed, changed, or modified to meet POD SWAP requirements. The Contractor will have to demonstrate operation of all critical components and subsystems individually and in the integrated brassboard in the laboratory before flight testing can occur. 6. (U) Page 18, Section 4.3.1.1 Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section III, Detailed Proposal Information, G is replaced in its entirety to address EVM: (U) Management Approach: Describe management approach and identify formal teaming agreements that are required to execute this program. The plan should include an organization chart and a summary that describes programmatic relationship of team members, their unique capabilities, task responsibilities, and the teaming strategy among the team members. Additionally, describe the approach for system engineering, assessing and managing cost, technical, and schedule risk to include commercially acceptable Earned Value Management techniques, the method of assessing and managing progress towards achieving programmatic goals and metrics, the extent of participation of small and disadvantaged businesses, and use of a secure Integrated Digital Environment. 7. (U) Page 22, Section 4.4.1 entitled Proposal Date, inner envelope, change the “ATTN” line to read as follows: ATTN: STO/Dr. L. B. Stotts, Room 328. 8. (U) Page 23, Section 5.1.1 entitled Overall Scientific and Technical Merit, is replaced in its entirety with the following: (U) OVERALL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MERIT (U) The proposer’s Overall Scientific and Technical Merit will be evaluated to determine the extent that the effort will meet the program objectives and goals. Specifically, the proposer must show a credible technical approach to achieving the program goals; objectives and performance metrics (see Section 1.2). The four critical sub-factors to be evaluated in assessing the credability of the technical approach are the technology SOA assessment maturity and validation levels of the proposed SALTI model, which should include all degrading system effects, the system engineering analysis of proposed approach, and credibility of proposed cost and schedule. At a minimum, the following items should be provided for evaluation: •(U) SOA: The proposal shall benchmark the SOA for critical component and sub-system for the Preliminary Design, identify the technical challenges (if any) for maturing it to the level necessary for the SALTI Phase 4 brassboard integration, and outline the WBS tasking and budget (if any) needed to meet these challenges on the proposed Phase 4 schedule. All technical claims made in the proposal will be expected to have accompanying data to verify such claims, with sufficient description on how measurements were made, under what conditions, and all the values of the relevant ancillary parameters and or metrics, at the time of the measurements. •(U) SALTI Systems Model: The proposer shall describe the SOA SALTI system model used in developing the proposal and outline how it was validated by laboratory and field testing results from the previous SALTI Phases. This model should include aero-optics and atmospheric turbulence effects, and their compensation, clearly identified in model. •(U) Prediction of SALTI performance: A complete systems model will be used to predict sensor performance in the presence of atmospheric effects for proposed designs associated with both the Phase 4 test aircraft and final POD configuration. A complete system link budget should be included in the proposal for both the Phase 4 testing and POD design. The system engineering analyses should include aero-optics effects and those effects induced by atmospheric turbulence and particulates, i.e., Haze. For proposal, the Contractor shall use typical atmospheric visibilities such as 10, 25 and 50 statute miles, and the 0.2x, 1x and 5x Huffnagle-Valley 5/7 atmospheric models2, 3. Power Spectrum Density data for the Phase 4 test aircraft and the expected AF fighter should be identified and used in this analyses. •(U) Performance/Cost/Schedule: The proposer will be evaluated on creditability of achieving the program’s goals, objectives and program metrics within the cost and schedule. All subcontractor WBS tasking and budget should be reflected in the proposers’ overall Master Schedule and Budget. (U) The contactor should demonstrate a clear and broad understanding of all the critical technical issue in making a SALTI a deployed capability in the USAF, and the degrees of technical innovation in the technical approach should be clearly articulated. 9. (U) Page 24, Section 5.1.3 entitled Management Approach, is replaced in its entirety with the following: (U)The proposal must show effective and responsible management of both people and information resources needed to execute the program. Management plans must accommodate Government visibility into key technical activities, interaction with key personnel, and single point responsibility for contract performance. Technical, administrative, and financial accountability must be evident from the management and reporting structure. Roles of the prime Contractor and all other participants should be delineated and adequately described and formal agreements documented. Any participation by or use of Government personnel and property must be identified. Intellectual property issues must be adequately addressed. In particular, the following items will be considered and evaluated: (U)System Engineering Plan and management approach (U)Cost Risk assessment and management approach (U)Technical Risk assessment and management approach (U)Schedule Risk assessment and management approach (U)Method of assessing and managing progress towards achieving programmatic goals and metrics (U)Use of a secure Integrated Environment (U) Earned Value Management (EVM) and management approach 10. (U) Page 27, Section 6.2.1 entitled Security, change the “Attn:” line to read as follows: ATTN: STO/Dr. L. B. Stotts, Room 328.
- Web Link
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fb2d47291e30670d288c86f21410a49f&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01609871-W 20080711/080709221604-fb2d47291e30670d288c86f21410a49f (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |