SOURCES SOUGHT
A -- 54Sources Sought for Human Systems Integration (HSI) and Human Performance Modeling (HPM) Software Tools and Cognitive Model Development
- Notice Date
- 9/13/2018
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 541511
— Custom Computer Programming Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, ACC - APG (W911QX) Adelphi, 2800 Powder Mill Road, Building 601, Adelphi, Maryland, 20783-1197, United States
- ZIP Code
- 20783-1197
- Solicitation Number
- W911QX-18-Q-0106
- Archive Date
- 10/3/2018
- Point of Contact
- Jessica R. Camunez, Phone: 5756788283
- E-Mail Address
-
jessica.r.camunez.civ@mail.mil
(jessica.r.camunez.civ@mail.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- A. Objective: To find sources that are qualified to meet the supplies/services as listed in section 11B. Note that the specific requirements in section B are subject to change prior to the release of any solicitation. B. Performance Work Statement 3.0 Requirements: 3.1 (Task 1) - Program Management 3.1.1 Monthly Status Report (MSR). Submit a Monthly Status Report. The MSR shall provide project status. The MSR reports cost, schedule, and performance and identifies status of funding, technical progress made and schedule status per deliverable, deliverable titles and numbers completed within the previous month, and the deliverables scheduled to be delivered during the upcoming month. Specific MSR format and content shall be mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the Contracting Officer Representative (COR). (Deliverable 4.1: Monthly Status Report). 3.2 (Task 2) - HPM Tools Support IMPRINT and C3TRACE are tri-service tools available at no cost to the US Government and contractors. As such, it is important for ARL-HRED to continue to update these tools, in support of G1 Office in the Pentagon, to maintain their verification, validity and utility for the user community. The Contractor shall maintain these HSI tools ensuring their availability and utility to the tri-service community to support the design and analysis of military systems. The contractor shall provide HPM tools support that shall include: - Maintaining and supporting IMPRINT and C3TRACE -Conduct software testing of IMPRINT to identify and diagnose issues associated with its use and compliance to Government Information Assurance policies and industry standards -Repair issues identified prior to software release -Update users' and help documentation and training documentation to correspond to changes made to the software -Maintain the distributed plug-ins to ensure they work appropriately with each new version or incorporate certain features into IMPRINT -Maintain the IMPRINT and C3TRACE SharePoint sites and provide support to new and current users in regards to accessing the site - Make available copies/licenses of executable versions of IMPRINT and C3TRACE -Provide training for the tools and develop videos compatible to be shared on public online platforms (i.e. YouTube, Vimeo etc.). - Provide an annual review of available and emerging HPM tools that are determined useful to HRED and the program offices, and as requested, provide access to and expertise with these tools. Deliverables shall include: software installation files for IMPRINT and C3TRACE, software release notes, and user manuals, and SharePoint sites, (Deliverable 4.2: IMPRINT and C3TRACE Maintenance and Support); two copies of each of the tools (Deliverable 4.3: HPM Tools); tools training (Deliverable 4.4: HPM Training); and the annual tool review (Deliverable 4.5: HPM Tools Annual Review) 3.3 (Task 3) - Human System Integration Transition - The Purpose of this project is to increase the effectiveness and adoption of Army HSI practices and to improve and expand established HSI tools such as IMPRINT and C3TRACE Tools for acquisition on an Army and DOD-wide scale. - Focus on Army HSI strategic communication, coordination and technical efforts in improving HSI tools, models and requirements for user case studies. -The Contractor shall research targeted channels for strategic communication explored between HSI implementers, Program Directors, Managers and strategic stakeholders such as Assistant Secretary of the Army Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASAALT), Program Executive Offices (PEO), research and engineer centers, and others. -Tasks -Overall: conduct research and analysis, determine and develop the highest priority/strategic communication assets and develop an implementation plan with recommendations. - Review prior studies, analyses and recommendations sponsored by Army HSI. - Iterative/collaborative design, development and review of a strategic communication program to drive standardization and adoption of Army HSI best practices. - Iterative/collaborative design, development and review of highest priority/strategic communication and HSI tool assets for implementing the program. - Develop a Communication Plan which contains the following areas. - Objective -Current State to Desired Future State - Audience Analysis - Communication Strategy a. Approach b. Tactics (broad vs. targeted) -Communication Plan a. Framework: Audience, timing, channel b. Deliverable List (descriptions and recommended use) - Best-practice use for Army HSI - Visual identity for Army HSI o Communications Launch Plan with recommendations - Recommendations for HSI data collection and analysis - Experience map for Army HSI - visually illustrates the end-to-end Army HSI best-practice use process putting the Army Program Manager (PM) in the center of focus -Considerations for continued strategic messaging going forward and recommendations 3.4 (Task 4) Manned Unmanned Teaming (MuM-T) for Abrams Lethality Enabler Background: To determine the cognitive workload of operators and crew operating supervised-autonomous systems for augmenting the lethality of the mounted warfighter and enhancing crew level mission success for the Abrams. To develop insights into task, doctrinal, training and engineering changes that could lead to decreases in human performance errors in supervised-autonomous systems management and examine doctrinal, training and technology feeder of crew level task for other combat vehicles utilizing unmanned systems. The Contractor shall build new stressor models and incorporate them into IMPRINT software based on the data that ARL-HRED will be collecting for the Abrams Lethality Enabler (ALE) program. The Contractor shall examine the ability of the Abrams Loader to control Unmanned assets (MuM-T) in addition to performing this regular assigned tasks. -Abrams MuM-T IMPRINT Modeling -Advise on format for data collection - Update the Abrams IMPRINT Model to most current fielded Abrams configuration for baseline analysis. -Modify Abrams IMPRINT Model to represent Abram's Loader supervising Unattended Ground Vehicle (UGVs), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with three (3) levels of operator workload, one (1) UGV, two (2) UGVs and two (2) UGVs plus one UAV. - Perform operator workload analyses (Operator system utilization, Operator mental workload over time). Analyze and validate initial model results with subject matter experts (SMEs). Refine and analyses updated models. - Apply personnel and training moderators and other applicable stressors to scenario model - Map personnel capabilities associated with different Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) designators and levels to task types via IMPRINT task taxonomies. - Jointly Publish results in a report with HRED 3.5 (Task 5) Cost of Not Accommodating the Warfighter Background: The types and numbers of people who will use, operate, maintain, and sustain a system define the "target populations" for the system. These target populations and the training and resources needed to initially enable, and then sustain them, determine a significant portion of the long-term costs and affordability of the system. In fact, about half of the life-cycle cost of a system is people and that cost may rise with the wrong people or as a consequence of poor design. People costs are also often cost multipliers for fielded systems since multiple people are often involved (e.g., operators, maintainers), they interact with the system over its lifetime, and people both cause and accommodate system degradations and failures. In essence, not accommodating the Warfighter tends to magnify the future costs of the system. As a recent example of this, the Army G-1 MANPRINT (Manpower Personnel Integration; now HSI, Human-Systems Integration) Assessment for the WIN-T (Warfighter Information Network - Tactical Increment 2) system (Drillings, 2009) warned of issues with reduced crew sizes, dependence on contractor support, increased training requirements, product complexity resulting in increased performance times, error rates, and crew workloads, and exceeding the capabilities of the target MOS's. Most of these predictions were accurate and WIN-T has since been re-engineered to address these human system integration (HSI) short-falls. The MANPRINT Assessment had cited these issues as "risks." Had cost estimates been included they could have influenced design decisions sooner and saved re-design costs and initial poor system performance. Even though trade-offs between human and materiel solutions are now more explicitly considered during Analysis of Alternatives studies, the consideration of human performance capabilities and limits is not yet optimal or quantitative. As system development proceeds, design decisions may be made that negatively impact the target populations when good quantitative data or analysis about them has not been made available or well considered. Rather than ensuring a design solution that best accommodates the characteristics of the Warfighter, system developers may decide that additional training or acceptance of additional risk is a more expedient solution. This kind of result may be more likely when considering a squad or team. It can appear that more people means that someone is likely to have the needed or extra capability. It is critical that these Warfighter trade-offs become more rigorous and quantitative in order to fully identify and mitigate the overall mission risk and long-term cost impacts. Problem Statement: How to quantify tradeoffs between warfighter characteristics and capabilities in terms of mission performance, short and long term costs, and/or safety/survivability risk? Benefit to the Army: This study shall identify algorithms, methods, tools and metrics to enable HSI professionals, system developers, and program managers to quantitatively analyze and represent the impacts of trading against Warfighter characteristics and capabilities (e.g., accommodating the 10th percentile female physical parameters instead of the 5th; requiring higher ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) scores or additional training; not accommodating color blindness). Better quantification of these considerations shall support their inclusion in Return on Investment/Cost Savings and system/mission risk analyses. Proposed Tasks: • Survivability-Habitability charts o Complete the charts for health hazards and have them vetted by Army Public Health Center (APHC) o Develop approaches for presenting the other non-environmental hazards o Develop requirements for conversion of demo to web-site or other format accessible to the practitioner community • Population Based Data o Develop requirements for conversion of personnel attributes spread sheet into a web based tool accessible to the practitioner community • Overall o Aggregate into a set of tools that can be accessed in one location 3.6 (Task 6) Provide support to deliver and Maintain Tools, Databases, and Processes to Support HSI Analyses Early in Acquisition Background: Currently, HSI domain tradeoffs are limited (e.g., manpower vs. personnel, manpower vs. HFE) and the results are not typically linked to impact on TOC. A notable exception is the Medical Cost Avoidance Model (MCAM), developed by the US Army Public Health Center (APHC), to support Health Hazard domain assessments. MCAM uses historical data associated with the severity and likelihood of potential health hazards to predict the costs of medical treatment and disability over a lifespan. The HSI tool development community should collaborate to create an architecture that would fully support an integrated HSI assessment capability which would support the reuse of existing data and knowledge, facilitate tradeoffs among domains, and quantitatively predict system performance and cost. When a comprehensive enterprise architecture solution is complete, the HSI community should undertake an unbiased survey to select existing GOTS models, tools, databases, design techniques, and risk mitigation strategies that contribute to the elements of the architecture. • Identify and help develop quantitative tools that address the integration of HSI domains (i.e., the tradeoffs across domains) and the estimation of relevant safety, cost. Develop performance metrics and capabilities (models, applications) to enable HSI practitioners to proactively articulate HSI risk in support of the SE risk management process. Such tools would enable decision makers to see the impact of HSI and assess recommendations to mitigate the HSI risks. • Develop a user case on one of the Army's priorities such as cyber electromagnetic activity. This shall demonstrate the capability to leverage validated HSI datasets to quantitatively predict the impact of operational, environmental and system-design variables on human performance (e.g., time, accuracy, response quality) very early in acquisition and translate human performance to an emerging system's HSI performance profile (i.e., usability, suitability, operability, maintainability, safety, survivability) as an integrated element of the Systems Engineering process. 3.7 (Task 7) - Model-Based Experimentation and the Human Viewpoint Methodology to Support the Development of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles simulation models. Task 1 Develop a model-based experimentation paradigm to establish a context for data collection and simulation model design to ensure an accurate and thorough understanding of the problem space. Providing post simulation data analysis that examine the model outcomes from the perspective of the specific stakeholder questions and provides outcomes in formats customized to support decision-making. The combined processes links the modeling effort to the strategic problem domain and frames the simulation results for the stakeholder's needs. 35K 3.8 (Task 8) HPM for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV)-Phase 1 Experimentation (NEW) Background: The Army's current requirements and capabilities development practices take too long. On average, the Army takes from 3 to 5 years to approve requirements and another 10 years to design, build, and test new weapon systems. The Army has stood up eight priority CFTs to pilot a flat organizational construct enhanced by centralized planning and decentralized execution to deliver the best possible return on investment for Soldiers. The Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) is one of the eight priority CFTs. The NGCV consists of two platforms: a Robotic Combat Vehicle that delivers decisive lethality and overmatch in a future operational environment as part of a unmanned/manned team executing combined arms maneuver and a Manned Fighting Vehicle that maneuvers Soldiers to a point of positional advantage to engage in close combat and deliver decisive lethality during the execution of combined arms maneuver, while simultaneously controlling maneuver robotics and semi-autonomous systems. A critical component of the NGCV is the reduced manning of these vehicles to a two man crew. • HPM for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) Phase 1 Experimentation. The Contractor shall perform the following tasks in support of an IMPRINT analysis looking at the performance of the reduced two man crew in NGCV operations. o Develop a performance shaping factor (PSF) for Galvanic Skin Responses (GSRs) to workload demands. o Conduct research for task sequencing and task times as necessary for two and three man crews prior to the MET-D experiment. o Includes 1 week TDY to TARDEC, Warren, MI. o Develop two and three man IMPRINT Crew Model. o Exercise models to develop predictions of tasks flows and timing, workload, and GSRs. • Hum HPM for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV)-Phase 2 Two Crewman Model Development o Prepare analysis instruments for the MET-D Experiment in August-September at Ft. Stewart, GA. o Includes 4 weeks TDY to Ft. Stewart, GA., one training session and three scenario runs. o Analyze data from the MET-D experiment. o Compare experimentation results to IMPRINT model results including task flows and timing, workload, and stress responses. • Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) Workload Analysis o Collect task analysis data to better understand the system, operators, and scenarios. This includes describing the tasks and actions as discrete steps and sequences, obtaining estimated performance times (or ranges) for each step, and workload estimates for each step. o Build baseline IMPRINT models for the basic operation of the lethal and non-lethal system packages using two operators (driver/asset-controller). o Establish demanding yet realistic scenario based on a Table 8. o Tailor the baseline tasks to fit the scenario. o Execute the model capture workload, throughput, utilization and bottleneck results. o Play "what if" with notional changes to any of the processes, resources, timing, etc. to reduce workload and/or improve the overall task and mission performance. 3.9 (Task 9) Human System Integration Capability Based Analysis This PWS outlines deliverables to be produced in support of current Army modernization objectives and early, often use of HSI in the Defense Acquisition Process. Case studies prove that early engagement of Army HSI improves program and Warfighter outcomes. DoD Instruction 5000.02 mandates that HSI be "included as an integral part of a total system approach to weapon systems development and acquisition. The effort shall increase the effectiveness, efficiency and adoption of Army HSI practices and tools for acquisition on an Army and DOD-wide scale. o Develop HSI educational material that include a flip book and a digital application that covers all the domains of HSI to assistance practitioners in conducting His analysis and reporting. o Develop a video emphasizing the value of early and often implemented HSI across and according to the Defense Acquisition Process o Develop at least one customer case study to assist HSI practitioners and PM in understanding and implementing the HSI analysis across the acquisition cycle. o Develop a web site that serves as a foundational communication portal for HSI Practitioners ("home" for branding, marketing materials, messaging, events, Gap updates and linkable content ((e.g., Body of Knowledge, Standards) and PEO sites)) o Develop a mobile app for PMs to learn more about why and when to engage HSI early and often in the Acquisition Process and how funding works (HSI research sources vs. HSI reimbursable activities). • Define strategy and objectives • Conduct technical assessment • Define specifications (e.g., native app (manage and update through app store) or web app (dependent, easy to update)) • Explore future use (gamified learning experience/usage data for certification 3.10 (TASK 10) Cost and Readiness Benefits of Implementing HSI-Based Mitigation Strategies for Maintenance Processes Deficiencies in Army maintenance procedures for ground combat vehicles are resulting in avoidable personnel, medical and operations costs, and ultimately affecting Total Army Force readiness. The following tasks shall be performed to examine various mitigation strategies to reduce costs and improve readiness for a select ground vehicle and specific maintenance process that has been identified by government researchers as injury prone to soldiers. o Support data and literature review to modify IMPRINT model to conduct analysis using a government selected Army maintenance unit as a case study to determine the cost impact of the identified critical maintenance error and readiness using imprint maintenance modeling. o Using IMPRINT maintenance model, model the impact of HSI-based mitigation strategies of identified maintenance process inefficiencies on readiness and cost. Model outputs shall identify mitigation strategies that provide maximize potential ROI in terms of readiness and cost reduction. o Review and contribute to final analysis report. C. Responses: All interested parties should notify this office in writing, mail, fax, or e-mail within the posted date. Responses shall include: (I) To what extent each of the specifications can be met. (II) Include your type of business (i.e. commercial, academia), whether your organization is classified as a large or small business based on the $27,500,000.00 standard that accompanies NAICS code 541511. If a small business, you must also list any small disadvantaged status you hold [HUBZone, 8(a), Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Women Owned Small Business (WOSB), Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB), etc.]. (III) Past experience/ performance through the description of completed projects. (12) Responses to this sources sought are due no later than 3:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 09/18/2018. Submissions should be emailed to Jessica Camunez; 575-678-8283; Jessica.r.camunez.civ@mail.mil
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/421d6528fbf4df2200cf56485f5a53ec)
- Record
- SN05087472-W 20180915/180913231129-421d6528fbf4df2200cf56485f5a53ec (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 |