80TECH24FA019 - JOFOC_Redacted.pdf

Rev.:4/2023

(baseline) speech to text models and compute performance metrics (word error rate) across different baseline models.

The current Phase 2 included services that collected extensive taxi audio and build a custom speech to text model. The current Phase 2 work includes automated speech to text transcription of taxi audio, extraction of taxi instructions from the transcript (text) and conversion of text taxi instructions to digital taxi instructions in a format that is accepted by the EFB app. The end-to-end pipeline is being made available on APPDAT - a NASA approved IT cloud infrastructure.

Phase 3 will consist of the following requirements from Four Points:

1. Contractor shall provide professional services to further refine the proof-of-concept model:

a. Continue to participate in bi-weekly and status review meetings as required.

b. Continue to consolidate, ingest, and prepare data to prepare for design review.

c. Continue to refine custom speech-to-text language model by training on transcribed audio datasets from KTPA: Tampa International Airport and other airport locations.

d. Continue to refine DTI model that converts text containing single valid taxi instruction to digital format that can be ingested by BCI

e. Participate in TBD Readiness Review at FAA location.

f. Participate in TBD Design Review Test/HITL Demonstration at FAA location.

i. STT API will process 3-5 live spoken taxi instructions, convert to digital format, send to BCI to verify instruction validity, and display on map.

g. Document in report (word report and/or ppt) all prototype functionalities, design and technical challenges, test results, including measurement criteria, and lessons learned and recommendations for real world implementation.

2. Contractor shall provide access to a cloud computing environment where data is to be stored and computed.

a. Continue to participate in kick-off, bi-weekly, and status review meetings as required. Document (word or ppt) status and plans as required.

b. Includes possible setup and deployment of data collection at new airport location(s)

TBD by customer, including necessary hardware.

c. Includes collecting audio samples, building data pipelines to ingest data into Google

Cloud Platform.

d. Includes custom modeling for creating language and DTI models,

e. Includes further testing validation and documentation.

3. Contractor shall provide access to a cloud computing environment where data is to be stored and computed.

4. Contractor shall participate and prepare for demonstrations as required.

5. Contractor shall document (word and/or ppt) assessment of demonstrations.

The Flight Deck Collaborative Decision Making Phase 3 has a period of performance of 4 months from award date and an estimated dollar value of $ .

4. FAR 6.303-2(b)(4) – An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition:

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C.

3204(a)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(iii), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy Agency requirements.

Deliverable Reference Description/Acceptance Criteria

Date

Phase III Deliverable 1

B.1.a Bi-weekly Status Reports (word and/or ppt) to include progress against program timelines, key risks and issues to be addressed, decisions or change requests, and progress on milestones and KPIs

Bi-weekly

Phase III Deliverable 2

B.1.e Readiness Review: Participate in meeting with stakeholders to plan and prepare for HITL Demonstration.

TBD

Phase III Deliverable 3

B.1.f At Design Review #2, HITL Demonstration, which will be used a benchmark for the Proof of Concept, we will need to convert either prerecorded clean instructions or live vocal commands to a DTI string.

Criteria for measuring completeness and accuracy of conversion must be determined and show higher level of completeness, accuracy, and ability to handle complexity.

TBD

Phase III Deliverable 4

B.1.g Technical Design Document (word and/or ppts) all prototype functionalities, design and technical challenges, test results, including measurement criteria, and lessons learned and recommendations for real world implementation.

TBD

5. FAR 6.303-2(b)(5) – A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited:

The rationale supporting the use of 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1) is necessary due to the inherent needs to fulfill mission schedule, the continuation of agile buying in phases, and to reduce cost as described below. In accordance with FAR 6.302-1(a)(iii), services may be deemed available from only one original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition or unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Agency’s requirements.

The incumbent, Four Points Technology, is the only contractor that is able to provide uninterrupted agile services without substantial duplication of effort or costs that would otherwise be incurred, considering the diverse and specialized requirements put forth in each of the phases of the follow-on contracts. Services are currently performed in support of prototype demonstration of automated transcription of ground taxi instructions and conversion to digital taxi instructions that can be ingested by EFB apps. This is a critical enabler for improved efficiency and reduction of errors and ambiguity in current day ground taxi operations. A custom speech to text model that is trained on Aviation specific lingo is vital in reducing the word error rates associated with transcription of taxi (audio) instructions.

The custom model development requires collection of massive amounts of audio data, time consuming human transcription effort, ingestion to cloud environment, model training etc.

which have all been completed in phases 1 and 2 by vendor and subject matter experts. If NASA were to go with another vendor additional incurred cost would equate to $ to repeat Phase 1 and Phase 2 and an additional time increase of two years would cause substantial delay in the prototype development effort.

The vendor utilized state of the art Google speech to text methodologies, processes and architecture that is proprietary and cannot be replicated by other vendors. They have utilized transformer based next generation speech to text models (e.g., Chirp) with unique capabilities that help reduce errors in transcription from live taxi audio. NASA has performed due diligence in comparing other commercial speech to text models and chose Google as the best performing model. The work also included collection of substantial amounts of good/clean quality audio data which the vendor has done over phases 1 and 2 (close to 1000 hours), that is currently being used to build custom models and end to end pipeline. This work cannot be easily replicated by a different vendor. The vendor also utilizes Google Gemini (AI) model to automatically extract taxi instructions from surrounding text and generate digital taxi instruction in a format that is ingested by the EFB app. The work cannot be replaced by a different vendor without access to Gemini, which has been developed over many years and requires significant investment, manpower and resources. The use of the incumbent ensures that there is not a duplication of costs or schedule loss to the overall phase in requirements.

6. FAR 6.303-2(b)(6) – A description of the efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies: A notice to the Government Point of Entry (GPE) website (Sam.gov) was published on February 02, 2024, in accordance with FAR Subpart 5.2. This posting informed potential sources of NASA’s intent to award this sole-source contract to Four Points Technology. The results of this synopsis are summarized in Section 10 below.

7. FAR 6.303-2(b)(7) – A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Contracting Officer’s signature on this document indicates that the Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable. The Contractor shall be required to submit a proposal to be evaluated and negotiated by the Government. Prior to execution of the contractual instrument, a proposal analysis will be performed. The proposal analysis will ensure that the final agreed-to price for the contract action is fair and reasonable. The proposed costs will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness by comparing the proposed cost to historical information for similar work for the previous contracts of this follow-on and based on other information that is available regarding current market prices. The Contracting Officer will ensure inputs from the Contracting Officer’s Representative and/or technical representatives are incorporated, as well as other information that may be available to the Government at the time of receipt of the contractor’s proposal.

8. FAR 6.303-2(b)(8) – Description of the market research conducted, and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted:

The following market research was conducted in preparation for this acquisition:

• The Government reviewed – Flight Deck Collaboration Decision

Making (CDM Research Project Phase 1 and – Flight Deck Collaboration Decision Making (CDM) Research Project Phase 2.

• It was determined that the market research initiated in the requirement and award was relevant to the scope and requirement of the current acquisition.

The effort of another vendor at this point in the agile bit buying would add substantial duplication of costs to the Government and delay of critical scheduled components.

9. FAR 6.303-2(b)(9) – Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition:

NASA recognizes that other offerors may be able to provide the necessary IT and agile services, however, transitioning to a new vendor poses a higher risk to NASA’s ability to execute Phase 3 refinement of the accuracy model and improve the interface for EFB usability within the constrained schedule of this acquisition. If a new vendor were to be utilized, Phase 1 and Phase 2 would need to be repeated in order to redevelop the prototype to meet the requirements in Phase 3. This would result in a substantial duplication of costs estimated at $ , which is based on the combined cost of Phase 1 and Phase 2 completed work, that is not expected to be revered through competition.

10. FAR 6.303-2(b)(10) – A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed an interest in writing in the acquisition:

A notice of NASA’s intent to award this sole-source action was synopsized on the GPE website (Sam.gov) per FAR Subpart 5.2 (See Section 6 above). The intent to sole source was posted for 15 days from the effective posting date of February 02, 2024.

11. FAR 6.303-2(b)(11) – A statement of actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

In order to remove or overcome barriers to competition in future acquisitions for this requirement, Ames Research Center will continue to utilize the SEWP online Market Research Tool to assist in the market research process and assess industry capability to meet compatibility and performance needs for the future Flight Deck Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) Research Project Phase. However, ARC does not anticipate any significant changes to the requirements that would allow the increase of fair opportunity in the near future.