Attachment 9 - Technical Evaluation Tables.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Night Vision Device - Next (NVD-N) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-24-NVDN
About this file
This document provides details for a draft request for prototype proposals (RPP) for the Night Vision Device - Next (NVD-N) program. The Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground is seeking prototype development of the NVD-N through competitive other transaction agreements. Interested offerors are requested to provide feedback on the RPP and associated documents by submitting comments in a Microsoft Word document via email by the dates specified. The prototype development will validate the NVD-N design and manufacturing processes against the performance specification and statement of work. The RPP describes requirements for designing NVD-N systems, developing manufacturing processes, fabricating prototype units, and testing prototypes.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 5 - DRAFT OTA NVD-N.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 6 - Pricing Template_CLIN Structure.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT NVD-N RPP (29Feb24).pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Exhibit 1
| Exhibit 1: Sample Risk Matrix | |||||||||||||
| Risk Rating Matrix (Pre-mitigation) | Risk Rating Matrix (Post-mitigation) | ||||||||||||
| Likelihood % | 80-100 | C5, S1 | Likelihood % | 80-100 | |||||||||
| 60-79 | 60-79 | C5 | |||||||||||
| 40-59 | P5, P6, S5 | 40-59 | |||||||||||
| 20-39 | S3 | 20-39 | P5, P6, S1, S5 | ||||||||||
| 0-19 | 0-19 | S3 | |||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
| Consequence | Consequence |
Exhibit 2 Exhibit 2: Sample Risk Statement Analysis
| Risk ID | Risk Name | L,C | Pre Mit. | |||
| L/C | Risk Statement | Risk Mitigation | ||||
| P1 | User Interface | 2,1 | 2,1 | If users find the sytem difficult to use or capability offset by difficult user interface, user may find the workload increase reduces system effectiveness. | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. | |
| P2 | NV Performance | 2,2 | 2,2 | If the system low-light performance requirements are not met, users may not be able to meet intended op tempo demand for the close combat direct support. | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. | |
| P3 | Safety | 1,3 | 1,3 | If the system poses a health and safety hazard to the user, material release will not be obtained | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. | |
| P4 | Security | 2,3 | 2,3 | If the system emits, reflects detectable energy by adversaries above threshold, users may avoid use. | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. | |
| P5 | Suitabilty | 3,3 | 3,3 | If the system performance or function is reduced below thresholds in likely Army use environments, US operational advantage will be lost. | Avoidance: Include actual group C tests of greatest concern in the pre-milestone B and EMD test planning. Perform modeling and simulation where applicable. This reduces the likelihood of risk being realized. | |
| P6 | Reliability | 3,2 | 3,3 | If the system operation is diminished or degraded with normal short term use, excessive mainentance/sustainment will reduce operational availability. | Avoidance: Include group D tests of greatest concern in the pre-milestone B and EMD test planning. This reduces likelihood of the risk realization. |
| C1 | Qualification | 3,2 | 3,2 | If system fails to meet un-waivable CDD characteristics, system design modifications and retests may be required that could exceed current RDTE funding. | Avoidance: Use authorized pre-milestone B activities to fund prototype build and test to identify possible requirements failures early and include design solutions early EMD. |
| C2 | Production BOM | 1,2 | 1,2 | If only legacy components are utilized, system unit cost will fail to meet low unit cost goals. | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. |
| C3 | Production Labor | 1, 2 | 1, 2 | If legacy manufacturing processes are required, system unit cost will fail to meet low unit cost goals. | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. |
| C4 | Lot Acceptance | 3,2 | 3,2 | If only legacy lot acceptance methods are utilized, system unit cost will fail to meet low unit cost goals | Control: Coordinate with QA and vendors to identify and remove unnecessary tests. |
| C5 | Sustainment Cost | 5, 3 | 5, 3 | If legacy components are not utilized, sustainment costs will increase. | Contrtol:Set up supply chain of spair parts early, specify field level maintenance with standard TMDE and tools The mitigation can have an impact on both the likelihood and consequence. |
| S1 | Program Start | 4,3 | 5,3 | If requrements document approval is delayed, program execution slips quarterly | Avoidance: Work with SRD and elevate slip concerns early to senior leadership help support to facilitate timely release of CDD. Reduces likelihood. |
| S2 | OTA award | 1,4 | 1,4 | If execution authority is delayed, contract award slips quarters or bi-quarters | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. |
| S3 | Fielding Start | 2,4 | 2,4 | If contract award is delayed or design modifications are required without planning, first unit fielding will be delayed in day for day slip | Avoidance: Begin early coordination with ACC and build 90 day padding into contracting schedule |
| S4 | Fielding Complete | 1,3 | 1,3 | If production costs exceed COA estimates, year by year procurement quantities will be reduced to FY procurement funding limits. | Monitor: Initial risk assessment below risk threshold. |
| S5 | Pre-MSB Testing | 3,3 | 3,3 | If Pre-MSB testing slips, MS-B decision and OTA award will slip monthly | Control: At kick-off identify long lead parts, order while completing detail design. Prioritize envrionmental testing sequence to ensure highest priority tests are completed first. |
Exhibit 3
| Exhibit 3: NVD-N Performance and Compliance Growth Matrix | ||||||||||||
| Baseline Hardware | Developmental Hardware Compliance Plan | |||||||||||
| Compliance Status | Name/date | Name/date | Name/date | Developmental System Compliance Confidence | ||||||||
| Paragraph | Title | Y/N | Value | Ver. Method | Y/N | Value | Y/N | Value | Y/N | Value | Confidence | Rationale |
| 3.5.1.1 | Storage Configuration Volume | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.2 | System Mass | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.3 | Z-Axis Center of Gravity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.4 | Y-Axis Center of Gravity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.5 | X-Axis Center of Gravity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.6 | Yaw Moment of Interia | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.7 | Pitch Moment of Inertia | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.8 | Roll Moment of Inertia | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.9 | Monoclar Eye Relief | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.10 | Monocular Decenered Pupil | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.11 | Left/Right Channel Brightnes Gain Balance | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.12 | Left/Right Paraxial Zone Misalignment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.13 | Left/Right Mid-peripheral Zone Misalignment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.14 | Left/Right Peripheral Zone Misalignment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.15 | Not used | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.16 | Binocular Field of View Overlap | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.17 | Monocular Image Roll Error | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.18 | Not used | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.19 | Monocular Diopter Adjustment Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.20 | Interpuplillary Distance Accommodation Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.21 | Deployed Vertical Displacement Adjustment Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.22 | Deployed Fore/Aft Displacement Adjustment Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.23 | Deployed Tilt Angle Adjustment Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.24 | Monocular Stow Forward Field Residual Obscuration | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.25 | Binocular Stow Forward Field Residual Obscuration | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.26 | Binocular Stow Vertical Protrusion | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.27 | Binocular Stow Forward Protrusion | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.28 | G-Shock System Emergency Breakaway | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.29 | G-Shock System Emergency Breakaway Excess Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.30 | G-Shock System Emergency Breakaway Release Time | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.31 | Prolonged Excessive Force System Emergency Breakaway | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.32 | Prolonged Excessive Force System Emergency Breakaway Excess Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.33 | Prolonged Excessive Force System Emergency Breakaway Release Time | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.34 | Emergency Breakaway Residual Retained Head Supported Mass | |||||||||||
| 3.5.1.35 | Emergency Breakaway Residual Retained Forward Projection | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.1 | Helmet Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.2 | Protective Mask Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.3 | Helmet Mount Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.4 | Light Interference Filter (LIF) Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.5 | Eyepiece Sacrificial Window | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.6 | Objective Lens Sacrificial Window | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.7 | Eye Protection Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.8 | Glove compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.9 | Aiming Laser Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.10 | Test Set Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.11 | Eyecup Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.2.12 | Mission-Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP), Level IV Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.1 | Battery Quantity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.2 | Battery Type | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.3 | Room Temperature Battery Life | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.4 | Cold Temperature Battery Life | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.5 | Hot Temperature Battery Life | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.6 | Battery Reverse Polarity Protection | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.7 | Sacrificial Window Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.8 | Light Interference Filter (LIF) Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.9 | Eyecup Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.10 | Interchangeable Components | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.11 | Objective Lens Assembly Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.12 | Eyepiece Lens Assembly Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.13 | Imaging Sensor Assembly Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.14 | Binocular Bridge Assembly Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.3.15 | Helmet NVG Shroud Mount Assembly Replacement | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.1 | System Helmet Attach/Detach | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.2 | System Helmet Attachment Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.3 | System Helmet Detachment Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.4 | System Monocular Stow/Deploy (Objective) | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.5 | System Monocular Stow/Deploy Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.6 | System Binocular Stow/Deploy | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.7 | System Binocular Stow/Deploy Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.8 | Deployed Vertical Displacement Adjustment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.9 | Deployed Vertical Adjustment Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.10 | Deployed Fore/Aft Displacement Adjustment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.11 | Deployed Fore/Aft Displacement Adjustment Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.12 | Deployed Tilt Angle Adjustment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.13 | Deployed Tilt Angle Adjustment Force | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.14 | Interpupillary Distance Adjustment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.15 | Interpupillary Distance Adjustment Torque | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.16 | Interpupillary Distance Adjustment Stop | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.17 | Monocular Objective Lens Focus Adjustment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.18 | Monocular Objective Lens Focus Adjustment Torque | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.19 | Monocular Objective Lens Near Focus Stop | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.20 | Monocular Objective Lens Far Focus Stop | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.21 | Monocular Eyepiece Diopter Adjustment | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.22 | Monocular Eyepiece Diopter Adjustment Torque | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.23 | Monocular Eyepiece Diopter Adjustment Stops | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.24 | Monocular Eyepiece Diopter Adjustment Position Indicator Resolution | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.25 | Binocular Deploy Auto-On | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.26 | Battery Life Indicator Time Remaining | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.27 | High Ambient Light Auto Shut Down Indicator | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.28 | Detached System Storage Configuration | |||||||||||
| 3.5.4.29 | Storage/Operation Reconfiguration Time | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.1 | Man Target Detection Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.2 | Aiming Laser Spot Detection Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.3 | Monocular Field of View | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.4 | Monocular Optical Aspect | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.5 | Monocular Optical Magnification | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.6 | Monocular Optical Distortion | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.7 | Monocular Objective Lens Focus Range | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.8 | Monocular Centered Pupil Infinity Focus On-Axis Visual Acuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.9 | Monocular Decentered Pupil Infinity Focus On-Axis Visual Acuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.10 | Monocular Centered Pupil Infinity Focus Off-Axis Visual Acuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.11 | Monocular Decentered Pupil Infinity Focus Off-Axis Visual Acuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.12 | Monocular Centered Pupil Infinity Focus Stop Position On-Axis Visual Acuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.13 | Near Focus Visual Acuity On-Axis | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.14 | Monocular High Ambient Light Protection Mode Visual Acuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.15 | Monocular Centered Pupil On-Axis Brightness Gain | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.16 | Monocular Decentered Pupil Off-Axis Brightness Gain | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.17 | Monocular Saturation Level Maximum Output Brightness | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.18 | Monocular Black Level Output Brightness | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.19 | Low-Range Monocular Discernable Gray Shades | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.20 | Mid-Range Monocular Discernable Gray Shades | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.21 | High-Range Monocular Discernable Gray Shades | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.22 | Flash Pulse Latency | |||||||||||
| 3.5.5.23 | Detectable Pulsing Source Frequency | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.1 | Audibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.2 | Light Emissions | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.3 | Radiated Emissions | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.4 | Not used | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.5 | Not used | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.6 | Binocular Stow Auto-Off | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.7 | Not used | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.8 | System Surface Finish | |||||||||||
| 3.5.6.9 | System Surface Color | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.1 | Monocular Off-Axis Veiling Glare | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.2 | Monocular Halo | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.3 | Monocular Bright Spots | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.4 | Monocular Optical Opacities and Dark Spots | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.5 | Monocular Chicken Wire and Periodic Line Fixed Pattern Noise | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.6 | Monocular Small Area Brightness Non-uniformity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.7 | Monocular Large Area Brightness Non-Uniformity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.8 | Optical Surface Quality | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.9 | Monocular Imaged Line Discontinuity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.10 | Monocular Full Field Imaged Line Deviation | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.11 | Monocular Medium Field Imaged Line Segment Slope Deviation | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.12 | Monocular Small Field Imaged Line Segment Slope Deviations | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.13 | Monocular Full Field Imaged Line Slope Reversals | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.14 | Monocular High Ambient Light Protection Level | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.15 | Monocular Hight Ambient Light Protection Activation Time | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.16 | Radiated Electromagnetic Energy Susceptibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.17 | External Small Area Sources Exposure Damage Resistance | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.18 | Objective Lens Focus Adjustment Retention | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.19 | Objective Lens Focus Torque Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.20 | Eyepiece Diopter Adjustment Retention | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.21 | Eyepiece Diopter Adjustment Torque Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.22 | Interpupillary Distance Adjustment Retention | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.23 | Interpupillary Adjustment Torque Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.24 | Deployed Vertical Adjustment Retention | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.25 | Deployed Fore/Aft Adjustment Retention | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.26 | Deployed Tilt Angle Adjustment Retention | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.27 | System Helmet Attachment Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.28 | System Helmet Attachment Force Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.29 | System Helmet Detachment Force Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.30 | Monocular Stow Force Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.31 | Binocular Stow Force Stability | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.32 | Operational/Storage Reconfiguration Cycles | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.33 | Storage Temperature Extremes | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.34 | Operational Temperature Extremes | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.35 | Temperature Shock | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.36 | Storage Temperature Altitude | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.37 | Operational Temperature Altitude | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.38 | Humidity | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.39 | Immersion | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.40 | Salt Fog | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.41 | Explosive Atmosphere | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.42 | Fungus | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.43 | Sand and Dust | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.44 | Vibration | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.45 | Bounce, Loose Cargo Shock | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.46 | Transit Drop | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.47 | Mean Time Between Failure | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.48 | Mean Time Between Essential Mission Function Failure | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.49 | Mean Time Between System Abort | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.50 | System Surface Color Consistency | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.51 | General Chemical Compatibility | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.52 | High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HAEMP) | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.53 | Personnel-Borne Electrostatic Discharge (PESD) | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.54 | Helicopter Electrostatic Discharge (HESD) | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.55 | Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Contamination | |||||||||||
| 3.5.7.56 | Air Jump |
Tables 1-4 Factor 1 Technical Management Approach
Sub-factor 1 Risk Management
| Table 1. Risk Management Sub-factor Adjectival (Numerical) Rating | |||||
| Element: | Exceptional | Above Average | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |
| Technical Risk | All "good" characteristics met with no "red" risks identified or a vendor managed risk mitigation strategy for all "red" risks and post mitigation risk assessment. | All "acceptable" characteristics met with clearly stated, supported rationale for risk rating all identified risks. | Program technical risks correctly identified as technical risks, clearly in "if, then" format with both likleyhood and consequence asserted | Program technical risks not identified as technical risks, not provided, or not clearly in "if, then" format or either likleyhood and consequence not asserted in analysis. | |
| Schedule Risk | All "good" characteristics met with no "red" risks identified or a vendor managed risk mitigation strategy for all "red" risks and post mitigation risk assessment. | All "acceptable" characteristics met with clearly stated, supported rationale for risk rating all identified risks. | Program schedule risks correctly identified as schedule risks, clearly in "if, then" format with both likleyhood and consequence asserted | Program schedule risks not identified as schedule risks, not provided, or not clearly in "if, then" format or either likleyhood and consequence not asserted in analysis. | |
| Cost Risk | All "good" characteristics met with no "red" risks identified or a vendor managed risk mitigation strategy for all "red" risks and post mitigation risk assessment. | All "acceptable" characteristics met with clearly stated, supported rationale for risk rating all identified risks. | Program funding/cost risks correctly identified as funding/cost risks, clearly in "if, then" format with both likleyhood and consequence asserted | Program cost risks not identified as cost risks, not provided, or not clearly in "if, then" format or either likleyhood and consequence not asserted in analysis. | |
| Sub-factor 2 | Cost Reduction Design Approach |
| Table 2. Cost Reduction Design Approach Adjectival (Numerical) Rating | |||||
| Element: | Exceptional | Above Average | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |
| Component | Majority components (components which added together exceed 90%) costs identified in production system unit cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Major component (components which added together exceed 80%) costs identified in production system unit cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Major component (components which added together exceed 80%) costs identified in production system unit cost reduction design strategy. | Major component (components which added together exceed 80%) costs not presented in production system unit cost reduction design strategy. | |
| Manufacturing | Substantial touch labor and manufacturing tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 90% of manufacturing costs) costs addressed in production system manufacturing cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Significant touch labor and manufacturing tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 80% of manufacturing costs) costs addressed in production system manufacturing cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Significant touch labor and manufacturing tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 80% of manufacturing costs) costs addressed in production system manufacturing cost reduction design strategy. | Significant touch labor and manufacturing tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 80% of manufacturing costs) costs not addressed in production system manufacturing cost reduction design strategy. | |
| QA/Test | Substantial test and quality validation labor and tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 90% of manufacturing costs) costs addressed in production system in test and quality validation cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Significant test and quality validation labor and tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 80% of manufacturing costs) costs addressed in production system in test and quality validation cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Significant test and quality validation labor and tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 80% of manufacturing costs) costs addressed in production system in test and quality validation cost reduction design strategy. | Significant test and quality validation labor and tooling (labor and tooling costs which exceed 80% of manufacturing costs) costs not addressed in production system in test and quality validation cost reduction design strategy. | |
| Logistics | Significant operation and maintenance (operation and maintenance which exceed 90% of anticipated operation and maintenance) costs addressed in production system in operation and maintenance cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Significant operation and maintenance (operation and maintenance which exceed 80% of anticipated operation and maintenance) costs addressed in production system in operation and maintenance cost reduction design strategy. Design strategy includes anticipated cost reduction from baseline (non-binding) with rationale. | Significant operation and maintenance (operation and maintenance which exceed 80% of anticipated operation and maintenance) costs addressed in production system in operation and maintenance cost reduction design strategy. | Significant operation and maintenance (operation and maintenance which exceed 80% of anticipated operation and maintenance) costs not addressed in production system in operation and maintenance cost reduction design strategy. | |
| Sub-Factor 3 | Human Factors Design Approach |
| Table 3. Human Factors Design Approach Adjectival (Numerical) Rating | |||||
| Element: | Exceptional | Above Average | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |
| Physical Load Reduction | Proposed design strategy for physical load reduction includes methods for reducing total headborne mass, moment of inertia and center of gravity w.r.t tragion notch from baseline system | Proposed design strategy for physical load reduction includes methods for optimizing and minimizing total headborne mass, moment of inertia and center of gravity w.r.t tragion notch. | Proposed design strategy for physical load reduction includes methods for controlling and managing total headborne mass, moment of inertia and center of gravity w.r.t tragion notch. | No design strategy presented addressing physical load and mass property control. | |
| Mental Load Reduction | Proposed design strategy presented includes methods for reducing the user mental workload for system operation and maintenance from baseline system. | Proposed design strategy presented includes methods for optimizing and minimizing the user mental workload for system operation and maintenance. | Proposed design strategy presented includes methods for controlling and managing the user mental workload for system operation and maintenance. | No design strategy presented addressing the user mental workload for system operation and maintenance. | |
| Sub-factor 4 | Product Growth Design Approach |
| Table 4. Product Growth Design Approach Adjectival (Numerical) Rating | ||||
| Element: | Exceptional | Above Average | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory |
| Component Obselesence Plan | Proposed includes a design strategy and evidence of an existing supply chain management system for controlling and managing major component obselesence | Proposed includes a design strategy and strategy and supply chain management stragegy for controlling and managing major component obselesence | Proposed design strategy presented for controlling and managing major component obselesence | No design strategy presented for controlling and managing major component obselesence |
| Future System Interoperability | Design strategy proposed addressing continued near term or long term interoperability with upgraded/improved helmet systems, eye protection systems and vehicle crew compartments . | Design strategy proposed addressing continued near term or long term interoperability with upgraded/improved helmet systems and eye protection systems. | Design strategy proposed addressing continued near term or long term interoperability with upgraded/improved helmet systems. | No design strategy presented to address continued near term or long term interoperability with any upgraded/improved interoperable soldier equipment. |
| Capability Improvements | Design strategy proposed to address or make provision for system performance and capability enhancements including a roadmap for introduction of specific performance and/or capability enhancements. | Design strategy proposed to address or make provision for system performance and capability enhancements. | Design strategy proposed to address or make provision for system performance enhancements. | No design strategy presented to address or make provision for system capability or performance enhancements. |
Table 5 and 6
| Factor 2: Performance and Technical Maturation Plan Evaluation | |
| Sub-factor 1 | Baseline Hardware Submission |
| Table 5. Baseline Hardware Adjectival (Numerical) Rating | ||||
| Element: | Exceptional | Above Average | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory |
| Binocular Architecture | Binocular w/ left and right monocular stow capability, IPD range accomodation <55 mm to >70mm | Binocular w/ left or right monocular stow capability, IPD range accomodation 55mm to >70 mm | Binocular, with IPD range accomdation 55 to 70 mm | Monocular |
| Monocular channel FOV | >45°, at 24 mm Eye relief, 5mm offset pupil | 45°>FOV>40°, at 24 mm Eye relief, 5mm offset pupil | 40°>FOV>38°, at 24 mm Eye relief, 5mm offset pupil | <38°, at 24 mm Eye relief, 5mm offset pupil |
| High-light Visual acuity | best acuity centered pupil, any field point <10° off axis, >20/25, at <3.4e-3 nt 2856K target luminance | best acuity up to 5 mm decentered pupil, center field, >20/25, at <3.4e-3 nt 2856K target luminance | best acuity centered pupil center field, >20/25, at <3.4e-3 nt 2856K target luminance | best acuity any pupil position, any field position <20/25, at <3.4e-3 nt 2856K target luminance |
| Low-light visual acuity | best acuity centered pupil, any field point <10° off axis, >20/60, at <3.4e-5 nt 2856K target luminance | best acuity up to 5 mm decentered pupil, center field, >20/60, at <3.4e-5 nt 2856K target luminance | best acuity centered pupil center field, >20/60, at <3.4e-5 nt 2856K target luminance | best acuity any pupil position, any field position <20/60, at <3.4e-5 nt 2856K target luminance |
| Battery life | >8 hrs with 1 AA Alkaline battery | >8 hrs, with 1 AA Li or 2 AA Alkaline batteries | >8 hrs, with 2 AA Li batteries | <8 hrs, with 2 AA Li batteries |
| Helmet shroud interface | Helmet shroud mount interface with all of the following: |
1) vertical and fore-aft adjustment
2) binocular stow/deploy auto off/on
3) Emergency helmet breakaway Helmet shroud mount interface with at least 2 of the following:
1) vertical and fore-aft adjustment
2) binocular stow/deploy auto off/on
3) Emergency helmet breakaway Helmet shroud mount interface with at least 1 of the following:
1) vertical and fore-aft adjustment
2) binocular stow/deploy auto off/on
| 3) Emergency helmet breakaway | No helmet shroud mount interface | |||||
| Instruction Manual | Operation manual in Mil-std format | Operation manual in contractor format | Basic operation instructions in bullet format | Instructions not provided | ||
| Sub-factor 2 | NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix |
| Table 6. NVD-N PS Compliance Growth Matrix Adjectival (Numerical) Rating | ||||
| Element: | Exceptional | Above Average | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory |
| NVD-N Performance Specfication compliance cross-walk for baseline goggle | Baseline system performance compliance complete. Actual test data provided for all the stated compliant characteristics with some compliant characteristics verified by independent non-vendor source. | Baseline system performance compliance complete. Actual vendor test data provided for all the stated compliant characteristics | Baseline system performance compliance complete, verifiable and accurate. Actual vendor measurements provided for at least some of the stated compliant characteristics | Baseline system performance compliance incomplete, unverifiable or compliance mis-representations |
| NVD-N Performance Specification compliance plan for developmental goggle(s) | Developmental hardware compliance plan complete, pathway to compliance includes supportable rationale, pathway to compliance supportable risk assessment provided, program schedule supported with >10% margin, high risk compliance characteristics include vendor managed risk mitigation strategy | Developmental hardware compliance plan complete, pathway to compliance includes supportable rationale, pathway to compliance supportable risk assessment provided, program schedule supported with >10% margin | Developmental hardware compliance plan complete, pathway to compliance reasonable rationale provided, pathway to compliance reasonable risk assessment provided, supports program schedule | Developmental hardware compliance plan incomplete, missing or unsupportable rationale, missing or unsupportable risk assessment to compliance, compliance plan does not support program schedule |
| NVD-N Performance Specification proposed modifications/non-compliance of benefit to the Government | NVD-N Peformance Specification returned with comments and suggested modifications provided with rationale for Government benefit supported by vendor experience and/or data. | NVD-N Peformance Specification returned with comments and suggested modifications provided with rationale for Government benefit. | NVD-N Peformance Specification returned with comments or suggested improvements | NVD-N Performance Specification returned without comment. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .