HANGS Question and Answer Sheet 31 Jul 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA2486-25-X-0001
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) sheet for the Hardware-in-the-loop of Advanced Navigation & Guidance Sensors (HANGS) Request for Enhanced White Papers (REWP). The opportunity, issued by the Air Force Test Center (AFTC), seeks prototype technologies to improve government test and laboratory capabilities across four technology areas: (1) dynamic real-time multispectral scene generation and projection/injection systems, (2) midcourse and navigation environment emulation/simulation, (3) datalink and radio communication emulation/simulation, and (4) high frame rate real-time simulation execution.
The REWP is an open announcement with no specific due date, remaining open for one year from posting on SAM.gov. White papers will be evaluated on a rolling basis, with potential for proposal requests within weeks of selection. The anticipated award will utilize Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4022, with an $80M ceiling. Offerors are expected to demonstrate compatibility with existing systems like FLITES, support multiple spectral imagery generation, and provide capabilities for simulating complex sensor environments including GNSS, radio communications, and high-fidelity scene generation across various electromagnetic spectrums.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
Hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) of Advanced Navigation & Guidance Sensors (HANGS)
| Request for Enhanced White Papers (REWP) | |
| QUESTION | ANSWER |
| Could you please advise if there is a desired page limit? | There is no page limit for the Enhanced White Paper (EWP). |
| Can you please confirm the due date? | The HANGS Request for Enhanced White Papers (REWP) is an open announcement with no due date. The Government will review and evaluate white papers as they are received. The HANGS REWP will be open for one year from date of post on SAM.gov, after which mission needs will be re-assessed and the REWP may be terminated or extended. This announcement may close at any time without further notice. |
| Will whitepapers be evaluated and awarded on a rolling basis, with potential acquisition decisions before May 2026 | Yes, all eligible EWPs will be evaluated on a rolling basis. Each solution in response to this REWP is likely to be unique, so it is the Government's intent to evaluate each EWP submission as they are received. If an EWP is selected, a full proposal may be requested based on the merit of the EWP solution offered, without regard to other submissions. |
| Is there an estimated timeline for requesting the full proposal following a whitepaper being selected? | There is no set timeline, but we anticipate that if an EWP is selected, the Government would likely request a proposal within a couple weeks of EWP selection, and then we would provide up to 30 days for the offeror to submit proposal. |
| Are you looking for a full delivered system to do your signature research or are you looking to build your own system using off-the-shelf cameras/sensors? | We plan to procure Commerical Off the Shelf (COTS) camera systems that we may design into a projection system that we design/build. |
| Does this REWP require M-Code for GNSS receiver technologies (Technology Area #2)? | It may include those options. Offeror will need to have capability to procure/develop to that requirement if government asks. |
| Confirm whether this initiative represents a new undertaking, or is there an incumbent currently delivering these services? If an incumbent exists, may we request the relevant details of their contract, including the contract number? | There are other contract vehicles currently being used to fund similar test technologies. In addition, there are multiple similar hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) development activities to support customers at this government organization. This specific contract will fulfill several HITL capabilities funded through Air Force Test Center (AFTC) Investment & Modernization (I&M) and the Test Resource Management Center's (TRMC), Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) to address test gaps. However, there are other investment avenues, possibly by customers, that will utilize this contract vehicle if able. |
| What is the anticipated award value? | The anticipated award value is unknown at this time. There is an $80M ceiling associated with this opportunity. |
| In areas like Technology Area #1 (Scene Generation), is there any assumption that the prototypes developed will have compatibility / be expected to support legacy GWEF scene generation tools such as FLITES? | Short answer is, YES, we expect compatibility with legacy Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility (GWEF) scene generation tools such as Foundational Logistics Information Technology Enterprise System (FLITES). More detailed response: |
1.) FLITES is an Application Programming Interface (API) real-time scene generation software application. It is not legacy; and it is one of the few authoritative software applications for Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) real-time scene generation used by most service test organizations throughout the government (the Army uses JSIG and the Navy may use another; but all services HEAVILY utilize FLITES).
2.) Since FLITES is a software application, the real question should be: is it assumed that tech-nology area #1 (scene generation) be backwards compatible with current and legacy scene rendering protocols and scene gen interfaces (HDMI, Fiber Optic, etc)? We believe the answer is still Yes; although we don’t have information on hand to provide those types of interfaces and protocols. They can be provided upon request.
| Is there a need for real flight test instrumentation hardware for the simulated tests that you plan to perform? | No, not for this opportunity; out of scope. |
| Is the intention of the HANGS to generate a simulated telemetry stream of flight test data? | No, not for this opportunity; out of scope. |
| Do you want an evaluation of LAWS (lethal autonomous weapons system) benchmark performance as output (similar to the DARPA ASIMOV project), OR just simple positional logging as output and you'll decide on evaluation yourself with your in-house benchmarks? | No, this project focusses on the synthetic scene environment simulation technologies. We don’t specify any specific use-cases, specific UUT sensors, or program; the intent is to keep the capability open, modular and scalar to integrate many variable UUT sensor systems. We plan to mold and develop onto this topic’s simulation technologies depending on future customer demand. We have an organic simulation architecture within our organization that was build to develop and change configuration depending on customer use-cases. The goal is to interface the topic’s technology to our organic simulation architecture. We also have an array of in-house analysis and data acquisition tools. We typically utilize existing tools or develop our own tools for ability to change and augment when necessary, but we also utilize COTS/GOTS when, after cost benefit analysis is evaluated, it is applicable and if it adds value to customer use-case and test goals. |
| Would this evaluation software be valuable to your use-case at this point in time? | Possibly, depending on the use case, but not specifically for this project topic. |
| Concerning your preferred hardware communication protocol Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) over fiber, would our prototype suffice to use just UART at the beginning stage of this project, or is PCIe needed to consider our proposal? | The technology developed for scene generation will be required to accept video from independent COTS/GOTS items without developing unique interfaces. Therefore, standard interfaces are preferred to prevent more development. |
| Could you also elaborate on the sensor protocol for injecting emulated raw data directly into the LAWS sensors? | If generally speaking of UUT sensor systems, the answer is that that it will vary and a possible interface will be necessary depending on which program we are testing. MOSA/WOSA/SOSA, may help standardize this in the future. |
| Lastly, it seems like we assume the LAWS will have GNS and when jammed GNS, then the LAWS will transition to another sensor. Thus the LAWS may experience chattering from state transitions. Would you value judgement of this transition state performance with a metric? | The UUT sensor “may” have a GNSS receiver, but not necessarily; it depends on the customer and UUT sensor for which we are testing for. However, if the UUT has an GNSS/INS system, we expect the capability to provide jamming environment. If the system transitions to another navigation input due to a degraded GNSS environment, we expect that the UUT will handle the transition to the other navigation system. Our internal host simulation architecture will handle the communication and synchronization with the varying scene environments (ie. GNSS and visible target/background scene; or GNSS and celestial tracker) |
| Should the solution for Technology Area #3 (Datalink and radio communication emulation/simulation) account for injecting digitally, in RF probes, or over-the-air? | Yes, assume that technology area #3 will focus on digital inject either using: 1) If simulating a messaging simulator that will be injected onto the bus of the GNS UUT, a transport layer of 1553 or TCPIP or 2) If simulator includes generating RF using a TxRx radio UUT to/from another TxRx radio UUT, RF injection will be used but not free-space radiated (only via RF cables). |
| Technology Area #2: Midcourse and navigation environment emulation/simulation - Can you provide what the current equipment and environment is for PNT/AltPNT simulation? | Current PNT simulation environment includes GNSS real-time wavefront simulators that can provide multiple element output ports, ingest multiple TSPI files for individual platforms, provide extensive jammed environment (spoofing and CW), provide encoded signal sets such as Y-code & M-code, and provide multiple simultaneous constellations and signal sets. This is for traditional GNSS receivers that employ either FRPA or CRPA systems. Other navigation capabilities utilize celestial and terrain mapping that use EO-IR or SAR sensors. There are other novel AltPNT technologies, but not certain whether they are directly employed by weapon systems. |
| Technology Area #3: Datalink and radio communication emulation/simulation - Are you able to specify which frequencies, bandwidths, and modulation are of interest? | No; expect new frequencies, bandwidths, and modulation requirements as we get them which may be after this contract is awarded. |
| - Are there any anticipated conops? E.g., platforms, antennas, anticipated ranges, and velocities. | The weapon platforms may receive the signal from any number of TxRx platforms. Cannot get into detail here. But BLOS is a factor and high velocities is a factor. |
| - Can you elaborate on what countermeasure effects might be of interest? Jamming? Nuclear effects? Others? | Common and novel radio jamming techniques; no nuclear effects. |
| - Are you looking for hardware emulation, software emulation, or some combination of both? | Both. Need a message generation emulator that can a.) transport behind the bus of the weapons system OR be TxRX via radio (of which we have not identified yet) to/from another TxRX radio; a channel emulator in between will need to augment the RF with respect to environmental effects. |
| Is there going to be a request for proposal/request for quote after the solicitation? | If a successful white paper has been selected, the Government will request a proposal from the selected vendor(s). When a proposal is requested from the Government, we will provide the evaluation methods to the selected vendor(s). (see REWP pgs 9 & 14) |
| Should we disclose partners/subcontractors in the whitepaper? | Yes |
| Can a vendor get provided a tour of the GWEF facility? Will this be a conflict of interest or an equal opportunity issue? | To be determined. |
| What is the evaluation methods of the proposals? Are we going to make awards directly off this REWP? | Awards will not be made directly off of the REWP. If a successful white paper has been selected, the Government will request a proposal from the selected vendor(s). When a proposal is requested from the Government, we will provide the evaluation methods to the selected vendor(s). |
https://www.darpa.mil/news/2024/asimov-approaches
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .