Copy_of_Solicitation_Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 12 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mixed Reality Training Hardware/Software Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA480919QA033
About this file
Responses to questions in the solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Solicitation_Amendment_-_FA480919QA0330001.pdf | ||
| Synopsis_Q&A.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| WD_15-4379_(Rev.-9).pdf | ||
| Statement_of_Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| Current_Virtual_Reality_Systems.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation_-_FA480919QA033.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
Sheet1
| Statement Of Work Section | Question | Government Response |
| 2.1.1 | Is this a Vive Pro/Leap Motion “only” requirement or can any headset/sensors matching the spec be provided? | This is not exclusive to Vive Pro/ Leap Motion. As long as the provided equipment is compatible with current equipment and meets minimum specifications, contractors may quote utilizing any equipment they like. |
| 2.1.5.1 | • Clarification: As a point of clarification, is it correct to assume that the upper range of each section (as shown below) is the minimum acceptable requirement (i.e., the closest acceptable distances, with minimum pixel size shown, at which you can Detect, Recognize and ID the F-15E Target? |
o Detection : at 7.0 Nautical Miles with a minimum of 4 pixels, o Recognition: at 2.0 Nautical Miles with a minimum of 16 pixels o Identification: at 1.0 Nautical Miles with a minimum of 32 pixels.
| This is an incorrect assumption. As targets get closer, they get larger, with a distance of 7 NM having a minimum size of 4 pixels, 2 NM having 16 pixels, and 1 NM having 32 pixels. The ranges listed are what's to be used for each stage as based on real world expectations. | |
| 2.1.5.2 | • Discussion driving clarification (Example for Detection, but applies to Recognition and ID as well): |
o As written in SOW ( Detection: 2.0 - 7.0 Nautical Miles (NM)) o By showing a range, it can be interpreted as the minimum acceptable Detection range is 2 NM, but the desired range is 7 NM.
o However, since this is a FFP contract with a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) selection process, there would be no need or incentive to provide a higher (desired) 7 NM Detection range if it requires use of more expensive COTS hardware than is needed to provide a 2 NM Detection range. Therefore, it needs to be clear what the minimum spec is that needs to be met.
| Negative, the Detection begins within 7 NM. Within 2 NM, it switches to Recognition. Within 1 NM, it switches again to Identfication. | ||
| 2.2.2 | Can you provide the current flight simulation program in use and also the producer of the current F-15E flight sim model? | Current producer is Boeing, and we are unable to provide the existing software for this requirement. |
| 1.2.1 | "The demarcation between Virtual Reality and Real world". Is there an assumption here that MR headset can provide a VR experience as in a VR headset? e.g the user can be fully immersed in a virtual world (looking outward from the canopy) within MR? Typically common flight simulators want to simulate a flight as immersive as possible within the flight envelope. Hence, exterior environmental elements such as sky, ground, clouds ("background") will appear at the surrounding of plane dynamically in "motion" with respect to the "static" cockpit as it would in real flight. Is this still the case? MR devices do posses some level of impressiveness, but they are not however, "fully immersive" devices as VR. |
While blocking out of the background is possible with the right hologram and lighting intensity, it would be an extreme case with inherently high level of complexity to achieve "full impressiveness", increased yet with the additional complexity of demarcation or border-line where real world (or see through) would be presented simultaneously in the cockpit. Is the expectation here to achieve a full impressiveness, outside the canopy relying solely on MR device? if that's not the case, e.g some elements of the physical room, may still be visible even dimly, a cost effective solution that relies primarily on MR may work well. Otherwise, if full impressiveness is a requirement, additional technologies may have to be deployed and integrated increasing the development time and cost dramatically. (likely much over the $150,000 of an RFQ).
| The assumption that the MR headset can provide a VR experience is correct, however, a "true" MR experience is not required. The reason for this is to allow the contractor to propose either a mixed solution, with items below the "horizon line" being in reality, while items above the "horizon" are solely virtual, or a fully VR environment with all controls modeled to be in the same place as the controls in reality. We are aware of the difficulites of producing an MR environment with a VR overlay, therefore it is not required. Exterior virtual elements must be realistic enough so as to not diminish the capability of the training, by conforming with the Statement of Work. While pricing is being evaluated, Contractors shall propose their pricing to accomplish all objectives, without compromising in key areas. | ||
| 2.2.1 - 2.29 | statements refer to software upgrade of the current VR system. However, no information provided on the current 'flying software' used. The provided document "Current_Virtual_Reality_Systems.xls" provides information on the hardware and operating system only. An "upgrade" would entail improving upon the existing software and it would be important to factor-in the existing software to stay as cost-effective as possible. I understand that there is a need for some confidentiality, but, if current software documentation can't be provided, could you share at-least if any off-the-shelf game engine was used for the initial VR flying software? Unreal? Unity 3D? | Off-the-shelf game engines that work with a similar function to that which we are seeking include P3D, FSX, MilViz, DCS. There is currently no exisiting software, only hardware to "upgrade" as described in the SOW. |
| N/A | Is the submission deadline July 8, 2019? | Yes, the submission date is July 8, 2019, as listed in the solicitation. The reason for this is companies who have expressed interest on the previous synopsis have had multiple months to formulate pricing, and as the end of fiscal year approaches, the urgency of this requirement has increased. |
| Per the RFP, Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost (Page 3), the "Contractor shall upgrade all twelve (12) Mixed Reality/Virtual Reality simulators to support F-15E flight training in |
accordance with Statement of Work" In the file "Current_Virtual_Reality_Systems", Line items 2, 4 and 5 state: "note: Government did NOT purchase this item for the additional eight (8) units that were bought (total of 12). Therefore, Contractor shall provide eight (8) units.". Additionally, Line items 3, and 6-11 do not state any specifics. Are Contractors to assume that the only material needed is for Line items 2, 4 and 5. If so, please specify if the Contractor needs to provide (and price) eight units or only price the upgrade for 12 units. If Contractors are to provide/price more than what is specified on Page 3 of the RFP or for more items in the system list, please clarify.
The contractor will give pricing for eight (8) flight simulators, and also provide software to upgrade those systems in addition to the four (4) the government already possess. The hardware that is provided shall be the HTC Vive Pro VR System, Universal VR LEAP Hand Tracking Mount, and LEAP Hand Tracking that are mentioned in the document titled Current_Virtual_Reality_Systems. Everything else, in regards to hardware, shall be provided by the government.
File details come from the government source that posted it.