FMP_NNL_0031_QandA.pdf

To: Prospective Proposers

Subject: Results of Question and Answer Session on April 4, 2024 for FMP-NNL-0031 Converting 2D

Drawings and Manuals to Systems Level Models for the Navy

1. Can you give an example document or template?

a. Not aware of any non-Program examples.

2. What would the output model look like?

a. We are not beholden to any particular product, but we do currently use a number of different modeling tools including those developed by ANSYS.

3. What is the volume of drawings?

a. We are looking for a solution that could scale appropriately (e.g., thousands).

4. Are the drawings in paper format? What is the ratio?

a. Some of the drawings would be in paper (or PDF) format. We don’t have an accurate ratio of paper vs. digital drawings at this time.

5. Several drawings to come up with a model?

a. Yes. More drawings would result in a better model.

6. Is this a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) type of project?

a. Yes, this is an R&D project.

7. What are the expectations for the technology readiness level (TRL) of the proposed solution?

a. We understand a lot of technology in this area could be low TRL, but please identify readiness level. If the TRL is low, please state what it would take to significantly progress

it. We understand this could take multiple years.

8. Would technologies that are tackling similar problems under SBIR efforts be of value?

a. No restrictions if you want to leverage those in support of this proposal.

9. Are off-the-shelf products okay to use?

a. If there are existing products that could do all or some of what we’re asking, that is great. We would love to learn about existing solutions. If the off-the-shelf products provide partial fulfillment of what we’re looking for and development is needed for the remainder of the solution, that is acceptable, as well.

10. What is the format of drawings being provided?

a. Likely to be a mix of formats.

11. Opportunity for one-on-one sessions with NNL personnel prior to submitting a proposal?

a. One-on-one sessions would provide an unfair advantage to some proposers. Therefore, we will not be having one-on-one sessions.

12. What are the expectations for a cost evaluation?

a. We are looking for a rough order of magnitude (ROM). For longer-term development projects, we would like to see in the proposal some derisk of work (e.g., a go/no-go decision earlier on in the project).

13. Are phased approaches okay to propose?

a. Absolutely.

14. Should we propose a one-year length to the project?

a. Our budget cycles are annual; however, this work effort could span multiple years. The proposal should encompass whatever work and timeline is required to derisk and mature the technology. Phasing the proposal into years is preferable, but not necessary.

15. What is the due date of proposal?

a. June 5, 2024.

16. What type of manuals?

a. Most likely technical manuals describing technical characteristics of a system or instructional and maintenance manuals of systems.

17. Will there be separate files for the manuals?

a. These would be separate files containing information for each technical manual, which are separate files from the drawings.

18. Are the manuals themselves drawings?

a. They can contain descriptions of the component contained in the drawing and instructions for operating the component or system.

19. Are you looking for solutions that will address all challenges or focused proposals on one or two challenges?

a. Goal is to solve all challenges, but we will evaluate partial solutions that could be paired with other partial solutions for a completed product.

20. Are there any sample drawings we could have?

a. We will look into that, but none are available at this time.

21. What is the desired period of performance?

a. Faster is better, but we recognize this is a low TRL development. The time period proposed should be whatever is required to develop, but in an expeditious manner.

22. How early will you be able to award?

a. Funding for Federal fiscal year 2025 (October 2024).

23. Is funding already set aside?

a. Yes, our next round of funding is set aside, contingent on Congressional changes.

24. Is there a specific subset of the portfolio that you would expect the winner to focus on first?

How big of a haystack is the group looking at? How do you prioritize data requirements inside of

NNL?

a. No prioritized list.

25. Comment from NNL:

a. We could start with a single platform and system. We would then build from there on a system-on-system level type model.

26. Will there be multiple awards?

a. It depends on the number and quality of proposals we receive, as well as associated costs and benefits for each one. Historically in our Open Calls, we have chosen multiple winners per problem statement.

27. Would you be receptive to a ROM and phased approach?

a. Yes. The most important number is the first-year costs, especially with a phased approach. The overall estimate is important, as well.

28. Given the sensitivity of this work, could we have H-1B visa holder work on this project?

a. For this work, it would be okay.

29. Is the vision in year one to use actual manuals or use a proxy?

a. Either would be fine. The answer depends on the current level of maturity of the tools.

30. Is there any consideration of authorization to operate (ATO)?

a. Once this tool is developed, the information processing will be classified. We recognize a lot of proposers may not understand everything that this entails, but this is something we can work through with the winner(s).

31. For the final goal, will you take all the drawings and make a 3D model for a system?

a. Our goal is to have more than a 3D model. We hope that the product is an interactive model to understand how the systems function as they operate together. This would enable us to understand what could be changed to understand what the impact would be on the system.

32. Is the end goal to have a working model? Do you want to see fluid traveling in end goal model?

a. There are multiple use cases for the results of this work. One could be at a system level – a reduced order model of the system in order to look at system functionality. But we are also looking at developing a system architecture model to look at the impact of potential system changes. On the component level we are interested in turning 2D models into 3D models from both a design standpoint as well as structural analysis perspective.

33. What era are the drawings from? For digitized drawings, do some of the original hard copies still exist?

a. The drawings could be from as far back as the 1970s and 1980s, up to current systems being designed today. For some, we have original copies.

34. Is the functionality of these drawings related to the nuclear industry?

a. A commercial nuclear plant is a good analog for the level of complexity, with the exception of cooling towers.

35. It sounds like you’re looking for an engineering control system that show interactions between systems. Would it be better to do a proposal to see how two systems interact with one another?

a. The notion of a single system as a starting point was an example. That’s not to say it is our preferred approach. But showing systems interaction in proposal is beneficial.

36. What is the size of the systems?

a. We want to build to our full propulsion plant model eventually, but anything that would logically progress to that point is acceptable.

37. As a follow-on to this work, are you looking to purchase the tool, license the tool, or have someone create the tool and convert the drawings?

a. Likely be a combination of these.

38. Will the models be used in a virtual training environment?

a. Potentially, yes.

39. Comment from NNL:

a. You can submit more than one proposal.

40. In the document there is a line-item about modeling complexity. Could you explain what underlying technologies you’re referring to?

a. Commercial nuclear plant is a good analog. This includes fluid systems, heat transfer, turbine systems, and electrical generation.

41. What is the desired format of the end goal?

a. Whatever is appropriate for the proposed solution.

42. Would an off-the-shelf solution with my own application programming interface (API) be an acceptable solution?

a. That can absolutely be an acceptable solution. It could be a challenge if the existing product(s) is/are foreign owned.

43. If I take all of the 2D drawings and convert them to 3D drawings, would this be in the realm of what you’re looking for?

a. Conversion of 2D drawings to 3D drawings is a part of the solution we are looking for, but not the entire solution. the full solution would also be able to input manuals and existing physics models to create a full 3D, interactive, and physics-based model.

b. We understand that a single company may not have the ability to address the full challenge. Proposers can submit proposals to address part of the solution. Joint submittals are acceptable as well.

44. Is this a small business set aside?

a. This is open to a full competition.

45. Can companies under contract (or other similar agreements) with NNL respond to the FY 2024

ATIP Open Call?

a. Yes, companies are free to offer proposals to the FY 2024 ATIP Open Call regardless of any prior relationships or agreements, including those that may be in place or in negotiation now. NNL has chosen to award and not award funding to proposals from entities with which the organization has worked or is working with. However, NNL will only discuss publicly available information relevant to the current Open Call problem statements while the call for proposals is being conducted in the interest of fairness.

46. Are universities, not-for-profits, and for-profit businesses eligible to submit?

a. Yes.

47. How long is the review cycle?

a. Our goal is to contact winners in August with funding as soon as October.