TOPIC CALL 5 Q and A_Ph I.pdf

Questions Answers Q1: For developing a digital twin of a chemical sensor, what state is the chemical in as it is measured by the sensor?

i.e. Is the sensor detecting a gas, or chemical agents on a surface. Or is there a desire to account for all states (which could mean modeling several different sensors for the same modalities).

A1: The desire is to account for all states.

Q2: The solicitation mentions FTIR. Is this in reference to stand-off or in-situ FTIR sensors? A2: As mentioned in the topic, we are looking to start with modeling DOD deployed sensors. Either stand-off or portable sensors are acceptable. Part of the request is to demonstrate the ability to extrapolate the model.

Q3: Will DTRA assist in obtaining requisite sensor information necessary for building the digital twin (i.e., ICDs and access to low-level sensor data)?

A3: No

Q4: Is the goal of this to integrate with HPAC such that the HPAC sampler locations output synthetic sensor data (instead of an HPAC-simulated concentrations)?

A4: No

Q5: For the Stage 1 prototype digital twin and BRM demo, what is considered an acceptable demonstration? For example, are you looking for digital twin demos that match experimentally collected datasets?

A5: Yes. It is desired to see phase I prototype capable of accurately model sensor behaviors and response under different environmental conditions.

Q6: What degree of fidelity does the physics emulation need to achieve? Are there metrics or standards?

A6: It is desired to see phase I prototype capable of accurately model sensor behaviors and response under different environmental conditions. Visual emulation of the sensors should reflect common operator controls.

Q7: Are there specific environmental or operational conditions that are used for testing? A7: Standard indoor and outdoor environmental conditions should be considered.

Q8: Can the government please provide more details on the specific types of chemical and biological (CB) sensors that are of interest for the digital twin and behavior response model (BRM) development?

A8: Examples of sensors to consider include, but are not limited to, those leveraged by the JPEO's DR SKO (Dismounted Reconnaissance Sets, Kits, and Outfits) and NBCRV SSU (Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle Sensor Suite Upgrade) programs.

Q9: The file mentions FTIR, ion mobility spectrometer, mass spectrometer, and photo ionization detectors, but are there any other sensor modalities that are being considered?

A9: The listed modalities are the primary focus. However, as stated in the topic, developments of DTs and BRMs shall focus on U.S. DoD-employed sensors or the parallel commercially available version. The proposal should include clear information on the sensors, including manufacturer and sensor model.

Q10: What are the key performance metrics or criteria that will be used to evaluate the accuracy and fidelity of the digital twins and BRMs?

A10: It is desired to see BRM accurately model sensor behaviors and response under different environmental conditions match experimental data. Visual emulation of the sensors should reflect common operator controls. Third-party test criteria will be communicated after project kickoff.

Q11: How will the third-party testing be structured to assess these metrics? A11: Structure of third-party testing will be discussed with developers after selection.

Q12: The file mentions the desire for the digital twins and BRMs to be "generalizable to a wide variety of CB sensors." Can the government please elaborate on the specific approaches or techniques that will be explored to achieve this level of generalizability, especially across different sensing modalities?

A12: As stated in the topic, it is recognized that different BRMs may be needed for different sensing modalities; nevertheless, the ability to extend the BRMs developed for one CB sensor to other CB sensors that leverage the same sensing modality with minimum model retraining is desired.

Q13: For the Stage 2B development, can the government please provide more details on the specific virtual platforms and capabilities, such as the Virtual Reality Tactical Assault Kit (VRTAK), that the digital twins and BRMs are expected to integrate with?

A13: Interface with developers under CBI contract for VRTAK related effort will be introduced to DT developers after selection. However, VRTAK is an Unreal based platform.

Q14: What are the key integration requirements or objectives for this phase? A14: Response herein is based on assuming "this phase" in the question referred to phase I. There is no integration requirements. Integration with virtual platform is not required until phase 2B.

Q15: What type of data or information will be required from the developers to support the third-party testing and evaluation of the digital twins and BRMs?

A15: The digital twins, BRMs, documentations (e.g. model cards), developmental and test data used, and availability for Q&A.

Q16: Will there be any specific data formats or interfaces that need to be provided? A16: As stated in the topic, integration of DTs/BRMs with other virtual platforms, particularly Virtual Reality Tactical Assault Kit (VRTAK), shall be proposed. Data formats and interfaces needed for such integration are expected.

Q17: Can the government please provide more specifics on the types of operational and environmental conditions that the digital twins and BRMs are expected to accurately model and simulate?

A17: Targeted operational and environmental conditions will be communicated after project kickoff.

Q18: What level of fidelity and accuracy is expected for the digital twin emulations and BRM predictions? Is there a target accuracy or error threshold specified?

A18: It is desired to see BRM accurately model sensor behaviors and response under different environmental conditions match experimental data. Visual emulation of the sensors should reflect common operator controls. Third-party test criteria will be communicated after project kickoff.

Q19: Will the government be providing the specific sensor models and agent/simulant data that offerors should base their digital twins and BRMs on? Or is it up to the offerors to identify and obtain that information?

A19: Defer to the offerors. However, depending on the proposed sensors, there can be sharable supporting data.

Approved for Public Release

Questions Answers Q20: Is there a desired extended reality (XR) device that the application should be developed to support (for example, Microsoft HoloLens or Magic Leap platforms?). If a specific XR device is not desired, please provide the compliance or standard requirements that the devices must meet, if any.

A20: Device agnostic solution is desired. However, as mentioned in the topic, integration of DTs/BRMs with other virtual platforms, particularly Virtual Reality Tactical Assault Kit (VRTAK), shall be proposed. It is encouraged to consider the devices compatible with VRTAK.

Q21: Are there any integration requirements for the XR hardware and software with existing systems?

A21: Device agnostic solution is desired. However, as mentioned in the topic, integration of DTs/BRMs with other virtual platforms, particularly Virtual Reality Tactical Assault Kit (VRTAK), shall be proposed. It is encouraged to consider the devices compatible with VRTAK.

Q22: In addition to the extended reality (XR) version of the application, is there a requirement to also support a Windows desktop PC version as well? If yes, what are the desired specifications for the PC hardware?

A22: Yes. It is desired for proposed solution to be functional on common gaming laptops. However, solutions that require additional hardware will be considered.

Q23: Will existing 3D models of the sensors be available or is the intent that the offeror obtain necessary files without the use of GFI?

A23: No; 3D models will not be provided.

Q24: Will any data representative of C/B sensors of interest be provided by the customer for the purposes of BRM evaluation?

A24: Defer to the offerors on data availability. However, depending on the proposed sensors, there can be sharable supporting data.

Q:25Can we meet with JSTO for 30 mins to discuss our understanding (or not) of requirements and our proposed solution?

A25: Meetings will not be conducted for this call.

Q26: Would JSTO identify the actual “DOD employed field sensors” (vendor/model) that are required for this effort? Are these sensors able to be provided to performers as GFE to support integration, or does the government have a team and sensors available to support systems-data integrations with physical sensors?

A26: Examples of sensor to consider include but are not limited to those leveraged by the JPEO's DR SKO (Dismounted Reconnaissance Sets, Kits, and Outfits) and NBCRV SSU (Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle Sensor Suite Upgrade) programs. Physical sensors will not be provided as GFE. Costs associated with the sensors should be included in the cost proposal.

Q27: What assumptions can we make about the origin of the physical sensor data? How is data-backhaul being accomplished for sensor data to connected systems?

A27: For this S&T project, offerors can leverage any connection method.

Specific connection requirements will be communicated at later development stage.

Q28: Why will physical sensors benefit from mimicking the digital twin? A28: There are several use cases JSTO CBI is considering.

Q29: Is it a hardline requirement that we must integrate into TAK? A29: As stated in the topic, integration of DTs/BRMs with other virtual platforms, particularly Virtual Reality Tactical Assault Kit (VRTAK), shall be proposed.

Q30: Does JSTO hypothesize that a virtual deployment can improve performance of a physical, real-world deployment?

A30: There are several use cases JSTO CBI is considering.

Q31: Should we propose AI/ML modeling solutions for this particular effort? A31: Offerors should propose methods that best fit the requests of the topic.

Q32: How exactly should AI/ML inform or be a part of this development? A32: Offerors should propose methods that best fit the requests of the topic.

Q33: Is DTRA able to bring the sensor vendors to the table or are you looking for black box digital twins?

A33: Black box digital twins.

Q34: Are the DoD/commercial physical sensors Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)? A34: Physical sensors will not be provided as GFE. Costs associated with the sensors should be included in the cost proposal.

Q35: Can we schedule User Feedback Events (UFE) with the warfighters? A35: Government-sponsored UFE will be leveraged; however, if the offeror already is in contact with a user base, UFE can be proposed.

CALL05 QA