Laser_Eye_Protection_-_Questions_and_Responses_FBO_Set_3.pdf

Response/Comments /Question to Government Response from Government

1 In requirement 3.7.1 PLT the Governments specifies the PLT transmission. We have a concern that PLT requirement is not compatible with in-band protection requirement. Did the Government mean PLTA rather than PLT?

To clarify, the Government requires PLT (weighted with illuminant E).

2 Recommend increasing the weight limit of the LEP spectacle without Rx to 40g and the weight including Rx to 65g

Specific: Traditional sleek, durable metal frame spectacles used in military aviation are heavier than the current weight limits in the draft spec. If properly designed, the frame will be comfortable enough to offset higher intrinsic mass.

The Government will consider your recommendation.

3 Please clarify what is driving the requirement to be 60%?

Specific: The PLT, threat wavelengths and optical density are interconnected parameters. The current 60% PLT is likely too high for a bright day when used alone and too dark when used in combination with a sunshade visor. Further detailed discussions (preferably at the classified level) may be necessary to better understand the requirement drivers and the potential trade space.

Good performance in low light conditions (night usage) is driving a high value PLT. Because the

Classified Appendix C was made available to vendors on 12 June 2015, the Government does not anticipate that further discussions are necessary.

4 Please clarify what is driving the Scotopic Luminous Transmission (SLT) to the

10% requirement identified in the draft specification?

Specific: The SLT, threat wavelengths and optical density are interconnected parameters. The current 10% SLT is likely too low for night use. Historically and considering the Navy’s unique operational environments, the Navy has required higher SLT for LEP eyewear. Further detailed discussions (preferably at the classified level) may be necessary to better understand the requirement drivers and the potential trade space.

The 10% SLT requirement is the minimum requirement. Because the Classified Appendix C was made available to vendors on 12 June 2015, the Government does not anticipate that further discussions are necessary.

5 Type of Contract they plan to award (i.e. 5 year IDIQ?) Type of Contract will be identified in the RFP.

6 Can the Government provide additional information on the visors used in each mission and platform. Specifically, what is the nearest equipment to the eye in each mission and what is the eye relief for that equipment?

The Helmet Mounted Displays information used during the vendor PPE Examination Session on

13 May 2015 is provided with this posting. Expected minimum eye relief for head mounted equipment is 25 mm.

7 Please provide JHMCS handout and other equipment handouts/info sheets. The Helmet Mounted Displays information used during the vendor PPE Examination Session on

13 May 2015 is provided with this posting.

8 What wavelengths does the TopOwl LEP visor protect against? It is not anticipated that the TopOwl visor will be worn with LEP Spectacles.

9 The draft SOW refers to the Government Integrated Master Schedule and identifies it as an attachment to the draft SOW. The Government has indicated (in its first set of responses to questions) willingness to provide an IMS. Can the Government update the anticipated release of the IMS?

The Government's notional Integrated Summary Schedule will be provided in the RFP.

10 Photopic Luminous Transmission: The current 60% PLT is likely too high for a bright day when used alone and too dark when used in combination with a sunshade visor. This PLT value suggest a risk with regard to user acceptance.

Please clarify what is driving the requirement to be 60%?

See response to Set 3, Question Number 3.

11 Scotopic Luminous Transmission: The current 10% SLT is likely too low for night use under very dark conditions. Historically, the Navy has required higher SLT for

LEP eyewear. This SLT value suggest a risk with regard to user acceptance.

Please clarify what is driving the Scotopic Luminous Transmission (SLT) to the

10% requirement identified in the draft specification?

See response to Set 3, Question Number 4.

12 The source selection presentation at Industry Day identified typical evaluation factors. Since the draft SOW paragraph 3.2 emphasizes all aspects of Program

Management, does the Government anticipate requiring a Management Volume in the RFP Section L instructions and will management be a potential evaluation factor?”

Evaluation criteria will be included in the RFP and are not available at this time.

13 Can the Government provide the spectra and description of the emissive displays of all the NVG's cited in this section? (e.g., phosphor type, filtered or unfiltered, etc.)

P43 spectrum is provided in the Specification, Appendix A.

14 Can the Government provide the detailed design and usage information for all the equipment as it was briefed by Navy SME's during Industry Day (PPE examination session)?

The Helmet Mounted Displays information used during the vendor PPE Examination Session on

13 May 2015 is provided with this posting.

15 Can the Government provide the spectra of the emissive displays of cockpits for the purposes of modeling and design of the laser protection filter?

The Government is researching display spectrum compatibility requirements.

Response/Comments /Question to Government Response from Government

16 The Government has stated in its second set of responses "No visors will be used with LEP spectacle and NVG combinations. Spectacles will be worn with the

NVGs." Considering overall aircrew safety and possible ejection scenarios, should the spectacles be at least compatible with Step-In Visors? If not, how will the spectacles be qualified for windblast?

The Government is researching LEP Spectacle compatibility requirements with the Step-In Visor.

17 Please explain the design significance of "distance in front of canthus - 9mm".

What is located 9mm from the canthus?

First Question: The design significance is to ensure that coverage is provided to minimize gaps in side protection. Second Question: The furthest part of the temporal edge of the frame or lens where radiation blocking stops and a clear path exists to the head starts is located 9mm from the canthus.

Canthus coverage will be clarified in the Specification, which will be provided with the RFP.

18 What does the angular requirement mean in Question 1? Question 1 describes a central 45° cone angle. Does this angle refer to the angular laser protection with respect to the surface normal at any point on the lens (+/- 22.5 degrees)? Or is the criteria still total eye protection for gaze angles of +/- 22.5 degrees with regard to the forward look (i.e. field of view)? If the Government means the foveo-centric cone angle, why is it a different value in comparison to the 50 degrees specified in

Question 12. Please clarify.

In the Government Questions to Industry posted in FedBizOpps on 12 Jun 15, Question 1 refers to eye gaze angles of ±22.5°, vs. ±35° of the Performance Specification Laser protection would still be required to protect from any angle that could enter the pupil through the lens. Please disregard

Question 12.

19 Will the Government test the laser lenses for luminescence effects under laser exposure? If so, is the acceptance level defined?

The Government will not test the laser lenses for luminescence effects under laser exposure.

20 Is the Government still anticipating a draft RFP release in the September timeframe? Also, at Industry Day the Government indicated a desire to release another round of draft documents prior to the draft RFP. Is this still the

Government’s intention and if so, what is the timeframe for release of these documents for review and comment?

The Government anticipates issuing a Draft RFP in November 2015. The Government does not anticipate releasing another round of draft documents prior to the release of the Draft RFP. Please monitor FedBizOpps for updates.