Questions_and_Answers_5.pdf

SBIR 2017-1

Questions and Answers #5 December 16, 2016

REMINDER: NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SHALL BE ENTERTAINED. ALL

QUESTIONS WERE DUE BY DECEMBER 1, 2016.

Q: On page 32, section 3.2, other documents (c)l “Screen shot or similar copy of proposer’s Company registry as noted on SBIR.gov website (required, see Section 3.3.2), does the company register file of SBC00XXXXXX.pdf type with SBIR.gov SBC Registration satisfy this requirement?

A:I’m not sure what is meant by “SBC00XXXXXX.pdf type with SBIR.gov SBC Registration” but if it is the SBC Control ID you get from registering from sbir.gov (via this link https://www.sbir.gov/registration), then yes, that is acceptable. If it is different, please use the mentioned link to register and provide the registration confirmation to satisfy this requirement

Q: On page 37, section 3.6 “The Proposed Summary Budget must be signed by the Corporation Official: the form 9.3 doesn’t have dedicated room for signature. What is signature format acceptable for this form?

A: Please see Amendment 0001. We no longer require signatures on the budget form (9.3).

Certification on Form 9.1 includes the entire proposal package (including supplemental budget information).

Q: Page 38: Supplemental Budget Documentation - does it also require signature of the corporate official? What are required budget supplement documents for the new firm that haven’t had a review of accounting system or previous contracts, and what are some examples of acceptable documents?

A: No signature is required for the Supplemental Budget Documentation. In terms of some acceptable documents, the Supplemental Budget information mentions a DCAA manual that provides some examples of developing your indirect rates. I essentially need information to understand your cost pools and how you established the rates you were providing. The DCAA manual is quite detailed, but your local PTAC may be able to assist you in this effort and possibly a more simple approach.

Q: Section 3.3.4 - Technical content: Key Individuals and Bibliography section: is it acceptable to place overall bibliography in the end of the document?

A: I would recommend that you try and provide information in this section as much as possible. But, if you need to provide something more extensive and want to reference it http://www.aptac-us.org/ towards the end of the document, that is acceptable as well. Please note, though, that you are limited to the 26 page limitation.

Q: Budget: What is the cap on PI salary?

A: We have no stated cap on salary for the SBIR program. Please note though, that there is some statutory caps for all federal contracts which is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_exec_comp

Q: In Q&A 1: Letters of support can be taken into consideration in step 2. However the solicitation describes 26-page proposal as self-contained, not relying on enteral knowledge of experiments, recommendations, etc. Do letters of support count toward the 26 page limit?

A: Yes, the letters of support count towards the 26 page limitation and must be part of the technical proposal in order to be considered during the technical review.

Q: On Subtopic 8.1.2, I wanted to know if NOAA would have interest in a compact laser based capability that provides vertically resolved aerosol backscatter measurements for this subtopic?

A: Yes, we feel that this application is appropriate.

Q: On Subtopic 8.1.3, the subtopic description briefly mentions use on research aircraft.

What are the typical minimum and maximum altitudes for these studies that the instrument will have to support?

A: The goal is to understand tropospheric HCl. The primary initial application would be for low altitude research aircraft with an altitude range of 0-6 km. Ability to deploy on higher altitude aircraft that could reach the upper troposphere is desirable, with an altitude range to 12 km.

Q: On Subtopic 8.1.3, the description mentions a target Limit of Detection (LOD) of 50 ppt in 1 second. How is the LOD defined for this application (1 sigma, 2 sigma, 3 sigma,…)?

A: Two sigma. The desired specification for precision is a target, not a requirement. We would like to know what the instrument manufacturers believe they can offer.

Q: Regarding 8.2.2: Measurement throughput of flow cytometry methods can vary, depending on the method proposed. Is there a minimum measurement throughput that is necessary for this topic? Or is the purpose simply to increase the measurement throughput beyond that of typical manual measurement methods?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_exec_comp

A: An exact number cannot be given but the goal is to obtain statistically representative results in a reasonable amount of time. Keep in mind that the concentration of suspended particles can vary by orders of magnitude in natural fresh and marine waters. Additionally, biological particles change over time so sample measurement should be completed as soon as possible.

Q: Regarding 8.2.2: The solicitation mentions determining “single-particle optical properties” of a number of very different objects found in natural waters. Is the purpose of the solicitation to identify unidentified particles in flow based on their optical properties, or is the purpose to characterize the optical properties of known particles?

A: Neither; the purpose is to actually characterize the optical properties of unidentified particles.

Q: Regarding 8.2.2: Also mentioned is the ‘wide spectral range.’ Is it necessary to interrogate particles with a broadband light source, or can the particles be interrogated with a variety of specific wavelengths along that range?

A: Eventually, we want hyperspectral information on single particle optical properties so a broadband light source appears to be ideal as long as interference from fluorescence will be properly accounted for. Since this has not been done before and is quite challenging, it is acceptable to start with a few critical wavelengths such as the blue (~440 nm) and red (~670

nm) phytoplankton absorption peaks.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, the topic by its description (i.e. social media smartphone app), implies there a human is involved in the solution. Does NOAA feel Phase I will require Protection of Human Subject provisions?

A: I really don't understand this question. It would most likely depend on your plan for your Phase I development and what is entailed. A list of exceptions is provided as follows:

15 CFR § 27.101 To what does this policy apply?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this policy applies to all researchinvolving human subjects conducted, supported or otherwise subject to regulation by any federal department or agency which takes appropriate administrative action to make the policy applicable to such research. This includes research conducted by federal civilian employees or military personnel, except that each department or agency head may adopt such procedural modifications as may be appropriate from an administrative standpoint. It also includes researchconducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by the federal government outside the United States.

(1) Research that is conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, whether or not it is regulated as defined in § 27.102(e), must comply with all sections of this policy.

(2) Research that is neither conducted nor supported by a federal department or agency but is subject to regulation as defined in § 27.102(e) must be reviewed and approved, in https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/27.101#b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=1&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=72f67dd5ebe578c40320b181894c9a5d&term_occur=1&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=3&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=2&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=28a8e5958146f1cfad2c0457b9d40646&term_occur=1&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=4&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=5&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=6&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 compliance with § 27.101, § 27.102, and § 27.107 through § 27.117 of this policy, by an institutional review board (IRB) that operates in accordance with the pertinent requirements of this policy.

(b) Unless otherwise required by department or agency heads, research activities in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the following categories are exempt from this policy:

(1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.

(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:

(i) Information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and

(ii) Any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

(3) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior that is not exempt under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if:

(i) The human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or

(ii) Federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter.

(4) Research, involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.

(5) Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:

(i) Public benefit or service programs;

(ii) Procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs;

(iii) Possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or

(iv) Possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.

(6) Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies,

(i) If wholesome foods without additives are consumed or https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=7&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=72f67dd5ebe578c40320b181894c9a5d&term_occur=2&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=8&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=9&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=10&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=11&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=72f67dd5ebe578c40320b181894c9a5d&term_occur=3&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=12&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=13&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/27.101#b_2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=72f67dd5ebe578c40320b181894c9a5d&term_occur=4&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=14&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=15&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3ac421da587ceec085be21dd50dcad46&term_occur=16&term_src=Title:15:Subtitle:A:Part:27:27.101

(ii) If a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In terms of this subtopic, there is a need in the marine meteorology, mariner, and model developer (for specific forecast models) communities for data sharing. Our marine waters tend to have few real-time observations. Some parameters, such as freezing spray, fog, and wave heights, are not available on a routine basis in our waters. There is a need in the marine meteorology and mariner communities for the development of a phone app or capability that would allow mariners to share real-time weather information with other mariners, forecasters (for monitoring and updating forecasts) and developers (for model validation purposes). While there are many (including new and exciting ways) to obtain the marine weather information, my initial idea was for the mariner to enter data -such as visibility, wind speed and direction, wave height, and other information on some kind of form - as they see fit - and to have the capability to share the information via the phone's data connection, and through a database and social media, with forecasters and developers.

The person on the phone would be able to more fully document the weather information with pictures that are geo-located and time stamped; the pictures would also help to validate the report from the mariner and help the more untrained observer to better communicate the information. I'm not sure what is meant by Protection of Human Subject provisions, unless it means personal identification. Personal identification is not really needed. The mariner could use a handle. If the report was geo-located and time stamped, the need for specific ID would not be absolutely needed.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, how important is accuracy (or improving accuracy) of the weather observations made by mariners or other potential “untrained users” such as the general public?

A: It is understood that the accuracy of a report from an untrained mariner (in this case -unofficial marine weather spotter) will not be to the same level as an official observation.

We will always want the best data possible - and training is important. If the capability were available and widely used, I can see a need to increase training on how to observe and report weather conditions - sort of like spotter training that is made for citizen observers by NOAA National Weather Service offices. A geo-located and time stamped picture would add some validity to any weather report that is provided. If the app had the capability for the mariner to identify through an initial setup process the type of instrumentation (or if it is an estimate), size and type of vessel, and observer level of training (from complete novice to skilled marine observer), that would be helpful information as part of the weather observation for the forecaster and model developer. Information for the general public is sometimes less reliable, but can still be extremely useful!

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, should scalability of the solution be considered an important consideration in Phase I?

A: I'm not sure what is meant by scalability in the context of this question.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, is there a preferred data format which NOAA would like to see the weather observations and pictures collected by the smart phone app? Perhaps a specific database or ingestion format?

A: A two-pronged approach would work best. A database of observations that is held on the phone until the mariner is in range of a cell tower then transmitted to forecasters and developers would be useful for forecast verification and model validation purposes. If the mariner is in range of a cell tower when taking the observation (this would occur in many coastal locations and in inland waters), the observation should be sent to forecasters and developers via a format that could be used to populate a centralized database - and additionally sent to social media (like Instagram or Twitter). The social media connection would allow forecasters and other mariners can make real time use of the weather information. As far as specific format, I'm not an expert in database design or development.

It seems that something that cataloged by date, time, location the various weather parameters and a photo or set of photos would be useful. There are likely formats already available that could be used to accomplish the task.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, is security and privacy important factors to consider during Phase I?

A: If the information is sent to social media sites like Twitter or Instagram, the user's handle could be used. The database could contain slightly more info like vessel size or class, a training flag, and instrumentation flag of some sort, and possibly handle along with the weather information and geo-located and time stamped photos.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, how important is open-source and open standards to a responsive solution?

A: There would be a need for NOAA to be able to read whatever dataset is made available.

In terms of open-sources and open standards, we do encourage use when possible.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, as mentioned in the solicitation, marine weather information includes wind, wave, ice accretion, visibility, and present weather. Is measuring environmental variables (e.g., air pressure, temperature, humidity) using the sensors on the smartphone within the scope of this topic?

A: I have just learned that some smart phones now have the capability to measure some atmospheric parameters such as air pressure and temperature. A calibrated pressure would be very useful. Temperature and humidity would be useful parameters for ice accretion model validation. If that information could be built into the app for phones that have the capability to measure those parameters, that would be very useful information!

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, is it allowed to introduce external sensors (e.g., connected using Bluetooth or USB interface of Smartphone) for measurements?

A: When I was thinking about the project, I overlooked the smart phone's ability to connect to external sensors via USB, Bluetooth, or some other type of method. This capability would be very useful.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, can we rely on the users of this App (e.g., sailors) to input certain marine weather information (e.g., visibility, wave, ice accretion)?

A: The initial intent was for users to enter this information if they felt comfortable doing so.

If waves are important, I would expect the user to give an estimate of wave height along with possibly a picture while leaving other parameters blank. The same goes for the other parameters, However, the user should have the option to enter all parameters if available.

My assumption was that the user (mariner) would be a voluntary citizen observer who is providing whatever information they had available or felt comfortable sharing.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, is motivating the users into this reporting process in the scope?

A: The mariners will need to be notified of the app or capability when it becomes available.

Training and motivation is always useful. I initially saw it as NOAA's role (through NWS or NOAA line offices) to train and inform mariners on the observation process. However, there may be many better ways to advertise and train mariners that I did not consider.

Depending on how the Phase I is developed, this could be something to consider including in the proposal as long as it meets the intent of the subtopic.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.6, is making the app as a plug-in to the marine social media within the scope? Is fetching data from the marine social media (e.g., twitter) also in the scope?

A: We currently use locally and open-source social media monitoring tools to fetch data from social media sites. But, if the process could be made more fool-proof and simple to use by creating a plug in or special marine weather groups, I could see it as being within the scope of the project.

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, is the App intended to be a standalone technical ecosystem, or is integration with other social media sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) desirable?

A: It seems preferable to keep the app as standalone as possible but made so that information is shared with the numerous social media platforms out there. For example, when I take a photo or video on my cell phone, my phone has the capability to share it with various social media contacts/sites.

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, is the system intended to be entirely open (meaning any user can add and view data), or would NOAA maintain some kind of administrative control (e.g.

restrictions on access)?

A: It was my thought that the system should be entirely open. This would allow for widespread sharing of weather data, realizing that some data may be of limited value.

Reducing administrative control would also allow for the application to have international uses. I am a forecaster at the National Weather Service in Seattle Washington. We have a large number of mariners that go into adjoining Canadian waters and vice versa. Many of our mariners transit through Canadian waters on their way to and from Alaska. If the app were also made available to mariners in Canada, we could see their data when they move into our waters. If the databases were made available to Canadian forecasters, they would be able to monitor the information from our mariners as they transit their waters.

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, if the system is entirely open, are there any requirements for ensuring the reliability of data submitted by users?

A: Data may not be totally reliable. Mariners should be encouraged to send photos of what they are seeing along with their observations. This could help the forecaster or model developer to "see" how credible the observation is.

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, will use of the system be entirely voluntary for sailors?

A: I was expecting this system to be entirely voluntary - like a marine spotter program.

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, regarding commercialization, is it envisioned that this system would generate its own revenue for long-term maintenance and enhancements, or is it possible there could be a government source of non-SBIR funds for sustainment?

A: When running a business of selling products in the commercial market, one should always plan for generating revenue to fund long term maintenance and enhancements of said product. The “how” is a business decision you need to make for your company. While SBIR provides seed fund to get you started, any additional investments has to be carefully thought out when drafting your commercialization plan.

Once an SBIR project completes Phase II, there are indeed options for government programs to fund further research or buy the product through non-SBIR funds. This is considered Phase III. Again, this is through non-SBIR funds, so depending on these funds may not be good business practice as federal funds fluctuate based on congressional appropriations. This is your product and your innovation, so you should approach its commercialization from a business model standpoint

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, should the user have the ability to submit qualitative descriptions of weather conditions, or should all information be specified in standardized formats?

A: Qualitative descriptions should be a capability depending on the observer's ability to make direct measurements. For example, if the observer has no anemometer, he/she should be able to give an estimate or a Beaufort scale wind report. A picture to support the report would be useful. The ability to document information, like "waterspout", "thunderstorm", or some other interesting marine weather parameter would be useful.

Q: Regarding Subtopic 8.2.6, is automated integration with onboard weather sensors required or desirable, or will the user manually input measurements made by other systems into the App?

A: The ability to manually enter information is needed (to make the app more universally useful). The ability to automatically integrate information from onboard weather sensors is desired - but not required.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, will the UAS flight profile require variability in altitude operating levels from the surface to 6,000 m? Or will the duration of the flight profile be at an optimum endurance altitude between the sfc and 6,000 meters?

A: Optimally, the platform would be able to achieve "variability in altitude operating levels from the surface to 6,000 m" and requested threshold and objective endurances. If unable, that would be part of the analysis.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, when will we know if a prototype will be required as per the “NOTE” on this subtopic.

A: The prototyping of a successful Phase I SBIR is normally conducted in Phase II, unless able to be done sooner.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, what unmanned aircraft systems are currently being used by NOAA and its operational partners (the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S Navy) for this mission?

A: This should be part of the Phase I feasibility study.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, what are the restrictions on maximum weight or dimensions are imposed by the need to on-load the system without crane services?

A: Team should be able to hand carry UAS onboard the research vessel.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, if a prototype were developed, is it assumed that this would occur during a Phase II award? Or, is it assumed that the contractor already have a functional air vehicle for pursuit of the Phase I award?

A: Phase I is the feasibility study. Phase II is prototype development. However, (sub)systems development currently underway will be viewed favorable for project risk reduction.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, for this particular effort, can a dedicated launch and recovery system (launch rail, net, or other) be used?

A: The design should have a minimum shipboard footprint including no dedicated launch and recovery system due to lack of deck space as outlined:

Shipboard Footprint & Launch/Recovery Area - On-load of system without crane services - Launch/Recovery Area: Threshold: 20’x20’, Objective: 10’x10’

Any additional gear must be explained.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, please provide insight on mission support. Examples follow below:

a. Expected life of the equipment

b. Operational hours/year,

c. Is there existing equipment (e.g. ground station) that should be integrated with the end solution?

d. Is NOAA only interested in purchasing a solution or will a services model also be considered?

A: These all should be explored in Phase I. Interoperability and different costing models are important parts of any successful program.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, if a new air vehicle were proposed, is there a desired weight limit?

Similarly, is there a preferred size that the stowed air vehicle would fit within? If so, what are those dimensions?

A: These should be explored in Phase I to meet:

Specific NOAA/OAR/Line Office goals include: In support of cross-NOAA Line Office’s requirements research, design, develop and prototype the next generation long endurance, shipboard, unmanned systems tools and technologies for maritime surveys for marine domain awareness, Arctic and ice surveys, ecosystem assessments, weather, climate and other NOAA maritime missions. These multi- mission, transdisciplinary platforms will simultaneously fulfill several NOAA missions while being in direct support of our operational partners at the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy, and builds on past transition to operations, applications and commercialization (or other use) (R2X) successes. Develop, integrate and test new low Cost – Size, Weight and Power (C-SWAP) calibrated payloads onto autonomous unmanned systems for atmospheric boundary layer data capture while conducting maritime and Arctic missions.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, it is mentioned that a constant deployment of one system is one week (threshold) with an objective of five months (objective). Can you elaborate on the number of sorties that are expected to occur during each time period?

A: The system dependent on the endurance of the platform (ie. 24 Hour platform endurance, may take seven sorties with two aircraft in the one system to fulfill the one week threshold.)

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, would the air vehicle need to operate in rain? If so, what is the rainfall rate? Please list any other environmental factors where operation of the vehicle is required.

A: This should be examined during Phase I. We are looking at the maritime and Arctic environments.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, ascent rates and air vehicle speeds are mentioned. Are these speeds required by a particular sensor? Or, can these numbers vary depending on a customer-identified solution?

a. Is there a particular payload that is desired or currently in use for atmospheric boundary layer data capture while conducting maritime and Arctic missions?

b. Is there a desire for interchangeable/modular payloads?

A: These rates are from sonde sampling standards but may be discussed during Phase I.

a. Is there a particular payload that is desired or currently in use for atmospheric boundary layer data capture while conducting maritime and Arctic missions?

Payload should fulfill the stated boundary layer data requirements, but may evolve during Phase I.

b. Is there a desire for interchangeable/modular payloads? Yes

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, what is the preferred fuel for the aircraft?

A: Evaluated during Phase I with shipboard requirement considered.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, are there any obstructions that are near the launch and recovery area?

Are there particular ships in mind for conducting these operations? What level of autonomy is desired?

a. Is collision avoidance/NAS integration/ATC COMMS needed?

A: Yes, do not assume a flight deck on NOAA Research Vessels. Consider affordablity.

a. Is collision avoidance/NAS integration/ATC COMMS needed? This will evolve throughout the project and should follow:

Beyond Visual Line of Sight Equipment - The UAS must be equipped with current beyond visual line of sight operations equipment.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, datalinks:

a. Will primary payload data be stored onboard and downloaded as part of post-flight or does it need to be transmitted in real time?

b. Are there desired security protocols for the datalink (encryption, redundant link, etc.)?

A: a. Will primary payload data be stored onboard and downloaded as part of post-flight or does it need to be transmitted in real time? Real-time as much as possible with onboard backup plan.

b. Are there desired security protocols for the datalink (encryption, redundant link, etc.)?

Should be examined during Phase I.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, does the 24-hour endurance threshold need to be met by continuous operation, or can the UAS perform autonomous land, refuel, and take-off during the 24 hour mission?

A: Endurance - Threshold: 24 hours, Objective: 36 hours. If unable to fulfill the requirement, explain.

Should be continuous operation; however, explain alternatives which may increase mission risk.

Q: On Subtopic 8.2.8, if refueling/recharging would be acceptable, would NOAA consider a solution with an autonomous UAS/USV team, in which the UAS operates from the deck of the USV and performs repeated launch, flight, landing, and refuel/recharge autonomously?

A: Endurance - Threshold: 24 hours, Objective: 36 hours.

Should be continuous operation; however, explain alternatives which may increase mission risk.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, how many awards are expected for this topic?

A: At this time, we cannot answer this question. As indicated in section 4.3, “ NOAA may elect to fund several or none of the proposals received on a given subtopic.” It really depends on how many good viable proposals we get for the various subtopics and the total funding available.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, the summary identifies existing products provided by the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). If the intent is to create better products, can you identify the specific products and the noted issues/errors that are perceived by users? Also, can you confirm that the existing tools have no data rights from the product provider(s)?

A: The primary products are TEC maps. We have two... one operational at...

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/north-american-total-electron-content, or http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/north-american-total-electron-content-us-region and an experimental product at:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/ctipe-total-electron-content-forecast

Neither product is proprietary although the data that feeds the first two are not publicly available. We do share the data with partners.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, will the algorithms/source code for the existing Total Electron Content (TEC) be made available to successful SBIR offerors?

A: The code for the USTEC and NATEC products can be made available. The CTIPe product runs from a physics based model of the ionosphere/thermosphere system. We can discuss collaborations if someone is interested in the physics based code.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, is the intent to improve the products as a stand-alone function or to have a solution that can be integrated into external systems in real-time (vs. post processing)?

A: I'm not sure I understand the question. We are looking for real-time and even forecasts of parameters that are most relevant to GPS/GNSS users. Our current products are both stand-alone (USTEC/NATEC) and part of a bigger modeling activity (CTIPe)

Q: Within subtopic 8.3.1, does the fact that additional GPS signals provide better PNT solutions related to ionospheric uncertainty need to be addressed?

A: It needs to be considered but it may not be a primary consideration. As more GPS signals reduce the errors, the customers then push the systems and demand better accuracy.

Our goal is to specify the environment so that users can assess the impacts on their own systems.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/north-american-total-electron-content http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/north-american-total-electron-content-us-region http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/ctipe-total-electron-content-forecast

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, will a proposed software package need to integrate with current processes for downloading/extracting/formatting space weather data (such as used by the Space Weather Prediction Center)? Or should the tool access this data independently?

A: The tool should access as much data independently as possible. If there are data sets that are unique and only available internally (such as the CORS GPS data), SWPC can provide that data.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, is the final form of the desired product a “Position Error Map?” If so, how will users access the Position Error Map (e.g. via web, smart phone app, etc.)?

A: Products are typically issued via the web. It would be good however to include both a graphical product as well as a numerical product.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, will the proposer’s model/analysis need to integrate with current software frameworks, processes, applications, etc. currently (such as those used by the Space Weather Prediction Center)?

A: The Space Weather Prediction Center supports most common programming languages including C, Fortran, Python, Perl, IDL, etc... Any third party package (e.g. MatLab) would need to be evaluated and negotiated.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, given that some ionospheric effects can stress a GPS receiver’s tracking capabilities—i.e., scintillation can cause short-term signal fading (causing signal level to drop below the receiver lock threshold), while dispersion can cause receiver phase-lock problems if phase shifts are faster than the receiver frequency bandwidth can handle--should the proposed software tool provide information on possible GPS receiver tracking problems?

A: Yes but it is recognized that some of these issues are receiver-dependent.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, given that it is generally more difficult to compensate for tropospheric effects than for ionospheric effects, should the proposer’s software tool account for tropospheric effects on GPS errors? If so, will the software need to integrate with current processes for downloading/extracting/formatting meteorological data (such as data processed by the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI))?

A: No, only ionospheric effects need be considered.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, how many awards are expected for this subtopic?

A: As indicated in paragraph 4.3 of the solicitation, “Final award recommendation decisions will be made by NOAA based upon rankings assigned by the selection panel and consideration of additional factors, including possible duplication of other research, the importance of the proposed research as it relates to NOAA needs, and the availability of funding. In the event of a “tie” between proposals, manufacturing-related projects as well as those regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy systems will receive priority in the award selection process. NOAA may elect to fund several or none of the proposals received on a given subtopic. Upon recommendation of a proposal for a Phase I award, NOAA reserves the right to review and negotiate, if necessary, the amount of the award.”

There is no clear answer at this juncture. It really depends on how many good viable projects we get for the various subtopics and the total funding available.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, is this topic associated with a particular program at NOAA?

A: The NOAA/NWS/NCEP Space Weather Prediction Center provides space weather products and services to customers including GPS/GNSS users. The goal is to develop better products and services.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.1, has the NOAA organization responsible for this topic been working with other small companies (SBIR and non-SBIR) in the area of total electron content (TEC) estimation for position accuracy recently?

A: Yes, SWPC has worked with small companies on GPS related products in the last 5 years.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, will the VTOL be operating from a certified flight deck?

A: Not always. It could be operating from a NOAA ship that does not have a certified flight deck or from another ship with a heli pad that is a certified flight deck.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, will the UAS require beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) capability?

A: Yes.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2 , will a prototype UAS be required at the end of Phase 1?

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, is it your intention that the developed aircraft comply with the requirements for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems as specified by the FAA in RIN 2120–AJ60?

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what are the expected aircraft operating conditions:

a. Sea states?

b. Precipitation?

c. Salt-fog?

d. Maximum wind aloft/wind over deck?

e. Need for waterproofing/anti-icing?

f. Ship maximum pitch angle?

g. Temperature range?

A: a. Sea states? Up to Sea State Code 5

b. Precipitation? Light

c. Salt-fog? No

d. Maximum wind aloft/wind over deck? 30 knots

e. Need for waterproofing/anti-icing? No

f. Ship maximum pitch angle? 10 degrees

g. Temperature range? -10 to 30 degrees C

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, would there be any need for hovering other than for launch and recovery?

A: No.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, primary payload:

a. What are the power consumption characteristics?

b. What are the shock and vibration limits?

c. What are the saltwater exposure limits?

d. Any maximum/minimum payload air intake velocity?

e. Is this an existing sensor? If so, what are its dimensions?

A:

a. What are the power consumption characteristics? 60 watts

b. What are the shock and vibration limits? not specified

c. What are the saltwater exposure limits? the payload should not be exposed to salt water

d. Any maximum/minimum payload air intake velocity? 5 L/min

e. Is this an existing sensor? If so, what are its dimensions? 8"W, 10"L, 8"H

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, is there a preferred fuel type (e.g. gasoline, propane, Li-Po batteries)?

A: Gasoline.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what level of autonomy is desired?

a. Will the payload provide dynamic routing information in flight?

b. Is beyond visual line of sight operation desired?

c. What markings on ship/landing aids would be available? Are there restrictions on what can be added?

A:

a. Will the payload provide dynamic routing information in flight? No

b. Is beyond visual line of sight operation desired? Yes

c. What markings on ship/landing aids would be available? None. Are there restrictions on what can be added? No

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, datalinks:

a. What is the desired bandwidth of the datalink? If not known, what is the needed bandwidth of the primary payload?

b. Will primary payload data be stored onboard and downloaded as part of post-flight or does it need to be transmitted in real time?

A: The function of the payload computer is to implement and regulate all of the primary functions of the science pay- load. The embedded computer stores the high resolution data (1 Hz) from the payload and transmits a subset of data to the ground station via RF or Iridium modems. During the flight, the payload scientist has the ability to send commands to the computer to change the data download feed and control each.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, is there any data or anecdotal evidence can you provide on the superstructure turbulence?

A: The superstructure causes a great deal of turbulence. Take off and landing on the bow requires the wind on the bow. Take off and landing on the stern requires the wind on the stern.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, Sensor (Payload) Related Questions:

1) Does data from the sensor payload need to be received on the ground in real time?

2) How much data is required to be recorded or relayed (if in real time) and what type of data?

3) What are the power requirements for the sensor payload?

4) Does the sensor payload need access to the aircraft's telemetry (i.e. GPS, IMU)?

5) What is the link protocol between the aircraft and the sensor payload? Between the sensor payload and the ground?

6) Is the sensor payload contained as a single unit or is it distributed throughout various sections of the aircraft?

7) What are the dimensions of the sensor payload?

A:

1) Does data from the sensor payload need to be received on the ground in real time? A subset does

2) How much data is required to be recorded or relayed (if in real time) and what type of data? The function of the payload computer is to implement and regulate all of the primary functions of the science pay- load. The embedded computer stores the high resolution data (1 Hz) from the payload and transmits a subset of data to the ground station via RF or Iridium modems. During the flight, the payload scientist has the ability to send commands to the computer to change the data download feed and control each

3) What are the power requirements for the sensor payload? 60 watts

4) Does the sensor payload need access to the aircraft's telemetry (i.e. GPS, IMU)?

Yes

5) What is the link protocol between the aircraft and the sensor payload? Between the sensor payload and the ground? see above

6) Is the sensor payload contained as a single unit or is it distributed throughout various sections of the aircraft? single unit

7) What are the dimensions of the sensor payload? 8"W, 10"L, 8"H

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, Aircraft Related Questions:

1) Does the aircraft need to be able to hover?

2) Is there a proposed mission profile available? (i.e. desired cruising speed, range, etc)

A:

1) Does the aircraft need to be able to hover? No

2) Is there a proposed mission profile available? (i.e. desired cruising speed, range, etc) Circular profile to maximum altitude. Target certain altitudes for further sampling on the descent.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, Do the ships the UAS are operating have aviation certification, particularly wind modeling?

A: No.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, is the shipboard landing area on the bow or the stern?

A: Could be either.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, it is preferred that ship be moving for recovery, is this possible procedure and constraint?

A: Yes, it is possible.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, in fixed wing mode, what are the climb and speed requirements?

A: 1 to 1.5 m/s. No speed requirement.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, are there any restrictions on types of fuels that can be used?

A: Regular gasoline would be preferred as it is readily available around the world.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, in a typical flight profile, is aerosol collected the whole flight or starts after takeoff and concludes before landing?

A: Instruments are started before take off

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what are the video requirements? Electro-optical, Infrared, desired resolutions, transmission quality, capture quality, How many video feeds are required simultaneously?

A: None.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, with the assumption these collections would be initial outside the NAS, or under a government COA, what is the max altitude required for Aerosol collection?

A: 12000 ft ASL

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, will the Aerosol measuring equipment need to be integrated into the aircraft, have a plug and play standardized form factor, or currently no standard exists?

A: Will need to be integrated.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, does it need to be all weather capable? i.e. de-icing, rain, high wings

A: de-icing would be a benefit but is not a requirement

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what would be the sea state launching/landing requirements? (deck pitch and roll)

A: Ten degrees

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what are the desired wind conditions to be launched and recovered?

A: Up to 30 knots

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what ranges from the ground control station are expected?

A: Up to 100 nm

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what level of accuracy is required for GPS positioning for telemetry and data logging?

A: 0.001 degrees

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, will this UAS be integrating into a larger system architecture or will it be stand-alone? If integrated, please specify system.

A: Stand alone

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what is the payload typical power requirements?

A: 60 watts

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, how long do you need to hover? just for take-off and landing or multiple stops during the sortie?

A: just of take-off and landing

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, how slow do you need to transit for good geodetic sampling?

A: 50 knots for aerosol sampling

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.2, what is the desired maximum wind environment?

A: up to 30 knots

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.3, it asks for field or laboratory instrumentation that costs less than $50/unit. If an automated molecular device that can process 8 samples at once but it costs $400 per unit, would this still fit within the “low-cost instrumentation” this subtopic calls for?

A: The answer is it depends, if the example above the applicant would need to make the case that the higher cost per unit would still be affordable and thereby utilized by citizen science groups thereby meeting the goals of the subtopic.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.3, is there particular measurement NOAA wants the device to perform?

A: There is no particular measurement, NOAA is looking for methods to develop previously expensive scientific instrumentation and bring the costs down in such a way that they are accessible and affordable to citizen science groups.

Q: On Subtopic 8.3.3, am I allowed to collaborate with NOAA scientist(s) in the grant?

A: Typically, we provide a technical point of contact that is familiar with the requirement to help answer any questions that might arise as well as review your reports.

Q: On Subtopic 8.4.2, the solicitation seeks solutions to develop a saxitoxin test.

Developing and commercializing such a test would be of great importance to those who have already been afflicted by saxitoxin poisoning, have the potential for such exposure or governmental institutions responsible for protecting food safety with respect to saxitoxin poisoning. However, the number of PSP outbreaks have been limited in number as best as I can tell from the sparse data available on the subject.