Q&A_7.pdf

SBIR 2018-1

Questions and Answers #7 December 22, 2017

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SOLICITATION AND ITS

SUBTOPICS ARE PERMITTED.

Q: Within Section 3.3.1 of the Solicitation (pg 29), it states “Within SAM.gov...include the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541712 with your registration.” The NAICS website is stating the code is obsolete and to use code 541713 or 541715 as the replacement. Please confirm which NAICS should be utilized.

A: See Amendment 00001

Q: Subtopic 8.2.1: Would you mind answering the following questions-

1. Is it acceptable to propose using a commercial, off-the-shelf image acquisition device, assuming there exists such a device that meets the desired specifications? One possibility would be to survey the commercially available options in Phase I, and either select one or, if none are sufficient, design a new one in Phase II.

2. The solicitation indicates that the device should be portable--can you provide more specific constraints in terms of size, weight, and power usage?

3. The solicitation indicates that throughput is important. Can you provide information regarding the throughput rate that is desired, or the size of each sample to be measured and the number of samples per minute to be measured?

4. Are any specific classes of phytoplankton of particular interest? For example, individual species, or groups based on phylogeny, taxonomy, geography, or ecological niche.

5. Can NOAA provide data to complement data collection performed as part of the project? Example phytoplankton imagery is of interest.

A:

1. Market research performed prior to submission of this subtopic did not indicate a commercial system suitable for our requirements; however, it is possible that a company could modify an existing system in a way that we had not previously considered. A phase 1 deliverable without an instrument system design would not be considered a success.

2. We do not have specific constraints at this point. Users should be able to hand carry the device to wherever the sampling will take place. The device should be robust enough to work on either a moving platform (e.g., a small boat) or on land (e.g., a boat pier).

3. The instrument should be able to acquire, within minutes, sufficient amount of data required for a statistically representative characterization of dominant algal species in a given sample.

4. This is part of the phase I investigation, which should address common algal species in coastal and inland waters.

5. NESDIS/STAR does not have a phytoplankton imagery archive. The funded company should have (or find) appropriate partners, such as labs in research universities and institutions, to obtain all resources needed to fulfill the project requirements.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.5:

1. Can you provide more information on the satellite beacons that are currently used with mooring systems? Why are they so expensive? Is there an example product you can refer me to?

2. For the desired solution - does it need to collect and transmit oceanographic data or just transmit location? If oceanographic data, is there a certain category of data that would be ideal to be able to transmit (e.g. premature, oxygen levels, etc.)?

3. For the desired solution - should we focus on something that can be attached to the mooring line below the surface of the water or to a buoy on the surface?

4. Is there a need for multiple of these products per mooring line?

5. Is there a target price point for the product?

6. How much information (in terms of bytes/KB/MB) does the solution need to transmit and how frequently (continuously, near continuously, daily, etc.). How much value is there in being able to accommodate real-time information transmission?

1. Xeos kilo is the closest example to what we look for.

http://www.xeostech.com/product/kilo

2. No, the beacon should only transmit location data.

3. The beacon should be waterproof and resist depths of up to 500 m. It will be attached to the instrument package that is deployed without a subsurface expression. The device should be in stand-by until it surfaces to allow longer battery autonomy. Deployments are generally 6-8 months long.

4. No, one beacon per mooring package should suffice.

5. Current beacons (e.g., Xeos Kilo) are $3000 plus satellite subscription costs. We would be interested in decreasing the cost of this type of instrument, by lowering the device cost and minimizing the satellite transmission data.

6. In order to make this device as affordable as possible, minimal transmission of data is recommended. For mooring rescue operations, transmission of a latitude/longitude location per day will suffice, however it is recommended to program the device to transmit twice or three times per day in case some of these transmissions are not successfully uplinked. Mooring beacons should allow directing a search to locate and recover a mooring adrift or stranded. Once a http://www.xeostech.com/product/kilo beacon location is received, its location is tracked for one or two days while recovery logistics are put together (flying personnel, arranging a land or boat transport for moorings adrift or stranded). Once in field, recovery crew will be directed to the last location received to search for the mooring. Real-time information transmission would greatly improve the search efficiency once a field crew is deployed, however the low cost priority should be kept in mind.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.6: Would you answer the following questions?

1. Would a low-cost, local (~meters) measurement that could be mounted on a buoy be of interest, as compared to long-distance measurements integrating visibility over miles?

2. Does the sensor need to return images, or would an equivalent visibility distance (e.g. in nautical miles or statute miles) be sufficient?

3. Is it acceptable to develop just the fog sensor, or would a full buoy with radio communication and renewable power source, for example, be required? If radio communication is required, what standard should be used?

4. How frequently should measurements be reported?

5. For buoy-mounted measurements, what height above the water is preferred in order to avoid surface spray?

A:

1. We currently mount our equipment on shore or coastal structures near navigation channels for use by coast, ports, harbor, river & inlet pilots/mariners. Buoy mounted was not envisioned. The idea of having every USCG buoy and aid to navigation have a low cost fog sensor possibly linked in a fashion that allows us to truly track and report out on fog conditions from the outermost entrance buoy to the innermost harbor buoy is tantalizing and a unique vision.

2. Use of images and gray scale analysis was just an example of what might be possible. There may be better detection & early warning methods. We are searching for innovative, better, easier, simpler, less costly (initial and recurring), reduced maintenance and operational servicing, and requiring significantly less power.

3. Our data is transmitted by GOES, Iridium, or ipmodem every 18-minutes in 6-minute bundles. Line of site radio communications have been used with limited success in remote coastal areas and the far reaches of entrance channels. We follow FCC, NASA, and DOD (data) communications guidance & standards.

4. We report every 18-minutes (three 6-minute bundles (averaged, manipulated, & compressed) via GOES or Iridium. Automated IP polling occurs every night (midnight to 4 am) to fill data gaps.

5. Height depends on detection system's capability and local maritime community requirements. Minimum 5 nautical miles to maximum 10 (max) nautical miles is usual. The Captain's or Pilot's height is eye averages about 25 feet giving the pilot a visual range of 10-nm or next bend in channel. Surface spray, ice, snow, salt, dirt, sand, & bird activity (guano, nests, perching, eating, etc.) is always a problem for instruments with protective cases, lenses, protective glass shields, beams (lasers, radar, etc) batteries, and solar cells operating in the marine environment. Surface spray hits the tallest lighthouse. It can't be avoided and still meet our mission to support maritime commerce.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.7: The specific team referring to a glider as the final requirement.

However, for this particular application(8.2.7), we believe a long endurance water-proof drone (and a submersible payload) that we propose could gather the data that the team requires. But, we don't think this vehicle can replace a glider in all of its applications.

This raises a problem for us if the team intends to use an applicant's glider for many other applications. Is an aerial vehicle an acceptable solution?

A: As stated in the solicitation, "NOAA is seeking autonomous vehicle technologies that can resolve the challenge of mapping the Gulf dead zone effectively and cost-efficiently." Although gliders are mentioned extensively, we recognize this might not be the only solution, and would welcome proposals that would effectively enhance our mapping and monitoring capabilities through the NGOMEX Dead Zone.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.9: Would you mind answering some questions on -

1. The unit is required to be more "cost effective" than existing options. What is an approximate retail price limit for the intended product?

2. Is acoustic depth sounding the required sensing technology, or could other mapping options (like optical) be used instead?

3. Topic states "The data logger should integrate all data streams into a single record with 1 sec or less logging frequency. " Is there a specific data format that is required for this data reporting record?

1. Gauging against the price of the sort of GPS units we have purchased most recently, I would say the price point should be under $20K. I know that survey grade GPS units can now be had for well under $1K.

2. I'm not sure what data the optical approach would generate (I'm a biologist), so I can't answer that question definitely. I can say that we need to be able to transfer a depth value to GIS software (along with the position) to create volume estimates.

3. Our current approach captures a NMEA string from the depth sounder, extracts just the depth value, and combines that with the GPS's position. Pathfinder software is used to transfer that to a PC as a GIS shape file for further processing. That said, there is not a specific record format that must be used. It must be ingestible to ESRI's ArcGis application, which could be accomplished with even a comma-delimited file. We do not want to do double processing of a position file and another with the depths; the system should generate one integrated record in which each record is a single observation of depth at a given position in decimal degrees latitude/longitude.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Would you mind answering the following questions:

1. We are developing a novel small scale, portable wave energy conversion device that generates enough power (~10W) to operate instrumentation on some types of observational buoys as a dedicated ocean powered energy source. Is this type of clean energy device suitable for what is being asked for in Subtopic 8.2.11?

2. Given the technology we are developing, we would like to learn what average power levels are required for various sensor measurements and communications on NOAA buoys. While we have seen some information, it is limited in type of application. Can you please provide average power levels required for currently-employed and planned measurements of:

● wind speed

● wind direction

● wave height

● wave period

● air temperature

● water temperature

● visibility

● and for communications systems? If you can supply pointers to documents containing this information that would also be very helpful. Our technology aligns best with buoys which are small and have relatively low power requirements to power on-board sensors.

3. Because our technology does not require a fixed anchor point or framework, it would be able to provide power to a drifting buoy. It could be used to (i.e.)

recharge the battery on a drifting buoy, extending operation. Would currently operating or planned drifting buoys benefit from using a compact wave energy source for power? Are there sensor configurations currently being used or planned for drifting buoys with low power (~ 10W) requirements? Would developing technology to supply wave power to these types of buoys be considered under sub-topic 8.2.11?

4. The Pico Buoy program at NOAA PMEL could potentially be a good match for our technology due to a mutual focus on smaller scale and lower cost. Can you provide any reference for Pico Buoy average power requirements?

1. Yes, this type of ocean powered energy source is suitable and will be considered in subtopic 8.2.11.

2. The power level requirements, please refer to the standard NDBC buoy (www.ndbc.noaa.gov), for smaller buoy platform and communication, please refer to the Self-Contained Ocean Observing Payload (SCOOP) system.

3. Yes, drifting buoys would benefit from using a compact wave energy source for power. This subtopic invites all innovative technology that uses renewable energy source to power NOAA buoys.

4. Please refer to Self-Contained Ocean Observing Payload (SCOOP) system.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.12: Are you interested only in atmospheric sensors, or are you willing to consider other sensors that measure non-atmospheric parameters that are nonetheless included in weather observations and forecast?. Specifically, we are working on a sensor that would allow frequent measurements of wave heights by boaters and others. Would this be acceptable for submission under this subtopic?

A: Yes, wave height data would be useful.

Currently, to my knowledge, there is no operational equipment to measure waves onboard ship. Indeed it would be very useful if there is a sensor that was not so expensive that can be installed quite easily on a ship. Our forecasters often complain about the lack of insitu observations for waves.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.12: Would you answer the following:

1. Is there a target price point?

2. Is there a stronger need for weather observing systems that are land, water, or air based?

3. What about satellite or radar applications?

4. How often does the solution need to transmit data?

5. What type of observations/data is needed?

6. How much information (in terms of bytes/KB/MB) does the solution need to transmit and how frequently (continuously, near continuously, daily, etc.). How much value is there in being able to accommodate real-time information

1. Sorry to be vague, but the cheaper the better. NOAA has many expensive observing systems; weather radars, satellites. I envision major challenges in getting NOAA to fund a new observation system whose expense is measured in millions of dollars per year, or at least this will be challenging without extraordinary evidence of its beneficial impact.

2. All of the above are suitable.

3. NOAA has already been approached by several companies that are suggesting they can build less expensive weather satellites, and I believe NOAA and Congress are receptive, presuming a cost/benefit analysis is performed with tools such as OSSEs (Observing System Simulation Experiments).

4. It depends, but given that weather prediction is headed toward hourly data assimilation, ideally communicating that data on a sub-hourly time scale is desirable.

5. There are many observation needs in NOAA. They fall into two general classes of data; observations that help define the state of the environmental system (i.e., they are used in data assimilation), and observations that provide some new insight about atmospheric or other environmental processes. Inexpensive observing systems that provide data for each of these are welcomed in the SBIR solicitation. For data assimilation, we know there are some major gaps in data.

These include data below cloud decks, especially over oceanic regions; the state of the soil and the snow pack (depth, fractional coverage). However, new observing systems need not be limited to these.

6. NOAA routinely handles many hundreds of GB of satellite data per day, so it is capable of handling a lot of data. That said, say you had a temperature sensor that could provide output every tenth of a second. Transmitting data with that temporal frequency wouldn't be helpful; we would seek some pre-processing of the data to average it to a mean over a minute or tens of minutes, perhaps. As for how frequently, aim for being able to transmit more than once per hour, as discussed earlier.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.12: Would you mind answering the following questions:

1. We are developing a novel small scale, portable wave energy conversion device that generates enough power (~10W) to operate instrumentation on some types of observational buoys as a dedicated ocean powered energy source. Because our technology does not require a fixed anchor point or framework, it would be able to provide power to a drifting buoy. It could be used to recharge the battery on a drifting buoy, extending operation. Would developing technology to supply wave power for inexpensive, novel weather observing systems be considered under sub-topic 8.2.12?

2. Which types of physical parameters (e.g. in the list above) is NOAA most interested in measuring with respect to Subtopic 8.2.12?

1. This sounds like a very interesting technology. It is frankly a bit beyond the strict wording of the solicitation, but personally I believe that it may be relevant enough to consider under this subtopic. Buoy data does have a very profound impact on weather data assimilation and prediction.

2. Per the answer above, data below cloud decks is especially needed, especially over oceanic regions; the state of the soil and the snow pack (depth, fractional coverage). However, new observing systems need not be limited to these.

Data that can provide a sort of sanity check to other data sources, e.g., temperatures in remote regions to be used for "anchoring" of satellite radiance data can be very useful.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.2: Would you answer the following questions?

1. Which animal is the priority/largest problem?

2. Is the solution focused on aquaculture or may it be applicable to other areas of fisheries?

3. What type of aquaculture pin is the priority?

1. This depends largely on location, gear type and species being grown. The primary animals of concern are marine mammals and any free-swimming protected species whose native range coincides with aquaculture activity. This would include, but not be limited to, various species of whales, dolphins, seals, otters and sea turtles. The animals of concern may simply be living or migrating near farm gear, or actively be trying to feed on the crop.

2. This subtopic is focused specifically on aquaculture gear, and that should be the priority of any submissions. There may be some relevant work in the literature that could inform approaches to this problem that originate in the study of entanglement in gear deployed by capture fisheries. However, it is not a requirement that anything developed under this subtopic be applicable to capture fisheries gear.

3. This suptopic is open to all types of marine aquaculture (finfish, shellfish, seaweed), both coastal and offshore, that would require the deployment of any submerged vertical lines, or any other type of gear that could cause reasonable concern for incidentally trapping or entangling wild animals.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.4: Would you mind answering the following questions:

1. Does the following statement relate to building a system that would issue warnings or would it be one to work in collaboration with the current NWS warning generation system? “Be able to plot warning areas, as well as allow NWS staff to plot location and track of particular hazards (e.g. tornado).”

2. What is the definition of a non-scientist from NOAA perspective?

3. Any specific information data sources that should be used?

4. Any specific attributes from the data that we should focus on?

1. I would focus on a system operating in collaboration with the current warning generation system. The current system simply provides lat/lon numbers for plotting the warning polygons. It is not a tool for tracking hazards. For one thing, it presents hazard locations as points, when they may be areas. Also for longer-fuse hazards (hurricanes, winter storms), the information is generic for the threat overall, with no tool to track specific hazards (e.g. heavy rain or snow bands).

Could a tool be developed to track hurricane rain bands and winter storm heavy snow bands, as well as for hail or tornadoes with severe thunderstorms, and yield locations-specific threat information? Warning areas for all hazards tend to be much larger than the actual hazard path. What is needed is a tool that can illustrate location and track of the hazards, the communities in the path (and those no longer in danger), that allow for location-specific information for a given warning.

2. For this project, I would define non-scientist as those who are not meteorologists (that is, non-scientists focused on meteorology). TV weather personnel without a degree in meteorology would be an example. Emergency managers would be another. Of course, the general public would meet this as well.

3. Radar is likely to be a primary data source.

4. The answer can vary based on the hazard type. For example, it is…very different for hurricanes and winter storms compared to individual events. I would suggest it doesn’t have to directly match a particular attribute. It could be a system that a private individual or NOAA meteorologist could use to track a particular feature that the meteorologist could define.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.4: Would you answer the following:

1. Is the need solely an online application/website or is there need for an offline hardware application that operates when there's no cellular, broadband, etc.

connectivity? Somewhat like a modern day weather radio with an interactive display/touchscreen, audio, etc.

2. How much information (in terms of bytes/KB/MB) does the solution need to accommodate and how frequently (continuously, near continuously, daily, etc.).

How much value is there in being able to accommodate real-time information

1. This relates to the innovation aspect of the project. We do not want to necessarily say it must be this or that. We are looking to have the participating entity answer these questions as innovative aspects of the end result. The majority of population can access online, so that might be a priority. But it would be a utility for an offline option in some areas, if that is possible.

2. Uncertain with respect to size of information (in KB/MB) and what issues that can present. Real-time transmission would be important (as we’re focused on life-threatening hazards). For slowly progressing events like hurricanes and winter storms, information can be updated perhaps every 10-15 minutes. However, for rapidly moving severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, information ages very rapidly, and would suggest at least an update rate similar to that for radar (at least every 4-5 minutes).

Q: Subtopic 8.3.5: Can you answer the following:

1. Are there finfish species that NOAA has identified as higher priority or as a desired initial target for plant-based feeds?

2. Would testing of a prototype feed formulation in live fish be considered necessary as part of a Phase I effort?

1. No. NOAA has not identified priority species or an initial target for plant-based feeds.

2. No.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.5: We are developing a low-cost, high-nutrition, macroalgae-based (seaweed) feed for finfish aquaculture operations; would seaweed based finfish feed development qualify for this sub-topic?

A: Yes, this would qualify under the subtopic.

In order to ensure fair competition, all communication must be routed through the CO to ensure all potential offerors receive the same information.