DBW_RFI_Addendum_QA 07 JUL 2026.pdf
PDF 3 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PANDTA-26-P-0000037336
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) addendum providing clarification on Question 9.6 regarding drive-by-wire (DBW) solutions and their adaptation to software-defined vehicle architectures.
The USG is exploring a procurement strategy where software-defined subsystems, including drive-by-wire kits and autonomy stacks, may be acquired separately and integrated onto legacy platforms. Question 9.6 seeks to understand how vendors' DBW solutions would need to adapt architecturally, functionally, or operationally as platforms transition from traditional mechanical or hydraulic actuation toward software-centric control methods. The clarification emphasizes that the USG is not mandating hardware or software redesigns, nor is it requiring compliance with specific standards or certification frameworks. Rather, the agency is assessing vendor readiness and flexibility for future architectures. Useful response information includes strategies related to hardware-software decoupling, continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) support, enhanced safety and redundancy measures, integration with autonomous driving software and high-performance computing, and simulation-driven development workflows. Vendors are encouraged to respond regardless of current software-defined vehicle architecture support, with acceptable responses including descriptions of current state, required modifications, known constraints, or statements indicating no anticipated changes or need for further study.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DBW RFI Final.pdf | ||
| DBW RFI Final_IP Law Addition.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Drive-By-Wire RFI Addendum: Clarification for Question 9.6
Q1. What was the USG trying to understand with Question 9.6?
The USG is exploring a future strategy where software-defined subsystems (drive-by-wire kits, autonomy stacks) may be acquired separately and integrated onto legacy platforms. As these platforms evolve toward software-defined steering, braking, or throttle systems, the USG seeks to understand how a vendor's DBW solution would need to adapt architecturally, functionally, or operationally.
Q2. Why is the USG asking about “changes” to DBW solutions?
The USG aims to gauge how much redesign or adaptation may be required for DBW systems to remain compatible as platforms transition away from traditional mechanical or hydraulic actuation and toward more software-centric control methods.
Q3. Does the USG expect DBW vendors to redesign their hardware or software?
Not necessarily. The USG is asking vendors to describe any architectural or functional changes that might be required when integrating into platform(s) that may utilize software-centric interfaces instead of direct hardware access.
Q4. What types of information would be most useful in industry responses?
Examples include strategies related to:
- Decoupling of hardware and software
- Support for continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD)
- Enhanced safety and redundancy (assured DBW, fault detection, cyber resilience)
- Integration with autonomous driving software / high-performance computing
- Simulation-driven development workflows
These examples are not requirements but represent the types of capabilities the USG is assessing.
Q5. Is the USG asking for compliance with any specific standards?
No. Question 9.6 does not imply new standards. The purpose is to understand vendor readiness for future architectures, not mandate adherence to particular certification frameworks.
Q6. Should vendors respond even if they do not currently support software-defined vehicle architectures?
Yes. Vendors may describe their current state, areas requiring modification, known constraints, or information needed from the USG. Responses such as “no change anticipated” or “requires further study” are acceptable.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .