TWV-LF RFI Market Investigation (ALUGS) 20200526.pdf

Market Survey Questionnaire

For

Autonomy Applique Technology and Autonomy Enabling Technologies from a Host Vehicle

DESCRIPTION OF INTENT:

This is a market investigation requesting information from industry relative to autonomy applique technology and autonomy enabling technologies required from a host vehicle. No contract will be awarded from this announcement. This is not a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an announcement of a forthcoming solicitation. Also, it is not a request seeking contractors interested in being placed on a solicitation mailing list. Response to this questionnaire is voluntary and no reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to the market survey and any follow-on information requests. Data submitted in response to this market investigation will not be returned.

Although no solicitation document exists at this time, information derived from this market investigation will help the Government determine the suitability of the marketplace for satisfying this performance requirement.

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The U.S. Government appreciates the time and effort taken to respond to this survey. The U.S. Government acknowledges its obligations under 18 U.S.C. §1905 to protect information qualifying as “confidential” under this statute. [To avoid possible confusion with the meaning of the term “confidential” in the context of Classified Information,” we will use the term “PROPRIETARY.”] Pursuant to this statute, the U.S. Government is willing to accept any trade secret or PROPRIETARY restrictions placed on qualifying data forwarded in response to the survey questions and to protect it from unauthorized disclosure subject to the following:

1. Clearly and conspicuously mark qualifying data with the restrictive legend (all caps)

“PROPRIETARY” with any explanatory text, so that the U.S. Government is clearly notified of what data needs to be appropriately protected.

2. In marking such data, please take care to mark only those portions of the data or materials that are truly confidential (over breadth in marking inappropriate data as “PROPRIETARY” may diminish or eliminate the usefulness of your response - see item 6 below). Use circling, underscoring, highlighting or any other appropriate means to indicate those portions of a single page which are to be protected.

3. The U.S. Government is not obligated to protect unmarked data. Additionally, marked data that is already in the public domain or in the possession of the U.S.

Government or third parties, or is afterward placed into the public domain by the owner or another party through no fault of the U.S. Government will not be protected once in the public domain. Data already in the possession of the U.S. Government will be protected in accordance with the U.S. Government's rights in the data.

4. Confidential data transmitted electronically, whether by physical media or not, whether by the respondent or by the U.S. Government, shall contain the “PROPRIETARY” legend, with any explanatory text, on both the cover of the transmittal e-mail and at the beginning of the file itself. Where appropriate for only portions of an electronic file, use the restrictive legends ‘PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS:” and “PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS.”

5. In any reproductions of technical data or any portions thereof subject to asserted restrictions, the U.S. Government shall also reproduce the asserted restriction legend and any explanatory text.

6. The U.S. Government sometimes uses support contractors in evaluating responses.

Consequently, responses that contain confidential information may receive only limited or no consideration since the Respondent’s marking of data as “PROPRIETARY” will preclude disclosure of same outside the U.S. Government and therefore will preclude disclosure to these support contractors assisting the evaluation effort. The U.S. Government will use its best efforts to evaluate those responses that contain confidential information without using support contractors consistent with the resources available.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONAIRE:

1. Number each response with the appropriate question number.

2. You do not have to repeat the question in your response.

3. If you cannot answer the question, please indicate “No Response.”

4. If a response will satisfy another question, state: “See response to question XX.”

5. Include relevant sales media and product manuals. If providing an ACROBAT formatted manual, annotate the manual to indicate which material is applicable to the questions. If preferred, include Internet Web links to locations where animations/videos may be viewed.

6. If your sales media and/or manuals contain a restricted distribution statement, issue a release statement indicating that the restricted material may be distributed to Army personnel involved with this Market Investigation.

7. Spell out any acronyms in their first instance.

8. Clearly mark any proprietary information. If applicable the front page of your response package should state” “Proprietary Information Contained.” Provide a release statement indicating that the proprietary information may distributed to Army personnel involved with this Market Investigation.

Responses to this market investigation questionnaire should be sent to Angela Tangalos, Contract Specialist, via email or, for submissions including files exceeding email limits, DoD SAFE at URL: https://safe.apps.mil/. You are requested to put “Autonomy Applique Technology Market Survey” in the email subject or the Description in the DoD SAFE website. Any requests for clarifications of this Survey shall be addressed to Angela Tangalos at angela.tangalos.civ@mail.mil. DO NOT SUBMIT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

IN RESPONSE TO ANY QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

Any product literature that cannot be e-mailed may be sent to:

U.S. Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal

CCTA-HCP-E

ATTN: Angela Tangalos, Mail Stop 351 6501 E. Eleven Mile Rd.

Detroit Arsenal, MI 48397-5000

Replies to this questionnaire must be received by 1:00 pm local time; 26 June 2020.

SECTION 1: Program Information

Purpose

The Army is seeking information from industry relative to autonomy applique technology and autonomy enabling technologies required from a host vehicle. Specifically, The Army is looking at applying autonomy technology within a family of systems in the Heavy Class A family and equivalents to perform autonomous line and local haul missions on primary and secondary roads. The near term intent will concentrate on individual applique kits to existing Tactical Wheeled Vehicles (TWVs) with longer term focus on purpose built platforms and even consideration of a Family of Systems approach.

Questions in this request for information (RFI) include general autonomy, architecture, hardware, and software related questions. Responses to this RFI will help the Army to understand the current state of industry and where industry is planning to advance in the next, 3, 5, and 10 year timeframes. It will also help to shape how the Army performs contracting, utilizes technical standards, plans for developmental or commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) acquisitions, and modernizes its fleet through either legacy vehicle upgrades or platform replacement.

System Description Summary

The Army is prioritizing the application of autonomous technologies to the PLS A1 with trailer TWV in a Leader Follower (LF) capability. The LF capability is a technology desired to provide force protection and improved logistical throughput by allowing the removal of operators from TWVs and repurposing them to other convoy functions. The LF intent within a convoy is to allow a series of march units consisting of a manned “leader” system leading a set of unmanned “follower” systems. These march unit serials can be from 2 - 10 TWVs in length. The manned “leader” vehicle, which also serves as the commander of the march unit, will create a digital boundary and path for the “follower” vehicles to navigate at set gap distances, speeds, and lateral deviation limits. The LF applique kit is anticipated to include a sensor suite, a warfighter machine interface (WMI), a radio network interface (RNI), and associated computing. These components will interface with the TWVs autonomy ready drive-by-wire and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).

Mission Description Summary

The initial mission set being addressed with this technology is to provide the commander options and flexibility to conduct sustainment operations through manned-unmanned teaming (MUM/T). These capabilities allow for a reduction of Soldier exposure to hostile effects. The Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP) of the PLS, or any host vehicle, will not be changed by the installation of LF; the capability will focus on line haul and local haul missions on primary and secondary roads. Primary roads are high quality paved, secondary pavement, and rough pavement. They consist of two or more lanes, all weather, maintained hard surface (paved) roads designed for heavy, and high density traffic. Secondary roads are loose surface, loose surface with washboard and potholes, and Belgian block surfaces. The initial capability will also require operation with trailers on the Leader and Follower vehicles. LF will support these missions by allowing convoy operations with manned Leader vehicles controlling unmanned Follower vehicles, reducing personnel required to operate TWVs in the convoy.

Program Description

The Army seeks to implement an applique kit into its existing TWV fleet by leveraging industries in the development and manufacturing of an autonomous system which enables LF convoy operations. In preparation for a LF applique, the Army is moving forward in modernizing some of its existing trucks with upgraded hardware controls to allow for drive-by-wire and ADAS. This RFI will inform future acquisition strategy and subsequent program planning. For planning purposes, the Army requests responses be specific to industry planning time lines, considering a 3, 5, and 10 year timeframe, and beyond as appropriate.

Specifically for the PLS A1, the Army is considering program initiation in FY21 with a LF capability, with a Milestone B/start of Engineering & Manufacturing Development in early FY22, Milestone C/start of Low Rate Initial Production in early FY24, and start of Full Rate Production 1-2 years later. This RFI will directly inform this timeline based on the state of the industry capability compared to the Warfighter’s capability gaps.

Capability Requirements

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) Leader Follower (LF) provides a limited autonomous vehicle capability to TWVs. The system provides the capability for a designated “manned” Lead vehicle to lead a line of “unmanned” Follower vehicles through the use of vehicle sensors with sufficient accuracy to safely operate unmanned.

• Leader vehicle with four to nine unmanned Follower vehicles. All equipped vehicles shall remain capable of being operated manually by a driver and each vehicle shall be capable of being either a Leader or Follower. All vehicles in the march unit shall be capable of operating with trailers and backing trailers on a limited path.

• Hardened against cyber security attacks.

• Provide an interface for Soldier to interact with the system to select Follower vehicles, place in march order and set/change gap intervals on the move.

• Followers will be physically untethered and be follow the Leader vehicle in a column formation while avoiding road hazards in the corridor of operations. If an obstacle is detected in the Leader’s path, the Follower vehicles will come to a safe stop until the path is clear again. If the selected gap is not maintained and lengthened beyond what was designated, the Follower shall attempt to catch-up and re-establish the gap.

• The system shall not affect the vehicle’s electrical system, exceed power demand or impact host vehicle software. The system shall not adversely affect the operational capabilities of the host vehicle (to include cargo payload) nor interfere with convoy self-defense systems. The system shall comply with light security requirements of the host vehicle.

• The installation of LF shall not interfere with the host vehicle’s transportability requirements and shall be able to withstand ship transport.

• LF shall have an on-board vehicle health and diagnostic capability.

• LF design shall allow for maximum hardware and software interchangeability and facilitate new hardware and software capabilities as they emerge.

SECTION 2: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

1. Company Information

a. Name: ________________________________________________________

b. Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________

c. Website: ________________________________________________________

d. CAGE (commercial and government entity) Code (if any):

e. Are you registered as a small business for any NAICS codes? If yes, which ones?

f. Are you registered as any other small business socio-economic categories?

g. Is your company a member of a Consortium? If yes, which one(s)?

2. Personnel Responding to RFI

a. Name: ________________________________________________________

b. Title: ________________________________________________________

c. Company Responsibility/Position:

d. Telephone/Fax Numbers:

e. E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________

Section 3: Program & Technical Questions for Industry:

The following sections strive to understand industry’s current capabilities and technologies, as well as where industry is headed. Depending on your company’s area of expertise, you may find some sections not applicable. Answers to these will help the Army shape acquisition strategy going forward in this critical field.

1. Does your company offer a solution that meets some or all of the capability requirements and needs described here-in? Please describe. Does your company provide a retrofit/upgrade kit for Autonomy/Leader Follower (“applique kit”), drive-by-wire vehicle (“by-wire” kit), or a unique truck platform that includes some or all of the capabilities?

Programmatic

2. Given your companies solution(s), is the Army’s timeline and capability needs achievable? Where do you see risk and/or what is a realistic timeline?

3. Do you have specific recommendations for shaping an acquisition of this type?

What type of contract mechanism best suits this acquisition? Would a commercial acquisition, modified Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS), new developmental effort, or some combination, be suitable to achieve this capability?

4. Army is considering both Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements as options for this acquisition. Do you foresee risk or advantages/disadvantages to either?

5. Cost – what are reasonable cost targets for your solution, assuming what level of production volumes? What is your minimum sustaining rate for production?

6. Solution Integration – if your solution assumes providing hardware and software upgrades to current Army vehicles – what is the best approach to integrate this?

Can it be done at the Army unit level? Does it require the vehicles to be moved to a central facility (depot, OEM, etc.)?

Autonomy & Technology Standards

The Army recognizes that there are many Government and Industry efforts, both divergent and convergent, within the autonomy and robotics development space. These questions help shape whether the Army is going in the right direction to best partner with industry and leverage current technology:

7. What capabilities does your autonomy solution provide, and how do they align to the

Army needs?

8. There are multiple Government and Government-Industry efforts that seek to provide standards and operating systems for autonomy systems, such as UGV Interoperability Profiles, Robotic Operating System-Military, AGVR-A, as well as software evaluation standards included in MIL-STD-882, as examples. Are you aware of these efforts, and what is your level of experience? What standards does industry use in developing, evaluating, and producing these capabilities, and do they converge or diverge from what you observe the Army utilizing? Please explain.

9. How should the Army be communicating its technological needs with industry (e.g.

SAE J3016)?

10. What issues, if any, are known with Interoperability Profiles Version 3 (IOPV3)?

11. Would an IOPV3 compliance requirement leave any interface or design parameter unaddressed for tying into the base vehicle?

12. Are there any drawbacks or concerns with the Army providing an IOPV3 compliant truck?

13. Are you familiar with MIL-STD-882E, in particularly, the system safety requirements?

Will your system be able to properly document system safety through fault hazard analysis? Can you provide ISO 26262 documentation on any “black box” critical safety components for Government testing validation of system safety?

Vehicle Platform & Drive-By-Wire Capability

The draft Leader Follower capabilities would require an upgrade to current PLS Army vehicles, including an autonomy applique kit and base vehicle modifications. These questions will help shape how the Army plans to modernize the current fleet with new technology.

14. Does your company provide a stand-alone vehicle that provides interfaces and drive by wire technology (“hooks”) that will enable future autonomy? Please explain.

15. Do you have a current representative system/vehicle that can provide these autonomous and/or “ready” capabilities?

16. Does this system include trailering? If so, does the trailer require modifications (i.e.

how do the truck/trailer combination communicate)?

17. What by-wire systems can you provide that can be or have you integrated into a representative vehicle (e.g. steering/braking)?

18. When will they be available in a production level configuration and at what cost?

19. Are there any specifically challenging by-wire technologies that are less mature than others?

20. What hardware/software interfaces are required to effectively communicate with your by-wire system(s) and/or vehicle, and are those proprietary or can they be made open to other autonomy kit developers?

Software & Architecture

The Army is developing a long term software lifecycle management approach and desires to leverage industry and Government-developed software and software libraries.

These questions seek to better inform the Army on how to leverage already developed software while partnering with industry experts to provide needed capability and upgrade future capability.

21. How do we set the conditions to achieve software compatibility with Industry both from a vehicle architecture (drive-by-wire) and autonomy applique standpoint?

22. Would it be beneficial to have a Government defined architecture? Please describe any experience, positive or negative.

23. There are several military robotics architecture and software Government-Industry consortiums. Which are you familiar with, and do you recommend any as a forum to proceed and develop within the general goals of this RFI?

24. How beneficial is Government provided software to you as an independent offeror?

What examples, positive or negative, can you provide where you have successfully integrated Government or third party Software into your system? Alternatively, did Government or third party Software provide any benefit?

25. If the Government managed and sustained a software base “trunk” and you developed capability “branches” for applications of autonomy, would this be an acceptable software development and sustainment plan? What part of the software architecture would best be Government managed as the “trunk” and what would best be managed as “branches?” Describe any concerns with the approach (design approaches, proprietary concerns, etc).

Applique Kit

The Army is considering applying an autonomous robotic capability as an applique kit to existing vehicles that have an integrated by-wire control inherent. The following questions seek to assess Industry’s current capabilities with these types of technologies.

26. When applying your applique to a vehicle, what interfaces and capabilities

(capabilities or “hooks” are required to be already integrated on the platform? What are the minimum by-wire controls needed on a vehicle receiving this applique kit?

27. Is your Autonomy Applique technology IOPV3 compatible?

28. Does your applique kit require the base vehicle to have an Inertial Navigation

System (INS) already installed?

29. Are any Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), passive or active, required on the base vehicle for your applique kit to operate?

30. Does the base vehicle need to have its own safety controller? If so, describe what its role will be?

31. Does your solution provide the use of a remote emergency stop? Please explain.

32. Does your applique kit require steering to be electronically controlled? If not, please describe how the system will handle steering control of the base vehicle.

33. Will your applique kit be compatible with by-wire systems that communicates only on a CAN data bus?

34. What is the preferred data bus for controlling the by-wire system components?

35. Please provide an architecture diagram for your applique kit to include the base vehicle by-wire architecture needed to ensure functionality and compatibility.

Please provide details as to the size, weight and power (SWaP) requirements for major applique kit components.

Modeling & Simulation

The Army has invested significant resources in developing a modeling & simulation (M&S) capability. The following questions seek to understand how industry and Government might be able to leverage this for future development.

36. Is M&S part of your development process?

37. Do you use a virtual environment to test during development? If so, are you using a commercial product or something internally developed?

38. Do you use virtual testing as a gateway prior to live testing?

39. What capabilities are you able to test with the virtual environment and would you be willing to share that test data with the government if awarded?

Line Haul & Local Missions The Army desires the ability to conduct Heavy Tactical Wheeled Vehicle distribution (convoy) missions across primary, secondary, and cross-country roads fully autonomously with no human in the cab (no ability to intervene).

40. Would your current applique kit be capable of performing missions across these terrains fully autonomously (unmanned)? If not, when would it be capable? Please provide a maturation roadmap if possible. Include potential manned intervention levels if relevant.

Future Communications

41. As the requirement becomes more defined, what is the best way to communicate with you?

42. Are you interested in attending a future Industry Day? What would be your preferred optimal location / format? Are demonstrations of current developmental systems useful?

Miscellaneous Company Information

43. Does your organization have an Earned Value Management (EVM) system in place to monitor cost, schedule, and technical objectives?

44. What Facility Clearance and Level of Safeguarding does your organization maintain

(Secret, Top Secret, etc.)?

45. Experience with Government Contracting? Traditional or non-traditional defense vendor? Type and quantity of Government contracts, to include the receiving Government agency and applicable contract number(s)?

46. Who are your major suppliers and partners in this technology arena? What parts or solutions does each supplier or partner contribute to this technology?

47. Who are your major customers, to include company name and point of contact with phone number within the company?

48. Are there terms and conditions unique to this industry which are not normally part of standard Government contracts?