Questions and Answers_Amendment 03 - 20240110.pdf

Question and Answer

Question

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer

RFS_Advanced+Electrochromic +Prototype-Final

Are the optical transmission values for threshold and objective requirements in table, section 5.1 for a single wavelength bench mark or for the integrated photopic luminance transmittance (PLT)? We suggest adding "PLT" to the description column for modulation range, clear state and dark state.

Table 5.1 has been revised to add the following:

Description Threshold Objective Transmission Spectral Range 380 – 750 nm 310-1100 nm

RFS_Advanced+Electrochromic +ProTtotype-Final

Can the government clarify/explain the transmission range, clear state and dark state listed in the Objective column in the Table in section 5.1?

The objective values do not reflect realistic, intrinsic properties of real optical materials. No optical material is truly 100% transmissive and 99% range seems an artificial requirement.

We recommend setting objective values of 85% clear state, 15% dark state with range of 70%.

Correspondingly, we recommend the Threshold values be revised to values of 60% clear state, 20% dark state with range of 40%.

The overall program objectives are not final prototype requirements; therefore, there is no need to revise Government objectives.

The Government identified threshold values based on the results of Market Intelligence. The question provides no basis for the recommended change. Without a valid basis for revising the requirements, the Government has determined to maintain the stated threshold requirements.

If offered solutions do not meet any of the above minimum thresholds, the solution paper shall provide explanation/reason for the limitation.

RFS_Advanced+Electrochromic +Prototype-Final

What base curves limits (threshold & objective) does the government contemplate for each eyewear class (visor, goggle and spectacles)?

The radii of curvature (horizontal and vertical) are those of the F-35 inner clear visor (aka display visor) or (b) the Class 1 clear visor used other fielded helmet systems (e.g. HGU-55/P).

These radii correspond to the maximum curvature (threshold and objective). Radii for spectacles and goggles are greater (i.e. less curvature) than for visors.

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer

RFS_Advanced+Electrochromic +Prototype-Final

Section 6.2.3 Solution/Technical Approach states "The solution shall discuss the feasibility of the technical approach by, at minimum, describing the following: (2nd bullet) Approach technology in details, such as voltage-forced current flows thru electrolyte voltage controlled molecular rotations, etc." and this seems to be in conflict with the intent of this project "Advanced Electrochromic Manufacturing Prototype". We recommend rewording the second bullet to "Approach technology in details of voltage-forced current flows thru electrolyte" to ensure compliance with project intent of "Advanced Electrochromic Manufacturing Prototype".

Section 6.2.3 discusses the feasibility of the solution proposed for evaluation purposes and is not itself a final prototype requirement. The Government has reviewed and determined that the wording is appropriate.

RFS_Advanced+Electrochromic +Prototype-Final

Section 4.2 states "may include goggles and/or spectacles" and 5.1 Table, Objective column reflects this on the Production row. However, the list of DoD programs in section 4.2 all require visors except for Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier, Army Approved Protective Eyewear List (APEL). But APEL already has a product class of transition eyewear and products of this type are available today. We suggest removing goggles and spectacles to maximize the program focus on visors to better

The Government has verified that the Prototype Demonstrations goals are in alignment with overall goals.

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer ensure success.

General RFS Question One follow up question. Is the preference to submit materials as they are completed, or submit everything all at once?

Some agencies prefer piecemeal for review and feedback, others just want the entire package delivered all at once

Solutions shall be submitted as one volume as an entire package delivered all at once.

Section 8.0 While our electrochromic-based EDEPD technology exhibits promising features, we have identified two technical risks during the Phase II effort: (1) the stability of the solid-state electrolyte, and (2) the stability of the transparent conductive layer.

Recognizing these challenges, we intend to address them in the proposed effort. We are seeking your guidance on whether a technology requiring further engineering and component development before manufacturing aligns with the Government's objectives outlined in this RFS. In particular, we are proposing a budget of ~$1M for the 24 month, which could be considered as a second award, contingent on the overall budget constraints.

Technology development is appropriate if the proposed solution is currently TRL/MRL 4/4 and demonstrates a path to the end state threshold TRL/MRL listed in 5.1.

The Government anticipates awarding to the vendor(s) whose solution best satisfies the Government’s objectives and is considered the most advantageous to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award to a respondent that does not meet all the requirements of the RFS but provides attributes or partial solutions of value.

General RFS Question Will you consider an

Electrowetting solution?

No technology will be excluded. Technology development is appropriate if the proposed

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer solution is currently TRL/MRL 4/4 and demonstrates a path to the end state threshold TRL/MRL listed in 5.1.

The Government anticipates awarding to the vendor(s) whose solution best satisfies the Government’s objectives and is considered the most advantageous to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award to a respondent that does not meet all the requirements of the RFS but provides attributes or partial solutions of value.

General RFS Question To achieve larger visor sized devices and spherical geometry (with smaller radius than the 150mm radius demonstrated with our normal incident exposure station) we recommend adapting a custom stage to a lithography system with a unique capability to pattern spherical substrates as needed for the creation of injection mold inserts, as well as advanced pattering of spherical lens substrates. (such a system would have many applications, especially for larger spherical geometry platforms, sensors, and lenses, Moreso than the system installed at Adelphi, a Heidelberg system which was targeted for a focal plane array imager project, i.e.

smaller geometry and feature sizes.) --- If fitting within the budget, Manufacturing technology and tool development are appropriate if the proposed solution is currently TRL/MRL 4/4 and demonstrates a path to the end state threshold TRL/MRL listed in 5.1.

The Government anticipates awarding to the vendor(s) whose solution best satisfies the Government’s objectives and is considered the most advantageous to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award to a respondent that does not meet all the requirements of the RFS but provides attributes or partial solutions of value.

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer albeit ~50% of the budget, would such a system be permitted as a development portion of the path to manufacturing?, would it be viewed as negatively impacting a proposed solution?

General RFS Question At present, due to the requirement of 2 lenses and 2 transparent conductive layers + stored dark fluid chambers, the off state realistically will be only able to achieve 75-85% in the transmissive state, best case scenario (dark can be adjusted pretty much to desired level). This may improve with coating technology, but we will be limited in the clear state because of this.

-- Is this a disqualifier? Would other factors such as being polarization free? Possible region of interest darkening, special tinting capability, or gradient shading capability help offset this limit?

The Government identified threshold values based on the results of Market Intelligence. The question provides no basis for the recommended change. Without a valid basis for revising the requirements, the Government has determined to maintain the stated threshold requirements.

If offered solutions do not meet any of the above minimum thresholds, the solution paper shall provide explanation/reason for the limitation.

General RFS Question We respectfully request to have the proposal submission deadline extended to 31-Jan 2024. We need a bit more time to receive supplier quotes, etc.

The solution submission date has been revised to 31 January 2024.

General RFS Question The project specifically uses the term

“Electrochromic” in the Title, but describes in

1.0 "Electronically dimmable (auto-tinting)

See response to question 8.

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer eyewear protection device (EDEPD)" Is the project open to all kinds of electronically dimmable technologies, whether or not they are Electrochromic? For example, liquid crystal-based approaches?

General RFS Question One of the criteria in 4.2 is to “Demonstrate the Manufacturing Capabilities and Processes using US-based Qualified Sources of Supplies” What proportion of the Supply chain needs to be US-based for the Prototypes, compared to for Production?

There is no specific minimum proportion of the Supply chain that needs to be US based for the Prototypes, compared to Production. The RFS states “Maximum US based” as the Threshold and “100% US based” as the Objective.

Interested vendors should consider the Material/Supply Chain increase from the threshold of “Maximum US based” to the objective of “100% US based” is consistent with one of the goals of the Industrial Base office to increase the capabilities of the US Industrial Base. To further clarify, the following statement in the RFS will be revised to add the word “to” (as bolded): “Vendors shall list all current non-US based material(s)/supply chain(s) and identify potential methods to transition to US based material(s)/supply chain(s

General RFS Question As outlined in 6.2.3, part of the initial proposal includes disclosing a full list of materials (both supplier and trade name). This is confidential information that we may not want other partners in the project to see. How can this be handled?

The RFS states “Vendors are responsible for marking proprietary information appropriately.”

Additionally, solution responses will only be available to those identified within the RFS as they have a need to know, i.e. evaluators, advisors, etc. and all will first have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Non-government advisors (ANSER) may advise on this project also sign the NDA, which remains valid even if they leave ANSER. Additionally, if ANSER

Page, Section and Paragraph Question Answer employees advise then ANSER cannot propose on related projects. The Government will not provide solutions to other contractors. If there is a specific legal marking that is applicable then it should be included as appropriate.