FOGTESTER SOFTWARE ANALYSIS QA_27AUG2026.pdf

ARMY OPEN SOLICITATION W9128Z-25-S-A002

PROJECT NUMBER W911QY-26-R-FOG

Q&A PART ONE

QUESTION: Will the Government furnish (a) sample post-test video stills from both cameras in their acquired format, (b) the existing BarTarget algorithm definition or source, (c) the haze calibration / Haze Standard reference values behind the pass/fail criteria, and (d) the FogTester TCP interface spec (port, protocol, message format)?

ANSWER:

a. Yes.

b. Yes. Source of the Bar Target program will be provided as well as an explanation of it’s functionality.

c. Yes. Reference images of the Haze Calibration standards will be provided as well as the pass/fail rational

d. Yes. A written specification as well as a simulation of the Fog Tester software written in Python.

QUESTION: Will the Government provide a representative Windows 11 environment/dataset, or must the contractor simulate the FogTester TCP peer and supply its own imagery?

ANSWER: A simulation of the fog tester software’s TCP connection will be provided, written in Python.

QUESTION: Is on-site work at Natick anticipated for integration/acceptance testing against the physical rig, or is delivery/testing remote with Government-run installation?

ANSWER: No on-site work required.

QUESTION: Section 8 identifies the required Phase 1 content, while Section 11 includes Price and Affordability as an evaluation factor. Should the Phase 1 Solution Brief include a price or ROM estimate? If yes, may price information be provided in a separate attachment excluded from the eight-page limit?

ANSWER: Price is not required to be submitted under Phase 1.

QUESTION: What target period of performance and desired delivery milestones should Offerors use when developing the proposed schedule and price?

ANSWER: The target period of performance for this effort is twelve (12) months.

QUESTION: Will the Government furnish representative dual-camera images or video stills, camera and image-format metadata, designated region-of-interest definitions, calibration measurements, haze-standard values, the calibration-file schema, and expected pass/fail results for development and acceptance testing?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: If Government-furnished test data is not available before Phase 2, may an Offeror demonstrate the software workflow using clearly labeled synthetic imagery, simulated TCP messages, and non-Government calibration values, without representing scientific or interface validation?

ANSWER: Test data will be provided.

QUESTION: Are open-source libraries permitted when their licenses, provenance, vulnerabilities, and versions are fully disclosed in the SBOM and the Government receives the source, dependencies, and build instructions required by Section 4.1.7?

ANSWER: Open Source libraries are permitted and as you describe in your question, should have all information related to those libraries disclosed in the SBOM and any contracts stating required delivery from the contractor for security review as necessary.

QUESTION: Will a resulting FAR Part 12 contract incorporate DFARS 252.204-7012, 252.204-7019, 252.204-7020, or 252.204-7021, or require a current NIST SP 800-171 assessment in SPRS? Does the Government anticipate that performance will involve Federal Contract Information or Controlled Unclassified Information?

ANSWER: Yes. Performance will involve Controlled Unclassified Information.

QUESTION: Section 4.1.2 states a target of no less than 80 percent code coverage in connection with SAST. Does the Government intend 80 percent source-code coverage by the selected SAST tool, 80 percent automated test coverage, or another measurement?

ANSWER: Whatever method the vendor has at its disposal to perform the analysis to meet that 80% coverage mark is fine. We are working towards obtaining our own SW Analysis Toolkit to aid in reviewing source code, but that is in its infancy stages at this point.

QUESTION: Please confirm whether Government Purpose Rights apply only to software and technical data developed under the resulting award, and whether Offerors may identify pre-existing commercial or open-source components and their applicable license rights separately.

ANSWER: Government Purpose Rights apply to the software and technical data developed under this award.

QUESTION: For Word- and Excel-compatible outputs, does the Government require native DOCX/XLSX files, or are image/PDF graphs and CSV/XLSX data acceptable?

ANSWER: Unsure what the technical difference is to properly answer this question.

QUESTION: Prior procurement information: Does the Government intend for the resulting effort to retain the provisions described in the June 2026 Sources Sought notice, including a period of performance of up to one year; Government-furnished operating flowcharts, example test and calibration data, and access to the current LabVIEW code or Python interface simulation; and the potential loan of a Fog Tester system?

QUESTION: Calibration and zeroing: Are haze-standard image acquisition and the ability to zero or normalize each test article to its initial clear-lens condition required functions? These appeared in the prior Sources Sought notices but are not expressly repeated in the current Call.

ANSWER: Yes, this would be a core component of the analysis capability and should have been included in the current Call.

QUESTION: Regions of interest: How many ROIs are normally analyzed per camera? Must ROIs be manually selected, automatically identified, tracked for image drift, or adjustable during a test sequence?

ANSWER: No image drift occurs as image target is in a static holder. ROI’s are analyzed post exposure test, the example existing BarTarget program would provide best answer to remaining questions.

QUESTION: Verification and acceptance: Will the Government provide a representative golden dataset and expected BarTarget outputs? What numerical tolerance, processing-time requirement, or other acceptance criteria will establish equivalence with the legacy analysis?

ANSWER: A known example dataset will be provided with BarTarget output values. Numerical tolerance and processing-time requirements not considered as part of acceptance criteria.

QUESTION: Pass/fail determination: Should each camera and ROI receive an independent result, and how should those results be combined into the final result for an eyewear article? Will the Government provide the required calibration-file format and interpolation methodology?

ANSWER: Yes, independent camera/ROI results are helpful to be separately output and then a combined output. Calibration data will be provided.

QUESTION: Phase 1 price submission: Is a price required in the eight-page Solution Brief? If so, should offerors provide a binding total firm-fixed price, a ROM estimate, or a separate price attachment, and what assumptions or cost elements should be included?

ANSWER: Price should not be considered under Phase 1 submission as this is intended only to include your capability statement and the requirements referenced under this Call.

QUESTION: Proposed SOW: Section 12 directs offerors to include specified AT/OPSEC language in a proposed SOW, but Section 8 does not otherwise identify a proposed SOW as a Phase 1 deliverable. Should a proposed SOW be included, and does it count toward the eight-page limit?

ANSWER: The AT/OPSEC language will be required if the Phase 1 capability statement is accepted from phase 1. This requirement is not necessary to be included in the Phase 1 submission.

QUESTION: Software-assurance coverage: In Section 4.1.2, does the target of at least 80 percent code coverage refer to the percentage of source scanned by the SAST tool, automated unit-test line/branch coverage, or both?

ANSWER: NIST suggests that developers should create code-based (structural) test cases to reach at least 80% code coverage. However, this 80% metric specifically refers to unit/functional testing coverage (running the code), not a mandatory threshold for SAST scanning depth

QUESTION: Security environment: Does the Government anticipate CUI handling, CMMC/NIST SP 800-171 requirements, code signing, a formal ATO package, or any additional software-installation restrictions beyond the stated ASD STIG assessment and disconnected Windows 11 environment?

ANSWER: Data would only be up to CUI classification. NIST 800-171 is regarding CUI being processed by non-DoD companies, so unless they are housing/processing CUI information at the contractor site on their servers/systems, then this is not applicable. We do not anticipate the need to have the company perform a formal ATO package, as it will be tied under our existing one and located on isolated systems to reduce risk, should we discover vulnerabilities exist in the product.

In our Lab environment, STIG compliance is not mandatory due to the nature of the zone itself and restrictions we have in place to prevent outside communication. Concerning code signing, this is required IAW NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) to ensure the digital integrity of the code.

QUESTION: Will the Government provide documentation, source code, formulas, or other technical information describing how the existing BarTarget application selects regions of interest and calculates contrast ratio? If source code cannot be provided, will the underlying mathematical methodology and expected outputs be provided?

QUESTION: Will representative Fog Tester datasets be made available to selected offerors, including sample still images from both cameras, corresponding test parameters, calibration data, and expected BarTarget/Excel outputs? If so, will these be available before Phase 2?

QUESTION: Please clarify whether the Government expects the contractor to reproduce the existing BarTarget contrast-ratio methodology exactly, or whether alternative image-analysis methods may be proposed if they produce equal or improved accuracy and repeatability.

ANSWER: Alternative image-analysis methods can be proposed as long as the methodology is documented.

QUESTION: What quantitative acceptance criteria will be used for the final software? For example, will results be compared against the existing BarTarget/Excel workflow, known haze standards, or another ground-truth methodology, and what error/tolerance will be considered acceptable?

ANSWER: Output results will be compared to known performance data sets from existing BarTarget analysis.

QUESTION: Regions of interest: Are the image regions of interest fixed in location and geometry for each test configuration, manually selected by the user, or expected to be automatically detected by the new software?

ANSWER: ROI’s are in a roughly fixed location. Slight variations occur due to curvature of eyewear articles under test or manual handling of the environmental test chamber.

QUESTION: If the Government elects to conduct Phase 2, should selected offerors expect to demonstrate a working prototype, a proof-of-concept using Government-furnished sample data, or primarily present and discuss the proposed technical architecture and development approach?

ANSWER: Working prototypes or proof-of-concepts would be beneficial, but not required.

QUESTION: During development and acceptance testing, will the contractor be provided access to an actual Fog Tester system or equivalent hardware/test environment, or should the contractor plan to develop against simulated/test data and perform final integration at DEVCOM-SC?

ANSWER: Government furnished equipment in the form of the electronics hardware controller would be made available upon request to allow functional interoperability testing.

QUESTION: Does the Government anticipate requiring contractor personnel to perform software integration, testing, or training on-site at Natick, MA? If so, approximately how many trips or on-site days should offerors assume for pricing purposes?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: Pricing expectations for Phase 1: Is a proposed price or rough-order-of-magnitude price expected as part of the Phase 1 Solution Brief, or will detailed Firm-Fixed-Price pricing only be requested from offerors selected to advance beyond Phase 1?

ANSWER: No. A price proposal will only be expected beyond Phase 1.

QUESTION: Is there an anticipated award value, budget range, or affordability ceiling for this requirement?

ANSWER: There is no anticipated award value, budget range, or affordability ceiling. The Government will compare price based on the Government’s Independent Estimate (IGE).

QUESTION: What is the expected overall period of performance and delivery schedule?

ANSWER: 12 months.

QUESTION: Can software development, integration testing, the Phase 2 demonstration, and final delivery be performed remotely?

ANSWER: Work under this effort is intended to be performed at the contractor’s facility. If the Government chooses to pursue Phase 2, this can be done remotely.

QUESTION: If physical access to a FogTester is required, will the equipment be provided or shipped to the contractor, will a simulator or test environment be available, or would the contractor be required to travel to a Government facility?

ANSWER: N/A.

QUESTION: What objective tests, datasets, or acceptance criteria will the Government use to determine whether the completed software meets the requirement?

ANSWER: Output comparison with previously known data from existing FogTester/BarTarget and functional testing with actual FogTester hardware.

QUESTION: Is pricing required as part of the Phase 1 Solution Brief? If so, what pricing format and level of detail should be provided?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services.

ANSWER: This is a brand new requirement.

QUESTION: Section 2 says the new sub-program replaces BarTarget, so I want the numbers coming out of my software to match what BarTarget produces today rather than being close but slightly off.

Can you share the exact contrast ratio formula BarTarget uses now, along with the haze standard reference values it compares against? If there are a few sample test runs where the correct output is already known, those would let me validate against a real answer instead of my own assumption.

ANSWER: Known sample data sets will be provided along with written BarTarget evaluation documentation.

QUESTION: Section 3 mentions the operator enters test condition parameters. Are the acquired video stills written to disk by FogTester in a fixed location and format that the analysis sub-program reads, or do the images come across the TCP connection?

ANSWER: The images are stored on the local computer harddrive and then read by the BarTarget software upon analysis. User selects data storage (folder and file name) location details.

QUESTION: Can development and acceptance testing be done entirely on sample data you furnish, or does any part of this require being on site at Natick? I am remote and it changes how I scope the work.

ANSWER: No on-site work required.

QUESTION: Our firm has commercial — not federal — past performance. Will the Government accept commercial past performance references (e.g., replacing Excel-based processes with custom software for commercial clients) as a substitute for federal past performance to satisfy the 'Company Visibility' evaluation factor, which includes 'relevant corporate experience, personnel qualifications, and a sound business model'?

QUESTION: May an Offeror satisfy the 'Company Visibility' evaluation factor (which includes 'relevant corporate experience, personnel qualifications, and a sound business model') by subcontracting or teaming with a partner that holds federal past performance? If teaming is permitted, is there a minimum percentage of work that the prime Offeror must perform, and how should the team arrangement be presented within the 8-page Solution Brief?

QUESTION: The solicitation states 'Awarded instrument will be a FAR Part 12 Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract or, alternatively, an Other Transaction (OT) under DFARS Subpart 212.70 (Defense Commercial Solutions Opening); OTs are not subject to the FAR or its supplements.' Is this opportunity a total small business set-aside, and does the OT path require nontraditional defense contractor status under 10 U.S.C. §3014, or is it open to all small businesses regardless of traditional/nontraditional designation?

ANSWER: Calls posted against the Army Open Solicitation are not subject to a Total Small Business Set-Aside. If an OT is considered, the contractor is required to meet at least one of the specifications outlined in 10 U.S.C. 4022.

QUESTION: For Phase 2 ('Live or virtual demonstration of proposed solution (Government may bypass)'), may the Offeror demonstrate against a simulated or mocked FogTester environment, or must the demonstration integrate with the actual Government-controlled FogTester instrument and software? Will the Government provide a FogTester test environment, TCP endpoint, and sample image data set for the demonstration, and what is the anticipated duration and format of the demo?

ANSWER: Government will provide known test data, and simulated FogTester environment.

QUESTION: The requirements state 'The software shall be written/developed using LabVIEW, .NET (C#, Visual Basic), or Python; other programming languages may be considered but require approval before use.' What is the process and timeline for obtaining approval to use an alternative language (e.g., Rust or C++), and should the request be included in the Phase 1 Solution Brief or submitted separately during the Q&A window?

ANSWER: The request should be included in the Phase 1 Solution Brief.

QUESTION: Does the 80% code-coverage requirement refer to structural test coverage—such as statement, line, or branch coverage—rather than coverage produced by the SAST tool itself?

ANSWER: NIST suggests that developers should create code-based (structural) test cases to reach at least 80% code coverage. However, this 80% metric specifically refers to unit/functional testing coverage (running the code), not a mandatory threshold for SAST scanning depth

QUESTION: Will representative dual-camera image/video data, current BarTarget processing logic, FogTester TCP interface specifications, calibration data, and pass/fail criteria be made available during Phase 2 or after award?

ANSWER: Phase 2.

QUESTION: May an offeror use commercial development and Software Assurance tools to generate the required evidence, provided the delivered application source code, dependencies, and build instructions support independent Government rebuild and assessment?

QUESTION: Is the Government receptive to an integrated team in which one party leads application development, and another provides the Software-Assurance tooling, testing, reporting, and remediation workflow?

ANSWER: That is up to the Offeror to determine.

QUESTION: OCI submission format. Section 10 references "the white paper submission" and a "5-page limitation," while Section 8.1 defines an eight-page Solution Brief. Please confirm the OCI analysis should accompany the Solution Brief and is excluded from the eight-page limit.

ANSWER: Confirming the OCI submission is excluded from the eight-page limit.

QUESTION: Reference materials. Will the Government furnish sample post-test imagery, the current haze calibration file format, or the BarTarget output specification to support solution development, or will such materials be provided only at Phase 2 or after award?

ANSWER: Phase 2

QUESTION: In what format does the existing FogTester LabVIEW program save the dual-camera video stills (e.g., raw binary, BMP, PNG, JPEG, or a video container format such as AVI/MP4)?

ANSWER: Individual camera frames are saved as .PNG file with timestamp and “_R” or “_L” suffix.

Provided example data will provide clarity.

QUESTION: What are the typical pixel resolutions (e.g.s 1080p, 4K) and bit depths (e.g., 8-bit, 16-bit grayscale or color) of the captured camera frames?

ANSWER: Described in the Call.

QUESTION: What is the mathematical model or formula used to calculate the “haze calibration measurements”?

ANSWER: It is the calculated contrast ratio.

QUESTION: Is there a preferred file format for saving and loading this calibration file (e.g., JSON, XML, CSV, or custom binary)?

ANSWER: Once calibration images are analyzed, the data is combined to a single Excel file

QUESTION: How are the “regions of interest” historically selected by the user in the legacy BarTarget app? Is the user expected to manually draw/drag bounding boxes on a GUI, or are the ROIs defined statically based on pre-configured coordinates?

ANSWER: ROI’s are pre-defined in the existing BarTarget, but can be manually adjusted or re-drawn in the GUI as different eyewear lens curvatures can affect the field of view.

QUESTION: What is the maximum number of simultaneous ROIs that need to be evaluated per frame?

ANSWER: Currently the Resolution Target Line #40 has a single vertical and a single horizontal component area.

QUESTION: To facilitate off-site development, will the Government provide selected sample datasets (including calibration images and video still sequences) upon contract award?

ANSWER: Yes, repeated question.

QUESTION: Will the Government provide a simulation tool or a mock executable of the FogTester control program to allow the contractor to test TCP socket communication loops off-site?

QUESTION: Section 4.1.2 mandates the use of an automated Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool. Does the DEVCOM-SC Security Team have a list of pre-approved or preferred SAST scanners for Python code, or is the contractor free to select any industry-standard scanner (e.g., Bandit, Pylint, SonarQube)?

ANSWER: There is not a standard application scanner that is mandated to be used in this situation.

As long as the format of the report is readable when provided to us, that is all that we require at this time. We are working towards obtaining a SW Analysis Toolkit, so it is possible that it could import the results of the scan for us to review as well.