Attachment_1_SUMIT_Simulation_Evaluations_Final_(w_Amendment_2_change).docx

SUMIT Simulation Evaluations

BAA Call W911W6-17-R-0004

Aviation Development Directorate 401 Lee Boulevard Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604

W911W6-16-R-0004 Broad Agency Announcement Call W911W6-17-R-0004 Synergistic Unmanned Manned Intelligent Teaming (SUMIT) Simulation Evaluations

Revision 1.0

January 27, 2017

Summary of changes in Revision 2.0, Changes shown in Blue text.

Summary of changes in Revision 1.0.

Contents

BAA Call W911W6-17-R-0004

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Program Information Purpose of Call This call for proposals under the Aviation Development Directorate - Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (ADD/AATD) Master Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) W911W6-16-R-0004 solicits autonomy, decision aiding and human-machine interface (HMI) technologies under the Synergistic Unmanned Manned Intelligent Teaming (SUMIT) program. SUMIT is a 6.3 Advanced Technology Development science and technology program in the U. S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center’s (AMRDEC) Aviation Development Directorate (ADD). This research effort will integrate candidate technologies provided by each selected offeror in a common Government-owned simulation environment using a common set of operational scenarios and conduct a series of user evaluations with a common set of evaluation metrics. The intent is to gather simulation data and user observations and assess simulation evaluation metrics related to situational awareness, mission effectiveness, workload, and usability in an airborne battlefield environment for each offeror’s autonomy, decision aiding and HMI technologies. Offerors’ capabilities will not be compared against each other nor against a desired objective solution.

Program Objective The overarching objective of the SUMIT program is to evaluate the impact of new and recent autonomy, decision aiding, and HMI technologies in the execution of Army Aviation missions that utilize manned-unmanned teaming (MUMT). The program seeks to inform future acquisition planning and requirements definition related to advanced MUMT capabilities in both current Army Aviation programs as well as the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Program of Record. The SUMIT program comprises three phases beginning with the development of a dedicated Government-owned simulation environment, followed by independent simulation evaluations of third party products, and optionally, in later years, flight demonstrations. This call for proposals pertains only to the second phase of the program: simulation evaluations.

An associated objective of the SUMIT program is to assess the benefits and challenges of using common open systems standards and techniques for integrating and exercising different technical approaches to enabling MUMToperations. In order to accomplish this, the development of the Government’s simulation environment in the first phase emphasizes an extensible open systems approach with a well-defined external interface to be published to the vendor community. The design of the Government’s simulation environment has used the Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) that aligns to open, published standards including the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™) standard and NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4586 and emerging standards like Joint Common Architecture (JCA).

Background The first phase of the SUMIT program, with the goal of setting up a fully tested simulation environment, has key activities progressing in parallel. Chief among these are the requirements definition, architecture definition, and design and build of the Future Open Rotorcraft Cockpit Environment (FORCE) simulator: a Government-owned and operated simulation environment designed to be an S&T testbed. Also ongoing are the generation of operationally relevant scenarios and vignette task analyses which will be used to create simulation vignettes and the development of corresponding simulation evaluation plans and metrics. The FORCE simulator design and build activity includes development of a baseline HMI and a new rotorcraft flight model. Simulator integration and checkout is scheduled for completion during 4th QTR FY17 in Huntsville, AL. Alongside ADD, the Systems Simulation, Software, and Integration (S3I) Directorate, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, and the Capability Development & Integration Directorate (CDID), Fort Rucker, AL, are active members of the SUMIT Government integrated product team.

More details about the FORCE simulator are in Section 2.2.

Scope of Research Effort The research effort described in this BAA call applies to the simulation evaluations phase only. The SUMIT simulation evaluations phase seeks to integrate innovative and advanced MUMT-enabling technologies from selected offerors into the FORCE simulator and evaluate each offeror’s products using a common set of operational scenarios. Technologies related to manned rotorcraft pilotage are not a focus of this effort. Operational scenarios being generated for use in the simulation evaluations are representative of current and future Army Aviation missions using MUMT. The scenarios are based on concepts of operations and concepts of employment drafted for the medium-sized FVL platform.

The products of this phase will be used to draw lessons learned and arrive at findings and recommendations to inform future acquisition programs as well as science and technology efforts. It is not the intent of this simulation phase of the program to directly transition autonomy, decision aiding and HMI products to acquisition programs.

The Air Mission Commander SUMIT simulation evaluations are focused on the role of the future Air Mission Commander (AMC) in command of their team of manned and unmanned aircraft systems. The AMC title is being used relatively broadly to refer to any Aviator with mission command of a manned and unmanned (MUM) team during an aviation mission, i.e., it could apply to an Air Weapons Team (AWT) Lead in command of a reconnaissance and attack team. Depending on mission type, the AMC as defined here can command a MUM team from the cabin of an aircraft or its cockpit or even from a ground station. For the purpose of baseline SUMIT simulation evaluations, the AMC is constrained to command their team within physical space constraints similar to the cockpit of a manned aircraft. The AMC in this evaluation will not be required to pilot the command vertical lift aircraft (ownship) but will be onboard the ownship and actively involved in mission execution. The ownship will be piloted by a Government provided pilot during baseline simulation evaluations, or by an autopilot in later simulation evaluations. The AMC will interact with the ownship pilot as well as the team of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) under the AMC’s command. Other entities that the AMC has to communicate with during mission execution include the Ground Control Station (GCS), the Tactical Operations Center (TOC), and a second manned aircraft (wingman). AMC communications with all humans (i.e., ownship pilot, wingman, GCS, TOC) will take place through voice and/or text.

During simulation evaluations, the AMC has many responsibilities that include

· the planning and re-planning of the MUMT mission;

· the oversight and management of the team and individual team members,

· manned and unmanned;

· including ownship;

· acquisition, control and release of various unmanned assets;

· control and release of sensor payloads based on the Level of Interoperability (LOI) used;

· planning and execution of engagement sequences;

· overall situational awareness and mission execution;

· overall mission monitoring and contingency handling; and

· reporting to and receiving directives from higher command.

The AMC must be able to meet their responsibilities by interacting with the MUM team at a team mission command level, at an individual task level or at an individual resource level as needed by mission context. The intent is that the AMC utilize advanced MUMT capabilities enabled by HMI, autonomy and decision aiding technologies to effectively execute the mission.

Simulation Environment Evaluations will be hosted in the Future Open Rotorcraft Cockpit Environment (FORCE) simulator. The FORCE simulator is a stationary, medium-fidelity cockpit simulation environment. The simulator is designed as a flexible testbed environment that allows for integration and removal of individual vendor hardware and software systems. It has an architecture that is agnostic to vendor choices of technology components. It allows for the incorporation of traditional aviation HMI technologies as well as non-traditional HMI technologies such as Virtural and Augmented Reality or gesture recognition. As such, FORCE can simulate a traditional glass cockpit layout or it can simulate a command station environment that bears little or no resemblance to today’s cockpits.

FORCE Simulator Baseline Configuration The FORCE simulator has a baseline configuration that enables an AMC to conduct operations using UAS without the integration of vendor products. This baseline has two side by side, forward facing crew station positions. The AMC will be seated in one of these positions. The baseline AMC station has three multi-touch touch screen displays, and a cursor controller. It includes provisions for a keyboard, head-mounted displays, a hand held controller, eye tracking, gesture recognition, voice recognition and synthesis, 3D audio, and other data interfaces for incorporation as needed by vendor-chosen hardware and software. The baseline configuration includes simple out-the-window visuals (which may or may not be of use to the AMC). The ownship flight model in the baseline configuration is similar to today’s H-60 rotorcraft. Extensions of the flight model with characteristics of a notional FVL aircraft, to include higher speeds and an autopilot mode, are planned for integration into the FORCE simulator for later simulation evaluations. The simulation environment will include terrain, weather, threat and neutral entities, and team members (UAS’s and a second manned aircraft). The baseline can simulate as many as 8 UAS. The aircraft in simulation can be equipped with a selection of sensor payloads that include electro-optic imaging and laser designation. Weapons payloads available in simulation include missiles and rockets.

Offerors may elect to use any HMI hardware or software components in the existing FORCE baseline configuration (e.g.; touchscreen displays, cursor controller, etc). Offerors may also elect to bring their own HMI hardware and software components and replace baseline HMI components in part or whole. Where offerors plan to use existing baseline components, they must clearly identify selected items in their in accordance with Section 5.2.4 below.

FORCE Simulator Integration The FORCE simulator was designed to open systems standards to allow offerors to integrate their technology components in a common simulation environment. It uses standard commercial data interfaces such as Ethernet, USB, HDMI, etc. Nearly every HMI hardware component in FORCE can be ‘swapped out’ with a vendor product, subject to availability of Government funding and schedule. Offerors must clearly identify plans for any new hardware interfaces and request interface data from the Government in accordance with Section 5.2.4.

The SUMIT FORCE simulator is designed to host software conformant to the FACE™ Technical Standard version 2.1. While the Government does not impose a FACE™ conformance requirement on vendor technologies, offerors may need to create an adaptor (“shim”) to interface with the FACE™ aligned operating environment of the FORCE simulator.

The SUMIT FORCE Systems Integration Guide, the SUMIT FORCE Component Interface Design Document and associated Data Model are being furnished in draft form as supplemental documentation to this call for proposals. See instructions in Section 4.3 below. The content of these documents, while still not final, should be sufficient for offerors to propose their technical approach and to estimate the scope of effort for integration of offeror’s products into the FORCE simulator environment.

Each offeror will be provided integration and checkout time at the FORCE simulator before simulation evaluations begin. The Government’s notional schedule for development and simulation evaluation tasks for all selected offerors is provided as Appendix A at the end of this document.

Simulation Evaluations Simulation evaluations will be conducted at the FORCE simulator in Huntsville, AL. Each selected offeror’s products will be evaluated independently. Planned simulation evaluations will be conducted in two rounds for each selected offeror using vignettes drawn from parts of an Army Air Assault mission [Ref: 4.1 c]. Descriptions of each round follow in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 below. Within the boundaries of the Government’s overall simulation evaluations plan, simulation evaluations for an individual offeror will be tailored by the Government in consultation with the offeror to suit their product. The scope of this effort allows for adapting the simulation environment to demonstrate each offeror’s unique capabilities and innovative technology elements.

Simulation Evaluations Round One The purpose of the first round of simulation evaluations is to exercise each selected offeror’s product in a common baseline vignette. This vignette will use the Movement to Landing Zone (LZ) and Preparation (Prep) of LZ portions of an Air Assault mission. This first round will evaluate offeror’s products using a common set of variables and common set of quantitative and subjective data to support simulation evaluation metrics. The vignette will be varied over several simulation runs in order to evaluate the performance of offeror’s products under different conditions. Variations will occur in the following areas:

· Number and types of UAS in AMC’s MUM team: mix of upto 5 fixed-wing and rotary wing UAS

· Additional UAS not organic to AMC’s MUM team: available for the mission if the AMC submits a request to the Tactical Operations Center (TOC).

· Number and types of manned a/c: 1 vertical lift a/c (ownship) or 2 vertical lift a/c, ownship with wingman

· Weapons engagement options: Missiles on fixed wing UAS, rockets on rotary wing UAS, or missiles from manned a/c

· Level of Interoperability with respect to UAS (LOI 2-4)

· Number and types of interactions by AMC with wingman, GCS operator, TOC, etc.

· Type, location, and concealment of enemy forces

· Types of contingencies due to vehicle failures, link loss conditions, etc.

· Mission routes (varied slightly to avoid learning effects)

MUM team entities simulated in this first round have performance similar to current Aviation assets such as Shadow, Gray Eagle, FireScout, etc. The conditions during simulation runs will be dynamic and will require replanning in real-time to deal with contengincies.

Simulation Evaluation Round Two The second round provides a more open construct than the first. It is designed to achieve multiple purposes such as:

· Repeating simulation runs of the baseline vignette from round one using refinements of an offferor’s products based on results of round one

· Repeating simulation runs of the baseline vignette from round one using the extended ownship flight model with FVL charcateristics

· Demonstrating performance of an offeror’s products using a new vignette or modified version of the baseline vignette designed to highlight unique features of offeror’s products not exercised in round one

The second round of simulation evaluations offers the opportunity for an offeror to highlight their technologies of relevance to MUMT operations. If needed, the Government will create a vignette from a different portion of the Air Assault mission to exercise an offeror’s products in simulation. An example could be a vignette for logistics operations.

Conduct of Simulation Evaluations The Government’s simulation evaluations plan for round one will be designed for a common baseline vignette using common metrics. Prior to the conduct of round one simulation evaluations, selected offerors will be invited to review and suggest modifications to the plan within the boundaries of the Government’s baseline vignette and simulation evaluation metrics. Prior to the conduct of round two simulation evaluations, depending on the features of their products, selected offerors may work with the Government to tailor the simulation evaluation plan to exercise additional capabilities with new or modified vignettes that better demonstrate their products. At the conclusion of each round of simulation evaluations, offerors will be required to provide information on internal data collection and evaluation measures unique to their products.

The Government will train each test subject to use the FORCE simulator in practice scenarios using limited baseline capabilities without any vendor products installed. Offerors will be required to provide training material and training unique to their products. Test subjects will be Army Aviation pilots performing the role of the AMC seated in the ownship, in command of their MUM team. Eight to twelve subjects are anticipated for each round with an anticipated two days per subject.

The Government will create a common set of metrics that will be used for all simulation evaluations. Measures of mission effectiveness, situational awareness, and workload will be recorded, along with usability data. Data collected will also include video and audio recordings of each simulation evaluation, data logging of all HMI interactions, real-time queries of the subjects, and vendor suggested data collection, and will include eye tracking and other physiological measures. In addition, subject questionnaires, debriefings, and after action reviews will be conducted.

Preliminary results will be generated at the end of each round and final results and findings will be compiled at the end of the simulation evaluations effort for each selected offeror. Offerors will need to plan for providing support in tailoring the Government’s simulation evaluation plans, should their products need it. Offerors must also plan for support during integration, training and simulation evaluation of their system in the FORCE simulator. Offerors must plan for deliverables capturing their own results and analysis for each round as well as their final analysis, recommendations and lessons learned at the end of their research effort in accordance with Section 5.2.3.

Functional Capabilities in the SUMIT Context This section provides context and definitions for some of the terminology used in this call. The SUMIT program has used the JCA functional reference architecture [Ref: 4.1 b] as the point of departure for defining functional capabilities viewed as essential to intelligent teaming amongst manned and unmanned systems. For this simulation evaluation effort, the program has modified, supplemented or eliminated these capability definitions where necessary. For instance, JCA functional capabilities not immediately relevant to the simulation environment are not used in SUMIT (e.g.: Aircraft Performance Planning and Monitoring, System Security Management). The Government has also supplemented the JCA model with functional capabilities specifically pertaining to MUM teaming, such as: Teaming & Collaboration Management. In the SUMIT context, the AMC could interact with the MUM team as one unit or with each resource, be it an UAS in the team or its payload, or even a subordinate autonomous process. Therefore, for the purposes of this research effort, a JCA functional capability can be viewed from the perspective of the MUM “team” as a whole and also from the perspective of a single air vehicle or payload. As an example, there is Route Management or Situational Awareness Management at a team level and also at an individual platform level. Offerors must consider the Government’s description of functional capabilities in Section 2.5 with this perspective in mind.

Functional capabilities essential to MUM teaming are enabled by technologies that are binned as autonomy, decision aiding and HMI technologies in SUMIT. The following sentences define the meaning of these terms as used by the SUMIT program. Autonomy, as used here, is the ability of a single UAS or a team of collaborating UAS to interpret mission commands from the AMC (or from an intelligent software agent working under command of the AMC), to select a course of action, and then to execute without human intervention. Such autonomous entities would exhibit complex behavior and the UAS or team of collaborating UAS would be capable of independent flight and navigation and, to a lesser degree, independent communications and payloads management. The level of autonomy could vary and the amount of human supervision increased or decreased depending on the mission context. Decision aiding refers to the ability of a software agent to aid the AMC or another software agent in making a decision, or choosing a course of action from among alternatives. In other words, the same software agent that functions as a decision aid to the AMC, when working with other autonomous agents could enable higher autonomy in a UAS where the UAS is allowed to make more operational decisions for itself. The term human machine interface as used in SUMIT is not limited to the last layer of user interface for input and output. In addition to displays, controllers, input/output software, or devices for other modalities of interaction, human-machine interface technologies include both the hardware and software elements, including intelligent agents that prepare the information for exchange between the AMC and team members or autonomous subsystems involved in the mission. Autonomy, decision aiding and HMI technology areas may overlap and these definitions are not intended to apply rigidly to offeror’s technology products. When these technologies are referred to as “advanced” in the SUMIT context, this implies that they enable natural and intuitive interactions between the AMC and their team members or autonomous subsystems.

Technology Products of Interest The Government seeks proposals from offerors that use advanced autonomy, decision aiding and human machine interface technologies in innovative ways. When fully realized they will produce team behavior amongst manned and unmanned systems that are intelligent (possess the ability to perceive and respond to changes in environment) and synergistic (ability for the whole team to be more effective than the sum of its individual assets).

Advanced MUMT operational capability can be pursued on two fronts: 1) development and deployment of individual capabilities (e.g., autonomous target tracking by UAS, voice command of UAS) and 2) development and adoption of a suitable MUMT-enabling system architecture that provides the framework to integrate individual capabilities in an operationally effective and supportable manner. Individual capabilities with exceptional performance that are poorly integrated in the shared human-machine operational environment can degrade mission performance. A well-designed system architecture with context-specific relationships and information flow between its components could enable more effective integration of simple capabilities, resulting in complex autonomous behaviors. The presence of an open systems based testbed in the FORCE simulator permits an exploration of this premise. Therefore, the functional allocation, information flow, and human interface construct envisioned by each offeror for their system is of equal importance to the specific capabilities being proposed. In this call for proposals, the Government seeks to advance MUMT capabilities on both these fronts.

The Government seeks offeror’s definition for a system architecture that when fully realized produces synergistic, intelligent MUMT capability (called “System Architecture” in paragraphs below). Details are provided in Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.3. The Government also seeks offeror’s implementation of a subset of functional capabilities for evaluations in the FORCE simulator. This subset should enable an end-to-end integrated capability that lets the AMC interact with all the simulated entities to execute the selected simulation vignette(s). The larger the subset of functional capabilities enabled or the more “advanced” the technologies offered for simulation evaluation; the higher the rating for an offeror’s proposal. Sections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5 below provide details on the minimum set of functional capabilities sought for simulation evaluations.

MUMT System Architecture Offerors shall present their “System Architecture” including a mapping of all functional capabilities to their corresponding software and hardware components, a tracing of the information flow between components, and a description of human interaction with these components. For the purpose of describing the requirement in this call, the System Architecture is treated as consisting of two major functional subsystems that interact closely at multiple levels: the Mission Operations Management Subsystem and the Human Machine Interface Subsystem. Offerors in proposing their System Architecture may expand upon this two subsystem functional structure or develop an alternative structure. However, the offeror’s proposed System Architecture shall produce ALL the functional capabilities mentioned in the paragraphs under Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3.

Mission Operations Management Subsystem The Mission Operations Management Subsystem includes the following functional capabilities:

a. Team Mission Management. Team Mission Management is a supervisory functional capability which operates under the authority of the AMC. It supervises the functional capabilities associated with overall Mission Planning and Replanning Teaming & Collaboration Management, and Supervision and Oversight of Mission Execution. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

i. It is responsible for the generation of team-level mission plans to meet mission objectives and constraints based on orders and objectives, tactics, techniques and procedures, rules of engagement and AMC intent.

ii. It is responsible for the distribution of planning input to subordinate subsystems based on its overall mission planning outputs.

iii. It assigns tasks and provides constraints to, delegates responsibilities to, deconflicts, and oversees subordinate autonomous subsystems, software agents and processes necessary in the execution of the team’s mission.

iv. It coordinates closely with Mission Task Management for teaming and collaboration operations within the MUM team. It allocates assets or sub-teams of assets to mission task types or mission segments based on their availability, performance and resource characteristics.

v. It maintains continuous situational awareness (SA) of the mission, assesses impact of changes in SA data on mission plan, and under AMC supervision, recommends and executes re-plans in reaction to changes in SA data as appropriate.

vi. It dynamically re-plans team mission plans in reaction to events, or changes in the operational environment. Dynamic re-planning includes the ability to generate plans that dynamically balance mission objectives against mission constraints based on changes in team survivability, communications links, terrain variability, airspace restrictions, or the AMC’s intent, preferences or directives.

vii. It provides the AMC the ability to modify mission plans and also recommends modifications based on real-time changes. It provides the AMC, through subordinate subsystems where necessary, the ability to overrule, re-direct, or re-assign any MUM team asset or sub-team, or take over control of any UAS or payload at a level preferred by the AMC or based on the level of autonomy the AMC chooses for a mission task or segment of the mission.

viii. It keeps the AMC continuously informed, observes the AMC and their actions, seeks out decisions from the AMC and works in a manner closely responsive to the AMC’s needs and priorities.

b. Team Route Management, Team Survivability Planning, Team SA Management, and Team Communications & Information Exchange Management. Functional capabilities contained within them are typically utilized during all mission task types assigned to the team. All of them include the ability to collaborate with or assist the AMC or the Team Mission Management functional capability in managing operations, and ensuring that full SA is maintained at all times. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

Team Route Management:

i. It includes route management for the team as a whole as well as route management for each air vehicle in the team.

ii. It has the ability to create, monitor, modify and coordinate route plans for all the assets in the team based on team mission plans, planning inputs from other active subsystems, vehicle characteristics, individual asset task assignments and the operational environment. It can provide route planning that accounts for terrain variability, airspace deconfliction, threat areas, restrictied operating zones, team-based communications and survivability planning inputs, as well as AMC preferences or directives.

iii. It generates real-time flight paths for each air vehicle in the team. It monitors and adjusts flight paths by considering payload configuration and viewing geometry constraints, threat and obstacle avoidance criteria, and terrain, weather, and communications limitations.

Team Survivability Planning:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv. It includes active management of survivability risks to the team as a whole in route planning for all mission task types,

v. It coordinates team positioning to maximize overall team survivability, and minimize detection of team assets.

vi. It develops mitigation plans for probable threat behaviors.

vii. It provides input to Team Route Management.

Team Situational Awareness Management:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii. For purposes of this SUMIT effort its functional capabilities are limited to what is required during simulation evaluation.

ix. It includes storage and registration of terrain, and data for areas of interest (airspaces, engagement areas, etc) and entities of interest (hostile, friendly, neutral, etc.) in a shared team SA database.

x. It has the ability to receive data updates for entities of interest, and areas of interest. It includes the ability to refresh SA data based on events, operational conditions and mission status.

xi. It transmits updates in a timely manner to active subsystems that consume SA data during execution. It provides updates and responds to queries from Team Mission Management and the HMI subsystem.

Team Communications & Information Exchange Management:

xii. It has the ability to plan, and monitor the flow of information in real-time to and from the team as well as among team members.

xiii. It prioritizes and schedules transmission of information based on mission tasks scheduled within the communications resource limitations of assets available to the mission.

c. Mission Task Management. Mission Task Management includes functionality specific to the Army’s Reconnaissance; Engagement & Effects (or Attack, as used in this research effort); and Logistics mission task types. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

i. These functional capabilities all collaborate with Team Mission Management and its subordinate functional capabilities to decompose mission objectives and AMC’s high level commands into task schedules specific to their mission task type.

ii. They generate assignments of tasks for individual team members, accounting for mission-related payload, geometry or terrain constraints in generating taskings.

iii. They adjust taskings in real-time as needed based on SA updates or requests from collaborating functional capabilities or as directed by the AMC or Team Mission Management. Adjustments do not violate constraints from AMC or Team Mission Management.

iv. They inform or alert the AMC or Team Mission Management for decisions and guidance when necessary. They request SA updates necessary for task execution and provide SA inputs as gathered.

Reconnaissance Mission Task Management:

v. It has the ability to develop reconnaissance task schedules consistent with mission planning inputs that are based on each air vehicle, its sensor payload characteristics and operating constraints provided (such as altitude, offset distances, etc.).

vi. It continuously monitors and adjusts individual task parameters and schedules reaction to SA changes or mission plan changes such that time and coverage objectives are met within the planning inputs and constraints provided.

vii. It provides continuous updates to the SA database and responds to queries from Team Mission Management, its subordinate functional capabilities or directly from the AMC.

Engagement & Effects (Attack) Task Management:

viii. It has the ability to plan, execute, monitor and coordinate actions among assets to complete Attack tasks consistent with planning inputs and constraints provided.

ix. It presents options to the AMC for conduct of Attack tasking, including cooperative engagement options using MUM team members. It allows the AMC to select an option, adjust or modify an option or change task parameters and request a re-plan.

x. It works closely with the AMC or, if authorized by AMC apriori, with Team Mission Management and Reconnaissance Mission Task Management to execute Attack task.

xi. It has the ability to coordinate target hand-off between assets within AMC’s MUM team.

xii. It allows the AMC to execute Attack tasks at a level of control and interaction preferred by the AMC. In situations of quick reaction (hasty) responses to hostile fire, it does not prevent the AMC from directly executing the complete task in a manual mode.

xiii. It includes the ability to prepare for contingencies during Attack task execution that may require pausing or discontinuing tasks.

Logistics Task Management:

xiv. It has the ability to create logistics (movement of cargo and troops) task plans and schedules, allocate resources and generate assignments within the planning inputs and constraints provided to it.

xv. It includes the ability to request SA data on landing zones, drop zones, terrain, threat environment etc. in planning or re-planning its tasks.

xvi. It generates plans based on cargo manifest inputs, types and characteristics of resources available for cargo handling, and plans for specialized off-board resources or equipment required such as ramps, hooks, etc.

xvii. It executes, monitors and replans tasks for contingencies due to changes in SA status or AMC directives. It coordinates with pick up or delivery units consistent with inputs and constraints from the AMC or Team Mission Management.

d. Mission Resource Management. Mission Resource Management is required in order to utilize UAS, weapons, sensors, communications resources, other effectors as designated, and logistics or cargo handling resources both organic to the AMC’s MUM team and external to the team. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

i. It includes the ability to command, control and maintain oversight of, communicate with and execute a task using an assigned resource within the planning inputs and constraints provided to it.

ii. For UAS resources organic to the MUM team it includes the ability to manage and support control handover to the AMC based on their preference or the level of autonomy the AMC chooses for a mission task or segment of the mission. For example, the AMC may take over full manual control of a weapon resource during an Attack task sequence and return control to Mission Resource Management, or may prefer to take over temporary control of a sensor gimbal only during target acquisition.

iii. It assists in the coordination of task handoff between UAS within the MUM team, and provides continuous status updates for team SA.

iv. For resources external to the MUM team, it includes the ability to request, acquire, command, control and then relinquish control of resources within the constraints and levels of interoperability allowed for the mission segment and under the authority of the AMC.

Human Machine Interface Subsystem The Human Machine Interface Subsystem includes the following functional capabilities:

a. Content and Presentation Management. Content and Presentation Management manages the preparation, prioritization, selection, and presentation of content and its presentation modalities. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

i. It includes the ability to select mission and context sensitive content for presentation to the AMC and to remove content no longer necessary. It selects mission SA data, team member status alerts or external communications information for presentation in suitable modality (visual, aural, tactile, etc) based on knowledge of AMC state and mission task status.

ii. It declutters displays and removes stale information and alerts when conditions no longer warrant them. It ensures that critical information always has more than one modality of presentation.

b. User Data Management. User Data Managment includes User Input Management and User Output Management capabilities. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

i. It provides an interface for the AMC to maintain real-time SA, and monitor and communicate with all entities necessary for mission execution, including team personnel, team assets, and remote assets involved in the mission.

ii. It has the ability to receive, prepare and send data input from the AMC and select, prepare and present system output content to the AMC in close coordination with Content and Presentation Management.

iii. It enables AMC interaction with the Mission Operations Management Subsystem capabilities at different levels: overall Team Mission Management, Mission Task Management or Mission Resource Management. It allows the AMC to set preferences and parameters for all these functional capabilities or their subordinate capabilities.

iv. It enables the AMC to efficiently modify and tailor a mission plan or re-assign any MUM team asset or sub-team in a mission plan, re-direct any entity in real-time during execution, or take over control of any vehicle or payload based on the level of autonomy AMC chooses for a task or segment of the mission.

c. User State Monitoring and Management. User State Monitoring and Management informs the selection of content and modalities of interaction with the AMC. Specific responsibilities and activities include:

i. It has the ability to monitor the AMC’s physical, emotional or mental state (stress, inattention, tunneling, cognitive impairment, etc.).

ii. It provides information to Content and Presentation Management as well as functional capabilities in the Mission Operations Management Subsystem. It supports the ability for presentation updates and modality selection (visual, aural, etc.) that are responsive to the AMC’s state and needs.

Simulation Subset The Government recognizes that all the components of the MUMT System Architecture with functional capabilities identified in Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 cannot be fully developed and implemented within the scope of this research effort. This section provides information on the minimum required set of functional capabilities (“Simulation Subset”) for which offerors are required to bring software and, where applicable, hardware components and support integration and evaluation in the FORCE simulator. Offerors are encouraged to leverage existing component technologies and products, including traditional and non-traditional HMI products, from the military and commercial sectors in developing their technical solutions. Offerors may also propose development and integration effort for new components created under this research effort.

In developing their Simulation Subset, offerors shall deliver functionality that is at a minimum sufficient to evaluate autonomy, decision aiding and HMI technologies in the baseline vignette (Movement to LZ and Prep LZ). Offerors may propose technologies that enable additional mission task types (e.g., other elements in an Air Assault mission such as cargo supply, overwatch, use of alternate effectors or engagement scenarios).

The Simulation Subset shall produce the capability for Team Mission Management (Mission Planning and Replanning, Teaming & Collaboration Management, and Supervision and Oversight of Mission Execution); Team Route Management; Mission Task Management for Reconnaissance and Attack; Mission Resource Management; Content and Presentation Management and User Data Management. The descriptions for these functional capabilities are in Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. Offerors may select and implement these functional capabilities to the extent possible based on the maturity of their existing technology options as long as the Government’s following priorities are implemented:

a. Capability for generating team mission plans and dynamically re-planning to achieve mission objectives in the presence of at least one type of mission constraint that varies during execution from among the following: team survivability constraints (based on threat activity), communications links constraints within team (based on ranges or jamming or terrain variability (blockage due to elevation changes)), or airspace restrictions.

b. Capability for the AMC to use the HMI to overrule and modify a team mission plan, re-direct or re-assign any MUM team asset during execution and take over control of any UAS or payload.

c. Capability for at least two modalities for AMC interaction (from visual, aural, tactile, etc).

Simulation subsets that include “advanced” autonomy, decision aiding and HMI technologies (enabling natural and intuitive interactions between the AMC and their team members or autonomous subsystems, as defined in Section 2.4) will be rated higher. Offerors are encouraged to propose non-traditional HMI technologies such as windshield heads up displays, Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality, voice recognition, voice synthesis and natural language processing. The application of innovative techniques incorporating emerging machine learning techniques and intelligent agents is highly desired. Technologies that can produce functional capabilities associated with User State Monitoring and Management are also highly desired.

Additional Capabilities Offerors are invited to propose additional capabilities or technologies they deem relevant and potentially valuable to this research effort. Offerors may also include additional simulation components such as unconventional UAS models, sensor models or rotorcraft flight models that are integral to their proposed capability set. Additional capabilities offered can be exercised in the second round, and if necessary, with different vignettes developed specifically to evaluate them.

Award Information Award Dates Awards are anticipated during JUNE 2017 through AUGUST 2017. Extended negotiations and complex contractual arrangements may result in delayed awards.

Funding Contract award of selected concept proposal(s) will be subject to availability of funds. The Government anticipates multiple awards but reserves the right for awards to only one or none, based upon the technical merit and affordability of received technical proposals. The government anticipates funding multiple efforts under FY17-20 RDT&E funding and has estimated a total funding of $9,000,000.

The Government reserves the right to select for award all or part of any proposal received. Partial awards are conditioned upon the Government and the offeror reaching mutually agreeable terms for such partial awards.

Type of Contract/Instrument The Government will consider a variety of contract types to include traditional cost-plus fixed fee (CPFF) contracts, especially in the case of small businesses or academic institutions, as well as cooperative agreements like Technology Investment Agreements (TIA) that allow cost share. A draft TIA format is included as an attachment to the call for proposals.

Number of Awards The Government anticipates making multiple awards as an outcome of this BAA call. Depending on the number of cost share awards and the extent of cost share, there is a potential for upto 4 awards.

Period of Performance The desired period of performance is 36 months, although some variations may be reasonable on individual contracts or agreements in order to facilitate execution of the technical effort.

Other Information References

a. Future Airborne Capabilities Environment (FACE™) Technical Standard (documents are available for download at http://www.opengroup.org/face)

b. Joint Common Architecture Functional Reference Architecture Model, Model Supplement Document (distribution limited to DoD and US DoD Contractors only)

c. SUMIT Operational Scenarios for Technology Development MARCH 2016 (distribution authorized to US Government agencies and contractors only)

d. AATD Master Broad Agency Announcement W911W6-16-R-0004 Supplemental Documentation Some attachments required as part of this call will be provided separately as supplemental documentation due to the limited distribution permissions on their content.

a. SUMIT FORCE Systems Integration Guide DRAFT (export controlled document). The Government will provide updated versions of the integration guide after award.

b. SUMIT FORCE Component Interface Design Document DRAFT and associated Data Model file (export controlled document). The Government will provide updated versions of the data model after award.

Government Furnished Information, Equipment, Property, or Facilities Due to the limited distribution authorized on some of the necessary documents, supplemental documentation will be provided to interested parties upon request in writing by email. Requests must be accompanied by a fully certified DD Form 2345 which must be certified by DLA LIS at (https://public.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/jcp/Default.aspx#). Please see the online form at the bottom of the weblink to expedite your request. Direct questions to Mr. Thomas Helms, Thomas.m.helms6.civ@mail.mil.

At this time no Government Furnished Equipment or Property is anticipated as being necessary for contractors to execute their effort. All simulation evaluations will be conducted at facilities hosted by the Government in Huntsville, AL.

Deliverables Any award will require, as a minimum, the following data items or deliverables:

(1) Program Management Plan to include the final, negotiated SOW; a description of the technical approach; and the organizational resources, hardware & software platforms, and facilities available to execute the technical approach. It provides the program organization, roles & responsibilities of personnel in the organization to include key personnel and their areas of responsibility. It provides a detailed schedule plan mapping to the tasks required in the SOW along with milestones for reviews, meetings and deliverables. It provides a monthly budget plan, to include cost share if any, with labor, travel, material, direct and indirect costs mapped to the tasks in the SOW.

(2) Monthly Progress, Cost and Performance Reports to include technical, schedule and cost status showing activities and progress to date, a report of problems and issues encountered, a comparison of performance against plan, and plans for the next reporting period.

(3) Presentation Material from meetings and reviews to include all briefing charts, notes and supporting material used during reviews and meetings.

(4) System Architecture Description Document to include the overall considerations and rationale behind the design of the architecture, a functional description of its hardware and software components, a mapping of the relationships and…