United states special operations command 17. 3 Small Business Innovation Research (sbir) Proposal Submission Instructions

 

Technical Inquiries: 

1. 
   Travel expenses to USSOCOM. Phase I Kick-Off and Phase I Out-Brief Meetings will be conducted via electronic media only.
   
2. 
   Priced or Unpriced Options.
   
3. 
   Discretionary Technical Assistance.
   
4. 
   A Technical Volume exceeding 20 pages. USSOCOM will only evaluate the first 20 pages of the Technical Volume. Additional pages will not be considered or evaluated.
   

1. 
   Proposals priced in excess of $150,000.00 will not be considered for award.
   
2. 
   The appropriateness and reasonableness of the proposed price will only be evaluated on those proposals recommended for award based on the non-price evaluation criteria identified in Section 6.0 of the DoD 17.3 SBIR BAA.
   

Additionally, input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by USSOCOM from non-Government consultants and advisors who are bound by appropriate non-disclosure requirements.  Non-Government personnel will not establish final assessments of risk, rate, or rank Offeror’s proposals.  These advisors are expressly prohibited from competing for USSOCOM SBIR awards.  All administrative support contractors, consultants, and advisors having access to any proprietary data will certify that they will not disclose any information pertaining to this announcement, including any submission, the identity of any submitters, or any other information relative to this announcement; and shall certify that they have no financial interest in any submission. Submissions and information received in response to this announcement constitutes the Offeror’s permission to disclose that information to administrative support contractors and non-Government consultants and advisors.

The identification of foreign national involvement in a USSOCOM SBIR topic is needed to determine if a firm is ineligible for award on a USSOCOM topic that falls within the parameters of the United States Munitions List, Part 121 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). A firm employing a foreign national(s) (as defined in paragraph 3.5 entitled “Foreign Nationals” of the DoD 17.3 SBIR Announcement to work on a USSOCOM ITAR topic must possess an export license to receive a SBIR Phase I or Phase II contract.

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Sensors

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop an innovative means of marking targets during the day. The reason to mark targets in the day is to direct fire from both ground and air assets.

DESCRIPTION: Currently there is difficulty in marking targets during the day in a fashion that is reverse compatible with existing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance elements – armed and unarmed. This difficulty includes the ability to work for a Joint Terminal Attack Controller or Reconnaissance and Surveillance team at beyond audible range of air assets or beyond visual detection range for ground assets that would engage or observe the intended target. In addition, there is a need for the system to work in conjunction with both US forces and Coalition forces.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.” As a part of this feasibility study, the proposers shall address all viable overall system design options with respective specifications on the key system attributes of ability to mark in the band of 3.0 to 4.2 microns, 4.4 to 5.4 microns, and 1.064 microns during all-weather day and night.

The innovative research should be geared towards a man portable, hand held, multi-band daytime marker that also operates at night. The technology should be reverse compatible with existing equipment for both US and Coalition forces with the ability to select which bands are turned on or delivered to whom. In addition, this technology should be able to work in all weather and all environments from snow to highly cluttered desert floors equatorial summer or on vegetation that may have moisture.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space that will satisfy a needed technology. The feasibility study should investigate all known options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this write up. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated and recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting a thorough feasibility study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. Operational prototypes developed with other than SBIR funds that are provided at the end of Phase I feasibility studies will not be considered in deciding what firm(s) will be selected for Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study on a daytime marker.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military applications. Additional applications include U.S. law enforcement, U.S. border patrol, search and rescue of persons by U.S. first responders in local / state / or federal capacity.

REFERENCES:

1. “Joint Fire Support - Joint Publications 3-09”, 12 December 2014; http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_09.pdf

2. “Close Air Support Podcast”, 8 July 2009;
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/docnet/podcasts/JP_3-09.3/podcast_JP_3-09.3.htm

3. “Aviation Support of Ground Operations” (Army Field Manual 3-21.31), 3 March 2001;

KEYWORDS: Daytime Marker, Joint Terminal Attack Controller, JTAC, Reconnaissance and Surveillance, R&S, Fires, Lasers, Pointers.

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Information Systems, Sensors

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop an innovative and computationally efficient method for processing high resolution, still-frame images and/or Full Motion Video (FMV) from handheld devices into a photo-realistic, textured, high resolution, 3D model of a building’s interior. The automated workflow should take input from the imagery/video files, generate a 3D scene model, and save it in an open standard data format capable of being rendered and explored in OpenFlight software.

DESCRIPTION: This topic seeks innovative proposals for a computationally efficient method for processing high resolution, still-frame images and/or Full Motion Video (FMV) from handheld devices into a photo-realistic, textured, high resolution, 3D model of a building’s interior. This topic does not seek to develop new cameras, LiDARs, or other sensors, rather, emphasis is placed on the hardware and software ecosystem needed and on improving existing algorithms or developing new algorithms to create the models. Models should be able to be updated and refined if more data becomes available.

Systems must support Special Operations Forces (SOF) missions including, but not limited to Operational Planning and Rehearsal and Hostage Rescue. Proposals will be expected to address the positive influences the proposed solution will exert on: force-employment concepts and the SOF mission set.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study and initial system design to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.” As a part of this feasibility study, proposers shall address all viable overall system design options that meet or exceed the following objective (O) and threshold (T) performance parameter specifications:

1. Maximum overlap of still images or FMV frame necessary: O=T=60%.
2. Level-of-Detail (LOD) (greatest detail around center of field of view or “objective area”): O=Continuous, T=6.
3. Model Resolution (at greatest level of detail): O=T=Photo Realistic.
4. Objective Area (as a percentage of field of view): O=T=50%h x 50%w

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space. The feasibility study should investigate all known options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this topic. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated, recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit, and provide an initial, system-level design. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting this study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. An operational prototype delivered at the end of a Phase I feasibility study, even if developed with non-SBIR funds, will not be considered in deciding if a firm will be selected for Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop, build, and demonstrate a prototype system determined, during the Phase I feasibility study, to be the most feasible solution to meet the stated Government requirements. Phase II may include additional requirements specifying the ability to use the presented model to perform analytics such as mensuration, line of sight analysis, augmentation with data from others, and others.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military and non-military applications where it is desirable to construct 3D models from sparse data sets of still-frame images or short video clips.

REFERENCES:

1. “Level of Detail”, 26 June 2017, at 11:18; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail

2. “Texture Mapping”, 30 June 2017, at 22:52; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping

3. “AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma”, 25 April 2017, at 00:30; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_RQ-20_Puma

4. “United States Special Operations Command”, 30 June 2017, at 22:20; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Special_Operations_Command

5. “Joint Publication 3-05 Special Operations”, 16 July 2014; http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_05.pdf

6. “Special Forces, Primary Missions”, 21 March 2016; http://www.goarmy.com/special-forces/primary-missions.html

KEYWORDS: Building Interior Model, BIM, 3D, Image processing, Video Processing, Special Operations

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Electronics, Information Systems, Sensors

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop an innovative method for real-time or near-real-time processing of high resolution, Red-Green-Blue (RGB), still-frame images and/or streamed Full Motion Video (FMV) being received from an in-flight tactical Group 1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The automated workflow should take input from the imagery/video stream, generate a 3D scene model, annotate and integrate the model with platform telemetry or data from other airborne sensors (tagging, tracking and locating (TTL); signals intelligence (SIGINT); electronic warfare (EW), etc.) for presentation to the sensor and/or UAS operator.

DESCRIPTION: This topic seeks innovative proposals for a near-real-time method for downloading and processing multiple, high resolution, RGB still-frame images (or segments of streaming video) from an in-flight Puma Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), automatically generating and annotating an accurate, textured 3D scene model from the data, fusing the scene with real-time, sensor data, and presenting the results to the sensor and/or UAS operator. This topic does not seek to develop a new airborne intelligence, surveillance, or reconnaissance sensor, rather, emphasis is placed on leveraging the air vehicle’s existing imaging system, mobility and on-board sensors along with state-of-the-art imagery processing capabilities to produce a near-real-time, augmented-reality, 3D model of an objective area. Proposed solutions may assume that the UAV is in orbit around the objective area. Models should be continuously updated and refined as more data becomes available. Models should be saved in Ground Control Station non-volatile storage for post-mission, forensic analysis. Models already in storage should be accessible to the system for reloading, reuse, and refinement.

Systems must support Special Operations Forces (SOF) missions including but not limited to Operational Preparation of the Environment; Advance Force Operations; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operations; and Force Protection & Over-watch. Proposals will be expected to address the positive influences the proposed solution will exert on: ISR UAS and sensor-employment concepts of operations and the SOF mission set.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study and initial system design to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.” As a part of this feasibility study, proposers shall address all viable overall system design options and meet or exceed the following objective (O) and threshold (T) performance parameter specifications:

1. Minimum number of still images necessary: O=60, T=120.
2. Minimum length of FMV frame sequence necessary: O=4 min, T=8 min.
3. Level-of-Detail (LOD) (greatest detail around center of field-of-view or “objective area”): O=4 (or continuous), T=2.
4. Model Resolution (at greatest level of detail): O<=0.50m, T=0.75m.
5. Objective Area: O=200m x 200m, T=100m x 100m
6. Computational Latency (time from first image or video frame until initial, specification compliant model availability): O=8 min, T=16 min
7. Weight (Total net increase of UAS transport weight): O < 2kg, T < 3kg
8. Set-up Time, Net Increase (The amount of time added to the UAS GCS initial set-up.): O=T<=3 minutes.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space. The feasibility study should investigate all known options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this topic. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated, recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit, and provide an initial, system-level design. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting this study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. An operational prototype delivered at the end of a Phase I feasibility study, even if developed with non-SBIR funds, will not be considered in deciding if a firm will be selected for Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system determined, during the Phase I feasibility study, to be the most feasible solution to meet the stated Government requirements. Phase II will include additional requirements specifying the ability to use the presented model to perform analytics such as mensuration, line of sight analysis, integration with data from specific third-party sensors, and others.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military and non-military applications where it is desirable to construct 3D models from sparse data sets of still-frame images or short video clips.

REFERENCES:

1. “Level of Detail”, 26 June 2017, at 11:18; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail

2. “Texture Mapping”, 30 June 2017, at 22:52; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping

3. “AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma”, 25 April 2017, at 00:30; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_RQ-20_Puma

4. “United States Special Operations Command”, 30 June 2017, at 22:20; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Special_Operations_Command

5. “Joint Publication 3-05 Special Operations”, 16 July 2014; http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_05.pdf

6. “Special Forces, Primary Missions”, 21 March 2016; http://www.goarmy.com/special-forces/primary-missions.html

KEYWORDS: UAS, UAV, Puma, 3D, Image Processing, Video Processing, Special Operations

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Sensors

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop and demonstrate innovative technologies to quickly detect, locate, and discriminate hidden chambers within an average-sized room (168 square feet) which may contain suspicious contents with a handheld, easy to operate sensor at a range of 2 meters.

DESCRIPTION: U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) requires the tactical capability to quickly detect, locate, and discriminate hidden chambers to support Identity Intelligence Operations (I2O). USSOCOM I2O) has the requirement for handheld, automated hidden chamber sensor system to detect, locate, and discriminate hidden compartments within an average-sized room (168 square feet) at a range of 2 meters. The hidden compartment may contain various article, including electronics, weapons, chemicals, documents, money, people, etc. The automated sensor system must be able to distinguish between a normal space, for example the space between wall studs and a suspicious space, to enable the SOF operator to quickly focus their SSE operations. The system needs to operate with various common building materials, including, brick, cinder block, concrete, wood, sheet rock, etc. The system needs to be automated, easy to operate, and not require specialized technical training to interpret. Current systems/technologies are designed for other mission areas, for example people detection or whole building sensor systems which are too large and complicated to operate. Modern Radio Frequency (RF) Transmit/Receive (T/R) modules, advanced computer vision algorithms, modern computer processor technologies, or other innovative sensor technologies/modalities may offer potential innovative technology solutions. As a part of this feasibility study, the proposers shall address all viable overall system design options to meet the above requirements.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.”

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space that will satisfy a needed technology. The feasibility study should investigate all known options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this write up. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated and recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting a thorough feasibility study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. Operational prototypes developed with other than SBIR funds that are provided at the end of Phase I feasibility studies will not be considered in deciding what firm(s) will be selected for Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in various applications beyond the DoD, including law enforcement, security, and construction.

REFERENCES:

1. “Underground Utility Location”, Ground Hound Detection Services, Incorporated:

2. “Ground Penetrating Radar,” Wikipedia, 1 June 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar

KEYWORDS: Through the Wall Radar, Hidden Chamber Detection

SOCOM173-005

TITLE: Counter UAS Weapon

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground/Sea Vehicles, Weapons

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop an innovative system or weapon prototype that will acknowledge, detect, identify, locate, track, and disable or destroy an enemy or non-friendly Group 1 or 2 Small Unmanned Aerial System (SUAS).

DESCRIPTION: The Counter UAS (C-UAS) weapon should be able to detect, identify, locate, track, and either disable and/or destroy a SUAS from a distance that will allow SOF personnel to make appropriate preparations and safely position themselves in a manner that is either offensive or defensive in nature. This weapon system should incorporate a Fire Control Augmentation System or “cueing data” / (slew-to-cue) that will integrate with current SOF weapon systems (MK 19, MK 44, and MK 47) and facilitate the firing of a projectile, or group of projectiles with air burst ability, to incapacitate the detected, identified, and tracked, unfriendly SUAS. As a part of this feasibility study, the proposers shall address all viable overall system design options with respective specifications on the key system attributes.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.”

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space that will satisfy a needed technology. The feasibility study should investigate all known options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this write up. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated and recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting a thorough feasibility study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. Operational prototypes developed with other than SBIR funds that are provided at the end of Phase I feasibility studies will not be considered in deciding what firm(s) will be selected for Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study on a Counter UAS Weapon.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military applications as well as the need for and use in commercial applications and public safety. They could perform difficult and dangerous tasks such as border crossing prevention (US CBP), law enforcement, counter narcotic and drug enforcement, DHS counter-terrorism, Secret Service (White House/POTUS protection) in restricted airspace, and other tasks such as detection and prevention of UASs at or near large outdoor public venues.

REFERENCES:

1. “MK 19 40mm Machine Gun, MOD 3”, Military Analysis Network; https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm

2. “MK 47 Mod 0 40mm Advanced Grenade Launcher”, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems; http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/ics_mk47.html

3. “Standard M134D” (MK44 is SOF version), DillanAero; http://dillonaero.com/product/standard-m134d/

KEYWORDS: Counter UAS, Anti-UAS, Counter Drone, Anti-Drone, Drone/UAS Detection, Drone Killer