U.S. Department of
Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
Small Business Innovation Research
204 Program Solicitation
DTRS57-04-R-SBIR
Technical Questions and Answers (Updated 04/09/04)
Program Contents
04-FA1 Development of the Airborne Internet Collaborative Information Services Environment
Question 1: We have a question concerning solicitation "Federal Aviation Administration 04-FA1 Development of the Airborne Internet Collaborative Information Services Environment"
The solicitation states that the bidder "must have previous work experience in the definition of Web service standards for aviation". Our small business has significant experience is using ETMS generated data to display aviation related data using web services. The phrase that concerns is what is exactly mean by 'web service standards for aviation'. Do we have to have specific experience in standards such as those put together by ICAO, or (for example) are we talking about defining standard XML schemas that can be used as part of an application, but need not be used by other organizations? Would it be possible to have this area clarified before we consider responding to this solicitation?
Answer 1: The requirement as stated is clear and straightforward. The applicant should submit their experience, as they believe it meets the requirement stated. The term "Web service standards for aviation" can be clearly understood to be different than defining standard XML schemas that can be used as part of an application. Defining standard XML schemas that can be used as part of an application can be done solely and without the cooperation and critique of others and would not be interpreted as a "standard". Possible standards are done in cooperation with others in the aviation community, usually in some form of organized group, or even ad hoc group who agree to work together to create the standards.
Question 2: Where can we find information regarding web service standards for aviation, also where to find information pertaining to Airborne Internet Collaborative Information Services Environment?
Answer 2: It is the obligation of proposers to make good use of library and internet resources. For example, a Google search on "Airborne Internet Collaborative Information Services Environment" will reveal the URL http://www.airborneinternet.com/
Question 3: We are interested in applying for 04-FA1 - Development of the Airborne Internet Collaborative Information Services Environment. Before we go ahead with our proposal however, we would like some clarification of the description of the Solicitation (described on page 17). The reason we would like clarification is because we are not sure if our patented concept fits the research topic you are soliciting. Our patented concept is a method of providing broadband wireless communications to aircraft through a series of repeaters on-board aircraft that would enable a wireless signal to daisy-chain across a network of aircraft. We believe our concept is more effective at providing broadband than an aircraft-to-satellite connection, and much more cost effective than an aircraft-to-ground connection. However your solicitation seems directed more at the content (web services) that would be facilitated by the airborne data channel, rather than the airborne data channel itself. Thus, we would appreciate an interpretation of the solicitation.
Answer 3: Your interpertation is correct.
The topic (04-FA1) in the solicitation is directed more at the content (web services) that would be facilitated by the airborne data channel, rather than the airborne data channel itself.
Question 4: I am writing in reference to the SBIR RFP that was released on February 17, 2004. The RFP had a requirement for Airborne Internet. I recently saw the FAA had posted a notice stating a sole source decision for Airborne Internet. Is this for the same requirement or are the two separate?
Answer 4: If you read each requirement, you can easily discern the difference between the two. The SBIR is a narrow scoped effort focusing only on the creation of aviation web services using XML. The sole source contract is far wider in scope and involves the procurement of radio and network equipment to establish the Airborne Internet Research Lab, to do radio and data link studies, to support the creation and evolution of standards, to support the promotion of A.I. at industry trade shows and conferences. The contract does include a provision to create XML services for aviation but that is a small portion of the contract effort. Aviation web services is a brand new field and will have many years of development.
Question 5: With respect to 04-FA1 Development of the Airborne Internet Collaborative Information Services Environment, we have two questions (if you will only answer one, please answer the first):
Must these Web Services be live (pulling then current data from the cited data providers in real time) or can they use canned data as a proof-of-concept? Our confusion relates to the phrase "based on" in the Solicitation, and whether that phrase implies an interactive layer surrounding the data provision as it currently exists on the Web (a "screen-scraper") or whether it implies only similarity, or a static sampling, that approximates what those providers make available on the Web today.
In either case, how much of the data needs to be available in these prototype services? In particular, (a) and (c) use language specifying that the services are to be "based on" NOAA weather and FAA NOTAMs (and so, again, might be only an excerpt), while (b) implies that the entire A/FD must be provided.
Answer 5: The SBIR announcement does not explicitly require LIVE web services. Proof of concept would be acceptable. However, since the overall context of the SBIR is to do research work that can or will eventually apply to the operational environment, if a proof of concept system were able to utilize LIVE web services, it should be regarded as more advanced that one who used static, aged data. Similarly (and logically), the more data that is provided the more advanced the proof of concept could possibly be regarded by the evaluation team.
04-FH1 In Vehicle Collision Warning System Using Infrastructure Messages
Question 1: Due to the specifics of this RFP, it appears this grant already has a vendor in mind, is this true?
Answer 1: All Phase I proposals are evaluated and judged on a competitive basis. The primary basis for award will be the scientific and technical merit of the proposal and its relevance to the DOT requirements. This question is an insult to the DOT SBIR Program Office. Each annual solicitation is guided by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, P.L. 97-219, as amended by P.L., 99-443, and P.L. 103-564, Small Business Research and Development Act of 1992, on December 15, 2000, Congress reauthorized the Program by P.L. 106-554. We in the DOT SBIR Program Office strickly adhere to the law in our administration of this SBIR program. The current solicitation offers an opportunity to the small business community to compete for potential contracts to assist us in meeting Federal research and development objectives.
No this topic does not have a vendor in mind.
Question 2: Our past experience with grants, although not DOT SBIR, software developed is proprietary. This is especially true in this case where the product software developed is proprietary. This is especially true in this case where the product will be mostly software. What is the explanation of making the software copyleft and can the application code be copyrighted?
Answer 2: This is addressed in the solicitation read section V. Considerations, D. Innovations, Inventions, and Patents. 1. Proprietary Information, 2. Rights in Data Developed under SBIR Contracts, 3. Copyrights, 4. Patents
Question 3: Phase I objective is to develop a simple interface without import features. What import features are primary and which are secondary?
Answer 3: This would be decided as part of the phase 2 design. The vendor would interact with the Consortium, FHWA, and others to determine this.
Question 4: Will sample data from the intersection collision warning system be available during Phase I?
Answer 4: Data from the preliminary experiments will be available.
Question 5: Is the major focus for this project human factors issues or technology issues related to implementation?
Answer 5: The focus should be equally divided. The system should build on the communications technologies used by the consortium.
Question 6: Will award winners be able to work directly with members of the IVI consortium?
Answer 6: They will be able to work with them in cooperation with the consortium and FHWA.
04-FH2 Equipment for Undergrounding Utility Lines at Lower Cost
Question 1: After researching the problem, seeing what has been done in the past and talking with utility companies and cable/wiring companies he feels the problem of undergrounding utilities along 2-lane highways does not lie in the equipment but in the cost of utility wires and the problem of finding where a problem has occured once they are underground.
He believes he would be remiss if he did not address the issues as a whole but the topic title and brief description clearly point to the equipment. Is that all DOT is interested in at this point? Would he be wrong to address the whole issue of undergrounding?
If you can provide any feedback into this matter it would be greatly appreciated.
Answer 1: We recognize that there are a number of areas where incremental improvements, or even breakthroughs, could be made that would reduce the cost of undergrounding utilities. Offerors can elect to discuss these areas in their proposals in order to demonstrate that they have a good understanding of the problems associated with undergrounding utilities. However, as the subject title and the problem statement suggest, the current study is focused on equipment for undergroundig utilities.
04-FH3 Pedestrian Detection System for Use With IVI Collision Warning and Signal Control Systems
Question 1: The last paragraph of the topic description of 04-FH3, "Pedestrian Detection System for Use With IVI Collision Warning and Signal Control Systems" states: "Note: Although not required, it would be helpful if offerers provide a working example to demonstrate their ability to sense pedestrians."
Our question is, is this working example expected or wanted prior to Phase I award, at completion of Phase I, or at completion of Phase II?
Answer 1: If a bidder has a technology and/or software simulation tool such as MathCad, etc. which could be applied to the Pedestrian Detection System, submission of this capability should be done with the Phase I proposal.
Question 2: The topic' s description refers to the use of visual surveillance as a component of the detection systems. Does the topic assume that the research and development will be based on the creation of different detection devices than the current visual/camera based devices or merely better methods of processing the information the existence devices create?
Answer 2: The approach is left up to the offeror. The offeror will have to explain and justify their approach in their proposal. If new devices are created, then the physical operation of the device would have to be modeled in MathCad to justify why it would have better performance than existing devices as well as the methods of processing the information.
Question 3: We're interested in topic 04-FH3 (Pedestrian Detection System). We're developing video-based pedestrian detection capabilities for use with autonomous vehicles and for video surveillance applications. I've been looking for interest in automating this capability in the traffic intersection scenario within Colorado's DOT, and this US DOT topic is right in line with what we would like to develop. My question:
The topic solicitation states that "algorithms and software should be prototyped and validated using MathCad." We've developed extensive image processing algorithms and infrastructure software using C++ in linux, so our use of MathCad would not ease our development costs and effort but would in fact add to it. How strict of a requirement is the use of MathCad, and would US DOT be receptive to other implementation tools such as C++?
Answer 3: The requirement for use of MathCad to prototype and verify the algorithms is a must. MathCad is a tool that FHWA R&D has used in the past to verify and debug algorithms. C++ is simply not a tool for verifying algorithms but rather a tool for implementing them.
Question 4: The Solicitation for the pedestrian detection system suggests that the detection be via video sensing. It also recognizes that there are limitations with video techniques during rain and snow and suggests that data fusion with other sensors may provide a better solution. Would DOT consider a sensing system based on a technique other than video?
Answer 4: No, FHWA and the States are pursuing other technologies for pedestrian sensing systems through other means. FHWA is interested in perfecting a video based system. A reliable, high performance video system would give us a benchmark to test against and would provide 90% coverage whereas we have weak coverage right now. Data Fusion could then be pursued as indicated in the solicitation.
Question 5: The topic solicitation states that "algorithms and software should be prototyped and validated using MathCad." We've developed extensive image processing algorithms and infrastructure software using [Language X, C++, Ada, etc] in [Operating System Y, Windows, Linux, VRTX] so our use of MathCad would not ease our development costs and effort but would in fact add to it. How strict of a requirement is the use of MathCad, and would US DOT be receptive to other implementation tools such as C++?
Answer 5: FHWA is very receptive to using languages for an implementation tool. The solicitation does NOT require MathCad as an implementation tool but rather as a tool to prototype and verify the algorithms. This is a must. MathCad is a tool that FHWA R&D has used in the past to understand, explain, demonstrate, verify and debug algorithms for use in implementation languages. C++ is simply not a tool for verifying and demonstrating algorithms but rather a tool for implementing them.
Question 6: Will sample data from the intersection collision warning system be available during Phase I?
Answer 6: Data from the preliminary experiments will be available.
Question 7: Is the major focus for this project human factors issues or technology issues related to implementation?
Answer 7: The focus should be equally divided. The system should build on the communications technologies used by the consortium.
Question 8: Will award winners be able to work directly with members of the IVI consortium?
Answer 8: They will be able to work with them in cooperation with the consortium and FHWA.
Question 9: From my research, I found that there was a wealth of methods to track pedestrians using video cameras. However, most of these works concentrated on algorithm development instead of system evaluation. I propose to:
- Collect a pedestrian database of different imaging sensors (video, IR, ...) under different conditions (weather, time,...).
- Select and implement a number of known pedestrian detection algorithms on the database.
- Compare different approach based on metrics of effectiveness, efficiency, cost.
- Come out the best overall performer and improve upon it.
I would like to have your suggestions on if this general idea is on the right track and is aligned with your intention.
Answer 9: The normal SBIR approach is to propose a specific solution. The approach you propose is a general R&D approach and is better suited for that arena.
Question 10: What is the traffic control system or software they are used with?
Answer 10: They typically emulate pedestrian pushbuttons and are used with NEMA, 170 and ATC systems. NCHRP is currently developing a logic for "Traffic Signal State Transition Logic Using Enhanced Sensor Information" This would be available during Phase 2.
Question 11: What are the current pedestrian detectors that are used?
Answer 11: Currently, the main sensor used is the pedestrian pushbutton. Also used are pressure sensitive mats, radar systems and infrared systems. See the list of references, particularly reference 1.
References:
Sites for pedestrian detection technology
[1] Evaluation of Automated Pedestrian Detection at Signalized Intersections
REPORT NO. FHWA-RD-00-097
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/00-097.pdf
[2] Pedestrian Detection
http://www.gavrila.net/Computer_Vision/Looking_at_People/Pedestrian_Detection/pedestrian_detection.html
Quote:
I have been working for some time at DaimlerChrysler Research on the problem of detecting pedestrians from a moving vehicle using computer vision. Pedestrians are arguably the most vulnerable traffic participants.
[3] L. Zhao and C. Thorpe, "Stereo and Neural Network-based Pedestrian Detection," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 1, No. 3, September, 2000, pp. 148 -154.
http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pubs/pub_3865.html
Quote:
We present a fast and robust algorithm for detecting pedestrians in a cluttered scene from a pair of moving cameras. This is achieved through stereo-based segmentation and neural network-based recognition. The algorithm includes three steps.
[4] Passive Pedestrian Detection: A Case Study
Prepared for the 1998 District 6 Annual Meeting, San Jose
Dana Beckwith, Assistant Transportation Engineer, DKS Associates
Peter L. Coffey, P.E, Principal, DKS Associates
http://www.dksassociates.com/PassPed.html
Question 12: What is the current processor used in the Advanced Traffic Controller (ATC)? Does it support Linux?
Answer 12: The current units ship with the Motorola chip. A separate SBIR is developing an embedded Linux for it.
Question 13: A) is it required to use both Ada and Java or is it up to the funded company to determine which is the most appropriate language for them? Or B) is the requirement simply that the system should be programmed using a language appropriate for the GNU software foundation?
Answer 13: Java is considered to be a more reliable variant of C++. Ada on the other hand was explicitly designed for high reliability and maintainable real time computing. It originally had a reputation for expensive slow compilers. This was superceded by the development of the open source ADA which uses the GCC compiler technology. Working examples and experience can be in either language. Given the safety critical nature of pedestrian detection, reliability, maintainability and readability of the code are critical.
04-FR1 Wireless Brake Shoe Force Measurement System for Railroad Freight Cars
Question 1: What is maximum Brake Shoe Force to be measured?
Answer 1: The maximum force is 5000 to 7000 pounds per shoe for tread brakes.
Question 2: What is the ultimate goal for a brake shoe force measurement system?
Will the data be used to extend wheel life by reducing wheel wear? Is the goal perhaps related to reducing wheel flats/spalling, or increasing safety? Or something we haven't considered?
Answer 2: Goal is to monitor the brakes in real time. Many other benefits will derive from achieving this goal.
Question 3: Is this something that railroads have specifically requested?
Answer 3: Railroads and FRA have a keen interest in knowing that the brakes are functional.
Question 4: Would this system be installed on every wheel of every car in a freight train consist, or only on selected wheels and cars?
Answer 4: Hopefully it would be on every freight car wheel/brake shoe.
Question 5: Is there a sensor or monitoring box to which the brake force monitoring system must comply with in terms of receive/transmission frequency and or data format?
Answer 5: Yes there is a System Sensor Box-we do not wish to limit the novel new design in any way-the sensor box can be modified.
Question 6: Is the force to be measured at:
- the face of the shoe/wheel interface;
- or the force being applied to the shoe
- the back of the shoe by the beam
Answer 6: The averaged force over the shoe face is needed.
Question 7: If 2a above: Is one point sufficient; or if more than one, is either leading edge or the middle of the shoe preferred?.
Answer 7: See answer above.
Question 8: Is temperature of the brake or wheel required/helpful,or optional?
Answer 8: Temperature will also be helpful.
Question 9: Is rotation of the wheel in RPMs or lockup to be monitored and reported or is it monitored by other systems?
Answer 9: This may be monitored by other sensors.
Question 10: Is the self powering to be an integral part of the brake pressure sensor subsystem or can it be provided by an external subsystem as a generator or solar array?
Answer 10: This is up to the proponent.
Question 11: Is the system to be developed to be deployed on a large scale or for occassional instrumentation data collection?
Answer 11: Cost/market will determine that. We wish to monitor the shoe force on all wheels/cars.
Question 12: We assume that the system will be required to operate only when the brakes are applied. Is this so?
Answer 12: That seems logical/reasonable.
Question 13: What is the intent of this solicitation?
- Improvement of the brake systems such as an feedback mechanism for an ABS system?
- Part of a larger Monitoring System?
- Prevention of wheel lockup by gathering data for brake system response modification?
Answer 13: Ensure that braking is adequate at all times.
Question 14: Are all 8 wheels of the car to be monitored or just one?
Answer 14: All the wheels (8,or 4 or whatever)
Question 15: Does the available brake system air pressure also need to be monitored?
Answer 15: No. Separate sensors handle that.
Question 16: Is a time stamp required fro data or is it provided the central monitoring box?
Answer 16: Not required
Question 17: Does the time from the engineers application of the brakes to the time of the application of force at the shoe need to be measured by this subsystem ? - or is it done by the central monitoring system?
Answer 17: No
Question 18: Is the system sensor box (higher level system) specification available?
Answer 18: No
Question 19: I am looking for a broader understanding of how this system would be initially deployed. Is the intention just a demonstration project? Would it be deployed at FAST or on a selected unit train in revenue service? Would there be any intention of collecting data in real time for corrective action taken? How many cars would be instrumented?
These issues would dramatically affect data retrieval and databasing strategies. It would also affect the magnitude of the task of modifying/configuring the cars for the tests.
Answer 19: For now it may be part of a Advanced Train Demonstration Project. That is all I can say.
Question 20: The automotive industry derives brake pressure from brake fluid. Would a calculated brake pad pressure reading such as this be considered suitable, or is it a requirement that pressures are read at the pad level?
Answer 20: System should be wireless. If a fluid pressure sensor is used and transmitted in a wireless manner it would be OK.
04-FT2 Introducing Children to Mass Transit
Question 1: The subject of Introducing Children to Mass Transit is an excellent idea and very timely. Could you kindly help me locate any prior references on earlier such efforts on this subject?
Answer 1: Part of the project is precisely to locate prior references. FTA does not have, to my knowledge, any repository for educational programs on transit aimed at children, at least not in the research office. FHWA has a website about out education/outreach programs, http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/transworkforce/education.asp
In addition to WMATA and Los Angeles, DART in Dallas has developed an impressive bilingual curriculum for grades 1-6.
Question 2: It is my intention to detail in the proposal a distinct marketing plan that is rooted in web-based media and extending from that platform into traditional public radio and public television formats, leading ultimately into media that can be directly funneled into the classroom or toward the decision making adults in various legislatures. In regards to Phase I - how much development is expected in this regards? Am I delivering a heavily researched final proposal or would you expect to see some finished product (i.e., web presentation, etc.)? It is important for me to have this understanding so that I can make a sensible proposal.
Answer 2: The target of the research is to understand and collect best practices for transit outreach and education to children, not to decision making adults in legislatures.
04-FT3 Application of New Methods, Techniques, and Technologies Designed to Increase Mass Transit Ridership
Question 1: Is this topic restricted soley to rapid bus transit systems, or could ideas to increase bus ridership apply equally to rail systems including subway systems?
Answer 1: This topic is focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Any ideas for increasing transit ridership need to be designed for BRT services.
Question 2: Who is the potential user of the ITS technology: 1. Potential BRT passengers or 2. Drivers, dispatchers, or BRT employees? Or either group?
Answer 2: The goal is to increase ridership so there are no restrictions on who might use the technology.
Question 3: Is the technology restricted to only improve and change existing BRT services or could it aid potential BRT passengers in using the already existing system?
Answer 3: The technology can be either for existing services and riders or for potential/future riders.
04-NH1 Development of Device for Enhancing the Seating Position of Short-Statured Older Drivers to Improve Safety and Mobility
Question 1: Is there a compelling need for average-sized individuals and short-stature individuals to be able to utilize the stock car seat when the Device is installed?
The example of booster cushions is given by way example. These devices are easy to install and remove. In contrast, pedal adjusters are not. In short, would a more permanent solution that largely precludes use of the stock seat by average-sized individuals be considered a viable solution or must the device provide the ability for any motorist to drive the vehicle with only very minor effort to bypass the Device?
Answer 1: We would like the stock car seat (or a seat of equivalent performance) available for average-sized individuals. To achieve that, the device can be permanently or temporarily installed. However, the permanently installed device would have to adjustable such that it would revert back to a seat that could accommodate larger sized occupants.
Question 2: Seat Accessory vs Seat Replacement
- Would the reviewers of this solicitation be interested in receiving proposals that are more focused towards "seat accessories" versus those more focused towards wholesale replacement of the seat?
- Is a wholesale replacement considered viable means of solving the problem (i.e. a special aftermarket seat built from the ground-up for short-stature individuals)?
Answer 2:
- We would suggest, "seat accessories". However, wholesale replacement may get more technologies, but may encompass more complications.
- This would be highly dependent upon the intended vehicle and the advanced air bag technologies used. This may take some advanced air bag systems out of compliance (particularly those that use seat track position or weight to adjust air bag deployment). This is commonly done by special modifiers for persons with disabilities but not for the average elderly consumer.
Question 3: We realize that some car/truck seats have either no or limited vertical adjustment (~4 inches). What range of additional elevation adjustment is needed beyond that provided in most vehicles today?
Answer 3: This is highly vehicle-dependent and would need to be determined within the scope of the research.
Question 4: Are individuals affected by dwarfism a primary focus as users of this Device? Often there are orthopedic affects to be considered and the average stature of such individuals is less than "older drivers".
Answer 4: The SBIR solicitation primary focus is on older persons and younger short stature drivers.
Question 5: Price Sensitivity
- Who will be expected to pay for such Devices?
- What is the price sensitivity of the purchaser and what would be a threshold price to target for the Device?
Answer 5:
- The consumer.
- We would say <$100. After all, it will be competing cost-wise with a pillow (and toddler booster seats are <$100). We would think adjustable pedals would be in that price range also.
Question 6: If a Device required OEM, Dealer or outside expertise to install, would this largely preclude the attractiveness of the Device as a solution to the attendant problem? This would likely occur if the Device needed to draw battery power or substantially modified the seat.
Answer 6: A number of aftermarket devices draw off the battery power, so we don't think that should be a deterrent. However, modification to the OEM seat may not be done by the dealer without some assurance that it would not take the seat out of compliance.
Question 7: Would a battery operated Device be acceptable (that is, self-contained within the Device)? Obviously, this battery would require periodic replacement by the user.
Answer 7: Yes, but we would recommend some kind of diagnostics queue to the user that the batteries need replacement.
Question 8: Would powered Devices, which are typically more complex and expensive, be received equally as well as a passive non-powered device?
Answer 8: Yes, within the cost estimates of 5b.
Question 9: Does the stock seat need to have full functionality after the Device has been installed and is being utilized? That is, if the Device limited the use of some of the non-essential stock seat features, such as ventilation/heating, thigh adjust or seat recline, would that be considered acceptable?
Answer 9: We would say yes. While we are not concerned about shorting the ventilation/heating for the seat, it should have the advanced air bag sensors functioning, and probably some type of seat back adjustment for consumer acceptance.
04-NH2 Development of a Low Cost Ethanol Sensor System with Wireless Capabilities to Deter Repeat DWI Offenders
Question 1: This solicitation does not describe in detail the requirement of DOT.
Answer 1: The solicitation is consistent with those used for SBIRs. No additional information is provided so that NHTSA can assess a wide range of approaches for solving the problem at hand and insure that the most promising approach is selected.
Question 2: The wireless means do you like to support the sensor based on laser, IR or some optical systems.
Answer 2: We do not specify the means taken to communicate with officers in the field and will evaluate each approach on its own merits. However, the proposal should be specific as to the means for transmitting the necessary information to the law enforcement officer.
Question 3: Is the end goal to have the proposed new device to be installed on all cars and trucks or just on repeat offenders?
Answer 3: Just on repeat offenders' vehicles.
Question 4: Would DOT work with NHTSA and other agencies to help adopt and push regulations/laws requiring the use of such a device?
Answer 4: NHTSA can sponsor research on the device and comment on the performance of the device, but it is not permitted to lobby for its use.
Question 5: Should the device record and store activity; how long should the device hold its calibration; and is it acceptable to have it serviced twice a year.
Answer 5: In general, these types of issues are left up to each bidder to identify system architecture, requirements and maintenance needs; however, the measure of interest is the concentration of ethonol in the vehicle compartment at the time the vehicle is screened by law enforcement officers. The approach should always have an acceptable level of accuracy through whatever means is appropriate. Every effort should be made to minimize false positives and false negatives.
Question 6: Should the device prevent start up if ti senses alcohol prior to vehicle start? Or should it prevent the next start up, if it senses alcohol during operation?
Answer 6: An ignition interlock is not a part of this SBIR.
Question 7: Should the device transmit only a short distance (as described) or should it be capable of transmitting acrosss a pager or cell network?
Answer 7: Only a short distance as described (between the approaching vehicle and officers stationed at a checkpoint or between officers who stop drivers on the road).
Question 8: Does this project include sensor development or is it acceptable to use a commercial-off-the-shelf alcohol sensor?
Answer 8: A commercially off-the-shelf alcohol sensor would be acceptable if it meets the requirements of this effort, i.e., it can reliably detect the presence of ethanol in the vehicle under various circumstances associated with driving.
Question 9: I am not sure about how the system needs to use the wireless technology. The way I understand it...the system with the wireless technology and the ethanol sensor is installed in a person's car when he is caught guilty for the first time.
The next time this offender passes a cop holding the receiver,
- Does the wireless technology in the system give the officer information ONLY that the person passing by was found guilty before. In this case, the officer would inform about the make/model/year of the car (provided by the wireless) to another officer on the way of the person. That officer would later stop the car (on grounds of suspicion) and use the system (which was installed in the car) to determine the alcohol content AT THAT TIME.
- Or, does the wireless technology also provide information about the CURRENT ethanol content in the air of the car along with the make/model/year? In this case, the officer would directly get the ethanol reading in his receiver. So, he will alert another officer on the way of the person so that he can directly arrest the person.
Answer 9: The system is intended to be installed in vehicle where the owner has been convicted of DWI and lost their license for some period of time. The wireless technology is intended to alert officers at a checkpoint that an approaching vehicle has alcohol in it and the driver may be impaired by alcohol.
Reply to a. No, the technology alerts the officer only that there is alcohol in the vehicle and permits the officer to readily check those vehicles where alcohol is present to determine if in fact the driver is impaired by alcohol.
Reply to b. No, see above.
04-RS2 Innovative Safety and Reliability Technologies for Pipeline System Integrity Management
Question 1: What is OPS?
Answer 1: Office of Pipeline Safety
Question 2: Do you currently use any oversight software tool?
Answer 2: No, the applicant must describe their approach of designing the process, developing and demonstrating the software oversight tool. As an oversight tool, the development of a dynamic database, for safe, smart operation of pipeline transportation infrastructure. From the process management perspective, this tool could provide notification protocols, critical punch list, and forms or documentation automation with timelines. At the tasking level, the tool could identify ordered, activities, notification and status distribution in accordance with OPS protocols. This innovative workflow, process based, decision database provides enhancements within operator's integrity management plans.
Question 3: Is there any documentation of the process that will be automated?
Answer 3: Again, No, the applicant must describe their approach of designing the process, developing and demonstrating the software oversight tool. As an oversight tool, the development of a dynamic database, for safe, smart operation of pipeline transportation infrastructure. From the process management perspective, this tool could provide notification protocols, critical punch list, and forms or documentation automation with timelines. At the tasking level, the tool could identify ordered, activities, notification and status distribution in accordance with OPS protocols. This innovative workflow, process based, decision database provides enhancements within operator's integrity management plans
Question 4: Will the oversight tool be used for both Hazardous Liquids and Gas Transmission?
Answer 4: It is the applicant's responsibility to describe how their approach will solve the issues identified in the solicitation. This is in addition to describing how and when their proposed approach will be used.
Question 5: Who will be the users and owners of the oversight tools? The pipeline operators or DOT.
Answer 5: The pipeline industry would use the oversight tool. Not DOT.
Question 6: Can you elaborate on the term "Dynamic database"? Do you mean that data is added and viewed continually in real time?
Answer 6: Yes, the applicant needs to define what their system parameters are and how they relate to a "Dynamic Database"
Question 7: What is a critical punch list?
Answer 7: What is more important then something else.
Question 8: When you say "Designing the Process" - Do you mean designing the Business process (of pipeline integrity management) or the software architecture
Answer 8: The applicant is requested to describing their process or approach to solving the issues identified in the solicitation. An applicant can chose the path. Be it a business process or defining software architecture to solving the issue.
Question 9: If yes to item 5 then are you expecting a prototype or a fully functioning system?
Answer 9: First, question 5 is not a yes or no answer. The applicant is required to present their scope of work and timeline to resolve the issues identified in the solicitation.
Question 10: We understand to some extent how a pipeline operator currently goes about day to day monitoring of the pipeline. Should we be focusing on that process or should we stick to software functionalities in terms of workflow engines, notification engine, customizable software etc.
Answer 10: The applicant will identify in their application the approach and why they are proposing it to resolve the issues identified in the solicitation. Some applicants could identify how their process solves the issues and others may choose to use software functionalities.
Question 11: "Designing the process, developing and demonstrating the software oversight tool" - Is the expectation to have all this done in Phase 1 of the SBIR program?
Answer 11: The applicant is required to present their scope of work and timeline to resolve the issues identified in the solicitation.
Question 12: Do the topics assume that the research and development will be based on the creation of different detection devices than the current visual/camera based devices or merely better methods of processing the information the existence devices create?
Answer 12: The topic is focused on research and development of new technologies that could detect very small leaks as well as evidence of encroachment of the pipelines by third parties. Current technologies like visual/camera are not considered new technologies.
