Simulation-Based Reliability and Safety   2

These are responses to inquiries received on this action:
Question 1: MADYMO References, Pgs. 98-99: Would the Government broaden the types of finite analysis for human injury modeling beyond MADYMO? Reason why: MADYMO is a fast running tool with limited accuracy for human injury modeling. That is why PEO STRI and the WIAMan program is developing new ADT models in LS-Dyna and another Finite Element code. The Marine Corps, PEO Land Systems, has taken the same approach for ATD modeling.
USG Response 1: No we will not, for a limited and specific reason. The Government has a current mission that requires the use of Mathematical Dynamic MOdels (MADYMO), but is lacking the tool described in the task order to fulfill the effort. The task order, therefore, specifies MADYMO, rather than other Finite Element Analysis (FEA) tools for human injury modeling, because the required tool must interface with MADYMO in order to satisfy this mission. Other types of finite analysis for human injury modeling would not be acceptable for this tool. The tool is to couple a MADYMO ATD model into LS-Dyna blast models.
That being said, this is a specific task order under the master contract, and does not restrict what the Government intends to do under other task orders later on. It is very likely that there will be future task orders which will take the approach of using Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin Project (WIAman) or other Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) models. The master contract can support broader types of finite analysis as the question is suggesting, but that is not appropriate under this particular task order.
Question 2: C.3.2 - Multi-scale Biomechanics Reliability Model Development: would the Government change the scope of this section to make clear an interest in leveraging (due to time and cost savings) commercially developed human body models -that can be licensed by the Government- and then refined to simulate blast impact injuries?
USG Response 2: No we will not. The intent of this contract is to develop new tools for specific Government use and ownership, and not simply to use commercially available software that needs to be licensed and then modified.
Question 3: Future Year Funding: SimBRS program was started by Congressionally-directed funding. What is the near term TARDEC budget for this opportunity?
USG Response 3: The use of the contract mechanism is based on Government missions and budgets. While the Government does not have a specific SimBRS earmark for FY 17, the Government did not use earmarked funding on the expiring SimBRS contract during FY 16 either, because SimBRS now supports a number of ongoing Army programs. Our average total obligation over each of the past two fiscal years was approximately $5,800,000.00.
Question 4: C.3.7 - High Performance Computing Incorporating Physics-Based Reliability and Safety Models: The High Performance Computing Collaboratory (HPCC) is mentioned. Would the Government remove mention of this program due to the HPCC being located at the incumbent's facility? And replace it with allowing the awardee to choose whether it uses private or HPCMP computational resources to support SimBRS/
USG Response 4: Yes, thank you for bringing this to our attention. The reference to "HPCCL" in the draft was incorrect and will be corrected. All references to HPCC will be changed to reference the DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP).
Question 5: C.3.11-C.3.13: Would the Government consider adding language similar to the following: 'Proposers with direct experience modeling vehicles similar to those in PEO GCS and CS&CSS - and subsystems that include active protection systems, seats, underbody hull materials - will receive increased credit in the past performance review by the SSEB?' Reason why: A proposer's past experience of support in these areas reduces risk to the SIMBRS program.
USG Response 5: No, we will not. Reason: Because the intent of the contract is for tool development for the Government's use. It is the Government's position that experience in modeling does not necessarily provide risk reduction for tool development efforts.