National Imagery and Mapping Agency, 4600 Sangamore Road, Bethesda, MD 20816-5003

A -- BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR EXTENSION OF GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION TOPOLOGY FOR 3-D APPLICATION AND IMPROVED METHODS FOR GEOSPATIAL DATA GENERALIZATION, THINNING AND COMPRESSION SOL BAA97-004 DUE 070297 POC Daniel E. Hinchberger, Contract Specialist, 301-227-4244 I. INTRODUCTION: The DoD Modeling and Simulation Executive Agent for the Terrain, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), is interested in research that will advance the state of the art in 3D Modeling and Simulation. To this end, NIMA invites submissions of proposals that address the following topics, listed in order of interest: (1) Development of mathematically based algorithms for creation and validation of 3D topology. (2) Improved methodology for data generalization, compression, aggregation and thinning. II. GENERAL INFORMATION: Through this competition, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency expects to make awards subject to the availability of appropriations. All awards will be based on merit competition. The agency expects that typically each award will be for a basic period of one year with one additional option year and on an average of $50,000.00 to $200,000.00 per year. Total funding potential is $200,000.00 per year, over a two year period. III. AREAS OF INTEREST: This Broad Agency Announcement is specifically for the two areas of interest discussed herein. Innovative ideas that address these concerns are encouraged. Offerors are urged to consider carefully the research issues posed, and, as appropriate, to contact Daniel E. Hinchberger, Contract Specialist, via E-Mail at hinchbergd@nima.mil, with questions and concerns. A. Extension of geospatial information topology for 3-D application. The topology model implemented in commercial geographic information systems and the DoD geospatial data model support a two-dimensional (2-D) planar graph. This is commonly referred to as level 3 topology. Within DoD Modeling and Simulation applications, the domain referred to as Computer Generated Forces (CGFs) or Semi-Automated Forces (SAFs) requires the ability to analyze geospatial data in its real-world, full three dimensional (3-D) environment. Similarly, geospatial data producers require an implementable design to create, verify and export true, real-world, three dimensional data. A data producer would normally extract basic data from multiple monoscopic or stereoscopic images which provide the true, real-world view. However, implemented output data structures, such as the Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) or the Vector Product Format(VPF), only support the 2-D planar graph. This BAA solicits investigations to extend this 2-D planar graph model to a full 3-D topology model through a documented development of the mathematical constructs including a prototype implementation that demonstrates feasibility of data creation, verification and data export structures. The development should discuss and provide solution(s) for issues associated with geospatial data represented as point, line, and/or areal(polygon) and situations of multiple stacked-on/under conditions. B. Improved methods for geospatial data generalization, thinning and compression. Data generation processes currently implemented in modeling and simulation data base production environments are extremely labor intensive. Data generalization and thinning processes are extensively based on the 1970+s technology of Douglas-Pueker applied to the 2-D domain. Data manipulation operations on real-world, 3-D environment elevation, natural and manmade cultural data requires the development of refined generalization and thinning algorithms. Algorithms that simultaneously operate against all three coordinate dimensions are desired. Data volume in excess of a gigabyte are common for vector and raster forms of geospatial databases developed for modeling and simulation applications. Efficient transfer of these data files would be facilitated through the implementation of robust, lossless compression algorithms. Compression efficiencies in excess of 100:1 are desired. This BAA solicits responses to these issues in data generalization, data thinning and data compression. IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR WHITE PAPERS AND PROPOSALS: The proposal submission process is in two stages. First, white papers are sought from prospective offerors. Based on the evaluation of those white papers, selected offerors will be invited to submit more detailed proposals. The intent of a request for white papers is to minimize the labor and costs associated with the production of detailed proposals. All interested offerors, therefore, are encouraged to submit white papers. However, all proposals submitted under the terms and conditions cited herein will be reviewed, regardless of the disposition (or lack of) white papers. 1. White papers White papers should be no longer than five typed pages and should outline: (a) proposed objectives and approach; (b) expected outcomes; (c) credentials of key project members; (d) costs, in summary and broken down by year. Eight copies of white papers should be submitted. White papers must be received at the address shown in this Section by 10:00 a.m. EST on 02 June 1997. White papers submitted in whole or in part by electronic media (e.g. computer disk or tape, facsimile machine, electronic mail) will not be accepted. White papers will be evaluated against criteria 1, 2, and 6 in Section V. Letters to encourage or discourage submission of proposals will be sent directly to the proposed Principal Investigators on or about 13 June 1997. Further, NIMA responses may be transmitted via facsimile to expedite communications, so white paper respondents should be sure to include 'fax' numbers in the packages. 2. Proposals A. General Organizationally approved, signed, completed proposals must be received by the agency at the address shown in this Section by 10:00 a.m. EST on 02 July 1997. Please note that only this address serves as the collection point for proposals. Proposals submitted in whole or in part by electronic media (e.g., computer disk or type, facsimile machine, electronic mail) will not be accepted. Proposals received after the deadline will be treated according to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 52.215-10, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals. Proposals will be evaluated against criteria (1) through (6) in Section V. Letters announcing whether or not a proposal is being recommended for an award will be mailed by about 18 July 1997 directly to the Principal Investigator. Awards are planned to be in place by about 12 August 1997, this should be cited as the proposed start date for the budget. B. Submission A proposal signed by appropriate officials and marked "Original", along with 8 copies of the signed original, should be submitted directly to the address listed below. Each proposal should be typed and no longer than 50 pages, all-inclusive (including, for example, vitae, cover and signature pages, and budget). The technical portion (see Section C.3) should be limited to no more than 30 of the 50 pages. Proposals shorter than 50 pages are heartily encouraged. Separate attachments, such as brochures or reprints, that cause the proposal to exceed 50 pages can render the entire proposal ineligible. Address for submission of proposals: NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY ATTN: PCE/D-88/M&SBAA/Dan Hinchberger 4600 Sangamore Road Bethesda, MD 20816-5003 C. Content The proposal must be signed, complete, and self-contained to qualify for review. Proposals must adequately describe the technical objectives and approaches, and the expenditures for equipment, all of which will be evaluated by scientific reviewers per Section VI. Proposals should include: 1. Abstract: Provide an abstract no longer than one page. 2. Text: The technical portion of the proposal should be limited to 30 pages and should: a. Describe in detail the research to be undertaken. State the objectives and approach and the relationship to state-of-knowledge in the field and to similar work in progress. Include appropriate literature citations. Discuss the nature of expected results. b. Describe the facilities available for accomplishment of research objectives. Describe the equipment planned for acquisition under this program and its application to objectives. c. Describe in detail proposed sub-awards or relevant collaborations (planned or in place) with industry, government organizations, or educational institutions. Particularly describe how collaborations are expected to facilitate the transition of research results to application. If sub-awards are proposed, make clear the division of research activities and provide detailed budgets for the proposed sub-awards. Descriptions of industrial collaborations should explain how the proposed research will impact the industrial partner's research and/or product development activities. e. Identify other parties to whom the proposal has been/will be sent. 3. Personnel: Describe the qualifications of the principal investigator and other key researchers involved in the project. For consortia or collaborations, one individual should be the designated principal investigator for purposes of technical responsibility and contact. 4. Cost: The financial portion of the proposal, beginning on a new page, should contain cost estimates sufficiently detailed for meaningful evaluation, including cost details for proposed sub-awards. For budget purposes,use an award start date of 12 August 1997. The budget must include the total cost of the project, as well as a breakdown of the amount(s) by source(s) of funding (e.g., funds requested from NIMA, non-federal funds to be provided as cost sharing). The costs should be broken down for each year of the program and shown by two distinct totals: a total for the basic one year and a total for the year of options. Elements should include: a. Time being charged to the project, for whom (principal investigator, programmer, etc.), and the commensurate direct labor rates and benefits. b. All Indirect rates; c. Estimate of material and operating costs; d. Costs of equipment, based on most recent quotations and broken down in sufficient detail for evaluation e. Travel costs and time, and the relevance to stated objectives; f. Publication and report costs; g. Subcontract costs and type (the portion of work to be subcontracted and rationale); note that subcontract costs must be described carefully in both the text and the cost section. h. Consultant fees (indicating daily or hourly rate) and travel expenses and the nature and relevance of such costs; i. Communications costs not included in overhead; j. Other direct costs; k. Annual total costs for the initial one year and a total for any options. 5. Certifications: Certifications will be provided for completion upon determination that an offeror+s proposal has been selected for award. V. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS Criteria Criteria (1), (2), and (3) will be used to evaluate white papers. All six criteria will be used to evaluate final proposals. The primary evaluation criteria, of equal weight, are: (1) Scientific and technical merits of the proposed research; and (2) Relevance and potential contributions of the research to defense missions; Other evaluation criteria, of lesser importance than (l) and (2) but equal to each other, are: (3) The qualifications of the principal investigator and other key research personnel; (4) The adequacy of current or planned facilities and equipment to accomplish the research objectives; (5) The impact of interactions with other organizations engaged in related research and development, in particular industrial organizations, DoD laboratories and other organizations that perform research and development for defense applications; and (6) The realism and reasonableness of cost, including proposed cost sharing. Process Proposals will undergo a multi-stage review. First, technical evaluation teams will review proposals using the criteria in this Section and as explained in Section V. Then the findings of the evaluation teams will be reviewed by senior NIMA managers. VI. AWARDS Awards will be made at funding levels commensurate with the research and in response to agency missions, but on average about $50-$200 thousand per year for a base year and potentially one option year. Awards generally will be made for one year (through increments or options) with options for one additional year. Negotiations may result in funding levels less than originally proposed. Letters announcing whether or not a proposal is being recommended for an award will be mailed directly to principal investigators by about 18 July 1997. Awards are expected to be in place by 12 August 1997. (0129)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0003 19970513\A-0003.SOL)