Q: The ice form (e.g., cube ice, flake ice, nugget ice, scale ice, etc.) was not specified. Does this matter, or will any ice form be acceptable?

A: Certain ice forms might offer advantages over others. With regard to the equipment, measures might be:

- energy required
- mechanical force necessary
- production speed
- production continuity / batch size
- automatability
- reliability
- routine maintenance and ease of repair
- sanitation
- system complexity
- clumping, or lack thereof, when stored or refrozen

With regard to use:
- beverage or food cooling speed (fast or slow, either might be an advantage)
- cooling longevity (a large form factor might cool slower, but longer)
- compatibility with drinking vessels or insulated containers
- dispensing / accessibility (for storage, or soldiers or cooks retrieving ice for use)

We did not want to specify an ice form; because, we did not want to disqualify various technologies for only the reason that they cannot produce a particular form of ice. It is up to the offeror to present an argument for how the above characteristics should we weighed against each other and to suggest other desirable or undesirable features of one
ice form or another.

That said, and looking at the bigger picture, CASCOM (Combined Arms Support Command -- the driver of the requirement for creation of ice on-site at command outposts) has said that either cubed or "tubed" ice is desired -- no shaved ice or blocked ice. This is not the final word, however. We are inquiring into whether nugget ice will be acceptable.

Q: Must all questions be submitted through SITIS?

A: Questions may be asked through SITIS from July 20 through September 1; however, during the presolicitation portion of that period -- July 20 through August 16 -- questions may also be asked directly via phone or email with the topic's Technical Point of Contact.

Once the presolicitation period ends and the solicitation period begins on August 17, it is then that questions may only be submitted through the SITIS system -- direct contact between proposers and topic authors will no longer be allowed.

Offerors should note that questions asked and the answers received via phone or email will be posted to SITIS to ensure that all offerors have access to the same information.

Q: May we visit you during the presolicitation period?

A: No. Face-to-face contact is never allowed. This would give wealthy or local companies an advantage.

Q: What does your group do?
What are your interests, responsibilities and jurisdiction?
What is the big picture of your efforts?

A: We are the Equipment and Energy Technology Team, headed by Don Pickard at the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC). We are responsible for applying cutting-edge technology toward development of personal and kitchen-level food preparation and storage equipment, and kitchen-level graywater handling and treatment.

Our funding categories are 6.2-Concept Exploration and 6.3-Advanced Development. These areas cover research of new technologies to solve existing problems or provide enhanced capabilities, and are the developmental steps immediately preceding 6.4/6.5 Production and Fielding.

For an overview of the areas we work in, see the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) at the NSRDEC website: https://www3.natick.army.mil/ssbaa.htm.

Q: What do you think of our technology?

A: We avoid commenting on a potential offeror's specific technology any further than to confirm whether or not it appears responsive to the topic solicitation. Presolicitation and solicitation Q&A is for you to find out more about the topic, rather than for us to learn about your technology. We will however make limited comments regarding general
approaches.

Q: Would Vacuum Evaporative Freezing be responsive to the topic?

A: Yes, this and several other technologies were not specified in the topic, but are responsive. We are not targeting a specific technology, only a capability measured by performance metrics such as production rate and efficiency, reliability, sanitation, and compatibility with solar.

Q: The solicitation refers to BIS equipment that can produce "at least 1,200 lbs/day, with an objective of 2,400 lbs per day". Near the bottom of the solicitation it requests a "containerized system producing 200 lbs per day".
- Which ice maker size is preferred?
- Would the large size (which would produce ice more efficiently) be responsive to this solicitation?

A: Based on a requirement for ice production in-theater, CASCOM (Combined Arms Support Command) requested that NSRDEC initiate a Joint Service Need for Battlefield Ice Supply. That project seeks to provide 1200-2400 lbs/day for troops at 150-man Forward Operating Bases, extending to 5000-10,000 lbs/day for 600-man camps. A single system
could provide this much ice, may or may not be more efficient -- and the equipment eventually developed under that program may indeed be that large.

This solicitation, however, is focused on smaller units -- 200 lbs/day threshold, 250 lbs/day goal -- because that will be a manageable platform on which to vet innovative technologies for increasing efficiency and enabling the application of renewable energy sources. An additional advantage to smaller units is modularity.

Q: Are there funds set aside for Phase III?

A: Last year, the Army established the Commercialization Pilot Program (CPP) and set aside funding for SBIR Phase II Enhancements to encourage commercialization of SBIR technologies. This is not Phase III money, per se, but might be you mean. It is at least one source set aside for the purpose of funding the transition of promising technologies from development to production for military and commercial use. There may be other sources.

Because so much can happen between conceptualization and fruition, no one knows ahead of time whether a technology will work, be needed three years from now when a Phase II is complete, or whether it will be suitable for either military or commercial use. As such, CPP and Enhancement money is not preprogrammed for individual topics; competition for it takes place closer to the end of Phase II, and there is limited funding.

To attract interest up front, your proposal should describe the anticipated need for and application of your technology in both the military and commercial realms, and how it will be marketed. You might wish to identify sources of venture capital, linkages with other programs, partners, expected market size, etc.

These days the biggest attractor is fuel and water savings, because the Fully Burdened Cost in terms of dollars and lives is so high.

Q: Why must the solution be innovative?
Will you consider a more conventional approach?

A: First off, despite its name -- Small Business Innovation Research -- the program is actually about promoting research and technology that is itself innovative. Secondly, our group operates in the 6.2/6.3 funding categories, and embraces innovation as a means to either solve existing problems, or improve existing equipment in areas such as cost;
simplicity; reliability; size; weight; maintainability; and type, quantity and efficiency of power consumption. Application of preexisting solutions and preexisting systems to military use is performed by other teams and must be funded via sources other than the SBIR program.

All technologies proposed will be judged based on their merits; you need to make the case that yours is the best. Demonstrating feasibility is key, so we need to understand the technology -- not only how it differs from previous state-of-the-art relative to its own general class, but also how it compares to other approaches that might be proposed or that you had considered proposing yourself.

Q: Are you looking for a paper study?
Do you want a full-blown prototype?

A: What we want out of Phase I is somewhere between the two. We have found that -anyone- can do a paper study, and we don't want you to be doing most of your thinking about the problem after- you have started the project. We need to be convinced you have thought about the problem a great deal ahead of time and have a bit of a running start.

A production prototype is beyond the scope of what can be done for $70k in 6 months, so in the 6.2 - 6.3 arena we are looking for a result that can be demonstrated in hardware on a bench-top -- preferably the whole system, but at least the major subsystem(s). We want the design validated through material demonstration of some of the more critical,
interesting and unproven components. Ordinary, well-understood components may not need to be demonstrated. A bench-top prototype need not be complete, pretty, or to-scale -- but it should be convincing. The design work and material demonstration in Phase I should show that the concept system as configured is going in the right direction.
Hardware demonstration in Phase I will go a long way toward starting Phase II off on the right foot; because, by the end of Phase II the project should result in hardware mature enough that it can be demonstrated in an environment highly representative of where it would actually be used.

Q: Are you wedded to any particular technology?
Do you have a particular company you plan to award this to?

A: No, we have yet to see an existing solution to this problem, and hope to identify some very innovative, alternative technologies through this SBIR solicitation. We are open to a diversity of approaches, and we hope to hear from a variety of companies.

Your job is to make a case for your technology. If it is very distinctive and unfamiliar, you need us to fully understand it. You might need to break down any preconceptions so we don't disregard your concept out of ignorance. Explain how it will work for our applications. Demonstrate its level of maturity. Feasibility includes
cost and manufacturability.

If your technology appears very ordinary, you might wish to compare it to other technologies; show why it is better than those that might appear similar, but are not; show us how an old idea has been improved.

Q: Would proposing a pre-chiller for the water, with no modifications to the ice-making equipment, be responsive to the topic?

A: Chilling a large vessel of water is a very interesting way to fully utilize solar energy. That chilled water could be used for air conditioning, beverages, and reducing the load on ice making equipment. If this is the entire proposal, however, it would be judged as not responsive to this particular topic. This topic was designed to identify new and innovative designs for the ice-making equipment itself.

Q: Would a proposal for an ice making device that works extremely well in deserts, but not so well in jungles, be considered compliant?

A: Yes, we will consider such equipment to be responsive to the solicitation. Be aware that it may be judged as lacking versatility; however, versatility is only one measure of merit. If it offers distinct advantages, such as excellent efficiency, high reliability, very low weight, and/or is very compact, the inability to operate effectively in jungles may be perceived as less important.

It is possible that equipment optimized for a specific climate could easily be converted for use in an alternative environment. If that is the case with your design, it would be good to point that out.

Since we design meal systems, tents and clothing for both hot and cold environments, why shouldn't we also design equipment optimized to dry vs. humid environments? With the recognition these days that energy is a major expense and vulnerability, there is greater willingness to create a diversity of tools, each right for the job.

Q: 1. Can we propose developing just a portion of the system?
2. How complete must the initial Phase I prototype be?

A: The main point of the project is to focus on developing an ice maker that meets the production-rate and efficiency goals described in the solicitation, and that is capable of operating in demanding environments. The ice maker should be developed as a whole; we are not interested in only the refrigeration system, only the freezing surface,
or only the harvest mechanism.

This is not to say that all subsystems will require the same amount of effort and innovation. Many components might simply be off-the-shelf and perhaps remain un-optimized in Phase I, while development might be far more involved for other subsystems.

The prototype in Phase I does not need to be complete and lovely, it only needs to validate the concept through hardware on a benchtop; that is, it only needs to be as advanced as necessary to demonstrate potential. In particular, we expect details/refinements -- such as automation via electronic controls -- will be left to Phase II and merely conceptualized in Phase I. Still, offeror's proposals will be
judged based on how advanced their conceptualization is.

Integration with solar is another side to development. The solar component is highly desired, but it is recognized its development may be beyond what can be accomplished within the limited time and budget, depending on how much work needs to be performed on the ice maker itself.

Q: What is the expected service interval?

A: We are not specifying a service interval at this time without knowing what the technological solution is. Like efficiency, weight, and power consumption, your best bet is demonstrate how your design will minimize the necessity for repair, maintenance, and maintenance parts.

Naturally, simple service items are less of a burden to perform frequently than complex tasks. Filters that can be cleaned rather than replaced are always preferred. Consider what the consequences are to a system if a particular service is inadvertently skipped or delayed; does it lead merely to a temporary decrease in performance, or could it lead
to catastrophic failure?

Q: How many of these systems might be procured?

A: That is impossible to know at this early stage. There are 800 forward operating bases currently in Iraq, and all of them need ice. Procurement quantities will depend on how successful (measured in terms of efficiency, cost and effectiveness) the resulting system is, how long the war continues, and how much money the DoD has available to spend.

Q: What might the cost per system be?

A: As inexpensive as possible, of course. ;-) We are not going to quantify at this early stage in development. Rely on common sense to decide what you think might be marketable. If the new equipment offers valuable capabilities, this may command a premium over commercial equipment. Fuel savings, maintenance savings and other lifecycle cost savings might all warrant such a premium.

Q: How must the efficiency be measured?

A: We have been using unit-of-ice/unit-of-energy as an efficiency metric. But the important thing to keep in mind here is that you are designing to a purpose, not a number. The purpose is to use as little energy as possible to produce and store the needed quantity of ice. The number quoted in the solicitation was to give you a vague but lofty target.

Q: Is the 11 kW-hrs of energy availability electrical or thermal?

A: The 11 kW-hrs number is the expected average daily electricity available from a reasonably-sized (defined at this point to be 3 kW) photovoltaic array. A thermal array of similar area would likely harvest more energy, but may result in the same amount of cooling, depending on the efficiency of the refrigeration system.

Q: The solicitation mentioned sanitation; should the system incorporate bacteria/virus/mould remediation measures?

A: The system should be designed against the proliferation of biohazards, but developing subsystems (e.g.., ultraviolet radiation or ozone treatment) for that at this time might expand the scope of development unmanageably beyond what is solicited. Thinking ahead is a good thing, however, so some conceptualization would be useful.

Q: Do you wish to have desalination capabilities?

A: No, like biohazard remediation equipment, that would drive the scope of the project beyond the prime intent. Adding features can come later.

Q: Is there a preferred container for the system?

A: The Army really likes ISO containers, but if the proposed 250 lb/day system is small enough, there's no sense in dedicating an entire container when a standard pallet will do. On the other hand, pretty much everything is transported with containers, so if the system fits snuggly inside a container with space to store ancillary components and/or solar panels, that could make sense.

Q: Is there a container size that is too large?

A: The smaller the better; however, we are not expecting this to be as small as a dishwasher or as large as a 20' ISO container.

Q: Do we supply the solar panels, or will they be available on site?

A: Ideally, solar panels will be issued to camps separately, just like ordinary diesel gensets. We expect the researcher to use their own panels during the project to prove efficacy, but they are not necessarily part of the ice maker system as produced and shipped to a theater of war.

We see refrigeration systems and solar arrays as separate systems. If sufficiently successful, simply making a refrigeration system more efficient enables it to pay for itself. Adding solar is icing on the cake.

Still, there may be cases where the panels are specific to the ice maker -- most likely in the case of heat-driven systems -- and therefore they should accompany the system.

Q: Do you prefer heat-driven or electrically-driven systems?

A: We have no preference. It is up to you to make the case for one or the other, and to pit the two against each other. When proposing a heat-driven system that relies on toxic or flammable working fluids, it will be important to describe how any dangers are mitigated. Also, durability, reliability, weight and cost of the solar energy harvesting
array must be discussed.

Q: Do you wish to have the system provide waste heat for heating water or shelters?

A: System interdependence (leading to the term "System of Systems") is a great way to boost overall camp efficiency, but designing for that at this point would likely overextend project scope. However, your offer might be more robust if you can demonstrate that your concept design is amenable to modification toward future integration with other camp
equipment.

Q: Additional information from TPOC for A10-164:

1. What is the ice used for?
A: Soldiers use ice to meet a wide variety of group and personal needs. These include packing small insulated containers to maintain food and beverages while on a mission; packing ice around food in large insulated-but-not-refrigerated containers; dispensing into beverage glasses in the dining facility, or directly into water bottles, including camelbacks; and for medical purposes.

2. Is there a preferred voltage for the system?
A: Many military systems operate from 24-48 VDC, but also 110-440 VAC. Intermediate/equipment-internal voltages may vary. This provides a great deal of leeway. Naturally, higher voltages will require increased safety measures, but are not out of the question.

We do not wish to specify a voltage at this time; because, various motors offer various advantages with regard to cost, efficiency, weight, size, torque, reliability, environmental sealing (and therefore heat rejection), commonality with other systems, and suitability to variable-speed drive.

Furthermore, the importance of electricity varies from technology to technology. A heat-driven system uses much less electricity than conventional vapor-compression systems, and therefore doesn't suffer as much of a penalty if electronic components are not optimized.

Many solar arrays being developed by our Shelters group are 24-28 VDC, but we have also seen some designs configured to produce higher voltages (300 VDC) for greater efficiency, especially when mated to high-voltage motors.

3. How much of a guarantee do we have of the water supply purity?
A: Water provided to base camps comes from a variety of sources. These include bottles, tanks, and even wells. The degree of purity is therefore likely to range wildly, as will contaminant constituency. It is, however guaranteed to be potable.

4. Must the system come with a container for storing the ice?
A: Yes, the system needs a retention vessel suitable to buffer 150 lbs of ice to support surge periods or production deficits. The ice must move automatically into the vessel. If the buffer system is simple, it might not be a focus of Phase I material development, but must be conceptualized so as not to neglect any part of the system early in the
design process. If it is somehow unique to the ice dispensing configuration and therefore non-trivial, it must be part of the Phase I material development.

5. The proposal calls for water savings. How high a priority is this? If we at least meet conventional water management standards, is that acceptable?
A: Although the topic references systems for which water efficiency is 90%, commercial systems are common in which water efficiency is only 70%. Such inefficiencies are necessary to remove contaminants so the ice produced is clear and tasteless, and some designs remove contaminants to prevent buildup on certain ice production components.

Like fuel, water is very expensive in-theater, so tradeoffs must be evaluated. We expect that if the water supply taste is acceptable, the ice taste will be too; therefore, waste solely to improve taste is not worth the tradeoff. If a design requires increased water inefficiencies to achieve greater fuel efficiencies, the tradeoff must be studied closely.

Applying evaporative means of improving refrigeration system performance -- offsetting fuel consumption with water consumption -- will also require tradeoff analysis.

6. The solicitation mentions solar power, but stops short of other renewable power production methods. Are you only considering solar, or would other renewable sources also be of interest?
A: All renewable energy sources are of interest. Offerors must describe, for their proposed source, how the equipment will manage with a variable and limited energy supply, predictability of the supply, and the reliability implications. Although the main purpose of this effort is to reduce the fuel consumed in the process of making ice, reliability will always be the number one goal of any fielded system.

7. What are the evaluation criteria?
A: Yes, companies that have received debriefs in the past know what the evaluation criteria is, but new respondents do not.

The three areas proposal evaluators must address in narrative form are:
1) Soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution;
2) Qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants -- qualifications include not only the ability to perform the research and development, but also the ability to commercialize the results; and
3) Potential for commercial (Government or private sector) application and benefits expected to accrue from this commercialization.

Note that these days the Army is very, very focused on quantifying Return on Investment for all development funds and the anticipated lifecycle costs of fielding equipment; therefore, it is important that offerors demonstrate the economic benefits the Army can expect.

8. Can the ice be wet?
A: That would depend on how wet it is. If it is too wet, this represents water waste and could create puddling in the buffer bin. Wetness might also increase the potential to clump in storage, making scooping difficult as the ice ages.

On the other hand, a little extra wetness might be justified if it saves a large amount of fuel and or improves production rate.

Offerors with concepts that produce wet ice should discuss tradeoffs in their proposal.

9. Is meltage permitted?
A: It seems to us that meltage is a form of waste; therefore, with this perspective we are not inclined to look favorably upon a system that incurs such loss. However, it is possible meltage will benefit overall system efficiency. We recommend that all offerors of any concept present an energy and resource flow diagram when quantifying their idea.
This is especially true for concepts that involve meltage.

10. Is the offeror responsible for developing the renewable energy harvesting equipment?
A: No, we are expecting development to focus on the ice maker and its integration with prime, backup and renewable energy sources.

11. Are water supplies pressurized at base camps?
A: No, the ice system will need a pump to draw water from bladders and tanks.

12. Are you looking for the Axaopoulos/Theodoridis solution?
A: No, we are not wedded to a particular technology, and hope to identify some very innovative, alternative technologies through this SBIR solicitation. We are open to a diversity of approaches, and we hope to hear from a variety of companies.

13. Do we need batteries?
A: This will depend on what technology is used to produce the ice, when the ice is produced, and what type of energy is required.

In general, systems that are simple and require less maintenance are preferred, and batteries have limited life and are heavy; therefore, offerors will need to include justification.

Again, a diagram of energy flows and storage will go a long way toward this explanation.

14. Is water storage required?
A: There is no requirement that water be stored in the ice machine. Water will be provided on demand from bladders or tanks.

15. What sort of vibration tests will the system be subject to?
A: It is typical for military designs to be subjected to the Munson Road test, the Belgian Block course, and Rail Impact testing, as well as specific, artificially-generated g-force and vibration profiles. This testing will not take place in SBIR Phase I or II; it is part of product validation as the system moves into planning for production.

Designs should anticipate the effects of off-road mobilization. If offerors are proposing a system that might be seen as fragile in the face of abusive, justification should be offered.

16. Will an environmentally-friendly design get a higher ranking?
A: While the DoD becomes stricter every passing year with regard to environmental requirements, the prime goal will always be mission success. Fortunately, reduction in fuel consumption addresses both. Additional environmental benefits beyond that will not be a major focus, but concept systems must of course adhere to all EPA requirements.

A: o