N254-124 TITLE: Non-Intrusive Sensing for Ship Space and Equipment Monitoring
OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sustainment; Trusted AI and Autonomy
The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.
OBJECTIVE: Develop a non-intrusive comprehensive sensor suite that has the capability to monitor a machinery/shipboard space in its entirety, including machinery health monitoring for equipment within the space.
DESCRIPTION: The current state of shipboard monitoring is that there is a lack of existing sensors on legacy ships or systems that have sensors and are not linked to a standardized and comprehensive closed loop feedback monitoring system.. Current commercial solutions are successful because they use new technology that is built into new systems. However, because the Navy’s systems will need to be retrofit and nonintrusive systems, current commercial systems do not sufficiently answer this problem. Additionally, the current state of shipboard monitoring systems is insufficient at capturing certain types of data, including high speed vibration. As a result, the Navy seeks to develop a combination of heterogeneous, nonintrusive sensing methods to better develop prognostic and diagnostic tools for shipboard machinery monitoring.
The proposed system shall be capable of monitoring machinery systems, machinery subsystems, and full platform spaces through non-intrusive wired and/or wireless sensing. The proposed system shall be integrated either individually on Navy systems or as a dedicated package for space monitoring. Data flow from all sensors shall be stored, processed, and managed at a centralized node for continuous monitoring with automated data collection methods. The centralized node shall allow for data transfer and exfiltration through direct connection, removable media, and wireless transfer. Data transfer methods shall be standard and non-proprietary. The proposed system shall be capable of ingesting, processing, and analyzing the aggregated data to provide diagnostic and prognostic assessments of space characterization and machinery health. One potential application the Navy plans to potentially use this data for is battle damage assessment and repair to quickly identify and categorize issues in a monitored space.
The proposed system shall be capable of operating in a minimally intrusive and/or non-invasive capacity with limited local power. The sensor suite shall target machinery/space health characterization through a combination of metrics including, but not limited to, acceleration, vibration, thermal, acoustic, ultrasonic, optical, pressure, power, and electrical responses. Collected data should be in standard, non-proprietary formats for accessible management and processing through third-party and Navy-owned data processing systems. The proposed system shall meet NAVSEA Cybersecurity requirements for data acquisition, storage, and transmission.
The following should be addressed: (1) a sample shipboard machinery space should be selected as the monitoring target, (2) an itemized bill of materials for the necessary sensors, mounting, and electrical hardware needed to satisfy aforementioned solution requirements, (3) a breakdown of the data structure including sensor nomenclature/data ontology, flow, and handling protocols for transmission to the centralized node and beyond, and (4) a full system feasibility analysis and conceptual design proposal.
PHASE I: Develop a concept and demonstrate the feasibility of a proposed sensor suite for shipboard space/machinery health monitoring. This sensor suite shall ensure that all sourced hardware and software solutions are capable of performing within the operating conditions of the identified shipboard machinery space. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.
PHASE II: Following a detailed assessment of the conceptual design proposal, develop and deliver a prototype capable of demonstrating the system’s capability for shipboard space/machinery health monitoring. This entails: (1) procuring the necessary hardware components as identified in the validated bill of materials, (2) instrumenting the target machinery space/equipment with hardware using the planned wired/wireless transmission modes to the centralized node, (3) collecting simulated "healthy" and "anomalous" data to detail handling procedure, and (4) sample continuous monitoring demonstration which includes detection and simultaneous notification/correction of anomalous machinery behavior. Detailed documentation of the relevant costs for procurement, software development, and labor shall be presented in a cost benefit analysis. The deliverables for Phase II include developing a plan to obtain a Navy Certification for shipboard installation, which shall justify a further investment for scaling the proposed solution for installation in a Navy-owned land-based or shipboard facility. A plan for Phase III installation, testing, and validation shall be developed.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Construct a full-scale prototype for installation onboard a Navy ship and/or land-based test facility. This entails (1) adapting Phase II prototype to conform to target space and machinery, (2) installation of full-scale prototype in the identified space, and (3) conduct performance testing to verify and validate system operation.
This system can be used for private sector or commercial activity that has a need to maintain health monitoring and assessments of products.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: Vibration; Humidity; Temperature; Acoustics; Data acquisition; Analysis; Measurements; Data Encryption; In-situ Monitoring; Sensor Fusion; Condition Based Maintenance; Non-intrusive sensing
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoD 25.4 Release 11 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoD Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates. The DoD issued its Navy 25.4 Release 11 SBIR Topics pre-release on August 6, 2025 which opens to receive proposals on August 27, 2025, and closes September 27, 2025 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (August 6, 2025, through August 26, 2025) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. The TPOC contact information is listed in each topic description. Once DoD begins accepting proposals on August 27, 2025 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period. DoD On-line Q&A System: After the pre-release period, until September 10, 2025, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoD On-line Topic Q&A at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login/ by logging in and following instructions. In the Topic Q&A system, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing. DoD Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoD Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoD Components participating in this BAA.
|
| 9/10/25 | Q. | Would the government consider extending the Phase I proposal deadline to 10 October to allow for incorporation of responses to the questions being asked? |
| A. | No. This topic will follow the dates/times associated with the 25.4 Release 11 BAA. | |
| 9/10/25 | Q. | What was the intent of providing Reference 2 ""INTERCEPTORNXCS." Network Integrity Systems, April 2024. https://www.networkintegritysystems.com/interceptor-products" ?
Are the proposal suppose to include this product line? |
| A. | This was provided as an example/for reference. | |
| 9/10/25 | Q. | What/which NAVSEA sybersecurity requirement are needed to be addressed during the phase I and option proposals? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/10/25 | Q. | Is it expected that a Large Language Model type of AI system to be included in this project or is this a machine learning development effort? |
| A. | Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topics responses proposed. Please refer to the topic description. | |
| 9/10/25 | Q. | Can you provided a “sample shipboard machinery space” with associated equipment that would require monitoring? |
| A. | This information will be provided to Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/10/25 | Q. | Is the government imagining this system to incorporate machine vision elements or if it's strictly collecting/processing sensor data? |
| A. | Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topics responses proposed. Please refer to the topic description. | |
| 9/9/25 | Q. | Is the bill of materials a phase 1 or a phase 2 deliverable? |
| A. | Phase I | |
| 9/5/25 | Q. | Proposal Phase II includes “sample continuous monitoring demonstration which includes detection and simultaneous notification/correction of anomalous machinery behavior” – Is there a preferred method of notification? |
| A. | This BAA will focus only on Phase I submissions. Full expectations for Phase II will be shared with Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/5/25 | Q. | In the Phase II section, how is the process of “correction” intended to work? Are automations desired or is the intention to provide alerts and directions (via e.g. text or email) so that a human in the loop can correct the issue? |
| A. | This BAA will focus only on Phase I submissions. Full expectations for Phase II will be shared with Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/5/25 | Q. | One of your references is an IEEE paper doing machine learning on video of machinery for anomaly detection – Is there a priority or an interest in development of diagnostics for anomalies? Or is the priority to provide interoperability with that type of component? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/5/25 | Q. | What are the current operational limitations of the Navy shipboard monitoring and of the existing technological approaches? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/5/25 | Q. | Will any datasets related to machinery or structural failures be available to support the development of machine learning algorithms for autonomous detection and prediction? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | What specific deliverables are expected at the conclusion of Phase I and the Phase I Option period?
Are there required documentation formats, submission platforms, or configuration baselines for feasibility reports and design artifacts? |
| A. | Please review the Navy SBIR instruction document for this announcement. In the section titled Contract Deliverables you will see a listing of typical deliverables for Phase I: a kick-off brief, progress reports, and a final report. Required contract deliverables will be communicated to Phase I awardee(s) in the contract award. | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Are there legacy platforms or modernization programs (e.g., ICAS, SHIPALTS, CBM+) that this system must interface with?
Will interface specifications or API documentation be made available to support planning for future integration? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Will the Navy provide a transition sponsor or stakeholder organization to support path-to-fielding for successful Phase I concepts?
Are there defined transition criteria or metrics for moving from Phase I to Phase II? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Who are the expected primary users of the system outputs (e.g., shipboard crew, damage control teams, maintenance planners)?
Will end-user or fleet stakeholder feedback be available during Phase I to shape functional requirements and interface expectations? What classes of operational decisions will the system be expected to support (e.g., preventive maintenance scheduling, condition-based alerts)? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Will the system, even in prototype form, require an Authority to Operate (ATO) to run on Navy networks?
Which specific Navy cybersecurity frameworks or validation protocols (e.g., NIST SP 800-171, RMF, DoD-specific checklists) must be followed during Phase I development? Can the Navy provide a cybersecurity liaison or point of contact to ensure alignment during development? |
| A. | Please review the topic. The Phase I scope is to "Develop a concept and demonstrate the feasibility of a proposed sensor suite for shipboard space/machinery health monitoring." Cybersecurity information will be provided to Phase I awardees. | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Is shipboard demonstration expected during Phase I, or is lab-based analog testing sufficient to meet Phase I objectives?
For Phase I validation, is a bench-level mockup (e.g., simulated engine bay or compartment) acceptable if it replicates key environmental parameters? |
| A. | Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topics responses proposed. | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | What level of multi-modal sensor fusion is appropriate for Phase I—proof-of-concept across modalities (e.g., acoustic, thermal, electrical), or depth in a single domain?
Are there Navy-preferred data fusion standards (e.g., OPC-UA, MQTT, NMEA 2000) or ontologies that proposals should align with? Will synthetic or simulated data be acceptable to support algorithm training and feasibility demonstration in Phase I, given the likely lack of operational ground-truth datasets? |
| A. | Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topics responses proposed. Additional information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | What shock grade (e.g., MIL-STD-901D Grade A) and vibration tolerance (e.g., MIL-STD-167) are required for Phase I vs. Phase II prototypes?
What environmental survivability thresholds (e.g., high heat, humidity, post-fire conditions) should be assumed to ensure system viability during and after battle damage events? Should the BDA scope include real-time detection of emergent failures in addition to long-term degradation monitoring? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | What sensor types or modalities (if any) are currently deployed on the targeted class(es), and how does the Navy envision extending or complementing them?
What is the expected data transmission range to the centralized node, particularly given shipboard compartmentalization and structural interference? Is there a preferred system architecture for node-to-node communication (e.g., point-to-point vs. multi-hop mesh networking), especially in steel-walled environments? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Which ship class(es) (e.g., DDG, CG, CVN) are prioritized for this SBIR effort?
Will ship-specific GFI (e.g., design drawings, compartment layouts, legacy sensor configurations) be provided at contract award? If not, what is the anticipated timeline for delivery? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 9/3/25 | Q. | Is the Navy seeking to adapt the Submarine Force’s Total Ship Monitoring System to surface ship platforms, or is this effort intended to develop a distinct system for surface ship classes?
Has the Surface Navy evaluated or validated submarine-based monitoring technologies for applicability in this domain? |
| A. | This information will be shared with Phase I awardees | |
| 8/29/25 | Q. | How much emphasis should be placed on asset health monitoring compared to battle damage assessment. Does one have greater importance for this application or are they equally important? |
| A. | Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topics responses proposed | |
| 8/29/25 | Q. | If the small business is selected/awarded for phase 1, would a list of potential assets and spaces would be provided or would the small business have to make a reasonable assumption for this during the phase 1 effort? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | What are Navy's preferred approaches for non-intrusive sensor mounting and power management in representative machinery spaces: battery-powered autonomous nodes, energy harvesting, or hybrid approaches; and should Phase I feasibility studies prioritize multi-hop mesh networking resilience for steel-walled environments or point-to-point wireless reliability? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | Given the Navy's emphasis on multi-sensor fusion and standardized data formats, what level of heterogeneous sensor integration complexity should Phase I target; should the conceptual design prioritize cross-modal sensor fusion (vibration, acoustic, thermal, electrical. etc.) with real-time data correlation, or focus on a single sensing modality with robust wireless transmission architecture? Additionally, are there preferred data fusion standards (NMEA 2000, OPC-UA, MQTT) or cybersecurity-compliant communication protocols (LoRaWAN vs. other LPWAN technologies) that align with NAVSEA's condition-based maintenance plus (CBM+) implementation strategy? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | Since the call notes dual-use, would the Navy value architectures that naturally extend to commercial industrial settings (factories, HVAC systems, power plants), or is that secondary? |
| A. | As noted in the instruction, the DON SBIR/STTR Programs are mission-oriented programs that integrate the needs and requirements of the DON’s Fleet through research and development (R&D) topics that have dual-use potential, but primarily address the needs of the DON. In a proposal, a firm will provide a plan for commercializing their proposed technology in DoD, other Federal Agencies, and private sector markets. The commercialization plan will be specific to your proposed technology. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | For Phase II, should prototypes be designed for full compartment coverage (tens to hundreds of sensors) or is demonstrating localized monitoring sufficient? |
| A. | This BAA will focus only on Phase I submissions. Full expectations for Phase II will be shared with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | For Phase I, is the Navy expecting bench-level feasibility studies (e.g. a mockup engine bay), testing in a Navy-furnished space, or something else? |
| A. | Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topics responses proposed. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | The call specifies “limited local power.” Will solutions that harvest energy (vibration, thermal differentials, RF) be considered compliant, or must they tie into existing shipboard power? |
| A. | Please refer to the topic Description. "The proposed system shall be capable of operating in a minimally intrusive and/or non-invasive capacity with limited local power." Additional requirements will be provided upon award. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | Is there a preference between wired vs wireless links to the centralized node, especially given shipboard cybersecurity and RF spectrum management constraints? |
| A. | Please refer to the topic description. Proposals will be reviewed based upon the different topic responses proposed. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | Is survivability in high-temperature/humidity machinery spaces (but not necessarily fire zones) sufficient, or should we anticipate harsher battle damage environments from the start? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | For sensor substrates, what are the Navy’s expectations regarding qualification against MIL-STD-901D shock and MIL-STD-167 vibration in Phase I vs Phase II? |
| A. | This BAA will focus only on Phase I submissions. Full expectations for Phase II will be shared with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | Are there preferred standards for data formatting (e.g. NIEM, DoD standard ontologies) or will a documented open schema be sufficient? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | The call requires data to be stored/processed at a centralized node. Would architectures with edge-level pre-processing (e.g. local anomaly detection on each node, then compressed transmission) be acceptable if they meet Navy cybersecurity requirements? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | The call lists a broad set of modalities (vibration, thermal, acoustic, ultrasonic, optical, electrical). Should offerors prioritize comprehensive multimodal coverage in one suite, or is demonstrating high-fidelity monitoring in a few modalities acceptable for Phase I? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | Does “non-intrusive” strictly mean no physical contact/penetration of systems, or does it include minimally invasive surface attachment (adhesive-based sensing layers)? |
| A. | Non-intrusive sensing refers to methods of data acquisition and monitoring that do not require the system under test to be physically penetrated or otherwise modified | |
| 8/26/25 | Q. | The call emphasizes non-intrusive and retrofit-friendly sensors. Would the Navy be open to approaches where sensors are deployed as thin films, stickers, or tapes (rather than conventional mounted boxes) if they meet environmental and MIL-STD requirements? |
| A. | This information will be discussed with Phase I awardees. | |
| 8/25/25 | Q. | Is there a requirement to have both sending hardware and software in-house? |
| A. | Please refer to the topic description. | |
| 8/22/25 | Q. | For Phase I demonstration, what types of test environments are acceptable? Would testing in a laboratory analog environment that simulates key shipboard conditions (vibration, temperature, acoustic, electrical) be acceptable, or is demonstration in an actual shipboard environment required? |
| A. | The requirement for PHASE I is to develop the concept and demonstrate the feasibility of a proposed sensor suite for shipboard space/machinery health monitoring. Test environments, including laboratory analog environments, that are able to demonstrate feasibility are acceptable. E | |
| 8/22/25 | Q. | Centralized architecture & data management: For the central node, how will the data be used? If this can't be answered, can you let us know how much data should be stored vs. summarized features only? |
| A. | Please refer to the topic description: "The proposed system shall be capable of ingesting, processing, and analyzing the aggregated data to provide diagnostic and prognostic assessments of space characterization and machinery health. One potential application the Navy plans to potentially use this data for is battle damage assessment and repair to quickly identify and categorize issues in a monitored space." | |
| 8/22/25 | Q. | Communications: 1. Are there existing wireless protocols / implementations that we can utilize 2. For wireless network, what cybersecurity requirements apply ? |
| A. | 1. Please refer to the topic references section. 2. Cybersecurity requirements will be provided upon Phase I award to Phase I awardees. |
|
| 8/22/25 | Q. | Priority events/conditions: 1. Which event classes are most critical to detect? Wear / gradual degradation vs emergency / damage assessment? 2. Output requirement: When an event is detected, what is requirement related to output including location precision (for example, within certain meters, or component-level)? |
| A. | 1. Proposals should consider detection for both wear and emergent performance issues
2. Please refer to the topic description. |
|
| 8/22/25 | Q. | What equipment you are targeting first?
What common problems are you hoping to catch? Are there any solutions you find very compelling whose features you would want to see incorporated? |
| A. |
|
|
| 8/21/25 | Q. | If the desired sensor suite and data concentrator will be integrated with legacy machinery, can specifications and/or an IDD be provided for legacy machinery? |
| A. | NAVSEA will work with Phase I awardees to identify candidate equipment and spaces . Information and requirements will be provided during Phase I. Sensors shall be non-intrusive, minimally intrusive and/or non-invasive. | |
| 8/21/25 | Q. | What is meant by non-intrusive sensing methods? Please distinguish if this is different from many SCADA systems which require wired connections to sensors and probes within the machinery. |
| A. | Non-intrusive sensing refers to methods of data acquisition and monitoring that do not require the system under test to be physically penetrated or otherwise modified. | |
| 8/21/25 | Q. | Can you provide examples on the types or categories of machinery systems/subsystems to be monitored? |
| A. | Machinery and spaces will be provided during Phase I. | |
| 8/21/25 | Q. | Is it acceptable to run new communication cables between compartments or across the ship, or would that be a cost-prohibitive retrofit? |
| A. | Communication across compartments and installation of new communications cables is outside scope of this project. | |
| 8/21/25 | Q. | What cables or network interfaces will be available for communication across compartments in the ship, if any? e.g. MCS/IPMS networks? |
| A. | Topic is focused on machinery and shipboard space monitoring. Communication across compartments is outside scope of this project. Communications will leverage existing networks. | |
| 8/19/25 | Q. | What are the local power limitations and/or requirements? |
| A. | Please refer to the topic Description. "The proposed system shall be capable of operating in a minimally intrusive and/or non-invasive capacity with limited local power." Additional requirements will be provided upon award. | |
| 8/19/25 | Q. | Is the system as proposed classified and/or handling classified data? |
| A. | CUI, unclassified. | |
| 8/19/25 | Q. | What are the specific NAVSEA Cybersecurity requirements for “data acquisition, storage, and transmission?” |
| A. | Cybersecurity requirements will be provided upon award. | |
| 8/19/25 | Q. | Is there a preferred data transfer method between direct connection, removable media, or wireless transfer? |
| A. | Please refer to the topic Description. "The proposed system shall be capable of monitoring machinery systems, machinery subsystems, and full platform spaces through non-intrusive wired and/or wireless sensing." "The centralized node shall allow for data transfer and exfiltration through direct connection, removable media, and wireless transfer. Data transfer methods shall be standard and non-proprietary. " |