DON26BZ01-NV015 TITLE: Virtual Reality Model Walkthrough
OUSW (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Advanced Computing and Software
PROJECTED CMMC LEVEL REQUIREMENT: Level 2 (Self)
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 software for a commercially available Virtual Reality (VR) headset to view new ship construction models in an immersive environment.
DESCRIPTION: When constructing a DDG-51 Class Destroyer, Navy engineers regularly need to perform design reviews to verify and validate proposed ship changes. Currently, these design reviews are held using screenshots and model sharing of the ship’s Computer Aided Design (CAD) models. However, 2D rendering of 3D spaces and objects can make it challenging to assess the actual layout and configuration of items. This can lead to errors in the ship design process, requiring costly rework later in the ship construction cycle.
The Navy seeks an innovative solution for VR software that allows Navy engineers to view the ship construction models as though they were standing in space. The proposed solution would allow the shipbuilder and the Navy to be better able to detect and correct errors early in the construction process. Additionally, such software could be used to train new engineers in the layout and navigation of the ship before they board it for the first time. There is currently no commercial technology that can meet this need.
The development of VR software faces several technical challenges. First, the shipyards use Computer Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA) and Ship Constructor CAD models. The VR model must be capable of accurately using the outputs of both these CAD programs. The Navy understands this can be difficult and will require good knowledge of CAD file formats. Secondly, the user must be able to navigate virtual space and manipulate the environment. Many VR programs have some form of self-directed navigation. Destroyer spaces can have complex interior layouts and minimizing any motion sickness the user might experience while navigating VR can be a challenge. The solution should be able to load and view multiple CAD files, navigating between them with minimal lag and overlaying them to view discrepancies.
PHASE I: Develop a concept for a VR Model Walkthrough solution that meets the requirements listed in the Description. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs and establish that the concept can be developed into a useful product for the Navy. Feasibility will be established via a program demo or other means deemed appropriate. 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: Based on the results of Phase I, develop and deliver a prototype VR Model Walkthrough solution. The prototype software will be evaluated to determine capability in meeting the performance goals defined in the Phase II Statement of Work. Product performance will be demonstrated through multiple evaluations over the development cycle. An extended test by Navy personnel will be used to refine the prototype into a design that meets Navy requirements. Prepare a Phase III manufacturing and development plan to transition the Virtual Reality Model Walkthrough to Navy use.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. Develop operations, maintenance, and technical manuals for the software to support the transition to the Navy.
There are many potential commercial applications for a VR Model to aid engineering design and training. Notable examples include commercial construction, commercial shipbuilding, architecture, and test and research reactors.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: Virtual Reality (VR); Ship Design; 3D Software; CAD Models; Ship Construction; Self-Directed Navigation in VR
| 5/18/26 | Q. | Is a business which is not considered a small business allowed to make a proposal on this SBIR? |
| A. | No, this opportunity is only available to small businesses. | |
| 5/14/26 | Q. | Will the Navy provide a simplified ship model in which to place and orient the user and the user-selected *.stp model(s)? For example, if the selected model is of a new piece of hardware is in the galley, will the Navy want to include a low-fidelity model of the galley and of the ship as a "container" space? Or does the Navy want the equipment models to be simply loaded into a proposer-designed environment?
For context, in answer to a question posted on 4/15/2026, the Navy stated, "For example, if a piece of equipment was moved from port to starboard, then by switching between the before and after models one could see the where the equipment was and where it is currently. Or by viewing both models simultaneously (at partial transparency), one could see the equipment in both locations." This would seem to indicate that a common container space model will be part of the solution, either separate or integrated into the two models to be compared. |
| A. | The Navy receives STEP files from the shipbuilders as completed compartments or zones, not as individual pieces of equipment. There is not a need for a container space. | |
| 5/13/26 | Q. | The topic description references both CATIA and ShipConstructor as the CAD platforms used for DDG-51 Class design reviews. Can you confirm whether the VR solution is expected to support native ShipConstructor file formats directly, or whether ShipConstructor models will be provided in a neutral exchange format (e.g., STEP, IGES, IFC, or DWG) for ingestion by the proposed software? Additionally, is there a preferred or required ShipConstructor version the solution should target? |
| A. | VR solution should support a STEP file integration, for commonality with various CAD programs. There is no preferred ShipConstructor version | |
| 5/5/26 | Q. | 1. File Formats: Which file formats will the client provide? Are you providing raw CAD files, or specific CATIA extensions such as stl format?
2. File Scale: Is there a minimum or maximum limit on the number of files or total project size? Additionally, what is the average file size we should optimize for? 3. Environmental Manipulation: Regarding the requirement to "manipulate the environment," could you clarify the expected level of interaction? Does this refer to structural changes (removing walls/items) or functional interactions (opening doors, operating hatches, etc.)? 4. Naming Conventions & Hierarchy: Do you use a standardized naming convention (e.g., "floor_level_1", "stairs_level_2")? Furthermore, is there a predefined assembly hierarchy or grouping (e.g., a "Room_1" parent folder containing "Door," "Hatch," and "Station" child objects)? Can we see examples of your CAD naming conventions? 5. Model Overlays: Regarding overlapping models, should we use transparency/ghosting to distinguish between them? How many models are expected to overlap simultaneously? 6. Comparison Mode: Should model overlays and discrepancy marking occur at a 1:1 scale while "walking" through the model, or via a miniature "dollhouse" view? 7. Instance Loading: How many high-fidelity models need to be loaded into the scene at the same time? 8. Navigation Mechanics: What are the required locomotion methods for VR? Should we implement zone-based hopping, a teleportation list, "spectator" (flying) mode, or room-scale physical walking? 9. Issue Reporting: When an engineer identifies a discrepancy, how should they report it? Is a virtual 3D marker, a screenshot, or an integrated annotation tool required? 10. Load Time Expectations: What is the target "time-to-load" for a standard model? - Classification level 3 - 11. Element Selection: Is individual component selection required (e.g., clicking on a specific table or stair to view its properties)? 12. Multiplayer/Collaboration: Is multi-user support required for remote collaboration (either now or as a future-proofed feature)? 13. Performance Metrics: What are the target performance benchmarks? Specifically, what is the maximum allowable load time and the minimum required FPS (Frames Per Second) to ensure user comfort in VR? 14. Scale Accuracy: What is the maximum allowable margin of error for scale and measurements when converting from CAD to the metric system in VR? 15. Component Control: |
| A. | 1. The system should be able to ingest STEP files (.stp file extension). STEP files contain all of the physical geometry we're looking for, and is a standard file format that most CAD programs should be able to export.
2. The system only needs to load two files at a time; the configuration before a space is change and the configuration after it has been changed. The size and complexity of a space and file size can vary, but will average in the 10s of MB to 100s of MB. 3. The file should be "read only" and the user should be able to interact with the environment, such as taking measurements between surfaces or points, or hiding a selected object (or unhiding it). We're not looking to be able to move objects within the VR environment or have objects have "interactable" doors and hatches. 4. There is not a standard naming convention, to my knowledge. 5. You can use ghosting or transparency to distinguish between models. Only two models will be needed to be overlayed. 6. Overlay should be done at 1:1 scale while moving through the model. There is no need for discrepancy marking. 7. Only the two models for overlay. 8. The user will be using the system at a desk or conference table, so navigation should be done with hand-held controllers vice physical walking. There are no preferences for moving, but care should be taken to minimize motion sickness on the user. 9. There is no need for integrated reporting. The plan is to have the new VR system as an additional tool in the established process, so discrepancy reporting will follow the existing format. 10. From the initial STEP file to viewing the model in the headset can take some time to process. - Classification level 3 - 11. While there is no need to view properties of an object/component, users should be able to select objects or surfaces for the purpose of hiding/unhiding and taking measurements. 12. No. This is a single-user experience and should be kept "offline". 13. There are no performance benchmarks at this time. 14. Physical geometry should be on location in the VR environment. It is important that measurements taken in the VR system are accurate to the imported information for its use as a review tool. |
|
| 4/25/26 | Q. | 1. For the Phase I feasibility demo, is the focus compartment-level walkthroughs (machinery spaces, CIC, berthing, mess) rather than full-ship visualization? The topic description suggests the former.
2. What CAD formats do your engineers work with day to day? Native CATIA (CATPart, CATProduct), STEP exports, or both? Same question for Ship Constructor output. 3. Are unclassified sample models available for proposal preparation, or should offerors plan to demonstrate on synthetic geometry? 4. What VR headsets are approved in your working environment? Quest 3 standalone, PCVR options like Index or Varjo, or both? 5. Have prior efforts attempted this capability? If so, what gaps remain that you want this topic to address? |
| A. | 1. The system only needs to work with compartment- and zone-level spaces. That is what the import files will consist of and there is not a requirement to be able to do full-ship visualization
2. We get our models from our shipbuilders in STEP format. Importing STEP files is the desire for the system, so that it can work with any sort of CAD program (beyond just CATIA and Ship Constructor). 3. A representative STEP file will be provided during Phase I. 4. There is no make or model identified for a VR headset. Recommend targeting “mid-tier” headsets for a balance of cost and performance. Since the intended use case is in an office environment, either tethered or standalone headsets are acceptable. 5. I am not aware of any prior efforts to gain this capability. |
|
| 4/15/26 | Q. | Is integration with Navy or shipyard engineering-data-management systems (e.g., CATIA-source round-trip, Teamcenter, ENOVIA, Smarteam) considered a Phase I requirement, a Phase II or III scope item, or out of scope for this topic? |
| A. | There is no intent to integrate this system with any other Navy systems. The intended workflow is for a user to download one or more STEP files (.stp file type), use software generated by this project to compile and convert those STEP files into a VR compatible file type, and then be able to transfer and view that file with the VR headset. | |
| 4/15/26 | Q. | The topic specifies 'a commercially available Virtual Reality headset.' Is there a specific headset class the Navy has in mind for Phase I demonstration (workstation-tethered PCVR, standalone HMDs, enterprise-grade MR, or others), or is the choice of headset a proposer-chosen aspect of the solution? |
| A. | There is no make or model identified for a VR headset. Since the intended use case is in an office environment, either tethered or stand alone headsets are acceptable. | |
| 4/15/26 | Q. | For the requirement to 'load and view multiple CAD files... with minimal lag,' does 'multiple' refer to different design versions of the same assembly, different subsystems of the same ship, different ship classes, or all of the above? What scale (if any) in terms of number of concurrent files, total geometry count, or total polygon count does the Navy consider baseline for a Phase I demonstration? |
| A. | The focus on viewing multiple files is on both different design versions of the same assembly (for a “before and after” comparison on how a change impacted a space) and on different subsystems of the same ship (to compile system-level models into an entire space). There is no identified scale for Phase I demonstration as of yet. | |
| 4/15/26 | Q. | The topic description refers to 'load and view multiple CAD files, navigating between them with minimal lag and overlaying them to view discrepancies.' Is 'overlaying them to view discrepancies' intended as simultaneous side-by-side visualization, alpha-blended ghosted comparative rendering of two versions, structured per-part difference classification and highlighting between versions, or is the specific overlay mechanism a proposer-chosen aspect of the solution? |
| A. | The desired use case for viewing multiple files, switching between them, and viewing them simultaneously is to compare a given space before and after an engineering change is implemented. The intent is to be able to quickly identify the scope of a change. For example, if a piece of equipment was moved from port to starboard, then by switching between the before and after models one could see the where the equipment was and where it is currently. Or by viewing both models simultaneously (at partial transparency), one could see the equipment in both locations. |
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoW FY-26 Release 1 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoW Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates. The DoW issued its Navy FY-26 Release 1 SBIR Topics pre-release on April 13, 2026 which opens to receive proposals on May 6, 2026, and closes June 3, 2026 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (April 13, through May 5, 2026) 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 DoW begins accepting proposals on May 6, 2026 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 May 20, 2026, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoW 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. DoW Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoW Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoW Components participating in this BAA.
|