DON26BZ05-NV078 TITLE: Tech Data Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals Convertor
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Trusted AI and Autonomy
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 a tool capable of transforming existing Navy technical manuals (TMs) into a format viewable within our targeted Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMS) viewer. This transformation must accommodate any existing TM, irrespective of its original specification and format, while also addressing data rights release considerations.
DESCRIPTION: The Navy is currently standardizing the format for technical manuals to facilitate the creation, management, and publication of IETMs. A significant portion of existing technical manuals has yet to be converted to the IETM format, making it challenging for users to easily navigate the information. These manuals also exist in various formats, lacking complete uniformity, which complicates parsing by automated tools and accurate display to the end-user.
The primary goal is to develop a tool or software that can automate the transformation of these diverse technical manuals into eXtensible Markup Language (XML), as XML documents are highly adaptable for various outputs. This XML output must then be formatted for compatibility with a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) or Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) tool, which can convert the information into step-by-step instructions.
Specifically, the objective is to create a tool capable of transforming any existing Navy technical manual, regardless of its original specification and format, while adhering to data rights release requirements. The transformed output must contain the appropriate distribution markings that match original inputted technical manual document and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) markings. The output must be viewable in our designated IETMS viewer. The tool should be able to parse manuals from various formats, including PDFs, MIL-STD-3001-1, MIL-DTL-81310, S1000D v3.0, and S1000D v4.0, to extract relevant information.
This extracted information should be formatted for integration into a tool that generates quick, readable step-by-step instructions. These instructions should reference corresponding material and be displayed to the end-user, via an Extended Reality (XR) headset or tablet, during maintenance, troubleshooting, or operational procedures. The aim is to present these instructions within an Augmented Reality (AR) environment to enhance readability and digestibility. The tool should also be designed for integration with existing commercial or government tools.
PHASE I: Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the Navy's existing technical manuals to identify their legacy formats and structural variations. Collaborate with Navy stakeholders to define specific format and version compliance requirements, such as S1000D or MIL-STD-30001XML, based on the needs of the targeted platform. Select a specific product for which to create a content library. Evaluate current tools and technologies for document conversion, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Optical Character Recognition (OCR), and AR integration to pinpoint existing gaps and potential opportunities.
Subsequently, develop algorithms to identify and extract content, including text, tables, images, and diagrams, from this library. The converted outputs must be viewable on the Navy’s chosen IETMs/XML viewer.
Furthermore, formulate plans to integrate NLP and search functionalities, enabling users to query specific tasks or information within the converted IETMs. Develop a method to format this queried task data so it can be fed into a COTS or GOTS tool. This tool will then convert the information into step-by-step instructions, intended for display within an AR/ XR environment.
The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.
PHASE II: Refine, scale, and fully operationalize the automated tool or software developed in Phase I. This includes expanding the content library to encompass more than one platform. The goal is to create a functional prototype that can accept existing Navy technical manuals from the targeted product library as primary input and convert them into the specified standard format. Users must be able to view and navigate these converted technical manuals within the Navy’s IETMs viewer.
Validation of the generated modules against existing IETMs/XML formats is crucial. Automated validation tools should be developed to ensure all converted data modules meet the targeted standards set by stakeholders. Additionally, an error detection and correction mechanism will be implemented to address any inconsistencies. Aiming for a threshold of at least 95% accuracy for conversion and after running the error correction should reduce the error rate to <= 1%.
Further, NLP and search capabilities will be integrated, allowing users to query specific tasks or information within the converted IETMs. Algorithms will be developed to extract relevant content and format it into an output compatible with COTS/GOTS tools, which will then generate simplified, step-by-step instructions tailored to user queries. The output will be verified by certified instructors and technical data engineers to determine viability and serviceability of produced output.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Final testing will involve the rapid conversion of a large set of existing technical manuals, encompassing various complexities and formats. These converted manuals will then be fed into a COTS or GOTS tool.
Subsequently, a live testing event will be conducted where sailors perform maintenance procedures, using the outputted IETMS tool and querying them for proper instructions. This event will be supervised by qualified maintainers. Evaluation metrics will be clarified provided at prior to Phase III award but should meet industry standards for current AI chat bot tools which are ~99% accuracy for information retrieval. Test event will pair off a maintainer with the automated tool vs a maintainer with the typical tools that they use today (i.e., technical manual on their portable electronic maintenance aid laptop).
The IETMS format is widely recognized as a standard for technical documentation. Its adoption can significantly improve interoperability and compliance across various industries, including aerospace, automotive, and energy. Furthermore, the tool's integrated query-based system enhances the ease with which users can search for relevant technical information, thereby boosting productivity and minimizing downtime. Finally, AR integration can further improve maintenance tasks by providing immersive, hands-free, step-by-step instructions for complex procedures.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: Technical Manuals; Artificial Intelligence; Augmented Reality; Natural Language Processing; Automation; XML
| 8/27/26 | Q. | 1. May Phase I use a public technical manual, public S1000D schemas/business rules, and a lightweight surrogate viewer to demonstrate meaningful extraction and viewer-compatible output?
2. Is there a preferred Phase I S1000D issue/schema or Navy viewer/validator, or may the performer nominate and justify the target? 3. Should selected performers expect a releasable Navy sample manual or content library during Phase I, or should the effort be planned around public surrogate inputs? 4. Phase I says to select a specific product for the initial content library. Should offerors propose that product, or will NAVAIR select it collaboratively with the awardee after award? Will representative sanitized source content be furnished, or should Phase I assume public or commercially licensed test content? 5. Is MIL-STD-30001XML intended to mean MIL-STD-3001 XML? Yes. Which schema version and business-rule set should be used as the provisional target in the proposal? 6. How should the Phase II requirement of at least 95 percent conversion accuracy be measured? 7. Are warnings, cautions, procedural order, figures, distribution markings, and DFARS markings treated as mandatory hard-pass elements? |
| A. | 1. Surrogate data is acceptable. The NAVY BREX is available publicly.
2. We are looking for the awardee to develop the analogous viewer that will work with all S1000D, 3001XML, PDF and COTS tech manuals. 3. Phase ll will provide an S1000D document, BREX and Business rules, surrogate data may be used in Phase l. 4. We are expecting the vendor to develop an analogous viewer to ingest S1000D, 3001XML, PDF and OEM COTS documents. Representative S1000D, BREX and business rules will be provided in Phase ll. 5. The initial target will S1000D. 6. This is a place holder we are looking to work with the awardee to develop metrics and calculations for capture. Possible units include pages, extracted objects, semantic relationships, XML elements, or data modules. 7. Yes, this is a requirement we are working on with legal. |
|
| 7/18/27/26 | Q. | 1. From the Navy’s perspective, is the larger unresolved challenge accurately extracting and understanding information and relationships within highly variable legacy technical manuals, or transforming that extracted information into the required standards-compliant XML/IETM structure?
2. For the Phase I feasibility effort, would you expect a solution to demonstrate conversion across several of the listed legacy specifications and formats, or would demonstrating a representative product library and a limited subset of formats be sufficient if the architecture is designed to generalize to additional formats? 3. For the Phase II conversion accuracy and error-rate targets, what types of errors are expected to be included in that measurement—for example, incorrect content extraction, XML/schema errors, loss of relationships between text/tables/figures, semantic errors, or some combination? 4. Would an approach that uses AI-based contextual reasoning to preserve and resolve relationships among text, tables, figures, cross-references, and procedural steps be considered an important part of the desired innovation, provided that the resulting output remains standards-compliant and verifiable? 5. The solicitation references 'the Navy's chosen IETMs/XML viewer.', however, doesn't mention whether that is for NAVAIR, NAVSEA, or another Command. Could you clarify whether this is for a specific SYSCOM or we are able to pursue any we are most familiar with. 6. Would the program office be able to provide the applicable Business Rules Exchange (BREX) for the Phase I selected platform to the awardee or would BREX documents conformance testing be descoped to Tagging and Authoring Guidelines (TAAG)-level validation for Phase I? 7. Will the program office provide sample legacy TMs from the selected platform as Government Furnished Information under the Phase I OT, or should offerors plan to source representative documents independently? |
| A. | 1. In this case, neither. We are looking for the awardee to develop their own agnostic viewer to use with S1000D, MIL-STD3001XML, PD, .nci and COTS developed format.
2. This SBIR does not encompass conversion, please see question 1. 3. This is something we plan to work with the awardee to develop metrics and context reliably. 4. This can be included in your proposal. 5. We are looking for the awardee to develop an agnostic viewer to ‘read’ S1000D, MILSTD3001XML, PDF and COTs deliverables. 6. Actual source data S1000D TM, BREX and business rules will be provided in Phase l. Feel free to use generic like and similar data to develop the Phase l white paper. 7. Please use Source representative data. |
|
| 8/26/26 | Q. | The solicitation references 'the Navy's chosen IETMs/XML viewer.', however, doesn't mention whether that is for NAVAIR, NAVSEA, or another Command. Could you clarify whether this is for a specific SYSCOM or we are able to pursue any we are most familiar with. |
| A. | We are looking for the awardee to develop an agnostic viewer to ‘read’ S1000D, MILSTD3001XML, PDF and COTs deliverables. | |
| 8/26/26 | Q. | For Phase I purposes, should offerors target S1000D 4.x data modules as the canonical output schema, or is the intended viewer built around a different or Navy-specific DTD, in which case can you say which specification governs the output side so the parsing research is aimed at the right transformation? |
| A. | You have the correct version and parsing thoughts. | |
| 8/26/26 | Q. | One question to scope the conversion target correctly. Does the topic requires XML output viewable in the Navy's targeted IETM viewer? |
| A. | We are looking for the awardee to develop an analogous viewer to ingest S1000D, MILSTD 3001XML, PDF, .nci files. | |
| 8/19/26 | Q. | 1) is there another source for A Web-Based Architecture for Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals? DTIC seems to be down.
2) MIL-DTL-24784C has been superseded, should we use the (C) version anyway? |
| A. | Please use S1000D and NAVY BREX for Phase l information related to development of an IETM. | |
| 8/17/26 | Q. | 1. Approximately what proportion of the in-scope legacy technical manual corpus is scanned raster PDF, versus digital-native text PDF, versus already-tagged SGML or XML? And approximately how many manuals and total pages constitute a representative single-product content library?
2. Is development of the AR/XR presentation capability within the scope of this effort, or is AR/XR display provided by the separate COTS/GOTS tool, with this effort responsible only for producing conformant XML and the query-task data format? 3. Regarding "adhering to data rights release requirements": is the performer expected to detect and preserve rights assertions present in the source documents, or to apply markings from a Government-supplied rights mapping or authority? 4. The Phase I description directs the performer to collaborate with Navy stakeholders to define format and version compliance requirements. What level of stakeholder and SME access should performers plan for during the six-month Phase I base period, and who will validate Phase I converted output? |
| A. | 1. At present time, development is related to a single IETM format to be provide in Phase ll. The scope of Enterprise Technical documentation is total pages is too vast to report. Manuals range from 2 page PreOps to multi volume XML books and several thousand data module IETMS.
2. This task is to develop an agnostic viewer capable of ingesting multiple formats and providing out put for integration with AI tools, AR goggles, query software, etc. The need to present the AR/XR is not specifically part of the is SBIR. 3. Adherence to all existing data rights, disposal, distribution markings is currently being reviewed with legal but preservation is a requirement. 4. This will be dependent upon the selected candidates but Navy stakeholders will be involved, in the form of status meeting, guidance conferences and any other involvement required. |
|
| 8/14/26 | Q. | Short answers or "TBD/GFI in Phase II" are sufficient. 1. What target output should proposals assume — S1000D, MIL-STD-3001 XML, or both — and what exact issue/revision, Navy business rules/BREX, and designated IETM viewer/build define acceptance? Does "MIL-STD-30001XML" in the topic mean MIL-STD-3001 XML? 2. What minimum Phase I proof is expected: analysis/design only, or a working source-to-viewer thin slice? Will a representative source library, known-good output package, validation tools, and viewer access be furnished in Phase I; if not, may offerors use public/synthetic representative material? 3. What unit, denominator, severity treatment, gold standard, and adjudication process will define the stated 95% conversion accuracy, no-more-than-1% post-correction error, and approximately 99% retrieval accuracy? 4. Which downstream COTS/GOTS application and interface should receive task/step data, and is the deliverable limited to a validated interface/export or expected to include a tablet/XR user experience? |
| A. | 1. Yes. Phase l will demonstrate development of an agnostic viewer capable of ingesting S1000D, MIL-STD-3001, pdf for enterprise wide solution.
2. As stated, Phase I is the development of a viewer. Actual documentation and specific Brex/business rules will be provided in Phase ll. 3. At this time the metrics are a place holder to be further developed in Phase ll with the down selected vendor bringing industry standards. 4. No it is not and this has not been decided at this time. |
|
| 8/13/26 | Q. | 1. Regarding business rules and applicability data for the selected product, will the Government furnish the project Business Rules Exchange (BREX) data module along with the Applicability Cross-reference Table and Condition Cross-reference Table, or is the performer expected to derive these during Phase I? If the target output specification is not S1000D, we would appreciate identification of the equivalent business rules and configuration-effectivity structures the converted output must conform to.
2. On the requirement that converted output carry distribution markings and DFARS markings matching the original input document, is there an existing Government verification method or acceptance criterion the output must satisfy to demonstrate marking fidelity, and is marking fidelity intended to be scored within the conversion accuracy metric or evaluated separately? |
| A. | 1. The requested items will be provided during Phase ll. 2. At this time, there is no specified verification / acceptance criteria for the output. We are working to derive the conversion metrics. |
|
| 8/13/26 | Q. | 1. Target IETM viewer and target schema Please identify the Navy-designated IETM/IETMS viewer referenced in the topic and the required input schema, specification, and version for converted technical data. If the target has not yet been selected, please clarify when and how that requirement will be established during Phase I. 2. COTS/GOTS step-generation interface Please identify the COTS/GOTS tool referenced for generating step-by-step instructions and the data format/interface it is expected to ingest. If a specific tool has not yet been selected, what interface requirements should Phase I performers assume? 3. Technical endpoint ownership Which Navy organization/SYSCOM is expected to own or govern the target technical-publication environment, viewer/interface requirements, and technical acceptance criteria for this effort? 4. Definition of conversion accuracy The topic references at least 95% conversion accuracy and an error rate of =1% after correction. What unit(s) should be used to calculate these metrics—for example, extracted content, XML elements, relationships, schema/BREX-valid modules, procedural semantics, or another defined unit—and what validation method or harness is expected? 5. Phase I source corpus / Government-furnished technical data Will the Government furnish a representative technical-manual corpus for Phase I development and validation? If so, what source formats, markings, access conditions, and technical handling constraints should performers plan for? 6. Graphics, ICN, and parts-data scope Are graphics conversion and associated technical-publication structures—including raster/vector graphics, CGM, hotspots, ICN management, illustrated parts breakdown/parts data, and related references—within the expected Phase I conversion scope? |
| A. | 1. Vendor is expected to develop the viewer in keeping with specs for S1000D / BREX, 3001-XML, pdf data.
2. This is for the vendor to propose and outline. Given the ever changing AI landscape the developed viewer should be adaptable. 3. Enterprise stakeholders 4. These percentages are placeholders. The vendor will provide, based on experience recommendations for tracking metrics. 5. As stated above, no documentation will be provided in Phase l. 6. Yes, adjudication and rending of graphics should be considered in the vendor’s proposal. |
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoW FY-26 Release 5 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 5 SBIR Topics pre-release on August 5, 2026 which opens to receive proposals on August 26, 2026, and closes September 23, 2026 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (August 5, through August 25, 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 August 26, 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 September 9, 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.
|