Andrew Leyder
My feedback
3 results found
-
1 vote1 comment · U.S. DOT FY 2026 Phase I Pre-Solicitation Q&A » 26-PH2: Thermal Indicator Coatings for Hazardous Materials Packaging Safety · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment -
1 vote1 comment · U.S. DOT FY 2026 Phase I Pre-Solicitation Q&A » 26-PH2: Thermal Indicator Coatings for Hazardous Materials Packaging Safety · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Andrew Leyder
commented
The proposed technology primarily seeks a visible thermochromic color change system. Changes in surface character, such as roughness or texture, may be considered in scope as secondary or supplemental indicators, but they should not replace the required visible color-change function.
The proposed technology is not limited to current-temperature indication. While the desired color change may be irreversible or long-lasting, a peak-temperature or temperature range indication is in scope and may be especially useful for post-incident assessment. Offerors should explain whether their system indicates the current temperature, the maximum temperature reached, or a range threshold, and how that information would be interpreted by responders and operators.
-
1 vote3 comments · U.S. DOT FY 2026 Phase I Pre-Solicitation Q&A » 26-PH2: Thermal Indicator Coatings for Hazardous Materials Packaging Safety · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Andrew Leyder
commented
The solicitation does not have a single desired temperature range for Phase I. Offerors should propose defensible temperature thresholds tied to the intended packaging type, commodity hazard, and failure mode. The key requirement of the proposed solution is a visible, distinct, and durable color change that provides operators and first responders a meaningful warning of increasing internal thermal stress before packaging failure.
Plastic or glass may be used as substrates for coating formulation development or color-change testing. However, offerors should also demonstrate adhesion and compatibility with transportation-relevant packaging materials such as steel, aluminum, or composite materials.
The solicitation does not define a number of cycles, but offerors should define and justify the number of cycles or replicate tests needed to demonstrate repeatability that the proposed solution works.An error occurred while saving the comment Andrew Leyder
commented
The solicitation does not require the coating to physically measure the internal temperature, but it should require the technology to be risk-relevant. That means the indicator must correspond to temperature thresholds that matter for package safety, including internal temperature rise, pressure increase, thermal runaway risk, venting, or loss-of-containment conditions. External surface indication alone should not be considered sufficient unless the proposer validates the correlation to internal package risk.
PHMSA has not established a specific agency-preferred quantitative colorimetric threshold for “visible and distinct” under this topic.
Offerors may propose a quantitative colorimetric criterion, such as a CIELAB color difference measured in accordance with ASTM D2244 or an equivalent method, if they believe it is appropriate. The proposal should explain and justify the selected threshold, including how it would be measured, repeated, and validated under conditions relevant to hazardous materials transportation.
Visible and distinct should be interpreted as a color change that is readily observable and meaningful to shippers, carriers, and emergency responders under realistic field conditions.