Adam's proposal review

Big-picture read

Three points per proposal: architecture, content–price–schedule, and whether this is the right offer for the client.

Review standard grounded in Mary Pierce's July 15, 2026 leadership-meeting feedback.

Halliburton

HWO Real-World Controls

My understanding

Okay, so, we're giving Halliburton three ways to add physical Operator and Assistant Stations to the existing HWO simulator. They all do roughly the same job; the real choice is portability versus physical fidelity, with the industrial option as the sensible middle ground. Appendix B then adds optional lesson and environment work that gets cheaper if it is developed alongside the controls.

My three main points

  1. I think the basic architecture is right. Electronic industrial controls give us most of the training value without taking on the weight, cost, and custom sensing risk of adapting the real hydraulic hardware.
  2. On Mary's test—content, price, and schedule—the direction makes sense, but I cannot approve it until the quantity is explicit and the Appendix B pricing is clearly separate. We also need one clean check that the hours, savings, totals, and ten- or twelve-month schedules all agree.
  3. The proposal is really asking Halliburton to make two decisions: choose the control system, then choose any Phase 3 work. I would make that hierarchy much clearer so the main recommendation does not get buried in a second menu of options.

I do not think this is ready yet.

MRIGlobal

TeleOps Enhancements

My understanding

Okay, so, this is a modular expansion of the existing UAS Tele-Operation Simulator on Unity WebGL and JACKS. MRIGlobal can independently select a new mission, LMS reporting, weather, collision, or wind work, so it is more of a capability menu than one fixed project.

My three main points

  1. The modular architecture makes sense, but the external LMS connection and the weather and wind behaviour need real technical boundaries. I want the proposal to say what the client must provide and what observable result proves each enhancement works.
  2. On content, price, and schedule: the five options tell a coherent story and the prices correctly total $290,887, but pages 1–9 do not give a schedule. I cannot say the full offer is right until the timing and major dependencies are visible.
  3. I think we should still give the client a point of view. Even if every option stays independent, we should say which capability or combination we recommend first and why, rather than handing them a menu with no preferred path.

Looks right after these changes.