Please read attached document. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) from Request for Information (RFI) Q: Is there an incumbent tied to this requirement? A: There is no incumbent. This is a new acquisition. Q: Is this an evolution of the 2020 Integrated Military Satellite System RFI? A: Yes. Q: Would the Partner Nation (PN) consider Government-Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) or Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated (COCO) options? A: What you see in the RFI represents the extent of what we know about the PN requirements. From the limited discussions we’ve had with PN it is clear they are very interested in sovereign control/ownership of whatever architecture results here. There are certainly GOCO paths to that depending on the architecture. COCO seems less suited to that sovereign control desire. Q: Does the coverage need to be restricted to the Region of Interest (ROI) only? For example, is overlap with other regions a concern? A: It is important to adhere to the requirements as they are stated in the RFI. Q: Can you confirm that submissions are to be written to a United States Government (USG) entity vs. the Partner Nation (PN), and that USG is responsible for any export control/ International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) filtering? A: This is a potential Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case. The license export is the FMS case. Q: Is NUDET and hardening (HEMP) a desire for the PN? A: It is important to adhere to the requirements as they are stated in the RFI. If it is not stated, then it is not requested at this time. Q: Is there an acquisition timeline that can be shared with Industry? A: As with any FMS case, after market research USG plans to submit a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) and upon PN acceptance will release a solicitation, all of which may take a year or more. Q: Is there an indication of the PN’s priorities between technical capability, cost, and schedule? A: At this time, there is no indication of priorities among technical capability, cost, and schedule. The top priority is adhering to the requirements as they are stated in the RFI. Q: RFI Section 6.4.13 & 6.4.15 are duplicated statements. A: Noted. Q: RFI Section 6.7 asks for two fixed and one mobile User Terminal. Is this request distinct from RFI section 6.3? A: Yes. Q: Also, does the "transportable terminal" imply a full relocatable ground system, or just the ability to receive/transmit to Space Vehicles (SVs) from Satellite Operation Centers (SATOCs)? A: We have provided all of the information currently available. If assumptions are made, please state them in your response. Q: RFI section 6.1.4 implies a CONOPS that prescribes the Mission Payload to be a staring sensor. Is USG opposed to alternative solutions such as a scanner if it satisfies sensitivity, Line of Sight, revisit requirements, and other key performance indicators? A: So long the sensor adheres to the requirements as they are stated in the RFI., this would be acceptable. Q: Are there any implied expectations to satisfy Technical Intelligence or Battlespace characterization missions? A: It is important to adhere to the requirements as they are stated in the RFI. If any additional features/capabilities are recommended please ensure that an associated cost is also included. Q: RFI Section 6.1.5 implies high fidelity sensing and a sufficient track quality messaging as defined in MILSTD 6016 (Link 16). Is expectation that this sensor will satisfy a kill chain for Cued engagement absent of any other sensor input (TPY2, other sensors etc.). Or is cueing referring to the action to cue other sensors to achieve fire control? A: The PN has other ground-based capabilities, like interceptors and fire radars, which will be queued by the BMEW capability in the requirements. Q: SIPR / NIPR Email address not provided for classified portion of RFI response, please provide. A: For classified responses, please email at
[email protected]. For unclassified responses, please email at
[email protected]. Q: The requirements for ground facilities (Remote Tracking Stations (RTS), Satellite Operation Centers (SATOC), Mission Data Processing Centers (MDC), Presentation Center) all state that a system design is required. Is the contractor/system integrator responsible for all these ground facilities design and buildup? Or is there a desire for the contractor/system integrator to oversee the construction of these facilities if the facility is customer furnished? A: Contractor/SI is responsible for ground facilities design and build up. Q: Are there specific frequencies, parameters PN has in mind for compatibility? Does the PN have specific standards in mind? Can those be provided? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Who is responsible for the Cloud-based services, is it customer furnished? Is this proprietary cloud or Commercial Cloud? What is the Interface? A: The LOR did not specify who would be responsible, merely that the data should be compatible with cloud-based services. PN does not want a proprietary data format that cannot be uploaded to common cloud services. Q: Section 6.16 talks about "The network", "The network provider", etc. Who is responsible for acquiring "the network services", is it customer furnished? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Should contractor assume that PN will provide the "networking services"? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Should contractor assume the edge devices "firewalls, security, and controls" will be provided by the "network provider"? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Will PN provide more info regarding to what "localization" means? A: Localization in this context refers to the use of labor sourced from within the PN. Q: Should contractor assume that Foreign cross domain solution (FCDS) is customer furnished? A: Yes. Q: Will PN be providing the Interface Control Documents (ICDs) between SATOC and "other" satellite systems? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Can the Customer provide guidance on reference terminal sizing and/or identify any Size, Weight, and Power (SWAP) constraints? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: The RFI requests a system design for at least two fixed and one transportable terminal and identifies multiple frequency bands that must be supported (Ku, Ka, X, L and UHF). These capabilities are not commonly combined into a single terminal solution. Would it be acceptable to propose separate reference terminal solutions to address the narrowband and wideband frequency requirements? A: Yes. Q: Can you provide some additional information/references regarding interface and interoperability requirements (ref. C4I modernization systems using mutually agreed on common standards, Interoperable with MoD and Joint Multi-National Space Operations, Networking services compatible and interoperable with NATO standards)? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Can PN elaborate on what "limited protected tactical waveforms" entails? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions. Q: Is the requirement simply stating that SATOC software shall be able to command the collision avoidance maneuver? Or, Will the collision avoidance info be provided by Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) external entity or SATOC contractor needs to provide this? What is the performance requirement for the collision avoidance maneuver? A: The SATOC software shall be able to command collision avoidance maneuvers, using data from the contractor provided system. No specific performance requirements are given for the maneuvers or the origin of the data alerting operators to a future collision. Q: What are these data format from existing satellite system and interface to Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I)? Will these be provided to contractor in RFP? A: All available information was provided in the RFI; document any assumptions.