Inactive

1.0 General Information: Disclaimer: This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information and planning purposes (market research). This RFI does not constitute a solicitation (Request f... 1.0 General Information: Disclaimer: This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information and planning purposes (market research). This RFI does not constitute a solicitation (Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Quotations (RFQ)) or a promise to issue a solicitation in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Furthermore, the Government is not, at this time seeking proposals and will not accept any unsolicited proposals. Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the responding party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued. Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with the applicable Government regulations. Proprietary information or trade secrets shall be clearly identified. Questions relating to RFI should directed exclusively by email to the POCs listed in Section 4.0, Submission details. Companies wishing to respond to this RFI should send responses via electronic mail no later than 31 August 2022 at 3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time to the POCs listed in Section 4.0. 2.0 Description: The Space Systems Command (SSC) Space Sensing Directorate (SN) is soliciting information to inform the Government’s approach (including contracting strategies) to migrate existing Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) assets from the legacy ground Command and Control (C2) to a modern Future Operationally Resilient Ground Evolution (FORGE) C2 solution. “SBIRS assets” include the SBIRS Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO) space vehicles (SVs) 1-6 and SBIRS Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) hosted payloads 1-4. The solution must be extensible to Next Generation OPIR satellites (both GEO and Polar) and is intended to have these key attributes: Utilize advanced modern software solutions Resolve obsolescence issues Support rapid incremental capability delivery Increase automation/lights out operations Reduce the overall Operations & Sustainment (O&S) costs for the FORGE C2 solution Government owned technical baseline, including data rights, control of key interface/service definitions, and oversight/insight into program management and systems engineering activities This effort will design, develop, integrate, test and transition a C2 solution into operation that includes but is not limited to the following elements: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) Platform as a Service (PaaS) Common C2 services/applications Mission Unique Software (MUS)/Vehicle Unique Elements (VUE) Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding (TT&C) Mission Management (MM) Flight Dynamics (FD) Ground Resource Management (GRM) Cybersecurity Desired delivery dates are given below: Next-Gen Polar (NGP) Ground ready by 2026 Legacy SBIRS and Next-Gen GEO (NGG) transition by 2026 3.0 Information Requested: The Government is seeking information from interested developers in order to refine the FORGE C2 acquisition approach. The intent of this request is to drive down schedule and integration risk while potentially expanding the pool of available vendors. Answers/responses are requested for the questions and areas of interest noted below: 1. The Government would like responders to describe any specific drivers that may either prohibit or add significant risk to the ability to deliver a solution by the dates noted above. This response should include not only specific overall challenges, constraints, and limitations but also any requirements or imposed constraints that the Government may be able to control and/or reconsider to reduce that schedule risk. 2. Given any lessons learned from industry and the general acquisition approach described above, the Government would like responders to describe any potentially significant cost drivers. This response should also include any recommended actions or approaches that the Government could take to reduce cost risk while still attracting interest from industry. 3. There are significant risks and challenges when the Government serves as the lead system integrator. Because of this, the FORGE C2 program must find the right balance between minimizing the role of “Government as the lead system integrator” and maximizing the cost, flexibility, and technical ownership benefits of working with multiple capability contributors. The Government would like responders to provide information on recommended C2 integration approaches that reduce the risk of integrating the hardware/infrastructure, platform, and application capabilities being delivered potentially through different contracts and by different organizations. Recommendations may include combining some or all elements under a single provider. The Government is also interested in lessons learned with respect to the highest risks associated with ground system software integration. This response should also include information on any successfully implemented integration approaches that have been executed on similar programs. 4. There are also significant programmatic risks and challenges when the Government serves as a capability provider. For this solution, the Government has available multiple infrastructure (e.g. Enterprise Ground Services infrastructure) and platform services (e.g. Enterprise Ground Services platform and the Mission Data Processing Application Framework) that could be provided/considered as GFX for the C2 solution, if desired. The Government would like responders to describe specifically, if the infrastructure and platform services should be government provided. Additionally, responders should identify any other GFX items that are critical to the solution. 5. In order to support both the integration/test and operations stages of the C2 software development pipeline, various government-furnished infrastructure options are currently under consideration, including a mix of cloud-based and “on-premises” options. The Government would like responders to also specifically describe any limitations, benefits, lessons learned, and/or recommendations on the implementation of any government-provided infrastructure solution given the desired delivery dates noted and the inherent constraints of the FORGE mission (i.e, C2 of the SBIRS constellation is a mission critical function that must be conducted on an “around-the-clock" basis from a Protection Level 1 facility). Responders may also recommend a non-government-provided infrastructure solution if analysis shows that the risk of meeting requirements is lower than developing and fielding on a government-provided infrastructure solution. 6. Several platform/framework solutions are currently being used commercially as well as in government applications. The Government would like responders to describe any potential C2 platform solutions that may be used to host C2 applications and how they would meet the intent of an “open, modular, and expandable” software solution. 7. The FORGE C2 capability must be extensible to the Next-Generation OPIR assets. The Government would like responders to describe any potential challenges or limitations to solution extensibility. 8. Modern acquisition strategies focus on developing, testing, and sometimes fielding incremental capability frequently and consistently (especially acquisitions that are heavily software dependent). The Government would like responders to describe, in general, any recommended approaches for prototyping and/or incremental development. 9. The Government must own the FORGE C2 solution technical baseline. The Government would like responders to describe how potential solutions would meet this requirement and/or describe any potential challenges or limitations that come with providing appropriate data rights to the Government. 10. The FORGE C2 solution must be made to connect into the larger Space Warfighting Architecture using common messaging standards. Vendors may propose to use the Enterprise Ground Services (EGS) solution in some form or another or propose another approach. The Government would like responders to describe potential approaches for addressing this requirement while still meeting delivery dates noted above. 11. The Government would like to maximize the use of common services/applications and minimize the need for Mission Unique Software (MUS) across the entire Missile Warning C2 portfolio. In addition, these common services/applications should be as “platform agnostic” as possible (i.e, applications will need to be modular and portable to other infrastructures and platforms). The Government would like responders to describe how a proposed solution may be able to meet this intent and/or describe constraints/challenges that might hinder solutions from meeting it. 12. Open, modular, and expandable C2 ground solutions are now prevalent throughout the commercial and government space communities and assumed to be well-understood. Because of this, the Government is considering Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract strategies for this acquisition. The Government would like responders to discuss any concerns/lessons learned they have regarding issuing a FFP contract for this effort and offer alternatives with rationale (if necessary). 13. The role of the satellite payload and factory provider in extending the ground solution for mission unique is a significant consideration for the FORGE C2 solution. Responders should specifically address the most effective role and contractual relationship (if any) of the satellite/payload providers. Additional technical documentation is available upon request if intending to participate. Send requests to Lt Col Christine Guzman, christine.guzman.1@spaceforce.mil. The government may decline requests missing any of the following information: Email Subject Line: “FORGE C2 Notice ID 22-13: Request More Info” Submitter's Name and Parent Company, if applicable Mailing Address: Street Address, City, State, NINE-Digit zip code Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code Unique Entity ID Point of Contact (POC) POC Telephone number and email address 4.0 Submission Details: Responses to this RFI must be sent to the POCs identified at the bottom of this section and include a cover page and the following information: Email Subject Line: “FORGE C2 RFI: Response” Submitter’s Name and Parent Company, if applicable Business Address: Street, City, State, and Zip code Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code Unique Entity ID Company socio-economic status Point of Contact (i.e. company representative) POC Telephone number and email addres Responses to the areas of interest listed under Section 3.0, in entirety, shall be limited to five pages, single-sided. Documents should be formatted in accordance with the following: Single-spaced, One-inch margins US letter-size (8.5” x 11”) Use 12-point font (Times New Roman), and Be formatted with Microsoft Word 2016 or Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 7.0 (or later) Technical drawings will be welcomed or reviewed if submitted. Responses must include the following: Company information (see above) Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) or Engineering estimate (Fixed price preferred or other recommended price type) Summary of OPIR Space and Ground production and integration heritage (if any) Interested offerors/vendors may provide an additional 20 pages of white papers or short briefings (maximum of 25 total pages including technical drawings) to answer the questions/requests provided. Page numbers for additional information shall be numbered. Submissions shall not exceed a 25 MB email limit for all items associated with the response. Hard copy responses will not be accepted. The Government will not accept company literature or marketing materials. In your response, please follow the same numbering convention used in the RFI; for example, if responding to Question #3 under the “General Description of Information Requested” section, please preface your response with ‘Question #3’. Please note all material provided in response to this notice shall be unclassified. Any proprietary information shall be clearly identified. The Government will take all necessary steps to protect and safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be held responsible for any proprietary information not clearly marked. All information in response to this RFI that is marked proprietary will be handled accordingly. The Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with applicable regulations. SSC/SN has entered into contracts with The Aerospace Corporation, LinQuest, Science Applications Inernation Corporation (SAIC), Tecolote Research, Integrity Applications Incorporated, QuanTech Services, Alpha Omega Group (AoG), Space EA systems, Exigo and Integrated Enterprise System Engineering Solutions (IESE). These companies support the Government’s Space Force Program Office by performing technical reviews, systems engineering and integration analyses, cost estimation, and other advisory services. Respondents are hereby notified that all responses will be provided to our support contractors for their services to the U.S. Space Force. If the respondent disagrees with the release of its RFI response to any of the aforementioned firms, the respondent must clearly state this restriction in the cover letter accompanying the RFI response. If respondents disagree to the release of its RFI response to any of the aforementioned firms, the respondent must clearly state this restriction in the cover letter accompanying the RFP response. Foreign firms are advised that they will not be allowed to participate in this acquisition at the prime contractor level; however, provided they are eligible to do business with the US Government they may be eligible to participate at the subcontractor level. The research and test data produced under a resultant contract may contain Military Critical Technology List (MCTL) information whose export is restricted by Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S. Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401, et seq.). Request certification and registration from the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC), Federal Center, 74 North Washington, Battle Creek, MI 49016-3412 as soon as possible. All inquiries should be directed to the points of contact below: Primary Lt Col Christine Guzman christine.guzman.1@spaceforce.mil Secondary: Capt Piara Swank piara.swank@spaceforce.mil