Inactive

GECKO-NET RFI Q&A Session Date/Time: Aug 7, 1300-1400 PST Type/Classification: Virtual, Unclassed POC: Capt Brenden West, brenden.west.1@spaceforce.mil https://dod.teams.microsoft.us/l/meetup-join/19%... GECKO-NET RFI Q&A Session Date/Time: Aug 7, 1300-1400 PST Type/Classification: Virtual, Unclassed POC: Capt Brenden West, brenden.west.1@spaceforce.mil https://dod.teams.microsoft.us/l/meetup-join/19%3adod%3ameeting_a427ab3170f84aa689c9a53766774e8e%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%228331b18d-2d87-48ef-a35f-ac8818ebf9b4%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%229e7a4eb0-78a6-46a5-a712-9c74db9686af%22%7d Meeting ID: 993 955 558 096 Passcode: 2c9BCK Dial in by phone +1 410-874-6740,,704236827# United States, Odenton Find a local number Phone conference ID: 704 236 827# GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION REQUESTED: The Government is seeking information from interested developers to refine the GECKO-NET 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: There are significant risks and challenges when the Government serves as the lead system integrator. Because of this, the GECKO-NET 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 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 or mission areas. 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. There are also significant programmatic risks and challenges when the Government serves as a capability provider. For this solution, the Government has available an existing communication network (e.g. meshONE-T) that could be provided/considered as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for the development of the GECKO-NET solution. In addition, the Government has SW tools available that could be provided/considered as GFE for GECKO-NET (e.g. Memograms, Collaborative Environment Technical Manuals (CETM), or other reuse from current ECS), if desired. The Government would like responders to identify any other GFE items that are critical to the solution. In order to support both the integration/test and ops stages of the GECKO-NET SW development pipeline, various Government-furnished infrastructure options are currently under consideration, including a mix of cloud-based and “on-premises” options that must support Secret and TS missions. 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 MWTD ops floors (i.e, command and control [C2] of MWTD systems is a mission critical function that must be conducted on an “around-the-clock" basis from a Protection Level 1 facility). The Government is interested in learning the trade-offs between a high operational availability versus a low operational availability on solution concepts. 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. Several platform/framework solutions are currently being used commercially as well as in Government applications. The Government would like responders to describe any potential platform solutions that may be used to host developmental applications and how they would meet the intent of an “open, modular, and expandable” software solution. GECKO-NET capability must be extensible to but not limited to the following: the Next-Generation OPIR assets, SBIRS, MTC Epoch 2, GBRs and within Launch and Anomaly Resolution Center (LARC), OPIR Battlespace Awareness Center (OBAC), and Continental U.S. (CONUS) or Outside CONUS (OCONUS) MWTD ops floors including the ability to connect to contractors’ space vehicle (SV) and mission payload (MPL) facilities. The capability to synchronize data across all users and to utilize voice and video communication is key in supporting Secret and TS level mission ops (i.e. current ECS supports SBIRS ops at a dozen facilities containing 300 workstations overall with 1,600 active users, 5,400 users total). The Government desires a store front vendor that provides Level 1 and 2 maintenance and the ability to support and field HW/SW requests to expand capabilities for all current and future MWTD programs. The Government would like responders to describe any potential challenges or limitations to solution extensibility. The Government would like responders, in general, to address how we would meet our cyber compliances and address any potential cyber accreditation concerns. 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. Responders should describe developmental test processes, and coordination with/support to the operational test organization, that enable rapid delivery of proven capabilities. Deploying updates to multiple GBR and MWMT operational sites, while also including SV and MPL factory facilities. The Government must own the GECKO-NET 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. The GECKO-NET solution must be made to connect across the MWTD architecture using common messaging and user interface/user experience (UI/UX) standards (i.e., provide the same look and feel to optimize operator mission support). The Government would like responders to describe potential approaches for addressing this requirement while still meeting delivery dates noted above. The Government would like to maximize the use of common services/applications and minimize the need for mission unique software across the entire MWTD architecture. 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. Open, modular, and expandable ground collaboration 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). The ability for the mission operator to reach back to the OPIR satellite, payload, and ground factory providers in addition to GBR engineering and sustainment support is a significant consideration for the GECKO-NET solution. The Government would like responders to discuss what measures they would take to protect short and long term archived proprietary and/or sensitive competitive material, while providing a collaborative common area drop zone. Responders should specifically address the most effective role and contractual relationship (if any) of the satellite/payload providers. 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. 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. What interface definitions should the Government consider pre-defining? What else should the Government be thinking about when seeking a modernized collaboration architectural solution? Additional technical documentation is available upon request if intending to participate. Send request to Capt Brenden West with the following information: ? Submitter's Name and Parent Company, if applicable ? Mailing Address: Street Address, City, State, Nine-Digit zip code ? Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code ? Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Identification Number ? Point of Contact (POC) ? POC Telephone number and email address