Inactive

Agency/Office: United States Space Force (USSF) Contracting Office Location: Space Systems Command (SSC), 1050 East Stewart Ave, Peterson SFB, CO 80914Type: Sources Sought Solicitation Number: TBD Dat... Agency/Office: United States Space Force (USSF) Contracting Office Location: Space Systems Command (SSC), 1050 East Stewart Ave, Peterson SFB, CO 80914Type: Sources Sought Solicitation Number: TBD Date Posted: 3 Mar 2022 Title: Satellite Control Network (SCN) Next Generation Factory Compatibility Testing (FCT) Asset Classification Code: R – Support – Professional: Engineering/Technical (PSC R425) NAICS Code: 541690, Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services Is this a Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action? No Response Date: 21 March 2022 Primary Point of Contact: Kimberly McGough, (719) 556-2919, kimberly.mcgough@spaceforce.mil Secondary Point of Contact: N/A Description: The Space Systems Command (SSC) Enterprise Corps (EC) Product Support (ECP) Network (ECPN) supports sustainment of the Satellite Control Network (SCN) and has identified a need to reduce sustainment/operational costs and increase capacity for Space Vehicle (SV) pre-flight testing. During a Factory Compatibility Test (FCT), satellite programs test their SV(s) on the ground with the SCN transportable FCT assets before launch. A reference Operational Viewpoint (OV-1) is provided in Attachment 1: FCT OV-1 Diagram. SSC/ECPN is looking for information from the industry on what products exist and are available now, or within a defined timeline, for the full capability to exist to support satellite FCTs. FCT Asset may augment and/or replace existing SCN TT&C FCT testing capabilities The SCN supports the Department of Defense (DoD), Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other assigned missions by providing command, control, and communications (C3) capabilities. Satellite and mission-specific requirements are supported by Satellite Operations (SATOPS) functions. Network Operations (NetOps) functions, on the other hand, provide multi-user satellite control capabilities that are available to all United States (US) Government launch and space vehicles (SVs). These functions include communications from SATOPS Command and Control Centers (CCCs) to/from the remote tracking stations (RTSs); launch vehicle and SV telemetry receipt at the RTSs; command uplink to SVs from the RTSs; radiometric tracking data collection; general orbital analysis; resource scheduling; and network management. The FCT Asset supports factory compatibility testing as required by SV owners before launch and provides confidence through testing that the satellite and the SV’s ground system is compatible with the SCN. The primary interface to/from SV RF Hat (100 ft N-Type Male coaxial cable or adapted) with RF in respective uplink or downlink frequencies. Connection to SOC is emulated via serial output (telemetry, Advanced Data Communication Control Procedures (ADCCP) status messages) or serial input (commanding, ADCCP directives) (RS-422) from the FCT asset. System Requirements: The Next Generation FCT Asset will replace existing SCN FCT assets (i.e., Transportable Remote Tracking Station (RTS) Block Change (RBC) (TRBC), RBC Space Test Resource (RSTR)) to reduce operating, maintenance, and transportation costs. The main design considerations are: Emulate RBC Ground station contact: RF transmit/receive on L/S frequency bands, modulate/demodulate commanding/telemetry data, schedule, antenna, ground station control, and status (ADCCP) A tech refresh of FCT Assets, a currently transportable derivative of RBC platforms A scalable solution to support multiple events occurring in parallel at various CONUS locations at reduced FCT sustainment and event costs The system will not be connected to an HPA or antenna for space communications Support FCT events which are approximately 1 month long varying between 8 and 24 hours per day Design Drawings for Manufacturing/Technical Data Support: Attachment 1: FCT OV-1 Diagram, Attachment 2: Definition of Technology Readiness Levels Instructions: Interested parties are invited to submit an electronic unclassified Statement of Capability (SOC) by 21 March 2022 that addresses the ability to satisfy the above requirements to Kimberly McGough at kimberly.mcgough@spaceforce.mil. Oral communications are not acceptable. All responses must conform to 8.5 x 11-inch pages, font no smaller than 12-point, and a maximum of 21 one-sided pages. The electronic submission is presumed to be a total of 21 electronic pages. The SOC must include the following information: The following questions must be addressed in the response to this RFI. If unable to answer a question, indicate the reason why and willingness to resolve that limitation. Any question that is answered in this manner does not necessarily disqualify the system from further considerations. Your survey question response must include: Name of the primary point of contact for the response Company name Email address Phone number Email Identification of other key individuals who collaborated on the RFI response If applicable, a summary description of previous DoD/USSF/SCN experience Questions: Does the FCT Asset meet or exceed Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 8? If at TRL 7, provide a detailed path forward and time estimate to achieve TRL 8. Does the FCT Asset support full compliance with ICD-000502 Range Segment to Space Vehicle, and if not, what subset of those capabilities does it support? When documents differentiate between ARTS, RBC, and RBC Hybrid systems, the system capabilities relevant to RBC are given preference. Does the FCT Asset support full compliance with ICD-000508 Range Segment to Space Vehicle Operations Center, and if not, what subset of those capabilities does it support? When documents differentiate between ARTS, RBC, and RBC Hybrid systems, the system capabilities relevant to RBC are given preference. Does the FCT Asset design present itself as a transportable system, and how is that accomplished? Such as: is the system on a trailer, in crates, require assembly, etc. Does the FCT Asset use an Inter-Range Operations Number (IRON) configuration, and what is the format of the IRON configuration? If the format differs from the SCN IRON configuration format, is there a translation tool available to populate necessary configuration data? If yes, provide a description. Does the FCT Asset support modifications to enable new/upcoming capabilities that the SCN is required to support, such as changes to the ICD-000508 (e.g., new directives, statuses) or ICD-000502 (RF modulation & demodulation schemes)? What would that process look like? Enhancements to current baseline systems would be identified in an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) and contractor would be directed to implement changes, when applicable. Does the FCT Asset include simulation capabilities in the system (e.g., antenna pointing angles, scheduling, recording & playback, fault detection & isolation), or are any capabilities not listed? If so, list the applicable simulation capabilities of the system. Does the FCT Asset have documentation (Technical Orders, Vendor Manuals, Drawings, Training, or otherwise) completed for the system/service? If not, comment whether in development and estimated timeline. If available, copies are requested along with the response. What cybersecurity standards have been applied to harden the system? (e.g., DISA STIGs, NIST 800-53, RMF, etc.). Does the FCT Asset require special connections to operate? Specifically, GPS reception, LTE Signal, and/or other? If yes, elaborate. With the exception of SV related interfaces and power, is the FCT Asset self-contained to operate, or does it require additional infrastructure (e.g., environmental control, reference signals, etc.)? What environmental conditions would the FCT Asset be capable of operating in? Elaborate on temperature, humidity, or other limiting factors applicable to the FCT Asset. What is the civil resource footprint of the FCT Asset? Elaborate on aspects such as dimensions, weight, electrical interface characteristics, and other operating requirements. Does the company responding to the RFI sustain all hardware for the FCT Asset, and if so, does the company offer sustainment services? Elaborate on hardware & services offered for sustainment. Does the company responding to the RFI have the capability to support renting, leasing, or operating an FCT event (i.e., company contracted out to supply operators, engineers, support updating system software)? Supplemental Response Items: What is the envisioned architecture of the FCT Asset? Specifics on interfaces are most helpful. Does the FCT Asset share design elements with industry-standard ground station equipment? What is the timeline to reach a technical demonstration? Does the FCT Asset support both local and remote operations; how flexible is the system’s remote operations capability? Does the FCT Asset support multiple protocols & configurations to interfaces to various types of users (e.g., IP or serial)? If known, elaborate on the FCT Asset compatibility with a Wide Area Network Interface Unit (WANIU), Wide Area Network Interface Function (WANIF), and/or Virtual WANIF. Does the FCT Asset require data rights and licensing needed for future maintenance? Is the FCT Asset used elsewhere in the Defense and Intelligence industry? If available, please provide contact information. If this FCT Asset is used elsewhere, has it received an Authority to Operate (ATO)? Does the company offer training services for the FCT Asset? Does the FCT Asset support Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) DoD Acquisition business and technical strategies, and how so? Would the FCT Asset meet National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regulations as defined in the Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management, January 2021 Edition? In this RFI there are FCT objectives, survey questions, and supplemental response items. Your response must address each item in the survey questions, regardless of applicability to your design or not, and a reason if unable to answer. Responses shall indicate which portions are intellectual property and should be marked accordingly. Also, any classified submittals will not be accepted. In addition to the survey questions, the supplemental response can optionally be answered. All responsible sources may submit an SOC, which will be considered. Responses from small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a)-certified small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) are highly encouraged. The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541690, Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services, with a size standard of $15 M average annual receipt. If your company is interested in only in subcontracting possibilities, please indicate this clearly in your SOC submission. The Government anticipates participation from its Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) contractors during the analysis of SOCs received in response to this synopsis. These contractors will have a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement prior to analysis of SOCs. All data received in response to this synopsis and marked or designated as “corporate” or “proprietary” information will be fully protected from release outside the Government except for the SE&I contractors supporting SSC/ECPN. Any information submitted in response to this synopsis is strictly voluntary. This synopsis is for information and planning purposes only; it does not constitute a request for proposal. Information herein is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision, and is not binding on the Government. The Government will not recognize any cost associated with submission of a SOC. The Government will use any information received for planning purposes in support of market research to improve the understanding of industry capabilities in response to the SOC. An Ombudsman has been appointed to address concerns from offerors or potential offerors. The Ombudsman does not diminish the authority of the program director or contracting officer, but communicates contractor concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations to the appropriate Government personnel. When requested, the Ombudsman shall maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of concern. The Ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of proposals or in the source selection process. The Ombudsman is Lieutenant Colonel Michael Kennebrae, SSC/PK, 483 N. Aviation Blvd, Los Angeles AFB, CA 90245-2808, (310) 653-1786, michael.kennebrae@spaceforce.mil. Place of Contract Performance: Space Systems Command (SSC), 1050 East Stewart Ave, Peterson SFB, CO 80914 Set Aside: N/A Archiving Policy: Automatic – 15 days after the response date Allow Vendors to Add/Remove From Interested Vendors? Yes Allow Vendors to View Interested Vendors List? Yes Attachments: Attachment 1: FCT OV-1 Diagram Attachment 2: Definition of Technology Readiness Levels TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported: Transition from scientific research to applied research. Essential characteristics and behaviors of systems and architectures. Descriptive tools are mathematical formulations or algorithms. TRL 2 Technology concept and/or applications formulated: Applied research. Theory and scientific principles are focused on a specific application area to define the concept. Characteristics of the application are described. Analytical tools are developed for simulation or analysis of the application. TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept: Proof of concept validation. Active Research and Development (R&D) is initiated with analytical and laboratory studies. Demonstration of technical feasibility using breadboard or brassboard implementations that are exercised with representative data. TRL 4 Component/subsystem validation in a laboratory environment: Standalone prototyping implementation and test. Integration of technology elements. Experiments with full-scale problems or data sets. TRL 5 System/subsystem/component validation in the relevant environment: Thorough testing of prototyping in a representative environment. Basic technology elements integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements. Prototyping implementations conform to the target environment and interfaces. TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototyping demonstration in a relevant end-to-end environment (ground or space): Prototyping implementations on full-scale realistic problems. Partially integrated with existing systems. Limited documentation is available. Engineering feasibility is fully demonstrated in the actual system application. TRL 7 System prototyping demonstration in an operational environment (ground or space): System prototyping demonstration in an operational environment. The system is at or near the scale of the operational system, with most functions available for demonstration and test. Well integrated with collateral and ancillary systems. Limited documentation is available. TRL 8 Actual system completed and “mission qualified” through test and demonstration in an operational environment (ground or space): End of system development. Fully integrated with operational hardware and software systems. Most user documentation, training documentation, and maintenance documentation were completed. All functionality tested in simulated and operational scenarios. Verification and Validation (V&V) completed. TRL 9 Actual system “mission proven” through successful mission operations (ground or space): Fully integrated with operational hardware/software systems. The actual system has been thoroughly demonstrated and tested in its operational environment. All documentation completed. Successful operational experience. Sustaining engineering support in place. Is this package (attachment) sensitive/secure? N/A