SPECIAL NOTICE
A -- SBIRS Follow-On AoA - Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Follow-on Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
- Notice Date
- 4/22/2014
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Space Command, SMC - Space and Missile Systems Center, 483 North Aviation Blvd, El Segundo, California, 90245-2808
- ZIP Code
- 90245-2808
- Solicitation Number
- 14-065
- Archive Date
- 5/13/2014
- Point of Contact
- Captain Aldrin Blasquez, Phone: 310-653-9123, Tiffany L. Trotter,
- E-Mail Address
-
aldrin.blasquez@us.af.mil, tiffany.trotter@losangeles.af.mil
(aldrin.blasquez@us.af.mil, tiffany.trotter@losangeles.af.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- RFI for Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Follow-on Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER (AFSPC) LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA Apr 22, 2014 TO: All Potential Respondents SUBJECT: Request for Information (RFI) for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Follow-on Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) REFERENCES: Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) For the Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) Enterprise (9 November 2010) 1. Background HQ Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) are preparing to conduct a SBIRS Follow-On AoA. The purpose of the AoA is to determine the most cost-effective approach for providing follow-on SBIRS launch detection and missile tracking capabilities (Space & Ground) through the 2040 timeframe in keeping with emerging threats and technologies. The AoA will examine a range of alternatives spanning the JROC approved and prioritized OPIR ICD capability gaps. The AoA will examine variations of existing capabilities and new systems/sensors, and will assess disaggregated approaches to implementing these capabilities. The government is interested in solutions that can be operational in the 2025 to 2040 timeframe. The purpose of this RFI is to solicit information for capabilities beyond the current SBIRS space and ground programs of record (i.e., post SBIRS HEO 3/4, GEO 5/6 and Block 10/20, Mobile, Tactical and Joint OPIR Ground systems). Results of this RFI may constitute sufficient market research for any SBIRS follow-on procurement by the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC). The Government encourages respondents to leverage analysis and work conducted in previous SBIRS efforts. Respondents may respond to all or any subset of the information requested in the paragraphs below. This RFI is for market research purposes only. 2. Terms of Reference • Timeframe under consideration for deploying operational systems: 2025-2040 • Affordability and cost effectiveness remain key considerations in the assessment of alternatives. Affordability is defined as concepts that could achieve lower life cycle cost than the current programs of record; cost-effectiveness is defined as the relationship between relative cost and performance achieved. • The purpose of the AoA is to provide an analytic basis for determining the most cost-effective approach for providing follow-on OPIR detection capabilities to support Strategic Missile Warning (SMW), Theater Missile Warning (TMW), Missile Defense (MD), Battlespace Awareness (BA), Technical Intelligence (TI), Civil/Environmental (C/E) and Space Situational Awareness (SSA). • Candidate concepts should align with the following classes of SBIRS follow-on architectures or combinations thereof: • Non-space based solutions • Modifications to SBIRS Program of Record (POR) • Evolved SBIRS POR • New satellite(s) and/or sensors • Disaggregated systems (strategic and tactical) • The Government is interested in concepts that could improve resilience for PORs and new systems 3. Critical Technologies Identify current technology maturity status and investment plans for critical technologies associated with SBIRS Follow-on solutions. Hardware and software technology and manufacturing readiness levels (TRLs and MRLs) should be identified, along with specific planned or recommended investment strategies and schedules (e.g., technology investment roadmaps) to raise TRLs to 6 or higher consistent with the 2025 to 2040 operational need date identified in the terms of reference. A discussion of the relevant risks and opportunities for risk mitigation is highly encouraged. Historical cost data associated with the cost of maturing these or analogous elements (e.g., raising focal plane array [FPA] TRL from 3 to 6) would be of interest. Critical technologies to address include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Optical telescopes b) Detector technologies, materials, and read-out integrated circuits (ROIC) c) Cryogenic coolers (active and/or passive concepts) d) On-board processing, especially pertaining to sensor processing with newer digital FPAs and associated data rates e) Data processing algorithms f) Pointing stability and jitter control g) Other elements as desired 4. Ground and Communications Framework Particular attention is being given to ground and communications impacts resulting from follow-on alternatives being investigated as part of the AoA. Describe concepts that would enable an affordable transition to future evolved or new ground and communications architectures. Of interest are concepts that address: a) Interfaces with existing SBIRS and Joint OPIR Ground (JOG) capabilities for backwards compatibility b) Service-oriented and open architectures fostering competition and agile integration of additional and/or new sensor types and mission applications; applicability of cloud based computing c) Approaches that provide the Government with unlimited data rights or Government Purpose Rights d) Alternative satellite/payload operations concepts using Government and/or commercial approaches to reduce life cycle cost e) Mission data processing to accommodate wideband data throughput of large FPAs f) Integration with the Standard Space Trainer (SST) capabilities g) Enabling technology and infrastructure elements h) Space to ground communications concepts that address the timely transfer of large data files in continuous streaming or packet compressions and/or waveform modification i) Frequency spectrum utilization for secure end-to-end (E2E) mission assured communications j) Ground entry point and space-based communications options including Government and/or commercial alternatives k) Terrestrial data routing and transmission using Government, commercial or hybrid approaches l) Concepts that enable rapid sensor cross-cueing m) Information Assurance and network defense implementations 5. Alternative Sources and Acquisition Approaches Identify alternative acquisition strategies to deliver OPIR products and data directly to the USG. These approaches could include joint ventures (commercial and/or international) to procure SBIRS systems, innovative data sharing agreements that could conceivably reduce the level of DoD space-based infrared collection required, variations in contract strategies, as well as non-space or non-material solutions (e.g., solutions not requiring the development of a USG space based infrared system) that could credibly contribute toward the satisfaction of capabilities in the OPIR ICD. Respondents should address Information Assurance concerns for commercial and international partnerships if applicable. 6. Hosted Payloads The Government is interested in understanding what opportunities exist for hosting SBIRS Follow-on payloads in the 2025-2040 timeframe. Options to host payloads on commercial and international satellites are of interest, while considering International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance. Additionally, provide historical costs, lessons learned, and basis of estimates (BoEs) associated with hosting/integrating a sensor payload on a commercial and/or military spacecraft. The Government seeks to understand business cases that must be made in order to motivate hosted payload mission success. Request insights into the following: a) Spacecraft modifications required (technical, cost and schedule considerations) b) Quantifying risk impacts to host's primary mission payload (i.e. quantifying / monetizing risk associated with potential impacts to host's communications payload) c) Hosted payload interface unit and crypto hardware costs d) Commercial transponder leasing for GEO / HEO commercial hosts 7. Cost Drivers, Basis of Estimate (BoE) and Trades Provide historical cost data and technology investment plans associated with the development (non-recurring) and production (recurring) of concepts provided. The Government is particularly interested in: a) State of the art 2K x 2K and next generation 3K x 3K and 4K x 4K wide field o f view sensor FPAs b) Insight into the relative cost impacts of varying telescope design complexity and the marginal cost of increasing the number of FPAs and telescopes per sensor payload c) Cost impacts associated with passive vs active cooling approaches d) Historical sensor design and production schedules for analogous programs (e.g., Authority to Proceed [ATP] to launch, by acquisition phase where possible) e) Basis of estimate/historical cost/factors for system of systems/enterprise level, payload level, and space vehicle level systems engineering, integration, test and program management (SEIT/PM) support required for analogous sensor development programs. f) Insight into historical cost of payload support equipment g) Typical sensor weight growth for programs of similar complexity and drivers (from ATP to launch) h) Typical source lines of code or equivalent lines of code growth for programs of similar complexity (from ATP to software testing completion) and drivers i) Cost to mature critical sensor technologies from TRL 3 to TRL 6 (or other heuristics across the TRL realm) j) Historical marginal cost associated with designing, testing and producing sensors and space vehicles in response to DoD requirements for nuclear radiation hardening k) Identify key cost vs requirements trades the Government should consider, and any lessons learned from your experience 8. Utility Assessments Provide insights, observations and lessons learned from any OPIR mission-level and/or campaign-level military utility analysis (MUA) for any of the ICD mission areas, to include a description of underlying scenarios and/or vignettes. Identify specific threats to the system and targets included in your utility analysis, or deemed relevant for future analyses. Identify how SBIRS influences operational decision making and/or actions. Analysis should directly correlate SBIRS system effectiveness to specific measures of operational outcome (e.g., lives saved, conflict duration, etc.). 9. Other Data as Desired Respondents may provide or identify additional data deemed relevant to the Government in support of the SBIRS Follow-on AoA. The Government will provide access to the 2010 Enterprise OPIR ICD if respondents are interested and request the documents. The 2010 OPIR ICD is classified Secret and Security Classification Guides are at various classification levels depending on the document. Respondents are asked to contact the individual(s) named below for classified email transmission of the document. For classified email transmission of documents contact Richard Williamson, SETA Support, SMC/XRD, (310) 653-9277 Unclassified e-mail: james.williamson.26.ctr@us.af.mil SIPRNET: James.R.Williamson.Ctr@afspc.af.smil.mil JWICS: james.williamson@LA.ic.Gov GWAN: williajm@nro.ic.gov Interested industry partners without classified email capability must send a visit request via JPAS to SMC/XR Security and contact Capt. Aldrin Blasquez, SMC/XRDE aldrin.blasquez@us.af.mil for secure document transmission and JPAS visit request instructions. 10. Response Information This is a draft RFI. The Government would like to collect industry comments/inputs on the draft RFI questions and approach, and will incorporate those inputs into the RFI and release a final version in early May. Please provide any feedback to this draft RFI by 28 April. An Industry day session may be scheduled after receipt of information requested at the Government's discretion to further discuss responses to this RFI. Technical questions should be addressed to Capt Aldrin Blasquez and contracting questions should be sent to Ms. Tiffany Trotter. This RFI is being conducted for information and planning purposes only. It does not constitute a request for proposal or a request for quote. Information contained in this RFI 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 a submission in response. The information received will be considered for the purposes of market research. This RFI is unrestricted and encourages responses from all responsible contractors independent of size. Additionally, responses from small business and small, disadvantaged business firms are highly encouraged. Firms responding should indicate if they are a small business, a socially and economically disadvantaged business, 8(a) firms, historically black colleges or universities, and minority institutions. The NAICS 541712 size standard (1,000 employees) is applicable to the subcategory for "Space Vehicles and Guided Missiles, their Propulsion Units, their Propulsion Units Parts, and their Auxiliary Equipment and Parts. Respondents shall provide responses electronically in Adobe Acrobat Exchange Portable Document Format (.pdf) (with copy/paste function enabled) on company letterhead with total page count limited to 25 pages, not including cover page and table of contents. A page is defined as each face of an 8.5 x 11 inch sheet, single-spaced with text no smaller than 11-point font size, Times New Roman. All graphics and figures (embedded as well stand-alone) must be legible and with text no smaller than 8 point font. Margins shall be one-inch on all sides. The responses may be Unclassified (controlled Unclassified information / for Official Use Only CUI/FOUO) or classified up to TS/SCI and must adhere to the applicable security classification guides (SCG) and the ISOO marking guide for classification, marking, handling and distribution requirements. Company Proprietary and Export Controlled information must be portion marked (the same as classified). Interested sources providing confidential/proprietary information or export-controlled information in response to this RFI shall portion mark and clearly identify all confidential/proprietary/export controlled information. The Government will take all necessary steps to protect/safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be responsible for any confidential/proprietary information not clearly marked. Submissions of RFI should be sent to: • Captain Aldrin Blasquez, SMC/XRDE, 310-653-9123, aldrin.blasquez@us.af.mil • Richard Williamson, SETA Support, SMC/XRD, (310) 653-9277 Unclassified e-mail: james.williamson.26.ctr@us.af.mil SIPRNET: James.R.Williamson.Ctr@afspc.af.smil.mil JWICS: james.williamson@LA.ic.Gov GWAN: williajm@nro.ic.gov Contracting Points of Contact: • Ms. Kathleen Scholefield, Director of Contracts, SMC/XRC, Kathleen.Scholefield@us.af.mil • Ms. Tiffany Trotter, Contracts Specialist, SMC/XRC, Tiffany.Trotter@us.af.mil
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFSC/SMCSMSC/14-065/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: 483 N. Aviation Blvd, El Segundo, California, 90245, United States
- Zip Code: 90245
- Zip Code: 90245
- Record
- SN03344658-W 20140424/140422234343-834faf8021b4daab3972752543e7a1a0 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |