Ballistic Missile Early Warning (BMEW) and Military Satellite Communication (MILSATCOM) Request for Information (RFI)

Active

Contract Opportunity

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.

Attachments/Links