Consolidated QA for GEO Antennae System (Gov Responses).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CFS-25-GEOANT-01
About this file
This is a Consolidated Questions and Answers document addressing industry inquiries regarding a Call for Solutions (CFS-25-GEOANT-01) for GEO Antennae Systems issued by the Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground on behalf of the Product Manager for Satellite Communications. The Government clarified that Phase One is market research to understand current and near-future satellite antenna terminal capabilities, not a prescriptive solicitation requiring exact specification compliance. The Government seeks innovative Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) or near-COTS solutions and encourages vendors to present scalable approaches even if they do not perfectly align with all threshold objectives. The solution submission date was extended to April 20, 2026, allowing three weeks after receipt of question responses for accurate pricing preparation.
Key clarifications address terminal configuration, RF performance, and operational requirements. The Government seeks solutions ideally contained within five or fewer airline-checkable transit cases with a two-man lift per case, eliminating the previous 204-pound weight constraint. For the Field Configurable 3-Band Kit, all RF components (feeds, converters, and amplifiers) should ideally fit within the five-case total allocation rather than requiring additional cases. Regarding RF performance, the Government defined ranges for Ku-band EIRP (51.9-62.3 dBW) and G/T (17.8-24.6 dBi/K), Ka-band EIRP (55.6-67.9 dBW) and G/T (18.5-27.1 dBi/K), and X-band EIRP (45.6-61.0 dBW) and G/T (13.8-20.1 dBi/K) to accommodate terminal sizes ranging from 1-2 meters. The Government requires TRL 7 as a fully integrated system demonstrated in an operational environment, 15-minute setup inclusive of physical assembly and satellite acquisition, and solutions must be both TRANSEC capable and FIPS 140-3 compliant. Latency will be measured from remote modem to hub under typical test conditions at 20-degree elevation with clear sky, using WGS and mPower as reference baseline systems. Third-party modem integrations are acceptable if TAA compliant. This is a full and open competition with no set-aside; all business sizes are eligible to submit.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Consolidated Q&A for GEO Antenn
| Note from the Government team | ||||
| The Government acknowledges the questions received regarding the specifics of the requirements in the recent Call for Solutions. We wish to clarify that the intent of this solicitation in Phase One, initially, is to conduct market research and understand the current and near-future art of the possible for satellite antenna terminals. This is not a traditional, prescriptive solicitation where offerors are expected to meet every specification down to the last detail. Instead, we are seeking innovative Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) or near-COTS solutions that come as close as possible to the desired capabilities. The Army is strategically moving toward smaller, more capable, and more flexible standalone terminals. This Call is an opportunity for industry to showcase innovative solutions and help inform our future requirements. We encourage vendors to present their most innovative and scalable approaches, even if they do not perfectly align with every threshold objective outlined in the document. Your creativity and feedback in this process are highly valued. | ||||
| Section Reference | Topic | Question/Comment | Government Reply | Notes |
| N/A | N/A | In order to ensure accurate ROM pricing, the offeror respectfully requests an extension of 3 weeks after the receipt of question responses but no earlier than April 20, 2026. | An extension to 20 April, 2026 is acceptable to the government. | Amend solution submission date to reflect 20 APR 2026. |
| 3.1 | Terminal Size | Is there a maximum number of terminal transit cases allowed per system or mission configuration? | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | Amend terminal size language- get rid of maximum weight "204lbs" |
| 3.1 | Terminal Size | Are the modem(s) to be included in the two transit cases or should those be packed separately? | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less with modems fitting within this case allotment | Amend terminal size language- get rid of maximum weight "204lbs" |
| 3.1 | Terminal Size | How many modems does the customer intend to include in their deployment? | The Government is looking for industry to present innovative solutions. | |
| 3.1 | Field Configurable & 3 Band Kit | The Field Configurable Threshold requirement specifies that the terminal plus all three band feeds, converters, and amplifiers must fit within two transit cases total. Please clarify if these additional RF components should be packed into two additional cases or be contained within the two terminal system cases. | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | |
| 3.1 | Field Configurable & 3 Band Kit | The 3 Band Kit requirement indicates each band should be available as an optional line item while still meeting the two-case constraint. Please clarify if each band kit should be packaged separately as individual line items in their own cases. | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | |
| 3.1 | Amplifier Support | Given the range of the sizes of the terminals (1-2 meters), the offeror respectfully requests the customer provide a range for the Ku-band G/T and EIRP values which accommodate that range of reflector sizes. Based on the offeror's expertise we suggest a Ku-band EIRP Range of 51.9 dBW to 62.3 dBW and a G/T range of 17.8 dBi/K to 24.6 dBi/K for this reflector size range. | Our intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 3.1 | Amplifier Support | Given the range of the sizes of the terminals (1-2 meters), the offeror respectfully requests the customer provide a range for the Ka-band G/T and EIRP values which accommodate that range of reflector sizes. Based on the offeror's expertise we suggest a Ka-band EIRP Range of 55.6 dBW to 67.9 dBW and a G/T range of 18.5 dBi/K to 27.1 dBi/K for this reflector size range. | Our intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 3.1 | Amplifier Support | Given the range of the sizes of the terminals (1-2 meters), the offeror respectfully requests the customer provide a range for the mPOWER commercial Ka-band G/T and EIRP values which accommodate that range of reflector sizes. Based on the offeror's expertise we suggest an mPOWER commercial Ka-band EIRP Range of 55.6 dBW to 67.9 dBW and a G/T range of 18.5 dBi/K to 27.1 dBi/K for this reflector size range. | Our intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 3.1 | Amplifier Support | Given the range of the sizes of the terminals (1-2 meters), the offeror respectfully requests the customer provide a range for the X-band G/T and EIRP values which accommodate that range of reflector sizes. Based on the offeror's expertise we suggest a X-band EIRP Range of 45.6 dBW to 61.0 dBW and a G/T range of 13.8 dBi/K to 20.1 dBi/K for this reflector size range. | Our intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 6.1.1 F | Affirmation of Business Status Certification | Is the Affirmation of Business Status Certification Attachment required for offerors proposing existing commercial solutions under FAR-based contracts? | Yes. As stipulated in Section 6.1.1 of the Call for Solutions, the 'Affirmation of Business Status Certification' is a required component of the Phase 1 submission package for all offerors. The Government retains the flexibility to decide which award instrument is most suitable (Prototype OTA or FAR-based contract) after evaluating the submissions. An offeror may propose a commercial solution, but the Government might still see a need for minor modifications that would make a Prototype OTA a better fit. | |
| 6.1.1 E | Notional Schedule | Please clarify if the notional schedule requested refers to a project development timeline or a solution delivery timeline. | The government would like to understand the timeline from Initial order to delivery of proposed solution. | |
| 6.1.1 E | Notional Schedule | If the notional schedule requested pertains to the solution delivery timeline, the offeror respectfully requests insight into the number of solutions and timeline for expected delivery. | The Government is looking for industry to set expectations of delivery lead time for the innovative solution proposed. | |
| 6.1.1 E | Notional Schedule | If the notional schedule requested pertains to project development, please confirm that this is not required for commercial products which do not require development. | Ideally this innovative solution would be a COTS product now or in the near future. The Government would like to understand the timeline from initial order to delivery of proposed solution. | |
| 5.2 | Set Aside | On SAM.GOV is states No set aside, then in 5.2 states "accurately represent their small business size and status as required."� Please clarify. | This Call for Solutions is a full and open competition with no set-aside; therefore, businesses of all sizes are encouraged to submit proposals.The requirement in Section 5.2 for offerors to represent their business size and status is a standard administrative requirement for all Government solicitations. This information is used for Government statistical reporting purposes and to determine when a small business subcontracting plan may be required for any potential future FAR-based contract award. The requirement to represent business status does not limit the competition to small businesses." | |
| 3.1 | TRL 7 | How does the GOV define commercial maturity of TRL 7? Is this a system or components? Is an Operational Prototype acceptable? | The Government defines TRL 7 as a fully integrated system demonstrated in an operational environment. It should adhere to all of the other standards of the TRL 7 industry standards. | |
| 3.1 | Waveform Support | Are we to assume the modems are GFE or is the offeror able to propose alternate existing and/or emerging waveforms. | The Governement's intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 3.1 | Waveform Support | Is transit-case based or mud-box type modem packaging required or preferred? | Ideally mud-box type of packaging. | |
| 3.1 | Baseband | Is the expectation that there will be an aggregation router at the satcom system to support the Fiber Optic and Ethernet Connectivity? | The Government would like the option to be able to plug in via fiber or ethernet without added complexity. | |
| 3.1 | Field Configurable | Does the offeror assume three different feeds, one for each band? This will put the offeror over the case count and weight requirement. More clarity is needed. | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | |
| 3.1 | Field Configurable | Is the modem and waveform support capability packaging in addition to the allotted 2 transit cases. | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | |
| 3.1 | Tracking | Clarify motorized and automatic pointing and not manual. Is there a preference for an Az/El or X/Y pedestal? X/Y is more expensive but would provide LEO flexibility if ever required. | The Government is looking for industry to propose innovative solutions | |
| 3.1 | Amplifier Size | The EIRP and G/T specified in the requirement is best utilized on an antenna over 2M, is the GOV willing to accept a larger antenna over 2M? | The Governement's intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 2.0 Pg 2 | Latency Definition & Evaluation Criteria (CRITICAL) | How will the Government be defining and measuring “Low-Latency� for GEO-based solutions. Typical RT times are greater than 650ms at the router co-located with the terminal and the CSO references >500ms which is a large delta from observed norms on current systems for GEO. Will latency be evaluated as physical link latency or end-to-end mission/application latency (including processing, routing, and any optimization)? | The Governement's intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. Speeds would be measured from remote modem to hub. | |
| 3.1 Pg 3,4 | Terminal Scope vs Network Scope | Is the Government evaluating a standalone terminal solution, or an end-to-end transport architecture including gateways, network management, and optimization layers? I would clarify this since there are hub dependent modems and networks that they may be alluding to. Will current gateway infrastructure (commercial or military) be considered in the selection? | The Government is looking for industry to propose innovative standalone solutions | |
| 3.1 Pg 4 | SWaP/Two-Case Constraint | Does the two-case, two-person lift constraint (204 lbs total) apply to the full multi-band configuration simultaneously, or can band-specific kits be deployed independently? Are amplifiers, feeds, and converters required to be co-resident within the two cases, or can modular expansion kits be fielded separately? Where does the government foresee the 28 VDC(24VDC nom) power conversion to take place? Is that converter included in the current two case configuration? | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | |
| 3.1 Pg 3 | RF Performance & Link Budget Assumptions | What operating conditions (e.g., elevation angles, availability targets, weather margins) should be assumed when demonstrating compliance with EIRP and G/T thresholds? Are specific satellite systems (e.g., WGS, mPower) to be used as reference baselines for evaluation? | Typical test environment is at 20 degrees elevation with clear sky conditions. WGS and mPower are the reference baseline systems | |
| 3.1 Pg 4 | Waveform & Modem Expectations | Are third-party modem integrations acceptable, or is the Government seeking a unified/modular modem architecture? This is important given the AJ requirements specified, the current status of the sovereign modem for mPower v. non-sovereign, and the willingness of manufacturers to allow external images on their SD platforms. | The Government is looking for industry to propose innovative solutions. If a third party is used the modem must be TAA compliant. | |
| 3.1 Pg 4 | Security/TRANSEC Interpretation | Can the Government clarify the intent of "TRANSEC per FIPS 140-3,"�specifically whether validated cryptographic modules alone are sufficient? FIPS compliancy does not always mean full TRANSEC - this needs clarity. | The government is looking for industry to propose innovative solutions that are both fully TRANSEC capable and fully FIPS 140-3 compliant. | |
| 3.1 Pg 3 | TRL 7 Definition | How does the Government define TRL 7 in this context (component-level vs integrated system demonstration in operational environment)? This is important as you cant always have a system that has been qualified as an "Operational Prototype"�that has been in an actual operational environment. You may have pieces of other prototypes with that characteristic but this could be problematic from a system perspective. | The Government defines TRL 7 as a fully integrated system demonstrated in an operational environment. It should adhere to all of the other standards of the TRL 7 industry standards. | |
| 3.1 Pg 4 | Setup/Automation Expectations | Does the 15-minute setup requirement include antenna acquisition, network registration, and waveform configuration, or only physical assembly? | Yes, the government is looking for innovative solutions from industry that meet 15 minute set up requirements inclusive of physical set up and satellite acquisition. Systems may be fully pre-configured | |
| 2.0 Problem Statement | Low-Latency | Given that end-to-end latency in GEO satellite communications is primarily driven by orbital physics and network architecture typically resulting in latencies exceeding 500 ms, can the Government clarify whether achieving "low-latency"�performance is expected to be accomplished solely within a GEO architecture, or if solutions incorporating multi-orbit capabilities (e.g., MEO or hybrid GEO/MEO architectures) are within scope of this effort? | The Governement's intent with this Call for Solicitation is to understand the range of solutions available within industry, and to encourage vendors to present innovative and scalable approaches that can accommodate a smaller more capable terminal. | |
| 3.1 Required Attributes | Terminal Size | Can the Government clarify whether the complete GEO terminal solution, including antenna, RF components, and supporting equipment is required to be fully contained within two transit cases with a total system weight not exceeding 204 lbs. (i.e., 102 lbs. per case), or if this weight constraint applies only to specific components of the system? | The government is looking for innovative solutions that ideally are 5 cases or less, a two man lift per case, and airline checkable per case. | |
| 3.1 Required Attributes | Baseband | Can the Government clarify whether connectivity to the baseband must support both Ethernet and fiber optic interfaces simultaneously, or if providing either interface independently is sufficient to meet the requirement? | The Government would like the option to be able to plug in via fiber or ethernet without added complexity. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .