TACOS RFI QA 20AUG26.docx

1. 463L pallet / physical system boundary. Section 2.1 states that the entire system shall be transportable on a single 463L pallet. For purposes of industry solutioning and ROM development, can the Government clarify what equipment is expected to be included within that one-pallet boundary? Specifically, does the requirement include radar/sensors, shelter, radios/antennas, and organic power-generation equipment, or is the one-pallet requirement intended for the TACOS command-and-control, automation, operator, compute/network, and associated equipment?

a. One pallet for the command-and-control, operator workstations, computer/network, etc. All associated/necessary equipment for TACOS may potentially require up to 2-4 463L pallets, but that is still being clarified based on additional information from market research. We will be trading space with MTRS on a C-130J-30 aircraft.

b. The single (1) 463L pallet transportability baseline in Section 2.1 applies specifically to the core TACOS Command and Control (C2), network, automation, and Human-Machine Interface (HMI) workstation architecture packaged in self-contained transit cases.

c. For the purposes of solutioning and ROM development, the Government anticipates the complete system deployment footprint—to include organic power-generation, tactical radios, antenna elements, potential environmental control, and auxiliary support equipment—will span approximately 2 to 4 total 463L pallets.

d. The AFLCMC/ESAA PMO is actively conducting trade studies regarding overall footprint, weight, and aircraft integration constraints (specifically trading pallet positions on a C-130J-30). Vendors are encouraged to detail the modularity, weight, and pallet footprint of their proposed solutions in their responses."

2. Radar and sensor boundary. The RFI describes TACOS as sensor-agnostic and capable of ingesting multiple external radar and surveillance sources. For ROM purposes, should respondents assume that primary radar and other major surveillance sensors will be Government-furnished or separately acquired systems that TACOS interfaces with, or should the TACOS response include procurement of those sensors?

a. The sensor-agnostic description is in regard to multiple other external radar and surveillance sources that TACOS will be able to pull from, i.e. DASR, host nation radars, Joint service radar, ADS-B, other tactical radars available, etc. The TACOS program will not include procurement of those sensors. Respondents should assume that all surveillance capability will be Government-furnished systems that TACOS interfaces with.

3. System integration responsibility. The RFI calls for a Government-owned system architecture and non-proprietary interfaces. Can the Government clarify the intended division of responsibility between the Government and industry? Does the Government anticipate providing and governing the architecture/interface baseline while a prime integrator is responsible for integrating the TACOS subsystems and delivering the end-to-end capability, or does the Government anticipate performing more of the system-level integration itself?

a. The Government’s acquisition strategy is centered on establishing a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) utilizing non-proprietary, standards-based interfaces. Rather than dictating a rigid "Government-owned" architecture, the Government intends to govern the overarching architectural framework and standards. This division of responsibility encourages industry innovation, allowing a future prime contractor to act as the lead system integrator responsible for designing the system architecture, developing the necessary Interface Control Documents (ICDs), and delivering the end-to-end TACOS capability. While this RFI is strictly for market research and acquisition planning, the Government anticipates that the contractor's specific responsibility to design, integrate, and deliver an architecture that seamlessly conforms to the established framework will be formally defined in a future Request for Proposal (RFP). This ensures that future subsystem boundary interfaces remain sensor-agnostic and support rapid third-party hardware and software integration without reliance on vendor-proprietary solutions.

4. STARS ELITE / certification. Section 2.4 references the FAA STARS ELITE configuration baseline and a design capable of operating in the National Airspace System. For the prototype and initial production phases, is the Government expecting full FAA certification as an acceptance requirement, or a TACOS baseline designed to meet the applicable functionality and certification requirements with formal certification occurring as the program matures?

a. No, the Government does not expect full FAA certification during the prototype and initial production phases. The initial requirement is for a TACOS baseline designed to meet applicable functionality and expeditionary requirements. While the FAA’s STARS ELITE baseline relies on a highly redundant, fixed-base Multi-Subsystem Processor (MSP) architecture to ensure continuous uptime in the National Airspace System (NAS), this heavy footprint is unfeasible for a rapidly deployable, expeditionary Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems. Formal certification pathways may be addressed at a later date as the TACOS program matures past prototyping.

5. ROM quantity assumptions. The RFI requests a suggested LRIP quantity but does not identify an objective TACOS production quantity or anticipated mix of low-, medium-, and high-demand configurations. Does the Government have a notional quantity or configuration mix that respondents should use for ROM planning, or would the Government prefer industry to establish and clearly state its own planning assumptions?

a. The government does not currently have an objective TACOS production quantity or anticipated mix of size configurations. There are 32 systems that are being planned for TACOS.

b. For the purposes of ROM planning and market research, respondents should assume a notional objective quantity of 32 total TACOS systems. However, rather than procuring rigid, pre-defined 'low, medium, or high-demand' hardware configurations, the Government's objective is a highly scalable, modular architecture. The system must be capable of scaling its footprint up or down based on operational mission requirements—utilizing the same core C2, automation, and workstation building blocks.

c. The AFLCMC/ESAA PMO encourages respondents to clearly state their own planning assumptions regarding Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantities, and to demonstrate how their proposed solution dynamically scales to support varying levels of traffic, operator positions, and expeditionary environments.