FA2541-25-003_CSS0130_SatAAms_RFIv2.docx

RFI/Sources Sought Satellite Communications as a Managed Service (SATaaMS) United States Space Force Space Systems Command Commercial Service Office

RFI FA2541-25-0003

The Government is seeking industry feedback, recommendations, and best practices for this response. Please be direct and succinct in your responses to the questions below. In several instances we ask for opinions. Opinions should be accompanied with justification or rationale. Please DO NOT provide generic capability statements; they will be deleted. The Government is seeking well defined responses with supporting documentation to assist with developing any potential acquisition strategy. All responses must be submitted via email to the contacts identified below. This is for informational purposes only and the Government will not be obligated to award to any interested suppliers that present information in response to this Request For Information (RFI)/ Sources Sought. The Government currently has no firm plans to issue a Request For Proposal/Request For Quote (RFP/RFQ) related to this notice.

***All information provided is optional; however, it will be used to assist the Government in determining its acquisition strategy***

Description of need:

The US Army is seeking a highly reliable and secure communication network for the Army with worldwide coverage. The communication network will ensure uninterrupted data transfer, voice communication for the warfighter. The offeror must meet at least a 6 Mbps download and a 2 Mbps upload. These are only the very minimum requirements, but the Army seeks higher and cost-effective data plans.

In addition, the US Army seeks multiple vendors to supply iDirect SATCOM terminals that will be used for the Sustainment Transport System (STS) Program. The SATaaMS portion to STS will provide: multiband-capable SATCOM terminals, SATCOM terminal training, and maintenance of SATCOM terminals. All SATaaMS for STS requirements will be outlined in section seven (7) of the PWS.

The questions below are intended to increase CSCO’s awareness of the current state of the art, the art of the possible and approaches that may not have received sufficient consideration in forming an acquisition strategy.

Questions for Industry:

1. Please characterize the type of business you represent:

a. Satellite Owner/Operator: ☐

b. Satellite Services Integrator/Reseller: ☐

c. Satellite Equipment Manufacturer/Supplier: ☐

d. Network Orchestration Manufacturer/Supplier: ☐

e. Other: ☐ Please Specify: ______________________

2. SATaaMS anticipates using a contract structure with two service throughput tiers at varying GB consumption thresholds within each major COCOM region. The Government is interested in industry feedback on recommendations to better align available CLIN’s with industry offerings. Does industry recommend a more granular breakdown of countries or subregions within a COCOM be practical, either across all or some COCOM regions and, if so, what are those breakdowns?

0. Would industry recommend more (or less) than two service tiers for each COCOM region?

0. What maximum CIRs and MIRs can be offered while adhering to the PWS standards?

0. Would industry consider offering an unlimited data plan and, if so, under what terms? For example, would there be a data consumption limit at which a financial or technical penalty would apply and, if so, what would that penalty be?

0. Would industry consider offering GB consumption plans with usage shared among terminals and, if so, what limitations would apply to such a plan?

0. How will industry ensure that terminal usage metering is properly limited to user data and not include vendor network management/maintenance traffic?

3. The Government requests industry feedback on flexibility available to define custom service plans on relevant timescales? For example, implementing a new CIR and MIR combination within 30 days.

4. Recommendations on standard industry testing to validate throughput over COMSATCOM services. Software (Ixia?) or hardware (Firebird/internal BERT) – example references may be dated and should be updated.

a. The Government envisions testing throughput end-end (Army node connected to vendors terminal through vendors gateway to Army hub). Please provide feedback on any concerns with this method, and any alternative options, including any potential testing capability to the service demarcation point.

5. PWS 2.22 defines NETOPS Web Monitoring Portal, with baseline capabilities within each. The Government requests industry feedback on fine tuning these thresholds, along with addition or revision to better align with industry offering. All noted performance requirements are end-end (Army node connected to vendors terminal through vendors gateway to Army hub). Responses need not be limited to the items below, however, specific performance measurements the Government requests feedback on are:

a. CIR availability determined from average throughput per minute.

b. One-way delay measured by 1-minute average, not to exceed 1 second.

c. Average packet loss per minute, not to exceed 1%.

d. Jitter average per minute, not to exceed 300 milliseconds for more than 1% of the time.

6. PWS 2.6 defines terminal requirements. The Government requests industry feedback on fine tuning these requirements. Please provide feedback regarding the feasibility of meeting the service plan requirements with these specifications and provide any change recommendations that could decrease cost while meeting the requirements.

7. PWS 2.6 requires terminals be available for shipment 30 days prior to service start. The Government requests industry feedback on the lead time required to meet this requirement, along with caveats relating to order quantity or other lead time considerations.

8. PWS 2.6 defines terminal approval process via Terminal Safety Assessment Report (TSAR). Please provide industry feedback on this process and any challenges in completing this. Does industry require Government support in completing this process and, if so, please define the expected level of support.

9. The Government envisions a multi-orbit offering. Please discuss considerations, limitations, and mitigations across current and future Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) offerings.

a. What constellations would industry plan to offer (current and future)?

b. Are coverage maps, inclusive of landing rights indications, available for each?

c. Are there any integrating technologies industry would consider introducing as part of a solution offering?

d. Can industry plan to offer terminals with a capability to operate in the absence of GPS, within each orbit/constellation?

10. What is your estimate of scalability (number of terminals and throughputs supportable) within your offering, within each geographic COCOM, and then within a 50-mile radius?

a. The Government may require substantial ramps in terminal count and/or data consumption in a localized area during large-scale combat operations (LSCO). How would industry address the concern of supporting such requirements with SATaaMS?

Requested Information:

In addition to providing direct and succinct responses to the questions above and justification or rationale for the opinions rendered, interested suppliers are asked to submit the following information:

A. Supplier Information Requested

a. Name of Business

b. Cage Code

c. Primary Address

d. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code

e. Business Type Small Business/Large

f. POC: Name/Phone number/email

B. Please provide, in separate documents from the RFI response, any other relevant information you are willing to share regarding capabilities, features, and roadmaps related to the topics covered in the questions.

C. Any recommendations for current industry best practices not listed.

D. If your company is a small business, please describe ability to meet the requirements outlined in 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

E. Does your company currently have a GSA MAS Schedule (provide schedule #); if so

a. Does a significant portion of the requirements in the PWS fall within currently awarded CLINs (please provide CLIN #s) on your schedule?

b. What requirement areas could, and would your schedule need to be modified to add?

c. What requirement areas do you believe would need to be acquired open market?

There is no limit to response length, however the Government seeks succinct and efficient responses and will not review generic capability statements. All responses shall be submitted NLT 15 Nov 2024 at 1700EST. Please submit your responses to the following individuals (include all):

John Seacrist, Contracting Officer. Email: john.seacrist@spaceforce.mil Venita Allen, Contracting Specialist. Email: venita.allen@spaceforce.mil

Upon conclusion of market research efforts, the Government may or may not release a formal solicitation for this effort. Should you have any questions please reach out to the individuals above.

image1.png image2.png image3.emf