SBS0045_MGEO_RFI_CRM_QA_v1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA2541-25-004
- Issued by
-
Department of the Air Force
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers spreadsheet for a Request for Information (RFI) regarding Maneuverable Geosynchronous Orbit (MGEO) Commercial Satellite-Based Services for the Department of the Air Force. The document contains nine substantive questions and government responses focused on technical requirements and contract scope.
Key points addressed include: clarification that the scope focuses on small to medium-sized satellites rather than large GEO satellites; confirmation that the 24-month timeframe includes design but not government acceptance; discussion of maneuverability requirements and orbital slots; and licensing/regulatory requirements. The government indicates that while this effort is not solely for CASR (Commercial Augmentation of Satellite Resources) support, it is intended to provide useful support in several areas. The responses suggest that detailed CONOPS and specific requirements regarding satellite building and launch oversight will be defined in any subsequent RFP/RFQ at the task order level.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI Comment Resolution Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MGEO_Draft_CLIN_20241114.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MGEO_RFI Letter_ Signed.pdf | ||
| RFI Comment Resolution Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MGEO_PWS_20241114.docx | DOCX document |
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
Sheet1
| Item Number | Document Title | Reference Number | Questions | Recommendations | CSCO Team Responses |
| 1 | PWS | 2.3.4.5 | Is the intent here to….example | Recommend considering the following….example | |
| 2 | PWS | 1.3 | Traditional, "large", GEO satellites can be maneuvered, but the ability to move GEO satellites is constrained by fuel and authorized orbital slots. That advantage to moving existing traditional satellites is that capability can be deployed quickly in case of urgent need. Is this capability in which the DoD would be interested? The scope only calls out "small to medium sized satellites". | Have two forms of maneuverability on existing large contractor owned, government capacity maneuverability. |
Recommend physical and capacity.
| if it's a government-owned satellite, will the government provide the destination slot? | The Government will take this question and recommendation under advisement and discuss internally. Initial thought is that "Capacity Maneuverability" without moving the satellite is generally tracked as "Surge Capacity" and this exists in all standard contracts. This is not currently within the intended scope. The intent of the scope is to augment capacity with additional satellites. | |||||
| 3 | PWS | 1.3 | The scope of this effort is broad, robust, and non-traditional, and seems to be a logical fit for CASR. Does the govt have the intent to use this for contracting services for the ongoing CASR effort? | If so, a unique set of CLINs to support this effort is recommended. | The intent of this effort is not solely to provide support for the ongoing CASR effort, however it is intended to be of useful support to CASR in several different areas. The Government will review the CLIN structure and determine the most advantageous way of addressing support. | |
| 4 | PWS | 1.3/2.7.1.2 | Building and launching spacecraft is a complex activity that has traditionally been managed as an ACAT program with the respective oversight and approvals. Would any build efforts under this IDIQ be subject to these oversight requirements? | The model to be utilized in support of a requirement to build and launch a spacecraft will be addressed at the task order level and may be subject to these oversight requirements. Unfortunately, it is not possible to state for a certainty at this time as these decisions will be made by the order requesting authority. | ||
| 5 | Better define CONOPS -- Industry could be responsive with clever commercial and technical solutions if the government could please be more clear about the different kinds of maneuver thereafter. | Noted. CONOPS will likely be defined in any resultant RFP/RFQ. | ||||
| 6 | PWS | 1.3 | Why restrict contract to maneuverable GEOs, all for maneuverable capacity from existing or future GEOs | New generation high capacity GEOs have the ability to move capacity within the field of view of the satellite (1/3 earth). This capacity can be moved either by mechanical or electrical steering and adaptive beamforming. Recommend adding a CLIN for maneuverable capacity not just satellites. | The Government will take this question and recommendation under advisement and discuss internally. | |
| 7 | PWS | 2.7.1.1 | Does the 24 month time frame include the design process and government acceptance? | The 24 months includes the design, but not the government acceptance | ||
| 8 | PWS | 2.7.2/2.7.2.1 | If the Government provided slot can not meet regulatory requirements and licensing in that slot who is held accountable? | The resolution of such an issue is still to be determined and continued consideration and research will be performed by the Government. | ||
| 9 | PWS | 2.9.8 | Section states frequency clearances and approvals for coverage areas proposed shall be available prior to contract award. How is this accomplished if the orbital slots and payload for that location are not known apriorism? | The Government intends to provide all necessary information as required by the contractor to assist in obtaining all necessary approvals. Should the Government be unable to provide information, the Government does not intend to hold the contractor at fault for failure to meet these approvals. | ||
| 10 | ||||||
| 11 | ||||||
| 12 | ||||||
| 13 | ||||||
| 14 | ||||||
| 15 | ||||||
| 16 | ||||||
| 17 | ||||||
| 18 | ||||||
| 19 | ||||||
| 20 | ||||||
| 21 | ||||||
| 22 | ||||||
| 23 | ||||||
| 24 | ||||||
| 25 | ||||||
| 26 | ||||||
| 27 | ||||||
| 28 | ||||||
| 29 | ||||||
| 30 | ||||||
| 31 | ||||||
| 32 | ||||||
| 33 | ||||||
| 34 | ||||||
| 35 | ||||||
| 36 | ||||||
| 37 | ||||||
| 38 | ||||||
| 39 | ||||||
| 40 | ||||||
| 41 | ||||||
| 42 | ||||||
| 43 | ||||||
| 44 | ||||||
| 45 | ||||||
| 46 | ||||||
| 47 | ||||||
| 48 | ||||||
| 49 | ||||||
| 50 | ||||||
| 51 | ||||||
| 52 | ||||||
| 53 | ||||||
| 54 | ||||||
| 55 | ||||||
| 56 | ||||||
| 57 | ||||||
| 58 | ||||||
| 59 | ||||||
| 60 | ||||||
| 61 | ||||||
| 62 | ||||||
| 63 | ||||||
| 64 | ||||||
| 65 | ||||||
| 66 | ||||||
| 67 | ||||||
| 68 | ||||||
| 69 | ||||||
| 70 | ||||||
| 71 | ||||||
| 72 | ||||||
| 73 | ||||||
| 74 | ||||||
| 75 | ||||||
| 76 | ||||||
| 77 | ||||||
| 78 | ||||||
| 79 | ||||||
| 80 | ||||||
| 81 | ||||||
| 82 | ||||||
| 83 | ||||||
| 84 | ||||||
| 85 | ||||||
| 86 | ||||||
| 87 | ||||||
| 88 | ||||||
| 89 | ||||||
| 90 | ||||||
| 91 | ||||||
| 92 | ||||||
| 93 | ||||||
| 94 | ||||||
| 95 | ||||||
| 96 | ||||||
| 97 | ||||||
| 98 | ||||||
| 99 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .