HAMR FINAL AMENDMENT 0001 23MAR26.pdf

Amendment 0001 to Request for Information (RFI) Hardened Advanced M-Code Receivers (HAMR)

23-Mar-26

This document is issued to provide clarification in response to questions submitted by industry regarding the Request for Information (RFI) for the Hardened Advanced M-Code Receiver (HAMR) program.

The following questions and the Government's corresponding answers are hereby provided for all potential respondents. This information should be considered an official part of the RFI. All other terms and conditions of the RFI, including the response date of 30 March 2026, remain unchanged.

1. In this section you ask 23 questions about the company including “Company structure.” I am not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean C-corp or LLC? For the purposes of this RFI, we are requesting information on both of the following on the term "Company Structure":

• Corporate Legal Structure: (e.g., C-corporation, S-corporation, Limited Liability Company (LLC), etc.).

• Business Size Status: The official North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) size status of your company (e.g., Small Business, Other than Small Business, etc.).

• Please provide both pieces of information in your response.

2. You ask for this information for all “any teaming or joint venture partners”. I am not sure what is meant by teaming. Does that include subcontractors? Regarding the distinction between "teaming or joint venture partners" and subcontractors. For the purposes of this RFI, please interpret the terms as follows:

• A Teaming or Joint Venture (JV) Partner is a company that would form a distinct legal entity with your firm to act as the prime contractor. This entity would be jointly and severally responsible for the contract.

• A Subcontractor is a firm that provides supplies or services to your company in support of your role as the prime contractor. The subcontractor does not have a direct contractual relationship with the Government.

3. Is this a new requirement? Or is there an incumbent contract/contractor currently performing the services? This is a new requirement for the Air Force Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Program Office. The primary objective of this RFI is to conduct market research to identify and assess industry capabilities for a replacement to the Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR). The DAGR, also known as the AN/PSN-13, has been a standard piece of equipment for the U.S. Department of Defense for many years, but the Air Force is now seeking to identify next-generation solutions. Currently, there is no incumbent contractor performing the specific services of replacing the DAGR for the Air Force PNT Program Office. This RFI is the initial step in the process of defining the requirements for a future acquisition.

4. Would you be able to share the contract details for reference? As this is a new requirement and there is no existing contract for the replacement of the DAGR, there are no contract details to provide for reference.

Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10, this RFI is a tool for market research, not a formal solicitation for proposals. The information gathered through this RFI will be used for planning purposes to help shape the acquisition strategy. Responses to this RFI are not considered offers and will not result in a binding contract. Therefore, the focus of your response should be on your company’s capabilities to meet the challenges of replacing the DAGR with a modern, capable, and secure PNT solution.

• The Air Force PNT Program Office is interested in understanding the current state of technology in the commercial marketplace. This includes, but is not limited to, solutions that offer:

• M-Code Capability: The ability to utilize the modernized, more secure M-Code GPS signal is a critical area of interest as the Department of Defense transitions away from the legacy SAASM-based systems like the DAGR.

Request for Information (RFI)

23-Mar-26

• Enhanced Anti-Jamming and Anti-Spoofing: Superior performance in contested electromagnetic environments.

• Improved User Interface and Functionality: Features such as moving map displays, improved battery life, and reduced size and weight compared to the legacy DAGR system.

• Interoperability: The ability to integrate with existing and future military systems and platforms.

We encourage all interested parties to provide a comprehensive overview of their capabilities and potential solutions in their response to this RFI. This will assist the Air Force PNT Program Office in developing a well-defined requirement for a future solicitation.

5. Does the end user value single-cable solutions that leverage the existing coaxial cable (DAGR to RA-1 antenna) to carry power, RF and data between the hub and the antijam antenna? Solutions that reduce integration complexity and cost, such as single-cable designs, are of interest to the Government. The Government is currently assessing the tradeoff between ease of integration and overall system capability.

Respondents are encouraged to describe the advantages of their specific approach, including any impacts on cost, schedule, and performance.

6. Does the end user value non-RF complementary PNT sources to provide position and timing during temporary GPS outages? Enhancing PNT assurance in GPS-denied or degraded environments is a key objective. The Government is interested in understanding the capabilities of available Alternative Navigation (AltNav) solutions. Respondents should describe their approach to providing resilient PNT and discuss how their solution manages integration with host platforms that may or may not be designed to process AltNav data.

7. Does the end user value a remoted display in addition to an embedded display? The HAMR program anticipates a mixed-use environment where some host platforms will have their own user interface, and others will require the device to have an embedded display. The Government is seeking maximum flexibility. Respondents should describe the various display and control configurations their solution can support to meet the needs of a diverse user base.

8. Does the end user value low-cost turnkey PNT system sparing in lieu of depot level replacement of components? The Government is exploring all options for its lifecycle sustainment strategy. A decision between a sparing concept and a depot-level repair concept will be based on a comprehensive lifecycle cost analysis. Respondents are encouraged to provide data that can inform this analysis, including Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), production availability, and recommended sparing strategies versus estimated repair turnaround times.

9. What functionality does the customer consider to be required of a form-fit-function drop-in replacement for a DAGR. For example, logical ICD compatibility, HMI commonality, etc. For the purposes of this RFI, the Government's interest in a "drop-in replacement" for a DAGR is focused on minimizing integration burdens on existing host platforms. Respondents should describe their solution's ability to achieve the following:

• Form/Fit Compatibility: The ability to utilize existing DAGR mounting hardware and occupy a similar physical volume.

• Interface Compatibility: The ability to interface with host systems designed to receive data from a

DAGR, including logical Interface Control Document (ICD) compatibility.

While the Government recognizes that a transition from SAASM to M-Code represents a change in functional capability, the overarching objective is to reduce the cost, schedule, and technical risk of integration. Solutions that maximize backward compatibility are of significant interest.

Request for Information (RFI)

23-Mar-26

10. What specific effort is referenced in the question, “Are you willing to propose a fixed price for this long-term effort? If not, how long are you willing to propose?” This question is intended to gauge industry's willingness to commit to firm-fixed-pricing for hardware deliveries over various periods of performance. For example, a respondent might state they are willing to propose fixed pricing for a base year with options for additional years (e.g., Year 1, Years 2-3, etc.). This information will be used for acquisition planning purposes.

11. Is GPS Denied (Fused Navigation from sensors) a desired feature? If so, what performance is desired? The HAMR contract is intended to serve a diverse user base with varying mission requirements.

While a baseline M-code capability is the primary focus, solutions that incorporate features to enhance performance in GPS-denied environments, such as fused navigation from external sensors, are of interest.

As performance requirements may differ across the user community, respondents are encouraged to describe their available "Good/Better/Best" offerings or technology tiers for GPS-denied capabilities.

12. What is the anticipated contract type if there is a future acquisition? The Government is currently anticipating that any future acquisition resulting from this market research will be a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

13. Regarding question 30, “Will you use contract financing, if so what terms?” Can you provide clarity as to what this question is asking? As in, is this question inquiring as to whether respondents need outside financing to fund some element of development/production? This question pertains to Government contract financing as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 32, not a respondent's private or outside financing. It is intended to gauge whether, in a future potential contract, a respondent would request Government financing payments (such as performance-based payments or progress payments) prior to the final delivery and acceptance of supplies or services. This information is for acquisition planning purposes only.

14. Regarding question 29, “Is your product a commercial product? If so, provide the Government with commercial determination and/or documentation to support that commercial assertion.” Does the inclusion of the commercial determination memo (as requested) in the response count against the page count? i.e. Our memo is ~3 pages long. Can we include this as an appendix item in addition to the 10 page response? The specified page limit applies to the narrative responses to the RFI questions.

Supporting documentation that is directly requested by the RFI (such as a commercial determination memo) or standard corporate certifications (such as AS9100) may be included as appendices and will not count against the narrative page limit.