VAX QandA.pdf

Space Systems Command (SSC)/ECQC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS for the REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

COBRA DANE ADPE Re-Host

FA8723-22-R-0002

1. Question: Is the COBRA DANE ADPE Re-Host RFI Market Research Table included as part of the total Page Count (10 pages)?

Answer: Yes, the 10 page limit includes the market research table.

2. Question: Can the Government provide the latest Government Roadmap and/or vision for Cobra

Dane? If the Government does not have one, is the Government considering a Hyper Convergent Infrastructure for Cobra Dane as they are for PARCS and BMEWS/PAVE PAWS? If yes, does the Government want Industry to address our experience in supporting that transformation?

Answer: The CD program office is aware and working with the PARCS Program Office on the HCI concepts. The concepts to date are focused on the development environment (manual deployment to site until communications are updated – TBD). Any experience in the utilization, development, support, or execution of a pipeline type of development environment will be welcome.

3. Question: Along the lines of the roadmap question, across the previous modernization efforts, there have been multiple bill payers and stakeholders to those efforts. So, given the joint Air Force (and now Space Force) and Missile Defense Agency shared interests in COBRA DANE modernization, there was a previous Phase 1 effort awarded from the Defense Innovation Unit in the 2018-2019 timeframe. Did that effort produce an outcome that is of interest and applicable to this RFI?

Answer:This RFI is the execution of information developed and discovered during the DIU efforts. The outcome of that effort, depending on contractors approach, may or may not be useful for the near-term VAX migration to a modern platform. The final technical reports from those efforts will be considered for dissemination during the RFP stage of this effort.

4. Question:If not, is there any information available to Industry to find out what was the outcome of the Phase 1 work or who was involved in completing that effort?

Answer: The scope of the phase one effort and the scope of this effort are not identical. This effort is focused on the modernization (to include potential emulation) of the VAX platform. The participants in Phase 1 are SRI International and Dynetics.

5. Question:Can you speak at all to how this RFI augments or complements the RFI the MDA issued for similar topic on GMD radars and dual-band?

Answer: This RFI was not developed with the MDA RFI in mind.

6. Question:From a cyber-security perspective is it possible to get insight into the current operational accreditation document that governs COBRA Dane? For example, what RMF controls and system classification applies to Cobra Dane?

Answer: COBRA DANE is currently operating under a 1 year ATO (Authority to Operate) COBRA DANE’s classification is Secret. All controls governing COBRA DANE are found in Special Publication 800-53.

7. Question:Is there an approved product list for Cyber-compliant tools and IA-enabled products or are you open to recommendations?

Answer: COBRA DANE has a list of approved Cybersecurity compliant tools to include ACAS, SCAP, and NMAP. The Government is open to recommendations for improved advanced cyber tools and products.

8. Question:Given the legacy nature of the system’s operations - are there waivers in place for other controls or aspects that the Government would like considered going forward?

Answer: The COBRA DANE radar is currently following the RMF Special Publication 800-37 and Special Publication 800-53 guidance per the OMB A-130. The OMB requires that all known weaknesses be identified and tracked in a POA&M (Plan of Action & Milestone). All open controls are placed on the POA&M list. COBRA DANE is a legacy system with open controls. The government expects open controls to be mitigated or closed.

9. Question:The RFI mentions a bit about a user-centered design.

Answer: User centered design is not a specific focus of the RFI but the usability of the resulting system by the contractor mission operators is key to the operational acceptance of the developed system. If your approach includes User–Centered design then any information for the effective and efficient delivery of the operational product will be welcome

10. Question:Can we get a copy of or access to existing operator training guides – or what should our expectations be for obtaining user feedback during our approach? As an operational asset, it may be difficult to get access to end users, and we’d like to involve them early and often if possible.

Answer: This is an RFI – Identify what information and access you perceive is needed in the execution of a solution for this mission system

11. Question:Can you speak to the level of expected interaction with any of the other Government

SW development labs? Any expected interaction with the hardware-in-the-loop lab for the MDA that exists in Huntsville, AL?

Answer: There may be interaction with the current development lab for COBRA DANE at Woburn MA operated for the program office by Raytheon. Interaction with the STARS and ARC LABs in Huntsville will be determined and defined in the RFP. COBRA DANE is the only non- HWIL system in the ARC, currently.