REVISED RFI - GBRD Plus (dtd 20260223).pdf

Ground Based Radar Digitization Plus (GBRD+)

FA872325RB003

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a solicitation or a promise to issue a solicitation in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service. Further, the Government is not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, if any is issued. It is the responsibility of the vendor who is interested in any potential future solicitation(s) to monitor all sites for additional information pertaining to this requirement.

Interested parties responding to this RFI should ensure its response is complete and sufficiently detailed to allow the Government to determine vendors qualifications (if information was previously provided in the prior GBRD RFI, no need to send again, only provide new information). Respondents are advised that the Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback.

The Government reserves the right to use results of communications with industry for any purpose consistent with, and not otherwise prohibited by, FAR Part 10.

1. Purpose. United States Space Force (USSF) is seeking information from industry regarding the modernization of Ground Based Radars (GBR) under Ground Based Radar Digitization Plus (GBRD+). This effort will digitize legacy radar systems to enhance battlespace situational awareness, reduce sustainment costs, and address obsolescence issues. The program seeks to digitize the entire radar (front and back end) to provide full digital control at the element level, replace obsolete transmit/receive architectures, and create a common architecture across all 8 sites. The USSF is particularly interested in solutions that:

1. Leverage open system, non-proprietary architectures to ensure future scalability and avoid vendor lock

2. Utilize Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technology to minimize development risks and costs

3. Incorporate existing, developed digital receiver technology as the baseline components for the system

4. Establish a baseline digital front and back end that can be modified or scaled for each unique radar type

5. Foster a cooperative and competitive environment between prime vendor(s).

6. Develop a common, on-prem virtualized architecture to serve as the back-end for all sites.

7. Utilize government’s third-party MBSE validator to continuously verify interoperability and MOSA compliance

The acquisition strategy for this program is still under development but is considering the following approach:

Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) pathway to accelerate program execution.

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for prototyping the first four sites [potentially 2x Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR), COBRA DANE, and Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS)].

A follow-on production contract for the remaining three UEWR and Eglin sites.

Gated OTA structure: Gate 1 will focus on cooperative requirements discovery with the goal of both vendors converging to a single set of system-level requirements, preliminary modular common architecture, and identifying Modular System Interfaces. Gate 2 will focus on competitive (and compatible1) digital design within a common MBSE environment and a full system benchtop prototype. At the end of Gate 2, each vendor will propose to build each of the four rapid prototype sites, with the government awarding contracts for a total of no more than four sites across both vendors. Gate 3 will focus on developing full-scale prototypes to deploy to, test, and operational accept the pilot sites. Rapid fielding of the remaining sites will be a separate, future decision partly based on each vendor’s Gate 3 performance and outcomes.

This RFI is intended to:

Identify innovative solutions for full radar digitization and modernization

Refine the OTA structure, including milestone payment plans and incentive strategies, to best support this cooperative/competitive model

Assess industry capabilities to meet program objectives within the required timeline

Determine industry willingness and ability to provide government owned, non-proprietary, and COTS-based designs

Investigate industry willingness and ability to collaborate with separate vendors to create a common GBR architecture and design/build truly interoperable systems across GBR sites

Collect suggestions or possibilities for near-term improvements and additional capability at sites during GBRD+ development

1 The desired outcome of compatible designs is the ability to swap modular elements and still function. This implies that both designs are born from architectures that are substantially similar at the modular level, consensus in how to organize the radar and its functions into modular elements, and standardized and well-documented Modular System Interfaces.

2. Background. The GBR modernization effort supports the National Defense Strategy by continuing missile warning (MW), missile defense (MD), missile tracking (MT), and improving Space Domain Awareness (SDA) capabilities. The program will:

Digitize eight radar sites (5x UEWR, PARCS, Eglin and COBRA DANE) to improve SDA capabilities, add Missile Defense mission to PARCS, and address sustainment challenges and obsolescence.

Enhance radar performance, including increased tracking capacity, extended range, improved object classification, automation of operator’s SDA workflow, and data timeliness to the warfighter.

Transition to a government-owned, modular open system architecture with a high level of commonality between UEWR, PARCS back ends a common on-prem cloud back end and digital, element-level front end.

The antenna elements, building infrastructure, communication paths out of the radars, and networks will be retained.

Key Program Details:

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) (Rapid Prototype 4 sites complete): Q1

FY2030

Full Operational Capability (FOC): Q2 FY2031

3. Objectives. The USSF seeks industry input in the following areas:

1. Technical Capabilities:

a. Solutions for digitizing analog radar systems to improve tracking, classification, capacity, throughput and electromagnetic interference (EMI) rejection

b. Modular open system architectures to enable future upgrades and reduce sustainment costs

c. Cybersecurity compliance for modernized radar systems

d. Incorporation of developed digital receiver technology as the baseline receiver for the system

2. Sustainment Strategies:

a. Approaches to reduce lifecycle sustainment costs and address diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS)

b. Strategies for transitioning from legacy systems to modern architecture while minimizing radar down time required

3. Contracting Approaches:

a. Recommendations for leveraging MTA and OTA pathways to accelerate program execution

b. Innovative contracting mechanisms to engage non-traditional defense contractors (including academia and small business concerns)

c. Recommendations for structuring outcome-based milestone payments and the FPIF (Gate 3) incentive plan to drive both schedule and performance

d. Feedback on contractual mechanisms or incentives to enforce collaboration between competing vendors, especially needed during gate 1.

4. Industry Collaboration:

a. Opportunities for partnerships/teaming with non-traditional defense contractors (including academia and small business concerns)

b. Insights into leveraging commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies to minimize development risks and buy commercial solutions

c. Cooperation in a competitive environment to enable a true open architecture across vendors and sites

d. Regarding the proposed third-party MBSE Validator to assess and enforce

MOSA and interoperability, what do you see as the primary benefits and risks to a prime contractor? What interactions and workflows between the primes and the MBSE Validator would be most effective, and what is your recommended approach for managing dependencies and liabilities associated with the Integrator's performance and schedule?

4. Information Requested. Respondents are requested to provide the following information:

1. Company Overview:

a. Name, address, and point of contact

b. Capabilities statement

c. Relevant experience in radar modernization, digitization, and sustainment

d. Relevant experience in ACAT I-level program management, digital radar design, cloud architecture, and enterprise-level systems integration

2. Technical Solutions:

a. Proposed technologies and architectures for radar digitization

b. Performance improvements (e.g., tracking capacity, extended range, object classification, radar resource management)

c. Details on how the solution creates a common (scalable) on-prem cloud back end compatible with all vendors and at all 8 sites

d. Describe the opportunities and risks associated with collaborating with a competitor on a common architecture. How would you firewall your proprietary solutions while still contributing to the common baseline? What specific governance and dispute resolution processes would you recommend?

e. What is the TRL and demonstrated performance of your proposed digital front-end technology? Describe your approach to the significant engineering challenges of power distribution and thermal management for an element-level digital design.

f. The GBRD+ strategy involves modifying a baseline digital front-end design for multiple unique radar systems (UEWR, COBRA DANE, PARCS). From a technical standpoint, what are the primary risks and engineering challenges associated with adapting a single core design to different operating frequencies, array configurations, and power levels? As able, please be specific regarding RF (e.g., element spacing, mutual coupling), thermal, and array calibration challenges.

g. Which radars, if any, are not feasible to upgrade to control and digitize at the element? What is the limitations? If able, describe one or more front-end modernizations that can still deliver the majority of desired radar performance and sustainment outcomes?

3. Sustainment and Lifecycle Management:

a. Strategies for reducing sustainment costs and addressing obsolescence

b. Transition plans for legacy systems

4. Contracting Recommendations:

a. Provide specific feedback on the proposed OTA structure (gated approach, outcome-based payments, FPIF Gate 3). What changes would you recommend making the partnership more effective?

b. What incentive structures would be most effective in motivating your company to not only meet its own goals but also ensure the success of the enterprise-wide common architecture? Specifically, how would you structure incentives to reward proactive problem-solving and demonstrably constructive collaboration with your competitor in system-level requirements discovery, developing common core architecture, and interoperable modular elements.

5. Schedule and Cost Estimates:

a. Estimated timelines for prototyping, testing, and fielding. What are the primary schedule drivers?

b. Rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates. Gate 1 & 2 (design, prototype) and Gate 3 (build, operational acceptance, and interim contractor support).

6. Non-Traditional Contractor Engagement:

a. Opportunities to collaborate with non-traditional defense contractors

(including academia and small business concerns)

b. Examples of successful partnerships in similar programs

7. Downtime Mitigation Strategies:

a. Potential methods for minimizing down time for digitization of the front-end elements, especially at COBRA DANE and PARCS due to their traveling wave tube-powered transmitters.

5. Submission Instructions

Deadline: Responses must be submitted no later than March 12, 2026.

Format: Responses should be submitted in PDF format and not exceed 20 pages.

If a response was submitted to the prior GBRD RFI, only additional, updated, or new information is requested