RFI - Atch 1 - QnA.pdf

Notice ID: FA872326RB001 – Request for Information COBRA DANE Modernization

Question and Answer

Item No. Industry Question Government Response

Are there any timelines that the Government requires or prefers to meet the objectives?

All objectives shall be completed, fully operational, and accepted by 30 Sep 2029.

Can the Government clarify if the objectives are listed in order of priority and/or if there is a prioritized list of capabilities/upgrades?

RFI objectives and sub-bullets are not listed in any particular order. Government considers Objective 1 to be primary task of this modernization.

3 Does the Government have an anticipated budget for Industry at this time? Not at this time.

4 Is there a requirement to have the system be re-callable during downtime?

Yes. The Government is requesting information for capabilities and solutions that minimize disruption to mission operations and support mission recall.

Can the Government provide the Mission Computer replacement and software rehost project TDP?

If/when an RFP is issued, a draft or final TDP will be included in the bidders' library. New mission computer utilizes a hyper convergent infrastructure with hypervisor middleware to run mostly Ada-code mission application software.

To clarify, for the purpose of this market research, the Government is open to solutions that replace portions or all of the Mission Computer replacement and software, especially if technical risk is reduced.

In regards to Objective 2, is the backup power intended to keep the Radar operating or allow the subsystems to stay online while the generators come online?

Objective 2’s intent is to keep the radar operating (radiating) seamlessly through loss of prime power from the Shemya Power Station, as well as provide a solution for conditioned power availability within COBRA DANE.

Does the Government have a maximum window of time for how long the backup power has to last before the backup island generator is online?

No. The backup solution should provide the backup power to the radar to perform its missions as long as necessary until prime power returns.

To formulate a ROM for this RFI, industry may assume 4 MW average load, 13.8kV, and JP-8 is available in quantity elsewhere on-island.

Are there expected dates for Initial and Final Operational Capability associated with the modernization of the radar backend discussed in Objective 1 and the radar system or array placement discussed in Objective 3B?

Refer to Question 1.

Is the Government’s intention to initially pursue Objective 1, then pursue Objective 3B at some later date?

Vendor should present solutions for accomplishing any/all of the objectives for vendor approach that meets the Governments timeline specified in Question 1.

What sorts of capability improvements (or growth margin for capability improvements) are envisioned by the Government (improved performance in an electromagnetically challenging environment, enhanced raid capacity, discrimination, detection range, etc.)?

The intent is to achieve a threshold of replacing current operational functionality with no mission degradation. The Government is still assessing low risk enhancements to include as objectives.

All solutions should have modern scalable architectures that allow for expansion of capacities under potential follow-on and/or sustainment efforts.

Can the Government provide further details regarding the digitization (sub-array) architecture of COBRA DANE to permit offerors to provide a more accurate rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost for Objective 1?

The government is conducting market research to obtain viable solutions without placing any constraints at this time.

Offerors should demonstrate their understanding of the tradeoffs in digitizing received signals at RF vs IF or baseband. For the existing architecture, there are 96 corporate-fed subarrays whose signals are fed to 24 monopulse comparators to form three monopulse receive channels at RF.

When and via what means will COBRA DANE technical specifications / operating requirements be provided to offerors?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Will the Government accept a classified appendix (up to TS/SCI) to the UNCLASS RFI response? If so, to what address should this appendix be sent?

No. The Government will not accept classified submissions.

Multiple Government offices/locations are actively conducting market research and will be assessing industry’s interest/capabilities. In order to best internally coordinate amongst these offices, all submissions shall be submitted at or below CUI.

When and via what means will the Government provide an updated Technical Data Package (TDP) for COBRA DANE to permit detailed analysis for Objective 1 work?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

For Objective 3B, does USSF seek a replacement array or system with similar performance (sensitivity) to the current

COBRA DANE?

Any solution shall not degrade capabilities and performance for missile, defense, space domain awareness and intelligence missions. Therefore, performance should meet or exceed current specifications.

What is the Government's estimated budget for this project? How long is the funding expected to be available?

Refer to the responses to Questions 1 and 3.

Does the Government intend to continue to support the legacy Technical Intelligence mission at COBRA DANE?

Yes.

Can the Government clarify their intent with respect to the Mission Computer & Software? The RFI suggests that respondents must integrate with the recent mission computer replacement and software rehost, but also expresses a desire to replace legacy mission software and develop a new computing environment and network infrastructure.

These two statements seem to be incompatible. Would a complete replacement of the mission system with a modern HW/SW baseline be an acceptable (partial) solution?

At this time, the Government does not want to limit technical solutions to meet stated objectives based on existing hardware/software fielded.

Vendors have the latitude to present solutions to the modernization through the most efficient and effective solutions they believe are possible. No solution is off the table at this time.

What mission outcomes is the Government hoping to achieve through this modernization effort?

Refer to the response to Question 10.

Does the Government intend to use the same Digital Receiver that was suggested to be GFE for the UEWR/PARCS Modernization effort?

A common digital receiver is desirable but will evaluate responses for solutions that provide greater benefit for this application.

Does the Government intend to reuse, where possible, the recent upgrades performed to the technical aspects of the COBRA DANE radar?

Reuse is not a requirement. Refer to the responses to Questions 5 and 18.

Does the government intend to hold an Industry Day for the COBRA DANE Modernization opportunity?

Currently there are no plans to conduct an Industry Day, however the Government may re-evaluate after reviewing the RFI responses.

For objective 3B, does the Government intend for any new standalone array face to replace the existing face or to augment it with additional field of view?

Field of view expansion is not the primary desired effect. The Government provided this as a "possibility" to address the difficulties of upgrading the front end of the current COBRA DANE array face while continuing operations.

COBRA DANE will continue to have only one active array face. All solutions from reconfiguring the current array face to a standalone array face will be considered with solutions that minimize impacts to ongoing mission operations being highly desired. Also, refer to the response to Question 11.

Regarding Objective 1, are the modernization and replacement of beam steering/beam forming functions, signal processor, radar controller, and receiver/exciter, hardware only replacements?

The intent is to modernize functionality and capabilities as an efficient and effective solution and not do a one-for-one replacement at subsystem or component levels.

Regarding Objective 1, is the Government asking for potential vendors to integrate the replacement Mission Computer and

No, that will be completed prior to the potential start of this effort. Review multiple other responses.

Time Standard Unit into the existing COBRA DANE system?

Regarding Objective 1, are the modernization of user interfaces and displays software modernization or hardware? If software modernization, are there additional features desired that currently does not exist and is the Government planning to provide details?

Refer to response to Question 18 and others.

Regarding Objective 1, what type of interface control drawings (ICDs) will be provided for potential vendors to determine the digitized capability solution? Will physical block diagrams be provided to understand the scope implied for digitized capabilities?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 1, will the current Ada mission software be provided to replace and refactor?

It is available and would be provided to the awarded vendor.

Regarding Objective 1, is the current Ada source code available and would it be provided to the selected vendor

It is available and would be provided to the awarded vendor.

Regarding Objective 1, is current software design documentation available and would it be provided to the selected vendor?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 1, does the Government have a preference on the modern language?

No preference other than it should be a modern language that is supportable by current and future industry. The Government is not interested in niche /proprietary language.

Regarding Objective 1, does the Government have a preference on the User Interface Operating System (Windows/Linux/Other)?

The Government does not intend to dictate a specific language or OS. Vendors should consider applicability to running a radar. Cyber security, licensing and long-term sustainment are major considerations for choosing an OS.

Regarding Objective 1, are there non-commercial applications or legacy commercial applications in use on the system that would need to be retained/replaced/updated? Is there a desire for new additional applications to be installed on the system? Will a list be provided?

Refer to response to Question 18.

Regarding Objective 1, at what phase of the program will the software be classified?

Current mission software is classified due to mission parameters and algorithms being 'hard coded'. This will depend on vendor's solutions and ability to separate/isolate classified mission parameters from algorithms in a development environment.

Regarding Objective 1, would the software be required to be developed in a classified environment or be developed unclassified and the system be classified when operational data is processed?

Refer to response to Question 34.

Regarding Objective 1, is the secure environment collateral or is there an expectation that Special Access Required information will be part of the environment?

No expectation of special access for this environment at this time.

Regarding Objective 1, is the Government planning to share information about what the current day in the life looks like for mission operations, testing, training, and simulation for potential vendors to develop a computing environment?

It is not feasible to provide equal access to site and operators during a potential proposal period.

The Government will provide necessary information should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 1, is the Government planning to provide details regarding simulation requirement/needs?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 1, what existing network infrastructure and architecture documents will be provided to potential vendors to develop a commuting environment and supporting network infrastructure that is cyber-hardened and conforms to "zero-trust" principles?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

40 Regarding Objective 1, what are the RMF requirements and at what level?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 1, has the Government collaborated with other Government agencies or offices regarding collaborative software development/integration environments?

No.

Regarding Objective 1, is this a local site environment or is the expectation that there would be "remote" access?

Local with no expected requirement for remote access for this effort.

Regarding Objective 2, is the intent of the power conditioning and uninterruptable, continuous full-power backup to COBRA DANE to provide power to the COBRA DANE system, in the fully operational mode, and all facilities, with no drop out of electrical service?

Yes. Refer to response to Question 7.

Regarding Objective 3, is the Government making the determination as to whether the course of action is Objective 3A versus Objective 3B?

For purposes of the RFI, interested vendors may provide solutions to either or both.

Based on market intelligence and RFI submissions, the Government will down select to one prior to any potential release of a solicitation.

Regarding Objective 3A, is the Government seeking vendors to only qualify the design of a COBRA DANE

TWT?

For the purposes of this RFI, interested vendors may provide solutions to either or both.

Based on market intelligence and RFI submissions, the Government will down select to one prior to any potential release of a solicitation.

Any solution for TWTs would require the vendor to, at a minimum, design, produce first articles, factory test, pass site integration/testing and a TDP to qualify.

46 Regarding Objective 3A, is the TWT already designed?

There is already a TWT design in use. The Government desires a second vendor of our TWT.

The second vendors TWT design must be compatible for operation alongside the other vendor's item. The Government does not desire a sole source of supply for the COBRA DANE

TWT.

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 3A, does a requirements or specification document exist for the TWT?

Yes. The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Regarding Objective 3B, do the transmit/receive modules already exist or would they need to be designed and manufactured?

COBRA DANE does not currently use modules and is not directing a solution. If seeking to meet this objective, interested vendors will need to propose design or use of existing modules, integrate and achieve operational acceptance.

What is the acceptable downtime of the COBRA DANE system while modernizations and modifications are implemented?

Solutions which minimize impacts to ongoing mission operations are highly desired.

The RFI states "the LEO/MEO Sensing Program office and industry partners completed or will imminently complete numerous projects to modernize the high-power RF, data processing, timing distribution, and thermal management subsystems" then lists the systems. Will the listed systems and the work that has happened/will be completed be excluded from this modernization effort? I.e., these systems should be considered fully modernized and additional upgrades/replacements to them are not of interest at this time. As one knows, there is much interconnectedness between these

At this time, the Government does not want to limit technical solutions to meet stated objectives based on existing hardware/software fielded.

Interested vendors have the latitude to present solutions to the modernization through the most efficient and effective solutions they believe are possible. All solutions are welcome, as no solution is off the table at this time.

systems and what is required to accomplish the first couple modernization bullets under Objective 1, so the hope is to better understand the constraints/confines that would need to be worked in.

In regards to Question 50, how many projects that are on-going can we expect to be fully completed by the time this effort is kicked off? Are there anticipated slippages that will push them to be on-going at the start of this new modernization effort?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

In regards to Questions 50 and 51, can the Government provide details as to which of these projects are considered done and which are in progress? Will any additional information be given as to current state of these systems to help inform the most prudent paths for upgrades and/or modernizations to take place that can lead to successful overall system integration?

Refer to responses to Questions 50 and 51.

53 Does SSC plan to post any details about the front end of the radar?

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

54 Does the Government have a preference for ROM template or submission format?

The Government does not require any specific format. Interested vendors are free to utilize their preferred format in drafting submissions to this

RFI.

55 Is the ROM included in the 20-page limitation?

ROM(s) may be attached (in addition to 20-pages) for reference and used solely at Government's discretion and interest, with understanding that vendor should not use this as a means to communicate technical capabilities or solutions.

ROM summaries shall be part of the 20-page limitation.

Interested vendors may submit an RFI response without a ROM. A ROM is not required.

Please confirm that Objectives 1, 2, 3a, and 3b are FOUR discrete objectives to select from.

For the purpose of this RFI, the Government is requesting information about industry’s capabilities and interest for each as discrete objectives.

Based on market intelligence and RFI submissions, the Government will determine which objectives, if any, it is interested in pursuing.

Please confirm that the "or" refers to a choice between Objective 3A and Objective 3B and that respondents should not due both Objective 3A and Objective 3B, or that the "or" means to select from ANY of the objectives 1, 2, 3a, OR 3b.

For the purpose of this RFI, the Government is requesting information about industry’s capabilities and interest for each as discrete objectives.

Based on market intelligence and RFI submissions, the Government will determine which objectives, if any, it is interested in pursuing.

If a vendor has interest and capability for both 3A and 3B, the Government requests that you consider responding to both.

58 How many awards does the Government anticipate making under this effort?

The Government’s intent is to minimize awards to as few as one.

What will the typical period of performance expected to be for the award(s)?

Refer to response to Question 1.

The RFI mentions utilizing a combination of OTAs, MTAs, and FAR-based contracts. Could the Government clarify how many OTAs, how many MTAs, and what other specific FAR-based contract types are being considered. The purpose is to clarify the contracting vehicles available and align company resources to the expected acquisition strategy(ies).

For the purpose of this RFI, the Government is requesting industry’s recommendations.

Acquisition strategy has not been solidified.

Additionally, interested vendors should list all currently available IDIQ’s they are accessible on via FAR 16.5.

If multiple awards are anticipated, what is the typical level of funding expected for each award?

Government is unable to provide expected funding levels at this time. Refer to response to Question 58.

The RFI references teaming with universities. Are Science and Technology topics that augment system-level capabilities of interest to the Government, or is the scope focused strictly on integration and modernization of existing systems? The purpose of this questions is to determine whether early-stage research concepts are desired or if the focus is exclusively on near-term modernization and integration.

No, the purpose of this effort is not research. The Government is seeking proven solutions that can be rapidly deployed and meet operational acceptance criteria within no more than 3 years from award. Refer to response to Question 1.

What types of GFO, GFP, GFI does the Government anticipate providing to industry for this effort?

If/when a solicitation is issued, a bidder's library will be provided as GFI.

If/when a contract/agreement/task order is awarded, the radar, as configured with spares, will be provided as GFP (subject to approved mods/configuration control changes). A common digital receiver might be directed or provided

GFP.

The vendor should plan to provide everything else to meet objectives.

Has funding already been earmarked or requested for COBRA DANE modernization, or is this still to be determined?

Funding may be provided as part of FY 2026 NDAA. Refer to response to Question 61.

Given DFARS 252.204-7012/7019/7020 requirements and DoD's rollout of CMMC 2.0, will the Gvoernment require offerors to provide current, third party validated CMMC Level 2 certification (C3PAO-validated) with their proposals?

The purpose of this question is to confirm cyber security certification requirements.

For the purpose of this RFI, interested vendors are requested to provide CMMC levels and expiration dates to determine impacts, if any, with emerging guidance.

Should a solicitation be released, all applicable requirements for CMMC will be clarified.

Is the Government seeking new performers for this effort, or is the modernization effort primarily aimed are current incumbents?

The Government is open to all viable solutions and vendors.

Refer to response to Question 62.

What is the current operational status and digitization readiness of other large phased-array radar systems such as the UEWR and PARCS? Are these systems at a similar level of modernization to COBRA DANE, or is COBRA DANE considered unique in its current state. The purpose of this question sis to assess where COBRA DANE fits within broader radar modernization efforts and identify potential common solutions.

UEWR, PARCS and COBRA DANE are all operational radars in sustainment. They have unique requirements and configurations with different levels of modernization. Common solutions are desired when feasible.

Are high-power RF components, such as antenna rays, transmit/receive modules, and beam steering hardware considered within the scoop of this modernization effort, or are these elements excluded from the current objectives. This information will clarify the technical boundaries of the modernization scope and focus solution development accordingly.

Intent is to reduce as many technical boundaries (and risks) as feasible by replacing obsolete systems/components with modern functionality and capabilities. Refer to responses to Questions 18, 24 and 50.

69 What are the existing power and back-up power capabilities for COBRA DANE? Refer to response to Question 7.

What are the parameters for the HVAC upgrades (square footage, multiple zones, etc.)? Is there sufficient power for EAS utilities for the upgraded system? Is power back-up required for HVAC?

HVAC is currently sufficient and would only need to be adjusted based on vendor solution. HVAC will require backup. All applicable information will be included in the solicitation, should one be released.

71 Who are the approved shipping and flight vendors for EAS?

Military air and cargo are the default requirements. Any changes are required to be approved by the program office and coordinated through passenger and/or cargo terminals at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Anchorage AK.

What is the needed power requirement for power conditioning and uninterruptible, continuous full-power back-up? What is the targeted duration for power back-up if the existing EAS power plant fails?

Refer to response to Question 7.

73 Will (or can) Objectives 1, 2, and 3 be separate contract vehicles? Refer to responses to Questions 58 and 60.

74 Do all objectives need to be addressed in the response?

No. Interested vendors may provide RFI responses to one, some, or all of the objectives.

Refer to response to Question 75.

75 Can separate RFI responses be submitted for different objectives?

No. A single response per company is sought. For responses addressing one Objective (either Objective 1, Objective 2, or Objective 3 shall be limited to 10-pages. Responses that address one or more Objectives shall be limited to a total of 20-pages. This page count does not include the cover page, title page, table of contents, or an acronym definition page.

Often objective solutions are split into different areas with different back-end functions - (1) Beam Forming Network,

(2) the Beam Steering Unit, (3) the Receiver/Exciter (REX), (4) the SPARC, and (5) the Mission Computer(s). Can these be selectively responded to?

No, a complete solution is required. Multiple vendors can partner to provide a complete solution.

The RFI indicates completed or imminently completed activities, therefore what is the status of the Mission Computer Rehost?

Rehost is in development. It is scheduled for deployment mid-2026.

Considering Question 77, is the rehost execution unmodified Ada 'application' code? Or has the legacy application code been modified to support being rehosted?

Ada code has been modified to run on X86 machines under a Linux OS.

Considering Question 77, has the Operating System been modified to support interface adapters as part of rehost activities, e.g. Ethernet to DRB32 connections, independent of any application code?

The OS has not been modified to support interface adapters. Any new interface to the mission computers can be accomplished through an ethernet connection. Legacy connection to the new mission computer is handled via custom hardware to handle legacy DRB32 interfaces. The Government does not want to carry any legacy interface into future modifications.

Considering Question 77, has the rehost encapsulated modern terminals/interfaces, storage, etc. Legacy mission computer

The rehost moved the mission software onto a modern server architecture utilizing a Hyper Converged Infrastructure (HCI). The displays and had legacy storage (e.g. tape drives), workstation terminals, etc. Did rehost encompass these peripheral devices?

terminals are currently emulated to run on modern PCs. Any future modernization will need to provide a solution that does not use emulation of any legacy code or displays. All other peripheral devices are being updated as part of the mission computer rehost project fielding in mid-2026

The RFI indicates completed or imminently completed activities, what is the status of the DRB32 interface adaptor? A VAX rehost would require emulating this interface or changing the 'far side' REX/SPARC connection.

The new mission computers being fielded in CY 2026 will utilize a custom DRB32 hardware solution. The Govt. does not desire carrying forward any use of DRB32 interface between the mission computer and backend hardware. The new mission computer architecture is capable of communicating via ethernet to any hardware downstream.

What other interfaces have been modernized from custom or proprietary designs (e.g. interfaces to the Time Standard Unit replacement).

The Time Standard Unit is a Commercial-off-the- Shelf (COTS) solution from Microchip, so there are no custom interfaces.

Previous projects included the ability to switch in/out legacy versus updated hardware, e.g. legacy VAX versus Rehosted VAX. Have any switching capabilities been implemented? And if so, what interfaces.

The only switching solution being used for integration activities only address switching between a VAX and the new mission computer.

No other switching is needed for the current project.

Considering Question 83, part of upgrading and providing 'switchable' interfaces could include creating 'taps' for data gathering and analysis. Have any taps/recordings been implemented?

No.

Is there consideration for replacement 'solid state' modules to operate side-by-side with legacy equipment, e.g. on the RF front end to have a mix of legacy modules and 'solid state' modules during the transition? This would allow replacement of portions of the system as units fail, along with a longer term planned migration - or is an en masse replacement planned? This would have implications on controls to support both new and old versions, or new 'solid state' modules to support/understand legacy interfaces and impact duration to complete an en masse replacement with confidence.

The Government is open to all proven solutions that reduce downtime requirements and is not placing additional constraints at this time.

It appears that addressing obsolesces, improving maintainability, future growth/enhancements are underlying goals. are these independent of (future)

All current upgrades will be completed at site before this effort starts. There will be no concurrent upgrades during this effort. Routine actual enhancements (beyond current baseline operation) being performed or planned simultaneously with updates?

maintenance is expected to be the only configuration changes during this program.

Considering Question 86, changing the baseline performance operation complicates verification that retrofits are working same as the replaced hardware.

Simultaneous improvements and baseline modernization are anticipated to be independent activities. Is this a correct assumption?

The Government highly desires a single prime contractor to manage configuration and integration to avoid these problems. Baseline performance will be measured before and after this effort.

88 What is the acceptable 'downtime' of the COBRA DANE asset?

Stakeholders will need to approve proposed solutions. Assume that large numbers of consecutives hours will be very difficult and solutions that avoid this will be required.

Considering Question 88, is objective goal to swap in replacements/updates with minimal disruption or are planned outages lasting days or more acceptable?

At this time, minimal disruption of radar operations is the only acceptable approach.

Considering Questions 88-89, is replacement of the entire TX/RX face versus subsections more desirable?

Government is seeking possibilities without influencing approaches at this time.

Considering Questions 88-89, will degraded performance during transition of functional areas be acceptable?

For purposes of responding to this RFI, degraded performance will be considered equal to downtime.

Considering Questions 88-89, is ability to switch between legacy and updated 'areas' a requirement? this would be a specific time requirement to revert from modify components to legacy components during the transition.

Refer to response to Question 4.

As functional 'areas' are upgraded (and accepted), is there a plan/acceptable approach to remove no longer needed legacy functional 'areas' to provide additional space/resources for other upgrades?

Removal of legacy components is only allowable after completing operational test, soak and acceptance. In other words, the mission shall be able to fall back to legacy hardware until modernized hardware is accepted. If space is needed, an incremental installation and acceptance approach might be required. Assume that removal of all legacy hardware will be required before program closeout.

Considering Question 93, semi-permanent shadowing upgrades installed a temporary initial approach?

Refer to response to Question 85.

Considering Question 93, is the removal of old cables, reduced power consumption, created open 'space' and migrated new equipment to more permanent installation as a phased approach acceptable?

Refer to response to Question 93.

Considering Question 93, can rolling acceptance of changed 'areas' be completed independent of other areas?

e.g. replacement of mission computer back end versus solid state element in the front end.

Refer to response to Question 85.

Considering Question 93, does a plan/mechanism exist to verify CD operation (major) changes, proper operation? How will the Government determine COBRA DANE is still operating and functioning properly?

Operators are required to check certain parameters each time the radar comes online. For this effort, operational testers will test and evaluate performance to a baseline before recommending acceptance.

Various DoD services have secure DEVOPS environments (aka Platform One, BlackPearl, etc.). Is using one of these an acceptable approach or is the intent to build-up 'dedicated' private 'computing environment and supporting network'?

The Government requires a government owned environment within a government facility.

The Government will provide should a solicitation be released.

Considering Question 98, those environments support various classification levels. Is the code going to be considered classified or the environment ONLY when processing classified data or using specific 'configuration' data. This impacts development environment requirements and activities versus creating dedicated secure labs.

Refer to response to Question 34.

Considering Question 98, if a Government hosted environment is utilized, will it be GFE/Government sponsored?

If the expectations are met from response to Question 98, then Government could provide sponsorship.

Considering Question 98, is the intent to have a single (geographic) lab for mission support, training, development, simulation, etc.? Or to have separate dedicated (interconnected) facilities not necessarily collocated?

The USSF will require a single lab. MDA will require at least one additional lab.

Considering Question 98, it is assumed that the referenced to 'least downtime' regarding the computing environment refers to the mission operations capability (and normal COBRA DANE operations)?

Yes.

Considering Question 98, is there/will there be sufficient data connection between the OCONUS COBRA DANE site and a CONUS location facilitating

This program is not expected to increase mission data or the need for additional mission data bandwidth during this program. The only expectation for data connections would be to allow for data to transfer between the operations, testing, training, development, and simulation?

development suite and site. The Government does not intend to operate, test or train via a remote connection.

As part of the Mission Computer Rehost, how was this tested/verified to be properly operational and not affect performance/operations?

Test and soak data will be compared against pre-installation baseline.

Considering Question 104, when the legacy code is replaced/refactored, can same testing be used to verify refactoring/replacement of legacy Ada code?

Operational test scenarios might be reusable depending on solution. Expect that most test and verification methods will need to be developed.

Considering Question 104, when the legacy code is replaced/refactored, does it include end-to-end system level testing (front-end data to be expected resultant mission computer output data)?

Yes.

Considering Question 104, when the legacy code is replaced/refactored, is there a demarcation of mission processing hardware which can be used to test and validate replacement mission computer application software?

The radar only has one processing string.

Solutions with future redundancy is desired but are not available during testing.

Verification/analysis will require post-processing.

Considering Question 104, when the legacy code is replaced/refactored, are test scenarios, simulation and expected results available?

System performance specifications and baseline values are available. Also, refer to response from Question 105.

Considering Question 104, when the legacy code is replaced/refactored, are there tests for system level timing (mission computer to REX, SPACR, BSU, etc.)?

The Government expects all of those subsystems to be replaced with modern hardware during this modernization effort. Therefore, there should not be a direct correlation between the legacy hardware requirements and any new modernized hardware. The Government does not expect a one-for-one replacement of the subsystems maintaining legacy interface timing and requirements. In other words, timing within solution boundaries is flexible as long as it timing requirements are matched at the boundary(ies).

Considering Question 104, when the legacy code is replaced/refactored, does successful completion of these (same) tests constitute system acceptance of modified code replicating existing legacy functionality?

Not necessarily. It depends on the solution the vendor implements. Vendors should expect to verify requirements against Key Performance parameters. Refer to response to Question 105.

END OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES