GBRD RPP - DRAFT v20260116.docx

REQUEST FOR PROTOTYPE PROPOSAL (RPP)

FOR

GROUND BASED RADAR DIGITIZATION

Revision 1.1 16 Jan 2026

DRAFT

PREPARED BY

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE (USSF)

Space Systems Command (SSC) Battlespace Awareness Acquisition Delta – LEO Ground Sensors (SYD85 BAL)

Distribution Statement D: SYD 85 BAL authorizes secondary distribution, release, and dissemination to the extent permitted by this distribution statement without additional approvals or authorizations. Secondary distribution authorized to Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only, Administrative or Operational Use, 15 Jan 2026. Other requests for this document shall be referred to SYD 85 BAL.

Controlled by: Space Systems Command (SSC) Controlled by: LEO Ground Sensors (SYD85 BAL) CUI Category: CUI//SZ-PROCURE Distribution/Dissemination Control: D, FEDCON POC: SYD85.BAL.GBRD@spaceforce.mil

Space Systems Command / System Delta 85 Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) in support of Ground Based Radar Digitization (GBRD)

1.0 OPPORTUNITY OVERVIEW

Key Dates Optional Abstract: 25 February 2026 Notice of Intent: 2 March 2026 Questions Due: 4 March 2026 RPP Materials Due: 16 March 2026 Oral Presentations Begin: 23 March 2026

Cost Sharing Cost sharing may be required under applicable statutory regulations for other transactions for prototype projects awarded under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b.

Background

Strategically positioned around the globe, the United States Space Force's Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWRs) form a critical line of defense within the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). These long-range, all-weather radars, located at Thule AB (Greenland), Beale AFB (California), Cape Cod (Massachusetts), Clear (Alaska) and RAF Fylingdales (United Kingdom), provide vital early warning, tracking, and classification data for incoming ballistic missiles. Beyond early warning, the UEWRs provide integrated tactical warning and attack assessment to the National Command Authority and support the Space Surveillance Network.

Their ability to detect and track sea-launched and intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as track interceptors during flight, is essential for effective missile defense. Operating in the Ultra High Frequency band, these radars can detect objects up to 3,000 miles away. Since their initial deployment in the 1960s and subsequent upgrades, the UEWRs have been strategically placed to ensure comprehensive coverage and early detection of ballistic missile threats, regardless of their origin.

The Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS) is a single-faced, multi-function, UHF-Band, phased-array radar located at Cavalier Air Force Station, N.D.

This system was originally built by the U.S. Army as part of the Safeguard missile defense system defending U.S. missile fields in North Dakota. The radar was then transferred to the U.S. Air Force to support the Missile Warning (MW) and Space Surveillance missions.

PARCS can detect and track both intercontinental and sea-launched missile threats and pass information to North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and regional combatant commanders. As part of the missile warning mission PARCS provides attack characterization data to the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITW/AA) system. PARCS supports Space Domain Awareness by sending satellite track data to the Combined Space Operations Center (CSpOC) for processing.

Operational Mission Environment

The Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) and the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS) are Solid-state, phased-array, all-weather, long-range radars operating on a 24/7/365 mission cycle.

These systems currently have three missions involving two activities. The first activity, surveillance, to detect and determine attack characteristics of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles that might penetrate the radar field of view. Once detected, the launched object is continuously tracked and its trajectory estimated. Any object that separates from a booster is also tracked as it approaches. The second activity, tracking Residential Space Objects (RSO in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), supports the USSPACECOM’s Space Domain Awareness (SDA) Mission, which involves the surveillance and tracking of earth satellites and identification of other space objects. e.g. active/inactive satellites, spent rocket bodies, or fragmentation debris.

Ground Based Radar Digitization Program Overview

The U.S. Space Force is modernizing critical missile defense radars, including five Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) and the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS), through the Ground-Based Radar Digitization (GBRD) Program. These aging systems are nearing obsolescence, necessitating technological upgrades. GBRD aims to digitize these radars for enhanced battlespace awareness, reduced sustainment costs, and resolution of obsolescence challenges.

Using a Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping acquisition pathway approach, GBRD will first prototype solutions at two sites (one UEWR and PARCS) before proceeding with Rapid Fielding production for the remaining UEWR locations. This strategy enables agile development and rapid deployment of modernized capabilities. This modernization improves radar weapon system effectiveness and efficiency through commonality, sustainable support, and optimized human interaction, including a digital ecosystem, modular design, and a common baseline. In addition, with collaboration with MDA, MD capability at PARCS will be added.

GBRD leverages advanced technologies like digital engineering, DevSecOps, and open systems architecture to ensure rapid delivery. A near-common automation platform will replace disparate operating systems, address inefficiencies and enhance interoperability between the MW, MD, and SDA missions. Ultimately, GBRD will overcome current UEWR and PARCS limitations like lack of automation, inflexible design, and high maintenance costs, enabling improved data integration, accelerated deployment, stronger cybersecurity, and enhanced adaptability to evolving threats.

By systematically integrating data-driven insight capabilities, the GBRD aims to transform its vast data repositories into actionable intelligence, enabling proactive responses to emerging threats and optimizing resource allocations. This strategic adoption will ensure that the radars remain agile, resilient, and ahead of adversaries in a rapidly evolving space based operating environment.

2.0 PROTOTYPE PROJECT DETAIL

2.1 Authority. 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, “Authority of the Department of Defense to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects”

2.2 Project Background & Current Capability. The Ground-Based Radar Digitization (GBRD) program is part of a larger effort to address known shortcomings in our nation’s Space Domain Awareness (SDA) capabilities by playing a key role in moving towards a resilient space enterprise able to deter aggression. SSC/SYD 85/BAL has spent the last few years working toward initial modernization concepts and prototype hardware in support of this objective. The GBRD program modernizes the “back end” of the legacy radar systems associated with the five Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) sites and the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS), which provide continuous surveillance for missile and satellite detection, tracking, and reporting to support Missile Warning (MW), Missile Defense (MD), and Space Domain Awareness missions. “Back end” is defined as the data/signal processing, command and control, signal generation, receive, and additional associated systems. This modernization effort replaces outdated analog and hardware-only components with advanced digital, scalable solutions that leverage a government-owned, open-architecture approach. See the GBRD Statement of Objectives (SOO) for additional information and details.

All respondents must comply with the following:

· DoDI 8582.01, “Security of Non-DoD Information Systems Processing Unclassified Nonpublic DoD Information” and DoDI 5200.48, “Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)”.

· NIST SP 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Non-Federal Information Systems and Organizations”.

· Research findings and technology developments arising from the resulting proposed solution may constitute a significant enhancement to the national defense and to the economic vitality of the United States. As such, in the conduct of all work related to this effort, the selected performer must comply strictly with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130), the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) and the Department of Commerce Export Regulation (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774).

· GBRD Program documentation and associated compliance documents: SOW, PPP, and SCG

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

2.3 Desired End-State & Success Criteria.

Deliver GBRD rapid prototype at one UEWR and PARCS that maximizes the mission functionality specified in the GBRD Rapid Prototype Requirements Document (RPRD) and supporting requirements documents, delivers by October 2029, is compliant with the GBRD RP SOO, Government Reference Architecture (GRA), Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA).

Note: October 2029 completion includes both one UEWR and PARCS as well as 2 months of Government-led Operational Test (OT) at each site.

2.4 Anticipated Project Duration. The project’s period of performance will be defined based on the proposed and/or negotiated schedule but is required to be completed by October 2029

2.5 Project Deliverables. (See CDRL)

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2334(g), DoDI 5000.73, and DoDM 5000.04-M-1, contractors will be required to submit cost and software data that support acquisition cost analysis and DoD-independent cost estimates, consistent with DFARS 252.234-7004 and MIL-STD-881E. All required CDRLs, DIDs, and DD Forms associated with the approved CSDR Plan will be incorporated into the contract.

Specific deliverables are defined in program solicitation documentation. However, future gate selection criteria, evaluation criteria, requirements, and deliverables may be modified in coordination with vendor(s) during execution of previous gates. Existing contractor systems and methods available for cost and schedule reporting are encouraged so long as the Government can access and process the required information.

To fully leverage the speed and innovation inherent to the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) pipeline and our Other Transaction (OT) authority for the GBRD program, we have implemented a tailored data delivery strategy that prioritizes the Government's need for substantive data over rigid compliance with legacy formats. This model empowers Offerors to propose using their own proven commercial formats, methods, and collaborative digital environments for document delivery or continuous access in support of gate driven formal deliverables.

2.6 Anticipated Number of Awards. The Government intends to award one (1) or more Other Transaction Agreement(s) (OTA) on a Fixed Price basis as a result of this RPP. The Government reserves the right to not select any of the solutions proposed. Proposals must remain valid up to one (1) year after submission.

2.7 Solution Objectives. Given the urgency of the need, the project is focused on fielding a near-term capability to solve a complex problem. It is imperative that the technologies and architecture selected result in a solution with the following attributes:

2.7.1 Excluded Solutions. Given the combination of risk tolerance and other programs, this project will not support overly proprietary solutions, supply chain fragile designs, end-of-life components, and solutions which require changes outside the GBRD scope (i.e. new network connections or additional facilities support)

3.0 PROGRAM PLAN.

The Ground Based Radar Digitization (GBRD) program will utilize a Fixed Price OTA to execute a gated award process. Gates 1 and 2 will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Gate 3 will be Fixed Price Incentive Fee (FPIF). This approach ensures competition, fosters innovation, and provides flexibility to manage risks while delivering critical capabilities. The gated process will allow the government to evaluate vendor performance and technical maturity through execution, ensuring alignment with program objectives and requirements. The following sections provide an overview of the envisioned activities in each Gate and describe the overall framework. Participation in subsequent gates is optional and will be limited to only performers (including subcontractors and Offerors) participating in the previous gate(s). Performers may update teaming arrangements and cost volume for follow-on gate proposals. Teaming to maximize speed and performance and leverage unique skillsets and expertise is highly encouraged.

3.1 Phased Awards.

The GBRD program will be executed in three distinct gates, with each gate representing a critical phase of the program: (1) requirements development, (2) system architecture and detailed design, and (3) deployment, test, and operational acceptance. In response to this request, Offerors will submit proposals for the entire scope of work, including detailed cost and schedule for Gate 1 and a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for Gate 2 and Gate 3. Awards will be given to one or more Offerors for Gate 1, with subsequent gates awarded to one or more of the Gate 1 awardees based on schedule, performance, technical feasibility, and alignment with program objectives. Offerors must be on contract for previous gates to be considered for subsequent gates. The Government will identify the 1x UEWR site (in addition to PARCS) for GBRD RP during Gate 1. Offerors will be required to demonstrate a system that rapidly meets requirements and program objectives throughout the process.

Proposal Development and Award

1 or more Based on initial demonstration, evaluation criteria, including schedule, technical merit, and cost realism. Upon completion of Gate 1, Offerors will develop and submit detailed proposals for Gate 2 work, including an updated and increased high fidelity ROM for Gate 3.

1 or more The Government will evaluate vendor performance during Gate 1, review detailed proposals, and award one or more Offerors for Gate 2 work. Upon completion of Gate 2, Gate 2 awardees will develop and submit detailed proposals for Gate 3 work.

(1 expected) The Government will evaluate vendor performance during Gate 2, review detailed proposals, conduct a down select process, and award a single (expected) vendor for Gate 3 to complete build, test, and operational acceptance and 1x UEWR and PARCS.

3.2 Demonstrations.

During each phase, the government will assess system performance through demonstrations and incremental testing as described in the sections above. Demonstrated performance as the program matures will ensure a robust system that has program efficacy in the field and provides opportunities to receive feedback from the user community. Demonstrations will provide evidence for verification and validation, MOSA compatibility, and likelihood of future Operational Acceptance.

4.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The program requirements will be developed in 4 levels (additional information is in the SOO):

· System Level - Government owned

· Sub-System Level - Contractor written, co-owned with Government

· Element Level - Contractor written, contractor owned

· Component Level - Contractor written, contractor owned

Note: Authority for modifications, verification, and validation of requirements matches the requirement level ownership. All changes that impact Government owned requirements (whether system, sub-system, or direct flow requirements) require a government chaired change board and associated documentation.

4.1 Gate 1: Requirements Development through System Requirements Review (SRR).

Gate 1 is 4-month effort with one or more performing teams. This gate culminates with a system SRR and an initial prototype demonstration of a key subsystem or component to show initial design maturity.

4.1.1 Scope.

Gate 1 is broken into 2, 2 month segments. Common, system level requirements (4.1.1.1) and performer specific requirements decomposition (4.1.1.3). All of the Gate 1 work will be accomplished in 4 months from contract award.

4.1.1.1 Develop common system level requirements with all performers and the Government (2 months). Effort will include all performer, joint working groups. These working groups will be in person at rotating locations (Performer(s) and Government). Three working groups will be held each month (one at each performer and one at a Government location). Expectation is sufficient engagement to enable real time decision making, not back and forth comment swaps. Utilize common requirements repository across all performers.

4.1.1.2 Develop Government owned interfaces (at a minimum, down to sub-system level) to support MOSA.

4.1.1.3 Execute the Requirements Analysis process using DOORS (or agreed to similar product) and develop performance specific detailed requirements, ensuring traceability to program objectives and operational needs (2 months). This will include a traceability matrix for all requirements.

4.1.1.4 Conduct SRR to validate the technical baseline and ensure alignment with mission requirements.

4.1.1.5 The SRR will include a full MBSE model via Cameo demonstrating requirements’ allocation and traceability. Any high-risk areas will have a detailed, modeled solution to mitigate future requirements growth or change.

4.1.1.6 Deliver detailed technical documentation, including requirements decomposition, interface definitions, and initial MBSE models.

4.1.1.7 Conduct an initial prototype demonstration of a key subsystem or component (chosen with Government collaboration) to show initial technology maturity.

4.1.1.8 Conduct an Initial Baseline Review to set the program baseline for Gate 2 utilizing a rolling wave approach.

4.1.1.9 Decide on/create and implement a single development environment for the GBRD program, across all contractors (including multiple performers), at the prime(s), DSIL, and all sub-contractors that can be accessed by the Government Program Office and support staff.

4.1.2 Proposal Requirements.

4.1.2.1 Proposals must include detailed cost and schedule proposal for Gate 1 effort.

4.1.2.2 Include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for Gate 2 and Gate 3 work, with a schedule for each phase.

4.1.2.3 Oral presentation must include the entire GBRD RP effort. Offerors must demonstrate system wide capability, specific existing and applicable technology, and a firm grasp of the scope of work, interfaces, integration plan, and risk areas.

4.1.2.4 Oral presentation must include a demonstration of a mature (TRL 7+) component, hardware, software element, or system of their proposed GBRD solution. The demonstration is intended to validate the maturity and readiness of the proposed solution and provide tangible evidence of the vendor’s ability to meet program requirements. Technology areas for demonstration (choose at least one) are the: Digital Signal Processor (DSP), Radar Resource Manager, or Beam Steering Controller, to provide confidence in their ability to deliver a viable prototype system. It must include modifications/adaptations necessary for full GBRD implementation. The list of systems here does not define the possible GBRD architectures; corollary systems may be demonstrated as applicable to the specific vendor solution.

Note: See Sections 5 and 6 for additional proposal requirements.

4.1.3 Award Process.

Additional information for evaluation is found in Section 8.1.

4.1.3.1 The government will award one or more Offerors for Gate 1 work based on (in order from most to least importance):

1. Schedule Realism, Comprehension, and Speed to Delivery

· Detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) with critical path analysis

· Demonstrated comprehension of scope of work through operational acceptance to include:

1. Feasibility of completing Gate 1 within the 4-month timeline and complete program execution

2. Risk probability, risk level and mitigation plans for schedule risks

2. Program Management

· Demonstrated experience performing similar major radar system deployments or upgrades, demonstrating capability to perform the full effort

· Clear roles and responsibilities for key personnel

· Systems engineering approach to requirements development and traceability

· Management plan for collaboration with subcontractors and geographically dispersed teams

3. Technical Merit

· Soundness of the proposed system architecture (hardware and software) with evidence showing the ability to meet program objectives

· Alignment with GRA and MOSA, including feasibility of integrating 3rd party capabilities

· Feasibility of integrating the DREX design as the digital receiver or MOSA compliant alternative

· Demonstration of TRL 7+ maturity for at least one key subsystem (e.g., Digital Signal Processor, Radar Resource Manager, or Beam Steering Controller); Evidence of real-world performance and integration readiness

4. Cost/Price Realism

· Detailed cost proposal for Gate 1, including labor, materials, and subcontractor costs

· Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for Gates 2 and 3

· Cost completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism

5. Intellectual Property

· Data rights assertions and their impact on Government sustainment capabilities

· Compliance with Government Purpose Rights (GPR) and MOSA requirements

6. Nontraditional/Small Business Inclusion

· Inclusion of nontraditional defense contractors or small businesses in a significant role

7. Security Readiness

· Ability to access, store, and process information up to SECRET//NOFORN

· Facility clearance, classified communications (SIPR connectivity and Classified Video Conference ability), and personnel eligibility

4.1.3.2 Offerors will be required to complete Gate 1 work within the agreed-upon timeline. The Government reserves 2 weeks to review system-level requirements and provide feedback that must be incorporated prior to Gate 2 start Any delay in submission of required information will delay the Government review accordingly.

4.2 Gate 2: Post SRR through Critical Design Review (CDR) and Initial Prototype Development.

Gate 2 will be a 15-month effort (following Gate 2 start) with one or more performing teams from Gate 1. This gate culminates with a CDR and build and test of initial (benchtop) prototype of the system to include hardware and software.

4.2.1 Scope.

4.2.1.1 Develop and refine the system design, including hardware and software components, to meet program requirements.

4.2.1.2 Conduct and gain Government approval of system Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and CDR to validate the design approach and ensure readiness for prototype development.

4.2.1.3 Test initial prototypes to demonstrate technical feasibility and performance against program requirements.

4.2.1.4 Demonstration will include fully functional MBSE model, initial working software on medium and high-risk areas (to include algorithms), and bench-level hardware prototypes of all systems. Hardware prototype testing will utilize a Government-provided stressful situation utilizing the Digital System Integration Laboratory (DSIL) at Georgia Technical Research Institute (GTRI) or equivalent vendor integration laboratory. Test results will support and data be integrated into the MBSE model to verify full system is expected to meet required performance.

Note: It is expected that differing level of design reviews will occur when the specific item or level (component, sub-system, etc.) is ready and design work will continue. System-level reviews will roll up all lower-level reviews to ensure full system integration and performance.

4.2.2 Proposal Requirements.

4.2.2.1 Upon completion of Gate 1, the Government will release a Request for Proposal for Offerors selected to move on to Gate 2.

4.2.2.2 Proposals shall include detailed cost and schedule for Gate 2 performance, an updated ROM and draft schedule for Gate 3 work, incorporating lessons learned from Gate 1.

4.2.3 Award Process.

4.2.3.1 The government will evaluate vendor performance during Gate 1 and award one or more Offerors for Gate 2.

4.2.3.2 The government will award one or more Offerors for Gate 2 work based on Gate 1 (in order from most to least importance):

1. Schedule Realism and Speed to Delivery

· Detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) with critical path analysis

· Feasibility of completing Gate 2 within the 15-month timeline and achieving CDR and system prototyping milestones

· Risk mitigation plans for schedule risks, including dependencies and contingencies, along with risk probability and risk levels

2. Technical Merit

· Refined system architecture (hardware and software) with evidence showing the ability to meet SRR defined performance requirements and supporting requirements documents

· Alignment with GRA and MOSA principles, including modularity and interoperability

· Evidence of real-world performance and integration readiness for prototypes assessed against SRR -defined performance requirements

· Sufficiency of technical risk mitigation plans for high and medium risk areas present in vendor’s design approach / architecture

3. Prototype Development and Demonstration

· Demonstration of functional MBSE models, initial working software or bench-level hardware prototype

· Quantitative performance data for demonstrated components (e.g., processing speed, data throughput, tracking accuracy)

· Integration readiness and compatibility with existing interfaces

4. Program Management

· Systems engineering approach to design refinement and prototype development

· Management plan for subcontractor coordination and integration

· Clear roles and responsibilities for key personnel, with evidence of collaboration across geographically dispersed teams

· Demonstrated experience performing similar major radar system deployments or upgrades, demonstrating capability to perform the full effort.

5. Cost Realism

· Detailed cost proposal for Gate 2, including updated ROM for Gate 3

· Cost realism and affordability, with clear justification for cost estimates

6. Intellectual Property

· Compliance with Government Purpose Rights (GPR) and MOSA requirements

· Impact of data rights assertions on program execution and Government transition capabilities

7. Nontraditional/Small Business Inclusion

· Inclusion of nontraditional defense contractors or small businesses in a significant role

8. Security Readiness

· Ability to support classified activities up to SECRET//NOFORN level during prototype development and testing

· Facility clearance, classified communications, and personnel eligibility

· Demonstrated compliance with Security Requirements and applicable Security Classification Guides (SCGs) during Gate 1 activities.

4.2.3.3 Offerors will be required to complete Gate 2 work within the agreed-upon timeline.

4.3 Gate 3: Build, Test and Operational Acceptance.

Gate 3 will be a 19-month effort (following Gate 3 start) with one team (notionally) down selected from Gate 2. This gate culminates with the operational acceptance of 1x UEWR (Government location TBD) and PARCS (Cavalier AFS, ND). This Operational Acceptance effort will be followed by a 24-month ICS phase. The Government intends to select one offeror to proceed to Gate 3. However, the Government reserves the right to select more than one offeror, or none at all, if it is determined to be in the Government's best interest.

4.3.1 Scope.

4.3.1.1 Procure, Integrate, and Test Subsystems at Contractor Facilities

4.3.1.2 Complete Software Development, a complete system integration documentation package.

4.3.1.3 Install, integrate and test full system at DSIL (within DSIL limitations). System must be fully verified (to extent feasible) in DSIL environment before performing formal testing at operational sites.

4.3.1.4 Install, integrate, and test at MDA Integrated System Test Center (ISTC) for support of Ground Test and Simulation Validation/Verifications.

4.3.1.5 Install, integrate, and test the prototype system at one UEWR site and PARCS.

4.3.1.6 Conduct contractor testing to validate system performance and ensure readiness for deployment.

4.3.1.7 Support Government Development Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) and Operational Testing and Evaluation (OT&E) to ensure the system meets operational needs of the warfighter

4.3.1.8 Deliver all required documentation, including technical orders (TOs), perform TO verification/validation, deliver training materials, drawings, fault trees, Software Version Descriptions (SVDs), Algorithm Description Documents (ADDs) and system manuals.

4.3.1.9 Deliver necessary initial site spares and support equipment necessary for on-site maintenance in compliance with RPRD and SRD Ao, MTTR requirements and support plans.

4.3.1.10 Provide sufficient initial depot spares to support replenishment needs projected for initial UEWR site and PARCS site for 10 years at 95% confidence level.

4.3.1.11 Deliver and verify Government independent sustainment capability/infrastructure to the DSIL. DSIL must be proven capable of developing/building/releasing system updates to all system components prior to operational acceptance at first UEWR site and PARCS.

4.3.1.12 Support Integration of applicable 3rd Party Modular Capabilities in concert with MOSA architecture.

4.3.1.13 Conduct ICS for 24-months to support spares replenishment, software updates, cybersecurity updates, correction of Deficiency Reports (DRs), and response to requests for Emergency Depot Level Maintenance (EDLM), Urgent Depot Level Maintenance (UDLM), Engineering Assistance (EA), and Technical Assistance (TA).

4.3.1.14 Gain operational acceptance and ITW/AA system certification at one UEWR site and PARCS in compliance with NORAD Instruction (NI) 10-3 and STRATCOM Instruction (SI) 535-01.

4.3.2 Proposal Requirements.

4.3.2.1 Upon completion of Gate 2, the Government will release a Request for Proposal for Gate 3 performing Offerors.

4.3.2.2 Gate 2-performing Offerors shall include a detailed cost and schedule proposal for Gate 3 work to include ICS, all deliverables required for operational acceptance, including training and system documentation, spares, DSIL sustainment capabilities, ISTC Test and Simulation V&V capabilities.

4.3.3 Award Process.

4.3.3.1 The government will evaluate vendor performance during Gates 1and 2 and award one or more Offerors for Gate 3 work from the Gate 2 Offerors.

4.3.3.2 The government will award one or more Offerors for Gate 3 work based on Gates 1 and 2

1. Schedule Realism and Speed to Operational Acceptance

· Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): Detailed IMS with critical path analysis, showing all tasks required to achieve operational acceptance within the 19-month timeline and risk probability and risk level against potential risk tasks

· Execution Feasibility: Evidence of realistic scheduling process and plan for system installation, integration, and testing at one UEWR site and PARCS, with minimal downtime

· Gate 2 Performance: Assessment of adherence to Gate 2 milestones and schedule execution

2. System Performance and Prototype Demonstration

· Requirements: Demonstration of prototype system performance meeting or exceeding all requirements specified in the RPRD as decomposed in the SRD and supporting requirements documents, including interface compatibility, radar tracking accuracy, custody capacity, beam steering precision and flexibility, and data throughput and exposure

· Prototype Validation: Full system prototype demonstration post-CDR, showcasing operational suitability and alignment with program requirements

· Stress Testing: Results from Government-provided stressful situation to validate system robustness and reliability under simulated, operational conditions

· Ability for systems to support and enable future installation/Operational Acceptance at all 6 GBRD sites

· Residual risks of not meeting SRD requirements, based on prototyping and modeling work done during Gate 2.

· Inherent Design Flexibility to support ease of integrating additional growth capacity & enhanced capability not planned as part of GBRD delivery. (Beam shaping flexibility, EMI resistance, Growth capacity, Scalable architectures, MOSA compliance)

3. Technical Design Maturity

· TRL Levels: Validation of system maturity at TRL 7+ for all components, with evidence of readiness for system build, test, and operational deployment

· MOSA: Evidence of modularity, interoperability, and growth capability to add hardware/software capabilities, expand system functionality, and replace components/software/algorithms

· Software and Algorithm Development Plan: clearly defined plan and objectives, architecture, test strategy and risk management. Plans specify milestones, resource allocations, and performance metrics to facilitate effective development and on time delivery.

4. Installation and Integration Plan

· Downtime Minimization: Detailed plan for installation and integration at one UEWR site and PARCS, with minimal disruption to ongoing operations

· Interface Maturity: Validation of internal and external interface readiness to support seamless integration

· Integration Readiness: Evidence of path to Operational Acceptance including all plans for all required documentation, and dependencies

5. Logistics and Sustainment Plan

· Sustainment Posture: Comprehensive plan detailing the sustainment of the full system, including integration of legacy components and long-term maintenance strategies

· Legacy System Integration: Assessment of how much of the legacy system remains and its impact on overall system functionality, availability, and supportability

· Overall System Sustainment Posture at conclusion of planned upgrades, accounting for retained legacy equipment/subsystems and planned replacement equipment/subsystems and support posture thereof

6. Program Management and Execution

· Team Expertise: Demonstration of team expertise and readiness to execute Gate 3 activities, including build, test, integration, and testing at operational sites

· Risk Mitigation: Identification of schedule, technical, and programmatic risks, with effective burn-down plans to address them

· Systems Engineering process maturity and approach to Design, Procurement, SW & HW Development, Configuration Management, Data Management, System Integration, Test and Evaluation, Cyber-Security, & Specialty Engineering [Safety, Program Protection, Spectrum, Environmental, Facilities, & Reliability, Maintainability, & Availability (RMA)].

7. Compliance with Standards

· DoD and International Standards: Validation of compliance with applicable standards such as cybersecurity, safety, and environmental requirements

· Government MOSA and IP Rights: Evidence of adherence to MOSA principles and delivery of system components with Government Purpose Rights (GPR) to enable organic and third-party sustainment

8. Cost Realism and Affordability

· Cost Execution: Assessment of whether Gate 2 activities were executed within the proposed cost expectations, including any deviations and corrective actions taken

· Detailed Cost Proposal: Realistic and affordable cost proposal for Gate 3, including ICS phase, with clear justification for cost estimates

· Price Impacts of Data Assertions: Evaluation of the cost impact of data rights assertions that are less than GPR

9. Security Readiness

· Ability to support classified activities up to SECRET//NOFORN level during system build, test, installation, operational acceptance, and Interim Contractor Support

· Facility clearance, classified communications, and personnel eligibility

· Demonstrated compliance with Security Requirements and applicable Security Classification Guides (SCGs) during Gate 1 and 2 activities

4.3.3.3 A single vendor (nominally) will be awarded Gate 3 work to complete build, test, and operational acceptance at one UEWR site and PARCS. The Government intends to select one offeror to proceed to Gate 3. However, the Government reserves the right to select more than one offeror, or none at all, if it is determined to be in the Government's best interest.

4.3.3.4 Offerors will be required to complete Gate 3 work within the agreed-upon timeline.

4.4 Potential Follow-on Activity.

Upon successful completion of this prototype effort, the Government anticipates that a follow-on production effort may be awarded via either a FAR based contract or agreement, without the use of competitive procedures, if the participant(s) in this transaction successfully completes the prototype project as awarded from this document. See Paragraph 3 above for success criteria.

5.0 ABSTRACT SUBMISSION

The Government is committed to minimizing unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and review. Responders may elect to submit a proposal abstract for Government review. The Government will acknowledge receipt of the submission and unclassified electronic submissions. If submitting, unclassified abstracts must be sent to SSC/SYD 85/BCK, Tracy Anderson (tracy.anderson.4@spaceforce.mil). Abstracts are limited to 7 pages, not including cover sheet. The Government will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether the Government encourages or discourages a full proposal based on the proposed approach and program objectives. The Government will attempt to reply to abstracts, in writing, in the order received and as expeditiously as possible. If the Government discourages a full proposal, feedback will be provided regarding the rationale for this recommendation. Regardless of the Government’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. All conforming proposals submitted using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any comments resulting from the abstract review will be evaluated. An abstract review is not required. Abstracts must be submitted, according to the instructions outlined herein, on or before date specified in Section 1.0. Abstracts received after this time and date may not be reviewed.

6.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

In response to this solicitation, interested parties should submit a comprehensive proposal for the entire system design and operational acceptance. For the scope of Gate 1, IAW Addendum II, Statement of Objectives, detailed cost and schedule are required. Estimated rough order of magnitude cost estimates and schedule for subsequent gates are required. Proposals that do not address the end-to-end solution or address all program objectives are not encouraged. Technical and Management portion of the proposals will consist of an oral proposal with supporting documentation and visual materials provided as Volume 1. To ensure an efficient and effective review process, proposals should be concise, complete, and compelling, supported by verifiable facts and providing all required information in the required format. The proposal should primarily be unclassified. See the below Volume and Section’s for details on classification.

Proposals shall consist of two (2) volumes:

Volume I – Technical and Management Volume Volume II – Price Proposal

Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal.

Section I – Administrative (Unclassified)

· Lead Organization submitting proposal complete with CAGE Code, UEI and DUNS.

· Type of Organization, selected among the following categories: Large Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Other Small Business, Educational, Non-traditional, or Other Non-Profit

· Other team members, their CAGE Codes, UEI, DUNS, and type of organization.

· Administrative point of contact to include salutation, first and last name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone number and email address.

· Technical point of contact to include salutation, first and last name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone number and email address.

· Total funds requested and amount of cost share (if any)

Section II – Proposal

· Unclassified main document (delivered unclassified) with up to Secret addendum (delivered classified) and oral presentation for discussion or select material used to show compliance with classified requirements. Security Classification Guide or guidance will be provided by the government.

· Oral Presentation materials (i.e. slides)

· Supporting Material: Summary of proposal, system architecture, key systems, proposed MOSA interfaces, executive summary, IMS, teaming arrangements, risks and mitigations, demonstration data/evidence, and additional supporting information

Volume II – Price Proposal.

Section I – Administrative (Unclassified)

· Lead Organization submitting proposal complete with CAGE Code, UEI and DUNS.

· Type of Organization, selected among the following categories: Large Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Other Small Business, Educational, Non-traditional, or Other Non-Profit

· Other team members, their CAGE Codes, UEI, DUNS and type of organization.

· Name, address, telephone number and email address of proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known and applicable).

· Name, address, telephone number and email address of proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency audit office (if known and applicable).

· Proposal Validity Period

Section II – Price Proposal (Unclassified)

Note: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

Cover pages for all volumes must include (Prime only):

· Company name

· Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code (if available), UEI, and DUNS.

· Location(s) and Level of facility clearance (if available)

· Street Address

· Primary Point of Contact (with title, email address and phone number)

· Business Size

· Business Type (Traditional or Non-Traditional)

· Status of U.S. ownership

· If the proposed approach requires any exceptions to this solicitation or draft performers agreement; and,

· The applicable 10 U.S.C. § 2371b eligibility criteria (select one of the following)

· There is at least one non-traditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the project

· All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors

· At least one third of the total cost of the project is to be provided by sources other than the Federal Government

· The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract.

6.1 Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal.

Technical proposals will consist of a two hour maximum time block, in person, oral presentation, accompanying presentation materials, and supporting material. The last fifty minutes of the time block will be reserved for question and answer. Note, presentation and summary materials are for reference only. The oral technical presentation is what will be evaluated. Oral presentations will be held in Colorado Springs. Notice of intent to present is due no later than as listed in Section 1 to allow for presentation scheduling. Offerors will be advised of their scheduled date and time; however, all offerors shall be prepared for oral presentations beginning as listed in Section 1. Presenter must be the proposed PM or other key person assigned to the program, not a professional speaker or part of a proposal only team. No more than 4 proposer team members may attend or participate in the presentation. All proposal materials must be provided by the deadline specified in Section 1.0, regardless of oral presentation schedule.

The Technical Proposal should convince the Government that the proposal has a credible plan for successfully completing all phases of program objectives as outlined in program documentation provided within cost and schedule constraints and at acceptable program execution risk. The oral presentation should include sufficient information from the Cost Volume to give a holistic view and presentation of the proposed program.

Total pages for Volume I, Section 1 may not exceed 4 pages, including diagrams and graphics, not including any items identified in the following sections as excluded from the page count. Pages beyond the page limit will not be considered.

Total pages for Volume I, Section 2, Oral Presentation Materials, may not exceed 40 pages (one slide per page), including diagrams and graphics, not including any items identified in the following sections as excluded from the page count. This includes the required demonstration material. Pages beyond the page limit will not be considered.

Total pages for Volume I, Section 2, Supporting Material may not exceed 20 pages, including diagrams and graphics, not including any items identified in the following sections as excluded from the page count. Pages beyond the page limit will not be considered.

The Oral Presentation shall include the following, at a minimum.

6.1.1 Program Overview: The program overview section shall provide a top-level description of the vision, architecture, key elements, and unique features of the program. This section shall include an overview of the schedule that includes key program events on the critical path, program plan, program management approach, and transition plan. The plan should address the level of risk inherent and risk mitigation strategies in the proposed program to enable completion of a prototype final demonstration no later than (insert date of FY quarter here).

6.1.2 Technical Approach: In this section, the proposer shall describe their technical approach.

The proposal shall:

· Provide proposed key performance objectives aligned with programmatic objectives

· Identify existing technologies/commercial solutions to be leveraged and the innovative concepts to be developed.

· Identify TRLs of proposed systems and subsystems.

· Discuss the proposed MOSA approach.

· Discuss integration of the proposed with existing architecture.

· Etc.

6.1.3 Technology Maturation: In this section, the proposer shall describe how they plan to adapt existing technologies to realize program vision and deliver two Operationally Accepted prototypes at the end of Gate 3.

The proposal shall:

· Provide an assessment of the proposed technology maturity, including a summary of the demonstration, test, operational experience.

· Provide a technology maturation plan that includes component maturation, system integration plans and high-level plans for all Gates of the programs.

· Describe program and technical risk, risk assessment, basis for likelihood and consequence assessments, and provide risk waterfall for highest risks, including timing, metrics, and methods.

· Provide a narrative describing the company’s R&D strategy, including how reinvestment priorities are identified, approved, and measured for impact.

· Document evidence of internal governance or review mechanisms ensuring R&D funding aligns with emerging technological or mission-critical requirements.

· Highlight projected reinvestment plans over the next five years and expected outcomes (e.g.