GDS RFI Questions and USG Provided Answers Attachment.pdf

No. GDS RFI Questions from Industry RCCTO Response

Who is the intended warfighter / users of the Guam Integrated Battle Management capability? Is it for the regional air defense commander (RADC) and to be used augment individual weapon systems operators for peer weapon system awareness?

RADC is the organization that is anticipated to use the integrated battle management capbility, but may be fielded to other organizations pending COMREL decisions.

Can the Government clarify what existing air and missile defense systems they would expect to operate?

Army IBCS, TOC-L, and Aegis Guam System (AGS) and associated sensors/shooters per those C2 systems. Design needs to be flexible and scalable to accommodate future additions.

Does the Government have an existing UI they would want to integrate into this system?

No, we are seeking industry input and design must align with emerging with user needs.

Does the Government have requirements for hardware form factor(s) that this system is deployed on?

No, this is undefined and we look forward to industry input.

Does the Government have any requirements for role-based access control or authentication?

There is no current requirement, but this does not preclude industry from including in their design.

Will the Government provide access to necessary ICDs for integration with systems or facilitate interaction with their respective vendors?

The USG intends to develop a Governement Reference Architecture (GRA) for the integrated battle management capability. This GRA will facilitate the development of new ICDs or expansion of current ICDs.

Can prospective proposers assume that an existing low latency network connection between these existing IAMD systems that can be leveraged for real time coordination?

Yes

The Government has stated that - “Software must facilitate full spectrum AD”. Can the Government clarify if they require autonomous engagement coordination?

If autonomous engagement is best approach to enable integrated battle management the contractor should provide details of that capability.

Can the Government clarify any specific requirements of threat profiles or scenarios they would want this system to be able to address for ballistic, hypersonic, and/or cruise missiles?

The Government cannot currently address specific threat profiles. If classified information is required to communicate to industry in the future, it will be provided at that time.

Can the Government specify what parts of the engagement sequence that require autonomy vs require a human in the loop?

Government seeks information as to where autonomy should be applied in the engagement sequence to achieve integrated battle management

The Government has stated that potential solutions must be - "resilient under attack". Can the Government clarify what kinds of attacks?

Ruggedized hardware, cyber hardening, etc?

Cyber is a primary concern. The system must also be adaptable as the battlefield conditions change in a contested environment. Ruggedization and other resiliency factors will be dependent upon the capabilities brought by industry.

Do you anticipate some or all of this work being performed remotely? The USG anticipates the potential for remote development. However, development of the capability could be primarily at a contractor facility, a government facility, or a combination of both.

If work is to be performed on-site, what will be the place(s) of performance?

To be determined

What are your cloud-based vs on-prem requirements and/or expectations? Undefined at this point, will be determined based on proposed solutions. We are not ruling out a cloud-based design.

15 Will you accept partial solution responses? Yes

Is the desired IBM to be US sources only, or will it need to include resources from Allies and Partners?

We expect the use of appropriate security and supply chain protocols when developing the integrated battle management capability. The USG expects a long-term strategy in which the IBM capability will share data / integrate with Coalition and Allied systems.

Is the intent to have the Integrated Battle Management (IBM) to perform fire direction, fire control, or something in the middle?

Fire direction. The intent is to limit interference with existing fire control systems.

What capabilities do you desire to be "linked" via this initial "application layer" C2?

A. Area all the system to be integrated solely Army or are other Services to be included as well?

This will be a joint services solution that integrates existing service C2 systems such as TOC-L, IBCS, Aegis, C2BMC, etc.

What is the relationship between IBM and USINDOPACOM’s Joint Fires Network, and will working together with that Network be a design objective for the IBM?

The relationship is to be determined but Joint Fires Network integration / interoperability could be a design objective.

IF you pursue this capability, is there a preferred acquisition strategy/approach you prefer?

A. Can you provide a rough timeline on which you believe will have a CDD/ACDD, a funding profile and an approved acquisition strategy?

B. When do you want this capability delivered (IOC, FOC, etc.)?

c. Is there a draft conceptual funding profile you are requesting from Congress?

Yes. The USG is pursuing an Agile development of the IBM capability.

A1) A GDS ICD is currently in staffing with an estimated approval date by the JROC o/a 01 OCT 24 A2) Funding profile: TBD A3) The IBM effort is in the Software Pathway (SWP) A4) Yes, we have an overarching GDS acquisition strategy that is pending approval. We will be developing a more detailed IBM acquisition strategy based on industry capability, feedback and market research.

B) Specific timelines are TBD but with the agile development process we anticpate starting development in FY26 C) IBM capability specific funding profile is yet to be determined and will be informed by proposed solutions.

Do you anticipate the application layer to be completely seamless and transparent to the current operating force?

The USG anticipates a new GUI for the IBM capability. However, the USG does not want to limit responses to this approach and is open to other concepts.

What different coding languages would the application need to interface? TBD but will include C++, Java, and other modern coding languages

Funding - What is your assessment in terms of your funding availability to execute a future program tied to the RFI? The assumption is expect to get initial $$ in FY25 with increasing $$ in FY26 and beyond. Confident you’ll be fully funded and postured to kick off the effort?

Funding needs will be determined based on assessed industry capabilities, feedback and market research. We anticipate starting development in FY26 and have confidence requisite funding will be available.

White Paper & Demos – After your office receives the RFI responses and has had time to review and assess, will you be asking select teams to submit White Papers and/or demos to supplement and clarify understanding? Is this a likely COA you’re considering?

This is an approach the USG is considering.

Schedule – When is your ideal target to issue an RFP? End of FY25 or

FY26?

TBD