GECKO-NET RFI.pdf

Government Enterprise Collaboration and Knowledge Objective-NET (GECKO-NET)

Request for Information

Scope and Definitions

SSC/SN is soliciting information on potential approaches the Government could execute to transition current Missile Warning launch & early orbit and operational collaboration capabilities from the Enterprise Collaboration System (ECS) to a modern infrastructure with expanded connectivity. The contractor should provide details on how the Government should design, develop, integrate, and test the proposed solution without impacting current operations or Future Operationally Resilient Ground Evolution (FORGE) development and operationalization. The overall approach should address key areas such as:

1) Supporting advanced modern software and hardware solutions

2) Leveraging elements of existing hardware (HW) / software (SW) solution

3) Retaining existing data library

4) Producing Secret and Top Secret-level capabilities and one way data connectivity from Secret to Top Secret (TS)

5) Protecting proprietary data across breadth of users

6) Creating a Government-owned, store-front approach for integrating new space- and ground-based mission systems

7) Supporting rapid incremental capability delivery

8) Operating and maintaining the solution

9) Providing global infrastructure capabilities

10) All installations in the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Mission Control Station (MCS) and SBIRS Mission Control Station-back-up (MCS-B) will be compliant with the Space System Command and Overheard Persistent Infrared (OPIR) Site Integration Standards (OSIS)

This effort will design, develop, integrate, test and transition GECKO-NET solution into operation that includes but is not limited to the following:

Delivering comparable user capabilities as the current system in terms of offering a collaborative environment between operators, engineers and factory support providers through digital data, voice, and video accesses in support of Missile Warning, Tracking and Defense (MWTD) mission areas. GECKO-NET will process data from Defense Support Program (DSP), SBIRS, Next Generation OPIR Geosynchronous (NGG), Next Generation OPIR Polar (NGP), Missile Track Custody (MTC), Ground-based Radars (GBR) and future MWTD programs.

Representative system capabilities include: factory connectivity, memogram coordination (factory to operations [ops] floor), temporary procedures, critical information files, scheduling rules, logging, problem reports, scheduling requests, file storage, email capability, Microsoft Office applications, instant messaging, video conferencing, voice over internet protocol (VOIP) communications.

In support of this effort there must be distinct integration and test activities. These activities must ensure that current MWTD operational mission will not be impacted and MWTD operational assets remain operational during the systematic transition from the current collaboration solutions to GECKO-NET. These activities should be phased to ensure maximum efficiency and minimal perturbation to current operational missions, Next Gen launch activities and FORGE testing and fielding. The developer will conduct integration, verification and validation in their lab before deploying applications and software to the operational sites.

Desired delivery is to be no later than September 2027.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION REQUESTED:

The Government is seeking information from interested developers to refine the GECKO-NET acquisition approach. The intent of this request is to drive down schedule and integration risk while potentially expanding the pool of available vendors. Answers/responses are requested for the questions and areas of interest noted below:

1) There are significant risks and challenges when the Government serves as the lead system integrator.

Because of this, the GECKO-NET program must find the right balance between minimizing the role of “Government as the lead system integrator” and maximizing the cost, flexibility, and technical ownership benefits of working with multiple capability contributors. The Government would like responders to provide information on recommended integration approaches that reduce the risk of integrating the hardware/infrastructure, platform, and application capabilities being delivered potentially through different contracts and by different organizations or mission areas. Recommendations may include combining some or all elements under a single provider. The Government is also interested in lessons learned with respect to the highest risks associated with ground system software integration.

This response should also include information on any successfully implemented integration approaches that have been executed on similar programs.

2) There are also significant programmatic risks and challenges when the Government serves as a capability provider. For this solution, the Government has available an existing communication network (e.g. meshONE-T) that could be provided/considered as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for the development of the GECKO-NET solution. In addition, the Government has SW tools available that could be provided/considered as GFE for GECKO-NET (e.g. Memograms, Collaborative Environment Technical Manuals (CETM), or other reuse from current ECS), if desired.

The Government would like responders to identify any other GFE items that are critical to the solution.

3) In order to support both the integration/test and ops stages of the GECKO-NET SW development pipeline, various Government-furnished infrastructure options are currently under consideration, including a mix of cloud-based and “on-premises” options that must support Secret and TS missions.

The Government would like responders to also specifically describe any limitations, benefits, lessons learned, and/or recommendations on the implementation of any Government-provided infrastructure solution given the desired delivery dates noted and the inherent constraints of the MWTD ops floors (i.e, command and control [C2] of MWTD systems is a mission critical function that must be conducted on an “around-the-clock" basis from a Protection Level 1 facility). The Government is interested in learning the trade-offs between a high operational availability versus a low operational availability on solution concepts. Responders may also recommend a non-Government- provided infrastructure solution if analysis shows that the risk of meeting requirements is lower than developing and fielding on a Government-provided infrastructure solution.

4) Several platform/framework solutions are currently being used commercially as well as in Government applications. The Government would like responders to describe any potential platform solutions that may be used to host developmental applications and how they would meet the intent of an “open, modular, and expandable” software solution.

5) GECKO-NET capability must be extensible to but not limited to the following: the Next-Generation OPIR assets, SBIRS, MTC Epoch 2, GBRs and within Launch and Anomaly Resolution Center (LARC), OPIR Battlespace Awareness Center (OBAC), and Continental U.S. (CONUS) or Outside CONUS (OCONUS) MWTD ops floors including the ability to connect to contractors’ space vehicle (SV) and mission payload (MPL) facilities. The capability to synchronize data across all users and to utilize voice and video communication is key in supporting Secret and TS level mission ops (i.e.

current ECS supports SBIRS ops at a dozen facilities containing 300 workstations overall with 1,600 active users, 5,400 users total). The Government desires a store front vendor that provides Level 1 and 2 maintenance and the ability to support and field HW/SW requests to expand capabilities for all current and future MWTD programs. The Government would like responders to describe any potential challenges or limitations to solution extensibility.

6) The Government would like responders, in general, to address how we would meet our cyber compliances and address any potential cyber accreditation concerns.

7) Modern acquisition strategies focus on developing, testing, and sometimes fielding incremental capability frequently and consistently (especially acquisitions that are heavily software dependent).

The Government would like responders to describe, in general, any recommended approaches for prototyping and/or incremental development. Responders should describe developmental test processes, and coordination with/support to the operational test organization, that enable rapid delivery of proven capabilities. Deploying updates to multiple GBR and MWMT operational sites, while also including SV and MPL factory facilities.

8) The Government must own the GECKO-NET solution technical baseline. The Government would like responders to describe how potential solutions would meet this requirement and/or describe any potential challenges or limitations that come with providing appropriate data rights to the Government.

9) The GECKO-NET solution must be made to connect across the MWTD architecture using common messaging and user interface/user experience (UI/UX) standards (i.e., provide the same look and feel to optimize operator mission support). The Government would like responders to describe potential approaches for addressing this requirement while still meeting delivery dates noted above.

10) The Government would like to maximize the use of common services/applications and minimize the need for mission unique software across the entire MWTD architecture. In addition, these common services/applications should be as “platform agnostic” as possible (i.e., applications will need to be modular and portable to other infrastructures and platforms). The Government would like responders to describe how a proposed solution may be able to meet this intent and/or describe constraints/challenges that might hinder solutions from meeting it.

11) Open, modular, and expandable ground collaboration solutions are now prevalent throughout the commercial and Government space communities and assumed to be well-understood. Because of this, the Government is considering Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract strategies for this acquisition. The Government would like responders to discuss any concerns/lessons learned they have regarding issuing a FFP contract for this effort and offer alternatives with rationale (if necessary).

12) The ability for the mission operator to reach back to the OPIR satellite, payload, and ground factory providers in addition to GBR engineering and sustainment support is a significant consideration for the GECKO-NET solution. The Government would like responders to discuss what measures they would take to protect short and long term archived proprietary and/or sensitive competitive material, while providing a collaborative common area drop zone. Responders should specifically address the most effective role and contractual relationship (if any) of the satellite/payload providers.

13) The Government would like responders to describe any specific drivers that may either prohibit or add significant risk to the ability to deliver a solution by the dates noted above. This response should include not only specific overall challenges, constraints, and limitations but also any requirements or imposed constraints that the Government may be able to control and/or reconsider to reduce that schedule risk.

14) Given any lessons learned from industry and the general acquisition approach described above, the Government would like responders to describe any potentially significant cost drivers. This response should also include any recommended actions or approaches that the Government could take to reduce cost risk while still attracting interest from industry.

15) What interface definitions should the Government consider pre-defining?

16) What else should the Government be thinking about when seeking a modernized collaboration architectural solution?

Additional technical documentation is available upon request if intending to participate. Send request to

Capt Brenden West with the following information:

Submitter's Name and Parent Company, if applicable

Mailing Address: Street Address, City, State, Nine-Digit zip code

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Identification Number

Point of Contact (POC)

POC Telephone number and email address

FORMAT FOR RESPONSE:

All replies to this RFI must reference FA8810-24-RFI-GECKO-NET, ECS Cutover to GECKO-NET.

Submit only unclassified information. If classified information needs to be submitted, then contact the POCs identified below for potential ways to submit the information. Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary. Please provide your response on company letterhead to the Points of Contact (POC) identified below in this RFI. A response to the RFI is requested via email no later than, Friday, 02 AUGUST 2024, 10:00:00 AM) (Los Angeles, CA local area time).

Responses to the questions shall include a cover page with the following:

Submitter's Name and Parent Company, if applicable

Mailing Address: Street Address, City, State, NINE-Digit zip code

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

Unique Entity ID (UEI)

Point of Contact (POC)

POC Telephone number and email address or technical drawings will be welcomed or reviewed if submitted. Responses must include the following:

1) Company information (see above)

2) Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) or Engineering estimate (Fixed Price preferred or other recommended price type)

3) Summary of MWTD operations and/or production and integration heritage (if any)

Interested offerors/vendors may provide an additional 20 pages of white papers or short briefings (maximum of 30 total pages) to answer the questions/requests provided. Page numbers for additional information shall be numbered. Pages shall be single-spaced, 8.5 x11 inches with at least 1-inch margins all sides, 10 font or larger.

In your response, please follow the same numbering convention used in the RFI; for example, if responding to Question #3 under the “General Description of Information Requested” section, please preface your response with ‘Question #3’. Please note all material provided in response to this notice shall be unclassified. Any proprietary information shall be clearly identified. The Government will take all necessary steps to protect and safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be held responsible for any proprietary information not clearly marked.

SMALL BUSINESS CONSIDERATION

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code applicable to this effort is:

518210 – Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services

The small business size standard is $40,000,000. Participation from small and small disadvantaged businesses is encouraged. SSC's Small Business point of contact is Ms. Pamela Cook. She can be reached at pamela.cook.6@us.af.mil.

DISCLAIMERS AND NOTES

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a solicitation (Request for Proposal or Request for Quotations) or a promise to issue a solicitation in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Furthermore, the Government is not, at this time, seeking proposals. Responders are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the responding party's expense.

All information received in response to this RFI that is marked PROPRIETARY will be handled accordingly.

The Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with the applicable Government regulations.

The Government will not be obligated to pursue any particular acquisition alternative as a result of this RFI.

Responses to the RFI will not be returned. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation. The Government reserves the right to issue a Request for Proposal to respondent(s) who best meet the needs of the Government.

mailto:6@us.af.mil

SSC/SN has entered into contracts with The Aerospace Corporation, Booz Allen Hamilton, Tecolote Research, Integrity Applications Incorporated, QuanTech Services, Alpha Omega Group (AoG), Space EA systems, Integrated Enterprise System Engineering Solutions (IESE). These companies support the Government’s Space Force Program Office by performing technical reviews, systems engineering and integration analyses, cost estimation, and other advisory services. Respondents are hereby notified that all responses will be provided to our support contractors for their services to the U.S. Space Force. If the respondent disagrees with the release of its RFI response to any of the aforementioned firms, the respondent must clearly state this restriction in the cover letter accompanying the RFI response.

Foreign firms are advised that they will not be allowed to participate in this acquisition at the prime contractor level; however, provided they are eligible to do business with the US Government, they may be eligible to participate at the subcontractor level. The research and test data produced under a resultant contract may contain Military Critical Technology List (MCTL) information whose export is restricted by Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S. Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401, et seq.). Request certification and registration from the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC), Federal Center, 74 North Washington, Battle Creek, MI 49016-3412 as soon as possible.

POINTS OF CONTACT

Direct all inquiries to the points of contact below:

Primary:

Major Devin Leong devin.leong@spaceforce.mil

Secondary:

Capt Brenden West brenden.west.1@spaceforce.mil

Contracting:

Capt David Kirkland david.kirkland.9@spaceforce. mil