DRFP_R9_Q As_12.19.14.pdf

LRDR DRFP: HQ0147-14-R-0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 9

Number

Sequence

LRDR ES

DRFP Update

Version

Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

DRFPES-001 Section 3.2.2.6, LRDR-1198

Can the Government clarify the range of scan angles for both transmit and receive over which this requirement applies?

The following words have been added to

LRDR-1198: "…at array normal."

A new requirement has been added to Section

3.2.2.6 which defines performance at off-normal orientations.

DRFPES-002 Section 3.2.2.2, LRDR-1113, 1114, 2382, 2383, 2433, 2434, 1116, 1120

In the definition of Single pulse SNR in section 3.2.2.2, it is stated that it includes "all appropriate antenna sidelobe weighting losses". Can the Government clarify whether the "appropriate antenna sidelobe weighting losses" are those associated with the antenna patterns necessary to achieve the performance required by

LRDR-2255? If not, can the government please define what condition, environment, or other requirement, is intended to be used to determine the "appropriate"-ness of the antenna sidelobe weighting.

Yes, all appropriate antenna losses are those associated with LRDR-2255 and LRDR-2257, whichever is most challenging.

DRFPES-003 Section 3.2.2.2, LRDR-1113, 1114, 2382, 2383, 2433, 2434, 1116, 1120

Can the Government define the minimum elevation angle over which all of the sensitivity requirements must be met. For example, are the sensitivity requirements consistent with the cue angle specified in LRDR-1573?

Sensitivity is specified at array normal and at specified scan offset with defined propagation loss.

DRFPES-004 Section 3.2.2.9, LRDR-2255 and

The RMS sidelobe level is not specified for the identified requirement region. Is it the intent of the customer for this level to be consistent with the RMS sidelobe level specified in LRDR-

2257?

Offeror has flexibility for designing notch levels to achieve system performance.

DRFPES-005 Section 3.2.2.4.2, LRDR-1183

The updated Element Spec, section 3.2.2.4 references the FRD, but section 3.2.2.4.2 shows a different maximum power draw than that in the latest FRD. Is it the Government's intent to update the

FRD with the maximum power draw requirement defined in

LRDR-1183?

The value specified in the Element Spec is the

LRDR allocation for maximum power draw.

The FRD value includes allocations for the

LRDR and all supporting site infrastructure in the LES and MCF.

DRFPES-006 Section 3.2.2.8.1, LRDR-1204

The term "dwell" is used four different times in the document. So that there is consistent interpretation across the offerors, can the

Government provide a formal definition of what constitutes a

"dwell"?

The following definition has been added to the glossary: "A dwell is a contiguous transmission or reception of a single/multiple-pulse waveform into a given beam position."

DRFPES-007 Section 3.2.2.8.1, LRDR-1205

So that there is consistent interpretation across the offerors, can the Government confirm that the conditions (probability of detection, target range rate) associated with LRDR-1205 are consistent with those of the raid acquisition requirement LRDR-

1571?

LRDR-1205 is not dependent upon the conditions associated with LRDR-1571.

DRFPES-008 Section 3.2.12.2, LRDR-2464

In LRDR-2464, can the Government verify that the specified SNR reduction includes noise carry-over and excludes antenna gain reduction?

The Government requires additional clarification in order to fully answer this question.

DRFPES-009 Section 3.2.7.3.2, LRDR-1474

Can the Government provide a formal definition for "non-station-kept objects" (e.g. satellites used for calibration)

Changed "non-station-kept objects" to "non-three-axis stabilized objects".

DRFPES-010 Section 3.2.7.3.2, Table 3-10

Should the "Table A-7" reference in Table 3-10 actually be "Table

A-9"?

Table reference has been corrected to read

"Table A-9".

DRFPES-011 Section 3.2.5.2 The introductory paragraph states that "the fixed volume search capability includes several requirements already captured in the autonomous search plan section above". Does this mean that ALL of the requirements in 3.2.5.1 also apply to 3.2.5.2? Or does it mean that the relevant requirements from 3.2.5.1 have already been incorporated into 3.2.5.2? In either case, we recommend that the Government include the necessary requirements into

3.2.5.2 and remove this introductory text.

The combined set of requirements in 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2 represent all system requirements for autonomous and fixed volume searches.

The introductory paragraph has been deleted.

DRFPES-012 Section 3.2.5 LRDR-1335 Defines a search volume and requires satisfaction of a probability of acquisition against the threats defined in

Appendix 2.1. However, the Government does not specify the orientation of the array faces in the LRDR Element Specification.

Is it the Government's intent for the Offeror to determine the optimal array face orientation? Or is the Government's intent that the radar face orientation identified in Appendix A.1 be used for all / any performance analyses?

The radar face reference boresights were provided for engineering analysis purposes consistent with the instructions in Section L of the RFP.

DRFPES-013 Section 3.2.9, LRDR-2280

The qualities of service for all of the threats in Table A-9 are not provided in Table 3-13. Is LRDR-2280 limited to the threats in

Table 3-13 or will the Government provide the quality of service assumption for all of the threats in Table A-9?

The scope of LRDR-2280 is limited to the threats in Table 3-12.

DRFPES-014 Section 3.2.9, Table 3-12

Table 3-12 provides position and velocity errors for each of the scenarios; however it is not clear whether these errors are min, max, mean, etc. Can the Government please clarify.

Note has been added to Table 3-12 that states

"Position and velocity errors are 97% SEP".

DRFPES-015 Section 3.2.9, Table 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14

Table A-4 provides Objective raid scenarios with specific

Scenario/Case/Monte Carlo Instantiation. However this information is not provided for the threshold and compliance raid cases defined in Tables 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14. Can the

Government provide this information for the threshold and compliance raid cases?

The Final RFP package will include the necessary threat data for threshold and objective raid scenarios.

DRFPES-016 Section 3.2.7.3.2, LRDR-2373

LRDR-2373 requires an estimation of a certain quality; however, no time interval is specified over which the mean is to be computed. Can the Government clarify whether we should assume the time interval is to be consistent with the time interval used to measure statistical features to support conventional discrimination, i.e. the "nominal time window" defined in Section

3.2.7.6?

Added "(95% confidence)" to LRDR-2373.

DRFPES-017 Section 3.2.10.2, LRDR-1573

A discrimination due time is not specified for each scenario in the raids shown in Table 3-14. So that there is consistent interpretation, can the Government clarify whether the discrimination due time for each scenario in the raid is the start of the track quality time interval, consistent with LRDR-2281?

Added the following words to LRDR-1573:

"...by the start of the specified track quality time interval in Table 3-12."

DRFPES-018 Section 3.2.9, LRDR-2281

For the scenarios in Table 3-12 with two different Track Quality

Time Intervals specified, can the Government clarify which of the two Track Quality Time Intervals does LRDR 2281 apply to?

LRDR-2281 is to be satisfied at the start of the earliest interval for each threat in Table 3-12.

DRFPES-019 LRDR-1571 and

Can the government clarify whether "given a cue at x deg elevation" means that the cue is received when the target is at x deg elevation or that the cue is to be performed at x deg elevation?

This phrase means that the radar will receive the cue in time to execute the cue when the target is at x deg elevation.

DRFPES-020 LRDR-1335 and

In LRDR-1335 and -2280, the phrases "for each scenario in Table

3.12" and "across the threat parameter space specified in A.2.1" are not consistent. Confirm that compliance scenarios in Table 3-

12 will suffice for verification of both LRDR-1335 and -2280.

LRDR-1335 is applicable to Table 3-5. The scope of LRDR-2280 is limited to the threats in Table 3-12.

DRFPES-021 Section

3.2.14.1.1.4

Requirement LRDR-1713 specifies the "long term, 60 year extreme . . .for the Cold Region / Cold Diurnal using MIL-HDBK-

310". However, Table XII of the MIL-HDBK-310 is the only table for the Cold Region / Cold Diurnal cycle, however it does not have an indication of 60 year extreme and is specified in requirement LRDR-1712. Can the Government provide reference to the 60 year extreme condition relevant to LRDR-1713?

LRDR 1712 is the 'operate through' requirement which is traceable through MIL-

HBK-310 and the BMD System Spec.

Requirement 1713 related to extreme condition survival, was found to be duplicative, and was deleted.

DRFPES-022 LRDR-1396,

LRDR-1402,

LRDR-2310,

LRDR-2281,

LRDR-2327, Table

A-3

Many shall statements make reference to a "minimum energy" trajectory but no definition/trajectory reference is provided. Will the Government provide specific trajectory references for each of the compliance scenarios and for each requirement reference to support performance verification?

The Final RFP package will include detailed threat data.

DRFPES-023 Tables 3-12 and 3-

Will specific GFI trajectory/RCS data be provided with the final

RFP for all the compliance scenarios in Table 3-12 to support performance verification?

The Final RFP package will include detailed threat data.

DRFPES-024 Section 3.2.6.2 LRDR-1396 and LRDR-1402 do not refer to specific threats. Will the government provide specific threats / trajectories to determine compliance with these requirements?

Section 3.2.6.2 provides bounding conditions for assessing compliance against these requirements.

DRFPES-025 Tables 3-12, 3-14, A-9; Tables 3-15, A-4

Tables 3-15 and A-4 make reference to L167aD04P01v2, whereas

Tables 3-12, 3-14, and A-9 make reference to L167aD04P01. The scenarios appear to be the same for these cases; are these intended to be the same threat variant?

Yes, these references represent the same threat variant.

DRFPES-026 Section 3.2.10.2 In Tables 3-14 and 3-15, the GBI interceptor timeline is provided for the threshold raid, but is not provided for objective raid. What are the track and discrimination need times for each launch complex of the objective raid?

Attachment L-4 of the Final RFP instructs

Offerors to provide the time window over which each active track will be maintained at the necessary quality, the time window over which discrimination can be performed, and the timeline to complete discrimination for the objective raid scenario.

DRFPES-027 Section 5.1 The glossary includes definition of the term "mission critical" as

"that which is necessary to support the BMD mission". So that there is consistent interpretation of this definition, can the

Government define which specific requirements are necessary to support the BMD mission?

The appropriate definitions are provided in

MDA Assurance Provisions (Rev B) as part of the Final RFP package.

DRFPES-028 Section 5.1 The glossary includes definition of the term "mission critical failure" that includes the term "mission essential function".

However, "mission essential function" is not defined. Is "mission essential function" equivalent to "mission critical" function, or is

"mission essential" a subset of "mission critical"? Please clarify.

The appropriate definitions are provided in

MDA Assurance Provisions (Rev B) as part of the Final RFP package.

DRFPES-029 Table A-8 The table provides the min and max number of CM objects that is not consistent with the min and max number of the individual number of CM objects also shown in the table. So that there is consistent and accurate interpretation, can the Government please clarify?

Table A-8 references both minimum and maximum number of various types of these objects as well as overall minimum and maximum number of objects in a given threat complex.

DRFPES-030 Section 3.2.2.8.2 The LRDR-1149 requirement for scheduling efficiency is not necessary to meet the specified mission or threat. Each offeror's system PAG must be sized to meet the other performance requirements in the LRDR Element Spec. An inefficient schedule will result in a higher system PAG; it is in each offeror's best interest to maximize the scheduling efficiency so as to minimize, thereby minimizing the cost to the Government. For these reasons, scheduling efficiency is typically derived by the offeror and can be a cost driver. So that we may better understand the

Government's intent and provide an effective solution, can the

Government clarify the intent or derivation of this new requirement?

Requirement LRDR-1149 has been deleted.

DRFPES-031 Section 3.2.1.6.1 The LRDR-1385, 1386, and 1387 for number of tracks have all been increased significantly over the previous version of the specification. However, the new requirements are not consistent with the specified mission or threat. This could be a cost and/or schedule driver; there is an opportunity for cost savings and reduced cost and schedule risk if these requirements are made to be consistent with the specified mission or threat. So that we may better understand the Government's intent and provide an effective solution, can the Government clarify the intent or derivation of this new requirement?

LRDR-1385/1386/1387 have been revised in the Final RFP version.

DRFPES-032 Sections 3.2.2.9 and 3.2.12.2

The LRDR-2262 and 2464 requirements for suppression are not consistent with the projected threat. This could be a cost and/or schedule driver; there is an opportunity for cost savings and reduced cost and schedule risk if these requirements are made to be consistent with the projected threat. So that we may better understand the Government's intent and provide an effective solution, can the Government clarify the intent or derivation of this new requirement?

These requirements are necessary to address emerging threats. LRDR-2464 has been changed to include "(TBR)" with the performance values. In addition, LRDR-2263 performance value changed to "(TBR)".

DRFPES-033 Section 4.3 The table associated with this section was not provided in the 17

November 2014 version of the specification.

This table is included in the Final RFP version.

DRFPES-034 Section 4.3 We assume that the phrase "verified across the entire threat space" is intended to be "verified across the entire threat space bounded by the data provided in Appendix A, §A.2." (similar to the wording used in LRDR-1102).

This phrase has been clarified in the Final RFP version and is consistent with LRDR-1102.

DRFPES-035 LRDR-1137,

LRDR-1139,

LRDR-1141

LRDR-1137, LRDR-1139, and LRDR-1141 employ the phrase "in the instrumented range", which we assume is bounded by values provided in Table 3-6. If this assumption is incorrect, please clarify these three requirements by providing the required instrumented range.

Removed the words "in the instrumented range" from requirements LRDR-

1137/1139/1141.

DRFPES-036 LRDR-1199 In LRDR-1199, we recommend inserting "simultaneously, on a pulse-by-pulse basis" immediately after the last word in the sentence to clarify the capability required.

The Government has reviewed this recommendation but has determined that this feature is not a requirement.

DRFPES-037 LRDR-2257,

LRDR-2263

LRDR-2257 and LRDR-2263 do not contain the clarifying parenthetical included at the end of LRDR-2255. Please clarify the conditions under which LRDR-2257 and LRDR-2263 must be met (similar to the parenthetical provided in LRDR-2255).

Modified LRDR-2255/2257/2263/2262 to indicate that these requirements are applicable to all waveforms.

DRFPES-038 LRDR-1770 Should LRDR-1770 be classified consistent with the classification of LRDR-1769 and LRDR-1773?

The classification of LRDR-1770 has been corrected and is now consistent with LRDR-

1769/1773.

DRFPES-039 Section 3.2.2.12 In §3.2.2.12, the reference to Table A-8 should be to Table A-13. Reference has been corrected to read "Table A-

13".

DRFPES-040 EME requirements The electric field limits provided in MIL-STD-464C §5.3, External RF Electromagnetic Effects (EME), Table 4 are generic for ground systems. Would the Government consider providing specific electric field limits and / or the types of EME sources

(with field strength) tailored to Eareckson Air Station and Clear

Air Force Station so that filtering specific to emitters at these locations can be provided in the LRDR design?

The electric field limits and types of EME sources will be determined following a final site determination.

DRFPES-041 Table 3.1 Note 3 The classification marking on Table 3.1 Note 3 does not appear to be consistent with the marking of the second paragraph of

§3.2.2.2 (i.e., the Note 3 marking appears to be overly restrictive in the context of §3.2.2.2). Please clarify.

The classification of Note 3 has been corrected and is now consistent with paragraph

3.2.2.2.

DRFPES-042 LRDR-1139 In LRDR-1139, please consider inserting the phrase "multiplied by the cosine of elevation angle" immediately before the word

"shall" to account for the singularity that occurs at zenith.

The Government has considered the recommendation but has determined that the requirement is sufficiently stated as written.

DRFPES-043 Table 3-5 To ensure consistency with the range extent specified in Table 3-

6, should the upper end of the range extent provided in the third row of Table 3-5 be reduced to 4/5 of its current value to be consistent with the Table 3-6 max range extent?

Tables 3-5 and 3-6 are for independent requirements.

DRFPES-044 Table 3-5 If the intent of Table 3-5 is to constrain radar resource utilization for this function to be expressed relative to 100%, we recommend replacing the final row with "Max radar resources" and adjusting the value in that row accordingly. Otherwise, the description (and associated value) could be interpreted as max transmit duty for waveforms relevant to Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 has been modified to remove the row "Max Radar Duty".

DRFPES-045 LRDR-2260 Please provide the specific performance values referenced in

LRDR-2260.

LRDR-2260 has been changed from

"…specified performance…" to "…specified capability…" which is defined in LRDR-2259.

DRFPES-046 Section 3.2.2.5.3.2 We recommend deleting the phrase ", to each radar face, " in the sentence that appears in §3.2.2.5.3.2.

The Government has reviewed this recommendation but has determined that this phrase is necessary.

DRFPES-047 LRDR-1139,

LRDR-1141

We recommend modifying LRDR-1139 and LRDR-1141 to stipulate that these requirements apply to the primary antenna (not to both).

The Government has reviewed this recommendation but has determined that these requirements are necessary for both antenna faces.

DRFPES-048 LRDR-1139,

LRDR-1141

We recommend scaling the values provided in LRDR-1139 and

LRDR-1141 by a factor of 1.25 in new requirements applicable to the secondary antenna in each of §3.2.2.5.3.2.2 and §3.2.2.5.3.2.3.

The Government has reviewed this recommendation but has determined that these requirements are necessary for both antenna faces.

DRFPES-049 LRDR-2257,

LRDR-2464

In addition to the requirements contained in §3.2.2.5.3.2.2 and

§3.2.2.5.3.2.3, LRDR-2257 and LRDR-2464 should have peer requirements specific to the secondary antenna. We recommend that the offerors provide these scaled values, along with supporting rationale in the proposal.

The Government has reviewed this recommendation but has determined that these requirements are necessary for both antenna faces.

DRFPES-050 LRDR-2464 We believe that the numbers contained in LRDR-2464 are not internally consistent -- our analysis shows that this requirement is not realizable as written, for any antenna size. Please clarify.

LRDR-2464 has been changed to include

"(TBR)" with the performance values.

DRFPES-051 Threat Data Will the Government provide threat data (trajectory, aspect-specific RCS signatures) referenced throughout the LRDR

Element Specification (e.g., Table 3-12, Table 3-14, Table 3-15, Appendix A, §A.1, Table A-4)?

The Final RFP package will include detailed threat data.

DRFPES-052 LRDR-1198 Must LRDR-1198 be satisfied over the spatial region bounded by

LRDR-1114 and LRDR-2383? Must LRDR-1198 be satisfied concurrently with LRDR-1114 and LRDR-2383? Please clarify

LRDR-1198 to specify the region over which this performance must be provided, and clarify the concurrency, if any, with LRDR-

1114 and LRDR-2383.

The following words have been added to

LRDR-1198: "…at array normal."

A new requirement has been added to Section

3.2.2.6 which defines performance at off-normal orientations.

DRFPES-053 LRDR-1201 LRDR-1201 provides a specific value, which influences cost.

Would the Government consider allowing the offeror to propose a value consistent with other performance requirements?

The Government has reviewed this recommendation but has determined that this is a key system minimum requirement.

DRFPES-054 LRDR-2464 In LRDR-2464, the SNR degradation coupled with fractional beamwidth specs are inconsistent. It is recommended the fractional beamwidth be increased by a factor of 1.33 and the

SNR degradation be increased by a factor of 5.0

(magnitude).

The Government has reviewed the elements of this requirement and found it to be consistent.

DRFPES-055 LRDR-1729,

LRDR-1730

In LRDR-1729 and -1730, the hail requirement has potential to drive significant cost into the design. In addition, it is believed the hail requirement may be inconsistent with the planned locations, and with the specifications on other equipment in the BMDS system. The following modifications are recommended:

LRDR-1729 to 1.1cm diameter, 0.8g/cm^3, 0.8 hailstones/m^3, 21m/sec

LRDR-1730 to 3.0cm diameter, 0.9g/cm^3, 0.8 hailstones/m^3, 35m/sec

The current requirement is based on MIL-

HDBK-310 and is consistent with the BMDS specification.

DRFPES-056 LRDR-2452 LRDR-2452 is assumed to be addressing track reporting to

C2BMC rather than internal. Would the MDA please clarify.

LRDR-2452 addresses internal track processing rather than track reporting. LRDR-

2452 has been modified to read "…noise induced false active track…"

DRFPES-057 LRDR-2373 LRDR-2373 is assumed to be intended to be a 1sigma number as in the previous draft Element Specification. Would the

MDA please clarify.

Added "(95% confidence)" to LRDR-2373.

DRFPES-058 LRDR-2281, Table

3-10

The probability values in LRDR-2281 and Table 3-10 appear to be inconsistent. Would the MDA please clarify.

LRDR-2281 relates to probability of Rank 1

(refer to Element Spec glossary) for a particular type of object, whereas Table 3-10 applies to multiple object types.

DRFPES-059 LRDR-1171 In LRDR-1171, the requirement is TBR (to be reviewed) and states the "Worst Case voltage excursion for 2 sec: +/- 20%

(TBR)". To avoid significant added cost, it is recommended this be modified to -10% to +20%.

Per Section L instructions in the RFP, the

Offeror shall provide its design's performance requirements for "To Be Resolved" values in

Attachment L-10.

DRFPES-060 LRDR-1171 In LRDR-1171, the requirement is TBR and states the "Voltage

Spike : 5x nominal voltage -on top of nominal voltage, rise time 1.2 uSec , decay time 50uSec to 50% of value (TBR)". To avoid significant added cost, it is recommended this be modified to 2.5x nominal voltage.

Per Section L instructions in the RFP, the

Offeror shall provide its design's performance requirements for "To Be Resolved" values in

Attachment L-10.

DRFPES-061 LRDR-1179 In LRDR-1179, the requirement is TBR and states the

"Emergency 2 minute voltage condition : -100% to +35% (TBR)".

To avoid significant added cost, it is recommended this be modified to -10% to +20%.

Per Section L instructions in the RFP, the

Offeror shall provide its design's performance requirements for "To Be Resolved" values in

Attachment L-10.

DRFPES-062 LRDR-1179 In LRDR-1179, the requirement is TBR and states the

"Emergency 2 minute frequency condition : -100% to 12%

(TBR)". To avoid significant added cost, it is recommended this be modified to - TBD*% to +12%.

*A value will be provided to the MDA by Friday, 12/19/14.

Per Section L instructions in the RFP, the

Offeror shall provide its design's performance requirements for "To Be Resolved" values in

Attachment L-10.