Industry Qs and Govt Responses HQ0860-26-S-C008 Round 2.pdf

Industry Questions and Government responses: HQ0860-26-S-C008 (Set 2)

14. For AOI 1, must a proposed prototype that is selected for award be capable of meeting all threshold requirements in the SOO, TRD, and applicable test requirements by Factory Acceptance Test and Site Acceptance Test, with no known threshold capability gaps deferred for later resolution during Increment 1? If the answer is no, please identify what level of threshold shortfall, if any, the Government is willing to accept.

Section 9 of the CSO solicitation states that Offerors may recommend tailoring while retaining the performance and functional capabilities identified in the TRD. The proposed prototype that is selected for award must be capable of meeting all performance and functional threshold requirements.

The intention is for all applicable requirements to be met by the Factory Acceptance Test or Site Acceptance Test. Tailoring recommendations will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

15. The Phase 1 White Paper requires a manufacturing capacity and growth plan scaled to 100 simultaneous contacts. Please clarify whether that means enterprise-wide capacity across multiple sites and GEPs, or capacity attributable to a single site or prototype configuration.

This is a requirement for the Phase 1 White Paper submission to allow the Government to evaluate the Offeror’s concept for providing a guaranteed level of service (i.e., a fixed number of simultaneously available contacts in a specified region at specified performance) to scale capacity from the prototype Phase 2 Proposal to a future follow-on production OT or contract.

16. Please clarify whether the required one year of operations support and one year of CLS after SAT means the Offeror must actively execute NOC and antenna operator functions during that period, or whether autonomous operations with Government operator use and maintenance is acceptable so long as availability and support requirements are met.

The Government will not be conducting operations or maintenance of the antennas.

Government customers will only be using the Offeror NOC and antenna to conduct contacts with satellites. The Offeror must provide operations and sustainment of the system. Section 2.2.1 of the CSO solicitation states Key capabilities include: The execution of OEM-led CLS (encompassing preventative/corrective maintenance, supply chain/spares management, configuration control, documentation, and developmental engineering support during both the prototype and operational phases)

17. For Phase 1, how much detail, if any, does the Government expect regarding support to the Rapid Fielding Test Strategy, including Government-led testing, DT/OT support, required M&S, test data, and documentation?

There is no explicit Evaluation Factor for a Rapid Fielding Test Strategy in Phase 1. The extent of detail provided rests with the Offeror and what they choose to submit within the formatting confines identified in 6.1 Phase 1 White Paper Format and 6.2 Phase 1 White Paper Content.

18. Can the Government confirm that 10-point font for tables and picture captions is allowable for the Phase 1 White Paper?

While the 10-point font is identified under 7.1 Proposal Format, use of a 10-point font for tables and picture captions for exhibits with Phase 1 White Paper submission is allowable, however, language and directions under 6.1. Phase 1 White Paper Format remains unchanged.

19. What is the Government's estimated timing and response period for Phase 2?

The Government anticipates a minimum of 30 business days. The formal invitation for Phase 2 Proposal will provide submission details and response deadlines.

20. Can the Government clarify its requirements for the AOI 3 prototype, given it is required to be TRL 8/9, which we would expect to be beyond the prototype phase on a technical readiness level?

Within the context of a CSO, the term Prototype is based on definitions authorized in 10 U.S.C. §3458 and DFARS 212.70. Section 4.7 of the CSO solicitation states:

“Prototype Project” can generally be described as a proof of concept, model, or process, including a business process, reverse engineering to address obsolescence, pilot or novel application of commercial technologies for defense purposes, agile development activity, creation, design, development, demonstration of technical or operational utility, or combinations of the foregoing. The quantity should generally be limited to that needed to prove technical or manufacturing feasibility or evaluate military utility.

“Innovative” under this solicitation means any technology, process, or method, including research and development (R&D), that is new as of the date of the submission of a proposal, or any application that is new as of the date of the submission of a proposal of a technology, process or method, existing as of such date.

21. Can the Government please provide rational for requesting Firm Fixed Price breakdown (Labor, Fee, G&A), as this level of detail would be typical of a Cost-Plus contract?

Section 7.2.3.2 of the CSO solicitation states that the order of priority for pricing information is Priority 1: Commercial sales data, Priority 2: Price Substantiation for catalog items, or Priority 3: Price Substantiation for non-catalog items. Labor, Fee, G&A), are not explicitly required for at this level of detail if the Offeror can satisfy the higher priority pricing information options.

22. Does the Government intend to solicit multiple Phase 2 Proposals for each AOI in alignment with the Phase 1 White Papers, or a singular Phase 2 Proposal for all AOIs?

The Government reserves the rights to solicit multiple Phase 2 Proposals for each AOI, but the intent is not to solicit a singular Phase 2 Proposal to meet all AOIs, hence their independence of each other. Section 5.3 of the CSO solicitation states the Government reserves the right to limit the number of Offerors invited to submit a Phase 2 Proposal.

The Government may invite one, some, all, or none of the Offerors to submit a Phase 2 Proposal in response to an RFP or RPP. Progression from one phase to another, and ultimately to award, is at the sole discretion of the Government, subject to review and evaluation results and availability of funds.

23. In AOI 1, can the Government please clarify that it seeks an antenna, NOC and software to satisfy TRD, not a turnkey solution that includes a facility? (i.e. govt will select facility)

The AOI requires the Offeror to provide all the hardware, software, facilities, and personnel for the system to be functional. The NOC will not be hosted in a Government facility.

24. In AOI 2, does the Government want hardware, software and facility all as a leased option exclusive to them? (i.e. Offeror provides hardware, software, O&M support and govt pays recurring exclusive usage fee?)

The AOI requires the Offeror to provide exclusive use of the antenna and a Government-dedicated NOC enclave. The NOC facility can be shared with other NOCs if the data is fully separated in a secure physical and logical hosting environment.

25. Can the Government confirm the MeshONE-T Point of Presence rack is GFE?

Yes, it is GFE; however, Section 9 of the CSO solicitation states the equipment associated with these specifications will not be treated as GFP on any resultant contract under this solicitation. The equipment will be accountable under a separate Government support contract.

26. Rapid Field Test Strategy document describes facilities and infrastructure in Guam. Is the expectation that this facility will be the defacto test range for all SCAR demos or can demos be conducted elsewhere? Is this infrastructure/test range already stood up or in development?

Guam should not be assumed as the defacto test range. The most likely test range will be White Sands Missile Range. Demos may be conducted elsewhere. There is no explicit Evaluation Factor for demos in Phase 1. The Offeror may opt to discuss their approach for demos in the Phase 1 White Paper.

27. Can the Government clarify if JAM/TREx ISD is provided as part of bidder's library simply to provide sample of messaging bus used, conceptual network connection, and typical scheduler messaging schema or fixed expected implementation?

Yes, the JAM/TREx ISD is provided as part of the bidder’s library.

28. Can the Government provide additional insight into how it intends to evaluate the Areas of Interest (AOIs) relative to one another when selecting solutions? Does the Government plan to make awards within each AOI, or only to a subset of AOIs? If a technology proposed under one AOI is deemed more appropriate for a different AOI, will the Government invite that Offeror to submit under the alternate AOI?

Section 5.1 of the CSO solicitation states Methods of Evaluation that may be used are scientific, technological, or other subject matter expert peers within the program management office (PMO). Section 5.3 of the CSO solicitation states Phase 1 White Papers will be evaluated based on the merit of the proposed concept in addressing the AOI identified, not against other Phase 1 White Papers submitted in response to the same

AOI.

The Government may award and fund all, part, or none of the Phase 2 Proposals. This allows the SCAR PMO the flexibility to specifically negotiate portions of the proposed effort or implement the most innovative aspects of Phase 2 Proposals received. This same flexibility in Phase 2 potentially allows the Government to invite an Offeror to submit under a better fitting, alternate AOI, however, a Phase 1 White Paper submission should clearly identify the intended AOI and its proposed solution.

Section 2.2 of the CSO solicitation states Offerors may submit Phase 1 White Papers for any number of AOIs however, each Phase 1 White Paper must address only a single AOI.

Proposing multiple AOIs requires separate submissions as would proposing multiple solutions under the same AOI.

29. Polarization Architecture? Does each beam need independent polarization control, or can all beams move RHCP, LHCP together?

Yes, each beam needs to have separate polarization control.

30. Is there an Elevation beamwidth requirement?

There is no stated requirement.

31. Is the elevation coverage +/- 8 deg? (inclination to GEO belt)

The SCAR TRD states 6 degrees but that is +/-. The system must be able to close a contact with a satellite that has a GEO inclination of 8 degrees. This is a requirement from a latitude of 40 degrees North or South.

32. Can Offerors assume +/- 25 deg azimuth coverage, or is it +/- 50 deg?

Offerors can assume +/- 25 degrees.

33. Can Offerors assume max Latitude is 40degs N/S?

Offerors can assume that is the maximum requirement.

34. Section 2.2 states that an AOI 03 solution must be TRL 8–9, while the solicitation also asks offerors to identify the TRL of any new subsystem/component integrated into a previously demonstrated system. If a mature commercial AaaS network is TRL 8–9 but a Government-specific JAM/assurance adapter is a newly integrated software component, may the overall solution remain responsive if the offeror separately substantiates the mature platform TRL, identifies the adapter's lower TRL, and provides a bounded integration/qualification plan?

Based on the description provided, it appears that the solution appears will still be responsive. Offerors should identify the TRL with justification for system and identify any elements that are below the TRL requirement with an explanation.

35. For Phase 1, what level of evidence is expected to substantiate JAM TREx / JAM-CCAP interoperability when the offeror does not yet have access to a Government integration endpoint? Would interface-conformance testing against a local emulator, schema validation, recorded test vectors, and/or a commercial API bridge be acceptable evidence at Phase 1 White Paper stage?

There is no explicit Evaluation Factor for JAM TREx / JAM-CCAP interoperability in Phase 1.

Offerors may provide evidence of how the Offeror’s proposed solution supports interfacing with an external system such as JAM using the TREx ISD to help formulate a response.

36. Does the Government anticipate making a JAM-CCAP emulator, conformance suite, representative TREx messages, or synthetic mission/contact test vectors available to invited Phase 2 offerors?

A JAM-CCAP emulator will not be provided. The TREx ICD is the only artifact that will be provided.

37. For AOI 03, is the Government expecting the Phase 1 White Paper to propose its own measurable service construct (for example, simultaneous contacts by region, availability, scheduling latency, pass-completion rate, and failover/recovery time), or are there minimum threshold values in the Offeror's Library that should govern those metrics?

Section 9 of the CSO solicitation states that Offerors may recommend tailoring while retaining the performance and functional capabilities identified in the TRD. The proposed prototype that is selected for award must be capable of meeting all performance and functional threshold requirements.

The intention is for all applicable requirements to be met by the Factory Acceptance Test or Site Acceptance Test. Tailoring recommendations will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

38. At Phase 1, what evidence is considered sufficient to substantiate protection against cross-tenant data leakage and scheduling conflicts: commercial operating history, architecture and control descriptions, third-party assessment, penetration/isolation testing, incident history, or some combination?

A combination of those would provide good evidence for the Government to evaluate. At the Phase 1 White Paper, architecture, controls put in place, and third-party testing/assessments will likely be the most valuable.

39. The September 24 Q&A confirms that an AOI 03 offeror may broker antennas owned by other companies. May one offeror combine capacity from multiple independent commercial ground-network providers under a single service, SLA, and JAM interface, provided the offeror demonstrates operational control, tenant isolation, scheduling deconfliction, and accountability for end-to-end performance?

Yes, this can be proposed. Offerors should clearly identify the ground network providers, amount of dedicated capacity proposed, and other data items from the question.

40. When the underlying ground network has established commercial TT&C operations, but a new Government-specific orchestration/assurance layer is being added for SCAR, should the proven commercial operational history within a command-and-control model criterion be evidenced at the overall service level, by each significant subsystem, or both?

Based on the question, providing evidence for both would be the most informative.

41. Can the Government identify the percentage of requirements applicable to the three satellite orbits of GEO, MEO and LEO as it relates to each of the three Area of Interest

(AOI)?

The Government cannot provide percentage of requirements applicable to the three satellite orbits of GEO, MEO and LEO. The proposed solution must meet the requirements of the TRD and objectives of the SOO.

42. What satellite operating bands (S, C X Ku, and/or Ka) will be used for Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding (TT&C) with the Government owned satellites?

Offerors should reference Sections 2.2.1., 2.2.2, 2.3.19, and 2.3.20 of the TRD.

43. To what impact level of Risk Management Framework [RMF] is required for the 3 Core Security Objectives: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability?

Offerors may assume at this time that the Confidentiality equals Moderate, Integrity equals Moderate, and Availability equals Moderate.

44. Will there be one or multiple terrestrial demarcation points?

Yes.

45. Offeror respectfully requests an extension to the response deadline from Oct 15, 2026 2:00 PM MDT to Oct 22, 2026 2:00 PM MDT to provide two (2) weeks following the anticipated release of answers to questions on 8 October. This will allow sufficient time to develop a compliant cost-effective solution for the three different AOIs

No extension is anticipated. Response deadline remains Oct 15, 2026 2:00 PM MDT.

46. Is AOI 3 intended to eventually consolidate with or sunset in favor of JAM, and if so, on what timeline?

No, AOI 3 is not intended to eventually consolidate with or sunset in favor of JAM.

47. Will vendors already integrated/certified under JAM need to undergo separate onboarding for AOI 3, or can existing JAM certification be leveraged?

If vendors are integrated with JAM, they should not need to reaccomplished redundant integration.

48. What security classification level (Unclassified/CUI/Secret/SCI) applies to the infrastructure, scheduling data, and RF payload data under AOI 3?

The highest level is expected to be CUI.

49. What specific SLA metrics (availability %, scheduling lead time, latency, handover time) will be used to evaluate technical maturity under AOI 3?

The SLA metrics most valuable are availability percentage, simultaneous contacts, and contact minutes per day.

50. Can the Government provide additional clarification and definition of the multi-tenant environment reference in line 317?

Section 2.2.3 CSO solicitation provides the description Antenna as a Service which includes multi-tenant environment. This is as much clarification as the Government can provide.

51. What minimum level of capacity does the Government anticipate requiring within a leased-beam service, expressed in terms of contacts per day, contact minutes per day, and simultaneous spacecraft support within a geographic region?

Offerors should propose the equivalent of the TRD, which is 8 simultaneous contacts available. This has not been broken down to contact hours/day.

Offerors should propose expected parameters of their system like available contact minutes per day and number of simultaneous contacts available.

52. What is the evaluation and down-select criteria for advancing from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the AOI 3 CSO, and how many offerors does the Government anticipate carrying forward?

Section 5 of the CSO solicitation Evaluation and Selection Process provides the evaluation process, the factors used and technical ratings for both Phase 1 White Paper and Phase 2 Proposal selection. This section also states the Government’s right to invite one, some, all or none of the Offerors to submit a Phase 2 Proposal.

53. Section 5 of the CSO solicitation states the definition of Recommended is, These Phase 1 White Paper submissions are recommended for immediate negotiation. Please clarify if Recommended Phase 1 White Papers will immediately begin negotiations upon receipt of the Phase 2 Proposal. Is it the intent of the Government to negotiate the SOW with a Recommended Offeror as they prepare their Phase 2 Proposal?

Section 5.4.1.3 of the CSO solicitation states that based on the evaluation of a Phase 1 White Paper, the Offeror may be invited to submit a Phase 2 Proposal. If the Offeror is invited to propose, the Government will formally request a Phase 2 Proposal in which the Offeror will draft and submit a SOW as part of the Phase 2 Proposal content during the solicitation window. After submission, the Government may then negotiate the proposed SOW with the Offeror.

Section 5.4.2.3. of the CSO solicitation states that the SOW submission is not a separate Factor but will be evaluated against both the Technical Factor and Importance to SCAR Program Requirements Factor.

54. For AOI 03, if an offeror can provide the required service model and is willing to make the necessary infrastructure and network investments, but does not currently hold all spectrum licenses or host-nation approvals needed for operations in every required geography, will the Government provide any support, sponsorship, coordination, or other mechanism to help enable those approvals? If so, please clarify the extent of Government assistance that may be available and whether an offeror may still be considered if it presents a credible plan and timeline to secure the required licenses.

The SCAR PMO experience with services like AOI 2 and 3 has been, the Offeror performs the work to obtain a transmit license. However, the Statements of Objectives (SOOs) for all three AOIs are tailorable for the final SOW drafting to be submitted with a Phase 2 proposal which allows the Offeror to propose and justify an alternate approach for Government evaluation. Further, the Phase 2 evaluation criteria provide instructions for Offerors to identify any Government-required support.

55. Please confirm the ALIN structure is correct as written and there is no ALIN 0006.

This is a typographical error. ALIN 0007 is misnumbered and there should be an ALIN 0006 in the Model SCAR OTA. Section 7.2.4.1. of the CSO solicitation states the Offeror shall identify any exceptions taken to the Model OT (e.g. alternate Line-Item structures, Line-Item terms and conditions, or draft Articles). Exceptions and proposed changes shall be submitted in a manner easily traceable to the ordinal document (e.g. as line in – line out tracked changes.). Note that CSO Solicitation Section 7 relates to a Phase 2 Submission. Phase 2 Proposals will only be accepted from Offerors who, upon review of Phase 1 submission, have received a formal RFP/RPP to submit a full Phase 2 Proposal.

56. Please clarify the monthly time-phasing forecast requirement. For example, the definition of funding obligation vs expenditures (planned invoicing).

This is only required for Priority 3: Price Substantiation for non-catalog items in the event of a Phase 2 Proposal and would depend on the AOI selected by the offeror.

57. Will the Government provide a sample table or template to illustrate the monthly time-phasing forecast requirement?

No.

58. ALIN 0007, second paragraph says The price for this ALIN is included in the price of ALIN 0001. In reviewing the ADRL Form Section 3 headers, several of these ADRLs seem more applicable to efforts under other ALINs. Can the Government confirm they want this ADRL effort assumed under ALIN 0001 or can these be aligned to other ALINs as appropriate?

The overall intent of this ALIN is to identify all ADRLs which support the entire Agreement and that is Not Separately Priced.

CSO solicitation section 7.2.4.1. states that the Offeror shall identify any exceptions taken to the Model OT (e.g. alternate Line-Item structures, Line-Item terms and conditions, or draft Articles). Exceptions and proposed changes shall be submitted in a manner easily traceable to the ordinal document (e.g. as line in – line out tracked changes.). Phase 2 Proposals will only be accepted from Offerors who, upon review of Phase 1 submission, have received a formal RFP/RPP to submit a full Phase 2 Proposal.

59. In the SCAR Program WBS Reference document is it the Government's intent that we roll all values into these WBS structures while being able to expand them to lower levels only or are we free - with appropriate documentation/explanation - to reorganize, add, move, change WBS values as fits our solution?

Section 9 of the CSO solicitation states that the WBS is a Phase 2 Proposal reference document which supports SOW, Price Proposal, and IMS drafting and will not be incorporated into the final award. This is a tailorable baseline document dependent on proposed AOI. Additional elements can be added at a level below the included elements.

60. Will the Government provide a list of required JAM ACAs, contact information for those entities, and any integration sequencing or timelines needed to meet the Prototype Development Milestones?

Yes, those will be provided with a request for Phase 2 Proposal.

61. Can the Government confirm what Government test equipment, site access support, and data-collection instrumentation will be furnished at WSMR, versus what the Offeror must provide?

The Government will provide access to WSMR for testing and a prepared site with power and comms available.

62. Does the Government require TRL substantiation per subsystem (e.g., RF chain, antenna control, signal processing, NOC orchestration software), or can evidence be aggregated at the system level where integration has been previously demonstrated?

Offerors may greatly benefit by providing the Government with this information in their Phase 1 White Paper per subsystem.

63. The Phase 1 White Paper format instructions state that text should be Times New Roman, and no smaller than 12-point font. Are there limitations on font size for graphics in Phase 1, White Paper stage?

While the 10-point font is identified under 7.1 Proposal Format, use of a 10-point font for tables and picture captions for exhibits with Phase 1 White Paper submission is allowable, however, language and directions under 6.1. Phase 1 White Paper Format remains unchanged.

64. May an offeror identify in their Phase 1 White Paper that they qualify for a Follow-On Production OT pathway under 10 U.S.C 4022 outside of the CSO?

Yes, an Offeror may say in its Phase 1 White Paper that it believes it qualifies for a follow-on Production OT pathway under 10 U.S.C. § 4022. However, saying that does not by itself prove eligibility or require the Government to use that pathway.

The Government may use interchanges to ask for more information and decide whether the Offeror is eligible. If the Government determines the Offeror is eligible, the Offeror would no longer continue in the competition under the CSO.