ISN-M SOO_Final _9Apr26.pdf

Statement of Objectives (SOO) For

Installation Service Node Modernization (ISN-M)

9 APR 2026

Prepared by:

Data Transport Connect Branch (AFLCMC/HNIB)

Enterprise IT & Cyber Infrastructure Division (AFLCMC/HNI) Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC)

Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), MA

1.0 PURPOSE

This Statement of Objectives (SOO) outlines the goals for the modernization and alignment of the Non-classified Internet Protocol Router (NIPR) and Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) Installation Service Nodes (ISN). The objective is to acquire a unified, secure, and sustainable ISN solution that provides parity between the two infrastructures so they can be managed with a common baseline.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The United States Air Force currently operates and sustains two separate infrastructures for its NIPR and SIPR ISNs. NIPR ISN is a mature system, considered largely stable and optimized for its mission; however, its sheer scale has resulted in configuration variances across different locations. In contrast, the SIPR ISN recently completed a transition from a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) model to a hybrid support structure. Because NIPR and SIPR ISN are two separately managed programs, this has led to significant inconsistencies in how ISN stacks are installed, configured, and maintained across the enterprise. This introduces unneeded complexity for system operators and administrators who often manage both systems.

2.2 The strategic alignment of the NIPR and SIPR ISN stacks to a single, common architecture will optimize performance, enhance security, and reduce lifecycle costs through standardized procurement and more efficient enterprise management.

2.3 Approach to Contract Award and Execution: The Government is seeking vendor feedback on a potential two-phased approach to contract award and execution to meet the objectives outlined in this SOO.

2.3.1 Phase I: The Government is considering the use of a Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) to deliver a technical solution. Subject to the availability of funds, the government intends to award multiple contracts for prototype installation.

2.3.2 Phase II: Following a successful prototype phase, the Government may initiate a separate, full and open competition to establish an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle. Multiple task orders would then be competed and issued under this IDIQ to fulfill additional requirements for the development, fielding, testing and scaling of the NIPR and SIPR ISNs to capture the prototype baseline.

3.0 SCOPE

The scope encompasses the full lifecycle of a unified NIPR/SIPR ISN solution for the enterprise's NIPR and SIPR technology stacks across a number of sites based on available funding. This includes design, prototyping, testing, procurement, global installation, migration, and long-term sustainment. The solution shall be scalable and capable of hosting a dynamic set of core services, tenant software, and co-located hardware appliances as needed by the Government.

4.0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

4.1 Technical Solution: The vendor shall deliver a comprehensive and innovative technical solution for an ISN stack supporting both NIPR and SIPR services from a common hardware and software baseline.

4.2 Standardized Architecture: Design and implement a standardized technical architecture and a common hardware and software baseline to be applied across both the NIPR and SIPR ISN stacks. While the infrastructures must remain physically and functionally separate, this approach will eliminate redundant and divergent baselines, streamlining management, training, and sustainment efforts.

4.3 Enhanced Security: Provide robust and secure solutions that meet or exceed all Department of War (DoW) cybersecurity requirements for both NIPR and SIPR environments.

4.4 Cost Reduction: The vendor shall propose a methodology for first establishing the Government’s current Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) baseline and then demonstrating how their proposed solution will result in a quantifiable TCO reduction against that baseline. The proposal must identify specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for measuring cost savings and operational efficiencies that the Government can verify after implementation.

4.5 Consistent Technical Baseline: Develop and maintain a consistent technical baseline across both infrastructures, ensuring the environment adheres to the same standards for hardware, software, and configuration.

4.6 Remote Management and Monitoring: The solution's components must be fully manageable via an Out-of-Band Management (OOBM) network. The design shall expose interfaces to allow for comprehensive monitoring, management, and maintenance of the ISN stacks from authorized, geographically dispersed locations, in accordance with DoD and Air Force remote access policies.

4.7 Sustainability: The proposed solution shall be sustainable over the long term, with a clear articulable path for future upgrades, scalability and technology upgrades.

4.8 Design: The proposed solution shall be based on a modular, scalable architecture that leverages open standards to the maximum extent possible to avoid vendor lock-in.

The design must be sustainable over the long term, with a clear, articulable path for future technology insertion, component upgrades, and performance scaling, which should be achieved primarily by adding or replacing nodes without requiring a complete re-architecture. The architecture should align with and support modern Air Force initiatives, including automation and orchestration, Infrastructure as Code (IaC), and architectures for modern private cloud and hybrid cloud (GovCloud).

4.9 Core Services: ISN stacks shall provide the hosting resources for the following, non-exhaustive list of enterprise core services that is subject to change based on evolving Government requirements:

4.9.1 Active Directory (AD)

4.9.2 Domain Name System (DNS)

4.9.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) (Scope Managed by the Base)

4.9.4 File Services (Shares managed by the Base)

4.9.5 Print Services (Printers managed by the Base)

4.9.6 Directory and Resource Administrator (NetIQ DRA)

4.9.7 Solar Winds

4.9.8 Backup and Restore

4.9.9 Privilege Access Management (PAM) CyberArk

4.9.10 Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (MECM)

4.9.11 Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS), Enterprise Logging, and Endpoint Security Solution (ESS)

4.9.12 Remote Access and other functions necessary for remote management and security

4.10 Integration and Scalability: The design must be flexible to integrate with evolving enterprise capabilities and scalable to support future growth. The architecture shall allow for seamless integration with services such as the Next Gen Gateway (NGG), Zero-Trust (ZT) frameworks, and micro-segmentation tools (e.g., Illumio).

5.0 DELIVERABLES

5.1 Technical Data Package (TDP): The solution shall be fully documented in a comprehensive TDP that enables Government-led future competition and organic sustainment.

5.2 Project Management Plan: A comprehensive plan detailing the vendor’s approach to managing the project, including schedule (delivery), milestones, risk management, communication plan and quality assurance

5.3 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): Delivery schedule optimized with the current NIPR sustainment plan.

5.4 System Design Document (SDD) a detailed document outlining the final architecture of the unified ISN Solution, including hardware and software specifications, network diagrams, data flow diagrams and security controls.

5.5 Implementation and Transition Plan: A detailed, phased plan for migrating services from the legacy NIPR and SIPR Stacks consolidated architecture with no breaks in service or disruption to operations.

5.6 Test and Evaluation Plan & Report: A plan outlining the testing procedures to validate all functional and security requirements. This is to be followed by a final report detailing the test schedules.

5.7 Demonstration:

5.7.1 Solution Viability through Performance-Based Evaluation: To mitigate technical risk, vendors shall present a functional prototype of their design.

5.7.2 Acquisition Methodology: The Government is seeking feedback about the employment of a Challenge-Based Acquisition (ChBA) approach with a protype demonstration, rather than a static paper submission.

5.7.3 Secure Government Data Rights: The Government seeks to secure Government Purpose Rights (or better) for the winning Technical Data Package (TDP).

5.7.4 Propose Innovative Management and Technical Approaches: Vendors are encouraged to propose innovative and efficient approaches to all aspects of this program. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines for automated testing and deployment, novel approaches for logistics, training, and lifecycle management that reduce costs and improve performance. The Government is open to considering solutions that challenge traditional methods and offer superior value.

6.0 CONSTRAINTS

6.1 Compliance: The solution shall comply with all applicable DoD and DoW policies, standards, and regulations.

6.2 Service Availability and Integrity: The vendor shall maintain the operational availability and integrity of all services during the transition to the new architecture.

6.3 Scalability: The solution shall be scalable to accommodate future growth and mission requirements.

6.4 Non-Proprietary/Open Concept: The solution delivered to the government shall be non-proprietary and open concept.

6.5 Operational Alignment: The solution shall align with the operational concepts and technical architecture of the Cyber Security and Control System (CSCS) Weapon System CONOPS.

6.6 Personnel: Contractor personnel shall possess the required security clearances (SECRET or higher) and technical certifications (e.g., DoD 8570) for their assigned duties.

6.7 Software Licensing and Government Furnished Software: To the maximum extent possible, contractors shall use available Air Force software such as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or purchase required software through designated Air Force licensing offices. This includes, but is not limited to, agreements for SolarWinds, Microsoft, and VMware. Contractors shall not propose solutions that require separate, vendor-procured licenses where a government agreement already exists. The definitive list of GFE will be provided by the Government during the solicitation phase.

6.8 Government-Furnished Items: The solution shall integrate with and adhere to all applicable Government Furnished Information (GFI), Equipment (GFE), and established Technical Orders.

6.9 Software Licensing and Optimization: The solution shall be designed to maximize the utilization of existing Department of War (DOW) Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) for all applicable software. The solution shall identify opportunities to reduce equipment and software where functionality can be consolidated (e.g., phasing out physical Keyboard, Video, and Mouse (KVM) switches in favor of modern remote management).

6.10 Central Processing Unit (CPU) and Licensing Optimization: The Government has identified 16-core CPUs as the optimal configuration for this solution. Accordingly, designs utilizing 16-core CPUs are preferred. If an Offeror proposes a solution with CPUs that do not have exactly 16 physical cores, the vendor shall provide a comprehensive TCO analysis demonstrating their proposed configuration results in an equal or lower total cost to the Government compared to a baseline 16-core CPU design. This analysis must account for all hardware and associated software licensing costs over a 5-year period.

6.11 Integration with Enterprise IT as a Service (EITaaS): The Government will provide certain enterprise-level services through separate contracts, including the Enterprise

IT as a Service (EITaaS) Wave 1 contract. To ensure seamless operation, the following objectives shall be met:

6.11.1 Solution Compatibility: The NIPR-SIPR ISN solution shall be designed, delivered, and maintained to be fully compatible and interoperable with all designated Government-provided enterprise services. This includes, but is not limited to, the following interfaces:

6.11.1.1 Security Scanning: The solution shall successfully interface with the EITaaS-managed Assured Compliance Assessment Solution

(ACAS).

6.11.1.2 Patch Management: The solution shall be fully compatible with EITaaS-managed patch management solutions, currently defined as Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (MECM) for NIPR and the Air Force Tanium (ARAD) solution for SIPR.

6.11.2 Associate Contractor Collaboration: The Contractor shall actively collaborate and integrate with all designated associate Government contractors, including the EITaaS Wave 1 provider.

6.11.3 Deconfliction of Responsibilities: The Contractor shall establish and execute formal technical and management processes to deconflict responsibilities with associate contractors, ensuring there are no gaps in service delivery.

6.12 Unified Endpoint Management (UEM): EITaaS is responsible for an End Point management solutions, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE) and other security tools. For NIPR MDE is used for this solution. For SIPR the Trellix Endpoint Security Suite (ESS) is used for this solution with MDE in the works. This may also be a Tenant Hosting engagement.

6.13 Service Desk, Service Now (SNOW), Configuration Management Database (CMDB): EITaaS is responsible for setting up a Service Desk and SNOW as their ITIL CRM solution. To include a CMDB module. NIPR-SIPR ISN contractor will interact with EITaaS for tickets and Asset tracking. On NIPR, SNOW is in the cloud.

For SIPR EITaaS has precured their own equipment and are utilizing the SIPR ISN IP space and Network services (Co-location).

7.0 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Category Key Performance Indicator

How to Measure

Availability & Reliability

System Up time/ Availability

Percentage of time the ISN stack is operational and accessible

Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR)

The average time it takes to restore service after a system failure

Cost & Efficiency Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

Percentage reduction in costs for H/w, S/w licensing (labor)

Infrastructure Footprint Reduction

Percentage reduction in physical rack space and power consumption

Security & Compliance

Security Incident Rate

Number of security incidents e.g.

unauthorized access attempts

Time to Patch Critical Vulnerabilities

The average time it can take to deploy security patches for critical and high severity vulnerabilities after they have been identified

Performance & User experience

Network Latency The time it takes data packets to travel from source to destination within ISN stacks

Remote Access Performance

The time required for authorized remote users to successfully connect and perform standard administrative tasks