NISSC II Follow-On Effort RFI.pdf

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 1 of 7

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Subject: North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain

Complex (NCMC) Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment (NCMC-ITW/AA) and Space Support Contract

RFI #FA8723-24-R-0003

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Government is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Interested parties who provide submissions are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI shall be solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued.

1.0 Description

Space Systems Command (SSC), in support of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain Complex-Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment (NCMC-ITW/AA) Program Office and the Legacy Space Program Offices (LS), is seeking information on industry recommendations and best practices for contract, subcontract, and partner management on technical contracts and programs, as we look to transform from a single engineering sustainment contract model to a model that supports tailored work efforts focused on software development, security, and operations; integration; and lifecycle sustainment.

2.0 Background

2.1 The NCMC-ITW/AA system provides timely, unambiguous, continuous warning and attack assessment of air, missile, and space threats to North America and geographical theaters. This system integrates and correlates missile launch and surveillance information from certified sources to assesses the nature of an enemy launch or attack, and issues warnings to the US National Command Authority, Canadian National Leadership, National Military Command Center (NMCC) and Combatant Commanders (C2). NCMC-ITW/AA and Legacy Space C2 systems provide NORAD/NORTHCOM, USSTRATCOM, and US Space Force command structures with the information management, decision aids, and connectivity required to monitor, assess, plan, and execute assigned strategic, space, and missile defense missions.

2.2 The Combatant Commanders’ Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) is a unique, integrated, C2 “system of systems,” providing data communication between external sensors and end users. CCIC2S Enterprise systems receive and correlate data from terrestrial and space-based sensors to provide ITW/AA authorities with accurate, timely, unambiguous and continuous warning and attack assessment of air, missile, and space threats. Processed reports are sent to the consolidated NORAD and USNORTHCOM Command Center (N2C2), where they are integrated into air, land, and space displays for the on-duty command director who

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 2 of 7 determines whether North America is, or is not, under strategic attack. The primary NCMC- ITW/AA Correlation Center at CMSFS, CO and Alternate Missile Warning Center (AMWC) at Offutt AFB, NE provide primary and contingency operations for the Missile Warning mission.

Threat assessment reports are provided to the NMCC, Alternate National Military Command Center (ANMCC), as well as numerous situational awareness (SA) and forward user (FU) sites.

2.3 Legacy Space C2 consists of systems and applications that maintain the space-related accuracy requirements to perform Space Situational Awareness (SSA) processing and analysis.

The mission of Legacy Space C2 is to provide centralized C2, Earth Satellite Vehicle (ESV) surveillance, Space Object Identification (SOI), SSA, and operations support for the space mission in support of the Joint Force Space Component Command (JFSCC) and all Combatant Commands (COCOMs). Using situational information obtained from various sources within and outside the Department of Defense (DoD), the Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSpOC) provides both general direction and specific tailored tasking to its assigned space forces. In turn, these assigned forces provide surveillance data on Resident Space Objects (RSO) and any related mission status to the CSpOC. The CSpOC uses this data to generate effects and other information related to the C2 of space-related assets. (Note: CSpOC was formerly known as the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC). JSpOC transitioned to the CSpOC on July 18, 2018.

Some of the NISSC II covered systems baseline and reference documentation has not yet been updated to reflect organizational restructures and nomenclature changes pre-dating 20 December 2019.)

3.0 Requested Information

3.1 The Government is interested in receiving information on industry best practices and recommendations for contract and program management; specifically what concepts and models could best support changes to the attached performance work statement (PWS), shifting from an overarching compilation of efforts into tailored contract structures that maximize mission and program management performance. The information requested is specific to the two (2) objectives below.

3.2 Objective #1: Using the attached PWS from the NISSC II contract, provide and recommend no more than one (1) novel model for successfully designing and executing a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract that enables one (1) principal integrator to effectively oversee and manage two (2) distinct lines of effort within the scope of the PWS: one

(1) dedicated to the development, security, operations, and integration (DevSecOpsInt) of NISSC II covered systems software and tools (to include Legacy Space systems capabilities); and one

(1) dedicated to supporting sustainment of operationally-accepted and baselined systems.

3.2.1 The two “lines of effort” shall be considered as two separate but complementary efforts under a single principal integrator.

3.2.2 The two “lines of effort” shall not be recombined or reorganized simply into teams, groups, or other assemblies that would be staffed solely by the principal integrator’s business or subsidiaries. For example, one solution may recommend a principal integrator direct a subcontractor to oversee one line of effort (DecSecOpsInt), while directing another subcontractor to oversee the other line of effort (Sustainment); however, in order to meet the

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 3 of 7

Government’s intent in this example, the subcontractors shall not be the same company or a subsidiary of the same company for both lines of effort.

3.2.3 All model concepts and responses for this RFI shall include and specifically address, in maximized detail, how the principal integrator would incentivize, cooperate, and team with industry partners (to include as potential subcontractors) to satisfy long-term and enduring Government requirements for the NCMC-ITW/AA and Legacy Space programs as scoped within the attached PWS.

3.2.4 All responses to this RFI must include and specifically address all risks, negative impacts, and potential obstacles to how the principal integrator would incentivize, cooperate, and team with industry partners (to include as potential subcontractors) to satisfy long-term and enduring Government requirements for the NCMC-ITW/AA and Legacy Space programs as scoped within the attached PWS. These risks, impacts, and obstacles shall identify which factor they are associated with (cost/financial, legal, tradecraft/intellectual property, security, and other similar factors).

3.2.5 All model concepts shall address the Respondees’ preferred contract strategies for: 1) the overall integration contract effort; and 2) any subcontracts that may be generated to execute the work scoped to each separate line of effort. For example, one solution may recommend the Sustainment effort be designed as a subcontract that is Firm, Fixed-Price with an Award Fee type, while recommending a DevSecOpsInt subcontract that is Cost Plus Award Fee type; and the overall integration contract as a different type.

3.3 Objective #2: Using the attached PWS from the NISSC II contract, provide and recommend notional PWS outlines for both the integration and sustainment “lines of effort.”

3.3.1 All responses to this RFI shall directly and specifically identify which portions of work in the NISSC II PWS would align under the integration (DevSecOpsInt) and which portions would align under the sustainment effort.

3.3.2 All responses to this RFI shall directly and specifically include recommendations for how Integrated Product Support elements associated with the sustainment line of effort will cooperate, complement, and/or integrate with the integration (DevSecOpsInt) line of effort.

This includes potentially overlapping areas of interest in sustaining engineering, test, and configuration management.

3.3.3 All responses to this RFI shall include traced references to the paragraphs annotated in the NISSC II PWS that are aligned with each “line of effort,” even if those paragraphs are duplicated across the two lines of effort defined above.

3.3.4 All responses to this RFI shall directly identify and specifically address efficiencies (i.e., cost, mission operation, contract performance, program management, etc.) that would be generated and achieved through the recommended approach. Any identified efficiencies shall further attribute for whom the efficiency is ultimately achieved: the Government, Industry, or both.

3.3.5 All responses to this RFI shall also directly identify and specifically address all efficiencies (i.e., cost, mission operation, contract performance, program management, etc.)

that would be measurably degraded and/or lost through the recommended approach. Any

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 4 of 7 identified degradations or losses shall further attribute for whom the efficiency is lost: the Government, Industry, or both.

3.3.6 Any additional suggestions or recommendations on trade-offs among efficiencies, gained or lost, shall be identified and detailed to the maximum extent possible.

3.3.7 All responses to this RFI shall avoid models that are based on shared resources across lines of effort (i.e., splitting manpower resources across DevSecOpsInt and Sustainment).

3.4 Objective #3: Using the Government’s notional construct of a principal integrator with two

(2) separate lines of effort, Respondees shall provide a clear statement of preference for which line of effort their organization would most likely pursue if that organization was to participate in a future solicitation reflecting the same construct identified in this RFI.

3.5 Objective #4: If possible, provide examples of areas where industry has successfully used the recommended model for an integrator to support a Government program of record.

3.5.1 Example efforts that are specific to Command and Control (C2) systems are of high interest to the Government.

3.5.2 Examples involving work from within the Department of Defense (DoD) shall list the Military Service or Defense Agency for whom the work was done; the year the contract/subcontract was awarded; as well as the name of the effort that was supported.

3.5.3 Examples involving work from outside the DoD shall list the Department or Agency supported, and if possible, the publicized name of the effort.

3.5.4 Examples provided shall be focused on integration of multiple technical efforts and work that was/is awarded as part of a service contract, not as a supply contract.

4.0 Submission Instructions

4.1 Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI in the form of a white paper (document) only. Presentations and non-electronic submissions will not be accepted.

4.2 Submissions are due no later than 19 APRIL 2024 at 1200 MDT.

4.3 Submissions shall include responses to both Objectives 1, 2 and 3, as described above.

Submissions that to not address Objectives 1, 2, and 3 will not be reviewed. Objective 4 is optional for this RFI.

4.4 Submissions shall not exceed thirty (30) pages in length, to include cover pages, required administrative and contact information, and the substantive response.

4.4.1 Section 1 of the white paper shall provide administrative information, and shall include the following as a minimum:

4.4.1.1 Name, mailing address, overnight delivery address (if different from mailing address), phone number, fax number, and e-mail of designated points of contact.

4.4.1.2 Business type (large business, small business, small, disadvantaged business, 8(a)-certified small, disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, very small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 5 of 7 veteran-owned small business) based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 518210, Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services.

4.4.1.3 “Small business concern” means a concern, including its affiliates that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 13 CFR part 121. A small business concern for the purposes of this procurement is generally defined as a business, including its affiliates, averaging no more than $35 million dollars in annual receipts. Respondees are cautioned, however, that this is a general description only. Additional standards and conditions apply.

Please refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR 19 for additional detailed information on Small Business Size Standards. The FAR is available at https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far.

4.4.1.4 The facility security clearance of the Respondee.

4.4.2 Section 2 of the white paper shall provide the substantive response for the RFI, to include Objectives 1-4.

4.5 Unclassified responses shall be submitted by electronic means through email or file transfer applications on NIPRNet to the addresses provided in the contact information section of this RFI.

4.6 Classified responses and materials (such as those associated with examples of industry executing similar work in Objective #3) may be submitted with classification up to and including SECRET//NOFORN, not to exceed collateral-level subcontrols.

4.7 Unclassified responses shall not be submitted on classified network systems.

4.8 All electronic materials provided (classified and unclassified) shall be properly marked IAW Federal and DoD regulations and guidance. Any materials not properly marked will not be reviewed.

4.9 Classified responses and materials shall be portion marked throughout the document.

4.10 Proprietary information, if any, shall be minimized, and shall also be portion marked throughout the document.

4.11 Classified responses and materials shall be submitted by electronic means through email or file transfer applications on SIPRNet to the addresses provided in the contact information section of this RFI.

4.12 If submitting classified materials, industry members must provide concurrent unclassified notice of that submission by email to the NIPRNet email addresses provided in the contact information section of this RFI.

4.13 If submitting responses by file transfer application (classified or unclassified), industry members must also provide concurrent unclassified notice of that submission by email to the NIPRNet email addresses provided in the contact information section of this RFI. Notification https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 6 of 7 emails shall include all security information (links, passphrases, pin codes, etc.) needed to access submissions.

4.14 Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

5.0 Industry Discussions

SSC/SZQN & SZQZ representatives may or may not choose to meet with potential Respondees.

Such discussions would only be intended to get further clarification of information provided in submissions and does not imply any commitment by the Government to pursue any of the identified recommendations.

6.0 Contact Information

6.1 Questions

6.1.1 Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted in written format via e-mail to Ms. Nicole Mintus at Nicole.Mintus@spaceforce.mil by 12 April 2024 at 1400 MDT. Verbal questions will NOT be accepted.

6.1.2 Emails with questions shall reference the RFI number and industry business name in the subject line.

6.1.3 Questions will be answered by posting a collective follow-up response from the Government to this RFI in the same forum as the original posting; as such, questions shall NOT contain proprietary or classified information.

6.1.4 The Government does not guarantee that questions received after 12 April 2024 at 1400 MDT will be answered.

6.2 Submissions

6.2.1 Responses to this RFI shall be submitted as instructed here and in paragraph 4 of this

RFI.

6.2.2 Submissions are due no later than 19 APRIL 2024 at 1200 MDT.

6.2.3 Submissions may be emailed with attachments or submitted to the Government through a file transfer application, such as DoD SAFE, on the appropriately classified network.

6.2.4 Emails for submissions or notifications of submissions shall reference the RFI number and industry business name in the subject line.

6.2.5 Acknowledgements for submissions will be provided by SZQK; however, if you have not received an acknowledgement for your submission within 24 hours (1 business day), mailto:Nicole.Mintus@spaceforce.mil

SZQN/Z RFI-NISSC II Follow-On Contract Strategies Page 7 of 7 please follow up with the POCs listed below via email and provide a screenshot or forward of the submission (or attempted submission if an error is generated).

6.2.6 All submission emails (if attaching white papers directly) shall be submitted directly to the following individuals:

6.2.6.1 Ms. Nicole Mintus (SSC/SZQK)

Nicole.Mintus@spaceforce.mil (Unclassified)

6.2.6.2 Lt Col Jessica Morgan (SSC/SZQN)

Jessica.Morgan.15@spaceforce.mil (Unclassified)

Jessica.E.Morgan6.mil@mail.smil.mil (Classified)

6.2.6.3 Capt Reed (Jimi) Schafer (SSC/SZQN)

Reed.Schafer@us.af.mil (Unclassified) Reed.L.Schafer.mil@mail.smil.mil (Classified)

7.0 Summary

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY, to obtain information on industry best practices for contract management. The scope of this effort is intended to focus on the Performance Work Statement (PWS) included with this RFI. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding to the Government. The Government has not made a commitment to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI shall not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

mailto:Nicole.Mintus@spaceforce.mil