RFI-SIPR Wireless.doc

22 December 2008 Request For Information (RFI) for Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) Wireless Solution To Support U.S. Army Installations

1.0 SUBJECT

This Request for Information (RFI) seeks recommendation of a Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) wireless solution(s) suitable for U.S. Army installations. The solution is to extend the SIPRNet service from the garrison to buildings and facilities not covered or easily reachable by the installation’s communications wired backbone. The solution should require minor facility modifications, be easily deployable/ recoverable and must be compliant with all current security requirements.

Responses to this RFI are due by 4:00 PM on January 16, 2009. See section 9.0 for further information.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this RFI is to explore innovative technological solutions for the purpose of extending an installation’s SIPRNet wireless solution to buildings and facilities not covered or easily reached by the installation’s communications wired backbone. In addition to using Type 1, other viable types of encryption devices or solutions are sought for this effort. The extension could be permanent or temporary.

3.0 REQUIREMENTS

In response to this RFI, the Army is seeking recommendations for a solution that requires minor facility modifications, be easily deployable/recoverable and must be compliant with all current security requirements. Operation and management of the solution should be within the reasonable capabilities of the garrison Director of Information Management (DOIM).

Other requirements to consider are:

· IA compliance related to WLAN

· FIPS 140-2, Level 2 certification compliance

· Type accredited (Type 1 or other viable type of encryption) for up to SECRET level

· Reliability and availability issues

· Frequency ranges

· Performance

· QoS

· IPv6 compliance

· Access Point Management

· Allowance for expansion and the eventual deployment of faster WLAN protocols.

4.0 APPLICATION

SIPRNet users within a facility or building requiring the wireless service could range in size from five to a hundred plus, with each user requiring a minimum of 2-5 Mbps. Distance from the wired network to wireless solution users could range up to 15 miles. Responses to this RFI should explain how the proposed architecture applies to various sizes of locations and how it can contract or expand to meet the installation’s user community needs. Applicable equipment that is compatible with the DISN, but not listed on the DoD Unified Capability Approved Product List (UCAPL) may be proposed. Each of the many available technologies has tradeoffs such as bandwidth limitations, distance, availability of clear frequencies and complexity. Please address their advantages and disadvantages.

5.0 ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Responses should address security aspects of the network and should discuss how the network is managed. Additionally, responses should discuss how the wireless solution would be integrated without endangering the security of the installation’s overall network.

6.0 SAMPLE RESPONSE OUTLINE

Following is a suggested outline and page counts for a response to this RFI. This outline is intended to minimize the effort of the respondent and structure the responses for ease of understanding by the government. Nevertheless, respondents are free to develop their response as they see fit.

Section 1 – Conceptual Alternatives

Briefly describe one or more alternative architecture concepts for a SIPRNet Wireless solution, including the reliability and availability characteristics of the alternatives. Discuss the differences between Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United states (OCONUS) concepts or solutions, if any. (2-4 pages per alternative, with one diagram per alternative identifying the brand/type of equipment that would typically be deployed)

Section 2 – Feasibility Assessment

Briefly describe the feasibility of each alternative and the design tradeoffs involved as matched against the functional requirements. (1 page per alternative)

Section 3 – Cost Estimates

Provide a rough order of magnitude cost estimate for each alternative, including non-recurring and annual recurring costs. Also, discuss cost drivers and cost tradeoffs. (1-2 pages)

Section 4 – Additional Materials

Please provide any other materials, suggestions, and discussion you deem appropriate. Any required training/tools should be included as part of the material solution.

Please limit overall submission to 25 pages.

7.0 DISCLAIMER

This RFI is solely for information and does not constitute a solicitation. All information received in response to this RFI that is marked Proprietary will be handled accordingly. Responses to the RFI will not be returned. In accordance with FAR 15.202(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFI.

8.0 REFERENCES

a. Army Regulation AR 25-2, Information Assurance, (available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/25_Series_Collection_1.html)

b. Department of Defense Networks Unified Capabilities Requirements, December 2007 (available at http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/dsn/dsn_requestdocs.html)

c. DODI 8100.2, Use of Commercial Wireless Devices, Services and Technologies in the Department Of Defense (DoD) Global Information Grid (GIG) (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ins1.html)

d. DISA, Wireless Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG), Version 5, Release 2, 15 November 2007 (available at http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/index.html)

e. U.S. Army Campus Area Network Design Guide, September 2006 (available at https://imod.army.mil/)

f. USAISEC, Design Guide for the Implementation of Wireless Technologies, May 2007 (available at https://imod.army.mil/)

g. USAISEC, Technical Guide for the Integration of the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), Version 5, August 2008. (available at https://imod.army.mil/)

9.0 CONTACT INFORMATION

Following is the Point of Contact (POC) for this RFI:

Karen E. McKevitt

(732) 532-7961

Karen.mckevitt@us.army.mil Technical Point of Contact:

Mr. Miguel S. Buddle

(732) 427-6908 Miguel.s.buddle@us.army.mil Please submit responses via e-mail in Microsoft Office format by 4:00 PM on January 16, 2009, to the TPOC at Miguel.s.buddle@us.army.mil. You may also submit supplemental hardcopy materials such as brochures, etc. (5 copies each) to the TPOC at:

Miguel S. Buddle

PEO EIS, PM NSC

Attn: SFAE-PS-SW-TMD

Sherrill Ave, Bldg 283

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703