ONRBAA07-031Amendment1.doc

Amendment No. 001

ONR BAA 07-031

1. Question: Will the Government entertain white papers and proposals that address only the low data rate approach (6-10 kbps half duplex) or only the medium data rate approach (256 kbps transmitting and 512 kbps receiving) or is it necessary to build a system that addresses both data rate ranges in the same white paper and subsequent proposal?

Answer: The Government will entertain proposals that address only one system. If both systems are proposed, they should have a common architecture.

2. Question: Does the price goal of $10k for the low data rate approach and $75k for the medium data rate approach include the entire terminal or only the antenna?

Answer: The price goals apply to the entire terminal.

3. Question: What is meant by low profile for the low data rate antenna? Is there a maximum footprint and height requirement?

Answer: The antenna profile and foot print are within the design space. An estimate should be provided for both based on meeting the objective data rates.

4. Question: For the high data rate antenna are the data rates (256Kbps transmit and 512 Kbps receive) specified as peer to peer (mobile to mobile) or for a (fixed) hub and (mobile) spoke architecture with the hub being a large (e.g. 2.4 meter) high gain fixed antenna?

Answer: Assume for now that the design data rates do not apply to peer-to-peer communications but between a terminal and hub station whose size is to be determined.

5. Question: Can only one of the two antennas from Effort 1 be proposed or does both have to be proposed? If both are proposed and the Navy only likes one of the two antennas will the proposal be disqualified? How will the Navy reconcile with one bidder providing a strong proposal for one type of antenna and another bidder strong in the other type of antenna.

Answer: Proposals may be submitted for either the low data rate terminal, the high data rate terminal or both. If proposals are submitted for both terminals, the Government desires that they have a common architecture. Decisions will be made on the best benefit to the Government.

6. Question: Is there a relative funding allocation between the low data rate and high data rate antenna?

Answer: No. Both the low and high data rate terminals may be proposed upon. It is anticipated that the high data rate terminal will be more expensive to develop.

7. Question: How many awards will there be on Effort 1?

Answer: There will be multiple awards for the study phase followed by a down-selection.

8. Question: What is meant by “government will consider a complete solution for Marine Corps vehicle SATCOM requirements, including UHF? Is this referring to a Condor like solution where the SATCOM acts as a gateway for the EPLRS radio net?

Answer: The Government is focusing on SHF SATCOM, not line-of-sight systems. However, a complete solution that also addresses UHF SATCOM would be considered.

9. Question: Can the government provide the Chuchville-B test requirements document to the bidders now?

Answer: No, the requirements document is not available at this time.

10. Question: What is the government expectation for the state of the product after a successful completion of Effort 1? e.g. will he Effort 1 result in a 1) prototype? 2) pre-production model? 3) qualified through MIL-STD-XXX tests? What programmatic, design and test documentation is expected for Effort 1?

Answer: The Government expects a prototype at a minimum of TRL 6. It is not required to test to MIL specifications, however prudence would dictate that the hardware be designed to such.

11. Question: Is there a specific minimum number of nodes desired during the final demonstration test of these antennas?

Answer: No.

12. Question: The BAA lists three modes of operation: air-to-ground, air-to-air and airborne relay capabilities. Is the airborne relay capability intended to be for ground-to-relay-to-ground, air-to-relay-to-ground (or conversely, ground-to-relay-to-air) or air-to-relay-to-air or all of these?

Answer: The terminal should be designed to be capable of any combination of these operations.

13. Question: The BAA lists three modes of operation: air-to-ground, air-to-air and airborne relay capabilities. Is a single platform expected to concurrently support all three modes of operation or are mode specific implementations (reconfigurable on the ground) anticipated?

Answer: The terminal should be designed to be capable of any combination of these operations.

14. Question: The BAA lists three modes of operation: air-to-ground, air-to-air and airborne relay capabilities. Systems supporting relay links (in any of the implementations mentioned in question 1) or air-to-air links typically have frequency bands reversed from the standard usage. Is it ONR's intention that the links utilized for relay be reversed from the standard usage?

Answer: The terminal design should support reverse frequency operation if required.

15. Question: The BAA lists three modes of operation: air-to-ground, air-to-air and airborne relay capabilities. Is it ONR's intention that the relay and air-to-air capability be supported with dedicated links or equipment onboard the H-60 helicopter?

Answer: Relay functions must be supported with the systems you are developing.

16. Question: The BAA states 10.71 Mbps is required with 45 Mbps or greater desired. What is the maximum slant range for which these data rates are expected to operate?

Answer: The maximum slant range is approximately 110nmi.

17. Question: The BAA states 10.71 Mbps is required with 45 Mbps or greater desired. What are the minimum and maximum operational altitudes for the H-60 helicopter for which these data rates are expected to operate?

Answer: Assume that the maximum altitude is 10,000 ft AGL; minimum altitude depends on operations.

18. Question: The BAA states 10.71 Mbps is required with 45 Mbps or greater desired. Does the standard CDL data rate of 44.73 Mbps fit the desired data rate?

Answer: Assume that 45 Mbps is referring to 44.73 Mbps.

19. Question: The BAA does not list a preferred data interface or a control interface for the communications system. Is a single interface (e.g., Ethernet) to a provided laptop computer or similar device acceptable?

Answer: The control interface is within the design space.

20. Question: The BAA does not list a service area or field of regard for the links. For antenna(s) consideration, do the links need to support a full hemispherical field of regard beneath the H-60 helicopter, less than a full hemisphere or more than a full hemisphere?

Answer: Assume full hemispheric coverage.

21. Question: The BAA does not list a service area or field of regard for the links. Does each and every one of the links supported need to be steerable over the entire required field of regard? Can the field of regard be partitioned among the available links?

Answer: Assume that each antenna must be capable of steering over the entire field of regard.

22. Question: While the BAA states “low power and low weight are essential” the BAA does not list any specific size, weight or power requirements or type of power available or limitations on placement of system components. Are there anticipated or known limitations on size, weight and power?

Answer: Power and weight are within the design space.

23. Question: While the BAA states “low power and low weight are essential” the BAA does not list any specific size, weight or power requirements or type of power available or limitations on placement of system components. Are there anticipated or known limitations on placement and number of antennas?

Answer: Antennas are located on the underside of the aircraft. Specific details will be provided if you are selected for the first phase of the effort but assume that the size envelope is approximately 10.4" high and 10.5" in diameter.

24. Question: While the BAA states “low power and low weight are essential” the BAA does not list any specific size, weight or power requirements or type of power available or limitations on placement of system components. What power is available for this system (28 Vdc, 400 Hz AC, etc.)?

Answer: Details will be provided if you are selected for the study.

25. Question: What sort of vehicle/helicopter/ship external INS data might be available for each of Efforts 1, 2, and 3?

Answer: Assume that INS data is not available. Details will be provided if you are selected for the study.

26. Question: What should be the minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for proposed solutions for each of Efforts 1, 2, and 3? What TRL should be achieved for these solutions at the end of the FY08 through FY11 development period?

Answer: The Government is expecting that the prototype system will be at a TRL of 6 at the end of the effort.

27. Question: In equating desired quantitative throughputs and data rates as prescribed for Effort 1 to specific terminal G/T and EIRP requirements, what quantitative satellite resource metrics (EIRP and G/T footprints, spot vs. global beams, center-of-beam vs. edge-of-beam, transponder utilization/efficiency, channel bandwidth, hub characteristics, etc.) should be presumed?

Answer: Terminal design should be scalable.

28. Question: To the extent there is a trade-space between minimum elevation angle and maximum antenna profile/height in Effort 1, what are the bounds of this space (i.e. what is the maximum allowable height/profile? And what is the minimum allowable minimum elevation pointing angle?) Would “degraded” operation (throughput/data rates below the stated goals) at and near the horizon be acceptable?

Answer: The profile and minimum elevation capabilities of the terminal are within the design trade space. Degraded operation at lower elevation angles may be acceptable.

29. Question: To the extent there is a trade-space between maximum antenna profile/height and maximum mechanical mounting footprint/area in Effort 1, what are the bounds of this space (i.e. what is maximum lineal dimensions and/or area for the mounted antenna, including radome?)

Answer: See the answer to Question 3. above.

30. Quetion: As for multi-band (X/Ka, Ku/Ka, or similar) capable solutions for the “very-low profile high data rate system” subset of Effort 1, would “multi-band” imply “on the fly” capability to switch between bands, or would “manually-switched” methodologies requiring removal/refit of the antenna/radome be considered as a “multi-band” solution? Is there a desired priority in terms of frequency coverage between X, Ku, K/Ka, and UHF? Is there any desire to provide (A)EHF or TSAT coverage at Ka/Q bands?

Answer: Removal or refit of components to meet the multi-band requirement is NOT desirable. There is no current priority with regards to bands and there is no current need for AEHF or TSAT at this time.

31. Question: For Effort 2, what is the desired/required Field-of-View (FOV) for the system (i.e. full continuous spherical coverage or some subset thereof?)

Answer: Full hemispheric coverage is desired.

32. Question: For Effort 2, what are the available mounting locations on the H-60 vehicle and what are the profile/aero constraints relating to those locations.

Answer: See the answer for Question 23. above.

33. Question: For Effort 2, what is the maximum slant range for which the prescribed data rates apply? Is this for Helicopter-to-Helicopter LOS or Helicopter to some other node? If the latter, what are the presumed EIRP and G/T characteristics for this node?

Answer: Maximum slant range is approximately 110 nmi for helicopter-to helicopter links. EIRP and G/T are within the design trade space.

34. Question: For Effort 3, does the “line-of-sight” antenna definition imply that the scope of the desired integrated antenna(s) does not include SATCOM functions?

Answer: Yes.

35. Question: With respect to the $10K and $75K NTE price requirements prescribed for “Effort 1 – Low cost SATCOM-on-the-move array for Marine Corps HMMWV’s and EFV’s,” to what contemplated production quantities/rates would these prices apply? For purposes of these prices, what is included in the ($10K per unit) “low data rate” and ($75K) “very-low profile high data rate” systems?

Answer: Assume total number of low data rate terminals to be 7,000 and the total number of high data rate terminals to be 500. The prices include the entire terminal (i.e., aperture, radome, radio, modem and ancillaries.)

36. Question: Similar to the above question, for “Effort 2 – H-60 Helicopter Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL)” what contemplated production quantities/rates would apply to the prescribed $600K per system unit cost goal? For purposes of this price goal, what is included in the “system.”

Answer: Assume a total of 150 terminals will be purchased. As with Q: 36, the system includes everything needed.

37. Question: Based on the FY08 through FY11 “anticipated budget” guidelines and the two-phase “study base” and “optional execution of the proposed approach” efforts as described in the “Award Information” section of the BAA, should proposals including (CPFF) bids for both phases? Is there any additional guidance as to the desired deliverables associated with each of the two phases (i.e. Brassboard, EDM, and/or Qualification Units, and/or pre-production hardware)?

Answer: Proposals should include both phases. Hardware does not require MIL qualification testing but should be designed for the military environment. Hardware and software should be at TRL 6 at the end of the development.

38. Question: For the unit cost targets you have specified, what is the annual production rate we should assume and what year should production start?

Answer: See the answers to Questions 36 and 37.

39. Question: Does the low data rate system include the modem in the $10k cost?

Answer: Yes.

40. Question: Please clarify how the half-duplex requirement is to be implemented. For example, do the receive and transmit bursts occupy the same frequency but different time slots?

Answer: This is within the design space.

43. Question: Does the high data rate system include the modem in the $75k cost?

Answer: Yes.

41. Question: Two types of communication systems are being considered. Please clarify the relationship between the two networks.

Answer: No communications between networks is assumed at present. Details may change during the study phase.

42. Question: What are the geographic areas of operation for the low and high data rate systems?

Answer: Anywhere the USMC may go.

43. Question: What is the maximum footprint size for the high and low speed antenna terminals?

Answer: Profile and footprint are within the design trade space. Cost should be the driver for the low data rate terminal and profile should be the driver for the high data rate terminal.

44. Question: Please provide information (drawings/pictures) on the EFV showing space limitations for the terminal.

Answer: Not at this time.

45. Question: With regard to the desire for a zero degree minimum look angle – is there a maximum look angle desired?

Answer: Terminals should be able to point to the zenith.

46. Question: Please define the requirements for the “complete solution for the Marine Corps vehicle SATCOM requirements, including UHF”. Are satellite networks such as UFO and MUOS included or does UHF refer only to terrestrial line-of-sight?

Answer: See the answer to Question 8. above.

47. Question: What are the environmental specifications the terminals must meet in addition to Churchville-B? Will the scope of work include full environmental testing?

Answer: Full environmental testing is not required but the prototype should be able to survive a field demonstration.

48. Question: What is expected to be the final project deliverables?

Answer: Complete prototype terminals capable of being evaluated and appropriate documentation.

49. Question: Please describe the priority of having multiple bands within the same terminal package. Are field change kits acceptable?

Answer: Field change kits are NOT desirable.

50. Question: To help us analyze performance over the X-band, Ku-band, and WGS satellites, please provide satellite performance data such as EIRP, G/T, SFD, transponder operating point (IPBO & OPBO) and minimum link availability requirements over the expected world-wide coverage areas. Alternatively, please specify what minimum receive and transmit gain requirements the antenna must satisfy.

Answer: See the answer to Question 28. above.

51. Question: We concur that phase 1 of the project should be a study. Please provide guidance as to the duration and percentage of the total cost for the study.

Answer: In developing costs, assume the study should take approximately 6 months.

52. Question: Please provide further guidance on the requirement for “risk reduction” and “tactical variant” block diagrams.

Answer: No further guidance is available at this time.

53. Question: Will you consider different terminal solutions optimized separately for the EFV and HMMWV or must one solution be suitable for both? Would it be ok if we just respond to the 256kbps/512kbps COTM module and not the 6-10kbps Blue Force Tracking module?

Answer: Terminals developed should be suitable for multiple vehicles. You can respond to one or both terminals. If you respond to both, designs should use a common architecture.

PAGE