pMEO RFI Inquiries 3 Aug 2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CAPACITY ON A UHF-CAPABLE ON-ORBIT MEO SATELLITE
- Solicitation number
- RFI-RJZX-2026-RAPID
About this file
This file is an Excel spreadsheet containing inquiries submitted in response to an RFI for UHF-capable MEO satellite capacity. The RFI (RFI-RJZX-2026-RAPID) was issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Research Laboratory and seeks access to bandwidth on a commercially owned and operated Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellite to support a near-term experimental campaign. The primary objectives include characterizing spectrum, waveform, and user equipment operation with a MEO UHF system; demonstrating interoperability between a potential future MEO UHF system and the existing GEO constellation; and informing a time-sequenced pathway to augment or replace the GEO UHF system with MEO capability. Offerors are encouraged to prioritize existing space vehicle, payload, and communications link capabilities to provide on-orbit service as soon as possible, with an Initial Launch Capability (ILC) potentially by 2030, though earlier on-orbit capability is strongly desired.
The spreadsheet contains specific inquiries and clarifications from potential offerors regarding the RFI requirements. Amendment 1 (issued July 23, 2026) corrected the uplink and downlink frequency bands in Section 4.0.a.i and replaced the original RFI attachment with an updated version. The Government acknowledges that the initial prototype may not be fully representative of a final architecture but represents an exploratory step toward providing UHF services from MEO. All other RFI content and response due dates remained unchanged following the amendment. This pre-solicitation RFI is designed to gather market intelligence and technical feasibility information from commercial satellite operators prior to potential future formal procurement actions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| pMEO RFI Inquiries 24 Jul 2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| pMEO Demo Request for Information_AMEND1 23 Jul 26.pdf | ||
| pMEO Demo Request for Information_FINAL 10 Jul 26.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| Question | Government Response |
| Can the government provide additional context to the intent of this RFI? As written, there are multiple interpretations for what the final objectives of the USG experimentation of UHF at MEO could look like. Specification of the final goals and metrics of the experimentation by the goverenment can help industry identify the most efficient paths to support. | The Government's overall objectives are listed in Section 3.0 of the RFI. The RFI itself seeks only to acquire access to bandwidth carried by a commercially-owned, commercially-operated UHF-capable MEO satellite, which will necessitate a vendor providing both the spacecraft(s) and associated feeder link(s). Responses to the RFI should be agnostic to the details of the experimentation that bandwidth will support. |
| Is RFI intended for existing commercial satellite operators with UHF capabilities in MEO? | Per the RFI, the ask is “to provide on-orbit service immediately or as soon as possible. An Initial Launch Capability (ILC) by 2030 is potentially useful, but innovative approaches leading to earlier on-orbit capability are strongly desired.” This does not require the capability to be already on orbit, but such capabilities are of great interest for schedule reasons. |
If there is an existing commercial UHF capability on orbit, it would have to meet the specific technical requirements as outlined in the RFI
| Can the Government identify the relative priority of schedule, existing on-orbit capability, waveform compliance, beam performance, access duration, interface/data rights, security posture, and cost? | ||
| Does the Government intend to access the bandwidth carried by a commercially owned, commercially operated UHF-capable on-orbit MEO satellite? | Yes. Per the RFI, the request “is focused on obtaining access to bandwidth carried by a commercially owned, commercially operated UHF-capable on-orbit MEO satellite.” The Government does not seek to own or operate a spacecraft. The requirement is for on-orbit bandwidth to support terrestrial experimentation in the near term. | |
| Does the Government intend this RFI to cover the full cost of developing and launching a UHF-capable MEO satellite, or only the recurring cost of bandwidth/capacity one on orbit? | Per the RFI, the Government is seeking approaches to “obtaining access to bandwidth carried by a commercially owned, commercially operated UHF-capable on-orbit MEO satellite”. This could involve purchasing time on a currently on-orbit or planned spacecraft, or it could involve partially or entirely funding the development, launch and operation of a spacecraft. To understand the innovative options industry can offer, the RFI specifically asks for “a pricing structure, and a cost estimate”. | |
| Potential waveform vendors to conduct more in-depth study on looking at the future UHF waveforms (more flexible and simplified version of the current WCDMA + 5G). Does AFRL have any idea on when this would happen? Would there be an RFI that will be released by AFRL soon? | Not part of the RFI | |
| For any future solicitation resulting from this RFI, would the Government consider proposals from a prime contractor that utilizes a commercial satellite operator as its principal subcontractor? | Yes. | |
| Does the Government anticipate that ownership or operation of the satellite constellation must reside with the prime contractor, or would a teaming arrangement satisfy this requirement provided the overall solution meets the technical objectives? | The Government's interest under this RFI is that the space node required for experimentation not be Government-owned or -operated. A teaming arrangement that achieves that goal is likely satisfactory and is therefore of interest. | |
| Is the Government seeking feedback from companies that can assemble and manage an integrated commercial solution, or is the intent of this RFI primarily to engage existing satellite owners and operators? | The Government is interested in all innovative approaches to rapidly achieve the technical requirement. These approaches could span the spectrum from providing time on an existing on-orbit asset, to adding a payload to a spacecraft already planned for launch, to assembling a tailored integrated solution. | |
| The objective references an “on-orbit MEO satellite,” while the RFI also states that an Initial Launch Capability by 2030 may be useful. Are planned satellites, hosted payloads, rideshare payloads, mission-extension platforms, or other future-launch concepts responsive? What minimum maturity or binding access commitment is expected? | ||
| Are there any planned Industry Days, one-on-one sessions, or additional engagement opportunities related to this effort? | The Government will formulate an acquisition approach following the response period for this RFI. Additional engagement is anticipated, but no final decisions have been made. | |
| Does the Government anticipate a classified industry day, one-on-one technical interchange, or supplemental request after reviewing the unclassified RFI responses? | ||
| Section 4.0.a.i identifies 360–380 MHz as the uplink band and 300–320 MHz as the downlink band. Publicly available MUOS references identify 300–320 MHz as the Earth-to-space uplink/terminal-transmit band and 360–380 MHz as the space-to-Earth downlink/terminal-receive band. Please define “uplink” and “downlink” from the Government’s reference point and identify the required terrestrial-terminal transmit and receive bands. | The bands are in fact unintentionally reversed in the original RFI. UHF uplink (from the user radio) is 300-320 MHz; downlink (to the user radio) is 360-380 MHz. This is the same as current MUOS operations. An amended RFI has been posted to correct this error. | |
| Requesting clarification on the uplink and downlink frequency bands. As listed in the RFI USG is requesting 20 MHz of contiguous uplink between 360-380 MHz band and 20 MHz of contiguous downlink between 300-320 MHz. However the MUOS spec has these uplink and downlink reversed. Is this a typo? Or does USG plan to reverse the uplink and downlink frequency bands? | ||
| Must the space node simultaneously support at least two 5 MHz uplink channels and two 5 MHz downlink channels, or is independently selectable operation sufficient? Must the payload and feeder link support transport of the full 20 MHz uplink and 20 MHz downlink blocks concurrently? | The space node should support two of the 5MHz channels, but they do not have to be simultaneous. The payload and feederlink does not have to support the full 20 MHz, but must be able to transport the appropriate uplink/downlink UHF channel signals. | |
| Which MUOS WCDMA software/version baseline and network functions must be supported for the threshold demonstration? Will the Government provide the waveform software, interface specifications, test vectors, network-planning artifacts, certification support, and access to representative MUOS ground equipment? | For WCDMA testing, software version 3.1.5 must be supported. Modified software versions will also be tested. The Government will provide the radios they required for testing and any required MUOS ground network equipment. The RFI does not request the vendor to provide or conduct the testing, only the space node and associated feederlink ground station. | |
| Is the “future modified MUOS WCDMA” expected to be Government-defined, contractor-proposed, or collaboratively developed? What modifications are anticipated, including Doppler compensation, timing, acquisition, power control, handover, networking, or terminal-software changes? | It is anticipated that a modified WCDMA waveform will be defined by the Government and developed collaboratively with industry. The listed possible modifications are anticipated, with the goal to minimize terminal modifications. The space node access requested in this RFI will be used for over-the-air testing of any such modifications. | |
| What terrestrial terminals, antenna configurations, and software versions are expected to participate? Please identify representative EIRP, antenna gain, receiver sensitivity, mobility, Doppler and timing tolerance, and any certification constraints. Will the Government provide radios, waveform applications, COMSEC devices, keying material, network managers, test instrumentation, and operator support? | For WCDMA testing, software version 3.1.5 must be supported. The Government will provide the radios required for testing and any required MUOS ground network equipment. The RFI does not request the vendor to provide or conduct the testing, only the space node and associated feederlink ground station. | |
| Please define the required “indefeasible right of access.” Must the capacity be dedicated, exclusive, non-preemptible, and available 24/7, or may it be shared subject to Government priority, scheduled windows, or agreed service levels? What operational control must the Government have over beam location, channels, payload configuration, routing, and test scheduling? | During the period that the Government has obtained and paid for the right to access the payload, the capacity will be dedicated to Government testing and the Government will approve any sharing arrangements during non-use times. Beam and payload planning will be performed cooperatively with the vendor, while operational control will reside with the vendor. | |
| Is coverage anywhere within 30–40 degrees north latitude acceptable, or does the Government anticipate a specific test range, CONUS region, gateway, or operational theater? Please define required beam dimensions, persistence, edge-of-coverage contour, minimum elevation angle, polarization, and beam-relocation speed. | The Government anticipates testing to occur in the southwestern continental United State. Beam performance details are at the discretion of the vendor. | |
| What specific mission threads and quantitative acceptance criteria will define a successful campaign—for example voice/data calls, stationary and mobile terminals, GEO/MEO coexistence, beam or satellite handover, legacy broadcast reception, throughput, latency, BER/BLER, availability, reacquisition time, or contested-spectrum testing? | The RFI does not request the vendor to provide or conduct the testing, only the space node and associated feederlink ground station. | |
| Does the government require the existing RBS solution to be part of the new solution? | ||
| Is the specified 244–270 MHz downlink range intentional, or should the lower limit be 243 MHz to align with commonly supported legacy UHF SATCOM terminal receive coverage? | The specified 244-270 MHz is correct and this will be used to support a downlink channel. 243.0 MHz is the military emergency frequency and is not requested. | |
| Is the 25 kHz channel within 244–270 MHz intended specifically for IBS, DAMA, IW, CSEL, or another Government waveform? Is support required only for one broadcast channel, or should respondents address broader legacy UHF service? | The 25 kHz channel could support a variety of missions and will be used for broadcast testing. Only one broadcast channel is requested. | |
| Does “up to 45 degrees from zenith” refer to the terminal look angle, spacecraft antenna off-nadir steering angle, or another geometry? Is the −138 dBW/kHz/m² value required at that condition? | This refers to the spacecraft being 45 degrees above the horizon. The -138 dBW value is a not-to-exceed value at the surface of the Earth. | |
| Where does the Government expect COMSEC and TRANSEC processing to occur? Must the contractor hold and operate Government cryptographic equipment or keying material, and what COMSEC-account or secure-facility capabilities will be required? | COMSEC/TRANSEC processing may occur on the ground, which should permit testing with a variety of schemes. The Government requests the contractor identify their recommendations for COMSEC and TRANSEC, including any need for facilities or material. However, it is expected that COMSEC/TRANSEC for the UHF content will be applied prior to providing that content to the vendor for uplink to the space node, and/or at the user terminal. | |
| Must COMSEC/TRANSEC processing occur on the spacecraft, or may it remain ground-side under an assumed Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated ground-segment model? | ||
| What minimum content is expected in the Technical Data Package and Interface Control Documents—for example architecture, message schemas, waveform interfaces, telemetry definitions, cyber artifacts, source code, hardware design data, operations procedures, or test documentation? | This will be determined after the responses are received from this RFI and included in any future Request for Proposals. | |
| Does the government require using the KA downlink spec (STS-GTS ICD) for interoperability to the current ground? | Offerors should propose a feeder link architecture to support the UHF-capable MEO satellite, using a frequency accessible by the offeror. The ground system will require a point of presence for exchanging uplink/downlink content with the Government's experimental ground infrastructure. There will be no interaction between the spacecraft and the MUOS ground architecture. | |
| Is the MEO MUOS feeder-link's downlink required to use the KA-band to connect with one or more associated ground stations, or can it adopt the downlink frequency band of a contractor-selected, commercially operated, UHF-capable MEO satellite? | ||
| Does the government expect the existing MUOS Radio Access Facilities to interface directly with a MEO UHF payload (requiring new tracking capability), or would routing through the commercial operator’s existing MEO-capable ground gateway network — backhauled via a DISA teleport — satisfy the RFI’s interoperability objective? | ||
| Does AFRL plan for the MEO MUOS feeder-link to connect directly to one or more of the existing four MUOS Radio Access Facility (RAF) gateways alongside the GEO MUOS feeder-link, or will it connect to the ground stations and frequency bands of commercially operated, UHF-capable on-orbit MEO satellites? | ||
| Are DISA’s teleport interoperability gateways intended to serve as the integration point for a MEO UHF system’s interoperability with the existing GEO MUOS constellation, or is a different mechanism anticipated? | ||
| Which Government networks, facilities, and security domains must the COCO ground segment connect to? What encryption, cross-domain, accreditation, physical interface, data-rate, latency, and availability constraints apply? | ||
| Does the government require use of existing MUOS WCDMA terminals? | The space transport service being requested should be agnostic of the specific terminal models or configurations used for the Government's experimentation, but should assume any terminals will operate within the bands and channels specified in the RFI. When MUOS WCDMA is being tested, it will involve unmodified WCDMA software version 3.1.5, but also modified versions. | |
| Can the government confirm whether existing fielded MUOS terminals (AN/PRC-155, AN/PRC-158, AN/ARC-210) are expected to operate against a MEO node without modification, or should respondents assume a software/firmware update — or hardware variant — as part of program scope? | ||
| Can the Government please clarify the RFI direction requesting responders to provide cost estimates (Section 6.0) versus the language in Sections 1.0 and 8.0 stating this RFI does not constitue a Request for Quote? | The Government desires a Budget Planning Estimate of the likely cost to pursue the approach recommended in each response. It is understood that there are barriers to providing even non-binding rough order of magnitude estimates on short notice. However, receiving a Budget Planning Estimate will allow the Government to refine the scope of any future call for proposals, in turn enabling potential vendors to avoid the cost of responding to such an RFP with an approach that far exceeds the available resources. | |
| Does the government expect on-board WCDMA base-station (regenerative) processing, or would a transparent-repeater architecture satisfy the RFI’s intent? | A transparent-repeater architecture satisfies the RFI's intent and should permit supporting multiple waveforms that are not yet identified. | |
| How are the beam/satellite hand-off requirements of Section 4.0.f defined in terms of maximum acceptable interruption or reacquisition time — a key driver of whether a gimbaled reflector suffices or full electronic beam-steering is required? | Make-before-break capability is strongly desired if multiple beams / vehicles are available. However, it is understood that existing payload technology may not support this on a single vehicle. Respondents can describe potential experimental scenarios that would be supported by the solution proposed in their response. | |
| Are there existing government terminal test assets or a test range where MEO-Doppler-adapted terminal software could be validated ahead of an on-orbit demonstration? | The RFI does not request effort relating to user terminals. It is seeking access to an on-orbit, UHF-capable MEO spacecraft to relay uplink/downlink content generated by the Government. | |
| Are the aggregated MEO MUOS uplink channels in the feeder-link signaling format required to be fully compatible with the existing GEO MUOS feeder-link segment? | No. Feeder-link signaling is at the discretion of the vendor. | |
| Does the AFRL consider demonstrating the MEO MUOS interoperability with the existing GEO constellation using a modified MUOS WCDMA waveform via software-defined-radio (SDR) terminals? | Multiple potential approaches to future user equipment are possible, including those based in software defined radios. The bandwidth sought by the RFI may be used to test a variety of terminal approaches. | |
| Is the government amenable to allowing smaller font sizes for tables and graphics? The Government specifies 12 point Times New Roman font for the Proposal, but does not specify if tables and graphics may utilize smaller text. Recommends allowing 8pt font size in Times New Roman for graphics and tables provided USG concurs with this approach. | This approach is acceptable provided all text must be legible, not blurry. Illegible content will be disregarded. | |
| The uplink and downlink appear to be reversed. Should the requirement be as follows: | ||
| • | 20 MHz of contiguous uplink downlink bandwidth within the 360-380 MHz band | |
| • | 20 MHz of contiguous downlink uplink bandwidth within the 300-320 MHz band | The bands are in fact unintentionally reversed in the RFI. UHF uplink (from the user radio) is 300-320 MHz; downlink (to the user radio) is 360-380 MHz. This is the same as current MUOS operations. An amended RFI has been posted to correct this error. |
| Can we prototype capability/performance using any available waveform at 5MHz, instead of requiring MUOS or integration with a MUOS RAF to demonstrate the link performance, the beams, the bandwidth, handover, etc. that does not require the complexity of a MILSATCOM network? | The space transport service being requested should be agnostic of the specific waveforms used for the Government's experimentation. There will be no interaction with the MUOS constellation or Radio Access Facilities, nor with any other MILSATCOM network. The vendor's ground system will require a point of presence for exchanging uplink/downlink content with the Government's experimental ground infrastructure. | |
| Does the government plan to offer a service contract for the life of the vehicle or for a specified duration? | The RFI specifies contractual access to the MEO space node for at least 36 months, with the potential to extend for the life of the vehicle. | |
| What is the "Rapid Prototyping Scope Definition Matrix"? In light of the contractor-maintained specifications SR-10xxx listed under 4.2.(c), please clarify what residual scope is captured in this prototyping scope definition matrix. | Not part of the RFI | |
| The XIF during PACK 1 and PACK 2 will likely reveal proprietary and competition sensitive solutions and progress to other performers on the contract, given all the performers are operating to the same SOW. This does not seem appropriate for PACK 1 and 2. XIFs supporting program wide discussion on issues and solutions which are non-proprietary may make more sense but would not focus on vendor specific program efforts. |
CHANGE FROM: The Contractor shall prepare and present at X-PACK Interchange Forum (XIF), to the Govern-ment and the other X-PACK performers, their X-PACK solution and progress, at minimum once per PACK.
TO: Redact
| Contractors should not be required to disclose their competitive solutions/capabilities prior to down-select. | Not part of the RFI |
| The directive regarding risk management board is overly prescriptive. |
Change FROM: The contractor shall conduct risk management boards on a regular basis and provide risk status to the Government in quarterly PMRs and in “Monthly Status Report” [ADRL A2.5.1] [ADRL A2.5.5]. The contractor shall invite the Government Program Office to participate in the contractor’s Risk Management Board as a non-voting member.
TO: The contractor shall conduct risk management boards on a regular basis and provide risk status to the Government in quarterly PMRs and in “Monthly Status Report” [ADRL A2.5.1] [ADRL A2.5.5].
| The section is prescriptive re: how to actively manage risk. Requesting the customer defer to a contractor's internal process which already optimizes for organizational visbility, clarity, and corrective action velocity. | Not part of the RFI | |
| Section 4 details the government's minimum needs for IP rights to contractor technical data. Four categories -- A, B, C, and D -- are referenced, but are not described. Can government provide RPP Attachment 1, which (per paragraph 4.1.1) describes the four categories, so that contractors can provide section 4 feedback? | Not part of the RFI | |
| For Pack 2, a contractor-provided ground C2 concept roadmap is required; does the contractor-provided C2 need to interoperate natively with the ESS mission C2 architecture or are adapation/shim layers permitted to leverage existing contractor C2 hardware/software/architecture? | Not part of the RFI | |
| Will interested vendors be able to obtain the SCG and classified XDR waveform Specification / ICD prior to RPP release? | Not part of the RFI | |
| The CSDR reporting requirements can be very onerous to small businesses. Will performers be able to work with the Government to tailor the CSDR requirements prior to award? | Not part of the RFI | |
| Please clarify whether this only applies to classified technical data or includes unclassified technical data. As written, this would require contractors to duplicate full development environments and tools on isolated networks. In practice, it creates an equivalent "classified" network like posture for any "technical data". While the example cites source code, as written, it applies to any material which could be deemed technical data. This level of segregation is not currently commercial best practice. |
CHANGE FROM: The contractor shall develop and store in a secure facility all DoD technical data (e.g., source code), and computer software in the possession or control of non-DoD entities on non-DoD information systems in protected means through segregation control (e.g., firewall, isolated network, etc.) to prevent connections to the GIG and document meeting this requirement in the Security Plan.
TO: The contractor shall develop and store in a secure facility all classified DoD technical data (e.g., source code), and computer software in the possession or control of non-DoD entities on non-DoD information systems in protected means through segregation control (e.g., firewall, isolated network, etc.) to prevent connections to the GIG and document meeting this requirement in the Security Plan.
| Limit replication of unclassified developmenet enviroments and tools to allow industry/commercial best pratice in data segregation and security. | Not part of the RFI | |
| Please define / clarify what is expected of a "Rapid Prototyping Scope Definition Matrix" . | Not part of the RFI | |
| What Doppler compensation capability is required/assumed at the terminal for a MEO-based (vs. airborne/fast-moving platform) signal source, what is the acceptable amount of doppler that would be accommodated by existing terminals? | The space transport service being requested should be agnostic of the specific terminal models or configurations used for the Government's experimentation, but should assume any terminals will operate within the bands and channels specified in the RFI. Offerors are not required to perform Doppler compensation of the UHF uplink/downlink, but should be prepared to compensate for feeder link Doppler shifts if they will cause non-compliance with the UHF band specified in the RFI. The RFI does not request terminal modifications, as one of the Government's goals is to determine how to manage Doppler with minimal changes to the terminals. | |
| Are terminal modifications expected, or what terminals will be used? | ||
| What is the appropriately sized beam to meet the requirement needs? | Beam performance details are at the discretion of the vendor. | |
| Does the Government expect data to be processed at a MUOS Radio Access Facility? | There will be no interactions with the the MUOS Radio Access Facilities. | |
| Section 4.0 (g): While radiation concerns are more challenging for this type of orbit, was the govt's intent to exclude, or perhaps "operate" only applies to when the satellite is providing communications services to terminals? | Offerors are free to propose a concept of operations that meets the requirements of the RFI. The intent is to perform testing over the southwestern continental United States. MEO altitudes from 8000 - 22000 km are acceptable. | |
| Section 8.0 references AFRL STAR, SSC SpEC OTA, or other agency mechanisms for follow-on activity. Can the Government indicate which vehicle is most likely for a follow-on effort, and whether the intended access arrangement (Section 4.0(i)) is envisioned as a capacity lease, managed/hosted service, or dedicated satellite charter? | The results of this RFI will inform the Government's choice of acquisition pathway, which may involve a FAR or non-FAR instrument. Offerors should propose an access arrangement meeting the intent of Section 4.0(i) that ensures the Government's unrestricted access to the requested bandwidth for a period of at least 36 months while complying with the desired commercially-owned, commercially-operated paradigm. | |
| What level of information is allowed in the submission? Confidential, CUI, other? The RFI clearly specifies Unclassified information only - we are confirming that no CUI information is allowed. | Controlled Unclassified Information is Unclassified information and may be included in offerors' RFI responses. Opportunities to submit classified information may be offered in the future. | |
| In this case, does "staring beam" mean that the beam is centered on a fixed location on the ground and as the spacecraft move in orbit, the center of the beam remains the same? | Correct. Such a beam is also termed "Quasi-Earth fixed". | |
| Will the Government consider other UHF beam pointing designs? For example, using a fixed beam (not pointing to a specific location) that passes across the user then handing over to the next spacecraft. | An "Earth-Moving" beam introduces additional complexity to the system, but offerors may propose such a beam and suggest innovative mechanisms by which that complexity could be managed. | |
| What is the source of this requirement to prevent interference or some other concern? | There is no single source of this requirement. One example is that a staring beam configuration may reduce demands on user terminals to account for spacecraft motion. | |
| "Provide terrestrial coverage inclusive of 30-40 degrees north latitude " |
Would the Government please provide more information as to why this requirement is in the RFI? Note, it does not mention south latitude. Is this saying that earth coverage above 40 degrees North latitude is not required?
| Does this 30 to 40 degrees latitude request indicate a preference for an equatorial MEO system (for Demo and the constellation) vs using inclined satellites? | The coverage requirement is correct as written. The intent is to perform testing with the MEO space node over the southwestern continental United States. Offerors may propose one or more spacecraft at any inclination that meets the latitudinal coverage and other requirements. Note that the RFI is not a requirement for a future MEO UHF architecture, but rather a requirement for experimentation. |
| Section 3.0 seeks "access to bandwidth carried by a commercially owned, commercially operated UHF-capable on-orbit MEO satellite." However, no UHF-capable MEO satellite currently exists on orbit. |
a) Does the Government intend this RFI to cover the full cost of developing and launching a UHF-capable MEO satellite, or only the recurring cost of bandwidth/capacity once on orbit?
| b) If the Government expects to fund payload/satellite development, should respondents provide a ROM for the non-recurring engineering (NRE) and recurring service costs separately? | Per the RFI, the Government is seeking approaches to “obtaining access to bandwidth carried by a commercially owned, commercially operated UHF-capable on-orbit MEO satellite”. This could involve purchasing time on a currently on-orbit or planned spacecraft, or it could involve partially or entirely funding the development, launch and operation of a spacecraft. To understand the innovative options industry can offer, the RFI specifically asks for “a pricing structure, and a cost estimate”. Offerors may elect to separate non-recurring engineering and recurring service costs in their ROM, or may suggest an alternative arrangement that meets the Government's need. |
| Section 3.0 states the offeror should "prioritize existing space vehicle, payload and communications link capabilities to provide on-orbit service immediately or as soon as possible" and notes ILC by 2030 is "potentially useful" but earlier is "strongly desired." |
a) What is the Government's minimum acceptable timeline for initial on-orbit UHF capability? Is there a date before which a response would be considered non-responsive?
b) Would the Government consider a phased approach where an initial limited capability (e.g., single channel, reduced coverage) is delivered earlier, followed by full capability later?
| c) Is the Government willing to fund long-lead procurement or risk reduction activities in FY27 to accelerate the on-orbit timeline? | Subject to contracting timelines, there is no minimum acceptable timeline for initial on-orbit capability. Offerors are welcome to propose a phased approach toward meeting all of the RFI objectives, as this will inform the Government's acquisition strategy and timeline. RFI responses proposing Government investment in long-lead procurement or risk reduction activities are responsive if they envision meeting the RFI objectives. |
| Section 4.d requires threshold support for "MUOS WCDMA and a future modified MUOS WCDMA" and references MIL-STD 188-187A. |
a) Will the Government provide access to the MUOS WCDMA waveform specifications and/or software to respondents who do not currently hold the relevant licenses or clearances?
b) For the experimental campaign, will the Government furnish reference user terminals (e.g., AN/PRC-155, AN/PRC-117G with MUOS capability) for end-to-end testing?
c) Does "future modified MUOS WCDMA" refer to specific modifications already under development (e.g., MEO Doppler compensation, adjusted chip rates), or is this open-ended?
| d) For the "objective" requirement of "any channel-compliant waveform," does the Government have specific interest in 5G NTN waveforms over UHF spectrum? | a) If the proposed MEO space node requires information about the MUOS WCDMA waveform or associated software, the Government will facilitate access to that information for eligible vendors. b) The space transport service being requested should be agnostic of the specific terminal models or configurations used for the Government's experimentation, but should assume any terminals will operate within the bands and channels specified in the RFI. Terminals and testing will be managed by the Government. c) Future WCDMA is open-ended. d) This experimentation is expected to examine a variety of waveforms, which could include 5G NTN. |
| The RFI directs respondents to assume a COCO ground segment architecture as the baseline for pricing. To enable accurate scoping and cost estimation, could the Government please clarify the following: |
a) Would the Government clarify where the COCO boundary is defined? In other words, at what point does the contractor’s responsibility end and the Government’s network responsibilities begin e.g.: at a particular Point of Presence, gateway hand‑off, or protocol interface?
b) Should respondents assume they are responsible for providing transport connectivity all the way from their ground station(s) to a specific DoW network injection point? Or will the Government provide the last‑mile connection into its network?
c) Will the Government be supplying any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Government Furnished Information (GFI) to support integration of the ground segment such as cryptographic devices, network encryptors, interface specifications, or related materials?
| d) Should respondents assume the ground segment needs to support a particular classification level (e.g., Unclassified, CUI, Secret)? If so, does that imply requirements for accredited facilities or cross‑domain solutions? | Offerors may propose what they perceive to be the most advantageous ground segment. The Government's baseline assumption is that the vendor will own and operate the space node(s), the feeder link(s), the ground station(s), and any required interconnections between them. UHF content for uplink/downlink will be provided by the Government at the user terminal and a point of presence associated with the vendor's ground segment. Such information exchange will be governed by an Interface Control Document, and it is expected that COMSEC/TRANSEC for the UHF content will be applied prior to providing that content to the vendor for uplink to the space node, and/or at the user terminal. There is no requirement to connect to existing Government networks. The vendor's ground segment is presumed to be unclassified and to operate with standard industry security controls. |
| The RFI states "The offeror should consider technology solutions that prioritize existing space vehicle, payload and communications link capabilities to provide on-orbit service immediately or as soon as possible. An Initial Launch Capability (ILC) by 2030 is potentially useful, but innovative approaches leading to earlier on-orbit capability are strongly desired." |
| Will the Government consider dedicated solutions that have a high potential for transition to operations versus on-orbit systems that meet minimum viable demo requirements but have low transition likelihood? | The Government is open to all potential solutions that meet our requirement. | |
| If the objective is to eventually replace the legacy MUOS constellation, the Government should expand the demonstration objectives and next-generation architecture to include proliferated concepts in GEO. | Proliferated GEO concepts are not within scope of the RFI. | |
| Are there any requirements on polarity of the UHF or feeder link signals? | The UHF link should utilize right-hand circular polarization. | |
| What is the specific meaning of "...when the spacecraft is up to 45 degrees from zenith ..."? The phrase appears to indicate a requirement on earth-facing performance, relative to an away-from-earth (zenith) angle. | This refers to the spacecraft being 45 degrees above the horizon. | |
| Is the expected plan for this demonstration to utilize the existing Ka feeder-link ground stations or is it expected that the contractor will provide the ground stations? It is unclear if the feeder-link ground stations are included in the COCO model described. | The Government's baseline assumption is that the vendor will own and operate the space node(s), the feeder link(s), the ground station(s), and any required interconnections between them. UHF content for uplink/downlink will be provided by the Government at the user terminal and a point of presence associated with the vendor's ground segment. | |
| Will access to legacy MUOS base stations be available if required? | There will be no interactions with the the MUOS Radio Access Facilities or other ground infrastructure. | |
| Is the feeder-link frequency left up to the contractor? | Yes. | |
| If the objective is to eventually replace the legacy MUOS constellation, the Government should expand the demonstration objectives and next-generation architecture to include proliferated concepts in GEO. |
CHANGE FROM: g. Operate within an altitude range of 8,000 to 22,000 km TO: g. Operate within an altitude range of 8,000 to 22,000 km (for MEO solutions) or 35,700 to 35,800 km (for GEO solutions)
| A next-generation, multi-orbit solution that encompasses proliferation in MEO and GEO offers enhanced resiliency over a single orbital domain solution. | GEO concepts are not within scope of the RFI. |
| CMMC Phase 2 has been temporarily suspended by DoW policy for reassessment. |
Per DoW release on 13 June 2026: "During this interim period, the Department will enforce cybersecurity compliance with the NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 standard through self-assessments and select government-led assessments, focusing on tangible cyber hygiene rather than administrative overhead."
CHANGE FROM: Please indicate your current compliance status with NIST SP 800-171, confirm whether an active assessment score exists within the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and state your current readiness posture for the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) (Level 2 or higher).
TO: Please indicate your current compliance status with NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2, confirm whether an active assessment score exists within the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).
Compliance with DoW policy. Any future RFP will comply with DoW policy regarding CMMC.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .