Revised Response to RFI Questions

Questions and Answers

Below are questions that have been submitted regarding RFI SMC-32. The answers are in bold. Changes from the answers posted on 20 November are underlined.

1) You mention other Governmental agencies, FFRDCs, and “SETA” contractors having access to the RFI responses; will they be required to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements? If any company wants a separate NDA executed it must be submitted to the POC listed on this site by 9:00 a.m. PST on 25 November 2009. If no separate NDAs are submitted, there will be no separate agreements and the existing agreements with FFRDCs and other support contractors (if any) will apply.

2) Does this RFI intend to collect data on hosted payloads for mission areas outside MILSATCOM? No

3) Does DoD intend to allow COMSATCOM industry to act as System Integrator for each of the four response areas? These Options can be considered. This RFI is to inform a decision process to select a go forward Wideband strategy, not to select information for a pending RFP.

4) What operational scenarios and force structure would DoD like the COMSAT industry to use in determining threat and force loading? The purpose of this RFI is to outline the general context of threat/force loading contexts to facilitate a wideband go forward decision. Detailed consideration of specific implementations could be the focus of a follow on study or Gov’t assessment.

5) In Response Area1:

a. “Acquisition of Modified Commercial Payload for Separate Hosting,” under the MILSATCOM features for consideration, Space Situational Awareness (SSA) and Space Protection (SP) are listed. SSA and SP are not inherent MILSATCOM features. Please provide additional clarity and context. Is this “feature” meant to be broader than MILSATCOM? Is the RFI collecting data at the payload level, system level, constellation level, or architecture level? What assumptions may respondents make about access to and performance of government capabilities, sensors, and architectures? No, this is not meant to be broader than MILSATCOM. The purpose of the RFI is to collect information about available commercial SA/P capabilities. Military appliqués could be a future consideration.

b. Is the term “commercial payload” meant to describe any payload purchased via FAR Part 12 or a payload the commercial industry routinely purchases to satisfy its normal business requirements (such as a Ku band transponder for a typical commercial communications satellite). Yes, both. We are attempting to understand the spectrum of what’s available to inform a go forward decision. If the latter, we point out that many of the payloads that are candidates for hosting are not commercial payloads.

c. We do not understand the term “separate” hosting. Is this meant to imply the absence of coordination between payload and host at the time the payload is purchased, designed, and/or modified? It’s intended to indicate payloads purchased at a time when the host platform is unknown and separately integrated to a host payload based on need.

6) Is it the intent of the RFI to focus/limit responses to communications applications only and to exclude information regarding sensors and/or other types of payload Yes.