Comment Matrix_RFI-Encrypted (SBU-E) W15P7T25-R-00XX_Consolidated.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted Apr 22, 2025

Attached to: RFI - Encrypted (SBU-E) Transport Hardware for Tactical Assured Voice and Data
Solicitation number: W15P7T-25-R-00XX
Issued by: Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Apr 22, 2025

This document is a Request for Information (RFI) for the U.S. Army Project Manager for Tactical Radios seeking industry input on SBU-E (Sensitive But Unclassified - Encrypted) Transport Hardware for tactical voice and data communications. The Army anticipates procuring 6,000 radio nodes with delivery scheduled from November 2025 to March 2026, targeting both dismounted (3,223 units) and mounted (2,777 units) configurations across various military platforms including tracked vehicles, rotary wing aircraft, and brigade combat team vehicles.

Key technical requirements include multi-band operation (UHF, L, S, and C bands), 50 Mbps data rates, network resilience, low probability of intercept/detect (LPI/LPD) capabilities, and integration with existing vehicle mounts and network systems. The RFI emphasizes the need for solutions that can operate in contested environments, support simultaneous network connections, and potentially offer an "as-a-service" model. The Army is particularly interested in Software Defined Radio (SDR) architectures that can adapt to evolving electronic warfare threats, with responses to include technical specifications, performance data, and pricing breakdowns for different quantity tiers.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
NGC2 SBU-E Transport Hardware RFI_ 14APR2025.pdf	PDF	Apr 14, 2025

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

No.	Page, Para	Industry Question/Comment	Government Response
1	Page 4, Table 1	Question 7: 50MBPS requirements: Please clarify the operational necessity for the 50Mbps data rate? Is this data rate required across all echelons of the Army operations. What elements of the pending NGC2 solution requires 50Mbs point to point? Do the emerging network requirements of NGC2 obsolete the currently fielded and still being fielded HMS Program of Record portfolio to deliver C2 between soldiers, leaders and TOCs?	The operational necessaity for this requirement is linked to the need for Transport of Full Motion Video, microservices providing persistent chat and operational graphics from cloud to the tactical edge. This data rate is required across all echelons of operations. This RFI is for SBU-E Transport Hardware and will not address prospective overarching NGC2 solution requirements. Respondents are encouraged to identify range data rates for MANET solutions in the various environments described.
2	Page 7 & 8, Table 2	Pricing Table: Are the prices provided in columns 2, 3 as well as the warranty for the solution that provides the complete set of functions across the bands identified in Table 1 question 6? It is our recommendation that the solution price should be for multiple bands of operation.	Yes, break out pricing based on multiple bands of operation.
3	Page 5, Table 1	Question 33 MIMO Reference: MIMO is a HW/SW implantation and not a performance spec. Does the offered solution have to be a MIMO solution?	No MIMO is not specifically required, but the proposed solution should provide approximately equivalent performance in terms of reach: node count, data rates, spectrum use and other performance measures listed in this RFI.
4	N/A	If there are additional non-hardware costs associated with accomplishing Characteristics in Table 1 of the RFI, such as item 28 or 36, would the Government like us to include that in the base price of the unit, or show it separately?	Yes, additional non-hardware costs should be shown separately.
5	N/A	What is the estimated Period of Performance of the rapid prototype project? How many years would the Government like the ROM for license(s) mentioned in 3.4.10 or additional characteristic-associated annual fees to include?	For the purposes of this RFI, the Period of Performance is defined as time to achieve 6000 SBU-E transport solutions for tactical assured voice and data, and ancillaries, with delivery starting 1 NOV 2025 and completing by 1 MAR 2026. The licensing should be for the life of the product.
6	N/A	If there are additional hardware items (cables, etc.) associated with accomplishing Characteristics in Table 1, such as items 39 or 42, would the Government like us to include them in the Ancillary Kit, or show them separately?	Yes, additional hardware costs should be shown separately.
7	N/A	If the proposed solution to meet Table 1, Characteristic 16 is a different form factor than the dismounted version, would the Government prefer to see that at the same quantity breaks listed in Table 2? Or is there a percentage of each quantity break that we should assume will be mounted form factor(s)?	Yes, provide same quantity breaks for dismounted and mounted configurations, as listed in Table 2.
8	N/A	Is it the Government's intent for the SBU-E Transport Hardware to also have a Beyond Line of Sight capability?	the SBUE MANET Network does not need to provide BLOS capability
9	N/A	For Table 1, Characteristic 16, sub-bullet #2, we assume this means that the SBU-E mounted hardware should be able to be installed in an existing vehicle radio shelf. Is that correct? Is the interoperability mentioned for the HMS and SINCGARS radios themselves (such as via a RoIP capability)?	Yes sub- bullet #2 refers to the ability of the solution to be installed either into the existing mounts of the HMS or Legacy ASIP radios or replace mounts, but use the same "space claim" of where they currently reside in the vehicle.

There is no requirement to be interoperable with either HMS waveforms or legacy SINCGARS.

10	RFI Section 3.1	To allow the US Army sufficient time to respond to and incorporate submitted question responses, respectfully request an extension for the submission of White Papers for two weeks following answers to questions for vendors to provide a full and complete response.	Extensions are not being considered at this time due to accelerated nature of the project.
11	General	To ensure offerors have a clear understanding of requirements, how involved will NSA be in the evaluation of the SBU-E product?	Currently, NSA will participate in approval of the system TRANSEC plan. Currently, NIAP standards are expected to be released in FY27.
12	General	Are there any SWaP requirements that are critical for mounted or dismount fielding of this radio?	Dismounted SWAP is desired to be less than the HMS Leader Radio requirements of:

Size less than 67 cubic inches including antennas and ancillaries.

Weight less than or equal to 4.75 lbs.

Power requirements should allow for the radio to operate on OEM battery power for at least 8 hours while meeting all other performance requirements.

Mounted SWAP should allow for integration in or on vehicles per Platform Integration rows 16,17, 18 of table 1. Peak power consumption should be less than or equal to 15 amps at 28VDC (420 watts).

13	General	How will this radio be evaluated to verify that this solution meets the user's needs? Will this be though a test event or standalone product qualification against the requirements set post RFI phase?	This RFI is being issued to assess the availability of products capable of satisfying the characteristics described herein. Responses should include technical data and test results to support claims of product performance capability. There are no other test events planned for this project as part of the ongoing market research.
14	General	Will the US Government provide clarity with respect to the solicitation vehicle contemplated for the procurement detailed within the RFI (FAR 12, OTA, etc.)?	Information gained through ongoing market research will inform procurement strategies related to any future procurements related to this project. Because of the accelerated nature of the project the Army is interested in learning whether existing MA IDIQs and fair opportunity competitions may be appropriate to fill future needs.
15	General	Does the Army intend to award to one vendor or to multiple vendors?	Information gained through ongoing market research will inform procurement strategies related to any future procurements related to this project
16	General	How does the Army plan to test or evaluate one o multiple vendor to determining true-performance?	Depending on the procurement strategy selected the Army has a range of options available to satisfy product test and evaluation requirements ranging from reliance on COTS certifications to full operational field testing. The results of the ongoing market research will inform Army decisions regarding testing path forward.
17	General	Please confirm all vendors shall be compliant with 2020 NDAA SEC. 168. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS LACKING CERTAIN RESILIENCY FEATURES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under subsection (b), none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2020 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the procurement of a current or future Department of Defense communications program of record, and the Department may not otherwise procure a current or future communications program of record, unless the communications equipment—

(1) mitigates geolocation of a transmission that would allow a like echelon enemy force to target the user;

(2) securely communicates classified information in a contested communications environment that includes operationally representative jamming;

(3) reduces, within two years of continued development and upgrades, electronic signature and susceptibility to geolocation by using low probability of intercept/detect (LPI/LPD) waveforms, or other capability that would provide the same resiliency on the battlefield; and

(4) utilizes a waveform that is either made available through the Department of Defense Waveform Information Repository, or is a commercial off the shelf (COTS) waveform available for government licensing with waveform analysis through the Joint Tactical Networking Center (JTNC) Tactical Communications Marketplace.	Yes
	18	RFI Section 2.0	Are there other systems/tools/accessories this radio is expected to integrate with?	Yes, currently the solution is expected to integrate with products to include, but not limited to, Nett Warrior End User Device (EUD) and tablet.
	19	RFI Section 2.0	Where in the broader network will this radio be integrated into and what is the interop requirement with those networks?	It is antiicipated that operations will include Platoon Leader and above connection to company TAK server and connection to IL5 SBU-E cloud.
	20	RFI Section 3.4.2	Shall vendors assume upgrade of future waveforms will be required as typical for software designed radios (SDR)?	Yes, assume upgrades of future waveforms will be required.
	21	RFI Section 3.4.5	US Army heavy mechanized divisions require communication with aircraft. Do you have a requirement to support fast moving or high altitude aircraft? If so, please provide requirements.	No,currently there is no requirement to support fixed wing aircraft.
	22	Section 3.4.5	A Heavy Mechanized Division includes rotary wing assets such as UH-60s. What are the requirements for air to ground interoperability?	The current requirements are radio install into Aviation Information Sytem Demo Kits inside rotary wing aircraft in a Combat Aviation Brigade
	23	RFI Section 3.4.9	What integration services or engineering services are required to be provided with the radio? Will these services be provided directly to the Army/Gov't or through a prime contractor? (Timeframe of services, maintenance, ongoing training, etc.)	RFI response should describe proposed integration or engineering services as required.
	24	RFI Section 3.4.10	Will the US Army update its RFI ROM request to require a complete list of items to install a vehicular kit to include by not limited to: antennas to support the radio’s bands, cabling, mounts, hand mics, fill cables, etc? This will allow for a complete understanding of cost estimates which is necessary for acquisition strategy.	US Army will not update RFI ROM Request. RFI response should describe complete list of hardware to install proposed vehicle kit.
	25	Q5	Will the US Army update Question 5 to add a sub-question if an offeror states it does not have hop limits, please describe the actual benefits and limitations of no hop limits? For example, area of coverage or sustainable data rate over certain number of hops. A networking system can be implemented without any explicit hop limit but suffer significant degradation of performance with increased number of hops until the traffic is unusable due to accumulated reliability limit or accumulated latency, which may cause harm to the network performance.

In addition, singular emphasis on number of hops without specifying actual coverage requirement could also introduce unintended effect of rewarding a solution that have short per hop range, therefore requires higher number of hops to cover the same area as a solution with a long hop range therefore requiring fewer number of hops for same or better coverage. Considering above, can the government specify what operational benefit is desired? Can the government clarify how this will be verified?	Hops can extend the reach of the network. Respondents should describe their systems hop limits and the impact of them on overall network throughput and connectivity. This information is needed to properly architectect the network to scale from team to division size formations. Refer to Rows 12,13 and Section 3.4.4, 3.4.5.
	26	Q6	Is the maximum number of nodes listed for an entire network or limited to a single radio frequency subnet?	The maximum number of nodes listened is for an entire network.
	27	Q7	Are the terrain performance requirement descriptions all referenced for common 2-node point-to-point performance?	Table 1, Rows 7 and 8 refer to 2-node point-to-point. Table 1, Rows 10, 11, 12, and 13 assume a Company-level network.
	28	Q9	Can government clarify what is considered Assured Voice?	RFI response should describe how design ensures voice communications are maintained under the various conditions and data loads.
	29	Q10-13	How many dismount and mounted radio configurations should the vendor consider for a Heavy Mechanized Division?	For purposes of this RFI, assume a 2,777 mounted and 3,223 dismounted quantity.
	30	Q14-15	The RFI indicates that this product will be an integral part of a Command and Control System. Can it be assumed the product required to meet MIL-STD-188-125 for ground-based C4I systems?	No, for the purposes of this RFI, MIL-STD-188-125 is not applicable.
	31	Q14-15	The RFI indicates that this product will be used by forward-deployed army units. Can it be assumed the product required to meet MIL-DTL-53072H?	No, for the purposes of this RFI, MIL-DTL-53072H is not applicable.
	32	Q19	SBU-E keys may be generated/distributed via the DoD EKMS/KMI system or a proprietary/commercial system, which does not provide security assurances of the EKMS/KMI system. What is the expectation of the type of key management/distribution system?	For the purposes of this RFI, proprietary/commercial system is acceptable.
	33	Q25	How will the Army enforce strict TRANSEC policies and protocols on commercial SBUE systems to ensure consistent security across different operational contexts?	The Army will manage in accordance with the approved System TRANSEC Plan at that time of approval.
	34	Q25-26	Are RED key management and human readable key management acceptable for TRANSEC and COMSEC?	Currently, RED key management is not anticipated for SBUE.

35	Q28	Will the US Army confirm it will field 2 – 3 Brigades with various vendor solutions, prior to production buy, to test the capabilities utilizing peer adversary technologies? This will allow the USG to gain an in-depth understanding of the limits of industry offerings to best inform contested resiliency and a well thought out procurement decision.	Army fielding plans and procurement strategies are being developed at this time utilizing information gained through ongoing market research. Industry is encouraged to provide testing data to support claims of performance capabilities as this will assist with the assessment of industry's ability to ramp up and meet the accelerated schedule associated with this project.
36	Q28	How does the US Army envision solutions will provide LPI/ LPD in a low noise environment such as dense foliage, air to ground, rural environments, etc.?	The purpose of the market research is to obtain Industry solutions to help inform the product strategy. Assumption is Industry partners will provide their solution for LPI/LPD in a low noise environment.
37	Q28	Is cryptographically generated TRANSEC required?	Yes
38	Q28	How will TRANSEC be evaluated?	The Army will manage in accordance with the approved System TRANSEC Plan at that time of approval.
39	Q28	What is the minimum number of channels considered acceptable for sufficient TRANSEC resiliency?	Industry should identify number of channels necessary to execute their unique solution and be considered acceptable for sufficient TRANSEC resiliency. The Army does not want to constrain solutions by offering a minimum number.
40	Q28	Baselining both Industry and the US Army’s definition and understanding of the term “resiliency” is needed to ensure fair and unambiguous requirements. Will the US Army update the RFI to define resiliency using the Joint Tactical Network Center (JTNC) definition of resiliency standard?	RFI will not be updated, though currently the JTNC definition of resliency will be used, i.e., Resiliency maintains reliable operations in the face of interference, failtures, and adverse conditions.
41	Q28	How is the Army going to validate resiliency features for contested environments? What are the requirements for LPD/LPI?	Currently, products may be subjected to lab and field evaluation for resiliency against Electronic Warfare. The results of the market research may inform requirements for LPD/LPI.
42	Q30	What backup and recovery plans are in place to manage potential disruptions caused by zero trust enforcement, ensuring continuity of operations under adverse conditions?	Army stance is currently not fully defined in relation to backup and recovery plans to manage potential disruiptions by zero trust enforcement.
43	Q30	How is zero trust implemented in a single device?	Army stance is currently not fully defined for how zero trust will be implemented in a single device. The results of market research may inform requirements in relation to zero trust implementation in a single device.
44	Q30	Can the Army elaborate on how zero trust implementation will be managed in (DDIL) environments, and what impact this might have on overall mission performance?	Army stance is currently not fully defined in relation to how zero trust implementation will be managed in Disruptyed, Degraded, Intermittent and Low-bandwidth (DDIL) environments. The results of market research may inform requirements in relation to how zero trust implentation will be managed in DDIL environments.
45	Q30	How does the Army plan to measure and mitigate any potential performance degradation or increased resource consumption resulting from the implementation of zero trust security measures?	Arny stance is currently not fully defined in relation to measuring and mitigating any potential performance degradation or increased resource consumption resulting from the implementation of Zero Trust. The results of market research may inform requirements in relation to mitigating potential performance degradation or increased resource consumtpion resulting from the implementation of Zero Trust.
46	Q31	Will the army define the minimum amount of spectrum denial (bandwidth, SNR and time/duty cycle, etc.) that the government means by "DDIL?"	Army stance is currently not fully defined in relation to spectrum denial and DDIL. The results of the market research may inform requirements in relation to operating under spectrum denial conditions, such as DDIL environments.
47	Q32	Will the US Army specify how many dismount and vehicular antennas the vendor’s solution uses to cover global spectrum requirements? Including what spectrum certifications are required for host nations coordination?	RFI response should describe design for anntennas to support UHF, L, S, and C bands for up to 2,777 mounted and 3,223 dismounted. The Army is interested in existing or in-process spectrum certifications for your solution.
48	Q32-35	The SBU-E radio RFI indicates that an entire Mechanized infantry Division will need to be outfitted. What spectrum requirements (bands and bandwidths) are applicable to ensure real-world spectrum management for a Division deployment?	For the purposes of this RFI, UHF, L, S, C Bands are required.
49	Q33	The requirement of MIMO seems to be an overly restrictive specification in that it specifies a certain implementation, versus a capability. MIMO is a specific radio implementation that itself does not translate to a specific performance requirement. If a radio can meet the requirements otherwise listed, but does not use multiple antenna and RF chains required by MIMO technology, is it considered an eligible or non-eligible solution?	No, MIMO is not specifically required, but the proposed solution should provide approximately equivalent performance in terms of reach: node count, data rates, spectrum use and other performance measures listed in this RFI.
50	Q34	What is the minimum number of operational channels required for any given frequency band?	The Army will utilize the responses of this RFI to identify the appropriate number of operational channels required for any given frequency band.
51	Q37	Is the battery required to support 8 hours at full 50 MBPS transmission and reception traffic load?	Yes, and the RFI response should describe estimated battery life under the operating conditions and performance characteristics outlined in this RFI.
52	Q39-40	What are the security requirements for the near field communications requirements such as bluetooth and wi-fi?	After the Army has had an opportunity to assess Industry solutions, the security requirements for near field communications will be defined.
53	Q41	Question 41 indicates the requirement for simultaneous connection to an advantaged node. Is a true simultaneous instance requirement? If so please define the latency requirement.	The purpose of this RFI is to gain insight into the ability of products to provide simultaneous connection to an advantage node, for the purpose of extending the range of the network. Request Industry provide product characteristics that will help define the performance goals.
54	Q42	Seamless integration with legacy networks provides an “ease of use” factor to the network. Will the US Army update its RFI to require respondents to detail their approach to integrating with legacy networks. (i.e. SINCGARS, TSM, MUOS)? If required, how will connecting to high assurance networks be handled?	There is no requirement for interoperability with legacy networks, however response could describe proposed solutions for interoperability with legacy networks.
55	Paragraph 1	With deliveries expected to start 1NOV25, when does the ARMY expect to have POs/contracts in place?	Award forecasts will be made after the Army has had an opportunity to assess industry responses to this RFI with emphasis on production lead times and any accelerated solutions provided.
56	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1	Nowhere withing the Characteristics of SBU-E Transport for Tactical Assured Voice and Data is there a requirement for LPD, LPI or AJ operations. As our Army faces near-peer adversaries with robust EW/Jamming Capabilities, Is the government going to make operations in a contested/denied environment part of either Threshold or Objective Requirements?	In response to this RFI, solutions provided by Industry will help inform the Army's decision as to threshold and objective performance requirements. The characteristics of LPD, LPI, and AJ are referenced in Table 1, Row 28.
57	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 7	What frequency should be assumed when conducting a link budget for 50Mbps at 5km? What antenna gain should be assumed when conducting a link budget for 50Mbps at 5km? Are directional antennas allowed?	The frequencies to be assumed include L,S,C Bands. RFI Reponse should describe antenna gain and design for network. For the purposes of this RFI, directional antennas will not likely be suitable for dismounted and Mobile Mounted employment.
58	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 9	How is assured voice defined?	RFI response should describe how design ensures voice communications are maintained under the various conditions and data loads.
59	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 16	Topic Platform Integration, ROW 16, Describe your ability to mount your proposed solution into vehicle platforms in the following scenarios: 1. Outside-the-turret “Jerk and run” integration kit 2. Integration into existing vehicle mount installation kits (i.e. HMS or SINCGARS).

- What vehicle platforms will radios be integrated on?

(Other subquestions to this one question are below)	Tracked, for example M1, M2, M113, M109, and wheeled vehicles in an Armored Bridgade Combat Team, rotary wing aircraft, for example UH-60, CH-47, AH-64, in a Combat Aviation Brigade, and wheeled vehicles in a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, along with wheeled vehicles in Division headquarters and enabler brigades.
	60	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 16	For mounting in existing installations kits (HMS/SINCGARS) is the government expecting the radio to draw power from the existing mounts?	Yes, for the purposes of this RFI, the solution is expected to draw power from the existing mounts.
	61	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 16	If mounted in a platform with a turret does the government want the radio to work at different crew stations via the vehicular intercom boxes and through the slip ring?	Yes, currently the government wants the radio to work at different crew stations. Yes, currently the Government desires the radio to work through the slip ring if mounted in a platform with a turret.
	62	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 16	What is the governments definition of a “jerk and run kit”?	For purposes of this RFI, a "jerk and run kit" refers to a technologically simple mount where the SBU-E Transport Hardware is able to be quickly and easily removed from its mounted configuration and used in a dismounted configuration. It can include mounting external to the Armored Vehicle Turret and be powered by its own battery while installed.
	63	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 31	Section 168 of the 2020 NDAA restricts DoD from allocating funds for procuring current or future communications programs of record unless they meet specific resiliency criteria. Will the ARMY conduct EW testing to validate manufacturers’ claims about resilience and LPD? If so, what AJ and LPD requirements will each solution be tested against?	Currently, products may be subjected to lab and field evaluation for resiliency against Electronic Warfare. The results of the market research may inform requirements for AJ/LPD/LPI.
	64	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 36	How many multiple frequencies bands will require support?	Currently, L, S, and C Bands will require support, with a desire for UHF.
	65	Paragraph 3.4.1 Table 1 Row 41	Can the government provide a definition of Advantaged Node?	The purpose of this RFI is to gain insight into the ability of products to provide an advantage node, which has the purpose of extending the range of the network.
	66	Paragraph 3.4.2	Does the ARMY prefer for the NGC2 radios to be based on an SDR architecture, providing continual waveform enhancements to stay ahead of evolving adversarial EW threats?	The Army supports continued SDR architecture.
	67	Paragraph 3.3.4	The Army is requestioning “immediate available” solutions; why is modeling and simulation allowed for test results?	RFI response should describe all modeling and simulation, lab, and field-based testing to inform Mobile Ad hoc Network architecture development.
	68	Paragraph 3.3.5	Will test results be validated by a third part?	Yes, currently test results will be validated by a third party.
	69	Paragraph 3.4.9	Describe your ability to provide your solution as-a-Service. Does the government plan to use a As-a-Service Model since the Pilot effort for Radio as a Service OTA was just canceled?	RFI response should provide whether Industry Partner is willing to provide their solution as-a-Service. This does not indicate Government's stance or interest in relation to as-a-Service acquisition.
	70	Paragraph 3.4.10	Table 2 requests Base Price of Solution + Ancillary Kit (antennas, headset, etc), can the government provide more detail of what needs to be supported with the ancillary kit?	RFI submission should break out of all necessary ancillary components to implement their solution and meet characteristics within the RFI. All necessary components will compose the ancillary kit.
	71	Paragraph 3.4.10	Table 2 requests Base Price of Install Kits/Adaptor, can the government provide what vehicle platforms kits will be installed on?	Vehicle platforms include: Tracked, for example M1, M2, M113, M109, and wheeled vehicles in an Armored Bridgade Combat Team, rotary wing aircraft, for example UH-60, CH-47, AH-64, in a Combat Aviation Brigade, and wheeled vehicles in a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, along with wheeled vehicles in Division headquarters and enabler brigades.
	72	3.4.1 – Table 1 (Row 5)	This seems to refer to certain vendor’s marketing claim that their solution does not have hop limits without specifying the actual benefits, for example, area of coverage or sustainable data rate over certain number of hops. A networking system can be implemented without any explicit hop limit but suffer significant degradation of performance with increased number of hops until the traffic is unusable due to accumulated reliability limit or accumulated latency, which may cause harm to the network performance. For this reason, most common relay protocols such as internet protocol implement a TTL (Time to Live) mechanism to prevent harmful effect of a packet relayed forever. A hop limit is a good engineering practice rather than negative as portrayed by a certain vendor’s marketing materials. Furthermore, singular emphasis on number of hops without specifying actual coverage requirements could also introduce perverted effect of rewarding a solution with short per hop range, therefore requiring higher number of hops to cover the same area as a solution with a longer hop ranges therefore requiring fewer number of hops for the same or better coverage.

Considering above, can the government specify what operation benefit is desired? Can the government clarify how this will be verified?	Hops can extend the reach of the network. Respondents should describe their systems hop limits and the impact of them on overall network throughput and connectivity. This information is needed to properly architectect the network to scale from team to division size formations. Refer to Rows 12,13 and Section 3.4.4, 3.4.5.
	73	3.4.1 – Table 1 (Row 9)	Can government clarify what is considered Assured Voice?	RFI response should describe how design ensures voice communications are maintained under the various conditions and data loads.
	74	3.4.1 – Table 1 (Row 33)	The requirement of MIMO seems to be an overly restrictive specification in that it specifies a certain implementation. MIMO is a specific radio implementation that itself does not translate to a specific performance requirement. If a radio can meet the requirements otherwise listed, but does not use multiple antenna and RF chains as required by MIMO technology, is it considered an eligible or non-eligible solution?	No, MIMO is not specifically required, but the proposed solution should provide approximately equivalent performance in terms of reach: node count, data rates, spectrum use and other performance measures listed this RFI.
	75	N/A	Is it possible to extend the due date to 2 May 2025? Even with the advance notice, there is still not enough time to generate an RFI that includes pricing. Additionally, many personnel are out of the office during the Easter Weekend, which impacts the ability to provide a comprehensive answer for the government to consider.	Extensions are not being considered at this time due to the accelerated nature of the project.
	76	N/A	Is it possible to extend the page count to 20 pages so we can provide sufficient detail on our solution? Alternatively, would the government consider not counting the supporting documentation as part of the page count.	Yes. Page count may be extended to 20 and supporting technical and commercial documentation will not be considered as part of the page count
	77	N/A	The RFI refers to 6000 units. Is this quantity referring to radio nodes or end user devices? Can you provide an example of Govt furnished end user device? Will the government consider commercial cellular end user devices?	This 6000 quantity refers to radio nodes. An example of a GFE End User Device (EUD) is the Nett Warrior EUD device. Yes, we'd consider commercial EUDs.
	78	N/A	While the RFI refers to MANET, will the government consider a MANET solution integrated with 5G?	Yes, the government will consider a MANET solution integrated with 5G.
	79	N/A	With regards to question 22, can you provide an example of a headset Army would like to use?	For the purposes of this RFI, there is no specific example headset to be used. Wireless connection between a headset and your solution is preferred.
	80	N/A	Can you provide some more information on how the government would like this hardware in an “as-a-service” model? Would that model include device management, device maintenance, etc? Or alternatively, would this be an equipment lease model?	The as-a-Service model could include, but not be limited to, device management, maintenance, training, and general product support, in addition to possible equipment swaps to meet desired mission outcomes. It would be a subscription model.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Apr 22, 2025.