SOURCES SOUGHT
10 -- Request for Information to
- Notice Date
- 1/14/2011
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 332995
— Other Ordnance and Accessories Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- AMCOM Contracting Center - Missile (AMCOM-CC), ATTN: AMSAM-AC, Building 5303, Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5280
- ZIP Code
- 35898-5280
- Solicitation Number
- W31P4Q-11-R-0063
- Response Due
- 2/7/2011
- Archive Date
- 4/8/2011
- Point of Contact
- Oksana, (256) 842-7404
- E-Mail Address
-
AMCOM Contracting Center - Missile (AMCOM-CC)
(oksana.joye@us.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- It is recognized that industry and other United States Government (USG) agencies could possess information relevant to development of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability, Increment 2, Intercept (IFPC Inc2-I) system concept and/or critical technologies that are not currently available to the Cruise Missile Defense System (CMDS) Project Office. For this reason, and in order to create an open environment for future competitions that may be associated with any IFPC Inc2-I Program, the CMDS Project Office is providing this Request for Information (RFI). The primary purpose of the IFPC Inc2-I program is to enhance counter measures for rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) threats. Contact POC: All questions or requests regarding this notice may be addressed to Oksana Joye, Contract Specialist, via e-mail oksana.joye@us.army.mil or sent: ATTN: Oksana Joye, Department of the Army, US Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Contracting Cent, CCAM-SM-T, Building 5303, Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. No telephone requests will be accepted. This is a pre-solicitation RFI issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.2. The CMDS Project Office is conducting a market survey of concepts that can provide enhanced protection for fixed and semi-fixed positions against RAM threats. No award is intended as a result of this request. The USG will not pay for information received. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the USG to form a binding contract. The CMDS Project Office is interested in receiving suggestive information on IFPC Inc2-I concepts that can be quickly implemented and fielded at a reasonable cost that use open architecture constructs to enable integration with existing force and future Command and Control (C2) capabilities. Either a total system concept or information on key components is being sought. Within this RFI, a firing system is envisioned to include all the components necessary to execute the engagement of a RAM threat given receipt of an external C2 cue and authority to engage. The Accelerated IFPC Inc2-I System Requirements: Concepts proposed are expected to contain the attributes described below. All materiel solutions will be considered except conventional gun/armament based solutions since the USG has already completed exhaustive reviews of these concepts. Utilization of existing capabilities and/or modifications of current fielded army or DoD systems to meet the IFPC Inc2-I requirements is strongly encouraged. Regardless of concept, the key system attributes for IFPC Inc2-I are: responsiveness to threat systems and the ability to defeat the threat systems. The threat timeline forces a response time of about 13 seconds, which includes the time from external sensor detection to interceptor engagement (mission kill). The IFPC Inc2-I system will be able to receive a cue from sensors currently deployed with Brigade Combat Teams and have the ability to seamlessly integrate into an Air and Missile Defense (AMD) C2 architecture when required. USG analysis of lethality/kinetic energy requirements to defeat likely threat systems is available to respondents upon request within the limitations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Arms Export Control Act restrictions. Prior to identifying how each component is broken down, a discussion on the system's overall operational concept should be provided. The operational concept should begin with the fire control given a radar track/sensor cue, direction to engage and follow the required sequence of events for a mission kill. The ability to provide additional insights that describe the maturity and demonstrated performance of each component are desired as this will be helpful to better understand the likelihood of availability the proposed concepts for relatively near term use. Potential candidate materiel solutions include, but should not be limited to: Missile Interceptor Concepts: These concepts should address the specifics of each component: launcher, interceptor, fire control sensor and control system. Specifics on each component are identified in the component attributes below. In describing the concept, details on specific maturity of each component and any technological aspects which require maturing should be highlighted. USG missile interceptor design information is available to respondents upon request within limitations of the ITAR and Arms Export Control Act restrictions. Of particular interest is any concept that is able to effectively utilize existing Army/DoD sensors such as the Sentinel radar to control the interceptor accurately enough to defeat the incoming threat. Directed Energy Concepts: Directed energy concepts may include lasers, particle beam, microwave, millimeter wave, radio frequency, acoustic and electromagnetic launch concepts. These concepts should address the specifics of each component: fire unit, control system, thermal control subsystem and power subsystem. In addition, the proposed tactical packaging of each system and intended effects should be described in detail. Definition of the specific technical maturity and/or prior use of each component should be included. Respondents are requested to include the predicted environment and weather related limitations for any directed energy concepts. Other Innovative Concepts: Should there be non-missile/directed energy or an integrated directed energy/missile solution proposed, a complete description of the system concept along with the technical maturity of the individual system components should be provided. Specifics on how this concept would be demonstrated and effects validated shall be included. Performance requirements: The preliminary key objectives for the IFPC Inc2-I performance envelope are described below. To some extent, performance can be traded for significant cost and schedule advantages. Probability to detonate/deflagrate RAM threats of with a confidence level greater than 90% (single shot is preferred). An IFPC Inc2-I system shall be able to protect a defended area of 16km2 against all RAM threats: Demonstrate the ability to be supported by existing operational battle management architectures; A firing system shall be able to engage 3-8 simultaneous threats arriving from different threat axis; Firing systems, either individually or coupled, shall provide 3600 coverage of inbound threats; The firing system shall be able to engage a minimum of 30 threats without requiring a reload; Minimize collateral damage; the likely minimum engagement range for firing systems is expected to be ~2.5kilometers, however, this will be situationally dependent. The IFPC Inc2-I system shall be able to transition from road-march configuration to emplacement in less than thirty minutes in a modular configuration. The RAM threat is identified in Annex 1. Additional RAM threat information is available upon request for companies eligible to receive and store SECRET level information. Cost and Schedule Estimates: As part of this response, a detailed schedule and a cost breakout is requested in constant FY 2011 dollars. This will enable reviewers to help determine concept viability in terms of affordability. The cost data should be provided in accordance with level three work breakdown structure detail as defined in MIL-HDBK-881A (however, other presentation formats are acceptable). Additionally, the anticipated cost for the theoretical first unit (T1) of each major component should be provided. Relevant assumptions to include the learning curve used to achieve this average unit manufacturing cost should be provided. Man-month loading should be broken out by acquisition phase then by component then by functional area. The USG is interested in proposed system concepts to include working prototypes (if available) that demonstrate affordability, technology maturity and the system's ability to meet desired programmatic constraints. Hardware, software, and model & simulation demonstrations along with testing data that are available should support concept performance estimates presented in responses. Respondents are requested to provide a cost and schedule estimate for full scale demonstrations of the approach using prototype(s) of the proposed system. It is the Government's desire that production of 50-100 stand-alone IFPC Inc2-I systems be completed within 3 years of a successful Full-Rate Production (FRP) decision. Key assessment criteria include: Expected performance Cost and schedule System complexity and ability to integrate within existing battle command architectures Technical maturity and developmental risk of the integrated concept and elements Extent to which existing capabilities and hardware are utilized. Contracting Strategy: As part of the accelerated acquisition process and in concert with the guidance within the Weapon System Reform Act, it is the intent of the CMDS Project Office to execute the IFPC Inc2-I development program with a competitive Technology Development (TD)/prototyping phase, followed by Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phase, followed by a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract vehicle. The TD Phase is anticipated to be at least 2 competitively awarded cost-type contracts where awardees will be incentivized to meet schedule goals with specific performance milestones. The EMD and LRIP Phases are anticipated to be options included in the proposals for the initial TD phase. FRP will be a separate fixed-price contract. Component Attributes: The key goals for IFPC Inc2-I is affordability and timely delivery of the system to the Warfighter. The following are key attributes that should be described for each component. Technical Fire Control: The Technical Fire Control (TFC) system ties the other major end items for IFPC Inc2-I together into an integrated system. The TFC connects the IFPC Inc2-I firing system with external C2 and surveillance sensors. It provides personnel manning the IFPC Inc2-I system with a method to interact with the system (man-machine interface). Proposed concepts have the flexibility to allocate engagement sequence functions to the TFC, the fire direction subsystem or interceptor components. However, all functions in the engagement, system control and maintenance should be clearly identified and allocated to specific components. Responder assumptions on amount of new software development, amount and details on utilization of existing software are requested. Fire Control Sensor: The sensor component will have the required capability to support end-to-end engagements of the entire RAM threat set. The sensor will use a cue to acquire a specific threat from the TFC, provide precise target tracking in support threat acquisition and assess mission success. While there may be an inherent surveillance capability provided by the sensor, the primary mission and specific requirements are to be focused on detecting, tracking and providing required support for a successful engagement. Interceptor (Kinetic or Directed Energy): The proposed intercept design shall identify key components and their associated cost. Concepts shall identify the pedigree of each component and describe any use in previous systems. The proposed intercept concept will be demonstrated in its final tactical configuration prior to Milestone B. Launcher: The launcher shall provide the means to house, protect and launch the number of interceptors needed to meet the number of engagements prior to reload. If a new launcher, assumptions on its functions, weight, power and transportability shall be stated. A specific timeline to demonstrate how the launcher is to be integrated into the IFPC Inc2-I demonstration prior to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) should be provided. ANNEX -UNCLAS Indirect Fire and the Operational Environment Documentation available upon request (IAW limitations of ITAR and Arms Export Control Act restrictions) -IFPC CONOP -SECRET Threat appendix -USG interceptor and sensor design approach -USG kinetic energy analysis for defeat of threat systems RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS The system concept, technological ideas and programmatic structures provided by respondents will be used to augment and refine the planned Government solicitation for the IFPC Inc2-I system. These ideas must be provided in the form of a whitepaper described below. Each whitepaper should address a single system concept. The information is requested by 1700 hours (CST), 7 February 2011 in the form of unclassified, electronic Microsoft Word files (1 file per topic) (recommended less than 8 Megabyte) attached to your email transmittal. In addition to the Word document, an excel spreadsheet detailing the break-out of the expected system cost may be included. The file name should contain the responders name (i.e., IFPC Inc2-I -XYZ Corp). If there are multiple concepts provided by the same responder, the file name should be provided. Whitepapers submitted in response to this solicitation are limited to 30 pages, single-spaced, 11 font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins, with embedded figures (if used) in Microsoft Word. The whitepapers should be organized according to the section outline below. Anything beyond 30 pages will be discarded. 1. Contractor or Agency Identification 2. Concept description: Describe the overall approach to meet the RAM threat capability gap. Identify the major component of the proposed system concept. Define the technological maturity of each component. Include substantiating modeling, simulation, or testing data, supporting your own contributions. Emphasize the innovative aspect of your idea and why it is feasible. 3. Concept Risks and Issues: Identify the key technical and programmatic risks associated with the proposed concept. Define any critical issues that must be overcome in order for this concept to succeed. 4. Historical Approaches (if any) Where have these components been previously used? Have they been used in the form factors being proposed in this concept? What was the outcome of testing? 5. Cost Data: Identify all assumptions used in developing the costing data for this concept (will not count against page count if broken out separately). Provide details as described above on each component and its associated cost. 6. Schedule: Identify the schedule this concept could be most efficiently developed and deployed. Include all assumptions. 7. Government Furnished Equipment/Information (GFE/GFI): Identify all assumptions as to what GFE/GFI is required to execute this system concept. This should include radios and vehicles as needed to make the system complete. Include the timeline on when GFE is required in order to meet program development timelines. 8. Summary: Describe why there is confidence this concept is the most effective in meeting this need. Interested responders who possess the means to properly store and work with classified information/hardware at the SECRET level may request additional threat information and concept documentation identified in the annex in writing or via e-mail. After validation of each interested responder's security accreditation and eligibility to receive this data, a complete copy along with the appropriate security classification guide (SCG) will be mailed to each validated responder. The whitepapers will be reviewed by Government personnel and their support contractors. All information provided will be adequately protected. Any proprietary information must be identified. To be reviewed, the statement "Releasable to Government Agencies and their supporting Contractors for Review Only" must accompany any proprietary submission. The Government reserves the right to request further clarification or request presentations to enhance our understanding of the respondent's submittal. All respondents will be notified of the disposition of their whitepaper. Material from respondent whitepapers, with the exception of identified proprietary information, may be incorporated into revisions of the IFPC Inc2-I Program Documentation to include future solicitations. Whitepapers that fail to comply with the instructions or present ideas not pertinent to IFPC Inc2-I may not be reviewed. In accordance with FAR 15.201 (e.), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. You may forward RFI responses to US Army Aviation and Missile Command, AMSAM-CCAM-SM-T, ATTN Oksana Joye, Contract Specialist, via e-mail oksana.joye@us.army.mil or sent: ATTN: Oksana Joye, Department of the Army, US Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Contracting Cent, CCAM-SM-T, Building 5303, Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. Request must include: company name, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code, classified mailing address, and appropriate point of contact information. All requests for additional threat information must be received within 12 calendar days of the date of this notice.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/1b8fa5823af89e6460a2f251a82efbb6)
- Place of Performance
- Address: AMCOM Contracting Center - Missile (AMCOM-CC) ATTN: AMSAM-AC, Building 5303, Martin Road Redstone Arsenal AL
- Zip Code: 35898-5280
- Zip Code: 35898-5280
- Record
- SN02361142-W 20110116/110114234609-1b8fa5823af89e6460a2f251a82efbb6 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |