SOURCES SOUGHT
16 -- F-16 Missile Warning System (MWS) Sensors Purchase
- Notice Date
- 1/14/2016
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 334511
— Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFLCMC / AFSC / AFNWC - HILL AFB, ., Hill AFB, Utah, 84056, United States
- ZIP Code
- 84056
- Solicitation Number
- FA8232-14-R-MWS4
- Archive Date
- 3/1/2016
- Point of Contact
- Vick A. Peltier, Phone: 801-777-3280
- E-Mail Address
-
vick.peltier@us.af.mil
(vick.peltier@us.af.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- 1. NOTICE: This is not a solicitation, but rather a Sources Sought Synopsis to determine potential sources for information and planning purposes only. This Sources Sought is a follow-up to FA8232-14-R-MWS, FA8232-14-R-MWS2, and FA8232-14-R-MWS3. 1.1 This Sources Sought Synopsis is not intended to direct or influence any financial or resource investment from industry vendors. No financial obligations or commitments with or to the Government should be inferred. 1.2 The purpose of this Sources Sought is to conduct market research to determine if responsible sources exist, to assist in determining if this effort can be competitive and/or a total Small Business Set-Aside. The proposed North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) Code is 334511, which have a corresponding Size standard of 750 employees. The Government will use this information to determine the best acquisition strategy for this procurement. The Government is interested in all small businesses to include 8(a), Service-Disabled Veteran­ Owned, Hubzone, and Women-Owned small business concerns. The government requests that interested parties respond to this notice if applicable and identify your small business status to the identified NAICS code. Additionally, please provide any anticipated teaming arrangements, along with a description of similar services offered to the Government and to commercial customers for the past three years. Any responses involving teaming agreements should delineate between the work that will be accomplished by the prime and the work accomplished by the teaming partners. 2. Program Details: 2.1 The following information is provided to identify potential contractors who have the skills, experience, and knowledge required to successfully provide the described capability. The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and the Air National Guard (ANG) have a requirement for a Missile Warning System (MWS) for their F-16 aircraft. AFRC and ANG seek an MWS solution with the following key characteristics: a)Passive, automated protection capabilities against missile/projectile threats to F-16 aircraft, to include man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADs) b)Simultaneously perform with near-100% Probability of Declaration (PDEC) and near-zero False Alarm Rate (FAR) c)Integration into Pylon Integrating Dispenser System Universal (PIDSU), a wing-mounted pylon system, with near-4π steradian threat coverage of the F-16 d)Non-developmental system with proven high speed aircraft or proven tactical aircraft performance, preferably on F-16 aircraft 2.2 All Government communications (previous or current) regarding the AFRC and ANG MWS program, including Sources Sought Synopses, Requests for Information (RFIs) and Industry Days, should not be construed to establish a specific requirement for any components, subsystems, or capabilities. 3. Information Requested: 3.1 As part of its market research for the F-16 MWS program, the F-16 Program Office (AFLCMC/WWMB), Hill AFB, UT is seeking information and/or recommendations from industry. If your company or organization is interested in this potential contract, please address the following topics: a)Can you provide a PDEC-FAR correlation table for system performance in the F-16 operational (or similar) environment? b) AFRC and ANG do not have funding to support developmental systems. In order to validate system performance and maturity, source qualification and/or source validation test data may be required with each system proposal. The F-16 SPO is considering the use of a USAF laboratory facility to independently verify system performance. While AFRC and ANG may fund laboratory activities for this purpose, there are no plans to purchase vendor system(s) for qualification/validation test(s). Any system brought into the USAF laboratory may be subject to security and/or export restrictions. Is your organization willing to provide MWS hardware (anticipated to be two to three MWS sensors and one controller) for this purpose? What other hardware or software assets would be required to support testing of your system in the Government laboratory facility? Does your organization have production-representative hardware available for laboratory testing at this time? If not, when would production-representative hardware for testing become available? c) AFRC and ANG have invested heavily in PIDSU, and have interest in integrating any potential MWS solutions into these pylons. These pylons would be made available for upgrade to a MWS pylon configuration. AFRC and ANG desire to maintain all current PIDSU pylon functionality once MWS is installed. Does your organization's MWS pylon solution maintain all current PIDSU capabilities and functionalities? If not, what capabilities and functionalities are expected to change? d) In order to verify MWS integration into a PIDSU pylon, the F-16 SPO may require that production-representative PIDSU pylon prototypes, including MWS hardware, be provided along with proposals. Does your organization have production-representative MWS-integrated pylon prototypes? If not, when would production-representative MWS-integrated pylon prototypes be available? e) Does your organization possess the data rights and intellectual properties needed to manufacture your MWS pylon? If not, what organization or company holds the data rights and intellectual properties for your MWS pylon? f) AFRC and ANG envision an MWS pylon flying on each wing of the F-16. Due to current aircraft physical limitations, it may not be possible for USAF to add wires that directly connect the two pylons. The following wiring will be provided to connect each pylon to the F-16 countermeasures controller: • Power on discrete • Ready/Keep Alive discrete • Threat declaration discrete • MIL-STD-1553 bus (with the F-16 countermeasures controller as the bus controller) Given these constraints, no direct communication between pylons will be available. This leads to an expectation of an independent MWS in each pylon. The F-16 countermeasures controller can receive threat data (e.g. angle of arrival, time to go/time to intercept, etc.) over the 1553 bus from each pylon. The F-16 countermeasures controller will process this threat data and coordinate aircraft responses. Can your organization provide a successful MWS solution given the system configuration above? If so, describe your envisioned system architecture. Please identify bandwidth impact to the 1553 bus. What capabilities would this system provide? Does your system offer other capabilities that would not be supported by the configuration above? g) Given the constraints in Paragraph 3.1.f, does your organization see any alternatives to an independent MWS in each pylon? If so, describe your envisioned system architecture. Please identify bandwidth impact to the 1553 bus. What capabilities would this system provide? Please compare these alternatives with the architecture in Paragraph 3.1.f. Which solution, if any, do you recommend? Please explain your rationale. h) If additional aircraft wiring must be provided (e.g. wing-to-wing wiring) beyond the configuration described in Paragraph 3.1.f, what are the minimum number, size, and type of wires that would be required for MWS operation? Describe your envisioned system architecture for this configuration. What capabilities would this system provide? Government wiring costs (including material and labor) to support proposed system configurations may be evaluated with each contract proposal (i.e. potential impact to proposal cost). i) Has the performance of your organization's MWS been demonstrated in the F-16 operational (or similar) environment on a PIDSU pylon? If not, what modifications have been made to your MWS hardware and/or software to make your system suitable for operation in an F-16 PIDSU pylon? Have these modifications adversely affected your system's Technology Readiness Level (TRL)? What is your system's assessed TRL? j) There is wing flex and twist in the F-16 resulting in relative movement of up to 10 degrees between the fuselage and each pylon, and 20 degrees between sensors on opposite wing stations. For the architecture(s) envisioned in Paragraphs 3.1.f, 3.1.g and/or 3.1.h, please assess how the following concerns impact your system's performance: • Movement of pylons relative to F-16 Enhanced GPS/INS (EGI) data • Movement of pylons relative to each other, particularly the effect on any sensor overlap regions; due to wing flex and twist, sensor overlap regions will be dynamic k) What Support Equipment is required for 1) Operational Maintenance/Support, 2) Intermediate Maintenance/Support, and 3) Depot Maintenance/Support of your system? USAF strongly prefers to utilize common USAF Support Equipment (i.e. already in USAF inventory). Can you identify common USAF Support Equipment that is compatible with your system (e.g. MEON)? l) As a potential USAF weapons system, maintenance, sustainment and support of the F-16 Missile Warning System must be accomplished in US facilities by appropriately cleared personnel. Is your system produced (hardware and software) in the United States? If USAF acquires your system and requires future support or updates, will these requirements be fulfilled exclusively in the United States? In supporting your system, does your organization depend on any technical expertise residing outside of the United States? If your system was originally designed outside of the United States, has your organization taken any steps to acquire the technical and intellectual knowledge necessary to support the system entirely within the United States? m) Cybersecurity (CS, formerly Information Assurance), to include Anti-Tamper, will be integral in the acquisition, integration and fielding of the F-16 Missile Warning System. To appropriately assess a system's vulnerabilities (if selected), detailed understanding of the system's design architecture and components will be required by USAF. This data would be analyzed for CS purposes only. Would your organization be able and willing to provide: • Detailed system architectural data; • Supply chain pedigree for electronic components used to manufacture your system; • Functional data flows and usage within the system? Does your organization have experience with USAF/DoD CS processes? Does your organization have experience implementing CS vulnerability mitigation measures on complex electronic systems? Please provide any specific examples.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/OOALC/FA8232-14-R-MWS4/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Contractor's facility, United States
- Record
- SN03992562-W 20160116/160115083540-db79e97fbef0d37968f1ec4722fb56c7 (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 |