MODIFICATION
58 -- SMDC ARSTRAT requirement for Satellite Ground Station
- Notice Date
- 5/24/2005
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 334220
— Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- U.S. Army Strategic Command , XR W4T8 ARSPACE CONTRACTING BR, 350 Vandenberg St. Bldg 3, Peterson Air Force Base, CO 80914-4914
- ZIP Code
- 80914-4914
- Solicitation Number
- W91260RFI0003
- Response Due
- 6/8/2005
- Archive Date
- 8/7/2005
- Point of Contact
- Leah Pauls, 719-554-8448
- E-Mail Address
-
Email your questions to US Army Space Command
(leah.pauls@smdc-cs.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- The original RFI is modified to include answers to questions submitted during the first 10 calendar days of subject RFI. Questions and answers are published below for open review. Questions are annotated with the letter Q followed by a number. The associated answer follows with the letter A and the same number. Q1: In the Antenna Solution section there is a reference to system notes. Where are the system notes? Do these notes have minimum link budget requirements? A1: The Envisioned system (System notes) is a few categories down in the RFI. See paragraph 4 in original RFI. Q2: Is there an estimated weight limit for trailer system? A2: The weight is light weight to fit the mindset description to a highly mobile system. A fifth wheel type of equipment trailer would be too big. Q3: What is the maximum expected tracking rate? A3: TBD (LEO, Near Space, Atmospheric). Q4: Does the requirement for simultaneous operation of the wideband and narrow band links mean simultaneous operation over two different frequency bands? A4: Yes, we will be using several different bands to perform data download and command and control functions. Q5: Is the 54 Mbps minimum wideband data rate for full duplex operation, or are there different data rates required for the uplink and downlink? A5: The minimum 54 Mbps is required for the downlink.?We would like to have the capability to?uplink wideband data to other platforms in different frequencies but not at the 54 Mbps. Q6: What are the required interfaces between the Satellite Ground Station and the remainder of the system? A6: The interfaces should all be IPv6 compliant. Q7: Are you looking for 1 SATCOM terminal to provide simultaneous TT&C/C2 and mission datalinks to one platform asset at a time? A7:Yes, but consider multiple channels. Also acquire asset A/ disengage and focus on asset B/ reacquire asset A. Or, it might acquire and transmit to 2 assets at the same time. Q8: If not one (1) platform, what are the number of simultaneous platforms? A8: One to several, exact number TBD. Q9: Can you identify candidate theater based assets? A9: Space (i.e. TacSats), Near Space (i.e. HAAs), atmospheric (i.e. UAVs). Q10: Is the SGS strictly an Intermediate System or communications system node on the HMMWV trailer? A10: It is a mobile ground station (See answer to Q22). Q11: Will the SGS configuration also host tactical radios and co-located networking equipment? A11: Yes, and more than that. It can serve as a node or relay. Q12: Are these stations manned or unmanned for operation? A12: Manned. Q13: Are EW (AJ/LPI/D) factors of any concern to the TT&C and C2 links? A13: Yes. Q14: Will sensor downlinks via AFSCN including the Unified S Band (USB) upgrade (supports wider bandwidth downlinks) be a capability of interest? A14: Possibly. Q15: Can further clarification be provided on the wideband data rates such as an upper rate bound, or a maximum bandwidth constraint? A15: Not at this time. This ground station will satisfy a number of experimental requirements (see Q23). Q16: Can you provide specific frequency ranges in the C, X, and Ka bands of interest? A16: No, per answer above. Q17: What is the desired RF band change-over time for a terminal? A17: That is part of this RFI&as fast as possible. Q18: Can you provide nominal downlink transmitter EIRP data for each band? This will support FWCGS antenna sizing versus rate supported. A18: This will vary. Q19: Are all links to be provided to all platforms? A table correlating links to platforms would be helpful. A19: Not all platforms will require the same links. Q20: In addition to the network/communications services and applications described, does the Control System include any other tactical applications for TT&C, C2 and mission data processing/display or will external but co-located, in-field, and located else where users perform these functions? A20: Yes to both ideas. This is to be as flexible as possible. Q21: If yes to 1, what are the applications that will need to be supported by the SGS? This data will help us size and configure processing capabilities. A21: Besides the answers to Q1, internet connectivity and data transmission are absolutely necessary. Q22: Will connectivity to co-located and in-field users also be via SATCOM or will existing LAN, SWLAN, and tactical theater nets also be applied for connectivity? What are your preferences for inclusion in the SGS for FWC? A22: SATCOM and internet, in addition to plug-in LAN/WAN. This ground station will be used for experimentation and be a test bed itself, rather than an acquisition program. However, the technological spin-off might be considered for further development bey ond the Envisioned System. Q23: Is there intent for both local and remote (over AFSCN) SGS control? A23: Yes. Q24: Can you provide limits on dynamics of platforms. For example, speed and altitude, etc. for low altitude rapidly moving platforms? A24: Space, near space, atmospheric are the three classes of platforms. Q25: Does self-contained above imply AC power generation must be mounted on the same HMMWV trailer? A25: Yes. Q26: The sources sought notice mentioned an ROM. I take it from the balance of the text that the Army is looking for general approaches with respect to the technology in not necessarily a ROM price estimate. A26: We need a fairly reasonable estimate of costs associated with putting together the varying capabilities. We hope that all responding to this effort are aware of emerging technologies to use for modularity, to incorporate other technologies as they mat ure, i.e. the reference to the antenna. The design can be anything possible that is light-weight and highly mobile. The final thought is that this ground station must be in line with the Envisioned System description. Q27: &we currently have a baseline design into the Air Force for a AFSCN compatible Transportable. Our engineering and program development folks would be interested in briefing the Army on our approach and where the requirements may vary. As I understand i t sounds like your customer is looking for a budgetary estimate, w/ a more detailed communication on the specs. we could give a better estimate. Is your customer available for a 1 to 2 hr. meeting? A27: We cannot meet with individual vendors at this time. The ROM is a best guess for an Envisioned System solution. A28: Is there a permanent station segment as well as a mobile ground station? A28: No. The mobile station can be fixed /co-located if needed for a specific purpose. Q29 Are there any size weight limitations? A29: No. Lightweight means just that. We are not looking for big dishes and huge trailers. Q30: Using a Hummvee& A30:Yes, as it is the current asset used by teams throughout the world. This means that it could be towable, or fully contained within a shelter. This is up to the vendor to decide. Q31: The requirement & includes 'space and near space' requirements as well as 'rapidly moving aircraft' - these statements seem to require a multitude of systems - is there any documentation or reference material that can be made available that describes the requirement in more detail so we can evaluate our capabilities in relation to your requirements? A31: Reference the desired Envisioned System description of having one multi-use ground station capability. & as long as it answers& per the RFI, will be welcomed for our review. This is a Request for Information to identify sources interested in supplying the aforesaid system. The following information is provided for planning purposes only and does not constitute a Request For Proposal (RFP) nor does it restrict the Government as to the ultimate acquisition approach. All interested parties must submit a capability statement that sufficiently describes their qualifications, capabilities, and previous experience related to fulfilling similar requirements via email to: leah.pauls@smdc-cs.army.mil 12:00 PM MST on June 6, 2005 will be considered by the Government. IMPORTANT! THE POINT OF CONTACT IS LEAH PAULS. Capability responses and inquiries will only be accepted electron ically by email at: leah.pauls@smdc-cs.army.mil. Pricing information should include all anticipated costs, with recurring, and non-recurring costs presented separately, to include set up costs, etc. Capability responses sent to any other email address will not be accepted. The contractor must forward a point of contact (POC) along with the POCs email address, and phone number. This is a market survey for planning purposes only and shall not be construed as a Request for Proposal or as an obligation on the part of the Government. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this market survey or otherwise pay for information solicited. Proprietary information is not being solicited; however, if it is submitted, it should be appropriatel y marked. Please submit responses NO LATER THAN June, 8, 2005.
- Place of Performance
- Address: U.S. Army Space Command ATTN: SMDC-CS Peterson Air Force Base CO
- Zip Code: 80914-4914
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 80914-4914
- Record
- SN00814660-W 20050526/050524212347 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |