Accessibility Information

Users of assistive technologies such as screen readers should use the following link to activate Accessibility Mode before continuing: Learn more and Activate accessibility mode.

10--Request for Information (RFI) for Counter Rockets, Artillery, and Mortar (CRAM) and Counter Unmanned Aerial System (CUAS) to support Project Manager, Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS)

Solicitation Number: W31P4Q-CRAMCUAS-CMDS1
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Army Contracting Command
Location: ACC-RSA - (Missile)
  • Print

Note:

There have been modifications to this notice. You are currently viewing the original synopsis. To view the most recent modification/amendment, click here
:
W31P4Q-CRAMCUAS-CMDS1
:
Sources Sought
:
Added: Aug 16, 2012 11:16 am
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. THERE IS NO SOLICITATION PACKAGE AVAILABLE

It is recognized that industry and other United States Government (USG) agencies could possess information relevant to system development and maturity for a capability that addresses CRAM and CUAS. For this reason and to aide in the formation of the planned Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 - Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I) program strategy, the US Army CMDS Project Office is releasing this RFI.

The CMDS Project Office is conducting a market survey of affordable CRAM/CUAS system concepts that can be assessed at Technology, Integration and Manufacturing Readiness Level (TRL, IRL, MRL) 6 or above by the end of FY2015 in order to move directly into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase. These systems describe capabilities of a platoon consisting of: technical fire control, fire control acquisition capability, launch platforms, and interceptors, or other defeat mechanisms. A platoon must provide protection for fixed and semi-fixed positions in a 16km2 area against RAM threats and can defeat armed, reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition (RSTA) UAS threats at sufficient range to prevent UAS mission completion. Residual capability against cruise missile (CM) and other air breathing threats will be considered a plus if provided at no additional expense or decrease in CRAM/CUAS performance. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This RFI does not commit the USG to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. The USG will not pay for any information received in response to this request for information nor will the USG compensate the respondent for any cost incurred in developing the information for the USG. The CMDS Project Office is interested in receiving information on concepts that can be relatively quickly implemented and fielded at a reasonable cost and 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 system includes all the components necessary to execute the engagement of a threat given receipt of track from an external C2 system and the authority to engage. For systems that rely on missile based interceptors, the USG is evaluating a USG designed Multi-Role Launcher (MRL) concept compatible with many of the existing missiles in the DoD inventory and that will be targeted for use with future missile interceptors of various sizes. Respondents may use this concept or propose an alternative launcher concept that supports multiple missile types. If respondents would like information on the MRL concept, requests should be submitted and the USG will consider such requests within the limitations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Arms Export Control Act restrictions. If use of the MRL is incorporated within a system concept, then for programmatic and funding purposes, it should be assumed the MRL will be separately developed and procured by the USG.

Operational Context: The envisioned system will operate within the current and future Air and Missile Defense
(AMD) architecture (a notional Operational View (OV-1) is provided in the figure below). It must integrate with the Integrated AMD (IAMD) Architecture as the source for its external command and control. System concepts should identify the components necessary to support platoon operations to meet the requirements specified below. An assumption should be made that C2 up to receiving an engagement order and track cue as well as initial track detection will be provided by an external interface to any proposed system concept. System concepts should use Army common mobile platforms (e.g., Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) preferred, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT)). Included within system concepts should be a description of how fire control is performed (new sensor or existing sensor such as EQ-53, LSTAR, Sentinel or Ku-MFRFS) and how many fire control components are needed to meet requirements; a physical and functional description of the technical fire control hardware/software required to execute a fire mission; the number and description of intercept platforms (including all equipment needed to transport and activate the kill mechanism); and, any required support equipment such as generators, loaders, etc. Platoons are currently manned at 28 personnel not including maintenance personnel. The system should include a description of manning requirements by component and be accumulated at the platoon level.

(PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT TO VIEW PICTURE)

System Requirements: Respondents should present their best system concepts that can effectively counter RAM and UAS threats. RAM threats range in size from 60mm to 300mm and have ranges from 2.5km to 70km including any threats that are not well behaved. UAS poses both an active and passive threat to US forces, system concepts should be able to effect either a hard kill or mission kill against armed UAS at ranges prior to ordinance release (8+km) and RSTA UAS at ranges prior to their ability to detect US forces (12+km). Samples of the UAS and RAM threats are shown in the tables below:

(PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT TO VIEW TABLES)


To be effective against large scale RAM attacks, concepts should have sufficient stowed kill capacity (80 to 300 engagements per platoon) and be able to support a large number of simultaneous incoming threats (60 engagements in 20 seconds) arriving from the same or different azimuths. System concepts that have a capability against CM or other air breathing threats should be quantified. Short range RAM threats impose a stressing timeline forcing a response time of about 13 seconds, which includes the time from external sensor detection to interceptor engagement (mission kill/deflagration). System concepts must be able to receive a cue from sensors currently deployed with Brigade Combat Teams and have the ability to seamlessly integrate into an AMD C2 architecture when required.

Response: Respondents should provide the following information for the system concepts:
System concept description to include:
Describe the overall approach to meet the defined threat
Describe the allocation of time to the various system concept functions
Identify the major components of the proposed system concept and where, if anywhere, they have been previously used
Is this use the same form factor as previously used?
Are there any special handling equipment requirements?
The availability or estimated completion of any working prototypes to demonstrate performance, affordability, and technical maturity
A description of how the system concept fits within the current operational battle tempo
Government-Furnished Property (GFP) (i.e., equipment, existing systems, hardware, software, facilities, and information) required:
Identify all assumptions associated with GFP - when is it expected to be available, how many of each item are needed?
Include vehicles, radios, sensors, etc., as needed
Identify any area within the proposed concept where other than unlimited data rights are to be asserted
TRL, IRL, MRL Readiness Assessments for the System and components:
Current status of any component not yet at Level 6
Define any critical issue that must be overcome for this concept to succeed
Description of effort respondent intends to execute to achieve Level 6 or greater (without additional Government resources than are already planned for the particular system) by the end of FY2015. If TRL 6 will not be achieved by FY15 without additional USG funding, then provide a rough order of magnitude estimate of the amount funding that would be needed by year starting at the beginning of FY14 and the timeframe that TRL 6 or greater would be achieved if these resources were provided. If no additional USG funding is made available, when would TRL 6 be achieved?
Identify technical and programmatic risks associated with the system concept
Expected system performance against the key requirements listed above:
Provide summary of expected performance against threats - include lethality data (and how it was compiled) and detailed information on end-game seeker and maneuverability capability, if applicable
How accurate of a track hand-off is required from the external C2 system?
Include an assessment of system capability in typical military environments: hot, cold, sand, fog, smoke/obscurants, wind, rain, snow, etc.
Identify and quantify residual capability available to counter CM and other air breathing threats
Include substantiating modeling simulation or test data to support performance estimates
Program schedule for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase (assume the start date to be when the particular system has reach TRL 6 maturity) and the Production Phase:
Assume production of 18 platoons and 15,000 engagements with procurement over a 10 year time period starting when the system reaches Milestone C maturity.
Time phased estimated cost separated into RDT&E and Procurement in constant FY2012 dollars
Provide cost in accordance with a MIL-HDBK-881A level three work breakdown structure
Provide details on component costs
Include average unit procurement cost for major system components
Include post fielding O&S costs and assumptions (manning, maintenance, fuel, etc)
Provide all cost estimate assumptions
Provide man-month loading by component
Describe why this system concept should be deemed affordable/cost effective
Include expected reliability and availability estimates along with rationale for how these were derived.
Summarize why this concept should be considered high confidence for moving into a Milestone B decision in late FY2015 or early FY2016.
Explain rationale for technology, integration and manufacturing readiness assessments.
If an incremental approach is being proposed, what would be your initial capability and describe the subsequent increments.

RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS
The system concept, technological ideas, and programmatic structures provided by respondents will be used to augment and refine future Government solicitations. These ideas should be provided in whitepaper format. Each whitepaper should address a single system concept. The information is requested in the form of unclassified, electronic Microsoft Word files (1 file per topic) (recommended less than 8 Megabyte) attached to your email transmittal. If proposed system concepts are believed to be classified, contact the points of contact below for instructions on how to submit this data. 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 responder's name (i.e., System concept-XYZ Corp). If there are multiple concepts provided by the same responder, unique file names 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 will be reviewed by USG 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 USG Agencies and their supporting Contractors for Review Only" must accompany any proprietary submission. The USG reserves the right to request further clarification or request presentations to enhance understanding of the respondent's submittal. Material from respondent whitepapers, with the exception of identified proprietary information, may be incorporated into future program documentation to include future solicitations.

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.201 (e.), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the USG to form a binding contract.

RFI responses are due 45 days after the release of this RFI. Responses can be emailed to Felicia Dortch at Felicia.r.dortch@us.army.mil and Dorphelia Foster at Dorphelia.foster@us.army.mil. A return email will be the indicator that your paper has been received. Hardcopy responses should be mailed to the CMDS Project Office, SFAE-MSLS-CMDS-BMD ATTN: Whitney Stephens, Building 5250 Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898.



:
ACC-RSA - (Missile), ATTN: CCAM, Building 5303, Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5280
:
ACC-RSA - (Missile) ATTN: CCAM, Building 5303, Martin Road Redstone Arsenal AL
35898-5280
US
:
Felicia R. Dortch, 256-876-4964

ACC-RSA - (Missile)