Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF DECEMBER 23, 2004 FBO #1123
SOURCES SOUGHT

B -- Request for Ideas for Materiel Approaches for the Army Air and Missile Defense (AMD) Mission Area

Notice Date

12/21/2004
 

Notice Type

Sources Sought
 

NAICS

928110 — National Security
 

Contracting Office

ACA, Fort Bliss, Directorate of Contracting, Attn: ATZC-DOC, Building 2021, Club Road, Fort Bliss, TX 79916-6812
 

ZIP Code

79916-6812
 

Solicitation Number

W911SG001IMA2
 

Response Due

1/20/2005
 

Archive Date

3/21/2005
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION. IT IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations paragraph 15.201 (e.), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. 1. Purpose. This is a Request for Information (RFI) in support of Ideas for Materiel Approaches (IMA) for an Army AMD Functional Solution Analysis (FSA). The United States Army Air Defense Artillery School (USAADASCH) is leading a JCIDS analysis for th e Joint, Interagency, Multinational (JIM) Air and Missile Defense AMD Mission Area (JAMA) Study. As a part of the study, we are soliciting ideas for materiel approaches from industry to address the high priority capability gaps identified in a previously a ccomplished Functional Needs Analysis (FNA). These overarching capability gaps are described in more detail in the following paragraph. 2. Capability gaps. There are five overarching capability gaps. Your Ideas for Material Approaches submissions may address all, some or combinations of the components of these five overarching capability gaps. Capability Gap 1. Cannot defeat the full spectrum of potential air and missile attacks on the US Homeland. Capability Gap 2 is AMD cannot completely defend COCOM designated critical assets against the array of potential ballistic missile (BM), cruise missile (CM), and rockets, artillery, and mortar (RAM) threats. Capability Gap 3. Cannot adequately protect joint maneuver / maneuvering forces from reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition (RSTA) and the full array of potential aerial threats, including rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) projectiles. Capability Gap 4. Cannot effectively and/or efficiently integrate JIM AMD capabilities. Capability Gap 5. Cannot readily deploy (inter-theater) or rapidly transport (intra-theater) theater missile defense systems in support of current and future force concepts of operations. 3. Addressing Capability Gaps. Materiel approaches can be recommended to fix (fully / partially solve) capability gaps at three levels, the system level (integrated solution for a major capability gap), the component level (a fix for a specific shortfal l described in the capability gap), or the functional level (a contributing capability but insufficient in and of itself to either fix a major capability gap or fix a specific shortfall within a capability gap). The following paragraphs describe the three levels: a. System Level. At the system level, materiel solutions may address a complete gap expression, e.g., Cannot completely defend COCOM designated critical assets against the array of potential ballistic missile (BM), cruise missile (CM) , and rockets, a rtillery, and mortar (RAM) threats. When proposed at the system level, the materiel solution must holistically address all the specifics of the shortfall, e.g., an integrated system of sensor(s), command and control, and weapon(s) that will be capable of integrating horizontally and vertically into the battlefield operational architecture. When proposed at the capabilities gap level, the information sought as described in paragraph 6 below, should address each major element (sensor, command and control, and weapon) and then be rolled into a system summary. b. Component Level. At the component level, materiel solutions may be proposed that address components of the capabilities gap, but not the entire gap. These may be proposed at an individual component level (e.g., sensor, command and control, or weapo n) or multi-component level. Materiel solutions in this class of response must be capable of fixing a specific portion of the gap (e.g., insufficient identification or classification capabilities) or multiple specifics of the gap. c. Functional Level. Materiel solutions may be proposed that address functions that partially fix a specific portion of the gap (e.g., a wide-band, highly reliable, secure, jam-resistant, h igh capacity digital radio to partially fix the specific of the gap Incompatible, non-interoperable AMD C4I systems). 4. Information Sought. USAADASCH seeks information on potential materiel approaches / solutions. Where multiple components are proposed, information should be provided at the component level and then aggregated at the system or multi-component level. An example of a response to the data call in a chart format will be sent upon request. The same type of information in a white paper format is acceptable. The IMA may include upgrades to current systems, procurement of joint or foreign system(s), or a prop osal for a new system or technology. a. Name and Description of the Capability. The narrative should provide a short description of the materiel approach / solution proposed, identification of the capability gap or portion of the gap that the proposed materiel solution will fix, how the proposed materiel solution fixes the gap or portion thereof, and a subjective assessment as to how well or how much of the gap or portion thereof would be fixed. b. Technology Maturity and Technology Readiness Assessments. An assessment of the maturity of the technology involved will enable an evaluation of the risk and programmatic efforts necessary to mature the technology and achieve an initial operational c apability (IOC) within the 2010-2020 timeframe. Respondents should address current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessments and explain in detail TRLs assessed as less than or equal to TRL 6. Additional explanations on the TRL will be sent upon request . c. Anticipated Program Overview. An estimate of the schedule and funding profile to complete development and testing of the materiel solution will enable an evaluation of the affordability of the proposed solution in the FY08 to FY13 POM. For this est imate, respondents can assume that new money to develop the capability will be made available beginning in FY08. An estimate of the procurement cost per unit will enable an assessment of the affordability to achieve IOC within the 2010-2020 timeframe and an assessment of the affordability of the procurement tail in the EPP. d. Other DOTLPF Impacts. A broad assessment of impacts of the proposed materiel approaches / solution across the domains of doctrine, organization, training, leadership and education, personnel and facilities (DOTLPF) indicates whether or not the propo sed materiel solution can produce a meaningful military capability. Request respondents to this data call also include an initial abbreviated DOTLPF assessment. 5. Analysis of Material Approaches (AMA). In the AMA (third sub-step of the FSA), proposed materiel approaches will be evaluated by a team of operational and technical analysts. Highest priority will be given to materiel solutions that appear to have the most utility (operational and cost effectiveness). 6. Responses. Information should be provided electronically in the form of a brief or a white paper as email attachments (return receipt requested) to provide the only indication of receipt. An example of a data call brief in response to this RFI is located in Solicitation W911SG001IMA2 (see ASFI Contract Opportunities). All briefs or white papers will be reviewed by the study team consisting of 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 f urther clarification or request presentations to enhance our understanding of the respondents submittal. All briefs or white papers that fail to comply with the instructions or present ideas not pertinent to the gaps identified may not be reviewed. Respo nses to this request for information are request ed by 20 January 2005. Please send responses or address questions to Mr. Chuck Vrahnos, Warfighting and Analysis Division, 915-568-6836 / 3160, DSN 978-6836 / 3160, email charles.vrahnos@bliss.army.mil or to Mr. Mark Boyle, 915-568-5535, DSN 978-5535, ema il boylem@bliss.army.mil. The USAADASCH POC for this action is Mr. John R. Armendariz, Chief, Warfighting and Analysis Division, 915-568-7628, DSN 978-7628, email armendarizj@bliss.army.mil .
 

Place of Performance

Address: ACA, Fort Bliss Directorate of Contracting, Attn: ATZC-DOC, Building 2021, Club Road Fort Bliss TX

Zip Code: 79916-6812

Country: US
 

Record

SN00724563-W 20041223/041221212043 (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 |