A--Request for Information: Mission Systems Architecture Demonstration (MSAD) Baseline Objective Mission Equipment Package (MEP) Definition within the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR TD) Program

Amendment 1 (11 February 2015) Questions and Answers: Question 1: Confirm the required submittal date is March 20, 2015 and is there a time of day requirement. Answer: Submittal is required by 5 p.m. EDT on March 20, 2015. Question 2: What is the response page limitation? In section 4.2 it states that 3.1 and 3.7 are to be no more than 5 pages. Is this 5 pages for each section or 5 pages combined? Also, is there a page limit for the response to sections 3.2 through 3.6? Answer: Responses to 3.1 and 3.7 as well as any additional background/clarification should not exceed a combined total of five (5) typed pages. Responses to 3.2 through 3.6 are limited to the provided MEP excel sheet. Columns for the responses have been provided in the spread sheet as indicated in sections 3.2-3.6. Responses should be captured in the spreadsheet and not use additional pages. Question 3: What is the timeframe for the anticipated hardware referenced in section 3.2 of the RFI (Column W of the MEP Definition Sheet) Answer: The timeframe for the anticipated hardware referenced in section 3.2 of the RFI is FY 2020-2030 Question 4: Is it acceptable to have multiple responses for each cell based on the architectural approach and the operational modes of the aircraft; this would apply to Columns W X Y Z and AA. Answer: Yes, multiple responses for each cell based on the architectural approach and the operational modes of the aircraft is acceptable. Question 5: Please clarify the difference between availability and integrity. Please provide an example that illustrates the difference in definition Answer: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability are attributes of an information system used to ensure that exchanged data is appropriate for an organization's given information/mission needs. In this context, confidentiality is the degree to which information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. Integrity is the degree to which information must be protected from corruption/modification by unauthorized participants. Availability is the degree to which information must be accessible by authorized participants. These attributes support the proper implementation of Information Assurance (IA) controls for networked information systems. Additionally, availability and integrity provide insight into required reliability. A navigational database is an example of something that might require medium confidentiality, high availability and high integrity. Weather data on the other hand might be an example of low confidentiality, high availability, and low integrity. Please note: The Government has received requests for additional referenced source documents. While the Government anticipated that there could be an interest in this data, it was determined that access to the materials in these documents is not necessary to accomplish or provide the requested information and will not be provided as a part of this RFI. Request for Information: This is a Request for Information (RFI) as defined in FAR 15.201(e). This request is for planning purposes only and shall not be considered as an invitation for bid, request for quotation, request for proposal (RFP), or an obligation on the part of the United States Government (USG) to acquire any products or services. Your response to this RFI will be treated as information only. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the USG will arise as a result of contractor submission of responses to this announcement, or the USG use of such information. The Aviation Development Directorate (ADD), within the US Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), is conducting market research to refine the composition and data content of the Baseline Objective Mission Equipment Package (MEP) Definition as part of the Mission Systems Architecture Demonstration (MSAD) within the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR TD) program. 1.0 Background: In October 2011, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Strategic Plan to outline a joint approach for the next generation vertical lift aircraft for all United States (US) military services. The strategic plan provides a foundation for replacing the current fleet with advanced capability by shaping the development of vertical lift aircraft along with their avionics and mission systems for the next 25 to 40 years. The strategic goals of the plan requires transformational vertical lift capabilities, maximization of resources through commonality among platforms where appropriate to reduce costs and more efficiently allocate resources, and preservation and continued development within government, industry, and academic Science and Technology (S&T) communities. FVL multi-role capabilities will support a wide range of US Army and joint services missions, including aerial reconnaissance, anti submarine warfare (ASW), Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW), special operations, amphibious assault, undersea warfare, surface warfare, air assault, medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR), Search and Rescue (SAR), Command and Control (C2), Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), attack, logistics, homeland security and cargo operations. The AMRDEC is currently developing the Baseline Objective MEP definition as part of the MSAD effort in order to provide the JMR/FVL community of interest with a coordinated MEP vision on which to base USG S&T and Industry Research and Design (R&D) activities. The MEP definition is intended to provide a common, consistent basis for US Army Research Development Engineering Command (RDECOM)/other Service's initiatives and trades analysis as well as provide a foundation for future MSAD demonstrations. It is also intended to provide a method for the USG to communicate its goals for FVL mission equipment to industry and, in so doing, inform industry technology development. It is important to note that MSAD is focused on the processes, guidelines, standards and tools to support the FVL initiative. Thus, it is important to also emphasize that this MEP Definition is not intended to be quote mark THE FVL quote mark solution but rather to stimulate conversation, facilitate research, and support enabling initiatives through iteration and collaboration between USG and Industry partners. For purposes of this effort, a MEP is defined as any platform sub-system comprised of hardware and software (including firmware) that is required to successfully perform a specified mission exclusive of the air vehicle's airframe, propulsion, auxiliary power, electrical, drive system, rotor system, landing gear, hydraulic, and fuel systems, cockpit or cabin seating, armor, or essential flight control and instrumentation. It is inclusive of controls and displays, voice, video and data inter- and intra-communications, navigation, surveillance, weapons, survivability equipment, warnings/cautions/advisory systems, voice and data recorders, condition based maintenance (CBM) health and status usage monitoring systems (HUMS), etc, as well as the infrastructure necessary to manage and control the various sub-systems such as processors, data loaders, and data buses. One of the purposes of this effort is to develop a standard definition that can be used by the FVL community of interest for what is included in the MEP. The definition above provides an initial description which will be further refined based on comments received. The MEP Definition v1.1 is a functional decomposition derived from several key source documents such as the FVL-M Concept of Operations (CONOPS), FVL Family of Systems (FoS) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Aviation Survivability ICD, and JMR Mission Performance Specification (MPS) and others. The functions have been allocated to high level domains such as Communications, Navigation, and Mission Management, etc. Each function is traced to a source document, and where available, to a performance characteristic. Performance characteristics are generally associated with the desires of the user community; however, these characteristics are not to be considered Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs), Measures of Performance (MOPs) or other quote mark official quote mark user defined measures. The MEP definition is complementary to and consistent with the Joint Common Architecture (JCA) effort. It is the intention of the MSAD project office to refine and improve the MEP definition during the course of JMR Technology Demonstrator execution and release updated versions on a semi-annual basis through the end of FY19. The first update will potentially include modifications based on information obtained from responses to this RFI, functionality behavior information, and include a modeled version suitable for use in performing trades and analyses and a link to the evolving JCA model. 2.0 RFI Objectives: This RFI represents the desire of the USG to obtain industry feedback on the Baseline Objective MEP definition v1.1. Information received in response to this RFI may be utilized on a non-attribution basis. The USG intends to issue subsequent updates for Industry review and comment in a similar manner on a semi-annual basis where each revision results in additional detail and definition capable of supporting analysis and demonstrations of increasing complexity. 3.0 Information Requirements: In order to mature the MEP definition from its current state to its desired state to support subsequent JMR and FVL analysis and demonstrations, AMRDEC is requesting the following information: 3.1 MEP Definition. Recommended changes (additions, clarifications, consolidations, or deletions) to the definition of Mission Equipment, Domains, Functions, Performers, Performance Characteristics, and Domain Relationships with corresponding rationale. 3.2 Anticipated HW/Considerations. Recommended/anticipated hardware needed for a given function, which may imply important physical interfaces with other aircraft systems using the MEP Definition sheet (column W). 3.3 Safety Impact/Criticality. Initial recommendation of each function's safety criticality (High - Data Assurance Level [DAL] A/B, Medium - DAL C, Low - DAL D/E) with corresponding rationale as appropriate using the MEP Definition sheet (column X). 3.4 Confidentiality. Initial recommendation of each function's confidentiality (High - Classified, Medium - Sensitive, Low - Public) with corresponding rationale as appropriate using the MEP Definiton sheet (column Y). 3.5 Availability. Initial recommendation of each function's availability (High - Vital to mission readiness and effectiveness, Medium - Important to mission readiness and effectiveness, Low - Necessary, but does not materially impact mission readiness and effectiveness) with corresponding rationale as appropriate using the MEP Definition sheet (column Z). 3.6 Integrity. Initial recommendation of each function's mission availability (High - Vital to mission readiness and effectiveness, Medium - Important to mission readiness and effectiveness, Low - Necessary, but does not materially impact mission readiness and effectiveness), with corresponding rationale as appropriate using the MEP Definition sheet (column AA). 3.7 Modeling and Analysis opportunities that could be applied to the Baseline Objective MEP definition to support trade studies and demonstrations. 4.0 Format Requirements: 4.1 This is a market research announcement for informational and planning purposes only and does not constitute a RFP, nor is it to be construed as a commitment by the USG. The USG does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or to pay for any information, or otherwise reimburse responders for any costs associated with their respective submissions in response to this RFI. All submissions will be treated as information only. Respondents will not be notified of the results of any review of this RFI; however, clarification of submissions may be requested by the Contracting Officer. Participation in this effort is strictly voluntary. 4.2 AMRDEC is interested in obtaining responses to the questions posed in section 3 above. Responses to 3.2-3.6 should be documented using the MEP Definition sheet provided in the supplemental information. Responses to 3.1 and 3.7 as well as any additional background/ clarification should not exceed five (5) typed pages (in addition to the MEP Definition sheet). A corporate capability brief may be included as a separate attachment, but should not exceed five (5) typed pages. This attachment will not be counted against the response page limitation. Please do not send information on specific products. 4.3 Data Rights. The Baseline Objective MEP Definition is meant to be widely shared with the JMR/FVL community of interest which includes USG and industry organizations. Any proprietary responses to the questions in item 3 will not be reviewed by the USG because they cannot be widely shared with non-USG organizations. Any changes or modifications made to the Baseline Objective MEP Definition derived from responses to this RFI will be incorporated on a non-attribution basis. Corporate capability briefs submitted in accordance with item 4.2 can be provided with proprietary markings. 4.4 Supplemental Information. OFFERORS DESIRING A COPY OF THE BASELINE OBJECTIVE MEP DEFINITION MUST REQUEST IT IN WRITING BY EMAIL. REQUEST MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FULLY CERTIFIED DD FORM 2345 (http://www.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/jcp/) AND DIRECTED TO THE ATTENTION OF MS. HOPE MCCLAIN, contact@example.gov. 4.5 Responses to this RFI are requested within 60 days of RFI release. Submitted responses shall be unclassified. Responses should be submitted electronically via the AMRDEC Safe Access and File Exchange website (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/). Responses to 3.2-3.6 should be provided in Microsoft Office Excel format. Responses to 3.1, 3.7 and any additional background/ clarification should be provided in Microsoft Word or as a portable document format ( quote mark .pdf quote mark ) file. Use the following email address as prompted by the site: contact@example.gov. AMRDEC's SAFE site is NOT approved for transmission of classified information. The contracting point of contact is Ms. Hope McClain, Bldg 401 Lee Blvd, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577, +1 (555) 000-0000, contact@example.gov.