Mobility Common Training Platform Study - Request for Information

Mobility Air Forces (MAF) Common Training Platform (MCTP) Request for Information (RFI) 13 November 2020 Prepared By: Air Force Program Executive Office Agile Combat Support (AFPEO/ACS) Simulators Division 2300 D Street, Building 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 Section I: Introduction This is a Request for Information (RFI) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-3 - RFI or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (October 1997). Air Mobility Command (AMC) and the Air Force Simulator Division requests industry input to define a Mobility Air Forces (MAF) Common Training Platform (MCTP) for the C-5, C-17, KC-46, C-130H, C-130J, and KC-135 Aircrew Training Systems (ATS) that maximizes operational training, sustainment, and cost benefits. Although many of the current MAF training systems maintain complementary aircrew fuselage and part task trainers, this survey is specific to Operational Flight Trainers (OFT)/Weapon System Trainers (WST) only. Industry responses will subsequently be employed to develop a full motion, Motion Simulator Standard (MSS) for all MAF OFTs/WSTs that accents interoperability through standardization. For the purposes of this study, - interoperability will emphasize connectivity, cybersecurity, sustainability, and self/remote monitoring. As the actionable element of the MCTP, the MSS will define a product baseline that maintains MDS-specific pilot orientation and proficiency training capabilities, enhances OFT/WST interoperability in support of Live, Virtual, Constructive (LVC) Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) and the Distributed Training Center Network (DTCN), and minimizes operations and support costs through software and hardware standardization (to the maximum extent possible). 1.1 Complementary Information The Government is seeking RFI responses from all interested sources. The results of this assessment will be used to develop an MCTP MSS and could result in one or more award of follow-on contract(s) to upgrade the MAF ATSs to a common configuration. This is not a request for proposal (RFP) or solicitation of offers of any kind. Responders shall be advised that the Government will not reimburse the responder for any costs incurred, administrative or otherwise, for any activities that are directly or indirectly associated with a response to this Capability Assessment/RFI. The National American Industry Classification System code for this action is 336413. Only non-classified information shall be provided in your response. The Government may reproduce copies of submitted information as necessary to facilitate its review thereof. For your consideration in completing the RFI: - Direct and concise responses are preferred. - A point of contact that can represent your company should be identified to answer further Government inquiries and to provide explanations that might be needed with regard to the information provided. - KBR's product support will be governed by the provisions of DFARS 252.227-7025. As referenced in this RFI package KBR is on contract to conduct the market research analysis and provide the USG the final MR report. Therefore, we'll ensure that the proper documentation is in place to protect your information before releasing to KBR. - Respondents should indicate which portions, if any, of their response are proprietary and should mark them accordingly Formal responses should be e-mailed to norman.willis@us.af.mil. Responses are due NLT 12:00 PM EST 7 December 2020. The Government may converse with respondents regarding this RFI. Such conversations are intended to clarify potential capability to perform the requirements. Technical questions regarding this RFI should be submitted in writing to LtCol Stacy Baber, stacy.baber@us.af.mil, 937-255-2272. Contractual questions may be addressed to Mr. Norman Willis, Procurement Contracting Officer, norman.willis@us.af.mil, 937-255-4489. Section II: RFI Questions 1. Please confirm whether you advocate for simulation or stimulation (via flight worthy Line Replaceable Units (LRU)) of aircraft functionality within an MSS construct. For simulation, please identify the specific attributes. (Please limit response to no more 1000 characters) 2. Please describe the LVC and full motion capabilities that you would recommend for incorporation into an MSS. (Please limit response to no more 1000 characters) 3. Please describe the optimum DMO/DTCN interface for the MSS and specify any issues (e.g., connectivity, security, sustainability, self/remote troubleshooting, etc.) with establishing and maintaining virtual operations. (Please limit response to no more 1000 characters) 4. Please describe any projected maintenance or sustainment issues with your MSS construct. (Please limit response to no more 1000 characters) 5. Please describe the cybersecurity provisions that you would employ for day-to-day WST/OFT operations and DMO interface. Describe your ability to support remote vulnerability scanning for cybersecurity requirements (for day-to-day and DMO requirements). (Please limit response to no more 1000 characters) 6. Please identify the upgrades that you would recommend to the DMO/DTCN and/or other training networks to improve WST/OFT connectivity, flexibility, and security at reduced O&S cost. (Please limit to 2000 characters) 7. What interface standards would you recommend between ATS components to ensure system interoperability? What interface standards between ATS components would you recommend for a future MSS and why? (Please limit to 1000 characters) 8. Please identify the recommended upgrades that you would employ to enhance the attributes of an MSS within the next five years'to improve day-to-day pilot training, improve DMO interoperability (with an LVC construct), and reduce overall O&S cost. Please consider LRU and software upgrades, operating systems, network interfaces, cybersecurity, and self/remote troubleshooting. (Please limit to 2000 characters) 9. How should Modular Open Systems Architecture-based constructs be employed in the definition of an MSS? (Please limit to 1000 characters) 10. For an MSS, describe the actions that would be required to transition to a virtual-based (cloud-based) infrastructure for both hardware and software. If this construct is not viable, please explain why and the potential impacts to pilot training and/or DMO. (Please limit to 1000 characters) 11. Description of your current capabilities to process large data sets during after-action review of large LVC simulation exercises. What enhancements to this capability would you recommend for a future MSS? (Please limit to 1000 characters) 12. What are the current cybersecurity challenges for ATSs and future challenges for an MSS within a DMO environment? How do these challenges affect interoperability? (Please limit to 1000 characters) 13. Please identify any risks or concerns with transitioning to an MSS along with any associated mitigation strategies. (Please limit to 2000 characters) 14. What is the future of lower-level aircrew training devices (e.g., part task, procedures, boom operator, etc.) as a complement to a WST/OFT? What technologies do you foresee as necessary to replace, and/or augment to achieve a relevant and realistic operational training environment in order to meet US Air Force's operational training infrastructure vision by 2035? (Please limit to 2000 characters)