Multi-Net Gateway - Request for Information (RFI)

The Project Manager for Tactical Radios (PM TR) seeks industry interest regarding availability of representative solutions to provide an internetwork gateway capable of exchanging voice and data communications between Link 16 and other message formats, such as eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and Variable Message Format (VMF), and waveforms, such as Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) or Internet Protocol (IP) based waveforms. The goals of the Multi-Net Gateway is to accomplish unified secure network transport and to support Army ground Link 16 users in a deployed tactical force network. Of interest are existing MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEMs or similar solutions that can be quickly adapted to meet fielding timelines. Product Manager, Helicopter and Multi Mission Radios (PdM HAMMR) is interested in responses for products that can be delivered in production quantities that satisfy functional and performance requirements. Delivery of production representative system at the earliest possible date is desirable. If there are dependencies upon Government sponsorship to support certification activities, PdM HAMMR may consider requests for sponsorship independently from requests to provide Government funding. The Government will use responses to this Request for Information (RFI) to refine requirements, therefore, we urge respondents not to self-eliminate if a requirement or some aspect of a requirement is not met; rather we encourage you to respond to the RFI with an explanation of why you think your offering is still acceptable (for example, a requirement is unnecessary or overly restrictive, drives cost or Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP), will be met with growth, or other reasons). The requirements include but are not limited to the following: scalable/expandable network interconnections, configuration/reconfiguration via software, multi-network message exchanges, waveform version/capability synchronization, cross-channel/co-site mitigation, and operational availability. Test activities will be determined before the draft Statement of Intent or Request for Proposal (RFP) is released for consideration, but may include assessments of contractor laboratory facilities, on-site assessments of technical demonstrations (Waveforms, requirements, Manufacturing Readiness Levels), manpower, stress testing, size and power evaluation, interoperability with network management and key loaders, message translation accuracy to include interoperability with other radios operating within supported networks, and evaluation of technology readiness levels (TRL). The expected total quantity of systems to be procured has not yet been finalized due to Service budget and force priorities. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes - it does not promise a statement of intent or constitute an RFP or a promise to issue either in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Government is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in responding to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested parties' expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, if issued. If a Statement of Intent or RFP is released, it will be synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) website. It is the responsibility of the potential responder to monitor this site for additional information pertaining to this requirement. Description The Multi-Net Gateway system should provide users secure means of executing communication between dissimilar networks. Packaging should be ruggedized to support mobile operations while being flexible to allow reconfiguration, expansion, or integration on aircraft. The Multi-Net Gateway systems will be employed in a variety of environments including Tactical Operations Centers (TOC), vehicular and aircraft mounting (both temporary and permanent), and dismounted in rugged terrain. Functionally the system should consist of message translation/protocol conversion ("translator"), Link 16, one or more of the waveforms below, and a user/management interface. The system design should facilitate integrating into a single ruggedized package or distributing across multiple vendor and host platform devices to support vehicular or aircraft integration. Note that message translation must conform to MIL-STD-6020. The Multi-Net gateway system will provide line-of-sight (LOS) and Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) communications, as supported by the waveform capabilities below, providing users secure and reliable relay. The Gateway system will also give ground users the ability to share position updates between ground and air participants operating on any of the networks supported by the waveform capabilities listed below.. Requirements Overview The Multi-Net Gateway Systems will provide Army users the ability to execute communication, relay, and translation functions with a self-contained/integrated tactical form factor. The system must include all power, amplification, and interfaces within the integrated/ruggedized envelope. The translator must be capable of processing multiple message formats. Priority waveform(s) - Message Formats: a) Link 16 (with Concurrent Multi-Netting (CNM), Concurrent Contention Receive (CCR), and Link 16 Enhanced Throughput (LET) capabilities) - J-series (MIL-STD-6016/STANAG 5016) b) SADL/EPLRS - K-series (MIL-STD-6017) Multiple independent levels of security: a) SECRET b) Sensitive But Unclassified/Controlled Unclassified Information (SBU/CUI) (requires certified cross domain solution (CDS)) Radio Frequency Bands: a) Link 16: 960 - 1,215 MHz b) SADL/EPLRS: 420 - 450 MHz c) Other bands as supported by additional waveforms below (e.g., 30 - 88 MHz, 225 - 512 MHz, 1250 - 2500 MHz) Certifications and Accreditations: a) Waveform Standards Conformance Testing/Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) Certification b) National Security Agency (NSA) High Assurance Product Certification c) Risk Management Framework (RMF) Certification and Accreditations (for the MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEM vendor provided components (e.g. radio, power amplifier, etc.)) Additional Security Criteria: System designs which employ software configurable cryptographic engines and is capable of hosting software-defined Cryptographic Equipment Algorithms (CEA) and networking waveform Communications Security (COMSEC)/ Transmission Security (TRANSEC) algorithms are more desirable. Embedded cryptographic capability is preferred but should not be a limiting factor. Key loading capability must include support for current force devices such as the Simple Key Loader (SKL) and waveform specific capabilities such as Over-The-Air-Rekey (OTAR). Components capable of being handled and transported as unclassified Controlled Cryptographic Items (CCI) are preferred as these will facilitate supportability within the current logistical infrastructure. Proposed solutions must have a cryptographic architecture compliant with NSA Management Directive 237 Number 10 (MD-10). Environmental/Power/Electromagnetic Interference/Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMI/EMC) Requirements: Multi-Net Gateway solutions must be able to maintain high-performance capabilities while exposed to environmental extremes, such as Artic or desert temperatures, high altitudes, and aircraft gunfire, and fluctuating power similar to descriptions in Military Standard 704 (MIL-STD-704). On high density installations such as aircraft or command vehicles, the Multi-Net Gateway must be able to control its impact to other on-board systems and mitigate impact from these systems. Compliance will be verified using MIL-STD-461F, MIL-SDT-704C - F, and MIL-STD-810G as guides. Reliability: MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEM reliability requirements are identified in terms of system mean time between failure (MTBF). It is desired that the MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEM has demonstrated quantifiable reliability via formal reliability testing and use in the field. It is also desired that the quantified MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEM reliability be traced to hardware and software causes. The government is also interested in major component (radio/amplifier/cooling) level reliability data, where available. Respondents are requested to include responses to the following outlined questions with supporting documentation along with their response to this RFI Questionnaire. All data received in response to this RFI marked or designated as proprietary will be fully protected from release outside the Government. 1. Table 1 (attached) lists capabilities the Government desires within the MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEM. Please indicate when these capabilities will be available within your solution using the following key: 1) available now or within a year from now, 2) available in a future increment (provide estimate for when), or 3) not on your current roadmap. 2. For the capabilities you identified as available in a future increment in question 1 above, in the notes of Table 1 please describe the technical challenges preventing you from providing those capabilities within the current increment. 3. If selected, could you provide up to 7 systems (and ancillaries) for capability testing within 30 days of notification? If no, what is the lead time to provide 7 systems (and ancillaries) for capability testing? 4. What test equipment, tools, test software and/or analysis methodologies do you use to verify Built In Test (BIT) detection and isolation? Please describe your test and analysis methodologies in detail. 5. Please describe any testing you have conducted on your proposed MULTI-NET GATEWAY SYSTEM solution (e.g., Environmental, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3), EMI/EMC, interoperability, performance, reliability). 6. Please describe your approach to transmit and receive co-site mitigation. What is your required antenna isolation in high density emitter environments? 7. The Army would appreciate a brief description of your approach to software/waveform updates and integration of new capabilities. Specifically, would you provide upgrade to the waveforms at no cost to the government and for how many upgrades would that be? What would be included in those updates? How would you maintain compliance with waveform improvements or added capabilities? 8. The Army would like to establish government organic Hardware and Software sustainment to the greatest extent possible. a. What is your company familiarization with establishing organic repair capabilities at government facilities such as a government depot? b. What is your company's experience/familiarizations with facilitating a government depot? c. Do you have established/proven Technical Data Package and Intellectual Property licensing strategies for Hardware/Software required to support organic sustainment? To what degree would you provide one of the following: unlimited rights, Government purpose rights, limited rights? d. To what percent are you willing to support government organic repair/sustainment support? e. What is your experience with establishing and executing a Private Public Partnership with a government? f. What is your ability to support Government supply provisioning/cataloging? 9. What is your process for addressing obsolescence issues for fielded systems and spare parts? 10. What is your projected/current repair cycle time for in-warranty repairs? 11. Provide Manufacturing/production capability/capacity (how many gateway systems can be delivered to the Government per month). How quickly can you ramp up to this production capacity? 12. What is the expected quantity range tables typically used by your company? Please provide costs/quantity cost range tables for the prototypes and production assets (Reference: Government currently uses cost points at 1-25, 26-50, 51-100, 100+ for similar product.). 13. Briefly describe how an Other Transaction for a Prototype Project with your company would enhance mission effectiveness of military personnel in the description and requirements sections outlined above. 14. What would be your company's recommended nature of the potential Other Transaction Agreement (i.e. expenditure based, fix amount, or a hybrid)? 15. In performance of a potential Other Transaction for a Prototype Project, does your company anticipate significant nontraditional defense contractor participation in the prototype project? If not, will your company be willing to share the cost of the prototype project? 16. Provide the following information: a. Company Name b. Address c. CAGE d. DUNS e. Point(s) of Contact (POC) f. Indicate status as a traditional or nontraditional defense contractor (see 10 USC 2371(b) and 10 USC 2302(9)) All responses to this RFI shall be submitted no later than 5pm (Eastern Time) on 12 February 2019