Information Request for the Objective Simulation Framework Capability for the Ballistic Missile Defense System

1. Background: Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is responsible for developing an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), integrating land, sea, air, and space based assets to defend the United States, friends and allies, and deployed forces from ballistic missile attack. 2. Description: a. Request for Information (RFI). MDA is continuing to seek sources to enhance its current suite of modeling and simulation (M&S) frameworks. The current frameworks (the Digital Simulation Architecture [DSA] and the Single Stimulation Framework [SSF]) integrate models from each of the BMDS program elements into a system that accurately represents the performance of fielded BMDS equipment against a variety of threats in realistic environments. The desired framework, hereafter called Objective Simulation Framework (OSF), will leverage existing or mature capabilities, develop common interfaces, or propose a combination of both, to join digital and hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) representations into a modular, scalable, reconfigurable, and compose-able system. The RFI is seeking contractors who are able to design, develop, test, field and maintain an OSF that can be used for a variety of applications to include BMDS ground tests and performance assessments. Additionally, the OSF, in its various configurations, will meet Warfighter requirements for wargames, exercises and training events; support execution of the MDA Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP); address the system engineer’s requirements for concept analysis; and speak to Element requirements for element integration. Data collection, centralized execution controls, and common models such as threats, lethality, and phenomenology are functions required to be addressed by the OSF. b. Design Objective. By evolving this desired OSF, the Government’s objective is to integrate digital M&S capabilities with the HWIL M&S capabilities. This evolution would include complete data collection capabilities across the M&S system to support BMDS system level analysis with common threats, lethality, and phenomenology models. c. BMDS Elements. The BMDS elements include the following: (1) Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (2) Airborne Laser (ABL) (3) Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) (4) Phased Array Tracking to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) (5) Sensors - COBRA DANE - Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) - Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWRs) - Ballistic Missile Early Warning Systems (BMEWS) - Forward Based X-Band Transportable (FBX-T) Radar AN/TPY-2/TPS-X/Forward Deployable Radar (FDR) (6) Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) (7) Defense Support Program (DSP) / Space-Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS) (8) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) (9) Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communication (C2BMC) d. Future Systems. The description does not fully account for all future element models that may be represented in the OSF. Each future element model may require one or more digital and HWIL simulations to enable engineering, development, and testing of that element. Thus, while each future system may be developed at different times and to different specifications, the design must allow these systems to be compatible with the developed OSF. Moreover, since multiple nodes with associated hardware and software may be required at a number of locations, the developed OSF communication system between these locations must be secure and variably configured depending on the number of participating nodes. In addition, the framework should be able to operate in a variety of classified environments (including unclassified, collateral, and multinational). Finally, concurrent operation of the OSF during element or system-level testing must not interfere with the normal operation of each element’s primary operational mission. e. OSF Desired End-State. The OSF desired end-state is the full integration of digital and HWIL capabilities. OSF will provide the framework and defined interface standards supporting the system-level capability. The integration methodology should maximize interoperability while considering the geographical separation of MDA operating locations. The performance of individual models will be the responsibility of the elements. The OSF must be able to run in real time and non-real time (faster and slower than real time). It must also support models that run in real time and non-real time, and that use either discrete event stepping or time stepping. The OSF design must permit effective operation with all current MDA digital and/or HWIL representations and operate within the current and anticipated MDA infrastructure for execution, data recording, and analysis. The proposed OSF solution would include a complete data collection capability across the M&S single system to support BMDS system level analysis. The OSF must provide common threat and environmental information to all models. The categories of common threat and environment include phenomenology, lethality, environment, communications, and threat. Finally, OSF must be able to operate in either a purely digital environment, a purely HWIL one, or a hybrid. f. OSF Use Cases. The OSF must be able to support the following use cases: (1) Ground Testing. BMDS-level M&S supporting virtual and live ground tests of configurations of BMDS operational and development assets to verify performance, exchange information, and assess system behavior. (2) Training. BMDS-level M&S supporting activities enabling battle staffs to develop proficiency in planning and applying BMDS assets in live simulated scenarios. (3) Exercises. BMDS-level M&S supporting activities in which BMDS operators and commanders practice skills and apply BMDS concepts of operation (CONOPS) and tactics, techniques and procedure (TTPs) in live simulations using scenarios containing current system and threat capabilities. (4) Element Integration. The elements use BMDS-level M&S to drive their prime mission equipment components to assess the effectiveness of the components, verify requirements, perform trade studies, and evaluate interfaces and interoperability. (5) Performance Assessment. BMDS-level M&S supporting performance assessment of fielded BMDS configurations to verify the capability of a BMDS configuration to meet system-level quantitative measures of effectiveness (MOEs) or performance (MOPs) against specified threat scenarios. (6) Wargames. BMDS-level M&S supports virtual wargaming activities to perform human-in-the-loop experimentation for developing new BMDS CONOPS and TTPs and complement international BMD cooperative ventures. (7) Concept Analysis. BMDS-level M&S supporting constructive simulation for BMDS-level concept analysis including needs determination, concept exploration, and trade studies of BMDS alternatives. g. Place of performance. Includes, but not limited to, facilities in the following locations: National Capitol Region; Huntsville, Alabama; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Sunnyvale, California; Los Angeles, California; Tucson, Arizona; Fort Greely, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Omaha, Nebraska; Dahlgren, Virginia; Boston, Massachusetts as well as other potential MDA CONUS and OCONUS locations. h. Government-Furnished Information (GFI) / Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE). GFI/GFE is TBD. Interested parties may recommend GFI/GFE to be included as part of any resulting OSF acquisition. Additionally, OSF design may require access to other suppliers’ proprietary information and equipment. As such, if applicable, any resulting solicitation and proposal will require that the vendor negotiate agreements with these suppliers and contractors to obtain any such information or equipment. 3. Responses: The intended outcome of this synopsis is to determine interest and capability in supporting the OSF development. MDA is requesting contractors interested in this acquisition submit a capability statement that demonstrates core capabilities and expertise. This RFI augments the previous OSF RFI posted in July 2009. Capability Statements shall be unclassified. Capability statements are limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) pages excluding the cover page. Capability statements in excess of fifteen (15) pages may not be reviewed. The cover page should contain: (1) company name and address, (2) primary point of contact and one alternate, (3) telephone number and email address, (4) Cage Code, (5) NAICS code, (6) small business category, if applicable, and, (7) Federal Supply Schedule, General Services Administration contract number, if applicable. For electronic correspondence, please use the following subject line: “HQ0006-XX-RFI Objective Simulation Framework.” MDA will not acknowledge receipt of responses to this RFI. If a receipt is desired, potential sources should submit statements via e-mail and select “read receipt request” from electronic mail options. In addition to confirming that the RFI respondent can meet the Government’s OSF requirements, capability statements should demonstrate core capabilities and expertise in each of the following areas: (1) Provide knowledge of and experience with working with time stepped, conservative discrete event and optimistic discrete event types of modeling systems. (2) Describe experience with both Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) and High Level Architecture (HLA) for conducting real-time platform-level wargaming across multiple host computers. (3) Describe knowledge of and experience with Service-Oriented Architectures and Net-Centric Enterprise Services. (4) Describe knowledge of and experience with advanced control theory for the purposes of framework integration, time management and interface control with simulation protocols such as DIS and HLA. (5) Describe experience in adapting to high-priority, emergent and/or short notice requirements, i.e. agility of operations. (6) Describe experience in using simulations to conduct analyses in support of trade studies and concept development. (7) Describe experience with development, integration (i.e. bridging), fielding and sustaining extremely complex M&S architectures. (8) Describe experience with and understanding of missile defense systems to include science and theory of radar, search fence operations of radar, infra-red and visual sensors, theater and strategic interceptors, threat representations, fly-out trajectories, and Phenomenology, Lethality, Environment, Threat and Communications (PLET-C). (9) Describe an approach for integrating a hierarchy of models across Live, Virtual & Constructive environments. (10) Requirements: (a) With respect to system requirements, what type of content, form, and level of detail would you expect and/or recommend for an enterprise implementation of this type? (b) In general, what are your recommendations as to how the Government should best describe and document system requirements? (c) Using the information provided, what would you project to be a reasonable period of performance to develop an OSF and present a Production Representative Article for acceptance testing? (11) Solutions: (a) Describe the best approach for meeting the program’s objective of integrating two frameworks into one comprehensive system. Identify and include any third party software analytical or data migration tools, etc. that may be required. (b) What approach would you take for understanding and gaining knowledge of the legacy MDA environments? What information would you need about the legacy environments to develop proposals for integration/development of the new framework? Address the pros and cons of your approach to migrate/integrate from the legacy systems and environments to a new system. (12) Projected size and factors to consider: (a) Describe your approach for estimating the size of an integrated enterprise level project of this magnitude (Function Point Analysis, Business Processes, Business Rules, database size, number of interfaces, etc.). (b) Provide your estimated timeline, milestone sequence and dependencies for the effort. (13) Interface solution: (a) What solutions, methods, products, and architectures would you consider to accommodate in-bound and out-bound interface data transfers (with transfer frequencies ranging from near real-time to hourly, and data throughput ranging from megabytes to gigabytes)? (14) Risk identification and mitigation: (a) Describe any potential challenges or risks, and where possible, any risk mitigation strategies to any and all approaches/solutions submitted. (15) Acquisition environment: (a) Provide recommendations regarding contract type and/or structure that would distribute risks appropriately and incentivize Offerors to perform. (b) State what percentage of the effort your company would be able to perform, and what percentage of the effort your company would have to subcontract. Describe any subcontracted effort. (c) Provide opportunities to maximize small business participation. i. Marking. Potential sources are responsible for adequately marking propriety information contained in their response. j. Compensation. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes the Government will not pay for any materials provided in response to this RFI. Responses will not be considered as proposals nor will any award be made as a result of this RFI. 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. Submit all responses to Edward Langwinski, Contracting Officer, 256-450-1412, [email protected], no later than 21 days after publication of this announcement.