SECTION I. DESCRIPTION Department of the Air Force Mobility COE Purpose In 2022, the Secretary of the Air Force established Operational Imperatives (OI) and Cross-Cutting Operational Enablers (COE) as major focus areas for the Department of the Air Force’s (DAF) future budget and programming decisions. The DAF Mobility COE (MCOE) represents a non-traditional approach to closing mobility gaps and addressing mobility challenges relative to the Joint force. The MCOE will set the tone for the DAF’s future and decisions made by senior leaders. The SML Program Office (AATS/AAA), in coordination with the DAF Mobility COE team, is seeking industry input to identify potential capabilities/technologies/services for development of Combat Space Mobility concepts. Operational and Acquisition leads have been appointed for each OI/COE to perform analysis within an aggressive timeline to generate FY26 POM recommendations for the Secretary by the end of March 2024. This RFI supports the analysis for ONE of the Lines of Effort (LOEs) within the Mobility COE to inform future budget and program decisions. Additional separate RFI’s may be issued in support of other imperatives. Where possible, the DAF would like to understand within your responses how your technology and operational concepts for this imperative could enable, connect, and contribute across a Space Mobility & Logistics architecture. We would also like to understand the scalability and adaptability of your identified concepts. This is a Request for Information. AATS/AAA seeks vendor capability information in support of the scope and requirements listed in Section II and III. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. This RFI constitutes neither a Request for Proposal (RFP), nor does it restrict the Government to an ultimate acquisition approach. This RFI should not be construed as a commitment by the government for any purpose. Requests for a solicitation will not receive a response. The government will not reimburse contractors for any cost associated with preparing or submitting a response to this notice. Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS), and contractors serving in the role of Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) will be reviewing data submitted in response to this RFI; respective employees have standard Non-Disclosure Agreements available to the cognizant Government contracting offices. This RFI will identify technologies to develop, integrate, test, and field new capabilities into the current and future mobility enterprise. The respondents will not constrain current technology readiness levels (TRL) or cost estimates at this time. Respondents will also identify the ability to accelerate technologies that are in various stages of development. The government intends to issue additional RFI's regarding the subject header which may be issued sequentially or concurrently with varying suspense dates. This information will be used to further assist the government's understanding of technologies and solution sets to designed to augment capability gaps. SECTION II. BACKGROUND/SCOPE Background The Joint force must be able to effectively deploy, conduct, and sustain operations against pacing threats in highly contested environments. To accomplish this, future mobility systems must provide a mix of survivable, connected, and agile performance characteristics that reliably provide range, flexible payloads, and unique capabilities in highly contested environments which are critical to operational effectiveness. Potential adversaries will contest the Joint Force’s logistics in any future fight, necessitating an array of mobility capabilities that can survive in operationally relevant numbers, including United States Space Force (USSF) mobility platforms. Moreover, this mix of survivable and agile mobility platforms will need to be capable of supplying the Joint Forces across the continuum of conflict relative to the pacing challenge. The AATS/AAA and DAF Mobility COE team seeks to accelerate design definition of capabilities, focused on key missions that cannot reliably and effectively be performed by today’s capabilities in a highly contested environment, specifically Point-to-Point orbital and sub-orbital delivery systems. Importantly, the COE team is less interested in incremental solutions resulting in evolving marginal improvement– achieving desired capabilities will require revolutionary and innovative thinking and future concept and capability design. Space Mobility is an emerging mission area. SML includes capabilities meant to make spacecraft more maneuverable, flexible, and resilient. SML would enhance the USSF’s capability by enabling space-based assets to support continued availability of space-based capabilities, including both current, un-prepared systems and future, prepared systems. The Government is identifying sources capable of providing sustainable maneuver for prepared National Security Space (NSS) Spacecraft clients beginning in the Government Fiscal Year (GFY) 2026 as well as for un-prepared systems beginning now. We are requesting more detailed information on each provider’s capabilities, to include when those capabilities will be available, Concept of Operations (CONOPS), business case analysis, and alternate approaches. Vendors that are not able to provide a flight-ready capability are discouraged from responding. Scope This RFI seeks to specifically address the operational challenges for Line of Effort (LOE) #4 Combat Space Mobility. This RFI is seeking industry input to identify potential capabilities/technologies/services for integration into the Space Combat Mobility ecosystem. Interested companies shall respond in accordance with (IAW) Section IV of this document. The Government will assess capability statements IAW the requirements set forth in Section III of this RFI notification. Space operations, such as the ability to maneuver when required, are limited by materiel that is consumed on-orbit. This is particularly true for Dynamic Space Operations (DSO), those that require recurring and/or faster observation-to-action loops. The potential for future regret associated with current use of on-orbit consumables for these operational actions complicates joint forces planning and execution, and therefore degrades the ability to achieve mission objectives. “Current use” includes test, training, exercise, maneuver, and creating operational effects including messaging and cost imposition. “Future regret” includes having to choose between taking an action now vs. the ability to take an action in the future. AATS/AAA is accelerating capabilities that break the strong link between the immediate use of on-orbit consumables and reduced capability in the future on dynamic space platforms. SECTION III. CAPABILITY/THREAT-BASED GAPS & MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS A. LOE Capability-based and Threat-based Gaps • Operational Problem: As combat capabilities extend into space, the DAF cannot scale, deliver, maneuver and support its space capabilities at speed to enable and protect the Joint Force and our allies from space-enabled attack against the pacing challenge. o Rapid Delivery to Space: The DAF cannot reconstitute or deploy additional space-based capabilities that underpin the Joint Force in-theater for operational fires at the capacity, scale and speed needed to enable responsible counterspace campaigning. o Enable Maneuver in Space: The DAF cannot sustain space assets' ability to routinely move/maneuver to protect our space-enabled capabilities and defend the Joint Force against hostile counterspace and space-enabled capabilities on tactical timelines. o Cannot meet stacked demand requirements during simultaneous OPLAN implementation. B. Minimum Requirements and Solution Differentiators Typical capabilities/technologies may involve, but are not limited to, the following: • Responsiveness (lead time, in hours or days, delivery time from a staging orbit to intended client orbit, and movement to new orbit, as applicable; lower is better) • Cadence (number of deliveries within a given timeframe; higher is better) • Compatibility (modular components, multi-commodity delivery, and interfaces to provide the greatest flexibility in client servicing and mobility needs) • Sustainable Maneuver (ability to correct for changes in servicing or delivery location, increase flexibility in different orbital regimes, and provide high Delta-V for client vehicles; higher is better). • Precision & Autonomy (sufficient to enable subsequent deployment or recovery of a maneuverable payload or Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO)-capable servicer/logistics vehicle) SECTION IV. INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS: If your company is interested in submitting information related to this acquisition, please note the following timeline and instructions. Timeline Information Packages Due: 03 Jan 2024 by 1630 Eastern If your company is not able to provide all requested information by the above deadline, priority is given to the capabilities, maturity, schedule, and architecture of the concept being proposed. Information on costing, contracting, testing, and other challenges can be provided as an update. Please indicate in your initial information package response if you will be providing an update, with final packages due by 19 Jan 2024. All interested contractors must be registered in SAM.gov in order to be eligible for any future award of Government contracts. Instructions 1. If your company decides to respond to this RFI, please provide “whitepapers” on technology-specific solutions, practices/experience IAW the instructions in Sections V and VI below, and ensure you respond to the questions identified therein. Email typed responses IAW these instructions to: Lt Col Michael Killings,
[email protected] Capt Ryan Fletcher,
[email protected]. Please use read and delivery receipts. Please contact the individuals below if a classified response warranted: Lt Col Michael Killings,
[email protected] Capt Ryan Fletcher,
[email protected]. Maj Abigail Sutton,
[email protected] 2.a. Proprietary Information if any is provided, needs to be clearly marked as proprietary, e.g., “Company X Proprietary Information, Reason (Intellectual Property, Competition Sensitive, etc.)” and will be protected in accordance with DoD Instruction 5200.48. Responses sent will not be returned to the provider. b. To review responses, proprietary information may be given to Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that work for the Aerospace Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), and contractors serving in the roles of Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) and Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA). Disclosure of PROPIN outside of government channels and their contract is STRICTLY PROHIBITED for SETA, A&AS, and FFRDC support to the government that they have access to. 3. Interested companies shall respond to the questions below, tailored to the requirements on 8.5” x 11” pages with the font no smaller than 10 point. Any supporting literature from your organization must be identified as such and explain what it supports. 4. All responses to be UNCLASSIFIED, however; if additional information is warranted at the CLASSIFIED level, please contact the individuals identified above for further submission instructions. Do NOT transmit classified material to the emails identified. 5. Email UNCLASSIFIED submissions either directly to the POCs listed above or via DoD-Safe. Any further questions regarding this RFI shall be directed to Lt Col Michael Killings,
[email protected] (321-853-0482) and Capt Ryan Fletcher,
[email protected] (321-853-5426). SECTION V. COMPANY INFORMATION The Government requests a response to the following: 1. Please provide the following business information for your company and for any teaming or joint venture partners: • Company Name • Address • Point of Contact • CAGE/DUNS Code • Phone Number • E-mail Address • Web Page URL • The anticipated North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) Code applicable to this RFI is tentatively 336414, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing, for developing and producing prototypes for complete guided missiles and space vehicles. Based on this NAICS and its size standard, state whether your company is considered: o Small Business (Yes/No) o Woman Owned Small Business (Yes/No) o Native American Owned Concern (Yes/No) o Small Disadvantaged Business (Yes/No) o 8(a) Certified (Yes/No) o HUBZone Certified (Yes/No) o Veteran Owned Small Business (Yes/No) o Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (Yes/No) Additionally, please identify if another NAICS code or PSC code is better suited for this requirement. Other NAICS being considered are 541715, 336415, and 336419. SECTION VI. QUESTIONS: Please provide whitepaper(s) for each proposed solution. Whitepaper(s) shall not exceed eight pages in length. Cover pages with company information are not included in the 8-page limit. 1. Summarize your company's experience developing, producing, integrating, testing, launching, deploying, and supporting space mobility capabilities. 2. Describe your proposed solution and the specific capabilities/technologies of Section III that your solution is addressing. a. In describing your proposed solution, please provide any description as to whether your company considered any form of known standardized interface and/or open systems architecture structure. Are you using any specific docking and/or refueling interfaces? 3. Describe the TRL level of your systems and components. Provide justification for assessment. 4. Provide performance characteristics. Which orbits are you able to provide Mobility Services? What kind of energy are you able to provide (Delta-V, type of fuel, refueling or augmented propulsion)? 5. Provide estimated development, integration, and production schedules. Are there any schedule constraints (e.g., long lead, testing facilities, test equipment, etc.)? 6. Are any of your company’s systems or components currently on orbit or pending launch supporting other Government agencies or space programs? 7. What are the estimated overall cost(s) of capability or service? Please provide details/work breakdown on either development, integration, production, and sustainment costs or services. 8. Are your concepts funded? If not, how much funding would be required to bring it to operational capability? 9. Describe the architecture and concept of operations. Your approach to an operations center (ground TT&C), cryptography, and security. Any GFE dependencies or external dependencies on other mission partners / companies? 10. Describe your approach to conducting test and evaluation. 11. Specify if proposed solution is applicable to legacy (un-prepared) or future (prepared) clients (or both). 12. Have you identified any challenges related to meeting SML needs? If so, how do you plan on addressing these challenges?