Questions and Answers N 2 15.CAT.OP.001

Transcription

1 Questions and Answers N 2 15.CAT.OP.001 Question 1.Specification page 37: The contract implementation period is 18 months starting from the date of the entry into force of the contract (T0) vs. Contract Notice page 2: Duration of the framework agreement; Duration: 24 months Could you explain the difference? 2.Specification page 45: The whole tender proposal shall not exceed 60 pages (except.) Does the mentioned maximum page count apply only for the Technical proposal (part B) or are parts A and C included? 3.Specification page 15: The proposed rationale and methodology will be based on the analysis of the Common Staff Target (CST) document. This document as well as other inputs (see above Point 2.2.1) will be provided by EDA after the signature of the contract. Point 2.2.1: Input: CST, reference documentation on CSDP operation and RPAS, documents from pms on national needs; Will these input documents be provided by EDA? 4.Specification page 16: The Contractor shall demonstrate in its tender to what extent he is able to get access to national requirements (e.g. past studies, interviews, letter of sponsoring ) Does this mean, the Contractor has to obtain the required information? 5.Specification page 65 - Evaluation Criteria: to be described: Evidence of the possibilities to get access to national Satcom requirements or on the contrary clear description of the required support from pms to get this information As we understand it, no documents from pms on national needs Answer The framework contract has a 24months duration meaning that EDA can request services during 2 years. Nevertheless, the planned activities under WP1, 2 and 3 have a total duration of 18 months. The difference includes possible delays between each WP due to the time to review the deliverable of a work package and order a new one. The limit applies only to the technical proposal (part B). Yes. Yes. EDA has to evaluate to what extent the company is autonomous either by its in-house knowledge or commitment from MoDs with relevant information ready to support the company in case of awarding of the contract. Complementarily to answer to question 4 above, EDA will seek to facilitate and support the contractor in obtaining the required information. Nevertheless, it must be clear that the company shall be able to derive its findings irrespective of the added value brought by EDA.

2 will be provided by EDA. Will EDA support the contractor in obtaining the required information? 6.What level of support can be expected from EDA to ensure an adequate consideration of the ESA results after 7 months of parallel work (besides the participation in ESA workshops)? Specification page 13: The findings of WP1 will be provided to ESA for a parallel study. Specification page 23: Results of this ESA study ( ESA findings on GOVSATCOM architecture design (to be assessed)) shall be input for WP3. Specification page 14: An ESA Workshop for the handover of results is planned 5 months after start of WP3, so after half the planned duration of WP3. 2 EDA will facilitate the contractor s work once the contract is concluded. During WP3, there will be monthly coordination meeting between EDA and the contractor. EDA and ESA will organise their work on a more regular basis and EDA will ensure that the contractor in charge of the EDA contract will receive information along the ESA activity. The hand-over workshop will be the formal presentation of the findings of the ESA activity. Specification page 30: The results of the ESA activity will be explained leaving room for Q&A for the Contractor, so that the EDA activity can take into consideration the outcomes of the ESA study. The Contractor may have to participate also to meetings held in the framework of the ESA activities (estimated at a maximum of 2 meetings per ESA work package). 7.What level of detail respectively depth of information EDA expects from the study? Does EDA expect a kind of architecture study similar in depth and detail as done for MUSIS (Multinational Space-based Imaging System) and the provision of specific services or should the study focus more on the development of TBD important parameters/ benchmarks for a TBD system architecture? 8.Should the following geo-political aspects be considered for the study? center for this architecture? EDA expects a description of a high level solution addressing each configuration (findings of WP1) at a level of details compatible with the Phase A/B1 of a space programme. EDA underlines the fact that the call for tenders is for a feasibility study and that the overall conclusion should demonstrate to decision makers in two years time why a Govsatcom programme makes sense, what could be this capability, what will be its cost and how this will be operated? The first three points are part of the business case analysis which will cover the benefits, constraints and/or limitation for a stakeholder to be part of the Govsatcom system. EDA is a capability development agency and in that

3 implementation and operation? the considered satellites of pms/other countries in the imaginary architecture? Is there a list of satellite systems on which you would possibly get full access? with regards to the required operational concept? respect does not need to have an access per se to satellites. EDA develops the framework and the conditions for the shareholders and stakeholders to get access to the identified satellites. The tenderer is expected to demonstrate its knowledge of what an IER in the Satcom domain is and how to derive them. 9.The level of detail of the CST to be provided after contract is unknown. This means, within the proposal we have to work with a lot of assumptions and/or expectations which is not good for planning the required work. Possible problem could also be that the CST possibly describes the common needs at a very high level and the Contractor should derive what should work with military satellites (Tier 1) and what with GOVSATCOM (Tier 2). This is considered difficult, if the information base is at high level only. It is expected that the information has to be broken down to singular services and clients. For that it would be required to know what kind of headquarter information systems are used and what their information needs (in terms of data amount) are. Could EDA provide further / detailed information regarding the division between Milsatcom/Govsatcom systems? 10.If it is not possible to provide the input documents (Common Staff Target, Common Security and Defence Policy and RPAS and national requirement documents), could you please provide information about size, content, quality of the documents to be provided after contracting? How is the state of EDAs current deliberations about possible engagements: The CST provides information related to the defence needs with respect to the EU level of ambition concerning typical CSDP missions. The contractor will receive a list of generic illustrative scenarios (e.g. Separation of parties by force, conflict prevention) with a table listing the number of involved defence assets. The contractor is then expected to derive the appropriate network topology and satcom requirements (including their needs to be transmitted through Mil, Gov or commercial satcom). EDA expects the contractor to simulate through the forecast tool the occurrence of various types of conflicts along the Satellite lifetime (15 years) so that an estimate of the satcom requirements over time can be derived (see slide) See answer question 9 and slides Forces, Ground Forces, etc.) systems

4 missions, etc.) with possible force structure, headquarters, etc. scenario and region 11.An assessment model has to be developed that allows EDA to modify different parameters. The main functionality of this model is described in the tender specification; further examples for analyzing models are given. Who or what kind of source has developed these models? Have the given examples to be understood as specifications? The proposed assessment model is a way to compile the effectiveness and affordability of any architecture with respect to various criteria discussed. The weighting will reflect the importance give to each criterion compared to the others. The given examples are for illustrative purpose only and the technical proposal of the tender will be evaluated based on the scope and depth of the proposed assessment model. 12.An (already existing) forecast model has to be delivered, with manuals, tutorials and some test scenarios. In our internal discussions we found a lot of different understandings of forecast. Could you provide more clarification, e.g. what are EDA s expectations for the forecast tool regarding IERs, scenarios, bandwidth, etc.? 13. Are documents about national planning (national IERs, national satellites, commercial solutions, national Ground Segments) available at EDA? How can national data be obtained from other pms / nations (from which nations, admission to dialog partners, political will for participation, strategic interests)? 14.It will be required to show ways and means to promote the study results. What are EDA s expectations about future "Media and Communication Kits" to be used during project duration and how detailed this has to be explained already within the proposal? See question 9 and slide. No. Documents available at national level will be released only by pms willingness to contribute or pms agreement to support the company. Self-explanatory in the Technical specifications (see section 2.3.2). EDA underlines the importance to be in a position to advertise and lobby various communities not necessarily involved in the satcom domain. The M&C kit shall support the study from the kick off till the end. At the beginning this could take the form of factsheet, flyers, models and videos explaining the rationale and the purpose of the project. At the end, this could take the form of videos and models explaining the various assessments realized and the proposed solution to be implemented.

5 15.A CST already exists but it is unclear if the study should constitute the respective CSR or only give some input for the EDA staff. Does the CSR already exist or should the subject study support or complement the development of the CSR? Background of the invitation to tender(page12) Shall the GOVSATCOM only contain Tier 2 satellites? Work package 1: Refinements of the IER and development of a GOVSATCOM assessment model, at page 15. Are there preferences of meeting places? The CSR does not exist. The contractor will provide inputs to EDA that will feed among other things the CSR which is under EDA responsibility. Rather than Tier 2 satellites, better to address Tier 2 traffic. Govsatcom shall address the traffic eligible to Tier 2 segment. In other words, all the applications which require and justify a guarantee and secure access to Satcom capability. Nevertheless, a Govsatcom capability should rely not only on the ability to cover the Tier2 traffic but also on the implications in terms of transparency and confidence between stakeholders of this capacity. By default, meeting places will be at EDA. It can be envisaged some meetings at ESA premises (ESTEC), pms capital or contractor premises (eg in case of demos) Refinements of the IER At page15: Cooperation with the German BAAINBw? At page15: Which CSDP is relevant? At page 16:Which nations are possible for the national requirements? At page 17: Which tool shall be used as forecast? STK? German MoD is part of the Govsatcom initiative. There is only one CSDP policy (Common Security and Defence Policy). National requirements can be provided by all nations. Those having already Govsatcom-alike assets might be interested in leasing spare capacity. Those not having Govsatcom-alike asset might be interested to provide their requirements and would be ready to rely on a third-system to provide this governmental capacity. STK is not necessarily the best tool envisaged for this exercise. EDA does not request a dynamic evolution over time of the Satcom requirement. EDA looks for a software able to calculate and justify the Satcom requirements associated with a given network topology involving various defence assets. A google search with Satcom planning tool or Milsatcom forecast model already provides a number of software of potential interest.

6 Work package 2: Initial Operational Capability (IOC) assessment -At page 22: Does every nation get a separate partition or all one system? -Who is responsible for the maintenances? GOVSATCOM level playing field: the theoretical approach:at page 26 Who will generate figures for the calculation? Guarantee of transparency? Question The pragmatic approach: at page 27 Which nation is in lead? Or does this the EDA? Question 22: Can the IER and configurations developed in WP1 be influenced by ESA activity afterwards? Question 23: What shall the contractor do with respect to the concepts mentioned page 25? Question 24: Can you clarify the development related to the IERs? In WP2, each govsatcom-alike asset is taken in isolation. The purpose of this work package is only to check to what extend each satellite, alone, is able to fulfill the configurations identified in WP1. EDA expects from the current way of operating the requested information for the Conops (eg who is responsible for the maintenance). It is contractor s responsibility but with closed feedback from the concerned satellite owner or operator. The assessment model will allow an estimation of the effectiveness. The cost analysis will be based on value engineering techniques and the tenderer s experience will be part of the evaluation process to guarantee the ability of the company to realize such exercise. The question is unclear. The Govsatcom initiative in the EDA framework is led by Spain. The governance of a future Govsatcom capability is unknown at this stage and it is clearly an assessment expected from the contractor so that various possibilities can be assessed so that a decision can be taken in due time. No. ESA will not modify the IERs or configurations identified during WP1 activity. ESA will focus first on the theoretical system based on various concepts (see footnote 5 of section ) which address in an optimal manner the configurations of WP1. Therefore, this will not take into account existing space assets but will give the ideal system should a Govsatcom capability developed from scratch. The contractor will apply the assessment model to the different ESA architectures and conduct a cost and value analysis of the proposed solution. The outcome should allow EDA to better understand the cost drivers of a completely new system and the need to reuse some existing space assets. EDA underlines the capability development process starting from the identification of a shortfall or user needs, the assessment of various solutions to fulfill those needs and the business case concerning the implementation of the most promising solution. In terms of engineering, EDA expects the contractor to be in a position to derive from the various needs compiled in the CST document (see question 9) the satcom requirements. These requirements will quantify which capacity (throughput, bandwidth) shall be available where (coverage), when and for how long (dynamic allocation) with which

7 Question 25: To what extend the IERs shall be split per frequency bands already during WP1 activity? Question 26: Impact of compatibility and interoperability with end-user terminals? Question 27: Can US companies directly tender on to this call for tenders? security/protection level. The contractor will then get rid of part of the traffic which must and can only be addressed by the Milsatcom assets and the traffic which does not require a guarantee of access (and therefore which can be addressed by conventional commercial satcom operators). The Govsatcom capability shall address the remaining part of the traffic. Following the answer of question 24, the contractor can further refine the IER per frequency band based on the usual way to split satcom usage over frequency bands but not necessarily based on the current capabilities of current assets. For example, Satcom traffic related to drones are generally addressed in Ku and Ka bands. Backbone traffic or need to mitigate weather impact in C band, SOTM in UHF or X or Ka band. Of course there will be some implications given by the type and nature of equipments used in the armed forces. The contractor will have to assess the balance between a more affordable solution addressing only some standards and/or part of traffic with a more exhaustive solution addressing all types of equipments and addressing the whole traffic. The compatibility with end-user terminals may also impose some limitations to the number of assets which can be addressed at the same time. No Question 28: Can non EU member states be part of the Govsatcom initiative? Yes, if they have signed an administrative agreement with EDA. So far such non EU member states are: Norway, Switzerland and Serbia. Question 29: How many Member States are part of the Govsatcom project? The Govsatcom initiative is a Cat A project. In other words, all participating Member States of the EU are part of the Govsatcom initiative.

8 Question 30: Shall the study cover also civilian operations (e.g. civil protection?) Question 31: Are the ESA concepts on top of the P&S? Question 32: Limitation/boundaries of the scope of work? Question 33: Can you clarify the need to make a specific reference to RPAS? Question 34: Following this question, are there additional ISTAR assets to be included? Not as such. EDA shall first quantify the satcom requirements related to CSDP military operations (IER1). These satcom requirements might be complemented by the need to cover additional national requirements provided in due time by the interested member states (IER2). Satcom requirements not related to defence will be considered in the definition of IER3 most likely through interaction with the EC working on this issue of Satcom requirements for civil users. No, the assessment is made in parallel. The ESA concepts will identify the ideal system able to fulfil the requirements without being influenced by the existing assets. The P&S is the reverse engineering exercise. Assuming a P&S of Satcom assets, the first part of WP3 will study to what extend the various configurations are already covered and if a gap remains, what needs to be developed. The contractor will have to propose a wider set of proposals/solutions to EDA so that the exchange of views with EDA, the defence community and ESA and the EC determines a focus on the solutions to be privileged The tenderer may propose in its proposal a limitation of the number of initial solutions which can be addressed having in mind that the conclusion shall propose one solution per configuration developed in WP1. Yes. The CSDP scenarios related to the EU level of ambition do not take into account the use of drone whereas it is an asset commonly used nowadays in operations. Therefore, the contractor will have to include in top of these scenarios additional defence assets which are drones. Not to EDA s knowledge. Question 35: Do we have to consider non satcom solution? No. The WP1 will identify the traffic eligible to Tier 2 layer and the development of the solution shall be based on a Satellite asset.