AN/APX-123A(V) Replacement

3.    REQUESTED INFORMATION
Interested parties who desire to participate in this RFI are encouraged to submit responses that demonstrate they presently have the experience and devices with the technology maturity to answer this RFI. All responses shall include: 
•    Respondent Data, in Section 3.1.
•    Transponder Product Requirements Section 4 
•    Section 5: Form-Fit-Function Replacement Transponder and/or Section 6: Small Form-Factor Transponder
Responding Instructions are in Section 7. Interested parties may respond to multiple sections but must state which section they are addressing. 
3.1.    Respondent Data
a.    Company Name
b.    Address
c.    Point of Contact (include phone number and email address)
d.    CAGE Code and Data Universal Numbering Systems (DUNS) number
e.    Web Page URL
f.    Company’s country of ownership
g.    If the company is foreign owned, provide evidence of valid Special Security Agreement (SSA) with Department of State
h.    North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code relevant to your company’s response along with the company’s business size status (i.e., large business, small business, certified 8(a) concern, veteran-owned, HUBzone, woman-owned, etc.)

4.    TRANSPONDER PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS
4.1.    TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
4.1.1.    The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the product must be at least 7. Describe how the product has been demonstrated to TRL 7 and describe plans to achieve TRL 8 or higher. If not currently TRL 7, clearly describe the approach and estimated timeline to achieve TRL 7.
4.1.2.    Detail how the product meets the requirements of MIL-PRF-CXP4.  A copy of this specification may be provided upon request.
4.1.3.    Detail the Size, Weight, and Power characteristics, and unit Cost(s) (SWaP-C) of the products to include base, mount, appliques, crypto, adapters, remote control, etc.
4.1.4.    Detail the product’s capability to support Selective Identification Feature (SIF) Modes 3/A and C, Mode 5 (Levels 1, 2, and 2-B), and 1090MHz ADS-B Out/In. Responses must address UAT 978MHz weather and FIS-B traffic data in accordance with RTCA DO-282C. All capabilities must comply with AIMS 17-1000 Rev 1.1, RTCA DO-260C (TSO-C166c, TSO-C154d, and TSO-C195c), DO-181F, and RTCA DO-282C. Software and hardware development must meet DO-178C Level C and DO-254 Level C standards, respectively.
  
4.2.    INTERFACE
4.2.1.    Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)
Describe how Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) standards have been incorporated into the design of the product and how that allows for integration and operability across platforms.
4.2.1.1.    The Government’s objective is to obtain sufficient technical data and computer software rights to ensure long-term lifecycle sustainment, organic maintenance, and competitive cross-platform integration of the transponder without reliance on a sole-source vendor. For all delivered technical data and computer software, consistent with DFARS 252.227-7989, respondents shall explicitly identify any technical data, computer software, or Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components for which Unlimited or GPR rights cannot be provided. For any restricted item, respondents must detail the specific limitations, alternatives, and the resulting impact on cross-platform integration and lifecycle sustainment.
4.2.2.    Cryptographic Device
4.2.2.1.    Illustrate and describe the product’s external cryptographic applique device(s).
4.2.2.2.    Describe if the product is cold-loadable, and if the cryptographic device is simple key loader (SKL) compatible and utilizes a Department of Defense (DoD) 6-pin standard fill cable, Profile A and/or B keys compatible, and capable of accepting Black Key.  If a non-standard fill cable is required, provide cost data and specify whether the cable is proprietary.
4.2.2.3.    Discuss whether the product can perform all Mode 5 cryptographic-related simultaneous interrogation and reply processing functions as described in DoD Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System IFF Mark XII Systems (AIMS) 17-1000 Rev 1.1 and AIMS 04-900A.
4.2.2.4.    Describe the National Security Agency (NSA) certification status of the product and how the product meets the minimum-security standards per the most recent NSA Security Evaluation Requirement Document (SERD).
4.2.2.5.    Discuss how the product is compatible with emerging requirements such as Crypto Modernization 2 (CM-2) and the most current SERD, AIMS 17-1000 Rev 1.1, and Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) DO-181F Change 1 and DO-260C.
4.2.2.6.    Discuss how the keys are held under power off conditions.  If the product uses a battery, describe type, size, qualifications/certifications, useful life (active/storage), assembly configuration, rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable, replacement frequency, access procedures to replace, and any support equipment requirements required for replacement. Discuss compliance to “power loss” exemptions for Crypto Key Retention, such as crash protection.
4.2.3.    Global Position System
4.2.3.1.    Describe the Time-of-Day and the GPS interfaces with the product including functionality and limitations and methods for inputting TOD.  Identify any limitations of TOD input that do not meet the requirements of AIMS 17-1000 Rev 1.1.
4.2.3.2.    Describe whether the product is M-Code compatible and/or upgradable.
4.2.4.    Control
4.2.4.1.    Describe how the equipment is operated, controlled, and status using each and any of the available interfaces.
4.2.4.2.    List all product interfaces (e.g. Ethernet, ARINC 429, MIL-STD-1553, etc.) to include antenna ports, including any limitations of each interface for achieving full product functionality.
4.2.4.3.    Illustrate any access panel(s), status indicators, and connectors and their locations.  Describe the functionality of any access panel(s), status indicators and connectors. For visible light indicators, discuss compliance with human factors and Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS).

4.3.    ENVIRONMENTAL
4.3.1.    Describe the product’s compliance with the latest versions of MIL-STD-810, MIL-STD-167A, and MIL-DTL-901 Environmental Requirements, and with MIL-STD-461 and MIL-STD-464 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3).  Provide any test plans and test reports summaries specifically pertaining to MIL-STD-810H, MIL-STD-464C, MIL-STD-167A, MIL-DTL-901, and MIL-STD-461G testing of the product, or for the latest version of the standard for which the equipment has been qualified. Government may ask for complete Test Plan and Test Report with additional Request For Information data call.
4.3.2.    Describe and illustrate the product’s heat signature (thermal characteristics)/dissipation and any cooling requirements and/or peripherals.

4.4.    ELECTRICAL
4.4.1.    Describe the product’s compatibility with the electrical requirements of MIL-STD-704A-F and identify any areas where the product does not meet these requirements under non-standard input conditions
4.4.2.    Describe the product’s compatibility with low voltage power requirements of MIL-STD-1399, Section 300.

4.5.    HUMAN FACTORS
4.5.1.    Characterize Human Systems Integration (HSI) performed on any proposed existing or developmental products across the HSI domains (Manpower, Personnel, Training, Human Factors Engineering, Survivability, Systems Safety, and Health Hazards), with attention to maintainability and supportability. Assess whether the system's complexity would require the creation of a new Navy Enlisted Classification (NEC), or if it can be fully supported by existing baseline training. 
4.5.2.    Describe the methodology and metrics used to verify that the product’s hardware and software Human-Machine Interfaces (HMI) comply with the design criteria established in MIL-STD-1472H. 
4.5.3.    While Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) is addressed above, how does the physical design specifically facilitate ease of maintenance at the organizational level (e.g., toolless removal, accessible test points).

4.6.    LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS
4.6.1.    Provide product Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) data to include Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) as calculated as: MTTR = Total Downtime / Number of Failures; MTBF = Total Up Time / Number of Failures.  Indicate whether the substantiating data is actual with sample size or predicted.  For fielded systems provide sample size used to generate data for RAM.  For systems not yet fielded, provide predicted reliability as determined per MIL-HDBK-217F. Additionally, provide any environmental and accelerated life cycle testing data completed to date (or anticipated test dates). 
4.6.2.    Describe the Built-In-Test (BIT) or Prognostic Health Management (PHM) capability indications, and limitations.
4.6.3.    Describe the operational software/firmware, what software coding language(s) are used, what software development processes are used, and what entity develops and updates the software. 
4.6.4.    Describe the method or equipment used for loading software/firmware in the fleet (i.e. USQ-203, Program Loader Set) to address updates to software/firmware to address rapid fixes, new capabilities, and configuration changes.  If software is not fleet loadable with existing fleet-fielded equipment, describe the method/process for updating software in fielded equipment and turn-around time for achieving software updates.
4.6.5.    Describe the capability to perform all levels of maintenance (organizational, intermediate, and depot).  If depot level maintenance currently exists for the product, detail the capabilities (inspection, testing, and repair) and the location(s) (city, country).  Identify any barriers to transitioning Organization (O), Intermediate (I) and Depot (D) level repair capabilities to Navy organic personnel, including proprietary roadblocks.
4.6.6.    Describe efforts and results that have been performed to support Failure Mode, Effects & Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Level of Repair Analysis (LORA), and Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA), providing a summary of key aspects of the product’s FMECA, LORA, MTA analyses.  Describe the implementation processes for Continuous Reliability Improvement (CRI) and root cause analysis for fielded systems during the sustainment lifecycle.
4.6.7.    Describe how obsolescence, manufacturing sources, material shortages, or hardware and software monitoring for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) are proactively managed by the respondent, including identification of tools, processes (identification, assessment, analysis, and mitigation implementation), and requirement flow-down to suppliers. 
4.6.8.    Describe how other Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) processes are implemented (counterfeit, Buy America Act, DFARS 240). Provide the Bill of Materials (BOM) and supplier list, including country and city. Request estimated initial provisioning lead times, typical repair Turn-Around Times (TAT) for depot-level components, and their strategy for maintaining supply chain resilience for critical nodes.
4.6.9.    Discuss what type of predictive maintenance functionality combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI), if any, including visual or audio notifications or data capture/software capabilities are provided within the transponder for use by the operator, maintainer, and trainer.  Describe if the system’s health data will interface with existing Navy IT logistics systems (e.g., NALCOMIS / OOMA) to automate maintenance action generation.
4.6.10.    Discuss what data/documentation is available to support operations, maintenance, installation and training for the product.  Describe data formats for technical manuals (i.e. XML format).  Describe the availability of Level 3 Technical Data Packages (TDP) to support competitive sustainment.  Describe any existing Computer-Based Training (CBT), Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI), or physical desktop trainers available for operator and maintainer familiarization.
4.6.11.    Describe any support equipment, packaging, handling (including hazardous materials, electrostatic discharge, etc.), shipping, transportation, computer resources, facilities and infrastructure needed to support the product in the fleet organizational, intermediate, or depot levels.  Emphasis is not to introduce peculiar support equipment, but to use existing items currently employed by US Navy fleet personnel (USQ-203, USM-708/719).  If current Government support equipment is not compatible, discuss or identify any Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) general-purpose electronic test equipment that could supplement testing.
4.6.12.    Outline the overarching sustainment strategy, including experience and willingness to enter into Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) with Government organic depots (e.g., Fleet Readiness Centers).  Detail any specific facility power, cooling, or secure vault space requirements (for cryptographic material storage/loading) needed at the O-level or I-level maintenance shops.

4.7.    CYBERSECURITY REQUIREMENTS
4.7.1.    Describe the product’s cybersecurity compliance with DoDI 8500.01 and other Cybersecurity Policies as defined in the following chart: https://dodiac.dtic.mil/dod-cybersecurity-policy-chart/
4.7.2.    Identify the proposed CMMC Level and provide the assessment type and level, current score and date completed, or a compliance roadmap if not yet completed and projected completion date.
4.7.3.    Describe any vulnerability scanning and/or software assurance completed or planned. Describe Risk Management Framework (RMF) compliance. Describe if any Authority to Operate (ATO) has been obtained for the system.
4.7.4.    Describe if any Cyber Survivability Risk Assessment (CSRA), Cyber Risk Assessment (CRA), or Cyber Table-Top (CTT) events have been completed for your system and to what Phase. Note that discussion of the event results may be classified and should only be disclosed in accordance with associated Security Classification Guides (SCG) or handled and marked appropriately.
4.7.5.    Describe any other Cyber related testing that has been done to assess system maturity and vulnerabilities. Note that discussion of the test results may be classified and should only be disclosed in accordance with associated Security Classification Guides (SCG) or handled and marked appropriately.
4.7.6.    Discuss the timeline and process to be used for emergency software services for the product.

4.8.    SYSTEMS SAFETY
4.8.1.    Describe compliance to MIL-STD-882E and identification, classification, and mitigation of system related hazards. 
4.8.1.1.    Identify any batteries in the proposed solution and state whether they have previously received formal safety approval for DoD platform use. For any unapproved batteries, detail the specific plan, timeline, and testing approach to achieve mandatory platform safety certifications prior to installation.

4.9.    MANUFACTURING
4.9.1.    The Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of the product must be at least 7. Describe how the product has been demonstrated to MRL 7 and describe plans to achieve MRL 8 or higher.  If not currently MRL 7, clearly describe the approach and estimated timeline to achieve MRL 7.
4.9.2.    Identify the country and city where the proposed transponder would be manufactured.  Response should also indicate where any major sub-assemblies are manufactured if different locations are utilized.
4.9.3.    If the product is currently being manufactured, detail what platform(s) for US, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or other partner nations have the product installed and what certification(s) have been obtained.
4.9.4.    Describe the manufacturing management system in place and how manufacturing risk is handled to promote the suitable maturity, manufacture, adjustments, fielding, and sustainment during the anticipated fielded lifetime of the product.  Explain your International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification (or equivalent) level.
4.9.5.    Describe how suppliers are managed, including supplier capability, tracking, reporting, and the in-house/supplier detection of fraudulent or counterfeit electronic components.  Explain their ISO (or equivalent) certification level.
4.9.6.    Identify current monthly production capacity and the specific constraints limiting throughput. Detail the scaling requirements and associated costs required to reach absolute maximum surge capacity. Additionally, identify any Quality Assurance (QA) or testing bottlenecks that impact delivery timelines at increased volumes.
4.9.7.    Include the estimated cost range for the proposed transponder, assuming an initial estimated quantity of 1, 101, and 501, in 2026 dollars.  

5.    FORM-FIT-FUNCTION REPLACEMENT TRANSPONDER
A “drop-in replacement” transponder which can be a Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) that will serve as a suitable substitute for the current AN/APX-123A(V) Common Digital Transponder (CXP) and can mount in the existing CXP tray without any updates to the platform interface or platform software, or requiring platform-specific configurations.  This Form-Fit-Function CXP replacement must be common amongst all platform installations and go beyond solely an obsolescence-only redesign for the AN/APX-123A(V) and include modernized functionality (M5L2-B, ADS-B In), improved SWaP, and other improvements.  Designate ability for drop-into shipboard environments, including interfacing with the Remote Control Unit (RCU) as well without any updates (e.g., Mode C –1000 Feet, MIL-STD-167A, MIL-DTL-901, MIL-STD-1399 Sect 300, etc.).

6.    SMALL FORM-FACTOR TRANSPONDER 
Describe a Small Form Factor (SFF) transponder option that provides significantly reduced SWaP along with modernized capabilities (e.g., M5L2-B, ADS-B In, UAT Weather). Respondents must detail how this SFF variant will physically and electrically integrate into legacy shipboard environments (e.g., via adapter trays) to interface with the existing Remote Control Unit (RCU) without requiring platform software updates. The SFF solution must demonstrate compliance with MIL-STD-167A, MIL-STD-1399 Section 300, MIL-DTL-901, and Mode C –1000 Feet altitude requirements.
    
7.     RESPONDING INSTRUCTIONS
7.1.    Responses shall not exceed 100 pages total (excluding any cover page). Include technical and descriptive text, functional block diagrams, test report summaries, and illustrations to provide sufficient detail. Acceptable formats include PDF, Word Doc, Excel submitted via email or DoD Safe. The submitted documentation becomes the property of the United States Government and will not be returned.
7.2.    All information submitted will be adequately safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR Part 15.101(c)(4).  Summary papers that fail to comply with the instructions herein or present ideas not pertinent to the subject may not be reviewed.  Information submitted in response to this RFI is submitted at no cost to the Government and will not be returned.  Note: If the interested party is a foreign concern or if a US interested party has a team member or partner who is a foreign entity, adherence to all International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR) is required.
7.3.    It is required that no classified data be provided.  If a respondent believes a complete response would require submission of classified information, notify the Government POC immediately so that proper actions by the Government and vendor can be coordinated.  
7.4.    The Government may use contractor support personnel to review responses, such personnel are bound by non-disclosure agreements to protect proprietary and sensitive information.
7.5.    Do not submit marketing material.