USAFE C2, Sensor and Effector Modernization Framework

1. Background United States Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa (USAFE-AFAFRICA), as the air component for both EUCOM and AFRICOM, directs air operations across three continents. The command's mission is to defend vital U.S. interests by projecting combat-ready airpower. This requires agile and technologically superior capabilities to maintain a decisive advantage in a rapidly evolving threat landscape. To meet this need, USAFE-AFAFRICA is exploring a new acquisition framework designed to rapidly identify, evaluate, and field mission-critical technologies from a diverse range of industry partners. This RFI seeks industry feedback on the viability and attractiveness of this proposed framework. 2. Description of Proposed Acquisition Framework The Government is considering an acquisition framework founded on speed, flexibility, and technical merit. This approach would move away from procuring monolithic "suites" and towards an open-architecture, "building block" model for the following capability pools: Command and Control (C2):  Flexible, open-architecture software; JADC2 data fabric integration. Sensors:  Cameras, radars, RF sensors; Automated Target Recognition (ATR); Edge Computing. Effectors:  Directed Energy (DE) systems; Counter-UAS; Kinetic and Non-Kinetic solutions. The proposed framework would be structured around three pillars: Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO):  A competitive, merit-based process where industry proposes innovative solutions to operational problems published in a broad Area of Interest (AOI). Dual-Award Pathway:  The flexibility to award either a  FAR Part 12 Contract  for ready-made commercial items or an  Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Agreement  for rapid prototypes. This is intended to engage both traditional and non-traditional vendors. Rapid Evaluation & Award Sprint:  A "front-loaded" administrative process designed to enable a 3-5 day evaluation-to-award timeline following live vendor pitches. Key technical requirements under consideration for this framework include: Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or higher. 3rd Party Interoperability (3PI)  via published Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Government Purpose Rights (GPR)  for all software, data, and technical designs. Stringent Directed Energy (DE) Safety Compliance  (adherence to MIL-STD-882E and verification from recognized authorities). 3. Request for Information Submission Details Submittals shall not exceed five (5) pages total. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches; single-spaced with text no smaller than 12-point Times New Roman. The title page, transmittal letter, and table of contents will not count against the page limit. Respondents shall provide an unclassified response to the maximum extent possible. Any proprietary information  MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED . Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned. The Government shall not be held liable for any damages incurred if proprietary information is not properly identified. In order to review responses, proprietary information may be shared with Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) and/or Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) contractors working for the Government. This RFI is intended for market research and planning purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation. Any submission is strictly voluntary. The Government will not reimburse any cost(s) associated with information submitted. 4. Requested Information The Government requests feedback from industry on the viability and structure of the proposed acquisition framework. Please provide responses to the following questions: Framework Viability:  From your company's perspective, is the proposed CSO framework with a dual FAR/OTA pathway an effective and attractive model for engaging with the Government? What potential barriers to participation do you foresee? Dual-Award Pathway:  Does the option to pursue either a FAR Part 12 contract or an OTA agreement provide sufficient flexibility? Are there any concerns with the Government publishing baseline terms for both pathways in the initial announcement? Technical & IP Requirements: Is the requirement for  TRL 6  or higher a realistic bar for entry for the capabilities described? If you have a current TRL solution, what level is it at? What are the primary integration challenges with legacy NATO systems? The Government's preference is for Government Purpose Rights (GPR) to ensure long-term sustainment and interoperability. Describe the specific impact this requirement has on your ability to offer your solution. If GPR is a barrier, propose an alternative IP rights structure (e.g., Specifically Negotiated License Rights) and describe the benefits (e.g., access to more advanced capabilities, lower cost) the Government would gain