Radar Questions

With the Missile Defense Agency having issued a draft request for proposals last month for the Long Range Discrimination Radar program, potential contractors have been submitting questions to clarify some of the portions of the RFP. To wit, MDA released several answers this week, including to this question:

Since this is part of the US missile defense system, there could be catastrophic third party liability in the event of product malfunction or failure resulting in injury or death. This potential catastrophic third party liability is considered an unusually significant hazardous risk by the Contractor. The potential impact of this is well beyond any insurance coverage that the Corporation can take out. It is being requested that the MDA consider an application for indemnification under Public Law (PL) 85-804 for this work. Would MDA consider inserting clause 52.250‐1, Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804?

To which the agency responded:

MDA does not consider the performance of sensors program requirements to involve an unusually hazardous risk.

As Inside Missile Defense reported last month:

In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, MDA asked Congress for $79.5 million to begin developing the LRDR system, including a dedicated $50.5 million project line that would cover a $13 million effort to study potential radar sites and $37.4 million for product development, according to Pentagon briefing charts. Funding for the project line would total $615 million across the future years defense plan, with $136 million in FY-16, $152 million in FY-17, $145 million in FY-18 and $132 million in FY-19.

"The new LRDR is a midcourse tracking radar that will provide persistent sensor coverage and improve discrimination capabilities against threats to the homeland from the Pacific theater. This new radar also will give the Sea-Based X-band (SBX) radar more geographic deployment flexibility for contingency and test use," MDA's budget documents state.

As for where the new radar would be based, agency Director Vice Adm. James Syring said during a March 4 Pentagon briefing on MDA's budget request that "we've talked about Alaska, but we're going . . . to do the due diligence and evaluate all the possible alternatives in the Pacific."

Those alternatives appear to have been whittled down to Alaska, with the Aug. 8 cover letter attached to the draft RFP stating that "For planning purposes, offerors should consider both Eareckson Air Station and Clear Air Force Station, Alaska as possible site locations for the LRDR."