Answers_to_Draft_RFP_Questions_(FINAL).pdf

# Question Answer

Are there any existing licenses that will be maintained going forward?

The Program Office currently has software that will continue unless superseded by the ASAE software tool.

Are there existing services that can provide language translation, fuzzy search, and temporal matching services?

Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

Are there existing tools or services that can provide elevation mapping capabilities?

Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

Is the data model static, or is there a likelihood of it changing?

The data model is not static.

5 Is there a preferred development language?

No, the offeror may use the development language of their choosing. However the User Interface uses the ember.js framework. The solution shall integrate into this framework.

Is there a standard ontology to be implemented and/or maintained? Does this ontology require flexibility to change?

The ontology will be provided with the final RFP.

What is currently used for automated entity resolution?

Nothing, this is a requirement in the ASAE RFP.

What is the existing elevation mapping capability (what level of DTED)?

Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

9 What is the existing heat-map visualization capability? Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

What web browsers are approved for use with this tool?

Internet Explorer 10 and Firefox V28.

Will additional software solutions and capabilities need to be integrated with existing products?

No, it is expected that the contractor's solution will integrate into the existing User Interface via the existing APIs.

Are there additional integration needs with other SOF enterprise applications? Besides the DIB, are there additional integration needs with DoD/Community capabilities?

No, the ASAE software tool will integrate into the existing User Interface.

Are there databases outside of the DCGS-SOF data layer and DIB that the software needs to interact with?

Both to pull and push data and reporting?

No, the ASAE software tool will use the API's provided through the data layer.

Are there plans for new releases beyond defect repairs/patches?

Refer to the licensing structure found in the CLINS. See

SOW 3.5.1.

Aside from the Key Performance Parameters defined in Attachment 2, which of the other functional requirements are mandatory? Are these mandatory and solutions that do not meet these will automatically be disqualified?

Refer to Attachment 9, Section M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1, Table 2.

Besides the SOF Data Layer (MarkLogic, SRA NetOwl, and MetaCarta) and the SOCOM DIB, what existing and planned tools need to be integrated with the ASAE software?

The ASAE software tool should integrate into the DGCS- SOF baseline as defined in the KPPs and Requirements.

Does SOCOM envision future feature development for the ASAE software? What is the desired balance between customizing the COTS software versus maintaining “upgradeability” that typically comes with not customizing COTS solutions?

The Government's desire is to purchase COTs software, not having customized software. Refer to the licensing information outlined in the SOW.

How will the user interact with and operate between ASAE and other DCGS-SOF functionality?

All DCGS-SOF functionality is contained and integrated in the User Interface.

We recommend that USSOCOM consider contract structures that align the vendor’s and the government’s interests and objectives and encourage the vendor to put skin in the game, such as Firm Fixed Price (FFP). This also forces the vendor to collaborate closely with the government on its assumptions around requirements, performance objectives and desired outcomes.

Refer to the CLIN structure.

What are the plans for incorporating future products into ASAE? Does SOCOM have a perspective that a single COTS product can meet all of the requirements outlined in the DRAFT RFP, or is there recognition that a COTS tool may meet the majority of the requirements and that it may need to integrated to additional COTS/GOTS/custom open source solutions to meet the full range of requirements listed?

Yes SOCOM does believe a single product can meet all of the requirements outlined in the RFP. There are no specific plans for future capabilities to be integrated into the ASAE requirements. The Government is open to innovation in meeting all requirements in the SOW and FRD to include multiple components (COTS/GOTS/custom open source) integrated as one ASAE solution. Refer to KPP #K6 and

FRD 1.9.

What is the role of SITEC App Dev as “3rd party developers”?

O&M sustainment following integration of ASAE software tool into the baseline.

Where will ASAE sit within the DCGS-SOF UI? Will it be an application that is integrated with the DCGS-SOF UI that a user can launch from within or will it be DSCG-SOF’s core capability that is launched and operating separately from the DCGS-SOF UI?

Refer to KPP #K6 in the FRD.

Will analysts be able to provide feedback and new requirements to software provider? If you choose a COTS-only product, how will you be assured that your future needs will be met over time as they evolve?

No -All requirements will come from the DCGS-SOF PMO.

The interoperabiliity requirements in FRD 7.0 will help assure future needs are met.

Will existing DCGS-SOF capabilities for geospatial, link and entity analysis be eliminated in favor of or integrated to supplement ASAE?

Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

The requirements in the ASAE RFP are not duplicative with the existing capabilities.

2.1, 2.12, 7.1, 7.3 - Are these API specifications published publicly? At what stage will they be made available if they are not currently available?

The Government will provide additional information in technical documentation to be released as part of the final

RFP.

Can you provide example use cases for disconnected mode and low‐bandwidth mode?

User does not have network connectivity and must be able to continue working.

Can you provide examples of the types of data to be processed by a streaming analytic? Would it be raw SIGINT, for example?

No streaming data. Data will come from the data layer via the existing APIs.

Can you provide specifics of the target platform for the disconnected mode such as operating system and hardware specifications?

Windows Server 2008 R2. Dell laptop, 32GB RAM and 2TB hard disk.

Can/should the ASAE include both desktop and browser‐based functionality?

The ASAE software tool shall be integrated into the existing User Interface which is web based.

If support for proprietary file formats is required, will you provide tools for interfacing with them?

Yes if needed, however all data is enriched and presented as XML.

Is this requirement specific to Geographic interchange formats? Does it include proprietary map formats like ArcMap’s .mxd?

No, all data is processed and presented in XML.

3.22 - Does this mean supporting existing mobile applications or providing new ones?

No. The solution shall integrate into the existing User Interface. Industry is moving to handheld and tablet devices and the Government expects to do the same in the future.

7.4 & 7.5 -Can you provide examples of existing cross‐domain and partner nation data sharing?

Cross-domain does not currently exist. Partner data sharing uses XML.

Can you provide a scenario that illustrates behavioral analysis?

The ASAE software tool is intended to assist the analysts in conducting behavior analysis. The ASAE software tool is not expected to perform this function.

Can you provide an example of the data that would be used for pattern matching?

Offerors will have full access to the Demonstration Sandbox and all relevant data as defined in Section L.

Can you provide examples of how the existing elevation mapping capability is used?

Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

Can you provide examples of the types of statistical functions that would be required?

There are no specific statistical functions. This is an underlying function of link analysis.

Can you provide information that details the existing DCGS‐SOF end user tools that will be part of the integrated solution?

The DCGS-SOF end user tool is the User Interface which the ASAE solution must integrate in to. The User Interface is built on the ember.js framework.

Can you provide information that details the types of data that will be available for the demonstration?

XML

Can you provide information that details what preprocessing will be done to the data used for the demonstration?

Currently the pipeline consists of SRA Netowl and MetaCarta and stored as XML in MarkLogic.

Is there a DOD standard for the structure of the metadata?

Yes, DDMS

What level of geospatial capability is expected at the all--‐source level? Can you provide a list of example functionality?

Geospatial requirements will be removed from the FRD.

This sounds like new work, is that a correct assumption?

Yes, this is a new requirement.

Are further data enrichments (opportunities for analytic innovation) outside of scope for ASAE?

It is expected that the ASAE software tool will include entity resolution as part of the enrichment. Anything other than that is out of scope.

Are responders to assume that the present mechanism to “enrich data” is satisfactory to the Government?

Yes

Can the Government provide responders appropriate access to DODAF2 compliant documentation of the present DCGS-SOF architecture?

DoDAF documentation will be provided with the final RFP.

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

Attachment-1 (SOW §3.4) states: "A server has the potential to support anywhere from 1 to 50 users at a time in a disconnected environment.” Where can responders get additional details regarding this server such as the constraints limiting this server to 50 concurrent disconnected users?

This limitation is due to another program of record within USSOCOM. The primary disconnected operations will be on a laptop. Specs for the laptop are Windows Server 2008 R2. Dell laptop, 32GB RAM and 2TB hard disk. Specs for the server are 2 quad processors, 256GB RAM, and 10TB Storage.

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

For example, FRD-4.1 talks about accessing 100 million records, is it reasonable to assume 100M records are available at the tactical edge during DO?

Yes

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

Is it the Government’s intent that SOF operators of ASAE have access to the full range of ASAE capability during DO but are constrained during DO only by the disconnected platform’s local processing/storage resources?

Yes

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

Are responders free to implement reconciliation of disconnected node data during reconnect using patterns / techniques other than data replication?

No. The ASAE software tool shall not operate differently in disconnected operation. New data will be replicated through the existing platform.

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

Does the government desire/allow for platform-specific response to capability degradation during DO/Disconnected, Intermittent, Low-bandwidth (DIL)?

No, the DCGS-SOF hardware is provided by another program of record.

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

For estimation/sizing purposes, how is a ‘record’ defined and what is the nominal size (or expected range of sizes) of a ‘record’?

All records are in the XML format and average 100KB

Disconnected Operations (DO): FRD-K4 appears to not actively seek or reward potentially innovative approaches to DO node reconciliation on reconnect.:

What is a reasonable record count for the tactical edge subject to DO?

Since all data is stored in XML format, we have not reached a limit on what can be stored for disconnected operations.

Does the Government encourage innovation in ASAE UI outside of Web2.0 if such innovation can be accomplished within a coherent ASAE visual design-language conformal to presently fielded US DoD C2 and C4ISR solutions?

Innovation is encouraged, but the ASAE software tool must integrate into the existing User Interface and published APIs.

How is metadata currently governed/managed within

DCGS-SOF?

The DCGS Management Office (DMO) manages the metadata standard.

What criteria and weight will be given to additional proposed analytic innovations that are outside the current ASAE scope?

The Government does not desire additional proposed analytical innovations that are outside the current ASAE scope.

Is it the intent that ASAE be architected to support MILS and/or MLS? Would a MLS solution be evaluated more favorably than a MILS solution?

The backend architecture of DCGS-SOF already addresses

MLS.

It appears that FRD-9 calls out proprietary technology (“UI is consistent with Microsoft products… iconography”, 9.1) while the overall theme of ASAE is of technology neutrality in service of interoperability and extensibility. Are responders free to exploit un-encumbered visual elements (e.g. fonts, iconography) if such elements are clearly functionally equivalent to the counterpart from Microsoft?

The ASAE software tool needs to be consistent with the Microsoft "look and feel" as stated in FRD 9.1

Please define the term ‘Enterprise’ as relates to FRDs 2, 6, 7.

The Enterprise is the SOF Information Environment (SIE).

Please provide responders with a prioritized list the languages targeted for machine translation (FR-3.24)

The requirement will be revised in the FRD.

Recognizing that one size doesn’t fit all, particularly for solutions targeting the widest range of missions and platforms (e.g. headless, mobile, PDA/tablet, laptop, desktop) can responders innovate at the UI outside of the OWF/Synapse framework as long as a such innovation is compatible with the underlying DCGS- SOF UI technology ‘Web2.0’ standards (e.g. HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, JSON). (Relates to FRD 3.20, 21, 22, 23)?

The current DCGS-SOF User Interface is built on the ember.js framework. The ASAE software tool shall integrate into this framework.

What are the authoritative sources of identity for entities participating in ASAE?

Through the use of the existing iDAM solution.

What is meant by “Utilize any existing capability” with respect to encryption (FRD 8.5 and 8.6)?

Through the use of the existing iDAM solution.

What is the preferred (or current) workflow automation tool (not scripting), platform, component, and/or standard for DCGS-SOF or are we speaking strictly about workflow automation services organic to

ASAE?

There is no preferred workflow tool , but the ASAE software tool must meet all requirements. The FRD workflow requirements are referring to the organic capability in the ASAE as outlined of section 6 of the FRD.

What is the preferred Enterprise-Collaboration tool, platform, component, and/or standard for DCGS-SOF or is the Government referring here to collaboration services organic solely to ASAE?

There is no preferred collaboration tool , but the ASAE software tool must meet all requirements. The FRD collaboration requirements are referring to the organic capability in the ASAE as outlined of section 6 of the FRD.

What measurement criteria is being considered for innovations such as un-encumbered visual elements (e.g. fonts, iconography)?

This will be evaluated during the Usability Demonstration using the industry-standard System Usability Scale.

What mechanisms exist (or would you like to exist) to model and simulate workflows prior to realization in the ASAE?

The Government expects innovative solutions to be provided by vendors.

Where can responders obtain access to detailed specifications for the SOCOM Collection Management Tools referred to in FRD-7.13?

The requirement will be removed from the FRD.

WRT ASAE Background Paper - “It is not intended for the ASAE tool to ingest or store data, but to use the enriched data from the existing DCGS-SOF database.”

Where can responders find details about or get access to the enrichment process and where can we find or get access to the logical and physical models of the DCGS-SOF database?

The enrichment process currently uses SRA Netowl and MetaCarta. Enriched documents are stored as XML documents.

WRT ASAE Background Paper - “The ASAE should take full advantage of existing metadata. “ Can the Government provide qualified responders access to or additional specifics regarding this existing metadata?

The metadata is dynamic based on the document as it is being parsed to Netowl and MetaCarta.

WRT ASAE Background Paper - “The ASAE will not hinder or degrade the performance of any existing applications or backend services“. Can the Government provide responders with the required contextual information (architectural blueprints, specifically showing physical architectures) to allow us to architect a solution that can objectively prove that the proposed solution’s performance is not hindering and/or degrading other applications or backend services?

DoDAF documentation will be provided with the final RFP.

WRT ASAE Background Paper - Can the Government provide qualified responders access to the DCGS-SOF UI Guidelines documentation?

Documentation will be provided with the final RFP. The User Interface is built on the ember.js framework.

WRT ASAE Demo Plan - Interface Demo:

“Government-provided, commercially-hosted, virtual cloud environment or “sandbox” … preconfigured by the Government with the DCGS-SOF operational software environment.” Responders are prepared to invest their own funds to develop innovative ASAE solutions compatible with the target environment but may not presently be privy to the full details of the DCGS-SOF Operational Software Environment. Can the Government provide full technical specifications of the operational environment to qualified responders as part of the Q&A responses or sooner? (E.g.

sandbox/platform specifications, interface control documents for data sources, and DCGS-SOF datasets/schemas and cooperating system interfaces)?

The sandbox will consist of a MarkLogic database with XML documents that have already been processed through Netowl and MetaCarta. The sandbox will also contain the existing User Interface and associated APIs.

WRT ASAE Demo Plan - Usability Demo: “The Government will evaluate the Usability Demonstration by collecting feedback from SOF user representatives after they have been trained and have employed the offeror’s proposed ASAE software tool”. Is responsiveness (speed of analysis, speed of recovery from DO/DIL, speed of data movement) a usability factor?

Refer to Demonstration Plan and Section M.2.1.2.2, Table 4.

WRT ASAE Demo Plan - Usability Demo: “The Government will evaluate the Usability Demonstration by collecting feedback from SOF user representatives after they have been trained and have employed the offeror’s proposed ASAE software tool”. Is the Government interested in receiving potential performance criteria ideas for evaluation factors?

No, the Government will utilize an industry standard usability scale in the evaluation of the Usability Demonstration.

WRT ASAE Demo Plan - Usability Demo: “The Government will evaluate the Usability Demonstration by collecting feedback from SOF user representatives after they have been trained and have employed the offeror’s proposed ASAE software tool”. Would it be beneficial to add performance of the ASAE solution as a quantifiable evaluation factor?

No, the Government will utilize an industry standard usability scale in the evaluation of the Usability Demonstration.

WRT ASAE FRD -Please define “multi-iterative analysis” (3.15)

Iteration is the act of repeating a process with the aim of approaching a desired goal, target or result. Each repetition of the process is also called an "iteration", and the results of one iteration are used as the starting point for the next iteration.

WRT ASAE SOW - The SOW does not appear to highly value performance testing requirements as an essential part of Government acceptance testing. This performance testing absence can limit or improperly reduce the merits of responders that may choose to discriminate themselves by architecting quantifiably more responsive and reliable solutions/services than a competitor focusing strictly on functionality (e.g. does plug-A fit socket-B… yes it does, but it takes 90 minutes…). Can responders expect see key performance and reliability metrics (KPMs) defined in the final RFP? (Not just for UI response but for service response, analytic engine performance, recovery and synchronization from DO/DIL, bulk flow rates)?

KPM's for this requirement are subjective and difficult to measure.

WRT ASAE SOW - The SOW does not appear to highly value performance testing requirements as an essential part of Government acceptance testing. This performance testing absence can limit or improperly reduce the merits of responders that may choose to discriminate themselves by architecting quantifiably more responsive and reliable solutions/services than a competitor focusing strictly on functionality (e.g. does plug-A fit socket-B… yes it does, but it takes 90 minutes…). Can responders expect to see performance and reliability measures incorporated into the SOW as a significant evaluation factor?

Since they are subjective there will not be anything added to the SOW, but will be taken into account during the Usability Demonstration.

WRT Exhibit A, page 6 and attachment "1" page 3 item 6.7 - "all developed source code"? Is the Government talking about source code for one-off programs that are needed to do the COTS component integration or does it include a COTS product's source code?

The Government requires any source code developed as part of the integration effort as well as any configuration details.

Will the final RFP be using the number designation of H92222-15-R-0004?

The Government does not anticipate changing the final RFP number from H92222-15-R-0004.

If the Offeror is not required to submit eSRS reports for the referenced Past Performance citations, is there another form of verification that can be used to confirm subcontracting goals? (Section L, L.2.2.1.2)

Sections L and M will be revised to allow offerors to submit SF 294/295s if the offeror is not required to submit eSRS reports.

The Government is requesting POC contact information for the Past Performance references. Is this the Offeror's internal POC for the contract, or the Gov't contract POC? (Section L, L.2.2.1.1)

Government POC.

Will the Government consider an offer that provides professional services with an integrated Commercial-off-the-Shelf and Government-off-the-Shelf software solution to be integrated into the existing Distributed Common Ground/Surface System - Special Operations Forces (DCGS-SOF) system architecture?

As outlined in the SOW, the software will be transitioned to a 3rd party vendor for O&M.

Would have expected a requirement under Data Visualization for providing a visualization of the document corpus to enable document discovery, based on related content. Will RFP be looking at visualizing related content to provide better intel tool to operator?

Visualization requirements are detalied in FRD 3, the Government encourages innovative approaches to stated requirements.

Does CDRL A006 require only source code developed for the integration with Government’s data sources, systems, and repositories?

The Government requires any source code developed as part of the integration effort as well as any configuration details.

With respect to machine translation, can the Government please specify desired capabilities? For example, does the Government require the system to translate from specific foreign languages into English?

The requirement will be revised in the FRD.

With respect to multi-language support, does the Government expect the software to be used by non- English speaking analysts (e.g. do the menu systems need to operate in languages other than English)?

The software will be used by English speaking analysts only at this time.

With respect to Requirement 3.18: Data Visualization:

To what extent are 3D visualizations desired and for what purposes? For example, is the Government interested in 3D topography and/or other forms of 3D portrays (e.g. bar charts of raw data)?

The Government encourages innovation in this area.

With respect to Requirement 3.24: Multi-Language Support and Machine Translation: Is this requirement for specific languages to be provided? Alternatively, is this a general requirement that the system be configurable for foreign languages and support machine translation?

The requirement will be revised in the FRD.

The contract maximum of $20M is significantly low.

Prior to establishing the contract maximum, will the Government consider additional market research on the fair and reasonable pricing of industry leading COTS solutions?

The contract maximum will not be adjusted for the RFP.

However, the Government will adjust the contract maximum as necessary upon determination of a fair and reasonable price.

Details of the DCGS-SOF UI environment and the common data formats will be required to provide a compliant technical volume and solution. How and when will the Government provide these details?

The User Interface uses the ember.js framework. All data served to the User Interface is XML.

Will the Offeror be required to provide a Systems Integration Lab for the required integration efforts into DCGS-SOF, or will the Government provide access to a Systems Integration Lab at a Government Facility?

During the Source Selection Activity Demonstrations, the Government will provide a Sandbox via a cloud based environment. Post award, final Integration will take place in a Government provided facility

Would the Government consider a multiple award contract, to allow companies to provide a partial KPP and FRD solution through their Government Purpose Rights (GPR) software (without licensing costs) and integration support?

No. The Government plans to award one contract for the ASAE software tool.