HC1047-17-R-0001_-_Attachment_7_-_Problem_Statements.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

HC1047-17-R-0001

Attachment 7 – Problem Statements

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 1 AND 2 ARE FOR THOSE PROPOSING IN THE UNRESTRCITED POOL

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1:

Framed Requirement Seeking Innovative Solution:

PROBLEM STATEMENT: DISA has been given the requirement to develop a consolidated personnel management system capable of managing all aspects of incoming, active, retired, and deceased Federal civilian employees from all DoD component agencies. Leadership has directed a five-year window to go from the initial direction, to perform the action, to fielding the working system. The offeror will propose an implementation plan that describes their vision of how they will enable DISA to accomplish this task. Information included in their plan shall address, but not be limited to:

Task Area 1: Systems Engineering: Specifically, PWS Paragraph 6.1.9. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate process knowledge, particularly regarding the requirements analysis process. The response should include how the offeror plans for interactions among various functions, from separate DoD component agencies, to achieve a set of consolidated and refined requirements that meets the objective. The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to analyze non-functional user requirements and translate those user needs into basic functions. Additionally, an offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the migration paths for agencies and systems to a consolidated system hosted by

DISA.

Task Area 3: Systems Architecture: Specifically, PWS paragraphs 6.3.4, 6.3.5, & 6.3.14. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the ability to identify, assess, and select systems to be utilized versus competing requirements for new systems to be developed. The proposal must demonstrate how they will collect and organize architecture data required for system development through system modeling and documentation techniques that support capability and service mapping.

Task Area 5: Systems Integration: Specifically, PWS Paragraphs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the ability to define objectives, develop criteria mapping proposed system features to requirements, and to develop an integration strategy for incorporating multiple software applications, data repositories, and externally-sourced enterprise services that will eventually be operated on a DISA-owned infrastructure. The proposal must include information on how they will ensure consistency and traceability between the system design and the integrated system elements.

Task Area 7: Systems Deployment and Life-cycle Engineering: Specifically, PWS paragraph 6.7.2. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate how they will be using systems engineering processes, and design maturation processes, within the Defense Life-Cycle Management system to ensure critical activities are accounted for prior to Milestone C. The proposal must demonstrate a comprehension of key phase activities in the areas of: requirements development, systems engineering, test & evaluation, and logistics/sustainment.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #2

Open-Ended Problem Seeking Innovative Approach:

PROBLEM STATEMENT: DISA does not currently have a formal enterprise architecture that captures and codifies business functions, processes, and technological capabilities. Furthermore, there is no clear articulation of the relationships among business and technology processes or between the business-side of DISA and the operations-side of DISA. DISA does not currently possess a single coordinating artifact that captures the vision, mission, strategy, goals, objectives, governance, planning, development/acquisition, testing, and operational execution that offers decision-support throughout the DISA, DoD, and U.S. Government hierarchy. In an environment of constricting budgets and increased focus on value-to-warfighter plus the more general – but equally important – value-to-citizens – there is a need to formally capture and articulate the role, fit, function, and value proposition of DISA’s technological landscape within DoD operations and within the strategic concept and tactical implications of defend the nation. DISA stakeholders require a capability to map and articulate relationships

Attachment 7 – Problem Statements

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

between DISA’s technology areas, business functions, processes, and capabilities; such that, a system-of-systems approach can be used to provide decision-making support to DISA leadership.

ASSUMPTIONS: Key drivers behind DISA technology behavior include, but are not limited to:

• DoD Information Environment Architecture (DoD IEA)

• Joint Information Environment (JIE)

• DoD Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace (DSOC)

• Resource management processes as defined by Planning, Programming, Budgeting, & Execution (PPB&E)

• Requirements management processes as defined within the JCIDS

• Acquisition processes as defined within DoD 5000.02

• DoD Open System Architecture (OSA)

Offerors will be evaluated based upon the extent to which their proposed approach would achieve the following outcomes. Offerors may be rated more highly for innovative technologies, processes, and methods.

• Facilitate management, planning, and execution of agile, adaptive, and dynamic operations that actively evolve according to external and internal influences; including, warfighter needs, evolving threat environment, evolving legislative and regulatory environment, and evolving DISA strategic and tactical priorities.

• Establish and sustain the following enterprise architecture characteristics:

o Simplicity – as simple as possible, but not simpler o Integration – programmatic, functional, and operations intra-DISA and among DISA and its mission partners.

o Risk Management – identify, enumerate, and elaborate on all risks with the conscious, rational intent of defining a desired risk posture that defines the acceptance, transfer, sharing, or mitigation of all risk o Quality – expression of effective and efficient operations that include performance parameters and service level agreements o Efficiency parameters include:

Speed Cost Agility Waste Production Resource Consumption

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 3 AND 4 ARE FOR THOSE PROPOSING IN THE RESTRCITED POOL

PROBLEM STATEMENT #3:

Framed Requirement Seeking Technology-Unique Solution:

PROBLEM STATEMENT: In the future, DISA may be required to create and manage communications links using additional, and more diverse, signal media including optical length wavelengths, electromagnetic spectrum frequencies, satellite communications, or transmission links for undersea communications. The physical impacts of these new types of links will likely have ramifications for network monitoring tools and requirements, as well as impacts on the applications whose data is riding these networks.

Task Area 1: Systems Engineering: Specifically PWS Paragraph 6.1.1. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to present an initial concept of operations plan that provides a discussion of how this multi-node network would be used in the DoD environment to enhance the warfighter’s capabilities. The proposal must clearly demonstrate the offeror’s method in defining scope and objectives of the technical effort, identifying constraints and risks, dividing the engineering program scope and objective into discrete elements, and establishing and managing schedule and cost elements.

Attachment 7 – Problem Statements

Task Area 1: Systems Engineering: Specifically PWS Paragraph 6.1.3. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to articulate the expected performance, support, management, and security impacts of the additional communication paths on representative applications in use today; to include, but not limited to, classes ranging from infrastructure support, to unified communications, to collaboration, to combat support. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror’s solution for identifying appropriate measures and metrics to assess program health, technical progress, and end-to-end system performance.

Task Area 2: Design Analysis Engineering: Specifically, PWS Paragraph1 6.2.1. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s approach to account for various impacts of different distributed computing models, and current federal laws concerning oversight and observability of complex IT systems. The standard for an acceptable proposal is one that demonstrates the offeror’s method in using advanced technologies and methodologies to assess the soundness of technical requirements and/or solutions, reviewing compatibility among new and legacy systems, and determining extensibility and scalability for future changes in scope and requirements.

Task Area 2: Design Analysis Engineering: Specifically, PWS Paragraph 6.2.4. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the offer’s approach to enhancing DISA’s ability to be flexible, extensible, and promote reuse of architectural artifacts, system engineering artifacts, and operational realization artifacts across the Department of Defense. The proposal must clearly demonstrate the offeror’s method in analyzing proposed and existing systems, managing dependencies, functionality, interoperability, and performance of systems, and coordinating root cause assessment to develop proposals to solve problems.

Task Area 6: Systems Test & Evaluation: Specifically, PWS Paragraphs 6.6.2, 6.6.7. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to successfully demonstrate system performance in the expected operational environment with realistic Test & Evaluation (T&E) events. The offeror shall describe what new metrics they would propose as being relevant to this requirement and how their test plan specifications account for development, cybersecurity, interoperability, and operational testing. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror’s solution for performing end-to-end regression testing to ensure adequate testing of total system of systems performance, providing test reports on applicable, and useable, T&E metrics, and providing recommendations for potential improvement opportunities based on T&E results.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #4:

Open-Ended Problem Seeking Innovative Approach:

PROBLEM STATEMENT: In today’s mobile environment, the end user experience for DISA’s customers and mission partners is of the upmost importance to stakeholders. This user experience (UX) is created by the devices, operating systems, networks, communications, and servers that compose DISA’s mobile ecosystem. This ecosystem, as it adapts to changes in technology, implementation, and use cases – needs to be designed and built to not only satisfy, but to exceed expectations of the end user experience. To accommodate this in an affordable and efficient manner, an end-to-end model -- from mobile device to back-end server – is needed to capture salient network configuration variations and changes in performance characteristics. Through this modeling effort, stakeholders intend to facilitate an enhanced and more reliable user experience.

Offerors will be evaluated based upon the extent to which their proposed approach would achieve the following outcomes. Offerors may be rated more highly for innovative technologies, processes, and methods.

• An integrated mobile system design – through modeling and analysis – is expected to reduce system costs and increase performance by informing end user software purchasing, enhancing design decisions, and proactively identifying bottlenecks and shortcomings. Additionally, many end-user applications are highly affected by network performance and the identification of key network characteristics to help determine what components can impact new components – both positively and negatively – is a key functionality need.

• Design decisions, motivated by security needs, cost, or upgraded performance, will be evaluated against the end user experience and effects on usability. Identification of bottlenecks and system shortcomings should enable

Attachment 7 – Problem Statements

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

cost savings through identification of system effects caused by individual components and expedited engineering recommendations. Through an integrated system analysis, made possible by modeling, a lower cost, higher performing system should be facilitated.