MINC Consolidated Questions and Answers 20210617.pdf

Mission-Integrated Network Control (MINC) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) #HR001121S0028

Questions and Answers (Q&A) June 17, 2021

Question 1: Will the MIT Lincoln Laboratory report on the Battlespace Control Plane Study be made available?

Answer 1: The slides from the Proposers’ Day have been shared with attendees and additional analysis from the study is in the Classified Addendum. Please refer to Appendix 2 of the unclassified BAA in order to request the Classified Addendum.

Question 2: Will the other programs presented during Proposers’ Day be made available as

GFI/GFE?

Answer 2: Refer to pages 16 and 25 of Amendment 1 of the BAA for a discussion on GFI/GFE. Proposers can discuss possible use of GFI/GFE from other programs as required for their solution to meet the MINC objectives and the Government will make every effort to provide the requested GFI/GFE during the program.

Question 3: The BAA as well as Appendix 4 (Volume 1 Cover Sheet Template) says that we need to specify “Technical Area” on the Cover Sheet. Since proposers need to address all three Focus Areas, and there are no Technical Areas in this BAA, should we state “N/A” there?

Answer 3: The Cover Sheet should reconfirm that all focus areas are addressed in the proposal. Please specify “Focus Areas 1, 2, and 3” on the Cover Sheet.

Question 4: There are several required items (SOW and Deliverable tables, S&T Program PIP based on the BAA Appendix 7 template) that do not count against the page limit. Should we just include each one in separate appendices to the Technical Volume?

Answer 4: Yes, as stated in Amendment 1 of the BAA on page 32, several items which do not count against the page limit may be included in separate appendices to the Technical Volume.

Question 5: Can you explain the intended content required for sections III- I (Description of milestone cost and accomplishments) vs. III-J (Cost schedules and measurable milestones)?

What’s the difference in the content required?

Answer 5: Section III-I should be descriptive (paragraph format) and more of an explanation of the milestone costs and accomplishments; Section III-J should show milestones/associated cost/other requested information in table format.

Question 6: How do you reconcile the requirement for Associate Contractor Agreements to share information across performers, and the intent to down-select performers during the program? (Down-selects typically reduce the incentive to collaborate)

Answer 6: At this time, it is unknown whether options will be exercised for Phase II and III for all, some, or none of the selected performers. The purpose of the inclusion of an ACA is to ensure appropriate coordination of work across MINC performers on topics of mutual benefit to the program, e.g., MINC interfaces, application functionality/features, test and evaluation scenarios and development pipeline, etc. The ACA will allow for collaboration across performer teams on such topics during PI Meetings, Workshops, Integrated Product Team interactions, etc.

Question 7: Does MINC determine what new/different warfighting functions are needed and where, then reconfigure the network to enable coordination or is MINC told that a new capability/function is needed then discover how to provide it using available resources and reconfigure the network to connect them?

Answer 7: The goal of the MINC program is not to task mission resources, but rather task network resources to enable mission execution. However, there is a tight interaction between mission and network resources. Focus Area 3 intends to address this interaction between mission, network, and operator. Performers should describe in their proposal what capabilities they envision their MINC solution will be able to achieve.

Question 8: Is it possible for virtual edge functions to use the secure control overlay to pass the application data?

Answer 8: The primary goals of the secure control overlay include discovery of network resources and dissemination of network control data. The secure control overlay may also be used to distribute mission C2 data. If solutions use the secure control overlay for other purposes, proposers should explain the benefits of their approach and how they will achieve the MINC metrics.

Question 9: What stimuli is expected to trigger autonomous adaptation?

Answer 9: Proposals should discuss what they anticipate their solution would require in order to enable their specific MINC functionality.

Question 10: Are the blue force situational awareness and C2 applications part of the requirement for MINC?

Answer 10: Yes, refer to Section I.F of the BAA for a more detailed technical discussion on the required applications that will be created or interfaced with during the program.

Question 11: Will the three Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) consist of Government personnel or contractor personnel?

Answer 11: The IPTs will be organized by the Government team and will consist of Government personnel, the chosen MINC performers, and transition partners. They are intended to help the program tackle specific areas of the program and help facilitate transition.

Question 12: There are no set-aside funds for small businesses, but there’s still a requirement to have a small business plan. Is this correct?

Answer 12: This effort is not set-aside for small business, nor is there any preferential evaluation for small business. In accordance with FAR 19.702, any Contractor (other than a small business) with a proposed FAR-based contract that exceeds $750,000 and has subcontracting possibilities, is required to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan.

Subcontracting plans are not required from small business concerns.

Question 13: Is a security architecture covering both the control and data planes within scope?

Answer 13: Please refer to the classified addendum for more information regarding the security of MINC solutions.

Question 14: Are cross domain solutions and key management in scope?

Answer 14: MINC solutions should accommodate scenarios that necessitate the composition of networks at multiple security levels with cross domain solutions deployed. Key management for the underlying networks is out of scope, but should be addressed in the context of MINC implementations as appropriate.

Question 15: Is there an interest/emphasis on solutions to MINC objectives that operate in peer-to-peer environments?

Answer 15: Yes, the goal of MINC is to be resilient and secure. MINC should be able to operate across many environments, including peer-to-peer environments.

Question 16: Is the discovery of resources within scope of the program?

Answer 16: Yes, the discovery of network resources is in scope. Leveraging the secure control overlay to enable the discovery of mission resources is also in scope. Refer to sections I.A and I.C in the BAA for additional details. Proposers should consider the impact of using the secure control overlay for mission resource discovery on the MINC program metrics, in particular reachability and overhead.

Question 17: Would every device have a similar network stack on them?

Answer 17: No, emphasis is that these are heterogeneous networks and MINC should be able to work across these networks.

Question 18: What types of networks should be explored during the MINC program?

Answer 18: Proposers should refer to the classified addendum for a list of networks of interest during the program. Proposers are also free to propose additional networks that are not listed in the addendum but still of interest to other transition partners not already mentioned in the classified addendum.

Question 19: What is the desired scope for number of participating devices/nodes for each test event?

Answer 19: Refer to the classified addendum for additional information on MINC program metrics.

Question 20: What are the restrictions and resources to consider in terms of bandwidth/computation power for proposed MINC solutions?

Answer 20: As noted in Section I.C.4 of the BAA, proposals should detail where in the networks of interest their MINC software would reside and how their solution would be designed in a flexible way that would allow it to be installed across the battlespace on multiple different configurations of heterogeneous networks. Accordingly, proposals should discuss the expected footprint of their proposed solutions and considerations related to deploying MINC software.

Question 21: Do you anticipate modeling and simulation (M&S) playing a role in FA 1?

Answer 21: We anticipate modeling and simulation playing a role in the entire program, including FA 1, as part of performer experimentation and Government-led evaluation, which will progress to include emulation and hardware-in-the-loop.

Question 22: What’s the role of MINC in discovering capability gaps? Is it limited to mapping of available capabilities as opposed to discovering capability gaps?

Answer 22: MINC is about figuring out the available warfighting capabilities but not tasking those mission resources/services. MINC would leverage those capabilities from a data and communications perspective. See Answer 7 for additional detail.

Question 23: How broad and detailed should the movement plans be? Should MINC recommend movement?

Answer 23: One of the degrees of freedom that MINC can take advantage of is the recommendation of movement. The degree of movement that MINC solutions end up recommending to the operators should be dependent on the overall mission objective. In the end, it’s up to the mission operators to ensure the assets get to the location if they choose to accept the recommendation.

Question 24: How much should MINC examine the global vs micro view of missions?

Answer 24: Refer to the classified addendum for a discussion on the scope of MINC use cases.

Question 25: Is it possible to get unclassified 6.1 subcontract funding for fundamental research?

Answer25: Please refer to the BAA for guidance regarding fundamental research. Further, as stated in Section B on page 27 of Amendment 1 of the BAA regarding fundamental research, “As of the date of publication of this solicitation, the Government expects that program goals as described herein either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program. Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa. For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research. In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.”

In summary, if a performer feels that all or a portion of the proposed research is fundamental, this must be clearly delineated in the proposal. If selected for negotiation of a potential award, appropriate types and colors of funding will be applied to either fundamental or non-fundamental research.

Question 26: Is teaming with multiple companies allowed?

Answer 26: Teaming is highly encouraged for MINC, and teaming with multiple companies is allowed. It is up to proposers to work out arrangements, how they choose to team, and with whom.

Question 27: What are the overall number of awards DARPA will make for MINC?

Answer 27: DARPA anticipates multiple awards.

Question 28: Are you anticipating downselects?

Answer 28: At this time, it is unknown if the Government will exercise options for all, some, or none of the selected Performers.

Question 29: Should the underlying technologies rely on existing waveforms or would novel approaches at the physical layer be in scope?

Answer 29: Novel approaches at the physical layer are out of scope. Refer to Section I.A of the BAA for additional discussion on this topic.

Question 30: The DARPA Costing sheet is very structured toward traditional defense contractors. How does this work for companies that have commercial offerings?

Answer 30: The purpose and intent of requiring submission of the DARPA common cost spreadsheet is to provide insight into elements which are typically analyzed during traditional cost/price analysis. Further, it is the Government’s intent that completion of http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa this common cost spreadsheet will facilitate a more streamlined negotiation award process, should the proposal be selected for negotiation of a potential award. Non-traditional contractors who are proposing an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) must still use the DARPA common cost spreadsheet model. In the case of integrated line items, pricing may be entered under the Other Direct Costs section with all other input cells untouched. Please remember to submit supporting documentation, as necessary, to explain pricing.

Question 31: Is MINC viewed as an integration program for the other DARPA programs mentioned in the BAA? Are performers required to have experience in these programs?

Answer 31: MINC is a stand-alone program that along with related DARPA efforts will help realize the Mosaic Warfare vision. Technologies and capabilities from these related efforts may be leveraged by MINC solutions. Proposers are not required to have experience in these programs to bid to MINC.

Question 32: Is managing the dynamism of the underlying networks during the mission in scope?

Answer 32: Yes, addressing the dynamic nature of the underlying networks is in scope to achieve MINC objectives. For example, FA 1 will maintain a network resource model that tracks and forecasts the state of network resources.

Question 33: Should FA 2 incorporate any network planning aspects to recommend how to orchestrate networks for a mission?

Answer 33: Yes, it is an objective of FA 2 to recommend how to orchestrate networks for a mission.

Question 34: What degree of mission information can performers expect to get?

Answer 34: The program will not provide mission objectives in a specific format.

Solutions should outline what information they would need, how they would obtain it, and how it would be used.

Question 35: Is the interaction between the user/app and MINC envisioned to be static or continuous?

Answer 35: MINC solutions should be able to adapt to changing mission dynamics and to interact with users as appropriate. Proposals should discuss this interaction as part of their FA 3 approaches.

Question 36: Can we assume that blue force and C2 applications are things the government wants and intends to provide or is that on the performers?

Answer 36: The MINC-enabled Blue Force Situational Awareness application is to be developed by performers during Phase 1 of the program. Solutions which build off of existing applications are in scope. Please see BAA Section I.F. for more on the MINC-enabled Mission C2 application for Phase 2.

Question 37: Are unclassified subcontracts possible?

Answer 37: Unclassified subcontracts are possible. Appendix 7 (Security Addendum Sample Template) of the BAA provides guidance regarding program protection planning that covers how the Prime would protect program information.

Question 38: Is bootstrapping a network in scope or can we assume that some baseline network is available for MINC software to discover and configure devices?

Answer 38: During initial configuration of the networks, MINC may inform the initial configuration of control settings including node placement when appropriate. Proposers should assume the latter for deployed networks: networks of interest will begin in a baseline configuration with connectivity within and between networks.

Question 39: If the SOW tables can be provided in an appendix, does this mean the information in the Statement of Work section (IV.B.1.3.A) can just be a reference to this appendix?

Answer 39: As stated on page 32 of Amendment 1 of the BAA, the SOW table, which summarizes the Statement of Work in the provided table format, may be included in an appendix. Please note that all of the other information listed in Section IV.B.1.3.A is required to be included in the submission in the proper narrative, task-based format.

Question 40: If Proposers want to submit a proposal that includes a section with classified information, can the unclassified portion be submitted via the BAA portal, or does the entire submission have to be submitted by mail as per the instructions for a classified submission?

What systems are acceptable for transmittal of classified proposals?

Answer 40: Yes, Unclassified submissions with a Classified appendix are acceptable.

The Unclassified proposal should be submitted following BAA guidance for Unclassified proposals. The Classified appendix should be submitted following Classified proposal submission guidance. Refer to Page 38 of Amendment 1 of the Unclassified BAA for instructions on how to submit Classified proposals and which methods are acceptable.

All material (unclassified and classified) must be received by the Proposal Due Date and Time.

Question 41: In Appendix 7, the last item (8. Data Deliverables for Security Related Items) listed in the outline is missing from the template. What data deliverables are you expecting to be listed here?

Answer 41: Proposals should list Data Deliverables for Security-related items as seen in Section I.F in the BAA as part of the S&T plan annotated in the contract deliverables.

Question 42: For Section III – F of the Technical Volume (“Description of Security Management architecture”), can we just reference the content of the S&T Program PIP (BAA Appendix 7), which doesn’t count against the page limit?

Answer 42: The “Description of Security Management Architecture” in that section of the Technical Volume should be a high-level overview of your Protection Implementation Plan (PIP) architecture. Proposers may point to their Protection Implementation Plan for additional technical detail, as needed. Please annotate in the overview that the details are included in the security appendix portion of the proposal submission.

Question 43: Are there concerns with work being done outside of the continental US?

Answer 43: As mentioned in Section III.A, there are ITAR concerns to keep in mind for any work done outside of the U.S. and the Program Implementation Plan (PIP) required should also include additional detail. This work should be detailed in the proposal submission, including the statement of work (SOW), and illustrated in the S&T protection plan as annotated for contract deliverables.

Question 44: Will the presentations shared during the classified session be made available?

Answer 44: Potential proposers who both request the Classified Addendum via the instructions in the BAA and have the appropriate clearances, will also receive the briefs presented during the classified session. All of the materials are sent via CD.

Question 45: Can proposers review the classified addendum at DARPA?

Answer 45: No, the classified addendum must be requested according to the instructions in Appendix 2 of the Unclassified BAA.

Question 46: How can classified questions about the addendum be submitted to DARPA?

Answer 46: Proposer’s will submit their intent, at the unclassified level, to the BAA inbox email address, HR001121S0028@darpa.mil, as annotated in Amendment 1 of the BAA on page 5. Further instructions on submitting the classified question will be provided. All classified questions need to be submitted before the due date, June 8, 2021, as specified in Amendment 1 of the BAA on page 5.

Question 47: What is the timeframe of getting classed notes transmitted?

Answer 47: Classified notes are being sent with the Classified Addendum as requested via the appendix request form. Timeframe is on a first-in first-out basis.

Question 48: Can you please confirm the maximum page count for Volume 1, Section 1 Administrative? If this is supposed to be 2 pages, does this mean that the Cover Sheet and Official Transmittal Letter combined cannot exceed 2 pages?

Answer 48: Correct, the bracketed {2} on page 31 of Amendment 1 of the BAA refers to the Cover Sheet and Official Transmittal Letter. These combined should not exceed two pages.

Question 49: Are proposers permitted to submit a broad-reaching (i.e. not specific to a single subsection) classified addendum to Volume I, Section III Detailed Proposal Information, so long as the addendum does not take the overall Section III page count above 25 pages?

Answer 49: Yes, proposers are permitted to submit a broad-reaching classified addendum to Volume I, Section III Detailed Proposal Information, as long as the addendum does not take the overall Section III page count above 25 pages, and all required information for Section III is submitted.

Question 50: The DARPA cost proposal spreadsheet only contains tabs for FA 1 / FA 2 / FA 3 costs and does not provide the flexibility to create additional cost breakdown structures. Some costs and program functions (program management, program security, common software tools) are overarching and cannot be objectively mapped to Focus Areas. Where does DARPA want to see these type of costs broken out?

Answer 50: As noted on the ‘General’ tab of the Excel template, proposers may add additional specific cost categories as needed (subcontractors, Other Direct Cost types, etc.) but should ensure that the new cost categories/tabs still track to, and are included in, the Total Amount tab.

Question 51: The list of deliverables on page 23 of the BAA lists two items that would be due after the currently solicited Phase 3 POP (45 and 48 months after contract award). The currently solicited Phase 3 is supposed to end 42 months after contract award. Does this mean that the two deliverables in question are due earlier? Please clarify due dates.

Answer 51: The due dates for the deliverables in question have been updated. Please see Amendment 1 of the BAA.

Question 52: The BAA asks proposers to include a separate line item in the cost proposal for security including security personnel costs, cyber security costs, and facility/infrastructure security costs. However, our company includes such costs within our indirect rates. Is this approach acceptable to DARPA, given that the BAA states that “…Simply noting that security costs are rolled into or part of another cost proposal line item will not be acceptable”?

Answer 52: The purpose of the language in 7.1 of Appendix 7 (page 61 of Amendment 1 of the BAA) is to ensure separate costs for security considerations are thought out and incorporated into cost proposals, in order to mitigate under-budgeting for various security aspects which are involved in program development and program security.

Previously, companies would state that all security costs were “rolled” into various indirect rates, but would fail to consider independent costs such as facility accreditations, COMSEC accounts/assets, information systems, security personnel, testing, and logistics considerations, among other things. Companies may include all costs within an indirect rate, but must explain in detail the individual security costs considered, the scope and magnitude of those individual costs, and why they are included in an indirect rate.

Question 53: Can the table formats for the Statement of Work be structured and modified to better accommodate all of the requested information under Paragraph A? For example: the first table example has two columns: WBS (List) and Task and Description (List). In this structure the WBS column for each row will be underutilized while the Task and Description column will be very lengthy.

Answer 53: No, the format of the Statement of Work (SOW) tables provided in an appendix should not be modified from the template provided in the BAA. However, proposers are allowed to include the SOW in another format within the main body of the proposal if they wish, but should remember that this will count towards the overall page count.

Proposers should ensure that the SOW tables in the appendix are a summary of the SOW, and all other required information listed in Paragraph A should be provided in narrative, task-based format. See Question and Answer 39.

Question 54: The BAA requires major program tasks by Fiscal Year. Is this Government Fiscal Year or Contractor Fiscal Year?

Answer 54: The Fiscal Year should be set by the Proposer. Please see the “Proposer Constants” tab of the provided Standard Cost Proposal spreadsheet.

Question 55: BAA section IV.B.1.b)(2)(b), 6th paragraph asks for “Summary of projected funding requirements by month and further broken down by task and phase. What is the difference between this request and the tab in the StandardCostProposalSpreadsheetMultipleTAs.xlsx titled “Expenditures by Month”? If we provide the requested information in the BAA (by task/phase) can we eliminate the requirement in the spreadsheet?

Answer 55: The “Expenditures by Month” tab in the Standard Cost Proposal spreadsheet fulfills the requirement to provide the summary of projected funding by month and further broken down by task and phase. Proposers may choose to simply reference the spreadsheet tab or may provide a separate breakdown in the cost volume pdf file submitted. Alternatively, if the proposer provides the breakdown in the pdf file, the “Expenditures by Month” spreadsheet tab may reference the cost volume pdf file page number.

Question 56: The DARPA provided spreadsheet is an entirely manual effort. We are able to produce system generated reports that include nearly all of the information that is requested in the spreadsheet. Offeror requests that we use system generated reports, with working calculations in lieu of some of the tabs requested in the DARPA provided spreadsheet to reduce manual effort and ensure accuracy of information provided.

Answer 56: As stated in the BAA (page 36 of Amendment 1 of the BAA), the Government requires that proposers use the provided Standard Cost Proposal spreadsheet.

Question 57: Does DE2 include accurate emulation of radio configuration APIs?

Answer 57: Please refer to the DE2 brief that was submitted to proposers for additional information. Performers will work with DE2 during Phase 1 to create/modify the experimentation environment as needed to accurately test their solution.

Question 58: Is there an unclassified version of the DE2 simulation suite that can be run in a performer’s facility?

Answer 58: There is currently no unclassified version of the DE2 simulation suite.

However, portions of DE2 are running unclassified and could be tested prior to fully transitioning to the classified environment. Please note, as another risk mitigation approach, and in support of Performer Experiments, proposers should discuss their own experimentation environments as seen on page 16 of Amendment 1 of the BAA.

Question 59: What is the network architecture of the Test/Evaluation phase?

Answer 59: The exact network architecture that will be evaluated in each Phase will be identified and refined early in each phase in cooperation with the Experimentation Integrated Product Team (IPT) and based on selected test and evaluation scenarios.

Proposers should make every attempt to align their testing and evaluation with transition partners in order to help with transition. Please refer to the Classified Addendum for more detail on testing.

Question 60: How many networks are involved in Phase 1, 2, and 3?

Answer 60: Refer to the Classified Addendum for more detail on the metrics required in each Phase.

Question 61: Are there bandwidth requirements?

Answer 61: The bandwidth requirements may depend on many factors including available networks and mission objectives and will likely change frequently over time. The proposed solution should be flexible enough to adjust bandwidth requirements as needed.

Question 62: Are there any specific IT Security requirements that proposers need to consider?

Answer 62: Proposers should identify any specific IT requirements they think will be required for their solution to meet the MINC objectives. Refer to Appendix 7 of Amendment 1 of the BAA for more detail on specific Security requirements that should be considered.

Question 63: What are the required testing criteria for the “Test Phase”?

Answer 63: Refer to the Classified Addendum for more detail on testing during the MINC program.

Question 64: How do the configuration parameters flow down to MINC? Are they abstractions at the MINC layer of does MINC have to be aware of specific technology parameters?

Answer 64: MINC proposals should address integration with networks of interest to include discovery, representation, and configuration of control parameters associated with network resources. MINC seeks solutions that provide for rapid integration and extensibility to new systems via a methodology and framework that can be replicated across systems.

Question 65: Is there a model contract with clauses that will apply to the award that we can review or will this be provided upon award?

Answer 65: A draft contract with clauses will be provided for review prior to award.

Question 66: We respectfully request an exception to the requirement at 7.1 of Appendix 7

(page 61 of Amendment 1 of the BAA). Our security personnel costs, cyber security costs, and facility/infrastructure costs are considered overhead and are included in our G&A and are not direct billed resources. It would be difficult to adjust approved G&A to remove these separately from the pool, prior to proposal submission.

Answer 66: As stated in Answer 52 (above), the purpose of the language in 7.1 of Appendix 7 (page 61 of Amendment 1 of the BAA) is to ensure separate costs for security considerations are thought out and incorporated into cost proposals, in order to mitigate under-budgeting for various security aspects which are involved in program development and program security. Companies may include all costs within an indirect rate, but must explain in detail the individual security costs considered, the scope and magnitude of those individual costs, and why they are included in an indirect rate.

Question 67: The BAA states, “When a proposal includes a classified portion, and when able according to security guidelines, we ask that proposers send an email no later than June 14, 2021 to the following email addresses HR001121S0028@darpa.mil and cassie.kepler.ctr@darpa.mil as notification that there is a classified portion to the proposal.

When submitting a hard copy of the classified portion according to the instructions outlined below, proposers should submit two (2) CD-ROMs containing the classified portion of the proposal as a single, searchable PDF file.” How many hard copies of the Cost Volume and CDs are required.

Answer 67: The directions quoted in Question 67, above, refer to submission of any classified portion of the BAA. The Government anticipates that cost volumes will not be classified. Please see “Submission Information” on pages 42-43 of Amendment 1 of the

BAA.

Question 68: Is the association of MINC and CaaS classified?

Answer 68: No, the association of MINC and Communications-as-a-Service (CaaS) is not classified. MINC and CaaS integration details should be handled as controlled unclassified information (CUI).