ePS_RFP_Attach_2_SRS_v1_2_s.pdf

N00039-17-R-0002

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

electronic Procurement System

Request for Proposal

Attachment 2: System Requirements Specification

Acquisition Category (ACAT) I AM

Version 1.2

6 March 2017

Distribution Notice D: Authorized to the Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD Contractors only. This document is for administrative or operational use, as of the date of approval for this document. Refer to the Program Manager (PM), PMW 220 Navy Enterprise Business Solutions (Navy EBS), Program

Executive Office Enterprise Information System (PEO EIS), Washington Navy Yard, 1325 10 th

St. SE, Bldg. 196, Washington, D.C. 20374 for additional document requests.

Handling and Destruction Notice: Comply with distribution statement and destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

ePS System Requirements Specification

(SRS)

File name:

ePS_SRS.docx

Page:

2/382 Version:

Version 1.2 Date of Creation

6 Mar 2017

RELEASE AUTHORIZATION

P. J. KASSAL Date

Chief Engineer, PMW 220

Navy Enterprise Business Solutions Program Office

S. E. SEAY Date

Program Manager, PMW 220

Navy Enterprise Business Solutions Program Office

Page:

3/382 Version:

Version 1.2

DOCUMENT HISTORY

DATE VERSION DESCRIPTION AUTHOR

28 Jul 2014 0.1-0.8 Initial draft for internal SE review ePS Requirements Team

30 Oct 2015 0.8R Minor update; distributed for ePS

Request for Information (RFI) to

Industry ePS Requirements Team

9 Nov 2015 0.85-0.9 Minor update; distributed draft to ePS stakeholder (HCA) community for review, and comments adjudicated ePS Requirements Team

9 Feb 2016 1.0 Baseline version includes leadership signature; technical review version for System Requirements Review

(SRR)

ePS Requirements Team

1 July 2016 1.01 Minor update complete; includes all critical HCA adjudicated comments ePS Requirements Team

24 Oct 2016 1.1 Update for requirements refinement for grants and automated ordering functionality, approved for release 6

December 2016 ePS Requirements Team

16 Dec 2016 1.1.1 Minor updates for Navy Peer

Review ePS Requirements Team

6 Jan 2017 1.1.2 Technical update for Request for

Proposal (RFP) Release to Industry ePS Requirements Team

3 Mar 2017 1.2 Added requirements to Infrastructure to reflect new disconnected state requirements.

ePS Requirements Team

Page:

4/382 Version:

Version 1.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RELEASE AUTHORIZATION

DOCUMENT HISTORY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE OF APPENDIX TABLES

TABLE OF APPENDIXES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document Purpose

1.2 Document Organization

1.3 Associated Requirement Identification Activities

1.4 Governance and Management of Requirements

1.5 Program Summary

1.5.1 Program Background

1.5.2 System Description

1.6 System Capabilities

1.6.1 CWS High-Level Capabilities

1.6.2 ESB High-Level Capabilities

1.7 Requirements Hierarchy

2 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1 CWS Requirements

2.1.1 General System Management

2.1.2 Procurement Process Management

2.1.3 Data Management

2.1.4 External Interface Management

2.1.5 Financial Transaction Management

2.2 Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Requirements

2.2.1 Enable ESB Data Exchanges

2.2.2 Development Framework Management

3 NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Considerations

3.2 Process Flexibility

3.3 Configurable Features

3.4 System Adaptively

3.5 Standards

3.6 Infrastructure

3.6.1 Internet Access

3.6.2 Network

3.6.3 Usage

Page:

5/382 Version:

Version 1.2

3.6.4 Disconnected State

3.7 Cybersecurity

3.8 Operation

3.9 Usability

4 SUPPORT OF FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT, AND AUDIT READINESS INITIATIVES230

4.1 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

4.2 Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)

4.3 Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual

4.4 Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) and Office of the under Secretary of

Defense (Comptroller) OUSD(C) Internal Control Requirements

4.4.1 Separation of Duties

4.4.2 Requirements

4.4.3 Funds Source and Certification

4.4.4 Solicitation and Award

4.4.5 Obligation

4.4.6 Contract Administration

4.4.7 Property Management

4.4.8 Closeout

4.4.9 Authoritative Systems and Data Sources

4.5 DON Enterprise IT Control Standards for the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) SP 800-53 Rev. 4 Controls

5 SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

5.1 System Performance Measures

5.1.1 Data Error Rejection

5.1.2 Document Preview Rendering Time

5.1.3 Contract Instrument Generation

5.1.4 Entitlement Data Transmission

5.1.5 Obligation Data Transmission

5.1.6 Contract Data Compliance

5.2 Other System Attributes

5.2.1 System Responsiveness

5.2.2 User and System Support

5.2.3 Cybersecurity

5.2.4 Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: ePS High Level Scope

Figure 2: ePS OV-1

Figure 3: ePS Requirements Hierarchy

Page:

6/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Figure 4: CWS Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 5: CWS General System Management Requirements

Figure 6: CWS Procurement Process Management Hierarchy

Figure 7: Traditional Procurement Process

Figure 8: CWS Data Management Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 9: CWS External Interface Management Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 10: ePS SV-1

Figure 11: CWS Interface Concept

Figure 12: ESB Interface Concept

Figure 13: CWS Interface Concept with Enterprise Services and Authoritative Source

Figure 14: CWS Interface Concept for Facilitation of External Processes

Figure 15: ESB Exchange with PR Tools & FMIS Concept

Figure 16: ESB Exchange with ERP Systems

Figure 17: ESB Exchange with GL Systems

Figure 18: CWS Financial Transaction Management Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 19: Primary Financial Scenario

Figure 20: CWS Handshakes

Figure 21: ESB Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 22: ESB Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 23: ESB Development Framework Management Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 24: ePS Authentication Concept

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: ePS Operational Modes

Table 1-2: HCAs – DASN (AP)

Table 1-3: HCAs – MSC

Table 1-4: HCAs – NAVAIR

Table 1-5: HCAs – NAVFAC

Table 1-6: HCAs – NAVSEA

Table 1-7: HCAs – NAVSUP

Table 1-8: HCAs – ONR

Table 1-9: HCAs – SPAWAR

Table 1-10: HCAs – SSP

Page:

7/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-11: HCAs – USMC, HQMC, I&L

Table 1-12: HCAs – USMC, MCSC (MARCORSYSCOM)

Table 1-13: User Roles

Table 2-1: Business Process Control Requirements

Table 2-2: Workflow Management Requirements

Table 2-3: Workload Management Requirements

Table 2-4: Business Process Automation Requirements

Table 2-5: Document Controls Requirements

Table 2-6: Instrument/Header/Document-Level (Section A) Requirements

Table 2-7: Line Item Information (Section B) Requirements

Table 2-8: Attachments and Specifications (Section C & J) Requirements

Table 2-9: Logistics: Packaging (Section D), Inspection & Acceptance (Section E), and Period of

Performance/Delivery (Section F) Requirements

Table 2-10: Funding (Section G) and Pricing (Section B)

Table 2-11: Clauses, Provisions, and Clause Logic (Sections H, I, K, L, & M)

Table 2-12: Document Management Requirements

Table 2-13: Forms Control Requirements

Table 2-14: Instrument Associations

Table 2-15: System Administration Function

Table 2-16: User Profile and Account Administration

Table 2-17: Audit Trail Requirements

Table 2-18: Configuration Parameter Requirements

Table 2-19: Dashboard, Reporting, and Metric Requirements

Table 2-20: Requiring Activity Engagement

Table 2-21: Purchase Request Package Establishment Requirements

Table 2-22: Milestone Establishment and Tracking

Table 2-23: Acquisition Planning Requirements

Table 2-24: Synopsis Establishment Requirements

Table 2-25: Solicitation Establishment Requirements

Table 2-26: Offeror Screening Requirements

Table 2-27: Complementary Review Requirements

Table 2-28: Offer Evaluation Requirements

Table 2-29: Vendor Engagement Requirements

Table 2-30: Protest, Dispute, and Appeal Tracking Requirements

Page:

8/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 2-31: Award Document Preparation Requirements

Table 2-32: Funds Management Requirements

Table 2-33: Award Issuance Requirements

Table 2-34: Post-Award Setup Requirements

Table 2-35: Award Performance Monitoring Requirements

Table 2-36: Post-Award Modification Requirements

Table 2-37: Procurement Instrument Closeout Requirements

Table 2-38: Procurement Instrument Archive Requirements

Table 2-39: Authoritative Data Management Requirements

Table 2-40: CWS Interface Requirements - General

Table 2-41: CWS Interface Requirements - CLS

Table 2-42: CWS Interface Requirements - DoDAAD

Table 2-43: CWS Interface Requirements - FBO

Table 2-44: CWS Interface Requirements - FPDS-NG

Table 2-45: CWS Interface Requirements - GEX

Table 2-46: CWS Interface Requirements - Grants.gov

Table 2-47: CWS Interface Requirements - PSC-OCC Selection Tool

Table 2-48: CWS Interface Requirements - SAM

Table 2-49: CWS Interface Requirements - USASpending.gov

Table 2-50: CWS Web Requirements - CFDA

Table 2-51: CWS Web Requirements - CORT

Table 2-52: CWS Web Requirements - CPARS

Table 2-53: CWS Web Requirements - eSRS

Table 2-54: CWS Web Requirements - PPIRS

Table 2-55: CWS Web Requirements - WDOL

Table 2-56: CWS Web Requirements - SBCR

Table 2-57: CWS Web Requirements – PASS 2.0

Table 2-58: CWS Web Requirements – eBuy

Table 2-59: CWS Interface Requirements – NPAR

Table 2-60: CWS Interface Requirements – SPOT

Table 2-61: ESB Interfaces - 511R AOL

Table 2-62: ESB Interfaces - CFMS

Table 2-63: ESB Interfaces - DMLSS

Table 2-64: ESB Interfaces - FASTDATA

Page:

9/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 2-65: ESB Interfaces – NAVFAC–MIS

Table 2-66: ESB Interfaces - PR Builder

Table 2-67: ESB Interfaces - SYMIS/MAT

Table 2-68: ESB Interfaces - DIFMS

Table 2-69: ESB Interfaces - ILSMIS

Table 2-70: ESB Interfaces - IMPS

Table 2-71: ESB Interfaces - NAVY-ERP

Table 2-72: ESB Interfaces - MSC-FMS

Table 2-73: ESB Interfaces - DWAS

Table 2-74: ESB Interfaces - SABRS

Table 2-75: ESB Interfaces - STARS-HCM

Table 2-76: ESB Interfaces - STARS-FL

Table 2-77: CWS Handshakes Requirements

Table 2-78: Enable ESB Data Exchange Requirements

Table 2-79: Development Framework Management Requirements

Table 3-1: Standards

Table 3-2: Internet Access Requirements

Table 3-3: Usage Requirements

Table 3-4: Disconnected State Requirements

Table 3-4: Cybersecurity Requirements

Table 3-5: Operation Requirements

Table 3-6: Usability Requirements

Table 4-1: FMFIA Controls

Table 4-2: FFMIA Controls

Table 4-3: FISCAM Controls

Table 4-4: Internal Controls - Separation of Duties

Table 4-5: Internal Controls - Requirements

Table 4-6: Internal Controls - Funds Source and Certification

Table 4-7: Internal Controls - Solicitation and Award

Table 4-8: Internal Controls - Obligation

Table 4-9: Internal Controls - Contract Administration

Table 4-10: Internal Controls - Property Management

Table 4-11: Internal Controls - Closeout

Table 4-12: Internal Controls - Authoritative Systems and Data Sources

Page:

10/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 5-1: SV-7 SPMs List

Table 5-2: Key System Attributes

TABLE OF APPENDIX TABLES

Appendix B - Table 1: Federal Statutes and Presidential Directives

Appendix B - Table 2: Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards

Appendix B - Table 3: Office of Management and Budget Guidance

Appendix B - Table 4: Code of Federal Regulations

Appendix B - Table 5: Other Relevant Guidance/Direction

TABLE OF APPENDIXES

Appendix A: Reference Links

Appendix B: Reference Documents

Appendix C: List of Attachments

Appendix D: Acronym List

Page:

11/382 Version:

Version 1.2

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document Purpose

The System Requirements Specification (SRS) is the structured collection of information that embodies the requirements of Electronic Procurement System (ePS), a Department of Navy (DON) Defense

Business System (DBS). Each requirement contained within the SRS defines a functional need, technical consideration for the unique DON environment, or system control to ensure compliance with Department initiatives. The SRS defines the ePS and serves as a baseline for system requirements. The SRS may also serve as an aiding component to identify capability gaps, perform requirements validation, and facilitate implementation planning. Throughout the SRS, specific wording is used to identify statements of expectations. Requirements are identified in the tables by statements using the word “shall”. All requirements using “shall” are contractually binding, must be implemented, and must be verified via

Inspection, Demonstration, Analysis or Testing. Statements using the term “will” are considered statements of fact but are not subject to verification. Statements using the term “should” are considered goals which should be considered and addressed by the design team but are not formally verified. Finally, the term “may” refers to statements that could be optional based on circumstances. The SRS is a living document and changes will occur as additional information becomes available.

Page:

12/382 Version:

Version 1.2

1.2 Document Organization

The SRS consists of five primary sections:

Section 1 – Introduction

The introduction provides the purpose of the document and provides the general organization of the SRS document. This section captures relevant background information, summarizes the ePS program, defines the DON environment, and defines the high-level capabilities of the system.

Section 2 – Functional Requirements

The functional requirements are detailed statements of the outcomes that a user or system is required to achieve, without any direction for performance of operation. In simple terms, this section identifies what is required of the system in order to meet business objectives.

Section 3 – Non-Functional Requirements

Non-functional requirements identify environmental considerations and constraints inherited by the ePS that drive the architecture, infrastructure, security, operations, and usability of the system.

Section 4 – Support of Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Initiatives

The ePS will support current Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) initiatives through inclusion of internal controls (i.e., process constraints) derived from the various statutes, regulations, and policies that govern DON processes.

Section 5 – System Attributes

A system attribute is a system capability considered significant for achieving a balanced solution or approach deemed necessary by the sponsor. Attribute values support the desired outcome of projected levels for both the users and owners of the system. The ePS Capability Requirements Document (CRD)

– a high-level document that defines the ePS capabilities, performance measures, and system characteristics, reiterates the system attributes.

1.3 Associated Requirement Identification Activities

The DON performed five years of requirements identification activities. Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY)

2011, the DON conducted a yearlong effort designed to generate a requirements baseline for a future contract writing system (CWS). This effort included: gathering requirements from available sources

(including currently deployed systems); ensuring that the requirements aligned with emerging DON initiatives; verifying the requirements through a Requirements Working Group (RWG) composed of

Heads of Contracting Activity (HCAs) and electronic business (eBusiness) officials; validating the requirements through onsite visits; and publishing the results.

In FY 2012, the effort continued by identifying current capability gaps (i.e., determining why “paper” contracting processes were still being executed) and performing business process re-engineering, for the future business process through onsite interviews. The result of this effort was a refined requirement set and a DON enterprise procurement process captured within a standard Business Process Modeling

Page:

13/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Notation (BPMN) format. The results use a system-agnostic perspective and conform to current DoD

Application Framework (DoDAF) modeling guidance.

In FY 2013, the Functional Sponsor traveled to Echelon IV commands to define the requirement set further. The information gathered included first-hand user inputs regarding the complexity of environments Outside the Contiguous United States (OCONUS), Marine Corps direct mission support, and Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) construction and administration. While these areas were addressed at a high level in FY 2011 and FY 2012 efforts, the specialists involved within these regions were unable to coordinate with or support the requirement definition efforts sufficiently due to the level of complexity involved and technical limitations. This resulted in twenty-three (23) new requirements labeled as the FY 2013 Addendum to the requirement set. The ePS Requirements Set is a culmination of those efforts, used to calculate the measure of quality for each alternative within the ePS Analysis of

Alternatives (AoA).

From FY 2014 to FY 2015, the ePS Requirement Set evolved into the contents of this document. Some requirements remain verbatim from the ePS AoA, while others are decomposed to provide clarity and specificity. There are new requirements that emerged from large Information Technology (IT) compliance initiatives. Attachment 1: ePS Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) captures the evolution of the ePS Requirements Set This document contains a consolidated list of all current ePS requirements and their origin.

Ultimately, the system requirements are complete as demonstrated through multiple years of requirement definition and refinement, extensive market research (including multiple Requests for Information (RFIs) to industry), and business process re-engineering activities. The efforts also leveraged the near twenty-year history of the DON’s current primary CWS, the Standard Procurement System (SPS), as well as multiple federal CWS procurements over the past decade.

1.4 Governance and Management of Requirements

A memorandum from the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy, dated 5 September 2014, established the

Governance Board for the DON ePS Program. The Governance Board ensures proper establishment, development, and tracking of ePS Program requirements, through sustainment and to final disposition.

The Governance Board governs the execution of the Program by making trade off decisions where requirement satisfaction, program cost, and schedule considerations come into conflict. Additionally, the

Board will hold the ePS Program accountable for progress in meeting requirements. The Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (DASN (AP)) and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy;

Financial Management and Comptroller (PDASN (FM&C)) co-chair the Governance Board. Additional board members include representatives from each of the ePS stakeholder communities. As the representatives for the end users, DASN (AP) and PDASN (FM&C) will define requirements and advocate for resources.

The ePS Program Office elicits, analyzes, manages, and documents the ePS requirements. The ePS

Requirements Management Plan (RMP) documents the processes, workflows, roles/responsibilities, metrics, change management, reporting, and traceability associated with the initiation, planning, Page:

14/382 Version:

Version 1.2 development, baselining, control, and validation of requirements. The RMP is the foundation for all management policies and procedures regarding program requirements. It identifies the methodology for managing the Program, and utilized to perform activities related to requirements management. The RMP, together with the Program Management Plan (PMP), Configuration Management Plan (CMP), and Risk

Management Plan (RMP) provide a framework for managing all the activities of the program related to requirement management. The Program Library contains the collection of these documents.

1.5 Program Summary

In May of 2014, the Naval Capabilities Board (NCB) and Resources and Requirements Review Board

(R3B) reviewed the ePS AoA, concurred with its conclusions, and authorized the pursuit of a single DON end-to-end (E2E) contracting capability. The Program Manager, Warfare (PMW) 220, Navy Enterprise

Business Solutions (Navy EBS) is responsible for the acquisition, implementation, and sustainment of the ePS capability. PMW 220 will leverage common industry standards and best practices in order to comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) and pursue a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solution requiring minimal to no customization.

1.5.1 Program Background

The DoD eBusiness and paperless initiatives began in the mid-1990s with the identification of requirements for an electronic CWS. In April of 1997, American Management Systems was awarded a

$240M, 10-year contract to use their commercially available contract management system, Procurement

Desktop-Defense (PD2), as the foundation for what would become the Department’s mandated enterprise

CWS suite, the SPS.

Throughout the following decade, the SPS served as the primary CWS in the DON for the majority of procurement actions, including major weapon system purchases. By 2007, the SPS was in need of repair;

the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) stating that the SPS Program would move to sustainment; ending further development of SPS. The DON was unable to address shortfalls as performance began to degrade and capabilities became inoperable. The user community mitigated issues resulting from those shortfalls, with other systems and offline (manual) processes. Those temporary solutions may become unavailable for continued use due to the enactment of

Section 862 Uniform Contract Writing System Requirements of the FY13 National Defense Authorization

Act (NDAA).

In November of 2011, the DoD set the initial goal for the sunset of the SPS across the DoD as 30

September 2017 and all SPS instances should turned off by FY 2018. However, an update in October

2014 reflected delays in budgeting for and procuring replacement systems by the DON and other services.

The current guidance is to cease new contracting actions in the SPS after the start of FY 2018 and remove all active SPS instances by FY 2020.

The plan to sunset SPS is contingent upon the deployment of a replacement system prior to turning off any SPS operations at the respective HCA’s, who currently utilize the SPS for their contracting mission.

The SPS served as the centerpiece for the DON in connecting the E2E data stream for electronic

Page:

15/382 Version:

Version 1.2 commerce for the last 15 years, and cannot sunset until the replacement system is in use at each command.

1.5.2 System Description

The ePS will provide the DON contracting workforce with agile and secure E2E contract writing capabilities, which support the Warfighter and department initiatives. These capabilities will institute an

E2E process perspective, better buying power (BBP), facilitate audit readiness, and reduce infrastructure and sustainment costs. The ePS will support the Procure-to-Pay (P2P) process, which aligns with the

DoD Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA). Multiple systems both internal and external to the DON support the standard P2P process, which encompasses all business functions that are necessary to obtain goods and services. As a result, the ePS will perform only the contracting activities within this process while supporting financial and logistic functions through the alignment and exchange of data.

Figure 1 identifies the primary functions of the P2P process and the scope of the ePS:

Figure 1: ePS High Level Scope

The ePS High-Level Operational Graphic (OV-1) depicts the conceptual operations, strategic goals, and stakeholders of the ePS. The ePS allows end users to satisfy sourcing requirements and share information with industry, federal and other government entities, financial assistance recipients, international partners, and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Through those sources, the end users will be able to deliver supplies, services, construction, grants, and other assistance agreements.

This will meet the sourcing capabilities the DON procurement community needs to execute the full range of military operations successfully.

Activities not within the ePS

PROCURE

TO

PAY

Create Purchase

Request (PR)

Develop Procurement

Strategy

Award Procurement Instrument

Administer Procurement Instrument

Perform Receipt, Acceptance, and Return

Manage Procurement Entitlement

Perform Instrument

Closeout

Manage Disbursement

Activities primarily performed within the ePS

Page:

16/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Figure 2: ePS OV-1

The ePS will include two primary components: a Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) CWS and a DON-managed COTS interfacing capability, known within the market as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB).

The COTS CWS and COTS ESB components, as defined within the ePS AoA, allow for an optimal solution by dividing requirements, maximizing existing market capabilities, and minimizing customization; including the need for unique interfaces.

1.5.2.1 Operational Environment

The ePS design will allow for deployment as a single solution supporting all of the operational modes employed throughout the DON Integrated Contracting Environment (DICE). The solution should provide consistency in appearance, utilization, and business rule implementation.

Page:

17/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-1 provides high-level information regarding the functional configuration considerations required given the operational modes supported by the ePS:

Table 1-1: ePS Operational Modes

OPERATIONAL MODE DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL MODE

Services Acquisition and management of services by contract, Service Contract Labor

Standards apply:

Maintenance, overhaul, repair, servicing, rehabilitation, salvage, modernization, or modification of supplies, systems, or equipment

Routine recurring maintenance of real property

Housekeeping and base services

Advisory and assistance services

Operation of government-owned equipment, real property, and systems

Communications services

Supplies All property except land or interest in land

Major System Acquiring major systems consistent with DoDI 5000.02 Operation of the

Defense Acquisition System and Research and Development (R&D) integral to acquisition of Major Systems

Construction, Architecture and Engineering

Contracting activities required for procuring construction, construction-related services, and architect and engineering services in support of the physical infrastructure owned and maintained by the DON

R&D Contracted R&D programs advance scientific and technical knowledge and apply it to achieve agency and national goals: when the principal purpose is the acquisition of supplies or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal government, use contracts; when the principal purpose of the transaction is to stimulate or support R&D for another public purpose, use grants, or cooperative agreements

Information Technology Equipment, or interconnected system(s) or subsystem(s) of equipment, used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the agency

Expeditionary Contracting Contracting activities required to procure supplies, services, and small-scale construction in support of Operational Contract Support (OCS) military operations where the mission is self-sustaining

Contingency Contracting Connotes a temporary condition; contracting activities to procure supplies, services, and small-scale construction in support of tactical and operational forces engaged in the full spectrum of armed conflict and noncombat contingency operations. It can be performed both OCONUS and Contiguous

United States (CONUS)

Foreign Military Sales Acquisitions for foreign military sales under the Arms Export Control Act

Page:

18/382 Version:

Version 1.2

OPERATIONAL MODE DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL MODE

Section (§) 22, United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 39; §22 (22 U.S.C. 2762) authorizes DoD to enter into contracts for resale to foreign countries or international organizations

Grants and Cooperative

Agreements

Department of Defense Grant and Agreement Regulations (DoDGARs)-based activities required to issue and administer grants, Cooperative agreements, Assistance agreements and Technology Investment Agreements in support of

DON operations

Other Transactions (OTs) Generic term that commonly refers to the authority to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. These are transactions awarded for basic, applied, and advanced R&D research prototype projects directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed for acquisition or development by the DoD. Ots for prototype projects are acquisition instruments that are generally not subject to the federal laws and regulations governing procurement contracts. They are not required to comply with the

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), its supplements, or laws limited in applicability to procurement contracts. OTs are not contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements however, there is no statutory or regulatory definition of "other transaction." Only those agencies provided with OT authority may engage in OTs. Generally, the reason for creating OT authority is that the

Government needs to obtain leading edge R&D products or capabilities

(including prototypes) from commercial sources, and some companies (and other entities) are unable or unwilling to comply with the Government's procurement regulations. The Government's procurement regulations and certain procurement statutes do not apply to OTs and accordingly, OT authority gives agencies the flexibility necessary to develop agreements tailored to a particular transaction. The Competition in Contracting Act, Contract Disputes

Act, and Procurement Integrity Act are examples of three statutes that do not apply to OTs. The basis for the authority is in 10 U.S.C. 2371, Research

Projects: Transactions other than Contracts and Grants. An OT can be either cost reimbursable or fixed priced.

1.5.2.2 Regulatory Environment

The DON contracting domain will utilize the ePS for all contract instrument types including, but not limited to Uniform Contract Format (UCF) contracts and delivery/task orders, Non-FAR-based agreements and OTs. As a result, the ePS is subject to the policies, guidance, instructions, and standardized procedures described in the FAR, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS), Navy-Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS), and the DoD Grant and

Agreement Regulations (DODGARs). As a supporting agency to other DoD and Federal activities, the ePS must also support specific policies, regulations, clauses, etc. as appropriate for the supported agency.

Although the DON’s goal is to reduce the need for local and one-time use clauses, the ePS must support these policies and clauses where appropriate.

Page:

19/382 Version:

Version 1.2

The following doctrines provide guidance for the ePS:

Strategic Plan for Defense Wide Procurement Capabilities (A Functional Strategy) Version 2.1;

18 Feb 2016

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (PDUSD) Procurement Functional Strategy Memo;

updated Sept 2014

FY13 NDAA Sec. 862 Uniform Contract Writing Systems Requirement; 2 Jan 2013

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD

(AT&L)), Data Capture in Support of Contingency Planning; 26 Jan 2012

Procurement to-Pay 9.0 Business Enterprise Architecture; 22 Feb 2012

USD (AT&L) Standard Procurement System Sunset Memo; 21 Oct 2011

USD (AT&L) Procurement Functional Strategy; updated 25 Sept 2014

USD (AT&L) DoD Functional Contract Writing and Administration Capabilities; 21 Oct 2011

USD (AT&L) Defense Wide Contract Clause Logic Capability; Feb 2016

USD (AT&L) DoD Compliance Roadmap for Existing and Future Contract Writing and

Administration Capabilities v1.0.1; 15 Jun 2011

DoD Operational Suitability Test Criteria for Contract Writing Systems (CWS) V0.3; 29 Apr

Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy for Acquisitions and Technology (DUSD A&T) Memo, Publication of Procurement Data Standard (Phase I); 21 Jul 2008

DUSD A&T Memo, Publication of Procurement Data Standard (Phase II); 31 Jul 2009

USD Memo, Linking Financial Data to Contract Data; 18 Mar 2009

Financial Data in Procurement Concept of Operations (FDIP CONOPS); 15 Dec 2008

The policies and regulations that the ePS must support continually update in accordance with assessments and findings, shifts in congressional priorities, and other reasons. It is rare to revise the policies and procedures for a maintenance support system such as a CWS based on pre-established business rules, programming logic, or maintenance schedule. Consequently, the ePS architecture must allow for rapid adaptation and persistent maintenance at a reasonable cost.

1.5.2.3 Physical Environment

DON contracting professionals will utilize the ePS to perform the contracting mission within unclassified locations. A commercially available cloud-hosting site will host the ePS in order to support worldwide operations (i.e., CONUS and OCONUS activities). Delivery of the ePS will be via Non-secure Internet

Protocol Router Net (NIPRNET), Navy/Marine Corps Internet (NMCI), OCONUS Navy Enterprise

Network (ONE-Net), or other DON-approved networks. The Cloud Hosting Strategy will provide an additional hosted environment and a disaster recovery capability. Available web browsers (e.g., Internet

Explorer) with secure protocols allow access to the ePS with authentication via a Common Access Card

Page:

20/382 Version:

Version 1.2

(CAC) for all CAC-issued personnel or by login/password for all other entities (e.g., Foreign Nationals and Vendors).

1.5.2.4 Technical Environment

The Technical Environment relates to the overall product and its structure at the highest level. The ePS concept should ensure data standardization, interoperability, secure electronic data transfer, and data visibility within its design. The ePS will be subject to DON network regulations, security accreditations, and the DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF). The DICE refers to the ePS and all its interconnected systems.

The ePS concept should ensure compliance with DON Enterprise Architecture (EA) and depict a modular, highly scalable, and open-systems architecture. The models and viewpoints that compose the ePS architecture will comply with the following policies:

Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), version

10.0, 14 Feb2013

DoDAF, DoD Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO), version 2.02, 22 Mar 2010

DON Enterprise Architecture (EA), DON Chief Information Officer (CIO), version 4.0, 26 Sept

Architecture Development Guide (ADG), DON Chief Information Officer (CIO), version 2.0, 29

Jul 2011

Integrated Architecture Process and Viewpoint Guide (United States Marine Corps (USMC)), version 1.01, 21 Sept 2011

The Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) Enterprise

Architecture Initiative

Business Process Model & Notation (BPMN), Object Management Group (OMG), version 2.0, Jan 2011

Section 1.5.2 System Description identified the two primary components for ePS– the COTS CWS and the COTS ESB. The Vendor Portal capability is separate from the COTS CWS component, which fully illustrates the technical design. This division allows discussion for the unique technical requirements of the Vendor Portal; namely the availability of the Vendor Portal to the public internet.

Three primary user groups will access the ePS:

Primary Users (5,500 estimated): Government procurement professionals that will use the entire set of CWS functionality

Unlimited Non-Primary Users (10,000 estimated): Complementary support functions that require a sub-set of functionality (e.g., document reviews and approvals) for Government and non-

Government users

Unlimited Industry Users (100,000 estimated): Non-Government suppliers of goods and services to the DON (i.e., commercial vendors)

Page:

21/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Primary Users and Non-Primary users will access the ePS using their Government-issued laptop or desktop over a DON approved network (e.g., NMCI). All DON personnel must obtain a CAC, and the

Public Key Infrastructure/Public Key Enabling (PKI/PKE) authentication will secure user access. A system-generated and user-maintained password will ensure access for any users not issued a CAC (e.g., Foreign Nationals and Industry users).

The Vendor Portal is the public-facing element of the ePS and must be accessible from the public internet.

As a result, this capability must be separate from other elements of the ePS to protect the stored information.

1.5.2.5 Organizational Environment

The Program expects to deploy the ePS as a single solution that will support contracting missions and capabilities for each of the eleven HCA commands. The solution should provide consistency in appearance, utilization, and business rule implementation. Each HCA brings with it the potential requirements for unique configurations. The following tables provide high-level information regarding each HCA’s contracting mission, user base, and primary financial systems:

Page:

22/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-2: HCAs – DASN (AP)

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY - ACQUISITION AND PROCUREMENT DASN (AP)

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (DASN) - Acquisition and Procurement (AP)’s mission is to shape acquisition and logistics policies that assure our Sailors and Marines are mission capable and have a technological edge over our adversaries. In support of this mission, DASN (AP) provides advice, staff support to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN)

Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA) on Acquisition and Logistics issues; serves as the DON Competition Advocate General; establishes acquisition, and logistics policy, facilitates, and improves the acquisition system. DASN (AP) serves as the DON's Functional Area Manager

(FAM) for CWS, providing transition planning, portfolio management oversight and control, and Business

Enterprise Architecture implementation. DASN (AP) applies DoD regulations and guidance to the DON CWSs of record (such as the SPS, Integrated Technical Item Management and Procurement (ITIMP), SeaPort-E, etc.).

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 13

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds Certification/Commitment Dependent on Action

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation Dependent on Action

Table 1-3: HCAs – MSC

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND (MSC)

Military Sealift Command (MSC) awards and administers contracts for services of ocean-going ships, crafts, floating dry docks, and other repair facilities, for purposes such as oceanographic research and survey, underwater research, cable lying, and range instrumentation; and contracts for the maintenance, conversion, and modernization of assigned vessels. MSC’s unique contracting responsibilities include contracts for services of ferries and tugs; and exclude contracts for pilot services and ferries and tugs used for husbanding services, including water taxi contracts awarded outside the CONUS under husbanding services contracts. The Defense Transportation

Regulation identifies MSC transportation responsibilities.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 108

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds

Certification/Commitment

Military Sealift Command Financial

Management System (MSC-FMS)

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation MSC-FMS

Page:

23/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-4: HCAs – NAVAIR

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVAIR)

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) awards and administers contracts for naval aviation programs and efforts supported by the Naval Air Warfare Centers, to include relevant logistics, training and professional, research and engineering services. NAVAIR’s unique contracting responsibilities include designing, developing, procuring, and supporting naval aviation systems used by the DON.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 1,286

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds

Certification/Commitment Navy-Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation Navy-ERP

Page:

24/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-5: HCAs – NAVFAC

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (NAVFAC)

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) awards and administers contracts for all architect-engineer, construction, utilities, energy, facilities support, and assigned weapon and

IT system programs or components associated with Navy expeditionary forces. NAVFAC’s unique contracting responsibilities include:

Facility engineering and construction, including capital improvements

Utilities, including sales and privatization

Shore Energy, including renewable, conservation, Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility

Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), and sales

Environmental remediation, cultural resources (on DoD installations only), historical research, natural resources conservation studies (on and off DoD installations), execution of the Defense Environmental

Restoration Program, delegated caretaker functions at military installations closing under the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, and any amendments thereto

Public works, including maintenance of buildings, grounds, roads and other infrastructure

Guard services related to the protection and security of U.S. military installations and facilities

Anti-Terrorism Force Protection infrastructure (ashore)

Contingency engineering, expeditionary and construction training systems and equipment

Logistics-over-the-shore, near shore, and ocean facilities infrastructure systems

Navy expeditionary equipment, infrastructure, and IT related systems

Procurement and lease (over 120 days) of Navy civil engineer support equipment (excludes USMC), including railway, construction and weight-handling equipment

Procurement and maintenance of automotive vehicles used by DON

Lease of automotive vehicles used by DON (over 120 days)

Construction, lease, purchase and/or installation of re-locatable buildings, including trailers

DON acquisition of public utility services including, but not limited to: electricity, gas, water, sewerage, drainage, fire and police protection, street lighting and cleaning, and trash and garbage disposal

Administration functions associated with construction work under contracts awarded by other DON contracting activities that contain any construction work

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 1,485

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds

Certification/Commitment

FIS

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation

Standard Accounting and Reporting System/Field

Level (STARS-FL), Standard Accounting and

Reporting/Headquarters Claimant Module

(STARS-HCM), Defense Working-Capital

Accounting System (DWAS)

Page:

25/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-6: HCAs – NAVSEA

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVSEA)

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) awards and administers contracts for ships and submarines, assigned weapon systems and platforms, and relevant professional, research and engineering services. NAVSEA’s unique contracting responsibilities include awarding and administering contracts for construction, maintenance, and modernization of ships and submarines, nuclear propulsion, watercraft, submersibles, equipage for towing, diving and salvage, and University Affiliated

Research Centers.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 723

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds

Certification/Commitment

NAVY-ERP

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation NAVY-ERP, STARS-FL, STARS-HCM

Page:

26/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-7: HCAs – NAVSUP

NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVSUP)

Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) awards and administers contracts in support of assigned logistics support functions. NAVSUP unique contracting responsibilities include procuring supplies and services for all non-contracting Navy activities, offices or commands for which no other HCA has delegated authority.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 665

Financial Management Information System(s)

– Funds Certification/Commitment

NAVSUP

NAVY-ERP

U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) and U.S. Pacific

Fleet (PACFLEET)

Funds Administration and Standardized Document Automation

(FASTDATA); Shipyard Management Information

System/Material Access Technology (SYMIS/MAT);

511R Apade Online (AOL); Command Financial Management

System (CFMS)

Reserve Force-Naval Reserve Force (RESFOR)

Reserve Integrated Management System – Financial

Management (RIMS-FM); FASTDATA

U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED)

RIMS-FM; FASTDATA; Defense Medical Logistics Standard

Support (DMLSS)

Financial Systems Activity (FSA)

CFMS; FASTDATA

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification &

Obligation

NAVY-ERP;

STARS-FL

Page:

27/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-8: HCAs – ONR

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH (ONR)

Office of Naval Research (ONR) awards and administers contracts and other instruments

(including grants and assistance actions) for assigned DON Science and Technology

(S&T) research. ONR’s unique contracting responsibilities include the award and administration of contracts to the Navy’s Federally Funded Research Development Center (FFRDC).

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 130

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds Certification/Commitment

NAVY-ERP, Integrated

Management Processing

System (IMPS)

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation NAVY-ERP, IMPS

Table 1-9: HCAs – SPAWAR

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND (SPAWAR)

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) awards and administers contracts in the information dominance domain, including assigned programs in the areas of R&D, systems engineering and development, and other relevant professional services associated with production, installation and sustainment for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems (C4ISR); Joint Tactical Radios

Systems (JTRS), Space Systems; Enterprise Information Systems (EIS); and Navy Chief Information Officer

(CIO) supported IT initiatives.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 249

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds Certification/Commitment NAVY-ERP

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation NAVY-ERP

Page:

28/382 Version:

Version 1.2

Table 1-10: HCAs – SSP

STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS (SSP)

Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) awards and administers contracts in support of the development, production, and life cycle support of the Trident Strategic Weapon System, and other assigned programs under the cognizance of the Director, SSP (DIRSSP).

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 25

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds Certification/Commitment NAVY-ERP

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation NAVY-ERP

Page:

29/382 Version:

Version 1.2 able 1-11: HCAs – USMC, HQMC, I&L

INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS (USMC, HQMC, I&L)

Installations and Logistics, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC, I&L) awards and administers contracts for supplies and services to support installation and logistics requirements of the Marine Corps Operating Forces and supporting establishments.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users 394

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds Certification/Commitment PR Builder

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation

Standard Accounting, Budgeting, and

Reporting System

(SABRS)

Table 1-12: HCAs – USMC, MCSC (MARCORSYSCOM)

MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND (MARCORSYSCOM)

Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) awards and administers contracts for assigned

Marine Corps programs, assigned IT systems programs or components, and relevant professional, research and engineering services, except for naval aviation programs.

Estimated Number of ePS Primary Users: 154

Financial Management Information System(s) – Funds Certification/Commitment PR Builder

Accounting System(s) – Funds Verification & Obligation SABRS

Page:

30/382 Version:

Version 1.2

1.5.2.6 User Roles

Table 1-13 provides descriptions of the various User Roles associated with the ePS. The solution will provide a set of roles that encompass all functionality of the specific job functions in the existing P2P process, as well as any administrative, technical, and security roles.

Table 1-13: User Roles

USER ROLE DESCRIPTION OF ROLE

User Non-administrative user performing routine tasks

Authorized User

Non-administrative users performing tasks that require specific user profile characteristics. The ePS business rules will define the profile characteristics required to perform a function

Local System Administrator A user performing administrative tasks for other users within their assigned security group and/or contracting office

Enterprise Authorized User A user performing administrative tasks that will be disbursed throughout the entire instance of the application

Contract Specialist (CS) or

Grants Specialist (GS)

The foundational user role assigned to most users in order to perform routine contracting functions

Contracting Officer

(or Grants Officer)

An elevated privilege role that allows the user to sign and approve instruments, documents, and records. In addition to a user designated as a

Contracting Officer (KO), the user profile includes details about the user's warrant including Obligation Amount Limit, Procurement Action Type (e.g., Admin Mods, Grants/Agreements, Terminations, etc.), and Issue/Revocation dates

Contingency Contracting

Officer

An elevated privilege role which includes authorizations found in the KO role and provides authority to exercise business rule exceptions as documented in the Functional Requirements

Supervisor/ Team Lead

An elevated privilege role which allows the user to assign, reassign, and view workload across multiple users, user profile characteristic identify

Supervisor/Supervisee designations

Manager An elevated privilege role which allows the user to assign, reassign, and view workload across multiple Supervisors/Team Leads

Business Intelligence Analyst

A user role that allows an individual to access Business Intelligence reports made available by Business Intelligence Administrators. Users in this role may also create and store reports in a location accessible exclusively to themselves (i.e., a personal folder) and send a stored report to another

Business Intelligence Analyst who may elect to save that report in their personal folder.

Business Intelligence

Administrator

An elevated Business Intelligence Analyst role that includes the functions available to a Business Intelligence Analyst but also allows…