FSC2 IDIQ RFI_Questions_Responses (15NOV2023).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T24R0008
About this file
This document contains questions and responses from a Request for Information issued by the Program Executive Office Command Control Communications-Tactical regarding the Fires Support Command and Control Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract. The RFI solicits industry feedback on contracting approaches, technical architectures, and leveraging government furnished assets to accelerate software deployment for the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System Axis and the Joint Tactics Intelligence and Cyber Electromagnetic Activities Support System. Responses will be shared with the prime contractor and subcontractors supporting the Project Manager Mission Command Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance contract. The Army intends to award an IDIQ to establish a consortium to modernize fires command and control systems, leveraging an agile development approach.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 03 - JTIC2S High level Architecture.pptx | PPTX presentation | |
| Attachment 01 - Fires C2 Systems Statement of Objectives (Draft).pdf | ||
| Attachment 02 - AFATDS AXS Digital Platform Reference Architecture.pptx | PPTX presentation |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FSC2 IDIQ 2023 RFI Q&A
| PEO C3T Mission Command Fires Support Command and Control | ||
| November 2023 RFI | ||
| Section/Reference/Language Cited (by the vendor) | Question (Vendor) | Answer (PEO C3T) |
| DESCRIPTION / Requested Information / Provide a White paper response that includes: |
A. Comments, concerns, and constructive inputs to the contracting approach and objectives developed in the SOO Section 4 (Attachment 01) with the intention of establishing a “consortium-like” organization as described in Section III of this RFI.
B. Comments, concerns, and constructive inputs on the technical approach and AFATDS AXS Digital Platform Reference Architecture presented in Attachment 02.
C. Comments, concerns, and constructive inputs on the technical approach to the JTIC2S High Level Design presented in Attachment 03.
D. Comments, concerns, and constructive inputs on leveraging the use of a Government Furnished Information (GFI) Fires Digital Platform SDK and MVP to support a compressed software deployment schedule for AFATDS AXS.
| E. Comments, concerns, and constructive inputs on leveraging the use of a GFI MVP to support a compressed software deployment schedule for JTIC2S. | Paragraph (V) (B) of SAM Notice ID W15P7T24R0008 which states “[w]hite Papers will be shared outside the Government with multiple supporting contractor organizations” and that “submissions should confirm there is no issue with the release of any proprietary documentation provided.” Request clarification as to whether “multiple supporting contractor organizations” refers solely to Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors. | There is no non-SETA capacity contractors. Access to responses will be limited to the PM Mission Command SETA contract prime (CACI) and their subs, which includes general provisions of NDA. Prime is subject to change. | ||
| November 2023 RFI Q&A | Contractor requests confirmation as to who will be acting as the supporting contractor organizations in both a SETA and non-SETA capacity. | There is no non-SETA capacity contractors. Access to responses will be limited to the PM Mission Command SETA contract prime (CACI) and their subs, which includes general provisions of NDA. Prime is subject to change. | ||
| Is the government interested in pulling best of breed software across industry to align with the AFATDS-AXS and JTIC2S architectures, or is the government focused only on modernization of the existing AFATDS code? | Acceptable approaches are not limited to just modernizing the existing code. | |||
| In the attachment 01 of SAM Notice ID W15P7T24R0008, section 4 paragraph ‘f’ states that the Government will act as the LSI. In paragraph 4.i it states that an “an experienced program integrator can consolidate each developer’s sub-product/applications into a coherent and functional software.” How does the Government LSI role differ from the “experienced program integrator” role. Will the role of “experienced program integrator” be an initial TO of the effort? | On section 4f, the Government intends to issue TOs to develop a fires digital infrastruture and issue TOs to serve as LSI; it is not the intent of the Government's to take on any of those roles, but to have industry do so. The Government anticipates the Integrator TO to be among the first issued. | |||
| Is the government interested in leveraging existing software baselines such as the AFATDS fielded 6.8.1 code or the AFATDS 7.0 baseline as well as the JADOCS fielded code. | Acceptable approaches are not limited to just modernizing the existing code. | |||
| Utilizing a consortium model how does the government plan to protect proprietary code from best of breed vendors such as COTS or company IP? | There is no expectation that proprietary code or company IP will be included in this effort. | |||
| Can you confirm that a Table of Contents would not be included in the 5-page limit. | Table of content is not included in the page count. | |||
| Will contract acquisition approaches/vehicles be discussed at the TEM 11 Industry Day? | Yes, but The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. The intent of the White Papers responses and Industry Day is to engage industry early for ideas/feedback on the potential construct, and for the Government to provide additional information at a later time. | |||
| Does the government envision the consortium would be led by an industry player or is another management approach envisioned? If the latter can the government share information on the envisioned approach? | The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. The intent of the White Papers responses and Industry Day is to engage industry early for ideas/feedback on the potential construct, and for the Government to provide additional information at a later time. | |||
| Does the government expect a single consortium for both JITC2S and AFATDS or will there be separate consortiums for each? | Single "consortium-like" construct. | |||
| 1. | Request that the Government provide more detail on how the FSC2 IDIQ will be structured. For example: | |||
| a. | Will Industry be required to qualify for the top level IDIQ in specific ‘functional areas’ related to the ‘roles’ outlined in Attachment 1 – Fires C2 System SOO, Section 4c (Program Integration, Software Developer, etc)? | |||
| b. | How will the consortium team(s) be formed to compete for future task orders; within industry, or as selected by the Army? | |||
| c. | Attachment 1 – Fires C2 System SOO, Section 4c and 4h appear to suggest that Industry will be asked to qualify for ‘task orders’ based on ‘roles’, and for specific ‘Fires Sub-Products/Applications’, respectively. Request the Government clarify task order structure as ‘roles’ in 4c seem similar to IDIQ ‘functional areas’ whereas the products in 4h more closely resemble ‘task orders’. | |||
| d. | Please clarify how task orders for ‘roles’ and ‘sub-products/applications’ translate to AFATDS or JTIC2S ‘Programs of Record’ described in RFI Section II, Summary of Effort. Does qualifying for a ‘role’ or a ‘sub-product’ task order apply to one or both of these programs of record? | The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. The intent of the White Papers responses and Industry Day is to engage industry early for ideas/feedback on the potential construct, and for the Government to provide additional information at a later time. | ||
| 2. | What is the anticipated Period of Performance for the IDIQ contract? | |||
| a. | Will the Contract have an Execution PoP that is longer than the Ordering PoP? | |||
| b. | Will the Contract provide for contractor on ramps, allowing awardees to re-form their teams to add new technologies, or allowing new awardees? | The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. Specifics of quantity of task orders, Periods of Performance, ordering periods, on-ramps, etc. are not known at this time. | ||
| 3. | Does the Government envision bidders forming “best-of-breed” teams to respond to the IDIQ together, or does the Government envision industry consortium team forming after the offerors have qualified for the IDIQ? | The government will form teams in accordance with the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) process after the award of the ID/IQ in order to best accomplish the tasks requested. We do not require that teams form prior to award of the ID/IQ. | ||
| 4. | Does the Army intend to qualify offers for the IDIQ based on sample task orders, or based on core technologies and capabilities such as AI/ML, Data Fabric, Applications, Micro-services, Middleware, hardware, high-performance computing, visualization and data presentation, Low code/no code tools, etc,? | |||
| a. | Will past performance as reported in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System be part of the award qualification? | Sections L (Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Offeror's) and M (Evaluation Factors for Award) of the RFP have not been determined at this time. Prior performance is always a factor in evaluations however, a prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history. | ||
| 5. | If the Army intends to award based on sample task orders, will the Army establish a bidders’ library and provide access on the Classified GovCloud? Potential bidders’ library content for sample task orders might include: | |||
| a. | The set of standards and open system modular components on which the AXS and JTICS are currently being developed; | |||
| b. | The DevSecOps environment tools/components/SDKs/APIs currently in use for AXS and JTIC2S development; | |||
| c. | The concept of operations and concept of employment explaining roles and responsibilities for targeting and target execution among AFATDS, JTIC2S, TITAN, TLS/other non-kinetic weapon systems, and the CAC C2 tool Suite. | Sections L (Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Offeror's) and M (Evaluation Factors for Award) of the RFP have not been determined at this time. | ||
| 6. | Are there architectural considerations required to enable multiple levels of classification? | |||
| a. | Do the architectures presented in attachments 2 and 3 accommodate multiple classification levels? | |||
| b. | Do the existing DevSecOps environments, used for developing AXS and JTIC2S, enable developing apps and services for managing classified information? | 6. and 6a. A single platform does not need to enable multiple levels of classification. Both AFATDS and JADOCS can operate at the unclassified levels, but the entire platform can become SECRET when an add-on module is applied. ; 6b. Yes | ||
| What if any DevSecOps environment (e.g., ARMY CReATE, Platform One, contractor hosted) is the Government inclined to employ to facilitate "cross-functional, cross team collaboration to implement automated pipelines to the maximum extent for rapid software changes and deployment throughout the Army for the Fires C2 systems"? | CReATE is currenly being used. Jira, GitLab and Conflence are the primary modules within CReATE being leveraged although others are available | |||
| What are the target cloud environments for this initiative? | AWS, Azure, cArmy | |||
| With the Government serving as the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI), please elaborate on the duties of this role (with respect to the Fires C2 Systems) and will this role entail making final determination/approval of all requirements, architecture and implementation decisions? | This strategy/approach does not have the government serving in the capacity of LSI. | |||
| What will be the criteria and process for a company to join the consortium? | The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. | |||
| Will the government directly administer the consortium, or will a separate contractor be selected to manage the consortium? | Yes, the Government will directly administer the consortium. | |||
| The JTICS Current development section references “similar to how United States Forces Korea (USFK) support Republic of Korea (ROK) forces in the counter-fire fight today" please elaborate. What is the nature of support that is of particular interest to JTIC2S? | JTIC2S will be required to manage very high volumes of counterfire information and targeting in a short period of time in the USFK AOR and any other applicable AORs. | |||
| Has the development environment for each already been determined? | No | |||
| Does the AFATDS AXP effort include the development of the Tactical Data Fabric shown in the architecture? | It does not, it will leverage the Tactical Data Fabric. | |||
| Which classification levels will the solution need to operate at/in for each echelon? | Variable by system. AFATDS is found from Battery to ASCC and operates from UNCLASS to US SECRET (to include MPE). JTIC2S is BDE Through Combatant Command (CCMD)/JTF and must support UNCLASS to TS/SCI domains. | |||
| Are there any constraints to consider regarding the intended deployment platforms e.g. TSI and EUDs? | Yes, but the system(s)/applications need to be hardware agnostic (IAW minimum specifications), MOSA, and scaleable by role/echelon. | |||
| Can the government provide a CONEMP showing how the applications are utilized at each echelon? | Concepts of Employment (CONEMPs) will be provided by the government as part of the agile development process. It will be in the form of user stories, OV-1s, and other products that will put the operation scenario into context to understand the desired feature(s) being requested. | |||
| Has a container orchestration method already been determined? | Kubernetes would be a leading candidate for orchestration although other solutions could be acceptable | |||
| Can the government provide details on the small business strategy for the consortium, including specific small business set-aside goals? | The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. The intent of the White Papers responses and Industry Day is to engage industry early for ideas/feedback on the potential construct, and for the Government to provide additional information at a later time. | |||
| What specific elements from the Air Force Advance Battlefield Management System (ABMS) contract model is the government looking to adopt in the Digital Fires IDIQ? | Leveraging team-of-teams to resolve each complex problems (integration, development). Integrating traditional and non-traditional vendors, small and large competing under a Fair Opportunity process. Multiple competitive pools with multiple tiers. | |||
| Can the government describe the level of expected network connectivity (e.g. DDIL, high bandwidth) across echelons for communication between the client and backend applications for both solution architectures? | There is no currently no intent for there to be a client/server relationship across echelon boundaries. Government will consider Industry's inputs. | |||
| Can the government provide architectural security details that illustrate how Zero Trust, Identity and Access Management (IAM), and encryption will be applied to the AFATDS and JTIC2S solutions? | Not at this time. | |||
| Can the government provide details on how the Army UDRA (Unified Data Reference Architecture) will be applied to the AFATDS AXS Digital Platform Reference Architecture and the JTIC2S High Level Design? | Not at this time. AFATDS and JTIC2S will have their own internal data model aligned with the COE DIV 3 data model. | |||
| Can the government please provide details about how continuous ATO processes, such as automated monitoring tools for performance or threat and vulnerability detection, will be incorporated into both solution architectures? | Modernization of the ATO process is still ongoing within the Army. The rigid approach for granting ATOs in place now will be replaced by something more dynamic but the details of this are not yet available | |||
| What is the Government's position on UDRA Data Mesh and how it will be used to support Fires applications such as JTIC2S and AFATDS? | AFATDS and JTIC2S will have their own internal data model aligned with the COE DIV 3 data model. | |||
| What data DATA Mesh has the Government selected for CPCE and Fires Modernization (AFATDS AXS and JTIC2S)? When will the Government make that available? | AFATDS and JTIC2S will have their own internal data model aligned with the COE DIV 3 data model. The data model will be available post-award. | |||
| What does "consortium like" mean? What other acquisition strategies besides "consortium like" are being considered? | The strategy regarding contract vehicles and a "consortium-like" construct is in the early stages of being identified and developed. The intent of the White Papers responses and Industry Day is to engage industry early for ideas/feedback on the potential construct, and for the Government to provide additional information at a later time. | |||
| How will the intended consortium-like process avoid the issue of slow delivery resulting from the ABMS consortium? | Contractors are encourged to provide more detail on their specific concerns in the RFI response or at TEM 11 Industry Day. | |||
| How does the Government anticipate using AL/ML with AFATDS AXS? | AI/ML will be used to speed decision making and recommendations to the end user. AI/ML currently is not seen to replace the operator or take decision making entirely away from the operator for decisions with lethal consequences, only to support the decision making process | |||
| Being a platform agnostic solution, what other command and control systems is the government considering, e.g., Air Force BC3 and MSCT or USMC CAC2S? | This RFI only addresses AFATDS and JTIC2S. Other systems are outside the scope of this RFI. | |||
| Will the Government provide source code and requirements for AFATDS 6.8, 7.x, JADOCS, JTIC2S MVP as a bidder library? | Source code will be provided to consortium members when the Government deems appropriate. | |||
| Will AFATDS 6.8 and existing JADOCS reference architectures be made available to ensure full backward compatibility? | Yes, reference architecture will be made available when the Government deems appropriate. | |||
| What is the Government's preferred Cloud platform as indicated by "Cloud Infrastructure" in the MVP Reference Architecture? | AWS, Azure, cArmy | |||
| Will the Government provide applicable certified ballistic calculators as GFI? | Yes, the government will provide the NATO Armaments Ballistic Kernel as GFI. | |||
| What tools and technology are being used to develop the AFATDS SDK? | The modernized AFATDS will be primarily developed in Java using the TAK X framework | |||
| Is the plan to deploy the AFATDS AXS MVP for Division Fire Support Element independently of the other sub-products? | Yes | |||
| How do the AFATDS AXS sub-components Fire Support Coordination, Technical Fire Direction, and Tactical Fire Direction map to the AFATDS 6.8 baseline roles (CP, FSE, and FU)? | AFATDS 6.8 FSE role maps to AFATDS AXS Fire Support Coordination (FSC). AFATDS 6.8 CP role maps to AFATDS AXS Fire Direction (Technical Fire Direction is used at lower echelons and Tactical Fire Direction at higher echelons.) | |||
| What is meant by a compressed software deployment timeline for AFATDS AXS MVP? | This is in regards to the recommendation to use the SDK and DIV Fire Support MVP currently under development by DEVCOM AC to accelerate the development of other capabilities.` | |||
| Is the “program integrator” role different or the same as the “lead system integrator” role? If yes, please elaborate on the role. | Currently, the government considers the PI and LSI as the same role. | |||
| Is it the intent of the Government to issue a Task Order for a lead system integrator and/or program integrator? | Yes, as described in the RFI announcement | |||
| What is meant by "fires digital infrastructure"? | The systems, subsystems, and interfaces which enables the planning and execution of Army Fires missions. | |||
| Will the "fires digital infrastructure" be developed by a single integrator or with multiple task orders? | Currently, it is the intent of the Government to execute multiple task orders and the number of the integrators is TBD. | |||
| What version of TAK does this refer to - ATAK, MTAK, WinTAK, or all? | AFATDS: TAK X |
JTIC2S: WebTAK
| Does the Government intend to award under an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)? | No, FAR based IDIQ as described in the announcment. |
| What percentage of Small Business participated will be required? | TBD |
| What is the term of the award to include any options? | TBD |
| Will Government allow for "Best of Breed" IP retention for products/capabilities brought to the consortium? | There is no expectation that proprietary code or company IP will be included in this effort. |
| Will the Consortium consist of a Third-Party administrator or the PEO? | No to third-party administrator and yes to PEO. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .