Questions_with_Government_Response_1.docx

1. Question: Does the government have an estimate of the total number of Joint Common Architecture (JCA) components and the timing for release to identify such? Please clarify (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.1.2.2.5).

GOV Response: The GOV expects a total of four JCA components. Two have been identified in this Call, Route Planning and Correlation and Fusion. Both have initial descriptions in the JCAS model in the provided Government Furnished Information (GFI).

JCAS content for the components is provided to assist Architect respondents in understanding how the Government intends to describe desired component capability. The remaining two components will be identified similarly when the JCA Product Developer Call is released (April 2018), and will be related to Route Planning/Correlation and Fusion. Revisions to the JCAS model are expected in support of each Call Release and at Award as appropriate.

2. Question: The Call states (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.1.2.3.1). “The Architect shall develop and deliver models necessary to describe the [Objective Architecture (ObjArch)] to include extending the [Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Comprehensive Architecture Strategy (JCAS)] and Capstone [Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL)] Modeling Template [Government Furnished Information (GFI)] (.aadl and .eap formats) as well as necessary supporting description and user/ guidance documentation.”

a. Is there a specific version of Sparx Enterprise Architect that is expected for the .eap files?

b. Can model content be provided in the XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) format in lieu of .eap?

c. Is it possible to use another industry standard tool for providing the model (such as Rhapsody or MagicDraw)?

GOV Response:

a. The Government is using Sparx Enterprise Architect v13. Deliverable SysML model content will be consumable by this version.

b. Yes, XMI format can be used. However, Offerors/Participants are cautioned that there are known incompatibilities between modeling tools, and diagrams in particular, are sensitive to the translation process. The intent of the requirement is to ensure the Government is able to make use of provided model content despite a wide variety of Offeror/Participant tools and processes.

c. As long as the output delivered to the Government can be natively imported by Sparx Enterprise Architect v13, Offerors/Participants may use any tool they desire to create the content. The Government will use delivered model content “As-Is”. Responsibility for ensuring that the deliverable can be consumed by the Government toolset in a manner that accurately depicts the content belongs to the Offeror/Participant.

3. Question: What configuration management (CM) capability exists within the government planned collaboration tool? (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.1.2.5).Please clarify.

GOV Response: Requirement 2.3.1.2.5 is referring to the “JCAS Governance Plan v1.0” located in the MSAD JCAS Supporting Information directory of the provided GFI. Section 3 contains the pertinent language.

4. Question: The Call states (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.1.5.4) “The Architect shall perform the “Select” step of the Requirements Management Framework (RMF) process, and evaluate each technical control based on the levels identified in the [Objective Mission System Definition (OMSD)] and the control’s applicability to the Capstone Scenario”. Should the term “Requirements” as used here actually be “Risk”, as in Risk Management Framework (RMF)? Please clarify.

GOV Response: Yes, it is Risk Management Framework (RMF). This will be corrected through an amendment to the call.

5. Question: Will the USG require a “Cyber Security Requirements and Technical Guidance (CSRTG) Cyber Report" as a separate deliverable? Please clarify. (If added to CDRL, recommend "Contractor format" be acceptable). (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.1.5.6.1).

GOV Response: See page 22 deliverable item #12 CSRTG in the BAA Call. In general, Contractor format is acceptable for most deliverables. A DID was provided for explanation and intent. Content is the priority over format.

6. Question: Will the Architect be responsible for reporting metrics associated solely with their architecture efforts, or are they gathering and synthesizing architecture metrics for the entire Development Group (DG)? Please clarify. (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.2.2.5.2).

GOV Response: Metrics being reported are intended to be associated with those identified by the Architect for the ObjArch as part of requirement 2.3.1.3.5. The Architect may assist the Mission System Integrator (MSIs) in DG1 in developing appropriate metrics as part of requirement 2.3.1.2.7, but the Architect would not be synthesizing the SysArch metrics in the questioned report.

7. Question: The call states (ref Architect Call Section, 2.3.2.3.2) “The Architect shall use the Government specified collaboration service (e.g. Army Knowledge Online, or other repository TBD), to distribute information and collaborate with Capstone Demonstration Participants.” Can the USG clarify at this point which collaboration service will be used?

GOV Response: The anticipated GOV collaboration repository will either be provided through Microsoft (MS) 365 Cloud Services or Army Knowledge Online (AKO). MS 365 provides MS tools through a web interface including Office products, OneDrive, Sharepoint, etc. Additional information can be found:

https://products.office.com/en-us/business/office-365-enterprise-e5-business-software

AKO is a Government site that has basic collaboration tools such as calendar and file repository.

8. Question: Would the Government consider allowing for "Contractor format" for, minimally, items 27 and 28, the "Technical Status Report" and the "Cost Status Report", respectively? (ref Architect Call Section, 8)

GOV Response: Yes. In general, Contractor format is acceptable for most deliverables. A DID was provided for explanation and intent. Content is the priority over format.