MODIFICATION
A -- The Commander's Virtual Staff (CVS)
- Notice Date
- 3/23/2015
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541330
— Engineering Services
- Contracting Office
- ACC-APG - Aberdeen Division A, 6001 COMBAT DRIVE, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-1846
- ZIP Code
- 21005-1846
- Solicitation Number
- W56KGU15RXXXX
- Response Due
- 3/23/2015
- Archive Date
- 5/22/2015
- Point of Contact
- Nina Bushnell, 443-861-4650
- E-Mail Address
-
ACC-APG - Aberdeen Division A
(nina.m.bushnell.civ@mail.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- RFI Title: The Commander's Virtual Staff (CVS) Q&A Questions and Answers from Industry for the Commander's Virtual Staff RFI Some questions may be duplicates as some vender's asked the same question in a different way, therefore I have put all questions asked below with answers. Q.)The subject RFI instructions on the FedBizOps site, www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=18555c34647d52e1ab23b75bd28dc97a&_cview=1 http://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=18555c34647d52e1ab23b75bd28dc97a&_cview=1, states that the length of the RFI response is limited to three pages including tables & figures but excluding the completed questionnaire. The instructions then appear to call out the requirement for a cover page with certain components (title, POCs, organization) but does not indicate whether the cover page is included or excluded from the page count. Is the cover page included in the three page limit? A)The cover page is not included in the three (3) page count. Q) We would like to respond to multiple sub-topics (e.g., Data Consolidation, Planning) related to the Commander's Virtual Staff. Can we submit one 3 page paper per subtopic, or are we limited to one white paper per company? A)Yes, please submit 3 pages per sub-topic. Q) Can we get additional information / documentation on the MISSION COMMAND/ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION that appears to be related to this solicitation, as it appears in a DoD Live article about the Commander's Virtual Staff. A)Please note that there is no solicitation related to this topic. This stage is solely for information purposes. Q) What is the Government's timeline to put of the RFP following this RFI? A)We are in the RFI stage right now, however an RFP is not guaranteed. We are simply gathering information and will make a decision on how to move forward. Q) There is a questionnaire mentioned in the solicitation, but I don't seem to be able to find it. A)You can access it by clicking on the link within the RFI under the Paragraph entitled, quote mark Additional Info: quote mark click on quote mark Additional documentation quote mark. The Questionnaire will be included in the file entitled, quote mark RFI (.dox) quote mark. Q) Regarding the Questionnaire, #1 and #3 - NAICS codes are missing. Additionally, there are a lot of tracked changes in the document. Can you provide a clean, updated version? A)As this is a RFI, we are seeking information, these are fill-ins, please provide the NAICS code that is most appropriate. Q) Regarding the Questionnaire, #4 relates to a MAC - this does not seem consistent with the RFI/Sources Sought. Please clarify. A)The Government is gauging your experience with Multiple Award Contracts. There is no set contractual vehicle the Government intends to use at this time. Please note this is for informational purposes. Q) Regarding the Questionnaire, #14 relates to IA - this is not an implicit requirement of CVS. Please clarify. A)This is a mandatory requirement for the use of Government systems. (Refer to the Requiring Activity) Q) In accordance with the Government's Request for Information, the page limitation for this white paper has been identified as three (3) pages to include all figures and tables, but excluding the completed questionnaire. Since there are seven topics identified within the RFI, please clarify if offerors are to apply the three (3) page limitation to each topic area versus the entire RFI response. The concern is that the page limitations as currently written would not provide the Government with sufficient information in order to conduct market research regarding emerging technologies. SEE answer for the question below Q) The Commander's Virtual Staff (CVS)RFI identifies a number of sub-topics which are of interest to the government. If a potential vendor has relevant information against a number of these sub-topics will the government consider expanding the 3 page submission limit or allow multiple 3-page submissions, each on a separate sub-topic, but by the same vendor? A)Yes, please submit three (3) pages for each subtopic. Q) Once the Government has received the responses to his RFI what is the anticipated timeframe for a future procurement and will it be solicited through an open solicitation or does CERDEC plan on using an existing IDIQ and if so if known which one? A)We are currently in the fact finding stage and will make a determination moving forward. There is no set timeframe. A solicitation is not guaranteed and this stage will provide the Government with enough information on how to move forward. Q.) As this is only an RFI can the Government please explain why the Questionnaire is asking for teaming information in a number of the questions? Will the government please consider removing these questions from the RFI. A)Please ignore this question for teaming arrangement as this is a question that should only be asked about in reference to an RFP. Q)Is there a specific program of record (POR) with which this RFI is connected? A)Primary transition targets would probably include PM MC and PM SWAR. Q)For sub-topic 1 (Commander/Leader specific tools): a.How important is the development of the user interface? A) One of the defining characteristics of CVS will be the ease of interacting with the system. b.To what extent is multi-modal integration of interest for this subtopic? A) CP&I is interested in all technologies that make the CVS system more attractive to commanders and easier to use. Q)For sub-topic 2 (Commander/staff workflow coordination and collaboration): a.What are the 'work products'? Would they be military plans / courses of action (COAs) for achieving a mission objective, or data products that a commander could explore to gain better situational awareness and decision making, or something else? A) Yes. In general we've use the term quote mark work products quote mark to mean that quote mark deliverables quote mark for any given task. b.Can you please define 'workflow' in the context of this subtopic? Is it the data engineering workflow, or some stove-piping process/procedure (e.g., based on field manuals), or something different? A) We've used the term workflow in general to describe the tasks that are performed by the commander and staff. c.Additionally, does the 'production' of work products mean the generation of fused data, or the generation of COAs (tasks), or the execution of tasks, or monitoring the progress of tasks? A) Yes. All of those, and potentially more. We think of quote mark work products quote mark as meaning the quote mark deliverables quote mark for tasks, but we'd really like to find out what you think. Q)For sub-topic 7 (Recommendation): d.Should CVS recommend the best COAs to take to achieve a mission objective, or the best data source or data product to explore, or something else? A) The RFI is looking for input on how this could be done, but there is concern that a system such as CVS should not offer the quote mark best quote mark recommendation (don't want commander's letting CVS make decisions) but rather CVS should provide pros and cons for an array of recommendations that enable leaders to make better decisions. Q)Can you help us understand the distinctions (as you see them) between areas 2, 4, 6, and 7 (coordination, planning, prediction and recommendation)? We see many technologies that could be used for these areas, so having a better understanding of how you understand these will help us focus our response. A) Actually we'd like to understand your ideas on these topics in the context of your knowledge of mission command. There is no quote mark right quote mark answer. Our RFI is a request for information. If you are not familiar with mission command, then please consult Army doctrinal publications on the subject. Q)Can we get additional information / documentation on the MISSION COMMAND/ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION that appears to be related to this solicitation, as it appears in a DoD Live article about the Commander's Virtual Staff. A)Please see: http://www.cerdec.army.mil/inside_cerdec/core_technology/mission_command/mis sion_command_and_actionable_intelligence_TECDs/ Q)Is CERDEC aware of the DARPA Deep Green effort? Would CERDEC be interested in seeing some of those ideas / technologies revisited, as the goals of that program were very similar to those of this solicitation? A)CERDEC participated in the Deep Green effort and assisted with some of the Deep Greed product transitions. The RFI is interested in all information that is relevant to the subject matter. Q)Is the goal of this effort to link with any existing mission command systems, or is this meant to be technology exploration and integration will be addressed in a later phase? A)We would be interested in any responses that pertain to existing systems as well as new concepts. We suspect that aspects of CVS will require system integration. Q) Once the Government has received the responses to his RFI what is the anticipated timeframe for a future procurement and will it be solicited through an open solicitation or does CERDEC plan on using an existing IDIQ and if so if known which one? A) We are currently in the fact finding stage and will make a determination moving forward. There is no set timeframe. A solicitation is not guaranteed and this stage will provide the Government with enough information on how to move forward. Q) As this is only an RFI can the Government please explain why the Questionnaire is asking for teaming information in a number of the questions? Will the government please consider removing these questions from the RFI. A) The teaming agreement was part of the questionnaire Don added to the RFI. We really don't need this information. Q) The CVS Concept Paper, states that the purpose of this effort is NOT to pursue an S&T path focused on automating existing processes or simplifying the existing systems architecture. Therefore can the government explain why the Questionnaire seems to imply a high importance will be given to potential bidders having prior experience and resources already working in APG. A) Please answer this question to your best ability if appropriate. Q) Is there a specific client or PMO identified that the CVS is targeted for transition? A) It is still pretty early in the conceptualization period, but probably PM Mission Command, PM SWAR, etc. Q) Will the Government please provide a more detailed explanation of what is meant by quote mark 'art of command quote mark tasks as written under sub-topic 1? quote mark A) Please see Army TRADOC publications on the topic of Mission Command such as ADP 6-0 and others. Q) Will the Government please clarify and provide examples of what are the quote mark MC systems quote mark currently used for situational awareness, as written under sub-topic 3? A) We are looking for ideas on how the goals of the RFI could be achieved based on work that you're doing or ideas that you have. The exact source data systems are not as important at this point as the techniques you've developed for interfacing to systems that don't conform to a given standard. That said, the systems are those typically found in an Army TOC. Information about these systems can be found on the internet. Wikipedia, for example, lists several: Maneuver Control System, Air and Missile Defense Workstations, Battle Command Sustainment and Support Systems, Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, etc. Q) Will the Government please clarify the use of the word quote mark domain quote mark ? Is this referring to land, sea, air, space and cyber or does it mean types of land battle environments or something else? A) As used the word quote mark domain quote mark is more properly understood as quote mark knowledge or experience about a particular subject. quote mark Agile forces might be required to perform tasks that are outside their current domain of expertise. We're interested to find out how computer automation might help with that problem. Q) Will the Government please clarify what type of information is desired in the quote mark continually available computer-assisted running estimates quote mark as written under sub-topic 5? A) The topic of running estimates is too involved to adequately describe in this format. There are a number of Army publications that are publically available that can describe the capability as well as other aspects of mission command. One such publication is FM 6-0. Q) What external data sources do you envision the desired capability will use as input? A) One interesting part of the problem is that the data sources will probably not be known a priori. For example, Army units deployed to provide support in a natural disaster in a foreign country would like to be able to interface to the information systems found in the nation they deploy to. The question is, what mechanisms do you have for interfacing to systems in general? This is especially to systems that aren't necessarily quote mark well behaved quote mark (i.e. adhere to some well-known data or interface standard). Q) As a company, we are quite familiar with analyzing, developing, and deploying ISR and PED tools for S2 support in DCGS-A, and for ops support in CPOF- would you be interested in virtual staff technologies that help bridge between these systems? A) Potentially, yes. Q) While the S2 and S3 are tightly coupled and have a significant amount of technology support behind them, would you be interested in extending collaboration support tools to other staff officers (e.g., C/J/G, SJA, S1, S4, S5, S6) that currently have few digital support tools and only coordinate with the S2 and S3 at set intervals/and only through limited daily update briefings? A) The short answer is quote mark maybe. quote mark The longer answer is that, as you point out, staff have quite a few automation systems at their disposal. The CVS project is initially focusing on how to provide automation support for decision making by the commander and close staff. Commanders typically talk to people and use MS Office. Q) Are you primarily focusing on BN and BGDE level support solutions? A) We are interested in Company (because there isn't really a staff there and computers might help), and Battalion and Brigade because the addition of automation could improve decision quality and, perhaps, reduce or slow the growth of staff. If the techniques are applicable to even higher echelons, then we are of course interested in that as well. Q) Are you looking to include distributed national reach-back/reach-forward capabilities in sanctuary/in theater (e.g., BDE to INSCOM, to/from NGA, NRO, NSA) as part of the virtual staff teams? A) You tell us. Should we? Remember, there's no quote mark right answer quote mark that you have to guess. We're looking for the art of the possible and what folks are doing in this space. Of course this all has to be taken in the context of available (or predicted available in the future) communications systems. Q) Of the 7 sub-topics, visualization and display are not called out specifically- there is increasing movement across the services to provide scalable decision support environments (from watch floors down to mobile TOCs) tailored to staff management needs- would you be interested in approaches that take advantage of modern display mediums (portable color e-ink screens, group view displays, high resolution projectors, telepresence or VTCs) and mobile hardware (e.g., hardened tablets) to provide configurable display environments for the virtual staffs? A) Yes. Q) Do the 7 sub-topics you called out have equal weighting or priority? If not, how would you order the sub-topics from greatest need to least important? A) The commander is arguably underserved so if there's a focus, then it's probably on decision support for the commander, but really we see the topics as being interrelated and fairly equal priority. Q) Would you be interested in deriving any sort of sensor cueing or capturing to drive the planning and support across different staffs? A) Sure. Q) Are you familiar with DARPA's past Deep Green program (2008-2011); a program to build a battle command decision support system that interleaved anticipatory planning with adaptive execution for Army BGDEs. Deep Green aimed to support the creation, simulation, analysis, comparison, and selection of courses of action (COAs) for a mission, and then support real-time tracking, assessment, prediction, and recommendation of branches and sequels. Charles River Analytics developed the COA comparison, analysis, assessment, and monitoring tool, named Sketch-to-Decide. Do the ideas of Deep Green's overall mission planning capabilities resonate with your direction for the CVS as it touches on four of your sub-topics (4-7)? We have been working with one of DARPS's subject matter experts on Deep Green for a number of years now, an individual who could provide valuable guidance and direction on CVS (who is also supporting our current work under DARPA Insight and related APG PED efforts). A) We are aware of Deep Green. It had a number of interesting ideas. What insights do you have? Q) Are you familiar with DARPA's Insight program (2011-present); a program to develop a next generation ISR exploitation system. Charles River Analytics continues to define a human-machine interface for intelligence analysts to intel support and ISR processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) on top of the Insight OS with a direction to support decision making and sensor cueing. Would such capabilities be of interest to you or do you see CVS more focused on specific staff roles related to your sub-topics 3 and 4? A) We are interested. Please also see attached for Q&A, please be aware that the due date for responses has changed due to the delay of the Q&A posting, the new date is now Monday 30 March 2015, all other details for this RFI remain unchanged. Please follow directions for posting except for those changes noted in the Q&A.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/e3d05659ff2feab77472d854af916a64)
- Place of Performance
- Address: ACC-APG - Aberdeen Division A 6001 COMBAT DRIVE, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD
- Zip Code: 21005-1846
- Zip Code: 21005-1846
- Record
- SN03675946-W 20150325/150323235336-e3d05659ff2feab77472d854af916a64 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |