Inactive

I. DISCLAIMER THIS NOTICE IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes – it does not constitute as a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to is... I. DISCLAIMER THIS NOTICE IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes – it does not constitute as a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Responses will be treated as information only and will not be evaluated as a proposal. Further, the Government is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. A return response from the government with regard to RFI submissions is not guaranteed. The RFI respondees are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation from future announcements or contracts. Respondents should indicate which portions of their response are propriety and should mark accordingly. NOTE: This RFI is not associated with any previous or ongoing RFPs or Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests issued by the DAF. II. BACKGROUND The Secretary of the Air Force has designated the achievement of operationally-optimized Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS)—the DAF’s contribution to Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2)—as an operational imperative. DoD leadership continues to emphasize the importance of applying modern Systems Engineering principles to capability development, including the use of digital engineering environments and collaborative applications, as well as mission engineering approaches to requirements development. As an element of the Rules-based Approach to Performance Delivery, the ABMS CFT is applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) best-practices to develop functional models of C2 concepts using Systems Modeling Language (SysML). The first such model in development is the Transformational Model – Battle Management (TM-BM). III. SPECIFIC INFORMATION OF INTEREST A. Problem Statement: Effective synchronization of JADC2 capability development across nations, departments, and services, requires a common mental model of complex concepts. Battle Management is one such concept that is often subject to conflations and divergent conceptions. In Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) artifacts, activity models, and swim-lane diagrams, Battle Management functions are often opaque activities with little if any internally defined structure, or they represent bespoke processes that are unscalable. The TM-BM aims to illuminate the enduring and all-domain nature of Battle Management by establishing a precise boundary around Battle Management, i.e., distinguishing it from other related and adjacent decision-making concepts, and by defining Battle Management through decomposition into functions and subfunctions. To do the work necessary for achieving the goals of JADC2, this model must be able to: 1. Provide an unambiguous, quantitative, and robust definition and conceptual description of Battle Management for all stake holders to share and work from. That conceptual description must provide insight on the ability to distribute and/or federate Battle Management functions to achieve effectiveness, resilience, capacity, and efficiency. 2. Provide a means to categorize and evaluate systems (materiel and non-materiel) and system elements in terms of their performance of specific Battle Management functions. 3. Convey robust, traceable, quantitative requirements for Battle Management functional and supporting architectures (i.e., materiel and non-materiel systems-of-systems solutions) and provide quantitative measures of performance of Battle Management functions within a common contextual (or “pacing”) scenario. (The Pacing Scenario is being developed in collaboration with Joint and Mission Partners, and it will be promulgated for review in a separate forum). The TM-BM must provide a quantitative means to compare different architectures and their performance of Battle Management functions within that contextual scenario. In partnership with the Department of the Navy and our Allied Partners, the DAF ABMS CFT seeks to understand and improve the ability of the model to accomplish the above with inputs from Industry Partners. This RFI represents an opportunity in incorporate the voices of developers in the MBSE foundation that will generate the requirements for JADC2 solutions. As such, the DAF ABMS CFT requests responses to the questions below based on the artifacts attached to this RFI, which are: Attachment 1: Read-Me file with instructions for the other attachments Attachment 2: “Transformational Model – Battle Management: Methodology and Model Overview” presentation and back-up charts. Attachment 3: Transformational Model – Battle Management MagicDraw/Cameo (zip) Attachment 4: Transformational Model – Battle Management HTML (zip) Attachment 5: Transformational Model – Battle Management Images (pdf) Please note, the model is still in development, and therefore the artifacts represent draft products. As more elements of the TM-BM are completed, they will also be released. Your feedback will inform the subsequent full release of a finished version 1.0. See the Read-Me file for more information. B.Request for Information: The DAF ABMS CFT seeks feedback on the MBSE functional model titled, “Transformational Model – Battle Management”. (See the attachments to this RFI.) Please consider the following questions (both the first-level numbered questions as well as the second-level amplifying questions), and provide succinct responses along with any other questions, suggestions, and/or feedback (positive or negative) you have for the TM-BM format, design, and/or the draft content. 1. Does the TM-BM provide a unifying mental model of Battle Management? a. Do the model artifacts impact (either negatively or positively) your understanding of the TM-BM definition of Battle Management? b. Do you perceive any divergence between your mental model of Battle Management and that of the TM-BM? If so, what are those differences? Consider both the functional definition of Battle Management as well as the boundary, i.e., what is Battle Management and what is not Battle Management. c. Do you assess that the TM-BM will “help you help us”, i.e., improve interactions between government and industry for development and fielding systems that perform Battle Management functions? Within the TM-BM, what information is missing, confusing, or ambiguous that reduces its effectiveness for improving d. Government – Industry interactions and cooperation? Within the TM-BM, what information / artifacts are particularly helpful to you, and how so? d. What would help the model artifacts serve as a complete description of the functions of Battle Management? In other words, what additional types of content, improved content and/or artifact formats would provide the requisite clarity and insight for you to effectively use the model without the need for an accompanying narrative, if you assess that is even possible? e. With the artifacts provided, what, if any, new insights have you gained about the nature of Battle Management functions? Does the TM-BM provide insight on the potential for automation of and/or application of Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (AI/ML) to subfunctions of Battle Management? Does the TM-BM provide insight about the difference between subfunctions in terms of their ability to be automated? f. With the artifacts provided, do you perceive any bias in the TM-BM toward any operational domain (i.e., is the model truly “all-domain”)? g. With the artifacts provided, do you perceive any bias in the TM-BM toward any particular Battle Management performer (i.e., is the model applicable to the full Joint and Mission Partner Environment and not just US-only operations or operations of a particular service)? h. With the artifacts provided, do you perceive any bias in the TM-BM toward any particular time epoch (e.g., does the model seem as if it will “age out” of relevance in the mid- to long-term, or does the model appear to be dependent on or obviated by any real / postulated technology, or is it bound to any particular operational context)? i. With the artifacts provided, what insight does the TM-BM provide about the potential for distribution and/or federation of some or all of the functions / subfunctions? 2. Does the TM-BM help describe and evaluate systems (applications, algorithms, ontologies, human-machine interfaces, platforms, networks, architectures, etc.) associated with the performance of Battle Management functions? a. For any system associated with Battle Management (applications, algorithms, human-machine interfaces, platforms, etc.), can you map the TM-BM functions and subfunctions onto the system’s functional elements? What challenges do you face in mapping a TM-BM function / subfunction to an element of such a system? b. If such a mapping is possible between a system and the TM- BM functions / subfunctions, are there any system functions you believe would lie within the boundary of Battle Management (as defined by the TM-BM) but are not included in the functions of the TM-BM. c. Does the TM-BM give you insight about systems in terms of their relationship with Battle Management? Are there any particularly helpful insights you derive about such systems from TM-BM? d. Would you assess the TM-BM as useful / helpful in integrating diverse systems with respect to the performance of Battle Management functions? 3. Does the TM-BM effectively convey Battle Management functional requirements? a. Do you see potential for the model to augment and/or replace traditional requirement “the system shall” prose? Do you assess any positive or negative consequences for using the model as part of requirements documentation? b. Does the TM-BM provide useful measures to assess architectures that perform and support Battle Management functions? c. Does the TM-BM effectively covey Information Exchange Requirements (IERs) that can be aggregated for connectivity, computation, and data storage requirements? d. Do you assess the model would have an impact on the solution spaces you may explore, either to expand or contract the possibilities for solution proposals? If so, do you assess those impacts would result in either positive or negative consequences for capability development? e. Do you assess that the TM-BM functional requirements can or cannot work in a complementary way with other sets of system requirements such as size, weight, power, etc.? f. Do you assess that the TM-BM can or cannot effectively support “integration by design”, i.e., where interoperability is built into systems-of-systems rather than achieved after-the-fact with post-fielding operational or technical integration? g. Do you assess the TM-BM, and the fact that it will be available to all industry partners, will have any effect, positive or negative, on sub-contracted vendor performance? 4. Please provide any other questions, suggestions, and/or feedback you have, including: a. How did you view the TM-BM artifacts (.mdzip file, html file, or pdf)? b. Did you find it easy or difficult to find and view information in the model? c. Have you attended or listened to any of the briefings or narratives about the TM-BM prior to reviewing the model artifacts? If so, did the briefing / narrative have an impact on your understanding of the model artifacts? d. Please indicate if you believe this type of MBSE-driven discussion between government and industry adds more-than-marginal net value to capability delivery, in particular during the requirements development process. Please indicate if you would be interested in follow-on / similar engagements in the future. e. Please list any additional questions you have about the TM-BM. f. Please provide any additional suggestions and feedback you have for the TM-BM. IV. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS and FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS A. Due Date: Responses are requested by 31 Dec 2022. B. Response Content and Format: In order for our small team to effectively process responses, answer content limited to approximately 8 pages will be greatly appreciated. Response formats may be pdf, Excel, and/or Word and structured as follows: 1. COVER SHEET to include the following company information not to exceed 1 page. Company Name, CAGE Number (if applicable), Address, Point of Contact E-Mail Address, Phone, Company Web Page URL. State whether your company is a small business such as 8(a), small disadvantaged business, woman-owned business, HUBZone small business, Veteran-owned business, or service disabled veteran owned business. Also include a statement as to whether your company is domestically or foreign owned (if foreign, please indicate the country of ownership). 2. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS as given in section III B (up to ~ 8 pages of response content). Please organize your responses with the designation of individual questions (for example, “2.c. We can use the TM-BM to identify modules within Application X that appear to match the descriptions of certain subfunctions, however, the degree to which they match is…”). Respondents are not required to answer all questions, although a succinct, plain language response to each question will be greatly appreciated. V. POINT OF CONTACT Non-Government advisors may be used in the evaluation of responses and have signed non- disclosure agreements (NDAs) with the Government. Additional NDAs will not be required; instead, a response to this RFI will be considered an implicit acknowledgement and acceptance of the fact that non-Government advisors will be assisting the Government in this process. The Government understands that information provided in response to this RFI is presented in confidence and may contain trade secret, commercial or financial information, and it agrees to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure to the maximum extent permitted or required by- a. 18 USC 1905 (Trade Secrets Act); b. 18 USC 1831 et seq. (Economic Espionage Act); c. 5 USC 552(b)(4) (Freedom of Information Act); d. Executive Order 12600 (Pre-disclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information); and e. Any other statute, regulation, or requirement applicable to Government employees. RFI responses should be submitted electronically, via the appropriate communication channels (email preferred or a DoD SAFE link can be provided): Primary: Alternate: Maj Jacob Thomas Maj Timothy Wintch jacob.thomas.11@us.af.mil timothy.wintch@us.af.mil Electronic submissions are highly preferred. In the event electronic submission is not possible, please contact the primary point of contact above for address information. Companies are encouraged to keep all elements of the response unclassified. In the case where a respondent has a need to submit a classified appendix, such material shall not be transmitted across open-source media like public phone, fax, internet, or e-mail. If a respondent has any reason to believe their concept / capabilities may reference ideas or operations that require special protection, please contact the primary point of contact.