Navy Model-Based Product Support (MBPS)Navy Model-Based Product Support (MBPS) RFS Number: TREX-18-0049 4 20 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “bi-directional connectivity”

Navy Model-Based Product Support (MBPS) RFS Number: TREX-18-0049

1

No. Industry Question/Comments MBPS RFS March 20, 2019_SEA06L Response

1 (Overarching MBPS) What information, besides name, should be included

for the primary point of contact on all three cover pages required for the

response?

POC information should include name, title, phone number, and

email address.

2 (Overarching MBPS) Will this opportunity drive replacement of current

programs of record or will a new program of record ultimately be

initiated? If the former, which specific programs of record would it

replace?

The MBPS effort is considered to be a prototype project Other

Transaction effort. It is not a new program of record and in terms of

IT categorization is a technical refresh of Command Technical Data

program applications (see Section VI of the Tech Supplement for

more information.

3 (Overarching MBPS) Has a Program Element Number been assigned to

this program and can the Government share that number?

Yes, a program element is assigned to the Command Technical Data

Program. The Government prefers not to share this information. Due

to the impacts of the transformation, this data may be misleading for

this effort.

4 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 1.4: “Ensure that cloud and edge solutions

remain consistent and complement each other’s capabilities by

communicating information and syncing data only via APIs and enabling

consistent technology stacks.”

See Government response to Question #5

5 1. Can the Government elaborate on what it means by “enabling consistent

technology stacks,” including providing a definition of “technology

stack”?

The technology used for all prototype solutions should be able to

maintain version and data consistency across cloud and edge

environments. A technology stack comprises the layers of

components or services that are used to provide a software solution or

application.

6 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 1.5: “Support serverless posture at the edge,

minimizing memory and processing foot print for submarines, ships and

expeditionary units”

See Government response to Questions #7, #8 and #9

7 1. Does the Government envision serverless edge sites having some degree

of connectivity to the Cloud?

MBPS and Navy Operational Business Logistics Enterprise (NOBLE)

should be viewed as an integrated end-to-end solution providing

logistics services to Fleet, Acquisition, and Sustainment customers.

Yes, we are typically referring to NOBLE (shipboard/unit Enterprise

Technical Reference Framework (ETRF) instances) when discussing


2

edge computing requirements. However, shipboard/unit ETRF

instances (NOBLE) will be heavily dependent on MBPS data,

decision support and microservices to provide its logistics services to

the Fleet.

8 2. Can the Government confirm that serverless sites only require access to

user applications (and do not require support for the data infrastructure and

management layer, which requires a server?)

The government doesn’t want to limit prototype technical solutions

by being prescriptive in its requirements. The criteria and related

content in the Technical Supplement require that vendors provide

technical solutions that enable edge-to-cloud solutions that minimize

the edge (or ashore) footprint. Section 3.1 of the RFS encourages

vendors to challenge assumptions made in the technical supplement

and articulate those differences in their solution papers.

9 3. Can the Government clarify what types of computations they expect at

the edge and at submarines, ships, and expeditionary units as opposed to

ashore?

Typically, the Government expects there will be minimal variation

between shore and edge computational requirements. The principle

differences will be driven by variations in equipment configurations;

context (operational, environmental and other factors) and

computing/network performance.

10 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 1.7: “Enable an integrated enterprise data

platform that scales to accommodate thousands of data sources and

millions of data points while enabling real time decision making in a

highly immersive customer experience leveraging Mobility and AI.”

See Government response to Questions #11 and #12

11 Can the Government clarify what it means by “leveraging Mobility”? Leveraging Mobility refers to leveraging the expanding capabilities of

mobile devices, computing, and networking to enhance the benefits of

Internet of Things (IoT) Artificial Intelligence (AI),

Augmented/Virtual Reality, and others.

12 Please clarify the difference between “leveraging Mobility” and the

mobile multi-computing platforms referenced in Criteria 5-3: “Enable use

of multi-computing platforms (e.g. laptops, Smart Phone, tablets, additive

manufacturing printers, mobile printers etc.) (inter-dependencies between

NOSS, NAMS, NOME, and NOBLE at large)”?

There are no differences.


3

13 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 1.8: “Leverage native cloud capabilities to

support automated distribution of product and technical data models based

on triggers and meta data from MBPS capabilities, specifically

configuration management”

For "native cloud" capabilities please refer to Appendix B of the

Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment 1). Commercial Product

Lifecycle Management software typically consist of a "configuration

management" capability to manage weapon system product and

technical data changes, associated baselines, and effectivity of

changes/variances. The Government desires that the distribution of

new and changed serialized product and technical data/models be

automated and ideally should leverage ETRF orchestration

capabilities.

14 When the Government refers to “metadata from MBPS capabilities,” is it

referring to specific types of metadata of interest?

There are no specific types of metadata identified at this point. Once

a data model has been established, metadata of interest can be

determined. Descriptive and structural metadata would be key in

automated distribution.

15 If so, what types of metadata is it referring to? See Government response to Question #14

16 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 1.9: “Support a scalable, enterprise CAD

and modeling and simulation capability that minimizes latency from hours

to seconds”


17 Please provide an example of a latency that takes hours and explain the

current bottleneck. Is the latency primarily or only driven by limitations of

AFLOAT bandwidth and connectivity?

Latency is both on the ashore and afloat. Our enterprise network

system, NMCI, has three primary network operations centers (NOCs)

in Hawaii, California and Virginia. Communications to the ashore

based network to cloud solution should be minimized to the greatest

extent possible. On the afloat side, the is also limited bandwidth and

connectivity depending on ship or expeditionary units operational

environment and the type of network that is available (i.e. satellite, in

port network, etc.). Please refer to Id 1.7 of Appendix H, MBPS Top

Level Requirements of the Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment

1) for system performance requirements.

18 Does the Government envision an enterprise CAD capability separate

from modeling and simulation capabilities?

The Government desires an integrated solution with CAD and

modeling and simulation capabilities.

19 (NCRM) Criteria 2.1: “Support seamless, end-to-end information flow and

bi-directional connectivity across each analytical technique (Failure

Analysis, Reliability and Maintainability Engineering, Reliability

Centered Maintenance, Maintenance Task Analysis, Level of Repair

Analysis, Readiness at Cost Modeling and Simulation, etc.) within

Supportability Analysis”



4

20 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “bi-directional connectivity”

in this context?

Bi-directional connectivity means the data produced from each one of

the identified techniques (i.e. Failure Analysis, Reliability and

Maintainability Engineering, etc). The data from the techniques

would serve as inputs or outputs to generate a new or refine an

existing dataset. These would be authoritative data sources and

would need to be represented in the enterprise data model. The end

state would be solutions that establish/support an optimal enterprise

data service which enables affordable lifecycle management of highly

interactive serialized digital twins.

21 (NCRM) Criteria 2.4: “Support rapid aggregation and disaggregation of

system optimization models to develop complex system, ship, strike / task

group and fleet models that produce the design, resource, and cost

requirements needed to support different readiness levels across various

mission scenarios.”


22 Can the Government explain how it defines “models” in the requirements

above (“... system optimization models to develop complex system, ship,

strike / task group and fleet models”), and provide more clarification on

what it's looking for in this requirement?

Models in this instance refer to the models that are part of the Navy

Common Readiness Model (NCRM) affordable readiness (or

Availability and Total Ownership Cost) modeling and simulation

capabilities. These models are typically constructed for individual

weapon systems, and the Government requires that the individual

weapon system models can be readily aggregated to create system of

system, ship, strike group level models to support affordable

readiness modeling and simulation at all levels of command and

control.

23 (NCRM) Criteria 2.6: “Enable an enterprise, edge deployable approach to

designing, deploying and operating Predictive Maintenance and

Prognostic and Health Management solutions to support mission readiness

reporting and decision support across the Navy.”

See Government response to Questions #24 and 25

24 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “Prognostic and Health

Management solutions”?

Assess current and future operating conditions based on data received

from external systems.


5

25 Can the Government expand on how users would use the MBPS solution

at the edge as opposed to how users would use the MBPS solution ashore?

Would there be different sets of users?

For examples of ship and shore-based user scenarios, see MBPS

Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment 1) Section V. B. 2.

Scenarios, Epics and Core User Stories a-c

26 (NCRM) Criteria 2.4: “Support rapid aggregation and disaggregation of

system optimization models to develop complex system, ship, strike / task

group and fleet models that produce the design, resource, and cost

requirements needed to support different readiness levels across various

mission scenarios.”


27 Can the Government explain how it defines “models” in the requirements

above (“... system optimization models to develop complex system, ship,

strike / task group and fleet models”), and provide more clarification on

what it's looking for in this requirement?


28 (NPDM) Criteria 3.1: “Enable the Navy to develop, receive, sustain,

publish and distribute serialized product data models with full bi-

directional traceability, associativity and effectivity”


29 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “associativity” in this

content?

In the associative model, everything which has “discrete independent

existence” is modeled as an entity, and relationships between them

are modeled as associations.

30 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “effectivity” in this context? Effectivity establishes which higher-level objects (baselines, ship,

units) are effected by a change and the date those changes take effect.

31 (NPDM) Criteria 3.2: “Anchor “all” product model data to NPDM’s

change proposal/notification capability to enable the Navy to affordably

manage product data model configuration across the lifecycle?”


32 Is there a specific meaning conveyed by putting "all" in quotes? "All" was put in quotes to emphasize the importance of the Vendors

providing highly efficient lifecycle product and technical data

solutions.


6

33 (NPDM) Criteria 3.4: “Provide an enterprise collaborative knowledge

management capability within NPDM to provide access and visibility to

required program information and traceable environment digital

communications across the Navy to support commonality and high

velocity learning.”

See Government response to Questions #34 and 35

34 Can the Government elaborate on what is meant by “traceable

environment digital communications”? Is this intended to be “traceable

environment AND digital communications”?

Though programs across the Navy are managed independent of one

another, they typically share numerous similar requirements and

components. The Navy desires that knowledge produced by one

program can be readily identified to and shared with other programs

that have a similar requirement and/or component.

35 Can the Government confirm that by “commonality,” the Government

means consistent business rules and transform codes to ensure that data

adhere to a common data model, usable throughout the enterprise?

Similar to Question 34. "Commonality" in this instance refers to the

commonality of parts and requirements across different Navy

programs and the ability to easily identify, reuse and share

information across programs based on that commonality.

36 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 5.2: “Define, execute, and test integration

requirements externally to the ETRF and other LogIT applications such as

NOBLE, NMMES-TR, etc.”


37 Does the Government intend this to read “integration requirements across

the ETRF and LogIT applications” or does it intend for vendors to discuss

integration with systems external to the Navy? Does this include, e.g.,

OEM or DLA managed systems?

See RFS Figure 2 Navy Logistics ETRF for potential integration

requirements external to Navy ETRF

38 (Overarching MBPS) Criteria 6.2: “Data Rationalization Strategies to

quickly transition workforce to MBPS capabilities”

See Government response to Question #39 for additional details. This

criteria is communicating that, with respect to legacy data migration

from legacy to MBPS, the Government considers schedule and ease

of use by users important factors.

39 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “data rationalization

strategy”?

Rationalization refers to employing a sound technical and business

approach to migrating data from NAVSEA 06L legacy programs to

MBPS. 40 Does NAVSEA anticipate a license cost in the white paper proposals for

just the prototype builds or also the full production system?

License cost is required for both prototype and production - See RFS

sections 4.3.12(d) and 4.4.4


7

41 If we are to provide a license cost for the production system, please

provide the estimated number of users by role, for production as well as

the prototype testing by the government.

Production user counts can be estimated using Section VI of the

Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment 1). The Government desires

that the Vendors use these numbers and their expertise in similar

industries to estimate affordable production and prototype license

requirements.

42 What are the approximate total user headcounts for each of these

capabilities?


43 Within each capability, can you provide a ROM breakdown (% or

quantity) of the kinds of user by your identified user roles (e.g. “Fleet

Maintainer”, “Product Support Analyst” etc.)?

Based on the information in the Technical Supplement (RFS

Attachment 1), particularly Section VI, and your expertise in similar

industries, please develop and state your assumptions in determining

your recommended licensing approach.

44 Is the ETRF approach a frozen design or is it a candidate for a COTS or

modified COTS solution proposal?

Proposals on Platform as a Service (PaaS)/Data as a Service (DaaS)

ETRF capabilities are acceptable.

45 Exactly what does “support” mean in this case. Please clarify the use

case(s) intended. E.g. is the intent to produce (author) new S1000D

modules and produce new publications?

Not sure what the Vendor is explicitly referencing here. The

following response is relevant to the example provided: Technical

data capabilities should enable the Government to create new and edit

existing technical publications.

46 Can a foreign owned product be used in our solution? Please refer to Department of Defense (DoD) guidance regarding

open source or foreign products. https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-

source-software-faq/ 47 If yes to above question, can we use product specific services (product

SME) from the product vendor in support of their product without

considering them a subcontractor. Is there a distinction between specialty

SME services to support the product, and subcontracting.

No, vendors will need to comply with RFS sections 4.2.4 and 7.2.

48 As long as we compartmentalize information and methods, can we have a

foreign employee on the team?

No, vendors will need to comply with RFS sections 4.2.4 and 7.2.

49 Can you clarify the extra steps required to ensure a FOCI company, used

as a subcontractor, qualifies to contribute to our team?

See RFS section 4.2.4 and Attachment 3: Security Process for Vetting

Contractors for specific guidance for FOCI


8

50 Will sample data be provided for the demonstrations? Can you share that

data set ASAP?

No data sample will be provided during Vendor technical

demonstration. However, sample data will be provided to the awarded

Vendor/s to support prototype development.

51 Will sample data be provided for prototype activity? See Government response to Question #50

52 if provided, will it be structured in a way that would be reasonably

provided for the readiness tasks at hand, including explanations of data

sets.

See Government response to Question #50. Vendor/Government

responsibilities and requirements for data sets will be negotiated

52 What is the fidelity of information set provided in order to demonstrate

FMECA, LORA, FRACAS etc.?

The Government will not provide data sets for demonstrations.

53 Will the information set be structured so that it is obvious what application

demonstration it is meant to support?

Yes, for prototypes.

54 Given the actual scale of the entire Navy, is there a subset of Navy assets,

across afloat and ashore, most requiring the MBPS solution.

MBPS is principally focused on Weapon Systems deployed with

operational Fleet units.

55 Are the “criteria” assumed to be the actual main solution elements? Yes

56 At the industry day, you spoke of an Integrated Project Team to sync

MBPS with NOBLE developments. Any progress? Any further

guidance?

No formal structure is established yet but the Government desires that

MBPS be deployed in a PaaS/DaaS solution common with NOBLE.

57 Are there legacy systems that will not be “rationalized”, for which we

must account for an integration solution.

Please see Appendices F and G of the Technical Supplement (RFS

Attachment 1) for factors that will influence the Government’s

rationalization strategy. The Government desires that the DaaS

solution minimize the need for application to application integrations.

58 Do we need to have all three solutions, NCRM/NDART/NDPM, detailed

out in terms our planned component interaction, even if we are only

“Majoring in 2” and “Minoring in 1”

See RFS section 4.3.3. Although Vendors may submit a Solution

Paper for one or more solutions, an integration plan pertaining to all

three solutions must be part of the proposed solution. Proposals do

not need to address all solutions.

59 Is there an example solutions paper from past awards that highlights the

best approach?

There are none as each prototype and corresponding solutions are

unique.


9

60 The SOW identified the delivery of the MBPS solutions or subsystem as

Increments to further develop the MVP. In relation to development within

the Agile Framework, can a definition be provided for “increments”, are

these increments Epics, Sprints, Release, etc.

The SOW is provided as a guide only. The increments are defined as

an agreed upon set of requirements between the Government and the

Vendor to deliver within a specific number of Sprints, which will be

determined during negotiations. Please state assumptions in your

proposals.

61 Would increments run on the same schedule with each subsystem that

makes up MBPS (NCRM, NDART, NPDM).

Not necessarily. Also, see Government response to Question #60.

62 How many ‘named user accounts’ are expected? For anticipated number of users see Technical Supplement

(Attachment 1) Appendix H, MBPS Top Level Requirements

document section 1.7.16 -

The system shall provide the ability for concurrent user logon

sessions of up to 2,000 users enabling the performance of various

activities such as viewing, uploading and downloading of content,

check-in/check-out functions, product support modeling and

simulation scenario processing, data entry and workflow processing.

63 Is there a requirement for ‘guest accounts’ with limited functionality? For the prototype, there should be read only accounts with limited

functionality.

64 How much data (upload/download) will be consumed on a monthly basis Based on information provided in the RFS package and your

experience with similar industries please develop and state your

assumptions for this requirement. Non-functional requirements will

be matured during the prototyping process.

65 What type of support for a helpdesk is required (Tier I, Tier II or Tier III) No specific type of help desk support is required. The Government

desires that Vendors provide them with "best value" sustainment

solutions.

66 What type of training material or other end user support is required? The Government desires that Vendors provide them with "best value"

training solutions.

67 What is the required availability for the application? Will planned

downtime or upgrade windows be included?

The Government desires that Vendors provide them with solutions

that minimize the need for downtime. Ideally, solution capabilities

should enable independent lifecycle support of services below the

application layer.

68 Is the application expected to be available outside of government networks

(NMCI, One-net, etc.)?

Yes, the applications should be accessible outside of Government

networks. The Government will have support contractors and Original

Equipment Manufacturers (OEM).


10

69 The Technical Reference Supplement refers to Appendix I, this Appendix

is not located within the document.

Appendix I of Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment 1) is included

with the RFS package and has been updated in the Technical

Supplement Table of Content (TOC). Please download the Technical

Supplement to view all the referenced appendices.

70 Will all network traffic to and from MBPS need to go through CAP? Yes. At this time, the Navy cloud providers such as Amazon Web

Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure are required to go through a

CAP; however, other alternatives should also be considered such as

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA).

71 Have existing legacy systems been deployed to the cloud as applications

for integration?

No, the legacy applications aren't deployed to the cloud to support

rationalization. The Government desires that Vendors recommend

affordable rationalization solutions that fully enable rapid

prototyping.

72 Will the new solutions NDART, NPDM, NCRM that make up MPBS be

replacing legacy systems, if so, will a data transfer be required?

Part 1. Yes select legacy systems (see Technical Supplement (RFS

Attachment 1) Figure 15 - MBPS to Legacy Systems and Section VI

for legacy system overview) will transition to MBPS. It has not been

determined how data transfer will occur.

73 The solicitations states that this is a fixed price proposal. In 4.3.14

Anticipated Delivery Schedule, the government will consider incentivizing

vendor solutions that deliver ahead of the government proposed

schedule. How does the Government intend to calculate incentives?

It is incumbent upon the vendor to propose any alternate solutions to

fixed price. If your solution is selected, it may be a point of

negotiation prior to award.

74 Sections 4.2.6-4.2.6.2 address requirement for an Organizational Conflict

of Interest Mitigation Plan. If a vendor does not have a Real or perceived

OCI based on the Contracts listed at 4.6.2.1, is an OCI Mitigation Plan

required?

Yes. Pursuant with RFS section 4.2.6, all Vendors are required to

submit an Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. In

the event there are no real or perceived, simply state so and annotate

what actions would be taken in the event that one is realized.

75 Will the NPDM solution need to interface with any existing COTS TDP

applications?

Vendors should assume there is no existing Commercial Off The

Shelf (COTS) Technical Data Package (TDP) applications. Potential

solution should be captured in their proposed solution paper.

76 What is the estimated Number of users, systems and locations for the

prototype?

Please use the Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment 1) (especially

section VI) and your experience in similar industries to develop and

state assumptions for user counts, locations and systems.

77 Is there a weighted evaluation of the criteria requirements? Yes, see the updated language in RFS section 6.2.5.

78 Demo – Is the evaluation team willing to travel to the vendor site for the

demonstration?

The Government is planning a central location similar to Industry

Day to conduct the technical demonstrations.


11

79 Criteria 1.3 - What type of data does the Navy envision being

containerized?

Criteria 1.1 does reference data being containerized. The government

is interested in containerizing application capability/functionality and

data if applicable.

80 Criteria 1.5 - How does the Navy define Serverless posture at the Edge?

Do they mean disconnected operations? Is this platform as a service?

Both disconnected ops and PaaS solution that enables edge

computing/analytics.

81 Section refers to SysML management of content. Does government

already own SysML licenses or is government looking for respondents to

include SysML licenses?

Vendors should include their SysML license requirements as part of

their proposal.

82 Are there other “enterprise” software licenses that government will supply

that the respondent does not need to include in software pricing?

The Government will not be providing any enterprise software to

support software pricing. The Government expects that the Vendors

would know the number and nature of licenses sold to the

Government by their companies.

83 The RFS states, “The Government's desire is to complete all prototypes for

the governments full set of requirements, to include legacy system

rationalization, within 24 months after prototype award.” For the data used

to demonstrate the MBPS functionality, will the Government confirm that

it will provide all necessary data.

The Government will provided data for the prototyping effort;

however, no data will be provided for technical demonstrations

purposes.

84 Throughout the document links to the CDRL documents are listed as TBD

or Error!Reference Not Found. Can the Government provide correct links

such that bidders can understand the required CDRLs.

The SOW is a draft version and it is to be used as a guide; thus,

CDRL links are for reference and not a requirement. The required

CDRLs are unknown at this point. CDRLs will become part of the

final SOW as part of the negotiation process.

85 What is the scope of legacy system rationalization anticipated within 24

months of program award?

The legacy system rationalization will be based upon the Vendor

rationalization strategy, agreed upon increments and implementation

strategy and plan. Please use the Technical Supplement (RFS

Attachment 1) and develop/state assumptions

86 Does the Government have a required edge device required during

prototype? If so, please describe.

No, the Government does not have required edge devices but will

have edge device requirements.

87 Please provide additional context for what is expected for “Anchor “All”

product model data”


Could the Government provide additional context on expectation for

acquisition of COTS product data

Refers to the acquisition of technical and product data for items the

government buys that are designated as COTS.


12

89 Is RADWEB expected to be the electronic conduit between Ship and

Shore for MBPS? Would the NOBLE IDE solution be acceptable?

The Government intends to sunset RADWEB. RADWEB will be

replaced by NPDM.

90 Could you please confirm If the RFS pricing is just for the Prototype? Vendor response to pricing should include both prototype and

potential follow-on production pursuant with RFS section 4.4.4

91 Will the government be providing the infrastructure to connect to ships

and subs? Or does that need to be part of the prototype solution?

MBPS will be deployed and leverage existing infrastructure between

ships and subs.

92 Will the Government be specifying what kind of connectors to use for

architect elements?

The Government requires additional clarification in order answer the

question.

93 Can the government provide the underlying DB for the legacy systems that

need to be rationalized?

The Government will not provide legacy system database; however

sample data from the legacy systems will be provided during the

prototype phase.

94 Can the government provide a list of SW to be considered for SW

rationalization?

The Government will not provide legacy system software; however

relevant information from the legacy systems will be provided during

the prototype phase.

95 Will the government provide the data required to operate in the

contractor’s prototype environment?

Yes, the Government will provide the necessary data.

96 Will the government supply dedicated SME’s supporting new business

processes development through the SWDL for NPDM, NCRM and

NDART work?

Yes. the Government may provide dedicated SMEs when required but

desires to minimize prototype development dependency on

Government SMEs.

97 Will the government supply Business Process and Technical experts to

support software rationalization work?


98 Section 4.3.14 states "The Government’s desire is to complete all

prototypes for the governments full set of requirements, to include legacy

system rationalization, within 24 months after prototype award. The

government will consider incentivizing Vendor solutions that deliver

ahead of the government proposed timeline."

Please clarify that it is the Government's intent for responses to include a

cost estimate for a 24 month prototyping period.

That statement isn't directing Vendor's to provide a cost estimate for a

24 month prototyping period. Vendors should provide proposals that

establish a best value program cost, schedule and performance

baseline for the Government's full set of requirements. We desire to

complete prototyping in 24 months and will consider incentivizing

approaches that can exceed that timeline.

99 Is the expectation that the ship is master of its own data? OR does the

cloud instance (hub) have the ability to author while the ship is at sea.

Create a Status:

The ship is not the authoritative source of data; however afloat

systems will provide data to MBPS through NOBLE. For example,


13

at sea – shop owns authoring ability (ship downloads on departure)

At port – port owns authoring (ship uploads on arrival)

Technical Supplement (RFS Attachment 1) Figure 6 - Scenario 1:

Shipboard Maintenance.

100 Should all data always be synced while at sea? Or is it only special

information? Do we update everything only at port?

Data synchronization is based on the ship’s connectivity and

operational constraints.

101 SOW states:

The vendor(s) shall ensure all system requirements; their functional

allocation and verification are accounted for with full traceability by

developing a SysML requirements model.

May we use our internal "Systems Architecture" applicaiton that creates a

SySML-like RFLP structure. We can create diagrams with our internal

graph viewing capability or export diagrams to NoMagic a leading MBSE

tool.

We would propose this to be in a cloud instance that the govt can access as

desired in realtime.

The Government will not specify that Vendors use its or a specific

system requirements modeling solution. CDRL/DID requirements

will be negotiated.

102 Is there a preference for cloud hosting? Amazon vs Microsoft? The Government does not have a preference.

103 What are the requirements for foreign nationals authoring portions of the

solutiuon that define the data model necessary for managing MBPS

data. This would preclude the foreign national from seeing any data.

Vendors will need to comply with RFS sections 4.2.4 and 7.2.

Documents

Navy Model-Based Product Support (MBPS)Navy Model-Based Product Support (MBPS) RFS Number: TREX-18-0049 4 20 Can the Government clarify what is meant by “bi-directional connectivity”