RA perspective on RFQs

1
RA perspective on RFQs

• H. Seim
• D. Martin
• M. McCammon

2
Process

• 3 RA representatives included on advisory group
• Participated in all briefings, provided feedback
• Held additional discussions with one of the
  contractors to discuss RA concerns

3
RA perspective on the CDs (1)

• Focus/strength of CDs was IT - SOA
• Both firms envision a strong role for RAs
• Standards lots of grass-roots efforts underway,
  need to ensure they are incorporated (OpenIOOS,
  MMI, QARTOD,SEACOOS DM)
• RAs need to be prepared for responsibility

4
RA perspective on the CDs (2)

• Modeling (and observing) components of IOOS not
  well defined
• Critical need to establish design for these
  components opportunity for RAs
• Some vision of modeling system emerging national
  backbone - basin-scale RAs to provide/support
  regional/local models
• need similar guidance/structure for observing
  component, esp. growth regional-level
  partnership?

5
RA perspective on the CDs (3)

• Business model some fresh ways to promote how
  IOOS can be presented (CDs, VNs)
• One CD stronger on CONOPS, other stronger on LCCE
• Funding LCCEs used rather different approaches
  RAs cast differently
• CDs/LCCEs mixed on financial needs of RAs need
  to make sure responsibilities and funding levels
  consistent

6
Possible impacts on RAs

• Important for RAs to be active partners in
  development of SOA
• Incorporate assessment concepts (VNs) into RA
  business plans as appropriate
• Clarification/alternative notion of operational
  requirements SLAs
• Need agreement on roles and responsibilities for
  designing obs and modeling how does this work
  within SOA? (a.k.a. push for CONOPS definition)