alea, I'm smushing it together with the Sole source thing, but the two in their language are not entirely reconcilable. One states essentially pre-deployment work for a specific roll-out (FBCB2) with a specific hardware provider (DRS) with a specific anticipated time frame (Feb/Mar). That read as a pure SED play. That posting seems to be in the latter of your two scenarios, that the produc tis chosen.
This latest PR (which may be the same) smacks more of a active TPM adventure speculatively involving WEM. That would require work if all that legacy BIOS issue is in play.
The mobile client and the host systems presumably have to be on the same page if they are to share meaningfully, both host and client integrity must be monitored in which case unless one dumps everything, some legacy remediation is in order.
It would seem to me if FBCBC2 was it, the wording would be a little different and this sounds a little more structural.
Final opinion, the broader work-up to create an open field would IMO involve more than modest payment, on the order of historical efforts of this kind that were in the 800k-1.8m range. The closer it is linked to a deployment, the less Wave gets paid IMO. There wasn't a specific service item for BP e.g. (although I spose one should wait for the 10k on that and guess) but the apparent price per seat to BP (?$95?) seems to reflect the possibility that Wave largely ate the pre-deployment engineering/services.
That's how I am choosing to interpret this, is is 'for Wave products' work and as such, Wave doesn't get paid much at all. Wave sells software, not engineering, if their software requires engineering, that's Wave's problem. Gov will eat some of the pure expenses, but not a dime more than that.
| 