RFI QA - Digital GI Bill Automation and Modernization 36C10D26Q0163.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- R499--Request for Information DGIB RFI Q&A DGIB
- Solicitation number
- 36C10D26Q0163
- Issued by
-
Department of Veterans Affairs
About this file
This file is a Master Q&A Matrix containing government responses to questions submitted during a Request for Information (RFI) for Digital GI Bill Automation and Modernization (36C10D26Q0163), released July 16, 2026. The VA's Veterans Benefits Administration is conducting market research to gather industry input on completing development and modernization of the Digital GI Bill (DGIB) platform, transitioning it from the incumbent managed service vendor (Accenture Federal Services) to VA-owned and VA-managed infrastructure, and advancing claims processing automation. The platform currently comprises over 700 repositories, 50+ databases across four engines (Oracle 19C, PostgreSQL 14, Amazon Redshift, and DynamoDB), 590+ compiled artifacts, and 90+ vendor, open-source, and hardware licenses. The hybrid architecture is predominantly cloud-native with containerized Kubernetes workloads but also includes virtual machine (EC2) components running Windows Server and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
The seven capability areas respondents should address are: VA Cloud Migration, Workload Manager, Approval Manager, Data Mart Analytics Platform (DMAP), Claims Processing System Consolidation, Claims Automation Advancement, and Streamlined Manual Claims Processing. VA welcomes industry recommendations on architectural simplification and estate rationalization but requires preservation of full functional parity, data continuity, current automation rates, performance standards compliance, and security posture throughout any transition. The target VA-owned/managed environment has not been designated, and VA specifically invites respondents to frame timeline and cost estimates as functions of plausible hosting environments with stated assumptions. The government has not determined whether the acquisition will consist of a single award covering migration, operations, maintenance, and development or separate awards by function, nor has it established acquisition strategy, set-aside designation, or period of performance structure. This RFI is strictly for market research and does not constitute a commitment to issue a solicitation. VA welcomes input from any organization with relevant experience, including emerging technology companies and specialist partners, not only prime contractors.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C10D26Q0163 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C10D26Q0163.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Master Q&A Matrix Request for Information (RFI) Q&A for Digital GI Bill Automation and Modernization (36C10D26Q0163) Released on July 16, 2026
| Question | Government Response |
| Is this a new effort or if there was a previous contractor that performed these requirements? If the latter, would you be able to inform me of the Contract # used for these services? | This effort builds on work previously performed under a managed service arrangement. Publicly available award information identifies Accenture Federal Services as the incumbent contractor supporting the Digital GI Bill platform. The Government is conducting market research for planning purposes and is not releasing contract numbers through this RFI. Any procurement‑related details, if applicable, would be provided through publicly available solicitation documents should VA elect to issue a solicitation |
| The RFI describes a platform footprint of more than 700 repositories, 50+ databases across four engines, 590+ compiled artifacts, and 90+ vendors, open source, and hardware licenses. To help calibrate transition and modernization input: can VA share the primary drivers of this footprint (e.g., chapter-specific processing silos, scope accumulated under the incumbent managed service arrangement, or compliance-driven separation)? Will a system inventory or architectural overview be made available to respondents or with a future solicitation? | The platform footprint reflects two primary drivers. First, DGIB was architected as a cloud-native, microservices-based platform, in which application capabilities, infrastructure-as-code, and CI/CD pipelines are decomposed into discrete, independently deployable components. This architectural pattern is the principal driver of the repository, compiled-artifact, and container-image counts, as each service typically maintains its own code, build, and deployment assets. Second, DGIB was built to consolidate the processing of all education benefit types onto a single modern platform, replacing and absorbing the functions of multiple VA legacy systems of varying ages while simultaneously delivering new benefit capabilities and code. The database footprint spans four engines (Oracle 19C, PostgreSQL 14, Amazon Redshift, and DynamoDB) supporting these consolidated functions. The licensing count similarly reflects the range of commercial, open-source, and hardware components required to operate a platform of this scope. |
VA does not intend to release architectural documentation at the RFI stage. Publicly releasable architectural overview information is anticipated to be made available with a future solicitation, with more detailed system and inventory documentation provided to the awarded contractor during transition as appropriate.
Would VA consider architectural simplification and estate rationalization as an explicit scope element of the transition, rather than a like‑for‑like migration of the current environment? This includes consolidation of redundant repositories and databases, decommissioning overlapping components, and reducing the license footprint as part of the move to VA-owned infrastructure. VA is open to receiving industry input on approaches that include architectural simplification and estate rationalization, and welcomes approaches that improve maintainability, reduce operational complexity, and optimize the licensing footprint where genuine redundancy or consolidation opportunity can be demonstrated. VA does not require a strictly like-for-like migration and encourages respondents to propose the approach they believe best meets the business need.
Any such approach must, however, preserve full functional parity and data continuity, maintain or improve current automation rates and quality, sustain compliance with all applicable performance standards (including claims-processing accuracy, availability, and timeliness), and preserve the system's security posture and authorization to operate throughout the transition. VA considers operational stability and uninterrupted benefit delivery to be non-negotiable given DGIB's status as a mission-critical, non-redundant system. Respondents proposing rationalization should identify how they would validate that no capability, service, or data is lost in the process.
It is ultimately the respondent's responsibility to propose solutions that satisfy these requirements; VA will evaluate proposed approaches on their technical merit and risk profile.
| Is the current DGIB environment composed of virtual machine workloads that must be replicated into the VA‑managed environment, or is it primarily cloud‑native? | The DGIB environment is a hybrid architecture that is predominantly cloud-native but includes a virtual machine component. The platform is built primarily on a microservices architecture using containerized workloads (Kubernetes/container registry) and cloud-native managed services. It also includes virtual machine (EC2) workloads running Windows Server and Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating systems, which would need to be accounted for in any migration to a VA-managed environment. Detailed compute inventory and configuration would be made available to the awarded contractor during transition as appropriate. |
| Will the migration and continuity platform be selected by VA or proposed by the future integrator? | The target hosting environment for DGIB will be a VA-owned and VA-managed environment; this is a VA determination, and any proposed solution must reside within VA-controlled infrastructure and maintain a valid ATO, as stated in the RFI. The specific migration approach, tooling, and continuity mechanisms used to execute the transition into that environment are areas where VA welcomes industry proposals. |
| Are you planning a bidders conference for RFI - Digital GI Bill Automation and Modernization - ID: 36C10D26Q0163? Who is the COR/COTR for this program and who is the incumbent? | At this time, VA is not planning a bidders’ conference for this RFI. As stated in the announcement, this RFI is issued strictly for market research, and all questions should be submitted in writing through the email address provided. Publicly available award information identifies Accenture Federal Services as the incumbent contractor supporting the Digital GI Bill platform. |
| What is the target VA-owned and VA-managed infrastructure (for example the VA Enterprise Cloud or a specific environment), and is a specific cloud service provider assumed? | VA has not designated a single target environment or a specific cloud service provider for this effort. Candidate VA-owned/managed environments could include the VA Enterprise Cloud (VAEC) or other VA-controlled hosting options, and VA is not presuming a particular cloud service provider at this stage. VA is specifically interested in respondents' recommendations: given DGIB's architecture, security requirements, and continuity needs, which VA-controlled hosting environment and provider approach would you recommend, and why? Responses should address the rationale for the recommended environment, including considerations such as ATO/authorization strategy, workload and architecture fit, migration risk, licensing implications, and long-term cost and sustainability. The proposed environment must be VA-owned and VA-managed and must maintain a valid ATO. |
| Does VA anticipate a single award covering migration, operations and maintenance, and continued development, or separate awards by function? | At this stage, VA has not determined the final acquisition strategy for any future solicitation that may result from this market‑research effort. The purpose of this RFI is solely to gather industry input to help VA assess available capabilities, approaches, and considerations related to the DGIB platform. Should this market research lead to a solicitation, the final structure of the requirement will be communicated in the published solicitation documents. |
| The RFI cites SDVOSB/VOSB registration only conditionally; will the eventual solicitation be full-and-open, a small-business set-aside, or a socioeconomic set-aside? | At this stage, VA has not determined the acquisition strategy or set‑aside designation for any potential future solicitation. As stated in the RFI, this effort is strictly market research, and VA is using industry feedback to assess viable procurement approaches. |
| Will the incumbent Managed Service Vendor be contractually obligated to support knowledge transfer during transition, and for how long? | Publicly available award information identifies Accenture Federal Services as the incumbent contractor supporting the Digital GI Bill platform. However, this RFI is strictly for market research. VA has not established any acquisition strategy, transition structure, contractual requirements, or vendor obligations for any potential future solicitation. Because no solicitation exists at this time, VA is not able to discuss any future transition obligations or durations |
| For WLMS, Approval Manager, and DMAP, what is the current build state, and how is completion defined for each? | As described in the RFI, WLMS, Approval Manager, and DMAP have reached or are approaching a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) state, with VA exploring continued development toward full operational capability for each. At this stage VA currently considers completion in functional terms: Workload Manager is complete when it can fully replace and enable decommissioning of TIMS; Approval Manager when it can fully replace and enable decommissioning of both WEAMS and eForce; and DMAP when it reaches full operational capability as the analytics back-end enabling enhanced reporting. Detailed current build-state information would be made available to the awarded contractor during transition as appropriate. |
| Which of the 90-plus vendor and open-source components are expected to carry forward, and which are candidates for replacement or consolidation? | Consistent with VA's response regarding architectural simplification and estate rationalization, VA has not pre-determined which specific components will carry forward versus be replaced or consolidated, and welcomes respondents' recommendations. VA encourages proposals that optimize the licensing and component footprint where genuine consolidation or replacement opportunity can be demonstrated, provided that full functional parity, automation levels, performance standards, data continuity, and security posture are preserved. A detailed component and license inventory would be made available to the awarded contractor during transition as appropriate; respondents should note that transferability of individual third-party licenses may be subject to vendor terms and renegotiation. |
| The Background section states VBA is exploring five primary capability areas described in the Requirement section. The Requirement section contains seven headed subsections: VA Cloud Migration, Workload Manager, Approval Manager, Data Mart Analytics Platform, Claims Processing System Consolidation, Claims Automation Advancement, and Streamlined Manual Claims Processing. Which set should responses address? | Regarding the capability areas: the seven capability areas enumerated in the Requirement section govern — VA Cloud Migration, Workload Manager, Approval Manager, Data Mart Analytics Platform (DMAP), Claims Processing System Consolidation, Claims Automation Advancement, and Streamlined Manual Claims Processing. The seven referenced include the 5 primarily business capabilities (mentioned in background) as well as two technical capabilities of VA Cloud Migration and Streamlined Manual Claims Processing. Respondents should structure their input around the seven enumerated areas. |
| The RFI anticipates migration to "a VAEC or other VA-controlled environment." Does VA have a target environment in mind, or a date by which one will be selected? The answer changes the ATO reauthorization approach, the control inheritance available, and the refactoring required for the AWS-native components in the current stack, and therefore changes the timeline estimates the RFI asks respondents to provide. | VA has not designated a specific target environment and has not established a date by which one will be selected; environment selection would occur through a future acquisition action. VA acknowledges that the target environment and available control inheritance affect ATO reauthorization strategy, refactoring scope, and therefore timeline. Given this, VA welcomes respondents to frame their timeline estimates as a function of plausible VA-controlled target environments and their associated control-inheritance assumptions, stating those assumptions explicitly. Any target environment will be VA-owned and VA-managed and must maintain a valid ATO. |
| The RFI asks what licenses the Government will need to purchase and their anticipated cost, against a current environment holding 90+ vendor, open-source, and hardware licenses. Can VA state whether those licenses are held by VA or by the managed service vendor, and whether they are assignable? Relatedly, what rights does VA hold in the 700+ repositories and 590+ compiled software artifacts? Without that position, any cost figure a respondent offers is an assumption rather than an estimate. | The current DGIB environment, including its licenses, reflects components procured and held by the incumbent managed service vendor rather than by VA. The assignability of individual third-party licenses, as well as questions regarding rights in the repositories and compiled software artifacts, are matters that would be addressed through the applicable contractual and acquisition processes and are not being characterized in response to this RFI. VA acknowledges that, absent a definitive position on these points, respondents' cost figures will necessarily rest on stated assumptions. VA therefore invites respondents to identify the licensing, assignability, and rights assumptions underlying their estimates, along with any related considerations, so that VA can better understand the range of approaches and their cost implications. |
| VA's market research seeking responses only from vendors capable of priming this, or is input from a specialist small business useful, whether as potential subcontract capability or as market research on the transition questions specifically? | VA is seeking market‑research input from any vendor with relevant experience or insight, regardless of whether the vendor could serve as a prime contractor on a potential future requirement. The purpose of this RFI is to gather broad industry feedback that can help VA understand available capabilities and technical approaches. |
| The RFI references migration to "VAEC or other VA-controlled environment." Can VA indicate whether the anticipated target is the AWS GovCloud side of VAEC, a commercial-region enclave, or an Azure-based environment? The answer materially changes the migration approach, ATO strategy, and timeline estimates any respondent can responsibly offer. | VA has not designated a specific target environment and has not established a date by which one will be selected; environment selection would occur through a future acquisition action. VA acknowledges that the target environment and available control inheritance affect ATO reauthorization strategy, refactoring scope, and therefore timeline. Given this, VA welcomes respondents to frame their timeline estimates as a function of plausible VA-controlled target environments and their associated control-inheritance assumptions, stating those assumptions explicitly. Any target environment will be VA-owned and VA-managed and must maintain a valid ATO. |
| Regarding the anticipated transition to VA-owned/managed infrastructure: for purposes of period-of-performance and transition-planning input, should industry assume this scope would be exercised within the initial period of performance? Relatedly, the Background section describes five primary capability areas while the Requirement section enumerates seven. Confirming which framing governs would help respondents structure input consistently. | Regarding timing: VA has not determined the structure of any future acquisition or its period(s) of performance, and respondents should not assume that transition to VA-owned/managed infrastructure would be exercised within any particular period of performance. As described in the RFI, migration is characterized as an option that could be exercised at VA's discretion. VA is specifically seeking industry's recommendations on how best to structure the period of performance and phasing of this scope, and encourages respondents to propose an approach based on the information provided. |
Regarding the capability areas: the seven capability areas enumerated in the Requirement section govern — VA Cloud Migration, Workload Manager, Approval Manager, Data Mart Analytics Platform (DMAP), Claims Processing System Consolidation, Claims Automation Advancement, and Streamlined Manual Claims Processing. The seven referenced include the 5 primarily business capabilities (mentioned in background) as well as two technical capabilities of VA Cloud Migration and Streamlined Manual Claims Processing. Respondents should structure their input around the seven enumerated areas.
| What testing environment(s) does VA anticipate furnishing to support transition validation, parallel operations, and ongoing release testing? | The Benefits and Memorials (BAM) Portfolio provides a range of testing environments with varying capabilities, including both PII-compliant and non-PII environments. These environments support functions such as development, integration, staging/pre-production, and conversion testing. Specific environment availability, configuration, and allocation to support transition validation, parallel operations, and ongoing release testing would be determined as part of the applicable acquisition and transition planning. VA invites respondents to state their assumptions regarding required test environments and to describe how they would approach validation within such environments, including any parallel or dual-run testing. |
| Can VA confirm the current disposition of BDN and of the functions previously tied to its retirement, including monthly enrollment verification (WAVE), electronic certification processing (ECAP), and work-study processing? This would help respondents scope transition and consolidation input accurately. | BDN, WAVE, ECAP, and work-study processing are not systems or functions addressed within the scope of this RFI. VA offers the following disposition information for context only: |
The Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) has been fully replaced by the DGIB platform.
The functions previously supported by WAVE (monthly enrollment verification) are now supported by a combination of the DGIB platform and the VA.gov 'Verify Your Enrollment' capability.
ECAP was decommissioned as part of the BDN decommissioning effort.
Work-study processing is supported by the Work-Study Management System (WSMS).
| Should this market research lead to a solicitation, does VA anticipate making a bidders' library or similar Government-furnished information available, such as a repository and artifact inventory, a license and entitlement inventory, and environment topology, to enable informed and comparable responses? | Should this market research lead to a solicitation, VA anticipates providing appropriate Government-furnished information to enable informed and comparable responses from all offerors. The specific contents, format, and level of detail of any such information would be determined as part of solicitation development. If VA elects to issue a solicittaion and make an award, more detailed system, inventory, and environment documentation would be provided at that time. VA welcomes industry's input on what Government-furnished information would be most valuable to support high-quality responses, and welcomes respondents' recommendations in this regard. |
| Could you confirm whether VA welcomes input from an emerging technology company that may be strongest as a technology contributor / specialist partner rather than claiming prior operation of a federal benefits platform of the full DGIB scale? We want to make sure any response is useful to the market-research objective and accurately represents our role and experience. | VA welcomes input from any organization with relevant experience or insight, including emerging technology companies whose strengths may be most applicable as specialist contributors rather than as prime contractors. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .