RFI 47QTCX26N0001_Amendment 0001 Posting-07-28-2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47QTCX26N0001
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
This file is a Government Response document to vendor questions submitted in response to the USAccess Federal Identity Materials Program (FIMP) Request for Information (RFI) 47QTCX26N0001. The RFI seeks market information on federal identity credential solutions, including physical PIV cards, alternate credential form factors, mobile enablement, derived credentials, and hybrid credential models. GSA is gathering information on cryptographic agility, Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) readiness aligned with NIST standards, secure hardware component manufacturing and supply chain considerations, and pricing guidance for future acquisition planning.
Key respondent guidance indicates that vendors may submit partial responses focused on specific innovation areas rather than comprehensive solutions, and teaming arrangements across multiple companies are acceptable. GSA has clarified that physical PIV cardstock will remain a mandatory baseline under future BPA agreements, with requirements aligned to FIPS 201-3 standards. A phased migration path is anticipated for PQC-ready cryptographic modules rather than immediate requirement at contract award. GSA encourages vendors to propose crypto-agile secure element architectures and provide information on manufacturing, assembly, and delivery options. The amendment extends the RFI response deadline to August 14, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. ET, with an additional opportunity to submit questions by August 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET. This is an information-gathering exercise with no scoring weighting applied to response sections, and ROM pricing is requested from all respondents regardless of response scope.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 47QTCX26N0001 Amendment 0002 QAR-2026-08-07.pdf | ||
| FIMP RFI Draft.pdf |
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
Sheet1 RFI 47QTCX26N0001 USAccess Federal Identity Materials Program (FIMP)
| Question | Government Response |
| May respondents address a subset of the requested topic areas relevant to their specific capability, rather than a comprehensive response across all areas? Will partial responses focused on specific innovation areas (e.g., alternate credential form factors, cryptographic agility) be considered alongside full-solution responses from prime card manufacturers? | Yes that is acceptable. |
| - Is there a preference for responses from small businesses or non-traditional vendors that address specific innovation objectives (Section 2.1, Objective 3) even where the respondent is not proposing to serve as a full-scope cardstock/personalization provider? | As this is an RFI and the Government is in an information gathering phase, all input is welcome and encouraged. |
| - Does GSA anticipate the eventual acquisition strategy will include a small business subcontracting plan or set-aside consideration, given the program's current status as "no set-aside used"? | This is to be determined. |
| - Will GSA consider structuring the recompete to allow a prime/subcontractor team model (e.g., card manufacturer plus specialized software/hardware innovation partners plus compliance/GRC support), or is a single-award, single-entity model anticipated? | This is under consideration. |
| - For respondents proposing a teaming approach across multiple named companies, should each team member submit a combined response, or should the response identify a single respondent of record with subcontractor roles described within it? | For this RFI, a combined response is sufficient. |
| - For solutions proposing derived credentials, mobile enablement, or hybrid credential models (Section 4.2), what is the anticipated relationship to FICAM APL listing requirements? Would such alternate form factors be evaluated against the existing PIV Card APL process, a separate approval pathway, or is that determination still pending? | That determination is still pending. Vendors should suggest ideas and recommendations, where applicable. |
| - Does the Government anticipate maintaining physical PIV cardstock as a mandatory baseline for all agencies during any transition to alternate/hybrid credential models, or could agencies elect to migrate away from physical cardstock entirely under the new BPA? | Physical cardstock will remain a baseline under this BPA. Requirements will align with FIPS 201-3. |
| - Does the Government have a preference or requirement regarding domestic (CONUS) manufacturing location for secure hardware components (e.g., secure elements, chips, HSMs) versus final assembly/personalization, particularly in light of Trade Agreements Act (TAA) considerations? | Industry is encouraged to provide information regarding all possibilities of manufacturing, assembly, and other aspect of delivery. |
| - For cryptographic hardware components sourced from or manufactured by foreign entities (including allied nations), what level of supply chain risk documentation is expected at the RFI stage versus a future solicitation stage? | As this is an RFI, the vendor can provide as much or as little information as would be helpful for the Government to understand the state of the market and industry capabilities and constraints. |
| - What is the Government's anticipated timeline for requiring PQC-ready (NIST FIPS 203/204/205) cryptographic modules in PIV card production? Will this be a requirement at contract award or a phased migration path over the BPA period? | A phased migration path is anticipated to align with recently released PQC executive orders and OMB memos. |
| - Will the Government consider crypto-agile secure element architectures (supporting algorithm updates without full hardware redesign) as meeting the intent of Section 4.12, or is a specific PQC algorithm implementation required at this stage? | Any specific algorithm will align with future updates of NIST 800-73 and 800-78. Vendors are encouraged to submit information on crypto agile secure architectures. Any future requirements will align with aforementioned policies. |
| - Given the 30-page suggested limit across 13 topic areas, is there a preferred page allocation or relative weighting among sections, or will all sections be weighted equally regardless of length? | There is no preference. There is no weighting or evaluation. This is an information gathering exercise to help the Government understand the state of the market. |
| - Should ROM pricing (Section 4.10) be provided even by respondents addressing only a subset of topic areas, or is pricing expected only from respondents proposing a comprehensive cardstock/personalization solution? | Any and all ROM pricing would be useful for future planning purposes. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .