RFI QA SET 1 Conscription Simulation Model RFI_1 of 3.pdf

Conscription Simulation Model RFI Questions

Q1. Does the Agency anticipate a follow-on RFP, or will award be made through an existing contract vehicle (GSA MAS, SEWP, OASIS+, NITAAC, an SSS BPA), and what contract type is contemplated (FFP, T&M, hybrid)?

Why we ask: Vehicle and contract type drive proposal format, teaming arrangements, and pricing structure. Knowing this now lets us mobilize the right partners before the solicitation drops.

A1. This requirement is new. The Agency anticipates issuing an RFQ on SAM.gov and also anticipates using an FFP contract structure.

Q2. Is a small-business set-aside, 8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, or HUBZone preference contemplated for the follow-on action?

Why we ask: Set-aside posture determines whether this company competes as a prime, as a subcontractor to a small-business prime, or under a teaming arrangement — and that decision must be made early.

A2. Any set-aside determination will depend on the information the Agency receives through the RFI process.

Q3. Without disclosing budget, is there a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) range the Agency considers reasonable for this effort, and what is the anticipated period of performance (base plus options) and target Initial Operating Capability date?

Why we ask: A ROM band and two anchor dates let vendors right-size the proposed solution and credibly back-plan stand-up activities, rather than guessing and either overbuilding or underbidding.

A3. The Agency is not providing a ROM at this time and is using the RFI to gather additional information from industry. The Period of Performance and Initial Operating Capability dates will be provided in the forthcoming RFQ.

Q4. Will the Agency host an Industry Day or pre-proposal conference, and will it accept live demonstrations of operational capability from interested vendors prior to the follow-on solicitation?

Why we ask: Our agency has an operating SSS SIM-NET platform that can be demonstrated at no cost. A live demo is the most efficient way to align Agency intent with what is technically achievable today.

A4. The Agency is open to all engagement formats, including an Industry Day, a pre-proposal conference, and live demonstrations.

Q5. What is the Agency's preferred hosting environment — SSS-operated on-premise, SSS-controlled FedRAMP Moderate (or High) commercial cloud, GSA Cloud.gov, or a partner-agency enclave — and is the system expected to carry an Authority to Operate at award, or is operation under an Interim Authority to Test acceptable?

Why we ask: Hosting choice and ATO posture together drive security architecture, schedule, ATO package scope, and cost. They are the two single largest cost-and-schedule drivers in the entire effort

A5. The model will be hosted within SSS information technology environments and operated by SSS personnel. Vendors will conduct development and testing within an SSS-designated cloud development environment in accordance with Agency information technology and security requirements. The Agency is willing to operate under an Interim Authority to Test, provided that all applicable compliance requirements are consistently implemented and maintained throughout the testing period.

Q6. Will the Agency furnish authoritative reference values for key parameters — registration coverage by age, MEPS daily throughput by station, no-show and lost-notification rates, medical-DQ and CO classification rates by mobilization posture — or should the contractor propose defaults derived from public planning documents?

Why we ask: Government-furnished parameters dramatically shorten the validation cycle and give the model definitive provenance the Agency can defend before Congress and OSD. Without them, schedule must include independent derivation.

A6. The Agency will furnish the authoritative parameters required to support the design and development of the model. Vendors are additionally expected to recommend supplemental or derived parameters necessary to enable comprehensive scenario analysis and comparative assessments.

Q7. What level of Validation, Verification, and Accreditation (VV&A) is expected — informal SSS subject-matter expert review, formal documented VV&A under MIL-STD- 3022 / DoDI 5000.61, or accreditation against a specific Agency or DoD standard — and who is the designated validating authority?

Why we ask: VV&A scope can swing the deliverable list and the schedule by months.

Identifying both the standard and the validating SME up front prevents downstream stakeholder churn.

A7. The Agency does not require compliance with MIL-STD-3022, DoDI 5000.61, or any other Department of War validation, verification, and accreditation standards. All verification and validation activities will be performed internally and certified by SSS subject-matter experts. External accreditation is not required.

Q8. Should the model integrate with — or merely export to — adjacent SSS systems such as the Registrant Information Management System (RIMS), the SSS data warehouse, or USMEPCOM systems, and what identity/access framework should it use (SSS AD, USAccess/PIV, Login.gov)?

Why we ask: Integration scope is the difference between a contract change and a CSV button. IAM choice cascades into the auth subsystem, session model, and SSS analyst onboarding path.

A8. The model will operate as a stand-alone application and will not integrate directly with other SSS or partner systems. As a stand-alone application, it will integrate with Microsoft Entra ID for identity and access management, using SAML 2.0 as the primary federation protocol.

Q9. Will the system process Personally Identifiable Information (such as registrant SSNs, addresses, or selective-service numbers), or only anonymized aggregates and derived statistics?

Why we ask: PII handling triggers Privacy Act, PIA, SORN, and additional NIST 800-53 control families. Confirming scope avoids accidental over- or under-engineering of the security and privacy posture.

A9. The system will process only anonymized aggregates and derived statistical outputs.

No Personally Identifiable Information (PII) will be ingested or stored within the model.

Q10. What rights in technical data and software does the Agency expect — Government Purpose Rights, Unlimited Rights, or rights tailored under DFARS 252.227- 7013/7014 (or FAR 52.227-14) — and where should the source code be delivered (SSS-operated repository, code.gov, both)?

Why we ask: Rights basis affects open-source-component selection, the SBOM/supply-chain attestation chain, and the post-award sustainment plan. This company can deliver under any regime, but pricing and approach are tuned to the chosen rights basis.

A10. The Government requires full and unrestricted delivery of all technical artifacts, including all source code, build pipelines and instructions, database schemas, infrastructure configuration files, and all other materials necessary to compile, deploy, operate, and maintain the system. The source code will be developed and tested within an SSS-designated cloud development environment in accordance with Agency information technology and security requirements.

Q11. For the government-owned predictive DES model requirement, does the agency have preferred architectural considerations, development frameworks, or maintainability standards intended to support long-term internal government management and future modification of the platform?

A11. The model will be hosted and operated within SSS information technology environments. The vendor will develop the tool within an SSS-designated cloud development environment, consistent with Agency information technology and security requirements. Vendors may recommend appropriate tools or platforms, as the Agency seeks a commercially supported, stand-alone solution.

Q12. Are there specific operational bottlenecks or readiness variables the agency considers highest priority for modeling within the initial implementation phase (e.g., personnel throughput, mobilization timing, resource coordination, geographic distribution constraints, reporting workflows, etc.)?

A12. The Agency identifies personnel throughput, mobilization timing, and resource requirements as the highest-priority variables for initial modeling.

Q13. Can the agency provide additional guidance regarding interoperability expectations with existing government systems or external data environments, particularly around preferred integration methodologies or real-time data exchange requirements?

A13. The model will operate as a stand-alone application and will not integrate directly with other SSS or partner systems.

Q14. Does the agency currently anticipate preferred deployment environments or security requirements for future implementation (e.g., government cloud environments, isolated environments, FedRAMP alignment considerations, or other cybersecurity standards)?

A14. The model will be hosted within SSS information technology environments and operated by SSS personnel. The vendor will conduct development and testing within an SSS-designated cloud development environment in accordance with Agency information technology and security requirements.

Q15. Is the agency evaluating the future potential for the platform to expand beyond the initial readiness simulation case into broader operational coordination, reporting, or decision-support workflows over time?

A15. The Agency is evaluating the possibility of future expansion into broader operational coordination, reporting, and decision-support workflows; however, no decisions have been made at this time.