AEROS RFI QandA.pdf

Questions USG Response

Staffing and Clearance Requirements: While the documents state that all support personnel must maintain the "active required clearance level," and that both classified and unclassified environments are involved, they do not specify the minimum clearance level required for contractor personnel (e.g., Secret, Top Secret, TS/SCI), nor the number or types of cleared positions needed.

The Government anticipates a minimum clearance of Secret for contractor personnel.

Detailed Application and System Information: The PWS excerpt refers to a "System Portfolio" and "MAF C2 Software," but does not provide a list of specific systems, applications, or technologies involved, nor their current architectures, environments (e.g., specific cloud providers or on-premises platforms), or interfaces. This lack of detail makes it difficult to assess the technical scope or required expertise.

Systems may include, but are not limited to, GDSS, MEIS, CAMPS, and MAFPS.

Performance Metrics and SLAs: Although some general expectations for ticket response and resolution times are provided, there is no comprehensive description of all Service Level Agreements (SLAs), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), or metrics that will be used for contractor performance evaluation.

The Government is still finalizing requirements, therefore it will not speculate. Final requirements will be available at Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP release.

Transition/Onboarding Requirements: There is no information on whether there will be a transition period from an incumbent contractor, what the expectations are for knowledge transfer, or any required onboarding timelines and processes.

Labor Categories and Qualifications: The excerpt mentions that technical staff must hold DODD 8140.01-compliant certifications, such as Security+ and IAT Level II, but it does not provide a full list of required labor categories, minimum years of experience, or other role-specific qualifications.

Volume and Workload Estimates: There is no data on the expected volume of support tickets, number of users supported, geographic distribution of support locations, or anticipated workload (e.g., average/peak ticket volumes, system uptime requirements).

Contract Type and Value: The RFI does not specify the anticipated contract type (e.g., Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus, Time and Materials), ceiling value, or funding profile, which are critical for pricing and risk assessment.

The Government anticipates awarding this effort as a commercial services contract, so it is currently considering the contract types of FFP and T&M. The Government does not have an anticipated ceiling value at this time.

Incumbent Information and Historical Performance: There is no information about the current or previous contractor(s) providing these services, nor any historical performance data or lessons learned that could inform a proposal.

This effort is a consolidation of the helpdesk portions of the following contracts:

GDSS FHD, FA2318-25-F-B001, Incumbent: RCF Information Systems CAMPS SOMS,FA8730-23-F-B015, Incumbent: Netrist Solutions MAFPS FOSSE, FA2318-24-F-B002, Incumbent: BAE SIAOMS, FA8730-23-F-B038, Incumbent: Dark Wolf

Potentially: ESS, FA2318-24-F-B008, Incumbent: Sysnet

Specific Tools and Processes: While it is stated that the contractor must use "government-approved automated testing tools" and "ticket systems," there is no information on the specific tools and platforms currently in use or preferred by the Government.

This effort is targeting a future tech stack that leverages a commercially-provided PaaS environment and the associated commercial tools.

10 Does the Government anticipate acquiring AEROS on the open market as a small business set-aside, or through an existing contract vehicle such as GSA Multiple Award Schedule or MDA Shield?

The Government anticipates competing this effort as a small business set aside through an existing contract vehicle based on the results of market research.

11 Can the Government share an estimated annual value or level of effort for the Operations Support Desk? The Government does not have an anticipated annual value or level of effort at this time.

12 Where is the designated Government facility for the 24/7/365 support desk? Is it Scott AFB? At this time, the Government anticipates the 24/7/365 support desk will be held at Scott AFB.

Does the Government anticipate AEROS assuming functional or technical operational responsibilities currently performed under existing MAF C2 support contracts, or should industry assume those efforts will continue in parallel with AEROS?

AEROS will assume functional and technical operational support responsibilities from the contracts listed in the answer to question #8. As RGM C2 capabilities are delivered, the Government anticipates that AEROS technical responsibilities will transition to the cloud service provider.

Will the draft PWS and any attachments be released before the RFP, and can we be added to an interested-vendors or distribution list for updates?

The Government anticipates releasing a draft RFQ/RFP with the PWS.

15 Are security clearances (personnel and/or facility) required for the help desk scope, and at what level?

At this time, the Government anticipates the 24/7/365 support desk will be held at Scott AFB. The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

16 Is subcontracting/teaming anticipated, and would you share the incumbent contract number?

The prime contractor will determine if subcontracting/teaming will be part of their proposal. For incumbent information, see question #8.

17 If the acquisition approach is not yet determined, would the Government consider a standalone service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside?

Market research will determine the acquisition strategy.

18 Does the Government plan an industry day, one-on-one sessions, or release of the full draft PWS before the solicitation?

The Government anticipates releasing a draft RFQ/RFP with the full PWS. No industry day is planned at this time.

Is the designated Government facility (PWS 2.1.3) at Scott AFB only, or are Functional or Technical Support Desk positions also required at AOC or regional sites? Will the Government furnish workspace, workstations, network accounts, and classified connectivity at that facility, and may on-call personnel (PWS 2.2.15) respond through Government-furnished remote access?

20 Will the final PWS include defined labor categories and labor category descriptions? If so, will the Government provide the approximate number of FTEs anticipated for this effort?

21 What is the approximate current monthly trouble ticket volume across the System Portfolio (total tickets, and breakdown by Critical/High/Medium/Low if available)?

The numbers below are historical tickets from Feb - Aug 2026, but they should not be used to determine future volume of tickets/ work loads.

Total Number of Tickets during a six month period: 7736 Total Number of Tickets Opened or Assigned for Period by Level:

Level 1: 507 Level 2: 7077 Level 3: 152 Total Number of Tickets Closed for Period by Level:

Level 1: 515 Level 2: 7047 Level 3: 142

How many legacy applications and how many modernized (Next Generation) applications are currently in the System Portfolio? What is the anticipated trajectory of application migration from legacy to modernized over the 5-year contract period?

The Government anticipates fluctuations in the quantity of supported applications throughout the contract PoP; however, the Government intends on driving C2 application commonality and platform consistency to reduce technical variations within the portfolio, therefore it will not speculate on future application quantity.

Does the Government anticipate the OSD Contractor will support any application development, code modification, or Infrastructure as Code (IaC) changes, or is the scope strictly limited to operational monitoring, troubleshooting, and sustainment of developer-deployed applications?

The Government does not anticipate application development, code modification, or IaC changes to be within the scope of this effort.

What is the current staffing level of the incumbent contractor supporting these requirements? Is there an incumbent contractor, and if so, will the Government provide information regarding the incumbent contract number and contractor name?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Will the final PWS include a defined list of the System Portfolio applications (legacy and modernized) that the OSD Contractor is expected to support, along with approximate user counts per application?

The Government anticipates fluctuations in the quantity of supported applications throughout the contract PoP; however, the Government intends on driving C2 Application commonality and platform consistency to reduce technical variations within the Portfolio.

26 For the 24/7/365 staffing requirement, does the Government envision three 8-hour shifts, two 12-hour shifts, or another shift model? Is there a minimum staffing level per shift that the Government will define?

At this time, the Government cannot speculate as to shift staffing needs to meet performance outcomes.

27 Will any positions be authorized for remote/telework, or must all OSD Contractor personnel perform work on-site at a Government facility due to the classified environment?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The excerpt states the Contractor shall achieve "First Call Resolution (FCR) for at least 80% of simple, documented issues." How does the Government define "simple, documented issues"? Will a catalog of these issues be provided during transition?

The Government anticipates providing existing playbooks during transition.

The excerpt references coordination with the "System Manager (SM)" and "Program Manager (PM)" during critical incidents. Are the SM and PM Government personnel, or are they part of a separate contractor organization?

The SM and PM are Government positions.

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Will the Government provide application-specific training or documentation (e.g., SOPs, runbooks, architecture diagrams) during the transition period, or is the OSD Contractor expected to develop all training materials independently?

The Government anticipates providing existing documentation during the transition period.

31 Will the government provide initial and recurring training on proprietary or GOTS applications, or is the contractor expected to develop all training materials and pipelines independently?

The Government anticipates providing training materials, but respecting the evolutionary nature of software and changing user capability needs, the Government reserves the option for updates to training material.

32 Can the government provide additional detail on the anticipated number of end users and the volume of support desk tickets per month to help with staffing projections?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

33 Are there specific government-approved automated testing tools and ticketing systems already in use, or will the contractor have input into tool selection?

The Government anticipates functional testing to occur without automation. The current trouble ticking system may change with adoption of a PaaS commercially provided environment.

34 Will the government share the current Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the support desk as a baseline, or is the expectation for the contractor to develop these SOPs from scratch?

The Government anticipates SOPs will be available during the transition period.

35 For account management and IAM services, are there specific platforms or technologies (e.g., AWS IAM, Microsoft Active Directory) that the contractor must utilize?

The Government anticipates incorporation of emerging ICAM capabilities but cannot speculate on DoW schedule for those.

Please provide the current or anticipated Government staffing model and/or incumbent contractor staffing levels for the Functional Support Desk and Technical Support Desk, including the number of personnel by role, shift coverage, and any Government-furnished personnel supporting these functions.

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Please clarify whether the OSD Contractor will have any responsibility for directing, managing, or coordinating the activities of the Environment Provider Contractor and Software Developer Contractors, or whether the OSD Contractor's role is limited to identifying, escalating, tracking, and communicating issues requiring their support.

The Government anticipates providing OSD Tasks in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The PWS states: “OSD Contractor provides functional and technical operational services for applications in Production IL-5/IL-6 environments.” Question: Please clarify the formal coordination/escalation responsibilities between the OSD Contractor, Software Developer Contractors, and Environment Provider Contractor, including applicable SLAs/OLAs.

Infrastructure code and application code is the dividing line. Level 1 determines if the issue is a user error or application error. If user error, then provide training. If application error, then run Developer provided playbooks. If the issue is not resolved, then escalate to Developer and status track.

40 The PWS states: “Enter test defects into Government-approved defect tracking tool.” Question: Please identify the Government-approved defect tracking tool.

The current Government tracking tool is Remedy (custom version of a COTS issue tracking tool), The PWS states: “Remain current with system, application, and operational functions to provide the MAF C2 user community SME support for their application issues or questions.” Question: Does the Government expect all FSD personnel to possess significant prior experience and knowledge of the MAF C2/System Portfolio applications at the time of contract start, or may personnel with relevant functional and technical support experience develop the required system-specific expertise through transition, Government/developer-provided training, documentation, and on-the-job knowledge transfer? If prior MAF C2/System Portfolio experience is expected, will the Government identify which positions require this experience and the minimum level of experience expected?

The Government anticipates contractor personnel will have the required levels of functional and technical background to ensure the Operational Support Desk provides an overall positive user experience. The Government cannot speculate on what individual vendors require to ensure this outcome.

Please identify which systems/applications fall under (a) the existing legacy system portfolio and (b) the next-generation / modernized portfolio referenced in the RFI. Examples for confirmation or correction would help (e.g., legacy: GDSS, MAPPS, GATES, CAMPS, SMS/CMS, MEIS; next-gen: RGM C2 / NITMRE-family applications and related services). Which of these are in scope, out of scope, or TBD for this requirement?

Applications are still being built and identified, but the RGM C2 requirements include MAF C2 requirements

43 Is the Government seeking one integrated enterprise help desk across the in-scope portfolio, or multiple system-specific desks under a single contract umbrella? If mixed, which systems retain a dedicated desk?

The Government is seeking a single contract to staff an Operational Support Desk.

Please clarify the split between run/maintain help desk, cloud sustainment, and modernization / developer support (change requests, releases, tech refresh). Which of these are in this RFI’s intended scope vs a later solicitation?

When incident resolution requires an application, configuration, Infrastructure as Code, or pipeline change, what production change authority, if any, will the AEROS contractor retain before escalation to the Software Developer Contractor?

How does this requirement relate to ongoing or planned DA CloudWorks (or equivalent) onboarding for NITMRE / RGM C2? What cloud-hosting / boundary assumptions should industry use for staffing and tooling responses?

"NITMRE" UI/UX apps satisfy requirements from the RGM C2 SW-ICD while consuming legacy MAF C2 services.

As modernization occurs UI/UX apps will consume modernized microservices to satisfy requirements from the RGM C2 SW-ICD. The Government anticipates using DAF CloudWorks.

Confirm whether integrated support is expected to be 24/7/365 for all in-scope systems or only for a defined critical subset. What are the priority restore expectations for mission-blocking failures (e.g., crew-paper / execution-support outages)?

To support industry staffing and level-of-effort estimates, can the Government provide available historical or estimated workload information, including average monthly ticket/call volume, priority distribution, peak concurrent demand, user population, and workload by functional versus technical support? What ticket volumes, severity mix, or user populations (by system, if available) should industry assume for a rough-order support model? If not releasable, what planning factors can be shared?

49 Please confirm the owning program office and contracting office for this RFI (including office symbols). Is OL2 / PEO C3BM the requirements owner industry should map stakeholders against?

DAF PAE C3BM / C3MR & C3MK

Does the term “System Portfolio” represent the same or substantially the same portfolio historically referred to as MAF C2 Software?

Yes, "system portfolio" represents the solutioned requirements for MAF C2 (Legacy siloed apps), or RGM C2 (Modern UI/UX apps riding on backend micro services) running in a PaaS. MAF C2 solutions satisfied the same requirements or capabilities that RGM C2 solutions will satisfy.

51 What is the approximate number of worldwide users supported across the System Portfolio? Historically there are 19K to 21K users accounts worldwide.

52 Can the Government please provide historical annual and monthly ticket volumes? The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

53 Can historical tickets be broken down by Critical, High, Medium, and Low priority? The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

54 What percentage of the workforce is expected to support the Functional Support Desk versus the Technical Support Desk?

The Government cannot speculate as to shift staffing needs to meet performance outcomes.

55 Will the Government provide a detailed RACI or equivalent responsibility matrix defining boundaries between AEROS, development contractors, the Environment Provider, Government personnel, and A&AS contractors?

The Government does not currently have a RACI matrix, but will consider providing one during the RFP/RFQ phase

56 Does the Government anticipate any OCI restrictions associated with companies currently supporting PLMSS, A&AS, development, engineering, environment, or other C3BM activities?

There will be OCI language in the solicitation that creates an affirmative burden for vendors to notify the Govenrment of any potential OCIs.

57 Are contractor personnel required to be U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals, or may individuals of any nationality participate? If foreign nationals may participate, are there any nationality or citizenship restrictions?

All personnel assigned to this contract shall be United States citizens.

Section 1.2.2 assigns application development, IaC, and pipeline execution to the "Software Developer Contractor(s)," while Section 1.2.3 scopes the OSD Contractor to "functional and technical operational services" in production. Can the Government confirm that this requirement is limited to operations/sustainment support (functional and technical help desk, monitoring, SME support) and does not include software application development work, including development of new mobile applications?

The Government does not anticipate application development, code modification, or IaC changes to be within scope of this effort.

Section 2.2.7 describes the OSD Contractor performing "operational validation of System Portfolio applications after the software developer deploys new capabilities." Can the Government clarify the intended sustainment model — i.e., is the OSD Contractor limited to operational validation, monitoring, and triage after release, or is the OSD Contractor also expected to perform minor code-level enhancements once the Software Developer Contractor hands off a capability?

The Government anticipates no code development or code enhancements from the OSD Contractor.

Section 2.4.3 references a developer-provided monitoring plan and dashboards. Is the OSD Contractor limited to the tools and processes furnished by the Environment Provider and Software Developer Contractor, or may the OSD Contractor propose and integrate supplemental monitoring, analytics, or early-warning capabilities to enhance detection and response beyond the developer-provided baseline?

The Government is open to the OSD Contractor proposals and supplemental monitoring, analytics or early-warning capabilities to enhance detection and response beyond the developer-provided baseline at the vendors expense.

Page limit The response page limitation appears insufficient to substantively address all 16 questions identified in the solicitation within 5 single-spaced pages. Does the Government intend to increase the page allowance for this response

The government does not intend on increasing the page limit.

Infrastructure code and application code is the dividing line. Level 1 determines if the issue is a user error or application error. If user error, then provide training. If application error, then run Developer provided playbooks. If the issue is not resolved, then escalate to Developer and status track.

Please clarify the division of responsibilities for production system administration and post-deployment software sustainment. Will AEROS personnel be responsible for any of the following activities: operating system or middleware patching; GOTS/COTS software installation or upgrades; application configuration changes; database administration;

or deployment of approved software releases? For each applicable activity, please identify whether responsibility resides with the AEROS contractor, the application development contractor, the cloud/infrastructure provider, or another Government support organization.

Infrastructure code and application code is the dividing line, level 1 determines if the issue is a user error or application error. If user error, then provide training. If application error, then run Dev provided playbooks. If the issues is not resolved, then escalate to Developer and status track.

Will the AEROS contractor be required to modify, maintain, debug, compile, test, or otherwise change legacy application source code? If so, please identify the anticipated applications, programming languages or technologies, level of effort, and division of responsibilities between AEROS and the application development contractor.

The Government does not anticipate application development, code modification, or IaC changes to be within scope of this effort.

64 The RFI title includes “Rapid” while the PWS excerpt title does not. Can the Government confirm the official program title and that the PWS excerpt and RFI refer to the same effort?

The correct title is Air Force Enterprise Rapid Operations Support (AEROS)

65 Do “Help Desk” (RFI) and “Support Desk” (PWS) refer to the same organizational construct, or will the RFP formally rename or restructure these functions?

The Operation Support Desk is a multifunctional team supporting the user community.

Please clarify the relationship between AFTRANS, RGM C2, MAF C2, and “System Portfolio applications.” Are these synonymous, or does “System Portfolio” represent a subset of a larger application landscape?

Air Forces Transportation (AFTRANS) is the air component of U.S Transportation Command. MAF C2 is the current System Portfolio of application (legacy solutions) for documented requirements. RGM C2 is the future System Portfolio of applications (modern solutions) for documented requirements.

The PWS defines ticket priority tiers twice, in Section 2.3.2 (FSD) and Section 2.4.3.17 (TSD). Two of the four tiers (“Critical” and “Medium” [shaded below]) are described inconsistently between the two sections, while “High” and “Low” are consistent. Which version governs “Critical” and “Medium”, and should the two sections be reconciled to a single standard, as detailed in RFI-4 through RFI-6 below?

Reference: PWS § 2.3.2.3 (daily updates) vs. PWS § 2.4.3.17.2 (updated within 3 days).

Which update cadence governs Medium-priority tickets — is this an intentional FSD/TSD distinction, or should the two sections be reconciled to a single standard?

Reference: PWS § 2.3.2.1 (“Critical” tier, bridge call) vs. PWS §§ 2.4.3.16, 2.4.3.17.5 (“OR” tickets, hourly updates).

Are “Critical” and “OR” the same priority classification under different names, or are they distinct classifications with different triggers and ownership?

Reference: PWS § 2.3.3 (4-hour Critical resolution/mitigation target) vs. PWS § 2.3.2.1 (“worked 24/7 until resolved,” no explicit cap). Does the 4-hour Critical resolution target in § 2.3.3 supersede the open-ended “until resolved” language in § 2.3.2.1, or is the § 2.3.3 target an internal performance metric rather than an enforceable SLA?

Reference: PWS § 2.3.3 (“80% of simple, documented issues”).

Will the Government provide a defined list or catalog of issue types that qualify as “simple, documented” for FCR measurement, or is this contractor-defined subject to Government approval?

Reference: PWS § 2.2.15 (staff “available... within 30 minutes of initial contact for the Production environments”). Is this a response-time requirement distinct from the ticket-priority SLAs in § 2.3.3, and does it apply only to after-hours/on-call staff or to the core 24/7/365 shift as well?

Reference: PWS § 1.2.1 (“Environment Provider Contractor (e.g., Approved Cloud Provider)”).

Can the Government identify the cloud service provider(s) and environments in scope (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, on-premises GOTS) to help offerors scope relevant certifications and experience?

Reference: PWS §§ 2.2–2.4 generally; no historical data included in the RFI package.

Can the Government provide historical ticket volume by priority tier, current staffing levels, and current SLA performance to support market research and sizing?

Reference: RFI §§ 1–2 (program background); not addressed elsewhere.

Is there an incumbent contractor performing this or a predecessor effort, and if so, can historical performance or transition data be shared?

Reference: PWS § 2.1 (CDRL A025 only).

Since this is a partial PWS excerpt, will a full CDRL list and complete PWS be released with the solicitation, or can the total CDRL count be provided now for planning purposes?

Reference: RFI § 3 (anticipated Small Business Set-Aside, NAICS 541512); PWS § 1.1 (24/7/365, dual-classification, global scope). Given the scope and clearance requirements described, has the Government assessed small business capacity to perform as prime, or is subcontracting/teaming with cleared facilities anticipated as the norm?

The purpose of this RFI is to develop the acquisition strategy, which will include assessing small business ability to perform as prime. The Government anticipates competing this as a Small Business Set Aside.

78 Reference: RFI § 3 (“contract length, inclusive of all options, is expected to be 5 years”). What is the anticipated base period length and the number and length of option periods?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

What acquisition vehicle, solicitation type, contract type, and anticipated CLIN structure does the Government currently expect to use for AEROS? Related, is it the Governments intent to use the existing Systems Infrastructure, Applications, Operations And Maintenance Services (SIAOMS) vehicle?

The purpose of this RFI is to develop the acquisition strategy.

80 Can Government please provide the anticipated base period and option-period structure that comprise the stated five-year contract term, including any phase-in or transition period?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Will future PWS releases identify the applications and services included in the System Portfolio as well as the and planned architecture and technology inventory, including cloud platforms, regions, operating systems, databases, container platforms, middleware, GOTS products, interfaces, and approved support tools.

Related to the above (B1 question) will future documentation detail migrations, modernizations, system retirements, or portfolio additions are planned during the period of performance, and how will scope and staffing be adjusted as the portfolio changes?

84 Will the Government provide process maps, doctrine, training materials, and access to operational users during transition?

The Government anticipates providing this information during the transition period

Can the Government please identify facilities at which the Support Desk will operate and the required staffing presence by location, shift, function, and classification level? Related can unclassified work be performed remotely or from a contractor facility

86 What continuity-of-operations arrangements and alternate secure work locations are available when weather, force-protection, facility, network, or security conditions prevent access to the primary worksite?

87 Please identify the required personnel clearance, investigation, citizenship, access, and indoctrination requirements by role, location, system, and network, including any Top Secret, SCI, SAP, or NATO requirements.

All personnel assigned to this contract shall be United States citizens.

For the requirement that qualified staff be on call and available with environment access within 30 minutes, does available mean logged in and actively troubleshooting, physically present at a facility, or reachable and beginning recall?

The Government has made note of these questions and comments. The Government will take all these notes into consideration as they refine the PWS for the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Please define Mission Essential for this contract, including required reporting conditions, minimum staffing, Government notification, emergency lodging or transportation expectations, and any exceptions when a facility is closed or access is prohibited.

90 Does the Government anticipate minimum staffing levels, named key personnel, labor-category qualifications, or minimum years of mission and technical experience for functional and technical SMEs?

Will the solicitation enumerate the specific legacy and Next Generation portfolio applications in scope, and will the Government identify which existing contracts and support desks AEROS is intended to consolidate or replace?

The Government anticipates fluctuations in the quantity of supported applications throughout the contract PoP; however, the Government intends on driving C2 Application commonality and platform consistency to reduce technical variations within the Portfolio.

Which ITSM ticketing, monitoring/observability, and knowledge-management tools will be Government-furnished, and is the contractor expected to bring or recommend tooling for the data correlation and reporting functions described in T2 and T4?

How does the Government define Tier I, II, and III within "functional help desk" and "technical operations help desk," and does AEROS include any site reliability engineering, platform operations, infrastructure O&M, or application maintenance scope beyond triage and escalation?

The Government has made note of these questions and comments. The Government will take all these notes into consideration as they refine the PWS for the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The Government anticipates fluctuations in the quantity of supported applications throughout the contract PoP; however, the Government intends on driving C2 Application commonality and platform consistency to reduce technical variations within the Portfolio.

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The Government has made note of these questions and comments. The Government will take all these notes into consideration as they refine the PWS for the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

94 What transition-in period and knowledge-transfer approach does the Government anticipate, and will legacy systems be onboarded all at once or phased as legacy applications sunset?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

95 Will the Government still consider questions received after that time, and will answers to industry questions be posted on SAM.gov for all interested parties before the 30 September 2026 response date?

Answers to all questions received in reference to the RFI will be sent to all interested vendors via email and posted on sam.gov.

Section 1.3 limits responses to 5 single-sided pages excluding the cover page, and states that responses shall not contain images, gifs, or other media. Please confirm: (a) whether the cover page may run longer than one page when needed to carry every item in Section 1.4, or whether anything beyond one page counts toward the page limit; (b) that text tables are permitted and are not treated as images or media; and (c) that the 11 point minimum font size applies to table text as well as body text.

The cover page may run longer than one page but only to contain every item in Section 1.4 Text tables are permitted. 11 point minimum font size applies to table text as well as body text.

Should the response be emailed to both Ms. Sequeira and Ms. Delgadillo as a single attachment in either .docx or .pdf file format? Is there a maximum attachment size in MB that the email gateway will accept, and does the Government prefer a particular email subject line or file name?

IAW with the RFI instructions, the response should be emailed to both Ms. Sequeira and Ms. Delgadillo. It can be sent as either a .docx or .pdf file. There should not be an issue regarding maximum file size and there is no subject line requirement.

Section 3 states that contractors are not permitted to provide more than one response. May a company submit its own response and also be named as a proposed subcontractor or teammate in another company's response?

Yes.

Section 2 describes users at Regional Operations Divisions within geographic Air Operations Centers, en-route hubs, and aircrews worldwide. Will contractor personnel be expected to travel to any of these locations, including OCONUS locations? If so, how many trips per year should respondents assume, and will travel be reimbursed separately?

The Government does not anticipate travel in support of this contract.

Please identify the incumbent contractor or contractors now providing functional and technical help desk services for the legacy system portfolio, with the contract number and current annual value of each, and state whether this effort consolidates more than one existing contract.

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/ RFP.

At transition, will open trouble tickets, the backlog of recommended change requests, and any open POA&M items or other open issues for the System Portfolio transfer to the new contractor? Will the Government provide historical ticket data with the solicitation?

The Government has made note of these questions and comments. The Government will take all these notes into consideration as we refine the PWS for the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Who bears the cost of DoD 8140 certification training and exam fees, the ticket system, identity and access management and monitoring tool licenses, and any secure communications equipment? Will other direct costs be priced separately from labor?

The contractor will be responsible for all costs related to training and certifications as well as any licenses or equipment not provided as GFP. The acquisition strategy will be determined upon completion of market research, however as a commercial service this will not be a cost type contract.

Please confirm the government-furnished equipment and information for this effort: workstations on unclassified and classified networks, telephones and the call-distribution system, the ticket system, the test defect tracking tool, cloud monitoring tools and dashboards, and the developer-provided monitoring plans and SOPs referenced in PWS 2.1.2 and

2.4.3.1. Do those developer SOPs exist today for the current System Portfolio?

Ticket update intervals differ between the Functional and Technical Support Desk sections: PWS 2.3.2.3 requires daily updates on Medium tickets while PWS 2.4.3.17.2 allows 3 days, and PWS 2.4.3.17.3 and 2.4.3.17.4 both define High ticket handling. Is the difference intentional, and will the solicitation consolidate these into one service level table with response and resolution targets for each priority? Is the 4-hour Critical and 8-hour High resolution or mitigation time in PWS 2.3.3 measured from ticket creation or from first user contact?

105 How will the 80 percent First Call Resolution target be measured, who decides which issues count as simple, documented issues, and is a current First Call Resolution baseline available?

Which cloud environment or environments host the Impact Level 5 and Impact Level 6 production systems? Please confirm that the OSD contractor works entirely inside the Government's authorization boundary with Government-provided tools, so that no contractor-hosted system needs its own FedRAMP or DoD provisional authorization. If contractor-provided tools are allowed for ticket analytics or reporting on unclassified data, would the Government accept a platform that holds a FedRAMP High Readiness Assessment Report and is in FedRAMP 20x Class C assessment?

Questions T2 and T4 ask about correlating disparate data sources and drafting status and health reports. Will Government-approved AI-assisted analysis and report drafting tools be permitted in the production environments?

Separately, may the contractor use AI-assisted development tools such as GitHub Copilot or Claude Code to build and maintain the automated test scripts required by PWS 2.2.10?

108 Which automated testing tools are Government-approved today, and may the contractor propose additional tools for Government approval?

PWS 2.2.18 requires correcting defective or missing entries in security-related database tables. Will OSD personnel hold privileged production database access for this work, and will additional privileged-user requirements apply to those roles?

The OSD contractor depends on procedures, monitoring plans, and pipelines owned by separate Software Developer Contractors and the Environment Provider. Will the solicitation require Associate Contractor Agreements among these contractors, and what escalation path applies when a developer procedure is missing or out of date during a Critical incident?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Will the solicitation designate key personnel (for example Program Manager, Functional Manager, Technical Lead, or shift leads)? If so, will resumes, minimum qualifications, and clearance status be required for them at proposal submission, and must key personnel be U.S. citizens?

The Government has made note of these questions and comments. The Government will take all these notes into consideration as we refine the PWS for the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

In the solicitation, will CPARS evaluations be accepted in place of past performance questionnaires? Will the past performance of a proposed subcontractor or joint venture member count toward the offeror's experience with DoD programs and National Security Systems?

The Government does not anticipate evaluating past performance.

Acquisition Vehicle: The RFI was cross-posted under multiple vehicles (GSA MAS, STARS III, POLARIS SDVOSB/WOSB/HUBZone, VETS 2). Has the Government identified a preferred acquisition vehicle or contract type for the anticipated solicitation, or is that determination still pending based on RFI responses?

Transition Approach: Given that AEROS consolidates two existing contracts (RCF Information Systems and Rackner), what is the anticipated transition period, and will the Government provide documentation on the current application portfolio and system architecture during transition?

Clearance Requirements: Can the Government clarify the security clearance level required at time of proposal versus time of performance? Specifically, whether all proposed personnel must hold active clearances at proposal submission or whether interim clearances will be accepted.

116 Incumbent Workforce: Does the Government anticipate a right of first refusal or continuity-of-services requirement for incumbent contractor personnel during transition?

117 This is anticipated to be solicited in Q1CY2027, as early as January 2027?

and award in September 2027?

The Government anticipates providing necessary details in the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

The Government has made note of these questions and comments. The Government will take all these notes into consideration as we refine the PWS for the Draft and/or Final RFQ/RFP.

Sheet1