Call For Solutions GFIM Final_20250801.pdf

Call for Solution

Global Force Information Management (GFIM) Objective Environment (OE)

Project Number ENTERPRISE_25-04

US Army Open Solicitation

Number W9128Z-25-S-A002

Call for Solution Title GFIM OE

Issued By

Program Executive Office (PEO)

Enterprise Product Director Global

Force Information Management (PD

GFIM)

Submission Instructions To respond to this Call for Solution, please refer to Sections 5 and 8 of this Call for Solution.

*Solution Briefs Due Date/Time

(Suspense) (18 AUG) 2025 at 1200 Eastern Standard Time

Submit Solution Brief To Agreements Officer: leslie.m.dickson2.civ@army.mil Specialist: steven.m.claeys.civ@army.mil

Note: Please advise the cognizant Agreements Officer and Specialist as soon as possible via the email above if your organization intends to submit a Solution Brief to GFIM in response to this Call for Solution.

Submissions are to be sent via email only to the Agreements Officer and Specialist listed in this Call for Solution.

*Any submissions that are received by the Agreements Officer after the suspense date/time listed above will be deemed late and not evaluated. It is the sole responsibility of the company to ensure that its submission is received in the inbox listed above before the deadline specified.

This Call for Solution may result in the Government awarding a prototype Other Transaction (OT) in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022. This Call for Solution, and any OT awarded from this Call for Solution, is not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) or its supplements.

mailto:leslie.m.dickson2.civ@army.mil mailto:steven.m.claeys.civ@army.mil

1. BACKGROUND

The Deploy to Re-deploy/Retrograde (D2RR) process encompasses the activities required to deploy, sustain, and redeploy forces, including the retrograde of equipment and personnel.

Currently, D2RR involves a series of interconnected systems and processes for force management, readiness, deployment, and redeployment. The Army's goal is to transform D2RR to enable data-centric operations, with a future vision of incorporating technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Robotic Process Automation (RPA). The Global Force Information Management Objective Environment (GFIM OE) initiative aims to deliver a cloud-based enterprise capability to support this transformation, providing a common operating picture of the Total Army across the D2RR spectrum and a Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI)-compliant environment [See Appendix A., c.1 – c.3] for executing and integrating activities. As GFIM OE is deployed and becomes operational, the Army will strategically transition away from legacy systems, with divestment decisions driven by efficiency and effectiveness.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Army's current legacy force management systems, developed before the publication of the Department of Defense (DoD) Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI), lack the interoperability to enable automated, enterprise-wide, machine-to-machine information sharing necessary for Army warfighting transformation. Critically, there is no centralized data environment to facilitate warfighting and business operations with aggregated, authoritative data. This environment, with limited linkages between business processes and disparate, unsynchronized data sets, hinders effective data flow and impacts enterprise modernization.

Data critical to force management, readiness, and deployment often requires manual duplication and transfer between systems, rather than flowing seamlessly through the Deploy to Re-deploy/Retrograde (D2RR) process. Significant opportunities exist to enhance efficiency, reduce manual effort, and leverage GFM DI-compliant data throughout the D2RR lifecycle. By improving data integration, automation, interoperability, and establishing a centralized data environment, the Army can further optimize force management and deployment capabilities.

Figure 1. Mapping GFM Legacy System Capabilities to Be Subsumed by GFIM OE

3. DESIRED SOLUTION ATTRIBUTES

A fully operational GFIM OE prototype will automate D2RR workflows, consolidate and normalize GFIM OE legacy data, enforce GFM DI compliance throughout the process and deliver authoritative data products to Army and DoD data trading partners. The prototype will utilize Human Centered Design (HCD) principles and deliver an intuitive user experience throughout the solution. Data will be GFM DI compliant at the point of creation or ingestion with the ability to quickly adapt as the GFM DI standard evolves. For the solution brief, vendors will demonstrate the capability to manage and disseminate authoritative Army organization structure data to trading partners and viewers.

The Army is seeking innovative industry solutions to quickly deliver robust digital workflow abilities, strong data revision history capabilities, and a flexible data integration approach for data trading partner exchanges. Full support of the digitization of the D2RR workflows will require solutions that support complex, multi-level workflows with parallel execution paths and multi-level approvals. Preference will be given to architectures and components employing Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and Low-Code/No-Code (LCNC) technologies and maximizing the use of existing Army enterprise products and infrastructure. The proposed solution shall satisfy the following criteria:

3.1. Approach to Legacy System Divestiture

The proposed GFIM solution will include a strategy for the divesture of the legacy D2RR systems. The Divestiture Strategy will include a proposed order of divestiture and the rationale for the divestiture approach. The strategy will consider the relationships and dependencies of legacy applications in both Impact Level 5 (IL5) and Impact Level 6 (IL6) environments. The strategy will include the approach to the migration of legacy data as well as the aggregation, normalization and deduplication of legacy data sets. The strategy should include any foreseen Risks and potential mitigation of those Risks. An Organizational Change Management strategy will be critical to the successful divesture of legacy systems and business processes. The proposed solution will include a breakdown of total ownership costs for the next five years.

3.2. Army Cloud Environment

All GFIM Prototype development and future Production deployment will be performed in an approved Army cloud environment with both IL5 and IL6 landscapes. Preferred solutions will demonstrate full compliance and capability to achieve a continuous ATO (cATO) in a timely and cost-effective manner.

The proposed solution will include an over-arching strategy for how the solution will be developed, deployed and operated in both IL5 and IL6 environments. The solution will include details on how the GFIM prototype will be kept in synchronization from the standpoint of capability and data between the two environments. The strategy must also address how the solution integrates with the Government Cross Domain Solution.

3.3. Architecture and Automation

The proposed architecture will provide detail on how the solution will efficiently build out and maintain all components of the architecture using capabilities such as Infrastructure as Code (IaC). The solution architecture will use automation techniques to deploy and manage cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) components, Platform as a Service (PaaS) components, COTS software, and database configurations.

The solution will detail a proposed Production architecture and a scheme for sub-production environments such as Development and Test. The preferred solution will offer seamless automated deployments of GFIM releases from lower environments to higher in both IL5 and IL6 landscapes.

Automated Testing is a key attribute of the GFIM Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipeline, and the proposed solution architecture will detail how automated testing will occur and how the proposed architecture will minimize defects and eliminate regression defects to maximize quality.

The proposed architecture should detail how the solution will scale up to meet seasonal or mission driven capacity requirements and scale down when required to provide cost savings to the Government.

Solutions based on Army accredited Software as a Service (SaaS) platforms must provide the details of how the SaaS offering will connect and operate in the NIPR and SIPR networks including any components required to be hosted within an Army cloud such as cArmy.

3.4. Role and Identity Management

The proposed GFIM solution must offer strong, easy to use and flexible Role Based Access Controls (RBAC) to support a Zero Trust framework, Army Segregation of Duties policies, and Privileged User role Management. Roles based controls should manage access to both data and functional capabilities.

3.5. Data Management

The Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) is foundational to the GFIM solution and proposed solutions should detail how they will receive, store, manage and distribute GFM DI compliant data and data products. The GFM DI standard is ever evolving to meet DoD mission requirements and preference will be shown to solutions that can evolve with the standard and maintain compliance with minimal cost and effort.

GFIM will be the authoritative source for Army Force Management data for all Army systems and Joint DoD systems. GFIM will also be use by all Components of the Army to manage their current and future force structure. The GFIM solution must be able to effectively manage and audit version and data lineage to satisfy Army data requirements.

3.6. Integration with Partners

The Production GFIM solution will be the authoritative source for Army Force Management data.

The proposed GFIM solution will offer a robust, easy to configure construct for exchanging data with trading partners using both digital and manual processes. Preferred solutions will offer a capability for trading partners and Army elements to “self-serve” by selecting the data sets or products they are authorized to access without the need for code or configuration changes.

In all cases, the appropriate safeguards must be in place to protect information to include guidelines and policies outlined in Appendix A.

3.7. Development Process

The GFIM OE solution will be developed and configured using a Government provided Continuous Delivery Pipeline toolset (Appendix B) encompassing all software development life cycle (SDLC) activities to develop and deliver a GFIM Prototype. The solution development methodology will adhere to modern best practices including Agile, DevSecOps, Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD), and Continuous Testing techniques. The solution will include how Change and Configuration Management will be implemented for all infrastructure components, COTS components, platform configurations, scripts and software code artifacts.

Offerors are to review the contents of Appendix B and indicate which tools and toolsets would best support their solution development process in their response.

4. AWARDING INSTRUMENT

This Call for Solution solicitation will be awarded in accordance with the Army Open Solicitation procedures detailed within Solicitation W5128Z-25-S-A002 found at https://sam.gov/opp/20f6ad25a7c64be891ca8a24fa9b452b/view. The Open Solicitation outlines the guidelines for submitting Solution Briefs, pitches, and proposals and how the Government will evaluate responses to this Call for Solution. Procedures specific to the GFIM requirement are included in this posting under Enterprise #25-04.

5. SOLICITATION NOTES

In addition to the general guidelines included in the Open Solicitation, the following guidelines apply to this Call for Solution.

• Companies are responsible for monitoring SAM.gov for any amendments for this solicitation that may have updated information.

• Submissions shall conform to the following criteria:

• Technical Discussion – The technical discussion explains how the proposed solution provides the desired solution attributes and satisfies the evaluation criteria. The technical discussion is limited to ten (10) pages. Should offerors exceed this limit, the Government will only evaluate the first ten (10) pages of a submission. The technical discussion should be provided in a Microsoft Word file (.docx) using Arial 11pt font with 1” margins. Headers and footers are permitted outside the 1” margins.

• Attachment 1 – Notional Schedule for Prototype Development – The Offeror will provide a notional schedule for the implementation of the prototype by the end of

FY26.

• Attachment 2 – Architecture Diagrams

• Attachment 3 – Total Ownership Costs – The Offeror shall provide an estimate of the Government’s total cost of ownership (TCO) for the proposed solution over the next five (5) fiscal years. The estimate should provide a breakdown of cost categories and their basis of estimate. The offeror should assume the solution will support approximately 25,000 users. The TCO estimate shall be submitted as a Microsoft Excel file (.xlsx).

• The Government will give preference to submissions that demonstrate an innovative, existing, and reference-verifiable commercial ability to accomplish the desired solution attributes listed above. If not commercially available, preference will be given to submissions demonstrating existing and recent products that can be adapted for the solicited purpose with the least amount of non-recurrent-engineering effort.

• Resellers and academic research proposals are not desired.

• Contractors may propose a period of performance/schedule under this Call for any length of time up to 24 months, but preference will be given to schedules falling within six (6) months or less.

• Submissions must identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government’s use of that intellectual property.

• The Government reserves the right to go directly from this Call for Solution to award.

• The Government reserves the right to award more than one (1) award resulting from this Call for Solution or to make no award.

https://sam.gov/opp/20f6ad25a7c64be891ca8a24fa9b452b/view

• Questions are to be sent only to the Agreements Officer and Specialist (POCs) listed in this Call for Solution. The following shall be utilized in the email subject line: Call for Solution Enterprise_25-04 (reference the section area). Questions and answers will be published and updated on www.sam.gov. The deadline to submit questions for Phase I is 7 August 2025.

6. NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

As identified in Section I of the Army Open Solicitation, non-Government advisors from LMI Consulting, LLC (and their sub-contractors who support PEO Enterprise) may be used in the evaluation of submissions, presentations, demonstrations, and during proposal development and negotiations.

As a reminder, by submitting information to the Government, the Company further understands that it had an opportunity to enter into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) directly with the Non- Government Advisor and therefore waives any and all claims against the Government for any disclosures of proprietary information by the non-Government personnel. Such NDAs are the responsibility of the Company, and the Government will not be a party to them. Companies shall provide a copy of the signed NDAs to the Government with submissions.

The point of contact at LMI Consulting, LLC:

Dustin (Lance) Burnett dburnett@lmi.org dustin.l.burnett2.ctr@army.mil

(256) 783-7231

The address for written correspondence with LMI Consulting, LLC:

7940 Jones Branch Drive, Tysons, VA 22102

7. FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION

Companies are advised that any prototype Other Transaction (OT) agreement awarded in response to this Call for Solution may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of further competitive procedures. The follow-on production contract or transaction will be available for use by one or more organizations in the Department of Defense and, as a result, the magnitude of the follow-on production contract or agreement could be significantly larger than that of the prototype OT. As such, any prototype OT will include the following statement relative to the potential for follow-on production: "In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype OT may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.”

8. EVALUATION PROCESS

8.1. Gate Evaluation

All submissions to this call for solution will be vetted against the gate criteria in Table 1.

Submissions must pass all the gate criteria to be deemed satisfactory for evaluation.

Table 1. Gate Criteria

Gate Description Pass Fail

1 Submission Formatting and Completeness

• The Technical Discussion is provided as a Microsoft Word file (.docx) and the TCO is provided as a Microsoft Excel file (.xlsx).

• The Technical Discussion utilizes Arial 11pt font with 1-inch margins (headers and footers may be outside margins).

• The Technical Discussion does not exceed the ten (10) page limit.

• The submission includes clear, comprehensive details that support an initial compliance review with all required criteria (section 3); no essential elements are missing or unclear.

• The Technical Discussion exceeds the ten (10) page limit.

• The submission is not provided in the specified file format or does not adhere to the required font and margin specifications.

• The submission is missing detail or clarity to determine compliance with basic mandatory requirements; key elements are missing, incomplete, or ambiguous.

2 Commercial Availability and Efficiency

• The proposed solution must demonstrate a proven commercial capability, through existing and reference-verifiable implementation, to deliver superior or uniquely advantageous functionalities (e.g., digital workflows, data revision history, flexible integration).

• The proposed solution explicitly articulates its reliance on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and/or Low-Code/No- Code (LCNC) technologies as its foundational components.

• If any adaptation or customization is required, the proposal clearly details how this will be achieved with the least amount of non-recurrent engineering (NRE) effort.

• The proposed solution fails to demonstrate an existing, commercially available, and reference-verifiable capability.

• The proposed solution primarily relies on custom development or requires substantial non-recurrent engineering efforts for adaptation, rather than leveraging COTS/LCNC components.

• The proposal does not adequately address the preference for COTS/LCNC technologies or fails to provide sufficient evidence of commercial availability and verification.

3 Core GFIM Requirements

& CI/CD

Integration

• The proposed solution explicitly outlines its ability to manage D2RR workflows and ensure GFM DI compliance at the point of creation or

• The proposal fails to address D2RR workflow requirements, GFM DI compliance or its adaptability to evolving standards.

Gate Description Pass Fail ingestion, including a clear strategy for quickly adapting as the GFM DI standard evolves.

• The proposed solution architecture details how automated testing will occur within the GFIM CI/CD pipeline to minimize defects and eliminate regression.

• The submission explicitly addresses procedures specific to the GFIM requirement.

• The proposed solution architecture does not detail a strategy for automated testing within the CI/CD pipeline.

• The submission omits or superficially addresses procedures specific to the GFIM requirement.

4 Enterprise Integration and Long-Term Viability

• The proposed solution outlines a sustainable operational model that maximizes the use of existing Army enterprise products and infrastructure.

• The approach demonstrates a forward-looking perspective, enabling the system to evolve with changing needs, integrate with future technological advancements, and support long-term strategic goals and enterprise-wide interoperability within the Army IT landscape.

• The proposed solution does not demonstrate a clear plan for leveraging existing Army enterprise infrastructure or presents a model that suggests a new, isolated IT "stovepipe."

• The submission lacks a sustainable operational model or a clear forward-looking strategy for long-term viability and enterprise-wide interoperability.

8.2. Solution Brief and Demonstration Invitation

Following the gate evaluation, the Government will inform offerors that:

• The Government has not selected to move forward with their submitted solution, OR

• The Government requests that the offeror participate in an in-person (or virtual) solution brief and demonstration of the proposed capability to occur two weeks after notice of selection. Offerors will have a 2-hour period to present their solution.

8.3. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate submissions, solution briefs and demonstrations based on the following six evaluation criteria in accordance with the scoring rubric in Table 2. The criteria are listed in the order of importance for the evaluation:

Each of the six evaluation criteria will be scored on sub criteria to determine the total score.

Table 2: Scoring Rubric

Score Rating Definition

1 Deficient The proposed solution for this specific criterion is significantly flawed, poses high risk, or fails to address critical aspects of the requirement, indicating a fundamental lack of understanding or capability despite passing the initial gate screen.

2 Marginal The proposed solution provides a barely acceptable response, presents notable weaknesses or risks, or requires substantial clarification and/or improvement to meet the expected quality or performance for this specific criterion.

3 Acceptable The proposed solution fully meets all required criteria but does so only at a basic level. It presents a sound, competent solution for this specific criterion.

4 Good The proposed solution meets all requirements and includes enhancements or added value in one or more areas, demonstrating clear strengths, innovative elements, or distinct advantages that provide noticeable benefits or reduced risk for this specific criterion.

5 Excellent The proposed solution is exceptionally strong and comprehensively exceeds all requirements, offering significant and highly advantageous benefits, substantial innovation, and a superior solution that presents minimal risk and maximum value for the Army in this specific criterion.

8.3.1. Criteria 1: Technical Capabilities

The solution must demonstrate a sound, comprehensive, and innovative technical solution to fulfilling the stated requirements. Offerors will be scored in each of the following sub criteria:

a) Digital Workflow Robustness & Intuition: Evaluates the proposed solution's ability to support complex, multi-level workflows, including parallel execution paths and multi-level approvals. The solution must deliver an exceptional, intuitive, and highly efficient user experience that demonstrates enhancing user productivity and satisfaction. Assesses the maturity and configurability of the workflow engine.

b) Data Consolidation, Normalization & Authority: Evaluates the solution's methodology for consolidating and normalizing GFIM OE legacy data, including a comprehensive approach to data migration, aggregation, normalization, and deduplication of legacy datasets. The solution must deliver authoritative data products to Army and DoD data trading partners, where the solution acts as the authoritative source for Army Force Management data. This assessment will also cover the clarity and efficiency of the proposed data pipelines and transformation processes.

c) GFM DI Compliance & Adaptability: Evaluates the solution’s automated and continued enforcement of GFM DI compliance throughout the process, ensuring data is GFM DI compliant at the point of creation or ingestion. Assesses the strategy for quickly and cost-effectively adapting as the GFM DI standard evolves.

d) Data Revision History & Management: Evaluates the strength and comprehensiveness of the proposed data revision history capabilities, including versioning, lineage tracking, and the ease of auditing or reverting data states.

e) Flexible Data Integration: Evaluates the flexibility and robustness of the data integration capability for data trading partner exchanges, including support for various data formats, standard APIs, and secure data sharing mechanisms.

8.3.2. Criteria 2: Agility/Speed of Delivery

The offeror must have the capacity to deliver robust digital workflow abilities rapidly and efficiently, demonstrating a clear path to value realization. Offerors will be scored in each of the following sub criteria:

a) Time-to-Value & Implementation Efficiency: Assesses the proposed timeline for initial operational capability (IOC) and full operational capability (FOC), emphasizing rapid prototyping, efficient, thoroughly tested iterative development cycles, and efficient deployment strategies that minimize time to benefit.

b) Scalability & Performance: Evaluates the solution's inherent scalability and performance characteristics, demonstrating its ability to handle fluctuating data volumes, user loads, and transactional throughput without significant degradation or re-architecture.

c) Adaptability & Future Proofing: Evaluates the solution's inherent design for agility, including its ability to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, evolving technologies, and user feedback post-deployment.

8.3.3. Criteria 3: Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity represents a fundamental requirement for any solution operating within DoD/Army environments, where robust protection measures directly enable mission success and operational continuity. Solutions must demonstrate both technical security excellence and the capability to achieve formal authorizations such as ATO, IATT, or cATO to operate within Army networks and handle sensitive data. Offerors will be scored in each of the following sub criteria:

a) Data Protection & Access Control: Assesses the solution's robust data protection measures, including encryption (in transit and at rest), granular access controls, authentication mechanisms, and compliance with relevant DoD/Army security mandates (e.g., RMF, NIST guidelines).

b) Cybersecurity Maturity & Risk Management: Evaluates the offeror's and solution's overall cybersecurity maturity, vulnerability management, incident response capabilities, and adherence to secure coding practices. This includes an understanding of Impact Level (IL5/IL6) approaches, Zero Trust frameworks, and Army Segregation of Duties policies.

c) Auditability & Compliance: Assesses the solution's ability to provide comprehensive and immutable audit trails for data access, modifications, and system events, ensuring traceability and supporting compliance requirements.

d) Cross-Domain Data Interface Management: Evaluates the solutions inherent architecture and validated mechanisms for bi-directional, automated, and secure information exchange and access across distinct security domains or classification levels. This includes assessing its support for mandatory access control, data labeling, sanitization, and its operational management of cross-domain security policies, configuration, and adherence to accreditation standards.

8.3.4. Criteria 4: Enterprise

The proposed solution integrates with and supports the broader Army enterprise environment and strategic objectives. Preference will be given to solutions that leverage existing Army enterprise solutions (refer to Appendix B). Offerors will be scored in each of the following sub criteria:

a) Maximizing Existing Enterprise Infrastructure: Evaluates the solution’s demonstrable integration and strategic re-use of existing Army enterprise products and infrastructure

(e.g., identity and access management systems, data lakes, cloud environments), minimizing the need for new, isolated IT "stovepipes."

b) Interoperability & Integration with Army/DoD Systems: Assesses the solution's proposed integration architecture and it’s demonstrated capability for secure, reliable, and scalable data exchange and interoperability with Army and DoD enterprise systems.

The solution must enable frictionless and automated data flow, identifying anticipated integration points and articulating explicit adherence to relevant DoD integration standards, protocols, and data models, that promotes a connected and collaborative data environment.

c) Operational Sustainability & Evolution: Evaluates the long-term operational model, focusing on demonstrable sustainability within the Army ecosystem. This requires detailing clear governance structures (defined roles and oversight responsibilities), a robust support infrastructure to maintain system performance, and a comprehensive strategic framework for ongoing adaption and sustainment that ensures alignment with evolving operation needs and technological changes.

8.3.5. Criteria 5: Platform & Development Approach

The proposed solution must demonstrate suitability for functional, security, and scalability needs through its platform selection (e.g. low-code/no-code, cloud native).

a) COTS/LCNC Optimization: Assesses the judicious selection and effective utilization of

Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and Low-Code/No-Code (LCNC) technologies as the foundational components, demonstrating how they contribute to agility, maintainability, and reduced NRE.

b) Minimized Non-Recurrent Engineering (NRE): Evaluates the detailed plan for minimizing non-recurrent engineering efforts during implementation, integration, and ongoing adaptation, prioritizing configuration and leveraging existing capabilities over custom code development.

c) Human-Centered Design & Experience: Assesses the solution’s delivery of an exceptional, intuitive, and highly efficient user experience that significantly enhances user productivity and satisfaction. This requires a clear, consistent, and logical user interface with streamlined workflows that minimize cognitive load. The design must demonstrate adherence to Section 508 compliance (WCAG 2.1. AA) and seamlessly integrate complex workflow capabilities within an easily navigable and manageable interface.

d) Self-Service Data Provisioning: Evaluates the robustness and simplicity of the "self-service" capability for authorized Army and DoD data trading partners and elements to select and access data products without the need for code or configuration changes by the end-user or vendor intervention after initial setup.

e) Modern Development & Automation: Evaluates the proposed development methodology (e.g., Agile, DevOps) and the extent of automation within the Continuous

Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipeline, particularly regarding automated testing to minimize defects and prevent regression. The proposal must address how the platform supports team development with robust configuration version control preventing collaboration bottlenecks. This includes leveraging a well-defined development process, an architecture and automation approach, and a clear strategy for deploying within the

Army Cloud Environment (including the use of SaaS platforms, Infrastructure as Code

(IaC), and seamless automated deployments).

8.3.6. Criteria 6: Cost

The solution must demonstrate a clear understanding of the project's financial goals, providing a compelling value proposition and a commitment to efficient resource utilization. The approach should also consider the long-term implications of the solution, optimizing for cost-effectiveness and maximizing the return on investment through iterative development and continuous improvement throughout its lifecycle. This includes achieving a cost-effective solution leveraging an architecture and automation approach that allows scaling up or down to provide cost savings. Offerors will be scored in each of the following sub criteria:

a) Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): Evaluates the comprehensive TCO over the anticipated lifecycle (estimated for 25,000 users over five fiscal years), including software licensing, implementation services, integration, training, maintenance, and long-term support. The TCO estimate should provide a breakdown of cost categories and their basis of estimate. Offerors who propose a cost-sharing agreement for the prototype should indicate that in their basis of estimate.

b) Cost-Effectiveness & Value Proposition: Evaluates the overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed solution relative to the demonstrated technical capabilities, agility, security, enterprise alignment, and development approach, indicating a strong return on investment.

8.4. Request for Prototype Proposal

Following the solution brief and demonstration evaluation, the Government will:

• Inform the offeror that the Government has not selected the offeror to move forward, OR

• Issue a Request for Prototype Proposal (“RPP”) to the offeror. The RPP will have specific guidelines. Chiefly, offerors must submit a statement of work and a detailed price breakdown as it relates to payment milestones. The scope of the prototype will be a production-ready capability to manage and disseminate authoritative Army organization structure data to trading partners and viewers no later than end of FY26. The

Government will use the same criteria to evaluate prototype proposals as described for Solution Briefs.

9. Notice to offerors:

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools may be used during evaluations. Any AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

10. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI):

The Offeror shall perform an OCI analysis and submit the results of that analysis in addition to the white paper submission. The OCI analysis does not count towards the 10-page limitation.

Specifically, the Offeror shall analyze the planned acquisition for actual or potential OCI situations associated with the Offeror, or any of the Offeror’s proposed teammates or subcontractor’s performance, under any contract or agreement the Offeror or the Offeror’s teammates or subcontractors has been, or may be, awarded by any federal agency or other entity.

The Offeror shall describe in detail the methodology used to identify actual or potential OCI issues. If the Offeror identifies any actual or potential OCIs with respect to the performance of the Offeror or the Offeror’s subcontractors or teammates, the contractor shall provide an OCI Mitigation Plan to be incorporated as an attachment to any resulting contract or agreement.

Any proposed avoidance or mitigation techniques shall be consistent with FAR 9.5 and the most recent decisions of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

APPENDIX A: Regulations, Standards & Policies

a) Security Classification Guide Draft, DAMO-SOE, 24 June 2025

b) Army Regulations (AR) and Department of Army Pamphlets (DA PAM) are publicly available at: https://armypubs.army.mil/ b.1. AR 25-1 Army Information Technology, dated July 2019 at:

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN37510-AR_25-1-001-WEB- 3.pdf b.2 AR 25-2 Army Cybersecurity, dated April 2019 at:

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN37506-AR_25-2-003-WEB- 4.pdf b.3 AR 380-5 Department of the Army Information Security Program, dated 22 October 2019 at: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31725-AR_380-5- 000-WEB-1.pdf b.4 DA PAM 71-32, Force Development And Documentation Consolidated Procedures, 21 March 2019 at: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43301- PAM_71-32-001-WEB-3.pdf

c) DoD Instructions (DoDI) and DoD Manuals (DODM) are publicly available at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/DoD-Issuances/ c.1 DoDI 8260.03 The Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI), dated 19 February 2014, with change 1, 19 March 2018 at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/826003p.pdf?ver =2019-01-29-121604-563 c.2 DoDM 8260.03, Vol 1 Global Force Management Data Initiative Implementation:

Unique Identification For Enterprise Force Structure Data, dated 1 July 2022 at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/826003m_vol1.

pdf c.3 DoDM 8260.03, Vol 2 Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) Implementation: The Organizational and Force Structure Construct (OFSC), dated 14 June 2011at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/826003m_vol2.p df c.4 DoDI 8510.01 DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT) at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/851001p.pdf?ver =2019-02-26-101520-300 c.5 DoDI 5000.75, Business Systems Requirements and Acquisition, dated, 2 February 2017, with change 1, dated, 31 August 2018 at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500075p.PDF c.6 DoDI 5000.87 Operation of the Software Development Pathway, dated, 2 October 2020 at:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500087p.PDF https://armypubs.army.mil/ https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN37510-AR_25-1-001-WEB-3.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN37510-AR_25-1-001-WEB-3.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN37506-AR_25-2-003-WEB-4.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN37506-AR_25-2-003-WEB-4.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31725-AR_380-5-000-WEB-1.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31725-AR_380-5-000-WEB-1.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43301-PAM_71-32-001-WEB-3.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43301-PAM_71-32-001-WEB-3.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/DoD-Issuances/ https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/826003p.pdf?ver=2019-01-29-121604-563 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/826003p.pdf?ver=2019-01-29-121604-563 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/826003m_vol1.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/826003m_vol1.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/826003m_vol2.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/826003m_vol2.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/851001p.pdf?ver=2019-02-26-101520-300 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/851001p.pdf?ver=2019-02-26-101520-300 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500075p.PDF https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500087p.PDF

d) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Subtitle A, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 117, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), publicly available at:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-117

e) FIPS PUB 199 - Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems - February 2004 at:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/fips/nist.fips.199.pdf

f) National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publications (NIST SP) are publicly available at: https://www.nist.gov/publications f.1 NIST SP 800-30 Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments at:

https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-30 f.2 NIST SP 800-37 Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and

Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy at:

https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-37 f.3 NIST SP 800-39 Managing Information Security Risk: Organization, Mission, and Information System View at:

https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-39 f.4. NIST SP 800-53 Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations at:

https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-53

g) World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Quick Reference. W3C at :https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/?versions=2.1 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-117 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/fips/nist.fips.199.pdf https://www.nist.gov/publications https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-30 https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-37 https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-39 https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/nist-sp-800-53 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/?versions=2.1

APPENDIX B: ARMY ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS

B.1 Potential Dev Sec Ops Toolset (Government Furnished):

• Azure DevOps

• Confluence

• Cyclone DX

• Docker

• Fortify

• Gemnasium

• GitLab

• Jira

• Nexus

• Semgrep

• SonarQube

• Trellix

• Tricentis

• Trivy

B.2 Army DevSecOps Toolsets

• ECMA CReATE

• ARCYBER Community/Enterprise DSO

• ALTESS DevOps Management

• CECOM Software Engineering Environment (SE2)

• PEO Enterprise – Enterprise Common Tools

B.3 ARMY Cloud Offerings

• cARMY AWS IL5 and IL6

• cARMY Azure IL5 and IL6

B.4 Army Enterprise solutions

• Stonebranch

• Ab Initio

• Data Load

• Kafka

• Peoplesoft

• SAP

• Appian

• MuleSoft

• Salesforce Shield

• Salesforce CRM Platform

• Salesforce

• Lucid Charts

• Army 365 (Microsoft 365)

• ServiceNow

• Palantir

The lists referenced above are not exhaustive, and not all products are required for utilization.