Copy of DMC_RFI-2_QuestionsResponses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Data Migration RFI
- Solicitation number
- FA283426Q0001
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) compilation from the Air Force's Data Migration RFI (Request for Information) for the 3DEXPERIENCE (3DX) platform, addressing vendor inquiries regarding a planned data migration solution between two air-gapped 3DX instances.
The Government seeks to migrate data across two separate 3DX 2025x FD04 instances operating at different security classification levels (IL5, IL6, and IL6+) using an Air Force Enterprise Cross Domain Solution (CDS) currently under development with availability to be determined. Projected data volumes include terabytes of CATIA models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents with an unknown object count, with model data anticipated as a one-time lift and daily incremental changes consisting primarily of Enovia business objects and documents. The migration approach should support both full initial transfers and incremental delta runs at file and object levels, with recurring migration frequency ranging from nightly to on-demand based on Government discussion with selected respondents. All 3DX instances maintain identical schema configurations, patch levels, and versions of integrated applications (Cameo, Teamwork Cloud, and CATIA), with existing customizations beyond out-of-the-box configuration that contractors will receive technical documentation for. Migrated data must remain read-only but linkable in the destination instance, with merge/conflict resolution policies and validation/acceptance criteria to be collaboratively developed with the selected contractor. The Government anticipates a single award under contract type still under discussion, with performance permitted at contractor-operated SCIFs requiring Secret clearance minimum and up to Top Secret for certain work. No incumbent contractor exists, and the Government will provide existing institutional knowledge, technical documentation, and current System Security Plans if required; contractors must independently generate data manifests and propose the integration approach with the AF CDS, with at least 60 days estimated for cybersecurity approval.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Data Migration RFI 24 April 2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| Data Migration RFI 27 March 2026.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Vendor Ques and Govt Responses
| ID | Topic | Question/Comment | Response |
| 1 | Tech Architecture & Environment | Q1. What Cross Domain Solution (CDS) is currently in place or planned between the two air-gapped networks? Understanding the CDS type is critical to designing the export/import pipeline, even though the contractor is not responsible for the CDS itself. | |
| The SAOC Program intends to use an AF Enterprise CDS currently in development. The date the CDS will be availbale is TBD. | |||
| 2 | Tech Architecture & Environment | Q2. What are the approximate data volumes (object count, file sizes, total storage) currently resident in each 3DX instance? This information is necessary to architect batch sizing, throughput, and scheduling parameters. | Not enough in the environment currently but projected to be on the order of terrabytes of models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents, unknown for number of objects but expected to be high. Model data would mostly be a one time lift, daily changes would mainly be Enovia business objects and some documents. |
| 3 | Tech Architecture & Environment | Q3. Are both 3DX 2025x instances on the same version and patch level, and who will be responsible for maintaining version parity going forward? | |
| All instances will be the same patch level and maintenance of this is outside the scope of this effort. | |||
| 4 | Tech Architecture & Environment | Q4. Does either 3DX environment include customizations beyond OOTB configuration (e.g., custom business objects, workflows, or attributes)? If so, will the contractor have access to technical documentation for those customizations? | |
| Yes, there is customization beyond the OOTB configuration. The Contractor will have access to the technical documentation for those customizations | |||
| 5 | Tech Architecture & Environment | Q5. What is the expected frequency and timing of recurring migrations (e.g., nightly, weekly, on-demand)? Is a dedicated maintenance window available, or must migrations occur while active work is ongoing in both instances? | |
| Frequency is up for discussion but could be as much as nightly, on demand would be also be desired. A dedicated maintenance window could be available if required. | |||
| 6 | Tech Architecture & Environment | Q6. Regarding Section 3.1.6, does the Government have a defined validation methodology or reporting format required for confirming digital thread integrity in the destination instance, or is this left to offeror discretion? | |
| Validation and acceptance criteria is still being worked, but open to suggestion and would be collaboratively worked with respondents depending on solution type. | |||
| 7 | Data Scope & Integrity | Q7. Can the Government provide additional detail on the volume and content types of 3DSwym data? Given that it is listed as desired but not required, will the Government provide a formal priority ranking to assist offerors in scoping optional deliverables? | |
| Don't have enough 3DSwym data currently to provide a good estimate but listed as desired due mainly to technical concerns not priority. | |||
| 8 | Data Scope & Integrity | Q8. How should conflicts be handled when data has been independently modified in both instances between migration cycles? Does the Government have a defined merge/conflict resolution policy, or is the offeror expected to propose one? | |
| Migrated data would ideally be in a non-editable/read only but still linkable state in the new instance to cut down on independently modified conflicts. Overall merge/conflict resolution policy would be proposed by offeror and discussed between Government and offerer. |
| 9 | Data Scope & Integrity | Q9. Is the read-only enforcement on transferred data described in Section 3.1.4 expected to be implemented via a native 3DX platform control, or is the contractor expected to develop a custom enforcement mechanism? |
| Open to either depending on technical limitations | ||
| 10 | Data Scope & Integrity | Q10. For both the initial full migration and subsequent delta runs, will the Government provide a data manifest or object index for the source instance, or must the contractor independently generate this inventory? |
| Contractor would most likely generate this inventory. | ||
| 11 | Security & Compliance | Q11. At what classification level(s) does data reside in each 3DX instance — IL5 (CUI), IL6 (Secret), IL6+, or a combination? This affects solution architecture and accreditation scope. |
| Data resides at IL5, IL6, and IL6+ levels. | ||
| 12 | Security & Compliance | Q12. Is an existing ATO or ATU in place for either 3DX instance, or will the contractor initiate the authorization process from scratch? If an existing authorization is in place, will the Government provide the current SSP and supporting artifacts? |
| Authorization is currently in place and SSP and supporting artifacts can be provided to a Contractor if required. | ||
| 13 | Security & Compliance | Q13. What is the Government's anticipated timeline for ATO/ATU completion at IL5, IL6, and IL6+ levels, and will Government security personnel be available to support the authorization process? |
| 1) The Contractor should estimate at least 60 days to receive cybersecurity approval. |
2) The Government will be responsible for completing the cybersecurity approval. The Contractor will be responsible for providing necessary artifacts so the Government can make its cybersecurity determintation.
| 14 | Contract & Acq Structure | Q14. What is the anticipated contract type (e.g., FFP, T&M, Cost-Plus), and does the Government anticipate a single award or multiple awards? |
| 1) Anticipated contract type is still under discussion and open to suggestions. |
2) At this time the Government anticipates a single award.
| 15 | Contract & Acq Structure | Q15. What facility clearance level will be required (Secret, TS, TS/SCI), and will performance be required at a Government facility or may it be conducted at a contractor-operated SCIF? |
| Performance can be completed at a contractor-operated SCIF. | ||
| 16 | Contract & Acq Structure | Q16. Is there an existing incumbent contractor supporting the 3DX platform? If so, will the awardee have access to transition documentation, institutional knowledge, or onboarding support from the incumbent? |
| No incumbent contractor but all institutional knowledge, onboarding support, and previous technical documents will be provided. | ||
| 18 | White Paper Scope | Q18. Regarding Section 5.4.2, should the recommended contracting strategy address contract type, period of performance, task structure, or all of the above? |
| All of the above would be welcome. | ||
| 19 | White Paper Scope | Q19. Are offerors permitted to propose hybrid approaches that leverage 3DX native APIs (e.g., FCS queries, MQL) alongside custom-developed components, rather than a fully bespoke solution? |
| Absolutely. | ||
| 20 | 1. What is the approximate data volume (number of objects, total file storage size) in Instance A? | |
| Not enough in the environment currently but projected to be on the order of terrabytes of models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents, unknown for number of objects but expected to be high. Model data would mostly be a one time lift, daily changes would mainly be Enovia business objects and some documents. | ||
| 21 | 2. What is the desired frequency of incremental migration runs (hourly, daily, weekly, on-demand)? | |
| Frequency is up for discussion but could be as much as nightly, on demand would be also be desired. A dedicated maintenance window could be available if required. |
| 22 | 3. Are both 3DX instances running identical schema configurations, or are there customization differences? |
| All 3DX instances will be on identical schema configurations and patch levels. | |
| 23 | 4. How integration data references are managed between two instances? Are same application versions including Cameo and Teamwork Cloud (TWC) and CATIA are being used across two instances of 3DEXPERIECE platform. |
| Same versions of Cameo, TWC, and Catia are at available with each 3DX instance. | |
| 24 | 5. As migrated data will be read only in destination instance, does this mean no modification or updates of any kind are allowed on migrated data except linking the migrated data with destination instance data? |
| Yes linking is the only desired modification to migrated data on the destination instances, otherwise read-only. | |
| 25 | 6. What is the expected CDS transfer mechanism and any associated file format constraints (e.g., maximum file size, prohibited file types)? |
| 1) The Government intends to use an AF Enterprise CDS currently in development. The date the CDS will be availbale is TBD. |
2) At this time there are no known file format contraints
| 26 | 7. Is there a preferred change flagging mechanism (custom attributes, collaborative space, dashboard reporting)? |
| Open to suggestions. | |
| 27 | 8. Are there existing MQL/JPO utilities or custom APIs or scripts on either instance that the solution should leverage or avoid? |
| There are existing configurations that must be accounted for but no specific APIs, scripts, or utilities that must be used or avoided. | |
| 28 | 9. Are there specific 3DSwym content types (communities, posts, wikis) that should be prioritized if 3DSwym migration is pursued? |
| No priorities, 3DSwym data would preferably all be included if technically possible. | |
| 29 | 10. What specific personnel clearance levels (Secret, Top Secret) are required for on-site work? |
| On-site is not specifically required but there will be work up to TS. | |
| 30 | 3.1.1 - Is there a network connection between the two air-gapped hosts? I not wold the movement between the air-gapped hosts be managed with a physical handoff? |
| The SAOC Program intends to use an AF Enterprise CDS currently in development for connection. The date the CDS will be availbale is TBD. | |
| 31 | 3.1.2 – How often will the data migration need to occur? |
| Frequency is up for discussion but could be as much as nightly, on demand would be also be desired. A dedicated maintenance window could be available if required. |
| 32 | 3.1.5 – Can you provide estimated data amounts in GB/TB or the approximate number of files to managed. | |
| Not enough in the environment currently but projected to be on the order of terrabytes of models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents, unknown for number of objects but expected to be high. Model data would mostly be a one time lift, daily changes would mainly be Enovia business objects and some documents. | ||
| 33 | Data Volume & Object Count: | Can the Government provide an approximate count of total objects, files, and data volume (GB/TB) within the source 3DX instance? This is the single largest driver of development complexity and schedule. |
| Not enough in the environment currently but projected to be on the order of terrabytes of models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents, unknown for number of objects but expected to be high. Model data would mostly be a one time lift, daily changes would mainly be Enovia business objects and some documents. | ||
| 34 | • Transfer Cadence: | What is the anticipated frequency of recurring migrations (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly)? This affects delta engine design and transfer package sizing.x |
| Frequency is up for discussion but could be as much as nightly, on demand would be also be desired. A dedicated maintenance window could be available if required. |
| 35 | • CDS Interface Specification: | Will the Government provide the Cross Domain Solution's accepted input format and media specifications (e.g., optical media, hardware-encrypted USB, one-way data diode protocol) prior to or at contract award |
| The SAOC Program intends to use an AF Enterprise CDS currently in development for connection. The date the CDS will be availbale is TBD. All available specifications will be provided at as it is received. | ||
| 36 | 1. Does the Government intend to provide the approved data transfer/control boundary between air-gapped environments, or should respondents assume responsibility for designing elements of the export, staging, validation, and import workflow? | |
| The respondent would not be responsible for the boundary but will be provided the CDS and work on integrating their solution with it in regards to export, staging, validation, and import. | ||
| 37 | 2. Which data/object types are in scope for migration (e.g., CATIA models, ENOVIA business objects, documents, metadata, requirements, etc.), and are there priority object classes for initial capability? | |
| All of the above would be required, priority for initial capability would be discussed with respondent and be related to timeline and technical challenges. | ||
| 38 | 3. What are the expected validation and acceptance criteria for confirming data integrity in the receiving environment, particularly regarding preservation of relationships and digital thread continuity without reach-back to the source system? | |
| Validation and acceptance criteria is still being worked, but open to suggestion and would be collaboratively worked with respondents depending on solution type. | ||
| 39 | 4. For recurring migrations, should respondents assume an incremental/delta-based approach, and if so, should this be implemented at the file level, object level, or both? | |
| Incremental/delta based approach would definitely be the ideal solution at both file and object level. | ||
| 40 | 5. Is transferred data expected to remain read-only but linkable across all object types, or are there specific data classes where different behavior is required? | |
| Not required by Government but open to changes if required technically due to 3DX or solution technical abilities. | ||
| 41 | 6. To what extent will the Government define or provide the process and controls for movement between environments at different security levels, versus expecting contractor-defined methodologies within an approved framework? | |
| Government will define and provide the process and controls for CDS as they are available with the developing AF CDS solution. Solution integration with the AF CDS would be Contractor defined. | ||
| 42 | W1. What is the approximate current data volume (in TB) within the source 3DX instance, and what is the expected annual growth rate? | |
| Not enough in the environment currently but projected to be on the order of terrabytes of models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents, unknown for number of objects but expected to be high. Model data would mostly be a one time lift, daily changes would mainly be Enovia business objects and some documents. | ||
| 43 | W2. What specific 3DX 2025x Feature Pack release is deployed (e.g., FP1, FP2)? Are both instances on the same FP level? | |
| 2025x FD04 with all instances being at the same FP and patch level. | ||
| 44 | W3. Is there an existing Government-managed Cross Domain Solution currently in place between the two networks, or will one need to be procured separately prior to program start? | |
| The SAOC Program intends to use an AF Enterprise CDS currently in development for connection. The date the CDS will be availbale is TBD. All available specifications will be provided at as it is received. |
| 45 | W4. What Impact Level(s) are involved — IL5, IL6, or IL6+ — and are both instances at the same classification level? |
| Data resides at IL5, IL6, and IL6+ levels. | |
| 46 | W5. Are there existing customizations to the Enovia data model (custom types, attributes, or business process configurations) that need to be preserved or remapped in the destination instance? |
| There are existing custom configurations that are the same in all instances, data would need to be preserved or remapped. | |
| 47 | W6. What is the expected cadence for incremental migration runs |
(e.g., daily, weekly, or on-demand)?
Frequency is up for discussion but could be as much as nightly, on demand would be also be desired. A dedicated maintenance window could be available if required.
| 48 | W7. Will Workollab personnel have direct, hands-on access to both 3DX instances, or will all development and testing occur in a Government-Furnished Environment (GFE) or on Government-furnished hardware? | |
| Contractors would have direct access to the 3DX instances in Government environments, there will be no Government Furnished Hardware. | ||
| 49 | W8. Are there existing data governance or display policies governing how MIGRATED_REAre ONLY objects should be presented to end users in the destination instance (e.g., visual indicators, search filters)? | |
| No existing data governance or display policies for migrated data. | ||
| 50 | 1) To us, sample files are everything (Can the Government provide sample files ?) | Sample files are available for Contractors in the 3DX instances. |
51 2) Even a Teams/Zoom meeting (under an NDA) is suggested and with non-TS/SCI so we can see how your system is used today, and hear what YOU want this to do Individual meetings with potentional vendors will be determined as part of the Government's acquisition and contracting strategies.
52 3) How many workstations does the conversion process reside on?
3a) And a Server approach might work as well – air gapped dependent
| Not Relevant | ||
| 53 | 4) How many viewing stations are desired | |
| Not Relevant | ||
| 54 | 5) Is an internal web shared interface requested (touchy with TS/SCI requirements) | No |
55 6) Do you have the existing hardware in place for this 3DX instances are on existing hardware.
56 7) What kind of CAD translation volume per day do you estimate No firm answer but CAD data would most likely be more of a one time lift, daily changes would be mainly to Enovia business objects.
| 57 | 8) Specifically, what CAD formats need to be handled, and in what direction |
| No specific information available yet on CAD formats, only upwards in security classification never down. |
58 9) A specific and detailed Statement of Work is requested (SOW) A SOW will be released once the Govermemt has determined its acquisition strategy
| 59 | BR.1) Are there existing data governance policies defining authoritative sources between instances? |
| No existing data governance or display policies for migrated data. | |
| 60 | BR.2) What is the expected data volume and growth rate for both initial and incremental transfers? |
| Not enough in the environment currently but projected to be on the order of terrabytes of models and 300-500 gigabytes of documents, unknown for number of objects but expected to be high. Model data would mostly be a one time lift, daily changes would mainly be Enovia business objects and some documents. | |
| 61 | BR.3) Are there preferred or mandated cross-domain solutions (CDS) that the migration must align with? |
| The SAOC Program intends to use an AF Enterprise CDS currently in development for connection. The date the CDS will be availbale is TBD. All available specifications will be provided at as it is received. |
| 62 | BR.4) What level of automation vs. operator control is desired for migration execution? |
| Automation would be great along with the ability for operator control, operator control only works as well to an extent as long as it is not a long arduous process daily. |
| 63 | BR.5) Are there specific validation metrics required for digital thread certification? |
| Validation and acceptance criteria is still being worked, but open to suggestion and would be collaboratively worked with respondents depending on solution type. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .