Attachment 2 - Final Answers to Questions.pdf

1 SOO, pg. 2, para 4.1 - Given that the requirement involves configuring and deploying a customized digital platform, including web application development, system configuration, and integration within AFNet, would the Government consider a more development-focused NAICS code, such as 541511 (Custom Computer Programming Services) or 541512 (Computer Systems Design Services), to more accurately reflect the nature of the work described in the Statement of Objectives? No. This requirement is not being procured as a service but as a product, and the SOO does not request development but rather configuration of pre-existing software.

2 Solicitation - Could the Government please confirm the intended Period of Performance (PoP) for the base and each option period? Specifically, we seek clarification on the expected completion date of 30 Sep 2025, however, Option period 1 is 01 Oct 2026 - 30 Sep 2027, is there meant to be a gap between the completion of the base period and the first option period?

Additionally, does the government expect the final product to be completed prior to 30 Sep 2025? Please see the amendment to the original solicitation for new details. CLIN 0001 will include licensing for the first 365 days after acceptance of delivery, then option period 1 would continue the licensing from there if exercised. With this being the case, the period of performance for option years will be adjusted in accordance with the actual product acceptance date.

3 Proposal Instructions – Technical - To ensure consistency and alignment with the Government’s expectations, could you please clarify which sections or content areas the Offeror's Statement of Work (SOW) should include? Additionally, would the Government be willing to provide a preferred SOW template or structure that outlines the specific areas vendors should address in their proposed solution? The SOW needs to adequately address all the requested components outlined in the SOO. There is no required structure for the SOW but we would recommend trying to outline the SOW in a similar fashion to the provided SOO.

4 SOO, pg. 2, para 2. - The Statement of Objectives specifies that the platform must exist within the Air Force Network’s Microsoft Office 365 site collection. Could the Government clarify whether this requirement is intended to preclude the use of low-code/no-code (LC/NC) platforms (e.g., Salesforce, Appian, ServiceNow) that may operate outside the O365 ecosystem but still meet DoD cybersecurity and AFNet integration standards? We want to ensure our proposed solution aligns with both the technical intent and platform constraints. The requirement does not preclude the use of low-code/no-code platforms that operate outside of O365 if they already have DoD ATO inside of AFNet.

5 Solicitation and SOO - To better tailor our technical approach, could the Government clarify whether it prefers a turnkey commercial solution that can be rapidly configured to meet the requirements, or is seeking a custom-developed platform built specifically to fulfill the objectives outlined in the SOO? Understanding this will help ensure our proposed solution meets the Government’s expectations for scalability, delivery timeline, and sustainment. A turnkey solution that can be rapidly configured is desired. We do not desire a one-off custom developed coding project. It needs to be rapid configuration/easily manipulated.

6 SOO para 5 & 6 - Can the Government confirm whether developer and technical support personnel are required to perform work on-site at Keesler AFB, or if remote work is acceptable for platform configuration, development, and sustainment activities? Clarification on this will assist in aligning our staffing and pricing strategy with the Government’s expectations. Remote work is acceptable.

7 SOO - Will the Government be providing any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), such as laptops, workstations, or development environments, or should Offerors assume that all necessary equipment and software will be contractor-furnished to support configuration, development, and training activities? All necessary equipment shall be contractor-furnished.

8 SOO para 4.5 & 6 - Given that the solution is required to operate within the Microsoft Office 365 site collection on AFNet, could the Government clarify the intent behind including licensing costs as part of the proposal? Specifically, is the expectation that Offerors propose licensing for third-party tools, plugins, or custom components beyond the Government’s existing O365 licenses? The government has the licenses necessary for Office 365 (ie Sharepoint), anything beyond using a configuration of Office 365 would need to be included in the price quote.

9. The Statement of Objectives says the digital platform "must meet the DoD cybersecurity standards." Could you provide a summary or link to the relevant standards for this RFP? All Air Force I.T., Systems, hardware, software must be compliant for Cyber Operational Readiness Assessment (CORA) Formerly known as the Command Cyber Readiness Inspection (CCRI).

10. Hosting Environment: Is it required that the proposed platform be hosted directly within AFNet, or may it be hosted externally within an existing DoD ATO-approved environment (e.g., IL4/IL5 cloud)? Please see paragraph 2 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

11. Platform Type: Are there preferences or restrictions regarding the use of Microsoft 365/Power Platform (e.g., Power Apps, SharePoint) solutions? There are no restrictions or preferences.

12. User Volume: Will the platform need to accommodate concurrent access by all 7,000 students, or will usage be cyclical throughout the training calendar? Concurrent users would be the 130 permanent party members as well as the cyclical training calendar of students. So no but there would be 130 + the current level of students at any given time.

13. System Access by Agencies: Will base agencies access the platform using CAC from multiple network domains, or exclusively via a single Keesler-based network? Exclusively via a single Keesler-based network.

14. Reporting Requirements: Are there any mandated output formats (e.g., Downloadable PDF, MS Word, Excel, or accessible online Dashboard) for leadership dashboards or on-demand compliance reports? No, leadership dashboards can output in whatever format presents the desired information.

15. Interface and Branding: Should the platform visually align with Keesler or USAF design guidelines, or is branding optional? Branding would be for Keesler AFB but using USAF is acceptable.

16. Formatting: Do you have a preferred template or any formatting rules (page-count limits, margin, or font-size, etc.) for the SOW? See answer to question 3.

17. Technical: How is in/out-processing handled currently? Is it done entirely on paper, or are any tools currently used in the process? It is completed 90% on paper, communication is done via email, Teams, and messaging apps with the other support agencies and the Student Personnel Center (SPC) uses an Access database to in process the students and keep simple accountability of the students in a handful of ways, the data that is input into the data base is a .txt file pulled from milPDS.

18. Technical: What is the biggest pain point with the current approach? Making each paper folder by hand is a massive waste of manpower, automating the creation of student folders into an electronic means as well as putting all communication into the same platform with reduce missed messages.

19. Technical: In the solicitation document, it states that the platform “reside in an AFNet M365 site collection.” To help us size and scope our solution correctly, could you clarify whether you expect a configuration-and-customization of existing M365/SharePoint services (for example, SharePoint Online libraries, MS Lists, Power Apps forms, Power Automate workflows, etc.), or a fully custom web application built to run within that same tenant environment (or hybrid approach)? It does not need to be a fully custom application, the desire is to use the Air Force M365 collection and configure inside of what is already maintained by the Air Force.

20. Technical: The solicitation does not specify a TRL. For planning accuracy, can you confirm the minimum TRL expected at (a) contract award and (b) full operational capability on 9/30/2025? Our working assumption is TRL 8 or higher, given the required deployment inside AFNet. Please see the revised period of performance in the amended solicitation. There is no Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment directly associated with this requirement. The objective is that within 180 days from acceptance of award the tool will be fully functional.

21. Technical: How many distinct role-based workflows (e.g. trainees, instructors, finance, lodging) does the system need to support? Please see 4.1 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives

22. Evaluation: Beyond LPTA’s “Technically Acceptable,” are there common pitfalls you see in small-business SOWs that lead to “technically unacceptable”? Please refer to the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2 in the Solicitation.

23. Does the Government’s Microsoft 365 environment already include:

• Power Platform premium licensing (for premium or custom connectors)? No, the government does not possess Premium Licensing, Premium licensing is not a requirement but if so desired to be part of a solution the licensing cost needs to be included in the pricing.

• Power BI Pro or Premium capacity for dashboards? We currently have Power BI desktop and in Teams, the Unit must pay for Power BI Pro or Premium so that would have to be included in the solution

• A CAC-enabled electronic signature tool (like Entrust, Adobe Sign, or DocuSign)? Or would I need to provide that as part of the solution? Adobe Acrobat is what the Air Force most commonly uses to sign PDFs, creative use of Acrobat is preferred vs an additional signature tool.

24. Will development and deployment take place within a DoD365 GCC High tenant on AFNet, or is a different hosting environment required (e.g., IL6 or something on-prem)? No, IL5 would be appropriate as we will have PII for every single student but there should not be anything of a classified nature in the tool.

25. Will I be provided with access to a development sandbox or test space within the Government’s tenant to build and test the solution before go-live? No

26. Of the 7,000 students processed annually, how many are typically active in the system at the same time? Please see the last bullet point under 4.1 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

27. For the option years, is support expected to be limited to helpdesk/troubleshooting, or should I also plan for enhancements and periodic user training? Helpdesk/troubleshooting should suffice for ongoing training support. Please see the paragraph under 6. Software Support of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

28. Will I need to integrate with external systems like MilPDS or DEERS at launch, or is the intent to stick with manual data/document uploads for now? Please see the last sentence in Paragraph 2 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

29. Can you confirm that a solution built using SharePoint Online (with Lists, Document Libraries, Power Apps, and Power Automate) would be acceptable to fulfill the objectives? As long as it meets the technical requirements posted in the Statement of Objectives.

30. Are there any preferred or required tools for CAC-authenticated digital signatures that I should plan around? Adobe Acrobat is what the Air Force most commonly uses to sign PDFs, creative use of Acrobat is preferred vs an additional signature tool.

31. What amount has AETC budgeted for this project? We cannot disclose this information.

32. Will the USAF provide the contractor with user provisioning into AFNet MS365 in order to build, monitor, and maintain the solution? Yes, with proper credentialling.

33. What is AETC’s procurement timeline? This is a FY25 requirement. Evaluations of proposals will begin immediately after the proposal deadline.

34. What is AETC’s desired implementation timeline from notice to proceed? Please see the amendment to the original solicitation for new details. ARO of 180 days.

35. Must the contractor already have an ATO, or will the government sponsor and facilitate the ATO process? Please see Paragraph 2 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives:

ATO is required, or the use of Microsoft Office 365 must be utilized in a way that does not necessitate an ATO

36. We understand that AETC will be training 7,000 students/year, and that this system is to manage in/out processing tasks. For how long after students graduate is the system required to store their information? The expectation is 3 months following the students Report No Later Than Date (RNLTD). The RNLTD is different depending on where the student is relocating so this is variable. See the second to last bullet point under 4.1 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

37. Does the Air Force currently have Microsoft Power Apps Premium licenses within AFNet that can be used by Offers for developing a Digital Student Processing Platform solution, and if not, does the Air Force plan on purchasing Microsoft Power Apps Premium licensing outside of this procurement that can be used by Offers to meet the requirement of this solicitation? No, the government does not possess Premium Licensing. Premium licensing is not a requirement on our end, so our team does not plan on purchasing it. Therefore, if it is desired to be part of a vendor’s solution the licensing cost needs to be included in the pricing.

38. Should offerors include all software licensing costs in their proposals, or will the Government provide access to existing DoD Enterprise licenses (such as Microsoft E3/E5 with Power Platform capabilities)? If utilizing existing licenses, which specific platforms are available for this requirement? Office 365 (SharePoint, Teams, OneNote) and Adobe Acrobat are all licenses the Air Force is already in possession of so the licensing cost for these do not need to be included, however, outside of those listed all other licensing necessary needs to be included in the price of quote.

39. What specific systems and platforms must this solution integrate with at Keesler AFB, including: (a) existing student information systems, (b) authentication requirements (CAC, Azure AD), (c) collaboration tools currently used, and (d) other AFNET applications requiring data exchange? Per the last sentence of Paragraph 2 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives, the platform does not need to integrate with military personnel systems, only allow CAC authentication and use to sign documents.

40. What specific, measurable criteria will determine technical acceptability under the LPTA evaluation? Will platform maturity, DoD authorization status, proven DoD implementation success, and enhancement capability be considered in determining if a solution is technically acceptable? Please refer to FAR 52.212-2 of the Solicitation. This outlines how proposals will be evaluated under LPTA.

41. Beyond the contract CLINs, will the Government's determination of 'low price' consider total cost of ownership factors such as pre-configured capabilities versus custom built lowering risk and cost, implementation resources, training, administration overhead, and future enhancement flexibility? If so, how will these be evaluated? Please refer to FAR 52.212-2 of the Solicitation. This outlines how proposals will be evaluated under LPTA.

42. Has the Government deployed specific digital workflow platforms at Keesler AFB or AETC for similar student processing functions? If so, which platforms are currently used, how have they performed, and what specific capabilities or limitations should inform technical approach for this requirement? After thorough research we have not found another Government deployed workflow similar for student processing. The sister base of Keesler, Shepherd, is currently looking at similar digital solutions because they are also using paper systems along with several large training facilities. Each base has their own strategy and tools like the Access database that we created here for student accountability but there is a massive need for a more efficient way to handle business in the digital age.

43. Will the government please clarify if it has already selected a software platform for this effort, and if so, which one? For example, Salesforce or Microsoft PowerPlatform. No, there is an open door for solutions here, but the desire is to steer away from any need for a new ATO which is why we offer the use of utilizing a solution that simply configures Office 365 as an existing Air Force software.

44. Will the government please clarify the total number of users expected to use the system annually, broken into user types and how they will use the system? For example, the Dental

Clinic will have 5 users who must validate an airman's completed dental exam. Please see 4.1 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

45. Will the government please confirm how many students are expected to utilize the system every year to complete in-processing / out-processing activities? 7,000 annually, 2500-3000 at any given time. See 4.1 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

46. Will the government please confirm the frequency of logins per each role?

For Example)

SPC Technicians/MTLs/Supporting Agencies - Login multiple times per day

Students - Login once a day"

*SPC Technicians - Login multiple times per day

*Students - Login 5 days each month"

47. Will the government please confirm the estimated file storage requirements?

(For Example)

500GB of total system file storage needed The Air Force does not have a storage limit, and it should be on our service if it is on Office 365, outside of that, a minimum storage capacity has not been determined at this time.

48. Will the government please confirm which user group will require the electronic CAC signature capability as well as the estimated volume of using this capability? All user groups [SPC Technicians/MTLs/Supporting Agencies/Students] need to have CAC signature abilities, the Air Force uses Adobe Acrobat to sign on a daily basis of a possible route to use for this capability.

49. Does the Government have any existing licenses or enterprise agreements that would apply to this requirement? If so, which specific products or platforms are available for use in this implementation? Office 365 (SharePoint, Teams, OneNote, ) and Adobe Acrobat for signatures are the current licenses applicable to this question.

50. Please clarify the requirements for ATO inside of the AFNet. What is the process for verification of our ATO? The desire to stay away from any need to pursue an additional ATO, the process is long and convoluted, therefore an existing ATO is necessary for the configured tool that is offered, or it needs to be configured inside Office 365 in a fashion that does not necessitate an ATO. If you already have an ATO then it is simply submitting the credentials of the ATO to our Cyber Security Office at Keesler AFB to review.

The platform must exist within the Air Force Network’s (AFNet’s) Microsoft Office 365 site collection and be capable of configuring to user needs, or already have DoD Authority To Operate (ATO) inside of the AFNet.

51. Section 4.4 “Student Profile…”: For each of the forms listed in Tabs 1-6, please indicate the following details. A table is provided below.

Please see Section 4.4 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives for answers to 51.a through 51.c.

a. Type of Form: Verification Only (Checkbox, etc.), Document Attachment to record, Data Points only, Airman Completed

i. Verification Only = AF Staff need to update a field, like a checkbox, in the system to indicate completion

ii. Document Attachment = a copy of the airman’s existing document is attached to their record.

iii. Data Points Only = the contents of this document can be captured in a field or fields within the system (e.g. testing scores).

iv. Airman Completed = this form is part of KAFB’s process and requires the airman to electronically complete and submit.

b. Source: Service Member Upload, Integration, Other

i. For Integration: please indicate the source system and preferred integration method.

ii. For other: please provide a brief description

c. Requirement: All airman/applicants, Variable based on [Program, Year, etc]

52. Scope of Software Updates and User Expansion (SOO ¶ 4.1–4.4 and ¶ 6):

In reference to SOO paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4, which describe functional software requirements, and paragraph 6 regarding Software Support, can the Government please clarify whether future expansion of user access or implementation of new functionality within the Electronic Relocation Folder after the platform is delivered would fall within the scope of baseline software updates expected under this effort? Our reading of the current SOO language suggests that paragraph 6 is focused primarily on de-bugging existing functionality. Would enhancements to the platform—such as expanded user capacity or platform upgrades/revisions— require separate contractual action outside the scope of this requirement? The de bugging and patching is certainly necessary while expanded user capabilities would not be covered under this contract. That would have to be for another contractual action outside the scope of this requirement.

53. Clarification on Delivery Timeline in Section F of the 1449 (30 Sep 2025):

The delivery date for the Student Digital Out-Processing Platform is listed as 30 September 2025 in the SF 1449. Could the Government please clarify what estimated award date this delivery schedule is based on? Additionally, would the Government consider structuring the delivery timeline based on a fixed number of calendar days or business days after award (e.g., “X days ARO”), in the event the award date is later than currently anticipated? Yes. Please see the amendment to the original solicitation for new details. ARO of 180 days.

54. Gap in Period of Performance Between CLIN 0001 and CLIN 1001 (Software Support):

In reviewing the CLIN structure provided in the SF 1449, we noted that CLIN 0001 has a delivery NLT date of 30 September 2025, and CLIN 1001 is set to begin on 1 October 2026. Can the Government please confirm whether this one-year gap in software support coverage (from 1 October 2025 to 30 September 2026) is intentional? Or should offerors anticipate a revised structure or bridging CLIN for continued support during that period? See answer to question 2.

55. "Attachment 1, SOO 4. Requirements page 2"

A single communication tool is required. Can the government provide more specifications for what is desired for this requirement? The current process for communication includes email, Teams messages, cell phone messaging apps, phone calls, in person meetings to route documents for student processing. The desired end state for this tool would be a communication/routing function that centralizes communication for all parties involved using notes/messages within the tool to explain whatelse may need to occur to meet a requirement etc.

56. "Attachment 1, SOO 4.3 User Profiles page 3"

CAC is the authentication requirement, however, are there any users that may not have a CAC and need MFA/2FA authentication? No, everyone on the system will be required by multiple other requirements to have a CAC.

57. "SOO General"

Are there any requirements for data storage removal due to end of life that would require a deletion process or an off platforming and archiving to an archival repository? Yes there is a requirement for data storage removal. Please see the second to last bullet under 4.1 of Attachment 1 – Revised Statement of Objectives.

58. "SOO General"

Is there a need for any offline capabilities where internet access may be limited? No not at this time.

59. Document Requirements Clarification:

It appears that some of the documents for the student relocation folder will be scanned and uploaded, while others will need to be fillable forms with CAC signature capabilities. Could you clarify which specific documents need to be fillable with CAC signatures and which ones will be scanned and uploaded? This information will help us ensure that the system is configured appropriately for each document type.

Please see Section 4.4 of Attachment 1 - Revised Statement of Objectives.

60. Travel Costs and CLIN 1:

We understand that the cost of travel is not explicitly mentioned in the current CLIN 1 pricing structure. Could you confirm if the travel costs for requirements gathering and training should be included in the price for CLIN 1? Alternatively, would you be adding a separate Not to Exceed (NTE) CLIN for travel costs related to these activities?

Any travel costs would fall under CLIN 0001.

61. Helpdesk Support Expectations:

Could you clarify the expectations for helpdesk support for this tool? Specifically, should the helpdesk be virtual or on-site, and will it be available to answer questions and provide assistance to end-users during both the implementation and post-deployment phases? This will help us plan for the necessary resources and support mechanisms.

Virtual and available for implementation as well as for technicians only, not for the student population. We would prefer to funnel any issues/questions through our team vs students going direct.