FA302026Q0087_Questions 82 FSS Automated System.docx

1. Hosting environment - Section 2 (Objective) states the platform "must exist within the Air Force Network's (AFNet's) Microsoft Office 365 site collection." Is the government open to a solution hosted in Platform One's Cloud One environment (or another DoD-authorized cloud environment) instead of, or in addition to, the M365/SharePoint site collection, provided it meets the same RMF/ATO boundary and CUI/PII requirements? If M365 hosting is a hard requirement, could you share the driving rationale (e.g., existing licensing, user familiarity, data residency) so we can weigh that appropriately in our technical approach?

A: The Government is open to alternate hosting environments, provided the solution operates at Impact Level 5 due to the sensitivity of the data. Hosting within AFNet’s M365 is not a hard requirement if IL5 compliance is met.

2. "Modified COTS" clarification - The SOW states the platform must be "a commercial-off-the-shelf solution or a modified commercial product." Has the government already identified or piloted a specific base platform (e.g., Power Platform/SharePoint, a specific ISV product) or is platform selection open to the offeror's technical approach?

A: The Government's market research has identified previous purchases at other bases that utilize the Government's existing platforms (Microsoft Office 365, for example) without requiring additional ATOs. The Government does not intend to develop new software for this effort and seeks to utilize existing products and platforms that will integrate with our systems and the AF network. As stated in other answers, the Government is open to other platforms/products if they meet the definitions of commercial items IAW RFO 2.101 and have existing ATOs approved for processing IL5 data.

3. Electronic Relocation Table - The Tab/Document table in the SOW appears to have formatting inconsistencies in our copy (misaligned columns across "Type," "Source," "Requirement," and "Agency Requiring Access"). Could the government provide a clean, authoritative version of this table, ideally as a structured file (Excel/CSV) rather than embedded in the SOW document?

A: The Government has prepared a corrected version of the Electronic Relocation Table and will provide it in Excel format.

4. ATO/system boundary - Attachment 1 requires the contractor to "obtain Authorizing Official determination that the system is within an existing boundary." Is there a specific existing ATO boundary (M365 tenant ATO, Cloud One package, or other) the government expects this system to inherit, or is a new/modified ATO determination anticipated/allowed as part of this effort?

A: The system will require its own independent ATO. No existing ATO boundary applies. The current operational model does not require system access beyond AFNET, and no external system integrations are required currently. Future integration with systems such as MILPDS or OKTA may require an ATO, but this is not part of the current requirement.

5. Offline/degraded-mode fallback - The SOW requires continuous processing capability "in case of platform degradation," including document library access and printing. Could you clarify the expected scope of this fallback (e.g., local file cache vs. a fully separate manual system) and how it should be evaluated or tested for acceptance?

A: The Government requires a fallback capability that enables continued operations during extended system outages. A local file cache or comparable alternative is acceptable. Operations can continue for up to one day before mission impact becomes critical.

6. Helpdesk SLA scope- Does the four-hour outage resolution requirement apply to all severity levels of reported issues, or only full-system outages? Is there a defined severity/priority matrix the government expects the contractor to propose against?

A: The four‑hour resolution requirement applies only to full system outages. Support is required during normal operating hours, 0700–1800, with no expectation for 24‑hour coverage.

7. We would like to know if this is a brand-new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services.

A: This requirement represents a new contract effort for Sheppard AFB. There is no incumbent contractor currently performing these services.

8. The SOW states the platform must exist within AFNet's Microsoft Office 365 site collection, and that the solution must be a commercial-off-the-shelf product. Our platform is a COTS system authorized at FedRAMP High with an existing Department of War IL5 ATO, accessed from AFNet today via CAC sign-on. Would the Government accept that architecture in lieu of hosting within the O365 site collection?

A: An IL5‑authorized COTS solution is acceptable and meets storage requirements. All proposed architectures will undergo technical evaluation to determine suitability. An existing ATO is beneficial but not a deciding factor.

9. The SOW calls for future scalability to accommodate policy and program changes, increased student volume, and possible integration with military personnel systems. How would the Government like offerors to address scalability in their technical submission, so that we scope our quote accordingly?

A: Offerors should demonstrate scalability through local administrator controls, including the ability for local administrator roles to adjust workflows, add or remove coordinating offices, and support future policy changes. Integration with other Government systems is not required for the current scope but may be considered in future phases. Vendors may submit multiple quotes with separate pricing for the baseline requirement and any enhanced capabilities to support best‑value evaluation.

10. Request to modify the NAICS code assigned (currently 334111) to enable greater competition and assign a more applicable code.

A: As of Amendment 1, the Government has updated the NAICS code to 513210, Software Publishers. This has a small business size standard of $47.0M.

11. Is the place of performance expected to be at Sheppard AFB, hybrid, or remote and onsite as needed?

A: The requirement is to provide the software product. The place of performance is listed as Sheppard AFB since the product will be used/delivered here. Once the software is delivered/configured and training provided there is no on-site performance expectation other than to provide technical support if needed that remote support cannot solve.