Project Taj Majal CSO Call 5 June 2025.pdf

OVERVIEW

This Commercial Solutions Opening Call solicitation is issued in accordance with 10 USC 3458, DFARS Subpart 212.70, and DoD Class Deviation 2022-O0007 “Defense Commercial

Solutions Opening”

1. NAICS Code and Associated Description: 518210 “Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services”

2. Federal Agency Name and Contracting Officer: Department of Air Force (DAF) Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Matthew Loffredo, matthew.loffredo@us.af.mil

3. Commercial Solutions Opening Title: Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) – AFLCMC Data Operation CSO, Closed, Two-Step, titled “Project Taj Majal – CSO Call 7”

4. Commercial Solutions Opening Number: FA8600-23-S-C056

5. Contracting Points of Contact (POCs): The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Offerors shall address any questions or concerns they may have to the CO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO and Contract Specialist at the e-mail addresses listed below on or before June 2, 2025, by 5:00pm Eastern Time.

5.1. Contracting Officer: Matthew Loffredo (e-mail: matthew.loffredo@us.af.mil)

5.2. Contract Specialist: Jennifer Burns (e-mail: jennifer.burns.8@us.af.mil)

5.3. Be advised that only the Contracting Officer has the authority to enter into a binding contract agreement on behalf of the United States Government.

6. CSO Call Intent: To ensure this CSO remains accessible to both traditional and non-traditional vendors, the Government intends to maintain flexibility in the execution and pricing of future task orders that may be issued off the potential Step Two Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. While the IDIQ structure incorporates standard oversight and contracting mechanisms, individual task orders may be tailored in collaboration with vendors to align with commercial delivery models, and team structures —provided they remain compliant with governing regulations. The Government encourages innovative approaches and will support onboarding and open communication to enable successful engagement across a range of vendor types.

7. Problem Statement: The Government has already selected Oracle Fusion Cloud as the baseline platform but requires a vendor capable of aligning agile delivery, integration, data migration, and change management in a complex enterprise environment.

7.1. The Government previously attempted to meet this requirement through traditional FAR-based acquisition approached; however, that effort did not result in a successful fully integrated deployable solution.

7.2. As a result, the Government is now leveraging the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) authority under 10 U.S.C 3458 to encourage innovative execution strategies-particularly those that may originate from non-traditional vendors or emerging commercial practices. This approach is intended to broaden the competitive field and accelerate mission delivery by considering a wider range of implementation models.

7.3. This challenge includes navigating legacy systems, meeting audit standards, achieving mailto:matthew.loffredo@us.af.mil mailto:matthew.loffredo@us.af.mil mailto:jennifer.burns.8@us.af.mil user adoption, and preparing for future sustainment – all while maintaining schedule and cost discipline.

7.4. Offerors are expected to address these challenges through their Step Once solution brief by proposing actionable, modular approaches aligned to the Statement of Objective (SOO). The Government is not seeking platform alternatives, but rather an innovative solution to deliver a fully configured system integration on the selected platform.

8. AFLCMC/GBH Mission and Goals: The Human Resources Systems Division (AFLCMC/GBH) is responsible for the development and sustainment of AF/A1 Human Capital Management (HCM) software. The Department of the Air Force (DAF) currently utilizes over one hundred applications and software configurations to support human resources business processes across the DAF enterprise. The Air Force's current reliance on multiple disparate HR applications and software configurations presents a critical vulnerability in today's rapidly evolving threat landscape.

8.1. The goals of AF/A1 are to:

8.1.1. To reduce the number of applications and systems within the A1 portfolio while still maintaining or exceeding today's service levels.

8.1.2. Utilize industry best practices.

8.1.3. Implement the selected cloud-based (COTS) HCM Software as a Service (SaaS) platforms in a secure, modular, and scalable manner.

8.1.4. Minimize custom coding, data conversion and migration, system interfaces, and system sustainment.

8.1.5. Ensure full enterprise integration with existing and emerging Air Force systems, including data interfaces, role-based access control, cybersecurity enclaves, and personnel/pay workflows.

8.2. Submissions in response to this CSO should be implementation strategies aligned to the Government’s Statement of Objectives (SOO), with particular focus on demonstrating how their approach supports AF/A1’s goals to consolidate HR capabilities, reduce long-term system complexity, and enhance operational auditability. The Government is not soliciting development of a new software platform, but rather seeking proven methods to configure, implement, and deliver Oracle Fusion cloud HCM SaaS in a secure, scalable, and supportable manner.

8.3. The AFLCMC/GBH Contracting Office, in support of AF/A1 at JBSA Randolph AFB, Texas, seeks through this initial announcement to invite industry to submit a solution brief through the current CSO. The CSO can be found at SAM.gov Contract Opportunities with Notice ID FA8600-23-S-C056.

9. CSO Call Purpose: This CSO is being issued as a Two-Step process under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 3458 and DFARS Subpart 212.70. Its purpose is to identify innovative execution strategies and commercial implementation models that align with the Government’s Statement of Objectives. This is a Closed, Two-Step CSO Call. The first step is currently open for Solution Briefs. If the Government proceeds, the second step will involve a down-select and invitation-only process. At that stage, it will become a competitive combined synopsis/solicitation for the down-selected solution briefs, focused on identifying technologies to support the mission of AFLCMC/GBH. The Government seeks innovative solutions and new capabilities that fulfill requirements, close capability gaps, and advance technology in the capability areas listed below

9.1. Offerors are expected to submit a solution brief in Step One with the possibility of Step Two if and only if the government decides to proceed to Step Two and the vendor is selected and invited to the Step Two process. The Government reserves the right to award contract(s) in response to all, some, one, or none of the proposals submitted under Step Two. The Government may elect to award only part of a submitted proposal, and the Government may decide to incrementally fund awards made under this CSO. The Government may elect to open communications or negotiations with all Step Two selected Offerors. All awards are subject to the availability of funds. Step One of this CSO Call is the submission of solution briefs, and Step Two is the submission of proposals at the request of the Government along with a live Demo.

9.2. The Government reserves the right to cancel this CSO call at any time without obligation or liability. Submission of a solution brief does not constitute an offer and will not result in a contract. Step one down selections are made under broad agency discretion in accordance with 10 US.C 3458 and are not subject to protest.

10. CSO Call Deadlines:

10.1. Step One: Solution briefs must be received no later than June 17, 2025, at 5:00pm Eastern. Solution briefs received after specified date and time will not be considered.

Interested Offerors can submit clarifying questions to AFLCMC by June 2, 2025, at 5:00pm Eastern. AFLCMC will publish all received questions and AFLCMC’s responses (anticipated June 5, 2025) prior to the solution brief submission date. All submissions (questions and solution briefs) shall be made to the designated Contracting POCs below.

10.2. Step Two: In accordance with this Call, the Government may down-select Offerors from Step One (Solution Briefs) to submit a Step Two proposal. The deadline for proposal submission will be provided in a separate letter once Step Two is opened to the selected Offerors, and an amendment will be posted to this CSO opening. Offerors who submit a solution brief will be notified regarding their advancement to Step Two. Those not selected to proceed will receive a notice outlining the Government's rationale for its decision. If the Government elects not to proceed with Step Two, it will issue a notice to all Offerors who submitted a Step One solution brief, and an amendment will be posted to this CSO posting.

The Government’s decision to invite or not invite vendors to participate in Step Two is made under the authorities of 10 U.S.C 3458 and DFARS 212.70.

I. The following information is provided as an addendum to FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services.”

11. Step One – Solution Brief Submission: Offerors are encouraged to submit solution briefs meeting objectives and focus areas described in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section 2.0.

Only a single solution brief per Offeror may be submitted and all solution briefs will be reviewed. The Government reserves the right to not proceed to Step Two if solution briefs do not meet the requirements. The cost of preparing solution briefs in response to this solicitation is NOT considered an allowable direct charge to any resultant contract or agreement. Offerors shall submit their solution brief via e-mail to the Contracting POCs identified in paragraph 5.0 of this document.

11.1. Solution Brief Content: Each solution brief will include a Cover Page and

Technical/Management Section. The solution brief must stand on its own merit. Under Section 11.1. Do not include the following in the solution brief submittal:

11.1.1. Statements of Work or Performance Work Statements;

11.1.2. Any Proprietary Information without first coordinating with the Government Contracting POC; or

11.1.3. Marketing materials not pertinent to the objectives and focus areas of the SOO.

11.2. Cover Page: The cover page will include the following information:

11.2.1. CSO number, FA8600-23-S-C056

11.2.2. Call number and amendment number (if applicable)

11.2.3. CSO Title

11.2.4. Objectives and focus areas covered by the solution brief

11.2.5. Company Name and Information

11.2.5.1. Company Name

11.2.5.2. Business size

11.2.5.3. Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number, if any

11.2.5.4. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number, if any

10.2.5.6. Company Contracting POC(s) with contact information

10.2.5.7. Company Technical POC(s) with contact information

11.3. Technical/Management Section: The technical/management section must cover the following, at a minimum:

11.3.1. Overall capabilities of company to execute proposed effort

11.3.2. “Innovative” (any technology, process, or method, including research and development, that is new, or any application that is new as of the submission date) approach to fulfill the objectives and focus areas specified on cover page or alterative areas for Government consideration

11.3.3. How effort will be organized, subcontractors or organizations that will perform portions of the technical effort, how the efforts will be managed, and any other management or administrative information deemed appropriate

11.3.4. Government property, equipment or facilities that may be required

11.3.5. Deliverables that may benefit the Government, if any

11.3.6. Technical and/or management risk associated with innovative concept

11.4. Solution Brief Format: Solution briefs will be formatted as follows:

11.4.1. The solution brief shall be limited to 10 pages, prepared and submitted in MS

Word.

11.4.2. Font shall be standard 12-pt font Times New Roman, and character spacing must be normal. All text, including text in tables and charts, must adhere to all font size and line spacing requirements listed herein.

11.4.3. Text shall be double-spaced with one-inch margins on all sides on 8.5 by 11-inch paper.

11.4.4. The text within illustrations, flowcharts, drawings, and diagrams does not need to be 12-pt Times New Roman or double-spaced, as long as it is legible and clearly conveys the intended information. However, any explanatory text that accompanies these visuals should adhere to the specified font and spacing requirements. Illustrations, flowcharts, drawings, and diagrams are part of the page count, limitation and may utilize single spacing.

11.4.5. All pages shall be numbered starting with the cover page being page 1.

11.4.6. The solution brief must be submitted in a searchable, readable, and virus-checked format.

11.5. Data Rights and Intellectual Property: The Offeror shall clearly identify any commercial software, proprietary tools, or pre-existing intellectual property to be used in performance of this contract. Such items must be appropriately marked and must not conflict with the Government’s intended use of deliverables.

11.5.1. Offerors are advised that the Government requires Government Purpose Rights in all contract deliverables developed with Government funding. This includes, but is not limited to, configuration workflows, test plans, migration scripts, and security controls created for the purpose of implementing and operating the Oracle Fusion Cloud (OFC) HCM SaaS solution. If any deliverables are subject to limited or restricted rights, they must be clearly identified and justified in the Solution Brief and the proposal.

11.5.2. All configuration logic, test artifacts, automation routines, interface scripts, training materials, and other technical deliverables developed specifically for the Government under this contract shall be provided with sufficient documentation and in a non-obfuscated, reviewable format. Deliverables shall not rely on proprietary tools or processes unless such tools are furnished as part of contract performance.

12. Step One – Solution Brief Down Select: (Currently Open) The Government will evaluate solutions briefs in accordance with the Questions and Answers, SOO, and Section 16 (see pages 11-12). If determined to proceed the Government intends to invite no more than five (5) Selected Offerors to participate in Step Two by submitting full proposals. This limitation is consistent with CSO practices intended to promote efficiency, reduce proposal costs, and streamline the acquisition process. The Government reserves the right to not select any solution briefs for invitation to move to Step Two under this Call and to adjust the number of invitations to Step Two based on the quality of solution briefs received. The Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued by the Contracting Officer to the Selected Offerors, and the RFP will contain all applicable dates for Step Two.

13. Step Two – Proposal Submission: (Not Applicable at this time) The Government will evaluate solutions briefs in accordance with the Questions and Answers, SOO, and Section 17 (see pages 12-15). Selected Offerors invited to participate in Step Two shall submit full proposals consisting of a cover sheet and the following three (3) volumes:

Volume One – Technical Proposal, Volume Two – Pricing Volume, and Volume Three – Relevant Experience. The selected Offerors will be required to provide a Demo.

13.1. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal (Limit: 15 pages): The Technical Volume shall describe the Offeror’s approach to delivering an OFC HCM SaaS solution aligned with Agile and modular acquisition principles. It shall include:

13.1.1. Implementation and configuration strategy;

13.1.2. Testing methodology, including automation, regression, UAT, and security validation;

13.1.3. Data migration approach and interface integration (e.g., MilPDS, COMPASS);

13.1.4. Security and compliance plan including STIGs, RBAC, encryption, and ATO-readiness;

13.1.5. Program Management approach, resource and schedule controls, key personnel roles;

13.1.6. Agile metrics to be tracked (e.g., sprint velocity, backlog burn-up/down, throughput);

13.1.7. Tool stack used to support Agile delivery, CI/CD, DevSecOps, test frameworks; and

13.1.8. Assumptions, dependencies, and constraints affecting execution.

13.2. The Offeror shall include any attachments to the technical volume (e.g., resumes, organizational charts, diagrams, glossary of terms). Attachments (eg. Resumes, org charts, glossary, diagrams) do not count toward the 15-page limited, but need be limited to supporting materials. Substantive narrative content must remain within the main Technical Value.

13.3. The Technical Volume must address how the proposed solution supports the Government’s objective as defined in the Statement of Objectives.

13.4. Volume 2 – Pricing Volume (Limit: 10 pages total): The Price Volume will consist of consist of two parts:

13.4.1. A Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN/SubCLIN structure: The Offeror, must propose a FFP pricing structure that is aligned to their technical solution and delivery methodology. The structure must be able to be utilized as a FFP pricing method for a potential IDIQ and be IAW DFARS PGI 204.7103.

13.4.1.1. This CSO defines the FFP pricing and delivery structure for Step Two proposals. The Government requires a pricing methodology based strictly on results—not labor hours or time-and-material inputs. Offerors must propose discrete SubCLINs that correspond to delivery of Agile increments, such as working features, functional epics, completed integrations, or accepted system configurations.

13.4.1.2. CLINs are informational only. All payment will be based on SubCLINs, which must represent successful FFP deliverables IAW with the acceptance criteria and definition of done in the SOO.

13.4.1.3. All SubCLINs must be structured around the Agile battle rhythm— producing outcomes in regular, incremental cycles such as sprints, program increments, or functional releases. SubCLINs must be tied to tangible value: completed software, deployable functionality, documented integrations, stakeholder demos, or formally accepted milestones.

13.4.1.4. Optional CLINs: Offerors may propose optional Informational CLINs, but must at a minimum include the following informational CLINS in their proposal:

• Agile Kickoff

• MVP Development

• Core Modules

• UAT & Final

• Hypercare

13.4.1.5. Optional SubCLINs (Fully Priced): Offerors may propose optional

SubCLINs for scalable functionality, enhancements, or surge capacity. These SubCLINs must be fully priced and will be evaluated for realism. If accepted, optional SubCLINs will be incorporated into the IDIQ for future task order use at the Government’s discretion.

13.4.2. Pricing Narrative: A Pricing Narrative providing the Basis of Estimate (BOE), assumptions, and traceability to the Government’s Statement of Objectives. The Pricing Narrative must include:

13.4.2.1. Reasonableness under DFARS 212.209 procedures.

13.4.2.2. Consistency with Agile delivery methodology (i.e., per-feature, per-epic, per-sprint, per-milestone outcomes).

13.4.2.3. Internal traceability to team size, unit of issue, and proposed deliverables.

13.4.2.4. Realism in terms of sustainment, documentation, and maintainability.

13.4.3. Permitted Pricing Models: Offerors may use any of the following fixed price delivery formats:

13.4.3.1. Feature-Based Pricing: Price per deployable feature or capability with measurable user or system impact. Offerors must provide a Feature-Based FFP calculation methodology that ensures pricing remains sustainable and applicable for potential award under a pre-priced IDIQ structure. The methodology must be results-driven, aligning with discrete SubCLINs for Agile increments such as working features, functional epics, completed integrations, or accepted system configurations.

13.4.3.2. Epic-Based Pricing: Price per completed epic representing a bundle of related features tied to a business capability or user workflow.

Offerors must provide an Epic-Based FFP calculation methodology that ensures pricing remains sustainable and applicable for potential award under a pre-priced IDIQ structure. The methodology must be results-driven, aligning with discrete SubCLINs for Agile increments such as deployable features, functional epics, completed integrations, or accepted system configurations. Epic pricing must reflect the cumulative value of its included features and adhere to pre-established IDIQ rates, ensuring predictability and scalability across task orders.

13.4.3.3. Sprint-Based Pricing: Price per 2–3-week Agile Sprint, determined by team capacity and scope of planned work. Offerors must provide a Sprint-Based FFP calculation methodology that ensures sustainability and applicability for potential award under a pre-priced IDIQ structure. The pricing model must align with discrete SubCLINs for Agile increments, with payment triggered by accepted outputs, including deployable features, functional epics, completed integrations, or system configurations. Sprint pricing must reflect pre-established IDIQ rates, ensuring consistency, scalability, and cost predictability across task orders.

13.4.3.4. Milestone-Based Pricing: Price per defined implementation milestone, including integration, demonstrations, configurations, or other key delivery points, with clear acceptance criteria. Offerors must provide a Milestone-Based FFP calculation methodology that ensures sustainability and applicability for potential award under a pre-priced IDIQ structure. The pricing model must align with discrete SubCLINs for Agile increments, triggering payments only upon the successful completion and formal acceptance of each milestone. Milestone pricing must adhere to pre-established IDIQ rates, maintaining consistency, scalability, and cost predictability across task orders.

13.4.3.5. Capacity-Based Pricing: Price per Agile iteration based on team size (Full-Time Equivalents, FTEs), with payment fixed per sprint rather than hours worked. Offerors must provide a Capacity-Based FFP calculation methodology that ensures sustainability and applicability for potential award under a pre-priced IDIQ structure.

The pricing model must align with discrete SubCLINs for Agile increments, ensuring cost predictability while maintaining flexibility in team composition. Payments must be triggered by the completion and formal acceptance of sprint deliverables, such as deployable features, functional epics, completed integrations, or accepted system configuration.

13.4.4. Alternative pricing approaches may be considered, but must:

13.4.4.1. Tie to discrete Agile outputs.

13.4.4.2. Align with the SOO and technical proposal.

13.4.4.3. Be accompanied by full justification and BOE.

13.4.4.4. Deliver discrete, outcome-based value.

13.4.4.5. Align with an Agile delivery rhythm.

13.4.4.6. Support the results-driven, FFP pricing structure required under the

CSO.

13.4.5. Basis of Estimate (BOE) and Traceability Requirements: Each SubCLIN must include a BOE that explains how the FFP pricing was derived. The BOE must describe:

13.4.5.1. Labor assumptions and roles.

13.4.5.2. Key technical components and drivers.

13.4.5.3. Cost rationale and calculation logic.

13.4.6. While not contractually binding, the BOE will be used during evaluation to assess:

13.4.6.1. Price realism.

13.4.6.2. Internal consistency.

13.4.6.3. Alignment with both the Offeror’s Technical Proposal and the Government’s SOO.

13.4.7. The Government reserves the right to reject any pricing structure that fails to demonstrate this alignment. If rejected, the Offeror may be invited to resubmit using one or more of the permitted pricing models, at the Government’s sole discretion.

13.4.8. Binding Incorporation Into IDIQ: All SubCLINs evaluated and accepted at time of award will be incorporated into the base IDIQ contract. These will serve as the full catalog of FFP outcomes available for Task Order issuance.

13.4.8.1. No SubCLIN may be renegotiated post-award. All Task Orders shall be structured around accepted, priced SubCLINs.

13.5. Volume 3 – Relevant Experience (Limit: 5 pages): The Offeror will provide up to three

(3) contract references relevant to OFC HCM SaaS Solutions delivery of similar size and scope. Each reference must include:

13.5.1. Contract number, scope, total value, period of performance;

13.5.2. Customer/Organization and point of contact with email and phone number; and

13.5.3. Offerors should provide quantifiable success metrics, client references, and past project details demonstrating experience in system integration, data migration, and cloud deployment. Offerors may include CPARS, award letters, or customer testimonials as appendices (not counted toward the 5-page limit).

13.6. Cover Sheet: The following information should be contained in a cover sheet attached to the proposal:

13.6.1. Full company name and address

13.6.2. CSO number, FA8600-23-S-C056

13.6.3. Point of contact, name, title, and phone number

13.6.4. CAGE code

13.6.5. UEI number

13.6.6. Will you require the use of any Government property in the performance of this work?

If yes, identify.

NOTE: If an Offeror takes exceptions to the requirements called out in the announcement, the exceptions should be clearly stated in the price proposal.

13.7. Proposal Format: Proposals will be formatted as follows for any Word or PDF document submissions:

13.7.1. Fonts shall be standard 12-pt font Times New Roman, and character spacing must be normal. All text, including text in tables and charts, must adhere to all font size and line spacing requirements listed herein.

13.7.2. Text shall be double-spaced with one-inch margins on all sides on 8.5 by 11- inch paper.

13.7.3. All pages shall be numbered.

13.7.4. The proposal documents must be submitted in a searchable, readable, and virus-checked format.

13.7.5. The text within illustrations, flowcharts, drawings, tables, graphics, and diagrams does not need to be 12-pt Times New Roman or double-spaced, as long as it is legible and clearly conveys the intended information. However, any explanatory text that accompanies these visuals should adhere to the specified font and spacing requirements.

13.8. Offerors who are required to submit subcontracting plans should submit subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 19.704.

14. Live Demonstration: Offerors invited to Step Two shall participate in a live, scenario-based demonstration as a condition of evaluation. Offerors shall demonstrate their proposed OFC HCM SaaS Solutions. Demonstrations must adequately reflect the actual capabilities and configuration of their proposed solution. Offerors shall not use the live demonstration to conduct a marketing or vendor sales presentation. The demonstration shall validate:

14.1. Core HCM functionality and dashboard workflows;

14.2. Batch-processing capability (e.g., onboarding 500–1,000 users);

14.3. Data security, RBAC, and configuration transparency; and

14.4. Performance and responsiveness across roles.

14.5. Demonstrations shall:

14.5.1. Be conducted by the proposed project team members (not sales representatives).

14.5.2. Use the proposed tool stack and implementation approach submitted in the Technical Volume.

14.5.3. Execute Government-provided use cases (e.g., batch onboarding of 500– 1,000 users, assignment preferences, role-based dashboards).

14.5.4. Demonstrate configuration (not customization) aligned to Agile MVP principles.

14.5.5. Show end-to-end workflows with test data—not canned demos or Oracle global use cases.

14.6. Demonstrations shall not:

14.6.1. Include slides or videos that promote Oracle branding, marketing differentiators, or generic capabilities.

14.6.2. Be presented by business development or sales staff not named in the proposal.

14.6.3. Include functionality outside of the core HR or talent management module.

14.6.4. The Government may ask clarifying questions and will assess the demo based on accuracy, realism, workflow alignment, user role integration, system performance, and data security configuration.

14.6.5. Demonstration Costs: The Government will NOT pay for any cost associated with the preparation of execution of the live demonstration. All costs incurred by the Offeror in support of the demonstration shall be at the Offeror's sole expense and will not be reimbursed directly or indirectly by the Government.

14.7. The Government reserves the right to end or reschedule a demonstration if it becomes non-functional, misaligned with the proposal, or fails to meet scenario execution requirements.

II. The following information is provided as an addendum to FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services”

15. Basis for Award: The Government intends to award one (1) single award IDIQ based on a two-step evaluation approach under the CSO framework to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria listed in this Call.

15.1. The Government reserves the right to:

15.1.1. Negotiate with Offerors to refine technical and pricing details.

15.1.2. Award some, all, or none of the proposals received based on mission requirements and the availability of Government funds.

15.1.3. Award without discussions, if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

15.2. “Best Value” in this context reflects the solution that most effectively meets the Government’s SOO objectives, mission needs and delivery risk considerations as evaluated under this CSO.

16. Solution Brief Evaluation: The Government will conduct a streamlined evaluation of solution briefs submitted in response to this Call to identify those vendors whose technical concepts and commercial capabilities demonstrate the greatest potential to meet or exceed the Government’s objectives described in the SOO. All solution brief evaluations are conducted independently and are based solely on the criteria stated in the SOO and FAR 52.212-2. The Government will only evaluate information provided in the solution brief and no other sources of information will be considered. Solution briefs will be evaluated based on the following:

16.1. The Offerors demonstrated ability to execute the proposed solution within the operational framework in accordance with the Government’s SOO paragraph 2.1. The evaluations will consider feasibility and alignment with operational needs;

16.2. The Offerors approach must showcase proven methodologies while also demonstrating innovative techniques that align with the Government’s SOO paragraph 3. Innovation will be evaluated based on uniqueness, efficiency improvements, and ability to enhance Air Force Human Resources (HR) processes;

16.3. Relevance and alignment with the Government’s desired end-state (e.g., delivery of a modular, Agile-configured Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM SaaS solution);

16.4. Demonstrated understanding of the Government’s requirements, including integration with legacy systems and secure DoD cloud environments;

16.5. Technical maturity and feasibility of approach within cost and schedule expectations;

and

16.6. Commercial viability and prior successful implementation in a similar enterprise environment.

16.7. Based on this assessment, solution briefs will be categorized into two groups:

16.6.1 Selected: Submissions that clearly demonstrate technical merit, commercial viability, and strong alignment with the Government’s modernization goals.

These Offerors represent the highest confidence for successful execution.

16.6.2 Not Selected: Submissions that do not meet the minimum expectations or demonstrate insufficient alignment with the stated objectives.

17. Step-Two/Proposal Evaluation: Down-selected Offerors will be required to submit detailed technical proposals and price volume and participate in a live demonstration of their proposed Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM SaaS Solution Capabilities. The Government will evaluate submission based on:

17.1. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates a clear, feasible, and modular approached to delivering the Oracle Fusion cloud (OFC) HCM SaaS solution. The Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

17.1.1. Implementation and Configuration: The Government will assess the Offeror’s implementation and configuration strategy for delivering OFC HCM Saas in a manner aligned to the SOO. Evaluation will consider the extent to which the proposal supports user needs while minimizing customization of commercial product. The proposal needs to describe planned support for Air Force Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) and include:

17.1.1.1. A clear and achievable approach to delivering a secure, compliant environment that meets DoD accreditation standards. While Offerors must structure their solution through teaming arrangement, use of authorized cloud infrastructure, or other commercial methods, the end-state must fully support system accreditation, data protection, and Risk Management Framework (RMF) compliance. The Government will evaluate the credibility and completeness of the proposed path to full compliance-regardless of delivery model.

17.1.1.2. Comprehensive deployment plan including scheduling, resource allocation and communication strategies.

17.1.1.3. A structured configuration approach tied to Agile MVP principles.

17.1.1.4. Show understanding of developing software test descriptions and the importance of them.

17.1.1.5. Risk mitigation strategies and dependencies.

17.1.1.6. The Government will evaluate the completeness and realism of the Offeror’s proposed test approach. The proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of test concepts, including requirements, regression and basic performance testing. Testing Technical approach includes, as a minimum, a structured Configuration Verification & Integration (CV&I) test phase that includes but is not limited to the following:

17.1.1.6.1. Component integration test;

17.1.1.6.2. Data management evaluation;

17.1.1.6.3. Performance evaluation test (e.g., system performance, scalability, resource utilization);

17.1.1.6.4. Cybersecurity evaluation;

17.1.1.6.5. System integration test;

17.1.1.6.6. User evaluation Test; and

17.1.1.6.7. Data Encryption and Access Control methodology.

17.1.2. Data Migration and System/Application Integrations OFC HCM: SaaS implementations will require data migration and system/application integrations from legacy/on-premise system/application to SaaS solution. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of and approach to data migration and integration from legacy systems into the SaaS environment. The proposal must include the following:

17.1.2.1. Describe migration extract, transform, and load methods.

17.1.2.2. Identify technical risk and legacy data challenges.

17.1.2.3. Adress integration with MilPDS, and interfaces with COMPASS and

WINGS, or other existing legacy HR systems.

17.1.2.4. Align with data security and DoD compliance standards.

17.1.3. Security Compliance and ATO Readiness: The Government will evaluate the feasibility and maturity of the Offeror’s approach to support a timely Authority to Operate (ATO) renewal, and any necessary modifications in accordance with the DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF). The Offeror will be assessed on their ability to deliver a complete and accurate ATO package compatible with eMASS, proactive management and mitigation of all Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) items, and a transparent change control process. Proposals must demonstrate the vendor’s ability to rapidly stand up secure, compliant environments by leveraging existing FedRAMP, and DoD IL4-authroized infrastructure. The Government will consider prior ATO experience, ability to stand up a landing zone to meet security requirements, and the realism of the proposed security documentation plan.

17.2. Volume 2 – Pricing Volume: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN and SubCLIN structure for alignment with the Offeror’s technical solution and the Government’s Statement of Objectives (SOO). Only FFP pricing is permitted under this CSO; proposals that include labor-hour, time-and-materials, or level-of-effort structures will be deemed non-compliant.

17.2.1. Pricing shall reflect Firm-Fixed-Price Agile outcomes for each Sprint or Lot, tied to completed and accepted deliverables such as deployable features, integrated epics, configured modules, or milestone achievements. Payment will not be based on time or effort expended, but on discrete, accepted outputs.

17.2.2. Proposals must demonstrate:

17.2.2.1. Internal traceability to team size, delivery rhythm, and unit of issue

17.2.2.2. Alignment with the Offeror’s technical approach and Agile delivery model

17.2.2.3. Realism in terms of sustainment, documentation, and maintainability

17.2.3. The Government will deem an Offeror pricing high risk if it is unusually low without justification or fails to account for necessary post-delivery support. Offerors will be evaluated on how they price SubCLINs to reflect complete, usable Agile increments—features, working software, or functional system configurations.

17.2.4. The contract permits only FFP contract types in accordance with CSO policy and FAR Part 12. No other pricing structure, such as Labor Hour or Time-and- Materials are authorized. The Government reserves the right to request supporting information to determine price reasonableness.

17.2.5. Pricing will be evaluated in accordance with the principles of FAR Part 12, which emphasizes commercial item acquisition, market-based pricing, and reasonable value to the Government. The Government will consider customary commercial practices and any supporting rationale or market data provided by the Offeror.

17.2.6. Modularity Enforcement: Accepted CLIN/SubCLINs at award will be incorporated into the IDIQ contract as the binding catalog of pre-priced Agile outcomes. All future task orders will use these evaluated and accepted pricing units. No pricing structure shall be revised post-award.

17.3. Volume 3 – Relevant Experience: The Government will evaluate the relevance, scope, and success of the Offeror’s prior projects in delivering Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM SaaS or similar enterprise cloud-based HR systems. Evaluation will consider the similarity in size, scope, and complexity measurable outcomes, and demonstrated success in data migration, system integration, and cloud deployment. Offerors with directly applicable experience and substantiated performance outcomes will be viewed more favorably.

18. Live Demonstration Evaluation: The live demonstration will be assessed as a critical component of the overall Technical Approach evaluation. The live demonstration will serve as a validation mechanism for the proposed technical solution’s realism, maturity, and feasibility.

The demonstration will allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to execute end-to-end workflows, Agile MVP configurations, and integration with role-based dashboards using the actual proposed tool stack.

18.1. Observations from the demonstration will inform the evaluation of:

18.1.1. Alignment between proposed and actual capability.

18.1.2. Ease of configuration (vs. customization).

18.1.3. Workflow usability, responsiveness, and role-specific functionality.

18.1.4. Security configuration and RBAC fidelity.

18.1.5. System performance under load scenarios.

18.2. Offerors whose demonstrations fail to align with the written proposal or show reliance on undeclared customization, proprietary tooling, or canned sales configurations may be assessed with higher technical execution risk.

19. Data Rights Evaluation: The Government will evaluate Offerors’ proposed use of intellectual property and data rights assertions to ensure compatibility with the Government’s intended use, sustainment, and compliance obligations.

19.1. Evaluation will consider:

19.1.1. Whether deliverables developed with Government funds are provided with appropriate rights and sufficient documentation to enable Government use.

19.1.2. The clarity and completeness of any restrictions or markings asserted over commercial software or pre-existing intellectual property.

19.1.3. The ability to access, validate, and sustain configured capabilities without reliance on undisclosed proprietary tooling.

19.1.4. Proposals that unnecessarily restrict the Government’s use of deliverables, or fail to provide traceable access to configured capabilities, may be rated less favorably.

19.2. Use of Intellectual Property and Data Rights: The Government will not assign a separate score to intellectual property assertions. However, the clarity and breadth of proposed data rights will be considered during the risk assessment of technical execution and sustainment. Specifically, proposals that:

19.2.1. Impede the Government’s ability to maintain, update, or rehost the configured OFC SaaS solution.

19.2.2. Rely on undisclosed proprietary tooling for configuration, testing, or integration.

19.2.3. Do not provide Government Purpose Rights in deliverables developed with

Government funds; may be viewed as presenting higher lifecycle risk, potentially reducing the Government’s confidence in successful long-term adoption and sustainment.

19.2.4. Proposals that clearly delineate rights, provide documentation in a reviewable format, and enable Government portability and revalidation will be viewed as offering lower technical and programmatic risk.