FA8684 Enterprise IETM RFI.pdf

Enterprise IETM – Request for Information (RFI)

Enterprise Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) Request for Information (RFI)

1. Introduction

1.1. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Program Executive Office Combat

Readiness, Rapid Sustainment Office (RSO) is investigating the potential costs and technical feasibility of a single Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) that meets the HAF/A4L Enterprise Interactive Electronic Technical Manual Framework, attached.

Currently, the acquisition, publishing and sustainment of technical data is performed by individual program offices for their unique platforms, in coordination with their respective Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), in accordance with mandatory Department of the Air Force (DAF) policies, industry standards and mission specific requirements. This siloed and individual approach ensures unique mission requirements are met, but it complicates logistics systems’ integration efforts and decreases data integrity between disparate systems. Additionally, enterprise-level standardization of software products and data is stifled by this approach, while cost-savings via economies of scale cannot be realized. A common technology solution is desired to address these pain points.

1.2. The scope of the technology solution requested includes the following;

1.2.1. An IETM Viewer and Common Source Database (CSDB) that meets the requirements captured in Sections 1 & 2 of the attached HAF/A4L Enterprise IETM Framework. It is understood that Section 3 of the HAF/A4L Enterprise IETM Framework title Interoperability Requirements entails significant Government collaboration to realize – time and effort not currently understood – and therefore is not pertinent to this RFI.

1.3. Ground Rules, Assumptions and Constraints (GRAC)

1.3.1. The Air Force is interested in approaching this challenge in separate efforts differentiated between next-generation platforms that have not yet entered production (henceforth referred to as “next-generation platforms” for the purposes of this RFI) and platforms that are currently in production (henceforth referred to as “legacy platforms” for the purposes of this RFI). Please differentiate between these two sets of platforms in your response. All cost and schedule estimates should be respective to each set of platforms, rather than a single all-inclusive approach.

1.3.1.1. For the purposes of this RFI, assume that the IETM solution would be first deployed on next-generation platforms and iteratively deployed to future next-generation platforms as they enter production.

1.3.1.2. For the purposes of this RFI, assume that next-generation platforms would require the IETM solution to be deployed in an IL-6 environment and that the IETM solution meets certification requirements for an IL-6 environment.

1.3.1.3. For the purposes of this RFI, assume that approximately 17 data sets constitute the legacy platforms. Assume the data set for each platform averages 50,000 Data

Modules. Assume that all data sets exist in S1000D. When generating cost estimates, please clearly explain the relationship between data set volume (as a measure of Data Modules or other) and cost, linearly or logarithmically.

1.3.1.4. For the purposes of this RFI, assume that legacy platforms would require the IETM solution to be deployed in an IL-4 or IL-5 environment and that the IETM solution must meet certification requirements for IL-4 and/or IL-5 environments.

1.3.2. The Enterprise IETM solution(s) must meet all requirements in Sections 1 and 2 of the HAF/A4L Enterprise IETM Framework as stated in Paragraph 1 of this RFI, however not all stated functions/features will be utilized for viewing data in every respective data set. Some platform data sets do not have the requisite source data to utilize a certain feature set (i.e., wire tracing). For this reason, the Air Force requires an IETM solution that allows for a modular approach to functionality that is available and/or purchased based on each platform data package’s ability to take advantage of those system functions. Additionally, the solution must maintain consistency of appearance and user interface across all platform data sets.

1.3.3. The Enterprise IETM must be architected to make data importable and exportable via modern application programming interfaces (APIs) to the maximum extent practical.

1.3.4. For the purposes of this RFI, assume that not all ingested data sets will be of the same S1000D version/schema (current data sets are specified at the 4.1 schema, while future data sets may be provided in newer standards). Therefore, the IETM should be able to accommodate these different data set types while maintaining its enterprise standard appearance and functionality.

1.3.5. It is a recognized constraint that solutions of this nature require Government approvals and authorizations for industrial and cyber security purposes, as well as testing and integration with other software/systems in Government environments. Therefore, it is recognized that process timelines and pricing for actions requiring Government coordination and approval may be speculative and subject to change.

1.3.6. For the purposes of this RFI, assume that a Content Management System (CMS) is available for authoring and editing to the IETM. When providing information and pricing, please state whether a CMS is included in the technical scope of the response and if so, please separate that cost element from the rest of the technical scope, if possible. Furthermore, please indicate if the CMS is severable from the tech stack without impacting the functionality of the Viewer and CSDB. Lastly, please indicate the technical solution’s ability to leverage a 3rd party CMS.

1.4. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to understand innovative solutions, estimated cost, and timeline to accomplish an Enterprise IETM for both next-generation platforms and legacy platforms, defined above. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This RFI does not commit the U.S. Government to contract for any supply or service.

Responders are advised the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the respondent party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if issued. The U.S. Government has made no final solicitation decision regarding eventual procurement or by what means such a solicitation, if any, would be handled.

The information provided in this RFI is subject to change and is not binding upon the U.S.

Government. The U.S. Government has not made a commitment to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI should not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur costs for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become U.S.

Government property and will not be returned.

2. Requested Information

2.1. Respondents should describe recommended solutions to provide the capabilities detailed in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of this RFI in accordance with the deliverable instructions provided in paragraph 3 “Responses”. Additionally, respondents may attach or reference presentation materials (slide shows, videos) if they are available. Finally, respondents are encouraged to leverage experience from prior contracted efforts and/or Independent Research and Development (IR&D) activities. The following items are required and must be addressed in the response according to the guidance in paragraph 3.2.

2.1.1. Include, at a minimum, a system architecture diagram, a description of the systems and subsystems involved, and/or an evaluation of the feasibility of recommended modifications to existing solutions

2.1.2. Provide estimated timelines to develop or modify and then deploy a solution, as well as an estimated timeline to further develop and deploy the solution the appropriate cloud environment (IL-4, 5, or 6 as described in 1.3.1.2 and 1.3.1.4) not considering the additional government coordination time described in paragraph 1.3.5.

2.1.3. Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate to develop or adapt and then deploy the Enterprise IETM, as well as a ROM cost estimate to develop or adapt and then deploy to an IL-6 environment.

2.1.4. Provide the requested information in 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3 for both sets of platforms (next-generation platforms and legacy platforms) as described in 1.3.1.

2.2. Your responses should further address the topics posed below along with any additional pertinent information deemed appropriate to fully characterize proposed solutions:

2.2.1. Describe your experience in developing and deploying cloud applications (i.e., automated testing, Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines, sustainment of a production application, etc.).

2.2.2. Describe your current posture with AFNET accreditation and CMMC compliance, as well as any experience in obtaining and maintaining an ATO for a cloud hosted application, both as a standalone application and/or with multiple application integrations, continuous monitoring, and Risk Management Framework (RMF) package creation.

2.2.3. Describe your experience utilizing SysML or UML compliant Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) tools and practices.

3. Responses

3.1. Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI with a white paper not to exceed 10 pages using 12-point Times New Roman font. White papers are due no later than 27 FEB 2026, 1600 Eastern Time. Unclassified responses shall be submitted via secure e-mail or secure website to the technical point of contact (TPOC), Corey Shanahan (corey.shanahan@us.af.mil) and the contracting officer, Andrew Gross (andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil). Classified responses will not be accepted.

3.2. Interested parties shall follow the instructions below regarding how to deliver the white paper response package content. RFI responses shall be organized into two separate sections.

3.2.1. Section 1 of the white paper response shall provide administrative information to include the following as a minimum:

3.2.1.1. Company name, mailing address, CAGE code, phone number, and both name and e-mail of designated point of contact.

3.2.2. Section 2 of the white paper response shall address the recommended approaches to address the problem identified in paragraph 1 of this RFI and provide data as requested in paragraph 2.

3.2.3. Responses should be marked, if applicable, with the appropriate Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) caveats.

3.3. Proprietary information, if there is any, MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED. The U. S. Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Please be advised that all submissions become U. S. Government property and will not be returned. All information received in response to this RFI that is properly marked as “proprietary” will be handled accordingly.

3.4. Respondents are advised that employees under contract with the U.S. Government may be used to administratively process submissions and provide technical evaluations requiring access to other contractor's proprietary information. These contractors have executed nondisclosure agreements prohibiting their contractor employees from disclosing any information submitted by other respondents/contractors or using such information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.

4. Questions and Industry Discussion

4.1. Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted to the TPOC, Corey Shanahan

(corey.shanahan@us.af.mil) and contracting officer, Andrew Gross (andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil).

Questions shall NOT contain proprietary or classified information. The U.S. Government does not guarantee questions received after 11 FEB 2026, 1600 Eastern Time, will be answered in time for the 27 FEB 2026 white paper submittal deadline.

4.2. If warranted, U.S. Government representatives may consolidate and disseminate general feedback to all respondents after white papers are submitted. Follow-on discussions with individual interested parties may be coordinated. The intent of any such discussions would only mailto:corey.shanahan@us.af.mil mailto:andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil mailto:corey.shanahan@us.af.mil mailto:andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil be to obtain additional clarification of potential capabilities to meet U.S. Government requirements and further identify risks.