Industry Questions on FINAL Solicitation.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 64 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Aerospace Readiness Enterprise System (ARES)
- Solicitation number
- FA873026RB001
About this file
This document is an Industry Questions and Answers file for the Aerospace Readiness Enterprise System (ARES) federal contract opportunity. The solicitation seeks a prototype development for an enterprise solution to replace legacy Air Force scheduling, standardization and evaluation, and training management systems. The prototype will leverage commercial software, initially deployed at Impact Level 4, with a future path to Impact Level 6, focusing primarily on Air Education and Training Command (AETC) requirements.
Key details include a prototype development period of 90 calendar days, with a proposal submission deadline of 16 January 2026 at 5:00 PM EST. The government plans to award up to four prototype contracts, with a $500,000 budget per prototype. Offerors must develop the solution using Salesforce Government Cloud, comply with OpsEA platform requirements, and complete mandatory training for sandbox access. The prototype will integrate with systems like ARTEMIS and potentially other Air Force training and scheduling platforms, with an emphasis on using out-of-the-box Salesforce capabilities and minimal custom development. Successful offerors will be evaluated on their ability to meet mandatory and high-priority requirements outlined in the solicitation documents.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
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
Questions with Answers
| ID | Government File or Attachment # | Page # | Question | Rationale | Answer |
| 1 | ARES RFWP | 24 | Can non-evaluated content such as footers, copyright information, footnotes, page numbers, dates, etc. in the header and footer of document be less than 11 pt font? | Yes, the Government will allow for a smaller font size for non-evaluated content in document header/footer only. However, font size used in these instances shall not be smaller than 8 point. | |
| 2 | ARES Consolidated Requirements | 22 and 43 | Will the government please confirm the enumeration of NFR between Section 4 (beginning page 22) and Appendix A (beginning page 43)? The NFR numbering between the two sections do not match. | A typo occurred. Offerors are instructed to follow the revised CRD (Rev 1). | |
| 3 | Bidder's Response Template | Instructions Tab | Will the government please confirm that vendors should utilize Times New Roman font size 11pt for the Bidder's Template response? | Responses within the ARES_Bidder Response Template shall use Calibri 11 point font to align with the current formatting within the document. | |
| 4 | Attch 4. Consolidated Requirements Document (CRD) | FR-005 | Our understanding is that G/TIMS currently provides functionality for traditional LMS capabilities: content for Computer / Ground-Based Training, Lesson Plans, Videos, Quizzes, Tests, and logging for these activities. Will the government please confirm that, outside of formal evaluations and grade sheets for aviation training events, these are not requirements that ARES is expected to support (and instead ARES will integrate with an LMS like MyLearning that provides these tools)? | While Salesforce has great extensibility and LMS-like capabilities could be built within the platform, doing so would require significant custom code, etc. We assume the AF wishes to utilize platforms built for purpose and integrate ARES with source systems accordingly. | The Government will not dictate offeror solutions. Offerors shall submit for evaluation their best solutions. |
| 5 | ARES RFWP | Page 6 Figure 1 and Page 24 Table 3 | Would the Government please confirm that OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates and Quality system certificates are not required for submission on 09 January 2025? | Conflicting information with Figure 1 and Table 3 | OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates are required to be submitted with the rest of the white paper submittal. Further, corporate quality system certificates, if applicable, shall also be submitted along with the white papers. There are no page limits for either the OpsEA/Salesforce or quality system certificates. Please also reference the Government response to industry questions #99 released on 10 December 2025 |
| 6 | ARES RFWP | Page 6 Figure 1 and Page 24 Table 3 | If OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates are required, can the Government please provide the types of certificate(s) required? | Limited details about specific certification requirement. | Offerors are directed to review the SDK which provides information on training requirements for entry into the OpsEA/Salesforce sandbox. The SDK is located in the Bidder's Library. All training shall be completed prior to gaining access to the OpsEA/Salesforce sandbox. |
| 7 | ARES RFWP | Page 6 Figure 1 and Page 24 Table 3 | If Quality system certificates are required, can the Government provide the type of Quality certification? For example, will an ISO certification meet this requirement? | Limited details about specific certification requirement. | Reference Section 4.1.1 of the Consolidated Requirements Document, page 18, NFR-004. Further, all certifications will be evaluated on their relevancy to the work being required by the Government. |
| 8 | Attach 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 10, Section 5.3.7 | Objective 7 states integration with ARTEMIS and Envision. Will experience with Palantir be required for bidders to be considered? | New requirement and technology mentioned in final release. | The Government is interested and will evaluate offerors ability to meet the requirement for integration with ARTEMIS and Envision. Offerors experience with Palantir as a company is irrelevant to this requirement. |
| 9 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 14, Section 7 | Section 7 discusses data integration with authoritative Air Force data systems such as MilPDS and ADLS? Will experience with these data sources be required for bidders to demonstrate in their response? | New requirement and technology mentioned in final release. | Offerors will be evaluated pursuant to the solicitation. Specific experience that maps directly to the ARES requirements should be provided. |
| 10 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 14, Section 7 | Section 7 lists ADLS? If this is Advanced Distributed Learning System is that still an active requirement? It looks like ADLS training is transitioning to "myLearning"? | Clarification on an existing acronym used. | Yes, this was intended to refer to Advanced Distributed Learning System. As such, this is no longer an active requirement as ADLS is transitioning to MyLearning. |
| 11 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 14, Section 7 | Section 7 indicates that the prototype will be deployed on the OpsEA Salesforce platform. Can the Government please clarify whether organizations currently supporting OpsEA (including platform providers or implementation partners) are eligible to participate in the ARES opportunity? If so, has the Government established measures to ensure equitable access to information and a level competitive environment for all offerors? | ||
| Clarification on existing contractors ability to provide response to opportunity. | The Government has taken every step possible to ensure a level playing field for all offerors. Further, all prototype awardees will be granted access to applicable information equally. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) have been carefully weighed and mitigation strategies have been employed to ensure a fair competition. | ||||
| 12 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 14, Section 7 | Section 7 lists the prototype will be deployed on the OpsEA Salesforce platform. How will the Government provide access to the OpsEA environment for developers that do not have current access? | Clarification on existing contractors ability to provide response to opportunity. | Those offerors who are awarded a prototype agreement will be provided access and assisted with on-boarding to the OpsEA/Salesforce sandbox by the Government and Sherpa team. |
| 13 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 14, Section 7 | Section 7 lists the prototype will be deployed on the OpsEA Salesforce platform. Will the Government provide awardees with Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) in order to access the OpsEA environment? If so, how many computers will be provided? | Clarification on existing contractors ability to provide response to opportunity. | The only GFE the Government is contemplating providing to awardees are Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs). However, this GFE is dependent on funding and lead time for delivery of hardware. If inadequate numbers of EFBs are not made available for prototype awardees then the Government will de-prioritize this requirement for the prototype phase. |
| 14 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 10, Section 5.3.7 | Objective 7 discusses Personnel for this effort. Are there any Key Personnel requirements for this opportunity? If so, what are the Key Personnel requirements? | Change from draft solicitation | There are no key personnel requirements for this phase of the solicitation. |
| 15 | Atch 4. Consolidated Requirements Document | Page 22, Section 4.4, NFR-025 | Req ID NFR-025 lists the Thresholds to support 119,000+ concurrent users with the Objective to be linear scalability to 200,000+ users. This appears to be an application and network requirement. Does the current OpsEA Salesforce platform support this requirement? | Understanding of the existing user community and users from G/TIMS, PEX, and Puckboard. | The platform is built on the Salesforce Government Cloud and is designed to support enterprise-scale applications. Offerors should design prototypes using Salesforce best practices for performance and scalability. |
Salesforce Government Cloud provides a multi-tenant, elastic platform architecture with managed services for compute, storage, and networking. The prototype is not required to demonstrate full-scale load testing at the stated concurrency levels; however, proposed designs must not preclude scalability to those objectives in a production environment.
| 16 | Atch 1. ARES_Statement of Objectives | Page 5, Section 5.1 | The number of users identified per system in Section 5.1 includes, "...Approximately 149,000+ users across MAF (~42k from Puckboard), CAF (~77k from PEX), Air Education and Training Command (AETC) (~30k from G/TIMS)". Are each of these users unique or do some of the users have accounts in multiple systems? For example can a user have an account in G/TIMS and Puckboard? | Clarification of the number of unique users in G/TIMS, PEX, and Puckboard. | These users are not necessarily unique. It is likely that there is some overlap in user accounts across the three systems. Currently, there are approximately 70,500 active users combined across all three systems. |
| 17 | RFWP Section 24.3.1 | 23 | Will the government clarify the submission instructions by confirming if White Papers should be submitted by email to the AO and AS identified in the RFWP? | Submission instruction clarification | Yes, all submittals shall be sent via email to the AO and AS POCs identified in the Request for White Papers. |
| 18 | RFWP Section 24.3.1.1 and 24.2 | 23 | Will the government confirm that Section 24.2, addressing potential conflicts of interest (COI) should be addressed in the White Paper Cover Sheet along with the other information requested in Section 24.3.1.1? | Submission instruction clarification | Offerors may put their respective responses to Section 24.2 as an affirmative statement within the cover sheet of the white paper or within the body of the white paper. Either is acceptable. |
| 19 | RFWP Section 24.3.1 | 24 | Will the government change the page limit on the Offer Cover Sheet to "No Limit" due to the amount of space required to cover the required information? | Page Limit clarification | No, the requirements for information to be included on the Cover Page does not warrant an unlimited number of pages. The offeror's cover page has been increased to two (2) pages to accommodate the offeror's OCI response. |
| 20 | OT Agreement Eligibility Form | NA | Will the government confirm if there is a particular NAICS code that should be utilized in determining small business status of subcontractors related to the OT Agreement Eligibility Form? | Small Business certification clarification | The NAICS Code provided in the solicitation is 541519, Other Computer Related Services. Per the SBA, the small business size standard for this NAICS Code is $34M. |
| 21 | RFWP Section 2.5 | 6 | The table on page 6 of the RFWP indicates that Salesforce training certificates are part of the Step 1 Submissions however the instructions in Section 24.3.1 don't include this. Can the government confirm if certificates should be submitted and in what section of our response? | Submission instruction clarification | Salesforce training certificates are required to gain access to the OpsEA/Salesforce sandbox. These certificates shall be provided at time of white paper submittal. There is not a page limit restriction on this submittal. OpsEA/Salesforce and quality system certifications shall be submitted as a separate attachment to the white paper submittal. |
| 22 | RFWP Section 2.5 | 6 | The table on page 6 of the RFWP indicates that #5 OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates and #6 Quality System certificates and are part of the Step 1 Submissions however in Section 24.3.1 (Table 3 and subsequent sections) do not include instructions for these. Can the government confirm if certificates should be submitted and in what section of our response? | Submission instruction clarification | OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates and quality management certificates shall be submitted with the offeror's white papers. There is not a page limit restriction for these submittals. |
| 23 | RFWP Section 2.4.4 | 31 | The Government states they "will issue Down-Selection Invitations to up to 3 offerors for Additional Information for Prototype Proposal." However, in Section 1, the Introduction states the OT may award up to 4 prototypes. Can the government clarify if they intend to award up to 3 or 4 prototypes? | Award clarification | The Government reserves the right to award up to four (4) prototypes but based on current funding levels may be restricted to awarding only three (3). Further, the Government also reserves the right to award less than three (3) or none at all. |
| 24 | ARES Bidder Response Template | Instructions Tab | For the Bidder Solution approach response the government has requested a "Minimum 100 words for MANDATORY and HIGH priority requirements." 100 words per requirement seems to be a substantial amount for review. Could the government clarify if they meant 100 words minimum or maximum? | Submission instruction clarification | The Government will change the requirement to read "not to exceed 100 words." |
| 25 | N/A | N/A | Will the Government allow cross-referencing between the White Paper and the ARES Bidder Response sheet? | Submission instruction clarification | Yes, the Government will allow cross-referencing between the White Paper and the ARES Bidder Response sheet. |
| 26 | N/A | N/A | Due to the clarification needed on missing requirements (i.e., Salesforce certifications and Quality certifications) and pending on when the Government intends to provide answers back to Q&A (coupled with the holidays), would the government consider extending the submission date to 16 January? | Submission instruction clarification | The due date for proposals has been extended to 16 January on or before 5:00 PM EST. |
| 27 | Attachment 1 - ARES Statement of Objectives | 5 | In section 5.1 of the SOO, Kessel Run states that one key system consideration is that the system will be able to support 149,000 + users. Can the government clarify whether this requirement is for the prototype, or for the final system? | It seems infeasible to have 149,000 USAF personnel test this prototype. | This requirement is not for the prototype phase. However, offeror's shall architect their system to be capable of scaling to this requirement in anticipation of a production award. |
| 28 | Attachment 3 - ARES Bidder Response Template | n/a | Does the government expect even the prototype of ARES to integrate with ARTEMIS, instant messaging applications, MilPDS, SalesforceIDS? | The allocated time and cost is not sufficient to successfully integrate these systems of records. | NFR-013 and NFR-020 are MANDATORY requirements for the prototype phase. All MANDATORY requirements shall be met to achieve a successful prototype delivery. Integration with an instant messaging application is a HIGH priority but is not MANDATORY for the prototype phase. However, offerors will be evaluated favorably for every HIGH priority they are able to achieve during the prototype phase. |
| 29 | ARES Request for White Paper | 6, 26 | Payment milestones: Kessel Run has requested payment milestones be included as part of the White Paper (page 26). Kessel Run has also stated that payment milestones are one of the required pieces of additional information to be submitted as part of step 2 of the 5 step process (page 6). Can Kessel Run clarify at which stage the submission of payment milestones will be required? If it is required at both stages, why? | The way it has been outlined is asking offerors to submit payment milestones twice. We are seeking clarity on why. | Offerors shall provide payment milestones to include milestone dates and milestone amounts after Step 1 selection to enter the prototype phase. There is no requirement for offerors to provide milestone payments within the 15 page white paper. The RFWP has been updated to reflect this information. |
| 30 | Attachment 3 - ARES Bidder Response Template | n/a | Can Kessel Run confirm that all requirements in attachment 3 are required to be included in the prototype? | We are seeking confirmation that these requirements are in fact for the prototype, and not for the full solution. | The requirements listed in Attachment 3 (ARES Bidder Response Template) are representative of an ideal Prototype. While not exhaustive, the requirements listed in Attachment 3 in addition to further refined and articulated requirements at a later stage, will make up the production phase requirements. Items in the ARES Bidder Response Template marked as MANDATORY are minimum requirements for a successful MVP to be delivered during the prototype phase. Requirements identified as HIGH will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation criteria. |
| 31 | General Question | N/A | In the organizational structure section of our white paper, when outlining teaming agreements, would the Government accept potential partnerships that would be formalized after the award of the contract? | Company XX has identified Salesforce Professional Services as a potential partner to augment our own in-house resources and capabilities. However, Salesforce is working as a non-governmental advisor for this solicitation. As a result, the potential partner is recusing itself to avoid a conflict of interest. | Offeror's teaming structures shall be in compliance with 10 U.S.C. 4022 at the point of submission. Compliance will be articulated within the submission of Atch 2. ARES_Offeror OT Agreement Eligibility Form. The Government will not dictate teaming arrangements after award of either the prototype or production agreements. However to participate fully in the prototype phase, offerors must maintain compliance with 10 U.S.C. 4022 and the declarations that have been made in their respective ARES_Offeror OT Agreement Eligibility Form. |
| 32 | ARES Requests for White Paper | 15 | Section 9 of the ARES Request for White Paper document - How will the government make sure that Company XX's intellectual property will be protected? | Company XX already has a commercialized intellectual property that is being requested through this solicitation. From Company XX perspective, this solicitation is not a development effort, rather, it would involve transferring our existing product into Salesforce. Therefore, this would not be a "work for hire" situation. | All offeror's properly marked intellectual property will be protected by the Government. The Government has no responsibility to protect unmarked or incorrectly marked intellectual property or intellectual property shared with an offeror's teaming members. |
| 33 | ARES Requests for White Paper | 21 | Company XX cannot accept clause 19 in its entirety without exceptions being made to it. | Company XX has already engaged four solicitations for the aforementioned project that were issued by foreign nations. Furthermore, Company XX is actively pursuing similar solicitations by foreign nations. The point to be noted here - the aforementioned nations are partner nations of the United States. The thesis here is that Company XX already has a product that has been commercialized at a scale that supports this current solicitation. | This is a requirement that shall be remedied before the offeror is awarded a prototype contract. The fact that the offeror is working with partner nations is irrelevant as the Government has the right to restrict certain technologies from sale to foreign entities despite their partnership with the U.S. |
| 34 | ARES Requests for White Paper | 12 | Section 8.3 of the "Request for White Papers" document outlines the terms for a breach of agreement by the contractor. Will the government accept modifications to these terms so that instead of 5 days to respond to the letter of notice, the contractor has 10 days? Similarly, instead of 5 days for the AO to respond to the contractor, the AO is granted 10 days? And finally, that instead of 15 days, mutual agreement is to be reached within 30 days from the date the contractor responds to the AO's initial letter? | We are seeking clarity on this item. | No, these terms are not open for negotiation at this time. |
| 35 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 6 and 24 | The table on page 6 shows offeror Step 1 submissions inclusive of 6 items. However, the table on page 24 lists only 4 items. Would the Government please clarify the items comprising a response to Step 1? | Clarity of Submision | Table 3 on page 26 has been updated to reflect all deliverables to be provided at time of proposal submittal. |
| 36 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 6 | If, per the table on page 6, offerors are required to provide OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates as part of Step 1 submission, would the Government please clarify what type of documentation (e.g., reports, training levels, etc.) offerors should provide to meet that requirement? | Clarity of Submission | In order for Offerors to operate within the OpsEA/Salesforce development sandbox certain criteria shall be met in advance. Specifically, offerors performing work within the OpsEA/Salesforce sandbox for the development of the ARES prototype shall complete knowledge validation which may include one or more of the following activities. |
Minimum Requirements for Developer Sandbox Access:
Access to a development sandbox is gated by successful completion of knowledge validation and training, ensuring alignment with platform standards and compliance controls.
-Salesforce Knowledge Verification (choose one path):
OPTION A: Salesforce Certification (complete any of the following):
-Salesforce Administration -Platform App Builder -Platform Developer I or II OPTION B: Trailhead Path:
-Complete all modules in the SDK Intake User Trailmix -Core Admin Foundations -Security & Compliance Superbadges -Sharing & Visibility -Flow Fundamentals & Optimization -Object Relationships & Validation Rules -Reporting & Dashboards -Additional Requirements for Contractors and Privileged Users
| 37 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 6 | If, per the table on page 6, Offerors are required to provide OpsEA/Salesforce training certificates as part of Step 1 submission, should these be provided as a separate submission item outside of white paper page count? | Clarity of Submission | Yes and there are no page limit restrictions for this submission. | |
| 38 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 6 | If, per the table on page 6, offerors are required to provide Quality system certificates as part of Step 1 submission, would the Government please clarify what type of documentation offerors should submit to meet that requirement? | Clarity of Submission | Reference Section 4.1.1 of the Consolidated Requirements Document, page 18, NFR-004. | |
| 39 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 6 | If, per the table on page 6, offerors are required to provide Quality system certificates as part of Step 1 submission, should these be provided as a separate submission item outside of white paper page count? | Clarity of Submission | Yes, and as previously stated, there are no page limit restrictions on these certificates. | |
| 40 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 27-30 | Section 24.3.2, White Paper Evaluation, includes a summary table of criteria per Factor/sub factor. | |||
| Sub-factors 3A and 3B each reference a cross-Ference matrix. Given the page limitations and font size requirements, Offerors are challenged to adequately provide the level of detail requested. Please confirm the Non-Functional (Sub-factor 3A) and Functional (Sub-factor 3B) cross reference matrices are outside page count . | Clarity of Submission | Offeror's response to sub-factors 3A and 3B will be provided as a cross reference matrix within the offeror's white paper submittal. Additional supporting information can be provided by the offeror in Attachment 3, ARES Bidder Response Template. | ||||
| 41 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 27-30 | Section 24.3.2, White Paper Evaluation, includes a summary table of criteria per Factor/sub factor. | |||
| Sub-factors 3A and 3B each reference a cross-ference matrix. Is this cross reference matrix the same as Attachment 3 Bidder Response Template? | Clarity of Submission | No, offerors shall provide these matrices within their respective white papers. Additional supporting information can be provided by the offeror in Attachment 3, ARES Bidder Response Template. | ||||
| 42 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 27-30 | Section 24.3.2, White Paper Evaluation, includes a summary table of criteria per Factor/sub factor. | |||
| Sub-factors 3A and 3B each reference a cross-ference matrix. Does the Government have a template Offerors should use? | Clarity of Submission | No, offerors can use their own template for this section. | ||||
| 43 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 25-29 | Section 24.3.2, White Paper Evaluation, includes a summary table of criteria per Factor/Sub-factor. However, the following topics required to be addressed within the White Paper per the bulleted list found in Section 24.3.1.4 do not align with any evaluation criteria in Section 24.3.2: Payment Milestones, Exceptions to Terms and Conditions, Conflicts of Interest, and Ground Rules and Assumptions. How will these topics be evaluated? | Clarity of Evaluation | As stated in the Government's response to question #29, milestone payments shall not be part of the offeror's white paper submittal. Milestone payments, exceptions to terms and conditions, conflicts of interest, and ground rules and assumptions will be reviewed by the Government and assessed for strengths, weaknesses, and risks as stated in Section 24.3.2 of the Request for White Papers. Exceptions to terms and conditions, conflicts of interest, and ground rules and assumptions shall be included in the offeror's white paper submission. | |
| 44 | Atch_3_ARES_Bidder_Response_Template and | |||||
| Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document_(CRD) | Section 9: Appendix A, Consolidated Requirements Table (Initial Revision 12/11/2025). |
The Attachment 3 Bidders Response template does not fully align with the CRD, Section 9, Appendix A Table. This impacts the development of the functional and non-functional cross-reference matrices.
| Which document should Offeror's consider final? If Attachment 4, Section 9, Appendix A is the final versions, would the Government please provide an updated Attachment 3? | Clarity of Submission | Both the CRD and Bidder Response Template have been updated to correct this misalignment. | ||||
| 45 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 4-7; 31 | Sections 1, 2.4, and 2.5 state that the Government will award up to 4 prototype OTAs. However, Sections 24.4 and 24.5 state that the Government will award up to 3 down-select invitations as part of Step 2 and will award up to 3 prototype OT agreements. Can the Government confirm whether the maximum number of prototype OT awards is 3 or 4? | Clarity of Award Procedure | The Government reserves the right to award up to four (4) prototypes but based on current funding levels may be restricted to awarding only three (3). Further, the Government also reserves the right to award less than three (3) or none at all. | |
| 46 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf and Atch_3_ARES-Bidder_Response_Template | 24 | RFWP Table 3 on page 24 states that the Bidder Response Template should be submitted with file name "ARES_VendorName_RFWP_Response_Template_FA873026RB001". However, Attachment 3 Tab 1 Instructions state that the file should be submitted with file name ARES_BidderResponse_[CompanyName]_[Date]. Can the Government please clarify the file name to be used when submitting Attachment 3? | Clarity of Submission | The file naming convention in Attachment 3, ARES Bidder Response Template, has been updated. | |
| 47 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf and Atch_3_ARES-Bidder_Response_Template | Within the white paper, is it permissible for offerors to refer evaluators to specific content/cells from the Bidder Response Template as a means of providing a more comprehensive white paper response? | Clarity of Evaluation | Yes, the Government will allow cross-referencing between the White Paper and the ARES Bidder Response sheet. | ||
| 48 | ARES_Request_for_WhitePaper_(RFWP).pdf | 25-29 | In Section 24.3.1.4 the bulleted list of items to be addressed in the white paper includes the following items that do not correspond to any Evaluation Criteria on pages 27-29: Payment Milestones, Exceptions to Terms and Conditions, Conflicts of Interest, Ground Rules and Assumptions. Given this, may offerors supply this information as an appendix outside of page count? | Clarity of Submission | As stated in the Government's response to question #29, milestone payments shall not be part of the offeror's white paper submittal. Milestone payments, exceptions to terms and conditions, conflicts of interest, and ground rules and assumptions will be reviewed by the Government and assessed for strengths, weaknesses, and risks as stated in Section 24.3.2 of the Request for White Papers. Exceptions to terms and conditions, conflicts of interest, and ground rules and assumptions shall be included in the offeror's white paper submission. | |
| 49 | Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | 22 | On page 22, Req ID NFR-024 lists 'MCP for AI interfaces', but it is omitted/absent from the consolidated requirements table on page 43. Has the requirement been removed? | Clarity of Requirements | This requirement has been removed and the applicable documents updated. | |
| 50 | Industry+Questions+ARES+12102025, Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | Line 104, FR 001 | The Q&A document released 12.10.2025 states, "Training content will be provided by the DAF. ARES should allow for the content to be input or ingested and used for training and evaluation. Curriculum development is outside the scope of ARES." This seems to contradict the 'FR 001' in the Attachment 4 Consolidated Requirements Document for 'TR-Build and manage formal training syllabi based on provided syllabi' and 'OC-Syllabi created and approved via approval workflows'. Is the expectation that syllabi will be built and created inside of ARES? | Clarity of Requirements | It is out of scope of this contract to develop training content. It is, however, expected that the system will allow users to take syllabi developed by the DAF and either build them within ARES or input them into ARES. | |
| 51 | Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | Line 104, FR 001 | Is FR 001 a requirement to build and create syllabi inside of ARES, or will it be suitable for ARES to merely ingest and receive input of previously created syllabi? | Clarity of Requirements | The intent of FR 001 is that ARES will enable users to build and create syllabi inside of ARES. It is not sufficient for the system to ingest previously created syllabi. | |
| 52 | Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | Line 77, NFR-028 | Can the Government please provide examples of the various Data Objects this requirement refers to. Can the Government also provide current existing storage use from PEX, Puckboard and G/TIMS? | Clarity of Requirements | ARES will contain three categories of Data Objects: the first are the Data Objects that already exist within ARTEMIS as documented within the ARTEMIS Data Dictionary included in the Bidder's Library; the second are Data Objects from external Authoritative Sources that will be ingested through Envision to further refine ops scheduling outcomes (i.e., weather data) that are not in the scope of ARES prototype but will be incrementally added during the production phase; and the third are Data Objects that are original/organic to the ops scheduling app and will be the responsibility of the offeror to create. Hosting/storage information for the DAF's legacy scheduling applications are considered outside the scope of the ARES prototype white paper as the Government is responsible for the OpsEA/Salesforce platform hosting so long as the prototype conforms to the OpsEA/Salesforce environment's requirements. | |
| 53 | Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | Line 56, NFR-004 | Can the Government please confirm that providing evidence of the Offeror's ISO certification satisfies this mandatory requirement? If not, please clarify what the Government is looking to see? | Clarity of Requirements | Potentially, depending on which ISO certification the offeror has received. ISO certification should be applicable to the work being performed. | |
| 54 | Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | Line 58, NFR-006 | Can the Government please confirm the functional scope/breadth of what ARES features and functionality are part of the mobile app? | Clarity of Requirements | The Government is most interested in scheduling and logging functionality being accessible via mobile app, but is interested in any solutions offeror's have to increase the value of accessibility to the warfighter through additional features/functionality. | |
| 55 | Atch_4_ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document(CRD) | Line 70, NFR-020 | Can the Government please provide more information around the Objective to integrate with full DAF BATTLE NETWORK ecosystem? Please provide comprehensive list of known interfaces at this time. | Clarity of Requirements | DAF BATTLE NETWORK integration is outside the scope of prototype white papers. Successful offerors will focus on ARTEMIS integration as the unified ARES/ARTEMIS data ecosystem within the OpsEA/Salesforce environment will present refined data objects to the DAF BATTLE NETWORK via Envision. | |
| 56 | Atch 4. ARES_Consolidated Requirements Document (CRD) | page 9, 3.2 | The CRD makes reference to Testing Administration for Stan/Eval functionality, but there are no corresponding stand-alone Functional Requirements specific to Testing Administration. Can the Government please confirm the functional requirements to be included for Testing Administration? | Clarity of Requirements | For the purposes of the prototype, FR-036 is the only relevant functional requirements. Building, administering, and tracking routine qualifications should include qualification testing and qualification events. The Government reserves the right to add functional requirements related to testing administration for the production contract. | |
| 57 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 3 | What Salesforce sandbox types (Developer, Partial Copy, Full, Scratch Org) will be made available within OpsEA, and are there limits on quantity or refresh frequency during the 3-month prototype period? | For the prototype period, the Government anticipates providing sandbox access appropriate to support development and testing within OpsEA; however, specific sandbox types and quantities will be determined by the Government | ||
| 58 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 4 | How many Salesforce orgs exist in the OpsEA environment that will be used for ARES? | Offerors should assume development will occur within an existing OpsEA Salesforce enterprise organization. For the three-month prototype period, teams will be allocated Salesforce sandboxes to support approved development activities. | ||
| 59 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 4 | Which Salesforce Cloud is OpsEA using (e.g., Service Cloud)? | OpsEA operates within Salesforce Government Cloud Plus (Unlimited Edition) and leverages capabilities aligned primarily with Service Cloud, along with core Salesforce Platform services. |
Offerors should design solutions using standard Salesforce platform and cloud services available within the OpsEA environment, recognizing that additional Salesforce products or features may be available based on Government approval and mission needs.
| 60 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 4 | Which Salesforce platform services within OpsEA (e.g., Flosum CI/CD, Okta, SailPoint, Shield, Analytics, AI services) are considered Government-furnished and mandatory, versus optional tools that the contractor may propose alternatives for? | The Government furnishes and mandates use of certain enterprise services, including but not limited to identity and access management (Okta, SailPoint), data and analytics services such as Envision, and Salesforce-native CI/CD tooling (Flosum). Other tools may be proposed only if they comply with OpsEA security, accreditation, and integration requirements and receive Government approval. |
| 61 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 4 | Will ARES operate in a dedicated Salesforce org or a shared OpsEA org with other mission applications? | ARES will operate within a shared OpsEA Org with other mission applications. |
| 62 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 7 | Are there explicit limits on Salesforce customization (e.g., Apex triggers, Lightning Web Components, custom objects, managed packages)? | There are no explicit or hard limits on the use of Salesforce customization mechanisms (e.g., Apex triggers, Lightning Web Components, custom objects, or managed packages). However, Offerors are strongly encouraged to prioritize Salesforce out-of-the-box (OOTB) capabilities and declarative configuration wherever possible. |
Custom development should be used only when mission requirements cannot be met through OOTB functionality and should adhere to Ops EA SDKs and established platform best practices. The overarching objective is to maximize maintainability, scalability, and upgradeability while minimizing long-term technical debt.
As a general design guideline, Offerors should target the 95/5 rule—approximately 95% OOTB functionality and no more than 5% custom development. Deviations from this guideline should be clearly justified based on mission or technical needs.
Any custom development must receive prior approval from the Government before implementation.
| 63 | Atch+1.+ARES_Statement+of+Objectives | 7 | What Salesforce-specific security scanning tools (e.g., Checkmarx, Salesforce Code Analyzer) are required or approved within the OpsEA CI/CD pipeline? | The Government standard code scanning tool is Checkmarx as part of the Salesforce CI/CD process, in conjunction with standard Salesforce-native security scanning and analysis capabilities. Use of alternate scanning tools would require prior Government authorization. |
| 64 | Atch_4._ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document_(CRD) | 17 | Is there a defined OpsEA-approved promotion path (Dev → Test → Staging → Demo) using Flosum, and are contractors permitted to configure their own branching and release strategies? | OpsEA employs a Government-defined environment promotion path using Flosum as the required Salesforce release management and CI/CD tool. Offerors should align with the existing promotion model and release processes as defined by the Government and the OpsEA Software Development Kit (SDK). |
Contractors are not permitted to independently configure branching or release strategies without Government approval. All promotion, branching, and deployment activities must follow Government-defined Flosum processes and Sherpa governance.
65 Atch_4._ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document_(CRD) 18 Does OpsEA currently support attribute-based access control (ABAC) natively in Salesforce, or is RBAC expected for the prototype with ABAC deferred to production? For the prototype, role-based access control (RBAC) should be implemented using Salesforce-native authorization mechanisms such as permission sets, permission set groups, and sharing rules, aligned to user job functions.
RBAC in this context does not refer to the Salesforce Role Hierarchy or the standard “Role” object, which OpsEA does not use. Instead, access should be driven by functional responsibilities and least-privilege principles.
Attribute-based access control (ABAC) is not required during the prototype phase and would likely necessitate custom implementation. Offerors are strongly encouraged to favor Salesforce out-of-the-box (OOTB) capabilities and declarative configuration wherever possible. Custom development should be limited and used only when mission requirements cannot be met through OOTB functionality, with the objective of maximizing maintainability and minimizing long-term technical debt.
66 Atch_4._ARES_Consolidated_Requirements_Document_(CRD) 37 How does the Government expect offerors to interpret and implement “data minimization” within Salesforce objects while still meeting reporting, analytics, and audit requirements?
ARES will contain three categories of Data Objects: the first are the Data Objects that already exist within ARTEMIS as documented within the ARTEMIS Data Dictionary included in the Bidder's Library; the second are Data Objects from external Authoritative Sources that will be ingest through Envision to further refine ops scheduling outcomes (i.e., weather data) that are not in the scope of ARES prototype but will be incrementally added during the production phase; and the third are Data Objects that are original/organic to the ops scheduling app and will be the responsibility of the offeror to create. "Data minimization" is intended to limit the creation of Data Objects to the third category where they will not exist within the DAF's data ecosystem once the legacy scheduling apps are deprecated. All ARES-internal metrics data that enable reporting, analytics, and audit requirements align to this intent and may be created without violating "data minimization."
| 67 | ARES Prototype Requirements | 2 | The prototype shall support building and managing formal training syllabi. | ||
| Do you expect videos, animations, transitions to be a part of the syllabi? How interactive does it need to be? | It is not expected that the syllabi will contain videos or animations. FR-024 refers to hosting and distributing training materials. It is possible that, in the future, training materials may include videos or animations. | ||||
| 68 | ARES Prototype – Partner Capabilities Assessment | 1 | The prototype shall be hosted and developed on the Operations Enterprise Architecture (OpsEA) platform. | ||
| Verify that the vendor will be assigned their own Salesforce Support Engineer in case there are issues with the platform. | Prototype awardees will be granted access to OpsEA Sherpas who will provide technical support during the prototyping phase. | ||||
| 69 | ARES Prototype – Partner Capabilities Assessment | 10 | There are minimum qualifications for developers for Salesforce. Are there any minimum qualifications for testers? | Testing will be done by the Government in conjunction with non-Governmental advisors within a controlled environment. All participants conducting the testing have met the minimum OpsEA/Salesforce requirements to conduct the appropriate testing. | |
| 70 | ARES Prototype – Partner Capabilities Assessment | 2 | Verify that the release management tool must still be a Salesforce tool if we do not use Flosum. | Flosum is the required release management and CI/CD tool for Salesforce within the OpsEA environment. | |
| 71 | ARES Prototype – Partner Capabilities Assessment | 8 | Will the vendor be required to have their own test management system or will the government provide or mandate the system that needs to be used? | The Government does not mandate a specific test management system for the prototype. Offerors may use their own test management tools, subject to Government approval, provided that testing artifacts and results can be shared with the Government and testing activities align with OpsEA quality and security expectations. | |
| 72 | ARES Request for White Paper | 21 | The contractor shall not make any item under this agreement available for commercial sale unless the products or data will pass to United States Government control and be used only by the United States Government. | ||
| Does this pertain to only those selected for the Prototype? | Yes, this requirement is for both the prototype phase and production phase. | ||||
| 73 | ARES Request for White Paper | 27 | What is the definition of the Hybrid Approach? | A hybrid approach in this context refers to the means of evaluation. Whereas the first two factors listed on page 27 of the RFWP are evaluated on a Go/No-Go basis, a hybrid approach will adhere to the evaluation methodology outlined in section 24.3.2 (and subsequent sub-sections) within the RFWP. Specifically, the hybrid approach will combine an overall confidence rating of the offeror's proposal with supplemental identification of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Risks. | |
| 74 | ARES Request for White Paper | 31 | "will issue Down-Selection Invitations to up to 3 offerors for Additional Information" The RFWP states that up to 4 offers can be awarded. Why will additional information only be requested from 3 offerors. | The Government reserves the right to award up to four (4) prototypes but based on current funding levels may be restricted to awarding only three (3). Further, the Government also reserves the right to award less than three (3) or none at all. | |
| 75 | ARES Request for White Paper | 32 | The Government will then issue a request for proposal (RFP) to produce and operationalize the ARES solution. Has the timeline for the response been determined yet? | No, the timeline has not been finalized. Based on numerous factors both inside and outside the control of Kessel Run, the schedule remains very fluid. | |
| 76 | ARES SOO | 9 | STANDARDIZATION & EVALUATION (STAN/EVAL)-will stop light dashboard/indication be required to track qualifications? | The Government is not requiring a stop light or dashboard/ indication to track qualifications but is interested in offeror's developing their best solutions for visualizing or conveying this information in an actionable format. | |
| 77 | ARES SOO & Consolidated Requirements | I do not see any mention of ingest of documents, excel, csv, etc. Is this a requirement due to the current manual effort that is being used. | It is not a requirement of the prototype effort for documents to be ingested. The Government reserves the right to add functional requirements to support the production effort. It is likely that this requirement will be added in order to support ingesting existing syllabi, training materials, etc. | ||
| 78 | Bidders Library | BL-1 | Are there any additional SDK guides beyond v.4 that will be provided before white paper submission? | SDK guide v.4 is the most current SDK. No others will be provided during the submission and/or evaluation periods. | |
| 79 | Bidders Library | BL-2 | For the pilot user journey (4.a), is the UPT-to-assignment flow the primary use case for the prototype, or should we address all career stages? | The UPT-to-assignment flow is the primary use case for the prototype but the ARES system is intended to eventually support all career stages. | |
| 80 | Bidders Library | BL-3 | The MAF/CAF inputs (4.e) reference "G2 double inputs" as a known pain point. Is eliminating this redundancy a prototype priority? | Yes, eliminating "double thumping" the same information into multiple disparate systems is a priority for this effort. | |
| 81 | Bidders Library | BL-4 | Will the prototype be expected to integrate with existing Gonkulate flight logging, or replace that functionality? | The ARES prototypes is entirely separate from any existing flight scheduling capabilities to include, but not limited to, Gonkulate. | |
| 82 | Bidders Library | BL-5 | Which AFI/AFMAN regulations are mandatory compliance for the prototype vs. production? | The AFI/AFMAN regulations relevant to the prototype MANDATORY requirements are: AIR FORCE MANUAL 11-202, VOLUME 1 AIRCREW TRAINING, AIR FORCE MANUAL 11-202, VOLUME 2 AIRCREW STANDARDIZATION AND EVALUATION PROGRAM, AIR FORCE MANUAL 11-202, VOLUME 3 FLIGHT OPERATIONS, AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-200, AIRCREW TRAINING, STANDARDIZATION/EVALUATION, AND GENERAL OPERATIONS STRUCTURE | |
| 83 | Bidders Library | BL-6 | For SARM integration (Form 781/791/4324), are there existing APIs or must we parse document formats? | There are no APIs. Offerors will have to parse document formats. | |
| 84 | RFWP Section 2.5 | 5 | OpsEA Sandbox Access Timeline: The SOO states performance period begins once contractor is granted access to the OpsEA/Salesforce development environment/sandbox. What is the anticipated timeline from contract award to sandbox access approval? Is access provided within 1 business day, 1 week, or longer? | Sandbox creation is anticipated to occur prior to award. Access to the sandbox environment will be granted on the business day of award or the following business day, depending on the timing of award execution. | |
| 85 | RFWP Section 7 (Reference Documents), CRD Section 4.1.1 (NFR-003) | 10, 17 | Flosum CI/CD Flexibility: Is the prototype required to use Flosum exclusively for CI/CD, or are alternative Salesforce-native DevOps tools (e.g., Copado, Gearset) acceptable if they meet the same security and deployment requirements? |
Q3 | RFWP Section 3 (Agreement Line Items Numbers - ALINs), SOO Section 1 (Introduction) | 9, 3 | Salesforce Licenses: Will the Government provide Salesforce licenses and user seats for the prototype development team, or should offerors include licensing costs in their pricing within the $500,000 ALIN 0001?
Flosum is the required release management and CI/CD tool for Salesforce within the OpsEA environment.
The Government will provide Salesforce licenses for developers to support prototype execution. Any unique or non-standard licensing requirements beyond this baseline must be clearly identified in the proposal.
| 86 | RFWP Section 3 (Agreement Line Items Numbers - ALINs), SOO Section 1 (Introduction) | 9 | Salesforce Licenses: Will the Government provide Salesforce licenses and user seats for the prototype development team, or should offerors include licensing costs in their pricing within the $500,000 ALIN 0001? | OpsEA Salesforce licenses will be provided by the Government for the prototype development teams. | |
| 87 | ARES Request for White Paper | OpsEA Mandatory Training: The RFWP states offerors must complete mandatory OpsEA/Salesforce sandbox training prior to being considered for award. Can Government clarify the duration, format, scheduling of this training, and whether this occurs before or after contract award? | Individual training times will vary. Refer to the SDK for training requirements which can be accessed at any time for free per the SDK instructions. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .