082026 AOI 04 QandA FAQ.pdf

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

Space Systems Command (SSC) SYD-85 Kronos Program

Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) 2.0

Area of Interest (AOI) 04 – Mission Support Services

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

August 2026

The Kronos Program Office received 42 questions from industry in response to the AOI 04 call issued under the Kronos Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) 2.0.

After reviewing all submissions, the Government identified recurring themes and consolidated substantially similar questions into the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) below.

These responses are provided for clarification only and do not modify the terms and conditions of the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO). In the event of any inconsistency between this FAQ and the official solicitation documents, the solicitation shall govern.

Category Frequently Asked Question Government Response

1. Scope / FAS Participation

May an offeror respond to only one Focus Area Statement (FAS), or must a Phase 1A submission address both FAS01 and FAS02?

Offerors may respond to one or both Focus Area Statements. A Phase 1A submission is not required to address both FAS01 and FAS02.

Submissions should clearly identify the FAS to which the proposed solution applies.

2. Scope / Partial Solutions

Must an offeror provide an end-to-end solution addressing all capabilities within a Focus Area Statement, or may an offeror propose a solution addressing a subset of the identified capabilities?

Offerors are not required to address every capability or activity identified within a Focus Area Statement. The Government will consider solutions that address a subset of the identified capabilities where the proposed solution provides meaningful value and aligns with the objectives of the applicable FAS. Offerors should clearly identify the capabilities addressed by their proposed solution.

3. Multiple Submissions

May an offeror submit separate Phase 1A packages for FAS01 and FAS02, and will each submission be evaluated independently?

Yes. An offeror may submit separate Phase 1A packages for FAS01 and FAS02. Each submission should clearly identify the applicable FAS and will be evaluated based on its alignment with that FAS and the applicable CSO evaluation criteria.

4. Submission Instructions

What are the Phase 1A submission requirements for the Quad Chart and White Paper, including the submission email address, file configuration, size limitations, and naming conventions?

Offerors shall follow the Phase 1A submission instructions identified in the applicable Call, FAS, and CSO. The Government will clarify the designated submission mailbox and any applicable file, size, and naming requirements through the solicitation documentation or amendment, as necessary.

5. Cost / ROM Is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate required as part of the Phase 1A Quad Chart or White Paper submission?

A ROM cost estimate is not required as part of the Phase 1A submission unless specifically requested by the applicable Call or FAS. Cost and pricing information may be requested during a subsequent phase of the CSO process.

6. Evaluation / AI Can the Government’s AI-assisted evaluation capability process images included within a Phase 1A submission?

Offerors should not rely on images alone to convey information necessary for evaluation. All substantive information required to understand and evaluate the proposed solution should be provided in readable text consistent with the applicable submission instructions.

7. Eligibility / Multiple AOIs

Does receiving an award under another Kronos Area of Interest affect an offeror’s eligibility to submit or receive an award under AOI 4?

No. An existing award under another Kronos AOI does not, by itself, preclude an offeror from submitting a response or receiving an award under AOI 4. Offerors remain responsible for identifying and addressing any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

8. OCI / Future Competition

Could performance under AOI 4 create an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) or otherwise affect an awardee’s eligibility for future Kronos opportunities?

An AOI 4 award does not automatically preclude an awardee from competing for future Kronos opportunities. Any actual or potential OCI will be evaluated based on the specific facts and circumstances of the work being performed and the requirements of the future opportunity.

Offerors are responsible for identifying and proposing mitigation for potential OCIs, as applicable.

9. OCI /

Submission Requirements

When is the OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist required, and where can offerors obtain the required checklist?

Offerors are not required to submit OCI documentation with the Phase 1A submission.

OCI information and any required mitigation documentation will be addressed during Phase 2 for offerors invited to proceed. The Government will provide the OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist and applicable submission instructions will be provided to offerors invited to Phase 2.

10. Prototype Environment

What Government environment, platform, system, or authorization boundary should offerors assume for prototype demonstration, integration, and testing?

Offerors should propose a technically appropriate approach for demonstrating their solution in a mission-relevant environment.

Specific Government environments, platforms, systems, authorization boundaries, and integration requirements will be determined based on the selected prototype and coordinated during subsequent phases and/or prototype execution.

11. Classification / Impact Level

Should offerors anticipate prototype activities occurring in classified environments, unclassified environments, IL4/IL5 environments, or a combination?

Prototype activities may occur in unclassified and/or classified environments depending on the proposed solution and mission need.

Offerors should identify any classification, impact-level, connectivity, or environment assumptions necessary for their proposed approach. Specific environment requirements will be coordinated with selected performers.

12. Hosting / Deployment Model

May proposed solutions operate within Government-owned cloud environments or be delivered as contractor-hosted commercial services under an appropriate authorization?

The Government is open to technically appropriate deployment models, including Government-hosted and authorized commercial hosting approaches, provided the proposed solution can satisfy applicable security, cybersecurity, data protection, interoperability, and mission requirements.

Offerors should clearly describe their proposed deployment model and associated assumptions.

13. Government- Furnished Resources

What Government-furnished data, network access, authorization artifacts, compliance tools, or other resources should offerors assume will be available during prototype execution?

Offerors should identify the Government-furnished information, data, access, environments, tools, or other resources assumed or required to execute their proposed prototype. Availability of specific Government resources will be determined based on the selected prototype and coordinated during subsequent phases and/or award. Offerors should not assume access to specific Government resources unless expressly identified by the Government.

14. RMF /

Evidence & Systems of Record

How should RMF authorization artifacts and compliance evidence integrate with Government systems of record, including eMASS/Xacta?

Proposed solutions should support integration and interoperability with applicable Government RMF processes, tools, and systems of record. Specific integration requirements, including interfaces with eMASS, Xacta, or other Government systems, will depend on the prototype use case and target environment. Offerors should describe relevant integration capabilities and assumptions in their proposed approach.

15. RMF

Automation / Intended Outcomes

What RMF activities are the highest priority for automation, and what outcomes will the Government use to assess the effectiveness of RMF automation solutions?

The Government is interested in solutions that reduce manual effort, improve the timeliness and quality of RMF activities, increase visibility into cybersecurity risk and compliance posture, and enable more continuous assessment and monitoring. Offerors should identify the RMF activities addressed by their solution and propose measurable outcomes demonstrating the value and effectiveness of the capability.

16. AI / RMF

Automation

For solutions using artificial intelligence, what expectations apply to explainability, traceability, and human review of AI-generated outputs?

Solutions incorporating artificial intelligence should provide appropriate transparency, traceability, and mechanisms for human oversight commensurate with the proposed use case and associated risk. Offerors should describe how AI-generated outputs can be reviewed, validated, and traced to supporting data or evidence, as applicable.

17. DevSecOps / Integration

Should proposed solutions integrate with existing Government DevSecOps and cybersecurity toolchains, and what existing platforms, products, or reference architectures should offerors assume?

The Government is interested in solutions capable of integrating with existing and evolving Government DevSecOps, cybersecurity, and platform environments. Offerors should describe their solution’s interoperability, integration approach, supported interfaces, and dependencies rather than assume a single Government toolchain or reference architecture unless one is specifically identified in the applicable FAS.

18. Kronos FoS Scope

What systems, platforms, environments, applications, and development activities constitute the Kronos Family of Systems for purposes of AOI 4?

For purposes of AOI 4, offerors should consider the Kronos Family of Systems as an evolving ecosystem of mission applications, supporting platforms, environments, services, and associated development and operational capabilities. The specific systems and environments applicable to a prototype will depend on the proposed use case and will be further defined with selected performers.

Low-Code / No- Code

What types of use cases does the Government envision for low-code and no-code development platforms and services under FAS01?

The Government is interested in low-code/no-code capabilities that can accelerate the development, configuration, integration, and delivery of mission-relevant software capabilities while maintaining appropriate security, governance, and lifecycle controls.

Offerors are encouraged to propose relevant use cases that demonstrate how their capabilities can support the objectives identified in FAS01.

Cybersecurity /

ISSM

Is the awardee expected to provide an Information System Security Manager (ISSM) for all Weapon Center systems within the Kronos Family of Systems?

Offerors should not assume responsibility for providing ISSM support for all Kronos Family of Systems environments unless specifically identified as part of the awarded prototype scope. Any cybersecurity personnel or support requirements will be defined based on the specific prototype and target environment.

Technical Evaluation / Existing Evidence

May offerors include evidence from existing FedRAMP authorizations, OSCAL artifacts, POA&Ms, continuous monitoring outputs, or similar authorization activities to demonstrate their capabilities?

Yes. Offerors may identify relevant existing authorization artifacts, certifications, implementations, or other evidence that demonstrates the maturity and applicability of the proposed solution. Such information should support, rather than replace, the description of the proposed solution and its alignment with the applicable FAS and evaluation criteria.