Question No. Question Government Answer

1 Can the Government clarify whether the intent is to establish a new system of record, or a system of integration and orchestration that leverages existing systems of record?

The Government's intent is to establish a system of integration and orchestration that leverages existing systems of record, rather than replacing them but we are open to solutions that achieve the outputs required in the

CFS.

Would the Government consider solutions that implement a “wrap-and-extend” approach—providing orchestration, workflow, and decision visibility across existing systems without replacing them?

Yes, the Government will consider this approach.

Can the Government provide additional detail on the data access methods currently available for key systems (e.g., APIs, flat files, batch interfaces) such as GFEBS, CPROBE, and IRMIS?

Offerors should assume a mix of APIs, flat files, and direct connections to systems of record and propose solutions that can adapt to these methods while maintaining data integrity and traceability.

4 Is there a preferred approach for achieving an Authority to Operate (ATO), such as leveraging an existing authorization, reciprocity, or a full RMF process?

Per CFS Section 3, the Army desires existing ATO at the required Impact Level for the full proposed capability or existing ATO for core components that can be extended to cover the full solution. Method for achieving ATO is dependent upon the specific circumstances of the information system and if there are existing authorizations.

5 Can the Government further define expectations for decision traceability across the lifecycle, including how decisions should be captured, linked, and audited?

The Government expects decision traceability to include capturing key decisions, linking them to relevant data and processes, and ensuring they are auditable throughout the lifecycle, including data elements such as user transactions, sources systems, or ingest timestamps. Offerors should propose methods to achieve this traceability in alignment with the CFS requirements, including decision codification and lifecycle tracking.

6 For the required demonstrations within six months of award, what level of fidelity is expected (e.g., integration with live systems vs. representative or simulated datasets)?

Per the CFS, at the 6 month mark, solutions must be capable of testing and demonstration of the funds tracking, spend plan, and management capabilities and then deploayble to Army-wide users.

7 Will modular or phased demonstrations of capability be acceptable at the six-month mark, provided they align with prioritized functional areas?

Per the CFS, at the 6 month mark, solutions must be capable of testing and demonstration of the funds tracking, spend plan, and management capabilities and then deploayble to Army-wide users.

8 For offerors that are not the original software developer, how will the Government evaluate the added value provided through integration, configuration, and delivery services?

Per CFS Section 6.1.2, Offerors who are not the original provider must explicitly describe the value they add beyond what is available from the primary source. This added value must go beyond the original provider’s offering and provide a clear, quantifiable return on value to the Government, such as measurable cost savings, enhanced performance, or other tangible benefits. The Government will evaluate whether the added value justifies any additional costs or complexity introduced by the intermediary relationship.

Can the Government clarify the relative emphasis between (a) existing commercial capability, (b) speed to deployment, and (c) depth of customization/integration within the Technical Merit evaluation?

All three areas - existing commercial capability, speed to deployment, and depth of integration are considered critical mandatory requirements.

Commercial capability and depth of integration are fundamental requirements within the Technical Merit evaluation. Solution should be deployable within 12 months.

10 Does the Government anticipate a phased rollout (e.g., pilot with select commands) or a broader enterprise deployment following initial capability delivery?

The solution should indicate whether it includes a pilot or demonstration and discuss the path to maturity for developmental/adapted technologies. The method for proving the solution's capabilities during the initial 6-month and 12-month periods can involve a pilot or demonstration, however the Government requires deployment of the funds tracking, spend plan, and management capabilities after 6 months and a solution ready for Army-wide deployment after 12 months.

Should the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) reflect a full enterprise deployment across all 39 locations and ~5,000 users, or an initial phased/pilot deployment with subsequent expansion?

Per Section 6.1.2(c), the ROM will be evaluated "for compliance with the Call's instructions only" during Phase 1. Cost and price evaluation will occur in later phases. Your primary objective is to provide a ROM that is clear, well-documented, and demonstrates that your solution is feasible within a reasonable cost framework. All assumptions should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

12 Should offerors assume full integration with all listed Army financial systems within the ROM, or is a phased integration approach acceptable based on prioritized capabilities?

Per Section 6.1.2(c), the ROM will be evaluated "for compliance with the Call's instructions only" during Phase 1. Cost and price evaluation will occur in later phases. Your primary objective is to provide a ROM that is clear, well-documented, and demonstrates that your solution is feasible within a reasonable cost framework. All assumptions should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

Should the ROM include the full scope and cost of achieving an Army Authority to Operate (ATO), including RMF activities and assessment support, or will the Government support reciprocity or shared responsibilities?

Per Section 6.1.2(c), the ROM will be evaluated "for compliance with the Call's instructions only" during Phase 1. Cost and price evaluation will occur in later phases. Your primary objective is to provide a ROM that is clear, well-documented, and demonstrates that your solution is feasible within a reasonable cost framework. All assumptions should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

14 Should offerors assume a Government-provided hosting environment, or include contractor-provided hosting and software licensing (e.g., SaaS/PaaS subscription) within the ROM?

Per Section 6.1.2(c), the ROM will be evaluated "for compliance with the Call's instructions only" during Phase 1. Cost and price evaluation will occur in later phases. Your primary objective is to provide a ROM that is clear, well-documented, and demonstrates that your solution is feasible within a reasonable cost framework. All assumptions should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

15 What level of detail is expected in the ROM (e.g., high-level total cost vs. milestone-based or workstream-based breakdown) to ensure compliance with evaluation expectations?

Per Section 6.1.2(c), the ROM will be evaluated "for compliance with the Call's instructions only" during Phase 1. Cost and price evaluation will occur in later phases. Your primary objective is to provide a ROM that is clear, well-documented, and demonstrates that your solution is feasible within a reasonable cost framework. All assumptions should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

Can the Government please clarify what it means by "capable of testing and demonstration" in the Timeline & Deployment section? Does this mean the expectation is the solution will be deployed to Production and utilized by Government users for the defined PPBE lifecycle activities?

The Government expects the solution to be able to be deployed to a testing environment that Government users can access to test and deploy to a pilot group

The solicitation emphasizes the importance of scalability (e.g., up to 5,000 users across 39 locations) and notes that scalability will be considered as part of the evaluation. To help offerors propose an architecture that is appropriately sized for the Army’s end state, can the Government provide additional detail on the expected scale and complexity of the data and models, such as:

-The expected number of dimensions (e.g., Fund, Org, Program Element, Activity, Location, Time at monhtly/weekly level

-The maximum number of rule-calculated cells and feeder relationships required

-Whether the Government prefers rules to be maintained by business analysts (low-code) or requires them to be coded in a traditional ETL tool

-As data volumes grow over the five-year lifecycle, how many years of history need to be kept online for real time what-if analysis versus archived for audit-only access? Does the Government have a requirement for a 'hot/warm/cold' data tiering strategy?

-Any performance expectations for scenario modeling, "what-if" analysis, UFR trade studies, or re-forecasting at enterprise scale

This information will help ensure proposed solutions are architected to maintain performance and responsiveness at Army scale over time, rather than degrading as data volumes and analytical demands increase.

The Government has defined what the solution needs to achieve (integrate specific systems, provide certain functionalities, support a set number of users) but leaves the how (specific architecture and data models) open for the vendor to propose and justify in their solution brief. CFS does not specify technical details of the data models but defines the complexity and scale by outlining the systems to be integrated and functional outcomes required. CFS places responsibility on the vendor to propose a solution that can handle the complexity implied.

The solicitation references compliance with Army cybersecurity requirements and notes that an approved ATO will be required prior to production deployment, but does not prescribe a specific hosting model. To help offerors propose a solution that best balances performance, cost, security, and long term sustainability, can the Government clarify:

•Whether there is a preferred hosting model for the end state solution (e.g., on premises, Government controlled cloud, commercial cloud, or FedRAMP authorized SaaS), or if multiple deployment options are desried •How the Government is considering cost management and performance tradeoffs as data volumes, analytical complexity, and user concurrency scale over time •Whether the Government values the ability to adjust the hosting model over the lifecycle of the solution (e.g., starting in one environment and transitioning to another as usage patterns and costs evolve)

This information will help ensure proposed solutions are architected to minimize hosting risk, avoid vendor lock in, and remain cost effective as the Army’s data and operational demands grow.

The Government's stated preference is for FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6 authorizations. The Government has not prescribed a specific end-state solution or hosting model. The Government is seeking innovative, compelling, and comprehensive solutions that address the problem statement outlined in the CFS including techniques to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and enhance performance.

To help offerors better understand the current operating environment and develop an effective transition and change management approach, can the Government clarify whether this Call for Solutions is intended to replace, augment, or retire RM Online, either in whole or in part?

If the intent is partial replacement, can the Government indicate which RM Online functional areas are expected to be addressed or superseded by the proposed solution, such as:

Funds control, Unfunded Requirements (UFR) management, Spend plans, Funding letter management, and Obligation planning.

This information will help ensure proposed solutions account for coexistence, data migration, user transition, and operational continuity as part of the Army’s modernization effort

The proposed solution is not intended to replace augment or retire current systems. CFS Section 3, System Integration & Data Management lists the Army financial systems with which the proposed solution must integrate.

The solicitation requires a “Spend Plan” system, which implies integration across budget formulation, execution, and reprogramming workflows. To help offerors design an appropriately sized and performant architecture, can the Government clarify:

•The acceptable data latency between source general ledger systems (e.g., GFEBS, LMP, or other Army financial systems) and the Spend Plan system •Whether near real time data synchronization (e.g., sub hour) is required to support decision making, or if scheduled batch updates (e.g., daily) are sufficient •Whether the Government has a preferred data integration pattern (e.g., data warehouse staging, direct in memory analytical model with pass through querying)

The CFS requires a system that integrates across POM to budget formulation, execution, and reprogramming fund control workflows. Spend Plan is one aspect of this system. Specific parameters are not prescribed and vendors are requested to submit solutions based on their expertise/experience. The Government is seeking solutions for innovative and compellling approaches which define an architecture that meets the functional requirements outlined in the CFS.

To help clarify the intended role of the Spend Plan system within the Army’s financial architecture, can the Government indicate whether write back capabilities are required?

Specifically:

•Does the Government expect the Spend Plan system to support governed write back to source or downstream systems (e.g., posting approved adjustments, allocations, or funding decisions back to a general ledger or execution system), or •Is the system intended to function primarily as a planning, forecasting, scenario modeling, and what if analysis layer, with execution system updates handled outside the solution?

This clarification will help offerors design appropriate controls, workflows, and governance mechanisms aligned to the Army’s operational intent.

The Government confirms write back capabilities/functionality are required.

The CFS requires a system that integrates across POM to budget formulation, execution, and reprogramming fund control workflows. Spend Plan is one aspect of this system. Specific parameters are not prescribed and vendors are requested to submit solutions based on their expertise. The Government is seeking solutions for innovative and compelling approaches which define an architecture that meets the functional requirements outlined in the CFS.

The solicitation references support for “budget execution.” To help offerors better understand the operational demands of this requirement, can the Government clarify:

•The expected end to end workflows for activities such as reprogramming requests, funds distribution, and approvals, including the complexity of approval chains and handoffs across organizations •The anticipated level of user concurrency during peak execution periods (e.g., end of quarter close, mid year reviews), including how many users may be simultaneously entering or adjusting Spend Plan data •Whether the Government requires enterprise governance features such as audit logged changes, cell level commentary, version comparison, and sandboxing to support controlled what if analysis

Edit the following question. It reads as if using an external reporting tool might be less costly, but the fact is it would drive the requirement for an additional license, meanwhile Planning Analytics can bundle this capability for no additional license cost.

Budget execution support includes approval chains and hand offs, the baseline level of user concurrency during peak execution periods, and enterprise governance features. The CFS requires a system that integrates across POM to budget formulation, execution, and reprogramming fund control workflows. Spend Plan is one aspect of this system. Specific parameters are not prescribed and vendors are requested to submit solutions based on their expertise. The Government is seeking solutions for innovative and compelling approaches which define an architecture that meets the functional requirements outlined in the CFS.

To help ensure the proposed solution supports the Army’s reporting needs while minimizing integration complexity and cost, can the Government clarify its preferred approach for producing standard budget execution and financial reports? Specifically:

•Does the Government prefer the proposed Spend Plan solution to natively generate standard Army and DoD financial reports (e.g., SF 133, DD 1414 2, P Forms, J Forms) directly from the solution’s underlying data model, or does the Government prefer these reports to be produced through external reporting or visualization tools (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, etc.) leveraging data feeds from the system •If external tools are used, is there a preference to still maintain authoritative reporting logic, calculations, and controls within the core Spend Plan system

This clarification will help offerors design a reporting approach that balances usability, governance, performance, and total cost of ownership

The Government has not prescribed a preferred approach. The Government is seeking innovative, compelling, and comprehensive solutions that address the problem statement outlined in the CFS including techniques to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and enhance performance.

If external tools are used, there is a preference to maintain authoritative reporting logic, calculations, and controls within the core Spend Plan system, and the Government anticipates a need for stardard reports and ad hoc reports to be natively generated in the solution in external visualization tools that can be connected.

To help ensure the proposed solution supports both enterprise governance and analyst productivity, can the Government clarify its user interface preferences for budgeting, forecasting, and execution activities? Specifically:

•Does the Government anticipate a need to support both web based user interfaces (for standardized workflows, approvals, and reporting) and spreadsheet based interfaces (for analyst driven modeling, local what if analysis, and ad hoc exploration) •Are capabilities such as governed write back, role based formatting, and real time collaboration across these interface types considered important •Does the Government expect different user personas (e.g., analysts vs. approvers vs.

leadership) to leverage different interaction models while remaining within a single controlled system of record

This information will help offerors propose an interface strategy that balances usability, governance, and flexibility across the Army’s diverse financial user community.

The Government's desired attributes are outlined in the CFS Section 3 which emphasizes advanced data visualization and dashboard capabilities, and users must be able to input and modify data within the system (write-back capability). CFS specifically calls for role-based access (user personas) controls and collaborative features/cross-functional team coordination.

25 What FM&C organization will run the project and be responsible for functional requirements? This action will be at the FM&C HQ level.

26 Will the system be expected to sunset legacy systems?

The proposed solution is not intended to replace augment or retire current systems. CFS Section 3, System Integration & Data Management lists the Army financial systems with which the proposed solution must integrate.

27 Should vendors also assume integration to Army's RMW system as part of the systems the solution should need to integrate with?

The list of minimally required integrations is detailed in the CFS. All assumptions on other integrations should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

28 How many end users do we anticipate using the system? The Government anticipates ~5000 end users.

29 What is the anticipated timeline for Phase 2 and subsequent phases? The Government anticipates Phase 2 will begin in late April or early May with Phase 3 beginning roughly 15 days after.

Does the Government intend to prioritize offerors that can leverage existing ATOs, enterprise cloud environments, and pre-approved Army security baselines to minimize re-authorization timelines?

Per the CFS, the Army desires existing ATO at the required Impact Level for the full proposed capability or existing ATO for core components that can be extended to cover the full solution.

31 What IL5 constraints apply to the solution (model selection & hosting location, connectivity restrictions, data-use limitations, token budgets)?

Per the CFS, FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6 authorizations are highly desired.

FedRAMP High in DoD cybersecurity typically maps to DoD Impact Level 4 (IL4). Was the mapping an oversight, and will the government allow for Impact level 4 for the proposed solution?

Per the CFS, FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6 authorizations are highly desired.

Are there any legacy systems that the team would need to sunset or migrate previous years' data into the proposed solution? If yes, please provide the functionality of the legacy system and the anticipated timeline for sunset and transition into the proposed solution?

The Government does not anticipate the sunset of legacy systems at this time.

It's stated that DoD IL5/IL6 authorizations are highly desired. DOD IL-6 supports data at the SECRET classification level. Does the solution need to be deployed in an IL-6 environment that supports handling data at the SECRET classification level (e.g. SIPRNET)?

Per the CFS, SECRET classification authorizations are desired but not required at this time, however future phases during execution may require higher levels of classification.

35 Will the user base include Army Reserve and National Guard organizations/personnel? Yes, the Government would include these personnel.

36 Is the Government seeking to replace CPROBE with this Integrated Financial Management Tool: Program-to-Budget-to-Execution Data Integration and Workflow Solution?

The proposed solution is not intended to replace augment or retire current systems. CFS Section 3, System Integration & Data Management lists the Army financial systems with which the proposed solution must integrate.

37 Is the Government seeking to replace IRMIS with this Integrated Financial Management Tool: Program-to-Budget-to-Execution Data Integration and Workflow Solution?

The proposed solution is not intended to replace augment or retire current systems. CFS Section 3, System Integration & Data Management lists the Army financial systems with which the proposed solution must integrate.

38 Is the Government seeking this solution to allow users to create, edit and review P&R Forms or does the solution only need to extract data from the P&R Forms?

The Government is seeking a solution that goes beyond only extracting data from P&R Forms. There is a need for a solution that can also write to these forms. Per CFS page 3 Required Attributes, the solution must integrate with, extract data from, and write to as applicable.

39 Is the Government seeking this solution to transmit P&R Form XML data to DTIC for the official submission?

The Government does not anticipate the need to transmit data to DTIC at this time.

40 Please elaborate upon intended behavior for “write-back” capabilities versus read-only integration for the listed systems.

Per CFS page 3 Required Attributes, the solution must integrate with, extract data from, and write to as applicable.

41 Which of the systems listed (CPROBE, GFEBS, IRMIS, etc.) must be included in the six-month demonstration?

The CFS does not require specific systems to be demonstratead within six months. All assumptions on which systems that must be included in the six-month demonstration should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

42 Please provide the existing data models or ontologies for program-to-budget-to-execution data that solutions should align to.

The Government is open to different solutions that provide options for existing data models or ontologies. Data models will not be provided.

43 Are APIs or data access mechanisms currently available for the listed systems, or should offerors assume custom integration approaches?

The absence of integration mechanisms is an invitation for vendors to demonstrate their technical expertise and custom integration approaches.

The Government is looking for proposed solutions with a realistic plan for the custom integration work required to make the solution functional.

Will integration across classification domains (e.g., SIPR/NIPR) be required as part of this effort?

Per the CFS, SECRET classification authorizations are desired but not required at this time, however future phases during execution may require higher levels of classification.

45 Please clarify expectations for and provide examples of UFR management workflows (submission, scoring, approval, funding decisions).

The Government is not providing a detailed process map but is instead seeking vendors to propose a comprehensive and effective solution based on their expertise and understanding of the Army's financial challenges and to demonstrate their knowledge of financial management and budgeting processes.

46 Please provide more detail on user roles (e.g., HQ, command, program office, comptroller) and expected usage patterns.

The Government is seeking solutions for innovative and compelling approaches with defined architecture that meets the functional requirements outlined in the CFS.

Can the use of an existing analytical environment (e.g. Vantage) be proposed as part of the solution? If so, can we assume there would be no costs associated with the use of Vantage as part of this CSO?

Yes - the use of an existing analytical environment may be proposed as part of the solution. Yes - vendor can assume there would be no costs associated with the use of Vantage. Assumptions used to develop the ROM and/or schedule must be annotated.

48 How is the capability to support funds control module functionality during execution phase different from the Funds Availability Control process in GFEBS?

The Government is not prescribing a technical architecture but looking for vendors to propose an innovative and effective solution that demonstrates understanding of the Army's financial systems with functionality between the proposed solution and the system of record.

Can you more clearly identify which capabilities are considered "funds tracking and management" capabilities required to be demonstrated in 6 months? We are assuming this includes two of the listed capabilities: 1) Must provide workflow management capabilities across programming, budget, and execution phases; and 2) Must track fund movement and execution at the subcommand level.

The proposed solution should define its set of "funds tracking and management" features and demonstrate how they meet the requirements, key capabilities, and desired attributes outlined in the CFS.

50 Which of the milestones must the solution be deployable to Army-wide users - the 6-month milestone or the 12-month milestone?

Offerors should have a full solution able to delpoy in 12 months and a partial solution within 6 months.

51 Will users require access to the system before the solution becomes deployable? Yes, users will require access to the system before the solution becomes deployable.

52 What are business hours defined as? 0900-1700 ET? Normal business hours are typically defined as 0900-1700 ET however, the user base may function outside of those hours.

53 Please provide more details regarding the capability to manage phase-out activities and sunset programs. The Government does not anticipate sunset of legacy systems at this time.

54 Does "instructor-led" training indicate in-person training sessions, or can the instructor-led training sessions be delivered remotely?

The proposed solution should define its method of training and how it meets the requirements, key capabilities, and desired attributes outlined in the CFS.

55 Please provide a list of the projected 39 user locations. The Government will not provide a list of the projected 39 user locations with this call for solution. No physical constraints are expected based on location.

56 Will tiered support be required before the solution becomes deployable? Yes, the Government anticipates support being needed prior to the solution becoming deployable.

57 What frequency does the government require data to be tracked? E.g. execution data, fund movement, etc.

The frequency of the data to be tracked may vary. Near real time or ad hoc depending on the data.

58 Does the Government intend to provide the hosting environment (e.g. cARMY)?

The Government has defined what the solution needs to achieve (integrate specific systems, provide certain functionalities, support a set number of users) but leaves the how (specific architecture and data models) open for the vendor to propose and justify in their solution brief. Your primary objective is to provide a ROM that is clear, well-documented, and demonstrates that your solution is feasible within a reasonable cost framework. All assumptions should be clearly annotated and aligned with your technical solution described in your Solution Brief.

59 Is the vendor expected to resource Continuing Monitoring (ConMon) and Information Assurance (IA) activities in support of ATO?

Proposed solution must include dedicated resources for all security-related activities. Costs associated with security activities should be factored into pricing. The Government expects the vendor to deliver a solution that is functional but also secure and compliant throughout its lifecyle.

60 What review and approval functions is the government wanting leaders to have access to on a mobile device? The Government does not anticipate this to be needed at this time.

61 Does the demonstration require a production-ready environment with live data? Or is a test environment with representative data acceptable?

Per the CFS, at the 6 month mark, solutions must be capable of testing and demonstration of the funds tracking, spend plan, and management capabilities and then deploayble to Army-wide users. The proposed solution can make assumptions on the type of enviornment used for the demonstration, as long as the other required attributes are met.

62 At the completion of the 12-month period, will the Government accept a phased deployment plan, or must the system support all 5,000 users immediately after the 12 month milestone?

The Government preference is for system support for all 5,000 users immediately after the 12-month milestone.

63 Is ASARS - Automated Standard Army Retail Supply System the same as SARSS - Standard Army Retail Supply System? No, ASARS and SARSS are different systems.

64 Is CFEMS - Corps of Engineers Financial Management System the same as CEFMS - US Army Corp of Engineers Financial Management System? Yes. See revision to CFS.

“Existing ATO at the required Impact Level for the full proposed capability, or existing ATO for core components that can be extended to cover the full solution. FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6 authorizations are highly desired.” Can the Army confirm that solutions that are FedRAMP High are acceptable?

Desired Attributes are not mandatory. FedRAMP high solutions may be found to be awardable.

To allow for the delivery of a complete and comprehensive response to your Call for Solution request, would the Army be open to extending its due date a minimum of one additional week?

The Army considered this request and has decided not extend the due date of this CFS.

What are the Army's requirements for data "freshness"? Is the integration expected to provide real-time data, or are near-real-time (hourly) or batch (nightly) updates acceptable for the "Program-to-Budget-to-Execution" lifecycle?

The frequency of the data to be tracked may vary. Near real time or ad hoc depending on the data.

Regarding the near-real-time and batch integrations required for the eight named systems, could you provide the estimated data volume (e.g., average row counts or file sizes) for a typical synchronization cycle?

The Government estimates the data volume to have a high degree of varibility but will be dependent on how the specific solution implements data.

69 Are all the financial systems listed in IL5? Is there a requirement to go across IL boundaries?

Per the CFS, FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6 authorizations are highly desired. The Government is open to solutions with different authorization levels at this time.

70 Can tables and graphics utilize a font size smaller than 12-point, provided they remain legible?

The Government confirms tables and graphics may utilize a font size smaller than 12-point, provided they remain legible. See revision to CFS.

71 For the decision modeling and scenario analysis (if-then etc.), what does the desired end product or outcome look like? E.g. numerical analysis or data visualization

Both. The desired end product is a dynamic and intuitive data visualization backed by detailed numerical data.

72 What is an example of an advanced data visualization that would address your end state? The Government is interested in reviewing unique solutions from vendors.

In the Subject AOS Call for solution, Section 6.1.1 states in the second paragraph, “The Government will not consider inserted textboxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information as part of the Solution Brief and will not consider such information in its evaluation of submissions.”

Question: Can the Government confirm whether traditional static graphics (e.g., images, diagrams, charts embedded directly in the document) will be evaluated as part of the submission? If so, are there any formatting or content limitations that offerors should follow?

The Government confirms traditional static graphics (images, diagrams, charts embedded directly in the document) will be evaluated as part of the submission. Tables and graphics may utilize a font size smaller than 12-point provided they remain legible.