Consolidated Questions and Answers.pdf

Consolidated Questions & Answers

RFI HE125426RFI0007 School Choice Education Voucher Platform

1. Program Authority, Scope, and Launch Assumptions Will the final solicitation include the enacted legislative authority, policy framework, or program rulebook defining eligible participants, allowable uses, provider categories, payment restrictions, appeal rights, and Government decision authority; and should offerors treat the approximately 11,000 military-connected dependents as a full annual ceiling, initial pilot estimate, or planning baseline subject to expansion?

The Government anticipates that the proposed legislation would provide the requisite statutory authority for the program. Specific operational details, including eligible participants, allowable uses of funds, provider categories, payment parameters, appeal processes, and Government decision authority—will be defined through the subsequent implementation plan and associated policy framework, consistent with available appropriations.

Accordingly, offerors should not assume that all program rules will be codified in the final solicitation itself. Rather, implementation guidance will be refined and issued following enactment and in alignment with approved funding.

With respect to program scale, the estimated population of approximately 11,000 military-connected dependents should be treated as a planning baseline for purposes of proposal development. Actual enrollment may vary based on final program design, phased implementation decisions, and funding availability, and therefore should not be interpreted as a fixed annual ceiling.

2. Implementation Phasing and Workload Assumptions Should offerors assume a global launch across all applicable DoWEA regions from the outset, or should offerors propose a phased implementation by region, installation, grade band, participant category, or school year; and what assumptions should be used for provider volume, family application volume, historical data availability, renewal cycles, tuition-payment timing, testing/reporting cycles, and seasonal workload peaks?

The legislative proposal contemplates authority within the United States; however, to provide maximum choice to military families, the program could be implemented worldwide, subject to final authority and funding. Offerors should therefore propose scalable solutions capable of expansion.

Offerors are encouraged to propose a phased implementation approach (e.g., by region, installation, grade band, participant category, or school year) to manage risk and align with funding and policy development.

For planning, offerors should state reasonable assumptions for provider capacity, application volumes, data availability, renewal cycles, payment timing, reporting requirements, and seasonal workload. The approach should demonstrate flexibility to adjust to demand and program evolution.

3. Contract Strategy, Ordering Approach, and CLIN Structure What contract type and ordering strategy does DoWEA anticipate using for the solicitation, such as firm-fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, labor-hour, hybrid CLIN structure, IDIQ task orders, or another approach; and does DoWEA anticipate separate CLINs for implementation, platform configuration, licensing, hosting, cybersecurity/data protection, program administration, support, transaction processing, payment support, reporting, audit support, and surge services?

No decisions have been made about these issues. Prior to seeing the approved legislation and funding, DoWEA cannot make reasonable assumptions about these matters.

4. Pricing Expectations and Budget Composition What level of pricing detail should offerors provide for one-time implementation, recurring platform operations, per-user or per-provider pricing, transaction processing, helpdesk/support, reporting, surge support, and optional services; and does the estimated annual program budget include participant education benefits only, or also contractor platform services, implementation, administration, cybersecurity/data protection, reporting, audit support, and other operating costs?

Offerors should provide a transparent, fully burdened pricing structure that clearly delineates costs across major components, including: one-time implementation and transition; recurring platform operations (e.g., hosting, maintenance, cybersecurity, and data protection); per-user and/or per-provider pricing (as applicable); transaction processing; helpdesk and customer support; reporting and analytics;

surge support; and optional or value-added services. Pricing should be scalable and aligned to varying enrollment levels and potential program expansion. All assumptions, pricing drivers, and volume sensitivities should be clearly stated.

With respect to program funding, the estimated annual budget is notional and will be refined following enactment and appropriation. Offerors should not assume that the budget is limited solely to participant education benefits. Rather, proposals should account for a comprehensive program construct that may include both participant benefits and associated contractor services (e.g., platform operations, implementation, administration, cybersecurity/data protection, reporting, and audit support), with final allocations determined through the implementation plan and available funding.

5. Voucher Funding, Fund Custody, and Payer of Record How does DoWEA anticipate obligating, funding, reconciling, and closing out voucher or education benefit funds, including unused balances, refunds, recoveries, carry-forward rules, de-obligation, and treatment of balances when students withdraw, relocate, or experience eligibility changes; and does DoWEA expect the contractor, Government, Treasury, regulated financial institution, payment processor, or another entity to serve as payer of record and/or holder of voucher funds?

The detailed approach to obligating, funding, reconciling, and closing out voucher or education benefit funds will be established in the implementation plan and supporting financial management policies following enactment and appropriation.

Offerors should propose end-to-end, auditable processes that address the full funds lifecycle, including:

obligation and allocation of funds; disbursement controls; reconciliation and reporting; and closeout procedures. Solutions should account for unused balances, refunds, recoveries, carry-forward considerations (if authorized), de‑obligation, and the treatment of funds in cases of student withdrawal, relocation, or eligibility changes. Approaches must ensure transparency, traceability, and compliance with Federal financial management standards.

With respect to funds control, the Government anticipates retaining oversight and decision authority consistent with appropriations law and internal controls. Offerors should propose models in which a Treasury-aligned or regulated financial mechanism is used, and should clearly describe roles for the Government, contractor, and any financial or payment service providers. The specific designation of payer of record and holder of funds will be determined during implementation, but solutions should accommodate a structure in which funds are safeguarded, segregated as appropriate, and subject to Federal oversight and audit.

6. Payment Model, Timing, and Approval Authority What payment methods should the platform support at launch, including provider-direct payments, tuition payments, family reimbursements, digital wallet/marketplace payments, stored-value cards, ACH disbursements, purchase-order workflows, recurring payments, or a hybrid model; what payment timing should offerors assume for approved providers and families; and which party will have final approval authority before funds are released?

The specific payment modalities will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting policy following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose a flexible, secure payment architecture capable of supporting multiple methods at launch and over time, including provider-direct payments, tuition payments, family reimbursements, digital wallet/marketplace transactions, ACH disbursements, stored-value mechanisms, purchase-order workflows, recurring payments, or a hybrid model.

For planning purposes, offerors should assume standard, auditable payment controls with defined approval, verification, and reconciliation steps, and propose reasonable payment timing for both providers and families (e.g., aligned to enrollment validation, invoicing, and milestone or term-based disbursements). Approaches should accommodate both scheduled and exception-based payments.

Final approval authority for release of funds will reside with the Government, consistent with established financial management controls, with potential delegation of administrative processing functions to the contractor as defined in the implementation framework.

7. Invoicing, Reconciliation, Documentation, and Recoveries What invoicing and reconciliation cadence does DoWEA expect for contractor services and approved voucher/payment activity; what documentation must support each payment, such as invoices, receipts, enrollment confirmations, attendance records, service logs, tutor hours, provider approval status, expense category, student eligibility, reviewer approval, and payment confirmation; and how should denied transactions, duplicate payments, refunds, chargebacks, overpayments, provider credits, and recovered funds be handled?

Invoicing and reconciliation requirements will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting financial management guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose a disciplined, auditable cadence (e.g., monthly or more frequent for high-volume activity) that supports timely reconciliation of both contractor services and voucher/payment transactions.

Proposals should include a comprehensive documentation framework to support each payment, as applicable, including: invoices; receipts; enrollment confirmations; attendance or participation records;

service logs (e.g., tutor hours); provider approval status; expense category; student eligibility verification; reviewer/approver authorization; and payment confirmation. Solutions should enable real-time validation, audit trails, and traceability across the full transaction lifecycle.

Offerors should also define standard processes and controls for exception handling, including denied transactions, duplicate payments, refunds, chargebacks, overpayments, provider credits, and recovered funds. Approaches should include prevention controls, timely identification and correction, clear financial accountability, and integration with reconciliation and reporting workflows, consistent with Federal internal control and audit requirements.

8. Eligibility Source, Family Onboarding, and Account Creation Will DoWEA provide an authoritative eligibility file for participating students/families, or is the contractor expected to verify sponsor/dependent status, grade level, location, school year eligibility, and other criteria;

what participant data elements will DoWEA provide and how often will they be refreshed; and should accounts be created through a Government-provided file, family application, system integration, manual administrator approval, or a combination of methods?

Detailed eligibility verification processes will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding. The Government anticipates providing an authoritative eligibility data source to the maximum extent practicable; however, offerors should propose solutions that can both consume Government-provided data and perform supplemental validation as required.

Offerors should assume that participant data elements may include, but are not limited to:

sponsor/dependent status, grade level, location or duty station, school year eligibility, and other program-specific criteria. Data refresh cadence will be established during implementation; proposals should support both periodic batch updates and near real-time integration, as available.

Regarding account creation, offerors should propose a flexible approach supporting multiple intake methods, including Government-provided eligibility files, family applications, system integrations, and administrative approvals. Solutions should ensure appropriate validation, onboarding controls, and auditability across all enrollment pathways.

9. Identity, Access, User Roles, and Integrations What identity verification, sponsor/dependent validation, MFA, role-based access, privacy acknowledgment, account security, SSO, API, secure file exchange, and Government read-only audit access requirements should offerors assume; what user roles must be supported for families, students, sponsors, providers, helpdesk users, contractor administrators, DoWEA administrators, auditors, financial reviewers, and appeals reviewers; and what integrations are anticipated with DoWEA identity, student information, finance, reporting, records, or other Government systems?

Detailed identity, access, and integration requirements will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting cybersecurity and privacy guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose secure, scalable architecture aligned with Federal security standards (e.g., FISMA/NIST-based controls).

For planning purposes, solutions should:

Identity & Access Controls: Support identity verification, sponsor/dependent validation, multi-factor authentication (MFA), role-based access control (RBAC), privacy acknowledgments/consent, and strong account security controls. Capabilities should include Single Sign-On (SSO), secure APIs, and secure file exchange.

User Roles: Accommodate multiple user roles, including (at a minimum) families, students, sponsors, providers, helpdesk/support users, contractor administrators, DoWEA administrators, auditors, financial reviewers, and appeals reviewers, with appropriate least-privilege access and segregation of duties.

Audit & Oversight: Provide Government read-only access for auditing, monitoring, and compliance purposes, with full activity logging and traceability.

Integration: Be capable of integrating with Government systems as available and authorized, including identity management, student information systems, financial systems, reporting/analytics platforms, and records management systems. Solutions should support both real-time and batch integrations and adapt to evolving interfaces and data-sharing requirements.

Offerors should emphasize security, privacy, interoperability, and flexibility to operate within a Government-defined identity and data ecosystem.

10. End-User Services and Portal Capabilities Which end-user functions must be available at initial launch versus later phases, including application, eligibility status, student profile, voucher balance, provider search, payment requests, reimbursement requests, document upload, helpdesk tickets, disputes, appeals, notifications, communications, transaction history, provider registration, service-category selection, enrollment confirmation, invoice submission, payment tracking, renewal, compliance updates, and messaging?

Specific functional requirements will be finalized in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose a phased delivery model that supports a viable initial operating capability at launch, with expansion of functionality over time.

At a minimum, initial launch capabilities should enable core program operations, including:

Participant application/intake and eligibility status visibility Student/family profile management Voucher balance visibility Provider search and basic provider participation status Payment requests (provider-direct and/or reimbursement) Document upload and validation Transaction history and basic notifications

Provider registration and approval workflows Invoice submission and payment status tracking Helpdesk intake (e.g., ticketing)

Subsequent phases may expand to include enhanced capabilities such as:

Disputes and appeals management Advanced communications and messaging Renewal processing and lifecycle management Compliance updates and recertifications Expanded reporting and analytics dashboards More robust enrollment confirmation workflows and service-category management Enhanced automation, notifications, and user experience features

Offerors should clearly identify what is included at launch versus later phases, and demonstrate an approach that ensures continuity of operations while allowing for incremental capability growth, scalability, and alignment with evolving policy and funding.

11. Provider Eligibility, Vetting, Documentation, and Oversight What provider categories should offerors assume are eligible, such as private schools, virtual schools, tutors, homeschool-support entities, curriculum vendors, testing providers, transportation providers, technology vendors, or other service providers; will DoWEA provide eligibility standards by provider type, or should offerors propose a vetting, revalidation, suspension, removal, and continuous monitoring framework; and who will have final authority to approve, deny, suspend, or remove providers?

Provider eligibility criteria will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should anticipate a broad set of potential provider categories, which may include private schools, virtual schools, tutors, homeschool support entities, curriculum vendors, testing providers, and other education-related service providers. Additional categories (e.g., transportation or technology providers) may be considered based on program design and authorized uses.

Offerors are encouraged to propose a comprehensive provider management framework that includes intake/vetting, approval, periodic revalidation, performance monitoring, and processes for suspension or removal. The framework should incorporate risk-based controls, documentation requirements, and ongoing compliance checks to ensure program integrity.

Final authority for provider approval, denial, suspension, or removal will reside with the Government, with potential administrative support from the contractor as defined in the implementation framework.

12. Allowable Expenses, Spending Controls, and Transaction Holds Will DoWEA provide an allowable/prohibited expense matrix before award, or should offerors propose a configurable rules framework for Government approval; should spending controls vary by student, family, provider type, expense category, grade level, geography, school year, program period, or other variables;

and what controls should apply for real-time balance tracking, restricted-purchase prevention, duplicate-payment prevention, rapid fund-depletion alerts, suspicious provider patterns, denied transactions, exception approvals, missing documentation, pre-approval, and manual review?

Allowable and prohibited expenses will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should not assume a finalized matrix at award and are encouraged to propose a configurable, rules-based framework for Government review and approval.

Proposed solutions should support dynamic spending controls that can be tailored based on factors such as student or family attributes, provider type, expense category, grade level, geography, school year, and program period, as directed by the Government.

All controls should be auditable, configurable, and adaptable to evolving policy requirements, with final approval authority and rule-setting retained by the Government.

13. Homeschool and Nontraditional Education Oversight Which jurisdiction’s homeschool requirements should govern participating families, particularly for overseas military families: state of legal residence, current duty location, installation location, or another DoWEA-defined standard; and should offerors assume a configurable oversight model covering parent attestations, learning plans, curriculum documentation, tutor-hour logs, service records, assessment/test submissions, missing-document alerts, periodic reviews, and corrective-action workflows?

Applicable homeschool requirements will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding. The Government has not yet established which jurisdictional standard will govern (e.g., state of legal residence, duty location, installation location, or a DoDEA-defined framework). Offerors should therefore propose a flexible approach capable of applying different jurisdictional rules or a standardized model, as directed.

Offerors should assume the need for a configurable oversight and compliance framework that can support varying requirements and levels of rigor. At a minimum, proposed solutions should accommodate:

Parent/guardian attestations and acknowledgments

Individual learning plans or education plans

Curriculum documentation and approvals

Tutor/service provider hour logs and service records

Assessment and testing submissions, where required

Automated alerts for missing or incomplete documentation

Periodic reviews and compliance checks

Corrective-action workflows and status tracking

The framework should be adaptable to evolving policy decisions, support auditability and transparency, and allow the Government to define requirements and retain final oversight authority.

14. Fraud, Audit, Appeals, Cybersecurity, Records, and Data Rights What fraud prevention, audit, internal-control, and investigation model should offerors assume, including prepayment review, post-payment review, random audits, triggered audits, complaint-driven reviews, annual independent audits, transaction-level audit trails, payment holds, account restrictions, provider suspensions, improper-payment recovery, and referrals to DoWEA, Inspector General, law enforcement, or other designated authorities; and what cybersecurity, privacy, CUI, personnel access, audit logging, data ownership, API/export, retention, eDiscovery, communications archiving, transition-out, and contract closeout requirements should offerors assume?

Detailed fraud prevention, audit, internal control, and cybersecurity requirements will be finalized in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose a comprehensive, risk-based framework aligned with Federal internal control and cybersecurity standards.

For planning purposes, solutions should include:

Fraud Prevention, Audit, and Internal Controls Pre- and post-payment reviews, including automated and manual controls Random, risk-based, and triggered audits, as well as complaint-driven reviews Annual independent audit support and readiness Transaction-level audit trails with full traceability

Payment controls, including holds, reversals, and account restrictions Provider oversight, including suspension/removal processes Improper payment identification and recovery workflows Referral mechanisms to DoDEA/DoWEA, Inspector General, law enforcement, or other designated authorities, as appropriate

Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Data Management

Alignment with Federal cybersecurity and privacy requirements (e.g., FISMA/NIST-based controls, CUI handling)

Role-based personnel access, least-privilege enforcement, and MFA Comprehensive audit logging and monitoring Clear data ownership and stewardship model with Government oversight Secure API and data export capabilities Defined data retention, records management, and eDiscovery support Communications archiving consistent with Federal requirements Secure transition-out and contract closeout procedures, including data transfer, disposition, and continuity of operations

Offerors should emphasize scalability, auditability, and adaptability, with the Government retaining oversight authority and final decision-making for enforcement, investigations, and compliance actions.

15. Reporting, Support, Accessibility, Automation, Evaluation, and PWS Refinement What performance, utilization, financial, compliance, student-outcome, support, audit, satisfaction, and monthly accountability reports must be provided, including reporting by installation, region, provider type, grade level, school type, family status, or program category; what helpdesk, time-zone, language, Section 508, VPAT, training, onboarding, SLA, escalation, and senior-leadership briefing requirements should offerors assume; does DoWEA permit AI/ML, automated rules engines, risk scoring, document review, support triage, or recommendations with human review and override; and will the solicitation require a live demonstration, sandbox, sample workflows, sample reports, oral presentation, draft implementation plan, transition plan, or draft PWS review?

Detailed reporting, support, AI/automation, and evaluation requirements will be defined in the implementation plan and solicitation following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose a comprehensive, scalable approach aligned with Federal standards and adaptable to evolving program needs.

Reporting and Accountability

Offerors should support robust, configurable reporting across key domains, including:

Performance, utilization, financial, compliance, student outcome, audit, and customer satisfaction metrics Monthly (at a minimum) accountability reporting, with capability for more frequent or real-time dashboards Reporting stratification by installation, region, provider type, grade level, school type, family status, and program category Ad hoc reporting, analytics, and export capabilities to support Government oversight and decision-making

Helpdesk, Accessibility, and Service Delivery

Proposals should include:

Multi-channel helpdesk support (e.g., phone, email, portal) with appropriate time-zone coverage (including OCONUS)

Language access capabilities, as applicable

Compliance with Section 508 accessibility requirements and provision of a VPAT User training and onboarding for families, providers, and administrators Defined Service Level Agreements (SLAs), escalation procedures, and performance tracking Senior leadership briefings and executive-level reporting support, as required

Use of AI/ML and Automation

Offerors may propose the use of AI/ML, automated rules engines, risk scoring, document review, support triage, and recommendation tools, provided such capabilities:

Include human review and override mechanisms Are transparent, auditable, and aligned with Federal policy and ethical standards Support improved efficiency, accuracy, and program integrity

Evaluation and Proposal Requirements

The solicitation may include evaluation elements such as:

Live demonstrations or system walkthroughs Sandbox or prototype environments Sample workflows and reports Oral presentations Submission of a draft implementation plan and transition approach Potential review/comment on a draft PWS or requirements set

Offerors should be prepared to demonstrate technical capability, operational readiness, and scalability through practical, scenario-based evaluation methods.

16. For families stationed at OCONUS installations, does DoWEA anticipate that all voucher funds will be issued, held, and disbursed exclusively in U.S. dollars?

If the legislative proposal was to include overseas locations, DoWEA will include that in the implementation guidance on every operational aspect of any voucher program, but based on standard federal financial management practices for overseas programs, the expectation would be:

Primary denomination in U.S. dollars (USD): Because DoWEA is a U.S. federal entity, appropriated funds are budgeted, tracked, and audited in USD. Any vouchers would almost certainly be authorized and accounted for in USD.

Centralized issuance and control in USD. Funds would likely be issued and held within U.S. government financial systems, ensuring compliance with DoD and Treasury regulations (e.g., anti-imbalance controls, auditability).

Local currency interaction handled at the transaction level: For families stationed OCONUS: If vouchers are used with local vendors, conversion to host-nation currency may occur at the point of payment or reimbursement, not at the program funding level.

This could happen via:

1. Payment processors

2. Banking partners

3. Reimbursement conversions using official exchange rates

17. Will online marketplace purchases made by OCONUS families be treated as domestic U.S. transactions for purposes of payment processing and compliance?

Generally, yes—with nuance.

Online marketplace purchases by OCONUS families will often be processed as U.S.-based (domestic) transactions if:

The vendor is U.S.-based, and

Payment is made in USD through U.S. financial systems.

18. Does the DoWEA intend to allow off-base foreign vendors, or does keeping everything on a unified USD standard (leveraging APO/FPO and U.S. bank routing) satisfy the program goals? DoWEA favors a controlled, USD-based ecosystem (APO/FPO shipping, U.S. vendors, U.S. banking) to simplify oversight, auditability, and compliance. A USD-centered model likely meets most program goals, with select flexibility for vetted foreign vendors where necessary to support OCONUS realities.

19. FedRAMP Path SFT holds SOC 2 Type II certification and maintains annual recertification. To our knowledge, no commercially proven vendor currently operating school choice or education voucher platforms at the state level holds FedRAMP authorization. Would the Department consider accepting equivalent security certifications (e.g., SOC 2 Type II, annual penetration testing) at contract award, with a defined timeline and milestones for achieving FedRAMP authorization and IL4 compliance during the implementation period? If so, would the Department consider cost-sharing or otherwise supporting that authorization process?

The Department’s final cybersecurity and authorization requirements will be defined in the solicitation and supporting policy following enactment and funding. The Government recognizes that commercially proven platforms in this domain may not currently hold FedRAMP authorization. Offerors may propose an approach that includes equivalent security certifications at award (e.g., SOC 2 Type II, independent assessments, and regular penetration testing), along with a clearly defined roadmap, timeline, and milestones for achieving required Federal authorization levels (e.g., FedRAMP and/or DoD IL4, as applicable) during the implementation period.

Proposals should describe:

Current security posture and certifications Gap analysis against FedRAMP/DoD requirements Planned authorization approach (e.g., agency sponsorship, JAB, enclave strategy) Milestones, resourcing, and risk mitigation strategy*

While the Government may consider phased authorization approaches, final acceptance will depend on risk, data sensitivity, and mission requirements. With respect to cost-sharing or Government support, no specific commitment is made at this time. Offerors should propose a transparent pricing approach reflecting any costs associated with achieving required authorizations. The Government will evaluate these approaches as part of overall best value and program feasibility.

20. Budget Allocation & Contractor Compensation Of the estimated $175 million annual budget, what portion is anticipated to be allocated to contractor platform and operational costs versus direct voucher disbursements to families? Is the $175 million figure an annual estimate or a total program ceiling across the base and option years?

The $175 million figure is a preliminary planning estimate and will be refined following enactment, appropriation, and development of the implementation plan. At this stage, the Government has not established a fixed allocation between direct participant benefits (voucher disbursements)and contractor platform and operational costs Offerors should not assume a prescribed percentage split. Instead, proposals should reflect a comprehensive program cost model that clearly distinguishes between:

- Direct benefits to participants

- Platform development, implementation, and operations

- Program administration, cybersecurity, reporting, and support services

With respect to scope, the $175 million is intended as an annual notional estimate for planning purposes rather than a defined total program ceiling across base and option periods. Actual funding levels, allocations, and out-year commitments will depend on final legislative authority, appropriations, and program design decisions. Offerors should therefore propose scalable, flexible solutions that can operate effectively within variable funding profiles and clearly articulate underlying cost assumptions and sensitivities.

21. Contract Structure & Pricing Model For the base year plus four option years, does the Department anticipate a firm-fixed-price structure, a per-student fee model, a transaction-based fee model (e.g., per-transaction), or some combination? Is the Department open to pricing models where the contractor’s fees are funded through payment processing rather than a separate line item? The Department’s final pricing structure will be defined in the solicitation following enactment and funding. At this stage, no single pricing model has been prescribed.

Offerors may propose flexible pricing approaches, which could include:

- Firm-fixed-price components (e.g., implementation, baseline operations)

- Per-student or per-participant pricing

- Transaction-based pricing (e.g., per payment or processing event)

- Hybrid models combining the above elements Proposals should clearly articulate pricing assumptions, scalability, and how costs align to program volume, risk, and performance.

With respect to payment processing-based fee models, the Department is open to considering innovative approaches, including models where certain contractor costs are supported through transaction or payment processing mechanisms. However, such approaches must be fully transparent, compliant with Federal appropriations law and financial management requirements, and clearly structured to avoid conflicts of interest or unintended incentives. The Government will evaluate proposed pricing models based on clarity, reasonableness, scalability, cost control, and alignment with program integrity and oversight requirements.

22. Marketplace & Spending Architecture Does the Department envision a closed marketplace where families select from a curated set of pre-approved providers and inventory, or an open spending model where families can transact with any qualified provider — subject to real-time eligibility adjudication and compliance controls? If the latter, would the Department value a solution that enables families to comparison-shop across the broader market? The Department has not yet prescribed a definitive marketplace model. The final approach will be established in the implementation plan and supporting policy following enactment and funding. Offerors should be prepared to support either a curated (closed) provider marketplace, a more open model with qualified providers, or a hybrid approach. In all cases, solutions must enable real-time eligibility validation, compliance controls, and program oversight consistent with Government requirements. If an open or hybrid model is implemented, the Department would value capabilities that enhance informed family choice, including:

- Provider discovery and comparison tools (e.g., services offered, cost, availability, performance indicators)

- Transparent pricing and service descriptions

- Search, filtering, and recommendation capabilities

- User-friendly interfaces that support informed decision-making

Offerors should demonstrate how their solution can balance flexibility and choice for families with strong program integrity, compliance enforcement, and Government oversight.

23. Browser & Client Environment Will families access the platform exclusively through military-issued devices and approved browsers, or will personal devices and standard commercial browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge) be supported? Are there any restrictions on the contractor’s use of browser extensions — for example, a secure purchase-assist extension comparable to a password manager — to improve the family user experience during qualified transactions?

End-user access requirements will be defined in the implementation plan and cybersecurity guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should assume that the platform must support secure access from both Government-issued and personal devices, using standard commercial browsers (e.g., Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge), unless otherwise restricted by DoD policy. Proposed solutions should emphasize strong security controls regardless of access method, including MFA, device/browser-agnostic protections, and compliance with applicable DoD cybersecurity and privacy requirements. With respect to browser extensions or similar tools (e.g., purchase-assist capabilities), the Department has not established a definitive policy. Offerors may propose such features where they enhance the user experience; however, any use must:

- Comply with **DoD cybersecurity and software approval requirements

- Avoid introducing data security, privacy, or supply chain risks

- Be optional, transparent, and controllable by the Government

- Be compatible with standard security configurations and user environments Final approval of allowable access methods and any client-side tools will rest with the Government and will be subject to formal security review and authorization processes.

24. Operational Division of Labor Does the Department intend to outsource day-to-day program administration (family support, provider vetting, dispute resolution) to the contractor, or is the Department seeking a platform that DoWEA staff would operate internally with contractor-provided training and support? This will significantly affect our staffing and pricing proposal. The Department intends a hybrid model. DoWEA retains control of policy, oversight, and final decisions (eligibility, disputes, compliance).

The contractor provides the platform and operational support, including intake, provider vetting support, help desk, and case management.

The contractor may handle day-to-day administrative tasks, but decision authority remains with DoWEA.

This is not full outsourcing nor a purely internal system—offerors should propose a blended staffing and pricing approach aligned to shared operations.

25. Target Launch Timeline Assuming legislative authority and appropriations are enacted, what is the Department’s target go-live date or school year for the pilot? Is a phased rollout (e.g., select installations first) anticipated, or would the Department expect a simultaneous launch across all eligible bases? Subject to authority and funding, the Department’s target is a pilot launch in SY 2027–2028. The Department anticipates a simultaneous launch across all participating locations, rather than a phased rollout, and will not pre-designate pilot installations in advance.

Offerors should plan for:

Enterprise-wide readiness at go-live Flexible, scalable staffing and infrastructure to support distributed implementation

Comprehensive onboarding, training, and coordination to ensure consistent execution across all locations at startup

26. Incumbent & Existing Infrastructure Has the Department previously contracted with any vendor for voucher, grant, or tuition payment administration? If so, will there be data migration requirements or system integration handoffs the successful contractor should plan for? No. The Department has not previously contracted for voucher, grant, or tuition payment administration. Accordingly, no legacy data migration or system integration handoffs are anticipated. Offerors should propose a standalone solution capable of meeting all functional requirements at program launch.

27. Banking & Payment Rails Does the Department have a preferred or mandated financial institution or payment processor, or is the contractor expected to provide its own banking and payment infrastructure?

Would a BaaS (Banking-as-a Service) model with an FDIC-insured banking partner be acceptable? The Department does not mandate a specific financial institution or payment processor. Offerors are expected to propose and provide their own payment solution, including banking and disbursement capabilities, consistent with all applicable Federal requirements for security, compliance, and auditability. Proposals should clearly describe the payment architecture, controls, and partner roles.

28. Provider Verification & Onboarding For the estimated 11,000 students across multiple installations, how many participating schools, tutors, and providers does the Department anticipate onboarding? Does the Department maintain an existing approved-provider list, or would the contractor be responsible for building and maintaining the provider network from scratch?

The Department does not have a predefined estimate for the total number of participating schools, tutors, or providers at program launch. Offerors should assume a nationally distributed provider base sufficient to support approximately 11,000 students, with variability by location and education modality.

The Department does not maintain an existing approved-provider list.

Accordingly, the contractor will be responsible for:

Building, vetting, and onboarding the provider network from inception

Establishing and maintaining a scalable provider recruitment and management process

Ensuring providers meet all eligibility, quality, and compliance requirements defined by the Department

Proposals should address provider acquisition strategy, onboarding timelines, and quality assurance controls to support program readiness at go-live.

29. Identity Verification & Eligibility What documentation or data sources will be available to verify military dependent eligibility? Will the contractor have access to DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) or similar DoD systems via API, or will eligibility be manually verified by DoWEA staff? The Department anticipates that authoritative eligibility verification will remain a government function.

Eligibility will be verified using official DoD data sources (e.g., DEERS); however, direct contractor access to DEERS is not assumed at this time.

The contractor should plan for eligibility status to be validated and provided by DoWEA, or via a controlled interface/export where feasible.

Accordingly, offerors should:

Design workflows that accommodate government-validated eligibility inputs

Minimize manual burden through secure data exchange mechanisms (e.g., batch files or API integration, if authorized)

Ensure no independent eligibility determinations are made without DoWEA validation

Proposals may include optional approaches for automated verification, but these must align with DoD data access, security, and privacy constraints.

30. Homeschool & Tutoring Oversight The RFI references enhanced oversight for homeschool vouchers and tutor-hour documentation. Does the Department have existing standards or state-by-state compliance frameworks in mind, or would the contractor be expected to propose and build that compliance framework as part of the platform? The Department does not have a pre-established, state-by-state compliance framework for homeschool vouchers or tutor-hour documentation.

Offerors are expected to propose and implement a compliant oversight framework, including:

Standards for documentation, attendance/tutor-hour verification, and allowable uses of funds

Processes to address variation in state requirements, where applicable

Fraud prevention, audit trails, and reporting controls The Department will provide policy parameters and approval of the proposed framework, but the contractor should assume responsibility for designing, operationalizing, and maintaining these compliance mechanisms within the platform.

31. Data Ownership & Portability At contract expiration or termination, what are the Department’s expectations for data ownership, portability, and transition support? Would the contractor be required to maintain and transfer all transaction, compliance, and student records?

The Department expects that all program data will be government-owned.

At contract expiration or termination, the contractor will be required to:

Maintain and transfer all program records, including transaction data, compliance documentation, and student records

Provide data in a non-proprietary, machine-readable format to ensure full portability

Support orderly transition activities, including knowledge transfer and system/data handoff to the Government or a successor contractor

Offerors should plan for:

Clear data governance and ownership provisions

Robust export and migration capabilities

Defined transition-out support to ensure continuity of operations without disruption

32. Pilot Scope & Phasing The RFI references a “pilot program.” Is the Department considering a limited pilot at a subset of installations before scaling to all 11,000 dependents? If so, what is the anticipated pilot size and duration before the decision to scale?

No. The Department is not considering a limited pilot at a subset of installations.

The “pilot program” refers to the initial program phase at full intended scale (approximately 11,000 students) rather than a geographically limited test.

The Department anticipates a simultaneous launch across participating locations

There is no planned smaller-scale pilot period or down-select phase prior to broader implementation Offerors should plan for:

Full-scale readiness at go-live

Systems, staffing, and processes capable of supporting enterprise-wide operations from program start

Built-in mechanisms to refine and optimize performance post-launch, rather than during a pre-scaling pilot phase

33. AI/ML Transparency Requirements The RFI references transparent, auditable AI/ML models with HITL review. Does the Department have specific AI governance or explainability standards it expects the contractor to follow, or would the contractor propose its own framework for approval?

The Department does not mandate a specific AI governance or explainability framework at this time.

Offerors are expected to propose a transparent, auditable AI/ML governance approach for Department review and approval. Proposed frameworks should include:

Explainability and transparency (clear logic, model outputs interpretable by users and auditors)

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) controls for review, override, and final decision-making

Bias detection and mitigation measures

Auditability and traceability of model inputs, outputs, and decisions

Compliance with applicable Federal and DoD AI, cybersecurity, and data protection policies The Department will evaluate proposed approaches for alignment with federal AI principles, risk management, and mission assurance, and will retain oversight of model use in program operations.

34. Section 508 & Multilingual Support Beyond Section 508 accessibility compliance, does the Department require multilingual support given the global footprint of military families? If so, which languages are prioritized? No. Beyond Section 508 compliance, the Department does not require multilingual support at this time.

35. Evaluation Criteria Preview Can the Department share the anticipated evaluation factors and their relative weighting (e.g., technical capability vs. price vs. past performance) for the future solicitation, so that RFI responses can be most useful to the Department’s planning? The Department has not yet developed anticipated evaluation factors or relative weighting for the future solicitation.

RFI responses will be used to inform acquisition strategy and evaluation approach, and offerors are encouraged to provide input on effective evaluation metrics and considerations.

36. Reference: 2.3 Financial Processing & Compliance Question: The RFI references rule-based spending and real-time transaction tracking. Is DoWEA interested in solutions that proactively prevent unauthorized purchases at the point of sale, rather than relying primarily on post-transaction audits and fraud detection activities? Invoicing and reconciliation requirements will be defined in the implementation plan and supporting financial management guidance following enactment and funding. Offerors should propose a disciplined, auditable cadence (e.g., monthly or more frequent for high-volume activity) that supports timely reconciliation of both contractor services and voucher/payment transactions.

Proposals should include a comprehensive documentation framework to support each payment, as applicable, including: invoices; receipts; enrollment confirmations; attendance or participation records; service logs (e.g., tutor hours); provider approval status; expense category; student eligibility verification; reviewer/approver authorization; and payment confirmation. Solutions should enable real-time validation, audit trails, and traceability across the full transaction lifecycle.

Offerors should also define standard processes and controls for exception handling, including denied transactions, duplicate payments, refunds, chargebacks, overpayments, provider credits, and recovered funds. Approaches should include prevention controls, timely identification and correction, clear financial accountability, and integration with reconciliation and reporting workflows, consistent with Federal internal control and audit requirements.

37. Reference: 2.3 Fraud Prevention Question: Would DoWEA consider controlled purchasing environments and pre-approved vendor marketplaces to be fraud prevention controls for purposes of this program?

Detailed fraud prevention, audit, internal control, and cybersecurity requirements will be finalized in the implementation plan and supporting policy guidance following enactment and funding.