CFS_Project GAVELS_Q and As_7.23.2026.pdf

Question No. Question Draft Gov't Answer

Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

This is a new requirement.

Relationship to the Logistics AOI: How does the Government view Project GAVELS in relation to the Logistics AOI under LOGFIN26-CFS-001? Are these intended to be complementary efforts within the Army's logistics modernization strategy, or separate initiatives addressing different capability gaps?

They are separate initiatives.

Scope of the Desired Solution: While this Call for Solutions is centered on passive RFID, it also includes requirements for DDIL operations, enterprise integration, predictive analytics, decision support, and Army-wide asset visibility. Does the Government envision Project GAVELS primarily as a passive RFID implementation effort, or as a broader logistics execution capability in which passive RFID serves as one data collection technology supporting enterprise sustainment operations?

Project GAVELS is a broader logistics execution capability/comprehensive logistics solution where passive RFID is a key data collection technology, not just a pRFID implementation effort. While passive RFID is a core component for automated data capture, the project's goals outlined in the Call for Solutions are focused on creating an end-to-end logistics solution that integrates with existing systems and provides advanced analytical tools for decision support and enterprise-wide asset visibility.

Software vs Hardware Evaluation: Will the Government's evaluation place greater emphasis on the software platform that manages, validates, synchronizes, and operationalizes passive RFID data than on the specific RFID hardware proposed?

The Government's evaluation will focus on the completeness of the proposed solution and its ability to address the Army's problem statement as described in the Call for Solutions. The evaluation will not place a greater emphasis on either software or hardware, but rather on how they work together to form an integrated and effective capability. The Government is seeking a comprehensive solution and will assess how effectively the proposed software and hardware components integrate to provide a scalable, resilient, and user-friendly system that delivers automated asset visibility and actionable logistical data.

Enterprise System Integration: Can the Government identify the authoritative logistics systems with which the proposed solution is expected to integrate during the pilot and in a broader Army deployment (e.g., EBS-C, AESIP, LMP, G-Army, Vantage, IPPS-A, or successor enterprise systems)?

Should a solution be selected for a pilot (within a training enclave/environment), all systems must have a minimal two (2) way API with VANTAGE and demonstrate the ability to receive and push to it. The CFS has been updated to reflect this change. Should the solution be selected for a broader Army deployment after a successful pilot, the specific enterprise systems required for integration will be identified at that time. The CFS emphasizes the proposed solution must be capable of integration by utlizing standard APIs and open data formats, ensuring future capability with Army enterprise systems.

Definition of DDIL Operations: The solicitation requires operation in denied, disrupted, intermittent, and limited (DDIL) environments. Should offerors demonstrate complete disconnected logistics execution including transaction processing, inventory management, and synchronization upon reconnection or is disconnected RFID data collection sufficient to satisfy this requirement?

Proposed solutions must meet the core functional requirements of automated data collection in a disconnected environment. The systems must be able to process transactions, manage inventory, identify exceptions, and then seamlessly and securely synchronize the results (not just the raw data) with enterprise systems once connectivity is restored. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate any additional capabilities of the end to end solution within their solution brief.

Edge and Cloud Architecture: The solicitation references local, cloud-free processing while also identifying IL5/IL6 authorization objectives. Can the Government clarify whether enterprise synchronization with Army-hosted cloud environments is anticipated, provided all operational processing occurs locally while disconnected?

Proposed solutions must demonstrate the absence of external cloud processing or storage requirements to accurately capture and process usable data. Should a solution be selected for a subsequent phase, the proposed solution may be required to demonstrate use of Army hosted cloud environments for integration.

The solution must be a self-contained, fully functional application that can operate indefinitely while disconnected, and must be capable of securely synchronizing data to and from authoritative Army systems hosted in accredited IL5/IL6 environments.

Industry Day: Does the Government anticipate hosting an Industry Day, technical exchange, or other collaborative forum to provide additional clarification on the objectives and execution approach for Project GAVELS?

The Government will not host an industry day for this requirement. The Call for Solutions outlines the Phased approach for this requirement. Should offeror(s) be invited to any subsequent phase(s), specific instructions for that phase will be provided at that time.

When considering operating in a DDIL environment, should vendors assume a disconnected state from the installation to HQ and also a disconnected state from the device to the local network?

Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate additional capabilities of the end to end solution within their solution brief.

Can we have examples of the assets (or category of assets) that are required to be registered and tracked. e.g. (handheld/carried assets, larger static or immobile assets, powered assets etc...) serialized assets and non serialized

Proposed Solutions should demonstrate the capability to capture data associated with but not limited to: Class I, II, V, VII VIII, and IX, mobile and immoble, serialized and bulk items. The CFS has been revised to add this information.

11 Can we submit alternative RFID readers beyond gateways and portals?

The CFS is deliberately designed to be hardware-agnostic and performance-based to invite innovative industry solutions. While the CFS outlines baseline device categories to illustrate common operational scenarios, vendors are encouraged to propose a comprehensive portfolio of hardware, readers, or tag technologies based on their technical expertise.

12 When associating a location with an asset that is read/scanned-what level of granularity is operationally useful: facility, room/zone, rack or storage area or precise x,y and z(floor)?

Proposed solutions must meet the core functional requirements outlined in Section 3 and demonstrate how the overall architecture seamlessly integrates these components to solve the Army's problem statement. Vendors should clearly articulate how their solution enhances durability in tactical environments and remains viable for broader Army scaling. Briefs should not only detail how they meet the requirements, but also explain how their unique solution provides a superior, scalable, and user-friendly experience for the warfighter. Vendors should demonstrate how their solution balances location accuracy with hardware footprint, ease of tactical deployment, and system viability, allowing adjustment of visibility thresholds based on operational requirements (this information has been added to the revised CFS for clarity).

13 Is a tentative timeline available for the start of the project and expected rollout timeline?

When should we expect a potential POC to be started?

Following the Government's review of submitted solution briefs, selected vendors may be invited to subsequent phases, at which point a pilot may be initiated. Should a pilot be initiated, the Government anticipates a start date on or around October 2026. Should a solution be selected for broader Army deployment after a successful pilot, the Government anticipates it would need to be deployable beginning of calendar year 2027. A firm start date will be determined after the selection process and is contingent on funding availability.

14 Is the vendor responsible for the hardware deployment, software training and tagging of assets? Could the Government clarify the scope of deployment for the vendor?

Vendors are to propose a comprehensive, end-to-end solution. This includes fielding the necessary hardware, providing robust training and support, and delivering a system that empowers Army personnel to execute the daily operational tasks which may include tagging assets. Additional details on deployment will be provided in later phases.

15 Will we get digital site floor plans and maps?

Floor plans and maps will not be provided during Phase I. Anticipate data capture activities conducted in Motorpools and indoor storage facilities (i.e., office setting, containerized areas, warehouses, outdoor storage areas).

16 Can you define what fielding the solution across "the Army" means within 12 months?

Vendors will ensure proposed solutions have supply chains capable of scaling both in Hardware and Software across designated units world wide. Number and locations of units will be provided in later phases.

17 Is the intended deployment to be centralized for Army HQ visibility? Will asset visibility be required at each installation and also to the HQ?

Overarching intent is have a solution that can be tailored and scaleable across echelons to drive efficiencies and inform decisions from the tactical edge to Enterprise programming.

18 Confirm preferred air-interface: EPC Class 1 Gen 2 / ISO/IEC 18000-63 only, or are other passive standards allowed for niche use cases?

Vendors are expected to use their expertise to propose a comprehensive suite of tags that meet operational demands. As part of the submission, vendors should provide "hardware specifications for all... tags" and "environmental performance data" to justify why their proposed tag portfolio is the most effective solution for the Army's problem statement (CFS Page 9).

What is the expected tag mix (rigid metal-mount, flexible, on-vehicle, sensitive-item, disposable, reusable)? Any required form factors or environmental ratings (IP, shock, temp)?

Vendors are expected to use their expertise to propose a comprehensive suite of tags that meet operational demands. As part of the submission, vendors should provide "hardware specifications for all... tags" and "environmental performance data" to justify why their proposed tag portfolio is the most effective solution for the Army's problem statement (CFS Page 9).

For adjustable RF power, what are the exact range and accuracy targets beyond “15–20 ft long-range” and “arms-room fine-grain without ghost reads”? Any required read accuracy % or miss-rate thresholds?

The CFS is intended to allow vendors to propose their most effective and innovative solutions. Vendors are expected to leverage their expertise to define, propose, and substantiate the performance of their systems. Briefs should clearly articulate how the solution's adjustable RF power and overall system design achieve the desired outcomes. The solution brief should demonstrate how your system meets the Army's need for a flexible solution that can perform reliably in varied operational scenarios.

21 Must the solution be hardware/tag agnostic end-to-end, or is a preferred reader/tag pair acceptable if it still supports multi-vendor tags?

The Government is seeking a solution where the software provides a unified management layer for a diverse portfolio of standards-based hardware.

Proposing a preferred reader/tag pair is acceptable, if the overall solution remains fundamentally hardware and tag agnostic.

22 Which device types are mandatory for Phase 1 vs later phases (fixed portals, handhelds, vehicle-mounted, mobile gateways, edge servers)?

The focus of Phase 1 is the submission of a written solution brief. Requirements for any subsequent phases will be defined/determined after solution briefs have been reviewed/evaluated.

23 Define “limited to no connectivity”: max offline duration, local storage capacity, and required store-and-forward / conflict-resolution behavior when reconnecting.

Vendors are expected to use their technical expertise to propose a comprehensive and resilient solution. Briefs should detail how the solution handles the DDIL scenarios including the local storage capacity provided.

24 Is local edge processing required (filtering, de-duplication, location inference), or is raw read buffering sufficient?

Raw read data buffering is not sufficient. The Government is seeking a resilient solution that can operate autonomously, process data locally, and provide immediate, actionable insights to the user, even with limited/no network connectivity, as described in the CFS.

25 What sync protocols and security are expected when connectivity returns (HTTPS, MQTT, DoD-approved channels)?

Vendors are responsible for proposing a technical solution that can achieve high-level cybersecurity authorizations. Solutions must use secure, standard, and open protocols capable of being accredited under DoD IL5/IL6 standards.

26 Which cyber frameworks must be met at award vs at pilot vs at full fielding (RMF, NIST 800- 53, FIPS 140-2/3, STIG, Zero Trust, IL levels)?

Vendors should demonstrate a robust and credible cybersecurity strategy clearly articulating how your solution is architected to meet DoD IL5/IL6 requirements and presenting a realistic roadmap to achieving a full ATO.

27 Are there mandatory encryption, key management, audit logging, and identity requirements for tags, readers, edge devices, and the software stack?

The CFS establishes security outcomes that must be achieved and vendors are responsible for proposing a technical solution that meets them. Solutions must be compliant with the stringent controls necessary to achieve a DoD IL5/IL6 ATO. While the CFS doesn't list every single control, the requirement for this high-level ATO makes them mandatory.

28 What is the expected path and timeline for ATO / cybersecurity accreditation, and who owns residual risk?

The Government leads/owns the residual risk for the overarching ATO for Project GAVELS. However, the selected vendor is responsible for providing the necessary system documentation, secure architecture, and technical inputs required to support the Risk Management Framework (RMF) process.

29 Confirm Trade Agreements Act (TAA) and any additional domestic-preference or country-of-origin constraints (e.g., manufacturing not primarily in China, NDAA supply-chain rules).

The CFS explicitly states that the "Hardware" components of the proposed solution must be TAA compliant. Vendors are expected to be compliant with all applicable federal laws and regulations regarding supply chain security.

Which authoritative systems must integrate first (e.g., GCSS-Army, other WMS/ERP, property book, sensitive-item systems)? Required interfaces (API, message bus, batch file)?

See answer to Question #5.

31 What data model / EPC encoding / location hierarchy must be supported out of the box?

Key "out of the box" requirements are functional: the system's architecture must be built from the start to handle IUID-to-pRFID encoding and a flexible, user-definable location model. The CFS describes the types of environments where the solution must function, such as "metal-rich motor pools, arms rooms, indoor warehouses, and outdoor lots" (Page 4). The requirement is for a flexible system that can provide meaningful location data within these varied contexts.

Solutions should be capable of supporting a logical and scalable location hierarchy that can be adapted to different operational needs.

32 Are bi-directional updates required (reads update Army systems; Army systems can write/update tag data or configuration)?

The solution is not just a data collection tool. It must function as an intelligent edge device that receives mission data from the enterprise, uses that data to perform logistics tasks in the field, and then sends the results back to the enterprise. This bi-directional flow is essential to the reconciliation and accountability functions at the core of the Army's problem statement.

33 What does a successful pilot look like (sites, asset classes, duration, success metrics for accuracy, labor reduction, uptime)?

The specific parameters, location profiles, asset classes, and quantitative success metrics for the pilot phase will be formally defined and provided to selected vendors within any subsequent Phase 2/3 invitation letters.

Conceptually, a successful pilot will demonstrate the proposed solution's ability to seamlessly transition from raw data capture to actionable logistical decision-making in a representative tactical environment.

34 Who provides pilot sites, assets, network, and facilities access, and what is the target start window after award?

The Government (HQDA G-4/Army) will provide the necessary pilot sites, physical assets for tagging/tracking, network access, and facilities access required to conduct the pilot. Specific logistical details, locations, and the target start window will be provided to selected vendors in the Phase 2/3 invitation letters. Anticipate any pilot to begin on or around October 2026.

35 How will “operationally realistic tactical conditions” be scored (garrison only vs field/tactical exercise)?

The specific evaluation methodologies, scoring rubrics, and environmental parameters for testing under "operationally realistic tactical conditions" will be formally defined and provided to selected vendors in the subsequent Phase 2/3 invitation letters.

36 What is the expected path from pilot to 12-month scale-out (number of posts, units, tags/readers)?

The specific sequencing, target installations, unit counts, and exact quantities of hardware (readers/tags) for the 12-month scale-out will be formally defined and provided in subsequent phases of the project.

For the Phase 1 Solution Brief, the Government expects vendors to demonstrate the technical and logistical capability to field their proposed solution across the Army within a 12-month period, rather than conforming to a pre-defined fielding roster at this time.

37 Expected scale for initial and full deployment (tags, readers, concurrent users, sites)? See answer to Question #36 above.

38 Must software be a unified architecture across handhelds and fixed infrastructure (single console, same policy engine, same user roles)?

The software must be a unified architecture that operates consistently across all proposed hardware, including handhelds and fixed infrastructure. Per the CFS Page 4 "Hardware" section the solution must: "Support a portfolio of devices, including handhelds and fixed portals, operating under the same unified software architecture."

39 On-prem, hybrid, or cloud preferences for the management plane? Any data-sovereignty / hosting restrictions?

The required architecture is a "smart edge, secure core" model. The edge component must be on-premises and self-sufficient, while the enterprise management plane must be capable of operating in a secure, IL5/IL6-compliant government cloud, which enforces strict data sovereignty and hosting controls.

40 Role-based access, multi-tenancy (by unit/post), and offline client capabilities for administrators and end users?

The CFS includes requirements that address all three of these capabilities. The proposed solution must include role-based access controls (Page 5), multi-tenant architecture for Army-wide scalability/data segregation (Page 4), and full offline functionality for all users at the tactical edge (Page 3/4).

41 Required training package details: instructor-led + self-paced, train-the-trainer, audience sizes, and formats (CONUS/OCONUS).

The CFS outlines the components for training and sustainment plan on page 5.

The solution must include instructor led and self paced options, a train-the trainer program, and 60 days of initial support. Specific audience sizes and delivery methods are not predefined in this call.

42 Minimum post-deployment support (you noted ~60 days earlier—confirm hours, SLAs, tiers, spare parts).

Proposed solutions must include tiered support with defined response times during business hours, and this support must be available for at least the first 60 days post-deployment. The responsibility is on the vendor to define what the specific tiers, response times, and business hours will be as part of a comprehensive sustainment plan.

43 Documentation requirements in Government-editable formats—which artifacts are mandatory at Solution Brief vs after award? See CFS Section 6 Solution Submission Requirements.

44 Who owns long-term lifecycle support (firmware, tags, spare readers, cybersecurity patches)?

The Government is seeking a complete, end-to-end capability, not just a one-time technology purchase. Offerors should detail their plan for managing these activities over the life of the system.

45 Will evaluation favor COTS with minimal customization, or is custom/defense-integrator packaging preferred if it accelerates ATO?

The Government is not expressing a simple preference for COTS or custom development. Instead, it is seeking the most effective and secure solution, regardless of its origin, with emphasis on leveraging mature commercial technology.

46 Are past performance examples required for similar DoD/Army logistics RFID deployments?

See CFS Section 6 Solution Submission Requirements. Offerors are not formally required to submit a list of past projects. However, Offerors are permitted to demonstrate relevant experience within the technical narrative of their Solution Brief if the Offeror believes it provides value.

47 For Phase 1 Solution Briefs, what level of architecture detail, BOM, cybersecurity approach, and pilot plan is expected (page limits, demo/video allowed)? See CFS Section 6 Solution Submission Requirements.

48 How will cost be considered at this Call-for-Solutions stage vs later phases (ROM, firm fixed price pilot, etc.)?

See CFS Section 6 Submission Requirements. Price is not being evaluated in Phase 1, only for compliance with the CFS instructions. Pricing details for later phases will be outlined in subsequent invitation letters.

49 Can multiple OEMs team (hardware OEM + integrator + cybersecurity partner), and is a prime contractor structure preferred?

Teaming is allowed but see CFS Page 9 regarding Original Providers and Intermediaries.

Section 3 (Enhanced Cybersecurity Posture) lists "FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6" as acceptable authorizations. Is a specific Impact Level required for this use case, or will any one of the three satisfy the evaluation criterion?

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. Solutions must use secure, standard, and open protocols capable of being accredited under DoD IL5/IL6 standards.

Section 3 (Timeline & Deployment) references testing and fielding the solution "across the Army" within 12 months. Can the Government provide an estimated scope — number of installations, units, or asset volume — to support an accurate schedule and pricing estimate?

Offerors shall provide a proposed project schedule and total estimated out-the-door price, and describe how the proposed schedule is achievable for the proposed solution/concept based on their expertise. The CFS does not provide a specific estimated scope and offerors shall demonstrate their capacity and readiness for large scale deployment.

52 Does the Government have a designated installation (type/scope) in mind for the 30–60 day pilot referenced in Section 3?

Information regarding designated installation (type/scope) for the 30-60 day pilot will be provided in invitation letters in subsequent phases. Should offeror(s) be invited to any subsequent phase(s), specific instructions for that phase will be provided at that time.

Section 6.1.1 states Solution Briefs may be submitted as up to 11 written pages or up to 15 slides. May an offeror combine narrative pages and slide-formatted visuals within a single submission, or must the format be exclusively one or the other?

The offeror shall not combine narrative pages and slide formatted visuals within a single submission. The format must be exclusively narrative pages (11 written pages) or briefing slides (not exceeding 15 slides). IAW CFS Section 5, Offerors are strongly encouraged to use diagrams, graphics, and concise text to effectively convey complex information. For this purpose, landscape-oriented (11 x 8.5 inch) pages are permissible for visuals but will be counted toward the total page limit, which is strictly enforced.

The solution attributes in Section 3 require Authorization to Operate (ATO) at the required Impact Level (FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6). Would the Government be willing to accept a solution that commits to a defined, milestone-based ATO maturation path—rather than holding the certification at the time of Phase 1 (Solution Brief) submission—provided the offeror demonstrates a credible plan and the technical foundation to achieve it?

The Government will accept a solution that proposes a credible, defined, milestone-based maturation path to achieve the required ATO prior to full-scale fielding.

Section 3 references both FedRAMP High and DoD IL5/IL6. For the asset-visibility and accountability data contemplated under Project GAVELS, what Impact Level does the Government consider mandatory for award? Specifically, would IL4 (CUI) be sufficient, or is IL5 the minimum acceptable level for the full proposed capability?

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. Solutions must use secure, standard, and open protocols capable of being accredited under DoD IL5/IL6 standards. IL5 is the minimum acceptable level for full-scale fielding.

Under what circumstances, if any, would IL6 (classified up to SECRET) be required for this effort? Understanding this distinction is material to our proposed architecture, schedule, and cost.

While IL5 is the baseline for managing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), an IL6 authorization would be required if the scope of Project GAVELS were to support specific, mission-driven use cases that may arise after the initial deployment (i.e., tracking of classified assets, software installed/operated on SIPRNet).

Would the Government consider sponsoring or hosting the proposed solution within an existing Army or DoD IL5-authorized enclave, thereby enabling the offeror to inherit a substantial portion of the applicable security controls?

If solution is viable, Government will support the vendors IL5/6 accreditation.

Brief should highlight any part of the solution that already holds a relevant Government or DoD certification.

Section 3 permits "an existing ATO for core components that can be extended to cover the full solution." Would deployment of our solution into an already-authorized environment (for example, a FedRAMP High / IL5-authorized GovCloud or Azure Government instance) satisfy this provision, allowing us to inherit platform-level controls rather than pursuing a full authorization from the ground up?

If solution is viable, Government will support the vendors IL5/6 accreditation.

Brief should highlight any part of the solution that already holds a relevant Government or DoD certification.

Our current commercial product is delivered as a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) application. We understand that IL5 generally requires dedicated infrastructure or strong logical/physical separation. Can the Government confirm whether a dedicated, single-tenant Government instance (segregated from our commercial multi-tenant platform) is the expected path to compliance, and whether any specific separation standards beyond the DoD Cloud Computing SRG will apply?

The Call for Solutions establishes the overarching requirement to achieve a DoD IL5 Authorization to Operate (ATO). The Government expects vendors to propose and justify their specific architectural approach, including their strategy for data segregation and tenant isolation, to successfully meet the rigorous controls required by this impact level.

60 Can the Government confirm FIPs 140 is required? If yes, does the solution have to be FIPs validated or FIPs compliant?

The use of FIPS 140-validated cryptography is a mandatory component for any solution intended to achieve a DoD IL5 Authorization to Operate (ATO).

Section 3 requires compliance with Army cybersecurity requirements, "including encrypted data handling and audit logging." Can the Government confirm whether FIPS 140-validated cryptography (i.e., cryptographic modules holding active NIST CMVP certificates, operated in FIPS-approved mode) is required for all encryption of data in transit and at rest under this effort, consistent with NIST SP 800-53 controls SC-13, SC-28, and IA-7 at the applicable Impact Level?

The Government confirms all cryptographic modules used to protect Government data (both at rest and in transit) are required to be FIPS 140-2/3 validated.

Given that all FIPS 140-2 certificates are scheduled to move to Historical status on 21 September 2026, and that new system implementations after that date are expected to rely on FIPS 140-3 validated modules, will the Government require FIPS 140-3 validated modules for this solution, or will FIPS 140-2 validated modules be acceptable for the pilot and initial deployment phases? Additionally, will inheritance of validated cryptographic modules from an authorized hosting platform (e.g., a FedRAMP High / IL5-authorized cloud environment) satisfy this requirement?

The Government expects the solution to be fully compliant with the FIPS 140 standards that are active at the time of its full Authorization to Operate (ATO).

The inheritance of validated cryptographic modules from an authorized hosting platform is the expected approach for platform-level cryptography.

Section 6.1.1(c)(viii) invites offerors to "identify a suggested path to mature the technology" where development or adaptation is proposed. Can the Government confirm that a maturation roadmap addressing security accreditation (including the transition from a commercial platform to a Government-compliant instance) will be evaluated favorably under the Technical Merit and Schedule criteria, rather than viewed as a disqualifying gap?

Proposing a defined maturation roadmap (including the path to security accreditation and the transition to a Government-compliant instance) will not inherently be viewed as a disqualifying gap. If solution is viable, Government will support the vendors IL5/6 accreditation. Brief should highlight any part of the solution that already holds a relevant Government or DoD certification.

Given the phased Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) structure and the pilot timeline in Section 3 (a successful pilot within 30–60 days), would the Government consider a pilot conducted in a Government-furnished or Government-approved environment to accommodate security requirements during the maturation period, prior to full ATO?

Details on the pilot envrionment will be provided at a later phase.

The "Closed Architecture Integration" attribute requires local, cloud-free data processing without reliance on vendor cloud services or external routing, while the Enhanced Cybersecurity Posture attribute references FedRAMP/IL cloud authorizations. Does the Government envision the primary system as an on-premise / edge deployment carrying a system-specific Army ATO under the Risk Management Framework (RMF), with a FedRAMP/IL-authorized cloud used only for periodic synchronization and enterprise integration?

Yes.

We have a mature commercially capable software solution that we assess can meet most of the near-term functional requirements of this Call. Recognizing that our current solution is not yet at the Government's security accreditation standard, is the Government open to working collaboratively with an offeror that formally commits to the required security development and accreditation work as part of a phased proof-of-concept and validation effort?

The Government is seeking solutions for innovative and compellling approaches which define an architecture that meets the functional requirements outlined in the CFS. All complete Solution Briefs will be thoroughly reviewed and considered. The evaluation will focus on the merits of the proposed solution as a whole including its current capabilities and its defined path to meet all Government requirements and how effectively it addresses the Army's needs.

67 Can the Government define which classes of supply will be included under this effort?

The scope of Project GAVELS is not defined by specific Army "classes of supply." The CFS outlines the requirement for a flexible solution capable of tracking a broad range of assets based on their type, accountability requirements, and operational environment.

Would the awarded contractor also be spec’ing in and installing the RFID hardware and RFID tags / labels? The RFID read rate effectiveness of a solution is dependent upon the physical configuration of the RFID hardware and chosen RFID tags / labels.

Solution briefs must demonstrate a clear, viable plan for moving from hardware specification to an operational, fully-tagged environment. The scope of tasks for any potential pilot and full-fielding phases will be formalized in subsequent Phase(s) requirements.

69 Will the Government consider extending the due date for responses to 10 business days after the Q&A has been posted?

The Government has extended the due date for submissions to 29 July 2026 at

10:00AM ET.

The total estimated “out-the-door” price required by Section 6.1.1(c)(vii) will vary materially depending on the operational use case selected for validation. Please clarify whether the pilot is expected to address an arms room, motor pool, warehouse or receiving operation, maintenance organization or depot, fixed-portal track-in/track-out environment, complex parent-child system-of-systems accountability, or another representative operational setting. For example, a parent-child use case could include a PATRIOT Fire Unit or firing battery with major end items, launchers, prime movers, generators, Basic Issue Items, Components of End Item, cables, tools, and support or ancillary equipment. Another Use case could be a “systems of systems" use case that demonstrates a parent to child relationship like the issue of an Armored Brigade Combat Team from Army Prepositioned Stocks.

Please identify the preferred representative use case and associated planning quantities, or confirm that offerors may define and price a representative pilot using clearly stated assumptions and separately priced options. Please also confirm whether the Phase 1 out-the-door price is intended to be a planning-level estimate subject to refinement and negotiation during Phase 3 after the final scope, quantities, site conditions, integration requirements, cybersecurity boundary, and acceptance criteria are defined.

The Government confirms that the Phase 1 "total estimated out-the-door price" is intended to be a planning-level estimate subject to refinement and negotiation during subsequent phases. Offerors may define and price based on their own clearly stated assumptions.

The Phase 1 price submission is a preliminary planning figure used by the Government to assess general affordability, value, and scale. The Government fully understands that this estimate will vary materially depending on the final use case.

If vendor(s) are invited to participate in Phase 2 and/or Phase 3, they will be provided with the formalized scope, quantities, specific site conditions, enterprise integration requirements, and cybersecurity boundaries. At that time, offeror(s) will have the opportunity to submit a refined, formal pricing proposal based on the Government's exact specifications.

Please identify any prescribed pilot quantities, including the anticipated number of locations, users, accountable assets, parent systems, subordinate components, handheld readers, fixed-reader portals, printers or encoders, antennas, gateways, and RFID tags.

Please also identify any Government-furnished equipment, infrastructure, data, personnel, network resources, hosting environments, or installation support that offerors should assume will be available. If the Government does not intend to prescribe these quantities or resources, please confirm that offerors may establish reasonable assumptions in their Solution Brief.

The Government is not prescribing specific quantities, asset volumes, or exact hardware counts for the Phase 1 Solution Brief. Offerors may establish and clearly state reasonable assumptions. The Government confirms that it will provide the necessary access and operational support, as appropriate, to facilitate the execution of any potential pilot.

To support a realistic solution schedule, please clarify whether the Government intends to make existing Army personnel or Government-contracted installation, logistics, maintenance, Army Prepositioned Stocks, LOGCAP, EAGLE, base-operations, or other personnel available to support asset identification, staging, physical tagging, validation, and reconciliation.

Please also clarify whether “field the solution across the Army within 12 months” means:

1.establishing an enterprise-ready and continuously deployable capability;

2.beginning phased fielding;

3.completing deployment at a defined number of prioritized locations;

4.completing deployment for a specified class or type of inventory; or 5.completing physical tagging of all selected Army assets within the 12-month period.

If the GAVELS awardee must provide physical-tagging labor beyond the initial pilot, please identify the planning quantities and geographic scope offerors should use.

The Government is not prescribing a mandatory labor model for physical tagging, nor is it establishing a fixed, quantitative definition of the 12-month scale-out for Phase 1. Offerors should propose their recommended approach to both operational execution and enterprise fielding, annotating all assumptions.

The specific delineations of labor responsibilities, finalized deployment scopes, and exact installation locations will be formally defined in the subsequent Phase 2/3 invitation letters.

Please identify the Army or other authoritative systems that must be integrated during the pilot and whether the Government expects:

1.a live production interface;

2.a Government test-environment interface;

3.a representative API demonstration;

4.middleware integration; or 5.a file-based exchange.

Will the Government provide the necessary interface-control documents, data dictionaries, representative data, test credentials, middleware access, and Government technical points of contact sufficiently early to support the required pilot schedule?

See answer to Question #5.

The Government will provide the necessary access and technical information, as appropriate, to facilitate integration and support of any potential pilot schedule. The Government points of contact will be formally defined and provided to selected vendors in the subsequent Phase 2/3 invitation letters.

Please identify the cybersecurity authorization required before pilot operation, including whether the Government expects a full Authorization to Operate, Interim Authorization to Test, Authority to Connect, inclusion within an existing authorization boundary, reciprocity from an existing authorization, or another prototype-specific approval.

Please also clarify:

•which Government organization will sponsor and own the eMASS record;

•whether the Government will provide the ISSM and ISSO;

•whether complete RMF package development and authorization support should be included in the out-the-door price; and •whether FedRAMP High or DoD IL5/IL6 authorization is required before the pilot or represents the intended enterprise end state.

If solution is viable, Government will support the vendors IL5/6 accreditation.

Brief should highlight any part of the solution that already holds a relevant Government or DoD certification.

Please clarify when the 30-to-60-day pilot period begins - for example, at award, notice to proceed, site availability, completion of the site survey, receipt of Government-furnished information, network availability, cybersecurity approval or another defined event. Please confirm whether the performance schedule will be adjusted for delays involving Government site access, Government-furnished data or equipment, interface availability, network approval, cybersecurity review, or other Government-controlled dependencies.

The 30-60 day pilot is anticipated to begin on or around October 2026. The Government confirms that the final performance schedule will account for Government-controlled dependencies.

Please identify the principal objective metrics that will determine successful pilot completion, including expected read accuracy, acceptable missed-read and false-positive rates, transaction latency, DDIL synchronization performance, auditability, system availability and user acceptance. Please also clarify whether all requirements identified in Section 3 are expected to be operationally demonstrated during the initial pilot, or whether selected capabilities - such as predictive analytics, enterprise authorization, or Army-wide scalability - may be addressed through architecture, supporting evidence, a maturity plan, or a subsequent phase.

The objective metrics for the pilot will be formally defined in subsequent invitation letters and tailored to the selected operational scenario. Specific pilot objectives, acceptance criteria, and the finalized scope of the operational demonstration will be negotiated and established with selected vendors during Phase 2/3.

77 Are there any requirements beyond RFID such as OCR, Multi-barcode scanning, Mobile Dimensioning, etc.? See answers to Question #3 and Question #11.

78 What is the backend ERP/WMS systems and does the provider need to integrate to more than one backend system? See answer to Question #5.

79 Can you identify the systems that need to be integrated? See answer to Question #5.

80 How many potential users do you anticipate using the solution? See answer to Question #71.

81 How many potential users do you anticipate training? See answer to Question #41.

82 How many potential sites do you anticipate using the solution? See answer to Question # 34.

83 Can you describe the environment where the solution will be deployed (e.g., warehouse, office building, recieving dock) See answer to Question #15.

84 Can you describe the assets being tracked and their sizes See answer to Question #10.

85 Can you explain the selection process, will Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) be a factor in the final decision

For the initial Phase 1 (Solution Brief) submission, price is not a formal evaluation criterion. The Government's decision will be based on the technical merit, schedule, and viability of the solution. Evaluation will prioritize the merit of the technology and the ability to deliver it, not on which solution has the lowest price.

86 Has the Army previously worked with a solution provider to solve this stated problem? If so, who was the provider and when did this occur? This question is not relevant to the Call for Solution.

Can the Government provide additional detail regarding the types of hardware intended to be tracked under this effort? Specifically, which categories of battery-operated and non-battery-operated equipment are expected to require RFID tagging (e.g., weapons, communications equipment, power systems, generators, vehicles, repair parts, tools, or other accountable assets)?

See answer to Question #10.

Can the Government provide an estimate of the current inventory of assets anticipated to be managed under this effort, along with projected growth over the next five years? This information will assist offerors in appropriately sizing the proposed architecture, infrastructure, licensing, and performance requirements.

The Government is not providing a specific, overarching asset inventory count or projected 5-year growth metric during Phase 1. Offerors must propose a scalable architecture capable of supporting enterprise-level operations and clearly annotate the capacity assumptions used to size their "total estimated out-the-door" price.

Can the Government provide additional insight into where RFID-tagged assets are expected to reside throughout their lifecycle? Specifically:

What percentage of assets are anticipated to remain within fixed facilities such as depots, warehouses, arsenals, maintenance activities, and supply support activities?

What percentage of assets are expected to be tracked while in transit or employed by tactical units and other operational organizations?

Can the Government describe the anticipated end-to-end asset workflow (e.g., receipt, storage, issue, transportation, operational use, maintenance, return, redistribution, and disposal) that the solution is expected to support?

The solution must be architected to provide continuous visibility and accountability for assets across the entire military logistics lifecycle, from strategic depots to the tactical edge. Solution brief capabilities to support the core workflow functions are identified in the CFS. Solution Briefs should describe how the proposed technology provides the necessary flexibility to support varied events throughout an asset's lifecycle, from initial receipt to final disposition.

Given the complexity of the requirement and the importance of the Government's responses to industry questions, would the Government consider extending the proposal submission deadline? Providing offerors sufficient time to evaluate the responses and incorporate them into their technical and management approaches would help ensure the submission of the highest-quality proposals.

See answer to Question #69.

Can the Government identify the primary accountable property system(s) and logistics system(s) of record the solution is expected to integrate with during the pilot (e.g., GCSS- Army, AESIP, IPPS-A, or another system)?

See answer to Question #5.

Can the Government identify the required EPC memory encoding format for RFID tags used during the pilot (e.g., SGTIN-96, GIAI-96, DoD UID, or another Government-defined encoding structure)?

The Call for Solutions does not prescribe a specific, mandatory EPC memory encoding format (e.g., SGTIN-96, GIAI-96) for the pilot. Instead, the Government has established a functional requirement: the solution must be capable of encoding the data elements from a standard DoD Item Unique Identification (IUID) onto an EPC Class 1 Gen 2 compliant tag.

Will the pilot leverage existing Government-owned RFID infrastructure (readers, antennas, handhelds, and tags), or is the offeror expected to provide all RFID infrastructure?

Similarly, are Government assets already tagged with passive RFID, or is initial tagging of assets included within the pilot scope?

See answers to Question #14 and Question #68.

94 Can the Government identify the required Impact Level (IL) and Authorization to Operate (ATO) target for the pilot environment? See answers to Question #50 and Question #54.

95 Can the Government identify the intended pilot operational environment (e.g., warehouse, motor pool, arms room, maintenance facility, or a mixed environment)? See answer to Question #15.

96 Can the Government provide an estimated pilot scale, including approximate numbers of assets, readers, facilities, and users? See answers to Question #36 and Question # 71.

What quantitative performance metrics will be used to evaluate pilot success (e.g., inventory accuracy, portal read accuracy, latency, false positive rate, missed read rate, or inventory cycle time reduction)?

See answer to Question #76.

Will Phase 2 demonstrations include live operational testing under Denied, Disrupted, Intermittent, and Limited (DDIL) conditions, or will demonstrations primarily be presentation-based?

As described in the Call for Solutions, Phase 2 is a presentation-based "Pitch," not a live operational test. Please note that the Government reserves the right to bypass the Phase 2 Pitch entirely and move selected offerors directly to a Phase 3 proposal request. The specific requirements for any phase after the current Solution Brief submission will be formally defined in subsequent invitation letters.

Additionally, we recognize the demands on the Government team and appreciate the pace of this Call. Should the Government's responses to industry questions be published close to the current 23 July suspense, we respectfully ask whether the Government would consider a brief extension of the Solution Brief due date. A short additional window would allow offerors to fully incorporate the Government's clarifications, which we believe would improve the quality and responsiveness of the submissions received

See answer to Question #69