Attachment 2-RFI_M67854-26-I-4208_Official_QA_20261021_Public_Release.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 63 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M6785426I4208
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) database compiled from industry inquiries regarding a Request for Information (RFI) for the Marine Corps Cyberspace Environment (MCCE) Operational Support Services (OSS) and Enterprise Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration market research effort. The document addresses 243 questions submitted by potential vendors between the RFI release and the September 17, 2026 question submission deadline, with answers provided by the Government to clarify solicitation requirements and expectations.
The RFI seeks qualified commercial partners to deliver enterprise-scale IT operational support services to the Marine Corps, supporting approximately 170,000 NIPR and 25,000 SIPR users across major functional areas including Enterprise Service Desk, End User Support, Datacenter/Network Operations, Cyberspace Defense, and Engineering Services. The primary requirement focuses on providing skilled, certified personnel (Objective 1) meeting DoD Cyber Workforce Framework (DCWF) standards with Day-One certification compliance, while exploring AI and automation integration (Objective 3) as an embedded component to improve efficiency and reduce touch-labor costs. The Government confirmed the final response deadline as Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM EST, with responses comprising a five-page Capabilities Narrative addressing company overview and strategy, and a detailed Vendor Comment Matrix with direct answers to 51 specific technical and commercial questions limited to 300 words per cell. Key clarifications include: the Government will not fund new third-party software licenses; contractor-provided AI/automation tools must operate within accredited IL5/IL6 boundaries and be offered at no additional cost; the Government has not finalized the acquisition strategy or contract vehicle; baseline staffing and operational data will be provided at the formal RFP stage; personnel must hold Secret clearances at minimum with some requiring TS/SCI eligibility; and all capabilities must align with DoD policies including potential compliance with DoW Instruction 8430.01 on Accelerated Mission Software. The Government is actively considering various acquisition approaches including segmented structures to support small business participation and welcomes partial solutions addressing specialized capabilities such as AI integration from firms not proposing full-scope labor services.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI M67854-26-I-4208 Amendment 04.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI M67854-26-I-4208 Amendment 03.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI M67854-26-I-4208 Amendment 02.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI M67854-26-I-4208 Amendment 01.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2- Industry QA Matrix_V1 M67854-26-I-4208 Amendment 01.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2- Industry QA Matrix_V1 M67854-26-I-4208.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFI M67854-26-I-4208.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - Vendor Comment Matrix_M67854-26-I-4208.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Master Q&A Database
| Example | (RFI paragraph, area, or attachment) | |||
| Question# | RFI Section/Reference | Industry Question | Government Response | |
| Q-001 | Section 1.0 (p.1) vs. Section 6.4 (p.10) | The cover page in Section 1.0 lists a response due date of 25 September 2026, while Section 6.4 lists a response due date of 5 October 2026, 1:00 PM EST. Would the Government please confirm the authoritative response due date that vendors should plan against? | The Government is extending the vendor response deadline to Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM EST. The question submission window closed on September 17, 2026, and is not being reopened. | |
| Q-002 | Section 3.1 / Section 4.0 (pp.2-4) | The RFI references operating within FedRAMP Authorized (or DoD equivalent), IL5, and IL6 environments. Would the Government please clarify whether a Department of the Navy or other DoW/Service-level Authority to Operate, or a FedRAMP High authorization, is considered sufficient to satisfy the IL5 and IL6 requirements, and whether IL6 (classified up to SECRET) is in scope for the AI/automation capability? | The Government intends to define specific authorization requirements in the RFP. For planning purposes, respondents should assume all solutions and capabilities, including any exploratory Super Intelligence (SI), must be architected to achieve and maintain a DoD Authority to Operate (ATO) within the specified IL5 and IL6 boundaries. | |
| Q-003 | Section 3.2 (p.3) | Section 3.2 states this is not a software procurement and that efficiency must come from either contractor internally funded corporate tooling at no additional licensing cost or from optimizing existing Government-owned enterprise tools. Would the Government please confirm that contractor-owned automation tooling, furnished at no additional license cost and installed inside the applicable authorized Government environment, is permissible, as distinct from a strategy limited solely to optimizing Government-furnished tools? | Yes. Consistent with Section 3.2, contractor-furnished tooling is permissible provided it is operated within the accredited Government boundary and offered at no additional software licensing, subscription, or direct usage cost to the Government. | |
| Q-004 | Area G, Questions 6-7 (p.8) | Areas G.6 and G.7 ask about small business subcontracting and increasing small business participation. Would the Government please indicate whether it intends to structure this requirement as divisible scope or segment it into functional areas, so that vendors may propose a teaming and small business participation construct aligned to that segmentation? | The Government is utilizing this market research to evaluate both consolidated and segmented contracting structures. Final determinations regarding contract packaging or small business set-asides will be established in the formal solicitation (RFP), if released. | |
| Q-005 | Area G, Questions 1-4 (p.8) | Areas G.1 through G.4 address contract type and acquisition strategy. First, would the Government please share which contracting approach it currently anticipates, for example a FAR Part 8 order against a GSA Multiple Award Schedule (such as IT Professional Services SIN 54151S or Highly Adaptive Cybersecurity Services SIN 54151HACS), an order under a Governmentwide Acquisition Contract, or an open-market FAR Part 15 action? Second, would the Government please indicate whether it intends to treat the OSS labor services as commercial services under FAR 2.101, acquired under FAR Part 12? | The Government has not finalized the acquisition strategy or contract vehicle. The determination of whether services will be acquired under FAR Part 12 as commercial services will be made during acquisition planning. | |
| Q-006 | Area B, Question 7 (p.5) | Area B.7 requests a 5-year Rough Order of Magnitude estimate. Would the Government please confirm the assumptions vendors should use for the ROM, specifically the applicable user scale (the As-Is 170,000 NIPR / 25,000 SIPR versus the To-Be 250,000 NIPR / 35,000 SIPR figures), the base and option period structure, and whether the ROM should assume use of Government-furnished tooling? | (REVISED) For the purposes of the ROM, respondents should use the "As-Is" user scale of 170,000 NIPR / 25,000 SIPR users as the baseline, assume a base period of one year plus four one-year option periods, and assume tooling is provided per the constraints outlined in Section 3.2. Respondents must clearly state all assumptions made in the development of their ROM. | |
| Q-007 | Section 3.2, Pages 2–3; Area B, Questions 5, 7, and 8, Page 4; Area G, Question 11, Page 8 | Section 3.2 states that this is not a software procurement and that the Government will not fund or acquire new third-party software licenses; however, Area B requests ROM pricing for platform licensing/subscription, variable consumption, and O&M, and Area G.11 discusses scaling into advanced technologies in later periods. Should vendors assume that any proposed technology/tool costs must be entirely contractor-borne as part of the service offering, or may vendors include optional priced technology elements for potential consideration in later phases or option periods? | This is a services acquisition. Any costs associated with contractor-provided proprietary tooling (licensing, subscriptions, etc.) are expected to be included within the fully burdened labor rates of the "Labor" ROM component. The "Platform Licensing/Subscription" and "Variable/Consumption Costs" line items should be used only for estimating potential Government-incurred costs on Government-owned platforms. If a vendor's solution does not generate such costs, those line items should be marked as $0. | |
| Q-008 | Area B, Question 1, Pages 3–4; Area B, Question 9, Page 4; Section 3.1, Page 2 | To support meaningful and comparable industry responses regarding ticket deflection, labor optimization, and break-even analysis, can the Government provide baseline operational metrics for the current environment, such as approximate annual or monthly ticket volumes by tier, alert/event volumes, current service level targets, major service towers in scope, and current staffing/FTE distribution by functional area? | While detailed operational baselines will be provided as GFI in the RFP Technical Library, for initial RFI planning purposes, respondents may use the following general estimates: the requirement supports a globally distributed enterprise of approximately 180,000 active users. The touch-labor workforce is distributed across major functional areas including Enterprise Service Desk, End User Support, Datacenter/Network Operations, Cyberspace Defense, and Engineering Services. The enterprise service desk fields a volume of approximately 350,000-400,000 tickets annually. | |
| Q-009 | Section 3.2, Pages 2–3; Section 4.0 Objective 3, Page 3; Area C, Questions 2, 7, and 8, Page 5 | For contractor-provided AI or automation capabilities, must all tools operate entirely within Government-owned IL5/IL6 boundaries, or would the Government consider accredited contractor-hosted environments or secure overlay approaches, provided that data sovereignty, CUI isolation, and applicable DoD/FedRAMP security requirements are satisfied? | The Government's strong preference is for all capabilities and data to reside within the appropriate Government-accredited IL5/IL6 boundaries. Respondents proposing any alternative architecture must clearly detail how their approach will meet all DoD security and data sovereignty requirements. | |
| Q-010 | Section 3.2, Pages 2–3; Area C, Question 7, Page 5; Area C, Question 8, Page 5 | Can the Government provide additional detail regarding the Government-owned enterprise tools and modules currently available within scope for optimization—such as ServiceNow capabilities, Microsoft 365/Power Platform components, workflow tools, knowledge management tools, and API/integration availability—so that vendors can tailor their responses consistent with the stated preference to maximize existing Government-owned capabilities? | The Government intends to provide a detailed list of relevant GFE/GFI in the Technical Library at the RFP stage. For this RFI, respondents should focus on their capabilities to leverage common DoD enterprise platforms. | |
| Q-011 | Section 3.2, Question 11 | Given Section 3.2, does this refer to consumption costs incurred by the contractor, or to Government-incurred consumption on Government-owned platforms (for example ServiceNow AI credits, Power Automate premium connectors, GenAI.mil usage) that the contractor would monitor and forecast on the Government's behalf? | Please see the response to Q-007. Costs for contractor-provided tooling should be included in the fully burdened labor rates. | |
| Q-012 | RFI Section 3.1 / Attachment 1, Questions 10 and 12 | Will the Government provide current-state baseline data to inform ROM and break-even estimates, specifically: annual ticket volume by service area and tier, current contractor FTE counts by service area, and the NIPR/SIPR split of both? If this data cannot be released at the RFI stage, will it be provided with a future RFP? | The Government intends to provide relevant workload data as GFI in the RFP Bidder's Library. For this RFI, respondents should provide a ROM based on the user counts provided and their experience in comparable enterprise environments. | |
| Q-013 | RFI Section 3.2 / Attachment 1, Question 10: Section 3.2 | Section 3.2 states that the Government will not fund or acquire new third-party software licenses or proprietary IT tools. Attachment 1, Question 10 requests a ROM broken out to include "Platform Licensing/Subscription" and "Variable/Consumption Costs." Should respondents (a) enter $0 for these components consistent with Section 3.2, (b) price them as optional, separately funded CLINs aligned to the later option periods described in Section 2.2, or (c) apply another approach? | Please see the response to Q-007. | |
| Q-014 | RFI general Instructions | The instructions say that Capability Statements are to address seven primary evaluation areas listed in the solicitation and that responses must map direct answers to the 51 questions listed both in the solicitation and the Vendor Comment Matrix. If the Vendor Comment Matrix is the vehicle in which we provide direct answers to the 51 questions, then what material should populate the responses in the capabilities statement? The submission instructions say to provide general operational strategy, but with no PWS/SOW provided, the operational strategy would be answered as a result of the questions in the Vendor Comment Matrix. | The 5-page Capabilities Narrative should provide a high-level executive summary of your company's overall approach. The Vendor Comment Matrix contains the direct, detailed answers to each specific question. | |
| Q-015 | RFI general Instructions | Many of the questions listed in the primary evaluation areas require multi-part answers that would exceed the 300-word limit and 5-page . Could this word limit and page count be expanded to account for these questions? | Please see the response in Clarification Statement #3, which will be released with this Q&A. | |
| Q-016 | RFI general Instructions | Will the government grant an extension until October 19th to help accommodate the complexity of this response? | Yes. The Government is extending the vendor response deadline to Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM EST. The question submission window is closed. | |
| Q-017 | RFI general Instructions | Will the Government evaluate/consider partial solutions to this requirement? | Yes. The Government welcomes responses from all interested parties, including those with specialized capabilities in a subset of the RFI's objectives. | |
| Q-018 | RFI Page 9, Section 6.1 Format & Page Limitations | Can tables, charts, and graphics be 8pt font as opposed to the 12pt font listed in the formatting instructions? | Yes. While narrative body text must adhere to the 12-point font standard, tables, charts, and graphics may use font sizes down to 8-point, provided all content remains clear and legible. | |
| Q-019 | RFI Page 5, Section 5.0, Area B.5 | How will the government evaluate a proposed license structure requested against the defined statement that licenses will not be part of this solicitation? | The Government has not finalized the source selection methodology. Evaluation factors will be formally detailed in Sections L and M of the RFP, should one be issued. | |
| Q-020 | RFI Page 5, Section 5.0, Area B.7 | Is the requested ROM for the entire content of the RFI, or just for the deployment of the proposed Automation/AI Augmentation SW discussed in Section 5 Area B? | The ROM should address the full scope of providing the professional IT operational support services described throughout the RFI, with any contractor-tooling costs embedded in the labor rates. | |
| Q-021 | RFI Pages 3-4, Sections 3.2 and 5.0 | Which ServiceNow, Microsoft 365, and other enterprise modules, AI capabilities, integration interfaces, and hosting resources will be available to the contractor within each IL5 and IL6 environment? Which capabilities are already licensed and authorized for operational use? | The Government intends to provide a detailed list of relevant GFE/GFI in the Technical Library at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-022 | 3.2 / page 3 | What is the complete list of "Existing Enterprise Tools" for which industry may attempt to maximize their use? | The Government intends to provide a detailed list of relevant GFE/GFI in the Technical Library at the RFP stage. For this RFI, respondents should focus on their capabilities to leverage common DoD enterprise platforms and state any assumptions made. | |
| Q-023 | 3.2 / page 3 | When providing the list of "existing Enterprise Tools" would the USMC please provide OEM name, OEM's Product Name, OEM's Part #, Unit of Measure for the license, and quantity of that license type? | The Government intends to provide a detailed list of relevant GFE/GFI, including major enterprise software platforms, in the Technical Library at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-024 | 3.2 / page 3 | For each "Existing Enterprise Tool", would the USMC please summarize to what degree the tool's functionality has been deployed or not deployed? | The Government intends to provide detailed enterprise architecture descriptions and module deployment states in the Technical Library at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-025 | 3.2 / page 3 | When summarizing to what degree the tool's functionality has been deployed or not deployed, may we please receive a list of "use cases" for what the tool is accomplishing today and what the USMC knows are not uses that the tool is able to provide, but the USMC is not yet employing that functionality? | The Government intends to provide relevant operational context and baseline information at the RFP stage. For this RFI, respondents should describe their capabilities to identify and automate common IT support use cases. | |
| Q-026 | 4 - Objective 2 / page 3 | Would the USMC please provide a self assessment summary of the degree to which the ITIL Framework has been implemented across the MCEE's processes and procedures? | The Government intends to provide relevant operational maturity and process information as GFI at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-027 | 4 - Objective 3 / page 3 | Is this Objective one in which the USMC would entertain new software technologies that are not currently part of the "Existing Enterprise Tools" | This RFI is for market research purposes to understand industry capabilities. Section 3.2 governs the constraints for any proposed solution; this is a services acquisition, and the Government will not be funding new software licenses. | |
| Q-028 | 5.0 - Area A / Page 4 | The Company Overview & Past Performance requirements seem to indicate that this RFI is directed at Systems Integrators that have employed commercially available or custom built technologies to "perform large-scale IT support services. ". Does this imply that the USMC does not wish to receive responses from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that are the developers of the "Enterprise Tools" that nay be part of the MCEE today or could be considered as part of the Objective 3? Or does the USMC want to hear form the software and hardware OEMs as well? | The Government welcomes responses from all interested parties, including Systems Integrators and OEMs, that can provide capabilities relevant to the objectives outlined in the RFI. | |
| Q-029 | 5.0 - Area D - 8 - Contractor-Provided vs. Government-Owned Tooling: / page 7 | Would the USMC please clarify the scenarios in which a service provider may plan on the USMC adding software to its environment vs when the service provider may bring software that is hosted in their own corporate cloud or hosted in a Fedramp/IL qualifying environment? | Super Intelligence (SI) integration into IT Operations is an emerging capability. The development of the solution will require determining the scenarios in which a service provider may plan on the USMC adding software vs. when the service provider may bring software. | |
| Q-030 | 3.2 - 2 / page 3 | If the USMC has an existing OEM "Enterprise Tool" but has not yet licensed an available module from that OEM for use by the USMC, will the USMC consider expanding the use of that existing software or SaaS offering to bring in a new module that may allow the USMC to archive a level of AI automation? Or, is this RFI so strict that the USMC will in no way consider adding any additional licensing of any kind? | The Government is interested in industry's recommendations for maximizing the value of its existing enterprise agreements. | |
| Q-031 | 2.1–2.2, pp. 2–3; Area D, pp. 6–7 | What is the current contractor FTE baseline supporting the OSS requirement, and how is that workforce distributed by service tower, labor category, and NIPR/SIPR support? | Incumbent contractor staffing profiles are procurement-sensitive and will not be released during the market research phase. | |
| Q-032 | 3.1–3.2, pp. 2–3 | What are the current monthly and annual ticket volumes by service tower and tier, including the percentage handled through self-service versus human intervention? | Please see the response to Q-008. | |
| Q-033 | 3.1–3.2, pp. 2–3 | What percentage of current ticket volume and labor hours does the Government consider potentially addressable through automation, self-service, or automated remediation? | The Government is seeking industry's assessment and proposed model for this as part of their response to Area B. | |
| Q-034 | 3.1–3.2, pp. 2–3; Area B, p. 4 | What are the current baseline values for FCR, MTTR, ticket reopen rate, escalation rate, backlog, and SLA/SLR attainment across the major OSS service towers? | The Government intends to provide relevant performance baselines as GFI in the Bidder's Library at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-035 | 4.0, pp. 3–4; Area E, pp. 7–8 | What is the required onsite/remote staffing model by location and service tower, and which locations require 24x7x365 coverage? | The Government intends to define specific staffing models and coverage hours by location in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-036 | 3.1, p. 3; Area F, p. 8 | What is the current workforce distribution by required clearance/access level, including Secret, Top Secret and TS/SCI, where applicable? | The Government intends to formally specify clearance levels in the DD Form 254 with the RFP. For planning purposes, vendors should assume the vast majority of personnel (approximately 90%) will require a minimum of an active Secret clearance, with a small percentage requiring Top Secret or TS/SCI eligibility. | |
| Q-037 | Area C.7, p. 6 | Which ServiceNow modules, versions/capabilities, and automation features are currently Government-owned, licensed, and accredited for use within the MCCE? | Please see the response to Q-022. | |
| Q-038 | Area C.7, p. 6 | What Government-owned automation, orchestration, RPA, monitoring, endpoint-management, network-management, and cyber platforms are currently available for contractor use? | Please see the response to Q-022. | |
| Q-039 | Area C.7, p. 6 | What level of API, integration, administrative and scripting access will contractors have to ServiceNow, M365, network, endpoint, cyber and infrastructure platforms? | Contractors at different Commands will have different levels of access. A contractor supporting MCCOG would have a greater permission set than one supporting a local base. | |
| Q-040 | 2.2, p. 2; Area G.5, p. 9 | Does the Government have a preferred initial AI/automation use case for the first pilot, or should vendors identify and validate the highest-value use case during discovery? | The Government is seeking industry recommendations for high-value initial use cases for Super Intelligence (SI) as part of this market research. | |
| Q-041 | 4.0, p. 4; Area B, p. 4; Area D, pp. 6–7 | What level of operational autonomy does the Government envision for AI—recommendation only, human-approved execution, or autonomous execution of defined workflows? | Per the RFI, Super Intelligence (SI) must augment, not replace, final Government decision-making authority. The Government is seeking industry recommendations on appropriate autonomy boundaries and governance models. | |
| Q-042 | Area C.1–C.3, pp. 5–6 | How many years of historical ServiceNow data, including incident/request records and resolution notes, will be made available for AI grounding, testing and automation analysis? | The Government intends to provide a sufficient volume of relevant historical data as GFI to the successful offeror. | |
| Q-043 | Area C.2, p. 6 | Must AI models, embeddings, vector stores and knowledge repositories remain completely segregated between IL5/NIPR and IL6/SIPR environments, or will controlled interoperability be permitted? | The Government intends to define specific architectural requirements, including data segregation between security domains, in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-044 | Area C.2/C.5, p. 6 | Will the Government furnish the required AI/GPU compute infrastructure within the applicable boundaries, or will compute capacity be a contractor responsibility? | The Government intends to define responsibility for compute infrastructure in the formal RFP. For this RFI, respondents should state their assumptions. | |
| Q-045 | Area C.2, p. 6 | Will AI use cases deployed on an already-authorized enterprise AI platform be eligible for authorization inheritance, or will each production use case require a separate ATO/security authorization? | The Government intends to adhere to all DoD and DoN policies regarding reciprocity and authorization inheritance for Super Intelligence (SI) use cases. | |
| Q-046 | Area G.5, p. 9; Area D, pp. 6–7 | What quantitative results would the Government consider sufficient to move an AI/automation pilot into enterprise deployment—for example, ticket deflection, resolution-time improvement, automation success rate, or measurable labor-hour reduction? | The Government is seeking industry recommendations for quantitative results and performance thresholds that would demonstrate a successful SI pilot. | |
| Q-047 | 2.2, p. 2; Area G.11, p. 9 | At contract award, does the Government anticipate providing a defined AI/automation roadmap, or should the contractor be responsible for establishing and continuously updating the roadmap through an initial discovery period? | The primary requirement is providing stabilized IT touch-labor; Super Intelligence (SI) integration is an exploratory capability. The Government intends to define the responsibility for any future roadmap in the RFP PWS. | |
| Q-048 | 4.0, pp. 3–4 | Which OSS service towers currently generate the greatest operational workload or labor-hour burden? | The Government intends to provide functional service tower workload distributions as GFI during the RFP phase. | |
| Q-049 | Area C.1, p. 5 | Approximately how many knowledge articles, SOPs, technical manuals and troubleshooting documents currently support OSS operations, and are they maintained within centralized or distributed repositories? | The Government intends to provide additional detail on the state of its knowledge repositories at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-050 | Area C.1, p. 5 | What percentage of existing knowledge content is considered current, authoritative and approved for operational use? | The Government intends to provide additional detail on the state of its knowledge repositories at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-051 | Area C.7, p. 6 | Are there planned MCEN modernization or technology-refresh initiatives during the anticipated five-year performance period that vendors should account for in their architecture and transition approach? | The Government is continuously modernizing its IT environment. The selected contractor will be expected to align with and adapt to technology and infrastructure changes. | |
| Q-052 | 4.0, p. 4; Area C.8, p. 6 | Are there specific legacy platforms or manual processes that the Government already intends to retire, consolidate or automate as part of the future OSS effort? | The Government is seeking industry recommendations on this topic. Respondents are encouraged to propose their recommended technical approaches for retiring, consolidating, or automating legacy processes. | |
| Q-053 | Area B.3, p. 5 | Are HR, finance and other administrative workflows expected to become actual in-scope automation use cases, or are they illustrative examples of potential enterprise applications outside the core OSS scope? | The core scope is focused on MCCE OSS. The references to HR and finance are illustrative examples of the types of tasks that can be optimized through intelligent automation. | |
| Q-054 | 4.0, p. 4; Area C.4, p. 6 | For automated remediation, what categories of operational actions would the Government potentially permit AI or automation to execute without case-by-case human approval? | Please see the response to Q-041. | |
| Q-055 | 4.0, p. 4; Area C.4, p. 6 | Are there categories of operational, cyber or infrastructure actions that the Government anticipates will always require human authorization regardless of AI confidence? | For the purposes of this RFI, respondents should focus their proposed solutions and capabilities primarily on the MCCE OSS scope. | |
| Q-056 | Area C.3, p. 6 | Will the Government permit contractor-developed models or model configurations to be trained/fine-tuned using MCCE data, provided the data and resulting artifacts remain within the Government boundary? | Super Intelligence (SI) integration is an emerging capability. The development of the solution will require determining what data will be permitted to train/fine-tune models. | |
| Q-057 | Area C.2–C.3, p. 6 | Are there Marine Corps- or DoD-approved foundation models or GenAI platforms that the future contractor will be required or strongly preferred to use? | The Government is seeking information on industry best practices. Respondents should propose Super Intelligence (SI) solutions based on their corporate capabilities and experience. | |
| Q-058 | Area C.2, p. 6 | Will sanitized or synthetic Government datasets be provided for development and testing before access to production data is authorized? | Super Intelligence (SI) integration is an emerging capability and the development of the solution will require determining the data that will be permitted for testing. | |
| Q-059 | Area E.1, p. 7 | What level of incumbent cooperation and access to operational documentation, knowledge repositories, workflows and historical data is anticipated during transition? | The Government intends to govern transition support through standard FAR provisions (including FAR 52.237-3), with specific terms detailed in any future RFP. | |
| Q-060 | Area E.4, p. 8 | How does the Government intend to distinguish contractor performance issues from failures or limitations attributable to Government-owned infrastructure, applications or enterprise services? | The Government intends to define specific performance responsibilities, boundaries, and dependencies in the PWS and QASP in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-061 | Area F.1, p. 8 | Are all labor categories expected to require full DCWF qualification and certification on the first billable day, or will the future solicitation identify any roles where qualification requirements differ? | The Day-One certification requirement applies to all personnel performing duties that fall under a designated DCWF Work Role. | |
| Q-062 | Area F.4, p. 8 | What are the current average onboarding timelines for cleared personnel, including CAC, SAAR and system-access processing? | Onboarding is a shared responsibility. The Government is seeking industry's proposed solutions and innovative process improvements to accelerate all phases of the onboarding timeline. | |
| Q-063 | Area G.1, p. 8 | Is the Government currently evaluating a particular contract structure for the future OSS requirement, or is it still open to hybrid approaches combining labor-based pricing with performance or automation incentives? | The Government has not finalized the acquisition strategy. | |
| Q-064 | Area G.11, p. 9 | Does the Government anticipate establishing separate CLINs or option structures for core OSS labor, automation implementation, AI capabilities and ongoing technology O&M? | The Government intends to define specific CLIN structures and pricing arrangements in the RFP. | |
| Q-065 | Area D.9, p. 7 | If automation materially reduces required FTEs, does the Government envision measuring contractor savings through reduced labor hours, reduced FTE requirements, service-output metrics, or another methodology? | The Government is soliciting industry recommendations on this topic as part of Area D. | |
| Q-066 | Area D.9, p. 7 | Would the Government consider performance incentives or gain-sharing mechanisms tied to independently validated reductions in touch-labor and total program cost? | The Government is soliciting industry recommendations on this topic under Area D.9 of the RFI. | |
| Q-067 | Area G.6–G.7, p. 9 | Does the Government anticipate establishing a formal small-business participation goal for an unrestricted acquisition, and if so, would the goal be measured by subcontracting dollars, FTEs, functional ownership, or a combination? | Small business participation requirements will be established in any future formal solicitation. | |
| Q-068 | Area G.7, p. 9 | Is the Government considering reserving defined OSS service towers, labor CLINs or workforce-management functions for qualified small-business performance? | Please see the response to Q-004. | |
| Q-069 | Area G.7, p. 9 | Would the Government consider a teaming structure in which a small business has substantive responsibility for recruiting, staffing, transition and workforce management while a larger integrator manages enterprise infrastructure, engineering and AI integration? | The Government does not mandate specific commercial teaming arrangements. | |
| Q-070 | 4.0, pp. 3–4 | What are the current top service categories or operational processes by total labor hours consumed, and what percentage of those hours involve repeatable or rules-based activities? | Please see the response to Q-048. | |
| Q-071 | 4.0, pp. 3–4 | What percentage of Service Desk and End User Support activity currently requires interaction with multiple backend systems to resolve a single request? | The Government intends to provide relevant operational details in the formal RFP. Respondents should assume technicians will need to interact with multiple standard enterprise systems. | |
| Q-072 | 3.1, p. 3 | What are the current ticket backlog levels and average backlog age by service tower? | The Government intends to provide relevant performance baselines as GFI at the RFP stage. | |
| Q-073 | 3.1, p. 3 | What percentage of tickets are reopened, reassigned, or transferred between service tiers before final resolution? | The Government intends to provide detailed ITSM quality and ticket routing metrics in the RFP Technical Library. | |
| Q-074 | Area D.2, pp. 6–7 | What performance metrics are currently used to evaluate each OSS service tower, and which metrics does the Government consider insufficient under the current model? | The Government intends to maintain foundational workforce stability controls. However, under Area D, the Government is seeking industry recommendations on modernized, outcome-based metrics. | |
| Q-075 | Area D.2, pp. 6–7 | Are service-level requirements currently measured at the individual service-tower level, enterprise level, or both? | The Government intends to detail its performance measurement framework in the RFP PWS and QASP. | |
| Q-076 | Area D.5, pp. 6–7 | Is the Government expecting the future labor mix to decrease primarily through natural attrition/redeployment, deliberate FTE reduction, increased automation, or a combination? | The contractual model for workforce realignment remains under evaluation. The Government intends to use industry input from Area D to evaluate commercial models. | |
| Q-077 | Area D.5, pp. 6–7 | Will contractor personnel whose workload is reduced through automation be expected to transition into higher-tier OSS functions, or should vendors assume net workforce reduction? | Please see the response to Q-076. | |
| Q-078 | Area D.6, pp. 6–7 | What Government and contractor organizational stakeholders would participate in approving changes to operational workflows introduced through automation? | The Government intends to align workflow changes with existing Marine Corps Configuration Control Board (CCB) and change management governance structures. | |
| Q-079 | Area E.1, p. 7 | What incumbent documentation, standard operating procedures, automation scripts, knowledge repositories and configuration information are expected to be transferred to the successor contractor? | The Government intends to make an inventory of available Government-owned transition artifacts available in the RFP Technical Library. | |
| Q-080 | Area E.1, p. 7 | Will the incumbent be required to provide structured data exports from ServiceNow and other operational systems as part of transition? | Please see the response to Q-042. | |
| Q-081 | Area E.1, p. 7 | What transition overlap period does the Government anticipate between the incumbent and successor contractor? | The Government intends to define the specific transition timeline and incumbent overlap period in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-082 | Area E.1, p. 7 | Will the Government provide access to incumbent SMEs during transition, and if so, for what anticipated duration? | Please see the response to Q-059. | |
| Q-083 | Area E.2, p. 7 | What services or personnel are designated as mission-essential for COOP purposes? | The Government intends to define all mission-essential functions in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-084 | Area E.2–E.3, pp. 7–8 | Are emergency surge requirements expected to be satisfied using existing contractor personnel, a pre-qualified bench, or additional personnel sourced after an event occurs? | The Government intends to define the specific mechanisms for surge support in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-085 | Area E.3, p. 8 | What magnitude and duration of personnel surge should vendors plan for under emergency or wartime conditions? | The Government intends to define surge requirements in the RFP. | |
| Q-086 | Area E.4, p. 8 | What Government-owned infrastructure dependencies are considered outside the contractor's performance-control boundary? | The Government intends to define performance boundaries and dependencies in the RFP. | |
| Q-087 | Area F.2, p. 8 | What is the Government's anticipated minimum staffing lead time for DCWF-qualified personnel following an approved staffing requirement? | The Government intends to establish staffing ramp-up timelines in the RFP. | |
| Q-088 | Area F.2, p. 8 | Does the Government anticipate requiring vendors to maintain a specific percentage or number of pre-vetted cleared personnel available for rapid deployment? | The Government is seeking industry input on talent management and bench strategies under Area F. | |
| Q-089 | Area F.3, p. 8 | Will the future solicitation provide a Government-defined mapping between labor categories and DCWF Work Role codes? | The Government intends to define the final labor categories and corresponding DCWF Work Role codes in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-090 | Area F.4, p. 8 | Which onboarding activities are Government-controlled versus contractor-controlled, and which activities historically create the greatest delays? | Please see the response to Q-062. | |
| Q-091 | Area C.1, p. 5 | Are existing knowledge repositories governed by a formal approval, version-control and content-retirement process? | The Government intends to provide relevant information on knowledge management governance in the RFP Technical Library. | |
| Q-092 | Area C.1, p. 5 | Will the Government designate authoritative sources when multiple repositories contain conflicting technical information? | The Government intends to provide relevant information on knowledge management governance in the RFP Technical Library. | |
| Q-093 | Area C.4, p. 6 | Does the Government anticipate requiring adversarial testing/red-teaming of AI systems before operational deployment? | The Government intends for any deployed capability to meet all DoD security and testing standards. | |
| Q-094 | Area C.4, p. 6 | What minimum AI accuracy, false-positive/false-negative, hallucination and remediation-success thresholds does the Government anticipate for production use? | The Government is seeking industry's proposed commercial best practices and recommended SLA definitions for Super Intelligence (SI) quality. | |
| Q-095 | Area C.5, p. 6 | What peak concurrent user population should vendors use when sizing an enterprise AI capability? | The Government intends to provide all necessary technical and performance baselines, including concurrency assumptions, as GFI in the formal RFP. | |
| Q-096 | Area C.5, p. 6 | Are there defined latency or availability requirements for AI-enabled operational support? | The Government is seeking industry recommendations on appropriate latency and availability requirements for SI-enabled operational support. | |
| Q-097 | Area C.6, p. 6 | Will the Government require the ability to replace the underlying foundation model without redesigning the surrounding application and knowledge architecture? | The Government has a strong interest in model-agnostic solutions that provide flexibility to incorporate newly approved foundational models. | |
| Q-098 | Area C.6, p. 6 | What level of portability is expected for AI configurations, prompts, embeddings, knowledge assets and workflow definitions if the contractor changes during the contract lifecycle? | Please see the response to Q-163. | |
| Q-099 | Area C.3, p. 6 | What restrictions will apply to storing Government prompts, outputs, embeddings and model artifacts within contractor-operated environments? | Please see the response to Q-098. | |
| Q-100 | Area C.3, p. 6 | Will contractor-operated AI services be permitted to process Government data if all processing remains within an authorized CONUS Government/DoD boundary? | Yes, provided that the Super Intelligence (SI) services have a Marine Corps Authority to Operate. | |
| Q-101 | Area C.7, p. 6 | Will contractors receive administrative privileges sufficient to configure existing Government enterprise platforms for automation, or will changes require Government personnel to execute them? | Yes, provided they meet the DCWF qualification requirements. | |
| Q-102 | Area C.8, p. 6 | Are contractor-provided tools expected to be removed at contract expiration, or could certain capabilities become Government-owned during performance? | The Government intends to incorporate applicable DFARS data rights clauses in any future solicitation and intends to retain full ownership of all Government data and custom configurations developed on Government systems. | |
| Q-103 | 3.2, p. 3; Area D.7, p. 7 | Does the Government have a target percentage or dollar reduction in contractor labor cost that it is seeking over the five-year performance period? | The Government's objective is to achieve operational efficiencies and drive down total program cost. The Government is seeking industry's proposed models and efficiency glide paths. | |
| Q-104 | Area D.7, p. 7 | Is the Government's desired end state based on a fixed reduction in contractor FTEs, a reduction in total labor hours, a reduction in total program cost, or achievement of defined service outputs with fewer resources? | Please see the response to Q-103. | |
| Q-105 | Area D.5/D.7, pp. 6–7 | Does the Government anticipate that automation-generated workforce reductions will result in reduced contract staffing requirements at each option period, or will vendors have discretion to reinvest displaced capacity into higher-value OSS functions? | Please see the response to Q-076. | |
| Q-106 | Area D.9, p. 7 | If the Government's objective is to reduce contractor labor cost, how does it intend to structure compensation so that a contractor is economically incentivized to deliver measurable reductions in billable labor? | The Government is soliciting industry recommendations on this topic under Area D.9 of the RFI. | |
| Q-107 | Area B.9, p. 5; Area D.9, p. 7 | Would the Government consider establishing an agreed baseline labor cost and sharing verified savings generated through automation between the Government and contractor? | Please see the response to Q-066. | |
| Q-108 | Area B - #7/Page 5 | Will the government provide additional detail on current FTE count, labor mix, and ticket volume? | Yes. The Government intends to provide relevant baseline data in the RFP. | |
| Q-109 | Can the government confirm the due date? | The response deadline is extended to Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM EST. | ||
| Q-110 | Matrix/Question 5 | What is the current state of MCEN knowledge repositories? | Please see the responses to Q-049 and Q-050. | |
| Q-111 | 3.2 / Page 3 | Can the government confirm which specific ITSM platform currently underlies the MCEN environment, and whether the platform engineering and administration of that tool is in scope fort his effort or reserved under a separate contract? | The ITSM Tool is provided as GFI and is under a separate contract. However, the OSS contractors will have a significant impact on how it operates. | |
| Q-112 | Attachment 1 - Vendor Comment Matrix | In the instructions tab in Attachment 1, it states that there is a 300 word limit per cell. Due to the complex nature of the questions, will the Government consider allowing more room to respond? | Per the RFI submission guidelines, the Government’s primary review will focus on the direct responses within the 300-word limit per cell in the Vendor Comment Matrix. While vendors may provide additional information in an optional supplementary document, the Government is not obligated to review it. | |
| Q-113 | RFI Instructions, Section 3.2.1, page 3 & | |||
| RFI Instructions, Section 5.B.7 | In section 3.2 of the RFI instructions, the Government states that vendors should be utilizing their own proprietary AI tools or maximizing Government owned software "at no additional licensing cost to the Government". However, in Section 5.B.7 the Government asks us to provide a ROM to include "Platform Licensing/Subscription" costs. Will the Government clarify if licensing/subscription costs should be included in our response? | Please see the response to Q-007. | ||
| Q-114 | Attachment 1 - Vendor Comment Matrix | In section 2 on the instructions tab, it states that completed matrices be submitted no later than 30 calendar days post RFI release. However, the RFI instruction Word document states that responses are due 10/6. Can the Government clarify what the due date is? | The governing due date is Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM EST. | |
| Q-115 | RFI Instructions, Section 3.2, Page 3 | In section 3.2 of the RFI instructions, the Government recognizes Microsoft 365 and ServiceNow as examples, but doesn't go into detail what tools are currently being used. What additional tools and applications makeup the governments current tool set that vendors should be solutioning within? | The Government intends to provide a detailed list of relevant GFE/GFI, including major enterprise software platforms, in the Technical Library at the RFP stage. For this RFI, respondents should focus on their capabilities to leverage common DoD enterprise platforms for functions such as directory services, endpoint management, and network access control. | |
| Q-116 | RFI Instructions | Throughout the RFI instructions doc, the Government states that they aren't looking to buy a commercial solution or application, but then reference a procurement under FAR part 12 which is commercial purchases. The instructions appear contradictory, can the Government clarify exactly what type of solution is expected? | This RFI is for market research into a services acquisition. A determination on whether the services will be acquired under FAR Part 12 will be made during acquisition planning. | |
| Q-117 | Section 2.2 (Acquisition Phasing Strategy); Section 5.0, Area G, Question 5 | Does the Government intend to acquire the enterprise AI capability under the same award as the core labor services, or will it consider a separately priced CLIN, pilot phase, or separate acquisition for the AI capability, including direct Government acquisition of a commercial AI platform that the OSS workforce would then employ? | Please see the response to Q-203. | |
| Q-118 | Section 3.2 (Desired State and Constraints); Section 5.0, Area B, Question 7 | Section 3.2 states the Government will not fund new third-party software licenses. Area B, Question 7 requests ROM pricing that includes Platform Licensing/Subscription and Variable/Consumption Costs. Please clarify whether the no-new-licenses constraint applies to the later option period AI integrations or only to the base labor periods, and whether Government-funded, consumption-based AI capability may be proposed for option periods. | Please see the response to Q-007. | |
| Q-119 | Section 3.2 (Desired State and Constraints), Constraint 2 | Where the Government already licenses or has acquired commercial AI capabilities elsewhere within the Marine Corps or the Department of War, will the Government consider furnishing those capabilities to the OSS contractor as Government-furnished tooling, consistent with the stated preference for maximizing existing Government-owned software? | Please see the response to Q-022. | |
| Q-120 | Section 4.0, Objective 3 | Will the anticipated solicitation require proposed AI tools to comply with DoWI 8430.01, Accelerated Mission Software (8 September 2026), including paragraph 3.6 requirements for approved AI applications (contractual no-training guarantees, auditability, approved environments) and paragraph 3.4.d machine-readable evidence supporting continuous authorization? | The Government intends for all delivered capabilities to comply with applicable DoD, DoN, and Marine Corps policies. | |
| Q-121 | Section 5.0, Area B, Question 1 | How will the Government weight simple ticket deflection versus end-to-end automated remediation (automated script execution, configuration and code fixes with human approval) in evaluating AI capability? Does the desired end state include automated remediation of software and configuration findings beyond ITSM ticket handling? | The desired end state includes automated remediation of software and configuration findings. All IT workflows must follow ITSM. | |
| Q-122 | Section 5.0, Area C, Question 6 | Does the Government anticipate requiring model-agnostic operation, meaning the ability to swap underlying foundational models without replatforming, as a minimum technical requirement in the anticipated solicitation? | Please see the response to Q-097. | |
| Q-123 | Section 1.0 (Response Due Date); Section 6.4 (Submission Delivery) | The RFI header states responses are due 25 September 2026. Section 6.4 states 5 October 2026, 1:00 PM EST. Please confirm the operative due date. | The response deadline is extended to Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM EST. | |
| Q-124 | Section 6.1 (Format and Page Limitations); Section 5.0 | May a vendor whose offering addresses only the Objective 3 AI capability, rather than the core labor requirement, submit a response limited to Areas B, C, and G of the Vendor Comment Matrix? | Please see the response to Q-201. | |
| Q-125 | Section 2.0 Purpose and Background / Page 1 | Can the Government confirm whether the OSS scope in this RFI is currently being performed by an incumbent under the SMIT IDIQ or another contract vehicle, and if so, identify the incumbent contractor(s) and covered functions? | The labor component of OSS is being provided under the SMIT contract. | |
| Q-126 | Section 2.0 Purpose and Background / Page 1 | Can the Government confirm whether the anticipated Scope of Work is currently being performed under the current MCEN contract, and if so, identify the incumbent contractor(s) and covered functions? | As identified in Section 2.0, this requirement is the planned follow-on to labor support elements currently performed under a task order against the Navy SMIT IDIQ contract. | |
| Q-127 | Section 2.0 Purpose and Background / Page 1 | Will the Government provide publicly releasable historical performance insights (e.g., lessons learned, KPIs) from the incumbent’s execution? | Please see the response to Q-012. | |
| Q-128 | Section 2.1 – Operating Model / Page 2 | For RFI planning purposes, can the Government identify the major OSS functions respondents should assume will remain Government-performed versus contractor-performed or contractor-supported under the GOGOCS model? | Under the GOGOCS model, the Government retains all inherently governmental functions and provides direction and oversight. The contractor is responsible for the successful performance of all IT support services as will be defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) of the formal solicitation. | |
| Q-129 | Section 2.1 Operating Model / Page 2 | Please delineate the decision‑rights boundary between Government‑operated functions and contractor‑supported automation (e.g., which actions may be fully automated vs. require Government approval)? | Please see the response to Q-041. | |
| Q-130 | Section 2.1 Operating Model / Page 2 | For RFI planning purposes, can the Government identify the major OSS functions respondents should assume will remain Government-performed versus contractor-performed or contractor-supported under the GOGOCS model? | Please see the response to Q-128. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .