N4571A26I0003 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 12

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

0002 2026 SEP 22

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

COMMANDER NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND

NAF ACQUISITIONS BRANCH N945

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE, BLDG 457

MILLINGTON, TN 38055-6500

HOLLIE JO BRAYNT/901-258-4203

HOLLIE.J.BRYANT.NAF@US.NAVY.MIL

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

Prospective Offeror

X N4571A-26-I-0003

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

2026 JULY 15

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER

NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not ext-.

Ended

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 0 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDS

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF CNICINST 7043.1.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

A. The above solicitation is hereby amended as follows:

1. Add answered questions from the program for potential vendors awareness.

2. Previous closing date for responses remains at Monday, September 28, 2026.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

HOLLIE JO BRYANT

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

N45741A-26-I-0003 00002

Human Performance Optimization (HPO) Model

Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC)

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

N4571A-26-I-0003

Questions from interested vendors.

1. How will the transformation work be bought?

Will a later solicitation treat operating-model design, staff capability development, change management, and outcome measurement as a distinct workstream that can be awarded on its own? Or will that work appear only inside a contract to staff and operate HPO services under a single prime?

CNIC is evaluating both single-award integrated prime solutions and modular multi-award contracting structures. Teaming arrangements are strongly encouraged. The review of RFI responses will help determine the final acquisition strategy.

2. Who performs the Sailor-facing work at San Diego?

The RFI states the initial phase will use current resources and Program of Record allocations.

Should industry assume a future effort only enables and trains the existing 302 certified Navy

Fitness professionals? Or may the contract also add contractor specialists to deliver sessions at

Naval Base San Diego?

The primary intent is to upskill and empower the existing CNIC NAF fitness professionals. However, the model is flexible, and CNIC is open to recommendations for including embedded contractor specialists or master trainers, especially during the pilot phase.

3. What must the FY27 proof measure?

Which measures will govern whether the Naval Base San Diego proof of concept is judged successful? Please mark each as required or optional: staff competency and coaching fidelity;

protocol adherence; Sailor change across the seven HPO domains; injury or limited-duty signals;

command participation; readiness or well-being indicators.

Required measures include staff competency, coaching fidelity, protocol adherence, injury/limited-duty signals, command participation, and readiness/well-being indicators. Core KPIs are reductions in MSK injuries and improvements in PRT scores.

4. Which systems and data rules apply?

If industry designs a measurement framework, staff-learning tools, or a community of practice, which current systems must be considered (Navy Fitness Director Management System, MWR applications, Physical Readiness Information Management System, or none)? For planning, is

Sailor assessment and program data program-management information, personally identifiable information, or health-adjacent controlled unclassified information?

Solutions must consider integration with the Physical Readiness Information Management System

(PRIMS-2) and legacy tools like the Navy Operational Fitness and Fueling System (NOFFS). Data will be classified at different levels; individual Sailor data is considered health-adjacent Controlled

Unclassified Information (CUI)/PII, requiring strict protection.

5. Is San Diego a one-site proof or the start of enterprise rollout?

Is the Fiscal Year 2027 Naval Base San Diego effort a standalone action, or the first task of a vehicle that could later reach additional sites among the 72 installations and 140 facilities named in the RFI?

The FY27 effort at Naval Base San Diego (NBSD) is a proof of concept. However, all solutions should be designed with enterprise scalability from the outset, as the long-term vision is to expand to additional installations

6. Acquisition strategy: Does CNIC anticipate procuring Human Performance Optimization (HPO) capabilities through a single integrated contract or through multiple awards for distinct areas such as programming, education/training, technology, and HPO professional services?

Both approaches are under consideration. CNIC is seeking responses for both comprehensive, integrated operating models and standalone digital capabilities to inform the final acquisition strategy.

7. Proof-of-concept scope: What specific contractor support is anticipated for the Fiscal Year 2027

(FY27) Naval Base San Diego proof-of-concept, and which functions will continue to be performed by existing government personnel?

The contractor is expected to provide comprehensive support, including a current-state assessment, development of standardized operating procedures and a KPI framework, and a phased change management and curriculum plan. Direct service delivery will primarily be performed by existing government personnel who have been upskilled by the contractor.

8. Enterprise rollout: Does CNIC anticipate that the eventual requirement will include expansion beyond Naval Base San Diego to additional installations or potentially the full enterprise of 72 installations and 140 fitness facilities referenced in the RFI?

Yes. Successful performance in the NBSD proof-of-concept will inform a broader rollout, with the potential to scale across the full enterprise of 72 installations and 140 fitness facilities.

9. Measurement and evaluation: Has CNIC established baseline HPO performance measures and desired outcomes for the proof-of-concept, or does it expect industry to recommend the evaluation framework, metrics, assessments, and data-collection methodology?

Developing and refining the comprehensive KPI measurement and evaluation framework is within the scope of this requirement. Industry is expected to propose a framework built around core target KPIs like reduced injury rates and improved PRT scores.

10. Incumbent/pilot providers: Are any contractors currently supporting the Naval Base San Diego

HPO proof-of-concept, and if so, which elements of the future requirement are expected to remain open to additional industry partners? Please provide the contractor names and contract numbers for any existing related contracts.

This is a new, enterprise-level modernization initiative. There is no incumbent contractor delivering an integrated, enterprise-wide Navy HPO framework.

11. Security Requirements: What does CNIC anticipate the security clearance requirements will be?

Will a facility clearance be required?

This will be addressed later in the procurement cycle.

12. Place of Performance: What work, if any, does CNIC require to be performed on site? Will remote work be acceptable?

A collaborative, blended approach is expected. While tasks like workforce training, change management, and direct implementation support for the NBSD pilot may require an on-site presence, functions like curriculum design, data analytics, and technology development could potentially be performed remotely.

13. Reading the RFI, I see two different ways the eventual effort might take shape: a contractor putting its own people on-site to deliver HPO services, or a contractor building the model itself

(the program design, training standards, SOPs, certification requirements, and the evaluation framework in Objective D) so that CNIC's own certified fitness professionals can run it under current Program of Record resources. Which approach does the Government have in mind (or is it both)?

Both. The Government envisions the potential blended partnership. The contractor will be responsible for building the model (program design, training standards, SOPs, evaluation framework) and delivering the initial change management and training to upskill the existing CNIC fitness workforce. The long-term goal is for CNIC's empowered staff to operate the model.

14. Does CNIC anticipate that future HPO requirements may be structured into multiple functional areas or workstreams, such as program management and transformation, workforce development and training, technology integration, data and analytics, and specialized human-performance services?

Yes. CNIC is evaluating modular, multi-award contracting structures, which would align with distinct workstreams such as management consulting, technology, human performance expertise, and education.

15. For the FY2027 Naval Base San Diego proof-of-concept, is CNIC interested in industry recommendations regarding organizational change management, implementation governance, workforce adoption, and performance measurement frameworks in addition to HPO-specific products and services?

Effectiveness is currently measured primarily through facility foot-traffic, class attendance, and periodic fleet PRT pass rates. A key goal of the HPO initiative is to move beyond these simple metrics to longitudinal, individual performance tracking.

16. Does CNIC welcome responses from firms that provide complementary transformation, program-management, technology-adoption, and workforce-development capabilities as part of a broader

HPO ecosystem rather than an end-to-end HPO solution?

Yes. Responses highlighting specialized capabilities are welcomed to inform potential teaming arrangements and multi-vendor delivery strategies.

17. For technology-enabled solutions, does CNIC anticipate specific cybersecurity, data-hosting, privacy, interoperability, or accessibility requirements that respondents should address at the market-research stage?

Yes. Solutions handling PII/PHI require compliance with DoD Impact Level 4 (IL4) or IL5 hosting frameworks and must obtain an Authority to Operate (ATO). General fitness tracking may reside at IL2.

All solutions must adhere to DoD/DoN cybersecurity standards.

18. Would CNIC find it useful for respondents to recommend performance indicators and implementation metrics for evaluating the FY2027 proof-of-concept and informing potential enterprise-wide scalability?

Yes. Recommendations for a comprehensive KPI and evaluation framework are explicitly welcomed and are considered part of the scope.

19. The Background section notes that the existing MWR fitness framework "lacks an intentional comprehensive integration of key domains such as nutrition, cognitive readiness, and holistic performance strategies." Could CNIC clarify whether "comprehensive integration" refers primarily to consolidating program delivery and staff structure under one framework, or whether it also includes helping HPO professionals make decisions about routing individual Sailors to the specific services best suited to their needs?

It includes both. The vision is for an integrated operating model that not only standardizes program delivery but also empowers HPO professionals with the tools and data to guide Sailors to the right resources (whether that is strength coaching, nutritional support, or cognitive training) based on their individual needs.

20. When Fitness Directors, Coordinators, or Specialists meet a Sailor for the first time under the current MWR model, what information or intake process, if any, do they currently use to determine how to prioritize or approach that Sailor's engagement with available programs. Is this process formalized and consistent across all 140 facilities and 72 installations, or does it currently vary independently by facility?

Current intake processes are not formalized. They largely rely on informal interactions with command leadership. A primary objective of this initiative is to design and implement a standardized, evidence-based intake and assessment protocol.

21. The HPO pilot appears to route Sailors to a multidisciplinary team (dietitian, cognitive specialist, human performance specialists) upon a general walk-in visit. Beyond the required medical pre-activity screening, is there an existing process, formal or informal, for determining which specialist or service a Sailor is directed to first, and does CNIC intend the HPO transformation described in this RFI to formalize that determination?

The eventual acquisition is anticipated to be a full and open competition.

22. Beyond the required medical pre-activity screening, does the Navy currently use any standardized resilience, readiness, or behavioral assessment tools fleet-wide that HPO vendors should be aware of or integrate with, rather than duplicate?

The conversation history does not specify any currently used standardized tools beyond the Physical

Readiness Test (PRT). Vendors should assume that a comprehensive assessment framework needs to be developed or proposed as part of the HPO solution.

23. Does HPO programming interface with, or remain separate from, existing medical and psychological health referral pathways (e.g., Fleet and Family Support, chaplain services), particularly given the "mental and emotional health" and "stress management" focus areas named in the RFI?

The HPO program is expected to interface with and be a complementary component of the broader health and wellness ecosystem. While distinct from formal medical care, it will need to have clear referral pathways to and from medical, psychological, and other support services like Fleet and Family Support or chaplain services.

24. Procurement Authority:

Please identify the procurement authority and regulatory framework the Government anticipates will govern any acquisition resulting from this market research, including whether the effort will be procured under DoWI 4105.67 non-appropriated fund procurement procedures, under the

FAR/DFARS, or under another applicable authority.

The acquisition will be conducted under CNIC Non-Appropriated Funds (NAF) contracting procedures.

The specific contract type is not yet definitive but may be structured as a multiple-award or single-award vehicle.

25. RFI Response Instructions:

The introduction states that the Government is not seeking proposals, while Section 7 requests submission of a proposal. Please confirm that the Government is requesting a non-binding capability response for market research purposes and identify any required format, content, page limitation, or file type. Please also confirm whether respondents should identify their business size and socioeconomic status.

This RFI is for market research purposes only. Responses are non-binding capability statements.

Respondents should identify their business size and socioeconomic status.

26. Protection of Response Information:

Please clarify whether RFI responses may include confidential or proprietary commercial information, how such information should be marked, and whether responses may be provided to

Government support contractors or other third parties.

We ask that your responses not include any confidential or proprietary information.

27. Further Industry Engagement:

Following review of RFI responses, does the Government anticipate additional pre-solicitation industry engagement, such as an industry day, one-on-one sessions, capability demonstrations, or release of a draft PWS or solicitation for industry comment?

Yes. CNIC anticipates holding follow-on Industry Engagement Sessions or Pre-Solicitation

Conferences after reviewing the RFI responses. Details will be posted through official procurement channels.

28. How does the government define success at both the individual and organizational levels for a holistic health and performance initiative? Are there outcome metrics or key indicators (e.g., readiness, resilience, injury rates, workforce performance) identified for measurement and continuous improvement?

Success is defined by measurable improvements against core KPIs: reduced injury rates, improved readiness scores (PRT), and increased program participation, which reflect both individual progress and organizational readiness.

29. Does the government envision an integrated, multidisciplinary team structure (e.g., physical performance specialists, cognitive/performance psychology experts, nutritionists, therapists, athletic trainers, etc.)? If so, are there specific qualifications or professional certifications expected for each role in the team?

Yes, an integrated, multidisciplinary team is envisioned. While specific certifications are not finalized, CNIC welcomes recommendations for industry-proven, evidence-based credentials.

30. Is it the government’s intent that contractor personnel will be directly embedded with organizational units, working in tandem with existing staff and participating in real-world training or operational environments?

The primary model focuses on training and enabling government personnel. However, the possibility of embedding contractor master trainers or specialists is open for recommendation, particularly for the pilot phase.

31. Will the government require delivery of both proactive wellness and preventive services, as well as targeted injury risk mitigation, reconditioning, and performance optimization, fully synchronized with operational or organizational cycles?

Yes. The goal is to shift from a passive model to a proactive one. The scope explicitly includes proactive wellness, injury prevention, reconditioning, and performance optimization, all synchronized with operational needs.

32. Should respondents address requirements for educational resources, training materials, or outreach activities to improve individual or leader self-management and adoption of evidence-based practices?

Yes. Comprehensive solutions are expected. This includes providing change management playbooks, train-the-trainer frameworks, communication collateral, and educational resources to support adoption.

33. Does the agency anticipate phased implementation across dispersed locations or business units, and are there requirements or expectations for knowledge transfer and dissemination of best practices?

Yes. The model will be piloted at NBSD. A successful pilot will lead to a phased, enterprise-wide rollout.

Solutions should be designed for scalability and include plans for knowledge transfer.

34. Will the government be providing facilities, equipment, or materials, or should contractors include provisions for all necessary resources and supplies in the proposal?

The government will provide access to existing MWR fitness facilities at NBSD for the proof-of-concept.

Contractors should identify any additional equipment, technology, or resources required to implement their proposed solution.

35. How should contractor teams collaborate with existing healthcare, behavioral health, wellness, and training staff to ensure an integrated, holistic approach to organizational readiness and performance?

Collaboration is critical. The contractor will be expected to work in close coordination with CNIC leadership and existing base-level MWR, medical (BUMED), and leadership (CFL) stakeholders to ensure the HPO model is fully integrated.

36. Does the government expect contractor participation in quality assurance activities, reviews of best practices, and establishment of continuous improvement or feedback mechanisms throughout the contract term?

Yes. The contractor will be a key partner in developing and executing the KPI and evaluation framework.

Ongoing participation in quality assurance reviews and continuous improvement feedback loops is an expected part of the scope.

37. Does CNIC anticipate acquiring HPO capabilities through a single contract or multiple awards?

As stated previously, both single-award and multi-award structures are being evaluated.

38. Will the FY 2027 Naval Base San Diego proof-of-concept be executed as a separate procurement/task order, or as the initial phase of an enterprise vehicle? What is the anticipated scale (number of facilities, staff, and Sailors) for the proof-of-concept?

The baseline plan is for a new, standalone CNIC Non-Appropriated Funds (NAF) solicitation. This would likely make the NBSD proof-of-concept the initial phase or task order of a new, larger enterprise vehicle.

39. Will the existing MWR fitness workforce (Fitness Directors, Coordinators, Specialists, Group

Exercise Instructors) be within scope for contractor-led restructuring and upskilling, or will those roles remain Government-performed with contractor support?

Yes. The primary intent of the contract is to upskill, credential, and empower the existing CNIC NAF fitness professionals. This is a core component of the scope.

40. Given the reference to Program of Record allocations, is the effort anticipated to be funded with non-appropriated funds (NAF), appropriated funds (APF), or a combination, and which contracting office will administer the resulting action?

The acquisition will be conducted under CNIC Non-Appropriated Funds (NAF) contracting procedures and funding.

41. Are HPO practitioners anticipated to be contractor-provided, Government civilian positions, or a hybrid model?

The primary model is to upskill existing Government civilian (NAF) staff to become HPO practitioners. A hybrid model, with some contractor specialists augmenting the government workforce, may be considered.

42. What existing Navy/CNIC systems of record, learning management systems, or fitness/facility-management platforms must a proposed solution integrate with (e.g., MyNavy HR / Sailor 2025 platforms, NSIPS, Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System)?

Future solutions should anticipate interoperability with official Navy readiness repositories like PRIMS-2, personnel systems like MyNavy HR / Sailor 2025 platforms and the Navy Standard Integrated Personnel

System (NSIPS), and Navy learning management architectures where applicable.

43. What are the anticipated cybersecurity accreditation expectations (e.g., Impact Level, RMF/ATO, FedRAMP), and how will PII/PHI and wearable/biometric data ownership, consent, and retention be governed?

Expectations include meeting DoD/DoN cybersecurity standards, with specific requirements for an ATO under the Risk Management Framework (RMF). Data will likely require a FedRAMP High /

DoD IL4+ baseline depending on the tier. PII/PHI ownership and consent will be strictly governed by

DoD privacy regulations.

44. Are commercial wearable devices and associated applications permissible within Navy networks and facilities, and are there approved-product or data-residency constraints the Government can share?

Wearable devices are under evaluation for future phases. Their use is contingent on meeting DoD cybersecurity accreditation, OPSEC compliance (including connectivity restrictions in controlled spaces), and data privacy safeguards.

45. Will CNIC define a common measurement and evaluation framework (metrics, assessments, reporting cadence) for the proof-of-concept and enterprise rollout, or does it expect industry to propose one? Will baseline data (e.g., current utilization or injury rates) be made available?

CNIC has defined core target KPIs but expects industry to propose the comprehensive measurement and evaluation framework. Baseline data on current facility utilization and PRT rates will be made available.

46. Will the Government offer one-on-one industry engagements as part of this market research?

We are not anticipating that at this time.

47. Will responses to this RFI be evaluated using a formal methodology (e.g., an advisory down-select, oral capability presentations, or one-on-one industry engagements), and will consolidated questions and responses be shared with respondents by amendment or public posting?

All answered questions will be shared by amendment of the solicitation on the public sites.

48. Section 4. Performance Objectives-Please tell us how your product(s) and/or service(s) can best support our efforts. - The RFI requests vendors to “tell us how your product(s) and/or service(s) can best support our efforts,” but does not detail desired depth or scope. Could the Government clarify what level of detail is expected? For example, should responses include architectural descriptions, staffing concepts, technical specifications, or notional workflows?

Respondents should provide a level of detail that clearly articulates their proposed solution. This can include notional workflows, staffing concepts, architectural descriptions, and technical specifications sufficient to demonstrate a credible, integrated, and scalable approach.

49. Section 4. Performance Objectives- Please tell us how your product(s) and/or service(s) can best support our efforts. Does the Government have priority emphasis areas for industry submissions?

For example, technology, human performance science, staffing models, training standards, or data analytics? Clarification would help tailor responses to the most valuable focus areas.

CNIC is seeking integrated HPO operating-model solutions that harmonize technology, functional subject matter expertise, standardized programming, and workforce enablement. While all areas are important, the primary goal is the successful integration of these components into a unified framework.

50. Section 3. Background Comprehensive change management strategies will be employed to facilitate the adoption of new technologies and virtual solutions. The RFI references integration of advanced technology, digital applications, and virtual delivery platforms. Can the Government elaborate on anticipated use cases—for example, remote coaching, performance monitoring, virtual reality training modules, or data driven readiness profiling?

Anticipated use cases include remote coaching platforms, data-driven performance monitoring and readiness profiling, digital applications for workout and nutrition tracking, and potentially virtual reality modules for specific training scenarios. The goal is to leverage technology to make HPO support more accessible and data-driven.

51. Section 3. Background The HPO model prioritizes a performance-oriented strategy that integrates strength and conditioning, nutrition, mental resilience, and recovery protocols. Does the

Government anticipate that the HPO platform will need to integrate with existing Navy or DoD systems (e.g., medical readiness systems, training systems, facility management systems, care coordination platforms)? If so, can CNIC identify any known interfaces, standards, or data exchange requirements that vendors should consider?

Yes. As stated previously, integration with systems like PRIMS-2, medical readiness systems, and personnel systems is a key consideration for creating a unified enterprise capability.

52. Section 3. Background Key areas of focus include sleep and recovery, injury prevention, physical training, stress management, mental and emotional health, nutrition and fueling, as well as the use of mixed-method assessments and metrics. Does the Government anticipate that the HPO platform will need to ingest or house any PHI data?

Yes. To provide individualized programming and track performance, the system will need to handle sensitive PII and health-adjacent data, which must be protected accordingly.

53. Section 4. Performance Objectives Enterprise-wide access solutions to be integrated with robust security protocols and privacy safeguards to ensure the protection of sensitive facility and user data. The RFI states that technology deployments must include “robust security measures and privacy protections.” Will the HPO platform that is established require an ATO prior to go live?

Yes. All digital infrastructure connecting to or processing Navy personnel/readiness data must obtain a

DoD Authority to Operate (ATO).

54. Section 4. Performance Objectives: Implement technology-driven and virtual programs that are accessible to diverse user groups, including individuals with disabilities, by applying inclusive design principles and adhering to accessibility standards. The RFI identifies accessibility and inclusion for individuals with disabilities as a performance objective. Can the Government specify required accessibility standards (e.g., Section 508, WCAG 2.1 AA)?

Government technology procurements typically must comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Adherence to standards like WCAG 2.1 AA is the common benchmark for ensuring accessibility.

55. What specific outcome metrics/KPIs has CNIC identified for evaluating this proof-of-concept?

(See response to Q14) Reduced MSK injury rates and improved PRT scores are the primary identified

KPIs

56. What existing digital platforms, systems of record, or data standards does the HPO model need to integrate with?

(See response to Q47) Integration points include PRIMS-2, MyNavy HR, NSIPS, and Navy learning architectures.

57. Pages 3-4, Section 4.D, “Measure and Evaluate Outcomes”; and Page 2, Section 3, fourth paragraph. What Measures of Performance (MOPs), Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs), readiness indicators, success criteria, evaluation methodologies, and decision gates will the

Government use to assess the proof of concept and determine whether to proceed with broader implementation? If these measures have not been established, should respondents propose them?

The Government has identified high-level KPIs (reduced injuries, improved PRT scores). It expects respondents to propose a detailed framework of MOPs, MOEs, and success criteria for assessment.

58. Page 1, Section 2, “Scope/Mission”; Page 3, Sections 4.A through 4.C; and Page 4, Section 5, “Operating Constraints.” For on-premises, cloud, or hybrid solutions, what hosting environment, cloud service provider, DoD Impact Level, RMF control baseline, and Authority to

Operate approach should respondents assume?

Respondents should assume that solutions handling sensitive data will require hosting in a DoD-approved cloud environment at Impact Level 4 or 5, following the RMF process to obtain an ATO.

59. Page 1, Section 1, “Purpose”; Page 3, Section 4.C, “Drive Innovation in Human Performance”;

and Page 3 through Page 4, Section 4.D, “Measure and Evaluate Outcomes.” Does the

Government have preferred AI or machine-learning use cases, model types, architectures, or existing tools that respondents should leverage?

CNIC is open to industry innovation and welcomes proposals that leverage these technologies for use cases like predictive injury modeling, personalized program recommendations, and readiness trend analysis.

60. Page 2, Section 3, fourth paragraph. What Government-furnished property, information, facilities, data, system access, personnel support, and subject-matter expertise are expected to be available during the proof of concept?

For the proof-of-concept, the Government will provide access to NBSD fitness facilities, relevant baseline data (e.g., facility usage), and access to MWR fitness personnel and other key stakeholders for collaboration.

61. Security & Compliance: Will any resulting pilot or production environment be required to run in an IL4/IL5 enclave with FedRAMP High authorization, or would FedRAMP Moderate / IL2 be acceptable for an initial proof-of-concept?

An initial proof-of-concept for general fitness tracking might operate at IL2. However, any functionality that integrates PII/PHI, CUI, or official readiness data will require an IL4/IL5 environment with a corresponding FedRAMP High baseline.

62. What is the anticipated timeline following RFI responses?

This RFI is issued solely for market research, information, and planning purposes; it does not constitute a

Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future.