20261019_U_GPC_CMS_II_RFI_Questions.docx

UNCLASSIFIED

Question 1: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code Suitability Background: The Government has identified NAICS 518210 (Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services) as the primary classification for this requirement. The Government's determination is based on the predominant scope of work: operating, maintaining, configuring, and securely hosting a managed Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Candidate Management System (CMS), managing large-scale candidate registries, and automating credential and testing workflows, rather than performing custom software development from scratch.

Please respond to the following:

1. Suitability of NAICS 518210: Does your organization agree that NAICS 518210 accurately reflects the predominant nature, scope, and technical capabilities required under this PWS? Why or why not?

2. Recommended Alternate NAICS Codes: If your organization believes an alternate NAICS code is more appropriate, please identify the alternate code and provide specific technical justification regarding how it better reflects industry standard practices for credentialing and assessment management.

3. Small Business & Size Standard Impact: How does the proposed NAICS code (and its associated Small Business Administration size standard) affect your company’s ability to compete as a prime contractor or participate in small business set-aside opportunities?

Question 2: Candidate Management System (CMS) Transition & Data Migration Background: The Government currently utilizes the LearningBuilder COTS platform managing approximately 20,000 candidate records (~10,000 active and ~10,000 inactive).

Please respond to the following if your potential proposal would result in swapping out LearningBuilder with a different CMS:

1. Transition Schedule: What is your estimated end-to-end timeline to deploy and configure a replacement CMS to full operational capability (FOC)? Provide a rough schedule broken down by key phases (e.g., discovery/data mapping, configuration, historical data ETL/migration, User Acceptance Testing (UAT), parallel run, cutover).

2. Data Migration Strategy: Describe your approach and technical methodology for extracting, transforming, and validating the ~20,000 active and inactive records from LearningBuilder into your platform while preserving historical audit logs and certification lifecycles.

3. Dependencies & Assumptions: What key technical assumptions, Government-furnished resources/access, and Government-side dependencies are required to achieve your proposed timeline?

Question 3: Online Unclassified Certification Exam Delivery & System Integration Background: The GEOINT Professional Certification (GPC) Program currently administers 11 certifications via in-person hardcopy testing. The Government is exploring transitioning the five (5) unclassified certification exams to an online, secure delivery model. Refer to the potential draft PWS Section X.3 provided below.

X.3 Certification Assessment and Credential Issuance Tools The Contractor shall operate, maintain, configure, and seamlessly integrateassessment delivery systems and automated credentialing tools to optimize candidate evaluation and registry operations.

X.3.1 Assessment Integrity and Delivery

· The Contractor shall integrate low-stakes assessments and other diagnostic evaluation tools into the existing certification and licensure workflows.

· These tools shall be utilized to engage global practitioners, gauge their exam readiness, and test their core occupational knowledge prior to and during the formal high-stakes evaluation process.

· The Contractor shall maintain the capability to securely deliver formal, high-stakes certification assessments to authorized candidates.

X.3.2 Dynamic Assessment Formats and Question Types

· The integrated assessment delivery software must support and accommodate a multiple-choice and matching question formats in order to robustly evaluate core GPC competencies.

X.3.3 Automated Scoring and Result Ingestion

· The Contractor shall configure and maintain automated scoring rules within the assessment software.

· Scoring systems must instantly process results upon assessment completion, automatically update candidate profiles, and trigger downstream eligibility/completion workflows within the CMS.

X.3.4 Automated Certificate Generation and Digital Registry

· The Contractor shall implement and maintain automated certificate printing/generation software.

· The software must automatically extract certified professional data from the CMS upon successful credential approval, instantly generate standardized, high-quality digital certificates, and maintain an unalterable, permanent digital record of every certificate issued for auditing and compliance tracking.

Please respond to the following:

1. Architecture & Assessment Integration: Does your candidate management solution offer native assessment delivery, or do you integrate with a third-party Test Engine / Computer-Based Testing (CBT) platform? Describe how candidate records and scoring data synchronize between the assessment engine and the CMS.

2. Exam Security & Proctoring: What secure delivery and proctoring modalities (e.g., remote live proctoring, automated AI-assisted proctoring, lockdown browser environments) does your solution support to ensure exam integrity for high-stakes certification evaluations?

3. PWS Section 2.3 Feedback: Based on the draft requirements above (Certification Assessment and Credential Issuance Tools), what technical risks, ambiguities, cost drivers, or industry best practices should the Government consider prior to finalizing the requirement?

Question 4: Annual Cost Escalation & Pricing Structure Background: The Government is evaluating realistic and equitable annual cost escalation mechanisms for multi-year contract options under NAICS 518210 (Computing Infrastructure, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services). Preliminary Government market research and statutory guidance reflect the following baseline benchmarks:

· DoD Baseline: The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) "National Defense Budget Estimates" (DoD Green Book) projects the annual escalation index for Other Purchases (contracted professional and technical services) to stabilize at 2.1% for Fiscal Years 2026 and beyond.

· GSA Benchmarks under NAICS 518210: General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) data and automated pricing datasets for professional, technical, and IT services reflect a standard annual escalation range of 2.5% to 2.7% (median of 2.5%).

Please respond to the following:

1. Recommended Escalation Rates: What annual escalation rate (or range) does industry consider fair, competitive, and sustainable across Option Years for this requirement? Please provide supporting rationale or empirical data.

2. Labor vs. Technology Cost Drivers: Does your organization recommend applying a single blended escalation rate across the entire contract, or distinct escalation mechanisms for Labor vs Technology?

3. Economic Indices: If your recommended escalation methodology ties to standard economic indicators or Producer Price Index, which specific indices best represent the cost profile of this requirement?

Question 5: COTS System Evolution, Configuration Management, and Pricing Models Background: The Government intends to procure and maintain a COTS Candidate Management System (CMS). However, evolving mission policies, certification blueprint updates, and business process improvements will require ongoing modifications. The Government seeks to establish a contract structure that accommodates routine operational adjustments without administrative delay, while establishing fair and transparent cost triggers for major changes.

Please respond to the following:

1. Baseline Configuration vs. Billable Modifications: In standard commercial and Government COTS implementation, where is the boundary between baseline Operations & Maintenance (e.g., admin configuration, rule adjustments, field additions, standard workflow updates) and billable custom engineering (e.g., custom code development, external API creation, database schema restructuring)?

2. Recommended Pricing & CLIN Structure: What contract and pricing structure (e.g., FFP core with a pre-priced labor-hour/capacity bucket, Agile story-point billing, or fixed-rate service catalog) best accommodates continuous configuration while managing cost risk for both parties?

3. Change Governance & Turnaround Metrics: What estimation and governance models (e.g., Service Level Agreements based on story point complexity, quarterly sprint allocations, or standard labor categories) do you utilize to scope, prioritize, and deploy PMO-requested modifications?

4. Impact on COTS Roadmap & Core Updates: How does your platform ensure that routine PMO-specific configurations do not prevent the Government from adopting future core COTS software upgrades, security patches, and platform enhancements?

Question 6: Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure Background: The Government is seeking industry feedback on a proposed CLIN structure. The objective of this structure is to align contract type and payment milestones with the specific operational characteristics of each program element, maximizing administrative efficiency while managing financial risk.

The program is divided into six (6) core operational parts:

1. Program Management and Administration (PM)

2. Candidate Management System (CMS) Implementation, Operation, Maintenance, and Administration

3. System and Data Configuration

4. System Security

5. Infrastructure and Disaster Recovery (DR)

6. Functional Enhancements

To manage these distinct requirements, the Government is considering a three-CLIN structure, detailed below:

• SLIN X002A: Base operations up to 20,000 active users (Flat monthly rate).

• SLIN X002B: Incremental rate per user over the 20,000 user threshold.

Part 2 (CMS Operations, Maintenance, and Administration)

Please Respond to the following:

1. Does combining Program Management, Configuration, Security, and Infrastructure into a single monthly FFP CLIN present any pricing or performance risks? If so, how would you recommend separating them?

2. For the Cost-Reimbursable Functional Enhancements (CLIN X003), would industry prefer to execute these via a Labor-Hour (LH) / Time & Materials (T&M) structure under pre-negotiated labor rates, or is a pure Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) structure more appropriate for managing complex system development?

3. Are there any alternative CLIN structures that would reduce the administrative burden of invoicing while maintaining clear performance traceability?