RFI-LMS-FA7037-2026 QA2.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

Learning Management System (LMS) Transition & Support Services

RFI Number: RFI-LMS-FA7037-2026 Issuing Office: AMIC Det 2/PKS Date of Issuance: 05 March 2026

Amendment Number: 002 Date of Amendment: 11 March 2026 Response Due Date: 13 March 2026 at 1600 CST

Subject: Questions and Answers (Q&A)

This document provides official responses to questions submitted by interested parties regarding the subject Request for Information (RFI). The following questions and answers are hereby incorporated into and made part of the RFI.

1. Does the Government require LMS access to support CAC authentication exclusively, or should solutions also accommodate alternative authentication methods (SSO, federated identity, etc.) for non-CAC users?

There is no need for any CAC authentication or any additional authentication methods.

2. Are the current courses primarily delivered as SCORM packages, xAPI content, or native Canvas course builds, and are there any third-party tools or plugins currently embedded in those courses?

The courses do house SCORM files, but the LMS does not need to create them, just be able to embed the SCORM files within the courses.

3. Does the LMS currently integrate with any external systems, such as identity management services, training tracking databases, or reporting platforms that would need to be preserved in a future solution?

There does not need to be any additional integration components to the LMS.

4. The RFI indicates limited Government capacity for course redevelopment. Should respondents assume that all existing courses must migrate exactly as-is, or is the Government open to minor structural adjustments during migration if required by the new platform?

Correct. Since many of the courses are policy mandated, the courses would need to be migrated over in a seamless fashion, to prevent interruptions. With limited manpower, very few to no changes would need to be made to the current courses.

5. Given the mission-critical nature of the training environment, does the Government have a preferred transition model (e.g., parallel systems, phased course migration, or full cutover) to minimize risk to training continuity?

A full or phased cutover would work best for a migration. This reduces cost while maintaining the current courses.

6. Does the Government require the proposed platform to be hosted in a DoD Impact Level 4 (IL4) or IL5 environment to support Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), or is a FedRAMP High authorization sufficient for the scope of these 10-15 courses?

The current courses are hosted on an unclassified commercial SaaS. It does not require a higher level of security.

7. Will the Government recognize an existing Authority to Operate (ATO) from another DoD agency or Platform One, or will the selected contractor be required to initiate a new accreditation process for this specific instance?

The specifics of the ATO and the level of risk associated with our LMS would need to be dictated by the DAO themselves. While I do not foresee our training instance increasing the risk level significantly, it will need to be determined by the DAO themselves.

8. To meet the "white-glove" migration requirement without Government staff intervention, will the contractor be granted Full Administrative API access or a SQL database export from the incumbent Canvas environment?

They can be granted access, but with government oversight.

9. Is the proposed LMS intended to be the final System of Record, or must it bi-directionally sync completion data with MilPDS, MyLearning, or other Air Force human resources databases?

The LMS will be the final system of record.

10. The RFI notes that users access the LMS globally and may encounter restrictions from various firewalls.

Are these access constraints primarily associated with the AFNET/NIPRNet environment, or should solutions also account for more restrictive network conditions, such as low-bandwidth OCONUS locations or partner networks where users may have historically experienced difficulty accessing LMS content?

Additionally, are there known regions or network environments where LMS accessibility has been a recurring challenge?

The constraints seem to be isolated to NIPRNet. The courses themselves are light weight and easily accessibly globally.