Sources Sought_RFI Notice Human Performance Assessment and Management.pdf

Sources Sought Notice & Request for Information (RFI)

Requirement: Human Performance and Student Management System (HP-SMS) Agency: United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) Location: Fort Bragg, NC (USAJFKSWCS)

THIS IS NOT A NOTICE OF SOLICITATION ISSUANCE, BUT RATHER A REQUEST

FOR INFORMATION (RFI) from industry that will allow the Government to identify interested sources capable of meeting the requirement. The information sought herein is for planning purposes only and shall not be construed as a request for quote (RFQ), request for proposal (RFP), invitation for bid (IFB), or as an obligation or commitment on the part of the Government to acquire any product or service. There shall be no basis for claims against the Government as a result of information submitted in response to this RFI. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or otherwise pay for any information submitted by respondents to this request. Information obtained in response to this notice may assist the Government in developing its acquisition strategy, determining the feasibility of a small business set-aside, and refining the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This notice is for market research purposes only. Please see the attached draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) for detailed technical requirements. The anticipated period of performance is a one-year base period followed by four (4) one-year option periods.

Documentation provided must address all required elements listed herein. Providing only a reference to a website is unacceptable for purposes of this announcement and will not be considered. All proprietary or corporate data received shall be clearly identified and will be protected from release to sources outside the Government.

Contractors interested in providing these services must be registered in the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov). Contractors responding to this RFI are asked to provide the following information:

1. Company’s full name and address and Point of Contact information.

2. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and CAGE Code.

3. Business size under the identified NAICS code (whether large, small, small-disadvantaged, 8(a), HUBZone, women-owned, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, etc.).

4. A brief Statement of Capability (no more than 8 pages) that responds to the following questions and demonstrates the ability to meet the requirements specified in the attached

PWS.

Request for Information (RFI) Questions

Question 1: Technical Approach & Scalability The PWS outlines a complex requirement involving software sustainment, modernization, https://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sam.gov multiple API integrations, and significant data management tasks within the SOCOM Information Enterprise (SIE) network environment. Please describe your high-level technical approach to meeting the requirements of this PWS. In your response, please address:

• Your strategy for managing the 38 distinct legacy modules and transitioning them to the new baseline of 50 configured modules.

• Your methodology for ensuring system performance, stability, and responsiveness on the specified government network, addressing the 24/7/365 operational requirement.

• Your experience with the specific systems requiring API integration (Army Vantage, Maven, IPPS-A).

• Describe your technical approach to scaling the system to support 110+ courses.

Specifically, how does your platform utilize reusable templates, cloned configurations, or parent-child module relationships to prevent database bloat and minimize the administrative burden of managing 110+ unique course pipelines?

• Explain how your platform handles concurrent user scaling as we transition from the current student load to a fully integrated, schoolhouse-wide population.

Question 2: Data Management, Portability, and Open Systems A key objective of the PWS is to ensure the Government maintains ownership and portability of its data, in alignment with the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) and DoD Data Decrees. Based on Sections 1.1.8 (Data Architecture), 1.1.9 (Data Transformation), 1.1.10 (Documentation), and 1.1.11 (Data Rights):

• Describe your approach and past experience in delivering a non-proprietary, open-schema export of all government data as required in PWS Section 1.1.9.3.

• Explain your process for creating and maintaining the critical documentation deliverables, such as the data dictionary (1.1.8.4), Interface Control Documents (1.1.3.6), and measurement models (1.1.10.3), to ensure they are sufficient for third-party use.

• How do you propose to support the Government in executing the "transition-out plan" (1.1.10.5) to ensure a smooth migration to a successor system or provider with minimal disruption?

Question 3: Staffing and On-Site Support The PWS requires on-site Field Support Representatives (FSRs) with a specific skill set (PWS Section 1.6.11.2) to provide direct support.

• Please provide your proposed staffing plan for the on-site FSRs and the reach-back support team.

• Describe your methodology for recruiting, training, and retaining personnel who meet the specialized experience and security clearance requirements outlined in the PWS.

Question 4: Alternative Solution Availability Is your company capable of delivering an alternative, fully integrated, commercially available Off-The-Shelf (COTS) or Government-Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) human performance platform that meets or exceeds all functional requirements of the baseline 50 modules outlined in this PWS? If proposing an alternative solution, please describe how you would execute a complete data migration from the legacy system without loss of historical record or operational downtime.

Question 5: Cybersecurity & SIE ATO Readiness If your company is proposing an alternative COTS or GOTS software solution (as referenced in Question 4), please detail your readiness to operate specifically within the USSOCOM environment.

• 5a. Does your proposed solution currently possess an active Authority to Operate (ATO) or Interim Authority to Test (IATT) specifically on the SOCOM Information Enterprise (SIE) network?

• 5b. If currently deployed on the SIE, what Impact Level (e.g., IL4, IL5, IL6/SIPR) is the platform authorized to support, and who is the sponsoring USSOCOM Authorizing Official (AO)?

• 5c. If the platform does not currently hold an SIE ATO, but holds an ATO on another DoD network, describe your approach, estimated timeline, and past experience in establishing reciprocity or navigating the Risk Management Framework (RMF) process to achieve an ATO specifically on the SIE.

Question 6: Modernization, Curriculum, and Baseline Expansion The Government is considering shifting the scope of this effort from a traditional, narrow "software licensing and configuration sustainment" model (keeping the legacy platform operational) to a broader, highly integrated "Assessment and Training Pipeline Support" model.

• Please describe your capability and experience in providing deeply integrated Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who do not just maintain the software, but actively manage templates, update modules to match evolving training curriculums, and assist in designing predictive measurement models.

• How would your company proactively identify and resolve systemic software issues (such as network latency, database bloat, and poor connectivity) rather than treating them strictly as Government-owned infrastructure problems?

• What are the primary risks and cost drivers associated with expanding the scope from basic software maintenance to an active, modernized pipeline support model, and how would you mitigate them?

• The proposed PWS baselines the contract at 50 active, configured modules. Please describe your experience in rapidly deploying new, custom modules to meet evolving POI and curriculum requirements.

• What is your standard timeline for designing, testing, and deploying a new performance module (e.g., a physical, psychological, or academic assessment form) from the moment the Government provides the requirement?

• Describe the user-level administrative tools in your system. Can trained Government administrators (like our Technical Evaluator) build, edit, and deploy new modules and forms themselves, or does every modification require vendor-paid coding and software releases?

Question 7: PWS Feedback & Recommendations The Government is interested in industry’s input. Based on your expertise, are there any recommended changes to the PWS's scope, tasks, or timeline that would increase efficiency or reduce project risk? Are there any areas that lack clarity or could present significant challenges to a contractor?

Question 8: Module Unit Pricing & Growth Model

• To support long-term scalability while controlling costs, the Government intends to establish a standardized, "per-module" pricing structure for any work exceeding the baseline 50 modules.

• Describe how your company would structure a "menu-pricing" or "unit-pricing" catalog for additional module builds (e.g., Simple, Medium, and Complex modules based on the number of data fields, API connections, and reporting dashboards required).

• What are the primary cost drivers (labor, licensing, database storage, testing) associated with building an individual custom module, and how can the Government structure its PWS to minimize these costs as we scale to the full 110+ course list?

Question 9: Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Please provide a non-binding Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) price for the total cost to complete all tasks outlined in the PWS for the base year and all four option years. This ROM is for market research purposes only and will not be considered a formal quote or proposal. Please break out the ROM by:

• CLIN X001: Software Platform & Sustainment (FFP)

• Software Licensing: Provision of the required software licenses for the specified number of users (e.g., 5,000 seats as per PWS 5.2.1).

• Core Maintenance: Standard software maintenance, including delivery of patches, bug fixes, and routine software updates to ensure the platform is on the current release version (PWS 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5).

• CLIN X002: Program Management & Integrated Technical Support (FFP)

• Program Management: Overall contract management, reporting (MSRs), and meetings (PWS 5.1).

• On-Site & Reach-back Support: Provision of all Key Personnel, including the Program Manager, and the on-site Field Support Representatives (FSRs)/SMEs

(PWS 1.6.11, 5.4).

• User Training: Delivery of all standard, basic, and operational administrator training blocks (PWS 5.3).

• Routine Technical Support: Base-level support such as modifying existing surveys and reports and adjusting configurations based on POI changes (PWS 5.2.6).

• CLIN X003: Modernization & Integration Support (FFP)

• API Development & Integration: All work related to developing and maintaining interfaces with Army Vantage, Maven, and IPPS-A (PWS 1.1.3).

• Data Architecture & Analytics Enablement: Design and delivery of the structured reporting tables, schema remediation, and dashboard enablement (PWS 1.1.8).

• UI/UX Modernization: Execution of the user interface modernization efforts

(PWS 1.1.6).

• Data Transformation: The one-time effort of transforming and loading historical data into the new system (PWS 1.1.9.1).

• CLIN X004: Travel (Cost - No Fee)

• Description: This CLIN is for all pre-approved, CONUS travel required for contract performance, as outlined in PWS Section 1.6.13. All travel will be billed on a strictly cost-reimbursable basis with no fee, in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR).

• Rationale: Travel costs are variable and unpredictable. A Cost CLIN with a Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceiling is the standard and most appropriate method for managing these expenses, preventing the contractor from having to guess at travel costs and build them into the FFP price.

• CLIN X005: Additional Module Build Support (Unit Price Menu - FFP)

• Description: This CLIN is intended to capture the fixed, fully burdened unit price for developing, testing, and deploying additional custom modules beyond the baseline 50. Please provide a non-binding unit price ROM for the following hypothetical module categories:

• Simple Module Unit Price: (e.g., basic digital form, up to 15 data fields, standard PDF export, no third-party integrations).

• Medium Module Unit Price: (e.g., custom assessment layout, up to 50 data fields, automated email/dashboard alerts, standard role-based access).

• Complex Module Unit Price: (e.g., advanced tracking, 50+ data fields, predictive modeling, custom analytical dashboards, and third-party data integrations).

The anticipated NAICS code is 541511 – Custom Computer Programming Services, with a small business size standard of $34.0 million. The anticipated Product Service Code (PSC) is DA01 (IT and Telecom - Business Application/Application Development Support Services).

No requests for capability briefings will be honored as a result of this notice. Information provided will not be used as a part of any subsequent solicitation. No feedback will be provided regarding individual capability statements. No reimbursements will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this announcement.

Capability Statements and responses are due no later than 2:00 PM EST, [15 days from posting, XX August 2026]. Please email responses to Mr. Jon Long at jonathan.long.civ@socom.mil, referencing “Sources Sought – HP-SMS Recompete” in the subject line.

Failure to respond to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future associated requests for quotations that may be issued. Respondents will NOT be individually notified of the results.

For information regarding this notice, please contact Jon Long at the email address listed above.

mailto:jonathan.long.civ@socom.mil