GFIM OE_ Call for Solutions_ Q and A_14 AUG 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Call for Solution for Global Force Information Management (GFIM) Objective Environment (OE)
- Solicitation number
- W519TC25RGFIM
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the Global Force Information Management (GFIM) Objective Environment (OE) Call for Solutions. The document contains 168 industry questions and corresponding government responses related to a federal contract opportunity to transform the Army's Deploy to Re-deploy/Retrograde (D2RR) process through a cloud-based enterprise capability. Key details include a prototype development timeline targeting FY26, an estimated 25,000 user license requirement, and a focus on creating a data-centric solution that consolidates 13 legacy force management systems into a unified platform compliant with Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) standards.
The Q&A covers technical, operational, and procurement aspects such as cloud environment requirements (IL5/IL6), data management strategies, role-based access controls, integration with DoD trading partners, and total cost of ownership considerations. The government emphasizes preferences for commercially available, low-code/no-code solutions with AI/ML potential, minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, and a modular approach to system development. The solicitation allows both Original Equipment Manufacturers and Systems Integrators to propose solutions, with an estimated contract award date of November 14, 2025, and a prototype development period ranging from 6-24 months.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| GFIM OE_Call for Solutions_Q and A pt 2_2025-AUG-15.docx | DOCX document | |
| Call For Solutions - GFIM OE_Enterprise 25-04_Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Call For Solutions GFIM Final_20250801.pdf |
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
Sheet1
| Item # | Section # | Section Name | Page # | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Could you please provide additional details or documentation regarding the D2RR .01 through .11 workflows referenced in the solicitation? Is there an existing library or reference material available to help offerors understand the scope and structure of these workflows? | https://www.afms.edu/digitallibrary.html |
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021-2022_HTAR.pdf
| 2 | Section 8.2 of the CfS mentions a 2-hour demonstration following selection but does not specify the scope or expectations. Could you clarify what specific capabilities, scenarios, or evaluation focus areas offerors should prepare to demonstrate? | Instructions and expectations for the demonstration phase of the requirement will be provided with the individual notififications to offerors that have passed the first phase of the requirement (solution briefs). |
| 3 | Can you elaborate on the nature, volume, and complexity of the data expected to be used in both the proposed solution and the demonstration phase? Will sample datasets or schemas be provided? | For the purpose of the solution brief, the focus is on authoritative Army organization structure data. The references provide details on the process that generates this data. No sample datasets or schemas will be provided for the Call for Solution. |
| 4 | Regarding the five-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) estimate for 25,000 users, when is the cost period expected to begin? Should offerors assume the start date aligns with go-live, initial operational capability, or another milestone? | Costs may vary greatly depending on the solution and approach taken. The period for the TCO estimate is based on FY26-FY30. |
| 5 | The CfS notes that the Government may issue a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) or make multiple/no awards. Could you clarify whether a formal down-select process occurs after the demo, and whether the RPP phase is intended for a single awardee or multiple awardees? | A formal down-select will occur after the demo. If the Government issues an RPP, it may be for a single or multiple awardees. It has not been determined. |
| 6 | As written in Section 8, the sequencing of subsections coupled with specific language in 8.2 implies that the gate criteria listed in 8.1 are the only evaluation factors used to make downselects ("8.2. Solution Brief and Demonstration Invitation |
Following the gate evaluation, the Government will inform offerors....").
| Can the Government please confirm that the Gate Evaluation in Section 8.1 Table 1 applies to evaluate responses to Calls for Solution in order to downselect, and Evaluation Criteria listed in Section 8.3 and Scoring Rubric in Table 2 will apply ONLY for subsequent evaluation of solution briefs and demonstrations? | Correct. | ||
| 7 | Will the Government confirm the NAICS code(s) for this effort? | As listed in the solicitation, 541512 | |
| 8 | While the Solicitation states that evaluation criteria "are listed in the order of importance for the evaluation", will the Government please confirm that any subcriteria listed are also in their respective orders of importance? | Offerors should treat subcriteria as equally important. | |
| 9 | Section 5: "Submissions must identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government’s use of that intellectual property". Please clarify where the offerors shall include the aforementioned statement? | Answered by amendment | |
| 10 | Gate 1 does not include how the Attachment 1 and 2 will be vetted for compliance. Please clarify. | Gate 1 essentially checks if you followed the instructions in the solicitation. Attachments 1 and 2 are not evaluated as part of the gate criteria but evaluated separately in accordance with Section 8.3 | |
| 11 | Please confirm that signed NDAs requested in Section 6 can be submitted in PDF format | Yes, PDF is acceptable. | |
| 12 | Please confirm the offerors can use other fonts in Arial family and smaller than 11pt size for graphics, diagrams, schedule and tables | Answered by amendment | |
| 13 | Can the offerors include a title page for each file in the Phase 1 submission outside of set page limits? | Answered by amendment | |
| 14 | Will the Government please confirm the availability of all Army Enterprise Solutions components at both IL5 and IL6 levels? | Refer to appendix B | |
| 15 | How are you defining a non-traditional contractor for the purposes of this requirement? | Please refer to the definition of a non-traditional contractor in the glossary of the DoD Other Transactions Guide found here: https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/docs/guidebook/TAB%20A1%20-%20DoD%20OT%20Guide%20JUL%202023_final.pdf | |
| 16 | What is the planned post oral presentation RFP release or contract writing exercise/process? | This is to be determined. | |
| 17 | Are the attachments listed included in the 10 page limit of the Technical Discussion? If not, do the Attachments have their own page limits? | Answered by amendment | |
| 18 | Is the Total Ownership Costs (Attachment 3) limited to one sheet, two tabs as stated in the previous AOS? | Answered by amendment | |
| 19 | Should all Attachments be submitted as separate files? Are there specific file types required for Attachments 1 and 2? | Answered by amendment | |
| 20 | Are the stated requirements for the Title Page found in the AOS document still required as part of a compliant submission? | Answered by amendment | |
| 21 | Are the Company Viability, Affirmation of Business Status Certification, and Intellectual Property Statement/Agreement/Disclosures as stated in the AOS required for a compliant submission? | Answered by amendment | |
| 22 | Are sections C.c.vi or C.c.vii listed in the AOS required as specific sections within the Technical Discussion submission? | Section C of the AOS appears to discuss topics for Active Capabilities Gap requirements, which are not relevant to the Call for Solution process we are utilizing here. | |
| 23 | Does the government require that solutions offered under the CSO pathway use commercially- sold as a perquisite for eligible solutions or can they be supported by available technologies and/or capabilities commercially available even if not yet on the commercial marketplace? | The Government prefers commecially available and supported platforms and products to reduce risk and reduce the long term sustainment costs. Technologies not proven in the marketplace could potentially add significant risk to the program. | |
| 24 | Is a FFP or OTA award planned for submissions received under the CSO pathway? | This was covered during Industry Day. | |
| 25 | What is anticipated or desired under a go-to-market strategy? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 26 | When do all 25,000 users need to be licensed? | ||
| o | Is there a schedule that can be shared for go-live? | ||
| o | How many users are needed to be licensed for the prototype phase? | ||
| o | Is there a breakdown of the user profile that can be shared? (frequent users vs. infrequent) | ||
| o | Will there be plans for additional users beyond the 25K at full production? | ||
| The Government will purchase licenses or subscriptions as the legacy systems are being subsummed. The Government is open to other strategies if the offeror can demonstrate a cost savings to the Government. | |||
| 27 | The Army is asking for a 5-yr TCO. What is the Period of performance for the OTA? There are references to anywhere between 6-24 months with a preference on the 6-month phase but specifics are helpful. | TBD | |
| 28 | Do cover letters, tables of content, company information count toward the allowable page count for technical discussion? | Answered by amendment | |
| 29 | Do requested attachments (1,2, and 3) count toward the allowable page count for the technical discussion? | Answered by amendment | |
| 30 | Are there any minimum clearance requirements for contractor personnel proposed for this effort? | The minimum clearance requirement would be Secret. Personnel will also need to meet DoD requirements for Cyber Workforce and system access to include privileged access, as appropriate. These requirements will be specified in the PWS for any contract award. | |
| 31 | Is a cleared facility required at the time of submission, or prior to contract award? | A cleared facility is not required at the time of submission. Security requirements will be specified in the PWS for any contract award. | |
| 32 | Big Bear AI was awarded a follow-on production contract in October 2024 for $165M to build the GFIM Objective Environment from the original GFIM OTA in 2021. Why is the Army now doing another Call for Solution and potential OTA to build out GFIM? | This was covered during Industry Day. | |
| 33 | Is the subject GFIM Call for Solution a clean sheet effort or is there an existing build from Big Bear AI’s work that must be considered? | For the purpose of the Call for Solution, Offerors may treat it as a clean sheet. | |
| 34 | Section 5 – Solicitation Notes indicates Attachment 1 – 3 are required to be submitted with Solution Briefs. Does the Government intend on releasing the format for the Attachments, or will the Contractor’s format suffice? | Answered by amendment | |
| 35 | Section 6 – Non-Government Advisors indicates that a copy of the signed NDA with LMI Consulting, LLC shall be included with submissions but doesn’t state where it should be included. Please confirm if the Contractor may submit the NDA as Attachment 4, with no page limitation? | Yes, the NDAs may be submitted as a separate attachment that does not count against the page limits. | |
| 36 | For Phase 1, what level of detail is expected in describing integration with existing Army enterprise products and infrastructure, and can you share any non-proprietary examples of such systems? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 37 | What are the mandatory integration points and data exchange requirements between the new GFIM solution and existing Army enterprise systems? | A program objective of GFIM is provide a flexible data exchange capability to any current or future DoD systems that require access to the authoritative Force Management data contained in the GFIM solution. | |
| 38 | Are there any required standards, schemas, or data models that our solution must adopt to ensure compliance with Global Force Management–Data Initiative (GFM-DI) objectives? | The GFM-DI is the required standard, schema and data model. | |
| 39 | What level of automation, including AI/ML, is expected in the initial capability, and which workflows should be prioritized for automation in the first phase? | A program objective of GFIM is to provide digital workflows and automation to remove complex manual processes. Offerors should present technologies and solutions to meet that objective. Workflow prioritization will occur later in the AOS process. | |
| 40 | How will agility and speed to delivery be assessed in Phase 1, and are there preferred timelines or milestones we should reference in our white paper? | Please review the evaluation criteria. | |
| 41 | The Call for Solution mentions requiring "minimum TRL 6, with TRL 7 preferred" - can you provide specific guidance on how TRL assessment will be conducted for low-code/no-code platforms versus traditional software development approaches? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 42 | Will the Phase 1 pricing be evaluated as part of the down-select decision, or is it primarily for budgetary and planning purposes to inform potential future phases? | The Total Cost of Ownership will only be assessed in terms of completeness for the purpose of the Gate Criteria that needs to be met to advance to the live brief/demo. | |
| 43 | Should the Phase 1 white paper include a detailed cost breakdown or a high-level pricing estimate, and are there specific cost templates or formats that must be used for submission? | Answered by amendment | |
| 44 | If our solution involves partnerships or subcontractors, how should this be presented in the Phase 1 white paper to align with small business participation goals? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 45 | Are there preferences for specific small business categories (SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone, etc.) that align with GFIM's strategic objectives, and how should this be reflected in Phase 1 submissions? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 46 | Can you clarify the required scope, recency, and format for past performance submissions? For example, is there a preferred template, minimum number of relevant contracts, or a recency window (e.g., work completed within the past five years) that should be followed? | Past Performance is not required. | |
| 47 | Will the evaluation of past performance consider relevant experience as a prime and/or subcontractor, and how should it presented to best reflect team qualifications? | Past Performance is not required. | |
| 48 | For large business primes, what are the minimum or target percentages for subcontracting to small and disadvantaged businesses, and how should this be documented or forecasted in the white paper? | This was covered during Industry Day. | |
| 49 | Please confirm that attachments 1, 2, and 3 are NOT included in the 10-page limit for the Technical Discussion | Answered by amendment | |
| 50 | Are there existing connections within the scope of this effort that will be maintained, migrated, or updated? If so, what is the current platform for the integration? | There are no existing connections. | |
| 51 | Is there an existing framework for globally establishing data permissions across multiple systems/platforms? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 52 | Do the government-furnished tools and solutions listed in Appendix B: Army Enterprise Solutions need to be incorporated into the total cost of ownership, or are they provided outside the scope of our pricing (e.g., B.4 MuleSoft)? | They should be included in the TCO. Most of the Army Enterprise Solutions will still come at a cost to the program. | |
| 53 | Can you please indicate what MuleSoft sub-products the Army has, such as API community manager, API experience hub, API governance, gateways, etc.? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 54 | Will the Government allow Arial Narrow font for use in tables and graphics? | Answered by amendment | |
| 55 | Will the Government allow for a smaller font size for use in table and graphics so long as it is easily legible? | Answered by amendment | |
| 56 | Can the Government confirm that the award date of the OTA, stated during Industry Day as November 14th, is the same date at which Offerors’ plan for implementation of the GFIM solution, ranging from 6 to 24 months, begins? | That is an estimated award date, but yes, that would be the begining of the implementation of the prototype. | |
| 57 | Can the Government provide GFIM data schemas and/or data entities in the Government’ current state data ecosystem? | This will not be provided for the CfS. | |
| 58 | What is the Government’s basis for comparing different TCOs, given that the Government has only provided a number of users for calculation? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 59 | Is a ROM, as listed in the AOS, required as part of our submission or is the only pricing document required Attachment 3 (the TCO)? | The Government only requires the TCO estimate | |
| 60 | In our pricing model, can we zero out the cost of the tools mentioned in the Appendix that the Army has already paid for? | The TCO should consider the Program's cost for leveraging any tools, including existing Army enterprise tools. | |
| 61 | Based on Figure 1 and the 6-24 month schedule, please confirm the government expects MVP's for Develop the Future Force and Provide the Future force delivered into a production environment | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 62 | Are the products listed in B.4. Army Enterprise Solutions considered GFE? Specifically will APPIAN and PLTR AIP/Foundry be provided as GFE with the cost for licensing and recurring outyear support excluded in the vendors Total Cost Offering (i.e. Assuming Army has negotiated pricing for Enterprise Solutions such as PLTR in other contracts) | The products listed in Appendix B.4 are enterprise capabilities that the Government has access to but licenses/subscriptions for the GFIM program have not been procured. | |
| 63 | Does the prototype encompass all D2RR steps to provide both a DFF and PCF MVP? Additional reference pg. 12, para 8.4. Request For Proposal "The scope of the prototype will be a production-ready capability to manage and disseminate authoritative Army organization structure data to trading partners and viewers no later than end of FY26." | The prototype does not encompass all D2RR steps. It is very specific to replacing a current capability to manage and disseminate authoritative Army organization structure data. | |
| 64 | Is Palantir Federal Cloud Services considered an approved Army Cloud Enviroment. Assuming PLTR software is GFE will government provide access to the development and test environment (PFCS or cARMY) in a timely manner to support demonstrations and rapid prototyping. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 65 | Is "innovation" limited to the technical implementation only or can "innovation" apply to the processes & workflows? | The Call for Solution is focused on a technical solution. The Contractor may recommend process changes, but it is not part of the evaluation. | |
| 66 | In figure 1 ECOP and WIAS are shown as not included in the GFIM-OE consolidation scope for the GFIM-OE restart. What other functionality (targeted systems) outlined in Figure 1 are currently being migrated to existing Army Enterprise Systems like Vantage or IPPSA and will not be included in the scope of this GFIM-OE call for solutions. | Refer to Mr. St. Laurent's Industry Day brief. | |
| 67 | When will the government provide details on the "Government Cross Domain Solution" | Appendix B lists the CDS solutions. | |
| 68 | What does the "Partial" word mean in the box showing RCAS? Is RCAS partially subsummed in GFIM already or will only a partial amount of RCAS functionality be sunset by GFIM leaving another "partial" amount in an RCAS system? | There are multiple modules in RCAS and only a subset of them will be subsumed by GFIM. | |
| 69 | Page size and page limits are provided for the Technical Discussion narrative. Diagrams and schedules can become illegible when printed on standard pages. Will the Government accept tabloid size (11"x17") pages for Attachment 1, Notional Schedule, and Attachment 2, Architecture Diagrams. Additionally, are there page limitations for Attachments 1 and/or 2? | Answered by amendment | |
| 70 | The response instructions state that Offerors must "identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government's use of that intellectual property," but there is not a clear section for inclusion of that information. Will the Government accept a table of IP identification as Attachment 4? | The government will accept a table of IP identification as an additional attachment that does not count against the ten page limit. | |
| 71 | Will the Government please confirm that the 10 page limit excludes the cover page, table of contents, glossary/acronym list, and all attachments? | Answered by amendment | |
| 72 | The figure depicts what leagacy system must be divested in what FY. Does the government have a paticular sequence for divestiture within the FY or is the sequence left up to the vendor to propose? | This is up to the vendor to propose. | |
| 73 | Request confirmation of aligning GFMDI to XSD 3.8.2 with a transition to XSD 4.0 in FY 2027 | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 74 | is cATO mandatory requirement for low code/no code solution? | Yes. | |
| 75 | Will there be an expectation for the user to be able to directly access information through a backend query | No, users will not directly access the GFIM data. | |
| 76 | Will this be admin controlled role based permissions, or system controlled permissions based on user grade/commnad/duty location/role | The solution requires role based permission and be based the principles of Zero Trust and seperation of duties. | |
| 77 | Are these power users who can trigger workflows or data changes, or primarly read access users | Each user's role in the D2RR process will dicate the actions that user can take under the auspices of Zero Trust and segregation of duties. | |
| 78 | Please provide a comprehensive list of legacy systems and subsystems targeted for divestiture, including known data interdependencies, formats, and all interface specifications that must be considered during integration and migration. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 79 | Please clarify the number and nature of expected data trading partners and the preferred data exchange mechanisms (e.g., APIs, file-based, manual processes). | Answered in Question 37 | |
| 80 | Will specific DoD systems require real-time integration, and what are the approved standards for these exchanges? | Answered in Question 37 | |
| 81 | Please permit reduced size font to Arial Narrow 9 or 10 for graphics, tables, and text boxes. Architectural diagrams are complex and, with size 11 Arial, are unlikely to fit on an 8.5”x 11” page. | The Government will allow the use Arial or Arial Narrow font between 8-11pt for graphics. | |
| 82 | Please clarify the expected user types and usage patterns to support a more accurate and defensible Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) estimate for the anticipated 25,000 users over the five-year lifecycle. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 83 | Specifically, please provide a user base breakdown by roles or personas (e.g., administrators, operational staff, reviewers, external users) and anticipated usage frequency for each group (e.g., daily, weekly, ad hoc). | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 84 | Additionally, please indicate whether all users will require full access or if there will be different access tiers (e.g., view-only, limited functionality), and whether external stakeholders or organizations are expected to use the system. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 85 | Please provide guidance on any assumptions around user concurrency, peak usage periods, and projected growth or attrition over the five years. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 86 | Can the Army provide the number of data partners? | Answered in Question 37 | |
| 87 | Can the Gov't summarize the communication methods with data partners (e.g., Kafka, others)? | Answered in Question 37 | |
| 88 | Can the Gov't specify the 'Government Cross Domain Solution' that is to be used? | Answered in Question 67 | |
| 89 | Is Tricentis the primary automated testing tool or are there others that should be considered? | The tools listed in Appendix B are currently approved for use. If the offerer has a compelling justification for the use of other tools, the Government will consider it | |
| 90 | Is ICAM integration a requirement for RBAC and Zero Trust support? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 91 | Can the Gov't provide information on the tools required for the CI/CD pipeline | Refer to appendix B | |
| 92 | Data Normalization Depth: Could you elaborate on the specific data normalization requirements? Are there any predefined data schemas or transformation rules that we should adhere to? | Answered in Question 4. | |
| 93 | What are the authoritative data sources and owners for the 13 legacy systems? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 94 | Will the Government provide a Cross Domain Solution (CDS), or should we propose one? | Answered in Question 67 | |
| 95 | Can the Government provide a GFM DI implementation guide or working schema for ingestion compliance? | See GFMDI reference | |
| 96 | Which Army enterprise tools or platforms (e.g., PeopleSoft, SAP, Appian, Palantir) are mandated or strongly preferred for reuse? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 97 | How much functionality must be demonstrated in the prototype versus deferred to production? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 98 | What cybersecurity baseline should the solution assume for cATO in IL5 and IL6 (e.g., STIGs, ZTA, RMF)? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 99 | How will Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) be structured, and will you provide baseline Zero Trust roles? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 100 | Will Government furnish test data, legacy exports, or use cases for CI/CD pipeline validation? | Not for the CfS | |
| 101 | Will trading partners require data access via self-service portals, APIs, or both? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 102 | Will Oracle enterprise licenses be provided as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), or must they be priced in the TCO? | They need to be priced | |
| 103 | Can the Gov't provide information each of the 13 sustaining systems and each subsystem such as: architecture diagrams, system related details such as operating systems, details on GOTS/COTS software on these systems, current platform on-premise, cloud, etc. | Not at this time. | |
| 104 | What is the current volume and size of legacy data that needs to be migrated to the GFIM solution (i.e., number of rows, number of tables, disk space, data complexity)? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 105 | What existing systems or tools are currently in use for managing legacy and GFM DI data? How will these tools be used in the future solution? | AOS is the system that currently manages GFMDI compliance. | |
| 106 | How frequently do you anticipate updates or changes to the GFM DI standard? | Unknown | |
| 107 | Based on Figure 1, the following applications (SAMAS, FMS, FMSWeb, DRR-A) and capabilities (D2RR.01, .02, and .03) will be considered when developing the notional schedule. Please confirm that this is the Government's expectation. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 108 | Please confirm that the notional schedule can be provided in MS Powerpoint as an image file. | This is fine | |
| 109 | Please confirm that diagrams can be provided in MS Powerpoint as an image file. | This is fine | |
| 110 | Please clarify specific seasonal or mission-driven capacity requirements since this will have an impact of TCO. Please describe seasonal patterns when usage is expected to spike. What is the lead time for anticipating spikes in usage? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 111 | With preference for schedules less than six months, should we assume that existing development will be reused? How much development can be reused from the existing prototype? | An offeror may choose use any existing development in their proposed solution. However, there are currently no existing capabilities in production. | |
| 112 | In the GFIM Industry Day briefing (July 30, 2025), the Government emphasized a shift toward modular, low-code/no-code, COTS-based solutions under CSO/OTA frameworks, with strong encouragement for end-to-end, integrated capabilities. We interpret this to mean that both Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Systems Integrators may be eligible to propose as primes. Would the Government consider clarifying whether the Call for Solution will be limited to OEMs only, or whether Systems Integrators proposing integrated COTS-based solutions are equally eligible to prime? | The CfS is not limited to OEMs. It is fully open. | |
| 113 | In the memorandum titled “Implementation of Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” dated June 23, 2025, page 2 outlines that ITC&MS and A&AS requirements under $10 million are excluded from DOGE review and approval. Given that the GFIM Call for Solution will result in a prototype award under OTA, and the total anticipated value may exceed $10M over time, would the Government confirm whether the GFIM effort is subject to the DOGE review and approval process at this stage? | OTAs would not be subject to DOGE review. | |
| 114 | Section 8.4 Request for Prototype Proposal indicates that if an offeror is selected for this phase, the RPP will have specific guidelines and will require a detailed price breakdown. Can the government confirm that, since the prototype scope and associated milestones are not yet defined, respondents should exclude prototype development scope and costs from the current total cost of ownership (TCO) estimate, with these details to be provided in later phases | The amendment clarified that we are looking for the TCO to the program in FY26-FY30. This will depend on their recommended solution and approach. The basis of estimate should document their assumptions for how they determine the TCO for their proposed solution. | |
| 115 | Given the technical complexity and strategic scope outlined in the D2RR Transformation RFP, we respectfully request a two-week extension to prepare and finalize a comprehensive and aligned proposal. |
| This additional time will enable us to fully address the objectives of the RFP and ensure that our solution aligns with the Army's modernization goals. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||||
| 116 | 3.2 | Army Cloud Environment | 3 | Can the government provide details on the CDS in-use today and any near-term upgrade/transition plans so offerors can properly align their strategy to government plans? | Answered in Question 67 | |
| 117 | 3.5 | Data Management | 4 | Can the government provide a GFM DI sample or reference data model to ensure all offerors align their solution to this foundational component? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 118 | 3.1 | Approach to Legacy System Divestiture | 3 | What level of access to the 13 legacy systems (e.g. data dictionaries, schemas, etc.) will be provided to offerors, and at what stage in the process? | Answered in 57 | |
| 119 | 3.1 | Approach to Legacy System Divestiture | 3 | Would Army prefer the migration of legacy data (aggregation, normalization and deduplication) be completed with configurable SaaS tools to minimize Non-Recurrent Engineering? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 120 | 3.4 | Role and Identity Management | 4 | Should RBAC controls be able to leverage Conditional Access policies and Identity governance policies? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 121 | 8.4 | Criteria 4: Enterprise | 11 | The initial prototype scope is a "production-ready capability to manage and disseminate authoritative Army organization structure data" by the end of FY26. Does this scope correspond to the functionalities of a specific subset of the 13 legacy systems (e.g., those under "Force Structure/Force Management" like SAMAS and FMS)? Prioritization would help in developing a more focused schedule. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 122 | 5 | Solicitation Notes | 5 | To provide the most accurate five-year TCO for 25,000 users, could the government provide a high-level breakdown of anticipated user roles? For instance, what is the estimated percentage of users who will primarily be data viewers, standard users with data entry/workflow roles, and "pro" users or data analysts requiring advanced capabilities? This directly impacts licensing and infrastructure cost models. | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |
| 123 | 5 | Solicitation Notes | 5 | Will the government allow headers, footers, graphics, and tables to use Arial 9pt font? | Answered by amendment | |
| 124 | 5 | Solicitation Notes | 5 | Will the government consider excluding from the 10-page limit the cover page, table of contents, and information intended to help evaluators (e.g., acronym list, requirements matrix)? | Answered by amendment | |
| 125 | 5 | Solicitation Notes | 5 | Should Attachment 1 and attachment 2 be included as appendixes to the technical discussion or provided as separate documents? | Answered by amendment | |
| 126 | 8.2 | Solution Brief and Demonstration Invitation | 8 | Has an optimum number of offerors to move forward been established? If so, can the government share that with offerors? | No. The Government will decide the number of vendors based on the quality of the solutions and desirability received. All solutions will be evaluated according to the evaluation methodology outlined in Section 8. | |
| 127 | Notional Schedule for Development – Could you elaborate on the expected level of detail? Should this be a high-level milestone chart, or do you require task-level breakdowns and dependencies? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | ||||
| 128 | Page Limits for Attachments and Architecture Diagrams – Are there specific page limits for Attachment 1 (Notional Schedule), Attachment 2 (Architecture Diagrams), and Attachment 3 (TCO spreadsheet)? | Answered by amendment | ||||
| 129 | Page Breakdown for Attachments – Should these attachments follow a particular format or page allocation, or can each be as concise or detailed as necessary to convey the information? | Answered by amendment | ||||
| 130 | Pages for References – If we include references to prior work or relevant Army projects, should these be counted within the 10-page Technical Discussion limit, or can they be provided in a separate attachment without affecting the page count? | References to prior work would count against the 10-page limit for the Technical Discussion. | ||||
| 131 | Will the 25,000 user licenses need to be run concurrently on IL5/IL6? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | ||||
| 132 | How much data in Terabytes will be required? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | ||||
| 133 | How much data will be required monthly / yearly on both IL5/IL6 environments? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | ||||
| 134 | How much data will need to be created, read, updated, deleted, and archived? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | ||||
| 135 | 3.1 Approach to Legacy System Divestiture | Could the government provide a list of all legacy D2RR systems(with their hosting environments (IL5/IL6), capabilities, integration points, and current sustainment timelines)? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 136 | 3.1 Approach to Legacy System Divestiture | Could the government provide any System-of-record Conflicts and/or overlaps across existing force management systems that should be accounted for in the proposed solution? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 137 | 3.1 Approach to Legacy System Divestiture | Could the government provide the preferred order of divestiture for legacy systems that is required to be maintained temporarily due to operational dependencies? | The Offeror is free to propose an order/approach based on the guidelines and references provided. | |||
| 138 | 3.5 Data Management | Could the government clarify whether it will provide data schemas, dictionaries, or mapping documents to assist in the migration of legacy data sets? | Answered in 57 | |||
| 139 | 3.5 Data Management | Could the government clarify if there is any Army-approved canonical data model to be used for aggregation and normalization, or should we propose one? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 140 | 3.5 Data Management | Could the government clarify the expected frequency and method for receiving updates to the GFM DI schema? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 141 | 3.5 Data Management | Could the government clarify whether the proposed solution should maintain historical versions of GFM DI schema and support backward compatibility for older data models? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 142 | 3.5 Data Management | Could the government clarify the expectations for data sharing between GFIM and other DoD systems? Are there existing MOUs, interface agreements, or integration specifications available? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 143 | 3 Desired Solution Attributes | Could the government provide representative D2RR workflows, including current manual steps, process owners, and approval chains? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 144 | 3 Desired Solution Attributes | Could the government clarify if the proposed GFIM solution should support data lineage visualizations and traceability across ingestion, transformation, and publication stages? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 145 | 3 Desired Solution Attributes | Could the government clarify its expectations for AI/ML integration in the prototype phase versus in future production phases? (e.g., analytics only, predictive modeling, intelligent task automation) | For the CfS the government is looking for industry input on how AI/ML can be used to improve the D2RR process and execection of the GFIM mission. | |||
| 146 | 3 Desired Solution Attributes | Could the government clarify if it will provide access to historical data sets that can be used to train and validate AI/ML models during prototype development? | The government will not provide any historical or data sets other than notional in nature until the solution has achived the minimum of an Iterrim Authority to Test (IATT). | |||
| 147 | 3 Desired Solution Attributes | Could the government provide a reference cloud architecture to align with our GFIM solution environments? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 148 | 3.2.Army Cloud Environment | Could the government clarify if the GFIM solution is expected to operate in both IL5 and IL6 environments simultaneously, or only within one during the prototype phase? | The Phase 1 and 2 prototypes will be in IL5 only, but the Government will evaluate the Offerors holistic IL5/IL6 strategy. | |||
| 149 | 3.2.Army Cloud Environment | Could the government clarify if there are any existing cross-domain solutions (CDS) in place for data sharing between IL5 and IL6, or should the vendor propose one? | Answered in Question 67 | |||
| 150 | 3.2.Army Cloud Environment | Could the government clarify the synchronization expectations between IL5 and IL6 environments (e.g., near real-time, daily batch, manual sync)? | Specific requirements will not be shared with industry until a contract is awarded. For the purpose of responding to the Call for Solution, propose your recommendation based on the information provided. Document any assumptions that may cause significant impact that would change your recommendation. | |||
| 151 | 3.6.Integration with Partners | Could the government clarify the list of Army and DoD trading partners for the GFIM solution, and their preferred data exchange mechanisms(e.g. APIs) | Answered in Question 37 | |||
| 152 | 3.4.Role and Identity Management | Could the government clarify if there are preferred Army identity/access management (IAM) solutions (e.g., EAMS-A, DoD CAC/PIV authentication) that GFIM must integrate with? | GFIM will use CAC authentication vis EAMS-A for authentication. |
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 .