CSO - QA Workbook_March26_Post-LOCKED.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Joint Enterprise Task Management System (JETMS)
- Solicitation number
- W519TC-26-JETMS
- Issued by
-
Department of Defense
About this file
This file is a Question and Answer (Q&A) workbook documenting vendor inquiries and Government responses for the Joint Enterprise Task Management System (JETMS) Call for Solutions (CFS), dated March 26, 2026. The document contains 104 numbered Q&As addressing clarifications on submission requirements, technical specifications, evaluation criteria, and implementation scope across multiple solicitation sections. The Government emphasized throughout that it is not providing prescriptive technical or operational requirements beyond those published in the CFS, instead expecting offerors to propose comprehensive solutions based on their expertise. Key clarifications include: solution briefs must not exceed five (5) pages with the ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude) excluded from the page limit; smaller, legible font is permissible in tables and graphics while maintaining 12-point body text; companies may use 10-point font in headers and footers; an acronym list is excluded from page count; and hyperlinks are not permitted in submissions. Regarding architecture and security, the solution must be a cloud-only, browser-based, self-contained application without proprietary external dependencies for core operations, requiring either integration with existing APIs (Microsoft 365, ICAM) or capability to create custom APIs. The solution must demonstrate a current, active Impact Level 5 (IL5) or higher Authority to Operate (ATO) from a U.S. Federal or DoD agency, though provisional ATOs may be considered for highly innovative products with a clear and credible path to rapid IL5 authorization; the Government will evaluate the rapidity and credibility of proposed ATO timelines.
The solicitation targets acquisition of a mature, commercially available AI-enhanced platform to replace the Office of the Secretary of War's Correspondence and Task Management System (CATMS) and the Army's Enterprise Task Management Software Solution (ETMS2), serving over 150,000 daily active users globally distributed across the Department of War (DoW), Services, and 4th Estate entities. The system will operate on NIPR IL5 and SIPR IL6 networks without requiring JWICS integration, with tasks remaining within single classification levels. The solution must provide workflow management for routing and monitoring tasks, intelligent automation with measurable reduction in man-hours per task, modern user experience with Microsoft 365 integration, enterprise-grade security with multi-tenant cloud architecture, real-time analytics and leadership visibility, non-proprietary data export methods to prevent vendor lock-in, seamless interoperability with existing systems, and helpdesk support coordinated with the AESD helpdesk. The estimated award is anticipated within the current Federal Fiscal Year with an estimated start date of Q4 FY26; the Period of Performance for production is dependent on the selected solution. The ROM should depict all projected cost elements for 150,000 annual users including platform, software licenses, and services costs (onboarding, training, data migration, technical support, and operational support), submitted as an exact single total amount rather than a range. Solution Briefs were originally due March 9, 2026, but the Government extended the deadline to March 16, 2026 per Amendment 02 (posted March 4, 2026); submissions address Phase 1 evaluation, with Phase 2 live pitch instructions to be provided to selected offerors. The intended NAICS code is 513210, and questions should be submitted in one consolidated email with only one round of questions permitted.
View the file
Other files
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
JETMS CSO Q&A
| JETMS CSO Q&A - March 04, 2026 | ||||
| # | Section Reference / Category2 | Vendor Question | Date Question Rcvd | USG Response |
| 1 | Section 7 | Can the Government please confirm that the following page allocation in an offeror's solution brief is compliant with the requirements of the Call for Solutions? Total of 5 pages, allocated as: |
• 1 page - Title Page with company information and Gate Criteria
• 3 pages - Executive Summary (1 page max) and Technical Discussion addressing Problem Statement, Solution Attributes, Evaluation Criteria
| • 1 page - ROM | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |||
| 2 | Section 7 | Section 7 states that use of diagrams is encouraged in solution briefs, and that offerors must use 12-point font. Will the Government permit smaller font in tables and graphics/diagrams? | 26-Feb-26 | Smaller, ledgible font size may be used in tables or graphics. | |
| 3 | Section 7 | Section 7 states that offerors should submit a one (1) page (max) Title Page containing a summary of Company Information and Gate Criteria responses. Can the Government clarify what information is requested for the “Company Information” section? | 26-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. You may also review this information within the AOS Section C.1 a. | |
| 4 | Section 10 | Section 10 states that the scoring rubric will be used for each phase of evaluations. Can the Government clarify if the scores are cumulative across phases? | 26-Feb-26 | Sections 7 and 10 within the JETMS CFS have been revised. | |
| 5 | AI & Workflow | What is the expected volume of incoming documents (daily/monthly) that require Intelligent Intake (AI classification, date extraction)? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 6 | Scalability & Architecture | What is the expected user load distribution across the 150,000+ user population between task processors (completing tasks, approving workflows, viewing dashboards, and all other functions) and task submitters (only initiating task submissions to initiate or respond to a task routed back) user access? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 7 | ATO and IL-5 Requirement | Are there any known requirements above IL-5? | 26-Feb-26 | Section 7.b. within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 8 | Technical Details | What does the government mean by “self-contained” in gate criteria No. 3? | 26-Feb-26 | The application should provide its core operational capabilities without forcing the government to separately acquire and integrate other proprietary products (i.e., a turn-key solution without proprietary external dependencies for core operation). | |
| 9 | IL5 / ATO | 1. The solicitation states a need for an active current IL5 or higher ATO. It also states how, “Provisional ATOs may be considered for highly innovative and functional products.” Will the government accept a solution that is FedRAMP Moderate In Process and can demonstrate a clear and credible path to a rapid IL5 ATO, and deliver on all other requirements listed in this solicitation? | 26-Feb-26 | Section 7.b. within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 10 | IL5 / ATO | 2. If the award recipient(s) can clearly demonstrate a clear and credible path to achieving a rapid IL5 ATO, what is the maximum post-award timeframe the Government will allow the award recipient to reach IL5? | 26-Feb-26 | The government has left it to the offerors to propose their own "rapid" timeline. The Government will evaluate the 'rapidity' and 'credibility' of the timeline proposed by each offeror as a component of their solution brief. | |
| 11 | 3. The solicitation requirements specify seamless integration with Microsoft 365 and ICAM. Does the Government have preferred existing API connectors for these integrations, or is it seeking a vendor-led custom integration? | 26-Feb-26 | The solution must be able to intergrate existing APIs for MS365 and iCAM OR be capable of creating custom API for intergration. | ||
| 12 | 4. Does the Government intend for the selected awarded solution to serve as a permanent system of record, or will it serve as an orchestration layer that sits on top of existing repositories while providing a unified interface? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government will review all solutions received to determine the best solution. | ||
| 13 | 6. To ensure an accurate and comprehensive Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), could the Government define any specific service level expectations that are needed besides onboarding, training, data migration, technical support, and operational support for 150,000+ users? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 14 | Award Date | 7. Does the Government anticipate making an award in the current Federal fiscal year, or is it expected for the next fiscal year? | 26-Feb-26 | The projected award is anticipated within the current Federal Fiscal Year. | |
| 15 | Non-proprietary data exports | 8. Can the Government clarify if the requirement for 'non-proprietary data exports' excludes solutions that require specialized middleware or proprietary code to extract task hierarchies and historical correspondence in a human-readable, relational format? | 26-Feb-26 | Your solution must provide a documented, non-proprietary method for completing data exports to prevent vendor lock-in. We may consider specialiized data export solutions. | |
| 16 | 9. Since the goal is to automate the internal task lifecycle rather than external customer interactions, how will the Government evaluate a solution’s ability to use Agentic AI via self service to autonomously manage internal dependencies and resourcing without needing an external user having to build complex, manually-triggered 'Flows'? | 26-Feb-26 | The evaluation will be based on the criteria in Section 10 (Speed to Delivery, Technical Merit, etc.) and how well the solution fulfills the "Intelligent Automation" attribute in Section 3, which requires a "measurable reduction in man-hours per task." | ||
| 17 | 10. Does the Government require the ability to disconnect the platform's UI from the vendor’s proprietary AI models in favor of a Government-approved, self-hosted LLM on the backend to ensure total control over sensitive document repositories? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 18 | 11. Is the Government seeking a platform designed natively for Work Management (task-centric), or is it open to 'Record-centric' CRM platforms that require significant custom configuration to mirror a traditional tasking hierarchy? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 19 | NAICS Code | 12. Can the Government provide what NAICS codes will be used for this solicitation? | 26-Feb-26 | Intended NAICS Code will be 513210. | |
| 20 | 13. Is the Government seeking a solution designed natively for efficient work management (task-centric), or is it interested in Record-centric CRM solutions that require significant custom configuration to mirror tasking hierarchy? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 21 | Section 7 (page 3) | The Government asks for a ROM for 150,000 annual users for the solution. Can the Government confirm if the solution leverages capabilities within a platform the Army already has invested in (the Enterprise Platforms), then the company should provide a ROM of $0 dollars? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 22 | Section 7 (page 3) | Specific to the ROM for 150,000 annual users, can the Government confirm that users across the DoW / 4th estate are able to utilize the Enterprise Agreements the Army has established with Enterprise Platforms on the Approved Products List? | 27-Feb-26 | Each individual EA has its own stipulations on which Government enitites can utilize the contract vehicle; however, if an EA is available it is the Army's intent to utilize it. | |
| 23 | Section 7 (page 3) | There are multiple Army platforms that align to the capabilities requested in the call. In order to provide the government with an accurate estimate and determine the most cost-effective solution for the 150k user ROM, we would need to understand the pre-negotiated Government prices that the Army has in place through established Enterprise Agreements. Could the Government share the SKU based pricing for approved platforms with EAs (Appian, ServiceNow, Microsoft, Palantir, and Salesforce)? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government cannot share this information. | |
| 24 | Solution Brief Page Limit (AOS Base Document, Section C.1 & CFS, Section 7.a) | 1. Solution Brief Page Limit (AOS Base Document, Section C.1 & CFS, Section 7.a) The AOS Base Document (Section C.1) states that Solution Briefs shall not exceed five (5) written pages. However, the JETMS CFS (Section 7.a) requests a 3-page technical discussion, a 1-page Title Page (excluded from the limit), a 1-page Executive Summary, and a 1-page ROM. If the ROM counts toward the limit, the total is exactly 5 pages. | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 25 | Page Limit | Could the Government please confirm if the 1-page ROM is excluded from the 5-page limit, as is customary, allowing offerors to utilize the full 5 pages for the technical discussion and executive summary? | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 26 | Section 7 | 2. Gate Criterion 3 – "Self-Contained" vs. Commercial LLMs (CFS, Section 7.b & Section 3) The CFS requires a "self-contained" application but also demands seamless integration with Microsoft 365, CATMS, and AI/ML capabilities. Does "self-contained" mean all Large Language Model (LLM) weights and AI processing must be hosted locally strictly within the application's IL5 boundary, or are API calls to authorized, secure commercial LLM endpoints (e.g., Azure OpenAI FedRAMP High) permissible? | 27-Feb-26 | The application should provide its core operational capabilities without forcing the government to separately acquire and integrate other proprietary products (i.e., a turn-key solution without proprietary external dependencies for core operation). | |
| 27 | Section 7 | 3. ROM Scope regarding Data Migration (CFS, Section 7.a) The CFS requests a 1-page ROM for "150,000 annual users." Should the submitted ROM exclusively reflect Year 1 deployment, licensing, and O&M, or should offerors also include the estimated labor and technical costs for historical data migration from legacy systems (CATMS/ETMS2) as mentioned in the earlier January RFI? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 28 | Section 4. Awarding Instrument | What is the period of performance for the production contract i.e. estimated start date and number of option years? | 27-Feb-26 | Estimated start date is QTR-4 FY26. The Period of Performance for Production is dependent on the selected solution. | |
| 29 | Section 7. Solution Brief Requirements | Should the ROM be for a single year's cost for this system or a different timeframe? | 27-Feb-26 | Estimated start date is QTR-4 FY26. The Period of Performance for Production is dependent on the selected solution. | |
| 30 | Section 7. Solution Brief Requirements | Should the ROM include platform, software license, and services costs? Is there anything else required for the ROM? | 27-Feb-26 | Estimated start date is QTR-4 FY26. The Period of Performance for Production is dependent on the selected solution. | |
| 31 | Section 7b. Gate Criteria 1 | In which networks will this system run? e.g. NIPR IL5, SIPR, JWICS etc.? | 27-Feb-26 | NIPR IL5 and SIPR IL6 | |
| 32 | Section 3. Intelligent Automation | Our technical approach for AI is model agnostic and can integrate with our customer's existing and approved AI solution. Is this approach acceptable? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 33 | Section 3. Intelligent Automation | Has a preferred AI model(s) been selected for this system? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 34 | Section 10a. Speed to Delivery | Evaluation requirement 1, Speed to Delivery (Highest Importance): Preference will be heavily weighted toward an existing solution with an existing, active IL5 or higher ATO, demonstrating the fastest possible path to deployment. Provisional ATOs may be considered for highly innovative and functional products. |
| Please explain how any solution can compete for "fastest possible path to deployment" with the existing incumbent that is already deployed. This seems to place any competing solution at a disadvantage, even with an active IL5 or higher ATO. | 27-Feb-26 | In the context of this evaluation, 'existing solution' is defined as any solution that is commercially available and fully developed, not necessarily the solution currently in use (the incumbent). | |||
| 35 | Section 7b. Gate Criteria 3 | Does gate 3 "Gate Criterion 3 (Architecture): The solution must be a scalable, self-contained, browser-based application." imply that the system has its own AI LLM or can the solution integrate with AI models that the Government already owns? | 27-Feb-26 | Ref Row 10. The application should provide its core operational capabilities without forcing the government to separately acquire and integrate other proprietary products (i.e., a turn-key solution without proprietary external dependencies for core operation). | |
| 36 | Sections 2 and 3 Problem Statement and Desired Solution Attributes | "PROBLEM STATEMENT |
Current tasking processes are fragmented across legacy systems, email, and manual trackers. This creates operational friction, requires extensive manual data entry, and denies leaders real-time visibility into enterprise workload and task status. This inefficiency hinders DoW’s ability to operate at the speed and scale required for modern, multi-domain operations."
| In what ways does the current incumbent systems for CATMS and ETMS2 fail to meet the desired system attributes in this solicitation? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |||
| 37 | Section 10.a: Speed to Delivery | What is the anticipated transition-in time for this contract? | 27-Feb-26 | Transition-in timeline should be included in the offeror's solution. | |
| 38 | Section 10.a: Speed to Delivery | What is the expected timeline for migrating all users from the existing system(s) to the new one? | 27-Feb-26 | Migration timeline should be included in the offeror's solution. | |
| 39 | Section 10.a: Speed to Delivery | Evaluation Criterion 'a' heavily weights existing IL5+ ATOs. Will the Government clarify if a solution requiring a full RMF cycle from 'scratch' will be deemed 'Fails to Meet Minimum Requirements' compared to one that can achieve reciprocity within 30 days? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 40 | Section 3: Modern User Experience & Interoperability | Does the Government require the AI to possess a native, real-time connection to existing M365/SharePoint repositories to prevent manual file uploads, or is a 'swivel-chair' manual data entry approach acceptable? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 41 | Section 3: Data Ownership & Portability | To satisfy the 'Data Ownership' requirement , will the Government mandate that all AI processing, including LLM inference, occur strictly within the Government's IL5/GCC tenant boundary, prohibiting the use of third-party commercial APIs? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 42 | Section 3: Intelligent Automation | Regarding the 'measurable reduction in man-hours' , will the Government provide a baseline of current processing times, or should vendors include a specific 'Value Realization Dashboard' within their solution to track these metrics in real-time? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 43 | Section 7.b: Gate Criterion 3 (Architecture) | Gate Criterion 3 requires a 'self-contained' application. Does this prohibit solutions that require 'side-car' infrastructure or external servers outside of the enterprise PaaS (e.g., ServiceNow) boundary? | 27-Feb-26 | Ref Row 10. The application should provide its core operational capabilities without forcing the government to separately acquire and integrate other proprietary products (i.e., a turn-key solution without proprietary external dependencies for core operation). | |
| 44 | Section 7.b: Gate Criterion 2 (AI Experience) | Will the Government favor solutions that utilize 'Human-in-the-Loop' training where the AI's logic is derived solely from the Government's own historical staff actions and authoritative documents to ensure zero-hallucination accuracy? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 45 | Section 1. Background | How many of the 150,000 users are OCONUS? | 27-Feb-26 | The current user base is globally distributed and accesses the solution through the DoW network. | |
| 46 | Section 1. Background | Is an OCONUS presence required to support this system or can this be done remotely? | 27-Feb-26 | Offerors are expected to define their proposed support model as part of their overall solution. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness and value of the proposed support plan. | |
| 47 | Section 7. Solution Brief Requirements | Is it permissible to put hyperlinks to product information and specifications in the Solution Brief? | 27-Feb-26 | No, hyperlinks will not be accepted. Please review the AOS Section C.1 | |
| 48 | Section 3. Enterprise-Grade Security & Scalability | The solicitation requires a multi-tenant cloud architecture. Are their enclaves that will also require an on-premise solution? Would the Government prefer a solution that can be deployed in both cloud and on-premise environments? | 27-Feb-26 | Section 3 Desired Solution Attributes: The Government requests a Cloud-only solution. | |
| 49 | Section 3. Modern User Experience & Interoperability | Does the Government require the solution to operate across multiple security enclaves (e.g., NIPR, SIPR, and JWICS) with a unified data synchronization strategy to ensure enterprise-wide visibility? | 27-Feb-26 | NIPR IL5 and SIPR IL6 | |
| 50 | Section 3: Intelligent Automation | Will the Government prioritize solutions that support Dynamic Assignments (fluid, ad-hoc routing) over rigid, pre-defined 'BPM' workflows to better reflect the non-linear nature of Staff Actions and coordination? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 51 | Section 3: Intelligent Automation | Will the Government favor solutions that provide a Hybrid Orchestration approach—combining a structured, enterprise system of record with the flexibility for 'Human-in-the-Loop' Dynamic Routing—to ensure the system adapts to non-linear staff coordination rather than forcing a rigid, pre-defined process? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 52 | The Gate Criterion specifies a “current, active IL5 ATO from a U.S. Federal or DoD agency.” However, the evaluation section notes that provisional ATOs “may be considered.” To ensure full compliance with submission requirements, could you please confirm: |
• Whether a current, active IL5 ATO is required at the time of submission as a strict pass/fail gate criterion; and
| • Whether documented path to IL5 authorization would satisfy the gate requirement | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.b. within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 53 | Does the solution need to have a current ATO as indicated in Section 7.B. Gate Criteria or is security compliance and a clear path to an ATO the requirement as indicated in Section 3. DESIRED SOLUTION ATTRIBUTES? |
As a CSO, the government should expect commercial innovative solutions that are not currently authorized to operate on the DOW networks but have cybersecurity attributes that would allow a path to ATO and operation on the DOW networks.
We find the following CSO conflicting language:
3. Enterprise-Grade Security & Scalability: Demonstrate a multi-tenant cloud architecture proven to scale to over 150,000 daily active users. The solution must have a clear path to a rapid DoW Authority to Operate (ATO).
| 7.B. Gate Criterion 1 (Current ATO): The solution must possess a current, active ATO at Impact Level 5 (IL5) or higher from a U.S. Federal or DoW agency. State the agency and issuance date. | 23-Feb-26 | Section 7.b. within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 54 | Accreditation Boundary Strategy (ATO Scope) | 1. Accreditation Boundary Strategy (ATO Scope) |
Is the Government’s modernization objective to:
| • | Establish a new IL5 application boundary, or | ||
| • | Operate within the current accredited ETMS2/TMT environment to minimize SSP expansion and RMF overhead? | ||
| Additionally, what level of inherited controls from the Army’s Azure IL5 platform should be assumed for modernization solutions? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 55 | ETMS2 / TMT Integration Model | 2. ETMS2 / TMT Integration Model |
To enable overlay-first modernization, will the Government please answer the following:
| • | What integration interfaces are available (APIs, structured exports, event feeds, webhook capabilities)? | ||
| • | Are there constraints on introducing an orchestration layer that synchronizes task state while preserving ETMS2 as system-of-record during transition? | 26-Feb-26 | The solution must either integrate with existing APIs or be capable of creating custom APIs to meet this requirement. The feasibility and acceptability of such an approach would be dependent on the specific architecture proposed in the offeror's solution brief. |
Response to the second question is dependant on the proposed solution.
56 Cross-Instance Visibility & Service Boundaries 3. Cross-Instance Visibility & Service Boundaries Operator feedback indicates limited cross-instance visibility across Services.
Is the Government seeking:
| • | Improved telemetry and routing traceability across Service instances? | ||
| • | Visibility limited to reporting, or operational-level routing transparency? | ||
| What policy or boundary constraints should modernization efforts assume? | 26-Feb-26 | Refer to Section 3 Desired Solution Attributes . Your solution must adhere to the latest DoW cyber and interconnection policies. | |
| 57 | Device & Licensing Constraints | 4. Device & Licensing Constraints |
Is elimination of device-bound licensing and workstation-specific client dependencies a modernization objective?
| Would secure browser-based enterprise access be considered aligned to the Government’s target state? | 26-Feb-26 | Yes, it must be a browser-based application. | |
| 58 | Workflow & Routing Modernization | 5. Workflow & Routing Modernization |
To reduce mis-tasking and routing guesswork, would the Government please answer the following:
| • | Are authoritative organizational hierarchies (directory services, equity mappings, role structures) available for deterministic routing integration? | ||
| • | Does the Government prefer deterministic rule-based routing as authoritative, with AI assistance augmenting but not replacing governance controls? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. |
| 59 | Document Review & Formatting Enforcement | 6. Document Review & Formatting Enforcement |
Given document review burden and formatting churn:
| • | Are standardized response templates mandated across Services? | ||
| • | Would automated template validation and structured response enforcement prior to submission align with modernization objectives? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. |
| 60 | Leadership Telemetry & Analytics Expectations | 7. Leadership Telemetry & Analytics Expectations |
Beyond basic task counts and completion rates:
| • | What leadership-level metrics are considered most valuable (SLA adherence, bottlenecks, re-tasking frequency, comment churn, workload distribution)? | ||
| • | Is near real-time visibility an operational requirement? | 26-Feb-26 | Real time visibility into analytics is a requirement. |
| 61 | Volumetrics for Environment Sizing | 8. Volumetrics for Environment Sizing |
To accurately size the target IL5 environment, will the Government please provide the following details:
| • | Average and peak monthly task volume? | ||
| • | Average attachment count and document size per task? | ||
| • | Estimated concurrent users and daily active user counts? | ||
| • | Data retention requirements for task artifacts and documents? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CFS). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CFS's published criteria. |
Yes, real-time visibility into analytics is a requirement.
| 62 | General | 9. General | |
| Please confirm that an NDA executed with Chenega IT Enterprise Services (CITES) will not count against page limits. | 26-Feb-26 | The referenced NDA will not count against the page limits. | |
| 63 | In section 3. DESIRED SOLUTION ATTRIBUTES, there is a sentence that reads: The solution must have a clear path to a rapid DoW Authority to Operate (ATO). The sentence indicates a clear path to an ATO. |
Section 7. SOLUTION SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS , part b., gate criterion 1 indicates: The solution must possess a current, active ATO at Impact Level 5 (IL5) or higher from a U.S. Federal or DoW agency.
While section 10. EVALUATION CRITERIA, part a., indicates: Preference will be heavily weighted toward an existing solution with an existing, active IL5 or higher ATO, demonstrating the fastest possible path to deployment.
Sections 3 and 10 seem to reinforce the desire for an ATO or a rapid path to securing an ATO. Section 7 indicates an ATO is a must.
| Can you clarify if an ATO is required for submissions, or if an ATO is required prior to an award or subsequent deployment? | 23-Feb-26 | Section 7.b. within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |||
| 64 | Speed to Delivery vs. Innovation | 1. Speed to Delivery vs. Innovation: Regarding the "Speed to Delivery" evaluation factor, will the Government confirm if it values the maturity of the security posture (e.g., existing ATO) equally with the maturity of the innovation (e.g., Tradewinds "Awardable" status), particularly for solutions architected to inherit controls from Government-furnished IL5 environments? | 26-Feb-26 | Refer to section 10 for evaluation criteria and order of importance. | |
| 65 | Gate 1 Documentation & Path | 2. Gate 1 Documentation & Path: Per Amendment 01, when citing an IL5+ hosting platform to satisfy Gate Criterion 1, does the Government require specific documentation (e.g., a P-ATO letter) at the Phase 1 stage, or is a written affirmation of the platform and a credible roadmap to a rapid DoW ATO sufficient? | 26-Feb-26 | Offeror are required to "State the agency and issuance date" of the ATO (Section 7.b) and "demonstrate a clear, credible path" to a rapid ATO. A specific format has not been designated. | |
| 66 | Non-Government Advisor NDA | 3. Non-Government Advisor NDA: Regarding the use of non-Government advisors from Chenega IT Enterprise Services (CITES), will the Government confirm that the signed NDA is intended solely to protect Offeror-proprietary information during the evaluation phase, and that the Government remains the sole owner of all evaluation deliverables and scoring data? | 26-Feb-26 | Yes, the purpose is to allow advisors to assist in the evaluation while protecting proprietary information.. | |
| 67 | Legacy Interoperability | 4. Legacy Interoperability: Does the Government anticipate that the new solution must maintain persistent, bidirectional data synchronization with CATMS/ETMS2 during a phased transition, or will the new platform be the sole system of record for new tasks from day one? | 26-Feb-26 | This will be dependent on the evaluated and chosen solution. | |
| 68 | Operational Performance Standards | 5. Operational Performance Standards: Will the Government provide standardized Service Level Agreement (SLA) targets (e.g., uptime, response time) for a 150,000-user enterprise deployment, or should offerors propose performance parameters based on commercial best practices? | 26-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 69 | Data Export Standards | 6. Data Export Standards: Does the Government require specific open-standard formats for the "non-proprietary method" of data export (e.g., JSON, SQL, or XML) to satisfy the data ownership and portability requirements? | 26-Feb-26 | Your solution must provide a documented, non-proprietary method for completing data exports to prevent vendor lock-in. We may consider specialiized data export solutions. | |
| 70 | Font Size for Graphics and Tables | 7. Font Size for Graphics and Tables: The solicitation requires 12-point font for the body text of the Solution Brief. To ensure the clarity of complex information, will the Government confirm that a smaller, legible font (e.g., 10-point) is permissible for architectural diagrams, workflow graphics, and tables? | 26-Feb-26 | Smaller, ledgible font size may be used in tables or graphics. | |
| 71 | Is the request for a ROM in the JETMS RFI Call for Solution - PL AESMS_26_01 a binding or non-binding ROM? Also, does the Army desire a range for this ROM or an exact number? | 20-Feb-26 | 1. The request for a ROM is to obtain preminary, non binding cost estimate for your proposed solution. |
2.To better represent your solution for the JETMS RFI CFS an exact number (single total amount) is requested.
| 72 | Section 9 | 1. What is the anticipated production/prototyping timeline upon award, following Phase 3 assessment? Does DoW anticipate a phased deployment (pilot → scale)? | 27-Feb-26 | The timeline for prototype/production should be included in your proposed white paper solution. | |
| 73 | Phase 2 | 2. What information does the government anticipate requesting from selected vendors for the Phase 2 technical discussion? | 27-Feb-26 | Formal instructions for Phase 2, Live Pitch will be provided to those offerors who are selected to advance at the conclusion of Phase 1. | |
| 74 | Section 3 (page 2 | Does the Government have established baseline performance metrics for current task processing times, routing cycles, and suspense compliance that will be used to evaluate measurable reductions in man-hours per task? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 75 | Section 7 (page 3) | Will the government consider excluding from the page count a list of acronyms intended for the convenience of reviewers? | 27-Feb-26 | List of acronyms will be excluded from the page count. | |
| 76 | Section 7 (page 3) | Given the limited page count, will the government consider allowing a 10-point font in headers, footers, tables, and graphics, as long as the font is still easily legible? | 27-Feb-26 | Smaller, ledgible font size may be used in tables or graphics. 10-point for Headers and Footers is acceptable. | |
| 77 | Section 6 - GENERAL | To ensure we comply with "Section 6. GENERAL INFORMATION AND QUESTIONS", specifically the instruction to reference the section area in the subject line. Could you please clarify if we should: | |||
| 1. | Send one consolidated email containing all questions across all sections; or | ||||
| 2. | Send separate emails for each section, with multiple questions specific to that section; or | ||||
| 3. | Send individual emails for every question, referencing the relevant section in the subject line | 27-Feb-26 | Questions should be submitted in one email containing all questions. However, IAW Section 6, only one round of questions is to be performed. | ||
| 78 | General | 1. To allow for the delivery of a complete and comprehensive response to your Call for Solution request, would the Army consider extending the solution briefs due date a minimum of one additional week? | 27-Feb-26 | Call for Solutions has been amended to extend due date for solution briefs to March 16, 2026. | |
| 79 | Section 3 | 1. The solicitation specified 150,000 daily active users. Can the Army clarify the expected peak concurrent user load (e.g., during high-volume tasking cycles like Budget/POM cycles)? This will ensure that the proposed solution is appropriately sized. | 27-Feb-26 | Assumption should be made that there are varying peak times across the DoW. | |
| 80 | Section 3 | 2. Regarding the Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) "Intelligent Automation" desired attribute, will the Army provide large language model (LLM) endpoints or is the solution provider expected to provide and host the LLM? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | |
| 81 | Section 7 | 1. Regarding the updated Gate Criterion 1 from amendment 1: If a solution is anchored on an existing IL5 authorized hosting platform, but utilizes specific, innovative AI and data-orchestration services currently at the FedRAMP High level and on an active roadmap for IL5, will the Government accept a clear and credible path to a provisional or conditional DoW ATO for these specific components during the Live Pitch phase (2)? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government will evaluate the ATO path for the entire proposed solution. It is the offeror's responsibility to demonstrate that this path is clear, credible, and results in a fully accredited IL5 solution. | |
| 82 | Section 7 | 2. Section 7 states that the “one (1) page (max) Executive Summary (counts toward page limit).” Please confirm this counts against the “three (3) page (max) technical discussion...“ section of the Solution Brief. | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 83 | Section 7 | 1. Regarding the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for Phase 1: Solution Brief, should the ROM cover only software costs (150k annual users), or must it also include development and implementation services costs? | 27-Feb-26 | The CFS Phase 1 ROM should depict all projected cost elements to meet/execute the requirement as stated in the RFI. | |
| 84 | The Gate Criterion specifies a “current, active IL5 ATO from a U.S. Federal or DoD agency.” However, the evaluation section notes that provisional ATOs “may be considered.” To ensure full compliance with submission requirements, could you please confirm: | ||||
| 1. | Whether a current, active IL5 ATO is required at the time of submission as a strict pass/fail gate criterion; and | ||||
| 2. | Whether documented path to IL5 authorization would satisfy the gate requirement. | 19-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | ||
| 85 | Help Desk Support | 1. Will we need to provide help desk support for JETMS or will another help desk support this? | 27-Feb-26 | The solution must provide helpdesk support in conjunction with the AESD helpdesk. | |
| 86 | Audience | 2. Who is the total audience for this across the government? | 27-Feb-26 | Section 3 states that the solution provides workflow management "across the Department, Services and 4th Estate." The user base is specified as over 150,000 daily active users. | |
| 87 | Page Limit | 3. Will the government confirm if there is an overall page limit? | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 88 | Page Limit | 4. When the government says the Executive Summary, counts toward page limit, does that mean the Executive Summary is part of the 3 page technical discussion? | 27-Feb-26 | Section 7.a within the JETMS CFS has been revised. | |
| 89 | 1. Of the 150,000 projected user base, does the government have projected daily, weekly, or monthly user counts? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 90 | 2. Does the government have daily, weekly, or monthly user counts for CATMS and/or ETMS2? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 91 | Extension | We would like to request an extension. | 27-Feb-26 | Call for Solutions has been amended to extend due date for solution briefs to March 16, 2026. | |
| 92 | 1. For a mission-critical system like JETMS serving 150,000+ users, how comfortable is the Army/DoW with depending on a single specialized vendor versus leveraging a platform that's already proven across multiple Army/DoW systems and has broad industry support? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 93 | 2. Does JETMS need to orchestrate actual business processes—like automatically updating personnel records, triggering security reviews, or coordinating with financial systems—or is task assignment and tracking sufficient? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 94 | 3. The RFI specifically calls for AI-assisted drafting, intelligent routing, and response generation. How important is it that JETMS leverages cutting-edge AI capabilities versus using traditional business rules and pre-defined workflows? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 95 | 4. Given the Army/DoW’s complex system landscape, how critical are enterprise-grade integrations with guaranteed SLAs and security controls versus basic system connectivity? | 27-Feb-26 | Your solution must adhere to the latest DoW cyber and interconnection policies. | ||
| 96 | 5. How important is it for JETMS to benefit from continuous platform innovation—like new AI capabilities, security features, and integration options—versus a stable but slowly-evolving solution? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 97 | 6. Are you considering leveraging ATO’d instances that could be cloned to allow the Army/DoW to accelerate capabilities for enterprise configurations currently in production? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 98 | 7. Does the Army/DoW anticipate any JETMS workflows will need to handle TS/SCI information requiring IL6 authorization, or integration with JWICS networks? | 27-Feb-26 | NIPR IL5 and SIPR IL6 | ||
| 99 | 8. Will JETMS need to route tasks that span multiple classification levels - for example, an unclassified task that generates classified follow-up actions, or correspondence that requires both SIPR and NIPR coordination? | 27-Feb-26 | No. Reference APPENDIX A | ||
| 100 | 9. Are there scenarios where JETMS would need to orchestrate workflows that touch JWICS systems while maintaining appropriate security boundaries and classification handling? | 27-Feb-26 | No. Reference APPENDIX A | ||
| 101 | 10. When a task requires coordination between multiple Army/DoW systems—say IT, Finance, Legal, and Personnel—how do you envision the workflow orchestrating actions across those departments automatically, rather than just assigning individual tasks? | 27-Feb-26 | This is customer dependent. Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 102 | 11. Beyond basic task routing, how important is it for JETMS to learn from historical patterns—like automatically escalating certain types of correspondence based on previous resolution data, or predicting bottlenecks before they occur? | 27-Feb-26 | This is customer dependent. Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 103 | 12. When JETMS routes a task for action—like updating security clearance status or processing travel authorizations—should the system execute those actions automatically through APIs, or simply notify people to take manual action in other systems? | 27-Feb-26 | This is customer dependent. Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. | ||
| 104 | 13. For a mission-critical system like JETMS, how important is platform independence versus being tightly coupled to Microsoft's ecosystem? What happens if Microsoft licensing changes or if integration with non-Microsoft Army/DoW systems becomes necessary? | 27-Feb-26 | The Government is not providing specific operational or technical requirements beyond what is in the Call for Solutions (CSO). Offerors are expected to propose a comprehensive solution based on their expertise, which will be evaluated against the CSO's published criteria. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .