IIIAC AI Instruction RFI Questions.docx

1. Course length. Section 4 gives cohorts per year and students per cohort for each track, but not the length of instruction. Is there an anticipated length per track, in hours or training days?

Track 1: 2 hours, with consultation available after remotely Track 2: 20 hours Track 3: 80 hours

2. Classroom and lab accounts. Section 4.1 places the classroom within 15 miles of Fort Hood but does not say who provides it. Will the Government furnish the classroom, and will contractor instructors receive accounts in any Government-furnished tenancy used for labs, such as GenAI.mil?

The government can provide it, or the contractor can provide it. Contractors will receive accounts and CACs to allow for access to GenAI.mil, Copilot, and Google Antigravity. Contractor must provide computers for instructors.

3. Classified delivery. Section 4.2 states that no personnel or facility clearance is required, while Section 6.2 asks about cleared instructors and Section 3 references IL6. Does the Government anticipate any track or lab session being taught in an IL6 or air-gapped enclave?

No IL6 instruction is anticipated at this time.

4. Does IIIAC envision Government-Furnished IL5/IL6 cloud environments and approved LLMs being available for hands-on laboratory exercises, or should industry include the complete lab environment within its ROM?

Government will provide IL5, LLMs and Google Antigravity.

5. For the Technical Developer Track, does IIIAC expect students to build working agents that connect to Government applications/APIs, or primarily demonstrate agent architecture within a controlled training environment?

Demonstrate agent architecture in a controlled training environment

6. Does IIIAC anticipate that all 20 annual cohorts will be delivered in person within the Fort Hood area, or should industry propose a combination of in-person and instructor-supported virtual delivery?

All in person.

7. Will the Government provide representative mission workflows, datasets, and operational vignettes for curriculum tailoring, or should vendors develop representative unclassified defense scenarios?

Government will provide representative mission workflows and datasets.

8. For market-research purposes, would IIIAC prefer the ROM structured by cohort, student, annual program cost, or a combination of all three?

A combination of all three.

9. Section 4.2 states that personnel and facility clearances are not required, but section 6.2 requests cleared instructors and experience with IL6 environments. Will instruction and laboratories use only unclassified or synthetic data, or require classified access? Please reconcile these provisions and identify any clearance requirements and when they must be met. (RFI, secs. 3, 4.2, 6.2).

Unclassified data and IL5 is all that is necessary. No clearances needed.

10. Which cloud tenancies, isolated enclaves, computing capacity, model licenses, student devices, accounts, and network connections will the Government furnish? Please identify contractor responsibilities for obtaining and funding these resources and the expected date they will be available for configuration and testing. (RFI, secs. 3, 6.2–6.3, 7, question 2).

Government will provide all of the above. Contractors must provide their own laptops, which must be provided within one week of award to III Corps G6 for imaging. Contractor laptops must meet CHESS specifications.

11. Which LLMs, agent frameworks, software tools, and cloud platforms are approved for each training environment? What security authorization, testing, logging, and software approval activities must the contractor perform, and what Government approval lead times should vendors assume, including for air-gapped software and model updates? (RFI, secs. 3–4, 6.2).

Contractor conducts none of the above activities, and simply uses GenAI.mil models and Google Antigravity as provided by government.

12. What instructional hours or days, lecture-to-laboratory balance, prerequisites, and baseline technical proficiency should vendors assume for each track? May vendors propose course lengths and prerequisite assessments, and must students complete earlier tracks before entering the technical developer track? (RFI, sec. 4).

Track 1: no experience, 1 hour instruction, 1 hour lab Track 2: no experience, 20 hours laboratory instruction mixed Track 3: beginner – professional developer, 80 hours lab instruction mixed

No need to complete earlier tracks

13. Which mission vignettes, data sets, applications, and APIs should the courses address, and will the Government provide access, documentation, and subject matter experts? Should Track 3 integrations remain training prototypes, or must the contractor deploy and sustain operational agents connected to mission systems? (RFI, secs. 4, 6.2).

Government will provide data sets, access, and mission area subject matter experts. Track 3 should create prototypes only.

14. Beyond course delivery, which curriculum files, instructor guides, student materials, tested prompt libraries, agent code, assessments, and reports must be delivered? Please identify review milestones, acceptance criteria, and the required measures of student proficiency and mission benefit. (RFI, secs. 4, 6.2).

Curriculum files, instructor guides, student materials, tested prompt libraries, agent code, student attendance and performance must be delivered. Key delivery milestones include a post-award kickoff conference (within 10 days of award), a Curriculum Readiness Review and pilot dry-run (30 and 15 days prior to class start, respectively), and submission of final student rosters and After-Action Reviews upon cohort completion. Formal acceptance is contingent upon maintaining a maximum 20:1 student-to-instructor ratio, on-time delivery of 100% of approved student materials and instruction hours, and Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) verification via Wide Area Workflow (WAWF). Efficacy is measured through baseline pre-assessments and summative evaluations requiring an 80% passing threshold on written exams and 100% on critical practical tasks, backed by a structured remediation re-test protocol.

15. Are the 20 annual cohorts and stated class sizes planning estimates or anticipated minimum commitments? Please identify expected scheduling cadence, concurrent classes, enrollment variability, and cancellation or rescheduling assumptions that vendors should use for a firm-fixed-price approach. (RFI, secs. 4–5, 6.3).

No, they are maximum commitments.

16. Will the Government provide the classroom or must the contractor secure and price a venue within the 15-mile radius? Please identify the reference point for that radius, required classroom and laboratory amenities, installation-access procedures, and whether any remote or hybrid instruction is permitted. (RFI, secs. 4.1, 6.2–6.3).

The government can provide a classroom or the offeror can. In-person instruction is the only form that is acceptable. Instructors will be issued CACs for gate access and NIPR access.

17. What planning dates should vendors assume for award, kickoff, curriculum approval, laboratory readiness, and the first cohort? Please identify the allowable mobilization period and any required delivery sequencing across the three tracks. (RFI, secs. 4.1, 5–6).

Curriculum files, instructor guides, student materials, tested prompt libraries, agent code, student attendance and performance must be delivered. Key delivery milestones include a post-award kickoff conference (within 10 days of award), a Curriculum Readiness Review and pilot dry-run (30 and 15 days prior to class start, respectively), and submission of final student rosters and After-Action Reviews upon cohort completion. Formal acceptance is contingent upon maintaining a maximum 20:1 student-to-instructor ratio, on-time delivery of 100% of approved student materials and instruction hours, and Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) verification via Wide Area Workflow (WAWF). Efficacy is measured through baseline pre-assessments and summative evaluations requiring an 80% passing threshold on written exams and 100% on critical practical tasks, backed by a structured remediation re-test protocol.

18. What minimum teaching experience, technical credentials, defense mission experience, and instructor-to-student ratios are expected by track? Please identify how subject matter mastery and familiarity with the DoD Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide will be evaluated and whether instructor résumés are requested with this RFI. (RFI, secs. 4.2, 6.2, 7, question 3).

Minimum teaching experience: Master’s Degree in Computer Science or related field Instructor to student ratio: 1:20 Instructor resumes not necessary with RFI.

19. What license or data rights does the Government expect in pre-existing courseware and newly developed prompts, code, and instructional materials? Please clarify whether train-the-trainer delivery, Government reuse, post-course laboratory access, learner support, and periodic curriculum updates are part of the anticipated scope. (RFI, secs. 4–6, 8).

No license or data rights to pre-existing courseware is sought. Government owns all curriculum materials that are newly developed for this course.

20. Should the ROM cover only the base year or all five potential years? Please specify whether vendors should separately identify recurring instruction, one-time customization, lab setup, cloud and model usage, facilities, travel, and sustainment, and which attendance assumptions should govern per-student or per-cohort estimates. (RFI, secs. 4–5, 6.3).

All five potential years, provide a complete cost per cohort.

21. Should the ROM cover only the base year or all five potential years? Please specify whether vendors should separately identify recurring instruction, one-time customization, lab setup, cloud and model usage, facilities, travel, and sustainment, and which attendance assumptions should govern per-student or per-cohort estimates. (RFI, secs. 4–5, 6.3).

All five potential years, provide a complete cost per cohort.

22. The RFI leaves its identifier, NAICS code, size standard, and Product Service Code blank. Please confirm whether W56ZLWRFI0001 is the identifier to use and provide any available planning assumptions for classification, contract vehicle, small-business set-aside, and solicitation timing. (RFI, secs. 1, 5; Notice, notice ID).

To be determined.

23. May a response combine prime and proposed teammate capabilities across the three tracks, and may the three similar-contract examples include teammate or joint-venture experience? Please identify the desired recency, scale, required reference details, and whether a partial-scope response is useful to the Government. (RFI, secs. 2, 6.2, 7, question 5).

Yes, a response may combine prime and proposed teammate capabilities. However, it must clearly identify the prime and sub with their performance percentage. Examples may be teammate or joint venture experience. Recency of the work performed shall be within the last three years. There is no requirement for scope or reference details.

24. Are there page limits, attachment-size limits, required templates, or required file-naming conventions beyond the stated PDF and ROM formats? May vendors include course outlines, a sample vignette, and a security responsibility matrix as appendices, and should proprietary ROM information be submitted as a separately marked file? (RFI, secs. 6–8).

There are no set requirements or templates pertaining to the referenced documents.

25. What NAICS code and size standard does the Government anticipate (for example, 611430)?

To be determined

26. Will the Government provide the classroom on Fort Hood, or should vendors price classroom rental within the 15-mile radius?

The government can provide a classroom or the vendor can provide one.

27. Which accredited GenAI platform(s) and environments will students use during labs, and will instructors receive accounts on them?

Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT, Google Antigravity. Instructors will receive accounts.

28. Does the Government have a preferred course length (in days) for each of the three tracks?

Track 1: 2 hours, Track 2: 20 hours, Track 3: 80 hours. Frequent half days preferred to allow for students to complete other duties.

29. Should the ROM include instructor travel, or does the Government prefer local instructors?

The government is agnostic to this, total program cost is considered. Government will not pay travel costs in addition to contract.

30. For the hands-on laboratory portions of Tracks 2 and 3, does the government anticipate providing the required IL5/IL6 cloud tenancies, mission-system interfaces, datasets, and/or representative development environments, or should respondents include these resources within their proposed delivery approach and ROM?

Government will provide tenancy and has system of record datasets available. No mission-system interfaces needed.

31. For instruction involving isolated or air-gapped enclaves, should respondents assume that the government will furnish the environment and necessary access, or should vendors describe and price a representative or simulated training environment?

This is not anticipated in this contract.

32. Should respondents assume that the government will provide classroom facilities, student workstations, networking, audiovisual equipment, and other classroom infrastructure within the required Fort Hood area, or should the ROM include vendor-provided facilities and equipment?

The government can provide classroom facilities, student workstations, networking, audiovisual equipment, and other classroom infrastructure within the required Fort Hood area.

33. Does the government prefer that the non-binding Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) be presented by individual training track/cohort as an annual program price, or both? Should respondents separately identify curriculum customization, lab/environment setup, instruction, travel, and recurring delivery costs?

A complete rollup is preferred.

34. The RFI asks whether a respondent can perform at least 50% of the cost of contract performance as the prime contractor. Is the government currently considering a small-business set-aside, and should respondents identify potential teaming or subcontracting arrangements in their RFI responses?

To be determined

35. Should respondents assume hands-on labs run inside a Government-furnished, already-accredited tenancy or enclave (IL5/IL6 or air-gapped), with the vendor providing curriculum, lab content, and instruction? Or does the Government expect the vendor to supply the lab environment?

The government can furnish a classroom and IL5 access. The vendor can also provide same.

36. For market research purposes, is a curriculum delivered in an unclassified classroom, using accredited LLM tools the Government already authorizes (or synthetic, unclassified data), an acceptable delivery model to describe?

This is ideal.

37. Will student laptops/workstations and network access be Government-furnished, or should the ROM include contractor-provided equipment?

Students will bring GFEs.

38. Should the ROM assume an on-post classroom provided by the Government, or a contractor-arranged venue off post within the 15-mile radius?

Either, but government can provide a classroom.

39. Does the Government have a target length (days or hours) for each track? If not, should respondents propose one?

Track 1: 2 hours, plus consultation “office hours” available, Track 2: 20 hours, Track 3: 40 hours

40. Is there a page limit for the capability statement? Is the expected NAICS code known, and is there a timeline for the small business set-aside decision?

There is no required page limit. The rest is to be determined.

41. Secure laboratory environment: Does the Government anticipate providing an existing IL5/IL6 or air-gapped environment for Track 3 hands-on exercises, or should respondents assume responsibility for establishing and maintaining the required secure laboratory environment?

Government can provide a classroom in the Soldier Education Center with IL5 access.

42. Government-furnished cloud tenancy: If Government-furnished IL5/IL6 cloud tenancy is anticipated, should respondents assume access to approved LLM/model endpoints and associated development tools, or should those capabilities be included in the contractor’s proposed solution and ROM?

Instruction in tools available to students on IL5 is preferred.

43. Representative unclassified environments: For training objectives that do not require classified data or connectivity, may selected Track 2 and Track 3 exercises be conducted in representative unclassified sandbox environments?

Yes, so long as that sandbox is NIPR IL5

44. Instructor/security requirements: Although the RFI currently identifies no personnel or facility clearance requirements, should respondents anticipate that instructor clearance requirements may be established based on the final laboratory environment or mission-system access?

Instructors will not require clearance.

45. Delivery schedule and locations: Should respondents assume the stated annual cohorts will be distributed throughout the 12-month period and conducted within the identified Fort Hood area, or is there an anticipated sequencing or training-cycle structure respondents should use for ROM planning?

Annual cohorts will be distributed throughout the 12-month period and conducted within the identified Fort Hood area.

46. Prime/teaming structure: Does the Government anticipate that a single prime contractor will provide all three instructional tracks and secure laboratory support, or is specialized subcontractor/teaming support acceptable for enclave-specific IL5/IL6, air-gapped, and mission-system integration activities?

No mission-system integration activities are anticipated. Subcontractor/teaming support is acceptable.

47. The RFI references training and laboratory execution across IL5, IL6, and isolated/air-gapped environments. Does the Government anticipate providing the applicable cloud tenancies, approved LLM access, laboratory environments, and/or other infrastructure required for hands-on instruction, or should respondents include these capabilities within their proposed solution and ROM?

The government can provide contractor CACs that grant access to GenAI.mil (and other tools) and a classroom/auditorium on post. Offpost, access can be achieved through VPN.

48. For purposes of the Government’s small-business viability question regarding performance of at least 50% of the cost of contract performance, may respondents assume that specialized subcontractors could support areas such as IL5/IL6 infrastructure, DoD Cloud Computing SRG requirements, and mission-system integration while the small-business prime retains responsibility for program management, curriculum development/customization, instructional delivery, and workforce enablement?

No. There is no need to build infrastructure or tools. These already exist. Program management, curriculum development/customization, instructional delivery, and workforce enablement are the needed services.

49. Does the Government envision the Workforce Enablement Suite extending beyond scheduled classroom/laboratory instruction to include an AI-supported post-training reinforcement capability through which learners could engage approved course content conversationally, practice scenarios, receive clarification, and reinforce learning between formal instructional events?

That could be considered as a feature an offeror presents as part of the package.

50. Does IIIAC anticipate identifying Government-approved/accredited LLMs and AI platforms for use during instruction, or should respondents recommend specific model/platform approaches as part of their capability response?

Yes. Gemini, Grok, ChatGPT and Google Antimatter, to start with. More tools should be considered as they become available to students on IL5.

51. For development of defense-specific operational vignettes, does the Government anticipate furnishing representative mission scenarios, workflows, use cases, policies, or other GFI, or should respondents assume responsibility for developing representative unclassified scenarios for Government review and approval?

Offerors should use government policies, but anticipate furnishing representative mission scenarios, workflows, unclassified scenarios, and use cases.

52. What are the primary operational bottlenecks or priority use cases the IIIAC ODT is most eager to resolve (e.g., staff OPORD drafting, maintenance log triage, or tactical API tool integration) to deliver immediate value to soldiers and leadership?

We want to use LLMs and agents to solve all process and research problems more rapidly.

53. Will the Army furnish on-post lecture facilities/classrooms at Fort Cavazos, or should offerors budget for commercial conference room leasing within the 15-mile radius in their ROM?

Either is acceptable. Classrooms at the Soldier Education Center can be resourced as part of this program.

54. Will soldiers utilize Government-Furnished Laptops (GFE) with authorized browser access during classroom instruction, or is the contractor expected to furnish student computing devices?

Students will bring GFEs.

55. Does the Government plan to furnish student cloud sandboxes within an existing Army Impact Level 5 (IL5) environment (such as cArmy) as GFE, or should the contractor provision isolated cloud / air-gapped lab environments?

Students need to be instructed on existing tools in production environments in IL5 (GenAI.mil, Google Antigravity)

56. Does the Government anticipate issuing the forthcoming solicitation as an open stand-alone commercial contract on SAM.gov set aside 100% for SDVOSBs under FAR 19.14?

To be determined.

57. Will technical evaluation preference be given to instructional personnel holding active Top Secret/SCI clearances and direct DoD ISSM/ISSO accreditation experience to facilitate secure/classified enclave transition?

No. This does not require any clearance, and the skills will transfer.