QandA LMS.docx

1. Does the solution require FedRamp?

Response: FedRamp - In compliance with AR-25-2 (Cybersecurity), it is incumbent upon the Army War College, as a constituent organization of the Army, to meet or exceed the requirements set forth by FedRAMP, specifically those pertaining to the Department of Defense (DoD) Impact Level 2 (IL2) for Software as a Service (SaaS) solutions. Some Learning Management Systems (LMSs) have already been granted a SaaS FedRAMP moderate authorization, thus aligning with DoD regulations. Given that the Army's data is governed by both DoD and Army regulations, the minimum required Impact Level to handle Army data, specifically unclassified and non-controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) data, is IL2. The Authorizing Official (AO) at the Army War College, who is the AWC Commandant, has the discretion to assume risk associated with this requirement, albeit without the ability to waive it. However, it is important to note that such an assumption would contravene established Army procedures.

2. For the Mobile Application requirement: Does the LMS need to have a downloadable Mobile Application to support Apple/Android devices? Or, does it need to only work on mobile browsers like “Chrome, Safari”?

Response: Both. The desire for mobile access of a LMS is that it works effectively and is user-friendly. Therefore, use of a downloadable app or browser-based system is dependent upon its functionality.

3. Since this is a DoD offering, does the LMS need to be hosted in a government cloud solution under a FedRAMP NIST-800-53 certified environment?

Response: A SaaS solution should work (IL2).

4. Are there any requirements for Access Management to behind any kind of SSO (Single Sign On) or global identity management system?

Response: It is desired for the LMS to have SSO that meets security requirements and interacts with our SIS/admin portal.

5. Will the WC have any need to administer course content from an admin portal?

Response: AWC will need access to administer course content from a portal or something similar. Currently, some sensitive materials (video recordings, documents, etc.) are stored in the current Student Information System (SIS)/admin portal because it requires a higher level of security. This requires an additional CAC sign on and will likely continue in the future.

6. Is there a requirement to collect or maintain any personal identifying information?

Response: Not in the LMS - but ideally the system needs to be IL2.

7. Will there be a need for a LMS private messaging tool for teacher to student, teacher to teacher, student to student, group to student, Group to teacher?

Response: Messaging for teacher to student, teacher to teacher, student to student, group to student, group to teacher, and organization to all users is an integral feature of the educational process. Though there are other communication options such as email and Teams messaging, a functional and user-friendly in-system messaging tool is desired for efficiency and can be a solution to a recurring issue from post-course and post-program surveys that identified a need to minimize the number of messaging systems used in courses.

8. Will there be a requirement to have a search and elimination for banned works in posts and group discussions?

Response: This is not required but would be nice to have. Current security policies are in place to control, identify and report security and other violations, which would then lead to removing banned works.

9. Will there be a need to track multiple learning paths, and show this visually?

Response: Yes. Accreditation requires documentation of learning paths. The resident, distance and soon to be launched blended academic programs require students to attain the same program outcomes, but the paths for each differ because of their mode of delivery. Additionally, other USAWC programs that use the LMS will have their own unique learning paths. Research has shown that additional services and software my be needed to build and document this correctly and appropriately.

10. Are there any reporting features required?

Response: Data and information about student engagement, grades, use of LMS functions and features, access to resources (library, learning materials, support, etc.), and program and course assessment are needed. Research has shown that additional software integrated with the LMS may be required to access all the data and information needed for accreditation.

11. The Solicitation incorporates DFARS 252.239-7010, which requires the contractor to comply with the Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (SRG) (version in effect at the time the solicitation is issued) unless notified by the Contracting Officer that this requirement has been waived by the DoD Chief Information Officer. The SRG requires at least FedRAMP Moderate authorization for all cloud-service offerings, including SaaS. Please confirm that the contractor must comply with the SRG and identify the appropriate information impact level for the SaaS offering required under this solicitation?

Response: See questions 1 & 3

12. Would Army War College be open to a proposed solution that is composed of complimentary software solutions in order to meet all requirements?

Response: The desire is to have an all-in-one solution, but if the complimentary software can be accessed from one main system, it may be considered.

13. What is US Army War College currently using for Learning and Student Management?

Response: Blackboard, which was from a centrally-managed contract for the Army. That contract is at an end.

14. Can the due date to this RFQ be extended?

Response: Done

15. Does the Cover Page, Cover Letter and Table of Contents count toward the 35-page limit?

Response: No

16. Page 1 of the Instructions to offerors states: Offers shall be restricted to thirty-five (35) pages including Volume 1; Volume 2, Technical Proposal, Past Performance submittal; Volume 3.

Then further: Volume 1: “This section shall include all other information to include acknowledgment of RFQ Modifications, Representations & Certifications, Exceptions, and any other information not applicable to Volume 2 or 3.”

However, the required SF1449 for Volume 1 is 32 pages. So, this leaves just 3 pages for Volume 2 and 3. We do not believe this was the intent. So, we recommend that the page limits be as follows:

-Volume 1 be the SF1449 as presented. Which is 32 pages.

-Volume 2 35 pages in addition to Volume 1 with the Offerors Technical Solution and Past Performance.

-Volume 3 – Pricing is already on Volume 1 CLIN Pricing. So, we feel Volume 3 is not necessary. However, the Offerors could present pricing in a 2 or 3 page Volume 3

Response: This would be acceptable. Please understand that you exceed these size limitations at your own risk; emails that exceed allowable size (which changes, depending on the provider) may not transmit. I HIGHLY recommend delivery and read receipts for your emails.