National Third-Party Wildfire Contractor Qualification Verification Services THIS IS A SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE/REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS) is conducting market research on independent, nationwide verification of wildfire personnel qualifications. The contemplated service includes personnel qualifications; training course records; and applicable documentation for ground-based response assets, incident support services, and logistical support. Aircraft assets are excluded. This notice is issued solely for information and acquisition planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Quotation (RFQ), Invitation for Bid (IFB), or promise to issue a future solicitation. Responses will not be considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Participation is voluntary. The Government will not reimburse respondents for costs associated with preparing or submitting information in response to this notice. 1. BACKGROUND The Forest Service seeks to establish a pilot considering third-party administrator(s) to verify personnel qualifications, excluding all aviation assets. This RFI supports planning and does not establish a particular implementation model. The Forest Service administers national and regional contracting programs that provide contracted resources in support of wildland fire suppression and other emergency incident operations. Contracted resources may be required to demonstrate that personnel assigned to incidents possess qualifications, training, experience, certifications, licenses, medical credentials, or other documentation established by applicable agreements, solicitations, policy, or Government-approved qualification standards. Qualification documentation may currently be reviewed through multiple Government offices, programs, or other approved processes. The Forest Service is exploring whether independent verification of contractor personnel qualifications could improve consistency, timeliness, authenticity of supporting records, and auditability while reducing duplicate submissions and Government workload. The Government is specifically interested in understanding whether industry has the capability to perform this function at national scale while preserving appropriate Government oversight and decision-making authority. This effort may result in a one-year pilot program for the Government. 2. PURPOSE OF THIS MARKET RESEARCH The Forest Service seeks information on independent review against Government-established requirements, documented verification results, and referrals for Government action. The contemplated service would verify contractor personnel qualification documentation against Government-established requirements, including the authenticity and applicability of supporting training records. The service would not include delivering training, approving training providers or instructors, auditing course delivery as a separate service, or inspecting equipment. The Government has not determined that this function will be outsourced. Responses may inform the feasibility of this service, division of responsibilities, acquisition strategy, commercial practices, pricing, small business participation, information protection, quality assurance, and transition planning. The Government has not selected a records system or determined whether a future procurement is appropriate. 3. CONCEPTUAL REQUIREMENT For purposes of this RFI, assume a nationwide service to verify wildfire contractor personnel qualification documentation against Government-established requirements. Supporting documentation may include training and experience records, position task books, certifications, licenses, and other evidence required for the applicable position. The service would not include providing training, separately approving training providers or instructors, or assessing contractor or equipment readiness. Respondents should identify their capabilities, coverage, and limitations. The service would use Government-designated, approved methods for receiving records and reporting verification results. This RFI does not request development, acquisition, hosting, or operation of a new information system or commercial platform. Identify technology dependencies separately. Potential services could include the following: A. Qualification Documentation Review Review documentation submitted by contractors against qualification requirements established by the Government. Documentation could include training and experience records, position qualification records, task books, certifications, licenses, equipment operator qualifications, and other evidence required by the applicable contract or agreement. Where required, review would be limited to necessary evidence of medical clearance, fitness, identity, or personnel affiliation using Government-approved procedures. Respondents should identify ways to confirm required status without collecting underlying medical records, unnecessary identity documents, or other sensitive information. B. Verification Status Provide a documented result for each review using Government-approved terminology, such as Documentation Verified, Additional Documentation Required, Unable to Verify, Expired, or Government Review Required. Record any applicable expiration date. A verification result addresses the documentation reviewed and does not itself establish employment, current availability, dispatch eligibility, or Government approval of an individual. Respondents may recommend clearer terminology and review procedures. C. Deficiency Identification Identify missing, duplicate, incomplete, expired, inconsistent, or otherwise deficient documentation. Describe methods for checking authenticity with issuing sources, where authorized, and referring suspected alteration, misrepresentation, or fraud to designated Government officials. The verifier would document concerns without making final findings of misconduct. The verifier would identify whether submitted documentation satisfies established criteria but would not independently waive Government requirements. D. Review Records Maintain an auditable review record using Government-designated methods. Identify the person, provider, instructor, contractor, or resource reviewed; source documents; applicable standard and version; reviewer; review date; result; expiration dates; deficiencies; corrections; and later changes. Distinguish the review record from source documents that need not be retained. Record source confirmation and explain any limitations on what was verified. E. Contractor Coordination Describe receipt of submissions, correction requests, result delivery, and reuse of prior verified records through Government-designated channels. Address personnel moving between employers, permission to access individual records, separate confirmation of current affiliation, and controls against duplicate or incompatible simultaneous roster claims. A prior qualification review does not establish present employment, exclusive affiliation, availability, or dispatch eligibility. Do not assume a new portal or account structure is required. F. Government Reporting Provide standardized review results, deficiency summaries, workload reports, and audit support through Government-designated methods. Recommend the minimum report fields and reporting frequency needed for oversight. Access to or entry into existing Government systems would depend on Government authorization and approved procedures. New dashboards, automated interfaces, and system integrations are outside the contemplated service scope. G. National Scalability The service would support geographically dispersed contractors and seasonal fluctuations in review volume. Respondents should address their ability to scale qualified reviewers and review capacity during peak periods, including service limitations that depend on Government-furnished access, records, or decisions. H. Training Providers Instructors and Course Records Describe objective verification of private training providers, contractor associations, educational institutions, and independent instructors supporting contractor qualifications. Check applicable sponsorship, recognition, agreements, or MOUs where required; their scope and current status; and course-specific lead and unit instructor qualifications. Apply Government-designated editions of NWCG Standards for Course Delivery (PMS 901-1), applicable course requirements, and agency or geographic area requirements. Do not presume a single nationwide provider approval or MOU requirement applies to every course or provider. Describe how to trace completion records to the issuing source and course delivery: student identity, course title and version, dates, delivery method, instructors, rosters, required attendance, assessments, and completion criteria. Identify methods for detecting fabricated certificates, unauthorized use of certificate formats, duplicate records, or unsupported course delivery. A course completion certificate alone does not establish an incident position qualification. Explain handling of unavailable historical records and acceptable alternative evidence for Government review. 4. POTENTIAL RESOURCE TYPES Potential coverage includes VIPR Next Gen incident blanket purchase agreements (I-BPAs), incident or preseason Emergency Equipment Rental Agreements (EERAs), crew contracts, and other applicable incident-service contracts or agreements. Example resources include crews, engines and water handling equipment, heavy equipment, vehicles with drivers, and ground-based incident support and logistical services such as sanitation, food, and mobile support. Aircraft are excluded. Identify categories supported and those requiring specialized expertise. Requirements must be tailored to the resource; do not apply fireline training or fitness requirements to all support personnel. This RFI does not amend an existing agreement or create a new condition for ordering under an I-BPA. 5. GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND DECISION MAKING The Government seeks a clear division between objective documentation review and decisions requiring Government authority or judgment. For purposes of this RFI, assume the verifier would not establish or change qualification standards; waive contractual requirements; determine contractor responsibility or eligibility for award; make source-selection or award decisions; suspend or terminate contractors; direct incident operations or dispatch priority; modify agreements; resolve contractual disputes; or make final compliance decisions requiring Government judgment. Authority reserved to a Contracting Officer or another authorized Government official would remain with the Government. The verifier would not independently approve training providers or instructors, accredit courses, determine training equivalencies, or invalidate previously accepted credentials. Existing responsibilities of employers, certifying officials, sponsoring agencies, and other approving authorities would remain unless changed through an authorized process. The third-party contractor’s role would generally be limited to reviewing documentation against objective Government-established criteria, recording the results, identifying deficiencies, and referring exceptions or matters requiring interpretation to the Government. Respondents are specifically invited to identify other functions that should remain with the Government. 6. INDEPENDENCE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Describe any training, credentialing, staffing, consulting, financial, or other relationships with contractors or individuals whose records might be reviewed. Address credentials your organization issues or sells, reviewer independence, separation of business activities, recusal, and controls to prevent preferential treatment. Identify potential organizational conflicts of interest and proposed mitigation measures for Government consideration. Specifically address review of your own courses, instructors, members, affiliates, customers, and competitors. Propose independent reassignment or review when recusal is necessary. Verification must not require purchase of the verifier’s training, membership, consulting, or unrelated services. Explain controls for direct vendor payments and commercially sensitive competitor information. 7. QUALITY CONTROL Describe reviewer qualifications and training, standard review procedures, second-level review, quality-control sampling, consistency testing, error measurement, corrections, escalation, and audit support. Recommend measurable service standards, including routine and expedited turnaround times, accuracy, backlog reporting, and timely correction of errors. Explain how reviewers would use the same Government-approved standards and refer ambiguous cases for Government resolution. Describe a documented correction and reconsideration process, notice of reasons, response time targets, and escalation to an independent reviewer and designated Government official. Distinguish unsupported records from confirmed deficiencies. Explain urgent referrals for potential safety risks without making final misconduct or eligibility decisions. 8. EXISTING SYSTEMS AND SERVICE DEPENDENCIES Describe how your organization could perform the verification service using existing Government-designated, approved processes and systems. Identify the access, instructions, record formats, and Government support necessary to receive documents, record review results, and report deficiencies. Do not assume a particular system is available, authorized for contractor use, or technically capable of supporting this service. Identify any proposed use of contractor-owned tools to store, process, or transmit Government information, including commercial subscriptions, cloud services, automated tools, or artificial intelligence. Explain their purpose and whether the service can be performed without them. Identify separately any approach that would require new software, hosting, licenses, configuration, development, or integration; those dependencies are not included in the baseline service concept. Any technology use or change would require the Government to determine applicable IM/IT, cybersecurity, privacy, access, and acquisition requirements before implementation. Respondents should not assume that use of an existing or commercial tool eliminates those requirements. 9. INFORMATION PROTECTION AND PRIVACY The service may involve personally identifiable information and sensitive personnel documentation. Describe experience handling such information, how access would be limited to authorized reviewers, and how personnel would follow Government-approved handling, incident-reporting, retention, and disposition procedures. Explain how the service would minimize collection, copying, and retention of sensitive records. Do not include actual personnel records or sensitive personal information in an RFI response. For any proposed contractor handling of Government information outside Government-designated systems, identify the categories of data, purpose, storage and processing locations, subcontractor access, safeguards, and retention and return or disposal practices. Identify relevant existing security authorizations or certifications and their scope, if any. This information is requested to assess dependencies and risk; it does not authorize external processing, establish that a proposed tool is approved, or waive applicable requirements. 10. SCALE AND SURGE CAPABILITY Describe normal and maximum surge review capacity, annual review volume, staffing and geographic coverage, routine and expedited turnaround times, hours of operation, weekend and holiday support, and ability to handle simultaneous submissions. State assumptions about record completeness, review complexity, Government access, and response times. Explain how your organization could support thousands of contractor personnel and qualification records during compressed preseason and fire-season periods. Describe your capability to prepare and issue qualification cards under the approval and certification process specified by the Government. Identify who would certify qualifications, authorize issuance, and sign the cards, and how corrections, renewals, and replacement cards would be handled. Using example workload levels of your choosing, describe the staffing, estimated cost, and time needed to complete the reviews. These examples are for planning purposes and do not represent anticipated Government workload. 11. COMMERCIAL PRACTICES AND PRICING Describe commercial pricing practices and provide nonbinding planning ranges, with assumptions, for the verification service. Discuss applicable units such as per person, per qualification, per review, annual service, fixed-price service, or tiered volume pricing. Distinguish initial reviews, renewals, corrections, expedited reviews, and surge support. Separately identify any technology-related costs or dependencies. Compare Government-funded, vendor-funded, and combined approaches. For a possible transition from startup funding to annual vendor fees, describe cost recovery, fee payer and collection arrangements, volume assumptions, affordability, cost transparency, fee caps or tiers, renewals, personnel transfers, duplicate charges, corrections, refunds, and seasonal or inactive businesses. Discuss effects on small businesses, competition, reviewer independence, and access. The annual vendor-fee concept is a planning option. The Government has not selected a funding model or authorized fees. Any mandatory fee or participation requirement would need separate authority and applicable policy, fiscal, legal, and acquisition review before implementation. Do not submit binding pricing. 12. IMPLEMENTATION Describe how you would begin and operate the service, including review procedures, reviewer recruitment and training, application of Government-established standards, submission instructions, corrections, Government reporting, service support, and transition from current review processes. Identify Government-furnished information, decisions, access, and approvals required before work could begin. Describe your recommended implementation approach, including schedule, staffing, expected review volume, service measures, and criteria for evaluating results. Address routine reviews, incomplete records, corrections, changes in affiliation, and seasonal surge conditions. Identify operational testing needed to confirm consistent reviews. Treat any system migration, software configuration, or integration as a separate dependency outside the baseline service concept. Recommend a bounded pilot by resource categories, participating programs, geography, duration, and sample size, with a path to national scalability. Identify baseline measures, targets, and go or no-go criteria for review accuracy, authenticity concerns detected, turnaround time, Government workload, duplicate submissions, participant costs, and effects on competition. Propose transition protections for existing accepted records, timely completion of qualification reviews before seasonal mobilization, and an exit plan for records return, continued access, and replacement of the service provider without proprietary dependence. 13. QUESTIONS TO INDUSTRY Interested parties are requested to address the following questions: 1. Does your organization currently provide personnel qualification, credential verification, licensing verification, compliance verification, or similar services? 2. Describe your experience performing these services at a national or large-enterprise scale. 3. Can your organization perform the service through existing Government-designated, approved methods, and what access or support would be necessary? 4. Approximately how many personnel records and/or credential reviews can your organization process annually? 5. What turnaround time could reasonably be expected for routine reviews? 6. How quickly could your organization scale during seasonal workload surges? 7. What information would the Government need to provide to enable objective and consistent verification? 8. What types of qualification requirements are readily suited to third-party verification? 9. What types of qualification decisions should not be delegated to a third party? 10. How should ambiguous records or qualification standards be handled? 11. What appeals, reconsideration, or dispute-resolution process would you recommend when a vendor disagrees with a verification result? 12. How would you prevent inconsistent determinations among individual reviewers? 13. What conflicts of interest could arise under this model, and how would you mitigate them? 14. What information-protection requirements or technology dependencies would materially affect cost, schedule, or ability to perform the service within the scope described in Sections 8 and 9? 15. What pricing structure would you recommend? 16. Are these services customarily available in the commercial marketplace? 17. Would your organization be interested in competing for this requirement if the Government issued a solicitation? 18. What contract type and performance structure would you recommend? 19. What service level standards would be reasonable for routine and expedited reviews? 20. What Government-furnished information would be necessary? 21. What risks does industry see in the conceptual model described in this RFI? 22. What changes would you recommend to improve efficiency, competition, scalability, or quality? 23. Which portions of the personnel qualification verification service can your organization perform independently, and which require partners or specialized reviewers? 24. How would you verify provider recognition, instructor qualifications, course delivery evidence, and certificate authenticity across differing agency and geographic area processes? 25. How would you handle a disputed course or credential affecting multiple workers while preserving Government decision authority and timely correction? 26. What annual vendor fee or alternative funding models are commercially workable, and what would they cost at different participation levels? 27. How would you measure whether a pilot improves qualification verification and reduces review workload without creating unreasonable barriers for small or seasonal businesses? 28. What existing verification, training oversight, qualification, or inspection processes should be reused to avoid duplicate reviews or conflicting results? 14. SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION Respondents should provide: • business name; • UEI; • business address; • point of contact; • telephone number; • email address; • website; • applicable NAICS code(s); • business size under the applicable NAICS code(s); • socioeconomic status, if applicable; • relevant Federal contract vehicles; and • relevant past performance. Small businesses are encouraged to respond. Small businesses should also identify whether they could perform the requirement independently or would anticipate using teaming arrangements or subcontractors. Training providers, instructors, associations, and resource contractors may also provide operational feedback even if they do not intend to compete as the administrator. Identify whether the response is a capability statement, stakeholder feedback, or both; address only relevant portions. 15. CAPABILITY STATEMENT Capability respondents should identify the work areas and resource categories they can support, relevant experience, scope limits, and any necessary teaming. Stakeholders providing feedback only need not demonstrate ability to perform the entire contemplated service. The response should identify relevant experience involving: • large-scale credential or qualification verification; • Federal or public-sector customers; • emergency-response personnel; • wildland fire or incident management; • regulated or credentialed workforces; • seasonal surge operations; • sensitive personnel information; and • performance using Government-designated recordkeeping and reporting processes. Respondents may provide examples of similar programs performed for Federal, state, local, Tribal, or commercial customers. 16. RESPONSE FORMAT Limit responses to approximately 15 pages, organized by the numbered sections of this notice. Use cross-references to avoid repetition. Capability respondents should cover Sections 14-15 and the technical areas they can perform; other stakeholders may respond to relevant questions only. Clearly state assumptions, service limitations, and suggested scope changes. Provide nonbinding planning estimates with units, volumes, and inclusions; no formal proposal is requested. Respondents are encouraged to provide concise, substantive information rather than marketing materials. Proprietary information should be clearly marked. The Government may contact respondents for clarification or additional market research discussions. 17. RESPONSE DATE AND SUBMISSION Responses are requested no later than: November 13, 2026 at 1700 MT Responses should be submitted electronically through email to: SM.FS.WOAIMSSURGE@usda.gov Subject line shall include Company Name and “National Third-Party Wildfire Contractor Qualification Verification Services” Questions regarding this Sources Sought/RFI may be submitted electronically through a pre-established Microsoft form https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/Rdd23FUi2d no later than: November 6, 2026 at 1700 MT A Q&A document will be posted to SAM.gov by November 9, 2026.
