SOURCES SOUGHT _ REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Virtual Collective Training Software (VCTS) Solution

Request for Information for Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Virtual Collective Training Software (VCTS) Solution

1. PURPOSE

This announcement constitutes an RFI notice for planning purposes. This is NOT a Request for Solution (RFS) or Call for Solutions (CFS). No solicitation documents exist at this time. The Army is conducting market research to identify existing, mature, or near-mature software capabilities that could support or evolve into a unified Virtual Collective Training Software Solution for battalion-and-below training within the Synthetic Training Environment.

This RFI seeks information to:

• Understand current COTS, GOTS, and hybrid solutions that can interface with, drive, or integrate alongside current RVCT hardware and associated virtual training peripherals, to deliver a unified virtual training environment
• Identify technical maturity (with an objective preference for TRL 8 or near-TRL 8 solutions), integration feasibility, scalability, and the vendor’s production and procurement capability to support fielding and sustainment
• Validate, refine, and assess the feasibility of the Army’s requirements and underlying assumptions before release of a formal RFS/Call for Solutions

This RFI does not constitute a request for proposal and does not commit the Government to any acquisition.

2. BACKGROUND

The Synthetic Training Environment (STE) is the Army’s modernization effort intended to evolve into a single, interconnected training architecture that will enable units from Soldier/Squad through Army Service Component Command (ASCC) to train across live, virtual, constructive, and gaming environments. While the components of STE exist today as independent or partially integrated capabilities, CPE ST3 is working toward greater technical convergence among these systems in future increments.

• Next Generation Constructive (NGC): capability that delivers constructive simulation for the Brigade level and above.
• One World Terrain (OWT): capability that provides a 3D global terrain capability and associated information services to replicate the physical and operational environment.
• Reconfigurable Virtual Collective Trainer (RVCT): software-agnostic hardware system that provides immersive, platform-specific virtual training for ground and aviation crews and serves as the primary hardware baseline that virtual training software must drive or integrate with.
• Training Simulation Software (TSS): software capability that drives the RVCT hardware for high fidelity virtual simulation.
• Training Management Tool (TMT): software capability that provides exercise Plan, Prepare, Execute, and Assess (PPEA) application and User Interface (UI) to serve as a common enterprise tool for RVCT scenario building and initialization. This capability also provides constructive collective training for battalion-level and below.
• Games for Training (GFT): capability that provides a virtual desktop gaming environment for combined arms tactical training that allows user-generated content to rapidly modify or build mission environments for experimentation and mission rehearsal

The modernization of the Army's virtual training environment is at a critical juncture. The Army requires a mature, stable software solution capable of driving the RVCT (Ground and Air variants) and supporting current and future virtual training concepts. Past development efforts have highlighted the need for improved system stability, entity scalability, and rapid integration of emerging requirements and capabilities (e.g., drone integration, complex air-to-ground integration, new platforms).

To close training capability gaps and maintain readiness, the Army is expanding its acquisition approach to the Virtual Training Environment. Where the current virtual training solution has relied largely on GOTS software architecture with some COTS components, this RFI seeks to identify existing GOTS, COTS, or hybrid solutions that may be incorporated into the virtual training environment, provided they can drive, or integrate with, RVCT hardware, modified RVCT hardware, and other user-desired virtual training capabilities and peripherals to deliver a unified virtual training environment for battalion-and-below.

For this effort, battalion-and-below collective training is defined as the integration of battalion-level constructive command and control and Command Post Exercise (CPX) style functions with immersive, company and platoon level virtual collective training executed in RVCT or with other virtual peripherals. While battalion-level constructive effects provide operational context and staff interaction, company and platoon level training remains the priority for virtual collective training.

3.  AREAS OF INTEREST FOR MARKET RESEARCH

Respondents should address any applicable areas below, at a high, descriptive level.

1. Current Capabilities and Product Maturity
   1. What existing virtual simulation or training products does your organization provide that could support battalion-and-below collective training, with particular emphasis on near-term company- and platoon-level virtual collective training priorities, and battalion-level constructive integration in the longer term?
   2. What level of technical maturity (TRL 8, or near-TRL 8 objective) and fielded use cases can you share?
2. Architecture and Integration Approaches
   1. Describe your product’s technical architecture, particularly as it relates to modular design principles, open and standards-based interfaces (e.g., DIS, HLA, FACE, or equivalent), and its suitability for integration within a system-of-systems framework.
   2. Describe your standard integration methodologies, interface control approaches, and configuration management practices when aligning with government or commercial training systems. Include your ability and commitment to collaborating with other industry partners to achieve end-to-end interoperability across a system-of-systems environment.
   3. Describe previous integrations your product has supported within government‑owned or vendor‑owned training ecosystems, including systems functionally similar to RVCT. Include the technical integration mechanisms used, adherence to interoperability standards, coordination with other industry partners, and any verified performance or interoperability outcomes.
3. Scalability and Performance Considerations
   1. What performance characteristics, available performance metrics, scalability attributes, and known operational limits can you share (if applicable) for your product when deployed in large-scale, multi-user, or distributed virtual training environments? Please include information related to throughput, latency, concurrency, network bandwidth utilization, and any constraints that may affect collective training scenarios.
4. Terrain, Environment, and Content Tools
   1. Describe your product’s terrain and environment capabilities, including its ability to leverage OWT-formatted data and to integrate or collaborate with terrain-focused organizations or partners to meet RVCT performance requirements.
   2. What tools or capabilities exist in your product provide for user-generated terrain, scenario, or content creation?
5. Data Usage and Interoperability
   1. What data formats, data exchange mechanisms, or standards do your solution support?
   2. How do you typically support data synchronization or federation with external systems?
6. Cybersecurity and Deployment
   1. What cybersecurity frameworks or compliance standards does your product currently support?
   2. Describe the deployment models your product is designed to operate within (e.g., on-premises, cloud, hybrid), including any dependencies, constraints, or accreditation considerations relevant to government environments.
7. Intellectual Property (IP) and Data Rights
   1. Describe your software licensing model (e.g., perpetual, subscription, per-user, usage-based) and any flexibility in licensing approaches for government use.
   2. What data rights models does your organization typically make available to government customers for content, scenarios, terrain, or other artifacts created within your software environment?
   3. What mechanisms does your product provide to enable government-led or third-party extensibility (e.g., documented APIs, plugin frameworks, scripting interfaces, configuration tools)?
8. Future Growth and Roadmap
   1. What planned or emerging capabilities are on your roadmap that may be relevant to Army virtual training needs?

1. Feedback on Assumptions, Constraints, and Potential Requirement Streamlining

The Army seeks to better understand industry perspectives on how future requirements and acquisition documentation related to virtual collective training could be refined or improved. Respondents may provide:

• Identification of requirements or assumptions within RVCT or other similar virtual collective training systems that they believe:
  • Add unnecessary complexity that leads to instability or increases development lead times
  • Increase cost without measurable training benefit
  • Constrain innovation, scalability, or integration flexibility
• Recommendations for:
  • Requirements that could either be simplified or eliminated
  • Areas where performance thresholds may be unrealistic or unnecessary
  • Features or design expectations that are outdated given modern commercial capabilities
  • Architectural or workflow adjustments that could reduce integration and development burden or improve performance
• Suggestions for new or emerging capabilities, approaches, or technologies that the Army should consider for improving virtual collective training effectiveness.
• Specific recommendations for changes to the current RVCT hardware and software solution – assuming requirements were flexible – that would improve performance, increase openness, and enhance interoperability with external systems and capabilities. Respondents may also address their ability to procure, deliver, and sustain any proposed hardware changes for new deliveries and technology refreshes across the 13 currently fielded sites.

Respondents should frame feedback in a way that reflects general experience across programs and technologies. Proprietary details are not required.

1. Submission Requirements

Respondents should submit a written response no later than 12:00 EDT, 25 June 2026, addressing any applicable areas in Sections 3 and 4. Responses should be:

• No more than 7 pages in length (excluding optional attachments such as diagrams or product brochures)
• Cover Page must specify company name, business size/status of the organization
• Submissions shall include the CAGE code and Unique Entity ID (UEI)
• Clearly labeled with the company primary point of contact
• Submitted in PDF or Word Format
• The Government anticipates UNCLASSIFIED responses to the RFI
• All information received in response to this RFI marked as “proprietary” will be handled accordingly
• Information provided as a response to the RFI will not be returned
• The costs of preparing and submitting a response are not considered an allowable charge to any Government contract or agreement

Responses should be submitted electronically to the Government points of contact listed below:

• Agreements Officer, Mark A. Muñiz: mark.a.muniz6.civ@army.mil
• Agreements Specialist, Ruth Torres: ruth.e.torres10.civ@army.mil
• Agreements Specialist, Lawence Green: Lawence.green.civ@army.mil

The Government may request follow-up conversations, demonstrations, or clarifications based on responses received. Respondents may answer only those sections relevant to their capabilities; complete responses are not required. Submission of a response is entirely voluntary and non-binding. The Government may host an Industry Day or issue a separate Questions & Answers notice after reviewing responses.