Request for Information (RFI): Innovative Solutions and Services for Child Welfare Technology Modernization
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Children's Bureau (CB), is pleased to announce the release of a Request for Information (RFI) to gather input from industry partners, technology providers, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders to inform future child welfare technology modernization efforts. This modernization agenda also supports ACF’s A Home for Every Child initiative by helping jurisdictions strengthen the availability, stability, and quality of family-based placements; improve the recruitment, approval, and retention of foster and kinship caregivers; prevent unnecessary entries into foster care; and accelerate safe reunification and other permanency outcomes. The Children's Bureau is seeking information on innovative, modular, and interoperable technology solutions and services that can help states, territories, and Tribes plan, implement, operate, and continuously improve child welfare technology systems.
Through this RFI, the Children's Bureau seeks to better understand the current technology marketplace, emerging capabilities, implementation approaches, and service offerings available to support child welfare agencies, and inform a catalog of market research for title IV-E agencies and other jurisdictions. The catalog is not intended to serve as a purchasing vehicle, procurement mechanism, or list of pre-approved offerings. The RFI is strictly for information-gathering purposes and does not constitute a solicitation or obligate the Children's Bureau or the U.S. Government.
Read the RFI here: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/8ceee6bafe6449b88569223875c4ebbd/view
RFI Timeline
| Milestone | Date |
|---|---|
| Deadline for Questions | August 17, 2026 by 5:00 pm ET |
| Responses Due | September 2, 2026 by 5:00 pm ET |
How to Participate
Interested organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to review the complete RFI and submit a response by the published deadline.
- Submit a Response: https://app.smartsheetgov.com/b/form/bd2880d92bed446888afc63a34443879
Submitted Question Responses
Is the maximum number of Response Areas an overall limit across multiple solution offerings from a single responding vendor? Or can the respondent choose up to five response areas per solution offering?
The limit of up to five Response Areas applies to each submitted solution or service. Separately, each respondent may submit no more than six total solutions or services.
Please clarify the due date for proposals. The RFI document says it is due 8/26/2026 by 5pm ET but the response date listed at the top of the SAM.gov website is 8/19/2026 by 5pm ET.
To provide industry partners with additional time to prepare and submit responses, the RFI response deadline was extended. The most current dates are maintained on this website and should be considered the official source for deadline information.
Deadline for Questions: August 17, 2026, by 5:00 PM ET
RFI Responses Due: September 2, 2026, by 5:00 PM ET
We encourage all interested parties to refer to this website for the latest updates and information regarding this RFI.
The submission portal includes both a File Upload field for the formatted response document (5-page limit) and separate text boxes for Overview, Organization Background, Solution/Approach and Methodology, A Home for Every Child applicability, Relevant Experience, and Purchasing Options. Could you please clarify: should Respondents provide the full narrative response in both the uploaded document and the corresponding web form fields, or is the uploaded document sufficient and the web form fields are for reference/summary only?"
Respondents are encouraged to provide concise responses within the Smartsheet form fields. If additional detail is necessary, respondents may include supplemental information in the RFI response document (in accordance with response guidelines).
This response keeps the focus on answering the questions asked while still allowing supporting detail to be included in the response when needed. It also aligns well with the style of formal federal procurement Q&A responses.
What is the character limit on the open text fields?
Respondents are encouraged to provide concise responses within the Smartsheet form fields. We would target no more than 1,000 characters to keeps the focus on answering the questions asked while still allowing supporting detail to be included in the response when needed. It also aligns well with the style of formal federal procurement Q&A responses. If additional detail is necessary, respondents may include supplemental information in the RFI response document (in accordance with response guidelines).
For Response Area 13, does ACF consider data conversion and governance experience from outside the child welfare domain to be relevant past performance where the source-to-target complexity and multi-jurisdiction structure are comparable? The RFI references "comparable mission-critical public-sector environments," and we are seeking clarity on whether regulated non-governmental environments qualify.
Relevant past performance may include experience within child welfare, CCWIS, human services, health and human services programs, or comparable mission-critical public-sector environments. Respondents should describe why any non-child-welfare experience is comparable to the proposed solution or service, including source-to-target complexity, data governance, multi-jurisdiction relevance, security and privacy considerations, and measurable outcomes. The current RFI language does not expressly identify regulated non-governmental environments as a separate qualifying category.
Section 3.1 asks respondents to explain how their offering impacts the "numerator" (recruitment/retention of safe homes) and/or "denominator" (preventing unnecessary entries into foster care). Are vendors expected to submit empirical data/case studies demonstrating these outcomes, or qualitative narrative frameworks?
Respondents should explain how the proposed solution or service may support A Home for Every Child, including whether and how it may increase the number of safe, supported homes available to children through recruitment and retention, reduce the number of children who need foster care placement through effective prevention, or both. The RFI encourages measurable outcomes and relevant past performance where available but does not require a particular empirical study format. Respondents may provide data, case studies, examples, or qualitative frameworks that substantiate the claimed impact.
Should the separate PDF or docx file we upload contain: (1) The identical content as in the form responses (e.g. Overview, Organization Background, Solution, Approach, and Methodology, and so on); (2) The defense of the three top-ranked Response Areas selected for each proposed solution; or (3) a combination of both?
Respondents should provide complete responses to each question directly within the corresponding Smartsheet form fields. The uploaded RFI response should be used to provide the requested past performance example(s) in accordance with response guidelines. Information included in the RFI response should complement, rather than replace, responses provided in the Smartsheet form.
The RFI guidelines in Section 3.1 of the Statement of Objectives state that each respondent may submit up to three (3) total solutions or services, with each requiring a separate form submission and a unique RFI response attachment. On the active submission portal, the form interface only displays a standard "Submit" button at the end. After we click "Submit" for our first solution or service, should we simply refresh or click on the RFI response form link/tab again to initiate a brand-new form submission for our second and third offerings? If so, is there a specific tracking or organization name format we should use to ensure the review team easily links all three distinct submissions back to our organization?"
Please click on the RFI response from the link/tab again to initiate a new form submission for additional offerings. While solutions submitted will be reviewed independent of one-another, please confirm that Company Legal Name and Doing Business As (if applicable) are consistent across entries for tracking purposes.
Can a customer reference be used in more than one solution that is proposed?
The RFI does not prohibit using the same customer reference across more than one proposed solution. If the same reference is used for multiple submissions, the respondent should make clear how that experience is relevant to each specific solution or service and include the required reference details for each submission.
For past performance, are analogous mission-critical public-sector deployments (non-child-welfare) acceptable where the platform capability is directly transferable?
Yes. The RFI states that relevant past performance may include experience within child welfare, CCWIS, human services, health and human services programs, or comparable mission-critical public-sector environments. Respondents should explain the transferability of the experience to the proposed solution or service and the applicable Response Areas.
As ACF intends to publish or share the catalog with states, territories, and tribes to assist with acquisition strategies and RFPs, what is the process for marking and protecting confidential or proprietary intellectual property included in our response?
Submitters should clearly mark any information they consider “CONFIDENTIAL” or “PROPRIETARY” on every page containing such information and, to the maximum extent practical, segregate proprietary content from the remainder of the response (e.g., through a separate attachment or exhibit). No classified or sensitive information should be included in vendor responses.
ACF anticipates that information shared publicly with states, territories, and tribes through the catalog will primarily focus on high-level solution information, relevant past performance scope and experience, and vendor contact information. Vendors are therefore encouraged to limit the inclusion of proprietary intellectual property or confidential business information in portions of their response intended to describe these public-facing elements.
All submissions become the property of the Federal Government and will not be returned. While ACF will consider vendor markings identifying proprietary information, respondents are responsible for appropriately identifying and segregating any information they believe should be protected from broader dissemination.
Is a FedRAMP authorization expected for service offerings that execute entirely within a jurisdiction's own cloud tenant and authorization boundary, where the vendor does not host or store agency data in its own environment?
The RFI asks respondents to identify relevant certifications, such as FedRAMP designations, if applicable, and to describe security, privacy, confidentiality, accessibility, and compliance capabilities. The RFI does not state that FedRAMP authorization is mandatory for all offerings or that FedRAMP alone satisfies all state-procured deployment expectations. Respondents should clearly distinguish between capabilities directly supported by the offering and responsibilities that remain with the jurisdiction, system integrator, hosting provider, or other implementation partners.
How will ACF treat respondents that do not hold a GSA Multiple Award Schedule contract or a cooperative purchasing vehicle? Does the absence of an existing contract vehicle affect catalog inclusion or how an offering is presented to jurisdictions?
The RFI is for information-gathering and market research and does not constitute a solicitation, purchasing vehicle, procurement mechanism, endorsement, or list of pre-approved offerings. Respondents should provide available purchasing option information where requested, including any applicable contract vehicles, but the RFI does not state that an existing GSA Multiple Award Schedule contract or cooperative purchasing vehicle is required for submission.
Will the catalog distinguish standalone platform/infrastructure offerings from full CCWIS solutions, and can vendors indicate partner-delivered implementation models (e.g., delivery via system integrators)?
The RFI is designed to gather information on distinct offerings, including products, services, modules, platforms, managed services, advisory services, accelerators, templates, reusable assets, and other specific capabilities. Respondents should clearly describe whether the offering is a standalone platform, infrastructure component, full solution, or partner-delivered implementation model, including roles and dependencies.
Can a solution be catalogued as a component embedded within another vendor's CCWIS offering, and will ACF capture teaming interest?
The RFI permits respondents to describe distinct modules, components, platforms, services, or reusable assets and asks respondents to identify relevant roles such as prime contractor, subcontractor, or teaming partner in past performance examples. Respondents should clearly state if the offering is intended to be embedded within or delivered alongside another vendor’s CCWIS offering and describe any teaming assumptions or dependencies. The RFI does not specify a separate teaming-interest process.
Could the Agency please clarify if this project is a new initiative or is this related to a previous HHS project?
This RFI is issued for information-gathering and market research to support ACF’s ongoing child welfare technology modernization efforts and inform a catalog of market research. The RFI does not constitute a solicitation or obligate ACF or the U.S. Government.
What does "standards-aligned" mean in the context of this RFI?
In this RFI, standards-aligned refers to solutions or services that align with applicable federal regulations, ACF guidance, federal reporting requirements, security, privacy, confidentiality, accessibility, and interoperability standards. The SOO also references alignment with CCWIS design requirements and modular contracting principles, including support for modularity, interoperability, secure standards-based data exchange, data quality, and clear entry and exit points.
Important Notice
This RFI is issued solely for information-gathering and market research purposes. It does not constitute a solicitation, request for proposal, contract opportunity, purchasing vehicle, endorsement of any solution or provider, or commitment by ACF or the U.S. Government to pursue future procurement activities. Information received through this RFI will be used only to inform the Children's Bureau's understanding of the child welfare technology landscape and support future modernization planning efforts.
For questions regarding this RFI, please contact ccwis@acf.hhs.gov.