2024DCCOE004 Pricing RFI.docx

Request for Information (RFI) Contract Pricing Considerations for Modern Software Development What ACC-APG is trying to accomplish: Modern systems used by the Army are increasingly dependent on software to give our military overwhelming advantages in combat. To help maintain this strategic edge, Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) is pursuing a genuine cultural shift towards adopting modern software development contracting strategies to achieve faster, more relevant, and more cost-effective software development.

How you can help: To facilitate this shift, ACC-APG seeks your input on effective and innovative actions the Army can take to acquire software solutions with an emphasis on Contract Pricing. Specifically, we are seeking suggestions on how to pay contractors fairly and efficiently for dynamic requirements while streamlining contract award processes. Refer to Appendix 1 for a complete list of questions.

How to Reply: To reply, email the mailbox below with the subject line Pricing RFI,< Written Responses, or One on One>, <Company Name> with a Written Response attachment by 09 May 2024.

Written Response: Attach responses to one or more topics in Appendix 1 (.docx or .pdf) with your company name, your points of contact, and contact information included on the first page of the attachment.

One-on-one sessions: If requesting a one-on-one session, include an agenda of pricing topics you would like to discuss as part of the written response attachment. Also include in the email windows of time that can work for a scheduled one-on-one session.

RFI Submission Points of Contact: usarmy.apg.acc.mbx.dc3oe-mailbox@army.mil

Disclaimer: This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. This RFI is not a solicitation and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation or ultimately award a contract. Responses will not be considered as proposals, nor will any award be made as a result of this request. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-3, “Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes”, is incorporated by reference. The Government does not intend to reimburse respondents for any costs associated with the submissions of their responses to this RFI; respondents to this RFI are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding. Proprietary information and trade secrets, if any, must be clearly marked on all materials. All information received in response to this RFI that is marked “Proprietary” will be handled accordingly. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned nor will receipt be confirmed. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this RFI are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responses from this RFI will be used to formatively shape broad Army guidance for acquiring software solutions. Response content may be aggregated and anonymously published into summary documentation to facilitate such guidance. Any publications resulting from this RFI will be non-attributional, and RFI respondents’ consent for their responses to be used for such purposes.

Appendix 1: Pricing Questions for Modern Software Development The following list is a mix of probing and open-ended questions where industry feedback could help shape ACC-APG software development contracting approaches. Do not feel obligated to respond to all of them. ACC-APG appreciates any insight you wish to provide. While this is a Contract Pricing focused RFI, feel free to branch into other topics if they could help address underlying Contract Pricing concerns, such as acquisition strategy.

1. Dynamic Requirements: Modern software development practices involve responding to customer feedback, changing circumstances, and evolving needs. Are there recommended approaches on how to pay Contractors fairly for dynamic requirements, while avoiding/mitigating the typically laborious (for both Contractors and the Government) change-order process?

2. Streamlined Order/Award: Have you participated in an acquisition where novel approaches were used to streamline ordering processes in a cost reimbursable setting (or other contract types)? If so, please provide identifying information such as contract numbers, and describe what novel approach was used and its effect on streamlined awards.

3. Tangible Talent & Tradeoffs: Awarding to companies that do not currently employ most individuals who would perform comes with performance and cost risk. Are there any recommended approaches for the Government to differentiate and favor Offerors that currently have more talent and bandwidth to successfully perform, while also giving proper consideration to lower-priced competitors?

4. Buying-in: Contractors have openly discussed feeling the need to buy-in when proposing for cost reimbursable contracts, resigned to the idea that if they don’t then the contract at hand will just be awarded to some other company that does. What actions could the Government take that would alleviate this perception/reality? Are there any evaluation approaches that effectively discourage buying in for cost reimbursable contracts?

5. Cost Proposal Instructions: Are there any recommended changes ACC-APG can make to ease administrative burden of proposal preparation for cost reimbursable contracts in a way that maintains our ability to reasonably differentiate which offers will provide the warfighter the best value?

6. Cost and Value: To really get after agile software the government needs to start measuring the value provided by the software to the end user. What is the best way to link value provided to the cost per release? Would it be better to link cost per agile team to the value provided?

7. Switching Costs: What steps can ACC-APG take to minimize switching costs when replacing or upgrading individual modules within a system? What are prominent sources of expenses ACC-APG should expect when switching software modules?

8. Open Forum: What contract pricing questions should we be asking, but aren’t related to software development? Are there strategic blind-spots the Government might have when it comes to modern software development?