CIPP RFI_QA_14Jan2026.pdf

Question Contractor Question Governments Response 1 Inefficiencies Targeted: The RFI (Section 2.1) calls for reduced planning time and more effective wargaming. Which specific inefficient or time-consuming steps in the current IAMD planning process does NAVWAR identify as the highest priority for AI-enabled automation?

There are multiple points along the IAMD planning process where AI is needed to increase efficiencies and accelerate decision making. Multi-echelon/competing multi-warfare (USW, SUW, etc) needs requires a near continuous collaboration and IAMD planners must rapidly address environment conditions and new threat developments across multiple time horizons. The program must not only accelerate IAMD planning, but also rapidly adjust plans as new developments occur and Commander's intent is revised. What we are looking for is more than reducing planning time but providing a capability that automates human functions and allows for concurrent collaboration that is beyond today’s very manual and manpower intensive capacity for disaggregated warfighters to collaboratively execute IAMD mission analysis, COA creation, brief and evaluate ECOA actions via wargaming.

2 Timing Benchmarks: The RFI states a qualitative goal to “reduce the time required” for IAMD planning. Does NAVWAR have any internal benchmark values (e.g. average IAMD planning cycle length at the strike-group or fleet level) that the AI solution is expected to improve upon?

While specific internal performance benchmarks are not being released at this time, the goal of the CIPP program is to significantly accelerate the cycle time for complex, force-level IAMD planning to enable a more agile and responsive decision-making process.

3 Performance-Specific Prioritization: Are the A-E performance specifications listed in Section 2.1 considered of equal importance for automation, or has NAVWAR established a phased or priority order for AI implementation?

For the purpose of responding to this RFI, we will consider all of them of equal importance. The order of addressing them via software development under the CIPP program will be determined by several factors, including but not limited to warfighter prioritization, the state and maturity of currently available technologies being proposed by responders to this RFI, ability to install and operate those technologies in the existing operational computing infrastructures, available funding, and contracting timelines.

4 Primary Bottleneck: Among the steps in the planning process or their various sub-components, which does NAVWAR view as the most challenging or time-consuming element to address with AI?

Key challenges in the current environment involve the complexities of manual data fusion and ensuring all stakeholders can rapidly and collaboratively evaluate courses of action. CIPP aims to address this by providing a common, data-driven environment for mission analysis that moves beyond static displays and reduces the timeline for the COA feedback and approval loop.

5 Clarify “Capture:” Section 2.1.A states “Capture blue (friendly) force IAMD asset availability, capability, readiness, positioning, and tasking data related to the mission.”

Does “capture” refer strictly to data collection/ingestion , or is a reasoning/generative AI component envisioned?

For the CIPP program specifically, "capture" refers to the reasoning/generative AI capability. We need AI to take into account Commander's intent and multi-echelon/multi-warfare constraints and restraints. We need AI to not only evaluate Commander's intent in relation to IAMD planning but provide a configurable, in-depth quantitative COA metrics & analysis with side-by-side COA comparison that explains via predictive AI how the COA/ECOAs was derived. This reasoning must include running estimate/alerts of predictive future threats and blue force limitations (Commander’s intent, missions, and tasks constraints) across multiple time horizons.

RFI Title: PMW 150 Collaborative Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)

6 Commander’s Intent – Generative vs. Reasoning: Section 2.1.A also mentions “develop and establish a wide range of meaningful commander’s intent.” Is NAVWAR seeking a generative AI capability that can create commander’s intent, or a system that reasons over commander’s intent as input to the program?

A core requirement for the CIPP solution is to provide a flexible and robust analytical framework. The system must empower planners at all echelons to define, customize, and apply mission-specific metrics for the evaluation and comparison of Courses of Action (COAs). This capability is essential for ensuring a data-driven and agile selection of the optimal plan

7 Next Steps: Is an industry day planned after the white-paper submissions, and does PMW 150 anticipate releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) in 2026?

Yes, the current intent is to hold an Industry Day in CY26, prior to RFP release (date TBD)