DoWIAC BCO_RFI Questions.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

Department of War Information Analysis Center (DoWIAC)

Basic Center of Operation (BCO)

GENERAL INFORMATION:

• Document Type: Request for Information (RFI)

• Program Title: Basic Center of Operations (BCO)

• Contracting Activity: 774 ESS in support of Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Fort Belvoir, VA

• Associated Programs: Information Analysis Center Multiple Award Contract (IACMAC); Office of the

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSW(R&E)) Critical Technology Areas (CTAs)

• Anticipated NAICS Code: 541715 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences)

• Response Classification: Unclassified // Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) / Proprietary Marking Permitted

DISCLAIMER AND SPECIAL NOTICES:

• Any responses/information submitted will be used for planning purposes only and shall not be considered as a commitment by the Government for any purpose. Responses are strictly voluntary, and the Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with the submittal of the requested information. Any information submitted in response to this announcement is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552(a). The Government does not request that any proprietary information be submitted, nor shall the Government be liable for any consequential damages for any proprietary information submitted.

• Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Notice: In accordance with RFO Subpart 9.5, participation in this RFI will not disqualify any vendor from participating in future procurements. However, information obtained through this RFI will assist the Contracting Officer in structuring Section H OCI provisions, non-disclosure agreements, and structural firewalls between BCO operations and IAC MAC task order competitions.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Please adhere to the following instructions when preparing and submitting your response:

1. Submission Deadline: All responses must be received via email no later than 1300 CST 25 Sep 2026.

2. Submission Method: Responses must be submitted by email only to the following:

james.rathjen@us.af.mil; halli.whitten@us.af.mil

3. Contractor Information: Your response should begin with a cover page or section detailing your contractor information, including:

a. Company Name and Address

b. Point of Contact (Name, Title, Email, Phone Number)

c. CAGE Code and UEI Number mailto:james.rathjen@us.af.mil mailto:halli.whitten@us.af.mil

4. Response Format:

a. Please structure your response to follow the numbering and sections outlined in this RFI document.

b. Responses must be formatted using Times New Roman, 11-point font with standard 1-inch margins, and must not exceed 10 pages in total length (excluding the cover page)

5. Classification and Proprietary Data:

a. All responses should be Unclassified.

b. If your submission contains proprietary information or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), you must clearly mark each page containing such data with the appropriate restrictive legends, as detailed in the "DISCLAIMER AND SPECIAL NOTICES" section.

SECTION 1: Critical Technology Area (CTA) Cells & Operational Transition Support

Scope Boundaries and Labor Qualifications: Consider RFI Background Sections 4.1, 4.2, 5.3, and 5.4 when addressing the following questions.

• 1.1 If the program were to setup a CTA Cell that directly supports the CTA Senior Officials as a conduit to the rest of DTIC’s capabilities (repository, IAC SMEs, analytics, etc.) and IACMAC vehicle, how would you set it up? What would each CTA Cell look like (government, contractor, SMEs, etc.) and how many of each? What products would be beneficial to both the CTA and the IAC Program? How should the Performance Work Statement (PWS) structure the tasks, deliverables, labor categories, and minimum qualification standards to ensure high-level technical capability across diverse Technical Focus Areas such as Hypersonics, Directed Energy, and Quantum?

• 1.2 You are responsible for analyzing customer requirements and conducting a review of the existing research to reduce duplication of research and ensure requirements for new IACMAC task orders start at the level of existing research across the IAC Technical Focus Areas, how would you go about that, what would you need? How should this deliverable requirement be written in PWS so that it provides actionable value to program managers without delaying procurement timelines?

• 1.3 Are there any operational guardrails that should be written into the PWS to ensure contractor technical support remains vital but does not cross into inherently Governmental decision-making?

• 1.4 Performance Metrics and Quality Thresholds: What objective performance standards and quality thresholds should be written in the PWS to measure the quality, accuracy, and utility of CTA Cell deliverables and performance?

SECTION 2: Technical Inquiries & Decision-Informing Analysis

Ordering Mechanisms and Structure: Historically, the BCO contract included mechanisms for Technical Inquiries (free / 4-hour cap), Extended Technical Inquiries (ETIs) ($50,000 / 3-month cap) and specialized Task Orders (STOs) ($1,000,000 / 12-month cap). Consider RFI Background Section 4.1, 4.5, and 5.6 when addressing the following questions. The Government seeks industry input on the most effective contract mechanisms and operational structures to deliver meaningful, rapid, BCO-IACMAC collaborative decision-support analysis while ensuring distinct operational separation from large-scale R&D tasks.

• 2.1 What is the optimal contracting mechanism for ordering and executing rapid, customer-funded decision support under the BCO?

• 2.2 Are the funding and time constraints executable for TIs, ETIs, and STOs to provide high-quality decision-informing analysis?

• 2.3 How do you see customers using this capability to support their mission, evaluate problem spaces, inform their R&D approach, and shape future acquisition?

• 2.4 How should TIs, ETIs, and STOs be modified, eliminated, or merged?

• 2.5 Modernizing Standard TIs and Generative AI Integration: How should the PWS update the baseline no-cost technical inquiry task to reflect modern research tools? What specific requirements and performance standards should be written into the PWS to provide emerging inquiry support services, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) prompt engineering, leveraging Generative AI Agents (e.g., Gemini Deep Research), reference verification, and fact-checking computer-generated citations against Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) repository holdings?

• 2.6 Analytical Rigor, Deliverable Standards, and Safeguards: What deliverable standards, review processes, or data analytics requirements should be incorporated into the PWS to ensure quick-turn analytical products deliver meaningful insights and meet DoD Scientific and Technical Information (STI) standards (e.g., Standard Form 298 compliance and the DI-MISC-80711A DID) without causing administrative delays or drifting into routine on-site staff augmentation?

• 2.7 How can the TIs, ETIs, and STOs be combined with other CDRLs (e.g., Gap Analysis) to support DTIC operational analytics and improve the DTIC repository?

• 2.8 Performance Metrics and Quality Thresholds: What objective performance standards and quality thresholds should be written in the PWS to measure the quality, accuracy, and utility of these CDRLs?

SECTION 3: Full-Lifecycle Knowledge Assessment & Gap Analysis (CDRL A013)

The current Gap Analysis CDRL consists of a DTIC repository literature search using keywords provided by the Requiring Activity. Currently, the BCO prime delivers an initial product after TO kickoff that identifies any existing applicable or similar work in DTIC’s repository. There is a subsequent annual delivery by the IACMAC prime supporting a customer TO that identifies STI produced in the execution of the TO but does not provide potential STI that could be delivered by an IACMAC performer. Consider RFI Background Sections 4.1, 4.4, and 5.5 when addressing the following questions.

• 3.1 How would you suggest updating the Gap Analysis process to capture existing, produced, and potential STI to better ensure that DTIC has all relevant STI in its repository for re-use.?

• 3.2 Data-Driven Analysis Requirements: What specific language should be included in the PWS to require the contractor to incorporate data analytics (such as tracking DoD budget activity investments against technical deliverable volumes) into the gap analysis?

• 3.3 Performance Metrics and Quality Thresholds: What objective performance standards and quality thresholds should be written in the PWS to measure the quality, accuracy, and utility of submitted Gap Analyses?

SECTION 4: Proactive Repository Curation & Digital Dissemination

• 4.1 Defining Active Curation and Scouting Tasks: Consider RFI Background Sections 4.1, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2 when addressing the following questions. As DTIC automates standard document intake, how should the PWS define the contractor's role in actively identifying and capturing unsubmitted, federally funded STI?

What specific outreach requirements and operational touchpoints with Service Laboratories, FFRDCs, UARCs, and National Laboratories should be written into the contract?

• 4.3 Repository Growth Metrics: What measurable performance standards should be written into the requirement to measure curation performance?

SECTION 5: Contract Architecture

• 5.1 Contract Type and CLIN Architecture: Considering the contracts described in 2.1 - 2.3 and the tasks described in Section 5.0 of the RFI Background document, what combination of contract types for each task activity provides the best balance of performance quality, cost control, transparency, and operational flexibility?