Attachment 7 - Questions and Answers 26 Aug 2025.pdf

Solicitation No.: FA238425SB007, Information Mastery in Cognitive Warfare Attachment 7 dated 26 Aug 2025

Questions & Answers

1. The answer to questions 1a-1i (below), is the following: You may submit white papers addressing part of the work described in the SOO (that is, one, some, or all the technical objectives).

1a. Does the performer have to propose the ability to meet all of the Technical Objectives (3.1-3.8) listed on the SOO, or could they propose to meet one or two of them (obviously at a reduced funding amount)?

1b. Is each offeror expected to cover all objectives in Sect. 3 of the SOO?

1c. Will the government support partial solution in regard to the 8 Technical Objectives in Section 3 of Attachment 4 – SOO?

1d. Can an offeror submit more than 1 response with each response supporting a specific Technical Objective in Section 3 of Attachment 4 - SOO?

1e. In the technical objectives under Closed_Call_8.pdf, there are 8 objectives listed. Does the proposal need to encompass all of these objectives, or may the proposal consider 1 or a select few?

1f. The SOO includes 8 technical objectives. Is there any guidance regarding the number of objectives that should be addressed in a single white paper -- or are we expected to address all of them?

1g. For the IMCW white paper solicitation, is the government looking for integrated team responses that would address the entire forecasted amount of the effort (~$24MIL) or is the government also potentially looking for multiple smaller efforts that would each provide their own approaches and levels of effort, lower than the full amount? If it is the first option, will the government welcome individual white papers at this time with the expectation that a full team could be assembled later for the full proposal? Is this something that is known and can be shared at this time?

1h. Is it required (or strongly preferred) that a submission address all of the Technical Objectives (3.1 – 3.8) outlined in the COO?

1i. First, the Statement of Objectives (SOO) document lists eight Technical Objectives. Is it expected that proposals must cover all eight objectives, or is a subset acceptable? If subsets are acceptable, do you have any guidance on how many objectives a strong proposal should cover.

2. Question: Does the research have to be performed on-site at AFRL, or can it be done remotely (i.e. At a university)?

Answer: You are not limited to working on-site.

3. Questions: Attachment 4 states at the end that funding is not currently available for this effort. When will a funding decision for the effort be announced? Will an updated 5-year funding profile be included (if different from the posted profile in Attachment 4)? If the funding decision is not expected until after Sept. 6, will the white paper deadline also be extended?

Answer: At this point, the Government cannot answer the first two questions. We do not anticipate extending the deadline for the submission of white papers.

4. Question: What is the program type, e.g., 6.2?

Answer: 6.2

5. Question: Is a specific end-user organization associated with the program?

Answer: Information Warfare, Informations Operations. Intel support to IO

6. Question: Given the suffix “LOE2”, what are the other prior, current, or planned LOEs associated with this program and their timeframes? How do they relate to LOE2?

Answer: Information Mastery in Cognitive Warfare (IMCW) is the only LOE associated with this work.

7. Question: Attachment 2 CDRLS lists Final Report (A001) several times and no other deliverables. Were other CDRLs intended?

Answer: Please let us know if you need further clarity after closer review because there are other deliverables and are they listed on the CDRLs posted on Sam.gov.

8. Question: Are there specific integration targets for IMCW? For example, Sect. 3.7 mentions integrating with existing wargames and simulation environments

Answer: We have not chosen any integration targets yet.

9. Question: Is there an identified TPOC for this opportunity?

Answer: Yes. Section 1 of the Call for Proposals states Capt Denita Guthery is the PM for this effort.

10. Question: Is this new work or follow-on work?

Answer: It is new work.

11. Question: Is teaming expected/preferred? If so, is there a preference regarding the composition and/or structure of a team (e.g., industry-led with university subs)?

Answer: Teaming is not required and the Government does not have a preference regarding the composition of a team.

12. Question: Can you say anything more about the number of teams AFRL expects to fund under this effort (assuming the program were to be funded at the estimated amount of $24.12M)?

Answer: As stated in the solicitation, the Government may award zero, one, or more contracts for this announcement; no additional information is available.

13. Question: Alternatively, would multiple submissions focused on specific objectives be acceptable, or is a single comprehensive response expected?

Answer: A single comprehensive response is preferred. However, you may submit white papers addressing part of the work described in the SOO (that is, one, some, or all the technical objectives).

14a. Question: We noticed that the IMCW solicitation and SOO mentions base support and network access. Does the Government anticipate that there will be primarily on-base performance by contractors? We routinely travel and visit building 248 for briefings, kickoffs, reviews, and demonstrations but do not often work on-base.

14b. The SOO mentions that the contractor will be provided access to specific buildings to conduct research. Is there an expectation of significant in-person work at your facilities, or can the work largely be done at contractor sites, with travel to your site as required operationally?

Answer: The work may be performed on-site or remotely. Contractors are not required to work on site at AFRL.

15. Question: Can you comment on the envisioned relationship between other programs of record or other solicitations (e.g., AF251-0004 SBIR) with the IMCW solution?

Answer: We are treating these as individual efforts at this time.

16. Question: The SOO mentions playbooks at the classified and unclassified level. Do you envision contractors having access to JWICS or SIPR at their performance site for [later phases of] this effort?

Answer: If the contractor proposes work at Secret/TS level work, then they should present a plan for how they will have access to data.

17. Question: The solicitation appears to be oriented towards development of an end-to-end system. Yet it also states that proposed efforts that address some but not all of the desired work may be funded. How does the government anticipate integrating potential smaller efforts into a larger system? For instance, if I were to propose a modeling and simulation effort addressing particular aspects of influence campaigns, should I expect that there will be a system integrator that I would interact with? Or would the effort involve close collaboration directly with AFRL?

Answer: The initial plan would assume that AFRL would act as the integrator, but we would consider the need for a follow-on contract to address system integration.

18. Question: It seems the IMCW solicitation is initially in the research realm, but I was hoping to confirm that with someone before bringing it forward for consideration?

Answer: Correct, this is a research effort.

19. Question: It seems like a new initiative, but I'd be interested to know whether it's instead a recompete where incumbency would be a consideration?

Answer: This is a new effort, not a follow on.

20. Question: I read that any eventual award is dependent on funds becoming available, that while a common stipulation, is a matter of great import to small companies. As the former AF CIO, as chief architect for the information domain of warfare, I'd like to believe this effort has a good chance of funding, but can't help but wonder given an otherwise crushing 1-to-N list of requirements. Any insights in this area would be super helpful.

Answer: No additional information about funding is available at the moment.

21. Question: What Technical Readiness Level are you expecting to see at the end of the period of performance?

Answer: TRL 4-5