HQ003427R001 Request for White Paper (RWP).docx

WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

Intelligence Resource Execution and Oversight (Project Argus)

HQ0034279R001

Project Argus: HQ0034279R001

AREA OF INTEREST:

The Under Secretary of War for Intelligence and Security (USW(I&S)) requires a prototype solution to replace the legacy Budget and Intelligence Related Database (BIRD). USW(I&S) is responsible for overseeing intelligence resource execution across the Department. The current BIRD system, developed and maintained by multiple contractor teams over more than a decade using disparate technology stacks and evolving priorities, now suffers from outdated software frameworks, inefficient code, and an overly complex database schema. These deficiencies impede timely analysis, increase manual workload, and limit the ability of analysts to support senior leader decision-making on intelligence resources.

USW(I&S) seeks a modern, flexible, and extensible system that enables efficient ingestion, cataloguing, analysis, and visualization of intelligence resource data. The desired end-state is a single, user-friendly platform that supports rapid querying, analytic dashboards, and an intuitive interface (including special intelligence-enabled natural language queries) so that analysts can produce accurate, timely insights and the Congressional Justification Book (CJB) with significantly reduced manual effort.

The prototype solution must deliver the following core capabilities (additional modules may be required based on evolving USW(I&S) priorities):

· Ingestion and management of current and historical Intelligence Resource data and execution data. Data will be uploaded by multiple users spanning the Department of War, i.e. Agencies and Services. Access to and ability to upload shall be controlled by the Office of the USW(I&S).

· Financial management query tool and data analytics supported by Super Intelligence so users can interact with the database for in-depth analysis. This tool should have the ability to create data visualizations.

· User defined Visual Dashboard creation capability that utilizes resource data uploaded into the system database.

· Congressional Justification Book (CJB) Generator capable of combining quantitative data and narrative inputs from both internal and external stakeholders to produce the CJB. This tool shall take input from users spanning the Department of War, i.e. Agencies and Services. Access to and ability to input shall be controlled by the Office of the USW(I&S).

· System should operate at multiple classification levels, i.e. development at an UNCLASSIFIED level that is transferable to the SECRET and TOP SECRET networks; data held at a lower level should be replicated to the higher level.

· Specific Modules:

· CJB Execution

· Countries of Interest tracking

· Congressional Marks tracking

· Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) data management

The system must be able to ingest data from common formats (including Microsoft PowerPoint, PDF, and Excel). Offerors may propose either cloud-based or on-premise solutions (or a hybrid approach). Any proposal must include a clear comparison of the pros and cons of the proposed hosting approach, including considerations of cost, security, performance, scalability, and transportability. The solution must support development in an unclassified environment while remaining transportable and operable across Impact Levels (IL) 2 through 7. USW(I&S) requires direct, on-site engagement between the development team and government analysts throughout the prototype effort to ensure the solution meets operational needs.

In the event that the proposed system is not ready for deployment by September 2027, respondents must address their ability to sustain the legacy BIRD system on-site within its classified environment while finalizing the new system. Additionally, respondents must outline their approach to providing the required minimum of 12 months of on-site sustainment following successful transition to ensure full system operability and rapid response.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

· Place of Performance: For development, the primary places of performance will be the Pentagon and a contractor-provided development site. If required to sustain BIRD, the primary place of performance will be the Pentagon.

· Travel and Remote Work: Alternate work locations are authorized for development activities. Direct, on-site engagement between the development team and government analysts is required throughout the prototype effort to ensure the solution meets operational needs. Situational telework may be approved on a case-by-case basis. CONUS travel is authorized as mission needs require and is subject to Government approval.

· Security: Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) facility clearance and personnel clearances are required. Personnel supporting classified development, sustainment, or analytic functions shall possess the appropriate clearance level for their role, up to and including Top Secret / SCI.

· Cybersecurity, Information Assurance, and Regulatory Compliance: The solution must comply with all applicable Department of War and Intelligence Community cybersecurity, information assurance, and related requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, the Risk Management Framework (RMF); National Institute of Standards and Technology; Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM); Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs); software version update strategies to remain compliant with DISA Standard Parts List (SPL); and relevant DoD Instructions (including DoDI 8500.01 and DoDI 8510.01). The performer shall support the Government in obtaining and maintaining the necessary Authorizations to Operate (ATO) across Impact Levels (IL) 2 through 7.

ACQUISITION PROCESS:

Project Solution Evaluation Process (Structured Competitive Approach): The Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) Acquisition Directorate (AD) will employ a multi-phased process to evaluate project solutions submitted in response to this Area of Interest (AOI). This process is designed to identify innovative solutions that meet the Government's needs while leveraging the flexibility of Other Transaction (OT) authorities. The Government reserves the right to select, negotiate with, and award an agreement to any, all, or none of the respondents.

Phase I: Interested respondents are encouraged to submit a concise solution brief (i.e. white paper) outlining their project solution. The Government will review Phase I solution briefs based on the following criteria:

(1) Relevance to the area of interest.

(2) Merit and feasibility of the proposed approach to address the area of interest.

(3) Reasonableness of the proposed schedule.

If a solution brief is determined not to meet one of the criteria above, it will not be evaluated for the remaining Phase I criteria and will be declined for further consideration of an award. The Government may, at its sole discretion, decline further consideration of a project solution if it:

· Does not adequately address the objectives of the AOI.

· Presents a technically unsound or infeasible approach.

· Proposes an unrealistic schedule.

· Is deemed not to be of interest to the Government.

Phase II: Based on Phase I results, the Agreement Officer (AO) may invite selected respondents to participate in Phase II, which consists solely of a "pitch" session (in-person or virtual) to present their proposed solution in detail and engage in a dialogue with the Government. While the purpose of Phase II is to deepen understanding of the solution, address questions, and assess capabilities, not all companies moving past Phase I will be requested to pitch; furthermore, the Government reserves the right to forgo the pitch phase entirely and proceed directly to a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP)

The Government will review Phase II against the following criteria:

(1) Relevance to the area of interest.

(2) Merit and feasibility of the proposed approach to address the area of interest.

(3) Reasonableness of the proposed schedule.

(4) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed project cost.

a. Note: If value is over $100M but not $500M use the following: “(4) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed project cost, and use of the authority is essential to promoting the success of the prototype project.”

OR

If value is over $500M use the following: “(4) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed project cost, and use of the authority is essential to meet critical national security objectives.”

(5) Demonstration that the proposed solution meets the definition of a prototype project as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 4022(e)(5). This should be clearly articulated by the respondent.

(6) Potential impacts of the proposed data rights assertions.

If a project solution is determined not to meet one of the criteria above, it will not be evaluated for the remaining Phase II criteria and will be declined for further consideration of an award. The Government may, at its sole discretion, decline further consideration of a project solution if it:

· Does not adequately address the objectives of the AOI.

· Presents a technically unsound or infeasible approach.

· Proposes an unrealistic schedule.

· Proposes an unreasonable project cost.

· Does not meet the definition of a prototype project.

· Presents unacceptable data rights risks on the Government's ability to utilize and share the resulting technology.

· Is deemed not to be of interest to the Government.

Phase III[footnoteRef:1]: Based on the results of Phase II, the Government may invite selected respondents to participate in Phase III. Respondents will receive a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) that includes detailed instructions with required documentation, such as model terms and conditions (T&Cs) [footnoteRef:2], a Project Execution Plan (PEP) template, and a business status certification template. [1: The Government reserves the right to add/remove/revise evaluation criteria. The Government will also reserve the right to reject a submission and deem it ineligible for consideration if the response is incomplete and/or does not clearly provide the requested information. Acceptable responses not selected for the immediate award will be retained by the Government for possible future execution and funding. The non-selected proposals will be considered as viable alternatives for up to 12 months. If a proposal (that was not previously selected) is determined to be a suitable alternative, the selectee will be contacted to discuss any proposal updates and details of a subsequent project award.] [2: The attached model terms and conditions are generic and meant only as a starting point. Proposed terms and conditions may differ significantly.]

The Government will review Phase III against the criteria described in the RPP, focusing on the overall project solution, price reasonableness, and alignment with the Government's objectives. Following the Phase III review, the Government may enter into negotiations with selected company or companies. Negotiations may cover all aspects of the proposed solution, including technical approach, price, terms and conditions, the PEP, data rights, and business status. The resulting agreement will be based on the negotiated terms and conditions and will reflect the best interests of the Government.

Important Considerations:

· Flexibility: The Government retains maximum flexibility throughout this process. The Government may modify the evaluation criteria, request additional information, or terminate the process at any time.

· Broad Discretion: The Government has broad discretion in selecting, negotiating with, and awarding agreements. The Government's decision is final and not subject to appeal.

· No Guarantee of Award: Participation in this process does not guarantee that a respondent will be awarded an agreement.

· Best Value: The Government will make award decisions based on all relevant factors, including technical merit, cost, schedule, and the potential benefits to the Government.

POTENTIAL, ACTUAL, OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE:

The Government is committed to ensuring fairness, impartiality, and objectivity in its procurement processes. All respondents are required to disclose any potential, actual, or perceived organizational or personal conflicts of interest. This includes any financial interests, relationships, or other circumstances that could cast doubt on the respondent's ability to perform the proposed work with impartiality and without an unfair competitive advantage.

Definitions: The following definitions apply:

All respondents are required to provide a statement with their submission that:

(a) Affirms that they have read and understand this Conflict of Interest section.

(b) Discloses any potential, actual, or perceived conflicts of interest, as defined above. This disclosure must include a detailed description of the facts and circumstances of the conflict.

(c) If no conflict of interest exists, the statement shall affirmatively state so.

Failure to provide this disclosure may result in the rejection of your submission.

WHITE PAPER INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE:

White papers shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions described in this document. All submissions shall be in English. The following formatting guidelines shall be followed by respondents:

· A page is defined as one 8.5” x 11” (letter size) electronic page with 1” margins.

· The font shall be Times New Roman single-spaced and no smaller than 11-point font size.

· Note: A smaller font size may be used in figures and tables but must be legible.

· Pages shall be in portrait orientation, except for figures, graphs, images, and pictures.

· Figures and tables shall be numbered and, when referenced in the text, shall be referenced by that number. Figures and tables shall be of a size that is easily readable and may be in landscape orientation.

· Pages shall be numbered sequentially and Parts shall start on new pages.

· All white paper documents shall be submitted as one PDF file.

No classified information shall be submitted with the proposal. All information that is considered a trade secret or proprietary information shall be marked as such.

NOTE: All submissions will be treated as “source selection information” as defined by 41 U.S.C. § 2101(7) and will be protected in accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 2101 and 41 U.S.C. § 2102. During the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by Government support contractors who may have access to this information for the purposes of administrative support and/or evaluation(s). Each evaluator will be required to complete a nondisclosure agreement and certify they have no conflicts of interest that might affect the review process.

INTELLIGENCE RESOURCE EXECUTION AND OVERSIGHT (PROJECT ARGUS)

REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS

HQ0034279R001

PART I: TABLE OF CONTENTS (LIMIT: NO PAGE LIMIT)

PART II: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (LIMIT: NO PAGE LIMIT)

Respondents shall submit a full list of anticipated participants (to include: (1) each person anticipated to support the proposed solution (listed with their name and current institutions/organization), and (2) all institutions, organizations, laboratories, etc. anticipated to provide support).

PART III: CONFLICT OF INTEREST (LIMIT: NO PAGE LIMIT)

Respondents shall provide the information required in the Potential, Actual, or Perceived Conflicts of Interest Disclosure section above.

PART IV: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (LIMIT: 4 PAGES)

Respondents shall submit an executive summary of the proposed solution.

Part A: Technology Concept. At a minimum, shall address:

· Describe the unique aspects of your technology and the proposed work as it relates to the AOI.

· Identify whether the effort includes the pilot or demonstration of existing commercial technology (identified as commercially ready and viable technology), or the development of technology for potential defense application.

· If development or adaptation is proposed, identify a suggested path to mature the technology. Identify aspects, which may be considered proprietary.

Part B: Company Viability. At a minimum, shall address:

· Provide a brief overview of the company.

· Provide a summary of current fundraising to date or a summary of the top line (gross sales/revenues).

· Provide a summary of product commercialization and go-to-market strategy.

Part C: Expertise. At a minimum, shall address:

· Overall experience and expertise as it relates to the AOI.

· Significant participants and their contributions.

Part D: Other: At a minimum, shall address:

· If applicable, sustainment of Legacy BIRD system.

· Capability to provide on-site sustainment of new system for 12 months.

· Other issues not addressed above that may be relevant to the proposed solution.

PART V: SCHEDULE (LIMIT: 1 PAGE)

Respondents shall provide a notional schedule indicating key milestones for execution of the proposed solution with rough order of magnitude (ROM) pricing. Detailed price information is not required during Phase I.