P02 RFI 36C10B26Q0708 Lifestage v2.pdf

Department of Veterans Affairs

Request for Information

Lifestage Benefits Optimization

Introduction

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued for the purpose of conducting market research.

Accordingly, this RFI constitutes neither a Request for Proposal (RFP) nor a guarantee that one will be issued by the Government in the future. Furthermore, it does not commit the

Government to contract for any services described herein. Do not submit a Proposal. The

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not, at this time, seeking proposals or quotes, and therefore, will not accept, review, or evaluate unsolicited proposals or quotes received in response hereto. This notice is not to be construed as a commitment on the part of the

Government to award a contract, nor does the Government intend to pay for any information submitted as a result of this request. The Government does not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with submission of the information being requested or, reimburse expenses incurred for responses to this RFI. The information provided may be used by VA in developing its acquisition strategy and Product Description/Performance Work Statement. Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary; however, any information received shall become the property of the Government and will not be returned to the respondent.

Interested parties are responsible for adequately marking proprietary, restricted or competition sensitive information contained in their response. This is a request for information and does not obligate the Government in any way, nor does it commit the Government to any specific course of action.

Background/Scope:

In 2017, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of the Chief Technology Officer

(OCTO) partnered with VA Central Office and all three VA Administrations to identify a vision statement for enhancing VA’s digital presence for Veterans. That vision is known as the Digital

Modernization Vision and is supported by a group of VA executives known as the Digital

Modernization Council. This council is chaired by the CTO.

VA Digital Modernization Vision defined in July 2017:

VA will deliver self-service tools on par with top private sector companies and will have the best online experience in the Federal Government. Every digital service will be customized to the individual using it. Interacting with VA digital services will feel like navigating TurboTax, not filling out a form.

The work directly supports benefits claims and data intake on Veteran-facing digital platforms.

The overarching goals of this work are:

1. Reduce the average time to completion of benefits claims

2. Increase customer satisfaction

3. Increase the quality and reliability of VA services

VA's Benefits Portfolio encompasses a complex ecosystem of digital products that serve Veterans, Caregivers, Service members, their dependents, and survivors throughout the entirety of their benefits lifecycle—from initial application, through claim status tracking, to decision review and ongoing benefits management. While VA has made significant progress in digitizing these experiences, VA seeks to make substantial improvements in three areas: (1) forms updates and usability improvements, (2) benefits data intake and automation, and (3) document services (real-time data validation and third-party routing). The work encompassed in this requirement covers existing products and potential new modernization initiatives.

NO MARKETING MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED AS PART OF THIS RFI.

See attached DRAFT PWS for specific requirements.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Vendor Responses:

Please provide the following information by 3:00 PM Eastern Time on August 10, 2026 via email to Contract Specialist (CS) James Morgan, at james.morgan10@va.gov and Contracting

Officer (CO) John Fields, at john.fields3@va.gov. Please note “RFI 36C10B26Q0708 in the subject line of your response. Mark your response as “Proprietary Information” if the information is considered business sensitive. VA reserves the right to respond to any, all, or no respondents. All VA current requirements identified herein are subject to change at any time. If you have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact the CS and CO. VA appreciates your time and anticipated response.

Please provide the following in your response:

• Vendor name and POC information

• SAM Unique Entity ID

• Business size standard under NAICS Code **541519 (Large, Small, SDVOSB, WOSB, etc.) **NOTE: If you don’t think the assigned NAICS code is appropriate for this requirement, please provide your suggested NAICS code and rationale for using it.

• List any federal contracts in which you are a prime contract holder and this effort is within scope of (e.g. GSA, NASA, SEWP, etc.)

• Provide your suggestion for the best contract vehicle for this effort.

In addition, please provide the following information, limited to 10 pages:

1. Draft PWS Sufficiency. Has the draft PWS provided sufficient detail to describe the technical requirements that are detailed in the PWS. If “NO”, please provide your mailto:james.morgan10@va.gov mailto:john.fields3@va.gov technical comments/recommendations on elements of the draft PWS that may contribute to a more accurate proposal submission and efficient, cost effective effort.

2. Firm Fixed Pricing and Payment Milestones. Work under this contract is priced as firm-fixed-price (FFP) for outcomes or deliverables tied, as much as practicable, to meeting the performance expectations and objectives defined in the PWS, rather than priced by iteration. The Contractor proposes a schedule of payment milestones to break the outcomes or deliverables into incremental payments. How would you recommend structuring payment milestones per period of performance? What basis for those milestones (for example, time-based, performance-based, deliverable-based, or a combination) would best balance predictable cash flow for the Contractor with meaningful accountability for the Government?

3. Optional Task Milestone Pricing. Optional tasks are priced on a firm-fixed-price lot basis, with milestone plans and pricing proposed by the Contractor and negotiated with the Government at the time of task activation rather than at contract award. For optional tasks, how would you recommend structuring milestones and milestone payments to fairly balance risk between the Government and the Contractor? What information would you need from the Government at the time of task activation to develop accurate milestone pricing efficiently?

4. SLO Penalty Structure. Given the scope of the PWS, how might a payment reduction mechanism be used to ensure accountability to service-level objectives under a FFP for outcomes, milestone-payment structure? What kind of payment reduction schedule might be applied when the Contractor fails to meet defined SLOs for (examples such as service reachability, availability, and added latency), assessed against milestone payments. What feedback do you have on this approach? Would you recommend an alternative mechanism for ensuring accountability to service-level objectives under a lot-based, milestone-payment structure?

5. AI and Team Efficiency. What assumptions about AI-driven productivity should the

Government consider when evaluating staffing plans and pricing for this effort? How is your organization currently using AI tools in software delivery, and what measurable effect has this had on team output or composition? How would you recommend the

Government distinguish between proposals reflecting genuine AI-enabled efficiency and proposals that understate the staffing required to operate a system of this scale and criticality?

6. Evaluation Approach. The Government intends to evaluate this using a coding challenge. What feedback do you have on the use of a coding challenge as an evaluation method for this type of effort? Are there other show-me-don’t-tell-me approaches should the Government consider for this procurement?

7. Human-Centered Design. Describe one project where user research changed the direction of a digital service — specifically, what did you plan to build, what did you learn from users that changed it, and what did you build instead? Include the research method used and roughly how many participants.

8. Human-Centered Design. Describe a time your research or usability findings conflicted with what the government program office wanted to build. What did you do?

9. Human-Centered Design. How do you recruit research participants to ensure you're capturing people with low digital literacy, limited English proficiency, or disabilities — and how has that changed a design decision? How do you approach user research with people who use disabilities differently from studies that don't include this audience?

10. Human-Centered Design. Who conducts your user research (in-house researchers vs.

designers doing double duty vs. subcontracted), and how many research hours were budgeted on your two most recent projects of similar size to this one?

11. Human-Centered Design. Provide a link or screenshot of a research artifact (e.g., a journey map, service blueprint, findings report, or usability test summary) from a completed project, redacted as needed for confidentiality.

12. Additional Questions and Considerations. Please share any additional feedback, questions, risks, or recommendations regarding the draft PWS, the proposed contract structure, or the acquisition approach that would help the Government refine its requirements and strategy prior to solicitation.