Request for Information_Combat Coder.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

COMBAT CODER PROGRAM

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

DESCRIPTION:

This Performance Work Statement (PWS) describes the services required to provide a dedicated, contractor-operated software engineering team to design, engineer, test, integrate, deploy, and sustain software capabilities for the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) enterprise. The primary objective is the continuous delivery of secure, high-quality, and mission-effective software that rapidly responds to emerging DCGS enterprise intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements. The preponderance of work will be performed at Government facilities located primarily at Langley Air Force Base (AFB), VA; McConnell AFB, MO; and Beale AFB, CA, with potential travel to other CONUS and OCONUS locations.

To achieve this, the contractor shall operate within a DevSecOps framework and perform full software development life cycle (SDLC) support—spanning planning, analysis, design, testing, delivery, and sustainment. The contractor shall adhere strictly to iterative Agile methodologies (e.g., Scrum, Kanban) for all development efforts, tracking all user stories and documentation in a government-provided repository. The goal is to deliver tested and integrated software code increments at the end of each sprint.

An essential component of this effort is the use of authorized government platforms and repositories. All source code, configuration files, and deployment scripts shall be maintained in the government-provided GitLab repository. Development will occur on platforms including, but not limited to, Maven Smart Systems, ArcGIS, Dagster, and Apache Airflow. Code must undergo peer-reviewed Merge Requests and pass automated pipeline checks to ensure zero new critical or high vulnerabilities, with a minimum of 80% unit test coverage for all new code.

The contractor will also be responsible for 24/7 software sustainment and incident response for the DCGS production environment. All personnel are required to possess a DoD 8570 IAT Level II certification and maintain an active Top Secret/SCI security clearance. No trainee-level personnel will be accepted. All tasks will be directed by individual Task Descriptions (TD) issued under an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

This RFI is issued solely for informational and planning purposes; it does not constitute a RFP or a promise to issue a RFP in the future. The Government is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondees are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party’s expense.

RESPONSES:

Responses to the Capability Survey Part I and Part II must be received no later than 4:00 PM EST, 16 July 2026. Please ensure data is in a readable electronic format that can be received through a firewall. Attachments shall not exceed 10MB per email. Multiple emails are acceptable. Responses must be sent via email to the following:

· Samantha Taylor, Procuring Contracting Officer (samantha.taylor.12@us.af.mil)

· Mathew McGhee, Contract Specialist (mathew.mcghee.3@us.af.mil) Part I. Business Information

Please provide the following business information for your company/institution and for any teaming or joint venture partners:

· Company/Institute Name:

· Address:

· Point of Contact:

· CAGE Code:

· Phone Number:

· E-mail Address:

· Web Page URL:

· Government Proposed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 541330 Based on the Government proposed NAICS Code, state whether your company is:

· A statement as to whether your company is domestically or foreign owned (if foreign, please indicate the country of ownership).

Part II. Capability Survey Questions

Please review the draft PWS and provide responses to the following questions:

1. Provide company literature or other such documentation that verifies your capability to perform a contract/task order for the services listed in the draft PWS.

2. Provide a brief summary of any relevant previous experience your company has in performing similar requirements as identified in the draft PWS.

3. Does your company have the capability to perform all required services in the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS)?

4. Does your company have similar or previous experience with the type of work outlined in the draft PWS?

5. Does the draft PWS contain sufficient information that would enable you to adequately respond to an Request for Proposal (RFP)?

6. Does your company currently employ individuals with Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance level? If so, how many?

7. Has your company or does your company hold a Top Secret facility clearance?

8. Please demonstrate your company’s understanding and experience with managing contracts requiring Department of Defense related regulations as would be required for this effort.

9. Please demonstrate your company’s understanding and experience with managing contracts requiring Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) regulations as would be required for this effort.

10. If obligated to use an approved Accountable Property System of Record (APSR) (e.g. GOLDesp, eQuip, DPAS, ALMSS) other than your preferred, what are the principal challenges you would anticipate in transition or have experienced previously?

11. Which is your preferred APSR? Provide an explanation as to why it is your preferred, if willing/able.

12. If given the opportunity, would your company be interested in submitting a proposal in response to an RFP issued for this requirement?

13. Provide any additional information that you think may be relevant for consideration.

Part III. Cost-Sharing Questions Please review the draft PWS and provide responses to the following:

14. In an IDIQ contract with a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) structure, the Government requires a stable and equitable cost-sharing model for on/off ramping stakeholders throughout the contracts performance period. This involves multiple stakeholders with similar but varying needs (e.g., differing quantities/volumes). Given the FFP constraint, what internal cost-sharing practices or agreements have you found effective, or can envision working, to ensure fairness and predictability amongst the stakeholders? Please share any relevant experiences or examples, particularly those addressing fluctuating demand, uneven stakeholder participation, and mechanisms for adjusting cost allocations within the fixed price.

15. What methodologies does your company recommend for establishing a fair and equitable cost-sharing model among multiple stakeholders with varying needs?

16. How do you establish a baseline for cost allocation in a multi-stakeholder environment?

17. How do you ensure that the cost-sharing model remains stable and predictable over the entire contract performance period?

18. How would you structure a cost model for on-boarding/off-boarding of stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition and fair reallocation of costs?

19. What are the financial implications of on-boarding/off-boarding, and how would you propose to manage them?

20. How would you structure a cost model to account for the differing quantities and volume of services required by each stakeholder?

21. What is your approach to allocating fixed versus variable costs among stakeholders?

22. How would you handle situation(s) where a stakeholder may need to make a significant change during the contracts performance period?

23. What are the best practices for administering and managing a complex cost-sharing model?

24. Please provide examples of successful cost-sharing models you have implemented for similar government or commercial contracts.

25. What are key lessons learned from your past experiences with multi-stakeholder cost-sharing models?

26. What are the most common challenges in implementing and managing cost-sharing models, and how would you mitigate them?

27. Provide any additional information that you think may be relevant for consideration.

image1.png