RFI_NAWCAD Acquisition Strategy.pdf

A. PURPOSE AND INTENT

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Chief Resource Office (CRO) is undertaking a review of its service acquisition requirements. Our objective is to develop a forward-looking, 5-year acquisition plan focused on delivering capability to the fleet at greater speed and with increased efficiency. This initiative will re-examine our approach to all FAR- Based service requirements across the NAWCAD enterprise.

NAWCAD is not seeking mere inputs; we are requesting your expert recommendations to help us shape a more effective and efficient acquisition environment. Your insights and expertise are critical to our joint success and the government/industry collaboration focused on building an acquisition ecosystem that prioritizes speed, agility, and performance outcomes to maximize our shared mission of supporting the warfighter.

Based on the responses to the RFI, NAWCAD may invite some industry to have a reverse pitch brief to the NAWCAD acquisition workforce on their recommendations. Selected organizations would be invited to brief in-person later this Fiscal Year (FY).

B. RECOMMENDATION TOPIC 1: OPTIMIZING OUTCOME-BASED CONTRACTING

Intent: Our goal is to align industry incentives directly with warfighter needs, rewarding superior performance and innovation. We are seeking recommendations on how to best structure these arrangements to ensure clarity, achieve meaningful results, and drive exceptional vendor performance.

Request for Actionable Recommendations:

1. When establishing outcome-based contracts (inclusive of, but not limited to, FFP, and FPIF structures), what specific and measurable performance criteria should the Government prioritize to most effectively incentivize desired outcomes?

2. Beyond specific contract types, what other strategic elements or contracting approaches should the Government consider to accelerate the delivery of capabilities to the warfighter?

3. For what types of requirements does industry feel this approach is appropriate or best suited? If available, please provide examples of similar requirements where this has been successful.

C. RECOMMENDATION TOPIC 2: REDUCING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

WORKLOAD

Intent: We are committed to reducing administrative burdens for both our industry partners and our Government teams. We are seeking to identify and eliminate systemic inefficiencies and believe Industry’s unique, cross-cutting view of the Command can help us identify patterns and redundancies that may not be apparent from within individual Command Departments.

Request for Actionable Recommendations:

1. From your perspective as an industry partner, what are the top 1-3 drivers of the Government's own internal contract administration workload? For each observation, please describe the perceived impact and suggest how the Government might approach its contracting and oversight strategy differently in the future.

To facilitate our analysis, please provide your response in the following format:

Observation of Government Inefficiency (e.g., duplicative contracts, uncoordinated data calls, non-value-added CDRLs)

Perceived Impact on the Command (e.g., increased Government/Industry workload, conflicting direction), diluted buying power.

Recommended Government Action (Propose a specific change to Government)

D. RECOMMENDATION TOPIC 3: ACCELERATING CONTRACT AWARD TIMELINES

AND REDUCING THE NUBMER PROTESTS

Intent: While progress has been made, the lead time for awarding service contracts is still not optimized. We are seeking to make fundamental changes that will yield the greatest possible reduction in PALT. We want to focus our efforts on where they will make the most difference in accelerating capability to the fleet while minimizing or eliminating our use of bridge contracts.

Request for Actionable Recommendations:

1. From your Industry perspective, if the Government could fix one major phase of the pre-award acquisition lifecycle to shorten the timeline, what would it be? For the single phase you identify, describe the primary drivers of delay and propose a specific, actionable solution or a new model for the Government to consider.

2. From an Industry perspective, what could the Government do to reduce the number of protests?

To facilitate our analysis, please provide your response in the following format:

PALT Reduction Opportunity (Identify the single most impactful acquisition phase)

Primary Drivers of Delay (Describe the specific activities or procedures causing the bottleneck)

Recommended 'To-Be' Model or Solution (Propose a specific change to Government process or structure)

E. RECOMMENDATION TOPIC 4: DRIVING COMPETITION

Intent: To ensure NAWCAD has access to the most innovative and cost-effective solutions, we aim to foster a robust and diverse industrial base. We are seeking recommendations on how to lower barriers to entry and structure our acquisitions to attract a wider range of industry partners, including non-traditional vendors and small businesses.

Request for Actionable Recommendations:

1. What are the most significant barriers that discourage or prevent non-traditional defense contractors or small businesses from competing for NAWCAD service contracts? What specific changes to our solicitation, evaluation, or communication processes would make it easier for new vendors to compete effectively?

2. How can NAWCAD structure its requirements and acquisition strategies to better leverage competition throughout the contract lifecycle (e.g., on-ramping for multi-award IDIQs)?

3. What innovative competitive procedures or models should NAWCAD consider to drive innovation, particularly for complex or novel service requirements?

F. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO INDUSTRY

Intent: As we design a more comprehensive Command-focused agile contracting plan, we want to remain cognizant of the potential impacts—both positive and negative—on our industry partners. Your stability and success are vital to our mission.

Request for Actionable Recommendations:

1. As the Government pursues an acquisition plan focused on speed, competition, performance-based outcomes, and reduced administrative requirements, are there any additional factors or potential unintended impacts to Industry or perceived barriers for the Government that we should be aware of?

2. From your perspective, how would industry define or characterize a Strategic Contract vehicle? Additionally, how would industry recommend the Command structure (type, size, pool sizes, duration) and utilize these vehicles? This includes the use of current Federal, Navy, NAVAIR, and NAWCAD specific multiple award contracts, competitive basic ordering agreements, blanket purchase agreements, etc.

3. Thoughts on faster evaluation methods – Highest Technically Rate Offer (HTRO) and Rack and Stack

All feedback will be considered anonymous for the purposes of reporting. Responses are requested by 19 June 2026 and are to be submitted via the following link:

https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/eTEFLNGCpp. For questions, please reach directly to Mr. Al Hensler at Alfred.w.hensler.civ@us.navy.mil.

https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/eTEFLNGCpp mailto:Alfred.w.hensler.civ@us.navy.mil