W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-04- Thinking in Time.pdf

W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-04

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE

REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS

BAA TOPIC A-8.b.1: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

“Thinking-In-Time: Methods to Develop and Assess Skill in Applying Historical and Contemporary Contexts to Shape Future Scenarios”

INTRODUCTION

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) W911NF-18-S-0005 was publicized on https://beta.sam.gov (beta.SAM) and https://www.grants.gov (Grants.gov) on 30 April 2018 and is open through 29 April 2023. This Sources Sought Notice calls for White Paper submissions in reference to the BAA Topic A- 8.b.1: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP. The United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Broad Agency announcement W911NF-18-S-0005, issued under the provisions of paragraph 6.102(d)(2) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, provides for the competitive selection of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. A proposal submitted in response to this BAA and selected for award is considered to be the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of Public Law 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984," and subsequent amendments. Funding of research and development (R&D) within ARI areas of interest will be determined by funding constraints and priorities set during each budget cycle. Any award related to the submission of a White Paper and subsequent proposal requested by this notice is subject to funds availability and priorities. ARI may choose not to select any new award due to unavailability of funds or other factors.

The sequence of steps leading to an award is:

1) Request for White Paper initiated by ARI through this Sources Sought Notice

2) Submission of a timely White Paper no more than five pages in length to the POC for the U.S.

Army Contracting Command, maria.d.nelson.civ@mail.mil, and copy furnish (CC) the ARI Technical Point of Contact (TPOC), william.s.weyhrauch.civ@mail.mil

3) Written or telephonic feedback provided to the Offeror regarding the White Paper’s scientific merit and potential contributions to the Army mission as per established criteria presented in Part

III

4) If the White Paper merits it, a request of a formal proposal initiated by ARI

5) Submission of a timely, formal proposal

6) Evaluation of the formal proposal as per established criteria presented in Part III

7) Award for selected proposal based on availability of funds or other factors

This sequence allows earliest determination of the potential for funding and minimizes the labor and cost associated with submission of a proposal that has minimal probability of being selected for funding. Note that an interested Offeror must submit a White Paper electronically in order to be eligible to submit a proposal under this notice. This notice requires that a White Paper be submitted electronically no later than 14 September 2020, 5:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time. See Part V, Deadlines, for additional details. BAA W911NF-18-S-0005 allows several potential instrument types (e.g., contract, grant, cooperative agreement) to result from a successful proposal. For this notice, the intention of the Government is to award a contract.

THOSE SUBMITTING A WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL ARE CAUTIONED THAT ONLY A

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OR GRANTS OFFICER CAN OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT

THROUGH AWARD OF A LEGAL INSTRUMENT INVOLVING EXPENDITURE OF

GOVERNMENT FUNDS.

This BAA for a Requested White Paper consists of seven parts as follows:

Part I: Research and Development Interests of the Requested White Paper

Part II: Preparation and Submission

Part III: Evaluation Criteria

Part IV: Feedback

Part V: Deadlines

Part VI: Inquiries

Part VII: References

ACC (APG) RTP Agency Point of Contact:

The POC for the US Army Contracting Command (Aberdeen Proving Ground) Research Triangle Park Division is: Ms. Maria Nelson, (919) 541-4992, maria.d.nelson.civ@mail.mil.

ARI Agency Point of Contact:

The ARI POC for technical matters for this White Paper topic is: Dr. William Weyhrauch, (913) 684- 9795, william.s.weyhrauch.civ@mail.mil.

I. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS OF THE REQUESTED WHITE PAPER:

The United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences is the Army’s lead agency for the conduct of research, development, and analyses for the improvement of Army readiness and performance via research advances and applications of the behavioral and social sciences that address personnel, organization, training, and leader development issues. ARI contracts with educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and private industry for research and development (R&D) in different areas, including the areas specifically identified in Paragraph 8 of W911NF-18-S-0005. Efforts funded under this White Paper request will only include Applied Research and/or Advanced Technology Development.

Applied Research provides a systematic expansion and application of knowledge to design and develop useful strategies, techniques, methods, tests, or measures that provide the means to meet a recognized and specific Army need. Applied Research precedes system specific technology investigations or development, but it should have a high potential to transition into the Advanced Technology Development (ATD) Program.

The ARI ATD Program includes the development of technologies, components, or prototypes that can be tested in field experiments and/or simulated environments. Projects in this category have a direct relevance to identified military needs. These projects should demonstrate the general military utility or cost reduction potential of technology in the areas of personnel selection, assignment, and retention;

training strategies and techniques; leader education and development; performance measurement; and team and inter-organizational mission effectiveness. These projects should be focused on a more direct operational benefit and if successful, the technology should be available for transition.

WHITE PAPER TOPIC: Thinking-in-Time: Methods to develop and assess skill in applying historical and contemporary contexts to shape future scenarios

Thinking-in-Time is one of the competencies of strategic thinking identified in ARI’s Research Report 1995 (Sackett, Karrasch, Weyhrauch, & Goldman, 2016). Researchers at ARI, in ongoing work to develop a behavioral observation rubric for strategic thinking, identified at least four primary behaviors associated with the Thinking-in-Time competency: Explain historical and contemporary contexts;

Recognize patterns and trends; Forecast possible futures; Anticipate second- and third-order effects.

The phrase “thinking in time,” referencing skill in the study and application of history, was coined by historians Richard Neustadt and Ernest May in their book Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers (1986). As historians, the authors spend the bulk of Thinking in Time discussing historical cases that exemplify success or failure at thinking in time. However, in their concluding chapter, “Seeing Time as a Stream” (pp. 247-270), the authors identify three central components to the skill of Thinking-in-Time:

Recognizing the value of history in prediction o “recognition that the future has no place to come from but the past, hence the past has predictive value” (p. 251) Recognizing that history’s predictive value is determined by the unique features of the present o “what matters for the future in the present is departures from the past, alterations, changes, which prospectively or actually divert familiar flows from accustomed channels, thus affecting that predictive value and much else besides” (p. 251)

Iterative examination of past, present, and anticipated future changes in order to exert influence o “continuous comparison, an almost constant oscillation from present to future to past and back, heedful of prospective change, concerned to expedite, limit, guide, counter, or accept it as the fruits of such comparison suggest” (p. 251)

As a cognitive skill, the development of Thinking-in-Time begins with the knowledge of a process (perhaps tacit), followed by frequent practice in applications accompanied by feedback. Skills can emerge through experience with tasks requiring that skill, but expert performance also requires deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2006). Just as one cannot swiftly transition from having no experience playing baseball to becoming a highly sought-after professional player, one also cannot expect to effectively build Thinking-in-Time by tackling time-sensitive problems at work, with minimal or no formal developmental experience, while also producing effective task performance. In order to effectively deal with the high stakes and small margins for error typical of their operational duties, Army leaders need concentrated development opportunities targeted at their Thinking-in-Time skill.

Organizationally, the Army’s mission to optimize its talent management (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2016; U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, 2015) requires valid and informative measurement tools for the cognitive talents (i.e., skills and abilities) of its Soldiers, particularly mid-grade to emerging senior leaders whose roles entail greater levels of forecasting the requirements of future scenarios.

The requested research will develop a method for on-the-job skill development in Thinking-in-Time and/or a measure of effective engagement in Thinking-in-Time among mid-grade to emerging senior leaders in the U.S. Army. Although skill in Thinking-in-Time may be inextricable from a particular context, the ideal method and/or measure would be flexible enough to adapt across echelons of leadership and levels of factual knowledge about a given context. The desired method and/or measure will focus on the skillful application of a cognitive process, with the process as the foreground and any necessary context minimized as much as possible.

A good White Paper will succinctly and compellingly describe a vision of a method and/or measure of Thinking-in-Time. The White Paper should be well-informed by the principles of historical thinking (e.g., Seixas & Peck, 2004; Smith, 2017), applied history (e.g., Theilin, 1982; Stearns & Tarr, 1987) and futuring (e.g., Millett, 2011a, 2011b). The White Paper should communicate an understanding that Thinking-in-Time requires skillful engagement with current events as they are situated in time, emerging from and informed by the past, but with the goal of anticipating the range and probability of future events.

To paraphrase the tenets of the work of Neustadt and May (1986): Thinking-in-Time is rooted in leveraging the predictive value of history against the unique characteristics of the present, never focusing too long on either an understanding of the past or fixation on the present.

OBJECTIVES:

In order to meet the research objectives under this request:

1) The Offeror shall describe the methods that they will use to answer the following questions:

a. What do we need to know about Thinking-in-Time?

b. What is required to be skillful at Thinking-in-Time?

c. What Army leadership roles and assignments require Thinking-in-Time?

d. What are the observable indicators of skillful Thinking-in-Time?

e. How is Thinking-in-Time developed?

f. What aspects of Thinking-in-Time are most amenable to development?

A successful White Paper in response to this request shall have compelling descriptions and explanations of how the above questions will be answered:

a. In the military

b. With diverse resources

c. By collecting scientific data.

2) The Offeror shall describe an innovative measure to assess and/or a method to develop Thinking-in-Time. The measure may take the form of one or several of the following options:

a. Behavioral indicators

b. Dispositions or mindsets

c. Factual proficiency

d. Performance expectations

e. Capacity for Thinking-in-Time

f. Other – an option that cannot be categorized under any of the previously listed options but can be part of, or by itself, an innovative measure to assess Thinking-in-Time

A successful White Paper shall have compelling descriptions and explanations of how the recommended innovative measure will:

a. Consider findings from the preceding objective

b. Not rely solely on self-reports

c. Accommodate different Army personnel levels

d. Account for how Thinking-in-Time can be observed as a planning process or as a finished product

e. Be formulated in coordination with the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

3) The Offeror shall describe how they will ensure that the recommended development method and/or measure for assessing Thinking-in-Time will be:

a. Comprehensive

b. Divergent – Thinking-in-Time is a skill relevant to various disciplines that may not be directly related to the military, such as business, arts, biology, philosophy, anthropology, etc. Those skilled at Thinking-in-Time should be able to generalize their skill across problems in diverse contexts, and the recommended method or measure should be able to capture this diversity.

c. Convergent – Army leaders should be able to harness their own Thinking-in-Time skill to efficiently anticipate the range and probability of future scenarios for the purpose of constructing effective solutions to real-life military problems. The recommended method or measure should be able to capture this skill in using Thinking-in-Time to contribute to military problems.

A successful White Paper shall have compelling descriptions and explanations of how the above points will be addressed using scientific data.

4) The Offeror shall describe how the recommended development method or measure for assessing Thinking-in-Time will have face validity with a military audience, especially with personnel who specialize in teaching applied history and planning to Army leaders, as well as to operational-level leaders who assign future-oriented tasks as job duties. A successful White Paper shall have compelling descriptions and explanations of how the above objective can be fulfilled using empirical data.

5) If developing a measure of Thinking-in-Time, the Offeror shall describe how they will gauge the measure’s

a. construct validity

b. convergent validity

c. discriminant validity

d. other relevant aspects of validity

In particular, the relationship of Thinking-in-Time with the other competencies of strategic thinking is of interest, namely: comprehensive information gathering, innovative thinking, critical thinking, action learning, and systems thinking (Sackett et al., 2016). A successful White Paper shall have compelling descriptions and explanations of how this objective can be fulfilled using empirical data.

6) The Offeror shall describe how the measure will be refined in order to improve the different types of validities listed in the preceding objective. A successful White Paper shall have compelling descriptions and explanations of how this objective can be fulfilled using empirical data.

The award will be approximately for a 24-month period of performance with a budget not to exceed $800,000.00.

The Army Contracting Command- Aberdeen Proving Ground, RTP Division has the authority to award a variety of instruments, to include contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. The ACC (APG) RTP Division reserves the right to use the type of instrument most appropriate for the effort proposed.

II. PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A WHITE PAPER:

Preparation of White Paper

A White Paper should focus on describing details of the proposed research for both the base and option approach, including how it is innovative and how it could substantially advance the state of the science.

Army relevance and potential impact should also be described, as well as an estimate of total cost for both the base and option approach. White Papers should present the effort in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of the concept's technical merit and its potential contributions to the Army mission.

A White Paper must be limited to five (5) pages plus the cover page and an addendum in which the Offeror must include a biographical sketch (up to 300 words per individual) of all key personnel (i.e., Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators) who will perform the research, highlighting their qualifications and experience as discussed below. All files and forms must be compiled into a single PDF file or MS Word document before submittal. Reviewers will be advised that they are only to review the cover page and up to five pages plus the addendum. Any pages submitted in excess of the five (5) page limit will not be reviewed or evaluated.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR A WHITE PAPER:

1. Technical Approach: A detailed discussion of the effort's scientific research objectives, approach, relationship to similar research, level of effort, and estimated total cost; include the nature and extent of the anticipated results, and if known, the manner in which the work will contribute to the accomplishment of the Army's mission related to this request and how this would be demonstrated.

2. Requests for Government Support: The type of support, if any, that the Offeror requests of the Government (such as facilities, equipment, demonstration sites, test ranges, software, personnel or materials) shall be identified as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Information (GFI), Government Furnished Property (GFP), or Government Furnished Data (GFD). Offeror shall indicate any Government coordination that may be required for obtaining equipment or facilities necessary to perform any simulations or exercises that would demonstrate the proposed capability.

3. Key Personnel Biographical Information: As an addendum to the White Paper, the Offeror must include a biographical sketch (up to 300 words per individual) of all key personnel (i.e., Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators) who will perform the research, highlighting their qualifications and experience.

RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS ON WHITE PAPERS:

1. The Offeror must identify any proprietary data the Offeror intends to be used only by the Government. The Offeror must also identify any technical data or computer software contained in the White Paper that is to be treated by the Government as limited rights or restricted rights respectively. In the absence of such identification, the Government will assume to have unlimited rights to all technical data or computer software presented in the White Paper. Records or data bearing a restrictive legend may be included in the White Paper, but must be clearly marked. It is the intent of the Army to treat all White Papers as procurement sensitive information before the award and to disclose their contents only to Government employees or designated support contractors for the purpose of procurement related activities only. Classified, sensitive, or critical information on technologies should not be included in a White Paper.

2. An Offeror is cautioned that portions of White Papers may be subject to release under terms of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.

Submission of White Paper

White Papers must be submitted by e-mail to the POC for the U.S. Army Contracting Command, maria.d.nelson.civ@mail.mil, and cc’d to the ARI Point of Contact (POC), william.s.weyhrauch.civ@mail.mil, in electronic MS Word document format or PDF file format. Cite ‘ARI BAA W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-04, Thinking-in-Time: Methods to develop and assess skill in applying historical and contemporary contexts to shape future scenarios’ in the e-mail subject line.

III. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

A White Papers and proposals received in response to this request will be evaluated by the ARI designated point of contact identified in this request using the following factors/criteria:

1. Overall scientific and/or technical merits of the proposed research: The Offeror must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the research problem and articulate a clear approach to addressing the research objectives. The proposed approach must be based on feasible and realistic scientific methods and provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion within proposed timeline.

2. Potential contributions of the effort to the U.S. Army Research Institute’s mission: In addition to showing how the proposed research aligns with the solicited topic, the Offeror must also specify how the proposed research will contribute to or advance the current U.S. Army Research Institute’s behavioral and social science research mission.

3. The Offeror’s capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques or unique combination of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposed research objectives: the Offeror must demonstrate relevant organizational capabilities [e.g., experience, facilities, techniques] beyond individual capability to ensure the proposed research objectives can be achieved by the organization as a whole.

4. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed Principal Investigator and other key personnel who are critical to the achievement of the proposed research objectives: The Offeror must demonstrate that the key personnel have the education and experience necessary to successfully complete the research objectives. Personnel capabilities need to be aligned with the expertise needed to achieve the required research objectives.

5. The Offeror’s record of past performance: Past performance information obtained from the Offeror’s White Paper, centralized past performance databases, and other sources will be used to evaluate past performance on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to determine timely compliance with Government specifications. For an Offeror with no relevant past performance, the Government may take into account information regarding the past performance of predecessor companies, subcontractors, or proposed personnel that will perform key aspects of the proposed research.

6. Realism, affordability, and appropriateness of proposed costs: The Offeror must demonstrate that the proposed costs are appropriate given the suggested research approach. The Government will also evaluate the proposed costs in relation to the scope of the research objectives and the U.S. Army Research Institute’s budget.

7. Current and/or future relationship or interface with ongoing activities in academia and/or industry: The Offeror must demonstrate how the research findings and/or products could inform current or future scientific research, impact industry, and/or meet Army needs and goals.

The request for a proposal will be made based on the overall evaluation of a White Paper using the seven criteria listed above. The overall scientific and/or technical merit of the proposed approach will be weighted more strongly than all of the other factors combined. A request for proposal may not necessarily be made to the lowest proposed price. During the evaluation of White Papers, ARI’s POC for technical matters may request a discussion with an Offeror, but discussions are not guaranteed nor required for competition and award purposes. ARI’s POC for technical matters reserves the right to evaluate a White Paper and request a proposal without discussions The Offeror’s initial submission should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. Once a proposal has been requested, all communications must go through the POC for the U.S. Army Contracting Command.

If the White Paper evaluation results in the request and submission of a proposal, the proposal will be evaluated by a panel of scientific peers using the same factors/criteria as those listed above under Evaluation Criteria. A request for a proposal does not guarantee an award. The decision to award will be based on feedback from the panel, considerations presented by ARI’s POC for technical matters identified in this document, and other factors like budgetary constraints. ARI may choose not to select any award due to unavailability of funds or other factors.

IV. FEEDBACK:

Written or telephonic feedback will be provided to the Offeror regarding the White Paper’s scientific merit and potential contributions to the Army mission. If the Government decides to request a proposal, a written request will be sent to the Offeror. The written request will, at a minimum, invite a proposal. The request may also include feedback intended to improve the proposal’s potential for award.

V. DEADLINES:

Electronic versions of the White Paper must be received by the POC for the U.S. Army Contracting Command and the ARI POC, with e-mail subject line ‘ARI BAA W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-04, Thinking-in-Time: Methods to develop and assess skill in applying historical and contemporary contexts to shape future scenarios’ by e-mail no later than 5:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time on 14 September 2020. Any extension to the White Paper submission deadline will be posted to beta.SAM as an amendment to this notice. Note that a timely White Paper received under this notice will be evaluated and considered for proposal requests throughout the period beginning 14 September 2020, and ending 15 October 2020. An extension of this timeline may be granted based on the number of White Papers submitted or other factors out of the control of the designated point of contact reviewing the White Papers. An Offeror will be notified by e-mail if the White Paper evaluation timeline is extended beyond 15 October 2020.

Instructions for the submission of a proposal will be provided by the U.S. Army Contracting Command to an Offeror invited to submit based on the evaluation of their White Paper.

An Offeror is responsible for submitting an electronic White Paper or proposal so as to be received and accepted at the Government site indicated in this notice no later than the date and time specified above.

When sending electronic files, an Offeror shall account for potential delays in file transfer from the originator’s computer to the Government website/computer server. An Offeror is encouraged to submit their response early to avoid potential file transfer delays due to high demand or problems encountered in the course of submission.

An Offeror should receive confirmation of delivery at the Government site, not just successful relay from the Offeror’s system. Acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the Government site includes documentary and electronic evidence of receipt maintained by the Government site. All submissions shall be submitted before the deadline identified above in order to be considered – no exceptions.

If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that a White Paper or proposal cannot be received at the site designated for receipt by the date and time specified above, then the date and time specified for receipt will be deemed to be extended to the same day and time specified in this notice on the first work day on which normal Government processes resume.

An Offeror agrees to hold the terms of their White Paper and any subsequent proposal valid for 180 calendar days from the date of submission.

VI. INQUIRIES:

ACC (APG) RTP Agency Point of Contact (Contractual Questions)

The POC for the US Army Contracting Command (Aberdeen Proving Ground) Research Triangle Park Division is: Ms. Maria Nelson, (919) 541-4992, maria.d.nelson.civ@mail.mil.

ARI Agency Point of Contact (Technical Questions)

The ARI POC for technical matters for this White Paper topic is: Dr. William Weyhrauch, (913) 702- 4442, william.s.weyhrauch.civ@mail.mil.

VII. REFERENCES:

Ericsson, A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R.

Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685- 706). Cambridge University Press

Headquarters, Department of the Army (2016). U.S. Army talent management strategy: Force 2025 and beyond. Author.

Millett, S. M. (2011a). Five principles of futuring as applied history. Futurist, 45(5)

Millett, S. M. (2011b). Managing the future: A guide to forecasting and strategic planning in the 21st century. Triarchy Press.

Neustadt, R. E. & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision-makers.

The Free Press.

Sackett, A. S., Karrasch, A. I., Weyhrauch, W. S., & Goldman, E. F. (2016). Enhancing the strategic capability of the Army: An investigation of strategic thinking tasks, skills, and development (Research Report 1995). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. AD1006147.

Seixas, P., & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking. In A. Sears & I. Wright (Eds.), Challenges and Prospects for Canadian Social Studies (pp. 109-117). Pacific Educational Press.

Smith, M. D. (2017). Cognitive validity: Can multiple-choice items tap historical thinking processes. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1256–1287. Doi:

10.3102/0002831217717949

Theilin, J. R. (1982). Higher education and its useful past: Applied history in research and planning. Schenkman Publishing Company.

Stearns, P. N. & Tarr, J. A. (1987). Curriculum in applied history: Toward the future. The Public Historian, 9(3), 111-125.

U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (2015). Talent management concept of operations for force 2025 and beyond. Author.