W911NF-18-S-0005-FY21-06.pdf

W911NF-18-S-0005-FY21-06

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE

REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS

BAA TOPIC A-8.c.5: IMPROVING UNIT PERFORMANCE AND COHESION IN

COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS

“The Development and Evaluation of a Guide for the Objective After-Action Review”

INTRODUCTION

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) W911NF-18-S-0005 is publicized on SAM.gov and Grants.gov.

This Sources Sought Notice calls for White Paper submissions in reference to the BAA Topic A-8.c.5:

IMPROVING UNIT PERFORMANCE AND COHESION IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS.

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@army.mil, and copy furnish (CC) the ARI Technical Point of Contact (TPOC), nathanael.l.keiser.civ@army.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 formal proposal under this Notice. This Notice requires that a White Paper be submitted electronically no later than 18 October 2021, 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 cost plus fixed fee 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@army.mil.

ARI Agency Point of Contact:

The ARI POC for technical matters for this White Paper topic is: Dr. Nathanael (Nate) Keiser, (254) 392- 8439, nathanael.l.keiser.civ@army.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: The Development and Evaluation of a Guide for the Objective After- Action Review

The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, was developed in the Army nearly half a century ago, and has since become an integral and ubiquitous part of Army culture (Bliss et al., 2011; Department of the Army, 1993; Meliza et al., 2007; Morrison & Meliza, 1999; Salter & Klein, 2007). The AAR process (i.e., action/event, feedback, reflection, and discussion) has remained unchanged since its inception and in the various industries and organizations in which it is now popularly applied (Allen et al., 2018; Keiser & Arthur, 2020; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013; Villado & Arthur, 2013). The practical advantages of the AAR as a quick and often effective training approach suggest that it will continue to be extensively used to train for the future battlefield. Indeed, Microsoft’s mixed-reality headset (Integrated Visual Augmentation System) is in development to be used in Army training and the operational environment, and will include the capability to conduct AARs.

There remain, however, a variety of unknowns about how the AAR is best designed and implemented to ensure that it is effective at preparing Soldiers to perform in the future operational environment, which will be characterized by an expanded battlespace across time, domains, geography, and actors, the convergence of capabilities through technology, and compression among strategic, operational, and tactical levels (Department of the Army, 2019). Fundamentally, the Army will face an increasingly complex battlefield. Relatedly, researchers have acknowledged that extant organizational training approaches do not align with recent changes to the fundamental nature of teams, including team fluidity and membership instability, multiple team membership, and the advent of and increasing reliance on multiteam systems, or “teams of teams” (Bell et al., 2017; Mathieu et al., 2017). There is considerable evidence to support the AAR as a broadly effective training approach at enhancing multiple training evaluation criteria (Keiser & Arthur, 2020; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). The AAR might be particularly adept at preparing Soldiers to effectively perform in response to challenges in the future battlefield, but its application will likely necessitate alterations that better align with the complexity that typifies this environment (Keiser & Arthur, 2020). Any such alterations necessitate an empirical assessment of its comparative effectiveness ultimately as a means of ensuring that the AAR remains an integral part of the training environment.

A specific consideration that is of considerable practical impact is the effective use of objective review media (e.g., video recording) and objective data. Technological advancements now allow for ready access to voluminous variety and amount of objective data in training, but there is little guidance about the appropriate type and use of these objective data in the AAR. The empirical research literature generally supports the objective versus the subjective AAR, but specifics about what objective review media to use and how to use those media are unknown (Keiser & Arthur, 2020). The purpose of this call for research proposals is to enhance the effectiveness of the AAR in training Soldiers for the future operational environment by developing a guide for the use of objective media and data, and empirically testing the comparative effectiveness of the AAR that follows this guide.

Proposals should directly address the following research questions:

1. What types of objective review media are used to track performance in training?

2. How is objective data from training used in the AAR?

3. What psychological mechanisms are pertinent to the type and use of objective review media and data in the AAR?

4. Does a guide for the use of objective review media and data in the AAR enhance its effectiveness?

The primary product from this research will be a training guide that provides specifics about how to best use objective review media and objective data in AARs. This training guide will leverage current frameworks of the AAR in the Army (Bliss et al., 2011; Department of the Army, 1993; Meliza et al., 2007; Morrison & Meliza, 1999; Salter & Klein, 2007), in combination with the academic literature on AARs and technology. Specifically, the first three research questions will be assessed based on a review of military doctrine and literature, the academic literature on AARs, training, and technology, and with input from Soldiers, leaders, and training SMEs via focus groups and interviews. The guide developed based on this work will be empirically tested using an experimental multigroup between-subjects field design (see Arthur & Day, 2020), wherein Army units will be randomly assigned to various control or treatment conditions (e.g., no AAR, objective AAR, subjective AAR) in a required training exercise (e.g., at a Medical Simulation Training Center) or field training exercise. The impetus for this research is to provide enhancements to the AAR that better train Soldiers for the future operational environment; thus, the performance task (i.e., training environment) is a central consideration in this research. Specifically, the training environment needs to envisage characteristics of the future operational environment to provide an accurate test of the proposed approach. For instance, the task might be a required training exercise or a field training exercise characterized, or altered to be characterized, by aspects of the future operational environment (e.g., ambiguous, multifaceted, dynamic, and time-sensitive; Department of the Army, 2018, 2019; Shuffler & Carter, 2018). Soldiers will be asked to complete various self-report measures prior to and following the training exercise, and performance in training will be examined based on typical performance metrics for the given task (e.g., speed, number of required performance steps met). The guide will be refined based on the results from this field study and with input from Army SMEs.

The award will be approximately a 30-month period of performance with an 8-month base period, 12-month first option period, and 12-month second option period, for a budget not to exceed $500,000.00.

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 submitting. 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 PAPERS:

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@army.mil, and cc’d to the ARI Point of Contact (POC), nathanael.l.keiser.civ@army.mil, in electronic MS Word document format or PDF file format. Cite “ARI BAA W911NF-18-S-0005-FY21-06, The Development and Evaluation of a Guide for the Objective After-Action Review” 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. Criterion (1) is most important; the other criteria are of equal importance to one another. 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-FY21-06, The Development and Evaluation of a Guide for the Objective After-Action Review” by e-mail no later than 5:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time on 18 October 2021 . Any extension to the White Paper submission deadline will be posted to SAM.gov 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 19 October 2021 and ending 18 November 2021. 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 email if the White Paper evaluation timeline is extended beyond 18 November 2021.

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@army.mil.

ARI Agency Point of Contact (Technical Questions):

The ARI POC for technical matters for this White Paper topic is: Dr. Nathanael (Nate) Keiser, (254) 392- 8439, nathanael.l.keiser.civ@army.mil.

VII. REFERENCES:

Allen, J. A., Reiter-Palmon, R., Crowe, J., & Scott, C. (2018). Debriefs: Teams learning from doing in context. American Psychologist, 73, 504-516.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Day, E. A. (2020). Skill decay: The science and practice of mitigating loss and enhancing retention. In P. Ward, J. M. Schraagen, J. Gore, & E. Roth (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of expertise: Research and application (pp. 1085-1108). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bell, B. S., Tannenbaum, S. I., Ford, J. K., Noe, R. A., & Kraiger, K. (2017). 100 years of training and development research: What we know and where we should go. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 305-323.

Bliss, J. P., Minnis, S. A., Wilkinson, J., Mastaglio, T., & Barnett, J. S. (2011). Establishing an intellectual and theoretical foundation for the after action review process – A literature review (ARI Technical Report). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Department of the Army (1993). A leaders guide to after-action reviews (Training Circular 25–20), Washington, DC.

Department of the Army (2018). The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028. TRADOC Pamphlet

525-3-1, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Fort Eustis, VA.

Department of the Army (2019). The Operational Environment and the Changing Character of Warfare.

TRADOC Pamphlet 525-92, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Fort Eustis, VA.

Keiser, N. L., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2020). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence to its effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000821

Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 452-467.

Meliza, L. L., Goldberg, S. L., & Lampton, D. R. (2007). After action review in simulation-based training

Morrison, J. E., & Meliza, L. L. (1999). Foundations of the after action review process (ARI Special

Report 42). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Salter, M. S., & Klein, G. E. (2007). After action reviews: Current observations and recommendations

Shuffler, M. L., & Carter, D. R. (2018). Teamwork situated in multiteam systems: Key lessons learned and future opportunities. American Psychologist, 73, 390-406.

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231-245.

Villado, A. J., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 514-528.