Answers to Questions for CSL Academic and Analytical Wargame Development FY26-30 Solicitation.pdf

Questions Re: Solicitation W91QF026QA006 - CSL Academic and Analytical Wargame

Development FY26-30

Offers are due on 28 April 2026 at 8:00 AM EDT.A new quote template has been attached to the solicitation.

This is a new requirement. There is no incumbent.

1. Can the Government clarify whether it anticipates these efforts to be performed by one multi-functional individual, or if the requirement is intended to be supported by two distinct personnel (e.g., separate resources for academic/educational support and analytical/graphic design services)?

The government anticipates the efforts under this contract to require two (2)

FTEs.

The FTEs for Graphic Design Services are 1920 hours.

The FTEs for Educational Support Services are 1920 hours.

These services shall be executed on a full-time basis and are not optional.

2. Government-Provided Wargaming Tools. Question:

Can the Government clarify what wargaming development tools, software, or analytical environments (if any) are provided for contractor use as part of this effort?

This includes, but is not limited to, digital collaboration tools, data analysis environments, modeling/simulation tools, or repositories beyond standard office productivity software.

Context: The PWS permits the use of physical or digital components but does not specify the tooling environment available to contractors. Understanding what capabilities are provided will help us align development approaches with existing CSL practices and infrastructure.

CSL primarily uses standard office productivity tools. There is another contractor who uses 3D image generation tools associated with the 3D printers he operates. He can create the required 3D imagery for work done under this contract.

3. Use of Contractor-Provided Digital Tools: Does the Government permit the use of contractor-provided digital tools (e.g., custom adjudication aids, analytic dashboards, scenario development or data-capture tools) during wargame design, execution, or analysis, provided that all outputs, data, and materials are delivered to the Government in accordance with contract data-rights and applicable security requirements?

Context: Clarification will assist us in determining whether internally developed tools may be used to support design efficiency and analytical rigor while ensuring full compliance with Government ownership and security requirements.

The Government does not allow the use of contractor-provided digital tools on government networks. If the contractor elects, at no cost to the Government, to use contractor provided tools (digital or otherwise) those tools will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure security requirements are maintained.

4. Preferred Balance Between Analog, Hybrid, and Digitally Assisted Wargames. Does the Government have a preferred balance between analog (tabletop/seminar), hybrid (analog with digital support), and digitally assisted approaches for academic versus analytical wargames? If available, can the Government provide examples of prior CSL or DSW wargames that reflect the desired approach?

Purpose/Context: While the PWS is medium-agnostic, insight into preferred practices would help us tailor methodologies to CSL expectations and minimize misalignment between contractor approaches and government intent.

The work required under this contract will be for analog games with some limited use of hybrid games. When hybrid games are used, the Government will provide the required digital assets.

5. Question 4: Data Collection and Analysis Tooling Expectations. For Data Collection and Analysis Plans (DCAPs), does the Government have preferred tools, formats, or methodologies for capturing player decisions, observations, and insights (e.g., structured spreadsheets, forms, qualitative coding methods), or should the contractor propose approaches aligned to each wargame’s analytical objectives?

Context: The PWS places strong emphasis on DCAP development and execution.

Clarification on expected tooling or formats will ensure analytical outputs meet government expectations.

The Government will lead with all DCAP requirements with the contractor providing advice and supporting the effort. The Government uses general office productivity software and occasionally employs government provided generative AI tools to assist with analysis.

6. IT and Security Constraints for Digital Aids During Execution. Are there any restrictions or approval requirements related to the use of locally hosted, non-networked digital tools (e.g., laptop-based adjudication or analysis aids) during on-site wargame execution, assuming no external connectivity and full compliance with classification, CUI, and installation IT/security policies?

Context: This clarification will help us design compliant execution workflows and avoid unintended IT or security issues during on-site events.

Contractors under both the academic and analytic wargame efforts will be issued government computers for routine work. The contractor performing the duties of Academic wargame development has fewer restrictions on the use of IT tools as that person will work primarily in the main academic building which is a bring your own device facility. Use of a personal computing device may be done without cost to the Government. The contractor performing the duties of Analytical wargame development shall work in a secure government facility where no external electronic devices are permitted.

7. Please confirm whether the anticipated volume of 3–4 academic wargames and 3–4 analytical wargames per calendar year is a firm minimum, a not-to-exceed ceiling, or a historical planning estimate.

The development of 3-4 academic and analytical wargames is a historical planning estimate.

8. For pricing and technical approach purposes, should each wargame be treated as a new design and development effort, or does the Government anticipate that some events will be iterations, refreshes, or reruns of existing games or scenarios?

For planning purposes, the contractor should assume each wargame will be treated as a new design and development effort. It is possible that there could be an effort that is an iteration or refresh of an existing game or a reskinning of an existing commercial to a military theme for analytic or academic purposes.

9. Please define the Government’s expected level of effort for a typical academic wargame and a typical analytical wargame, including expected player count, duration, sponsor touchpoints, classification level, documentation requirements, and reporting depth.

The typical academic wargame may be played by as many as 24 groups of 16 players each. Analytic wargame player counts vary wildly from as few as 20-30 upward to 200 players and participants. Academic wargames vary from 1-4 days of playing time. Analytic wargames are typically 3-4 days in duration. Academic wargames rarely require in excess of an 8 hour a day commitment to the wargame while analytic wargames commonly require 10-12 hour days. The contractor can expect a minimum of 3 or as many as 7 touchpoints with the sponsor regardless of game type. Classification level varies from UNCLASSIFIED, to CUI, to SECRET wargame regardless of type. Document requirements and reporting depth vary greatly based on game complexity, sponsor requirements. At a minimum all games require a rule book and developer notes with sufficient detail so that a trained game designer/developer could recreate the game in the future if required.

10. Will the successful contractor receive Government-furnished materials at transition, including prior game designs, rulesets, scenarios, data collection plans, templates, adjudication tools, briefing formats, and historical products? If so, will comparable background information be made available to all offerors during the solicitation period?

The successful contractor will receive from the Government all required materials to successfully carry out this contract. As stated above this will include a government issued computer. There is no anticipated need for the successful contractor to provide any game design materials, instruments, or equipment. Historical products will not be provided.

11. The education requirement appears narrowly framed around game design, computer software design, or a related field. Please confirm whether the Government will consider equivalent academic disciplines paired with directly relevant wargaming experience, including operations research, systems engineering, military history, political science, national security studies, or instructional design.

For the academic requirement, the Government will consider equivalent academic disciplines paired with directly relevant wargaming experience, including operations research, systems engineering, military history, political science, national security studies, or instructional design. Note the answer to the previous question about analogue designs.

12. Please clarify how the Government is defining “strategic-level wargames” for purposes of the minimum experience requirement. Does the Government consider closely related experience in campaign analysis, force-development games, tabletop exercises, seminar games, senior leader decision exercises, or operational-level analytical gaming to be responsive where the work is materially similar?

The Government will consider other wargame design and development experiences, however experience with tabletop exercises, seminar games, and senior leader decision exercises will not be considered materially similar. Campaign analysis that does not include the design of a wargame will also not be considered materially similar.

13. Please confirm whether the SECRET facility clearance requirement at time of offer applies strictly to the prime offeror, or whether the Government would accept a compliant prime-teammate structure where a first-tier cleared teammate performs the classified portion of the requirement.

Per the PWS the offeror must have a Secret Facility Clearance at time of offer submission.

14. Please confirm whether the proposed key person must hold an active Secret clearance at time of proposal submission or whether eligibility and ability to obtain the clearance satisfies the requirement, provided classified access is not required until processing is complete.

Per the PWS contractor personnel performing work under this contract must have at least an interim personnel security clearance at Secret level in the Defense Information System for Security (DISS) at time of submission and must maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract.

15. Telework is stated as permitted only when approved by the Government. Please clarify which work elements the Government anticipates may be performed remotely, including research, scenario design, rules development, document production, graphic production, data analysis, and sponsor coordination.

Telework will be the exception and not the rule as the Government is providing essentially all the required instrumentality for completing the tasks under this contract and some work under this contract may involve classified information. The Government will provide workspace inside of a government facility. With the potential for the contractors to be working on more than one wargame project simultaneously, the Government cannot state with certainty the work elements that will “qualify” for telework. Requests for teleworking will be entertained by the Government on a case-by-case basis. With certainty, the Government can say that data analysis and sponsor coordination efforts will not be approved for teleworking.

Any effort that involves classified material shall be performed in the Government’s secure facility.

16. Please confirm whether the deliverable timelines apply uniformly to every effort regardless of scope. Specifically, is the Government requiring requirements analysis within 5 days, draft design documentation within 30 days, prototype delivery within 60 days, and post-event reporting within 5 days for every game, including small-scope or adapted events?

Deliverable timelines expressed in the work statement are for planning purposes and should apply for most efforts. Understanding that some efforts can be significantly more complicated than others or have great lead times, the Government will adjust those timelines accordingly.

17. Please confirm whether every wargame requires a full DCAP, at least two playtests where applicable, formal observation reporting, briefings, and final analysis, or whether those artifacts will vary by sponsor and event type.

Not every wargame will require a full DCAP. As a rule of thumb, academic wargames are less likely to require a full DCAP than analytic wargames.

18. The pricing structure separates the requirement into Graphic Design Services and Educational Support Services. Please clarify the intended labor mapping between those CLINs. Specifically, where should offerors place integrated tasks such as rules writing, scenario development, component creation, map and board production, prototype preparation, briefing development, facilitation support, and adjudication support?

Graphic design services will include rules writing, scenario development, component creation, map and board production, and prototype preparation.

Educational support services include briefing development, facilitation support, and adjudication support.

19. The template indicates travel should not be quoted. Please confirm whether travel is excluded from price evaluation for all offerors and will only be authorized and funded separately if required during performance.

Travel is excluded from price evaluation for all offerors. Contractor travel must be authorized in advance and the Government will only pay for costs incurred, meaning that the Government will reimburse the contractor for travel expenses.

20. Please clarify the FAR 52.217-8 evaluation method. If the template references an option year that does not exist in the pricing structure, please confirm that the six-month extension will be evaluated using the rates from the final priced option period.

Do not include a quote for a possible 52.217-8 extension. Per policy, if an extension is used, price will be set at the same rate as the final option year.

21. Please confirm whether the Government will consider directly relevant past performance performed by a proposed key person or first-tier teammate where that individual or entity will materially contribute to contract performance.

The Government will consider directly relevant past performance of personnel who will be performing the work.

22. Please provide historical workload data sufficient to normalize competition, including the approximate number of academic and analytical wargames executed per year, average event duration, average development cycle length, typical number of participants, and common deliverable volume per event. Answered above.

23. Please clarify whether the Government expects the contractor to furnish physical game materials, printed boards, markers, cards, or other tangible components as part of the fixed-price effort, and if so, whether there is a historical consumption baseline or estimated annual production volume. Answered above.

24. Please confirm whether the requirement contemplates one full-time key person supported by ancillary labor, or whether the Government expects offerors to price a broader recurring support structure beyond the named key person to meet the stated annual workload and deliverable cadence.

The Government anticipates that the work under this contract equals two (2) FTE.

25. Please clarify whether sponsor engagement frequency, review cycles, and revision expectations are standardized across events or whether those demands vary materially by sponsor. If they vary, please provide. Answered above.

26. Is the USG desire to execute 1 JOB, 2 JOBS, or option either Design or Ed Spt

Services UP TO 12 x per year?

The Government anticipates monthly billing for each CLIN.