Request for Information Synopsis Enterprise Service Desk: Integrated Service Delivery Model with Independent Billing and Outcome Oversight 1.0 RFI Synopsis Narrative Background and Purpose The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Information & Technology (OIT), Enterprise Command Operations (ECO) is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) to conduct market research supporting a planned future acquisition strategy for Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) support and its associated Contact Center Infrastructure (CCI). VA currently operates ESD Tier 0/1 support and CCI as two separate prime contracts under a Multi-Vendor Service Provider (MVSP) model, where the CCI vendor produces independent Service Level Agreement (SLA) compliance reporting and conducts formal quality assurance oversight of the Tier 1 vendor's performance. VA is exploring whether and how Tier 1 agent services and CCI platform management could be brought together under an integrated service delivery model, while determining what functions, if any, should remain organizationally independent from the delivery contractor to preserve objective performance, quality, and billing oversight. VA has not determined the appropriate scope or structure of any such independent function and is seeking industry input on whether independence is necessary, which functions require it, and the most effective means of providing it. The primary purpose of this RFI is to hear from industry on how an integrated delivery model would work in practice, i.e., how it would be structured, transitioned, and operated and to use that input, together with the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates requested below, to inform the resulting Performance Work Statement (PWS) and VA's decisions on scope, sequencing, and commercial structure. VA recognizes that consolidation may not be the right answer in every respect, and industry input that identifies where a combined model would be impractical, along with the reasoning behind that view, is just as valuable to VA as input on how to make consolidation work. This RFI is not a solicitation and does not commit VA to a particular acquisition approach. One specific issue on which VA would welcome industry input, particularly in the context of a combined model, is how outcomes should be classified if VA adopts outcome-based, automation-linked, or gainshare pricing. Under those pricing structures, the classification of individual contacts (e.g., AI-resolved vs. human-handled, genuinely deflected vs. merely relabeled, successfully automated vs. escalated) becomes the basis for what VA pays. If agent services and CCI are combined, VA wants to understand how a vendor would ensure that the entity performing the work and the entity classifying/reporting the outcome of that work don't create a structural incentive to classify ambiguous or borderline contacts in whichever direction favors billing. VA recognizes that transparent data feeds alone may not fully resolve this on their own, since the vendor typically controls the metadata structure, the correlation logic between systems, and the judgment calls in ambiguous cases. This lines up with feedback VA has already received from industry: multiple respondents to prior VA market research independently flagged the "AI-attempted-then-escalated" correlation and the "resolving tier" determination as fields that are self-reported, consequential to billing, and not easily produced by either vendor alone under the current structure. Given that feedback, VA wants industry's perspective on whether some form of independent validation of billing-relevant outcomes would be useful under a combined model, and if so, how narrowly or broadly it should be scoped. For example, whether it should focus solely on billing/outcome validation, or whether it makes more sense operationally to fold in general quality assurance scoring and day-to-day SLA compliance reporting as well. VA has not settled this question and is not assuming an independent function is necessary at all; VA's own data feeds, combined with automated QA tooling already in production, may prove sufficient on their own. This RFI invites industry input to help VA define the scope of the issue without presupposing a particular outcome. Strategic Direction VA's objective is not simply to combine two existing statements of work. It is to move the ESD operating model from a labor- and channel-centric structure to one organized around demand elimination, unified customer experience, and outcome-based accountability. Specifically, VA is seeking industry's perspective on an operating model that: Eliminates demand rather than optimizing contact handling. The strategic objective is not reducing cost per contact but reducing the volume of contacts that require human involvement in the first place, through AI-assisted self-service, proactive communication, automated fulfillment, and FboNotice-cause elimination. Presents a unified, channel-agnostic experience to the End User. The distinction between phone, chat, portal, and other channels should be invisible to the employee; the service environment, not the caller, determines whether AI, automation, knowledge, or a human agent is the appropriate resolution path. Treats AI and automation as the operating model, not an add-on. The relevant question is which categories of work should never require a human, and how the contractor is held contractually accountable for progressively moving categories of work off human agents. Realigns commercial incentives from resources consumed to outcomes achieved, while recognizing that outcome-based and gainshare pricing models raise the stakes on how outcomes are classified and who classifies them. Current Environment VA's current environment processes approximately 125,000 150,000 contacts per month across voice, chat, SMS, and self-service channels, supports roughly 600,000 End Users and 900 applications, and already has voice biometric verification, IVR-based automation (NICE Autopilot), and Medallia-based automated quality analytics in development or early production. VA's current CCI platform is NICE CXOne. VA is not presupposing that either of these existing tooling investments, the CCI platform or the automated QA platform, necessarily carries forward unchanged into a consolidated structure, and is asking industry to address both explicitly in the questions below. For purposes of responding to this RFI, the current functional baseline includes Tier 0/self-service and Tier 1 multi-channel end-user support, incident and service request intake, triage, resolution, and routing; knowledge management, process integration and new-service intake; workforce management, ACD/IVR and contact routing, contact recording and quality management, contact center platform administration; analytics and reporting; integration with VA's enterprise ITSM environment, customer experience capabilities, identity verification, existing voice AI/IVR automation and evolving enterprise self-service and AI capabilities; transition services; and continual service improvement. VA is interested in industry's perspective on evolving these capabilities toward an omnichannel service model and expanded AI-enabled automation. This description is intended to provide industry with sufficient context regarding the current functional baseline and potential scope under consideration. VA has not determined that all functions identified above will be included within a single future acquisition, nor has VA determined the final allocation of responsibilities among the delivery contractor, VA, other enterprise service providers, or any independent oversight function. Industry is specifically encouraged to identify functions that would benefit from common contractual accountability, as well as functions that should remain separate and the rationale for doing so. What VA Is Asking Industry to Address This RFI asks industry to respond to the questions below based on operational and commercial experience delivering comparable integrated service desk models particularly within federal, security-sensitive, or highly regulated environments, and where outcome-based or automation-linked billing has been implemented. VA's central interest is in how industry would combine Tier 1 and CCI delivery successfully, where industry believes a combined model would not work well, and to understand why to assist in determining the acquisition approach. VA is also interested in candid input on how billing-relevant classifications can be gamed, intentionally or not, and what structural safeguards actually prevent it as opposed to merely documenting it after the fact. This RFI is issued for information and planning purposes only and does not constitute an Invitation for Bid, Request for Task Execution Plan, Request for Quotation or Request for Proposal nor does it restrict the Government as to the ultimate acquisition approach. In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.201(e) and 15.101-1, responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responses to this RFI will directly inform requirements development, as well as VA's continued re nement of contract scope, sequencing, and commercial structure. You will not be entitled to payment for direct or indirect costs that you incur in responding to this RFI. This request does not constitute a solicitation for proposals or the authority to enter into negotiations to award a contract. No funds have been authorized, appropriated or received for this effort. Interested parties are responsible for adequately marking proprietary, restricted or competition sensitive information contained in their response. The Government does not intend to pay for the information submitted in response to this RFI. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future Invitation for Bid, Request for Task Execution Plan, Request for Quotation or Request for Proposal, if any is issued. Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned. Proposed RFI Questions 1. Integrated Operating Model and Transition How would your organization recommend VA structure and operate an integrated service delivery model for ESD Tier 1 agent services and CCI, including Automatic Call Distributor, Interactive Voice Response, telephony, and platform management? Please address whether these capabilities should be delivered under a single contract or separate contracts, including the benefits, risks, dependencies, and conditions necessary for your recommended model to succeed. Additionally, describe how VA should transition from its current two-prime MVSP environment to the recommended model while maintaining service continuity for approximately 600,000 End Users. Address platform continuity, data and knowledge transfer, workforce transition, and whether Tier 1 and CCI should transition simultaneously or be sequenced, including the rationale for your recommended approach. Â 2. Platform and Tooling: Retain or Replace VA's current CCI platform is NICE CXOne, and its current automated quality assurance capability runs on the Medallia Speech, Sentiment, and Analytics platform. Prior market research conducted on the CCI requirement alone returned a strong industry preference for retaining NICE CXOne. VA also uses Genesys as its enterprise Contact Center as a Service platform. Compare retaining NICE CXOne for this requirement with transitioning to Genesys, including the relative cost, transition timeline, operational risk, functionality, and long-term efficiencies of each approach. Separately, address whether VA should retain Medallia for automated QA or consider an alternative, and why. 3. Enterprise ITSM Integration and ServiceNow Dependency VA's current enterprise ITSM environment is ServiceNow, however the future enterprise ITSM solution has not yet been determined. How critical is identification of the future ITSM solution to your ability to propose, price, transition, and perform the ESD Tier 1/CCI requirement? What ITSM information or interface requirements would VA need to define in the solicitation if the specific future-state tool is not yet known? 4. Performance, Billing, & Independent Oversight Under an outcome-based, automation-linked, or gainshare pricing model, how would your organization ensure the accuracy and integrity of classifications used to determine VA payments? Please address: how successful automated or self-service resolution should be defined, including escalations, repeat contacts, incomplete resolutions, and abandoned interactions; safeguards against contractor-favorable classification or reporting; whether independent validation is warranted and, if so, whether it should cover billing/outcomes only or also QA and SLA compliance; and governance and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Identify the key definitions and potential classification disputes VA should resolve in the PWS upfront. If independent oversight is unnecessary, explain what controls and data transparency would give VA sufficient confidence in contractor-reported results. 5. Demand Elimination and Automation Roadmap What approaches, technologies, and operating practices would you employ to reduce the need for human-assisted contacts over the life of the contract? Identify the types of service desk requests you would prioritize for automation first, the key dependencies VA would need to address, and how you would phase implementation. Address how generative AI, conversational AI, agentic automation, and predictive capabilities would support that roadmap and how VA should measure progress. 6. Commercial and Pricing Models and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) What pricing model would best incentivize automation, demand reduction, and service quality while remaining viable as human-assisted volume declines? Provide a five-year ROM for your recommended ESD Tier 1/CCI delivery model, including major staffing, platform/licensing, transition, automation, and independent oversight assumptions. Provide separate platform cost assumptions for retaining NICE CXOne and transitioning to Genesys, to the extent practicable, and identify material cost differences between integrated and separate ESD Tier 1/CCI delivery. 7. Security, Privacy, and High-Risk Interaction Governance What unique considerations should VA address regarding cybersecurity, data ownership, records management, biometric data handling, system authorization (ATO/FedRAMP), and AI governance in a model where a consolidated vendor holds both agent-facing and infrastructure-level access? Separately, VA is considering, but has not formally adopted, a risk-tiered verification framework (e.g., voice biometric, mobile OTP, supervisor authorization) for high-risk transactions such as credential resets and account access changes. For planning purposes, assuming such a framework were adopted, how would a consolidated delivery vendor operationalize and enforce it across both the platform and agent layers? 8. Acquisition Structure, Organizational Conflict of Interest, and Relevant Experience What contract and organizational structure would you recommend for ESD Tier 1 and CCI, including any functions that should remain independent to address OCI concerns? Briefly describe comparable experience delivering the recommended model at similar scale, including outcome-based pricing or independent performance oversight where applicable. 9. Section 508 / Accessibility Compliance How would your company ensure that all customer-facing and agent-facing components of a consolidated ESD/CCI solution- including IVR, chat, self-service portals, knowledge base interfaces, and any AI-driven or conversational automation, meet Section 508 accessibility requirements (including WCAG conformance for digital interfaces and accessible design for voice/IVR interactions)? Describe your approach to accessibility testing, remediation, and ongoing conformance monitoring across the life of the contract, including how new AI/automation features would be evaluated for accessibility before deployment rather than after the fact. 10. What VA May Be Missing: Based on the information provided in this RFI, what important requirements, risks, dependencies, or considerations has VA not addressed that should inform development of the future PWS and acquisition strategy? As part of your response, identify any functions that should remain separate rather than be consolidated and explain why. 2. Submittal Information: All responsible sources may submit a response in accordance with the information below. There is a page limitation for this RFI of 25 pages. The Government will not review any other information or attachments included, that are in excess of the 25-page limit. NO MARKETING MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED AS PART OF THIS RFI. Generic capability statements will not be accepted or reviewed. Responses are due no later than 10:00AM ET, Wednesday, October 21, 2026 via email to Andrea Caltabilota, Contract Specialist at Andrea.Caltabilota@va.gov. Please note Enterprise Service Desk RFI in the subject line of your response. Mark your response as Proprietary Information if the information is considered business sensitive. The email file size shall not exceed 5 MB.
