Vance_BOS_RFI_3.pdf

Request for Information (RFI) #3 – Vance AFB Base Operations Support (BOS)

Disclaimer

The 338th Specialized Contracting Squadron (SCONS), at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) –

Randolph, Texas (TX), is seeking input from industry on the approach to facility management/sustainment services in regards to non-personal BOS services at Vance AFB in

Enid, Oklahoma (OK).

This RFI/Sources Sought seeks information of all qualified sources, large and small businesses, interested in providing input and/or experiences relative to the future Vance BOS requirement.

Responses received will be used for acquisition strategic decision making purposes only and will not be disclosed outside this agency. This announcement is for informational purposes only. The information obtained may be used for acquisition planning purposes and to determine whether the acquisition may be set aside for small businesses. This announcement does not constitute an

Invitation for Bids, Request for Proposals, or a Request for Quotations, and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government to issue a contract or otherwise pay for the information solicited. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this notice.

Companies responding to this sources sought notice are advised that participation does not ensure involvement in future solicitations or contract awards. No proposals are being requested or accepted under this notice, and this announcement shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation or to ultimately award a contract, nor does this synopsis restrict the Government to a particular acquisition approach. Contact with Government personnel, other than those specified in this Sources Sought, by potential Offerors or their employees regarding this requirement is not permitted. The Government will not pay for any information submitted in response to this announcement. Any costs associated with providing information to either this notice or any follow-up information requests shall not be reimbursed.

Costs incurred as a result of this announcement shall be borne solely by the respondent and shall not be payable by the Government.

Description of the Requirement

This requirement involves providing services such as Communications and IT, Civil

Engineering, Logistics Support, Purchasing and Community Services for the 71st Flying

Training Wing (FTW) located at Vance AFB, OK. The 71 FTW supports one wing, with a permanent party population of about 2,150 and roughly 3,100 additional beneficiaries of installation services. The wing exercises stewardship over an installation comprising $312.7M in assets, 294 facilities and three runways on 2,123 acres. Additionally, the requirement includes

Kegelman Auxiliary Airfield (AAF), near Jet OK, comprising $10.6M in assets, 34 facilities and one runway on 1,066 acres.

The historical North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the requirement is 561210 - Facilities Support Services, and the applicable small business size standard is $38.5 million average annual gross receipts.

Acquisition Information

The magnitude of this requirement is between $400M and $900M. The Government is contemplating a multiple year contract with a total life cycle of 5 to 10 years (60-day mobilization period, 5-year base with up to four 1-year incentive option periods. The tentative solicitation issue date is July 2019, however, this date is subject to change. The Government anticipates issuing a single Request for Proposal (RFP) with both Firm Fixed Price and Cost

Reimbursable CLINs. The Government will conduct a source selection IAW Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and any applicable supplements. The Government will post information regarding this solicitation [e.g. the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the draft (RFP)] on the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov), as soon as it becomes available. Information contained in this RFI is subject to change. It is the responsibility of prospective Offerors to check this site regularly for any changes or updates.

Requested Information

The current Vance BOS contract contains a hybrid FFP/cost-reimbursement CLIN structure. All costs beyond scheduled facility maintenance labor support are paid via cost-reimbursement.

There are currently no thresholds by which the contractor is held responsible for costs associated with scheduled and unscheduled maintenance (per event); all costs are reimbursable. The purpose of this RFI is to gain input from industry on best practices, efficiencies and cost-reimbursement techniques with regards to facility management/maintenance/*sustainment.

*Note: For the purposes of this RFI, sustainment is defined as the service providing all scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and supplies of a facility necessary to maintain specific standards in support of its intended use/mission.

Questions. We request prospective Prime Contract Offerors assist us in identifying and mitigating performance or cost risk for both parties.

1) Installation and Facility Sustainment:

a. When using FFP contracts, is performance of facility/installation management functions negatively impacted? If so, which ones?

b. Given the Vance Facility footprint, number of facilities and all associated utilities, what is the most effective way to provide you with the age, status and state of repair?

c. Do you require access to all facilities and supporting real property installed equipment? What can we do to improve the Site Visit?

d. Do commercial industry standards for facility sustainment already exist that would eliminate the need for DOD or AFI standards? Do you have contract experience that employs industry or commercial standards that would eliminate the need for AFI-driven guidance such as Common Output Levels standards

(COLS)?

e. Can you identify specific service delivery processes where commercially-based standards would be more efficient than AFI or DoD standards currently being used in many DOD BOS contracts?

f. The current Vance BOS contract requires the Service Provider to design all

O&M-funded Sustainment Restoration/Repair and maintenance projects with labor proposed under a monthly FFP contract line item. How would you propose sufficient engineering design capacity without the Government directing minimum staffing levels?

g. The USAF approval process to issue a cost reimbursable contract requires the

Contracting Officer to justify the increased cost risk the Gov’t accepts with traditional cost reimbursable arrangements. Over a 9-year contract, does any specific installation or facility sustainment process produce unreasonable performance or cost risk?

h. In lieu of FFP, would cost-reimbursable sustainment with a defined threshold, under which the contractor would be responsible, make the concept of facility sustainment more cost effective for the customer?

i. In your experience what levels of thresholds have you encountered in regards to facility sustainment?

j. What is the maximum threshold (per event) your company could perform under as it pertains to facility sustainment?

2) Facility System Sustainment

a. Facility condition assessments for Vance AFB are not current with regard to the age and condition of major systems such as roofing, HVAC and electrical. How extensive would the inspection of the systems need to be in order to develop a fair and reasonable price for each system? Would touring 25% of the oldest facilities provide sufficient information to propose on maintaining the entire installation?

Are there specific “must visit” facilities?

b. Are there specific facility systems or maintenance processes that can be sufficiently addressed under a FFP arrangement (e.g. HVAC, Generators, or all scheduled preventative maintenance)?

c. Would it be cost effective for the customer to use this approach installation-wide for system sustainment? If so, which systems?

3) With an aging infrastructure, the Government is looking to industry to identify specific elements and provide methods for implementation of facility and system efficiencies. The expectation would be for the contractor to identify potential efficiencies, accompanied by a cost or business case analysis for implementation. Technically superior solutions that demonstrate a lower total cost of ownership would be considered a strength during technical proposal evaluations.

a. If the Government provided cost incentives for the identification/development of these potential efficiencies, what is the likelihood your company would pursue them?

b. What would you recommend the incentive be if implemented by the Government?

If NOT implemented by the Government? In your current contract experience, what type of incentives (financial or non-cost) have you successfully executed?

c. Are there any additional incentives for the identification of efficiencies you believe would benefit the contractor and the Government?

4) The AF is contemplating using a purchasing system similar to the USMC’s ServMart, (https://www.usmcservmart.gsa.gov/advantage/information/page.do?keyName=US

MC_HELP#Background) in order to mitigate the workload and costs associated with purchasing supplies on a reimbursable basis.

a. For the purchase of supplies in coordination with contract requirements, what types of purchasing systems have you utilized?

b. Did the system eliminate the need for cost reimbursement?

c. Do you believe a system like the USMC ServMart would eliminate or reduce the handling fee leveraged on the Government for the purchase of supplies?

d. Have any of the purchasing systems used been mandated by the customer?

5) Across the AFBOS portfolio, we have experienced shortages in skilled labor for professional engineers and master tradesman. How can the government mitigate the risk this shortage presents when operating in a geographically remote city like Enid, Ok.

6) Which specific mandatory compliance AFIs or DOD regulations produce non-value-added costs to the Government?

Response Submission

The purpose of using the survey format, in lieu of a free format, is to obtain pertinent and uniformed information from all interested potential Offerors. Potential Offerors must be https://www.usmcservmart.gsa.gov/advantage/information/page.do?keyName=USMC_HELP#Background https://www.usmcservmart.gsa.gov/advantage/information/page.do?keyName=USMC_HELP#Background registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) to be eligible for payment from any

Department of Defense activity. Information on registration and annual confirmation requirements may be obtained at www.SAM.gov. Please e-mail the completed survey form to the primary point of contacts, Stephani Preusser at stephani.preusser.1@us.af.mil and Ella Smith at ella.smith.2@us.af.mil as soon as practicable, but no later than 12:00 p.m. CST on 21 December

2018. NOTE: The Government is under no obligation to consider information received after the due date as part of the formal market research for this acquisition.

Contracting Office Address

Department of the Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, 338th Specialized

Contracting Squadron, 2021 First Street West, JBSA-Randolph, TX, 78150-4302

Place of Performance

Vance AFB, Enid OK, 73705