RPA Market Research Questionnaire.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION CENTER

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA

4 January 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS

FROM: ACC AMIC/PKC

SUBJECT: Solicitation FA4890-10-R-0009, Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Program – Market Research Questionnaire

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF POTENTIAL CONTRACT: This contract is for organizational-level (O-level) maintenance support for the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper weapons systems at multiple U.S. Air Force Bases in the Continental United States (CONUS). The program supports Air Combat Command (ACC), the Air National Guard, and other major Command and combatant command customers. The largest CONUS support requirement will be at Creech AFB, NV, with smaller additional sites at Whiteman AFB, MO, and potentially Grand Forks AFB, ND and Ellsworth AFB, SD. The location of potential additional sites will be determined at a future date. This effort includes o-level maintenance support at multiple deployed forward operating locations, and contains options for communications reachback support at multiple sites outside the continental United States. The contract is centrally managed by the ACC Acquisition Management and Integration Center (ACC AMIC) at Langley AFB, Virginia. We anticipate awarding a contract with a four-month transition period, a one year base period, and four one-year option periods.

2. OBJECTIVE OF MARKET RESEARCH: This market research is conducted to assist in determining acquisition strategy for the subject procurement. Specifically, feedback is sought from industry in regards to commercial practices to obtaining the required services, as well as the capability of industry in providing the required services within our military environment. Contract type, commercial practices, and performance-based specifications are being considered in development of the solicitation. Your input will greatly assist in this development. The draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities site at www.fbo.gov on 7 December 2010.. We expect to make further postings of draft documents (including a draft solicitation) in the next few months. Your continued input is welcome throughout this process.

3. QUESTIONS: Please review the following questions, and provide any input you would like considered as we formulate the acquisition. Questions from prospective offerors and the subsequent answers will be posted throughout the presolicitation phase of the procurement. Please mark any information that you wish to be protected as “acquisition sensitive” or “proprietary.”

4. GENERAL

http://www.fbo.gov/�

a. Are maintenance/technical support services similar to our requirement typically performed utilizing standard, commercial regulations/standards? Do other commercial contracts include any industry-specific training, certification, or inspection requirements that are in conflict with the referenced Air Force standards? Please note any major differences in the government’s requirement and similar requirements found in the commercial marketplace.

b. We anticipate the contract type to be either Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) or

Cost Plus Incentive Fee. Which contract type would you prefer and why?

c. The NAICS code for this procurement is 488190, which has a small business threshold of $7,000,000.00. Provide any input regarding your capability as a small business to accomplish the work as a prime contractor, or any other information relative to setting aside the procurement for small business participation only.

d. Please identify any risks/concerns that you may have regarding industry’s capability to provide a qualified workforce.

e. Do you anticipate any problems with acquiring a trained workforce to support the level of effort described in the draft PWS? Provide any information/obstacles on commercial practices to train RPA technicians and industry standards for certification.

f. The proposed contract will be solicited on a best-value basis. Please identify any criteria you feel should be considered as part of the proposal evaluation criteria, as well as proposal page limitations that would be sufficient.

g. What do you view as the ideal contract length and why?

h. Are you in favor of maintaining separate MQ-1 and MQ-9 Organizational-level maintenance contracts or would it be better to combine them into a single effort? Please support your position.

i. What do you see as advantages and disadvantages of incentive fees and award fees? Which do you support and why?

j. How would you structure an incentive fee? Please provide specifics on performance metrics you would include, weighting factors, and any other factors to consider.

k. What risks do you see to this effort, if there was no CONUS work at contract start, and only limited CONUS work later in the contract?

5. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

a. What changes, if any, do you suggest we make to the draft PWS to allow for a more performance-based requirement? Please identify any portions of the draft PWS that, as written, are too restrictive or prohibit the flexibility to perform according to your established practices.

b. Identify any particular requirements that will drive up costs and/or risks to performance in meeting our mission.

c. Do the referenced mandatory Air Force instructions and other publications conflict with established commercial practices? Provide any comments you may have as to standard commercial practices for procuring similar services in the commercial marketplace.

d. Please provide any comments you may have regarding the estimated workload as shown in the draft PWS.

e. Identify any components of the PWS that conflict with the quality assurance provisions that are part of your normal, established practices. What would you consider to be key critical performance measurements and minimum standards to be met?

f. This effort may involve contract support at multiple deployed sites at contract start. What do you see as the major risks in transitioning multiple sites? Do you see an inherent advantage in simultaneous transition at all sites or would it be better to stagger transition and the start date at the deployed sites? Please support your position.

g. What do you view as an ideal length of time for contract transition and why?

6. INDUSTRY PRACTICES

a. Are there industry standards, instructions or procedures that would meet AF needs or replace Government directives that are listed in the PWS?

b. What is the industry standard for quality surveillance and document submittals?

c. What industry standards exist for performance metrics for this type effort?

7. This information will be used for market research purposes only and will not be used as a part of the source selection evaluation. Information will be used solely to formulate acquisition strategy and development of the solicitation. Feedback is welcome at any time, although we request responses to the above information by 18 January 2011. Please submit your questions/comments to Ms Donna Rankin at donna.rankin@langley.af.mil and the undersigned at sharon.potter@langley.af.mil.

//signed/sdp/4Jan2011//

SHARON D. POTTER

Contracting Officer mailto:donna.rankin@langley.af.mil� mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil�