PMEL_Market_Research_Questionnaire.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION CENTER

JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS VA

Agile Combat Power

12 December 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS

FROM: ACC AMIC/PKB

SUBJECT: Solicitation FA4890-17-R-0011 Air Force Enterprise Contracted Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratories (PMEL) II Services, Market Research Questionnaire

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF POTENTIAL CONTRACT: The primary objective of the potential contract is to provide all management, personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items necessary to perform equipment calibrations by professional and technical metrologists to ensure the reliability and accuracy of systems, subsystems, and equipment. Current operating locations and potential options to the contract are identified in question 4d below.

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. Draft performance work statement (PWS) and incentive plan are being posted to this website (www.fbo.gov), and you are invited to review these documents and provide feedback, as well as to the below questions.

3. QUESTIONS: Please review the associated draft PWS posted to this site and 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 pre-solicitation phase of the procurement. Please mark any information that you wish to be protected as “acquisition sensitive” or “proprietary.” We expect to make further postings of draft documents (including a draft solicitation) in the coming months, in anticipation of issuing a final solicitation mid next year. Your continued input is welcome throughout this process.

In addition, we are conducting Market Research to determine whether or not this requirement should be procured as a Commercial Service versus Non-Commercial, reference FAR 2.101 and

12.1. Please provide any information you feel is appropriate in order to justify your recommendation.

http://www.fbo.gov/

4. GENERAL

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 a multiple award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, fixed-price type contract to cover the day to day support and a portion of the effort for equipment purchases, and repair expenses procured on a cost-reimbursable basis.

c. The anticipated NAICS code for this procurement is 811219, which has a small business threshold of $20,500,000. These services have also been procured through 541380 in the past. Provide any input on this or other potential NAICS codes that should be considered. 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. This requirement may include support for workload CONUS (Arnold AFS, TN;

Andrews, AFB, MD; Barksdale AFB, LA; Cannon AFB, NM; Columbus, AFB, MS;

Dyess AFB, TX; Ellsworth AFB, SD; F.E. Warren AFB, WY; Fairchild AFB, WA; Hill AFB, UT; MacDill AFB, FL; Malmstrom AFB, MT; Maxwell/Gunter AFB, AL;

McConnell AFB, KS; Minot AFB, ND; Moody AFB, GA; Offutt AFB, NE; Patrick/Cape Canaveral AFB, FL; Peterson AFB, CO; Robins AFB, GA; Scott AFB, IL; Sheppard AFB, TX; Tinker AFB, OK; Tyndall AFB, FL; Vance AFB, OK; Vandenberg AFB, CA;

Whiteman AFB, MO and Wright Patterson AFB, OH) and OCONUS (Andersen AB, Guam; Elmendorf AFB, AK, RAF Feltwell, United Kingdom, and Thule AFS, Greenland). There is both a potential to incorporate additional sites at a later date or to eliminate some of these locations based on changing needs within the AF. Please identify any risks/concerns that you may have regarding industry’s capability to provide a qualified workforce for the volume and diversity of locations to include an overseas environment.

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

f. The proposed contract may be solicited on a lowest price, technically acceptable 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. Will site visits be required in order for you to be able to provide a proposal for this solicitation? If so, please identify specific locations, type of PMEL, or CONUS vs.

OCONUS preferences.

5. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT/INCENTIVE PLAN

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

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. Identify any limitations to fixed-pricing of the effort to include on-site/off base support.

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?

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. Information submitted 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 no later than 6 January 2017, if possible. Please submit your questions/comments to rhonda.foster.3@us.af.mil and michael.adams.106@us.af.mil . If you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at (757) 764-4961.

LISA T PENA

Contracting Officer mailto:rhonda.foster.3@us.af.mil mailto:michael.adams.106@us.af.mil