Request for Information - AFRC Strategic BOS.pdf

Request for Information

1 June 2026

CONTRACTING OFFICE ADDRESS

Department of the Air Force, Headquarters (HQ) Air Force Reserves Command (AFRC)/PK, Robins Air Force Base – 741 Lakeside Dr, Warner Robins, Georgia 31098.

POINT OF CONTACT

Submit Responses to:

Ms. Biannica Glay at biannica.glay@us.af.mil, AND

Ms. Jacqueline Anthes at jacqueline.anthes.3@us.af.mil

All responses shall be submitted no later than Friday, 12 June 2026 by 4:00 pm EST.

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION

This is a Request for Information (RFI), NOT a Request for Quote (RFQ) or Request for Proposal (RFP). This RFI will be utilized for market research purposes ONLY, in order to assist with the planning and potential procurement of comprehensive Base Operations Support (BOS) services across multiple Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) installations. The Government is contemplating a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) structure to establish an enterprise-level pool of qualified contractors. Individual installations will subsequently compete and award base-specific Task Orders against this MATOC to meet localized mission requirements.

The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding on the Government.

Responses to these notices are not offers and cannot/will not be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

DRAFT SCOPE

General Scope: The scope of this requirement is highly complex and multi-functional, requiring the integration and management of both Civil Engineering (CE) and Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS) portfolios. The anticipated scope of services includes, but is not limited to, the following functional areas:

• Real Property Maintenance: Comprehensive facility operations and maintenance, including preventive and corrective maintenance of building infrastructure, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, structural systems, grounds maintenance, and localized facility supply chain management.

• Materiel Management: Operation of the installation's primary supply chain, including warehousing, inventory control, hazardous material (HAZMAT) management, Flight Service Center operations, and Individual Protective Equipment (IPE) management.

• Ground Transportation & Vehicle Management: Comprehensive management and maintenance of the installation's Government-owned vehicle fleet, including heavy equipment repair, standard ground transportation, and vehicle accountability programs.

• Traffic Management: Processing and coordination of inbound and outbound cargo shipments (including hazardous and explosive materials) and arranging official passenger travel.

• Fuels Management: Complete management of installation petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) operations, including the receipt, storage, transfer, issue, and quality control testing of aviation fuels, ground fuels, and cryogenic products.

POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE LOCATIONS

• Grissom, Indiana

• March, California

• Niagara, New York

• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

• Westover, Massachusetts

• Carswell, Texas

• Homestead, Florida

• Dobbins, Georgia

• Minneapolis, Minnesota

• Youngstown, Ohio

PURPOSE

The purpose of this notice is to conduct additional market research for a known agency requirement. The Government seeks industry comments in response to specific questions listed below.

The information gathered will be used to refine the scope, structure, and terms of a potential solicitation.

IAW FAR 15.201(c)(4), the Contracting Officer may host one-on-one meetings with any or all potential offerors who provide an adequate response to the RFI/SS, without further public notice.

NAICS CODE

Tentative North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code is 561210 – Facilities Support Services. Please NOTE: this is a tentative NAICS Code and may be subject to change as a result of additional market research.

ANTICIPATED CONTRACT TYPE/PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The Government anticipates awarding multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The resultant contracts will feature a five-year base ordering period with an option to extend the ordering period for an additional five years, for a potential total ordering period of ten years. Individual task orders issued will be Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and will contain their own unique Period of Performance.

Individual task orders issued under this MATOC will utilize a blended pricing structure consisting of both Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs (such as for Preventive Maintenance and recurring services) and Not-To-Exceed (NTE) CLINs (for unscheduled Corrective Maintenance and major repairs). Each individual task order will contain its own unique Period of Performance.

Throughout the ordering period, the Government will monitor contractor performance via mechanisms such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). To ensure a robust, competitive, and high-performing industrial base over the 10-year lifecycle, the Government may include provisions for on-ramping new contractors or off-ramping existing contractors based on participation and performance. The solicitation may also include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, for a potential six-month extension to the ordering period.

PROJECTED CONTRACT AWARD DATE

TBD – FY28/29

PROJECTED VALUE

$900+

INFORMATION REQUESTED

All interested vendors must submit their responses by completing the 26-question survey at the following link:

https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/TYpMDfkxxr

A complete and sufficient response to all questions is requested. The Contracting Officer will deem submissions with incomplete or insufficient answers unacceptable.

Please be advised that a capabilities statement or brief is not requested and should not be submitted. Only responses provided through the official Microsoft Forms link will be considered.

1. Company Information: Name, address, telephone number, point of contact name(s), email address(es), UEI and CAGE code.

2. Business Size Designation: Under the tentative North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 561210 (Facilities Support Services), the SBA Small Business size standard is $47 Million in average annual revenue. Under this specific code and threshold, does your firm qualify as a Large Business or a Small Business?

3. If the answer to the above questions is ‘Small Business”, please identify your company’s specific small business program (if applicable)

a. Small Business

b. 8(a) Small Business Development Program

c. Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)

d. Veteran-Owned (VOSB)

e. Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB)

f. Women-Owned (WOSB)

g. Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned (EDWOSB)

h. Other Small Disadvantage Business

4. Does your company currently perform, or has performed the services requested on other Government contracts?

5. If the answer to the above question is ‘Yes’, please provide the applicable contract number[s] for reference.

6. Economies of Scale & Efficiencies: From an industry perspective, what are the primary commercial benefits and operational risks of transitioning from standalone base contracts to an enterprise-level MATOC? How would your firm leverage a MATOC structure to https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/TYpMDfkxxr improve performance/customer satisfaction, reduce corporate overhead, and pass cost savings to the Government across multiple Task Orders?

7. Small Business Participation & Task Order Structure: The Government is highly committed to maximizing Small Business participation. If the overarching MATOC is structured as an Unrestricted vehicle with aggressive subcontracting goals, or utilizes a "Small Business Reserve" (where specific Task Orders can be set aside exclusively for small businesses in the IDIQ pool), what are the commercial best practices to ensure Small Businesses can successfully compete and execute without being overwhelmed by the MAJCOM-wide capacity requirements?

8. On-Ramping and Off-Ramping: To maintain a highly competitive and capable pool of contractors over a potential 5- to 10-year MATOC lifecycle, what are industry best practices for implementing "On-Ramp" (adding new contractors) and "Off-Ramp" (removing non-performing contractors) procedures?

9. Workload Data Granularity (MATOC vs. Task Order): Given the proposed MATOC structure, what level and type of workload data does your firm require at the overarching MATOC RFP level (e.g., historical MAJCOM aggregate spend, standard labor categories) versus the individual Task Order RFP level (e.g., base-specific NexGen IT work order history, exact square footage, detailed Real Property Installed Equipment (RPIE) lists) to provide accurate, competitive proposals?

10. Data for FFP Preventive Maintenance (PM): To accurately price a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN dedicated strictly to Preventive Maintenance (PM), what specific facility and equipment data must the Government provide in the bidder’s library (e.g., current PM schedules, OEM manuals, asset age/condition data via BUILDER SMS)?

11. Execution of CM via USG-Priced NTE: The Government intends to utilize a Government-priced Not-To-Exceed (NTE) CLIN for all Corrective Maintenance (CM) to ensure immediate "wrench time" without open-ended T&M. Under this structure, the Government issues a rapid NTE ceiling for a repair, and the contractor subsequently definitizes it into a firm proposal. What are the commercial best practices or potential execution risks associated with this approach, and what specific historical CM data do you need to confidently manage your labor and supply chain under this structure?

12. What are commercial best practices for evaluating pricing at the overarching MATOC IDIQ level (e.g., evaluating fully burdened ceiling labor rates, utilizing a pricing matrix for standard labor categories) versus reserving complex cost/price evaluations strictly for the individual Task Order level?

13. When evaluating competitive Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) proposals for multi-functional facility and logistics support, what pricing data or evaluation methodologies (e.g., evaluating staffing matrices, phase-in costs, or total fixed price against historical benchmarks) yield the most realistic and sustainable pricing for the Government?

14. Legacy Asset Maintenance: How does your firm recommend structuring performance metrics for infrastructure that is deep into its designed service life? How do you account for assets where commercial "like-new" uptime standards are unachievable?

15. Baselining Risk: Does your firm utilize a joint Initial Deficiency Inspection (IDI) or similar baselining period at the start of a contract to catalog degraded assets? How does this baseline impact ongoing Quality Assurance (QA) and maintenance liability?

16. Meaningful Metrics: What are the top three performance-based metrics your firm tracks commercially to determine the health and success of a facility maintenance contract?

What are the top three performance-based metrics your firm tracks commercially to determine the health and success of a logistics contract?

17. Based on your experience managing large-scale federal or commercial facility/logistics contracts, how have you seen incentive and disincentive structures implemented successfully? What specific, contractor-controllable metrics (e.g., first-time fix rate, response time, data fidelity in NexGen) yield the best return on investment for the Government?

18. Conversely, what incentive/disincentive structures have you seen implemented unsuccessfully? Specifically, what metrics drive unintended negative behaviors, inflated proposal pricing, or adversarial relationships (particularly when dealing with legacy infrastructure operating past its design life)?

19. Adherence to Military Directives vs. Commercial Standards: The Government recognizes that military installations are governed by specific Department of the Air Force Instructions (DAFIs) and DoD directives. What are the anticipated cost, staffing, and performance impacts when a contractor is required to strictly adhere to comprehensive military directives for standard facility and logistics support, as opposed to utilizing industry-recognized commercial standards (e.g., ASHRAE, ISO, OEM manuals)? Furthermore, how can the Government best incorporate mandatory military compliance into the PWS without unnecessarily inflating commercial pricing?

20. SOW vs. PWS Liability: How do highly prescriptive, step-by-step "how-to" checklists in a PWS impact your firm's ability to innovate, create labor efficiencies, and assume total performance liability for the required outcome?

21. What are the primary operational risks, benefits, and impacts on inter-contractor coordination (e.g., vehicle repair prioritization, supply chain management) under a segmented model versus a consolidated model?

22. How does consolidating versus segmenting these functional areas impact your firm's ability to achieve economies of scale, reduce corporate overhead, and provide cost savings to the Government?

23. Small Business Viability: Given the financial capacity and cross-functional recruiting required for a consolidated BOS contract, would your firm be more likely to propose as a

Prime contractor if the MATOC allowed for functionally segmented Task Orders (e.g., separate Task Orders for CE and LRS)?

24. Does your firm have experience rapidly mobilizing cross-functional personnel (Civil Engineering, Logistics, Fuels) in response to military operational surges, natural disasters, or local emergencies under a MATOC or similar IDIQ structure?

25. What is the commercial best practice for structuring these surge requirements? From a contractor's perspective, does utilizing a separate, surge-specific Task Order streamline your ability to execute and track emergency work compared to modifying an existing baseline Task Order?

26. What specific contracting mechanisms (e.g., pre-priced emergency labor rates at the IDIQ level, rapid NTE authorizations) best facilitate immediate contractor response during a sudden operational spike or localized crisis?

The Contracting Officer will review and consider all responses and/or questions received.

However, the Contracting Officer is not required to implement any of the feedback and/or suggestions received. The Contracting Officer will not provide a written and/or verbal response to any questions received.