RFI for Laundry Services 20260521.docx

Request for Information (RFI): Consolidated Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Services

1.0 Overview and Purpose

The Mission & Installation Contracting Command (MICC) is conducting market research on behalf of the Army Sustainment Command (ASC) to explore the feasibility of consolidating its laundry and dry cleaning (L&DC) services, which are currently managed through individual contracts at approximately 16 separate installations.

1. Presidio of Monterey

2. Fort Hood

3. Fort Bragg

4. Fort Hunter Liggett

5. Fort Bliss

6. Fort McCoy

7. Fort Rucker

8. Fort Meade

9. Fort Gordon

10. Fort Knox

11. Fort Huachuca

12. Fort Devens

13. Fort Leonard Wood

14. Fort Jackson

15. Fort Sill

16. Fort Benning

We are considering a consolidated Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to increase efficiency and standardization.

The purpose of this RFI is to gather information from industry to determine the following:

· The existence of a vendor pool capable of providing L&DC services on a regional or national scale.

· Industry's capacity to meet the requirements outlined in the attached example Performance Work Statement (PWS).

· Potential challenges and benefits of a consolidated contract from the industry's perspective.

· Feedback on the proposed acquisition strategy to refine the government's approach.

Services required include, but are not limited to: the pickup, laundering, dry cleaning, folding, bundling, repair, and delivery of government-owned items such as linens, uniforms, Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE), and other textiles. The contractor will also be responsible for all labor, supervision, transportation, quality control, and adherence to all applicable federal, state, local, and military regulations, including stringent security and personnel requirements for installation access.

Example PWS is attached.

2.0 Questions for Industry

Please provide responses to the following questions. Your detailed input is crucial for helping the Army develop an effective acquisition strategy.

Section A: Corporate Capability and Experience

1. Please provide a brief overview of your company, including its size—such as annual processing volume in piece or pounds—the scope of your operations, and the nature of your L&DC service activities. Describe your company’s experience providing L&DC services to government or commercial clients of a similar scale and complexity. Please specify if you have held contracts with the Department of Defense (DoD).

2. What is your current geographic area of operation? Is your company capable of providing services on a regional (e.g., Southeast U.S., Midwest) or national level? Please specify which regions you can currently serve.

3. Describe your experience managing contracts that require service to multiple distinct locations simultaneously. What management structure would you propose to ensure consistent quality and communication across all sites?

Section B: Technical and Operational Approach

1. Based on the PWS, please describe your technical approach to providing the required L&DC services, including the pickup, processing, and delivery of items.

2. The PWS requires a three-business-day turnaround for most items and same-day service for Military Funeral uniforms. Please confirm your ability to meet these timelines, particularly in a multi-location scenario.

3. The contractor is responsible for accountability of government-owned linens and equipment. Describe the systems and processes you use for tracking items from pickup to delivery to prevent loss or damage.

4. Section 2.1.20 of the PWS requires the contractor to repair or replace items damaged during the laundering process. Please describe your company's standard procedures for handling claims and executing repairs.

5. The government will provide an initial stock of linens, which the contractor must maintain and return at the end of the contract. How would your company manage the inventory and lifecycle of this government-furnished property?

Section C: Consolidation Strategy Feedback

1. What advantages or disadvantages do you foresee for your company in a consolidated, multi-installation contract vehicle versus individual contracts for each Army installation?

2. Would your company be more likely to propose as a prime contractor on a large regional/national contract, or would you prefer to act as a subcontractor for specific locations?

3. Given that the Government anticipates utilizing a FFP per‑piece IDIQ contract structure or BPA, please provide feedback on any considerations, risks, or operational impacts this pricing model may present when applied to a consolidated, multi‑installation requirement. In particular, identify any factors the Government should be aware of to ensure fair, competitive, and realistic pricing across diverse locations. The government is contemplating consolidating 16 locations. What, in your view, is the optimal number or geographic clustering of installations to include in a single contract to ensure both performance and robust competition?

4. Are there any requirements in the PWS that you consider to be unclear, overly restrictive, or a barrier to competition? Please provide specific feedback for improvement.

Section D: Socioeconomic Considerations and Teaming

1. Please identify your company’s socioeconomic status (e.g., Small Business, 8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone).

2. If this requirement is set aside for small business, does your company have the capacity to perform as a Prime Contractor for all 16 locations, or would you require a Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture?

3. Given the geographic dispersion of the 16 locations, please describe how you would comply with the 'Limitations on Subcontracting' clause (FAR 52.219-14), which requires the prime to perform at least 50% of the cost of contract performance.

4. If you are a large business, please describe your strategy for incorporating small business subcontractors into a consolidated regional or national L&DC model.

5. In your opinion, would a partial set-aside (e.g., reserving certain geographic clusters for small business) be more effective than a single national set-aside? Please provide a rationale.