Special Notice - SP330023SS5005-RFI_FINAL_5.17.23.pdf

SPECIAL NOTICE

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

FOR

CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CMS) / THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS (3PL)

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR DLA AVIATION IN SUPPORT OF

WARNER ROBINS – AIR LOGISTICS COMPLEX (WR-ALC)

Notice Type: Special Notice (Request for Information)

Summary: Request for Information regarding the acquisition of CMS / 3PL support services for DLA Aviation in support of WR-ALC related to the managing, procuring, storing, and delivery of hazardous material to WR-ALC.

Purpose: The purpose of this RFI is to conduct Market Research to learn more about industry’s perspective, best practices, risks, and recommendations related to the Government’s draft Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government is looking for industry’s interest and feedback to ensure the requirement has been clearly defined, is not restrictive in nature, and is achievable as written.

Target Audience: Firms and businesses of all sizes are invited to respond to this RFI.

Disclaimer: This RFI is being issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposal or a promise to issue a Request for Proposal in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any service or supply. Respondents are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in responding to this

RFI.

Requested Information: The Government has attached several sections of the draft PWS for industry’s feedback as requested above. Below is a list of questions related to the requirement and attached PWS for industry’s review and response.

1. Please review the draft PWS and provide feedback. Your feedback could include: gaps, confusing / unclear language that needs further clarification, problems or executable issues, risks (excluding transition – asked separately), unrealistic or unachievable tasks, industry ways of doing business that are not utilized in the draft PWS, etc.

2. Please provide feedback specifically on the transition section of the draft PWS. Your feedback could include: risks with the hazardous material (the incumbent’s HM on hand, the incumbent’s HM on order, and ordering the Government Initial Inventory HM), length of the transition period, problems or executable issues, etc.)

3. How would the contractor separate the incumbent’s material from the newly procured material in the contractor’s off-site warehouse?

4. Does industry see any risk with the below language (related to Transition)?

a. The Contractor shall maximize the efforts to purchase demand supported 3PL HM from the incumbent Contractor. The COR will provide a listing of the available inventory on hand; however, negotiation of agreements to purchase shall be between the successor and predecessor contractors. Any HM procured from the incumbent with a shelf life of 12 months or longer shall have a minimum of 180 days shelf-life remaining before expiration. Any agreement(s) to purchase the predecessor’s 3PL HM shall be completed NLT 90 days after contract award, which includes the physical delivery of HM and transfer of ownership by that time. The Contractor is responsible for physically accounting for all HM procured from the incumbent Contractor to ensure availability. If the successor Contractor purchases any of this available HM at a lower price, the lower price shall be charged to the Government for any future issues of this material under this contract until completely issued. The Contractor shall provide a list of the HM purchased indicating the prices that are paid NLT five (5) business days prior to the start date of full performance. (See CDRL A008)

5. Do you have information on the current market or specific suppliers that you think the

Government should consider prior to soliciting?

6. Do you think the Government should identify a minimum size for the off-base warehouse?

Would that be helpful? Would it be too restrictive? What other information do you need to find a facility or determine the size of the off-base warehouse?

7. Are there inventory management and business intel tools that can establish internal metrics to measure and improve inventory accuracy based on actual demands and forecasted demands;

precision in procurement planning; and satisfaction of customer demands?

8. Would a Contractor’s Point of Sale system be able to include historical procurement data?

Provide real-time status? Include copies of the CDRL reports?

9. The Government’s draft PWS requires decanting operations be performed at the off-base facility;

however, the Government has several questions for industry’s feedback.

- Would a Certificate of Conformance (COC)/Certificate of Analysis (COA) for each container be provided?

- What would payment for the material look like? Would the Government just be paying for the decanted material received? Or pay once for the parent container and receive as many as it makes?

- Would this drive up the cost of the contract? What costs would be included in this requirement?

- Are there other concerns or obstacles with decanting off-base that the Government has not considered?

10. Does industry see any challenges, that the Government may not be taking into consideration, with these two requirements?

a. Insert into commercial purchase agreements and purchase orders that HM has no less than 85% shelf-life period remaining when received by the contractor and that any HM received with less than 85% percent shelf-life remaining may be rejected. The Contractor may request TPOC approval for items received with less than 85% shelf-life to use for immediate use or alleviate a work stop.

b. HM ordered through a Government Source of Supply may have less than 85% shelf-life when received into the contractor’s warehouse. The Contractor shall request approval in writing from the TPOC to provide HM with less than 30 days shelf-life remaining.

11. What evaluation criteria would best showcase your proposal.

12. Would industry prefer the Government not include the estimated LOE for non-key personnel?

Would this enable offerors to actually provide an innovative approach without feeling like they need to match the Government’s estimated LOE?

13. What is an appropriate number of pages for a technical proposal page limit?

Attachment 1: Vendor Information Form Please complete the attached vendor information form and include with your submission.

Responses: Responses to this RFI are to be submitted via e-mail to Brittany.Schofield@dla.mil and RECEIVED by COB 14 June 2023. No specified format is required. If your company is interested in a virtual one-on-one meeting with the Contracting Office after RFI responses have been received, please check the block on the Company Information Form. The POC listed will be contacted to schedule the meeting. The virtual meeting will provide time for a company overview and an opportunity to discuss your responses.

Proprietary information and trade secrets, if any, must be clearly marked on all materials. All information received that is marked Proprietary will be handled accordingly. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned. All government and contractor personnel reviewing RFI responses will have signed non-disclosure agreements and understand their responsibility for proper use and protection from unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information as described 41 USC 423. The Government shall not be held liable for any damages incurred if proprietary information is not properly identified.

Point of Contact: Brittany Schofield Contract Specialist

DLA Distribution J7-AB 717-770-6319 Brittany.Schofield@dla.mil