Nuclear Enterprise Tracking System (NETS)

The purpose of this posting is to address and allay industry's concerns regarding the rights of the Government to use and release the technical data to be delivered under the subject contract. Since this is a commercial acquisition, in accordance with Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement ("DFARS") §227.7102, there is a presumption that commercial items are developed at private expense. Moreover, the Government's data rights under this acquisition will be in accordance with DFARS §227.7102-1, and the contract shall include the clauses set out at DFARS §252.227-7015 and §252.227-7037. Your proposal shall be submitted in accordance with the Request for Proposals ("RFP") and the aforementioned DFARS clauses, and any technical data rights assertions shall be placed in Section 6.2 (Contract Documentation) of your proposal. Since we are requesting form, fit and function type data within your product demonstration, please pay specific attention to DFARS §227.7102-1(a)(1).

Since the aforementioned clauses are included in the RFP that was released on 20 Dec 2010, there isn't a need to release an RFP amendment to address this issue.

Should you have any questions please contact the Contracting Officer, Ms
onna Heinz at 505-846-9516 or at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil

We look forward to receiving your proposals on 25 Jan 11 at 2:00 pm MST.

The purpose of this posting is to provide the final quesitons and answers resulting from the 11 Jan 11 telecom.  Please review the attached document.

Should you have any questions please contact the Contracting Officer, Ms Donna Heinz at 505-846-9516 or at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil

We look forward to receiving your proposals on 25 Jan 11 at 2:00 pm MST.

We appreciate the interest shown in today's telecom.  As promised, we have attached Amendment 3 to the Formal RFP.  Please review and ensure you sign and acknowledge all 3 RFP Amendments when you submit your proposal.  This is key for you to do so that your proposal is responsive to the RFP making you eligible for award.  Thank you.

Should you have any questions please contact the Contracting Officer, Ms Donna Heinz at 505-846-9516 or at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil

We look forward to receiving your proposals on 25 Jan 11 at 2:00 pm MST.

Interested Parties - the purpose of this posting is to clarify our goal and intent of the contract effort and to consolidate a listing of the RFP Revisions.  RFP Amendment #3 will be forthcoming.  See the attached RFP Revisions.

In addition we have established a telecom for all interested vendors to participate in so that we can clarify our goal and intent with this contract effort to ensure adequate competition is received and our goals are met.  We highly encourage all interested parties to attend.

The telecom is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 Jan 11, at 10:00 am (MST). To participate call into 505-853-3259. 

Interested Parties - the purpose of this posting is to address questions received in reponse to the formal RFP that was released on 20 Dec 10. See the attached Q&A.

In addition we have established a telecom for all interested vendors to participate in so that we can clarify our goal and intent with this contract effort to ensure adequate competition is received and our goals are met.  We highly encourage all interested parties to attend.

The telecom is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 Jan 11, at 10:00 am (MST). To participate call into 505-853-3259. 

AFNWC/PKE has attached amendments 0001 and 0002 to the posted RFP. When submitting proposals, Contractors must sign and acknowledge both amendments and send along with their proposals.

Interested Parties, 

Page 35 of the RFP, Section 2.4, states that proposals are due JAN 10 2011. Please disregard. The official date is JAN 25 2011. The RFP will be amended and posted as soon as possible.

Interested Parties, 

The AFNWC/PKE office is attaching the Final RFP Letter as well as the Final RFP for your review and response.   Proposals are due to our office NLT 25 Jan 11 at 2 p.m. MST.  All questions and concerns shall be addressed in writing to 2ndLt Joe Castillo at joe.castillo@kirtland.af.mil.  Please copy Ms. Donna Heinz (PCO) as well on all correspondence (donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil). 

We appreciate your patience. Thank you!

SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS)
17 December 2010

This announcement is issued in response to questions received regarding an RFP release date. It is anticipated that the RFP will be released on Monday 20 December 2010 or very soon thereafter. The anticipated due date for proposals is expected to be 24 January 2011. All interested parties should pay special attention to this announcement as any updates or changes to any information regarding this requirement will be posted here.

SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002 AMENDMENT 3
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS)

CS/Phone: Francine M. Chavez / 505-853-2483
Date: 06 December 2010

Amendment 3 is issued in response to questions received regarding the Draft RFP, dated
9 Nov 10, and the 23 Nov 10 acquisition strategy change posting on FedBizzOpps.

CONTRACTING

RFI #1: Comment: In attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (June 2008) there are some inconsistencies with Table 2.2- Proposal Organization (Page 3 of 24) and the written instructions in the rest of this portion of the document. Specifically, the table lists Volume III as the Cost/Price volume and Volume IV as the Relevant Past Performance volume. In the text of the same attachment, (Page 9 of 24) Section 5.0 lists Volume III as Past Performance whereas (Page 11 of 24) Section 6.0 lists Volume IV as Cost/Price. Question: Will the Air Force clarify the ordering of the Volumes for the response in the Final RFP?

Answer: Based on our change in acquisition strategy, Table 2.2 is updated to reflect Vol. III and Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 5.0 as Cost/Price. Contract documentation becomes Vol. IV and ITO paragraph 6.0. The Past Performance volume is deleted.

RFI#2: Comment: Attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (June 2008) Table 2.2 Proposal Organization (Page 4 of 24) lists the Relevant Past Performance as being limited to 3 citations, 5 pages per citation (plus questionnaires). In section 5.3.4 Past Performance Volume Contents the wording is "(3 relevant contracts, limited to 3 pages each)" with no mention of the questionnaire forms. Question: Please provide the corrected requirements for Past Performance citations.

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

RFI#3: Comment: In reference to the Past Performance Volume Contents, section 5.3 Relevant Contracts states that industry is to "...include information on no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors..."

Question 1: Will these additional relevant contracts be limited to 5 pages per citation plus questionnaires in the same manner as the prime vendors' relevant contracts?

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

Question 2: Is there a limit to the total number of Past Performance contracts (3 for the Prime and 3 for each partner/significant subcontractor)?

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

RFI#4: Comment: In reference to the same section (Past Performance Volume Contents, section 5.3 Relevant Contracts), if the AF's intent that the number of past performance citations for the Prime and any teaming partners be limited to three (3) in total, Praeses respectfully requests that the total be increased to five (5).

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

RFI#5: Question: Organization of CDRLs due at proposal submittal not provided. What are the DiDs for the CDRLs (Demo & Dev Plans)? DI-MGMT-80004(?)

Answer: The CDRLs and corresponding DiDs are presently under construction.

RFI#6: Question: There seems to be a typo. Should section 5.3 refer to Vol III instead of Vol IV?

Answer: Based on our change in acquisition strategy, Table 2.2 is updated to reflect Vol. III and Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 5.0 as Cost/Price. Contract documentation becomes Vol. IV and ITO paragraph 6.0. The Past Performance volume is deleted.

RFI#7: Question: There seems to be conflicting instructions. Should there be a delivery of all volumes on one CD or one CD per volume?

Answer: All volumes may be placed on a single CD, space permitting, and each volume shall be in a different directory on the CD. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. If there is not adequate space on a single CD then clearly identify on each CD the Volume number(s) located within the CD.

RFI#8: Question: The FedBizOps web page for the NETS solicitation indicates this acquisition is not a set aside, whereas the draft SF 1449 (page 1 of the draft RFP package) indicates this is 100% set aside for a small business. Please clarify which of these is correct.

Answer: Based on change in acquisition strategy, this will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small business proposals will be evaluated first using technically acceptable criteria to rank order them. Contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified small business offerors, dependent on availability of funds. Once the small business list of proposals is exhausted, large business proposals will be evaluated and rank ordered according to the same technically acceptable criteria. Again, contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified offerors, dependent on availability of funds.

RFI#9: Comment: Considering that this solicitation is looking for an existing commercial device that can be modified/updated to provide the desired capabilities in such a short time span, it would be advantageous to the Air Force to release this acquisition as ‘Unrestricted', allowing large businesses with the commensurate internal resources and Quality Assurance/Quality Control capabilities to ensure a successful solution.

Answer: As stated above, based on change in acquisition strategy, this will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses.

RFI#10: Question: Can you please clarify the statements bolded below? If we deliver the development plan after the demonstration, why is the development plan needed, if the demonstration is over? Is this just a simple developmental plan that is something for ya'll to be aware of, if at any time in the future, there may be carried out in another round of funding, which you stated clearly as was not coming?

Answer: Since we do not expect any one contractor will be able to satisfy all product outcomes or objectives, the development plan will explain how the demonstrated technology can be further developed/improved to fulfill the areas the technology demonstration did not address (activities, cost, and schedule). The development plan is in intended to help us to potentially build a requirement should there be follow-on funding.

RFI#11: Question: What is the timeline for "after the receipt of the demo"? Does this mean, we conduct the tech demo and then hand you immediately a rough-order-of-magnitude demo plan? The development plan will be required after receipt of the demonstration vice being due at the time of the proposal. The development plan will be a rough-order of-magnitude on what activities, cost and schedule would be required to further develop the technology.

Answer: The primary proposal submission will consist of the demonstration plan. The demonstration report and development plan will be during the course of the contract. The demonstration report will be due no later than 30 days after the formal technology demonstration. The development plan (a rough order of magnitude including activities, cost and schedule required to further develop the technology) will be required no later than 30 days after the technology demonstration report is delivered. The total period of performance is 210 days.

RFI#12: Question: Does the statement that this contract will be 100% small business set aside mean 100% of the effort must be done by a small business, or just that 100% of the multiple awards will be to small businesses?

Answer: The acquisition will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small businesses must demonstrate performance of 50% or more of the effort in order to be considered qualified and awardable. Large businesses will be considered for award after the small business proposal list has been exhausted.

RFI#13: Question: The current posted statement of objectives (SOO) is dated 22 September 2010 yet we have downloaded another dated 09 November 2010 from a different posting. What is the latest date for the Statement of Objectives?

Answer: Most recently posted version is the SOO, dated 9 Nov 10, posted in the Draft RFP.

TECHNICAL

RFI#1: Question: Are these the only requirements for a bio-metrically secure handheld computing device?

Answer: Yes, the handheld device will have to demonstrate biometric security to safeguard information but there is no predisposition on a possible solution. Demonstration of any and all capabilities the device can currently perform is acceptable.

RFI#2: Question: What is considered to be "local command and Control"?

Answer: This refers to on-the-scene munitions squadrons, groups, numbered AF, MAJCOMs, COCOMs, etc.

RFI#3: Question: Does the government need visibility into asset location while they are in flight or in transit? TAV 24/7 or something less?

Answer: Yes, we have to be able to track when and on what they are associated with. The Air Force in interested in ultimately being able to track any and all components 24/7.

RFI#4: Question: Is the government presently using UID/RFID technologies to track/monitor nuclear assets?

Answer: RFID is not used, unique serial numbering is used.

RFI#5: Question: Is the government looking for Cradle to Grave Total Asset Visibility?

Answer: The Air Force is interested in ultimately being able to track any and all components.

RFI#6: Question: What does the Air Force nuclear enterprise consist of? i.e., Land based as well as Aircraft.

Answer: The Air Force nuclear enterprise consists of a number of weapons systems, nuclear policies, procedures, and processes affecting nuclear operations. This includes the management, sustainment, and logistics of nuclear weapons-related material.

RFI#7: Question: How many items will be an acceptable number for the demonstration?

Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable. Offerors may demonstrate multiple solutions during their technology demonstration and the demonstration in its entirety shall not exceed a single day.

RFI#8: Question: Does SIPRNET interface well with the AF-GIG? Is the AF-GIG classified?

Answer: Parts of AF-GIG are classified (SIPRNET aspect) so SIPRNET does interface with AF-GIG.

RFI#9: Question: If there a requirement to transmit data from a classified to unclassified (SIPRNET/NIPRNET) environment?

Answer: No

RFI#10: Question: Are the CAS and DIAMONDS systems NOT NOW considered subject to interfacing for the demonstration?

Answer: Correct, there is no requirement to demonstrate CAS and DIAMONDS interface. Demonstrations are to be conducted in a relevant environment at contractor facilities to demonstrate capability offered.

RFI#11: Question: What are the general characteristics of the anticipated/specific ‘Trigger Points' that will send applicable data in the data tracking/monitoring process?

Answer: The general characteristics of the trigger points will be hand-off and transition of accountability from one entity to another (i.e. any movement must be tracked).

RFI#12: Question: What are the existing data systems (and associated detailed characteristics/'Trigger Points') from which the information required to satisfy the "...verify user credentials, personnel reliability status and currency/training qualifications"?

Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFI#13: Question: What percentage of nuclear assets is presently marked with UID?

Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFI#14: Question: Are nuclear legacy assets being marked during maintenance activities commonly referred to as "Trigger Points"?

Answer: See the answer to RFI#11 above.

RFI#15: Question: Are all assets currently maintained using the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS)?

Answer: Multiple systems are used to include IMDS.

RFI#16: Question: Is the IMDS currently being used to capture UID data/information?

Answer: No, not for all items.

RFI#17: Question: Will all existing/known issues discussed in Para 1.0 of the Instructions to Offerers Attachment be disclosed as part of the final RFP?

Answer: No, based on change in acquisition strategy, this is no longer relevant and it will be deleted from the final RFP.

RFI#18: Question: Please clarify how the Intellectual Property rights for any existing tool/capability that is used as the basis/foundation for the selected IT solution would be protected, ie, remain with the originating company?

Answer: The appropriate intellectual property clauses are currently under consideration and will be clearly delineated in the final RFP.

RFI#19: Comment: Instructions to Offerors, page 23 of 24, paragraph 2, requiring a comment for "...each and every response..." appears extremely burdensome for evaluators to complete; recommend comments for evaluation responses that are B/E (Blue/Exceptional) as well as responses that are R/U (Red/Unsatisfactory).

Answer: Noted.

RFI#20: Comment: The Statement of Objectives included as part of the Draft RFP states in section 6.0 Place of Performance (Page 2 of 2) that the "Performance under contract will take place at contractor facilities." Question: Will the AF allow the contractor to conduct necessary requirements gathering at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, to ensure the best alignment of the demonstration's functionality with the needs of the end users and other interested parties?

Answer: Since current knowledge is not required, there will be no access to Air Force personnel or facilities during the competitive proposal process. AFGSC and AFNWC personnel (approximately 5-10) will attend the technology demonstrations. Between the date of award and the actual demonstrations, AFNWC will publish the rules of engagement for government information exchange during the demonstration.

RFI#21: Question: Paragraph 3.0 Objectives of the 09 Nov SOO states: "Contractor technology demonstrations shall provide a system that decreases data input time, increases data reliability, increases security, reduces transcription issues, improves reporting timeliness, and improves command and control while supporting the Air Force's nuclear enterprise". Would you please explain further what is meant by increasing data reliability?

Answer: Increasing data reliability refers to: ..."the accuracy and completeness of computer processed data, given to intended purposes for use. Computer-processed data include data (1) entered into a computer system and (2) resulting from computer processing. Computer-processed data can vary in form from electronic files to tables in published reports".

RFI#22: Question: Paragraph 3.1.3 of the 09 November 2010 SOO states: "Demonstrate which of the following capabilities your technology currently addresses:" Subparagraph 3.1.3.3 further states: "Ability to continuously download, store, upload, view, report and print data to a secure portal and data repository". Does the word "print data to" mean "print data from" (i.e., has a command to send to printer), or does it mean to otherwise send/transmit/publish?

Answer: Good point. Should be "print data from"...

SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002 AMENDMENT 3
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS)

CS/Phone: Francine M. Chavez / 505-853-2483
Date: 06 December 2010

Amendment 3 is issued in response to questions received regarding the Draft RFP, dated
9 Nov 10, and the 23 Nov 10 acquisition strategy change posting on FedBizzOpps.

CONTRACTING

RFI #1: Comment: In attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (June 2008) there are some inconsistencies with Table 2.2- Proposal Organization (Page 3 of 24) and the written instructions in the rest of this portion of the document. Specifically, the table lists Volume III as the Cost/Price volume and Volume IV as the Relevant Past Performance volume. In the text of the same attachment, (Page 9 of 24) Section 5.0 lists Volume III as Past Performance whereas (Page 11 of 24) Section 6.0 lists Volume IV as Cost/Price. Question: Will the Air Force clarify the ordering of the Volumes for the response in the Final RFP?

Answer: Based on our change in acquisition strategy, Table 2.2 is updated to reflect Vol. III and Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 5.0 as Cost/Price. Contract documentation becomes Vol. IV and ITO paragraph 6.0. The Past Performance volume is deleted.

RFI#2: Comment: Attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (June 2008) Table 2.2 Proposal Organization (Page 4 of 24) lists the Relevant Past Performance as being limited to 3 citations, 5 pages per citation (plus questionnaires). In section 5.3.4 Past Performance Volume Contents the wording is "(3 relevant contracts, limited to 3 pages each)" with no mention of the questionnaire forms. Question: Please provide the corrected requirements for Past Performance citations.

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

RFI#3: Comment: In reference to the Past Performance Volume Contents, section 5.3 Relevant Contracts states that industry is to "...include information on no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors..."

Question 1: Will these additional relevant contracts be limited to 5 pages per citation plus questionnaires in the same manner as the prime vendors' relevant contracts?

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

Question 2: Is there a limit to the total number of Past Performance contracts (3 for the Prime and 3 for each partner/significant subcontractor)?

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

RFI#4: Comment: In reference to the same section (Past Performance Volume Contents, section 5.3 Relevant Contracts), if the AF's intent that the number of past performance citations for the Prime and any teaming partners be limited to three (3) in total, Praeses respectfully requests that the total be increased to five (5).

Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety.

RFI#5: Question: Organization of CDRLs due at proposal submittal not provided. What are the DiDs for the CDRLs (Demo & Dev Plans)? DI-MGMT-80004(?)

Answer: The CDRLs and corresponding DiDs are presently under construction.

RFI#6: Question: There seems to be a typo. Should section 5.3 refer to Vol III instead of Vol IV?

Answer: Based on our change in acquisition strategy, Table 2.2 is updated to reflect Vol. III and Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 5.0 as Cost/Price. Contract documentation becomes Vol. IV and ITO paragraph 6.0. The Past Performance volume is deleted.

RFI#7: Question: There seems to be conflicting instructions. Should there be a delivery of all volumes on one CD or one CD per volume?

Answer: All volumes may be placed on a single CD, space permitting, and each volume shall be in a different directory on the CD. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. If there is not adequate space on a single CD then clearly identify on each CD the Volume number(s) located within the CD.

RFI#8: Question: The FedBizOps web page for the NETS solicitation indicates this acquisition is not a set aside, whereas the draft SF 1449 (page 1 of the draft RFP package) indicates this is 100% set aside for a small business. Please clarify which of these is correct.

Answer: Based on change in acquisition strategy, this will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small business proposals will be evaluated first using technically acceptable criteria to rank order them. Contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified small business offerors, dependent on availability of funds. Once the small business list of proposals is exhausted, large business proposals will be evaluated and rank ordered according to the same technically acceptable criteria. Again, contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified offerors, dependent on availability of funds.

RFI#9: Comment: Considering that this solicitation is looking for an existing commercial device that can be modified/updated to provide the desired capabilities in such a short time span, it would be advantageous to the Air Force to release this acquisition as ‘Unrestricted', allowing large businesses with the commensurate internal resources and Quality Assurance/Quality Control capabilities to ensure a successful solution.

Answer: As stated above, based on change in acquisition strategy, this will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses.

RFI#10: Question: Can you please clarify the statements bolded below? If we deliver the development plan after the demonstration, why is the development plan needed, if the demonstration is over? Is this just a simple developmental plan that is something for ya'll to be aware of, if at any time in the future, there may be carried out in another round of funding, which you stated clearly as was not coming?

Answer: Since we do not expect any one contractor will be able to satisfy all product outcomes or objectives, the development plan will explain how the demonstrated technology can be further developed/improved to fulfill the areas the technology demonstration did not address (activities, cost, and schedule). The development plan is in intended to help us to potentially build a requirement should there be follow-on funding.

RFI#11: Question: What is the timeline for "after the receipt of the demo"? Does this mean, we conduct the tech demo and then hand you immediately a rough-order-of-magnitude demo plan? The development plan will be required after receipt of the demonstration vice being due at the time of the proposal. The development plan will be a rough-order of-magnitude on what activities, cost and schedule would be required to further develop the technology.

Answer: The primary proposal submission will consist of the demonstration plan. The demonstration report and development plan will be during the course of the contract. The demonstration report will be due no later than 30 days after the formal technology demonstration. The development plan (a rough order of magnitude including activities, cost and schedule required to further develop the technology) will be required no later than 30 days after the technology demonstration report is delivered. The total period of performance is 210 days.

RFI#12: Question: Does the statement that this contract will be 100% small business set aside mean 100% of the effort must be done by a small business, or just that 100% of the multiple awards will be to small businesses?

Answer: The acquisition will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small businesses must demonstrate performance of 50% or more of the effort in order to be considered qualified and awardable. Large businesses will be considered for award after the small business proposal list has been exhausted.

RFI#13: Question: The current posted statement of objectives (SOO) is dated 22 September 2010 yet we have downloaded another dated 09 November 2010 from a different posting. What is the latest date for the Statement of Objectives?

Answer: Most recently posted version is the SOO, dated 9 Nov 10, posted in the Draft RFP.

TECHNICAL

RFI#1: Question: Are these the only requirements for a bio-metrically secure handheld computing device?

Answer: Yes, the handheld device will have to demonstrate biometric security to safeguard information but there is no predisposition on a possible solution. Demonstration of any and all capabilities the device can currently perform is acceptable.

RFI#2: Question: What is considered to be "local command and Control"?

Answer: This refers to on-the-scene munitions squadrons, groups, numbered AF, MAJCOMs, COCOMs, etc.

RFI#3: Question: Does the government need visibility into asset location while they are in flight or in transit? TAV 24/7 or something less?

Answer: Yes, we have to be able to track when and on what they are associated with. The Air Force in interested in ultimately being able to track any and all components 24/7.

RFI#4: Question: Is the government presently using UID/RFID technologies to track/monitor nuclear assets?

Answer: RFID is not used, unique serial numbering is used.

RFI#5: Question: Is the government looking for Cradle to Grave Total Asset Visibility?

Answer: The Air Force is interested in ultimately being able to track any and all components.

RFI#6: Question: What does the Air Force nuclear enterprise consist of? i.e., Land based as well as Aircraft.

Answer: The Air Force nuclear enterprise consists of a number of weapons systems, nuclear policies, procedures, and processes affecting nuclear operations. This includes the management, sustainment, and logistics of nuclear weapons-related material.

RFI#7: Question: How many items will be an acceptable number for the demonstration?

Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable. Offerors may demonstrate multiple solutions during their technology demonstration and the demonstration in its entirety shall not exceed a single day.

RFI#8: Question: Does SIPRNET interface well with the AF-GIG? Is the AF-GIG classified?

Answer: Parts of AF-GIG are classified (SIPRNET aspect) so SIPRNET does interface with AF-GIG.

RFI#9: Question: If there a requirement to transmit data from a classified to unclassified (SIPRNET/NIPRNET) environment?

Answer: No

RFI#10: Question: Are the CAS and DIAMONDS systems NOT NOW considered subject to interfacing for the demonstration?

Answer: Correct, there is no requirement to demonstrate CAS and DIAMONDS interface. Demonstrations are to be conducted in a relevant environment at contractor facilities to demonstrate capability offered.

RFI#11: Question: What are the general characteristics of the anticipated/specific ‘Trigger Points' that will send applicable data in the data tracking/monitoring process?

Answer: The general characteristics of the trigger points will be hand-off and transition of accountability from one entity to another (i.e. any movement must be tracked).

RFI#12: Question: What are the existing data systems (and associated detailed characteristics/'Trigger Points') from which the information required to satisfy the "...verify user credentials, personnel reliability status and currency/training qualifications"?

Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFI#13: Question: What percentage of nuclear assets is presently marked with UID?

Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFI#14: Question: Are nuclear legacy assets being marked during maintenance activities commonly referred to as "Trigger Points"?

Answer: See the answer to RFI#11 above.

RFI#15: Question: Are all assets currently maintained using the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS)?

Answer: Multiple systems are used to include IMDS.

RFI#16: Question: Is the IMDS currently being used to capture UID data/information?

Answer: No, not for all items.

RFI#17: Question: Will all existing/known issues discussed in Para 1.0 of the Instructions to Offerers Attachment be disclosed as part of the final RFP?

Answer: No, based on change in acquisition strategy, this is no longer relevant and it will be deleted from the final RFP.

RFI#18: Question: Please clarify how the Intellectual Property rights for any existing tool/capability that is used as the basis/foundation for the selected IT solution would be protected, ie, remain with the originating company?

Answer: The appropriate intellectual property clauses are currently under consideration and will be clearly delineated in the final RFP.

RFI#19: Comment: Instructions to Offerors, page 23 of 24, paragraph 2, requiring a comment for "...each and every response..." appears extremely burdensome for evaluators to complete; recommend comments for evaluation responses that are B/E (Blue/Exceptional) as well as responses that are R/U (Red/Unsatisfactory).

Answer: Noted.

RFI#20: Comment: The Statement of Objectives included as part of the Draft RFP states in section 6.0 Place of Performance (Page 2 of 2) that the "Performance under contract will take place at contractor facilities." Question: Will the AF allow the contractor to conduct necessary requirements gathering at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, to ensure the best alignment of the demonstration's functionality with the needs of the end users and other interested parties?

Answer: Since current knowledge is not required, there will be no access to Air Force personnel or facilities during the competitive proposal process. AFGSC and AFNWC personnel (approximately 5-10) will attend the technology demonstrations. Between the date of award and the actual demonstrations, AFNWC will publish the rules of engagement for government information exchange during the demonstration.

RFI#21: Question: Paragraph 3.0 Objectives of the 09 Nov SOO states: "Contractor technology demonstrations shall provide a system that decreases data input time, increases data reliability, increases security, reduces transcription issues, improves reporting timeliness, and improves command and control while supporting the Air Force's nuclear enterprise". Would you please explain further what is meant by increasing data reliability?

Answer: Increasing data reliability refers to: ..."the accuracy and completeness of computer processed data, given to intended purposes for use. Computer-processed data include data (1) entered into a computer system and (2) resulting from computer processing. Computer-processed data can vary in form from electronic files to tables in published reports".

RFI#22: Question: Paragraph 3.1.3 of the 09 November 2010 SOO states: "Demonstrate which of the following capabilities your technology currently addresses:" Subparagraph 3.1.3.3 further states: "Ability to continuously download, store, upload, view, report and print data to a secure portal and data repository". Does the word "print data to" mean "print data from" (i.e., has a command to send to printer), or does it mean to otherwise send/transmit/publish?

Answer: Good point. Should be "print data from"...

SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002 AMENDMENT 2
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS)

CS/Phone: Francine M. Chavez / 505-853-2483
Date: 06 December 2010

Amendment 2 is issued in response to Requests for Information (RFI's) received prior to release of the Draft RFP (9 Nov 10).

Contracting

RFI #1: Based on the SOO in Para. 5.0, Period of Performance ("Proposed by contractors in the Statement of Work"), will the contractor specified periods of performance define the overall period of performance for the Contract?

Answer: The government anticipates releasing an RFP with a final SOO that specifies the Period of Performance as 210 days.

RFI #2: Has an acquisition schedule been defined? If so, can you release it to industry?

Answer: The formal RFP will be released no later than 10 Dec 10 with proposals due 10 Jan 11. We anticipate contract award(s) within 30 days after proposal receipt. This of course is dependent on the number of proposals received. The primary proposal submission will consist of the demonstration plan. The demonstration report and development plan will be during the course of the contract. The demonstration report will be due no later than 30 days after the formal technology demonstration. The development plan (a rough order of magnitude including activities, cost and schedule required to further develop the technology) will be required no later than 30 days after the technology demonstration report is delivered.

RFI #3: Has the Air Force determined their budget for this acquisition and can that budget information be shared with the Offerors at this time?

Answer: The AFNWC in support of AFGSC intends to use Research, Development, Test and Engineering (RDT&E) funds for this effort. AFNWC anticipates making several firm-fixed price contract awards, estimated at no more than 10, pursuant to this acquisition depending on the number of fully capable proposals received and availability of funds. The estimated cumulative cost for all contracts awarded is expected to not exceed $3.5 M. Individual contracts shall not exceed $350,000.
 
Technical

RFI #1: Are the Mission Owners and Acquisition Decision Milestone authorities identified for the purpose of certification and accreditation?

Answer: Certification and accreditation is not a contract requirement. Should a follow-on program occur, the appropriate mission owners and acquisition authorities will be identified at that time.

RFI #2: Please describe the Air Force resources, personnel, equipment, data, and data access that will be available during the SOW development period, during program execution.

Answer: None will be provided during the competitive proposal process. Upon contract award, the government will work with each contractor to determine the technology demonstration schedule. AFGSC and AFNWC personnel (approximately 5-10) will attend the technology demonstrations. Between the date of award and the actual demonstrations, AFNWC will publish the rules of engagement for government information exchange.

RFI #3: What provisions are in place to secure access to the identified Air Force Data systems during the demonstration period?

Answer: Since this is not a contract requirement, there will be no access to Air Force data systems.

RFI #4: What portions of capability is already available on the Air Force network?

Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFI#5: Do you want to meet FBI and Homeland Security standards on finger prints (ANSI 378, and FIPS 201) - they are all "one of many" and require an area scanner - the area scanner can be MIL STD 810G but may be issues if fingers dirty etc.

Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable.

RFI#6: Could we use a line scanner? - More rugged and less likely to be screwed up by dirt - but not ANSI 378 data - however will provide positive ID data for number of users (maybe 100) and works well on a portable device.

Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable.

RFI#7: How do you want to enroll a user - will they use hand held Finger Print reader or another reader and can you provide ANSI 378 standard file?

Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable.

RFI#8: How many users do you expect per Hand held reader?

Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable.

SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002 AMENDMENT 1 - REVISION
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS)

CS/Phone: Francine M. Chavez / 505-853-2483
Date: 06 December 2010

Amendment 1 - Due to changes in the acquisition strategy, we are issuing a revision to Amendment 1. This revision only includes those Requests for Information (RFI's) that are impacted by the strategy change. The RFI numbers where a revision/update occurred will correspond with the original RFI numbers from Amendment 1, dated 27 Oct 10. All other RFI's that did not require revision/update are considered current and have been omitted from this revision

1. RFI RESPONSES

CONTRACTING

RFI #2: Based on the last paragraph of the Statement of Objectives (SOO) para 3.0 ("The offeror's SOW shall specify in clear, understandable terms the work to be done by the contractor in developing or producing the technology demonstration and define what is required in specific performance based, quantitative terms.") our assumption is that the RFP will require Offerors to develop and submit a Statement of Work (SOW) that addresses the information contained in the SOO. This approach provides an excellent opportunity to meet Air Force objectives given that:
a. The Offeror developed SOW provides a means of evaluating proposals to determine if the Offeror can satisfy the "outcomes" defined in the SOW.
b. The Offeror developed SOW provides a means of determining which Offeror is best positioned to provide the demonstration.

Answer: It is anticipated the final RFP will require a demonstration plan (similar to a SOW) that addresses the information contained in the SOO. The purpose of the plan is for offerors to provide details on their approach to the technology demonstration contract. The content of the plan will be delineated in both the Instructions to Offerors and through a CDRL requirement. A SOW will no longer be required.

RFI #4: Our assumption is that the SOW and other deliverables required by the Request for Proposal (RFP) will not allow classified proposals. Is this assumption correct?

Answer: The solicitation will contain a DD254 classified at the Secret level. Proposals will be unclassified.

RFI #5: Our assumption is that a pre-proposal conference will be held that will brief industry on the program and to answer general questions, is this assumption correct?

Answer: Based on the fact the purpose of these contracts is to receive technology demonstrations and they require no knowledge of our current systems or nuclear processes, we will not be conducting an industry day or one-on-one sessions with offerors.

RFI #6: Our assumption is that the Air Force will allow industry to participate in one-on-one meetings with Government contracting and technical representatives. Is this assumption correct?

Answer: Based on the fact the purpose of these contracts is to receive technology demonstrations and they require no knowledge of our current systems or nuclear processes, we will not be conducting an industry day or one-on-one sessions with offerors.

RFI #8: The SOO seems to imply that the contract will be awarded to a single contractor. Has an acquisition strategy been determined indicating the number of awards?

Answer: AFNWC anticipates making several firm-fixed price contract awards, estimated at no more than 10, pursuant to this acquisition depending on the number of fully capable proposals received and availability of funds. The estimated cumulative cost for all contracts awarded is expected to not exceed $3.5 M. Individual contracts shall not exceed $350,000.

RFI #11: Based on the SOO in para. 5.0, Period of Performance ("Proposed by contractors in the Statement of Work"), will the contractor specified periods of performance define the overall period of performance for the Contract?

Answer: The Period of Performance will be no more than 210 days.

RFI #13: Has an acquisition schedule been defined? If so, can you release it to industry?

Answer: The formal RFP will be released no later than 10 Dec 10 with proposals due 10 Jan 11. We anticipate contract award(s) within 30 days after proposal receipt. This of course is dependent on the number of proposals received. The primary proposal submission will consist of the demonstration plan. The demonstration report and development plan will be during the course of the contract. The demonstration report will be due no later than 30 days after the formal technology demonstration. The development plan (a rough order of magnitude including activities, cost and schedule required to further develop the technology) will be required no later than 30 days after the technology demonstration report is delivered.

RFI #14: Has the Air Force determined their budget for this acquisition and can that budget information be shared with the Offerors at this time?

Answer: The AFNWC in support of AFGSC intends to use Research, Development, Test and Engineering (RDT&E) funds for this effort. AFNWC anticipates making several firm-fixed price contract awards, estimated at no more than 10, pursuant to this acquisition depending on the number of fully capable proposals received and availability of funds. The estimated cumulative cost for all contracts awarded is expected not to exceed $3.5 M. Individual contracts shall not exceed $350,000.

TECHNICAL

RFI #10: Is there an identified date for the Initial Operating Capability or Full Operational Capability for the demonstrated systems?

Answer: No. There is currently no funding or formal follow-on program requiring operational capability.

RFI #11: Are the Mission Owners and Acquisition Decision Milestone authorities identified for the purpose of certification and accreditation?

Answer: Certification and accreditation is not a contract requirement. Should a follow-on program occur, the appropriate mission owners and acquisition authorities will be identified at that time.

RFI #12: Please describe the Air Force resources, personnel, equipment, data, and data access that will be available during the SOW development period, during program execution.

Answer: None will be provided during the competitive proposal process. Upon contract award, the government will work with each contractor to determine the technology demonstration schedule. AFGSC and AFNWC personnel (approximately 5-10) will attend the technology demonstrations. Between the date of award and the actual demonstrations, AFNWC will publish the rules of engagement for government information exchange.

RFI #13: What provisions are in place to secure access to the identified Air Force Data systems during the demonstration period?

Answer: Since this is not a contract requirement, there will be no access to Air Force data systems.

RFI #14: Will access to SIPRNet via a sponsored contractor SCIF be provided during the Period of Performance of this effort?

Answer: There should be no need to have SIPRNet connectivity or utilize a SCIF.

RFI #16: What portions of capability is already available on the Air Force network?

Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

We will be releasing three Amendments within the next couple of days that will contain answers to all RFI's received to date. These Amendments will contain:

Amendment 1 (Revision): Will be a revision of Amendment 1 dated 27 October 2010. This revision will be issued based on the changes that occurred upon refining our acquisition strategy.

Amendment 2: Will be issued in response to RFI's received prior to Draft RFP release of 09 November 2010.

Amendment 3: Will be issued in response to RFI's received after the Draft RFP release of 09 November 2010.

We are still on track and intend to post the formal RFP no later than 10 December 2010 with proposals due 10 January 2011. We still anticipate contract award(s) within 30 days after proposal receipt. This of course is dependent on the number of proposals received.

Please direct all questions/concerns directly to the Contracting Officer at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil.

Based on industry feedback and questions relative to the Draft RFP, we have refined our acquisition strategy. The purpose of this posting is to provide industry with a timeline as well as an outline of the primary changes in our strategy.

First, the timeline is as follows. We will post answers to industry's questions no later than 30 Nov 10. The formal RFP will be released no later than 10 Dec 10 with proposals due 10 Jan 11. We anticipate contract award(s) within 30 days after proposal receipt. This of course is dependent on the number of proposals received.

The purpose of this acquisition is to award multiple technology demonstration contract(s) in order to gain insight into the technologies AFGSC could potentially utilize to enhance nuclear asset tracking. There is presently no formal program, no follow-on acquisition, and no funding to pursue this project beyond these technology demonstrations. If a follow-on program were to occur in the future, it would be a competitive acquisition and offerors who are not awarded a technology demonstration contract will have the opportunity to compete.

AFNWC anticipates making several firm-fixed price contract awards, estimated at no more than 10, pursuant to this acquisition depending on the number of fully capable proposals received and availability of funds. The estimated cumulative cost for all contracts awarded shall not exceed $3.5M. Individual contracts will not exceed $350,000.

The acquisition will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small business proposals will be evaluated first using technically acceptable criteria to rank order them. Contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified small business offerors, dependent on availability of funds. Once the small business list of proposals is exhausted, large business proposals will be evaluated and rank ordered according to the same technically acceptable criteria. Again, contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified offerors, dependent on availability of funds.

The evaluation criteria is being simplified and broadened. Since these elements are currently under rewrite, we are simply providing an outline here of what the anticipated evaluation criteria may include: soundness of approach, number of capabilities within the government SOO the technology solution can currently satisfy, innovativeness of the approach and/or technological solution, and contract cost. Proposals will be rank ordered based on the number of capabilities offered, approach and cost. It is expected cost reasonableness will be determined using adequate price competition. There is no requirement to have knowledge of our current systems and/or nuclear processes and there is no requirement to have a capability that is already deployed within a military or secure environment. However, if offerors do possess nuclear logistics knowledge and can thus demonstrate how their technology could interface with these current systems, their proposal will be given extra weight in the rank ordering process. Likewise, if offerors have technology solutions that have already been deployed and are proven in a military or secure environment similar to AFGSC's environment, proposals will be given extra weight when rank ordering them. Based on the fact, the purpose of these contract(s) is to receive technology demonstrations and they require no knowledge of our current systems or nuclear processes, we will not be conducting an industry day or one-on-one sessions with offerors.

The remainder of the draft RFP is also undergoing simplification. We anticipate deleting the past performance evaluation criteria. The page count for the SOW and demonstration plan (CDRL) may be reduced. And the CDRLs are being rewritten. The development plan will be required after receipt of the demonstration vice being due at the time of the proposal. The development plan will be a rough-order of-magnitude on what activities, cost and schedule would be required to further develop the technology.

We thank industry for their interest in this program and for the questions and feedback we received on our Draft RFP. As previously stated industry questions will be answered no later than 30 Nov 10 and the RFP will be released no later than 10 Dec 10.

Please direct all questions/concerns directly to the Contracting Officer at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil.

Attached is the Draft RFP including Sections L & M, revised SOO, DD Form 254, and CDRLS for industry questions and comments. Please understand that this is a request for information in order to receive industry feedback only.

No proposals are being requested or accepted with this posting. This is not a Request for Proposal and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation or ultimately award a contract. Any costs incurred as a result of this announcement shall be borne by the offeror and will not be charged to the Government for reimbursement. We greatly appreciate your feedback. Please remain posted for future updates.

Potential offerors should contact the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Contract Specialist, Francine M. Chavez at francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil and the Contracting Officer Ms. Donna C. Heinz at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil with all questions and concerns electronically. Please contact the Contracting Officer in the event that the Contract Specialist is unavailable.

The United States Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) intends to issue a Request for Proposal, FA9422-11-R-000x (number to be determined), to acquire technology demonstrations related to Nuclear Enterprise Tracking System (NETS). The purpose of this posting is to request Statements of Capabilities (SOC) to assist in finalizing the acquisition strategy and to update industry on the schedule for this potential requirement.

At this time, the AFNWC respectfully requests interested parties provide a SOC (not to exceed 8 pages) no later than 2:00 pm (MST) on 26 Oct 10. The information the government gains in reviewing/evaluating these SOCs will be used in determining if the acquisition will be accomplished through full and open competition or become a small business set-aside using NAICS Code 541712. Therefore, we would appreciate all interested parties who intend to bid as a prime participate in providing a SOC. This SOC should provide information that demonstrates the company has a clear understanding and in-depth knowledge of Air Force processes currently used for asset tracking and a knowledge and understanding of current Air Force logistics information systems, especially as it relates to tracking nuclear parts/components. Specifically, demonstrate your company has the expertise to provide real-time local/corporate command and control in tracking nuclear components and the ability to integrate a new technology that will interface with the existing nuclear parts/components and asset tracking systems (secure and unsecure side), such as the Air Force Global Information Grid (AF-GIG), Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS), Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS), Standard Base Supply System (SBSS), Combat Ammunition System (CAS), and Defense Integration and Management of Nuclear Data Services (DIAMONDS). Any listing of past contract efforts to demonstrate expertise in some or all of these areas is appreciated. It is not anticipated that a single company would have expertise in all the areas listed so please identify what areas you have past experience in and, if you can at this time, demonstrate if any shortfalls would be subcontracted and write a brief description of your subcontractors expertise. The SOC should also contain information demonstrating if your company has the ability to handle Secret and Top Secret level information. Electronic submissions are accepted and preferred. Submit to: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PKE, 8150 "F" Ave., Bldg 20226, Rm. 9, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 or to Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil.

We received a wealth of questions from Industry from the posting of the draft Statement of Objectives. We will provide responses to industry (thru a FedBizOps posting) by the end of October 2010 or sooner. Shortly thereafter, we will provide a draft RFP for industry comment.

This is a presolicitation notice and is not a request for competitive proposals.

Information herein is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision, and is not binding on the Government. The Government will not recognize any cost associated with submission of information in response to this or previous notices. Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to the Government Points of Contact: Ms. Francine M. Chavez (email: Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil, phone: 505-853-2483) or Ms. Donna Heinz (email: donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil, phone at 505-846-9516).

The United States Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) intends to issue a Request for Proposal, FA9422-11-F-000x (number to be determined), to acquire technology demonstrations related to Nuclear Enterprise Tracking System (NETS) - formerly identified as Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking (NEST) and originally posted on FedBizOps on 15 June 2010 with an amendment posted on 1 July 2010.  This will be a full and open competition through GSA schedules.  At this time, the AFNWC respectfully requests interested parties provide comments/questions regarding the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO) no later than 2:00 pm (MST) on 6 Oct 10.  Electonic submissions are accepted.  Submit to: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PKE, 8150 "F" Ave., Bldg 20226, Rm. 9, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 or to Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil.

This is a presolicitation notice and is not a request for competitive proposals.

Information herein is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision, and is not  binding on the Government.  The Government will not recognize any cost associated with submission of information in response to this or previous notices.  Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to the Government Points of Contact: Ms. Francine M. Chavez (email: Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil, phone: 505-853-2483) or Ms. Donna Heinz (email: donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil, phone at 505-846-9516).

The United States Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) intends to issue a Request for Proposal, FA9422-11-F-000x (number to be determined), to acquire technology demonstations related to Nuclear Enterprise Tracking System (NETS) - formerly identified as Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking (NEST) and originally posted on FedBizOps on 15 June 2010 with an amendment posted on 1 July 2010.  This will be a full and open competition through GSA schedules.  At this time, the AFNWC respectfully requests interested parties provide comments/questions regarding the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO) no later than 2:00 pm (MST) on 6 Oct 10.  Electonic submissions are accepted.  Submit to: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PKE, 8150 "F" Ave., Bldg 20226, Rm. 9, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 or to Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil.

This is a presolicitation notice and is not a request for competitive proposals.

Information herein is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision, and is not  binding on the Government.  The Government will not recognize any cost associated with submission of information in response to this or previous notices.  Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to the Government Points of Contact: Ms. Francine M. Chavez (email: Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil, phone: 505-853-2483) or Ms. Donna Heinz (email: donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil, phone at 505-846-9516).

The United States Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) intends to issue a Request for Proposal, FA9422-11-F-000x (number to be determined), to acquire technology demonstations related to Nuclear Enterprise Tracking System (NETS) - formerly identified as Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking (NEST) and originally posted on FedBizOps on 15 June 2010 with an amendment posted on 1 July 2010.  This will be a full and open competition through GSA schedules.  At this time, the AFNWC respectfully requests interested parties provide comments/questions regarding the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO) no later than 2:00 pm (MST) on 7 Oct 10.  Electonic submissions are accepted.  Submit to: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PKE, 8150 "F" Ave., Bldg 20226, Rm. 9, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 or to Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil.

This is a presolicitation notice and is not a request for competitive proposals.

Information herein is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision, and is not  binding on the Government.  The Government will not recognize any cost associated with submission of information in response to this or previous notices.  Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to the Government Points of Contact: Ms. Francine M. Chavez (email: Francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil, phone: 505-853-2483) or Ms. Donna Heinz (email: donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil, phone at 505-846-9516).

Subject: In support of Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) is conducting Market Research to assess industry's capability to conduct a technology demonstration that will identify technologies and applications on a bio-metrically secure handheld computing device to enable the real-time tracking of key nuclear components, bombs, and warheads across the Air Force nuclear enterprise. The technology demonstration will exhibit mobile computing capability, technology compatible with current DoD systems used in the nuclear surety mission, capability of receiving appropriate certifications required for use in support of the Air Force nuclear mission, support of full Nuclear Surety tasking list integration, the unique identification of tracked components, and local command and control, support operations in connected and disconnected state, synchronization of data to ensure Nuclear Surety personnel have immediate access to the latest command directives, the use of biometric identification (compliant with Air Force requirements for connection to the Air Force Global Intelligence Grid (AF-GIG)), coupled with a layered log-in protocol to verify the user and user credentials prior to access/assignment of task, and support of appropriate security and Anti-Tamper measures.

Request for Statement of Capability (SOC) Within a GSA Schedule:

Businesses having the capability to perform the effort as described within the parameters of a GSA Schedule are invited to submit a Statement of Capability (SOC). This will enable the Government to determine whether the acquisition should be awarded through a GSA Schedule. Interested parties shall also provide a copy of the applicable GSA schedule. Offerors shall also indicate whether they are/are not a small business, a small disadvantaged business, 8(a), hub-zone certified, woman-owned, veteran-owned, service disabled veteran-owned or Historically Black College or University. Foreign owned firms are advised they may be precluded from submitting a SOC. These firms are advised to contact the Contracting Point of Contact or Technical Point of Contact before submitting a SOC. These positions require employees to be United States Citizens.

The Statement of Capability (SOC) shall contain the following information: (1) Company background in performing this type of work; (2) A listing of Government contracts of like items that have been built; (3) Discuss what technology is readily available. Include a copy of the applicable GSA schedule. If submitting by US mail, an original plus two (2) copies of the SOC and GSA schedule are due no later than 12:00 pm MST on 6 July 2010. If submitting electronically, the same time and date apply. The SOC and GSA schedule shall be submitted to: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PKE, 8150 "F" Ave., Bldg 20226, Rm. 9, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 or to Francine.Chavez2@kirtland.af.mil. The SOC is limited to 10 pages, single spaced, 12-point font, Times New Roman. Submitted information shall be unclassified. NOTE: If there is a resulting contract it will be made only to offeror(s) who have sufficient Top Secret cleared and qualified personnel available at the time of contract award. All contractors' employees shall maintain, at a minimum, a Top Secret level clearance, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Special Access Programs eligibility. Additionally, access to classified DTRA database will be required at the Secret Level.

THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE A SOLICITATION OR ULTIMATELY AWARD A CONTRACT. Any costs incurred as a result of this announcement shall be borne by the offeror and will not be charged to the Government for reimbursement. Do not summit a SOC if you do not intend to be a prime or lead. Potential offerors should refer contracting concerns to the Contract Specialist, Francine M. Chavez at (505) 853-2483, or refer technical concerns to the Technical Point of Contact, Vince McFadden (505) 853-7187.

Contracting Points of Contact (POCs): AFNWC/PKE Contract Specialist Francine M. Chavez at Francine.Chavez2@kirtland.af.mil or (505)853-2483.

Technical POC: AFNWC/XRC Vince McFadden, at Vincent.McFadden@kirtland.af.mil, or (505) 853-7187.