Request for Information (RFI) - SF/GEODSS Feasibility

MARKET RESEARCH

Space Fence System and Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance 

RFI No. 1 – Feasibility Questions 

NOTE: This Request for Information (RFI) is not a solicitation for proposals or bids and no contract will be awarded as a result of this announcement.

Introduction:

The United States Space Force (USSF) is researching the feasibility and benefits of combining the requirements of Space Fence System (SFS) and Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) under a single contract. Currently, both programs are being performed under two separate contracts. The current Performance Work Statement (PWS) for each program has been attached (i.e., Attch1-SF, Attch2-GEDOSS) for reference to gain a better understanding of the potential combined requirement scope. 

Purpose:

This RFI is for market research and planning purposes only; there are no acquisition milestones or determination of small business set-aside. The information received will assist the USSFs, Space Operations Command (SpOC), Space Acquisitions and Integration Office (SAIO) in determining feasibility, advantages, and best acquisition strategy. This is not a request for proposal. Your response to this RFI is strictly voluntary and will not be shared with anyone outside the USSF. No payment will be made for any submission received. 

Background:

SFS is comprised of one (1) location: SF Sensor Site 1, located Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) at the U.S. Army Garrison – Kwajalein Atoll (USAG-KA) in the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the Western Pacific, designated as Operating Location “A” (OL-A). The current contract for SFS is under NAICS 517919 and PSC M1BC, and has a Firm Fixed-Price line for Site 1 location (includes all O&M labor), with a Cost Reimbursable line for local purchases/travel/labor surges, and a Cost Reimbursable line for separately negotiated Individual Job Orders. 

GEODSS is comprised of three (3) geographically separated locations: Det 1, located at Stallion Range Center, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico (NM); Det 2, located at Naval Support Facility (NSF), Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); and 15 SPSS, Maui Island, Hawaii (HI). The current contract for GEODSS is under NAICS 517919 and PSC M1BG, and has a Firm Fixed-Price for each of three (3) locations (includes all O&M labor), with a Cost Reimbursable line for local purchase/travel, and a Cost Reimbursable line for separately negotiated Individual Job Orders. 

Industry Response:

Responses are expected to be on company letterhead and must include the following information: date, point of contact, address, phone number, email address, UEI number, CAGE code, registered NAICS, and business size. Vendors may submit responses to the Government’s questions on or before the closing time of this RFI, 1000 MST, 04 April 2024. Interested and willing vendors will only submit responses to the RFI via email to the Government points of contact below in PDF or Microsoft Word format. Hard copy submissions will not be accepted. Responses shall be no more than 10 pages (single spaced, no smaller than Times New Roman, font size 12 or equivalent). Extraneous materials (brochures, manuals, etc.) are not being requested or accepted. Please answer the questions completely. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. 

Government Point(s) of Contact: 

• Stephen Makowsky: stephen.makowsky.1@spaceforce.mil 

QUESTIONS: 

1. Does your company have experience and capability in both radar and telescope O&M? As the prime or subcontractor?
2. What risks and/or complexities do you see in managing two (2) distinct programs at four (4) geographically separated remote locations? How would you mitigate these?
3. Do you foresee any risks to either programs mission by consolidating these requirements? Are there any identifiable benefits to the programs mission?
4. Is there any operational or maintenance advantage/disadvantages to combining these programs? Please be specific. (I.e., Quality, time savings, improved/enhanced performance, etc.)
5. Do you foresee any efficiencies that could be realized between the two requirements or any potential challenges by combining them under one contract? Please be specific. (I.e., reduced manpower, cost of labor, etc.)
6. According to FAR 7.107-2(d)(1), combining SFS and GEODSS would require measurably substantial benefits equivalent to savings of at least 5% of the total combined contract value (including options).
   1. Is achieving measurably substantial benefits equivalent to 5% of the contract value feasible?  If not, what is the greatest achievable percentage of savings?
   2. How would you achieve these savings and/or quantify other measurable substantial benefits?  Why would this approach result in savings and/or achieve measurably substantial benefits?  Please be very specific.
   • (Note 1: However, if the proposed savings is solely from administrative or personnel costs, the demonstrated savings must be 10% (not 5%) in accordance with FAR 7.107-2(d)(3) which states, “Reduction of administrative or personnel costs alone is not sufficient justification for consolidation unless the cost savings are expected to be at least 10 percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) of the consolidated requirements.”)
7. Based on the two current requirements, what contract type and CLIN structure/type would be most advantageous? And why?
8. What North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes do you believe would best fit this requirement?
9. What type of incentives, if any, would you deem appropriate for this type of contract? What are the reasons for this incentive and how would it assist in cost and/or performance control?
10. If SFS and GEODSS are consolidated it may impact small business.  Accordingly, special emphasis would need to be taken to ensure maximum participation for small business in accordance with FAR 7.107-2(a)(5) and (e)(1).
    1. What size standard is your company?
       • If large, do you see any issues with subcontracting with a small business?
       • If small, what do you see as barriers, risks to performance, partnering with others?
    2. What approach would you use to ensure small business is afforded maximum participation?
    3. Considering the special emphasis on maximum participation, what percentage of contract value is a reasonable small business subcontracting goal?