SPECIAL NOTICE
A -- ETS (management and professional services, studies and analyses, engineering & technical services
- Notice Date
- 4/12/2004
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 541330
— Engineering Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Direct Reporting Units, AFOTEC/RMC, 8500 Gibson Blvd SE, Kirtland AFB, NM, 87117-5558
- ZIP Code
- 87117-5558
- Archive Date
- 5/8/2004
- Point of Contact
- Roxanna Roda, Contracting Officer, Phone 505-846-8423, Fax 505-846-2414, - Isabel Washburn, Contract Specialist, Phone 505.846.2065, Fax 505.846.2414,
- E-Mail Address
-
roxanna.roda@afotec.af.mil, Isabel.Washburn@afotec.af.mil
- Description
- Interested Company, AFOTEC would appreciate if you would take some time and answer the questions below. We are interested in your response and hope that using some of your advice we can better support our contractual requirements. We would appreciate if you could provide your answers back to us in writing by 23 April 2004. HQ AFOTEC/RMC Attn: Roxanna Roda 8500 Gibson Blvd SE Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5558 Commerciality: Current acquisition guidance encourages the Government to adopt the best practices of industry by purchasing commercial services. Do you think this acquisition is commercial? Please specifically address the following: a. Are these same services provided in the commercial market? b. If so how are these services provided in the commercial market? In other words, what Government contract type most closely resembles the typical commercial contract used to purchase A&AS? Consider major terms and conditions in your answer, but focus on the pricing methodology. c. What are other major differences between our requirement and what is accepted commercial business practice? Metrics: AFOTEC needs to establish meaningful and measurable metrics for the services required under the ETS contract (management and professional services, studies and analyses, engineering & technical services). Please provide industry input on how best to develop standards which measure contractor performance, or how, after contract award, to compare one contractor to another doing the same type of work. It is already assumed the contractor meets all deliverables within budget and schedule requirements of the task order. Provide as many inputs as feasible, but specific examples might include: * Quality of studies/analyses/reports * Contract/Task Order management * Team management (skills, retention, training, etc.) * Efficiency/Management of Government resources * Cost control/cost avoidance * Responsiveness to customer * Time/budget projections (with milestones) What other types of performance objectives or performance measurements do you feel are appropriate for this type of effort? Please explain your answer. Task orders will primarily be competed using best value to the Government. How well your company is measured on your current task order will be a factor in whether your company is considered for future task orders. With this in mind, are the metrics you proposed in response to the previous questions still valid? Please explain your answer. Incentives: Do you feel incentives are appropriate for this type of effort? If so, which one would be best and why? Do you feel incentives will add measurable value to the contract? Please explain your answer and consider the cost of administrating the incentive program into your answer. Based on the metrics discussed above, what measurements would you use to incentivize the type of work under this contract? Streamlining RFPs and Task Order Awards/Management The Government desires a streamlined approach to awarding task orders that maximizes competition. Request industry provide input and suggestions for streamlining the Task Order Management and RFP process. What is your definition of a streamlined process for Task Order Management and RFP? What is a reasonable amount of time to return a streamlined task order proposal? How might a website facilitate this streamline process? What is the impact of requiring a bid for each task order in the RFP from each contractor, in that we want maximum competition? How would maximum competition be maintained without this requirement? Will task order proposal costs undermine the competition we hope to gain from this contracting scheme? Please explain your answer. How do you recommend we mitigate this? What types of requirements or restrictions on proposals might be useful to streamline and reduce proposal costs (e.g. page limits, oral presentations, etc.). Do you feel that oral presentations, written proposals or a combination of both has the most benefit to the Government? Teaming Restrictions: A Government concern is the ability to maintain competition at the task order level. This is a particular concern when contractors participate on more that one team. What do you feel is the impact to competition when team members (primes or subcontractors) participate on more than one team? If team members are allowed to participate on more than one team, how can the Government be assured that competition will be maintained? Request industry input on how the Government should address teaming restrictions in the RFP? Please explain your position. Number of Contracts: The Government’s initial plan is to award up to four contracts. Please provide your comments on this number of awards. Would you prefer more awards or fewer awards? Please explain your answer. Consider competition, small business participation, and a streamlined task order award process in your answer. Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI): The Government anticipates OCI issues at both the contract and task order level. Request industry input on how the Government should address this issue in the RFP and how industry plans to manage it. Do you think it would be beneficial for you to provide a draft OCI mitigation plan at the time of the draft RFP? The Government will review your draft OCI plan and provide feedback. Will this facilitate your bid/no bid decision? Please explain your position. Cost Control: The Government is concerned with pass-through costs for team members. How can the Government incentivize you to be innovative in your overhead/management structure to eliminate or significantly reduce “pass through costs” to subcontractors, and search for ways to realize efficiencies, while still providing quality service? Should the Government require a contract ceiling for pass-through costs or simply let the competition determine these costs? Please explain your position. How can the Government word its evaluation criteria and the resultant contract to achieve this goal? Do you have a DCAA approved/audited Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) for indirect/overhead rates and/or labor rates? Please clarify what FPRA’s you have or why you do not have a FPRA. Do all your team members/subcontractors have FPRA’s? If not, please explain why. Clearance Requirements: What mix of clearance do you currently maintain on your staff – Secret, TS, TS/SCI, uncleared? (70/10/20 percent mix, for example). Do you have or have access to a non-government owned SCIF? In the competitive market that will service HQ AFOTEC via the ETS contract, how are you affected by requirements for Secret and SCI cleared personnel? How do you characterize the pool of cleared/clearable people (suggested terms: flexible, severely limited, cost prohibitive, ample, front-loaded, open, available, non-existent, manageable)? Please clarify your answer. How long do you anticipate it will take to fill an SCI position from the time you identify the need (task order)? Risks: What do you see as the risk areas associated with this effort and how would you mitigate these risks. Please provide any additional feedback you feel is relevant. NOTE: THIS NOTICE WAS NOT POSTED TO WWW.FEDBIZOPPS.GOV ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (12-APR-2004); HOWEVER, IT DID APPEAR IN THE FEDBIZOPPS FTP FEED ON THIS DATE. PLEASE CONTACT fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
- Web Link
-
Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/USAF/DRU/AFOTECRMC/Reference-Number-FA7046-04-S-0001-A/listing.html)
- Record
- SN00564354-F 20040414/040412212742 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |