SOURCES SOUGHT
15 -- E-9 CLS Support
- Notice Date
- 10/22/2008
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 488190
— Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Tinker OC-ALC - (Central Contracting), 3001 Staff Drive, Ste 1AG76A, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 73145-3015
- ZIP Code
- 73145-3015
- Solicitation Number
- CLSE9RFI
- Archive Date
- 12/10/2008
- Point of Contact
- Christopher L Jones,, Phone: 405-739-4079
- E-Mail Address
-
christopher.L.jones@tinker.af.mil
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Request For Information For E-9 CLS Re-Competition 727 Aircraft Sustainment Group (ACSG) Request for Information (RFI) only, as part of a market research. The 727 ACSG is seeking sources that may be capable of providing Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for two E-9 aircraft. Support includes all material support and all levels of maintenance for the aircraft, support equipment, missionized systems, calibration of Government Furnished Equipment, and configuration control. The effort will begin 1 October FY11, at Tyndall AFB, Florida. In addition aircraft maintenance, the program requires uniquely qualified people to maintain the missionized systems installed (Telemetry (TM) Relay System (TMRS)) including maintaining software installed in the TMRS and updating all government drawing detailing all equipment installed in the aircraft. The contractor will also be required to provide TMRS and Sea Surveillance Radar (SSR) operators for all Weapon System Evaluation Programs (WSEP) and missile test programs from Eglin AFB, US Navy (tomahawk), White Sands, and perhaps Utah Test Range (cruise missile). System operators will be flight qualified IAW FAA Requirements. The complexity of these systems should be eased by current on-going replacement programs to upgrade the TM and SSR to digital technologies. The SSR is Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and is easily reparable. The TMRS installed on the 2 E-9 aircraft is unique and the only one of its kind. All TM data must meet Inter-Range Instrument Group Standards (IRIG) and Range Commanders Council (RCC) requirements. There is no solicitation package available at this time. All interested parties should send company and/or descriptive literature along with responses to the following questions and any comments or questions to Mr. Christopher Jones, e-mail: Christopher.L.Jones@tinker.af.mil, fax: (405) 739-5451 or address: 727 ACSG/PKB, 3001 Staff Drive STE 1AE1 104A, Tinker AFB, OK 73145-3020. All responses should be received no later than 3:00 PM CST, 25 November 2008. All questions and comments must be in writing, no telephone calls. The Government will not pay for any information received in response to this request, nor will the Government compensate any respondent for any costs incurred in developing the information provided to the Government. 1) Do you currently provide CLS Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) to customers who operate small quantities of commercial derivative aircraft? a) If so, how many locations and number of aircraft do you support and model of aircraft? 2) Has your company had experience (in the past 5 years) in providing COMBS/maintenance/engineering to a commercial derivative aircraft? 3) Do you currently provide COMBS to Commercial small corporate Jets customers? a) If not, do you sustain similar aircraft and how many? 4) Does your company have any experience in maintenance or operation Telemetry Relay Systems 5) Does your company possess a FAR Part 145 certification? If not, do you have FAR Part 145 certification efforts ongoing to obtain? 6) If you have FAR Part 145 certification what aircraft/engines/avionics do you support under the certificate? 7) Does your company have any experience in certifying airworthiness after aircraft modification using Supplemental type certificates or the DER process? 8) How do you handle obsolescence management of components for other commercial aircraft? 9) The Government is contemplating a service contract, NAICS Code 488190, what category does your company fall within; small business, veteran-owned small business, small disadvantaged business, Certified 8A, Hub Zone small business, women-owned small business, large business? 10) What are your thoughts on this effort being a total small business set-aside? 11) What percentage of this workload can be accomplished by small businesses? 12) If it cannot be subcontracted to small businesses, provide information to substantiate your position. 13) What percentage of this workload do you anticipate to subcontract? 14) If you are a small business, do you anticipate teaming with another offeror? 15) We are contemplating awarding a 7 - 10 year contract. a) Can you accurately reflect your costs for that Period of Performance? b) What are your concerns regarding this period of performance? c) How long is your typical contractual arrangement established with vendors and subcontractors? 16) What advantages/disadvantages do you perceive would be obtained by using a FAR Part 12 contract? 17) What previous experience does your company have with Government contracts? a) Is your company familiar with the Government processes of contracting, billing, engineering, etc.? 18) If you had pervious contracts with the Government, what types of pricing arrangement were used? a) What type of pricing arrangement would you recommend for the contract? 19) What does your company specialize in? 20) What type incentives do you believe would best motivate you to offer continuous supply rate improvements while driving down cost? 21) What do you perceive are the pros and cons of including liquidated damage penalties tied to aircraft availability? 22) What other recommendations /approaches can you offer that would provide USAF insight that would result in successful Contractor Logistic support, COMBS effort for these aircraft? 23) What are your recommendations and/or concerns with this source selection? 24) Provide any other comments you would like to make in reference to this market research for E9 CLS. The Government is seeking to optimize flexibility within CLS services contracts. We are exploring pricing variable levels of support into the E-9 CLS contract as part of this initiative and are seeking industry feedback and ideas on possible contracting options. The goal is to establish a flexible contract that allows the Government to adjust required level of support as needed without driving costs or significantly increasing the risks to the Contractor or the Government. The following scenario is for research purposes only and your candid answers will aid our strategy planning for the E-9 CLS contract. 1. Do you have capability to price incremental levels of support? For example, are you able to price two separate levels of Mission Capable (MC) and Non Mission Capable Supply (NMCS) support a. Level I (standard); MC Rate 80%, NMCS rate 3%. b. Level II (reduced); MC Rate 70%, NMCS rate 5% 2. Would there be a significant price difference at the Level I and Level II increments? If not, at what increment could the Government expect to see a price difference? 3. Could you conceivably adjust your level of support at the beginning of each FY based on a change in required MC/NMCS rates? 4. Do you foresee additional risks of pricing two levels of support? If so, briefly explain. 5. In your opinion, would the overall contract price increase, decrease, or remain the same if an incremental pricing structure was established versus pricing to support a single MC/NMCS rate? 6. Do you have other recommendations for making a CLS contract more flexible to accommodate variations in Government funding levels by fiscal year?
- Web Link
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=22068fe61c4a35ea07706ff910352d52&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Tyndall AFB, FL 32403, Tyndall AFB, Florida, 32403, United States
- Zip Code: 32403
- Zip Code: 32403
- Record
- SN01694889-W 20081024/081022214721-22068fe61c4a35ea07706ff910352d52 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |