SPECIAL NOTICE
A -- Technical Support Services for NAVAIR NAWCAD Ranges - Draft SOW
- Notice Date
- 5/19/2017
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 541330
— Engineering Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Pax River, Building 441, 21983 Bundy Road Unit 7, Patuxent River, Maryland, 20670, United States
- ZIP Code
- 20670
- Solicitation Number
- N00421-17-RFPREQ-52200MA-0013
- Archive Date
- 6/30/2017
- Point of Contact
- Amy A. Parker, Phone: 3013422662, Jennifer L. Lundburg, Phone: 3013423806
- E-Mail Address
-
amy.parker2@navy.mil, jennifer.lundburg@navy.mil
(amy.parker2@navy.mil, jennifer.lundburg@navy.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- NAVAIR NAWCAD RANGES REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 1.0 Description 1.1 The Naval Air Warfare Systems Command (NAWCAD) in support of the Atlantic Test Range (ATR) (AIR-5.2) and the Atlantic Targets & Marine Operations (ATMO) (AIR-5.3.3) is seeking information regarding the follow on effort for Range Support Services. 1.2 THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes - it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service. Further, at this time, the Navy is not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondees are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. It is the responsibility of the potential offerors to monitor these sites for additional information pertaining to this requirement. 2.0 Background The Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) is seeking information regarding a technical, engineering, project management, administrative, logistics, security, and IT support services requirement to support the Atlantic Test Range and its operations. Services will be provided for two business units provided below: Atlantic Target and Marine Operations Division ATMO (AIR-5.3.3): The Atlantic Target and Marine Operations Division provides sea, air, and land targets for testing and training events. The division provides the personnel and surface assets to support the range safety clearance function, to conduct at sea testing, and to recover test articles that have been dropped on the over-water range areas. Atlantic Test Range (ATR) Facility: The Atlantic Test Range Facility provides the people, skills, knowledge, processes, facilities, and equipment required for the development, test, operation, and maintenance of various systems required to operate the open-air test facilities. The Atlantic Test Range Facility applies these skills and knowledge to support requirements for test operations. 2.1 Delivery Period: The follow on requirement will require that services be provided for a period of performance of anywhere from 5 to 10 years. Estimated timeframe for contract award is August/September 2019. 2.2 Limitations: Currently, there are no limitations associated with this effort; however, as a result of continued market research the government reserves the right to set aside either a portion of this effort for small business. 2.3 Level of Effort: The anticipated level of effort associated with the follow on requirement in support of both the ATR and the ATMO is up to approximately 445 FTEs per year. Approximately 70% of personnel currently supporting the contract fall under the Service Contract Act (SCA) labor categories. As a result, the follow on requirement will fall under the Service Contract Act and FAR clause 52.222-17 Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers will apply. 3.0 Requested Information: Statement of Work (SOW) DRAFT: 1. The Government is in the process of reviewing the Statement of Work (SOW) for the follow on requirement and is considering segregating the SOW and CLINs into multiple requirements which could lead to the award of either an IDIQ Delivery type with CPFF or Fixed Priced orders or a "C-type" contract that is primarily Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Term LOE with a potential for specific sections being Fixed Priced LOE. a. Please provide recommendations on what factors should be considered when determining whether the attached Draft SOW structure should be modified? b. Additionally, please provide recommendations on the factors that should be considered with regard to the separation of tasking (i.e., is there a benefit to separating the tasks into multiple task orders, if separation occurs does it make more sense to segregate tasks by business unit, competency, or functional area (Engineering services, Admin, etc.), etc.)? c. Finally, please address how does each of these strategies affect your likelihood to bid? 2. The Government is in the process of identifying efficiencies in regard to execution of the SOW in the areas of cost and performance. Considering this goal, as well as the need to support tasking identified in the attached Draft SOW: a. What factors (including positive and negative) should be considered when attempting to create increased efficiencies? b. What factors (including positive and negative) should be considered when contemplating separation of tasks within the structure of the SOW. 3. Upon reviewing the requirements in the attached Draft SOW and based on your previous experiences, what are the main variables/factors considered when making a determination to bid or not to bid on an RFP (i.e., SOW language and level of detail, evaluation factors and their order of importance, contract type, period of performance, CLIN structure, subcontracting requirements, socio-economic programs, incentives, transition period)? 4. What should the Government consider changing in the Draft SOW or consider when finalizing the acquisition strategy to: a. enhance competition? b. increase Small Business participation? c. reduce costs? d. acquire the appropriate labor skill mix? e. maximize understanding and to clarify tasking? f. ensure the requirements are clearly identified? 5. NAWC-AD has not historically paid for the incoming contractor's time and effort associated with the Transition period. Would you be more inclined to propose if the Transition was funded in part or in whole? How would you propose to price the company's time associated with Transition such that it does not favor the incumbent? 6. Financial reporting requirements are increasing in complexity to due DOD/NAVY's audit readiness programs. This amounts to traceability of funding from a variety of range customers to the work being performed for those customers. For example, recent contracts may have a significantly larger set of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), as many as 60-80 CLINS per year, in an effort to provide for traceability of different funding types to manage the work. As result, there may be a larger number of funding lines (ACRNs) on the contract that are specific to certain tasks and /or certain projects. If the solicitation related to these follow on requirements contains a significant number of CLINs for purposes of funding traceability, what type of information can the Government include in the solicitation / contract to ensure Offerors can effectively manage the financial reporting requirements? In regards to Small Business Opportunities: 7. How could the SOW be structured or broken out to better allow maximum practicable opportunity for small business participation? 8. What percentages of the various small business socio-economic categories (e.g, Veteran Owned, 8-a, Hubzone, etc.) are achievable in specific tasking areas and/or overall? What tasking would small business be most able to perform? In regards to the Transition and Period of Performance: 9. What would you consider an appropriate amount of time for the Transition period when factoring in: a. the size of the LOE, the labor skill mix, complexity of the CLIN structure, the contract type, subcontracting requirements, socio-economic programs, incentives, period of performance, contract historical data and; b. The Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers clause (FAR 52.222-17) requiring current SCA contractor employees have the right of first refusal 10. Discuss whether and why the contract period of performance (10 vice 5 years) would impact your consideration to submit a proposal/bid. In regards to the Source Selection Content: 11. Considering that the Government may award on initial proposals and require quality proposals to do so, how much time from release of the RFP would you consider necessary to submit a quality proposal for a requirement of this type/size? (e.g. 30 days, 45 days, 60 days) 12. Failure to address one part of Section L can cause a proposal to be un-awardable. Is there a better way for the Government to clearly communicate the evaluation criteria/instructions to ensure an adequate initial proposal response that meets solicitation requirements? Are there any solicitation instructions/requirements in Section L that you consistently see that you feel may be redundant or not value added that have historically resulted in the proposal being found deficient or unawardable? 13. Given the scope of the requirement and the large technical workforce that must be managed to successfully meet the dynamic requirements of the SOW tasking, what items should the Government focus upon in the SOW, Section L, and/or Section M to ensure a best value source selection? 14. Given the type of effort contained in the SOW, what evaluation factors or sub factors/elements (e.g. technical) do you feel would provide for good discriminators by which the Government could clearly distinguish the differences between the technical and management approaches of each Offeror? 15. Under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) services contract, the Government would like to ensure cost-realism in the proposals. How would you suggest the Government structure the solicitation to encourage Offerors to propose more realistic direct labor rates for the SCA covered incumbent workforce (given the Non-displacement of Qualified Workers Clause) rather than simply proposing the minimum Wage Determination rates for each SCA labor category? 4.0 Responses 4.1 Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI with a white paper. White papers shall be submitted in Microsoft Word for Office 2010, Times New Roman 12 font, and are due no later than 15 June 2017, 4:00pm EST. White papers shall be submitted via e-mail only to [amy.parker2navy.mil]. 4.2. The number of pages in Section 1 of the white paper shall not be included in the 20-page limitation, i.e., the 20-page limitation applies only to Section 2 of the white paper. Section 1 of the white paper shall provide administrative information, and shall include the following as a minimum: a) Name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail of designated point of contact. b) Business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a)-certified small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, very small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330, Engineering Services. "Small Business Concern" means a concern, including its affiliates that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 13 CFR part 121. Please refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR 19 for additional detailed information on Small Business Size Standards. 4.3 Section 2 of the white paper shall answer the questions raised in Section 3 of this RFI and shall be limited to 20 pages. Proprietary information, if any, should be minimized and MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED. To aid the Government, please segregate proprietary information. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned. 5.0 Industry Response / Clarifications NAWCAD Contracts representatives may or may not choose to contact potential offerors. Such communications would only be intended to get further clarification of written responses. 6.0 Summary THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to identify sources that can provide Range Support Services. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding on the Government. The Navy has not made a commitment to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI should not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned. Please see Draft SOW attached.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVAIR/N00421/N00421-17-RFPREQ-52200MA-0013/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: A list of the known facilities and sites is provided in SOW Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.8, Patuxent River, Maryland, 20670, United States
- Zip Code: 20670
- Zip Code: 20670
- Record
- SN04516257-W 20170521/170519235412-a91c7a5d2ded7fba0915c078d6b42796 (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 |