Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS) Test and Evaluation

I. General Information THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. It is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation or ultimately award a contract and does not restrict the Government regarding the acquisition approach that may be taken in the future. Responses will not be considered as proposals, nor will any award be made as a result of this sources sought notice. The Government will provide no response to your submission, however, your comments will be considered during the development of the market research and acquisition plan. No solicitation document exists at this time, any information available for this requirement will be released at https://sam.gov. The Government will not be responsible for any costs incurred by interested parties in responding to this sources sought notice. 766th Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (766 ESS) at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam is currently conducting market research to locate qualified and interested potential business sources with experience in Performance Test plan, continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) Performance Evaluation Plan, modify engine ducts to ensure proper implementation of testing methods, calibrate the Kaena Point Space Force Station (KPSFS) CPMS HiBACK II monitors/data loggers, implement the Performance Test CPMS Performance Evaluation, update the CPMS HiBACK II parameters, and a Performance Test Report and CPMS Performance Evaluation Report. The main North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the requirement is 541620 - Environmental Consulting Services. The main applicable small business size standard is $19.0 million in annual gross receipts. (Note: The description of requirement included in this sources sought notice is not intended to be all-inclusive). A draft of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) has been included with this Sources Sought and is intended to provide additional information. A subsequent solicitation will follow. II. Description of Requirement The contractor shall provide all management personnel, equipment, and services necessary to operate the facilities. CPMS Test and Evaluation include: Test and Evaluation Plan The Contractor shall develop a Performance Test and CPMS Performance Evaluation Plan prior to testing. This plan will be submitted to the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) and Region IX Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at least 60 days prior to implementing the Test and Evaluation. The Plan shall comply with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ and NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section F and G. The Contractor shall submit one digital copy to KPSFS. Adjustments If deemed necessary, the Contractor shall identify and execute minor calibration/equipment adjustments to KPSFS generator engine stacks and ducts to ensure proper implementation of testing methods required by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ. CPMS HiBACK II Monitor/Data Logger Calibration IAW 40 CFR - 63.6625(b)(5) and KPSFS Site Specific Monitoring Plan (SSMP) (Appendix B), the CPMS HiBACK II monitors/ data loggers shall be calibrated. Calibration shall be completed IAW KPSFS Site Specific Monitoring Plan (SSMP). The Contractor shall submit a report documenting the completion of this work IAW 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ and NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section F and G. The Contractor shall submit one digital copy to KPSFS. Performance Test Per 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, Table 3, a Performance Test is required every 8,760 hours or 3 years, whichever comes first, in order to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, Table 2d, Table 4, Table 6, and NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section C (1)(g) and (h). The performance test shall be conducted for CO. Performance tests for emissions of CO shall be conducted IAW the test methods and procedures set forth in 40 CFR - 63.6620, 40 CFR Part 63, and NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section F. CPMS Performance Evaluation Per 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, Table 5, a Performance Evaluation was required as part of the initial startup of KPSFS units. However, the Performance Evaluation performed on 30 May 2013 failed to document the pressure drop and temperature measurements and was tested at or near 100% load instead of normal operating conditions per 40 CFR 63.7(e). A performance evaluation IAW 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, Table 5 is required to establish accurate baseline data to determine compliance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, Table 2b (2)(a) and (2)(b), Table 6, as well as NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section C (1)(h). Update the CPMS HiBACK II Monitor/Data Logger Once the Performance Evaluation is complete, the CPMS HiBACK II parameters shall be updated to ensure alarms operate based on the updated Performance Evaluation data and thresholds identified in NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section C (1)(h). Instructions for this process are found within KPSFS Site Specific Monitoring Plan (SSMP). The Contractor shall submit a report documenting the completion of this work IAW 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ and NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section F and G. The Contractor shall submit one digital copy to KPSFS. Performance Test and CPMS Performance Evaluation Report The Performance Test and CPMS Performance Evaluation results shall be recorded in a report IAW 40 CFR CFR - 63.6620 and NSP No. 0614-01-N Attachment II, Section F. A completed Environmental Protection Agency Notification of Compliance Status Report for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ shall be included in the report. The Contractor shall submit one digital copy to KPSFS. Place of Contract Performance: Kaena Point Space Force Station (KPSFS) consists of location at Building 38, Kaena Point Tracking Station, Waianae, HI, 96792 with standard business hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday. III. Vendor Response At this time, interested vendors capable of providing all the described services may submit a description of their capabilities and experience. Any information provided by businesses to the Government is strictly voluntary. It is the intent of the contracting office to use this for informational and planning purposes only. Please provide information in sufficient detail regarding their capability and capacity to satisfy the requirement for CPMS Test and Evaluation. The government has not determined the contract type applicable to the requirement. Responses are limited to no more than 10 pages and must answer all the questions listed below. Vendor responses are requested in writing by no later than 4:00 pm, Hawaii Standard Time, 28 August 2023 via email to Camille Watley at camille.watley.2@us.af.mil and Kelli Chinen at kelli.chienn@us.af.mil. No telephone calls will be accepted. No extensions to the above submittal date shall be authorized. Information sought by the Government includes: Company Information Company Name CAGE Code UEI Business Size under selected NAICS code (i.e. Small Business, Other than small) Other Socio-Economic status (i.e. 8(a), HUBZone, Veteran-owned, Women-owned, etc.) Approximate annual gross revenue Company address Point of contact Telephone number Email address Primarily doing business in the Private/Commercial or Government Sector. Brief information on capabilities to finance, mobilize, manage, and execute a service contract of this magnitude and complexity. Describe any similar service contract you have performed for similar services that include CPMS Test and Evaluation support: Contract number and type Award amount Period of performance Narrative description of how your performance on the contract is similar to this requirement Commercial or Government Point of Contact Retention rate on key personnel What is your retention rate? Is there a disadvantage presented to small businesses to successfully compete for this effort? Please provide the appropriate NAICS that you believe should be used for this requirement and if your company is a small business under the NAICS provided. What type of source selection do you believe is right for this opportunity and what would you suggest being an evaluation criteria/discriminator that can help differentiate the best companies? From your perspective, is there any risk (technical, schedule, and cost) associated with this effort? If so, what is it and how would you mitigate? Please identify any Organizational Conflicts of Interests (OCIs) your company may have with performing this requirement. Please share any innovative alternative methods/processes to reduce cost and/or improve the acquisition. Do you have any suggestions to maximize effectiveness in providing quality services to KPSFS? In review of the attached Draft PWS, please provide any comments, concerns and/or recommendations (ensure to annotate section/paragraph). What size budgets do you normally work with? Please provide any feedback that may assist in this acquisition.