Contractor Recommendations for Streamlining the Request For Proposal (RFP)

MARKET SURVEY Please submit responses to Ericka Walker, at Ericka.d.Walker.civ@mail.mil and usarmy.detroit.ccdc-gvsc.mbx.ngcv-cft@mail.mil by 1300 local EST 25 October 2019. Army Contracting Command - Warren (ACC-WRN) and the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross Functional Team (NGCV CFT) are conducting market research to receive industry recommendations and comments regarding opportunities to streamline the request for proposal (RFP) process. While remaining within the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ACC-WRN and NGCV CFT are exploring alternatives to reduce total page count, remove unnecessary content, and duplicative instructions in major weapon system procurement RFPs. Industry partners are requested to provide ideas on how RFPs could be improved/streamlined including feedback on their experiences in reviewing and responding to RFPs. Please provide suggestions/tips to better facilitate your review and responses to RFP. Areas of interest include but are not limited to the following: - 1) Are Major Weapon System RFPs too long? If so, what is the minimum critical information you believe is necessary in an RFP? What do you feel is non-value added? Is there an ideal page length for an RFP? What do you feel could be omitted from a RFP to achieve the desired amount of pages? - 2) What changes to format or content could be adjusted to better synchronize with your internal process for reviewing an RFP? (e.g. incorporate more by reference versus full text inclusion, more attachments, less attachments, etc.) - 3) Have you experienced consistent issues with duplicative language throughout the RFP? Are there specific RFP sections or language where you find this most prevalent? - 4) Is there consistently used language that does not add value to the overall RFP? - 5) Is there contractual requirement language encountered across different RFPs (e.g., similar requirements on different procurements) that would be better suited by being referenced versus full text (e.g. proposal instructions specifying Microsoft Word, etc.) - 6) Please comment on the length of time from Synopsis/Draft RFP issuance to final RFP release. Too little, too long? - 7) Please comment on the length of time from proposal submission to award or communication from the buying activity. Too little, too long? Too much communication after proposal submission, not enough? - 8) Does any other agency issue RFPs which are "better" in terms of ease of review and understanding; please provide sufficient detail Please provide responses to the above areas of interest (or anything relevant to this survey) based upon your recent experience reviewing and responding to RFPs. If your responses are tied to previous or existing RFPs, please include the RFP number(s), as a well as a copy of the RFP for our review if available. Please submit responses to Ericka Walker, at Ericka.d.Walker.civ@mail.mil and usarmy.detroit.ccdc-gvsc.mbx.ngcv-cft@mail.mil by 1300 local EST 15 October 2019. Responses should include the following: Company Name: Cage Code: Mailing Address: Company Website: Point of Contact: Phone Number: Email: DISCLAIMER: This Market Survey is a Request for Information and is for market research purposes only. The information in this notice is subject to change and is not binding on the Government. This is not a request for proposal, does not constitute a solicitation, and shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government to procure any goods or services or a commitment to changing its RFP process. Responses in any form are not considered offers and the Government is under no obligation to award a contract as a result of this announcement. Funds are not available to pay for preparation of responses to this announcement. Any information submitted by respondents to this Market Survey is strictly voluntary. Since this is not a request for proposal, respondents will not be notified regarding information obtained related to this Request for Information. Responses will not be returned nor will detailed feedback be made available. The Government is not responsible for the public disclosure of unmarked data received in response to this market survey. Accordingly, the potential respondents shall ensure that proprietary data provided in response to this market survey shall be appropriately marked (i.e. proprietary) to ensure proper Government handling of the data. Should the Government need to reproduce the protected data for distribution purposes between Governments offices, all such data shall be reproduced with restrictive legends in place.