Systems and Modular Furniture OEM Capability Briefing Request / Dealership RFI

This Request for Information (RFI) is comprised of two parts. The first part includes a request for an in-person capabilities brief from Systems and Modular Furniture Manufacturers. The second part includes a request for written responses from prospective Systems and Modular Dealers. Please review this RFI and pay careful attention to what is and is not being requested. Part I: The Enterprise Sourcing Group's (ESG) Furnishings Commodities Council (FCC) hosted an Industry Day for draft RFP FA8057-12-R-0001 on 7 Feb 2012. A number of issues where raised by industry during that briefing that the FCC would like to further clarify with Industry. In order to facilitate this task, the ESG is offering Systems and Modular Furniture manufacturers an opportunity to provide an in-person capabilities briefing to the FCC during the period of 7 Mar 2012 through 14 Mar 2012. The briefings will be limited to 2 hours and will cover the following agenda items: Agenda: 1. Please reaffirm your response to the systems and modular requirements RFI dated May 2011 posted on www.fbo.gov solicitation number RFI-03-2011-FCC. Confirm that you have a single product line per each product category (stackable, monolithic, modular, and demountable wall) that meet 100% of the requirements. For example, if you have three separate monolithic lines, we are looking for a product line that by itself that meets 100% of the requirements of RFP Attachment 2. If your product is unable to meet 100% of the requirements, please identify the specific requirement(s) that the product does not meet. 2. Provide feedback on your ability to meet the reporting requirements (RFP attachment 12). In specific, identify each data field that you could not provide. 3. Provide feedback regarding the pricing methodology we are proposing to use to establish the average weighted discount for non-typical products and accessories (RFP attachment 10). Also, provide any comments you have about an Economic Price Adjustment clause in the solicitation. If you favor inclusion of an EPA, your recommendation should include a specific index for use in years 4 and 5 of the acquisition. 4. Discuss the RFP response time of 30 days. In specific, if the FCC gave you more time how would you use it, how would it affect the quality of the proposal, and how would it benefit the government? 5. Address any concerns about dealer financing. In specific, address the issue from industry day where dealers would be required to carry financing for orders under this effort and how you plan to alleviate this potential issue. 6. Address any concerns you may have regarding the impact of the proposed use of typical configurations on existing software used by your dealerships. 7. Discuss any experience you have with GSA packaged office and your concerns regarding the non-use of packaged office on this acquisition. 8. Question and Answer session. If you decide to participate, please send a e-mail confirming your desire to meet, along with any scheduling preferences, to the name and address at the end of this request. We will determine the final schedule and provide a response back to your firm. Part II: In addition to the OEM capabilities brief the FCC is requesting written feedback from prospective systems and modular furniture dealers regarding the following questions: 1. A number of firms indicated that an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause would alleviate risk when estimating prices over the five year period of performance. Would you favor the inclusion of an EPA clause in the final RFP? If so, which index would you suggest the Air Force use for adjusting prices in years 4 and 5 of the effort? Keep in mind that inclusion of an EPA clause might also result in decreasing NTE pricing over time, should the index decline or rise less than projected at time of contract award. 2. A number of dealers indicated that doing business directly with the Air Force would cause them to have substantial carrying costs that would imperil their financial situation. Please help us understand how a purchase order to a small business dealer backed by the full faith and credit of the Air Force is viewed as less secure than a purchase order provided directly to an OEM. In your response you may include how you would propose to remedy this potential problem using commercial contracting processes and our existing strategy. 3. It has been suggested by some that dealers earn little or no margin on OEM products. Do dealers earn profit/income on any of the OEM products they install in their region? If so, how does this work in the current manufacturer/dealer model? Deadline for written responses to Parts I and II of this RFI are 7 days from posting date (2 Mar 2012). Responses should be sent to Joshua.holbrook@wpafb.af.mil.