Technical Support Services in support of AVMI Test and Evaluation and Instrumentation Efforts

1 Description 1.1 The Naval Warfare Air Warfare Center - Aircraft Division (NAWC-AD) in support of Air Vehicle Modification and Instrumentation (AVMI) (AIR-5.2) is seeking information regarding the follow on effort for AVMI 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. Responders 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 any is 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 this site for additional information pertaining to this requirement. 2 Background 2.1 Scope: The Air Vehicle Modification and Instrumentation (AVMI) Department within Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) designs, develops, procures, builds, installs, tests and evaluates, calibrates, modifies, operates and maintains instrumentation on aircraft and uninstalled engines for the Navy and other Government, commercial and foreign Government customers. AVMI is the lead for developing future network-based instrumentation data acquisition systems and provides technical consultation to NAVAIR, Department of Defense (DoD) and other Government agencies. AVMI performs engineering design, technology investigations, and responsive development to support RDT&E (Research Development Test & Evaluation) and fleet requirements for instrumentation. AVMI is responsible for performing electrical and mechanical modifications to test vehicles to support test and evaluation. A major aspect of this responsibility is the design, development, procurement, fabrication, installation, test, evaluation, configuration, operation and maintenance of special flight test instrumentation for flight test aircraft, weapons under test, and aircraft engines undergoing uninstalled tests. AVMI has a historically consistent and ongoing scheduled workload of test programs, modification efforts, and instrumentation work that demands a standing support team of engineers and technicians in order to meet critical flight test schedules and test milestones for the Program Managers Air (PMAs) that make up the core of the workload demand. AVMI uses a variety of planning systems to accurately project workload in the near and long term, including the NAVAIR command staffing program, and the integrated master schedules of major customers. Government planning groups, daily and continuously, release workload into the shops and design groups, balancing the needs of the customers with the capacity of the Department. Typically during any one day the planning departments are tracking over 200 separate work orders either in planning, in work, on hold, or pending. The AVMI organization includes two divisions: Aircraft Instrumentation Division (AID) Code 5.2.9 located at Patuxent River, MD, and Airborne Instrumentation Systems (AISD) Code 5.2.J located at China Lake and Point Mugu, CA. 2.2 Period of Performance: Services to be provided will be required for a five year period from date of contract award. Estimated contract award is the September 2019 timeframe. 2.3 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 this effort for small businesses. 2.4 Personnel This effort is for approximately 100 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). About 90% fall under the Service Contract Act (SCA) labor categories and the Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers clause. 3 Requested Information 3.1 Solicitation Process Questions 3.1.1 How long would you generally need to submit a quality proposal for a requirement of this type/size? (eg. 30 days, 45 days, 60 days?) 3.1.2 What would you consider an appropriate amount of time for the Transition period considering the type of work listed above and the following: i. The Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers clause (FAR 52.222-17) requiring current SCA contractor employees have the right of first refusal. ii. The Ground and Flight Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001) requires a set of approved Ground Operation Procedures (GOPs) prior to contract start. There are approximately 20 programs identified for AVMI that would require GOPs. 3.2 Solicitation Content Questions 3.2.1 NAWC-AD has not historically paid for the incoming contractor's time associated with the Transition period. a) Would you be more inclined to propose if the Transition was funded in part or in whole? b) If so, how should that funding level be determined? 3.2.2 We are concerned with Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) for the management of the contract. a) Does ISO-9001 certification ensure an organization has robust management processes? b) What question(s) and/or sample documentation should be asked for to help prove robust processes and continuous process improvement throughout the parent organization down to the field? 3.3 Source Selection Content Questions 3.3.1 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 identify what constitutes a deficiency and thus will prevent your proposal from being awardable? 3.3.2 How can the Government ensure offerors adequately respond to answer all parts of Section L of the solicitation to increase the chances of awarding on initial proposals? 3.3.3 Are there any Section L items that the government typically includes that complicate writing a proposal? Be as specific as possible. 3.3.4 Page limitations are used to help the Offeror understand the scale of what is being asked. They also help to prevent redundancies and irrelevant information. How can the Government balance the Offeror's need to answer the question fully without being overly restrictive? 3.3.5 Given that this effort is primarily about managing a technical workforce (e.g. hiring qualified technical personnel, retention of an effective workforce, removing poor performers, and managing workload). What items should the government focus upon in the SOW, Section L, or Section M to ensure best value? 3.4 Cost Control 3.4.1 Under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, the Government would like to ensure cost-realism in the proposals. a) How would you suggest the Government setup the contract to encourage offerors to propose realistic labor rates rather than the minimum Wage Determination rates for each SCA labor category given the Non-displacement of Qualified Workers Clause? b) To promote cost realism, share your thoughts on the Government requesting each Offeror propose a maximum average cost for each labor category? E.g. A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) would collect weighted average costs for each labor category per invoice period. Any that exceed the maximum proposed value would be flagged. Results (quantity and magnitude) would be reflected in yearly CPARS ratings under Cost Control. c) If the Government proceeded with a Fixed Rate (Labor Hour, Fixed Price Level of Effort (FPLOE), etc.) contract, would that sway your decision to submit a proposal? d) For ideas discussed in a) and b), how would you structure the measurement standard to effectively manage labor costs? What percentage of rates exceeding the proposed maximums would you consider a minor, small, large, major issue? e) How can the Government prevent unrealistically low proposals that appear to be 'buying in' to the contract? 3.5 Statement of Work (SOW) Content 3.5.1 Surveillance during execution is a key piece of a contractor's Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) rating. a) Based on the draft SOW, identify surveillance elements to which a successful Offeror should be held accountable. b) How should these elements be measured? 3.5.2 Financial reporting requirements are increasing in complexity to due DOD/NAVY's audit readiness programs. This amounts to traceability from funding through work performed. For example, newer contracts may have a larger set of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) to manage the work, there may be a larger number of funding lines (ACRNs) on the contract that are specific to certain personnel and/or certain tasks and/or certain projects. What SOW/Solicitation information does an Offeror need in order to ensure they can effectively manage the financial reporting requirements? 3.5.3 Are there items in the draft SOW that could be better worded to avoid ambiguity? 3.5.4 Are there any items in the draft SOW that cause you concern? Identify if it is a bidding or execution concern and how your concern can be alleviated. 3.6 Other 3.6.1 Are there any lessons learned or new ideas you have encountered in other solicitations that may work well for Government acquisition in general or for this solicitation in particular? 4 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 format, and are due no later than 25 April 2017, 2:00 pm EST. White papers shall be submitted via email only to sherry.stewart@navy.mil. 4.2 The number of pages in Section 1 of the white paper shall not be included in the 15 page limitation, i.e., the 15 page limitation applies only Section 3 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, fax number, and email of designated point of contact. b) Business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology). "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. The requirement has several applicable NAICS and PSC codes. The size standards for each of these different NAICS and PSC codes to be qualified as a small business can be located on the following site http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/officials/size/index.html 4.3 Section 2 of the white paper shall answer the questions raised in Section 3 of this RFI and shall be limited to 15 pages. Proprietary information, if any, should be minimized and MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED with the title "AVMI - RFI [Company Name]". To aid the Government, please segregate proprietary information. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned. 5 Industry Response/Clarifications NAWC-AD Contracts representatives may or may not choose to meet with potential offerors. Such communications would only be intended to get further clarification of written responses. 6 Summary THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to identify sources that can provide AVMI Support Services. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding to the Government. The Navy has not made a commitment to procure any of the services 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.