Newswires

June 16, 2016 Newswires

Special Notice – Space Control Depot Support (SCDS) II – Request for Information – Business Strategy and Incentives

FedBizOpps

Notice Type: Special Notice

Posted Date: 15-JUN-16

Office Address: Department of the Air Force; Air Force Space Command; SMC - Space and Missile Systems Center; 483 North Aviation Blvd El Segundo CA 90245-2808

Subject: Space Control Depot Support (SCDS) II - Request for Information - Business Strategy and Incentives

Classification Code: J - Maintenance, repair & rebuilding of equipment

Solicitation Number: SCDSII-RFI-BusinessStrategy

Contact: Eva Hoskins, Contracting Officer, Phone 3104161718, Email [email protected] - Capt James Dunn, Contract Specialist, Phone 310-416-1634, Email [email protected]

Setaside: N/AN/A

Place of Performance (address): 483 N. Aviation Blvd El Segundo, CA

Place of Performance (zipcode): 90245

Place of Performance Country: US

Description: Department of the Air Force

Air Force Space Command

SMC - Space and Missile Systems Center

I. PURPOSE This is a Request for Information (RFI) for planning purposes only. The Space and Missile Systems Center, Space Superiority Systems Directorate, located at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is seeking information in the form of a comprehensive response to questions specific to contract structure, incentives, industry practices, and source selection criteria in support of the Space Control Depot Support (SCDS) II follow-on acquisition. The information is being sought to further understand industry capabilities and assist the Government in developing a solicitation that maximizes the benefits of full and open competition for a best value award.

II. BACKGROUND

The Space Superiority Systems Directorate (SMC/SY) is responsible for an enterprise of space control systems, support systems, and associated intelligence platforms, to include the sustainment and upgrade of those systems within its portfolio. Sustainment elements of its Offensive Space Control (OSC) and Defensive Space Control (DSC) weapon systems and infrastructure assets are performed under the current Space Control Depot Support (SCDS) contract (FA8819-08-C-0001). The SCDS II follow-on effort seeks to provide sustainment support for the growing and evolving SMC/SY space control enterprise. III. SCDS II OVERVIEW

The scope includes all tasks associated with management, cyber security, program protection, systems engineering, and life-cycle sustainment of the SMC/SY space control portfolio, including OSC and DSC weapon systems, along with associated OSC/DSC infrastructure support assets.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The anticipated scope of services under the SCDS II effort is as follows:

Table 1: Scope of Services

! SERVICES ! DESCRIPTION !

! 1. Depot Support & Sustaining Engineering (Maintenance) ! Involves Depot Support and Sustaining Engineering (DS&SE), as detailed in the sub-sections below. Also includes overall management and control of the project (e.g. contract administration, financial, schedule, resource management, office related activities, account management, risk management, and advisory services), security support, and facilities. !

! a. General Depot Support ! Involves repairable and disposable item management, spares management (stock, storage, issuance, sparing level analysis and re-procurement) and shipping, hardware and software maintenance/repairs/updates, operation and maintenance of Depot Support Facility(s) (DSF), and maintenance of cybersecurity accreditation for all systems under the contract. !

! b. Preventive Maintenance ! Involves depot level inspections (DLIs) on a scheduled cycle, parts obsolescence analysis, recommendation, and procurement, and other case-by-case inspections/maintenance actions as a result of other system inspections across the SCDS II portfolio that may give cause to perform similar maintenance on other systems supported under the contract. !

! c. Emergency Maintenance ! Involves depot-level repair or emergency repair of defects to systems found during depot level inspections (DLIs) or as a result of a Help Desk call or Technical Assistance (TA) request. Requires contractor to respond immediately with assessment, analysis, and repair action. Emergency maintenance could also result in support to field level maintenance activities at the unit or where the system is located. !

! d. Help Desk Support ! Involves providing on-call Help Desk support to multiple space control assets. Basic support consists of M-F/0800-1700 hours. Contractor must receive calls and respond within a timely manner as described in the SCDS II Performance Work Statement (PWS) to provide support to unit/user on system operation, maintenance, parts request, or other troubleshooting inquiries. After hours support for systems that require it may also be requested. !

! e. Technical Data Packages ! Involves the up-keep of technical orders (TO) for multiple space control systems to ensure adequate, safe, and usable system maintenance and operator TOs. This broad level of support includes annual TO updates incorporating AFTO 22 submittals from the sustaining contractor, unit/users, AFSPC or the program office. Also includes the support to assess and address Emergency or Urgent AFTO 22 submittals in the required timelines dictated by TO 00-5-3. !

! f. Training ! Involves the development of training packages or materials, in addition to conducting training classes that may result from software or hardware updates, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), Configuration Change Boards (CCBs), cyber security patches, etc. Refresher training may also be requested by the unit/users or AFSPC via the program office. !

! 2. System Upgrades & Modifications ! Involves the development, production, test, technical order development or modification, training, and installation of system upgrades/modifications. !

! 3. Studies & Analysis ! Involves analysis to reduce life-cycle costs, improve system availability and maintainability, replace unsupportable equipment, evaluate future capability enhancements, and perform Pre-planned Product Improvements (P3I). !

! 4. Transition of Future Systems ! Involves developing Technical Orders (TOs), drawing packages, performing provisioning analysis, procuring spares and support equipment, and providing recommendations to help facilitate end-user satisfaction (e.g. system training approaches) to bring properly allow a system to be sustained as a program of record. !

! 5. Support to Operations ! Involves providing contractor-supported organizational-level (O-level) maintenance, O-level maintenance training, or contractor-performed operational support as requested by the operational unit. !

IV. INFORMATION REQUESTED:

The SCDS Program Management Office (PMO) anticipates utilizing a performance-based logistics service acquisition strategy and is seeking to understand what best commercial or Government contract practices can be adopted to obtain a best value contract award that achieves increased savings and efficiencies over current performance.

A. Variable Funding: A constant challenge throughout the administration of the SCDS contract has been the variable and unpredictable comprehensive funding profile from year-to-year along with the adaptive requirement for systems sustained under the contract, which is expected to continue under SCDS II. Table 2 provides an example of the total annual obligations under the SCDS contract. In this example, the term "unconstrained" references all tasks within the PWS funded at the maximum level, assuming funding was made available. The "constrained" scenario includes a subset of the tasks within the PWS based on available funding.

Table 2 provides an example of the variability in funding from year-to-year, as explained below:

Column 1 - Constrained Requirement: This column represents the "constrained" amount required to sustain the minimum number of systems to an acceptable level of performance.

Column 2 - Unconstrained Requirement: This column identifies the "unconstrained" amount as defined above, which includes the same requirements as Column 1 along with unfunded requirements (UFRs) identified throughout the year to sustain all systems to an idealized level of performance. The next four columns break down how the funds are obligated across a given fiscal year (FY).

Columns 3 & 4 - Sustainment Services & Materials: Columns 3 and 4 identify the amount of funding obligated for initial sustainment services and materials respectively.

Columns 5 & 6 - Fallout Sustainment & Materials: Columns 5 and 6 identify the amount obligated with EOY fallout funds for sustainment services and materials respectively.

Column 7 - Total Annual Obligation: Column 7 is the sum of Columns 3 - 6 to show the total amount obligated for sustainment services throughout a given FY. Please note all values are approximate.

The total amount obligated in FY14 and FY15 in Column 7 was less than the requirement by the End of Year (EOY) in Column 2, exemplifying how not all sustainment service requirements get funded each year. Also, the initial obligations in Columns 3 and 4 do not cover the initial sustainment service requirement in Column 1, which is a risk to the program office.

! Table 2: Total Annual Obligations for Sustainment Services (3400 funds) !

! ! Requirement ! Obligations !

! Column 1 Constrained Rqmt ! Column 2 Unconstrained Rqmt ! Column 3 Sustainment Services ! Column 4 Sustainment Materials ! Column 5 Fallout Sustainment ! Column 6 Fallout Materials ! Column 7 Total Annual Obligation !

! FY 14 ! $26M ! $43M ! $18M ! $8M ! $11M ! $2M ! $40M !

! FY 15 ! $30M ! $40M ! $12M ! $5M ! $13M ! $3M ! $35M !

a) In your experience (commercial/Government), what language (or tools) can be included in the contract to best facilitate the expedited obligation of funds b) Based on the historical funding trend, please discuss your willingness to deliver under a Fixed Priced contract type (which may include both Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Fixed-Price Incentive Firm Target (FPIF)). What do you see as the major risks What adjustments can improve your willingness to use a Fixed Price arrangement B. Constant vs. Variable Sustainment: The SCDS II effort will include constant and variable sustainment functions. Constant functions are those functions that are consistent from year-to-year for which funding is allotted. Variable functions will be funded on an as-needed basis and may not be consistent from year-to-year.

The Government anticipates the sustainment functions in Table 3 will be constant:

! Table 3: Constant Sustainment Functions !

! Program Management ! Security !

! Financial Management ! Depot Level Inspections (DLI's) !

! Contract Management ! Cybersecurity (Quarterly Patches) !

! Warehouse/Inventory Management ! Obsolescence Mitigation !

! Recurring CDRLs ! Help Desk Support (8-5, M-F) !

! Utilities ! Configuration/Data Management (CM/DM) !

! Program Management Reviews (PMRs) ! !

a) Is there a variable element to any of the functions listed b) Are there any functions you would add or remove from Table 3; if so, why c) Is there a reasonable expectation this work can be performed under a fixed-price arrangement d) Is paragraph 3.2, Cost Management, of the attached DRAFT PWS adequate to develop a proposal under a fixed-price arrangement If not, what additional information is necessary e) Configuration/Data Management (CM/DM) is currently listed as a constant sustainment function. Does industry approach CM/DM as an independent function that can be priced within a fixed construct or a dependent function based upon variable sustainment functions, such as but not limited to preparation/support for configuration change boards (CCBs) and addressing a system upgrade and/or modification

The Government anticipates the sustainment functions in Table 4 are variable:

! Table 4: Variable Sustainment Functions !

! Air Force Technical Order (AFTO) 22's ! Software/Hardware Updates !

! Emergency AFTO 22's ! Training !

! Software Drops/Patches ! Emergency Depot Level Maintenance (EDLMs) !

! Technical Data Packages ! Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) !

! Deficiency Reports ! !

f) Is there a constant element to any of the functions listed g) Are there any functions you would add or remove from Table 4; if so, why h) In your experience (commercial/Government) have you utilized or are you aware of contract arrangements that address the variable nature of this work (e.g. pre-priced labor categories) i) Does industry approach spares management/testing as a constant or variable sustainment function Can this function be performed under a fixed-price arrangement j) Does the anticipated Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure (below) provide optimal incentive for contract performance If not, please explain using supporting rationale.

! Table 5: Anticipated CLIN Structure !

! CLIN ! Pricing Arrangement !

! Constant Sustainment ! Firm Fixed Price (FFP)/ Fixed-Price-Incentive-Firm-Target (FPIF) !

! Travel & Materials ! Cost Reimbursable (CR) !

! Variable Sustainment Tasks ! Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) !

! Modifications & Upgrades ! FFP/FPIF/CPIF/Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) !

C. CLIN Structure and Incentives: The Government is seeking industry comments and suggestions regarding recommended Request for Proposal (RFP) structure, standard industry terms and conditions, and incentives related to providing services described in Table 1: Scope of Services. Use Table 6: RFP Structure (below), following the instructions provided, to fill-in the requested information. Column A - Scope of Services: Provide comment and suggestions for identifying a logical breakout of cost elements (based on the above scope of services).

Column B - Contract Type: Provide comment and suggestions for the type of contract (e.g. fixed price, cost reimbursable, cost plus fixed fee, or cost plus incentive fee) for the defined scope of service. Contract type shall be selected to motivate contractors to perform optimally.

Column C - Measures/Metrics or Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Provide comment and suggestions of successful measures/metrics or SLAs used on previous (commercial or Government) contracts. Measures/metrics may be in terms of technical and managerial. SLAs related to the proposed service delivery model, preferably Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound (SMART), are required from both provider and end-user perspectives. Qualitative, as well as quantitative, measures, metrics, and SLAs are anticipated. Explicitly define metrics to avoid any ambiguity regarding which service components the metric includes along with providing the timeframe (service window) and frequency of the reporting period.

Column D - Incentives/Disincentives: Provide comment and suggestions which will motivate a contractor to achieve performance levels of the highest quality consistent with economic efficiency. Incentives shall be effective and reflect value, both to the Government and to the contractor. Incentives can be monetary, nonmonetary, positive, or negative. They may be based on cost, on schedule, or on quality of performance. Regardless of the final composition and structure of the incentives, the goal is to encourage and motivate the best-quality performance. Be certain to emphasize if/how the historical funding trend would have an impact on the proposed incentive for contract performance. Continual assessment of program data and process efficiency to discover opportunities for improvement are key to SCDS II's success. Ensure proposed incentives account for the time between identifying an opportunity and realizing its return.

! Table 6: RFP Structure !

! A ! B ! C ! D !

! Scope of Service ! Contract Type ! Measures/Metrics or SLAs ! Incentives/ Disincentives !

! 1. Depot Support & Sustaining Engineering (Maintenance) ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! a. General Depot Support ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! b. Preventive Maintenance ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! c. Emergency Maintenance ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! d. Help Desk Support ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! e. Technical Data Packages ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! f. Training ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! 2. Modifications & Upgrades ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! 3. Studies and Analysis ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! 4. Transition of Future Systems ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! 5. Support to Operations ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! 6. Travel & Materials ! ! ! !

! Comment: !

! ! ! ! ! !

D. Metrics: The Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 5, states "in a performance based environment, sustainment related specifications, with a specified range of minimum mandatory (threshold) and target (objective) performance capability design parameters are established with accompanying metrics covering the entire enterprise....Sustained materiel readiness of war fighting capability can then be achieved by developing optimally effective and affordable total ownership costs investment strategies to achieve the sustainment metrics." The Government traditionally uses the following parameters to gauge the "health" of systems: Reliability (Rm), Maintainability, Availability (Ao), Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), and/or Mean Time Between Repair (MTBR).

a) In your experience (commercial/Government) what metrics have proven most successful to incentivize performance in the context of a sustainment services contract b) Does industry utilize metrics other than those mentioned above What measurements are considered ideal performance indicators and why c) Based on your experience, are there any impacts to cost, schedule, and/or performance associated with utilizing different metrics d) Do metrics-based performance standards drive unintended consequences Is there a more effective alternative e) In industry practice, what metrics and contract arrangements best incentivize minimal total ownership costs for all partners involved in the performance of sustainment E. Quality Assurance (QA): The Government is requesting insight into industry practices.

a) What metrics does industry use for QA in the context of a sustainment services contract b) Is QA inherent within the scope of the work being performed, such as testing and Configuration Management (CM)/Data Management (DM), or is QA priced separately as a sustainment support activity for the contract

F. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): Is there an approach to contract/WBS that would provide flexibility to accommodate unsynchronized funding drops

G. Source Selection Criteria: The Government requests input regarding recommended source selection criteria. Please address areas that may be used as discriminators amongst proposals, highlighting the underlying risk the discriminators address, and criteria that may be used to determine technical acceptability, to include supporting rationale.

H. Performance Work Statement (PWS): The attached DRAFT PWS (Attachment 1) describes the services required to sustain and modify existing, emerging, and prototype SMC/SY Space Control capabilities under SCDS II. The Government wants to ensure there is adequate information provided to enable robust competition. Respondents are encouraged to provide comments and questions using the SCDS II DRAFT PWS Comment Matrix (Attachment 2). Specifically, the Government is seeking input regarding what additional information can be provided to assist industry in creating a more accurate proposal.

I. Small Business: The Government would like to encourage small business participation in the performance of this contract a) Provide an assessment of potential subcontracting opportunities. b) Do you have any recommendations to increase small business participation under the SCDS II effort c) Is there a more appropriate NAICS code to advertise the SCDS II effort in order to maximum competition to industry J. Industrial Base: The following questions/requests address the industrial base. a) Please share any industry standards, regulations, or commercial best practices you believe may be beneficial under the SCDS II follow-on effort. b) Provide your assessment of the Government's leverage in the marketplace, i.e. is the Government the only buyer, making the majority of buys, or one buyer among many Describe the nature of other market participants, such as other governments (foreign, state/local) and/or commercial firms.

V. FORMAT OF RESPONSES: Please provide your response on company letterhead to the Points of contact (POC) identified at the end of this RFI. A response to the RFI is requested via email no later than, Friday, 15 July 2016, 3:00p.m. (Los Angeles local area time). Companies may ask questions in writing by contacting Capt Dunn via email no later than, Friday, 8 July 2016, 3:00p.m. (Los Angeles local area time). Responses to the questions shall include the following:

Submitter's Name and Parent Company, if applicable

Mailing Address: Street Address, City, State, NINE-Digit zip code

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Identification Number

Point of contact (POC)

POC Telephone number and email address

In your response please follow the same naming convention used in the RFI; for example, if responding to a question under paragraph E., please preface your response with 'E' and the corresponding sub-letter (a or b). Please note all material provided in response to this notice shall be unclassified. Any proprietary information shall be clearly identified. The Government will take all necessary steps to protect and safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be held responsible for any proprietary information not clearly marked.

VI. SMALL BUSINESS CONSIDERATION

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this effort is 541330 - Engineering Services. The small business size standard is $38.5 million. Participation from small and small disadvantaged businesses is encouraged. SMC's Small Business points of contact are Mr. Willard Strozier and Ms. Audrey Campbell. They can be reached at mailto:[email protected] or by phone at (310)-653-1108.

VII. DISCLAIMERS AND NOTES

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a solicitation (Request for Proposal or Request for Quotations) or a promise to issue a solicitation in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Furthermore, the Government is not, at this time, seeking proposals. Responders are advised that the 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 responding party's expense.

All information received in response to this RFI that is marked PROPRIETARY will be handled accordingly. The Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with the applicable Government regulations.

The Air Force will not be obligated to pursue any particular acquisition alternative as a result of this RFI. Responses to the RFI will not be returned. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, if one is issued.

The Air Force has entered into contracts with The Aerospace Corporation, AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., KTSI, SCITOR an SAIC Company, SAIC, Quantech Services Incorporated, Tecolote Research, Integrity Applications Incorporated, TASC, Booz Allen Hamilton, Cosmic AES, RSE, Inc, and DMB, Inc. These companies support the Air Force program office by performing technical reviews, systems engineering and integration analyses, cost estimation, and other advisory services. Respondents are hereby notified that all responses will be provided to our support contractors for their services to the U.S. Air Force. If respondent disagrees with the release of its RFI response to any of the aforementioned firms, respondent must clearly state this restriction in the cover letter accompanying the RFI response.