SPECIAL NOTICE
R -- Programmatic, Flight Test Engineering, and Administrative Support to Naval Test Wing Atlantic
- Notice Date
- 3/16/2020 10:43:23 AM
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 541715
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIR DIV PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670-1545 USA
- ZIP Code
- 20670-1545
- Solicitation Number
- N00421-21-RFPREQ-51000MA-0002
- Response Due
- 4/6/2020 11:00:00 AM
- Archive Date
- 04/21/2020
- Point of Contact
- Candice D. Byrd, Phone: 3013422581, Fax: 3019950518, John Tomechko, Phone: 3017577032, Fax: 3017579046
- E-Mail Address
-
candice.byrd@navy.mil, john.tomechko@navy.mil
(candice.byrd@navy.mil, john.tomechko@navy.mil)
- Description
- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Naval Test Wing Atlantic Support Services 1.0 Description 1.1��� The Naval Air Warfare Systems Command (NAWCAD) in support of the Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) is seeking information regarding the follow on effort for NTWL 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 RFI 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.� Respondees 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 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 these sites for additional information pertaining to this requirement. 2.0 Background The Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) is seeking information regarding a technical, engineering, project management, administrative, logistics, security, and IT support services requirement to support the NTWL and its operations. Services will be provided for units below: Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) is the most technically diverse air wing in naval aviation.� Comprised of four test and evaluation squadrons and the United States Naval Test Pilot School, NTWL is the Fleet advocate supporting test and evaluation of the Navy's principal aviation systems ranging from unmanned to rotary and fixed-wing aircraft and subsystems.� Focused on warfighter requirements, the wing provides aircrew, aircraft assets, maintenance support, operational and safety oversight, process and facility support for developmental flight and ground test.� NTWL remains focused on the needs and safety of the Navy and Marine Corps Warfighters while providing Customer Agencies (e.g. Program Management Activity (PMA), Program Executive Officer (PEO), NAVAIR Competencies, Foreign Military Sales (FMS), United States Coast Guard (USCG)) with the people, processes, facilities, and aircraft to support full life cycle program Testing and Evaluation (T&E).� This support includes design, execution, analysis, evaluation, and reporting of tests and experiments of aircraft, unmanned air systems, weapons and weapons systems.� In support of NTWL, the Test & Evaluation Program Leadership Division supports T&E Functional Teams (i.e. Integrated Program Teams (IPT), externally directed teams, and enterprise teams, etc�) that perform test & evaluation on Navy and other Customer Agency platforms, systems, and subsystems.� Division personnel manage and staff the T&E efforts and are responsible for design, documentation, planning, scheduling, tracking and maintaining the currency of the T&E processes, identification of critical program test elements, ensuring engineering veracity of the test data, definition of functional requirements for future test facilities, equipment, and instrumentation requirements. Mission Systems Test & Evaluation includes platform level performance of embedded/integrated avionics systems and sub-systems (hardware/software), platform level tactical and control software, interfaces with and interoperability of these mission systems with affiliated ships, aircraft, mission support devices, and other weapon and combat systems.� Providing the technical focus on test and evaluation of installed/integrated systems, including suitability and effectiveness for common avionics systems, Electro-Optical (EO) systems, radar systems, acoustic and non-acoustic Anti-Submarine and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASW/ASUW) sensors systems, Communication, Antennas, Identification, Network Centric Warfare, Navigation and Air Traffic Control systems and all associated system software in all Navy aircraft.� Integrated Warfare Test and Evaluation (IWTE) interfaces across the core engineering competencies associated with Warfare Analysis and System-of-Systems Engineering (the mission extension of the System Engineering V), and the Integrated Battlespace Simulation and Test (IBST) Department to formulate a CB RDT&E strategy.� IWTE is responsible for the definition of functional requirements for future test facilities, equipment, and instrumentation to include IA/Cyberspace, CBTE and Interoperability in the Live, Virtual, and Constructive Distributed Environment (LVC-DE) and developing the needed partnerships to support needed S&T and investment strategies. Air Vehicle Test and Evaluation Division is organized into four major air vehicle test disciplines. Competencies composed of highly trained personnel are aligned within these four test disciplines: AEROMECHANICS AND FLIGHT CONTROLS T&E: The people, processes and facilities necessary for teams to conduct fixed and rotary wing aircraft ground and flight test in the areas of stability and control, flight controls, performance, structures, loads, flutter, and dynamics. AIR VEHICLE/STORE COMPATIBILITY T&E: The people, processes, and facilities necessary for teams to conduct fixed and rotary wing aircraft ground and flight test in the areas of vehicle/store compatibility including aircraft armament systems, their externally and internally carried stores, and items which are released or dispensed from the aircraft.� Systems tested include armament release and control systems, stores suspension and release equipment, internal and external guns, towed and powered targets, air-launched weapons, air-launched expendables, and pods.� Types of work include physical/electrical/structural interface, form fit and function flight captive carriage tests, weapon separation tests, ballistic accuracy tests, fragment hazard analysis, generation of safe escape data weapon delivery parameters, Tactical Manual weapons descriptions, development of weapon employment data, and Tactical Manual engineering support. SHIP SUITABILITY AND LANDING SYSTEMS T&E: The people, processes, and facilities necessary for teams to conduct fixed and rotary wing aircraft ground and flight test in the areas of air vehicle compatibility with shipboard operating environments, shipboard launch and recovery systems, and shipboard and shore based air traffic control and landing systems. The support includes aircraft handling qualities and performance characteristics, structural and functional integrity, and aircraft compatibility with launch and recovery equipment for manned and unmanned, conventional and V/STOL, fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Air Traffic and Control and Landing System support includes RDT&E and certification of sea-based air traffic control and landing systems; satellite-based systems, compatibility of manned and unmanned air vehicles and related aircraft avionics subsystems. Aircraft evaluations include approach handling qualities, engine/approach power performance, avionics receivers, data processors, sensors, automatic flight control systems, takeoff and landing cockpit displays, landing systems data links, radar transponders, antenna performance and total integrated system performance. INSTALLED PROPULSION, POWER, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS T&E: The people, processes, and facilities necessary for teams to conduct fixed and rotary wing aircraft ground and flight test in the areas of aircraft propulsion, power and mechanical systems. Testing includes systems/subsystems as installed in the aircraft. These systems include: inlet, engine, exhaust, and control systems and the interfaces of the propulsion systems with the air vehicle, hydraulic, fuel, pneumatic, environmental/avionics conditioning, auxiliary power, drive, gear box, internal and external cargo, aerial refueling, and ram air turbine systems. NTWL desires the most qualified, experienced and current personnel within its work force.� Supporting tasks related to flight scheduling, aircrew currency and qualification, administration, facilities, security and resource utilization are essential components of the entire T&E process. The complexity of the current mission in the T&E community and the constant challenges require continuous planning, management, and monitoring to ensure success.� The principal focus is as Team Leads and Team Members on Functional Teams and Contractor personnel will support the mission through participation in the teams� execution of the T&E strategies, planning, execution, monitoring and recording. 2.1 ����Delivery Period: While the procurement for these requirements may result in an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award or Multiple Award Contract (MAC) with an established ordering period, the individual NTWL requirements will require that services be provided for a period of performance identified at the task order level. �Periods of performance could vary upon NTWL project efforts.� The estimated timeframe for contract award is August 2021. 2.2 ���Limitations: Currently NTWL establishes no limitations associated with this effort; however, as a result of continued market research the government reserves the right to set aside all or a portion of this effort for small business. 2.3��� Level of Effort: NTWL anticipates a Level of Effort ceiling of approximately 9,625,000 hours over the life of the resulting contract(s). 3.0 Requested Information: The Government is in the process of reviewing the Statement of Work (SOW) for the requirement and is considering segregating the SOW and CLINs into multiple requirements, which could lead to the award of either a Multiple Award or Single Award IDIQ contract, with CPFF and Fixed Priced orders; or a �C-type� contract with CPFF and Firm Fixed Priced CLINs.� NTWL anticipates the majority of the LOE will execute primarily Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Term, but there is potential for specific task orders or CLINs being Fixed Priced.� � Please provide recommendations on� what should be considered in regards to the separation of tasking (i.e., is there a benefit to separating the tasks into multiple task orders, if separation occurs does it make more sense to segregate tasks by business unit, group, or functional area (Engineering services, Admin, etc.), etc.)?� a)��� How does each of these contracting strategies affect your likelihood to bid? � The Government is in the process of identifying efficiencies in regards to execution of the SOW in the areas of cost and performance. �Considering this goal, as well as the need to support tasking identified in the attached Draft SOW: What factors (including positive and negative) should be considered when attempting to create increased efficiencies?� What factors ((including positive and negative) should be considered when contemplating separation of tasks within the structure of the SOW. � Upon reviewing the requirements in the attached Draft SOW and based on your previous experiences, what are the main variables/factors considered when making a determination to bid or not to bid on an RFP (i.e., SOW language and level of detail, evaluation factors and their order of importance, contract type, period of performance, CLIN structure, subcontracting requirements, socio-economic programs, incentives, transition period)? � What should the Government consider changing in the Draft SOW or consider when finalizing the acquisition strategy: Enhance competition? Increase Small Business participation? Reduce costs? Acquire the appropriate labor skill mix? Maximize understanding and to clarify tasking? Ensure the requirements are clearly identified? � NAWC-AD has not historically paid for the incoming contractor's time and effort associated with the Transition period.��Would you be more inclined to propose if the Transition was funded in part or in whole?� How would you propose to price the company�s time associated with Transition? � Financial reporting requirements are increasing in complexity to due DOD/NAVY's audit readiness programs.� This amounts to traceability of funding from a variety of NTWL customers to the work being performed for those customers.� For example, recent contracts may have a significantly larger set of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), as many as 60-80 CLINS per year, in an effort to provide for traceability of different end customers and funding types to manage the work.� As result, there may be a larger number of funding lines (ACRNs) on the contract that are specific to certain tasks and /or certain projects.� If the solicitation related to these follow on requirements contains a significant number of CLINs for the purpose of funding traceability, what type of information can the Government include in the solicitation / contract to ensure Offerors can effectively manage the financial reporting requirements? � If the government proceeds with an IDIQ MAC contract vehicle, how would you like to see the work split up on individual Task Orders? � If the government proceeds with an IDIQ MAC contract vehicle and if the ordering period is approved for up to ten years, how many Task Order competitions would you feel are necessary under the 10 year MAC to entice you to submit a proposal to be part of the MAC pool? � Do you feel with the SOW that a transition period is required at the task order level? What would you consider an appropriate amount of time for a Transition period when factoring in: The size of the LOE, the labor skill mix, complexity of the CLIN structure, the contract type, subcontracting requirements, socio-economic programs, incentives, period of performance, contract historical data. Would the duration of the Task Order period of performance impact your decision to submit a proposal in response to a Task Order RFP (e.g. 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, over 5 years)?� Would the duration of the ordering period (5 years vs 10 years) impact your decision to submit a proposal if this requirement resulted in a Single Award or a MAC IDIQ contract? Considering that the Government may award on initial proposals on the base contract and task order awards (if applicable) and require quality proposals to do so, how much time from release of the RFP would you consider necessary to submit a quality proposal for a requirement of this type/size? (e.g. 30 days, 45 days, 60 days) � 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 communicate the evaluation criteria/instructions to ensure an adequate initial proposal response that meets solicitation requirements?� Are there any solicitation instructions/requirements in Section L that you consistently see that you feel may be redundant or not value added that have historically resulted in the proposal being found deficient or unawardable? � Given the scope of the requirement and the large technical workforce that must be managed to successfully meet the requirements of the SOW tasking, what items should the Government focus upon in the SOW, Section L, and/or Section M to ensure a best value source selection? � Given the type of effort contained in the SOW, what evaluation factors or sub factors/elements (e.g. technical, past performance, etc.) do you feel would provide for good discriminators by which the Government could clearly distinguish the differences between the technical and management approaches of each Offeror? � Under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee services contract or task order competition, the Government would like to ensure cost-realism in the proposals.� How would you suggest the Government structure the solicitation to encourage Offerors to propose more realistic direct labor rates for the required labor categories.� � NTWL plans to use the PSC Code of R425 (Support-Professional: Engineering/Technical); does this code align to the SOW? If not, please provide codes you feel align better to the draft SOW. � NTWL plans to use the NAICS code 541715 R&D Engineering and Science (1500 Employees); does this code align to the SOW? If not, please provide codes you feel align better to the draft SOW. What percentages of the various small business socio-economic categories (e.g, Veteran Owned, 8-a, Hubzone, etc.) are achievable in specific tasking areas and/or overall? What tasking would small business be most able to perform? NAICS Code: 541715 � How could the SOW be structured or broken out to better allow maximum practicable opportunity for small business participation using the NAICS code referenced in question 19? � 4.0 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 font, and are due COB 6 April 2020, 2:00pm EST. White papers shall be submitted via e-mail only to candice.byrd@navy.mil. 4.2. ��The number of pages in Section 1 of the white paper shall not be included in the 20-page limitation, i.e., the 20-page limitation applies only to Section 2 of the white paper. Section 1 of the white paper shall provide administrative information, and shall include the following as a minimum: Business Name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail of designated point of contact. Business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a)-certified small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, very small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715 R&D Engineering and Science� �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. Please refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR 19 for additional detailed information on Small Business Size Standards. 4.3 ��Section 2 of the white paper shall answer the questions raised in Section 3 of this RFI and shall be limited to 20 pages. Proprietary information, if any, should be minimized and MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED.� To aid the Government, please segregate proprietary information.� Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned.� 5.0 Industry Response / Clarifications NAWCAD Contracts representatives may or may not choose to contact potential offerors. Such communications would only be intended to get further clarification of written responses. 6.0 Summary THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to identify sources that can provide Range Support Services. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding on the Government.� The Navy has not made a commitment to procure any of the items 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.
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/50da593bbb9f482ea30e6bb258017da7/view)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Patuxent River, MD 20670, USA
- Zip Code: 20670
- Country: USA
- Zip Code: 20670
- Record
- SN05589753-F 20200318/200316230141 (samdaily.us)
- Source
-
SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |