Loren Data's SAM Daily™

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF DECEMBER 14, 2024 SAM #8418
SOURCES SOUGHT

99 -- AFSOC Enhanced Mission Integration (AEMI)

Notice Date

12/12/2024 7:31:28 AM
 

Notice Type

Sources Sought
 

NAICS

541512 — Computer Systems Design Services
 

Contracting Office

FA0021 AFICA 765 SCONF HURLBURT FIELD FL 32544-5407 USA
 

ZIP Code

32544-5407
 

Solicitation Number

FA002125R0003
 

Response Due

12/20/2024 3:00:00 PM
 

Archive Date

01/04/2025
 

Point of Contact

Captain Ismaeil Lopez, Phone: 850-884-6066, 1st Lt Logan Guenthardt, Phone: 850-396-1034
 

E-Mail Address

ismaeil.lopez@us.af.mil, logan.guenthardt.1@us.af.mil
(ismaeil.lopez@us.af.mil, logan.guenthardt.1@us.af.mil)
 

Description

**See PWS attached for full details** This RFI is in support of the AEMI initiative. In this RFI, the Government seeks information on technical approaches and potential solutions to directly support Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) through the operation, maintenance and development of the specialized AEMI infrastructure. A worldwide mission set, and diverse support requirements lead to a wide variety of mission activities at nine (9) permanent locations as well as temporary locations throughout the world. AEMI provides primary support to AFSOC Special Operations Advanced Capability Squadron (SOACS), AFSOC operations centers, and secondary support to all other AFSOC Special Operations Wings (SOW), Special Operations Groups (SOG), Special Tactics Groups (STG) and Special Operations Squadrons (SOS). The RFI timeline is outlined below. Dates may be modified by AFSOC and posted as an amendment to this RFI. Deadline for Questions: 5 P.M. (CST) on 3-Dec-2024 Responses Due: 5 P.M. (CST) on 20-Dec-2024 ---------------------------------- Questions from industry - Word document is also attached to the posting. Q1: Is there a Reading Room available or being considered for items such as the WBS? To enable a thorough analysis of the requirements for pricing, will the WBS include all current software provided by the Government for all AEMI mission areas? The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) should include all relevant software provided by the Government across the AEMI (Asset, Equipment, Maintenance, and Integration) mission areas, if they are essential for the proper functioning and analysis of the requirements for pricing. Including these software systems�such as configuration management tools, computer-aided design (CAD), asset tracking, integration configuration control boards, service desk ticketing systems, official priority tasking systems, risk management frameworks, and others�ensures that all elements involved in the mission areas are accounted for and properly priced. The WBS helps break down the project into manageable components and incorporating all software systems used across different mission areas will allow for: 1. Comprehensive Scope Analysis: Ensuring all software tools are considered in the scope of work. 2. Accurate Cost Estimation: Including these software systems will allow for better costing, licensing, maintenance, and training considerations. 3. Risk Identification and Mitigation: Identifying any dependencies or gaps related to the software tools used in different mission areas. 4. Integration and Interface Planning: Understanding the interoperability and interfaces between different software tools and systems. A1: No reading room will be provided at this time, as this is solely for market research based on the Draft PWS and RFI Cover Letter. Additionally, a comprehensive Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and finalized PWS will be included in the finalized proposal package addressing all of the elements asked in this question. Q2: The PWS (Performance Work Statement) does not identify the aircraft laydown at each location identified in the PWS. If the PWS does not provide detailed information regarding the aircraft laydown at each location, it would be reasonable for the government to provide this information to facilitate correct alignment of Field Service Representatives (FSRs) in the RFP (Request for Proposal) response. The aircraft laydown, including the types, numbers, and specific locations of aircraft, is crucial for accurately determining staffing requirements and ensuring the proper allocation of FSRs to the right operating locations. Without this information, it would be difficult for the contractor to make an informed decision regarding the number of FSRs required, their skills, and their geographic assignments. Clarification on this point will help ensure that the contractor�s proposal is aligned with the operational needs and constraints of the program. Will the government provide the clarification in the RFP process to ensure an accurate and efficient response? This would allow the contractor to propose an appropriate number of FSRs for each location based on the actual aircraft distribution and operational requirements. A2: The RFP will include a comprehensive WBS and PWS. The WBS will cover permanent locations and the specific needs like 2.4.10 Government Programs & Additional Duty Support. Unlisted deployed locations primarily require 1-4 personnel between 2.4.7 AB2 and/or 2.6 MPSE support (primarily for CV-22s) depending on the ""deployed"" situation. Geographic Constraints: Cannon AFB has been historically problematic to staff. It has the highest turnover over the other permanent locations. Deployed locations are handled on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. Mission requirements are dynamic elements of the program that change as the mission ebbs and flows. Technology Availability: All locations operate using a baseline technology. However, sites may include customized buildouts tailored to specific mission requirements. Operational Maturity: Technology may be incrementally rolled out/upgraded but generally at the same levels and based on a set timeline. Q3: To avoid under- or over-estimation of compensation and ensure accurate budgeting for the contract regarding OCONUS assignment entitlements (foreign duty pay, hazardous duty pay, and others), will the government provide the clarification regarding the anticipated length of deployments to the various locations, as critical data for proper pricing in the RFP response? It will be highly beneficial for the government to provide the expected length of time for deployments to the specified locations in order to allow for more accurate pricing of foreign duty pay, hazardous duty pay, and other foreign pay entitlements. The duration of deployment directly impacts the calculation of these pay entitlements, as they are often dependent on factors such as the length of time spent in a foreign location, specific job duties, and local conditions. By providing this information, the government will enable the contractor to more precisely calculate costs associated with these entitlements, ensuring that the proposal is both accurate and compliant with all applicable regulations. A3: ""OCONUS Relocation"" provides stipulations for ""long-term"" duty locations but we can be clearer on what the CURRENT long-term locations are (Listed as ""permanent"" in the Place of Performance section 2.3). The Deployed locations & length are on a strict ""it depends"" response. We removed the ""Temporary"" locations listed in our current C2MS PWS (8.1), but we can provide that information and/or add it back in. Q4: For a complete and accurate proposal, it�s essential to verify whether all operating locations are utilizing the full set of AEMI capabilities, or if there are distinctions between the sites. Will the government provide clarification in the pending Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) on which capabilities are active at each location and whether there are any differences in the tools or systems used at each site? The PWS does not specify that all AEMI (Asset, Equipment, Maintenance, and Integration) capabilities are in use at every location, there could indeed be differences in the capabilities deployed or required at each site. Differences could arise for several reasons: 1. Mission-Specific Requirements: Different locations may have unique mission requirements or priorities, leading to variations in the tools or systems needed. 2. Geographic Constraints: Some capabilities might be more difficult or expensive to deploy in certain areas due to local infrastructure, security conditions, or logistical challenges. 3. Technology Availability: Some locations may be using older or newer technology that doesn't support the full range of AEMI capabilities, or they may have different levels of system integration. 4. Operational Maturity: Certain locations may be more advanced in their implementation of AEMI capabilities, while others may still be in the process of integrating them. A4: The RFP will include a comprehensive WBS and PWS. The WBS will cover permanent locations and the specific needs like 2.4.10 Government Programs & Additional Duty Support. Unlisted deployed locations primarily require 1-4 personnel between 2.4.7 AB2 and/or 2.6 MPSE support (primarily for CV-22s) depending on the ""deployed"" situation. Geographic Constraints: Cannon AFB has been historically problematic to staff. It has the highest turnover over the other permanent locations. Deployed locations are handled on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. Mission requirements are dynamic elements of the program that change as the mission ebbs and flows. Technology Availability: All locations operate using a baseline technology. However, sites may include customized buildouts tailored to specific mission requirements. Operational Maturity: Technology may be incrementally rolled out/upgraded but generally at the same levels and based on a set timeline. Q5: Will the government clarify their plans and/or vision to extend Mission Planning and Mission Enclave networks, and what government support may be provided? This will allow for a more accurate response in terms of pricing, resource allocation, and scheduling for the mission. Providing the vision and clarifying potential government support will allow the contractor to plan and forecast for Infrastructure and Technical Support, Training and Subject Matter Expertise, Logistical Support, Funding or Budget Allocation, Regulatory and Security Compliance, and Collaborative Planning with mission partners. A5: Mission Planning & Enclave will not be clarified at this time, but we may have internal discussion leading into RFP on what we will require (if at all) out of ME support. Q6: Can the government provide the current and any future mission planning systems used by AFSOC Aviation assets? Potentially Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) utilizes several mission planning systems to support its unique and specialized operations. As mission planning systems have evolved and integrated over time, providing the current systems in use will ensure proper planning, resource allocation, and pricing. The contents of the WBS should answer this question. A6: Mission planning systems encompass a diverse range of tools and technologies designed to support operational requirements. These systems include, but are not limited to, ACADRG, AFP Standalone, App Shell, Approach Planning Tool, ARTool, CPC Install, CV-22 tools such as HF Planning Tool, Intel Data Tool, Weight & Balance, and CV-22 AWE Install. Additional tools include DAIT Install, EASE Admin/Client Tool, FalconView NSL Editor, FalconView Weather Overlay, Fuel Analysis Tool, GRABIT, IN2FV, L3Harris Communications Planning Application, LPS2MCH, Max Range, MC-130H AWE, MDL (MicroMID/ScsiMID API), and Microsoft applications such as Access database engine (2010, 2013, 2016), Office suites (2010, 2013, 2016), SQL Server (2008, 2012, 2019), Visual C++ (2005 through 2019), and Visual Studio (2010, 2017). Other essential systems include mIRC, MMT Install, Runway Tool, SAP Crystal Reports runtime engine, SOF 130J AWE, SOFTools, StopLight V3, Surface Danger Zone Tool, Tactical Map Tool, TaskView with ATO Creator and OTL capabilities, TGET, VDAP, VOODU, Warning Tool, WinFPM, WinPcap, WinTAK, and the XPLAN suite (including XDrop, XInstaller, XPlan, XPlan Plugin for XPrint2, XPrint, XPrint2Excel, Threat Update Tool for XPlan, and Time Sensitive Target for XPlan). Furthermore, foundational platforms like Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) and Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS) are integral, as are operating systems such as Windows 10 and 11, CENTOS, and collaborative and scripting tools including the Atlassian Suite, SharePoint, Windows Network Share Management, and Powershell/VB scripting. These systems collectively enable efficient mission planning and execution. Q7: Would the Government consider telework and hybrid/remote work from home or a local Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) certified and cleared contractor facility for relevant positions? (e.g., technical support, administrative functions, or unclassified cloud support) A7: Remote work is not an option; the expectation is that work will be accomplished on premises. Reach back remote work is possible as additional support in specific situations. Telework will be considered on an individual basis for relevant functions. A telework agreement will be required to be filed and maintained by the Gov't. Telework availability will be extremely limited. Q8: Will the government provide the expected deployment schedule for enduring support locations, as well as an estimate of the number of FTEs required per location for planning purposes? Additionally, will the Government provide details on any potential surge deployments and the corresponding FTE estimates for those scenarios? This may come in the form of historical data, mission type, and FTE count. It is common for the government to provide a deployment schedule and staffing requirements (including the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) per location) as part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) for contracts involving enduring support and surge deployments. A8: Deployed locations can require 1-4 personnel between 2.4.7 AB2 and/or 2.6 MPSE support (primarily for CV-22s) depending on the ""deployed"" situation. Q9: Does the government have an established acquisition timeline? If so, please provide the dates for Industry Day and release of a draft RFP. A9: Acquisition timelines have not yet been established, as the team is still in the market research phase. Therefore, an industry day and RFP release date have not been scheduled at this time. Q10: Is this an existing effort? A10: Yes, it is an existing effort that may require vendor transition, with a proposed two (2) month transition timeline. Q11: Is this effort a spin off from any other existing contracting effort? A11: No, AEMI is a standalone effort, it is not a spinoff. Q12: If there is an incumbent, who is it and can you please provide the contract number? A12: There is an incumbent, it is Planned Systems International. The PIID is 47QFSA22F0101. Q13: Can the government provide the current contract LOE by location? A13: At the moment, the Government cannot provide LOE info more detailed than the Draft PWS. Q14: Will the Government require companies responding to the RFP to hold a Top-Secret Facility clearance as a pass/fail criteria? A14: Pass or Fail criteria has not been established. But please reference the PWS for security clearance requirements. Q15: Does the Government anticipate that this will be Small Business Set aside? A15: This has not been determined, as market research is still being conducted.
 

Web Link

SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/c38044b6fdb74c2698dd04b4b783b331/view)
 

Place of Performance

Address: Hurlburt Field, FL 32544, USA

Zip Code: 32544

Country: USA
 

Record

SN07291031-F 20241214/241212230122 (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 |