A -- PROCUREMENT READINESS OPTIMIZATION -- DLA AGING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

Notice Date

October 12, 2000

Contracting Office

Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway, Richmond, VA 23297-5000

ZIP Code

23297-5000

Solicitation Number

BAA #01-N001

Response Due

October 12, 2001

Point of Contact

Contracting POC: Kathy Wilgus, kwilgus@dscr.dla.mil, Technical POC: Cliff Wolfe, cwolfe@dscr.dla.mil

E-Mail Address

click here to contact the contract specialist via (kwilgus@dscr.dla.mil)

Description

1. BACKGROUND: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is soliciting proposals for research and development projects for its Aging Aircraft Program. These projects should describe processes, demonstrate systems functions, and/or have the final result of enhancing DLA's capability to provide logistics support to its customers. Proposals submitted in response to this BAA should aid DLA in supporting the Military Services' aging aircraft which are defined as aircraft that have obsolescent systems, have overflown their design service goal, are corroded, have reached widespread fatigue damage (WFD) or have been repaired. The areas of interest for DLA are related to the Military Services' aging aircraft programs, but are concentrated on more responsive parts supply. The goals of this BAA are to contribute to improved customer wait-time, to identify and/or recommend and demonstrate processes that can eliminate or minimize the backorders that DLA maintains and to improve DLA support to the Service maintenance depots and to other DLA customers. Proposals selected under this BAA are subject to the availability of funds; a total Government investment of $2 million per year is planned during Fiscal Years 01-07 for funding efforts selected from this and subsequent BAAs. Proposals for less than the total amount and shorter than the total duration are welcomed. Multi-year proposals with project phases are also welcomed where appropriate for the proposed projects. 2. GENERAL INFORMATION: Offerors must submit a full proposal in an electronic IBM-compatible format, using the Microsoft Office family of software. Proposals must refer to BAA #01-N001 and be submitted via e-mail or mailed copy of CD-ROM(s) to the Contracting POC at the top of this BAA to be considered. This BAA is effective for one year from the date of issuance, October 12, 2000 and proposals may be submitted at any time during this effective period. The first administrative cut-off date for review of proposals is December 12, 2000; additional review dates will fall every 60 days thereafter during the effective period of the BAA. No additional information is available, nor will a formal RFP or other solicitation regarding this announcement will be issued. Requests for the same will be disregarded. The Government reserves the right to select for award all, some, or none of the proposals received. This is an unrestricted acquisition. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal to be considered by DLA. Offerors knowledgeable and experienced in the areas of interest must author the proposal. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete areas of research into Aging Aircraft support. Large Business concerns are required to submit a Small Business/Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan. For purposes of this acquisition, the size standard is $5 million, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. The Government anticipates awarding cost plus fixed-fee or cost-share type contracts as a result of this BAA. All correspondence and questions on this solicitation, including request for information on how to submit a proposal to this BAA, should be directed to the Contracting POC at the top of the BAA. 3. AREAS OF INTEREST: Offerors are encouraged to develop project teams to address all, or selected aspects, of one or more of the following areas of the DLA Aging Aircraft program. A. PARTS/SUPPLIER/MANUFACTURER QUALIFICATION PROCESS (1) The current process of qualifying or requalifying new parts or manufacturers is convoluted, slow and inefficient due to current DOD, DLA, and Service policies, outdated testing requirements, and inadequate capacity and/or resources at military service testing facilities. This inefficient process prevents DLA from responding to customers' demands in a timely manner. Before DLA can use a new manufacturer or part, it must obtain Engineering Support Activity (ESA) concurrence. The process for gaining ESA approval is extremely slow, as it does not take advantage of modern communications technology. Also, if the new part needs first article testing, the ESA requires the testing be done at a depot laboratory. Depot testing often takes an inordinate amount of time because the testing facility is often over tasked and working more time critical projects. The use of depots for first article testing does not take advantage of commercial testing facilities. Additional information on the current DLA process of changing/adding supply sources, revising qualification requirements and/or making other changes to the part/source approval process may be found in DLA interim policy. Offerors may contact the Technical POC at the top of this BAA for information on this interim policy. This interim policy will remain in effect pending change to DOD 4100.39-M (FLIS Procedures Manual) and DLAI 3200.1. (2) Offerors must study current DLA and Military Service processes and recommend streamlined processes for qualifying a new or alternate supplier of an existing class of parts and/or qualifying a new or alternate design of obsolete parts. (3) Offerors should analyze the processes at some or all of the following locations when developing the redesigned qualification processes. At a minimum, one of the Service depots shown below and all DLA Supply Centers shall be included in the proposed project: Military Service Depots: NADEP Cherry Point NADEP Jacksonville NADEP North Island Ogden ALC Oklahoma City ALC Warner Robins ALC Corpus Christi Army Depot DLA Supply Centers: Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) Other: Commercial DoD Certified Laboratories B. TIMELY SUPPORT TO SCHEDULED DEPOT MAINTENANCE (1) The Services require DLA to provide timely support to their depots so they can meet the flow times of aircraft going through scheduled depot maintenance. DLA must ensure all required items are available at the time of need. Additionally, DLA must provide immediate response to unscheduled parts requirements as the aircraft proceeds through its Program Depot Maintenance (PDM) cycle. DLA believes that autonomous intelligent agents, data mining, and other emerging technologies, including DLA Business Systems Modernization (BSM), have significant potential for supporting the management of demand information from point-of-demand to the source-of-supply. The Military Services and DLA may have current information systems that could be linked to aid in forecasting requirements and scheduling parts delivery. They may also have internal systems, for example, Program Depot Maintenance Scheduling System (PDMSS), Repairability Forecast Model (RFM) system, Express, etc., available that will aid in providing rapid response to unscheduled parts requirements. Research from this project will include recommendations for new processes, practices and information systems. The new processes must also ensure that DLA can rapidly meet unscheduled parts requirements as aircraft proceed through maintenance. (2) Offerors should also consider specific military service and DLA needs using software development lifecycle (SDLC) techniques and Advanced Logistics Program (ALP) agent software, to assess the functional needs of the organizations and/or determine their applicability to this project. Offerors should consider using commercial data mining tool packages to determine the package best suited for analyzing logistics management data. (3) As part of the development process, the offeror should demonstrate a prototype of his system at a government site. Prototypes will not be left "in place" until extensive training of government personnel is accomplished. (4) Offerors shall ensure the research addresses relationships between all DLA Supply Centers and at least one of the following Service depots, identifying current systems in use that could be interfaced to provide DLA with scheduled and unscheduled parts requirements: Military Service Depots: NADEP Cherry Point NADEP Jacksonville NADEP North Island Ogden ALC Oklahoma City ALC Warner Robins ALC Corpus Christi Army Depot DLA Supply Centers: Defense Supply Center Richmond Defense Supply Center Columbus Defense Supply Center Philadelphia 4. PROPOSAL FORMAT: All proposals must be in the format given below. Non-conforming proposals may be rejected without review. A. VOLUME I TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL: Volume I shall not exceed 50 pages. This volume shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page with each page being 8 " by 11" with a minimum type of 12 pitch: (1) Section I Administration: (a) Cover page, including: (1) BAA number; (2) Technical topic; (3) Proposal Title; (4) Technical Point of Contact, including: name, telephone number, FAX number, e-mail address, and mailing address; (5) Administrative Point of Contact, including: name, telephone number, FAX number, e-mail address, and mailing address; (6) Contractor's business type selected among the following categories: Large Business, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Other Small Business, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, or Other Nonprofit; (7) Names of all organizations that comprise the offeror's proposed team; (8) Duration and cost (including, as appropriate, Government cost and cost share) of the effort. (b) Official Transmittal Letter (2) Section II Proposal Summary: This section provides an overview of the proposed work as well as an introduction to the associated technical and management issues. (a) Innovative claims for the proposed research. This portion of the summary is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the unique proposed contribution. (b) Deliverables associated with the proposed research. Include all proprietary claims to results, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototypes. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. (c) Cost, schedule and milestones for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort and total cost broken out by performing organization. (d) Specific technical approach, rationale and strategy for accomplishing technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverables. This section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III (c). (e) List of essential personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during the contract year. (3) Section III Detailed Proposal Information: This section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the technical and managerial issues. (a) Statement of Work (SOW) written in plain English outlining the scope of the effort and citing specific tasks to be performed and specific contractor performance requirements. (b) Description of the results, products, and transferable technology to be developed. (c) Detailed technical approach and rationale enhancing that of Section II. This should describe the offeror's directly relevant previous experience including the number of years. (d) Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort. (e) A resume for each individual who will be engaged in working this effort. The resume must include the individual's specific experience and qualifications for performing the work called for by this BAA. (4) Section IV Program Plan: This section should provide a detailed program plan that displays all major tasks, in the form of a PERT network, GANTT Chart, or other appropriate format, their schedule and dependency relations. The organizations responsible for task execution and the resources allocated to each task will be identified. Each organization will be identified by name and task. A one-page cost summary will be included in the program plan. (5) Section V Additional Information: This section shall contain a bibliography of relevant technical papers and research, published and unpublished, which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. B. VOLUME II COST PROPOSAL: No page limits apply to Volume II. Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. Offerors must submit cost or pricing information only to the extent necessary to provide the government the ability to determine the reasonableness and realism of the cost and/or price. The offeror's format for submitting such information is acceptable; however, offerors are encouraged to use a Standard Form (SF) 1448, Proposal Cover Sheet (cost or pricing data not required). Copies of the SF 1448 may be obtained from the Contracting POC at the top of this BAA. Cost proposals should be organized to include two sections in the following order: total project cost, and, if applicable, cost sharing and in-kind contributions. (1) Section I Total Project Cost: This section will include total project cost by month. The offeror will also give a detailed breakdown of the total project costs by each task appearing in the proposed SOW. The total cost of each major cost element and the make-up of those costs should be presented in the offeror's proposal. Sufficient information should be provided in supporting documents to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of these proposed costs, including salaries, overhead, material purchases, fair market rental value of lease items and the method used for making such evaluations. (2) Section II Cost Sharing and In-Kind Contributions (OPTIONAL): Proposals may optionally include Section II, which should contain: (1) the sources of cost sharing and amounts; (2) the specific in-kind contributions, their value in monetary terms, and (3) the methodology used to derive their values. Proposals should contain sufficient information regarding the sources of cost share so that the government may make determination regarding availability, timeliness, and control of resources. C. VOLUME III SOCIOECONOMIC PROPOSAL: No page limits apply to Volume III. The Socioeconomic Proposal should include information on the offeror's participation in the socioeconomic, mentoring and Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) programs as described below. (1) Section I Socioeconomic Participation: The offeror shall identify proposed small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business and HUBZone small business participation in this business proposal in accordance with DLAD 52.215-9002 (available at the following web site: http://www.dscr.dla.mil/proc/CLAUSES/clauses.html). Participation goals shall be identified by percentage of business, in dollar value. Previous participation in this area shall also be provided, along with any explanation if previous experience varies significantly from proposed levels of participation. (2) Section II Mentoring Business Agreements (MBA) Participation: The offeror shall identify proposed participation in the Mentoring Business Agreements (MBA) program in this business proposal in accordance with DLAD 52.219-9002 (available at the same web link cited in Section I above). Participation goals shall be identified by percentage of business, in dollar value. Previous participation in this area shall also be provided, along with any explanation if previous experience varies significantly from proposed levels of participation. (3) Section III Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Participation: The offeror shall identify proposed participation in the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) program in this business proposal in accordance with DLAD 52.215-9004 (available at the same web link cited in Section I above). Participation goals shall be identified by percentage of business, in dollar value. Previous participation in this area shall also be provided, along with any explanation if previous experience varies significantly from proposed levels of participation. 5. EVALUATION CRITERIA/EVALUATION AND FUNDING PROCESSES: For evaluation purposes, a proposal is the three-volume document described in the PROPOSAL FORMAT. The Government intends to award a contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represent value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the BAA. Evaluation of the proposal will be accomplished through a detailed review of each proposal using the following criteria, listed in descending order of relative importance: (1) Potential contribution and relevance to DLA's mission of getting the right part, to the right place, at the right time and at the right price; (2) Overall scientific and technical merit. The proposal's concept should be clearly defined and developed with emphasis placed on the technical value of the development and experimentation approach. The methods proposed and their suitability in meeting the goals/requirements of the BAA will be evaluated; (3) Offerors' past performance, capabilities, and related experience. The technical proposal must provide evidence of technical expertise, previous experience, general management capabilities and similar implementation(s) of the proposed approach; (4) Cost realism, including the extent (total or proportion) of cost share as well as administrative and operational costs and the proposed costs for the specific projects included in the proposal. The overall estimated cost to accomplish the effort should be clearly shown; and (5) Socioeconomic Program Participation. This area relates to the offeror's commitment to Socioeconomic programs and the proposed level of support under this procurement. Socioeconomic Proposals' contents will be evaluated on a comparative basis among all offerors in accordance with DLAD provisions 52.215-9003, Socioeconomic Evaluation; 52.219-9002, DLA Mentoring Business Agreements (MBA) Program; and 52.215-9005, Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act Entity Support Evaluation. Proposals that demonstrate a strong commitment to affording small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses and JWOD entities an opportunity to compete in their business arrangements shall be rated more favorably than those that demonstrate little or no such commitment. As soon as the proposal evaluation is complete, the offeror will be notified of selectability or non-selectability. Selectable proposals will be considered for funding; non-selectable proposals will be retained for file purposes. Not all proposals deemed selectable will be funded. Some or all tasks of selectable proposals may be selected for funding. Decisions to fund selectable proposals will be based on funds availability and relative proposal merits. Proposals may be considered for funding for a period of up to one year. The Government reserves the right to select for award, all, some or none of the proposals received.

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20001016/ASOL005.HTM (W-286 SN5041P9)