RFI - Grissom ARB, IN SABER - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION OF BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS

ruction and unit-price estimating software industry. The primary goal of this RFI is to gather industry input on a streamlined, performance-based acquisition structure for a future SABER contract. The Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on how to structure its pricing database requirements to maximize open competition, eliminate the administrative burden of traditional "mock projects," and prevent post-award "Non-Prepriced Item (NPI) creep." 2.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION & ANTICIPATED STRATEGY The Government is planning a Single-Award or Multiple-Award Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) SABER contract with the following anticipated structure: Estimated Ordering Ceiling: $9,000,000.00 over a five (5) year ordering period. Minimum Contract Guarantee: $2,000.00 (to be obligated at time of basic contract award). Scope of Work: Multi-trade maintenance, repair, minor construction, and renovation projects across real property facilities at Grissom ARB. Core trades include carpentry, roofing, excavation, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, masonry, demolition, concrete, and localized hazardous material abatement. Streamlined Price Evaluation (No Mock Project): To drastically accelerate procurement lead times and eliminate unpaid proposal preparation costs for industry, the Government intends to evaluate price strictly based on competitively bidded coefficients (adjustment factors) applied to pre-disclosed, weighted government workload estimates. The traditional "mock project" estimating phase will be bypassed during source selection. Performance-Based Unit Price Database: To support a "no mock project" model legally and defensibly under FAR Part 16 and Part 36, the contract must rely on a highly comprehensive, pre-priced Unit Price Book (UPB) or Contractor Pricing Guide (CPG) that is locally researched, standardized, granular, and capable of keeping post-award NPIs under 10% of total task order values. 3.0 SPECIFIC AREAS OF INQUIRY & QUESTIONNAIRE Firms choosing to respond are requested to provide detailed, objective feedback on the following five administrative and technical categories: Section 3.1: Performance-Based Technical Equivalency vs. Database Size The Government wants to ensure the pricing database is comprehensive enough to prevent post-award "NPI creep" without establishing arbitrary restrictions that limit competition. Rather than relying on a raw line-item record count as a proxy for database quality, does your firm support defining technical equivalency based on performance outcomes? Specifically, how should the Government measure a database's ability to minimize NPIs to less than 10% of total task order values? To prove database capability without running a labor-intensive "mock project," would your firm support an automated "Coverage Mapping Report" during source selection? Under this method, the Government would provide a standard, historical list of approximately 100 typical Air Force repair and maintenance tasks. Offerors would run this list against their database to prove they can pre-price 90% or more of the workload value. Detail any software or database limitations to executing this type of coverage report. To ensure transparent bidding, does your estimating database allow prospective contractors to view bare labor, material, equipment (L/E/M) costs and crew compositions prior to award, or are these components hidden behind a flat unit price? Describe how this impacts a contractor's ability to bid sharp, accurate coefficients. Describe how your estimating platform and database ensure that unit prices are derived from direct local market research (localized labor, material, equipment, and productivity rates for the Grissom ARB/Indiana area) rather than relying on national averages adjusted by a flat regional index. Section 3.2: Coefficient Absorption & Overhead Definitions To ensure a fair "apples-to-apples" price evaluation, the bidded coefficients must cover all operational overhead. Please confirm your firm's capability to absorb the following overhead costs directly within your proposed bidded coefficients, with no separate or direct billing to the Government: All cost-estimating software licensing, support, and maintenance fees (including providing a minimum of two concurrent user licenses to 434 CES and 434 CONF personnel). Unrestricted on-base office operations, project manager training, and material storage yard maintenance. Maintenance of a localized physical/digital material submittal library. Basic design, drafting, site verification, and as-built drawing preparation. From a software perspective, what is your platform's licensing fee structure? Is it offered via a flat, predictable subscription model (monthly/annual per user) or as a percentage of construction volume (fee-on-volume) applied against awarded task orders? Detail the cost impact of these competing licensing models on a contractor's overhead bidded coefficients. What standard RFP definitions are required in Section L to ensure all offerors are absorbing these exact overhead elements on a common basis? Section 3.3: Safeguards Against Unbalanced Bidding Without a mock project, a primary risk is that a contractor may submit an artificially low standard-hours coefficient to win the award, intending to recover margins through unconstrained Non-Prepriced Items (NPIs) or non-standard hours. Does your firm support a solicitation restriction that locks the NPI coefficient (the markup applied to raw subcontractor quotes) to a factor equal to, or less than, the competitively bidded standard-hours coefficient? What are the industry best practices to prevent unbalanced bidding across auxiliary coefficients (such as secure areas or after-hours work)? Does your firm support capping auxiliary coefficients at a fixed percentage above the standard-hours baseline? What measures does your JOC software platform employ to prevent a contractor from altering unit prices or manipulating quantities after the basic contract is awarded? Section 3.4: Database Update Frequency & Pricing Baselines SABER contracts are subject to severe market and economic price fluctuations over a five-year period. Many commercial cost databases are updated quarterly (90-day cycles). Please detail the administrative impact quarterly updates create on your estimating team regarding pending task order proposals, active Independent Government Estimates (IGEs), and ongoing negotiations. Can your software lock the cost database to a fixed annual baseline for Grissom ARB, adjusting base unit prices once a year via a localized City Cost Index (CCI) or localized economic update, while keeping bidded coefficients fixed? Does your firm recommend utilizing a separate Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause, or do annual localized database updates sufficiently protect both parties from inflation? Section 3.5: Software Cloud Security & Network Access Grissom's local communications squadron maintains strict software security protocols. Is your JOC/SABER estimating software platform a web-based, cloud-accessed system? Does your software platform comply with Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 or hold FedRAMP authorization? Provide details of any active Authorities to Operate (ATOs) currently held by your estimating software platform on any active DoD, Air Force, or other federal networks. 4.0 RESP