DC: (703) 689-9600
FL: (407) 733-7815

19 Friday, Sep 2014

The most-recent blog posts appear first. For past posts, click on the desired category in the column on the right.

Department of Energy – Energy Saving Performance Contract (ESPC) IDIQ


The Department of Energy (DOE) ESPC IDIQ first arrived on the scene in 2009 in the heart of the recession.  Since its arrival, some 16 contractors have shared in project financing of a little over $2 billion.  This is a very unusual IDIQ in that the projects are “alternatively financed” not using appropriated capital funding by the Congress of the United States.  DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) runs the program, which consists of energy efficiency studies following by commercially financed projects to construct and install the energy saving programs uncovered by the studies.

The entire activity is thus initially funded by private financing, in cooperation with EERE, and projects typically amortize over a 25-year term.  During the amortization term, the Energy Service Company (ESCO), the holder of the IDIQ and the executor of the ESPC, receives the benefit of the energy savings as payback and profit.  Once the term is fulfilled, the agency where the project was executed then benefits from the energy savings into perpetuity.  This program is designed to promote energy conservative in an attractive package where energy capable industrial firms can improve environmental performance using federal realty and utility assets as test beds.

The IDIQ ceiling for the deal is advertised at $20 billion with an individual ceiling per company of $5.5 billion.  Companies must meet strict qualifications to bid on the IDIQ, including a size standard of $14 million in revenues and a portfolio of energy-related projects either federal or commercial.  Typical capabilities of successful companies include industrial grade energy competences, such as boiler plants, building and energy management control systems, lighting, refrigeration, electric generators, utility distribution systems, and energy generation systems.  Two fully described energy savings programs must be identified in the proposal, with supporting evidence of the cost / benefits of the program and its environmental impacts.

This is a ten-year term IDIQ, so for all companies who qualify and want into the program, action in the immediate future is required.  Candidates for bidding include not only the national energy companies with household names, but also large regional energy companies that have significant federal facilities within their service sphere.  Companies that do not have significant engineering study capability should partner with an independent engineering consulting firm, capable of in-depth studies, measurement, and oversight of energy construction and rehabilitation projects.  While the IDIQ may be delayed, our best guess is that the RFP will be out in late 2014, with an award date around May 2015. 

What Did Walt Disney Contribute to the Proposal Process?


Love them or hate them, storyboards serve as an indispensable tool to help organize proposal sections. I was surprised to learn that storyboards originated in the studios of Walt Disney in the early 1930s. At Disney, storyboards allowed the company to get control over the movie making process in a setting where costs are high. The storyboard provided a sketch story line and illustrations of what the scene should look like. This vital tool enabled the director, cameramen, writers, actors, and editors to prepare a scene that told the story in the way envisioned by the producers.

In 1944, Disney first used the storyboard approach to develop a short feature called The Three Little Pigs. In 1939, Gone with the Wind was the first full length film to be shot based on detailed storyboards. Shortly after the success of Gone With the Wind storyboards became a standard for film production in Hollywood.

Proposals are like movies in that the preparation process is complex and expensive, and the quality of the product has large financial repercussions. There is a clear two-sided argument about the effectiveness of storyboards online. While storyboarding can be a tedious process, it can help develop the argument in ways usually not possible without it. Therefore, some professionals would ask, why does anyone still attempt to prepare a proposal without storyboards? In an industry where every ounce of persuasiveness is golden, why aren’t more teams using storyboards to lower risk?

One of our customers had personnel who were afraid of storyboards. Their solution was to give storyboards a different name, so the tool wouldn’t seem so scary to the authors. Thus far no one has discovered a way to ensure that the authors develop each proposal point in a persuasive and conclusive way without storyboards.

A seasoned proposal manager told me once, "Give me three minutes, and I can tell you if a proposal was written with or without storyboards. The government reviewers also know. The ones that didn’t have storyboards are usually not the winners."

Are you for or against storyboards? Share your thoughts in the comment section below!



Counting Error Costs Five Companies Shot at $20B Contract

counting errorPublished August 7, 2014

NASA nixed the proposals of five companies bidding on the $20 billion SEWP V contract because their proposals exceeded the page limit set in the solicitation.

In their protests, the companies argued that NASA shouldn’t have counted certain pages, but the Government Accountability Office agreed with the agency, and now those five companies are left out of the contract as it heads toward awards later this month.

The big lesson, and a painful one for these five, is to pay attention to the solicitations requirements and stick to them.

It might seem like a minor snafu, but it’s a big deal because the request for proposal is explicit about what the agency wants in its proposals. Violate those requirements, and you’ll find yourself on the outside looking in.

The five protesters in question are: IMPRES Technology Solutions, Metis Intellisystems LLC, Futron Inc., Patriot Comm and Ideal Systems Solutions Inc.

NASA’s request for proposals said that volume two of the proposals should not exceed 90 pages, excluding a cover page and indices, deviations and exceptions, and tabs one and three. I’m not sure what is included in tabs one and three.

Any pages that exceed the 90-page limit would not be evaluated. What got these companies in trouble is that in tab six, they included 60 pages of letters of support from their suppliers. Tab six covers commitment to supply chain management and supply diversity.

The contracting officer counted these pages to determine compliance with the 90-page limit. When the CO hit 90 pages, she was only midway through the letters of support, so the CO didn’t consider the rest of tab six as well as tab seven (post award support and service) and tab 8 (management plan.) To make things worse, tab 8 was the most heavily weighted tab in volume two.

With those other sections kicked out, the CO determined that the proposals “contained a material omission,” so the proposals were deemed unacceptable and excluded them from further evaluation.

When the bidders were informed of this, they went to GAO, arguing that the pages with the letters of support were not numbered and should not have been counted toward the 90-page limit. The RFP said that pages needed to be numbered, and since these were not numbered they shouldn’t have been counted.

The letters of support were meant to be extra documents supporting the proposal, the companies argued.

In rejecting that position, GAO cited NASA’s response in the Industry Questions and Answers document it published as it was developing the RFP. (See recent OCI blog posting on tips to handle Q&A at https://www.ociwins.com/Proposal-Writing/3-tips-for-effective-handling-of-questions-and-answers-qas-from-government-handle-with-care.html.)

A question was posed asking if bidders could supply an appendix of referenceable documents that would be outside the page limits.  NASA was clear in its answer: “No, reference documentation is included in the page limitations.”  GAO agreed with NASA’s position that the protesters arguments would render the RFP’s page limitation superfluous.  GAO also said, “An agency is not obligated to sort through an offeror’s proposal to decide which pages should or should not be counted toward that limitation.”

The protesters argued that NASA should have talked to them before rejecting their proposals. But GAO also rejected this argument as well because NASA isn’t required to allow bidders to revise proposals after they are submitted. The RFP made it clear that clarifications are to be limited and only in cases where NASA is planning an award.

GAO also said that the intentions of the bidders were not clear, given the RFP and the proposals themselves.

NASA SEWP is one of the more successful contracts for IT hardware and related services in the market. This is a definite disappointment for these unsuccessful bidders.

But their loss and the GAO decision offer a powerful lesson and reminder to the rest of the market: Pay attention to the RFPs requirements. If they say 90 pages, it’s 90 pages. If they say blue paper, print it on blue paper.

Don’t count on the agency to interpret what you mean or what you intended.

In this case, NASA was evaluating 233 proposals, so compliance is critical. Exceeding the page limit is low hanging fruit for a contracting officer looking for ways to narrow the field.

You have to make every page count, but you also have to count your pages.

SEWP V is still in source selection; awards are expected this month.

Posted by Nick Wakeman on Aug 07, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Note:  This story provides a small example of a reason why it is in the interest of companies to use consultants in completing their proposals.  Based on their experience and judgment, they can help guide companies around pitfalls like this.

Avoiding Costly Pitfalls in Federal Contract Bidding

money drain8/28/14

After reading about the recent ouster of several companies on the $20-billion NASA SEWP competition, I was reminded of some experiences I have had in my 30-plus years as a proposal manager.  While the NASA SEWP example is about small businesses overlooking fundamental page count instructions, the mistakes that befall bidders are not limited to small companies.  Large businesses make their share of mistakes that could be avoided mostly by working with a competent consultant.  “The most expensive thing you can do is lose,” I often tell my clients.  A few examples follow.

Compliance and Incumbency Arrogance:  Some years ago, during my first week with a large Beltway contractor, I was asked to attend a “Lessons Learned” meeting after a big loss of one of its primary programs in a re-compete.  After asking questions and listening for a half-hour, it became clear to me that this company had bid the job as they were operating it every day, and not by responding to the requirements as written in the solicitation.  Result:  Low score while other companies who knew less responded to the solicitation, including the winner.  Moral:  Don’t confuse doing the job with winning the job and ensure that you respond to the requirements whatever your program knowledge.

Small Business Graduation:  Probably no other bidder needs assistance more than companies that have just graduated and now need to bid “Full and Open Competition.”  One company I knew took this attitude by saying, “Oh, we are the agency’s darling – and they will hire us.”  Well, as a small business, yes, you may be their darling; but now you are trying to win a major Beltway IDIQ or single-award bid where the competition is intense and the solicitation is under public scrutiny.  Result:  No agency will favor any one bidder, and in many cases company names are redacted until after award.  Moral:  You must compete scrupulously to win Full and Open competitions.

Proposal Process and Production Quality:  I have seen so many failures of these two issues; it is hard to pick one.  A typical manner in which OCI gets hired is after the bidder runs into trouble well into the proposal schedule and then shouts “HELP!”  Process is vital to the delivery of a high quality proposal, and OCI uses a standard process, including the “Color Reviews” that drive compliance, content, and production.  A proposal is a “marketing document” and its production should be treated as a statement of credibility and as an example of the quality of work after award.  Result:  Without process control and production quality, low win probabilities.  Moral:  Hire a competent consultancy to help keep you honest, on schedule, and compliant; maximizing the opportunity for winning.

Veterans Administration T4 Next Generation IDIQ


Rarely has the pending release of a federal government agency IDIQ occurred while the agency is generating so much news.  Recent events surrounding the Veterans Administration include the appropriation of some $16 billion in new funding to address scheduling deficiencies uncovered at the agency and the resignation of the Secretary followed by appointment of a new Secretary, Robert McDonald.  These events occurred in rapid succession as the Senate confirmed McDonald in just 30 days with a unanimous 97 to 0 vote.  McDonald, an industry “turnaround” specialist, replaces Retired Army General Eric Shinseki, signaling an immediate future of intense change at the VA.

Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology (T4) Next Generation (NG) is a follow-on IDIQ to the original T4 program that is due to end June 2016 after a five-year run.  T4NG will be a five-year base contract with one five-year extension for a total duration of ten years.  The IDIQ cap will be $12 billion and the current program carries some sixteen contractors, who have shared over $2.3 billion to date with twenty-three months left until the contract’s expiration.  The T4NG solicitation is expected to be released in November 2014 with an award scheduled for November 2015.  An Industry Day is fast approaching in October 2014, suggesting that potential bidders should be lining up teams and building proposal development capabilities.

We believe that given the recent events in the Veterans Administration, the change in leadership, and the nation’s dedication to its war veterans that the spend rate on T4NG will likely exceed the spend rate of the current program.  A number of needs have been singled out in the media surrounding the recent revelations, including a Digital Waiting List, a new Claims Processing System for private healthcare claims, Electronic Medical Records improvements, Electronic Notifications, and Telemedicine improvements among a host of future requirements.  These changes are embodied in the new VA legislation.

While the new Secretary, McDonald, says that the VA will require, “…unprecedented critical cultural change and accountability,” the CIO, Stephan Warren, has adopted a new approach to systems development, utilizing “agile development methodology” to ensure that systems development cycles are shortened significantly.  Agile development allows proof of operational performance without extended time passing until a system’s flaws are uncovered and corrected. We participated in successfully proposing the current T4 program.  With an industry turnaround specialist at the helm; we anticipate that T4NG will be a more rewarding contract for companies to hold beginning in 2016. 

Pro-Tech Delayed by Management Decisions

protech3At a recent Young AFCEA dinner, OCI learned from a NOAA official that the release of the final Pro-Tech (Professional and Technical Support Contract) RFP has been delayed.  The final RFP for the $3B program is scheduled for release in September, according to GovWin.  However, there is a lack of agreement on what type of contract vehicle is best for NOAA.  According to report, agency-level personnel favor a contract set-aside for small business, while acquisition officials favor a full and open procurement.  The arguments on the one side are that NOAA has always favored small-business solutions, but on the other side that some programs are too large for small business. 

The contract is for professional and technical services and will focus on the following five NOAA Domains.

  • Oceans and Coastal services
  • Satellite/Observing Systems Services
  • Fisheries
  • Meteorological Services
  • Enterprise Operations

How the Early Death of My Father Affected My Education and Proposal Work

thelossThe package arrived on a Saturday as l recall.  I opened it and found the book, The Loss That Is Forever, subtitled, The Lifelong Impact of the Early Death of a Mother or Father, by Maxine Harris, Ph.D.

I began to read and could not put the book down, having lost my father at age thirteen.  Through pages about “absolute catastrophe” and “total discontinuity” I re-lived those vulnerabilities during days of the realizing I had not only lost a dad, but also my ticket for an education.  The book was sent by a friend, who shared the loss of a parent at an early age.  The book’s message came through to us as we related our experience – the moment you lose a parent, your childhood is over!

Fortunately, I had athletic talent and realized that I could win a college scholarship through excelling at football.  I had excellent coaches and I learned the quarterback position with great intensity borne out of not just the pleasure of playing, but the deep need to overcome the loss of my father.  My effort led to scholarship offers and I choose the University of Virginia.

My career at Virginia not only concluded by leading the ACC in passing, and winning more ACC games than any team in UVA history up to that time, but also by winning the University’s award for the Male Outstanding Scholar – Athlete, as well as playing in the East – West Shrine Benefit Game for Crippled Children.  One of the highlights of those days was a big win over West Virginia as reported in the New York Times – “Virginia 41-0 Victor Over West Virginia As Hodges Excels.”

Subsequently, I believe I owe my success in proposal consulting at OCI to these early days of dedication, hard work, and a deep will to win that came from losing my father.  He would be proud!

3 Tips for Effective Handling of Questions and Answers (Q+As) from Government— Handle with Care!

QAOn large and small RFPs, the Government may respond to dozens or hundreds of questions. On the EAGLE II RFP, there were over 1,000 questions from industry that the Government answered.  Too often the questions are not adequately evaluated or even reviewed by important members of the proposal team. 

How to efficiently handle questions is a challenge for many proposal teams, especially with the participation of niche contributors such as pricing specialists or technical SMEs who may have read the RFP many times, but who may have overlooked the Q+As.   Here are some easy-to-use tips for the effective handling of Q+As:

1. Sort Them in Excel:  Sorting the questions in excel allows you to organize them in a way that specialized members of the proposal team can access their answers quickly and easily.  To do so, just make a column for the question, another for the answer, and then another for the type of Q+A it is (i.e., “pricing”, “technical”, “formatting”, etc.)  In some cases the Q+A may not fit into one neat category.  In such a situation, you might flag it as a general question, or mark it as applicable to multiple aspects of the proposal (i.e., “pricing and technical”).

2. Conduct Question Reviews:   Almost all proposal schedules incorporate reviews of some kind, such as technical color team reviews and pricing reviews.  Give the Q+A the same dedicated level of attention.  After they are released, allow everyone a day or so to read them and schedule a special review of the Q+As.

3. Update Compliance Matrices:   Most proposal teams rightfully prepare a compliance matrix and use it to perform a compliance check during proposal reviews and before submission.   Don’t overlook the fact that the Q+As offer insight and clarification to the instructions and evaluation criteria, and warrant their own update of the compliance matrix.  While the Q+As often accompany an amendment with clarifying instructions, they don’t always do so.  When this happens, it is wise to update the compliance matrix with the exact wording of the Q+A so that writers and reviewers alike have the best information possible for the proposal.

NAVAIR Program and Systems Support (PASS)

NAVAIR2On May 21, 2014, the Army Contracting Command-New Jersey (ACC-NJ) posted a draft solicitation for the Program and Systems Support (PASS) procurement on behalf of the Naval Air System Command (NAVAIR Corporate Business Office (CBO)). The draft solicitation does not include a sample task and also does not include six of the 13 attachments listed in Section J of the draft RFP.

The PASS solicitation will utilize full an open competition to award approximately 10 five-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contracts (MACs). The total maximum dollar value for all task orders placed under these MACs is more than $495 million. The expected date for initiation of contract performance is January 1, 2015.

Responsibilities included under the PASS contract include:

  • The Department of Defense (DoD) Decision Support System that ensures effective interaction between Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), and
  • The Acquisition System, and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBES) processes.

Contract services will provide for total integrated life cycle management activities for:

Project, Program, and Portfolio (PPP) Management

  • Planning
  • Requirements Analyses
  • Monitoring and Control
  • Acquisition Lifecycle Documentation, Reporting and Presentation
  • Risk Management
  • Continuity of Operations and Disaster Recocery (COOP/DR)
  • Administrative and Clerical Support

Business, Cost Estimating and Financial Management

  • Financial Management
  • Cost Estimating Management
  • Business Management

Life Cycle Logistics (Integrated Product Support)

Systems Engineering

Business Improvement

  • Business Transformation Initiatives
  • Business Environment
  • Benchmarking
  • Concept of Operations (COMOPS)
  • Functional Gap/ Fit Analysis
  • Business Needs/ Outcomes Identification

Business Analytics

Modeling and Simulation Management

Test and Evaluation

Information Technology

  • IT Management
  • IT Services
  • IT Systems Development, Deployment, Operations and Support
  • Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Software Planning, Implementation and Operations

Facilitation, Education and Training

Technical Editing, Writing, and Illustration

Physical Security Operations

Contract awards will be based on a Best-Value trade-off evaluation. Evaluation factors include:

  • Technical Approach
  • Past Performance
  • Cost/Price

Successful offerors will require access to classified information. Clearance and safeguarding requirements are:

Facility Clearance: TOP SECRET

Level of Safeguarding: SECRET

PASS services will be required throughout the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS). Foreign Military Sales (FMS) services will also be required. Place of performance will vary for each task order.

The period of performance includes a 12-month base period and four 12-month ordering period options.

We anticipate release of the final solicitation during the fourth quarter of FY14 and contract award during the second quarter of FY15. Prospective offeror should be working on a draft proposal based upon the available pre-solicitation documents.


How to Win AFCAP IV

Michael Neyland

Introduction to AFCAP IV (Air Force Contract Augmentation Program)
AFCAP IV is a full and open $5B Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Order solicitation to provide worldwide civil engineer and services support for contingency operations other than war. The Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA), Wright Patterson AFB, OH. is the procuring agency. The 772d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS), Tyndall AFB, FL and San Antonio, TX is the managing customer. A draft AFCAP IV solicitation was released on 18 March 2014 with comments due on 14 April 2014. The release date for the final solicitation has not been determined. Anticipated award date is May 2015 with an estimated six awards.

AFCAP III is a 10-year, $10B, Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus Award Fee, multiple award IDIQ awarded on Nov 2005. Contracts were awarded to Washington Group International, CH2M Hill Corporation, URS/Berger JV, Bechtel, Readiness Management Support LLC, and DynCorp International Both AFCAP III and AFCAP IV are Firm Fixed Price, Fixed Price Incentive, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus Incentive Fee, Task Order contracts. . An initial technical analysis indicates that AFCAP III and AFCAP IV have similar technical requirements.

AFCAP IV Synopsis:
The program requirement is to provide worldwide civil engineer and services support for contingency operations other than war. Contract is for temporary contingency skills and/or resources to support the Air Force, any DoD component, or any U.S. Federal Government entity operating in support of missions which could include but are not limited to National Command Authority, joint or combined United States military forces acting as part of or in concert with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or multinational forces utilizing U.S. Government appropriations, and participating in a wide spectrum of activities, such as disaster response (man-made or natural), Global War, Irregular Warfare, Major Theater War(s) (MTW), Small Scale Contingencies (SSC), Full Spectrum Threat Response (FSTR), Military Exercises, Base Operating Support (BOS), humanitarian response/relief [including response due to man-made causes, (e.g. political unrest, nation building, peacekeeping, anti-piracy, counter narcotics, etc.], world-wide recovery operations, or political considerations.

Requirements to Win
Winning bidder status at final RFP

The following comments present a ‘quick look’ analysis and assume that a comprehensive Capture Plan has been accomplished and that the Capture Plan and Capture Manager comments are available to support production of a winning proposal response to AFCAP IV. The following remarks are intended as general guidance without access to the Capture Plan. Comments are based on my experience as a Program Manager, Capture Manager and Proposal Manager for large and small Federal contracts and knowledge of the AFCAP program office.

This Section is intended to provide guidelines and comments on preparation of a winning proposal response. A quality proposal response should not only incorporate a Requirements Driven Outline based on the Performance Statement of Work (Section C), Instructions (Section L), Evaluation Factors (Section M), but it should also should include Capture Plan comments pricing analysis on customer intent reflecting customer issues, concerns and hot buttons as well as perceived customer expectations on ‘how’ management, staffing and technical requirements should be addressed.


The bullet statements shown below present a check list approach towards preparation of the winning proposal response.

o Capture Plan and Capture Checklist completed and validated
o Key Capture call plans and customer/contractor assessments completed with technical and management responses suggested for team consideration – to include capture comments from site visits and Industry Days, customer issues and hot buttons defined with suggested responses to issues, hot buttons and competitor ghosting comments
o Key Staff and Program Manager identified and resumes in draft with customer acceptance of Key Staff and PM
o Team already in place with all Teaming Agreements, Individual team Statements of Work well defined and fully coordinated;
o Competitor Black Hat assessments completed to include analysis of anticipated competitor responses to the RFP and ghosting of competitor responses;
o Initial Risk Assessment completed
o Draft Executive Plan completed
o Initial Feature / Benefits tables completed
o Gold level Storyboards and writing assignments completed
o Basis of Estimates completed in draft and pricing agreed by teammates
o Key Staff and Program Manager identified and resumes in draft
o Proposal outline completed – based on draft RFP
o Comparison of draft and final RFP (to evaluate document changes)
o Requirements Outline completed and available for comparison with final requirements
o Final corporate ‘buy in’

What should the bidder be doing right now?
o Validate / research insight into Incumbents and potential competitors
o Reconfirm technical, management and pricing strategy with Capture Manager and corporate staff
o Confirm volume leads, technical and management writers in place
o Reconfirm procedures (one location/multiple locations and methodology) for developing proposal responses
o Confirm support staff availability (proposal lead, editors, graphics team…)
o Finalize color team reviews and schedules
o Complete final proposal kickoff brief for all participants
o Validate pricing plan based on draft and final RFP reviews

Customer Requirements (what do they really want?)
Provide all resources and management necessary to plan for, establish, maintain, and dismantle base camp and remote site operations in support of contingency operations worldwide and provide support to other CoManD/COmbatant COMmand (CCMD/COCOM), Numbered Air forces (NAF), Major Command (MAJCOM), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or other missions supporting National Command Authority Objectives, to include organize, train and equip (OT&E), foreign assistance, exercises, etc. The Contractor shall plan and execute logistical services for support and/or sustainment of installations, troops, units, and any Governmental Agency and operations and respond to both programmed and un-programmed requirements. The Contractor shall provide construction services as required in subsequent, individual task orders (TO). The Contractor shall respond to changes in current operations and troop strength at existing installations. The Contractor shall provide backfill support at existing operational locations to augment mission requirements or bridging until other execution avenues become available (e.g., includes Base closure, etc.) The Contractor shall be prepared to support requirements for new or existing operations and new or existing installations in any country. The Contractor shall procure all material, equipment, and supplies incidental to the provision of services required by this Contract. The Contractor shall accomplish all studies required by this contract. The description of services shall be further defined in subsequent, individual task orders. The contractor shall use sound business practices (e.g. smarter, faster, cheaper, innovative) – based on SOW without Capture Plan Comments

AFCAP III/AFCAP IV Performance Statement of Work Comparison
With the exception of additional records reporting, quality control plan and a Users Manual, most of the requirements are similar.

Procuring Agency:
Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA), Wright Patterson AFB, OH.

772d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS), Tyndall AFB, FL and San Antonio, TX.
The Tyndall AFB operating location is the principle customer. The 772d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron provides enterprise-wide acquisition support to enhance and further the Air Force Civil Engineer's mission to provide, operate, maintain, and protect sustainable installations as weapon-system platforms through engineering and emergency response services. The 772 ESS delivers world class construction and environmental projects, worldwide contingency mission support services, natural disaster support, expertise, specialized services, and privatization of utility systems. The squadron supports operational, counterinsurgency, and humanitarian missions in the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility via Continental United States reach back contracting capability. The 772 ESS, located in San Antonio, Texas is part of the AF Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA) headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 772 ESS has four flights operating in San Antonio, and one flight at Tyndall, Fla.

Points of Contact:
Matthew Berry, Procurement POC Contract/Procurement Office 850-283-6293 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Jack Brown Contracting Officer Contract/Procurement Office 850-283-6287 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Sidney Crawford, Contract Specialist Contract/Procurement Office 850-283-6323 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
James Garred, AFCEC Support Chief Program Office 850-283-6520 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Tyndall

AFCAP IV Procurement Milestones:

Sources Sought 04/04/2012
Responses 05/04/2012
Industry Day 11/05/2012
RFI 01/17/2013
Responses 01/31/2013
Draft RFP 03/20/2014
Solicitation Release 06/2014 (Government Estimate)
Award Date 05/2015 (Government Estimate

Page 1 of 20

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »