EMXG EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION SUPPORT

Update 5/4/2026 Industry Questions:

Industry Questions:

Could you clarify if the current incumbent for these services is contract FA822721D0004?

This is not a follow-on effort for contract FA822721D0004

Additionally, I was wondering if there are any other incumbents currently performing portions of this scope, or if the Air Force is considering this a entirely new requirement?

While this requirement builds upon a portion of work currently being performed under an existing contract, it also incorporates a significant amount of new scope. Therefore, the Government is treating this as a new and distinct requirement.

The Government's intent is to conduct a best-value tradeoff source selection for this effort. The information received from this Sources Sought Notice will be used as market research to help determine the final acquisition strategy, including whether a small business set-aside is appropriate.

**************************************

Original Notice 4/27/2026: Sources Sought synopsis to determine potential sources for information and planning purposes.

Program Details: This requirement will be placed as an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to acquire comprehensive lifecycle management and decision support services. The primary purpose of this contract is to provide the 309th Electronics Maintenance Group (309 EMXG) with the specialized engineering, technical, and analytical services necessary to successfully execute its equipment modernization and replacement programs. The contractor shall deliver the data-driven analysis and professional documentation required to support sound investment decisions at every stage of a project's lifecycle, from initial concept and requirements definition through sustainment and eventual disposal.

If your company is capable of performing this work, please provide the below information.

Part 1: Company Profile & Contract Vehicles

Company Information: Company Name, CAGE Code, Point of Contact (Name, Phone, Email).
Business Size & Status: Indicate your company's size status under NAICS code 541330
Part 2: Capability & Relevant Experience

Note: Limit responses to 3-5 pages for this section

Please provide a brief Capability Statement addressing your firm's ability to execute the requirements in the draft PWS. Specifically, provide examples of past performance (within the last 3-5 years) demonstrating:

ATE Expertise: Experience with the architecture, operation, and maintenance of depot-level Automated Test Equipment (ATE), specifically mentioning any experience with VDATS, CBATS, or R-IAIS.
Deliverable-Based Project Management: Experience managing complex equipment modernization projects through a milestone-driven, deliverable-based lifecycle (from Requirements Identification to Full Operational Capability) rather than as a level-of-effort/staff-augmentation contract.
Reverse Engineering & Technical Data: Experience evaluating incomplete Technical Data Packages (TDPs) and performing reverse engineering of components/circuit cards to generate acquisition-ready technical data.
Logistics & GFE Management: Experience tracking, auditing, and managing Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) across multiple projects.
Part 3: Feedback on the Draft PWS & Acquisition Strategy

The Government is specifically seeking industry feedback on the drafted Performance Work Statement (PWS). Please review the attached draft and provide responses to the following:

Performance-Based Structure: The Government intends to structure this as a completion-based contract tied to the delivery of specific Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) at 8 defined project milestones. Does the PWS provide sufficient detail for your company to accurately estimate the level of effort and propose Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) costs for specific milestones? If not, what specific information is missing?
Milestone Logic: Do the 8 milestones outlined in Section 4.5 follow a logical progression for hardware/ATE modernization? Are there any critical acquisition or engineering steps missing, or any that seem redundant?
Service Summary (Acceptable Quality Levels): Are the performance thresholds (e.g., 95% on-time delivery, 90% first-pass acceptance) outlined in the Service Summary realistic and achievable? How would you recommend the Government measure/surveil the "Engineering Functions"?
Transition to Deliverables: Given that the Government is strictly avoiding an Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or "staff augmentation" environment, do any sections of the PWS still read as overly prescriptive (dictating how to do the work rather than what to deliver)?
Cost Drivers & Risks: Based on your reading of the PWS, what do you identify as the highest risk elements or primary cost drivers for this effort?
General Recommendations: Please provide any other recommendations, questions, or concerns regarding the draft PWS or the anticipated Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) structure.
If interested and capable of performing this requirement, please provide responses along with the requested information no later than 4 PM, Mountain Daylight Time, Monday May 11th, 2026, to Hayden Thurston at hayden.thurston@us.af.mil or Nate Littlewood at nathanial.littlewood@us.af.mil

Attachment:

Performance-Based Work Statement