Notice ID: 71b1e2045a1148fcb4dad72a792e3e5cSources Sought
Central Issue Facility (CIF) Support Services
Archived on June 10, 2026. Original response deadline: . Full description on SAM.gov.
Description
The Pennsylvania Army National Guard requires contractor support to sustain Central Issuing Facility (CIF) operations at Fort Indiantown Gap. The requirement is for two contractor personnel to support issue, exchange, turn-in, records, warehouse, and customer service functions associated with Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE). This requirement is intended to improve customer throughput, maintain accountability documentation, support readiness, and reduce delays in CIF operations.
Overview
Agency:
Department of WarDepartment of the Army
Office:W7NX USPFO ACTIVITY PA ARNG
Posted:May 12, 2026
NAICS:561210: Facilities Support Services
Last Updated:Sep 25, 2026
PSC:R706: SUPPORT- MANAGEMENT: LOGISTICS SUPPORT
Set-Aside:Not specified
Type:Sources Sought
Place of Performance:Annville, Pennsylvania, 17003
Award Overview
Possible prior contracts
Sign in to see possible prior contracts for this requirement (matched by agency, NAICS and place of performance; not confirmed).
Contacts
Contracting Officer
Primary Contact
Secondary Contact
Documents
Showing 1 of 1 items
Document | Source | Agency | Posted Date | File Size | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources Sought | DEPT OF THE ARMY | May 12, 2026 | 273.87 KB |
Lifecycle
Solicitation:
FY26CIF- Market Research
Pre-solicitation or formal solicitation typically follows within 30–180 days. (estimate)
- 2×Market ResearchCurrentMay 12, 2026
Central Issue Facility (CIF) Support Services
Similar Opportunities
Title | Phase | Agency | NAICS | Set Aside | Posted | Deadline | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE), Philadelphia District (NAP), anticipates a requirement for a firm fixed-price service contract for waste removal service for the Blue Marsh Lake. The Blue Marsh Lake project, located in Berks County, Pennsylvania is operated and maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. The Contractor shall provide trash, garbage, and debris removal services at the US Army Corps of Engineers, Blue Marsh Lake project, Leesport, PA, for the base period from 1 February 2026 through 31 December 2026 in accordance with the terms and conditions of this scope of work. For Option Year 1, the period shall be 1 January 2027 through 31 December 2027. For Option Year 2, the period shall be from 1 January 2028 through 31 December 2028. For Option Year 3, the period shall be from 1 January 2029 through 31 December 2029. For Option Year 4, the period shall be from 1 January 2030 through 31 December 2030.BASIS FOR SELECTION OF AWARD: Award shall be made to the offeror who is determined to be responsible and provides a quote that is determined to be fair and reasonable. Quote must meet or exceed the scope of work and delivery schedule to be considered for award.QUOTE SUBMISSION: Offerors shall submit their quotes no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of the SF 1449 of this solicitation or the latest amendment (if applicable) as follows: The Offeros quote shall be submitted electronically via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), as described below. The Offerors quote shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in bids is prohibited.NOTE: The only authorized transmission method to this solicitation is electronically via PIEE Solicitation Module online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILIE, REGULAR MAIL, HANDCARRIED, ETC.,) WILL BE ACCEPTED.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Specific information pertaining to this procurement is available in the Solicitation. The Solicitation documents are posted on the SAM.gov website. It is, and will continue to be, the responsibility of all potential Offerors to monitor the SAM.gov website for any amendments, updates, responses to industry questions/comments, etc. The Government will not be maintaining a mailing list.POINT-OF-CONTACT: The Primary Contract Specialist for this Solicitation is Molly Gallagher, email: Molly.Gallagher@usace.army.mil. Any communication regarding this notice should be made in writing sent via email and must identify the Solicitation number, company name, address, phone number and point of contact. | Solicitation | 561210 | No Set-Aside | 12/17/2025 | 01/09/2026 | - | |
The requirement consists of inspection and repair services for existing wet-pipe fire sprinkler systems located in Buildings N-104 and T-1002. Required tasks include National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 25 five-year internal obstruction investigations, sprinkler head surveys, removal and submission of sprinkler heads for Underwriters Laboratories (UL) testing, and the repair or replacement of valves, gauges, pipe sections, hangers, water motor alarms, and related fire protection system components. All work must comply with NFPA 25 (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems), NFPA 13 (Installation of Sprinkler Systems), NFPA 72 (National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code), NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code), applicable International Code Council (ICC) building codes, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The complete description of required tasks is contained in the Government?s Performance Work Statement (PWS).The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 561210 ? Facilities Support Services, with the corresponding Product Service Code (PSC) H312 ? Inspection and Repair of Fire Control Equipment. | Combined Synopsis | 561210 | No Set-Aside | 12/16/2025 | 12/19/2025 | - | |
The requirement consists of inspection and repair services for existing wet-pipe fire sprinkler systems located in Buildings N-104 and T-1002. Required tasks include National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 25 five-year internal obstruction investigations, sprinkler head surveys, removal and submission of sprinkler heads for Underwriters Laboratories (UL) testing, and the repair or replacement of valves, gauges, pipe sections, hangers, water motor alarms, and related fire protection system components. All work must comply with NFPA 25 (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems), NFPA 13 (Installation of Sprinkler Systems), NFPA 72 (National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code), NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code), applicable International Code Council (ICC) building codes, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The complete description of required tasks is contained in the Government?s Performance Work Statement (PWS).The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 561210 ? Facilities Support Services, with the corresponding Product Service Code (PSC) H312 ? Inspection and Repair of Fire Control Equipment. | Combined Synopsis | 561210 | No Set-Aside | 12/10/2025 | 12/17/2025 | - | |
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI): LOGCAP VI Small Business Suite – Follow-On Market Research DISCLAIMER: The Government is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-3 (Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes). The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or otherwise pay for the information solicited. Your response shall be treated as information only and shall not be used as a proposal. 1.0 PURPOSE The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Rock Island (ACC-RI), on behalf of the Army Sustainment Command (ASC), is issuing this follow-on RFI to further refine the acquisition strategy for the LOGCAP VI Small Business Suite. Based on feedback from the initial RFI, the Government recognizes a need to clarify the operational mechanics of the "Small Business with Prime Surge" model and seeks targeted industry input on managing concurrent operations during a national emergency. 2.0 CLARIFICATION OF ACQUISITION STRATEGY & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT DISCLAIMER: The operational mechanics and rules of engagement described below represent the Government's planned acquisition strategy and are provided solely to establish a common baseline for industry feedback. This strategy has not been formally approved. While the Government currently intends to execute the model as described, all parameters are subject to change prior to the release of the final solicitation. To ensure industry feedback is aligned with the Government's planned acquisition strategy, the Government provides the following baseline clarifications: The Definition of "Surge" (Scope vs. Volume): The Government will NOT activate a LOGCAP Large Business (LB) Prime simply because steady-state workload volume increases (e.g., reaching 125% or 150% of baseline). The Small Business (SB) Prime retains full ownership of the steady-state mission, including all associated volume spikes and routine fluctuations. The LOGCAP Prime is solely activated to execute completely separate, additive, mobilization-specific requirements (e.g., mass force deployment outloads) that fall outside the baseline LRC mission. The Activation Trigger is a Formal Event, Not a Metric: The LOGCAP Prime will not evaluate the SB’s capacity to determine if they should activate. Activation of the LOGCAP Prime is tied strictly to formal, documented Government directives (e.g., Presidential National Emergency Declaration, SECWAR Mobilization Order). Parallel Execution, Not Subordination: The SB Prime will never be subordinate to the LOGCAP Prime. This is a Parallel Execution Model. The Associated Contractor Agreement (ACA) is strictly a lateral coordination tool used to de-conflict shared physical resources (e.g., gate access, railheads, staging yards) during concurrent operations. The SB answers exclusively to the Government Contracting Officer and COR, not the LOGCAP Prime. Strict CPARS Independence: The Government will evaluate the SB Prime strictly on their baseline PWS metrics, completely insulated from the LB Prime's mobilization execution. A failure by the LOGCAP Prime during a mobilization outload will not negatively impact the SB Prime’s CPARS. Temporary, Expeditionary Presence: The LOGCAP Prime’s activation is strictly temporary. Once the formal mobilization directive is rescinded, the LOGCAP Prime will execute a mandatory demobilization and exit the installation; they will not absorb steady-state garrison functions. Compensated Integration: The Government recognizes that concurrent operations require increased administrative effort. The Government intends to utilize specific contractual mechanisms (e.g., dedicated coordination CLINs) to ensure the SB Prime is fairly compensated for the administrative burden of integrating with the LB. 3.0 QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY With the understanding that the SB Prime handles all steady-state work (including its volume spikes) and the LOGCAP Prime handles only formal mobilization/deployment requirements, the Government requests feedback on the following operational and contractual mechanics: Section A: Managing the Operational "Seam" During Parallel Execution When a formal mobilization occurs, both primes will operate simultaneously on the installation. If the Government defines the boundary between the SB Prime and LOGCAP Prime using Unit Identification Codes (UICs)—where the SB retains all resident unit support and the LOGCAP Prime assumes all transient/mobilizing unit support—what specific operational friction points would this create at shared nodes like the Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) or Central Issue Facility (CIF)? Instead of delineating by UIC, would it be more operationally effective to delineate the scope by physical footprint (e.g., the SB retains the permanent motor pools, while the LOGCAP Prime exclusively operates temporary staging yards and the railhead)? Please explain the risks of this approach. Recognizing that Government CORs will be at maximum capacity during a mass mobilization, what specific, contractor-led de-confliction mechanisms (e.g., a Joint Operations Coordination Cell [JOCC] or shared scheduling dashboard) should be mandated in the ACA to manage the daily schedule of shared resources (e.g., wash racks, scales) before escalating conflicts to the COR? Industry has recommended using a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) matrix to manage concurrent operations. What specific cross-cutting logistical functions (e.g., property book hand-offs, dispatching) absolutely require a standardized RACI matrix in the baseline solicitation to prevent duplicated effort or dropped requirements? The Government is considering placing the primary burden of integration on the LOGCAP Large Business (LB) Prime by requiring them to submit a 'Concurrent Operations Integration Plan'—mutually agreed upon and signed by the SB Prime—as a formal contract deliverable prior to surge execution. From a Small Business perspective, does making the LB responsible for securing this agreement ensure your operational needs are met, or does it inadvertently give the LB too much leverage during negotiations? If the Government adopts a model where daily coordination between the two primes is largely 'invisible to the USG,' how can the Government contractually protect the SB Prime’s workforce? What specific 'anti-poaching' clauses or rules of engagement must be included in the baseline solicitation to prevent the LOGCAP Prime from hiring away your steady-state staff to meet their mobilization surge requirements? During concurrent operations, both primes may require access to the same Government Automated Information Systems (e.g., GCSS-Army). What specific protocols or role-based access controls must be established prior to a mobilization event to prevent data corruption, duplicate ordering, or cybersecurity conflicts between the two primes? Section B: Scaling the Small Business Contract for Steady-State Mission Growth / Volume Spikes The SB Prime must absorb volume spikes within their steady-state scope independently of the LOGCAP Prime. What specific Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structures should the Government utilize to allow the SB Prime to rapidly staff and execute the volume spikes that remain within their steady-state scope? What is the realistic maximum organic volume spike capacity (e.g., percentage above steady-state baseline) that a Small Business prime can absorb and execute effectively before mission degradation occurs? The Government is evaluating the most effective standard CLIN structures to accommodate sustained mission growth and volume spikes within the steady-state scope of the EAGLE mission while minimizing risk to Small Business (SB) Primes. To accommodate potential mission growth within a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN structure, what baseline variance percentage (e.g., a 10% sustained increase in volume) do you recommend the Government establish before triggering a formal review or equitable adjustment of the fixed price? If a variance threshold (e.g., 10%) is established under an FFP CLIN, how should the baseline and growth be measured (e.g., consecutive months of sustained growth, average quarterly volume increases, or another metric) to ensure fair and accurate pricing adjustments? For mission growth areas where the scope, labor mix, or volume cannot be accurately projected, is it highly preferable to utilize a Cost-Reimbursable (CR) CLIN structure? Please provide your rationale based on risk management and staffing speed for a Small Business Prime. When standard mission growth occurs, what lead time does a Small Business Prime require to recruit, onboard, and execute the increased requirement without mission degradation? Section C: HTRO Evaluation Criteria The Government intends to utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology for the IDIQ base awards. To evaluate a Small Business's ability to absorb their own "steady-state volume spikes" during a high-tempo period, what specific past experience criteria should be used in the HTRO matrix to demonstrate a firm's ability to rapidly scale recruiting, management, and execution, and how would an offeror demonstrate that capability to the Government for validation? During the task-order competition phase, what specific criteria should the Government use to evaluate the credibility of a bidder's "Parallel Execution Plan" (i.e., their approach to de-conflicting shared resources and maintaining autonomy while the LOGCAP Prime executes the mobilization outload)? Additionally, what other key discriminators or evaluation factors should the Government utilize during the task-order competition to effectively differentiate between highly capable Small Business offerors? Section D: E-Craft Vendor Resource Requirements Administrative Burden: What specific resources (e.g., personnel, software, training) are required from a vendor's perspective to successfully implement, maintain, and submit reports through the eCraft system? Time Commitment: On average, how many labor hours per reporting period (e.g., weekly, monthly) are dedicated exclusively to eCraft compliance and data entry? System Integration: Does your organization use automated tools to extract data from your internal financial/accounting systems into the eCraft Periodic Report of Costs (PRC) format, or is the process primarily manual? Cost and USG Billing Structures Incurred Costs: Does utilizing the eCraft system cost your organization money? If so, please break down the nature of these costs (e.g., dedicated personnel salaries, specialized software, third-party compliance consultants, training). Charging the USG: How do you account for and charge the USG for the costs associated with eCraft compliance? Are these costs billed as Direct Costs against specific contracts? Are they absorbed into Indirect Costs (e.g., Overhead, G&A)? Please explain your organization's rationale and standard accounting practice regarding these charges. Experience and Operational Pitfalls General Experience: Briefly describe your overall experience working with the eCraft system. What aspects of the system work well for your organization? Common Pitfalls: What are the most significant challenges, pain points, or pitfalls your organization has experienced when using eCraft? (e.g., data validation errors, xml file generation, system access issues, alignment of eCraft categories with internal labor categories). Recommendations for Improvement: Based on your experience, what recommendations do you have for the USG to streamline the eCraft reporting process or reduce the burden on industry partners? Alternative Commercial Solutions: Are you aware of any other commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions or software platforms that meet the Government's intent of proposal and invoice reconciliation through automated data ingestion? If so, please identify these solutions and briefly describe their advantages over the eCraft system. 4.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONSE Small businesses should submit a response (maximum 15 pages) addressing the questions above and providing the following company information: Company Name, CAGE Code, and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Company Address and Primary Point(s) of Contact (Name, Title, Email, Phone) Small Business Certification(s) / Socioeconomic Categories Current EAGLE task order holder status (if applicable) Submission Deadline: Responses are requested no later than 1000 AM CST 03 AUG 2026. Submission Instructions: Please submit responses via email to the following points of contact: nathanial.s.tutor.civ@army.mil; hannah.j.kennedy.civ@army.mil and kassidy.j.hainline.civ@army.mil | Market Research | 561210 | No Set-Aside | 07/20/2026 | 08/03/2026 | Rock Island, IL | |
LOGCAP Small Business Suite RFI: This market research is exclusively focused on shaping the LOGCAP VI Small Business Suite. This suite serves as a follow-on initiative designed to transition a subset of requirements currently performed under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) contract. This is separate and distinct from the market research for the global contingency and other work described in the LOGCAP VI Performance Work Statement (PWS) recently posted to SAM.gov. The Government is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or otherwise pay for the information solicited. This is an RFI, your response will be treated as information only. Your response shall not be used as a proposal. FAR clause 31.205-18 is not applicable to this RFI. FAR clause 52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes and 52.210-1 Market Research are incorporated by reference into this RFI. NOTE: Responses must be submitted by 1200 Central Time on 22 May 2026. Please see the Small Business Suite RFI attachment for questions and response instructions. Please submit responses via email to shaun.y.peterson.civ@army.mil, alyse.m.hardin.civ@army.mil, benjamin.p.graw.civ@army.mil, and angela.kim6.mil@army.mil. Capabilities statements will not be considered or accepted. | Market Research | 561210 | No Set-Aside | 07/20/2026 | 05/22/2026 | Rock Island, IL |
Additional Details
Solicitation Number
FY26CIF
Archive Date
Jun 10, 2026
Office Address
ANNVILLE, PA, 17003-5002