June 13, 2003
Joann Kansier, ACA-1, Program Director
Office of Competitive Sourcing Acquisition
Federal Aviation Administration
1575 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Flight Service Competitive Bidding
Dear Ms. Kansier:
As you know, the revised OMB Circular A-76 was issued on May 29, 2003,
and the FAA�s AFSS Competitive Sourcing Study Screening Information
Request (SIR)/Request for Information (RFI) was released on June 3,
2003. In light of these documents, I am writing to request that the FAA
provide more specific guidance regarding the standards and rules that
will govern the Flight Service acquisition process to ensure fairness
and transparency in that process. This letter also requests an extension
to July 29, 2003 for submission of comments on the RFI.
The Agency has indicated that Flight Service is to be treated as an
"acquisition" and that the rules of the FAA�s Acquisition Management
System (AMS) will apply to the process. The AMS, in turn, states that
the FAA will "follow the guidance of [OMB Circular A-76] to the extent
such standards are consistent with the FAA�s Acquisition Management
System and the Administrator�s authority to implement �such terms or
conditions as the Administrator may deem appropriate�." This language is
unduly vague and open-ended, and provides insufficient information for
prospective participants in the acquisition to know in advance the rules
pursuant to which this acquisition will be conducted.
For example, the following questions come quickly to mind. Since the
A-76 process is based on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), from
which the FAA is exempt, how, or to what extent, precisely, does the
Agency intend to follow the guidance of the A-76 Circular? Which
standards are consistent with the AMS and which are not? What terms and
conditions does the Administrator deem appropriate, and which
inappropriate? During all previous discussions with OMB and FAA, we have
been informed that this is the largest, most complex outsourcing study
ever undertaken pursuant to the A-76 Circular. Appendix B.1.D.1, "Time
Limits," states that a standard competition shall not exceed 12 months
unless, due to the complexity of the competition, the CSO (without
delegation) grants a time limit waiver not to exceed 6 months, which
waiver must be granted in writing prior to the start date of the
competition. We request that you advise whether these time limits will
apply to this acquisition and whether the CSO intends to extend the time
limit for the 6 months. We would also appreciate receiving a copy of the
acquisition process time-lines that will apply to the Flight Service
study.
In addition, we request an extension to July 29 to provide comments on
the RFI. The present response date of July 8, which is only five weeks
after the RFI was issued, provides an unfair advantage to private sector
companies that may participate in this acquisition. This is because the
private companies generally have resources dedicated to acquisition
preparation and significantly more experience with the government
contracting process than NAATS. As our officers and members are FAA
employees who are trained to perform the Flight Service function and are
not acquisition specialists, we will require more time than the private
companies to analyze and respond to the RFI. The private companies will
not be prejudiced by this extension and it is in the best interests of
the FAA to ensure meaningful feedback on the RFI from all interested
parties.
Finally, at the June 5 meeting, MEO Lead, Bob McMullen stated that the
deadline for completion of the PWS had been moved up three months to
September of 2003. If this is true, we are concerned that such an
aggressive schedule is inconsistent with the complexity of Flight
Services tasks and functions and could jeopardize public safety. Indeed,
by needlessly rushing this process, we are concerned that the FAA will
compromise the quality of the final product, and undermine the integrity
of the competitive bidding process. I would appreciate your advising me
if the deadline for the PWS has been changed and, if so, why, and what
precautions have been taken to ensure the completeness and quality of
the PWS.
Thank you for your prompt written response to this inquiry.
Sincerely,
Walter W. Pike
President
cc: Don King, ASU-350 Contracting Officer
Marion C. Blakey, AOA-1 Administrator
|