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
 

  1. TOGEL HONGKONG
  2. DATA SGP
  3. TOGEL SIDNEY
  4. DATA SGP
  5. TOGEL HK
  6. pengeluaran sdy