Air Force Plant Access Control Vetting: What This Sources Sought Signals and How to Respond

Executive takeaway

This is a Sources Sought for an access control vetting program supporting multiple Air Force Plants in the U.S. The buyer is explicitly doing market research under FAR Part 10 and is looking for companies with proven capability to vet government employees and visitors against an authoritative database to assess fitness and reliability for facility access tied to national security resources and information. There is no promise of an RFP, but a strong response can influence how the eventual requirement is written and which vendors are considered viable.

What the buyer is trying to do

AFLCMC is seeking information from potential sources that can run a vetting program for personnel (employees and visitors) who need access to Air Force Plant facilities. The core need is screening against an authoritative database to determine fitness and reliability before granting access to facilities and associated sensitive resources.

Performance is described as occurring at Air Force Plant 42 (Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8) in Palmdale, CA; Air Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth, TX; Air Force Plant 6 in Marietta, GA; and Air Force Plant 44 in Tucson, AZ. The work is expected to align with industry standards and applicable local, state, and federal laws.

What work is implied (bullets)

• Vetting government employees and visitors against an authoritative database to determine fitness and reliability for facility access.
• Operating the program across multiple geographically dispersed Air Force Plants (Palmdale, Fort Worth, Marietta, Tucson).
• Executing in accordance with industry standards and applicable local, state, and federal laws.
• Supporting an access control mission tied to protection of national security resources and entrusted information.

Who should bid / who should pass (bullets)

• Should bid
  • Firms with demonstrable experience running personnel/visitor vetting programs for secure facilities.
  • Providers that can operate consistently across multiple states and sites while meeting applicable laws and industry standards.
  • Security firms aligned to NAICS 561621 that can clearly explain how their vetting process uses authoritative data sources to support access decisions.
• Should pass
  • Firms that only provide guard services or hardware/software access control without a mature vetting/screening capability.
  • Teams that cannot support multi-site execution across CA/TX/GA/AZ or cannot confidently state compliance approach with applicable legal requirements.
  • Vendors relying on speculative assumptions about scope, databases, or adjudication standards (since the notice is market research, details may not be finalized).

Response package checklist (bullets; if unknown say “verify in attachments”)

• Capability statement focused on personnel/visitor vetting for secure facilities.
• Relevant past performance examples that demonstrate vetting against authoritative databases and access reliability determinations.
• Multi-site operations plan describing how you would support the listed Air Force Plant locations.
• Compliance narrative for “industry standards” and applicable local, state, and federal laws (describe your approach without overreaching beyond what’s requested).
• Any requested formatting, submission method, and specific questions: verify in attachments.

Pricing & strategy notes (how to research pricing; do not invent pricing numbers)

This notice is not requesting pricing, but you can still use the response to steer the government toward an acquisition approach that matches how vetting services are actually delivered. To prepare for future pricing discussions, build a defensible cost model based on drivers you can validate later in the RFP (if one is issued): volume of vetting actions, turnaround times, staffing coverage, onboarding, and multi-site coordination.

• Review comparable access control vetting and security screening awards in the public record to understand common unit pricing constructs (e.g., per-vet action, per-badge population, or per-site operations) and typical CLIN structuring.
• Identify which elements are likely pass-through vs. labor-driven in your delivery model (but avoid committing to a structure the buyer hasn’t asked for yet).
• In your Sources Sought response, emphasize what information you would need from the government to price accurately (expected throughput, hours of operation, site-specific constraints, and database interfaces), without inventing requirements.

Subcontracting / teaming ideas (bullets)

• Team with partners that already operate near the listed Air Force Plant locations to reduce execution risk for multi-site coverage.
• Pair a prime with strong program management and compliance practices with a subcontractor that has specialized vetting workflow experience (where your internal capability is partial).
• If your core strength is vetting operations, consider teaming with a firm that understands the access control environment at secure industrial facilities to strengthen site integration.

Risks & watch-outs (bullets)

• This is explicitly market research; the government states it is not an RFP, is not accepting proposals, and may not issue an RFP at all.
• No reimbursement: all response costs are at the vendor’s expense, and submissions become government property.
• Scope ambiguity: “authoritative database” and “industry standards” are referenced, but specific databases, SLAs, adjudication criteria, and interfaces are not detailed in the snippet.
• Multi-jurisdiction execution: the buyer flags compliance with local/state/federal laws, which can complicate consistent processes across CA/TX/GA/AZ.

Related opportunities

• Air Force Plant Access Control Vetting (Sources Sought)

How to act on this

1. Open the notice and confirm what the government is asking for in the response (questions, page limits, format): verify in attachments.
2. Draft a tight capability narrative centered on vetted-access decisions using authoritative databases, scaled across the listed Air Force Plant locations.
3. Submit only what you can support with real experience and documented past performance—avoid assumptions about databases, thresholds, or required tools.
4. If you need a teaming partner for geographic coverage or specialized vetting workflow, line that up before you respond so your approach is credible.

If you want a second set of eyes on your Sources Sought response strategy (positioning, win themes, and what to ask/clarify without overcommitting), coordinate with Federal Bid Partners LLC.

Opportunity: Air Force Plant Access Control Vetting