The 711th HPW Mission Support Services IDIQ Is Worth $505M on Paper. The Prior Vehicle Moved $255M

What the $505M 711th HPW Mission Support Services IDIQ Ceiling Buys an 8(a) Bidder

For an 8(a) firm weighing a bid on the 711th HPW Mission Support Services IDIQ, this is a new-business capture decision with a hard stop: proposals close September 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. EDT. The Air Force Research Laboratory set the estimated maximum at $505,000,000 across a five year ordering period. That number is a ceiling, not a pool of work. The vehicle this one replaces carried a $400,000,000 ceiling and obligated $255,238,346 across 310 task orders in five years. Price your proposal against the $505,000,000 and you are modeling roughly twice the demand this program has ever produced. For the sixteen firms already holding seats, the same date is a retention event, because their period of performance ends November 30, 2026.

A Kickoff Meeting Is the Only Guaranteed Work

The solicitation states that Task Order 1, a kickoff meeting, serves as the minimum guarantee, and that there is no guarantee of work beyond it. Every other dollar depends on task orders AFRL chooses to compete later. That clause is the whole difference between a $505,000,000 headline and a revenue forecast.

The rest of the terms are fixed:

• The set-aside is 8(a), under NAICS 541990, with a $19,500,000 small business size standard. Foreign participation is not authorized.
• The basic IDIQ carries a five year ordering period inside a six year period of performance.
• AFRL intends to award without negotiations, while reserving the right to hold discussions.
• Task orders issue under FAR 16.5, with individual performance work statements defining each requirement.

The 2020 series of this program shows what that clause can produce. Eleven firms received seats in September 2020, each recording exactly one task order with nothing obligated against it. Those contracts all ended June 1, 2021, the day the sixteen current seats were awarded, and all eleven firms carried over. That was a re-solicitation, not five years of losing, and the seats still returned nothing. Treat the minimum guarantee as your worst case when you price.

The Median Holder Earned $10.9M, Not the Average’s $16M

Sixteen 8(a) firms won positions on the current vehicle on June 1, 2021. Each of those sixteen awards records the same $400,000,000 base-and-all-options value, which is one shared program ceiling rather than a per-firm allowance. The 2014 generation was built the same way, with a $99,700,000 anticipated program ceiling spread across up to six awards. Over five years the sixteen holders collected $255,238,346 against that shared figure.

AFRL has not labeled those contracts as the ones being replaced. The program title, NAICS, product service code, set-aside, wing, and timing closely align, making the predecessor the most relevant benchmark for estimating potential demand.

The ceiling matters less than the distribution underneath it. Divide the total by sixteen and it does not land evenly. The average holder earned $15,952,397 and the median $10,899,931, both far below what a firm would project from a $505,000,000 ceiling split across a similar field. Build your revenue case on the median.

Eagle Integrated Services Took 45.8% of a Sixteen-Holder Vehicle

Eagle Integrated Services obligated $116,895,673 across 82 task orders, which is 45.8% of everything the vehicle moved. The remaining fifteen holders divided $138,342,673 between them.

The bottom of that table is where the bid decision lives. Four firms together took under two percent. ICP Systems recorded one order worth $2,500 across five years, and Avosys Technology recorded three totaling $768,572. Each won a competitive 8(a) source selection and spent full FAR Part 15 proposal money to do it.

Eleven of the sixteen came off that 2020 series, so the roster has been stable across generations. Nine holders booked more than $10,000,000 each on this exact scope. The other seven hold five years of seat tenure with little volume behind it. Sort the field that way before you decide whether you are bidding to win work or bidding to keep a credential.

Ten Weeks Separate Proposal Receipt From Incumbent Expiration

Proposals arrive September 16, 2026. The current contracts stop November 30, 2026, roughly ten weeks later. A source selection on the scale of the 2021 generation, which produced sixteen awards, has to fit in that gap along with any protest window. This program has bridged a gap between generations before: in February 2015 AFRL issued bridge contracts for the same requirement. A second bridge would push real ordering into 2027 and shrink the first year of whatever gets awarded now. The full schedule:

1. August 21, 2026: AFRL published the combined synopsis and solicitation.
2. August 27, 2026: Amendment 0001 revised Section L, Section M and the other direct cost burden rate matrix.
3. September 3, 2026: the question and clarification window closes at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
4. September 4, 2026: government responses to timely questions are targeted by close of business.
5. September 16, 2026: proposals are due at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
6. November 30, 2026: the incumbent vehicle’s period of performance ends.

A bidder reading before September 3 can still put questions in. Sections L and M carry the proposal instructions and evaluation factors. How heavily the amended Section M weights past performance decides what a thin delivery record costs a seat-holder. Ask that one in writing.

Bid Economics That Survive the Concentration Math

Seat count and ceiling are the two least predictive numbers on a multiple award acquisition vehicle, and the two most likely to appear in a bid decision memo. Task order capture, customer familiarity and delivery history predict revenue instead. What the 711th HPW Mission Support Services IDIQ rewards after award is not what wins a seat on it.

For a capture lead pricing this bid, four things move task order share on a vehicle shaped like this one:

• Relationships with the requirements owners who write each performance work statement, since every FAR 16.5 task order rests on one.
• Credentialed staff already working at the performing locations, which is what makes a short-turn order winnable at all.
• Past performance on this specific scope, where nine of the sixteen incumbents booked more than $10,000,000 each.
• Capacity to carry payroll between orders, since a DoD services vehicle funds work order by order, not on a schedule.

Different readers face different moves here:

• The nine incumbents above $10,000,000 (Eagle, Bestica, SIERTEK, JYG, Venesco, Kapili, ERP360, Innovative Element, Reef): this is a recompete of work you already perform, and your period of performance ends November 30, 2026. Your BD lead should staff this as a defense, not a new pursuit.
• The seven incumbents below $7,000,000 (Cape Fox, Ajanta, JSToogood, Fidelity Decypher, Advent, Avosys, ICP Systems): a founder signing off on this bid should ask whether a second seat is worth the spend when the first one returned less than $6,400,000 across five years. A subcontract behind Eagle, Bestica or SIERTEK may pay better than another underused seat.
• 8(a) firms not currently on the vehicle: a standing-start solo prime bid against nine incumbents with delivery history, inside the remaining window, is not a realistic capture play. Approach Eagle Integrated Services first, since it performed 82 of the vehicle’s 310 task orders, then Bestica and SIERTEK. Start shaping now for the next recompete.
• Non-8(a) small and mid-market firms: you cannot prime this. Track the award list as a teaming target set for DIB subs.

• Name the requirements owners inside the 711th Human Performance Wing who scope the task orders you would compete for, then check whether anyone at your firm has spoken to them.
• Confirm your 8(a) program term runs past the award and ordering dates, not just past the proposal date.
• Check your own past performance file for work at Wright-Patterson AFB or with the 711th Human Performance Wing inside the last five years.
• Model your five year revenue at the $10,899,931 median rather than the $15,952,397 average, then decide whether the bid clears your hurdle rate.

FAQ

Does a thin delivery record on the current vehicle hurt an incumbent’s past performance score?

That turns on how the amended Section M weights past performance. A holder that booked a handful of small orders may find its relevance rating rests on the size and scope of those orders rather than on holding the seat.

Who inside the wing decides which contractor gets a task order?

Requirements owners inside the wing define what each order buys, and the contracting officer executes it. Capture work aimed only at the contracting shop misses where scope originates.

Does winning a seat guarantee any revenue?

No. The solicitation guarantees one kickoff meeting task order and states there is no guarantee of work beyond that minimum. All other work is competed at the task order level after award.

Which contracting office runs this program, and who owns the mission?

The AFRL contracting office designated FA2396 at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio runs the procurement, under Air Force Materiel Command. The 711th Human Performance Wing owns the mission, and the solicitation lists Wright-Patterson AFB as the place of performance.

How many awards does AFRL intend to make?

The solicitation does not say. The 2021 generation produced sixteen awards and the 2014 generation anticipated up to six against a $99,700,000 ceiling, so the field size has grown with the ceiling.

What would change the conclusion here?

A published intended award count below ten would change the per-holder math. So would a task order pipeline that shifts toward larger consolidated orders, which would reduce the number of holders that see any work at all.

What should I watch after September 16?

The award announcement and whether it lands before November 30, 2026. If it does not, watch for a bridge justification, which would delay the start of real ordering and compress the new vehicle’s first year.