RFP Q and A.pdf

RFP No. 80AFRC19R0022

Question and Answers

Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services

(RF&ESS)

ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR AERONAUTICAL FLIGHT TEST

RANGE, SIMULATION, AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT

Mission Operations Directorate, Code 600

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Armstrong Flight Research Center Edwards, California

The following are NASA’s official response to questions submitted in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) question period which closed on January 3, 2020. The responses are provided by section, with Question (Q) and Answer (A).

Terms and Conditions:

1. Q: Please confirm PDF files are acceptable for the non-editable submissions A. The non-editable submission is acceptable in PDF format. Reference Section L, 1852.215-81(k).

2. Q: Please confirm 11 pt. Times New Roman is an acceptable form of a font that is 11 characters per inch for proposal response, if not please provide a specific font and size.

A. Yes, Times New Roman, 11point font is required. See updated Section L, 1852.215- 81(b).

3. Please confirm that it is acceptable to number proposals sequentially by section (e.g, 1-1, 2-1, etc.).

A. Yes, numbering proposals sequentially by section is preferred.

4. RFP states, “in a page-limited volume where a formatting non-conformance is determined, the entire page will not be evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the Offeror. This includes, but is not limited to, non-conformances in text, pictures, graphics, tables, diagrams, charts, figures, forms, margins, and line spacing between text.” However, there are no defined requirements within the RFP. Will the Government please clarify specific requirements for line spacing?

A. Reference updated Section L, 1852-215-81(b)

5. RFP references font size for exhibits, but it is not clear if this applies to the overall proposal text.

Will the government please clarify both required font size minimum and type for proposal text?

6. RFP States: (b) A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 11 characters per inch (or equivalent) type… The only exception to the font requirements is the Offeror’s company logo. NOTE: Offerors should exercise caution when inserting tables, pictures, etc. containing text in a Microsoft Word document to ensure such insertions remain compliant with the 11-point font requirement. (e) On any page in a page-limited volume where a formatting non-conformance is determined, the entire page will not be evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the Offeror. This requirement includes, but is not limited to, non-conformances in text, pictures, graphics, tables, diagrams, charts, figures, forms, margins, and line spacing between text. Offerors are cautioned when inserting graphics, images, or other objects into a page-limited volume to ensure that the insertion does not create a non-conformance. Question: Would the Government clarify the page definition requiring the use of not smaller than 11 characters per inch (or equivalent) type? A note in the same section refers to remaining compliant to the 11-point font requirement. Using any font other than a monospaced font (e.g., Courier New or Lucida Console) at 11 point will result in more than 11 characters per inch.

7. The RFP currently states: “(c) The list of personnel and/or facilities (shown below or as specified in the contract Schedule) may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be amended from time to time during the course of the contract to add or delete personnel and/or facilities.

Position (Official Title), RF&ESS Program Manager-WBS 510, Systems Engineering Manager-WBS 110, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager – Range Services-WBS 510, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager – IT – WBS 510” The Draft RFP within the same “1852.235-71 KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (MAR 1989) “ Section, specified the requirement as [TO BE PROPOSED] Please clarify whether the Final RFP’s specification, or the Draft RFP’s specification is the correct one.

A. The most recent version is the correct one.

8. Reference. Page 20 of the Solicitation identifies the NAICS code for this acquisition is 541513 and states that the small business size standard as “$27.5M.” The SBA table of size standards effective August 19, 2019 provides that the size standard for NAICS code 541513 is $30 million.

See SBA Table of Size Standards at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards Question: Can the Government please clarify that the applicable small business size standard for this procurement is $30 million?

A. See updated Solicitation. Reference updated Section K, 52.204-8(a)(2)

9. Example RFP reference on the topic of AS9100: “Offerors shall demonstrate understanding of the AS9100 elements and third-party certification process.” Question: Will the incumbent’s quality records, processes, procedures, work instructions, and corrective action plans, especially those pertaining to AS9100 and developed under the contract, and compensated by NASA to the incumbent be available at Phase-In? And if so, can you please provide information as to what related AS9100 records will be made available to the Phase-In?

A. Only NASA owned processes will be made available to the awardee at time of phase-in.

Past Performance:

10. REFERENCE: The RFP states on page 38 that “there are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror’s current or past contracts” and “[t]he second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the previous contracts. The Solicitation then goes on to say that “[p]ast performance regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror.” (emphasis added).

QUESTION: Please confirm that the Government only is required to not rate the past performance information of predecessor companies, affiliates, key personnel as highly as the principal Offeror with respect to the relevancy aspect and not for the overall past performance confidence assessment.

A. No. The assessment process of the two aspects (qualitative and quantitative) of the past performance will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined in NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

11. REFERENCE: In the RFP instructions for Volume II: Past Performance, the RFP states on page 32 that “The Offeror’s proposal shall include an itemized listing and summary of five (5) current or past contracts performing the same or similar tasks to the RF&ESS PWS and solicitation requirements within the last three (3) years.” Question: Please confirm that the SB prime contractor may submit up to five (5) past contracts performing the same or similar tasks

A. Yes, see section Instruction to Offerors, Volume II: Past Performance.

12. Reference: In the RFP instructions for Volume II: Past Performance, the RFP states “…The Offeror may submit past performance information for a major subcontractor and/or team member for two (2) of the five (5) current or past contracts. A major subcontract has an estimated annual value greater than 30% of the total contract.” Question: Please confirm that the intent of the Reference provided above is to create a definition for “major subcontractor” and to only evaluate past performance references submitted by subcontractors or team members who will be proposed to perform “an estimated annual value equal to or greater than 30% of the total contract” for

RF&ESS.

A. Yes, the intent is to define “major subcontractor”. The definition has been revised from “greater than 30%” to “greater than 20%”. See updated section Instruction to Offerors, Volume II: Past Performance.

13. Reference: The Solicitation states that “[p]ast performance regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror.” A different offeror question reasonably requests the Government to fully credit past performance of predecessor companies, affiliates and key personnel, and further describes why giving such credit would be in the Government’s best interest. Nevertheless, the RFP language as currently written appears intended to evaluate past performance information submitted by an entity other than the principal Offeror entity less highly than past performance information for the principal Offeror itself. This section of the RFP lists entities other than the principal Offeror whose past performance information might be cited in a proposal: predecessor companies, affiliates, key personnel, and sub-contractors. However, it appears that other, similar entities like parent companies, owners, and joint venture members were intended to receive similar treatment in the past performance evaluation. Question: Will the Government please confirm that past performance information submitted by parent companies, owners, and joint venture members of a principal Offeror will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror?

A. See updated section Instruction to Offerors, Volume II: Past Performance. Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance FAR 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement

18.3 and the solicitation.

14. REFERENCE: Under the RFP for the Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services contract, the Government is using a “Price Performance Trade-off” source selection methodology, which places significant evaluation weight on the past performance citations submitted by offerors. Under this evaluation, the past performance factor is the only way in which offerors can technically distinguish themselves and their capabilities from competitors. The Technical Acceptability factor is evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable, and “all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.” Despite the importance of the Past Performance factor in the evaluation scheme, the RFP appears to limit the Government’s ability to evaluate certain types of past performance. Particularly, the RFP states: “Past performance regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror.

In the cast of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for who information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)) shall receive the rating “Neutral.”” RFP at 39 (emphasis added). This past performance evaluation scheme unnecessarily restricts the Government in its ability to evaluate all types of past performance, which is hurt the Government by limiting competition from qualified bidders. Given the value and size standard associated with this procurement, it is likely that many offerors will need to rely on the past performance of affiliates, predecessor companies, subcontractors, and/or key personnel to achieve the relevancy requirements stated in the RFP. Offerors who intend to rely on these types of past performance will no-bid the procurement rather than spend valuable resources preparing a proposal when the

RFP states that the Government “will not” credit such past performance as highly as that of principal offeror past performance. By removing the above referenced restriction in the RFP, the Government will not only increase the pool of potential bidders, but will afford itself more flexibility in performing the best value tradeoff. Additionally, a standard already exists to ensure that offerors properly attribute the past performance of a predecessor or affiliate company. It is well-settled that the Government may credit an offeror with the experience or past performance of a parent, subsidiary, or sister company where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliated company (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6.

QUESTION: Will the Government please modify the clause referenced above to the following:

“Past performance regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements will be evaluated so long as the offeror demonstrates the meaningful contribution of that predecessor company, affiliate, key personnel, or subcontractor to performance of the contract. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for who information on past performance is not available, the ror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)) shall receive a rating ‘Neutral’.”

A. No, the solicitation remains unchanged.

15. Is a Facility Clearance required at submittal of proposal? Will the Government sponsor the Contractor for this?

A. No, the Facility Clearance is not required at time of submittal of proposal. Yes, the Government will sponsor the Contract awardee.

16. Will the government please provide a breakout of SCA-covered labor categories against years’ tenure each current employee has accrued?

A. No.

17. What is the preferred document management system for AFRC (i.e., BITS or ODIE)?

A. The question is not clear, and no reference was provided.

18. Does AFRC currently employ the use of RFID?

A. Yes.

19. The RFP currently states: “The Offeror may submit past performance information for a major subcontractor and/or team member for two (2) of the five (5) current or past contracts. A major subcontract has an estimated annual value greater than 30% of the total contract.” Is the interpretation that we may submit PP held by any subcontracted ‘team member’, regardless as to whether or not that subcontracted team member will be subcontracted “ … an estimated annual value greater than 30% of the total contract.” Otherwise, the “… estimated annual value greater than 30% of the total contract” definition for a major subcontract specification highly constrains the offeror's agility in proposing very valuable subcontracted partner innovation outside of a single larger subcontracted partner to maintain the minimum prime contractor 51% total contract value requirements. We recommend that the major subcontract definition be changed to a lower percentage that would mathematically allow at least a second major subcontracted partner’s past performance be submitted -if only the use of “major subcontracts” for Past Performance may be used.

A. See updated section Instruction to Offerors, Volume II: Past Performance.

J01 PWS:

20. Q: It is unclear how WBS 120 Range Engineering Support labor hours are shown on the FY 15 to FY 19 Labor Allocation. It is unclear if the WBS 120 labor is shown under range engineering or range operations since according to the PWS Page 18 this labor comes from WBS 130 to WBS 160.

a) Is it a correct assumption that WBS 120 Range Engineering Support is shown under the Engineering Hours in the FY 15 to FY 19 tables?

A. No, WBS 120 Range engineering support is shown under Operations in WBS 130 to WBS 160.

b) It is a correct assumption that Range Engineering Support Labor Hours come from the Labor categories of WBS 130 to 160 Shown on L02 Page 31 & 32?

A. Yes, reference attachment J01 RFESS PWS, section 5.2.

21. Q: Trying to correlate PWS reports with DRD requirements. Is the organization chart required in PWS 4.1.4 the same as the organization chart required in DRD-3 Section 9 version #1?

A. DRD-3 is the requirement in attachment J01 RFESS PWS, section 4.1.4.

22. Q: In WBS 510, under Reports they refer to Project Level Tracking report (DRD-10). DRD-10 is Operation & Maintenance Documents. Will the government please clarify whether the reference should be to DRD-9 instead?

A. Reference updated J01 RFESS PWS, section 5.17.

23. Q: Please clarify what is meant by the following: "NAMS is used for user account management and access approvals. Include training requirement."

A. Reference updated J01 RFESS PWS, section 5.9.

24. If WBS 510 labor is considered non-productive and shown as zero on FY 15 to FY 19 charts is the WBS 110 Systems Engineering Manager (SEM) also considered non-productive time and unclear if the SEM hours are reflected on those Labor allocation charts. Is the SEM hours shown on the FY 15 to FY 19 Labor Allocation charts?

A. SEM hours are shown on the Labor Allocation charts, reference L02 NASA RFESS Historical.

J04 DRD:

DRD-13

25. Q: The referenced DRD, specifies, “The Offeror shall submit a Phase-in Plan which using a Time and Materials price structure.” Please confirm whether the word, “using”, should be “uses” (e.g.

“The Offeror shall submit a Phase-in Plan which uses a Time and Materials price structure.”) Additionally, please define or provide more clear reference as to contents of a “Time and Materials price structure.”

A. Reference updated DRD-13

26. It appears that the last line of the DRD is truncated. Can you confirm that the DRD13 is complete in its current form?

A. DRD-13 is complete in its current form.

L02 Historical Data:

27. Q: Unclear what constitutes a mission for the data on page 8. Please define what a single mission consists of for the data shown on page 8.

A. A single mission uses range assets for a time duration. The range assets utilized varies per mission.

28. Q. It is unclear what the average duration in time is for a single mission. Please provide the average time duration of a single mission in hours or days for the data shown on page 8.

A. No, average time duration will not be provided. Mission length is determined by the unique project requirements.

29. If WBS 510 labor is considered non-productive and shown as zero on FY 15 to FY 19 charts is the WBS 110 Systems Engineering Manager (SEM) also considered non-productive time and unclear if the SEM hours are reflected on those Labor allocation charts. Is the SEM hours shown on the FY 15 to FY 19 Labor Allocation charts?

A. Yes, the WBS 110 Systems Engineering Manager hours are included as part of 'Range Eng' total hours, reference L02 NASA Historical Data.

30. It is unclear why Productive Labor Allocation for WBS 510 for years 15 to 19 is almost nonexistent. Please clarify why WBS 510 has no productive hours even when there are non-management SCA positions in WBS 510.

A. Labor categories listed in WBS 510 support all or multiple WBSs. Labor Allocation charts include WBS 510 labor.

31. It is unclear how WBS 510 labor is accounted for on the FY 15 to FY 19 charts.

a) Is the WBS 510 labor treated as an overhead cost and pro-rated against the other WBS?

b) If not pro-rated how is WBS 510 labor accounted for.

A. Yes, the WBS 510 labor is pro-rated.

32. It is unclear if the leads since they are supervising are considered productive or non-productive and where or not their labor hours are in the Productive Labor Allocation charts. Are the Leads (range video, range tracking, range communications, range engineering support, and logistics) shown in L02 Historical Data pages 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 are they considered productive or non-productive since they are supervisory positions, and are their hours shown in the FY 15 to FY 19 Labor Hour allocation chart?

A. Leads' hours are accounted for in the FY15 to FY19 labor allocation. Charts 25- 28 heading is revised.

L03 Past Performance Questionnaire:

33. Q: NASA has provided a “Past Performance Questionnaire” that Offerors shall submit to the cited Client POC(s) for completion. The completed questionnaire must come from the Client and be submitted no later than January 23, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. PT. Attachment L-03 Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation No. 80AFRC19R0022, states “Upon completion of the survey, please email this survey to: Cacie Carrillo at cacie.carrillo@nasa.gov and Lisa Jackson at lisa.a.jackson@nasa.gov no later than Monday, December 23, 2019 at 4:00pm Pacific Standard Time.” Question: Will the government clarify the due date for Past Performance Questionnaires?

A. See Amendment 2.