Repost_PESS_II_QA.pdf

Question # Reference Question Answer

1 SOW pg. 28-29

Will the Government award an overall task order corresponding to each core requirement in response to the PESS II solicitation, and then award work packages under those task orders post contract award? Or are work packages associated with each core element awarded post contract award without awarding a Core Task Order

(CTO)?

The core requirements for the base and option years will be awarded as separate CLINS on the contract, and specific work for each CLIN will be directed through work packages under COR Technical Direction (TD). IDIQ Task Order requirements will be awarded as separate CLINS as required and will require Contracting Officer approval prior to award.

2 SOW and SOW Att 1 Do the Core areas in the SOW relate to the systems of technologies detailed in the SOW Att 1?

The SOW, especially Section 3.1, defines the required engineering and project support capabilities needed to meet the requirements of the technical organizations and projects.

SOW Attachment 1 has been revised for the final RFP as

Section J(b) Attachment 11 and is for informational purposes only. It provides representative examples of how those engineering and project support capabilities are applied in terms of work supported and deliverables across three categories (Space, Airborne, Ground). The Core Areas in the SOW can be spread out among the categories in

Attachment 11, but there is not a one-to-one correlation between the two documents.

3 General Would the Government consider making the current skill mix for the core part of the contract available to all bidders?

The Government will not provide information on the current contract. However, the Government, based on historical data, will provide the projected labor/skill mix and hours necessary to perform the SOW requirements in the final

RFP (with the exception of contract management) that are based on historical data.

4 General What productive number of hours per staff-year does the

Government have in mind.

The Government is providing the projected labor/skill mix and hours per labor category for the Core requirements.

Each offeror will determine the productive hours per staff year based on its personnel management and benefits policies.

5 General What are the productive man years?

The Government is providing the labor/skill mix and total hours per labor category for the Core requirements. Each offeror will determine the productive hours per staff year based on its personnel management and benefits policies.

Section J(b) Attachment

1 SOW, Attachment 1

EPRCA

The amount of estimated PESS II hours for the Program Manager over the 5-year period of performance indicates less than full-time support (1440 hours/year). Please confirm that the Government expects the PESS II Program Manager to be a part-time position.

Section J(b) Attachment 1 Statement of Work, Attachment 1

EPCRA has been revised to indicate that the information contained in it is historical and for informational purposes only. Historically, this position has been a full time position.

7 Section L.1(a)(10)

Section L has seven individual requirements, some of which are generally not short responses (e.g., initial staffing plan, "all phase-in activities," schedule, etc.).Request that the Government increase the number of pages for the Phase-in to 10 pages to allow for a compliant response.

With the exception of past performance, the page limits specified for each proposal section in the Draft Request for

Proposal (RFP) will not be increased in the Final RFP. The limits are intended to focus the offeror's attention on the most critical aspects of their proposal and encourage concise descriptions of their most relevant capabilities, past performance, and planning examples.

8 L.1(a)(10)

There are many items called out for each relevant contract in

L.2(b)(2). For any bidder, there are likely 6 or more relevant contracts between the prime and its subcontractors to be considered.

The current page limit of 10 pages means that any individual contract reference would only be approximately 1.5 pages. This number of pages does not provide enough space to adequately address the items in L.1(b)(2).

The page count for Past Performance will be increased to 20 pages in the RFP. If the space provided is not sufficient to capture all of the Prime’s relevant recent contracts (over

$10,000,000 annually) and proposed major subcontractor’s relevant recent contracts (over $2,000,000 annually), the space should be devoted to the most significant and relevant aspect of the work performed under the contracts identified.

Note that the information collected in the past performance questionnaires is not counted against the proposal’s page limitation.

9 L.2(b) We request that the page limit for past performance be increased to a minimum of 20 pages.

The page count for Past Performance will be increased to 20 pages in the RFP. If the space provided is not sufficient to capture all of the Prime’s relevant recent contracts (over

$10,000,000 annually) and proposed major subcontractor’s relevant recent contracts (over $2,000,000 annually), the space should be devoted to the most significant and relevant aspect of the work performed under the contracts identified.

Note that the information collected in the past performance questionnaires is not counted against the proposal’s page limitation.

10 RFP Section L Will the Government consider increasing the page count for the past performance given the number of areas being looked at?

The page count for Past Performance will be increased to 20 pages in the RFP. If the space provided is not sufficient to capture all of the Prime’s relevant recent contracts (over

$10,000,000 annually) and proposed major subcontractor’s relevant recent contracts (over $2,000,000 annually), the space should be devoted to the most significant and relevant aspect of the work performed under the contracts identified.

Note that the information collected in the past performance questionnaires is not counted against the proposal’s page limitation.

11 RFP Section L

Given the complex nature of the systems that need to be described, would the Government consider making the page counts for the

Sample Work Package response separate from the Technical Volume page count?

With the exception of past performance, the page limits specified for each proposal section in the Draft Request for

Proposal (RFP) will not be increased in the Final RFP. The limits are intended to focus the offeror's attention on the most critical aspects of their proposal and encourage concise descriptions of their most relevant capabilities, past performance, and planning examples.

12 RFP Section L Will the Government consider increasing the page count for the OCI, Phase-in, and other plans requested?

With the exception of past performance, the page limits specified for each proposal section in the Draft Request for

Proposal (RFP) will not be increased in the Final RFP. The limits are intended to focus the offeror's attention on the most critical aspects of their proposal and encourage concise descriptions of their most relevant capabilities, past performance, and planning examples.

13 RFP Section L Will the Government consider increasing the Past Performance and

Tech Plan page counts?

The page count for Past Performance will be increased to 20 pages in the RFP. The page limits specified for the Technical

Plans in the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) will not be increased in the Final RFP. The limits are intended to focus the offerors' attention on the most critical aspects of their proposal and encourage concise descriptions of their most relevant capabilities, past performance, and planning examples.

Section L, L.1(b)

Proposal Content and

Page Limitations

Considering the amount of past performance information requested, will the Government consider revising the page count limitation to 3 pages per past performance record, excluding the questionnaires?

Recommendation: A per record limitation of 3 pages will be more appropriate for the requested information and not unduly penalize an

Offeror/major subcontractors team with more, i.e., quantity of, relevant records.

The page count for Past Performance will be increased to 20 pages in the RFP. If the space provided is not sufficient to capture all of the Prime’s relevant recent contracts (over

$10,000,000 annually) and proposed major subcontractor’s relevant recent contracts (over $2,000,000 annually), the space should be devoted to the most significant and relevant aspect of the work performed under the contracts identified.

and priority should be placed on work performed by the

Prime contractor. Note that the information collected in the past performance questionnaires is not counted against the proposal’s page limitation.

15 L.1(b)

Volume II Mission Suitability Subfactor A. Technical Approach

(Technical Understanding, Sample Work Packages) and Subfactor

B. Management Approach (Approach for Managing the contract and

Organizational Plan, an Approach for Recruiting, Retaining, Motivating, and Incentivizing Employees, and Subcontracting Plan and Management Approach. Given the volume of material requested in the sections (L.2(a)), and given the Section M evaluation criteria where Management and Technical are worth 1000 points collectively, will the Government consider increasing the page limitation for Volume II, Mission Suitability, to from 70 total pages to 100 total pages to allow offerors to provide sufficient, discriminating proposal material based on RFP requirements? Also, please consider allowing offerors to allocate pages up to 100 within

Volume II as needed.

The page limits for Volume II Mission Suitability Subfactor

A and Subfactor B will not be increased in the Final RFP.

The limits are intended to focus the offeror's attention on the most critical aspects of their proposal and encourage concise descriptions of their most relevant capabilities, past performance, and planning examples.

16 L.1(b) and L.2(b)(1)

Please clarify if the 10-page limit for Volume III, Past Performance, is inclusive of the Offeror and all major subcontractors, or if the

Offeror and each major subcontractor is limited to 10 pages each. If the 10 pages is meant to include the Offeror and all major subcontractors, we respectfully request a larger page limitation (e.g., 35 pages) to enable the proper and accurate provision of the information requested on pages L-21 and L-22 under (2) Specific

Information to be Provided by Offerors and Major Subcontractors for each relevant contract (3 for the Offeror and 3 for each major subcontractor).

The page count for Past Performance will be increased to 20 pages in the RFP and is inclusive of the Offeror and all major subcontractors.

17 L.2(a)B.2(iii)

Providing a Total Compensation for Professional employees (TCP) requires many tables of salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs. These tables and the rest of the requirements in NFS 1852.231-71 and far 52.222-46 require many pages to be compliant.

We respectfully request that the TCP pages not be included in page count for the Mission Suitability Volume Management Approach

Subfactor.

Total Compensation Plan page count will not be included in the total page count for the Mission Suitability Volume. The

Total Compensation Plan will be submitted as part of

Volume I. The final RFP has been revised.

18 L.2(a)B.2(iii) Is the Total Compensation Plan included in the Technical Volume page count?

No, the Total Compensation Plan is not included in the

Technical Volume page count. The Total Compensation

Plan will be submitted as part of Volume I. The final RFP has been revised.

19 L-9

Total Compensation Plan – Recruiting, Retaining, Motivating, and

Incentivizing Employees - The Government appears to be including

NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, (Total Compensation Plan) in the Mission Suitability page limitations.

(1) Will the Government consider removing the Total Compensation

Plan from the Management Subfactors page limitation?

(2) Will the Government exclude subcontractors’ proprietary Total

Compensation Plans from page limitations as well?'

1) The Total Compensation Plan is not included in the

Mission Suitability page limitations .

2) The Subcontractors' Total Compensation Plan is not included in the Mission Suitability page limitations .

The Total Compensation Plan will be submitted as part of

Volume I. The final RFP has been revised.

L.2(c)(1)A.3 and

L.2(a)B.2(iii)

Please confirm that Offerors are not required to submit a separate compensation plan in Volume IV, Cost Proposal.

No, a separate total compensation plan is not required to be submitted in the Volume IV, Cost Proposal. The Total

Compensation Plan will be submitted as part of Volume I.

The final RFP has been revised.

L.2(a)B.1 Section J(b)

Attachment 9

The issue is that this Work package involves modernizing and increasing the reliability of the existing 6 Degree of motion flight simulator. This SWP appears to be based on the existing Vertical

Motion Simulator (VMS) at Ames. In order to propose a meaningful modernization program, you really need to understand the “as is” state of the simulator.

- Top level drawings showing FSM and drawings for the FSM subsystems

- Architecture block diagrams for the FSM and its subsystems

- Failure/repair history

- Maintenance procedures

- Operating procedures

- Historical usage data for simulator – is it used 8 hours a day? Once a week for 4 hours, once a quarter?

- Requirements specifications for the FSM and its subsystems including expected lifetime, Ao, and the maximum acceptable downtime.

Offerors are not being asked to do a modernization assessment; the sample work package is requesting the offeror to explain how it would plan and execute specific requirements. See RFP section L.2(a)(1)A.2. A top level overview of the facility can be found at a link provided in the

RFP Sample Work Package. The RFP Sample Work

Package 1, Para. 2.0 title was changed to "Summary Scope of Work" to emphasize the scope provided is representative, not all encompassing. The SWP1 3.0 title was changed to

"Project Requirements" to reflect the list is an example of the types of requirements that could be required for this type of work.

Att 9 - Sample Work

Packages Will the Sample Work Packages be priced out?

No. The RFP sample work packages will require cost information (to show understanding of the work) however, the approach proposed by the offeror should be consistent with the notional budgets provided in the samples.

Att 9 - Sample Work

Packages Will high level drawings be made available for the Flight Simulator.

High level drawings will be made available for the Vertical

Flight Simulator as an appendix to the Sample Work

Packages. However, as stated in Section L.2(a)(1)A.2, the proposal response to the sample work packages is intended to demonstrate the contractors understanding of the high level requirements, their ability to identify the types and extent of the work that needs to be performed, and how the work will be managed. Detailed designs are not a deliverable for the response to the SWPs.

SWP 1, 2.0 Scope of

Work

2) Improve the instrumentation and control systems. Can you please quantify/qualify "improve" in this context? Can ARC provide a description of what performance and functionality the improved system is to achieve?

The specific objectives are detailed in SWP 1, Section 3.0, which includes the use of additional sensors for the control selection. In this context "improve" means increased reliability, reduced operating costs, and better performance in terms of motion speed, response rates and inputs sensitivities. Since the SWP does not require systems designs to meet improvement goals, only the approach to performing the work, quantifying the improvements is not necessary.

SWP 1, 2.0 Scope of

Work

3) Replace mechanical and structural systems, including drive shafts, brakes, gearboxes and motor mounts. The scope involves the specification, selection and design of large machinery and machine-design components, with associated electrical power and controls connectivity. Will ARC provide the corresponding Master

Equipment List of Parts/Components and Drawings?

The development of a reasonable summary plan for the work described in the SWP does not require the level of detail that would be provided by the Master Equipment List of

Parts/Components and Drawings, so they will not be included with the RFP.

26 SWP Are the Sample Work Packages real requirements or current work?

The Sample work packages are based on previous or similarity to existing work meant to allow the Government to evaluate the staffing and technical implementation approach.

27 Sample Work Packages What is the objective of the Sample Work Packages?

The Government's objective is to evaluate the offerors approach and process in response to the Sample Work

Package.

Section L, L.2(a)(A)(2)

Sample Work Packages

The Section L instruction states that the Offeror “shall demonstrate its detailed understanding of the requirements of the Section J(a)

Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW)(Section 3.0 through 5.0) by providing the appropriate labor categories and deliverables specified in the Sample Work Packages in Section J(b), Attachment

9.” [emphasis added]. The instruction also states that “The offeror’s shall also identify the facilities and equipment required to perform task and method for ensuring operational continuity and specialized training.” [emphasis added] Since each Sample Work Package has a section named ‘Sample Work Package Deliverables’ with requirements that include a staffing plan and, for Sample WP 1, cost for full facilities modernization effort, will the Government please clarify whether the referenced Section L instruction is intended to be in addition to the WP deliverables or simply a summary restatement of those deliverables? Recommendation: Have the Section L instruction – and corresponding Section M evaluation criteria - limit the scope of the offeror’s approach to the Sample Work Packages to the ‘[Deliverables” section in each Sample Work Package.

The Section L instructions, with regard to Sample Work

Packages, are intended to be a restatement of the instructions provided for the sample work packages. The response to the sample work packages are not meant to be a detailed assessment and plan, but rather a high-level description of the approach taken (in terms of labor, materials, and duration of work) to demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the technical requirements of the sample work packages and the correct application of labor skill sets to them. The language for specific deliverables has been removed from Section L and only appears in the sample work packages.

Section M, M.2(a)(1)A.2

Sample Work Packages

Does the Government intend to refer to Attachment 9 instead of

Attachment 10 on Page M-7?

Yes, Page M-7 should refer to Attachment 9 instead of

Attachment 10 for Sample Work Packages. This will be corrected in the final RFP.

Section M, M.2(a)(1)A.2

Sample Work Packages

Does the Government intend to refer to Attachment 9 instead of

Attachment 10 on Page M-7?

Yes, Page M-7 should refer to Attachment 9 instead of

Attachment 10 for Sample Work Packages. This will be corrected in the final RFP.

31 M.2(a)(1)A Please confirm that Section J(b) Attachment 9 should be referenced rather than Attachment 10.

Yes, the sample work packages are Section J(b) Attachment

9. See the final RFP for reference changes.

L.1(c)(2) and Section

J(b) Attachment 9, pg 2

Given that the Mission Suitability Volume shouldn’t include cost/price data, please identify where Offerors should include the estimated cost for Sample Work Package 1.

The estimated costs for the Sample Work Packages should be submitted in the Mission Suitability volume. The estimated costs for work packages will not be considered as cost/price data and will only be used to evaluate the offeror's understanding of the Mission Suitability requirements.

L.2(a)B.1.i

L.2(b)

L.2(c)(2)

Request the Government define the meaning of “significant” subcontractors in L.2(a)B.1.i.

Is it equivalent to “major subcontractors” defined under L.2(b)?

Request the Government define the meaning of “significant” subcontractors in L.2(c)

For the purposes of contract management in this solicitation, a "Significant Subcontractor" as referenced in L.2(a)B.1.i is a contractor whose inability to perform the work assigned to them would put the prime contractor in jeopardy of failure to meet contract requirements. This definition has been added in the RFP. A Significant Subcontractor and a Major

Subcontractor are not equivalent. Definitions are provided in the Terms of Reference and consistent with definitions that have been provided in the relevant sections of the RFP.

34 L.2(c)(2)C

There appear to be some inconsistencies in the definition of major subcontractors with respect to the table. Section L.2(c)(1)D defines a

Major subcontractor as having a total value > $10M over the 5 year

POP. This section defines a major subcontractor as having a value

>$2M and the CP1 table itself shows >$4M (see the last row, first column). Please clarify the definition of major subcontractor for the purposes of completing the CP1 table.

The definition of major subcontractor is has been revised in the RFP. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the

RFP.

35 General Are there directed Subcontractors on the current contract?

No. The Government has not directed the prime to issue any subcontracts under the current contract.

36 RFP L.19

Is Subcontracting Management Plan Matrix at the contract or CLIN level?

The Subcontracting Management Plan Matrix is at the contract level.

Section M, M.2(a)(1)B 3

Subcontract Plan and

Management Approach

Does the Government intend to evaluate the cost effectiveness of subcontract arrangements in addition to the cost evaluation?

The Government intends to evaluate the offerors cost effectiveness as it relates its subcontract management approach. The cost evaluation will be performed on the cost proposal provided as part of the Cost Volume.

38 L.2(c)(2)(C)

We assume that the $2M is the threshold for listing subcontractors because the $2M value is also referenced in the table instructions

L.2(c)(2)(C). Please confirm this is correct.

The requirements identified in section L.2.(c)(2)C regarding

"Proposal Prime/Subcontractor Information Summary" have been removed. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the RFP.

39 L.2.c.

TABLE CP1 for the Prime Offeror, each team member, and all

Major Subcontractors having a contract value of $2,000,000 or greater are to provide information for use by NASA in the public contract award notification. Major Subcontractors valued at

$2,000,000 or greater are to submit a completed TABLE CP1 below for all of their subcontractors with a value of $2,000,000 or greater.

Will the government please define the term “team member” in this context?

The requirements identified in section L.2.(c)(2)C regarding

"Proposal Prime/Subcontractor Information Summary" have been removed. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the RFP.

40 L.2(c)(2)C

Please confirm that all tables completed by the Prime should have the Prime contractor name in the first block and the major subcontractor name(s) in the 7th block. Similarly, in the case of a major subcontractor completing the table for their lower-tier subcontractor(s), the Major Subcontractor’s name would go in block

1 and the lower-tier subcontractor name(s) in block 7.

The requirements identified in section L.2.(c)(2)C regarding

"Proposal Prime/Subcontractor Information Summary" have been removed. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the RFP.

41 L.2(c)(2)C

These requirements are somewhat confusing. Is it the Government’s intent that the prime complete a separate table for the prime and each team member having a contract value >$2M irrespective of whether they meet the major subcontractor criteria established in Section

L.2(c)(1)D?

The requirements identified in section L.2.(c)(2)C regarding

"Proposal Prime/Subcontractor Information Summary" have been removed. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the RFP.

42 L.2(c)(2)C

Please clarify the definition of team member in regards to this requirement. As stated, it seems to imply that the Prime Offeror has to complete a separate table for the entire team. For example, if a team is comprised of a prime, 2 major subcontractors and 3 minor subcontractors, the prime would submit a total of 6 separate tables (1 for each team member). Is that the Government’s intent?

The requirements identified in section L.2.(c)(2)C regarding

"Proposal Prime/Subcontractor Information Summary" have been removed. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the RFP.

43 L.2(a)B.1 (vi)

Please clarify if the definition of major subcontractors in this Section

L instruction is referring to the one provided in the Past Performance

Factor (i.e., subcontracting dollars of $2,000,000 average annual dollar value or more covering a performance period of up to three

(3) years), or the Cost Volume (i.e., subcontractors providing a total value of $10,000,000 or more for the total five-year period of performance (ref. Page L-24) or subcontractors valued at $2,000,000 or greater (ref. Page L-34)).

The definition of major subcontractor is has been revised in the RFP. The Table CP1 has also been removed from the

RFP.

44 L.3

In L.3 SBA OSTENSIBLE SUBCONTRACTOR RULE

INFORMATION on Pg. 36 under (a) RULE REQUIREMENT, “Major subcontractor” is defined as: For purposes of the Ostensible

Subcontractor Rule, Major Subcontractor is defined as a company that the Offeror anticipates providing at least $2,000,000 of contract value in the support of the Statement of Work. Is this meant to be

$2,000,000 over the 5 years total, or average annual dollar value?

The definition of major subcontractor is has been revised in the RFP.

45 L.2(a)B.1.ix)

Only three TOTAL positions, including the Site Manager, are described in the SOW. This statement suggests that there are three positions IN ADDITION to the Site Manager. Please confirm whether this statement is correct.

We recommend clarifying paragraph “ix” to state that the three key positions include the Site Manager, thereby making paragraph “ix” consistent with the draft PESS II SOW.

There will be a total of three key positions, (Site Manager, Mechanical Group Lead, and Electrical Group Lead) that need to be addressed in the proposal. The term contributor was intended to indicate that the leads are also expected to contribute to the group's products. Section L.2(a)B.1.ix) has been modified to eliminate confusion and make it consistent with Section 4.1 of the SOW.

L.2(a)B.1 and Section

J(b) Attachment 1

How many Key Personnel are required? There is a discrepancy between RFP and SOW.

The RFP and SOW have been revised to show 3 Key

Personnel. There will be a total of three key positions, (Site

Manager, Mechanical Group Lead, and Electrical Group

Lead) that need to be addressed in the proposal. The term contributor was intended to indicate that the leads are also expected to contribute to the group's products. Section

L.2(a)B.1.ix) has been modified to eliminate confusion and make it consistent with Section 4.1 of the SOW.

L.2(a)B.1 and Section

J(b) Attachment 1

Section L requests position descriptions for the key positions identified in the SOW. The SOW identifies Electrical Group Lead and Contributor, and Mechanical Group Lead and Contributor.

Please confirm that the Electrical Group Lead and Contributor corresponds to the Electrical Engineer Group Lead in Section J(b)

Attachment 1, and the Mechanical Group Lead and Contributor corresponds to the Mechanical Engineer Group Lead in Section J(b)

Attachment 1. If so, please indicate if candidates for these positions must meet both the SOW experience requirement (5-years supervising electrical/mechanical engineers) and the Section J(b)

Attachment 1 experience requirement (15 or more years of experience in the electrical/mechanical engineering field).

Also, given that the estimated PESS II hours for each position are ~2

FTE, please confirm the Government wants resumes of candidates to fill each position (i.e., two Electrical Engineer Group Leads and two

Mechanical Engineer Group Leads).

Section L.2(a)B.1.ix) has been modified for consistency with

Section 4.1 of the SOW. See final RFP for official changes.

L.2(a)B.1 and Section

J(b) Attachment 1

How many Key Personnel are required? There is a discrepancy between RFP and SOW.

The RFP and SOW have been revised to show 3 Key

Personnel. There will be a total of three key positions, (Site

Manager, Mechanical Group Lead, and Electrical Group

Lead) that need to be addressed in the proposal.

Section L, L.2(a)(A)1, L.2(a)(A)2, and corresponding Section M, M.2(a)(1)A Technical

Approach 1/2

Referenced Section L and M provides that the Government intends to evaluate the Offerors’ approach to the SOW (Section 3.0 through

5.0) for both Technical Understanding and Sample Work Packages elements. Will the Government please clarify whether the Offerors are instructed to provide Key Personnel (SOW 4.1) and an approach for Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan (SOW 5.0) for evaluation under the

Mission Suitability Technical Approach subfactor? Similar to the instruction for Technical Approach, Section L, L.2(a)(B)(1)

Management Approach, and the corresponding Section M criteria states that the Offerors integrated approach for the discipline areas within SOW Sections 3.0 to 5.0 shall be addressed, thereby also including Phase-In/Phase-Out. Recommendation: Evaluate Key

Personnel (SOW 4.1) only as part of Management Approach, per

L.2(a)(1)B.1(viii) and (ix). If the Phase-in Plan will be evaluated as part of Mission Suitability, place the requirement for the plan in

Volume II and evaluate as part of Management Approach. If the

Phase-in Plan is an acceptability/eligibility determination, exclude

SOW 5.0 from the Mission Suitability Section L instructions and

Section M evaluation criteria.

The government will rate Key Personnel as part of the

Mission Suitability Management Approach subfactor. The

Phase-In plan will be evaluated separately as an acceptability/eligibility determination. The final RFP will be revised for clarity.

L.2(a)B.1 and Section

J(b) Attachment 1

Reference:(viii) Provide a position description with roles and responsibilities for the Project Engineering Support Services (PESS

II) Site Manager (SM) and a resume (in an appendix) detailing the proposed SM’s qualifications including, but not limited to education, experience (technical and management, and work-year percentage commitment to this contract.

Program Manager:

Coordinates and monitors the scheduling, pricing, and technical performance of this contract. Ensures adherence to plans and schedules develops solutions to program problems, and directs work of employees assigned by the contractor or subcontractors to perform project and engineering support functions for NASA as defined in the contract Statement of Work (SOW), Contract Task

Orders (CTO's), and Work Package (WP) requirements. Ensures projects are completed on time and within budget. Acts as advisor to

NASA civil servant project teams regarding projects' tasks, and operations. Requires a bachelor's degree and normally possess 10 years of experience in the field or in a related area. Familiar with standard concepts, practices, and procedures within a particular field. Relies on extensive experience and judgment to plan and accomplish goals. Performs a variety of complex tasks.

Please confirm that the Site Manager in Section L and Program

Manager in Section J(b) Attachment 1 are synonymous.

Yes, the RFP has been modified to consistently use "Site

Manager" to identify this key position.

51 General What does the Government see as the biggest performance challenges on PESS II?

As stated in the Industry Day PESS II SOW Overview

Briefing slides, "With the projected high number of work packages (tasks) being supported, a key factor for PESS II contract success is how the contractor is able to recruit and retain the required labor skills within this dynamic environment while meeting individual customer work package requirements, deliverables and due dates. This will require flexibility and adaptability on the part of the contractor management team to successfully and continually meet customer needs.

52 L.2(b)(1)

The text in the first paragraph states “The offeror shall complete the table found in the Past Performance Questionnaire to show the relevance of each individual contract referenced.” What specific table in the Past Performance Questionnaire does this requirement refer to?

The table referenced is the Types of Services Provided table found in item 10. in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

Final RFP will be revised for clarity.

53 L.2(b) Will the Government consider looking at 5 years of Past

Performance?

No.

54 Section L, L.2(b)(2)

Does the Government intend to evaluate the content(scope) and complexity aspects of relevancy for an Offeror’s past performance record only from their proposal response to L.2(b)(2) Specific

Information to be Provided by Offerors and Major Subcontractors, or is this information required in addition to the Offeror’s case for similarity of size, scope, and complexity? Recommendation:

Evaluate and determine whether past performance records are similar to PESS solely based on proposal responses to L.2(b)(2).

The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance based on the information provided in response to L.2(b)(2), the Past Performance questionnaires, and augmented/verified by other information available to the government, including

PPIRS.

Section L, L.2(b)(2)C, Other Information

Section L instruction states “For all relevant contracts identified in

L.2(b)1 above, and for all NASA contracts completed within the last three years or active for at least one year, [emphasis added] the

Offeror and major subcontractors shall:” Will the Government please clarify whether they intend for Offerors to provide the information required by L.2(b)(2)C 1-4 for all NASA contracts held by the Offeror or major subcontractor whether or not those contracts are one of the (3) permitted records submitted in the past performance volume? The information should not be required for

NASA contracts that are not one of the (3) submitted records because the Offeror/major subcontractor has presumably determined those records to be not relevant.

The final RFP will be revised to clarify.

Section M, M.2(b)

FACTOR 2 – PAST

PERFORMANCE

There are a few instances in which the instructions (Section L) for what the Offerors are to provide do not precisely correlate with the information the Government states they intend to evaluate (Section

M). For example, in the Past Performance factor, Section L states that “The Offeror shall include in its proposal the overall corporate or Offeror past performance, but not the past performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the required work.”

Section M states, in part, “The Government will evaluate the currency…predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience…” For this example, will the Government please clarify whether the performance of key personnel on the past performance record be evaluated as part of the confidence rating of the Offeror?

Final RFP will be revised to clarify.

L.2(b)(1) and L.2(b)(3) A and B

Please clarify which portions of the Past Performance Questionnaire are completed by the Offeror (or major subcontractor) and which portions are completed by the CO/COR for each relevant contract.

Typically, Offerors provide the basic contract information and

CO/COR provide the relevancy assessment and performance assessment.

Portions 1-10 may be completed by either the Offeror or

CO/COR but must be verified by the CO/COR. Portions 11-

14 must be completed by the CO/COR

58 Phase-in Is the Phase-in FFP or CPFF? Exhibit 11 indicates it is CPFF. Phase-in will be Firm-Fixed-Price.

59 Phase-in Will the Phase-in be separate and evaluated for Price Realism or included in the total price?

The Phase-in will be included in the total price and evaluated as an acceptability/eligibility determination with Price

Reasonableness.

60 Phase-in What is the rationale behind a 60 day phase-in?

A 60 day phase-in is expected to aid in a smooth transition for the high number of anticipated task orders/work packages being transferred from the current contract to the new contract.

Section L, L.1(c)(1)L and

L.2(a)B

L.1(c)(1)L instructs Offerors to provide a Phase-In Plan as part of

Volume I. L.2(a)B Management Approach states that “The Offeror shall describe its management and business approaches to coordinate, perform, integrate, control, and accomplish the requirements of the SOW from phase-in through the life of the contract. Since Section M does not explicitly state the intent, will the Government please clarify whether the Phase-In plan will be evaluated within Mission Suitability or as an acceptability/eligibility determination similar to the S&H and OCI Mitigation Plans?

Recommendation: Evaluate as part of Mission Suitability

The Phase-in Plan will be evaluated separately as an acceptability/eligibility determination.

62 L.2(a)

Given that SOW 4.0 is Contract Management Requirement and is addressed in the Management Approach Subfactor and SOW 5.0 is

Phase-in/Phase-out Plan and the Phase-in Plan is included in Volume

I, please clarify the Government’s expectations for responses to

SOW 4.0 and 5.0 within the Technical Understanding response of the Technical Approach Subfactor.

The final RFP will be revised to clarify that the Technical

Understanding is for the requirements of the SOW Section 3.

L.2(a)A - 2. Sample

Work Packages

Given that SOW 5.0 is Phase-in/Phase-out Plan and the Phase-in

Plan is included in Volume I, please clarify the Government’s expectations for responses to SOW 5.0 within the Sample Work

Packages response of the Technical Approach Subfactor.

The final RFP will be revised to clarify the requirements for submission of the Phase-in Plan.

L.2(a) - B. Management

Approach (Subfactor)

Given that the Phase-in Plan is included in Volume I, please clarify if the Government desires an additional response to phase-in within the Management Approach Subfactor included in Volume II.

The final RFP will be revised to clarify the requirements for submission of the Phase-in Plan.

65 L.1(c)(1)A Please confirm that if Offerors are proposing as a joint venture, only

8(a) joint ventures approved by the SBA are eligible for award.

No, a joint venture does not need to be an 8(a) approved by

SBA to be eligible for award. This procurement is a Small

Business Set-Aside, not an 8(a) Set-Aside.

L.3 and L.1(b) L.3 SBA

OSTENSIBLE

SUBCONTRACTOR

RULE INFORMATION

(a) RULE

REQUIREMENT

Please specify where this information should be located in the

Offeror’s response as it does not appear to be included in any of the volumes detailed in Section L.1(b) on Page L-9.

The final RFP will contain direction to include the

Ostensible Subcontractor information into Volume I.

L.3 and L.1(b) L.3 SBA

OSTENSIBLE

SUBCONTRACTOR

RULE INFORMATION

(a) RULE

REQUIREMENT

Request guidance on the application of FAR 52.219-14 and SBA’s final rule implementing changes to the limitations on subcontracting, which has been codified under 13 CFR 125.6. This rule deems any work done by a similarly situated entity is not a subcontract for the purpose of determining compliance with the applicable limitation of subcontracting and that subcontracts between a small business prime contractor and a similarly situated subcontractor are excluded from those limitations; any work performed by that subcontractor then counts towards the small business prime contractor’s compliance with the limitations. This also further seems to contradict the

Ostensible Contractor rule incorporated into the presolicitation RFP.

Please confirm that small business prime contractors who anticipate subcontracting to other small businesses to submit a response to the

RFP, will be measured per SBA’s final rule implementing the changes to the limitations on subcontracting.

The SBA regulation found at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6 (c) implements the requirements in Section 1651 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2013, Public Law 112-239, regarding the limitation on subcontracting and similarly situated entities. It is NASA’s position that the SBA regulatory changes will not be applied to NASA procurements until those changes have been implemented in the

Federal Acquisition Regulation. Therefore, as a matter of administrative procedure, NASA continues to rely on FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. See Final RFP Sections I and

L.

68 General How much work is envisioned to be supplied off-site? Can we propose off-site rates?

The work will be primarily on-site. Offerors should propose on-site rates.

69 SOW 3.2.1.2

Can reachback to unique expertise, especially for proposals efforts

(SOW 3.2.1.2 Proposal Development) be provided off-site?

Typically no. The work performed under the PESS II contract is done primarily on integrated teams that rely on hands-on collaboration. Under special circumstances and if authorized by the COR exceptions may be permitted.

70 General Can personnel providing proposal support work from home?

Typically no. The work performed under the PESS II contract is done primarily on integrated teams that rely on hands-on collaboration. Under special circumstances and if authorized by the COR exceptions may be permitted.

71 General Can personnel work from home on this contract?

Typically no. The work performed under the PESS II contract is done primarily on integrated teams that rely on hands-on collaboration. Under special circumstances and if authorized by the COR exceptions may be permitted.

Attachment J.1(a)3 DRL

Section L.1(c)(1)K

The Data Requirements List (DRL) in the draft RFP has an OCI

Avoidance Plan - as opposed to an OCI Mitigation Plan- due with proposal submittal.

- We assume these are the same document. What is the correct title for the document?

Both are the same documents. DRL # has changed and has been updated to state "OCI Mitigation Plan".

73 Attachment J.1(a)3 DRL Will the Government consider changing the DRL for 533M so that the due date does not fall on a Sunday?

The DRL for 533M states that the report is to be delivered no later than the 10th business day after each full month of service. Business days (due dates) will not fall on a Sunday.

74 L.2(c) In order to develop/price labor estimates reflecting the start date of the program, please provide an anticipated start date for this contract

The estimated Phase-in and base period performance dates will be provided in the final RFP.

75 Section M, M.1(b)(1)A

The evaluation criteria on Page M-4 reads “The compatibility between the proposed technical approach [emphasis added] and proposed total compensation to accomplish the work will be an important consideration in the evaluation of this factor.” Will the

Government clarify whether “technical approach” as used here refers to the overall Mission Suitability factor or the Mission Suitability subfactor Technical Approach?

Section M revised from "technical approach" to read

"technical and management approach". This Section defines evaluation criteria for Mission Suitability, which includes both technical and management performance. The evaluation will consider the proposed total compensation for both technical and management approaches necessary to accomplish the work.

76 RFP Section M Why is Management scored higher than Technical Capability?

The Government has determined that Management is more important.

77 RFP Section M Are any of the Sub-elements in the Management Factor more important?

The RFP does not assign weights to the sub-elements however, all significant findings of strength or weakness will be considered.

78 RFP Section L

Will the Government consider limiting the required response to all of the SOW elements, it is too encompassing. Recommend focusing on most important.

See final RFP section L.

79 General Does the Government anticipate oral proposals in lieu of written proposals?

No, the government will require written proposals in response to the PESS II RFP.

80 General Is there a technical library available? There is no technical library for this RFP.

81 General

Has the Government considered adding a case study to the RFP to allow offerors to show how they can meet surge and cross-level of staffing requirements?

The Government has considered adding a case study to the

RFP and has decided that comparable information will be obtained from the proposals' response to the sample work packages.

82 B.1

1852.216-74 ESTIMATED COST AND FIXED FEE - The estimate cost of this contract is $TBP exclusive of the fixed fee of $TBP. The total estimated cost and fixed fee is $TBP.

(1) Please clarify whether or not the $TBP (To Be Proposed) amounts are supposed to correspond with the $TBP amounts in the table. (The table does not include the IDIQ task order requirements.)

(2) Please confirm that the estimated cost and fixed fee for the

IDIQ CLINs are not identified in the contract.

(3) Is there a maximum ceiling for the IDIQ CLINs?

(1) The $TBP (To Be Proposed) amounts will match the proposed (awarded) amounts.

(2) The IDIQ CLIN amounts are not included and will be proposed as separate task order amounts upon request for task order proposal.

(3) The maximum ceiling for IDIQ CLINs is stated in the final RFP Section B.

83 B.3 - B.4

1852.232-81 CONTRACT FUNDING - There are numerous $TBP

(To Be Proposed) amounts throughout this section. Please confirm the $TBP should be $TBD (To Be Determined) instead. Offerors will not know the funding amounts that the Government will obligate to the contract at the time of contract award.

This will be changed to $TBD (To Be Determined) in the final RFP.

84 L 52.215-22

Limitations on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract

Effort - Should Offerors provide the requested information in

Volume I (General), Volume IV (Cost Proposal), or somewhere else?

The information requested in 52.215-22 shall be provided with the cost proposal.

85 L.1(b)(1)

A written page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides and shall contain Arial font text with a size not smaller than 12-point. Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8 1/2" x 11" pages. The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8 1/2" x 11" size may also be used. Diagrams, charts, tables, and photographs shall contain Arial font text in a size no smaller than 11-point. Please confirm that 12-point Arial Narrow meets the font requirement for written pages and 11-point Arial Narrow meets the font requirement for diagrams, charts, tables, and photographs.

No, the font stated is Arial only (no variation), not Arial

Narrow.

86 L.2(a)B.2

Please clarify the referenced Section L instruction.

Is the Government requesting evidence from the prime that the compensation being provided by service subcontractors is adequate to attract PESS II employees employed by each service subcontractor?

Is this evidence in lieu of the required response to NFS 1852.231-

71(d) which requires service subcontractors who exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data to provide a total compensation plan?

Also, the prime is not in a position to provide this evidence given that it is proprietary to the Offeror’s subcontractors.

The government is requesting evidence that the compensation package offered for employees and subcontractors is competitive within the Santa Clara

(Silicon) Valley regional labor market.

87 L.2(c)(1)

The numbering of this section appears to be off. L.2(c)(1) appears on both page L-23 (Introduction) and L-26 (Cost Template Workbook).

Please clarify.

The final RFP will be reviewed to ensure that the numbering and referenced documents and sections are accurate.

88 L.2(c)(2) The numbering of this section appears to be off. L.2(c)(2)A appears on both page L-27 (Cost Exhibits) and L-33 (FCCM).Please clarify.

The final RFP will be reviewed to ensure that the numbering and referenced documents and sections are accurate.

89 General Can the Government provide the current contract value?

The value of the current contract is estimated at

$144,000,000 for the five year period of performance.

90 General Will a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) be provided? No however, it will be provided at award.

91 General Does the contract update Mission Design or Control [software] with

CMMI?

CMMI processes are not used for software tools that are developed for use in the Mission Design Center.

92 General Would the Government consider providing a detailed list of software made available to the contractor?

Yes, this will be provided as an attachment with the final

RFP.

93 General What asset tracking solution is used to track parts, specifically EEE parts and manufactured parts/supplies?

There are variety of asset tracking solutions used at various stages of manufactured parts and supplies. Ames uses a

NASA wide "ECN" (Equipment Control Number) tagging process for government equipment, high dollar property and

Flight Hardware. There are also Ames specific tracking of manufactured parts and supplies which are unique to the various departments at Ames.

94 General What software is needed? Is Government provided?

All software will be Government provided. The Government will provide an attachment listing all Government Provided

Software in the final RFP.

95 General What tracking software will be used for Asset Tracking? Microsoft Office products.

96 SOW 3.3.4

Production Planning and Scheduling - Does the Government provide any planning software, including Maximo, to the Contractor?

The production planning and scheduling will primarily use

Microsoft Office products. These will be government provided. A list of government provided software is included as an attachment to the RFP.

97 General Does the recent Quality Audit at Ames impact the work on PESS II?

Ames quality audits are part of a continuous process at Ames to ensure products and services maintain the high standards expected from any NASA Center.