PESS_II_RFP_80ARC019R0003_Q&A__1_-_final.pdf

80ARC019R0003 - PESS II RFP

Question and Answers Set #1

QUESTION #1

Reference: RFP Section L.2(a)(1)B.2 (ii) and (iii) “(ii) The Offeror shall provide a total compensation plan for all personnel proposed, which demonstrates the ability to attract and retain competent employees in the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley regional labor market. The plan shall be in accordance with NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, and FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. If the Offeror is an unpopulated Joint Venture (JV), each JV member company shall provide its TCP information through the Prime Offeror for the unpopulated JV entity. If the JV member company considers the information proprietary, it may provide a “sanitized” TCP to the Prime Offeror, and provide its fully detailed TCP via FBO.gov by the proposal due date, with identification of the unpopulated JV (Prime Offeror) on the submission.

(iii) The Offeror shall require all service Subcontractor(s) with proposed cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type service contract, having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data ($2,000,000) as set forth in FAR 15.403-4 (Class Deviation 2018-O0015), to provide the information identified in (a) through (c) of NFS provision 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, through the Prime Offeror’s proposal. If the Subcontractor considers the information proprietary, it may provide a “sanitized” TCP to the Prime Offeror, and provide its fully detailed TCP via FBO.gov by the proposal due date, with identification of the Prime Offeror on the submission.”

Question: We respectfully request that the prime contractor and subcontractor Total Compensation Plans be excluded from the Mission Suitability page count.

Answer: The Total Compensation Plan (TCP) is excluded from the page count. See updated RFP Section L.1(b) table entitled “1852.215-81 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS”.

Additionally, the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) has been moved from Section L.2(a)(1)B.2 (Volume 2) to Section L.1(c)(1)M (Volume 1) in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #2

Reference: RFP Section J(b) Attachment 9 – Sample Work Packages

“3.0 (Project Requirements)

Assume the contractor is expected to evaluate the feasibility of a mission…”

“4. A project work breakdown structure (WBS) identifying activities appropriate to accomplish the mission.

5. A high-level milestone schedule

6. A high-level staffing plan that for each position identified list labor categories, level of skill/experience, and the phase(s) of the project where each position is required

7. Overall estimated cost for the project”

“3.0 Project Requirements

Assume the contractor is expected to support the NASA objective to evaluate the feasibility of a mission…”

“6. A project work breakdown structure that includes appropriate activities appropriate to accomplish the work

7. A high-level milestone schedule

8. A high-level staffing plan that for each position identified list labor categories, level of skill/experience, and the phase(s) of the project where each position is required

9. Overall estimated cost for the project”

Question: Both Sample Work Package (SWP) 2 and SWP 3 request the Offeror to support a feasibility evaluation. Does the scope of the project WBS, schedule, staffing plan, and cost cover the feasibility evaluation only or the entire mission?

Answer: Assessing and determining the feasibility of a project described in a sample work package is one of the items to be addressed, and any "methods, tools, and workforce" described by the offeror in their response (which shall include project WBS, schedule, staffing plan, and cost) will be expected to cover the entire project and mission, including its feasibility. Offerors should note that the required response for the "Sample Work Package" examples are to "Describe the methods, tools, and workforce the offeror would utilize to plan, manage, and deliver the work products for the notional Work Package."

QUESTION #3

Reference: RFP Section L.1(b) “*This page limit is for both prime and major subcontractor, but does not include the past performance questionnaires.”

Question: Please clarify if the Volume III 20-page limit includes both prime and major subcontractors, or if the prime and major subcontractors are limited to 20 pages each.

Answer: The 20 page limitation in Volume III, Past Performance Proposal includes both prime and major subcontractors combined. Accordingly, Section L.1(b) has been revised in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #4

Reference: RFP Section L.2(a)(1)B.1(vii) “Note that the resume submitted shall not contain any personally identifiable information (PII).”

Question:

(a) Please elaborate on the Government’s expectations for the Site Manager resume not containing any personally identifiable information (PII). For example, does the Government want Offerors to exclude names, company names, school names, dates, etc?

(b) Also, please indicate if only the Site Manager resume should not contain PII or if all key personnel resumes should not contain PII.

Answer:

All resumes submitted should NOT include PII as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements

(NPR) 1382.1A.

RFP Section L.2(a)(1)B.1(vii) and (viii) have been revised to clarify in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #5

Reference: RFP Section L.2(b)(1) “The submission shall not exceed the limit of three (3) relevant contracts per Offeror or Major Subcontractor(s). Past performance information that exceeds the submission limitations will not be considered.”

Question: Please clarify. Is it 3 relevant citations for the offeror and major subcontractor(s) combined, or 3 citations for the offeror and 3 citations for each major subcontractor?

Answer: The submission shall not exceed the limit of three (3) relevant contracts per Offeror and three (3) relevant contracts per each Major Subcontractor(s).

RFP Section L.2(b)(1) has been revised to clarify in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #6

Reference: RFP Section L.2(a)(1)A.1(ii)

(ii) Identifying the 2-3 most significant potential technical risks and describe the risk management techniques that will be used defined in the following sections of the SOW:

3.1.2 3.1.3.1.1 3.1.3.1.4 3.1.3.2.6 3.2.1 3.2.2

3.2.4 3.3.1

Question: Does the government intend the offeror to provide 2-3 most significant risks for each of the eight SOW sections identified? Or just the 2-3 most significant risks for the SOW sections taken as a whole?

Answer: The Offeror must identify the 2-3 most significant risks for each of the eight SOW sections identified. If a risk for one section is the same as a risk previously identified for another section the Offeror can note the risk is the same and is not required to duplicate the risk management discussion. Section L.2(a)(1)A.1(ii) has been revised to clarify in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #7

Reference: RFP Section L.2(b)(1)

The offeror shall complete the table found in the Past Performance Questionnaire at Section 10 for each submitted Past Performance Questionnaire to show relevance of each individual contract referenced.

Question: The table in Jb Attachment 8 appears to be a scoring table. Does the government wish the offeror to self-score against the 6 items noted as criteria? Or, since these questions are very similar to the 6 items in L.2(b)(2)A, is the government’s intent that answering L.2(b)(2)A satisfies this requirement?

Answer: The table in Jb Attachment 8 should be completed by the “customer” that is identified to provide the information. The offeror only completes the Client Authorization Letter on page 1.

The Enclosure, starting on page 2, is intended to be completed by the “customer” and submitted directly to the NASA CO.

Also see response to Question #17.

QUESTION #8

Reference: Contract start date was not identified nor the start date of the Phase-in period.

Question: Will the government please provide an anticipated contract start date and a start date for the phase in period?

Answer: For proposal purposes only, assume the start date of the Phase-In Period to be September 1, 2019. L.2(c)(1)C has been revised to show this date in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #9

Reference: RFP Section L.2(c)(3)B.6 This exhibit shows the direct labor cost for the Contract Management Office requirements for each contract year with the labor rates from Exhibits 4 and 5 used to compute the cost.

Question: Exhibit 6, Direct Labor Cost Summary - PESS II Contract Management Office, states to use "labor rates from Exhibits 4 and 5" to compute cost. The accompanying Exhibit in the Government Provided Cost Template is pre-populated, In Column A, with formulas referencing only Exhibit 4. Is it the Government's intention to have the offeror add its own formulas in order to reference Exhibit 5 for Key Personnel working in the Contract management Office?

Answer: The costs of key personnel should be captured in the appropriate labor category in Exhibit 4 (Summary of Proposed Direct Labor Rates). Exhibit 5 has been marked as “Reserved” in Section Jb Attachment 3 - PESS II Cost Template and L.2(c)(3)B.6 has been revised to remove the reference to Exhibit 5 in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #10

Reference: L.2(a)(1)A.1 page l-16 L.2(a)(1)A.1 Technical Understanding - The Offeror's proposal shall demonstrate its technical understanding of the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) (Section 3.1 through 3.4) and specifically how the work would be accomplished as follows for effectiveness, reasonableness and efficiency. The Offeror shall demonstrate its approach to addressing the technical functions in the SOW requirements. The examples should be provided in a coherent integrated manner. The Offeror shall describe its proposed approach for each of the following:

Question: Does the first sentence of L.2(a)(1)A.1 mean that all SOW ‘shall’ statements in Section 3.1 through 3.4 must be addressed for compliance, or only the 8 areas identified in L.2(a)(1)A.1(i)?

Answer: Only the eight areas identified in L.2(a)(1)A.1(i) need to be addressed.

QUESTION #11

Reference: L.1.(a)(4) Page L-7 Standard Form (SF) 3881

Question: This table references Standard Form (SF) 3881and notes the location in the RFP as L.1(c)(1). However there is no further reference to SF 3881 in the RFP. Please clarify if this form should be submitted and where it is located.

Answer: Reference to SF 3881 has been removed from the RFP in Amendment P0003.

QUESTION #12

Reference: L.2(a)(1)A.1 Page L-17 “(iv) Communication strategies to be used between its personnel and NASA technical personnel for performing the requirements in the SOW. (v) Processes used in determining if new technologies, technical innovations, and program management techniques will be implemented on this contract.”

M.2(a)(1)A.1 page M-8 “1. Technical Understanding ― The government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical understanding by assessing its capabilities and approach to addressing all areas and information provided in Section L.2(a)(1)A.1(i-iv) for effectiveness, and efficiency in understanding and satisfying the SOW requirements.”

Question: Section L includes five numbered sections (iv), while Section M only refers to sections i-iv being evaluated. Please clarify this apparent inconsistency.

Answer: Section M.2(a)(1)A.1 has been revised in Amendment P00003 to reference section L.2(a)(1)A.1(i-v).

QUESTION #13

Reference: M.2(a)(1)B.1 page M-8 “1. Approach for Managing the Contract and Organizational Plan ― NASA will evaluate the Offeror's proposed approach for ensuring SOW requirements are met by assessing their approach to addressing all management sub-elements (i-ix) detailed in the information requested in Section L.2(a)(1)B.1(i-viii) of this document.”

Question: Please confirm the reference to sub- elements (i-ix) should be sub-elements (i-viii).

Answer: Section M.2(a)(1)B.1 has been revised in Amendment P00003 to refer to sub-elements (i-viii).

QUESTION #14

Reference: L.2(b)(2)A page L-22 The Offeror and Major Subcontractors shall complete the Section J(b) Attachment 2 “Table: State of Work Relevance” to include all of the relevant contractors for the Prime and Major Subcontractors, as identified in section L.2(b)(1).

Instructions for completing Attachment 2 are contained in the attachment.

Question: Please confirm that Section J(b) attachment 2 “Table: state of work Relevance” is excluded from the Volume III page count.

Answer: Section J(b) Attachment 2 “Table: Statement of Work Relevance” is excluded from the Volume III page count.

QUESTION #15

Reference: L.2(b)(1) page L-21 For each major subcontractor, a list of not more than three (3) relevant contract each in excess of $2,000,000 average annual dollar value.

L.2(b)(3) page L-24 B. Each Offeror and any proposed major subcontractor shall send a blank Past Performance Questionnaire to the cognizant Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer’s Representative for the same three contracts as submitted in its Volume III proposal (government and/or industry contracts), each in excess of $10,000,000 average annual dollar value for the prime and each in excess of $5,000,000 average annual dollar value for each of the major subcontractors, received in the past three (3) years, or currently on-going, involving types of related effort.

Question: Please clarify the inconsistency in the average annual dollar value for major subcontractor relevant contract.

Answer: The average annual dollar value is $5,000,000 for each major subcontractor relevant contract. Accordingly, Section L.2(b)(1) has been revised in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #16

Reference: L.2(c)(1)A page L-25 5. Complete and include all Exhibits of the Cost Template Workbook and all information specified in Sections 2 through 7, below.

Question: There appears to be only Section 2 Cost Template Workbook and section 3 Cost Proposal Organization. Please clarify the instruction regarding sections 2 through 7.

Answer: This statement should reference sections L.2(c)(2) through L.2(c)(3). Section L.2(c)(1)A has been revised in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #17

Reference: L.2(b)(1) page L-22 The offeror shall complete the table found in the Past Performance Questionnaire at section 10 for each submitted Past Performance Questionnaire to show the relevance of each individual contract referenced.

Question: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) section 10 is titled Technical Performance and is used by contract references to rate contractor performance. Please confirm that Offeror’s should complete section 10 and provide a self-assessment of their own performance. If so, we respectfully request that PPQ section 10 be excluded from the Volume III page count.

Answer: L.2(b)(1) has been revised in Amendment P00003 to reference Section Jb Attachment 2, Past Performance Relevancy Matrix instead of the Past Performance Questionnaire. Offerors should not complete section 10 nor provide a self-assessment of their own performance in the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ assessment should be completed by the “customer” that is identified to provide the information.

QUESTION #18

Reference: L.2(b)(2) page L-23 C. Other Information: For all relevant contracts identified in L.2(b)1 above, and all NASA contracts completed within the last three years or active for at least one year, the Offeror and major subcontractors shall:

1. Provide examples where Offeror has successfully implemented innovative methods that resulted in cost savings to the customer.

2. For each cost-type contract identified in paragraph L.2(b)1 above, specify the dollar amount and explain the reason for cost underruns or overruns, if any. Specify the amounts and explain the reason for any cost savings or grow the resulting from deletions or extensions to the period of performance, from work added/deleted to the scope of the contract, and from performance that cost more or less than originally predicted or estimated.

3. For each contract identified in paragraph L.2(b)1 above, explain any schedule slips and steps taken to mitigate the impact of the slips.

4. The Offeror and major subcontractors shall describe any serious performance problems, termination for default, and any regulatory or safety violations resulting from contractor performance and their resolution.

Question: Paragraph C requests Other Information for contracts identified in L.2(b)1 AND all NASA contracts completed within the last three years or active for at least one year. Paragraphs C2 and C3 request information only for cost-type contracts identified in paragraph L.2(b)1.

Please clarify the contracts the Government desires Other Information.

Answer: Reference to L.2(b)1 has been removed from L.2(b)(2) C2 and C3 in Amendment

QUESTION #19

Reference: SOW 4.1 page 30 SOW Section 4.1 states: “Mechanical Group Lead is responsible for technical oversight of work performed in fulfillment of mechanical related requirements stated in Section 3.0 above. Has at least 15-years of experience in supervising mechanical engineers in ground based, airborne, and spacecraft design and development for aerospace. In addition, the Mechanical Group Lead shall provide project management oversight, mentoring, technical supervision, and contribute to the group with their technical expertise, and peer reviews of all mechanical projects. The Mechanical Group shall have a Mechanical Engineering Degree (ME) from an accredited university.

Electrical Group Lead is responsible for technical oversight of work performed in fulfillment of electrical related requirements stated in Section 3.0 above. Has at least 15-years of experience in supervising electrical engineers in spacecraft design and development. In addition, the Electrical

Group Lead shall provide project management oversight, mentoring, technical supervision, and contribute to the group with their technical expertise, and peer reviews of all electrical projects.

The Electrical Group lead shall have an Electrical Engineering Degree (EE) from an accredited university.”

Question: Please confirm that the requirements for the Mechanical Group Lead experience includes ground based, airborne, and spacecraft design and development for aerospace, while the Electrical Group Lead experience includes only spacecraft design and development.

Answer: Electrical Group Lead experience should also include ground-based and airborne design and development. Section J(a) Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (SOW) Section 4.1 has been revised in Amendment P00003 to add the experience for the Electrical Group Lead.

QUESTION #20

Reference: L.3(a)B.1 page L-19 (vii) 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.

Note that the resume submitted shall not contain any personally identifiable information (PII).

L.1(b)(2) page L-10 The commitment letter(s) and resume(s) for key personnel are not counted as part of the page limitation under Management Approach and shall be included as Volume II appendices. However, commitment letters shall be limited to no more than one page per individual, and the resume(s) with job descriptions shall be limited to no more than three pages per individual.

Question: Section L.2(a)B.1 requests position descriptions for the Site Manager, Mechanical Group Lead, and Electrical Group Lead. Section L.1(b)(2) indicates that resumes are not counted as part of the page limitation and resumes and job descriptions are limited to no more than three pages per individual. Please clarify if position descriptions and job descriptions are the same and should be included as part of resumes (which are limited to three pages per individual and are not counted as part of the page limitation). If so, please consider a four-page limit for the resume and position/job description. If not, please specify the difference between a position description and job description and exclude them both from the page count.

Answer: Position descriptions and job descriptions are not the same. Job descriptions should be included in resumes. They describe work that the candidate has performed in the past. Resumes are limited to no more than three pages per individual. Commitment letters are limited to one page per individual. Resumes and commitment letters are not included in the page limit for the Mission Suitability volume. Position Descriptions in L.3(a)B.1 should define roles and responsibilities for key positions in the PESS II contract. They describe a critical aspect of the management approach and are considered part of the 30-page management approach page count.

QUESTION #21

Reference: L.1(c)(1)J page L-13 “J. Safety and Health Plan, ― The Offer shall submit a Safety and Health Plan that will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror has the necessary organizational approach to safety and health. This plan is considered a draft and the final plan will be provided under a DRL during the Phase-on period and approved by the Government. The minimum requirements for elements of the plan are contained in NPR 8715.3D and a sample plan for service or operations contract is provided in Appendix E.”

Question: RFP Section L.1(b) limits the Safety and Health Plan submission in Volume I to 10 pages. The sample plan included in NPR 8715.3D Appendix E includes six pages of requirements (without Offeror content added). All Offerors would benefit from a larger page count to detail their safety and health approaches. We respectfully request the Government increase the Safety and Health Plan page limit to 25 pages.

Answer: The Safety and Health Plan page limit has been increased to 20 pages in Amendment

QUESTION #22

Reference: L.2(c)(3) page L-28 (3) Cost Proposal Organization B. Exhibits’ Content

Question: There is no subparagraph A provided in RFP Section L.2(c)(3). Please indicate if this was intentional or provide the missing subparagraph A.

Answer: This has been revised to add subparagraph A in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #23

Reference: L.1(c)(1)K.5 page L-14 The Offeror shall discuss whether it considers the use of clause H.6, NFS clause 1852.209-71, Limitation of Future Contracting, to be necessary to mitigate identified actual or potential OCIs, and describe its rationale for the decision to use or not use the clause in the resulting contract to mitigate OCI.

Question: Clause H.6 is “ARC 52.227-93 Management and Protection of Data (JUL 1988),” not “Limitation of Future Contracting.” However, “1852.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting (Dec 1988)” is included on Pages H-1 through H-3. Please clarify.

Answer: NFS 1852.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting (Dec 1988) should not have been numbered at H.6. The numbering of H.6 in L.1(c)(1)K.5 has been removed in Amendment P00003.

QUESTION #24

Reference: L.2(c)(3)(b)4) Escalation Rates

Question: Assuming the Period of Performance starts on October 1, 2019 and goes through September 30, 2024, please provide the NASA Headquarters recommended escalation rates for Government Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 in section L.2(c)(3)(b)4).

Answer: Escalation rates at section L.2(c)(3)(b)4) have been revised in Amendment P00003.