Draft_RFP_Q&A_Set__1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fully Integrated Lifecycle Mission Support Services 2 (FILMSS 2) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80ARC019R0004
About this file
This document provides a draft request for proposal (RFP) for fully integrated lifecycle mission support services 2 (FILMSS 2) to be issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center. The RFP will seek proposals for a five-year contract with a two-year base period and three one-year options to provide support services encompassing all phases of mission and project lifecycles for flight programs and projects, research and technology development, as well as support for other programs and functional offices and directorates at Ames Research Center. A draft RFP and statement of work will be posted in November 2018 seeking industry comments, with an industry day conference to be held in December 2018. Final proposals will be due in March 2019 following issuance of the final RFP in February 2019. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541715 with a size standard of 1,000 employees. Subcontracting goals are established for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned businesses, historically black colleges and universities/other minority institutions, HUBZone, veteran-owned, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
Draft RFP Questions and Answers Set 1
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Fully Integrated Lifecycle Mission Support Services 2 (FILMSS 2) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | DRFP Ref Volume/ Section | DRFP Page # | DRFP Paragraph | Question/Comment with Recommendation | Government Response |
| 1 | L.13(b) | 101 | (1) Offerors shall submit one copy of each volume of the proposals using the formats in L.9 through FBO (with the exception of the Past Performance Questionnaires). | Will the government provide instructions for proposal submittal via FBO? | Yes |
| 2 | L.13(b) | 104 | Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. | Is Front Matter (title page, table of contents, acronum list, etc.) excluded from pages/slide count for all proposal volumes? | Per paragraph L.9(c) on page 98, "(c) Title pages, tables of contents, list of figures, and acronym list are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (a) of this provision. Tables and graphics will be included in the page/slide count. " |
| 3 | General Comment | NA | The draft RFP is a scanned document, which is difficult to work with from a proposal management standpoint. | Will the government please release a version of the draft RFP and the final RFP, that is text Searchable (Adobe Acrobat PDF or Word)? | Yes |
| 4 | MA-5 Total Compensation Plan | 113 | The Offeror shall explain the degree to which the proposed Compensation Plan provides for salaries and fringe benefits for both professional and Service Contract Act (SCA) employees and reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements by taking into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and job difficulty. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address:… | In paragaph 1, there is no text following the “:” and stating what the Offeror shall address at a minimum. Are the attributes listed in paragraph 2 intended to be these mimimum criteria? If not, will the government please clarify what the offeror shall address at a minimum? | Bullet 2 is supposed to be a sub-bullet of bullet 1 and answers this question when formatted correctly. Formatting will be corrected in the final RFP. |
| 5 | L.17(c) Past Performance | 120-121 | Sections II, Statement of Work Relevance tables | Are the two tables in the RFP intended to be different? If so, will the government please clarify the purpose for the two tables? They appear to be the same, with the exception of different SOW numbers/sections. In addition, the instructions say to mark columns 3-10. However, there are more than 10 columns, so should the other columns be “X” as well? | The duplication of the table was in error. Only one will be in the final RFP. |
| 6 | L.17(b)3. Past Performance, Other Items | 122 | Other Items: The Offeror and major subcontractors shall provide the following information for all contracts performed within the last three years: | Does the government want the offeror and major subcontractor to provide this information for for all contracts or just the contracts listed in table above in Section I? | As stated in the RFP, please provide all within the last three years. |
| 7 | L.17(b)3.b. Past Performance, Other Items | 123 | Any records of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) citations during the past three years. Records typically include: OSHA logs required by 29 CFR 1904.5(d) including the number of employees and total labor hours at the worksite; calculated OSHA recordable frequency rate; and the North American Industrial Classification (NAICS) Code utilized. | This information can be extensive and may take more than 30 pages to address on its own. Will the government please exclude it from page count? In addition, is this information required for only contracts listed in Section I? If information for all contracts is required, it may be an extensive effort and lenghthy document. | As stated in the RFP, please provide all within the last three years. The OSHA records will be excluded from the page count. This change will be made in the final RFP. |
| 8 | L.17(b)III Past Performance Questionaires | 123 | List of the Past Performance Questionnaire Point(s) of Contact | Is this list of POCs excluded from page count? | The POCs will be excluded from the page count. This change will be made in the final RFP. |
| 9 | Volume IV | 127 | Exhibit I, Summary of Proposed Price | In Attachment J(b)1 – FILMMS 2 Cost Price Template Workbook on Exhibit 1, the description in cell B7 is “Phase-in (from Exhibit 15).” Phase-in costs are to be included in “Exhibit 16, Phase-in” (See page 136 of the RFP). Is Exhibit 15 or Exhibit 16 the correct description for what should be included on line 7 of Exhibit 1? | Exhibit 16 is the correct exhibit number for Phase-in. The spreadsheet will be corrected for the final RFP. |
| 10 | Attachment J.(a)1 – Statement of Work (SOW) | 13 and 46 | IDIQ Requirements section 5.6 “Innovative Partnerships Support” and Technical Core Elements section 6.6 “Partnerships Office Support” | Partnerships support appears in both sections. Are the contents and substance of these partnerships different? If so, will the government please clarify what the difference is between DRFP Sections 5.6 and 6.6? | The IDIQ Partnerships section allows for growth in scope beyond what is currently known and defined in 6.6. Currently, no additional requirements exist, but growth in this area is possible during the period of performance for FILMSS2 |
| 11 | Section L.17(a)A.TA-1.6 | 109 | The Offeror shall describe the approach it will use on this contract to assist NASA with the development and management of partnerships including Space Act Agreements (see J(a) Attachment 1, SOW 6.9-6.10). | The RFP refers to J(a) Attachment 1, SOW 6.9-6.10. However, these SOW elements are not in the draft SOW Attachments. Will NASA provide SOW 6.9-6.10 or reference other SOW? | This should be sections 6.6 amd 6.7. The references will be updated in the final RFP. |
| 12 | L.9.a | 97 | Proposal Page Limits Table (97) | The Proposal Page Limits table in Section L.9 states that Volume III, Past Performance should be submitted in Written format. However, L.13(b)4. states that the format for Past Performance is an Oral Presentation. Finally, L.17.b.II, Information Provided by Offerors and Major Subcontractors – Written Presentation appears to be a mixture or an oral presentation and written submittal. Will the government clarify what is required for the Past Performance Volume? Should Volume III, Past Performance be submitted as a oral presentation, a written volume, or some hybrid (written presentation)? | Past Performance is all written. The final RFP will correct the reference in L.13.b.4. |
| L.13.b.4 | 101 | Format (101) | The numbering in the section will be corrected in the final RFP | ||
| L.17.b.II | 119 | Info Provided by Offerers and Maj. SC – Written Presentation (119) | |||
| 13 | L.17(a)B | 110, 111 | 1. The Offeror shall explain its organizational structure and partnering approach that will be used in performance of the FILMSS 2 contract between Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors and how it provides clear lines of authority, supervision, and responsibility vested in the individuals proposed to perform this contract; and lines of communications between the Offeror's proposed organizational structure and NASA. | MA-1.1 requires an explanation about lines of communication between the Offeror’s proposed organization and NASA. MA-1.5 requires an explanation for how its proposed structure promotes open communication between the Offeror and the Government. Will the government please clarify what the difference is between the two requirements? | We will combine in the final RFP |
| 5. The Offeror shall explain how its proposed structure promotes customer relations and how it promotes open communication between the Offeror and the Government and a methodology to address feedback on contract performance. | |||||
| 14 | L.17(a)B | 112 | 1. Proposed approach to providing the staffing (skill mix) necessary to perform the requirements defined in the SOW, Contract Management, Technical Core Elements, and IDIQ task orders. | MA-3.1 requires the approach for providing staffing (skill mix)…MA-3.5 asks for the process to hire and retain uniquefly qualified individuals. These appear to be similar requirements. Could the government please clarify what is required and what the difference is between these two items? | We will combine in the final RFP |
| 5. Describe process for hiring and retaining uniquely qualified individuals, including engineers, scientists and foreign nationals with various immigration statuses (HI, J l, green card, etc.). | |||||
| 15 | B.1 | 8 | *CLINs 0001- Phase-In, 0002- Contract Management Core- and 0003, Core Technical Elements will be executed at contract award and performance on these CLINs will start on the effective date of the contract. | Section B.1 appears to conflict with Section F.2. In B.1, after the table, the RFP states that performance on CLIN-0001 (60 days), 0002 (24 months), and 0003 (24 months) will be executed at contract award and start on the effective date of the contract. However, in F.2, the RFP states that the base period is 24 months from the end of phase in. Will the government please clarify the Period of Performance and related CLINs? | Section B.1 will be corrected in the final RFP to reflect that CLIN 002 will commence after Phase-In |
| F.2 | 16 | ||||
| (a) PHASE-IN PERIOD | |||||
| The 60 day Phase-In will start from the effective date of the contract. | |||||
| (b) BASE PERIOD | |||||
| The performance of the Base Period shall be for twenty-four (24) months from the end of the Phase-In Period. | |||||
| 16 | L.15(a)12 | 105 | 12. Government Property Management Information Plan The Offeror shall submit a completed response to the information required by NFS 1852.245-80, Government Property Management Information, in the form of a document entitled "Government Property Management Information Plan" as stated in CDRL Item 26. The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative explanation of its standards and practices to manage property, from planning through disposition, under the circumstances of the contract. | L.15(a)12 requires a Government Property Management Information Plan in the form of a document entitled "Government Property Management Information Plan" as stated in CDRL Item 26. However, CDRL 26, is titled, “Delivery of Data Produced Under the Contract (including Special Work). Will the government please provide the CDRL for Government Property Management Information Plan? | We will correct and include in the final RFP |
| Section J, Attachment 2, CDRL Item 26 | CDRL 26, DRL Title, “Delivery of Data Produced Under the Contract (including Special Work) | ||||
| 17 | TA-2 and | 109 | Hypothetical Case Study and the Statement of Work | Given the complexity and scope of the SOW, a single case study may not allow the government to adequately assess the depth of capabilities of an offeror. Will the government consider additional case studies to more deeply address the SOW elements? | We believe the single Case Study along with the additional Technical Approach elements provide ample opportunity for offerors to demonstrate their capabilities. |
| Attachment J.(a)1 – Statement of Work (SOW) | J(a)1 | ||||
| 18 | SOW 4.4 | 9 | The 3rd bullets states, “The Government will conduct oversight and assessment as described in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provided as attachment XXXX of the contract.” | Will the government please provide the “Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)? | The QASP will be included with the final RFP. |
| 19 | TA-1.1 and TA1.2.a-e | 109 | l. Proposed processes associated with developing and executing a life-science project through its lifecycle applying NASA NPR 7120.5, including describing, proposed key technologies, and other factors critical to mission success; addressing the proposed risk management, quality and communication approaches for spaceflight projects and hardware development efforts. | The DRFP does not reference “implementation” as part of the performance of this contract. Will the government please provide a definition of “key technologies” and clarify the intent for proposing these technologies when describing the general process for developing and executing a life-science project through its lifecycle per NASA NPR 7120.5? | Key technologies can include hardware, software, machinery or equipment that provides efficiency and promotes mission success when implementing the project throughout its life cycle. |
| 2. The systematic approach to be used in the performance of this contract for conducting scientific research, addressing the following elements:… | |||||
| 20 | SOW 6.8.1 | 60 | 6.8.1 Social Media Management | 6.8.1 Social Media Management references CDRL 452, Public Engagement Strategic Plan. The DRFP doesn’t appear to include CDRL 452, so will the government please provide it? | This is a typo; we will correct and include in the final RFP |
| 21 | RFP Attachment J(a)1, SOW 4.5(b) | 10 | The Contractor shall submit a phase‐out plan for Government review and approval in accordance with CDRL 10. | CDRL reference appears to be incorrect. CDRL 22 is the Phase-Out Plan. Please clarify. | This is a typo; we will correct and include in the final RFP |
| 22 | RFP Section L.3, Certified Cost and Pricing Data, page 94 | 94 | The solicitation states at L.3 that certified cost and pricing data is not required, based on the expectation of adequate competition. | The RFP also contains the following: | These clauses aren't necessary for the award of this contract as that is expected to include competition; however they will be necessary during administration when issuing task orders and contract modifications. |
| 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data | |||||
| 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications | |||||
| 52.215-2 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data | |||||
| Since certified cost and pricing data is not required, will the government consider removing these clauses? | |||||
| 23 | RFP Section I.1, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, page 53 | 53 | The RFP includes clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards | While the draft RFP includes the clause, no Wage Determinations were provided. Is the SCA applicable? If not, please remove the clause. If so, please provide the applicable Wage Determinations. | The SCA will be included as an attachment in Section J of the final RFP. |
| 24 | RFP Attachment Jb7_Standard_Labor_Category_Descriptions, Page 3 | 3 | Project Manager III and Project Manager IV | Both labor categories require the same position education (column 2), position experience (column 3), and position supervisory (column 4), but the position title implies that the Project Manager IV would require more experience than the Project Manager III. Please confirm the position experience is accurate. | We have increased the experience requirement for the Project Manager IV to 7 years. This is reflected in the attached updated draft Atch Jb7 and will also be reflected in the final RFP. |
| 25 | FILMSS_2_Draft_Request for proposal, Exhibit 3, page 128 | 128 | Other Direct Cost Table | The total Other direct cost line of $4,867,500 per contract period does not sum up to individual parts above. Base Period has $5,269,065 + $938,027 = $6,207,092 vs the $4,867,500 in the total line. | This discrepancy will be correct in the final RFP. |
| 26 | Jb1 Pricing Template and Jb7 Standard Labor Category Descriptions | 31 of the LCATs listed in the Attachment Jb1 Pricing Template (exhibits 8 and 10 for the IDIQ and Core Tech LCATs) are missing from Jb7 LCAT Descriptions (Quals) List. It also appears that a few of the Core Tech LCATs do not have the same titles as the LCAT Quals list, but are similar (such as Staff Scientist vs. Scientist). | Will the Government provide a draft copy of the full LCAT qualifications and descriptions list to include all the IDIQ and Core Tech LCATs? In addition, as appropriate, could the Government advise which LCATs are intended to be functional only and mapped only to the Jb7 LCAT Quals list? | Yes, the full copy of the SLCs is provided with this response in the updated draft Atch Jb7 and will be included in the final RFP. | |
| 27 | DRFP Reference: Jb1 Pricing Template, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 8 | The level is missing for the Operations Engineer. | Could the Government advise on the intended level for the Core Tech Operations Engineer? | Yes, please see the updated draft Atch Jb7. | |
| 28 | Attachment Jb7 Standard Labor Category Descriptions, page 4, Senior Graphic Designer | There are two rows with this title and same information. | Was there an intent to have levels or should one be deleted? | One of these will be deleted. | |
| 29 | Attachment Ja1 Statement of Work, Section 6.8.10 Exhibit Manager and Museum Design, 6.8.11 Historical Support for History Office, LCATs and Cost Template | Please identify the LCATs and hours allocation that support these sections | These will be added in the final RFP. | ||
| 30 | Jb7 Standard Labor Category Descriptions, page 1, The Collaborative Systems Lead (line 2) and the Collaborative Technologies Specialist (line 3) | The descriptions and education and experience for both of these categories appear to be identical. Are these 2 separate positions? | As noted in attachmnet Jb7, One position includes supervisory duties and the other not. These are two separate positions. | ||
| 31 | Jb7 Standard Labor Category Descriptions, pages 4 & 5, Systems Engineer V and Sr Systems Engineer IV | Both positions are very similar with only minor differences; minimum qualifications are the same; is this correct? | Yes, these positions are similar, however one is more specific as to field. | ||
| 32 | Attachment Ja1 Statement of Work; Section 6.1.9 (pages 24-25); Jb7 Standard Labor Category Descriptions | The SOW states: Provide a bioinformatician to support and assist with the GeneLab for High Schools summer internship program There is no LCAT provided for a bioinformatician, although it is included in Cost Template Exhibit 8. Please provide the missing LCAT. | The LCAT for this position is provided with the updated Draft Jb7 and will be included in the final RFP. | ||
| 33 | Jb7 Standard Labor Category Descriptions, page 33 | The requirements for Project Manager 3 and Project Manager 4 appear to be identical. Can the Government clarify the years of experience and/or qualifications for these two positions to identify the distinctions between the two? | See response to Question 25. | ||
| 34 | 128 | Section L.17 (c) III, Exhibit 3 Table (page 128); Attachment Jb1 Cost Price Template Worksheet, Exhibit 3 | While the individual amounts for ODCs and Travel by period in Section L match those in the Cost Price Template Worksheet, the Total Amounts shown in the Section L table (on page 128) appear to be incorrect. | Can the Government please confirm that the totals in that table should be $6,207,093 (Base Period), $3,243,894 (Option Period 1), $3,341,211 (Option Period 2),$3,441,447 (Option Period 3), and $16,233,645 (Grand Total)? | This discrepancy will be corrected in the final RFP |
| 35 | 3 | Attachment Ja2 Contract Data Requirements List | CDRL #26 Delivery of Data Produced Under the Contract (including Special Work) is listed in the Attachment Ja2 as linked to SOW Section 4.2 but is not referenced in the SOW (Attachment Ja1). | Can the Government identify in the SOW where the requirement for this CDRL applies? | This CDRL description will be corrected in the final RFP. |
| 36 | Attachment Ja1 Statement of Work; Section 4.4, page 9 | The Government will conduct oversight and assessment as described in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provided as attachment XXXX of the contract Can the Government confirm that the QASP will be provided as part of the final RFP? | Yes, the Government will include the QASP with the final RFP. | ||
| 37 | 11 and 16 | Attachment Ja1 Statement of Work; Sections 5.0 and 6.0 | reported on the NF 533 at that level | Can the Government confirm that CDRL 8 (Initial and Monthly Financial Report) and CDRL 9 (Quarterly Financial Management Report) referenced in SOW Section 4.4 are the same as the "NF 533" referenced in Sections 5 and 6 of the SOW? | Yes, these are the same. |
| 38 | 120 122 | Section L.17 (b) Past Performance, Table: Statement of Work Relevance | The sample past performance SOW Relevance table on page 120-122 of the DRFP appears to be cut off. | Can the Government confirm that the intent is to map relevance of Past Performance contract citations to all sub-sections of SOW Sections 5 and 6? | Yes, this is the intent. |
| 39 | 113 | Section MA-5, Bullet 1 | The second sentence ends in a ":" which implies something is missing. In Section MA-5, page 113, item 1, the last sentence states: "At a minimum, the Offeror shall address:" but there is no additional content. | Can the Government please provide the missing content for this requirement? | The second bullet should be a subbullet of the first - we will correct in the final RFP |
| 40 | SOW page 67; Sec. L p.114 | The DRFP Section L.17 MA-6, Item 2 (page 113) states that there may be up to 50 task orders during the Phase In period. SOW Section 7.0 (page 67) states that the phase-in period may include up to 30 task orders. | Can the Government clarify the expected number of task orders during the phase-in period? | The government will correct this discrepancy in the final RFP. | |
| 41 | 6 | Section B.1 | The period of performance for the CLINs for core technical and management work is a base period of 24 months plus three 12-month option periods, while the period of performance for the IDIQ CLIN is one 60-month period | Can the Government explain the discrepancy in period of performance and make corrections if appropriate? | Yes, see above response to Question 16. |
| 42 | 34 | SOW 6.3.5.e | a. Support development of graphical materials and displays, in close coordination with Subtasks 6.4.2 and 6.4.3. | Can the Government confirm that the references to Subtask 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 in Section 6.3.5.e should be Subtasks 6.3.2 and 6.3.3? | Yes, this will be corrected in the final RFP. |
| 43 | 123 | Section L.17(b)II.3.b | Any records of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) citations during the past three years. Records typically include: OSHA logs required by 29 CFR 1904.5(d) including the number of employees and total labor hours at the worksite; calculated OSHA recordable frequency rate; and the North American Industrial Classification (NAICS) Code utilized. | Are we correct in assuming that these documents do not count against the 30-page limit for Volume III? | That is correct, the final RFP will note that. |
| 44 | 123 | Section L.17(b)II.3.c | Any environmental citations of the Offeror's operations in the past three (3) years. Citation sources include, but are not limited to, Federal, State, and local environmental agencies. | Are we correct in assuming that these citations do not count against the 30-page limit for Volume III? | That is correct, the final RFP will note that. |
| 45 | 96 | Section L.9.a | Volume 1, General Information states that the Government Property Management Information Plan will be "Written" with "No Limit", however in section J.a, Attachment No. 8 states the document is "To be incorporated by the end of the Phase-in period, or by subsequent modification". | Is the Government Property Management Plan a required submission in Volume 1 or will it be required by the end of Phase In? | End of Phase In - we will update the final RFP to clarify this requirement. |
| 46 | 13 | Attachment Ja2 Contract Data Requirements List, No. 8, page 13 | 533 format item #10.e. Indirect Cost (Prime and Subs) Contractor's Management Office | Is this format indicating the PMO office is not bid as direct hours/cost to the contract but rather as indirect cost? If not, please provide additional details regarding the cost included in line 10.e, "Contractor's Management Office". | No, that is not the intent. This will be updated in the final RFP. |
| 47 | 96, 103, 143 | Section L.9 Page Limitations; L.14 Instructions for Oral Presentations; Section M.3(a) A. TA-1, pages | This evaluation subfactor will be used to evaluate the Offeror's overall technical approach and capability as it relates to all requirements defined in the Statement of Work The proposal instructions in Section L specify that the oral presentation shall be limited to 75 slides and 120 minutes of presentation time. The Evaluation Factor TA-1 states that the oral presentation shall include the Offeror's overall technical approach and capabilities for ALL of the requirements in the Statement of Work. | Given the level of detail provided in the Statement of Work, would the Government consider extending the oral presentation slide count to 100 and time limit to 180 minutes to enable to Offerors to present their response to meeting all of the Statement of Work requirements? | We will increase the slide count and time for the orals to 90 slides and 150 minutes with 10 minute breaks in the final RFP. |
| 48 | 3 | Section H.8.c | The Contractor shall address all of the potential conflicts of interest identified below in its OCI Mitigation Plan [See L.1(c)(1)K.1-6], unless mitigated (where possible) by the Government, avoided by the Government, or expressly stated otherwise. | There does not appear to be a Section L.1(c)(1)K.1-6 in the Draft RFP. Can the Government confirm that the correct reference should be L.15(a)13 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Avoidance/Mitigation Plan? | This will be corrected in the final RFP. |
| 49 | General | Will NASA provide onsite space for all Personnel supporting Contract Management Core Requirements, Technical Core elements, and IDIQ requirements work? | Yes, as noted in DRFP paragraph G.3(c)(1). | ||
| 50 | 103 | Section L.14 (i) | only 5 minutes for each clarification." | Will clarification questions be presented to the offeror verbally or in written format? If written, will the Government provide five (5) copies of the questions so that the Offeror's oral presentation team has one copy per presenter? | The questions will be provided in writing. Due to timing and the current unknown location of the oral presentations, only one handwritten copy will be provided. |
| 51 | B.1.a CLINs 0001- Phase-In, 0002- Contract Management Core- and 0003, Core Technical Elements will be executed at contract award and performance on these CLINs will start on the effective date of the contract. |
F.2(a) PHASE-IN PERIOD The 60 day Phase-In will start from the effective date of the contract.
Exhibit 16, Phase-In (Required of Prime Offeror only):
This Exhibit is designed to show the total Firm-Fixed Price for Phase-In requirement (including all Major and Minor Subcontractors' Phase-In costs and fee/profit).
For proposal purposes onlv, assume the start date of the Phase-In Period to be January 31. 2019
| The referenced sections of the DRFP appear to have the Phase-In potentially starting on different dates. Will the government please clarify when the Phase-In period will start for proposal purposes, including pricing? If the offeror is supposed to use January 31, 2019, as the Phase-In starting date for proposal purposes, then, should we assume the base period starts on 60 days later, on March 3, 2019? If this is the case, should these dates be assumed for all sections of the proposal, including MA6 Phase-In and Volume IV Cost/Price? | The final RFP will make this clearer. The 60 day phase in is followed by the base period. | |||
| 52 | Volume IV | |||
| Attachment | Attachment J(b)1, Exhibit 3 | Attachment J(b)1, Exhibit 3, Summary of Elements of Cost – FILMSS 2 Technical Core Elements (Prime Offeror) | In Attachment J(b)1 – FILMMS 2 Cost Price Template Workbook on Exhibit 3, the totals for the ODC/Travel plug amounts are different than the totals provided in the DRFP on page 128. Will the government please clarify which value is the correct total for the ODC plug? | This discrepancy will be corrected in the final RFP. |
| 53 | L.17(b).II.1 |
| J(a)1, SOW | 120 | L.17(b).II.1, Relevant Technical Performance, Table for Statement of Work Relevance |
| J(a)1, Statement of Work (SOW) | In the DRFP, section L.17(b).II.1, the text mentions that columns should show the "SOW technical areas" but the table template provided includes the IDIQ SOW headings instead of the Technical SOW. Since the text and the table template differ, will the government please clarify whether the offeror should reference SOW Section 5 IDIQ requirements or the technical core elements? | |
| Additionally, the Statement of Work Relevance table references SOW numbers 5.1 - 5.11 across the top row of the table. However, in DRFP Attachment J(a)1, SOW the section 5 requirements (IDIQ) actually go up to 5.14. Does the government want all 5.1-5.14 presented in the table, or only 5.1-5.11? | The IDIQ SOW headings are a reflection of all the FILMSS 2 competancies. The technical core elements (SOW paragraphs 6.1-6.8) all fall within these competancies. |
The SOW Relevance table will be updated to include paragraphs 5.12-5.14 in the final RFP.
| 54 | RFP Attachment Jb7_Standard_Labor_Category_Descriptions, page 1 | 1 | Collaborative Systems Lead and Collaborative Technologies Specialist Position Titles | Both labor categories require the same position education (column 2) and position experience (column 3) but the position title implies that the lead would require more experience. Please confirm the position experience is accurate. | One position is a lead and the other a specialist. The lead might oversee a group but without supervisory duties. | |
| 55 | 34 | DRFP Att J-2 CDRL | ||||
| CDRL # 27 | Could the Government provide Block 8., Remarks, for CDRL 27, Space Biology Fly Off Plan? | |||||
| 56 | 4 | DRFP Att J-B7 SLC | ||||
| 4 of 5 | The Senior Graphics Designer SLC is listed twice. Is there a non-senior graphics designer SLC? | There is not a non-senior graphics designer currently working FILMSS. | ||||
| 57 | 5 | SOW Section 3 | The SOW Section 3 Applicable Documents list includes: |
| ● ARC‐STD 8070, Space Flight System Design and Environmental Test | We could not locate this standard on NODIS among the public listing of technical standards. Could the Government provide offerors access to this document? | Access to all ARC standards referenced will be provided with the final RFP. | ||||
| 58 | 10, 11 | SOW Section 5.0 | Errata: The last sentence of paragraph 5.0 references paragraph 4.1.3 for foreign program travel. | Should this be paragraph 4.3? | Yes, the sentence will be corrected in the final RFP | |
| 59 | 12 | SOW Section 5.2 | Spaceflight Proj Support | In addition to NPR 7120.5, are project support activities performed as required by APR 7120.5, as well? | Yes, this regulation will be added here to the SOW in the final RFP | |
| 60 | 13 | SOW 5.5 b. | HW and Tech Dev Support | In addition to NPR 7123, are development support activities performed per APR 7123.1, as well? | Yes, this regulation will be added here to the SOW in the final RFP | |
| 61 | 43 | DRFP SOW 6.5.2 | GeneLab Intern Link | The link https://genelab.nasa.gov/intern/ returns a"Page Not Found" error. Could the Government provide the URL for the intended link? | Yes, this regulation will be added here to the SOW in the final RFP | |
| 62 | 49 | DRFP SOW 6.6.5 j. | Partnership Office Support | In addition to NPR 1441.1, are records retention activities for the Partnership Office per APR 1441.1, as well? | Yes, this regulation will be added here to the SOW in the final RFP | |
| 63 | 61,62 and 63 | DRFP SOW 6.8.4, 6.8.6 and 6.8.7. | Media Relations | Are contractor personnel performing activites under SOW 6.8.4, 6.8.6 and 6.8.7 serving solely in a support role, or are they required from time to time to be, for example, the subject of an interview or serve as a public event speaker? | The sentence will be corrected in the final RFP | |
| 64 | 108 | L.17 TA-1 1. | The 2nd sentence of this paragraph states "Describe, proposed key technologies, and other factors critical to mission success." | Is the comma following "Describe" in this sentence in error or is there missing information in the sentence? | This will be corrected in the final RFP | |
| 65 | 109 | L.17 TA-1 2. b) | Errata: This paragraph begins "Processes to that will ….." | Should this be changed to "Processes that will ….." | This will be corrected in the final RFP | |
| 66 | 39 | SOW 6.4.5 | Errata: The SOW paragraph numbering skips 6.4.5 in the sequence. | This will be corrected in the final RFP | ||
| 67 | 98-99 | L.11 (h) | Paragraph (h) states "Existing Government property may be reviewed at the following locations, dates, and times:….. | Does NASA plan to let potential offerors view the laboratories and other areas where the government property is located as part of the Industry Day or at a separate designated day and time? | The government is not planning on a tour during industry day, although some of the facilities and equipment will be shown in the slides. | |
| 68 | 101 | L.13(b)(4) | Errata: Paragraph has the following language: Cover Letter, Volume II, Mission Suitability (Written Proposal and Oral Presentation), and Volume III, Past Performance (Oral Presentation)…..Past Performance is not part of the oral presenation for this proposal. | Request instruction be changed to "Written Presentation". | This will be corrected in the final RFP | |
| 69 | 123 | L.17 (b) Past Performance (Volume III), II.3.b | This paragraph requires OSHA records to be provided for the past three years. | Request that the OSHA records not be part of the page count as the OSHA logs can be several pages. | OSHA records will not be included in the page count, this clarification will be included in the final RFP. | |
| 70 | 136 | L.17 © Cost/Price (Volume IV) Exhibit 16 | The instructions for Phase-In state: "For proposal purposes only, assume the start date of the Phase-In Period to be January 31, 2019." | Please clarify the assumed start date for Phase-In. | At this time it not our planned, however we will look at this option if necessary. | |
| 71 | 122-123 | L.17 (b) Past Performance (Volume III), II.3.b | First sentence states: "the Offeror and major subcontractors shall provide the following information for all contracts performed within the last three years…….. | Request that the language be changed to read, "the Offeror and major subcontractors shall provide the following information for all relevant contracts performed within the last three years…... | Yes, the full copy of the SLCs is provided with this response and will be included in the final RFP. | |
| 72 | DRFP Att J-B7 SLC | There are multiple labor categories not included in the JB7 document. Please provide the Position Education, Experience, Supervisory, and Capability Description for the following Labor Categories: |
• Agreement Specialist
• Animator
• Bioinformatician
• Collaboration Manager
• Data System and Comm
• Education & Public Outreach Specialist I
• Education & Public Outreach Specialist II
• Engineer Technician II
• Engineering Technician II
• Graphic Artist
• Information Technology (IT) Lead
• Information Technology (IT) Level II
• Lead Internation Space Station (ISS) Payload Specialist
• Logistician
• Operations Engineer
• Payload Engineer
• Planning and Scheduler
• Program and Project Support Specialist I
• Program and Project Support Specialist II
• Project Management Support Analyst I
• Project Management Support Analyst II
• Project Scientist IV
• Russian Interpreter
• Science & Communications Specialist I
• Science & Communications Specialist II
• Science Project Lead
• Senior Graphics Designer
• Senior Scheduler
• Senior Scientist
• Senior Technical Writer/Professional III
• Social Media Specialist
• Staff Scientist III
• Staff Scientist IV
• Support Scientist I
• Support Scientist II
• System Engineer III Please see the updated draft Atch Jb7.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .