80ARC020R0011 Final RFP Question Answer Set 1.pdf

80ARC020R0011

Final RFP Q&A Set 1 July 27, 2020

Rotorcraft Vertical Lift Technology Development

Final RFP Question & Answer Set 1

Q1) Is there an award size in mind, and are there planned multiple awards?

A1) Refer to the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) Section B, Supplies and/or Services to be Provided, paragraph (d) on page B-1.

Q2) Would a United States small business (prime) be able to subcontract a German supplier of system components?

A2) Purchases of goods and services from foreign companies are not precluded by any individual task order unless specifically proscribed. All contract clauses will be enforced on all subcontracts.

All Government rules and regulations, including ITAR and EAR regulations, will be enforced in all instances.

Q3) NASA requests a list of not more than five (5) relevant contracts for the Offeror and each Major Subcontractor: A relevant contract is defined as a Government or Industry contract with similar scope, in excess of $3,000,000 total value, completed no more than three (3) years ago or currently on-going at least one (1) year, similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the RVLTD acquisition.

Does the total value have to mean actual funded programs or could it mean total value of an awarded IDIQ such as the NASA RWTD IDIQ of 50 million or the NASA VLTD IDIQ of 24 million that was awarded to the prime or sub?

A3) For the purpose of relevant contracts “total value” is defined as the total potential value of the awarded contract.

ACRONYMN

RWTD – Rotor Wing Technology Development IDIQ – Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity VLTD – Vertical Lift Technology Development

Q4) FAR 52.215-11 PRICE REDUCTION FOR DEFECTIVE CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING

DATA—MODIFICATIONS (JUN 2020) – Per NASA Procurement Class Deviation (PCD) 18-04 dated July 1, 2018 (NASA Case 2018-N015), why wouldn’t this deviation be included in this RFP to incorporate deviation from the FAR?

A4) The Government will revise the Final RFP to include the deviation per Procurement Class Deviation (PCD) 18-04 dated July 1, 2018 (NASA Case 2018-N015).

Q5) FAR 52.215-12 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (JUN 2020) -

Per NASA Procurement Class Deviation (PCD) 18-04 dated July 1, 2018 (NASA Case 2018- N015), why wouldn’t this deviation be included in this RFP to incorporate deviation from the FAR?

A5) The Government will revise the Final RFP to include the deviation per Procurement Class

Q6) FAR 52.215-13 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA—

MODIFICATIONS (JUN 2020) - Per NASA Procurement Class Deviation (PCD) 18-04 dated July 1, 2018 (NASA Case 2018-N015), why wouldn’t this deviation be included in this RFP to incorporate deviation from the FAR?

A6) The Government will revise the Final RFP to include the deviation per Procurement Class

Q7) What are the specifics of the Mentor Protégé program as described in (ii) SBU2. Commitment to Small Businesses, paragraph No. 3?

A7) The specifics of the NASA Mentor Protégé program may be found at:

https://osbp.nasa.gov/mentor.html

Q8) Does the Technology Area of Flight Controls and Health Management include Human Systems Integration; Degraded Visual Environments (DVE); Airworthiness Certification; Autonomy;

Advanced Teaming; and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Decision Making Support for Rotorcraft in RNAV; and System Safety Engineering?

A8) In the Performance Work Statement, the government purposely consolidated a large number of rotorcraft vertical lift technologies into 3 broad categories: Advanced Rotorcraft Technologies, Flight Controls and Health Management, and Rotorcraft Research Testing. These categories are intended to be inclusive of a large number of related technologies (such as those listed in this question) when they have application to rotorcraft vertical lift technology development. The overall intent is to be inclusive, and not exclusive, of potential technology and research opportunities in vertical lift under potential contracted task orders.

Q9) The Total Compensation Plan, Section 3c (page L-19) may be overly cumbersome for entities beyond the very large OEMs. In particular, the language implies that a formal survey is required, but this cost may be onerous or the survey impossible to obtain in the time frame for small businesses, nonprofits, and academia. Can NASA provide examples what national or regional compensation survey/studies in the would qualify as supporting documentation that meets this requirement? Would statistics from the Bureau of Labor or prior awards be sufficient?

A9) The Government will amend the Final RFP to remove the Total Compensation Plan as an evaluation factor.

Q10) Would NASA consider removing NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness (APR 2015) if there is no service employees who would be working this effort per the definition in 29 CFR 541 and therefore this clause is not applicable?

A10) Yes, the Government will amend the Final RFP to remove the Clause.

Q11) Page L-4, para L.6(a) says the total compensation plan “shall include the salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs proposed for each of these categories of labor.” In what form do you require “salaries/wages?” Are you looking for T&M rates, salary ranges, or something else for each labor category?

A11) The Government will amend the Final RFP to remove the Total Compensation Plan as an evaluation factor.

Q12) Page L-19 para L-11(b)I(1) of the RFP requests a “list of not more than five (5) relevant contracts.” Page L-20 para L-11(b)I(4) of the RFP states that “If the Offeror or Major Subcontractor(s) does not have enough relevant contracts that meet the value requirement…” What is meant by “enough?” Is there a minimum number of required past performance references? The evaluation criteria in Section M provides no additional guidance.

A12) Refer to the Final Request For Proposal (RFP) Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, paragraph (b), Past Performance Proposal (Volume II) starting on page L-19.

Q13) Since Past Performance is the most important evaluation criteria, additional clarification on the evaluation process is needed. Will there be a numerical score given to each past performance and a total score computed for ranking purposes? Or is the approach quality over quantity? For example, if an offeror has three very strong past performance references and two less strong examples, would it be best to submit only three or all five? If quantity and numerical scoring is the approach, submitting five would be better, but if quality is preferred, focusing on the best three would be the better choice.

A13) Past Performance is assigned a level of confidence rating as stated in Section M.2(b)(2) in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2). Past Performance is not assigned a numerical score.

Q14) Will FAR 52.222-17, NonDisplacement of Qualified Workers (MAY 2014) be included in this RFP if it is “reserved”?

A14) Yes. FAR Clause 52.222-17, NonDisplacement of Qualified Workers (MAY 2014) will remain in the Final RFP.

Q15) Will NFS 1852.223-75, Major Breach of Safety or Security (FEB 2002) be applicable to task orders awarded under this IDIQ since the PWS doesn’t include the items that would result in this type of loss?

A15) Yes. NFS 1852.232-75, Major Breach of Safety or Security (FEB 2002) will be applicable to task orders awarded under the resulting contract.

Q16) Will FAR 52.215-17, Wavier of Facilities Capital Cost of Money (Oct 1997) be included in this RFP?

A16) Yes. It is anticipated that this solicitation will result in multiple awards. FAR 52.215-16, Facilities Capital Cost of Money and FAR 52.215-17, Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money are included in the solicitation for all prospective Offerors.

Q17) Would NASA consider adding an alteration to FAR 52.215-18, Reversion or Adjustment of Plans for Postretirement Benefits (PRB) Other than Pensions (JUL 2005)? to clarify that any disputes would be subject to FAR 52.233-1 Disputes?

A17) The Government will not modify the FAR Clause to add an alternation.

Q18) Would NASA consider adding Alternate IV to FAR 52.215-21, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modification (JUN 2020)?

A18) The Government will not modify the Final RFP to add Alternate IV.

Q19) Would NASA consider removal of FAR 52.227-13, Patent Rights – Ownership by the Government (DEC 2007)because it contravenes the Presidential Memorandum on Government Patent Policy to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, dated February 18, 1983, and Section 1(b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, and on the subject of Patent and Trademark Laws Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-517, aka “Bayh-Dole Act”)?

A19) The Government will review FAR 52.227-13, Patent Rights – Ownership by the Government

(DEC 2007).

Q20) Would NASA consider including the following provision as added in the previous IDIQ;

FAR Clause 52.227-17, Rights in Data – Special Works, applies to the following categories of Contract deliverables: software design documents including flowcharts, technical drawings, documentation, websites, and NASA presentations?

A20) FAR 52.227-17, Rights in Data – Special Works (DEC 2007) is included in Section I of Final

RFP.

Q21) FAR 52.243-1 CHANGES—FIXED-PRICE (AUG 1987) ALTERNATE V (APR 1984) –

Would NASA consider changing 30 days to 60 days under (c)?

A21) No. FAR 52.243-1, Changes – Fixed -Price is not a fill-in therefore, the FAR clause shall not be modified.

Q22) Why was the response time changed from 30 days to 10 days in (c) in NFS, 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure (Oct 1996) Alternate II (APR 2018) from the previous contract? How many days is the intention in (e)?

A22) The Government will amend the Final RFP the response time for submission from 10 days to 30 days in NFS 1852.216-80(c) and the number of days for acknowledgement of receipt is five (5) days in NFS 1852.216-80(e).

Q23) Why is FAR 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Representation dated (JUN 2020), it should read (MAY 2020).

A23) The Government will amend the Final RFP to correct the date to (MAY 2020).

Q24) Would NASA consider changing the submission date from 30 days to 45 days after effective date of contract in CDRL Line Item 7, Initial Financial Management Report and Line Item 8, Monthly Financial Management Report, from 10th working day to 15th working day after each full month of service?

A24.1) NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 9501.2E, Chapter 3.2.1 states that all contractors whose contracts contain an NF 533M reporting requirement shall submit an initial report within 30 working days after contract award.

A24.2) NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 9501.2E, Chapter 3.3.1.1 states that the NF 533M is due not later than 10 working days following the close of the contractors’ monthly accounting period.