QAs for RFP FINAL.pdf

NASA Safety Center (NSC) Safety & Mission Assurance, Audits, Assessments and

Analysis (SA3) Services

Questions & Answers

80GRC022R0029 – SA3 Services

Q1: The table provided on page 71 of the Final RFP, under Preparation of Volume I – Mission Suitability, lists SOW 3.0 – 5.0 in relationship to UTR1: Understanding the Requirements. Then on Page 72 under (1) UTR1: Understanding the Requirements it list SOW 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. SOW sections 4.0 and 5.0 are related to Task Management, Business Management, and Administration. Can the government clarify if they are requesting a specific response to SOW 4.0 and 5.0 under UTR1 or is it adequate to address these SOW areas under Subfactor B: Management Approach.

A1: As stated in L.12 (a) UTR1: Understanding the Requirements is directly related to SOW sections 3.0

– 5.0; however, at a minimum the response to UTR1 shall include SOW sections 3.1 – 3.4 per L.12 (a)(1). It is acceptable to address SOW sections 4.0 and 5.0 under Subfactor B: Management Approach.

Any SOW sections that the Offeror finds applicable to a response should be included.

Q2: Section L.11.2 – Proposal Page Limitations was increased to a 15-page limit for the Past Performance Volume, while Section L.13 still states “Submissions for Relevant Experience and Past Performance shall not exceed ten (10) pages.” Can you confirm that the Past Performance Volume Page Limit is 15 pages?

A2: Yes, the Past Performance Volume page limit is fifteen (15) pages. The RFP has been amended to clarify.

Q3: Section L.13.2 states “The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that a minimum of two (2) PPQs (combined technical and business evaluations) are submitted for the Prime Offeror and/or Major Subcontractor/Teaming Partner for which Past Performance exists.” Is this intended to mean that 1) 2 PPQs are to be submitted for each cited contract or 2) that a minimum of two contracts have to be cited for the prime and each major/subcontractor/teaming partner or 3) that a minimum of 2 PPQs in total across the Prime and Major Subcontractors/Teaming partners?

We suggest that this requirement be 3) a minimum of 2 PPQs in total across the Prime and Major Subcontractors/Teaming partners.

A3: The Government in requesting a minimum of two (2) PPQs to be submitted. There is no limit for any additional PPQs per L.11.2.

Q4: Can you please clarify whether the labor rates presented in this table are direct labor rates or fully burdened rates or a mix of both? For example, the Tech Inspector 2 (HS degree and 5 years of experience) rate of $109.96 seems to be outside the range for a direct labor rate for that position, especially compared to Engineer 3 (MS degree and 6+ years of experience) of $85.17 or the Program Manager rate of $91.14.

A4: The labor rates are estimated direct labor rates based on GRC’s historical data.

Q5: Section MA2.a on page 74 of the RFP states: “…provide a separate organization chart for each team member.” Given the small business goals and categories, there may be required to be 6 or more team members, making it impracticable to include an org chart for each team member, given the page count restrictions. We suggest that this requirement only apply to major subcontractors.

A5: The Government deems it acceptable to provide the organizational charts for the Prime and Major Subcontractors. The RFP has been amended to clarify.

Q6: RFP instructions state that “Microsoft Word documents shall be submitted in Microsoft Word format, not in an Adobe PDF file.”

We suggest that offerors are to also submit a version of all documents in Adobe PDF format in addition to the MS Word compatible formats, since we are not submitting a paper copy. Due to different settings, default styles, and preferences in different versions/installations of Microsoft products, formatting, such as font styles and sizes, and/or placement of pictures, tables, diagrams may shift around, causing the document to appear different or to be above page count. Normally, the paper copy would be used to verify compliance with page count and other RFP instructions. Since this is an electronic submission, we suggest that an Adobe PDF copy be included with submissions to verify compliance with page count, margins, and other RFP requirements.

A6: The Government deems it appropriate to submit an Adobe PDF version of proposal documents.

The RFP has been amended to reflect these revisions.

Q7: Cover Letter indicates "The anticipated contract award date is June 15, 2021, with a July 22, 2021 contract effective date." B.2 ESTIMATED COST AND FIXED FEE indicates Base period starts on July 1 L.12 (5) a. MA5: Phase-In Plan Indicates "A clear demonstration of the Offeror’s ability to assume full contract responsibility on July 1, 2021 (anticipated)." L.14 VOLUME III – COST PROPOSAL indicates "Offeror shall use the period of performance from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2026," and Table below indicates Base Year 1 as July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022.

Will the Government please clarify the Contract start date since the cover letter does not match the Contract start date in Sections B.2, L.12, and L.14?

A7: The Government has revised the Cover Letter to clarify.

Q8: Attachment J.2 indicates the Surveillance Support Sample Task starts on July 1, 2021. If the Contract Start Date is July 22, 2021 per FRFP Cover Letter, will the Government please change the Surveillance Support Sample Task start date to align with on or after Contract Start Date?

A8: The anticipated start and award dates have been removed from the Cover Letter. All Sample Tasks should be based on a July 1, 2021 start date.

Q9: With the increase in font size to 12-point text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs these items require more space in proposal documents, therefore, will the Government increase the page count for the Sample Tasks to 35 pages?

A9: The page limit requirement remains unchanged.

Q10: Lists of Figures/Exhibits are not specifically identified in the list of non-page counted items. Will the Government please confirm that lists of Figures or Exhibits are excluded from page count limitations?

A10: The Government deems it acceptable to exclude Lists of Figures/Exhibits from page count limitations. The RFP has been amended.

Q11: Will the Government exclude the cover sheet from page count?

A11: The Government deems it acceptable to exclude cover sheets from page count limitations. The RFP has been amended.

Q12: In the final RFP L.11.4(3) states, "The electronic proposal shall be prepared and submitted in Microsoft Office® 2016 applications (Word and Excel). Further, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format, not in a scanned Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF file. Microsoft Word documents shall be submitted in Microsoft Word format, not in an Adobe PDF file."

Will the Government allow proposals prepared and submitted in Microsoft Office 365?

A12: The Government deems it acceptable for all proposals to be submitted in Microsoft Office programs that are compatible to the Microsoft Office 2016 application. The RFP has been amended to clarify.

Q13: In the final RFP L.11.4(3) states, "Each volume of the proposal should be submitted as a separate electronic file. The Offeror shall not embed sound or video files into the proposal files. Minimize the use of scanned images and keep embedded graphics as simple as possible." Volume III Cost/Price will consist of MS Word and Excel files which will prevent us from submitting it as "one electronic file" as required.

Cost/Price is 3 Parts will the government allow one file for each part?

A13: Yes, one file for each part is okay. The excel Cost Summary Template should be one file with multiple tabs.

Q14: In the Final RFP L.14 states "To determine if an Offeror is in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(a), Offeror is instructed to submit information which demonstrates its financial capability to perform the contract. Acceptable information includes: letters from certified United States banks indicating the available amount of credit for the business and the company’s annual report." Will the Government accept a SEC Filing as a reference of financial viability?

A14: Yes, the Government will accept an SEC Filing as a reference of financial viability. However, the Offeror should also provide financial statements and letters of credit with this method.

Q15: In L.11.3(3) the government is requesting proposal files to be submitted in MS Word format and L.11.5 is requesting to minimize the extent of scanned documents and have all files searchable. In Volume IV, the government is request contractual agreements documents to be provided. Their final format for these signed documents is in pdf. In order to embed into the Word format they will need to be pictures, and therefore, not searchable. This approach will also be applied to any signed supporting documentation in support of Volume III, Cost. Will this approach be considered compliant?

A15: The Government deems it acceptable to submit documents in a Microsoft Word or .pdf format.

Pictures, drawings, or figures, not embedded in the body of the document, should be delivered in one of the following formats: .jpg, .gif, or .bmp. The RFP has been amended to clarify.

Q16: To assist Offerors in developing an effective phase-in plan that minimizes risk to continuity of operations, will the Government provide information on the location of current contract support resources, e.g., GRC Lewis Field, GRC Plum Brook, GSFC, OSMA, etc., and whether those resources are required to be located onsite or near-site to the NASA installation?

A16: There is no requirement that Contractors reside at or near a specific center. The Offeror’s approach should take into consideration all locations as defined in the SOW. The location of resources for contract support is dependent upon the Offeror’s approach to perform the requirements.

Q17: Is there a requirement for co-location with the customer or are their activities independent and therefore co-location not mandatory?

Recommendation: Provide additional background and historical (B&H) information on locations of support contract resources and physical location for the individuals in the “Fiscal Year 2020 Labor Demographics”. Please identify labor categories and hours for personnel required to be co-located.

Information on locations of contract support personnel will be beneficial in efficiently proposing a FFP value for Phase-In.

A17: Please see response to Q16 above.

Q18: The RFP and cost templates reference non-exempt employees and the wage determination. Are there non-exempt labor categories in the SA3 contract or is the entire contract exempt? If there are non-exempt labor categories then please provide a wage determination.

A18: There are no wage determination positions for this RFP. This is a blanket template for all awards.

Q19: For OM travel, the chart says to assume ALL AIO support personnel will be on travel. How many is ALL AIO personnel

A19: The number of AIO personnel is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q20: For how many calendar days should the proposal be made valid? Does the Government want us to use 60 days?

A20: Offerors shall allow a period of 180 days for proposal validity. The SF33 has been amended to clarify.

Q21: Is all the travel associated with Certification training local (local mileage)? If not please provide the number of flights by FY that are not local travel (origin and destination).

A21: Travel is dependent on the Contractor’s staffing approach, the number of Contractor personnel in attendance at the Certification training and where they are located.

Q22: Is NASA paying mileage for local travel costs for training? Please provide the FY 2020 local travel miles.

A22: Yes, NASA will pay mileage for training travel costs. The costs are dependent on the number of Contractor personnel and their location.

Q23: The footer identifies “QAAR Audits” separate from “QAAR”, however, “QAAR Audits” are not referenced in the chart. Please clarify.

A23: The QAAR Face-2-Face meeting is held once per year. The remaining QAAR inputs represent QAAR Audits. Travel requirements are the same for both.

Q24: The footer identifies “OM Dry-run” separate from “OM”, however, “OM Dry-run” are not referenced in the chart. Please clarify.

A24: As stated, there are two (2) trips per OM on the schedule. The first is the OM Dry-run and the second is the official OM.

Q25: Provide the labor category mix for QAAR.

A25: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q26: Provide the labor category mix for IFOSA Audits.

A26: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q27: Provide the labor category mix and WYE for AIO.

A27: The labor category mix and WYE is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q28: Provide the labor category mix for AM.

A28: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q29: Provide the labor category mix for OM Dry-run.

A29: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q30: Provide the labor category mix and WYE for OM.

A30: The labor category mix and WYE is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q31: Provide the labor category mix for personnel supporting “Supplier Quality Management Assessments.”

A31: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q32: Provide the labor category mix for personnel supporting “Quality Engineering and Assurance Support.”

A32: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.

Q33: Provide the labor category mix for personnel attending “NASA Workmanship Certification Training.”

A33: The labor category mix is dependent on the Offeror’s staffing approach. Offerors shall provide their unique approach for staffing necessary to support their understanding of the SOW and estimating methodology.