SpaceDOC III Draft RFP Question and Answer Document.pdf

Space Flight Systems Development and Operations Contract III (SpaceDOC III) Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) Question and Answer Document

February 22, 2023

Number Question Answer

The Other Direct Cost (ODC) table in Section L of the RFP does not match the ODCs in the price spreadsheet. Will this be clarified?

The RFP L.36(2)(d)(5) ODC table has been updated.

ODC figures in the RFP have been corrected to align with ODC figures in the Cost/Price Forms.

Setting schedule & priority constraints aside, are the facilities identified in the Installation-Approved Government Property (IAGP) capable of fulfilling the SpaceDOC III requirements?

There are no requirements in the RFP related to these facilities and each base or delivery order will have their own set of unique requirements. Past orders successfully used these facilities, but NASA cannot say that all future order's requirements will fall within their capabilities.

The DRFP, page 126 references Service Contract Act/Collective Bargaining Agreement labor categories - are there any SCA or Represented workforce currently?

NASA reworded the Final RFP section related to Service Contract Act/Collective Bargaining Agreement (SBA/CBA) in L.36 (2) (c) Form 4, to make it clear that SCA/CBA covered labor has not been identified by the Government within the RFP.

During Work Plan development for each order, the Contractor will determine if any SCA/CBA covered labor categories will be present in performance.

4 Do we have to identify 10 key positions?

Seems like a lot.

In RFP Section L.35, MP2, 1. NASA has updated the language in the Final RFP to make it clear that the Offeror shall identify up to a total of ten key personnel for key positions in the Offeror, Major Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venturers proposed organization structures.

Is the 3 citations for past performance for 3 total including Prime, subs and teaming partners?

NASA updated the language in RFP Section L.37 A (a)

3. to clarify that the Offeror shall include a minimum of three (3) most relevant contracts. In addition, the Offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) relevant contract for each Major Subcontractor(s)/Teaming Partner(s).

Additionally, the page limit for the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Volume III was increased from 20 to 25 in RFP Section L.22 (a).

Was there a specific reason NASA called out 90% work offsite and 10% onsite? Is it a requirement?

It is not a requirement. NASA revised language in RFP Section L.36 (2) (c) Form 4, that indicates for estimating purposes, the work site percentages are provided and shall be incorporated into the Offeror’s estimating approach.

One of the things we didn’t see in the DRFP, how are you going to score innovations, improvement, efficiencies?

Do you want status quo, or are you looking for ideas from industry that could bring best practices, lessons learned?

Where is that going to be included in the evaluation criteria?

Innovations and efficiencies are not a specific evaluation subfactor under Mission Suitability, but Offerors may incorporate proposed innovations and efficiencies in their response to other Mission Suitability subfactors in an effort to achieve a “strength” or “significant strength” in that subfactor.

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ responses to determine whether they clearly demonstrate how each Offeror will meet or exceed all requirements of the Statement of Work and the

RFP.

In the pricing spreadsheet the links in Form 1 Proposed Effort Detail Cells G15 thru G19 are incorrect. Will the Government please correct the links and provide a new spreadsheet?

NASA has corrected the formulas in Form 1, cells G15-G19 in the Final RFP in Attachment J.2-D.

In the pricing spreadsheet on Form 2 Summary of hours Cells G20, K20, O20, S20, W20 (contract year 1) do not contain a formula to sum the PMO costs, therefore on Form 1 no costs are referenced. In addition, all contract Years PMO cost columns have the same issue on form 2.

NASA has added Project Management Organization (PMO) Cost subtotal formulas in Form 2 of the Final RFP in Attachment J.2-D.

NASA document NPR 8705.5 Technical Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Procedures for NASA Programs and Projects is cancelled effective 2/28/2023.

The cancellation notice observes that this can be achieved through other means or with other standards. Will there be a modification to the CDRL?

NASA updated DID PA-11 in the CDRL, Attachment J.1-B, by removing NPR 8705.5 Technical Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Procedures for NASA Programs and Projects and adding ISO 11231:2019, Space Systems - Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and NASA/SP-2011-3421, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners.

Are there particular communication standards and/or protocols which should be utilized (CCSDS,3GPP, etc.) in Attachment J.2-A-2 Lunar Communications?

NASA has updated Attachment J.2-A-2, Lunar Communications, to indicate that the communication standards include MIL-STD-188- 141D, Interoperability and Performance Standards for Medium and High Frequency Radio Systems.

In the Draft RFP Part IV - Representations and Instructions, Pg 123 is says "Offerors shall ensure the proposed Program Management approach presented in the Forms reconciles with the Offerors Program Management within Volume II, Mission Suitability". Is this a typo?

Yes, it was a typo. NASA has updated the Final RFP Section L.36, (2) (c) Form Instructions to Volume I, Mission Suitability.

Is the snapshot of GFE provided by the government sufficient resources to continue ongoing task orders at contract phase-in? If not, can the government please provide in the Final RFP a list of required equipment for the operating contractor to possess in order to execute a seamless phase-in of the SpaceDOC III contract?

NASA has updated the Government Furnished Property (GFP) List in the Final RFP with the most current information. However, the GFP list in Attachment J.1-C is not fully inclusive of all items required to perform/complete the orders that will be active following Phase-In. The Government will not provide an additional list of equipment required as it is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine what they need to complete the order during Phase-In.

Section M, MP6, states “The Offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy, availability, and benefits of their manufacturing and fabrication facilities in terms of capacity (square feet), physical security, equipment, machines, availability, geographic location and options considered, age and condition, capabilities, and whether the facility is owned or leased and currently operational.” – Can the government clarify the definition of machines and provide a minimum requirement for eligibility of award?

Machines are defined as equipment, typically found in a fabrication or machine shop including, but not limited to, lathes, used to make parts. There is no minimum eligibility requirement for MP6.

Provide the details on work in progress so that non-incumbents have a clear picture of what type of engineering tools, fabrication, assembly, integration, and test work will be going on at the time of transition so that the non-incumbent can develop an effective transition plan for all Delivery Orders (DO’s).

Attachment J.2-E, SpaceDOC II Historical Statements of Work – Orders, has been updated to indicate what phase the transitioning orders are in, as well as, if they have any associated items on the Government Furnished Property (GFP) List in Attachment J.1-C.