Final_Q_and_A.pdf

RFP#: 80GSFC18R0025

Questions and Answers

Page 2 of Amendment 2

Q1: 1852.245-74 IDENTIFICATION AND MARKING OF GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT

(JAN 2011): Are you anticipating there being GFP on this procurement? If so, please provide what the Government intends to provide as GFP.

R1: There is no GFP related to this requirement and the Government does not anticipate providing Government Furnished Property (GFP)

Q2: B.4 GSFC 52.232-99 MILESTONE PAYMENT SCHEDULE: May the Contractor propose a different set of percentages? Or do you want the Contractor to simply frontload the “Unit

Price” to accommodate an adequate expenditure profile? In the production of these tanks, it requires the purchase of long lead material very early in program. The Contractor can simply propose these expenditures early in the program if that is what NASA would like.

R2: Vendor is encouraged to respond to requirements as written.

Q3: H.4 1852.232-77 LIMITATION OF FUNDS (FIXED-PRICE CONTRACT): What is your intent here? I understand the challenges finance presents when it comes to fully funding a contract in our current continuing resolution budget cycle, but in this situation I believe it is imperative that this contract be fully funded. I understand that there is a need to use the

Limitation of Funds and LOGO clauses, but this contract is a fixed-price, non-severable commodity contract where determining funding can be a risk and a significant challenge to manage. Under this contract, the awardee may be working on multiple milestones at once and if there is a lapse of funding, then the Government would gain no benefit of the contract due the non-severability of the scope of work. In my professional opinion, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the Government to incrementally fund this contract. If the Government must have the ability to incrementally fund this contract, may the Contractor be permitted to propose an alternate Milestone Payment Schedule that reduces the risk on both the Government and the

Contactor?

R3: Vendor is encouraged to respond to requirements as written.

Q4: L.7 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015): Is it your intent to have a page limit on our proposal? The fill-ins are not filled in under L.7. Or is the intent that L.14 (b)

1 provide that requirement?

R4: The intent is that the Section L.14 (b) 1 provides the requirement for page limitations.

Q5: L.14 GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION—GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(APR 2016): These 14 or so pages of instructions look like something would be required for a systems contract, not a subcomponent contract. Is it NASA’s intent for all offerors to propose as instructed in L.14 or is there an alternate set of proposal instructions I am unaware of.

R5: Yes, it is NASA’s intent for all offerors to propose as instructed in section L.14