FDSS_III_DRAFT_REQUEST_FOR_PROPOSAL_ADDITIONAL_GOV_RESPONSES.Final.pdf

FLIGHT DYNAMICS SERVICES SUPPORT III DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #80GSFC18R0032

QUESTION/COMMENT ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

Q27. L.27 Offer Volume - Paragraph (8) indicates Offerors must possess a Top Secret/SCI level facility security clearance by the due date for receipt of proposals. Per our Defense Security Service (DSS) representative, the highest facility security clearance issued by the DSS is Top Secret. SCI is not a classification, but rather a special designation for access to compartmentalized sensitive information under the cognizance of the government customer who would oversee the necessary SCI applications/adjudications of the employees. Access to SCI data under the FDSS III contract can only be granted following award of the contract and issuance of the DD 254. Modify requirement to Top Secret facility security clearance by the due date for receipt of proposals.

Government Response: The Government shall revise the language in L.27 (c)(8) Contract Security Classification, to remove references to SCI. The requirement will be revised to state the "offerors shall possess a Top Secret level facility security clearance by due date of receipt of proposals and maintained throughout the life of the contract."

Q28. Enclosure CC, GPM - Please confirm that Project Engineer, Project Engineer Sr., and IT Specialist have no years of experience requirement or specify the number of years of experience. Position Descriptions typically require some minimum years of experience.

Government Response: The Government shall revise Enclosure CC to include a minimum years of experience for each labor category and release it with the Final RFP.

Q29. Enclosure BB, RTO 2 - VSLT Flight Dynamics is essentially verbatim with FDSS II Task Order 18 – JWST Flight Dynamics, for which the incumbent contract has been supporting for almost 4 years. This provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent Offeror in developing the proposal response in accordance with the FDSS III RFP. For example, the task requires updates to several analyses, including a launch window analysis that parallels analysis completed under the FDSS II Task 18 scope. Remove RTO 2 from the final RFP and replace with a hypothetical task (e.g., software technology development) that all Offerors can provide a technical solution that doesn’t leverage FDSS II incumbent knowledge.

Government Response: The Government changed the RTO to be more general and cover only one year.

All changes will be released with the Final RFP. This is an imaginary mission. NASA is planning a series of large observatories at L2 in the coming decades and this is representative of that.

Q30. Enclosure BB, RTO 2 The task specifies a ground system freeze date that is 16 days after the start of the POP. The FDGS is specified to have all capabilities to support operations by this date. The task then emphasizes generation and maintenance of requirements and functional specifications, which does not fit this timeline. Is the intention that significant design and development of the FDGS will continue beyond the ground system freeze date? We recommend that the timeline and scope of support be clarified in the task. As-written, there appear to be several inconsistencies regarding requirements generation, development, and V&V activities with respect to the overall milestone schedule.

Government Response: The Government changed the RTO to be more general and cover only one year.

In addition, deliverables and due dates were changed. All changes will be released with the Final RFP.

This is an imaginary mission. NASA is planning a series of large observatories at L2 in the coming decades and this is representative of that.

Q31. Enclosure BB (RTOs) RTO-1, Pages 3-4 - Page 3 States under Section IV (Task Description):

Analysis Support The following lists the analyses that will be required from this task.

• Orbit Determination Error Analysis ...

• DeltaV Budget Analysis ...

Page 4 Indicates under Section V (Deliverable Items and Schedules):

Reports for both analyses due CDR-6 months.

CDR is scheduled for July 15, 2020. Therefore analysis reports will be due for delivery January 15, 2020 or 14 days after task start. Analysis would need to have been completed prior to start of task to meet that schedule. Is the timing of the analysis report deliveries correct? Request to have more time in task year to perform the analyses. CDR-2 or 3 months is more reasonable.

Government Response: Yes. The timing of the analysis report deliveries is correct. The Government changed the RTO to be more general and cover only one year. In addition, deliverables and due dates were changed. All changes will be released with the Final RFP.

Q32. L.26 Proposal Preparation—General Instructions and L.30 Cost Volume Instructions - The Draft RFP provides the following definitions for a significant subcontractor related to the Cost Volume:

L.26, Page 68 states: “Prime Offerors and proposed Significant Subcontractors for Cost Volume proposal purposes defined as any subcontract that is likely to exceed 20% or more of the Government Pricing Model (GPM) Grand Total value …” L.30, Page 81 states: “For the purposes of the Cost Volume, a significant subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose estimated values causes the cumulative percentage of subcontractor work (from lowest to highest percentage of work) to meet or exceed 20% of the total GPM estimated value.”

Please clarify the definition of a significant subcontractor related to the Cost Volume. Definition on Page 81 is consistent with recent GSFC RFPs.

Government Response: The Government recognizes that there is an inconsistency between the two provisions and as such, shall revise the language in L.26, GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation— General Instructions, as follows: Prime Offerors and proposed Significant Subcontractors for Cost Volume proposal purposes (as defined in RFP Section L.30 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS) shall include one (1) additional separately packaged hardcopy of their Cost Volume proposal, marked "80GSFC18R0032/NASA Proposal Evaluation Material," which the Government may use for audit support purposes.

Q33. DRFP M.6, Page 100 - A "recent" contract is a contract that is ongoing or completed less than five years prior to the issuance of this RFP. Contracts completed more than five years prior to issuance of this RFP will not be considered recent and will not be considered or evaluated.

According to FAR Subpart 42.1503(g): “Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS that is within three years of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract or order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for default or cause.”

We recommend that in order to align better with the FAR, the Government updates the RFP language to require the past performance to be completed in less than three years prior to the issuance of the RFP.

Government Response: The Government will keep the 5-year period as PPIRS is only one source of past performance data relied upon.

Q34. L.21 1852.231-71 DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION REASONABLENESS (APR 2015) (d) - The offeror shall require all service subcontractors provide, as part of their proposal, the information identified in (a) through (c) of this provision for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4. L.21 RFP instructions require the TCPs to be provided only for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts.

Please confirm that we are not required to provide a TCP for “T&M” type of subcontracts even if they fall under the threshold set forth in FAR 15.403-4.

Government Response: For purposes of this solicitation and this specific requirement, the Government considers a T&M contract to be a cost-reimbursement contract type and the instructions and requirements apply as it would for any cost-reimbursement contract.

Q35. L.29 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE) (NOV 2017) (c)(B.7) - The RFP indicates in L.29.B.7 that Exhibits 10A and 10B satisfy the TCP requirement at FAR 52.222-46 for the Non-Significant subcontractors. Please confirm that Exhibits 10A and 10B also satisfy the TCP requirement for non-significant subcontractors under RFP L.21 NFS 1852.231-71(d) which requires a TCP from all service subcontractors for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4. (Over $750,000)?

Government Response: Yes, The Government confirms that Exhibits 10A and 10B satisfy the TCP requirements for non-significant subcontractors, which require a TCP from all service subcontractors for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4.