FDSS_III_DRFP_QA_-_Final.pdf

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

QUESTION/COMMENT GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

Q1. L.29 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions; M.4 Mission Suitability Evaluation Factor - The Mission Suitability instructions and evaluation criteria make no mention of innovations to improve on the status quo support provided under the FDSS II contract. Given that the FDSS II and FDSS III SOW are nearly identical, please explain if/how Offeror innovations will be considered in the evaluation of Mission Suitability proposals. Recognize technical and management innovations within the Mission Suitability evaluation criteria.

Government Response: The Government has provided opportunities for an Offeror to respond how it sees fit, inclusive of innovative approaches to satisfy the requirements criteria. The Government will not be evaluating for innovation as a separate evaluation criteria. Innovations will be incorporated into any resulting Contract.

Q2. M.4 Mission Suitability Evaluation Factor - The Mission Suitability evaluation model is weighted heavily towards Technical Approach (600 points versus 400 points for Management Approach). The imbalance in the sub-factors is inconsistent with similar recent GSFC Code 500 engineering services procurements which equally weighted Technical Approach and Management Approach (e.g., ESES III, MIST, SEAS, and TIDES). In addition, the similarities of the SOW between FDSS II and FDSS III indicates requirements stability whereby the Government’s best value is better determined by management approaches that enhance performance rather than Offerors demonstrating their understanding of these stable requirements (that will be performed by the majority of incumbent employees regardless of the successful FDSS III Offeror). Assign Technical Approach and Management Approach 500 points each in the Mission Suitability evaluation model.

Government Response: Under the Mission Suitability Evaluation Model, the Government finds the points structure to be appropriately aligned with the priorities of the requirement for mission success.

No action taken.

Q3. L.30 Cost Volume Instructions - BOEs must be provided by the prime and significant subcontractors and comply with the total 35-page limit. Please confirm that a single BOE can be submitted by the prime contractor that addresses the prime and significant subcontractors. A combined BOE for the prime and significant subcontractors allows for a complete presentation of the BOEs with a consistent level of detail within one document and facilitates a thorough review.

Government Response: This is acceptable so long as it complies with the detailed page limit instructions (including interrelationship/involvement of sub volume pages). The final RFP will be modified to add as follows:

Offerors may submit a combined BOE for the prime and significant subcontractors with a consistent level of detail within one document.

Q4. L.31 Past Performance Volume (Services); M.6 Past Performance Evaluation Factor (Services) - Section L specifies $2.5M average annual cost/fee incurred for relevant contracts, while Section M specifies average annual cost/fee of $3M to be minimally relevant. Similarly, Section L defines a significant subcontractor as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $2.5M, while Section M specifies average annual cost/fee of $3M. Please resolve this inconsistency. Establish a total contract value threshold of $3M for determining contract size relevance or utilize the same annual contract value threshold of $2M from the FDSS II RFP (which had a higher contract ceiling than FDSS III).

Government Response: The Government will revise the average annual amount to $2M and correct the stated discrepancy.

Q5. L.31 Past Performance Volume (Services) and M.6 Past Performance Evaluation Factor (Services) - FDSS III is a unique contract within NASA based on its focused SOW (i.e., flight dynamics) and value. The incumbent FDSS II contract is the only contract performed by a NAICS 541330 qualified small business that could be evaluated as highly relevant based on its value and content. To increase competition, non-incumbent Offerors should be given the opportunity to piece together their relevant experience using smaller contracts to address the FDSS III scope of work without having to satisfy a large contract value threshold for relevancy. We respectfully request that the emphasis on contract size be adjusted/minimized and the focus be on scope and content to ensure potential Offerors are provided an opportunity to propose a larger sampling of their relevant experience and past performance and the Government has a more comprehensive basis for evaluation. Establish a total contract value threshold of $3M for determining contract size relevance or utilize the same annual contract value threshold of $2M from the FDSS II RFP (which had a higher contract ceiling than FDSS III).

Government Response: Please see Government Response to Question #4.

Q6. J.1 List of Attachments and L.27 Offer Volume - Section J.1 defines TBP as To Be Published while Section L.27 defines TBP as To Be Proposed. Please clarify the meaning of TBP. TBP is traditionally defined as To Be Proposed.

Government’s Response: The Government will revise TBP to stand for To Be Proposed to be consistent throughout RFP and with Acronym Key in Section J.1.

Q7. J.1 GSFC 52.211-101 Page 50 List of Attachments - Section J.1 List of Attachments Page 50 indicates IT Security Management Plan is due 30 days after Contract Award making it due during Phase In.

However, Section L.27 (c) (9) on page 74 indicates IT Security Management Plan is due 30 days after “contract effective date”, not contract award date, making it due 30 days after contract start. Please clarify (1) what is meant by Contract Effective Date and (2) when is the IT Security Management Plan due. IT Security Management Plan due 30 days after contract start to allow the contractor to get a solid understanding of the requirements of the systems and deliver a robust plan for FDSS III.

Government Response: The Government will revise Section J.1 to indicate that IT Security Management Plan is due 30 days after Contract Effective Date so that it is consistent with L.27, GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME, and the Government's requirement.

Q8. Enclosure BB, RTO 1 - RTO 1 Summary of Work indicates that “launch & early orbit operations, and routine mission operations” is a part of the RTO. However, the Task Description says that only Phase C of the mission is covered by the RTO, which implies pre-launch support. The Task Description also does not specify any post-launch activities. Please clarify the scope of RTO 1. Remove the wording “launch & early orbit operations, and routine mission operations” from the RTO 1 Summary of Work, which would make that subsection consistent with the rest of the RTO 1 description.

Government’s Response: The Government will remove the language “launch & early orbit operations, and routine mission operations” in the final RFP.

Q9. Enclosure BB, RTO 1 & RTO 2 - The security requirements for these task orders specify that they comply with the FDF IT Security Plan (systems in the FDF) and Code 590 Security Plan (systems outside of the FDF). These plans have not been made available to all interested parties. We suggest adding copies of these IT security plans to the FDSS III eLibrary for reference by all interested parties.

Government Response: The Government will remove language from RTO 1 & RTO 2 that identifies the requirement pertaining to the FDF IT Security Plan and Code 590 Security Plan. It is not a discriminator for the purposes of assessing an Offeror's response.

Q10. Enclosure BB, RTO 3 - There are multiple references to numbered sections of the SOW, yet no section numbers are provided (e.g., “…described in detail in Section V of the SOW below:”). Provide section numbers coinciding with the existing references.

Government Response: The Government will provide section numbers in roman numerals consistent with RTO 1 & 2.

Q11. Attachment A – SOW - The SOW includes two paragraphs labeled 1.1.6.3. Please confirm the second paragraph should be labeled 1.1.6.4. Change second SOW 1.1.6.3 paragraph to 1.1.6.4.

Government Response: The Government will change the paragraph number to 1.1.6.4.

Q12. Enclosure DD Contract Historical Data - The following labor categories are included twice in the Contract Historical Data with different labor rates: Junior Software Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Software Engineer, and Systems Engineer. Please clarify how Offerors should factor these different labor rates into their Cost proposals. Eliminate duplicate labor categories and provide a single labor rate per labor category.

Government Response: The Government will eliminate duplicate labor categories and provide a single, composite labor category and labor rate per category. The Government will release the revised Enclosure DD - Contract Historical Data, with the final RFP.

Q13. Attachment A – SOW - In order to develop a sound response to SOW 1.2.1 - Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) System Engineering, as well as to help prepare our Phase-in Plan, please provide the current versions of the following FDSS II Task Order 5 Modification 3 deliverables in the Technical eLibrary:

Preliminary Operations Concepts, Operations Concept memorandum, Five-Year Strategic Plan and Long-term Forecasting Report (including Upcoming Mission Forecast and Upcoming Capability Forecast).

Provide requested documents to ensure all Offerors have access to the same reference material.

Government Response: The Government will not be releasing these documents. They contain propriety information of the Incumbent Contractor's strategy to satisfy requirement criteria and each Offeror can utilize its expertise to develop a sound response to the SOW criteria in 1.2.1 - Flight Dynamics Facility

(FDF).

Q14. Cover Letter - Will the Government be hosting an Industry Day or a site visit for this procurement?

Government Response: No. The Government will not be hosting an Industry Day or site visit for this procurement.

Q15. Cover Letter, Page 2 - Please provide a date and time for final questions to be submitted.

Government Response: Date and Time, September 17, 4:30PM ET, was listed in DRFP posting notice on FBO.gov.

Q16. I.132, Page 46 - Within 5 calendar days after receipt of the Contracting Officer's request, the Contractor shall submit a task plan conforming to the request. On similar GSFC contracts the Task Order response time has been 14 calendar days. We respectfully request that the Government increases the current 5-day requirement to 14 calendar days to respond with a task plan. This will help the offerors better coordinate with their teammates in order to provide the Government the best possible response.

Government Response: The Government will revise the 5-day requirement to 14 calendar days in the final RFP.

Q17. L.30 b. (6), Page 89 - All Prime Offerors shall complete Exhibit 3, Government Pricing Model by Elements of Cost. DRFP Exhibit 3 heading has a check box for Significant Subcontractors. Should Significant Subcontractors complete Exhibit 3?

Government Response: No. Only the Prime shall submit Exhibit 3 of the GPM. The Government will remove the checkbox for Significant Subcontractors on Exhibit 3.

Q18. Enclosure BB RTO#1 - This task is designed to provide Flight Dynamics support to the New Lunar Mission (NLM) program. The work described herein will cover both pre-launch analysis, ground system development, launch & early orbit operations, and routine mission operations for NLM. Please confirm that RTO 1 is referring to a Class C mission.

Government Response: The Government shall clarify in RTO 1 that it is a Class C mission.

Q19. L.29 c, Page 77 - A.3 – Representative Task Plans

Proposed Vendor Recommendation: Instructions for the RTO responses in A.3 refer to the Task Ordering Procedure Clause in Section I of the solicitation for the Task Plan contents instructions. However, the Task Ordering Procedures on page 36 of the DRFP (clause 1.132 1852.216-80) do not seem to contain any specifics of what the contents of the Task Plan should be. Could the Government please clarify and provide the list of specific contents they are expecting to be submitted in the Task Plans?

Government Response: The list of contents the Government expects to be submitted is listed in L.29 GSFC 52.215-210, Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions (Competitive), (c), A.3. The Government will remove the following language from A.3 "In accordance with the Task Ordering Procedure clause in Section I of this solicitation."

Q20. L.24 (g) (2), Pages 65-66 - OCI Plan

Proposed Vendor Recommendation: The DRFP is requiring the offerors to submit an OCI Plan with our proposals, however, it is not specified which Volume it should be included in. Please confirm that the OCI Plan is part of the Offer Volume?

Government Response: L.24, Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, (g) - The Offeror’s OCI Submission will be considered part of the Offer Volume. L.26, GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation

- General Instructions (a)(1), specifies the Offer Volume.

Q21. L.29, Page 77 - In accordance with the Task Order Procedure clause in Section I of this solicitation, each task plan shall identify the technical approach, labor categories, projected hours, etc. Do we need to provide GPM labor categories or contractor/subcontractor bid labor categories?

Government Response: The proposed RTO response shall include the labor categories, consistent with the Government Pricing Model (GPM) labor categories in the cost proposal volume.

Q22. L.31 (a), Page 93 - “Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $2.5M that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date.”

If the Offeror has a current (ongoing) contract with a period of performance of 20 years and has completed 16 years of this contract, would the Government allow us to use the average annual cost/fee over the past 5 years for the size relevancy comparison (to better align with the RFP requirement of contracts within the last 5 years of the RFP release date)?

Government Response: The RFP identifies the minimum information required, which includes the average annual/cost fee incurred through the entire period of performance to date. However, this does not limit the Offeror from providing additional information that may demonstrate more recent relevance in a specific situation, including the average annual cost/fee over the past 5 years on a lengthy contract, as described in the question.

Q23. L.24 (g)(2), Page 63-66 - Conflict between L24 instructions and Attachment H template. Please clarify: Are we to follow RFP instructions (L24) for the OCI plan or complete instructions in Attachment H?

Government Response: The Government will remove Attachment H - OCI Avoidance Plan Outline.

Offerors are instructed to follow instructions provided in L.24, Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

Q24. Attachment H, Section V.B - Calls for list of ‘cleared authorized employees’ who have access to sensitive information. Are you expecting a list of cleared authorized employees to be submitted with the proposal? Does this list require employees with a clearance as tracked by a DD254 or any employee who might have access to sensitive data as defined at NFS 1852.237-72?

Government’s Response: Please see Government response to Question #23.

Q25. When does the Government anticipate release of the final RFP?

Government Response: The Government anticipates the release of the Final RFP on or about November 14, 2018.