Final MIST II Questions Rev.1.pdf

Questions and Answers (2nd Batch) for DRFP MIST II, 80GSFC20R0006 Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submitted.

38.

DRFP How will connection to the NASA network be provided to the contractors’ s offsite facility

If contractors are required to access the NASA network offsite, requirements will be given to contractor personnel on how to accomplish this.

Requirements for offsite connection is determined based on requirements of task orders.

39.

DRFP Will the personnel listed in Enclosure CC identified by various Labor Categories be issued government computers?

The need for government computers are determined by task order requirements.

40.

DRFP Will Government IT personnel be providing technical oversight, support, and maintenance for the Government issued computers, workstations, and NASA network access located at the Contractor’s offsite facility?

NASA has a contract in place to supply and maintain its government computers. This vendor will maintain any government computers issued.

41.

DRFP

Section G.9: pg. 32

Describe or identify what “Procedural Requirements” are in the sentence “NASA Procedural Requirements related to property loans shall not apply to offsite use of the property by contractors.”

The procedural document listed in G.9 is the NASA Equipment NPR 4200.1H loan regulations which states the NPR regulations will not be applicable because the GP will gfe’d to the contract, instead of being loaned to the contractor.

42.

Draft SOW Section IV.A

Applicable Documents and Specifications

Yes, NASA will provide Offeror’s access to the e-library. The Applicable

SOW Section IV.A lists numerous documents that are needed for development of RTO solutions. A Bidder's Library with cited reference documents is essential.

Will the Government provide offerors access to a Bidder's Library?

Documents and Specifications will be posted to the e-library.

43.

Enclosure BB

RTO 1

Section L.28 (c) Subfactor A – Representative Task Orders (RTOs) states: “A.1 – The Offeror shall provide written task plans addressing each representative task included in Exhibit A. In accordance with the Task Ordering Procedure clause in Section H of this solicitation, each task plan shall identify the technical approach, labor categories, projected hours, Government interface, and the flow of activities from start to completion (including time line).” This implies 4 written task plans are to be submitted by the offeror.

In Enclosure BB, Representative Task Orders (RTO), the statements of work (SOW) and deliverables are cited within subtasks rather than at the RTO level (in fact, RTO 1 is the only RTO with a “Contractor shall…” statement that exists outside of a subtask—and it has no deliverables). An interpretation is that task plans (complete with all required L.28 task plan content) are requested for each subtask rather than at an aggregate RTO level. This would mean the Offeror would provide 10 task plans. An alternative interpretation is that only one task plan (complete with all required L.28 task plan content) is required for each RTO, and the Offeror is expected to provide 4 task plans per L.28 requirements. If 4 task plans are requested, then the RTO flow of activities and timeline will be discontinuous since the scope of the subtasks is only a segment of the overall RTO scope.

The RFP requires one task plan for each RTO, addressing all SOW requirements associated with each RTO (including subtask requirements).

Would the government please clarify how many task plans it requires the Offeror to submit? If 10 Task Plans are requested (i.e. by subtask), then would the Government amend L.28 to state written task plans should address each representative subtask?

44.

Attachment K Government Furnished Property

Attachment K Government Furnished Property reflects GFE for on-site. Will there be a listing of GFE that will be issued for off-site?

Offsite GFE will be specified in individual task orders.

45.

Enclosure BB – RTOs, 1st Paragraph

The enclosure states a block diagram and tentative schedule is supplied. We don’t see it. Please provide it as soon as possible.

The block diagram and schedule were included at the end of the RTOs. The final RFP will be updated to remove the word “attachment” in the RTO intro.

46.

e-Library The eLibrary contains task orders. Are these current on the program today? Does the list encompass all active Task Orders or a subset of all active Task Orders? We recommend a full set of active TOs for the current contract year.

This information is important for the Basis of Estimate required in the Cost Volume.

The tasks in the eLibrary represent a subset of all the tasks. There are over 260 active tasks in Task Ordering Management System (TOMS).

Some of them will not carry over to new contract.

47.

e-library The eLibrary contains a Statement of Work which is different from the version provided with the Draft RFP.

Which SOW are we to work with now, and will be in the Final RFP?

The SOW included in the e-library represents the current work being performed under the current MIST contract. The e-library SOW is for informational purposes only.

Offerors are to respond using the SOW attached to the MIST

II RFP.

48.

GDMS Link is not working for access to GDMS.

Need to fix the link or post in the eLibrary

The GDMS link:

http://gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov in Clause H.13 GSFC 52.211- 95(b)(3) is operational.

http://gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

49.

Subfactor B Subfactor B requires position description. GPM lists 40‐50 of them. A typical position description is a quarter page so would take 10 plus pages of the proposal. We would request position descriptions fall outside of page count.

L.25(b) allows for 1 page per position description (under cost volume)

50.

DRFP

Section L. 28(c)B.12

Management Approach

"Section L.28(c)B.12 instructs that “The Offeror’s plan shall address its approach to handling the hazardous materials identified in Section I, “Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data” (FAR 52.223-3--Alternate I), if applicable.” The statement ""The Offeror's plan"" is a vague reference."

Please clarify:

a) Which of the four Mission Suitability plans; Total Compensation, Phase-in, Safety and Health, Quality Assurance; identified in the table in Section L.25(b)(1) is being referenced by this instruction or is this a separate, stand-alone plan within the Management Approach?

b) If this plan is a separate plan and not incorporated within the above listed four Mission Suitability plans, we request that it be excluded from the Mission Suitability page count.

The handling of Hazardous Material should be included in the Safety and Health Plan.

51.

G.9(c)

Items 4, 5, 6, and 11 on the list contained in G.9(c) are not checked. The items seem critical to be able to operate at a Government facility.

Because these items are unchecked, does the Government expect offerors to submit costs for these items in their proposals? If so, offerors will need more information about the facilities to be utilized in the performance of MIST II.

The Final RFP will update Clause G.9 to add the property and services that will be provided.

52.

L.28 Subfactor A, A.2 Innovations

Wherein a proposed innovation have quantified efficiencies, will the government consider the efficiency in the evaluation of most probable cost?

No, quantified efficiencies are not considered in the most probable cost. Any potential benefits associated with innovations will be considered in the Mission Suitability Evaluation. The Cost Evaluation has a Government Pricing Model (GMP) which does not allow for quantified cost innovations related to the technical approach. In the GPM, non-management staffing and hours are fixed in the RFP for all Offerors.

53.

L.28 B.11 Safety & Health Plan

We recommend shifting the Safety & Health Plan to the Phase‐In period (as opposed to submission with the proposal).

The S&H plan has not historically been a determinant of the successful bidder.

Shifting it to Phase‐In reducing the burden on the bidder and the government evaluators.

No change. The Safety and Health plan is part of the evaluation criteria and is required with proposal submittal.

54.

Comment from Contractor MIST II is a very large contract which requires financial strength and stability over the life of the program. We suggest a requirement that the bidder provide information on its contract backlog and related revenue forecast over the period of performance in order for the government to understand the size and risk of its financial capability to execute a program of this magnitude, with rate stability over the life of the MIST II program.

Provision L.26 (Offeror Volume) requires Offerors to provide responsibility information addressing all of the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility.

No changes will be made.

55.

M.5 Past Performance Evaluation

Many NASA contracts are often unique combinations of technical requirements. MIST II is one such contract.

Therefore non‐incumbents often lack any one single contract that addresses all technical requirements, and

The RFP and standard Goddard Space Flight Center procurement processes for evaluating past performance particular at the same size and complexity of the acquisition at hand. We therefore request that an aggregate rating of past performance be applied wherein the confidence level rating of a bidder be determined not by the sum of individual ratings of each citation against the full MIST II SOW, but by assessing the aggregate of all citations for relevancy across the full MIST II SOW. This is a more accurate evaluation of a bidder’s ability to perform in each SOW area without penalizing non‐incumbents wherein it is not possible for a nonincumbent to have the exact combination of SOW capability in any one program. NASA Langley utilizes a past performance evaluation technique that takes this into account due to the unique combination of technical requirements within its acquisitions. “If the contract is deemed recent and meets the above minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance ‐ i.e., level of pertinence ‐ of the contract based on size and content. Content is more important than size in the evaluation of relevance. The term “content” means the type and complexity of services, work, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government may consider past quantities and periods of performance in evaluating overall relevance.”

already allows the SEB to consider aggregate SOW areas, when deemed appropriate, for evaluating past performance for specific requirements.

56.

M.5 Past Performance Evaluation

The DRFP specifies FAR Part 15.305 as the method for evaluation of past performance. The FAR specifies currency as an evaluation factor. Will the government consider currency as an evaluation factor, with more current citations weighted more heavily?

The RFP requires references to be current and defines that as “within the last 5 years of the RFP release date.” For those contracts that meet this currency requirement, the Source Evaluation Board may further weight currency.

57.

Past Performance Draft RFP allows for similarly situated firms to do work that counts as prime content. Therefore, will the Government The DRFP language related to similarly situated firms is evaluate similarly situated contracts as prime contracts in past performance evaluation.

included in Clause I.130, 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting) and its applicability is limited to this clause. Similarly situated firms that are proposed as subcontractors for the MIST proposal will not be evaluated as part of the prime contractor assessment for the past performance evaluation. If a similarly situated firm (subcontractor) meets the Significant Subcontractor definition in Past Performance (see provision L.30, Past Performance Volume), then their past contracts will be considered in the Significant Subcontractor evaluation for Past Performance.

58.

OCI Mitigation Strategies

We want to confirm that we will receive feedback to our OCI mitigation strategies prior to issuance of the Final Request for Proposal.

Yes, feedback will be provided prior to the issuance of the Final RFP.

59.

L.25

Mission Suitability Volume, Page Limitations

Given the number and complexity of RTOs requiring a response, will the government please increase the number of allocated pages for the Mission Suitability volume to 110?

The Final RFP will be updated to reflect an increase of 5 pages from 95 to 100 pages.

60.

DRFP

Section L.25 (b) Section J.1

Proposal Content and Page Limitations / Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)

The Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) is included in the List of Attachments Table within Section J.1 as “To Be Proposed”.

It was the Government’s intent for the QAP to be submitted with proposals. Section L and M will be updated in the Final

RFP.

As instructions are not provided in Section L for this submission, was it the government’s intent for offeror’s to submit the QAP thirty (30) days after contract award, consistent with some recent RFP’s released by GSFC?

Can the government please confirm whether the Attachments, J.1, List of Attachments Table, will be updated to reflect QAP submission of thirty (30) days after contract award?

61.

Enclosure BB The GROX orbit specifications provided in Enclosure BB are incomplete.

Would the Government please specify the Local Time of the Ascending Node (LTAN) for the GROX orbit?

Enclosure BB will be updated in the Final RFP.

62.

Enclosure BB Combined RTOs FINAL

Page: 3

RTO 1

The RTO specifies that the tether "deployment shall be initiated by a spring-loaded device." However, it does not specify if the tether will be or have the capability to be retracted.

Will the tether be retracted/retractable?

No, the tether will not be retracted. This has been clarified in the RTO. The final RFP will update RTO 1.

63.

L.26 Item 5 8(a) Joint Ventures

Offer Volume – L.26(c)(5) requires 8a JVs to have SBA approval. It is our understanding that Mentor Protégé JVs also require SBA approval. Will the government expand the SBA approval requirement to include all small MPA JVs?

SBA shall approve an 8(a) Joint Venture prior to award of an 8(a) contract. The rules governing the SBA Mentor Protégé (MP) program are found at 13 CFR 124.520, which states (…in part) the MP Agreement must be approved by the SBA. Per www.sba.gov/allsmallmpp , vendors must be approved by SBA to participate in the All Small program, which includes http://www.sba.gov/allsmallmpp

SBA requirements related to the MP Agreement and joint venture agreement. The Government is in the process of obtaining a formal response from SBA as to approval required for All Small MP Agreements/Joint Ventures. As instructed in the RFP, you are to identify the district SBA office and SBA Point of Contact/Business Development Specialist (name, address, phone number, and email). This will aid the Government in contacting the SBA if deemed necessary.