Final MIST II Questions Rev.2.pdf

Questions and Answers (3rd Batch) for DRFP MIST II, 80GSFC20R0006 Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submitted.

64. DRFP Will Contractor PMO located at the offsite facility be issued government computers?

No

65. Encl. BB, Combined RTOs FINAL

RTO 4, Subtask (c), the narrative paragraph for the Development of Mass Simulators references a requirement for a mass simulator for the Moog COMET Commercial ESPA, but the Statement of Work for Subtask (c) only refers to mass simulators for the GROX instruments. Does the Moog COMET require a Mass Simulator for the purposes of this Subtask?

No, the RTO does not require a mass simulator for the ESPA. The narrative paragraph was corrected in the Final

RFP.

66. B.1

1852.216-74 Estimate Cost and Fixed Fee

Will the Offeror be required to complete and submit B.1 with their proposal?

B.1 fill-in will remain as is. The offeror does not need to insert a dollar value.

67. I.42

After this FAR clause is identified, the text "Insert $0" appears. Is it NASA’s intent that “zero” dollars be specified in the blank in this FAR clause: “(a) The use of overtime is authorized under this contract if the overtime premium cost does not exceed *______ or the overtime premium is paid for work - ” etc.

Yes, it is NASA’s intent that “zero” dollars be specified in the blank.

68. DRFP

Section L.23(g)(2):

pg.100

Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest

(2) OCI Plan. Subsection D is missing.

Please verify if there is an additional requirement

Yes, this was a typo and was corrected in the Final RFP

69. MIST II DRFP

Section L.26(c)(8)

A Secret level facility security clearance is required at the time of proposal submittal

Respectfully request this requirement be changed to require a Secret level facility security

The secret clearance will remain due at the time of proposal submittal. For Joint Ventures without a facility clearance granted in the name of the JV, each of the JV members must possess a Secret level facility clearance by due date for receipt of proposals.

clearance within 90 days after proposal submittal

70. Section L.30 GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume (Services) (MAY 2018)

The DRFP says “a proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $10M.” Does “estimated” mean as proposed GPM value?

Yes, estimated values for significant subcontractors in the Past Performance Volume should be consistent with the estimated value for these subcontractors in the GPM cost proposal, assuming the subcontractor meet the RFP’s significant subcontractor definition for both the cost and past performance volumes.

71. Section L.30 GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume (Services) (MAY 2018)

The DRFP states “for the purpose of the Past Performance Volume, a proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $10M.”

If a subcontractor meets the Past Performance significant threshold, is the offeror required to reflect the subcontractor’s participation equivalent to this level of effort within the GPM to ensure price reasonableness (i.e. the price proposed in the GPM is reflective of the proposed past performance)?

Example: A significant subcontractor is estimated by the offeror to receive a $50m/5year subcontract award ($10m annual) upon contract award and therefore may submit relevant past performance. In the Cost Volume that same subcontractor is priced at $3M which would cause an unreasonably low price in the GPM relative to the benefit of past performance.

Estimated values for individual subcontracts and significant subcontracts should be consistent throughout the proposal.

72. M.3(c)

States: “The weights (points) associated with each Mission Suitability subfactor are as follows:

Subfactor A – Representative Task Orders – 600 points”

Are the four RTOs weighted equally in the evaluation of Subfactor A.1? If not, what is the distribution of points among the four RTOs?

There is no further distribution of Mission Suitability points below the subfactor level. The RTOs are not individually weighted. Any findings (e.g Strengths and Weaknesses) associated with any RTOs will be included in the subfactor adjective rating and scoring process.

73. M.3(c)

States: “The weights (points) associated with each Mission Suitability subfactor are as follows:

Subfactor A – Representative Task Orders – 600 points”

Of the 600 points associated with Subfactor A, what is the distribution of points between Subfactor A.1 – Representative Task Orders and Subfactor A.2 – Innovative Methods and Technologies?

There is no further distribution of Mission Suitability points below the subfactor level.

74. Enclosure BB

RTO #1

RTO 1 states “The Contractor team shall support the GSFC civil servants in the design, fabrication, and verification of TeDD.” This implies that the Offeror is to include support for design, fabrication, and verification of TeDD in its RTO 1 Task Plan. Yet there are no SOW statements or deliverables for the scope of this support activity.

Would the government please clarify if the Offeror’s RTO 1 Task Plan should include support for design, fabrication, and verification of TeDD or the Task Plan should only address Subtask (a)?

The Offeror should only address the requirements of Subtask (a).

75. Enclosure BB Combined RTOs FINAL

The COMET has its own avionics, power, propulsion, and communications systems that are configurable for the multi-year GROX mission.

The Final RFP was updated to provide the mission life.

Intro

Will the Government consider providing the mission life?

76. Enclosure BB

RTO 2

Page 6 and 7

RTO 2 states “A Ground Support Equipment (GSE) cryogenic dewar with a cooled target for optical testing is required for the instrument.” and Subtask (a) requires support of the design of the required cryogenic GSE dewar. The microcalorimeter is an x-ray instrument and the RTO does not describe any optical components or measurements for XMS.

Would the government please define the function of an optical target for testing the X-ray instrument? How are optical and x-ray consistent in the RTO?

The Final RFP was updated to clarify the function of an optical target for testing the X-Ray instrument.

77. Enclosure BB Combined RTOs FINAL

RTO 3

SOW subtask (b) #1

The Contractor shall support required OSM peer reviews, 3-D Push broom Scanner (3DPS) Instrument Optical System and mission-level PDR, CDR, PER, and PSR, as well as other reviews that occur during the task period of performance.

Both the 3DPS PSR (Instrument Optical System) and the GROX MPER are planned to occur during month 30 prior to EOT. However, the mission-level PSR is not provided on the schedule and is assumed to be held outside the RTO PoP.

Question: Will the Government consider removing the PSR from the mission-level reviews since they are outside the task PoP?

The Final RFP RTO schedule was revised to clearly reflect that the mission PSR is outside the POP.

78. Enclosure BB

RTO 4 subtask (a) is GROX level and does not include instrument level activity. The mission-level PSR is assumed to be held outside the PoP.

The Final RFP RTO schedule and description was revised to show that the mission PER and PSR extend beyond the 30-month POP for the instruments.

RTO 4

SOW subtask (a) Table Deliverable #1 and #4

Question: Will the Government consider removing the PSR from the mission-level reviews since it is outside the task PoP?

79. Enclosure BB

RTO 4

Subtask (c)

Mass simulators for the Moog COMET Commercial ESPA, the TeDD, the XMS, and the 3DPS shall be required. Subtask (c) para describes "any assembly of the instrument mass simulators shall be done by the contractor using GSFC facilities" but does not address the commercial

ESPA.

Question: Will the Government clarify if a mass simulator is required for the Moog COMET Commercial ESPA?

A Mass Simulator of the ESPA is not required.

80. Enclosure BB Combined RTOs FINAL

RTO 4

SOW subtask (e)

"9. The Contractor shall support required engineering peer reviews and mission-level PDR, CDR, PER, and PSR, as well as other reviews that occur during the task period of performance. The mission-level PSR is assumed to be held outside the PoP."

Question: Will the Government consider removing the PSR from the mission-level reviews?

The Final RFP RTO schedule and description was revised to show that the mission PER and PSR extend beyond the 30-month POP for the instruments.

81. Enclosure BB: pg. 10 RTO 3: 3D Pushbroom Scanner (3DPS) Instrument

RTO 3 is for the 3D Pushbroom Scanner (3DPS) Instrument. The discussion of the project revovles around the development of the 3DPS optical system. However, Subtask (a) is the Design, Fabrication, and Verification of the XMS Optical System. The XMS Optical System is the

Yes, RTO 2 Subtask should refer to 3DPS. The use of XMS was a typographical error. The Final RFP was updated to correct this error.

subject of RTO 2. The reference to XMS in RTO 3 seems to be a typographical error.

Should RTO 2 Subtask (a) refer to the Design, Fabrication, And Verification of the 3DPS Optical System vs. the XMS Optical System?

82. Enclosure BB

RTO 3

The first paragraph on p10 states: “Once a target is scanned in the nadir-forward position, the scanner can be articulated to re-scan the target at a new off-nadir angle, at nadir, and/or trailing-nadir viewing angles.” There are 4 viewing angles (nadir-forward, new off-nadir angle, nadir, trailing nadir) described in this statement and conflicts with several other RTO 3 statements describing three scan angles (see pp 11 and 12)

Would the government please deconflict the RTO 3 scan angle statements and clarify how many scan angles are required in the 3PBS

OSM?

The Final RFP updated the description in the 2nd bullet of subtask (b) for clarification. The scanner can provide both 3D and pushbroom scanning, depending on the target and the desired science.

83. Enclosure CC Enclosure CC “Government Pricing Model (GPM)

– Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories and Direct Labor Hours by Site Location; Onsite GPM – Specified Non- Management” has repeated the Thermal Eng Jr, Thermal Eng Sr and Thermal Eng SME labor category and hours. The repeat language is located at the bottom of the second page. We recommend the removal of the repeated language.

Enclosure CC was updated to remove the repeated language in the Final RFP.

84. Enclosure CC Within enclosure CC Government Pricing Model (GPM) – Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories and Direct Labor Hours by Site

The Final RFP was updated to reflect that the Senior Contamination Engineer must have 10 years of experience.

Location; GPM-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Position Description:

• The Senior Containment Engineer requires 3 years of experience which is the same number of years required for the Containment Engineer. All other Senior labor categories requires 10 years of experience. Should it be updated to 10 years of experience?

85. Enclosure CC Within Enclosure CC Government Pricing Model (GPM) – Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories and Direct Labor Hours by Site Location; GPM-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Position Description:

The Project Staff Engineer Sr requires 15 years of experience. All other similar labor categories at the Sr level require 10 years. Should the Project Staff Engineer require 10 years of experience to be consistent with other similar categories?

The Final RFP was updated to reflect that the Project Staff Engineer Sr. must have 10 years of experience.

86. Enclosure DD The average incumbent rates for several of the labor categories appear to be well above market and our experience in the area. In particular, the average incumbent rate in Enclosure DD for the Senior Project Staff Engineer is $122.51 which equates to an average salary of almost $250,000.

Is it possible this average rate includes a blend of direct labor and loaded 1099 or loaded subcontractor rates? Please confirm that this rate, and all other rates provided in Enclosure DD, are based ONLY on non-loaded direct labor rates.

The rates in Enclosure DD are average weighted unburden rates.

87. Enclosure CC Within Enclosure CC Government Pricing Model (GPM) – Specified Non-Management Direct Labor

No, the Electrical Engineer Category or the Mechanical Systems Engineer Jr. Category should not be included.

Categories and Direct Labor Hours by Site Location; GPM-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Position Description, most labor category families have a SME, Sr. “basic”, and Jr category. However:

• There is no Electrical Engineer category.

Should this category be included?

• There is no Mechanical Systems Engineer Jr category. Should this category be included?

88. Enclosure CC GPM Specified Non- Management Direct Labor Categories and Direct Labor Hours By Site Location

To enable offeror’s the ability to hire college interns, would the government consider reducing the years of experience for the Engineering Analysis Technician to “0” or adding a new labor category for an Intern?

This benefits both the offeror and government for developing the next generation of engineers.

The Government will not reduce the number of years to “0” for this labor category because interns are not permanent employees. A contractor can hire in an intern on a short-term basis if a specific task allows for it.

89. Enclosure CC Enclosure DD

Hours and Rate Provided

Many hours listed for labor categories in Enclosure CC do not have rates included in Enclosure DD. Also many direct labor rates provided in Enclosure DD do not have hours listed for the same labor category in Enclosure

CC.

Does the Government intend to provide historical direct labor rates for all labor categories with hours listed in Enclosure CC?

Enclosure CC reflects the Planned Labor Categories for MIST II. A number of Labor Categories have been removed and new Labor categories have been added which are not on the existing contract.

Average weighted unburden rates are unavailable for all existing labor categories.

90. Enclosure DD The Labor Category names in Enclosure DD do not map directly to Labor Category names in Enclosure CC. Without a mapping between the two enclosures, the only offeror with the

Enclosure CC reflects the planned labor category thus a mapping will not be provided. The Final RFP updated Enclosure CC and Enclosure DD to be more consistent.

capability to use the incumbent average rates is the incumbent.

Please provide a mapping between the two enclosures so that non-incumbent offerors can use average incumbent rate information provided in Enclosure DD.

91. Enclosure DD Contract Historical Data Direct Labor Incumbent Rates:

pg.2

The (mid-level, 5 YOE) Mechanical Designer labor category weighted average unburdened hourly rate is lower than the (1 YOE) Junior Mechanical Design Designer labor category weighted average unburdened hourly rate.

Will the Government please confirm the mid-level Mechanical Designer labor rate should be less than the Junior Mechanical Design labor rate?

Rates shown are correct. This is due to a variety of years of experience and/or education in each of the labor categories.

92. Exhibit 1A Manufacturing Site

Exhibit 1A includes a section for Manufacturing (MFG) site labor categories and hours. There are no hours presented in Enclosure CC that are deemed to be for a Manufacturing Site.

Could the Government explain the intent of this section?

Exhibit 1A was updated in the final RFP to remove Manufacturing site reference.

93. L.29(b)(3)

States: "There must be a composite rate totaling 100% for each and every GPM-Specified Non- Management Direct Labor Category in Exhibit 1A.

In addition, the GPM estimated non-management direct labor provided for each labor category in Exhibit 1A (populated from Enclosure CC) shall not be changed."

Yes, this sentence relates to direct labor hours, which cannot be changed from the information provided in the exhibit. This language was updated in the Final RFP.

As Exhibit 1A includes only loaded rates, please clarify that the "direct labor provided" should read "direct labor hours provided.”

94. EXHIBIT 12 – PPQ

The “SOW Survey Relevance Rating” table in Sec.

4 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

The PPQ requests a relevance rating for SOW Element “Project Management” but there is no such element in the Draft SOW.

Will the government please remove this element from the PPQ?

The Final RFP was updated to remove the Project Management element from the PPQ.

95. General Question Will the government please provide a list of task orders issued under the current MIST contract?

A random sampling of Task Orders are currently available on the E-Library.

96. General Question Will the government please provide the overall and task order funding levels under the current MIST contract?

No, the Government will not provide the overall task order funding levels under the current MIST contract.

97. L.23(g)(1) GSFC 52.209-301 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (Mar 2019)

The Offeror is required to identify and submit any organizational interests (financial, contractual or other) that would be affected by performance of the Statement of Work requirements, whether by it or its proposed subcontractors. This includes recently performed (within 2 years prior to the proposal due date), currently performed, or planned work (including future competitive proposals), whether as a prime contract holder or subcontractor

Would the government consider allowing subcontractors to submit information pertaining to “planned work (including future competitive proposals)” directly to the government since this

No. In the context of OCI, the prime needs to understand the conflict in order to prepare a plan that will mitigate the conflict. Please note that Question 9, response Item 3 states that subcontractors may submit its listings directly to the Government. This is incorrect per the above, subcontractors are to submit its listings of completed and planned work to the prime.

type of information is considered competition sensitive and typically not shared between contractors who may be competitors for the future work?

98. DRFP What are the Government physical and IT security requirements for the offsite facility?

The Government’s physical and IT security requirements for offsite facilities may be found in Attachment L of the RFP and in the public domain related to applicable laws and regulations.

99. Enclosure BB, RTO 1, SOW Item #5

States “The Contractor shall support the development of contamination control procedures to ensure that the radiative heat rejection properties of the DEMP are not compromised.”

Actual implementation of contamination control is not mentioned.

Is implementation of contamination control excluded from this RTO?

Yes, implementation of the contamination control is not included in this RTO. The RTO SOW #5 only requires the development of contamination control procedures.

100. Enclosure BB, RTO 3, Subtask (a)

The title of RTO 3 is 3DPS Instrument. Subtask A is titled “Design, Fabrication, And Verification of the XMS Optical System”.

Is XMS correct, or should it be 3DPS?

This was corrected to 3DPS in the final RFP.

101. Enclosure BB, RTO 3, Subtask (a), SOW item #4

The implementation of contamination control is not tasked.

Does this imply no labor estimates for actual contamination control activity, just the collection of the results and report in milestone reviews?

Labor estimates for contamination control are not required. Offerors should respond only to requirements and deliverables as defined in the RTO text.

102. Enclosure BB, RTO 4, Subtask (d)

It is not clear if the shipping container for the GROX observatory is part of this subtask. Please Clarify.

Shipping is not required in the RTOs.

103. Enclosure BB – RTOs, 4th paragraph

The enclosure states that a block diagram is provided for the Moog COMET system. We can’t locate it. Please provide as soon as possible.

The block diagram is appended to the end of the RTOs.

104. eLibrary 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.

Thank you for your initial response. However;

this information is important for our abilities to properly write the Basis of Estimate required in the Cost Volume and provides incumbent a competitive advantage if not a full year representative set of active TOs is available.

A full list necessary to properly size PMO, provide analysis and scope of contract transition all effecting cost and approach.

The current MIST contract task orders are not completely representative of the new MIST contract, since some of the tasks that are currently being performed will not be required on the new contract. Offerors should be able to reasonably estimate PMO costs based on the labor categories and hours that are specified in the Government Pricing Model (GPM) in the cost instructions of the RFP. The GPM represents the anticipated work required for the MIST II contract. Additionally, for information purposes, NASA estimates approximately 100 task orders to be issued at the start of the MIST II contract.

105. 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 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

The SEB may consider the aggregate SOW relevance on past contracts when determining the overall Past Performance relevance and Level of Confidence Rating.

perform in each SOW area without penalizing non-incumbents wherein it is not possible for a non-incumbent to have the exact combination of SOW capability in any one program.

106. GDMS Link is not working for access to GDMS. Need to fix the link or post in the eLibrary. Contractors without this documentation as significant disadvantage developing Draft RTO responses without being able to assess center unique requirements.

Provided link is behind firewall (NASA network) so many still cannot see these documents and they certainly will influence RTO development and many other areas of our proposal response so need time to review as several other companies have advantage of many weeks to analyze.

Per Clause H.12 GSFC 52.211-95 (b) Government Premises- Physical Access and compliance Procedures, of the Final RFP, “Copies of the current issuances of the GPD/GPRs may be obtained at http://gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov from a computer onsite (GSFC Government Facility) or from the Contracting Officer.”

Generally speaking, the GDMS documents are applicable to the awardee during contract performance, and should not be needed for proposal development. However, as indicted in Clause H.12 (GSFC 52.211-95), Offerors may request specific GPD/GPR documents from the CO, which will then be added to the procurement library.

107. Bonded Storage Only incumbent could size given that no estimate information has been provided on amount of hardware to be stored.

Is pre-SOW information correct? Was not in

DRFP?

The Bonded storage area should be 400 sq. ft. in area. This area should include an area of 200 sq. ft. that is RH/Temperature controlled per the requirements in the SOW.

108. Hardware Storage Only incumbent would understand the amount and type(s) of hardware that is currently stored and will need to be transitioned or might be planned to be stored under MIST II.

We need information for facility sizing, as well as any environmental specs (cleanliness, etc.).

The Bonded storage area should be 400 sq. ft. in area. This area should include an area of 200 sq. ft. that is RH/Temperature controlled per the requirements in the SOW.

109. Subtask A of RTO4 Subtask A of RTO4 makes this statement in its

SOW item #2:

The terms static and dynamic envelopes are industry terms and should be interpreted in the standard industry meaning as used in this RTO. How to use the Finite http://gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

“All mission hardware interfaces shall be addressed, which include the mechanical interfaces and static and dynamic envelopes between the Comet OMV and the secondary payloads”

Q: What is meant by the term “static and dynamic envelopes” in this statement, which is within a subtask that develops the CAD models that are not capable of structural analysis?

Determining static and dynamic envelopes requires use of a Finite Element Model of the integrated GROX spacecraft, which is prepared and subjected to structural analysis

(determination of the effects of static and dynamic loads on parts, assemblies and mechanisms) in Subtask B in which the static and dynamic loads are applied to the FEM and the static and dynamics envelopes are determined.

Please Clarify. Thanks!

Element Model may be found in the public domain or in standard engineering handbooks. Offerors are expected to have the requisite knowledge to comply with this RTO requirement.