MIST II FRFP QA.pdf

MIST II Final RFP Questions

RFP

Reference

Comment/ Question /Vendor Recommendation

Government Response

1.

L.23(a) Pg. 96

L.23(b) Pg. 97

L.25(b)(1) Pg.

L.26 Pg. 105

M.1(b)(1) Pg.

J.1 Pg 79

L.23(a) states “The OCI Submission, comprised of the Offeror’s OCI Assessment and its OCI Plan…” and “The OCI Plan is not page limited. The plan shall be included as part as the proposal Offer Volume, or as a separate attachment, consistent with the solicitation instructions.”

L.23(g) states “The Offeror’s OCI Submission, which will be considered part of the Offer Volume, shall contain ….(1) OCI Assessment….(2) OCI Plan.

The table in L.25(b)(1) and L.26 Offer Volume make no mention of an OCI Submission, OCI Assessment or OCI Plan.

M.1(b)(1) states “Acceptable OCI Avoidance Plan in accordance with Provision L.23 ….” J.1 refers to an OCI Avoidance Plan

(1) Suggest adding clarification in the table in L.25(b)(1) that the OCI Submission [OCI Assessment and OCI Plan] is to be included with the Offer Volume and is not page limited.

(2) Suggest revising L.26 to provide instructions on where the OCI Submission is to be included in the Offer Volume.

(3) Please confirm that the references to an OCI Avoidance Plan are the same as the OCI Plan referenced in L.23.

Provision L.25 does not identify the OCI Plan, since the Offeror volume is not page limited and the areas identified in the table are either page limited or exceptions to page limits. Provision L.26 does not identify the OCI Plan because the instructions are in a separate provision, but the plan should be included in the Offer Volume, per the instructions in provision L.23. The location within the Offer Volume is not specified, therefore the OCI Plan may be included anywhere within the Offer Volume.

Provision L.23 also clearly states that the OCI Plan is not page limited. Yes, the terms “OCI Avoidance Plan” and “OCI Plan” are used interchangeably. No changes are needed.

2. Draft RFP Cover Letter

The DRFP cover letter instructed offerors submit OCI mitigation strategies via email to the Contracting Officer by January 6, 2020. It then stated Feedback on the

Feedback to the OCI Mitigation Strategies were sent to all offerors on March 17, 2020.

Offerors’ draft mitigation strategies would be provided before the issuance of the Final Request for Proposal.

This Offeror submitted OCI Mitigation Strategies as requested but did not receive any feedback. Does the Contracting Officer plan to provide feedback?

3. L.25(a)(4) Pg.

L..25(b)(1) Pg. 102

L.25(a)(4) states that the "proposal shall include a matrix…..", but it is not clear if this is applicable to each volume or where the matrix is to be included in the proposal.

Please clarify where the matrix is to be included in the proposal and that the matrix is excluded from page count.

As indicated in the instructions, the matrix is intended to show “where in the proposal the technical requirements of the SOW and the evaluation criteria of this RFP are satisfied”. Therefore, this matrix applies to the Mission Suitability Volume, and as indicated, it is excluded from the page limits.

4. L.25(a)(4) Pg.

L.25(a)(4) states, “The proposal shall include a matrix showing where in the proposal the technical requirements of the SOW and the evaluation criteria of this RFP are satisfied…” There are no proposal instructions requiring offerors to address each task identified in the

SOW.

Please clarify the purpose of the matrix since offerors are not required to address individual SOW tasks in their proposals.

The matrix is intended to address the technical evaluation criteria that is identified in the Mission Suitability Volume, which may not be all SOW areas. Note, the matrix itself is not evaluated, it is simply a tool to demonstrate where technical evaluation areas are addressed in the proposal.

5. L.28(c)A.1 Pg.

References Task Ordering Procedure clause in Section I.140

The Task Ordering Procedure clause is now I.141. Please correct.

The reference to Task Ordering Procedure is corrected in amendment 001 to I.141.

6. L.29(a) Pg.

First paragraphs states that offerors “shall provide one separately packaged copy of their Cost Volume proposal marked ‘Enter RFP number/NASA Proposal Evaluation Material,’ which the Government may use for audit support purposes.”

(1) Please clarify how this packaging is to be made via a submission to the LFT.

(2) Should offerors upload a second copy of the Cost Volume to LFT for audit purposes only?

This will be deleted, since proposals will be provided via LFT. There is no requirement for a separately packaged copy.

7. L.26(a) Pg.

The RFP states, “All SF 33s require original signatures.” More than one signature may be required.

Please confirm that a scanned PDF of the SF-33 with signatures is acceptable.

Yes, a scanned PDF of the sf 33 signature is acceptable.

8. Enclosure BB RTO 4 Pg. 2, Enclosure BB suggests that the sample task period of performance (PoP) is 30-months (pg 2). RTO 4 provides a revised milestone schedule (e.g. MPER, MPSR) that extends beyond 30 months (pg 13).

Multiple subtask deliverables are scheduled for delivery at milestones that are outside the 30-month PoP. Some of these deliverables are highly dependent on test and integration data latency. We are unable to work on tasks outside the PoP

Should Offeror task plans (those with deliverables due outside the PoP) show delivery of these items at the end of the PoP (this could mean they are only drafts because they may be delivered up to 6-months early)?

The period of performance for RTO 4 has been extended beyond the 30 months of the instruments (as stated on Pg. 13) because it is GROX observatory mission level related. The additional milestone requirements are listed in RTO 4. The final deliverables and the end of task (EOT) are at the completion of the Mission pre-ship review (MPSR). All task plans for RTO 4 subtasks should include mission-level work as described in the subtask SOWs and deliverables up to MPSR.

9. eLibrary MIST II is an IDIQ TO contract with a broad SOW. There are a large number of tasks. Many tasks have multiple

Government response to Question 104 on MIST II

DRAFT Q&A:

subtasks. It is imperative that a bidder understand the volume, type, and distribution of work. For example, the RFP requires a BOE for Program & Administrative function. In order for a bidder to size the work and define a rationale program and administrative approach. The government has released approximately 15% of the active TOs. We have requested a full set of TOs, and we make that request again.

A full set of TOs was provided for MIST I, ESES III, ESES II, and others. This is needed for non-incumbents. We are not sure why the government is foregoing that approach for MIST II. This strengthens the incumbent advantage.

This is an incumbent advantage as this information is needed to properly size PMO and resultant costs and responsibilities as well as size transition team and requirements to assure a smooth transition. In addition we understand that there are many TOs with one single task, and others with dozens of subtasks. This difference and understanding needs for many areas and could also influence task order management.

“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.”

10. B.5 The RFP has two B.5 sections (numbering problem).

This is a typo which will be corrected at award.

11. L.25 (c)(5) 8a Joint Ventures

Mentor protégé joint ventures require SBA approval. Will the government require Mentor protégé joint ventures be certified at time of proposal submission, as they have done with the 8(a) joint ventures?

NOTE: THIS REFERENCE

IS L.26, NOT L.25. SBA

must approve the mentor-protégé agreement before the two firms may submit an offer as a joint venture on a particular government prime contract for the joint venture to receive the exclusion from affiliation; otherwise the Affiliation rules will apply to the resulting JV partnership. A joint venture of two or more business concerns may submit an offer as a small business for a Federal procurement so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract, or qualify as small under one of the exceptions to affiliation. The JV itself is not approved by the SBA and will be regulated by SBA the same as any other JV with the exception of citing the Mentor Protégé agreement as the basis for the JV. The Mentor Protégé agreement is regulated. Please refer to 13 CFR § 125.9 - What are the rules governing SBA's small business mentor-protégé program? and consult with your SBA Point of Contact/Business Development Specialist.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=28ecffbfcc51433405558dc74cf1be8f&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:13:Chapter:I:Part:125:125.9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=28ecffbfcc51433405558dc74cf1be8f&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:13:Chapter:I:Part:125:125.8

12. Exhibit 12 Past Performance Questionnaire

The Past Performance Questionnaire contains a SOW element relevancy table that contains only a subset of the SOW (for example it doesn’t include power systems engineering, I&T engineering, other function 4 items, …). Can the government explain why only those items are required for relevancy?

The Past Performance questionnaire contains SOW elements considered which most effectively represent overall requirements of the SOW.

13. Exhibit 12 Past Performance Questionnaire

The Past Performance Questionnaire requests the evaluators input on the contractor’s ability to meet small business subcontracting goals. MIST II does not require a small business subcontracting plan or requirements.

What is the purpose and use of this evaluation item?

This reference in questionnaire will be deleted, since it is not applicable to this procurement.

14. L.30 (a) Past Performance

The RFP requests a “List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default). Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers). Include contracts that were "descoped" by the customer because of performance or cost problems. (Excluded from the page limitation).” Does this apply to the cited contracts or all contracts held by the company? Will the government consider bounding the list to federal government prime contracts or some other form of relevancy to MIST II?

This requirement is limited to federal prime contracts.

15. L.30 (a) Past Performance

Customer evaluations of past performance are considered proprietary by many companies.

Would it be possible for companies on a team to submit customer evaluations (CPARS, award fee scores) separately as a sealed bid from subcontractors?

Yes, this is permissible.

If submitted separately, the submission shall clearly indicate that it is a subcontractor submission, it shall reference the name of the prime Offeror, and all submitted information between the prime Offeror and any Significant

Subcontractors shall be compliant will all RFP instructions and page limitations.

16. Section L.29(b)(7)

Section L.29(b)(7) indicates that the Basis of Estimates (BOEs) for any proposed Significant Subcontractor must be provided by that significant subcontractor in the format specified and within the page limitations.

Question 1: please confirm that significant subcontractor BOEs are only required for the Program Management and Administrative Support portion of the effort as the government has prescribed the hours for the Non- Management portion.

Question 2: can the significant subcontractor BOE be provided to the prime contractor for inclusion in the prime BOE submission to ensure compliance with the page limitation requirements? The significant subcontractor would then reference the prime contractor submission in its narrative.

Question 1: Correct

Question 2: Yes, the significant subcontractor Information can be provided in the prime offeror proposal, as long as the proposal clearly identifies the contents, all required information is provided, and the proposal is compliant with all applicable page limits.

17. Section M.4 Section M.4 indicates that “The total FFP Phase-In price and the proposed and probable Government Pricing Model evaluated cost (including proposed fee amount) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority as well as any cost risk associated with the proposal.”

Please clarify whether the Phase In costs will be evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Price.

Phase-in will be reviewed for reasonableness, but since it is fixed price, it will not be evaluated for cost realism. As indicated in provision M.4, it will be included in the total cost/price data that is presented to the Source Selection Authority.

18. L.20 Pg. 94 L.20 states “The offeror shall require all service subcontractors provide, as part of their proposal, the information

No, this requirement does not apply to Time identified in (a) through (c) of this provision for cost reimbursement or noncompetitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value of $2M for service contracts submitting certified cost or pricing data.”

It is clear this L.20 requirement applies to cost reimbursement and noncompetitive fixed-price type subcontracts. Does this requirement apply to Time and Materials subcontracts? [FAR Subpart 16.600 indicates Time-and-materials contracts and labor-hour contracts are not fixed-price contracts.] and Materials subcontracts.

19. Enclosure BB Pg. 4 RTO1 TeDD, SubTask a, Subparagraph

Per enclosure BB, “The Contractor shall support thermal vacuum testing, including developing the test plan. The test plan shall begin with component tests. The test plan shall include tests to simulate TeDD in the space environment, both before and after deployment. The Contractor shall write the post-test report.”

Is completion of individual TeDD component tests within the scope of

RTO1?

Yes, TeDD component testing is within the scope of RTO1. “The Contractor shall support thermal vacuum testing, including developing the test plan.”

20. Enclosure BB, RTO 1

RTO 1 Subtask (a), SOW 4 states “The Contractor shall support thermal vacuum testing, including developing the test plan. The test plan shall begin with component tests.”

Does this imply the developments of test plans or development of test plans and supporting the execution of testing?

The RTO states that both the development of the test plan and the test itself shall be supported.

21. Enclosure BB, RTO 2

RTO 2 Subtask (a), SOW 6 states “The Contractor shall prepare the plan and procedures for the supplier to characterize the cryocooler and cryostat in a thermal vacuum chamber. The Contractor shall support the cryocooler

No. Work will be performed on-site at GSFC under the supervision of a lead cryogenics engineer.

and cryostat supplier in performance of this test.”

Is mechanical testing support at the vendors also included?

22. Enclosure BB, RTO 4

RTO 4 States “No instrument-level work shall be performed on this task”

Does this mean no jitter analysis nor STOP analysis support is performed in this RTO?

Jitter and STOP analysis are not a part of the RTO. (The acronym “STOP” should not appear in the Acronym List.)

23. Enclosure BB, RTO 4

RTO 4, Subtask (c) SOW 4 states “The Contractor shall support assembly, disassembly, and transportation of the mass simulators if they are used to support qualification or acceptance testing of flight hardware. These tests may include but are not limited to sine vibration and/or acoustic testing.”

Is the contractor required to support the tests referred to in SOW 4 of Subtask C?

If so, are these instrument level or observatory level tests? Page 2 of the RTO enclosure states that “All observatory integration and testing is outside the scope of these RTOs and happen after MPER.” Please clarify?

No, support for the tests referred to in RTO 4 Subtask (c), SOW 4 is not part of the requirements. The mass simulators need only be available if they are needed for GROX mission-level testing.

24. Enclosure BB, RTO 2

RTO 2, Subtask (a), SOW 6, states “…The Contractor shall perform pre-test cryocooler and cryostat performance modeling, post-test modeling correlations, and generate a report on the at-vender test.”

Does the procured cryostat from the vendor include the ADR and the detector/front end assembly or are those developed in-house and assembled after the delivery from the vendor?

For RTO 2, “Work will be performed on-site at GSFC…” If an ADR is included in the response to Subtask (a) then it is appropriate to assume the ADR is the one described in RTO 2, “Subtask (b): Adiabatic Demagnetization Refrigerator (ADR) Support” and is being developed separately in-house. The work in RTO 2 Subtask (a) is separate from Subtask (b) and therefore does not include the ADR work.

25. Enclosure BB No Safety or Mission Assurance positions are defined.

Are there no requirements for support of Safety and Mission Assurance activities?

Safety and Mission Assurance are not required in the RTOs.

26. Enclosure BB, RTO 3

What is the size and articulation of the solar array? How does it affect instrument FOV and operations?

The solar array will be purchased directly from a vendor and is not a part of the RTOs. The size and specifications of the solar array are not relevant to the work required in the RTOs.

Assume it will not interfere with any functions of the instruments or the observatory and that it will adequately supply any GROX power needs.

27. Attachment L,

pg. 1

Cover page of the IT Security Management Plan states the plan “to be submitted 30 days after contract award.”

Please clarify when the IT Security Management Plan is required to be submitted?

Per the FRFP instructions, the IT Security Plan is due 30 days after Contract Effective date.

28.

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 Thermal Coatings Engineer is blank for years of experience when the rest of the similar Engineer categories require 3 years of experience. Should it be updated to 3 years for the proposal?

Yes, Enclosure CC was updated to add 3 years of experience to the Thermal Coatings Engineer labor category.

29. L.23(g)(1), first paragraph

Is requirement for identification of “recently performed work (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 a subcontractor” seeking identification only of those efforts that would be affected by performance of the MIST II Statement of Work and/or potentially create an OCI?

Yes, this requirement is for work that would be affected by performance of the MIST II SOW and/or potentially create an OCI.

30. L.23(g)(1), second paragraph

Is the requirement for a list of Offeror’s and its proposed subcontractor’s NASA contracts and subcontracts intended to be all-inclusive (i.e., all current NASA contracts and subcontracts), or only those determined to be affected by performance of the MIST II Statement of Work and/or potentially create an OCI?

This requirement is all-inclusive for NASA contracts and subcontracts.

31. L.27 Proposal Delivery Scanned Files

The RFP states: …”All electronic submissions must be searchable and shall not contain scanned documents.”

Will the government explain the requirements to not include scanned documents? There are instances where copies of government approvals e.g., letters providing verification of “adequate” systems, Award Fee Evaluations are required to be included. If scanned documents are not be provided, please provide guidance on how these documents should be provided.

The proposal delivery provision will be amended to allow scanned documents, only when necessary.

32. C.1 Scope of Work

The final RFP was updated with the text “Safety and Health Plan, Attachment E (emphasis added)…” However, an Attachment E Safety and Health Plan Cover Page was not reloaded with the March 30, 2020 release. An Attachment F Cover Page was also not included. Is the Government going to upload final RFP versions?

No. Offerors will submit Attachments E and F in accordance with Section L.28 Proposals Instructions

33. L.27

Proposal Delivery

Will the government provide naming conventions for the proposal files. For example <solicitation number_MISTII>_<Vol>_<title>_<Prime company name>_<teammate name>.

No, naming conventions for files will not be specified in the RFP. Offerors are encouraged to use clear file naming conventions