SES III Final QAs 6.10.20.pdf

Questions and Answers for DRFP SES III, 80GSFC20R0019 Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submitted.

June 10, 2020 # DRFP Reference Comment/Question/Vendor Recommendation Government Response 4.

Will the government accept proposals from a JV if one company has a Top-Secret Clearance and the other company has, at proposal submission time, an Interim Top-Secret Clearance (and holds a permanent Secret level clearance)?

No, an interim Top-Secret clearance is not acceptable at the time of proposal submission.

5. Will the government accept proposals from a JV if one company has a Top-Secret Clearance and the other company demonstrates at proposal submission time that they have been sponsored for a Top-Secret Clearance (and holds a permanent Secret level clearance)?

No, sponsorship is not adequate.

6. Will the government accept proposals from a JV if one company has a Top-Secret Clearance at proposal submission time and the other company (having a Secret level security clearance at proposal submission time) can get the Top-Secret clearance by contract award time?

No, a secret clearance is not acceptable at the time of proposal submission.

7. It appears that Past Performances of subcontractors will be evaluated if their workshare is over $7M/Year.

This is quite restrictive on the number of subcontractors an 8(a) company can have if it is to keep 51% workshare.

We request that Past Performances of subcontractors be counted if their workshare is over 10%.

There is no limit on the number of subcontractors. However, the Government will only evaluate Significant Subcontractor’s Past Performance which is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $7M.

8. Section L.21 & L.29 Page 83 & 101 Paragraph # (a) and B.10

Total compensation plan: Will a non-populated Joint Venture be required to submit a total compensation plan? Or, will the TCPs of the JV members be sufficient?

For an unpopulated Joint Venture, the total compensation plan for the Joint Venture partners is sufficient.

9. Section L.24 Paragraph # (a)

When will the government be providing feedback to offerors on the draft OCI plans?

Feedback will be provided before the Final RFP is released.

June 10, 2020

10. Subfactor B, B.8

Paragraph # 6

B.8 states; "With respect to engineering services, manufacturing and testing, describe how the Offeror will accommodate periods of high volumes….". The SOW does not make any mention of manufacturing requirements. Will there be manufacturing performed on the SES III contract?

The phrase manufacturing and testing will be removed from the Final RFP as this will not apply to the Statement of Work.

11. L.29(c), Subfactor B, B.11

Subfactor B requirements includes a Quality Assurance Plan. Is the QAP intended to be excluded from page count like the other plans requested as part of this subfactor?

The Quality Assurance Plan will be excluded from the page count in the Mission Suitability volume.

12. L.26(b)

Given the detailed requirements to be addressed in responses to Subfactors A and B, would the government please increase the page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume to 95?

The government believes the page limit is sufficient and therefore will be unchanged.

13. Section L Section # L.26 (b) (1)

The basis of estimate is limited to 25 pages for the prime and significant subcontractors. This is insufficient to provide the necessary detail that NASA is requesting. Would the government please increase the page count for BOEs to 35.

The government believes the page limit is sufficient and therefore will be unchanged.

14. Enclosure DD Weighted historical unburdened rates have been provided without insight to seniority levels of each and quantity for each labor category in a specific geographical location. These factors greatly impact items such as fringe rate development and cost realism if a bidder's proposal differs from those in each geographic location. Only the incumbent would have access to this information and as such, would have an unfair advantage against other bidders.

With the final RFP, will the government please provide a breakout of the seniority levels with labor type identification - i.e. exempt, non-exempt, CBA, and/or SCA? Will the government please also indicate the

The geographic location of all the positions are largely located at GSFC.

A CBA and/or SCA is not applicable to this requirement.

June 10, 2020 quantity of staff (WYE) by labor type by geographic location?

15. Reference: Section B.5

Clarification: Please clarify. According to Section L.29(c) A-2 no cost estimates are required for the scenarios. Section B.5 reads “The Contractor’s proposed approach/pricing of the representative tasks set forth in its proposal for award of this contract shall be used as reference by the Contracting Officer in negotiating tasks with the Contractor which are issued under this contract, but only to the extent portions of a representative task are relevant to portions of a task actually issued.”

Cost estimates are not required for scenarios.

16. Reference: I.87 52.244-2 Subcontracts (d): The bolded text reads “Professional and Consultant costs as defined in FAR 31.205-33 and any subcontracts that include direct labor rates more than 20% above the rates provided in Attachment B of the contract.”

Clarification: If there is a subcontractor on the team, then Attachment B will have the Prime’s rates as labor rates and the Subcontractor’s rates as burdened rates.

Please clarify whether it is 20% above the Prime’s direct labor rates (Section 1) or 20% above the Subcontractor’s fully burdened rates (Section 5).

The language in I.87 pertains to 20% of the Subcontractor’s fully burdened rates.

17. Reference: Section L.26 (b) (2) reads “Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork and photographs shall be

Question: Is there a specific font defined to use for diagrams, tables, charts, etc.?

Yes, Times New Roman

June 10, 2020 no smaller than 10 point.

18. Reference: Section M.1 is the first place the OCI Plan is called an OCI Avoidance Plan.

Question: Should the OCI Plan be referred to as the OCI Avoidance Plan or OCI Plan?

The OCI Plan and OCI Avoidance Plan has the same meaning throughout the document.

19. Reference: Section M.3, B.11 reads “Quality Assurance Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan including . . . . . .”

Question: Should this plan be the Quality Assurance Plan or the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan?

M.3 B.11 should read Quality Assurance Plan.

This will be revised in Final RFP.

20. Enclosure DD, Contractor Historical Data Direct Labor Incumbent Rate

Test Engineer (Senior) is listed in Enclosure DD but is not reflected in the GPM. Should it be removed, or listed consistently in both locations?

Please clarify whether to remove it or add it to the

GPM.

Test Engineer (Senior) will be removed from Enclosure DD in the Final RFP.

21. Reference: Draft RFP B.8, page 100

Comment: The section references “the Task Ordering Procedure clause in Section I.126.” It appears that the reference should be to the clause in Section I.125.

This is a typographical error and will be corrected in the Final RFP.

22. Reference: Enclosure CC Government Pricing Model

Comment: There are several contract year (CY) total hours, calculated by summing the individual labor category hours, that do not match the Grand Total provided in the GPM.

These are not errors, but rather rounding calculations in the GPM.

23. DRFP Section L.26 (b) pg 92

The RFP states that offerors should use “not smaller than 12 point type Times New Roman font” and “Text

Yes, the government will allow size 10 font for proposal headers and footers.

June 10, 2020 in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point”.

Will the Government allow size 10 font for proposal headers and footers?

24. DRFP Section L.30 (b)

(14) pg 113

The DRFP indicates in Section L.30(b)(14) 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 DRFP 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)?

Yes, that is correct.

25. L.29

Paragraph (b) A.1

Subfactor A – Technical Understanding/Scenarios, Paragraph A.1 very specifically requests identification and mitigation of TECHNICAL risks. The paragraph further states that "areas of concern to NASA include:

technical, schedule, cost, personnel, IT security (e.g., on-going software development, on-going mission operations, physical, cyber), software export/release control, and use of open source software for existing & new purposes." The placement of this statement in Subfactor A, Paragraph A.1 would imply that:

"schedule, cost, personnel, IT security (e.g., on-going software development, on-going mission operations, physical, cyber), software export/release control, and use of open source software for existing & new purposes" are all TECHNICAL risks to be addressed in Paragraph A.1, and not MANAGEMENT risks that

All risks will be addressed in Subfactor A, Paragraph A.1, which will be reflected in the Final RFP.

June 10, 2020 should be addressed in Subfactor B – Management Plan, Paragraph B.1. Would the government please confirm that this interpretation is correct? If not, please clarify since some of the risks mentioned as “concern to the NASA” appear to be Management risks.

26. We found in J.1 a table calling for an attachment N, Management Plan, that is to be proposed with page count TBD. Subfactor B asks for our management plan as part of the mission suitability volume. Is the reference to an attachment N, Management Plan in J.1 an error or is the management plan called out in Section J.1 the same as the Management Plan called out in Section L Subfactor B. If not, is the management plan required in addition to what is called out for in Subfactor B? If so, what are the requirements that the plan must address? Will the government please clarify this situation?

Attachment N, Management Plan found in Section J.1 table will be removed from Final

RFP.

27. There is a considerable difference in the scope and complexity of responses to Scenarios 1 and 2. Do they have the same number of points for scoring out of 1000 for Mission suitability?

Mission suitability has a collective maximum score of 1000 points, there is no sub-allocation for the sub-factors.

28. In Scenario 1, is the Mission Planning System any particular system, or a generic one?

The scenario is fictitious and not tied to any specific system government and/or commercial system.

29. In Scenario 2, is there a defined number of CubeSats in the constellation – or does it depend on our assumptions?

No defined number of cubesats is being provided, the offeror has the prerogative to assert assumptions that best compliment their understanding and/or approach to Scenario 2.