NBOC 2 - Questions and Responses II final 9-22-20 LBH.pdf

NASA Balloon Operations Contract (NBOC II) DRFP Questions and Response II

1. Question: In subpart (c), can the Government confirm which installation services are provided as no property or services are checked? Reference: Section G.10, 1852.245- 71 Installation-Accountable Government Property

Response: Subpart (C) will be updated to reflect the applicable selection(s).

2. SOW Page 10, 3.1.7 Will NASA provide copies of the current Equipment

Certification?

Response: Yes. Several lists of equipment certifications/calibrations have been uploaded to the eLibrary.

3. SOW, 3.2.8, b, ii states: “Respondents must specifically explain how they intend to operate legally in international airspace, to include, but not limited to, Canadian airspace within 250 nautical miles of Resolute Bay Airport (CYRB), taking the latitude and longitude of that airspace into consideration.” However, SOW, 3.2.8, e, viii, has this requirement: “The avionics in both aircraft shall be certified so as to be able to legally and safely operate in the Canadian airspace up to and including all airspace within 300 nautical miles of Resolute Bay Canada (CYRB) and 300 nautical miles from Cambridge Bay Canada (CYCB).” Is the difference in mileage requirements intentional? Would NASA consider making the two requirements with same mileage?

Response: SOW will be updated to reflect consistency of 250 nautical miles.

4. Question: Can the government clarify the apparent inconsistency in SOW 3.1.11 requirements between the statement “Leases for the hangar facility at Fort Sumner ….and some land lease from the city of Palestine for the old balloon launch pad, will be administered by NASA” and the requirement at 3.1.11 a. which states that the contractor will be responsible to “Establish and maintain leases of property, facilities and, equipment” including (i) “Property and facilities in Palestine and Fort Sumner”.

Response: The SOW will be updated to reflect that NASA will arrange and pay for leases to the Village of Fort Sumner and City of Palestine.

5. Reference GPR 2570.1B, Spectrum Management and Radio Frequency (RF)

Equipment Licensing and Contract Section B.8 Are the Iridium access expenses included in the non-proposed costs for the core requirements?

Response: Yes, Iridium costs are included in the non-proposed costs under core.

6. Reference GPR 4100.1B, Management of Shelf-Life for Critical End-Use Items. Would

NASA provide a listing of the items that have shelf lives (hardware, support equipment, electronics, synthetic materials, fabric materials, etc.), and the associated end of life dates?

Response: Reference GPR 4100.1B is not applicable to this contract has been removed from the Applicable Standards and Policy Documents – Attachment O.

7. Reference, GPR 4520.2H, Receiving Inspection and Test. Would NASA provide additional information on GPR 4520.2H relative to contractor use of and interface with the Management System?

Response: Reference GPR 4520.2H is not applicable to this contract and has been

8. Reference, GPR 4520.2H, Receiving Inspection and Test, Appendix A, A.4, Customer- Supplied Product. Will NASA provide the master list of approved equipment the contractor is allowed to use?

Response: Reference GPR 4520.2H is not applicable to this contract and has been

9. Reference GPR 8621.4A, GSFC Mishap/Close Call Preparation and Response. Would NASA provide copies of the Corrective Action Plans (as noted in section 4.5) issued during the NBOC-I contract?

Response: A list of the mishaps and close calls with their findings and corrective actions has been uploaded to the eLibrary.

10. NASA provided a large number of documents that detail program requirements. Would NASA indicate which of these requirements are new to the NBOC-II contract?

Response: The Statement of Work outlines NASA’s requirements for NBOC-II.

Significant additions from the original SOW for NBOC includes: details on piggyback payloads, 2 simultaneous campaigns, 3 independent launch teams, preventative inspection and maintenance of launch systems, addition of cryogenic operations, and nonionizing radiation handling for Operations Safety Specialists, addition of carts, dollies and shipping containers to configuration and certification, transition to the NASA Network and use of NASA IT systems, Annual Report, the new Gondola Structural Design Requirements document 820- 8700.0.1, Physical Security requirements are defined in more detail including foreign national access, hot wash and quick report after missions, FAA Part 135 Compliance, and the Software Engineering Requirements.

11. Numerous safety and program related documents (for example, GPR 1860.1D, GPR 1860.2D, GPR 1860.3C, GPR 1860.4C, and others) require staff to have current certifications for the specific functions. Can you provide the current certifications of the existing staff?

Response: Yes, it will be added to the e-library.

12. SOW section 3.2.8 Aviation/Aircraft Support (pages 24-29) includes the following major requirements for aviation support: general and international operating authority;

general requirements; requirements for aircraft range, weight and balance, performance;

avionics; and flight crew. We understand there is an incumbent subcontractor that has supported NBOC for five years with two turboprop aircraft. In our conversation with said contractor they clearly refused to discuss the follow-on contract or cooperate with anyone other than the incumbent. Do the aircraft that currently support NBOC meet, or substantially meet, the requirements in the DRFP for NBOC II?

Response: Yes, the requirements are met.

13. Follow-up Question: If the answer to Q3 (SOW section 3.2.8 Aviation/Aircraft

Support) is yes, would NASA consider changing the RFP to require all bidders establish an “Associate Contractor Agreement?” This would streamline the acquisition and prevent multiple, extensive efforts to provide alternatives that are unproven. The last program transition demonstrated that the aircrew and aircraft were not “exclusive” but, in fact, went to the contract awardee. Continuity of acceptable service would be assured.

Response: NASA does not intend to change the RFP. The prime contractor is responsible to find a suitable subcontractor to meet the program requirements.

14. Reference: I.154, 52.203-16 Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, The Attachment A SOW does not indicate that the Contractor will be required to perform inherently government functions associated with a Government acquisition.

Recommend FAR 52.203-16 be removed if considered not applicable to the work being performed.

Response: The Government plans to leave clause 52.203-16 in the RFP in the event meeting the requirements is closely associated with an inherently governmental function or performed on behalf of NASA.

15. Reference: L.17, B.1 and M.3, B.1 - "The Offeror shall describe the 5 most important positions considered critical to meet the requirements of the contract." Question:

Although the draft RFP asks for critical positions, it does not provide any location where offerors can identify key personnel with associated resumes to demonstrate the ability to provide top talent to the contract. Would the government please consider allowing the offeror to identify key personnel for a subset of the critical positions and include it in the evaluation criteria?

Response: The offeror shall describe its management approach under Subfactor B.1 as applicable; however, the items identified in the subfactor should be addressed at a minimum. The Government is not looking to review resumes/names. The Government is looking for the offeror to propose their assessment of their five most critical positions which will further demonstrate an understanding of the requirement. Key personnel will not be identified in the resulting contract.

16. Reference: SOW 3.3.1 (b) - Provide engineering services to CSBF flight operations and approved users of the facility to implement the flight program. This includes support for conventional, LDB and ULDB flights and includes but is not limited to: mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, environmental testing, network support, software support, documentation, failure and anomaly or mishap reviews, etc.; An extensive list of services are expected to be provided to users of the facility. Question: Can the Government provide additional guidance or historical data to help scope the resource estimates given the diverse range of users of the facility?

Response: Engineering services are primarily and foremost expected in support of CSBF provided systems for current and future missions and ongoing improvements of NASA provided (CSBF) systems. Engineering services to science and balloon community users are consultative in nature with new users having the greatest need for engineering to help their understanding of CSBF flight systems capabilities and interfaces as well as the flight environment.

17. Reference: Attachment B - CSBF FHW Inventory - Question: The total value of the mechanical flight hardware shows $10,565,265, but the values of the individual line items only add up to $333,265. Please clarify -- are there line items missing or is there a formula error?

Response: Formula error. The corrected version of Attachment B has been uploaded.

18. Attachment K (WBS and WBS Dictionary) and Attachment A (SOW) - The WBS-

SOW dictionary Level 3 items do not match the SOW 3.1 items. Specifically, the SOW contains an additional item, 3.1.13 Task Orders, which is not included in the WBS Level 3 dictionary resulting in inconsistent numbering between the two. We assume the SOW is correct and the WBS Level 3 dictionary for 3.1 should be modified to match the SOW. Please confirm this is the correct assumption.

Response: Yes, the WBS Level 3 dictionary for 3.1 has been modified to match the

SOW.

19. L.19 Past Performance Volume, para (a), "The Offeror shall provide the following information on all past/current contract references that meet the above criteria for the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor:" Question: Are all bullets (specifically including the "statement of contract past safety performance" and "list of any contracts terminated") under this requirement to be addressed specific to the

Offerors past/current contract references? Recommendation: Revise language for the bullets that appear inconsistent with the L.9(a) instruction to provide information on all past/current contract references. For instance, the last bullet in this section can be clarified to state "list of any Offeror referenced contracts terminated..." Similarly, the next to last bullet can be clarified to read, "Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of any OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years for the Offerors contract references."

Response: L.19 Clause GSFC 52.215-230 is referenced. This is a standard clause and no revisions are required.

20. L.20 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest - "The plan shall be included as part as the proposal Offer Volume, or as a separate attachment, consistent with the solicitation instructions." The requirement for an OCI Assessment and OCI Plan is not included in Section L.15 of the Solicitation. Please include this requirement in Section L.15. Add instruction for OCI Assessment and OCI Plan to Section L.15.

Response: This will be clarified in the final RFP under L.15 and included as part of the offeror volume.

21. L.20 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest - "The Contractor has Reliability and Quality Assurance Engineering Support responsibilities that will give access to proprietary Raven Aerostar processes and data." Question: Please clarify if the Government's concern with OCI regarding access to proprietary Raven Aerostar processes and data is related to an unfair competitive advantage OCI for a future competitive government procurement. Recommendation: Add clarifying language such as "The offeror must demonstrate that no conflict of interest exists in support of future competitive government acquisitions, either intellectual or financial, …"

Response: The notice of potential conflict of interest is not specific to one contractor or subcontractor. The offeror has the responsibility to identify any OCI that would exist and mitigate in their OCI Plan.

22. L.19(b) The Offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) [as defined in paragraph (a)] shall provide the questionnaires provided as Exhibit 18 to each of the above references to establish a record of past performance. The Offeror shall instruct each of its references to return the questionnaire directly to the Government Contracting Officer via email. The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of your firm's performance. Question: Is the Government asking for a single questionnaire to be filled out for each reference contract? Recommendation: We prefer the COR fill out the PPQ (versus both the COR and the CO).

Response: A past performance questionnaire should be filled out for each of the identified contracts that is representative of both the COR and CO.

23. Page 50, I.114c, “(c) The Contractor shall require the subcontractor to certify in substantially the form prescribed in FAR 15.406-2 that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the data submitted under paragraph (b) of this clause were accurate, complete, and current as of the date of agreement on the negotiated price of the subcontractor subcontract modification.” Question: Please clarify where in the proposal the subcontractor should certify.

Response: Certification is on the form/certificate in FAR 15.406-2 Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data

24. Page 110, L.10, L.10 1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION. (JAN 2011) Question: Please clarify where in the proposal the Government Property Management Information requested goes.

Response: In the Offer Volume.

25. Page 111, L.11, “The Offeror shall notify the Government, as part of its proposal, of its intention to use or not use the property.” Please clarify where this should go in the proposal.

Response: In the Offer Volume.

26. Attachment Covers, Please clarify what/how these are covers should be used.

Response: Reference L.14 GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION—

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

27. Attachment N, Page 3, Step 2, “Upon acceptance of the letter/background information, the applicant will be advised that in order to complete the investigative process, he or she must appear in-person before the authorized PIV and submit two forms of identify source documents in original form.” Question: Please clarify where are PIV locations available for in-person processing. Confirm that there will be the ability to in-process without having to go to GSFC.

Response: NASA is working towards having this capability at CSBF. Until then, Johnson Space Flight Center is the closest location to CSBF for PIV badging.

28. Pages 129, 130, 139, 147, Please clarify what is meant by slip month.

Response: Slip Month is an additional time that would allow additional time if the contract effective date slips beyond the expected date specified by the RFP.

29. G.14 GOVERNMENT PROVIDED MOTOR VEHICLES (GSFC 52.245-91) (FEB

2016)25, G.14. Please clarify what vehicles are provided for Contractor use and what maintenance responsibilities (if any) is required.

Response: Government vehicles are contained in the property list. Contractor has all maintenance responsibilities for those vehicles.

30. Enclosure 3 “A complete description of the NASA Balloon Operations Contract

(NBOC)-2 is contained in contract number NNG20WATBD.” Please clarify where this contract/description can be found.

Response: That statement is referencing the contract to be awarded, the one the Offeror is proposing to.

31. Section M.3, Terms like timeliness, feasibility, efficiency, effectiveness, reasonableness, comprehensiveness, adequacy, completeness, responsiveness. Please define each term.

Response: These are adjectives describing how the government will evaluate the responses from offerors in Sections L. These are self-explanatory of what the SEB members will be evaluating in the offeror’s response.

32. Enclosure 3, Balloon Phase-In SOW TS, Section 3.0, Requirements “The Contractor is responsible for ensuring continuity of operations, technology development, program planning support, management and administrative support, pending procurements, and fulfillment of all contract deliverables pending from the previous contract as well as those on the next contract in order to meet all of NASA’s mission schedules, requirements, and planned costs.”

Suggested updated text:

“The Contractor is responsible for ensuring continuity of operations, technology development, program planning support, management and administrative support, and fulfillment of all contract deliverables on the next contract in order to meet all of NASA’s mission schedules, requirements, and planned costs. The Contractor will work with NASA and the incumbent contractor to determine responsibility for, and transition of, pending procurements and pending contract deliverables.”

Response: Rewrite will be considered and changes incorporated in the FRFP if NASA deems acceptable.

33. 3.1.3 f Reliability and Quality Management, “Schedule of preventive inspection and maintenance for launch support system critical load elements and all critical flight and ground support systems1 .” Does the R&QA Plan need to be reapproved and updated with schedule changes?

Response: It is the Government’s intent that the schedule provided in the R&QA Plan be the high level timeframe (e.g., every 5 years, every month) for when the preventive inspections and maintenance are to be performed. The actual detailed dates are to be maintained by the offeror outside of the R&QA Plan.

34. Page 9, 3.1.3 “Note: (1) Schedules and logs for preventive inspection and maintenance will be maintained in a centralized system, to include high level inspections and detailed inspections to the level of disassembly, inspection, maintenance and verification of operability of components.” Please clarify if NASA/BPO program uses a (preferred) maintenance scheduling tool such as Maximo and will the tool be provided to the Contractor.

Response: NASA/BPO does not currently utilize a centralized reporting tool. The offeror will provide the system and is free to recommend a tool such as Maximo or other. Currently, a spreadsheet format is being used. Offeror will need to ensure all data is transferable and searchable for sharing of updates with NASA.

35. 3.1.9 Contract Management, “The contractor shall define critical management positions for Contractor Program and CSBF management. The contractor shall identify by name the persons who will fill these positions, during Phase-In of the contract, to include listing of education, experiences and qualifications, which supports the Contractor’s choice for assignment to these positions.” Are the listings, etc. provided during phase in or with the proposal? Are these requirements just for the phase in period? Need clarification.

RESPONSE: The SOW has been updated to clarify that during the phase-in period, the contractor shall identify, by name, the persons who will fill these positions during the NBOC-2 contract.

36. Page 14, 3.1.10, “The Contractor shall submit an annual report that documents and summarizes the results of the annual contract performance, including recommendations and conclusions based on the experience and results obtained.” Please provide copy of the latest Annual Report in the bidders’ library.

Response: The Annual Report is a new requirement for this procurement. This is not a requirement under the current contract.

37. Page 14,3.1.11, Please provide current state of OEM documentation of facilities and equipment. Provide description of current state or statement that all documentation will transfer to successful offeror

Response: OEM documentation is maintained at CSBF and will be transferred to the successful offeror.

38. Page 18, 3.1.14, “The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all International, Federal, State, and local permits, agreements (formal or informal) required by the performance of the services and support under this contract are kept in effect.” Please provide list of agreements, permits, licenses, authorizations, MOUs.

Response: The list of agreements, licensing, MOU’s has been updated to the eLibrary.

39. Page 34, 4.1, e, c, “Antarctica Operations do not require procurement of CAS assets since all aircraft support of NASA's Antarctic balloon operations are provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is covered separately under an agreement between NASA and NSF. Please provide copy of the agreement between NASA and NSF for Antarctica Operations and clarify if Contractor has any aircraft flight operation responsibilities.

Response: The offeror has no requirement for providing CAS aircraft support on the Antarctic continent. Currently, the NASA-NSF IAA is in renewal and under review and negotiation between NASA and NSF. A copy of this renegotiated NASA-NSF IAA can be provided at the time of Phase-In. As with the previous IAA, it will stipulate that NSF provides for Antarctica aircraft in support of NASA balloon operations. Longstanding NSF policy has been not to allow for other agency provided aircraft assets on continent unless needed for achieving primary science, e.g. Operation IceBridge, etc. Aircraft needed for a support role on-continent are provided by NSF, e.g. payload recoveries, transport of equipment or personnel, etc.

40. Section L, B.4, Per the directions in the Cost Volume instruction provision, the

Offeror's Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract Attachment entitled, "Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices," which shall be submitted in the Cost Volume (per table (b)(1) of GSFC provision 52.215-201). Offerors shall address the minimum requirements in the Position Qualifications, to include necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/licensing, minimum education and/or experience required for the position. Please clarify 1) that the position qualifications should be provided on Attachment F and incorporated into the Cost Volume vs the Mission Suitability Volume and 2) if the Offeror can adjust the format of Attachment F to suitable input for the Position Qualification requirements (e.g. insert a table).

Response: Section L.17, Mission Suitability, Section B.4 requires the offeror to address the minimum position qualifications and describes what should be covered and included under Attachment F. . A table is acceptable for Attachment F or other format that addresses the requirements. Position qualifications shall still be addressed in Section L.17, B.4.

41. Enclosure 5 Contractor Historical Data-

1. Does the data represent core staffing or core and IDIQ?

2. Does the data represent all core staffing or just the prime contractor’s staff?

3. Will the government provide labor category descriptions for these positions?

4. The table includes a “Subcontract” item showing $269,337. What does this represent? Prime subcontracting to its subcontractors or some other subcontracting?

5. The column for Current Weighted Hourly Rate has a “**” implying some comment or note on that column? Can the government elaborate on what the “**” means?

6. Is the Material and ODC data for a single Fiscal year?

Response:

1. The data represents Core & IDIQ.

2. The data represents all staffing (including subcontractors) for Core & IDIQ.

3. No

4. This data represents subcontractor costs not included in other defined areas.

5. The “**” signify nothing regarding the figures. They were from the NASA form.

6. Yes, the Material and ODCCD data is for a single fiscal year.

42. The NBOC II DRFP Cover Letter indicates that the NAICS for this acquisition is

541330 with a small business size standard of $16.5M. I writing to ask if the Aerospace Equipment exception for 541330 is in play for this solicitation allowing small businesses with a three-year average of less than $41.5M to participate as a small business.

Response: No, the exception is not applicable

43. Exhibit 1 includes non-labor plug number cost in GFY 21, however, none of the lower level WBS’ have cost included in GFY 21. Could NASA please clarify?

Response: Adjustments will be reflected in the Final RFP Cost Exhibit to include GFY21 plug number costs through WBS Level 4. During the review and updating of the Cost Exhibit, some discrepancies were also found on GFY22 of the NONPROPOSED COSTS from Section B.8. Updated NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS will be reflected in the Final RFP under Section B of the NBOC II Contract Clauses Sections B-M document.

44. There seems to be an alignment disconnect between non-labor categories from WBS to WBS. For instance the value for Balloon cost of $41.6M on exhibit 1, shows up as Expendable Gasses on Exhibit 2C. Could NASA please clarify?

Response: Yes, there is a disconnect between the non-labor categories from WBS to WBS. Corrections will be reflected on the Final RFP Exhibit.

45. Section 3.3.1 of the NBOC II draft Sow is titled Flight Operations Engineering

Support. The draft RFP Contract Clauses, Sections L.17(c)A.1 and M.3(a)A.1 both reference SOW 3.3.1 as Flight Operations and Engineer Support (underlining added). Please clarify what is to be addressed in this portion of the Mission Suitability Volume. The difference in the wording is minor, but the scope and emphasis of what is to be addressed is significant.

Response: RFP Contract Clauses, Section L.17(c)A.1 and M.3(a)A.1 have been updated to reflect the SOW title of 3.3.1 Flight Operations Engineering Support.

46. WBS Level 3 includes SOW elements 3.1, and 3.2 and 3.3 combined. Since WBS

Level 4 already provides the BOE for SOW elements 3.2 and 3.3, please clarify what information should be provided in regards to SOW elements 3.2 and 3.3 in the WBS Level 3 BOE? Further, since WBS Level 3 covers the ENTIRE SOW, 2 pages does not seem adequate to address all the requirements. In particular, SOW 3.1 contains 18 lower level elements. We request that the government consider the 2 page limit to be applicable at the lowest level SOW element. In the case of SOW 3.1 with 18 sub-elements, the page limit would be 36 pages.

Response: The total expected BOE’s that Offeror will be estimating is 4 plus one for each individual campaign, which are as follows:

o 3.1 o 3.2 & 3.3 combined o FOENOT (includes 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4 combined) o FOE Camp ( includes 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.2.11, and 3.3.1) o Individual campaigns (each campaign)

Under SECTION L OF 80GSFC20R0031 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 115 (3) Title pages, tabs, and tables of contents are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (1) of this provision (as well as other documents specified in table (b)(1) above). In addition, the Cost Volume of your proposal is not page limited except for the page limit for the Basis of Estimate (BOE) section specified in table (b)(1) above. However, this volume is to be strictly limited to cost and price information. Information that can be construed as belonging in one of the other volumes of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that volume's page limitation. (4) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contract(s) without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If discussions are held and final proposal revisions are requested, the Government will specify separate page limitations in its request for that submission. (5) Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in this provision will not be evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the Offeror in accordance with NFS 1815.204-70(b).

47. Question: Can the Government clarify if the aircraft services for Canadian recovery are CORE or IDIQ? Reference the SOW 2.0 Scope, the last paragraph discusses recovery operations in Canada. “Recovery operations in Canada may require locally procured special aircraft services. Because of the uncertainties associated with aircraft services procured from the local area of operation in support of Canada and other foreign remote campaigns, and given the requirement for their review and certification by NASA, such foreign remote services will be done under IDIQ.” However, the last sentence of the previous paragraph states “Aircraft services in support of CONUS missions that are also used in support of Canada balloon termination & recovery operations will be covered under CORE.”

Response: The SOW has been clarified.

48. SOW Page 5, Canada aircraft recovery is called out both under core and under IDIQ.

Could NASA please clarify how this is to be proposed?

Response: See Response to Question 47.

49. SOW Section 1.0 The SOW references the “Research and Technology Program

Commitment Agreement (PCA) Suborbital Research Program,” a key document in understanding the program approach. We don’t see the document in the Proposal Library. Will the government please provide it?

Response: A copy of the current “Research and Technology PCA Suborbital Research Program” will be added to the e-library.

50. L.17(c) Subfactor B, B.1 Management Approach Would the government offer additional clarification in regards to B.1 Management Approach. The requirements states “The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing the proposed work” and then lists several additional requirements focused on the 5 most important positions, rationale for identifying them, qualifications for each, duties, responsibilities, etc. All requirements for this section appear to focus around the 5 most important positions. We assume a response to these additional requirements would provide a compliant response to B.1 and that the government is not requesting offerors to provide a full management plan in addition to what is identified in Section L B.1. Question: Is this assumption correct? If not, would the government provide additional direction?

Response: B.1 has been clarified to reflect that the offeror should describe their management approach as well as provide the 5 most important positions including the rationale for each position.

51. Given clause H.21 in the NBOC I contract, the team would like to request the historical

"...labor category descriptions, full-time equivalents (FTEs)..." in support of their NBOC II efforts. The team fully endorses the intent of H.21 to minimize the potential risk for unrealistic or unsubstantiated pricing, which reduces the risk that cost could become an inappropriate discriminator among competing offerors.

Response: Contractor historical data has been posted on beta. Sam under Enclosure 5.

52. Cover Letter The cover letter states that the proposals will be due approximately 30 days after final RFP release. Will the government consider a 60-day response given the coronavirus effect on bidder’s ability to assemble as would normally be the case?

Response: The Final RFP Cover Letter will include the response time.

53. L.17(c)A.4 (Completion or Core Contract Hours and Skill Mix) The DRFP requests labor categories to accomplish the Core SOW requirements, including a description of the proposed labor categories. Position Qualifications are also required in accordance with L.7(c)B.4 (Position Qualifications). In order to avoid redundancy and optimize page count, can bidders reference the B.4 Position Qualifications as the labor category descriptions to meet the A.4 description requirement?

Response: No, Both A.4 and B.4 should be addressed accordingly.

54. L.18(b)(1) Direct and Indirect Rate Substantiation) and L.18(b)(9) (Basis of Estimates

(BOE) second bullet. The last paragraph of Section L.18(b)(1) states “The Government does not intend to issue a separate task order for overall contract program management.

Accordingly, in accordance with the Offeror’s current accounting system, clearly indicate how program management costs will be captured and charged on a task-by-task basis under the IDIQ portion of this contract.” The second bullet of Section L.18(b)(9) states Offerors should “Explain in detail how your Program Management and Administrative Support are costed. If direct, explain the estimating approach and assumptions (basis of labor rates, hours per year, percentage of direct labor hours or costs, etc.). If indirect, identify within what pool each function is included.”

It appears that the most (if not all) of our standard program management costs would be included in WBS Level 3 - Technical, Business Management & Facilities Support (TBF) (SOW 3.1) and would not be significantly impacted by the IDIQ portion.

• Does the government anticipate awarding/funding the entire effort associated with SOW 3.1?

• If so, would an approach that included the anticipated program management costs in the pricing for WBS Level 3 - Technical, Business Management & Facilities Support (TBF) be compliant?

• If not, how would the government suggest we capture proposed program management costs in the Cost Exhibits?

Response: Yes, the government anticipates awarding/funding the entire effort associated with SOW 3.1. Yes, the anticipated program management cost in the pricing for WBS Level 3 – Technical, Business Management & Facilities Support (TBF) will be compliant based on statements listed above (L.18 (b)(1) and L.18 (b)(9)). Offeror can choose to take a direct or an indirect approach, as long as their assumptions are clearly explained in their proposal. Regardless which approach the Offeror uses, they must account for all program management for the entire contract in their proposal submission.

55. SOW Section 1.0 Baseline Mission Model The Baseline Mission Model includes

“Hand Launched” smaller balloons. At what location do these flights occur?

Response: Hand launch balloons are required at all launch sites. These include small trajectory pathfinder balloons and small lightweight instrument science payload balloons, including those provided for STEM outreach. Typically, no more than 2-4 hand launched balloons are released during any given campaign.

The Baseline Mission Model description has been updated to reflect that hand launch balloons could occur from any location.

56. I’m looking to understand if the small business dollar amount for NBOC NAICS

541330 is $16.5M or $41.5M.

Response: $16.5M

57. Section L.18(a), page 127, Section L.18(a) states "A proposed Significant

Subcontractor shall complete and submit Exhibits 2G through 2J, and provide the supporting information that is requested from the Prime Offeror." Please confirm/clarify that significant subcontractors need to complete Exhibit 2K-2 as well.

Response: Yes, Section L.18 (b), on page 130 states “Should the anticipated contract effective date of October 2021 be delayed, the Government will recalculate each Significant Subcontractor’s proposed Core Requirement estimated cost and fee for the Base Period on Option Period 3 in accordance with Exhibit 2K-1, which summarizes the Prime Offeror’s proposed elements of cost and fixed fee for Slip Months 1 through 12 (October 2027 through September 2028) at WBS Level 1 (Total Core Requirement).”

58. Section L.18(b), page 129, Section L.18(b)(7) states "Should the anticipated contract effective date of April 2021 be delayed, the Government will recalculate the Prime Offeror’s proposed Core Requirement estimated cost and fixed fee for the Base Period and Option Period 3 in accordance with Exhibit 2K-1, which summarizes the Prime Offeror’s proposed elements of cost and fixed fee for Slip Months 1 through 6 (April 2027 through September 2027) at WBS Level 1 (Total Core Requirement)." Please clarify how the Base Period Core Requirement Cost and Fixed Fee will be adjusted for any slip in the contract effective date.

Response: Response: The Base Period Core Requirements Cost and Fixed Fee will be adjusted based on the estimate provided by the Prime Offeror through their submission of the Exhibit 2K-1 during the proposal process. Exhibit 2K-1 allows the Prime Offeror to make adjustments to their estimated cost, such as Labor, ODCs, Rates (Overhead, Material and G&A) and Fixed Fee, due to a delay in the contract effective date. This gives the Prime Offeror the opportunity to create a better and more accurate estimate for the slip months. For example, Prime Offeror’s rates before slip months are as follows: Overhead rate 40%, Material rate 3%, G&A 5% and Fixed Fee 2%. Exhibit 2K-1 allows the Offeror to adjust their rates to 40.50% for Overhead, 2.5% for Material, 5.75% for G&A, and 3% for Fixed Fee to account for rate changes, ultimately avoiding an overrun issue in the future.

59. Section L.17 (c), instructions for the treatment of Hazardous materials (B.8) states, “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.” However, the indication is that B.8 should provide a list of hazardous materials. Can you please provide clarification on what B.8 should entail? Should it be the treatment of hazardous materials or a list of hazardous materials, or both?

Response: Per the instructions, the offeror shall provide the approach to handling hazardous materials. As described in Section L.17, the offeror has 80 pages to address Mission Suitability and has to determine how best to distribute the content.

60. B.8 was page limited to one page in the Draft RFP. According to the answers to questions released on July 28, 2020, B.8 is now not page limited and should be included in the B.7 Plan. Please clarify the Government’s intent.

The response provided in the first round of question is as follows:

Response: The Safety and Health Plan is excluded from the page limitations and B.8 is a list of the hazardous materials, if applicable, that would be explicitly stated within the Safety Health Plan. As B.8 is a requirement of the plan, it is excluded from the page limitations.

The requirement of B.8 is as follows: 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.

Response: Correct. To clarify the response from July 28, 2020 – the offeror is to describe its approach to hazardous material in the Mission Suitability Volume.

This approach is part of the 80 page limit on the Volume. The listing of hazardous materials is to be provided by the offeror in section I, if applicable.

Note: Additions or clarifications to responses provided on July 28, 2020

July 28, 2020 Question # 18, add:

Response:

• Non-ionizing radiation training to be provided by the Contractor.

• Ionizing Radiation training to be provided by external or in house.

July 28, 2020: Question #75, clarification:

Response: Offeror does not need to address ‘critical and complex mission’; rather, systems and processes. The Contractor will identify all critical systems and processes, which is fundamental towards achieving mission success.