Questions and Responses I 7-28-20-Final.pdf

NASA Balloon Operations Contract (NBOC II) DRFP Questions and Responses I

1. Question: In the draft RFP, a significant subcontractor for Past Performance purposes must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $7M. This is a significant increase from the last competition in which significant subcontractors needed an average annual cost/fee of $1M. The $7M requirement seems like a very large change in procurement strategy and would significantly limit competition by limiting the number of competitive teams to those with large scale balloon experience in the last 7 years, which is a very small number of companies due to the nature of the industry. Would the government consider reducing the number back to $1M?

Response: The government will re-evaluate the past performance average annual cost/fee and changes, if any, will be addressed in the RFP.

2. Not sure if you know but Attachment R – the Real Property Manual appears instead to be an IT applicable documents list. I’m guessing that is not what you intended. I have a copy of Real Property Manual dated 2013 but I suspect that is not the current. Understanding the facilities is key information. FYI.

Response: Attachment R – Real Property Manual has been uploaded to replace original attachment

3. Would the Government consider removing the requirement for past performance consideration threshold and allow all partner Past Performance to be considered

Response: The Government will consider reducing the threshold requirement for past performance but does not currently plan to eliminate it in its entirety

4. Would the Government consider reducing the workshare threshold back to the $1 million mark...which was the threshold in the first NBOC requirements?

Response: The Government will consider reducing the threshold requirement for past performance.

5. There seems to be a disagreement regarding the submission date for questions and comments on the referenced draft RFP. The Cover Letter released on May 15 as part of the draft RFP requests questions/comments from industry within 20 calendar days. This would be June 4. The Procurement Notice posted on beta.SAM.gov shows the Updated

Response Date as June 14, 2020 3:30pm EDT. A clarification will be appreciated.

Response: Clarification posted on beta.Sam on 6/2/20 to clarify response due date of

June 14, 2020 by 3:30 pm Eastern Daily Time.

6. Will there be an industry day scheduled prior to the final RFP release? If not, are there any current restrictions on meeting?

Response: Currently with the COVID-19 restrictions and NASA’s internal restrictions, an industry day cannot be accommodated at this time. NASA is making every effort to allow an industry day to interested parties. An alternate video tour may replace an on-site industry day. The beta.Sam site will post updates accordingly.

7. Question: What are the requirements for an offeror proposed task order management system, or is GSFC’s TOMS required? Reference: Section B.1, Item 4, Task Plans

Response: The contractor will be required to use the NASA Task Order Monitoring

System known as TOMS

8. Question: Can the Government remove this section, since E.8 removes the MIRR requirement for all deliverables? Reference: Section E.7, 1852-246-72 Material

Inspection and Receiving Report.

Response: The Government does not require the MIRR for services or reports.

However, in the event within the contract period there is a deliverable required that is outside the exceptions, the Government will request a MIRR. For that reason, the task shall remain in the contract.

9. Volume II, Subfactor A.4 requires us list the proposed labor categories, description of proposed labor categories, and hours (both regular and overtime) required to accomplish the entire CORE SOW requirements. This section is subject to the page limits in

Mission Suitability. The labor category descriptions may be lengthy and are already being provided in Section B.4 of Management (not subject to page limits) and again in

Cost (also not subject to limitations).

Questions: May we satisfy the description requirement by reference to the data in the

Cost volume and simply provide the positions and hours in Subfactor A? If not, can the

Government exclude Section A.4 Completion or Core Contract Hours and Skill Mix from page count?

Response: Subfactor A, paragraph A.4, requires the offeror to provide a complete staffing plan for the core requirement, to include skill mix and position descriptions.

Subfactor B, paragraph B.4, requires the qualifications of each proposed position.

However, the Government will consider the overlap between paragraph A.4 and

B.5, both of which are bound by the page limitations. If a change is warranted, it will be included with the Final RFP.

10. It would appear that in L.17 (c), the instructions for the treatment of Hazardous materials

(B.8) is separated from the Safety and Health Plan (B.7). B.7 is exempted from page count, but B.8 is not.

Question: Can we include B.8 together with B.7 outside of page count? Was B.8 intended to be included with B.7?

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.

11. Section L.17 (a) states that Attachment Q, "Contractor Proposed Enhancements" is to be included in the "Model Contract Volume" of the proposal. There is no Model Contract required in the Offer Volume.

Question: Should this be included as an attachment to the Offer Volume?

Response: Yes and described in the Mission Suitability volume - The Offeror must clearly define the enhancement(s) in Contract Attachment Q.

12. Section L17, (c) Subfactor C – SBU (b) Commitment to Small Business (3) refers to demonstrating our commitment to small business concerns and to support their development (no defined sub-category). Its counter-part section in M.3 reads that the evaluation is for SDB.

Question: Can you please clarify.

Response: Subfactor C, paragraph L.17 titled, Small Business Utilization requires the offeror to submit a subcontracting plan addressing all of the requirements of such a plan, including all commitments to each category under the umbrella of small businesses. Subfactor C, paragraph M.3, titled Small Business Utilization mirrors

L.17 and describes how the plan will evaluated by the Government. There is no discrepancy within the DRFP.

13. We request an additional 15 pages for Mission Suitability volume.

Response: The Government believes the page limitation requirements are sufficient for addressing the evaluation criteria under Mission Suitability.

14. Can the government confirm that the Exhibit 2K-1 referenced in the Draft RFP instruction L.18.b(7) on pg.129 is the same exhibit labeled 2K 3 in the cost exhibits attachment?

Response: Yes, the Exhibit 2K-1 referenced in the Draft RFP instruction L.18.b(7) on page 129 is the same exhibit labeled 2K-3 in the cost exhibits attachment.

Changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

15. Can the government confirm that the Exhibit 2K-2 referenced in the Draft RFP instruction L.18.b(8) on pg.130 is the same exhibit labeled 2K-4 in the cost exhibits attachment?

Response: Yes, the Exhibit 2K-2 referenced in the Draft RFP instruction L.18.b(8) on page 130 is the same exhibit labeled 2K-4 in the cost exhibits attachment.

Changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

16. Does the NASA End-user Services & Technologies (NEST) contract support all desktop systems at CSBF or is this performed internally there as part of the NBOC II contract?

Reference SOW (Attachment A) 3.1.8

Response: NEST contract is a NASA agency contract for all desktop services including those at CSBF.

17. Is the offeror expected to provide IT security support at CSBF as part of NBOC II?

Reference SOW (Attachment A) 3.1.8

Response: The offeror will be required to provide IT security support at CSBF including that for NEST supported computers.

18. Could the government supply a historical outline of the types of training and for what departments both in-house and outside sourced? Would the government consider adding this to the bidder's library? Reference SOW 3.1.7 Training

Response: The offeror will be required to insure training for operations personnel for:

Lifting devices to include forklifts, overhead cranes, and payload launch vehicle lift operations. Aerial platform. Training and certification must be via certified trainer either in house or external.

Ordinance user training and certification is required of all responsible for handling and installation of explosive devices. Training and certification is provided by NASA.

High pressure systems training and certification is required for those handling and operating high pressure systems. Training and certification is provided by

NASA.

Cryogenics handling/training, is provided by the Contractor.

Laser safety training is provided by the Contractor.

NASA certified soldering, normally conducted at JSC.

Occupational Safety Supervisor (OSS) training is required for select individuals who will fulfill OSS roles for explosive devices, lifting operations and high pressure systems. OSS training and certification is provided by NASA. OSS specialties include:

o High Pressure Systems o Explosives o Lifting Operations o Cryogenics

NASA will capture these details and place them in the library.

Work is underway getting exact status/requirements.

19. Would the government consider providing plug values for Aviation/Aircraft, Travel and

Training expenses, similar to the other identified ODCs? NBOC II Contract Clauses B-

M L.18(b)(14) - L.18(b)(16) Cost Volume Proposal Format (Aviation/Aircraft

Expenses, Travel & Training)

Response: The Government will not plug these ODC expenses due to the criticality of the Aviation/Aircraft requirements and the necessity to determine the offerors understanding of these requirement including the travel and training required.

20. Are the nonproposed cost for core requirements provided in the table in Section B.8 inclusive of the Offeror's indirect rates and fee? NBOC II Contract Clauses B-M, B.8

Non proposed Costs for Core Requirement

Response: No, NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS are not inclusive of Offer’s indirect rates and fee. These costs should be used as provided and loaded within the cost volume accordingly.

21. Are the ODC costs associated with the Baseline Balloon Procurement Model (in Table

2) all captured in the NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS provided in Section B.8 of the solicitation? SOW (Attachment A) 2.0 Scope Table 2.

Baseline Balloon Procurement Model

Response: Yes, the ODC cost associated with the Baseline Balloon Procurement

Model is captured in the NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS for the specific Cost Elements listed.

22. SOW Page 10, 3.1.7 Will NASA provide copies of the current Training and Certification

Plans and status of training for personnel?

Response: Status will be provided.

23. SOW page 32 – Will NASA provide a copy of the reliability matrix for all balloons to assess quality impacts/needs for the balloon production efforts?

Response: No. NASA performs this function for every balloon prior to use.

Balloons currently in inventory have a varying pedigree but overall, while some

“suspect” balloons are retained for static inflation/training purposes, the overall reliability is quite good. NASA ultimately owns the authority for specific balloon assignments.

24. Section L-20, Notice of Potential OCI, states, “The proposed OCI Plan shall be consistent with all other areas of the proposal. Material inconsistencies between the OCI

Plan and other proposal areas may render the proposal invalid, resulting in an unacceptable proposal that is ineligible for award. The proposed 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. Section L.15 lists the nine elements to be included in the Contract Volume and Potential OCI is not listed. Please clarify the proposal component location for this submission of this element.

Response: The OCI Plan shall be submitted as a separate attachment, Attachment

G and should be provided with the model contract required by the Offer volume.

Also, it should be added to the 9 elements referenced in the question and will be corrected in the FRFP.

25. Past Performance Limits – Previously completed work that is applicable to supporting the NASA Balloon Program has been completed by subcontractors through contracts that have a value that is smaller than the minimum annual average cost limits outlined.

Reducing this dollar threshold would allow subcontractors to highlight past performance that is unique and very relevant. Would NASA consider this change/revision to reduce this threshold?

Response: Reference response to question 1.

26. Section 3.1.1: Will NASA provide a copy of required phase out plan as outlined in section 3.1.1 of the current SOW? This will be helpful to plan and assess what support and information will be provided during transition.

Response: NASA will not provide a copy of the required phase out plan as this is part of the evaluation process to ensure the offeror understands the work and because this is deemed highly contingent upon specifics contained in each proposal.

27. What, if any, items in inventory are ITAR restricted?

Response: There are no ITAR restricted items under inventory control of the CSBF. ITAR restricted items are used from time to time in support of the NASA WFF Arc Second Pointing (WASP) system that will remain under NASA inventory and control. However, all CSBF shipments outside the U.S. will require ITAR review and approval IAW NASA directives.

28. SOW page 9, 3.1.5: Will NASA provide copies of recent Quarterly reviews to assess what items are outstanding risks in the program so that they can be factored into the transition?

Response: Recent Quarterly review presentations will not be provided as they often contain potential proprietary information.

29. In one location the SOW states the aircraft have to be ready to support by the 3rd Quarter

FY2021 (April 1). The support period noted elsewhere is April 15 to October 31. Could

NASA please provide clarification on this difference?

Response: Currently planning is that the aircraft will be required no later than

August 1, 2021. Current situation with COVID-19 and how it may impact the start date will be reevaluated and updated in the coming weeks.

30. If an Offeror proposes aircraft that are not presently supporting NBOC, there is very likely a modification effort required to meet aircraft configuration requirements. Offerors would have to make a sizable investment “at-risk” prior to contract award or face a compressed modification schedule to take place within the 60-day Phase In period. Would

NASA consider making the contract award by November 2021?

Response: The Government will not be changing the period of performance or award date of the contract. The proposal shall adhere to the schedule presented for award.

31. The Offeror shall include Contract Attachment Q as part of the model contract in the

Contract Volume of the proposal. The Offeror may receive credit for the proposed enhancement(s) only to the extent of its description in Attachment Q, and the associated benefits explained in its Mission Suitability Volume. There is no Contract Volume submission noted in section L.14. Section L.15 lists the nine elements to be included in the Offer Volume and Attachment Q is not listed. Please clarify the proposal component location for the submission of this element

Response: Attachment Q should be included in the Offer Volume and described in

Mission Suitability

32. Has NASA issued any letters of correction or cure notices to the incumbent and can

NASA provide copies of these?

Response: NASA will not provide documents outside of the library established for this follow-on. Documents related to the current contract that are not provided within the e-library, shall be requested through the FOIA process.

33. In Enclosure 5, Contractor Historical Data, NASA provides the number of FTE’s by

Company’s Title. Could NASA please clarify if these FTE’s are for core only or include core and IDIQ?

Response: Core only

34. Page 136 - Past Perf Vol: Please confirm whether the requirement “Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years.” is excluded from page count of the Past

Performance volume.

Response: “Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years” is included within the page limitation specified.

35. Subcontractors may have past experience which is very germane to the NBOC II solicitation but not meet the minimum annual average cost limits outlined. Would NASA consider subcontractors submit at least one past performance that meets the costs noted and submission of other additional past performance submissions which are highly relevant because of the type of work being done although it does not meet the dollar threshold?

Response: Reference response to question 1.

36. Which of the non-proposed costs include tax? Reference B.8.

Response: The costs represented in B.8 are anticipated to be paid by the contractor for the items in each category, including any required/applicable taxes. Offerors are expected to apply any applicable loads (indirect rates/fees) to these amounts within their proposals.

37. In Subfactor C of the Mission Suitability Volume (Small Business Utilization), the draft RFP references Exhibits 16A, 16B and 16C. Please provide these exhibit documents or direct offerors to their location. Reference L.17 (c), Subfactor C, (a)(7)

Response: Exhibits 16A, 16B, and 16C are included as part of the cost exhibits.

38. RFP Section L and M instructions for proposal section A.1 calls for responses to SOW elements 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, and 3.3.4 only; the Scenario responses (proposal section

A.2) additionally call for responding to SOW elements 3.2.7 and 3.2.8. The RFP page limitation table on page 114 (RFP section L.14(b)(1)) requires a SOW Compliance

Matrix that is not page-counted. May we assume that the SOW Compliance Matrix refers only to the six SOW elements to which we are responding in A.1 and

A.2? Reference L.14(b)(1)

Response: The matrix is to identify the SOW element references for the responses required within the instructions. For those areas of the SOW where there is no requirement for a response, would not be included within the matrix.

39. Comment: The Cover Letter shows Solicitation No. NNG20WATBD. Is this a typo?

Response: Yes, Cover letter reference should be 80GSFC20R0031. This will be corrected in the FRFP.

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

Licensing. Are the current FCC frequency licenses held by NASA or the CSBF contractor?

Response: Frequency allocation and licensing for U.S. operations are requested by

CSBF/BPO and arranged for and obtained by NASA. Licenses for foreign operations are arranged by CSBF through international partners who obtain and hold the license on CSBF’s behalf, i.e. University of New South Wales for Australia

Licensing, Esrange (Sweden), National Science Foundation (Antarctica), etc.

41. Currently the proposal library lists the current contract (NNG15WA53C) with modifications 1 through 41 (as of 01/21/2018). Will NASA update the library to include the contract modifications to date?

Response: Elibrary will be updated to include modifications to date as applicable.

42. GPR 7900.0, Aviation Safety Program (page 4) stipulates “All Non-NASA aircraft conducting program support flights with GSFC personnel, including GSFC contractors, onboard shall complete a GSFC Aircraft Office Non-NASA Aircraft Safety Review.”

Furthermore, section 2.7 (page 15 of 18) states “All GSFC programs and projects using aviation assets require review and approval by a management appointed flight/mission readiness review panel prior to flight.”

Question: Please confirm that the requirement of section 2.7 applies to balloon flights and excludes the numerous flights conducted by the contractor’s CAS aircraft?

Response: Correct, the NASA safety reviews applies only to CAS aircraft associated with NASA balloon operations. Non-NASA use by the contractor as used for other purposes, are not subject to these reviews. However, an accounting of the maintenance and use during such periods of non-NASA use is subject to review.

43. Per the section below, can the government please change “Raven Aerostar” to “Aerostar

International, Inc.”? Section L.20, paragraph b): “(b) Description of Potential Conflict.

The nature of this OCI is: Offerors should be aware that NASA qualified balloons are sole sourced from Raven Aerostar, purchased by the Contractor for Operation of the

Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility. The Contractor has Reliability and Quality

Assurance Engineering Support responsibilities that will give access to proprietary

Raven Aerostar processes and data. The Offeror must demonstrate that no conflict of interest, either intellectual or financial, can be gained by fulfilling its obligation under this contract.”

Response: RFP will change “Raven Aerostar” to “Aerostar International, Inc.

44. "Reference: L.19 - Section L.19, paragraph a): “If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an

Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.”

Section L.19, paragraph b): “For proposed significant subcontractor(s), references shall concern only work performed by the subcontractor’s business entity that will perform the work under this contract, if awarded.”

Question: Past performance is more restrictive for significant subcontractors than for the

Offeror. Will the Government please allow the same flexibility for parent/affiliate/predecessor companies past performance as the Offeror?"

Response: Yes. “Offerors” applies to both prime and significant subcontractors.

The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

45. Reference: Cover Letter - “The Presolicitation Conference will be held on or about TBD at CSBF.” Question: CSBF is a unique facility and a large part of the work is performed on site. It is important for all potential offerors to have the opportunity to visit the site in order to prevent an unfair advantage by the incumbent. Please schedule the pre-solicitation conference at CSBF soon so offerors can plan travel accordingly.

Response: See response to Question 6.

46. Reference: Cover Letter - "The current planned release date for the Final Request for

Proposal (RFP) is on or about June 2020, with proposals being due approximately 30 calendar days later." Question: Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic environment where all are working remotely, generating a high-quality proposal for a complex RFP requires additional time. We respectfully request 60 days from RFP for proposal delivery.

Response: The Government understands the restrictions that COVID-19 pandemic has imposed and consideration will be given to allowing a longer response date.

47. The Pre-Solicitation Conference is cited as TBD. Will the government proceed with the

Final RFP without a Pre-Solicitation conference if one is not possible due to COVID-19 or some other factor?

Response: See response to Question 6.

48. The Cover letter states no more than 2 attendees per offeror at the Pre-Solicitation

Conference.

Does this restriction include the offeror and all teammates? Would the government consider expanding it to 4 people?

Response: At this time, we do not anticipate an on-site visit. We are expecting to provide a virtual tour and narration to potential offerors in lieu of an-site visit. See response to Question 6.

49. The Cover letter states “The DRFP contains standard clause 1852.228-78, Cross-waiver of Liability for Science or Space Exploration Activities Unrelated to the International

Space Station (OCT 2012), however, NASA is seeking a deviation to this clause which would be updated with the Final Request for Proposal.” What deviation is anticipated?

Response: At this time we anticipate the clause will be included as presented in the

DRFP and no deviation will be sought to the clause requirements.

50. Section F.4 (Place of Performance—Services Section F.4, Place of Performance, includes “the Contractor’s facility.” Can the government elaborate on contractor facility requirements (location, function, etc.)?

Response: Although not required, NASA will consider the “Contractor’s facility” as inclusive to place of performance for a sub-set of services such as some administrative functions and/or engineering design, prototyping, build-to-design, etc., if offeror chooses to propose.

51. Section H (Special Contract Requirements)-A recent GSFC procurement (MIST II) included a clause entitled “Protest Fee Withholding.” Given the increase in protests and the disruptions they cause, we recommend the government include this clause in the

NBOC-2 RFP.

Response: While this clause was included in the MIST II RFP, it will not be included in the NBOC II RFP.

52. Section L.2 (Type of Contract) How is core work defined and authorized (Work Orders, Task Orders, and annual plan)?

Response: The core work is authorized as a completion type effort by year. The offerors shall assess the core requirement, propose accordingly and execute upon award. There will be no separate authorization.

53. Section L.14(a)(3) (Proposal Preparation—General Instructions) The instructions require electronic submission compatible with Word/Excel 2010. The 2010 version is very old. We respectfully request that the Word/Excel version be updated to 2016 or

2013.

Response: Provision L.14 will be updated accordingly in the final RFP.

54. Section L.14(b)(1) (Proposal Preparation—General Instructions) The Cost Volume

BOEs have been allotted 2 pages per BOE for the Prime Contractor individually as well as each Significant Subcontractor individually. May we combine the page limitations for the prime and significant subcontractors and submit a consolidated BOE for the entire team based on the page limit (2 pages x prime and significant subcontractors)?

Response: No, the government is requesting that the Basis of Estimates be submitted separately based on Prime Offeror individually and each Significant

Subcontractor individually with a 2 page limit for each BOE.

55. Section L.16 (Proposal Delivery) “All electronic submissions must be searchable and shall not contain scanned documents.” Please confirm that this requirement is not applicable to documents that are not available to an Offeror in a non-scanned format such as DCAA / DCMA reports, etc.

Response: Correct, for documents such as DCAA reports, which are not available in a non-scanned format, the requirement for searchable documents does not apply.

56. Section L.17(a) (Mission Suitability Volume Instructions (Competitive)) Is the contractor to include the benefits of enhancements in its cost/pricing? If not, are the benefits of any enhancements used to adjust probable cost?

Response: No to both questions

57. Section L.18(a) (Cost Volume Instructions) - The penultimate paragraph is Section

L.18(a) states, in part: “Offerors, including proposed Significant Subcontractors, shall provide one separately packaged copy of their Cost Volume proposal marked “Enter correct RFP number/NASA Proposal Evaluation Material,” which the government may use for audit support purposes.” Given that the proposal will be submitted electronically, in accordance with Section L.16, please clarify the requirement to submit an additional copy.

Response: All proposals will be submitted electronically so an additional copy is not applicable. RFP will reflect change.

58. Section L.18(b) (Cost Volume Instructions)- There are multiple references throughout

Section L.18(b) (in particular, Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2A-1, 2B-1, 2G, 2H, 2K-1, 2K-2) to

(emphasis added) provide cost information at “WBS Level 3 and then summarizing for each higher WBS Level up to WBS Level 1.” As explained in Section L.18(b)(2), WBS

Level 1 is RESERVED as it represents the whole NBOC program including IDIQ (see also Attachment K). Please confirm that the highest level to be priced is WBS Level 2.

Response: Yes, the highest level is to be priced is WBS Level 2, where WBS Level 1 is reserved and represents the entire NBOC contract including IDIQ. Attachment F is for rates for pricing IDIQ

59. Section L.18(b)(5) (Cost Volume Instructions)-The ‘Core Requirements Direct Labor

Hours, Direct Labor Rates, and Direct Labor Costs Detail’ section on Page 129 states

(emphasis added) “Exhibit 2A-1 & 2B-1 shows the Core Requirements Direct Labor

Hours, Direct Labor Hourly Rates, and Direct Labor Costs for each individual direct labor category by onsite versus offsite, month, and GFY…” Based on the Cost Exhibits provided with the RFP, the data is shown by GFY only, not by month. Please confirm/clarify whether pricing needs to be provided by month.

Response: Contractor will be providing data by GFY, as well as monthly pricing for each GFY and WBS Level. Exhibit 2F will be used to populate the monthly pricing information for each GFY and WBS Level.

60. Section L.18(b)(7) (Cost Volume Instructions) - The ‘Prime Offeror Core Requirements

Summary of Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee for Slip Months Starting After the End of

Option 3 Period of Performance’ section on Page 129 states “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).” Based on the Cost Exhibits provided with the RFP, Exhibit 2K covers a period of 12 months. Please confirm/clarify that Offerors should adjust the worksheet to reflect 6 months rather than 12 months.

Response: Exhibit 2K should reflect 12 months. Section L.18(b)(7) (Cost Volume

Instructions) - The ‘Prime Offeror Core Requirements Summary of Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee for Slip Months Starting After the End of Option 3 Period of

Performance’ section on Page 129 should be adjusted to reflect 12 months instead of

6 months. Instructions will be updated in the final RFP.

61. Based on the Cost Exhibits provided with the RFP, Exhibit 2K is marked 2K-3 and 2K-4 for prime offerors and significant subcontractors, respectively. Please confirm/clarify that the Cost Exhibit numbers should be corrected to reflect 2K-1 and 2K-2.

Response: Yes, 2K-3 should be 2K-1 for Prime Offerors and 2K-4 should be 2K-2 for Significant Subcontractors. The exhibits will be corrected in the FRFP.

62. Section L.18(b)(9) (Cost Volume Instructions)-The Basis of Estimates section on Page

130 of the RFP states, in part: “The BOEs are to be submitted for the entire potential seven year period of performance (Base plus Option Periods) for the following WBSs

ONLY...:

“WBS Level 3 – Technical, Business Management and Facilities Support, SOW 3.1, and

Flight Operations and Engineering Support, SOW 3.2 and 3.3 combined

“WBS Level 4 – Flight Operations and Engineering Support NOT directly related to an

Individual Campaign (SOW 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4) and Flight

Operations and Engineering for Campaigns,(SOW 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)

“WBS Level 5 – Individual Campaigns (a BOE shall be provided for each individual campaign- insert specific campaign name and period of performance in exhibit title)”

Please clarify what to which WBS level the BOEs should be written and which page limitations apply. Using the WBS Level 4 as an example, should Offerors write a BOE at the highest level (1 BOE for Flight Operations and Engineering Support NOT directly related to an Individual Campaign and 1 BOE for Flight Operations and Engineering for

Campaigns = 2 TOTAL BOEs) or for each SOW element or (6 BOEs for Flight

Operations and Engineering Support NOT directly related to an Individual Campaign and

11 BOEs for and Flight Operations and Engineering for Campaigns = 17 TOTAL BOEs).

If the government’s intention is to write to the highest level, the page limit does not appear sufficient to address the required information.

Response: Under Section L.18(b)(9) (Cost Volume Instructions), the WBS levels that should be submitted for the entire potential seven year period of performance will be WBS Level 3 (1 BOE for Technical, Business Management and Facilities

Support (TBF)), WBS Level 4 (1 BOE for Flight Operations and Engineering

Support NOT directly related to an Individual Campaign(FOE NOT)), and WBS

Level 5 (a BOE for each individual Campaign). For Page Limitations, please reference Section L.14(b)(1) (Proposal Preparation—General Instructions). BOE may be written as described in SECTION L OF 80GSFC20R0031

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS (9) page 129 for clarity and will be provided in the final RFP.

63. Section L.19(b) (Past Performance Volume) - The ‘Prior Customer Evaluations (Past

Performance Questionnaires)’ section on Page 136 states: “The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting

Officer with direct knowledge of your firm’s performance.” Should the Offeror provide one questionnaire from the technical POC and one questionnaire from the contractual

POC for each cited contract, or one questionnaire total for each cited contract with both the technical and contractual knowledge?

Response: NASA has no preference of whether one questionnaire is submitted or 2 are submitted. The information shall be complete regardless of the number of questionnaires.

64. Cost Exhibit Attachment - The descriptions for multiple rows in several worksheets reference “Derived from Exhibit 2A.” For example, on Exhibit 2A, the following

Elements of Cost (rows) reference Exhibit 2A: Prime Onsite DL Hours (Derived from

Exhibit 2A), Prime Offsite DL Hours (Derived from Exhibit 2A), Prime Operations-site

DL Hours (Derived from Exhibit 2A) (this list is not all-inclusive). It appears that this is applicable to Exhibit 1 only and not the lower level worksheets. Please confirm/clarify.

Response: The Elements of Cost that reference “Derived from Exhibit 2A” starting on Exhibit 1 are not all-inclusive on every lower level worksheet. Exhibit 1, Exhibit

2A through Exhibit 2E, and Exhibit 2K 3 (should be Exhibit 2K 1) should be the only worksheets that have the same Elements of Cost that reference “Derived from

Exhibit 2A”, which should include both Prime and Significant Subcontractor

Elements of Cost.

65. Exhibit 18 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) - The PPQ contains a SOW relevancy checklist (item 4) for past performance citations. The list is a set of SOW requirements which are unique to the NBOC program. Therefore, non-incumbents are not likely to have any one citation that covers all of the relevancy items and therefore is likely to be rated lower than the incumbent’s citation. However, a non-incumbent set of citations may address all SOW items (demonstrating past performance on all SOW requirements) across its set of citations. How will the government assure a fair past performance evaluation?

Response: When evaluating the overall SOW relevancy, the SEB has the discretion to consider the combination of all references which may potentially result in the overall relevancy rating being rated higher than any individual contract reference from the offeror.

66. Cost Volume - We appreciate the release of historical staffing information with the Draft

RFP. However, the historical staffing data does not specify staffing by SOW area. Only the incumbent knows that information. Non-incumbents must develop a staffing plan and related BOEs on limited information including tools, equipment, international site services, and so forth. Will the government consider a Government Pricing Model

(GPM) with specified staffing as a means to ensure a fair competition?

Response: The historical data provided is meant for informational purposes to propose against the NBOC requirement. There will be documents added to the library which may provide offerors insight into the work required by the contract.

67. eLibrary - We appreciate the release of many documents in the eLibrary. In order to understand the frequency, volume, and types of IDIQ task orders on the program, which is a sizable portion of the program, will the government release the IDIQ task orders currently on the program?

Response: The Government will post task orders in the elibrary. The task orders will be posted to represent a typical year under the contract. Not all task orders awarded for each year will be provided within the library.

68. eLibrary - We appreciate the eLibrary content. Our proposal will be based on the eLibrary contents, including expired documents. Can the government assure that the evaluation of proposals will not discriminate between offers based on the eLibrary data versus an offer from the incumbent who may have access to more recent information?

Response: The e-library is meant to provide, to the greatest extent possible, information to provide insight into the contract to all offerors. There will be documents added to the library and NASA will look at the repository to determine if expired documents can be replaced with more recent versions.

69. Is there any Union work on the current program and, if so, will the government please provide relevant information?

Response: There is no union work on this contract.

70. Cover Letter, Page 2, 3rd paragraph, "The current planned release date for the Final

Request for Proposal (RFP) is on or about June 2020, with proposals being due approximately 30 calendar days later." At a recent meeting of the Goddard Contractors'

Association, Mr. Michael McGrath stated that, in the current partial shutdown, Goddard is allowing RFP response times of at least 60 days whenever possible. Allow 60 days after final RFP to respond to this complex RFP.

Response: See response to question 48.

71. Cover Letter, Page 2, 4th paragraph, “The Pre-solicitation Conference will be held on or about TBD at CSBF.” A site visit to the CSBF is critical for a fair competition. The incumbent already is familiar with this facility that is to be operated and maintained under

NBOC II.

Response: See response to question 6

72. Section B, Please specify the contract effective date. Provide contract effective date so that we may build our Phase-in Plan accordingly.

Response: Contract effective date is TBD at this time.

73. Various - Please clarify the correct title of this contract. Use either NBOC II or NBOC-

2 in all parts of the RFP.

Response: NASA is referring to the contract as NBOC II.

74. Attachment R, This looks like a repeat of Attachment P. Please clarify. Provide the correct Real Property Manual.

Response: See response to Question 2.

75. 3.1.2 Quality Assurance, “The Contractor shall identify safety and mission critical systems and processes for concurrence by NASA.” Does the Quality Manual need to address critical AND complex missions?

Response: Offeror does not need to address “critical and complex missions”; rather, systems and processes. NASA considers all missions are critical and complex. The

Contractor will identify all critical systems and processes, which is fundamental towards achieving mission success.

76. 3.1.7 Training and Certification, “The Contractor shall establish and implement a training and certification program that conforms to all NASA requirements for training, licensing, and certification for the work being performed under the NBOC-2.” Will

NASA provide employee certification requirements?

Response: See response to question 18.

77. 3.1.8 Information Technology, “Document and follow network intrusion detection and prevention program for all IT resources under its control.” Does NASA provide network scanning and Authorization to Operate?

Response: Yes

78. 3.2.2 Flight Support Equipment “f. Spares – The Contractor shall provide spares for all critical systems including flight hardware, flight electronics, ground support equipment, balloons, and Helium excluding Launch Vehicle and Spool.” Are sparing levels dictated by the BPO or determined by the contractor?

Response: Sparing levels are determined by the contractor with the understanding that one-to-one spares is not feasible for every piece of equipment across the entire inventory. For each campaign, launch or flight operation, there must be a one-to-one spare for each critical system in use or planned for imminent use.

79. 3.2.2 Flight Support Equipment, BPO may assign new development flight support equipment to be built, refurbished and maintained by NASA and provided to Contractor as GFE, depending upon cost, schedule, scope, and level of integration with legacy systems, i.e. LCT2 (Low Cost TDRSS Transceiver Ver 2); 21 ACER (Advanced Collar

Electronics Radio); etc. Contractor may participate with NASA on such builds? Are new FSE developments done under IDIQ task orders?

Response: Yes

80. Page 27, 3.2.8, d, I, “The contractor will demonstrate with detailed performance explanations that the aircraft can meet the minimum performance loading and range criteria shown in the below scenario, which is based upon 2 operations in Canada.” The contractor will demonstrate with detailed performance explanations that the aircraft can meet the minimum performance loading and range criteria shown in the below scenario, which is based upon 2 operations in Canada.

Response: It’s not clear what the question is; however, the SOW will be reviewed to insure clarity.

81. Proposal Content Table Page 114, Cover Page, Indices, SOW Compliance Matrix, Total

Compensation Plan, Phase-in Plan, Safety and Health Plan, and Small Business

Utilization Subfactor and Position Qualifications excluded from page count. Will the government confirm that the Hazardous Material Plan is also excluded from page count?

Exclude the plan from the page count.

Response: Reference L.17 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY VOLUME

INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE) (NOV 2017), Section B.8, there is not a deliverable entitled “Hazardous Material Plan”. The approach to Section B.8 is included in the page count.