RFP questions-12-17-20 500pm-TS - LBH redacted - AMW.pdf

RFP Questions, Comments and Responses December 2020

1. SF-33: The proposal due date in box 9 is not filled in. No due date appears on the form

CO Response: The due date and time will be updated in cover letter and SF33. Proposal delivery will be electronic – date and time can be added to block #9.

2. Cover Letter: The Cover Letter shows a base period of 18 months starting on 10/1/21 with two

24 months options and a final 18 month option.

CO Response: The Cover letter will be updated with the revised POP.

Enclosure 3: Phase In SOW

3. Section 1.0 “to assume full performance of the NBOC-2 on April 1, 2021.”

o We recommend that this change to “on October 1, 2021”.

CO Response: The contract period of performance will be clarified/revised.

4. Section 2.0 “on April 1, 2021.”

o We recommend that this change to “October 1, 2021”.

5. Section 3.0 “The phase-in period shall be performed within 59 days immediately prior to the effective date of the contract (currently phase-in is anticipated for February 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021).

o We recommend that this be changed to “The phase-in period shall be performed within 60 days immediately prior to the effective date of the contract (currently phase-in is anticipated for August 2, 2021 and ending September 30, 2021).

6. Section 4.0 “The phase-in period will last 60 days beginning February 1, 2021 and ending March 31, 2021.”

o We recommend that this change to “beginning August 2, 2021 and ending September 30, 2021.”

Additional Cost Exhibit changes are:

7. 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, 2J also include FY21

CO Response: Cost Exhibits 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, and 2J are updated, with GFY 2022.

8. The wrong RFP number is on every exhibit (1-17): RFP# NNG20WA-TBD. Recommend that it be changed to 80GSFC20R0031

CO Response: RFP# on Cost Exhibits 1-17 are updated to RFP# 80GSFC20R0031.

9. Exhibit 10 contains a footnote that says “GFY 2021 Partial (contract effective date through September 30, 2021). The header says (First Government Fiscal Year Only). WE recommend changing dates in the footer to October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022.

CO Response: Footnote on Exhibit 10 has been updated to ^GFY 2022 (Contract Effective Date through September 30, 2022).

10. Exhibits 13-15 include references in footer to the partial GFY in 2021 and in 2028. We recommend deleting the footers.

CO Response: Footnotes on Exhibits 13-15 will not be deleted. The footnotes have been updated to ^GFY 2022 (Contract Effective Date through September 30, 2022), and ^^GFY 2028 (October 1, 2027 through Contract Completion).

11. Part G.10 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JUN 2018) -

ALT I (JAN 2011) In this section “maintenance for buildings occupied by contractor” is checked.

This is not in accord with the solicitation’s statement of work. Can the government clarify the inconsistency?

CO Response: G.10 has been updated to reflect the accurate listing of property and services provided by the government.

12. All price Exhibits (1, 2A-2E, 2A-1-2E-1) show a Base Period in GFY21 reflecting a start date of 4/2/21. This is inconsistent with the Baseline Mission Model in the SOW that was updated to start in FY22 and the cover letter that states contract effective date of 10/1/21.

B.8 Non-proposed costs cover 6 months of GFY21 and 6 months GFY28 B.6 shows an 18 month base and option 1 beginning in the middle of GFY 23 and GFY25 rather than at GFY boundaries. We suggest aligning it with GFY boundaries.

CO Response: Documents will be updated to reflect revised period of performance.

13. Attachment F shows a base period of 18 months beginning GFY21 and 3 options of 24 months each.

CO Response: Attachment F has been updated with revised period of performance.

14. Exhibit 18, PP Questionnaire, says to return them by TBD. Section L instructs Offerors to ensure questionnaires are completed and submitted no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in Block 9 of the SF 33. However, the SF-33 has no entries in Box 9.

CO Response: SF 33 will be updated to reflect due date. Proposal delivery will be electronic – date and time can be added to block #9. Past Performance questionnaire may be updated accordingly.

15. “Contract Clause B.8 NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS provides “plug numbers” for certain cost elements that are to be included in our cost proposal, by Government

Fiscal Year (GFY). In the final RFP, the table in Clause B.8 includes $4,619,410 for GFY21. However, the current contract start date is October 1, 2021, so there is no contract performance or other costs allowed in GFY21. The table in Clause B.8 should be revised to re-spread the nonproposed costs across the currently planned period of performance. This will also affect various pricing exhibits.”

CO Response: All Cost Exhibits and the table in Clause B.8 NBOC II Nonproposed Cost For the Core Requirements have been updated with the proper Period of Performance dates and plug numbers are listed with the associated GFY.

16. RFP Cover Letter: The RFP requires a 31-day proposal turnaround over the Thanksgiving Holiday and during the COVID pandemic. Given the FRFP has multiple material changes to the proposal and that prior and new questions are outstanding, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date until January 15, 2021 (60-day response period). NASA has been extending acquisition due dates due to COVID (https://aas.org/posts/news/2020/06/nasa-extends-some-proposal-deadlines)

CO Response: Any updates to the RFP due dates will be posted in Beta.Sam.

17. RFP Cover Letter and Section B.8: The RFP Cover Letter indicates that the start date has been shifted from April 1, 2021, to October 1, 2021. However, Section B.8 “Non-proposed Costs for Core Requirements” includes costs for GFY21 which would be incurred prior to the contract start on October 1, 2021, and therefore unallowable. Additionally, the non-proposed Costs for GFY28 appear to be approximately 50% of the costs for GFY27. Please confirm/clarify the non-proposed amounts in Section B.8 based on the revised POP.

CO Response: The RFP Cover letter and Section B.8 will be updated to reflect revised period of performance.

18. RFP Cover Letter and Cost Exhibits: The RFP Cover Letter indicates that the start date has been shifted from April 1, 2021, to October 1, 2021. Based on the RFP Cover Letter, the resulting POP would be:

Start End Base (GFY22) 10/01/21 09/30/22 Base (GFY23) 10/01/22 03/31/23 Option Pd 1 (GFY23) 04/01/23 09/30/23 Option Pd 1 (GFY24) 10/01/23 09/30/24 Option Pd 1 (GFY25) 10/01/24 03/31/25 Option Pd 2 (GFY25) 04/01/25 09/30/25 Option Pd 2 (GFY26) 10/01/25 09/30/26 Option Pd 2 (GFY27) 10/01/26 03/31/27 Option Pd 3 (GFY27) 04/01/27 09/30/27 Option Pd 3 (GFY28) 10/01/27 09/30/28

Please confirm or clarify that the start/end dates for each contract period shown in the table below (broken out by government fiscal year). Note that the resulting end dates for each contract period occur in the middle of the Government Fiscal Year. Is that the intent?

Start End Base (GFY22) 10/01/21 09/30/22 Base (GFY23) 10/01/22 03/31/23 Option Pd 1 (GFY23) 04/01/23 09/30/23 Option Pd 1 (GFY25) 10/01/24 03/31/25 Option Pd 2 (GFY25) 04/01/25 09/30/25 Option Pd 2 (GFY26) 10/01/25 09/30/26 Option Pd 2 (GFY27) 10/01/26 03/31/27 Option Pd 3 (GFY27) 04/01/27 09/30/27 Option Pd 3 (GFY28) 10/01/27 09/30/28 Option Pd 1 (GFY25) 10/01/24 03/31/25

CO Response: The contract period of performance will be clarified/revised in the RFP and Cost Exhibits.

19. The revised POP does not include any effort in GFY21 and covers all of GFY28 in its entirety.

However, the Cost Exhibits have not been modified to reflect the revised POP. Please confirm/clarify if adjustments should be made to the Cost Exhibits to reflect the revised POP.

CO Response: The Cost Exhibits will be updated to reflect revised POP.

20. Cost Exhibit 2E Addendum provides detail on the non-proposed costs by Fiscal Year and includes costs for GFY21 which appears to be inconsistent with the revised POP. Additionally, the total costs shown in Exhibit 2E Addendum do not match the non-proposed costs identified in Section B.8. Please confirm/clarify which amounts are correct and should be utilized for pricing.

CO Response: Cost Exhibit 2E Addendum has been updated to reflect revised POP, as well as the cost associated for the revised POP.

21. The notes in several of the Cost Exhibits indicate that GFY21 and GFY28 would be partial years.

Please confirm/clarify that no costs are to be proposed for GFY21 based on the revised POP and that GFY28 is a full year rather than a partial year.

CO Response: The Cost Exhibits will be updated to reflect revised POP.

22. RFP Cover Letter and Enclosure 3: The RFP Cover Letter indicates that Phase-In will begin 60 days prior to the 10/01/2021 effective date of the contract (i.e., 08/02/2021). However, Enclosure 3 (Phase-In SOW) states in several places that the POP for Phase-In begins 02/01/2021. Please clarify.

CO Response: Phase-In will be conducted, under a separate contract or purchase order, during the 60-day period prior to the effective date of the contract. Enclosure 3 will be updated accordingly.

23. RFP Cover Letter and SOW 3.2.8: The cover letter states the contract will start October 1, 2021

(1QFY2022). SOW 3.2.8 Aircraft/Aviation support requires aircraft be ready 1QFY2022, and further requires the aircraft support operations from April 1st to October 31st of each year. Will there be a need for aircraft support during the period October 1st 2021 to October 31st (end of the Ft Sumner campaign window)? If not, will the government consider moving the aircraft readiness date from 1QFY2022 to 2QFY2022 or 3QFY2022, allowing more time to prepare, certify, and be ready well in advance of the April 1st aircraft support window?

CO Response: Depending upon weather opportunities and launch manifest, there is a possibility 1-2 payloads may yet be able to launch after October 1, 2021; therefore, NASA would extend existing aircraft services through a task order. In which case, April 15, 2022 would be the first required date for Aircraft/Aviation services under the Contract

80GSFC20R0031.

24. Section I.87 a) We respectfully request that the words “Professional and Consultant costs as defined in FAR 31.205-33” in Paragraph (d) be changed to “None” or modified so that urgent procurements, if any, won’t be delayed. Requiring consent could result in schedule slips.

CO Response: Section I.87 will remain as stated. Any urgent matters that may impact schedules will be handled on a case by case basis.

25. Section I.87 We respectfully request that the word “None” in Paragraph (j) be changed to “TBD” so that the subcontracts that were evaluated during negotiations, if any, can be inserted at the time of contract award.

CO Response: Section I.87 will remain as stated.

26. Section L.14(b)(1) and Section L.18(a): The Cost Volume Section identifies three sections:

Attachment F, Cost Exhibits, and Basis of Estimates. Section L.18 includes the following instructions: “All pricing and estimating techniques shall be clearly explained in detail (projections, rates, ratios, percentages, factors, etc.) and shall support the proposed costs in such a manner that audit, computation, and verification can be accomplished. ”Please confirm that an accompanying Cost Narrative is desired/permitted and whether any page limitation applies. We recommend adding a section to the table in Section L.14(b)(1) to clarify the requirement.

CO Response: Section L.14 paragraph (b) Proposal content and page limitations identifies page limitations as related to the cost volume and BOEs. Section L.18 paragraph 9 further elaborates on BOEs.

27. Section L.18(b) and Cost Exhibits: Please clarify which cost exhibits should be completed by Significant Subcontractors. Specifically, Cost Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11/11A, 13, 16A/16B/16C, and 17A/17B refer solely to the Offer in Section L.18(b) but have references to Significant Subcontractors in the headings of the Cost Exhibits.

CO Response: L.18(a) states: “The Offeror shall provide sufficient detail to support and explain all cost proposed.” All Significant Subcontractors should submit the following Exhibits:

2A-1 through 2E-1, 2F through 2J, 2K-2, 3 through 11, 11A, 12, 12A, 13 through 16, 16A, 16B, 16C, 17A and 17B.

A sentence will be added under L.18 (a) stating that the Significant Subcontractors are required to provide the same information as the Prime Offeror on the Exhibits that have headers which include [ ] Prime Offeror OR [ ] Significant Subcontractor.

28. Section L.18(b)(7) and (8): Cost Exhibits 2K-1 and 2K-2 provide monthly pricing for up to six months after the contract end date in the event that the award schedule slips. As indicated in Section L.18(b)(7), “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 2028) at WBS Level 1 (Total Core Requirement).” Please confirm that the correct period for Slip Months is October 1, 2028, through March 31, 2029 (six months after completion of the initial seven-year POP of 10/01/21-09/30/28).

CO Response: Cost exhibits will be revised to reflect POP.

29. Section L.18(b) Section L.18(b)(2) indicates that WBS Level 1 is Reserved and that WBS Level 2 encompasses the Core Requirement; however, there are multiple references throughout Section L.18(b) that refer to WBS Level 1 as the Total Core Requirement. For example, Section L.18(b)(4), (5), (6), (7), (8) contain references to “WBS Level 1 (Total Core Requirements).” Please confirm/clarify that WBS Level 2 refers to the Total Core Requirements excluding IDIQ requirements and that the Cost Exhibits should not include any pricing for the IDIQ portion.

CO Response: Yes, WBS level 2 excludes IDIQ requirements for proposal purposes.

30. Section L.18(b)(24) SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS: As addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume Instructions provision, Subfactor C, the Offeror shall complete Exhibits 16A, 16B and 16C, which provides a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (Core Requirements Plus all option values combined plus the IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value basic and all options values combined, including the 20% unilateral adjustment to the maximum ordering value) and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS. Exhibit 16A shows a breakdown of the proposed goals for the base contract period, Exhibit 16B shows the proposed goals for each individual option period, and Exhibit 16C summarizes the proposed goals for the total contract (base period plus all option periods).”

Please confirm or clarify that the subcontracting goals should be based on the Proposed Core Dollar Value PLUS $120,600,000 for the IDIQ ($100.5M per Section B.6 plus 20% or $20.1M for the unilateral adjustment). Further, please confirm/clarify that the Proposed Core Dollar Value should tie out to the proposed amounts in Cost Exhibit 1.

CO Response: As stated in L.17: The subcontracting goals should be based on the Proposed Core Value plus the IDIQ Maximum Ordering value and all option values combined. The proposed subcontracting goals shall not include the 20% unilateral adjustment. Yes, subcontractor costs should be in Cost Exhibit 1.

31. Section L.18(b)(24) SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS: As detailed in the instructions, Offerors must include the IDIQ effort in the subcontracting goals and provide a breakout for the base period and each option period separately. Section B.6 identifies the maximum IDIQ value over the life of the contract as $100.5M but does not break it out by contract period. In order to facilitate the calculation of the small business subcontracting goals, please provide a breakout of the $100.5M IDIQ value by contract period (i.e., Base Period, Option Period 1, Option Period 2, and Option Period 3).

CO Response: Max ordering value will not be broken out by contract period. The contractor should propose with the established goals considering the core component and maximum ordering value established in the RFP. The proposed goal shall not include the 20% unilateral adjustment. Section L.19(a), Page 138: The Government is requesting “Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $12 Million that your company has had within the last 7 years of the RFP release date.”

For contracts that may have had an increase in total contract value due to increased scope, does the $12M threshold apply to expenditures per year to date, or what the expenditures will be per year once the contract is complete?

CO Response: For the prime contractor, the $12M is the minimum average annual cost/fee.

Amounts above $12M are acceptable.

32. Section L.19(a), Page 139: Due to the confidential nature of customer evaluations, may the subcontractors provide their evaluations in a sealed package directly to the Government?

CO Response: Yes as long as they are received by RFP due date and time.

33. Section L.19(a), Page 139: The Government requests recent customer evaluations of past performance as part of the Past Performance Volume. Is recent considered just the latest evaluation received from the customer? If not, please provide what the Government considers to be recent.

CO Response: Reference L.19 paragraph (a) states the time period.

34. Section L.19(a), Page 139: The Government requests “Small Business Subcontracting Plan history: provide latest Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) (formerly known as the SF 294 and 295 reports) and supporting rationale (Excluded from the page limitation).” Regarding the supporting rationale, is the Government referring to (1) the rationale that we include in the report or (2) source data from the Offeror’s accounting system?

CO Response: Supporting documentation could include reasons why goals were met or not met. Supporting documentation related to rationale included in the report

35. Section L.19(a), Page 139: The Government requests “Recent customer evaluations of past performance including Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms, etc. (Excluded from the page limitation).” If a Significant

Subcontractor is submitting a past performance reference as a subcontractor on another contract, what should they provide for customer evaluations since the prime contractor usually receives these, not the subcontractors? Should the significant subcontractor request an evaluation from their Prime Contractor or the Government customer?

CO Response: Subcontractor evaluations should be requested from the government customer.

36. Section L.19(b) Page 140: Is the written consent from Significant Subcontractors excluded from the past performance 30-page allocation?

CO Response: Clause L.14, GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation—General Instructions describes the past performance page limitations and exclusions. Consent is not listed in the excluded items.

37. L.20 Notice of Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Item (b) (page 140): Should the Potential Conflict for sole sourced balloons from Aerostar International Inc. extend to the parent and affiliate companies as well?

CO Response: Reference L.20 paragraph g (1) - yes.

38. Attachment C WD 2015-5454 New Mexico Please confirm that the correct wage determination was included in the Final RFP. Based on Section J, the WD 2015-5454 is applicable for New Mexico; however, WD 2015-5445 was attached. Based on a search of sam.gov, WD 2015-5454 is applicable to Fort Sumner as it covers De Baca county where Fort Sumner is located. WD 2015-5445 covers San Juan county. It appears that the wrong wage determination may have inadvertently been included in the RFP attachments.

CO Response: WD 2015 5454 is the correct WD. This will be uploaded.

39. Enclosure 1 NBOC II Scenarios, Scenario 3: The scenario states “The Offeror is requested to provide an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Plan that outlines the major tasks, site requirements, coordination requirements, and milestone schedule to survey and select the new launch site,” and that “NASA Plans to implement.” The scenario period of performance is approximately three years and extends until the start of the inaugural campaign in 2025. Please confirm that the scenario is to define a task to “survey and select” the site only (i.e., no requirement to implement the plan for the selected site)?

CO Response: NASA seeks a task plan for a hypothetical Scenario #3 that it would be reviewed and approved prior to authorizing work to be performed in selecting a new balloon launch site. This does not entail implementation of heavy lift launch operation(s), cost estimates, or identification of a specific location. But it should show all the processes, considerations to be accounted for and a schedule that would be proposed for a representative site selection task order.

40. Enclosure 5 Historical Data: We greatly appreciate the release of historical data. It is important data. However, there are questions about that are equally as important.

a. Q&A set 1 said the historical data was core only and Q&A set 2 said it was core and IDIQ.

Which answer is correct? Represent direct labor for core and IDIQ

b. Does the labor reflect prime contractor labor only or prime and Direct Labor subcontractors as well? Direct labor rates represent prime and sub contractor under NBOC contract.

c. What cost items are represented in the $4,070,450 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) (e.g., travel, other)? NASA has provided this for informational purposes. Offerors should assess the requirements and propose other ODC’s commensurate with their technical approach in response to NASA’s requirement.

d. What cost items (e.g., facility service vendors, other) are represented in the $269,337 of Subcontractor costs? The Government does not have insight into the breakout of the subcontractor costs.

CO Response: See responses above after each question.

41. Cost Exhibits and Attachment A – SOW Section 3.1.11 Facilities A number of the services identified in Attachment A-SOW Section 3.1.11 Facilities appear to be provided by vendors/small subcontractors.

In order to facilitate the government’s cost/price evaluation of these requirements and ensure a consistent evaluation across all Offerors, please indicate where these costs should be reflected in the Cost Exhibits.

CO Response: Services under Attachment A-SOW Section 3.1.11 shall be captured under the relative cost exhibits and labeled appropriately for government evaluation. Vendors and small subcontractors are normally reflected under the Other Direct Costs section of the exhibits under the appropriate cost category. Significant Subcontracts should be listed separately by Company.

42. The RFP does not provide adequate information to properly size and estimate the facility requirements. Will the government provide a list of facility vendors and a plug for facility service costs?

CO Response: Facilities descriptions are provided in Real Property listing contained in the E- Library. The Contractor Historical Data has been included for reference.

43. Will the government delineate which facility requirements are applicable to Palestine vs. Ft.

Sumner?

CO Response: The contractor is responsible for all the facilities listed for Palestine and Fort Sumner as described in the Real Property Manual and site visit virtual tour. Fort Sumner does not have a water tower, fuel storage or elevator to maintain. The Village of Fort Sumner is responsible for maintenance of the runways, fences, and gates.

44. Additionally, how will the government ensure that all Offerors include the associated cost/pricing for Attachment A-SOW Section 3.1.11 in their Total Proposed/Evaluated Price?

**Note that we have encountered significant difficulty in obtaining binding quotes to perform certain areas of support largely due to the lack of necessary information to non-incumbent contractors. As a result, our estimates will be largely based on judgement factors, which may result in over/under estimating. We are concerned that other Offeror’s may not include the costs associated with these activities in their proposed price and therefore will receive a more favorable price evaluation as a result.

CO Response: The Government will evaluated the offeror’s proposal as described within the RFP provision M.4, GSFC 52.215-324, Cost Evaluation Factor.

45. Cost Exhibits and Total Compensation Plan: The Cost Exhibits reference Field Premiums. Would the Government consider making the field premium policy available to Offerors so we can understand what is currently offered to NBOC staff? This would also ensure we are providing comparable benefits to the incumbents in the Total Compensation Plan as well.

CO Response: The offeror shall propose within their total compensation plan what their field premium will be in order to be competitive.

46. Various: In order to create a level playing field and provide non-incumbents with adequate information for a proper and reasonable quote, will the government provide a plug number for facility-related services and which SOW items the plug number addresses?

CO Response: The provided plug numbers and the Contractor historical data represent all facility related services.

47. Q&A Response Tasks Orders on the current program were added to the e-Library. Will the government confirm that those posted reflect a recent annual TO load?

CO Response: The task orders uploaded are provided as reference and do not necessarily reflect an annual TO workload.

48. Q&A Response The response to question 41, Historical data, states the data represents Core and IDIQ work. However, the response to Question 33 of Q&A Response 1 7-28-2020 says the data represents core only. Please clarify?

CO Response: Historical data represents both Core and IDIQ

49. e-library document “820-PROC-Fort Sumner MM Launch-2019-01” (Section 1.9) From the e-library document “820-PROC-Fort Sumner MM Launch-2019-01” (Section 1.9), there are several referenced documents that are not available in the e-library. Will the government add the following documents?

1) OF-603-02-C Mechanical/Stored Energy

2) OF-322-15-C High Pressure

3) OF-434-00-C Helium Compression Operations

4) ES-100-20-P CSBF Ordnance Procedure (collar only)

5) ACER-PROC-007 ACER Preflight Checkout Procedure

6) ACER-PROC-008 ACER Flight Line Checkout

CO Response: The documents will be loaded into the e-library. Please note that the titles to 1 and 2 are not correct but instead show the hazard condition that is mitigated in the procedure.

In addition, there is an error in 820-PROC-Fort Sumner MM Launch-2019-01, OF-434-00-C should be OF-434-00-P and OF-603-02-C should be OF-603-02-P.

50. L.18(b)(9): L.18(b)(9) requires BOEs, including 3.1 which includes 3.1.11 Facility requirements.

Bidders are required to explain how they arrived at the estimate of labor hours, and any subcontracted services if utilized to meet those requirements. In a prior question we requested a description of facility vendors (subcontracts) and a plug number to allow all bidders to submit a proper BOE. If this is not provided, then bidders will need sizing information in order to prepare a proper BOE for the substantial facility services. For example, janitorial and grounds maintenance services are estimated using the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA).

ISSA provides parameters for estimating these services. There are approximately 70 questions.

In lieu of a plug number, bidders will need this type of information, and not just for these services but for other facility requirements as well. Please advise as soon as possible if the government will provide a description of facility vendor services and plug numbers, or if bidders should submit specific questions for volume and sizing of facility functions to enable a proper

BOE.

In addition, information will be needed for both the CSBF in Palestine TX, and Ft. Sumner. The current SOW does not specify which services are required at CSBF/Palestine versus Ft. Sumner.

CO Response: The Real Property Manual and the Site Tour Video provide information on CSBF Facilities and Fort Sumner Facilities including floor space and usage. Section 3.1.11 of the SOW provides listing of facility support requirements. Fort Sumner does not have a water tower, fuel storage or elevator to maintain. The Village of Fort Sumner is responsible for maintenance of the runways, fences, and gates.

51. L.18(b)(10): Section L.18(b)(10) states "An Exhibit 3 shall be submitted by the Prime Offeror and each individual Significant Subcontractor and clearly identify the indirect rate base of application." May Offerors add a row at the bottom of the exhibit to provide the Pool Base?

CO Response: The Pool Base is not required, but if the Offeror wants to include a row at the bottom of the exhibit to include a Pool Base they can.

52. L.18(b)(23): (Slight revisions have been made to reflect the Final RFP language). Section L.18(b)(23) of the RFP states "As addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume Instructions provision, Subfactor C, the Offeror shall complete Exhibits 16A, 16B and 16C, which provides a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (Core Requirements Plus all option values combined plus the IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value basic and all options values combined, including the 20% unilateral adjustment to the maximum ordering value) and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS.” Based on the bolded instructions, please confirm that the amounts in Exhibits 16A through 16C will not tie out to the proposed subcontract amounts in Exhibit 1.

CO Response: The amounts in Exhibits 16A through 16C may not tie out to the proposed subcontract amounts in Exhibit 1. Although, the amounts may not tie out to the proposed subcontract amounts, they should not vary much in their amount totals.

53. L.18(b)(24): SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS. This RFP states "As addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume Instructions provision, Subfactor C, the Offeror shall complete Exhibits 16A, 16B and 16C, which provides a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (Core Requirements Plus all option values combined plus the IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value basic and all options values combined, including the 20% unilateral adjustment to the maximum ordering value) and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS.” Based on the bolded instructions, please confirm that the amounts in Exhibits 16A through 16C will not tie out to the proposed subcontract amounts in Exhibit 1.

CO Response: The amounts in Exhibits 16A through 16C may not tie out to the proposed subcontract amounts in Exhibit 1, but should not vary much in their amount totals.

54. L.18(b) Cost Volume Proposal Format and Cost Volume Exhibits (RFP Attachment): There are several exhibits contained in the pdf version that are not explained in Section L.18(b) of the RFP.

Please confirm/clarify whether Offerors should complete and submit the following exhibits and provide instructions for any that need to be submitted:

Exhibit 2C Exhibit 2D Exhibit 2E Exhibit 2C-1 Exhibit 2D-1 Exhibit 2E-1 Exhibit 2F Exhibit 2I Exhibit 2J

CO Response: Yes, all the Exhibits listed above are be required to be submitted for the evaluation process. These Exhibits will roll up/feed information to the Exhibit 1 Prime CORE Summary of Estimated Cost. Instructions will be updated.

55. Cost Volume Exhibits (RFP Attachment): Please confirm that Exhibit 2B is a rollup of Exhibit 2C through 2E and should only include formulas adding the data in the lower level exhibits.

Similarly, is Exhibit 2B-1 a rollup of Exhibit 2C-1 thru 2E-1?

CO Response: Exhibit 2E (for each individual campaign) will feed information to Exhibit 2D.

Exhibits 2D and 2C will then roll up to Exhibit 2B to provide a Summary of the WBS Level 3 – Fight Operations & Engineering Support (FOES). Exhibit 2E-1 (for each individual campaign) will feed information to Exhibit 2D-1. Exhibits 2D-1 and 2C-1 will then roll up to Exhibit 2B-1 to provide Direct Labor Hours, Direct Labor Rates, and Direct Labor Cost Detail at WBS Level 3- Flight Operations & Engineering Support (FOES).

56. Cost Volume Exhibits (RFP Attachment): Exhibits 2G through 2J cover WBS elements 3 and 4 for Significant Subcontractors; however, there is no exhibit for WBS Level 5 (Individual Campaigns) for Significant Subcontractors. Should there be an exhibit for Significant Subcontractors for Individual Campaigns to support the Prime Exhibit 2E?

CO Response: Exhibit 2E-1 will be used for Significant Subcontractors for Individual Campaigns to support Exhibit 2E. Above the title Exhibit 2E-1, there is an option for Prime Offeror OR Significant Subcontractor. This lets the offer know that this will be used for both the Prime Offer Proposal and the Significant Subcontractor Proposal.

57. Cost Volume Exhibits (RFP Attachment) Exhibit 2K-3 (Prime Contractors Estimate for Slip Months) includes references to Award Fee. Please confirm that award fee is not applicable.

CO Response: There is no award fee as part of this RFP

58. Cost Exhibit 3 - GFY2026-2029 (Slight revisions have been made to reflect the Final RFP language). Cost Exhibit 3 - GFY2026-2029 includes a ^^ which is annotated at the bottom of the exhibit with the following notation "GFY 2029 Partial (October 1, 2027 Through Contract Completion)." Please confirm/clarify that the ^^ should be removed in its entirety.

CO Response: This was updated to ^^GFY2028 (October 1, 2027 through Contract Completion).

59. Exh+Cost+Plus+AF+or+FF+Hybrid+CORE-IDIQ+RTOs+Onsite+and+Offsite+by+GFY+- RFP+Final+Revision+11-13-2020-TS+Inspected The cost exhibits provide Government costs for ODCs. These include costs for FY21, which is no longer part of the period of performance, and the first two quarters of FY28, which does not cover the entire period of performance now set through the end of FY28.

Question: Can you correct the cost exhibits to reflect the true period of performance. If not I will assume that the costs noted in FY28 in the current exhibits represent half of the fiscal year and will prorate the cost to cover the balance of the fiscal year (in other words doubling the number the government shows in FY28).

CO Response: Cost Exhibits will be updated with a full GFY28 estimate.

60. Enclosure 3: Phase-in SOW: Will NASA provide a secure and private office/meeting space onsite at CSBF and Fort Sumner for the Phase-in team during transition? Will NASA consider providing space and infrastructure onsite at CSBF and Fort Sumner for a contractor-supplied office trailer to house the winning contractor’s Phase-in team?

CO Response: NASA will provide for large office trailer at CSBF and Fort Sumner, as needed, for use by Phase-In Team.

61. SOW Section 3.1.4 Configuration Management: What is the current document management framework used by CSBF and the BPO for program documentation (e.g. Windchill)? Is this framework provided by NASA and expected to be utilized by the awardee or should the Contractor propose their own document management framework?

CO Response: The current document management framework is a contractor proprietary system. The proposer should propose a document management framework.

62. Attachment B: CBSF Inventory Files: There are inventory items listed at over a dozen locations across the world, each with a unique NASA ID number. How are these items tagged (i.e. number sticker, bar code or combination)?

CO Response: All controlled property has a tag showing property number and barcode.

63. Cover Letter and Enclosure 3 Phase-in SOW: The Nov. 16 cover letter states: “The anticipated contract award date is July 15, 2021, with a contract effective date of October 1, 2021” and “A Phase-in period will be conducted. Phase-in will be conducted, under a separate contract or purchase order, during the 60-day period prior to the effective date of the contract.” This implies that Phase-in would occur in August/September 2021; however, Enclosure 3 states Phase-in starts in February 2021. Please clarify the intended date for the beginning of the Phase-in contract.

CO Response: Dates in the cover letter and Enclosure 3 will be updated with revised POP.

64. Cover Letter and RFP NBOC Contract Clauses Sections B-M: The Nov. 16 Cover Letter states:

“The contract will have a total potential period of performance/effective ordering period of seven (7) years. This potential seven-year period would consist of an 18-month Base Period, two 24-month options (Periods 1 and 2), and an 18-month option (Period 3).” With a contract effective date of October 1, 2021, this would make the base and three options:

Base Period 10/1/21 – 03/31/23 Option 1 04/01/23 – 03/31/25 Option 2 04/01/25 – 03/31/27 Option 3 04/01/27 – 09/30/28

This phasing puts the end of the Base Period in the middle of the Government Fiscal Year and the subsequent options would also be halfway through the GFY. To improve the cost, proposal and management perspective, might NASA consider aligning the Base Period and options with the GFY. A potential recommendation would be to change the Base Period to 24 months (GFY22 and 23), Option 1 (GFY24 and 25) and 2 (GFY26 and 27) remain at 24 months, and Option 3 would be 12 months.

65. Cover Letter and RFP NBOC Contract Clauses Sections B-M: In Section B.8 on page 9, NASA provides the “NBOC II NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS”. The cover letter states a “contract effective date October 1, 2021”. This is the start of the GFY22. The costs listed in the table in B.8 shows GFY21 values which are before the contract start.

How should the provided GFY21 costs be addressed since they are outside the proposed Period of Performance?

CO Response: Section B.8 will be updated.

66. The contract periods noted in the cover letter are applied with the 18-month Base Period, two 24-month options (Periods 1 and 2), and an 18-month option (Period 3). This would mean that the Base Period and then Options 1 and 2 would end mid government fiscal year. To properly account for these nonproposed costs in section B.8, the costs will have to be divided across the fiscal year to be accounted in the two separate option periods. For example, the GFY23 costs would have to be accounted for in both the Base Period and in Option 1. GFY25 costs would be split between Option 1 and Option 2. GFY27 costs would be split between Option 2 and Option 3.

Please advise on how to split these costs or how the Base Period and Options may be adjusted.

It is recommended that the Base Period and each of the subsequent options start and end dates be aligned with the Government Fiscal Year. Instead of dividing these nonproposed costs mid fiscal year, it would be easier to align the Base period and options on the Government Fiscal Year. A recommendation would be to change the Base Period to 24 months (GFY22 and GFY23), Options 1 (GFY24 and GFY25) and 2 (GFY26 and GFY27) remain at 24 months, and Option 3 (GFY28) would be 12 months. The nonproposed costs would be revised to eliminate GFY21 which is outside the stated POP, and GFY28 values could be adjusted to reflect a full year’s representative value for each entry.

CO Response: Section B.8 will be updated.

67. Cost Templates: The templates are not aligned with current proposed Period of Performance as they include non-proposed costs starting in FY21and need to be updated to align with Table B8 and correct contract effective date.

68. NPR 7900.3D 10.1.5: Per NPR 7900. 3D 10.1.5, for all CAS contracts and agreements, NASA shall ensure that the aircraft operator holds and maintains a 14 CFR121 Certificate or 14 CFR 135 Certificate and meets the requirements of Chapter 10 of NPR7900.3D. Is NASA willing to consider an aircraft provider that has an equivalent certification level?

CO Response: NASA will not consider waivers or equivalencies to referenced NPRs for aircraft certifications.

69. RFP, E.3 (a) The Contractor shall comply with the higher-level quality standard(s) listed below.

ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2000 Quality Management System (QMS) requirements. This standard is obsolete. Please provide updated standard.

CO Response: The current requirement is ISO 9001-2015 or later revision.

70. RFP, H.11, H.20 The title of both of these clauses are GSFC 52.219-90 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports (Nov 2016). The title and content of these sections appear to be the same. Please clarify.

CO Response: Correct. H.20 Clause deleted.

71. RFP, I.33; Exhibit Cost (a) The use of overtime is authorized under this contract if the overtime premium cost does not exceed zero or the overtime premium is paid for work. Please clarify if overtime premium is authorized and if there are missing words to be added at the end of the sentence.

CO Response: This clause is incorporated by reference with the fill-in provided. Please reference the FAR for the full text version. The OT premium is currently $0. If during contract performance an OT premium may be incurred, the contractor must receive prior approval from the CO for OT premium.

72. Enclosure 3, Cover Letter: Full performance dates, Period of Performance Dates, and Phase-in dates listed as April 1 2021 or as February 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021. Please provide the correct dates to match those listed in Cover Letter.

73. Cost Exhibit Cost Exhibit 2E ADDENDUM - GOVERNMENT NONPROPOSED OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) ELEMENTS OF COST - BY WBS LEVEL 5 - INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN shows Campaign #s 1 and 2 occurring in GFY21. This is inconsistent with the Baseline Mission Model (Table 1 in the SOW) and other references in the SOW to the Contract Start date and schedule for the campaigns. Can the government confirm that the schedule for campaigns has the first campaign occurring no earlier than the first quarter of GFY2022?

CO Response: Yes, the schedule for campaigns will occur no earlier than the first quarter of GFY2022. Cost Exhibit 2E ADDENDUM will be updated to reflect changes.

74. FAR 52.228-7 Insurance - Liability to Third Persons is not included in Section I of the Solicitation, however, it is referenced in Section B.1. Can the government confirm which Section is correct?

CO Response: Clause 52.228-7 is added into the RFP under Section I.

75. L.15, para (c), item (7) Subcontractor Listing "The Offeror shall provide a summary listing (by name and address) of all subcontractors (regardless of dollar value) that have been identified throughout the Offeror’s proposal and the subcontract value associated with each entity."

Since only the Core work is priced by Offerors, should Offerors determine their subcontractor's value based on Core only with IDIQ value as "TBD"?

CO Response: yes

76. RFP, B.8 and Cost Exhibits 1, 2A, 2B-Please provide nonproposed ODC costs for exhibits 2A (WBS 3.1) and 2B (WBS 3.2/3.3) that equal exhibit 1 (WBS 3.0).

CO Response: The Nonproposed ODC costs are broken out on the Cost Exhibits already and the total Nonproposed Cost are listed under RFP NBOC II Contract Clauses - Section B.8.

77. Cost Exhibits 1, 2A, 2C, 2D-Please provide nonproposed ODC costs for the exhibits 2C (WBS level 4 FOE NOT) and 2D (WBS level 4 FOE CAMP) that when combined with exhibit 2A (WBS 3.1) equal exhibit 1 (WBS 3.0).

CO Response: The Nonproposed ODC cost are broken out on the Cost Exhibits already and the total Nonproposed Cost are listed under RFP NBOC II Contract Clauses – B.8.

78. Cost Exhibits 1, 2A, 2C, 2E - Please provide nonproposed ODC costs for the exhibit 2E (WBS level 5 individual campaigns) that when combined with exhibit 2C (WBS level 4 FOE NOT) and exhibit 2A (WBS 3.1) equal exhibit 1 (WBS 3.0).

CO Response: Exhibit 2E Addendum provides the plug numbers for the campaign cost by category. Offeror will be responsible for updating the costs for each individual campaign using tab Exhibit 2E CORE WBS LVL5 INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN, while using the Exhibit 2E Addendum tab as a reference.

79. Cost Exhibit 2E and Attachment A, Table 1-Please update the campaign numbers, government fiscal years, and campaign titles to match the SOW baseline mission model.

CO Response: Updates will be made to Cost Exhibit 2E and Attachment A.

80. Cost Exhibits - Please clarify the correct RFP number that should be listed on the cost exhibits.

Currently the cost exhibits list RFP# NNG20WA-TBD; however the RFP lists RFP#

80GSFC20R0031.

CO Response: RFP number is 80GSFC20R0031.

81. All price Exhibits (1, 2A-2E, 2A-1-2E-1) show a Base Period in GFY21 reflecting a start date of 4/2/21. This is inconsistent with the Baseline Mission Model in the SOW that was updated to start in FY22 and the cover letter that states contract effective date of 10/1/21.

CO Response: The contract period of performance will be clarified/revised. Documents will updated accordingly.

82. B.8 Non-proposed costs cover 6 months of GFY21 and 6 months GFY28.

CO Response: Section B.8 will be updated as necessary.

83. The Cover Letter shows a base period of 18 months starting on 10/1/21 with two 24 months options and a final 18 month option.

CO Response: The Cover letter will be updated with the revised POP.

84. B.6 shows an 18 month base and option 1 beginning in the middle of GFY 23 and GFY25 rather than at GFY boundaries. We suggest aligning it with GFY boundaries.

85. Attachment F shows a base period of 18 months beginning GFY21 and 3 options of 24 months each.

CO Response: Attachment F will be updated with revised POP.

86. Exhibit 18, PP Questionnaire, says to return them by TBD. Section L instructs Offerors to ensure questionnaires are completed and submitted no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in Block 9 of the SF 33. However, the SF-33 has no entries in Box 9.

CO Response: The due date and time is stated in the cover letter. SF33 will be updated.

Proposal delivery will be electronic – date and time can be added to block #9. Past Performance questionnaire may be updated accordingly.

87. There is a single reference in Section L.14 of the solicitation to a SOW Compliance Matrix – only in the table below and there is no mention of the SOW Compliance Matrix in any of the final solicitation documents. Can we assume that this is a leftover and there is no requirement for a SOW Compliance Matrix?

Proposal Component Volume Reference Page Limitations Offer Volume I L.15 None Mission Suitability Volume II L.17 80 Pages Cover Page, Indices, SOW Compliance Matrix, Total Compensation Plan, Phase-in Plan, Safety and Health Plan, Hazardous Materials and Small Business Utilization Subfactor and Position Qualifications

Excluded

Cost Volume III L.18 Mixed

(a) Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, Fixed Fee/Profit and Position Qualifications Matrices (Attachment F)

None

(b) Cost Exhibits None

(c) Basis of Estimates *Prime Offeror *Significant Subcontractor 1 *Significant Subcontractor 2 *Significant Subcontractor X

2 Pages per BOE*

Past Performance Volume IV L.19 Mixed

(a) Information from the Offeror 30 Pages**

CO Response: SOW Compliance Matrix deleted.

88. The Final RFP cover letter and Final RFP Section L.18(b) para (7) and (8) reference an

“anticipated contract effective date of October 2021”. Several sections of the Final RFP, such as;

B.8, NONPROPOSED COSTS FOR CORE REQUIREMENTS and several of the cost model exhibits provide cost data ($) for FY21. Can NASA confirm the period of performance for the Base and Option years that Offerors should be pricing against?

89. 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. Can NASA clarify what information should be provided in regard to SOW elements 3.2 and 3.3 in the WBS Level 3 BOE?

CO Response: Reference L.18 paragraph (9) for instructions on BOE. Reference cost exhibits for further detail on level of information required. At WBS Level 4, the BOE’s for SOW Elements 3.2 and 3.3 combined are divided between FOENOT and FOE CAMP. AT WBS Level 3, the BOE for SOW Elements 3.2 and 3.3 combined is a summary of the two WBS Level 4 BOE’s.

90. Attachment+A+-+NBOC+II+SOW+LBH-Inspected+TS includes the statement on p. 4: c. 2

Independent Launch Teams, with addition of resources in order to field 3 Independent Launch Teams by end of fiscal year 2021.

Since the period of performance for the contract starts on 10/1/21, the beginning of FY21, it will be impossible to comply with this requirement.

Question: Can you correct the timing requirement for the addition of the third launch team? If not updated I will assume we will have three months after award to hire these personnel, consistent with the draft SOW.

CO Response: NASA plans to have a third launch team in place by the start of the current contract.

91. The following list of questions and answers pertaining to Enclosure 4, Contract Historical Data prompt further questions. Can NASA provide answers to questions a. through d. below to provide clarity to Enclosure 5, Historical Data?

Previous Q&A:

July Question 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:

September Question 41 Enclosure 5 Contractor Historical Data

1. Does the data represent core staffing or core and IDIQ? Response: The data represents Core & IDIQ.

2. Does the data represent all core staffing or just the prime contractor’s staff? Response: The data represents all staffing (including subcontractors) for Core & IDIQ.

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