SEAS II DRFP Final Responses.pdf

NASA SEAS II DRFP QUESTIONS

RFP

Document

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Would the

Government consider providing the RFP

Section B-M, SF1449 and SF30s, in a

Microsoft Word format?

No, the government will only provide these documents in

PDF.

Would the

Government consider providing the pricing

Exhibits 1A-1C, 2-11 documents in a

Microsoft Excel format?

No, the government will only provide these documents in

PDF

Do the incumbent

SEAS, TIDES, and

WESC contracts have existing Collective

Bargaining

Agreements? If so, will the government please provide?

No, neither has an existing

Collective Bargaining

Agreement. Hence the e-library will not be updated.

SEAS II

online

Reference

Library

Current Work Information What type of technical documents and current work information does the

Government plan to

Yes, the government has updated the SEAS II e-library to include historical documents such as

Statements of Work

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer post to the SEAS II online Reference

Library

(https://elibrary.gsfc.

nasa.gov/)? When does the Government plan to post this reference material?

We noticed nothing has been posted yet;

this information would help Offerors more accurately price their proposals.

Draft RFP Letter Dated 18

September, 2020

2 The DRFP letter states on page 2, paragraph 4, the proposals will be due approximately 30 calendar days after the final is released.

Due to COVID-19 work restrictions, will the government consider making the submission date 45 days after the final

RFP is released?

The government has taken

COVID-19 into consideration and believes that 30 days is sufficient for proposal submission

DRFP Cover Letter 2 The Letter addresses the availability of the SEAS

When will the SEAS

II online reference library be accessible

The SEAS II e-library has been updated to include

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

II online Reference

Library.

for additional information? Will it include all of the reference documents for SEAS, TIDES and WESC?

Technical Documents such as Statements of Work.

DRFP Table of Contents

2 DRFP Table of Contents depicts Section G on page 26. It is actually on page 25.

Would the government please make the correction?

The final RFP will reflect the correction

Enclosure BB, RTO 2 -

Suborbital Laser Comms

Will the Level 1

Science

Requirements be defined in the final

RFP?

No, Level 1 science requirements will not be defined in the final RFP. The

RTO has been updated to add defining and scoping higher level requirements, including science requirements, with project management and scientists as a technical support requirement. Any assumptions related to requirements definition should be clearly stated.

Enclosure BB, RTO 2 -

Suborbital Laser Comms

Is the sounding rocket considered as

GFE?

Yes, the sounding rocked should be considered GFE

Enclosure BB, RTO #1 2-4 The RTO instructions appear to direct the offeror to use a NASA propulsion subsystem on

Why provide the propulsion subsystem for a spacecraft bus procured through the

The RTO has been updated to assume that the project is trading procurement of a spacecraft bus from industry against an in-house build at

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer a contractor-provided spacecraft bus. It might be more appropriate for the Government to define any mission-unique requirements associated with the propulsion system performance, if any, rather than mandating them.

RSDO catalog when it would add cost and complexity to the mission, which is not consistent with the

$600M cost cap?

Will the Government allow offerors to propose other solutions?

GSFC during Phase A. For

Phases B-D, assume the bus will be procured from the

RSDO catalog.

https://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.

html

Enclosure BB, RTO #1 2-3 Section A background requires support from

Phase B to Phase D, yet section B/D for example reads as if support starts a pre phase A. Phase B

Implies a Mission

Concept has been defined and level 0 requirements are available.

What are the Mission and Science level 0 requirements that feed into a Phase B starting point, or is the task start from pre-Phase A?

The RTO has been updated to reflect the task starting at Phase

A and continuing through Phase

D

Enclosure BB, RTO 1 -

Firesat

Is the Launch Vehicle cost included in the

RTO response?

The RFP has been revised for additional clarification.

Additionally,the Launch

Vehicle cost is not required to be included in the RTO response. SE support for the launch vehicle interface can be considered part of the requested services.

https://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html https://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Enclosure BB, RTO 1 -

Firesat

Is the mission

Principal Investigator

(PI) led? If not, what is the role of the PI in the mission?

Yes, assume the mission is PI led.

Enclosure BB, RTO 1 -

Firesat

The RSDO Catalog or link to document is not specified in the

Applicable

Documents List.

Will it be provided in the final RFP?

The link to RSDO catalog has been added to the RTO.

Will the Government define Level 1

(Science) requirements in the final RFP?

No, the government will not be defining the Level 1 requirements in the final RFP.

The RTO has been updated to add defining and scoping higher level requirements, including science requirements, with project management and scientists as a technical support requirement. Any assumptions related to requirements definition should be clearly stated.

What organization has safety authority/approval for the Mission?

Safety and Mission Assurance is not in scope for the response.

Goddard’s Safety and Mission

Assurance Directorate will be the responsible organization for safety.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

Is Safety and Mission

Assurance in scope for the response? It is not specifically identified in the RTO.

Safety and Mission Assurance is not in scope for the response.

Goddard’s Safety and Mission

Assurance Directorate will be the responsible organization for safety.

Will the POP start date be changed to

October 2021 in the final RFP?

The RTO has been updated with the POP date beginning

October 2021.

Enclosure BB, RTO 2 -

Suborbital Laser Comms

Is the scientific balloon and related payload accommodation considered as GFE?

Yes, the scientific balloon and related payload accommodation should be considered GFE.

Enclosure BB, RTO#1 2 Basic mission requirements need clarification in order to scope the overall trade studies and requirements

Does the FireSat mission provide rapid response capability/accuracy to guide crews or is this a periodic survey type mission with latency allowed?

The RTO does not provide this level of definition of the mission. Assumptions can be made and should be clearly identified.

Enclosure CC, GPM

Position Descriptions

N/A In the GPM, there appears to be a missing

PLC for WFF - the

Mechanical Technician

ENG Level 4 position.

The GPM only goes to

Will the Government consider adding the

Mechanical

Technician ENG

Level 4 position to the GPM?

Yes, the Mechanical

Technician 4 position will be added

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Level 3. The Level 4 position was established with the government at the beginning of WESC

CY6.

Enclosure CC, GPM

Position Descriptions

N/A GN&C ENGINEER 4

and GN&C ENGINEER

5 positions descriptions appear to have the same education and experience requirements.

Can the Government confirm this is correct or should the Sr.

Principal (Level 5) position require more years of experience than the Level 4?

The Final RFP will be revised to read Level 4 Principal shall have 15 years of experience and the Level 5 Sr. Principal should have 20+ years of experience

Enclosure DD Enclosure DD was not released as part of the draft RFP package. Will the

Government consider releasing this file prior to the final

RFP?

Enclosure DD will be released with the final RFP

F.2

For pricing purposes can NASA provide the contract start date so indirect rates and escalation factors can be applied appropriately?

The anticipated Phase In is scheduled for August 2021.

The anticipate contract start date is October 2021.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

F.2, page 23; GPM multiple exhibits; Attachment B

23 The period of performance is stated to be 5 years from the contract effective date.

Enclosure CC provides hours to price for 5 years.

Exhibits 1C and 3 require pricing through CY5.

Attachment B requires completion of multiple matrices through CY6.

Exhibit 6A and 6B have

6 years of indirect rates and 6 contract years;

however, it takes 7 fiscal years of indirect rates to convert to 6 contract years. Exhibits 5 and 9 also require 6 contract years.

Would the government clarify the need for 6 years of pricing? Are

Offerors allowed to add a 7th year of indirect rate calculations in

Exhibits 6A and 6B?

The 6th year rates are required for any possible contract extensions.

No, the 7th year is not allowed.

L. 27 c (10) 11-13, 75, Table B.3, Table J.1, c

(10)

Attachment E states the safety and health plan is submitted 30 days after contract award. Page 102 of the DRFP (1) states it shall be submitted at the time of proposal submission. Will the

Attachment E is revised to read TBP.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer government please clarify when a SEAS

II Safety and Health

Plan should be submitted?

L.21(d) 89 Please confirm that the submission of

Cost Exhibits 10A and 10B by non-significant cost subcontractors will satisfy this requirement.

No, the government will review only submissions for significant subcontractors

Proposal

Component

Table

L.26 (b)(1) 97 Due to extensive requirements in the

RTOs, and to provide a comprehensive response to the

Government, we believe it is in the

Government's best interest to consider increasing Mission

Suitability page count. Will the

Government consider increasing Mission

Suitability page count to 90?

The government considered increasing the page count for mission suitability beyond 90 pages and has rejected the idea of increasing it.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

L.26 (b)(2)

98 Requirements indicate excel exhibits are in 9-12

ARIAL and text is in

Times New Roman. No font is designated for diagrams, tables, and artwork.

Will the government allow ARIAL

NARROW 10 pt. for diagrams, tables, and artwork?

Yes, the government will allow this font for diagrams, tables and artwork. The RFP will be updated to reflect this change.

Excel Cost

Spreadshee ts

L.26(a)(3) 96 States, “An electronic copy of the Offer’s

(Prime and proposed

Significant

Subcontractors) proposal shall be submitted in

Microsoft Office Word

(compatible with version

X). While the RFP provides the Cost

Volume exhibits in PDF format, Offerors shall submit all Cost Volume exhibits in Microsoft

Office Excel format

(compatible with Excel

2010) and the exhibits shall contain all formulas. Instructions for converting from PDF format to Excel can be found in the Cost

Volume Instructions provision. DO NOT

Will the Government consider changing

“Offerors shall submit all Cost

Volume exhibits in

Microsoft Office

Excel format

(compatible with

Excel 2010)” to

Offerors shall submit all Cost Volume

Exhibits in Microsoft

Office Excel format

(compatible with

Excel .xlsx)? This will give greater flexibility to Offerors to develop compliant spreadsheets, while remaining readable to the Government.

Yes

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer password protect any portion of your electronic submission.”

L.26(a)(4)

The RFP states the format for proposals shall parallel the format of the evaluation factors and subfactors contained in

Section L of the solicitation.

Because Section L does not contain evaluation factors or subfactors, would the government remove the words “of the evaluation factors and subfactors” from the referenced sentence?

The offeror shall refer to

Section M for the factors and subfactors.

L.26(b)(1)

97 According to the

Proposal Content and

Page Limitations table, the SOW Compliance

Matrix, Total

Compensation Plan, Phase-in Plan, QAP, and

List of Acronyms are excluded from page count. The Phase-in Plan is located in the middle of Factor B –

Management Plan, making it difficult to exclude from page count.

Would the government allow

Offerors to reference an attachment or appendix for the

Phase-in Plan so it will not be included in the page count for the Management

Plan?

No, the Phase In in plan shall be submitted as stated.

Safety and

Health Plan

L.27 (c) (10) The successful contractor shall submit for NASA

The Safety and

Health Plan is not

The Safety and Health Plan should be submitted as part

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer approval a comprehensive Safety and Health Plan at the time of proposal submission, which will be incorporated into the contract under Clause J.1 as Attachment E. The

Contracting Officer and center safety and occupational health official(s) will review the plan for completeness and identify to the

Contractor substantive weaknesses and omissions for necessary collection. Once the

Contractor has collected the substantive weaknesses and omissions, the

Contracting Officer shall incorporate the approved plan into the contract as a compliance document.

Safety and Health Plan is submitted as part of the

Offer Volume, therefore not evaluated.

evaluated based on

Section M. Would the

Government consider making the Safety and Health Plan due

30 days after

Contract Award?

of the offer volume to be reviewed but not evaluated.

The final plan is due 30 days after award. The safety and

Health Plan is considered a responsibility issue and must be considered prior to award.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

L.27(8)

Offerors are required to have a Top Secret level facility security clearance by the due date for receipt of proposals.

For purposes of obtaining office space in the Greenbelt, MD area, will classified work be required to be performed at the offsite contractor facility?

No, Classified work will be performed on-site at NASA and is not permitted off the campus. The contractor is not required to have a SCIF (secure compartmented information facility) or classified computers at an off-site building.

L.27(8) Offerors previous question, and multiple RFP references to Offsite labor

In light of the current environment with Covid-

19, telecommuting has become common in contract performance.

Assuming that the answer to our previous question is that offsite work will be unclassified, and in an effort to control the cost of facilities and fluctuations in offsite staff, will the government allow a portion of offsite staff to telecommute from their homes?

COVID-19 is a temporary change in the environmental worksite flexibilities due to the international pandemic and the response to contain the spread.

With that being stated, worksite determination for telework will be determined per task.

DRFP L.28 102 L.28 states that electronic submissions must “not contain links to data not included in the electronic copy”

In order to ease evaluation, will the

Government confirm that hyperlinks or bookmarks within a

PDF file, referring to data elsewhere in that file/volume are acceptable?

Yes, hyperlinks can be used to refer to data already included in the electronic copy.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Position

Qualificati ons

L.29 (c)B.9

Section B.9 of the

Mission Suitability

Instructions by Subfactor indicates the position qualifications are provided as part of the cost volume.

For the purposes of technical evaluation, may the offeror also provide a duplicate copy of the position descriptions with the tech volume as an attachment not included page count?

Yes, the offeror may provide a duplicate copy of the position descriptions with the technical volume not to be included in the page count.

L.29(c), Subfactor B, B.2

105 “The proposal shall describe the nature and extent of the work to be performed by each significant subcontractor, including split of responsibilities and the potential percentages of work to be performed.”

Non-significant subcontractors are excluded from this requirement, which means complete coverage of the SOW will not be shown. It is not clear how to represent complete coverage (i.e. the split of work across the entire contract). For example, Significant Sub A has an overall 20% workshare

Do we show the overall contract workshare for the

Significant

Subcontractor or the

Significant

Subcontractor’s workshare for each area of the SOW?

At a minimum, the RFP requires overall workshare percentages and the split of responsibilities related to the prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor. The

Offeror is encouraged to provide additional information, including non-significant subcontractor overall work percentage and more detailed percentage of workshare split at the SOW level if it would be helpful. However, non-significant subcontractors are not included in the past performance evaluation.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer for the entire contract, but only 10% in SOW

2.3. Non-Significant Sub

B has an overall 10% workshare for the entire contract, but 90% in

SOW 2.3.

L.29(c), Subfactor B.10

107 The prime and significant subcontractors are required to submit a

Total Compensation Plan

(TCP) within the Mission

Suitability Volume, but the TCP contains proprietary information that subcontractors should submit directly to the government via LFT.

Will the government allow significant subcontractors to submit their TCP directly to the government via LFT?

Yes, the government will allow significant subcontractors to submit their Total Compensation

Plan (TCP) directly to the government.

Position

Qualificati ons

L.29(C)B.9 107 States, "Offerors shall provide written Position

Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance. Per the directions in the Cost

Volume instruction provision, the Offeror's

Position Qualifications are to be included in the

Does the Government expect Position

Qualifications to be included in both the

Mission Suitability volume and the Cost volume? If so, are they excluded from the page count in the

Mission Suitability volume?

Yes, the Position

Requirements are to be excluded from the page count in the Mission

Suitability Volume.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer contract Attachment entitled, 'Direct Labor

Rates, Indirect Rates, and

Fee Matrices,' which shall be submitted in the

Cost Volume (per table

(b)( l ) of GSFC provision 52.215-201).

Offerors shall address the minimum requirements in the Position

Qualifications, to include necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/licensing, minimum education and/or experience required for the position."

L.30(a), Exhibit 3;

L.30(b)(6)

110 & 117 Exhibit 3 indicates

Significant

Subcontractors are required to complete the template. However, L.30(a) and L.30(b)(6), do not include Exhibit 3 as a requirement for

Significant

Subcontractors.

Since hours are proposed at the prime level on Exhibit 1A, do Significant

Subcontractors need to submit Exhibit 3?

No, exhibit 3 is only applicable to the Prime.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

L.30(b)(4), first paragraph, 3rd line from page start

116 The sentence begins

“When completing this

Exhibit 2B….”

Should the reference in this sentence be

“Exhibit 2A”?

Yes, the reference should be

Exhibit 2A. This will be corrected in the final RFP.

DRFP L.30(b)(5) 117 Instructions state "For evaluation purposes, all

Management and

Administration Labor

Costs shall be assumed

Offsite." However, Exhibits 2B and 2D include 'Onsite

Management' and 'Offsite

Administrative' Places of

Performance.

Can the Government confirm all

Management and

Administration labor costs should be proposed as offsite rates and remove any reference to

“Onsite”?

All Management and

Administration (M&A) labor categories shall be proposed

Offsite rates. The final RFP will correct Exhibits 2B and 2D.

L.30(b)(5); GPM Exhibit

2B

117 The last sentence in this section states that “for

Exhibits 2B and 2D, all

Offerors shall note that all Management and

Administrative (M&A) labor categories shall be proposed using Offsite rates.” Exhibits 2B and

2D, however, have sections for Offerors to propose Onsite

Management labor and

Offsite Administrative labor.

Would the government correct either page 117 or

Exhibit 2B & 2D?

Yes, all Management and

Administration (M&A) labor categories shall be proposed

Offsite rates. The final RFP will correct Exhibits 2B and 2D.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

L.31(a)

The discussion indicates an affiliated company’s past performance can be used “being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort”.

Please confirm the offeror may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company if the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the

Offeror.

Yes, the offeror may provide the experience or past performance of a parent of affiliated company if the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the

Offeror.

121 The RFP states the

“Offeror shall provide an estimated value and percentage of work to be performed on this contract by the Prime

Offeror and each significant subcontractor.

Indicate the primary functions (SOW, etc.) to be performed by the

Prime Offeror and each proposed significant subcontractor.” Non-significant subcontractors

Do we have to show that all the SOW areas are covered by the prime and significant subcontractor’s past performance references?

The references will be evaluated for relevancy against the proposed SOW areas to be performed by the prime and significant subcontractors. The

Offeror is encouraged to provide additional information, including non-significant subcontractor overall work percentage and more detailed percentage of workshare split at the SOW level if it would be helpful. However, non-significant subcontractors are not included in the past performance evaluation.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer are excluded from this requirement.

121 “Prime Offeror’s shall furnish the information requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts….”

Given the limit of 35 pages, would the government remove the word “all”?

Offerors shall provide the information requested for all of your most recent contracts for

“similar efforts” which shall not exceed the 35 page limit.

121 “The Offeror shall provide the following information on all past/current contract references that meet the above criteria for the

Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor.” By requiring a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of at least 10%, the number of potential past performance references for prime and significant subcontractors could be extensive.

Given the limit of 35 pages, would the government remove the word “all”?

No, offerors shall provide the information requested for all of your most recent contracts for

“similar efforts” which shall not exceed the 35 page limit.

Past

Performanc e

L.31(b) 123 States, "The Offeror shall instruct each of its references to return the questionnaire directly to

Are questionnaires supposed to be submitted in a sealed

All questionnaire’s should be completed and submitted directly to the NASA

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Questionna ires the Government in a sealed envelope," but also states, "The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and submitted directly to the NASA

Contract Specialist, via email to

Kristal.Kerr@nasa.gov."

envelope or via email?

Contract Specialist, via email to Kristal.Kerr@nasa.gov

DRFP M.3.c 127 M.3.c makes a clear division of evaluation points between

Subfactors A and B, but does not make a distinction within

Subfactor A between the technical understanding/risk section and the RTOs

(within the 600 points)

Will the Government identify the relative weighting of evaluation points within Subfactor A

No, all factors will be included in the scoring with technical approach.

Section B – Supplies or

Services and Costs, Paragraph B.5(b)

14 Potential discrepancy:

This paragraph states that

“The Contractor’s proposed approach/pricing of the representative tasks set forth in its proposal for award of this contract shall be used as a

Will the government please clarify?

Offerors should provide detailed response to requirements in Section L of the

RFP which will provide

Government with data needed in B.5 of the RFP.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer reference to the

Contracting Officer in negotiating tasks with the

Contractor . . .” While

Section L.29(c)A.2, page

105 – The last sentence of the last paragraph states “. . . no cost estimates are required from this portion of the

Offeror’s proposal.”

However, Paragraph B.5

(b), page 14, states that

“The Contractor’s proposed approach/pricing of the representative tasks set forth in its proposal for award of this contract.”

Section C –

Description/Specifications/S tatement of Work, Paragraph C.1 Scope of

Work

This paragraph references Contract

Historical Data.

Will the historical data be provided for all three incumbent contracts, SEAS, TIDES, and WESC?

Yes, historical data will be provided for all three incumbent contracts SEAS, TIDES and WESC

Section D – Packing and

Marking, Paragraph D.2(e), This paragraph identifies the NASA center receiving activity as:

NASA GSFC, Building

35, Code 279 Greenbelt, Maryland 20771.

Will the WFF have its own NASA receiving activity for on-going work at

WFF in conjunction with this contract?

Yes, the RFP will be updated to add the address for Wallops

Receiving is:

NASA GSFC-Wallops Flight

Facility

34200 Fulton St

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Wallops Island, VA 23337

Section E – Inspection and

Acceptance, Paragraphs

E.3, E.4(4)

20-21 Government Contract

Quality Assurance

Functions. There are three functions listed to be performed at the locations indicated. The only location listed in all three functions is NASA

Goddard Space Flight

Center.

There is only one

Receiving and Inspection

Location listed: NASA

Goddard Space Flight

Center (Code 279), Greenbelt, MD 20771.

Will NASA WFF have a separate

Receiving and

Inspection location for Paragraphs E.3 and E.4?

Yes, the address for Wallops

Receiving is:

NASA GSFC-Wallops Flight

Facility

Section F -Deliverables and

Performance, Section F.4

23 Shipping Instructions –

Central Receiving.

Under this paragraph, “Shipments of the items required under this contract shall be to:

Receiving Officer, Goddard Space Flight

Center, Building 35 Code

279, Greenbelt, Maryland

20771.

Do these instructions apply to WFF under this contract, or should they be covered with the

WFF Receiving

Officer?

The final RFP shall be revised to include a separate address for

Wallops Receiving:

NASA GSFC-Wallops Flight

Facility

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

Section G – Contract

Administration Data, Paragraph G.10(b)(1)

27 This paragraph states, “The official accountable recordkeeping, financial control, and reporting of the property subject to this clause shall be retained by Government and accomplished within

NASA management information systems prescribed by the installation Supply and

Equipment Management

Office (SEMO) and

Financial Management

Officer.”

Do GSFC and WFF both use SEMO?

Paragraph G.11(b)(2)

29 This paragraph states, “The Contractor shall mail the original signed

NF 1018 directly to the

Goddard Space Flight

Center, Supply and

Equipment Management

Branch, Code 273, Greenbelt, MD 20771 and a copy to the

Goddard Space Flight

Center (GSFC), General

Accounting Department, General Ledger Section, Are the provisions of this paragraph applicable to WFF?

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Code 157, Greenbelt, MD 20771, . . .”

Paragraph G.14

30 Individuals Authorized to

Issue Orders. Under this paragraph the NASA

GSFC Contracting

Office, Code 210.M is authorized to issue orders.

Will there be multiple individuals authorized to issue orders, i.e. WFF?

No

Paragraph G.16(a)

32 Definition for

“Controlled Equipment” paragraph ends with “. . .

and identified as sensitive by Appendix C of NPR 4200.1 and by the GSFC Information and Logistics

Management Division, Supply and Equipment

Management Branch, Code 273.”

Does GSFC

Information and

Logistics

Management

Division, Supply and

Equipment

Management Branch, Code 273 handle both

GSFC and WFF?

Section H All The DRFP contains

Attachment H "Contract

Historical Data". That document, dated 2015, appears to be the requirement for the current contract holder to provide such data at the request of the

Contractors may be asked to submit historical data in the future. However, historical data for this acquisition is provided with the final RFP.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Government. But the historical data itself from the current contract does not appear to have been issued with the DRFP.

Section H – Special

Contract Requirements

42 End of Section H. As in other DRFP Sections there is no indication that page 42 is the “End of

Section H.”

Is Paragraph H.12 the

End of Section H?

The final RFP will add End of Section

Contract Requirements, Paragraph H.10

42 Government Property –

Compliance with Safety

Standards. This paragraph addresses

Government-furnished property that does not conform to applicable

Federal, State, or local safety standards and requires the Contractor to promptly notify the

Contracting Officer in writing with a copy to the

Goddard Space Flight

Center Safety Division

Code 360.

Should similar but separate requirements be specified for the

WFF location?

No, the requirement is the same for the GSFC and WFF locations.

Paragraph H.12

42 Rights in Data. This paragraph contains two

GSFC documents references.

Should similar but separate documents be specified for the

WFF location?

The documents are the same for both locations WFF and

GSFC

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background

Paragraph H.6(b)

38 This paragraph addresses, “… where work is to be performed on-site at NASA

Goddard Space Flight

Center.”

Should this paragraph or subparagraph identify a similar requirement at

Wallops Flight

Facility?

The final RFP will include

WFF.

Paragraph H.7(a), page 39

39 This paragraph addresses

Personal Identity

Verification (PIV) requirements associated with NASA GSFC.

Should similar, but separate requirements be specified for access to WFF at their location?

Paragraph H.8(a)

40 This paragraph addresses

Contractor application for permanent NASA

GSFC PIV Cards

(badges).

Should similar but separate requirements be specified for the

WFF location?

Paragraph H.9(a)

41-42 This paragraph addresses

Safety and Health

Incident Reporting at

Goddard Space Flight

Center.

Should similar but separate Safety and

Health Incident

Reporting be specified for the WFF location?

The final RFP will include

WFF

Section I – Contract

Clauses, Paragraph I.125(c)

71 This paragraph states that, “Contractors shall submit the above referenced transportation documents to – Goddard

Space Flight Center, Contracting Officer, Should this be applicable to the

Contracting Officer located at WFF?

One contracting officer will handle both Greenbelt and

WFF.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Code 210.M, Greenbelt, MD 20771.”

Section L, Paragraph

L.26(b)(1)

97 Table does not list the

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) and

Safety and Health Plans in the Offer Volume, as is done in the Mission

Suitability Volume for the Quality Assurance

Plan (QAP) and Phase-in

Plan.

Please clarify if the

Organizational

Conflict of Interest

(OCI) and Safety and

Health Plans should be submitted in the

Offer Volume.

Yes, the Organizational

Conflict of Interest (OCI) and Safety and Health Plans should be submitted in the

Offer Volume.

Section L.29 (c) A.1 and

B.1

Both sections require a description of risk techniques that will be used to manage identified risks.

Would the

Government consider allowing the

Management Risk discussion from B1 to be incorporated into the risk discussion requested in A1?

The Final RFP will reflect a revision offeror shall state the risk techniques for both sections.

Is NASA changing the facility clearance requirements for Joint

Venture Offerors based on the recent

SBA rule, effective

November 16, 2020? This rule establishes new guidelines for which

NASA recently communicated with the SBA to discuss the implementation of the new rule (Document Citation 85

FR 66146), since the Defense

Counterintelligence and

Security Agency (DCSA) actually controls the facility clearance process and

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer

Joint Venture partner is responsible for having the required facility clearance and removes the requirement for the

Joint Venture itself to have a facility clearance. Further, based on our discussions with

NASA personnel, we believe that that the top secret requirements represent a small percentage of the work and are therefore “ancillary” to the overall requirements. If these requirements are ancillary, then we believe only the non-

8(a) partner to the JV has to have a top secret facility clearance. However, we ask that you please confirm our assumption is reviews/approvals. The

SBA stated that they are still coordinating with the DCSA on implementation details and new guidance may be released in upcoming weeks. Until such guidance is issued, and DCSA confirms the implementation details, NASA is not changing the requirements for this solicitation. NASA will continue to monitor the status of new guidance. Further, NASA does not agree that the top secret facility clearance requirements for this solicitation are “ancillary” to the principal purpose of this procurement. While it may not represent a large percentage of the total work required, NASA has determined that these requirements are primary and vital requirements of this contract.

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer correct. See information below on the new SBA rule:

(4) Facility security clearances. A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance.

(i) Where a facility

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer security clearance is required to perform primary and vital requirements of a contract, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.

(ii) Where the security portion of the contract requiring a facility security clearance is ancillary to the principal purpose of the procurement, the partner to the joint

RFP Section Reference RFP Page # Context / Background to question

Question Answer venture that will perform that work must possess the required facility security clearance.