SEAS II Final RFP Questions and Responses Set 1.pdf

Systems Engineering Advanced Services II (SEAS II) Solicitation No. 80GSFC20R0037 Questions and Responses Set #1

1/12

1. Question: Enclosure BB, L.29.A.2 - A typical task plan requires specific items not requested in the RTOs for SEAS II. Therefore, we are requesting clarification in Questions 1-3 as follows here and below: Will the Government please confirm there is not a staffing requirement for either of the RTOs?

Response: Please provide a staffing approach and projected hours as added in amendment 1.

2. Question: Enclosure BB, L.29.A.2 - Will the Government please confirm there is not a requirement for a breakdown of projected hours in the RTOs?

Response: Please provide a staffing approach and projected hours as requested in amendment 1.

3. Question: Enclosure BB, L.29.A.2 - Will the Government please confirm there is not a requirement to identify risks in the RTOs since they are addressed in A.1?

Response: See amendment 1.

4. Question: Since the offerors are asked to respond to the RTO deliverables (RTO 1 subtask H, RTO 2 subtask M), does the Government want an offeror’s proposal to include a baseline 533M/Q staffing approach?

Response: Please provide a staffing approach and projected hours as added in amendment 1.

5. Typo: Enclosure BB, L. 29 (c) B.8 Task Order Management - The references to the Task Ordering Procedure is referred to as Section I.126 but should actually be Section I.128.

Response: The correct reference to the Task Ordering Procedure is Section I.128.

6. Question: RFP Section B.5(b) - In response to a Draft RFP question pointing out a potential discrepancy in RFP section B.5, the government stated: “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. Could the government please clarify which elements of Section L addresses the requirements meeting the requirements of B.5?

Response: B.5, GSFC-52.216-91 paragraph (b) is not applicable to this requirement and is hereby removed. Paragraph (b) is “Reserved”.

2/12

7. Question: B.8 Enclosure BB, L.29.A.2 - Enclosure BB specifically states “no cost estimates are required from this portion of the Offeror’s proposal,” so why is there a reference for “$200K for the total cost of hardware” in attachment BB, RTO 2, sub-element C, Assumptions?

Response: The total cost of hardware is provided for additional information to consider when preparing your response.

8. Question: Section L.30 (b) (12) - The SEAS II Final RFP cover letter states that the contract effective date is March 7, 2022, and a Phase-In will be conducted during the 60 day period prior to the contract effective date. The Cost proposal instructions, Section L.30, item (b)

(12) (page 119), states that the Phase-In will commence “on or about March 7, 2022.” Please clarify the Phase-In start date and the contract effective date.

Response: Amendment 1 corrected L.30 to state that the Phase-in will commence on or about January 6, 2022.

9. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO1 - In Enclosure BB, RTO 1, the background section states:

“For Phases B-D, assume the bus will be procured from the RSDO catalog.” The requirement for GN&C support (section F) states the contractor is to “Design a propulsion system that meets mission requirements in support of an in-house spacecraft bus.” Should we assume the hypothetical case that an in-house spacecraft might be selected in Phase A and we need to plan this task to design the propulsion system for it in house?

Response: Yes

10. Question: Subfactor B, Management Plan - Items B.1 thru B.4 are included as page limited sections, as are Items B.6 thru B.9. B.5 (Phase-In Plan) is not page limited. To provide ease in evaluating page counts, can Item B.5 just provide a reference to a Subfactor B attachment containing the Phase-in Plan?

11. Question: RFP, Section L.24, Pg. 91 - Please confirm that all Offerors are required to submit an OCI Assessment and OCI Plan as part of the proposal in Volume I.

Response: Yes. See L24 g(1) & (2) Offeror volume

3/12

12. Question: RFP, Section L.26 (a)(5)(b)(1), Pg. 97 - Please confirm that all cover pages, table of contents, and related matrices are also excluded from the page count in Volume I - Offer Volume, Volume III - Cost Volume, and Volume IV - Past Performance Volume.

Response: Exclusions are as stated in L.26(b) (1) table.

13. Question: RFP, Section M.3 Pg. 126 - Section M.3, states “A lack of resource realism may adversely affect the offeror's Mission Suitability evaluation and result in cost realism adjustments under the Cost factor.” However, the responses to RTO 1 and RTO 2 are not to be priced. Please clarify to what the resource realism caution applies.

Response: While the Government Pricing Model establishes the labor hours and skill mix for non-management labor, each Offeror must propose their own approach for management staffing. An example of a lack of resource realism could be inadequate hours, FTEs, or skill mix associated with an Offeror’s management approach, in either the Mission Suitability or Cost Volumes, which could result in Mission Suitability finding(s) and/or cost adjustment(s).

14. Question: RFP, Section L.26 (b)(1), Pg. 97 - Does the government prefer that the Total Compensation Plan, Phase-in Plan, Safety and Health Plan, and Quality Assurance Plan all be provided as separate attachments to Volume II?

15. Question: RFP, Section L.26 (b)(1), Pg. 97 - The table references a Safety and Health Plan but there is no additional guidance in section L.29. Please confirm that a Safety and Health Plan is not required as part of the proposal submission.

Response: A Safety & Health Plan is required with proposal as detailed in RFP Section L.12, NFS 1852.223-73 Safety & Health Plan

16. Question: RFP, Section L.29 B.9, Position Qualifications, Pg. 107 - Will the government further define what information it would like Offeror's to include as part of Volume II versus Volume III for Position Qualifications?

Response: Position Qualifications shall be provided as part of the cost volume as stated in L.29.

17. Question: RFP, Section L.29 B.10, Total Compensation Plan, Pg. l07 - What is the government's guidance on how they would like to see Total Compensation Plans for Joint Venture entities?

Response: All Offerors shall provide the required information for the Total Compensation Plan. Joint Ventures may submit separate plans from each JV prime partner, if desired.

4/12

18. Question: RFP, Section L.29 B.10, Total Compensation Plan, Pg. 107 - Will significant or all subcontractors have to provide their individual TCP's as part of Volume II?

Response: As stated in L30(b)(14), the Offeror and all Significant and Non-Significant service subcontractors meeting the definition in paragraph (d) of NFS 1852.231-71.

19. Question: RFP, Section L.29 B.9, Position Qualifications, Pg. 107 - Will the government consider excluding the Position Qualifications requirement from the page limitation for Volume II?

Response: L.26(b)(1) is hereby corrected to read “position qualifications” instead of “position description”. Position qualifications are excluded from page limitation.

20. Question: RFP, Section L.30, Cost Volume, Pg. 108 - For the purpose of the cost volume, are the members of an unpopulated joint venture considered prime contractors or significant subcontractors?

Response: If a Joint Venture is the prime Offeror, then the prime members of the Joint Venture are required to be responsive to prime Offeror proposal instructions. See additional Q&A specific to this topic and specific cost areas.

21. Question: RFP, Section L.30, Cost Volume, Pg. 108 - How would the government like an unpopulated joint venture to approach the cost exhibits as prime contractor? (i.e. as a rate composite or separate)

Response: JV prime Offerors may use either approach, but an overall approach that provides data and narrative to demonstrate historical rates and their relationship with proposed rates is desirable. In addition, if the composite approach is used, the data needs to be submitted in a manner that clearly delineates cost for each cost element at the JV member level.

22. Question: RFP, Section L.30, Cost Volume, Pg. 108 - How would the government like an unpopulated joint venture to approach the cost exhibits as prime contractor? (i.e. as a rate composite or separate)

Response: JV prime Offerors may use either approach, but an overall approach that provides data and narrative to demonstrate historical rates and their relationship with proposed rates is desirable.

5/12

23. Question: RFP, Section L.31, Past Performance Volume, Pg. 120 - For the purpose of the past performance volume, are the members of an unpopulated joint venture considered prime contractors or significant subcontractors?

Response: If a Joint Venture is the prime Offeror, then the prime members of the Joint Venture are required to be responsive to prime Offeror proposal instructions. They will be evaluated as part of the prime Offeror evaluation.

24. Question: RFP, Section L.31, Past Performance Volume, Pg. 120 - Instructions in the past performance volume indicate that the Offeror shall provide the information for ALL of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts and any significant subcontractor(s) within the last 5 years, etc. Given the potential volume of past performance information that the government is requesting, is there a maximum number of past performances that you would like to be included or will the government consider increasing or exclude the page count for the past performance volume?

Response: Language shall remain the same. Information is required on All similar efforts as stated in L.31 is required.

25. Question: RFP, Exhibit 1A-1C - Since with an unpopulated JV the JV partners are subcontractors - how should this be shown in this exhibit?

Response: For Exhibit 1A, the column titles for the exhibit can be modified in the proposal to indicate which entities are JV partners and which entities are other JV subcontractors, related to labor. For Exhibits 1B and 1C, total JV prime cost data shall be used to complete these exhibits.

26. Question: RFP, Exhibit 2-11 - Since with an unpopulated JV the JV partners are subcontractors - how should this be shown in these exhibits.

Response: For each JV prime partner, indicate the name of the JV Partner on each exhibit as the “Proposing Entity” and check the “Prime Offeror” block on the top of the exhibit (when applicable). The JV partners are required to submit all exhibits required from prime offerors. For Exhibit 3, a total JV Exhibit 3 shall be provided, however, the specific indirect costs are not separately required at the total JV level. For JV’s, indirect costs may be combined with direct labor on Exhibit 3 for a loaded or partially loaded labor cost, when JV partners consider their independent JV partner indirect costs to be proprietary. If this method is used for Exhibit 3, each JV partner shall also separately submit independent JV partner Exhibit 3 data, which shall total the combined JV Exhibit 3 total.

6/12

27. Question: RFP, Exhibit 1A-1C - Will the government be providing ODC $'s for use in the

GPM?

Response: This information is provided in L.30(b)(3) under bullet 10.

28. Question: RFP, Exhibit 2-11 - Since with an unpopulated JV the JV partners are subcontractors - how should this be shown in these exhibits?

Response: For each JV prime partner, indicate the name of the JV Partner on each exhibit as the “Proposing Entity” and check the “Prime Offeror” block on the top of the exhibit (when applicable).

29. Question: Will the Government confirm that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) can be completed in Word and returned to the Government or, if not, that they can issue a fillable PDF form and allow more time for the PPQs to be returned?

Response: Correct, PPQs may be completed in word and returned to the Government by the due date stated in RFP.

30. Question: RFP, Exhibit 3, L.30(a), Pg. 109; L.30(b)(6), Pg. 117 - Attachment B requires six years of pricing, but Exhibit 6A and 6B only has 6 years of indirect rates. It will take 7 fiscal years of indirect rates to convert to 6 contract years.

Response: Contractor is responsible for providing rates for 6 contract years. It is contractor’s responsibility to determine the applicable rate to use for proposal purposes for each year.

31. Question: RFP, GPM Exhibit 6A-B - Does the government prefer that the Total

Compensation Plan, Phase-in Plan, Safety and Health Plan, and Quality Assurance Plan all be provided as separate attachments to Volume II? We assume Offerors may add an additional column of indirect rates for conversion to the required contract years. Please confirm.

Response: No, contractors are required to provide 6 years of rates to use for proposal purposes. Offerors may provide the TCP, Phase-in Plan, S&H Plan and Quality Assurance Plan may be provided as separate attachments to Volume II.

32. Question: Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data - The government has only provided incumbent rates for 10 labor categories at Goddard and 5 labor categories at Wallops. As

7/12

Attachment H – Contract Historical Data is a requirement on the SEAS II effort, presumably it was also required on the SEAS, TIDES, and WESC contracts. Since there are more than 15 labor categories between the three incumbent contracts, it appears a significant amount of data is missing from Enclosure DD. Additionally, Attachment H requires the same information be provided for all significant subcontractors. Did the government obtain wage information from SEAS, TIDES, and WESC incumbent contracts? Did the government obtain wage information from the significant subcontractors on the three incumbent contracts?

Response: The government did obtain wage information from SEAS, TIDES and WESC contract and is included in Enclosure DD. However, in the case where only one FTE or less was available the data was not included in the Enclosure DD. The SEAS II contract does not contain the full scope of the TIDES contract.

33. Question: RFP, Cover Letter, Pg. 1; Section L.30(b)(12), Pg. 119 - Per the Cover Letter, the anticipated contract award date is January 6, 2022, with a March 7, 2022 contract effective date. Section L.30(b)(12) states phase-in is expected to commence on or about March 7, 2022. For clarification and for pricing purposes and phase-in planning could the government confirm phase-in is expected to start on January 6, 2022 and full contract performance is expected to start 60 days later on March 7, 2022?

Response: Yes, this was corrected with Amendment 1.

34. Question: RFP, Section J - The RFP has labor categories that will be subject to the Service Contract Act, but the government did not include applicable FAR clauses, Wage Determination 2015-4281 rev16, or 2015-4327 rev13. For reference, 29 C.F.R. §§ 4.107 –

4.113 of the Service Contract Act determines which federal government contracts are subject to the SCA. Would the government add the applicable WDs and the necessary FAR clauses to incorporate the Service Contract Act?

Response: The WESC Contract previously included a CBA for Calibration technicians. The work and labor category applicable to the CBA has moved to another WFF contract and will not be part of the SEAS II requirement

35. Question: RFP, Draft Q&A Responses, Pg. 10; Section L.26(b)(2) Pg.97 - “Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point.” Draft Q&A responses indicate the use of Arial Narrow 10 for tables and graphics in the volumes is acceptable, however, the government did not indicate as such in L.26(b)(2) of the Final RFP. Please confirm Arial Narrow 10 is acceptable in graphics and tables.

Response: Yes, the government will allow Arial Narrow 10 for diagrams, tables and artwork.

8/12

36. Question: RFP, Section L.26(b)(1) Pg. 97 - Mission Suitability Volume – Page limit of 75

Pages. The government may not get a thorough description of an offeror’s capability. Would the government please increase the page count for the Mission Suitability Volume to 85 pages?

Response: Page limitation remains at 75 for Mission Suitability Volume.

37. Question: Can the government confirm whether the proposal page limitation for the BOEs listed in L.26 for the Prime Offeror and Significant Subcontractors is 25 pages combined or 25 pages for each individual offeror?

Response: 25 pages combined.

38. Question: Will the Government please confirm that it does not want Offerors to include those labor categories from Enclosure CC that do NOT have hours in Exhibit 1A and Attachment B?

Response: Rates are NOT to be provided for labor categories without hours listed.

39. Question: Will the Government please clarify if a Safety and Health Plan is indeed now required to be submitted with the proposal and, if so, in which volume?

Response: Yes, a S&H Plan is required per L.12 NFS 1852.223-73 Safety & Health Plan.

This is part of Mission Suitability Volume but excluded from page count.

40. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 2 K-M, Pg. 9 - Please provide any Organizational Interfaces, Period of Performance, and/or Deliverables for RTO 1.

Response: The vendor must provide their own approach. The period of performance and deliverable are shown in the RTO.

41. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 2, Section A - Please provide more details on the laser communications system to be tested

Response: No additional details needed. The vendor must provide their own approach.

42. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 2, Section A - Please provide more technical specifications regarding the WASP

9/12

Response: No additional details needed. The vendor must provide their own approach.

43. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 1, Pg. 1 - Does the Science Payload include the Secondary

Payload?

Response: “The specific requirements listed in this RTO capture those tasks which would be performed by the contractor. The offeror shall identify all assumptions made in responding to the RTO.” If the information is not provided in the RTO, then it is up to the vendor to develop their approach with the given information and identify any assumptions they make in their approach.

44. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 1, Pg. 1 - Is the Contractor responsible for systems engineering & integration of the Secondary Payload, and if so will GSFC provide an Interface Control Document for the secondary payload at ATP?

Response: “The specific requirements listed in this RTO capture those tasks which would be performed by the contractor. The offeror shall identify all assumptions made in responding to the RTO.” If the information is not provided in the RTO, then it is up to the vendor to develop their approach with the given information and identify any assumptions they make in their approach.

45. Question: Enclosure CC, GPM, Pg. 7-8 - The experience requirements are identical for the Propulsion Technician 1 and 2. Please clarify.

Response: A propulsion technician 2 shall have demonstrated skills commensurate with increased responsibility such as being the lead technician on a flight project. A propulsion technician 2 shall have demonstrated mastery of relevant flight certifications.

46. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 1 Section D - RTO 1 Section D implies that Formulation is limited to Phase A. NPR-7120 and the GSFC Standard Project Life Cycle define Formulation as Phases A and B. Please confirm Formulation is Phases A and B.

Response: Formulation is Phases A and B as defined in NPR 7120.

47. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 2, Section E - “Assist with mechanical technician support…” It is unclear whether we are assisting a non-SEAS II mechanical technician or if we are providing the mechanical technician. Given the mechanical technician was added to the labor categories, we assume we are to provide. If this is a correct assumption would the government please reword the requirement to say “provide mechanical technician support……”?

Response: Yes, the contractor is to provide the mechanical technician support.

10/12

48. Question: Enclosure BB, RTO 1, Section A - This section states that for phases B-D assume the bus will be procured from the RSDO catalog, while RTO 1 Section F states Design a propulsion system that meets mission requirements in support of an in-house spacecraft bus.

Does propulsion design end before Phase B?

Response: During Phase A of this hypothetical case, the development of an in-house spacecraft is being considered. By Phase B, the decision has been made to procure the spacecraft from the RSDO catalog. Therefore, the propulsion design ends at the end of Phase A.

49. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - The SMA Directorate provides support to GSFC projects in the development of safety and mission assurance requirements, and the independent surveillance, audit, review, and assessment of design, development, test, and Mission Operations activities on-site and at support facilities. This includes management of institutional risk related to project operations.

1. System Safety Program: Is this program similar or a supplement to the current SMAS II

Contract System Safety Program?

2. Independent Requirement: There appears to be a conflict of interest in regard to independence. Please clarify the “independence” requirement of a System Safety Program introduced to SEAS II assigned Task Orders.

Response: Code 300 SMA is usually at the project level, which flows down to the subsystem level. This requirement is for hardware designed and built at the vendor facility. This requirement is requiring a set of safety and mission assurance processes for the vendor to have at their facility. The independence requirement is that the vendor provides its own SMA Representative that is separate from the GSFC SMA Representative.

50. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - ELV Support Services: Reference is made to ELV missions launched from ETR and WTR. There is no specific mention of WFF, which launches NASA, DOD, and Commercial ELVs. Should WFF be added as a specific call out, since SEAS II provides system engineering as well as discipline engineering support services to WFF?

Response: For the provided RTO2, launch locations are clearly specified to take place at Ft.

Sumner, NM and White Sand, NM - ETR & WTR are referenced as launch sites in RTO1.

Wallops should not be added.

11/12

51. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 -Performance Assurance Specific Task Orders: All SEAS II Task Orders are issued by Code 500 Customer. Will Code 300 be involved with Code 500 activity for system safety requirements to maintain this distinction?

Response: All SEAS II Task Orders are to be issued by the Code 500 Customer. Where support is required from codes outside of 500 arrangements shall be made to acquire adequate support.

52. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - “Conformance with Systems Safety/Mission Assurance Program” - Does the terminology of “conformance” reduce, if not eliminate, the need for independent assessment of system safety requirements?

Response: SMA is for work performed, paperwork created, hardware, etc. created onsite at the vendor.

53. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - System Safety Plan: The requirement for a Task Order related Systems Safety Plan tends to distract the SEAS II Contract from the current SMAS II Contract, which does require a Systems Safety Plan for all GSFC Programs and Projects. Does the requirement necessitate a Systems Safety Plan? If so, such a plan is not called out anywhere else in the SEAS II RFP as a deliverable and time frame of delivery.

Please clarify and amend the RFP, as needed.

Response: System Safety plan is for work performed, paperwork created, hardware created etc. onsite at the vendor.

54. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - Safety Data Package: The Safety Data

Package is called out in the current SMAS II Contract for all GSFC Programs and Projects.

Does the requirement for a SEAS II Task Order Safety Data Package reorient this SMAS II provision to the Task Order level? Please clarify the need for system safety independence and the SEAS II Contract providing a Task Order level safety data package.

Response: Safety data packages are for work performed, paperwork created, hardware created etc. onsite at the vendor.

55. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - Hazard Analysis: The SEAS II Contract provides the need for hazard analysis for all task orders as an intricate part of the I/MSE expertise. Does the Government intend for SEAS II to replace the independent SMAS II hazard analysis?

Response: No.

12/12

56. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - Coordination: The SEAS II SOW paragraph 0 requires the contractor to “coordinate” mission assurance and systems safety services with the GSFC Safety Officer. This function resides in Code 300 Directorate.

Should this “coordination” be done at the Code 500 level by the government since such action impacts the Code 500 generated task order process? What coordination by the contractor would be required?

Response: Coordination between the GSFC Code 500 task monitor and the prime contractor may be necessary at times for work performed at the vendor facility.