SEAS II Procurement Questions and Responses Set 2 Final.pdf
PDF 213 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Systems Engineering Advanced Services (SEAS) II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80GSFC20R0037
About this file
This document contains questions and responses regarding the Systems Engineering Advanced Services II (SEAS II) solicitation. Key details include that NASA/GSFC is seeking systems engineering and related services to support its Engineering Technology Directorate organizations at Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility, and other NASA centers. Services will include mission and instrument systems engineering, guidance navigation and control systems engineering, attitude control systems analysis and software development. The period of performance is a five-year ordering period with potential for a six-month extension. The maximum ordering value is $298 million with potential for a 30% upward adjustment to $387 million. The anticipated contract award date is June 1, 2021. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541715 with a size standard of 1,000 employees, and the contractor must have a top secret facility clearance.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Systems Engineering Advanced Services (SEAS) II has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Systems Engineering Advanced Services II (SEAS II) Solicitation No. 80GSFC20R0037 Questions and Responses Set #2
57. Question: Can the government confirm that Non-Significant Service Subcontractors are NOT required to provide a Volume III Cost Narrative, but ARE required to provide Cost Exhibits 2C, 2D, 10A and 10B to either be included in the Prime Offerors submission, or submitted directly to the government if deemed proprietary?
Response: Non-significant subcontractors are required to provide cost exhibits 2C, 2D, 10A and10B as stated in L.30(a) and any supporting narrative required for those Exhibits.
58. Question: Enclosure DD - Enclosure DD lists a historical rate for a Mechanical Engineer 1 in GSFC, yet there is no such position listed in Enclosure CC. Where, if at all, is this position to be used in pricing?
Response: This historical rate is deleted as there is no requirement for a Mechanical Engineer 1 at GSFC in SEAS II.
59. Question: Section L.26 (a) and (b) - Excel files are to be converted to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Please confirm that the PDF may be formatted for 11"x17" paper to facilitate the legibility of large Excel sheets.
Response: Yes, files are to be converted to Adobe PDF as stated in L.26(a)(3). Cost volume exhibits shall also be provided in Excel format. Yes, PDF files may be formatted for 11”x17” paper to facilitate the legibility of large excel worksheets.
60. Question: RFP, SOW Function 2, Section O, Pg. 14 - Due to the significant, independent nature of this requirement this requires a Systems Safety Engineering labor category. Will the Government consider adding this labor category to the SEAS II RFP and provide historical wage and hours data?
Response: The Government has determined a System Safety Engineering labor category is not required for the SEAS II requirement.
61. Question: Enclosure CC, GPM, Pg. 13, 17, 22, 25, 29, 32, 35 - At Wallops, the Aerospace Engineer 1, Electrical Engineer 1, GN&C Engineer 1, Mechanical Engineer 1, Software Engineer 1, and Thermal Engineer 1 all have a minimum of one year of experience. This requirement eliminates the ability to provide a mentoring program via Cooperative Education or Internships, which provides a career path and growth for new engineers for engineers with 0 experience. To encourage STEM development, would the government consider adding an Engineering Intern/Co-op labor category at Goddard and Wallops with zero hours to encourage training and mentoring of degree-seeking engineers? Similar to Goddard, would the government consider adding a general, entry-level Engineer Jr. labor category at Wallops, requiring a BS or equivalent and 0-3 years of experience?
Response: The Government has determined the SEAS II requirement does not require a general, entry-level Engineer Jr. Labor category.
62. Question: Enclosure CC, GPM, Pg. 1, 3, 6, 7 - At Goddard, the Electrical Assembler, Electrical Technician 1, Mechanical Designer, and Propulsion Technician 1 each require 3 or 5 years of experience, with no similar category for entry-level technicians. To ensure GSFC can attract a young workforce and train technician staff, we respectfully request the addition of a general, entry-level technician labor category requiring 0-5 years of experience.
Response: The Government has determined the SEAS II requirement does not require a general, entry-level technician labor category.
63. Question: Enclosure CC, GPM - The GPM labor category descriptions list no equivalency for advanced degrees in lieu of experience. Would the government add a degree substitution statement that a Master’s Degree can be substituted for 3 years of experience and a PhD can be substituted for 6 years of experience?
Response: No, there is no degree substitution for experience.
64. The government answer to question 26 relating to unpopulated Joint Venture (JV) partners creates a conflict with the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section L.30.b(2). This section of the RFP supplies specific instructions on how and by whom the attachments and exhibits must be completed.
In answering the question, the Government states, “The JV partners are to submit ALL [emphasis added] exhibits required from the prime offerors.” With respect to this, the following questions request clarification on how JV partners are to prepare exhibits that are only to be completed by the Prime offeror?
Will the Government strike the word “all,” as indicated above from the Q&A so that there is not a conflict with the RFP section referenced above?
Response: The Government’s response provided to Q26 is revised as follows:
For each JV 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).
JV Entity: All JV partners in an unpopulated JV are combined to form a “JV entity.” The JV entity is required to submit all exhibits required from prime offerors. If a JV entity does not have the individual JV partner data to populate any of the prime offeror required exhibits, the JV entity may cite the individual JV partner exhibits.
The JV entity shall submit an Exhibit 3, however, the specific indirect costs are not separately required at the JV entity level. The JV entity indirect costs may be combined with direct labor on Exhibit 3 for a loaded or partially loaded labor cost if the JV partners consider their independent JV partner indirect costs to be proprietary.
L.19 GSFC 52.215-223(b)(6) is hereby further clarified as follows: “The Grand Total of the JV entity Exhibit 3 shall match the GPM Grand Total of the JV entity’s Exhibit 1C.”
JV Partners: If the above JV Entity proposal format is used for Exhibit 3, each JV partner shall separately submit an independent JV partner Exhibit 3. JV Partners are not required to submit Exhibit 1A, Exhibit 1B or Exhibit 1C.
65 Question: Section L.30.B(2), page 13 addresses Exhibit 1A. On this page, the fifth bullet specifies that a composite level of effort must total 100% for each GPM-specified Non- Management Direct Labor Category. The result is then multiplied by the GPM-specified Non- Management loaded composite (Prime/Sub) rate.
Part a
Since a JV partner will only supply its specific labor input, which may not include all labor categories, how can the required composite level of effort equal to the GPM labor hours for each labor category provided in Enclosure CC?
Response: Please see the Government’s revised response to Question # 26 under Question #64 above.
66 Question: Part b
How will the required composite rate be developed such that it is compliant with the requirement to supply a rate totaling 100% for all GPM-specified Non-Management direct labor categories in Exhibit 1A?
Response: See the Government’s revised response to Question # 26 under Question #64 above.
67. Question: Section L.30.b (3), page 115 addresses Exhibit 1B.
How are the JV partners to complete Exhibit 1B when they may not be holding the GPM-specified and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)?
Response: See the Government’s revised response to Question # 26 under Question #64 above.
68. Question: Section L.30.b (3), page 115 addresses Exhibit 1C. In the first bullet, there is a requirement for Exhibit 1C to equal the costs in Exhibit 1A and 1B.
How are the JV partners to complete Exhibit 1C, which is a summary of the Government pricing model when their respective inputs are only a portion of the total cost, which may not include other subcontractors or cost estimating relationships (CER) such that the totals of these components equal the loaded total in Exhibit 1A and 1B?
Response: See the Government’s revised response to Question # 26 under Question #64 above.
69. Question: Section L.30.b (6), page 116 addresses Exhibit C.
Exhibit 3 requires that labor hours and costs be provided for the prime contractor, subcontractors, and ODCs. The grand total of this exhibit must equal the total of Exhibit 1C. How should the JV partners complete this exhibit in a compliant manner when they may not provide all required cost inputs?
Will the Government allow the JV partners to provide summaries of the direct labor and indirect costs for their individual inputs in manner similar to the attachment B sections 1-4? If not, please advise how to complete the Exhibit 3 to be compliant with the referenced RFP instructions, specifically with respect to equaling the total GPM evaluated costs in Exhibit 1A and 1C.
Response: See the Government’s revised response to Question # 26 under Question #64 above.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .