SESDA V DRFP QA RESPONSES.pdf

SESDA V

Responses to the Draft RFP questions 80GSFC21R005 and Final RFP update

The current planned release time for the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) is mid-December 2021. If the

Government is able to make this mid-December release date, we will provide additional days recognizing the holidays and have proposals due late January or early February. If we end up releasing the RFP in early

January, the Government will have a proposal due date of 30 calendar days after the RFP release.

1. Question: The Cover Letter identifies September 28, 2022 as the anticipated contract start date. For evaluation purposes, we recommend that NASA use 10/1/2022 as the anticipated start date for calculating the Government Pricing Model (GPM).

Response: The contract start date remains at 9/28/2022 since the current SESDA IV contract ends on

9/27/2022; however, the Government will modify the RFP to use a 10/1/2022 start date for evaluation purposes of the Government Pricing Model (GPM).

2. Question: Will NASA be providing relevant materials via the e-library, and, if so, will materials be posted prior to the Final RFP release?

Response: All relevant materials have been posted with the DRFP and any updates will be posted with the final

RFP.

3. Question: Does NASA have a standard work year defined as a number of hours, e.g., 1880, 1840?

Response: No. The government does not have a standard work year applied to contracts and understands that offerors may have variations in their proposed productive work years in Cost Exhibit 9.

4. Question: L.26(c)(9) and L.27 Subfactor B, B.9 - Quality Assurance Plan. The QAP is listed in both the

Offer Volume and the Mission Suitability Volume. We assume the QAP is part of the Mission Suitability

Volume and excluded from page limitations (i.e., QAP will be added to the table on page 91 as part of

Mission Suit and removed from the Offer Volume instructions). Please clarify.

Response: The Quality Assurance Plan is to be submitted 30 days after contract award, will be part of the

Mission Suitability volume, and will be excluded from the page limitations. This change will be reflected in the

Final RFP.

5. Question: Section L.26I(9) – This clause requires that offerors identify their approach to ensuring quality services throughout the duration of the contract. But the clause does not include specific requirements that the offeror’s Quality Management System (QMS) must satisfy. In contrast, the Government Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan (Enclosure E) identifies a number of references and applicable documents that may provide contract or Task Order-specific quality requirements. To be consistent with Enclosure E, we recommend that L-26I(9) be amended to specify specific quality requirements for the offeror’s QMS. For example, these could include AS-9100, ISO-9001:2015, CMMI Level 3.

Response: The Government is not specifying a specific quality requirement for SESDA V.

6. Question: L.27(d), B.10 - Could the requirements for a Safety and Health Plan, referenced in L.27(d)B.10, be moved to be required within 30 days of award? The recent SAMDA and HBG procurements moved these to be delivered after award and moving this requirement lowers the cost of the proposal to small businesses.

Response: Based on the many potential hazards involved in this procurement i.e. low/high voltage, hot work, radioactive and cryogenic materials, explosives, flammables, etc. a Safety and Health Plan is required with the proposal as detailed in Section L.27, NFS Provision 1852.223-73 Safety and Health Plan.

7. Question: Section L, L.27 GSFC 52.215-210 Mission Suitability Volume Instructions (SEP 2020) - Since the Phase-In, Total Compensation, and Safety & Health plans do not have a page limitation, does the

Government want Offerors to place the proposed plans as appendices to the Mission Suitability volume?

Can they be provided as separate documents and labelled as appendices?

Response: Separate documents and labelled as appendices are acceptable.

8. Question: Section L, L.25 Page 91, In the proposal Content and page limitations – “Scenarios are NTE 10

Pages”. Is the NTE 10 pages total for both scenarios or 10 pages per scenario? Would the Government consider expanding the page limit beyond 10 pages total for both scenarios? Is the scenario page limit of 10 pages within the overall 75 pages for the Mission Suitability volume or outside the 75 pages?

Response: The Government will clarify in the Final RFP that the “NTE 10 pages” are for both scenarios and are part of the 75 pages total pages for the Mission Suitability Volume. The Government does not intend to expand page limitations at this time.

9. Question: L.25 (b) (1) page 91-97 The page limitation table in Section L.25 states that the SOW

Compliance Matrix is excluded from page count, however. no further reference to a SOW Compliance

Matrix is found. Section L.27(c) requires a compliance matrix that cross-references the offeror's numbering structure and volume/page numbering with the RFP subfactors requirements. Are we correct in assuming that (a) the compliance matrix required is as specified in Section L.27 and is excluded from page count; and

(b) a separate SOW Compliance Matrix is not required?

Response: First assumption is yes. Second assumption is yes. Third assumption is the Government intends to revise the RFP to remove the words “SOW Compliance Matrix” and replace with “Compliance Matrix identify in Section L.26 (c)”.

10. Question: Page 90. L.25 GSFC 52.215-201 (ALT I) PROPOSAL PREPARATION – GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS (ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL DELIVERY). (MAR 2020)

Can the Government please provide clarification or define what is meant by other organizations?

Response: The term “other organizations are defined as any significant subcontractor, company, partners

(including joint venture partners), business, associations, etc. that are being proposed in conducting this work.

11. Question: L.27 Subfactor A, Scenario 2, page 99 Is the title “Official Intelligence” or “Artificial

Intelligence”

Response: The title is “Artificial Intelligence (AI)”. This correction will be reflected in the Final RFP.

12. Question: A.3 Scenarios, “potential technical problems, risks, and critical issues” should we include other-than-technical risks in the response?

Response: The Government will revise the Final RFP to remove the word “technical”.

13. Question: Page 126, “A.1 NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach used to accomplish critical elements, including all areas and information specified in Section L.27 Subfactor A, paragraph A.1, for comprehensiveness, completeness, effectiveness and efficiency for managing the contract.” All three of the

Technical Approach evaluation criteria indicate they will be evaluated for”…comprehensiveness, completeness, effectiveness and efficiency for managing the contract.” This is identical language to that used in the Management Approach evaluation criteria. Please confirm that the Technical Approach elements will be evaluated based on their impact to “managing the contract.”

Response: The Government will revise the Technical Approach language in A.1, A.2, and A.3 removing the words “for managing the contract”. This correction will be reflected in the Final RFP.

14. Question: Page 88, L.24(a). Please verify that subcontractors can submit their Total Compensation Plans

(TCP) directly to NASA using the EFSS Box as TCPs may contain proprietary information. If so, please provide file naming instructions for the TCP, Exhibits 10A and 10B to facilitate compilation of our total submission.

Response: Yes. See Section L.24 Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery

Through NASA’s EFSS Box (JUL 2021) for directions.

15. Question: Enclosure 1 Page 6-12, In the education requirement for degree type, can a BA be substituted for a BS and vice versa for each degree level?

Response: The Offeror can substitute education requirement for degree types if it is appropriate for the Position

Title/Category.

16. Question: Enclosure 1, page 6 - Data Technician, Associate and Data Technician Position Title/Categories.

Response: The Government will revise Enclosure 1, Non-Management Direct Labor Categories’ Position

Descriptions education and experience for: Data Technician Senior, Data Technician and Data Technician

Associate. This correction will be reflected in the Final RFP.

17. Question: SOW 2, 3.1.1 - Paragraph 2 states: "The Contractor shall also provide supporting technical analysis for GSFC mission integration with other organizations including other NASA field centers, science working groups, advisory groups, investigators, and other entities." Academia is not mentioned specifically, is it a correct assumption that it is implied to also be part of other organizations with whom the Contractor will/may engage?

Response: The Government will revise the SOW to include Academia.

18. Question: SOW 3, 3.1.3 Paragraph 1 states: "The mission ground support function requires the Contractor to support ground systems development and operations, and shall require support for telemetry acquisition, storage, processing and distribution, various data displays, experiment monitoring, and science instrument operations. In addition, the Contractor shall be required to provide systems support such as systems configuration and local modification to the operational system. This function includes collaborating and providing support in worldwide scientific field campaigns." Will the SESDA Contractor requirement in support of this ground support function include interfacing with other Contractors, i.e., NBOC Contractor on balloon field campaigns?

Response: Yes. The SOW is written broad enough for this work to be in scope of the awarded contract.

19. Question: Subfactor A - Technical Approach - Scenario (1) Subparagraph (d.) – pg. 99, "… the imaging

CCD …" Please define CCD.

Response: The acronym CCD is “charge-coupled device”. This acronym will be spelled out in the Final RFP.

20. Question: Consider including a sample Task Order to illustrate how tasks in SOW will appear as work to be performed on the IDIQ

Response: The prior contract was not a IDIQ task order contract so the Government does not have a sample task order related to the SESDA contract at this time. The Work Activity Plans (WAPS) provided previously are comparable to how future tasks will likely appear.

21. Question: L.28 – Pertaining to the GPM-Specified Other Direct Costs, will NASA provide a list of mandatory training?

Response: Training has been removed from the RFP section L.28 (3), GPM-Specified Other Direct Cost

(ODCs).

22. Question: Page 91 L.22(a)/L.25(b)(1) on page 84, the RFP states “The proposed OCI Plan is not page limited. The plan shall be included as part as the proposal Offer Volume, or as a separate attachment, consistent with the solicitation instructions.” Please clarify whether the OCI Plan is part of the Mission

Suitability or Offer Volume.

Response: The OCI Plan is not page limited and is excluded from the page count. The plan should be included in the Offer volume as a separate attachment.

23. Question: L.22 Page 85. The Offeror shall identify any organizational interests (financial, contractual or other) that would be affected by performance of the Statement of Work requirements, whether by it or its proposed subcontractors. – If an offeror or JV entity determines no OCI or potential OCI exists based on their assessment, should they identify this up front of the required OCI plan?

Response: Yes. The offeror or JV should identify any organizational interest up front in the required OCI plan.

The Government requires an OCI Plan from the offeror or JV entity.

24. Question: Section L, page103, B.8 Total Compensation Plan. If Offer submitting as JV entity, does the JV entity submit a Total Compensation Plan and are the JV partners required to submit their own Total

Compensation Plan?

Response: Yes. All Offerors shall provide the required information for the Total Compensation Plan. Joint

Ventures (JV) may submit Total Compensation Plan for each JV prime partner, if desired.

25. Question: Page 102 L.27(d) B.6 - Page 109 L.28 (b)(2)

The Management Approach requires to provide written position descriptions for any labor categories that may differ from the Government provided labor categories. Additionally, all position descriptions and position qualifications are required to be provided in the Cost Volume, Attachment B. Please confirm it is acceptable to simply point to the Cost Volume from the appropriate place in the Management Approach, rather than duplicating this information in the Mission Suitability Volume?

L.27(d)B.6 States, “The offeror(s) shall provide written Position Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance. As provided in Table (b)(1) of provision 52.215-201 and the Cost Volume

Instructions, the Offeror’s Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract Attachment B entitled, “Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices,” which shall be submitted in the Cost Volume (per table

(b)(1) of GSFC provision 52.215-201.” Please confirm that these Position Qualifications are not also to be included as part of Volume II Subfactor B.

L.27(d)B.6 – States, “If proposed labor categories differ from or are not included in the Government provided labor categories, the Offeror shall provide written position descriptions for the specific non-management labor categories for this requirement such that the non-management labor can be clearly identified and mapped to the

Government-provided baseline position descriptions.” These labor positions are also to be included in the Cost

Volume. Please confirm that they are not also to be included as part of Volume II Subfactor B.

RFP Section L.27, B.6, page 102 – There appears to be a contradiction re: which position descriptions we should provide. In B.6 paragraph 3 it states that we should provide written position descriptions “if proposed labor categories differ from or are not included in the Government provided labor categories.” In paragraph 5 it states that the offeror shall provide “written Position Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance.”

Please clarify which position descriptions are required.

Response: While there are position descriptions and qualification criteria that will be evaluated in the Mission

Suitability evaluation, the position descriptions are required in the Cost Volume, and do not need to be repeated in the Mission Suitability Volume.

L.26, B.6, paragraph 3 will be deleted to avoid confusion and inconsistency since paragraph 5 already identifies position qualification criteria.

26. Question: Consider specifying if the IDIQ is single or multi-vendor. If multi-vendor, include the anticipated number of awards

Response: This is a single IDIQ. Language will be added to Final RFP in the cover letter and L.16.

27. Question: L.25, L.29 – The page count for Past Performance is 20 pages for prime and significant subcontractors. Given the number of PWS elements in the DRFP that the offeror needs to provide rationale to demonstrate comparability, would the Government consider increasing the page count to 30 pages? Given the 20-page limitation of the Past Performance Volume, may the Offeror provide only the most relevant contract citations that the Offeror chooses to provide instead of “all” contracts performed by Offeror that meet the size, scope, and complexity?

Response: The Government does not intend to expand the 20-page limitation of the Past Performance as it was adequate in previous competitions. The offeror should provide at a minimum the information requested to facilitate the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance as it relates to the requirement of the proposed contract.

28. Question: Section L.20, page 121 - L.29 GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume (MAR 2020).

Can the Government please address how the Past Performance shall be addressed if the offeror is proposing as JV entity since this is not mentioned in this section.

Response: Joint Venture’s shall provide Past Performance for the JV and/or JV partners.

29. Question: Section L.20 – page 120 - L.29 GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME (MAR

2020). Can the government please clarify under the PP Volume Section do the offerors need to address all areas in the SOW or just the critical SOW elements identified under A1. Technical Approach

Response: Enclosure 3 - The Past Performance Questionnaire provides instructions for the Offeror to provide relevant experience and performance associated with all areas of the SOW, not just the critical areas identified in the Mission Suitability instructions.

30. Question: Page 91-92 L.25(b)(1). Please confirm that the cost narrative is not page limited except for the

Basis of Estimate which should be no more than 60 pages.

Response: This statement is correct.

31. Question: (B.8)- Page 103 – Provide supporting data, such as recognized national, regional, and local compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total professional compensation structure. Will the Government please clarify if the required supporting data is required to be in the TCP and as an Addendum to exhibits 10a and 10b?

Response: The supporting data identified above for the TCP is only need in the Mission Suitability Volume.

32. Question: L.28.(b).(10) Indirect Rate Expense Pools - States, “NOTE: If a Small Business Administration

Joint Venture (JV) or other Prime Offeror teaming arrangement is proposed, the actual expenses for the prior three years of both entities that comprise the JV or teaming arrangement must be provided in this exhibit; this portion cannot be left blank” (p. 115). If both entities that comprise the JV are significant subcontractors and provide the prior three years of history in their individual cost volume submissions, is it sufficient to reference the sealed volumes from the JV Prime volume?

Response: Yes, as long as the required information from the JV entities is provided, it is sufficient to reference separate sealed volumes.

33. Question: RFP Section L.27, B.6, page 101 – The RFP states that in our hiring plan we should provide

“expected number of personnel to be hired from incumbents.” Can we propose a % rather than a specific number?

Response: The Offeror is expected to provide a number and not a percentage.

34. Question: Section L.28(b)(5) offeror management and administrative labor, page 114 – For Exhibits 2B and

2D, all Offerors shall note that all Management labor categories shall be proposed using Onsite rates and all

Administrative labor categories shall be proposed using Offsite rates. Can the Government confirm that

Management will be proposed at onsite rates, while Administrative will be proposed at offsite rates or should Management and Administrative categories both be proposed at offsite rates?

Response: L.28 (b)(5) is stated correctly Management labor categories shall be proposed using Onsite rates and all Administrative labor categories shall be proposed using offsite rates.

35. Question: RFP Reference: Section B, B.1 GSFC 52.211-90 Supplies and/or Services To Be Provided (SEP

2017); and Section B, B.5 1852.216-74 Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee (DEC 1991). Topic: Uniform Line

Item Pricing – Are the item numbers identified in Section B.1 intended to be separate contract line item numbers (CLINs) for the purpose of the Offerors to track, collect, and report costs of issued Task Orders?

Response: Yes, Section B.1, item 1.B Services and Deliverable in accordance with Task Orders Issued and the

SOW are intended to be separate contract line item number (CLINs) for the Offerors to track, collect and report cost of issued Task Orders.

36. Question: RFP Reference: Section I.121 52.216-18 Ordering (Aug 2020), page 47;

I.133 1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedures (OCT 1996) , page 64 – Does the Government intend to limit the performance period to five (5) years with no priced option for extending for an additional six (6) months without the necessity of processing a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)?

Response: The Government is not planning on using a priced option for an additional six months. However, Clause I.123, 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY, allows for orders issued within the effective ordering period of five years to be completed up to one year beyond the 5-year ordering period. The clause was missing a fill-in of one year that will be updated in the final RFP.

37. Question: L.25 and L.27(b) and d) - L.25 P1: It is NASA's intent... to solicit information that will demonstrate the Offeror's competence to successfully complete the requirements specified in the Statement of Work (SOW), Attachment A and the demonstrate of offerors understanding of the support necessary to satisfy the hypothetical scenario work activities found in Section L of this RFP. Generally, the proposal should: •Demonstrate understanding of the overall and specific requirements of the proposed contract L.27

(b) ...offeror's understanding of the mission suitability subfactor requirements...(d) The offeror shall provide a detailed response to each of the following subfactor requirements utilizing the structure and order as provided below: A.1 ...critical elements... <listed>

L.25 implies the full SOW should be addressed. L.27 implies only the critical elements. Which one of these is the expectation?

Response: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach used to accomplish critical elements, including all areas and information specified in Section L.27 Subfactor A, paragraph A.1. A response to non-critical elements is not required.

38. Question: Section L, Page 94, L.26 (C) (1) GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME. (JUL 2020). If Proposing as a JV entity, with 2 JV Partners in which the JV entity is unpopulated, and both JV partners have an adequate accounting system, should both JV partners submit the approved accounting system reports with the understanding that one of the JV partners accounting system will be utilized for the future award, and make this statement as such?

Response: No, the adequate accounting system is only required from the JV partner whose accounting system will be utilized by the JV prime contractor during contract performance.

39. Question: Section L, page 94- L.26 (C) (1) GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME. (JUL 2020) - If proposing as a JV entity, can this section for Business Systems excluding Accounting System be addressed collectively between the 2 JV partners?

Response: Business Systems information is only required from the JV partner(s)’system that will be utilized by the JV prime contractor during contract performance.

40. Question: Section L, page 98, L.27 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY VOLUME

INSTRUCTIONS (SEP 2020). Notice that the government left off the following sections: 3.1.6 (modeling analysis and information extraction); 3.1.7 (science data user training and utilization support; 3.1.8

(proposal and scientific documentation support; 3.2.3 (telecommunication and network management); 3.3

(science communications, education & public outreach); 3.4 work activity management. Can the government please confirm that these areas from the SOW do not need to be addressed in the technical approach under factor a.1 and a.2?

Response: Only the areas identified in Section L.27 SUBFACTOR A – TECHNICAL APPROACH, A.1 and

A.2 need to be addressed.

41. Question: Section L. page 101 - B.6 Staffing Plan - Can the government please confirm the staffing is part of the page count within the Mission Suitability?

Response: Yes. The Staffing Plan is part of the page count within Mission Suitability.

42. Question: Section L, page 103, B.8 Total Compensation Plan, - If a subcontractor will have a TIME AND

MATERIAL subcontract and will be potentially in excess of $500,000 subcontract value, but less than 10% of the proposed PRIMES contract potential value will they need to provide a TCP and or complete Exhibits

10A AND 10B?

Response: No

43. Question: Section L, page 106- L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021).

Can the government please clarify that if the offeror is proposing as JV entity; does each individual JV partner along with any significant subcontractor need to submit exhibits 2a, 2b and 4 through 11b.

Does the JV entity need to also submit exhibits 2a, 2b and 4 through 11b?

Response: The Government’s reply to both questions are yes and yes.

44. Question: Section L/Exhibit 3 page 106, L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP

2021). This section specifies each JV partner needs to complete this exhibit; in the exhibit are the JV

Partners considered a prime offeror or significant subcontractor (To ensure the correct box is checked)?

Also is exhibit 3 required for significant subcontractors as well?

Response: JV Partners are considered Prime Offeror. No, JV partners are not considered subcontractor.

45. Question: Section L, page 109. L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021).

Can the government please clarify the difference between Section 2 & Section 3.

Response: Section 2 deals with Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs), if applicable. Some firms tend to have

CERs in their proposal that are not designed to be indirect rates. If your firm only has indirect rates, Section 2 is not applicable to your firm.

46. Question: Section L, page 110, L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021). If an offeror is proposing as JV entity do the JV partners need to be listed under the subcontractor columns?

Response: The JV Partners need to be listed as the prime under separate columns for each JV Partner.

47. Question: Section L, page 112, L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021).

Can the Government please clarify what they mean by the “offeror” shall insert the above unburdened GPM specified ODC into Exhibit B, since in the table there are CY1-CY5 Costing information. Should the offeror utilize CY5 numbers for exhibit 1B?

Response: The Government did not issue an Exhibit B; however, based on the referenced page, the

Government believes this question is related to Exhibit 1B. The values in the RFP table are the Governments best estimate of what will be required to perform task orders under this contract for each year. The contractor may propose different values along with their rationale for proposing different values.

48. Question: Section L, page 114, L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021).

Can the government please clarify that Exhibit 2B needs to be submitted by the JV entity and the JV partners that make up the JV entity

Response: Yes, they do.

49. Question: Section L, page 115, L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021).

If offeror has a significant subcontract that potentially has an estimated value in excess of threshold of

Section A but will not have program management or administrative support and subcontracts tied to their support, how should this area of the requirement be addressed? Is it enough to identify that this section is not applicable for the significant subcontractor?

Response: If an Offeror has a significant subcontractor for the cost volume, based on the threshold included in

GSFC 52.215-233, then all significant subcontractor information required in this provision shall be provided in the cost volume proposal. Assuming this question relates to Exhibit 1A, if there are no anticipated program management and administrative costs for a particular subcontractor, then that subcontractor does not need to be included or addressed in Exhibit 1A. The instructions state “(and/or subcontractor, if applicable)”.

50. Question: Section L. page 118, L.28 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (SEP 2021).

For JV entity – should this be submitted on behalf of both JV partners?

Response: We are unsure how to answer this question fully without further clarification; however, if it relates to the required DCAA and DCMA information on page 118 (L.28(b)(15)), then yes, both JV partners shall submit the information.

51. Question: Section L, page 94- L.26 (C) (8) GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME. (JUL 2020) Is an

Information Technology Security Plan required with the submission as part of the Offer Volume?

Response: No. This plan is to be submitted at a later date as specified in the RFP.

52. Question: Clause H.10 requires Monthly Progress Reports and Quarterly Progress Reports while Section

C.3 requires a Monthly Progress Report and Final Task Order Report. Please clarify the reports that are required?

Response: H.10 applies only to Research and Development task orders. C.3 applies to the all work accomplished covering all Task Orders active.

53. Question: Clause E.3, Clause E.4, Clause E.3 applies to Task Orders (TO) issued for R&D while Clause

E.4 applies to TOs issued for Services. Will the Government identify which TOs are for R&D and which ones are for Services? This information may be valuable in scoping out Program Management Office

(PMO) requirements.

Response: The Government is planning to identify these details when tasks are issued under the contract.

54. Question: The RFP package did not include a Wage Determination schedule. Please provide the appropriate schedule.

Response: The Service Contract Labor Standards statute is not applicable to this services acquisition because the services being provided is primarily for professional employees. There are no Wage Determinations for this acquisition.

55. Question: Exhibit 1A and other exhibits reference “Manufacturing Site.” The historical data provide references only for onsite and offsite hours. Please clarify the intent of Manufacturing Site.

Response: The exhibits will be updated in the final RFP to delete the references to a “Manufacturing Site.”

56. Question: Enclosure 1 – GPM-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories, Direct Labor Hours, and Position Descriptions, page 9 – The Education requirement for the labor category for Outreach

Coordinator is BA while all other lab cats in that family are BS or AA. Should the Education requirement for Outreach Coordinator be a BS?

Response: The Outreach Coordinator labor category have been updated to provide more flexibility.

57. Question: Section L.25 (a) Proposed Format and Organization, Paragraph (4), page 90 & 91, (4) The format for each proposal volume shall parallel, to the greatest extent possible, the format of the evaluation factors contained in Section L of this solicitation. The proposal content shall provide a basis for evaluation against the requirements of the solicitation. Each volume of the proposal shall specify the evaluation criteria being addressed and contain a table of contents aligned with the RFP evaluation criteria.

The RFP states the proposal format volumes shall 'parallel' the format of the evaluation factors contained in

Section L of this solicitation. This is confusing because the evaluation factors fall under Section M of this solicitation. Do you mean they shall parallel the evaluation factors contained in Section M of this solicitation or they shall parallel the instructions, conditions, and notices contained in Section L of this solicitation?

Response: The Government intends to revise the RFP, section L.25 (a), remove the words “evaluation factors contained in Section L” and replace with “proposal instructions contained in Section L”.

58. Question: RFP Section B.10, page 104 – The RFP States “NPR 8715.3 can be accessed at the following website:

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8715&s=3C“

However, this link says that the Appendix for the S&H Plan is Reserved. Can NASA provide the S&H plan outline?

RFP L.27(d) Subfactor B Management Approach, B.10 Safety and Health Plan on page 104 states “Offerors are directed to NPR 8715.3, Appendix E instructions regarding the contents of Safety and Health Plan.” However, NPR 8715.3, Appendix E is “Reserved” and does not contain any instructions regarding the Safety and Health

Plan contents. Can the Government please clarify the required content of the Safety and Health Plan?

Response: The instructions for the Safety and Health Plan are being revised in the final RFP and a new draft

Enclosure will be added as a template. The draft Enclosure 6 is provided with this Q&A update.

59. Question: Section L, page 82 - L.20 1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION. (JAN 2011)

L.20(a) is clear what is asked there is upon any contract awarded from this solicitation.

L.20(b) through L.20 (g) does not make it clear if that information is to be included upon any contract awarded from this solicitation, or if then information should be included in the response to this solicitation.

If it is, will the Government please be specific and provide instruction as to in what Volume each is to be included? The instructions for the Offer Volume (L.26) have no instruction for the items listed in L.20.

Response: The Offer Volume Provision, L.26(c)(6) requires the information identified in 1852.245-80 as part of the Offer Volume, as part of the response to this solicitation.

60. Question: Proposal content and page limitations, Page 92, Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point. Would the government allow the use of a sans serif font in diagrams, tables, and artwork instead of Times New Roman? Is there a font size specification for headers and footers?

Response: The Government has made no preference to font for diagrams, table, and artwork only font point “no smaller than 10 point”. The Government will add language in the Final RFP to address headers and footers font point to no smaller than 10 point. This correction will be reflected in the Final RFP.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8715&s=3C