NSROC IV FRFP Questions 04-20-2022.pdf

Q # Document Reference Comments/Question for the Government Responses from the Government

Section B.1 At the Industry Day it was indicated that additional details on these Technologies would be provided. We did not see these in the Final RFP. Can the government provide these additional details or clarify where this material was provided?

No further details are available on these technologies.

2 Request that NASA consider further reducing the PP threshold to $5M to allow contracts that illustrate experience in specific PWS areas to be used, showing the contractors capabilities across the entire PWS.

Unfortunately, due to the magnitude of the NSROC requirements further reductions are not feasible. The Past Performance Threshold will remain unchanged.

3 Suggest that NASA consider reducing the average annual cost/fee requirement of $5M for major subcontractors.

See response to question No. 2.

4 Section M.6 A proposed significant subcontractor for this procurement is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $5M.” Since our proposal may not include the full value of the IDIQ task orders or the potential ODCs, can we use the maximum ordering value of the contract to “estimate” the annual cost/fee for our subcontractors for the purposes of past performance (similar to the way the Small Business Goals are calculated), rather than the subcontractor total price included in the proposal?

No, the significant subcontractor shall be based on if the subcontractor is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $5M.

5 RFP Exhibit A Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ)

The PPQ was released as a PDF, but the file is not fillable. Will the Government confirm that offerors may convert the form to another format (e.g. MS Word), or will the Government release a fillable version of the

PPQ?

A fillable version is not available. Potential offerors can convert to other formats to complete the questionnaire.

Section L, L.13, (b) PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND PAGE

LIMITATIONS, paragraph (2) (Page 100).

Section L states "Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than

10-point type Times New Roman font....."

Will the government confirm that it is acceptable to use 10-point type Times New Roman for table/graphic titles and action captions?

Yes, as stated in Section L, it shall be no smaller than 10-point type Times New Roman font.

7 SOW 2.1.2.1. CONTRACT

TRANSITION PHASE-IN

(NSROC IV SOW pg 10-11).

Referencing delivery of the property inventory: "The Contractor shall assume full responsibility for all contractual obligations beginning with the effective date of the contract. The Contractor shall complete the inventory of all Installation-Accountable Government Property within ninety (90) calendar days of the award date of the contract."

Traditionally, property inventory is completed at the end of incoming contractor's phase-in effort aligned with the

The Offeror shall complete the inventory of all Installation-Accountable Government Property within ninety (60) calendar days after contract effective date.

expiration of the incumbent's contract ends in order to facilitate accountability for all property transferring to the new contractor.

Will the Government please confirm the IAGP inventory is to be completed by the end of the Phase-In period (60 days from Phase-In effective start date) and not ninety

(90) calendar days of the award of the contract?

SOW 2.1.3.5. TRAINING AND

CERTIFICATION (NSROC IV

SOW pg 24).

Phase-in SOW, 3. Requirements (Deliverables Table)

Enclosure 2, Phase-in SOW, pg 3-

The following sections provided differing terms regarding the due date of the Training Plan.

NSROC SOW: "The Training Plan is due ninety (90) calendar days after contract award date."

Phase-in SOW: Training Plan: 90 calendar days after contract effective date

Is the training plan to be delivered 90 days after contract award or 90 days after contract effective date?

The document is to be delivered within 60 days after contract Effective Date.

The SOW and Phase-in SOW have been revised.

9 SOW 2.1.3.7. QUALITY

ASSURANCE (NSROC IV SOW

pg 31-32).

Phase-in SOW, 3. Requirements (Deliverables Table); (Enclosure 2, Phase-in SOW, pg 3-4) the due date of the Quality Manual.

NSROC SOW: "The Quality Manual is due ninety (90) calendar days after contract award date."

Phase-in SOW: Quality Manual: 90 calendar days after contract effective date.

Is the Quality Manual to be delivered 90 days after contract award or 90 days after contract effective date?

10 SOW 2.1.3.8.

CONFIGURATION

MANAGEMENT (NSROC IV

SOW pg 32).

Phase-in SOW, 3. Requirements (Deliverables Table); (Enclosure 2, Phase-in SOW, pg 3-4) the due date of the Configuration Management Control Plan and the Configuration Management Plan.

NSROC SOW: "The Configuration Management Control Plan is due ninety (90) calendar days after contract award date."

Phase-in SOW: "Configuration Management Plan: 90 calendar days after contract effective date".

Is the Configuration Management Plan to be delivered 90 days after contract award or 90 days after contract effective date?

SOW 2.1.3.9. RISK

MANAGEMENT

NSROC IV SOW pg 32-33

Phase-in SOW, 3. Requirements (Deliverables Table);

the due date of the Risk Management Plan.

NSROC SOW: "A Risk Management Plan shall be delivered by the Contractor ninety (90) calendar days after contract award date that documents the Contractor’s risk management process."

Phase-in SOW: Risk Management Plan: 90 calendar days after contract effective date".

Is the Risk Management Plan to be delivered 90 days after contract award or 90 days after contract effective date?

12 SOW 2.1.3.10. SYSTEMS

ENGINEERING

NSROC IV SOW pg 34.

Phase-in SOW, 3. Requirements (Deliverables Table);

the due date of the Systems Engineering Plan.

NSROC SOW: "The systems engineering approach shall be documented in a Systems Engineering Plan, due ninety

(90) days after contract award date, and shall be compatible and consistent with the risk posture and the efficient, low cost nature of the Sounding Rockets Program as described in Section 1.0 of this SOW."

Phase-in SOW: "SE Plan: 90 calendar days after contract effective date".

Is the Systems Engineering Plan to be delivered 90 days after contract award or 90 days after contract effective date?

13 B.3 GSFC 52.211-90 SUPPLIES

AND/OR SERVICES TO BE

PROVIDED (SEP 2017)

Phase-in SOW, 3. Requirements

(Deliverables Table)

The following section provided differing terms regarding the due date of the IT Security Plan.

Item 23 in Section B.3 regarding deliverables states: "IT Security Management Plan: 30 Days after Contract Effective Date & Annual Updates As Required".

The Phase-In SOW requests the: "Information Technology (IT) Security Plan: 30 calendar days after contract effective date".

Is the IT Security Plan to be delivered 90 days after contract award or 90 days after contract effective date?

14 DEIA Plan Attachment U, DEIA Plan, pg 1

This Attachment requires that the DEIA Plan be submitted within 30 days after contract award.

Typically these types of plans are required during phase in or after contract effective date.

Will the Government please confirm if the DEIA Plan is due 30 days after Phase-In start or 30 days after the contract effective date?

The Phase In SOW, the Attachment A SOW, and the Attachment U DEIA Plan have all been updated to state deliverable due within 60 days after contract Effective Date.

15 RFP B.7 GSFC 52.217-90

OPTION TO EXTEND (SEP

2013)

RFP Section L.16 GSFC 52.215-

224 COST VOLUME

INSTRUCTIONS (JUL 2020)

(b) Cost Volume Proposal Format

(1) DIRECT AND INDIRECT

RATE SUBSTANTIATION

paragraph (3) PRIME OFFEROR

CORE REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED

COST PLUS AWARD FEE

B.7 GSFC 52.217-90 OPTION TO EXTEND (SEP

2013) requests pricing for the 6 month option to extend.

However, Section L.16, paragraph (3) states that Exhibit 1 of Enclosure 8a summarizes the Prime Offeror’s proposed CORE Requirements total direct labor hours (Prime Offeror plus Significant Subcontractors), total estimated cost, and maximum award fee, by Contract Year, for the entire potential five year period of performance (Base Period plus Option Periods) at WBS Level 2 (total CORE Requirement) based on bid labor and bid indirect burden rates.

Will the Government please confirm the Option to Extend costs will be excluded from the total evaluated price?

The option to extend OY5 has been removed from this RFP.

16 Alternate: RFP Section I.21;

Electronic Reading Room (ERR) documents

In Section I.21 of the RFP, the Government states “...This Statement is for Information Only: It is not a Wage Determination”. Additionally, the Government has provided the Electronic Reading Room (ERR) for source documents relevant to the RFP.

For proposal preparation and evaluation purposes, will the Government please confirm that the source documents in the ERR contain most recent historical information, fringe and rates?

The documents in the NSROC IV eLibrary are the most recent historical information.

17 RFP Section J.1 GSFC 52.211-101 List of Attachments (Feb 2016) Page 73, RFP Section L.9

RFP Sections J.1 and L.9 both reference Attachment B for the listing of Government Property. Attachment B.1 has 81 pages; Attachment B.2 has 295 pages and

The three Attachment B documents are correct. Section J.1 has been revised to 325 pages.

1852.245-81 List of Available Government Property (Jan 2011) Pages 92/3, and Attachment B Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Attachment B.3 has 30 pages. The sum total of all the pages is 325. However, Section J.1 indicates there are 565 pages.

Will the Government please clarify the number of pages or provide the additional Government Furnished Property items?

18 L.16 GSFC 52.215-224 COST

VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

(JUL 2020); (b) Cost Volume Proposal Format; (27) DIRECT

LABOR RATES, INDIRECT

RATES AND FEE MATRICES

Attachment F, Section 5

Section L.6 states: "In Attachment F, the Prime Offeror shall propose, by Contract Year, ............. In Section 5, the Prime Offeror shall include a fully-loaded direct labor rate matrix for each Significant Subcontractor."

However, Attachment F, Section 5 is labeled SUBCONTRACTOR (Name-TBP) LOADED LABOR RATE MATRIX (For All Task Orders) and states the following:

"The Contractor shall not exceed the rates as specified below for pricing the subcontractor labor hours on all task orders (Mission and/or Performance) contemplated or issued in accordance with Clause H.15, Task Ordering Procedure. Any task orders issued in accordance with Clause H.15 will be applied to the guaranteed minimum quantity and maximum quantity as provided in Clause B.6."

Will the Government please clarify if offerors should include Loaded Labor Rates for all subcontractors or only for Significant Subcontractors in Attachment F, Section 5?

Attachment F shall include the fully-loaded direct labor rates for all the subcontractors.

19 L.16 GSFC 52.215-224 COST

VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

(JUL 2020); (b) Cost Volume Proposal Format; (27) DIRECT

LABOR RATES, INDIRECT

RATES AND FEE MATRICES

Attachment F, Section 8

Section L.6 states: "In Attachment F, the Prime Offeror shall propose, by Contract Year, ............. In Section 8, the Prime Offeror shall provide Position Qualifications (PQs) for all Prime Offeror proposed direct labor categories specified in Section 1 and all Significant Subcontractors’ proposed direct labor categories specified in Section 5.

However, Attachment F, Section 8 is labelled 8.

POSITION DESCRIPTIONS (For All Offeror and Subcontractor Direct Labor Categories) and states the following:

"NOTE: TO BE PROPOSED (TBP) – A Position Qualification shall be proposed for each individual Prime Direct Labor Category included in Section 1 and each individual Subcontractor Direct Labor Category included

The position descriptions included should only be from the significant subcontractors in Attachment F.

in Section 5."

Will the Government please clarify if offerors should include Position Descriptions for all subcontractors or only for Significant Subcontractors identified in Attachment F, Section 5?

20 Past Performance Volume

L.18 B, page 148

The government stated the questionnaires should be completed and sent to an email address as follows:

james.a.royal@naasa.gov

There appears it is a typographical error in the word

NASA

Would the government confirm this is a typographical error in the NASA.gov email address?

Yes, please correct and send to -> james.a.royal@nasa.gov

21 Exhibit A Past Performance Questionnaire

The government stated the Return This Questionnaire Electronically By April 27, 2002.

The year appears to be a typographical error.

Would the government confirm this is a typographical error in the year and correct it to be 2022?

Yes, please correct and send No Later Than (NLT) -> the proposal due date.

22 Enclosure 6 RTO 2, On page 3 of document "Enclosure+6+(RTO+2).pdf":

what is meant by the last sentence "In accordance with section x of the SOW and the 810 PG."? (sic)

The version of Enclosure 6 that was released with the RFP did not include the referenced sentence.

23 Enclosure 10 Per section, I.21, 52.223-99 ENSURING ADEQUATE

COVID-19 SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR FEDERAL

CONTRACTORS, will NASA require proof of an implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandate program prior to award of the contract by the proposing contractor?

And if so, what are the metrics/requirements that demonstrate an implemented vaccine mandate program?

This clause is not being enforced by NASA at this time.

L.17 (b) (11) P.117 and Enc. 8a

Exhibit 2F-DL WBS L.4 DRPA in DRFP L.17(b) (11) is labeled Exhibit 2F-1 and the WBS as Program Implementation in Enclosure 8a. Please confirm which is correct.

The Exhibit reflects the change from (2F-1 to 2F-DL) and title has changed from Program Implementation to DRPA.

L.17 (b) (12) P.117/118 and Enclosure 8a CORE Cost Exhibits

Concerning Enclosure 8a CORE Cost Exhibits. Exhibits

(E) 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K. E.2H is labeled WBS L.4 Business Mgmt. E.2I is WBS L.4 Program Management. E.2J is labeled WBS L.4 DRPA. E.2K is missing. Should E.2J be WBS L.4 Program Implementation and E.2k (missing) be WBS L.4 DRPA? Please confirm.

The 2J title has been updated from DRPA to PI. 2K has been added.

26 Attachment F, Sections 1 - 5

Attachment F Sections 1-5 includes a column for CY 1 through CY6. The CORE Cost Exhibits are through CY

The Government expects pricing for all data to include CY1 -CY5.

mailto:james.a.royal@naasa.gov mailto:james.a.royal@nasa.gov

1-5, Is the Government expecting Attachment F Sections 1-5 to include data for CY6?

SOW select sections and Attachment K, WBS

SOW section 2.1.2.3 Human Capital management is in Attachment K as WBS 2.1.3.5. Please make consistent.

Attachment K WBS includes 2.1.3.12, Investigations, 2.1.3.15, Agreements, and 2.1.3.16, Applicable standards and policy documents. These sections are not called out in the SOW. Please clarify if they should be called out in the WBS/SOW.

Attachment K was updated for the release of the final RFP and does not contain the discrepancies listed.

The inconsistencies between the SOW and Attachment K described were in the version of Attachment K that was released with the DRFP.

28 L.16. Subfactor A. Para

A.9 TCP

Paragraph A.9 references Exhibits 12 and 12A in 2 places, the CORE Cost Exhibits 11 and 11A represents the fringe benefit data being required from para A.9.

Please make consistent.

The References should be 11 and 11A This section has been updated accordingly.

29 L.17 (b) (24) P.120 Paragraph 24 Indirect Rate Expense Pool references Exhibit 5A, Exhibit 5A does not exist. Exhibit 5 is CORE Requirements Other Subcontracts.

The Indirect rate expense pool should be 13 and 14.

SOW Section 3.1.1, P.

47, Variance factors & Attachment F Section 7

DRFP para 7 narrative does not indicate there are 2 sets of Exhibit 2F, one labeled for Prime and one labeled for significant Sub. Since these are identical except for the labels, did the Government mean for there to be 2 sets instead of how the other templates are labeled with a check box for Prime or Significant Subcontractor. Please clarify as para 7 does not request a separately identified Exhibit for a significant sub.

The offeror is to propose a percentage for each variance factor in Attachment F Section 7 that will be applied to all labor hours proposed (including Prime, significant Sub, and any other subcontractors labor hours) for each Mission Complexity Level. Since the variance factor will be applied on all labor hours proposed for the MCLs the offeror does not need to provide a separately identified Exhibit for the prime and significant subcontractor.

31 SOW Section 3.1.1, P. 47, Variance factors & Attachment F Section 7

Section 3.1.1, Variance Factors (VF) defines 4 Mission Complexity VF levels. Attachment F, Section 7 lists 5 VF levels to propose to (Enhanced 1, Enhanced 2, Remote, Second Attempt, and Quality). Please clarify.

Attachment F Enhanced provides 2 levels (Enhanced 1 and Enhanced 2). Will the Government provide further definition for the (SOW) Enhanced category by level 1 and level 2?

There are 5 variance factors to propose to (Enhanced 1, Enhanced 2, Remote, Second Attempt, and Quality).

SOW Section 3.1.1 has been updated to include the language to differentiate between Enhanced 1 and Enhanced 2 (included below for clarity):

• Enhanced (E) indicating increased effort over the standard MCLs. Increased scope can include extensive hardware fabrication, significant changes to a re-fly payload, development of new complex designs or mission-specific requirements, or implementation of an extensive testing/qualification program. Enhanced activity may often result in increased and new capabilities to be utilized by the NSRP. There are two levels of Enhanced variance factors that shall be applied to labor hours only: Enhanced Level 1 and Enhanced Level 2 (described below). Refer to Enclosure 10, Table 11 for historical enhancement factors however, the offerors should note these figures are TBP by the Offeror.

o Enhanced Level 1 is typically for enhancements that increase the scope of work slightly above the typical MCL category. It may require some additional engineering, manufacture, and/or testing.

o Enhanced Level 2 is typically for enhancements that significantly increase the scope of work above the typical MCL category. It may require significant engineering, manufacture, and/test.

Enclosure 4 The technology roadmap provided as DRFP Enclosure 4 starts in 2019. Please identify which if any of the technology developments listed between 2019 and October 1, 2022 (NSROC IV start date) are still areas of interest to NASA.

The Government is interested in all technology developments listed on the Technology Roadmap in Enclosure 4 covering the entire timespan.

Technologies from 2019 – 2021 may be in development under the current contract, but may not have been completed.

33 Enclosure 6 page 8 Here are multiple questions on RTO1 non-proposed costs table on page 8 of enclosure 6.

1) Please clarify which cost estimate line covers mission unique EGSE/MGSE costs (electrical and mechanical ground support equipment).

2) Please clarify where costs for ground antenna services and launch site facilities usage are covered.

1. EGSE/MGSE are usually covered in DRPA 10. Mission unique requirements are covered under the materials ODC or will be issued as separate performance task orders.

2. The costs for ground antenna services and launch site facilities usage are typically covered by the Sounding Rockets Program Office (SRPO) except at White Sands where the NSROC Contractor is required to operate the ground receiving systems.

Enclosure 6 page 8

Question on the definition provided for the "Boost Guidance Systems" (BGS) cost row in the ODC cost table. Please clarify if BGS analysis should be included as part of the requested RTO1 labor cost estimates, or if that analysis is procured from an outside organization so that its cost is treated as an ODC.

Historically, the BGS Analysis is included in the ODC table has been provided by an outside vendor. The cost in the ODC table is for pre-flight mission analysis only. The Boost Guidance Systems will be provided GFE and recovered and reused. Refurbishments of boost guidance systems will be covered under DRPA 4 (Standard Sounding Rocket Sub-System Support – Flight Systems).

35 Enclosure 10, Table 6 Does historical data on the incumbent workforce provided in table 6 represent FTE for just CORE work or does it include IDIQ work?

All the work on NSROC III was “core.” Therefore, the Offerors should assume that the historical data applied to the NSROC IV approach includes both CORE and IDIQ work. The only hours removed from the NSROC III historical data were the incumbents M&A hours.

36 Enclosure 10, Table 6 How many off-site seats are there on the program? Can you tell us where each of the offsite seats is located and which historical FTE is at which site?

All personnel working on this effort are on government facilities with a majority at WFF.

Enclosure 10, Table 6

Historical data in table 6 on Enclosure 10 shows a LCAT called Mission manager, while the SOW refers to Tech Leads, but no contractor position called mission manager.

Should the LCAT in table 6 be labeled as Tech lead?

The historical data provided in Enclosure 10 Table 6 is from the NSROC III contract where there is a requirement for a contractor provided Mission Manager. For NSROC IV the Government is moving the position of Mission Manager from a Contractor position to a Civil Servant position. The historical data provided in Enclosure 10 Table 6 has not been adjusted based on the changes in the SOW from NSROC III to NSROC IV.

38 Enclosure 10 Table 6 Clarify the roles and responsibilities between the Mission Managers (civil service) and the contractor Tech Lead

The Government will not be providing additional details on the roles and responsibilities between the civil servant mission managers and the contractor technical lead function. The offeror is responsible for providing its approach in response to Top Program Technical Challenge #1 in Enclosure 1.

39 Enclosure 10, Table 8 & 9

Table 8, Summary of partial M&A and Table 9 Historical DRPA labor hours. Can the government provide the timeframe (GFY) for the hours?

The historical data provided in Enclosure 10 Table 8 and 9 is an average of the first four years of the NSROC III contract (FY17-FY20)

Enclosure 10, Table 6.

Please confirm Table 6 historical labor categories workforce (FTE) supports CLIN 0001 CORE and CLIN

Enclosure 10 Table 6 is the historical data for the NSROC III contract. All the work on NSROC III was “core.” Therefore, the Offerors should assume that

Historical Labor categories, FTE, unburdened hourly rates, and approximate years of NSROC experience

0002 IDIQ? Please confirm/clarify the (Table 6) Program Administrator labor category is in the Business & Administrative functional area category of Enc. 10, Table 7, Category descriptions as Table 8, Partial M&A Labor hours and Table 9, DRPA have this functional area as TBP?

the historical data applied to the NSROC IV approach includes both CORE and IDIQ work. The only hours removed from the NSROC III historical data is the management & administration labor hours.

The Program Administrator falls under Business & Administrative functional area category and primarily performs M&A work but also performs some technical work. The hours listed in Enclosure 10 Table 6 are for technical work performed. The other tables where this labor category is referenced as TBP is for when this labor category is used for non-technical M&A functions.

Enclosure 10, Table 8.

Partial M&A Labor hours

Please confirm the functional area categories partial hours provided in Table 8 is part of the Technical workforce as provided in Enclosure 10, Table 6. Historical Labor categories, FTE, unburdened hourly rates, and approximate years of NSROC experience.

The historical data in Enclosure 10 Table 6 is for technical work only (DRPAs and missions in NSROC III terms and DRPAs, MTOs, and PTOs in NSROC IV terms) and excludes historical M&A hours.

The historical data in Enclosure 10 Table 8 is for specific M&A areas of the SOW where non-incumbents would not be expected to know the level of effort required to perform these functions. Because these hours fall under M&A they are not included in the FTE in Enclosure 10 Table 6.

42 Enclosure 8a, CORE Cost Exhibits and SOW Section 2.1 M&A

Enclosure 8a Exhibit 2A WBS level 3, M&A and Exhibit 2B, WBS level 3 DRPA is prepopulated with nonproposed cost. SOW section 2.1, M&A states all work under SOW 2.1 is considered M&A support which is to be allocated to DRPA, MTO, and PTOs as a rate per hour. Please confirm the Exhibit 2A nonproposed cost is included in the rate per hour development.

The Offerors should include the Exhibit 2A non-proposed costs in the rate per hour development. Further, if Offerors propose any additional M&A ODCs those should also be included in the M&A rate per hour calculation. Please reference Attachment E, note #2 on page 6 for additional information on how to calculate and apply M&A rates.

Attachment F pages 6- 8; SRPO Missions Bluebook September

What are the Mission Complexity Levels for the Missions identified in the SRPO Missions Bluebook September 2021? (Needed to inform us for allocating labor on Attachment F).

As the Bluebook is always being updated and does not contain all the missions planned during the period of performance of the NSROC IV contract, the MCLs of the bluebook missions is not relevant. Historical Data (Enclosure 10) should shed insight on the Government request and on the historical mix of MCL levels.

Enclosure 5, RTO-1, Pg 7

**Solar Mission 36.567-- Paragraph 1 states fly date of April 21, 2024, Paragraph 2 states launch day of April 7.

2024. Is date of April 7, 2024 correct?

**Astrophysics Mission 36.569-- Paragraph 2 states RDM is November 1, 2023 and 18 months before launch (but is only 6). Is correct date of RDM November 1, 2022?

Solar Mission 36.567:

The version of Enclosure 5 released with the RFP only references April 7, 2024.

April 7, 2024 is the correct date.

Astrophysics Mission 36.569:

The correct RDM date should be November 1, 2022. Enclosure 5 has been updated accordingly.

DRFP L.17 (b)(1), Draft SOW Section 2.1, Enclosure 8A, CORE Cost Exhibit

DRFP states the government does not intend to issue a separate TO for Program Management costs. SOW 2.1, all work under 2.1 is M&A support and is to be allocated against 2.2, DRPA W.O., 3.1 MTO, and 3.2, PTO as a M&A rate per hour. Please confirm program management cost and SOW 2.1 M&A cost is the same effort/cost. Enclosure 8A, Core Cost Exhibits Exhibit 2A. M&A captures SOW 2.1 M&A cost. Exhibit 2A is

The Program management cost and SOW 2.1 M&A cost is the same effort/cost.

Offerors should include the Exhibit 2A non-proposed costs in the rate per hour development. Further, if Offerors propose any additional M&A ODCs those should also be included in the M&A rate per hour calculation. Please reference, note #2 on page 6 for additional information on how to calculate and apply M&A rates.

prepopulated with non-proposed costs. Please confirm the governments intent that the non-proposed cost is to be included in the M&A rate per hour calculation.

46 Attachment F, Sections 1 - 5 and associated DRFP Clauses

Att. F, Section 1 & 2, reference Clause H.15 & B.6.

Clause H.15 does not exist, Clause I.18 references Task Ordering procedures (TOP) and Clause B.4 references Min/Max amounts. DRFP Section B.2 references Section H for TOP. Please confirm Section/clauses

The Attachment F has been updated with the correct clauses.

47 Attachment F, Sections 1 - 5

Att. F Sections reference pricing all task orders (MTOs and PTO), but not DRPA Work Orders, Will a separate Work Order be issued for overall DRPA W.O.? Or is it the governments intent that Att. F is to be utilized in pricing Core DRPA WOs and IDIQ MTO and PTO?

The DRPA work orders will be priced under CORE cost exhibits (Exhibit 2F WBS Level 4 DRPA Work Orders), not in Attachment F.

Enclosure 10, table 6, table 8, table 9 historical incumbent data

For the Category Hist. data column Category Number 14, Logistics and Stock. Table 6 shows ~.60 FTE while Table 8 & 9 show 16,373 hours, significantly more hours than ~.60 FTE in table 6. Please clarify this discrepancy.

The historical data in Enclosure 10 Table 6 is for technical work only (DRPAs and missions in NSROC III terms and DRPAs, MTOs, and PTOs in NSROC IV terms) and excludes historical M&A hours.

The historical data in Enclosure 10 Table 8 is for specific M&A areas of the SOW where non-incumbents would not be expected to know the level of effort required to perform these functions. Because these hours fall under M&A they are not included in the FTE in Enclosure 10 Table 6.

Typically Logistics and Stock personnel (Category 14) work under M&A, with a majority of hours under SOW 2.1.2.1 Government Property. Therefore, the hours in Table 8 are not included in the FTE in Table 6.

Attachment A, SoW, One of the variance factor categories for mission costing is "Remote (R)" indicating the mission is to be conducted at a remote range location, which have additional operations challenges. For mission costing purposes, which launch sites are considered 'remote'? The industry day slides state that there are "3 active fixed US launch sites (Wallops, White Sands, Alaska) and 4 remote mobile launch sites (Australia, Kwajalein, Svalbard, Andenes)".

Yet PFRR was included in the Virtual Tour of Remote Launch Sites. Is PFRR considered "remote" for mission costing purposes and variance factor application?

The following launch sites are considered remote and would be assigned a remote variance factor: Australia, Kwajalein, Svalbard Norway, and Andenes Norway.

PFRR is not considered to be a remote launch site and the remote variance factor will not apply to missions launched from Alaska.

50 RFP, page 108 The RFP reads (p. 108): "The Offeror shall propose innovations and technical approaches for addressing no more than two of the five SRPO Technology Roadmap Goals found in Enclosure 4." Are offeror's expected or encouraged to provide two innovation approaches (as opposed to one) and will the number of innovations proposed (one versus two) impact the offeror's evaluation?

Offerors may propose innovations and technical approaches for no more than two of the five SRPO Technology Roadmap Goals found in Enclosure 4.

The number of innovations to be proposed by the Offeror are at the Offeror’s discretion. The Government’s evaluation criteria for this area, Section M.4, Subfactor B.1 Innovations, states that the Offeror’s proposed Innovations, including all areas and information specified in Section L.15, Subfactor B, Paragraph B.2 will be evaluated for feasibility, effectiveness, reasonableness, and efficiency.

L.17 (b) (11) and Enclosure 8a, CORE Cost Exhibits

Exhibit 2F-DL WBS L.4 DRPA in FRFP L.17(b) (11) is labeled Exhibit 2F-1 and the WBS as Program Implementation in Enclosure 8a. Please confirm which is correct.

The cost exhibits have been updated.

52 L.17 (b) (12) and Enclosure 8a CORE Cost Exhibits

Enclosure 8a CORE Cost Exhibits. FRFP Para (12) identifies Exhibits (E) 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K. E.2H is labeled WBS L.4 Business Mgmt. E.2I is WBS L.4 Program Management. E.2J is labeled WBS L.4 DRPA. E.2K is missing. Should E.2J be WBS L.4 Program Implementation and E.2k (missing) be deleted? Please confirm.

The cost exhibits have been updated.

Attachment A – SOW, 2.1.3.12, page 35, and

RFP, H.2 1852.225-70,

Please clarify what the difference is between the SOW and RFP regarding the export licenses for hardware, and whether NASA is responsible or the Contractor or a mix of both based on differentiators, such as shipping.

The RFP clause H.2 and the SOW are very similar, but additional detail is provided below for clarification:

H.2 (a). NASA will obtain any license/exemptions to get approval to ship NASA owned export controlled hardware, technical data, services, etc. to foreign countries. The Contractor shall assist by providing line item lists and any additionally requested information about the specific hardware or technical data to be exported. If an atypical issue or item arises then NASA and the Contractor will work together to obtain the proper authorizations.

H.2(b). The Contractor is fully responsible for obtaining Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) and visit requests for foreign persons needing access to NASA facilities. NASA GSFC personnel will review and approve as required.

H.2(d). The Contractor is responsible for any license/exemption requirements for any export/import of subcontractor or vendor provided items.

For shipping, the Contractor is responsible for preparing all shipping documentation and routing for review/signature (including through export control and property). The Government will help to facilitate review as necessary. Additionally, the Contractor is solely responsible for packaging and certification (as necessary for hazardous goods) for all shipments.

Section 2.1.3.12 of the SOW is consistent with the H.2 clause. The SOW adds the requirement for developing and obtaining approvals for a Technology Control Plan when foreign nationals are involved in assigned work. The SOW also adds the requirement for Contractor personnel to serve as foreign national escorts when foreign nationals are present in NASA facilities or in the field. The SOW also requires submission of an Export Control Plan detailing how the Contractor will ensure that all contract operations comply with U.S. export laws and regulations.

Enclosure 5 RTO 1 and Enclosure 8b RTO 1 Cost Exhibits

Enclosure 5 RTO 1 provides Nonproposed cost. The nonproposed cost in Enclosure 8b RTO 1 includes WSMR Telemetry Support cost in 2 Missions, MCL 2

The Enclosure 5 has been updated to include the WSMR telemetry support non-proposed costs for the WSMR mission. The grand total column of the non-proposed costs has been updated.

36.567 and MCL 3 36.569. The WSMR cost is not in Enclosure 5 RTO 1 nonproposed cost. Please confirm.

FRFP L.17 (b) (7) and Enc. 8a, CORE cost exhibits

FRFP para 7 narrative does not indicate there are 2 sets of Exhibit 2F, one labeled for Prime and one labeled for significant Sub. Since these are identical except for the labels, did the Government mean for there to be 2 sets instead of how the other templates are labeled with a check box for Prime or Significant Subcontractor. Please clarify as RFP para 7 does not request a separately identified Exhibit for a significant sub.

The offeror is to propose a percentage for each variance factor in Attachment F Section 7 that will be applied to all labor hours proposed (including Prime, significant Sub, and any other subcontractors labor hours) for each Mission Complexity Level. Since the variance factor will be applied on all labor hours proposed for the MCLs the offeror does not need to provide a separately identified Exhibit for the prime and significant subcontractor.

56 Enclosure 10, Table 6 Clarify the roles and responsibilities between the Mission Managers (civil service) and the contractor Tech Lead.

Additional details will not be provided. Each Offeror needs to provide the details on the roles and responsibilities between the civil servant mission managers and the contractor technical leads. The offeror is responsible for providing its approach in response to Top Program Technical Challenge #1 in Enclosure 1.

Enclosure 10, Table 8.

Partial M&A Labor hours

Please confirm the functional area categories partial hours provided in Table 8 is an addition of ~18 FTE to the Technical workforce as provided in Enclosure 10, Table

6. Historical Labor categories, FTE, unburdened hourly rates, and approximate years of NSROC experience.

Yes, the M&A functional area categories in enclosure 10 table 8 are in addition to the technical workforce provided in enclosure 10 table 6.

Attachment F, Sections 1 - 5, FRFP Section B.5 Task Order procedures

FRFP Section B.5 (applies to IDIQ only) and Att. F Section 1 states, "The Contractor shall not exceed the rates as specified below for pricing all task orders (Mission and/or Performance)". Is it the governments intent that Att. F is to be utilized in pricing Core DRPA WOs and IDIQ MTO and PTO? Also, Section 1 of Att.

F references Clause B.6, should this be clause B.4?

1. Attachment F has been updated.

2. Attachment F has been updated.

59 Attachment F, Sections 1 - 5, FRFP Section B.5 Task Order procedures

Using Functional Area (FA) Category Number 14, Logistics and Stock as an example. Table 6 shows ~.60 FTE for this FA, while Table 8, Partial M&A & Table 9, DRPA WO add up to 16,373 hours, ~8.5 FTE significantly more hours than ~.60 FTE in table 6. Are the hours from table 8 additive to Table 6? Are the hours from DRPA, table 9 included in Table 6?

1. The hours from table 8 are not included with the hours from table 6.

2. Yes, the hours from table 9 are included in table 6.

Enclosure 5, RTO 1

Instruction from Enclosure 5 - "In the cost exhibit for this RTO, the Offerors shall fill out the Variance Factor Table for each Mission Complexity Level". Question - There is NO variance factor table in Enclosure 8b, RTO Cost Exhibits. Please confirm where the Government wants the VF for RTO 1 to be proposed, TIP? BOE?

Attachment F, Section 7?.

In order to more cleanly evaluate the base hours and costs for the MCL levels the Government does not want Offerors to propose variance factors against the RTO #1 missions. The variance factors should only be proposed in Attachment F Section 7 for each mission complexity level.

Attachment F Section 6

MISSION

Section 6 requires Prime and Subcontractor hours. At the bottom of section 6, instructions state to provide

The Government expects section 6 of Attachment F to include all subcontractors. (Significant and non-significant)

DIRECT/OVERTIME

LABOR HOUR

MATRIX – BY MCL

and Section L (b) (27) prime and Subcontractor in accordance with the Position Descriptions in Section 8 of this attachment. Section 8 references labor rate matrices in Att.F section 1, Prime and section 5, Subcontractors. The cost instructions in FRFP for section 5 and 8 of Att. F states these sections are for Significant Subs. Does the government expect Section 6 of Att. F to include or exclude non-significant subcontractors?

Enclosure 5, RTO 1 and enclosure 8b RTO cost exhibits

RTO 1 Telemetry cost in RTO cost exhibits do not match those provided in Enclosure 5 narrative. Please confirm which is correct?

The Enclosure 5 has been updated to include the WSMR telemetry support non-proposed costs for the WSMR mission. The grand total column of the non-proposed costs has been updated.

FRFP L.17 (b) (1)

DIRECT AND

INDIRECT RATE

SUBSTANTIATION

and SOW 2.1

The last sentence of this section (b) (1) states, "The Government does not intend to issue a separate task order for overall contract program management. Program management costs will be captured and charged under the CORE portion of this contract". Please confirm the Program management costs the FRFP references is SOW

2.1 management and Administration (M&A) which is to be allocated as a rate per hour against DRPA WO, MTO, PTO.

The Program management cost and SOW 2.1 M&A cost are the same effort/cost.

64 FRFP Section B.6 nonproposed costs

Is the section B.6 nonproposed cost to be used in the Significant subcontractor determination?

The non-proposed costs are not to be used in the determination of a significant subcontractor.

65 FRFP Section B.6 nonproposed costs

We are excluding section B.6 non-proposed cost from our M&A rate per hour calculation, is miscellaneous contractor proposed cost CORE ODC cost for SOW 2.1 to be included in the M&A rate per hour allocation?

The non-proposed costs under SOW 2.1 (M&A only) should be included in the M&A rate per hour allocation. Additionally, any proposed miscellaneous CORE ODC’s should also be included.

FRFP L.17 (b) (20)

CORE

REQUIREMENTS

SOURCE OF

PERSONNEL and Exhibit 9

Multiple questions: Narrative from FRFP Exhibit 9 requires personnel for the Core Requirements in the first GFY of contract performance. Exhibit 9 from the CORE Cost exhibit model request "Contract wide (CORE & IDIQ)" Please confirm which is correct?

Does "contract wide" mean the government requires Exhibit 9 to include all FTE required to perform NSROC SOW based Historical Mission count of ~18 per year?

And not the FTE generated from the CORE and RTO cost exhibits? Cost model exhibit 9 is for Prime and Significant Subcontractor only, Is it the governments intent to exclude the significant number of non-significant subcontractors FTE?

1. All contract wide personnel shall be in exhibit 9.

2. Exhibit 9 should include all FTE.

3. It is contract wide not CORE plus RTO costs.

4. No, that is not the Government intent. The Government wants the non-significant subcontractor FTE included.

67 SOW 3.1.1 MFP,

Variance factors

Is WSMR and PFRR considered Remote range locations for the 'remote' variance factor? Can a mission have more than one variance factor? If yes, please advise on how to apply.

The following launch sites are considered remote and would be assigned a remote variance factor: Australia, Kwajalein, Svalbard Norway, and Andenes Norway.

PFRR and WSMR are not considered to be remote range locations.

Missions can have more than one variance factor applied. The NASA COR will work with the contractor to determine the correct application of variance factors when the task order is provided for each MTO.

68 Enclosure 10 table 6 labor categories

Five labor categories (Configuration Mgmt. Specialist, Safety Eng. Sr., Production Supervisor, Logistician Mgr., Launch Vehicle Technician I) are listed with zero FTE in column Total FTEs (08/20-07/21). Are these positions no longer required? Are they supporting M&A SOW 100% and intentionally left blank? Are they are included in Table 8, Partial M&A?

The historical data in Enclosure 10 Table 6 is for technical work only (DRPAs and missions in NSROC III terms and DRPAs, MTOs, and PTOs in NSROC IV terms) and excludes historical M&A hours.

The historical data in Enclosure 10 Table 8 is for specific M&A areas of the SOW where non-incumbents would not be expected to know the level of effort required to perform these functions. Because these hours fall under M&A they are not included in the FTE in Enclosure 10 Table 6.

The specific labor categories referenced may have zero FTE in table 6 because those categories are supporting M&A SOW or there were no personnel occupying those labor categories performing technical work.

69 FRFP L.17 (b) (27) Direct/Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices and Att. F Section 1 & 5

Directions under Para (27) state 'The direct labor categories proposed must reflect all labor categories and levels within each individual labor category anticipated to perform the requirements of the IDIQ scope of work and Representative Task Order (RTO) and should range from entry level to the most senior level'. Attachment F narrative for Section 1 is for Prime only and Section 5 is for "Subcontractors", however the FRFP direction state Section 5 is for Significant Subcontractors, not "Subcontractors". Please confirm If the Government expect us to list all labor categories (including significant and non-significant subs) and associated fully burdened labor rates within Section 5. Please confirm any change to Section 5 & 8 FRFP/Att. F instructions.

The offeror shall submit pricing in this section for all subcontractors.

70 FRFP L.17 (b) (27) Direct/Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices and Att. F Section 1 & 5

Does Table 8 Technical Leads functional area SOW reference 2131 and 2132 include any Mission Ops hours?

If yes, can we be provided the hours?

Yes, the hours are provided in enclosure 10 table 8. The Government will not be breaking out the hours.

71 Enclosure 10 table 8, Partial M&A labor hours

Table 6 includes 4.27 mission manager FTE (08/20 - 07/21), How many of the ~4 incumbent FTE is the government hiring to become the CSMM?

The Government will not be providing additional details on the roles and responsibilities between the civil servant mission managers and the contractor technical lead function. The offeror is responsible for providing its approach in response to Top Program Technical Challenge #1 in Enclosure 1.

FRFP Section B.6 nonproposed costs

Section 6 nonproposed cost is the governments best estimate of actuals and Fee will not be applied to values exceeding B.6 unless a contract mod is issued. Will the

The Government will not be adding a plus/minus variance factor to B.6.

government consider using a plus/minus variance factor to apply to the B.6 estimated actuals to cover the risk of exceeding the nonproposed costs due to much higher inflation?

FRFP Section B.7, Option to Extend

Section B.7 applies to CORE SOW requirements only. Is B.7 to be completed at a later date?

The Section B.7 has been updated and OY5 has been removed.

74 FRFP Section I.21, statement of equivalent rates

Section with Kira onsite regular hours fringes. Fringes provided in I.21 are different from the current CBA. For example; field differential pay is $3.00 per hour versus I.21 $1.50 per hour. Please confirm.

The CBA information is the most accurate information. Section I.21 has been updated.

75 FRFP L.17 (b) (13)(27) CORE and RTO Basis of estimate

The RFP states “The Offeror shall give the Government insight into the cost estimating thought processes and methodologies used by the offeror in estimating the quantities of labor hours/costs, other direct costs, etc.

required for successful performance by elements of cost.”

Does the Government require labor costs (or just hours) in the BOEs? Does the Government require material and equipment costs (or just items) in the BOEs? Does the Government require travel and ODC costs (or just items) in the BOEs? All of the aforementioned labor hours/costs, material and equipment costs, and travel and ODC costs are readily available in the CORE and RTO cost exhibits, Can we reference the Exhibits instead of placing hours and cost tables into the BOE?

The offerors do not need to duplicate cost exhibit data in the BOE’s. Please reference the exbibit.

76 Enclosure 10, Table 6 What is the approximate NSROC full time equivalents for the work force represented by the Union?

The Enclosure 10 Table 6 specifies the labor categories and FTE for those represented by the Union. Offerors can add all the FTE for the labor categories that says “Union” under the Weighted Avg. Unburdened Hrly Rate column.

77 FRFP L.17 (b) (13)(27) CORE and RTO Basis of estimate

RFP section states: BOEs shall be submitted by both the Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors and shall comply with the BOE page limitations set forth in the

PROPOSAL PREPARATIONS—GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS" provision of this RFP for the CORE requirement.” this is required of the RTO BOE as well.

QUESTION: Is it acceptable for the prime to submit a single, integrated CORE and RTO BOE that clearly identifies which labor and materials are provided by the prime and which by subcontractors?

It is acceptable to submit a single integrated CORE and RTO BOE that clearly identifies which labor and materials are provided by the prime and which by subcontractors.

78 Attachment F, Sections

Section 6, Mission Direct labor Hours matrix requires ST and OT hours. Can the OT hours be shown in Total for each labor category? Or do the OT hours need to be shown at the SOW level?

The OT hours need to be shown at the SOW level.

79 SOW Section 3.1.1 P.47 Variance Factors (VF)

Based on a launch rate of 18 per year, can the government provide any guidance as to how many launches per year receive a VF? Do any of the VF

The offeror is to propose a percentage for each variance factor in Attachment F Section 7 that will be applied to all labor hours proposed (including Prime, consider OT in the VF? Section 7, VF Instructions state, "used to adjust the target hours of a" MTO. Can the Government explain what "target" hours refers to? Is the VF applied against the section 6 MCL's total hours column?

significant Sub, and any other subcontractors labor hours) for each Mission Complexity Level.

The Variance Factors are based on mission specific characteristics so the Government cannot provide guidance on how many launches per year receive a variance factor. The Variance factors are a percentage applied to all labor hours (REG DL and OT).

Target hours refers to the total of all labor hours, so yes, the VF is applied against the Attachment F Section 6 MCL total labor hours column.

Enclosure 5 RTO 1 and Enclosure 8b RTO 1 Cost Exhibits

Enclosure 5 RTO 1 provides Nonproposed cost. The nonproposed cost in Enclosure 8b RTO 1 includes WSMR Telemtry Support cost in 2 Missions, MCL 2

36.567 and MCL 3 36.569. The WSMR cost is not in Enclosure 5 RTO 1 nonproposed cost. Please confirm.

The Enclosure 5 has been updated to include the WSMR telemetry support non-proposed costs for the WSMR mission. The grand total column of the non-proposed costs has been updated.

81 FRFP L.17 (b) (7) and Enc. 8a, CORE cost exhibits

FRFP para 7 narrative does not indicate there are 2 sets of Exhibit 2F, one labeled for Prime and one labeled for significant Sub. Since these are identical except for the labels, did the Government mean for there to be 2 sets instead of how the other templates are labeled with a check box for Prime or Significant Subcontractor. Please clarify as RFP para 7 does not request a separately identified Exhibit for a significant subcontractor.

The offeror is to propose a percentage for each variance factor in Attachment F Section 7 that will be applied to all labor hours proposed (including Prime, significant Sub, and any other subcontractors labor hours) for each Mission Complexity Level. Since the variance factor will be applied on all labor hours proposed for the MCLs the offeror does not need to provide a separately identified Exhibit for the prime and significant subcontractor.

82 Enclosure 5, RTO 1 Instruction from Enclosure 5 - "In the cost exhibit for this RTO, the Offerors shall fill out the Variance Factor Table for each Mission Complexity Level".