ESES IV DRFP Questions and Answers (Final) 3-20-23.pdf

Electrical Systems Engineering Services

(ESES) IV

Draft Request for Proposal Questions and Answers

80GSFC21R0051

March 20, 2023

Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document were typed as they were submitted.

1. Question: The Cover Letter states, "The anticipated contract award date is March 5, 2024, with a May 5, 2024, contract effective date." Section L.30(b)(12) (middle of page

129) gives an expected date for phase-in to begin on January 9, 2024. Will the government please align these dates to be consistent?

Response: Yes, Section L.30(b)(12) will be updated to align with the dates stated in the Final RFP Cover Letter.

2. Question: Please confirm that the reference to the "Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest" should be L.24 rather than L.25.

Response: Yes, the reference to the "Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest" will be updated to reflect L.24 rather than L.25 in the Final RFP.

3. Question: Section J indicates the Quality Assurance Plan is due TBS *** (within 30 days of contract award); Section L indicates QAP is due with the proposal. Please clarify.

Response: The guidance in Section L is correct. The Quality Assurance Plan is due with the proposal submission. Section J will be updated accordingly.

4. Question: The DRFP states, "The proposed OCI Plan is not page limited and shall be included as a separate proposal attachment." Please clarify that the OCI Plan is to be included as an attachment to Volume I, Offer Volume.

Response: IAW Section L.24(d), the OCI Plan shall be included as a separate, standalone proposal attachment. It should not be included as an attachment to Volume I, Offer Volume.

5. Question: In the table, the reference for the Offer Volume is L.28. Please confirm that the reference should be L.27.

Response: Yes, the reference for the Offer Volume should be L.27 rather than L.28.

6. Question: Property Management: The Offeror shall describe all critical property and plant equipment (indicate whether Government or company owned) required for performance (whether or not currently in its possession) and state the function and available capacity of each item.

1. Without knowing the anticipated task orders for ESES IV it is not clear what basis the offeror is to use to determine critical equipment. Please clarify the basis offerors are to use to determine the critical property and plant equipment for ESES IV.

2. Offerors are required to include Government owned property and plant equipment.

How is the offeror to determine the "available capacity" of Government property and plant equipment? Please clarify.

3. Request this information be excluded from the page limitation as this information is likely to require lots of pages.

Response: 1. The current ESES III Task Orders are located in the ESES IV E-Library.

2. The Final RFP will be updated to remove this requirement in its entirety; therefore, the offeror will no longer be required to provide this information.

3. The Final RFP will be updated to remove this requirement in its entirety; therefore, this information will not be included in the current page limitations.

7. Question: L.26(b)(1) table sets the Mission Suitability page limit at 70 pages, including Sections B.6 and B.10. Sections B.6 and B.10 each request information on corporate facilities and equipment and property. This information is lengthy and will not adequately fit within the 70npage limit. Request the 70 page limit be increased to 100 pages.

Response: The Page Limitation for the Mission Suitability Volume will be increased from 70 to 75. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure that all required information is captured within the stated page limits.

8. Question: This section of the DRFP requires the Offerer to have a Top Secret level facility clearance by the proposal due date. Our understanding is that the currect ESES III contract only requires a Secret level facility clearance. This TS requirement could significantly reduce the ESES IV competitive field. Request GSFC consider reducing the facility clearnce requirement to the Secret level at time of submission with a plan to get to TS during the ESES IV POP when/if required.

Response: The Government has revised the facility clearance requirement to require all offerors to possess a Secret level facility clearance by the due date for receipt of proposals. If the selected offeror does not have a Top-Secret level facility clearance at the time of selection, it shall submit a request for one following selection, and obtain one prior to performance of any tasks requiring a Top Secret facility clearance. The RFP language will be updated accordingly.

9. Question: L.29 (d) A.1 requires that the proposal list any assumptions made in preparing the RTO responses as part of the response. However, in the Task Descriptions for both RTOs, the Government appears to ask for additional assumption listings as deliverables as part of the 3 or 8 month tasks. In particular,

• Enclosure BB RTO 1. Task Description, lists as the 3rd work item: “The contractor shall state any assumption made in developing this plan.”

• Enclosure BB RTO 2. Task Description, lists as the 1st work item (marked 4.):

The contractor shall state the assumptions made.

Can the Government confirm that these two requirements are the same as that asked for in Section L.29 and that these do not constitute WBS items that should be planned, staffed, and performed during the execution period of the tasks?

Response: The assumptions made in the RTOs are the same as stated in Section L.29(d).

Will remove "state assumptions" from the RTOs with the understanding that assumptions must be made in accordance with Section L.29(d).

10. Question: Please verify that position qualifications should be provided only in the Cost Volume, that the Cost Volume position qualifications should contain all the data required for the Mission Suitability factor evaluation, and that there is no additional content required in Subfactor B Section B.7.

Response: Section L.29 B.7 states the specific instructions on how offerors are to address the minimum requirements of the Position Qualifications for the Mission Suitability factor evaluation.

11. Question: Please confirm that Exhibits 10A and 10B also satisfy the TCP requirement for non-significant subcontractors under RFP L.21 NFS 1852.231-71(d) which requires a TCP from all service subcontractors for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4. ($2M+)?

Response: Yes, in response to Section L.29(d) B.8, the offeror shall provide a TCP in accordance with the guidance listed in NFS provision 1852.231-71 and FAR provision 52.222-46.

12. Question: The RFP defines a significant subcontractor as "any subcontractor whose estimated value causes the cumulative percentage of subcontractor work (from lowest to highest percentage of work) to meet or exceed 10% of the total GPM estimated value (basic and all options combined, if applicable). All values are inclusive of fee, but exclusive of any Phase-in." The narrative states 10% of the total GPM however the examples represent 20% of the GPM. Should the the narrative reflect 10% or 20%?

Response: The narrative stating 10% is correct. The examples will be updated to be consistent with the narrative.

13. Question: The Draft RFP Cost Exhibits are provided in PDF format with instructions to convert to Excel. It appears when the instructions are followed the resulting Excel file contains minor formatting issues that are not consistent with the Draft RFP instructions.

For example, Draft RFP section L.26 (b) (2) indicates the Excel exhibits are formatted using 9 - 12 point Arial font. However, when the PDF is converted to Excel the resulting excel file has multiple font types, to include Arial and Times New Roman, and multiple font sizes outside of the 9 - 12 point range indentified in the Draft RFP. Please confirm that the cost Exhibits may contain the fonts as exported, which may result in fonts other than Arial 9 - 12 point?

Response: Excel exhibits shall be provided in accordance with the instructions in Section L.26(b)(2).

14. Question: RFP states Exhibit 1B includes a column for the option to extend services and should be 50% of Contract Year 5. How should this requirement tie to Attachment B, since Attachment B includes a column for CY6 for rates?

Response: Attachment B will be updated to delete the column for CY6.

15. Question: Section L.30(b)(12) states "Offerors shall propose the total firm-fixed-price associated with the 60-day phase-in period, which will be performed under a separate, firm-fixed-price order." and Section M.4 states "A price analysis will be conducted on the Firm-Fixed Price Phase-In CLIN to ensure a fair and reasonable price by the Government." Will the government be issuing a separate firm fixed price order/contract or will the government be including a FFP Phase-in CLIN with contract award?

Response: The Government intends to issue a separate Firm Fixed Price order/contract for the 60-day phase-in period.

16. Question: Section M.4 states "A price analysis will be conducted on the Firm-Fixed Price Phase-In CLIN to ensure a fair and reasonable price by the Government." Is the 60 day phase-in CLIN period part of the 5 year ordering period of the contract or does the 5 year ordering period of the contract start after the Phase-in CLIN period?

Response: The 5 year ordering period of the contract starts after the 60 day phase-in period.

17. Question: We are not clear on the Past Performance volume requirements. i) the first paragraph under (a) says "the offer shall submit a maximum of 4 of your most recent /relevant comtract references ...". ii) The second paragraph under (a) could be interpreted that we are to furnish the information requested below ... on all similar/recent contracts.

iii) The bolded paragraph on page 131 says "The offer shall provide the following information on all past/current references that meet the above criteria ..." Can NASA clarify whether the requested information should be provided on only the four most recent/relevant contracts, or all recent relevant contracts that met the requirements.

Response: Offerors shall submit the requested information for a maximum of 4 of your most recent/relevant contract references IAW L.31(a).

18. Question: Section L.30(b)(16) states "Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more proposed line items ...".

Please provide the definition of "line item" as it pertains to the information required in the Cost Volume.

Response: Line items refer to cost elements.

19. Question: Under L.31 (a) Information from the Offeror, it states that "Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below for your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $20M that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date."

According to the guidelines from the SBA (dated July 22, 2022) on Past Performance Ratings for Small Business Joint Venture Members and Small Business First-Tier Subcontractors, a small business contractor may use a past performance rating for work performed as a member of a joint venture or for work performed as a first-tier subcontractor. For purposes of clarity in regard to the ESES IV solicitation, will past performance from a small business performed as a first-tier subcontractor be considered a viable past performance reference, or do all past performance references have to be performed as a "Prime" contractor?

Response: The final RFP instructions and evaluation criteria will be clarified to indicate that, at the Offeror’s discretion, any proposed small business first tier subcontractors may be considered significant subcontractors, if the small business prime does not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance necessary for award.

20. Question: In section L.31 under Past Performance (a) INFORMATION FROM THE OFFEROR instructions, it states that offerors are to provide "Brief description of contract work and comparability to the proposed effort. It is not sufficient to state that it is comparable in magnitude and scope. Rationale must be provided to demonstrate that it is comparable." In Exhibit 12: Past Performance Questionnaire only certain items from the draft SOW are indicated in the "Performed/Did Not Perform" section. Based on this, should the offeror assume that these areas of the Draft SOW are the areas to be covered in the "Brief description of contract work and comparability to the proposed effort" section of the past performance narrative or should the offeror focus on the entirety of the Draft SOW when providing the description of contract work?

Response: The offeror's brief description of the contract work should consider the entirety of the ESES IV SOW when providing a response to the requirements in Section L.31(a).

21. Question: M.4 GSFC 52.215-323 Cost Evaluation Factor incorporates Unbalanced Pricing language that states “Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated or understated”. Based on the

RFP, the only referenced CLIN is for Phase-in, how will this cost evaluation method be utilized?

Response: In accordance with the FAR, the Government will use cost and price analysis techniques in determining if the proposed prices are unbalanced and if they pose an unacceptable performance risk to the Government.

22. Question: Please confirm what amounts are included in the Total Evaluated Price for Cost Evaluation Purposes.

Response: Reference Section M.4 of the DRFP, "The total FFP Phase-In price and the proposed and probable Government Pricing Model evaluated cost (including proposed fee amount) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority."

23. Question: Does the Total Evaluated Price include the 50% of CY5 for the Option to Extend?

Response: Yes, this is correct.

24. Question: Item 10 of the OCI DRD, requests "a list of all prime's and subcontractor's NASA contracts and subcontracts, which would provide the COI a better understanding of other NASA work performed by the Offeror that may give rise to an actual or potential conflict". L.24, Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, says "offerors are required to submit an acceptable OCI Plan in accordance with the requirements of this DRD", but does not directly ask of all NASA contracts, or provide the data the CO would need to for a better understanding of the work. If the requirement is for all NASA contracts, request the specific information required in the list.

Response: IAW Section L.24(a), "Offerors are required to submit an acceptable OCI Plan in accordance with the requirements of Data Requirements Description (DRD) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan." Offerors are to review the requirements listed in the OCI DRD and provide a plan in accordance with all listed requirements.

25. Question: Is this contract subject to FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards?

If it is, will the Government include FAR 51.222-41 and applicable Wage Determination?

Response: No, this contract is not subject to FAR 52.222-41, and as such the Government will not include FAR 52.222-41 and applicable Wage Determination.

26. Question: Item 4 in the list of card functions reads, "z30 Mbps". Please clarify as it appears there is a phrase or sentence missing [Reference Enclosure BB, RTO #1]

Response: There is a sentence missing. Item 4 should read, "The spacecraft science data rate from the instrument digital board to the C&DH is limited to 30Mbps."

27. Question: The ESES IV RTO #2 is titled "in-House CubeSat Spacecarft bus". The "requirements for the spacecraft" provided in the RTO SOW seem to be signifactly greater than what is traditional industry understanding of a "cubesat" spacecraft requirements. Can NASA provide additional insight (size, power ...) to assist in understanding the apparent disconnect between the stated "requirements for the spacecraft" and the "CubSat" designation?

Response: Assume the Spacecraft size to be 6U.

28. Question: The numbering under Task Description begins with “4.” This appears to have been a typo, continued from RTO #1. Should we understand this numbering to begin with “1”.

Response: The numbering under "Task Description" should begin with "1".

29. Question: Can the government confirm the rates for the below labor categories as it appears the lower level [less experience required] labor categories have higher rates:

Integration and Test Engineer II and III Parts/Material Technician III and IV

Response: Updated rates will be provided at time of Final RFP release.

30. Question: L.27.c.6: The information regarding the Offeror’s Government property management procedures required by these two provisions shall be included in this volume [the Offer Volume].

B.10: The Offeror shall provide an overview of its property management system, including procedures for the receipt, identification, control, use, protection, maintenance, transfer, tracking, and reporting of Contractor-Acquired, Installation-Accountable Government Property and/or Government-Furnished Property in accordance with the property clauses in the contract. (emphasis added) There appears to be an overlap in these requirements. Both sections require a response to NSF provisions 1852.245-80, “Government Property Management Information” and 1852.245-81, “List of Available Government Property.” Please clarify whether information should be repeated across the Offer and Mission Suitability volumes.

Response: Each volume is independent of each other, and therefore all requested information for each volume requires a response for that respective volume.

31. Question: L.27.c.6: The information regarding the Offeror’s Government property management procedures required by these two provisions shall be included in this volume [the Offer Volume].

B.10: The Offeror shall provide an overview of its property management system, including procedures for the receipt, identification, control, use, protection, maintenance, transfer, tracking, and reporting of Contractor-Acquired, Installation-Accountable Government Property and/or Government-Furnished Property in accordance with the property clauses in the contract (emphasis added). If responses to NSF provisions 1852.245-80 and 1852.245-81 are required in the Mission Suitability Volume, will the government consider removing this section from page limitations? The provisions require responses to eight items, including lists of items that cannot be shortened to fit within a page limitation.

Response: See response to Question 7.

32. Question: B.6: The Offeror shall describe any corporate resources (e.g., facilities, equipment, financial) it intends to utilize in performance of this contract, including the availability of the resource(s) for contract-related work.

B.10: The Offeror shall describe all critical property and plant equipment (indicate whether Government or company owned) required for performance (whether or not currently in its possession) and state the function and available capacity of each item.

The RFP asks for facilities and equipment in two places. Would the government consider consolidating these requirements so information is not repeated within the page limited portion of the volume?

Response: The requirements at B.6 Corporate Resources and B.10 Property Management are two separate requirements. As such, responses to these requirements should not be consolidated or combined. Please respond accordingly.

33. Question: PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS **Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually. The Notes include explanations for ** and ***, but the body of table has two elements with *** (three asterisks) and no element with ** (two asterisks). Please clarify page limitations and any caveats for the sections noted with asterisks.

Response: The asterisks will be updated as follows: **Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors (page limitation is for the total component (Prime and Significant Subcontractors)). *** (This caveat will be removed in its entirety in the Final RFP).

34. Question: Quality Assurance Plan (GSFC 52.246-11) (TBS***) The referenced table indicates that the Quality Assurance Plan is due 30 days after award.

However, Section L requires the Quality Assurance Plan in the Mission Suitability Volume. Please clarify

Response: See response to Question 3.

35. Question: “For the purposes of the Past Performance Volume, a proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $20M.” The $20M average annual cost/fee for significant subcontractor determination is more than double used in the ESES III RFP ($8M average annual cost/fee). This threshold is very high and may prohibit Offerors from bringing in some value-added subcontractors. Would the Government consider lowering this threshold, e.g., to a level commensurate with ESES III?

Response: The Final RFP will be updated to reflect a lower threshold of $10M.

36. Question: “Task Description 4. The contractor shall state the assumptions made” The first numbered item under Task Description is #4. Please confirm that items 1-3 are not missing from the Task Description. [Reference Enclosure BB]

Response: See response to Question 28.

37. Question: Enclosure BB, Page 2 of 4 states: “1. The contractor shall state any assumptions made in developing this plan.”

Enclosure BB, page 3 of states: “4. The contractor shall state the assumptions made”RFP L.29, Page 112 of 143 states: “Any assumptions made in preparing a response to these representative task orders shall be clearly stated.”

Both RTOs have a Task Description item to state assumptions. Please clarify if this requirement is the same or different than the RFP Section L instruction. If different, please explain the differences. If the same, please consider eliminating one or the other to avoid confusion.

Response: See response to Question 9.

38. Question: Enclosure BB, Page 2 of 4 states:

“1. The contractor shall develop a plan to design, simulate, build, test, integrate and deliver a FPGA based Digital Card including spacecraft communication interface.”

“2. The contractor shall identify and perform two trade evaluations/analyses and describe the technical, cost, and schedule advantages and disadvantages of each trade.”

RFP L.29, page 113 of 143 sates: “The offeror shall not perform any work or produce any deliverables for the RTOs.” Please confirm that the Government’s expectations for RTO 1 are the Offeror approaches for developing a plan and performing trade evaluations/analyses, not the actual plan and trade evaluations/analyses results.

Response: Correct. The offeror shall not perform any work or produce any deliverables for the RTOs. The offeror is to provide a written task plan IAW the requirements in Section L.29 Subfactor A.1.

39. Question: 4. z30 Mbps Please clarify the functional requirement “z30 Mbps” for the FPGA-based digital card. [Reference Enclosure BB]

Response: See response to Question 26.

40. Question: “For the purposes of the Cost Volume, a Significant Subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose estimated value causes the cumulative percentage of subcontractor work (from lowest to highest percentage of work) to meet or exceed 10% of the total GPM estimated value (basic and all options combined, if applicable).”

“meet or exceed 10% of the total GPM estimated value” is contrary to the examples provided on pages 117 and 118 of 143 and inconsistent with all recent GSFC RFPs where 20% of the total GPM estimated value has been used exclusively. 10% puts a significant burden on small businesses and increases the government's proposal review burden.

Should this requirement read "20%"?

Response: See response to Question 12.

41. Question: “The anticipated contract award date is March 5, 2024, with a May 5, 2024, contract effective date.”

“A Phase-in period will be conducted under a separate contract or purchase order during the 60-day period prior to the effective date of the contract.”

“(12) PHASE-IN PLAN

Offerors shall propose the total firm-fixed-price associated with the 60-day phase-in period, which will be performed under a separate, firm-fixed-price order. Exhibits 8 and 8A shall be used to state the proposed price for the phase-in, which is expected to commence on or about January 9, 2024.”

The Draft RFP Cover Letter specifies a contract effective date of May 5, 2024 with the phase-in period during the 60-day period prior to this date (i.e., March 5 – May 4, 2024).

RFP Section L.30 indicates phase-in commencing on or about January 9, 2024. Please resolve this apparent inconsistency and provide the timeframe for the phase-in period.

Response: See response to Question 1.

42. Question: PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point.

Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. Please confirm that fonts in the Arial family are acceptable for diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs.

Response: See response to Question 13.

43. Question: PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point.

Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. Is a reduced font size acceptable for text boxes/callout boxes?

Response: Font sizes shall be in accordance with the instructions in Section L.26(b)(2).

44. Question: "To be proposed" Since the referenced plan is not due with the proposal, please change this language to "to be submitted" for clarity.

Response: Attachment F IT Security Management Plan will be revised to state "To Be Submitted".

45. Question: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (emphasis added) "Section L requests a Contractor Quality Assurance Plan, while Section M indicates the Offeror's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan will be evaluated.

Please confirm that the Government will evaluate the Offeror's Quality Assurance Plan consistent with the Section L instructions."

Response: Yes, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's Quality Assurance Plan IAW Section L.

46. Question: Contract Historical Direct Labor Incumbent Rates. Only 41 of the 72 labor categories have incumbent rates reflecting that only 60% of the hours will be priced using incumbent rates which is substantially lower than ESES III and most GSFC RFPs.

Will the Government consider providing incumbent rates for a larger percentage of the labor categories to allow more consistent cost proposals?

Response: Updated rates will be provided at time of Final RFP release. The updated rates will include all labor resources employed under the current contract in the last 12 months. There may be labor categories listed in the contract that do not contain incumbent rates due to there not being any incumbent employees performing these labor categories.

47. Question: Contract Historical Direct Labor Incumbent Rates "The Government indicates in Attachment DD that updated rates will be provided prior to Final RFP release. We respectfully request that the updated rates be released as soon as possible to allow all non-incumbent Offerors the opportunity to develop their cost approach."

Response: See response to Question 29.

48. Question: RTO-1 Item #4 under “Background” states only: “z30 Mbps”. Did NASA intend to have a verbal statement here?

Response: See response to Question 26.

49. Question: RTO-2: The enumerated list of tasks under “Task Description” begins with the number 4. Are 3 preceding tasks missing from the list?

50. Question: Unburdened Other Direct Cost rates are provided for the Prime and Subcontractors for each contract year. No detail is provided such that the prime can allocate materials and travel provided by subcontractors to specific subcontractors.

Furthermore, the proposed delivery approach by the bidder may include self-performing the procurement of these other direct costs. In the final RFP, will the Government eliminate the separation of the ODCs between the prime and subcontractors and provide a single ODC number to better align with any proposed delivery approach?

Response: The unburdened ODC amounts provided in the DRFP are for evaluation purposes only. The Government does not intend to change the ODC amounts or allocation between prime and subcontractor in the Final RFP.

51. Question: The Government states "For the purposes of the Cost Volume, a Significant Subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose estimated value causes the cumulative percentage of subcontractor work (from lowest to highest percentage of work) to meet or exceed 10% of the total GPM estimated value (basic and all options combined, if applicable)." However, the examples immediately below indicates the threshold of 20% for a significant subcontractor. A 10% threshold is low compared to other NASA Goddard solicitations for small business set-asides. These typically have a 20% threshold as indicated in the example. In the final RFP, will the Government confirm that the threshold is 20% in the narrative above to match the example tables below? [Reference DRFP Section L.30(a)]

Response: See response to Question 12.

52. Question: The proposal is being developed amid extreme labor and ODC escalation uncertainty. There is little convergence between the indices, and convincing arguments can be developed to support widely divergent approaches to escalation. Furthermore, historical rates are not appropriate for the current economic environment. Considering this, will the Government provide an escalation rate to use for labor so that bidders are evaluated on a common basis where the reasonableness determination is less subjective?

Response: The Government will not provide escalation rates for offerors to utilize.

Offerors should propose based on their own risk assessment and analysis of the current economic conditions.

53. Question: The enclosures provide labor categories, rates, levels of effort, and position descriptions. However, there is no indication of the type of labor, such as exempt/non-exempt, or service contract act (SCA). Please indicate which, if any, of the labor categories are bound by SCA wage determinations.

Response: The Service Contract Act (SCA) is not applicable to this procurement.

54. Question: Please confirm that Volume III will consist of two files, one excel and the other a PDF?

Response: Yes

55. Question: The limitation of 30 pages for the BOE in the cost volume has three asterisks that indicate it is 30 pages total including the prime and all significant subcontractors.

Did the Government intend for it to be two asterisks and therefore 30 pages in the prime's cost volume in addition to 30 pages in each significant subcontractor's cost volume?

Response: See response to Question 33.

56. Question: Does the Government want the offeror to extract only those pages which contain fill-ins from section B-K, or should we include B-K in its entirety in our Volume I - Offer Volume?

Response: IAW Section L.27 (a), only the pages with the required fill-ins must be submitted.

57. Question: Does the Government have a standard file name it would like offerors to use for Volume 1 - Offer Volume?

Response: No

58. Question: The instructions say the "Offeror's Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract attachment entitled "Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices" which shall be submitted in the Cost Volume. Please confirm that written position qualifications for each specific labor category will be provided within the offerors cost volume, and not within the 70 page limitation of the Volume II - Mission Suitability Volume?

Response: IAW Section L.29 (d) B.7, "...the Offeror's Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract Attachment entitled, "Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices", which shall be submitted with the Cost Volume..." "For purposes of the Mission Suitability factor evaluation, Offerors shall address the minimum requirements of the Position Qualifications, to include necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/licensing, minimum education and/or experience required for the position." Respond accordingly.

59. Question: Should the TCP be included as an appendix to the MS volume, or should it be included as an appendix to the Cost volume given that it includes potential cost data (e.g., direct labor rates)?

Response: The TCP shall be included in the Mission Suitability Volume IAW Section L.29

(d) B.8.

60. Question: Please confirm that service subcontractors only need to provide Exhibits 10A and 10B to constitute their Total Compensation Plan as defined in L.21?

Response: Yes, as defined in L.21.

61. Question: Can the Government clarify the difference between what is required in B.10 of the Mission Suitability Volume and section L.27, C, (6) of the offer volume?

Response: Each volume is independent of each other, and therefore all requested information for each volume requires a response for that respective volume. Please re-read the requirements to identify what information is required for each volume. Respond accordingly.

62. Question: This appears to be a new requirement in mission suitability based on current RFPs at GSFC for similar engineering work (e.g., MIST II, OMES II). Given the fact that there are no detailed statements of work for future task orders, or a full detailed listing of existing contract task orders, it would be difficult for anyone but the incumbent to provide a list of critical property and plant equipment required for full performance to this level of specificity. Would the Government consider striking this requirement starting with paragraph 2 to the end of B.10? [Reference DRFP Section L.29(d)(B.10)]

Response: A listing of current ESES III task orders has been provided in the ESES IV e- Library. The requirement remains as stated.

63. Question: The definition for significant subcontractors is defined as any subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $20M. This is not in line with the order of magnitude of other GSFC's small business acquisitions with similar NAICS codes (e.g., SES II $7M, SEAS II $7M, SESDA V $5M, MIST II $8M, ESES III

$8M, PAAC V $6M). Would the government consider aligning the threshold to be more in line (e.g., $8M) with other similar recent small business acquisitions?

Response: See response to Question 35.

64. Question: The government is requesting an OCI Plan in accordance with the provided DRD. Should the offeror include this within our Volume I - Offer Volume?

Response: See response to Question 4.

65. Question: The table under the Past Performance Volume lists a Small Business Subcontracting Plan History as being excluded from the page count, however there are no instructions for it under the Volume IV Past Performance Volume. Does the Government intend to strike this from the table given that this is a small business set-aside?

Response: Yes, this language will be removed from this section.

66. Question: The Draft RFP stipulates that the Excel files be provided in a format compatible with Excel 2016. Will the Government change the requirement to Excel 365 in the final RFP?

Response: The requirement in the Final RFP will reflect the most recent Excel version at time of Final RFP.

67. Question: The draft RFP asks offerors to furnish contact information for the Cognizant Government inspection agency to include mailing address, email address, telephone number, and fax number. For those offerors who don't yet have an already assigned Government inspection agency and since any decision by NASA to delegate to DCMA would happen after award, please clarify how the offeror should respond to this section.

[Reference DRFP Section L.27(c)(2)(b)]

Response: The requirement remains as stated. All offerors are to respond accordingly.

If an offeror is unable to provide the requested information, this shall be stated in their proposal response.

68. Question: The Manufacturing-Site hours and labor category appear to be remnants from the ESES III RFP prior to the issuance of ESES III Amendment 4 which added 12 labor categories and 32,707 hours (per year) to the Manufacturing-Site. The ESES III Amendment 4 decreased the Off-Site hours by 32,703 (per year), essentially moving those hours to the Manufacturing-Site. In reviewing ESES IV DRFP Enclosure CC, it appears that the GPM does not include the variety of labor categories at the Manufacturing-Site that ESES III RFP amendment 4 used. The one labor category in Enclosure CC (Manufacturing Engineer III) is not fully representative of the manufacturing site work contained in the tasks in the Bidders Library for ESES IV.

Will the government consider moving hours and labor categories from Off-Site to the Manufacturing Site in an effort to more closely represent the work anticipated to be performed at the Manufacturing-Site?

Response: The Government will update Enclosure CC to move hours and labor categories from Off-Site to the Manufacturing Site to more accurately represent the work anticipated to be performed.

69. Question: The cover letter states: “The anticipated contract award date is March 5, 2024, with a May 5, 2024 contract effective date.” and further states that a Phase-in period will be conducted 60 days prior to the contract effective date. Section L.30, item b (12), page 129, states that Phase-in “is expected to commence on or about January 9, 2024.” Please clarify the anticipated start date for Phase-in.

Response: See response to Question 1.

70. Question: The table in Section J.1 states that the Quality Assurance Plan is to be submitted within 30 days of contract award. Section L.29 (B.9) and Section M.3 (B.9) imply that the Quality Assurance Plan is to be submitted with the proposal. Please clarify.

Response: See response to Question 3.

71. Question: The table in Section J.1 states that the DEIA Plan and the Safety and Health Plan are to be submitted within 30 days of contract award. Should both of those be submitted the same as the IT Security Management Plan, i.e., within 30 days of the contract effective date?

Response: IAW Section J.1, both the DEIA Plan and the Safety and Health Plan are to be submitted within 30 days of Contract Award.

72. Question: Reference L.27. item 8 (Contract Security Classification), page 108. Our interpretation is that if a joint venture is proposed, only the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess a Top-Secret level facility security clearance, and the joint venture itself is not required to possess a Top Secret level facility security clearance. Is that a correct interpretation?

Response: Yes, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.

73. Question: Section L.29, Subfactor A, A.1 (RTOs), page 112 states “The plan must be sufficiently specific to demonstrate a clear and full understanding of the objectives;

potential technical problems, risks, and critical issues; and possible problem mitigation/resolution.” Please define or explain the differences between the terms technical problems and critical issues.

Response: The offeror shall make their own assumptions and so state in their proposal and respond accordingly.

74. Question: Reference Enclosure BB, RTO 2. Under the Task Description section, either items 1,2, and 3 are missing or the numbering scheme is incorrect. Please clarify.

75. Question: Table of Proposal components, Past Performance Volume (b)(1) references "Small Business Subcontracting Plan History." The same is not referenced in L.31 Past Performance Volume instructions. Can the government either 1) delete the reference in L.26 Past Performance Volume (b) to "Small business subcontracting Plan History" or 2) provide clarification in L.31 on this requirement?

Response: See response to Question 65.

76. Question: The SOW Elements listed are not all inclusive of the SOW Elements in Attachment A. Is it the Government's intent that the SOW Elements listed in the Questionnaire are not all inclusive of the Attachment A SOW Elements and therefore raters do not need to comment on all SOW elements nor do Offerors need to seek ratings or demonstrate proof of past performance on all SOW elements (applicable to each past performance)? [Reference Exhibit 12]

Response: Correct. In response to the Past Performance Questionnaire, offerors shall seek ratings/demonstrate proof for the specific SOW elements listed in the Questionnaire.

77. Question: Please note the NAICS code identified in the Cover Letter is 54175 but should be 541715.

Response: The Cover Letter will be updated to reflect the correct NAICS Code 541715.

78. Question: The government has identified ODC values to be procured by both the prime and the subcontractors. If our approach is to have all ODCs purchased by the prime, can we combine the values in the chart and show only totals for the prime, so long as the annual totals are a match to the RFP values?

Response: The unburdened ODC amounts provided in the DRFP are for evaluation purposes only. The Government does not intend to change the ODC amounts or allocation between prime and subcontractor in the final RFP.

79. Question: The government has identified ODC values to be procured by both the prime and the subcontractors. If unchanged to allow the prime to consolidate all ODCs on the Prime rows, does the government intend that these ODC plug values are inclusive of any subcontractor burdens? This would mean that the only burdens to apply to the plug ODCs are the prime burdens, correct?

Response: As stated in section L.30 of the DRFP, the ODC amounts provided are unburdened.

80. Question: There is one Manufacturing Site LCAT with slightly over 3 FTEs. What is the manufacturing site going to be? This seems, from a pricing perspective, to be a lot of proposal work over not a lot of practical work. Should we ask about rolling this LCAT into the offsite?

Response: See response to Question 68.

81. Question: The labor category titles are not consistent in structure. For example, in the Electrical Engineer Family, there is an Electrical Enginner (Sr.), Electrical Engineer (Jr.

I), Electrical Engineer II, and Electrical Engineer III. Developing a more consistent Labor Category naming structure will benefit both in the proposal stage and more importantly during performance. We ask that the government use a labor category title structure that would use a common name (such as Electrical Engineer) using roman numerals for different levels within the overall group. In the example provided, that would mean Electrical Engineer I-V.

Response: The current labor category title structure will remain the same.

82. Question: The labor category descriptions are not consistent in structure. In some cases the description is unique to a combined labor category name and level but in other cases the labor category descriptions are shared across levels with the only differnence being the years of experience. Developing a more consistent labor category description structure will benefit both in the proposal stage and more importantly during performance. We ask that the government use a labor category description structure with one description per labor category and level.

Response: Labor categories are clearly defined and therefore no additional changes are necessary. The current labor category description structure will remain the same.

83. Question: In the Incumbent List, there is a labor category called "System Engineer".

Is this associated with the Enclosure CC labor category called "Systems Engineer"? If not, which System Engineer labor category is this associated with in Enclosure CC?

Response: Yes, these labor categories are the same. Enclosure DD will be updated to correct the labor category title from "System Engineer" to "Systems Engineer".

84. Question: The DRFP Cost Volume Forms include two different forms marked as Exhibit 2B. The instructions do not address which of the two version of the form should be used.

Response: The Cost Volume Forms have been updated to remove Exhibit 2B Prime & SS On&Offsite M&A. The offeror shall address Exhibit 2B Prime & SS Offsite M&A.

85. Question: The DRFP Cost Volume Forms include two different forms marked as Exhibit 2D. The instructions do not address which of the two version of the form should be used.

Response: The Cost Volume Forms have been updated to remove Exhibit 2D Non-SS On&Offsite M&A. The offeror shall address Exhibit 2D Non-SS Offsite M&A.

86. Question: Section L.30, item b (1), page 119, states that “Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data, for those labor categories for which rates are provided, in order to better understand salary levels of the incumbent workforce.” Do we assume all incumbent rates are onsite rates?

Response: The rates provided are unburdened, therefore, onsite and offsite indirect burdens are not included.

87. Question: Section L.30, item b (3), page 123, states that “The Prime Offeror or JV Entity shall complete the Offeror Management and Administrative Hours/Costs Section of Exhibit 1A, filling in all anticipated program management and administrative support required for this effort and direct charged via Offeror (and/or subcontractor, if applicable) labor categories and hours (Exhibits 2B and 2D)… For evaluation purposes, all Management and Administration Labor Costs shall be assumed Offsite.” Please clarify, what we should price in Exhibit 2B "OFFEROR MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE LABOR ONSITE Management and OFFSITE Administrative Place of Performance" since both Offsite Administrative and Onsite Management Direct Labor Categories are given?

Response: See response to Question 84.

88. Question: The government has identified unburdened ODC plug numbers to be procured by the Prime Offeror and the Subcontractors. Section L.30, item b (3), page 123, states that “The Prime Offeror or JV Entity shall complete the Offeror Non-Labor Recurring ODCs and/or Cost-Estimating Relationship Costs Section of Exhibit 1A, filling in all Non-labor recurring other direct costs (ODCs) and/or cost estimating relationships (CERs) consistent with Exhibit 7. The Prime Offeror or JV Entity shall include the rate, how it was applied at a contract level, any further loadings and fee applied, and the resulting cost.” Are subcontractors also allowed to include their burdens on ODCs?

Response: Offerors and Subcontractors should propose in accordance with their accounting system and company’s practices.

89. Question: Section L.30, item b (4), page 124, states that “Prime Offerors or JV Entities, JV partners and Significant Subcontractors (that are being proposed as a cost-type subcontract with the Prime offeror) included in Exhibit 1A shall complete Exhibit 2A, Non-Management Direct Labor Category Conversion. Significant Subcontractors that are being proposed as a non-cost fixed rate type contract (FFP, T&M, etc.) shall complete Exhibit 2C and include the Significant subcontractors Quote/Proposal that was provided to the Prime offeror.” But then page 125, states that “All Non-Significant Subcontractors included in Exhibit 1A shall complete Exhibit 2C, Non-Significant Subcontractor Non- Management Direct Labor Category Conversion.” Given the conflicting references, please clarify, if Exhibit 2C is for Significant Subcontractors or for Non-Significant Subcontractors.

Response: All Significant subcontractors proposing non-cost type contracts and All non-significant subcontractors in exhibit 1A shall complete exhibit 2C.

90. Question: Can subcontractors deliver their TCP seperately from the prime since there is corporate prorietary data documented within the TCP?

Response: Yes, reference RFP section L.30(a) for instructions on providing cost data directly to the Government.

91. Question: Could the government provide a summary of the type of mission being performed in RTO 2 (land, ocean, ice, atmospheric sounding, etc.)?

Response: The offeror shall make their own assumptions and so state in their proposal and respond accordingly.

92. Question: Will data be collected at night? [Reference Enclosure BB]

Response: See response to question 91.

93. Question: Could the government clarify the maximum data rate for the instrument?

[Reference Enclosure BB]

94. Question: Could the government provide the local crossing time for the mission?

95. Question: Could the government clarify the size of the spacecraft bus or alter the driving design parameters to be more consistent with a CubeSat? [Reference Enclosure BB]

Response: See response to question 27.

96. Question: Could the government identify the mission duration? [Reference Enclosure

BB]

97. Question: Could the government clarify if the power estimates include reserve?

98. Question: Attached to number 13 is a note refering to three FAR clauses. The note says that contents 1-12 is not for the purpose of addressing these important FAR clauses. Was the note to imply that these topics should be addressed, but not in contents 1-12, or that they do not need to be adressed in the OCI plan? [Reference Attachment G.1]

Response: The purpose of the note is to clarify that the OCI Plan is separate from the requirements of the stated FAR clauses and the plan is not to be utilized to address these clauses.

99. Question: Our assumption is that this section is referring to off-site critical property and plant equipment. Is this correct?