ESES IV RFP Questions and Answers (Final) 5-11-23.pdf

Electrical Systems Engineering Services

(ESES) IV

Request for Proposal

Questions and Answers

80GSFC21R0051

May 11, 2023

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

1. Question: The text for this section falls off the page on the right side. The text isn't readable to determine if there was a change from the draft. Please provide the full text of

G.10(c)(3).

Response: The full text of G.10(c)(3) has been provided in the updated RFP Sections B-

M document.

2. Question: Attachment G.1 is missing from the final RFP. L.24 requires that "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." Please provide Attachment G.1.

Response: Attachment G.1 has been provided.

3. Question: Would the Government please confirm that the rates provided in Enclosure

DD are correct for the Parts/Material Technician III and IV labor categories and the

Intern I and II? The rates provided for the less experienced categories is more than the more experienced labor categories.

Response: The rates provided in Enclosure DD for the Parts/Material Technician III and

IV labor categories and the Intern I and II labor categories are correct as stated.

4. Question: Would the Government confirm the rates are as of April 2023 and that all offerors should escalate these rates to the start date of the contract? If offerors should escalate the rates to the start date of the contract, would the Government provide a standard escalation to utilize? [Reference Enclosure DD]

Response: Yes, the rates provided in Enclosure DD are as of April 2023. Each offeror should make their own business decision on whether to escalate these rates to the start date of the contract. Each offeror should also make their own business decision on what escalation to utilize if they decide to escalate these rates to the start date of the contract.

5. Question: Significant Subcontractors that are being proposed as a non-cost fixed rate type contract (FFP, T&M, etc.) shall complete Exhibit 2C, in lieu of Exhibit 2A, or in addition to Exhibit 2A? If the former, is the same true of Exhibit 2D in lieu of 2B, if applicable? [Reference Sections L.30(a), L.30(b)(4) and L.30(b)(5)]

Response: Section L.30(b)(4) contains a typo. The statement should read, "Significant

Subcontractors that are being proposed as non-cost fixed rate type contract (FFP, T&M, etc.) shall complete Exhibit 2A and include the Significant Subcontractors

Quote/Proposal that was provided to the Prime offeror." (The language in the RFP has been updated accordingly.) Significant Subcontractors that are being proposed as a non-cost fixed rate type contract (FFP, T&M, etc.) are not required to complete Exhibit 2C.

Significant Subcontractors that are being proposed as a non-cost fixed rate type contract

(FFP, T&M, etc.) are not required to complete Exhibit 2D.

6. Question: Reference IDIQ Rate Tables. Attachment B states that the Labor Categories in the Prime and Subcontractor rate tables should reflect the Prime/Subcontract direct labor categories, in accordance with the Position Qualifications in Section 6, however rates are proposed as a composite against the GPM-Specified Non-Management DL Category.

Response: Offerors shall provide the detail and calculations of the composite rates and map how it correlates to the position qualifications.

7. Question: Please confirm that Significant Subcontractor BOEs may be included in their cost/price proposals submitted directly to the government as the BOEs will include proprietary information. [Reference Section L.30(b)(7).

Response: Yes, IAW the instructions in Section L.30(a), "Significant Subcontractors and

JV partners may submit proprietary cost data, under separate cover, directly to the

Government no later than the date and time specified in the instructions for receipt of proposals for this RFP."

8. Question: May the Cost/Price Exhibits, in both Excel and pdf, include the Offeror’s header/footer information and proprietary data disclosure?

Response: In accordance with RFP Section L.26(a)(2), "All pages of Volumes I, II, III, and IV shall be numbered and identified with the Offeror’s name, RFP number and date."

In addition, RFP Section L.26(b)(2) states, "The margins may contain headers and footers, but shall not contain any proposal content to be evaluated. "

9. Question: How should the tables be replicated to calculate each contract year, horizontally or vertically?

Response: All tables shall be submitted in accordance with RFP Section L.26(b)(2).

10. Question: Will the government consider an Offeror’s DCMA-issued Forward Pricing

Rate Recommendation (FPRR) as sufficient basis for proposed indirect rates for

Significant Subcontractors in lieu of completing Exhibits 6A and 6B?

Response: Yes.

11. Question: Should offerors use Contract Year 1 as the basis for calculating the total cost and percentages for fringe benefits in Exhibits 10A and 10B in order to coincide with fringe rates provided in Exhibit 5, or should the values reflect the average over the 5-year contract period?

Response: Yes, offerors shall use Contract Year 1 as the basis for calculating the total cost and percentages for fringe benefits in Exhibits 10A and 10B.

12. Question: Cover letter stated: “Attachment B has been updated to remove CY6.” CY6 was removed from Exhibit 3… but left in Exhibits 5, 6a, 6b, 7, and 9. Is this correct?

Response: Yes, this is correct.

13. Question: Cover letter stated: “Cost Volume Forms (Exhibits 2B and 2D) have been updated.” Please specify what changes need to be addressed in Offeror response.

Response: The offeror shall address all cost exhibits in accordance with the instructions stated in Section L.30.

14. Question: The RFP section L.31 (b) says that PPQs should be returned to NASA by the

Date on the SF33 which is May 19, 2023 however the PPQ instructions ask customers to return them by May 11, 2023. Can you confirm they will be accepted until the date on the SF33?

Response: In accordance with RFP Section L.31(b), PPQs shall be completed and submitted no later than the closing date of this solicitation (see response to Question 26).

15. Question: The table in RFP Section L.26 (b)(1) does not list a requirement for a List of acronyms for the Mission Suitability Volume, nor in the instructions in L.29. Would the

Government allow for a List of Acronyms, which is outside the page count, in the

Mission Suitability Volume?

Response: Yes, the Government will allow for a List of Acronyms to be submitted in the

Mission Suitability Volume. There will be a 2-page limit (front and back) for the List of

Acronyms, which will be outside of the page count for this volume.

16. Question: In this section NASA references NFS provision 1852.231-71 which requires a

TCP for service contractors with cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type service contracts. Are non-significant subcontractors with a T&M contract required to submit exhibits 10a and 10b as their TCP as T&M are not cost plus nor fixed price type contracts? [Reference Section L.30(b)(14)]

Response: If the non-significant subcontractors have a T&M contract and were competitive, they do not need to submit exhibits 10A and 10B as their TCP.

17. Question: Are Screenshots of tool outputs exempt from font limitations if they are intended to be representations vs. drawing the reader to engage with text that may be in the screenshot?

Response: No, screenshots of tool outputs are not exempt from font limitations.

18. Question: May we use an Arial family of fonts in graphics?

Response: Yes, an Arial family font is acceptable in graphics, however, IAW Section

L.26(b)(2), text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point.

19. Question: Similarly, may we use an Arial family of fonts in tables?

Response: Yes, an Arial family font is acceptable in tables, however, IAW Section

L.26(b)(2), text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point.

20. Question: The List of Acronyms is excluded from page limitations for the Past

Performance volume but not the Mission Suitability volume. Would the Government please confirm that the List of Acronyms is excluded from the Mission Suitability

Volume page limitation?

Response: See response to Question 15.

21. Question: Both Section J and L.24 reference the OCI Plan Data Requirements

Document, Attachment G.1. No G.1 was included in the file of attachments.

Response: See response to Question 2.

22. Question: Section L.31(b) instructs the Offeror to ensure that the Past Performance

Questionnaire is submitted "no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in

Block 9 of the SF33." Block 9 of the SF33 references Section L.27, Electronic Proposal

Delivery, but Section L.27 in the RFP is GSFC 52.215-203 Offer Volume. The RFP cover letter sets the solicitation closing date as May 19; however, pg. 2 of the Past

Performance Questionnaire contains the instruction to return the questionnaire by May

11, 2023. By which date should the PPQ be submitted to the government?

Response: See response to Question 14

23. Question: In the ESES IV DRFP, Section K.1 (2) states the small business size standard is 1,000. In the ESES IV FRFP, Section K.1 (2) the small business size standard is left blank. What is the small business size standard? The cover letter states the size standard is 1,000, however this is not in the model contract.

Response: The corresponding small business size standard is 1,000.

24. Question: The ESES IV FRFP Sections B-M and Attachment A, Statement of Work

(SOW), provide no page numbers. Page numbers and paragraph numbers are usually referenced in the compliance matrix and/or proposal. Will the Government provide a revised Section B-M and SOW with page numbers?

Response: Yes, an updated Sections B-M as well as SOW with page numbers has been provided.

25. Question: The ESES III Enclosure CC: Government Pricing Model has several labor categories that are not included in the ESES IV Enclosure CC: Government Pricing

Model: Radiation Engineer I, II, and III; RF Engineer (Sr.) and RF Engineer III. Some of these are ONSITE and OFFSITE. What is the rationale for the Government removing these labor categories? These skill sets are still required by the ESES IV Statement of

Work.

Response: Although these labor categories were proposed in the ESES III Enclosure CC, they have not been utilized in the performance of work under ESES III. Therefore, these labor categories were removed from the ESES IV Enclosure CC.

26. Question: We respectfully request that the Government provide more time and additional page count (95 pages for Mission Suitability) to allow for a competitive ESES IV procurement.

Response: The Government will extend the current proposal due date through June 2, 2023 at 5:00 PM Eastern Time (ET). The Page Limitation for the Mission Suitability

Volume will be increased from 75 to 85 (the RFP has been updated accordingly). It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure that all required information is captured within the stated page limits.

27. Question: "Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded."

Does this statement indicate that second-tier subs will be permitted on the ESES IV contract? Specifically, may a subcontractor that is a teammate to their ESES IV Prime contractor further subcontract work to a third company or individuals (e.g. 1099s)?

[Reference Section I.123 52.219-14(e)(1)]

Response: Yes, second-tier subs are permitted on the ESES IV contract.

28. Question: The RFP references 52.225-1, Buy American Act, but it does not reference

52.225-5, Trade Agreements Act. Given the expected contract value of ESES IV, shouldn’t this contract be covered by the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) rather than the

Buy American Act (BAA)? Please clarify.

Response: The clause at 52.225-5, Trade Agreements Act, is not applicable to this procurement.

29. Question: Would the Government consider offering offerors one additional week for submission, changing the date of submission to Friday, May 26, 2023? This would provide offerors time to address the original questions and answers to our offering and the final answers.

Response: See response to Question 26.

30. Question: We respectfully request the government add 20 pages to the page limitation.

Section L.29 Mission Suitability Volume Instructions ask for Offerors to discuss approximately 9 discrete topics in each RTO, which includes, for example, providing a technical approach to 20 Statement of Work elements and sub-elements (1a–p) in RTO 1.

The page-limited portion of the Management Plan requires a discussion of approximately

30 discrete topics. This totals an estimated 60+ topics requiring a discussion. The proposal instructions include terms such as “in-depth discussion,” ”comprehensive,” and

“specific, detailed, and complete.” Several of the evaluation criteria state that sections will be evaluated for “completeness” and/or “thoroughness.” As we mature our proposal draft, it is evident that 75 pages is not adequate to address the RFP requirements at the level of detail the government needs to perform a full and fair evaluation. Cutting text down to fit the low page limitation puts Offerors at risk of falling below the bar of

“detailed” or “complete” responses. The government will receive higher quality proposals when Offerors can spend their time and knowledge on providing informative and responsive proposals, rather than spending that time on editing, desktop publishing, and trying to guess what information the government does not need to make an informed decision. A higher page limitation does not necessarily mean the SEB will have more to read, which is understandably a concern. Rather, it gives Offerors the breathing room to create proposals that will be easier to evaluate. Barring an increase of 20 pages, we believe 85 pages is the absolute minimum limit to be responsive to the Proposal

Instructions.

31. Question: Section L.31 (b) paragraph 2 - "The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and submitted, via email to shani.l.smith@nasa.gov no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in Block 9 of the SF 33." Block 9 of SF33 does not identify any submission date and refers to Section L.27, Electronic

Proposal Delivery. RFP Section L.27 also does not identify any submission date.

Response: See response to Question 14.

32. Question: Please add page numbers to the RFP document to enable reference.

Response: See response to Question 24.

33. Question: “Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be due no later than

May 19, 2023, at 5:00 PM Eastern Time (ET).” The proposal due date allowed less than the usual 30-day response period. Due to this and the complexity of the RFP and response requirements, we request the CO consider extending the response deadline by 2 weeks to

June 2, 2023.

34. Question: Radiation Engineer I, Radiation Engineer II, Radiation Engineer, RF Engineer

(Sr.), and RF Engineer III were part of the GPM for ESES III. These labor categories are necessary to perform the SOW and are also required as part of the staffing exercise for the RTOs. Can these labor categories be added in for the GPM?

Response: See response to Question 25.