WRC DRFP Q_A Continued 9-14-23r.pdf

WRC Draft RFP 80GSFC23R0009 Questions

Q21. CORRECTED RESPONSE Draft SOW – Section III. Program Management (CORE).

P6.The last paragraph states, “The Contractor shall develop and maintain a Program

Management Plan (PMP)…The completed PMP shall be delivered with the proposal and the plan shall be updated and delivered to the COR at the start of each contract year.” But the PMP is not part of the list of attachments in Draft RFP Part III, page J-1, nor is it part of Section L.A

Management Approach instructions, although it is shown in the table on page L-11 as being excluded from Mission Suitability Volume page count. Please clarify the PMP is not to be submitted with the proposal and is not part of MS page count?

Response: The SOW was also be revised to remove requirement for PMP. The final RFP will be updated to remove PMP in Section L.

Q51. CORRECTED RESPONSE WRC Draft SOW 12-12-22 III. Program Management p6 of

53"The SOW states: “The Contractor shall develop and maintain a Program Management Plan

(PMP) …“ and “The completed PMP shall be delivered with the proposal”. However, there is no requirement to deliver a PMP in Section L. Will the Government confirm that the SOW language should be amended to remove the ""delivered with the proposal"" language?"

Response: See response to Q21.

Q54. CORRECTED RESPONSE DRFP B: GSFC 52.216-94 (b). pB-7. "RFP states ""The following cost element definitions provide examples that may or may not be procured during the life of the contract. See Statement of Work (section J.1 Attachment A) for additional descriptions/information regarding the identified cost elements."" Will the Government provide the referenced document Section J.1 Attachment A?"

Response: See answer to Q47.

Q138 CORRECTED RESPONSE. Page L-41: 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 $9M. Based on the data provided in the

ROC II Contract Historical Data – 1.pdf, the annual cost of labor and non-labor expenditures is approximately $25M. A major subcontractor with $9M/year would represent 37% of the annual contract value. Given the Small Business Goals of 28%, a prime contractor that chooses to have a large business significant subcontractor is left with only 35% of the contract value. This present execution risk for the contract as this isn’t sufficient scope to maintain control over the contract, with the prime contractor controlling a smaller portion of the contract than the major subcontractor. We request that the Government consider setting the major subcontractor threshold either to 20% of the average annual contract value or $5M/year of contract value. This allows for a contractor team that includes a major subcontractor, strong commitment to NASA small business goals, and the prime contractor that is able to maintain 50% of the contract. This threshold is in line with other NASA unrestricted procurements.

Response: Significant subcontractor threshold will remain as $9M.

Q143. Does the Range have a condition-based maintenance plan?

Response: A condition-based maintenance program exists in some instances.

Q144. Does the Range have a reliability centered maintenance plan?

Response: The Range does implement some aspects of reliability centered maintenance towards the assets supporting mission but does not strive to have the fully implemented program.

Q145. RESERVED

Q146. Do we have a predictive maintenance system in place?

Response: Some assets have predictive maintenance sensors installed; this is a program that we are growing and intend to further grow in the future. The limiting factor is always cost but where a significant business case can be made to provide tangible benefit long-term, the Range intends to further invest.

Q147. Does the range of have a scheduling system?

Response: The Range has a schedule system that covers missions and resources being used for said missions.

Q148. RESERVED

Response: Management costs (O&M) are to be spread across CORE and all issued task orders as funding sources vary and each mission that may have separate funding than the

CORE section of the contract have to carry their proportional load.

Q149. Page B-7 of the draft RFP indicates historical contract data for CORE requirements of the

SOW were obtained from Task Orders (TO) 101, 120, 108, 110, and 151 in establishing the non-proposed estimated costs in the table. The WRC bidder's library provides all the TOs listed on page B-7 except TO 151. Can NASA please provide TO 151 in the bidder’s library as well? As this might be germane to all bidders, we felt the need to point this out.

Response: See response to Q136.

Q150. Exhibit A - Cost Plus FF Hybrid Core.pdf Exhibit B - WRC Exh RTO Cost.pdf L:

GSFC 52.215-224 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (a) L-30 thru 31 The RFP instructions for converting Exhibit A and Exhibit B from pdf to excel produces excel files without formulas. Will the government please confirm that bidders shall apply fee to all cost elements including the values provided as ODCs on Exhibit 2 within Exhibits A and B.

Response: It depends on the offeror’s business/pricing strategy, to determine where/how fee would be applied.

Q151. NAFTU-Impact going forward on OPS

Response: The WFF Range intends to continue to offer ground-based command destruct capability due to the vast array of research and development customers who fly vehicles of various types from WFF.

Q152. For ease of evaluation, will you provide a BOE template?

Response: No, this is a Word document the offeror provides.

Q153. The following attachments are in PDF but would be great to have in Excel.

Exhibit A - Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE.pdf

Exhibit B - WRC Exh RTO Cost.pdf

Response: The offerors have been provided instructions to convert the documents to

Excel. We cannot provide documents in Excel.

Q154. Are critical positions called out for versus key personnel?

Response; Yes. Per A.7 Critical Positions The Offeror shall describe the 5 most important positions considered critical to meet the requirements of the contract. The descriptions shall include the rationale for identifying these positions as critical. The descriptions shall also include a list of the qualifications associated with each position. The list shall include the position title, to which the position reports, summary of duties and responsibilities, and minimum education/experience qualifications required for the position.

Q155. A range scheduling system desired? It is not called out in the SOW.

Response: See response to Q147.

Q156. Will proposing enhancements or innovations really improve or bump up an offeror’s evaluation?

Response: Yes, and the Government intends to make that clear in the RFP.

Q157. Is the Government looking for just NASA past performance, will DoD work be considered?

Response: Yes, past or present work does not have to be just with NASA.

Q158. What does the term research range mean to WFF?

Response: WFF Range is an RDT&E Range with emphasis on the research and development of launch vehicles and launch vehicle support equipment. Our mission set has grown to also include commercial vehicles but the core set is science and research.

Q159 RESERVED

Q160. RESERVED

Q161. RESERVED

Q162. RESERVED

Q163. RESERVED

Q164. Does RMMO have visibility into Advanced Projects Agreements? Does the WRC contractor?

Response: New business development and the capture of new business is a NASA CS function between Code 802 and 840. The KTR may be requested for technical level input for pre-formulation if the project becomes feasible.

Q165. RESERVED

Q166. SAMP-true cost of ownership. Contingency plan for range systems exists? Can it be posted to e-library? What about the business impact analysis? Is it mature? Case by case based on each mission?

Response: The Range handles equipment issues on a case by case basis based on the mission need. Given that each mission requirements are different and go / no go criteria are different for every mission redundancy and equipment contingencies are built to address concerns for each mission.

Q167. SAMP-tech planning road map. Is there one? Would help if it could be published if possible (roadmap).

Response: At the current time the Range SSR is preparing a road map for Range modernization that is currently in the draft state and cannot be made public at this time.

Q168. Does RMMO use the NASA Technology Port?

Response: We do not use this technology port.

Q169. How much decommissioning occurs?

Response: Decommissioning of old equipment would be performed as directed by the

Government. The exact equipment and timing of decommissioning efforts is unknown at this time.

Q170. Condition based monitoring?

Response: Condition based monitoring does exist in an infancy stage on the Range. A long-term goal is to grow this program to result in a predictive maintenance strategy as opposed to a reactive one.

Q171. RESERVED

Q172. The asset management plan. Is it organized by asset group? Can it be published? Does maintenance schedule represent asset management plan

Response: The current asset management plans are developed and owned by the incumbent and should not be published to other Contractors. The asset management plans are in response to the RMMO directed needs. The maintenance schedule provided in the e-

Library represent the needs defined in the asset management plans.

Q173. Maintenance management plan. What is the difference between that and the asset management plan?

Response: Per the WRC SOW, the Contractor would provide an overall Sustaining

Engineering and Maintenance Plan to the SSR in response to the SAMP showing the methods to implement the SAMP in an overarching high-level manner. The Asset

Management plans are specific to each asset and are not overarching.

Q174. Current program uses Maximo for asset management?

Response: Yes.

Q175. Staffing/clearances-there is a DD254/Secret Clearance requirement. How many people are needed to have clearances?

Response: There are not specific hard numbers defined at this time. Currently the classified mission capability is growing and is not fully defined at this time. The staffing personnel requiring clearances for a specific mission will be defined in that mission’s IDIQ

SOW.

Q176. Depot Level Maintenance (DLM)-is this performed here or have to take offsite?

Response: See SOW. The Contractor supports DLM as needed to get equipment to a state that DLM is possible or for training purposes. DLM is fully performed by IRSP.

Q177. SOW-review data from contract service areas synonymous with major service, SME, etc.?

Response: Yes.

Q178. RESERVED

Q179. RESERVED

Q180. How many Technical Assistant Agreements (TAAs) are there?

Response: TAAs exist when SRPO or other missions require foreign travel / deployment of assets on foreign soil. As the missions are continuously changing, the number of TAAs change and will continue to change into the future. The only enduring TAA is with the country of Bermuda for the Bermuda Tracking Station (BDA) owned and operated by

WFF.

Q181. RESERVED

Q182. Ground ops transition to civil servant status?

Response: Look at Sam.gov for updates.

Q183. RESERVED

Q184. Any need for an offsite office in support of the program.

Response: Offsite office space is not required. Office spaces provided per SOW.

Q185. RESERVED

Q186. Statement of Work Statement of Work The current Statement of Work (SOW) does not break down clearly into subparts. If left up to each Offeror to determine the WBS levels, the resulting cost model exhibits could end up vastly different from each other, increasing the difficulty of evaluating “apples to apples” proposals. Will the Government consider providing an additional exhibit detailing the work breakdown structure providing all Offeror’s the same baseline for Basis of Estimate (BOE) responses?

Response: See response to Q84

Q187. RESERVED

Q188. RESERVED

Q189. Q21, Q51, Q59, Q83, and Q101 all seek clarification on the requirement for a Program

Management Plan to be delivered with the proposal. The majority of the Government’s responses

(i.e., Q51, Q59, Q83, and Q101) indicate the Program Management Plan is due at the end of the phase-in period. However, Q21 implies the Program Management Plan will be included as a proposal deliverable and not included in the page count.

Response: A Program Management Plan will not be required to be delivered with the proposal to be evaluated. The RFP is being revised to remove the Section L language mentioning a PMP or Program Management Plan.

Q190. Please confirm that the Program Management Plan is due at the end of the phase-in period and not with the proposal. The Government’s response to this follow-up question is requested as soon as possible (i.e., prior to Final RFP release) to allow all Offerors to plan accordingly.

a. Also, please provide additional details on the scope and content of the Program

Management Plan (e.g., Data Requirements Description) for phase-in planning purposes.

Response: See Response to Q189

Q191. Q77 and Q138 request clarification on the definition of a significant subcontractor related to the Past Performance Volume. The Government’s response to Q77 confirms the threshold for a significant subcontractor is $9M consistent with current Section L instructions and indicates that the current Section M evaluation criteria of $4M would be corrected in the Final RFP.

However, the Government’s response to Q138 indicates a significant subcontractor threshold of

$5M. We request resolution of this ambiguity as soon as possible (i.e., prior to Final RFP release) to allow all Offerors to plan accordingly.

Response: Response to Q138 is incorrect and correction is shown above. The response to

Q77 is correct. A significant subcontractor for past performance relevancy is $9M.

Q192. The Government’s response to Q54 stated “See answer to Q48.” Q48 indicates

RESERVED. Please provide a response to Q54.

Response: It should have said see answer to Q47. See correction above.

Q193. The Government’s response to Q84 represents a significant deviation to the instructions regarding B.1 SOW Elements (i.e., “high-level summary” in the Draft RFP to “focus on key areas” in the Q&A). Preparing a SOW element response is a complex and time-consuming undertaking in any proposal. We respectfully request that the Government provide further details on the key focus areas as soon as possible (i.e., prior to Final RFP release) to allow all Offerors to plan accordingly.

Response: Provision language has been updated focus on SOW Section IV D and E. Past performance relevancy covers all areas of the SOW.

Q194. The Government’s responses to Q33 and Q135 could be misinterpreted and lead to disparities in the manner that Offerors prepare their Past Performance Volumes. Q33 implies it’s acceptable to only discuss relevance related to the three SOW III requirements, four SOW IV requirements, and three SOW V requirements identified within the Past Performance

Questionnaire. Q135 states: “The Government is looking for relevant experience for the entire range requirement to be performed by the prime and its significant subcontractor.” We respectfully request the Government clarify their intent regarding relevancy discussions in the

Past Performance Volume to remove any ambiguity as soon as possible (i.e., prior to Final RFP release) and allow all Offerors to plan accordingly.

Response: See Response to Q193

Q195. Q39 asks about font requirements for the cost exhibits. The answer is about page limitations. Please confirm that the Times New Roman 12-point font requirements do not apply to the Government-provided Excel worksheets, including Pricing excel files, which should be submitted in the fonts provided.

Response: The 12-point font requirements do not apply to Excel worksheets.

Q196. RESERVED

Q197. RESERVED

Q198. With reference to Q130, please clarify whether or not Exhibits 2A-1 and 2B-1 are required from Significant Subcontractors.

Response: Exhibits 2A-1 and 2B-1 are only required from the Prime Offeror.

Questions rec’d 8/10/23.

Q199. RESERVED

Q200. "WRC DRFP Questions DRFP L-12" "Q38

Section L GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation - General Instructions" L-12 "Regarding the Government's response to Question 38, as it relates to Section L Proposal Preparation-

General Instructions.

Will the Government confirm that Offeror's may submit screenshots of required records such as

Company OSHA records, ISR, SSR, and recent customer evaluations (Award Fee Letters;

CPARS) in their native format, including font and size, as these items are excluded from page count

Response: No.

Q201. RESERVED

Q202. Q&A "Q77 Q138" "Pg. 19 Pg. 30 - 31" "The response to Q77 states that $9M is the correct definition for a Significant Subcontractor for purposes of Past Performance while Q138 states that the correct definition is $5M.

Will the government confirm that a significant subcontractor for past performance purposes is set at $9M and the $5M is just an example for subcontract relevancy?"

Response: That was an error, the responses to Q77 and Q138 should say $9M. See correction above.

Q203. RFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(3) PRIME OFFEROR OR JV ENTITY CORE

REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COST PLUS FIXED FEE – CORE

SUMMARY BY CY L-33 "RFP states ""Exhibit 1 summarizes the Prime Offeror’s or JV

Entity's proposed Core Requirements total direct labor hours (Prime Offeror or JV Entity plus

Significant Subcontractors), total estimated cost, and fixed fee, by Contract Year (CY), 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 update this instruction to include the proposed hours, cost, and fee associated with non-significant subcontractors? The summary should include non-significant subs for a complete total cost plus fixed fee comparison across all bidders."

Response: The summary will include non-significant subcontractor’s summary of costs only. There will be no break-out of costs for them.

Q204. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(24)PRIME OFFEROR OR JV ENTITY

REPRESENTATIVE TASK ORDER SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COST PLUS FIXED FEE

L-40 "RFP states ""Exhibit 1 Exh 1 RTO Summary summarizes the Prime Offeror’s or

JV Entity's proposed Representative Task Order total direct labor hours (Prime Offeror plus

Significant Subcontractors), Total estimated Cost, and fixed Fee, proposed for the Representative

Task Order, at WBS Level 2 (Total RTO), based on Attachment B DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES, AND FEE MATRICES ""not to exceed"" rates and fees.""

Will the Government update this instruction to include the proposed hours, cost, and fee associated with non-significant subcontractors? The summary should include non-significant subs for a complete total cost plus fixed fee comparison across all bidders."

Response: The summary shall include all costs associated with the RTO.

Q205. RESERVED

Q206. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(23) DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES

AND FEE MATRICES L-39 "RFP states ""In Section 6, the Prime Offeror or JV Entity shall provide Position Qualifications (PQs) for all Prime Offeror, JV Entity or JV partner's proposed direct labor categories specified in Section 1 and all Significant Subcontractors’ proposed direct labor categories specified in Section 5.""

To enable equal access to information, will the Government request position qualifications from the union and provide this information to bidders as they are not included in the CBA?

If not, will the Government consider removing this requirement for union positions?"

Response: We provided the incumbent’s position descriptions, the WYEs and the weighted average straight time unburdened hourly rate as part of the Contract Historical Data in the eLibrary which included union positions.

Q207. Exhibit A - Cost Plus FF Hybrid Core.pdf "Exhibit 1 - Prime Offeror CORE

Requirements Summary of Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee

L: GSFC 52.215-224 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (a)" L-33 (3) Should

Exhibit 1 Total Cost Plus Fixed Fee match Exhibit 2 Total Cost Plus Fixed Fee as Exhibit 2 includes the non proposed costs (material, travel, and other) as referenced in GSFC 52.216-94

pg. B-7?

Response: Yes, Exhibit 1 is the summary, and will included all totals, including the non-proposed costs.

Q208. Exhibit B - WRC Exh RTO Cost.pdf "Exhibit 1 - Exh 1 RTO Summary of Estimated

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

L: GSFC 52.215-224 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (a)" L-40 (24) Should Exhibit 1

Total match Exhibit 2 Total Cost Plus Fixed Fee as Exhibit 2 includes the non proposed costs

(material, travel, and other) prepopulated in this exhibit?

Response: Yes, Exhibit 1 is the summary, and will included all totals, including the non-proposed costs.

Q209. In NASA’s response to Q84 in relation to Section L, B.1 of the draft RFP, providing a high-level summary to every subsection in SOW IV and V, the government’s response was

“Provision language will be updated to focus on key areas”. Can you please clarify what “key areas” NASA wants offerors to address? Are they the same areas outlined in the Past

Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit C) for Program Management (SOW III.H, III.J, IV.A.1), Range Maintenance & Sustainment (SOW IV.C, IV.D, IV.E, IV.F), and Range Operational

Support (SOW V.B, V.D, V.F)?

Response: Provision language will be updated to focus on Radar and Telemetry (SOW

Section IV D and E).

See Q193.

Q210. RESERVED

Q211. Draft RFP Enclosure 2, Representative Task Order 1, states the following on page 1:

“On-range at WFF, the full spectrum of range support will be required, including pre-launch maintenance and sustainment, pre-mission testing, launch operations, and post-launch data processing and deliverables in the following areas: See attached Range Requirements Document from an ELV mission.” Given that Range Maintenance and Sustainment is a Core requirement

(SOW IV), please clarify if Offerors should address “…pre-launch maintenance and sustainment…” in their RTO technical proposal and provide a cost for performing these services in their RTO cost proposal. If so, we respectfully request the Government provide the number and scope of TOs being performed coincident to the RTO so Offerors can properly apportion maintenance and sustainment costs accordingly.

Response: The RTO is focused on technical approach to a real life situation. The maintenance and sustainment actions in this situation would be covered under CORE and would not be re-covered in the real life IDIQ TO. The RTO proposal should not include tasking that is already covered in CORE.

Q212. RESERVED

Q213. RTO Plug numbers may not be realistic.

Response: RTO plug numbers have been revised.

Q214. RESERVED

Q215. RESERVED

Q216. SOW indicates interface between civil servants and contractor personnel more succinctly within the IDIQ section than with the CORE. Can you tell us why?

Response: IDIQ tasking has a propensity to be highly dynamic and time critical. Clear and effective interface between RMMO and the Contractor is critical for clear and time effective communications to occur to meet mission needs. The CORE section of the contract interface is also defined in the SOW as the RMMO SSR.

Q217. RTO-should this be based more hypothetically than realistically given the range handbook is outdated?

Response: The RTO will be revised with the more up to date equipment list that the proposers will provide a technical approach to the RTO based on.

Q218. Is it okay to propose a flexible work schedule?

Response: The SOW requires adherence to NASA work hour limitations in support of missions. Personnel supporting missions must be available when the mission launch and support activities are occurring that often requires a flexible work schedule to reduce overtime and allow sufficient rest between activities.