WRC DRFP Questions.pdf

WRC Draft RFP 80GSFC23R0009 Questions

Q1. DRFP Section C, para GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK. (FEB 2016) on page 1 states:

“The Contractor shall provide the personnel, materials, and facilities, except as otherwise specified in this contract, necessary to perform the work and to furnish the items specified in the Supplies and/or Services. Would the Government please clarify what facilities contractors “are responsible for providing

Response: We do not require that the contractor has their own facilities. The Government provides the contractor’s work stations (laptops, phones, etc) and office space. See installation accountable property clause for additional information. 1852.245-71

INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. (JUN 2018)

Q2. In reference to DRFP Section C paragraph GSFC 52.235-92 REPORTS OF WORK (CORE/IDIQ). (MAR 2022) on page C-1 (a) Monthly Progress Reports. Will monthly reports require estimated costs of projected future work to be performed (labor and material)? If so, is there a target percentage the costs must adhere to?

Response: Projected costs will be added to the clause as they are necessary for proper funding planning and need to be accurate to +/- 10%.

Q3. Would the Government please clarify in DRFP Section G (7) on page G-5, if Installation service facilities are required?

Response: 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. (JUN 2018) clause will be updated to include office space, workstations, laptops, phones, etc.

Q4. DRFP Section G Section GSFC 52.245-99 SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL REPORTING OF NASA PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF CONTRACTORS (JUN 2019) (a) on page G- 13: states that the “…the cumulative amount of NASA property is $10 million or more.” Would the Government please clarify if the cumulative $10 million property value is based on actual value or depreciated value.

Response: The $10 million property value is based on acquisition value/actual value.

Q5. In reference to DRFP, Section I on page I-29, 1852.216-80 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE: How will extremely short-notice/critical (i.e., emergency, natural disaster, etc.)

task orders be handled? What will the timelines and required information be?

Response: Short-notice/critical effort tasks will be infrequently requested and contractor will be required to provide their best efforts in responding if possible prior to the required 14 calendar days. The clause allows for (f) If time constraints do not permit issuance of a fully defined task order in accordance with the procedures described in paragraphs (a) through (d), a task order which includes a ceiling price may be issued. We also issue

Authorizations to Proceed (ATP)s to Task Orders (TO)s that require emergency or short notice starts that are shorter than the allotted award timelines.

Q6. In reference to DRFP, Section I on page I-29, 1852.216-80 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE: Page I-29, para b(3): Will there be a target percentage applied to the “proposed costs” that the contractor will be evaluated against?

Response: “Target” is a term used for Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts. This solicitation will result in a Cost plus Fixed Fee (CPFF).

Q7. In reference to DRFP, Section L, page L-23, B3 Innovations: Does the innovations discussion require both qualitative and quantitative aspects of each innovation (i.e. both a technical discussion and an approximate cost-savings/avoidance)?

Response: In accordance with B.3, the Offeror shall describe any innovative methods, techniques or technologies and fully explain how they meet/exceed the performance of the SOW under the proposed contract. Efficiencies shall be quantified where possible, including explanation of impacts to labor hours and skill mix as applicable. Final RFP in B.3 will be revised from “should be quantified” to “shall be quantified”

Q8. In reference to DRFP, Section L, page L-27, Small Business: Are there any work-type limitations for small business percentages to be applied?

Response: There are no limitations. This is a full and open competition and each offeror will make the business and or subcontract work decisions consistent with the WRC solicitation.

Q9. Part I, Section B, GSFC 52.211-90 Table; pp. B-2-B-5 Does the Government intend to maintain hard copy requirements or shift fully to electronic over time?

Response: Clause will be updated to reflect email/electronic copies.

Q.10 Section L, GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS(c);

p. L-17 The Draft RFP states, “The Offeror shall include Contract Attachment N as part of the model contract in the Contract Volume of the proposal.” However, the four proposal volumes listed in Section L(a)(1) on p. L10 are: I) Offer Volume, II) Mission Suitability Volume, III) Cost Volume, and IV) Past Performance Volume. Will the Government clarify if Attachment N should be included in Volume I Offer Volume rather than the Contract Volume?

Response: Attachment N is submitted under the Offer volume. As the draft RFP, in order for the Government to consider a proposed enhancement’s value, the Offeror must clearly define the enhancement(s) in Contract Attachment N, “Contractor Proposed Enhancements,” in performance work statement (PWS) language in accordance with the PWS instructions in Attachment N. In addition, the Offeror must describe the associated benefit(s) of the proposed enhancement(s) in its Mission Suitability Volume under the applicable Mission Suitability subfactor(s). The Offeror shall include Contract Attachment N as part of the model contract in the Contract Volume of the proposal. The Offeror may receive credit for the proposed enhancement(s) only to the extent of its description in Attachment N, and the associated benefits explained in its Mission Suitability Volume. In the Final RFP (Offer) next to Contract volume will be added to make it clearer.

Q11. Section L, GSFC 52.215-224 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (MAY 2022), p. L-27 Should Attachment N enhancements be accounted for in Volume III Cost? If so, how?

Response: Yes, vendors are required to capture the cost impacts of associated with its proposed enhancements under the corresponding WBS area. See response to Q7.

Q12. Section L, GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. (APR 2022), (b) PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS, p. L- 11 Due to the Mission Suitability 75-page limit and required content to cover, would the Government consider excluding the Government Property Management, Risk Management, and Small Business Plan responses from page count (similar to the Total Compensation Plan, Phase In Plan, and Small Business Utilization)?

Response: The risk management plan (will be changed to approach) is the only one that counts under the Mission Suitability 75-page limit. All others are excluded or have their own page count limit. There will be a requirement for a risk management plan contract deliverable in the updated final RFP.

Q13. Draft RFP - Part I, Section E - Inspection and Acceptance, 52.246-11 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements (Dec 2014) p14. The DRFP cites three (3) higher-level quality requirements, with the last one being 14 CFR Part 135 Operating requirements: Commuter and on demand operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft. Given the WRC scope of work does not include aircraft operations or maintenance, will the requirement to comply with 14 CFR Part 135 be removed, and not be included in the final RFP?

Response: The WRC contract will support the WFF Airfield with RF Comms, heavy equipment, and technical support but the operation or maintenance of aircraft is not a requirement. That said, a requirement for air and water surveillance during launches does exist. The methods of fulfillment of this requirement is up to the contractor but may include their operation of aircraft if that contractor had that capability in house. If the contractor did not have that capability, then their sub-contractor may have to meet these requirements. If aircraft operations from the Prime or Sub occur in support of a NASA mission, the aircraft operators would be required to meet all NPR7900.3 (current revision) requirements and any federal CFRs in accordance with the NPR regardless if they operate aircraft on the NASA Airfield or from another airfield in support of NASA missions.

Q14. Draft RFP – Section L GSFC 52.215-250 Past Performance Volume, Information from the Offeror L-41 The first paragraph states that “Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested…with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $16M that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date.” Additionally, the Past Performance Evaluation Criteria states “Content is more important than size in the evaluation of relevance.”

Will NASA consider lowering the dollar threshold for Prime contractors to $10M as was stated in the previous ROC II RFP?

Response: Unfortunately, this request cannot be accommodated. Our analysis indicates that $16M Prime Past Performance threshold is appropriate for this procurement.

Q15. Draft SOW – Section III. Program Management (CORE). P7. The first paragraph, last sentence states, “The RMMO Associate Chief for Systems Sustainment and Readiness (SSR) will provide the Engineering Management Plan and Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) to the Contractor.” The SAMP is included in the bidder’s library, but will NASA provide the Engineering Management Plan in the bidder’s library as well?

Response: The Engineering PG will be provided but is currently being revised. The Government team, assessed that the CORE section of the contract can be priced with the information provided in the SAMP where the Engineering PG would pertain to new projects that would have their own TOs assigned.

Q16. Draft SOW – Section III.A.3 Program Management (CORE), Reporting, Maintenance/Sustainment Reporting. P11. The second to last paragraph, 2nd to last sentence states, “The Contractor shall generate a maintenance demand signal to be compared to the Contractor’s ability to support those efforts.” Can NASA please define what is meant by a “maintenance demand signal” in the context of this requirement?

Response: The intent of this language is to ensure communications between the Government and the contractor on the level of required maintenance that is needed or projected to be needed versus the contractor’s ability to complete that maintenance (that may be limited by manning, competing launches, etc.)

Q17. Draft SOW – Section III.A.4 Program Management (CORE), Reporting, Table 1:

Required Reviews and Meetings. P13. The first row of Table 1 states the meeting name as “WRC Review”. Can NASA please clarify if that is the same as the Monthly Status Review, or is a different meeting?

Response: Yes, the WRC Review is viewed as synonymous with the Monthly Status Review. SOW will be revised to correct misnomers that may cause confusion with the two names.

Q18. Draft SOW – Section III.A.4 And Draft RFP – Section L.A.10 Program Management (CORE), Reporting, Table 1: Required Reviews and Meetings and A.10 Risk Management Plan.

SOW 13 Draft RFP L- 22. The RMB row of Table 1 in the SOW and section L.A.10 of the draft RFP both show requirements for the contractor’s approach to risk management. Please clarify if the requirements for A.10 are for WRC related risks only while the risks discussed in

Table 1 are RMMO related risks. Are they two distinct risk processes? Do they use the same risk management software provided by NASA? If they both use NASA provided software/databases, please provide information about the tool in the bidder’s library.

Response: Risks to RMMO operations that are recognized by the contractor in their day to day operations are to be communicated up to RMMO if the risk is of such a level that it requires elevation. The contractor may have their own risks that they manage internally that have not or may not rise to the RMMO level. The intent of the CORE III A.4 table listed meeting is the communication and status update of the RMMO level risks. The Risk Management Plan required in L.A.10 of the draft RFP will be changed to a Risk Management Approach. It is for the purpose of the offeror’s approach to risk management and how the offeror will approach the risks inherent in the work and the balance of limited resources (money, time, people) with an increasing launch cadence. There will be a requirement for a risk management plan in the final RFP as a contract deliverable.

Q19. Draft RFP – Part IV, Section L.A.4Increased Launch Operations. L-20. The DRFP states there is an expected increased tempo of launch operations, specifically the first paragraph of A.4, “RMMO is projecting a 200% increase in launch operations by the Fiscal Year 2025”. Can NASA please provide an expected launch manifest for the WRC period of performance?

Response: The launch increase is beginning in 2023 to reach the 200% level by ~2025 and continue from there. See below projection graph that is also to be shown in the WRC Industry Day on 7JUN2023:

Q20. Draft SOW – Section IV.C Range Maintenance and Sustainment (CORE). Maintenance and Sustainment Services. p29. The fifth paragraph states, “The Contractor shall support the

Wallops IRSP Range Manager in planning for DLM activities…”. Can NASA please identify who the IRSP Range Manager is in the NASA organization shown on page 8 of the draft SOW?

Response: IRSP is managed by NASA Code 500 but the RMMO manager is the Associate Chief for Maintenance and Sustainment (previously listed in the SOW as the SSR). SOW Page 29 has been updated.

Q21. 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 final RFP will be updated to include this and will not be included in the page count. The SOW will also be revised to remove the above reference. Found discrepancy with response to Q51.

Q22. Bidder’s Library – WFF Range and Mission Management Office State of Health 2022 Data RMMO SOH Summary 2022 Data.pdf. p4-5. The data shown in the last two figures of the State of Health document look like they were copied from an Excel spreadsheet, but they are very hard to read in the PDF format. Can you provide the actual spreadsheets in the bidder’s library so that potential offerors can better view and use the data?

Response: Will try to reload.

Q23. Bidder’s Library – Strategic Asset Management Plan 1 Plan Overview, 1.2 Scope. P1. The SAMP Scope section contains a link to the Range Operations Management System (ROMS) “for a complete current system listing” of assets. Bidders without access to ROMS cannot access the information through this link. Can NASA please provide access to the data found through the link or provide the data via another medium on the Bidder’s Library?

Response: Most of this information was provided in the Bidder’s Library in the document titled “TOMS in ROMS”. The missing graphic titled “Real Time Services and Instrumentation Monitoring System” that was linked shows the current operating status for the various pieces of Range equipment pictured below (posting date 5JUN2023): Will be added to eLibrary.

Q24. Draft SOW Section III Para. E Alternate Facilities Operations. P16. There seems to be contradicting direction on what the contractor is responsible for on maintenance for facilities.

This paragraph states that “the contractor shall operate and maintain the government-owned facilities located at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, and at Poker Flat Research Range, and any remote Range related facilities owned by NASA. However, in Section II General of the SOW it states, “the contractor is not responsible for the permanent buildings located at WFF, Alaska, or Bermuda that house the majority of the range instrumentation”. Are we maintaining both “facilities” and “buildings”? And are the words being used interchangeably?

Response: The contractor is responsible for the Range assets not the buildings that they are in (unless the asset is a trailer or connex containing mobile range equipment). The physical brick and mortar buildings are not the responsibility of WRC and are maintained by NASA Code 200. The SOW has been updated.

Q25. Draft SOW Section I Description of Services. p4. We reviewed the Range Users Guide, showing equipment that is 10+ years old. Can you provide an updated list of range systems at Poker Flat Research Range, Bermuda, and WFF sites?

Response: See below graphic that also shows location of fixed or semi-fixed assets. Mobile assets can move regularly as missions require and any location listed would be in accurate as soon as it was published. This will be added to eLibrary per Q23.

Q26. Draft RTO #1 Scope p2 Historically, aurora research launches occur in the early morning hours ~6 a.m. Can we assume a similar launch window for the sounding rocket campaign?

Response: Yes. Know that the RTOs are just example missions and are not assigned real future tasks.

Q27. Draft RTO #1 Task Parameters. p2. The RTO states to reference the Range User’s Handbook. Can you provide the official version of the document in the Bidder’s Library?

Response: Yes. Will be uploaded eLibrary.

Q28. Volume II Mission Suitability Subfactor A.9 and L(b)(20) Total Compensation Plan L-22 & L-38. Please confirm that as stated in L(b)(20), the two Cost Exhibits 12A and 12B fulfill the requirements for the Total Compensation Plan for non-significant subcontractors IAW NFS 1852.231-71 and FAR 52.222-46 and that non-significant subcontractors are not required to submit a TCP narrative in addition to the Cost Exhibits 12A and 12B?

Response: Yes, the exhibits fulfill the Total Compensation Plan requirement under FAR provision 52.222-46 for Non-Significant Subcontractors. Non-significant subcontractors are not required to submit a TCP narrative.

Q29. Draft RFP Section L Volume III Cost Volume Instructions Section B (31) & (32) CORE Travel, RTO Other Direct Costs. pL-38. Given that there are plug numbers provided for CORE Travel and Other Direct Costs, are Exhibits 7 & 8 to be submitted blank if there are no additional Travel or ODC above the plug values?

Response: Exhibits 7 & 8 are not needed, as the contractor shall use the plug numbers in the CORE exhibit for travel and ODCs. These will be deleted.

Q30. Draft RFP Section L Volume III Cost Volume Instructions Section B (31) & (32) RTO Travel, RTO Other Direct Costs. pL-41. Given that there are plug numbers provided for RTO Travel and Other Direct Costs, are Exhibits 5 & 6 to be submitted blank if there are no additional Travel or ODC above the plug values?

Response: See response to Q29. Exhibits will be removed and provision updated.

Q31. Draft RFP Section L - GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME; (c); (10) Safety and Health Plan. pL-16. Will the Government confirm the Safety and Health Plan is due to the Government 30 days after Contract Start?

Response: Per RFP J.1, The Safety and Health Plan is to be submitted within 30 days of the Contract award date (date the CO signs the contract – not the official start of the contract that would occur after the phase in period is complete).

Q32. Draft RFP Section L - GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME; (c); (11). Information Technology (IT) Security Management Plan. pL-16. Will the Government confirm the Information Technology (IT) Security Management Plan is due to the Government 30 days after Contract Start?

Response: The IT Security Management Plan is due within 30 days after the contract effective date which is the same as the contract start date.

Q33. Draft RFP Section L - GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME;

(a);Information from the Offeror. pL-43. The RFP states, the offeror should provide for each contract reference a “Brief description of contract work and comparability to the proposed effort.” Considering there are numerous sub-elements within the three major SOW areas, should

Offerors compare the work performed on their respective contracts to the SOW areas provided within the Past Performance Questionnaire?

Response: At a high level yes – the goal is to show past performance metrics on similar types of operations IE launch range operations and maintaining the systems in support of launch range operations. The provision will be updated.

Q34. Draft RFP Section L - GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME;

(a);Information from the Offeror. pL-44. The RFP states, the offeror should provide “Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years.” Will the Government confirm this requested information is excluded from page count?

Response: OSHA reportable documentation will be excluded from the page limitations and included as an attachment.

Q35. Draft RFP Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS. pL-12. The RFP states that proposal should use “not smaller than 12 point type Times New Roman font” and “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 company logos are exempt from the font limitations and may be submitted in their native font?

Response: Logos are exempted from the font limitations.

Q36. Draft RFP Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS. pL-12. The RFP states that “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 text in headers and footers may also use a reduced font size not less than 10-point?

Response: Confirmed.

Q37. Draft RFP Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS. pL-12. The RFP states that “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 text in quote boxes and callout boxes may also use a reduced font size not less than 10-point?

Response: Confirmed.

Q38. Draft RFP Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS. pL-12/ The RFP states that proposal should use “not smaller than 12 point type Times New Roman font” and “Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point type Times New Roman font.” Will the government exclude screenshots from this font requirement so they may be submitted in their native screen capture font?

Response: No.

Q39. Draft RFP Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS. pL-12/ The RFP states that proposal should use “not smaller than 12 point type Times New Roman font” and “The excel exhibits provided are formatted using 9-12 point type Arial font.” Please confirm that 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 cost exhibits spreadsheets don’t have a page limitation.

Q40. Draft RFP Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS. pL-12. The RFP states that proposals should use “at least one inch margins on all sides” Please confirm that these requirements do not apply to the Government-provided Excel worksheets, including Pricing excel files, which should be submitted in the margins provided.

Response: See response to Q39.

Q41. DRFP Cover letter WRC – DRFP – Cover letter. p2. The Cover Letter references proposal section “Electronic Proposal Delivery - Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box” but this section does not appear in the DRFP. Please confirm that this will be added to the Final RFP in Section L.

Response: A provision will be added to the final RFP and addressed in the final RFP cover letter.

Q42. Draft RFP Section L GSFC 52.209-301 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. p6. Are there contracts at WFF or other NASA Centers that the CO has determined a potential conflict exists. If so, can NASA please provide the contract title(s)?

Response: We have provided the nature of the potential conflicts, it is up to the offeror to address them in their OCI plan. We can’t determine this for every potential offeror.

Q43. Draft SOW – Section V.D.2 Range Operational Support (IDIQ), Radar Operations, Surveillance Radar Operations. p46. Are the Air and Sea Surveillance Systems Government Procured/Provided or is the contractor responsible for hiring/subcontracting those range assets?

Is it included in the ODC plug number?

Response: Air and sea surveillance ground based radars are owned or sub-contracted by the Government. The air and water vessels supporting the launches are to be provided by the WRC Contractor. These costs are not included in the plug numbers as they are not included in the Core section of the contract.

Q44. Draft RFP – Section L.A.2 Government Property Management. pL-19. Will the government provide a list of “critical property” and is it all NASA provided?

Response: Yes and yes. See SOW section IV.B.1 for an initial listing. Subfactor A.2 is being removed.

Q45. Draft SOW – Section III.A.3Maintenance/Sustainment Reporting. pL-20. Will NASA provide all O&M procedures from the current contract during transition (e.g., preventative maintenance)? Can NASA provide examples with their format in the Bidder’s Library?

Response: A full listing of all required maintenance actions for the maintenance year from MAXIMO has been posted in the eLibrary. This MAXIMO printout captures all O&M activities for the equipment that are currently performed. Any additional documentation specific to certain systems will be provided to the WRC KTR in the phase in period.

Q46. DRFP "ROC II Contract Historical Data-1 ROC II Contract Historical Data-2". p1 of 2.

The ROC II Contract Historical Data-1 contains the LCAT "Field Engineering Specialist - Level III (WGS)". However, this LCAT is not included in ROC II Contract Historical Data-2. Will the Government provide the missing position qualification?

Response: This position is no longer required and originated from a past requirement that no longer exists.

Q47. "DRFP Supplement DRFP" "Exhibit 8 within Exhibit A B: GSFC 52.216-94 (b)"p17 of 28.

"Will the missing Attachment describe on B-7 of the DRFP (Section J.1 Attachment A) contain the data needed to populate Exhibit 8 (CY WBS, Vendor, Description, Quantity Required, Unit Price, Total Price)? If not, how are offerors to obtain this information?"

Response: This is just a mislabeling that will be corrected in the Final RFP. See response to Q29.

Q48. RESERVED

Q49. WRC Draft SOW 12-12-23 IV. RANGE MAINTENANCE AND SUSTAINMENT (CORE) 22 and 29."On pg. 22, it states, ""The Contractor shall define how they propose to perform DLM activities for the range instrumentation systems along with the estimated costs per year to implement the approach and justification of the choice made."" On pg. 29, it states, ""The WFF currently utilizes the United States Space Force Instrumentation Range Support Program (IRSP) to perform varying Depot Level Maintenance (DLM) activities and provide critical spares for covered range systems."" Can the Government confirm if the IRSP will be covering all DLM activities, and if not, how is it determined when IRSP will perform DLM versus the contractor?"

Response: IRSP performs DLM action supported by WRC technicians for equipment specific needs and / or training for WRC technicians.

Q50. Exhibit A - Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE.pdf. Exhb 12B p22/23 of 28 "On Row 5 for each page, the exhibits on pages 22 and 23 are both labeled Exhibit 12A. Will the Government confirm that the exhibit on page 23 should be amended to reflect to ""EXHIBIT 12B""?"

Response: The exhibit on page 23 will be amended to reflect Exhibit 12B.

Q51. 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: The SOW has been revised and the requirement for the PMP is to be delivered to the Government at the end of the phase in period. RFP to be revised also. See response to Q21.

Q52. Exhibit A - Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE.pdf, Exhb 2BDL, p7 of 28. "In Column 1 Row 8, this exhibit is labeled ""WBS Level 2 - Range Management and Sustainment"" Will the Government confirm that this should be ""WBS Level 3 - Range Management and Sustainment""?"

Response: The exhibit has been revised to “WBS Level 3 – Range Management and Sustainment”.

Q53. WRC Draft SOW 12-12-22 III. Program Management. p8 of 55. "Organization chart includes an “Airfield Manager” which has no corresponding efforts in the SOW requirements.

Will the government remove this position from the WRC organization chart?"

Response: The organization chart provided in the SOW is the Government’s organization of the Civil Servant Range and Mission Management Office. WRC proposer is to integrate with this organization in an effective and efficient manner to facilitate operations.

Q54. 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 Q48.

Q55. DRFP "Section G NFS 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. (JUN 2018)". pG-3 to G-5. For subparagraph (c), please clarify whether WRC contractor personnel are permitted to access and use supplies from the NASA Wallops Facility stores stock? If so, please confirm whether item (4) Supplies from stores stock on page G-5 should be marked with an "X".

Response: Yes. An “X” has been placed on item 4.

Q56. DRFP "Section E GSFC 52.246-93 ACCEPTANCE -- LOCATIONS. (APR 2022) Section G NFS 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. (JUN 2018)". pG-3 to G-6. Under NFS 1852.245-71, for subparagraph (c), please clarify why the item (7) Installation service facilities: lists [none] is marked with an "X" but lists [none]?

Response: See response to Q3.

Q57. "DRFP Attachment A - Draft Statement of Work (SOW)" "Section H NFS 1852.225-70 EXPORT LICENSES. (FEB 2000) ALTERNATE I (FEB 2000) Attachment A - Draft SOW "H-

2. Per NFS 1852.225-70 for subparagraph (e), please identify any and all active export licenses, including but not limited to Technical Assistance Agreements presently executed under the ROC II Contract (#80GSFC19C0013). Please include listing the relevant foreign national entities subject to the TAAs executed in support of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 22 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter M Parts 120-130.

Response: Equipment in Bermuda has current ITAR and country agreements between NASA and Bermuda. The foreign national maintaining the equipment while WFF is not on-site agreement is between the current contractor and the person sub-contracted to do the work. Any additional countries required by mission operations that come in the future will be handled similarly. This topic will be addressed in detail during phase in.

Q58. DRFP "Section J GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS. (NOV 2022) Section L

GSFC 52.209-301 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (MAR 2020)

Attachment S DRD OCI Plan Data Requirements". "J-1; L-6 to L-9; & Att. S". On page J-1, the RFP Section J lists Attachment S as "DRD-0002 – OCI Avoidance Plan." However, the Attachment S file name is "OCI-Plan-Data Requirements", alternatively the Attachment S, Section 1. DRD Title lists "Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan." Are the "OCI Avoidance Plan" and "OCI Plan" one in the same, or separate documents?

Response: Inclusion of the agency template will fix this discrepancy.

Q59. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-201(b)(1), L-11. "In the row below ""Mission Suitability Volume"" within the table, the acronym ""PMP"" appears without definition. Will the government confirm that this is erroneous and was intended to be removed? "

Response: See response to Q21.

Q60. RESERVED

Q61. DRFP "L: GSFC 52.215-201(b)(1) L: GSFC 52.215-224(b)" "L-11 L-34" "The table on page L-11 within the cost volume section defines two required Basis of Estimates: CORE (c) and

RTO (d). On page L-34 the instructions for Basis of Estimate Core are provided but no such definition exists for the RTO Basis of Estimate. Will the government provide the instructions for the RTO Basis of Estimate?"

Response: Paragraph will be added.

Q62. DRFP "Section L GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. (APR 2022) Proposal Content and Limitations (1)". L-1.2 "The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table, Cost Volume item (c) contains a reference to the footnote:

""*Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually."" As drafted, the Government will receive 50 pages for CORE BOEs from each prime and 50 pages for CORE BOEs from each of their significant subcontractors. This wording allows for an unequal page limitation across offerors dependent upon their team structure. Will the Government remove the footnote for page limitations for Cost Volume Item (c) to ensure that all offerors will have an equal page limitation?".

Response: We will change to “Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors (page limitation is for the total component (Prime and Significant Subcontractors))”

Q63. DRFP "Section L GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. (APR 2022) Proposal Content and Limitations (1)". pL-12. "The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table, Cost Volume item (d) contains a reference to the footnote:

""*Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually."" As drafted, the Government will receive 25 pages for RTO BOEs from each prime and 25 pages for RTO BOEs from each of their significant subcontractors. This wording allows for an unequal page limitation across offerors dependent upon their team structure. Will the Government remove the footnote for page limitations for Cost Volume Item (d) to ensure that all offerors will have an equal page limitation?"

Response: See response to Q62.

Q64. DRFP "Section L GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME. (APR 2022) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED (c )(2)(b)". L-15. "We have no involvement with a Cognizant Government Inspection agency. Will the Government define and clarify what function the Cognizant Government inspection agency performs?"

Response: This would be a Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Quality Inspector.

Q65. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-203(c)(10). L-16. "The instructions state ""In accordance with FAR clause 52.236-13--Alternate I as modified by NFS 1823.7001(d)(1), Accident Prevention, within 30 days after contract award, the successful contractor shall submit for NASA approval a comprehensive Safety and Health Plan, which will be incorporated into the contract under Clause

J.1 as Attachment D."" Will the government confirm that “Contract Award” date is the contract effective date? "

Response: The award date is the day the contract was signed by the CO. The effective date is when the contractor officially begins work under the contract. See response to Q31.

Q66. "RFP Attachment F- IT Security Management Plan" L: GSFC 52.215-203 (c)(11). pL- 16,17. "Section L states: ""within 30 days after the contract effective date, the successful contractor shall submit for NASA approval a comprehensive IT Security"". Attachment F states:

""To be submitted within 30 days of contract award date"". Will the government confirm that the IT Security Management Plan is due 30 days after contract effective date?"

Response: The award date is the day the contract was signed by the CO. The effective date is when the contractor officially begins work under the contract. This will be when Phase-in ends. So yes, the IT Management Plan will be changed to reflect that it needs to be submitted 30 days after the effective date, instead of 30 days after contract award.

Q67. DRFP Subfactor A - Management Approach A.2 Government Property Management. pL- 19 and 20. "The DFRP states "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 proposal shall also provide this information for each significant subcontractor (based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions) having or needing critical property items."" The term ""critical"" is a subjective term. Please define."

Response: See response to Q44.

Q68. Subfactor A - Management Approach A.2 Government Property Management. L-19 and 20."The DFRP states ""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 proposal shall also provide this information for each significant subcontractor (based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions) having or needing critical property items."" How will bidders identify critical property and plant equipment owned by the incumbent?"

Response: See response to Q44.

Q69. DRFP Subfactor A - Management Approach A.2 Government Property Management L- 19 and 20. "The DFRP states ""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 proposal shall also provide this information for each significant subcontractor (based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions) having or needing critical property items."" Given the quantity of property listed in the Attachment C and

Attachment O, how can offerors provide a sufficient description of the ""function and available capacity of each item"" within the allotted page limit?"

Response: See response to Q44.

Q70. DRFP GSFC 52.215-224(b). L-31 "The RFP states: ""Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure 5, Contract Historical Data"", but no Enclosure 5 was included with the draft RFP.

Response: Enclosure 5 consists of 2 documents, ROC II Historical Data-1 and ROC II Historical Data-2. Will upload a cover sheet to find these easier.

Q71. Will the government confirm that the file ""ROC-II_Contract_Historical_Data_-_1"" is the same as Enclosure 5 referenced in the RFP?"

Response: Yes, is it one of the Enclosure 5 documents, ROC II Historical Data-2 is the second document.

Q72. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(2) WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE pL-32 "RFP states ""WBS Level 3 - Summary of estimated cost-plus fixed fee - Core Statement of Work Section III - Program Management, and Core Statement of Work Section IV – Range Maintenance and Sustainment"" Will the Government confirm that WBS Level 3 should also include the RTO Sounding Rocket Campaign and the RTO ELV Mission, consistent with the requirements in the Exhibit B - WRC Exh RTO Cost Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2A-1, and 2B-1?"

Response: Government Confirms that the WBS Level for the RTO exhibit shall be WBS Level 3. RFP will be updated.

Q73. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(15) pL-38 "RFP states ""Offerors shall complete Exhibit 7 detailing the proposed Core Requirement Travel items and costs by CY at WBS Level 2."" Will the Government confirm that Exhibit 7 is not necessary since the Government has already provided us the plug numbers for Travel in Exhibits 2A and 2B for CORE Requirements?"

Response: See response to question 29. Exhibits and language that discusses completing exhibits for plug numbers will be removed.

Q74. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(16). L-38. "RFP states ""Offerors shall complete Exhibit 8 detailing the proposed Core Requirement other direct cost items and costs by CY at WBS Level 2."" Will the Government confirm that Exhibit 8 is not necessary since the Government has already provided us the plug numbers for ODCs in Exhibits 2A and 2B for CORE Requirements?"

Response: See response to Q29. Exhibits and language that discusses completing exhibits for plug numbers will be removed

Q75. DRFP L: GSFC 52.215-224 (b)(23) DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES AND FEE MATRICES. pL-39."RFP states ""In Section 5, the Prime Offeror or JV Entity shall include a fully-loaded direct labor rate matrix for each Significant Subcontractor."" Will the Government confirm that the fully-loaded direct labor rate matrix for each Significant Subcontractor should be exclusive of Fee?"

Response: Is expected, but not mandatory, and depends on each offeror’s pricing strategy.

An Offeror and its potential significant subcontractors A fully burdened loaded rate typically include all loadings (i.e., direct labor rate, all applicable indirect rates and profit/fee)

Q76. RESERVED

Q77. DRFP "L: GSFC 52.215-230 (a) M: GSFC 52.215-330". p"L-41 M-8". "In Section L of the draft RFP (p. L-41), a significant subcontractor for the purposes of the Past Performance Volume is defined as ""any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $9M; and, Section M (p. M-8) defines a significant subcontractor as one who is ""estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $4M."" Will the government confirm the intended average annual cost should be $4M in both Sections?"

Response: $9M is the correct threshold. This will be corrected in Section M.

Q78. DRFP "Section L GSFC 52.209-301 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST (MAR 2020) GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION - GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS. (APR 2022) ". p"L-6 to L-9, L-9 to L-13"."In subparagraph(a) it states ""The OCI Submission, comprised of the Offeror’s OCI Assessment and its OCI Plan, will not be evaluated as part of the Mission Suitability Factor (if applicable)."" In the proposal content and page limitation table, the OCI plan is not included. Will the Government please clarify what shall be submitted in terms of OCI plan by the offeror with the proposal?"

Response: See response to Q58.

Q79. DRFP "Section M SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD GSFC 52.215-324 COST EVALUATION FACTOR. (NOV 2016)" . pM-7. Will the FFP Phase In price be included in the total cost evaluation.

Response: In accordance with GSFC 52.215-324, the total FFP Phase-in price and the proposed and probable Core and RTO cost assessment will be presented to the Source Selection Authority, as well as any cost risk associated with the proposal.

Q80. DRFP "Section M GSFC 52.215-330 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR (SERVICES). (MAY 2018)". M-8. We understand the Government's definition of recent to be within the last 75 years. However, in the solicitation for the current iteration of the ROC II contract, the definition of recency was 7 years. Will the Government please consider revising the definition of recency to 7 years?

Response: Will be changed to 7 years in the Final RFP.

Q81. DRFP "Section M SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD GSFC

52.215-330 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR (SERVICES). (MAY 2018)

Reference: 3rd Paragraph - 1st sentence, page M-9". M-9. "The RFP states that “the overall confidence rating will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation . . . . ” Will the Government confirm that oral presentations are not part of the source selection process?"

Response: The provision states “The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance (see below) will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation, if applicable; written narrative; past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires; and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information.” If applicable is the key word. Oral Presentations are not part of this WRC proposal response.

Q82. One-on-One Industry Meetings-We would like to recommend holding one-on-one sessions for industry following the release of the DRFP or close to the RFP date.

Response: We have been holding one-on-one meetings with industry.

Q83. Section L, Mission Suitability Volume, Section L(b)(1)RMP. Section L(b)(1) lists the contents of the Mission Suitability Volume that are excluded from the 75pp limit. The contents include a parenthetical reference to a PMP, but PMP is not included in the table on page L-18 or mentioned elsewhere. We assume that a PMP is NOT due with the proposal submission. Please confirm and that, perhaps, PMP is a typo and should be RMP.

Response: See response to Q59.

Q84. Section L, Mission Suitability Volume, Section B.1 SOW Elements. Section L instructs offerors to provide a high level summary to every subsection in Sections IV (A-S) and Section V (A-Q) in the SOW. These sections collectively contain more than 40 enumerated subsections and over 300 functional requirements. Given the tight page constraints (there are 15 separate sections in the Mission Suitability Volume, of which the SOW Elements are just one), will the Government consider selecting a subset of the SOW Sections IV and V rather than requiring offerors to provide a high level summary of every SOW subsection? This would give NASA a better opportunity to evaluate offerors’ understanding and approach compared to the superficial high level summaries that are the natural consequence of offerors addressing 40+ SOW sections in very few pages. Note: We do not believe that increasing the page limit is in the best interests of either NASA or industry. Rather, we are suggesting an alternative approach that we believe makes better use of the page count, and would give offerors a better opportunity to differentiate their approach to the most important SOW elements.

Response: Provision language will be updated to focus on key areas.

Q85. Section L, Past Performance Volume, Section (b) Past Performance Questionnaires Section L instructions for the Past Performance volume state that "The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and submitted..." Due to factors out of the control of bidders, will the Government confirm that other resources and data, such as CPARs and Award Fee Scores, will be used in the absence of past performance questionnaires?

Response: The Government will use every method at its disposal to obtain past performance information.

Q86. Section L, paragraph (a)(3). Proposal Format and Organization Section L asks that each proposal volume be submitted as a single PDF file, "with appropriate bookmarks". Please clarify what are considered "appropriate" bookmarks and provide examples of such bookmarks for both documents containing written narrative as well as for spreadsheets.

Response: Bookmarks are a feature of Adobe that provides links to different pages in the document. Offerors need to research Adobe to see how it works.

Q87. Section L, Mission Suitability Volume, paragraph (c) Mission Suitability / Contract Volume The instructions for Attachment N fall under the Mission Suitability volume, however, it states "The Offeror shall include Contract Attachment N as part of the model contract in the Contract Volume of the proposal." Please clarify which volume is the Contract Volume and whether or not Attachment N is included in the page limitation.

Response: See response to Q10.

Q88. Section L, Section M, Section J, Enclosure 1, Attachment S. OCI Plan / OCI Avoidance Plan. "Page L-6 states that an OCI Plan shall be included as part as the proposal Offer Volume or as a separate attachment, page M-1 refers to an OCI Avoidance Plan and an OCI Plan interchangeably, and section J List of Attachments states that an OCI Avoidance Plan is TBP.

Table 1 in Enclosure 1 Phase-in SOW references an OCI Avoidance Plan due 30 Days after Contract Effective Date and Attachment S OCI Plan Data Requirements lists Initial Submission:

30 days after Contract Effective Date. 1) Please clarify if an OCI Plan and an OCI Avoidance Plan are two different requirements or if the terms are interchangeable and 2) Please clarify when the Plan(s) are due, either at time of proposal submission or 30 days after contract effective date."

Response: Use of agency template should fix discrepancy.

Q89. DRFP Cover Letter, Section L Historical Data The bottom of the Draft RFP Cover Letter and page L-31 reference Enclosure 5 - Contract Historical Data. No such document entitled Enclosure 5 was included in the Draft RFP documents. Do the DRFP files named ROC II Contract Historical Data - 1.pdf and ROC II Contract Historical Data - 2.pdf include the referenced Contract Historical Data or will Enclosure 5 be posted at a later time with additional/updated historical data?

Response: Current staffing levels are posted to eLibrary.

Q90. Section L, paragraph (b)(2) Proposal Content and Page Limitations. In the sentence "Electronic foldout pages count as an equivalent number of 8-1/2" x 11" pages." please confirm that "equivalent" means a one-to-one ratio. For example, an 11" x 17" foldout counts as one page.

Re…