80GSFC23R0009 RFI-2.pdf

Final RFP WRC 80GSFC23R0009 RFI #2 (Q16 – Q121)

Q16. In the ROC II Historical Data 2 Attachment included with the Draft RFP a job description for the Field Engineering Specialist - Level III (WGS) was neglected. Will the Government please provide this job description? Further, will this data be included as part of the Final RFP file Enclosure 5 or as an additional separate attachment?

Response: This position is no longer required and originated from a past requirement that no longer exists. Enclosure 5 Contract Historical Data was uploaded to SAM.gov on 10/31/2023

Q17. The last bullet item on page L-43 states "Small Business Subcontracting Plan history;

provide latest Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) (formerly known as the SF 294 and 295 reports) and supporting rationale (Excluded from the page limitation)." Please clarify what is expected to be provided as "supporting rationale".

Response: Supporting rationale is any information provided by the government or offeror in response to past subcontracting reports.

Q18. Question and Answer 86 was mis-interpreted. It is understood how to create Adobe PDF bookmarks; the question is, What proposal content does the Government want bidders to bookmark?

Response: This is for the offeror to determine; bookmarks are used solely for proposal reviewing purposes.

Q19. Attachment S; Section 11 - This attachment indicates the OCI Plan initial submission is due 30 days after the contract effective date. Please confirm whether this plan is due at this time after award or with the proposal submission.

Response: Attachment S will be updated via amendment to reflect To Be Proposed (TBP), this should be submitted with proposal.

Q20. Page J-1 indicates the OCI Avoidance Plan initial is to be submitted with the proposal.

Please confirm whether this plan is due with the proposal and if this is a different plan than the OCI Plan referred to in Attachment S. Note that there was no Attachment K in the Final RFP.

Response: Attachment S is the Data Requirement Description (DRD) for the offerors proposed OCI Avoidance Plan. Attachment K will be the offerors proposed OCI plan, which will become an attachment to the contract. The offerors OCI Plan is due at the time of proposal submission.

Q21. Instructions require bidders to submit an OCI plan addressing potential areas of concern.

There are no corresponding evaluation factors for this OCI plan in Section M. Please explain how the OCI Plan will be evaluated as part of the proposal or if the evaluation and OCI plan approval occurs post-award.

Response: The offerors OCI plan is not reviewed as a part of mission suitability. The OCI plan will be reviewed for acceptability and to ensure it meets the requirements of the Data

Requirements Description (DRD), Attachment S. Please see Page M-1, section

“PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ELIGIBILITY

STANDARDS (OCT 2021)”

Q22. RFP Section L, Page L-29; Under (1) Direct and Indirect Rate Substantion, the instructions reference "Enclosure 5, Contract Historical Data". This Enclosure was not included in the final RFP documents. Please provide Enclosure 5.

Response: Enclosure 5 Contract Historical Data was uploaded to SAM.gov on 10/31/2023

Q23. RFP Section L, Page L-29; The table shows that (PMP) is excluded from page count.

Please clarify what (PMP) is.

Response: This was an oversight, corrected via amendment 002.

Q24. It appears that when the Govt. converted its Exhibit A and B Excel workbooks to .pdf format, several row labels and plug figures did not convert properly, with many random letters and numbers missing (i.e. Exhibit A, pg. 3 - most row lables and the Material, Travel, and Other plug numbers). Would the Govt. release the files in Excel format to avoid the errors that occured in the conversion to .pdf format?

Response: A PDF document titled “Plug Numbers for Cost Exhibits A and B – Rev. 1” uploaded with Amendment 002.

Q25. Section M states that "NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s Risk Management Approach, including all areas and information specified in Section L, Clause GSFC 52.215-210, Subfactor A, Paragraph A.10" A.10 is missing in Section L, will the Government please provide.

Response: This was corrected via Amendment 001.

Q26. Exhibit B, Materials costs in EXH 2A and EXH 2B do not appear to total the plug number in EXH 2 Summary. Can the Government confirm/clarify the Material costs in these exhibits?

Response: This was corrected via amendment, see document titled “Plug Numbers for Cost Exhibits A and B – Rev.1”.

Q27. Exhibit A and B, The font is too small to read the Gov't plug numbers for Materials, Travel and ODCs and are showing as missing numbers as well as missing letters. Can the Government provide these exhibits in excel version? If we try to convert them as instructed, numbers and letters are missing.

Response: See Q24

Q28. The fifth row of the provided table of page limitations lists a “PMP” as content for Volume II Mission Suitability and excluded from page count. As described in previously released Q&As, will the Government confirm that a PMP is not required for submission with the proposal submission?

Response: See Q23

Q29. The fifth row of the provided table of page limitations lists a “SOW Compliance Matrix” as content for Volume II Mission Suitability and excluded from page count. Will the Government confirm that this requirement refers to the Compliance Matrix and Required Table described in paragraph d at the top of page L-17?

Response: Confirmed

Q30. The Government stated in the response to Draft RFP Question #193 that “Past performance relevancy covers all areas of the SOW.” The Government also stated in the Final RFP page L-41 that offers shall provide information on “all past/current contract references” and on L-42 second bullet instructs offers to provide a “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.” Does this mean that all areas of the SOW must be addressed by each contract used for past performance to show relevancy? Considering the response to the question and the Final RFP requirements, many offerors may need to use multiple contracts be able to show relevancy across “all areas of the SOW”. Given the allotted 20-page limit, the current RFP wording favors bidders with a single contract that meets all 50 areas of the SOW (i.e., the incumbent WRC prime contractor) and may limit competition. Please consider including language in the Final RFP that states, “All past/current contracts used for Past Performance may cover all areas of the SOW collectively and are not required to cover all areas of the SOW individually.”

Response: A offeror can have several contract references, both past and/or current, that combined show work comparability and relevancy to the proposed effort. It is not required that a single contract reference touch all aspects of the WRC SOW to be deemed relevant.

Q31. The Government stated in the response to Draft RFP Question #193 that “Past performance relevancy covers all areas of the SOW.” Considering the response to the previous question about individual contracts required to show relevancy covering all 50 SOW areas, will NASA please add an additional 15 pages to the Past Performance page limit, resulting in a total of 35 pages?

Response: Updated via amendment, Past Performance Volume page limit will be increased to 30 Pages.

Q32. Section states “Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure 5, Contract Historical Data”. Enclosure 5 appears to be missing in the final RFP, can the Government provide this enclosure?

Response: See Q22

Q33. RTO Travel Exhibit 5 was removed from the RFP Section L instructions; however, Exhibit 5 is still in Exhibit B and there is also blank page which follows and states ‘Exhibit 5 reserved.’ Can the government remove Exhibit 5 from the Exhibit B?

Response: This is corrected via amendment, see document titled “Exhibit B – WRC Exh RTO Cost – Rev. 1”

Q34. RTO ODCs Exhibit 6 was removed from the RFP Section L instructions; however, Exhibit 6 is still in Exhibit B and there is also blank page which follows and states ‘Exhibit 6 reserved.’ Can the government remove Exhibit 6 from the Exhibit B?

Response: This is corrected via amendment, see document titled “Exhibit B – WRC Exh RTO Cost – Rev. 1”

Q35. Is it acceptable for the Prime Offeror to include any interorganizational transfers in its Volume III Cost Proposal and Cost Exhibits long as any differences are addressed?

Response: Volume III shall account for all personnel supporting the contract. Any assumptions or differences shall be documented for the Government to be able to do a thorough review of the proposal section.

Q36. On page L-28, it states for non-significant subcontractors in part the following: … “all prospective Non-Significant service subcontractors shall complete and submit Exhibits 12, which should be included with the Prime Offeror’s or JV Entity's Cost Volume proposal.

However, Non-Significant service subcontractors may submit Exhibits 12, if deemed 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.” Then on page L-29, it states for non-significant subcontractors in part the following: … “In order to establish the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs, and the extent to which costs reflect performance addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume proposal, each Offeror, including proposed Significant Subcontractors and Non-Significant Subcontractors, shall submit the required other than certified cost or pricing data (exhibits and supporting narrative) set forth in this provision. These data requirements differ by Prime Offeror, Significant Subcontractors, and Non-Significant Subcontractors, as indicated in Section (b) below.” Can the government confirm that non-significant service subcontractors are only required to submit Exhibit 12 Fringe Benefits (Total Compensation Plan) directly to the government (if they deem proprietary), otherwise within Prime Offeror’s submission, and that they are not required to submit a Cost Narrative or TCP Narrative, nor any other cost exhibits other than Exhibit 12 referenced above?

Response: Confirmed, please see Amendment 001

Q37. Given NASA’s initial Draft RFP Q&A released answer to Q13, would NASA consider removing 14 CFR Part 135 and replacing it with NPR 7900.3D?

Response: The Government will not be removing the CPR Part 135 requirement from the contract. As highlighted in the response to Q13: 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.

Q38. In the updated WRC SOW Section IV.T.4 the first paragraph states “The Contractor shall provide system maintenance to include: … verifying calibration…”. While the Section IV.T.4 second paragraph states “Sustainment, calibration, and maintenance of Ground Support

Equipment (GSE) to support operations in all identified RMMO facilities shall be provided by the Contractor”. Also, both sections IV.T.3 & 4 state “The Contractor shall support Launch System Maintenance / Sustainment / Calibration / Certification of the following systems…”.

Because these seem to be contradictory statements in the same section about calibration responsibility, please clarify if the WRC contractor will be responsible for providing all calibration services or just supporting/verifying calibration is performed by another organization/contract at WFF for the systems WRC maintains.

Response: Assets that are remotely located and would be at greater risk to ship back to WFF for calibration are calibrated under this contract. Assets that are located on WFF are sent to the onsite Contractor who supports calibration efforts at WFF.

Q39. Can the Government confirm whether the cost(s) for any Contractor required vehicles in addition to the Government-provided vehicles are included in the plug numbers provided in RFP Exhibit A and Exhibit B?

Response: There are no Contractor required or Government provided vehicles in the plug numbers of the RFP Exhibit A &B. Vehicles that the Contractor is responsible for are accounted for in the Government property list.

Q40. 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. Do the position qualifications required in Attachment B need to include CBA labor categories?

Response: PQ’s are not required for CBA Labor Categories. Our response to DRFP Q206 was incorrect when we stated “union position PQ’s were provided as part of the eLibrary”.

Q41. . In preparing our staffing model, we have assumed that the historical data provided in the ROC_II_Contract_Historical_Data_-_1.pdf file included all labor, both Core and IDIQ, inclusive of subcontractors. The Government’s response to Q231, includes the following, “…The historical data is the workload for all the work completed by the prime contractor. Significant subcontractor and Non-significant subcontractor pricing is not included in the historical data….”

Would NASA please confirm that the ROC_II_Contract_Historical_Data_-_1.pdf historical data includes all labor, both Core and IDIQ, inclusive of subcontractors? If not, would NASA please provide historical data for subcontractors?

Response: The current ROC-II contract does not have a Core element; it is fully IDIQ.

Historical data provided is for all work completed by the prime contractor, historical data for the subcontractors is not available.

Q42. Section L Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization (SBU) (A) (2) on page L-22 states “The Contracting Officer’s assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition, expressed as a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (CORE basic and all options combined plus IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value basic and all options combined),…” Would the Government confirm that offerors are to include the maximum IDIQ value of $253.78M in establishing the SB goals for base and option periods in Exhibits 13A – 13C?? If so, does the Government have a preferred method of allocating the $253.78M into the base and option years?

Response: Confirmed, no preferred method, subcontracting plans should be consistent with offerors proposed approach and stated subcontracting goals.

Q43. Section L Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization (SBU) (A) (7) page L-23 states “…provide a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS.” However, the note at the top of Page L-24 states “(NOTE:

FOR PURPOSES OF THE SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, THE

PROPOSED GOALS SHALL BE STATED AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL

SUBCONTRACTS, NOT AS A PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, REFER

TO THE BELOW EXAMPLE)” Would the Government clarify if offerors should express Subcontracting Goals as both Total Contract Value and as the Planned Subcontract Value?

Response: Correct, offerors should express Subcontracting goals as both a percent of Total Contract Value and as a percent of Total Subcontracting Value.

Q44. The RFP includes three separate Department of Labor (DoL) Wage Determinations which incorporate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Aerospace Workers. Each of these CBAs contain Health, Welfare, and Pension language requiring contributions to the IAM National Pension Fund (National Pension Plan), a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan. The actuary for the IAM National Pension Fund certified to the U.S. Department of the Treasury that the fund is in critical status for the plan year beginning January 1, 2023 (reference Notice of Critical Status for the IAM National Pension Pan dated 28 April 2023). Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal statute regulating employee pension plans, an employer that has assumed an obligation to contribute to and subsequently withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan is liable for its allocable share of any underfunding. This "withdrawal liability" may be triggered when a contributing employer withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan. Under this RFP and subsequent contract, this "triggering event" may occur when an incumbent contractor is not selected for the succeeding follow-on contract. Under the terms and conditions of this cost-reimbursement solicitation (which attaches the mandatory DoL Wage Determinations incorporating the CBAs), does the Government consider pension plan withdrawal liabilities as an allowable cost? Will the Government reimburse the contractor for withdrawal liability costs required by ERISA associated with the IAM National Pension Plan should they be assessed?

Response: This is speculative

Q45. Would the Government please confirm that document Headers and Footers are excluded from font requirements?

Response: All font should follow the guidance set forth in GSFC 52.215-201

Q46. RFP Section L (b) (2) states “Electronic foldout pages count as an equivalent number of 8-1/2" x 11" pages.” Would the Government clarify if these electronic pages are 11 x 17 inches?

Response: Any electronic foldout page beyond the 8-1/2” x 11” page size is counted as a minimum of 2 pages.

Q47. Would the Government allow offerors to provide a transmittal/cover letter NTE 2 pages that is excluded from page count?

Response: Offerors should keep within the page limit guidance set forth in the solicitation.

Q48. Would the Government please confirm that reproduced sections of the document (SF33/SF30, DD254, and Sections A through K, etc.) and preexisting documentation (such as DCAA approval letters, CAS Disclosure Statement, signed teaming agreements, etc.) are exempt from the stated font and margin requirement?

Response: Confirmed

Q49. To allow for ease of proposal review, may bidders insert full size images of official documents within their respective volumes?

Response: Yes, any page beyond the 8-1/2” x 11” page size is counted as minimum of 2 pages.

Q50. In the RTO Cost Model, the breakdown of plug numbers does not add up to the total. The Government provided a plug number of the Material costs in Exhibit B - WRC Exh RTO Cost of $465,258.00. However, in Exhibit 2, the plug numbers are $352,129.00 in Exhibit 2A and $136,182.00 in Exhibit 2B which totals $488,311.00. This number does not match the Government provided plug number in Exhibit 2 of $465,258.00. Will the Government correct this inconsistency?

Response: Corrected via amendment and new updated PDF with all plug numbers titled “Plug Numbers for Cost Exhibits A and B – Rev. 1” has been provided.

Q51. The RFP states on Page L-28 that "A proposed Significant Subcontractor or JV partner shall complete and submit Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 3 through 14B and provide the supporting information that is requested from the Prime Offeror or JV Entity." Additionally, the cost instructions on Page L-29 state "In order to establish the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs, and the extent to which costs reflect performance addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume proposal, each Offeror, including proposed Significant Subcontractors and Non-Significant Subcontractors, shall submit the required other than certified cost or pricing data (exhibits and supporting narrative) set forth in this provision. These data requirements differ by Prime Offeror, Significant Subcontractors, and Non-Significant Subcontractors, as indicated in Section (b) below." However, the Section (b) language does not apparently require Significant Subcontractors to submit Exhibits A5A, A5B, A6, A9, A9A, A10, A11, 13A, 13B, 13C, 14A & 14B. This appears to be an inconsistency when compared to the initial instruction, specifically the phrase exhibits "3 through 14b." Would the Government please clarify which exhibits Significant Subcontractors are required to complete to meet the Cost Volume requirements?

Response: A proposed Significant Subcontractor or JV partner shall complete and submit Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 3 through 14B

Q52. Exhibit B of the RFP includes Exhibit 5 Travel and Exhibit 6 Other Direct Costs, but no specific guidance regarding their use is provided in the Section (b) Cost Volume Instructions.

Would the Government please clarify?

Response: This was an oversight and has been corrected via amendment. See Amendment 002 and Rev. 1 of Exhibit B.

Q53. In Section L (b) (23) (Page L-38) the Government 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." We found that the historical PQs provided in file ROC+II+Contract+Historical+Data+-+2.pdf only contained exempt labor categories. Please confirm that the Government requires offerors to provide both exempt and union/non-exempt labor category PQs to fulfill this requirement.

Response: See Q40

Q54. The compliance matrix lists A.10 Risk Management Approach under Subfactor A but no A.10 exists under Subfactor A requirements. Also, evaluation criteria (p. M-4) exists for a Risk Management Approach. Will the government please clarify whether or not the Offeror should include a Risk Management Approach as part of its Subfactor A response?

Response: See Amendment 001

Q55. The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table (p .L-10) includes Total Compensation Plan (TCP) as a component of Volume II. Instructions for the TCP (A.9, p. L-20) state that "the proposed TCP information shall be included in the Offeror's or [sic ] Cost Volume..." Will the government please clarify which volume should include the Offeror's TCP?

Response: TCP shall be submitted under Volume II, however, Exhibit A12 shall be submitted under Volume III Cost Exhibits.

Q56. The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table (p .L-10) includes "PMP," in parentheses, as a non-page counted Volume II proposal component. Will the government please clarify its intent for this component?

Response: This was an oversight, corrected via Amendment 002

Q57. Since the labor category descriptions are in the cost volume narrative, can the requirement for "description of proposed labor categories" be removed from the B.5 requirements? Section M does not seem to evaluate the descriptions under B.5

Response: Section M, paragraph B.5 language states “all areas and information specified in Section L, Clause GSFC 52.215-210, Subfactor B, Paragraph B.5, for feasibility, effectiveness, reasonableness, and efficiency.”

Q58. States that Phase-in will commence “on or about June 2024”. RFP cover letter states “anticipated contract award date is August, 2024”. What is the anticipated Phase-in start date?

Response: See Amendment 001

Q59. Table 1 of the Phase-in SOW has deliverable due dates that conflict with other sections of the RFP. Specifically, the table shows that the OCI Plan is due 30 days after contract effective date, while Section L of the RFP requires the OCI Plan to be delivered with the proposal. The IT Security Management Plan shows a due date of 30 days after contract award, while other sections of the RFP show a due date of 30 days after contract effective date. Please clarify.

Response: Corrected via amendment, OCI plan is (TBP), due with proposal and will be removed from Phase-In SOW, Table 1. IT Security Management plan is due within 30 Days after Contract Award, both the solicitation, and Attachment F have been updated accordingly. A mistake was made to with our response to DRFP Q32, the IT Security Management Plan is due Within 30 Days After Contract Award.

Q60. The DEIA Plan is missing from Phase-in SOW Table 1; other RFP sections require a DEIA Plan with a due date of 30 days after contract award. Should the DEIA plan be added to Table 1?

Response: Corrected via amendment, DEIA plan added to Phase-In SOW.

Q61. The IT Security Management Plan has conflicting due dates. The Phase-in SOW and the table on RFP page B.2 show 30 days after contract award; Attachment F shows 30 days after contract effective date; and the table on RFP page J.1 shows both 30 days after contract award and 30 days after contract effective date. Please clarify.

Response: Corrected via amendment, IT Security Management Plan is due within 30 days after contract award, see Q59.

Q62. Section V (Ops/IDIQ) of the SOW does not contain any work related to optical/photo/video support for flight operations. Optical support is only listed under SOW IV (M&S CORE) Sec R but that is focused on Maintenance, although there is an implication of operations as well. Should Optical support for operations be included in the IDIQ task section of

SOW V?

Response: This has been updated via amendment, see Attachment A – Statement of Work, dated Nov. 9, 2023.

Q63. "Final monetary extensions in the Cost Volume proposal should be expressed as the closest whole dollar amount, rounded to the nearest cent." Will the government consider rounding to the nearest dollar so that values presented in the cells match the visible value electronically as well as printed? If not, there will be rounding differences hidden in these cells which can provide confusion during evaluation. It would also limit the ability for duplication of formula calculations for any printed copies.

Response: See Amendment 001

Q64. The cover letter states an anticipated contract effective date of October 2024. In the cost instructions in Section L number (b)(17), the RFP states "Exhibits A9 and A9A shall be used to state the proposed price for the phase-in, which is expected to commence on or about June 2024." If we use the start date as 61 days from the start of the Phase-In in the Section L instructions, the start date of the contract would be in August 2024, not October as stated in the letter. Please provide an anticipated date for the start of the 60-day Phase-In and the anticipated date for the start of the contract so offerors can accurately estimate direct and indirect costs.

Response: See Amendment 001

Q65. In response to question #206 requesting union position descriptions, the government responded with "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." We cannot find any DRFP or RFP documents which contain the CBA position descriptions, years of experience, and education/training requirements.

Without that information the only offeror who could accurately complete Attachment B-6 without completely guessing as to what is in the CBA is the incubment. We request the government either point offerers specfically to where this information is or provide it to all offerors.

Response: See response to Q40

Q66. Will the Government confirm that offerors should incorporate Union Pay Premiums contained within Section 19 of the Union Agreement within the "Regular Direct Labor Hourly Rate" and "Overtime Premium Direct Labor Hourly Rate" portions of Exhibit A-2C, A-2D, and A-2E?

Response: See FAR 22.1008-2 Successorship with Incumbent Contractor Collective Bargaining Agreement

Q67. For the CBA-covered union positions, what escalation approach is preferred by NASA?

There are at least three potential approaches. The first is to not escalate the CBA DL in the offeror proposals and then update the rates during performance as the CBAs are negotiated. The second is to escalate the CBA DL with the same escalation as the exempt positions for proposal evaluation purposes. The third is to propose some other basis for CBA DL escalation. We recognize that NASA traditionally defers to offeror policies which are then evaluated by the government. However, given the significant number of union positions on this contract, the use of different approaches by different offerors will result in very different proposed prices, complicating any evaluation. We request that NASA provide guidance on the approach to pricing CBA DL escalation which can be followed by all offerors.

Response: Offerors should propose escalation in accordance with their business/accounting practices.

Q68. Reference: Item 11, Interrelationship. The government references GSFC clause GSFC 52.209-301. This clause is not included in the solicitation. There is a clause called "Notice of Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCT 2021)" in Section L. Please clarify if the clause in Section L is GSFC 52.209-301 or provide the referenced clause in full text.

Response: Confirmed, NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCT 2021) is GSFC 52.209-301

Q69. Reference: Item 11, Initial Submission. The government has noted in the OCI plan is due 30 days after contract effective date. Per Section L, Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (e), the offeror is to provide "the proposed OCI plan ... shall be included as a separate proposal attachment under the Offer Volume." Please clarify the offeror shall comply with Section L and not Attachment S for submission requirements.

Response: Corrected via amendment, OCI plan is due with proposal.

Q70. In paragraph (a), the government references "Offerors are required to submit an acceptable OCI Plan in accordance with the requirements of Data Requirements Description (DRD) NFS Appendix C, C-202.1 “Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan." Please clarify where the referenced NFS Appendix C, C-202-1 is located.

Response: This is Appendix C of the NASA FAR Supplement.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/NFS.pdf

Q71. In the Draft RFP the Government states that the Offeror shall provide a Total Compensation Plan (TCP) for all personnel proposed, in accordance with NFS provision 1852.231-71 as well as classify labor categories as “exempt” or “non-exempt.” In the revised Final RFP Section L instructions for A.9 TCP the direction to classify employees as exempt and non-exempt was removed along with NFS provision 1852.231-71. However, the Section M evaluation criteria for A.9 Total Compensation Plan will be applied to all labor categories including those personnel subject to union agreements, the Service Contract Act, and those exempt from both. Did the government intend to remove the evaluation criteria from Section M A.9 regarding non-professional personnel (i.e. those subject to union agreements and the Service Contract Act) as this requirement was removed from Section L?

Response: This was an oversight, language in Section M, Paragraph A.9 has been updated via amendment.

Q72. Original Question: Q43. Draft SOW – Section V.D.2 Range Operational Support (IDIQ), Radar Operations, Surveillance Radar Operations. p54. 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. Restating the Question: Are the costs for “the air and water vessels supporting the launches…to be provided by the WRC Contractor” included in the RTO Plug numbers?

Response: These costs are not included in the RTO plug numbers.

Q73. Enclosure X (formerly Enclosure 2) RTO, Range Instrumentation, pps-4 through 8 - Will the Government add value to these tables by including a column for location of each Instrumentation system (i.e., WFF, Bermuda, Poker Flat)?

Response: Assets are assumed to be located at WFF unless stated otherwise, mobile assets are just that.

Q74. Per “WRC – FRFP-80GSFC23R0009 Final.pdf”; Section B – Supplies or Services and prices/Costs; page B-7 provides the total estimated costs for Materials, Travel, and Other Direct Charges per contract year. Are these plug values inclusive of indirect costs?

Response: Plug numbers are not inclusive of indirect costs.

Q75. Per “WRC – FRFP-80GSFC23R0009 Final.pdf”; Section L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS; page L-29 states: “In order to establish the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs, and the extent to which costs reflect performance addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume proposal, each Offeror, including proposed Significant Subcontractors and Non-Significant Subcontractors, shall submit the required other than certified cost or pricing data (exhibits and supporting narrative) set forth in this provision.” These data requirements differ by Prime Offeror, Significant Subcontractors, and Non-Significant Subcontractors, as indicated in Section (b) below.” The only Exhibit requirement for a non-subcontractor is to submit Exhibit 12. Will the Government please confirm that a non-significant subcontractor is only required to submit Exhibit 12 and not all the other exhibits and supporting narrative?

Response: See Amendment 001

Q76. Per “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf” Exhibit 2A, 2D, and 2G shows “WBS Level 2 Program Management (CORE)” and Exhibit 3A, 2E, and 2H shows “WBS Level 2 Range Management and Sustainment (CORE)”. Will the government please adjust the titles for 2A, 2D, 2G, 3A, 2E, and 2H to state “WBS Level 3” in lieu of “WBS Level 2” to align with the correct WBS level?

Response: This has been corrected via Amendment 002, see document titled “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023 – Rev. 1”

Q77. Per “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf” Exhibit 2A and 2B appear to have missing numbers for “Material”, “Travel”, and “Other (Specify)”. Will the government please update Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf to provide completed plug numbers?

Response: Corrected via Amendment

Q78. Per “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf”; Exhibit 2 Grand Total plug value for “Other (Specify)” does not equal the sum of the plug values from Contract Year 1 through Contract Year 5. Will the Government please adjust the “Other (Specify)” plug numbers to reflect the right numbers?

Response: Corrected via Amendment

Q79. As a result of the clarification of the values for RTO Material Plugs provided in Amendment 01, the total RTO Material, in Exhibit 2, does not equal the sum of Material plug numbers in 2A and 2B. Will the government update the RTO total in Exhibit 2 to reflect the updates to 2A and 2B?

Response: This has been corrected via Amendment 002.

Q80. Per “WRC – FRFP-80GSFC23R0009 Final.pdf”; Section (6) CORE REQUIREMENTS

DIRECT LABOR HOURS, DIRECT LABOR RATES, AND DIRECT LABOR COSTS

DETAIL – CORE Total; page L-32 and Section (7) CORE REQUIREMENTS DIRECT LABOR

HOURS, DIRECT LABOR RATES, AND DIRECT LABOR COSTS DETAIL – PRIME CORE

PM AND PRIME CORE RANGE MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINMENT references Exhibit A2C DL, Exhibit A2D DL, and Exhibit A2E DL, however, “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf” do not align with these exhibit titles. Will the Government please update “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf” to align with the Exhibit titles referenced in the RFP?

Response: We are confused with the question, upon review of the RFP and the exhibit everything seems to align.

Q81. Per “WRC – FRFP-80GSFC23R0009 Final.pdf”; Section (6) CORE REQUIREMENTS

DIRECT LABOR HOURS, DIRECT LABOR RATES, AND DIRECT LABOR COSTS

DETAIL – CORE Total; page L-32 states: “A separately identified and labeled Exhibit 2DL shall be submitted for each individual Contract Year and WBS Level from the Prime Offeror and each individual Significant Subcontractor.” Will the Government please confirm that the identified and labeled “Exhibit 2DL” is “Exhibit 2C DL”?

Response: Confirmed

Q82. “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf” shows “Exhibit S5” instead of “5A”. Will the Government please update the “Exhibit A – Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6- 2023.pdf” to align with the Exhibit titles referenced in the RFP?

Response: We are confused with the question, upon review of the RFP and the exhibit everything seems to align.

Q83. “Exhibit B – WRC Exh RTO Cost 9-15-23.pdf” Exhibit 2B appears to have missing numbers on the “Material” line. Will the government please update “Exhibit B – WRC Exh RTO Cost 9-15-23.pdf” accordingly?

Response: Corrected via Amendment

Q84. Per “Exhibit B – WRC Exh RTO Cost 9-15-23.pdf” shows a table for Exhibit 5 (Travel) and Exhibit 6 (Other Direct Costs (ODC)) will the Government please confirm that these exhibits are reserved, and that the Offeror does not need to complete Exhibit 5 and 6? If so, will the Government please remove these two exhibits from “Exhibit B – WRC Exh RTO Cost 9-15- 23.pdf”?

Response: Corrected via Amendment

Q85. Instructions indicates "Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure 5, Contract Historical Data, for those labor categories for which rates are provided, in order to better understand salary levels of the incumbent workforce." Enclosure 5 was not included in the solicitation documents

Response: See Amendment 001

Q86. The cover letter indicates that the addition of plug amounts for Material, travel and ODC led to the deletion of Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8 for Core Requirements for Travel, ODCs, and RTO Travel and ODCs. Should Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 in Exhibit B WRC Exh RTO Cost 9-15-23 be deleted as well?

Response: Corrected via Amendment

Q87. Since material, travel and ODC for the RTOs are plug numbers, are offerors required to provide an explanation of how all other direct costs were estimated?

Response: Yes, offerors proposing other ODC’s need to provide an explanation as required by the BOE.

Q88. The response to Q.8. in the Amendment 01 package, states, "The Phase-in is anticipated now for August 2024…". Does the shift from June to August also shift the PoP start date to October? Additionally, can the Government please provide a direct date for Phase-in start and Contract start for use in the proposal?

Response: Yes since a 60 day phase-in is anticipated. Phase-In is anticipated now August 5 2024 and Contract Effective Date October 3, 2024

Q89. The revised wording describing the criterion that must be met for determining whether subcontractors are required to submit a Total Compensation Plan (TCP) states that significant subcontractors (as defined in the Cost Volume instructions must also provide "at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs)." Please confirm that only subcontractors that meet BOTH criterion are required to submit a TCP.

Response: Confirmed

Q90. The definition for significant subcontractor in the Cost Volume states that 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 20% of the total estimated value (core basic and all core options combined, if applicable, plus total RTO estimated value)". The TCP instuctions use that definition and add a secondary requirement to TCP submittal threshold, that a signiciant sub should "provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs)." Given that non-professional labor hours make up a significant portion of the contract and are set by previously negotiated CBAs and the Government's Wage Determinations, the labor an Offeror has control over in determining a significant sub is only a portion of the contract. Would the Government consider applying the "provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs)" clause from the TCP instructions to the overall Cost volume definition of a significant subcontractor so that the Cost determination of significant subcontractor is the same as the TCP definition of significant subcontractor.

Response: No, the definitions will remain

Q91. Ex.B-Ex. 2A and Ex.B-Ex 2B Material lines do not sum up to the total presented in Ex.

B-Ex.2 Material line. Can the Government please correct the discrepancy by providing numbers in Ex.B-Ex. 2A and Ex.B-Ex 2B that add up to the total presented in Ex. B-Ex.2.

Response: Corrected via Amendment

Q92. On page L-28, the government states, "In addition, all prospective Non-Significant service subcontractors shall complete and submit Exhibits 12, which should be included with the Prime Offeror’s or JV Entity's Cost Volume proposal." However, in the Final RFP and previous Amendment the Gov ernment has narrowed the definition of which subcontrqctors need to submit a TCP and Exhibit 12 to those who meet the Cost volume significant subcontractor definition and "provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs)". Can the Government please confiurm that Non-significant service subcontractors do not need to complete Exhibit 12?

Response: Confirmed

Q93. The RFP Cover Letter states: ‘The anticipated contract award date is August 2024, with a projected October 2024 contract effective date. GSFC 52.215-224 COST VOLUME (b)(17) states Exhibits A9 and A9A shall be used to state the proposed price for the phase-in, which is expected to commence on or about June 2024. Can the government confirm the anticipated FFP Phase-In to be priced shall commence on August 1, 2024?

Response: See Amendment 001

Q94. In the second paragraph of the (1) DIRECT AND INDIRECT RATE SUBSTANTIATION instructions, it states the following: ‘Also provide the actual indirect rates realized for the last three contractor fiscal years, annotating if the rate is audited or unaudited.’

The indirect cost exhibits A3, A5A and A5B don’t have columns to capture the required prior 3 years of historical indirect rates. Does the government plan to provide an updated exhibit to allow offerors to include this data, or can the offeror modify the cost exhibits to allow for inclusion of this data?

Response: Exhibit A3 is a summary, Exhibit A5A and A5B has columns for the 3 years of historical indirects.

Q95. Will the Government please provide a list of the most recent Discrepancy Reports (DRs)?

Response: See the below list of DR’s that go back two weeks:

Q96. The version of the file "ROC II Contract Historical Data - 2.pdf" that was provided as part of Amendment 0001 is dated August 2018. Will the Government please provide a more recent version?

Response: There is no updated version.

Q97. "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." Are position qualifications required for union labor categories whose labor rates are already established in the CBAs? The ROC II Contract Historical Data - 2 file provided in Amendment 1 did not include PQs for union labor categories.

Response: Confirmed

Q98. Referencing Section B, GSFC 52.211-90 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED on Page B-4; Section I, 1852.204-76 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES, paragraph (c)(4) on Page I- 28; Section J, GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS on Page J-1; Section L, GSFC 52.215-203 OFFER VOLUME, paragraph (c)(11) IT Security Management Plan on Page L-15;

Attachment F (IT SECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN) on Page 1 of 1; Attachment M (IT Security Applicable Documents List) on Page 7 of 7; and Enclosure 1 (Phase-In SOW) on Page 3 of 3: Section B (Item 25), Section I, Attachment F, Attachment M, and Enclosure 1 all state the IT Security Management Plan is due within 30 days of the contract award date. Section L states the Plan is due 30 days after the contract effective date. Section J (Attachment F) has different asterisks for the Date and the No. of Pages, one indicating the Plan is due within 30 days of the contract award date and the other indicating the Plan is due within 30 days of the contract effective date. Please clarify if the IT Security Management Plan is due 30 days after the contract award date or 30 days after the contract effective date.

Response: See response to Q61

Q99. Referencing Section B, GSFC 52.211-90 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED on Page B-5; Section J, GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS on Page J- 2; Attachment A (SOW), Section III, Paragraph H (HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT) on Page 16 of 67; Attachment Q (DEIA Plan) on Page 1; and Attachment R (DEIA Plan), Block 11 on Page 1: Section B (Item 30), Section J (Attachment Q), Attachment Q, and Attachment R all state the DEIA is due 'Within 30 days after Contract Award.' However, the SOW states the DEIA is due "within 60 days after contract Effective Date." Please clarify if the DEIA is due 30 days after the contract award date or 60 days after the contract effective date.

Response: Corrected via Amendment, DEIA Plan is due within 30 days after Contract Award.

Q100. Referencing Section B, GSFC 52.216-90 MINIMUM/MAXIMUM ACOUNT OF SUPPLIES OR SERVICES (COST REIMBURSEMENT) and GSFC 52.217-90 OPTION TO EXTEND on pages B-5 and B-7: The response to DRFP Q236 states, in part: "The IDIQ Max was revised from $229M to $253.78M based on now the approved SOW requirements."

Paragraph (a) of GSFC 52.216-90 states, in part: "The maximum amount of supplies or services that may be ordered during the effective period of this contract is $253.78M." Please confirm the $253.78M identified in GSFC 52.216-90 applies only to the IDIQ portion of the contract which is consistent with GSFC 52.217-90 OPTION TO EXTEND which states, in part: "NOTE: The maximum IDIQ value over the entire life of the contract is $253.78M." If so, we respectfully recommend that the following clarifying language be inserted before GSFC 52.216-90

MINIMUM/MAXIMUM ACOUNT OF SUPPLIES OR SERVICES (COST

REIMBURSEMENT): "Note: The following clause applies only to the IDIQ requirements of the

Statement of Work." This has been included in recent WFF procurements that included both CORE and IDIQ components

Response: This clause applies to the IDIQ portion of the contract.

Q101. Referencing Section J, GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Page J-1) and Attachment M - IT Security Applicable Documents: Section J indicates the Date of Attachment M is 08/11/2023 and it's 15 pages. Attachment M itself is dated 03/2021 and is 7 pages. Please clarify the inconsistency.

Response: The date and page number are consistent in the FRFP.

Q102. Referencing Section J, GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS on Page J-1;

Section L, NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST on Page L-7 and L-8; Attachment K - OCI Avoidance Plan on Page 1 of 1; Attachment S - DRD- 0002 - OCI Avoidance Plan on Page 1 of 3; and Enclosure 1 (Phase-In SOW) on Page 3 of 3:

Section J (Attachment K), Section L, and Attachment K all indicate the OCI Plan is To Be Proposed. Attachment S (Block 11) and Enclosure 1 indicate the OCI Plan is due 30 days after the contract Effective Date. Please confirm the OCI Plan is to be submitted with the Offeror's proposal and not 30 days after the contract effective date.

Response: Confirmed

Q103. Referencing Section L, NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST on Page L.7: Paragraph (b) references "Paragraphs (b)(1) - (3) below…" However, there is no Paragraph (b)(3). Please clarify.

Response: Corrected via amendment

Q104. Referencing Section L (NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST) on page L-7 and Attachment S - DRD-0002 - OCI Avoidance Plan on page 1 of 3: Block 11 references "GSFC 52.209-301, Notice of Potential Conflicts of Interest." However, this provision is not included anywhere else in the solicitation. Should the text in Section L beginning on Page L-7 be labeled as GSFC 52.209-301 (e.g., GSFC 52.209-301 NOTICE OF

POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCT 2021))?

Response: Corrected via amendment

Q105. Referencing Section L, GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS on page L-9 and Attachment S - DRD-0002 - OCI Avoidance Plan page 1 of 3: Paragraph (a)(3) states, in part: "Each proposal volume shall be submitted in a single searchable Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) file." Block 11 (Format) of Attachment S states, in part: "The electronic format shall be compatible with Microsoft Office." Please confirm that the OCI Plan (Attachment K) should be submitted in PDF and included in the single file for Volume I (Offer Volume).

Response: Confirmed

Q106. Referencing Section L, GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE) on page L-23 and Exhibit A - Cost Plus FF Hybrid CORE 10-6-2023.pdf Exhibits 13A, 13B, and 13C: Paragraph (e)(A)(7) under Subfactor C (Small Business Utilization) states, in part: "Offerors shall complete Exhibits 13A – 13C, SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS, which provide a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS.