Final RFP 80GSFC24R0001 - Questions and Answers.pdf

SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SERVICES (SMAS) III

“Issuance of responses to questions/comments received on Request for Proposal-80GSFC24R0001”

Questions or Comments Responses

1. RFP Reference: Enclosure D – Contract Historical Data Direct Labor

Incumbent Rates Please correct the labor category titles in the Final RFP Enclosure D. See the Draft RFP Enclosure D categories and Final RFP Enclosure E categories versus the Final RFP Enclosure D categories.

1. Amendment 1 will be issued to correct labor category titles in Enclosure D, Contract Historical Data Direct Labor Incumbent Rates.

2. RFP Reference: Enclosure G - Scenario #1, Did the Government intend to have the descope decision made further in the life cycle for the contractor to address the full suite of SMA services? As stated, the rescope very early in the mission life cycle is fairly benign.

2. No, the rescope decision was made during the concept phase. As a result, the remainder of the project phases through commissioning (30 days post lunar orbit insertion) and the contractor’s original response (prior to challenges) would need to be adjusted for that new baseline. The technical challenges are in addition to the baseline response.

3. RFP Reference: Enclosure G - Scenario #1, A rescope of the spacecraft bus during the concept phase is an ideal time if a rescope is needed.

However, the scenario states the root cause for the rescope is during implementation. Please clarify which phase the decision was made to ensure contractor solutions align with expectations.

3. The decision was made in the concept phase. The implementation process issues can be assumed to have been was seen during in-house fabrication of supporting systems (well in-advance of Phase C – stock fabrications) for the custom bus or other missions. As a result the remainder of the project phases through commissioning (30 days post lunar orbit insertion) and the contractor’s original response (prior to challenges) would need to be adjusted for custom procured bus.

4. RFP Reference: Enclosure G - Scenario #1, Please clarify if the Government intended to remove the word “not” from the first sentence.

Given the French Guiana launch location, it is assumed the contractor SHOULD follow a modified/adapted NASA PSRP, i.e., not follow the STANDARD NASA PSRP. As written, it implies we are to follow US safety requirements, but not a modified PSRB, however both the standard or a modified NASA PSRP are based on US safety requirements.

4. No, the “not” is intentional. The ESA review process should be assumed while the US safety requirements are still applicable. While a mission specific modified/adapted NASA PSRP may be equal this, that is not assumed nor specifically defined yet for the mission.

5. RFP Reference: Enclosure E– GPM, The system safety labor categories address flight projects (i.e., the life cycle systems-design influencing functions) and ground-support and institutional PVS and LDE services, but not the unique WFF launch-related analytical and operational services (e.g., wind weighting analyses, debris-field impact probability assessments, operational surveillance). Does NASA intend to release the labor categories for the unique WFF launch related activities?

5. Enclosure E Government Pricing Model – Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories, Direct Labor Hours, and Position Descriptions provides the labor categories and levels within each category anticipated to perform the requirements of the SMAS III Statement of Work.

6. RFP Reference: Enclosure G, Scenario #2, the requirements for a response in paragraph 2.0 references PVS and LDE requirements for both GSFC (Greenbelt) and WF. Are we to assume there is either a second facility at WFF or WFF that is involved in a supply chain manufacturing capacity for the Greenbelt manufacturing facility?

6. Since PVS and LDE could be provided at any NASA Center under this contract the new facility’s PVS/LDE, with the same requirements as Greenbelt/WFF, could be wherever the new facility is located. There is no location assumed for this facility in the scenario so it should not be assumed Greenbelt or WFF.

7. RFP Reference: SECTION L.28-GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance, Please confirm that the Government intends for Offeror’s to submit the Total Recordable Case (TRC) and Days Away, Restricted Activity, or Job Transfer (DART) rates for the past 3 years.

7. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

8. RFP Reference: SECTION L.23, Are the Phase-In and S&H Plans to be provided as attachments to the Mission Suitability Volume or co-mingled with Subfactor B-Management Approach requirements that are within the 90-page limitation?

8. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

9. RFP Reference: SECTION L.28, For items excluded from the Past Performance Volume page limitation (e.g., Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, etc.), should Offerors include the documents as attachments (which would be excluded from page count)?

9. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

10. RFP Reference: SECTION L.25/30, Should the OCI Plan be a subparagraph of Section L.25(c)?

10. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

11. RFP Reference: SECTION L.26, Does the Government intend for Offerors to prepare their TCP in accordance with the Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(14), and then duplicate that information in their Mission Suitability proposal volume? Will the TCP be subject to both findings and scoring under Mission Suitability as well as probable cost adjustments in the Cost evaluation?

11. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

12. RFP Reference: ATTACHMENT J, Are there service positions in the SMAS III contract covered by an SCA Wage Determination? If yes, please provide. Attachment J only provides the CBA.

12. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

13. RFP Reference: ATTACHMENT J, Which SMAS III labor categories are covered by the CBA-2023-709? Is it only the Engineering Technician categories (I, II, III, IV, V, VI)?

13. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

14. RFP Reference: Section L.27, If NASA intends for Offerors to provide fully burdened labor rates for CY6 in Attachment B, should the contractor use half of the Enclosure E CY5 GPM labor hours (and half of the CY5 ODC plug) to develop fully burdened rates for CY6?

14. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

15. RFP Reference: Section L.27, Since the Non-significant Subcontractors' FBDL rates are included in the cost evaluation/competition of the GPM, does NASA intend to revise Attachment B to include a FBDL rate table for all subcontractors (Significant or non-Significant) or, alternatively, have a single NTE composite rate table for the entire Offeror team?

15. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

16. RFP References: Section L.27, Will NASA provide more information on the anticipated functions/responsibilities to be covered by the Offeror’s proposed estimated Management and Administrative direct labor hours?

16. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

17. RFP Reference: Section L.23, Does the 30-page limit apply to the prime Offeror and Significant Subcontractor’s combined response to both Paragraph (b)(1) Direct and Indirect Rate Substantiation and Paragraph (b)(7) GPM Basis of Estimates (BOE)?

17. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

18. RFP Reference: Section M.4, Will NASA consider/evaluate phase-in price as part of the Cost Evaluation or is it simply additional information to be provided to the Source Selection Authority?

18. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

19. RFP Reference: Enclosure G – Scenario 2, Scenario 2 requests the contractor to address SOW paragraph, 6.3 Review Board Participation.

However, Attachment A-SOW on page 18 shows paragraph 6.3 as Process Engineering.

19. The title should be used to develop the scope of the response. In this case “Review Board Participation” should be assumed not “Process Engineering.”

20. RFP Reference: Enclosure E, The Systems Safety Engineers are regular-exempt employees, while the LDE/PVS engineers are covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. As a result, the direct labor basis and indirect costs for employees in these two disciplines will be different. Can the Government provide additional clarification on how the hours in these labor categories should be split between the two disciplines so that offerors provide consistent cost estimates?

20. Enclosure D, Contract Historical Data Direct Labor Incumbent Rates, specifies the labor categories included in the union while Enclosure E Government Pricing Model – Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories, Direct Labor Hours, and Position Descriptions provides the hours for those labor categories.

21. RFP Reference: Enclosure D, The Government has listed two Senior

Systems Engineer Labor Categories, both at two different rates ($68.87 and $74.47). Will the Government please confirm if it was their intent to provide different rates for the same LCAT? Or can we assume that the first set of “Systems” Engineers are intended to be “Safety” Engineers as they were in the Draft RFP version of the document?

21. Amendment 1 will be issued to correct labor category titles in Enclosure D, Contract Historical Data Direct Labor Incumbent Rates.

22. RFP Reference: Section L.27(b)(3), Will the government please clarify if they meant the GPM estimated non-management direct labor hours provided for each labor category in Exhibit 1A (populated from Enclosure E) shall not be changed? Or will the Government please provide additional clarification as to what shall not be changed?

22. In Exhibit 1A, the Prime Offeror shall insert the GPM-Specified Non- Management Direct Labor Categories and respective Direct Labor Hours for each individual category from Enclosure E into the applicable site location tables within Exhibit 1A (i.e., Onsite and Offsite). The Exhibit 1A individual GPM-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Categories and respective Direct Labor Hours shall be populated from Enclosure E shall not be changed.

23. RFP Reference: Section L.23(a)(3); and Section L.27(a), Will the Government please confirm if the Direct Labor Rates shown in the Cost Volume should also be rounded to the closest dollar, or can Offerors present the Direct Labor Rates rounded to the nearest penny?

23. Only the final monetary extensions in the Cost Volume proposal should be expressed as the closest whole dollar amount, with cents omitted.

24. RFP Reference: Section L.23(b), Typically, the cost narrative information is not page limited. Will the Government please consider not limiting the Prime or Significant Subcontract(s) Offerors page count for the Cost/Price Narrative for the Direct and Indirect Rate substantiation portion of Volume

III?

24. See the response provided in the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) III e-Library. The response can be found within the Q&As posted on February 13, 2024.

25. RFP Reference: Enclosure D, Can the Government confirm that all incumbent “Safety” engineers are in the “Senior Safety Engineer” labor category?

25. No, various levels are provided with each category.

26. RFP Reference: Enclosure D, Will the government designate which engineers are included in the union?

26. Enclosure D, Contract Historical Data Direct Labor Incumbent Rates, specifies the labor categories included in the union.

27. RFP Reference: Enclosure F, Can the Government clarify the requirement to identify a Company Physician? Since this is a small business procurement, can Offerors identify a Human Resources representative to meet this requirement?

27. Enclosure F is a sample Safety and Health Plan provided to detail the contents of Safety and Health Plan. Offerors shall indicate if any of the standard contents of the Safety and Health Plan would not be applicable to this specific contract and provide an explanation for that determination. In detailing your specific company’s Assignment of Responsibilities for safety and health program implementation, offerors shall discuss how the requirements will be met.