Offeror Questions and Government Responses for Coronagraph RFP - F.pdf

Offeror Questions and Government Responses for Coronagraph RFP

1. Question: During development, will the Govt person who evaluates EV and IPMDAR be from

NASA or from NOAA? These two orgs have different requirements and approaches. We need this information to better budget the costs for this effort.

Response: The evaluator will be from NASA, since this is a NASA procurement.

2. Question: The NGCOR proposal team at the Applied Physics Laboratory is requesting a three-week extension for the submission due date from 22 April to 13 May.

The reason for our request is two-fold:

1. We have key proposal preparation personnel supporting other NASA proposals through April.

2. We have critical personnel that are out related to long standing vacation plans related to the

Eclipse.

Response: The proposal due date remains unchanged Proposals are due April 22, 2024.

3. Questions -Are there cost exhibits provided that match the descriptions in the Space Weather

Next L1 Series Coronagraph RFP? Looking at what’s provided, it’s a single spreadsheet not consistent with the RFP or other instrument RFPs.

Response: Yes, the updated cost exhibits were posted to www.sam.gov as part of Amendment

#2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

4. Question: The Cost Exhibits appear to be missing pages. Could you please provide the Exhibit pages that are missing?

Response: Yes, the updated cost exhibits were posted to www.sam.gov as part of Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

5. Question: In some sections of the RFP, the Safety & Health Plan is required to be included in the proposal (page J-1). In other sections (page B-4), it is required to be delivered 30 days after contract award. Please clarify the due date.

Response: The Safety and Health Plan is required 30 days after contract award.

6. Question: A significant subcontract is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed a total cost/fee of $17 in section L and $17M in Section M. Please confirm that the total significant subcontractor cost/fee is $17M, not $17.

Response: Yes, you are correct the correct cost for the significant subcontractor cost/fee is $17M.

7. Question: The SOW states (section 6.2, para 3) that we need to build up spares for at least one flight spare instrument, but tables 3,4, and 5 call out spares for each flight instrument. Are we to propose the spares quantity, or are we still to deliver 3+ complete kits?

Response: The contractor should propose a sparing philosophy for the three instruments that balances project risk and cost.

8. Question: We are directed to supply 500 hrs. of on-site data analysis during environmental testing - is that per instrument?

Response: Per instrument is correct.

9. Question: Is the small business utilization section (1.15) the same as Small Business

Subcontracting and should 1.15 not be included in 50p. of Vol II?

Response: The submission of the subcontracting plan required under GSFC 52.215-201

PROPOSAL PREPARATION—GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL

DELIVERY) (APR 2022) is directly correlated to 1.15 and is excluded from the page limitations for Vol. II.

10. Question: As above, is this the same as Item 1.14, quality assurance plan

Response: The Quality assurance plan is excluded from the Vol. II page limitation.

11. The RFP states that for the purposes of past performance significant subcontractors are any subcontractor with a contact value of more than $17. This appears to be a typo and should read

$17M. Is this correct?

Response: Yes, that is correct it should read $17M. This has been updated via Amendment 3.

12. The RFP references cost exhibits that will be provided. The cost exhibits provided in the released documentation only provide one cost exhibit (2B) while several others are referenced in the RFP.

Can all the cost exhibits referenced in the RFP be provided?

Response: See response to questions 2 and 3.

13. Question: The cover letter states that the contract award date is October 2024 with a TBD contract effective date. The RFP states that the period of performance is the contract effective date through 15 months post-launch of second flight. Between these two statements there is no clear start date to the POP. Would like to confirm that the period of performance for this contract is October 1, 2024 - January 31, 2034.

Response: The anticipated period of performance and the contract effective date are both

October 1, 2024. The anticipated award date is late September 2024.

14. In the RFP on page L-22 (new RFP p. L-23) there is a paragraph that details the requirements for

Significant Subcontractors or JV Partners. Embedded in that paragraph is a fragment of a statement that reads "A proposed Significant Subcontractor or JV partner shall complete

Exhibits...and provide the supporting information that is requested from the Prime Offeror or JV

Entity the Prime Offeror or JV Entity must complete a cost or price analysis on all subcontracts and provide explanation of the analysis in the Basis of Estimate (BOE)". We are interpreting the underlined phrase to read "all significant subcontracts" based on the antecedent text.

Response: This was corrected via Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

15. The new RFP references cost exhibits 13A and 13B that non-significant service subcontractors must fill out. These cost exhibits are not provided. Is this an intended addition, and if so, can they be provided?

Response: The cost exhibit information has been updated but for further clarification see responses to Questions 2 & 3.

16. Given the uncertainty of the final orbital placement, please define Rsun in angular units for the purposes of this proposal.

Response: For the proposals, the offerors can assume:

1 Rsun (solar radius) for GEO orbits (Earth) = 16 arcmins

1 Rsun at Sun-Earth L1 point = 16.1 arcmin

17. Question: Please confirm that RFP section (14) PRODUCTIVE WORK YEAR

CALCULATIONS on RFP pg. L-28 is referring to Exhibit 12 provided in the Excel exhibits, and not Exhibit 18.

Response: The RFP has been amended and posted to www.sam.gov and the correct cost exhibits have been posted to www.sam.gov under Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

18. Please confirm that RFP section (19) SPECIAL STUDIES INFORMATION RFP on RFP pg. L-

29 is referring to Exhibit 16 provided in the Excel attachment, and not Exhibit 11.

Response: The RFP has been amended and posted to www.sam.gov. The cost exhibits have been updated and posted to www.sam.gov. The exhibit in question for the Special Studies should be

Exhibit 11.

19. Question: Please confirm that RFP section (16) SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

PLAN GOALS on RFP pg. L-28 is referring to exhibits 15A, 15B, 15C. Which of these need to be filled out? Only Exhibit 15A or all of them?

Response: The revised RFP and the updated cost exhibits has been posted www.sam.gov as part of Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009. Please visit the website to obtain the correct information from the RFP.

20. Question: Please confirm that non-significant service subcontractors must complete 13A and

13B (Fringe Benefits – Total Compensation Plan, Exempt/Non-Exempt) referenced on RFP pg.

L-23.

Response: The RFP has been updated with instructions for the cost exhibits and the correct cost exhibits has been posted to www.sam.gov as part of Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

21. Question: The excel version of Exhibit 1 appears to be relevant only to the Prime Contractor, yet the instructions in Section L indicate that Significant Subcontractors are also required to submit

Exhibit 1. Please clarify.

Response: The prime contractor and the significant subcontractors are required to submit Exhibit

1 information.

22. Question: Exhibits 2C, 2D, 4, 5, 10, 10A, 11, 12, 13A, 13B, 15B, 15C, and 16 are not described in Section L of the RFP. Please determine if these exhibits are required. If they are required, please provide an explanation of the required contents of these exhibits.

Response: The RFP was revised and the updated RFP lists the appropriate exhibits with instructions. Both the updated RFP and the updated cost exhibits has been posted to www.sam.gov as part of Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

23. Question: Exhibit 18 is requested in Section L, but no exhibit format is provided. Please provide the exhibit format if it is required.

Response: Please see Response to previous question.

24. Question: Exhibits 13A and 13B are required for all non-Significant service subcontractors meeting the definition of paragraph (d) of NFS provision 1852.231-71, Determination of

Compensation Reasonableness. As of Feb 23, 2024, per https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/24/2024-01124/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-nfs-removal-of-total-compensation-plan-language-nfs NFS 1852.231-71 was determined by NASA to be unnecessary as it exceeds the scope requirements adequately covered in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222–46. Recommend elimination of requirement for Exhibits 13A and 13B.

Response: The correct cost exhibits were posted at the government point of entry on www.sam.gov as part of Amendment #2 to RFP 80GSFC24R0009.

25. Question: The due date for the Past Performance Questionnaires is different in different sections of the RFP. The instructions in Section L state that the questionnaires should be submitted “no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in Block 9 of the SF 33”. Although

Block 9 of the SF 33 is not filled in, the due date for the proposals, per Sam.gov is April 22, 2024, not March 26, 2024, as stated in the Cover Letter and on the Questionnaire itself. Please extend the due date for Past Performance Questionnaires to the closing date, April 22, 2024, to allow time for customers to complete their past performance evaluations.

Response: The cover letter was updated to state that Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted on or before the proposal due date, April 22, 2024.