SpectRE DRAFT RFP Q_A-12.23.19-SET 2.pdf

SOLICITATION 80HQTR20R0011_SpectRE_dRFP Questions SET 2 updated: 12.23.19

Proposal Content and Page Limitations listed on page 82 indicates Basis of Estimates will be 10 pages per Work Breakdown Structure Level Section L.14 Page 100 only requires Program Management and Administrative Support Basis of Estimates, how subcontracts were estimated and how determined reasonable, and for any significant subcontract that has a potential estimated value in excess of the threshold stated in Section (a) instructions, BOEs must be provided by that significant subcontract following the specified format and to comply with the BOE page limitations set forth in the “Proposal Preparation—General Instructions” provision of this RFP.” The BOEs required per Section L.14(b) (7) may not follow the Work Breakdown Structure since they are not BOEs for the Technical Solution.Are these the only BOEs required to be provided within the 10-page per WBS Level Page Limitations or are there additional BOEs required for the Technical proposal (Subfactor A or Subfactor B) that have to follow the WBS?

The page limitation cited in L.10 based on “Work Breakdown Structure Level” is an error. The final RFP will correct this error and revise the page limitation to 25 total pages for the Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors (page limitation is for the total component (Prime and Significant Subcontractors)). Sec. L.10

(b) (1) Pg. 82

Will the government continue to purchase and provide contractors with updated equipment? Is this equipment listed on Attachment D supporting both onsite and offsite staff?

Provisioning of the initial Government furnished equipment for on-site staff, and the subsequent updating is according to the NASA IT Asset Management policies and equipment refresh schedule. This function is manged by the NASA CIO. The Government Furnished Property list is for off-site staff and the Installation Accountable Government Property is for the on-site performance.

Att. D

DRFP H.2 (2) states that “[t]he Contractor may be required to perform technical reviews or provide engineering consultation services on its own proposal/quotations, products, or services.” Given that this H.2. clause was not included in the previous contract solicitation:

i. Can the Government please identify the PWS areas where the awardee may be required to perform technical reviews/engineering consultation services?

ii. Can the Government please identify the NASA contracts and/or programs where the Contractor may be required to perform technical reviews/engineering consultation services?

All Offerors are required to perform their own OCI assessment and generate an OCI Plan as described in L.8 in addition to complying with the Limitation of Future Contracting clause.

With respect to H.2, NASA has identified the engineering task(s) in SOW Section III, G, as requiring technical reviews/engineering consultation services. The performance of SpectRE will require technical reviews/engineering consultation services on work performed by the SENSE contractor at GSFC, contractors supporting GRC, and the JPL subcontractors supporting the DSN.

Sec. H.2 (2)

Cover Letter and SpectRE eLibrary indicate proposals will be due in 30 days after Final RFP is posted. Given the Holiday Season and the minimal proposal support staff capacity available to Small Businesses, will the government please consider proposal due in 45 days after Final RFP is posted?

The Government will consider extending proposals if I is deemed necessary.

The caption below the table states, "*Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually." Will the government please clarify which item in the table should include this reference?

Please see the answer to question 1.

Sec. L Pg 82

Paragraph 1 includes a reference to government acceptance or approval of the offeror's business systems. It is not common for small businesses under the $16.5M NAICS to have received a review of any of the systems listed. Will the government please confirm that acceptance/approval of the systems is not a requirement for award?

Please see the answer to question 7 in Q&A Set 1.

Sec.L , Pg 84, p L.11(C)(

1)

Draft RFP Section L.14 (a), page 91, indicates a requirement for prime offerors to have an accounting system that has been determined adequate by the cognizant administrative office. Many small businesses under the $16.5M NAICS have not had their accounting system reviewed by a government agency, and this requirement would be a barrier to entry. Would an SF 1408 (Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System) provided by an independent accounting firm be acceptable as evidence of an adequate accounting system?

Please see the answer to question 7 in Q&A Set 1.

Sec. L Pg 84 p(1)

The legend for the table on page 82 includes “*Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually.” There is no single asterisk (*) referenced in the table. Please advise how this legend applies to the information in the table.

Please see the answer to question 1.

Sec. L.10

(b) (1) Pg. 82