Amend_3_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Amendment 3 Solicitation No. 80JSC018Q0024

Z 2.5 Hard Upper Torso Questions & Answers

11. NASA provided the following response to question/comment # 1 [Amendment 1]: “Yes, the contract is for commercial fabrication and delivery services. Firm Fixed Price IDIQ is the preferred method for Performance Based Contracts. The RFQ has been updated to provide clarification on the SOW.”

In accordance with NASA’s response, this is a “Firm Fixed Price IDIQ Performance Based Contract”. Based on the aforementioned, please note that the RFQ does not contain a “Performance Assessment Plan”, nor has it been provided to Offerors under a separate correspondence. This “Performance Assessment Plan” is essential to a Performance Based Type Contract, given that the “performance assessment plan describes how government personnel will evaluate and assess contractor performance. It is intended to be a “living” document that should be revised or modified as circumstances warrant. It is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for managing and ensuring that quality controls meet the terms of the contract. If the performance assessment plan is not incorporated into the contract, it should nevertheless be furnished to the contractor.” May we have a copy of the “Performance Assessment Plan” for this acquisition, in order to submit a compliant offer?

Answer: This acquisition is not a “Performance Based Acquisition” per FAR 37.6.

The intent of the aforementioned answer to Questions 1 & 3 was to clarify the use of FFP IDIQ versus Time & Materials (T&M). While the Government “may” use T&M contracting per FAR 12.207(b)(1), this acquisition does not meet the requirements of 16.601(c); therefore, per FAR 12.207(a) FFP was selected as the appropriate contract type. This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13. No “Performance Assessment Plan” is necessary to submit a compliant offer.

12. In accordance with Government Guidance on “Performance Based Contracts”, a quality control plan should be submitted as part of an Offeror’s proposal submission, and in many cases it is incorporated into the resultant contract. It should be noted that the “Quality Control Plan” is a plan developed by the contractor for its internal use to ensure that it performs and delivers high-quality service. Based on [COMPANY] ’s review of the Amended RFQ, we did not see a requirement to submit a “Quality Control Plan” with the proposal submission. Please note that a Offeror will require NASA’s “Performance Assessment Plan” in order to prepare a “Quality Control Plan” reflective of the “Performance Assessment Plan”. Does NASA expect each Offeror to submit the required “Quality Control Plan” with their Offer? If so, when will the NASA supplied “Performance Assessment Plan” be provided so an Offeror can prepare an adequate “Quality Control Plan”?

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13. No “Quality Control Plan” is required to be submitted with the offer.

13. In accordance with Government Guidance on “Performance Based Contracts”, “the key to performance-based acquisition is describing requirements in terms of measurable outcomes and not in terms of how to accomplish the requirement.” “The requirement should be described in a way that allows offerors to meet the requirement by applying alternative sets of resources. Offerors can then propose their best solutions for manpower requirements, in accordance with the described requirement. Once the offeror submits its proposal, the acquisition team will evaluate the offeror’s proposal, including manpower solutions, for best value.” Please note that the “Z-2.5 HUT Assembly – Statement of Work” delineates how to accomplish the requirement (e.g., fabricate and deliver the Hardware delineated in the Government Provided/Owned CAD files), as opposed to describing requirements in terms of measurable outcomes (i.e., Performance Based Contract requirements). Based on the aforementioned, the current “Z-2.5 HUT Assembly – Statement of Work” is essentially a “Build to Print” acquisition and not a “Performance Based” acquisition (i.e., lacks: (1) a Performance Work Statement; (2) requirements described in terms of measurable outcomes; (3) a “Performance Assessment Plan”; etc.) as delineated in NASA’s response to Question # 1. How does NASA intend on correcting this Acquisition discrepancy (e.g., this is not a Performance Based acquisition)?

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13.

14. Based on the aforementioned comments/questions, this acquisition is essentially a supply type RFQ (e.g., fabricate and deliver a Z-2.5 HUT Assembly in accordance with the NASA supplied CAD files). Furthermore, this RFQ incorporates Commercial Item clauses, which makes this a Commercial Item Acquisition and not a “commercial fabrication and delivery services” nor “Performance Based” acquisition. The “APPLICABLE COMMERCIAL CLAUSES”, state in part: “This order is for a commercial item subject to the terms and conditions of FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items (Jan 2017), incorporated by reference; FAR 52.212- 5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes and Executive Orders, Commercial Items (Jan 2018) attached to this order; and any additional terms and conditions checked below or included as a Center specific requirements as addenda to 52.212-4.” The definition of “Commercial item” (FAR 2.101), states in part that a Commercial Item is:

a. “(1) Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and--

(i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or,

(ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public;…”

b. Given that the requested item (e.g., Hard Upper Torso) does not meet the FAR definition of a “Commercial Item” and the SOW clearly stipulates that the design and corresponding CAD files are “Government Owned”; why is NASA including Commercial Clauses in this RFQ? If a Contractor submits an offer for a Z-2.5 HUT that does not meet the definition of a Commercial Item (i.e., it is a Non-commercial Item), can NASA legally issue the Offeror a Commercial Item Contract for a Non-Commercial Item?

Answer: The contract is for commercial fabrication and delivery services in accordance with FAR 2.101 Commercial Item (6).

15. NASA provided the following response to question/comment # 2 [Amendment 1]: “The

RFQ has been updated. It is anticipated the requirements for Task 2 may be issued multiple times during period of performance.”

Given that “the requirements for Task 2 may be issued multiple times during the period of performance” (e.g., not to exceed the maximum stipulated under the “IDIQ MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ORDERING LIMITS” clause); shouldn’t an Offeror be instructed to provide pricing for each year during the period of performance to properly address this five (5) year IDIQ?

Answer: The offeror may elect to propose pricing for each year during the period of performance to address this five (5) year IDIQ.

16. NASA provided the following response to question/comment # 4 [Amendment

1]: “Providing the bearings as GFM is overly complex for this commercial procurement. These bearings may be available commercially.”

[COMPANY] has conducted some preliminary market research to determine the commercial availability of P/N 10459-01 and P/N 10444-01. Based on the results of this Market Research we have not been able to locate a supplier that offers these items commercially. Assuming we can identify a supplier that provides these P/N’s commercially, how does an Offeror guarantee that these P/N’s meet NASA intended configuration for these Parts without the Drawings as the controlling document? In other words, what prevents an Offeror from purchasing any products, with these same P/N’s?

Answer: These parts contained technology developed under NASA SBIR Contract Number NNX16CJ09C. Items delivered under this solicitation must meet the quality standards in the SOW.

17. In accordance with the applicable Fedbizopps Notification, it states that: “Drawings are available upon request to the listed Point of Contacts.”

Based on [COMPANY] email dated June 22nd, 2018, [COMPANY] made the following request: “NOTE: This EMAIL serves as [COMPANY] Dover’s notification of our intent to submit an offer under this RFQ and our formal request for the Drawings noted under the applicable Fedbizopps Notification. Please note that NASA has not provided [Company] with these requested Drawings, as specified under the applicable Fedbizopps Notification. When can we expect the Drawings? Assuming that the earliest we can obtain these Drawings is June 26th, 2018 (due date for proposal submissions), [Company] is hereby formally requesting that NASA extend the due date for submission of offers to July 13th, 2018 in order to allow Offerors to receive and evaluate the NASA supplied Drawings and to provide NASA with time to evaluate and correct/address the noted ambiguities with the RFQ.

Answer: Drawings have been sent to offerors requesting the files. Drawing files are identical to the files provided with the cancelled solicitation 80JSC018Q0023. This solicitation [80JSC018Q0024] has been extended to June 28, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. (CT).