SMAEC_II-RFP-Amendment_1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

PAGE OF PAGES

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

FACILITY CODECODE

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and Zip Code)

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15A NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is not

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) is extended, copies to issuing office.

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

1 506

NASA

Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway Houston TX 77058-3696

NASA

Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway Houston TX 77058-3696

X

80JSC018R0006

01/18/2018

X

See Continuation Sheet If Applicable date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

CHECK ONE

(X) extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

X

The purpose of Amendment 1 is to post Question and Answers (part 1 of 2) to the Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract II (SMAEC II) posting on the Federal Business Opportunities website and revise the Request for Proposal issued on January 18th, 2018.

In addition to the Questions and Answers, a change log and a revised RFP (with change bars) are included in this Amendment.

The SMAEC II proposal due date has been extended from February 22, 2018 to March 1, 2018. It has been determined that it is not in the Government's best interest to extend the deadline for questions. All questions were due by January 31, 2018.

No.

RFP Reference RFP Issue

Description/Question/Recommendation Response

SMAEC II website Can the Government please explain how its "only meeting with SMA management" conforms to the stated goals in NASA's Vendor Communication Plan which represents NASA’s commitment to promote increased dialog and exchanges of information with the vendor community.

Furthermore, will the Government please explain how this allows a fair competition among challengers to a 20-year incumbent with unfettered access to the customer?

NASA’s Vendor Communication Plan informs industry of NASA’s commitment to promoting increased dialogue and exchanges of information through several techniques as listed in FAR

15.201. The SMAEC II team has used several techniques to promote dialogue with industry including allowing industry to meet with NA Management. Other techniques include, the release of a Request for Information (RFI), and a Requirements Request for Information (RRFI).

Both of which requested innovative and cost effective ways for the overall procurement strategy for SMAEC II. Industry Day was also held and One on One meetings with the Procurement Development Team (PDT), and site tours were offered. A Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was released in which industry was given the opportunity to provide input on unique capabilities and innovative approaches to performing the SMAEC II requirements.

Feedback was also requested on the SMAEC II Statement of Work (SOW) and all related Data Requirement Documents (DRDs). All SMAEC II specific information necessary for the preparation of proposals has been disclosed and made available to the public to avoid creating an unfair competitive advantage.

The SMAEC II procurement website also provided potential Offerors with the continuous ability to direct questions to the Government in both a direct and anonymous way. The Government provides responses to questions received from industry so as to be as transparent as possible.

SMAEC II website Will the SMAEC II contractor be required to provide laptop/workstations? Will GFE laptop/workstations be provided for off site contractor personnel?

Pursuant to Section G clause, 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, workstations will be provided for onsite personnel. The Contractor shall be expected to provide all required workstations for offsite personnel.

Section L, Table L-2, pg. 365;

Section J, DRD-S2-002, Work Breakdown Structure and Dictionary, pg. 154

Please clarify that submission of DRD-S2-002 is not required with the proposal. If required, please confirm it is outside the page limits for Volume I.

DRD-S2-002 will be due during Contract Phase-In. The DRL will be updated to reflect this change in an RFP amendment.

Section L, Table L-2, page 365;

Note 3 to Table L-2, page 366

Please clarify: what page limit, if any, applies to resumes of Key Personnel in Volume I?

The qualifications of Key Personnel are required, but not necessary to be in resume format.

This falls within the 175 page limit for Volume I.

SMAEC II - RFP Questions and Answers - Part 1

Attachment J-2, DRD-S2-014, RFP page 191, and SMAEC_II_Cost_Price- Template

DRD-S2-014, paragraph 8.B, specifies Compensation Templates (a) through (d) be submitted as part of the Cost/Price volume of the SMAEC II proposal. However, the SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template includes only two compensation templates at Tabs TC(a) and TC(b).

Please confirm that these two compensation templates in the Cost Price Template are the only templates required for submission with the proposal.

DRD-S2-014 has been updated. Prime team members and all subcontractors that meet the criteria in NFS 1852.231-71(d) must submit the IRAP and TC(a) and (b) templates with their proposal.

3.8 SOW; page 46 For paragraph a, please clarify the scope. Does this include government and contractor or just contractor?

The SMAEC II contractor shall maintain training records and certifications for civil servants and contractor personnel. This clarification will be incorporated in an RFP amendment.

DRD-S2-008; Table 1 – Safety and Health Deliverables Inspection results entered in Building

Does this statement refer to the Building Inspection Tracking System (BITS)? Recommend the sentence be completed as follows: Inspection results entered in Building Inspection Tracking System (BITS)

Yes, this statement refers to BITS. The formatting correction to Safety and Health Plan Table 1 will be incorporated in an RFP amendment.

DRD-S2-008; Page 173;

Table 1 – Safety and Health Deliverables; Lessons Learned Report

The sentence is not complete and does not indicate before the end of what. In other JSC RFPs, the wording used was, “30 days before end of contact evaluation period or 45 before end of contract, whichever is applicable.” Recommend that the above wording be added to this section of Table 1.

This correction will be incorporated in an RFP amendment.

L.2, Table L-2, Page 365; and DRD-S2-022, page 210

Table L-2 limits Volume 1 Mission Suitability to 175 pages, a reduction from 200 pages allocated in the DRFP. One of the most space-intensive proposal deliverables is the SCSP, which includes job descriptions and qualifications by proposed skill levels, mapping to Government SLCs, and staffing for all contract years. To enable offerors to provide sufficient detail, recommend the Government exclude the job descriptions and qualifications by proposed skill levels, mapping to Government SLCs, and staffing for all contract years from the page limitations.

The Volume 1 Mission Suitability page count will not be increased. The Government has eliminated the requirement for submittal of DRD-S2-002, WBS and Dictionary with proposal submission. Furthermore, the DRD-S2-022, Staffing and Critical Skills Plan (SCSP) requirement for job descriptions and qualifications by proposed skill levels has been modified to reflect the following:

"The Contractor shall provide their SLC in a table format similar to the Government-provided SLCs listing in Attachment J-7. The table shall be an attachment to DRD-S2-022 titled 'Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels.' The DRD-S2-022 attachment 'Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels' shall be excluded from page limitations."

L.6, Responsibility Considerations, (b), Cost Accounting Standards, page

The RFP currently has a 30 page limit for Volume IV. Our disclosure statement is approximately 500 pages. Please confirm that the Government wants a copy of the entire disclosure statement and if so, please exclude the disclosure statement from page limits for Volume IV. Alternatively, will a letter from DCMA affirming the offeror has an approved disclosure statement be sufficient?

The RFP will be amended to reflect that The Contracting Officer will request the CAS Disclosure Statement from all Offerors in the competitive range, only from the apparent successful Offeror, or from Offerors as deemed necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision.

Offeror(s) will be notified by the Contracting Officer of this requirement, with an anticipated 10 days allowed for submittal.

L.6, Responsibility Considerations, (d), Government Property Management Plan, page 407

Please confirm that the Government Property Management Plan is not included in initial proposal submission.

That is correct. The DRL specifies that initial submittal for DRD-S2-007 shall be before Contract award, per CO letter. Section L.6.d states ”The Contracting Officer will request a Government Property Management Plan (DRD-S2-007) from all Offerors in the competitive range, only from the apparent successful Offeror, or from Offerors as deemed necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision. Offeror(s) will be notified by the Contracting Officer of this requirement, with an anticipated 10 days allowed for submittal.

L.6, Responsibility Considerations, (c), Organizational Conflict of Interest Information, page 406

Request that the OCI Mitigation Plan be excluded from page count restrictions for Volume IV in order to provide all required information. If the OCI Mitigation Plan cannot be excluded from page count, request that the page limit be increased to 50 pages.

The OCI Mitigation Plan will not be excluded from page count restrictions for Volume IV. The Government has excluded other Responsibility requirements from the page limit. Therefore, the page count restrictions for Volume IV will remain at 30 pages.

L, Table L-2, page 365; Note 3 to Table L-2, page 366; L.4(a),

pg. 380; L.4(c), pg. 381; and M.3, pp. 468 and 470.

Please clarify:

1) What is the difference, if any, between the proposed Program Manager’s resume that is to be included in Vol II and the proposed Program Manager’s past performance information that is also to be included in Vol II?

2) Please confirm the proposed Program Manager resume and/or past performance information is not limited to the same recency limitation as the contract references (last 5 years)?

The Program Manager's resume may serve as the past performance submittal for the Program Manager. An Offeror may, in addition, choose to address the Program Manager's past performance in the Past Performance narrative. The 5 year recency limitation applies to Offeror past performance and not to the proposed Program Manager's past performance.

That is correct. The Program Manager's resume has no recency limitation.

L.4(b), pg. 380; M.3, pg. 468;

and Attachment L-8 PPQ, pg.

455.

Please confirm that the PPQ instructions under the header “Past Performance Evaluation” on page 455 should be changed to state, “It is very important to keep in mind that only performance in the past 5 years is relevant.”

This correction will be incorporated in an RFP amendment.

L.3.1 (page 369) and L.3.2 (page 375)

TA.2 for the Sample Task Orders on page 372 states they are potentially awardable. Please confirm that the management and technical core requirements are anticipated to be awarded as proposed.

Yes, management and technical core requirements will be awarded as proposed.

L.2, Table L-2, page 365 and 366; L.3.1.TA.1(b), page 371;

L.3.1.TA.2(b), page 373

Please clarify that the TRST must be submitted only with Volume III and not required in Volume I.

In accordance with Note 1 under Table L-2, TRSTs shall only be provided in Volume III, Cost and Price. The TRST instructions will be clarified in an RFP amendment.

SMAEC_II_Cost_Price- Template IRAP Tab

Please confirm the respective rates cited.

Ordinarily a Specialist 3 rate would be higher, not lower, than a Specialist 2 rate.

The QA Specialist 2 and 3 rates have been corrected in the IRAP template.

Section L.3.1, p. 369, 370;

TA.2(a), p. 372

Please confirm that Section M.2.1, TA.1 also include the term “core” consistent with L.3.1 and

DRD-S2-009.

Please note that the final RFP delineates 'Core' and 'IDIQ' Technical Innovations with respect to

DRD-S2-009.

Section M.2.1, TA.1, TA.2, pg.

465; DRD-S2-009, para C, pg.

Please confirm that Section M.2.1, TA.2 also include the term “IDIQ” consistent with L.3.1 and

DRD-009.

The terms 'Core' and 'IDIQ' will be added to the titles.

L-1-1, 1-S2TO-MPCV, page 441; L-1-3, 3-S2TO-EVA, page

Per the SOW, page 22, the government identified three types of tasking categorizations, one as Core, and two under IDIQ (performance based Task Orders and LOE Task Orders). Completion Form as an ordering type is not described or defined in the RFP. Are these a type of performance based TOs, and if so what other types are there?

Work on the SMAEC II contract will be either CORE or IDIQ. IDIQ requirements will either be Performance-based or Level of Effort (LOE). The definition of ‘performance based’ is as defined in FAR 2.101: “Performance-based acquisition (PBA)” means an acquisition structured around the results to be achieved as opposed to the manner by which the work is to be performed.

The acceptance criteria will be as outlined in the Fee Distribution and Surveillance plans and as detailed in each task order. The Sample Task Orders will be modified to reflect 'Performance- Based'.

C, SOW, page 22 Could the government please provide a definition of what is encompassed in a performance based task order, and what the performance acceptance criteria are?

Work on the SMAEC II contract will be either CORE or IDIQ. IDIQ requirements will either be Performance-based or Level of Effort (LOE). The definition of ‘performance based’ is as defined in FAR 2.101: “Performance-based acquisition (PBA)” means an acquisition structured around the results to be achieved as opposed to the manner by which the work is to be performed.

The acceptance criteria will be as outlined in the Fee Distribution and Surveillance plans and as detailed in each task order. Sample Task Orders 1-S2TO-MPCV and 3-S2TO-EVA will be modified to reflect 'Performance-Based'.

L.2, page 367 Please confirm that offerors may use a font type other than Arial for diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs (e.g., Arial Narrow).

No, Offerors may not use a font type other than Arial 12 for diagrams, charts, and tables. The RFP will be amended to reflect the following: Headers, footers, corporate logos, artwork, and photographs will not be evaluated, and are not subject to the font type, font size, or margin requirements of the page limited sections.

Section F, Place of Performance-Services pg. 55

Please clarify how many seats are available at each US Government facility.

It is anticipated that 58 onsite seats will be made available at JSC for the SMAEC II workforce.

For all sites other than JSC, onsite seats will be made available for all SMAEC II contractor support. It is anticipated that 5 onsite seats will be made available for Core requirements at WSTF. In accordance with Section G Clause, 'Installation Accountable Government Property,' office furniture and workstations will be provided for onsite contractor personnel.

Section L, Fully Burdened Rates Template (FBR) pages 397-398

Please clarify if Offeror is to bid Government site or Contractor site locations or both.

See response to Question 23.

Section L-2 (f), Page 368 Given that MS Office 2013 is compatible with MS Office 2016, would the Government accept the use of MS Office 2013.

The Government will use Microsoft Office 2016 for ensuring compliance with all margin, font type, size and page count requirements stated in the RFP.

Section L.2, Table L-2 and Section J, page 154

Please confirm if WBS and Dictionary (DRD-S2-002) is due with the proposal. If so please specify where it should be included in the Mission Suitability Volume and whether it falls within the 175 page limit.

DRD-S2-002 is no longer a required submittal with proposals. The RFP will be amended to reflect "due during Contract Phase-In."

Section L.4 (a) Do these contracts require Past Performance Questionnaires to be submitted? Please confirm that these additional four contracts will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.3.

Yes. Offerors should send out Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) for their four additional contracts. The PPQ received will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.3

Section L.4 (e) Please confirm that this additional reference information will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.3

Yes, the additional reference information will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.3.

Section J, DRD-S2-001, page

Section G. page 62

Section L, page 447

Please define the amount of office space, workspace and office furniture provided onsite at JSC, MSFC, KSC, GRC and WSTF for SMAEC II employees.

See response to Question 23.

Section L.5 (C), page 385

Section L.5, COST TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS, 2(d), page 399

The Sample Task Orders (STO) specify a period of performance of CY1 only (10/01/2018 – 9/30/2019). Should we assume the STOs’ scope of work and deliverables would be the same in CY2 through CY5?

The Sample Task Orders will be revised in an RFP amendment to reflect two, 1-year POPs. CY2 proposed resources will be straight-lined through CY5.

Section L, (b) Basis of Estimate (BOE) , (1) Technical Resources Summary Templates (TRST)

Will the Government clarify whether the TRTs are also required to be submitted and if so, clarify if the TRTs and the TRSTs are part of page count.

The Technical Resources Summary Template and Technical Resources Template are to be submitted as part of Volume III and the data will be evaluated as part of both Volume I and III.

These templates are not subject to page limitations.

Section L, Technical Template Instructions, The Technical Resources Summary Template

Will the Government clarify this discrepancy between the 2-year costing requirement in the TRST and the 1-year PoP of the Sample TOs?

See response to Question 30.

33 Section C, page 25 item G 1. states “If provided a NASA workstation….”? See response to Question 23.

Attachment J-4, WBS/SOW Mapping

Will the Government replace Figure 1 with a version populated with text labels?

Figure 1 will be updated to show text.

Section L.3.1, Technical Approach (TA) – Mission Suitability Subfactor 1, TA.2 Sample Task Orders Resources

Will the Government clarify whether the reference to a paragraph (c) is in error or if the paragraph was mistakenly excluded from the RFP?

The RFP will be amended to delete the reference to paragraph c).

Section J, DRD-S2-022, C (2) Please clarify what is meant by “staffing of the organizational structure”. Are we to provide staffing numbers and SLCs for our management organization only or for the full contract? If for the full contract, is this defined as the Core scope, STOs, and/or GRE for entire contract (Table 2 of Attachment L-4)?

Line C (2) will be deleted from the Staffing and Critical Skills Plan DRD requirement.

Section J, DRD-S2-014, C (3)

Section J, DRD-S2-014, C (5):

Company policy information and compensation survey data along with other required DRD information will not fit within the 15 page allocation for the Total Compensation Plan. Will the Government allow company policy information and compensation survey data to be provided as attachments that are not included in the 15 page limit?

The Total Compensation Plan will be updated in an RFP Amendment to clarify that the policy for uncompensated overtime is not subject to the page limitations.

Section L.5, Technical Template Instructions (b), The Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST IDIQ) (1.), The column appears to be missing, or is this reference in error?

The reference to the column entitled “Incumbent Retention %” in the TRST-IDIQ template instructions has been deleted from Section L.5.

1. Section L.5, Technical Template Instructions (c), the Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST SOW 1.0 Contract Management), Page 391.

This template appears to be missing with this title reference, should this worksheet be referenced as “TRST Core Technical and MGT”?

The section titled TRST-SOW 1.0 will be updated to reflect Core Technical and Management.

Section B, Fully Burdened Rate Table for Pricing Cost- Reimbursement, IDIQ and LOE Task Orders and Core Requirements, Table B-1, Base Period Fully Burdened Rate Table, Page 16/17.

Based on the anticipated FTE’s located in NM, does the Government require pricing NM tax, or only to provide the % by CY?

A row will be added to the PCST for Offerors to input their estimated New Mexico Gross Receipt Tax.

FRFP Section C, paragraph 4.0, Core Deliverables

Will the Government clarify which DRD Deliverables are related to SOW Sections 3.5 and 3.7?

Core deliverable line item 1 list has been corrected to reference SOW section 1.0 only. This correction will be incorporated in an RFP amendment.

FRFP Section C, paragraph 4.0, Core Deliverables

We cannot locate a SOW element numbered

3.8.1.1. Should this be “3.7.1.1 (C)”?

Core deliverable line item 3 has been corrected to “3.7.1.1 (C)”. This correction will be incorporated in an RFP amendment.

L.2, Table L-2, DRD-S2-002, and Pre-Proposal Conference slide #27

In the pre-proposal conference, it was stated that the WBS and Dictionary (DRD-S2-002) would be included in the proposal submission. The pre-proposal conference slides did not indicate in which volume the WBS and Dictionary should be included. Since offerors have already planned their proposals to the 175 page limit of Volume I without including the WBS and Dictionary, please confirm that, if the WBS and Dictionary are to be included in Volume I, that they are outside the Volume I page limit, or if not included in Volume I, in which Volume the WBS and Dictionary should be included.

See response to Question 3.

Prepoposal Conference Table L-2 mentions 'Subcontractor Arrangement' under IV, Responsibility Considerations. However, there isn't a section titled Subcontractor Arrangement under Responsibility instructions.

What does the Government expect as a response?

Subcontractor Arrangement will be deleted from Table L-2. The requirements are met by the Subcontractor Listing requirements.

Prepoposal Conference Please confirm whether IT Security Plan and WBS and Dictionary are due with the proposals. See pg 27-28.

DRD-S2-002 is no longer a required submittal with proposals. Amendment 1 will reflect due at the beginning of Contract Phase-In. In accordance with the DRL, the IT Security Plan is due 15 days prior to the end of the Contract Phase-In.

Prepoposal Conference Are onsite seats available for SMAEC II contractor workforce? If so, how many?

See response to Question 23.

Prepoposal Conference Page 34, Does the four additional past performance contracts require Past Performance Questionnaires?

See response to Question 27.

Prepoposal Conference Chart 28 indicates that DRD-S2-013, IT Security Plan, must be submitted with the proposal.

However, the RFP doesn't appear to require it.

Please confirm that DRD-S2-013 is not required with the proposal.

In accordance with the RFP, DRD-S2-013 IT Security Plan, will only be required of the apparent successful Offeror and is due 15 days prior to the end of the Phase-In period.

Prepoposal Conference Could you please clarify the total Small Business Goals of 30% and how the socioeconomic categories of SB relate to the 30% goal? (i.e., the 10% WOSB goal--is that 10% of the 30% SB or 10% of the total contract value?

All categories of Small Business goals are calculated as a percentage of total contract value.

See Attachment L-5, Small Business Subcontracting Tables for further clarification.

Prepoposal Conference The Cost commitment target is based on RITF TO values; does this mean that only RITF external customer projects can count toward fulfilling the target? Or, can any external customer project related to any SMA capabilities count toward reaching our targets?

Only RITF work counts towards the target goals. However, all external customer efforts will be considered during Award Fee evaluations.

Prepoposal Conference Our legal review indicated that Executive Order 13706 sick leave applies to both exempt and non-exempt employees. Can the Government confirm applicability to only non-exempt employees?

Upon further review, Executive Order 13706 “Sick Leave” applies to both exempt and non-exempt employees that perform work under contracts that are governed by the Service Contract Labor Standards, the Wage Rate Requirements statute, or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prepoposal Conference How will the Government evaluate the IRAP if not

100%?

Based on the IRAP template's 'Data Source Used By Offeror' and 'Usage %,' the total proposed mix of incumbent and non-incumbent hires will equal 100%.

Prepoposal Conference When does a less-than 100% IRAP trigger an impact to Mission Suitability or trigger a 'should cost'? 80% or 70%?

There is no specific IRAP percentage that would trigger a cost adjustment. Each Offeror's proposed approach to staffing will be evaluated in light of that Offeror's unique approach to performing SMAEC II requirements. The Offeror is also notified that a lack of resource realism may adversely affect their Mission Suitability score and result in cost realism adjustments under the Cost and Price factor.

Prepoposal Conference Please confirm that IRAP is required for minor subcontractors.

IRAP is required for any contractor or subcontractor that meets the $750,000 total potential value. Please see DRD-S2-014, Total Compensation Plan, for details.

Prepoposal Conference Since the Government is looking for 1 set of Fully Burdened Rates per Standard Labor Category (not a set of on-site FBRs and offsite FBRs), what is the mechanism to re-price the single set of FBRs over the 5 year period as the staffing changes over time? Will the Government establish a bandwidth to trigger a contract change?

The RFP will be amended to add a row titled 'Offsite Facility Burden Rate' to the Fully Burdened Rate (FBR) Cost template and to Table B-1, Fully Burdened Rate Table in Section B, and added instructions to L.5 IDIQ Template instructions.

Prepoposal Conference In the Total Compensation (a) worksheet, how do we separate sick leave, vacation, etc. if a firm just provides a single paid time off (PTO) benefit for leave? We don't separate the leave categories.

If a firm chooses to provide a single paid time off benefit (which includes sick leave, vacation, etc. ), the firm must notate such in its Total Compensation Plan and in Total Compensation (a) worksheet. The firm should also ensure that there is enough leave to cover the sick leave requirements in accordance with Executive Order 13706.

For non-exempt employees, the firm must ensure there is enough leave to cover the sick leave requirements and any vacation leave in accordance with the wage determination.

Prepoposal Conference Which cost templates can an Offeror modify, and which ones cannot be modified?

An Offeror may add rows or columns; however, do not delete any rows or columns provided in the template.

Prepoposal Conference Nowhere in Model TO distinguishes between rates at different localities?

Offerors may propose Fully Burdened Rates (FBRs) to reflect their proposed approach to accomplishing SMAEC II requirements. The majority of SMAEC II requirements are anticipated to be performed at JSC. The Government Resource Estimate (GRE) is provided in Attachment L- 4 and the Sample Task Orders.

Prepoposal Conference Does paid sick leave in TC(a) only apply to non-exempt personnel?

In accordance with Executive Order 13706, paid sick leave applies to both exempt and non-exempt employees that perform work under contracts that are governed by the Service Contract Labor Standards, the Wage Rate Requirements statute, or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prepoposal Conference Can you confirm IRAP is required for minor subcontractors? Tab instructions say 'yes', RFP says 'no'.

The IRAP is required for any contractor or subcontractor that meets the $750,000 annual contract value. Please see DRD-S2-014, Total Compensation Plan, for details.

Prepoposal Conference Overhead tab - should we address template to delete some rows, if not applicable?

Offerors may add rows or columns to suit their accounting system; however, rows and columns may not be deleted.

Prepoposal Conference Under TRT 2, you have 4 subtasks, but 1st subtasks is now in Core (Pressure Systems).

TRT 2 has been updated to delete references to the Pressure Systems subtask.

Prepoposal Conference If the incumbent comes in with a lower rate, will it be applied to others? How will this be applied to minor contractors?

The Contractor Incumbent Rate is provided by the incumbent only if the Historical Incumbent Rates have changed since the Reprocurement Data Package was delivered. It is not the Government's intent to apply any Offeror's proposed rate for SMAEC II (Contractor Rate Data) to another Offeror's Cost and Price proposal. One proposal's probable cost will not be adjusted based on another proposal's cost solution. To the extent that Offerors indicate their intent to hire incumbent personnel and preserve their current pay rates, cost adjustments will be made to reflect most probable cost to the Government for performance of SMAEC II requirements.

Because the Government will not receive complete proposal cost data from Offerors' minor subcontractors, minor subcontractor rates cannot be adjusted to reflect Historical Incumbent Rates.

Please note the following definitions from the IRAP template:

The "Historical Incumbent Rate" row is utilized if an Offeror is proposing to utilize the NASA provided historical incumbent rate data provided in the NASA Technical Library.

The "Contractor Incumbent Rate" row may ONLY be utilized by a current incumbent contractor bidding on the follow-on procurement. It is not to be utilized by an Offeror who has no performance on the current contract. If an Offeror utilizes this row in lieu of the "Historical Incumbent Rate" row, then an explanation MUST BE PROVIDED in the Cost Narrative explaining the reason(s) why this data point is being used in lieu of the NASA provided "Historical Incumbent Rate". Further, the Offeror shall indicate if the direct labor data point used here is different than the direct labor data point previously provided to the Government, and the reasons why the data points are different.

The "Contractor Rate Data" row is utilized if an Offeror is proposing to utilize a direct labor rate based on data obtained from the Offeror's accounting and/or estimating systems. This row is NOT to include any incumbent rate data provided by the Government or separately identified by the Offeror.

Prepoposal Conference The RFP says no NLRs for Sample Task Orders. Is that correct?

The RFP Section L instructions will be amended to reflect "For proposal purposes, assume NLRs ($150,000) for all Sample Task Orders for CY1." Information regarding NLRs is also provided in Attachment L-4, Government Resource Estimates.

Prepoposal Conference The RFP allows for no differentiation in FBRs for contractor v. Government facilities. What about different locations? What is the intent?

See response to Question 58.

Prepoposal Conference How many seats are available for JSC onsite contractor seats?

See response to Question 23.

Prepoposal Conference Will the SMAEC II contractor be required to provide laptop/workstations? Will GFE laptop/workstations be provided for off site contractor personnel?

See response to Question 23.

Section Page # From To

SMAEC II Amendment 1 Change Log

80JSC018R0006

B 13

(1) The estimated cost of completion form task orders…

(1) The estimated cost of performance-based task orders…

B 16 Table B-1, Base Period Fully Burdened Rate Table

Table B-1, Fully Burdened Rate Table

B 17

ADDED:

'Off-site Facility Burden Rate' row to Table B-1, Fully Burdened Rate Table

C 22

ADDED: to SOW, Scope of Work Assume JSC support will consist of on-site and off-site contractor support. All non- JSC resident support will be on-site at the resident location.

C 45

Maintain all training records and certifications in accordance with NRRS 1441.1A, NASA Records Retention Schedules; and

For civil servants and contractors, maintain training records and certifications in accordance with NRRS 1441.1A, NASA Records Retention Schedules; and

C 47

Core Deliverables Table Line item 1,column 2 from: "DRD Deliverables" Line item 1, column 3 from: “1.0, 3.5, 3.7”

Core Deliverables Table Line item 1,column to: "DRD Deliverables (DRD’s 001, 005, 007, 008, 009, 011, 014, 017, 020)" Line item 1, column 3 to: “1.0”

C 47 Core Deliverables Table:

Core deliverable line item 3 lists “3.8.1.1 (C)”

Core Deliverables Table:

Core deliverable line item 3 lists “3.7.1.1 (C)”

J 119 DELETED:

'CF' from Acronym list

J 191

The Total Compensation Plan and Compensation Templates (a) through (db) shall be required for both the prime team members and all subcontractors that meet the criteria in NFS 1852.231-71(d).

The Total Compensation Plan and Compensation Templates (a) and (b) shall be required for both the prime team members and all subcontractors that meet the criteria in NFS 1852.231-71(d).

J 192 ADDED: to (c) paragraph 3) “This uncompensated overtime policy is not part of the page count for proposals”

J 193

D. FORMAT:

Contractor’s format is acceptable

D. FORMAT:

Contractor’s format is acceptable but must include the content listed above.

J 193

E. MAINTENANCE:

See Data Requirements List (DRL)

E. MAINTENANCE:

The contractor may revise the Plan at any time or at the direction of the Contracting Officer.

Revisions to the plan are subject to Contracting Officer review. Changes shall be incorporated as required by change page or complete reissue.

J 194 2

ADDED: to H. Frequency The page limit for the TCP is 15 pages for the Prime and 15 pages for each subcontractor [subcontractors are defined in NFS 1852.231-71(d)]. For joint ventures, the page limit is 15 pages per team member. The prime, subcontractors, and team members are permitted to combine data into one TCP, and the page limit for the combined TCP will be 15 pages for each company.

J 200

The Subcontracting plan must include Exhibit I, SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS for the base period and each option year separately as described in section L.

The Subcontracting plan must include Table 1, SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING TABLES for the base period and each option year separately as described in Attachment L-5.

J 211 "Qualifications of the Program Manager" "Qualifications of Key personnel"

J 211

DELETED:

2) Staffing of the proposed organizational structure including proposed teaming partners and subcontractor personnel, including the numbers and SLCs for all contract years.

J 211

3. DRL Line Item No.

3. DRL Line Item No.

J 211

5) Job descriptions and qualifications by proposed skill levels, including mapping of the Contractor’s proposed labor categories to the government-provided SLCs. If new SLCs are proposed, the SLC descriptions should include details similar to the government-provided SLC description.

4) Job descriptions and qualifications by proposed skill levels, including mapping of the Contractor’s proposed labor categories to the government-provided SLCs. If new SLCs are proposed, the SLC descriptions should include details similar to the government-provided SLC description. The Contractor shall provide in a table format similar to the Government-provided SLCs listing in Attachment J-7. The table shall be an attachment to DRD-S2-022 titled 'Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels.' The

DRD-S2-022 attachment 'Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels' shall be excluded from page limitations.

Renumbered bullets

J 211

ADDED to 4):

The Contractor shall provide their SLC in a table format similar to the Government-provided SLCs listing in Attachment J-7.

The table shall be an attachment to DRD- S2-022 titled 'Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels.' The DRD-S2-022 attachment 'Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels' shall be excluded from page limitations.

J 224 WBS flow chart words are not visible changed to a jpeg picture of flow chart so the flowchart words are visible in the RFP

J 237 ( Completion Form Scope + Authorized Task Order)

(Performance-Based Scope + Authorized Task Order)

J 144, 154 DRL: "With Proposal"; DRD: "1) Initial - Due with proposal"

DRL: "At Contract Phase-in"; DRD: "1) - Due at contract Phase-in"

J 173, 174 All table text is not displayed. Table fixed so all text fit in table.

L 365

(a) The entire proposal is due by February 22, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Central Standard Time

(a) The entire proposal is due by March 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Central Standard Time

L 367

Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format VI, Responsibilities Consideration section

“Cost Accounting Standards”

Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format VI, Responsibilities Consideration section

“Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement Adequacy letter from DCMA or 3rd party”

L 367

Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format

DELETED:

“Subcontract Arrangement Information” from VI, Responsibilities Consideration section

L 367

ADDED to Note 3:

The Contractor SMAEC II Skill Levels attachment is not included in the total Volume I page count.

L

Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size. Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. Headers, footers, and corporate logos will not be evaluated, and are not subject to the font type, font size, or margin requirements of the page limited sections.

Text in diagrams, charts, and tables shall be no smaller than Arial 12-point text size.

Diagrams, charts, and tables shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. Headers, footers, corporate logos, artwork, and photographs will not be evaluated, and are not subject to the font type, font size, or margin requirements of the page limited sections.

L 372

ADDED:

It is anticipated that fifty-eight (58) onsite seats will be made available at JSC for the SMAEC II workforce. For all sites other than JSC, onsite seats will be made available for all SMAEC II contractor support. It is anticipated that five (5) onsite seats will be made available for Core requirements at WSTF. All non-JSC resident support will be on-site at the resident location.

L 373 The Offeror shall provide requested information as detailed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) below.

The Offeror shall provide requested information as detailed in paragraphs (a) and (b) below.

L 372, 374

The Offeror shall complete TRST in Attachment L-3, Cost Price Templates and submit an electronic copy of the TRST with the response to Core Technical Requirements. The TRST shall agree with the BOEs. The TRST shall reconcile to the Volume III, Cost and Price. The rollup summary table shall reconcile with the details and shall reconcile with the cost proposal as indicated in the cost proposal instructions for a pricing model. Note that the TRST templates are also submitted as part of Volume III, Cost and Price.

The Offeror shall complete TRST in Attachment L-3, Cost Price Templates. The TRST shall agree with the BOEs. The rollup summary table shall reconcile with the details and shall reconcile with the cost proposal as indicated in the cost proposal instructions for a pricing model. Note that the TRST data will be evaluated as part of Volume I and Volume III.

L 374

ADDED:

It is anticipated that fifty-eight (58) onsite seats will be made available at JSC for the SMAEC II workforce. For all sites other than JSC, onsite seats will be made available for all SMAEC II contractor support. It is anticipated that five (5) onsite seats will be made available for Core requirements at WSTF. All non-JSC resident support will be on-site at the resident location.

L 377

MA.1 Core Management Requirements

(a) Specific Management Understanding and Resources MA.1 Core Management Requirements – Specific Understanding and Resources

MA.1 Core Management Requirements

(a) Specific Management Understanding and Resources MA.1 Core Management Requirements – Specific Understanding and Resources (add) Core Management SOW Requirements addressed in the DRDs do not need to be addressed (duplicated) in the Core Management Requirements narrative.

L 377

ADDED:

It is anticipated that fifty-eight (58) onsite seats will be made available at JSC for the SMAEC II workforce. For all sites other than JSC, onsite seats will be made available for all SMAEC II contractor support. It is anticipated that five (5) onsite seats will be made available for Core requirements at WSTF. All non-JSC resident support will be on-site at the resident location.

L 387

ADDED:

It is anticipated that fifty-eight (58) onsite seats will be made available at JSC for the SMAEC II workforce. For all sites other than JSC, onsite seats will be made available for all SMAEC II contractor support. It is anticipated that five (5) onsite seats will be made available for Core requirements at WSTF. All non-JSC resident support will be on-site at the resident location.

L 388

2) Pricing for IDIQ Sample Task Orders The Offeror shall provide, in Attachment L- 3, its estimate of the level of resources necessary to perform the SMAEC II Sample Task Orders. Offerors are required to propose the required WYEs and appropriate skill mix necessary to perform each Sample Task Order, per their unique technical approach. For proposal purposes, assume no NLRs ($0) for the Sample Task Orders.

2) Pricing for IDIQ Sample Task Orders The Offeror shall provide, in Attachment L-3, its estimate of the level of resources necessary to perform the SMAEC II Sample Task Orders. Offerors are required to propose the required WYEs and appropriate skill mix necessary to perform each Sample Task Order, per their unique technical approach. For proposal purposes, assume cumulative NLR total of $150,000 for all Sample TOs for CY1.

L 388 For proposal purposes, assume no NLRs ($0) for the Sample Task Orders.

For proposal purposes, assume NLRs ($150,000) for all Sample Task Orders for

CY1.

L 390, 391

(b) The Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST IDIQ)

DELETED:

1) In the column entitled “Incumbent Retention %”, Offerors are required to provide the percent of incumbent workforce they intend to retain by SLC.

Renumbered bullets

L 393

(c) Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST SOW 1.0 CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT)

(c) Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST SOW 1.0 CORE

TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT)

L 393 SOW 1.0 Contract Management Template Core Technical and Management Template

L 391

ADDED:

IRAP acronym to both Core Technical and Management Table and to the IDIQ Table.

Added FBR acronym to the Core Technical and Management Table

L 392

In the column entitled "Incumbent Retention %", offerors are required to provide the percentage of incumbent workforce they intend to retain by SLC.

Deleted reference

L 392, 393

The TRST functions as a link between the Technical Volume and the Cost Volume, therefore, also include this template in Volume III, Cost and Price Proposal.

The TRST functions as a link between the Technical Volume and the Cost Volume, therefore, also include this template in Volume III, Cost and Price Proposal.

L 393

(c) Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST SOW 1.0 CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT)

This template is designed to summarize all proposed labor and non-labor resources for the SOW 1.0 Contract Management Requirements effort by SLC for each contract year.

(c) Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST Core Technical and Management) This template is designed to summarize all proposed labor and non-labor resources for the Core Technical and Management Requirements effort by SLC for each contract year.

L 393

If an Offeror proposes efficiencies, then the column entitled “Proposed WYEs w/ Efficiencies Included (Total Contract Year 1 Column from TRT)” shall include all proposed labor resources after implementation of the efficiencies in accordance with the Offeror’s technical and management approach to satisfying the SOW Contract Management requirements.

If an Offeror proposes efficiencies, then the column entitled “WYEs after Efficiencies” shall include all proposed labor resources after implementation of the efficiencies in accordance with the Offeror’s technical and management approach to satisfying the SOW Contract Management requirements.

L 395 Incumbency Assumptions TC(d) Incumbency Assumptions TC(b)

L 395

1. SOW 1.0 Contract Management Requirements Template Instructions

1. Core Technical and Management Requirements Template Instructions

L 397

ADDED:

Note: The IRAP provides the weighted average incumbent direct labor rate, if available, as a team per SLC on the “Historical Incumbent Rate” row. These rates have already been escalated based upon the incumbent’s planned escalation provided from the DRD Reprocurement Data Package. Also note that at the bottom of the IRAP template is a table that identifies the incumbent seniority range by years as a weighted average.

L 398

The Offeror shall determine the mix of labor categories and the labor hours required to perform the Completion Form portion of the SOW.

The Offeror shall determine the mix of labor categories and the labor hours required to perform the Performance- Based portion of the SOW.

L 398

1.0 Core Technical and Management

Requirements Template Instructions, paragraph b) Deleted:

“Completion Form”

1.0 Core Technical and Management

Requirements Template Instructions, paragraph b)

ADDED:

“Performance-Based”

L 405

ADDED:

The prime and all subcontractors with proposed values at $750,000 or greater are required to complete TC(a) and (b).

L 401

Added sentence to last paragraph of c) Overtime Pricing Template (OPT):

Note: The bottom of this template includes a row for offerors to propose any offsite facility burden rate to capture any off site facilities costs applicable to the

IDIQ if staffing changes occur during the 5 year period of performance.

L 409

(b) Cost Accounting Standards State whether the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement represented in Provision K, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications, has been approved by the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer, and provide the date of such approval. If your CAS Disclosure Statement is currently not approved or there are some existing CAS non-compliance findings, please provide detailed explanation of the CAS non-compliance issues, corrective action status, and any potential impact on this procurement. A copy of the Offeror’s disclosure statement applicable to the resultant contract shall be submitted.

(b) Cost Accounting Standards State whether the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement represented in Provision K, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications, has been approved by the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer, and provide the date of such approval. Provide a copy of your CAS Disclosure Statement Adequacy letter from DCMA. If your CAS Disclosure Statement is currently not approved or there are some existing CAS non-compliance findings, please provide a detailed explanation of the CAS non-compliance issues, corrective action status, and any potential impact on this procurement. If the Offeror's CAS Disclosure Statement is determined inadequate, provide status and brief description of issues. The Contracting Officer will request the CAS Disclosure Statement from all Offerors in the competitive range, only from the apparent successful Offeror, or from Offerors as deemed necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision.