SMAEC_II-RFP-Amendment_2.pdf

PDF 4 MB Posted Feb 7, 2018

Attached to: Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract II (SMAEC II) - Pre-Solicitation Notice - 80JSC018R0006
Solicitation number: 80JSC018R0006
Issued by: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 31, 2023

This pre-solicitation notice updates a previous draft request for proposal for the Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract II. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center plans to issue a request for proposal on or about January 17, 2018, with proposals due on or about February 22, 2018. The contract will provide engineering and analytical services to support risk identification, assessment, communication and mitigation for human spaceflight programs and projects. Services will include program reviews, analyses, assessments, quality assurance, independent evaluations, and institutional support. The contract has both cost-reimbursable core requirements and indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity task order elements.

From the source

SMAEC II RFP Amendment 2

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
SMAEC_II_RFP-Amendment_4.pdf	PDF	Feb 21, 2018
SMAEC_II_RFP-Amendment_3.pdf	PDF	Feb 15, 2018
SMAEC_II-RFP-Amendment_2-conformed.pdf	PDF	Feb 7, 2018
SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Feb 7, 2018
SMAEC_II-RFP-Amendment_1.pdf	PDF	Feb 2, 2018
SMAEC_II_Amd_1_Cost_Price_Templates.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Feb 2, 2018
SMAEC_II_FINAL-RFP-80JSC018R0006.pdf	PDF	Jan 18, 2018
SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 18, 2018
SMAEC_II_Past_Performance_Matrix.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 18, 2018
80JSC018R0006_Final_RFP_Cover_Letter_with_enclosure.pdf	PDF	Jan 18, 2018

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

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

(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.

1 496

NASA

Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway Houston TX 77058-3696

NASA

Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway Houston TX 77058-3696

80JSC018R0006

01/18/2018

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.

The purpose of Amendment 2 is to post Question and Answers (Part 2 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 18, 2018.

In addition to the Questions and Answers, a list of changes and change pages are included in this Amendment.

See block 16C

02/07/2018 sjgillia Typewritten Text Stacy G. Houston

No. RFP Reference RFP Issue Description/Question/Recommendation Response

DRD	014	-	Total	Compensation	Plan
RFP	Page	191	and	1852.231-71(d)
Pg.	358

On	Page	358,	paragraph	(d)	of	NFS	1852.231-71
clause	states	that	a	Total	Compensation	Plan	(TCP)
would	be	required	from	subcontractors	having	a
Cost	Reimbursement	or	non-competitive	fixed-price
type	subcontract	and	expected	to	exceed	the
threshold	for	requiring	certified	cost	or	pricing	data

(>$750K).

Please	confirm	that	only	Subcontractors	anticipated
receiving	one	of	the	subcontract	types	listed	above
(and	not	subcontractors	with	T&M	contract	types)
will	be	required	to	submit	a	TCP	with	the	Prime

Proposal.

Total	Compensation	Plans	(TCPs)	are	required	only	from
subcontractors	that	are	performing	under	a	cost-reimbursable	or
non-competitive	fixed	price	type	subcontract	that	are	expected
to	exceed	the	threshold	in	NFS	1852.231-71(d).		A	TCP	is	not
required	from	subcontractors	that	are	performing	under	a	Time
&	Materials	subcontract.

SMAEC II - RFP Questions and Answers - Amendment 2

69 Pre-Proposal Bidder’s Conference

In	the	Cost/Price	Proposal	Overview	session	of	the
Pre-Proposal	Conference,	it	was	mentioned	that	in
the	event	the	incumbent	contractor	proposes	a
“Contractor	Incumbent	Rate”	that	is	different	from
the	RFP-provided	“Historical	Incumbent	Rate”,	that
the	cost/price	analyst	would	then	use	that
proposed	“Contractor	Incumbent	Rate”	in	lieu	of
“Historical”	for	all	other	offerors.
Since	the	Historical	Incumbent	rate	is	a	composite
rate	that	may	include	Direct	Labor	that	does	not
belong	to	the	incumbent,	it	is	logically	inconsistent
to	apply	the	contractor	incumbent	rate	to	the
historical	incumbent	rate.
Additionally,	we	recognize	the	government	is	free
to	make	probable	cost	adjustments,	but	our
understanding	is	that	those	adjustments	would	be
made	against	the	requirements,	not	by	comparing
proposals.		Please	confirm	that	one	proposal’s
probable	cost	would	not	be	adjusted	based	on
another	proposal’s	cost	solution.
We	request	that	that	in	the	event	the	incumbent
uses	the	“Contractor	Incumbent	Rate”	option,	that
the	rate	not	be	applied	to	other	offerors’	proposals,
consistent	with	the	way	it	is	described	in	RFP	Cost
Template	Instructions	(p	393).

Refer to response provided for Question #63 from Amendment 1.

Pre-Proposal Conference Chart 43;

SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template.xls

x;	L.5(b)	cost	model	instructions	on
page	384.

The	proposal	charts	state	that	all	subcontractors
submitting	a	TCP	need	to	submit	the	cost	models
spreadsheets	IRAP,	TC(a),	and	TC(b).		However	the
spreadsheets	and	instructions	state	that	TC(a)	and
TC(b)	are	just	for	major	subcontractors	and	the
prime.	And	cost	model	instructions	on	page	384
imply	that	all	three	spreadsheets	only	need	to	be
submitted	by	major	subcontractors	and	the	prime.
Please	clarify	whether	the	Cost	Price	Template	tabs
IRAP,	TC(a),	and	TC(b)	need	to	be	submitted	by	only
major	subcontractors	and	the	prime	as	stated	on
the	spreadsheet	or	by	all	contractors	that	submit	a

TCP.

Refer to response provided for Question #5 from Amendment 1.

71 L.2.c and L.2.f

L.2.c	directs	offerors	to	identify	the	"version	of
Microsoft	Office	application	used"	while	L.2.f	directs
that	"Electronic	copies...be	prepared	and	submitted
in	Microsoft	Office	2016	applications."	Is	it	the
government's	intent	that	files	be	submitted	only
Microsoft	Office	2016?

Refer to response provided for Question #25 from Amendment 1.

72 Att L-1-2 and L.3.1

The	attachment	is	entitled	"L-1-2	2-S2TO-QAQE,
Quality	Assurance	and	Quality	Engineering	?	JSC,
WSTF,	GRC."	Please	confirm	that	WSTF	has	been
removed	from	this	Sample	Task	as	depicted	in	Table
L-4	which	states	"Quality	Assurance	and	Quality
Engineering	-	JSC	and	GRC."

Refer to response provided for Question #62 from Amendment 1.

73 L.5(c), L-3

The	government	states	that	offerors	are	only	to
propose	WYEs	for	CY1	for	the	sample	task	TRTs.
However	the	EPM	allows	for	offerors	to	propose
WYEs	for	both	CY1	and	CY2.	Will	the	government
please	clarify	and	update	the	solicitation	or	EPM?

Refer to response provided for Question #30 from Amendment 1.

74 L.3.2

MA.2(1)	appears	to	reference	submitting	the	TCP	as
part	of	both	Volume	I	and	Volume	III.	Will	the
government	clarify	whether	the	TCP	is	only
submitted	as	part	of	Volume	I?

The

Total

Compensation

Plan

(TCP)

shall

submitted

part

MA.2

Volume

The

TCP

Compensation

templates

shall

provided

part

the

Cost

and

Price

Volume

the

proposal,

and

will

evaluated

part

both

Volume

and

Volume

III.

75 Table B-1, L-3

Table	B-1	and	the	EPM	only	allow	for	a	single	FBR
for	the	prime	offeror	for	each	SLC,	however	the	RFP
specifies	both	on	and	off-site	work	as	well	as	work
across	multiple	geographic	locations	(and	multiple
wage	determinations).	Suggest	for	evaluation
purposes	only	the	government	dictate	offerors
assume	off-site	(contractor	facility)	rates	in
Houston,	TX.	If	not	will	the	government	please
update	the	EPM	and	Table	B-1	to	allow	for	multiple
localities	and	both	on	and	off-site.

Refer to response provided for Question #55 from Amendment 1.

76 L-3

The	government	stated	during	the	pre-proposal
conference	that	if	the	incumbent	proposes	updated
incumbent	direct	labor	rates	(either	higher	or
lower)	with	their	proposal	that	those	rates	will	be
used	in	a	most	probable	cost	analysis	for	ALL
offerors	proposing	incumbent	retention.	Will	the
government	please	confirm	that	is	still	their	intent?

Refer to response provided for Question #38 from Amendment 1.

77 L.2(c)

The	RFP	states	"Text	in	diagrams,	charts,	tables,
artwork,	and	photographs	shall	be	no	smaller	than
12-point	text	size."	Would	the	government	consider
allowing	a	minimum	of	8-point	text	size	for	graphics
that	are	in	sections	which	are	page	limited?

Refer to response provided for Question #22 from Amendment 1.

78 Preproposal_charts_01-24-18_pdf

DRD-S2-002	Work	Breakdown	Structure	and
Dictionary	and	DRD-S2-013	IT	Security	Plan	and
Reports	are	reflected	as	"DRDs	submitted	with
proposal."	Neither	of	these	DRDs	are	listed	in
Section	L	or	M	of	the	Final	RFP.	Please	clarify	the
government's	request.

Refer to response provided for Question #26 from Amendment 1.

79 Section C, L1

The	Mission	Suitability	Sample	Task	2	in	final	RFP
deleted	WSTF	Pressure	Vessels	certification	though
the	SOW	still	includes	this	functional	requirement.
Please	clarify	if	the	WSTF	PV	Systems	are	included
and	if	they	are	in	core	requirements	or	shall	be
addressed	under	IDIQ	part	the	contract.

Refer	to	response	provided	for	Question	#62	from	Amendment	1.
Pressure	Vessel	work	is	a	core	requirement;	see	SOW	section

3.3C).

FRFP	Section	J,	page	210,	C
CONTENT,	2)	JSC	Data
Requirements	Description	(DRD)
022	–	Staffing	and	Critical	Skills
Plan,	(DRD-S2-022)	“Staffing	of	the
proposed	organizational	structure
including	proposed	teaming
partners	and	subcontractor
personnel,	including	the	numbers
and	SLCs	for	all	contract	years”.

The	staffing	tables	required	to	address	this
requirement	consume	a	significant	number	of
pages.	Will	the	Government	consider	excluding
these	staffing	tables	from	the	Mission	Suitability
Page	Limit?

Refer to response provided for Question #9 from Amendment 1.

FRFP	Section	L,	Table	L-2,	page	365
–	Mission	Suitability	Page	Limit	of
175	pages.

The	Mission	Suitability	Volume	requires	7	approach
artifacts	(Core	Management	SOW	approach,	Core
Technical	SOW	approach,	3	Sample	Task	Order
approaches,	and	2	Scenario	responses)	and	6	or	7	(It
has	not	been	clarified	if	WBS	and	Dictionary	is
included	in	the	page	limit)	DRD-based
plans/artifacts	all	under	the	175	page	limit	for
Mission	Suitability.

To	allow	for	more	meaningful	proposal	responses
and	aid	the	best	value	evaluation	of	Mission
Suitability,	we	respectfully	request	that	the
Government	increase	the	Mission	Suitability	page
limit	to	225	pages.

This	assumes	that	the	WBS	and	Dictionary	(WBS-S2-
002)	is	not	determined	to	be	part	of	the	Mission
Suitability	page	limit.	If	WBS	and	Dictionary	is
included	in	the	page	limit	then	we	respectfully
request	an	additional	25	pages	due	to	the	large
diagram,	tables,	and	dictionary	content	this	DRD

requires.

Refer to response provided for Question #9 from Amendment 1.

Attachment	L-4,	(page	447	of	RFP)
&	SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template
(ISCT-CR	Tab)

Attachment	L-4	indicates	that	the	Specified
Resources	NLR	for	CY1	is	$750,000	but	in	the	pricing
template	they	have	different	figures:
CY1:	768,193
CY2:	790,471
CY3:	813,394
CY4:	836,983
CY5:	861,255
Please	clarify	what	values	(For	all	years)	should	be
used	for	Specified	Resources	NLR.

The	ISCT-CR	worksheet	is	correct.		Attachment	L-4	is	corrected	in
Amendment	2	to	reflect	the	NLR	listed	in	the	ISCT-SR	Template.

83 L.5(c), L-3

The	instructions	for	the	TRST	IDIQ	tab	in	the	EPM
reference	"Incumbent	Retention	%",	"Proposed
WYE	converted	to	Straight	Time	Hours",	and	"NLR
Costs"	row	and	columns,	however	those	don't	exist
on	the	TRST	IDIQ	tab.	Will	the	government	please
clarify	and	update	the	solicitation	or	EPM?

The	proposed	WYE	conversion	occurs	on	the	TOPT.		The
instructions	have	been	modified	to	reflect	this	in	Amendment	2.

84 L.5(c), L-3

The	instructions	state	offerors	shall	"discreetly	bid"
NLR	costs,	however	the	EPM	doesn't	provide	any
tab	to	provide	detailed	breakouts	for	NLRs.	Are
offerors	expected	to	summarize	NLRs	in	the	EPM	as
currently	provided,	and	provide	details	as	part	of
the	written	narrative?	Or	may	offerors	include
additional	supporting	documentation	as	additional
tabs	within	the	EPM?

The	EPM	provides	rows	for	Core	requirements	for	Offerors	to
estimate	NLR	costs.		Offerors	shall	provide	their	total	NLRs	as
indicated	on	the	EPM	and	provide	a	narrative	summary,	basis	of
estimate,	and	a	detailed	table	in	their	cost	narrative.	For	Sample
Task	Orders	and	Specified	Resources,	NLRs	are	provided	for	CY1-
CY5	as	a	total	and	shall	not	be	modified	by	the	Offeror.

85 L-3

Rows	62-64	appear	to	be	mandating	major
subcontractors	to	be	award	fee	to	the	prime
contractors.	Are	prime	contractors	allowed	to	enter
into	other	contract/fee	arrangements	with	major
subcontractors	(T&M,	LH,	CPFF,	etc.)?

The	MSCST	rows	62-64	shall	be	modifed	to	accommodate	prime
and	subcontractors	contract/fee	arrangements.

86 L-3

Are	offerors	expected	to	replicate	the	OHT	tab	for
each	additional	OH	rate	they	might	propose,	or
should	the	template	within	the	OHT	tab	simply	be
replicated	vertically	within	the	existing	tab?

If	additional	overhead	rates	are	proposed,	then	additional	tabs
should	be	replicated	to	easily	identify	different	types	of	overhead

rates.

87 L.5(c), L-3

The	instructions	indicated	Column	G	of	the	IRAP	tab
the	offeror	is	to	enter	"Proposed	WYEs	by	SLC",
however	it	is	not	specified	what	makes	up
"proposed	WYEs	by	SLC".	Will	the	government
please	clarify	whether	it	is	for	the	core	task,	3
sample	tasks,	and	specified	resources	combined?

The	WYEs	proposed	in	column	G	are	for	the	entire	SOW	which
includes	core	work,	sample	task	orders	and	the	specified
resources	combined.	Amendment	2	corrects	the	column	tab	to
read	"Total	Proposed	WYE	by	SLC	(Total	Core,	TOs,	and	Specified
Resources	Combined	".

88 L.5(c),	L-3
Will	the	government	confirm	that	if	an	SLC	has	no
WYEs,	the	offeror	is	not	required	to	provide	a	rate
within	the	IRAP	and	subsequently	the	FBR	tab?

Offerors

must

provide

rates

the

IRAP

and

the

FBR

even

the

Offeror's

proposed

technical

management

approach

doesn't

include

WYEs

for

those

SLCs

their

proposal.

89 B, L-3

The	RFP	states	that	NLRs	for	the	IDIQ	will	be
negotiated	at	the	task	order	level,	however	the	TRT
tabs	appear	to	include	a	section	to	estimate	NLRs.
Will	the	government	please	clarify	and	update	the
solicitation	or	EPM?

For	proposal	purposes	only,	NLRs	have	been	provided	for	the
Sample	Task	Orders.	During	contract	administration,	NLRs	for
SMAEC	II	IDIQ	requirements	will	be	negotiated	on	a	task	order

level.

90 L.5(c), L-3

The	instructions	state	offerors	must	indicate
whether	each	SLC	is	exempt	of	non-exempt,
however	the	OPT	tab	doesn't	have	a	place	to	enter
this.	Will	the	government	please	clarify	and	update
the	solicitation	or	EPM?

The	OPT	does	not	require	identification	of	either	classification.
However,	the	instructions	for	the	IRAP	does	provide	a	column	to
identify	each	SLC	as	exempt	or	non-exempt.		Non-exempt
categories	are	provided	in	Attachment	J-7,	Standard	Labor
Categories	(SLCs).

91 L.5(c), L-3

The	instructions	mention	a	reference	column
provided	within	the	template	to	identify	where
supporting	cost	element	data	is	referenced	within
the	cost	proposal.	That	column	doesn't	currently
exist	in	the	EPM.	Will	the	government	please	clarify
and	updated	the	solicitation	or	EPM?

The

PCST

and

the

MSCST

tab

will

corrected

include

cost

data

reference

column.

92 L-3

The	TRT	tabs	allow	for	offerors	to	propose	different
WYEs	for	CY1	and	CY2,	however	ISCT-TO	appears	to
link	CY2	WYEs	to	CY1	WYEs.	Will	the	government
please	clarify	and	update	the	solicitation	or	EPM?

The

ISCT-TO

provides

the

Offeror

identify

each

specific

year's

total

proposed

WYEs.

the

example

provided

the

ISCT-TO,

total

hours

the

TOPT

Year

linked.

The

Offeror

will

responsible

link

the

succeeding

years

appropriate

based

upon

the

TOPT.

93 L-3

There	are	no	entry	cells	for	NLRs	on	the	Grand	Total
tab,	however	this	tab	pulls	from	other	tabs	that	are
to	have	NLRs	per	the	solicitation's	instructions.	Will
the	government	please	clarify	and	updated	the
solicitation	or	EPM?

The	Offeror	will	be	responsible	to	link	all	NLR	costs	from	all
applicable	tabs.		(Core,	Task	Orders	and	Specified	Resources)

94 L-3

The	instructions	reference	a	BOE	for	Phase-In,	yet
it's	unclear	whether	this	BOE	should	be	part	of	the
cost	proposal	or	as	part	of	Volume	I	with	the	BOEs
for	the	core	and	sample	tasks.	Will	the	government
please	clarify	which	Volume	they	intend	for	the
phase-in	BOE	to	be	a	part	of?

BOEs	for	Contract	Phase-In	is	only	provided	with	Volume	III	of	the
Cost	Proposal.	The	Contract	Phase-In	Plan,	including	BOEs,	will	be
evaluated	as	part	of	Volumes	I	and	III.

95 L.5(b), L.5(c), L-3

The	government	references	FPRAs	as	sufficient
detail	in	lieu	of	narrative	explanations	for	direct
labor,	indirects,	and	escalation	in	the	cost	proposal,
and	in	lieu	of	submitting	the	OHT	and	GAT	tabs	of
the	EPM.	Will	the	government	accept	FPRPs	in	lieu
of	such	detail,	as	they	do	for	the	CAOT	tab?

If	Forward	Pricing	Rate	Agreements	(FPRAs)	are	not	available,	the
Overhead	Template	(OHT)	and	G&A	Template	(GAT)	tabs	must	be
populated	by	the	Offeror.

96 L-3

Collective	bargaining	agreements	are	referenced
within	the	EPM.	Are	their	existing	CBA	agreements
in	place,	and	if	so	can	the	government	please
provide	copies	of	them?

There

are

Collective

Bargaining

Agreements

(CBAs)

applicable

SMAEC

II.

The

EPM

designed

capture

that

scenario,

applicable.

97 L-3

The	tab	combines	Core	Technical	and	Core
Management,	however	BOEs	are	requested
separately	for	each	within	Volume	I,	and	rows	5-7	of
the	tab	appear	to	indicate	multiple	TRST	templates
are	required	for	Core.	Will	the	government	please
clarify	and	update	the	solicitation	or	EPM?

Offerors	are	to	duplicate	and	stack	the	template	vertically	in	the
same	tab,	denoting	'Technical',	'Management',	and	'Technical
and	Management	Combined.'

98 L.5(c), L-3

The	instructions	state	that	the	offerors	are	to	apply
the	team	composite	FBR	rates	to	the	Core	and
Technical	tasks,	however	the	PCST	tab	does	not
allow	for	the	application	of	of	the	team	composite
FBR	rates.	Will	the	government	please	clarify	and
updated	the	solicitation	or	EPM?

Fully	Burdened	Rates	should	only	be	applied	to	the	IDIQ	Task
Orders	and	the	Specified	Resources.		Fully	Burdened	Rates	should
not	be	applied	to	Core	Management	and	Technical	requirements.
The	cost	instructions	will	be	corrected	in	Amendment	2.

Attachment L-3, The Cost Price Template (SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template)

worksheet	tab	is	labeled	TC	(a),
however	the	worksheet	table	is
labeled	TC	(c),	this	also	applies	to
worksheet	tab	TC(b)	the	worksheet
table	is	labeled	TC(d).

Is	it	acceptable	to	edit,	changing	the	reference	to
tab	TC	(a)	&	TC	(b)	to	match	the	worksheet	name	in
the	EPM	file?

The	RFP	Templates	have	been	corrected	to	reflect	the	correct
TC(a)	and	TC(b)	in	Amendment	1.

Attachment L-3, The Cost Price Template (SMAEC_II_Cost_Price_Template),

LPT	tab	instructions	(page	395	RFP)
state	the	hours	shown	should
reconcile	to	the	hours	proposed	in
the	“Proposed	Hours	with
Efficiencies”	from	the	yearly	totals
of	the	TRST	columns	on	the	TRST
for	Core	Technical	and	Core
Management	requirements,
reduced	by	any	hours	proposed	on
the	Overtime	Pricing	template
(OPT)	discussed	next.

Given	the	TRST	for	Core	Technical	and	Core
Management	is	the	total	hours	for	both	the	Prime,
Major	and	Minor	Subs,	is	it	acceptable	to	remove
the	link	of	the	hours	section	to	the	TRST	for	Core
Technical	and	Core	Management	and	add	an
additional	LPT	worksheet	for	the	Subcontract	Hours,
Rates	and	Costs	and	the	original	LPT	will	be	for	the
Prime	Only?

Adding

additional

LPT

worksheet

acceptable

for

Subcontract

Hours.

tabs

are

added,

Offerors

are

ensure

that

the

new

tabs

are

linked

correctly.

Links

should

not

removed,

nor

should

rows

columns

deleted.

Section	4.3.2,	Page	414,	states	“For
systems	identified	in	4.3.1	above,
the	Contractor	VSE	shall	provide

risk…………..”

Would	the	Government	please	clarify	that	the
“systems	identified”,	are	those	actually	referenced
in	Section	4.3	Sub-Task	2:	Orion	VSE	Support	and
not	4.3.1?

The RFP will be revised in Amendment 2 to reflect "...4.3 above."

102 DRD 014, L-3

DRD	014	mentions	TCP	templates	A-D,	however	the
EPM	only	has	two	tabs	labeled	TC(a)	and	TC(b).
Additionally,	those	templates	themselves	are
labeled	TC(c)	and	Compensation	Template	(d).	Will
the	government	please	clarify	and	update	the	DRD
or	EPM?

DRD-S2-014	was	updated	in	Amendment	1	to	reflect	TC(a)	and
TC(b)	only.

103 L-3

Column	J	asks	to	input	the	TRST	IDIQ	GRE	amount
from	attachment	L-4,	however	L-4	only	provides	a
GRE	for	the	Core	task	and	the	specified	resources
IDIQ.	Will	the	government	please	clarify	and	update
the	solicitation	or	EPM?

Attachment

L-4

provides

GRE

for

the

Core

requirements

and

Total

Contract

Value

GRE.

The

GRE

for

the

IDIQ

tasks

can

derived

from

the

difference

between

the

Total

Contract

Value

GRE

and

the

Core

GRE.

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?

The	Table	L-2	reference	to	Subcontractor	Arrangement	was
deleted	in	RFP	Amendment	1.

105 Section C

There	are	no	workload	indicators	(i.e.,	volumetrics
that	provide	the	contractor	task	type,	size,
complexity	and	frequency	data	regarding	how
required	tasks	might	be	measured)	provided	for	any
of	the	core	SOW	requirements.		Does	JSC	have	any
such	indicators	and	will	they	please	provide	these

data?

Table	4.0	Core	Deliverables	and	Table	5.0	Core	Assumptions	are
provided	for	Core	work.		In	addition,	Government	Resource
Estimates	(GREs)	are	provided	to	depict	the	estimated	direct
labor	staffing	that	the	Government	anticipates	for	the	entire
SOW	in	CY1	for	Core	Technical	and	Management	work,	Total
Contract	Value,	and	Sample	Task	Order	work.		JSC	does	not	have
other	workload	indicators.

106 L.2(b), Tbl L-2; L.6(d)

Table	L-2	lists	DRD-S2-007	Government	Property
Management	Plan	as	a	requirement	for	submittal
with	Volume	IV	Responsibility	Considerations.
However,	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."	Please	clarify
whether	DRD	S2-007	is	to	be	submitted	as	part	of
Vol	IV.

DRD-S2-007,

Government

Property

Management

Plan,

submittal

under

Volume

IV,

Responsibility

Considerations.

However,

accordance

with

L.6

paragraph

(d),

DRD-S2-007

will

requested

the

Contracting

Officer

later

date

and

not

required

with

the

proposal

submission..

Section C SOW and table L-2, page 365.

Will	the	Government	consider	increasing	the	Past
Performance	page	allocation	to	65-70	pages	to
address	the	14	pages	of	new	SOW	requirements	in
each	of	the	contract	descriptions?

Past

Performance

will

remain

pages.

New

work

was

not

added

the

Final

RFP,

but

rather

work

was

moved

from

IDIQ

Core.

Therefore

details

were

provided

aid

Offerors

developing

their

proposals.

FRFP	Section	C,	SOW	paragraph	4.0
Core	Deliverables,	table	item	2,
Weekly	Activity	Reports	(WARs),
references	all	SOW	sections.	Table
item	27,	Weekly	Activity	Reports,
references	SOW	3.3	(C).

Is	the	WAR	referenced	in	table	item	27	for	SOW
3.3(C)	in	addition	to	or	instead	of	the	WAR	required
by	table	line	item	2	for	All	SOWs?

Weekly	Activity	Reports	(WARs)	are	necessary	to	communicate
work	performed	each	week	to	NASA.		SOW	Section	4.0	Table	line
27	are	specific	items	that	need	to	be	statused	weekly	for
Pressure	Vessel	Systems	and	can	be	included	with	other	WAR
work	status	(line	2).

FRFP	Section	C,	SOW	paragraph	4.0
Core	Deliverables	and	paragraph
5.0	Core	Assumptions.	Item	4	in	the
Core	Deliverables	table	requires	8-
20	Quick	Reference	Rapid
Information	Pages	per	year.	Item	3
in	the	Core	Assumptions	table
identifies	8-20	SMA	quick	reference
products	annually.	SOW	2.1.2	(C)
provides	limited	information	on	the
work	requirements,	identifying	only
“SMA	quick	reference	products”,
and	no	activities	related	to	“Quick
Reference	Rapid	Information

Pages”.

Are	both	item	4	in	the	4.0	Core	Deliverable	table
and	item	3	in	the	5.0	Core	Assumptions	page
required	to	be	delivered	under	SOW	2.1.2	(C)?

Item

the

4.0

Core

Deliverable

table

and

item

the

5.0

Core

Assumptions

are

the

same

items.

The

Government

will

delete

this

item

from

5.0

Core

Assumptions.

Section	C,	SOW	paragraph	4.0	Core
Deliverables	and	paragraph	5.0
Core	Assumptions.	There	is	an
inconsistency	between	items	21
and	22	in	4.0	Core	Deliverables
table,	which	differs	in	quantity	(64
total)	with	item	10	in	5.0	Core
Assumptions	(50	–	75	total).

Could

the

Government

clarify

this

inconsistency?

Items

and

the

4.0

Core

Deliverable

table

and

item

the

5.0

Core

Assumptions

are

the

same

items.

The

Government

will

delete

item

from

5.0

Core

Assumptions.

Section	C,	SOW	paragraph	5.0	Core
Assumptions.	Line	item	27	Weekly
Activity	Reports	appears	to	be	a

deliverable.

Should this entry be moved to paragraph 4.0 Core Deliverables?

Could	not	find	reference	to	Line	Item	27	for	Weekly	Activity
Reports	(WARs)	in	SOW	5.0	Core	Assumptions.		WARs	are	a
deliverable	and	are	addressed	in	SOW	Section	4.0	Core

Deliverables.

112 I, 52.222-41

Clause	52.222-41	is	incorporated,	however	52.222-
43	is	absent.	Will	the	government	please	confirm
that	offerors	are	expected	to	escalate	WD	rates	as
part	of	their	proposal?	If	not,	please	include	FAR
clause	52.222-43	into	the	solicitation.

FAR	52.222-43	will	not	be	incorporated	into	the	SMAEC	II
contract	because	this	clause	is	not	applicable	to	cost-
reimbursable	contracts.		In	a	cost-reimbursable	contract,	the
contractor	will	invoice	using	the	actual	labor	rates	paid	to	the
employees.		With	regard	to	escalating	non-exempt	labor	rates,
Offerors	should	propose	rates	consistent	with	their	overall
approach	and	in	compliance	with	labor	laws/regulations.		Any
proposed	escalation	shall	be	supported	with	rationale	and/or	the
company’s	escalation	rate	history	for	the	past	five	(5)	years	as
stated	in	Section	L.5	(b)	2	.

113 G, 1852.245-83

Does	the	government	intend	to	have	the	contractor
manage	Real	Property	at	Award	or	during	contract
performance	per	clause	1852.245-83?	If	so	can	this
property	be	identified?

The	contractor	will	be	responsbile	for	managing	and	operating
the	Receiving	Inspection	and	Test	Facility	(RITF).	The	contractor	is
not	responsible	for	maintaining	facility	infrastructure,	but	is
responsbile	for	identifying	and	disclosing	any	normal	and	routine
maintenance	and	repair.	See	part	3.4(I)	of	the	Statement	of	Work
and	Section	G	clause	1852.245-83	for	further	details.

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

The	Model	Contract	has	been	provided	as	a	.pdf.
Table	L-2	requires	a	completed	Model	Contract	to
be	submitted	in	Microsoft	Word.			We	request	that
the	Government	provide	a	Microsoft	Word	version
of	the	Model	contract.

The	Government	will	not	provide	a	Microsoft	Word	version	of	the
RFP.	It	is	the	Offeror's	responsibility	to	provide	the	Model
Contract	with	Offeror	Fill-Ins	(OFIs)	completed.

Attachment	L-4	Government
Resource	Estimate	Table	1:	Core

GRE

Per	the	SOW,	Core	requirements	assign	deliverables
and	tasking	that	is	typically	performed	by	IT
personnel.		The	GRE	is	not	consistent	with	the	SOW
requirements	as	no	IT	WYE	are	noted	in	the	GRE.
Please	clarify	if	the	GRE	is	correct	or	adjust	it.

Offerors

may

propose

any

SLC

skill

mix

they

deem

appropriate

meet

SMAEC

requirements.

new

SLCs

are

being

proposed,

narrative

descriptions

shall

provided.

See

DRD-S2-022,

Staffing

and

Critical

Skills

Plan.

116 Att L-8

The	PPQ	template	references	"the	Mission	Systems
Operations	Contract	(MSOC)."	Please	confirm	that
offerors	should	change	this	reference	to	the	"Safety
and	Mission	Assurance	Engineering	Contract	II
(SMAEC	II)."

This was corrected with Amendment 1.

117 L.2(a), L-4(d), Att L-8

L.2(a)	requests	delivery	of	Volume	II,	Past
Performance,	by	February	15,	2018.	Instructions	in	L-
4(d)	and	the	referenced	Attachment	L-8	are	silent
on	the	requested	receipt	date	for	Past	Performance
Questionnaires.	Are	they	due	on	February	15	with
Volume	II	or	on	the	proposal	due	date	of	February

22?

Past	Performance	Questionnaires	are	preferred	by	February	15,
2018	and	are	requested	no	later	than	March	1,	2018.

118 D,	1852.245-74	(e)
In	the	event	of	a	government	shutdown	will	JSC
Central	Receiving,	Bldg.	420	remain	open	?	If	not,	is
there	an	alternate	submission	plan?

In	the	event	of	a	shutdown,	it	is	anticipated	that	the	Johnson
Space	Center	will	be	shut	down	and	specific	details	will	be
provided	on	the	SMAEC	II	website

119 I, 52.252-2

Clause	52.252-2	incorporates	several	websites	in
full.	Does	the	government	intend	to	list	which
clauses	apply	to	each	website?	Website
http://farsite.hill.af.mil/	references	contracting
supplements	for	several	different	agencies.

The

intent

these

links

provide

access

the

full

text

all

clauses

incorporated

reference

SMAEC

II.

Only

NASA

FAR

Supplement

clauses

are

applicable

the

SMAEC

procurement.

120 B-1 May	offerors	amend	table	B-1	to	account	for
multiple	indirect	rates	that	may	apply	to	NLRs?

Yes,	Offerors	may	add	rows	to	Table	B-1,	as	needed,	for	their
proposals.	Rows	may	not	be	deleted.

121 L-3

The	EPM	still	refers	to	SOW	1.0	Contract
Management	from	the	draft	RFP	on	multiple	tabs.	Is
it	correct	to	assume	these	references	should	be
"Core	Technical	and	Management"?

This was corrected with RFP Amendment 1.

122 Table L-2; L.3.1(b)

Table	L-2,	Note	1,	indicates	"TSRTs	shall	only	be
provided	in	Volume	III.		However,	L.3.1(b)	states
"TRST	templates	are	also	submitted	as	part	of
Volume	III."	The	TRST	and	TRT	templates	are
referenced	as	part	of	the	Mission	Suitability	volume,
but	are	included	within	the	EPM.	Are	offerors
supposed	to	include	the	TRST	and	TRT	templates
within	both	Volume	I	and	Volume	III,	or	just	within
the	Volume	III	EPM?

Refer	to	responses	provided	for	Questions	#16	and	31	from
Amendment	1.

123 L-1

All	three	sample	tasks	state	period	of	performance
of	one	year.	The	EPM	shows	a	full	five	year	period
of	performance	for	each	sample	task.	Will	the
government	please	clarify	and	update	the
solicitation	or	EPM?

Refer	to	response	provided	for	Question	#30	from	Amendment	1.
For	evaluation	purposes,	CY2	proposed	resources	will	be	straight-
lined	through	CY5.

124 L-4, L-3

L-4	appears	to	provide	assumptions	for	offerors	to
use	as	plug	values	for	NLRs	for	the	core	and	sample
tasks,	as	well	as	the	total	IDIQ.	These	totals	do	not
match	with	what's	provided	in	the	EPM,	and
contradict	instructions	elsewhere	in	L.3	requesting
offerors	provide	their	own	NLR	estimates.	Will	the
government	please	clarify	and	update	the
solicitation	or	EPM?

The Government clarified NLRs in Amendment 2.

125 L.8

The	email	in	the	Past	Performance	Questionnaire
appears	to	be	incorrect	(missing	the	word	"mail"	in
the	domain).	Can	the	government	please	clarify	that
the	email	should	be	JSC-SMAEC-II@mail.nasa.gov
and	not	JSC-SMAEC-II@nasa.gov?

The	correct	email	address	is	stated	in	the	RFP.	It	is:
JSC-SMAEC-II@mail.nasa.gov.	Amendment	2	of	the	RFP	corrects
the	address	in	the	Past	Performance	Questionaire.	Please	notify
your	Past	Performance	evaluators	to	resubmit	to	the	correct

address.

FRFP	Section	L,	L.2,	page	364	–
Proposal	Due	Date	of	February	22
and	Past	Performance	requested
early	delivery	date	of	February	15.

Numerous	changes	were	introduced	in	the	Final	RFP
(modification	of	the	SOW,	incorporation	of	a	new
TA1	Core	SOW	approach	requirement,	Sample	Task
Order	changes,	and	others)	and	there	is	still
pending	information	not	released	related	to	the
number	of	onsite	seats	available	for	SMAEC	II
contractor	and	details	related	to	the	WBS	and
Dictionary	page	limit	and	location	in	the	proposal.
These	items	affect	the	Mission	Suitability	Volume,
Past	Performance	Volume,	Cost/Price	Volume	and
Electronic	Pricing	Model.

In	consideration	of	these	items	we	respectfully
request	that	the	Government	extend	the	proposal
due	date	to	at	least	March	1,	2018	and	the	early
delivery	of	Past	Performance	Volume	to	February
22,	2018.

This	were	addressed	with	Amendment	1.	The	Proposal	due	date
was	extended	to	March	1,	2018.		Early	delivery	of	the	Past
Performance	Volume	remains	February	15,	2018.

Section Page # From To

SMAEC II Amendment 2 Change Log

80JSC018R0006

C 49

DELETE Line 3 from Table 5.0 Core Assumptions:

SMA quick reference products related to human spaceflight programs. A quick reference product is generated for each flight.

C 49

DELETE Line 10 from Table 5.0 Core Assumptions:

Inspection Due Notifications and Delinquency Reports (JSC). 3.3(C)b

Renumbered rows

L 367 Table L-2:

Government Property Management Plan (DRD-S2-007)

Table L-2:

Government Property Management Plan (DRD-S2-007) (see Provision L.6, paragraph (d))

L 387

Offerors are required to develop a contractor team composite Fully Burdened Rate (FBR) per contract year, per SLC, and apply those rates to the hours proposed on Core Technical Requirements, Core Management Requirements, IDIQ Sample Task Orders, and RFP Specified Resources.

Offerors are required to develop a contractor team composite Fully Burdened Rate (FBR) per contract year, per SLC, and apply those rates to the hours proposed on IDIQ Sample Task Orders, and RFP Specified Resources.

L 388

All other resources, including indirect rates, labor escalation and NLR escalation shall be discretely bid by Offerors for all contract years (CY1 –

CY5).

All other resources, including indirect rates and labor escalation shall be discretely bid by Offerors for all contract years (CY1 – CY5).

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

For Sample TOs and evaluation purposes, NLRs are provided for CY1- CY5 as a total and shall not be modified by the Offeror.

L 392

DELETED from paragraph (b), Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST IDIQ):

The “Proposed WYEs converted to Straight Time Hours” column is provided in order to provide the Offeror a means of converting the WYEs proposed into productive hours based upon the Offeror’s conversion factor of 1 WYE to productive labor hours. This column must not include non-productive hours such as vacation leave, sick leave, etc.

Renumbered

L 393

At the bottom of the template, Offerors are required to fill in their proposed Non-Labor Resources (NLR) costs for each Task/Delivery for CY1. This corresponds to the BOE narrative response to Section L.

For Sample TOs and evaluation purposes, NLRs are provided for CY1- CY5 as a total and shall not be modified by the Offeror.

L 401

ADDED to L.5, Cost and Price Instructions, paragraph (c) Task Order Pricing Template (TOPT):

The Proposed WYEs converted to Straight Time Hours columns are provided for the Offeror as a means of converting the WYEs proposed into productive hours based upon the Offeror’s conversion factor of 1 WYE to productive labor hours. This column must not include non-productive hours such as vacation leave, sick leave, etc.

L 402

The fourth section of the template provides for the Offeror’s estimate of the NLRs necessary to perform the Task Order.

For Sample TOs and evaluation purposes, NLRs are provided for CY1- CY5 as a total and shall not be modified by the Offeror.

L 417 For systems identified in 4.3.1 above… For systems identified in 4.3 above…

L-4 450

Assumptions for Sample TOs and Specified Resources for CY1:

• Assume a cumulative NLR total of $150,000 for all Sample TOs

• For Specified Resources, assume total NLRs of $750,000

Assumptions for Sample TOs and Specified Resources for CY1:

• For Sample TOs and evaluation purposes, NLRs are provided in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) ISCT-TO tab for CY1-CY5 as a total and shall not be modified by the Offeror.

• For Specified Resources and evaluation purposes, WYEs and NLRs are provided in the EPM ISCT-SR for CY1-CY5 and shall not be modified by the Offeror.

L 456 Past Performance Questionnaire:

JSC-SMAEC-II@nasa.gov

Past Performance Questionnaire:

JSC-SMAEC-II@mail.nasa.gov

Attachm ent L-3

IRAP

Tab

Column G:

Proposed FTEs by SLC

Column G:

Total Proposed WYEs by SLC (Total Core, TOs and Specified Resources combined)

Attachm ent L-3

MSCST

Tab

Removed "Award Fee" Fee or Profit if Applicable

L Attachm ent L-3

Added Reference columns per cost instructions.

mailto:JSC-SMAEC-II@nasa.gov mailto:JSC-SMAEC-II@mail.nasa.gov

MSCST

Tab and

PCST

Tab

TRST

IDIQ

Templat e

Added "Non-Labor Resources" row in the TRST IDIQ tab

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Content

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

Table of Content

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

CONTRACT TYPE

SCOPE OF WORK

ESTIMATED COST AND FEE*

1852.232-81 CONTRACT FUNDING (JUN 1990)

JSC 52.216-90 IDIQ MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ORDERING LIMITS (AUG 2013)

REQUIRED LEVEL-OF-EFFORT FOR TASK ORDERS

FULLY BURDENED RATE TABLE FOR PRICING COST-REIMBURSEMENT, IDIQ

AND LOE TASK ORDERS, AND CORE REQUIREMENTS

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

1852.211-70 PACKAGING, HANDLING, AND TRANSPORTATION (SEP 2005)

1852.245-74 IDENTIFICATION AND MARKING OF GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT

(JAN 2011)

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

52.246-5 INSPECTION OF SERVICES--COST-REIMBURSEMENT (APR 1984)

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

52.242-15 STOP-WORK ORDER (AUG 1989) ALTERNATE I (APR 1984)

52.247-34 F.O.B. DESTINATION (NOV 1991)

JSC 52.247-95 FLIGHT ITEM (AUG 2005)

COMPLETION OF WORK AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE-SERVICES

OPTIONS TO EXTEND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

1852.227-70 NEW TECHNOLOGY—OTHER THAN A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM OR

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION (APR 2015)

1852.227-72 DESIGNATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTATIVE AND

PATENT REPRESENTATIVE (APR 2015)

1852.227-86 COMMERCIAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE LICENSE (APR 2015)

1852.242-71 TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES (DEC 1988)

1852.242-73 NASA CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORTING (NOV

2004)

1852.245-70 CONTRACTOR REQUESTS FOR GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED

PROPERTY (AUG 2015)

1852.245-75 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHANGES (JAN 2011)

1852.245-78 PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CAPITAL PERSONAL PROPERTY (AUG

2015)

1852.216-76 AWARD FEE FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS (APR 2012)

1852.232-80 SUBMISSION OF VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT (SEP 2016)

1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JAN

2011) ALTERNATE I (JAN 2011)

1852.245-73 FINANCIAL REPORTING OF NASA PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF

CONTRACTORS (JAN 2017)

1852.245-76 LIST OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY FURNISHED PURSUANT TO FAR

52.245-1 (JAN 2011)

1852.245-82 OCCUPANCY MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS (SEP 2017)

1852.245-83 REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS (JAN 2011)

NASA SECURITY PROGRAM AND IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES

JSC HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE

IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

1852.208-81 RESTRICTIONS ON PRINTING AND DUPLICATING (NOV 2004)

1852.223-70 SAFETY AND HEALTH MEASURES AND MISHAP REPORTING (DEC

2015)

1852.223-75 MAJOR BREACH OF SAFETY OR SECURITY (FEB 2002)

1852.242-72 DENIED ACCESS TO NASA FACILITIES (OCT 2015)

1852.209-71 LIMITATION OF FUTURE CONTRACTING (DEC 1988)

1852.225-70 EXPORT LICENSES (FEB 2000) ALTERNATE I (FEB 2000)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS

1852.235-71 KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (MAR 1989)

JSC 52.219-90 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING GOALS (OCT 2006)

JSC 52.242-94 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE (SEP 2008)

OPTION TO TRANSITION FROM AWARD-FEE TO FIXED-FEE

OPTION TO TRANSITION FROM FIXED-FEE TO AWARD-FEE

ASSOCIATE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT (ACA)

EXTERNAL CUSTOMER EFFORT

CONTRACT ADJUSTMENT

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.202-1 DEFINITIONS (NOV 2013)

52.203-3 GRATUITIES (APR 1984)

52.203-5 COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES (MAY 2014)

52.203-6 RESTRICTIONS ON SUBCONTRACTOR SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT

(SEP 2006)

52.203-7 ANTI-KICKBACK PROCEDURES (MAY 2014)

52.203-8 CANCELLATION, RESCISSION, AND RECOVERY OF FUNDS FOR

ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITY (MAY 2014)

52.203-10 PRICE OR FEE ADJUSTMENT FOR ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITY

(MAY 2014)

52.203-12 LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL

TRANSACTIONS (OCT 2010)

52.203-13 CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (OCT

2015)

52.203-19 PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING CERTAIN INTERNAL CONFIDENTIALITY

AGREEMENTS OR STATEMENTS (JAN 2017)

52.204-2 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (AUG 1996)

52.204-4 PRINTED OR COPIED DOUBLE-SIDED ON POSTCONSUMER FIBER

CONTENT PAPER (MAY 2011)

52.204-9 PERSONAL IDENTITY VERIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

(JAN 2011)

52.204-10 REPORTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND FIRST-TIER

SUBCONTRACT AWARDS (OCT 2016)

52.204-13 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE (OCT 2016)

52.204-15 SERVICE CONTRACT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEFINITE-

DELIVERY CONTRACTS (OCT 2016)

52.204-18 COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT ENTITY CODE MAINTENANCE (JUL

2016)

52.204-19 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS (DEC 2014)

52.209-6 PROTECTING THE GOVERNMENT’S INTEREST WHEN

SUBCONTRACTING WITH CONTRACTORS DEBARRED, SUSPENDED, OR

PROPOSED FOR DEBARMENT (OCT 2015)

52.209-10 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH INVERTED DOMESTIC

CORPORATIONS (NOV 2015)

52.215-2 AUDIT AND RECORDS—NEGOTIATION (OCT 2010)

52.215-8 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE—UNIFORM CONTRACT FORMAT (OCT 1997)

52.215-11 PRICE REDUCTION FOR DEFECTIVE CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING

DATA—MODIFICATIONS (AUG 2011)

52.215-13 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA—

MODIFICATIONS (OCT 2010)

52.215-14 INTEGRITY OF UNIT PRICES (OCT 2010)

52.215-15 PENSION ADJUSTMENTS AND ASSET REVERSIONS (OCT 2010)

52.215-18 REVERSION OR ADJUSTMENT OF PLANS FOR POSTRETIREMENT

BENEFITS (PRB) OTHER THAN PENSIONS (JUL 2005)

52.215-23 LIMITATIONS ON PASS-THROUGH CHARGES (OCT 2009) ALTERNATE I

(OCT 2009)

52.216-8 FIXED FEE (JUN 2011)

52.216-26 PAYMENTS OF ALLOWABLE COSTS BEFORE DEFINITIZATION (DEC

2002)

52.219-4 NOTICE OF PRICE EVALUATION PREFERENCE FOR HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS CONCERNS (OCT 2014)

52.219-8 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS (NOV 2016)

52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (JAN 2017)

52.219-16 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (JAN 1999)

52.222-1 NOTICE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES (FEB 1997)

52.222-3 CONVICT LABOR (JUN 2003)

52.222-26 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (SEP 2016)

52.222-37 EMPLOYMENT REPORTS ON VETERANS (FEB 2016)

52.222-40 NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS ACT (DEC 2010)

52.222-41 SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS (MAY 2014)

52.222-50 COMBATING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (MAR 2015)

52.222-54 EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION (OCT 2015)

52.222-55 MINIMUM WAGES UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 13658 (DEC 2015)

52.222-62 PAID SICK LEAVE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 13706 (JAN 2017)

52.223-3 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA

(JAN 1997) ALTERNATE I (JUL 1995)

52.223-5 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RIGHT-TO-KNOW INFORMATION (MAY

2011)

52.223-6 DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (MAY 2001)

52.223-10 WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM (MAY 2011)

52.223-16 ACQUISITION OF EPEAT®-REGISTERED PERSONAL COMPUTER

PRODUCTS (OCT 2015)

52.223-17 AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT OF EPA-DESIGNATED ITEMS IN

SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (MAY 2008)

52.223-18 ENCOURAGING CONTRACTOR POLICIES TO BAN TEXT MESSAGING

WHILE DRIVING (AUG 2011)

52.223-19 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (MAY

2011)

52.224-1 PRIVACY ACT NOTIFICATION (APR 1984)

52.224-2 PRIVACY ACT (APR 1984)

52.224-3 PRIVACY TRAINING (JAN 2017)

52.225-13 RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOREIGN PURCHASES (JUN 2008)

52.227-11 PATENT RIGHTS - OWNERSHIP BY THE CONTRACTOR (MAY 2014)

[(MODIFIED BY NFS 1852.227-11 (APR 2015)]

52.227-16 ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIREMENTS (JUN 1987)

52.228-7 INSURANCE-LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS (MAR 1996)

52.232-9 LIMITATION ON WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENTS (APR 1984)

52.232-17 INTEREST (MAY 2014)

52.232-18 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS (APR 1984)

52.232-22 LIMITATION OF FUNDS (APR 1984)

52.232-23 ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS (MAY 2014)

52.232-25 PROMPT PAYMENT (JAN 2017) ALTERNATE I (FEB 2002)

52.232-33 PAYMENT BY ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER - SYSTEM FOR AWARD

MANAGEMENT (JUL 2013)

52.232-39 UNENFORCEABILITY OF UNAUTHORIZED OBLIGATIONS (JUN 2013)

52.232-40 PROVIDING ACCELERATED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS

CONTRACTORS (DEC 2013)

52.233-1 DISPUTES (MAY 2014)

52.233-3 PROTEST AFTER AWARD (AUG 1996) ALTERNATE I (JUN 1985)

52.233-4 APPLICABLE LAW FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM (OCT 2004)

52.237-2 PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT, AND

VEGETATION (APR 1984)

52.237-3 CONTINUITY OF SERVICES (JAN 1991)

52.239-1 PRIVACY OR SECURITY SAFEGUARDS (AUG 1996)

52.242-1 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISALLOW COSTS (APR 1984)

52.242-4 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL INDIRECT COSTS (JAN 1997)

52.242-5 PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTORS (JAN 2017)

52.242-13 BANKRUPTCY (JUL 1995)

52.243-2 CHANGES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT (AUG 1987) ALTERNATE II (APR

1984)

52.244-5 COMPETITION IN SUBCONTRACTING (DEC 1996)

52.244-6 SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2017)

52.245-1 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JAN 2017)

52.245-9 USE AND CHARGES (APR 2012)

52.246-1 CONTRACTOR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (APR 1984)

52.247-63 PREFERENCE FOR U.S.-FLAG AIR CARRIERS (JUN 2003)

52.249-6 TERMINATION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT) (MAY 2004)

52.249-14 EXCUSABLE DELAYS (APR 1984)

52.251-1 GOVERNMENT SUPPLY SOURCES (APR 2012)

52.253-1 COMPUTER GENERATED FORMS (JAN 1991)

52.203-14 DISPLAY OF HOTLINE POSTER(S) (OCT 2015)

52.204-1 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT (DEC 1989)

52.204-21 BASIC SAFEGUARDING OF COVERED CONTRACTOR INFORMATION

SYSTEMS (JUN 2016)

52.211-15 DEFENSE PRIORITY AND ALLOCATION REQUIREMENTS (APR 2008)

[DO-C9]

52.215-21 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA AND DATA

OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA--MODIFICATIONS (OCT 2010)

ALTERNATE III (OCT 1997)

52.216-7 ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT (JUN 2013)

52.216-18 ORDERING (OCT 1995)

52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995)

52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995)

52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999)

52.219-28 POST-AWARD SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REREPRESENTATION

(JUL 2013)

52.222-2 PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS (JUL 1990)

52.222-17 NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS (MAY 2014)

52.222-21 PROHIBITION OF SEGREGATED FACILITIES (APR 2015)

52.223-2 AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT OF BIOBASED PRODUCTS UNDER

SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (SEP 2013)

52.229-10 STATE OF NEW MEXICO GROSS RECEIPTS AND COMPENSATING TAX

(APR 2003)

52.244-2 SUBCONTRACTS (OCT 2010)

52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

52.252-6 AUTHORIZED DEVIATIONS IN CLAUSES (APR 1984)

1852.203-70 DISPLAY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL HOTLINE POSTERS (JUN 2001)

1852.203-71 REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOYEES OF WHISTLEBLOWER

RIGHTS (AUG 2014)

1852.204-76 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES (JAN 2011)

1852.215-84 OMBUDSMAN (NOV 2011) ALTERNATE I (JUN 2000)

1852.216-75 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE (DEC 1988)

1852.219-75 INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING REPORTS (APR 2015)

1852.219-77 NASA MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM (APR 2015)

52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA—GENERAL (MAY 2014) ALTERNATE V (DEC 2007)

[(MODIFIED BY NFS 1852.227-14 (APR 2015)]

1852.228-75 MINIMUM INSURANCE COVERAGE (OCT 1988)

1852.235-70 CENTER FOR AEROSPACE INFORMATION (DEC 2006)

1852.237-70 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURES (DEC 1988)

1852.237-72 ACCESS TO SENSITIVE INFORMATION (JUN 2005)

1852.237-73 RELEASE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION (JUN 2005)

1852.242-78 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND EVACUATION (APR 2001)

1852.216-80 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE (OCT 1996)

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment J-0, Table of Contents

Attachment J-1, Acronym List

Attachment J-2, Data Requirements List and Data Requirements Description

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 001 - Contract Management Plan

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 002 - Work Breakdown Structure Plan and Dictionary

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 003 - Integrated Technical Management Report

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 004 - Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Inputs

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 005 - External Customer Plan

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 006 - Contractor Financial Management Report (NF533)

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 007 - Government Property Management Plan (PMP)

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 008 - Safety and Health Plan

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 009 - Continual Improvement Plan

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 010 - SMAEC II Software and Database List

JSC DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD) 011 -…

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Dec 31, 2023.