80JSC018R0007,_Amendment_5.pdf

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 or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

BH4

Sophia Mo

The purpose of this amendment 5 is to provide the answers to all remaining questions on the HHIMS2 RFP. The due date for this RFP is not changed.

BH4

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058 Attn: Sophia Mo

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058 Attn: Sophia Mo

80JSC018R0007

1 13

See Block 16C.

12/21/2017

2/28/2018

HHIMS2 RFP Questions and Answers Part II

(**Note: All changes are reflected in the attached revised RFP.)

Past Performance

1. Question: Reference RFP Section 5.11.3C, page 5-7. Reference states that “Offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors (subcontractors with an estimated average annual contract value equal to or greater than $500,000 over the period of performance, as defined in Section 5.9, Period Covered by

Procurement) and the proposed program manager shall each provide information on up to five past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints). We can find no requirement in the RFP to name our program manager, and would therefore be unable to provide contract references. Are Offerors required to propose a program manager and provide contract references?

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 1. Further, Offerors are required to provide information on program manager in accordance with Section 5.11.3C. Past Performance Information.

Pricing

1. Question: Since traceability between Volume I and II is a requirements, would the Government please clarify if the NLR specified is to be used as a plug number for pricing the proposal? Regarding the TO 1, 2, 3 BOE in the Technical Volume, are we to include estimates for NLR for each of the TOs that tie out to the NLR plug number? If we are to provide estimates for management of the IT assets on HHIMS2, does the Government intend to provide the asset list(s) upon which to base our estimates for hardware maintenance and software license costs? Would the Government please provide a breakout of the NLR by elements of cost, e.g., Material for non-ACES H/W and S/W, purchase of training, travel for training, vendor support for conferences, conference software?

Answer: The cost of the hardware and software is borne by NASA. The offeror only needs to provide an estimate of the cost of tracking this information using NASA provided or contractor provided databases.

The number of items in the RFP should be used to propose a response (see DRD Question 5 and

Technical Question 13 for additional information). Exact numbers and list of items will be given at contract award.

DRDs

1. Question: Reference: DRD HHIMS2-2, Phase-In Plan, paragraph 8 g (iii). Reference states “Discuss proposed key personnel, and demonstrate that the key personnel are committed to employment prior to start of contract.” Attachment 5-2, page 5-23 also references key personnel. We can find no requirement in the RFP for key personnel. Are key personnel required and, if so, what positions are considered key and where are we to describe our key personnel?

Answer: The RFP references to key personnel are replaced with program manager.

2. Question: DRD HHIMS2-3, Administrative Safety and Health Plan, Worksite Analysis, page 5. The numbering of this section begins with 1.5, and appears to be incorrectly numbered throughout this section.

Can NASA please provide the correct numbering?

Answer: The RFP is updated to correct the referenced numbering issues.

3. Question: DRD HHIMS2-2, Phase-In Plan, paragraph 8 g (vii). Reference contains the following instruction – “Describe your approach and risk mitigation strategies to identify any requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC.” Does this instruction apply only to applications or systems that we propose to provide. If not can NASA please list the applications or systems requiring connectivity with JSC.

Answer: If the Offeror is planning to propose using any applications or systems that are not provided by

NASA, they would need to address how they would interface with JSC's network and applications. In addition, the instruction is asking for the Offeror’s approach and risk mitigation strategies when identifying any requirements if the offeror is proposing to use a new application or system connectivity or integration with JSC.

4. Question: DRD HHIMS2-2, Phase-In Plan, paragraph 8 g (vi). Reference contains this instruction -

Described how an inventory will be performed with the Incumbent Contractor of all records that will be transitioned. Records transition shall be completed at contract start. Can NASA please clarify what

“records” this instruction is referring to. Can NASA also clarify the number and size of records, their medium (paper or digital), access requirements, and location, Answer: The records that the incumbent is currently responsible for includes but is not limited to software license keys, hardware inventory, export control records, Russian travel records, safety metrics, configuration management information, and foreign national badging. Most of this information is housed in NASA applications, but hard copies may be stored in onsite locations. Attachment 5-1 Sample TOs will provide additional insight into size of the records. The medium is mostly electronic, but can be paper.

Access requirements are allowed through the NASA Active Directory (NDC) domain, and the location is onsite at JSC.

5. Question: DRD HHIMS2-2, Phase-In Plan, paragraph 8 g (viii). Reference contains this instruction -

Address property control transfer, including schedule and milestones for completing 100% inventory including but not limited to Government Furnished Property and Installation Accountable Government

Property. There is not a list of Government Furnished Property in the RFP. Can NASA provide a complete list of GFP subject to “property control transfer”? Can NASA provide the Installation

Accountable Property clause for this procurement?

Answer: Please see Section 5 Attachment 5-1 Sample TOs, TO2 Information Technology for the estimate quantities for the purpose of evaluation. Upon award of the contract, the contractor will then be granted access to the list and location of all software and hardware assets owned by HH&P Directorate. The RFP is revised to include the NFS 1852.245-71 Installation-accountable Government property.

6. Question: In order to address this requirement, the Offeror must include some level of resume and a commitment letter for each key person being bid on HHIMS2. The 50-page limit is already very constraining given the RFP requirements. Would the Government consider excluding the letter and resume for key personnel from the page-limited part of the proposal or increasing the page count limit accordingly?

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 28 and the page limit will remain the same at 50 pages.

7. Question: The 50-page limit is very constraining given the RFP requirements, including a partial Safety and Health Plan, in addition to the Contract Management Plan, the Technical Acceptability narrative, with

Basis of Estimates (BOEs), and the Phase-In Plan. In our experience, placing a page limit on the Safety and Health Plan introduces performance risk. Would the Government please consider excluding the Safety and Health plan from Volume I page limit, or increasing the page limit for Volume I to 60 pages, in order that the requirements may be adequately addressed?

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 6.

8. Question: In DRD HHIMS2–03, the content details outline contains two (2) sets of sections numbered

1.5 through 1.9. We assume the 1.5 through 1.9 section numbering in WORKSITE ANALYSIS are sections 2.1 through 2.5?

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

9. Question: Reference RFP Section 4, Data Requirements List and Data Requirements Descriptions, DRD

HHIMS2-02, paragraph 8(g) (vii), page 2. Reference instruction states “Describe your approach and risk mitigation strategies to identify any requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC.” Since the HHIMS2 work is performed on site at JSC using NASA applications and systems, it is not clear what additional connectivity or integration is required. Please clarify what applications or systems are addressed in this instruction.

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 3.

10. Question: Reference RFP Section 4, Data Requirements List and Data Requirements Descriptions, DRD

HHIMS2-02, paragraph 8(g) (vii), page 2. Reference instruction states “Describe your approach and risk mitigation strategies to identify any requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC.” Since the HHIMS2 work is performed on site at JSC using NASA applications and systems, it is not clear whether this instruction is asking for requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC, or for risk approach and mitigations associated with connectivity or integration.

Please clarify the intent of this instruction.

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 3.

11. Question: Section 4, DRD HHIMS2-03, Page 5, 6, several paragraphs appear to have sequential numbering issues. On page 5 two paragraphs are both labeled as 1.12. On page 5 under the Worksite

Analysis Section, paragraph numbering is out of sequence with the previous section. On page 6 paragraph numbering jumps from 1.9 to 2.6. Can you please clarify the section numbering?

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

12. Question: Safety & Health Plan 1.12 notated twice. The Offeror wishes to inquire if Certified

Professional Resources should be numbered 1.13 or if it is indeed part of 1.12 and should be responded to in the S&H plan being submitted with the proposal?

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

13. Question: In DRD HHIMS2–03, the content details outline contains two (2) sections numbered 1.12.

Since section 1.12 is required for Proposal Submission, would the Government please clarify the proper numbering for these sections?

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

14. Question: The RFP requires submission of the following paragraphs 2.1, 2.4 but there are no sections of

2.1 and 2.4 within the DRD.

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

15. Question: Section 5, Subparagraph 5.11.1.(d), Page 5-9 states for the Technical Acceptability volume to include the following: a partial Safety and Health Plan as described in Section 4, DRD HHIMS2 – 03, of the RFP. However, DRD HHIMS2-03, appears to have issues with the paragraph numbering and makes the submission instructions on page 10 of the DRD difficult to interpret.

a. Can you please review the detailed paragraph numbers of the DRD-03 to ensure we correctly included the desired paragraphs cited on page 10 of the DRD?

b. Due to the limited page count of Volume I Technical Acceptability (50 Pages), will the Government consider moving the Safety and Health Plan RFP response to Volume III – Responsibilities

Consideration so that Volume I has sufficient pages to address the other items being required in that volume?

Answer:

a. Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

b. The Contract Safety and Health Approach subfactor will remain under the Technical Acceptability factor.

16. Question: "The plan must include instructions for submitting the deliverables in Table 1 below to the

Government and represent contractual commitments by the Contractor to provide this information.

Include copies to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer’s Representative." The Offeror wishes to confirm that the instructions for submitting the deliverables in Table 1 are not to be included in the proposal response, but are to be provided with the DRD prior to contract start.

Answer: Table 1 is for deliverables during contract performance. The Offerors only have to submit the paragraphs listed under “Submission” with the proposal and once the contract is awarded, the winning

Offeror will need to submit a complete plan for approval, to include Table 1 deliverables.

17. Question: The instructions state that Paragraphs 2.1, 2.4, and 2.6 should be provided with the proposal.

However, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4 appear to have been omitted. Please confirm that an updated version of the instructions or DRD Safety and Health Plan sections will be provided. Please specify any subparagraphs that are to be included.

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 2.

18. Question: the Phase-In Plan states “(iii) Provide details for initial staffing and training of personnel, including the percentage of incumbent personnel that you plan to hire. Discuss proposed key personnel, and demonstrate that the key personnel are committed to employment prior to start of contract.” This requirement expresses an interest in the retention of incumbent personnel, implies that certain personnel on contract are key personnel, and demands a commitment from those key personnel. However, any

Offeror but the incumbent contractor would be unable to provide a commitment of the key personnel, because:

o The lack of identification of key personnel in the RFP precludes non-incumbent Offerors from selecting key personnel on this program, and o Only the incumbent would have access the key personnel currently on task to obtain letters of commitment

In addition, the performance start date of May 31 precludes Offerors from obtaining letters of commitment from external/non-incumbent candidates to fill key personnel roles on this program as it would prevent those candidates from pursuing other employment. As a result, the second sentence of paragraph (iii) should be removed.

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 1.

Technical

1. Question: RFP Section 4.1 Applicable Documents List (ADL). Reference list contains a number of documents that we require to prepare our proposal. Is there a technical library where we can access these documents?

Answer: There is no technical library setup for this procurement. However, a copy of all the applicable documents will be attached to this Amendment.

2. Question: Reference SOW 4.3.2.3.2, Comprehensive IT and Government Furnished Equipment Asset

Management. This SOW requires that the contractor shall track, maintain, and manage the inventory of all software and hardware assets owned by HH&P Directorate. This includes maintenance agreements, licensing agreements, and implementation locations. Can NASA please provide a listing and location of all software and hardware assets owned by HH&P Directorate. This includes maintenance agreements, licensing agreements, and implementation locations.

Answer: Please see answer to DRDs Question 5.

3. Question: Reference RFP Section 4.1, Applicable Documents List (ADL): The RFP requires the contractor to perform in compliance with ADL latest-version documents. It further states that documents/technical standards created by organizations other than NASA may be copyrighted, and unavailable until contract award to the successful Offeror. However, many documents created by NASA, listed in the ADL, are not accessible through the links provided. Can these documents be made available to Offerors? Requested access is for all JPR’s, JWI’s, JSC Documents, HHPD Document, and SA Work

Instructions.

Answer: Please see answer to Technical Question 1.

4. Question: Reference RFP Section 4.3, Statement of work, paragraph 4.3.2.2.3. Reference requires that

“The contractor shall prepare and update foreign travel requests, orders, schedules, passport updates, visa applications, advance notification forms, and Letters of Invitation in accordance with the HH&P approved

Russian Travel guidelines document dated April 2003 and ….” Will NASA make the approved Russian

Travel guidelines document dated April 2003 available top Offerors?

Answer: The ISS MD-114 Guidelines for Russian & Kazakhstan Travel Support of ISS Program

Meetings will be included with the ADL attachments. The frequency of this effort is provided in

Attachment 5-1, TO 1 Institutional Support. Also, please see Technical Question 11 for more information.

5. Question: Reference RFP Attachment 5-1, Sample Task Orders, TO 3 – Approved Conference Support, page 5-21. The TO Requirements section states that “Venues shall accommodate approximately no less than 50 and no more than 575 participants for events. The electronic systems must be capable of handling approximately 20 to 450 abstracts.” The Deliverables section states that “One event lasting three days within 50 miles of JSC with 900 participants/500 abstracts.” The Requirements and Deliverables are contradictory. Can NASA clarify the numbers of participants and abstracts?

Answer: The RFP is revised to update TO3 requirement by deleting the sentence “Venues shall accommodate approximately no less than 50 and no more than 900 participants for events. The electronic systems must be capable of handling approximately 20 to 500 abstracts.”

6. Question: Section 2.9. subparagraph (a), Page 2-11 states: “The Contractor shall provide data on affirmative procurement, waste reduction activity, energy efficient product procurement, and ozone depleting substances in accordance with DRD [insert number], Environmental and Energy Consuming

Product Compliance Reports.”. Is there a DRD that is required to support this requirement but not yet listed in Section 4, Page 2, HHIMS2 DRDs table?

Answer: 2.9, Environmental and Energy Conservation Requirements (Feb 2011), is changed

FROM:

The Contractor shall ensure that all work performed and equipment used to fulfill the requirements of this contract are in compliance with all Federal, state, and local regulations and public laws, and the following

NASA JSC directives: JPD 8500.1, JSC Environmental Excellence Policy; JPR 8550.1, JSC

Environmental Compliance Procedural Requirements; JPR 8553.1, JSC Environmental Management

System Manual; JWI 8553.1, EMS Aspect/Impact Assessment and EMP Process; NPR 8570.1, Energy

Efficiency and Water Conservation; and JWI 8570.1, Energy Conservation. The Contractor shall provide data on affirmative procurement, waste reduction activity, energy efficient product procurement, and ozone depleting substances in accordance with DRD [insert number], Environmental and Energy

Consuming Product Compliance Reports.

TO:

The Contractor shall ensure that all work performed and equipment used to fulfill the requirements of this contract are in compliance with all Federal, state, and local regulations and public laws, and the following

NASA JSC directives: JPD 8500.1, JSC Environmental Excellence Policy; JPR 8550.1, JSC

Environmental Compliance Procedural Requirements; JPR 8553.1, JSC Environmental Management

System Manual; JWI 8553.1, EMS Aspect/Impact Assessment and EMP Process; NPR 8570.1, Energy

Efficiency and Water Conservation; and JWI 8570.1, Energy Conservation.

Section 2.13 will be changed to “Reserved.”

7. Question: Section 4, SOW subparagraph 4.3.2.1.2, second paragraph, Page 2 states: “The contractor shall use these plans and metrics as the basis for discussions in a status meeting with Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR) and key stakeholders, to be held each month per DRD HHIMS2-06 Data and

Records Management report.”. However, per DRD HHIMS2-06 Line Item 13, the submission frequency for the Data and Records Management Report is specified as semi-annually. The semi-annual submission frequency specified in DRD HHIMS2-06 appears to be in conflict with the monthly status meeting requirement specified in SOW paragraph 4.3.2.1.2. Can you please clarify?

Answer: SOW subparagraph 4.3.2.1.2 second paragraph is revised to add “In addition, the contractor shall provide annual end-of- year reports." Additionally, DRD HHIMS2-06 Submission Frequency is changed from semi-annually to monthly status and annual end-of-year report.

8. Question: Metrics are mentioned throughout the SOW. Can the Government provide past metrics for work performed on HIMMS? The past two years would provide insight into work flow critical to proposing on this effort.

Answer: The Offeror is required to provide requirements stated in DRD HHIMS2-01 Management and

Staffing Plan, 8. Preparation Information Content (a)(1), “ Management approach to include a discussion of management policies and procedures including any metrics/performance standards the Contractor will use to ensure high quality services are provided for each SOW element.” As such, the Government is interested in Offeror’s proposed metrics to support HHIMS2 in lieu of providing examples.

9. Question: The SOW states, ‘the contractor shall provide content updates to the HH&P/HRP FNB website and identity, develop, and maintain metrics for this effort.” Can the Government provide the life cycle of the website? When it was first deployed, how many updates in content has there been over the last year, what drives content updates, and if there are any current plans for the website? What will be the state of this website during phase-in? Is it a completed website requiring only content updates? Can The

Government provide access to this website from a technical library or provide screen shots if access is not possible?

Answer: Only content updates are necessary for the website. Updates are determined by changes in policy from the JSC Export Services Team. Website access and training will be provided during the Phase-in period.

10. Question: The SOW states, “The contractor shall create and maintain data logs from which data and metrics can be retrieved in support of the STI process.” Can the Government provide any past logs or metrics on the STI process so bidders may understand the evaluation of the process? This understanding is critical in proposing the proper management approach, currently, only the incumbent has this knowledge.

Answer: Examples of data log information may include documenting when the request was made to review STI information for export control (e.g., request submitted 10 days or earlier), how long it took to get approved at each stage, how many requests came in during a certain time period and how many requests were closed during a certain time period. The frequency of this effort is provided in Attachment

5-1 Sample Task Orders, TO 1 Institutional Support.

11. Question: Are there any conditions in which the contractor has less the 45 days to coordinate with traveler and Export Control representatives? If so, what are the circumstances and what are the resources available to the contractor to complete the request in a timely manner?

Answer: Yes, there are times when a traveler submits a travel request to go overseas inside the 45 days.

Circumstances vary, but include last minute changes in personnel, changes in schedule for the trip, and changes in launch times for crew going to the International Space Station. The contractor will be able to utilize support from the Export Control Representative and assistance from NASA management in those cases where a waiver to the Export Services Team for expedited approval is required.

12. Question: The SOW states, “Provide CM support for all HH&P sectioned boards, panels, and specific ad hoc directorate meetings as needed” Can the Government provide a list of current boards, panels and meetings supported by HMMS what items in the list will be supported for HMMS2 and if any items are planned to be added. The list and projection will allow for an accurate management approach design for the HMMS2 contract. Only the incumbent has this knowledge. Due to the considerations define in

Section 6 all bidders would benefit from this knowledge.

Answer: Attachment 5-1 Sample Task Order provides the estimated frequency/deliverables for proposal purposes. Typically, these meetings are held weekly (unless they are cancelled when there is no topic to be discussed/ resolved). Additional information (including Board/Panel structure) is provided in JSC

28330 and Technical Question 25.

13. Question: There are no numbers of total items to be track, maintained, and managed in this section.

There is a number of items in the Task Order 2 of 2,000 inventory items and 1,000 software items. Do these numbers represent all the items track on HMMS2? Can the Government provide a list of all items currently tracked under HMMS and identify any which will be rolling off? Can the Government identify the historical adds to the inventory lists? Can the Government provide a historical grow or shrinkage rate for the inventory items? Has consolidation into the new facility affected this inventory?

Answer: Yes, the number of items provided in the RFP should be used to propose. Exact numbers and list of items will be given during the Phase-in period. Software items will not necessarily shrink that much since licenses are reassigned to other employees if the employee that used them separates from the

Government or contractor company. Most hardware items undergo obsolescence replacement and there is very little growth unless there is a new program that needs to be supported. Growth or shrinkage rates are not recorded so this information is not available. Since the consolidation into the new facility is completed, there will be no impact to this inventory.

14. Question: The DRD requests, “Proposed organization chart identifying roles of all organizational elements and reporting relationships, including chart showing job titles, internal and external lines of authority and relationships between departments within the HHIMS and the contractor management interface with NASA.” Can the Government provide a current detailed organization chart for the NASA interfaces with in the HH&P/HRP?

Answer: The organizational charts for HH&P and HRP will be attached to this Amendment.

15. Question: Understanding that all JSC HH&P institutional review board records associated with specific research proposals are retained indefinitely, will this effort require the successful Offeror to provide an offsite storage facility to store archive materials.

Answer: No, this effort will not require the contractor to provide an offsite storage facility to store archive materials. NASA will provide the storage space for the retention of all required records.

16. Question: Would the Government please make all of these documents available in an externally-accessible library as soon as possible? As a small business team with limited resources, we need access to this critical information, regarding the operational details of the contract, with at least 2 weeks of lead time in order to properly develop our proposal.

Answer: Please see answer to Technical Question 1.

17. Question: Statement of Work 4.3.2.2.4 Task 4, para A. References an HH&P CM tool. Please provide functionality of CM tool. Specifically:

Describe CM tool’s capability for attachment of documents for individual CR records (e.g., briefings, control board meeting minutes, approval documents).

Describe the CM tool’s workflow/approval process and rules for CR’s (e.g., how does the tool select the appropriate mandatory/optional evaluators and review timelines for CR’s based on the control board, dollar value of CR, program(s) affected, etc.)

Describe the interface between the CR Receipt Desk and the HH&P CM tool.

Answer: The CM Tool has the capability of attaching documents. The mandatory/optional evaluators are determined by each board independently. Review timelines are usually two weeks, but can be set up independently by the board. The CR Receipt Desk personnel use the HH&P CM tool during board meetings and afterward to manage CRs as the Board Secretary.

The CM Tool mentioned in the WI-032 and JSC 28330 (Bioastronautics Planning System (BPS) tool has been recently replaced with the Configuration Status Management Operations Status (COSMOS) tool SA

Configuration Status Management Operations System (SA COSMOS), which is an electronic system for submitting, reviewing, and finalizing the official evaluation following HH&P review. During Phase-in, training with the tool will be provided.

18. Question: RFP Attachment 5-1, Sample Task Orders, Item 2, TO-2 Information Technology. The table

No. 201, Rq. No. 1 shows Deliverables and Schedules of 200 service requests per month. Can the

Government provide the average time to resolve a request?

Answer: Please use the average time of 3 days to resolve a request. The RFP is revised to include this information.

19. Question: Would the Government please make the entire list of applicable documents available to all bidders?

Answer: Please see answer to Technical Question 1.

20. Question: NF 1676B, NASA Scientific and Technical Document Availability Authorization is reference by is not in the ADL list. Can the Government add this document to the ADL or technical library?

Answer: Access to NF 1676B NASA Scientific and Technical Document Availability Authorization will be given upon the award of the contract.

21. Question: The last paragraph in the TO3 Requirements column refers to a venue size accommodating

50-575 participants; however, the deliverables and schedule column refers to an event with 900 participants. Can the Government please clarify this discrepancy and define the correct maximum number of participants the venue should accommodate?

Answer: Please see answer to Technical Question 5.

22. Question: Many of the documents listed in section 4.1 Applicable Documents List are not accessible from outside of the JSC-NASA network. These documents are reference throughout the SOW and

Sections 5 and 6 of the RFP. Can the Government move these documents to a technical library so all bidders have access to them for proposal preparation? As the setup stands today only the incumbent contract would have access to all the documents on the ADL. See Attachment 1 for documents not accessible from outside NASA but referenced in SOW or Section 4, 5, and 6.

Answer: Please see answer to Technical Question 1.

23. Question: Can the Government clarify the period of performance for the Task Order? Is the Task Order for 1 month, 12 months or 5 years? Are all the FNB forms and processing the same level of complexity?

Does the Government have any metrics on the performance of FNB on the current HMMS contract and would NASA make this historical data available to bidders?

Answer: TOs are typically written for a period of performance for 1 year except the first and last year of the contract (it may be shorter to align with the Government fiscal year). The Government has metrics on how many FNB requests have been processed per month and the information will be provided during

Phase-in. For proposal purposes, please use the frequency of this effort provided in Attachment 5-1

Sample Task Orders, under TO 1 Institutional Support. The main complexity factor for FNB requests is whether the person is from a designated country or not. Designated country foreign nationals require

NASA Headquarters approval before they can be given a badge. Non-designated countries do not have this requirement.

24. Question: Is the level of STI processing consistently the same level of complexity? If not, what are the levels of complexity and how is complexity designated? Is there different processes for the different levels of complexity?

Answer: The STI approval is consistently the same level of complexity for the HHIMS2 contractor. The contractor fills out the form the same way regardless if the STI is a presentation, paper, or abstract.

25. Question: Configuration management, Can the Government provide context and complexity of the 950 change request identified for this Task Order? Are external and internal change request the same and require the same processing? It there any existing system for change requests in place? Can the

Government provide additional information on the system if there is one, and include type of system, how access to the system is obtained, functions of the system and other basic systems characteristics necessary to understand the system and project the time to process the change requests. Can the

Government provide a copy of JSC 28330 in a technical library for review? The link in the ADL was not accessible from outside the NASA network. Can the Government provide additional detail on the 320

Directorate, division, and other meetings expected to be supported each year? Can the Government include information on number of attendees, if attendees are internal or external, if collaboration systems

(projector, webex, etc.) are needed to support the meetings, what time of day do the meeting occur, which meetings require minutes and actions to be captured, published and tracked, and who, on the

NASA side has review/approval responsibility for meeting artifacts generate from the meeting?

Answer: The JSC 28330 document will be posted along with other applicable documents. Meetings usually held between 8:00AM – 5:00PM and the duration of the meetings depend on the number of topics being discussed. Unless it is a meeting with the International Partners, then a different time will be scheduled and that could be before or after the core hours of 9:00am to 3:00pm. NASA currently uses a custom built system (please see Technical Question 17) to track CRs and the boards they are associated with. It is hard to measure the complexity of CRs. Most attendees are internal to the HH&P (for proposal purposes, an average size of 30 people and 4 presentations per board meeting), but there may be some external attendees occasionally. All collaboration systems will be provided by the Government if they are needed. All meetings require minutes and actions to be captured, published, and tracked. The Board

Chair is responsible to review and approve meeting artifacts. Please refer to JSC 28330 for further information on the CR processes.

26. Question: Can the Government provide additional detail on the 200 service request per month identified in the deliverables and schedule of 201? Are all the request the same level? Typically service request are determined as level 1, 2 or 3 and kick off different resources for each level. Can the Government provide a breakdown of the 200 service request base on level of complexity? Can the Government provide the historical breakout of service calls handled by HMMS and if the number of service calls is projected to stay at a similar level? Can the Government provide any metrics on service calls for HMMS to provide a historical perspective? Does the Government expect the service calls to be affected by the consolidation of the NASA organization into less number of buildings?

Answer: NASA has metrics for priority: 1-day, 2-days, 3-days and project (requires longer duration to be completed).

The approximate breakdown of priority:

Urgent: 3%

1-day: 3%

2-day: 2%

3-day: 84%

Project: 8%

Regarding level of complexity, the historical data shows that approximately 20% complex, 40% medium, and 40% easy requests. And the Government does not expect any impact to the HHIMS2 contract due to the consolidation of the NASA organization since it has already been completed during the current contract.

27. Question: What is the period of performance for this Task Order? When does the initial planning begin?

What is the life cycle for the Task Order? Can the Government provide historical data on past conferences location, number of attendees, of planning schedules?

Answer: Please see page 92 of the RFP for the TOs instructions. The TOs provided in Attachment 5-1 are for proposal purposes only.

Below is the historical data on past conferences location, number of attendees, of planning schedules for the last three years.

Date: February 8-11, 2016

Location: Galveston Island Convention Center

Metrics: 1,032 participants and 500 abstracts submitted

Date: January 23-26, 2017

Location: Galveston Island Convention Center

Metrics: 1,224 registrants and at least 1,057 attendees, increases of 97 and 30, respectively, over last year. There were 532 presentations: 250 oral and 282 posters, increases of 32, 9 and 23 over the 2016 workshop. The banquet drew 239 attendees out of 245 registrants (23 fewer than last year).

Date: January 22-25, 2018

Location: Galveston island Convention Center

Metrics: 1,162 registrants and 884 attendees, decreases of 62 and 173, respectively, over last year. There were a total of 420 presentations (141 oral and 279 posters), and the banquet drew 187 attendees out of

253 registrants.

Planning Schedule: IWS Steering Committee Kickoff meeting typically occur in May of the previous year (approximately 8 months prior to the meeting date), with monthly meetings until up to the meeting date. In addition, a lot of coordination happens between the HHIMS contractor and HRP Program

Science Management Office (PSMO) outside of the Steering Committee. Finally, there is a Lessons

Learned meeting with all planners that occurs within one month following the IWS.