DRFP_Industry_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

HSFTIC DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (DRFP) – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q #

Area

Page

Draft RFP Reference

Question/Comment

Response

1 Cover Letter

1 “For use in formulating comments and questions and in the preparation of proposals, a collection of reference documents are available through the HSFTIC Technical Library. The weblink to the HSFTIC website which contains the Technical Library is https://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/hsfti c/.”

The HSFTIC website doesn’t provide an active link to the HSFTIC Technical Library. Please advise as to the library’s availability and contents.

The Technical Library will be fully active with release of the Final RFP. Please continue to monitor the website.

2 Cover Letter

2 “All inquiries or comments concerning this DRFP should be submitted in writing via e-mail on or before September 6, 2019, for consideration during the conference. For additional information on the conference, please refer to the HSFTIC website.”

Please elaborate on the conference referenced in the Cover Letter.

There will be a Preproposal Conference scheduled post Final RFP release. Please continue to monitor the website for additional information.

3 Cover Letter

3 “The following are separately priced option periods for SOW 10.0, Cost Estimating.”

Please explain the Government’s rationale for including SOW 10.0, Cost Estimating, as separately priced option periods. What are the required circumstances for the Government to exercise the SOW 10.0 option periods?

JSC has been granted approval to retain PP&C activities (SOW 10.0 - Cost Estimating and Assessments) under the proposed HSFTIC procurement for the first year of the contract’s base period. It is anticipated that SOW 10.0 content would transition from HSFTIC to the Consolidated Program Support Services (CPSS) Contract after the first performance year of HSFTIC (on or about 10/01/21).

The HSFTIC contract will be structured in a way to segregate these PP&C activities from the other activities of the contract for the base period and up to, but no more than, 4 one-year option periods.

https://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/hsftic/ https://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/hsftic/

4 Cover Letter

ALL ALL Please indicate if the Government plans on releasing other portions of the Draft RFP and give Offerors the opportunity to provide comments and questions prior to release of the Final RFP. In particular, Section B, Section J Attachments, and the Excel Pricing Model are needed as soon as possible to aid in proposal development.

This information will be released as part of the Final RFP release.

5 DRD J-A1-71 DRD PM-11, Block 8 identifies the scope of the SOW Evidence of Completion Matrix as “defining completion criteria for each numbered paragraph of the statement of work.”

Some numbered paragraphs of the statement of work, especially in the program management and administration area (Section 1.0), define requirements that are ongoing and are not fully completed until the end of the contract.

Please provide guidance on what would be satisfactory completion criteria for statement of work paragraphs that define ongoing activities.

The on-going requirements are performance based and will be considered completed at contract end. This resulted in a revision to the DRD First Submission Date to read as follows: “One (1) year prior to contract end, including option periods, or at the Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) direction.”

6 Gen Does the Government plan on any overlap with the NASA CPSS effort?

In contract year 1 there is similar scope in SOW 10.0 requirements and NASA’s Consolidated Program Support Services (CPSS) Contract, however, no duplication in the actual performance of the work.

Please reference the response to question # 3.

7 Gen Does the Government expect any scope that overlaps with CPSS to be removed from HSFTIC?

Please reference the response to question # 3 and # 6.

8 Gen With the finalization of the Human Lander System taking place but with JSC reduced role, will HLS content become part of HSFTIC?

Yes, the HSFTIC scope of work allows for the potential of supporting additional Human Space Flight Programs or Projects via the issuance of task orders and such work will be performed under HSFTIC subject to budget constraints, mission objectives, and policy determinations.

9 Sec H

Reference Section H, Clause H.5A Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager Replacement(s) and Section H, Clause H.5 Key Personnel and Facilities

As requested in the DRFP cover letter, we are commenting on these clauses.

Clause H.5 specifies procedures and conditions for replacement of Key Personnel. These requirements seem fair and reasonable and are consistent with many NASA procurements at multiple Centers. We find no issues with Clause H.5

Clause H.5.A, however, poses two problems by imposing a penalty for replacing or removing the Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, or both “for any reason”. Firstly, no company can guarantee that no accidents or illnesses may befall any personnel nor can a company compel their employees to remain in their positions for two years. Secondly, the contractor is responsible for ensuring

Your feedback, per the DRFP cover letter is acknowledged. Thank you for your feedback as requested. A response is not necessary at this time, but this feedback will be taken into consideration prior to the issuance of the Final RFP.

that the PM and DPM supporting the HSFTIC contract are effective. Should a problem arise that would require replacement of these staff members, the penalty would prevent the company from taking corrective action, possibly resulting in a lowered performance for a period of up to two years. It is not in the Government’s best interest to prevent their contractors from taking such corrective actions.

We submit that the Government’s interest in ensuring the quality and acceptability of the PM and DPM are adequately covered by Clause H.5, as is common at other Centers, and that Clause H.5.A does not add additional protection but, in fact, adds considerable risk. We recommend removing Clause H.5.A.

10 Sec J

RFP Reference: Section J, Attachment J-1, DRD HSFTIC-PM-03

Topic: Phase-In Plan DRD Due Date

Question: Did the Government intend to make the Phase-In Plan DRD due 30 days after contract award?

Recommendation: Please confirm.

Yes, the in the DRFP the Phase-In Plan DRD is due 30 days after contract award.

11 Sec J

Reference: Section J – DRDs

In Section 13 on multiple DRDs, the language is as follows, “REMARKS: ISS Program is OPR and maintains ownership of this DRD. Gateway

1. There is one DRD with separate deliveries for ISS and Gateway

2. In the Final RFP, each DRD will appropriately designate the intended Program(s).

Program is a user of this DRD and as such receives a unique deliverable.”

Examples are DRDs HSFTIC-CM-01, HSFTIC-IT-01, and HSFTIC-IT-05.

Questions:

Will there be a separate DRD for ISS and Gateway, or is it the same product delivered in two different repositories?

Was the Orion Program intentionally left off the list?

12 Sec L

Draft RFP doesn’t indicate that Incumbent Historical Direct Labor will be provided. I think it is important to provide this data to avoid Offerors guessing on salaries, which could end up hurting incumbents and the mission.

The DRFP does mention the IRAP template, which typically asks whether the offeror will or will not pay incumbent salaries but as you know normally this comes with the direct labor rates.

The Technical Library will be updated to include the average historical direct rates. The Offerors should continue to monitor Fedbizops for updates to the Technical Library.

13 Sec L

Draft RFP requires resource rationale for the full SOW according to the TRT.

Since the EPM is not provided yet we

Please reference the response to question # 64 don’t know how detailed it will be but based on MAPI RFP and other JSC procurements this could end up being a few hundred pages of content/rationale which I think is against the spirit of this streamlined pilot procurement.

14 Sec L

Draft RFP is using a 5 year recency on the PM and DPM key personnel. Other procurements have extended the key person recency to 10 years, which allows for evaluation of more of a candidate’s career experience. We recommend making this 10 years or at least a bit more than 5 years which is too limiting.

The Government has revised Section L to read “Item 5, Work History shall be within the last 10 years.”

15 Sec L

RFP Reference: L.16.4.1(c), JSC 52.215-114 Past Performance Information (NOV 2018) (JPI Procurement Instruction)

Topic: “Only contract period of performance within five years from the date of the Human Space Flight Integration Contract original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation.”

Question: Please confirm the original solicitation date is referring to the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) released date of August 16, 2019.

Recommendation: Please confirm.

NASA has revised SectionL.16.4.1 (c) as follows: “Only contract period of performance within five years from [date to be inserted upon release of Final RFP], the release date of the Human Space Flight Integration Contract final solicitation, will be considered in the past performance evaluation. Once established, this date will remain as the demarcation for this five year limitation, even if the RFP is further updated or revised.”

16 Sec L

RFP Reference: L.16.2.1(b)(3) – Page L-13

Topic: Volume V, Model Contract file format

Question: Will the Government allow for the Model Contract (Volume V) to be submitted in an Adobe PDF file format?

Or does the Government plan to release the Final RFP in a Microsoft Word/Excel file format?

Recommendation: Please clarify.

As stated in L.16.2.1 (b) (2), documents shall be submitted in Microsoft Office application formats, not in an Adobe PDF file.

17 Sec L

RFP Reference: L.16.3.2 Management Approach, Mission Suitability (Subfactor B)

Topic: The Section L Instruction for Management Approach to address the entire Statement of Work in accordance with the scope and intent of DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 content item M has considerable overlap with the Section L Instruction for Staffing and Key Personnel Approach, which could lead to duplicate findings in staffing.

Question: To remove the necessity to repeat staffing approach narrative in two proposal sections under a challenging page count limitation, will the Government consider evaluating staffing under Management Approach only leaving the area as “Key Personnel Approach”?

Recommendation: Please confirm.

Yes. The government has revised Section L.16.3.2 to clarify staffing under Management Approach and by removing staffing from the Key Personnel Approach.

18 Sec L

RFP Reference: L.16.3.2 Management Approach, Mission Suitability (Subfactor B)

Topic: The Section L Instruction for Management Approach requires Offerors to address the entire Statement of Work in accordance with the scope and intent of DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 content items A, B, C, D, E, F, I, and M.

The initial instruction statement under “CONTENT”, prior to content items reads: “The PMP shall address the contractor’s plan for work definition and authorization, scheduling, budgeting, cost data accumulation and reporting, Safety and Mission Assurance, subcontract, material control, indirect cost management, baseline control, and organizational structure.”

Question: Does the Government intend for Offerors to include this information in their proposal response?

Recommendation: Please confirm.

No, the offeror does not need to address “CONTENT” portion of the DRD. The government intended for Offerors, as part of their proposal, to include only the information required in items A, B, C, D, E, F, I and M.

The entirety of the DRD will be addressed as part of the Program Management Plan’s submittal per the DRD’s first submission date.

19 Sec L

RFP Reference: Section L Instruction L.16.2, Table L-2:

Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations and Due Dates (p. L-11)

Topic: Section L Instruction L.16.2 requires Offerors to submit Key Personnel resumes and Commitment Letters with Volume II, Past Performance, whereas the Key Personnel Approach is evaluated under Mission Suitability (Volume I)

Question: In order to comprehensively evaluate and score findings on qualifications and commitment of Key

No. The Government is requesting resumes as part of Volume II, Past Performance.

Personnel, will the Government consider including that information as attachments to Volume I and evaluating completely within Mission Suitability?

Recommendation: Please confirm.

20 Sec L RFP Reference: Section L.16.2, Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations and Due Dates; Section L.16.7, Volume IV, Responsibility Considerations, paragraph (b), (p. L-33)

Topic: Section L, Table L-2, provides a due date for Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan, DRD (HSFTIC-PM-09) as “Post selection, prior to Contract Award”. Section L.16.7(b) requires Offerors to briefly address in their proposal the content points A through J as provided in DRD

(HSFTIC-PM-09)

Question: Does the Government intend for Offerors to provide a draft OCI plan in their Volume IV Responsibility Considerations proposal response?

Recommendation: Please confirm.

No. As specified in L.16.2, Table 2, Section L.16.7 (b) states “…the Offeror shall briefly address in their proposal the content points (A through J) as provided in

DRD HSFTIC-PM-09.”

21 Sec L RFP Reference: Section L.16.4 Volume II Past Performance (Factor 2), Paragraph L.16.4.1(b)

Topic: The Section L instruction requires Offerors to “submit information on three contracts for each proposed major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner (subcontracts estimated annual value greater than $5,000,000).”

Question: Will the Government please clarify if that instruction intends to convey that, for past performance purposes, the definition of a major

1) For past performance purposes, the definition of a major subcontractor/teaming partner/JV partner is performing at least $5,000,000 in annual value under the HSFTIC contract.

2. If a proposed subcontractor/teaming partner/JV partner will be performing less than $5,000,000 of annual HSFTIC contract value, then they are not a major subcontractor and any submitted past performance records will not be considered under the Past Performance factor.

subcontractor/teaming partner/JV partner is performing at least $5,000,000 in annual value under the HSFTIC contract? Additionally, if a proposed subcontractor/teaming partner/JV partner will be performing less than $5,000,000 of annual contract value, then they are not a major subcontractor and any submitted past performance records will not be evaluated under the Past Performance factor?

Recommendation: Please confirm.

22 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5(d)3

Question: The Core Pricing Flowchart seems to correspond to the “EPM- [Company Name].xls” workbook. If that statement is correct, it appears that the “TOPT-SR” template belongs in the “Cost Estimating EPM-[Company Name].xls” workbook instead of the “EPM-[Company Name].xls” workbook.

Please clarify.

The Core Pricing Flowchart corresponds to both the “EPM-[Company Name].xls” workbook for the Core portion as well as the entire “Cost Estimating EPM- [Company Name].xls” workbook. The TOPT-SR Template is only for the IDIQ portion of the HSFTIC procurement, which is covered in only the “EPM- [Company name].xls” workbook.

23 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5(d)4

Question: The IDIQ Pricing Flowchart seems to correspond to the “Cost Estimating EPM-[Company Name].xls” workbook. If that statement is correct, it appears that a few templates are missing from the “Cost Estimating EPM- [Company Name].xls” workbook. It looks like the FBR template, MST

Please see the answer to Question #22 above.

template, and TOPT-SR template need to be included in the “Cost Estimating EPM-[Company Name].xls” workbook.

24 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5(d)4

Question: In the IDIQ Pricing Flowchart, is the total roll-up template (for the IDIQ portion) the TOPT-SR template or is it the PCST (Cost Estimating) template?

The total roll-up template for IDIQ is the TOPT-SR template. This is then totaled, along with the Core and the Cost Estimating PCSTs, in the Contract Grand Total template to summarize the entire contract cost.

25 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5(d)4

Question: Does the “Contract Grand Total” template include the TOPT-SR (IDIQ), PCST-CORE, and PCST-CORE ESTIMATING? Or does the “Contract Grand Total” just include the TOPT-SR (IDIQ) template and PCST-CORE template?

The “Contract Grand Total” template includes the PSCT-CORE, the PCST-CORE from the Cost Estimating EPM, and the TOPT-SR templates.

26 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5(d)4

Question: Can the Government clarify the difference between the TOPT-SR template and the PCST-CORE ESTMATING template? They appear to be the same template.

The TOPT-SR template covers the IDIQ Specified Resources identified in Section L.16.5(c)2. The PCST- CORE in the Cost Estimating Template captures the total cost and fee for the work identified in SOW 10.0, Cost Estimating, only. The Cost Estimating portion follows the Core flowchart provided in Section L.16.5(d)3.

27 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5(d)2

Question: The “Contract Grand Total” template is not included in the list of templates in the table in Section L.16.5(d)2. Please include the “Grand Total” template in the “EPM” workbook list or please let us know if we should

The “Contract Grand Total” template was not included in the list because there was no acronym for it; it is now included in the list for ease of reference. A new acronym list has also been added for the “Cost Estimating-EPM” workbook to include all templates required for that workbook for ease of reference.

include it in the “Cost Estimating-EPM” workbook.

28 Sec L RFP Reference: L.16.5

Question: Is all the direct work on the HSFTIC being performed on-site (in a Government provided facility)? If no, please provide the GRE (SLCs and corresponding hours in a year) for the personnel working off-site (in an Offeror provided facility).

The primary place of performance shall be at or near the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in support of the SOW requirements. The Government’s plan is to make on-site space available. During Phase-in, the Government will work with the Awardee for on-site seating accommodations. Currently under the MAPI contract, the Government makes available, on a “no-charge-for use” basis, approximately 413 on-site “workstation” seats at JSC and the Sonny Carter Training Facility.

29 Sec L RFP Reference: Section L.16.5(c)1 in Table L-4

Question: Section L.16.5(c)1 in Table L-4, are the 2 WYEs listed as “Program Manager” the Key Personnel (Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager)?

Yes, the 2 WYEs under Program Manager in Table L-4 are for the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager. The Table L-4 will be updated to include the Deputy Program Manager.

30 Sec L RFP Reference: L.7, NFS 1852.231- 71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness

Question: DRD HSFTIC-PR-03, Total Compensation Plan specifies the format and information needed for the TCP submittal. L.7, NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness also identifies a format and information needed for the TCP submittal. Can the Offeror submit one TCP that complies with the DRD format?

Please reconcile.

Yes, the offeror can submit their TCP in accordance with the last paragraph of the TCP DRD.

31 Sec L

Reference Table L-2 Page Limitations.

The Management Approach, Staffing and Key Personnel Approach, and Contract Phase In are limited to 25 pages total. Since the incumbent does not need to conduct a Phase-In this creates an unfair advantage since they would have significantly more pages available to address their Management and Staffing approaches than any other bidder.

Question: Will the Government consider either removing the Contract Phase-In from the page counted section, or specify a page allocation for Phase In that would be the same for all bidders?

1. As part of the pilot program explained during Industry Day, the Government’s strategy was to reduce page count.

2. The Government is confident the page allocation as outlined in Section L for both the Management Approach and Contract Phase-in Approach is sufficient.

All Offerors are requested to address all subfactors.

32 Sec L Reference Table L-4

Question: The title of Table L-4 says it is for SOW 10.-10.0. Should this read

SOW 1.0-10.0?

Thank you for identifying this inadvertent error. This has been revised to read 1.0 – 10.0

33 Sec L Reference Attachments L-7

The List of Attachments includes L-7 the Cost Estimating Template Workbook and L-7 the Preaward Survey. Both are marked L-7. Further, and no Cost Estimating Workbook is included.

Question: Will the Government provide a draft of the Workbooks so that offerors can have time to work through the model

A draft of the EPM workbook and the Cost Estimating EPM workbook will be provided as L-attachments to Section L when the Final RFP is released.

to ensure everything is flowing properly and in accordance to the Section L instructions?

34 Sec L Reference L-7 the Preaward Survey

There are no instructions on how to include Attachment L-7, Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System.

Question: Should this be included in Volume IV Responsibility Considerations?

L.16.6 (a) Volume IV, Responsibility Considerations has been revised to include instructions on how to include the J attachment for Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System.

35 Sec L Reference L. 16.3.2 Management Approach, Staffing and Key Personnel Approach, and DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 item M

The instructions for the Management approach require addressing items A, B, C, D, E, F, I, and M of DRD HSFTIC- PM-01. Item M of the DRD requests a discussion of the staffing approach, including hiring and retaining throughout contract performance. The next section in L.16.3.2, Staffing and Key Personnel Approach, asks for this same material, specifically “ discuss its approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filling, and retaining Staffing and Key Personnel including the Program Manager and/or Deputy Program Manager, as well as, Teaming Partners.” This appears redundant. In addition, it is unclear what the Government means by including the text: “as well as, Teaming Partners”, The government has revised “Staffing and Key Personnel Approach” to “Key Personnel Approach”

A. No, it is the government’s intent for the two areas to be addressed separately, staffing is addressed by Management Approach DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 content item M, leaving Key Personnel Approach to address key personnel proposed in clause H.5.

B. Key Personnel has been revised to remove “Teaming Partners”. Key Personnel in this section is only applicable to the key personnel proposed in clause H.5.

since Teaming Partners are not staff to be selected and retained.

Question A: Is it the Government’s intention that the approach to staffing and retention be addressed twice in successive sections, or are the two sections to address different staffing issues?

Question B: Can the Government clarify what is meant by including the reference to Teaming Partners in the Staffing and Key Personnel section?

36 Sec L Reference L.16.4.1(b)

The RFP states, “The Offeror shall submit information on three contracts for each proposed major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner (subcontracts estimated annual value greater than $5,000,000).” The following example of a 3-company team states that they should submit “no more than nine”.

Question: Should this requirement read:

“up to three” contracts or does it have to be exactly three--no more, no less?

Section L was rewritten to identify no more than 3 contracts. As stated in Section L, Offerors with no past performance experience shall so state.

37 Sec L Reference L.16.5(c) GREs

Table L-3 breaks out the FTEs by SOW and Table L-4 breaks out the FTEs by Skill Mix.

Thank you for your identifying this inadvertent error with a table labeled FTE rather than WYE. Tables L-3 and L-4 do identify WYEs by SOW and WYEs by skill mix.

Question: Can the Government provide a table that identifies the FTEs by WYE Skill Mix within each SOW area?

38 Sec L Reference L.16.4.2 Key Personnel Resumes

Resumes are required from the Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager (if proposed), and any other proposed Key personnel. Section L.16.4.2 states that the work history is limited to the last 5 years. Since Key positions are typically very senior positions that require a broad range of skills and experience, it is likely that a longer baseline would be needed to demonstrate the skills and experience of people at this level.

Question: Will the government consider increasing the work history period to ten (10) years?

Please reference the response to question # 14.

39 Sec L Concern 1: Draft RFP Section L.16.3.2, page L-15

Draft RFP Reference: “In accordance with NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, the Prime Offeror and all Subcontractors that meet the criteria in FAR 53.222-46 and NFS 1852.231-71(d) shall submit a Total Compensation Plan as required by DRD HSFTIC-PR-03, Total Compensation Plan.”

Concern/Recommendation: The criteria in FAR 53.222-46 and NFS 1852.231-71(d) is lower than the RFP

The TCP threshold is dictated by FAR 53.222-46 and NFS 1852.231-71(d), which is lower than the major subcontractor definition. The FAR and NFS govern the Government’s acquisition process. If the TCP threshold is increased, the Government would be in violation of FAR 53.222-46 and NFS 1852.231-71(d) because it did not fulfill its obligation to evaluate the requirements set forth in those clauses.

definition of major subcontractor ($5M annually) and would require minor subcontractors to prepare and submit Total Compensation Plans (TCP).

Please consider increasing the threshold for TCP submission to be consistent with the major subcontractor definition.

40 Sec L Sec M

Concern 2: Draft RFP Section L.16.4.1, page L-18 and Section M.3.2.1, page M-4

Draft RFP Reference: “(f) In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, as defined above and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company), which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, at Section L, Attachment L-3, to each technical and/or contracting point of contact on the PPIF. The Offeror shall request the customer references to complete the questionnaire and ensure that all references are directed to return directly to the Contracting Officer via e-mail per the contact information provided on the attachment L-3 so as to allow for

It is the Offerors responsibility to submit the data as instructed in L.16.4 (f) “... shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, at Section L, Attachment L- 3, to each technical and/or contracting point of contact on the PPIF.” Revised L-1, Past Performance Information Forms blocks 10a and 10b to include “This may include Government Points of Contact.” In addition, the SEB has the ability to review information from various sources, reference M.3.2.1 (b).

receipt by the Government on or before the proposal due date.”

“In accordance with FAR 15.305, an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a rating of neutral will be assigned.”

Concern/Recommendation: Offerors may be submitting relevant contract citations for subcontracted effort that require prime contractors to complete a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

In certain situations, these prime contractor PPQs may lack objectivity or may not be completed and returned to the Government (e.g., if prime contractor is on a competing HSFTIC team or if HSFTIC prime contractor is completing PPQ for their own subcontractor). What allowances has the Government made for PPQs that are not returned by prime contractors or lack objectivity? We recommend that Offerors be allowed to submit additional performance related information for subcontracts (e.g., subcontractor award fee evaluation reports received from the prime contractor) to ensure the Government has proper and objective means of evaluating performance.

41 Sec L

Concern 3: Draft RFP Section L.16.5, page L-22

Draft RFP Reference: “Note: The proposed direct labor rate of escalation discussed in this paragraph shall match the direct labor rate of escalation proposed in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Incumbency Retention and Pay (IRAP) Template.”

Concern/Recommendation: There are several references to the IRAP template in the Cost and Price Volume instructions. The IRAP template, as utilized in recent NASA/JSC procurements, requires the provision of incumbent labor rate data. In addition, the JSC Procurement Website states:

“For future acquisitions, the Government anticipates providing historical average composite direct labor rates in the applicable Source Evaluation Board (SEB) or Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) technical library. The Government also anticipates providing information on the approximate seniority profile of incumbent employees.” Please confirm that the Government is planning to provide incumbent labor rate and seniority data for use by all Offerors in the preparation of their Cost and Price Volumes. We respectfully request this information be provided as soon as

Please reference the response to question #12.

possible (i.e., prior to Final RFP release) to enable time for proper analysis and strategy development.

42 Sec L

Concern 4: Draft RFP Section L.16.5, page L-24

Draft RFP Reference: “(c) Pricing Methodology For purposes of this solicitation, Offerors shall be required to provide their estimate of the required level of resources necessary to perform the Statement of Work (SOW) as discussed in the following paragraphs:”

“Offerors shall develop their own resource estimates that support their unique management and technical approaches and shall provide supporting rationale in narrative form even if the Offeror uses the GRE as the basis for their proposal.”

Concern/Recommendation: NASA indicated at Industry Day that “Industry can expect to see a reduction in how much information NASA requests as part of the RFP” and “Reduced number of proposal volumes with greatly reduced page counts”. Although the traditional NASA/JSC Basis of Estimate instruction was not included in the Draft RFP, supporting rationale for resource estimates requires the same level of rigor and preparation complexity and is

Your recommendations are acknowledged, thank you for this feedback. Your input will be considered as NASA prepares the Final RFP.

inconsistent with a streamlined procurement approach. The requirement to estimate the labor and non-labor resources for all years of HSFTIC performance appears to be a holdover from the previous MAPI procurement which involved a transition to completion-form contracting and resulted in hundreds of pages of supporting rationale prepared by each Offeror (and evaluated by the Government).

HSFTIC is a cost reimbursable contract with a core component of completion-form baseline requirements based on an Annual Work Plan. Although the Government-provided Workload Indicators appear similar to an Annual Work Plan, there is tremendous uncertainty associated with the HSFTIC resource impact of ISS commercialization, Orion initial launch, Gateway program formulation, and CPSS implementation. In addition, the provided Workload Indicators are incomplete and don’t provide the necessary detail to develop a justifiable estimate (e.g., SOW 3.5 & 3.6: “daily level of effort tasks”, SOW 9.8: “as requested – monthly”, and SOW 5.17.5:

“monthly”). The requirement for resource rationale is at best a guessing game between Offerors interpreting the Workload Indicators, forecasting future requirements, and introducing assumptions, and at worst a liar’s contest of interested parties trying to convince the Government they can perform the HSFTIC requirements with the least number and lowest skilled support to arrive at the lowest price.

Regardless of the proposed resources, the successful Offeror will hire the number of personnel and skill type required to perform the requirements (typically NASA contractors retain the vast majority of incumbent employees) and the Government will reimburse the HSFTIC contractor for the actual cost incurred (albeit the size of the fee pool will be constrained by the original proposal).

As currently stated in the Draft RFP, resource rationale is an unconstrained instruction in a non-page counted volume and can result in detailed estimating rationale that could easily encompass hundreds of pages. A simple page limit restriction on the resource rationale won’t impact the level of detailed preparation and complexity since Offerors have to estimate the lowest level tasks and then rollup the results to meet an arbitrary page limitation. This scenario would provide the Government incomplete rationale and make evaluation difficult and confusing. We recommend the Government consider the following alternative approach:

1) Mandate the Government Resource

Estimate (GRE) in Table L-3 for evaluation purposes only to assess direct labor rates and indirect burdens and fee (which are the key cost/price discriminators in a dynamic program environment).

2) Request resource rationale for just HSFTIC Program Management consistent with each Offerors management approach. This supports the Government’s evaluation emphasis on Management Approach and NASA’s desire to focus their evaluation on key discriminators between Offerors.

3) Assess the viability of proposed efficiencies by requesting unique efficiency narratives and assigning a risk factor to each (rather than allowing Offerors to bury the efficiency narrative within hundreds of pages of resource rationale).

4) Provide meaningful contract incentives for the successful HSFTIC contractor to look for efficiencies that can reduce cost throughout the period of performance.

5) Consider a Department of Energy procurement best practice and assign quantified risk factors to the proposed cost to assess how well each Offeror has historically performed to their proposed staffing levels and rates.

This is a critical issue for all Offerors as they contemplate preparing their HSFTIC proposals. We respectfully request the Government provide guidance as soon as possible so all Offerors can adapt their proposal development strategy accordingly.

43 Sec L Reference: Section L.9.b,c, L5

(b) All offerors shall follow FBO.gov usage requirements as defined in the Vendor User Guide posted on the home page of FBO.gov.

The government will not consider allowing submittal of files via thumb drives instead of submittal on beta.SAM.gov. All security features that are currently in place on FBO (i.e. logins, passwords, etc.) will be maintained after the transition to beta.SAM.gov.

(c) "Files shall not have password protection, encryption, or any access of viewing restrictions.”

Also, refer to the following notice posted on the FBO website:

ATTENTION: FBO is moving to beta.SAM.gov starting on November 8, 2019. Until then, FBO.gov remains the authoritative source for Federal Business Opportunities. Once FBO has fully transitioned, you will be directed to beta.SAM.gov for contracting opportunities. Visit beta.SAM.gov today to preview new features like saved searches and the ability to follow notices. For more information, please visit the beta.SAM.gov learning center or read our fact sheet.

Question:

Given that Federal Business Opportunities is transitioning to a SAMS.gov beta site prior to the due date of the HSFTIC proposal, with no information on how our data will be protected on the new website, and that the DRFP requires offerors submit non-encrypted and non-password protected files, would the Government consider allowing submittal via thumb drives instead of submittal on SAMS.gov?

44 Sec L Reference: Section L.16.2.1.a.2, L12

The following requirements apply to the sections of the proposal which are page count limited: …Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size.

Question:

Due to the constrained page count for the HSFTIC proposal, can the requirement for text in diagrams, charts, tables, etc. to be reduced to “no smaller than 10 point text size” to enable better use of graphic space? With this change we believe the page limit as stated in the Draft RFP is appropriate.

At this time, no change in required text size is anticipated. Please conform to the instructions as stated.

45 Sec L Reference: Section L.16.3.2, L15

DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 M: Describe staffing approach to include the role of management and supervisors in managing the work being performed, sources of staffing including new hires and retention of incumbent personnel, retention approach throughout the contract period of performance, Please reference response to question #35 approach for staffing to provide the flexibility to accommodate changes in requirements, fluctuation in workload and unexpected attrition and a summary of the compensation structure and approach for recruiting and retaining a highly competent workforce.

Staffing and Key Personnel Approach:

The Offeror shall discuss its approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filling, and retaining Staffing and Key Personnel, including the Program Manager and/or Deputy Program Manager, as well as, Teaming Partners.

The Offeror shall address the Key Personnel positions listed/proposed in Clause H.5.

Recommendation:

There appears to be overlap in the requirements for the Management Approach and the Staffing and Key Personnel Approach. Recommend moving the requirement to respond to DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 “M” from the Management Approach to the Staffing and Key Personnel Approach

46 Sec L Reference: Section L.16.4.1.b, L17 Please reference the response to question #36

(b) The Offeror shall submit information on three contracts for each proposed major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner (subcontracts estimated annual value greater than $5,000,000). For example, a prime Contractor with two major subcontractors shall describe no more than nine contracts (each on a separate PPIF for a total of no more than nine PPIFs). Two teaming partners and two major subcontractors shall submit information on no more than 12 contracts (each on a separate PPIF for a total of no more than 12 PPIFs). Offerors with no past performance experience shall so state.

Recommendation:

The requirement states "the Offeror shall submit information on 3 contracts", but the examples refer to the submittals as "no more than" 3 contracts. Please edit the shall statement to be "no more than 3" contracts per company meeting the stated requirements to be consistent with the examples.

47 Sec L Reference: Section L.16.4.1.c, L17

Offerors shall consider the recency and relevance, as they relate specifically to this solicitation. Only contract period of performances within five years from the date of the Human Space Flight Integration Contract original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation.

Recommendation:

Given the significant change in the ISS, Orion, and Gateway programs over the past few years; ISS fully operational and transitioning to commercial utilization, Orion moving from full development to test flights and operation, and Gateway transitioning to a formal development program, contract performance 5 years ago does not demonstrate the relevance required to operate this contract.

Recommend changing the recency requirement to 3 years.

Recent contracts supporting HSF programs, including KLXS III and CPSS, are using the 3 years.

Your recommendations are acknowledged, thank you for this feedback. Your input will be considered as NASA prepares the Final RFP.

48 Sec L Reference: Section L.16.3.2, L15

Staffing and KP Approach; The Offeror shall discuss its approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filling, and

Please reference the response to question #35.

retaining Staffing and Key Personnel, including the Program Manager and/or Deputy Program Manager, as well as, Teaming Partners.

Recommendation:

Recommend deleting “Teaming Partners” from Staffing and Key Personnel Approach. The Management Approach requirements cover the Teaming Partner Approach.

49 Sec L Reference: Section L-1.12c, L40

Describe the nature and scope of the work as it relates to your proposed role in performing Attachment J-1, Statement of Work. The objective is for you to explain how the work you performed or are performing, is relevant (similar in scope, size in dollars, and complexity) to the Statement of Work (SOW) that is to be performed by you under the Contract.

Provide a crosswalk to the SOW elements that are relevant to the work described in each Form. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide adequate information to enable the Government to obtain completed Past Performance Questionnaires from all referenced companies.

Section L-1 12c, has been revised to substitute the word “crosswalk” with “cross reference”.

Recommendation:

Similar recommendation as above (#8) for the level of detail the crosswalk to the SOW elements should go to be able to help with relevancy evaluation for Past Performance. The cross-walk will be very large and should not be counted against page count. Another option is to provide a cross-walk type matrix at the beginning of the PPIF section that shows the cross-walk for all of the PPIFs.

50 Sec L L-13 L.16.2.1.b.4 Each volume of the proposal should be submitted as a separate electronic file

Paragraph L.9.c (page L-5) states that proposal files may be compressed into a single zip file or submitted as separate files. Please clarify whether or not a single zip file is an option

A single zip file is an option for proposal submittal. Each volume of the proposal is required to be a separate electronic file within that zip file.

51 Sec L L-13 L.16.2.1(b)Paragraph Section L.16.2.1(b)(2) is missing. Please clarify.

Thank you for helping us to identify that inadvertent error. Correction has been made.

52 Sec L L-15 L.16.3.2Sub-factor elements Management Approach and Staffing and Key Personnel Approach

The element Management Approach includes the requirement to respond to DRD HSFTIC-PM-01 content item M, which asks the offeror to “describe staffing approach to include … sources of staffing including new hires and retention of incumbent personnel, retention approach throughout the contract period of performance, approach for staffing …”.

Please reference the response to questions # 17 & # 35

The element Staffing and Key Personnel Approach asks the offeror to “discuss its approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filing, and retaining Staffing and Key Personnel, including the Program Manager and/or Deputy Program Manager, as well as, Teaming Partners.”

Please clarify the expectations regarding differences in what the offeror is expected to provide in response to these two elements. Is there a specific and unique focus for each element to which the offeror should respond? For example, is the first element focused on the overall staffing approach and the second element focused on the proposed key personnel? The tight page constraint requires we eliminate any redundancy, yet the evaluation criteria imply that the two elements are evaluated separately based on Section L instructions that imply redundancy.

53 Sec L L-15 L.16.3.2 “The Offeror shall discuss its approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filling, and retaining Staffing and Key Personnel, including the Program Manager and/or Deputy Program Manager, as well as, Teaming Partners.”

The sentence structure implies the Government wants the offeror to discuss its approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filling, and retaining …Teaming Partners. Please clarify the Government’s intent for the discussion related to Staffing and Key Personnel of Teaming Partners.

Please reference response to questions #35.

54 Sec L L-16 L.16.3.3 “A description of key activities and schedules for obtaining and

Please include a list of the current licenses maintained on the MAPI contract along

They are not provided in the Technical Library. They will be provided as an Attachment J-13, Government updating licenses, plans, processes, and procedures required to support this contract.”

with their expiration dates in the Technical Reference Library.

Furnished Data, which will be provided as part of the final RFP.

55 Sec L L-16 L.16.3.3 “The Offeror shall provide, as a minimum, an overview of its phase-in approach to critical activities, including initial staffing, badging, and computer system access, transfer of data, models, and drawings, key dependences, schedules, risks and risk mitigations.”

Please specify the “data, models, and drawings” required to be transferred during the phase-in period and identify the format for each (e.g., electronic, file type, hard copy, etc.).

A list will be provided in Attachment J-13, List of Government Furnished Data, which will be provided as part of the final RFP.

56 Sec L L-16 L.16.3.3 “d. An approach for training and certifying personnel.”

Please provide the skills requiring certification and quantify the training courses and delivery method of the current contract.

Please reference the SOW.

57 Sec L L-18 L.16.4.1 “(h) Performance Data Attachments: Offerors shall provide the following performance data below with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last ten years.”

“Provide records for the past [three] years with signature of a company executive.”

There are conflicting requirements regarding submission of Safety and Health Data. Please consider a Safety and Health Data submission of the past three years to be consistent with NASA’s intent to streamline the proposal requirements.

The Government has revised Section L.16.4.1 (h) to include a submission of the past three years.

58 Sec L L-18 L.16.4.1.f.. submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, at Section L, Attachment L-3, to each technical and/or contracting point of contact on the PPIF.

Please clarify whether the direction is to submit the questionnaire to both the technical and contracting POC, or to submit it to only one of the two – either the technical or contracting POC.

The Offeror has two options:

1. Can send the PPQ to both technical and contracting POC on the PPIF OR

2. Can send to either just the technical or the contracting POC.

Please reference the response to question #52

59 Sec L L-19 L.16.4.1 Section L.16.4.1(i) is missing. Please

Thank you for helping us identify this inadvertent error.

Correction has been made.

60 Sec L L-20 L.16.5 Please confirm that the reference to “Full- Time Equivalent” in the table should instead reference “Work Year Equivalent” in accordance with Paragraph L.16.5(b)6 on Page L-23.

Thank you for helping us to identify that inadvertent error. Correction has been made.

61 Sec L L-22 L.16.5 “Note: Offerors are cautioned against presuming the Government will approve or accept any unsolicited indirect rate ceilings offered as part of a proposal.”

Please explain the circumstances under which the Government would approve and accept indirect rate ceilings.

At this time, the Government is not aware of any circumstances where indirect rate ceilings will be approved or accepted.

62 Sec L L-23 L.16.5 “The Government does not require the use of uncompensated overtime; however, if proposed, include a detailed narrative basis of estimate explaining your proposed methodology and provide your historical experience for similar work.”

Please explain the circumstances under which the Government would accept uncompensated overtime.

The government does not require the use of uncompensated overtime, but it will be accepted if it is proposed. If uncompensated overtime is proposed, the Offeror shall include a detailed narrative basis of estimated explaining the proposed methodology. The Offeror shall also provide their historical experience of similar work to justify the use of uncompensated overtime.

63 Sec L L-23 L.16.5 “Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) to facilitate a consistent

Attachment J-5 was not provided with the Draft RFP. SLCs are integral to Cost and

This information will be provided as part of the Final RFP release.

evaluation among Offerors are provided in Attachment J-5.”

Price Volume development and we respectfully request Attachment J-5 be provided as soon as possible (i.e., prior to Final RFP release) to enable time for proper analysis and strategy development.

64 Sec L L-24 L.16.5 (c) 1 (a)Offerors shall develop their own resource estimates that support their unique management and technical approaches and shall provide supporting rationale in narrative form even if the Offeror uses the GRE as the basis for their proposal.

Please clarify if the Offeror needs to provide supporting rationale at the level the work is described in the SOW or at the TRT level.

The Offeror shall provide supporting rationale at the Technical Resources Template (TRT) level. The Excel Pricing Module (EPM) will be provided as part of the release of the Final RFP.

65 Sec L L-24 L.16.5(c) “The proposed labor and non-labor resources are for the Prime Offeror’s entire team (i.e., the Prime and all Subcontractors) and shall be identified per the level of detail specified on the Technical Resources Templates (TRT)…”

Historically, the TRT template contained Labor only. Please provide an example of how to incorporate non-labor into the TRT template.

The EPM will be provided when the Final RFP is released.

66 Sec L L-24 L.16.5 “A Government Resource Estimate (GRE) for Contract Year 1 (CY1) only is provided in Tables L-3, L- 4, L-5.“

Please clarify the following regarding the Government Resource Estimate (GRE):

1) Are the Orion and Gateway baseline

SOW requirements included in the

GRE?

2) Have the WYE transferred to the

CPSS PP&C contract been removed from the GRE?

1) Yes, the GRE in tables L-3, L-4, L-5…