FRFP Industry Questions and Responses 111919.docx
DOCX document 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 80JSC019R0023
About this file
This document contains responses to industry questions regarding a Request for Proposal for the Human Space Flight Technical Integration Contract. Key details include that the solicitation seeks to provide technical integration services for human space flight programs. The anticipated RFP release date is November 1, 2019, with a proposal due date of December 11, 2019. The contract is set aside for all small businesses and has a North American Industry Classification System code and size standard of 541715 and 1,250 employees, respectively. The incumbent contractor's documentation will be provided during the phase-in period to support the new contractor's transition. The responses clarify requirements around conference facilities, licenses and maintenance agreements, past performance information, and key personnel resumes.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 212 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Responses to Industry’s Questions to the HSFTIC DRFP 09/24/19 Reponses to Industry Questions to Final Request For Proposal (FRFP) and Preproposal Conference
Q #1
Area
Page
Draft RFP Reference
Question/Comment
Response
| 1 |
| Cover Letter |
| 4 |
| “Enclosed with this letter is a Document Change Log which documents notable changes made to the RFP since the release of the Draft RFP.” |
| The Document Change Log was not included as an enclosure to the Cover Letter. Please advise. |
| Thank you for identifying this inadvertent error in the RFP cover letter. The government recognizes a document change log was not issued with the final RFP. Due to a significant number of changes and reviews between the draft RFP and the final RFP, the Government decided that a complete replacement without a change log was in the best interest for this solicitation. However, any future updates to the final RFP will be documented in a document change log with each modification and posted to Beta.SAM.gov. |
| 2 |
| Cover Letter |
| 3 |
| “Offerors must deliver their proposal in accordance with Section L.9 Proposal Marking and Delivery through Beta.SAM.gov” |
| Does the Government have a contingency plan should there be issues with electronic submission through the Beta.SAM.gov site? |
| Beta.SAM.gov is administered by the Federal Government and is currently not providing any alternate process or contingency options for its users. NASA is a required user of this system for all procurements. To date, the initial transition work completed from FedBizOps to Beta.SAM.gov is proceeding. We continue to observe the work being done to Beta.SAM.gov and will continue to provide any information to industry that is made available to us. We also recommend, as stated in the Preproposal Conference, that all Offerors refer to Beta.SAM.gov to create an account as soon as possible and visit the site daily for any updates. We also recommend that all Offerors take advantage of all the videos, quick start guides, and other information provided to users on the Beta.SAM.gov website. |
| 3 |
| Sec J |
| DRD |
J-A1-52 HSFTIC-PM-01 “E. Provide a description of the responsibilities and authorities of each manager position with a reference to the corresponding SOW requirement(s) and proposed WBS.”
| The WBS is not required to be submitted with the proposal (per the procurement streamlining initiative). Please clarify the instruction to reference the proposed WBS. |
| For the final RFP, Section L.16.3.2 Management Approach was amended to be clearer as it relates to what the Offeror shall address in their proposal and therefore, is no longer tied to the DRD HSFTIC-PM-01, Program Management Plan. |
| 4 |
| Sec J |
| J-13 |
Tab 4 – HW SW License
| J-13, List of Government Furnished Data More than two-thirds of the licenses and maintenance agreements in this tab are either already expired or will expire before the planned start of the HSFTIC contract |
| Please clarify what assumption we should make with regard to renewal of licenses and agreements. For example, should we assume that all licenses and agreements are renewed automatically for one year on the expiration date shown in this tab? |
Assume all licenses will be renewed.
| 5 |
| Sec J |
| Attach J-1 |
J-A1-65
| “This plan shall correlate to the yearly contract value set forth in the J-11, Award Fee and Incentive Fee Evaluation Plan Mission and Program Integration Contract.” |
| Please update DRD for HSFTIC. |
| Thank you for identifying this inadvertent error. DRD HSFTIC-PM-08, Annual Work Plans has been revised to read “Human Space Flight Technical Integration Contract”. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1). |
| 6 |
| Sec J |
| Attach J-11 |
J-A11-6
Enclosure 1 “Cost performance will not be evaluated under Award Fee provisions.” [emphasis added]
“Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.”
| Please reconcile the conflicting language within the award fee evaluation. |
| The definitions in FAR 16.401 (e)(3)(iv) cannot be altered. Based on this, the Award Fee definitions will not be amended to remove “overall cost” as the J-11 Award Fee/Incentive Fee Plan contemplates cost performance will be measured by the Incentive Fee evaluation only. |
| 7 |
| Sec J |
| Attach J-5 |
J-A5-3
| Engineer II – A BS degree or higher in engineering with a minimum of five (5) years of professional experience, performing professional work in design, development, test, operations, or systems integration. |
| Would the government consider adding “typically” to the years of experience similar to the labor descriptions in the CMC III RFP (e.g., Engineer II - A BS degree or higher in engineering with typically a minimum of five (5) years of professional experience, performing professional work in design, development, test, operations, or systems integration.)? |
Your recommendation is acknowledged and thank you for this feedback, however, the Government has determined that the Engineer II SLC as written in attachment J-5 as reasonable.
| 8 |
| Sec L |
| L-52 |
| Attach L-6, IA Template: “NOTE: Information pertaining to incumbent direct labor rates and seniority levels will be available in the Technical Library prior to Final RFP.” |
| We have reviewed the Technical Library and were unable to locate the incumbent direct labor rates and seniority levels. Please provide this information as soon as possible so all Offerors can prepare their Cost Volumes accordingly. |
The incumbent direct labor rates and seniority levels has been uploaded to the Technical Library (References section).
| 9 |
| Sec L |
| L-51 |
| Attachment L-4 “Include the following statement: |
By submission of this information, the Key Person and Offeror authorize NASA to contact references, previous employers, and other sources to verify accuracy.”
| Key Personnel candidates may be employed by another company and not wish to have their current employer be made aware of their interest in the HSFTIC opportunity. In addition, privacy laws restrict the information that can be provided by employers who are contacted as references. We recommend that Key Personnel candidates be given the option to specify which of their current or previous employers may be contacted to ensure confidentiality and privacy (as is done in other NASA/JSC procurements that require submission of Key Personnel resumes with employment references). |
| For the final RFP, attachment L-4 was amended to allow the Key Person to specify which of their current or previous employers may be contacted. |
However, per section M.3.2.1 (b) Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources.
| 10 |
| Sec L |
| L-19 |
| Draft RFP L.16.4.1 |
Draft RFP Reference: “For the Government to accomplish an evaluation of past performance, the Offeror shall use the form at Section L, Attachment L-1, Past Performance Information Form (PPIF). Only one contract shall be described per PPIF and is subject to a 5-page limitation.”
The strict guidance to only submit Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF) for the prime contractor and major subcontractors doesn’t allow Offerors the opportunity to introduce their team and indicate the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) being returned directly to the Government. Given the early submission request, we recommend Offerors be allowed to provide a Past Performance Volume Introduction (no more than 5 pages) to introduce their team and orient the Government to the PPIFs included in the Volume and the PPQs being returned directly to the Government.
Your recommendation is acknowledged and thank you for this feedback, however, the Government has determined that the requested data in L.16.4.1 is reasonable and sufficient.
| 11 |
| Sec L |
| L-51 |
| Attachment L-4 “9. References: Name, title, address, current telephone number, e-mail. The proposed Key Personnel should list three references.4It is the Government’s preference that Offerors provide references that are not currently Federal employees” |
| Key Personnel candidates with the requisite qualifications are likely supporting Federal Government customers who would be most knowledgeable of their capabilities and provide an objective evaluation of their credentials. Please explain the Government’s intent to discourage use of current Federal employee references. |
For the Final RFP, attachment L-4 was updated to allow references from Federal Employees
| 12 |
| Sec L |
| L-51 |
| Attachment L-4 “8. Level of Security Clearance (if any):” |
| There is no indication of security requirements within the HSFTIC Draft RFP. Please explain the Government’s rationale for soliciting security clearance levels of proposed key personnel. |
Thank you for identifying this inadvertent error. There are no security clearance requirements within the HSFTIC RFP and Attachment L-4; Key Personnel Resume has been updated to remove “8. Level of Security Clearance (If any). This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1).
| 13 |
| Sec L |
| L-17 |
| L.16.3.3 “g. The Offerors plan, in accordance with Attachment J-8, Conference Facilities Management, for securing the existing or renegotiation of the lease for the ISS Conference Facility, located at 1800 Space Park Drive. If the Offerors plan is not to use this location, then propose your strategy for a facility that meets the requirements per SOW 2.5 and Attachment J-8. In addition, the Offeror shall address the transition to the proposed facility highlighting any possible interruptions in service and risks associated in providing the service.” |
| Please confirm that Offerors should assume that the existing ISS Conference Facility located at 1800 Space Park Drive meets all the requirements per SOW 2.5 and Attachment J-8. |
| Yes, the existing ISS Conference Facility located at 1800 Space Park Drive meets all the requirements per SOW 2.5 and Attachment J-8. |
| 14 |
| Sec L |
| L-19 |
| L.16.4.1 “For all work performed during the past three years, Offerors shall provide the following: |
(2) Records of the company’s occupational injuries and illnesses. These records shall include, for each worksite, as a minimum, number of occupational injuries and illness, annual average number of employees at the worksite, total hours worked by all employees, and applicable NAICS code. Provide records for the past three years with signature of a company executive. Provide explanatory remarks of adverse performance and methods being used to improve performance. A copy of each year’s OSHA logs (Forms 300 and 300A) may be submitted or equivalent occupational injury and illness data.”
The requested information for all work performed during the past three years is quite voluminous and takes substantial effort to gather for companies with many contracts and worksites. Similar requirements on recent JSC procurements have used the following qualifiers:
SMAEC II – ““For all referenced work performed during the past 5 years, Offerors shall provide the following:”
CMC 3 – ““Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on relevant contracts performed in the last five years.”
We respectfully request the Government modify the requested information to “For all referenced work…” to coincide with the submitted PPIFs.
Your recommendation is acknowledged and thank you for this feedback, however, the Government has determined that the request for data in L.16.4.1 (h) is reasonable.
| 15 |
| Sec L |
| L-12 |
| L.16.2.1 JSC 52.215-113 Proposal Formatting Instructions (Nov 2018) (JPI) |
(a)(2) “The following requirements apply to the sections of the proposal which are page limited: Sections of the proposal which are page limited shall be prepared and submitted using non-compressed Times New Roman font with single-spaced 12 point text with a one-inch margin on all sides in accordance with Microsoft Word default settings. Character spacing shall be “Normal” per Microsoft Word settings. Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size. Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. The margins may contain headers and footers but shall not contain any proposal content to be evaluated.”
| Please clarify if text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size and Times New Roman font or any font (e.g., Arial Narrow). |
| To clarify as stated in L.16.2.1 (a) (2), “Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size.” was intended to denote font size only and therefore any font can be used as it relates to text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs. |
| 16 |
| Sec L |
| L-11 |
| L.16.2 (b), Table L-2 Table L-2 indicates that electronic versions of the Past Performance Questionnaires are to be submitted in MS Word format; however, the questionnaire is provided by the Government in PDF format. |
| Can we convert the Past Performance Questionnaire into MS Word using our own format as long as the content is the same? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire may be converted into MS Word but the formatting and content shall remain the same. |
| 17 |
| Sec L |
| L-13 |
| L.16.2.1(b)(3) Volume V, Model Contract Files |
| Will the Government provide MS Word files of the HSFTIC Final RFP for submission of the Model contract. Please provide MS Office application formats. |
The Government plans to post the HSFTIC RFP in Microsoft Word format to Beta.SAM.gov.
| 18 |
| Sec L |
| L-52 |
| Attachment L-6 Format within the EPM Tabs. |
| Is the government opposed to the contractor adding columns within tabs of the EPM to be in alignment with the contractor’s financial structure? |
Additional columns are allowed, but there must be clear identification as to what purpose the columns are intended for.
| 19 |
| Sec L |
| L-52 |
| Attachment L-6 & L-7, TRT Tab: “This template is required from the Prime Offeror only. It is used to identify and summarize all proposed labor resources, by SLC, and all non-labor resources (NLRs) for all SOW sections for Contract Year (CY) 1” |
| Please confirm that Offerors should estimate resources and provide a basis of estimate for CY1 only and those estimates are used throughout the contract period of performance for cost evaluation purposes. |
| Yes, in keeping in-line with our pilot program streamlined approach, Offerors should provide a basis of estimate for CY1 only. However, Offerors are to estimate WYEs and NLRs for all 5-contract years. This is done at the contract level as part of the TRST. Should the resource estimates change between contract years, the cost/price narrative shall explain the rationale, and the formulas in the TRST changed to match the Offeror’s approach. |
| 20 |
| Sec L |
| L-11 |
| L.16.2(b) Table L-2 Electronic Format. Table L-2 indicates that electronic versions of Volume II, Performance Data Attachments are to be submitted in MS Word format; however, most of the required data attachments (ie. OSHA logs) are in PDF format. |
| Will the Government accept PDF copies for the electronic submission of Performance Data Attachments? |
| Yes, the Government will accept PDF format for submission as it relates to data attachments (e.g. OSHA logs). Please reference question #16 |
| 21 |
| Sec L |
| L-12 |
| L.16.2.1.a.2, is the font style in graphics required to be Times New Roman? |
| There is a requirement for not smaller than 12 point font but it’s non-specific to font style. |
| Please see response to question #15 |
| 22 |
| Sec L |
| L-27 |
| Table L-3; Att. L-6 TOPT-SR Tab: Offerors are required to develop a contractor team composite FBR per SLC, per contract year, and then apply those rates to the respective hours provided in Table L-6. The Offeror shall also utilize the NLRs provided in Table L-7. This pricing approach is facilitated through the Government-provided cost templates in the Excel Pricing Model, which is explained in detail in Paragraph (d) below. |
| Table L-6 shows 300 hours per SLC vs. the Tab TORT-SR shows 1000 hours per SLC. Please clarify this discrepancy. |
| There is an error in the TOPT-SR. The specified resources are 300 hours per SLC as shown in Table L-6 in the RFP. An amended Attachment L-6, Excel Pricing Module (EPM) Template Workbook will be posted as a modification to the RFP. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1). |
| 23 |
| Sec L |
| Attach L-6 |
TRT-SOW 9.0
| Incomplete NLR Table |
| The Non-Labor Resources (NLR Cost (4) Table is not complete. |
| An amended Attachment L-6, EPM Template Workbook will be posted as a modification to the RFP. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1). |
| 24 |
| Sec L |
| Attach L-6 & L-7 |
MSCST & PCST
| Link to Prime Offeror's "OPT" Tab |
| The Cost templates state to link Overtime hours and Cost to the OPT Tab, which currently is not in the workbooks. Will this tab be added? |
An OPT is not required for this procurement, and will be removed. An amended Attachment L-6, EPM Template Workbook will be posted as a modification to the RFP. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1).
| 25 |
| Sec L |
| Attach L-6 |
TRST
| Formula Errors |
| There are currently #REF errors in fields bidders are not supposed to edit. Will this be corrected, or should this error be corrected in our submittal? |
An amended Attachment L-6, EPM Template Workbook will be posted as a modification to the RFP. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1).
| 26 |
| Sec L |
| L-36 |
| L.16.6(e)(2)(d): “The following additional plans will be required for delivery to the Government. The plans are required, in draft form, thirty days after phase-in start, except for the Phase-In Plan, DRD (HSFTIC-PM-03), which will be required five days after phase-in start. The Contracting Officer will make notification of this requirement. |
• Program Management Plan, DRD (HSFTIC-PM-01)
• Phase-In Plan, DRD (HSFTIC-PM-03)
• Government Property Management Plan, DRD (HSFTIC-PM-10)
• Safety and Health Plan, DRD (HSFTIC-SA-02)”
| These dates conflict with the first submission dates stated in Attachment J-1. Can NASA please clarify the first submission date for these DRDs? |
| Thank you for identifying this inadvertent error. The attachment J-1, DRDs, will be amended to reflect the correct first submission date as stated in L.16.6(e)(2)(d). The following DRDs will each be amended: |
· Program Management Plan (HSFTIC-PM-01)
· Phase-In Plan (HSFTIC-PM-03)
· Government Property Management Plan (HSFTIC-PM-10)
· Safety and Health Plan (HSFTIC-SA-02)”
This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1).
| 27 |
| Sec L |
| L-20 |
| L.16.4.2: “(i) The Offeror should submit all PPIFs, Consent Letters, and Performance Data Attachments seven calendar days prior to the date for receipt of proposals.” |
| Seven days conflicts with the 11/25/19 due date in Table L-2. Please clarify when PPIFs, Consent Letters, and Performance Data Attachments should be submitted. |
| Thank you for identifying this inadvertent error. Section L.16.4.1 (i) has been amended to read “sixteen calendars days prior to the date for receipt of proposals” to be consistent with the 11/25/19 due date. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1). |
| 28 |
| Sec L |
| Attach L-6 & L-7 |
MSCST & PCST Tabs
| “This solicitation covers a period of a 60-day Phase-In, and a two year period of performance, and three 1-year option periods.” |
| POP is disjointed between Attachment L-6 (MSCST and PCST tabs, Attachment L-7 (MSCST and PCST tabs), and Section L.13. The Attachments show 3-Year Base with two 1-Year Options. 2-Year Base with three 1-Year Options. |
The POP is a 2-year base with 3, 1-year options. An amended Attachment L-6, EPM Template Workbook will be posted as a modification to the RFP. This will be updated in an amendment to the final RFP (Modification FRFP-1).
| 29 |
| Sec L |
| L-16 |
| L.16.3.2: “The page limitation is defined in the DRD HSFTIC-PR-03 and will not be counted as part of the Management Approach 25 page limit. The plan shall be provided as the J-10 attachment.” |
| Given the proprietary information contained in a company’s Total Compensation Plan, will the Government allow Subcontractors to submit their individual TCPs separate from the Prime’s submission? |
Yes, Subcontractors can submit their individual TCP separate from the Prime submission. The page limit for the TCP is 15 pages for the Prime and 15 pages for each subcontractor [subcontractors are defined in NFS 1852.231-71(d)].
| 30 |
| SOW 4.2.5.C |
| C-46 |
| Contractors are required to “begin processing procurements for renewal within 90 calendar days prior to expiration of hardware and software service agreements.” |
| (1) Is the contractor responsible for the cost of the referenced procurements? |
(2) If so, is the cost of the referenced procurements to be included in the ODC estimate in Volume III?
1) The Contractor is responsible for performing the requirements in SOW 4.2.5 but is not responsible for subcontracting these procurements (e.g. renewal of hardware and software service agreements) for reimbursement.
2) N/A
| 31 |
| SOW 4.4.2 |
| C-49 |
| The contractor shall provide, revise, and maintain a complete set of engineering drawings, hardware and software configuration, and specifications and associated change documentation for all IT systems defined in this contract. |
| Please clarify whether engineering drawings of the type required by this SOW paragraph currently exist and whether they will be provided to the incoming contractor during Phase-In. If no such drawings exist, please advise where we can find current baseline documentation for the referenced IT systems. |
| They exist and will be made available during Phase-in as part of a deliverable under the current MAPI contract (MAPI-PR-02, Re-Procurement Data Package). |
| 32 |
| SOW 4.7.1 |
| C-52 |
| The contract shall provide enhanced user support for the ISS Program Management Office for GFE equipment and remote access issue-resolution (for non NASA End-User Services & Technologies (NEST) contract services). |
| Please define “enhanced user support” and explain how it differs from standard or non-enhanced user support. Specifically, please define support parameters associated with “enhanced user support” such as hours of coverage, response time, and return to service time. |
| To clarify, enhanced user support is to provide support not covered by NEST. Support includes, but is not limited to: answering questions and requests for computer and phone issues, installing software, installing hardware, and resolving access issues, including Wi-Fi. |
Hours of coverage – generally, office hours from 8 AM to 5 PM Response time – within two hours.
Return to service time – depending on issues, same business day.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .