FC_DRFP_Q_A_80JSC020R0034.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Facilities Contract
- Solicitation number
- 80JSC020R0034
About this file
This document provides a draft request for proposal (DRFP) and associated questions and answers for the Facilities Contract at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center (NASA JSC). The solicitation is for facilities management and operations services at multiple NASA JSC locations. The incumbent contractor is invited to submit questions by June 29, 2020 regarding the DRFP. Documents related to the procurement are available online. The DRFP and associated documents cover requirements for facilities operations and maintenance, utilities management, environmental compliance, work planning and control, and task order proposals. Specific requirements include managing the Maximo computerized maintenance management system, updating facility drawings and maps, providing wildlife management, and responding to non-specified equipment emergencies under $750. The government will provide additional details on various permit and sampling requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2_Section_B Tables_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 0_BJ4-SEB-20-004_Letter_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.pdf | ||
| 1_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.pdf | ||
| 6_Attachment_L-8 PP Relevance Matrix_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3_Attachment_J-A_GFP_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 4_Attachment_L-2_EPM_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5_Attachment_L-4_SB_Tables_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Q&A
| Facilities Contract 80JSC020R0034 Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) Questions and Answers | ||||
| Number | References | Questioner's Statement | Question or Recommendation | Government Response |
| 1 | Section B Contract Value Tables; Page B-2 | The 2_Section _B Tables_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP – Microsoft Excel document contains four (4) tabs. However, the format of the FFP, Est. Cost & Award Fee tab does not match the table shown on page B-2 which contains five (5) lines specified as $OFI. | Does the Government intend to add this table to the excel document? If not, will the Government please clarify how Offerors should handle page B-2. | The Government does not intend to add the Contract Value table to the Section B Tables Excel document. The Contract Value table is for the base period only, while the "FFP, Est. Cost & Award Fee" tab of the Section B Tables Excel document is base period and all option periods. Page B-2 should be completed by the Offeror as part of the Model Contact. |
| 2 | Page 1-3; Section Restrictions, Limitations and Special Conditions; Para. 1.1.7.e | PWS states "The Contractor shall comply with the terms and conditions of all environmental permit requirements" | Can the government offer a list of applicable environmental permits? | Current permits include: JSC: Current Title V Permit (as revised in 2019); Ellington Field: Current permit (Synthetic Minor – coating activities); Combined Heat and Power Permit: Boilers Permits (24-3A and 24-5A). Numerous Permits by Rule, consistent with the size and typical operations of a federal facility (See TRL Annex 1 Files: << File: 2019-07-24 JSC Title V Permit.pdf >>; << File: 2017.06 Permit Renewal 79345.pdf >>; << File: 2016-09-09 JSC Standard Permit #130148 CHP_Revised.pdf >>; << File: 2014-09-26 JSC NSR 114721.pdf >>; and << File: 2015-08-07 JSC B24-5A NSR76247 Renewed.pdf >>). Also JSC-specific requirements applicable to above permits including, JPR 8550.1, JPR 8553.1, and JPR 1700.1. (Water) Public Water System in the State of Texas for a Non-Community/Non-Transient System. (JSC Stormwater) – Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). TPDES Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP) No Exposure Certification (NEC) (metal fabrication point source). MSGP for small and large construction projects as needed. (Wastewater) – Sanitary Sewer Ordinance requirements with Clear Lake City Water Authority (CLCWA) for discharge of wastewater. (Ellington Field Stormwater) - TPDES MSGP Sector S, (Ellington Field Wastewater) – Sanitary Sewer Ordinance requirements with the City of Houston for discharge of wastewater. (SCTF Stormwater) - TPDES NEC metal fabrication point source. (SCTF Wastewater) Sanitary Sewer Ordinance requirements with CLCWA for discharge of wastewater. |
Compliance with the permits mentioned above does not relieve any other environmental requirement under state, local or federal jurisdiction.
| 3 | Page 1-3; Section Restrictions, Limitations and Special Conditions; Para. 1.1.7.e | Applicable requirements include, but are not limited to: EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. This EO has been revoked and replaced with EO 13834 “Efficient Federal Operations” 17 May 18. | Recommend revision. | Section C (Statement of Work) 1.1.7.e will be revised in the final RFP (Request for Proposal). |
| 4 | ANNEX 1, CLIN 1.1.7.5; Page 1-5 | Will the Government confirm that Contractor fuel costs are a passthrough on the contract. | The Facilities Contractor pays for the fuel, maintenance and repair costs of their vehicles. [Section C (Statement of Work) 1.1.7.5]. All reasonable, allocable, and allowable fuel, maintenance, and repair costs can be charged to the Contract in accordance with the Contractor's accounting system. | |
| 5 | Page 1-11; Section Safety and Health Program; Para. 1.7.1. | Historically, JSC has been a participant of the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) which flows down to contractor operating at JSC. | However, the PWS does not clarify if such is a requirement for this contract. Can the government clarify if VPP participation will be required? | The Contractor is not required to certify in the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). |
| 6 | Page 1-17; Section Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS); Para. 1.9.5. | R-20 refrigerant has undergone phase-out/elimination process by the EPA for several years with target full removal of 2020. | Can the government confirm that servicing of system containing ODS do not contain R-20 refrigerant? | R-20 refrigerant (trichloromethane) is not used as a refrigerant at JSC, but is not being phased out. R-22 (chlorodifluoromethane) is being phased out. Effective January 1, 2020, R-22 was no longer allowed to be manufactured, but recycled/reclaimed R-22 is still available for purchase. JSC does have refrigeration systems using R-22 refrigerant. |
| 7 | ANNEX 1 – CONTRACT MANAGEMENT, 1.9.6 olychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB), page 40 of 806 | Currently Contractor Straughn provides the below support Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) |
Track equipment containing PCB. Identify and track each piece of equipment operated or controlled by the Contractor that contains PCB in concentrations of 1 mg/l or greater and comply with all regulatory requirements, as applicable. Update the Inventory List whenever PCB containing equipment is removed from service, and post the revised list to the *Store Front. NOTE: This CLIN applies to equipment located at *JSC that contains PCB’s prior to the Contractor involvement as identified in the **PCB Containing Equipment Inventory List. 75 Items All required information is tracked, accurate and provided on time. All regulatory requirements are
| followed. | Recommend deleting this from the SOW | Section C (Statement of Work) 1.9.6 will be deleted from the final RFP. | |||
| 8 | ANNEX 1-SOW 1.11.3 Review Meeting Report Contract cost and workload data. | We would like to understand the level of detail, and areas of potential future improvement re: performance monitoring and reporting information. | Will the Government provide a sample report? | The 533 Review Meeting [Section C (Statement of Work) 1.11.3] is to review the NF533 [J-D DRD MO-1-4]. Examples are presented in the DRD. | |
| 9 | Page 1-24; Section Emergency Preparedness Personnel; Para. 1.12.2. | PWS requires personnel to be trained IAW 29 CFR 1910.120, which includes HAZWOPER certification. HAZWOPER certification is based on exposure group and responsibilities. This includes 16hr, 24hr, and 40hr HAZWOPER. | Can the government confirm which level of training is required? | The Contractor is responsible for determining which safety training, beyond the minimums specified in the contract is required for which personnel. [Section C (Statement of Work) 1.12] | |
| 10 | Page 1-24; Section Crewman Personnel; Para. 1.12.3 | Crane equipment must be adequately maintained and certified. It’s not evident within PWS such is considered USG furnished or contractor required. | Can the government clarify this requirement? | Some fixed cranes, jib cranes, and bridge cranes are installed that are available for Contractor use. Additionally, the Government will provide the equipment that is shown in Attachment J-A, Government Furnished Property, which includes some mobile cranes, under the conditions in the draft RFP. Any additional equipment needed to complete work is the Contractor's responsibility. | |
| 11 | DRFP SOW 1.12.6 Wildlife Specialist (Page47 of 806) | The sow states: “Personnel shall be licensed to handle and rehabilitate wildlife.” |
There is no wildlife handling license in Texas. There is a license to rehabilitate wildlife, but it would be strange if that’s what NASA was asking for. A rehabilitation license is not necessary to effectively manage wildlife at JSC for several reasons:
(a) Since at least 2012, JSC has not had a need to rehabilitate animals on-site.
(b) JSC does not have the facilities legally required to rehabilitate animals. Even if we obtain a license, we would not be able to do any rehabilitation without constructing and maintaining rehabilitation facilities that meet state standards.
(c) All rehabilitation would legally require the consultations of a licensed veterinarian, which would add additional cost to the contract.
| (d) There is an abundance of existing volunteer wildlife rehabilitators locally that can provide superior care to JSC’s animals that qualify for rehabilitation, including many volunteers that work other jobs here on site. Rehabilitation is often species specific. That is, an individual rehabilitator will become an expert in rehabilitating a single species. It is far more effective to have a large network of species specific local experts than to try build the capacity to rehabilitate a wide-diversity of animals in-house. | Recommend changing the wording to “contractor should transfer injured wildlife a licensed wildlife rehabilitator” or omit the requirement all together. Because we have such a strong and experienced volunteer rehabilitation community in Houston, the additional expense, requirements, and facility cost of doing our own rehabilitation is simply not worthwhile. | Section C (Statement of Work) 1.12.6 will be modified in the final RFP to remove the requirement for licensing. | |||
| 12 | Page 1-34; Section Environmental Compliance Officer; Para. 1.12.34. | PWS state ECO is "responsible for signing hazardous waste manifests". Typically, hazardous waste manifest must be signed by "generator", in this case JSC. | Can the government provide clarification for establishing authorization to meet the "on behalf" requirement. | Signing hazardous waste manifests is currently delegated exclusively to Environmental Contractor. The Facilities Contractor could sign Bills of Lading for shipment of industrial nonhazardous waste and other waste streams including recyclable materials and used oils with delegation authorized from the Contracting Officer. | |
| 13 | ANNEX 1-SOW 1.2.36 Computer System Administrator/Manager; Page 1-34 | Specifically, we would like to understand the demarcation of responsibility for our team vs. the other JSC contractors who we will need to work along side and interface with. | Can the Government describe the specific systems that the system administrator/manager will be supporting (re: development, administration, and other tasks) for the JSC (other than those described in 1.12.29 and 1.12.40)? | The Facilities Contractor provides Administration and Maintenance of the Storefront Application which provides links to multiple databases managed by the Facilities Contractor [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.6.2]. The Facilities Contractor also Administers the CAD [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.7] and WinEst [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.8.5] applications. The COD Management and the IT Contractors administer the CMMS (Maximo) [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.2] and the Work Tracking System [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.3] Applications, as well as most other applications. The Facilities Contractor makes recommendations to the IT Contractors for improvements to the CMMS [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.2.3] and Work Tracking System [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.3.1]. | |
| 14 | ANNEX 7-SOW Table 9A-Operational Software and Database Listing; Page 7-43 | Can the Govenrment provide an system inter-relationship map of what systems interface with other systems/databases? What changes (away from current, and plans for new) software per Table 9A are currently being discussed or considered? | The Government seeks to integrate most databases so that information is automatically shared without the need to manually copy and paste information in order to develop reports. A list of software currently used can be found under Annex 2 of the Technical Reference Library (TRL) within files "Software applications List with source_(1-11-2016).xlsx" and "Software Maintenance - Annual Agreements.xlsx". | ||
| 15 | ANNEX 2-SOW 2.2.1 Utilize the *CMMS"; Page 2-3 | Can the Government confirm or clarify the responsibilities re: ensuring that the CMMS is "fully functional"? Does this refer to any IT system administration or management responsibiliites? (or would these remain the exclusive domain of the Agency Enterprise IT mandatory contracts as listed in NFS Appendix A) | The IT Contractors administer the CMMS (Maximo) and the Work Tracking System Applications, as well as most other applications. The Facilities Contractor makes recommendations to the IT Contractors for improvements to the CMMS [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.2.3] and Work Tracking System [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.3.1]. | ||
| 16 | ANNEX 7-SOW Table 9A-Operational Software and Database Listing; Page 7-43 | Beyond those listed in Table 9A, what systems are anticipated to transfer to the NASA JSC (assuming that similar terms and conditions per DRFP 2.1.5 "If the Contractor elects, and is approved, to provide a new system, the new system will become the property of the Government….The Government retains rights to all software, applications, database structures, etc. developed under this Contract. Upon termination of the Contract, the Contractor shall return, to the Government, all current source code, compiled programs, documentation, data, or similar software data, in a usable format." | What future applications may be developed in the course of executing the Facilities Contract are unknown at this time. Systems obtained by the Facilities Contractor that are charged to the Government, shall remain with the Government after the conclusion of the Contract. | ||
| 17 | ANNEX 2-SOW 2.1.2 Government Provided Applications Hardware; Page 2-1 | The SOW states: The Contractor shall use the existing Government provided *CMMS (currently IBM Maximo), the *Work Tracking System (currently the WAD Tool), and the Web Based Management Information System (*Store Front). Other than these three aforementioned systems, the Contractor shall make recommendations for other Government provided systems (i.e. software and hardware) that the Contractor could utilize to improve efficiency or quality of service. | Can the Government provide additional detail/description of the software used for the WAD tool and the Web-based StoreFront beyond that listed in Table 9A – Operational Software and Database Listing? What contractors are currently responsible for the management and maintenance of the CMMS, WAD and StoreFront? | The Work Tracking System is based on SQL Server. The existing Store Front is based on Microsoft SharePoint. JSC's IT Contractors administer, manage and maintain the CMMS (MAXIMO) and Work Tracking System. The Facilities Contractor administers, manages and maintains the StoreFront [Section C (Statement of Work) 2.6.2]. | |
| 18 | ANNEX 1-SOW 1.2.41 Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Database Administrator/Developer; Page 1-36 | Can the Government describe what systems utilize the JSC Oracle database? Would the Government allow contractor systems to interface with the JSC Oracle database to provide additional functionality/insights (assuming coordination and approval is received from the Contracting office)? | JSC currently only uses Oracle to interface to the Real Property Database. Facilities Contract's Systems may be allowed to interface with JSC's Oracle as long as they have a Security Plan, are within our firewall, and receive Organizational Conflicts of Interest approval. | ||
| 19 | ANNEX 2-SOW 2.1.10 Computer Systems and Data Security Computer Systems; Page 2-1 | Is there an anticipated level of certification and accreditation that the contractor systems will have to meet? (FISMA Low/Moderate? Etc.) Will the Government advise if these systems are currently certified and accredited? | The Facilities Contractor must provide Security Plans for their systems and applications that interface with NASA's systems. Interfacing systems must be approved by the NASA Chief Information Officer. Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Categorization is "Moderate". | ||
| 20 | ANNEX 3 CLIN 3.3.4; Page 3-8 | Non-Specified Emergency Response threshold reads $750, this appears to be a typo, since $75,0000 is the threshold for small repairs and ref of large repairs over $75K, as listed in 3.3.2, and 3.3.3. | Please clarify. | $750 is the threshold for response to emergencies involving Non-Specified Equipment [Section C (Statement of Work) 3.3.4]. | |
| 21 | Page 4-18; Section Annex 4; Para. 4.6.4 | Flushing plan should account for Occupational Health sampling of THMs “total trihalomethanes,” typically found around distribution systems dead ends. | Can the government confirm analytical and system design parameters will be provided? | Data on historical chemical analyses of the potable water system and the potable water system design parameters will be provided from the Environmental Contractor. In the Drinking Water Monitoring Plan, maps of drinking water distribution system (incorporated from Engineering Drawing Control Center (EDCC)), and locations of TTHM “total trihalomethanes” sample locations will be provided on Contract award. | |
| 22 | Page 4-18; Section Annex 4; Para. 4.6.5 | Due to recent DoD and EPA guidelines for PFAS (typically found in older version of AFFF foam system) we must account for risks of maintaining such system that have not undergone flushing and service with new version AFFF foam. | Can the government confirm that systems contain new version of foam? | Ellington Field Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) tanks remain in place but have remained empty and unfilled since 2014. Ellington Field currently depends on the water sprinkler system for building E280, and on the Texas Air National Guard fire department for additional response measures. |
For Sonny Carter Training Facility, No Exposure Evaluation does not indicate storage of any AFFF foam.
| 23 | Page 4-21; Section Annex 4; Para. 4.8.2 | Reverse Osmosis is used to treat raw water prior to distribution. Water must meet certain quality parameters established by TCEQ standards which require sampling and analysis as part of the operation of these systems. | Can the government confirm that such sampling services will be provided. | The Reverse Osmosis system is used for high quality industrial and laboratory applications not for potable water, so no potable water testing is required. | |
| 24 | Page 4-22; Section Annex 4; Para. 4.8.3 | PWS does not provide evidence that access to a Fuel Lab for analyzing samples will be provided. | Can the government clarify if a lab will be provided or if contractor is expected to acquire services (e.g via 3rd party). | The Contractor is responsible for fuel testing. There is laboratory space available to perform this testing on site if desired. | |
| 25 | DRFP - 5.4.7.Provide United States National CAD Standard, Section C, Page 5-12 | Should the maintaining of the license for the National CAD Standards be in this section? Or should this go under IT | Recommmend moving this to IT | No change is being made. | |
| 26 | DRFP - 5.6.1 *GIS Support, Section C, Page 5-13 (page 141 of 806) | "The Government has a standalone contract for Geospatial Support Services (GSS). …………."supporting GIS meetings, working group meetings and face-to-face activities as requested by the Government" | |||
| What are the face-to-face activities the Facility contractor is expected to do to support GSS Contractor. | Clarification needed on what are the Face-to-Face Activities | Face-to-Face activities are defined by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), but include meetings and teleconferences. [Section C (Statement of Work) 5.6.1] | |||
| 27 | DRFP - 5.6.1 *GIS Support, Section C, Page 5-13 (page 141 of 806) | There are no mention of the below current work. Will this work go under the GSS Contract? |
• No support for FHPs (we will need to receive updates from the GSS contractor)
• No support for FEP’s (will maintenance need to install the frames for these drawings)
• No support for Design Engineering or construction surveys (the GIS equipment will go to the GSS contractor)
• No Laser scanning
• No GIS drafting
| • No Dig permits to be marked or administered by the facility contractor (Section 5.7 Issue Permits and 5.7.1 Reserved)? | Please clarify. | Another contractor will perform the annual updates to the Facility Housing Plans (FHPs) and Facility Evacuation Plans (FEPs). The latest FHPs and FEPs will be made available to the Facilities Contractor. The other contractor will also provide geospatially located wall and underground utility data to the Facilities Contractor. The Facilities Contractor is responsible for updating the Facilities Engineering Drawings as modifications are made. [Section C (Statement of Work) 5.6.10] | |||
| 28 | DRFP - 5.6.10.2, *Update Master Facilities Drawings, Section C, Page 5-15 (page 143 of 806) | Are the Building Information Models (BIM) CAD files going to be held in the EDCC or the 2D drawings created from the BIM models? | Please clarify. | The Engineering Drawing Control Center (EDCC) only holds 2-dimensional copies of drawings. The Facility Contractor will be responsible for storing and maintaining the various original files, including CAD, Raster drawings, and BIMs. [Section C (Statement of Work) 5.6.10] | |
| 29 | DRFP - 5.6.10.2, *Update Master Facilities Drawings, Section C, Page 5-15 (page 143 of 806) | How will the Facility contractor receive the required materials to update the Legacy drawings from an outside contractor with projects under a million dollars? | Please clarify. | Changes from construction projects performed by other contractors are normally submitted as electronic drawings, but can also be marked up paper drawings. | |
| 30 | ANNEX 6-SOW 6.14 IDIQ Task Plans and Proposals; Page 6-23 | We need to understand the distinction between numbers of Task Order proposals and Delivery Order Proposals. For Delivery Order Proposals we need to understand the $values by category to understand the turnaround demand. | Will the govt please direct the offeror to the detail for the 1,200 proposals? | See Table 5 in the Section C (Statement of Work) for the quantities of Delivery Order Proposals. Data for Task Order Proposals will be added to the Technical Reference Library. | |
| 31 | ANNEX 6-SOW 6.14.2 IDIQ Task Plans and Proposals; Page 6-23 | During the *Customer walkthrough, the Contractor shall establish if the requestor has a need for expedited *Construction. Both the Contractor and requestor must agree to this date. The base estimate shall be developed as if *Construction will be IAW the regular delivery schedule. The Contractor may then add an expedited surcharge which will be itemized separately without any application of *Coefficient Factors. | How many projects were conducted using this “expedited surcharge” and how is this applied. Please provide the $value and numbers of this type of work? | Based on urgency of need, very few projects utilize the "expedited surcharge", based on overtime and expedited materials costs. Typically, expedited surcharges are less than 10 projects per year, and are normally on very small (<$10,000) projects. | |
| 32 | H.4 | Is the list of Key Personnel in item C required or an artifact for example only? | The Key Personnel are required. [H 1852.235-71] | ||
| 33 | H-9, Award Fee Plan J-C | In H-9 there is a statement that says "The Contractor must meet or under-run their cost estimates to earn additional fee." However, within attachment J-C Award Fee Plan it is not addressed. | Please clarify. | Section H (Award Fee Plan) will be modified in the final RFP to remove this sentence. | |
| 34 | H.10 | In Article H.10, the Right to Purchase paragraph states that "the Contractor will, upon request by the Contracting Officer, transfer title to any equipment identified by the Contracting Officer from the records reference above, to either (a) the Government, or (b) a successor Contractor." It does not state that we can sell the equipment. | Please clarify that the intent of this language is for the Contractor to sell the capital equipment to the successor or the Government. | Section H (Capital Equipment - Right to Purchase) language in the final RFP will be updated to clarify the intent of this language is for the Contractor to sell the capital equipment to the successor or the Government. | |
| 35 | Phase-In and Phase-Out; Page F-3; DRD AR-1-2; Page 58 | Section F Phase-In and Phase-Out states that "Office Space will not be provided by the Government during the Phase-In period. However in DRD AR-1-2, 8.d. addresses office space that is required for phase-in and phase-out beyond what is to be provided by the Government, if any. | Please clarify what office space the Government will provide. | The Government will not provide office space during Phase-In or Phase-Out [Section F. PHASE-IN AND PHASE-OUT]. Any office space required for Phase-In or Phase-out will need to be addressed in the Transition (Phase-In/Phase-Out) Plan [J-D DRD AR-1-2]. | |
| 36 | DRD AR-1-3; Page 61 | This document is only partially populated in the DRFP. | Please direct the offerors to the location in the Technical Reference Library this DRD resides. | The Re-procurement Data Package [J-D DRD AR-1-3] is a requirement for this Contract to submit data to the Government for development of an RFP for a follow on contract. No data is included in the document; only examples of how the data might be presented to the Government. | |
| 37 | Page 21; Section L; Para. | In Section L under Direct labor Rates the Government states " For informational purposes only, the Government has provided in the technical library, average composite direct labor rates under the current Facilities Support Services contract." Additionally, it is stated in Attachment L-2 EPM within the IRAP tab, that "The "Historical Incumbent Rate" row is utilized if an Offeror is proposing to utilize the NASA provided historical incumbent rate data provided in the NASA Technical Library. NOTE: If the Offeror utilizes direct labor rate data from the NASA Technical Library in Column M, then the Offeror shall not utilize direct labor rate data in Column K on the "Contractor Incumbent Rate" row discussed next. Data is current as of CY 1 start date." | Question: Can the Government confirm that DRD AR-1-3 page 60-61 is the referenced information provided for completion of the Pricing EPM IRAP tab requirement within the rows labeled "Historical Incumbent Rate" for each applicable SLC? | The Re-procurement Data Package [J-D DRD AR-1-3] is a requirement for this Contract to submit data to the Government for development of an RFP for a follow on contract. No data is included in the document; only examples of how the data might be presented to the Government. | |
| 38 | Page IRAP Tab; Section 4_Attachment_L-2_EPM_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP; Para. 4_Attachment_L-2_EPM_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP | Within the instructions provided on the IRAP tab for the "Retention % of Incumbents at Current Direct Labor Rates" instructions, the Government states that "The “Retention % of Incumbents at Current Direct Labor Rates (Column 2)” (Column H) allows the Offeror to indicate the percentage of the incumbent workforce that the Offeror intends to pay at the current incumbent direct labor rates, per SLC. The Offeror may propose any percentage from 0% to 100%, per SLC, that is based upon their proposed management and technical approach used to accomplish the statement of work. In the example, 85% is placed against an Engineer III SLC for illustrative purposes." The example which identifies an assumed 85% Composite Retention of Incumbents at Current Direct Labor Rate infers that both the Offeror's SLC mapping of categories, proposed WYE's, and proposed Exempt and Non Exempt WYE staffing are identical to that of the Incumbent's Offerors. The Data contained within Attachment J-D (AR-1-3) is identified with a date either in June of 2019 or April of 2017. | Question: Given the requirement to identify an assumed Retention % of Incumbent at Current Direct Labor Rates, will the Government update Attachment J-D (AR-1-3) with the Final RFP? | The Re-procurement Data Package [J-D DRD AR-1-3] is a requirement for this Contract to submit data to the Government for development of an RFP for a follow on contract. No data is included in the document; only examples of how the data might be presented to the Government. | |
| 39 | Page IRAP Tab; Section 4_Attachment_L-2_EPM_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP; Para. 4_Attachment_L-2_EPM_80JSC020R0034_FC_DRFP | The Government identifies two SLC positions within the IRAP tab in which "No Incumbents in this SLC" and "Incumbent Data will not be provided" for two (2) of the 32 SLCs and has blacked out the entry data from these rows within the respective categories. The remaining 30 categories identify the "Historical Incumbent Rate" as an optional offeror response. The Government provided Attachment J-D (AR-1-3) file only provides an Average Composite Rate for two NASA SLCs. | Question: Will the Government provide the Average Composite Rate for the remaining 28 SLC Categories which would be identified as "Historical Incumbent Data" within the IRAP Tab? | The Re-procurement Data Package [J-D DRD AR-1-3] is a requirement for this Contract to submit data to the Government for development of an RFP for a follow on contract. No data is included in the document; only examples of how the data might be presented to the Government. | |
| 40 | Page 21; Section L; Para. | In Section L under Direct labor Rates the Government states it has provided "average composite direct labor rates" within the Technical Library and further states within Attachment L-2 EPM on the IRAP tab for "Historical Incumbent Rate" that "Data is Current as of CY 1 Start Date". The Government identifies the start date within Section B of the Phase-In to be April 01, 2021, with Full Annex performance starting June 1, 2021. The identified date included in Attachment J-D (AR-1-3) is identified as 6/20/19 based on 11/14/17). | Question: As the period of performance is set to begin in 2021, and the Attachment J-D (AR-1-3) is intended to be the only data utilized within this row, will the government update this file from the potentially 3.5 year age of the data from the start of performance? | The Re-procurement Data Package [J-D DRD AR-1-3] is a requirement for this Contract to submit data to the Government for development of an RFP for a follow on contract. No data is included in the document; only examples of how the data might be presented to the Government. | |
| 41 | DRFP Section L, L.19.2 (a) (1) bullet: Innovations and Efficiencies; (Page 752 of 806) | The bullet "Innovations and Efficiencies) states "provide detailed discussion on DRD AR-1-6 Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques, and reference the DRD accordingly" | Please clarify, does the Government require a separate DRD AR-1-6 be submitted with each Innovation and Efficiency offered? | One DRD can cover multiple Innovations and Efficiencies. DRD instructions have been revised. [J-D DRD AR-1-6] | |
| 42 | Page 13, 14, & 20 & 21; Section L; Para. L.16.2(i) - Table 2; L.18(a) & L.18(a)(6); L.18(b) | The GPPMA agreement does not appear to apply to JSC, but is a template. It is not signed by a representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers or the incumbent contractor. Schedule A contains wage rates, but it isn’t clear if these rates and fringe benefits apply to JSC. | Question: What is the purpose of including the GPPMA agreement in this solicitation? Does Schedule A apply to JSC? | Yes, the General Presidents' Project Maintenance Agreement (GPPMA), including wage rates and fringe benefits, is applicable to most of the maintenance crafts as well as the crafts performing rehabilitiation, remodeling, and replacement via the 'Construction' department. [J-E]. The Contracting Officer confirmed that the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and corresponding wages and fringe benefits are valid. The GPPMA CBAs are updated via a bulletin, which is why there is no signature page. | |
| 43 | Page 31; Section L; Para. L.19.2 | The Positions identified in the SLC Mapping table appear to apply to the current contract NNJ08JA02C. | Question: Are bidders required to use the Positions identified in the SLC Mapping table, or can bidders use their own position names as long as they are mapped to a NASA SLC? | Table L-3 are "examples of how certain labor categories proposed by the Offeror may fit into the NASA Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) identified by the Government" in Attachment J-G, SLCs. The NASA SLC's shall be used per the revised instructions in the Cost and Price Volume. Proposers may utilize whatever position names they desire as long as they are mapped to these SLCs. Instructions on how to map and possibly add new SLCs, if needed, have been included in L.19.2. | |
| 44 | Page Section B Tables; Section I Page I-4; Section L Page 21; Attachment L-2 EPM; Section Section B Tables, Section I Page I-4; Section L Page 21; Attachment L-2 EPM; Para. Section B (FFP Delivery Order); Section I - 52.222-43 | ||||
| Section L.18(b)(2); Attachment L-2 EPM (LPT, OPT, FBR-CPFF, TOPT-IDIQ-CPFF, TOPT-IDIQ-FFP and IRAP Tabs) | There a several positions called out in the Statement of Work that do not appear in Attachment J-G, SLC Mapping. Examples are as follows: Annex 1-- Project Support Estimator, Construction Management Representative (CMR), Wildlife Specialist, Water Operator, Wastewater Operator, Geospatial Analyst, Instrumentation Control Engineer, Certified Refrigerant Compliance Manager (CRCM). This list is not all-inclusive. | Question: Are bidders able to develop their own SLC to Position map, or does Attachment J-G prescribe this? If so, will the Government update the attachment to address required positions? | The NASA SLC's shall be used per the revised instructions in the Cost and Price Volume. Proposers may utilize whatever position names they desire as long as they are mapped to these SLCs. Instructions on how to map and possibly add new SLCs, if needed, have been included. [J-G] | ||
| 45 | L.16.2(c)(3)(iv); L.16.2(i); Table L-2; Page 13 | Section L.16.2(c)(3)(iv) states that the Performance Data required in the Past Performance Volume is excluded from the overall 25 page count. However, section L.16.2(i) states that it IS included. | Can the government please confirm that the Performance Data is excluded from the overall page count. | Table L-2 will be revised in the final RFP to exclude the Performance Data from the page limitation. [L.16.2] | |
| 46 | DRFP, Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, and Format (page 731 of 806) and Section L.19.1(b) MA2 Key Personnel Approach (page 747 of 806), DRFP, Section H 1852.235-71 KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (MAR 1989) (Page 262 of 806) | Table L-2 requires the key personnel resumes be included in the page count of 150 pages. Section L.19.1 only requires the Program Manager resume. Recommend the Government require a resume for all key personnel | Recommend the Government change Table L-2 from "Included in the 150" to "Excluded from the 150" and require that offerors provide resumes for all key personnel as identified in Section H. | No change is being made. | |
| 47 | DRFP Section L.19.2 (a) TA1 Specific Technical Understanding and Resources – CORE (page 750 of 806); Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, and Format (page 731 of 806), and Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques (DRD AR-1-6) (page | Including DRD AR-1-6 in the page count has a negative impact on offorers who have value-added innovations and efficieinces. To accurately describe and provide the required information of AR-1-6 for even a few innovations could potentially take 10 pages of the 150 pages that is already stretched by the numerous plans included in the page count. | Recommend that Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques be highlighted in TA1 CORE Technical Understanding Narrative but the DRD AR-1-6 responses be excluded from the 150 pages. | No change is being made. | |
| 48 | Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, and Format (page 731 of 806) and DRFP DRD AN-1-3 (Page 96 of 806) | Per the DRD offors must "…. address (match) each element of the ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001-2015 (or more recent) standard in enough detail to describe how requirements will be implemented for this Contract." To provide a compliant, executable plan requires we usea substantia; number of pages (30+) within the Volume III page count. | Recommend the Government change Table L-2 TA3 Quality Plan | ||
| (DRD AN-1-3) from "Included in the 150" to "Excluded from the 150". | DRD AN-1-3 will be excluded from the overall page limitation in the final RFP, and have its own page limit. [L.16.2] | ||||
| 49 | DRFP Section L, paragraphs L.16.2 Proposal Due Dates, Arrangement, Page Limitations, Formatting, and Copies (page 728 of 806) Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, and Format (page 731 of 806) and L.19.3 Safety and Health Approach - MS Subfactor 3, page 753 of 806, DRD AN-1-1, (page 382 of 806) | Per L.19.2 a) "The Offeror shall submit a detailed Safety and Health Plan (DRD AN-1-1) as part of the proposal. The plan shall include a detailed discussion of the policies, procedures, and techniques that will be used to ensure the safety and occupational health of Contractor employees and to ensure the safety of all working conditions throughout the performance of the Contract.". DRD AN-1-1 contians 11 pages of required content that must be detailed in the resultant Safety and Health Plan. To provide a compliant, executable plan requires we use 1/3 of the overall Volume III page count. | Recommend the Government change Table L-2 from Subfactor3 Safety and Health Approach Subfactor3, from "Included in the 150" to "Excluded from the 150". | DRD AN-1-1 will be excluded from the overall page limitation in the final RFP, and have its own page limit. [L.16.2] | |
| 50 | DRFP Section L.16.1(c)(2) (page 729 of 806) and L.16.2(g)(1), Proposal Due Dates, Arrangement, Page Limitations, Formatting, and Copies, (page 730 of 806) | We understand and acknowledge the Government's intend to prevent mis-use of tables and graphics in proposals to circumvent the font size limitations of the proposal. However, graphics can often present a concept much clearer then proposal text. This is especially true with new concepts such as those we are presenting in Vol III, Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques (DRD AR-1-6). | We recommend the Government revise L.16.2(c)(2) allow the following regarding tables, graphics, and diagrams: 1) Font size of graphics Arial 10 point or Arial Narrow 12 point and character spacing shall be “Normal” per Microsoft Word settings. 2) The use of screenshots is acceptable, and 3) Add PNG as an acceptable embedded graphics format (PNGs are smaller in size that JPGs). | No change is being made. | |
| 51 | Page 16-20; Section L; Para. L.17 | Currently, if a bidder submits three references for the Prime, just one subcontractor and the Program Manager, that will represent nine pages of consent letters and a minimum of nine pages of L.17(a) Narrative. If there is more than one subcontractor then the page count just for these two requirements is 24 pages. In addition, L.17(a) 1-10 takes up most of a single page just with the required questions. Even if bidders could meaningfully summarize an experience reference in one page, they will still be hard pressed to present meaningful data for the remaining page counted sections required. Meeting page count given the aforementioned and page counted Safety and Health Records would be virtually impossible. | Request the Past Performance Volume page count be increased. At a minimum we suggest the Past Performance Volume be increased to 50 pages excluding Consent Letters, Relevance Matrix, Organization Chart, Questionnaires (ATT L-6), Performance Data and Insurance Letter. | The Past Performance Volume page limitations will be revised in the final RFP to exclude consent letters from page count without changing the total number of pages allowed in the final RFP; doing so will provide a few extra content pages for the Offerors. [L.17] | |
| 52 | Page 19; Section L; Para. L.17(g) | We suggest Paragraph L.17(g) Introductory Material be moved to L.17(a) so it can be inserted at the beginning of the section. | A change will be made to the sequencing of Section L.17 in the final RFP. | ||
| 53 | M.3(a)(2) Relevance; Page 3 | Do NASA past performance contract citations have more relevancy than Non-NASA contracts? | Contracts with the U.S. Government have more relevancy than Contracts with other customers [L.17(a)]. The board will perform a relevancy evaluation for contracts performed for other Governmental agencies in accordance with M.3(a)(2) of the Request for Proposal. | ||
| 54 | Page 19; Section L; Para. L.17.a | From L.17.a last paragraph--"…shall clearly detail what portions of the SOW, the Prime, Major/Minor Subcontractors (note: major and minor subs), teaming partner, joint venture partner, or proposed Program Manager is responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort." This appears as though this should be in an the Management or Technical section and not in Past Performance. This also seems like a lot of information in a 25 page volume that has significant response requirements. | A change will be made to this paragraph in the final RFP to remove the specific resources requirement in the Past Performance Volume. [L.17(a)] | ||
| 55 | Page 19; Section L; Para. L.17.e | In paragraph L.17.e. it reads like NASA is requesting Small Business data for all DI programs within last 3 years and relevant to NASA JSC FC and not just the past performance contracts we submit. This would require extensive work and take up an inordinate amount of page count to provide relevancy of all recent applicable contracts. | Suggest small business data be requested for the contracts provided as Past Performance, or for the company as a whole? Also, is this requirement just for the prime or also for major subcontractors and the Program Manager? | Small Business Participation for the Prime and Major Subcontractor will be required for "every past contract submitted." In addition, the other Past Performance subfactors have been revised in the final RFP to clarify when information is needed for all contracts or just those submitted in the past performance narrative. [L.17(e)] | |
| 56 | L.17(h); Page 19 | Can the government please confirm that Performance Data is required only for those contracts presented in the Past Performance volume as relevant contracts. | Yes, this data is just for the contracts presented in the Past Performance volume as relevant contracts. [L.17(h)] | ||
| 57 | Page 19; Section L; Para. regarding L.17.(h) (1) and (2) | Regarding L.17.(h) (1) and (2), is NASA looking for performance data only from the prime or also from major subs? | Performance Data is being request for "all relevant contracts performed by the Prime and Major Subcontractor in the last three years (not just the past contracts submitted)". In addition, the other Past Performance subfactors have been revised in the final RFP to clarify when information is needed for all contracts or just those submitted in the past performance narrative. [L.17(h)] | ||
| 58 | Page 19; Section L; Para. L.17.(h).(2) | Requested info on environmental non-compliance, OSHA citations, and occupational injuries and illness seems to be corporate-wide, i.e., not just PP contracts. | Is this correct? | Performance Data is being request for "all relevant contracts performed by the Prime and Major Subcontractor in the last three years (not just the past contracts submitted)". In addition, the other Past Performance subfactors have been revised to clarify when information is needed for all contracts or just those submitted in the past performance narrative. [L.17(h)] | |
| 59 | L.18(a) and L.14; Page 20 & 8 | L.18(a) states that certified cost or pricing data is not required. In addition, L.13 JSC 52.215-20 states that certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, FAR 52.215-12 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (DEVIATION 18-04) from Section I states that subcontractors of $2M or more need to submit certified cost or pricing data in order to be awarded a subcontract. | Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | Certified Cost or Pricing Data are not required for this Proposal. This procurement is not subject to the requirements of FAR 52.215-12, “Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Deviation 18-04)”, based on the Adequate Competition exception in FAR 15.403-1 “Prohibition On Obtaining Certified Cost Or Pricing Data.” [L.18(a)]. However, FAR 52.215-12, “Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Deviation 18-04)” does apply after contract award. The Contractor would only need to provide the certificate for modifications over $2M after contract award. | |
| 60 | Page 20; Section L; Para. L.18(a) | The last paragraph in this section states the Offeror’s cost proposal shall be submitted as one volume titled “Volume II Cost and Price Proposal.” Currently the majority of price proposal submission documents are in MS Excel. There is a significant amount of narrative required for the price volume that is more suitably created and presented in MS Word. | We suggest that the Price Volume submission include an MS Word Narrative document that addresses such requirements as "a discussion of the proposed fee and profit structure and how the proposed rates were derived and why it is considered reasonable, " Direct Labor rates not included in FPRA explanation, rate escalations, uncompensated overtime narrative etc. | A Cost and Price Narrative requirement in Word has been added to the Cost and Price Volume in the final RFP to house the discussion information being asked of the Offerors. The intent is that all narrative information should be submitted in a single MS Word document and all numerical information should be submitted in MS Excel (Table L-2 has been revised as well). [L.18(a)] | |
| 61 | Page Section C - Annex 6 pg 6-26; J-E Attachment Schedules (SCA, CBA, DBA), Attachment L-s EPM ( CET-X Tab); Section Section C- Annex 6; J-E Attachment Schedules (SCA, CBA, DBA); Attachment L-s EPM ( CET-X Tab); Para. Section C - 6.14.3.1.2; J-E Attachment Schedules (SCA, CBA, DBA), Attachment L-s EPM ( CET-X Tab) | The Government states in Section L.18(a) that "Offeror's Cost proposal shall be submitted as one volume titled "Volume II Cost and Price Proposal with a file name as shown in Table L-2." Within the provided Table at L-2, the Government identifies one (1) singular Excel file; however within numerous locations the Government identifies multiple submittal file requirements for both Prime and Major Subcontractors. The Government has identified Narrative detail within section L.18.(a)(6) explaining all judgmental elements, cost projections, fee and policies; and additionally requests Direct Labor Rate detail for labor not covered under FPRA agreement. The Government has additionally provided Section B as a Separate Table Attachment within the DRFP. | Question: Will the Government clarify Volume II Cost Price Submittal Requirements? |
Question: Will the Government confirm that an Offerors' Narrative, EPM, and Section B Tables should be Submitted as three (3) separate Stand alone files?
Question: Will the Government clarify if Supporting Detail and Narrative Data should be submitted within an offerors Completed Attachment L-2 EPM File?
Question: Will the Government clarify if the Section B should inserted into an Offerors Attachment L-2 EPM submission File?
| Question: Will the Government clarify Major/Minor Subcontractor EPM and Narrative Submittal Requirements and Naming Conventions? | A clarification will be made to the Cost and Price Volume and Table L-2 in the final RFP. In summary, all Cost and Price narrative and supporting detail information should be submitted in a single MS Word document and all numerical information should be submitted in a single MS Excel EPM document per EPM template instructions. The Section B Tables are submitted as a separate file. Major/Minor subcontractor cost and price narrative information should be included in the single cost and price narrative document. Major/Minor subcontractor EPM numerical information should be submitted and named per the EPM instructions. [L.18(a)] | ||||
| 62 | Page Attachment L-s EPM (TOPT-IDIQ-FFP & Tab); Section Attachment L-s EPM (TOPT-IDIQ-FFP Tab); Para. Attachment L-s EPM (TOPT-IDIQ-FFP Tab) | Of the five key personnel identified, two--Chief Engineer and Business Manager--do not appear in Attachment J-G, SLC Mapping. | Question: What are the SLCs associated with the above positions? Do bidders determine the applicable SLCs? | The Offeror may determine the appropriate Standard Labor Categories for all personnel on the proposal. [L.18(b)(7)] | |
| 63 | Page 29; Section Section L; Para. L.19.1 MA2 | Request resume(s) be removed from page count. Perhaps limit the pages for resume to maintain page efficiency while removing the Resume from the Volume page count. | No change is being made. | ||
| 64 | Page 29; Section Section L; Para. L.19.1 MA2 | Request personal references removed from page count and limited to one or two pages. | No change is being made. | ||
| 65 | Page 29; Section Section L; Para. L.19.1 MA2 | Request Signed Letter of Commitment be removed from page count and limited to one page. | No change is being made. | ||
| 66 | Page 30; Section Section L; Para. L.19.1 MA3 | Request compensation approach be eliminated from page count, especially since subcontractor compensation plans are required as well. | No change is being made. | ||
| 67 | Page 30; Section Section L; Para. L.19.1 MA3 | If a subcontractor chooses to send their compensation plan in separate file to protect proprietary information, is their Compensation plan considered part of the prime contractor's proposal page count? | No, the subcontractor’s separate compensation plan is not part of the prime contractor’s proposal page count. [L.19.1] There is a page limitation on individual compensation plans. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .