Modification 4 SEAM II Questions and Responses.pdf

Modification 4: SEAM II Questions and Responses

# Reference Page No. Question Response

5 Cover Letter and Section L.21

2, L-L-3 Attachment L.32.1 Relevant Past Performance Matrix states that Offerors can have a “Max of 10 Contracts for Task Category C.” However, Draft RFP Section L31.1.a states that “The total number of contracts listed for each Task Category shall not exceed six.” Can the Government please clarify whether Offerors are permitted to use 10 contracts or six contracts on the Relevant Past Performance Matrix Form?

The Government has modified the RFP to allow Offerors to provide up to 10 contracts to demonstrate Past Performance.

Specifically, Section L31.1.a has been modified to state the following:

“The total number of contracts listed for each Task Category shall not exceed ten. For each critical capability in the matrix, Offerors may list up to three relevant tasks from those ten contracts. It is important to note that a single task can provide past performance in multiple capabilities. Likewise, a single contract can include multiple relevant tasks.”

6 Attachment L.32.1 Relevant Past Performance Matrix

Attachment L.32.1 Relevant Past Performance Matrix

Attachment L.32.1 Relevant Past Performance Matrix asks Offerors to map the Task Title by name and Narrative Reference by page number for the listed critical capability areas. Can the Government confirm that these task titles and narrative references are for the contract examples whereby Offerors will be cross-walking the critical capability to similar capabilities in the contract examples Statements of Work/Performance Work Statements?

The Government confirms that the Task Titles and narrative references columns in Attachment L.32.1 are for Offeror’s contract examples whereby Offerors will be “cross-walking” the critical capability to similar capabilities in the contract examples Statements of Work/Performance Work Statements.

7 Attachment L.32.1 Relevant Past Performance Matrix

L-L-15 The critical capability areas listed in Attachment L.32.1 Task Category C do not match all of the listed engineering services, functions performed, and technical expertise required listed in Draft RFP Statement of Work Section 6, Task Category C: Aero Avionics, Electrical, and Software.

Industry recommends including all of the listed task requirements as critical capabilities in

The Government has intentionally completed Attachment L.32.1 in a manner such that the “Critical Capabilities” column does not directly align with each area of the SOW for Task Categories A-C. Rather, the items detailed in the “critical capability” columns are indicative of those specific areas of the SOW that the Government considers to be critical.

Attachment L.32.1 Relevant Past Performance Matrix.

In addition, the RFP contains guidance that allows Offerors to provide additional relevant past performance information.

Specifically, L.32.1 states, “The narrative may also include other relevant experience and approaches addressing other areas of the statement of work that are not listed as critical capabilities in Attachment L.32.1 (Relevant Past Performance Matrix), such as project management, provisioning, quality assurance, testing capabilities, etc.”

8 L31.1 Past Performance Narrative

L-L-15 Draft RFP section L31.1 Past Performance Narrative states that Offerors shall clearly detail “…the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort.” As these tasks are generally management-related items of the prime Offerors overall corporate resources and not specific to individual contract capabilities, industry recommends that the Government remove this requirement from the Past Performance Narrative section.

The purpose of the language cited in the question was to provide guidance that highlights the Government’s position that it considers past performance that demonstrates performance and/or access to facilities necessary to perform SEAM II requirements without requiring the use of NASA facilities to be relevant.

To clarify this position, the Government will remove the guidance at L31.1 Past Performance Narrative, which states that Offerors shall clearly detail “…the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort” and replace it with the following sentence:

“The Offeror shall provide relevant past performance that demonstrates performance at facilities necessary to perform SEAM II SOW requirements without requiring the use of NASA facilities.”

9 L31.1 Past Performance Narrative

L-L-15 Draft RFP section L31.1 Past Performance Narrative states that Offerors “…shall address the Offeror’s past approach and experience with responding to quick turn-around task orders (e.g.

The purpose of the language cited in the question is to provide the Offeror with guidance that highlights the Government’s position that past performance that demonstrates experience with within one day).” As this task is generally a management-related item of the prime Offerors overall corporate resources and not specific to individual contract capabilities, industry recommends that the Government remove this requirement from the Past Performance Narrative section.

“quick turnaround” Task Orders is relevant to

SEAM II.

Therefore, the Government will not remove the language in Section L31.1 “Past Performance Narrative” states that Offerors “…shall address the Offeror’s past approach and experience with responding to quick turn-around task orders (e.g.

within one day).”

10 L31.1.b Relevant Past Performance Matrix

L-L-16 Draft RFP section L31.1.b Relevant Past Performance Matrix states that “Only contract periods of performance within five years from the issuance date of the SEAM II final RFP will be considered in the past performance evaluation.”

However, Draft RFP section L31.1 Other Past Performance Data states that “Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last three years.” Can the Government confirm that a five-year performance period for both of these requirements is acceptable?

The Government confirms that the five-year performance period is the correct period.

The Government has modified RFP section L31.1 Other Past Performance Data to change all references from three years to five years.

11 Past Performance Consent Letter

L-L-16 Can the Government confirm that the Past Performance Consent Letter [L.32.5] shall be included in the past performance volume outside of page count restrictions?

The Government confirms that the Past Performance Consent Letter is an “Item Excluded from the Page Limit.” The Government has updated the Section L31.1 to include the following language to clarify its position:

Past Performance Consent Letter (Attachment L.32.5) (not subject to page limitations)

“The Offeror shall provide consent letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, proposed program manager and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. See sample consent letter at Attachment L.32.5.”

12 L31.1 Past Performance - Volume I, subparagraph (a)

L-L-13 "The total number of contracts listed for each Task Category shall not exceed six." The header for Attachment L32-1 (Relevant Past Performance Matrix) states a Max of 10 Contracts for each of the Task Categories.

Question: Which is correct?

Please see the response to question four and five.

The Government has modified the RFP to allow demonstrate Past Performance.

13 L31.1 Past Performance - Volume I, subparagraph (a)

L-L-13 "If the prime or a major subcontractor do not have relevant past performance for a critical capability, the Offeror shall leave the cell for the Contractor Name blank or insert "N/A". In the same paragraph, "Offerors with no past performance experience shall indicate by inserting "none" for the first row of that capability under the Contract Name column."

Question: Which is correct?

The Government has revised L31.1 Past Performance - Volume I, subparagraph (a) to reflect that "Offerors with no past performance experience shall indicate by inserting "N/A" for the first row of that capability under the Contract Name column."

14 L31.1 Past Performance - Volume I, subparagraph (a)

L-L-13 Comment: Whether the cell is left blank or annotated with "N/A" or "none", it is not necessarily an accurate depiction of an Offeror's true relevant past performance for this PPT evaluation. Each Task Category has 10 or more individual critical capabilities. With a limit of 6 contracts (combined) for the prime Offeror and its major subcontractors, it is entirely possible that certain critical capabilities could not be addressed within the 6-contract limit.

Recommendation: Change contract limit to 8.

Please see the response to question four and five.

The Government has modified the RFP to allow demonstrate Past Performance.

15 M1.1 Past Performance Factor - Volume I

M-2 "Relevance: For Complexity, tasks that exhibit a broad spectrum of skills, especially the critical capabilities required under the solicitation Statement of Work will be considered more relevant than tasks limited to fewer specific skills."

Question(s): What is meant by "broad spectrum of skills"? Does the Government intend for Offerors to provide the number of different labor categories for each task described for each critical capability? If yes, how would the complexity aspect be any different than content? There is no Section L instruction to provide information of

The Government will not consider complexity separate from “Relevance.” Rather, the Government will utilize the guidance at JSC Procurement Instruction (JPI) 52.215-115 “Past Performance Evaluation,” which defines complexity within the “Relevance” sub-bullet.

To clarify its position, the Government will remove the sentence that refers to “broad spectrum of skills” and replace it with the following sentence from the “Relevance” sub-bullet of JSC Procurement Instruction (JPI) 52.215-115 “Past Performance Evaluation,” which states: “Contracts that exhibit all specific

"spectrum of skills" in the past performance narrative.

Recommendation: Assess complexity completely separate from content. Otherwise, the Government is evaluating content twice and either unfairly rewarding or penalizing Offerors for the same past performance information. If content means similarity in scope/requirements between SEAM II and the referenced contract, complexity could assess other, important considerations, such as IDIQ contracting, number of Government interfaces/customers, filling vacancies of critical positions, etc.

trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only.”

The Government will also add the following sentence within the “Relevance” sub-bullet to define complexity: “The term complexity considers items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions, and/or context of performance in comparison to the performance environment outlined in this solicitation.”

16 M1.1 Past Performance Factor - Volume I

M-2 "Relevance: For Category D, tasks of similar scope and standards as existing aerospace training and qualification hardware as described in the sample task orders and Mockup Development Requirements Reference Documents (CX12-SLP0014 and CX14- POL0043) in the SEAM Technical Library will be considered more relevant than tasks performed for unrelated applications."

Question(s): Considering the very few number of small businesses that would have tasks so specific to the referenced efforts, has the Government considered how overly, and unnecessarily, restrictive this comparison is for assessing a level of confidence rating?

The Government has modified the Draft RFP to remove the cited sentence from M1.1 Past Performance Factor - Volume I that stated “For Category D , tasks of similar scope and standards as existing aerospace training and qualification hardware as described in the sample task orders and Mockup Development Requirements Reference Documents (CX12-SLP0014 and CX14-POL0043) in the SEAM Technical Library (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/seam/tl/authoriz e.asp) will be considered more relevant than tasks performed for unrelated applications.”

The Government will continue to provide Task Category D sample task orders in the SEAM II Technical library, which will be posted to beta.sam.gov. at a future date.

The purpose of these sample Task Orders is to provide Offerors with specific examples of the unique tasks that may be performed under Task Category D “Ground Support Engineering Services.”

17 M1.1 Past Performance Factor Volume 1

M-2 “Recency: Only contract period of performances within five years from the date of this SEAM II solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. The Government will

The sentence described within the “Recency” sub-bullet mirrors “Recency” guidance within (JPI) 52.215-115 “Past Performance Evaluation,” which states “The Government will not consider not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history within the five-year period. Within this five-year period, more recent performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.”

Question: What is the Government’s definition of “documented performance history”? Does the contract require customer-evaluated performance history? Many T&M and Fixed Price IDIQ contracts (i.e., SEAM D and E as an example) do not have evaluated documented performance.

Recommendation: Delete or better specify wording, “The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.” to “The Government will consider a numerous factors to evaluate past performance, such as PED data, contract completion and acceptance, PPQ input, and documented informal feedback.”

performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.”

To further clarify the intent of the “documented performance history,” the Government has added an additional sentence which states: “The Government defines “documented performance history” as past performance data that is in a format, which may be independently verified by the Government.”