RLLS2 DRFP Questions and Answers.pdf

Russian Language and Logistics Services 2 (RLLS2) Draft RFP Questions and Answers

1. Reference: Section C, Section 1.3.1 Paragraph 3

Question: Please clarify whether (a) all translation continuous and non-continuous in US and Russia should be processed (received, logged, distributed) through the EDMS system,

(b) only translation products and the original documents for non-continuous support should be uploaded to the EDMS, or (c) archiving and processing documents via contractor configuration management system is acceptable.

Answer: The 5th paragraph of section C.1.3.1 has been updated to "The contractor shall receive, log, process, distribute, and input into the ISS Program Repository (Electronic Data Management System [EDMS]), all translation products (continuous and non-continuous, excluding real time operations products) performed by this contract. NASA will archive those translations as part of the database archive process.". In addition, the 2nd paragraph of C.1.3.4 has been updated to include the following "These translations products shall be stored in the applicable real time operations electronic system.".

2. Reference: Section H.9, Paragraph 5

Question: In clause H.9, the total small business subcontracting goal is defined as 8.17%.

In section L.22.3.4, it is defined as 8.30%. Please clarify which figure is correct.

Answer: Section L.22.3.4 has been updated to 8.17% and now matches clause H.9.

3. Reference: Section J-1, Table Row 3

Question: DRD EC-01, Export Control Plan is listed as a type 2 DRD. Should this be a type 3 DRD?

Answer: Type 2 is the correct classification of this Data Requirement Deliverable (DRD).

4. Reference: Section J-1, Table Row 11

Question: DRD PC-01, Contractor Financial Management Report NF533 is listed as a type 2 DRD. The actual DRD (J-1, page J-A1-16) does not state the data type. Should this be a type 3 DRD?

Answer: Type 2 is the correct classification of this DRD. For this specific DRD the Data Type Classification can be found in Appendix C of the DRD.

5. Reference: Section L.10, Paragraph D

Question: Section L.10(d) specifies that proposed subcontractors must submit a Total Compensation Plan (TCP) if the total potential subcontract value is expected to exceed the FAR 15.403-4 threshold of $2 million for contracts awarded on or after July 1, 2018.

However, the instruction in DRD RLLS2-PR-03 (Abbreviated Total Compensation Plan) specifies that the TCP is required for the prime and subcontractors whose contract values are expected to exceed $750,000. Please clarify which instruction is correct.

Answer: The TCP is required from each member of or the Offeror/team (prime and subcontractors) whose contract value is expected to exceed $750,000 over the contract period of performance, including option periods. The NFS clause 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness has been replaced with JSC 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, which does not call out FAR 15.403-4.

6. Reference: Section L.13, Paragraphs A thru H

Question: Should the supplemental documentation required under the Section L.13 "NFS 1852.245-80 Government Property Management Information" provision be submitted as part of Volume IV: Responsibility Considerations?

Answer: The DRD "RLLS2-PM-07, Government Property Management Plan" has been updated requesting that the information requested in NFS 1852.245-80 be included with the initial submittal of the DRD.

7. Reference: Section L.13 and L.22.2 Paragraph A

Question: The final paragraph of this section refers to a proposal submission date of February 25, 2021, however Section L.22.2 indicates a submission date of March 4, 2021.

Please clarify which is correct.

Answer: The correct date is March 4, 2021 and the RFP has been updated accordingly.

8. Reference: Section L.20, Paragraph 2

Question: Should the documentation required under the "Accounting for Lease Costs" provision be submitted as an attachment to Volume III, Cost and Price or as a separate submission?

Answer: The documentation should be included in the Volume III, Cost and Price and the RFP has been updated accordingly.

9. Reference: Section L.22.2, Table L-2

Question: Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes indicates the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DRD RLLS2-PM-06) is to be submitted as part of Volume I, Mission Suitability. However, the footnote on page L-17 states that Section J plans should be submitted as part of Volume V, Model Contract. Please clarify which Volume should contain the Small Business Subcontracting Plan deliverable.

Answer: Submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DRD RLLS2-PM-06) in both Volume I, Mission Suitability and Volume V, Model Contract.

10. Reference: Section L.22.3.4, Entire Section

Question: Section L.22.3.4 instructs offerors to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as an attachment to Volume I, Mission Suitability. The plan contains cost information such as total contract value and value of subcontracts by business size and socioeconomic classification. Typically, offerors are instructed not to include any cost information in the Mission Suitability volume. Is your intent that the technical evaluators will evaluate this plan? If no, we respectfully recommend revision to include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume III or Volume IV.

Answer: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated as part of Volume I, Mission Suitability.

11. Reference: Section L.22.3.4, SBU1(a), (g)

Question: Section L.22.3.4 SBU1(a) instructs offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan compliant with FAR clause 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan and its Alternate II" as described in DRD RLLS2-PM-06. The instruction at SBU1(g) instructs offerors in addition to complete Attachment L-10, "Small Business Subcontracting Tables." Attachment L-10 (p. L-72) is not the subcontracting tables (see Tables 1 and 2 in DRD RLLS2-PM-06). Instead, it is a copy of FAR clause 52.219-9(d), which specifies content for the plan. Therefore, these instructions would result in the offeror providing duplicate information first in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan prepared in accordance with DRD RLLS2-PM-06 and then again in an abbreviated version in the Attachment L-10 form. Please clarify the intent for Attachment L-10.

Answer: The L-10 attachment has been removed and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, DRD RLLS2-PM-06 has been updated to clarify requirements.

12. Reference: Section L.22.4.1 Paragraphs E and H & Section L.22.4.2 Paragraph B

Question: Please confirm whether Volume II, Past Performance attachments including the Attachment L-2 Consent Letters, copies of environmental correspondence (if applicable), copies of OSHA citations (if applicable), records of occupational injuries and illnesses (if applicable), OSHA logs, insurance carrier letters, and Attachment L-5 Key Personnel

Letters of Commitment may be scanned into the Volume II Microsoft Word file as images or alternatively submitted as stand-alone pdf files. Please advise whether the Government has a preferred format for submission of these attachments.

Answer: The Government has updated the Final RFP to include a sentence in the first paragraph of L.13 (JSC 52.215-108) and paragraph 1b of L.22.2.1 (JSC 52.215-113), which states "All electronic submissions must be searchable and shall not contain scanned documents with the exception of proposal attachments such as letters of commitment, consent letters, and past performance data, which require signatures and/or explanatory remarks." Additionally, Table L-2, Overview of Proposal volumes, Page Limitations, Copies and Format, has been updated to include PDF where appropriate. The Government prefers PDF files over Microsoft Word files with images.

13. Reference: Sections L.22.4.1 Paragraph B & L.22.5 Paragraph A

Question: Section L.22.4.1(b) defines “major subcontractor" as having "subcontracts estimated annual value of $1,000,000 or more." Section L.22.5(a) defines "major subcontractor" in the same manner based on annual value. However, it defines a "minor subcontractor" as any team member "with an estimated total contract value below $1,000,000 over the period of performance for this contract." To resolve this discrepancy, we respectfully recommend revising the definition of "minor subcontractor" as follows:

Any team member with an estimated total contract value below $1,000,000 per year over the period of performance for this contract.

Answer: Section L.22.5 paragraph (a) has been updated to define a minor subcontractor as "any team member (e.g., a subcontractor or inter-divisional organization) with an estimated total contract value below $1,000,000/year over the period of performance for this contract".

14. Reference: Sections L.22.5(d)2 & L.14

Question: Section L.22.5(d)2 instruction directs offerors to use a hyphen in the Excel filename. This contradicts the instruction in L.14 that specifies no hyphens can be used in filenames for files to be delivered via the NASA LFT system. Please clarify whether or not hyphens should be used in the Excel filename.

Answer: Hyphens should not be used in the Excel filename. Section L.22.5(d)2 has been updated to include an underscore instead: Excel Module Pricing Template_ABC.xls.

15. Reference: Section L.22.6(d) Paragraph J

Question: Please remove FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. The clause does not apply as this procurement has not been set aside for small business concerns or 8(a) participants.

Answer: The referenced item has been removed and the RFP paragraph/subparagraph numbering has been updated accordingly.

16. Reference: Section L.22.6 Paragraph D and Section M.3.4 Paragraph B

Question: Section L.22.6(d) and Section M.3.4(B)(1) and (2) list evaluation criteria that are applicable to procurements set aside for small business concerns or 8(a) participants.

Because this a full and open procurement, we respectfully recommend removal of these sections as they are not applicable.

Answer: The referenced items have been removed and the RFP paragraph/subparagraph numbering has been updated accordingly.

17. Reference: Price

Question: Is there a requirement for pricing DBA and medical evacuation costs for the US personnel traveling to Russia and Kazakhstan?

Answer: For information on medical evacuation refer to Section I.1, NFS 1852.242-78.

The Defense Base Act (DBA) is not required.

18. Reference: Section C, Section 1.3.5

Question: For how many hours of training should the offeror develop the Language Training Curricula Materials, and Program Integration Plan?

Answer: This is to be determined by the Offeror’s unique approach based on their language training processes and historical experience.

19. Reference: Section C, Section 1.4.1.7

Question: Will the incoming and outgoing shipments be eligible for VAT exemption and customs fee waiver? Are the offerors required to include VAT pricing?

Answer: There are no expected customs fees or VAT exemptions associated with this contract. There is no VAT pricing requirement for RLLS2.

20. Reference: Attachment L

Question: Are any interpretation or translation services required for the scenarios?

Answer: Refer to the Scenario details in Section L.22.3.1 and Attachment L-8 of the Draft

RFP.

21. Reference: N/A

Question: For the pre-proposal conference, will a list of attendees and company affiliation be posted for teaming purposes?

Answer: Yes, for those attendees and companies that agree to be publicly identified, a list will be posted on beta.sam.gov prior to the conference.