DRFP Q and A Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- JSC Engineering, Technology and Science (JETS) II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80JSC021JETSII
About this file
This document provides a capability statement synopsis for the JETS II engineering, technology and science services contract opportunity with NASA Johnson Space Center. Interested parties were requested to submit capability statements by December 17, 2020 describing their ability to provide engineering design, development, analysis, testing, laboratory operations and maintenance for JSC's Engineering and Exploration Integration and Science Directorates. Submissions should include ownership status as large business, small business, 8(a), HubZone, woman-owned or veteran-owned small business, or HBCU/MI. Firms were also asked to provide revenue and employee information for the past three years, affiliate details, and a list of relevant customers and contracts over the past five years. This synopsis does not constitute a commitment by the government and is for information and planning purposes only.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Government Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of Incumbent Employees.pdf | ||
| JETS II Interested Parties List 11-18-21.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 80JSC021R0005 - JETS II Draft RFP.pdf | ||
| BH3-21060 - 80JSC021R0005 - JETS II Draft RFP - Cover Letter.pdf | ||
| 80JSC021R0005 L-Attachments.zip | ZIP file | |
| 80JSC021R0005 J-Attachments.zip | ZIP file | |
| JEDII Development Plan.pdf | ||
| JETS II Virtual Tour information 8-19-21.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JETS II Industry Day QA 8-19-21.pdf | ||
| RFI - JETS II OCI 8-3-21.pdf | ||
| EA13 Overview.pdf | ||
| JETS II Communications with Industry - Division QA.pdf | ||
| Misc Info - EX Activity Report.pdf | ||
| JETS II Interested Parties 5-13-21.pdf | ||
| EP Overview.pdf | ||
| Industry Day and Division Charts.zip | ZIP file | |
| ES Overview.pdf | ||
| RFI - JETS II OCI.pdf |
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 80JSC022R0003 - JETS II DRFP Questions
| Question # | RFP Section | Page No. | Discussion | Question | Response | |
| 1 | L.24 (b) 1, 2, & 3; & EPM Template | Page 160; OHT and GAT tabs | The RFP requires additional supporting information for any proposed rate (direct or indirect) not based on an FPRA (Forward Pricing Rate Agreement). | |||
| Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRPs) and Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) are fully supported with the same such information. Additionally, the use of FPRPs versus FPRRs is driven purely by the timing of proposal submission. Requiring submission of the extensive data required currently by the RFP when FPRPs or FPRRs are used increases the burden of analysis and evaluation unnecessarily. | Given that FPRPs and FPRRs are supported by the same information requested by the RFP, will NASA accept Forward Pricing Rate Proposals or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation in place of FPRAs, provided offerors include the FPRP / FPRR in their proposal submission? | The Government will accept Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR) if a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) is not available. Langauge in Section L and M has been updated. | ||||
| 2 | Attachment L-4 EPM Template | N/A | There are instructions contained within the tabs/note blocks of the EPM template that are not reflected in Section L. | Will the government please include all pricing instructions in Section L? | The Template insutrctions will remain only in the EPM template. The EPM attachment is considered part of Section L. | |
| 3 | RFP Section L.23. (b); M.5.1 (c); Attachment L-10 | 155, 182 | Section M states “information on Key Personnel within three years from the date of the JETS II original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation” . Attachment L10 requests chronological work history (within the last 10 years). A key person’s experience is accumulated over their career and the 3 year recency period may not reflect the breadth and depth of their background and qualifications. | Will the government extend the recency period for key personnel from 3 years to 10 years? | L.23, M.5.1c and L-10 has been updated to reflect 5 years in the Final RFP. | |
| 4 | Attachment L-2; TA-4 | Throughout COVID, JSC has been operating in various stages of allowing personnel on-site based upon criticality of work. In reviewing the requirements of TA-4, an understanding of how many current JETS employees were considered “critical” and permitted to be onsite for various activities and operations would be beneficial in determining an approach that aligns with JSC’s emergency operations stages. | Will the government provide a breakdown of number of JETS employees by month from March 2020 through present who were considered “critical/essential” and allowed on site at JSC along with corresponding Stage of openness for the Center, to include the functions considered critical/essential? | This information will not be provided as it is not relevant to the TA-4 Approach to Telework and Remote Work response. TA-4 is requesting a "normal" steady-state operations Telework Approach. TA-4 has been clarified to request a post-pandemic telework approach for off-site personnel | ||
| 5 | Attachment L-2; TA-4 | Throughout COVID, JSC has been operating in various stages of allowing personnel on-site based upon criticality of work. In reviewing the requirements of TA-4, an understanding of how many current JETS employees were considered “critical” and permitted to be onsite for various activities and operations would be beneficial in determining an approach that aligns with JSC’s emergency operations stages. | Will the government also provide the definitions for the various stages of open operations for the Center? | Please refer to the JSC SOS website, jscsos.com, for information on Center operations and return to onsite work. | ||
| 6 | This attachment states: “JETS II personnel who will have on-site seating (either assigned or hotel space) are referred to as on-site and are expected to follow the JSC telework guidelines (~800). The remaining JETS II employees are referred to as off-site.” | Please confirm that the offeror should only address their remote/telework approach for personnel in the offsite facility and the 800 seats on site shall not be addressed with the offeror’s remote/telework approach as they will be governed by the JSC telework guidelines. | TA-4 has been clarified in the Final RFP to request a post-pandemic telework approach for off-site personnel, and not for on-site personnel. | |||
| 7 | In determining a telework/remote work approach for the offsite facility, it is important to understand the functions/positions on the JETS II contract that the government requires to be on-site in the 800 allocated seats. | Will the government provide the list of JETS II functions that are planned to utilize the 800 on-site seats? | No, the data that hs been provided in the Technical Library is sufficient to provide a response to TA-4. | |||
| 8 | SOW 2.4 Facilities; Attachment L-2 TA-4 | 30 | Offerors are requesting information relative to any other technical space requirements for offsite space other than offsite office space. | Will the government please specify if the contractor is to have any technical or logistics capabilities in their offsite facility such as development labs, test labs, and/or receiving/ inspection/storage capabilities? | Please refer to G.5 Installation Accountable Property for receiving/inspection/storage capability requirements and SOW 1.1.5. | |
| 9 | SOW - 1.1.2 Financial Management | 22 | Other NASA programs are discussing/requiring the use of and/or integration with iSITE software. | Does Government anticipate the use of any Government owned or third party provided financial and management reporting systems such as iSITE as a requirement for NF533 Cost and Data Reporting? And if so, please specify the use case and contractual requirements for interfacing/ integrating with iSite.or other financial management reporting systems. | At this time the Government does not anticipate the use of any Government owned or third party provided financial and management reporting systems such as iSITE as a requirement for NF533 Cost and Data Reporting. If such access/training is deemed a requirement in the future, the Government will provide access and the initial training that is required. | |
| 10 | SOW - 1.1.2 Financial Management | 22 | Other NASA programs are discussing/requiring the use of and/or integration with iSITE software. | Will NASA provide the contractor with access and required training to use these systems upon award? | See Question 9 | |
| 11 | SOW - 1.1.5 Procurement | 23 | A storage/warehouse facility will be needed to support material/product receipt, including receiving and stocking of materials, mechanical and electronic parts, and inspection and receiving of finished products. | Does the Government anticipate the requirement for an off-site storage/warehouse facility provided by the contractor or is that facility Government owned and Contractor operated? | Per SOW 1.1.5, the Government does require the Contractor to have an offsite storage facility. | |
| 12 | SOW - 2.2.3 Hardware and Software Testing | 27 | Testing capabilities/facilities are required to support the types of testing identified in this section during all phases of product development | Does the Government anticipate the requirement for off-site testing capabilities/facilities provided by the contractor or are there sufficient Government owned and Contractor operated test capabilities/facilities for testing defined within this paragraph? | In general the Government does not anticipate requiring off-site test facilities/capabilities provided by the Contractor. If off-site facilities are required for special testing, those requirements will generally be issued under Task Orders (e.g. TO 374, CLIN 5.25) | |
| 13 | L.22 MISSION SUITABILITY (MS) FACTOR - VOLUME I | 150 | Government states "Any proposed efficiencies and innovations must be addressed in DRD MGMT-02, Efficiencies and Innovations" however, Table L.21.1: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format does not include DRD MGMT-02. Technology, Innovation, and Process Improvement Plan (DRD MGMT-11) is referenced in Table L.21.1. DRD MGMT-02 submittal instructions do not indicate that this DRD is to be submitted with the proposal nor is it referenced in Section L. | Please clarify the use of DRD MGMT-11 vs DRD MGMT-02? | DRD MGMT-02 has been clarified to show that it is submitted as Attachment J-16 as part of the Model Contract. | |
| 14 | L.22 MISSION SUITABILITY (MS) FACTOR - VOLUME I | 150 | Referencing DRD-02, can offerors propose innovations and efficiencies that are applicable across the full SOW? | Offerors may propose innovations and efficiencies that are applicable across the full SOW. Per L.22 those shall be addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume. DRD-02 is reserved only for any required contract language, new or changed, required to implement the proposed innovations an/or efficiencies. | ||
| 15 | Attachment L-3 TA5 - Approach to Manufacturing | 13 | Government states "...approach to provide manufacturing capability in a way that is cost effective (relative to external shops) while still maintaining the collaborative environment, flexibility and unique manufacturing capabilities" | Please clarify if the requested approach is in addition to or in place of the "Onsite Manufacturing Operation Model" described in this attachment? | TA-5 outlines the capabilities required by NASA. The offeror's approach may include but is not required to have onsite manufacuring as long as the desired capabilities are addressed. TA-5 has been renamed to "Efficient Manufacturing Operation Model" | |
| 16 | Attachment L-9 Past Performance Questionnaire | 3 | Questionnaire asks evaluators to "...keep in mind that only performance in the past 5 years is relevant" however L.23 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, paragraph (c) indicates "Only contract period of performances within three years from the date of the JETS II original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation". | Please clarify the PoP for past performance evaluations as 3 or 5 years. | L.23 (b) Key Personnel, L.23 (c) Contracts, L-9 Questionnaire, The Past Performance Questionnaire and M.5.1 reflect that "Only contract period of performances within three years from the release date of the JETS II original solicitation and information on Key Personnel within five years from the date of the JETS II original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation." | |
| 17 | SECTION L.23, Past Performance | 156 | “(h) In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors, as defined in L.24 Cost/Price Proposal – Volume III, Key Personnel, and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company, which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit the appropriate Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-9/L-10, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (d) above.” | Will the government please confirm that PPQs are not required to be completed for the Key Personnel that are proposed for JETS II? | L.23 (h) has been clarified to include Past Performance Questionaires to references on L-10, Key Personnel Resume in L.23 (b). | |
| 18 | MISSION SUITABIILITY VOLUME I | 147 | There is a 75 page total specified for Mission Suitability Volume which includes the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Commitment to the SB Program. | Will the Government allow the content of the SB Subcontracting Plan and Commitment to the SB Program to be excluded from the page count, or at a minimum the DCAA approved Master Subcontracting Plan and the Individual Subcontracting Plan to be excluded so that all applicable FAR requirements may be met? | The SB Subcontracting Plan and Commitment to the SB Program will be excluded from the page count limitation. Table L.21.1 has been updated to reflect that the total Mission Suitability page count was updated from 75 pages to 70. | |
| 19 | Table L.21.1, Past Performance Volume | 149 | The PP Volume is limited to 30 pages and includes 6 citations. Table L.21.1 states that KP resumes are ‘included, 2 pages ea. | Is it NASA’s intent that the KP resumes are included in the 30 page limit or is the 2 page limit what is referenced by ‘included’? | Key Personnel Resumes are included in the 30 page limit and have an additional 2 page limit per resume. | |
| 20 | If NASA’s intent is that the KP resumes count against the 30 page limit, will NASA consider increasing the page limit or excluding KP resumes from the page count to allow Offerors sufficient page count to adequately address the 6 citations? | See Question 19 | ||||
| 21 | L.23.(e), Past Performance Volume | 156 | The RFP States: Submit information on contracts that you consider relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The submission shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Statement of Work, the prime, major subcontractors as defined in L.24 Cost/Price Proposal - Volume III, proposed Key Personnel, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort. | Will the Government confirm that an offeror may submit contract references for any of its subcontractor “teaming partners” (not just major subcontractors) as long as those subcontractors will be assigned to the scope areas their experience is being cited for? | Per L.23 Past Performance Information, offeror's are able to submit references for any "teaming partners" including rationale supporting the assertion of relevance and may submit up to 6 total past contracts for the team. | |
| 22 | Attachment L-3, TA5 On site manufacturing | 13 | “The Offeror shall provide their approach to provide manufacturing capability in a way that is cost effective (relative to external shops) …” An inclusion of offsite manufacturing for some specialized manufacturing could provide cost effective support to this area. | 1. Is the requirement for a comprehensive onsite / offsite manufacturing approach or is the approach requested in the RFP to bring all of the manufacturing onsite? | See Question 15 | |
| 23 | 2. Will the government provide a prioritized list of manufacturing capabilities that are critical / more important to be done onsite vs offsite? | See Question15 | ||||
| 24 | 12 | “Metal Finish - all out sourced since 2014…:” | Does NASA plan to pull metal finish back in house? | See Question 15 | ||
| 25 | 12 | Additive manufacturing capability | Does NASA anticipate a need for even larger-scale additive manufacturing capability? | NASA does not currently anticipate the need for even larger-scale additive manufacturing capability. | ||
| 26 | 12 | The last sub-bullet, “Machining” indicates that NASA may outsource Class 3 and prototype hardware. | Please clarify the percentage of Class III hardware in the Sample Monthly Numbers on page 11. | Attachment L-3 has been updated to state that there is 10% of Class I flight hardware. The remainder of the hardware is Class III or otherwise uncontrolled hardware. | ||
| 27 | SOW 1.1.4 Data Management | 23 | “The contractor shall provide an acceptable high speed data connection from the contractor’s off-site facility to the JSC Trusted Internet Connections (TIC) access point.” | Will the government define the details/connectivity requirements for the TIC access point connections? | The governement will provide a point of contact (POC) for this information in the Final RFP Cover Letter. | |
| 28 | Attachment L-2; TA4 | Offsite and onsite personnel IT equipment | Will the government confirm that desktop IT equipment will be provided by NEST for both on-site and off-site JETS II employees? | The Government will provide desktop IT equipment only for on-site JETS II employees. Offeror's must determine how IT equipment will be provided for off-site personnel and this should be consistent with the proposal. |
| 29 | RFP Section L.13 (2) | 141 | "Sections of the proposal which are page limited shall be prepared and submitted using non-compressed Arial font with single-spaced 12 point text with a one-inch margin on all sides in accordance with Microsoft Word default settings.” | Please confirm that on page-limited section Offerors shall use Arial 12 point font and not other Arial "family" fonts such as Narrow, etc.? | Please see Section L.13 |
| 30 | Please confirm that MS Word single-space represents 12 on 14 points? | Please see Section L.13 | |||
| 31 | Attachment L-3; TA5 On-site manufacturing | N/A | We understand that the new Engineering Complex, including Buildings 13 and 15, is planned to be constructed and operational during the JETS II POP. | Will the government provide information about the Engineering Complex capabilities/labs/facilities and timeline in order to be considered as part of the JETS II manufacturing approach? | Plans for a future engineering complex are in development, but they have not been finalized or approved. It is not anticipated that the development of the engineering complex should affect the proposed manufacturing approach. |
| 32 | Attachment L-4 EPM | FBR Tab | The FBR tab of the EPM states "The Not-To-Exceed (NTE) fee rate applicable to the Team Composite FBRs shall be addressed at the TOPT and the IDIQ Summary Cost Template – SR, as applicable." There is no "TOPT" template within the EPM. | Please clarify what the TOPT requirement is referring to. | The FBR template has been updated to reflect the correct template references |
| 33 | Attachment L-4 EPM | IRAP Tab | The IRAP tab states "The "Proposed FTEs by SLC" (Column F) is used to identify the total proposed FTEs for each SLC (entered by the Offeror on each SLC's composite row)." | Are offerors to input the combined total FTEs for SOW 1 and SOW 2 in this field? | Yes, offerors are to input the combined total FTEs for SOW 1 and SOW 2 in the proposed field. |
| 34 | Attachment L-4 EPM | TRST Tab | The TRST tab of the EPM includes a column for incumbent retention. This tab also states it covers all proposed resources, across the prime and sub. | Are the SOW 1 and SOW 2 resources to be accounted for on this tab? | Only SOW 1.0 will be accounted for in the TRST tab. |
| 35 | Is the incumbent retention percentage in Column B on this tab the incumbent retention percentage across the prime and the sub (meaning it will be a composite if the prime/subs have differing incumbent retention percentages)? OR is the incumbent retention percentage in Column B intended to match the incumbent retention percentages in the Prime Offeror’s IRAP Tab. | The incumbent retention percentage in Column B on the TRST tab is the incumbent retention percentage across the prime and the sub, meaning it will be a composite of the prime and subs. This column is not intended to match the incumbent retention percentages in the Prime Offeror’s IRAP Tab. | |||
| 36 | Attachment L-4 EPM | IRAP Tab | The EPM references historical incumbent salary data. The current attachments on the SAM.gov and Jets II procurement site do not include historical incumbent salary data. This information is critically time sensitive so that Offerors may begin pricing activities and analysis. | Will NASA provide the historical incumbent salary data prior to release of the final RFP, ideally as soon as possible? | The historical incumbent salary data will be provided in the technical library. |
| 37 | RFP Section M.6 | 185 | M6 states: ‘Cost Reimbursable IDIQ – SOW 1.0 Evaluation Factors’ then lists the types of analysis to be performed in the evaluation of SOW 1.0 pricing. | Is SOW 1.0 pricing to be proposed as Cost Reimbursable and if so, is it CPFF or CPAF? | Offerors shall propose the ISCT (SOW 1 & 2) tabs as cost reimbursable, Award Fee (CPAF) for Years 1-3 and Fixed Fee (CPFF) for Years 4-10 in the EPM. The template has been updated to reflect this instruction. |
| 38 | Attachment L-4 EPM | ISCT SOW-1 Tab; B.12 | The ISCT SOW-1 tab of the EPM states "the NTE fee rate proposed here shall match the NTE fee rate proposed in Section B.12 of the Model Contract." The model contract requires three separate NTE fee rates for fixed fee, award fee, and profit at Section B.12. | Please clarify which fee rate proposed in the model contract should match the NTE fee rate proposed in the ISCT SOW-1 Tab of the EPM. | See Question 37. |
| 39 | Attachment L-4 EPM | ISCT SOW-2 Tab; B.12 | The ISCT SOW-2 tab of the EPM states "the NTE fee rate proposed here shall match the NTE fee rate proposed in Section B.12 of the Model Contract." The model contract requires three separate NTE fee rates for fixed fee, award fee, and profit at Section B.12. | Given SOW-2 can be made up of any combination of FFP, CPFF or CPAF Task Orders, please clarify which fee rate should be reflected and proposed in the ISCT SOW-2 Tab of the EPM. | See Question 37. |
| 40 | RFP Section M.6 | 185 | Is SOW-1 awardable? | During contract execution, the contractor shall provide a proposal for SOW 1 in accordance with DRD BP-08 SOW 1 Cost Proposal. The negotiation of this proposal results in the definition for the SOW 1 rate for the upcoming contract year. This rate is reflected in Section B.12. The offerors proposed SOW 1 rate for contract year 1 in Section B.12 is awardable. | |
| 41 | Attachment L-4 EPM | ISCT Tabs | The ISCT tabs of the EPM state "The template currently assumes that the NTE fee rate is applied to all proposed dollars. Offerors may adjust the NTE fee rate application to match their proposal". | Are offerors permitted to adjust this template to accommodate different fee rates for labor resources and non-labor resources? | According to Clause H.17 (b), "Any material or service procurements conducted in performance of this contract (including materials and supplies procured through subcontracts), are not subject to any burdened costs and/or indirect rate costs including but not limited to: Fee, material handling fees, salary related expenses (SREs), or any other rates, costs, fees, or a combination thereof associated with the performance, management and oversight of procurement functions with the exception of G&A. New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) may be added, when not exempt under New Mexico State Type 9 and/or 15 Nontaxable Transaction Certificate, or any other exemption. " |
The template has been updated to, "The template currently assumes that the NTE fee rate is applied to all labor proposed dollars."
42 RFP Section H.17(b); Attachment L-4 EPM – ISCT Tabs; RFP Section M.6 H.17(b); ISCT Tabs; M.6 H.17(b) states: Any material or service procurements conducted in performance of this contract (including materials and supplies procured through subcontracts), are not subject to any burdened costs and/or indirect rate costs including but not limited to: Fee, material handling fees, salary related expenses (SREs), or any other rates, costs, fees, or a combination thereof associated with the performance, management and oversight of procurement functions with the exception of G&A. New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) may be added, when not exempt under New Mexico State Type 9 and/or 15 Nontaxable Transaction Certificate, or any other exemption.
The ‘Instructions to Offerors’ box on the ISCT tabs in the EPM state: Offerors shall apply any applicable burdens to the NLR dollars.
M.6 states: For purposes of proposal evaluation and source selection, the proposed cost calculated from the application of the Offeror’s FBRs to the Government provided labor profile, plus the application of the Offeror’s applicable burdens to the Government provided NLR profile, plus the application of the NTE fee rate to either or both the aforementioned labor and NLR resources will be considered, in total for all contract years.
Finally, as part of Offerors’ K.8 Certification to FAR 52.230-1, Cost Accounting Standards and Certification, offerors must certify ‘that the practices used in estimating costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting practices disclosed in the applicable Disclosure Statement.’
| May offerors propose indirect burdens on NLRs in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices, to include if applicable, indirect FPRRs/FPRPs for material overhead/handling as well as G&A? | Offerors may propose indirect burdens on NLRs in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices. However, adequate supporting information must be provided to substantiate the proposed rate. If indirect burdens on NLRs are proposed, offerors shall provide updated B.12 tables and a proposed revision to clause H.17 in DRD MGMT-02. | ||||
| 43 | H.17 states no fee on materials/supplies, however, the ISCT tabs allow fee application to all costs. Will NASA allow fee on materials/supplies? | Attachment L-4, the EPM template, has been updated to, "Offerors shall apply any allowable applicable burdens to the proposed NLR dollars, please see clause H.17. " | |||
| 44 | RFP Section L.9(d) | 137 | L.9(d) states: The Offeror shall require all service subcontractors provide, as part of their proposal, the nformation identified in (a) through (c) of this provision for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts when the cumulative estimated value of the service subcontracts under the proposed |
prime contract is in excess of: (1) 10 percent of the contract’s total potential value (including option and the phase-in period); and (2) The threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4. Are T&M subcontracts 'fixed price type subcontracts' and if so, please confirm TCPs are not required of competitive T&M subcontractors. No, TCPs are not required for T&M subcontractors.
Please refer to FAR part 16 for the definitions of Time and Material and Fixed-Price contracts.
| 45 | RFP Section L.21, MA3 | 151 | MA23 states: For joint ventures, the page limit is 10 pages per team member. The prime, subcontractors, and team members are permitted to combine data into one TCP, and the page limit for the combined TCP will be 10 pages. | Please confirm the 'combined TCP' is allowable and applicable only to joint ventures and not to standard subcontractor agreements. | Per the MA3, should the The prime, subcontractors, and team members desire to, they are permitted to combine data into one TCP. This is applicable to all teams, not just joint ventures. |
| 46 | RFP Table L.21.1 | 148 | Table L.21.1 refers to the model contract as Volume IV. Elsewhere in Section L, the model contract is Volume V. | Please confirm the model contract is Volume V. | The model contract is Volume V, this has been corrected in the L.21 table. |
| 47 | RFP Section L.25(a)(1)(c.) and M.7(a)(1)(a)(c.) | 169 | Section L.25 requires the submission of 'All required department of labor information' and Section M.7 states this information will be part of the responsibility determination. However, the RFP does not define what information is required in response to this requirement. | Please identify the information required to be submitted. | "All required Department of Labor Information" has been removed from L.25 and M.7. This was duplicative of the TCP information requested in L.22 and M.4. |
| 48 | SOW Section 1.1.2 | 22 | The RFP states: “The contractor shall provide a SOW 1 rate proposal per DRD BP-08, SOW 1 Cost Proposal.” | Please confirm DRD BP-08 SOW 1 Cost Proposal is part of future task order proposal responses and not required in offerors submission at this time. | The initial DRD BP-08 submittal is not due with the proposal submittal. |
| 49 | RFP Section L.24(d)2 & Attachment L-4 EPM | 166 | Instructions within the EPM, specifically tabs IRAP, FBAC, and IA, indicate the forms are required from the Prime and all subcontractors as defined in NFS 1852.231.71(d) and JPI 1852.231-71(d). Section L.24(d)2, in part, states that each Prime and Major subcontractor is required to submit their EPM and any other electronic cost data, including formulas, via NASA's EFSS Box.." | Are the IRAP, FBAC, and IA tabs required from all subcontractors, regardless of subcontract value? | The IRAP and FBAC tabs are required from all cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontractors who are submitting a TCP that meet the JPI definition of 10 percent of the contract’s total potential value (including option and the phase-in period) and the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4. Please see Section L.9 |
The IRAP, FBAC, and IA are required from all subcontractors who meet the definition of a major subcontractor as defined L.24 (a). These major subcontractors must submit all applicable worksheets as instructed in Section L.
| 50 | If so, is it the Government's expectation that a Minor subcontractor would complete only the applicable portion of the EPM and submit via NASA's EFSS box? | Should a minor meet the TCP definition as described in Section L.9, the minor subcontractor must submit all applicable documents that are required in MA3 Total Compensation Plan DRD. | |||
| 51 | RFP Tables L.24.3, L.24.4 | 164-165 | Tables L.24.3 and L.24.4 provide NLRs described as “misc” | Will NASA please describe what costs are included in the miscellaneous NLR values so that Offerors may burden them in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices? | The miscellaneous NLR values in tables L.24.2 and L.24.4 are non-teammate subcontractors that are not included in the fully burdened composite rate. |
| 52 | RFP Table L.21.1 and L.23 (f) | 148 | Table L.21.1 does not address the Past Performance Matrix. | Because of the size of the matrix, is it considered an attachment that is not included in the 30 page limit? | The Past Performance Matrix is not included in the Volume II page count and has been added to Table L.21.1 |
| 53 | RFP Section M.5.1(c) | 182 | RFP States: “Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only.” | Given the broad scope of trades/type of work in SOW 1.0 and 2.0, many contracts will not cover all trades. Will the Government determine relevance of work and base an Offeror’s Past Performance Confidence Rating on the cumulative content of all six past performance references? | Per M.5.1 "A performance confidence rating will be assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance." |
| 54 | RFP Section L.24(b)1 | 159 | The Specific Guidelines for Direct Labor Rates state: “For any direct labor rates not included in a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA), the Offeror shall indicate the basis and/or source data (e.g., actual salary data as of a specific date, proposed salary data from a specific source as of a specific date, etc.) of any direct labor rate proposed.” Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRPs) submissions and Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) are based on the same data requested by the RFP. | Will NASA extend the FPRA provision to include FPRPs and FPRRs? | See Question 1 |
| 55 | RFP Section L.24(b) | 159 | Specific Guidelines for Direct Labor Rates Escalation state: “For any direct labor rates not included in a FPRA, the Offeror shall provide the company's direct labor escalation history for the past three (3) years.” | Will NASA extend the FPRA provision to include FPRPs and FPRRs? | See Question 1 |
| 56 | RFP Section L.24(b)3 | 160 | Specific Guidelines, for Indirect Rate Historical Data and Analysis state: “For any indirect rate(s) not included in a FPRA, the Offeror shall provide the company's indirect rate history for the past three (3) years.” | Will NASA extend the FPRA provision to include FPRPs and FPRRs? | See Question 1 |
| 57 | Section L.13 (a)(2) | 141 | Restricting text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs to Arial 12-point font size often creates convoluted, illegible, and/or reduced use of graphics due to the added elements around the text. For optimal legibility and usefulness, will the Government consider changing the font size limit for diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs to 10-point Arial Narrow font? | Please see L.13, no change to font size is contemplated | |
| 58 | Section M.5(c) | 183 |
Pg. 153 Pg. 154
| Table 1/Pg. 1 | Section M states, "Offerors with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture." This criterion allows offerors to submit past performance for a joint venture and be evaluated against the full scope of the submitted contract irrespective of their ownership share of the joint venture. For example, an offeror with 5% ownership of a joint venture for a contract with a similar size, scope, and complexity of JETS II would receive the same relevance rating as an offeror that referenced a contract of similar size, scope, and complexity to JETS II where they were the prime contractor, resulting in an unfair advantage. We recommend the Government consider an offeror’s ownership percentage of the joint venture and the overall contract value in your evaluation of past performance references for joint ventures. | The language for Joint Venture past performance (M.5(c)) has been modified to state that "Offerors with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the scope of work performed by the offeror in the joint venture". | |
| 59 | Section L.22.3, SBU1 (a) |
Section L.22.3, SBU1 (f) L-6 Small Business Subcontracting Tables "Section L.22.3, SBU1 (a)/Pg. 153 Section L.22.3, SBU1 (f)/ Pg. 154 Attachment L-6, Table 1/Pg. 1" 183 Pg. 153 Pg. 154
| Table 1/Pg. 1 | The Contracting Officer's determination of the appropriate subcontracting goals are displayed by contract year 1, 3, 5, and 10. Section L.22.3, SBU1 (f) states, "Offerors shall complete Attachment L-6, Small Business Subcontracting Tables, which provides a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS. Offerors shall modify the exhibit to show the proposed subcontracting goals for the basic contract requirement and each option separately." Are the contract years in the table meant to represent the base period and three option periods or are offerors required to establish subcontract goals by contract year? | H.5 and L.22.3 have been updated with additional language to specify the goals for the base contract and option periods. | ||||
| 60 | The Contracting Officer's determination of the appropriate subcontracting goals are displayed by contract year 1, 3, 5, and 10 implying that offerors are required to establish subcontracting goals by contract year that increase over time. Are offerors required to establish subcontracting goals that increase throughout the JETS 2 period of performance? If yes, will the Government clarify the period over which each target percentage applies | See Question 61 | ||||
| 61 | Section L.22 | 150 | Section L.22 states, "Any proposed efficiencies and innovations must be addressed in DRD MGMT-02, Efficiencies and Innovations." We did not see a specific Mission Suitability subfactor where we should address this requirement. Are we correct in assuming DRD MGMT-02 is not due with the proposal but due prior to Phase-In, and offerors must clearly identify their innovations and efficiencies within the Mission Suitability volume including the savings and benefits that NASA can expect? | See Question 13 | ||
| 62 | Section H.2 | 57-58 | Paragraphs H.2.c.1.iii and H.2.c.2.iii provide examples of Commercial Service Provider (CSP) contracts. Does the Government consider the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contract to be a CSP contract? | No, the Government does not consider CLPS to be a CSP contract for the purposes of H.2. | ||
| 63 | M.5.1(c) | Pg. 183 | The Past Performance evaluation criteria for Relevance and Performance appears to contain contradictory information as it relates to joint ventures. The Relevance criteria states that "offerors with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture," while the Performance criteria says, "for existing and newly formed joint ventures, the past performance of each joint venture partner" will be evaluated separately." We recommend evaluating partners separately according to their ownership percentage to accurately represent each partner’s experience demonstrated as part of the joint venture. | See Question 60 | ||
| 64 | L.21.1/Pg. 149, L.23(f-g)/Pg. 156, L.23(k)/Pg. 158 | In reference to Table L.21.1, where in the Past Performance Volume are the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment L-8), organizational chart, and statement of small business participation to be submitted? Are they included in the 30-page limitation? | See Question 54 | |||
| 65 | L.23(i) | 157 | The DRFP states that due to the Limited Communications Notice, JSC Civil Servants will not be able to provide status on references and past performance questionnaires. Being unable to verify the status of these requirements puts contractors with a significant JSC presence at a disadvantage. Would the Government consider allowing communications with the JETS II Contracting Officer to request status without directly contacting any JSC Civil Servants to ensure these important requirements are being met? | L.23(i) has been updated to allow communications with the JETS II Contracting Officer for the purposes of requesting status updates on Past Performance submissions. | ||
| 66 | L-4 Electronic Pricing Model | TRST worksheet | The “Instruction to Offerors” area of the worksheet states, “The NLRs are Government Specified Resources shall not be changed and should match Table L 24.2”. This referenced table is the SOW 1.0 NLR table. Will the Government please verify that SOW 2.0 NLR (Table L-24.4) is also included in the TRST worksheet? | The TRST is only for SOW 1.0. The templates have been updated to include this clarification. | ||
| 67 | Section I.18(b)(iii) | Pg. 101 | In Section I.18(b)(iii), should the "clause H.18, Contractor Purchasing" instead be H.17? | This has been corrected. | ||
| 68 | J-2 | DRD MGMT-06/Pg. J-2-18 | Will the Government please clarify what is intended by the requirement to "...retain entrepreneurs and startups in commercial space and to reduce the risk of the startup environment"? Can the Government provide an example activity that aligns with this objective? | The NASA JSC works with organizations in Houston and throughout Texas and the region to enable small business to develop and bring solutions to meet our mission objectives. The offeror may consider how to work with economic development organizations in partnership with JSC organizations to identify businesses and create on-ramps for the discovery and delivery of technology driven products or services to NASA, or for the use of space technologies in terrestrial business applications. The DRD MGMT-06 has been updated. | ||
| 69 | L.22.2 & L-2 TA4 – Approach to Telework and Remote Work | Pg. 152 | Attachment L-2 states that "approximately 95% of the Engineering Directorate and EISD employees are expected to be in categories 4-6." and that "a high percentage of the work accomplished on the JETS II contract will similarly be done by employees either working onsite at JSC or in a contractor facility in the immediate JSC area." Can the Government clarify their definition of "a high percentage"? | TA-4 has been updated to clarify the information requested in the offeror's approach. | ||
| 70 | L-4 Electronic Pricing Model; 80JSC021R0005 JETS II Draft RFP | EPM Tabs ISCT - SOW 1 and ISCT - SR SOW 2, H.17(b)/Pg. 70 | The Instructions to Offerors within the ISCT-SOW 1 and SR-SOW 2 tabs state "Offerors shall apply any applicable burdens to the proposed NLR dollars. The bottom of the template also provides for the prime Offeror NTE fee rate input (subcontractor fee shall be included in the FBRs unless a fee sharing arrangement is being proposed) and calculates the fee dollars. The template currently assumes that the NTE fee rate is applied to all proposed dollars." Clause H.17(b) states "Any material or service procurements conducted in performance of this contract (including materials and supplies procured through subcontracts), are not subject to any burdened costs and/or indirect rate costs including but not limited to: Fee, material handling fees, salary related expenses (SREs), or any other rates, costs, fees, or a combination thereof associated with the performance, management and oversight of procurement functions with the exception of G&A." Please confirm whether the Government intends for offerors to apply fee to non-labor resources. | The EPM workbook has been updated to sync with Clause H. 17 (b) | ||
| 71 | 80JSC021R0005 JETS II Draft RFP | H.17/Pg. 70, I/Pg. 83 | Since the DRFP includes FAR 52.215-23 without including Alternate 1 of the clause, it appears the Contracting Officer has determined JETS II contractor will not be performing value-added subcontracting functions per FAR 15.408(n)(2)(iii). This determination is further defined in clause H.17 of the DRFP. Per FAR 52.215-23, “Added Value” means that the Contractor performs subcontract management functions that the Contracting Officer determines are a benefit to the Government (e.g., processing orders of parts or services, maintaining inventory, reducing delivery lead times, managing multiple sources for contract requirements, coordinating deliveries, performing quality assurance functions). | Since the JETS II Contractor is required to perform several of the functions described as “Added Value” under Section C – SOW 1 (e.g., procurement, offsite shipping and receiving, and quality assurance), there appears to be a conflict between contract performance requirements and the “Added Value” determination. We recommend Alternate 1 be added to FAR 52.215-23. | The Government has evaluated this recommendation for its relevance to the JETS II contract and has determined that the use of FAR 52.215-23 Alternate 1 is not appropriate. | |
| 72 | B.12 | 14 | On Pg. 14 in the solicitation, Section B.12 FULLY BURDENED RATE TABLE FOR PRICING TASK ORDERS, you reference I.19, Task Ordering Procedures. Is that intended to be I.17? | This has been corrected. | ||
| 73 | L.23(b) | 155 | Does the Government intend to evaluate KP in both Mission Suitability and Past Performance and, if so, how will the evaluation of KP in Past Performance be assessed in the Level of Confidence (LOC) rating? | The Government does intend to evaluate Key Personnel approach as part of Mission Suitability and the Past Performance of the proposed KP. KP Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with M.5.1. MA4 has been updated to provide clarification. | ||
| 74 | H.27/Pg. 78, L.28/Pg. 174 | Does the Government intend for offerors to complete the Offeror Fill-Ins (OFIs) for the same provision in both Section H and Section L? | Yes, the Government intends for the offeror to complete the Offeror Fill-Ins before and after award. The provision L.28 has been moved to K.11 and is intended to be filled-in before award, while the provision in Section H is intended to be filled-in after award. | |||
| 75 | L.29 | 174 | Did the Government intend to place reference provision in Section L rather than Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents or Section H, Special Contract Requirements? | Yes, the L.29 provision is in the correct location. | ||
| 76 | L.24(b)(2) | 160 | We recommend the Government provide the annual escalation rates recommended by NASA Headquarters for direct labor, as it has in several recent NASA solicitations. | The Government will not provide the annual escalation rates. | ||
| 77 | L.25 | As outlined in the Cover Letter Paragraph number 7 and in DRFP Section L.25.a.1.b the contractor is required to provide a Top Secret facilities clearance at proposal receipt and for Joint Ventures the facility clearance must be granted in the name of the Joint Venture (JV). As the GAO concluded in InfoPoint LLC, B-419856 (August 27, 2021), we understand that a newly formed JV entity would not require a facility clearance as a condition of bidding for this important project provided that each of its members has a valid and current Top Secret facility clearance. Would NASA consider modifying this statement to allow consideration for populated Joint Ventures where each individual JV member holds an active Top Secret Facility Clearance? | A JV will be deemed responsive (M.3) if the JV partner that will be performing the classified work holds the appropriate Security Clearance. | |||
| 78 | For estimating purposes, will the incumbent workforce seniority be provided, or will the GRE be defined based on a common WYE or quantity of productive hours per year? | The incumbent workforce seniority will be provided in the technical library. | ||||
| 79 | Do you know if the NASA contracting officers are able to sponsor TS FCL applications? | NASA Contracting Officers are not able to sponsor TS FCL applications. | ||||
| 80 | Please consider revision to both sections of the final solicitation, to confirm eligibility of a newly formed populated joint venture when all members provide confirmation of a valid Top Secret facility clearance, as included as part of their proposal submittal. | See Question 77 | ||||
| 81 | L.23 | Will the Government confirm that an offeror may submit contract references for any of its subcontractor “teaming partners” (not just major subcontractors) as long as those subcontractors will be assigned to the scope areas their experience is being cited for? | See Question 21 | |||
| 82 | The lack of RTOs in the Tech Vol. is a major departure from prior NASA engineering services procurements. What is the Government's reasoning for this change? | As mentioned in previous communications including special notices, Request for Information (RFI) postings, Industry Day, etc., NASA intends to streamline the acquisition process. Streamlining reduces resource expenditure required during the acquisition process by the Government and Industry. One of the opportunities identified by NASA and Industry was the exclusion of Representative Task Orders. | ||||
| 83 | Attachment J-2 | The Technology, Innovation and Process Improvement (TIPI) Data Requirements Descriptions (DRD) [MGMT-11] content talks a lot about process for introducing innovations. Will the government confirm that specific proposed innovations to support performance of the SOW can be included as part of the TIPI? | Per Attachment J-2, Data Requirements List (DRL) and Data Requirements Description (DRD), the TIPI DRD requires “a plan to promote infusion of technology and innovations into EA and XA products, processes and operations over the life of the contract.” This content is different from the Efficiencies and Innovations DRD, MGMT-02, which is used to provide proposed contractual language for proposed efficiencies and innovative techniques identified in the Offeror’s Mission Suitability Factor in accordance with L.22, MISSION SUITABILITY (MS) FACTOR - VOLUME I. | |||
| 84 | Attachment J-2 | The DRL is missing from Attachment J-2; DRL and DRD, when will it be provided? | The zip file attached on beta.sam does contain the DRL. However, we have recently changed the formatting of the DRL listing and it resembles the formatting for a table of contents, but it is the complete listing of DRDs. The DRL is contained within Attachment J-2, DRL and DRD, however the format has been changed from JETS. The DRL more closely resembles a table of contents listing and contents and submission requirements are incorporated directly into the DRD. | |||
| 85 | Attachment J-12 | Will the Government provide Historical Salary Data? | NASA will provide this information at the time of Final RFP release. | |||
| 86 | L.21, Table L.21.1 | Will the Government remove Key Personnel resumes from the Past Performance page count? | The Key Personnel resumes will not be removed from the page count. | |||
| 87 | Section C | Does the Government anticipate any additional scope changes to the Statement of Work (SOW) resulting from the MAP initiative (such as consolidating SST3 or COMET) or SBSAs | NASA does not anticipate any changes to the SOW scope from the Draft RFP to the Final RFP. | |||
| 88 | Section H.2 | In Section H.2 Limitation of Existing and Future Contracting, can you confirm whether these limitations for participation in the JETS II contract are in effect at the time of proposal, or at the time of award? | Compliance is required prior to award. | |||
| 89 | Attachment J-26 | Attachment J-26 Standard Labor Categories (SLC)s indicates a qualification for the Safety Manager as being a Certified Safety Professional (CSP). Will being a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) be considered as an alternative qualification? | Both a CSP and CIH are acceptable. A CIH will be considered as an alternative qualification. | |||
| 90 | Attachment J-26 | Do the NASA SLCs map to the job classifications in Supplement A to the CBA, and if so, what is that mapping? | The NASA SLCs from Attachment J-26 do not map to the CBA Supplement A (Attachment J-12). Per Attachment J-26, the offerors will map their labor categories to the SLCs. | |||
| 91 | Attachment J-26 | For NASA SLCs that do map to job classifications in Supplement A to the CBA, are offerors to assume all labor hours in that NASA SLC is subject to the CBA? If not, how are offerors to distinguish between CBA covered and non-CBA covered labor? | See Question 90. See incumbent wage data in the technical library for bargaining unit SLCs. | |||
| 92 | Attachment J-26 | For NASA SLCs subject to the CBA, are offerors to propose straight base labor rates (without premiums such as shift differential, lead time, double time)? If so, how are ceilings to be established for these premium rates? Will offerors bid these premium rates at the Task Order level? | Please refer to L.24 Cost/Price Proposal - Volume III and Attachment L-4 Excel Pricing Model for cost proposal instructions. Please refer to B.12 Fully Burdened Rate Table For Pricing Task Orders for bidding task orders. | |||
| 93 | Attachment J-26 | With regards to the NASA historical incumbent rates – will those rates be averages of actual straight time direct labor rates or will the rates include any overtime or shift differentials? |
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 .