80JSC022R0003 JETS II RFP QnA Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 80JSC022R0003
About this file
This document contains a summary of questions and responses related to solicitation number 80JSC022R0003 for the JSC Engineering, Technology and Science (JETS) II contract. The solicitation requests proposals to provide engineering, technology, science and program support services at Johnson Space Center. Proposals are due by December 15, 2021 and all questions are due by November 29, 2021. A virtual pre-proposal conference will be held on November 23, 2021 to discuss the solicitation. The summary addresses various questions about labor categories, pricing templates, small business goals, safety and health plans and other contractual requirements. It provides clarification on the labor categories and rates covered under the existing collective bargaining agreement, as well as instructions for completing various contract attachments and delivery requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
Sheet1
| Question # | RFP Section | Discussion | Question/Comment | Response | |
| 1 | L.9, (d), p. 139 | The Government states, “The Offeror shall require all service subcontractors provide, as part of their proposal, the information 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 10% of the contract’s total potential value…” Would the Government confirm that this threshold applies to each subcontractor individually? | Yes, this threshold applies to each subcontractor individually. | ||
| 2 | Table L.24.1 p. 165 | Table L.24.1 provides offerors the GRE for the amount of SOW 1.0 hours by SLC. The sum of all the hours listed by SLC equals 211,750. The “Total Hours” row at the bottom of Table L.24.1 indicates the total hours for the GRE are 202,200. Can the Government confirm that the 211,750 hours is the correct GRE amount? | The correct number of GRE hours is 211,750. Table L.24.1 has been updated to reflect this total. | ||
| 3 | L. 24, (b), 5 p. 163 | The subject requirement states that “Offerors are allowed to include additional SLCs for work that does not easily map into the SLCs provided in the solicitation.” Given that Table L 24.3 and ISCT - SR SOW 2.0 of the L-4 Excel Pricing Model provide the specified resources applied to SOW 2.0, should Offerors assume that if additional labor categories are proposed for SOW 2.0 that fully burdened labor rates for each proposed labor category be entered in ISCT - SR SOW 2.0 with zero Productive Hours applied? | Yes, offerors should assume that if additional labor categories are proposed for SOW 2.0 that fully burdened labor rates for each proposed labor category be entered in ISCT - SR SOW 2.0 with zero Productive Hours applied. | ||
| 4 | L. 24, (b), 6 p. 164 | Would the Government specify the number of federal holidays to be used for productive time calculations? | The Government will not specify the number of federal holidays used for productive time calculations. Offerors are to use their unique management approach/company policy to calculate productive hours. | ||
| 5 | L.22.3 (a) p. 155 Attachment L-6 | Please confirm that the Government will evaluate both an Offeror’s proposed Cumulative Small Business Goals for the base period, and the Offeror’s proposed Cumulative Small Business Goals for the option periods. Should Offeror’s complete attachment L-6 for the base period and separately for all option periods? | The Government will evaluate the offerors proposed Small Business Goals for each small business category for each year separately. Offerors shall provide cumulative totals for the basic contract, cumulative totals for option periods, and cumulative contract total. L.22.3 has been updated. | ||
| 6 | Attachment L.12 | We noticed a copy of the CBA was in the DRFP, but not provided with the final RFP. Is it still applicable even though it was not provided as part of the final? | The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is applicable to the final RFP. A copy of the CBA has been added to the technical library. | ||
| 7 | Is there a list of available software that is recommended, or required to handle Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) ? | NASA does not have any requirements or recommendations for Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) software for JETS II. | |||
| 8 | Section L.18(b) | We are working through our TA4 response, and in section L.18 (b) JSC Super-Flex Work Schedule (JPI 52.242-90) there is a link to more information on “Flex Friday weekend mode” and Super-flex, reference https://jscpeople.jsc.nasa.gov/Docs/telework/Super%20Flex%20Phase%202%20Updated.pdf. However we are unable to access this link. Is there another location this information resides? | The JSC Super-Flex Work Schedule has been added to the technical library. | ||
| 9 | a. RFP L.23 (h); b. Att. L-9 | L.23 (h) requires that a PPQ be submitted for Key Personnel and cites Attachment L-9. | |||
| Attachment L-9 PPQ is relevant for contract past performance – it is not tailored for a KP | Will the government provide a tailored PPQ for KPs in order to obtain relevant information from KP references or remove the requirement for PPQs for KPs as references are included in the resumes? | No, Attachment L-9 has been provided for both contracts or key personnel. | |||
| 10 | a. RFP L.22.1 MA2; b. Att. J-2, DRD SMA-03 | The Section L instructions for MA2 Safety and Health Plan indicate Section 2.6.1 Mishap Notification and Response as a required element. However, DRD SMA-03 indicates Section 2.6.1 as Mishap Reporting and Investigation and Section 2.6.1.1 as Mishap Notification and Response. | Will the government please confirm that the Section L instruction should indicate Section 2.6.1.1 (instead of 2.6.1) as the required element to be consistent with DRD SMA-03? | L.22.1 MA2 has been updated to the correct title for Section 2.6.1 Mishap Reporting and Investigation. | |
| 11 | a. RFP L.22; b. RFP M.4; c. DRD MGMT-02 Submission; d. RFP L.26 (c), Sec. J | a. Section L.22 instructions describe “proposed innovations or efficiencies” and instructs that they “must be addressed in DRD MGMT-02”; |
b. Section M.4 instructions states, in part, “may result in loss of mission suitability points”;
c. DRD MGMT-02 Submissions states in part, “Proposal Instructions (Attachment J-16 )”;
d. Section L.26 requires J-16 as part of the Model Contract
Summary: Our understanding is that “proposed innovations and efficiencies” are to be addressed (a.) that we may lose points (b.) that we are to document them per the DRD (c.) deliver them per J-16 (c.), and include the deliverable in the Model Contract (d.).
| Will the government please explain how the evaluation will be conducted whereby we potentially lose “mission suitability points” against Volume I for a deliverable that resides only in Volume V? | As stated in DRD MGMT-02 "If innovations and efficiencies are being proposed, the contractor shall propose contractual language for the proposed innovations and/or efficiencies, identified in the Mission Suitability Factor." If an innovation or efficiency is proposed in Volume I that would require a change to the contract and the offeror fails to capture that change in DRD MGMT-02, then the offerer would not receive credit for the proposed innovation or efficiency in Mission Suitability. Please note that failure to include a change in DRD MGMT-02 will not be considered a weakness. | |
| 12 | a. RFP L.23 (d); b. Att. L-7 | a. Consent Letters are to be executed to include Key Personnel and points to sample at Attachment L-7; |
b. Attachment L-7 Past Performance Consent Letter makes no mention of Key Personnel
| (NOTE: NASA/JSC COMIT Att. L-5 Past Performance Consent Letter included language for personnel, not just past performance.) | Will the government update Attachment L-7 to include Key Personnel within the attachment for clarity? | Attachment L-7 Consent Letters has been updated to include a reference to Key Personnel for clarity. | |
| 13 | a. RFP L.21; b. RFP L.26 (c) | The instructions regarding plans to be submitted with Volume V are contradictory. |
Table L.21 states (see top of page 152): “The DRD plans submitted in response to Volume I and IV will be incorporated into Section J of the contract by the Contracting Officer after contract award and upon approval by the Government. These plans are not to be submitted as part of the model contract as they are due with the applicable Section L volume.”
However, L.26(c), Page 177, states: Offerors shall submit with its proposal, in Volume V, the Model Contract in its entirety (basic and any amendments) per the instructions below. Section J of the table which follows this instruction states: “Offerors shall submit the required documents” and lists J attachments, including plans submitted with Volume I (as referenced in L21 above). Are offerors to submit the Volume I and IV plans in those volumes and in the Volume V Model Contract?
| Where Volume I and IV plans are governed by a NASA provided DRD, please confirm the plan is due in accordance with the stated submission requirement within the DRD. For example, J-20 is governed by DRD MGMT-10 which states the plan is due 30 days prior to contract start, and therefore would not be included with proposal submission. | Section L.26 (c) has been updated to delete the J-attachments that are submitted in other volumes or after contract award. | ||||
| 14 | RFP DRFP Q&A #15 | L.24, paragraph (c) provides NLRs for both SOW 1 and SOW 2 and states "The Offeror shall utilize the NLRs provided in Table L.24.2 & L.24.4. | Are offerors to assume the NASA provided NLRs include the cost of facilities and if not, how are offerors to propose facility costs? | The NASA provided NLRs do not include the cost of facilities. Offerors are to propose any cost of facilities according to their unique account structure/approach. | |
| 15 | L-4 EPM | The ICST - SOW 1 tab takes the hours input for CY1 and assumes the same LOE for all proposed contract years. | Can offerors modify the formulas in this template in order to accommodate the offerors unique proposal management and technical approaches for CY2-CY10? | Offerors may modify the formulas in this template to propose/reflect their own unique technical approach for ISCT SOW 1. | |
| 16 | Attachment: Government Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of Incumbent Employees | The file indicates the Technician I-III and Technician Specialist as "Non-Exempt, Union" | Are offerors to assume all hours for Technician I-III in the EPM are subject to the CBA? | Yes, offerors should assume all hours for Technicians (I-III & Specialist) in the EPM are subject to the CBA. | |
| 17 | Attachment: Government Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of Incumbent Employees | The file identifies only the Technician I-III and the Technician Specialist as ‘Non-Exempt, Union’. | Are offerors to assume only labor in the EPM associated with these identified labor categories are subject to the CBA? |
| If other labor or labor categories are subject to the CBA, how are non-incumbent offerors to determine which labor in the EPM is subject to – and therefore should be priced as – the CBA? | There is one CBA on the JETS Contract and the CBA represents Technician I-III & Technician Specialist. | ||||
| 18 | L-4 EPM | The MST tab requires prime offerors to disclose the fee rate included in each minor subcontractors fully burdened rate. | In the event that a subcontractor will not disclose the fee amount included in their fully burdened labor to the prime offeror, will the government accept a response from the minor subcontractor submitted directly to the government via the NASA EFSS box in order to fulfil this requirement on the MST tab? | Yes, the Government will accept a response from the minor subcontractor submitted directly to the Government via the NASA EFSS box in order to fulfil this requirement on the MST tab. | |
| 19 | Attachment: Government Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of Incumbent Employees |
And Attachment J12 NASA provided file includes incumbent rates for the Administrative Specialist I-III NASA SLC that range from $17.87 - $29.32.
This is below the WD minimum specified in Attachment J-12 for Administrative Assistant (WD #01020) is $31.14. 1) Please confirm non-exempt employees subject to SCA to should be compensated at a rate no lower than the WDs specified in Attachment J-12.
2) Since the incumbent rates provided for the Administrative Specialist I-III are all lower than the WD for the Administrative Assistant (WD #01020), are offerors to assume that the NASA SCL Administrative Specialist should be mapped to something other than WD# 01020? Yes, non-exempt employees subject to SCA should be compensated at a rate no lower than the WDs specified in Attachment J-12.
Please see clause I.ll regarding the mapping of the Administrative Specialist I-III. However, the Offeror may propose a different mapping based on it's unique technical approach with valid justification.
| 20 | L-4 EPM | The FBR tab requires offerors to propose both straight time and overtime rates. The ICST - SOW 1 and ICST - SR SOW 2 tabs include instructions that state "the Fully Burdened Labor Cost is developed by multiplying the productive hours by the FBRs." | Please confirm offerors are to apply straight time FBR against the productive hours for price evaluation. | Yes, offerors are to apply straight time FBR against the productive hours. |
| 21 | Draft RFP Q&A #93 | NASA did not provide an answer to question # 93 which states: |
| 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? | Please clarify whether the incumbent historical data account for any labor other than straight time labor. | The historical incumbent rates will be averages of actual straight time direct labor rates. | |||
| 22 | L.26 (c), | ||||
| p. 175 | Section L.26 states that Offerors shall submit, it its entirety, the information provided in the L.26 table. For Section H, the following clauses are specified: H.5, H.6, H.10, H.28, and H.27. However, it appears the Offeror fill-ins are only required in H.4, H.5, H.9, and H.27. Additionally, H.10 of the RFP is marked as RESERVED and there is no H.28 provided in the RFP. Will the Government please confirm exactly which H clauses Offerors are to submit or if they should submit Section H in its entirety? | The table in L.26 has been updated to specify the following clauses H.4, H.5, H.9, and H.27. | |||
| 23 | DRD SMA-03/RFP L.26 Pg96/175 | In DRD SMA-03, “Attachment J-6” is referenced as an interrelationship. The reference within the RFP occurs on page 175 in the Areas of Model Contract Offerors are required to complete, however it is listed as “J-6 (partial)” in this reference. | We did not see an attachment J-6 in the J-Attachments.zip file. If this is something that is supposed to be partially completed by the offeror, could you point me to the reference for the additional information that we should be adding out inputs into? | The requirements for J-6 Safety and Health Plan are specifiied in DRD SMA-03. Only the portions of J-6/SMA-03 specified in L.22.1 MA2 Safety and Health Plan are required to be submitted with the proposal. The requirement for submission of the full plan are specified in DRD SMA-03. | |
| 24 | RFP L.26 Pg. 175 | Is there a preferred format for Attachment J-7, J-10, J-13, J-15 we could not locate them in the J-Attachments.zip | The requirements for Attachment J-7 Small Business Subcontracting Plan are specified in DRD MGMT-13. The requirements for Attachment J-10 Contract Phase-In Plan are specified in DRD MGMT-05. The requirements for Attachment J-13 Total Compensation Plan are specified in DRD MGMT-09. The requirements for Attachment J-15 Partnership and Technology Incubation Plan are specified in DRD MGMT-06. | ||
| 25 | DRD MGMT-02/RFP L.26 Pg. 10/175 | In reviewing DRD MGMT-02 under “Submission:” it references “As specified in the Proposal Instructions (Attachment J-16).” However J-16 does not appear to be present in the J-Attachments.zip file, and the only reference within the RFP is on page 175 the Areas of Model Contract Offerors are required to complete. | Are there additional instructions or a template that is supposed to be followed? If so, where is the template located? | The requirements for J-16 Efficiencies and Innovations are specifiied in DRD MGMT-02. There are no specific instructions or a template associated with this DRD. | |
| 26 | RFP L.26 Pg. 175 | For J-18 Contract Management Plan the reference within the RFP occurs on page 175 in the Areas of Model Contract Offerors are required to complete, however it is listed as “J-18 (partial)” in this reference. | We did not see an attachment J-18 in the J-Attachments.zip file. If this is something that is supposed to be partially completed by the offeror, could you point me to the reference for the additional information that we should be adding out inputs into? | The requirements for J-18 Contract Management Plan are specifiied in DRD MGMT-01. Only the portions of J-18/MGMT-01 specified in L.22.1 MA1 Contract Management Plan and Approach are required to be submitted with the proposal. The requirement for submission of the full plan are specified in DRD MGMT-01. | |
| 27 | Attachement J-0/DRD SMA-01 | J-19 is not referenced within the RFP, however is listed in the attachement J-0 Contents. SMA-01 which has an interrelationship with J-19 states that submission is 45 days prior to contract start, approval by contract start. | Can you confirm if J-19 is required to be submitted with the proposal? | The requirements for J-19 Quality Plan are specifiied in DRD SMA-01. J-19 is not required to be submitted with the proposal. | |
| 28 | Attachement J-0/DRD SMA-01 | Is there a preferred format for J-20? The External Customer Plan as outlined in SMA-01 is required to be submitted 30 days prior to contract start, and once approved will become J-20. | What is required at the time of submission? | The requirements for J-20 External Customer Plan are specifiied in DRD MGMT-10 | |
| 29 | Attachement J-0 | The instructions for the Technology, Innovation and Process Improvements Plan is referenced in the RFP instructions, but J-21 is only referenced in the Areas of Model Contract Offerors, and is not referenced in the DRDs. | What should be included in this attachment? | The requirements for J-21 Technology, Innovations, and Process Improvement Plan are specifiied in DRD MGMT-11 | |
| 30 | Attachement J-0/DRD SMA-02 | J-22 Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts Plan is not referenced in the RFP instructions or DRDs. The SMA-02 outlines the needs for the EEE parts control plan, but it is not required to be submitted until 30 days prior to contract start, approval by contract start. | Can you provide guidance of what should be included in this attachment for the proposal? | Provision L.26 lists the J attachments required to be submitted with the proposal and does not include J-22. The SMA-02 DRD submission which will become Attachment J-22 is due 30 days prior to contract start as specified in J-2 DRL & DRD. | |
| 31 | Attachement J-0 | J-23 Government-Furnished Computer Software is only referenced in the Areas of Model Contract Offerors are required to complete, but no instructions are in the RFP. | Can you provide guidance of what should be included in this attachment? | J-23 Government-Furnished Computer Software is provided by the government as part of the RFP and should be included in the proposal as a part of Volume V, Model Contract. | |
| 32 | Attachement J-0/DRD SMA-01, and SMA-02 | J-24 is only referenced in the Areas of Model Contract Offerors are required to complete. SMA-01 Quality Plan references J-24 states that submission is 45 days prior to contract start, approval by contract start; SMA-02 outlines the needs for the EEE parts control plan, but it is not required to be submitted until 30 days prior to contract start, approval by contract start. | Can you provide guidance of what should be included in this attachment for the proposal? | J-24 Quality Requirements is provided by the Government as part of the RFP and should be included in the proposal as a part of Volume V, Model Contract. | |
| 33 | Attachment J-12, section 34.03 Pg. 45 | Section 34.03 Travel Accident - provides a plan for Travel accident coverage that provides (3x) times the employee's annual salary with a minimum benefit of $100, 0000 and a maximum benefit of $500,000. | Can you confirm whether this is in addition to Business Travel Insurance, or in place of Business Travel Insurance? | The Government cannot confirm if the Travel Accident coverage is in addition to or in place of Business Travel Insurance. Please contact the Union organization in the CBA. The contact email for the union representative is located in the Preproposal Bulletin. | |
| 34 | Attachment J-12, section 27.07 Pg. 40 | Section 27.07 Administrative Leave - On days not recognized as holidays under Section 27.01 above, but where the government, because of special days or events and occasions substantially reduces the normal activity at the Center, as directed by the Contracting Officer, the following provisions apply: | Would days where the center is closed or at reduced capacity due to weather events fall into this category? | Center closure due to weather is addressed in Attachment J-12, CBA Section 27.08 Adverse Weather. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .