80JSC022RPOCV DRFP QA1.pdf

80JSC022RPOCV Draft RFP: NASA/JSC responses to questions and clarification requests.

1. Section C– Description/Specification/Work statement

a. Section 2.2.2: 2nd Sentence: “These software tools to support independent ….”

i. Should this read “These software tools will be used to support independent.”?

NASA/JSC Response: The second sentence in Section 2.2.2 will be revised in the Final RFP. The word “to” will be removed.

Section 2.2.2 will now read “These software tools support independent vehicle design ……”

2. Reference draft RFP provision G.3 SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR PROGRESS PAYMENTS, should clause 52.232-16 be included in the final

RPOC V RFP?

NASA/JSC Response: FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments, will be added to the Final RPOC V RFP.

3. 52.242-94 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE is not included in the draft RFP RPOC V, 80JSC022RPOCV. Can this FAR clause be included in the final RPOC V RFP?

NASA/JSC Response: 52.242-94, Administrative Leave, is no longer an active clause. It will not be included in the Final RPOC V RFP. Offerors should review NFS 1852.242-72, Denied Access to NASA Facilities.

4. Reference draft RFP provision L.15.2(c), Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies and Format.

a. For Volume I: Technical Acceptability, the page limit is 35 pages.

i. Please clarify that the ACP page count (per DRD-9) is beyond the 35 pages limit, i.e. for example, per DRD-9 “the page limit for the ACP is 7 pages for the Prime”; therefore the max page count for Volume 1 is 35 +7 = 42 pages for the Prime.

NASA/JSC Response: The Volume I page limit is 35 pages for the technical approach, DRD-2, and DRD-6. An additional, but separate, limit of 7 pages is allowed for DRD-9, Abbreviated Compensation Plan (ACP). While submitted in the same Volume I, the page limits for the two areas are independent of each other.

b. For Volume II: Past Performance (PP), Past Performance narrative the page limit is 10 pages.

i. Request that page limit be increased if both Primes and subcontractors need to fully respond to all of provision L.15.5 for each up to 3 contracts to include all 6 areas of the statement of work, an organizational chart, as well as all evaluation criteria under provision M.2.2.

NASA/JSC Response: The Organization Chart is not included in the page limit. As shown in Table L-2, only the past performance narrative has a page limitation, which will be increased in the Final RFP from 10 pages to 15 pages.

c. For Volume IV: Responsibility Considerations, the page limit is 10 pages.

i. Please clarify if the “Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist” found in Attachment L-6”, will go against the 10 page Volume IV limit or not.

NASA/JSC Response: The page limit for Volume IV will be removed in the Final RFP.

ii. Please clarify if the worksheet entitled “Cognizant Federal Agency and Audit Office Template (CFAOT)” needs to be included in the Volume IV response in its entirety as well as Volume III Cost and Price Factor or if it is acceptable to reference it in Volume IV as being included in Volume III; and if it does need to be included in Volume IV, will it count against the 10 page Volume IV limit ornot.

NASA/JSC Response: The worksheet entitled “Cognizant Federal Agency and Audit Office Template (CFAOT)” needs to be included in the Volume III response in its entirety and should be referenced in Volume IV. The Volume IV page limit will be removed for the Final RFP.

iii. Respectfully, in order to meet all the Volume IV requirements in provision L.15.7, request that the government increase or eliminate the Volume IV page limitation in order to allow responders to fully respond to all of provision L.15.7 a)-h).

NASA/JSC Response: The page limit for Volume IV will be removed in the Final RFP.

5. Reference draft RFP provision M.2.2 Past Performance Factor (Volume II) PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, paragraph (c), subparagraph “Relevance”:

“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/type of work only.”

a. Does the government intend in its use of the term “trades” (trades such as skills, crafts, and maintenance) to be defined as in FAR Part 22, which are typically subject to a wage determination? If not, respectfully suggest the term “specific engineering/analytical disciplines” in lieu of the term “trades” be used in this RFP provision.

NASA/JSC Response: The government does not intend the term “trades” to be used as defined in FAR Part 22. The term “trades” will be replaced with more descriptive wording in the Final RFP.

b. Please clarify what is specifically meant by “type of work”.

NASA/JSC Response: The phrase “type of work” will be replaced with more descriptive wording in the Final RFP.

6. Reference draft RFP provision M.2.2.c. subparagraph “Relevance”: “Offerors’ with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture”.

a. Does this evaluation provide credit for the entirety of the work performed as part of a joint venture if the Offeror’s RPOC V proposal is not under the exact same joint venture? If so, does the Offeror’s portion of the scope of work performed under the joint venture need to be disclosed even if the entirety of the work is used for the evaluation?

NASA/JSC Response: This language will be updated to provide a clearer explanation with the Final RFP.

7. Reference draft RFP provision L.13, Period Covered by Procurement provides a base period of 12/1/22-11/30/27. However, in draft RFP provision B.8, Table B.8.1 Fully Burdened Rate Table lists contract year 1 starting 10/1/22. Should Table B.8.1 be changed to 12/1/22?

NASA/JSC Response: Yes, RFP Table B.8.1 should match provision L.13 and will be updated to match in the final RFP.

8. Reference draft RFP provision B.8, Table B.8.1, Fully Burdened Rate Table does not distinguish between Contractor and Government sites. Can the government provide tables split into Contractor and Government sites in the final RPOC V RFP and if an Offeror does not wish to distinguish between sites, provide an option for the Offeror to include the same rate in both tables?

NASA/JSC Response: Referencing Table B.8.1, no, the Government will not be providing a table split in the Final RFP for distinguishing between Contractor and Government sites. One rate should be proposed.

9. Reference provision draft RFP L.15.5(a) which indicates that Offeror will submit information on up to 3 past contracts as well as L-4 Past Performance Matrix which includes an example that lists Major and Minor Subcontractors.

a. Please clarify how the number of past performance contract citations are counted:

i. Are 3 past performance citations required/requested explicitly of the Prime Offeror?

NASA/JSC Response: No, the past performance citations are not requested explicitly of the Prime Offeror. The Prime Offeror may submit in this capacity if they so choose.

ii. Are Offerors limited to 3 contract citations TOTAL – which includes those from the Prime, Major subcontractors and Minor subcontractors?

NASA/JSC Response: Yes, the ‘up to 3’ contract citations are all inclusive (TOTAL of Prime, Major Subcontractors, and Minor Subcontractors). That said, the quantity is being updated in the Final RFP to state ‘up to 5’.

iii. Are Offerors permitted to submit up to 3 past performance contract citations for the Prime AND up to 3 contract citations for the Major and Minor subcontractors for a total of up to 6 or 9?

NASA/JSC Response: See the response to Question 9.a.ii for clarification.

10. Please clarify how past performances are evaluated if Prime and subcontractors are BOTH permitted to provide up to 3 past performance contract citations. For example, will 3 Prime Offeror past performance evaluations scored as Excellent and 3 Major subcontractor past performance evaluations scored as Very Good be considered more highly rated than 3 Prime Offeror scores of Excellent alone and no Major subcontractor pastperformance contract citations?

NASA/JSC Response: Offerors are referred to Attachment L-4, M.2.2, and the answer to question 9.a.ii above. The past performance of a prime or team member will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member utilizing the weights, definitions, and ratings outlined in M.2.2.

11. The historical average composite direct labor rates for RPOC IV were not made available with the draft RFP. We ask the Government to make this data available through an amendment to the draft RFP and not wait until release of the final RFP?

NASA/JSC Response: The historical average composite direct labor rates for RPOC IV will be made available prior to release of the RPOC V Final RFP in the technical library.

12. Clause B.2 indicates there will be Fixed Price task orders on RPOC V. Are there any on RPOC IV, and if so, which of the FY22 TOs are fixed price?

NASA/JSC Response: Currently there are no Firm Fixed Price TOs on RPOC IV.

13. Clause E.2 states the contractor shall comply with the SAE Certified AS9100D/2016 standard. Emergent has tailorable software development and management processes appraised at CMMI-DEV ML-3, which meet the intent of NPR 7150.2D.

Given that a significant component of RPOC V is software development-related, we recommend that this standard be identified as acceptable.

NASA/JSC Response: The Technical Library will be updated to 1) include an updated version of JPR 1280.2 that changes the expiration date from 2022 to 2027, and 2) add a document that discusses Quality Policy for JSC. This Quality Policy document, JPD 1280.1A, discusses the AS9100 standard and its application to products and services in support of human space flight provided by the Lyndon B.

Johnson Space Center.

14. Clause G.6 indicates the possible need for clearances to support RPOC V. Please confirm if this is true, and if so, please provide a sample DD 254 through an amendment to the draft RFP and not wait until release of the final RFP.

NASA/JSC Response: Clause G.6 is required since work will be performed on site at JSC. However, at this time, access to Classified National Security Information (CNSI) is not anticipated in support of RPOC V, so a DD 254 will not be made available.

15. Clause H.4 addresses the use of foreign persons in the performance of this contract.

Does NASA JSC allow the use of non-permanent residents for support of this contract?

NASA/JSC Response: Per Clause H.4(b), the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining export licenses, if required, before utilizing foreign persons in the performance of this contract, including instances where the work is to be performed on-site at any NASA Center, where the foreign person will have access to export-controlled technical data or software. The Government recommends following the same process, initially, for non-permanent residents, and any subsequent steps identified for the category of person.

16. Clause L.15.5 indicates that only contract period of performance citations within 3 years from the date of the RPOC V original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. We recommend that 5 years be used as it allows for more contracts to be considered and ultimately enhances competition for the contract.

NASA/JSC Response: Clause L.15.5(b) will be updated for the Final RFP to state “… period of performances within 5 years…”.

17. L.15.2, Table L-2 indicates the page limitations for the proposal volumes. Would the government consider removing the page limitation on Phase-in Plan (DRD-6) and Past Performance Narrative or increasing the number of pages for each of the volumes, Vol I and Vol II?

NASA/JSC Response: The page limit for Volume I, Technical Acceptability, will remain unchanged. The page limit for Volume II, Past Performance, will increase from ‘10’ to ‘15’ pages in the Final RFP.

Accessibility Report

Filename:

80JSC022RPOCV DRFP QA1.pdf

Report created by:

Organization:

[Enter personal and organization information through the Preferences > Identity dialog.]

Summary

The checker found problems which may prevent the document from being fully accessible.

Needs manual check: 0

Passed manually: 2

Failed manually: 0

Skipped: 3

Passed: 26

Failed: 1

Detailed Report

Document

Rule Name Status Description

Accessibility permission flag Passed Accessibility permission flag must be set

Image-only PDF Passed Document is not image-only PDF

Tagged PDF Passed Document is tagged PDF

Logical Reading Order Passed manually Document structure provides a logical reading order

Primary language Passed Text language is specified

Title Passed Document title is showing in title bar

Bookmarks Passed Bookmarks are present in large documents

Color contrast Passed manually Document has appropriate color contrast

Page Content

Rule Name Status Description

Tagged content Passed All page content is tagged

Tagged annotations Passed All annotations are tagged

Tab order Passed Tab order is consistent with structure order

Character encoding Passed Reliable character encoding is provided

Tagged multimedia Passed All multimedia objects are tagged

Screen flicker Passed Page will not cause screen flicker

Scripts Passed No inaccessible scripts

Timed responses Passed Page does not require timed responses

Navigation links Passed Navigation links are not repetitive

Forms

Rule Name Status Description

Tagged form fields Passed All form fields are tagged

Field descriptions Passed All form fields have description

Alternate Text

Rule Name Status Description

Figures alternate text Passed Figures require alternate text

Nested alternate text Passed Alternate text that will never be read

Associated with content Passed Alternate text must be associated with some content

Hides annotation Passed Alternate text should not hide annotation

Other elements alternate text Passed Other elements that require alternate text

Tables

Rule Name Status Description

Rows Passed TR must be a child of Table, THead, TBody, or TFoot

TH and TD Passed TH and TD must be children of TR

Headers Skipped Tables should have headers

Regularity Skipped Tables must contain the same number of columns in each row and rows in each column

Summary Skipped Tables must have a summary

Lists

Rule Name Status Description

List items Passed LI must be a child of L

Lbl and LBody Passed Lbl and LBody must be children of LI

Headings

Rule Name Status Description

Appropriate nesting Failed Appropriate nesting

Back to Top