MCHFSS_RFP_QA_18_SEP.pdf

MCHFSS Draft RFP Questions and Answers

11 SEP 2019 via Amendment #1 to Draft RFP (Q 1-22)

18 SEP 2019 via Amendment #2 Draft RFP (Q 23-28)

1. When will the proposal conference be scheduled and will it include a site survey?

Government Response: The site visit will be held on September 19, 2019 from 9AM to noon. A tour will be held through various fabrication facilities. As a result, closed toe shoes are required to participate in the facility tour.

Attendees requiring reasonable accommodations shall immediately notify the Government.

Other Information, as applicable:

• Attendees shall meet at the LaRC Badge and Pass Office (Bldg 1308) at 8:00AM to receive Visitor Badges and depart by 8:30AM.

• The following is a tentative agenda for the teleconference:

- Opening Remarks

- LaRC Presentations & Tour

- Questions and Answers

• The briefing will be unclassified. The offeror shall contact JaeSun Riley via email at larc-mchfss@mail.nasa.gov to register for the conference and shall provide a list of planned attendees no later than September 16, 2019 at 4PM EST. The number of attendees is limited to no more than three per company. Note that only U.S citizens will be authorized to attend the conference.

• Attendees of the conference must meet the identification requirements contained in clause LaRC 52.204-91, entitled Security Program/Non U.S. Citizen Employee Access Requirements (MAY 2019). Only attendees who are able to provide REAL ID compliant documents will be allowed to access the center.

Prospective offerors are requested to submit any written questions to JaeSun Riley via email at larc-mchfss@mail.nasa.gov no later than close of business three days prior to the conference, so that NASA will be able to answer as many questions as possible at the conference.

See DRFP Clauses H.9 and L.7 for LaRC entry requirements.

2. Is informational data available for all positions that need to filled, and for the number of hours or FTEs per positions? Can that be provided as part of the draft review? (Reworded for clarity).

(Original Question: Are all positions that need to filled and number of hours or FTEs per positions available data and can it be provided as part of the draft review?)

Government Response: See Attachment 2 – Cost Forms, TAB entitled “Form 3, Work Year Equivalents, by labor category and year,” which provides the estimated staffing required for this effort. Offerors shall complete Form 2 with appropriate productive hours based on the staffing requirements provided in Form 3.

3. Does the government require that contractors consider incumbent person when hiring personnel to fill these existing positions?

Government Response: The contractor will be required to comply with the contract provisions and clauses including, but not limited to, FAR 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers.

Offerors are also directed to the technical proposal instructions at L.15(a)1. “Staffing Approach” and the Government’s evaluation for this area detailed in M.3

There is no evaluation criteria on hiring incumbent personnel. Please see Attachment 3 which provides labor categories and years of service required.

4. Are all positions to be filled currently held by incumbent personnel, i.e. are there any new positions? If so please define.

Government Response: Yes, all positions to be filled are currently held by incumbent personnel.

There are no new positions required.

5. Is there a job description for each one of the positions to be filled, as some of the job descriptions provided appear general in their description?

Government Response: There are no one-for-one job descriptions. Attachment 3 provides labor category information based on years of experience and skills required. Specific job descriptions will be written by the contractor. The PWS reflects the requirements that need to be met by the Attachment 3 labor categories.

6. Is the staffing limited to wage determination (WD) positions, or are there key PMO/PM/Engineering Lead positions that must also be filled? Please specify.

Government Response: It is up to the contractor to determine appropriate management positions and staffing levels and to comply with Department of Labor requirements.

The contractor shall determine whether the positions listed on Attachment 2, Cost Forms, Tab 3, are WD or shall be conformed as needed based on the contractor’s staffing approach.

Any PMO/PM/Engineering Lead positions ARE NOT included in Attachment 3, but listed in Attachment 2, Form 2. It is up to the contractor to determine how many personnel they require to meet the contract requirements.

7. How much of the work may be done offsite or outside the local area, given aerospace manufacturing capabilities which may already exist and support other similar customer requirements? (Edited for clarity) Government Response: In general, the majority of the work under this contract must be performed at LaRC due to the concurrent engineering that takes place between the projects and fabrication personnel. In rare situations, there may be work done off-site at other NASA facilities or designated locations; however, historically, the estimate of the work has been approximately 1% of the contract value.

8. Does the 10 page Volume II Past Performance requirement exclude the contract identification information under L.15(b)(5)1 a..k and the Pertinence/Relevance table under L.15(b)(5) 4?

Government Response: No. The contract identification information and the Pertinence/Relevance table are both included in the 10 page limitation. Consent letters are not included in the 10 page limitation.

9. Will on-aircraft work be required?

Government Response: Yes. Any aircraft work will be in support of research efforts and not routine aircraft maintenance.

10. Is Engineering supervision/support required? On what basis 24/7, emergency?

Government Response: No, the PWS does not reflect any engineering requirements. Therefore, the contractor is not required to provide any engineering support.

This response is based on the Government’s understanding of the question. If this does not answer the question, please clarify and re-submit your question.

11. The Technical proposal in M.3.2 mentions the Government will evaluate evidence, as of the date of proposal submission, that the prime contractor has a current facility clearance level of SECRET in accordance with Exhibit F, DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, as of the proposal due date. If the Prime is a subsidiary of the parent who has a SECRET facility clearance, will that be acceptable while the Prime obtains their own facility clearance or can the government sponsor the Prime for its own security clearance?

Government Response: No. In accordance with L.15(a)2 the Prime is required to have a current facility clearance level of SECRET in accordance with Exhibit I, DD254, as of the date of the proposal submission. The Government will not sponsor any contractors for this requirement.

12. Exhibit A (6) of the draft RFP states that all work will be performed on-site at LaRC. Exhibit B- Contract Document requirements section 19 (d) mentions “near-site” WYE’s include the time worked by prime Contractor and subcontractor employees on this contract whose primary duty station is within 50 miles of LaRC… If TO’s require off-site work, does the Prime or Subcontractor facility need to be within 50 miles of LaRC?

Government Response: Exhibit A – PWS Section 6 indicates that LaRC is the primary location for work, therefore, all personnel assigned to this contract shall be reported on the Exhibit B report.

Any work performed off-site does not require a Prime or subcontractor facility within 50 miles.

13. Must all design and fabrication activities take place at LaRC? Is it possible to meet the expectations of this contract by performing all design and fabrication activities at our facility and then provide on-site (at LaRC) support for the finished products/hardware as required?

Government Response: Yes, all design and fabrication activities must take place at LaRC.

No, it is not possible to meet the expectations of this contract by performing all design and fabrication activities at your facility and then providing on-site support for the finished products/hardware. Due to the concurrent engineering and short turnaround times for urgent efforts required by the projects, off-site design and fab activities will not allow for an integrated solution.

14. The Draft RFP identifies the start date in Sections F.2 and L.8 but there is no discussion regarding

Phase-in or Transition Plan. Also, Attachment 2 Cost Forms do not require the offeror to price Phase-in. As interruption of this work will directly impact schedules of NASA flight programs, and since the RFQ includes FAR 52.222-17, “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (MAY 2014)”, we believe that a Phase-in Plan is necessary and should be a required component of the technical proposals and included in the Cost Forms.

Government Response: The Government does not have a separately-priced CLIN or period-of-performance for phase in. Therefore, the contractor should consider this in its preparation of its cost proposal. The contractor will be required to complete its phase-in activities between the award date and effective date, which is anticipated to be 60 days in accordance with DRFP provision L.8 and considered to be sufficient for the awardee to comply with all contract requirements.

15. Section J.2 of the Draft RFP lists Attachment 4 – SF 1408-14B (Submit with Volume III – Price) and the form was included with the Draft RFP. However, the RFP does not discuss this form in Section L. This form is usually submitted if an offeror does not have an approved accounting system. Form 8 of the Cost Forms requests information regarding the offeror’s systems to include the Accounting System and requires a copy of the approval letter in the notes at the bottom of the form. Recommend that the Government clarify in Section L, instructions for Form 8, that the SF 1408-14b is only a required attachment to the Cost Volume if the offeror does not have an approved accounting system letter to provide to NASA.

Government Response: Section L instructions revised to note that SF 1408-14b is only needed if an Offeror does not have an approved accounting system. See also Attachment 2 Form 8 instructions.

16. Previous RFPs indicated that contractor-supplied vehicles were a requirement. Are any vehicles going to be provided by the Government for MCHFSS, or, if the contractor is responsible for providing vehicles, could you please indicate the number and type required?

Government Response: Vehicles (trucks and vans) will not be provided by the Government. It is up to the Contractor to determine how many vehicles are required. Historically, Contractors have used approximately 3 - 4 vehicles. The PWS will be updated to add this description.

See Section L.15(c)(k) of the draft RFP.

17. It was noted (FBO announcement) that the electronic task order management system item is still being defined. Would the Government allow vendors to propose their own system for use on this contract, to be used at the Government’s discretion?

Government Response: The Government is trying to standardize the task order management systems at the Center. iSite is the system currently being used at LaRC and is anticipated for use on this contract. However, no final decisions have been made at this time. Any requests to use a system other than the Government-provided system may be approved by the CO after selection based on the system being proposed.

18. Given that this work supports critical space flight quality hardware being fabricated and tested for ongoing high-profile NASA programs including Orion/Artemis, and given that such programs are directly dependent on LaRC continuing to provide the highest quality workmanship with close adherence to schedule and budget, an award based predominantly on price as compared to technical quality appears to put the Center at risk of underperforming on critical-path items and therefore at a disadvantage when competing for future NASA programs. While PPTO evaluations are well-suited for many support service contracts, the unique and specialized skills and exacting standards required by NASA for this aerospace fabrication work requires a more careful examination of technical quality.

Government Response: Langley recognizes the importance related to maintaining quality performance at a reasonable price. The question indicates “an award based predominately on price”, which does not appear to be consistent with the anticipated approach detailed in the DRFP. Offerors are advised to pay careful attention to the final RFP related to the Government’s overall approach which includes the evaluation of technical proposals for “acceptability” and the relative importance of evaluation criteria. Langley has been successful utilizing PPTO procedures for similar complexity procurements and has determined the approach to be appropriate for this procurement.

19. Would the Government consider rolling the relevant BPA’s into the MCHFSS contract? These vehicles are used primarily in support of fabrication programs and passing this purchasing activity on to the MCHFSS contractor would streamline project workflow, allow for better schedule control, reduce transaction costs, and relieve burden on LaRC’s Office of Procurement.

Government Response: No, BPAs will not be rolled in the MCHFSS procurement.

20. The PWS document mentions “Design & Fabricate” (Section 2.0 line 2 & Section 3.0 line 10), but the Labor Categories (Attachment 3) fail to reference a labor category for “Design”. Is “Design” capability a requirement for this work scope?

Government Response: Yes, however the scope of the design work is limited and does not require a separate Design labor category. Any design work is incidental and is performed by technicians in conjunction with LaRC engineers.

21. The Cost Forms (Attachment 2) identify labor categories for surge capabilities. Will this “surge” work take place on-site at NASA LaRC facilities or at our (or our subcontractor’s) facilities?

Government Response: As previously stated, the majority of the work is to be performed on-site at LaRC. Surge may take place on-site or off-site, as specified in the task order.

The surge capability has been removed from Attachment 2 for proposal purposes.

22. Does the government intend to host an industry day or bidders conference prior to the submission due date of the RFP?

Government Response: See question 1.

23. When it talks about Metal Fab and Composite Fab surge capacity in Attachment 2, Forms 2 and 3, I'm assuming we use the info provided in Exhibit A, Section 5.2.2 (1-2 rapid response requests per month with the total average of 8 hours of effort provided per request). However, it says 3 and 2 WYEs on Form 3 and the numbers of hours just don't add up.

Government Response: The surge capacity categories have been removed from Attachment 2.

24. Section H.3 (and throughout) references Exhibit I but it is actually Exhibit "H".

Government Response: This had been corrected.

25. Exhibit A, Section 3.0 states the contractor shall provide metal distribution to various locations on the Center. Is this distribution task only for the work the contractor is doing or does it also include doing this task for all other shops at the Center? If tasking for more than contractor's own work, is there an hour estimation for effort?

Government Response: The MCHFSS contractor is responsible for metal distribution across the Center. The contractor is responsible for operation of Bldg. 1245 (Metal Shed). See last sentence of draft PWS paragraph 3.0.

Historically, this effort has required approximately 40 hours per week in addition to maintaining inventory and metal cutting that takes place in the Metal Shed facility.

26. Attachment 2, Form 2. "Metal Fabrication Surge Capacity (NC Machinist)". What does "NC" stand for? It’s not defined in Exhibit A, Appendix A Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms.

Government Response: Attachment 2 has been revised to remove the surge capacity requirement. However, NC stands for Numerical Control. This has been added to the PWS under Appendix A. It is generally used as part of CNC which is defined in the PWS.

27. There is nothing in Attachment 3, Labor Categories, that assigns responsibility for crane, manlift, or forklift qualifications to an individual position. There is also no indication in Exhibit A, Section

5.4 (Employee Certification and Training) and 5.5 (Training) as to how many qualified personnel must be assigned to the contract. Is there a minimum number of certified operators for the equipment listed in Exhibit A, Section 3.0 "The Contractor shall operate heavy equipment and cranes, such as, 18-ton mobile crane, high reach manlift, forklifts, and 5 and 10-ton overhead cranes."

Overhead Crane and Forklift qualifications are required for all employees.

However, not all Contractor employees are required to be certified in all areas listed above.

Contractor employees are identified for specific training based on task order requirements.

Approximately 3 to 5 Contractor employees are required to have certifications in several areas, so that the Contractor staff covers the suite of certifications required.

28. Unclear as to whether contractor is responsible for providing all Personal Protective Equipment (welding helmets, boots, hard hats, welding/grinding gloves, etc). Did not see anything specific in Section G.4(c).

The Government will provide PPE, to include basic items, such as safety glasses, hard hats, and welding safety equipment. All other PPE shall be provided by the Contractor. No personal clothing items are provided by the Government.