80LARC23R0001_CMOE II_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

80LARC23R0001

CMOE II Request for Proposal (RFP)

Q&A’s

No. Document Doc.

Reference Question Answer

1 RFP Section L.19 (d)(4)(i-ii)

Will the Government please clarify if offerors are to merely provide an OCI approach covering the seven elements (A-G) required in Section L.19 (d)(4)(i-ii) or are offerors required to provide a full OCI Avoidance Plan as required in DRD C.27, OCI Avoidance Plan? Given that the DRD addresses most all of the elements required in Section L.19 (d)(4)(i-

ii) as well as several others, submittal of both seems redundant and duplicates the effort required by offerors and the Government during evaluation.

Specifically, the instructions in RFP paragraph L.19 (d)(4)(iii) are unclear.

Offeror shall provide an approach addressing the elements in Section L.19 (d)(4)(i-ii) A-G.

Exhibit B Initial Submission period has been updated via Amendment 00002.

2 Exhibit B -

DRD

J.1; Exhibit

B, DRD

C.9; Pg.

DRD C.9, Information Technology (IT) Security Management Plan indicates that the initial submission of this Plan is due with the initial proposal; however, there is no specific requirement to provide the IT Security Management Plan in Section L. Additionally, the only mention of the Plan in Section L is in the List of Exhibits (J Attachments). Additionally, RFP Section L.10 (a)(4) states, “The additional Exhibits listed in Section J will be added to the contract by the Contracting Officer at the time of or after contract award.” Will the Government please confirm if Offerors are to provide a complete IT Security Management Plan at the time of proposal submission and if so, where within the proposal this Plan shall be incorporated?

Please see Exhibit B in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

3 RFP Section L.19(6) on

Will the Government please clarify that the reference to RFP Section L.7(b) provided in RFP Section L.19(6) on page 129 should actually reference RFP

Yes. This has been corrected via Amendment 00002.

Section L.8(b), Government Property Management Information?

4 RFP L.19, (d), (6); Pg. 129

Additionally, will the Government please confirm that per RFP Section L.19(6), if the offeror is ABLE to provide the information required in RFP Section L.8(b), then the offeror need only submit the Government Property Management Plan within 30 days after contract award and not with the original proposal submission?

Yes, the Offeror can provide the information required at RFP section L.8, the Government Property Management Plan is due from the awardee within 30 days after contract award and not with the original proposal submission.

5 RFP L.17, (d), (9); Pg. 109

In terms of “Dollars Per Year,” the Government states to "Clearly detail the (1) Average Annual Contract Value and (2) Average Annual Obligated Dollars per year for the period identified in L.17(d) above completed within the past three (3) years from the date of RFP issuance." Given that some relevant contracts may have been completed within the three years allowed, but performance may have ended within the three years prior to RFP issuance, we recommend that the language in Section L.17 (d)(9) be changed to state: "Clearly detail the (1) Average Annual Contract Value and (2) Average Annual Obligated Dollars per year for the three most recent years of performance."

This requirement remains unchanged.

6 Attachment 2, Cost

Form 10

Attachment 2, Cost Form 10

Please confirm that the reference to SOW 1.0.10.1 thru 1.0.10.4 in parentheses in cell A:11 of Form 10 should be SOW 1.0.11.1 thru 1.0.11.4.

Yes, this has been corrected via Amendment 00002.

7 Attachment 9, Attachment 2 and Cost Form 11

Attachment 9; and Attachment 2, Cost Form 11

We believe there is a typo in filename Attachment 9 -Labor Descriptions which is titled Attachment 10 within the document. Yes, this has been corrected via Amendment 00002.

8 Attachment 9, Attachment

Attachment 9; and Attachment

Attachment 9 – Labor Descriptions does not align with the labor categories provided in Form 11 of CMOE II Attachment 2 – Cost Forms for Phase-In Core Support and IDIQ Requirements.

Please see the updated Attachment 9 in Amendment 00002. The updated version provided descriptions for all exempt labor categories except General Manager and Director.

2 and Cost Form 11

2, Cost Form 11

Will the Government consider providing labor category qualifications (education and experience levels) for the Exempt labor categories included in Form 11 to help with consistency in comparisons and in communicating estimated labor costs with

NASA?

9 RFP Section F.2 Section B.6, Table B.2 - In accordance with RFP Section F.2, should Table B.2 have boxes or space to enter values for Option 5? That is, should there be a place to enter the Estimated Cost, Maximum Award Fee, and Total CPAF for the CORE work to be performed from October 1, 2033 through June 30, 2034? (See RFP Section F.2 Periods of Performance). Also, in the Contract Summary section of Table B.2, should the CLIN column read “100 thru 105”, “200 thru 205”, and “300 thru 305”?

Yes. Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

10 RFP Section G.12

Section G.12 – The award fee table includes two Award Fee Evaluation Periods marked as 10.

Should this table read “8” for “7/1/31 - 6/30/32”, “9” for “7/1/32 – 6/30/33”, and “10” for “7/1/33 – 6/30/34”?

Yes. Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

11 RFP Section L.10(b)

Will the Government please amend RFP Section L.10(b) second paragraph to read: “The period of performance will include a base period of 15 months from the effective date of the contract…” to align with the period of performance identified in the associated table titled CMOE Period of Performance?

Yes. Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

12 RFP Section L.18(a)

Will NASA clarify that the reference to Attachment 6 refers to Attachments 6.1-6.3 or is Attachment 6 missing?

The RFP has been updated to reference Attachments

6.1 to 6.3 via Amendment 00002.

13 RFP Section L.18 (h)

A sentence reads in part: “…Offerors shall FULLY DETAIL and SUPPORT in their business proposal any deviations(s) (+/-) from the Form 10 plug numbers.” Given this is information related to

The RFP amendment 0002, Section L.18 has been updated to clarify Offerors shall FULLY DETAIL and SUPPORT in their Cost/Price Proposal.

offeror cost forms, will the Government please confirm that the reference to the “business proposal” in this requirement should actually refer to Volume III – Cost/Price Proposal?

14 RFP Section L.18(h), Form 4(a)

Will the Government please confirm that offerors should not duplicate service contractors included as ODCs in Form 3 in Form 4(a)?

This is correct. Do not duplicate.

15 RFP Section L.18 (h), Form 5

This section requires offerors to demonstrate in the “proposal spreadsheets” that they meet all minimum benefits required of the applicable CBAs and/or WDs. Does this require the offeror to add spreadsheets to the Attachment 2 showing the Fringe Benefit/Salary Related Expenses calculations?

No, this does not require the offeror to add spreadsheets. NASA will evaluate the data based on the submission of Attachment 2.

16 RFP Section L.18.(h) Form 7 and Attachment

In RFP Section L.18(h) Form 7, the first paragraph includes the following instruction: “Do not combine or reflect Offeror and subcontractor rates as composites in Forms 7.” On Attachment 2, Form 7 in column C the word “Composite” is listed on many rows. How is the offeror to interpret the use of the rows titled “Composite” in completing Form 7?

The Attachment 2 Cost Form 7 has been corrected to remove the term composite via Amendment 00002.

17 RFP Section L.18(k)

This section includes the following instruction: “If an FPRA is not in effect, the offeror shall provide the basis for the indirect rates proposed….in the applicable tab within the Forms.” Which tab is this section referring to in Attachment 2 or have the referenced indirect Forms be accidentally omitted?

Please clarify where offerors are to provide the three years of historical indirect rate data in the current Attachment 2.

Offerors can add additional tabs to provide supporting data as needed.

18 Attachment

Forms 1 and 3

The listed worksheets are missing Option 5 with a PoP of 10/1/2033 – 6/30/2034.

Yes, this was an error of omission, Attachment 2 has been updated via Amendment 00002.

19 Attachment

Forms 2, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), (2d), Each worksheet references RFP Section L.21 in the footnotes to the Form. Please confirm that the Government intended this to reference RFP Section L.18.

Yes, this has been corrected via Amendment 00002.

4, 6, 10, and 11

20 Attachment

Forms 4 and 4(a)

Will the Government please confirm that the titles to both Forms should include CLINs 100 through 305, to include the final option period?

Yes. This has been corrected via Amendment 00002.

21 Attachment

Forms 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 11

There appears to be 4 broad labor categories listed within Forms 2(a), 2(b), and/or 2(c) that are not listed in Form 11:

a. Maintenance Manager (III)

b. Maintenance Supervisor (III – V)

c. Operations Manager (I – V)

d. Operations Supervisor (IV)

We recommend the Government consider simplifying this structure to Manager and Supervisor without the Maintenance and Operations distinction to reconcile the Forms.

Attachment 2 has been updated to simplify this structure to Manager and Supervisor labor categories via Amendment 00002.

22 Attachment

Form 7, Footnote (1)

Will the Government please confirm that Instruction

(1) under the instructions footnote in Form 7 to provide “proprietary data such as direct labor rates and indirect rates,” only applies to Significant Subcontractors?

Yes, the footnote in Form 7 only applies to Significant Subcontractors.

23 Attachment

Forms 5 and 7(a)

The footnote to Form 5 says that the list of labor categories in Forms 2, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 7, 8 and 9 must also be listed in this Form 5. Will the Government please confirm that the reference to Form 7 above should be to Form 7(a) since the Prime offeror does not have access to all subcontractor indirect rates, as this Fringe Benefit Rate information may be considered proprietary by the subcontractors/consultants?

Please see the updated Attachment 2 in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

24 Attachment

Form 8 Will the Government please confirm that the title to the column in merged cell A-37/A-38 should be “Indirect and Escalation Rates” or something similar rather than “Labor Categories?”

This is correct. Please see the updated Attachment 2 in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

25 RFP Page 19, G.2(b)

Refers to Exhibit H, Award Fee Evaluation plan, but this plan was removed from the Exhibit list in

Section J (page 72) and not included in the Exhibit zip file. Will the Government be updating this reference?

RFP Section J.1 LIST OF EXHIBITS and Section L - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS have been updated via Amendment 00002.

26 RFP Page 72, J.1

Exhibits H-O are all TBP, but there are no templates and they were not provided in the exhibit zip file.

Could the government release these templates? The Government does not provide templates for the plans that Offerors must submit.

While the Government does not have templates, Offerors should refer to the Exhibit B. These documents provide guidelines and requirements that the contractor must adhere to when formatting their plans.

RFP Page

72. J.1

Is Exhibit N (Enhancements, etc.) due after award?

Will the government be providing a file for these exhibits? Files are not applicable. In accordance with section

L.16(e) ii RFP “The government will incorporate any proposed enhancements deemed beneficial. Proposed approaches valued by the Government shall be binding and contractual. As such, they shall augment the requirements of this solicitation and become Exhibit N in accordance with Clause H.20, Enhancements, Innovations, and Approaches”

103, L.16(e)(i).4

In MGMT 4, is the Government asking offers to describe our approach for mitigating and managing the risks in "In addition, the above subfactors and the approach for mitigating/managing these risks for CMOE II as set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(v), Proposal evaluation."?

Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

104, L.16(e)(ii).

In UTRA 5, is the Government asking offers to describe our approach for mitigating and managing the risks in "In addition, the above subfactors and the approach for mitigating/managing these risks for CMOE II as set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(v), Proposal evaluation."?

Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for

104, L.16(e)(ii)

Please confirm that the reference in this paragraph to Clause O should be Clause H.20.

This is correct. Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

140, M.7(e)(2)

M.7(e)(2) makes a reference to “(See CENTER

MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS, AND

ENGINEERING II (CMOE II)).” Will the government update this reference as it is unclear to what the reference means?

RFP section M.7 has been updated via Amendment 00002.

105, iii Subfactor 3

(c) (ii)

"Based on the Contracting Officer’s assessment of AbilityOne subcontracting goals for this acquisition, will the prime contractors that have small business subcontracting plans receive credit towards their small business subcontracting goals for subcontracting with qualified AbilityOne companies?

No, the successful Prime Contractor will receive credit for the first-tier subcontract. As a result, they will receive credit only for AbilityOne subcontractor.

97, L.14.(b)

Table L-1, Business Proposal – Volume IV, third bullet. L.19 is appears twice in the “Ref.” column.

Should one of those references be changed to L.17?

The “Page Limit” column refers to “Note 3”. Should that be changed to Note 2?

Yes. Please see the updated Attachment 2 in

L.14.(b)

Table L-1, notes area, “Note 3”. Should this note be added to the “Page Limit” column for the Total Compensation Plan?

Yes. Please see the updated Attachment 2 in

L.14.(b)

Table L-1 states that the Total Compensation Plan is part of the Technical Proposal ( Mission Suitability Factor 1) - Volume I, and L16.i.2.c requests that the TCP information be submitted with the offeror's Cost Price Volume. Please clarify the location of the TCP for the proposal submittal.

Table L-1 at L.14 has been updated via Amendment 00002 to state that the submission of the Total Compensation Plan is part of the Cost Price Volume .

72, J.1 List of Exhibits

Exhibit I, IT Security Management Plan is included in the listing, but not referenced in Section L. If this Plan is to be submitted with the initial proposal, will the Government please provide Section L instructions for inclusion in the proposal submittal? See response to question 2.

5, B.6 (Table B.2)

Option 5 is missing from Table B.2. Can the Government please confirm that Option 5 should be added to the table as 105, 205, and 305? See response to question 5.

Attachment 2 - Cost Forms (Multiple)

Throughout attachment 2, Option 5 is either missing (e.g. Form 1 on the CLIN Value Structure) or identified as 104,204, or 304 (e.g. Forms 2a,b,c).

Can the Government please confirm that Option 5 should be added where it's missing and changed to 105, 205, and 305 where it’s listed?

See response to question 18.

118, Attachment 2, Cost Form 7

The RFP states that to "not combine or reflect Offeror and subcontractor rates as composites in Form 7", but Form 7 provides a column for Percent Utilization and Total Composite FBR. Can the Government please clarify whether or not a composite rate is required on the Cost Form?

See response to question 16.

2 - Cost Form 9

Can the Government please clarify whether Form 9 is supposed to represent an IDIQ table of the Prime Offeror only or to include Subcontractors?

Prime and Subcontractor rates shall be included in Form 9.

P. 109 L.17(d)(9)

"language is confusing (e.g., average annual contract value vs average annual obligated dollars per year), and inconsistent (past three years from date of RFP issuance for contracts that may have expired and still meet the recency definition, redefining the “value” to be considered a significant subcontractor), and inadvertently bias the past performance relevancy/pertinence to the CMOE contract and the incumbent. Would the government consider simplifying the description and rewriting this paragraph to say the following:

(9) “Dollars Per Year” - Clearly detail the (1) and (2) Average Annual Contract Value based on Average Annual Obligated Dollars per year for the period identified in L.17(d) above completed within the past three (3) years from the date of RFP issuance. To assist with the Government’s evaluation of pertinence/relevance of the Technical Performance Areas (TPAs) in relation to “size” below, the Offeror shall clearly detail for each reference the annual obligated dollars per year over the last 3 years from the date of RFP issuance (See L.17(d)) relevant to the TPA (PWS areas) identified below. This

This requirement remains unchanged. Relevant experience must be from the past 3 years from the date of RFP issuance.

information will be used to determine the value to be considered a significant subcontractor and also “size” below to demonstrate relevance in terms of “obligated dollars per year” for the work the specific entity is proposed to perform in comparison to the contract reference. The offeror shall correlate the work the entity is proposed to perform for the TPAs to its price proposal."

P. 110, L.17(d)(11)

"(For “Size”… paragraph) are confusing. Would the government consider simplifying the description and rewriting this paragraph to say the following:

For “Size”, demonstrate relevance to the TPAs above in terms “of average annual obligated dollars per year” over the last 3 years from RFP release for the work the specific entity is proposed to perform in comparison to the equivalent TPA from the contract reference. To be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent”, the entity proposed to perform the technical performance area must meet or exceed an “average annual obligated dollars per year” of at least 20% for similar work to the TPAs identified above that the entity is proposed to perform for this solicitation."

The RFP Amendment 00002 has updated the language at L.17(d)(11) to provide consistency in referencing “average annual obligated dollars per year”.

2, Forms 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 10

Draft RFP Q27 asked about transferring plug values from Forms 2(a) and 2(b) and suggested that there was resolution to the SOW X.X level and that these numbers from Forms 2(x) should be transferred to Form 10. However, the resolution does not break down that far. Will the government provide clarification on plug numbers to be used in Form 10?

The final RFP differs from the draft RFP. The Final provides estimated hours for all of CLINs I-III. The plug numbers on Form 10 are for the areas of the SOW noted. Offerors must cross walk their Form 2(x) and Form 10 submissions to ensure they are in alignment.

Could the government clarify if TPA is defined as each of the 11 SOW subitems in the list or is a TPA

The Technical Performance Areas include SOW Section 1, SOW Section 2, SOW Section 3, and SOW Section 4.

the combination of the items listed under each of the four SOW headings, making four TPAs?

Offeror shall address when demonstrating relevance to the TPA (SOW Areas), as a minimum, the SOW subsections identified under each TPA (SOW Areas).

Will the government specify by exact SOW number each of the relevant TPAs within the SOW? For example, multiple SOW elements refer to 24-hour support (e.g., 1.0.8 or 1.4.1 through 1.4.5); however, no “Utility Operations Centers” are explicitly defined in the SOW.

RFP section L.17 has been revised to state both 1.0.8 and 1.4. Steam Plant and Integrated Operations Center via Amendment 00002.

Will the government provide historical cost data for each of the 9 TPAs under the three CORE SOW elements? For example, the workload data in Attachments 6.X do not include historical data for the RCM and engineering components. It would be difficult for a non-incumbent to be able to adequately price without this information.

The Government does not have historical cost data to provide.

Because IDIQ pricing will only be known in execution, will the government provide plug numbers for the 2 TPAs under the IDIQ SOW element to calculate pertinence of the reference contract? It would be difficult for a non-incumbent to be able to adequately price without this information.

In Section L.17 of the RFP, dollar values have been added to demonstrate relevance for TPA SOW Section 4 via Amendment 00002.

48 P. 110, The TPA/SOW areas refer to 1.1 Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). Will the government correct this SOW reference to 1.0.2?

The RFP has been amended to correct/clarify the requirement via Amendment 00002.

49 P. 111, L.17(c) and L.17(d) A

As L.17(c) and L.17(d) are already denoted on page 108, are these two paragraphs actually L.17(e) and L.17(f), respectively?

The RFP has been amended to correct this error via Amendment 00002

50 11. P. 137, M.6(d)(2)

This paragraph refers to “technical performance areas listed in L.17 (d)(13) and L.17(d)(14)”;

however, L.17 (d)(13) and L.17(d)(14) do not exist in the RFP. Will the Government please clarify the reference?

RFP section M.6 has been corrected to reference L.17(d)(11) and L.17(d)(12) via Amendment 00002.

51 Page 99, L.15.c

The URL 'https://nasagov.box.com/s/whuul4fhurax24le75k0ao 13b5jhl71k' does not provide access or a method in which to submit a proposal. Is access and the ability to submit a proposal to be granted once an Offeror notifies the Government of its intent to submit a proposal? If so, how long after notification will Offeror's have access? If not, will the Government please update the URL to permit access and the ability to submit proposals.

The link to NASA Box has been updated via amendment 00002.

52 Page 15, F.2

Paragraph (a) states the Base Period shall be 24 months. However, the Table in paragraph (b) reflects 15 months for the Base Period (July 1, 2024

- September 30, 2025). Should the Base Period be 15 months, exclusive of phase in period?

See response to question 11.

53 FAR

52.216-7

Please confirm that the successful contractor can invoice at least every 2 weeks and the Government will pay the invoice(s) at least every 2 weeks.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the clause of this contract at FAR 52.216–7, Allowable Cost and Payment, invoices, Invoices shall be submitted once per month unless there has been a demonstrated need and Contracting Officer approval for more frequent billings.

54 Page 15, F.2(c) and Page 67, I.4(d)

The RFP states that "Performance of all task orders issued before the end of the contract period of performance shall not exceed 12 months beyond the contract period of performance" but the pricing model does not allow for escalation of IDIQ rates beyond the contract period of performance. Will the government allow offerors to escalate their IDIQ rates for IDIQ task orders that extend beyond the contract period of performance?

IDIQ task orders are individually negotiated prior to issuance and will be based either on the rate schedule or otherwise negotiated with the Government.

Proposal should not include rates beyond the periods identified in the spreadsheet.

55 Page 121, L.18(j)(b)( 1)

The RFP requires offerors proposing to capture incumbent employees to explain how they intend to attract and retain incumbent staff based on the TCP "if the firm…proposes direct labor/salary rates for

The Government does not have incumbent rate data related to all labor categories.

incumbent personnel that are lower than incumbent rates." The Bidders Library does not contain any data that would allow offerors to know whether they are proposing rates lower than the incumbent rates.

Will the government provide information on incumbent rates that is adequate to allow offerors to comply with this requirement?

The Offeror is required to comply with all aspects of FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees related to compensation for professional employees. This includes, but is not limited to, understanding that if proposals envision compensation lower than those of the predecessor contractors for the same work. The Government will evaluate the proposal in accordance with the clause. As such, Offerors are advised to clearly indicate the intent in regarding compliance with this clause and whether or not they envision proposing compensation levels lower than the predecessor contractors.

Also, see section M.7 Cost/Price Evaluation.

56 Page 129, L.19(d)(6)

The RFP states that offerors that can provide the information required in L.7(b) may defer submission of the GPMP until 30 days after contract award. Is this section supposed to reference L.8(b) rather than L.7(b)?

Correct. Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for clarification of the requirement.

57 RFP Page 118 and Attachment 2, Cost Form 5

The RFP states "For all proposed personnel covered by WD and/or CBA, Offerors shall demonstrate in the proposal spreadsheets that they meet all minimum benefits, including health and welfare."

Cost Form 5 does not is not currently structured to demonstrate this requirement. Will the Government allow the contractor to demonstrate this in our TCP and Cost Narrative; or does Government have a specific format that they would like to see in Attachment 2?

The Government does not have a specific format for Offeror’s to use. The offeror can provide the information within the spreadsheet or cost narrative.

58 General The IBEW CBA expires January 2025 and IAMAW CBA expires January 2026. Does the Government want the contract to include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs after the expiration of each CBA?

Offerors shall not include in its proposal any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided in FAR 52.222-43.

59 Page 32, H.2(c) 5

The Limitation of Future Contracting Clause (LOFC) found at H.2(c)5 is so broad that it creates unduly restrictive of competition for the CMOE II contract. As the CMOE II RFP has requirements that the team bring relevant past performance, other than the incumbent contractor and their subcontractor(s), other potential bidders that engage in relevant activities are most likely engaged to some extent in the design, development or production of aircraft, aerospace or other systems or major subsystems of a type normally developed, tested, or evaluated in LaRC facilities. The phrase “of a type normally developed, tested, or evaluated in LaRC facilities” is also vague, undefined and extremely broad. The other LOFC clauses in the RFP are tied to specific activities of the CMOE II contractor and are adequate to protect against OCI that create bias in the CMOE II contractor or that would act as a disincentive to other aerospace vehicle manufacturers that use NASA LaRC expertise and facilities. In order to ensure true competition, while not sacrificing the LaRC mission or creating actual conflicts of interest in the performance of CMOE II, we suggest that NASA consider removing the H.2(c)5 clause as unduly restrictive of competition.

Another option would be to limit its application to prime contractors only.

Please see the updated RFP in Amendment 00002 for

60 Attachment 2, Cost Form 10

SOW 1.1.6, Scheduled Repairs, is missing from the Form 10. Will you confirm offerors are not required to estimate SOW 1.1.6?

Offerors are not required to estimate SOW 1.1.6.

SOW Paragraph 1.1.6, Scheduled Repairs provides guidance only. All repair efforts will be estimated under 1.2.2 on Form 10