CHARLES_DRFP_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

CHARLES DRFP Questions and Responses

# Reference Page No. Question Response

L.21 -c) and Table L-2 L-776/L-789

Instructions L.21 c) says “Title pages and table of contents are also excluded from the page counts.” Whereas Table L-2 Instruction indicates that “Title pages and tables of contents are included in page count limitations”.

Question: Will the government please correct the exclusions listed at the top of Table L-2 to match L.21 c?

At issuance of the final RFP, the Government will correct Table L-2. Title pages, table of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers that do not contain information that can be construed as proposal information will not be counted as part of the page limitations. However, these pages shall be numbered with lower case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.) in order to provide ease of reference for the Government.

L.33.2 c) L-786

L.33.2 c) says Proposal sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume and L.21 c) says Title pages and table of contents are also excluded from the page counts.

Question: Does the restriction in L.33.2 c) apply to title pages and table of contents?

Title pages and table of contents may be contained within the corresponding volume, but shall be numbered with lower case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.). The sections that have no page limitations ("none") shall be placed at the end of the corresponding volume. For example, the Safety and Health Approach file should be at the end of Volume I.

Att L-4 (Pricing Table) Tab WFF

Contract Year 8 is for only 7 months (58% of a full year), but all WFF labor category hours in the column for Year 8 are identical to a full year of hours (100%). Please adjust either the period of performance for Contract Year 8 or adjust the hours in that column.

The EPM for the final RFP will be adjusted to reflect the hours for Contract Year 8 to be equivalent to approximately 7 months of work compared to the previous contract years.

Att L-4 (Pricing Table) Tab JSC

Contract Year 8 is for only 7 months, but numerous rows are showing more, or less than 7 months of hours compared with Year

7. For example, while Accountant 2 is at 53% of hours of the prior year. The Aircraft mechanic is at 33%. The Engineer III hours double in Year 8. Please either confirm that Year 8 hours are correct or revise. Please see answer #3 above.

Att L-4 (Pricing Table) Tab FBAC

It appears as though the data on the IRT tab and the FBAC are in conflict with one another. Will the government clarify the intent for offerors to provide fringe cost element detail in both IRT and FBAC tabs?

In the IRT, Offerors are to provide the applicable indirect pool and base costs per Offeror's fiscal year, starting from three (3) years prior to contract start through the contract's period of performance, and the yearly indirect rate derived from these costs along with what indirect rates are proposed for each contract year. In the FBAC, Offerors are to provide fringe benefit costs to establish a fringe benefit cost per labor hour. These templates include instructions that specify what information is required.

L.33.5 (a) L-793

Offerors may have multiple major subcontractors. Will the government allow the prime contractor to submit up to 6 past performance citations for their own projects and additional 3 past performance citations for each major subcontractor?

No, the limit for past performance references is six, including prime and subcontractors.

L.33.5 (a) L-793

Does the government require a past performance citation related to the Executive Manager, or is the intent to demonstrate their relevance past performance within the resume?

The Government requires a resume for the Proposed Executive Manager, per DRD- M17 Key Personnel. It is the offeror's discretion to utilize a past performance citation for the Executive Manager.

DRD-M01 Management Plan

( i ) refers to Attachment L-1, Resource Planning Document. WFF and LaRC are not included in L-1.

Will the Government confirm that offerors are not required to address WFF and LaRC in their response?

DRD-M01 is a deliverable for JSC only and is not required to address WFF and LaRC.

Att L-4 (Pricing Table) Tab IRAP

Will the government please explain what the referenced Historical Rates are comprised of?

When will this information be provided?

The historical rates referenced in the RFP are provided in the NASA Technical Library. They are composed of average composite rates under the current ALICE contract.

M.4 Past Performance Factor M - 822

To ensure that offerors past performances are evaluated equally with respect to capabilities and experience, will the Government confirm that a past performance reference performed as a prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than a past performance referenced performed as a subcontractor?

As stated in Section M.4(c), "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 and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the offeror."

CHARLES DRFP L-795

Within the draft RFP it requests Safety and Health data for each worksite for the past five complete years. This requested data listing could be several thousand pages long for each worksite for five years with some in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code very dissimilar to the NASA CHARLES requirements.

Question: To align to the NASA CHARLES requirement will the Government update L.33.5 (j) to require Safety and Health data to only be required for each past performance exhibit submitted or for each NAICS 488190 contract performed by the Offeror?

Per Section L.33.5(j), “Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last five years. Offerors shall identify the applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract.

If a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed. Explanatory statements shall be included as appropriate. For all work performed during the past five years, offerors shall provide the following:”. The data should include copies of any and all OSHA citations with explanatory remarks.

Also records of the company’s occupational injuries and illnesses.

Attachment_L- 4_CHARLES_EPM_Version_E - IRAP Worksheet

CHARLES -

SOW (pg. C1);

The following categories appear within the IRAP worksheet of the EPM; however, they are not included within any of the Personnel Requirements identified within the Statement of Work (SOW) or SOW Appendices. JSC Categories: Production Control Clerk and Production Control Supervisor. El Paso Categories: Aircraft Mechanic II, Aircraft Mechanic III, Shipping / Receiving Specialist-Supply Technician, Team Lead, First Line Supervisor, Maintenance

Question: Will the Government update the Personnel Requirements contained within the SOW Appendices to include all Service Labor Categories, in all locations, identified within the IRAP worksheet of the EPM?

At issuance of the final RFP, Production Control Clerk and Production Control Supervisor will be removed from the JSC section of the EPM. El Paso categories are included in the JSC SOW Appendices.

CHARLES DRFP - H.16 NFS

1852.235-71 KEY PERSONNEL

Attachment_L- 4_CHARLES_EPM_Version_E - IRAP Worksheet

H-352

The Key personnel categories of (JSC) Alternate Executive Manager, (JSC) Operations Team Lead, (GFSC/WFF) Team Lead, and (GFSC/WFF) Production Manager are not included within the IRAP worksheet of the EPM.

Question: Will the Government update the IRAP worksheet of the EPM to include all H.16 Key Personnel Categories, at all locations?

Per SOW Section 4.2.2, an Alternate Executive Manager must be identified in the event that the Executive Manager is unavailable. The Alternate Executive Manager is not a separate Standard Labor Category but is a role that is delegated at contractor discretion and approved by the Contracting Officer.

At issuance of the final RFP, the position Flight Operations Training Officer/Team Lead (Operations Team Lead) will be corrected for consistency.

H.16 GSFC/WFF Team Lead will be corrected to read "Site Maintenance Manager."

The GSFC/WFF Production Manager is listed in IRAP.

H.16 NFS 1852.235-71 KEY

PERSONNEL

SOW - CHARLES - SOW (pg. C1);

SOW - Appendix E – Aircraft Support GSFC WFF SOW - Appendix F – Airfield Management GSFC WFF SOW - Appendix D - Langley Research Center

H-352, E64, F40, D(C)-1

The Key personnel categories of (JSC) Alternate Executive Manager, (JSC) Operations Team Lead, (GFSC/WFF) Team Lead, and (GFSC/WFF) Production Manager are not included in the Personnel Requirements identified within the SOW Appendices.

Question: Will the Government update SOW Appendix C Personnel Requirements to include all H.16 Key Personnel Categories, at all locations, with job description guidelines?

Please see answer #13 above.

The GSFC/WFF Production Manager is listed in SOW Appendix E (C).

Attachment_L- 4_CHARLES_EPM_Version_E - IRAP Worksheet

SOW - Appendix F – Airfield Management GSFC WFF

F40

The following categories appear within SOW Appendix F – Airfield Management Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) Statement of Work Personnel Requirements but are not included within the IRAP worksheet of the EPM. Accountant I, Accountant II, Accountant III, Accountant IV, Administrative Support I, Administrative Support III, Airfield Operations Specialist IV, and Airfield Operations Specialist V.

Question: Will the Government update the IRAP worksheet of the EPM to include all categories identified within SOW Appendix F Personnel Requirements?

Accountant II is in the WFF IRAP worksheet of the EPM. At issuance of the final RFP, Airfield Operations Specialist IV and V will be added to the EPM. At this time, the other positions will remain in the SOW, but they will not be added to the

EPM.

Attachments J-4 2015-4327 Rev 18 2015-4341 Rev 19 2015-5229 Rev 16 2015-5233 Rev 20

Department of Labor looks to have updated each of these schedules.

Question: Will the Government update and incorporate the latest Department of Labor Wage Determinations within the FINAL RFP J-4 inclusions?

At issuance of the final RFP, the latest Department of Labor Wage Determinations will be included in Section J-4.

Attachment_L- 4_CHARLES_EPM_Version_E - IRAP Worksheet

Within the IRAP tab of the EPM the government indicates that Offerors may utilize the "Historical Incumbent Rate" provided by NASA in the NASA Technical Library.

Question: Will the Government provide the Historical Incumbent Rate data for all IRAP applicable categories?

All historical incumbent rate information available is included in the incumbent rate information provided in the Technical Library. If SLCs in that document do not have a range provided, then those SLCs are new to the CHARLES contract for that location.

None M-821

"The term “content” will be in comparison to the scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, to the requirements in this solicitation."

Question: Can the Gov't please define "supplies" and give examples of what type of supplies the Gov't would consider relevant?

In this context, "supplies" refers to items acquired in the course of a contract, for example aircraft parts and equipment.

19 J-3-1 Attachment_JSC_Support_Equipme nt_Assets.pdf

Is there currently any contractor-owned Support Equipment that will need to be replaced upon award to a new contractor?

The Government does not foresee any contractor-owned equipment that will need to be replace upon award.

L.33.4.1 L-791

L.33.4.1 instructs that Offerors respond to MA1 by providing "DRD-M01 Management Plan as a separate, self-contained, and standalone document." The requirement for separate, and standalone documents extends to MA2 and MA3. This appears to conflict with instructions provided in L-32 "(3) Each volume of the proposal should be submitted as a separate electronic file."

Will the Government please clarify if the responses to MA1-3 are to be provided as separate documents or included within the Volume I response along with TA1-TA3 and DRD-S02 Safety and Health Plan?

With the issuance of the final RFP, the wording in L.32(b)(3) will be modified to state "(3) Each volume of the proposal should be submitted as a separate electronic folder." The DRD shall be placed as separate, self-contained, and standalone document within the folder, appropriately named per submission instructions.

L.5 L-817

L-5, Past Performance Consent Letters states that completed consent forms should be submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume. Table L-2 does not include a section for the Consent Letters.

Please indicate where in Volume II Consent Letters should be provided and confirm that they are excluded from the page count.

At issuance of the final RFP, the Government will revise Table L-2 to include the Consent Letters.

Table L-2 L-789

Table L-2 states that Title pages and tables of contents are included in page count limitations. This requirement contradicts section L-21(c): "See Table L-2 for exclusions to the page limits. Title pages and table of contents are also excluded from the page counts" and L-32(a)(4) "Title pages, table of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers that do not contain information that can be construed as proposal information will not be counted as part of the page limitations."

Will the Government please confirm that title pages, table of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers are excluded from page limitations? See answer #1 above.

L.33.2 L-786

In L-33.2(c), the requirements for proposal arrangement include "Proposal sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume."

Does this mean that title pages, table of contents, acronym lists, and cross-reference matrices (which are excluded from page limitations in L.32) are to be provided at the end of each volume? If so, this appears to conflict with L.32(b)(4), "An electronic cover sheet should be contained as the first page of each book..." See answer #1 above.

L.32 L-783

"A suitable table of contents shall be provided with each volume for ready reference to sections, tables, and figures."

Is it acceptable to provide a separate List of Tables and Figures (also excluded from volume page limitations)?

Yes, a separate list of Tables and Figures is acceptable. Title pages, table of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers that do not contain information that can be construed as proposal information will not be counted as part of the page limitations.

L.33.5(g) L-794

L.33.5(g) asks Offerors to provide an org chart showing the relationship between the parent company, affiliates, and other organizational entities. This requirement is not listed in Table L-2. Is this requirement excluded from Vol II page limitations?

At issuance of the final RFP, the organizational chart will be added to Table L-2 within the 20 page count limitation.

DRD-M13 1

DRD-M13 requires a contract phase-in schedule with milestones. This type of schedule is best presented as a Gantt chart;

however, given the requirement that text in graphics (diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs) be no smaller than 12-point text, the use of a Gantt chart would be difficult as it would unnecessarily take up page count in the page limited Management Approach.

Will the Government consider allowing smaller text size (e.g. 8-point) for the contract phase-in schedule?

No, Offerors may not use a font type other than non-compressed Arial font with single-spaced 12-point text for diagrams, charts, and tables.

L.32(a)(2) and L.21(b) L-783 and L-

In DRFP paragraph L.32(a)(2), the Government states: “Sections of the proposal which are page limited shall be prepared and submitted using noncompressed Arial font with single-spaced 12-point text.”

The Government further requires: “Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size. Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal.”

Given the implied intent of the last statement to differentiate between narrative and graphic text, would the Government consider allowing single-spaced 12-point Times New Roman font for narrative portions of page-limited sections, and no smaller than 8-point noncompressed Arial font for diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs?

Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size.

L.33.5 (a) and (b) and Table L-2 L-793 and L-

Regarding Key Personnel (Executive Manager) requirements within Volume II, will the Government please clarify: Does the information regarding Key Personnel (Executive Manager) experience called for in paragraph L.33.5(b) count within the 20 pages allocated for L.33.5(a), or is it a separate requirement, such as an alternate option for those bidders who do not have six past performance references to cite.

The Government requires a resume for the Proposed Executive Manager, per DRD- M17 Key Personnel. It is the offeror's discretion to utilize a past performance citation for the Executive Manager. The resume is included in the 20 page limitation.

L.33.5(d) and Attachment L-2-3 L-793

Paragraph L.33.5(d) appears to outline the content required in the Past Performance Narrative for each cited contract. However, Attachment L-2-3 is listed in Table L-2 as the format to be used in developing the Past Performance Narrative. The two items do not appear to align as far as content and structure. Would the Government please provide guidance on how to structure a response that meets both sets of requirements?

Paragraph L.33.5(d) aligns with the information to be provided in either Attachment L-2-1 Prime and Subcontractor Past Performance Matrix or Attachment L- 2-2 Joint Venture Past Performance Matrix.

DRD-M15, L-23, and L.33.4.1, MA2

L-777 and L-

L.33.4.1, MA2 "The Offeror shall provide DRD-M15 Total Compensation Plan as a separate, self-contained, and standalone document." The requirements in DRD- M15, "Content" differ from L.23 FAR

1852.231-71 DETERMINATION OF

COMPENSATION REASONABLENESS

(AUG 2021) (JSC PROCUREMENT

INSTRUCTION). Which section should Offerors use to structure the total compensation plan response?

DRD-M15 TCP states "this plan combines the requirements of FAR 52.222-46 and JPI 1852.231-71." DRD-M15 should be followed.

DRD-M15 and L.23 L-777

DRD-M15 requires Offerors to "State the company name(s) of the prime Offeror (or joint venture team members) and subcontractor(s), using the subcontractor definition found at JPI 1852.231-71(d). For subcontractors that will submit a TCP, state whether the Government can share your compensation data with the prime Offeror."

L.23 states "(d) 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 noncompetitive fixed-price type subcontracts..." There appears to be conflicting directions in these requirements regarding how subcontractors will submit their TCP for Government review.

Will the Government please address the following:

1) Are subcontractor TCPs required with the Offeror (prime) proposal response or should subcontractors submit TCPs directly to the Government?

2) Should subcontractors include their TCP submission as part of their unsanitized Cost/Price Proposal or as a separate, standalone document?

3) Are subcontractors required to provide a TCP that complies with the content requirements of DRD-M15 or the requirements of FAR 1852.231-71?

1. DRD-M15 Total Compensation Plan (TCP) c(1) states "For subcontractors that will submit a TCP, state whether the Government can share your compensation data with the prime Offeror." This allows either the Offeror (prime) or the subcontractor to submit the subcontractor's TCP information. Regardless of the submitter, it must be received by the response required submission date and named in accordance with the submission instructions.

2. Per Provision, L.33.4.1 the TCP shall be a standalone document.

3. DRD-M15 TCP states "this plan combines the requirements of FAR 52.222- 46 and JPI 1852.231-71" therefore DRD- M15 must be followed. The reference in L.23 is FAR 1852.231-71 (JSC Procurement Instruction).

L.33.6 L-800

The Pricing for IDIQ Task Orders section of L.33.6 notes that the Government reserves the right to award the fully evaluated Sample Task Order at contract start. Is the Sample Task Order referenced in section L.33.6 related to the GSFC/WFF Task Order in Appendix E of the SOW or the scenario in TA1 and TA2?

The Sample Task order referenced in Section L.33.6 relates to the scenario referenced in TA2.

L.33.4.2 L-792

"Each offeror shall demonstrate technical understanding of labor resources required to provide consistently effective technical oversight of future CHARLES contract maintenance work. To demonstrate technical understanding, offerors shall propose the specific skills it will use to perform these technical management and oversight requirements."

Will the Government please clarify what technical management and oversight requirements are referenced by TA2 as it is unclear? Is TA2 intended to show the resources required to execute an Offeror's approach to the scenario in TA1?

The technical management and oversight requirements are those reflected on Attachment L-1-1 noted with (*). It is not related to the TA1 scenario.

L.33.7(h) L8-14

"Offerors may provide any additional information, not already addressed under another proposal volume, that is considered to be necessary to demonstrate status as a responsible offeror under FAR 9.104, Standards."

Will the Government confirm that responses to FAR 9.104 are excluded from the Volume IV 25-page limit?

The Government confirms that the responses to FAR 9.104 are excluded from the Volume IV 25-page limit.

L.33.5(j) L-795

This paragraph appears to list contradictory requirements for cited contracts. For example, the RFP states: "Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last three years." Whereas, further in the paragraph, the RFP requests:

"For all work performed during the past five years, offerors shall provide the following:" Please provide clarification.

At issuance of the final RFP, the Government will revise Section L.33.5(j) to read "in the last five years."

Table L-2, L.33.5(b) L-789, L-793

Currently, L.33.5(b) is not listed in Table L-2. Would the Government please offer clarification on how to address this paragraph?

At issuance of the final RFP, the Government will add DRD-M17 Key Personnel to Table L-2.

Appx E, 4.8.1.2; Appx C to Appx E, Personnel Requirements; Appx F, 4.8.1.2; Appx C to Appx F

E20, E64-E75, F17, F40-F44

The requirements in each of the stated references are different and open to offeror interpretation. Personnel security clearance requirements across each CHARLES work site are stated differently and may lead to different bases of estimate that impact pricing for SLCs.

For clarity and to enable an apples-to-apples price comparison amongst offerors, we request that the Government please clarify the specific positions at all locations that must include the ability to obtain and maintain Government Security Clearance.

At issuance of the final RFP, the SLCs in the Statement of Work Appendix E (C) will be updated to clarify security requirements.