ETIS IV DRFP QA (1st Batch).pdf

Environmental Test and Integration Services

(ETIS) IV

Draft Request for Proposal

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

80GSFC24R0012

December 5, 2024

Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document were typed as they were submitted.

1. Question: L.31.a notes significant subcontractor references should meet "minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of at least 25% of the estimated average annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract". Following the example given in L.3.1.a, and assuming this procurement contract ceiling as $329M per B.4.a, the procurement average annual cost would be $65.8M, 25% of which would be $16.4M, which is different than the amount noted in M.6: "A proposed significant subcontractor for this procurement is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $22M."

Would the Government clarify the minimum average annual cost/fee each significant subcontractor reference must meet?

Response: We anticipate that the final RFP will reflect a maximum ordering value decrease of $155M. The ceiling will be changed from $329M to $174M. As such, the definition of a significant subcontractor for past performance is shall also be updated to include any subcontractor that is proposed to perform at least $5M annually for the ETIS

IV contract. For a significant subcontractor's past contract references, the minimum size must be 25% of their proposed subcontract value for ETIS IV. For example, a subcontractor that is proposed to perform an average annual value of $8M for ETIS IV would be significant as it's greater than $5M. Therefore, in this example, the minimum average annual value of their past references must be at least 25% of 8M, or $2M/year.

Note, this number will vary for each significant subcontractor, based on their proposed subcontract value for ETIS IV.

2. Question: The DRFP specifies text not smaller than 12 point (with excel exhibits using

9-12 point type) and schedules, charts, tables, artwork and photographs no smaller than

10 point type.

Will the Government allow 8 point font in headers and footers?

Response: Per L.26, b (2) paragraph no. 2, "Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point type Times New Roman font." As such, the Government will not allow 8 point font in headers and footers.

3. Question: Can a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Forward Pricing Rate

Recommendation (FPRR) indicating review/audit by a Government agency be used to justify realism and reasonableness of indirect rates without requiring additional support?

Response: Yes, the Government will revise the RFP to reflect the following: If applicable, the Offeror shall provide the most recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal

(FPRP), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), Forward Pricing Rate

Agreement (FPRA). If an FPRA is in place, the Offeror’s agreement shall be the basis for proposed rates and a copy of the FPRA shall be provided with the proposal, in support of all rates. Any differences between the FPRA and the rates utilized shall be explained.

If an FPRA is not in effect, the Offeror shall provide the basis for the indirect rates proposed, to include three years of historical indirect rate data in the applicable tab within the Forms.

4. Question: Can a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Forward Pricing Rate

Recommendation (FPRR) indicating review/audit by a Government agency be used in lieu of actual and projected expense support?

Response: Yes, the Government will revise the RFP to reflect the following: If applicable, the Offeror shall provide the most recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal

(FPRP), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), Forward Pricing Rate

Agreement (FPRA). If an FPRA is in place, the Offeror’s agreement shall be the basis for proposed rates and a copy of the FPRA shall be provided with the proposal, in support of all rates. Any differences between the FPRA and the rates utilized shall be explained.

If an FPRA is not in effect, the Offeror shall provide the basis for the indirect rates proposed, to include three years of historical indirect rate data in the applicable tab within the Forms.

5. Question: In accordance with FAR 42.703-1(b), "Billing rates and final indirect cost rates shall be used in reimbursing indirect costs under cost-reimbursement contracts and in determining progress payments under fixed price contracts."

As a result, can the Government please avoid capping indirect cost rates within the IDIQ, allowing the awardee to propose the most recently approved indirects upon each task order proposal? This will allow the awardee to propose indirects IAW its DCMA/DCAA approved Cost Accounting Standards (i.e., provisional billing rates and Forward Pricing

Rate Agreements or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations from DCMA). This will benefit the Government by increasing accuracy of labor rates to ensure proper budgeting and funding.

Response: For purposes of reimbursing costs, the Government will follow policy stated in FAR 42.703-1(b), and will utilize procedures in FAR 42.705, entitled "Final Indirect cost rates".

For purposes of estimating costs of future task orders, the government follows procedures highlighted in B.5, using Attachment B, to calculate the proposed estimated cost for all task orders.

6. Question: FAR clause 52.223.17 was rescinded 08/29/2024.

Will this clause be removed from Final RFP?

Response: Clause will be removed in Final RFP.

7. Question: Will the Government please resend Exhibit 1A as it appears corrupted when converted to PDF?

Response: The Government will repost a copy of Exhibit 1A to SAM.gov.

8. Question: To ensure an equal playing field, can the government define corporate resources necessary to execute the ETIS IV SOW?

Response: The solicitation does not require specific corporate resources. The mission suitability volume provides each offeror the opportunity to propose corporate resources that may benefit contract performance, based on the offeror unique approach.

9. Question: B.12 The Offeror’s plan shall address its approach to handling the hazardous materials identified in Section I, “Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety

Data” (FAR52.223-3--Alternate I), if applicable.

Can the Government please confirm that this requirement will be satisfied if addressed within the Offeror's Safety and Health Plan?

Response: Yes, the Offeror's Safety and Health Plan shall address its approach to handling hazardous materials. The final RFP shall be updated to clarify this.

10. Question: The NASA Mentor-Protégé Program is in a pause phase.

Please clarify how you would like the bidder to respond.

Response: The NASA Mentor Protégé Program was relaunched on November 1st. See link for more details: https://www.nasa.gov/osbp/mentor-protege-program/

11. Question: Can the Government please confirm if this is the wholistic list of GFP anticipated for performance at the IDIQ level, in addition to that listed in Attachment I?

Response: Yes, Attachment L, List of Government Furnished Property is the wholistic list of anticipated GFP on this requirement. In addition, Attachment I, List of

Installation-Accountable Government Property is a wholistic list of the anticipated IAGP on this requirement. Updated list will be provided.

12. Question: Will NASA include the appropriate SOFA clauses into the final RFP to conduct work in those locations?

Response: If needed, any required SOFA clauses will be incorporated in specific individual task orders or in the contract after award, via modification.

13. Question: Will Offeror's have the ability to edit/offer recommended changes to the

Award Fee Plan/Performance Evaluation Plan at the IDIQ and/or TO level for mutual agreement on discreet, measurable criteria to ensure proper contract incentive structuring? (Enclosure DD)

Response: Any specific questions/comments/recommendations regarding Enclosure DD -

Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Performance Evaluation Plan can be submitted to the Government for consideration. At this time there are no changes to Enclosure DD.

14. Question: Will there be Govt provided motor vehicles on ETIS IV? If so, will that be included on the GFP list (Attachment I and L do not include vehicles)?

Response: Motor vehicles will be provided on ETIS IV. Updated GFP list will be provided.

15. Question: Please confirm this is an example only and will be updated upon award of

ETIS IV between the Awardee and Association.

Response: Attachment J - CBA Rev. 1 with unredacted rates has been published at https://SAM gov, notice ID “ETISIVDRFP”. Upon award of ETIS IV the current CBA will be utilized until the new contract awardee has provided an updated CBA

16. Question: Will Wage Determination No. be updated for the Final RFP to cover the PoP to be covered by ETIS IV?

Response: This is the latest Wage Determination with an effective date through

09/30/2025. In the event that the Wage Determination is updated prior Final RFP proposal due date, the Government will provide the update via SAM.gov.

17. Question: L.27(c)(7) requires Offerors to provide a listing of subcontractors and the subcontract GPM value for each. L.29(d) Subfactor C (7) requires subcontracting goals to be provided as a percentage of IDIQ maximum ordering value. Please confirm that it is the Government's intention that the proposed subcontract value be provided differently between the Offer Volume and Mission Suitability Volume.

Response: Yes, although the numbers should be reasonably consistent based on the percentage of total work in the GPM value and maximum ordering value. Per L.27(c)(7), within the Offer Volume, all Offeror's shall provide a summary listing (by name and address) of all subcontractors (regardless of dollar value) that have been identified throughout the Offeror’s proposal and the subcontract GPM value associated with each entity. In addition, within the Mission Suitability Volume, per L.29, Subfactor C - SBU, item (7), all Offerors shall complete Exhibits 12, SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALs, which provide a breakdown of the Offeror's proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of the

IDIQ MAXIMUM ORDERING VALUE and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED

SUBCONTRACTS. Please also refer to the table identified in L.26 (b) entitled “Proposal

Content and Page Limitations”.

18. Question: Assumption 1 requires the offeror to develop an I&T schedule for Projects X, Y, and Z. Projects X&Y complete within 18 months and Project Z completes within 24 months. As these projects are the only work described, please confirm that this requirement is for Project X, Y, and Z I&T schedules only, and that detailed planning and scheduling are not required for the entire contract period and beyond, including the two 3 year follow-on projects expected in months 30-66.

Response: Yes, I&T scheduling requirement is for Project X, Y & Z only.

19. Question: While the scenario description has statements like "The size of both instruments is comparable to that of the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation

(GEDI) and "as each instrument contains sensitive optics, each must be handled with appropriate measures through the entire I&T campaign." No information is provided to understand what kind of sensitivity the instruments have, such as breakage, contamination, excess light, temperature, etc. Without understanding what needs to be tested and/or protected we cannot identify the "appropriate measures" required. Please provide additional detail on the nature and design of the instruments to include "sensitive optics", thermal requirements, type of spacecraft and launch vehicle, orbit, etc.

Response: Sensitive optics refers to contamination sensitivity/Class 10K. Testing is performed per Goddard Environmental Verification Specification (GEVS) GSFC-STD-

7000.

20. Question: Are there any prohibitions to using outside facilities and 3rd party resources for testing per GEVS

Response: There are no prohibitions to using outside facilities and 3rd party resources for testing per GEVS.

21. Question: Please confirm the Government is using a productive manyear of 1820.

Response: Please refer to Exhibit 9 with instructions for the offeror to provide their proposed productive work year calculation.

22. Question: L.26 states, “The format for each proposal volume shall parallel, to the greatest extent possible, the format of the evaluation factors contained in Section L of this solicitation.” Please clarify if this instruction should refer to Section M instead of Section

L.

Response: L.26 references the correct section; however it should be noted that Mission

Suitability Sections L&M are formatted and ordered consistently with each other.

23. Question: After reading through the Scenario description, it is unclear when the

Government is requiring Offerors to end their I&T campaigns. Should Offerors end their

I&T campaigns following the completion of all required instrument-level testing, or should the campaigns include further I&T content dealing with the I&T required to assemble and test the instruments onto the mission’s satellite vehicle? Please clarify so that all Offerors can develop their I&T campaigns to a consistent campaign duration and content.

Response: Offerors should end their I&T campaigns following the completion of all required instrument level testing and support I&T closeout activities

24. Question: Will the Government please confirm that the correct version of the GEVS to use is the GSFS-STD-7000B (04-28-2021 approval date)?

Response: Yes, GSFC-STD-7000B is the correct version of the GEVS to use.

25. Question: The CBA provided with the DRFP is significantly redacted. Complete and unredacted CBAs are typically made available to Offerors to enable the Offerors to develop realistic direct and indirect pricing of union labor in the cost proposal. Will the

Government provide an unredacted copy of the CBA?

Response: The Government has posted a copy of the CBA with unredacted rate information in Amendment 2 to the DRFP on SAM.gov.

26. Question: Attachment C outlines detailed financial reporting using NASA 533 reports with monthly and quarterly deadlines. Will these reports remain in the current format, or will there be updates in the financial management system during the contract period?

Response: These reports will remain in the current format at this time.

27. Question: Exhibits 1A-1C and Exhibits 2-12 provide varying levels of detail for labor categories and their respective rates. In some instances, positions are marked with “0%” or lack rate details. Should Offerors include these categories in the proposal, or can they be omitted? For positions with incomplete rate information, how should Offerors proceed with pricing assumptions?

Response: The 0% is a placeholder for a formula the offeror should develop to reflect the skill mix percentage used to develop blended labor categories, if proposed. Refer to example provided in Exhibit 2C (Sample), which provides examples of blended labor category conversion.

28. Question: Exhibits 2-12 outline how ODCs should be calculated for subcontractor and prime costs, but the instructions for applying indirect rates and other loadings appear inconsistent across different exhibits. What is the correct methodology for calculating

ODCs, particularly in cases where subcontractors are involved?

Response: All ODCs are to be proposed at the prime level and captured within the

Government provided figures.

29. Question: Does the Government currently use or plan to use the iSite application for management of this contract? If so, please advise if this application will be Government-provided.

Response: The Government does not specify the use or the plan to use the iSite application for management of the contract and does not provide the application.

30. Question: Please describe the functionality and interfaces between the Test and

Integration Management Information System (TIMIS) and Task Order Management

System (TOMS).

Response: The TIMIS interface is described in the Industry Day presentation. The ETIS contract is not managed via the Task Order Management System (TOMS).

31. Question: L.29 A.1 (3) states, “12 months after projects X and Y have left GSFC, 2 more major projects will start their I&T campaigns on scientific instruments in similar fashion as X and Y.” Please clarify the level of detail Offerors are expected to provide. For example, should the response be like that for projects X and Y? If yes, please provide further details on comparable projects to the “major projects,” with detail like that provided for GEDI and NIRCam.

Response: The scenario enables offerors to assume comparability of the additional major projects to projects X and Y. Refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale.

32. Question: L.29 A.1 (2) states, “projects X and Y complete their I&T requirements in 18 months.” L.29 A.1 (3) states, “2 more major projects will start their I&T campaigns on scientific instruments in similar fashion as X and Y. Both I&T campaigns will last approximately 36 months.” Please clarify the 36-month duration described in L.29 A.1

(3) for the I&T requirements of the two new major projects versus the 18-month duration described in L.29 A.1 (2) for projects X and Y.

Response: Refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale for the difference in duration.

33. Question: From Cover Letter: “Subfactor A: Technical Approach, Paragraph 3, NASA is highly interested in alternate operational models within this integration and testing program scenario. This is a differentiated approach and the Government requests industry feedback for this approach.” Astrion’s Feedback: There is not a clear indication which is

Paragraph 3 in Subfactor A. However, details within the Scenario that are not included would allow all Offerors to provide a more differentiated approach, such as classification level (Class A or Class B) and providing a historical example of the GEDI program if the

“similar size” criterion refers to program size versus physical size.

Response: The GEDI historical example refers to physical size, not classification level.

34. Question: Please confirm whether Task Plans are to be submitted in TOMS or TIMIS.

Response: Task Plans are to be submitted in TIMIS. TOMS will not be utilized to manage ETIS IV.

35. Question: Will the government consider reducing the Significant Sub value from the dRFP of $25M to a historical average for a service contract of this size to a range of

$10M to $14M (ETIS III was $14M)?

Response: The RFP ceiling has been updated to $174M and the definition of significant subcontractor for past performance is updated to include any subcontractor that is proposed to perform at least $5M annually for the ETIS IV contract.

36. Question: Will the government provide additional insight as to how innovations will be scored in Section M?

Response: Innovations may be evaluated throughout the Mission Suitability volume, where applicable with the evaluation criteria.

37. Question: Our understanding of the current cost/price instructions is that offerors can only propose solutions that relate to hours accounted for in the GPM. Would you consider providing evaluation criteria to enable offerors to propose alternative solutions, while still ensuring correlation between the overall technical approach and the provided

GPM?

Response: No, the Government will not modify the RFP to provide evaluation criteria to enable Offerors to propose alternative solutions.

38. Question: Will the Government please clarify if it will allow Offerors to submit an

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the overall Scenario? If so, is submitting this artifact in Microsoft Project (.mpp) format as a separate attachment to the Mission

Suitability volume acceptable to the Government?

Response: Offerors are allowed to submit an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the overall scenario. Whichever format is used must be included in the Mission Suitability volume and not as a separate attachment.

39. Question: Throughout the scenario requirement, there are multiple references to

Integration & Test (I&T), yet specific direction for each project is for testing only. Please clarify whether integration work is necessary within the scenario timeframe.

Response: Integration work is not necessary within the scenario timeframe. Specific direction for each project is for testing only.

40. Question: For X, Y, and Z, the government gave relative size and complexity comparisons. For the future "major" projects, there is no relative size/complexity comparison. The phrase "in similar fashion to X and Y" is not a clear indication of size and complexity. Please provide a size and complexity comparison for these two major projects.

Response: The future "major" projects are unknown. Therefore, no detailed comparisons were provided. The "in similar fashion" applies to requirements used to test projects

X&Y.

41. Question: Instructions state that Excel exhibits provided are formatted using 9-12 point type Arial font. Given the cost exhibits are provided in PDF format, it is unclear what point size is being used on each exhibit. Is it acceptable to use 9 point Arial for all data being entered (ex: labor categories and numbers/dollars) and 12 point Arial for exhibit titles?

Response: Per L.26, b(2) paragraph no. 2, "Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point type Times New Roman font." As such, the Government will not allow 9-point font in Excel exhibits.