RFP Addenda 2 MEL-2664-09192024.doc

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

California Institute of Technology

4800 Oak Grove Drive

Pasadena, California 91109-8099

(818) 354-4321 May 1, 2025 Attention:

Prospective Bidders Subject:

Request for Proposal (RFP) Addendum No. 2 to JPL RFP No. MEL-2664-09192024 This addendum is provided to all proposers for clarification of the subject RFP.

The above entitled RFP states in the cover letter that “All questions made to JPL after the official RFP release date must be received via email. The questions and answers will be posted on the RFP website: https://acquisition.jpl.nasa.gov/opportunities/.” Currently, there is a delay in posting to this site. As such, addenda will be emailed to known prospective proposers.

1. Is Attachment B-21 provided strictly for reference, or does the government require that this attachment be completed and submitted with the proposal?

a. Attachment B-21 Business Reporting Funding Detail has been provided for information purposes so the proposer is aware that if the negotiated price of a single SWO is $500K or more, then Attachment B-21 shall be required for that specific SWO.

2. JPL has requested recent examples of work products in several sections of the proposal criteria. As an example, section 2.1.1 asks proposers to provide a recent “work product” in the form of an analysis report, design review package, and/or peer reviewed paper. The solicitation does not provide any guidance in how to include these work product examples. Does JPL want us to embed these work products in the document itself, or does JPL want us to provide these work products as an un-page counted attachment? If JPL prefers an un-page counted attachment, should that attachment be: 1. A duplicate copy of the work product as a stand-alone attachment or 2. The work product as a computer file attachment (i.e. PowerPoint slides).

a. This addendum officially excludes work product examples from the page count. For each work product example, the page count is limited to 50 pages. See page limit attachment for reference. JPL will accept PDF documents for work product examples. Please do not provide duplicate copies of work product.

3. Most of the requirements for the (11) work product examples are required to be within the last three (3) years. Would JPL be willing change the requirement to accommodate work products from more than (3) years ago?

a. JPL will keep the requirement at (3) years. JPL would like recent examples providing evidence that proposers are actively working in this field.

4. Would JPL consider increasing the page count for the Management/Technical response to each RWO to 6-10 pages (excluding cost information).

a. The RWO response is part of the total 150 page limit for the Technical/Management submittal but is not subject to a specific 6 –10 page limit per RWO. The corresponding cost information included on Attachment A-15 is not included in the 150 page limit. As stated in the RFP 2.0 Technical/Management Criteria and Factors, section 6.4.1, the RWO proposals will be evaluated against Criterion 5: M1, Factor 4, while the cost estimates will be evaluated against Volume III: Pricing and Supplemental Business/Cost Information.

5. Volume II, requirement 2.0 states: “All RWOs shall be written to include multiple technical disciplines.” This appears to be an extraneous requirement. The RWOs in this contract are written for Thermal/Fluids personnel to fulfill and other technical discipline involvement would only be superficial.

a. Proposers shall include multiple disciplines when appropriate, understanding underlying technical requirements when appropriate for the scope of work.

6. Will JPL allow RWO responses to be included in a separate Volume II (with no page limit) and not in Volume I subsection 5.4. In addition, would JPL clarify the weighting for Volumes II and III?

a. The requirements for RWOs will remain the same. Please refer to section 3.1 of the RFP, which states that price is a substantial factor and of equal importance to technical weighting.

7. RFP Criterion 5.5.1 lists Key Personnel in the title: “Availability of Facilities, Equipment, Software, and Key Personnel”. JPL does not request any detail specifically on Key Personnel designations or definitions. Could JPL please clarify what they would like to learn relative to Key Personnel.

a. 5.1.5 requests resumes of key personnel. The purpose of this requirement is to highlight staff who are especially proficient and possess the experience, knowledge, and skills necessary to allow the proposer to respond to JPL work orders.

8. How many BOEs is JPL asking proposers to submit? Does a single BOE consisting of pricing information for all (3) RWOs? Or, three separate BOEs - one for each RWO?

a. Proposers may submit (3) Basis of Estimates (BOE), one for each of the (3) RWOs. If the BOE supporting the RWO cost proposal data is consistent across all three RWOs, the proposer may submit one BOE addressing all three RWOs as part of the cost proposal submittal. This does not apply to the Technical/Management RWO submittals.

9. Where does JPL want the BOE Cost Element Support Data to be submitted? Please confirm that the BOE Cost Element Support Data is to be submitted as part of Volume III, thus being exempt from page-count.

a. Cost Element data is to be included as a part of the A-15 response, which is not included within the page count.

10. Under the current pricing submission, are offerors strictly bound by the ceiling rates submitted by the contractor or will there be an opportunity to propose revised rates at the time of individual task order pricing requests?

a. For the fee calculation of each SWO the proposer shall be strictly bound to the negotiated rates as stated within in Article 2, Payment Provisions, section 1.1.1, and Exhibit II of the Standard Subcontract. Under the subject cost plus fixed fee Subcontract the negotiated cost of each SWO shall be based on rates that are current, accurate, and complete at the time the SWO proposal is submitted. Reference RFP Volume III Cost/Price Instructions, 2.0 Proposal Pricing, Tab 3 SWO Fee Calculation for additional information The RFP due date is not changed by this addendum.

As required by the RFP’s General Instructions, indicate receipt of this and any other addendums relative to the subject RFP.

Sincerely, Megan Lagace

Megan Lagace Subcontracts Manager E-mail: megan.e.lagace@jpl.nasa.gov

JPL 7183, R 11/12