DRFP_Questions_Vol_2.pdf

NNA16579196R June 30, 2016

Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) Science and Mission Operations Solicitation

Solicitation Questions and Answers, Volume 2

This document contains answers to questions that were received after the release of Draft documents and/or asked during the two SOFIA Science and Mission Operations solicitation Industry Days at Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) and Ames Research Center (ARC).

Questions and Answers posted after issuance of the Draft RFP and prior to issuance of the Final RFP are for guidance only, so that potential offerors can better understand the requirements.

The Final RFP will supersede and replace the Draft RFP and all related documentation, including industry day communications and these questions and answers.

Question #1: Can the Government clarify what activities are considered Core? There is a reference in the Statement of Work that implies all Core would be stopped at the conclusion of flight operations?

Answer #1: All requirements in the Draft SOW make up the ‘Core,’ with the exception of references to IDIQ tasks. The Draft SOW requirements are all associated with continuing operations of SOFIA, including flight operations. With respect to the end of flight operations, it is expected that there will be a phased shut down.

For example, the requirements associated with the Call for Proposals (SOW 3.4.3) will typically end significantly prior to the last science flight and the requirement for the help desk, supporting Guest investigators writing papers, will end significantly after the last science flight. A one-year option will be re-named in the final RFP to address a planned shutdown. Once the date of the last science flight of SOFIA is known, a schedule will be issued to shut down the program and associated contract support.

Question #2: Does NASA intend to increase its oversight of science related activities under the new contract? If yes, how would the NASA role be different on the new contract?

Answer #2: NASA does not expect to change its level of oversight of the science related activities under the new contract.

Question #3: Please describe what items are considered to be mission essential equipment, tools, and supplies? Will a Bill of Materials be provided for estimating these items for the price proposal? If no, then how will an offeror estimate the costs of the mission essential items? Is this considered a Core or IDIQ activity?

Please explain the category.

Answer #3: Mission essential equipment includes facilities, computers, software, and hardware that is furnished to the contractor by the Government. A Government Supplied Equipment list will be provided in the final RFP (Attachment J.1(a)4).

The Government will revise the final RFP to include an estimate for Other Direct Costs (ODCs), not including travel. This estimate has been inserted into the Cost Template Workbook.

NNA16579196R Solicitation Questions and Answers, Volume 2 June 30, 2016

Question #4: The metrics and timing for several CDRLs are described in terms of xx days after contract award. We recommend that these all be modified to xx days after contract start. Days relative to Contract Award can be complicated to determine if there is a delay in contract start date.

Answer #4: The CDRLs will be revised in the final RFP to indicate a delivery schedule based upon the start of the Authority to Proceed (ATP)—the effective date of the contract. The Government considers the ATP as the beginning of the Phase-In period.

Question #5: Can the Government provide some examples of previous instances of "unplanned support to SOFIA partners?"

Answer #5: An example of unplanned support would be engineering support for the design of an instrument test stand.

Question #6: What is a "Grant Funding Distribution Plan?"

Answer #6: The information regarding the Grants Funding Distribution Plan can be found in CDRL #310405 as part of Attachment J.1(a)2.

Question #7: Can the Government provide more detail on the current existing external organizations and agreements, commitments, and MOUs? Will copies be available in the Bidders library?

Answer #7: Two MOUs are expected to be negotiated by the contractor each year, both for the use of Principle Investigator (PI) Instruments. The current instruments are EXES (Echelon-cross-Echelle Spectrograph) and multiple versions of GREAT (German Receiver for Astronomy at Terahertz Frequencies). A document that describes the content of the MOUs will be made available with the final RFP as part of the SOFIA Technical References (Attachment J.1(b)10). The documents themselves will be available, on request, from the CO and distributed on a CD. See the final RFP for complete instructions.

Question #8: Is it correct that the Public Engagement function is only assigned to the Contractor?

Answer #8: Yes, the responsibilities for public engagement, as described in SOW section 3.1.7, are contractor functions.

Question #9: Can the Government identify the people performing the following functions listed in the organization chart: the Chief Engineer who chairs the integration office; the NASA POC for the Science Ops performed by the Contractor; the NASA Observatory Systems Director; the NASA Operations Director and Program Control?

Answer #9: NASA does not intend to provide the names of the civil servant employees who hold those positions. The information is not deemed necessary for a response to the solicitation.

Question #10: Can the Government identify where the COR is located in this organization chart?

Answer #10: The COR function resides within the NASA SOFIA Program Office.

Question #11: Is the SOFIA Communications Lead the same as the AFRC or ARC Public Affairs Officer? If not, then who is the SOFIA Communications Lead?

Answer #11: No. The Communications Lead is a civil servant member of the program office.

Question #12: Will all documents cited in the SOW be made available for prospective bidders to review in a Bidders library?

Answer #12: Yes, a list of SOFIA Technical References will be included in the final RFP (Attachment J.1(b)10). The documents themselves will be available, on request, from the CO and distributed on a CD.

Question #13: Is there a handbook for the maintenance and operation of the primary mirror-coating facility? Will this be provided in the Bidders library?

Answer #13: Yes. See answer to #12.

Question #14: Will the Government provide the applicable Armstrong industrial safety and occupational health procedures for review in a Bidders library?

Answer #14: Yes. See answer to #12.

Question #15: Will a sample Integrated Master Schedule be provided in a Bidders library?

Answer #15: Yes. See answer to #12.

Question #16: Does a Contractor Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) currently exist for the program?

Answer #16: Yes, the program has a QAP that applies to SOFIA contractors. See answer to #12.

Question #17: Does a SOFIA Data Management Plan currently exist on the program?

Answer #17: Yes. See answer to #12.

Question #18: Is there a handbook for the use of the Water Vapor Monitor (WVM)?

Answer #18: No, the handbook is not available, but is under development. The handbook is not needed to respond to the requirement in the SOW (3.4.6.3). However, the program anticipates that the handbook will be available during phase-in of the new contract.

Question #19: Is there an existing SOFIA Mission Operations Plan?

Answer #19: Yes. The SOFIA Mission Operations Plan (SOF-1051) will be available in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #20: Will Interface Control Documents (ICDs) be provided in the Bidders library?

Answer #20: Yes, examples of the Interface Control Documents (ICDs) will be made available in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #21: Are the systems currently compliant with NPR 7123.1B? If not, how is it tailored? Is there a SOFIA Systems Engineering Management Plan and will it be provided in a Bidders library?

Answer #21: Yes the systems are compliant with NPR 7123.1B. The SOFIA Systems Engineering Management Plan will be made available in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #22: Will the Government identify the SOFIA requirements tree of existing documentation that is used to 'govern' the contractors' requirements at the current time?

Answer #22: Yes, the Government will supply the SOFIA product tree in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #23: The SOFIA Contractor is required to provide emergency response to safety incidents, as required, involving personnel within a facility managed and operated by the contractor. Does this include aircraft mishaps or is that the responsibility of aircraft contractor?

Answer #23: Contractor response to aircraft mishaps is not included in the Core requirements of SOW; however, the Government could issue an IDIQ task to provide such support, within the scope of the SOW.

Question #24: Is there a risk posture held by the SOFIA program? Is it considered an R&T program which can accept a less than 100% success rate, or is it considered a full flight program with little tolerance for failure?

Answer #24: The Government will provide the Risk Management Posture (RMP) in the final RPF. See answer to #12.

Question #25: Is the current incumbent contractor's system in compliance with AS9100 QMS requirements?

Answer #25: The current contractor systems are compliant with ISO9001.

Question #26: The metrics/timing for Mission Assurance are due within 30 days after contract award. There is no way to independently verify if the systems and processes currently used on SOFIA are in compliance with these higher requirements documents. New offerors must take existing SOFIA processes and integrate them with the offeror's management and technical approach. Thus, we recommend that the new Offerors demonstrate compliance within 180 days after contract start.

Answer #26: Contractor Safety and Mission Assurance Plan (PM21), CDRL 310301, is due no later than 90 days after contract ATP (the effective date of the contract).

Question #27: Is the code available for the Mission Operations application software that is to be sustained?

Answer #27: Information about operations software will be included in final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #28: Under Objective 1 in the SOW, what software is used for flight mission planning? More generally, is code available for all contractor developed software (from the current contract)? Is it documented?

Answer #28: A description of the software is included in Section 3.9 in the SOW. Additional details about the software will be included in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #29: Who maintains the program metrics database? What software is used? Where does the database reside?

Answer #29: NASA maintains the program metrics database, using Confluence Wiki.

Question #30: Who manages the Risk Database? What software is used?

Answer #30: NASA manages the risk database using FileMaker Pro.

Question #31: The most informative web site addressing SOFIA is under the USRA address (https://www.sofia.usra.edu/). The NASA web site is more generic (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/index.html). Does NASA want a fully documented NASA website developed and maintained or does it expect the winning contract to use its own site for this activity? The Cycle 5 Call for Proposals is listed on the USRA site. What is the performance metric for this requirement?

Answer #31: The Contractor will develop and maintain a web site (see SOW 3.1.7.5 and CDRL #310111). This contract is an award fee contract and the performance metrics are under development.

Question #32: What tool is currently used to trace all requirements and derived requirements within the SOFIA program? What change control process is used by SOFIA for configuration item change request?

Answer #32: Requirements are tracked using a Serena database. Additional information can be found in the SOFIA Program Configuration Management Plan (SOF- DF-PLA-PM03-1054), which will be included in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #33: Are all simulators included in the GFE list?

Answer #33: The Government Supplied Equipment list (RFP Attachment J.1(a)4) contains hardware items only. The Contractor is responsible for maintenance of the Telescope Assembly software simulator and the Telescope Assembly Alignment Simulator (TAAS), per SOW 3.7.5.5 and 3.9.2.6. These are the only simulators the contractor is responsible for maintaining.

Question #34: What is the NASA SOFIA (Program Management Board) PMB approved program schedule? Can the Government provide an example in the Bidders library? Who is responsible for maintaining it? What input is provided by the contractor to update this schedule (electronic, red lines?) What is the process and is it documented? What Software is used for the PMB approved schedule? How often is it updated? How often is the schedule published?

Answer #34: The Program Management Board (PMB) approved program schedule is the integrated schedule with Level 1 and Level 2 milestones. NASA is responsible for maintaining the schedule. See CDRL 310101 in the final RFP (Attachment J.1(a)2) for more details about the schedule. NASA will provide a top level summary of the schedule in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #35: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): Who is responsible for the IMS? What level of detail and resources does the IMS include? To what level and to whom does the Contractor provide inputs to? What software is used for the IMS? Is this a Core requirement?

Answer #35: NASA is responsible for maintaining the Integrated Master Schedule. See CDRL 310101 (RFP Attachment J.1(a)2) for more details about the contractor’s requirement for inputs to the schedule and the software format. Yes, this is a Core requirement.

Question #36: Who typically attends the COB meeting?

Answer #36: Attendance at the Contractor Oversight Board (COB) depends on the specific topic, but membership includes: Program Manager, Deputy PM, NASA Finance Manager, CO, COR, S&MA, Science Directorate, SMO Director, Contracts, and Finance.

Question #37: What are the agenda differences between the SOFIA Communications Working Group (CWG) meeting and the Public Engagement (PE) status meeting? The only difference in the attendees listing is that the German PAO does not participate in the PE status meeting.

Answer #37: The CWG meeting includes DLR and other public relations representatives associated with SOFIA and the purpose of the meeting is to develop and coordinate public outreach activities for SOFIA. The Public Engagement status meeting only includes the contractor and NASA representatives, and it is intended for the contractor to provide status to NASA on the public outreach activities.

Question #38: Who are typical members of the SIAT?

Answer #38: The membership of the Science Instrument Airworthiness Team (SIAT) depends on the specific topic, but typically includes the Operations Engineering Lead, Safety, and Structures.

Question #39: Given that SOFIA nominally produces 800 research hours annually, can the Government provide a mission by mission history for years 2012 - 2016 listing the historical data on flight hours, research hours, and data collection hours? If not all of this data is available, can the Government provide the data that is routinely recorded and reported to demonstrate mission science time collection.

Answer #39: A graph showing the planned and actual cumulative research hours for Cycle 3 is provided as an example in Figure 1, at the end of this document. See CDRL #310103 (RFP Attachment J.1(a)2) for details on the program data and metrics that are routinely collected.

Question #40: Will the Government provide data on planned versus actual research hours acquired?

Answer #40: See answer to #39.

Question #41: Will the Government provide the historical schedules for SOFIA observatory highlighting the aircraft and observatory maintenance periods?

Answer #41: Cycle 3 and Cycle 4 schedules will be provided in the final RFP (see answer to #12). The Cycle 4 schedule is the best nominal flight schedule. Prior schedules include development activities, which are not included in this contract.

Question #42: Will the Government provide statistics on how often flights are cancelled and for what reasons (weather, malfunctions, any other issues?).

Answer #42: The Government will provide the dispatch rate for Cycle 3 and the current cycle in the final RFP. See answer to #12.

Question #43: Given that each flight has 4-10 observation legs lasting 10 hours, how much of the 10 hours is actual data collection time?

Answer #43: As stated in the SOW (Section 1.0), there are nominally eight (8) or more hours of science per 10-hour overnight flight.

Question #44: Will the Government clarify what Director's Discretionary Time (DDT) is and what the guidelines are to manage this?

Answer #44: The SOW (3.4.3.12) will be updated to include more explanation of the Director's Discretionary Time (DDT). The DDT is approximately 7% of the total observation time. The SMO Director is authorized to use this time to optimize the science return of SOFIA.

Question #45: Will the Government explain how they prioritize who gets back into the queue when observation time is lost?

Answer #45: This is a contractor responsibility, as specified in Section 3.4.4 of the SOW.

Question #46: What drives the “15 working days after the last flight of an instrument series has landed” requirement for processing L1, L2 and L3 data?

Answer #46: This is a SOFIA program requirement.

Question #47: Do all of the instruments run on the same software in accordance with NASA mission operations software requirements?

Answer #47: No, software will vary by instrument, but all must comply with same Interface Control Documents (ICDs).

Question #48: Will the Government explain what observing time over-subscription rate means?

Answer #48: The "over-subscription rate" is the ratio of awarded research hours divided by the total number of proposed research hours resulting from the call for proposals.

Question #49: What are NASA's roles and responsibilities in the award of grant proposals?

Answer #49: Award of the grants is the responsibility of the contractor, as defined in the

SOW (3.4.2).

Question #50: Is the goal of 500 guests and observers an annual number? Does this imply that the Program expects to increase the frequency of flights?

Answer #50: SOW requirement 3.4.3.7 rationale will be clarified in the final RFP. NASA does not expect to increase the frequency of flights.

Question #51: IRSA is not included in the glossary

Answer #51: IRSA is InfraRed Science Archive. It will be added to the glossary.

Question #52: What are the anticipated contract award and contract start dates?

Answer #52: Contract award is currently anticipated on January 10, 2017.

Question #53: How confident is NASA that the award will be made according to the current schedule?

Answer #53: NASA’s goal is to award within 180 days of release of the final RFP.

Question #54: Will NASA provide historical contract cost or WYE level data?

Answer #54: NASA has provided historical nominal WYE levels for SOFIA operations (RFP Attachment J.1(b)8).

Question #55: What is the current contract cost ceiling?

Answer #55: The current contract value is about $600 million over the twenty year period of performance. The value of the one-year option, exercised in February 2016, was approximately $25 million, including the grants funding of approximately $3.8 million.

Question #56: Is L3 currently a subcontractor?

Answer #56: No.

Question #57: Does NASA have any "feel" for the annual cost of the Core requirement?

Answer #57: NASA estimates the Core to be approximately $20-25 million per year.

Question #58: Is NASA only requiring one key position?

Answer #58: Yes. NASA only requires that one position be designated key; however, offerors may propose up to 3 other key positions. This will be revised in the Final RFP.

Question #59: How will NASA evaluate Past Performance?

Answer #59: See Section M of the final RFP.

Question #60: The goals in the SOW state that NASA wants to increase the science use of SOFIA, but not necessarily the number of flights?

Answer #60: True, NASA does not intend to increase the flight rate. The goal refers to increasing the portion of the science community that uses and proposes to use

SOFIA.

Question #61: The SOW states that NASA has the goal to "Improve the science production efficiency." What does that mean?

Answer #61: Improving science production efficiency refers to producing more science data and peer reviewed science papers for less cost.

Question #62: If a contingency flight is needed, who has authority to schedule it?

Answer #62: The flight schedule is maintained by the SOFIA program office. When time permits, contingency flights are sometimes included as part of the flight series plan. In those cases where a flight is cancelled and a contingency flight opportunity is available, the SMO director makes a requests to the program to execute a contingency flight. The SMO director is not authorized to add additional flights to the schedule..

Question #63: Offerors do not have to estimate head count for IDIQ tasks? Are Core staff never used on IDIQ tasks?

Answer #63: Section L of the final RFP will state the requirements for addressing IDIQ tasks in the proposal. Contract staffing is determined solely by the contractor. The requirement is to maintain the Core operational performance in parallel with IDIQ tasks.

Question #64: There is no flight planning tool on the CD (Attachment J.1(b)10). Will that be provided?

Answer #64: A list of software tools will be provided in the solicitation, as an attachment to Section J of the RFP.

Question #65: Is the current contractor ISO9001 compliant?

Answer #65: Yes, the current contract requirement is to be ISO9001 compliant

Question #66: What requirements are Core versus IDIQ?

Answer #66: All the requirements in the SOW are Core. There are no IDIQ-specific requirements in the SOW. IDIQ tasks will be within the general technical scope of the SOW and are anticipated to be hardware or software development tasks.

There is no hardware development in the Core requirements.

Question #67: SOFIA documentation states that the selection of the SMO director must be a unanimous decision of the selection board. Is that the case?

Answer #67: Offerors propose a SMO Director in response to this solicitation. This SMO Director candidate will be approved as Key Personnel with award of the contract. The intent of the board is to allow NASA and DLR to suggest candidates for consideration by the contractor in the event that the SMO Director is replaced during the performance of the contract. The decision on who to select is entirely up to the contractor per the Key personnel clause in the RFP.

Question #68: There are currently 8 or 9 contractors under the FILMSS contract that support SOFIA. Will that change under the new S&MO contract?

Answer #68: As SOFIA support tasks end on the Fully Integrated Lifecycle Mission Support Services (FILMSS), requirements that are in scope may be appropriately procured through this contract.

Question #69: Some of the documents on the CD (RFP Attachment J.1(b)10) do not include signatures. Are there approved versions of these documents?

Answer #69: Not all of the documents include a signature page.

Question #70: Does NASA maintain these documents (RFP Attachment J.1(b)10) on Windchill?

Answer #70: Yes, they are maintained on Windchill.

Question #71: What is SOFIA management's biggest concern about contract transition?

Answer #71: As conveyed in Section M, the primary concern during contract transition is maintaining continuity of operations and safety. NASA chose to use a 60-day, rather than 45-day, phase-in to help ensure a successful transition.

Question #72: Are the small business goals fixed?

Answer #72: NASA conducted a full review and analysis of the requirements and market research in order to develop the small business goals in the draft RFP. As stated in Section L, Offerors are encouraged to propose approaches that exceed the goals.

Question #73: The small business goals were based on market research?

Answer #73: Yes. See response to previous question.

Question #74: What is the philosophy behind the 18-year performance period?

Answer #74: The program is designed for a 20-year operations life. SOFIA operations began in 2014, so there are roughly 18 years of operational performance left in the program. Beginning in 2018 the SOFIA program will undergo a NASA

Senior Review, which will nominally occur every two years. According to the Program Commitment Agreement (August 2015) Section 4.8, “SOFIAs prime mission duration shall be defined as 5 years from the end of the fiscal year during which SOFIA entered Phase E (i.e., the prime mission phase Sept. 30, 2019)" and Section 4.9 states, “Long term plans for sustainment of the observatory shall preserve the capability for 20 years of operations (i.e., through May 2034)."

Question #75: Can NASA provide examples of IDIQ tasks?

Answer #75: An IDIQ task description will be included in the RFP for pricing and evaluation purposes. Several other task descriptions will be included in the RFP for information only. These tasks will not be priced or evaluated for award of the contract.

Question #76: Are there other examples of IDIQ tasks, such as IT?

Answer #76: Software development upgrades may be IDIQ tasks. Maintenance of existing IT hardware is a Core requirement.

Question #77: Given that USRA has had the contract for 20 years, has NASA made an effort to make sure everyone has the same information?

Answer #77: NASA developed the requirements to be as clear and complete as possible.

NASA is also providing a large set of technical and operational documents to offerors by request. Other data is available publically online. Offerors are encouraged to learn as much about the operation of SOFIA from all available sources.

Question #78: Are there any transition activities under the current contract?

Answer #78: Yes, NASA will ensure that appropriate support for the transition is in place.

Question #79: Are you confident that all custom software developed under the current program doesn’t have license or proprietary issues?

Answer #79: NASA retains the rights to all the software required for performance under the follow-on contract.

Question #80: Does NASA anticipate any staffing challenges on the new contract?

Answer #80: The solicitation requires Offerors to address a staffing approach in their proposals. See Section L of the RFP.

Question #81: Are there any major plans for upgrades to SOFIA?

Answer #81: The most significant upgrade to SOFIA that is planned are new science instruments. The instruments are developed by other contractors, but this contract will support the development through IDIQ tasks. The instruments will be operated and maintained under this contract.

Question #82: The IDIQ tasks are likely to be very specialized. Is the staff that is supporting the Core requirements expected to support IDIQ tasks?

Answer #82: NASA expects the offerors to describe their approach for staffing IDIQ tasks.

Question #83: How confident is NASA that it can maintain the currently published solicitation schedule?

Answer #83: NASA is proceeding in accordance with its plan, and it will continue to monitor the schedule as it proceeds through the acquisition process.

Question #84: Does NASA see a problem with a small business being a subcontractor on multiple proposals?

Answer #84: No.

Question #85: Effective science communications and successful public outreach requires unique expertise in informal science education, science communications, and social media. To ensure the selection of "best of breed" for both science management and public engagement, would NASA consider separating the outreach portion of the SOFIA program under a separate call for proposals?

Answer #85: Science communications and public outreach requirements are tightly integrated into the overall objectives and performance of the entire SOW and will therefore remain part of the final SOW.

Question #86: In para 3.1.2.1, the SOW requires inputs to the SOFIA IMS whereas the CDRL list requires that the contractor submit, "updates to the contractor schedule".

Please clarify whether the deliverable is inputs to the SOFIA IMS or details related to an internal contractor schedule.

Answer #86: The CDRL 310101 states "The contractor submits its summary schedule and status information to the program that is integrated into the Integrated Milestone Schedule (IMS)" as part of the monthly reporting. The intent is that each month the contractor schedule is updated. This updated schedule and related information is passed to the program that then integrates it into the IMS.

Question #87: In RFP F.3, Place of Performance, the RFP states: "The Contractor shall perform the work under this contract at NASA Ames Research Center, Armstrong Flight Research Center and at other locations as directed by the Ames Research Center Contracting Officer." Based on the text is F.3, please clarify whether SOW 3.3.1.4 is intended to mean "contractor or subcontractor utilized and government provided facilities".

Answer #87: Yes, the intent is to include Government provided facilities.

Question #88: The draft SOW lists CDRL 310310 as the Software Acceptance Data Package whereas Attachment J.1(a)2 lists CDRL 310310 as the "Recommendations for improvements in program processes and procedures". Please clarify.

Answer #88: The CDRL numbering in the SOW and attachment J.1(a)2 is inconsistent in some places. Any errors will be corrected in the final solicitation release.

Question #89: Will there be an opportunity for the scientific staff to devote a fraction of their time to scientific research under the Statement of Work?

Answer #89: SOW requirement 2.1.1 requires that the "contractor shall provide and maintain a skilled workforce with expertise and training necessary to meet the requirements". It is anticipated that some contractor WYEs will be funded, under this contract, to do independent research. Offerors will propose their planned approach for this activity and the Government will evaluate it. The language in RFP Section L and M will be revised to reflect this.

Question #90: Is the position of "SOFIA communications lead" (SOW 3.4.1.7) a contractor on this contract or a civil servant? If the latter, is it someone in the SOFIA program office or NASA HQ or NASA Ames, and should it also appear in 3.1.7.2 and

3.1.7.4 as part of the SOFIA Communications Working Group?

Answer #90: The SOFIA Communications Lead identified in SOW 3.4.1.7 is a civil servant in the SOFIA program office. SOW Requirements 3.1.7.2 and 3.1.7.4 refer to this position as the "SOFIA Program,"

Question #91: Please confirm that the 5 instruments listed in 3.4.6.2 should be considered the total number of facility class SOFIA instruments.

Answer #91: There are four facility science instruments that are operated and maintained by this contract and are identified in 3.7.3.2 of the SOW. This requirement addresses the data processing software for the instruments. This includes the four facility science instruments, the EXES (Echelon-cross-Echelle Spectrograph) PI instrument, and the Focal Plane Imager. EXES is a Principle Investigator instrument but the data processing software used by the PI team is resident with the four facility class instruments. The Focal Plane Imager is an integral part of the telescope but is offered as a science instrument and data processing is performed by this contract. As new instruments are developed and existing instruments are retired the contract will be modified accordingly.

Question #92: Please confirm that the contractor is responsible for both the Mirror Coating Facility (MCF) and inspection and maintenance of the primary and secondary mirrors.

Answer #92: Yes, the contractor is responsible for the MCF (see SOW 3.7.5.2), and the inspection and maintenance of the primary and secondary mirror reflective surfaces.

Question #93: Given the unique science requirements of SOFIA, would the government consider specifying that a past performance reference must include technical performance in a similar science research program?

Answer #93: The Government will evaluate the relevance of all past performance submitted in accordance with Section M of the RFP.

Question #94: Under Cover Letter, should the L.8(b)(2) reference be L.7 (b) (2)?

Answer #94: Yes, the reference should be L.7(b)(2). It will be corrected in the final RFP.

Question #95: Under Management Approach, should Project Management be Science Management and should Management Plan be Project Management?

Answer #95: Yes, the Management Approach should include "Science Management" and "Project Management." It will be corrected in the final RFP.

Question #96: Under Management Approach, should Element 1 be Science Management instead of Project Management? Should Element 2 be Project Management instead of Management Plan?

Answer #96: Yes, elements 1 and 2 should be "Science Management" and "Project Management," respectively. It will be corrected in the final RFP.

Question #97: Is the Management Plan identified the same as CDRL 310100? Is this plan excluded from the specified page count for Project Management?

Answer #97: The proposed management plan is included in the page count for Volume 1 (Section L.8(a) of the RFP). The proposal management plan serves as the initial deliverable for CDRL 310100.

Question #98: Will the German Aerospace Center, DLR, participate in source selection or proposal evaluation activities for this procurement?

Answer #98: No, NASA is solely responsible for evaluating proposals and awarding the contract.

Question #99: Would the government consider changing the page limit requirements for the sample scenarios to 30 pages total for the six scenarios rather than 5 pages per scenario?

Answer #99: The RFP will be updated to clarify that the page limit is a total of 30 pages.

Question #100: Are the Commitment Letters, Position Descriptions and Resumes excluded from the key personnel 2 page count limit?

Answer #100: Commitment Letters, Position Descriptions and Resumes are excluded from the key personnel 2-page count limit in the Management Approach section.

However, those items have their own page limits, as defined in RFP Section L.8(c).

Question #101: Volume II contains a page limit of 5. Is this the total amount for all references or for each relevant contract?

Answer #101: The 5-page limit applies to all the Past Performance information requested in RFP Sections L.9(b)(1) thru L.9(b)3) for the prime and major subcontractors.

The page count does not include past performance questionnaires.

Question #102: At the Ames Industry Day, we understood the Contracting Officer to say that the Past Performance evaluation would in no case be negative but would at most be “neutral” in terms of evaluation impact. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.

Answer #102: The evaluation criteria for the Past Performance proposals are described in Section M of the RFP. The comments at the Industry Day presentation were in response to a question about the evaluation of Past Performance in which there is a lack of relevant experience. According to the RFP, "If an Offeror does not have any relevant past performance history as determined herein, it will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be given a neutral level of assessment."

Question #103: Why is the contractor not supporting the Program Control and Safety & Mission Assurance (SM&A) functions? Is this support provided by another contractor or only civil servants?

Answer #103: The contractor responsibilities for Program Management and Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) are described in SOW Sections 3.1 and 3.3, respectively.

NASA has a role to oversee the implementation of these functions.

Question #104: Please describe what items are considered to be non-mission essential equipment, tools, and office equipment? (Office supplies are understood). Will a Bill of Materials be provided for estimating these items for the price proposal?

If no, then how will an offeror estimate the costs of the non-mission essential items? Is this considered a Core or IDIQ activity? Please explain the category.

Answer #104: The contractor will determine what non-mission essential equipment, tools, and office equipment are necessary to meet the requirements. The final RFP will include an estimate for Core ODCs, not including travel. Offerors are required to estimate travel costs based on their approach to meeting the requirements.

Question #105: The RFP asks for costs for the Core and Phase-In, but not IDIQ. Will NASA provide rates for the IDIQ tasks, or a plug-in value?

Answer #105: The final RFP will include one sample IDIQ task. Offerors will be asked to respond with a staffing approach and cost estimate.

Question #106: Given the relatively long (18 year) possible term of the contract, would the government consider amending the definition of a “Major Subcontractor” to be those providing a total value of $1.6M in any contract year or in excess of $30M over the life of the contract?

Answer #106: The definition of a “Major Subcontractor” for pricing purposes will be revised in the final RFP to those providing a total value of $4,000,000.00 or more for the total eighteen-year period of performance.

Question #107: The draft RFP appears to depart from the guidelines at FAR 22.1103 for use of the clause FAR 52.222-46 by proposing to limit the requirement to provide a Total Compensation Plan to all service subcontractors (1) with proposed cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value in excess of $500,000 and (2) the cumulative value of all their service subcontracts under the proposed prime contract in excess of 10 percent of the prime contract's total potential value. Please confirm that is NASA’s intention.

Answer #107: NASA will revise the final RFP to require the application of 52.222-46 to service subcontracts expected to exceed $700,000.00.

Question #108: Due the importance of continuity of operations for the program and the high risk associated with a non-incumbent capture approach, it is critical that all bidders are provided with the historical incumbent direct labor rates as a means for equal competition. Would the Government please provide the weighted average historical direct labor rates for the incumbent workforce?

Answer #108: The Government will not provide incumbent labor rates, as this data is proprietary to the incumbent contractor. Offerors should use the best data available to them to propose labor rates on the contract. If it is an Offeror’s intent to capture the incumbent employees and bring them on at their current salaries, the Government will make Probable Cost adjustments when performing the Cost Realism analysis to reflect what the Offeror’s proposed approach would cost the Government if incumbent employees are hired on at their current salaries.

Question #109: Due to the significant historical data available to the Government for non-labor costs for the program and the importance of this cost element for equal competition, would the Government please provide the historical non-labor cost data to all bidders?

Answer #109: The Government is revising the RFP to include an estimate for ODCs, not including travel. This estimate has been inserted into the Cost Template Workbook. Offerors are required to estimate travel costs based on their approach to meeting the requirements.

Figure 1

Cycle 3 Cumulative Research Hours

(see Answer #39)

3/1/15 6/1/15 9/1/15 12/2/15

R

ES

EA

R C H H O U R S

Date

Plan

Actual

April Downtime

August Downtim e

Deployment

Icing, Engine #1, CECS

Engine #1

CECS

Engine #2

Engine #2

Fuel Leak

December Downtime

Throttle Clutch