SimLabs_III_Final_RFP_Q&A_Set_2_-_03_02_2017.pdf

Technical Services for Aerospace Modeling and Simulation (SimLabs) III

NNA17568278R

Final RFP Question & Answer Set 2 March 1, 2017

1. Respectfully request a two week extension on the proposal due date.

Forthcoming Amendment 02 will extend the due date for proposals one week to March 27, 2017.

The due dates for the past performance reference contract list and completed questionnaires will be revised to March 13, 2017 and March 20, 2017, respectively.

2. The chart in L.7(n) shows the time for the presentation to be 150 minutes and is not consistent with the statement in L.7(h). Can the Government please clarify the time limit?

There is no L.7(n) in the final RFP. The time limit for the oral presentation is 150 minutes as indicated in L.7(h) and the chart in L.7(k).

3. Will the Government please allow a Cover page slide and acronym list slide(s) for the Volume I Mission Suitability and Volume II Past Performance oral presentation slides to be excluded from page count to facilitate Government source selection? It is understood that these pages for both Volumes would not be briefed.

Yes. Amendment 02 will revise Provision L.6 to indicate that title slides and acronym lists are excluded from the specified slide counts.

4. L.8(b)(1) [page L-9] states “For each major subcontractor, a list of not more than three (3) relevant contracts, each in excess of $1,500,000 total contract value or an average of $300,000 per year.”

L.9 [page L-21] states “Note: For purposes of the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule, Major Subcontractor is defined as a company that the Offeror anticipates providing at least $2,000,000 of contract value in the support of the Statement of Work.”

There is a conflict between the value of major subcontractor relevant contracts cited on page L-9 ($1.5M) and page L-21 ($2M), which is it?

For purposes of the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule, “major subcontractor” is defined as a company that the Offeror anticipates providing at least $2,000,000 of contract value in the support of the Statement of Work for the proposed SimLabs contract. This value is indicated in Provision L.9.

Similarly, for purposes of the Past Performance volume, “major subcontractor” is defined as subcontracting dollars of $2,000,000 or more covering a performance period of up to five (5) years on the proposed SimLabs contract. This value is indicated in Provision L.8 paragraph (b).

The values addressed by Provision L.8 paragraph (b)(1) refer to contracts the Offeror or major subcontractors have completed or are currently performing on.

Final RFP Q&A Set 2

5. Recommend consideration in adjusting the assigned weights in the Mission Suitability matrix on page M-5 of the RFP as follows: Management Approach 400, Technical Approach 600. The rationale for the increased weight under Technical Approach is the Outreach task should be given additional weight as the ability of the contractor to bring new work to NASA Ames SIMLAB is critical to its survival. Offerors with the most innovative and viable approach for performing this critical function should receive appropriate scoring credit. Revising the weighting will make this possible.

The Government believes the current assigned weights for Mission Suitability accurately reflect the priorities of the contract.

6. The J.1 (b) Attachment 3 Cost Template Workbook lists labor categories that are not included in J.1 (b) Attachment 1 Standard Labor Category (SLC) Descriptions. Specifically

– the Principal Software Engineer II, Senior Software Engineer II, Senior Simulation Engineer II, Simulation Experiments Manager, and Technical Intern II. Will the Government please provide the missing SLC descriptions?

Exhibits 8 and 9 of J.1(b) Attachment 3 Cost Template Workbook will be revised to reflect the information in J.1(b) Attachment 1 Standard Labor Category (SLC) Descriptions. The revised workbook will be provided with Amendment 02. Note that the SLC Descriptions are provided as a guide for technical/non-management positions only.

7. According to the Cost Volume instructions, Exhibit 1 must be filled in by both the Prime and each Major Subcontractor. If so, does there need to be an additional line item in the upper left hand corner of the exhibit for the name of the major subcontractor?

The upper left hand corner of Exhibit 1 will be revised to read “Proposing Entity” instead of “Prime Contractor Company Name.” The revised workbook will be provided with Amendment 02.

8. Should the Major Subcontractor sanitized Exhibits (2a, 3a, 4a) be included in the Prime contractor’s submission of the J.1 (b) Attachment 3 Cost Template Workbook? If so and the Prime has more than one Major Subcontractor, should the Prime include multiple tabs for each sub Exhibit (2a, 3a, 4a)? i.e., Major Sub 1 Exhibit 2a, Major Sub 2 Exhibit 2a, etc.

Yes, the Major Subcontractor sanitized Exhibits (2a, 3a,4a) should be included in the Prime contractor’s submission of the J.1(b) Attachment3 Cost Template Workbook and if the Prime has multiple Major Subcontractors, each Major Subcontractor’s information should be shown under a separate tab in the Prime’s Cost Proposal.

9. Does the plug number for SME Recruitment (L.8.c.3, pg. L-15) include the costs of travel associated with bringing the SMEs to the NASA Ames Research Center?

Yes, the SME Recruitment estimate includes cost of travel.

10. Does the ODC plug number (L.8.c.3, pg. L-15) include all materials that the Government contemplates purchasing through the Contractor?

Yes. Please note that this estimate is based on historical data and may not reflect future purchases.

Final RFP Q&A Set 2

11. The table provided in the RFP for escalation suggests that offerors' use of the rates provided are fair and reasonable for escalation. Understanding that these rates came from NASA headquarters, can the Government please provide the rationale for the escalation rates proposed by NASA?

The escalation rates provided in the table are the latest NASA has obtained from Global Insight.

They have been developed from specific industry labor categories which are germane to NASA’s business/function.

12. For the Final Report (CDRL 2), is it the Government's intent to have the performance of the entire 5 year period summarized in a single document or is the expectation for a yearly submission at the end of each year, including the base year and each option year?

It is the Government's intent to have the entire contract period of performance summarized in a single document (i.e., not annually).

13. For the Initial Financial Management Report (CDRL 05), the Government's submission instructions are inconsistent. The Description says 10 days after effective date of contract and the Frequency/Delivery Date section says 30 days after effective date. Can the Government please clarify?

The Initial Financial Management Report is due 30 days after the effective date of the contract.

Amendment 02 will provide a revised CDRL.

14. The Government provided no instructions for the initial delivery of the Experiment Management Plan (CDRL 29). Like other plans, would the Government consider this to be submitted at the end of the Phase-In period?

The Government expects the contractor to review the existing plan and notify the Government by the end of the Phase-In Period whether it will abide by the plan or submit updates/revisions.

Amendment 02 will provide a revised CDRL.

15. The Government provided no instructions for the initial delivery of the Equipment Operations/Maintenance Plan (CDRL 32). Like other plans, would the Government consider this to be submitted at the end of the Phase-In period?

The Government expects the contractor to review the existing plan and notify the Government by the end of the Phase-In Period whether it will abide by the plan or submit updates/revisions.

Amendment 02 will provide a revised CDRL.