Amendment_5_28JAN16.pdf

ADDENDUM to 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS;

COMMERCIAL ITEMS PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

IMPORTANT NOTES:

1. The Government is requiring offerors to submit a Notice of Intent to Propose (NOI) via email to the Contract Specialist not later than 2 calendar weeks prior to the proposal response date.

Submitting an NOI does not obligate the offeror to submit a proposal, but the offeror must first submit the NOI in order to propose. The details for submittal can be found in Paragraph C below.

2. Beginning with this Amendment, the Government will only accept proposals in response to this solicitation via electronic means. The instructions for obtaining a link that will allow secure transfer of the offeror’s files can be found in Paragraph C below.

3. Offerors shall ensure that they are responding to the latest amendment to the RFP, which contains changes in format and content of the proposals.

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors are cautioned that simply restating the PWS without any supporting details will result in the proposal being rejected as non-responsive. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes; Volume I - Technical Proposal, Volume II - Past Performance Information, and Volume III - Price Proposal.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion adequate price competition exists, no additional price information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine if the proposed price is considered fair and reasonable.

C. Specific Instructions:

Proposals shall be submitted in electronic form only. Proposals shall be submitted as described in each of the following sections All electronic documents shall be provided as standard "portable document format"

(pdf) readable by both MS Windows and Apple OS X computers. Offerors are cautioned NOT to submit electronic documents in an editable word processing format. Electronic files shall not contain any extraneous information beyond that required in this document. Proposal files shall be clearly marked with

RFP number identification, date of submittal, and company nomenclature to enable the Government to clearly identify the origin and purpose of the submittal. Individual files shall be clearly identified with the proposal volume and company name: "Company XXX Volume I -Technical", "Company XXX Volume II –

Past Performance", "Company XXX Volume III -Price", where "Company XXX" is the name of the proposing entity. Offeror may also include a cover letter of not more than two pages. Any additional required data, such as representations and/or certifications or other signed documents, shall be included as scanned pdf format files.

A NOI (Notice of Intent to Propose) is required two calendar weeks prior to the proposal due date.

The NOI shall be sent via email to the Contract Specialist (email address listed below) and contain ONLY the following information:

Name of proposing entity (offeror)

Address of offeror

Name, title, corporate affiliation, phone number, and email address for offeror’s point of contract for this solicitation

Profile(s) to be proposed

Qualified vehicle(s) (QV) to be proposed

Use “NOI: NND14480735R, Company XXXX” for the email subject line (where “company

XXX” is your company’s name; e.g. “NOI: NND14480735R, Acme Rocket Company”).

Once the Contract Specialist receives an NOI, the offeror’s POC will be sent the information on how to submit the proposal via secure electronic file transfer.

Please note: Offerors shall ensure that submittals are complete and readable, and are RECEIVED by the

Government on the date and time indicated in this solicitation. The Government will not evaluate late proposals.

Please use the following address to submit the NOI:

Email: ZACHARY WRIGHT <zachary.m.wright@nasa.gov>

(DO NOT submit actual proposals to this address).

Proposal packages shall include all information required by the RFP, as described in the latest amendment.

OFFERORS SHALL NOT INCLUDE any extraneous material, such as sales brochures or other non-required information. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple files rather than one large file, using one file for each required proposal volume, in order to separate the various volumes for clarity.

If a proposal page count exceeds the limits for each part as stated below, the additional pages will be discarded and those pages will not be evaluated; excess pages in electronic submittals will be removed from the files prior to distribution to the evaluators.

1. PART I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than 15 pages total, unless the offeror is providing a technical proposal for multiple flight profiles, in which case they may add 5 pages for each additional flight profile. Please note: cover pages, tables of contents, and indices do NOT count against the page limit. The technical volume shall consist of three separate parts: a part that describes any proposed vehicle or vehicle(s), a part that describes an operational plan, and a part that describes a technology payload integration process.

a. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates by successful flight(s) that the QV or

QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the

PWS. “Successful flights” shall be test flights or flights for pay, that were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact and whose salient characteristics closely approach one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics, including payload mass and altitude achieved. The description shall also demonstrate that the QV meets the minimum PWS requirements for reusability. (REF: PWS Sects 4.1, 5., 4.2.3, 4.2.4).

b. The Offeror shall describe any proposed deviations from the Flight Profile requirements

(including but not limited to, maximum altitude, mass, and volume), along with the rationale for the deviations. The Government will also consider innovative approaches that improve upon the listed profile requirements provided that such approaches fall within the general scope of the existing PWS. (REF: PWS Sect 5.).

c. The Offeror shall describe in detail the routine capabilities and operating limits (for commercial use) of each vehicle in terms of payload mass per payload slot, number of payload slots, the maximum mass, volume, and configuration of each payload slot; flight profile(s) including times to various altitudes; available electrical power, environmental, and other experiment interfaces. (REF: PWS Sect 5.).

d. Where applicable, the offeror shall describe his/her capabilities for periods at reduced or micro gravity, including measured quality of reduced gravity and methodology for this measurement, and maximum available time at reduced gravity. (REF: PWS Sect 5.1, 5.5).

e. The Offeror shall provide an operational plan clearly demonstrating that it can perform flights (1) independent of Government assistance; (2) with full responsibility for flight safety, mission assurance, and environmental compliance in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations; (3) with full responsibility for QV systems engineering, payload integration, and other required services; and (4) with provision for access to launch facilities by Government observers. The operational plan shall also include a brief description on how the Offeror will respond to each Mission Implementation Document

(MID). (Note: for MID process, please see Attachment D). (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3).

f. The Offeror shall provide sufficient evidence within the operational plan that they possess applicable licenses, permits, or waivers from the appropriate regulatory agency, or provide sufficient explanation of why such items are not applicable to their proposed

QV(s). (REF: PWS Sect 6.2).

g. If the Offeror is subcontracting for flight services, then the Offeror shall provide the subcontracting agreement. Similarly, if the Offeror is subcontracting for payload integration services, then the Offeror shall provide the subcontracting agreement.

h. The Offeror shall provide a description of their Payload Integration process. The Process shall include a Payload Acceptance and Readiness Review and a System Safety and

Mission Risk Assessment, and describe what the Offeror will provide to the payload providers within the Payload Users Guide (PUG). (REF PWS Sect 6.3).

i. Offeror shall describe their general operational plan, including: (1) how the Offeror will assure the physical security of payloads before and after flights; (2) the Offeror’s approach for vehicle and payload recovery; and (3) how the Offeror will provide access to payloads by payload providers. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.5, 4.2.6).

2. PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Limited to no more than 2 pages per contract referenced. Only references for the same or similar type contracts desired.

a. Offeror shall provide a detailed description of services provided for each contract referenced and an associated statement of relevancy for those services towards the requirements of this solicitation.

b. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

c. Performance Surveys: The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP using surveys (NOTE:

surveys will only be sent to past or current entities that the offeror has had contact with, including but not limited to those provided in the past performance description, by the offeror and delivered directly to the Contract Specialist). The Government will use information submitted by the offeror, the surveys, and other sources deemed necessary, such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance.

The offeror provided portion which is subject to the page limitation is a list of no more than five (5) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the present RFP.

Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

i. Company/Division name

ii. Product/Service

iii. Contracting Agency/Customer

iv. Contract Number

v. Contract Dollar Value

vi. Period of Performance

vii. Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

viii. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

ix. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

d. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

If a teaming arrangement is proposed, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

3. PART III - PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments.

The SOLICITATION includes the model contract.

b. Provide the following parameters of each proposed qualified vehicle or qualified vehicle family at a minimum:

(1) Maximum achievable altitude given the heaviest (mass) flight configuration, and

(2) Nominal flight profile, meaning the flight profile that is most commonly offered on the commercial market.

c. Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Pricing Schedule. Prices shall be proposed for each year of services, consisting of a base period of three years, commencing in calendar year 2016 upon receiving a signed contract from the Government. Offeror shall show the price for one flight for a standard payload of the Offeror's choice. Pricing shall include both full manifest and individual payload slot pricing (if applicable to the proposed

QV) for each year of the contract, beginning in calendar year 2016. For the purpose of pricing, Offeror shall assume that the Government will purchase (via task order) only one flight or one payload slot for each year for each flight vehicle or family of vehicles. The proposal shall contain the following information to be considered responsive:

i. Pricing for each year of the three-year base contract years.

ii. Burdened hourly rates by year for each applicable labor category for the three base years. These hourly rates are for non-standard services and/or special projects that are not defined at this time and could be required during the performance of this contract.

iii. Other quantity discounts or other innovative approaches for NASA to realize price savings in the performance of the first task order. This portion includes any potential non-standard services that could be anticipated for the performance of the first task order.

d. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested.

However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

e. The competed provisions FAR 52.212-3 shall be returned along with the proposal.

A. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (CLINs & PWS) and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award as listed below under “ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2, BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD”.

3. Format for proposal Parts I and II shall be as follows:

a. The proposals will be in a format equivalent to 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

b. A page is defined as the equivalent of one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

c. Typing shall not be smaller than 12 point, Times New Roman font.

d. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

If a proposal does not follow this format, the incorrectly formatted pages will be discarded and those pages will not be evaluated; incorrectly formatted pages in electronic submittals will be removed from the files prior to distribution to the evaluators.

4. Format for proposal Part III (Price) may be on spreadsheets and as narrative information, as applicable, but shall not include extraneous narration or data in excess of that required by this

RFP. Spreadsheets shall not be smaller than 10 point, Times New Roman font.

52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items. (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the

Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) PRICE

Technical acceptability must be met. Past performance is significantly more important than price.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION;

COMMERCIAL ITEMS BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

NASA anticipates a multiple-award contract. This is a competitive, best value source selection in which the past performance history of each Technically Acceptable proposal will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. PROPOSALS DEEMED TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE WILL BE

CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE OVERALL AND WILL NOT BE FURTHER EVALUATED.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Technically Acceptable or

Unacceptable. The proposals will be evaluated against the following factors (Technically

Acceptable proposals shall meet ALL listed factors):

1. Offeror has relevant operational capability: Offeror’s proposal provides proof that conclusively demonstrates by successful flight(s) that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles described in the PWS. A “successful flight” is a test flight or a flight for pay, that was launched and recovered successfully with payload intact and whose salient characteristics closely approach or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile requirements, including payload mass and altitude achieved. When evaluating proposed QV capabilities, the Government will consider any proposed deviations from the Flight Profile requirements, along with the rationale for those deviations, and any proposed innovative approaches for meeting PWS requirements. (REF:

PWS Sects 4.1, 5.)

2. Offeror can provide commercial services, independently: Offeror proposes an operating plan with sufficient evidence that it can operate QV(s) to fly standard technology payloads at a commercial level (assumes full responsibility for up to but not limited to the following items: Flight Safety, Mission Assurance, and Environmental compliance in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations), independent of assistance from the requiring authority (NASA), with applicable permits, licenses, waivers, and/or flight approvals from the appropriate regulatory agencies, unless the contractor provides sufficient justification of why such items are not applicable to their proposed QV or QV family(s). (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.1, 6.2).

3. Offeror can respond appropriately to task orders: Offeror proposes an operational plan that addresses security and recoverability of payloads, how it will submit conforming deliverables at the task order level, and how access by payload providers and Government observers will be provided. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.5, 8., 4.2.6, 4.2.2).

4. Proposed QV or QV family is reusable: Offeror provides evidence that the QV or QV family being proposed meets the requirements for reusability as defined in the PWS. (REF: PWS Sect 4.2.4).

B. Performance Confidence Assessment. Next, using questionnaires and/or other resources that are available to the contracting officer, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all proposals deemed “Technically Acceptable” on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of “Very High Level of Confidence”, “High Level of

Confidence”, “Moderate Level of Confidence”, “Neutral (or Unknown Confidence)”, “Low Level of Confidence”, and “Very Low Level of Confidence” as defined in NASA Far Supplement (NFS)

Section 1815.305. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving comprehensive commercial space flight and integration services that are similar to or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive a rating of “Neutral,” which will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Conversely, key personnel who have relevant experience will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror because of the commercial nature of this acquisition. In evaluating past performance, the

Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

C. Price Evaluation. Next, the Government will apply Price Analysis techniques to the proposed pricing, to determine if proposed prices are "fair and reasonable" compared to known standards for similar services. The price analysis will include the total prices for the three base years, assuming one flight per year in the most basic configuration with no non-standard services. The Government will use the proposed prices for a single payload slot and/or a full manifest as applicable. The

Government will also separately evaluate the proposed hourly burdened rates and labor categories, and the prices for non-standard services. Although the price volume is not numerically scored and receives no adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the requirement and the resources required to satisfy it. An overall determination of "fair and reasonable" pricing will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

D. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision to one or multiple offerors.

E. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Clause

52.212-1. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

F. The government intends to award a contract or multiple contracts without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of provision)