Questions_and_Answers.pdf

1. Section J.1, Item H (OCI Avoidance Plan) and Item I (IT Security Plan) is listed as “TBP” which implies “To Be Proposed”, but are not part of the proposal submission. OCI and IT

Security Plans are to be submitted 30 days after “Contract Effective Date” per Section B

Page 6. Suggest the table be updated to reflect “To be Supplied” for these two plans.

Response: The OCI Avoidance Plan (Item H) and IT Security Management Plan (Item I) shall both be provided thirty (30) calendar days after contract award. See amendment for revision.

2. Section L, Subfactor A, Risks, RFP States: “For the following critical sections of the SOW

(Sections 4, 5 and 9), the offeror shall list in order of significance, four services (subsections) whose execution presents the most risk to the success of the SMA program.”

Does the Government intend for offerors to describe 4 subsections in total for all the sections identified or 4 subsections for each of the sections, for a total of 12?

Response: The Government intends for 4 subsections for each of the sections, for a total of

12. See amendment for revision/clarification.

3. Position Qualifications, The Position Qualifications required within Subfactor B, Management Approach of the Mission Suitability Volume are currently included within the

75 page limit. Will the Government consider excluding the Position Qualifications from the page limitations as these may constitute a large portion of the current 75-page limit? For reference – the Government Pricing Model (GPM)-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor

Categories’ Position Descriptions included in Enclosure 4 are 15 pages long. Including the

Position Descriptions within the page limitations will impact the offerors’ ability to describe their technical and management approaches, limiting the Government’s ability to make an informed evaluation of proposals.

Response: The RFP is amended to allow for position qualifications for all labor categories to be excluded from the page limitation. However, each position qualification shall not exceed ½ a page. See amendment for revision.

4. Staffing Plan, In the Section L Management Volume Instructions, the paragraph requesting a Phase in Plan (which is excluded from the page count requirements) is immediately followed by a paragraph requesting a Staffing Plan that includes some Phase-in elements (i.e., incumbent staffing). Is it the Government’s intent for the Staffing Plan to be included within the Phase in Plan, or separately within the Management Volume (and subject to the 75-page limit)?

Response: No, the staffing plan shall not be included within the phase-in plan.

5. Transmittal Letter, Can the Government please add the transmittal letter to the items that are excluded from page count?

Response: The transmittal letter shall be excluded from the page count. See amendment for revision.

6. The scenario description defines different start times for SMA support for the purposes of our response. The scenario states: “For planning purposes, SMA support will begin post Mission

SRR and culminate 30 days post launch, in accordance with the following project schedule….” The Scenario also states: “The SMAS II contractor shall provide details on the plans for SMA support from concept through launch.” Can the Government clarify when the

SMA support should start for the purposes of answering this scenario?

Response: The SMA support shall start post SRR through 30 days past launch. See amendment for scenario revision.

7. Enclosure 2 – Contract Historical Data has hourly rates for current incumbent staff that were last escalated in June of 2015. By the time the SMAS II contract starts, the incumbent workforce will have received 2 additional annual escalations. This results in a direct competitive disadvantage to the incumbent contractor as the current incumbent employees’ direct labor rates are already higher than the rates provided in Enclosure 2.

If offerors propose to capture the incumbent workforce AND bid the rates provided in

Enclosure 2, will the Government allow an adjustment of the contract rates upon award to match the current incumbent direct labor rates or will the Government require for incumbents to take a reduction in direct labor rates back to June of 2015 levels?

Alternatively – will the Government consider instructing offerors that intend to capture incumbents to use the incumbent direct labor rates provided in Enclosure 2 (after adjusting for escalation to SMAS II Contract Start) in developing their proposed rates?

Response: The historical data provided under Enclosure 2 is for information purposes.

Offeror’s proposing to use incumbent workforce should review this information, in order to better understand the salary levels of the incumbent workforce. Offerors proposing incumbent workforce, should pay close attention to the date and rate escalation when developing its proposal. The Government will not allow an adjustment to the direct labor rates upon award to match the current incumbent direct labor rates.

8. Past Performance, L.14, If a subcontractor is allocated less than 10% of the work, yet they perform a critical function, their past performance should be relevant. We recommend the past performance of the “non significant” subcontractors be allowed if the prime contractor believes it to be relevant.

Response: Offerors should comply with the Past Performance instructions provided in the

RFP.

9. Past Performance, L.14, In reference to p. 68 of the RFP (Section L.9), a page limit of 25 pages for the Past Performance Volume includes a footnote that it applies to the “prime offeror individually and each significant subcontractor individually,” which can be interpreted as allowing an additional 25 pages per significant subcontractor. A prime contractor could have up to four significant subcontractors. This would allow that team to provide 125 pages (25 pages for the prime and 25 pages each for four significant subcontractors) to demonstrate relevancy. This creates a significantly uneven playing field.

In summary, the overarching page limit for past performance is a critical limitation that requires distillation of thousands of pages of work and hundreds of person years into a severely page-limited write-up. The current specified limit would create a competitive advantage for some teams. We request having the same page limit for each team (i.e., 25 pages total).

Response: The page limitation is for the total component (prime and significant subs.) This is applicable for the Basis of Estimate and for Past Performance. See amendment for revision.

10. Organizational Conflicts of Interest, In the industry brief, the SMA director emphasized the importance of independence for each leg of the “three-legged stool” (including SMA, Engineering, and Projects). Lack of this independence is one form of OCI.

The RFP specifies an OCI plan in L.10 (p. 73), but only after the award. Will the government use potential OCI as part of the selection process? Please explain the OCI evaluation process. Have certain contracts or types of work been identified that will create an OCI? Is the lack of real or apparent OCI a desired attribute for offerors? Please explain in greater depth the GSFC approach to avoiding OCI on this contract. This will help provide an OCI-free team and appropriately evaluate/score the company(ies) with a low OCI risk.

Response: Offerors should pay close attention to clause H.7 1852.209-71 Limitation of

Future Contracting (DEC 1988). To the extent a future NASA solicitation seeks products or services that are subject to review in performance of this contract, the Contractor will be ineligible to provide those products or services as a prime or first tier subcontractor unless the Contractor submits a specific plan fully mitigating the OCI and such plan is approved by the SMAS II Contracting Officer.

11. Will the government’s cost realism analysis include the use of salary survey data, such as the

ERI survey? If so, will a preferred or minimum percentile be used to identify realistic levels or to identify risk?

Response: The Government will use all tools available to perform its cost realism analysis in response to the RFP. If salary surveys are used as the basis for the direct labor rates, Offerors are to provide a summarization of all salary surveys used, including the name, date of survey, geography, survey labor categories, survey percentiles, and survey salaries. If proposing a salary lower than the median, identify the median and provide rationale

12. Reference Enclosure 2 – This list does not appear to contain the entire list of RFP labor categories. From our review, it appears that only 5 of the labor categories provided match labor category names/descriptions in this RFP. Can you provide data for the following or confirm that the data is not available: Administrative Officer, Administrative Support, Software Assurance Engineer, Mission Ops Assurance Engineer, Senior Safety Engineer, Safety Engineer, Junior Safety Engineer, Senior Project Staff Engineer –PVS, Senior Lifting

Device and Equipment Engineer, Lifting Devices and Equipment Technician, Senior

Pressure Systems Engineer, Pressure Systems Engineer, Senior Mechanical Systems

Engineer, Reliability Engineer, Senior Engineer, System Engineer, Mechanical Designer, Product Assurance Engineer, Safety Tech III, Safety Tech II, Sr. Health Physicist, Radiation

Protection Technician, Industrial Hygienist II, Certified Industrial Hygienist, Senior Systems

Safety Engineer, Systems Safety Engineer, and Junior Systems Safety Engineer.

Response: Enclosure 2 is historical data provided by the incumbent for informational purposes. Vendors should follow instructions under L.9 to complete the GPM.

13. Reference Enclosure 2 – This list includes labor categories that do not appear to match labor category names/descriptions included in the RFP. These include: Engineer Manager II, Principal Quality Engineer, Principal Reliability Engineer, Senior System Engineer, Subject

Matter Expert, Senior Software Engineer, Senior Software Assurance Engineer, Quality

Engineer 3, Quality Engineer 4, Software Quality Engineer 4. Please confirm that these positions are not included in the RFP.

Response: Enclosure 2 is historical data provided by the incumbent for informational purposes. Vendors should follow instructions under L.9 to complete the GPM.

14. Reference Enclosure 4 – Page 2 provides the ONSITE GPM-Specified Non-Management labor categories and hours. Hours are provided for the following labor categories: Administrative Officer, Administrative Support, Senior Safety Engineer, Safety

Engineer, Junior Safety Engineer, Senior Project Staff Engineer-PVS, Senior Mechanical

Systems Engineer, Mechanical Designer, Product Assurance Engineer; however, labor category descriptions were not provided for these positions. Please provide position descriptions for these labor categories.

Response: The Government Pricing Model has been revised. Please reference the amendment for the revisions.

15. Reference Enclosure 4 – Page 2. There are several labor category titles on page 2 of the GPM that do not match the titles provided with the labor category descriptions.

Hours are provided for a Quality Engineer and a labor description is provided for a

Quality Engineer (Mid Career). Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a Mission Ops Assurance Engineer and a labor description is provided for a Mission Ops Assurance Engineer (MOAE). Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a Principle System Safety Engineer and a labor description is provided for a Principal Systems Safety Engineer. Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a Senior Safety Engineer and a labor description is provided for a Senior Systems Safety Engineer. Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a Safety Engineer and a labor description is provided for a

Systems Safety Engineer. Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a Junior Safety Engineer and a labor description is provided for a Junior Systems Safety Engineer. Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a Lifting Devices and Equipment Technician and a labor description is provided for a Senior Lifting Device and Equipment Engineer. Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for a System Engineer and a labor description is provided for a

Systems Engineer. Please confirm that System Engineer and Systems Engineer are the same labor position.

Hours are provided for an Industrial Hygienist II and a labor description is provided for an Industrial Hygiene II. Please confirm that these are the same labor position.

16. Reference Enclosure 4 – Page 12. A labor description is provided for a Non-Destructive

Examination Inspector, but hours are not provided for this category in the GPM. Please confirm that this labor category should not be bid in the GPM and this labor category will not be evaluated as part of the GPM cost evaluation.

Response: The GPM has been revised to reflect changes within the Amendment. Hours have been added for the Non-Destructive Examination Inspector.

17. Reference Enclosure 4 – We do not see a substitution allowed for education/training requirements with years of experience. Please confirm that years of experience cannot be used to satisfy degree requirements.

Response: Years of experience cannot be substituted for education. Please reference the

18. Mission Suitability – Technical, Reference Paragraph L.12 (b) Mission Suitability

Instructions by Subfactor

Subfactor A - Technical Approach: Instructions for this subfactor state that for the critical sections of the SOW (Sections 4, 5, and 9), the offeror shall list in order of significance, four services (subsections) whose execution presents the most risk to the success of the SMA program. Is the discussion of these four services done in the context of the Scenario provided under Enclosure 1, or done with respect to general SMA support provided at GSFC?

Response: The discussion of these four services is done in the context of the general SMA support.

19. Does the Government require two CDs for each volume or two CDs total for the entire proposal?

Response: As per the instructions under L.9, two CDs are to be submitted for each volume.

20. Should the proposals be printed single sided or double sided?

Response: The offeror may elect to print double sided. As per Provision L.9, Line spacing or the amount of vertical space between lines of text shall not be less than single line

(Microsoft Office Word’s default line spacing).

21. GPM Labor Categories, The following labor categories are allocated hours in Enclosure 4-

GPM, but there isn’t a corresponding Position Description provided in the GPM. In order for

Offerors to accurately map these GPM positions to Offeror labor categories and provide accurate pricing, can the Government provide descriptions for these positions?

• Administrative Officer

• Administrative Support

• Senior Safety Engineer

• Safety Engineer

• Junior Safety Engineer

• Senior Project Staff Engineer –PVS

• Mechanical Designer

• Product Assurance Engineer

• Senior Mechanical Systems Engineer amendment for the revisions

22. System vs Systems Engineer, The title System Engineer is used in the GPM hour allocation, the title for the position description is Systems Engineer. Please confirm these are one-and the-same?

23. SOW 3.0 – Related Labor Categories Enclosure 4 – GPM contains the following labor categories that would seems unnecessary with the deletion of 3.0 - Industrial Hygiene and

Radiation Protection from the SOW. Please confirm if offerors should price the hours associated with these labor categories?

• Sr. Health Physicist

• Radiation Protection Technician

• Industrial Hygienist II

• Certified Industrial Hygienist

24. Historical Data, The following labor categories contained in Enclosure 2 – Historical Data have the same description but different titles and hourly average rates. Can the Government please confirm which labor category should be referred to when pricing direct labor rates to capture incumbent personnel?

• Quality Engineer and Quality Engineer 3

• Senior Quality Engineer and Quality Engineer 4

Response: Enclosure 2 is historical data provided for informational purposes. Vendors should follow instructions under L.9 to complete the GPM.

25. Reference L.12 Subfactor B – Management approach and L.13(b)(2). Section L.12

Subfactor B – Management approach states “Offerors shall provide written position qualifications for the specific labor categories envisioned for this requirement.

Offerors shall address the minimum requirements in the position qualifications, to include the necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/licensing, minimum education and minimum experience required for the position. All position qualifications will be incorporated into the resultant contract under Attachment B. Section L.13(b)(2) states “Prime Offerors shall complete Attachment B, DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES, AND FEE

MATRICES, for each Contract Year.” Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to provide the position qualifications in both the Mission Suitability Volume and the

Cost Volume (as part of Attachment B)? Or can offerors make a reference in the

Mission Suitability Volume to the Attachment B provided in the Cost Volume?

Response: Reference the response provided to Question 3 above.

26. Reference Attachment A Statement of Work and Enclosure 4 GPM. The Attachment A provided with the final RFP removes the Industrial Hygiene and Radiation Protection section; however, Enclosure 4 includes hours for industrial hygienist(s), sr. health physicist(s), and a radiation protection technician. Please confirm that these labor categories are required for this effort given the removal of the Industrial Hygiene and Radiation

Protection section in the SOW.

Response: Reference the response provided to Question 23.

27. Reference L.9 (5), p. 67. Subparagraph (5) states that the proposal volume format shall parallel to the greatest extent possible “the evaluation factors and Subfactors contained in

Section L of the solicitation.” Should this refer instead to Section M?

Response: The reference is correct. The evaluation factor refers to Mission Suitability, Cost and Past Performance. The Subfactors under Mission Suitability are Technical Approach and Management Approach.

28. Reference L.9, Proposal Content and Page Limitations, p. 68. Will a table of contents and an acronym list (in any/all volumes) be excluded from the respective page limitations for each volume?

Response: Only the acronym list will be excluded from the page limitations for mission suitability. Reference amendment for revisions.

29. There is a wide discrepancy between the data shown in Enclosure 2 Contract Historical Data and Enclosure 4 GPM. For example, Enclosure 2 lists over 19 FTE Principal Quality

Engineers with an average of 33 years of experience and Enclosure 4 GPM does not include any Principal Quality Engineers. Please explain the desire of the Government. Other similar discrepancies exist in other labor categories. Otherwise, the implication from these two attachments is that the Government desires a new staff who have significantly lower qualifications. Is that the Government’s intent?

Response: The historical data under Enclosure 2 is for reference only. Offeror shall follow the cost instructions for completing the GPM. Also see response provided to Question 7.

30. Will the government provide the appropriate Wage Determination Schedules for each location?

Response: Please refer to the Collective Bargaining Agreement under Attachment L. That is the only wage determination that is applicable for the SMAS II contract.

31. Reference Enclosure 4: Will the Government provide the number of employees by labor category for each work location (e.g., Goddard, Wallops) of the current work force?

Response: No. For the cost evaluations offerors should refer to the GPM.

32. Reference Section L, Paragraph L.9 b (2): Will the government provide the font type and size requirements for the excel spreadsheets? Should they remain in 9-12 point type Arial font, or should they be converted to the 12 point type Times New Roman font?

Response: Per L.9 (b)(2) The excel exhibits provided are formatted using 9-12 point type

The cost exhibits have no page limitation.

33. Reference Section L, Paragraph L.13. Page 86, item (7) GPM BASIS OF ESTIMATES

(BOE), states “For any significant subcontract that has a potential estimated value in excess of the threshold stated in Section (a) instructions above, BOEs must be provided by that significant subcontract following the above specified format and shall comply with the BOE page limitations set forth in the "Proposal Preparation-General Instructions" provision of this

RFP.” Please confirm that the BOE requirement is only applicable to Program Management and Administrative Support, not the Non-Management Direct Labor hours specified in the

GPM (Enclosure 4).

Response: BOEs are for Program Management and Administrative Support and subcontracting. BOEs are not required for the Non-Management Direct Labor hours specified in the GPM

34. Reference Section L.12(b), The link provided near the bottom of Page 78

(http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfrn?t=NPR&c=8715&s=3C) does not work. Please clarify.

Response: The link at the bottom of page 78 was verified and it worked. -> http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8715&s=3C

35. Reference Section L12 Page 78 indicates that “the offeror and all service subcontractors (as defined in paragraph (d) of NFS provision 1852.231-71) shall provide a detailed list of their fringe benefits…” NFS provision 1852.231-71 indicates that a Compensation plan is required for all service subcontractors who exceed “the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4” which is currently $750,000. On page 89, the solicitation indicates that Exhibits 10A and 10B will fulfill the requirements for a Total

Compensation Plan for non-Significant Subcontractors. Please confirm or clarify that only

Significant Subcontractors (defined as those expected to exceed 10% or more of the

Government Pricing Model (GPM) estimated Grand Total Value) need to submit the narrative Total Compensation Plan described on page 78.

Response: The offeror and all service subcontractors (as defined in paragraph (d) of NFS provision 1852.231-71) shall provide a Total Compensation Plan.

36. Reference Section L12 Page 76 “For the following critical sections of the SOW (Sections 4, 5 and 9), the offeror shall list in order of significance, four services (subsections) whose execution presents the most risk to the success of the SMA program. The offeror shall explain each selection, the rationale for the significance assigned, and risk assessed. The offeror's discussion of risks should provide the offeror's approach to managing the risks, including the probability, impact, and severity of the risk, time frame, and risk acceptance or mitigation.” Please clarify if the Government is requesting four services (subsections) for each of the SOW areas (i.e., four services for SOW 4, four services for SOW 5, and four services for SOW 9), or four total for SOW 4, 5, and 9. Also, please clarify if services

(subsections) are SOW paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, …, 4.7, 5.1, 5.2, …, 5.5, 9.1, 9.2, …, 9.6.

Response: Reference the response provided to Question 2 above.

37. Reference Section L12(a) Page 75 There are two (2) paragraphs labeled “(a).” Please clarify.

Response: That's an oversight that we don’t believe impacts the requirements of the RFP.

It should have been labeled "(b) Mission Suitability Volume Format" and the other should have been labeled (c) Mission Suitability Instructions by Subfactor.

38. RFP Section L.12, page 75, Section M.3 Page 94, Enclosure 1 – Section 3. 3

TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfrn?t=NPR&c=8715&s=3C

Section 2 of this Scenario described the initial assurance requirements for the Venus

Environmental Survey. In this section, the scenario is expanded to cover technical challenges that may occur during the project lifecycle. SMA methodology and procedural changes may be required to meet the new challenges. Please identify the specific Section L instructions and

Section M evaluation criteria associated with the three technical challenges included in

Enclosure 1.

Response: All scenarios will be evaluated in accordance with the Provision M.3 1 -

Subfactor A - First paragraph. Offerors shall follow the instructions under provision L.12

Subfactor A - First Paragraph in responding to the Scenarios.