Questions_ _Answers.pdf

39. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Attachment L to the RFP contains a CBA for the

ETIS Contract at GSFC. Can the Government please clarify which positions (if any) contained in the GPM are covered by the CBA in order for Offerors to accurately estimate costs associated with those positions?

Response: Enclosure 4 has been revised. See amendment 3.

40. Reference Attachment L, Collective Bargaining Agreement/Wage Determination. This attachment is not referenced in the RFP with respect to instructions as to how it should be used, labor categories, pricing or operations. Also, the companies listed on this agreement are not part of the current contract. Could the Government please clarify how offerors are to utilize this attachment? Which, if any, of the labor categories already are, or will be, subject to a collective bargaining agreement? Will we have the opportunity to negotiate our own agreement?

Response: Reference the response provided to Question 25. Offerors may be able to renegotiate the CBA when applicable.

41. Attachment A SOW, Industrial Hygiene and Radiation Protection is included in the list of required services, yet SOW paragraph 3.0 is shown as reserved. Please clarify this apparent inconsistency.

Response: See revised SOW.

42. Attachment A 1.1, The DD254 indicates requirements for a SECRET clearance, yet the SOW indicates Top Secret. Please resolve this apparent inconsistency.

Response: SOW revised to indicate that a Secret clearance is required.

43. Attachment A, Paragraph 4, Please specify the required labor categories and quantities for contractor personnel at the remote site locations (i.e., GISS, IV&V, and WSC). Also, please confirm that the SMAS II contract does not provide any support at Wallops Flight Facility.

This information is necessary to prepare an accurate Staffing Plan and Cost Volume.

Response: See revised SOW. However, offerors staffing plan needs to be consistent with the Government Pricing Model. Additionally, the primary place of performance is at the greenbelt main campus. In accordance with Clause F. 3 Performance at other GSFC facilities, government suppliers or alternate places of performance are expected to be negotiated by individual task orders.

44. Attachment A, SOW 4, By using the word “comprehensive” for Greenbelt campus vs

“related” in a separate sentence regarding services for GISS, IV&V, WSC, please clarify the difference in expectation and support levels between “comprehensive” vs “related”.

Response: See revised SOW.

45. Attachment A, SOW 4.2, Please clarify the criteria the contractor will use to determine which buildings shall be identified in the annual surveys. What is meant by adjacent structures? Can this also include non-GSFC assets outside of, but adjacent to GSFC property?

Response: See revised SOW.

46. Attachment A, SOW 5.2, Please specify the offsite locations within the GSFC Greenbelt campus.

Response: See revised SOW.

47. Attachment A, SOW 5.2, Please identify the labor categories and current level of effort used to maintain and update the CM system housed in Code 585. Please indicate if this level of effort is included in Enclosure 4_GPM. Please provide the system specification, and any system requirements and design documentation in the Technical Reference Library.

Response: The Contractor is only responsible for updating/inputting data into the system.

48. Attachment A, SOW 9.3, Please indicate if Field Services are only performed at GSFC

Greenbelt campus. If not, please specify the customer locations Field Services are required.

Response: See revised SOW. Field Services is only expected to be performed at the GSFC main campus in Greenbelt.

49. Attachment A, SOW 9.3, Please provide a facility layout and Government Furnished

Equipment list for the on-site laboratory.

Response: The facility layout and Government Furnished Equipment list for the on-site laboratory are not available for distribution. As a result, the L&M requirement to address risks areas associated with section 9 was removed. See amendment.

50. Attachment A, SOW 9.3, Please identify the off-site vendor currently providing Off-site

Service. Please indicate if the SMAS II contractor is required to maintain an existing contractual relationship with this vendor, or can Offerors contract with their own vendor.

Response: The SMAS II contractor is not required to establish or maintain a contractual relationship with the current vendor providing those services.

51. Attachment A, SOW 9.3, We assume the reference is referring to 9.4 instead of 8.4. Please confirm.

Response: The reference is to 9.4. See revised SOW.

52. Attachment A, SOW 9.5, Please indicate if this is a Government provided MIS. Also, please specify any ongoing system maintenance and support required by the SMAS II contractor.

Response: This is a government provided/managed MIS, where the SMAS II contractor is only responsible for managing the data.

53. Attachment A, Paragraph 10.1, The qualifications for Subject Matter Experts are not provided in Attachment 4 GPM. Please specify the labor categories used to satisfy SOW

10.1.

Response: See revised SOW. The contractor is required to provide engineering expertise to support NASA lifecycle reviews.

54. Attachment D identifies 32 computers as GFE to be used offsite. The itemized details specify

19 ACES computers and 5 laptops. Please specify the remaining 8 offsite computers.

Response: Attachment D is hereby RESERVED and not applicable to the SMAS II RFP.

55. Attachment L “Collective Bargaining Agreement/Wage Determination” only includes the

Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Lifting Devices Engineering and Pressure Vessel

Systems (as indicated in the RFP Cover Letter). However, there appear to be other positions in the Government Pricing Model (GPM) that may be covered by the Service Contract Act.

Please provide the applicable Wage Determination for the non-union Service Contract Act employees.

Response: Reference the response provided to Question 30 in Amendment 1.

56. Cost Exhibits 2C and 2D indicate that a separate exhibit needs to be completed for each contract year. This would result in 5 exhibits for each non-Significant subcontractor, which could be somewhat unwieldy. Rather than including a separate exhibit for each contract year, would the government consider allowing Offeror’s to add columns to the right to capture the rates for the out-years? This would result in one exhibit per non-Significant

Subcontractor which would be significantly less cumbersome. Similarly, for Exhibits 2A and

2B, if the indirect rates do not change over the contract years, could Offeror’s employ the same methodology for those Exhibits?

Response: Offerors should follow the cost instructions outlined under section L.

57. Cover Letter, Please identify the specific supplier facilities so Offerors can prepare their staffing plan and Cost Volume accordingly.

Response: The specific supplier facilities are not available. For clarification, the cover letter refers to vendors that are developing/supplying flight and ground components in support of NASA missions.

58. Cover Letter, Please specify how Offerors should propose fringe benefits for employees covered by the CBA (i.e., Exhibits 10A and 10B).

Response: Please refer to Attachment L for the benefits associated with the CBA.

59. Cover Letter, Fourth Paragraph, Please specify the number of personnel required at the

Contractor’s offsite facilities.

Response: Reference revisions to SOW. Performance of this contract is primarily on-site at

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Installation and Facilities. GSFC Installations include Wallops Flight Facility, the White Sands Complex, the Independent Verification and Validation Facility and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Alternate places of performance at either another NASA Center/Installations, Government suppliers or at the

Contractor’s facility may be specified in individual task orders issued.

60. Enclosure 1, The launch date and cruise time imply an orbit date of August 2023. Please confirm the date VES begins orbiting Venus.

Response: Enclosure 1 revised to indicate August 2023. See revised amendment.

61. Enclosure 1 provides two different timeframes to address SMA support. Please clearly state the timeframe to address in Offeror scenario responses.

Response: See response to Amendment 1, Question 6.

62. On Enclosure 2, Contract Historical Data, please confirm/correct our understanding of the information provided. Using the Junior Quality Engineer as an example, the exhibit indicates that the date and amount of the last increase was June 2015 and 2%. We interpret this to mean that the personnel received an increase of 2% in June 2015. Assuming that the rates are adjusted annually, the next increase would be due in June 2016. Further, to bring the rates current to the SMAS II anticipated contract start of June 1, 2017, another increase would be expected. Please confirm/correct our interpretation of the information contained in

Enclosure 2

Response: Yes, that could be the correct interpretation.

63. Enclosure 2, The labor categories in Enclosure 2 don’t align with the labor categories in

Enclosure 4. Please resolve this apparent inconsistency.

Response: Reference the response provided in Amendment 1, Question 12.

64. Enclosure 4, The following labor categories are included in the GPM Direct Labor Hours

(Enclosure 4) but are not included in the GPM (Enclosure 4) Labor Category Position

Descriptions: Administrative Officer, Administrative Support, Senior Safety Engineer, Safety

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

Systems Engineer, Mechanical Designer, and Product Assurance Engineer. Additionally, there is one category included in the Labor Category Position Descriptions with no hours assigned: Non-Destructive Examination Inspector. Please provide labor category position descriptions for the missing labor categories and confirm that there are no hours associated with the Non-Destructive Examination Inspector.

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

65. Enclosure 4, The Final RFP eliminated the work associated with SOW 3, Industrial Hygiene and Radiation Protection, however the labor categories associated with this effort (Sr. Health

Physicist, Radiation Protection Technician, Industrial Hygienist II, Certified Industrial

Hygienist) are still appearing in the GPM Direct Labor Hours (Enclosure 4). Please confirm that the government desires pricing for these categories or modify the GPM appropriately.

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

66. Attachment D identifies 32 computers as GFE to be used offsite. Enclosure 4 does not identify any Direct Labor Hours for offsite support. Please clarify the offsite support responsibilities, including offsite facility requirements and proximity to GSFC.

Response: Reference response to Question 54.

67. Enclosure 4, There are no labor categories corresponding to the support provided by SOW 9.

Please indicate the labor categories associated with the requirements in SOW 9.

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

68. Enclosure 4 doesn’t include Off-Site and Remote Site labor categories and hours. Please provide the required Off-Site and Remote Site staffing requirements.

Response: Reference response to Question 43.

69. Enclosure 4 includes labor hours for CY1-CY6, yet the RFP specifies a five-year period of performance and the cost templates only have columns for five years of data. Please explain the significance of CY6 data and how Offerors should use the CY6 data in the preparation of their proposals.

Response: As per Clause I.7 52.216-22 (d), rates for contract year 6 are required since the

Government may issue task orders that may exceed the ordering period by no more than a year.

70. Exhibit 12, The referenced section focuses on software IV&V and doesn’t reflect the broad

SMA requirements of the SMAS II procurement. This may bias evaluators when responding to the past performance questionnaire. Please consider revising the principal purpose of this contract to reflect broad SMA responsibilities.

Response: Reference revised Exhibit 12. However, past performance questionnaires already received do not need to be resubmitted. We do not see a potential bias and the

Government will verify the information received via the questionnaires.

71. Industry Day Slides, The Government emphasized three new GPRs during Industry Day.

Please make these GPRs available in the SMAS II eLibrary for all Offerors to consider in their proposal responses.

Response: GPR 8705.4, GPR 8730.5 and GPR 8730.10 have all been added to the eLibrary.

72. Section B, The link provided in Item 16 (http://netsdata.grc.nasa.gov/) does not work. Please clarify.

Response: This link has been updated to https://www.sam.gov in the table. Reference RFP for revision.

http://netsdata.grc.nasa.gov/

73. Section G, The link provided Section G.4(c)

(http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfrn?t=NPR&c=9501&s=2E) does not work. Please clarify.

Response: The link appears to be typed incorrectly.

- It is a “m” not a “rn” in “…/displayDir.cfm?t=…” --http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=9501&s=2E

74. Section H, The links provided Section H.4(b) (https://idmax.nasa.gov and http://safetylst.gsfc.nasa.gov) do not work. Please clarify.

Response: The links appear to be typed incorrectly.

- It is a “1” not an “l” in “safety1st” -- http://safety1st.gsfc.nasa.gov

- The idmax website is only accessible from the NASA network. We would only give access to that upon award when a request is submitted.

75. Section I, The links provided Section I.17 (http://www.acguisition.gov/?q=browsefar and http://www.hg.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm) do not work. Please clarify.

Response: The links appear to be typed incorrectly.

- It is a “q” not a “g” in “acquisition” -- http://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar

- It is a “q” not a “g” in “hq” --http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm

76. Section I, (a) We respectfully request that the words “Professional and Consultant costs as defined in FAR 31.205-33” in Paragraph (d) be changed to “None” or modified so that urgent procurements, if any, won’t be delayed. Requiring consent could result in schedule slips.

(b) We respectfully request that the word “None” in Paragraph (j) be changed to “TBD” so that the subcontracts that were evaluated during negotiations, if any, can be inserted at the time of contract award.

Response: (a) Your request to change the words “Professional and Consultant costs as defined by FAR 31.205-33” cannot be changed.

(b) Upon contract award Paragraph (j) will be revised to capture the subcontractors that were evaluated during the SEB.

77. Section L, Paragraph (h) states: “Existing Government property may be reviewed at the following locations, dates, and times: TBD.” Please clarify when and where the property will be available.

Response: We have removed Attachment D therefore, Clause L.7 is hereby RESERVED.

78. Section L, For the Cost Volume Basis of Estimates, please confirm that there is a 35-page limit for the Prime and a 35-page limit for each Significant Subcontractor.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfrn?t=NPR&c=9501&s=2E http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=9501&s=2E https://idmax.nasa.gov/ http://safetylst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://safety1st.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://www.acguisition.gov/?q=browsefar http://www.hg.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm http://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm

Response: There is a 35 page limit for the Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractor

(page limitation is for the total component (prime and significant subs)).

79. Section L.10(a), Since Offerors need to complete the SF33 and Section K, can the

Government please provide these sections in an editable PDF format?

Response: No, this information is not available in an editable PDF format.

80. Section L, The RFP specifies submission of Position Qualifications (PQs) in Volumes I, II and III. Please confirm that the Government desires the identical PQs submitted in all three volumes. Also, if the Government confirms submission of PQs in Volume II, Mission

Suitability, we respectfully request that the PQs be excluded from the 75-page limit to eliminate compression of the PQs and avoid excessive pages used on this proposal section.

Response: PQ’s are excluded from the 75 page limit, however PQ’s should not exceed ½ page each. PQ’s should be submitted in Volume III.

81. Section L.10, Please clarify if the TBP entries in Section J that are also required in Volume II

(e.g., Safety and Health Plan, and Position Qualifications) also need to be submitted with

Volume I.

Response: No, The required Safety and Health Plan shall be submitted with Volume II and the Position Qualifications shall be submitted with Volume III, as per L.9 Proposal Content and Page Limitations.

82. Section L.10(c)(2), We understand what the Government audit agency is in subparagraph (a) and the Government Administrative Contracting Officer is in subparagraph (c). Please clarify what is meant by the Government “inspection agency” in subparagraph (b).

Response: The Government inspection agency is Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA).

83. Section L.10(c)(10) states, in part: “The information to be included in this plan is outlined in

Enclosure 3, Information Technology Security Management Plan, which is provided for information purposes at this time and shall be used by the successful offeror to prepare their plan.” However, RFP Enclosure 3 is the “Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.”

We cannot find any enclosure related to the IT Security Management Plan. Please clarify.

Response: Attachment J has been updated to include the IT Security Management Plan under Attachment I.

84. We provide Occupational Health (Industrial Hygiene) and Occupational Safety services and are interested in submitting a quote. However, we wanted to check if it is acceptable to submit a quote for partial services mentioned in the scope of work?

Response: No, Offerors shall be able to respond and perform all aspects of the SMAS solicitation requirement. Furthermore, sections 4 and 5 have been removed from the

SOW.

85. There appear to be apparent inconsistencies with the contract period of performance (POP) and are seeking your clarification. In some areas of the solicitation a 5-year POP is identified, but in others a 6-year POP is identified. The RFP Cover Letter says “The contract will have an effective ordering period of 5 years from the contract effective date.” Does this mean that you anticipate issuing a Task Order on the last day of the contract that extends for one year?

Response: See response to Question 69.

86. Further, under Section M (Evaluation Criteria), the solicitation states “The proposed costs of the Government Pricing Model and the rates proposed in Attachment B, Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices, will be assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism.” Will the evaluated proposed costs be based on 5-year pop or a 6-year POP?

Response: See response to Question 69. The evaluation is based on a 5 year period of performance.

87. Amendment #1 removed (or “reserved”) Section 4 of the SOW, and removed the associated

LOE from the GPM. We are proceeding by also removing the SOW Section 4 risks from the technical subfactor sample scenario write-up for the major risks. This leaves four risks each for SOW sections 5 and 9. Is this correct?

Response: There will be four risks for Section 5. See revised Amendment.

88. The GPM provides hours for an Administrative Officer and Administrative Support. Please provide labor descriptions for these two categories.

Response: Both labor categories have been removed from the GPM.

89. Although Block 11 of the SF 30 for Amendment 1 indicates that the proposal due date is extended, the revised due date is not identified anywhere in the Amendment itself. (The

11/10/16 due date is identified only on FBO.gov.) Please clarify.

Response: Amendment 1 extended the proposal submission date to November 10, 2016.

Amendment 2 extended proposal submission to November 15, 2016.

90. Similarly, there is no statement in the amendment that indicates the SOW has changed, yet a revised SOW was provided. We noticed that Section 4 is now marked “Reserved” which is in contrast to RFP Section L.12(c) which asks for risk identification for Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the SOW. Please clarify.

Response: Clause J.1 GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (FEB 2016) and

Clause L.12 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

(COMPETITIVE) (FEB 2016) (b) Mission Suitability Instructions by Subfactor, Subfactor

A Technical Approach has been updated

91. Section J refers to 34-page Performance Work Statement dated February 2016 instead of a

32-page Statement of Work dated October 31, 2016. Please clarify.

Response: Clause J.1 GSFC 52.211-101 List of Attachments has been updated to reflect the revised SOW.

92. The revised GPM includes substantial changes which will require analysis, revisions to pricing, and revisions to subcontractor proposals. Therefore, in order to ensure the government receives complete, competitive proposals from offerors, we respectfully request an additional two-week extension in the proposal due date (to November 23, 2016).

Response: Amendment 3 extends the proposal submission date from November 15, 2016 to

November 22, 2016.

93. The Government’s response to question #3 indicated that the RFP is amended to allow for position qualifications for all labor categories to be excluded from the page limitation for the

Mission Suitability Volume. However, the RFP did not include position qualifications in the items excluded from the page limitation in the Volume contents table on page 4 of 7 of

Amendment 1. Please clarify.

Response: Under the cost volume the position qualifications have been excluded from the mission suitability volume. Reference response provided to question 83.

94. Please clarify whether the POP is 5 years or 6 years. Some Cost Exhibits are based on a

5 year POP while others are based on a 6 year POP. Which POP will be used for evaluation purposes?

Response: See response provided to Question 69.

95. Enclosure 4 – GPM appears to be missing the labor category qualifications for the

Administrative Officer and the Administrative Support positions. Please consider providing those Position Descriptions.

Response: See response provided to Question 88.