SENSE_DRFP_Comments_and_Responses_9_20_17.pdf

REFERENCE DRFP COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE

1 SOW Section 1;

Attachment

Q DRD –

MGT-05

SOW Section 1 Paragraph states:

“The Contractor shall develop and implement a phase-out plans as required by task orders to ensure an orderly transition of work, including engineering knowledge, processes, procedures, documentation, and tools, to the Government or to a successor contractor.”

Please clarify whether a phase-out plan is expected for each task order since phase-out is not a requirement for the Task Implementation Plan (Attachment Q DRD MGT-02). The only phase-out plan guidance is in Attachment Q DRD MGT-05, which is phase-out for the contract.

A phase out plan is not expected for each task order. The Government intends to issue tasks specifically requiring development, delivery, and execution of phase-out plans near the end of the SENSE contract to facilitate transition to the Government or successor contractor. In general, tasks issued earlier in the SENSE contract ordering period will not require phase-out plans.

2 It is expected that SGSS will begin replacing Space Network assets within the Period of Performance of the RTOs. Will information relative to required support for operational and support differences between the existing SN and SGSS be available?

Will support from incumbent NASA network and system contractors be available from and/or provided by NASA?

Requirements to support the SGSS transition are not included in RTO 1 because the timing and technical parameters of the SGSS transition are not yet firm. Therefore, information concerning SGSS is not needed to develop responsive proposals and will not be available in the SENSE procurement library.

3 RTO 1 includes numerous WBS Level 4 elements that are identified as “Reserved” and are therefore undefined; does the Government agree that BOEs are not required for these “Reserved” WBS Level 4 elements?

Correct. BOEs are not required for “Reserved” elements.

4 For each WBS Level 4 BOE we submit, BOEs are required for every significant subcontractor (when their estimated value makes them significant as it relates to that WBS). Given the level of detail requested for each of the RTOs, would the government consider additional page count for the Basis of Estimates?

The BOE page limitation was increased from 35 to 50.

5 Section M.3 (a), Mission Suitability Factor, Subfactor A, Representative Task Orders provides that the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical response under this Subfactor and the management response under Subfactor B Management Approach. Where appropriate to avoid unnecessary duplication, will it be permissible for Offerors to refer to their Management Approach proposal in addressing the management of the RTOs?

Yes. It is permissible for Offerors to refer to their Management Approach proposal in addressing the management of the RTOs.

6 Prime Offeror RTO Elements of Cost Summary by WBS. Exhibit 2 shall be submitted for each RTO by WBS, starting at WBS level 4 and then summarized for each higher WBS Level up to WBS Level 1. The level of detail required for staffing the RTOs (which essentially cover the entire current program) to the 4th level requires knowledge of the current staffing.

The incumbent contractor has this information. Will the Government please release the staffing information on the current contract to the 4th level of the WBS?

Current contract staffing information will not be released. The level of detail required for staffing the RTOs to the 4th level requires an understanding of the work required by the RTOs. Technical information concerning that work has been provided in the bidder’s library.

7 Section 3.5 Logistics and Property Control states, “The Contractor shall furnish administrative computing and LAN services and office space for other contractor personnel.” Is this statement referring to contracts other than SENSE? We request the Government provide the number of other contractor personnel that will require administrative computing and LAN services, and how much office space must be provided.

This statement refers to SENSE personnel, not to personnel on contracts other than SENSE. The wording in RTO 1 was updated to make this clear.

8 Section L states that Position Qualifications are to be submitted with the Cost Volume, however, Section M still contains evaluation criteria for Position Qualifications in Section M.3a on page 117, under the title of Subfactor B – Management Approach of Mission Suitability. Please confirm that Position Qualifications are not included within the page count of the Mission Suitability volume.

The Position Qualifications are excluded from the Mission Suitability Volume page limitation. However, the Position Qualifications for all labor categories shall not exceed ½ page each.

9 Please place the following reference documents onto the Bidder’s Library: Space Geodesy Project Plan and Space Geodesy Network Deployment Project Plan.

These documents are not needed to produce a responsive proposal and will not be included in the procurement library.

10 Please clarify that per paragraph 18 software application development, including the developing of code, shall be in compliance with the first sentence in paragraph 19 (beginning with CFR-2011- 36-V3-1194). If this is correct, request correction.

Yes. Software applications development shall be in compliance with CFR-2011- 36-V3-1194: Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards; Final Rule, to include 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems. The SOW formatting was revised to make this clear.

11 RTO2 3.5Gbps (dual polarization) – Is this the total data rate or the data rate for each of the two polarizations?

To clarify, 3.5Gbps is the total data rate of the combined polarizations.

12 RTO2 Will the customer be including a specific ground station location in RTO 2? Recommend a specific location or state that the RTO should determine the location.

No. A specific ground station location will not be included in RTO 2.

13 Clause B.6 Within Clause B.6, the table lists (3) cost elements (Commercial Services, Material and Travel). Should this table also include ODCs to be consistent with the Cost Volume? Recommend that B.6(a) be updated to include ODCs.

The non-proposed costs represent the Government's estimate of commercial services, material, and travel costs to perform the RTO1. No other direct costs are anticipated by the Government.

However, offerors may propose other direct costs based on their proposed approach to performing the RTO1 and any proposed other direct costs need to be specified in the cost volume. Non-proposed costs are not being provided for the other RTOs.

Topic: Ground Support Network Question: The requirements do not appear to include any provisions for tracking, but the Contract SOW refers to the NEN “as a direct-to-earth communications and tracking network that provides TT&C, high rate data acquisition downlink, and radiometric tracking services.” Could the Government please clarify?

Recommendation: High level tracking requirements should be included in RTO 2.

For the purposes of RTO 2, tracking services are not required.

15 The requirement to submit a task plan within 7 calendar days after receipt of the Contracting Officer’s request is unlikely to allow sufficient time to obtain and incorporate subcontractor and vendor pricing – especially when obtaining vendor pricing from multiple sources. Many task orders are expected to be large and complex and it is expected that adequate and thorough responses cannot be completed in 7 days. Request the Government consider revising the requirement to 15 business days.

The task plan deadline will be increased to 21 calendar days.