SENSE_RFP_QUESTIONS_AND_RESPONSES__3_Revised.pdf

SENSE RFP QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES #3

No. RFP Section/Refere nce

Question Response

33 Section G.2, GSFC 1852.216-

76 Award Fee for Service contracts (APR 2012)

The reference clause is in many NASA contracts, however in the SENSE RFP, it appears the terms have changed to not allow for provisional award fee payments prior to the first award fee determination by the Government. Will NASA change this clause to reflect provisional award fee payments prior to the first award fee determination?

Yes, an amendment will be issued to allow provisional award fee payments prior to the first award fee determination.

34 Section G.2, GSFC 1852.216-

76 Award Fee for Service contracts (APR 2012), paragraph (4)

Why does the clause state provisional award fee payments will not be made prior to the first award fee determination? We note that as required, overpayment or refund of fee will be required if the provisional payments exceed the final evaluation score.

See Response to question 33

35 Enclosure CC, Performance Evaluation Plan and GSFC 1852.216-76 Award Fee for Service contracts (APR 2012)

There is an inconsistency between the GSFC provision and the PEP regarding the frequency of provision award fee payments. Paragraph D of the PEP states “…provisional award fee payment may be made to the Contractor each period after the end of the first quarter of each period. The GSFC provision states, “…provisional award fee payments will be made to the Contractor on a monthly payments basis.” Will the Government change the PEP for monthly provisional award fee payments to be consistent with the GSFC provision?

See Response to question 33

36 Enclosure AA –

RTO 1

Section 3.3 in RTO 1 states “The contractor shall operate SN and NEN ground segment systems to provide uplink (aka forward), downlink (ada return), tracking, and ranging services to missions in accordance with the currently existing LOPs:”. Can the Government provide a list of all NEN LOPs and the location of these LOPs in the bidder’s library? If the LOPs are not in any of the bidder’s library, can the government please provide them?

NEN LOPs are located in the eLibrary, EAR library (FBO), and at the WSC library. The LOPs by location are identified below.

Locatio n

Document # Title

FBO/

EAR

NENS-GN-

LOP-0509

MGS Delta 2 Link XX Support Procedure

FBO/

EAR

SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0001

Regression Test Procedures for NENSE

FBO/

EAR

SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0030

MGS JSOC JPSS Power-Down and Power-Up Procedures

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0050

White Sands One (WS1) Hardware Control (HWCNTRL) Manual Load of Ephemeris

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0051

White Sands One (WS1) Hardware Control (HWCNTRL) Manual Loads and Modifications to Schedules

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0052

White Sands One (WS1) Range Receive Command Processor (RRCP) Failover Procedure

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0053

White Sands One (WS1) Standard Autonomous File System (SAFS) Shutdown/Restart & Server Reboot Procedure

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0054

White Sands One (WS1) Standard Autonomous File System (SAFS) Cluster Manager Failover Procedure

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0055

White Sands One (WS1) Standard Autonomous File System (SAFS) Backup & Restore RMFT Configuration Settings Procedure

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0056

White Sands One (WS1) Programmable Telemetry Processor (PTP) Routine Maintenance Procedure

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0100

Scheduling Operating Procedures

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0372

Wallops Local Operating Procedures for the Operations Shift Supervisors

WSC SCNS-NEN-

LOP-0372

Wallops Local Operating Procedures for the Operations Shift Supervisors

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0112

WFF LOCAL OPERATING

PROCEDURE FOR FALL

PROTECTION

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0174

Near Earth Networks Services Ground Network Local Operating Procedure for Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0307

NENS WFF Local Operating Procedure for Hazardous Waste Disposal

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0309

NENS/WFF Local Operating Procedure for Non-ionizing Radiation Safety

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0331

Near Earth Networks Services (NENS) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) Hand Soldering Training and Certification Plan

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0369

Near Earth Networks Services (NENS) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) Hand Soldering Procedures

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0410

NENS Local Operating Procedure for Hazard Communications

*Accessible in IA library via DoD SIPRNet or the NASA National Security System (NSS).

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0420

NENS WFF Local Operating Procedure for Electrical Safety

Public NENS-GN-

LOP-0480

ESD Control Procedure for Equipment Level and Field Maintenance (WFF Only)

Public SCNS-NEN- LOP-0002 pg 1-pg 4

SCNS Near Earth Network Engineering and Configuration Management Process

Public SCNS-NEN- LOP-0002 pg

5 NEN

Process Map

SCNS Near Earth Network Engineering and Configuration Management Process Map

37 Provision H.2 1852.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting and Section L.16 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest

Provision H.2 states the nature of the conflict as being: “develop SOW and/or specifications”, “access to Governments and other contractors sensitive information”, and “conflicting roles/impaired objectivity”.

Section L.16 states the description of the Potential Conflict as “access to sensitive information and impaired objectivity”. Also, Section L.16, subpara (g)(2)(A) states “(Unequal Access to Information, Biased Ground Rules, and Impaired objectivity)”.

Would the Government please clarify if the offeror only needs to address “access to sensitive information and impaired objectivity” in its OCI Plan?

The Offeror shall address access to sensitive information, biased ground rules and impaired objectivity. An amendment will be issued, that will revise L.16, NOTICE OF POTENTIAL

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(b) to read, “Description of Potential Conflict. The nature of this organizational conflict of interest is:

access to sensitive information, biased ground rules and impaired objectivity.” When addressing any of these types of OCI, in the OCI submission required by L.16, Offerors should account for the limitations set forth in contract clause H.2.

38 Section L.16 Notice of Potential

Paragraph (g)(1) states, “…potential conflict in response to paragraph (h)(1) above…” Since there is no paragraph (h)(1), is it correct to assume the paragraph reference should be (g)(1)?

Yes, the correct reference is (g)(1). The RFP will be amended to correct the reference.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

39 Minimum Award Fee

For purposes of completing Attachment B - Item #4, is the Offeror required to show a minimum of 5% award fee for each Base of Application in the table?

Yes

40 Section K.3, Section L.13, and Section L, Attachment B, IDIQ Direct Labor Rates and Fee Matrices

Based on the below excerpts from Section L, there appears to be an inconsistency in instructions for the submission of a disclosure statement. As such, would the Government please change the L.13 statement, “If full CAS coverage applies to the Offeror and it has not submitted a Disclosure Statement that has been deemed adequate by its cognizant contract administration entity (typically DCMA), then a Disclosure Statement shall be prepared in support of the Offeror’s proposal” To read, “If the Offeror has not submitted a Disclosure Statement, but would fall under CAS compliance if awarded the resultant contract, then a CAS Disclosure Statement shall be submitted as part of your proposal in this volume”.“

Section L References:

Section L.10 states, “If the Offeror has not submitted a Disclosure Statement, but would fall under CAS compliance if awarded the resultant contract, then a CAS Disclosure Statement shall be submitted as part of your proposal in this volume. The Government will forward the Disclosure Statement to the cognizant contract administration office with its request for review of the submitted CAS Disclosure Statement.

Section L.13 states, “If full CAS coverage applies to the Offeror and it has not submitted a Disclosure Statement that has been deemed adequate by its cognizant contract administration entity (typically DCMA), then a Disclosure Statement shall be prepared in support of the Offeror’s proposal. While CAS Disclosure Statements are not evaluated by NASA, their evaluation must be coordinated between NASA and the cognizant contract administration entity; as such, the

The question was assessed; however, NASA does not believe that there is an inconsistency.

CAS Disclosure Statement shall be submitted to NASA with the proposal in the Offer Volume.

41 Significant Subcontractor Basis of Estimates

If Significant Subcontractors are required to submit separate BOEs from the Prime contractors which duplicate the level of effort, would you consider adding 15 pages to the BOE page limitation to allow enough page count for the Prime and Significant Subcontractors to meet submission requirements for the BOEs?

The RFP was previously amended to clarify that “BOEs shall be submitted for both the Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors”. Q&A #2 reiterated that the total of all BOEs submitted for the Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractor must stay within the specified page limitation.

42 Amendment #1 Per Amendment 1 issued on March 30, 2018, the line spacing requirement for tables, artwork and photographs changed as follows:

From:

"Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs may be reduced in size provided the text is no smaller than 10 point and, if necessary, run landscape or folded to eliminate oversized pages. Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal."

To:

"Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs may be reduced in size provided the text is no smaller than 10 point and, if necessary, run landscape or folded to eliminate oversized pages. Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. Line spacing for diagrams, tables, and artwork shall be no less than 1 ½."

This has a significant impact on overall spacing throughout an offeror’s proposal. Is it the Government's intent that line spacing for all tables be space and a half (i.e., line spacing for 10 point font would be 17 points, which increases the size of each table to 1 1/2 times its size using single spacing)? It is our understanding that line spacing for graphics involves leading and kerning, and can be interpreted differently than line spacing for text. If the intent is to increase the line spacing requirement for tables to 1.5, would the government consider a two week extension to give offerors time to adjust and to submit a compliant proposal?

The RFP was previously amended to state that “Line spacing for diagrams, tables, and artwork shall be no less than single spaced.”

43 L.14(b) The Q&A released on January 2nd, indicated the customer list was inclusive of customers only within the last 5 years of the RFP release date, however the final RFP was not updated to reflect that change.

Please confirm that the Government intends the list to encompass only five years from the date of the RFP release?

Yes, an amendment will be issued to revise L.14 (b) to state, “The Offeror shall include a list of prior customers in accordance with paragraph (a)..”

44 Document 9g, Attachment M

DD254

In document 9g, Attachment M DD254, Block 9 lists the GUEST contract as the General Identification of the Contract. Will the Government please update block 9 and review the data in blocks 10 and 11 to ensure they relate to SENSE rather than GUEST?

The RFP will be amendment to correct Block 9 of the

DD254.

45 RTO1 SOW Attachment Q has no listing of FM-08, its corresponding Title, or requirements in the CDRL list. Please provide the requirements for FM-08 or correct the DRD reference in the SOW

RTO1 SOW Section 7.2 instructs delivery of mission integration cost estimates and mission level costs estimates for potential new missions in DRD MGT-08.

Attachment Q stipulates the requirements for this Data Requirements Description (DRD).

46 Enclosure AA – RTO1.pdf

SOW 1.1 lists a Mission Assurance Implementation Plan [DRD SMA- 01]. The revised RTO1 SOW 1.2 Safety and Mission Assurance also lists Mission Assurance Implementation Plan [DRD SMA-01] as scope of that SOW area. Furthermore, SOW 1.1 Lists Safety Summary reports [DRD MGT-04] and other reports such as close calls, mishaps etc. which could also be within scope of SOW 1.2. Please clarify which deliverables are appropriate for RTO 1 SOW areas 1.1 and 1.2.

Please clarify which deliverables are appropriate for RTO 1 SOW areas

1.1 and 1.2.

Both the Mission Assurance Implementation Plan [DRD SMA-01] and the Management Reports [DRD MGT-04] – (Safety Summary Report) apply to the

RTO1 SOW.

47 Enclosure AA –

RTO1

Enclosure AA – RTO1 has deleted the WBS elements for Tel-IV and JDMTA. Furthermore, neither Section 2 Sustaining Engineering and Section 4 Maintenance in Enclosure AA – RTO1 list those sites as being supported. Please clarify the intent with regards to these two sites.

No work related to Tel-IV and JDMTA remains within the Scope of RTO1.

48 Enclosure AA – RTO 1 Appendix B

Enclosure AA – RTO 1 Appendix B Task Work Breakdown Structure list duplicates WBS 2.6.2 WSGT Facilities in the WBS list. We assume the second instance of WBS 2.6.2, located in the list between WBS 2.6.7 and 2.6.8 is simply a typo and should be removed/ignored. Please confirm?

RFP Amendment #3 removed the 2nd instance of WBS

2.6.2 between WBS 2.6.7 and 2.6.8

49 RTO 1 SOW RTO 1 SOW requires the contractor to “conduct test readiness reviews {DRD SE-10} prior to compatibility testing. SE-10 is associated with modeling and simulation and we believe SE-11 is the intended/appropriate DRD. Please confirm the correct DRD?

RFP Amendment #3 corrected the delivery to DRD SE- 11.

50 Line Spacing

We have just reviewed the Government’s Questions and Answers related to the SENSE RFP. We have noted one change that is of particular concern related to the line spacing specified for diagrams, tables, and artwork. The change in line spacing to 1 ½, especially in tables, will utilize much more page space than standard single line spacing. This is especially problematic for documents such as the Basis of Estimate and Representative Task Orders (labor categories and hours). For your ease of reference, I have attached an example of the two table formats (one with 1 ½ line spacing and the other with single line spacing). Will the Government please reconsider this change and allow offerors to use standard single spacing in diagrams, tables, and artwork, using no less than a 10 point font?

The RFP was previously amended to state that “Line spacing for diagrams, tables, and artwork shall be no less than single spaced.”

51 RFP Cover Letter, F.2, L.13(b)(17), p.

The RFP Cover Letter states that the period of performance will be five years from the anticipated contract award date of on or about April 1, 2019. It also states that the Phase-in will occur during the 90-day period prior to the effective date of the contract. Per Section F.2, the contract effective ordering period begins on April 1, 2019. Section L.13 (17) states that “phase-in is expected to commence on or about July 2018.” Per Enclosure AA, the period of performance for RTOs 1, 2, and 4 begins on April 1, 2019.

We request that the Government verify the contract award date, phase-in start date, effective date of the contract, and RTO period of performance.

The RFP was previously amended to reflect that phase-in is expected to commence on or about January 2019 (90 days prior to the contract start/effective date).

52 Enclosure GG

– Contract Historical Data

We noted that in Enclosure GG – Contract Historical Data, a few labor category rates actually drop when progressing from Level I to Level II (see table below). Also, the progression for Technical Supervisor/Lead II to Lead III is only a .05 difference. Could you please confirm that these are the correct rates to use?

Ref # Labor Category Enclosure GG Rate Change

Cat 6 Configuration Management Specialist – Level I

$33.15 - $5.05

Cat 7 Configuration Management Specialist – Level II

$28.10

Cat 27 Mission Commitment Engineer – Level I $46.91 - $3.52 Cat 28 Mission Commitment Engineer – Level II $43.39

Cat 66 Security Management – Level I $37.43 - $2.75 Cat 67 Security Management – Level II $34.68

Cat 51 Technical Supervisor/Lead II $50.95 Cat 51 Technical Supervisor/Lead III $51.00 + 0.05

Technical Supervisor/Lead II 50.95 Technical Supervisor/Lead III 51

Enclosure GG-Contract Historical Data is correct.

Offerors are reminded that the rates provided are based on a historical average comprised of a range.

The range is impacted by education, experience, and the number of hours. Depending on circumstances, there may be some overlap with the range of the next higher position. An employee in the highest part of the range for a Level I may be at a higher rate than an employee at the lowest part of the range for a Level

II.

53 Section L.13 (b)(1), Enclosure DD, Enclosure GG

There are five labor categories in the Enclosure GG that do not exist in Enclosure DD. Since the cost volume instructions require a mapping of proposed positions to Enclosure GG when proposing incumbent staff, would the Government please provide the following labor category descriptions for Offerors to accurately perform this mapping?

Computer Systems Engineer Electronics Technician Maintenance III Lab Manager II Lab Manager III Lab Technician III

Enclosure DD provides a position description for the Computer Systems Engineer; however, the other position descriptions are not available. The rates for those positions are provided for information purposes only, and those positions are exempt from the formal mapping process.