ESES_III_QA_12.14.17.pdf

RFP NNG17591526R

Questions and Answers December 14, 2017

ESES III

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q23: Exhibits 2C (Non-significant Subcontractor Non-Management Direct Labor Category Conversion) and 2D (Non-significant Subcontractor Offeror Management and Administrative Labor) do not contain columns for indirect rate application. Will the Government add columns to Exhibits 2C and 2D (similar to Exhibits 2A and 2B) to include this? Or can Offerors modify the exhibit to enable the Prime to add their indirect burdens so the fully loaded rates in these schedules match the rates in Exhibit 1A?

A23: The Government will not revise Exhibits 2C and 2D to add columns. Primes add their indirect burdens applicable to subs on Exhibit 1A only.

Q24: Are the costs to be populated in Exhibit 7, in addition to the costs depicted in the table in both B.7(a) and L.17(b)(3)?

A24: No, Exhibit 7 is for Offeror-proposed recurring ODCs/CERs only. Non-proposed costs specified in Clause B.7 are not recurring ODCs or CERs, and should be excluded from Exhibit 7.

Q25: The RFP indicates in L.17(b)(14) that Exhibits 10A and 10B satisfy the TCP requirement at FAR 52.222-46 for the Non-Significant subcontractors. Please confirm that Exhibits 10A and 10B also satisfy the TCP requirement for non-significant subcontractors under RFP L.2 NFS 1852.231-71(d) which requires a TCP from all service subcontractors for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4. (Over $750,000)?

A25: Service subcontractors who do not meet the RFP dollar criteria for Significant Subcontractor at L.17(a), but who meet the dollar criteria at L.2 NFS 1852.231-71(d) may satisfy the TCP information requirements by submitting Exhibits 10A and 10B only.

Q26: As it is typically prohibited to include cost information in any other volume, please confirm that the salary/wages information required to be included in the TCP per NFS 1852.231-71 which states “The total compensation plan shall include the salaries/wages, ….”, should only include salaries/wage ranges instead of the specific proposed direct labor rates?

A26: Per the cited clause, “The total compensation plan shall include the salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs proposed for each of these categories of labor.” As such, the salaries/wages information in the TCP should be consistent with salaries/wages proposed.

Q27: The RFP states under Exhibit 6A and Exhibit 6B “NOTE: If an 8(a) Small Business Administration Joint Venture (JV) or any other type of team is proposed as the prime offeror, the actual expenses for the prior three years of both entities that comprise the JV or any other type of team proposed as the prime offeror must be provided in this exhibit; this portion cannot be left blank. If the JV entity has actual/historical expense data sufficient to complete the exhibit, then the JV-specific data should be provided.” Would the Government please confirm, that if the joint venture does have specific data, parent information is not required?

A27: Yes, if such data specific to the JV is sufficient to complete the exhibit.

Q28: In accordance with the pricing instructions in Section L, only the Prime Offeror is to complete Exhibit 3 of the GPM. However Exhibit 3 has boxes for both the Prime Offeror or Significant Subcontractor to be checked as if it is required to be submitted by both the Prime and significant subcontractor. Please confirm the Exhibit 3 is only for the Prime Offeror to complete.

A28: Correct, only the prime offeror is to submit Exhibit 3. The checked box on Exhibit 3 for significant subcontractor should be disregarded.

Q29: The fifth sentence of the second paragraph in L.17(b)(4), states “For all Non- Significant Subcontractors that meet or exceed the projected subcontractor percentage specified previously in Section (a)(2) DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECTS AND FEE MATRICES, the individual subcontractors’ direct labor categories and loaded rates used in Exhibit 2C to derive the loaded GPM-Specified Non-Management Direct Labor Category Rates (for Exhibit 1A) must match those proposed in Attachment B, DIRECT LABOR

RATES, INDIRECT RATES, AND FEE MATRICES.”

Please confirm Section “(a)(2)” reference should be Section ”(b)(2)”.

Additionally, nowhere in Section (b)(2) DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECTS AND FEE MATRICES is there a “projected subcontractor percentage” specified. Please provide clarification as to what percentage must be met or exceeded as referenced in the RFP sentence above.

Also, the referenced sentence states that certain rates for non-significant subcontractors must match those proposed in Attachment B. Earlier in L.17(b)(2) paragraph two, it states “In Section 5, the Prime Offeror shall include a fully-loaded direct labor rate matrices for each Significant Subcontractor.” This is inconsistent with the referenced sentence above. For the purpose of clarification, would the Government please consider removing the above referenced sentence [fifth sentence of the second paragraph in L.17(b)(4)] from the RFP?

A29: The RFP does not require that any non-significant subcontractors include its rates in the Attachment B Rate Matrices. This sentence was included in error and will be removed in Amendment 3.

Q30: Ref L.17(b)(1) The Government has provided historical labor rates in Enclosure DD along with proposal instructions stating, “Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data, for those labor categories for which rates are provided, in order to better understand salary levels of the incumbent workforce. If the Offeror proposes direct labor rates for incumbent personnel that are lower than these provided rates, the Offeror should explain how they intend to attract and retain incumbent staff based on its Total Compensation Plan.”

In past RFP’s when historical labor rates were provided, the Government has included in the instructions more firm language requiring the utilization of the historical labor rates. Examples include:

• “Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce must use the incumbent labor rates” (from the MIST RFP);

• “Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce must use the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data” (from OMES II RFP); and

• “Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce must use the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure A” (from the SEAS RFP).

The RFP emphasizes retaining incumbency however the current direct labor instructions seem to be giving a different message. Would the Government consider utilizing any of the above past language in order to emphasize accurate pricing of incumbent capture?

How would the Government evaluate if an Offeror were to propose direct labor rates lower than those specified in Enclosure DD for incumbent personnel? Would the Government consider adding an evaluation factor in Section M that addresses risk and/or a weakness from a technical execution and management perspective (particularly during Phase-In) if Offeror’s propose direct labor rates lower than those specified in Enclosure DD for incumbent personnel?

A30: GSFC has revised its standard language in the above referenced area regarding contract historical data to acknowledge situations where offerors may choose to propose different rates for incumbent capture. The Government will evaluate proposed direct labor rates in accordance with Section M.4, Cost Evaluation Factor as well as part of the Total Compensation Plan stated in M.3.B.8.

Q31: Ref L.18(a): The last sentence in the 2nd paragraph states “The Offeror shall provide the information requested below for any significant subcontractor(s) for those similar efforts within the last 5 years of the RFP release date with a minimum average annual cost/fee of at least 10% of the estimated annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract.” Given that direction, should the “$4M (25% of $16M)” that appears at the end of the next paragraph which gives an example, be “$1.6M (10% of $16M)”?).

A31: The numbers provided in the example in L.18(a) are generic numbers and are not specific to the RFP.

Q32: Ref: L.16(c) Subfactor B.3 requires the Offerors to provide the following for only the Significant subcontractors: Interfaces to the Offerors organizational structure and 1) the basis for selection of the subcontractor, 2) the nature and extent of the work to be performed by the subcontractor, including split of responsibilities and the potential percentages of work to be performed 3) the benefits of these arrangements to the Government, and 4) methods of management and reporting to GSFC of subcontractors' financial and technical plans and performance. Would the Government consider requesting the above referenced items for all subcontractors, not just significant subcontractors? We consider this important due to the new method this RFP utilizes for determining significant subcontractors for cost purposes. For instance, an Offeror can have three subcontractors each having a 5.0% workshare, and a fourth one having 5.1%. As written the RFP would only require this information for the fourth subcontractor. We believe the information is equally important for the other three Subcontractors.

A32: No, this solicitation instruction will not be changed to require this information from all subcontractors. The Government is attempting to reasonably balance the information required by offerors in response to the solicitation while including the information that is most important for the evaluation of proposals.

Q33: Given the RFP’s process for determining Significant Subcontractors from a cost volume perspective, would the Government consider changing the first two sentences of L.16(c) Subfactor B to read “The Offeror shall describe its strategy for using (or not using) subcontractors. If subcontractors are proposed identify ……….” ?

A33: The RFP language remains unchanged.

Q34: The RFP requires “Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years.” Would the Government please consider removing this information from the page limitation?

A34: The Government will not remove this information from the page limitation.

Q35: Ref L.18(a) page 159 states, “The Offeror shall provide the following information on all past/current contract references that meet the above criteria for the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor: “ Please confirm that the following two items/paragraphs on page 161 are not part of the information to be included in each of the past/current contract references, and that they are standalone requirements of the Prime/Offeror and significant subcontractors.

• “Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years.

• List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default). Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers). Include contracts that were "descoped" by the customer because of performance or cost problems.

(Excluded from the page limitation).

A35: Correct, the last two items/paragraphs pertain to the prime only and are standalone requirements.

Q36: I.54 FAR 52.222-51 and I.55 52.222-53 are Service Contract Labor Standard exemptions only if the conditions for exemption at paragraphs (a) through (e) have all been met. We have determined that these exemptions do not apply, as they are company specific, and therefore request that the Government include 52.222-41 and applicable Wage Determination information.

A36: The Government has determined this contract is not subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Q37: Is this contract subject to 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards? If it is, will the Government include FAR 51.222-41 and applicable Wage Determination?

A37: See response to A36.

Q38: Does an Offeror’s earlier submission of OCI information during the draft phase, if complete and accurate, satisfy the RFP requirement of Section L.12(d)(2) stating “(d) Representation. By submission of its offer, the Offeror represents, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that –

(1) there are no relevant facts that could give rise to an OCI, as defined in FAR Part 2; or

(2) the Offeror has disclosed all relevant information regarding any actual or potential conflicts of interest.” ? If the earlier submission does not satisfy this requirement, what are Offerors required to submit and when should it be submitted?

A38: No, earlier submission of OCI information does not satisfy the RFP requirement. The OCI Plan may be requested of the offeror at any time during the evaluation phase. Section L12.

outlines what is required of the offeror.

Q39: In Section L.17(b)(2) Page 149, the RFP states, “Please note these are Prime and Significant Subcontractor company-specific PQs – not the Government Non-Management DL Position Descriptions provided for the Government Pricing Model (GPM) purposes only.” If an Offeror chooses to do a one for one mapping of company labor categories to RFP labor categories, can Offerors use the Government Non-Management DL Position Descriptions provided for the GPM as the company-specific PQs for the Non-Management labor categories?

A39: Yes, offerors may use the Government Non-Management DL position descriptions provided in the GPM as the company-specific PQs for the non-management labor categories.

Q40: RFP instructions require Offerors to complete fill-ins in Sections B-K. Please confirm that only the RFP pages with the completed fill-ins are submitted in the Offer Volume.

A40: Yes, as stated in L.14(a), only the RFP pages with the completed fill-ins are required to be submitted in the Offer Volume.

Q41: In Section L.17(b)(3) the RFP provides an ODC table and states “…NOTE: ODCs shall be non-fee bearing.” Please confirm that this fee restriction is also applicable if ODC’s, materials, etc. are provided/supplied/purchased by proposed Subcontractors?

A41: Yes, the fee guidance also applies to supplies provided or purchased by subcontractors.

Q42: Please clarify whether Primes can make the assumption that labor type work captured as an ODC, is also restricted from the inclusion of fee.

A42: Only non-labor non-proposed ODC cost items of travel, material, and miscellaneous ODCs should be treated as non-fee bearing.

Q43: Would the Government please update the past performance questionnaire (Exhibit 12) with the next amendment, to include the correct POC, a fax number for fax submission of questionnaires and the updated due date.

A43: The correction to Exhibit 12 is as follows: POC: Claudia Canales Phone: 301-286-5990; fax: 301-286-1720. Due date is same as due date for proposals.

Q44: The answer to Q3 in the questions and answers dated 22 November states that classified questionnaires shall be hand delivered. It is unlikely that our customers will be able to facilitate the hand delivery of questionnaires to Goddard.

(a) Would the Government please provide instructions for how to submit classified questionnaires electronically?

(b) Is it acceptable to coordinate with Ronald Johnson for the electronic submission of questionnaires, and to not hand deliver classified questionnaires?

A44: Ronald Johnson is no longer the POC for classified past performance questionnaires.

Offerors should contact Claudia Canales, Contracting Officer regarding procedures for submitting past performance information at the Secret, Top Secret or Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) levels. The CO will make arrangements for transmission.

Q45: Please amplify the guidance regarding the number of copies of classified material. Given the nature of the material and the NASA audience with whom that data will be shared, is one copy acceptable or is it the Government’s expectation that the same number of copies of classified material be submitted as required for the entire volume?

A45: One copy of classified material is acceptable.

Q46: Regarding submission of the IT Security Management Plan; Section I.132 (c) (4) and Section J.1 state the plan is to be submitted within "30 days after contract award". In contrast, Section L.14 (c) (10) states the plan is to be submitted "within 30 days after the contract effective date.” Will the government please clarify the required submission timing of the IT Security Management Plan? "

A46: The IT Security Management Plan is to be submitted 30 days after contract award.

Q47: Ref Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data, Direct Labor Incumbent Rates. In the referenced Enclosure there are no historical rates for the following categories: Chief Staff Engineer I, Electrical Engineer III, Mechanical Technician III or IV, Parts/Component Engineer (Sr. I, Sr. II, Sr. III, Sr. IV, and IV), Quality Assurance Engineer IV, Radiation Engineers I, II, and III. The above categories have a substantial amount of hours in the GPM. Please clarify if these are new positions or if there are historical categories where an incumbent rate is available, and if so, can the Government provide rates for these categories.

A47: Except for the Radiation Engineer II & III labor categories, the remaining are new to ESES III and were created to better define the work in the SOW. The Radiation II & III labor categories were not used during the last year under ESES II.

Q48: The Government should include a requirement in Section L & M of the ESES III RFP since roughly 34% of ESES involves fabrication and manufacturing.

A48: At the start of ESES-II there was a manufacturing requirement due to the high volume of work being generated by the flight projects (i.e. MMS, GPM, MAVEN, JWST). The current manufacturing work load has significantly decreased due to the lower flight project needs (less spacecraft and instrument builds). Therefore, it is determine that Sections L & M sufficiently address manufacturing.

Q49: In the Manufacturing Site table in Enclosure CC, the only direct labor category cited is Manufacturing Engineer III. Given the scope of work for ESES III, additional labor categories would typically also be associated with manufacturing. Does the Government anticipate additional labor categories will be needed at the Manufacturing Site? If so, what are the categories and what representative direct labor hours should be used? Would the Government please provide the total percentage of manufacturing effort required for the ESES III contract?

A49: The manufacturing effort on ESES III is less than 5% of the total contract. Enclosures CC has been revised to add the appropriate Manufacturing Labor categories and hours. Initially the manufacturing hours were shown in the GPM off-site hours. Minimal onsite manufacturing at GSFC (Bldg 35) is captured in the GPM On-site hours.

Q50: There are no Manufacturing Site GPM labor categories or direct labor hours defined in the current solicitation for ESES III although ESES II contained sixteen (16) appropriate labor categories. Manufacturing site expenditures/costs are much greater than on-site and off-site related costs and should therefore be transparent and appropriately priced. Accordingly, your previous ESES II labor categories were outstanding and are appropriate as we see it for ESES III. While less than half of the current task orders are currently unavailable for review and consumption and therefore hard to estimate fabrication requirements, we believe that such activity may be very robust and telling.

A50: Enclosures CC has been revised to add the appropriate Manufacturing Labor categories and hours. See response to Q48 and Q49.

Q51: Both partners in a Joint Venture may have active Top Secret level facility clearances, but cannot obtain the JV secret facility clearance for ESES III through Defense Security Services (DSS) until a contract and DD-254 are issued to/for the JV. The current ESES III Final RFP Contract Security Classification provision as currently drafted would prohibit JVs from competing for ESES III. Instead of ESES III, L.14.c.8, as currently written for ESES III, please substitute the provision from OMES II, NNG16549116R, L.11.c.9 below (as modified).

“... If an Offeror does not have this required clearance at the time of proposal submittal, they shall describe in detail their approach for obtaining this clearance prior to the effective date of the contract (at the end of contract phase-in, if applicable). ..”

A51: We have been in contact with DSS Officials to verify DSS requirements for granting facility clearances to Joint Ventures. DSS confirmed, that in order to begin performance, the facility clearance needs to be granted in name of Joint Venture; it is not sufficient for each partner to possess its own facility clearance. We have also verified that the ESES requirements necessitate a facility clearance on day 1 of the contract. Given that the facility clearance needs to be granted in the name of the Joint Venture and that ESES requires the clearance on day 1 of the contract, we have determined that it is in the best interest of the Government to require evidence of a Facility Clearance in the name of the offeror with the proposal.

Q52: Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data, Direct Labor Incumbent Rates in the final RFP states “*Weighted Average Unburdened Hourly Rate for this category (escalated through October 2018 utilizing NASA-obtained Global Insight escalation rates).” We have interpreted this to mean that the rates are effective 11/1/2018, could you please confirm our interpretation is correct. Since the contract starts 8/1/2018, please provide direction on what should be used for Aug, Sept and Oct 2018.

A52: Enclosure DD rates are effective as of 8/1/2018. The above referenced language on Enclosure DD is corrected to read as follows: *Weighted Average Unburdened Hourly Rate for this category (escalated through September 2018 utilizing NASA-obtained Global Insight escalation rates).