MSOC_PPC_Questions_and_Answers_FINAL_(07-28-16).pdf

Attachment 1: Questions and Answers

NNJ16100117R

MSOC Pre-Solicitation Synopsis

Amendment 5

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

Q172: Will the MSOC contract allow second-tier subcontracting which would allow flexibility in pulling in commercial vendors for performing specific specialty projects?

A172: The Government did not provide a limitation on subcontracting. The decision on who to subcontract with (at any tier) is the responsibility of the prime contractor or team.

Q173: Can participants join the Pre-Proposal Conference tours without taking the bus, i.e. we have a NASA badge?

A173: No.

Q174: Will the incumbent phase out plan be provided prior to final RFP?

A174: There is currently no incumbent phase out plan on either FDOC or NSOC.

Q175: Standards for hardware development are not identified in either the common or unique SOW areas. Will the government please clarify?

A175: Please see the SVMF Mock-up Development Requirements Guide in the Technical Resource Library.

Q176: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- How can we do the tabs for each of the contract years?

A176: The Government’s preference is to have all contract years are to be in the Fully Burdened Rates (FBR) tab of the spreadsheet and are to be vertically stacked with contract year 1 being the first filled out template at the top followed by contract year 2 and so forth below.

Q177: What are the 5 cost/price numbers the SSA will see? A177: The Cost and Fee Estimate Summary (CAFES) worksheet has been added to Attachment L-4, MSOC Excel Pricing Model (EPM) to facilitate communication of the costing information. The CAFES summarizes the Completion Form Price, Level Of Effort (LOE) Price, LOE Flex Option Price, IDIQ Price, and Phase-In Price. The SSA will have access to this and any additional information related to this procurement.

Q178: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- Will a summary tab (that sums all 5 numbers) be added to the EPM?

A178: The Government will provide an additional tab, the Cost and Fee Estimate Summary (CAFES), in the EPM that sums all components (CF, LOE, LOE Flex Option, IDIQ, and Phase-In).

Q179: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- In the overhead tab, in the new section it asks for average FTEs. What do you want there?

A179: The average cost per FTE for each of these three line items of cost identified in the tab (FICA [Fed Income Tax], Retirement, and Health/Life Insurance). This data is per FTE, not necessarily employees, as it is possible for more than one employee to make up an FTE. It is possible, but not necessarily true that all three line items of cost will contain the same number of FTEs. That will depend on the Offeror’s coverage as it applies to the Offeror’s

Q180: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- If there are 1000 FTEs in a pool and all 1000 FTEs have FICA, Retirement, and Health/Life insurance, then all three lines in this section should be 1000, right?

A180: Yes, but keep in mind these are FTEs, not number of employees. FTEs can consist of portions of employees.

Q181: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- Can we have multiple tabs for overhead?

A181: Yes, if you have multiple overhead pools, then copy the tab and stack them.

Q182: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- How will Phase-in costs be evaluated?

A182: Per RFP Section M.5, Price analysis will be performed on the proposed Phase-in price. Cost realism analysis will be performed, if necessary (i.e., if there are math errors, significant rate issues, etc.). However, the proposed fixed price Phase-in amount will not be adjusted.

Q183: Where did the SMS trainers that were in Building 5 end up?

A183: The Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS) trainers were donated to various organizations. The Guidance and Navigation Simulator (GNS) was donated to the Wings of Dreams Aviation Museum in Starke, FL. The Motion Base Simulator was donated to Texas A&M University. The Fixed Base Simulator was donated to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, IL.

Q184: Will there be a Space-X Dragon simulator located in Building 5?

A184: Currently there are no plans for a Space-X simulator in Building 5.

Q185: What is the MCC backup for power outages? A185: The Mission Control Center has battery backup and diesel generators for power outages provided by the NASA JSC Center Operations Directorate.

Q186: Do we have a metal 3-D printer capability in the SVMF? A186: No.

Q187: Which museums did the Shuttle trainers in the SVMF get sent to?

A187: The Crew Compartment Trainer was donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. The Full Fuselage Trainer was donated to the Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA.

Q188: Can you provide attrition data as far back as possible? A188: Incumbent attrition data is proprietary and cannot be provided.

Q189: When is OCI plan due? A189: The OCI Plan will be due with the proposal, in accordance with DRD-MSOC-0032, Section 8. F.

Submission.

Q190: The Mission Suitability scoring on MSOC is different from past solicitations. You have weighted more in the Technical and Safety areas and less on Management when compared to recent solicitations. Did the Government have a deliberate strategy in weighting things this way?

A190: Yes, human spaceflight is critical, therefore, technical and safety performance is weighted appropriately for this solicitation.

Q191: Regarding small business scoring, can you confirm that small businesses that prime will receive the full 100 points for the small business factor even if there are no small business subcontractors in the proposal?

A191: A small business that bids as prime will receive the full 100 points, in accordance with RFP Section M.3.

Q192: Currently the FDOC Ops Team receives certification or flight pay. Was this cost factored into the ODCs or should it be in another location in the cost model?

A192: Certification or flight pay are to be included as part of direct labor to be consistent with the J-20 Rate tables.

Q193: Clarify the required number and description of key positions required for the MSOC proposal. For example, the PM and DPM are called out as key positions with no parentheticals for alternatives. The Chief Engineer, for example, has parentheticals associated with this key position: “Chief Engineer (or equivalent if proposed)”. Does the term “if proposed” refer to an option to have a Chief Engineer or equivalent or not? Or, is a Chief Engineer or equivalent a required key position? As part of this same question, how many mandatory key positions are required, 2 or 6?

A193: The five Key Personnel positions noted in the instructions are required. The term “if proposed” was associated with the Offeror proposing an equivalent position and not meant to indicate that the position was optional. The Government intends to remove “if proposed” in the final RFP. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q194: Attachment L-a states “Required: ….Chief Engineer (or equivalent, if proposed).” Please further define the roles and expectations of the Chief Engineer Key Position.

A194: The Offeror is to provide the roles and responsibilities for all key personnel.

Q195: Section 2.6 in the SOW regarding the TS/SCI requirements. Can the security work be clearly defined such that Offerors could better understand (there’s no SLC for security engineer). How many security engineers are required?

A195: The Government has provided estimated minimum number of clearances and associated SLCs required as part of Attachment L-6.

Q196: The on-site warehouse information is currently TBD in the draft RFP. Will this information be clarified for the final

RFP?

A196: Yes.

Q197: What reservations would FOD have to consider a smaller and less name branded company?

A197: This is a full and open competition.

Q198: For the OMS Sample Delivery Order, can we assume the TS21 upgrade has been completed prior to contract start?

A198: Yes and the instructions in the DO will be updated to reflect this assumption.

Q199: Do you have concerns with incumbent workforce?

Specifically, do you have worry about losing people/attrition due to contract change over?

A199: As described in the Draft RFP, there are critical skills and certifications noted in Attachment L-6, Pricing Assumptions and Critical Skills. The new Contractor must be ready to assume the operations required by the contract from day one.

Q200: Will the Government post requirements, architecture notebooks, and design documentation associated with the TA- 1 requirements?

A200: This documentation has been provided as part of the Technical Reference Library.

Q201: Will the Government consider adding CMMI compliance requirements in SOW Section 2.10?

A201: No, there are no Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) compliance requirements.

Q202: For the purposes of Phase-In Planning, will the transition from an Off-site warehouse to an On-site warehouse been completed prior to Phase-In?

A202: It is the Government’s intention to complete the move of the Off-site warehouse to an On-site warehouse before Phase-in.

Q203: What is the reason for the two year base period? A203: The two year base period was determined based on NFS 1837.106-70, FAR 37.106 – Funding and Term of Service Contracts, which provides guidance to all NASA Centers on the funding and term of severable services contracts.

Q204: Past Performance statement in Section M says primes are weighted higher than the subs or the combination of subs.

Will the Government consider removing that language?

A204: The following sentence has been removed in the FINAL RFP: "The past performance of the prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than any major subcontractor or combination of major subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation."

Q205: For the OMS Sample DO, can we provide varying approaches without TS21?

A205: The intent of the Sample DO is for the Offeror to describe approaches not specific technical solutions.

Q206: The draft RFP doesn’t explicitly call out User Applications and we would like to understand how to cost this support if there are no details.

A206: The draft RFP Attachment J-10, MSOC Software List, is inclusive of the User Applications. The Government intends to update this list prior to the final RFP release.

Q207: In Section B, the maximum value for IDIQ is stated, but there’s no contract value specified. What is the contract value?

A207: The Offeror’s proposed cost would form the proposed contract value.

Q208: For the following two questions, reference Section L16.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach (TA). From the RFP:

TA1. Specific Technical Understanding, Resources, and Supporting Processes “The description shall be inclusive of the Offeror’s overall approach to supporting the Mission Systems with overall Contract Management, Administrative Services, Support Services, and Mission Systems Operations Services.”

These elements are specifically called out in MSOC Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

1.1 Contract Management

1.2 Administrative Services

1.3 Support Services

1.4 Mission Systems Operations Services

And are included in J-21 WBS-SOW mapping as

1.0 Shared Resources

1.1 Contract management

1.2 Administrative Services

1.3 Support Services

1.3.1 Financial & Contract Performance

1.3.2 Etc…

The question is related to “Financial & Contract Performance.” In the SOW, Financial & Contract Performance is listed as 2.1, Financial and Contract Performance, as a subset under 2.0, Contract Management. However, in the WBS-SOW mapping, “Financial & Contract Performance” is listed as 1.3.1 under “Support Services.” Under which response element do you want “Financial & Contract Performance” discussed? Contract Management or Support Services?

A208: Offerors are directed to discuss Financial & Contract Performance under WBS element 1.3.1 Financial & Contract Performance.

Q209: With these four elements mentioned in the previous question – Contract Management, Administrative Services, Support Services, and the management portion of Mission Systems Operations Services, is it more conducive for these to be discussed as part of a narrative within the Management Approach as opposed to the Technical Approach?

A209: As addressed in RFP Section L16.3.1, these four elements shall be in the Technical Approach and shall be consistent with the proposed Management Approach.

Q210: Are job hazard analyses provided in the technical library?

A210: The job hazard analysis documentation has been provided as part of the Technical Resource Library.

Q211: How will the phase out activities be addressed with the current incumbent contractors given there are no Phase Out plans?

A211: The Government intends to provide Areas of Emphasis to the current contractors during the last award fee evaluation period to account for phase out activities.

Q212: Will the Government consider adding functional expertise or technical expertise SLCs?

A212: Attachment J-20 provides the MSOC Skills Labor Categories (SLCs) and Offerors can propose additional SLCs as they deem necessary.

Q213: May the offer convert the format of the BOE in response to TA-2 to MS Word Table in order to more accurately incorporate into the Narrative of TA2?

A213: No. It is the Government's intent to add an Appendix D for TA-2 BOE in Excel. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q214: The Mission Suitability point distribution is different in the Pre-Proposal Conference charts from what is in the draft RFP. Was this intentional?

A214: The draft RFP contained the correct MS scoring distribution. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q215: It may be difficult to meet the early Past Performance due date. Is that an issue?

A215: As addressed in RFP section L16.2, the Government has requested, not required, that the Past Performance volume be submitted early and will accept the Past Performance volume up to and including but no later than October 13, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. CDT.

Q216: Does the four year past performance time span apply to the narrative as well as the questionnaires?

A216: Yes.

Q217: With the amount of production due with this proposal, do you know (realize) production has to start at least a week before the proposal is due?

A217: Yes, the Government has considered this when setting the proposal due date.

Q218: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- Do Non-Labor Resources (NLR) costs need to be allocated across the WBS?

A218: Yes.

Q219: Where is the MCC backup during hurricanes? A219: Reference Section C 1.2.1.2, Backup Control Center

– Huntsville Operations Support Center (BCC-HOSC) and White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), for a discussion of the Backup Control Center for the MCC.

Q220: What are the Operations Support requirements at the remote locations sited in SOW Section 3.1.4?

A220: There are no Operations Support requirements on a full-time basis at the remote locations; operations support at these locations is on an as needed basis.

Q221: In this paragraph, it states “For electronic submission, each volume of the proposal should be submitted as separate electronic file.” Given the potentially large size of each volume, request the Offeror be allowed to also submit their electronic file as a .pdf file or be allowed to submit multiple files per volume.

A221: The Government is updating the RFP to allow multiple electronic files per volume as appropriate.

Additionally, Government has provided some guidance as to the anticipated number of files per volume. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q222: At the bottom of the table, Note 1 indicated that the page limit for key personnel is one page for each key position.

However, the key personnel instruction (Attachment L-1) indicated “….resume shall not exceed two pages.” Please clarify this instruction.

A222: The Final RFP establishes the Key Personnel instructions to allow a maximum of two pages for the resume and one page for the letter of commitment. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q223: Will the Logistics and Mockup Facility (LMF) at NBL be made available under MSOC? Will there be Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) for this?

A223: If a need is identified, the Government may consider allowing MSOC to use the LMF, and ACAs will be formed as necessary.

Q224: We are confused with the RFI language regarding Commercialization and what we saw in the RFP. We did not see the emphasis about Commercialization in the H clauses and other RFP statements.

A224: The Government’s intent is to enable partnerships and commercialization in accordance with RFP requirements; specifically Section C, H.12, and H.13.

Q225: We submitted several responses to MSOC and FOD RFIs. The RFI states a vision to be the Silicon Valley of Human Spaceflight. As we have done our reviews of the RFP, it’s hard for us to see where that has been crystallized in the solicitation. It appeared, through the RFI that you were putting substantial teeth in commercialization and would be awarding performance accordingly. Can you comment on whether you have that vision and whether you intend to implement that vision through the MSOC contractor?

A225: The Government’s intent is to enable partnerships and commercialization in accordance with RFP requirements; specifically Section C, H.12, and H.13.

Q226: The number of copies (9), other volumes and non-counted filed required to be submitted for MSOC do not appear to be in line with the goal to go electronic. Please reconsider.

A226: The SEB has determined this is the minimum number of hard copies required for this procurement.

Q227: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- What is the color code for all of the tabs on the Excel Pricing Model?

A227: The colors on the tabs do not mean anything.

Within a tab, grey cells contain a formula and yellow cells are potential areas requiring input from an Offeror.

For further clarification:

i. First 2 tabs are technical

ii. Next 4 tabs are completion form templates

iii. Next 3 tabs are weighted rates for hours (LOE, LOE flex, IDIQ) These tabs are used to calculate and/or provide support for rates used in the pricing of the completion form effort, the LOE, LOE Flex option, and IDIQ specified hours.

iv. Next 3 tabs get dollars of previous rates. These tabs monetize the LOE, LOE Flex option, and IDIQ hours in terms of dollars.

v. Next 3 tabs are for overhead, G&A. These tabs are for supporting the calculations used in deriving the Offeror’s proposed overhead and G&A rates.

vi. Next four tabs support total compensation issues.

vii. Last two tabs provide point-of-contact information and support the Offeror’s proposed Phase-in price.

Q228: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- Is it ok to propose 2 different rates for LOE and LOE flex?

A228: No, the J-20 Labor Rate Table has been updated to reflect one rate table for IDIQ, LOE and LOE Flex.

Q229: From the Cost/Price Workshop -- TC(a) and TC(b) templates looks like they’re from different procurements. Will they be updated?

A229: Yes, they will be updated in the final RFP.

Q230: Will the Government populate the Technical Resource Library with the architectural requirements for the TA-2 Orion Mission Simulator?

A230: There are no architectural requirements defined at this time for the OMS.

Q231: Are the current ACA’s going to be provided in the Technical Resource Library?

A231: The Government does not intend to include the ACAs in the Technical Reference Library.

Q232: Prime TCP [DRD-MSOC-0035], part of MA2, is included within the 500 page limit DRD-MSOC-0035, TCP, references FAR 52.22-46. FAR 52.222- 46 (d) states “The Offeror shall require all service subcontractors provide, as part of their proposal, the information identified in (a) through (c) of this provision 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.”

FAR 15.403-4 states “The threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data is $700,000.” Thus it appears that TCPs are required for all subcontractors having a total MSOC value greater than $700K.

Assuming this is correct [i.e., sub with TCV greater than $700K require a TCP], request the subcontractor TCPs be excluded from the page count of 500, or that a sufficient number of pages be allowed for each required subcontractor TCP.

A232: The Government intends to update Table L-2a to clarify that the TCP (DRD-MSOC-0035) is not included in the page count limitation in the Final RFP. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q233: The Continuous Improvement Plan is scored in Management, not in Technical. Was this intentional? We are concerned that our Innovative Technical Solutions will not receive Technical credit in the scoring. Please clarify your intent.

A233: Yes. With the recent deployment of a major development for the Mission Control Center and a pending deployment of a major development for the Training Systems in late FY17, stability of these immature systems is of utmost importance. Innovations that would require technical modification of those immature systems would be counter to the stability of those immature systems and would further increase operational risk.

Innovation during performance of MSOC is specifically addressed as a requirement within the SOW Section 2.0 to enable outcomes to increase the capacity to perform problem resolution, system improvements, and new development. The Continuous Improvement Plan lays the foundation for the MSOC performance by focusing on the processes and methodologies that the Offeror would employ to provide improvements to processes and procedures as well as improvement to the Mission Systems in the future as they become stable.

Q234: The requirement that 12 DRDs be delivered with the proposals is hard to reconcile with NASA’s focus on streamlining requirements. Can you please explain what aspects of the MSOC solicitation are streamlined and how?

A234: The SEB performed a bottom-up review of the DRDs to be required with proposal. The identified DRDs are the minimum set required to perform the required evaluation.

Q235: The Offeror shall provide a BOE table following the format of Attachment L-9, (BOE) Template. Since the BOE Template spans the entire potential length of the contract, may the submitter modify the template with the removal of the last 7 years in order to save space with the template but only for the Delivery Order Response since this will not be submitted in Volume III – Cost/Price Proposal?

A235: Modification of the BOE template is no longer required because the BOE is not included in the page count limitation in the Final FRP. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q236: Are the signed commitment letters outside of the page count for key personnel resumes?

A236: See response A222 above.

Q237: Major sub-contractor threshold will limit SB participation due to its size – same as FDOC, which was twice the contract value. Will NASA consider lowering the threshold to $5M or less?

A237: The $10M threshold is appropriate considering the size of this acquisition and does not limit participation in the contract.

Q238: Section L.9(i) states the following:

[Note: Information required in NFS 1852.245-80 shall be submitted as a separate tab after the Property Management Plan (PMP) or as a separate tab in the Management Volume if no PMP is required with the initial submission, unless stated otherwise in this RFP.] DRD-MSOC-0008 states the CO will notify offerors when the initial PMP is due.

Please clarify if the PMP is due with the proposal. If it is not due with the proposal, please confirm that the Phase-in Plan [DRD-MSOC-005 Paragraph 8.c(viii)] is the appropriate place to address property management in the proposal.

A238: The PMP is not due with the initial proposal. In accordance in Section L16.6(d), the PMP is due at the request of the Contracting Officer. Section L.9(i) has been updated in the Final RFP. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q239: In Section C.3.1.5; 1st Paragraph it states: The Contractor shall provide support for determination of designs and costs for Mission Systems and software development modifications per the change mechanism defined in Section 3.1.1.1, Configuration Management. Should this reference Section 3.1.1.2, Technical Change Management instead of Section 3.1.1.1 Configuration Management?

A239: Updated reference from 3.1.1.1, Configuration Management to 3.1.1.3, Technical Change Process. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q240: Is the Organization Chart required as part of the Past Performance volume outside of the required page count?

A240: No, the Organization Chart is included in the 500 page count limitation.

Q241: The RFP states “Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size. For aesthetic purposes, will the Government allow a minimum 10-point font to be used in tables and graphics?

A241: No, per Section L16.2(c), text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than non-compressed Arial with single-spaced 12 point text size.

Q242: With respect to this eight year contract, can you let us know what is important to you (cybersecurity, technical, safety, availability)? Can you provide us a characterization of which are most important and why?

A242: The Offerors are encouraged to review Section C, SOW, and Sections L&M.

Q243: What is the interest in commercialization in MSOC per the RFI?

A243: The Government’s intent is to enable partnerships and commercialization in accordance with RFP requirements; specifically Section C, H.12, and H.13.

Q244: We understand how to cost the base. How do we apply rates for IDIQ and LOE? Should it be the same as base?

A244: The rates that are developed by the Prime Offeror on the Fully Burdened Rate (FBR) Template are to be applied to the LOE, LOE Flex option, and IDIQ specified hours. The FBR rates represent the Prime Offeror’s fully burdened labor cost associated with an hour of labor, per SLC, and includes the Prime Offeror’s proposed weighting of its team members FBRs, per SLC. Some of the individual rate components of the Prime Offeror’s FBR (i.e., the direct labor rates, the overhead and G&A rates, etc.)

would most likely be the same as those used on the FBR.

Q245: For reach back, some resources will not be local and will have different rates. Is that ok?

A245: Offerors may add additional SLCs, if necessary, to price out the completion form effort. However, no additional FBRs are permitted in the pricing out of the RFP specified LOE, LOE Flex option, and IDIQ hours.

Q246: Please reference page M-6, Section M4 (Relevance paragraph): “Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only.”

MSOC consists of a broad and diverse scope that is not commonly found in a single contract.

Question: Will the government consider revising the evaluation standard referenced above as follows? “A combination of prime contractor and subcontractor (assuming appropriate subcontractor assignment of work) contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered equivalent to a single contract that may exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation.”

A246: The Government considered the proposed language. However, the Government considers contracts that have exhibited all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation to be more relevant.

Q247: Please reference Page M-8, Section M4 (Performance paragraph): “The past performance of the prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than any major subcontractor or combination of major subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.”

Subcontractors will be assigned and utilized to perform MSOC work that aligns closely with their experience and core competencies. Their experience and contribution in these areas is an essential and equally-important factor to technical and management success as that of the prime contractor.

Question: Will the government consider revising the evaluation standard referenced above as follows? The past performance of major subcontractors will be weighted equal to that of the prime contractor in the overall past performance evaluation if subcontractors are assigned to execute the specific work they are being cited for in past performance.

The prime contractor maintains overall responsibility of MSOC performance even over areas where a subcontractor performs the technical requirements. Therefore, the prime contractor’s past performance will also be evaluated for demonstration of experience with effectively managing a complex contract such as MSOC. Specifically, the following attributes will be evaluated: contract management; financial management;

subcontractor management; project management; and systems engineering and integration on prime contracts similar in size and complexity to MSOC.

A247: See answer A204.

Q248: Where should the Total Compensation Plan reside, J-7 or J-25?

A248: J-7. The Table of Contents has been updated.

Q249: Where should the Phase In Plan reside in Section J-11 or J-23?

A249: J-11. The Table of Contents has been updated.

Q250: Where should the Phase In Plan reside in Section J-12 or J-24?

A250: The Phase-In plan neither resides in J-24 nor J-12.

The Phase-In plan resides in J-11. The Table of Contents has been updated.

Q251: SOW References to 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 are missing. Do we assume that WBS 1.4.4.1 SVMF Management (which currently includes 3.2.4) should be mapped to 3.2.5? Also, should SOW

3.2.1 Reference be mapped to all of the WBS elements

(1.4.2.x) which are mapped to SOW 3.2.1.x references?

A251: Updated 3.2.1 & 3.2.5 in J-21 WBS and removed 3.2.4.

Q252: Since it is the Governments intent to maximize incumbent retention and mission continuity, please provide the number of incumbent personnel on the contract today by SLC and WBS;

A252: The Government has made no statement to the effect that it intends to maximize incumbent retention.

The Government has identified critical skills in Attachment L-6, Pricing Assumptions and Critical Skills. The number of incumbent personnel will not be provided, as that is proprietary information.

Q253: Please advise if 25 pages of free text as an Introduction to the Appendix A response is acceptable.

A253: No. An introduction has not been requested in the RFP instructions.

Q254: Please clarify that the two (2) copies of each questionnaire submitted only applies to the hard copy versions of the questionnaires being returned via fax or sealed envelope to the Contracting Officer.

A254: It is the Government's intent to request only one copy be returned. RFP Section L.16.4 (d) is revised. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q255: Please clarify the scope of the instructions for gathering information for Environmental and Safety & Health section.

Does the scope requested refer to data from a:

A) corporate-wide basis, or B) the specific program/site being referenced as the past project, or C) should the information be provided regarding the specific division within a company that would provide the service?

A255: The scope of the requested information includes all contracts for the company or division during the defined period of past performance. RFP Section L.16.4 (f) is revised. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition.

Q256: Once the Government provides answers/comments to submitted Draft RFP questions/requests, will there be an opportunity for additional or follow-up questions/requests?

A256: Per Section L.13, questions may be submitted to the Contracting Officer via electronic mail at jsc-msoc@mail.nasa.gov until 4:00 p.m. CDT on September 23, 2016.

Q257: Did the rates provided in the technical library include an uplift for overtime?

A257: No.

Q258: Request for Clarification / Question: Should the supplemental data be submitted with Vol. III, Cost/Price Proposal as opposed to Vol. II, Past Performance?

Recommended Revision to the RFP: First paragraph should state: The following supplemental cost data, where appropriate, shall be submitted with VOLUME III – Cost/Price Proposal.

A258: Section L.16.5.e is revised in the Final RFP to state:

The following supplemental cost data, where appropriate, shall be submitted with VOLUME III – Cost/Price Proposal.

Q259: Please note that DRD-MSOC-0016, NF533 Cost Reporting is missing from Attachment J-17

A259: The DRD will be included in the Final RFP.

Q260: After reading Section L16.3.1, TA1, paragraph (a), it is our understanding that the Offeror’s response shall be organized according to Attachment J-21, Work Breakdown Structure and shall specifically and separately emphasize the Mission Control Center Systems (MCCS), Training Systems (TS), and SVMF Mission Systems elements. Is this interpretation correct?

A260: Yes, the Offeror’s approach shall specifically and separately emphasize the Mission Control Center Systems (MCCS), Training Systems (TS), and SVMF Mission Systems elements and shall be organized according to Attachment J-21, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

Q261: Within the SOW on SVMF, Section 3.2.5.8 discusses the facility unique Certification and Training requirements.

The corresponding WBS mapping in Section J: J-21 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) lists this section under Management – WBS 1.4.4.1. This is similar for both MCCS and TS as well. Do you intend that all training and certification work be tracked to this specific WBS element, or may the work be uniquely applied to the corresponding element most appropriate for that facilities training and certification?

A261: It is the intent that all training and certification work shall be tracked to the appropriate Mission Systems management WBS element as mapped in Section J-21 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

Q262: Reference: RFP Section L.22.2, Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due Dates: The page limit for Appendix A: Basis of Estimate and Technical Resources, is “No Page Limit” on page L-17 within Table L-2a: Proposal Volumes and Page Limitations, Volume I. In paragraph L16.3.1 SUBFACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH (TA) on page L-23 the RFP states “The Offeror shall complete each BOE form provided in Attachment L-9, Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template and submit a printed copy in VOLUME I – MISSION SUITABILITY, Appendix A. Each form shall be no longer than one page with font size no smaller than 8.” Question: Should Table L-2a, Appendix A read, “Each BOE element will be limited to a single page. There is no page limit to the number of single page BOEs submitted.”

A262: There are 56 tabs in the BOE, so there will be 56 pages of BOEs that will not count in the 500 page limitation.

Q263: Page L-23 Basis of Estimate Templates indicates a minimum font size of 8, but the template contains some text that is in 7-point font. Please confirm that the embedded font in the existing files are suitable for use, or provide a revised template with fonts meeting the minimum requirement.

A263: The BOE template text has been updated to reflect a minimum font size of 8.

Q264: Page L‐34, Section L.16.4 Volume II Past Performance Section C. The question is: Do major subcontractors need to complete an Attachment L‐7 and provide an organizational chart as described below or does only the Prime need to provide Attachment L‐7 and an Organizational chart as described below"?

A264: The Final RFP has been updated to clarify that a single Attachment L-7 is to be provided that consolidates the prime and all major subcontractor’s inputs.

Additionally, the Final RFP has been updated to require an organization chart for the prime and an organization chart for each of the major subcontractors.

Q265: Page 468 of the Draft RFP ‐ (L‐78), Please confirm that Supplemental Cost Data should be submitted with Volume 3 ‐ Cost/Price and not Volume 2 ‐ Past Performance. Specifically FAS 13 Analysis.

A265: Section L.16.5.e is revised in the Final RFP to state:

"The following supplemental cost data, where appropriate, shall be submitted with VOLUME III – Cost/Price Proposal."

Q266: RFP Reference No: L.16.5 (e) 4 Fee L-16.5 (e) 4. States:

Include a discussion of how the proposed Not-To-Exceed (NTE) fixed fee rate was derived and why it is reasonable for the type of effort. Request for Clarification / Question: Please confirm that there is no fixed fee rate included therefore no discussion is required? 8a. Recommended Revision to the RFP:

Remove the statement

A266: There is no fixed fee rate. The word ‘fixed’ was removed in the paragraph. See Final RFP for disposition.

Q267: Reference: DRFP Attachment J-17, DRD-MSOC-0005, Block 8, item C (vii), which states “Describe your approach and risk mitigation strategies to identify any requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC.”

Question: Could the Government clarify whether offerors are to describe their approach to identifying requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC; or to identify and describe the risks and mitigations associated with any requirements for application or system connectivity or integration with JSC offerors may have?

A267: Both, the DRD-MSOC-0005 has been updated to clarify the requirement. See final RPF for disposition.

Q268: RFP Reference No: Section C; SOW 3.1.4. Operations, 2nd paragraph. SOW 3.1.4, States: The Contractor shall provide Mission Systems support services through the Facility Systems Services Center (FSSC), the Support Center (SC), and the Mission Systems Security Center (MSSC) to perform day-to-day operations of the Mission Systems equipment and its interfaces. Request for Clarification / Question: Please clarify what functions/roles are included in the Facility Systems Services Center (FSSC)?

A268: The FSSC is defined and functions are denoted in the Mission Systems Design Notebook Volume 1 – Mission Control Center Systems (MCCS) that is in the Technical Reference Library.

Q269: Reference: DRFP Attachment J-17, DRD-MSOC-0005, Block 8, items C (vi) and (viii). Both of the referenced paragraphs address documentation inventory and transfer of control. Question: Should these separate documentation and record inventory and transition requirements be consolidated in one requirement for the final RFP?

A269: No, Block 8, item C (vi) asks the Offeror to describe how an inventory will be performed with the Incumbent Contractor of all records/documents that will be transitioned. Block 8, items C (viii) asks the Offeror to address property, facility, hardware/software and documentation control transfer (including any classified documentation) and the associated schedules, milestones for completing that transfer.

Q270: Reference: Attachment J-17, DRD-MSOC-0001, MSOC WBS Structure and Dictionary, and Attachment J-21, MSOC WBS. DRD-MSOC-0001 paragraph (c) states “The structure shall be at the RFP SOW level …..”. Attachment J-21 provides the Government’s allocation of the RFP SOW elements to the WBS. For example, WBS 1.4.2.1 Management, includes allocations of RFP SOW elements 3.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.1.1.

Question: By example below, what is the intent of the Government’s instruction “The structure shall be at the RFP SOW level”?

Example 1 Example 2

WBS 1.4.2.1.1 == SOW 3.0

WBS 1.4.2.1.1.1 == SOW 3.1

WBS 1.4.2.1.1.1.1 == SOW 3.1.1

WBS 1.4.2.1.1.1.1.1 == SOW 3.1.1.1 WBS 1.4.2.1.1 == SOW

3.0

WBS 1.4.2.1.2 == SOW 3.1

WBS 1.4.2.1.3 == SOW 3.1.1

WBS 1.4.2.1.3 == SOW 3.1.1.1

A270: DRD-MSOC-0001, MSOC WBS Structure and Dictionary has been updated and paragraph c. Content now states… “The structure shall be at the RFP WBS level (See attachment J-21 for mapping to the SOW) with additional levels as required by the Contractor.”… See final RFP for disposition.

Q271: Will the MSOC contract require SCA positions? If so, when will the correct and current Wage Determination be provided?

A271: The Contracting Officer has made a determination that FAR 52.222-41: Service Contract Labor Standards is not applicable to the MSOC contract (reference Pre- Proposal Conference Charts, Slide 77). Historically, the percentage of non-exempt employees that perform the MSOC functions has been less than 10%, making the application of SCA to MSOC unwarranted.

Because the Service Contract Labor Standards has been waived, a wage determination and the following clauses will not be incorporated into the MSOC contract.

FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards FAR 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires FAR 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658

Q272: We looked at Definitions with respect to Past Performance, specifically, your definition of relevancy. In section M, you provide that relevancy is going to be evaluated on amongst other things, size. The RFP does not define a size.

A272: In RFP Section M.4, under "Relevance", added a definition of "Size": "The term "size" considers the contract value and workforce staffing in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation."

Q273: Please clarify that the labor and non-labor costs on this form are to be specified as direct (unburdened) costs.

A273: The Labor dollars and Non-Labor Resources dollars are unburdened costs.

Q274: Please clarify what portion of the Government Resource Estimates in table L.16.5-2 are associated with each of the Completion Form Baseline WBS elements.

A274: The Offeror is required to provide their estimate of the resources necessary to perform the MSOC Completion Form effort, by WBS, in accordance with their proposed management and technical approach.

Q275: Please clarify what portion of the GRE for Non- Labor Resources in table L.16-5-3 are associated with each of the Completion Form Baseline WBS elements.

A275: The Offeror is required to provide their estimate of the resources necessary to perform the MSOC Completion Form effort, by WBS, in accordance with their proposed management and technical approach.

Q276: During the afternoon Pricing discussion of the Pre-Proposal Conference, the briefer noted that an element of cost (Equipment Replacement) had been left out of the published materials – the plug numbers and the pricing workbook. Please provide these numbers.

A276: The dollars associated with the "Equipment Replacement Cost" line item in the EPM have been included in Table L.16.5-3 (Completion Form NLRs) as part of the GRE line item "Dev/Mod Material". The EPM will be adjusted to remove the "Equipment Replacement Cost" line. Offerors are required to provide their estimate of the resources necessary to perform the MSOC Completion Form effort, by WBS, in accordance with their proposed management and technical approach.

Q277: Please update the BOE template to tabularize the hours by SLC and team member by contract year. If these data are not provided in a tabular form specified by the Government, it will be difficult for the Government to reconcile these hours with the EPM, and each contractor will present a different free text format, requiring additional analysis effort on the part of the Government.

A277: The "Basis of Estimate & Technical Resources" template will not be updated to reflect all SLCs and Team Members by contract year. The Government desires the Offerors to provide only the SLCs which the Offeror proposes to utilize in a specific WBS, along with the percentage of team member participation. The data points referenced in this question and provided on the "Basis of Estimate & Technical Resources" is to be concise for technical reviewers use.

Q278: Once the contract transition completes, incumbent FTEs should no longer be relevant, unless it is the Government’s intent that Offerors forecast the rate of attrition/retirement of the original incumbent staff over the entire course of the contract. Recommend that the Government revise its format to only request incumbent retention data at the start of the contract.

A278: Incumbent FTEs is applicable to Contract Year 1 only. The "Basis of Estimate & Technical Resources" template will be revised to reflect this.

Q279: The text in the diagram does not display, please revise.

A279: The text in the diagram LOE and IDIQ PRICING FLOWCHART on pg. L-64 has been corrected.

Q280: Reserved. A280: Reserved.

Q281: The Government requires the offeror to identify the percentage effort to be accomplished by each team member. Is this percentage intended to be a percentage of the total hours or $’s being bid within the subject

WBS?

Additionally does this percentage need to be broken out of SLC or is % by team member sufficient?

A281: The percentage accomplished by each team member is based on the percentage of hours proposed for each team member.

The percentage is to be provided for each team member by WBS.

Q282: Please amend the paragraph to additionally require Offeror’s to demonstrate the calculation of direct labor rates if uncompensated overtime is bid.

A282: The RFP will be amended to clarify that the mathematical calculations both before, and after, the impact of uncompensated overtime is required.

Q283: The Government provided template allows bidders to detail FTE count by WBS by SLC for the Base Year only.

In order to provide the Government maximum clarity into potential pricing solutions (i.e., efficiencies), please allow contractors to copy and insert the ‘TRT-CF’ tab to reflect any changes that may be proposed (by WBS and labor categories) for the out-years.

A283: For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Government is straight-lining Contract Year 1 hours.

With the recent deployment of a major development for the Mission Control Center and a pending deployment of a major development for the Training Systems in late FY17, stability of these immature systems is of utmost importance. Innovations that would require technical modification of those immature systems would be counter to the stability of those immature systems and would further increase operational risk. Innovation during performance of MSOC is specifically addressed as a requirement within the SOW Section 2.0 to enable outcomes to increase the capacity to perform problem resolution, system improvements, and new development. The Continuous Improvement Plan lays the foundation for the MSOC performance by focusing on the processes and methodologies that the Offeror would employ to provide improvements to processes and procedures as well as improvement to the Mission Systems in the future as they become stable.

Q284: Is it allowable for the Offeror’s to include additional tabs to the Government’s cost template to provide traceability and ease of evaluation? Examples include FPRA, Salary Survey data.

A284: Yes, additional tabs are permitted for supporting data/calculations. However, the additional tabs must not be linked to external sources.

Q285: RFP Reference No: L.16.5 (d) LOE and IDIQ Template Instructions LOE and IDIQ Pricing Flowchart. Request for Clarification.

Note, that this figure is blank.

Recommended Revision to the RFP: Please provide missing data.

A285: See answer A279.

Q286: Section L P62 "LPT" indicates "Proposed Hours With Efficiencies" column…which does not exist in the template.

Please clarify if the reference for LPT was intended.

A286: The column “Proposed Hours With Efficiencies” should read “Proposed Hours”. The RFP will be updated.

Q287: Section L P64 LOE and IDIQ Pricing Flowchart is blank.

A287: See answer A279.

Q288: Is there a component of the EPM that sums up the CF, LOE, and IDIQ? The PCST can't really do this, because LOE and IDIQ are cost/priced using blended rates, and so it's unclear how the costs are to be combined.

A288: The Government will provide an additional tab, the Cost and Fee Estimate Summary (CAFES), in the EPM that sums all components (CF, LOE, LOE Flex Option, IDIQ, and Phase-In).

Q289: Table L.16.5-3 indicates directed non-labor values for Completion Form pricing, and these values must be included in the TRT input area.

Will the government be populating the NLR cells in the TRT with these plug values? Or are offerors expected to populate?

Since offerors are not building up NLR values, what basis shall contractors use to substantiate the distribution of government-provided values?

A289: The Offeror is required to provide their estimate of the resources necessary to perform the MSOC Completion Form effort, by WBS, in accordance with their proposed management and technical approach.

Q290: The Technical Template Instructions (Starting on page L-60) in sections c. and d. refer to a “Proposed Hours With Efficiencies” column in the TRST – CF Template for each contract year. The TRST Template provided in the Draft RFP doesn’t contain this column. Is it the Government’s intention to update the TRST Template in the final RFP to include this missing column?

A290: The column “Proposed Hours With Efficiencies” should read “Proposed Hours”. See the Final RFP for the update.

Q291: Within the Technical Resources Summary Template (Attachment 46, L-4) provided in the Draft RFP, the Tab TRST- CF has the initial Contract Year 1 proposed FTE’s for each SLC category. However, each subsequent year (Year 2 though Year 8), the proposed FTE’s column utilizes a formula field that points directly to the previous year. For example, Contract Year 2 (field G19) uses a formula pointing back to Contract Year 1’s value. Likewise, Contract Year 3 points back to the value for Contract Year 2. Is this the correct use of this formula and should it remain unchanged?

Q291: The formula is correct. Contract Year 1 hours are to be straight-lined over the entire period of performance.

For proposal evaluation purposes only, there are to be no efficiencies (adjustment to proposed hours) proposed.

With the recent deployment of a major development for the Mission Control Center and a pending deployment of a major development for the Training Systems in late FY17, stability of these immature systems is of utmost importance. Innovations that would require technical modification of those immature systems would be counter to the stability of those immature systems and would further increase operational risk.