NNJ16100117R_MSOC_RFP_Amendment_1.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

00001

JSC

Scott A. Stephens, Contracting Officer

The purpose of Amendment 1 is to post Questions and Answers (volumes dated 08/31/2016 and 09/12/2016) to the Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC) page on the Federal Business Opportunities website and to revise the Request for Proposal issued on August 10, 2016.

In addition to the Questions and Answers, a list of changes and change pages are included in this Amendment.

NASA/Johnson Space Center BR2/Scott A. Stephens 2101 NASA Parkway Houston, TX 77058

4200587134

NNJ16100117R

1 30

09/12/2016

08/10/2016

SCOTT STEPHENS Digitally signed by SCOTT STEPHENS DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=NASA, ou=People, cn=SCOTT STEPHENS, 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=sascott Date: 2016.09.12 13:08:20 -05'00'

09/12/2016

Questions and Answers - 08/31/2016

NNJ16100117R

MSOC Solicitation

Amendment 1

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

Q366: (DRD-MSOC-0030, 8.c.vii) Reference “8.c.vii” is listed twice for two different requirements that appear in consecutive order. Please confirm that is a typo and that the number should be consecutive and not duplicative.

A366: This is a typo. The number should be consecutive.

The RFP has been updated to reflect this correction.

Q367: (DRD-MSOC-0030, 8.c.xii) Under Patching and Reporting Plan, the DRD-MSOC-0030 states the following "Acknowledgement that all IT training must be provided...."

Please clarify whether this is for all IT training or specifically IT security training.

A367: This phrase has been modified to state, "Acknowledgement that all NASA-provided IT security training must be completed through the System for Administration, Training, and Educational Resources for

NASA (SATERN)."

Q368: (L.16.6 (b)) Under Cost Accounting Standards, the RFP refers to the Provision K.4, Cost Accounting Standard Notices and Certifications. However, in Section K, paragraph K.4 is titled "Certification Regarding Tax Matters (FAR 209-12) (FEB 2016). Please clarify whether the K.4 reference in Section L.16.6 (b) is a typo and should be K.5 instead.

A368: This was a typo and the RFP has been updated with the corrected provision number, K.5 for "Cost Accounting Standards."

Q369: (Attachment L-3 Past Performance Questionnaire) When are the completed Past Performance Questionnaires due to the Government?

A369: The Government requests that the completed Past Performance Questionnaires be due to the Government at the time the Offeror's Past Performance responses are submitted, but no later than the proposal due date, as noted in Section L.16.2(a). The questionnaire has been revised to state, "The RFP instructs that we provide our customers with the attached questionnaire and requests that you provide requested data, via electronic mail, by [Insert due date] to the Contracting Officer, Scott Stephens/BR, at the following email address:"

Q370: (L16.3.1 (b) Basis of Estimate (BOE) Templates) Is it the intention that the L-9 BOE be submitted in the Appendix A as formatted in the NASA supplied L-9 BOE template? This includes added text in the Description and Basis of Estimate Composition sections formatted at no smaller than 8 pt. and fitting on one page with narrow margins. As provided, the L-9 BOE when printed, prints at 63% of full size, which results in the printed text being smaller than 8 pt. Can the template be modified so that it fits on one 8 ½ x 11 page in order to meet the 8 point font size requirement? For BOEs, would pages printed on tabloid (11x17) paper be considered as one (1) page?

A370: The page layout and page count instructions for this section have been updated. L16.3.1 now states, "Each form shall be submitted per WBS element and shall be no longer than one single-sided 11 x 17-inch page in landscape format with no less than ¼ inch margins on the left and right sides and ¾ inch margins on the top and bottom. Text shall be single-spaced in a non-compressed Arial font no smaller than 8 point text size. For page count purposes in this section only, one 11 X 17-inch page is counted as one page. "

Q371: (L16.4(c)) The following statement from the Past Performance instructions reads "This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Statement of Work, the prime, major subcontractors, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort."

Request that the response to this requirement be excluded from the 50-page maximum.

A371: The government does intend for the Past Performance Description to be included in the Mission Suitability and Past Performance Description 500-page limitation. The guidance provided in section L16.2(b) states, "As guidance, the Past Performance Description should not exceed 50 pages." This instruction is guidance and is not intended to define an absolute page limit.

sascott Typewritten Text sascott Typewritten Text

Questions and Answers - 08/31/2016

Q372: In reviewing the requirements of L16.4 is the Offeror to provide up to 5 past performance contracts total for the team or 5 past contracts from the Prime Offeror and 5 from each Major Subcontractor?

A372: Offerors, including joint ventures, and major subcontractors, shall each provide information on up to five past contracts. Therefore, a prime offeror may provide information on up to five past contracts and a major subcontractor may provide information on up to five past contracts.

Questions and Answers – 09/12/2016

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

Q373: I was interested in confirming the name of the non‐ mission critical program that FDOC is splitting into. It is being split up between MSOC + JOYCE‐T?

A373: The Office IT support that was previously under FDOC Contract No. NNJ09HD46C, SOW section 2.7, and not to be part of MSOC, and maybe factored into the JOIST procurement activity to fulfill those requirements. All other elements of FDOC are part of the MSOC procurement activity as defined in the SOW.

Q374: RFP Section L.16.4.(f): Page L-36 and L-37 "For all work performed during the past four years, Offerors shall provide the following:

Records of the company’s occupational injuries and illnesses.

These records shall include, for each worksite, as a minimum, number of occupational injuries and illness, annual average number of employees at the worksite, total hours worked by all employees, and applicable NAICS code. Provide records for the past four years with signature of a company executive. Provide explanatory remarks of adverse performance and methods being used to improve performance. A copy of each year’s OSHA logs (Forms 300 and 300A) may be submitted or equivalent occupational injury and illness data.” Is it acceptable for the above mentioned data to be combined for all US locations (in lieu of each worksite) into a single line for each year as depicted in the chart below? In lieu of OSHA logs, the following chart would allow a reviewer the ability to quickly review the requested RFP data. Year Number of Occupational Injuries Annual Average Number of Employees Total Hours Worked by all employees OSHA Recordable Incident Rate NAICS code

A374: No, It is not acceptable for the mentioned data to be combined for all US locations. As to the OSHA logs, as instructed by the RFP, "A copy of each year’s OSHA logs (Forms 300 and 300A) may be submitted or equivalent occupational injury and illness data."

Q375: RFP Section L.16.4. (f): Page L-36. "Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last four years.

Offerors shall identify the applicable NAICS Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract.... If a joint venture or prime- subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed. Explanatory statements shall be included as appropriate.". Does "each company proposed" refer to "major subcontractors" as defined in the RFP?

A375: For an Offeror proposing a prime- subcontractor relationship, "each company proposed" refers to the prime and all major subcontractors as defined in the RFP.

Q376: In reference to question/answer #255 (italicized below) final RFP Section L.16.4.f, does not reference "company or division". Please advise. 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.

A376: The scope of the requested information includes all contracts for the proposing company or division during the defined period of past performance. No update to the RFP was believed to be necessary to clarify this question.

Therefore, the sentences in the original A255 response, "RFP Section L.16.4 (f) is revised. Refer to the Final RFP for final disposition." should not have been included.

Therefore A255 is updated as follows:

"A255: The scope of the requested information includes all contracts for the proposing company or division during the defined period of past performance."

Q377: Reference: Section L: L-2 IDIQ Sample Delivery Order, Sub-Task 8: Integration of the GMS with the Mission Control Center (MCC) lists the following deliverable (page L-2.8):

Complete MCC-H interface testing for TF-1 3/1/2018 Question: Did the Government intend for this deliverable to be provided under Sub-Task 8 or should this deliverable be provided under Sub-Task 4: Deployment of Government Provided Simulations in Support of TF-1 Training where the following requirements are provided (page L-2.6):

1. Deploy Government provided simulations for simple reuse in support of TF-1 training.

2. Integrate Government provided simulations with MCC-H to support TF-1 flight controller training.

A377: The Government intended for the TF-1 deliverable to be provided under Sub-Task 4 and not Sub-Task 8.

Additionally, further editorial updates were made to improve clarity of the Delivery Order.

Q378: The SOW 3.2.1.7 states The Contractor shall coordinate shipping requirements, and oversee the receipt of, unloading, and movement within MSOC Mission Systems of Experiment Ground Support Equipment (EGSE).

Can the government provide an example of EGSE on the MSOC contract? Can the government clarify what class of equipment (Class I, II, etc.) EGSE falls under? Can the government identify any work instructions for EGSE handling?

A378: The EGSE includes the following types of equipment; electronic equipment (e.g. computers, tape drives, computer peripherals, special test equipment, and test equipment), consumables and reference information, tool kits, spare equipment and parts, and empty shipping containers. While EGSE was heavily used during the Space Shuttle program, currently such equipment is rarely brought into the MCCS for principle investigators. Please see "JSC-24399 Property Control of EGSE at the Lyndon B.

Johnson Space Center" that is in the TRL in the reference section for a historical reference.

Q379: Please confirm that the environmental, safety, and health data is included in the past performance attachments and outside the page count.

A379: The environmental, safety, and health data is included in the past performance attachments and is outside the page count. The RFP is updated in Section L.16.4(f) to state that environmental, safety, and health data shall be provided as an attachment. In accordance with Section L.16, Table L-2b. Past Performance Attachments are, by definition, not subject to page limitations.

Q380: Please provide DRD-MSOC-0016, NF533 Cost Reporting that was not included in the Final RFP.

A380: DRD-MSOC-0016, NF533 Cost Reporting is in the FINAL RFP that is posted on the website.

Q381: For Past Performance Attachment Submissions, please confirm pdf format is considered “Native Format.”

A381: If the original source file is in PDF then PDF can be a ‘native format’.

Q382: There are 2 different RFP sections that have requirements for a Phase-in BOE. It appears that many of the requirements are duplicated in each section.

Paragraph e. Phase-in Template states that the PIT must be supported by a narrative BOE. Include all skills and hours on this template and add rows if needed to account for all labor required. Use the SLCs for skill mix if appropriate or include your labor mix on the template with a brief job description in the narrative. The BOE should include a discussion of labor skill mix and significant non-labor resources (materials/supplies, equipment, other, etc.) necessary for accomplishment of Phase-In requirements. The Phase-In template is to include ALL Phase-In costs necessary for full contract implementation. Volume III is not page restricted.

Paragraph (b) Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template states The Offeror shall complete each BOE form provided in Attachment L-9, Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template and submit a printed copy in VOLUMEI – MISSION SUITABILITY, Appendix A, Basis of Estimate (BOE) and Technical Resources.

Please confirm that both requirements apply.

A382: Yes, both requirements apply.

Q383: In the Govt’s EPM file, tab “LPT” the Government. is asking the Prime to complete the hours and Direct labor rates thus calculating the total direct cost for the Prime. Similarly, the Government is asking the Major subcontractors to fill that tab out as well. The total hours in this tab, are coming from the TRST-CF tab, which are based on the total contract hours, inclusive of all team members. Thus, the LPT tab for the Prime and Major subcontractor will be overstating direct labor dollars. Can the bidders modify the calculation in these tabs to adjust the hours shown to only account for the hours related to the company? If not, will the Government consider changing this tab, to show fully burdened labor instead of direct labor for prime and subcontractor?

A383: Yes, bidders may modify the calculations so that only those hours that will comprise their proposed cost are utilized. The Government now realizes that neither the subcontractor nor prime contractor is likely to link the “LPT” tab to the “TRST-CF” tab.

Q384: In the Government’s EPM, in the MST tab, the RFP is asking for “Fee Rate in FBR”, in Column F. Is this fee, the Prime’s fee being applied to the fully burdened rates from the minor subs (the FBR doesn’t allow any prime fee to be included in the labor rates)? Or is this the fee that the minor subs rates already include? If so, this data is part of the subcontractor’s proprietary cost build up, and the Minor subs are not submitting sealed bids, how is the Prime to obtain this information? We recommend that Government amend the MST tab, to only ask for Fully burdened Rates inclusive of fee (if proposed by the minor subs), and eliminate column F. Please clarify the instruction to fill out the fee in Column F.

A384: The “Fee Rate in FBR” column is to reflect the fee rate contained in the minor subcontractors proposed Fully Burdened Rate (FBR). It is NOT the prime contractor’s proposed fee rate. You must communicate with the minor subcontractor in order to know what fee rate the minor subcontractor has included in the FBR. The Government has determined that no modification of the tab is required.

Q385: Reference Section B.3 Para (b) Table: The Government requires bidders to provide costs and maximum award fee for the baseline requirement work in this table.

Will the Government please confirm instructions on how to fill out the $OFI portions? Which tabs in the EPM specifically should be used in calculating this table? Please confirm the linkage. Is it the total of the LOE-Flex and OPT-SR Tabs? Since the quantity of hours will vary according to the table, what is the pricing assumption to be used in filling out the OFI cells in this table? The max fee allowed will also differ based on the hours being calculated.

A385: Section B.3 Paragraph (b) Table, Baseline Requirements work $OFI should be reflective of all completion form costs for the base period excluding LOE, Flex LOE, and IDIQ. The completion form costs and award fee are reflected in the PCST tab of the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Total Estimated Cost and Fee (total for CY 1-2, Base Period). The LOE-SR and LOE Flex Opt-SR tabs in the EPM are not to be used to populate Section B.3 Paragraph (b) Table in the Model Contract, since it is the Government's intent to update the Section B.3 Paragraph (b) Table when LOE task orders and IDIQ delivery orders are issued and definitized. The LOE, Flex LOE, and IDIQ values in Section B.3 Paragraph (b) Table are to remain $0. As noted in Section B.3 "Amounts for estimated cost and available award fee for IDIQ delivery orders and LOE task orders issued will be periodically updated unilaterally as these IDIQ delivery orders and LOE task orders are issued/amended." Also note that an update was made to the EPM PCST tab changing the row title to "Total Prime Estimated Cost and Fee."

Q386: Reference Section F.6 (a) through (c): a. Will the Government please provide instructions on how to fill out these $OFI sections? Are these the total of the Option periods from the CAFES tab in the EPM?

b. There is a reference to a table in B.4 from the RFP, however, there is no such table in that section in the RFP.

A386: The $OFI for Section F.6 (a) through (c) should be reflective of all completion form costs excluding LOE, Flex LOE, and IDIQ which is reflected in the PCST tab Total Estimated Cost and the Total Award Fee Dollars for the respective option. The reference to table B.4(b) in Section F.6 has been changed to B.3(b) in all cases.

Q387: In Attachment L-2, there are references to 3 NASA “managers”.

• In Sub-Task 1 -NASA Delivery Order Manager is provided Weekly Activity Reports

• In Sub-Task 3

- GMS Project manager provides direction on System Engineering tasks in Step 3 and Step 4

- Delivery order manager provides direction on assessing products and making recommendations in Step 8

• In Sub-Task 10

- NASA Project Manager direction on Test and Verification Procedures Three questions related to the references above:

1. In Sub-Task 1, is the role of NASA Delivery Order Manager a different role than GMS Project Manager referenced later, or are they one and the same role?

2. In Sub-Task 3, should the reference to Delivery Order Manager be GMS Project Manager since two earlier references to the in the same sub-task reference GMS Project Manager?

3. In Sub-Task 10, should the reference to NASA Project Manager be GMS Project Manager since this involves similar direction provided by GMS Project Manager?

A387: The Attachment L-2, IDIQ Sample Delivery Order, should have referenced the NASA Project Manager in all instances and has been updated to reflect this.

Additionally, the reference to the NASA Project Management was updated to NASA Project Manager throughout the Delivery Order.

Q388: Reference: RFP Attachment L-2 IDIQ Sample Delivery Order (SDO), defines the SDO period of performance as October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018; however, under Subtask 10, the SDO states that “…. Offeror may assume the following Delivery Dates: …… 3/1/2019 ….. 4/2/2019 …..

9/20/2019.”

Question: Should all three of the assumed delivery dates under subtask 10 be in the year 2018, not 2019?

A388: The assumed delivery dates for 2019 are correct per Attachment L-2, IDIQ Sample Delivery Order. The Period of Performance for the Sample Delivery Order is limited to Oct. 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2018.

Q389: Reference: Throughout J-17 DRD descriptions, time periods are expressed as either “Calendar Days,” “Business Days,” or “Days.”

Question: When time periods are indicated only as “Days,” is the time period calendar or business days?

A389: When not specified, “Days” refer to calendar days throughout Section J-17 DRD descriptions.

Q390: Reference: RFP SOW 2.10 Quality Assurance (QA).

Question: Do quality assurance requirements under MSOC include any elements of AS9100?

A390: No, quality assurance requirements under MSOC do not include any elements of AS9100.

Q391: Reference: RFP SOW 2.10 Quality Assurance (QA) and E.1, 52.246-11 Higher-level Contract Quality Requirement.

SOW 2.10, which states “The Contractor shall establish a quality assurance (QA) program that is compliant with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) document American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) ISO- 9001-2008 – Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing.”; however, E.1, 52.246-11 states “The contractor shall establish a quality program that complies with International Organization for Standardization document American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) ISO-9001-2008 – Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing. Third party registration is required.”

Question: Third-party registration implies certification of the ISO 9000-2008 quality assurance program. Do offeror’s MSOC program operation require a compliant, or certified, ISO 9000-2008 quality assurance program?

A391: SOW paragraph 2.10 Quality Assurance (QA) requires compliance to ISO 9001-2008. Certification and third party registration is not required. Section E.1 of the RFP will be updated accordingly.

Q392: Reference: RFP L 16.3.1 TA1, which states “The description shall be inclusive of the Offeror’s overall technological, systems engineering, security, change control, configuration management, and quality approaches.”

Question: Could the Government please confirm if the term ‘technological’ in this context refers to: a.) simply the technical approach; b.) improvements in the technical approach; or c.) is the term ‘technological’ synonymous to technology?

A392: The context refers to the use of technology in the Offeror's approach to fulfill contract requirements.

Q393: Reference: Section B.3, Estimated Cost and Award Fee, which requires Offeror Fill Ins (OFIs).

Question: Could the government please confirm that OFIs in the table are to be for only the Base Period of the Completion Form effort, and not the combined total of the Base Period and all Option Years? Is it to be assumed that this is the awarded contract amount even though Q&A283 (DRFP) states that “For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Government is straight-lining Contract Year 1 hours?”

A393: The Government confirms that the OFIs in Section B.3, Estimated Cost and Award Fee, the Baseline Requirements work line, are to be for the Base Period only of the Completion Form effort. Option Period values are not to be included on this line. Estimated option values are to be included in Section F.6, Options to Extend Performance.

Q394: Reference: MA2, Staffing and Critical Skills Approach;

and DRD-MSOC-0017 Staffing and Critical Skills Plan c.1) and 2) Question: For purposes of identifying staffing, what elements of staffing should be included in these sections – Baseline, LOE, LOE Flex and IDIQ or just Baseline?

A394: Baseline and LOE should be the elements of staffing included in c.1 and c.2. IDIQ should be covered under c.7.

Q395: Reference: DRD-MSOC-0005 Phase-In Plan Question: What staffing elements will be part of the Phase-In

– Baseline, LOE, and IDIQ? This information is required to understand and estimate phase-in staffing.

A395: Phase-In is Firm-Fixed-Price. There are no Baseline, LOE or IDIQ elements included in the Phase-In period. As stated in DRD-MSOC-0005, A Phase-In Plan shall be prepared which describes the Contractor’s approach for the transition of responsibility from the Incumbent Contractor during the 61-day transition period. The Plan must address the Contractor’s approach to assume responsibilities by contract start.

Q396: Reference: Technical Library document CD-UWI-0013 references MSD Tactical and Strategic Roadmaps for Information Technology

Question: Would the Government add the MSD Tactical and Strategic Roadmaps to the Technical Library?

A396: The MSD Tactical and Strategic Roadmaps will be added to the Technical Library. The MSD Tactical Roadmap is a living document and should be considered a snap-shot of current plans. It is revised periodically and those revisions will not be added to the TRL. The Strategic Roadmap was developed during the execution of the Mission Systems 21 projects to capture an initial reference point to assess following the 21 project completions and systems maturation. Therefore, the MSD Strategic Roadmap is provided for reference only and will be updated once the 21 projects have completed and the new systems have matured. MSD Strategic Roadmap is in the TRL in the reference section for a historical reference.

Q397: Reference: MSOC SOW 2.6.

Question: Given the importance of cyber security on the MSOC contract and the breadth of requirements, will the Government consider removing page limitations for DRD-

MSOC-0030?

A397: No, the Government’s page limitations took into account all DRD requirements.

Q398: Reference: DRD-MSOC-0030. Block 4 states “The Contractor Security Management Plan shall be used to define the Contractor security management task. Separate annexes/appendices shall define COMSEC procedures, Secure Operations Procedures, and Sensitive/Protected Operations Procedures.”

Question: Are the annexes/appendices referred to in Block 4 outside the proposal Mission Suitability page count?

A398: The annexes/appendices referred to in Block 4 are not part of the “c. Content” requirements. Specific procedures are to be provided as part of DRD-MSOC-0052 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Mission System Operations, Maintenance, and Sustaining Support Documentation and Checklists and are not part of DRD- MSOC-0030. DRD-MSOC-0030 and 0031 were updated to reference DRD-MSOC-0052 and revised block 4.

Q399: Regarding the MSOC PPQ, one of our customers has requested to FAX the document, as they are not able to email it; do you have a FAX number that we may provide to our customer?

A399: No, in accordance with the RFP instructions PPQs are to be emailed to the Contracting Officer at JSC- MSOC@mail.nasa.gov.

Q400: DRD-MSOC-0001 (Page 1 of 1) 8.3. last paragraph: In analyzing the FOD WBS, there are separate cost reporting requirements for User Applications. Our analysis of the SOW would have all application software in the MCCS, including User Applications in the 1.4.2.x WBS elements. Is it the requirement of the Government to have User Apps (not including special projects) tracked outside of the 1.4.2.x WBS elements?

A400: User Apps (including special projects) are to be tracked in the 1.4.2.x WBS elements.

Q401: Table L.16.5-3. Given that the costs for materials, ODC and travel are a plug number, is it acceptable to allocate the costs to each facility at the 3rd level WBS (rollup) instead of at the 4th level WBS (sustaining, Development/mod, etc.)?

The BOEs do not have ample space to add those descriptions to the 4th level, taking away more space to explain resource estimates.

A401: Materials, ODC, and travel are to be allocated to the 4th level WBS.

Q402: L.16.2(c) 5th paragraph. Are page numbers required on tabs since it disrupts the flow of the section page numbering?

A402: In accordance with L.16.2 (c), tabs "shall be numbered with lower case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.)".

Lower case Roman numeral numbering is to occur on both sides of the tab sheet.

Q403: Company X and Company Y plan on forming a Joint Venture in response to the JSC Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC) solicitation. RFP sections L and M contain the following language requiring an approved accounting system to be eligible for award, "An approved adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion. It is a basic contract requirement with a pass/fail determination. A contract may only be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are determined to have an adequate accounting system."

The planned JV intends to use Company y’s approved accounting system "as‐is" without tailoring. The question is, can a JV use one of the member company's approved system "as‐is" and be considered compliant to the RFP and eligible for award?

A403: A newly formed Joint Venture (JV) may propose an accounting system that is the same as a legacy system currently in use by one of the parties to the JV. This is a reasonable way to establish prior to award that the accounting system being proposed is adequate to receive a contract award as long as the system being proposed is, in all material respects, the same system that was previously determined to be adequate for determining costs applicable to a specific contract as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.301‐3(a)(3). Any JV proposal that places reliance on the adequacy of a legacy accounting system to establish the adequacy of the accounting system being proposed shall clearly state that the system being proposed is the same as the system that has already been determined to be adequate. This documentation should identify who (e.g. the agency, independent auditor, contracting officer, other party) determined the accounting system being proposed to be adequate and when that determination was made. In summary, an existing and adequate accounting system can demonstrate a proposed system is adequate for award so long as both accounting systems are the same.

However, if a newly created accounting system is proposed or if the system being proposed has not already been determined adequate, consistent with FAR 16.301‐3(a)(3), the Contracting Officer may obtain additional information such as a pre‐award review to determine its adequacy for contract award. Following contract award, a more comprehensive post‐award accounting system review may be conducted.

Q404: In the Questions and Answers responded to by the Government for the draft RFP, the Government indicated that there was no CMMI compliance requirement:

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.

However, the version of the Software Management Plan recently placed in the Bidder's Library appears to stipulate a CMMI certification requirement?

A404: A201 was in error. CMMI is required per NPR 7150.2B and is required in performance of the MSOC.

A201 is now updated as follows:

“A201: Yes, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is required per NPR 7150.2B and is required in performance of the MSOC.”

Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC)

Document Change Log

List of Changes from Final RFP to RFP Amendment 1

Section Title Change

E.1 Removed FAR wording Contractor quality program certification and third party registration is not required. FAR 52.246-11 reference in Section E.1 of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

F.6 Options to Extend Period of Performance Changed reference to B.3 (b) in (a)(1)(a), (b)(1)(a), and (c)(1)(a).

J-17 DRD-MSOC-0030 Contractor Security

Management Plan

Added interrelationship between this DRD and DRD-MSOC-0052.

J-17 DRD-MSOC-0031 Mission Systems

Security Plan

Added interrelationship between this DRD and DRD-MSOC-0052.

J-17 DRD-MSOC-0052 Standard Operating

Procedures (SOP) for Mission System

Operations, Maintenance, and Sustaining

Support Documentation and Checklists

Added interrelationship between this DRD and DRD-MSOC-0030 and

0031.

L.16.4.f VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE Clarified the requirement that environmental, safety, and health past performance data is to be provided as part of the non-page limited Past

Performance Attachments.

Attachment L-2 Sample Delivery Order The Government intended for the TF-1 deliverable to be provided under

Sub-Task 4 and not Sub-Task 8. Additional editorial updates were also made to improve the clarity of the Delivery Order.

Attachment L-4 MSOC EPM In the PCST tab of the MSOC PSM, changed the title of Row 78 to

"Total Prime Estimated Cost and Fee"

Section J

Section L

Section M - No Change

Section A - No Change

Section B - No Change

Section C - No Change

Section I - No Change

Section F

Section G - No Change

Section H - No Change

Section K - No Change

Section D - No Change

Section E

Section E: Inspection and Acceptance Solicitation# NNJ16100117R

E-1

E. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 LISTING OF CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Clause(s) at the beginning of this Section are incorporated by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Clauses incorporated by reference which require a fill-in by the Government include the text of the affected paragraph(s) only. This does not limit the clause to the affected paragraph(s). The Contractor is responsible for understanding and complying with the entire clause.

The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

I. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1)

CLAUSE

NUMBER DATE TITLE

52.246-3 May 2001 INSPECTION OF SUPPLIES - COST-

REIMBURSEMENT

52.246-5 APR 1984 INSPECTION OF SERVICES - COST-

REIMBURSEMENT

52.246-11 DEC 2014 HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT QUALITY

REQUIREMENT

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the higher-level quality standards below:

(1) The contractor shall establish a quality program that complies with International Organization for Standardization document American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) ISO-9001-2008 – Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing.

(2) The contractor shall establish a software development process that complies with current version of JSC 63756 MOD Software Management Plan (SMP) for Class A software.

Section F: Deliveries or Performance Solicitation# NNJ16100117R

F-5

$___OFI_____ to the total estimated cost plus available award fee.

The table in B.3(b) shall also be modified to reflect these additions.

(2) F.3, Period of Performance, shall be modified to extend the period of performance end date to September 30, 2021.

Clause H.5, Level-Of-Effort (Cost), paragraph (a), shall be modified by increasing the total direct labor hours by 86,250.

(b) Option 2:

(1) B.4, Estimated Cost and Award Fee, shall be modified at paragraph

(a) to reflect the addition of $___OFI_____ to the total estimated costs, $___OFI______ to the maximum available award fee, and

$___OFI_____ to the total estimated cost plus available award fee.

The table in B.3(b) shall also be modified to reflect these additions.

(2) F.3, Period of Performance, shall be modified to extend the period of performance end date to September 30, 2023.

(c) Option 3:

(1) B.4, Estimated Cost and Award Fee, shall be modified at paragraph

(a) to reflect the addition of $___OFI_____ to the total estimated costs, $___OFI______ to the maximum available award fee, and

$___OFI_____ to the total estimated cost plus available award fee.

The tables in B.3(b) shall also be modified to reflect these additions.

(2) F.3, Period of Performance, shall be modified to extend the period of performance end date to September 30, 2025.

(End of Clause)

[END OF SECTION]

ATTACHMENT J-17

DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION SHEETS

DRD-MSOC-0030 (Page 1 of 3)

1. DRD Title

Contractor Security Management Plan

2. Date of current version

08/01/16

3. DRL line item no.

DRD-MSOC-0030

RFP/Contract No.

(Procurement completes)

NNJ16100117R

4. Use (define need for, intended use of, and/or anticipated results of data)

The Contractor Security Management Plan shall be used to define the Contractor security management task. Separate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) shall define COMSEC procedures, Secure Operations Procedures, and Sensitive/Protected Operations Procedures.

5. DRD Category: (check one)

X Technical

X Administrative

X SR&QA

6. References (Optional)

a. Federal Documents

i. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources

ii. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)

iii. NIST Special Publication 800 Series, all applicable documents, including but not limited to:

1. NIST Special Publication 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems

2. NIST Special Publication 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems

3. NIST Special Publication 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for Information Technology Systems

4. NIST Special Publication 800-37 R1, Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems

5. NIST Special Publication 800-39, Managing Information Security Risk

6. NIST Special Publication 800-53, Requirements for Security Controls

7. NIST Special Publication 800-53A, Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems

8. NIST Special Publication 800-60, Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories

iv. Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-12 Subject:

Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors

v. FAR 52.204-2, Security Requirements

vi. National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM) 119, Disclosure of Classified US Military Information to Foreign Governments and International Organizations

vii. Space Network Security Classification Guide

viii. DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating

Manual (NISPOM)

b. NASA documents

i. NPD 2810.1C, NASA Information Security Policy

ii. NPR 2810.1A, Security of Information Technology

iii. NPR 1382.1 NASA Privacy Procedural Requirements

iv. NPR 1600.1 NASA Security Program Procedural Requirements

v. NPR 1600.2 NASA Classified National Security Information

(CNSI)

7. Interrelationships (e.g., with other DRDs) (Optional)

SOW 2.6

DRD-MSOC-0052

DRD-MSOC-0031 (Page 1 of 3)

Mission Systems Security Plan

2. Date of current version

07/14/16

3. DRL line item no.

DRD-MSOC-0031

RFP/Contract No.

(Procurement completes)

NNJ16100116R

4. Use (define need for, intended use of, and/or anticipated results of data)

The Facility Security Plan:

a. Documents the security requirements of the facility and describes the controls in place or planned for meeting those requirements. Controls include system capabilities, processes, and procedures.

b. Documents the results of the risk analysis, identifies the unmitigated security risks, and identifies potential impacts of those risks.

c. Delineates responsibilities and expected behavior of all individuals who access the system.

d. Includes the facility contingency plan identified in the Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plan (DRD-MSOC-0011).

5. DRD Category: (check one)

X Technical

X Administrative

X SR&QA

6. References (Optional)

a. Federal Documents

i. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources

ii. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)

iii. NIST Special Publication 800 Series, all applicable documents, including but not limited to:

1. NIST Special Publication 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems

2. NIST Special Publication 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems

3. NIST Special Publication 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for Information Technology Systems

4. NIST Special Publication 800-37 R1, Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems

5. NIST Special Publication 800-53, Requirements for Security Controls

6. NIST Special Publication 800-53A, Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems

7. NIST Special Publication 800-60, Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories

b. NASA Agency and JSC Center documents

i. NPD 2810.1, NASA Information Security Policy

ii. NPR 2810.1A, Security of Information Technology

iii. NPR 1600.1, NASA Security Program Procedural

Requirements

iv. ITS-HBK-2810.04-01A, Risk Assessment: Security

Categorization, Risk Assessment, Vulnerability Scanning, Expedited Patching, & Organizationally Defined Values

c. National Security documents

i. Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information

ii. MSOC-PRO-0313, MSOC COMSEC Procedures*

7. Interrelationships (e.g., with other DRDs) (Optional)

SOW 2.6, 3.1.3

DRD-MSOC-0011

DRD-MSOC-0052

DRD-MSOC-0052 (Page 1 of 1)

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Mission System Operations, Maintenance, and Sustaining Support Documentation and Checklists.

2. Date of current version

06/30/16

3. DRL line item no.

DRD-MSOC-0052

RFP/Contract No.

(Procurement completes)

NNJ16100117R

4. Use (define need for, intended use of, and/or anticipated results of data)

This document defines the standard operating procedures (SOPs), processes, plans and guidelines for the operating positions, maintenance, sustaining, and use of the Mission Systems managed by the Contractor.

5. DRD Category: (check one)

X Technical

X Administrative

X SR&QA

6. References (Optional)

7. Interrelationships (e.g., with other DRDs) (Optional)

SOW 3.1.4

DRD-MSOC-0030

DRD-MSOC-0031

8. Preparation Information (Include complete instructions for document preparation)

a. Data Type: Plans & Policies - 1, Others - 2

b. Scope: SOPs will be developed, used, and maintained for operation of Mission Systems and for routine procedures. These documents define the standard operating procedures, processes, plans, and guidelines for the operating positions, maintenance, sustaining, and use of Mission Systems managed by the Contractor.

c. Content: These documents will contain sets of instructions that document routine or repetitive Mission Systems activities. These documents include, but are not limited to, Handbooks, Guides, Procedure Manuals, Work Instructions, Familiarization Documents, Policies, Checklist - Forms, Maintenance Plans, Maintenance Manuals, Operations Manuals, and User Manuals for the following:

i. General,

ii. Software,

iii. Hardware,

iv. Power,

v. Safety/emergency,

vi. Security

vii. Other

d. Format: Electronic format of all submissions will be compatible with IRD provided desktop standard applications. Organizational format of the supporting documentation will be the Contractor’s format.

e. Distribution: Per Contracting Officer’s letter.

f. Submission:

i. Initial – Contract start + 90 calendar days

ii. Final – Type 1: Receipt of government redlines + 30 calendar days; Type 2: Initial + 30 calendar days

iii. Approval – Type 1: 15 calendar days after Government receipt

iv. Frequency – Annually.

g. Maintenance: Changes will be incorporated as required by change page or complete reissue.

Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices Solicitation# NNJ16100117R

L-36 entity (division(s), business units, or other segments of your company) which are proposed to perform the effort.

(d) In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors, as defined above and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company, which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit Attachment L-3, Past Performance Questionnaire

Template, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (c) above. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that all references are directed to return the questionnaire to the Contracting Officer via e-mail as described in Attachment L-3, Past Performance Questionnaire.

Where an Offeror chooses to request, from a civil servant employee at

JSC, that a past performance questionnaire be submitted on its behalf for its proposed key personnel, please be advised that a Limited

Communications Notice (LCN) has been issued in conjunction with this solicitation. The LCN directs that all civil service personnel at JSC shall refrain from communicating with industry on any matters related to this competitive procurement; as a result, while the civil servants may respond to the past performance questionnaire they will be unable to provide status to the Offeror, or communication in any other fashion with the Offeror, about that past performance request.

(e) You may include up to one page of introductory material about the experience and performance of your company and subcontractors (if applicable). This introductory material is in addition to the page limitation constraints. You may also submit additional reference information on experience and past performance for consideration. This additional information shall be subject to the page limitation constraints.

(f) Offerors shall provide as an attachment the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last four years.

Offerors shall identify the applicable NAICS Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract. If a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed. Explanatory statements shall be included as appropriate.

For all work performed during the past four years, Offerors shall provide the following:

Section L: L-2 IDIQ Sample Delivery Order Solicitation # NNJ16100117R

L-2.1

IDIQ Sample Delivery Order

Attachment L-2

L-2.2

L-2 IDIQ SAMPLE DELIVERY ORDER

DELIVERY ORDER NUMBER:

DELIVERY ORDER TITLE:

Generic Mission Simulator (GMS) Design and Development

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018

SOW:

3.2.2

TASK OVERVIEW:

The Generic Mission Simulator (GMS) is a project intended to provide, through the implementation of simulation technologies, capabilities to train crew and flight controllers on the operational behavior of the Crew and Launch vehicles and the safe execution of upcoming missions. The GMS will support fully integrated simulations of multiple vehicle scenarios from ascent to landing. The scope of training in the GMS will range from a single mission phase to multiple mission phases over the duration of a flight. The GMS will operate in conjunction with the Mission Control Center-Houston

(MCC-H) and other external facilities to provide combined team training capabilities.

This task will provide products and support to the development of the facility in the areas of project planning, systems engineering, software development, design, integration, and testing.

For the purposes of this exercise, the Offeror may assume:

The timeframe for the performance of this sample delivery order is FY 2018.

The project is following the systems engineering practices defined in NPRs

7120.5 and 7123.1, tailored for applicability to the development of Mission

Systems.

Initial Level A and B Requirements formulation is complete. Occasional updates to the Training Systems (TS) requirements will be necessary as user needs evolve and the vehicle designs evolve. NASA will lead the evolution of the requirements changes.

FY18 scope is limited to Test Flight (TF)-1 and TF-2 mission capabilities.

L-2.3

A first training capability is under development to support flight control team training six months prior to the TF-1 mission.