Amendment_1_-_SEAM_Questions_and_Answers_Part_1.docx

NNJ16567749R - Specialized Engineering, Aeronautics, and Manufacturing Amendment 1

SEAM Questions and Answers Part I

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. What is the expected work share of onsite vs offsite LOE?

The place of performance may vary by Task Category; however, the vast majority of work is expected to be performed offsite of NASA facilities.

PAST PERFORMANCE

2. We have some very significant, directly relevant experience with NASA/JSC Flight Operations that we would like to include, but the contract ended in December 2010. Would the government be willing to accept and evaluate this past performance?

No. In accordance with Request for Proposal (RFP) Section M.2.1, Past Performance Factor - Volume I, only contract period of performances within five years from the date of this SEAM solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history within the five year period.

3. Will the past performance matrix that was discussed but not included in the charts, be loaded onto the SEAMs website?

Yes, the sample past performance matrix document that was discussed during the SEAM Pre-Proposal Conference has been uploaded to the SEAM website, http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/seam/.

4. Do you mean 10 tasks/projects per category or 10 contracts?

RFP Section L.15.1 provides instructions to Offerors regarding reference limitations. It states “The total number of contracts listed for each Task Category shall not exceed ten.” Pursuant to the RFP, Offerors are only permitted to submit up to ten contracts for each Task Category. When providing information related to work in the critical capabilities, an Offeror may list up to three tasks from those ten contracts submitted per critical capability.

5. Can the past performance for two categories be packaged in one proposal volume?

Yes. In accordance with the instructions in RFP Section L.15.1, Past Performance – Volume I, an Offeror shall submit all past performance proposal data for each Task Category proposed in Volume I. Further, each narrative section should be clearly labeled with the proposed Task Category title.

6. Can the prime and a major sub, or two major subs, be bid on one critical capability, (i.e., one task from one and two from another)?

No. When completing the Past Performance Matrix, an Offeror shall only list one prime or major subcontractor per critical capability in the Past Performance Matrix.

SMALL BUSINESS

7. Can we submit a proposal to cover the task order categories that are not small business set asides and then be included in another proposal as a major subcontractor to a small business for the other categories? These would be two separate proposals.

Yes. In accordance with RFP Section M.2.0, only one proposal per Offeror will be accepted; however, a subcontractor, which is not considered an Offeror, may be proposed as a subcontractor in any Task Category, including being proposed as a subcontractor to a small business in those Task Categories set-aside for small business.

PROPOSAL FORMAT

8.a What exactly is the content of Volume III?

Per Amendment 1 to the SEAM RFP, the content of RFP Section L.15.3 Responsibility Considerations - Volume III includes the following:

A. Small Business Utilization B. Facilities and Test Equipment C. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Information D. Property Management Plan E. Security Clearance F. Responsibility Information

As part of the Volume III submission, Offerors shall provide the data specified in each subsection (A-E above) of L.15.3.

8.b RFP Page L-29 paragraph (e) states "The plan submitted with the proposal shall be incorporated in Section J as the Small Business Plan, Attachment J-6 of the resulting contract - which is actually Volume IV the Model Contract. Am I correct to assume the Small Business Plan will reside in Volume IV?

Offerors shall submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of Volume III only. This plan shall be incorporated into Section J after contract award.

9. RFP Page L-31, Paragraph C OCI - should this plan be submitted in Section J or Volume IV of the model contract as well, or in Volume III?

Offerors shall submit the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan as part of Volume III only. This plan shall be incorporated into Section J after contract award.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

10. Is there anticipated to be any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) between AMOS, ALICE, NSOC, or MSOC and SEAM?

For existing JSC Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) contractors, the nature of the work under SEAM may create a situation where there could be an OCI for certain Task Orders as currently described in FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest. In accordance with RFP Section L.15.3(C), these conflicts may be present primarily for existing FOD contractors who could have insight to NASA Task Order requirements.

Each potential Offeror should review FAR Subpart 9.5 and consider carefully the extent to which an OCI may arise. Potential Offerors are encouraged to review clause H.7, Associate Contractor Agreement, which lists key contracts that will establish a means for coordination and information to achieve the requirements of the SEAM contract. In accordance with RFP Section L.15.3 (C), each Offeror shall submit a plan to mitigate any potential OCI. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, the Offeror and proposal will be reviewed for existing and potential OCI issues in relation to this procurement.

11. How will the Government evaluate the OCI’s of current incumbents, i.e., teammates of the current FDOC, AMOS, IMOC, and NSOC prime contractors? No Section M OCI evaluation criteria exist in the RFP.

In accordance with RFP Section M.2.3 (C), Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Information, the Government will perform an analysis to ensure an Organizational Conflict of Interest issue that cannot be mitigated does not exist. The OCI information will be assessed to verify the Offeror is considered to be responsible for award. If it appears an OCI issue does exist that the Offeror’s plan failed to mitigate, the government must notify the Contractor, provide the reasons therefore, and allow the Contractor a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Contracting Officer will make the final determination if the OCI issue exists and can be mitigated.

PRICING

12. Do we delete unused TOPTs for the categories that we are not bidding?

Yes, Offerors may delete the unused Task Order Pricing Templates (TOPTs), but are not required to do so.

13. What is meant by incumbent rates, since this is a new contract? Are you providing incumbent rates in the library?

Incumbent rates will not be posted in the technical library, as they do not exist. There are no incumbent rates for SEAM because the current work is episodic. The SEAM contract is taking content from existing contracts, but it is not a re-compete of existing contracts. For this reason, the incumbent rate column shall be left blank.

14. Are the specified productive hours for a given task category the nominal total hours anticipated for each category, or is that just to provide a set value to compare total pricing amongst Offerors?

The total productive hours reflect relative anticipated sizing for each Task Category, and the Specified Resources (SR) hours assigned to each labor category are indicative of anticipated labor distribution for typical tasks in that category. These productive hours do NOT reflect actual estimates of expected task orders. The specified productive hours have been provided as a set of values to compare total pricing amongst offers.

15. May offerors propose different rates for contractor and government sites? If not, how should offerors address this issue?

No. The Offeror shall use the Fully Burdened Rates in Section B.9 and B.10 as Not to Exceed (NTE) rates in establishment of the estimated price of individual task orders; however, the contractor may bid lower rates on a task order basis.

16. In template TC(c), how should prime offerors determine number of FTE and hours?

The Compensation Template (c) is removed from the RFP via RFP amendment 1. Offerors will be required to state affirmatively in their price narrative that their proposed rates will be in compliance with the Wage Determination (WD) for the place of performance.