Amendment_2_-_SEAM_Questions_and_Answers_Part_2.docx

NNJ16567749R - Specialized Engineering, Aeronautics, and Manufacturing Amendment 2 SEAM Questions and Answers Part II Please see the document titled Amendment 1 – SEAM Questions and Answers Part I at FedBizOpps.gov for questions 1 – 16.

QUESTIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE FEBRUARY 29, 2016, RELEASE OF THE SEAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

17. Can you clarify how the Justification & Approval on January 8, 2016 extending the period of performance of Contract #NNJ10HD35C with the Raytheon Company to an additional four years will impact your acquisition strategy and/or requirements for SEAM?

The extension of contract #NNJ10HD35C has not impacted the acquisition strategy and requirements for SEAM.

18. Will SEAM be a small business set aside?

In accordance with RFP Section L.14.1, SEAM Task Categories A, B, and E are small business set-asides.

19. Has a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) been assigned to this effort? If so, will a name be socialized?

No, a COR has not yet been delegated to SEAM at this time.

20. Can you provide additional information regarding the partial small business set aside related to this opportunity?

In accordance with RFP Section L.14.1, SEAM Task Categories A, B, and E are small business set-asides. Task Categories C and D are open for full and open competition.

21. Which contracts can be considered predecessors to SEAM?

SEAM is a new requirement; however, requirements from the following contracts will, partially and/or completely be placed on the SEAM contract.

· NNJ12JB12B - Aircraft Aeronautics and Structural Engineering Services Contract (Contractor: ATA Engineering)

· NNJ12JB11B - Aircraft Mechanical Engineering Services and Support Contract (AMES) (Contractor: Engineering and Software Systems Solutions, Inc. (ES3))

· NNJ13RA60C - Aircraft Autopilot and Electrical Systems Support (Contractor: American Systems Corporation, Inc.)

· NNJ10HD35C - Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory and Space Vehicle Mockup Facility Contract (NSOC) (Contractor: Raytheon Technical Services Company, LLC.)

22. Is there an incumbent contractor associated with this work? If so, are you able to provide the name of the contractor and the contract #? Or, is this considered a brand new requirement?

See the response to Question 21 above.

23. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by item 4 of the RFI: " 4. Please identify your approach to financial management for a hybrid contract." What is meant by a hybrid contract?

As used in the RFI, hybrid contract means a contract with components of various contract types. An example would be a multiple-award contract with Firm-Fixed-Price and Time-and-Materials task orders.

24.a Is the contemplated work performed under SEAM going to be over and above services?

Yes. Please see the RFP Section C, Statement of Work, for the full scope of SEAM requirements.

24.b. Specifically are the Engineering Services contemplated in SEAM for NASA Aircraft going to replace what is being performed under the current AMOS contract?

It is not anticipated that the engineering services contemplated on SEAM for NASA Aircraft support services will replace the work currently performed on the AMOS contract.

25. It appears that the categories identified for this opportunity are heavily skewed toward support for aircraft. It is difficult for us to understand which aircraft activities may be associated with the four key facilities that comprise the anticipated contract scope (i.e., NBL, MCC, SSTF, and SVMF). To enable us to best address question 1, “Discuss recommendations related to the organization/content of the 4 task categories,” can you please provide additional information regarding the types of aircraft systems expected to be addressed within the scope of this opportunity?

The SEAM Task Categories are as follows:

· Task Category A: Aero Structural Engineering and Analysis

· Task Category B: Aero Mechanical Systems

· Task Category C: Aero Avionics, Electrical, and Software

· Task Category D: Ground Support Engineering Services

· Task Category E: Fabrication and Provisioning It is anticipated that SEAM Task Categories A, B, and C will be primarily in support of aircraft. A list of the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) aircraft fleet can be found in RFP Section C.2.1.

26. Would JSC consider changing the NAICS code to 541712 to increase the pool of potential small business bidders and to align with the current NAICS code definitions?

Yes. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code was changed from 541330, Engineering Services, to 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) after responses to the Request for Information (RFI) were received on October 14, 2015. The SEAM RFP has been assigned NAICS code 541712.

27. Can NASA provide, or estimate the date when it can provide, the Interested Parties list for Industry Day?

The Interested Parties list for the SEAM Industry Day has been posted to the SEAM website. A specific list of companies that attended Industry Day will not be provided to offerors.

28. Does NASA intend to release a Draft RFP for SEAM as mentioned during Industry Day? In particular, a draft sections L&M would be very valuable to our planning moving forward.

No, NASA does not intend to release a draft RFP for SEAM. The final RFP was released on February 29, 2016.

29. For our planning purposes could you provide us information if one or more of the remaining tasks; now that Raytheon’s support for Category D has been extended, would be identified as SBSAs?

The extension of contract #NNJ10HD35C has not impacted the acquisition strategy and requirements for SEAM. In accordance with RFP Section L.14.1, SEAM Task Categories A, B, and E are small business set-asides. Task Categories C and D are open for full and open competition.

30. Per the Industry Day Presentation, does the Government still intend to release Draft Sections L and M, and an updated Draft Section C, with a question/answer opportunity, prior to the release of the Final RFP? If not, will content be posted to the Technical Library prior to Final RFP release?

Please see the response to question 28. The Technical Library was populated prior to the release of the RFP.

QUESTIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE FEBRUARY 29, 2016, RELEASE OF THE SEAM RFP

GENERAL

31.a With the addition of the new Task Category E, there appears to be additional risk on the Governments part as they will need to perform as the integrator between two different performers: the build to print team and the source design team, which could be from Categories A, B, C, or D; from FDOC/MSOC, NSOC, AMOS/ALICE, or IMOC; or from the Engineering Directorate. Is this the intent of the Government?

Yes, it is the Government’s intent to be integrator where necessary.

31.b To help mitigate the risk of projects that will have a source design team and a build to print team, and to increase the value of the Task Category E area, will the Government define how Category E production stakeholders can interact with engineering teams during design through production?

The Government does not anticipate the need for production stakeholder interaction with the engineering teams. In the event this will be required, it will be specified by Task Order. In accordance with the RFP Statement of Work section C.8, Task Category E: Fabrication and Provisioning, Task Category E work is anticipated to be of sufficient maturity to mitigate this concern.

32.a Per the Draft SOW, SEAM Tasks may require work in any of these categories and will address non-routine work, i.e., work not required for general maintenance, operations or sustaining as performed by existing NASA contractors. Does this mean that the non-routine work will be removed from the scope of the existing NASA operations contractors?

No, the non-routine work will not be removed from the scope of existing NASA operations contracts.

32.b If not, how will competition be conducted for these non-routine tasks between the SEAM contractors and the operations contractors? I.E., normally only the successful offerors on a multi-award IDIQ contract can bid on a specific Task Order? Is this Government’s intent or will the operations contractors also have the capability of bidding the same Task?

It is not the Government’s intent to conduct competition for non-routine tasks between the SEAM contractors and operations contractors. Task Order proposals will only be requested from companies that were awarded a contract under SEAM.

32.c If this is the case, it will be very difficult for a SEAM contractor to be cost or schedule competitive when evaluated against the ready resources, management, and facilities of an operations contractor. If this situation will exist on SEAM, will it be for only a short transitional time (until the operations contracts can be recompeted without the duplicate scope) or will it be a permanent situation?

As described in the responses to questions 32 a and b above, this is not the Government’s intent and this situation is not anticipated to exist on SEAM.

33. Will the Government provide the anticipated, or at least a representative, value of potential SEAM task orders in the Draft and/or Final RFP to enable offerors to develop realistic and competitive rates?

No, the Government cannot provide an estimated value of the potential SEAM task orders. The work performed under SEAM will be non-routine. There is currently no anticipated or representative value of potential SEAM Task Orders.

34. How will the Government evaluate the technical capability of each offeror? Will it be only based on past performance questionnaires/write-ups? If not, will another method be used?

In accordance with RFP Section M.2.0, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Evaluation Factors for Award, proposals will be evaluated against Past Performance (Section M.2.1) and Price Factors (Section M.2.2).

FORMAT

35. The page limitation table shows line No. 1 states, "Up to 6 pages for each Task Category to which the offeror is proposing". Under Section L.15.1, the paragraph titled "Past Performance Narrative" states, "up to one page per proposal (not per Task Category) of introductory material about the experience and performance of the Offeror including subcontractors (if applicable). This introductory material is in addition to the Task Category page limitation." Please clarify under L.6 if the page limitation for Volume I is 6 or 7 pages.

In accordance with Table L-2 of the RFP, the page limitations for Volume I – Past Performance is 6 pages per Task Category for the narrative and 1 page of past performance introductory material per Offeror. For example, an Offeror bidding on two Task Categories would have a limit of 1 page for introductory material and 2 sets of 6 pages for their Past Performance Narrative, for a total of 13 pages, excluding materials expressly stated in Table L-2.

36. As part of the Past Performance Volume, it is stated that we can submit one page of introductory material that will not count toward the six page limit. How should this page be numbered, i.e. Arabic or Roman Numeral (in order to differentiate it from the 6 numbered pages for the Category Narrative)?

In accordance with RFP Section L.14.2, all pages in each volume shall be numbered sequentially with Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.) for contents subject to page limitations. The past performance introductory material is subject to a 1-page limitation and shall be numbered with an Arabic numeral.

37. Can the required OSHA logs be submitted as pdf Appendices or should they be displayed as part of the Volume I section on Safety and Health Data?

In accordance with RFP Section L.14.2, proposal sections excluded from the page limit, including Safety and Health Data, shall be placed at the end of each volume. Other Past Performance Data, including Safety and Health Data, may be submitted in its native format, which may include a PDF format.

PAST PERFORMANCE – VOLUME I

38. Some of the critical capabilities are outsourced by most vendors in our industry to small companies that specialize in that particular capability. An example of this is hydraulics system design. In most cases these small companies, choose to perform in only that one area, so can only be bid as a minor subcontractor. However with the limitations in the Past Performance Matrix and in the narrative there is no place in the proposal to propose the excellent capabilities of these niche engineering companies. Would the Government please clarify how the offeror is to include minor subcontractors in the proposal?

In accordance with RFP Section M.2.1, any past performance data provided on a minor subcontractor will not be considered.

39. The RFP states that a Major Sub must cover at least 3 critical capabilities to be able to submit past performance narratives in the proposal. It also limits the number of tasks per critical capability to 3. However per our interpretation, it allows for the Prime and a Major Sub, or two Major Subs, to be bid on one critical capability, as long as only 3 total tasks are used for past performance, i.e., one task from one and two from another. This is extremely important in enabling us to address some of the specialized capabilities required as critical capabilities and demonstrate our ability as a team to perform and provide the depth that the Government needs. Would the Government please clarify this limitation and consider allowing the Prime and Major Subs to cross critical capabilities so that the full depth and breadth of our team can be demonstrated in the proposal?

When completing the Past Performance Matrix, an Offeror shall only list one prime or major subcontractor per critical capability.

40. The past performance questionnaire requires that our customers return them by 3/21, which is less than two weeks from now; however, without clarifications we cannot yet define which of our references can be used in the proposal. Would the Government please consider delaying the deadline for past performance questionnaires to the due date of the proposal?

Per Amendment 1 to the RFP, the deadline for the submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires is Thursday, March 31, 2016.

41. Can you please clarify what is meant by “Number of Full Time Employees” in the Past Performance Reference Table (L 16.2)?

As it pertains to the SEAM attachment L.16.2, References Table, “Number of Full Time Employees” refers to the number of the Offeror’s or major subcontractor’s employees who worked full-time, as opposed to part-time or temporarily, on the referenced contract.

42. Can Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contracts be used as past performance?

Yes, SBIR contracts may be used as past performance data.

43. Are government contracts weighted more than non-government contracts as part of the past performance?

No; however, in accordance with M.2.1, for the Government’s relevance assessment for Task Categories A, B, and C, tasks performed for similar aircraft as the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) fleet listed in Section C, Statement of Work, will be considered more relevant than tasks on dissimilar aircraft. For Categories D and E, tasks of similar scope and standards as existing aerospace training and qualification hardware as described in the sample task orders and Mockup Development Requirements Reference Documents (CX12-SLP0014 and CX14-POL0043) in the SEAM Technical Library (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/seam/tl/authorize.asp) will be considered more relevant than tasks performed for unrelated applications.

44. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is a requirement for each contract, correct? Is the deadline for return of the PPQ March 31st? If a PPQ has been requested for a given contract, but it is not delivered to the contract specialist within the deadline, will that downgrade the past performance evaluation?

Offerors shall submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L.16.3, to up to ten (per Task Category) of the point of contact references listed in Attachment L.16.2 (References Table). Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted by the proposal due date of Thursday, March 31, 2016. Non-receipt of a questionnaire will not affect the past performance evaluation, although Offerors will be assigned past performance confidence ratings based on the past performance information considered by the SLPT.

45. Does the term “relevant contracts” include only contracts for which information is provided in the Relevant Past Performance Matrix, or does it include all contracts performed during the past five years?

In accordance with RFP Section L, all contracts for the prime and major subcontractors listed in the Attachment L.16.1 (Relevant Past Performance Matrix) shall be included in the Attachment L.16.2 (References Table). For the Past Performance Narrative, the narrative should discuss the Offeror’s (and major subcontractors’) most relevant tasks and capabilities from the Attachment L.16.1 (Relevant Past Performance Matrix). In accordance with Section M.2.1: “The Government will use past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the SLPT based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and similar systems of other governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.”

46. The first paragraph of this section states, “any past performance data provided on a minor subcontractor will not be considered.” However, Section L.15.1, Other Past Performance Data requires us to provide past performance data on “each company proposed,” which we interpret to mean both major and minor subcontractors. Please clarify what past performance data, if any, is required for minor subcontractors and whether that data will be evaluated.

In accordance with RFP Section M.2.1, past performance data provided on a minor subcontractor will not be considered. Past performance data on a minor subcontractor need not be submitted. Per Amendment 2 to the RFP, if a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed, excluding minor subcontractors.

47. Attachment L.16.1 request the Prime and Major Subcontractors display their respective critical capabilities. It is not clear how the Prime is supposed to handle ‘minor’ subcontractors that are supporting less than three critical capabilities. Is it the intention of NASA to have N/A next to critical capabilities that are being supported by ‘minor’ subcontractors (neither prime nor major subcontractors)? Please provide guidance on how to handle critical capabilities that are not covered by either the Prime or a Major Subcontractor as defined in the RFP.

Any past performance data provided on a minor subcontractor will not be considered. In accordance with paragraph (a) under the Relevant Past Performance Matrix (Attachment L.16.1) instructions, Offerors with no past performance experience among the prime or major subcontractor(s) shall indicate by inserting “none” for the first row for that capability under the Contract Name column.

PRICE – VOLUME II

48. Do we delete unused TOPTs for the categories that we are not bidding? The Government indicated that we could do so during the preproposal conference; however, we tried and we could not delete these sheets. Would the Government please clarify?

Yes, Offerors may delete unused TOPTs for the categories that they are not bidding. The MS Excel template tabs “TOPT-SR-Task A” – “TOPT-SR-Task E” in Attachment L.16.5 are separate from each other. Each tab can be deleted individually by using the Right-Click button, choose the Delete function and click the OK button to delete an entire tab.

49. What is meant by incumbent rates, since this is a new contract? The Government indicated that this was an error in the templates during the preproposal conference. Will you be providing an updated template?

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. An updated template has been provided via RFP Amendment 1.

50. REF: Pricing Template Category D - The pricing calculations are incorrect. Please review and revise.

We appreciate your feedback and we noted some incorrect formulas in the RFP Pricing Templates. The formulas in “TOPT-SR-Task D,” “TOPT-SR-Task C,” and “TOPT-SR-Task E” templates have been corrected per Amendment 1 to the RFP. The corrected Attachment L.16.5 has been posted in the RFP Amendment 1.

51. REF: Pricing Template - It is understood that the offeror will leave SLCs rates blank in the pricing template if that SLC is not proposed, is that correct?

To eliminate any ambiguities in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror shall input 0 in the pricing templates and N/A in Section B.9 and B.10 of the Model Contract, if a Standard Labor Category (SLC) is not being proposed. This revised template Section L instruction have been included in the RFP Amendment 1.

52. REF: SLC Mapping to Offeror Labor Categories - May offerors propose additional SLCs or modify job descriptions? If not, we request that SLCs for Supervisor I and II, and Technical Professional I, II and III be added to allow mapping of staff member positions who are essential to accomplish the SEAM SOW. These SLCs were derived from NSOC II. SLCs provided do not include descriptions for Department Managers, HSE Specialists, Budget Analysts, and Project Coordinators. Additionally, we request to broaden the job description for the three Technician categories to include Inspectors, Production Expeditors and Production Planners. If the addition of these SLCs and modification of job descriptions are denied, please offer guidance for mapping these positions, as existing SLC descriptions are not appropriate.

No, additional Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) and modifications to SLC descriptions may not be proposed. In accordance with RFP Section L.15.2, Price Factor – Volume II, each of the Offeror’s Labor Categories shall be mapped to the NASA SLC column. SLCs are intended to broadly group proposed labor into a manageable number of categories. These guidelines do not address all the possible specific skills, or requirements that any one occupation or profession may require. The Offeror is responsible for acquiring an understanding of the complexities of the work required to successfully meet the SEAM Task Category requirements. Accordingly, Offerors must propose the resources required to successfully meet these requirements.

RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS –VOLUME III

53. The Pre-Proposal Conference material states, "Offerors for Task Categories A, B, or C must submit evidence of Facility Clearance to at least the Secret Level." Will the lack of this clearance preclude Small Businesses from consideration as a viable offerer for one of the Small Business Set-Aside Task Categories? Will it be possible to obtain the required Facility Clearance after contract award?

The lack of the appropriate security clearance will preclude all businesses, regardless of size, from consideration as a viable Offeror for Task Categories A, B, and C. Evidence of the required Facility Clearance is required to be submitted with proposals.

54. The title of Section J.2.5 in the Table of Content is shown as "OCCUPATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST". Please confirm the correct title of this document as "ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI)" as defined in the DRD.

The correct title of attachment J.2.5 is Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) plan. The title has been corrected in the RFP per Amendment 1.

SAFETY AND HEALTH DATA

55. Regarding the bullet requiring submission of OSHA citations, in our experience OSHA citations are reported on a regional basis. Does NASA require this information specific to a particular United States region or citations for all regions?

No, NASA does not require this information specific to a particular region. In accordance to RFP Section L.15.1, these records shall be provided for each relevant worksite.

56. The forth bullet under "Safety and Health Data" requests, the "Experience Modification Rates as well as calculations supporting the Offeror’s workers’ compensation experience modifier." In addition, it requests the "state formula" used in the calculation. Given that few states have their own formula for the computation and most states are included in the computation of the “Interstate” calculation, would it be acceptable to use the "Interstate" calculation as the basis of the computation? Also, could NASA specify what timeframe the "Experience Modifier" should cover?

Yes, it is acceptable to use the “Interstate” calculation as the basis of the computation. Please also note that using the interstate calculation still requires submission of the formula used for the computation, along with the loss ratio for each of the past three years and the figures used for computation. Experience Modification Rates for the most recent available past three years are required.

57. Under the fifth bullet for "Safety and Health Data", offerors are required to provide letters summarizing the "liability and lawsuit history related to safety and health performance for the past three years letters..." Are these letters only required from the insurers providing workers’ compensation insurance for the past three years or is NASA requesting letters from insurers providing other insurance policies as well? If other than worker's compensation providers are included, could NASA specify what other insurance policies require these letters? What do you mean by “health performance” and does this have anything to do with health insurance claims or policies? Considering the “history of changes to the experience modifier rate” requested in this section, will be provided in response to bullet four, would it be acceptable to provide the insurance companies’ loss runs showing each workers’ compensation claim over the past three years in lieu of the requested letters from the insurers?

NASA is only requesting letters from workers’ compensation insurance carrier(s) summarizing the Offeror’s liability and lawsuit history related to safety and health performance. The term “health” is used in the context of worker compensation. This request is not asking for information regarding health insurance claims or policies.

58. The third bullet under "Safety and Health Data" requests, "A list of all insurance carriers providing workers compensation coverage...". Please indicate the timeframe the list should cover.

Please provide this data for the past five years.

SMALL BUSINESS

59. Under the updated synopsis, the Task Categories D and E (previously Task Category D) have been identified as Full and Open and Small Business Set Aside, respectively. Would the Government consider use of FAR 52.219-4 - Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns to better enable small HUBZone businesses to be competitive in the Full and Open Task Areas should they decide to bid in those areas?

The clause at FAR 52.219-4 is not included in the RFP and the Government will not amend the RFP to include this provision.. Please note that Task Categories A, B, and E are small business set-asides.

60. Table L-4: Small Business Goals. The last two lines of this Table appear to have been inadvertently separated. Please review and provide clarification if the intent of the last two lines of this Table is to have one SDVOSB goal at .5% or are the last two lines actually two different goals? If two goals, please specify.

Table L-4: Small Business Goals has been corrected in the RFP per Amendment 1. There is only one recommended Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business goal and it is 0.5%.

MODEL CONTRACT – VOLUME IV

61. Section L.15.4, "Model Contract - Volume IV, Paragraph A lists the applicable Section H fill-in data as Clause H.6. Please review and clarify as the Clause at H.4 appears to be related to Small Business Subcontracting Goals requiring the insertion of data.

The correct area of the model contract Offerors are required to complete for Section H is H.4 – Small Business Subcontracting Goals. This correction has been made to the RFP per Amendment 1.