RFP_Amendment_2_Industry_Questions_and_Answers_(001).pdf

RPOC IV RFP Amendment 2 Questions and Answers

Question 1: Section B.4 shows the end of the estimated period of performance as an OFI, but it should be 05/18/2022.

Response 1: Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to change Section B.4 from OFI to TBD. This section will updated by the Government as funding is obligated to the contract.

Question 2: Section B.6 says that the rates in Table 1.0 are to be "fully burdened composite team rates

(prime and all subcontractors); but exclude prime fee". Does this mean that the subcontractors rates are to include fee and are to be blended with the prime contractor's rates which are not to include fee?

Further, the composite rate requirement for Section B.6 is not consistent with the Fully Burdened Rate

(FBR) instructions in the EPM which states that "A separate FBR is required for each contract year of the effort from both the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor(s)". Please advise.

Response 2: Yes, the subcontractor’s FBR is incorporated into the prime’s FBR. The prime’s FBR template blends the prime and subcontractor fully burden rates. If there is a fee sharing agreement between the prime and subcontractor, the subcontractor will not need to complete the fee column of its FBR template. If there is not a fee sharing agreement between the prime and subcontractor, the subcontractor will need to complete the fee column of its FBR template. Please, keep in mind that the

Prime’s proposed fee is calculated towards the end (see ISCT worksheet). Only the rates from the

ISCT, which is incorporated from the prime’s FBR (see worksheet instructions), are to be entered into the rate table in Section B.6.

Question 3: Section H.2 indicates that there is a potential OCI for a prime contractor or first-tier subcontractor having a financial interest in existing contracts for "NASA spacecraft". Please confirm that

NASA spacecraft is not limited to vehicles such as Orion but includes commercial ISS Visiting Vehicles such as SpaceX Dragon, Orbital ATK Cygnus, Boeing CST-100, etc.

Response 3: Yes. NASA spacecraft is not limited to vehicles such as Orion and includes commercial ISS

Visiting Vehicles such as SpaceX Dragon, Orbital ATK Cygnus, Boeing CST-100, etc.

Question 4: Section L.13.2(g) indicates a Cross Reference List is to be provided that tracks the page number and paragraph numbers of the Offeror's proposal to the page and paragraph numbers of the

Government's instructions. Please confirm whether this tracking is with respect to Section M.

Response 4: The Cross Reference List should tie the Offeror’s proposal to the Government’s instructions (Section L).

Question 5: Section L.13.6(a) states the Offeror's cost proposal shall contain a narrative that includes

Sections (b) Specific Guidelines and (c) Supplemental Cost Data. Should the narrative also include (d)

Pricing Methodology?

Response 5: Yes, the narrative should include (d) Pricing Methodology. Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to include Pricing Methodology in Section L.13.6(a)

Question 6: Section L.13.7 Responsibility Considerations indicates that each offeror shall complete

Attachment L-9, Pre- award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist. The List of

Attachments in the Final RFP shows this as Attachment L-6, which was not included in the Final RFP

Package. Shall we use Attachment L-9 from the Draft RFP instead?

Response 6: Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to include, Attachment L-6, Pre-award Survey of

Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist. Section L.13.7 (c) is changed from Attachment L-

9 to Attachment L-6.

Question 7: Is the Pre-award Survey, which was provided in the Draft RFP as a 10-page Adobe Acrobat

PDF and is now Attachment L-6 in the final RFP, to be included in Volume IV, Section C, and count against the page limit or is it included as an attachment to Volume IV and is not page limited?

Response 7: Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to revise the “Accounting System Adequacy” page limit to “No Limit.”

Question 8: Section L.13.8 Model Contract indicates that Blocks 17 and 30 of SF 1449 are to be filled in.

However, the Final RFP includes an SF 33, which appears to be a shorter version of SF 1449 and does not include a Block 30. It appears we should fill in Blocks 12-18 of the SF 33. Please advise.

Response 8: Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to change Section L.13.8 from SF 1449 Blocks 17 and 30 to SF 33 Blocks 12-18.

Question 9: Attachment J-1, Line Item 11 indicates a Subcontracting Plan (DRD RPOC-11) is to be included with the proposal if planning to include subcontractors. Is this plan covered by Volume IV, Subcontracting Arrangement or is it a separate attachment? If the latter, to which volume is it attached?

Response 9: Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to remove the requirement for DRD RPOC-11. All references are changed to “Reserved.”

Question 10: Page 15 of the Pre-Proposal Bulletin states that the Management and Staffing Plan should address Paragraph B and Paragraph C, 1-7, of DRD RPOC-02. However, Section L.13.4 of the final RFP states "The Offeror shall provide a management approach which discusses Paragraph C, Number 1-7 of the Management and Staffing Plan". Given that Page 3 of the Pre-Proposal Bulletin states that if there any inconsistences between the briefing and the final RFP, the latter governs, will the final RFP be amended to match the intent of the Pre-Proposal Bulletin?

Response 10: As stated in the Pre-Proposal Bulletin (chart 3) “To the extent there are any inconsistencies between this briefing and any future RFP, the RFP will govern,” therefore please refer to the instructions in the Final RFP.

Question 11: Page 21 of the Pre-Proposal Bulletin states that if a subcontracting arrangement is proposed, the Offeror shall include specific detail as defined in the RFP Section L.13.7 Subcontract

Arrangement Information. Please confirm that this incorporated into Section A of Vol. IV, Responsibility

Considerations and that the latter satisfies the requirements of DRD RPOC-011. If not, to which volume is the plan attached? Further, please confirm this plan is only required if the subcontractor satisfies the definition of a major subcontractor, as per DRD-011, Block 8.

Response 11: See Response 9.

Question 12: RFP_Amendment_1_Industry_Questions_and_Answers, Response 1, states that "The due date for Past Performance Questionnaires is changed from 1:00 pm CST 11/14/16 to 1500 CST 11/28/16 to coincide with the due date of the Past Performance Volume II." However, it is silent on whether the due date for Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors is also moved to 1500 CST 11/28/16. Please advise.

Response 12: In accordance with L.13.2 of the RFP, the due date for Section K is 1500 CST 11/28/16.

Question 13: SSP 50808 ISS-to-COTS IRD makes reference to JSC-35089 Visiting Vehicle Operations

Document, which is not provided in the Technical Library. Is this document important for Scenario 1 and

2 response development, and if so, will the Government provide it in the Technical Library?

Response 13: Document is limited to operations support of visiting vehicles. While there is no impact to either scenario, the document will be added to the Technical Library.

Question 14: Section L.13.5 (b) states that "Only contract period of performance within 3 years from the date of issuance of the RPOC IV original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation." However, in Attachment L-3 Past Performance Questionnaire, page 3, Past Performance

Evaluation, it is stated, "It is very important to keep in mind that only performance in the past 5 years is relevant." Please clarify the valid time period of performance.

Response 14: See Response 2 in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

Question 15: Section L.13.5 (e) states, "You may include up to one (1) page of introductory material about the experience and performance of your company and subcontractors (if applicable). You may also submit additional reference information on experience and past performance for consideration."

Given the importance of Past Performance and thus the value of additional reference information, and that Vol II is not otherwise page limited, will the Government remove the limitation on the introductory material, or at least increase it to 3 pages?

Response 15: Introductory material will remain at limit of one (1) page as stated in Section L.13.5(e)

Question 16: Section M.1.2 Past Performance Factor (Volume II) states, "The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history." Please clarify what is meant by "documented." Does it mean documented in the proposal or documented in a government database?

Response 16: The word “documented” means both data provided by the Offeror and data obtain from other sources. Per Section M.1.2 Past Performance Factor (Volume II), paragraph 2: “…Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources.”

Question 17: THE FINAL RFP REFERENCES ATTACHMENT L-6 AS THE PREAWARD SURVEY BUT DID NOT

INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PREAWARD SURVEY. THE PREAWARD SURVEY SEEMS TO BE MISSING FROM

FINAL RFP.

A VERSION (ATTACHED) WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT L-9 IN THE DRAFT RFP. WILL A PREAWARD

SURVEY BE PROVIDED FOR THE FINAL RFP?

Response 17: See Response 6

Question 18: DRD RPOC-4 states TCP initial submission is Contract Year Three. However, the last sentence of Scope in the DRD RPOC-4 para 8 Preparation Information says that the TCP shall become part of the contract as Attachment J.8.

Also, DRD RPOC-4 has Submission (Initial): Contract Year Three.

Does the TCP become part of the contract only after Contract Year Three or was the intent to include it as part of the contract at the start?

If it is part of the contract from the start, is it delivered during the phase in period?

Also, as there is no attachment J.8 listed nor a reference to Total Compensation Plan in Section J – List of

Attachments, can you clarify the reference to Attachment J.8 in the DRD?

Response 18: The initial TCP data is submitted as part of the Management and Staffing Plan, Section

C. This section of the Management and Staffing Plan will go on the contract and will be updated in

Year 3 of the contract. Amendment 2 to the RFP is issued to remove the requirement for DRD RPOC-4.

All references are changed to “Reserved.”

Question 19: Table L-2 states that Volume V Model Contract should include signed SF 33, while Section

L.13.8 states that SF 1449 Blocks 17 and 30 are required. Block 30 is signature. No SF 1449 seems to be provided with the final RFP. Is SF 1449 required in the Model Contract Volume V?

Response 19: See Response 8.

Question 20: Could you please provide clarification as to what is to be considered as “Statement of

Work” for the purpose of providing relevancy in the Past Performance Volume?

Past Performance instructions asks for relevancy by Statement of Work (SOW) to be provided in

Attachment L-2.

Also from L.13.5(c): “This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Statement of Work, the prime, major subcontractors,are responsible for…”

However, Section C- Description/Specification/Work Statement could be considered the entire

Statement of Work.

Section C has 6 sub-sections.

For the purpose of the Past Performance relevancy response are all 6 sub-sections to be considered as the SOW?

Or is the intent to have the Offeror provide relevancy only against Section C, 2.0 -Description of Work?

Or both 1.0 Project Overview/Scope of Work and 2.0 Description of Work?

Response 20: For the purpose of providing relevancy in the Past Performance Volume, all 6 sub-sections are considered the Statement of Work.

Question 21: Can you please clarify the attachments for the Model Contract as they differ from what the

DRDs list?

RFP Section J – List of Attachments indicates the following attachments:

J.3 Standard Labor Categories

J.4 Installation Accountable Government Property

J.5 Management and Staffing Plan

J.6 Phase-In Plan

J.7 Safety and Health

However the DRDs list the following list of attachment which do not correspond to Section J list.

DRD RPOC-02: Management and Staffing Plan lists J.6 (vs J.5 in RFP Sec J List)

DRD RPOC-03: Phase-in Plan = J.7 (vs J.6 in RFP Sec J)

DRD RPOC-04: TCP = J.8 (J.8 not in RFP Sec J)

DRD RPOC-08: Safety and Health = J.8 (vs J.7 in RFP Sec J)

DRD RPOC-11: Subcontracting Plan = J.8 (J.8 not in RFP Sec J)

Also Section G.2.c.3 lists: Installation Accountable Government Property = J.10 (J.10 not in RFP Sec J)

And Section L.13.6.b.5 lists: Standard Labor Categories = L.6 (vs J.3 in RFP Sec J)

Response 21: Amendment 2 is issued to correct inconsistencies in RFP Section J List of Attachments and Section J.2 DRD’s. Amendment 2 is issued to change Section G.2 (c)(3) to state Property listed in

Attachment J.4, Installation Accountable Government Property. Amendment 2 is issued to change section L.13.6(b)(5) to state Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) to facilitate a consistent evaluation among Offerors are provided in Attachment J.3.