RPOC_IV_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

NNJ16582596R

Rendevous, Proximity, Operations and Capture (RPOC IV)

Responses to Draft RFP Sections C, L and M

Question 1: Section 2.2.1 of the SOW does not identify CRS-2 as a Visiting Vehicle program to be supported under RPOC IV. Will the RPOC IV contract support the design of the Sierra

Nevada Dream Chaser?

Response 1: All non-Russian Visiting Vehicles will be assessed, including the Sierra Nevada

Dream Chaser.

Question 2: Section 2.4.1 of the SOW states that the contractor shall "support performance systems engineering ". Please clarify what is meant by "performance systems engineering".

Response 2: The Final RFP is changed to read “perform system engineering.”

Question 3: Section 5.0 of the SOW states that "the Contractor will develop and implement a safety and health program per a NASA-approved safety and health plan specified in the DRL".

Will the Safety and Health Plan be required at the time of proposal submission or as a post-award contract deliverable?

Response 3: This is addressed in the JSC Data Requirements List (DRL)/ JSC Data

Requirements Description (DRD), which states that it will required as a post-award contract deliverable.

Question 4: Are the Reference Documents listed in Section 6.0 of the SOW but are not in the

Technical Library, e.g. "SSP50273 Segment Specification for the H2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV)", copyrighted and therefore subject to Section L.9.e?

Response 4: Documents have been added to the technical library.

Question 5: Section L.1 does not include FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. Will the Government include this FAR clause in the final solicitation, and if not, why not?

Response 5: This clause is included in Section I of the RFP.

Question 6: L.13.2 states that the proposal delivery is specified in Section L.8 but it is specified in Section L.7

Response 6: The section has been revised.

Question 7: Section L.13.2 limits the font size for text in diagrams, charts, tables, etc. in page-limited sections of the proposal to be no smaller that 12 points. We recommend that this be reduced to 10 points.

Response 7: Per the RFP, 12 point font for text in diagrams, charts, tables, etc. is the required font for this proposal submission.

Question 8: Section L.13.5 refers to a proposed program manager, but this requirement is not mentioned in Attachment L-7 Management and Staffing Plan. Are bidders to explicitly propose a

Program Manger?

Response 8: Yes. Offerors are to propose a Program Manager in the Past Performance Volume and as applicable in the Management and Staffing Plan.

Question 9: Section L.13.5 refers to a proposed key personnel, but this requirement is not mentioned in Attachment L-7 Management and Staffing Plan. Are bidders to explicitly propose key personnel?

Response 9: No. In the final RFP references of “key personnel” have been removed and replaced with “Program Manager.”

Question 10: Section L.13.5 states that past performance information is required for the proposed program manager, but it is not differentiated from that of the companies. Is this the

Government's intent?

Response 10: Yes. In accordance with L.13.5, “ Offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors (subcontracts with an estimated average annual value equal to or greater than

$1,000,000.00) and the proposed program manager shall each provide information on no more than five (5) past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints).”

Question 11: Section L.13.5 makes several references to page limitation constraints for the Past

Performance volume, but Table L-2 in Section L.13.2 indicates there is no page limit for this volume.

Response 11: Language pertaining to page limitation constraints is removed from section L.13.5 of the RFP.

Question 12: Section L.13.5 indicates that offers must provide Environmental, Safety and Health and Workman's Compensation performance data for the past three years. Is this on a contract-by-contract basis or for the company as a whole?

Response 12: Environmental, Safety and Health and Workman's Compensation performance data for the past three years should be provided for the company as a whole.

Question 13: Section L.13.5 instructs offerors to propose Direct Labor Rates. Will the

Government provide historical average composite direct labor rates in the technical library as per their response from the Industry Day questions and answers?

Response 13: The Direct Labor Rates have been added to the Technical Library.

Question 14: Will the Government provide Standard Labor Categories for Project Management

(SOW 2.1) or must bidders propose them?

Response 14: The Program Manager Standard Labor Catergories will be provided by the Offeror in Section B.

Question 15: Section L.13.5 states that "only contract period of performances within 3 years from the date of issuance of the RPOC IV original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation". However, Attachment L-3 states under Past Performance Evaluation that "It is very important to keep in mind that only performance in the past 5 years is relevant".

Please clarify this difference.

Response 15: The Period of Performance has been revised to 3 years in the RFP.

Question 16: Section L.13.5.c requests that offerors "Provide an organizational chart displaying the relationships between the parent company, affiliate, and/or any other organizational entity

(division(s), business units, or other segments of your company) which are proposed to perform the effort." This is referring to work to be performed, not work that was performed. Is this the

Government's intent?

Response 16: The Organizational Chart should reflect the work to be performed.

Question 17: Section L.13.7 asks "whether there are discreet tasks to be performed by each of the teaming partners …". Should this be "discrete tasks"?

Response 17: The language has been changed to “discrete tasks.”

Question 18: Section L.13.6.c states that "The Offeror is further reminded that this solicitation covers a 45 day phase-in period and a period of performance of 5 years (72 months)." Should this be 60 months?

Response 18: The language has been revised to 60 months.

Question 19: Sections L.13.6 and L.13.7 define a Major Subcontractor as "a company that the

Offeror anticipates providing at least an estimated average annual value equal to or greater than

$500,000.00 of contract value in support of the SOW effort". Does "value" in this context mean cost or cost plus fee"?

Response 19: The estimated average annual value is cost plus fixed-fee.

Question 20: Section M.1.1 states that "The proposed Technical Approach, including the response to the scenarios, will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness". However, Section L.13.4 indicates that the Technical Approach consists of discussing "the plan to accomplish the scenarios detailed in Attachment L-4". The use of" including the response to the scenarios" in M.1.1 suggests there is more to the Technical Approach than just our written plans to accomplish the scenarios. Please clarify.

Response 20: Language “including the response to the scenarios.” is removed from RFP.

Question 21: Attachment L.4 Scenario 2 states "Assume that the software is required to meet

NASA NPR 7150.2 Class D requirements (Basic Science/Engineering Design and Research and

Technology Software)." Both NPR 7150.2 and JPR 7150.2 are listed in Section 6.0 of the SOW and are provided in the Technical Library. Are there circumstances under RPOC IV in which

JPR 7150.2 would supersede NPR 7150.2 for software development?

Response 21: JPR 1250.2 is JSC’s interpretation of the software engineering requirements contained in NPR 7150.2 on a requirement by requirement basis. NPR 7150.2 has been included in the document library for completeness. The scenario now reads “software is required to meet

JPR 7150.2.”

Question 22: We have supported the Orion program as both a first-tier and second-tier subcontractor to Lockheed Martin Space Systems (LMSS). Most recently, it has been as a second-tier sub through companies that received awards under LMSS' Master Subcontract. In citing Orion past performance, do we provide past performance contact information and request questionnaires from LMSS, the Master Subcontract sub(s), or both?

Response 22: Per Section L.13.5 Offerors shall provide information on no more than five (5) past contracts. Offerors shall consider the recency and relevance, as they relate specifically to this solicitation.

Question 23: Does NASA JSC use a web-based Task Order Management System electronically interface with its contractors for task order request and response process?

Response 23: RPOC IV will not use a web-based Task Order Management System.

Question 24: How should additional labor categories for Program Management Office support or for SOW Section 2.1 Project Management support be added to the EPM?

Response 24: The Offeror may add other SLCs to the table under the row “Other (Identify)”.

Question 25: On the CFAOT worksheet (cell A9) of the EPM, a major subcontractor is shown as having $5M or more per year. This is not consistent with Sections L.13.5and L.13.6.

Response 25: The RFP has replaced “$5M” to “$1M”.

Question 26: In completing Attachment L-2, are we to populate the columns of Row 3 with the

RPOC SOW numbers to the third level? What is expected in the cells under these rows, text, or a dot, a checkmark or some other symbol indicating the contract in Row i satisfies the SOW element in Column J?

Response 26: Columns in ROW 3 should be populated with the RPOC SOW numbers to the lowest applicable level and indicated with at least one "dot" (multiple is acceptable) in each appropriate cell per row indicating whether that Team Member (Program Manager, Prime, Subcontractor, Parent, Affiliate, etc) has Past Performance for the specified SOW Section(s) that it is responsible for.

Question 27: Section L.8 - are offerors required to submit a work schedule to address the flex/super-flex NASA schedule? Are utility systems operational during flex/super-flex times such that contractor employees can work with a/c and power at the JSC facilities? If not, are the employees that are located on-site expected to work offsite on the JSC flex days?

Response 27: Offerors are not required to submit a work schedule to address the flex/super-flex

NASA schedule. The JSC facilities that will be used by RPOC IV contractors are operational on

NASA flex/super-flex days.

Question 28: Section L.13.2, Page 16, of the DRAFT RFP, it states that submissions must be in

Microsoft Office® 2003 or 2007applications (Word and Excel). Is it possible to consider later versions (i.e. 2010, 2013) in the FINAL RFP?

Response 28: The RFP indicates Microsoft Office® 2003 or later applications (Word and Excel)

Question 29: Regarding the rate data requested in Section L.13.6 COST/PRICE PROPOSAL –

Volume III, (c) Supplemental Cost Data, can separate rates be proposed for NASA-site personnel and Contractor-site personnel? If not, what is the mix/staffing level to be used for developing a composite rate?

Response 29: Yes, separate FBR rates should be developed for onsite and offsite personnel of the same standard labor category.

Question 30: Regarding Attachment L-7, Management and Staffing Plan, are parts a, b, and c due as part of the Initial submission with the proposal?

It currently states that for the Initial submission “The offeror shall provide a management approach which discusses Paragraph C, Number 1-7 of the Management and Staffing

Plan.”

Response 30: Per Management staffing Plan DRD paragraph C, 1-7 is due at with the proposal submission. The complete Management plan is due 10 days after the start of phase-in.