CMC3_DRFP_Q&A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cargo Mission Contract (CMC) 3
- Solicitation number
- NNJ16591116R
About this file
CMC3 DRFP Q&A
View the file
Other files
Show all 45
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Draft RFP Section | Draft RFP Section Title | Draft RFP Description | Question/ Clarification | Answer |
| 1 | Cover Letter | DRFP NNJ16591116R Cover Letter | All inquiries or comments concerning this DRFP shall be submitted in writing via e-mail to the undersigned on or before Friday, February 3, 2017. | Please clarify the discrepancy as to when questions regarding the DRFP are due. | The final RFP was released on February 21, 2017. As such, questions for the DRFP are no longer being accepted. Offerors are encouraged to read the final RFP cover letter located here: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=b91cfbef455d6a999517e48c2eb84cc0&_cview=0 |
All questions are due by February 28th by 2:00 PM local time.
| NFS 1852.215-77 Pre-Proposal Conference (APR 2015)C4:C6 | All inquiries or comments concerning this DRFP should be submitted in writing via e-mail on or before January 30, 2017, for consideration during the conference. | ||||
| L.7.e | |||||
| The Government will respond to questions regarding this procurement provided such questions have been received at least five (5) working days prior to the conference.*** | |||||
| 2 | Cover Letter | DRFP NNJ16591116R Cover Letter | The CMC3 Contract Pre-Solicitation Conference is anticipated to be held on Tuesday, January 31, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. Central Time online via Audio Conference. | There is a discrepancy in the preproposal conference time between the Cover Letter and Section L. Please clarify when the Pre-Proposal/Pre-Solicitation Conference will be held. | The pre-prososal conference began on January 31, 2017 at 8:30 AM. If offerors were late to the conference because of the discrepancy in start times, offerors should submit questions by the due date outlined in the final RFP cover letter. See Question 1. |
| NFS 1852.215-77 Pre-Proposal Conference (APR 2015) | A preproposal/pre-bid conference will be held as indicated below: |
| Date: January 31, 2017 | |
| Time: 9:00am – 10:30am | |
| Location: Electronic Meeting / Teleconference | |
| For additional information regarding the Conference and cost and pricing briefing, please reference the CMC3 Pre-Proposal Conference Notification on https://www.fbo.gov/. |
| # | Draft RFP Section | Draft RFP Section Title | Draft RFP Description | Question/ Clarification | |
| 1 | H.5 | NFS 1852.235-71 Key Personnel and Facilities (MAR 1989) | (c) The list of personnel and/or facilities (as specified in the contract schedule) may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be amended from time to time during the course of the contract to add or delete personnel and/or facilities. | Can an offeror propose key personnel in addition to the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager? | Offerors can propose as many key personnel as they wish. However, the Government will keep clause H.5 as written; only the CMC3 Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager will be subject to clause H.5. |
| Program Manager - [OFI] | |||||
| Deputy Program Manager - [OFI] | |||||
| 2 | H.6 / L.16.3.4 | JPI 52.219-90 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING GOALS (OCT 2006) / | The total small business goal, expressed as a percent of total contract value including options, is 23 percent. The small business percentage goal, includes the following goals expressed as a percent of total contract value / | There is a discrepancy in the Small Business Goals between Section H and Section L. Will the Government please clarify what the Small Business Goals will be for the contract? | The goals contained in Section H.6 which contain the 23 percent goal are the correct Small Business Goas. This was corrected in the final RFP. |
| SUBFACTOR 4 – Small Business Utilization (SBU) - Mission Suitability | 21% SB Goal | ||||
| 3 | L.16.2 | PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES | (c) …Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size. | Can offerors use a compressed Arial font no smaller than 12 point text size for text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork and photographs to improve readability? | Please follow the instructions in the final RFP, Section L.16.2 regarding sections of the proposal which are and are not subject to page limitations. |
| 4 | Attachment J-21 | Innovations and Efficiencies | Innovations and Efficiencies Table | Will the completed Attachment J-21 be excluded from the 210 page allocation for Volume I? | Per L.16.3, J-21 is to be included within Volume I and is subject to the 210 page limit. |
| 5 | L.17.b | Volume II—Past Performance Factor | Submit information on contracts that you consider relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The submission shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the SOW, 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. If the Past Performance volume includes data on any affiliated company, division(s), business units, segments, or other organizations of your company, then provide a narrative to address what they will be responsible for and/or proposing to do and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that said parent et al will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. | Please clarify whether the Government wants Offerors to address what we “will do” rather than what “we did” on the past performance reference. | Offerors are encouraged to submit past performance information for the same type of work they are being proposed to perform on the CMC3 effort. To determine relevance of an offeror's past performance, the Government will look to see if the type of work the offeror is doing or has done is relevant to the work it is being proposed to do in the future on the CMC3 effort. |
| First para. after bulleted list | |||||
| 6 | L.17.c para. 1 | Volume II—Past Performance Factor | 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 the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-4, 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 two copies of each questionnaire directly to the Contracting Officer in a sealed envelope, by fax, or e-mail to the contact identified in provision L.10 Proposal Marking Instructions. | Please clarify whether the Government wants Offerors to address what we, major subcontractors, and organization entity “will do” rather than what “we did” on the past performance reference. | Section L.17(c) is addressing the Past Performance Questionnaire and gathering information about the Offeror and their affiliates past work and performance. The phrase, "which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance", is to ensure that an Offeror captures the past performance of those entities that are going to have meaningful involvement in the contract. If an entity will not be meaningfully involved in contract performance, that entity's past performance will not be evaluated or considered. Capturing past performance most closely related to CMC3 work to be performed by the prime, major sub or affiliate to the offeror is most beneficial. |
| 7 | L.17.c para. 2 | Volume II—Past Performance Factor | 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. | This seems to pertain to Key Personnel not Past Performance. Beginning of Section L states: “Provide information from organizations and companies for which your company has previously performed work, in order for the Government to obtain appraisals of past performance.” Please clarify this discrepancy. | Clarifications were made in the final RFP. L.17 (c) no longer refers to key personnel. MA4 has been clarified to include personal reference requests for key personnel. |
| 8 | L.16.2 | PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES | Table L-2b lists out additional info required for the PP Volume: (Past Performance Environmental and Safety Data, Insurance Information, PP Attachments, Small Business Participation Statements, and Org Chart) | Please clarify what the “PP Attachments,” include. Are the “PP Attachments” referring to the Consent Letters (L-5)? | Past Performance Attachments refers to the Attachment L-4 Past Performance Questionnaire and the Attachment L-5 Consent Letter. This has been clarified in the final RFP. |
| Table L-2b | |||||
| 9 | L.17.b para. 2 after bulleted list | Volume II—Past Performance Factor | Section L states: “Complete the Relevance Matrix, found in the Excel Pricing Model, as part of your response. In the event of a conflict between the narrative and the Relevance Matrix, the narrative will take precedence as the Offeror’s intended response.” | Will the Excel file be provided with the Final RFP? | The Relevance Matrix is found in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) in the Final RFP. |
| 10 | L.17.e para.2 | Volume II—Past Performance Factor | The instruction in paragraph (e) states: … For all work performed during the past five years, Offerors shall provide the following: | Please clarify the requested information for the past 5 years is for each contract cited in Volume II Past Performance. | Yes. This information is required for each contract cited in past performance. |
| Environmental Data: | |||||
| · Copies of any and all environmental non-compliance correspondence and citations from federal, state or local agencies or authorities with explanatory remarks. | |||||
| Safety and Health Data: | |||||
| · Copies of any and all OSHA citations with explanatory remarks. | |||||
| · 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 five 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. | |||||
| 11 | B.6 Table B-2 | IDIQ SLCs | Section B.6, Table B-2, IDIQ Rate per Hour Table and Section L, Table L.4e, IDIQ Specified Resources | Section B, Table B-2, IDIQ Rate per Hour Table and Section L, Table L.4e, IDIQ Specified Resources, the SLCs do not coincide. Please verify the correct SLC table to refer to. | Section B Table B-2, and the Section L Tables, Section L Attachment L-1, Section H references to Standard Labor Categories and the Excel Pricing Model have been reviewed and revised to be consistent. |
| L.18.1.c | |||||
| Table L.4e | |||||
| 12 | L.16.3.2 Section E | Basis of Estimate | Explain the BOE by providing supporting rationale for all labor resources (WYEs and skill mix) and non-labor resources proposed and impacts of proposed innovations and efficiencies (as documented in J-21, Innovation and Efficiencies) to support the contract requirements for Sections L15.3.2.A, Hardware Sustaining and Maintenance and Operations and L15.3.2.C, Pressurized Cargo Integration. Include a discussion regarding how the proposed WYEs were estimated. Also, include a discussion associated with any assumptions made regarding the requirements that led to the proposed resources such as: "we assume that a verification plan for the XYZ deliverables already exist and all we are responsible for is the maintenance of the plan." Include sufficient narrative discussion to substantiate that the proposed resources are realistic for the proposed technical and management approach. | Will the Government provide a BOE template as part of the EPM or will the offeror be responsible for creating a BOE template? | A BOE template is provided in Section L-6 of the final RFP. |
| 13 | L.5.0 | Clause H.13: Underlimit Changes | While it is not possible to predict how mission changes and functional circumstances will impact the need to issue changes to this contract in the future. The following provides the history on changes turned on against this clause (changes less than $700K). Fee is not included in these values. | While CMC2 Underlimit change data is provided, there is no indication of what should be priced to accommodate this clause. Does the Government intend to provide pricing instructions? | Underlimit changes would only apply to IDIQ work, and the scope of potential IDIQ is unknown at this point. Per section L.16.3.2 [F] iii: The IDIQ, Section L 15.3.2 B Hardware Development and Manufacturing, is being evaluated using specified resources as an estimate of the quantity and resources necessary for future work for evaluation purposes. The specified resources are included in the Excel Pricing Model, IDIQ Summary Cost Template - Specified Resources (ISCT - SR) tab. The Offeror’s IDIQ rates together with the specified resources will yield the evaluated price for the IDIQ portion of work for CMC3. |
14 H.13 Underlimit Changes The parties agree that, notwithstanding the provisions of the “changes” clause (FAR 52.243-1) ---- etc. This clause suggests that all changes will not be definitized until the cumulative total is $750K or greater. Is that the Government’s intention? How does the Government intend to authorize work until the changes are definitized? H.13 does allow new work to be definitized if below $750K. It is not the Government's intention to delay definitization until the cumulative total of changes is above $750K.
Task Orders will be utilized to authorize work.
| 15 | Section L.19(d), page number 11-42 and M.6(c) M-10 and DRD CMC-PR-02 (Property Management Plan) | Property Management Plan | Section L.19(d) States: "The Contracting Officer will request a Property Management Plan (CMC-PR-01) from all Offerors in the competitive range or only from the apparent successful Offeror or from Offerors deemed as necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision. Offeror(s) will be notified by the Contracting Officer of this requirement, with an anticipated 10 days allowed for submittal." | Can the Government confirm when the Property Management Plan is due? | The Property Management Plan is not due with the initial proposal on March 30. 2017. The Property Management Plan will be requested from all Offerors in the competitive range, or only from the apparent successful Offeror, or from Offerors deemed as necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision. |
| DRD CMC-PR-02, Paragraph 10. States: "FIRST SUBMISSION DATE: Due with the proposal as specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP)." |
16 L.16.3.2 TA1.E and L.16.3.2 TA1.F Sections L.16.3.2 TA1.E and L.16.3.2 TA1.F reference L15.3.2.A (Hardware Sustaining and Maintenance and Operations) and L15.3.2.C (Pressurized Cargo Integration). Sections L.16.3.2 TA1.E and L.16.3.2 TA1.F reference L15.3.2.A (Hardware Sustaining and Maintenance and Operations) and L15.3.2.C (Pressurized Cargo Integration). Should these references be updated to L.16.3.2.A and L.16.3.2.C, respectively? Yes. This has been updated for the RFP.
17 L.16.3.2 TA1.F.iii Section L.16.3.2 TA1.F.iii references Section L 15.3.2 B (Hardware Development and Manufacturing) Section L.16.3.2 TA1.F.iii references Section L 15.3.2 B (Hardware Development and Manufacturing) Should this reference be updated to L.16.3.2.B? Yes. This has been updated for the RFP.
| 18 | Section B, Pages B-1 through B-4 | Comment: The solicitation number is repeated twice in the header. | This has been corrected in the final RFP. | |
| 19 | Section B, Table B-2 IDIQ Rate per Hour Table, page B-3 | Question: The CY7 end date is shown as 3/31/24. Should this date be 9/31/24? | This has been corrected in the final RFP. | |
| 20 | Section C, Statement of Work, Paragraph 3.2.10 ISS Applications Sustaining | Question: The eRMP is referenced as a software application for the Return Manifest Disposition Plan process; however, there is no associated documentation in the CMC3 Technical Library describing eRMDP. The library does contain technical information for eLABEL and eLRODS, the other applications referenced in SOW paragraph 3.2.10. Could the Government please provide similar information on eRMDP in the library? | Additional eRMDP information has been added to the Tech Library. | |
| 21 | Section C, Statement of Work, Paragraph 5.6 | Comment: Typo in the 3rd bullet “R&M SOUCE DATA”, it should be “R&M SOURCE DATA” | This has been corrected in the final RFP. | |
| 22 | Section L.20.a Model Contract and Additional Requirements | Question: Row 13 of the table (Contract Section I) indicates that Clause I.16 contains Offeror Fill-Ins. Could the Government please clarify that the reference should be I.17 instead of I.16? | I.17 is the correct reference. This has been corrected in the final RFP. | |
| 23.a | Section L, Attachment L-9 OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS, 2. Addressing Late Manifest Changes and Hardware Deliveries | a. Astronaut Anderson has four items being deleted, 1) clothing, 2) hygiene, 3) Crew Preference, 4) Additional items. Astronaut B has only two New items 1) clothing, 2) Crew Preference. Where are Astronaut B's Hygiene and Additional Items? Are they the Pre- packaged Astronaut B Crew Preference items in 0.5 CTB in Table L-9-1? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | |
| 23.b | b. Where is the critical water system ORU that has been manifested on Flight X? It does not appear to be on Table L-9-1. One would expect it to be a NEW Item and the two ORUs (Items 15 and 16) are not marked as NEW. Is the Separator Plumbing Assembly the New item manifested to fix the ORU? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.c | c. What does the "Yes" under column "Candidate" in Table L-9-1 mean? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.d | d. Are the Two Redesigned Cargo Transfer Bags (carrying Astronaut B Food Kit and Crew Preference Items) standalone bags that are not placed inside of the CTBs that appear in DWG Nos: 1-4? Or must they be contained inside of the CTBs in DWG No: 1-4? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.e | e. What are the dimensions of the Plant Experiment Kit shown in DWG No: 3 M-02 Bag, Anderson Clothing on Page L-A9-6? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.f | f. There are two AIR SELECTOR VALVES ASSY, LAUNCH CONFIGURATION shown in Table L-9-1. Only one AIR SELECTOR VALVE appears in the 4 Bags that are Pictured for Reference in DWG Nos: 1-4, is this correct? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.g | g. The Total Mass of Items Contained in Table L-9-1 before any manifest changes are made is 209.4 lbs. After manifest changes are made, the Total Mass is 245.8 lbs., an increase of 36.4 lbs. How is this accounted for? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.h | h. The Ultrasound Consumable kit in Table L-9-1 is specified as 6.1 lbm. In DWG No:2 the mass is given as 5.17 lbm. Which value is correct? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.i | i. Reference DWG No: 1 and DWG No. 2 - Is the unused volume in these Containers available for NEW Items and can the items currently in these bags be placed into other CTBs? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.j | j. Is Anderson Crew Preference in Table L-9-1 the same as Anderson Crew Provisions in DWG No: 3? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.k | k. The Anti-Microbial Applicators in Table L-9-1 is specified as 33.5 lbm. In DWG No:3 the mass is given as 36.15 lbm. Which value is correct? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.l | l. The ASTRONAUT ANDERSON ADDITIONAL ITEMS (Item No: 528-21059-89-17A) is not depicted in DWG Nos: 1-4. No dimensions are given for the ASTRONAUT ANDERSON ADDITIONAL ITEMS in Table L-9-1. Is the absence of the dimensions intentional (i.e. is the extra volume available by deleting these items not available for NEW items? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.m | m. The Bulk Overwrap Bag appearing on the First line of Table L-9-1 the same as the US Collapsible Food Container Depicted in DWG No. 4? (they appear to have the same dimensions). | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.n | n. If all the New Items cannot be repackaged into the existing four CTBs, is there are priority order for the New Items to help determine which items would be candidates to be de-manifested? For example, are ORU Repair Parts top priority? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.o | o. Is the Separator Pump Assembly part of the ORU Spare Unit referred to in Scenario 2 on Page L-A9-1? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 23.p | p. Regarding the scenario where Astronaut B has requested to accelerate the launch of a few science experiments. Which Items in Table L-9-1 constitute the science experiments? (e.g. Is the Pig in a Blanket Assy a science experiment?) | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. A Pig in the Blanket Assy is a science experiment. "Assy" is short for "Assembly." | ||
| 23.q | q. The text and dimensions in DWG No: 4 are barely readable. Would the government provide a better quality graphic? | Operational Scenarios have been updated in order to better reflect CMC3 requirements. | ||
| 24 | EPM | CMC3 Excel Pricing Model (EPM), Tab “TRST-Core” | Could the Government please explain the source of the WYE Resources Basis and why the Government example changes between CY2 and CY3? | The Government example row is intended to only be an example and not something to copy verbatim. The change reflects that estimates could change with an efficiency and decrease during a given year. |
| 25 | Section L - Cross referencing | Reference: Section L.16.2(h) (Cross Reference List) | Question: Section L.16.2(h) requires the offeror to: "Provide a Cross Reference List that tracks the page and paragraph numbers of the Offeror's proposal to the page and paragraph numbers in the Government's instructions. A Cross Reference List shall be submitted in each Volume for that particular volume." Does the reference to the "Government's instructions" refer to "Section L" instructions only or other RFP sections also (e.g., Sections M, C, J, H, etc.)? | The Government instructions are contained within Section L; the cross reference in each individual volume should map to Section L only. |
| 26 | Section H | DRFP Paragraph H.10 (1) | DRFP Paragraph H.10 (1) makes reference to the ISS follow-on contract responsible for ISS Program requirements. Please clarify by specifying what the current prime contract number is and what company currently performs this contract. | H.10 does not prohibit offerors from performing multiple ISS requirements contracts' work; it only specifies the type of involvement allowed for a company working on both ISS Management support contracts and ISS Requirements Implementation contracts. This clause has been clarified for the RFP. |
| 27 | Section H | DRFP Paragraph H.10 (2) | DRFP Paragraph H.10 (2) makes reference to "any of the requirements contracts". Please clarify by specifying what contract number (and title) these are and what companies currently performs these contract. | H.10 does not prohibit offerors from performing multiple ISS requirements contracts' work; it only specifies the type of involvement allowed for a company working on both ISS Management support contracts and ISS Requirements Implementation contracts. This clause has been clarified for the RFP. |
| 28 | Section H | DRFP Paragraph H.10 (3) | DRFP Paragraph H.10 (3) Please clarify what the statement "shall not, and will not make the day-to-day program management decisions under any of the requirements contracts set-forth in (a)(1)" means. Does this mean that the prime contractor for the Mission and Program Integration (MAPI) and the Russian Language and Logistics Services (RLLS) contracts are prohibited from participating as subcontractors in support of the CMC3 prime contractor? | The intent of this clause is to prohibit a contractor from developing Program requirements in one of the MAPI or RLLS contracts designed for “Support to ISS Program Management” and also implementing those requirements in one of the additional contracts responsible for “ISS Program Implementation.” (such as CMC3) |
No, MAPI and RLLS prime contractors are not prohibited from participating as subcontractors on CMC3. The prime contractors on MAPI and RLLS contracts are prohibited by those contracts and this clause from becoming the prime contractor on CMC3. This clause has been clarified for the RFP.
| 29 | Section C | Reference Section C, Statement of Work Paragraph 3.2.10 | The SOW states “Contractor shall maintain software applications and associated data”. Would NASA provide additional details on what is meant by the words “associated data”? | Associated data means the data (from previous flights and hardware items) currently residing within these applications. |
| 30 | Section J, Attachment J-10 | Reference Section J, Attachment J-10, Table 5-C Government Software Applications Available for Contractor Use | In the third column to the right of the table, does “licensed” mean the software is based on commercially available COTS software? If yes, what is the software brand name? Please define whether a “Yes” in the “Licensed?” column means the existing CMC2 contractor has commercial licensing rights for that software or not. | A "yes" in the licensed column indicates the software requires a license to operate. The CMC3 contractor will need to acquire licenses, if they choose to operate these software items. |
| 31 | Attachments J-11 Core Government Furnished Property List and J-20 SOW Evidence of Completion Document | Reference Attachments J-11 Core Government Furnished Property List and J-20 SOW Evidence of Completion Document | Would NASA provide these attachments prior to the final RFP release? If not, can NASA clarify if these attachments will be updated from the versions that were released with the RRFI? | This has been updated in the final RFP. |
| 32 | L.17 (e) Volume II - Past Performance Factor | Reference L.17 (e) Volume II - Past Performance Factor | Please clarify “Offerors” as it is used in Section L.17(e). Is the environmental, safety & health and insurance data requested of only the Prime contractor or the Prime contractor and all major subcontractors? | Per L.17 (e), the same information shall be provided for each company proposed (including Joint Venture and Prime/Subcontractors). |
| 33 | L.18.1.e.1 Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 13 Analysis | Reference L.18.1.e.1 Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 13 Analysis | The second paragraph states “The Offeror shall submit copies of any proposed lease”. It is unlikely that a Landlord would provide a negotiated and signed lease for a contingent contract. Would NASA clarify if a signed lease is expected to be submitted with the CMC3 proposal or if a proposal of space from a Landlord is acceptable? | Answer being worked. Will be released soon. |
| 34 | Attachment L-4 Past Performance Questionnaire Template | Reference Attachment L-4 Past Performance Questionnaire Template | Would NASA provide a copy of Attachment L-4? | The Past Performance Questionnaire was included in the final RFP. |
| 35 | Question & Answer Set released 1/20/17 | Reference Question & Answer Set released 1/20/17 | Question #18 states that “The Offerors may request the use of Government facilities in their proposal”. Would NASA provide a point of contact to inquire about the use of government facilities? | Contractors should state in their proposal that they request the use of certain Government facilities and we will work with the apparent winner about how to handle the issue during the phase in period. |
| 36 | If a bidder proposes to use the existing facility but is unable to secure a draft lease, will the government consider this a proposal weakness, or will the Government consider it a viable approach? Subsequently, during the period of proposal evaluation, if it becomes apparent to the Government or bidder that this approach is no longer viable due to the unavailability of the facility for contract day one, will bidders be given an opportunity to submit a revised phase-in plan and a revised phase-in price? | The Government cannot respond to hypothetical questions, such as how a specific lease approach will be evaluated. All Offerors’ approaches should be presented with thorough rationale and supporting data explaining why the approach is reasonable. Please note that the Phase-in for this procurement is fixed price. Also, in accordance with Section L.14 of the RFP, Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall remain firm for at least 365 calendar days after the date specified for receipt by the Government. The anticipated award date is October 1, 2017. The Phase-in is expected to be 89 days, from January 2nd through March 31, 2018 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .