CMC3_RFP_Q&A__1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cargo Mission Contract (CMC) 3
- Solicitation number
- NNJ16591116R
About this file
CMC3 RFP Questions and Answers
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
| No. | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Reference: Technical Library, Historic Lease Costs, Facility: | ||
| We understand the annual Facility lease cost of approximately $1.7 million is what the incumbent is paying now, is that correct? | The $1.7 million is the approximate annual lease cost on CMC2. | ||
| 2 | Reference Section F, F.4 Period of Performance and F.5 Place of Performance, and DRFP Q & A Answer to question #36: The earliest date a successful bidder may lease the current facility may occur after the start date of the contract. | See 2a through 2c. | |
| a | Will the Government require the incumbent contractor to sublease or transfer the lease of the existing facility? | No, the Government will not require the incumbent contractor to sublease or transfer the lease on the existing facility. An RFP publicizes the Government's need and it is up to industry to propose how to best fulfill that need. | |
| b | Will the Government incorporate into the incumbent’s current contract a contract requirement to sublease or transfer the lease of the existing facility? Will such a requirement be included in the RFP to avoid this issue in the future? | No, the Government will not incorporate into the incumbent’s current contract a requirement to sublease or transfer the lease of the existing facility. No, there will not be a requirement of this kind to be included in the RFP. It is the responsibility of each Offeror to fulfill the facility requirements with suitable space. | |
| c | Will the Government require the incumbent to cooperate with the successful bidder during transition/phase-in? Will the Government provide a copy of the incumbent contractor’s phase-out plan in the Technical Library? Or will the phase-out plan be provided at a later date? | Incumbent contractors are expected to cooperate with successful bidders during the transition of any contract. A consequence of an incumbent not cooperating may affect a contractor’s award fee or past performance on their current contract. These two motivators have been sufficient to ensure successful transition. Contractors have "close-out plans" as defined in Section J-8 DRD CMC-PR-05, but do not have a “phase-out” plan. Close-out plans are focused on the contractor's obligation to the Government to complete all requirements of their current contract. A Close-out plan is due 12 months before the end of the current contract (March 31, 2018) and therefore is currently not available. | |
| 3 | Reference Section M, M.4 Volume II – Past Performance Factor: The definitions of the Past Performance Confidence Ratings appear to be vague and inconsistent with the evaluation plan. | See 3a through 3c. | |
| a | The definitions seem to link the relevance of the past performance with the performance, thus a very high level of confidence comes from “very highly pertinent” work that is “exemplary,” high confidence comes from “highly pertinent” work that is “very effective,” etc. This evaluation scheme does not appear to allow for rating Past Performance concerning work that is merely “pertinent” but for which the performance was exemplary, nor does it explain how “highly pertinent work” for which the performance was merely meeting minimum standards will be evaluated. | The past performance definitions included in the RFP are prescribed by NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305(a)(2)(A). These NFS prescribed definitions clearly state that a Very High Level of Confidence will be assigned only when relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition. Similarly, the NFS definitions clearly state that a High Level of Confidence will be assigned when the relevant past performance is both highly pertinent to this acquisition and demonstrates very effective performance. | |
| b | The definitions appear to include references to more levels of relevance, including “very highly pertinent” and “highly pertinent” past performance, than the table of relevance descriptions on M-7. How do these ratings line up? | Under Past Performance Confidence Rating on page M-7, it states that “the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” | |
| c | Because the RFP provides that “More recent and more relevant past performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance,” the use or relevance again in the definitions of the confidence levels appears to be a greater emphasis on relevance than actual performance. Would NASA consider amending the confidence level definitions to eliminate the consideration of relevance beyond the understanding that a contractor’s performance on more recent and relevant contracts will be given greater consideration? | No, there is no plan to amend or change the past performance confidence level definitions prescribed by the NFS for this procurement. | |
| 4 | Reference Section J, Attachments J-11 and J-20 | ||
| When will the government provide attachments J-11 and J-20? The Section J released with the final RFP on 2/21/17 only contained title pages for these with no associated attachments. | Section J-11 has no content at this time. |
Section J-20 was clarified in the 2/28/17 RFP Amendment 2 stating that the J-20 is "To be completed in a mutually agreed upon format showing evidence of SOW Completion".
| 5 | Will NASA publish the names of the Source Selection Authority and Streamlined Procurement Team on the CMC3 bidders library as they have done on other procurement libraries such as JOIST, MSOC and NOC? | To clarify, CMC3 will not use a Streamlined Procurement team, rather a Source Evaluation Board (SEB). The names of the Source Selection Authority and the SEB voting members will be posted to the CMC3 technical reference library. |
| 6 | Can the government clarify what is meant by “work instructions” as stated in the answer to Question #109 in CMC 3 Industry Day Questions and Answers 1-19-17? | "Work instructions" are detailed technical instructions developed by the CMC2 contractor to accomplish CMC2 SOW requirements. |
| 7 | Will the CMC2 processes and procedures be made available to the CMC III contractor? If so, when? | CMC2 contractor-developed processes and procedures will be made available to the CMC3 contractor during the CMC3 Phase-in period. |
| 8 | The SF30 Amendment issued on 2/21/17 references “Modification 3”. Could the Government please confirm the number of Amendments issued to date that are required to be acknowledged on the SF33 Offer form? | The intial CMC3 RFP release was incorrectly linked to the Draft RFP. The Federal B O (FBO) was updated on 2/28/17 to correct this. |
| 9 | Section L.16-2, Table L-2a Pg. L-13 |
PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES
Proposal Volumes and Page Limitations, Volume I MA2 Page Limit 20 (not included in 210)
MA2 Page Limit 20 (not included in 210)
| Please clarify if the page limit is per Total Compensation Plan submitted (Prime Offeror and all Subcontractors) or the total for ALL Total Compensation Plans submitted. | For each TCP team member's TCP that is submitted, you may provide a total of 20 pages. For example, if two team member TCPs are submitted, each would have 20 pages, for a total of 40 pages. | ||
| 10 | Please clarify if the government intends for all deliverables listed in DRD CMC-SA-02, Section 8B table be addressed with the initial submission (with proposal) or only the deliverables associated with the Section 10 required submission sections. | The RFP DRD CMC-SA-02 takes precedence. Only RFP specified deliverables are required with the proposal. | |
| a | CMC 3 Virtual Pre Proposal Conference |
Slide 62
- Safety & Health Deliverables Pay special attention to the miscellaneous reports matrix contained in the body of the Safety & Health Plan DRD under Other Deliverables – building fire warden roster; hazardous materials inventory; roster of terminated employees; material safety data sheets; OSHA logs; program self-evaluation.
| The RFP DRD CMC-SA-02 takes precedence. Only RFP specified deliverables are required with the proposal. | |
| b | Final RFP. DRD CMC-SA-02, Pg. J-A8-78 |
10. FREQUENCY OF SUBMISSION:
Initial submission with the proposal shall include the following sections only:
Section I: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.1, 1.12 Section II: 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7.1, 2.7.1.1, 2.7.1.2 Section III: 3.1, 3.3, 3.10, 3.13
| Section IV: 4.1, 4.3 | The RFP DRD CMC-SA-02 takes precedence. Only RFP specified deliverables are required with the proposal. | ||
| 11 | Due to the detailed extent of the Basis of Estimate response required by the Government, please verify that “Basis of Estimate (BOE)” and “Resources” are not included in the 210 Mission Suitability page limitation. | The “Basis of Estimate (BOE)” templates and “Resources” are not included in the 210 Mission Suitability page limitation. This is clarified in the Amended RFP Section L, Table L-2a Proposal Voumes and Page Limitations, Volume I. | |
| a | Section L.16.2, Table L-2a Pg. L-13 |
PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES
Proposal Volumes and Page Limitations, Volume I
Sub-factor 2, Technical Approach -Specific Technical Understanding and Resources
| Included in 210 | Same as 11. | |
| b | Section L.16.3.2, TA1, E, F Pg. L-23 – L-25 |
SUBFACTOR 2 – Technical Approach (TA) – Mission Suitability E. Basis of Estimate (BOE) F. Resources
E. Basis of Estimate (BOE)
| F. Resources | Same as 11. | ||
| 12 | Please clarify the discrepancy between Section L, DRD-CMC-PR-01, Section M, and Draft RFP Questions & Answers for the Property Management Plan due date. | The Property Management Plan is not due with the initial proposal on March 30, 2017. The Property Management Plan will be requested from offerors within competitive range, and will be due 10 days after request. | |
| a | Section L.19.d Pg. L-42 |
VOLUME IV – RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS, Property Management Plan
(d) Property Management Plan
| 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. | The Property Management Plan is not due with the initial proposal on March 30, 2017. The Property Management Plan will be requested from offerors within competitive range, and will be due 10 days after request. | |
| b | Section J-8, DRD-CMC-PR-01 Pg. J-A8-48 |
Government Property Management Plan
| FIRST SUBMISSION DATE: Due with the proposal as specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Final - Due 30 days after phase-in start. | The Property Management Plan is not due with the initial proposal on March 30, 2017. The Property Management Plan will be requested from offerors within competitive range, and will be due 10 days after request. | |
| c | Section M.6(c) Pg. M-11 |
VOLUME IV – RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Property Management Plan
| The Property Management Plan (DRD CMC-PR-01) to use/maintain/repair/protect/preserve Government personal property will be evaluated for effectiveness and suitability. | The Property Management Plan is not due with the initial proposal on March 30, 2017. The Property Management Plan will be requested from offerors within competitive range, and will be due 10 days after request. | |
| d | CMC3 DRFP QA-JSC, Question #15 |
Draft RFP Questions / Clarifications and Answer
15 Section L.19(d), page number 11-42 and M.6(c) M-10 and DRD CMC-PR-02 (Property Management Plan) 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. | The Property Management Plan is not due with the initial proposal on March 30, 2017. The Property Management Plan will be requested from offerors within competitive range, and will be due 10 days after request. | ||
| 13 | Can the Government please verify if its intent is to include the CMC3 close-out costs in the evaluated price? If so, please consider a separate line item within the core pricing to easily show this number aside from the core work. | The intent is to include CMC3 close-out costs in the evaluated price so that Offerors are fully aware that close-out costs are a cost of the contract that must be accounted for. There is nothing in the RFP limiting an Offeror from adding line for close-out, but the evaluated price will include this value. | |
| a | Section B.2, Table B-1, Footnote 1 Pg. B-1 |
TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, Table B-1, Footnote 1
| The Cost Reimbursable Core estimated cost shall include close-out costs. | Same as 13. | |
| b | Section L.18.1 (c) Pg. L-35 |
COST/PRICE PROPOSAL, Pricing Methodology
| Offerors are required to provide their estimate of the required resources – level of WYEs, appropriate skill mix– necessary to accomplish their unique technical approach to performing the SOW portion identified as Core (i.e., SOWs 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0) including costs for contract close-out. | Same as 13. | ||
| 14 | 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. | Table L.4e, Specified Resources Table is intended to capture an estimate of the cost of future IDIQ TOs for evaluation purposes, while Table B-2 is created to capture rates to use on actual TOs. This explains the difference between the number of SLCs in each Section and the purpose of each table. Table B-2 has been corrected. In addition, the Professional Specialist category has been changed to "Translation Services Description (Not a full-time category). See note below." With the note stating, "Within the ISS Core work, a 0.5 of Technical Professional II WYE performs Translation Services." This is to clarify the manner in which Translation services are currently being handled and what this entails. | |
| a | Section B.6 Table B-2 Pg. B-3 – B-4 |
IDIQ Rate per Hour Table (All labor rates are fully burdened exclusive of fee)
| Table B-2 SLCs and Hourly Rates (Burdened excluding Fee) | Table B-2 has been revised to capture all of the Attachment L-1 Standard Labor Category Definitions. Section B, Table B-2 includes all standard labor categories (SLCs) that could possibly be used in a future IDIQ Task Order (TO). | |
| b | Section L.18.1 (c) Table L.4e Pg. L-38 |
COST/PRICE PROPOSAL
Pricing Methodology IDIQ Specified Resources (hours)
COST/PRICE PROPOSAL
Pricing Methodology IDIQ Specified Resources (hours) Section L, Table L.4e, IDIQ Specified Resources is based on the general pattern of the amount of work by SLC historically used.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .