FRFP_Questions_Round_1.pdf

Joint Operations & Integrated Systems Technology (JOIST)

Final Request for Proposal

Questions/Comments and Answers

# Section Clause/

Provision

Pg. Question/Comment Description and Answer

1 J

M

DRD-01;

DRD-02;

DRD-03;

DRD-04;

DRD-05

M.2.1(a)(1

-4)

M-3 Question: Please clarify where JOIST-DRD-01 through JOIST-DRD-05 are to be included. Are they to be included in Volume V – Model Contract or as part of our written proposal with an exclusion of page count? Is the government expecting both a page limited response in Volume I and an unlimited page response?

Answer: The DRDs incorporated in Attachment J-02 are the descriptions of data required by the Offeror/contractor, and will remain in Attachment J-02 of the Model contract. As stated in provisions L.10, L.16.4(b), and L.16.7(b), the

Offeror’s response to DRD-01, DRD-02, DRD-03, and DRD-04 shall be included in Volume I of the proposal as the Contract Phase-In Plan, Total

Compensation Plan, Management & Staffing Plan, and Small Business

Subcontracting Plan & Reports. With the exception of the Total

Compensation Plan, these responses are page limited. The Offeror’s response to DRD-05 shall be included in Volume IV of the proposal as the

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan, and is page limited.

In accordance with provision L.16.1(b), which states, “The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and substantiation of all information. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements,” please do not include DRDs (Attachment J-02 documents) in Volume I or IV.

Once these plans are approved, they will be incorporated into the contract(s).

Amendment 1 of the Final RFP will remove references to J attachments in

Section M and provision L.16.8 to eliminate this confusion.

2 Comment: As a small business, our resources are impacted greatly by this aggressive proposal effort, especially in light of the conflict with

Thanksgiving, when most employees are traveling out of town for the holiday period. To ensure a good competition, would the Government please consider slipping the proposal due date so that it is well past Thanksgiving, or at least two weeks.

Answer: Amendment 1 of the Final RFP will extend the proposal due date to

1:30 p.m. Central Time on Monday, December 12, 2016.

3 C 2.2.7 Question: To better determine support levels for SOW 2.2.7, can the government provide additional detail on how many third parties the contract will need to coordinate? How much information pertaining to third parties

NASA has agreed to handle under protective arrangement? How much information NASA intends to control the use and dissemination? How much information will be governed by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC 552a?

Answer: SOW 2.2.7 is requiring that the contractor provide NDAs and appropriate data protection. The JOIST Baseline B contractor will have access to all of FODs financial data, including data from FODs contractors. This data is sensitive and requires the appropriate protections. It is expected that the

JOIST Baseline B contractor will have access to sensitive data from approximately four other major FOD contracts as well as sensitive data from non-FOD contracts utilized by FOD (e.g. JSC Engineering, Technology and

Science (JETS) and Simulation and Software Technology (SST) II contracts).

4 C 2.3.2 Question: To better determine support levels for SOW 2.3.2, can the government provide the number of users, frequency of use, and annual number of change requests and bug fixes for each custom applications and software identified in Attachment J-04?

Answer: Historically, there have been approximately 12 minor software releases per year for the software identified in Attachment J-04 (minor changes and bug fixes combined). The FIT system will be used daily by several hundred users and will be available to the entire FOD user base of approximately 2,100 to 2,300 users.

5 C 2.3.2 Question: Can the government provide the annual training and professional hours obtained through third party training and professional services to support the items listed on Attachment J-04?

Answer: For all software listed on Attachment J-04, the only training and professional hours procured routinely are for Britannica Knowledge Systems

(BKS) Fox. An average of 150 hours per year are procured for supporting system upgrades and minor enhancements. Historically, vendors have needed

~100 hours of training from BKS for system administration.

6 C 2.3.2.a Question: Can the government provide the number of servers supported and the components of the IT infrastructure pertaining to SOW 2.3.2.a?

Answer: Approximately 15 to 20 servers. See Attachment J-04B.

7 C 2.3.2.a Question: Can the government provide the annual number of warranty events, troubleshooting events and contacts with Vendor pertaining to SOW 2.3.2.a?

Answer: Historically, the number of warranty events, troubleshooting events, and contacts with vendor total less than 20, annually.

8 C 2.3.2.b Question: Can the government provide the annual number of upgrades and preventative maintenance performed in the past to support SOW 2.3.2.b?

Answer: Upgrades occur with every major release of Windows and/or Linux.

Maintenance is performed at least once weekly.

9 C 2.3.2.c Question: Can the government provide the number of access control groups supported by SOW 2.3.2.c and the frequency of the annual number of changes to the each control group?

Answer: Historically, several hundred access control groups. Changes are made as part of the daily work routine of the system administrators.

10 C 2.3.2.d – k Question: Can the government provide the number of actions performed to support SOW 2.3.2.d through SOW 2.3.2.k?

Answer: The Government does not track metrics on the number of “actions”, as the definition of “action” varies greatly. The GRE specifies the number of system administrators the government estimates to run, maintain, and operate the systems involved in SOW Section 2.0; 2.3.2.d – k are activities that the

Government assumes will be performed by these system administrators.

11 C 2.3.3 Question: To better determine support levels for SOW 2.3.3, can the government provide the annual historical numbers of special request and what types of events drove the special request?

Answer: Approximately 12 events per year driven by network outages, hardware/software upgrades, system failures.

12 C 2.3.4 Question: To better understand the government’s requirements for SOW

2.3.4, Can the government provide the number of SharePoint sites supported?

The size of the SharePoint sites and the number of users hitting each site on a daily, weekly and monthly?

Answer: Approximately 3 core SharePoint sites are supported. SharePoint sites are available and used by the entire FOD user community, approximately

2,100 to 2,300 users. Metrics on site hits are not kept.

13 C 2.3.4.b Question: Can the government provide the number of SharePoint based workflows requiring migration into Service Now? Is there a projected completion date for this migration? Will there be any additional workflows create in Service Now?

Answer: The Government cannot provide the number of SharePoint-based workflows, migration details, or additional workflows for Service Now at this time, as the project scope is in development.

14 C 2.3.4.c Question: Can the government provide the number of SharePoint sites targeted for merging and consolidation? Can the government identify a target number of new sites and sites to be maintained so levels of support can be determined?

Answer: Approximately 3 SharePoint sites are targeted for merging and consolidation. There are no new sites or sites to be maintained anticipated at this time.

15 C 2.3.4.d – i Question: SOW 2.3.4.d through SOW 2.3.4.i. Can the government provide the number of past and planned contractor events in each SOW subsection d through i?

Answer: The Government does not track metrics on the number of “events”, as the definition of “event” varies greatly. The GRE specifies the number of

System Administrators the government estimates to run, maintain, and operate the systems involved in SOW Section 2.0; 2.3.4.d – i are activities that the

Government assumes will be performed by these System Administrators.

16 C 2.4.1 Question: To better determine support levels for SOW 2.4.1, the government provided a user base community of 15- to 200 users, can the government provide the number of actions annually provided in SOW 2.4.1.a through

SOW 2.4.1.d? Can the government provide the annually number of hotline supported events?

Answer: The Government estimates the number of requests to be approximately 100 per week; 2% of those requests are hotline-supported events.

17 C 2.4.2 Question: The government provided a user base community of 2100 to 2300 users, can the government provide the number of actions supported annually for SOW 2.4.2.a through SOW 2.4.2.d?

Answer: The Government does not keep metrics on the number of actions.

The GRE specifies the number of IT Professionals I – III the government estimates to run, maintain, and operate the systems involved in SOW Section

2.0; 2.4.2.a – d are activities that the Government assumes will be performed by some IT Professionals.

18 C 2.5.1.a – h Question: To better determine support levels and skills for SOW 2.5.1 can the government provide any additional details on the number of actions provided for each subsection of SOW 2.5.1.a through SOW 2.5.1.h?

Answer: Historically, there have been approximately 12 minor software releases per year for the software identified in Attachment J-04 (minor changes and bug fixes combined).

19 C 2.5.1.a – h Question: Each subsection would have an annual level of activity which would be helpful to determine the level of support and skills required to accomplish the requirements. Can the government clarify if any activities performed in SOW 2.3.4 overlap with the activities identified in SWO 5.2.1?

If so how many? For bidding purposes should the bidder consider these sections as separate work areas with no overlap?

Answer: The activities in SOW 2.3.4 and SOW 2.5.1 are separate requirements, with no overlap.

20 C 2.5.2 Question: To better determine support levels and skills for SOW 2.5.2 can the government provide historical information on the number of transition already-developed software processed in the past couple of years on an annual basis?

Can the government provide any additional information on the work load or number of items process in SOW 2.5.2.b.1 through 3? Number of upgrades?

Number of changes to existing functionality? Number of major new functionality and what drove each item?

Answer: The historical number of transitions of already-developed software is approximately 3 to 5 per year, 2 – 3 of which are major application releases.

Recent updates have been driven by major platform updates (e.g. upgrading from Java 6 to Java 8, upgrading from SQL Server 2008 to 2016) and performance issues causing re-architecture of memory usage within an application.

21 C 2.6 Question: To fully understand the support levels and skills for SOW 2.6 can the government clarify what is meant by, “within each of the IT-related functional areas”? Do any of these functional areas overlap with activities in

SOW 2.2.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.6, 2.4, or 2.5?

Answer: “IT-related functional areas of FOD” include the functions of the

FOD Mission Systems Division (mail code CD). The FOD Mission Systems

Division provides IT services to all of FOD, with services as described in

SOW 2.2.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.6, 2.4, and 2.5.

22 C 2.7 Question: How often does the Athena working group meet? How many updates or code changes occur annually? What is the historical stability of

Athena? Can the government provide the number of items processed for SOW subsections 2.7.c.e, and f?

Answer: Approximately once per month, the FOD Business Office dedicates a meeting to the Athena Working Group. FY17 is a transition year for Athena, as the program evolves from development to sustaining; therefore, the historic number of updates and code changes are not representative of the number that will be required under the JOIST contract. Approximately 1-2 updates per year may be required, as based on historic data from similar systems. The services described in SOW 2.7.c include processing monthly data for FOD contracts and data retrieved from NASA business systems. The services described in SOW 2.7.e are required on an as-requested basis to assist the FOD business office and/or customers from other FOD divisions. There are no metrics collected to quantify the number of requests. With regard to the services described in SOW 2.7.f, the government does not anticipate a significant number of changes; the primary purpose of this subsection is the upkeep of current process documentation.

23 C 2.8 Question: To better determine support levels and skills for SOW 2.8 Can the government provide the number business processes under CM control? Can the government provide the number of Work Instructions and documents within the QMS supported? Can the government provide the number of items within the FOD Business Planning and Control Office Library identified in SOW 2.8.g? It there a current plan in place?

Answer: There are 10 QMS master list documents owned by the FOD

Business Office (6 on the CA master list and 4 on the CA3 master list). The

FOD Business Planning and Control Office library does not have an item listing. This library is where data from the FOD contractors is consolidated and maintained for records purposes.

24 C 2.9 Question: Can the government release the number of personnel and facilities moves historically occurring on an annual basis and provide a realistic number for future moves? Can the government release the WADS associated with past activities in this area? What events can the government identify that precipitates moves in the future?

Answer: Moves are constantly occurring as individuals change jobs, organization structures change, and new buildings are being completed. For example, the recent creation of the CK organization is driving a significant number of FOD moves in FY17, including 39 furniture requests/moves submitted, 46 furniture requests/moves completed, and 72 construction projects being tracked in September 2016. In FY16, a total of 291 furniture requests and personnel moves were completed.

25 C 2.10 Question: Can the government provide the number of schedules changes processed for each program supported?

Answer: The Contractor must update all FOD schedules once every two weeks in order to produce an FOD 90-Day Look Ahead Report for both the

Boeing CST-100 and Exploration Programs. The Contractor must also ensure that the associated external Program schedules are updated to reflect the changes from the FOD 90-Day Look Ahead Report. These external schedules are on servers owned by the respective Programs, so the Contractor must access these external schedules through a series of passwords and tokens and then enter FOD schedule status. The Boeing Program’s CST-100 schedule must be updated on a weekly basis (by COB each Thursday) and the

Exploration Program schedule must be updated on a monthly basis. Because the Boeing CST-100 and Exploration Programs are both in development new content is being added on a continuous basis and the entire schedules often need to be updated as the Program realizes it cannot accomplish the existing schedules because of technical or funding issues.

The ISS Program is an operational program with established processes.

Current requirement is that each week the Contractor updates a set of Program level ISSP milestones that are always changing with time and that are drivers for the detailed FOD schedules managed by CK/Flight Integration Division, Flight Production Managers.

26 L L.16.6 L-28 –

Reference: G&A Template (GAT) of the IDIQ EPM

Question: If an offer is proposing as a prime on both Baseline B and IDIQ portions of the contract, the values for "This Contract Base" on row 46 may need to differ for each, since Baseline B can significantly impact a small business’s G&A. To ensure independence of the two parts of the proposal, it appears that two separate G&A Templates, one for each of the proposed sections, is necessary. Would the Government please verify that this is an allowable approach?

Answer: If the contract base differs for different areas of work, Offerors may vertically stack and label “contract base” values specific to each area of work proposed within a single G&A Template; otherwise, Offerors are requested to submit a single G&A template using the combined value of the areas of work proposed for “This Contract Base” on row 46.

27 L L.16.6 L-28 –

Reference: Total Compensation Template TC(a) of the IDIQ EPM

Question: If an Offeror is proposing as a prime on both Baseline B and IDIQ portions of the contract, should two separate TC(a)’s be completed to reflect the number of FTEs associated with each portion of the proposal, to ensure independence of the two parts of the proposal?

Answer: No, only one TC(a) capturing the FTEs for all areas of work being proposed should be submitted.

28 L L.16.6

Attachme nt L-02

Attachme nt J-03

L-28 –

L-02-

1 – 3

J-03-1

– 41

Reference: Past Performance Information - Offerors (including joint ventures, major subcontractors, and the proposed program manager) shall provide information on up to three past contracts, subject to page limits.

Question: We understand that an Offeror team is required to provide past performance information for the prime, major subcontractors, and the proposed program manager. However does the limitation of three contracts apply to each of the prime, major subcontractors, and the PM? If yes, it will be extremely difficult to provide sufficient past performance information within a 10-page limit. If no, an Offeror who has a major subcontractor and a

PM will only be able to submit one past performance contract narrative for each, for a total of three. This will be very difficult for anyone other than an incumbent Offeror to do. Would the Government please consider expanding the page limit and the number of contracts that can be submitted?

Answer: This comment has been taken into consideration; after review of the number of reference contracts and the page limitations of the Past Performance

Volume for each area of work, the number of reference contracts will remain the same and the page limitations will increase to 15 pages for Past

Performance Description & Attachments for each area of work. However, Offerors should note that the reference contracts can be applicable to the prime company, joint ventures, major subcontractors, or the proposed program manager. There is no requirement to include any particular entity in the past performance narrative. A statement will be added to provision L.16.5(a) to clarify in Amendment 1 to the RFP.

29 L L.16.5(a) and (e)

L-17 and L-

Reference: (a) 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. Offerors (including joint ventures, major subcontractors, and the proposed program manager) shall provide information on up to three past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints).

(e) You may also submit additional reference information on experience and past performance for consideration.

Comment: In the past performance instructions, only major subcontractors are required to submit relevant past performance information. However, L16.5(e) stipulates that Offerors may also submit additional reference information on experience and past performance for consideration. Will the Government clarify whether it will evaluate additional reference information provided for subcontractors that do not meet the 35 percent threshold defined for “major subcontractors”? Also, if one of the 3 past performance quals (current limit for past performance references) is from a minor subcontractor, will the

Government evaluate the citation?

Answer: Amendment 1 of the final RFP will strike provision L16.5(e).

30 L L.16.5

L.16.7

L-17, L-47

Reference: Proposed PM Past Performance and Key Personnel Commitment

Information

Question: To fully describe the experience of the proposed PM and any other key personnel, we assume that resume information is desired by the

Government. However, we do not see a place for it in either the Past

Performance or the Responsibility Considerations Volumes. Would the

Government please clarify? Would we be able to summarize the PM’s and other Key Person’s experience in the one page Commitment Narrative for each?

Answer: Resume information is not required in response to the JOIST RFP, as key personnel qualification is not a subfactor of the Technical/Management factor. In accordance with provision M.2.4(i), “The Offeror’s evidence of commitment for Key Personnel will be evaluated for overall demonstrated effectiveness and feasibility.” In accordance with provision L.16.5, Offerors may submit information in reference to individual contracts performed by the program manager in its 3 contracts referenced in Volume II. Offerors are reminded that provision M.2.2 states, with regards to performance, “The proposed past performance effort of the program manager will receive less consideration in the performance confidence assessment than the proposed past performance effort of the same recency, relevance, and performance quality of that offered by a prime or subcontractor.”

31 L Attachme nt L-02

L-02-

1 – 3

Reference: GRE Tables vs. Incumbent Average Direct Rate Data

Question: The posting of the incumbent average direct rate and seniority data is greatly appreciated. However, in trying to correlate the data with the GRE

Tables in Attachment L-02, we noticed that many significant SLCs are missing, including the IT Professional SLCs. Will the Government consider augmenting the incumbent data?

Answer: Augmented data will be posted to the technical library.

32 L L.16.4

L.10

L-14

L-5 –

Reference: Small businesses are not required to submit SB Subcontracting

Plans, however, small businesses are required to indicate the amount of effort proposed to be done by a small business either at the prime level or at the first tier subcontract level.

Question: We assume that this information is to be provided by a Small

Business Offeror in Volume IV, as Subcontracting Arrangement Information and that nothing is required in Volume I. Would the Government please confirm our understanding?

Answer: This information is required in Volume IV, as specified in provision

L.16.7(a).

33 General Question: In the Pricing part of the Pre Proposal conference, the Government stated that average Incumbent direct labor rates and seniority information by

SLC would be provided in the Technical Library when the Final RFP was posted. We cannot locate this information. Does the Government still intend to provide this extremely important information?

Answer: This information is included in the Technical Library under the subheading “Baseline Incumbent Rates”.

34 F F.2 F-1 Question: Section F indicates that the primary place of performance for JOIST is NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. And that work may be performed at the Contractor’s facility or at other locations as specified in the Statement of Work (SOW) or task orders. However, the

JOIST SOW does not indicate where each set of tasks are to be performed.

Would the Government please clarify the on-site facilities in which each major

SOW section is to be performed and which tasks may be performed off-site?

Answer: The primary place of performance for Baseline A and Baseline B is on-site at JSC; specifically, Baseline A (SOW 1.0) at Ellington Field and

Baseline B (SOW 2.0) at the main campus of Johnson Space Center. The location of Installation-Accountable Government Property is listed in

Attachment J-04. Space is available on-site for Baseline A and Baseline B contractors, however, the statement of work does not preclude an Offeror from performing tasks not explicitly designated for on-site performance at the

Contractor’s facility. For IDIQ, work may be performed at the contractor’s facility or at other locations as specified in task orders in accordance with clause F.2.

35 C

L

1.2.10

3.2.1

3.2.2

L.16.7(j)

C-12

C-38

C-39

L-47

Question: It is clear in Section L and in the SOW that CMMI Level 3 or higher certification is required for Baseline A. However the SOW also indicates that CMMI Level 3 or higher certification is required to perform Tier

1 TOs, but Section L states that CMMI Certification is Applicable to only

Baseline A. In addition, CMMI Level 3 or lower or similar Government-approved configuration management standard is required for performance of

Tier 2 TOs. Would the Government please clarify the requirements for the

IDIQ proposal with respect to CMMI Certification?

Answer: CMMI certification is not required for submitting a proposal for

IDIQ nor award. Should a Tier 1 TO be issued during performance of the

IDIQ contract, an independent certification of CMMI-Level 3 or higher or similar Government-approved configuration management standard will be required for performance of that specific TO. For Tier 2 TOs, an independent certification is not required.

36 B

M

B.4(c)(1)

M.2.3

B-1

M-8

Question: Section M indicates that the proposed price of the IDIQ phase-in effort will be summed with the proposed and probable costs for the IDIQ task order effort and the proposed price for the IDIQ specified resources to compute the total evaluated price. In addition, Section B of the RFP has a fill in on p. B-1, section B.4.(c)(1) to state the total cost of FFP phase-in for IDIQ.

However, Section L indicates that there is no Phase-In for the IDIQ portion of the contract. Would the Government please clarify if phase-in is required for the IDIQs, either as a one time occurrence, on the first TO, or on each TO.

Answer: Provision L.15 emphasizes that phase-in is applicable to all awardees. However, a Phase-In Plan is not required in Volume I for the IDIQ area of work. Phase-in price is included for all three areas of work to allow the

Offerors to include any price associated with starting the contract. Phase-in is a one-time occurrence prior to contract performance. General phase-in costs will not be considered in future task orders. Offerors may propose a phase-in cost of $0.

37 L L.16.5 L-16 –

Reference: Evaluation of Past Performance for a Minor Subcontractor or

Affiliate.

Question: In light of the high threshold for of 35% for major subcontractors with respect to past performance, we have minor teammates, and possibly affiliates, who may be performing a significant portion of the Baseline B part of the contract. If we submit a past performance write up from one of our minor subcontractor performers, within the 10 page limit, will their past performance be evaluated.

Answer: OfferorOfferorProvision M.2.2 states, “The Government will evaluate the past performance of the Offeror and major subcontractors, as defined in L.16.5(a);” therefore, past performance of subcontractors that do not meet or exceed the threshold in provision L.16.5(a) will not be evaluated.

It should be noted that the threshold for “major subcontractor” in Volume II will be reduced from 35% to 20% of the proposed contract value in

Amendment 1 of the Final RFP.

38 L L.16.6 L-28 –

Reference: Subcontracting Arrangement Information (SAI) tab of the IDIQ

EPM.

Question: If an Offeror is proposing as a prime on both Baseline B and the

IDIQ Section C with separate and differing Subcontracting arrangements for each section, it appears that it would be necessary to have two separate SAI tables, one for each proposal section. Is this a correct assumption?

Answer: If separate and differing subcontracting arrangements are proposed, separate SAI tables would be appropriate.

39 L

J

Attachme nt L-02

Table J-

03-2

Reference: The estimate in the RFP for Part B includes the table below:

Seniority Profile

% of Total

Contract

Workforce

0-5 years 61.49%

5 to 10 Years 14.85%

10 to 15 years 9.46%

More than 15 years 14.19%

Total 100.00%

Question: The percentage of total contract workforce seems to indicate over

23% of the workforce has 10 years of experience or move, however, Table J-

03-2, documents the experience required for each category, when matched to

Attachment L-02 staffing to the experience requirements reveals that over 34% of the workforce in the government estimate requires 10 years or more experience. If one uses the start date of Oct 1, 2017 then the current staff would have an additional year of experience increasing the seniority of the workforce. Can the government clarify how the Seniority profile was computed and if the seniority profile accounted for the contract start date of

10/1/2017?

Answer: The IGE assumed some efficiencies from combining contracts, eliminating duplicative efforts, and moving scope from the current NAMIS contract to Baseline B. The originally-posted seniority profile for Baseline A erroneously includes all employees currently employed under the NAMIS contract, while Baseline B includes only employees currently employed under the ATIC contract. An updated version of this document that combines information from the NAMIS and ATIC contracts into a single JOIST average composite direct labor rates and seniority profile will be posted to the technical library.

40 L Attachme nt L-02

Question: Attachment L-02 include Standard Labor Category, Software

Quality Assurance Engineer, however the CF_EPM template does not include this category. Will the government clarify if the Software Quality Assurance

Engineer should be included in TRT-Baseline B, LPT- Baseline B and TRST-

Baseline B tabs. There is a Quality Assurance Specialist but no Software

Quality Assurance Engineer.

Answer: Software Quality Assurance Engineer should have been included in all Baseline B worksheets. This update- will be made in Amendment 1 of the

Final RFP.

41 L L.10 Question: Regarding the Past Performance page limit: There are 11 ½ pages of Baseline B SOW items covering 25 SOW elements. In order to address these adequately we need the page limit increased to at least 25 pages. Would the Government consider increasing the page count or selecting critical SOW elements to address in the Past Performance volume to stay within the 10 page limitation?

Answer: The page limitation for Past Performance Description & Attachments will be increased to 15 pages per area of work.

42 L L.16.4(c) Question: The instructions require submission of Attachment L-07 Technical

Resources Summary Templates (TRSTs). Are these to be included in Volume

I Technical/Management Factor, or in Volume III Cost and Price Factor? If they are included in Volume I, are they subject to the page limitations?

Answer: The TRST shall be included in Volume III; Volume III is not subject to page limitations.

43 L L.16.5 Question: The Past Performance instructions require that an Offeror bidding on more than one area (Baseline A, B, or IDIQ) must submit separate Past

Performance sections for each area. Does this also apply to questionnaires? In particular, if a contract citation is used in more than one area, is it necessary to ask the government POC to submit multiple copies of the questionnaire, or can a single questionnaire response be used for more than one area (similar to the

TCP)?

Answer: No; the Government only included one past performance questionnaire to eliminate survey fatigue. Questionnaires received will be matched to the area(s) of work that cite the referenced contract.

44 L l.16.4(b)(1

)(1)

DRD-02,

8(c)

Question: The Section L and DRD instructions are the same for both

Baselines and IDIQ response. The DRD requires a staffing approach, including an organizational structure, including numbers and types of personnel as well as identification of critical skills. These strongly depend on the tasks that are issued. While these instructions apply well to the Baseline areas, it is impossible to propose a staff for the IDIQ, since the types of tasks, the numbers, and the Task sizes that will be supported are completely unknown. What information is the Government looking to meet the DRD requirements for the IDIQ area?

Answer: The nature of IDIQ is one of variable requirements; no work is guaranteed. The Management & Staffing Plan for IDIQ shall address all aspects of DRD-03. The Management & Staffing Plan is important for IDIQ, as it addresses the lines of communication between the Government and the contractor, how the contract and contract management team is structured, and plans for staffing task orders with the possibility of a wide fluctuation in workload.

45 L L-02

L-07

Question: Attachment L-02 include Standard Labor Categories, Technical

Editor, Technical Writer, and Training Specialist, however the CF_EPM template does not include this category. Will the government clarify if these Categories should be included in the cost templates.

Answer: These Standard Labor Categories are only applicable to Baseline A and IDIQ and therefore are not included in Attachment L-02 for Baseline B.

They are included in all of the applicable worksheets for Baseline A in the CF

EPM.

46 Attach ment J-

DRD-04 DRD-

04-1

Reference: Provisions H.7 and H.12, Attachment J-11

Question: In Attachment J-02-DRD-04-1, Box 7 “Interrelationships”, there is a reference to Section H.12. However, In Section H, there is no H.12. Please clarify how Section H, H.7, and H.12 interrelate with respect to the requirements for Attachment J-02-DRD-04-1.

Answer: This was an error. The reference to H.7 and H.12 will be corrected to H.3 in Amendment 1 of the Final RFP.

47 L L.16.4(b)(

4)

L-14 Comment: Based on our understanding and experience responding to similar proposals, Small Business Subcontracting Plans should be tailored to address definitive tasks. Recommend the Government consider the submission of independent Small Business Subcontracting Plans when Offerors are providing multiple responses. A single, combined Small Business Subcontracting Plan may not provide the discrimination the Government seeks with respect to meeting SB goals.

Answer: The Government’s market research yielded similar subcontracting opportunities for both Baseline A and IDIQ. Since goals are set at the contract level (see clause H.3), one Small Business Subcontracting Plan should suffice for the entirety of the contract.

48 L L.16.4(b)(

4)

Question: Request the Government clarify the following: If an Offeror is submitting multiple responses; are the subcontracting goals proposed in (4)

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (ii), page L-15, independent for each response, or are they combined to meet the suggested SB goals.

Answer: They are combined to meet the suggested Small Business Goals;

however, since it is possible that an Offeror bidding on multiple areas of work may only be awarded a contract with one area of work, large business

Offerors’ responses should reflect their ability to meet the subcontracting goals if awarded only Baseline A, only IDIQ, or both.

49 L L.16.4

(b)(4)

DRD-04

L-14 Question: The RFP requires a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with Far 52.219-9. The RFP allows an Offeror to submit their

Individual Subcontracting Plan and Master in response to this requirement.

The RFP also requires that an Offeror submit a response to DRD-04 Small

Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports that is in accordance with FAR

52.219-9. Is NASA requiring the Offeror to submit two (2) documents; an

Individual Subcontracting Plan and a response to DRD-04 Subcontracting Plan and Reports?

Answer: No, only the response to DRD-04, entitled Small Business

Subcontracting Plan, is required with proposal Volume I and includes some requirements from 52.219-9. This plan in response to DRD-04, once approved, will be considered the “Individual Subcontracting Plan”. FAR

52.219-9(f) states that, “A master subcontracting plan on a plant or division-wide basis that contains all the elements required by paragraph (d) of this clause, except goals, may be incorporated by reference as a part of the subcontracting plan required of the Offeror by this clause; provided (1) The master subcontracting plan has been approved; (2) The Offeror ensures that the master subcontracting plan is updated as necessary and provides copies of the approved master subcontracting plan, including evidence of its approval, to the

Contracting Officer; and (3) Goals and any deviations from the master subcontracting plan deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer to satisfy the requirements of this contract are set forth in the individual subcontracting plan.” While not required by DRD-04 or FAR 52.219-9, an offeror may include a master subcontracting plan as a part of their response to DRD-04, so long as the total number of pages submitted does not exceed the page limit given for the Small Business Subcontract Plan in provision L.10.

50 L L.10 L-5 Question: An Offeror may submit their Individual Subcontracting Plan and their Master Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. Both of these documents combined will be over the 10 page limit for Small Business

Subcontracting Plan. Will NASA consider removing the 10 page limitation for the Small Business subcontracting Plan?

Answer: No; a master subcontracting plan is not required.

51 L

H

L.16.4

(b)(4)

H.3

L-15

H-2

Question: Technical/Management Factor - Volume I: The Small Business

Subcontracting Plan states that Offerors shall provide a response for each area of work to which the Offeror is proposing. Item (b)(4)(ii) states goals based on total contract value. Section H.3 states that goals are to be determined.

Can NASA please clearly state and clarify the goals based on TCV?

Answer: Clause H.3 includes “TBP”, indicating that those goals are to be proposed by the Offeror. Goals shall be proposed as a percentage of total contract value.

52 L Attachme nt L-03

L-03-

Comment: In the STO, SOW Task 5 MCCDPS Support, “The contractor shall provide sustaining and real-time operations support for the MCCDPS system.”

Within the JOIST RFP and technical library, there are no details or description of the MCCDPS system or the associated tasks/activities regarding sustaining and real-time operations support. Recommend the Government define and provide documentation on the MCCDPS system, and post the applicable content to the JOIST technical library.

Answer: Task 5 will be removed in Amendment 1 of the Final RFP.

53 L

J

Attachme nt L-03

Attachme nt J-04

Comment: In the STO, there are several tools identified in the Task

Descriptions and Statement of Work. However, there is insufficient information or description of the tools to allow the Offerors to gain a complete understanding of the tools and associated characteristics. Recommend the

Government add the tools listed in the IDIQ STO to Attachment J-04 – List of

Government-Furnished Computer Software. This will provide Offerors with general hardware/software characteristics on these tools, including estimated

KSLOCs, which will allow Offerors better information to develop realistic

STO staffing estimates and BoE rationale.

Answer: Given that this is a sample task order and the Government does not intend to provide Government-Furnished Computer Software to all IDIQ awardees, there will be no software to add to Attachment J-04 for the IDIQ area of work.

54 L L.4 L-02 Comment: Request the Government clarify the whether it intends to award separate, different PRIME contract numbers for each Baseline, and multiple, different PRIME contract numbers for the IDIQ.

Answer: No. The Government will award one contract (and contract number) per prime contractor, and will unilaterally modify the contract to remove any areas of work in Section C and any clauses or attachments not applicable to the areas awarded, as stated in provision M.2.5.

55 L L.16.2 (c) L-12 Question: The RFP states, “Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size. Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal.” Can a font other than Times New Roman be used, such as Arial Narrow?

Answer: In accordance with provision L.16.2(c), for sections of the proposal which are page limited, “Sections of the proposal which are page limited shall be prepared and submitted using non-compressed Times New Roman font with single-spaced 12 point text … Character spacing shall be “Normal” per

Microsoft Word settings. Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12 point text size. Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal. The margins may contain headers and footers but shall not contain any proposal content to be evaluated.”

56 L Attachme nt L-03

SOW 4.0

L-03-

Question: Not all of the documents referenced in Attachment L-03 are accessible in the technical library. Will the government add them/provide them for reference?

Answer: The Sample Task Order (Attachment L-03) list of applicable documents will be updated in Amendment 1 to the Final RFP.

57 L Attachme nt L-03

Attachme nt L-07

L-03-

TRT-

IDIQ

Tab

Question: Attachment L-03-Strategic Projects TO top of page L-03-1 states that the Period of Performance for the sample task order is October 1st, 2017 –

September 30th, 2018; Attachment L-07 IDIQ EPM Template, TRT-IDIQ tab provides FTE columns for CY1 through CY5. As the TO POP aligns entirely with CY1, will the Government explain the intent of the columns for CY2 through CY5?

Answer: In accordance with provision L.16.6(c)(2)(a), Pricing for IDIQ Cost-

Plus-Fixed-Fee Task Order, “The Offeror will utilize the hours proposed on the Contract Year 1 TO in all remaining contract years and the Offerors will apply their Contractor team FBRs to those hours to derive estimated contract cost.” The intent of this is to have a meaningful cost, when combined with the specified resources and phase-in, to present to the SSA for the IDIQ area of work.

58 L Attachme nt L-07

Question: The breakdown of NLRs in the TRST-Baseline A and B tabs is

“Material, Training, Travel, and Other NLR Costs.” The breakdown of NLRs in the MSCST-Baseline A and B tabs is “Material, Equipment, Training/Conference, Travel, and Other.” If equipment is regarded as different from materials in the MSCST tabs, which NLR category should Offerors use to account for the cost of equipment in the TRST tabs?

Answer: Offerors shall tailor all templates to include NLRs included in their proposal. If materials and equipment are proposed, these should be identified in separate NLRs. Amendment 1 of the Final RFP will update the NLR breakdowns in TRST-Baseline A and TRST-Baseline B to “Material, Equipment, Training/Conference, Travel, and Other.”