Q14-Q53.docx

Q14: TO -04 Section L, Attachment L-2D pg 2. 2.0 Requirements #2: Requirement #2 is to treat up to 11 L/day of inlet water, but the given feed flow rate is 11-13 lbm/day, which is only 5-6 L/day. Will the Government clarify a potential discrepancy in the treatment volume requirement?

A14: The TO was updated via amendment to correct the discrepancy and states a flowrate of 11-13 lbm/hour.

Q15: The parts lists, BOMs, assembly requirements and specifications needed to develop and provide quotations and drawings for equivalent hardware are not included in the documentation provided in the technical library for part numbers "FIGURE 1", "2352720-1-1" and "96M52440-1". Can you provide this information?

A15: 96M52440-1 was deleted from the final Task Order. No additional information is available from NASA to accompany 2352720-1-1. Regarding, FIGURE 1, the government is seeking to purchase “equivalent, space flight fidelity hardware”, not build-to-print hardware.

Q16: Relative to part number "FIGURE 1", the noted optical fiber (cable), NFOC-2FFF-1GRP-1, was the subject of a NASA/Boeing investigation (1999-2000) due to failure on the ISS. This fiber cable is no longer manufactured and the use of "hermetically sealed" fiber cable such as this in new applications is not recommended by NASA. As such, can you identify an acceptable alternative?

A16: The government is seeking to purchase “equivalent, space flight fidelity hardware”. The offeror may identify and propose an alternative fiber with the same connectors which meets space flight hardware requirements.

Q17:Will components specified as "government supplied" indeed be supplied? If no, can you provided specifications/requirements for all components so designated?

A17: Yes, where the government identifies Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), it is available for supply to the Task Order awardee, post contract award if the TO is awarded. If the Offeror requests GFE that is not already identified by the government, the Offeror must identify any additional GFE requests in its proposal. Offerors that do not require GFE, must so state.

Q18: Relative to part number "683-98815", the related drawings in the REMIS technical library do not identify or include any specifications for either the check valve or adapter shown as component parts of this assembly. Can you provide supplier part numbers and specifications?

A18: Adapter part numbers are in a lower-level assembly drawing in the Technical Library. The drawing for check valve 683-52817-1 has been uploaded to the Technical Library.

Q19: Relative to part number "RE2800-1", can we assume that this part number refers to configuration "RE2800-01" as shown on the related drawing in the REMIS technical library (as opposed to configurations RE2800-02, RE2800-03, RE2800-04, RE2800-05 also shown on the drawing)? FYI: "RE2800-01" is designated "not for flight" on said drawing.

A19: Yes.

Q20: Table 1 on drawing 683-56836 as provided in the REMIS technical library includes a column titled "SUPPLIER PART NO.". Does an entry in this column suggest that a given part number in the first column is procured as a complete assembly comprised of the various component parts specified? What supplier is associated with the various "115271-xxx" supplier part numbers shown in Table 1?

A20: Yes, the Supplier Part No. column identifies the complete assembly. Titeflex is the supplier associated with the 115271-xxx parts.

Q21: Components associated with the part numbers listed below, have been designated as proprietary or OEM and the distributor or manufacturer has been unable to provide pricing information. Mindful of this concern, how should we proceed?

683-63461-4 Parker flex hose, connectors, and plugs

683-63461-5 Parker flex hose, connectors, and plugs

683-63461-9 FMH flex hose, weld stubs and springs; Parker quick disconnect and plug

683-56836-281 Titeflex hose, inserts and collars; Eaton connectors

683-98815 Parker flex hose, connectors, adapter and check valve

683-16348-219 Parker QD

683-16348-247 Parker QD

683-16348-1229 Parker QD

683-16348-1248 Parker QD

683-16348-1249 Parker QD

A21: In some cases the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supplier part numbers may differ from the NASA-provided part numbers and are indicated in the drawing or specification. If the distributor or manufacturer is unable to provide pricing information, the Offeror should provide pricing for an equivalent part, or a pricing estimate to provide that part by other means.

Q22: Paragraph B.C.2, last paragraph on page B-6 states: “The parties agree that the fully burdened labor rates established in Section J, Attachment J-9 shall not be subject to any adjustment upwards, regardless of actual rates incurred during contract performance.” Please confirm that this statement applies only to the fixed price rates, and not the cost-plus-fixed-fee rates.

A22: RFP Section B.C.2 is entitled “RATE TABLE FOR PRICING TASK ORDERS (COST REIMBURSEMENT)”. As such, this statement applies to both Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement rates.

Q23: Paragraph B.C.2 indicates the rate tables in J-9 are exclusive of fee. Please confirm that even the fixed price labor rates should be exclusive of profit.

A23: B.C.2 applies to Cost Reimbursement rates. B.B.2 applies to Firm Fixed Price rates. Please refer to B.B.2.

Q24: We understand that the Total Compensation Plan is included in the page limits for Volume I. However, in the DRD for the TCP (page J-A1-47), it states that “The Total Compensation Templates shall be provided as part of Volume I: Technical/Management Confidence Factor Cost/Price Volume of the proposal, and will be evaluated as part of both the TCP and the Cost/Price Volume - Volumes: I and II: Cost/Price. Please clarify: Do the TCP templates go in Volume I? If so, are the completed templates subject to the page limit, or can they go at the end of the document with the content that is not subject to page limits? Or should the templates only be submitted with Volume II: Cost/Price?

A24: If you propose on the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee CLINS, the Total Compensation Plan is required in Volume I, which is page-limited. The Compensation Templates shall be submitted with Volume II, Cost/Price Volume, and are not subject to page limitations.

Q25: In Section L.17.6 Volume III – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR, asks for the following for Submittal:

a) One Page Introductory Material (L.17.6(e)) Is this one page per CLIN or one page for all past performance?

b) Past Performance - References Table (L.17.6(c)) Is this table to be placed in each CLIN within the 5 page count? On similar “streamlined procurements” from JSC (reference SEAM-NNJ16567749R) this table was provided as an “attachment” to be filled out and was excluded from the page count. It is not shown as an exclusion in Table L-2. If excluded from page count would we still be required to submit a unique table for each CLIN we bid or one table that lists what CLINS the past performance would be applicable to?

This table of information alone will take up considerable space out of five pages if part of the page count with 12 point font requirement. Update of instructions for this table is requested.

c) Past Performance - Relevant Past Performance Matrix (Excel) (L17.6(c)) 1.) It is unclear how this spreadsheet is to be filled out. Are you simply asking for a checkmark or “dot” if the contract is applicable to the REMIS SOW area? 2.) It is unclear what information you are requesting to be filled out in the spreadsheet in the block: “Legend of Resources Provided for Past Performance of Parent/Affiliate:” Request additional instruction. Additionally are we to fill out a separate spreadsheet for each CLIN bid (or a separate tab for each CLIN within the spreadsheet, or one sheet showing applicability to all CLINS bid) should we decide to bid multiple CLINS? 3.) Instructions in L.17.6(c) seem to indicate one matrix for all CLINS just showing applicability? This matrix is not shown as an exclusion in Table L-2.

This matrix of information alone will take up considerable space out of five pages if part of the page count with 12 point font requirement. Update of instructions for this spreadsheet is requested.

d) Past Performance - Narrative (subject to page limitations; up to 5 pages per Task Category) Should the SOW Task titles used in the Relevant Past Performance Matrix match the narrative? This goes back to the previous question where instructions call out potential conflicts between the narrative and the relevance matrix.

Past Performance – Questionnaire Clearly understood excluded from page count.

Past Performance - Environmental Data Clearly understood excluded from page count.

Past Performance – Safety and Health Data Clearly understood excluded from page count.

A25:

a) One page per CLIN.

b) Past Performance Spreadsheet in L.17.6(c) is not page limited. Section L, Table L-2 has been updated to clarify. Offerors may submit a unique spreadsheet for each CLIN, or one spreadsheet that specifies which CLIN(s) the past performance applies to.

c1.) Offerors should input the contract name and contract number and the areas of relevant experience.

c2.) The Legend of Resources Provided for Past Performance of Parent/Affiliate is intended to provide delineation of applicable functions in a parent/affiliate relationship for the applicable resources utilized to perform the contract scope. Additionally, either a separate tab or separate spreadsheet per CLIN is acceptable.

c3.) See Answer A25(b).

d) Q25(d) contains an incorrect statement. Offerors are limited to 5 pages per CLIN being proposed. Please refer to the table on page L-3. Yes, the SOW Task titles used in the Relevant Past Performance Matrix should match up with what is written in the narrative.

Q26: Section C, 1.2, pg. C-4: The Contractor shall respond to Task Orders with their proposal per DRD REMIS-MA-01, Task Order Plan.

Section L does not instruct offerors to follow DRD REMIS-MA-01 in task order responses. Does the government expect the TA1 TO responses to be in the format of DRD REMIS-MA-01? Or does the government expect the TA1 TO responses to be in the format of Section L Attachments 2A-2G, paragraph 10.1 TOP Minimum Contents?

A26: Section L has been updated via Amendment to include DRD REMIS-MA-01. Section L Attachments 2A-2G identify 10.1 Top Minimum Contents that Offerors should address in each specific task order.

Q27: Will the government consider switching the order of TA1 and TA2 in the proposal since TA2 lays the foundation for all TA1 task order responses?

A27: The Government has no intention of switching the order of TA1 and TA2.

Q28: Section L, Attachment 2D, page 3, 3.0 Statement of Work…SOW paragraphs…2.3…may be satisfied utilizing processes defined in the Offeror's CA, upon acceptance of the CA by the Government

Section 3.0 of this attachment states offerors can use their commercial approach in lieu of implementing Section C, 2.3, Configuration Management. However, Section 5.0 of this attachment invokes the REMIS-CM-01: Configuration Management Plan that is called out in Section C, 2.3. Which approach does the government require for this Task Order? A CM Plan per offerors commercial approach or per the REMIS-CM-01 DRD?

A28: The Offerors must submit a Configuration Management Plan in accordance with DRD REMIS-CM-01 based on the Offeror’s Commercial Approach.

Q29: Section L contains Attachment L-4 - Small Business Subcontracting Past Performance Template. Could you indicate where in the RFP this attachment is called out for submittal and in which Volume it should be included?

A29: Section L.17.6 Volume III - Past Performance Factor has been revised via Amendment to address the submittal of Attachment L-4 Small Business Subcontracting Past Performance Template. Accordingly, Attachment L-4 shall be submitted with Volume III.

Q30: Section L 6.17.6(3) Safety & Health Data, page L-36: 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 three 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.

Can the government clarify the use of the term "for each worksite". Is this only for worksites identified in the past performance citations?

A30: Yes, the intent is to align the place where the work was executed with the work done on the past performance citation contracts.

Q31: Section L, Section L.17.2, Table L-2, page L-14; L.17.6, page L-34 Page Limit

Will the government change the Table on page L-15, from 5 pages per “CLIN”; To 5 pages per “citation” in order to be consistent with L17.6?

A31: No, the Government will not change the Table on page L-15, from 5 pages per “CLIN”; To 5 pages per “citation”.

Q32: Per Section L Attachment in the excel format for both L-3 CPFF and FFP the Task Order Pricing Templates (TOPT) show columns for WYE’s and Conversion factor. The example shows 1.5 WYE with a conversion factor of 1860 and then the number of hours per year for all years as if we multiply the WYE’s times the conversion factor. How should we consider if we have different levels of WYE’s per year (e.g. Suppose we want 1 WYE for Year 1 but 0.5 WYE in year 2. Do we use a conversion factor of 2 years and WYE of 0.75 or do we consider 1.5 WYE’s and make the conversion factor for 1 year? Or, will the Government consider adding additional columns for WYE and conversion factors for each year?

A32: The first column is what the Offeror’s conversion factor (productive hours) is for a year; the example is 1860 hours. If for year one, there is 1.0 WYE, the productive hours would be 1860 for the applicable Standard Labor Category (SLC). If for the same SLC the Offeror proposed only .50 WYE for year 2, then it would be 930 productive hours. The productive hours will vary depending on each Offeror’s accounting practices and systems. Each Offeror should propose the number of WYEs based on the productive hours and the number of SLCs necessary to fulfill the requirement. The Government will not be adding additional columns for WYE and conversion factors for each year.

Q33: What is the total contract value we should use to calculate the percentage for the small business goals?

A33: The Offeror shall use its estimate of contract value to calculate small business goals.

Q34: Would the Government consider evaluating SB goals based on percentages, as opposed to dollar value?

A34: Per the directions in DRD REMIS-PC-O2, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; the Government will evaluate based on percentages of total contract value.

Q35: Ref.TO-02, para. 10.1, 2c. It appears you are asking us to identify proposed tailoring of a DRD (REMIS-MA-01) which will be delivered post contract award. Please clarify.

A35: See Answer A26.

Q36: Section H.A.7, Section H.A.7(b) includes the limitation of future contracting clause, but does not identify the nature of the conflict, listed as TBD. Does the Government plan on stating the nature of the potential conflict(s)?

A36: Yes, the Government will state the nature of the potential conflict if there is a potential OCI per task order.

Q37: Volume I TA4 -SB Utilization L.17.4 (d), Does the Government wish to exclude TA4 from page count in Volume I, as traditionally, SB Volumes tend to have been page unlimited?

A37: No, the Government will keep the SB Utilization under Volume I which is page limited.

Q38: I.A.11, Data Rights Notice, If the Offeror or its subcontractors should have technical data/Intellectual Property (IP) it intends to include in its proposal but with limited rights, were should the offeror indicate this technical data/IP within the proposal response? Would it be acceptable to add the list to Volume IV, if not where would be more appropriate to address this?

A38: Offerors can include this information in Volume IV per L.17.7 (B)

Q39: Volume III L.17.6(d) and Q36, .17.6(d) states that “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-1, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (c) above.”

In “Q&As_for_REMIS_DRFP_Final,” the answer to Question 36 is “The requirement is to submit a minimum of one Past Performance Questionnaire for each of the CLINs for which you are proposing. See section L.17.6 for further instructions.”

Please clarify whether the requirement is to provide a questionnaire for all POCs (e.g. questionnaires to CO &COTR) for all reference contracts in the Past Performance Volume, or to provide at least one questionnaire for each CLIN (e.g. questionnaire to the CO or the COTR).

A39: The requirement is to submit a minimum of one Past Performance Questionnaire for each of the CLINs for which you are proposing. See section L.17.6 for further instructions.

Q40: Volume III L.17.6(e) states that “Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last three years. Offerors shall identify the applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract. If a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed.”

Please clarify that “each company proposed” refers to all subcontractors who are denoted “major subcontractors” with respect to past performance.

A40: “Each company proposed” is referring to each member of a joint venture and both the prime and the major subcontractor(s).

Q41: L.17.2,Table L-2, for the Past Performance Volume indicates that the “Items Excluded from the Page Limit” are the Environmental and Safety Data. Please confirm that the following items are also excluded from the page count (as with the MSOC RFP):

· Subcontractor Consent Letter(s)

· PP Information Spreadsheet

A41: The Subcontract Consent Letter(s), PP Information Spreadsheet and the Past Performance Questionnaire are not included in the 5 page per CLIN limitation. Table L-2 will be updated.

Q42: Will the government confirm the instruction for filling out the WYE column in the EPM TOPT TO tabs? Is the WYE supposed to reflect the yearly full time equivalents for each position? If so, how should the contractor price in WYEs by year as they may change year over year? Or is it the government’s intention that the WYE is to be priced at the same level for each year?

A42: Offerors should complete the number of WYEs that it takes to complete the TO per SLCs and convert those WYEs to their conversion factor (productive hours) needed to complete the applicable TO. The productive hours will vary depending on each Offeror’s accounting practices and systems. Each Offeror should propose the number of WYEs based on the productive hours and the number of SLCs necessary to fulfill the requirement.

The Offeror should determine the appropriate mix of WYEs and productive hours for each TO as part of its pricing approach.

Q43: Section L, L.17.2, The RFP, page L-20 (e) states Each Offeror is required to submit its proposal in two formats, one conventional hard copy bound format in the quantities specified above, and one in an electronic format in the quantities specified above (meaning the table that starts on L-14)

On page L-17(e), For electronic submissions, each volume of the proposal should be submitted as separate electronic file. If a volume extends to multiple disks, the Offeror shall clearly indicate the sequence number.

Please confirm that it is the governments intent that each proposal volume shall be submitted on an individual CD and that a set of CDs represent the proposal submission in an electronic format.

A43: Please refer to L.17.2(e).

Offerors should organize CD(s) for their RFP submission as it best fits their individual proposal strategy.

Q44: J-9, Since the government is requiring FBRs for each SLC under each CLIN and due to the fact that the blending of prime/subcontractors utilized in the solution for each task order will differ between tasks and CLINS, would the government allow offerors to propose separate Model Contract Rates in J-9 for each CLIN? (e.g., if a major subcontractor wishes to perform work in one CLIN area but not another).

A44: The Government will not consider having separate rates for J-9 by CLIN.

Q45: Volume III, L.17.6(e), The instruction for ESH data are as follows: “Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last three years. Offerors shall identify the applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract. If a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed. Explanatory statements shall be included as appropriate. For all work performed during the past three years, Offerors shall provide the following:”

Does the Government mean for all of the company’s contracts for the past 3 years, or (as with MSOC) for those contracts that have been referenced in the Past Performance volume for the proposing company or division?

A45: The Government will update L.17.6 (e) to clarify that the information is being sought with respect to those contracts performed in the last 3 years which have been referenced by the Offeror in the Past Performance Volume as applicable to the CLIN(s).

Q46: In Section L.3, Page Count Limitations, the Technical/Management Confidence Factor Volume limit is “80 pages. However, for each task order proposed under TA.1, an additional 20 pages per TO is allowed.” Since some Task Order responses may require more pages than others, if an offeror proposes on 4 TOs for example, can those 160 pages ((80+ (4 x 20)) be distributed any way an offeror chooses? Please clarify.

A46: No, Offerors shall submit a maximum of 20 pages per individual TO. Any pages below 20 may not be allocated for a separate TO. Table L-2 will be revised in an RFP Amendment for clarification.

Q47: In Section L.3, Page Count Limitations, the Past Performance Volume limit is “5 pages per CLIN proposed,” however this includes the Organization Chart and other items that may apply to multiple references. If an offeror proposes to 4 CLINs, can they use 20 pages total to discuss relevant programs, or is the limit meant to read that each CLIN proposed can only have 5 pages of information, which must be specific to that CLIN, including all the information requested in L.17.6 ( c )?

A47: Offerors shall submit a maximum of 5 pages per individual TO. Any pages below 5 may not be allocated for a separate TO. Table L-2 will be revised in an RFP Amendment for clarification.

Q48: Section J, Attachment J-3, Applicable and Reference Documents, J-A3-1: Why are the dates and revisions not included in the requirement documents in Attachment J-03, Applicable and Reference Documents?

A48: If there is no revision stated, Offerors should utilize the current version.

Q49: For CLIN 4, Task Order 4, Requirement No. 5 states as follows: “The system shall meet the requirements of SSP 57000 Rev R, Pressurized Payloads Interface Requirements Document. Double middeck locker size is the desired target.” In the Attachment 1 Government Furnished Equipment List on the last page of the Task Order 4, Hardware for integration into flight hardware lists “Single Middeck Lockers (if needed – NASA does not have a Double side by side Middeck Locker)”

Is the location a single or double middeck locker?

A49: The location will be in an EXPRESS Rack and per the requirement. NASA can make single lockers available, but does not have double side by side lockers available.

Q50: For CLIN 4, Task Order 4, can sweep gas and Medium Temperature Loop (MTL) connectors be fittings and not Quick Disconnects (QDs)?

A50: The interfaces need to be as defined in the Task Order.

Q51: For CLIN 2A, Task Order 3, what functionality must the training unit have? If the training unit needs to be fully functional, does the training unit require harness(es) similar to what would be used on-orbit?

A51: The Offeror should propose a proper solution per its commercial approach.

Q52: For the model contract, do we need to write and submit a complete draft model contract or do we need to respond only to terms presented by NASA in the RFP?

A52: The Offerors should submit the full model contract with the proposal. This should include:

· SF33

· Section A

· Contract Clauses (Fill-ins required Sections B through K)

· Section C

· Section J - Attachments

· Section K - Representations and Certifications

Q53: On page L-34 section L.17.6 (c) 1 the RFP requests a NAICS code be provided. Is NASA requesting the NAICS code for the prime organization (offeror) or the NAICS code of the organization with which the contract was completed?

A53: NAICS code of the contract that Offeror is providing in the past performance response.