Questions_and_Answers_for_DRFP_Final.pdf

Q1: Paragraph 1.1 stresses the need to develop commercial capabilities to support the future low earth orbit ecosystem. However, paragraphs 2.3-2.6 require Plans that are normally aligned with traditional cost plus services contracting. Offerors would be able to offer significant costs savings in their task order proposals if they were allowed to use their own internal processes for fixed price development versus needing to follow internal processes as well as traditional NASA processes in parallel. Will contractors have the option to use internal processes as is the approach in Paragraph 3.0?

A1: Paragraphs 2.3-2.6 of the SOW will be included in the contract. Some of these requirements may or may not be invoked by individual task orders. There will still be instances where the Government has a need to invoke these requirements, even though this contract hopes to eventually drive the REMIS requirements to be more commercially available in future years.

Q2: The draft RFP does not clearly specify how contractors will be required to comply with existing NASA safety processes and requirements. Industry will not be able to accurately estimate costs without further clarification. Will clarification be provided in the final RFP?

A2: The Government will not prescribe how offerors will comply with the NASA safety requirements. Rather, the Government is looking for offerors to propose ways their commercial processes will be used to meet NASA Safety requirements.

Q3: The schedule milestones that were updated on 11 August show 3 weeks between draft RFP release and the release of the final RFP. This period does not provide enough for industry to assess the draft, return questions to NASA, NASA analyze and respond to questions, make any updates deemed necessary and then receive final approvals and release the final RFP. Does NASA intend to maintain the three week separation between draft and final RFP’s?

A3: It is the Government’s intent to hold to schedule in relation to release of the final RFP, but has given extension to the proposal due date. We encourage industry to continue to monitor the REMIS website for any milestone updates.

Q4: Paragraph 5.0 refers to a “CA”. Could NASA define what a CA is?

A4: CA is Commercialization Approach (please reference the draft RFP attachment J-2).

Q5: Can a non-profit propose on REMIS? Does the NAICS affect non-profit? Does non-profits have to propose Subcontracting Goals?

A5: Yes, a non-profit can propose on the REMIS procurement. NAICS only affects Small Businesses (SB), and a non- profit (NP) is not considered a SB. All offerors are required to submit a SB Plan except for SBs.

Q6: Will this be a negative criteria in evaluating NP if we decide to bid on this on it as a Prime? Can we only bid on portions of the RFP without having a negative impact on our evaluation. Is that a true statement?

A5: Please refer to Section M for the criteria for confidence factors. Offerors are not required to propose on all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), nor are Offerors limited to proposing on a single CLIN, see L.17.1 Introduction.

Q7: Is there a mechanism specific to REMIS to identify other companies that might be interested in teaming?

A7: You can always refer to the interested parties list located on the REMIS website as well as to contact the Small Business Office within the JSC Procurement Office.

Q8: The REMIS Draft RFP indicates a significant effort will be required to respond to the REMIS RFP. The technical/management volume plus volumes 3 through 5 will not be as extensive as MSOC, but is still significant at 200 plus pages; however, the cost and price volume requirements appear to be nearly identical to MSOC. Thus the overall REMIS proposal response requirements are significant. The JSC MSOC proposal is currently due on 13 October. Given the significant effort associated with the MSOC proposal and the REMIS response, respectfully request that NASA consider delaying the REMIS RFP release until at least a couple of weeks after the MSOC proposals are due.

A8: See Answer A3. It is the Government’s intent to hold to schedule in relation to release of the final RFP, but has given extension to the proposal due date. We encourage industry to continue to monitor the REMIS website for any milestone updates.

Q9: The REMIS Draft RFP indicates that amongst other efforts NASA would like to contract with the commercial research integration companies to acquire low cost integration services for NASA funded research. Currently almost every company providing low cost fixed priced commercial integration services is very small. Given the size of these companies and the way we price services, the pricing requirements reflected in the Draft RFP do not seem to be in line with the types of companies NASA is attempting to contract. Respectfully requested that NASA consider significantly reducing the pricing volume requirements. Suggest perhaps NASA consider making the entire procurement a fixed price effort with reduced pricing requirements for all CLINs.

A9: The Government is evaluating the potential to reduce the amount of data required for pricing.

Please monitor the final RFP for the final resolution of this item. It is the intent of the Government to maintain the capability to compete Task Orders for both Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) work.

Q10: In order to provide the most relevant past performance for each CLIN, respectfully request that NASA consider reducing the 45% definition for major subcontractors. Suggest a major subcontractor definition of 20% (given 5 CLINs) would allow for the most relevant past performance to be included for each CLIN.

A10: The definition of major subcontractors will be updated to 30% in the Final RFP.

Q11: The Draft RFP clearly indicates a company can propose to any one or all of the CLINs. Respectfully request NASA consider creating an on ramp for successful companies that propose to less than all CLINs, to have an opportunity, say once a year, to propose to additional CLINs they have now become qualified to provide.

A11: REMIS has been designed with the on-ramp clause as part of the contract. Please refer to the DRFP for the specific details associated with H.A.9 on-ramp clause. Also refer to the Preproposal Conference briefing charts for more information for the on-ramp clause.

Q12: In the Statement of Work (Section C), paragraph 3.0 the document states that the contractor shall have a compliant AS9100C QMS. The industry is moving toward Rev D, which will be mandatory soon (end of 2017). Is it right to assume that if the contractor has moved to Rev D before award that it will still be in compliance with this paragraph?

A12: Yes.

Q13: On page L-12 the sentence was added “The Government will award a minimum of three (3) contracts to Small Businesses.” Will CLINs be specified for which a small business award is to be made? If particular CLINs have both small business and full and open awards, how will Task Order be determined whether they are issues as set aside or full and open?

A13: No, this is a full and open competition and Small Businesses can propose on any or all CLINs. The CO does have the discretion to make a Task Order (TO) a SB set aside if two or more SBs have the capability to perform the work for a specific TO.

Q14: Normally a Small Business Plan is only required if the contract value is over $700K. Given that this is an ID/IQ contract, would the Government consider changing the requirement to remove the SB Plan from the ID/IQ proposal and require it from Contractors at award of a TO once the dollar value has been established?

A14: The Small Business Plan is required with the proposal against the documented SB goals. Please refer to Section L for the instructions.

Q15: Please confirm that the overall SB goal is 10%.

A15: Confirmed. Please see section L.17.4 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENTCONFIDENCE FACTOR of the draft RFP in TA 4 .

Q16: Ref. L.17.5(a) Major Subcontractors. “For the purposes of this solicitation, a “major subcontractor” is any team member (e.g., a subcontractor or inter-divisional organization) which will perform at least 30% of the estimated total contract value over the period of performance for this contract as defined in Section L.14, PERIOD COVERED BY PROCUREMENT:. It is not possible to estimate if 30% of the total contract value over the period of performance will be subcontracted or not because the specific work is TBD by TO. Please clarify how this requirement can be addressed in the proposal.

A16: We understand your point; Offerors should provide their best estimates. NASA is trying to allow Offerors to make their own business decision on how they will team (if at all). Offerors shall respond with information regarding major subcontractor who perform at least 30% of the estimated total contract value over the period of performance for this contract or on one or more sample task orders, per L.17.5 and L.17.6. Section L.17.5 and L.17.6 will be updated to reflect this update.

Since no work is being competed for the duration of the period of performance, the value of 30% was chosen to simplify the proposal process, see L.17.5. NASA is trying to allow Offerors to make the business decision on how they will team (if at all) and change those teaming relationships as they see fit based on the specific requirements in the individual Task Order. Teaming arrangements do not have to be approved by NASA.

Q17: Ref. L-27, “Offerors shall assume that all work is performed for JSC or other NASA locations per task order”. For pricing purposes, please clarify the location of where the work will be performed (at), contractor or customer facility? If the work is to be performed at various Government facilities, should the offeror apply a geographic differential to the ID/IQ rates?

A17: Offerors shall assume that all work is performed at a location chosen by the offerors; if work is required to be performed on NASA site, it will be clearly stated on the individual TO.

Q18: Ref. B.B.2 RATE TABLE FOR PRICING TASK ORDERS (FFP). The last sentence in the paragraph states “No fee shall be allowed on non-labor resources”. Q1. How does this apply to Offerors pricing for CLIN 2B which is all non-labor? Q2. Given that the future TOs will likely include large material purchases, is the Government excluding the option to earn fee on all material costs?

A18: The statement “No fee shall be allowed on non-labor resources” should read, “No fee shall be allowed on travel resources”. This will be updated in the Final RFP.

Q19: Ref. L.3. Page limits. In addition to the Commercial Approach, are the total compensation plan, small business plan, and OCI plan part of the 80 page limit for VOL I?

A19: Yes, the 80 pages are for all the products and Offerors can choose how they want to allocate their response within the total page limit. See Section L.17.2 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitation, Copies and Due Dates.

Q20: Ref. L.17.4 (a) TA1. Does the Government expect the Offeror’s to address the requirements of the IDIQ SOW within the 80 page limit for this volume?

A20: The offerors should address the specific instructions defined in Section L.17.4.

Q21: Can the Government provide a map of the SOW to the CLINs so the Offeror can address requirements of the SOW in our response to L.17.4(a) TA-1 (Technical Approach) and L.17.6(b) Past Performance. Without a mapping there is no way to determine which scope is associated with each

CLIN.

A21: A task order for a particular CLIN may include any, or all, of the requirements outlined in the SOW.

Q22: In the evaluation of the Task Orders, will each evaluator be provided the Offerors overarching commercial approach? Having to restate the commercial approach as the baseline for each TO will consume the majority of the 20 page count limit.

A22: Offerors should not repeat their commercial approach in their TO responses; that process is documented in the Commercialization Approach DRD.

Q23: Can the Government provide a map of the SOW to the CLINs so the Offeror can address the requirements of the SOW in our response to L.17.4(a) TA-1 (Technical Approach) and L.17.6(b) Past

Performance. Without a mapping there is no way to determine which scope is associated with each

CLIN.

A23: See answer A21.

Q24. Ref L.17.6(a) VOL III PAST PERFORMANCE. This section describes a Major Subcontractor as “companies that will perform at least 45% of the total contract value over the period of performance”.

This conflicts with L.17.5(a) which states 30%. Please clarify.

A24: The value should read 30%. The percentage will be corrected in the final RFP.

Q25: Ref. L.17.6. VOL III PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. Key Personnel are referenced in subparagraph (d). Are offerors expected to propose key personnel?

A25: No, reference to Key Personnel will be removed from the final RFP.

Q26. Ref. L.2.D. TO RFP Reverse Osmosis Hardware, 9.0 Fee Evaluation Plan. Will the Government consider success for criteria #2 met with a pre-launch verification that the requirements are met so the hardware can be DD 250’d at turn-over at the launch site? If not, will the Government consider requiring the check-out on orbit to be completed within 180 days of transfer via DD 1149?

A26: The Offeror should assume that the government will activate the hardware on orbit within 180 days of transfer.

Q27: Re: Evaluation Criteria. M.2 states “Past Performance and Cost/Price are approximately equal.

Past Performance is significantly more important than Technical/Management. Cost/Price is significantly more important than Technical/Management.” Offerors are instructed to include our responses to the Sample Task Orders as part of the Technical/Management section (ref: L.17.4, (a) TA1), therefore the responses to the Sample Tasks, per the Evaluation Criteria, would be significantly less important than Cost/Price and Past Performance. Yet, within each Sample TO there are further evaluation criteria (para.

10.2 TOP Selection Plan) that separately assign a weighted factor to the Cost/Price of the Sample TO.

Question. Based on the requirement to provide Cost as part of the TO response, is the Government evaluating cost as part of the Sample TO (weighted equal to technical as part of the Technical/Management Factor) and again evaluating it under the Cost Factor?

A27: Cost will only be evaluated under the Cost/Price Factor. The cost you are providing as part of the TO response is using the cost/price templates in the cost volume.

Q28: Ref. M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD. This section states “Each CLIN will be evaluated individually for selection purposes.” How can the Government equally evaluate all CLINs based on the TOs since CLIN 1 is mapped to 3 Sample TOs, and not all Offerors will bid all 3 TOs? What if you only bid one of the Sample TOs mapped to CLIN 1?

A28: Notice in Section L.17.4 Table L-3 , the 3 TOs listed for CLIN 1 have an “or” between them, thus requiring the offeror to select which one they choose to propose on. Offerors are only required to bid on one TO under CLIN 1, however, offerors may chose to bid on more than one TO in a particular CLIN.

This logic applies to CLIN 2 as well. This is a change from the Pre-proposal conference.

Q29: “Offerors may propose to any CLINs for which they are qualified by proposing to the applicable sample TOs, as shown in Table L-5 Representative IDIQ TOs.” Is the only way to bid to a CLIN to propose to a sample task? What if the SOW of the sample TO is not in the offerors capabilities, but the CLIN is? If an offeror elects not to propose any of the sample tasks how would the offeror be evaluated against the CLINs?

A29: The Offeror must propose on a TO under the CLIN that they are proposing against. If an offeror chooses not to propose on any TO for each CLIN, they would not be awarded a contract for that CLIN.

Q30: Ref. L.15 SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS. This paragraph states that DO or TO contracts can be awarded, but B.2 states that CLINs are being awarded. Please clarify.

A30: Each contract awarded with be a task order contract. Offerors will be selected based upon their response to the sample TOs in the RFP which are related to a particular CLIN. Each CLIN will be evaluated individually. Depending on an Offeror’s proposal, they may be awarded a contract for one or multiple CLINS. Offerors awarded contracts may compete for task orders only in the CLINs for which they were selected and awarded a contract.

Q31: Ref: 1.) Compensation Template (a): SALARIES AND WAGES – NON-EXEMPT (CPFF and FFP) “The Offeror shall submit a completed Compensation Template (a) for non-exempt personnel for Contract Year 1. A separate compensation template (a) is required if the Offeror is proposing different labor rates and /or escalation rates per NASA SLC for each TO they are proposing. The box at the top section is provided to facilitate this. This template is required of the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor(s).” Does this imply there is an option to propose something other than the ID/IQ rates for the Sample TOs?

A31: No, there are no options; only the IDIQ direct labor rates will be proposed in the Compensation Templates, which provides the necessary data that the government will need to assess how the Offeror’s proposed direct labor rates for the non-exempt Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) were developed. This will also determine whether the proposed rates are compliant with the current Wage Determination. These specific instructions are only applicable depending on where the current Wage Determination rates for the work will be performed. For offerors (regardless of size) who only propose on FFP CLINS, a Total Compensation Plan (TCP) is not required. If you propose on the CPFF CLINS, TCP is required, NFS 1831.205-71.

Q32: Ref: L.17.6(e): The paragraph states “For all work performed during the past three years, Offerors shall provide the following:”. The section goes on to request Environmental, Safety and Insurance information. Is this information being requested for all work performed in the past three years, or only with regards to the contracts cited in the past performance?

A32: The government is requesting this data for all contracts for the past three years.

Q33: Can an Offeror submit both an individual proposal and also as a sub within a team proposal? If so, is the Offeror and Offeror’s team permitted to propose to the same task order?

A33: The RFP does not prohibit this example. It is the business decision of the offerors proposing.

Q34: If a company is already a small business, are they still required to develop and submit a small business subcontracting plan under REMIS-DRD-PC-02? Is a small business required to attempt to meet the subcontracting goals for small/disadvantaged businesses outlined in Section J-1? Section H.A.4 suggest such a plan is not required for a small business acting as a solitary Offeror.

A34: No, Small Business Plans are only required for Large Businesses.

Q35: Do we need to complete the Small Business Subcontracting Past Performance Template (page L- A4-2) if we ARE a small business?

A35: No, if you are a SB this template is not required.

Q36: Do we have to submit Customer Past Performance Questionnaires for each Task Order or each CLIN, or just one questionnaire for the whole proposal?

A36: 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.

Q37: Do we need to complete the Past Performance Consent Letter (page L-A1-2) if we are not proposing as a sub and have not served as a sub to any large organization?

A37: No.

Q38: Do the example Microsoft Excel tables provided in section L-3 fully provide the information requested in sections J-9 and J-10, or is there additional OFI information required by J-9 and J-10? It would appear that filling out the excel tables would provide all the financial information required for an Offeror to be considered fully responsive to the RFP.

A38: Follow J-9 and J-10. The Excel tables will be corrected in the final RFP.

Q39: Section M discusses a “model contract” that “will not be evaluated for selection purposes.” Will a model contract be provided?

A39: See Section L.17.8 of the draft RFP. All offerors are required to submit a Model Contract with the Offeror Fill-In (OFI) files completely filled in by the offeror.

Q40: Of the seven task orders in Section L attachments A-G, which of these tasks constitute ISS “systems” hardware/software/MI&O and which constitute “payload” hardware/software/MI&O?

A40: Please refer to Section L, TABLE L-3: Proposal Reference Matrix

Q41: Section J, Attachment J-11 includes Wage Determinations for AL, OH, FL, TX, and CA. Each state has a different rate for each job category. Does the offeror have to meet or exceed the highest value for every state to be considered in compliance?

A41: The Wage Determinations in the RFP reflect possible places of performance. Each offeror will propose a place(s) of performance based on their unique staffing approach. Offerors are required to comply with the wage determination that is applicable to where their non-exempt employees are performing for the REMIS contract. For example, if the offeror facility is located in Houston, TX then Wage Determination 15-5233 is applicable. Offerors are not required to propose labor for each Wage Determination geographical area. For example, if the offeror does not propose labor in the state of Alabama then the AL wage determination is information only.

Should an offeror propose to perform work in a location that is not covered by the Draft RFP’s wage determinations, then FAR 52.222-49, Service Contract Act – Place of Performance Unknown is applicable. Wage Determinations may be downloaded at: WDOL.Gov.

Q42: In TO 7 the offerer is asked to meet all science requirements of the ERD. The ERD’s are not provided. How can an offeror provide a cost estimate for meeting ERD requirements?

A42: A specific Experiment Requirement Document ( ERD ) is not possible because they are proprietary to the principle investigator. For the TO response the offerors should assume a specific mission and describe how they will implement their plan and approach while showing they have the technical ability to do so.

Q43: Section E – Clause 52.246-11 invokes SAE AS9100C. Question: Does this applies generally across the board to REMIS or specific to the TOs with hardware? What is the expectations – fully compliant?

Meet the intent? At bid or award?

A43: SAE AS9100 was included in the SOW as enabling language. Requirements for compliance will be included in individual TOs.

Q44: Section I - Task Ordering Procedure: 10 calendar days to submit task plan. Question: Is this for *all* TOs or will consideration be given to complexity and obtaining hardware/material quotes?

A44: 10 calendar days to submit task plan is the standard expectation, however NASA may choose to issue draft Task Orders and solicit input from offerors prior to issuing the final Task Order based on the complexity of the specific TO. In addition, the specific timing requirements can be increased based on the complexity of the Task Order.

Q45: Question: Many DRDs identified as Type 1, which per descriptions in the J-1 require Government approval/authorization. This table is inconsistent with the individual DRDs (e.g., J-1 summary table identified Task Order Plan as Type 1 but DPD shows Type 3).

A45: This will be corrected in the final RFP.

Q46: Question: What is the government’s standard or desired method for Type 1 change processing?

(ECPs or other)?

A46: Offerors’ should document their change proposal process in their Comericalization Approach.

Q47: Question: DRD REMIS-PC-01 indicated a variance reporting of +/- 5% but does not indicated if there is a minimum dollar ($$) delta. (Could avoid unnecessary reporting effort).

A47: Follow instruction in DRD REMIS-PC-01

Q48: Question: DRD REMIS-SA-01 – SHE Plan – does it cover work on-site at NASA facility or Offsite at contractor facility or both?

A48: Each TO that is competed may invoke the SHE Plan based on the specific requirements being competed. The government only expects to require SHE plans for TOs wholly completed on Government facilities.

Q49: Question: What are the dates/versions of the Applicable and Reference Documents?

A49: Current version

Q50: Question: No Quality Assurance (QA) Labor Categories are identified. Are they expected to be added or are they included in the Labor Categories identified?

A50: The Government believes that QA expertise can be included within one of the SLCs provided for the offerors to consider, however offerors are allowed to propose additional “unique” SLCs if they deem it necessary. Follow the instructions carefully if the offeror chooses to add additional SLCs.

Q51: Section L. Please explain the mapping between the REMIS SOW and the TO sections (Requirements, SOW, etc.). Each TO appears to contain a different approach/content (Requirements, SOW, etc.). What are the “mandatory” sections of the REMIS SOW referred to in the TOs?

A51: See Answer A21. A task order for a particular CLIN may include any, or all, of the requirements outlined in the SOW.

Q52: If Offeror chooses to propose against a single CLIN, would the Offeror be precluded from submittal against all CLINs post award? While we understand the CLINs will be evaluated separately and that our price is being submitted for sample tasks, we also understand per the draft RFP that a single contract would be awarded should we submit a best value bid inclusive of a Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV and Volume V not by CLIN. It is also understood that we can propose to any CLIN by submitting a sample task that aligns. At the same time, there is no requirement to propose on all CLINs nor are Offerors limited to proposing on a single CLIN and each CLIN will be evaluated individually for confidence.

A52: Yes. An offeror can only be awarded a contract for the CLINS it proposes against (via the sample TOs). If an offeor receives an award for a specific CLIN or CLINs, they will only be allowed to propose against future TOs under those CLINs. See Answer A30.

Q53: Per model contract clause B.B.2 – Rate Table for Pricing Task Orders (Firm Fixed Price) and for B.C.2 Rate Table for Pricing Task Orders (Cost Reimbursement), we are required to submit Attachment J, Attachment J-9 Fully Burdened Rate Tables. These rates are derived from our pricing of sample task data that is aligned with Standard Labor Categories and are defined as Not To Exceed Rates to be used for estimating and contract purposes. Per Section L.17.5 Cost/Price Factor (b) specific guidelines Item 5.

States that Standard Labor Categories broadly group proposed labor into a manageable number of categories. These guidelines do not address all possible specific skills, or requirements that any one occupation or profession may require. For purposes of this proposal, the Government’s Standard Labor Category descriptions located in Attachment J-4 shall be used. Item 7 of (b) specific guidelines states the fully burdened rates (FBR) per SLC used in the development of the Offeror’s cost proposal shall match exactly with the FBR per SLC proposed in Attachment J-9 of the Model Contract.

A53: The fully burdened rates (FBR) per SLC used in the development of the Offeror’s cost proposal shall match exactly with the FBR per SLC proposed in Attachment J-9 of the Model Contract.

Q54: Is it the intent of the Government to require development of fully burdened rates specific to sample task orders be binding as Not To Exceed Rates for all work beyond the sample task orders proposed with varying statements of work potentially performed at locations and with a different skill mix within a broad SLC definition for other than what is assumed for the respective specific sample task?

A54: Yes. The intent of the NTE Rates in Attachment J-9 is for any work regardless of the location. For each specific Task Order the offeror can choose any rates they deem appropriate as long as they do not exceed the rates captured in J-9.

Q55: From the draft RFP we interpret that the rates populated in Attachment J-9 cannot be adjusted upward or downward for cost reimbursable tasks regardless of actual cost incurred. Is this also the intent of the Government when the narrow definition of sample tasks may not allow for all possibilities of work effort, location and teaming mix that may be encountered post award?

A55: See answer A54. Yes. The intent of the NTE Rates in Attachment J-9 is for any work regardless of the location. For each specific Task Order the offeror can choose any rates they deem appropriate as long as they do not exceed the rates captured in J-9.

Q56: To be clear, are we expected to price FFP fully burdened NTE rates with major subcontractor blend only and Cost Reimbursement fully burdened NTE rates using major and minor subcontractor blend rates?

A56: Each offeror can choose how to bid their Not to Exceed Rates; NASA is not specifying any unique requirements on how the offerors propose.

Q57: Why is the Government stating the Cost Reimbursement rates will not be subject to any adjustment (upward or downward) regardless of actual rates incurred during contract performance? Is this not the definition of time & material rates (exclusive of fee)?

A57: No, this is not the definition of time and material rates; the Cost Reimbursement rates in the Attachment J rate tables are not subject to any adjustments during contract performance as these are the rates that are determined as fair and reasonable at contract award.

Actual costs incurred by contractors will be paid regardless of what is in the Cost Reimbursement rate tables, and the contractor has the right to propose lower rates when competing for task orders than what is in the Attachment J rate tables if they choose.

Q58: REMIS-TO-06 ISS Parts Purchase: States that offeror shall provide a new top level drawing with new part numbers. It is not specified when these deliverables are required (pre or post award).

A58: NASA will clarify in the final RFP TO to deliver all products with the hardware delivery.

Q59: L17.4 Volume I – Technical/Management Confidence Factor. Table L-3 shows that for CLIN 1 one can bid on with TO-01, TO-05 or TO-07. If a company with direct past performance wishes to be considered for an award for all of these TO’s can they bid on them all or are you looking for only one TO response per CLIN?

A59: See Answers 28 and 29. An offeror is only required to include a proposal on one of the TOs under CLIN 1 to be evaluated for CLIN 1, however an offeror may choose to provide a proposal multiple TOs under CLIN 1.

Q60: L17.4 Volume I – Technical/Management Confidence Factor. Table L-3 CLIN 2A and 2B. Must a contractor bid CLIN 2A and not 2B to win CLIN 2?

A60: See Answers 28 and 29. .If the intent of the offeror is to qualify for both 2A and 2B, they must respond to respresentive task orders in both 2A and 2B CLINS.

Q61: TA3: Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan. Limitations of Future contracting clauses on other Center specific ISS payload development contracts could be interpreted to preclude using direct past performance on another contract for any Task Order that a company might have performed (DDTE, MIO) in the past. We would request clarification to OCI as REMIS has an emphasis on direct past performance. Would the Limitation of Future Contracting Clause within Center specific contracts prohibit the use of expertise on REMIS for extensions or follow-on Task Orders continued or augmented under REMIS. We don’t believe this is the REMIS intent.

A61: You are correct, the purpose of the OCI Avoidance Plan is to ensure the offeror has a process in place to address OCI issues as they occur during the implementation of the contract.

Q62: What will be NASA Engineering's involvement in the evaluation and certification of REMIS procured hardware? Many local contractors interested in REMIS have employees who work on engineering support contracts and therefore act for the government in evaluating hardware and software solutions for NASA space applications.

A62: That is the reason for the OCI Avoidance Plan being part of the procurement. Only Government civil servants will evaluate proposals received under the REMIS solicitation.

Q63: For task order proposal development, access to NASA IP or NASA developed interfaces will be vital.

For example, for a NASA developed rack, engineering information on the rack may be important to the development of the task order proposal. Will NASA be able to provide that pertinent data up front for the task orders? If that data is not readily available, would NASA grant proposal extensions until such material data are supplied?

A63: The Technical Data Library can be accessed by contacting the REMIS Contracting Officer with a request for access. The data is available and the proposal due date will not be extended for this reason.

Q64: For TO 3 - is it NASA intention that the external hardware storage platform store more than the reference ALL. If so, can NASA specify the other items, external dimensions, or interface method (ALL is a micro square).

A64: The TO specifies an intent to accommodate additional hardware; reference section 2.0, 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c.

Q65: - For TO3 - Where exactly on the ISS are the camera ports that are specified in the TO. Is it NASA's desire that the hardware storage platform be electrically connected to the power for that camera port?

A65: The Technical Data Library contains the data on the camera port locations.

Q66: Section L Attachment L-2D REMIS-TO-04 Page 4, table 3, #4 says support ops for 2 yrs, then later it says for example, sensors that must be replaced every 2 years... it's confusing. Is 2 yrs good or bad?

A66: The TO in the final RFP will be updated for clarity.

Q67: Our company is a self-certified Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB). Since the Small Business Administration does not provide this certification will JSC recognize a company as an SDB if they have been self-certified and are identified as an SDB in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database?

A67: The Contracting Officer will verify the company’s small business classification by the representation and certifications in SAM (System for Award Management). The Government does recognize SDB self-certification.

Q68: In Section L.17.6 Volume III Past Performance page 42 there is an embedded Past Performance Matrix. The matrix will not open. Will you make it available as soon as possible?

A68: The issue has been resolved and matrix is posted in the technical library.

Q69: If a company is awarded a contract for Engineering FFP, will they be able to bid for future CPFF Engineering as well as FFP Engineering work?

A69: No. No, you must propose on a CPFF TO to be selected to compete on CPFF TOs in the future.

Q70: Section L.17.2 pg L-1 And Cover Letter proposal submission shows a due date of October 7, but Section L.17.2 pg L-13 shows Oct 4. Which is correct?

A70: The Oct 7, 2016 date is confirmed for Proposal Submission Due Date. The final RFP will be corrected.

Q71: Section C 1.1 Can you please provide “ NASA’s Strategic Plan for Commercialization of Low Earth Orbit” to the technical library?

A71: Yes, it has been posted in the technical library.

Q72: Section J Attachment J-A1-24: 4: Describe “interfaces with the ISS Program, including hardware providers, … and other contracts )e.g. CMC, Vehicle Sustaining Engineering Contract, S&MA Support

Services.” Are you expecting interface with the NASA entity who is the customer to these contracts or relationships directly with the contractors?

A72: Offerors are expected to define how they will perform the technical integration and mission integration and operation functions as defined in the RFP.

Q73:Section J Attachment J-A1-26 Past Performance and OCI are requested 09/23/16 but are included in the page count for technical. With the short response time it would be preferable to submit the plans with the proposal.

A73: Past Performance and OCI early delivery is an option as documented in the RFP but not a requirement.

Q74: Section L 17.5 c 1 pg L-27: The TOs cover 5 base years and 1(2) year option period of performance associated with the SOW. Offerors are required to propose the required level of hours and appropriate skill mix per their unique technical approach necessary to perform each TO” and Sect 17.5 D Technical Template Instructions TRT 2. Pg L-32 the offeror is instructed to propose WYEs required to perform the task orders requirements for Year 1 – Year 7 however none of the TO’s span the entire contract. How do we propose costs for TOs for 7 Years?

TO 1, TO3, TO4 –Deliverables 365 days following TO award TO2, TO5, TO7- Deliverables 18 months following TO award

A74: The Task Order stated in the RFP does not cover the entire period of performance. Cost is only required to be submitted for the period of time when work is being proposed for that specific task order. The final RFP will be updated to clarify.

Q75: TO 6 – Sec L Attach L-2F 4.0 Deliverables: per offeror

A75: The Government believes this is a continuation of Question Q74. See Answer A74.

Q76: Section J Attachment J-4 pg J-A4: There are too few Standard Labor Categories which lead to very broad ranges of experience, expertise and salary. Suggest adding a 0-2 years of experience category and a 12 or 15 years plus category Engineers/Scientists/Analysts should be separated into distinct SLC’s

A76: See Answer A50. Offerors are able to propose additional SLCs. Read and follow the instructions carefully if you choose to propose additional SLCs.

Q77: Section L.17.5.c #1 PARA 3 pg L-27: Paragraph 3 states:

“For all Firm-Fixed-Price task orders, the Offeror shall describe how the proposed price(s) are realistic and sufficient to account for all labor and non-labor resources and all associated indirect costs and profit necessary to successfully perform all contract requirements using its proposed approach to accomplishing the work.”

Generally, Firm-Fixed-Price task orders pricing is provided as one total contract price, inclusive of labor costs, non-labor costs, indirect costs and profit. The RFP has a request for Overtime Fully-Burdened Rates by SLC, labor rates etc…. Is it the government’s intent that Firm Fixed Price Task Orders are fully detailed on the cost forms rather than in a narrative description with a Total Proposed Price?

A77: It is the Government’s intent to have the offeror provide a detailed narrative description of their price build-up of their Firm-Fixed-Price Task Orders, and to also price the entire Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task orders on the templates provided in the RFP.

Q78: Section L Attachment 2B.9.0 pg 6,7 and Attachment 2D.9.0 pg 5: For the fee deductions Cost Plus task orders, the wording implies that even though 50% of the fee pool is for schedule, 80% deduction of the total fee pool could be made for missing schedule. Is the intent to say 80% of the 50%?

A78a: Yes, that is a mistake; it will be corrected in the final RFP.

Q78b. Is the 80% deduction automatic for any delay, or is there a graded scale over a period of days?

A78b: Automatic Deduction.

Q78c. Is the deduction for mission success a complete deduction for any failure, or is that likewise graded over total mission objectives?

A78c: Complete Deduction.

Q79: Section L Attach 2-A, B, E, G 4.0 The TOs state a review of the ERD will be conducted. Is this a review and approval, or just a review? If approval, Who approves the ERDs?

A79: The ERD is approved by the Principle Investigator/Project Scientist (PI/PS), NASA Project Manager, and the contractor developing the hardware.

Q80: Section J Attach J-1 B 5 Pg J-A1-24: Commercialization Approach DRD -What will be the process to estimate the amount of remuneration that would be expected for damaged ISS hardware or loss of crew time?

A80: NASA is requesting the Offerors to provide their approach in their response to the Commericalization Approach DRD.

Q81: Task Orders: The delivery schedules generally state all deliverables are due 365 days or 18 months following TO award, yet they have a training or real time operations component. Should it be assumed those activities will continue as part of this TO for the lifetime of the operation of the hardware?

A81: If either is required long term, the TO will clearly state that for cost/price purposes.

Q82: Task Orders: Will we have access to NASA facilities for testing integration of software and CDH as required?

A82: Those facilities can be made available to the offeror if required to perform the functions. The Offeror must specify what Government facilities they request to utilize in their proposal.

Q83: Task Orders: For ground operation of on orbit software, will the full NASA command certification process be required for the operators?

A83: Command interface and certification requirements are applicable to anyone on the ground that has the capability to send a command.

Q84: Section L Attachment 2B Para 3.0 #16: TO-02 States support on orbit real time operations--is this for all 10 years of the hardware life?

A84: No, the requirements as written are for the first operation of the on-orbit unit.

Q85: Section L Attachement 2C PARA 2.0 #15and PARA 10.1.2.a.iii : TO-03 Para 2.0 Requirement 15 states “the platform must operate for 10 years without requiring EVA maintenance”, but Par 10.1.2.a.iii asks for estimated EVA time for maintenance. Is EVA maintenance allowed or not?

A85: The TO in the final RFP will be updated to clarify.

Q86: Section: L.3 & L.17.8 Page: L-2, L-3, L-45, L-46: Question: Volume V of the model contract instructions states offers shall submit required documents as part of the model contract. However there is a page limit on Volume I of 80 pages and it must include OCI Avoidance Plan, Commercial Approach, Small Business Utilization Plan and Total Compensation Plan. Does the Government want offerors to duplicate required DRD plans in both Volume I and Volume V?

A86: The Model Contract should be completed in such a manner that the contract could be awarded without discussion, and Volume 5 is not page limited.

Q87: Page: J-A1-39 through J-A1-43: Section L does not explicitly define how or in which Volume the S&H plan must be delivered. Request the Government clarify which Volume will contain the S&H plan to be delivered. If it is to be included as part of Volume I, would the Government consider making it unlimited page count or substantially increase the page limits? If the S&H plan is to be delivered as part of Volume V, Model Contract, there should be no impact since it is currently not page limited.

A87: There is not a requirement on the REMIS RFP to deliver a S&H Plan with the proposal. S&H information is being collected under Past Performance and under the REMIS-PM-01 DRD. If a post award TO requires a S&H Plan, the TO will clearly state that deliverable.

Q88: In Section L.17.6 (a), the DRFP requests past performance data from offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors on up to five past contracts be provided to the Government. Past Performance data is not required from proposed program managers. Since it is not required, request the Government eliminate the need for proposed program managers to execute a past performance release consent letter.

A88: The final RFP will be updated to delete this requirement.

Q89: Rather than having 5 separate CLINs, would the Government consider consolidating them into three contract areas (Research, Parts Purchase and Engineering), then have offerors respond to TOs with both CPFF and FFP contract types? This would allow the Government to reduce the number of CLINs, evaluate fewer TOs and select a larger pool of awardees from which to compete for the ensuing TOs.

Based on the current solicitation schedule, offerors with limited resources (especially small businesses) may opt to limit the number of CLINs/TOs to which they respond. Rather than the Government receiving a large number of competitive proposal to evaluate, this will effectively constrain the number of proposals.

A89: No, the CLIN structure outlined in the draft RFP will be used.

Q90: Based on the evaluation criteria, it does not appear that an offeror who chooses to respond to multiple CLINs will be totally removed from consideration if the Government evaluates one of their CLIN responses to be deficient. During the Industry Day one-on-ones, the impression was that if one CLIN response was deficient, then the Offeror’s entire proposal was no longer in consideration. Request the Government clarify whether a single deficient CLIN response would adversely impact the rest of the Offeror’s CLIN responses?

A90: CLINs are evaluated on an invidudual basis. An offeror can be successful on some CLINs and not successful on other CLINs.

Q91: The Data Requirements Description for the Commercialization Approach DRD states:

FIRST SUBMISSION DATE: Plan shall be submitted in draft form with the proposal, updated as a result of the accepted structure and processes defined in the transition plan, and submitted for final approval forty-five (45) calendar days after contract start.

A91: The reference to a transition plan will be removed in the final RFP.

Q92: The Data Requirements Description for the Government Property Management Plan (PMP) states:

Initial - The Offeror(s)/Contractors will be notified by the Contracting Officer when the PMP submittal is due. Final - Due 30 days after contract award. Will the CO provide either a date or a 30-day notice before the PMP is initially due after proposal submission?

A92: Yes, the CO will provide a 30-day notice before the PMP is initially due.

Q93: The Data Requirements Description for the IT Security Management Plan states: FIRST SUBMISSION DATE: With individual Task Order proposals.

Frequency of Submission: As defined in NPR 2810.1A Additional Submissions: As defined in NPR 2810.1A

Is the draft IT Security Management Plan required as part of the response to the Task Order(s) in the RFP (Section L) and thus due with the initial proposal submission? This question also applies to the Safety & Health Plan.

A93: Neither the IT Security Management Plan or the Safety & Health Plan are required as part of the proposal submission. Should the government choose to award the TOs, discussion would occur and the request to submit additional DRDs will be defined.

Q94: To avoid any confusion, will the Government specify which DRDs are due before or by the initial proposal submission date?

A94: Section L defines the DRDs that are due with Proposal Submission.

Q95: Under Section L.17.6(c), item 1 indicates that the listed information is only needed for Government contracts. However, item 2 requires the contract value to be provided. Unfortunately, most of our non-government contracts have a NDA regarding the value of the contract which was negotiated with the commercial customer. Can the same clause provided in item 1 be applied to item 2, due to the fact that we cannot disclose the contract value of our commercial or investor related contracts and agreements?

A95: NASA FAR Supplement 1815.304-70(d) and 1815.305(a)(2) requires that NASA evaluate size. Size usually entails both contract value and the number of Full Time Employess ( FTEs) / Work Year Equivalent (WYEs), etc. For confidentially reasons, the Offeror may provide a range on the contract value size, for example $0-$5M; $5M - $10M; $10M - $20M, etc. The final RFP will be updated to clarify.

Q96: Under Section L.17.6(c), the Government requests that the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees supporting the contract be provided. However, we have projects where 10 employees are engaged on a part-time or consultative basis across multiple engineering and scientific disciplines. How can this be fairly evaluated if another company has one employee which represents an FTE in terms of effort when comes to comparing company capabilities across bidders (e.g. one FTE SME at one company versus 10 diverse and part-time SMEs at another company) for the same level of effort or duration (period of performance)? Will the government consider revising the FTE disclosure requirement so that the number of individuals be identified as participating on a contract vs. the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) effort?

A96: FTEs are calculated based on number of hours, not individual employees.

Q97: Under Section L.17.6(c), there is a referenced “Past Performance Information.xlsx” spreadsheet which is not posted on FedBizOps. Will the Government post the “Past Performance Information.xlsx” file on FedBizOps?

A97: The spreadsheet is now posted in the Technical Data Library.

Q98: Our commercial customers typically request that the contract value of an engagement not be disclosed under a fully executed NDA. Given this situation and the fact that over 75% of our revenues are from commercial entities, we feel that we are in a disadvantage because of the Section M.5 Past Performance evaluation criteria where the “level of pertinence” of the contract is based on size, content, and complexity. Would the Government consider removing the size factor to even out the competition and evaluation of commercial contracts where the contract value has been requested by the customer to not be disclosed under a NDA?

A98: See Answer A95. NASA FAR Supplement 1815.304-70(d) and 1815.305(a)(2) requires that NASA evaluate size. Size usually entails both contract value and the number of Full Time Employess ( FTEs) / Work Year Equivalent (WYEs), etc. For confidentially reasons, the Offeror may provide a range on the contract value size, for example $0-$5M; $5M - $10M; $10M - $20M, etc. The final RFP will be updated to clarify.

Q99: Based on the past performance criteria specified in Section M.5 regarding pertinence and relevance to contract size, will the Government provide the estimated value for each of the CLINs as well as the Government Estimate for the representative Task Orders described in the RFP?