Amendment_1_NOC_RFP_Questions-FINAL.pdf

NEUTRAL BUOYANCY LABORATORY (NBL) OPERATIONS CONTRACT (NOC) QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

All questions provided to the Contracting Officer as of January 30, 2017.

Question 1: Please clarify what dollar value will constitute a “major subcontractor” for the Pricing Volume and Responsibility Consideration volumes. Secondly, as the allocation to subcontractors may change across the option years, can we assume that the "major subcontractor" designation is limited to the Base period proposed?

Answer 1: A major subcontractor is one having at least $3,000,000 annually of contract value in any one contract year (base and options included). Attachment L-4 (Pricing Model and BOE Template) will be amended to reflect this update.

Question 2: The RFP appears to include several typographical errors / inconsistencies that could, if not corrected, result in proposal compliance issues: Section B, Clause B.9 states: "Pricing of all CPFF IDIQ task orders shall be in accordance with the negotiated rates set forth below" but the table header reads "CPAF-IDIQ." Please clarify.

Answer 2: Section B - Clause B.9, Two references to CPFF will be changed to CPAF. The RFP will be amended to reflect this update.

Question 3: Table L-2a, Subfactor 1, lists "External Customer Plan*" and "Total Compensation Plan**". There are 2 parenthetical notes at the end of the table, both with single asterisks, so it is not clear which note applies to which plan.

Please clarify which note is associated with each requirement.

Answer 3: DRD-NOC-04 External Customer Plan, is limited to 40 pages per teaming arrangement (see the applicable asterisk). DRD-NOC-29 Total Compensation Plan, is limited to 20 pages per team member. The RFP will be amended to reflect this update.

Question 4: Please reference Attachment_L-4_Pricing_Model_and_BOE_Template provides WBS BOES for 5.1.1 (Estimation), 5.1.2 (Management), 5.1.3 (Implementation), 5.2.1 (Estimation), 5.2.2 (Management), 5.2.3 (Implementation). The RFP Section J: J-6 Contractor WBS to SOW Dictionary provides WBS and SOW mappings for 5.1 Facility Projects and 5.2 Mockup Projects and does not break down the WBS to the same level as the BOE templates.

Please confirm that the lower level SOW mappings in J-6 align with the SOW mappings in L-4.

Answer 4: The two WBS in Attachment J-06 have been updated to reflect the Excel Pricing Model (BOE Template). The RFP has been amended to reflect this update.

Question 5: Is it the government expectation that the project totals as defined by Workload Sizing Parameter of H.11 intended to represent only the costs of project implementation only (WBS 5.1.3 and WBS 5.2.3) or is it intended to represent a total value for project related support ( WBS 5.1.1 +WBS5.1.2+WBS.5.1.3 and WBS 5.2.1+WBS 5.2.2+ WBS 5.2.3)?

Answer 5: The costs listed are the total value of these projects not just the implementation costs (WBS 5.1.1 +WBS5.1.2+WBS.5.1.3 and WBS 5.2.1+WBS 5.2.2+ WBS 5.2.3).

Question 6: Attachment J-21 Standard Labor Category (SLC) Descriptions Exempt/vs Non Exempt assignments define items 19 - 25 as Non-Exempt. These positions, however, either require or typically a Bachelor's degree or equivalent, which we would typically classify as Exempt positions. Please confirm that these are intended to be Exempt positions.

Answer 6: An RFP Amendment will be issued to state that Standard Labor Categories 19 through 25 are exempt positions.

Question 7: Attachment J-21 Standard Labor Category (SLC) Descriptions Exempt/vs Non Exempt assignments lists 300082 - Engineering Technician II and 300083 - Engineering Technician III. On attachment J-16 Wage Determination these positions are listed as 30082 - Engineering Technician II and 30083 - Engineering Technician III.

Please confirm these are the same positions.

Answer 7: Yes. There appears to be an extra zero in the Wage Determination category number in Attachment J-21. An RFP Amendment will be issued to correct the number.

Question 8: page L-25 states, " Offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors (proposed subcontracts on this contract with an estimated annual value greater than $1,000,000), and the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems shall each provide information on up to five past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints).

As worded, the requirement is unclear if each the following must all submit past performance contract information:

Offeror and all major subs and each of the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems staff.

For example if an offeror with a team of 4 major subcontractors were to submit following the current requirement a minimum total of 5 citations and a maximum of 25 are required. Please confirm that the statement requires citations from 'each' major subcontractor and was not meant to allow the Offeror to select the most relevant past contracts to provide past performance information on from across the team of offeror and major subcontractors. As written this requirement could result in each past performance contract reference to less than 1.5 pages when combined with the requirement for past performance information from each of the three key personnel. We recommend the (a) be revised to remove the requirement, placing clarified, specific direction into the (c) subsection as follows:

(c) clarify to read: " (c) The following information is required on up to a total of five past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints) from offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors (proposed subcontracts on this contract with an estimated annual value greater than $1,000,000)."

Answer 8: An RFP Amendment will be issued to clarify the definition for a major subcontractor in regards to past performance versus the definition of a major subcontractor when submitting cost/pricing information.

Question 9: page L-25 states, " Offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors (proposed subcontracts on this contract with an estimated annual value greater than $1,000,000), and the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems shall each provide information on up to five past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints).

As worded, the requirement is unclear and may be interpreted as, in addition to citations from the Offeror and any major subcontractors, JSC is requiring information on at least one and up to five citations from each of the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems staff--a range of 3 (minimum) to 15 (maximum) separate citations. In Section M, "the past performance of the proposed Program Manager, ... and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems will be evaluated." We recommend the following clarification.

(d) clarify to read: " (d) The following information shall be provided for each of the three proposed key personnel (i.e., Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics, and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems)."

Additionally, please confirm that if the program citations are inclusive of the Key Personnel citations, that separate citations would not be required.

Answer 9: An RFP Amendment will be issued to clarify L.16.4.

Question 10: page L-27 states, "(d) In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors, as defined above, the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems 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-2, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (c) above."

As worded, the "(d)" on page L-27 is duplicated with the previous (d) section above on page L-26. For clarity, please renumber here and subsequent subsections of (e) through (g). Additionally, please confirm that Past Performance Questionnaires are to be sent to the contact references of the key personnel identified in subsection (d) [page L-26] as opposed to the referenced individuals in (c) above.

Answer 10: An RFP Amendment will be issued to clarify L.16.4.

Question 11: Reference Clause 52.222-62 - Paid Sick Leave - Please clarify if the sick leave requirement include exempt personnel as well as non-exempt personnel?

Answer 11: FAR 52.222-62, "Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706" applies to non-exempt workers. Paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A): "Means any person engaged in performing work on or in connection with a contract covered by Executive Order (E.O.) 13706, and (A) Whose wages under such contract are governed by the Service Contract Labor Standards statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 67), the Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) statute (40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV), or the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. chapter 8).” The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to non-exempt workers.

Question 12: Reference Attachment J-16, Wage Determination No.: 2015-5233 - Regarding the WD change from an Even number WD to an Odd number WD. The change appears to be in conflict with the 29 CFR 4.52. We respectfully request that the requirement revert back to the Even number WD.

Answer 12: Since the predecessor contract incorporated an even-numbered WD, an RFP Amendment will be issued to change the odd-numbered Wage Determination to an even-numbered Wage Determination.

Question 13: Reference Section J Attachment J-13 -"See Technical Library for current list of Deliverable Data and Software" - Please confirm that the list of Deliverable Data and Software (provided in the Technical Library) is for reference only and is not required to be submitted with Volume 5 hardcopy and softcopies Answer 13: An RFP Amendment will be issued to clarify L.16.7.

Question 14: Section M.6. (c) Government Property Management - The Government will perform an analysis to ensure that the information provided supports an efficient responsibility decision. To aid offerors in meeting the government's requirements, please define what would constitute "an efficient responsibility decision".

Answer 14: The Government will amend the RFP to delete the word “efficient” in sections L.16.6(c) and M.6(c). The Government will perform an analysis to ensure the data provided in DRD-NOC-09, Government Property Management Plan (PMP), “Management Qualification/Experience,” supports a responsibility decision.

Question 15: Reference DRD-NOC-29 (3) and Table L-2a- DRD-NOC-29, Total Compensation Plan, paragraph (3): "The Contractor shall provide a copy of the company policy for uncompensated overtime with the proposal." Table L-2a requires the TCP to be page limited to 20 pages. - Please confirm that the Offeror's Policies for Uncompensated Overtime are excluded from the page count limitations. Alternatively, allow the Offeror to reference their policy and supply upon request of the Government.

Answer 15: The Policy for Uncompensated Overtime is required to be submitted as part of the proposal in the Total Compensation Plan. Refer to FAR 52.237-10(e): "The offeror shall include a copy of its policy addressing uncompensated overtime with its proposal." An RFP Amendment will be issued to state that the Policy for Uncompensated Overtime is excluded from the page count. This requirement will be updated in the RFP amendment.

Question 16: J-9 and J-10 - The DRD Titles in J-9 and J-10 include inconsistencies. For example, J-9 lists DRD-NOC-03 as "Continuous Improvement and Contract Configuration Management Plan" while J-10 has "Continuous Improvement and Innovation Plan". - Please confirm that J-10 wording takes precedence.

Answer 16: The correct title for Attachment J-03 is “Continuous Improvement and Innovation Plan". The RFP will be updated to reflect this correction.

Question 17: Reference - Section L.16.6 (a) Cost Accounting Standards instructions: "Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement represented in Provision K.7, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications." Please confirm that this should be Clause K.5.

Answer 17: Yes, it should reference Clause K.5 - Cost Accounting Standards Notice and certification. The RFP will be updated to reflect this correction.

Question 18: L-16.6 (a), Page L-44, Cost Accounting Standards and M.6 (a) - The last sentence was removed from the referenced Final RFP section L-16.6(a), however, Final RFP Section M.6.a has a requirement which states (in the last sentence) - "Other business systems, such as the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement will be reviewed for responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, General Standards." - Please confirm that a CAS Disclosure Statement is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

Answer 18: If an offeror has not previously submitted a CAS Disclosure Statement and this procurement will require you to do so, one must be submitted with your proposal in accordance with provision 52.230-1 found in Section K.5(b).

Question 19: DRD-NOC-11 & L.16.3.2.B - DRD-NOC-11: "i. Initial: Due with the proposal; all sections labeled as Part (2) not required with proposal." L.16.3.2.B: The Offeror shall submit a Maintenance Plan, DRD-NOC-11, section c (ii Part 1), c (iii Part 1), c (iv Part 1), and c (v Part 1) only for proposal review. Submission of Part 2 shall be provided to justify/explain a new process or procedure if the Offeror is proposing a deviation to the current process.- Please confirm that DRD-NOC-11 c (i), Roles and Responsibilities, and c(vi), Schedule are not required with the proposal.

Answer 19: No. C(i) Roles and Responsibilities and C(vi), Schedule – part 1 are required with the proposal.

Question 20: In the Technical Library there are two SLCs missing rate values in the Incumbent Rates PDF. Does the Government anticipate updating the incumbent rate sheet with these two values?

Answer 20: The Government has updated the Technical Library with the proper Incumbent Rates data.

Question 21: Will the Government consider extending the due date for proposals to February 27, 2017?

Answer 21: After consideration, the Government has extended the proposal due date to February 27, 2017. The RFP will be amended to reflect this update.

Question 22: Clause B.9 title reads “COST REIMBURSEMENT ORDERING ESTIMATING, but the language in the clause references CPFF IDIQ orders. Is this a typo and should it reference CPAF IDIQ orders?

Answer 22: Please see the answer to Question 2.

Question 23: In order to provide the most relevant cost data for each major subcontractor, we respectfully request that NASA consider reducing the definition of a major subcontractor from $3 million to $2 million per year. This would allow for the most relevant cost data to be included with the proposal.

Answer 23: The Government considered this request and has determined that (in regards to cost/pricing data) the threshold of $3 million in contract value in any one contract year (base and options included), will remain the definition for a major subcontractor when submitting cost/pricing data.

Question 24: Will a NSOC Phase-Out Plan be uploaded in the Technical Library or provided to the selected contractor prior to the NOC Phase-In?

Answer 24: The NSOC contract currently does not have a phase out plan.

Question 25: In regards to small business scoring, should a Small Business choose to prime this procurement will they receive the full 100 points for the Small Business Factor?

Answer 25: A Small Business that proposes as a Prime contractor will receive the entire 100 points, in accordance to the

RFP Section M.3.

Question 26: Does NASA expect that existing External Customers to transfer over to the next contract? Does NASA have an idea which External Customers will transfer to the next Contract? How would the transfer of existing External

Customers from NSOC to NOC occur?

Answer 26: The Government will help facilitate the transition of all current External Customers to the NOC. At this time the Government does not know how many existing External Customers will transition. The Government will provide a draft version of the Space Act Agreement in the NOC Technical Library that may be used to help transition NSOC

External Customers to the NOC.

Question 27: Does NASA have a list of current External Customers utilizing the NBL that they can provide?

Answer 27: The Government cannot provide a list of current External Customers, however a list of publications showing the type of customers utilizing the NBL will be provided in the NOC Technical Library.

Question 28: Will there be any non-commercial software that will be provided from NSOC (see DRD-NSOC-13, c., 4. &

5.)?

Answer 28: The NSOC contract currently utilizes Commercial off-The Shelf (COTS) software. It is anticipated that the

NOC will continue the use of COTS software; however, this is subject to change based on each offeror’s proposal.

Question 29 Will the Government be releasing the data from DRD-NSOC-44 section 8, c., 6. Labor Resources and 7. Non-

Labor Resources?

Answer 29: The detailed labor resources and non-labor resources is considered proprietary and will not be released.

Question 30: Will the Government be willing to provide additional time to deliver the proposal.

Answer 30: Please see Answer 21, above.

Question 31: In L.16.4(c), a major subcontractor is defined as “proposed subcontracts on this contract with an estimated annual value greater than $1,000,000.” In L.16.5 (a), a major subcontractor is defined as any team member “with an estimated total contract value that equals or exceeds $3,000,000 per contract year.” Please clarify the definition and value of a major subcontractor.

Answer 31: For past performance purposes in section L.16.4 (c), “proposed subcontracts on this contract with an estimated annual value greater than $1,000,000” will be used to define a major subcontractor. In regards to section L.16.5 (a) (Cost and Pricing Factor), “an estimated total contract value that equals or exceeds $3,000,000 in any contract year (base and options included)” shall define a major subcontractor.