NOC_DRFP_Questions_and_Answers_12_21_16-FINAL.pdf

Question 1: When will the Government release the composite incumbent rates to the Technical Library?

Question 1: The Government is in the process of compiling the incumbent composite rates and will update the

NOC Technical Library as soon as practicable. Please continue to monitor the NOC Technical Library

(https://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/nbl/) for the addition of this information.

Question 2: Has the Government made a decision on small Business Goals for NOC?

Answer 2: The recommended Small Business Goals for the NOC procurement can be found in the Draft RFP

(DRFP) under section L.16.3.4.

Question 3: What was the rationale for not going Small Business?

Answer 3: Full and Open competition does not preclude Small Businesses from competing on this procurement.

The Government welcomes competition from all businesses, small and large. Based upon the information received in the Request for Information, market research, and one-on-one meetings, the Government could not reasonably expect obtaining offers from two or more small businesses.

Question 4: Why did the Government do a seven year period of performance?

Answer 4: This period of performance is consistent with the currently planned end of the ISS Program.

Question 5: Section A - Table of Contents has Section I.19 - Interagency Fleet Management System Vehicles and Related Service. However, this clause is not in Section I of the model contract. Please advise.

Answer 5: After review, this clause will be included in the Final RFP by reference.

Question 6: Attachment J-10 Data requirement sheets specifies a detailed set of requirements, outline, and data for inclusion in the DRD-NOC-14. Per requirements in L.8, this plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract. The list of DRD instructions cover 11 pages. If included in 200 page pagecount for the Volume I, Mission Suitability, there is insufficient room to address the requirements. To enable JSC to review each offerors complete approach to Health and Safety, please remove the DRD from inclusion in the 200 page count of the Mission Suitability Volume. Making this change will allow offerors to present their Health and Safety

Plans in a more complete manner, allow them sufficient room to address the Government's requirements, and allow JSC to better evaluate the approach.

Recommend Table L-2a (page L-14) be amended to read, Volume I, SubFactor 3, Safety and Health Plans

DRD-NOC-14, No Page Limit

Answer 6: The Government does not require the Offeror to restate the DRD instructions in their proposal, but does require the Offeror to address all requirements of the DRD in their response. The Government has determined that a 200 page limit is adequate to address all requirements of those items noted in the table subject to the page limitations.

Question 7: Reference B.7 - Items 3 and 4 are identical. Recommend modifying Item 3 to read, "Supervisor III"

Answer 7: The SLCs should read "Supervisor II" and Supervisor I." The Government will correct the SLC listing in the final RFP.

Question 8: Reference B.9 - Items 3 and 4 are identical. Recommend modifying Item 3 to read, "Supervisor III"

Answer 8: The SLCs should read "Supervisor II" and Supervisor I." The Government will correct the SLC listing in the final RFP.

Question 9: CX-POL0002 is written for the NSOC contract scope. Please clarify if the NOC contractor will support the SVMF External Customers under NOC as written in the policy for NSOC?

Answer 9: For the purpose of the NOC RFP, all potential offerors should note that any references to the SVMF facility/support are not applicable to the NOC procurement. The NOC core requirements do not include SVMF support. Currently, multiple CX master list documents contain references to the SVMF as it is part of the NSOC https://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/nbl/

Contract. The Government is in the process of updating all CX master list documents to remove SVMF references; however, this is not anticipated to be completed prior to NOC contract start.

Question 10: Please clarify when the DRD-NOC-19 is due. Section J and Section L instructions are in conflict.

Answer 10: Page J-5.1 will be updated so the OCI Mitigation Plan is due with proposal.

Question 11: Please clarify when DRD-NOC-13 is due. Section J and Section L instructions are in conflict. The

DRD submittal date identified on page DRD-NOC-13 page 1 of 1 identifed submittal due with proposal.

Section L has no mention of DRD-NOC-13 for proposal submittal or whether it is included in pagecount.

Answer 11: DRD-NOC-13 is not required with the proposal. The Government will update the DRD and DRL in the final RFP.

Question 12: Based on the Government's requirements specified on page L-26, we recommend modifying Table

L-2b that the requested documentation will be added to the table as Attachment L-4 "Environmental Data" and

Attachment L-5 "Safety and Health Data". Both should have "No Page Limit"

Answer 12: After review, the Government agrees that Environmental Data and Safety and Health Data should not be page limited. This update will be incorporated in the final RFP.

Question 13: As written, it is unclear if an offeror submitting past performance as a Key individual (e.g., Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support

Systems) is required to indicate number of FTE staff on the program. Properly indicating the FTE is critical to the government's understanding of the level of contractual responsibility and impact that individual had relating to the NOC scope. To avoid confusing and to add clarity, please update the instruction as follows: "Number of full-time equivalent employees assigned to the contract (if other than the prime, provide the number of full-time equivalent provided by the applicable subcontractor/entity; if submitting as the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems, then respond with the ratio of full time equivalent employee that individual was assigned to the program (i.e., 0 - 1.0))

Answer 13: (Reference L.16.4 Past Performance – Vol II (c)) - After careful consideration, the Government does not agree with the recommendation. The Government has determined it will obtain sufficient information in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

Question 14: To prevent Offerors from reporting past performance relevancy of work that was not the responsibility of or directly attributable to the Offeror, please amend L.16.4 subsection (a) by adding in the following clarification:

"Offerors shall not propose past performance examples of subcontractors or teammates on the referenced program which were not the contractual responsibility of the Offeror or proposed Program Manager, Critical

Systems Engineer for Robotics, or Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems."

Failure to restrict claiming relevance in this manner may result in a Government evaluator's incorrect assessment of the relevancy of the cited work. For example, if an Offeror was a subcontractor on a large

Hazardous Facility program of 200 FTE with 8 elements of SOW, yet the Offeror only provided support to 1

SOW element of "Mail Room Support" and 2 FTE, the Offeror should not be allowed to demonstrate program relevancy across all 8 SOW elements and must also indicate only their 2 FTE. Similarly, Offerors submitting past performance gained as an individual contributor (i.e., proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems

Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems shall) must also not be allowed to claim all elements of SOW as relevant unless they had direct contractual responsibility for that referenced scope.

Answer 14: After careful consideration, the Government has determined that limiting L.16.4 subsection (a) as suggested is not in the Government’s best interest.

Question 15: To ensure consistent reporting, please clarify the requirement to indicate how an individual contributor (proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems Engineer for Robotics and Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems) should respond. Amend the requirement as follows:

"Contract value (If other than the prime, provide the overall contract value and the subcontractor(s) contract value; if the referenced program is being submitted for the proposed Program Manager, Critical Systems

Engineer for Robotics, or Critical System Engineer for Life Support Systems, then indicate the dollar value of that individuals has direct contractual responsibility for over the period of performance)"

Answer 15: (Reference L.16.4 (a) page L-24) After careful examination of the proposed question, the

Government is considering how an individual contributor should respond. The final RFP will reflect the

Government’s decision.

Question 16: Based on the Government's requirements specified on page L-26, please confirm that this information is to be provided as an Attachment with "No Page Limit"

Answer 16: (Reference Section L.16.4, paragraph (g)) Statements on Small Business Participation is subject to the Past Performance page limitation of 20 pages.

Question 17: The Standard Labor Categories of 26 IT III , 27 Operations Expert, and 28 Structural Engineering

Analyst are identified as non-exempt. Our analysis of the responsibilities of the position, education and advanced learning, level of supervision required, and how the position contributes to the JSC NBL performance on contract, qualifies the positions as "Exempt". We respectfully request the Government reconsider the determination of Exempt or Non-Exempt status for each of the three positions.

Answer 17: The Government agrees with the recommendation. These three positions will be updated to be

"Exempt" in the final RFP.

Question 18: Please clarify the first asterisk in regards to Fixed Fee against the FFP IDIQ. Does the

Government intend to issue IDIQ's also as cost plus fixed fee (CPFF)?

Answer 18: Yes, the Government may issue IDIQ as CPAF, CPFF (if H.13 is exercised), or FFP. If the

Government exercises Clause H.13 Option to Transition From Award-Fee to Fixed Fee, there will be CPFF

IDIQ on the NOC Contract, at that point clause B.4 Estimated Cost and Fee will be modified. The Government will clarify in the Final RFP.

Question 19: The information identified in the Excel file, if printed, would be quite voluminous. We recommend inclusion as a referenced electronic attachment. Please clarify if the property listings from the excel file must be printed and provided in the hard copy Model Contract.

Answer 19: The Government is considering your recommendation. The final RFP will reflect the Government’s decision on electronic delivery.

Question 20: It is unclear if the award fee and fixed fee are specific to core WBS's only or to the IDIQ as well.

Please clarify.

Answer 20: If the contract transitions from Award Fee to Fixed Fee pursuant to clause H.13 Option to

Transition From Award-Fee to Fixed Fee, fixed fee will be applicable to core work and IDIQ.

Question 21: Per Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, NASA Headquarters, Washington DC, Safety &

Mission Success Archived/Canceled Standards, NASA-STD-8719.10 Standard for Underwater Facility and

Non-Open Water Operations is cancelled. For clarification, should NASA JSC JPR 8715.2, JSC Safety

Standard for Underwater Operations be referenced?

Answer 21: Yes, NASA JSC JPR 8715.2 is the controlling standard. Reference to NASA-STD-8719.10 will be removed in the final RFP.

Question 22: Please clarify for reference documents that are listed for DA – Mission Operations Directorate but documents in the Technical Library are listed as CX.

Answer 22: (Reference Attachment J.18) For the purpose of the NOC RFP, all potential offerors should note that any references to DA should be interpreted as being CA.

Question 23: Many companies' approved financial practices apply burdens such as G&A on travel. Please clarify if burdening without fee/profit, according to an Offeror's approved financial practices is allowable. Is the intent of the clause to restrict fee from being applied to travel (e.g., "No profit shall be applied to the cost of travel")?

Answer 23: In reference to clauses B.7 and B.9. Clauses B.7 and B.9 are extensive and cover multiple aspects therefore, it is not the sole intent of these clauses to specifically state that profit/fee shall not be applied to travel cost. However, it is correct that the Government will not allow fee/profit to be applied to travel. Offerors may apply allowable and applicable burdens to travel in accordance to their approved financial practices and within the boundaries of the clauses set forth in this contract.

Question 24: Reference page L-26 Past Performance – The Government is requesting 5 years of OSHA

Environmental and Safety and Health data. Is this a typo since the normal request from JSC is 3 years?

Answer 24: After review, the Government has determined that 3 years of OSHA Environmental and Safety and

Health data is sufficient. This change will be reflected in the final RFP.