RFP_Questions_and_Responses_A02-01_through_A02-12.pdf

QUESTION

REFERENCE QUESTION EXPLANATIONS & MODIFICATIONS

A02-01

Attachment J-06, Government-

Furnished

Property

At the bottom of the spreadsheet there are four tabs. One of these tabs indicates CAGP-

Government Replaceable and one tab indicates IAGP-Government Replaceable. Do these notations indiciate the Government is willing to replace these items at the Government's expense? If not, what does it mean?

For the tabs listed as "CAGP- Government Replaceable" and "IAGP-Government

Replaceable", the Government will replace these items, if neccessary, during contract execution or consider an equitable contract adjustment in accordance with FAR Clause

52.245-1(d).

A02-02 RFP, L.12.f

Section states: "The offeror shall identify, in list form, any equipment that it intends to acquire and directly charge to the Government under this contract." In the answers to questions for the draft RFP, the Government stated repeatedbly that there will be no cost reimbursable elements/CLIN in this contract. Can the Government clarify if or not equipment to be charged directly to the contract?

Offerors shall include the cost of all equipment necessary for performance of this contract

(except as expressly stated in this contract as furnished by the Government) within the proposed prices for all CLINs.

A02-03 RFP, L.5

The RFP states that the offeror shall submit any SBA-Approved Mentor/Protégé

Agreement and a copy of any Joint Venture Agreement. Any Joint Venture Agreement under an SBA Approved Mentor/Protégé Agreement must comply with 13 CFR

§124.513 and 13 CFR§121.103(h).

Under a final rule that became effective on August 24, 2016, the Small Business

Administration amended 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h) to provide that, in a small business set-aside, a offeror that is a joint venture, “if it exists as a formal separate legal entity, may not be populated with individuals intended to perform contracts awarded to the joint venture….” Questions:

a. Will the Government please confirm that the revised version of 13 C.F.R.

121.103(h), which was effective August 24, 2016, governs the evaluation of joint venture offerors under this set-aside procurement?

b. Will the Government please confirm that it will not make award of a prime contract under this procurement to a joint venture that is a formal separate legal entity that is populated with individuals intended to perform contracts awarded to the joint venture?

a. The version of 13 CFR that is in effect as of the due date for proposal submission, as specified in the RFP, will apply.

b. The Government will follow applicable policies, regulations, and laws in awarding the

KIAC contract.

A02-04

Attachment J-01, Performance

Work Statement

(PWS), 6.2.4

There is a large quantity of predecessor contract held, found on station, legacy space launch film footage and other media stored on-site. This legacy media requires identification, scanning, format conversion, and packaging if destined for NARA archiving. How does NASA plan to address these unique NASA-owned, contractor-held records?

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) already has all of the legacy film items of historical importance from the Space Shuttle Program. The remaining legacy film items in inventory are not intended to go to NARA and will be kept at KSC for historical reference. During the execution of KIAC, additional film products will be generated and the contractor's responsible for processing them in accordance with PWS elements 6.2.4 C and D. Also, see RFP Amendent 2, which revises the "Applicable PWS Requirement(s)" for Appendix M, Service Catalog Descriptions , Catalog ID(s) COMM-F-001, COMM-F-

002.

A02-05 RFP, L.8 Table and RFP, L.19.A.i

An ambiguity is created by the fact that the requirements and descriptions of the plans appear in the instructions for Volume I as well as for Volume IV. If we follow the structure of section L.19 to build our Volume I proposal, it seems as if the Government would like to see the plans placed in Vol IV, but also a description of those plans in

Volume I. Does the Government intend to have us create a section in Volume I for each of the plans described in L.19 in the order in which they are described?

The RFP section L.19 is clear. Offerors shall submit the information in the proposal volume where it is requested; and where an offeror is requested to submit a plan or other data as part of the proposal Volume IV, the instructions so state.

REFERENCE QUESTION EXPLANATIONS & MODIFICATIONS

A02-06 RFP, L.19.A.i.c.1 and c.2

Following on the previous question: Does the Government require a proposal structure that follows the order of requirements provided in section L.19? Take for example, L19Aic1 and c2-- two requirements for IT Security. The first seems to indicate a section in Volume I ought to be dedicated to the topic, while c2 discusses the Plan that should appear in Vol IV. This requirement is different that the one for the other plans (safety & health, Phase in, Risk, etc..), which don't explicitly ask for a description of the plan in

Volume I and the plan in Vol IV. The ambiguity is created by the fact that the requirement and description of the plans appear in the instructions for Volume I.

The RFP section L.19 is clear. Offerors shall submit the information in the proposal volume where it is requested; and where an offeror is requested to submit a plan or other data as part of the proposal Volume IV, the instructions so state.

A02-07 General

How much of innovations are expected by the contractor to bring on this KIAC? Cutting edge/ Leading edge / Bleeding edge?

It is up to the offeror to decide what information to provide in it's proposal. RFP Section

M.1 provides the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors and Section M.1.A provides the specific Mission Suitability evaluation criteria for the Management and

Technical sub-factors.

A02-08

Appendix B, Service Delivery

Standards and

Metrics

Table B-3 System Performance Metrics, and Section 4.3, Availability Assumption (a) states: “The RTS time will start for accessibility upon actual loss of service until service is restored regardless of reported incident timestamp.” We note that both examples given relate to RTS where loss of service occurs during standard business hours (Example 1 posits 3:00 p.m.; Example 2 has 9:00 a.m.). However, in an on-call situation such as nights, weekends, and holidays, 2 hours is a very narrow window for dispatch, arrival, trouble-shooting and repair, especially given the size and complexity of the KSC campus and the likelihood that off-hours loss of service might exceed 2 hours before being reported. Please clarify whether the Government will enforce the 2-hour RTS with penalties for occurrences (a) 7/24/365, (b) during standard business hours only, or (c) some other defined period?

See RFP Amendment 2, which revises the Availability Assumption for 2-hour RTS penalty time periods.

A02-09

Appendix B, Service Delivery

Standards and

Metrics, 3.1.1

Please clarify the meaning of the statement, “This metric is calculated against the aggregates”?

See RFP Amendment 2, which revises Appendix B, Service Delivery Standards and

Metrics, to define "aggregate" and provide examples of Metrics that are "calculated against the aggregates."

A02-10 General

Pricing instructions in L.19(B) and in in Attachment L-02 require a rate build-up for

IDIQ & Consultant Labor, including fringe, overhead, G&A, and fee. Are prime offerors to add a tab in the pricing spreadsheet for each proposed subcontractor providing IDIQ &

Consultant labor containing sanitized rates? If so, what are your expectations regarding direct submission of sealed packages containing subcontractor rate build-ups? Are all subcontractors expected to provide such submittals? Alternatively, if only the prime submits a rate buildup, are all subcontractors bound by prime contractor rates? In that case, how do you anticipate evaluating the prime’s approach to establishing those rates?

See RFP Amendment 2, which clarifies offeror price proposal submission requirements.

Offerors should refer to M.1.B for how the Government will evaluate the Price Factor.

A02-11 RFP, L.19.A

Please explain in which part of the proposal the Government would like to see the allocation of work between Prime contractor and each of the subcontractors presented?

L.19.A.i.a.5C and 5D in the high level discussion of our team organization? Or does the

Government intend for us to discuss the allocation of work on a more granular level in our discussion of management & technical approaches L19Ai and L19Aii?

The instruction at the beginning of L.19 for Mission Suitability is clear: "Where use of subcontractors is proposed, the proposal shall clearly distinguish between the offeror’s and the subcontractor’s work and responsibilities." It is the offerors responsibility based on its proposed approach to provide sufficient information within the proposal to demonstrate that the offeror understands and has the ability to execute the requirements.

REFERENCE QUESTION EXPLANATIONS & MODIFICATIONS

A02-12 RFP, G.9

Attachment J-04 specifies applicable versions of documents, while section G.9 states the contractor shall comply with the most current provisions during the term of the contract.

Will there be a regular schedule to update J-04 to reflect current applicable versions that the contractor will be responsible to comply with? How will equitable adjustments for increased scope reflected in version changes be incorporated into the contract?

See RFP Amendment 2, which removes Clause G.9. Any update to the applicable versions of documents listed in Attachment J-04, List of Applicable Documents, will be handled through contract modifications. Changes within the scope of the contract will be executed in accordance with FAR 52.243-1, Changes-Fixed Price (AUG 1987), FAR 52.243-1, Changes-Fixed Price – Alternate II (APR 1984), and FAR 52.243-3, Changes—Time-and-

Materials or Labor Hours (Applies to CLINs 004 and 005 Only) (SEP 2000).