The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
TEAMS 3 Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) Questions and Answers
| 22 |
| DRFP M. 3 FACTOR 3 - The DRFP states "...If a contract reference is submitted that has an average annual dollar obligation lower than $8 million, that reference will be rated “Not Pertinent” and will not be considered in the overall pertinence rating. "… |
Does this mean that any submitted contract reference less than $8M in average annual dollar obligation will only be excluded from the overall size pertinence evaluation or from all areas of pertinence evaluation?
The final RFP will be updated to reflect any submitted contract reference less than $8M in average annual dollar obligation will be rated “Not Pertinent” in the size area of the pertinence evaluation.
| 23 |
| L.20 PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL - VOLUME III - Will the Government consider adjustment of the $8 million in average annual dollar obligations threshold noted in L.20 FACTOR-3 to $4 million, or consider allowing more than three submitted reference contracts while requiring a minimum number be at or above the $8 million threshold? Given the Small Business Set-Aside contract type, an $8 million threshold for all reference contracts may limit the number of relevant reference contracts a prime contractor would able to submit and thus will limit competition on the TEAMS3 procurement. |
| NASA has considered the points made in your question and determined that the $8M in annual dollar obligations is reasonable given size of this cost-type contract. In addition, see response to question 22. |
| 24 |
| H.23, H.25, L.16 B. (2) - The requirement for CMMI-DEV ML3 would seem to indicate that Software Engineering would be a major SOW element, or that Software Engineering would be a branch in LaRC’s organization. Please described why Software Engineering is critical to the contract and why CMMI-DEV ML3, which is required for human-rated software development, is required. |
| Class A, Human-Rated Space Flight Software, is a requirement within the scope of the contract and will be identified in individual TDNs/TOs as applicable. The contractor/subcontractor performing Class A software engineering requirements shall comply with NPR 7150.2B, NASA Software Engineering Requirements, which requires CMMI-DEV ML3 for this type of work. |
| 25 |
| L.6 - Is it a correct assumption that the response to the Government Property Management requirement should be provided in Volume II? |
| Yes, the response to the Government Property Management requirement is to be provided in Volume II. The final RFP will include this clarification. |
| 26 |
| Section I.1 (Clauses Incorporated by Reference) and Section L.1 (Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference) - Since this services procurement is a small business set-aside requiring the prime to perform more than 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel, we respectfully request that 52.215-23 (Limitations on Pass-Through Charges) contained in Section I.1 and 52.215-22 (Limitations on Pass-Through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort) contained in Section L.1 be removed from the solicitation. |
| In accordance with the FAR, the referenced provision and clause are required and will not be removed from the RFP. |
| 27 |
| Section L.1 (Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference) and Exhibit B (Contract Documentation and Reporting Requirements) and Attachment 7 (Safety and Health Plan Instructions) - NFS 1852.223-73 (Safety and Health Plan) states, in part (emphasis added): “The offeror shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan as part of its proposal.” |
Section I (Standard Contract Documentation Requirements), paragraph 15 (Safety and Health Plan) of Exhibit B states, in part: “The Contractor shall submit a Safety and Health Plan within 30 calendar days of contract effective date.”
The first sentence of Attachment 7 states, in part (emphasis added): “The Offeror shall submit a detailed safety and health plan with Volume II of its proposal.”
Since a Safety and Health Plan is not identified in the table in L.15 (Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions), paragraph (d), please confirm that a Safety and Health Plan is not required to be submitted with the proposal.
The Safety and Health Plan shall be submitted within 30 calendar days of contract effective date. The final RFP will include the following changes: NFS 1852.223-73, Safety and Health Plan, will be deleted from Section L and Attachment 7 will be revised to reflect the submission requirements of “within 30 calendar days of contract effective date”.
| 28 |
| Section L.6 (Government Property Management Information) - Section L.6 list numerous requirements that Offerors must identify, provide, and disclose. Where in the proposal shall this information be provided? |
| The response to the Government Property Management Information requirements are to be provided in Volume II. The final RFP will include this clarification. |
| 29 |
| Section L.15 (c) (Contract Offer (Volume II, Business Proposal), paragraph (2) (c) - Section L.15 (c) (2) (c) states the contract offer shall consist of an “Executed Section K.” As there are no signature requirements in Section K, please confirm that the mere submission of an offer constitutes “execution” of Section K. |
| Yes, submission of an offer constitutes “execution” of Section K. |
| 30 |
| Section L.15 (d) (Proposal Page Limitations), paragraph (3) - The Arial 11 font limitations for text in tables, graphics, captions, headers, and footers is very large, especially given the page limitations stated in Section L.15 (d) (1). We respectfully request a smaller font for tables, graphics, captions, headers, and footers. If the answer is no, then would you consider adding additional page count? |
| The final RFP will include an Arial 9 font size restriction for text in tables, graphics, captions, headers, and footers. |
| 31 |
| Sections L.16 and L.19 (Cost Accounting Standards) and Attachment 1 (Cost Forms) - Since this procurement is a small business set-aside, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) do not apply. Further, since CAS is a flow-down, if CAS does not apply to a prime contract, then we believe that it does not apply to any subcontracts under the prime contract, regardless of size. If so, and to that end, we respectfully request that the following language be removed from the RFP: |
1. The first two sentences of the second paragraph of L.16.A (Responsibility Determination), paragraph (2) (Other Business Systems), beginning with “If any significant subcontractor is subject to Cost Accounting Standards…”
2. The following parenthetical clause in the last sentence of the first paragraph in Section L.19 (Business Proposal – Volume II), paragraph (3)(a): “a statement on the status of the Cost Accounting Standards Disclosure Statement, whether the submitted subcontract proposal was developed in accordance with that Disclosure Statement, and the status of any unresolved Cost Accounting Standard issues”
3. All references to Cost Accounting Standards in Cost Form F – Systems of Attachment 1 (Cost Forms).
Since this is a small business set-aside, the prime contract is exempt from CAS and there is no flow-down to subcontracts. The final RFP will clarify the applicability of CAS disclosure requirements to significant subcontractors. (e.g., if a significant subcontractor is a large business subject to CAS, their proposal will need to disclose its CAS status)
| 32 |
| L.16.A (Responsibility Determination), paragraph (2) (Other Business Systems) - Please confirm that the last sentence of the second paragraph in L.16.A(2) should reference Cost Form ‘F’ instead of Cost Form ‘G.’ |
| The second paragraph in L.16 A (2) will reference Cost Form F in the final RFP. |
| 33 |
| Exhibit A (PWS), Section 4.10 (Program and Project Control Support) - The second paragraph in Section 4.10 is a duplicate of the last sentence in the first paragraph. Recommend deletion of the second paragraph. |
| The last sentence of the first paragraph will be deleted in the final RFP. |
| 34 |
| Attachment 1 (Cost Forms), Tab “Cost Form 1 - FAR 52.219-14” - Please verify that the reference to the “consultant plug number” in Row 23 is the SME Support for 4.13 in Section L.19(f). |
| Attachment 1 (Cost Forms), Tab “Cost Form 1 – FAR 52.219-14,” will be updated to account for SME labor in the final RFP. |
| 35 |
| Attachment 1 (Cost Forms), Tab “Cost Form 1 - FAR 52.219-14”, Instructions (rows 26-33) - Please clarify the instructions provided for Attachment 1 (Cost Forms), Tab “Cost Form 1 - FAR 52.219-14”, to identify where offerors should include the “consultant plug number” for inclusion into the “Total Cost of Contract Performance”. |
| The instructions provided for Attachment 1 (Cost Forms), Tab “Cost Form 1 – FAR 52.219-14,” will be updated in the final RFP. |
| 36 |
| H.23 Government-Furnished Information Technology Services - The note in between H.23 and H.24 appears to be associated with H.24. Please clarify. |
| The Note will be revised in the final RFP to clarify its application to H.24 and H.25. |
| 37 |
| K.1 Item (2) Small Business Size Standard - K.1 Item (2) specifies a 1000 employee size standard. According to the PWS and other information the preponderance of work is with space vehicles, missiles, and aircraft. Therefore we request a size standard associated with 541712 exception Aircraft, Aircraft Engine, and Engine Parts (1500 employees). |
| NASA has thoroughly reviewed the PWS and determined the appropriate NAICS code is 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology), with a small business size standard of 1,000 employees. No NAICS code exceptions apply. |
| 38 |
| M.3 - States that Mission Suitability will be evaluated per 1815.307-70 Adjectival ratings. Per http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/1815.htm#OLE_LINK3 there is no 1815.307-70. We are assuming you mean 1815.305? |
| The final RFP will include the correct reference to 1815.305. |
| 39 |
| L.20 Past Performance Proposal – Volume III, Factor 3, Item (a) and Item (b) - The DRFP L.20 Item (b) requires three citations for the prime, and further allows for citations from subsidiaries or affiliates (L.20 Item (a)). Please confirm that the requirement for three citations is a combined total for the prime and their subsidiaries or affiliates, versus three for each entity. |
| The final RFP will clarify the requirement for the three citations is a combined total for the prime and their subsidiaries or affiliates. |
| 40 |
| L.20 Past Performance Proposal – Volume III, Factor 3, Item (b) - The DRFP requires three relevant citations for each significant subcontractor. We request that the requirement be changed to at least one and no more than three citations for each significant subcontractor. |
| The final RFP will clarify that the number of relevant citations submitted for significant subcontractors should be no more than three. |