prod.nais.nasa.gov · web viewthe 8 on-site contractors identified in the pre-solicitation ... in...

Attachment VIIndustry Questions

And Answers ThroughApril 08, 2011

TEAMS 2 DRFP Industry Questions and NASA ResponsesNew Questions/Responses in Blue Text

(as of February 10, 2011, Revised March 3, 2011, Revised March 14, 2011, Revised March 28, 2011, Revised April 1, 2011 and Revised April 8, 2011)

Question Response1 L.12 indicates that the 15 page Organizational Conflict of Interest

Plan is an attachment to Volume I and may be submitted in a separate binder, yet L.15 indicates that it is MGMT 4 and is to be contained within Subfactor 1 of the Technical Proposal. Although it is clear that the 15 pages are not part of the 45 page allocation for Volume I, its placement is not clear. Should the OCI plan be in the body of Volume I or included in the Attachment Binder?

The OCI Plan shall be submitted as an Attachment to Volume I.

2 The way the DRFP reads, MGMT 4 of the Technical Volume is an OCI plan. Attachment 1 of the Technical Volume is also an OCI plan with a 15 page limitation. Could the Government please clarify if the content of Attachment 1 is sufficient to answer MGMT 4 and that MGMT 4 is intended to point to Attachment 1?

Attachment 1 of the Technical Volume is the OCI Plan with a 15 page limitation submitted in response to MGMT 4. The content of Attachment 1 is sufficient to answer MGMT 4 and MGMT 4 is intended to point to Attachment 1.

3 L.12 indicates that all text is to be no smaller than 12 point type, “including graphs, charts, tables.” While 12 point is an easy to read size for text, tables, charts, and graphics are much harder to read with such a large type. Please consider allowing text for graphics, tables, and charts to be no smaller than 9 point.

The Government will maintain the 12 point font type (including graphs, charts, tables etc.); however, refer to the Final Solicitation for any changes.

4 Paragraph L.12.(b), could the Government allow a nine point font for graphics and tables?


5 Can the government reduce the font size limitation on tables and figures to 8 or 10 point font size?


6 The DRFP prescribes a 12-pt font for the entirety of the proposal The Government will maintain the 12 point font type (including graphs,

Page 1 of 24



response. Would the Government consider allowing bidders to use a 10-pt font for graphics and tables? This would allow offerors to use graphics and tables more effectively to illustrate key aspects of their offer and technical/management approaches.

charts, tables etc.); however, refer to the Final Solicitation for any changes.

7 L.12 indicates that Title pages and Tables of Contents are excluded from page counts. May we also assume that other non-content pages, such as Tables of Acronyms, Compliance Matrices, and Transmittal Letters are also excluded?

Offerors should refer to Section L.12 of the final RFP for proposal page limitations and not assume that other documents are excluded. Section L.12 will be updated in the final RFP to exclude the following: tab dividers with no proposal content, title/cover pages, tables of contents, and list of figures/acronyms.

8 L.14 requires one original, 8 hard copies, and 9 electronic copies of the proposal. Does the Government require the same number of copies for all Volumes and attachments?

The Government requires the same number of copies for all Volumes and attachments.

9 Are the Program Manager resume and key position descriptions included in the Volume 1 page count limitation?

The Program Manager resume and key position descriptions are included in the page count.

10 The page count for the technical volume is currently set at 45 pages. Given the scope and complexity of the work making up this contract, would the Government consider increasing the page count to 60 pages to allow Contractors to more fully detail their approaches to executing this contract and the innovations they propose to bring to the contract?

The Government has reconsidered the Volume I (Technical) page limit and has increased it from 45 pages to 55 pages; however, refer to the Final Solicitation for any changes.

11 The draft RFP requires binders to have pages which are consecutively numbered. Volume II, though, has contractual documents, etc, to be included before costs. Can cost be a completely separate volume, so its pages/numbering can be done independently?

The Cost information and spreadsheets shall be included in Volume II. However, the pages/numbering can be independent of the other information requested in Volume II.

12 L.12 indicates that the Quality certification information is limited to 10 pages and is to be included as an Attachment to Volume I, yet L.14(e) states that it is to be included in Volume II. Where should

The Quality and Government Property information shall be submitted as part of Volume II. Refer to the Final Solicitation for the changes.

Page 2 of 24



this appear? 13 Is the Quality Information requested as part of Volume II in Section

L.14.e the same as the Quality Information requested as 10 page Attachment to Volume I? If they are different, how so?

See response to Question 12.

14 Are the quality certification (ISO/AS/CMMI) requirements applicable to subcontractors?

ISO 9001/AS9100 - If a prime contractor is certified to ISO 9001/AS9100 they are required to control the work that they subcontract to ensure that the work performed meets the standards requirements or they jeopardize their registration. The method in which a prime contractor chooses to do that is its call, but the Prime contractor must ensure that the provided products/services are developed in compliance with the requirements of ISO /AS, as appropriate.

CMMI - The CMMI requirement applies to the company which performs the software development and management. If the subcontractor develops the software, the subcontractor must be CMMI rated.

15 Exhibit B -Contract Documentation and Reporting Requirements indicates, on page 12, item 27, that CMMI Appraisal Results are due NLT 30 days after contract effective date, yet L.14 (e) II and H.15 require that Offerors commit to achieving CMMI Development Capability Level 2 within nine months of contract effective date. Given this disparity, we recommend changing the deliverable date of Exhibit B Item 27 to NLT nine months of contract effective date.

Exhibit B, Item 27, will be changed to reflect that CMMI appraisal results are due within nine months of contract effective date.

16 Attachment IV Estimated Direct Labor Hours includes two Notes indicating additional hours in the Prog/Proj Support area and the LASER BPAs area. Are these estimated hours to be considered in building our proposed staffing mix or do these represent plans for

The additional hours associated with consultants, technical experts and sub contractors are provided as plug numbers that are to be used in the cost proposal. However, an offeror may propose a change to the plug numbers as long as the information is supported and consistent

Page 3 of 24



future usage that we do not bid against? with its management approach for providing innovative, efficient and effective implementation of contract requirements described in Volume I (See DRFP Section L.16(4)f). Refer to the Final Solicitation for the changes. Attachment IV is still under revision (see response to Question 20).

17 The labor categories identified in Attachment IV have some differences to the labor classifications listed in Exhibit I. Please clarify. An example would be the s/w developer category is listed, however, there is no s/w developer category in Exhibit I.

Attachment IV and Exhibit I will be modified so that both will have the same labor classifications.

18 In Attachment IV - Estimated Direct Labor Hours, are the additional hours shown in yellow already factored into the totals that are displayed or in addition to?

No, the additional hours shown in yellow are not included in the Base Mission direct labor hours.

19 Could the Government provide more definition on the amount (in labor and ODC costs) and time of the transfer of the Langley Research Center Analysis, Systems Engineering and Research (LASER) Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) NNL09AA00Z and NNL09AA01Z into the TEAMS 2 contract?

Question was clarified via email on February 9: Could the Government provide the existing Langley Research Center Analysis, System Engineering and Research (LASER) Blanket Purchase Agreements that are likely to be transferred to the TEAMS contract as well as the nominal labor categories and hours.

The Government will post the LASER BPAs, task orders issued against the BPAs and crosswalk of the LASER task orders to TEAMS 2 SOW, in addition to the nominal hours and labor categories already identified in Attachment IV.

20 Comment Part 1: Point 4 of the Draft RFP Cover Letter states: NASA’s current plan is to transition work presently performed under the Langley Research Center Analysis, Systems Engineering and Research (LASER) Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)

Response Part 1: The LASER requirements are already incorporated into the Statement of Work and Attachment IV, Direct Labor Estimates. LASER requirements that migrate prior to BPA expiration (Years 1 and 2 of the TEAMS 2 contract), will be issued via Task Orders under CLIN 002

Page 4 of 24



NNL09AA00Z and NNL09AA01Z into the TEAMS 2 contract if there is a continuing need for the work. The Direct Labor estimates provided in Attachment IV of the DRFP include estimates for LASER work that is expected to be accomplished under the TEAMS 2 Statement of Work. The LASER work will transition to the TEAMS 2 contract at expiration of the LASER BPAs. It is possible that some work currently performed under the LASER BPAs could migrate to the TEAMS 2 contract during years one and two of the TEAMS 2 contract. Reference Section L of the RFP for Cost Instructions. Does NASA intend to incorporate Point 4 above formally into the RFP, or is Point 4 above merely meant to provide an informal heads-up?

Comment Part 2: In case Point 4 above will be formally incorporated into the RFP, does NASA intend to formulate this clause as an irrevocable commitment [to transition the LASER work to the TEAMS 2 contract at expiration of the LASER BPAs], or does NASA intend to defer the final decision and maintain the option to adjust NASA’s procurement strategy to the prevailing environment at that time (based on issues such as OCI, Small Business goals, Performance, Surge needs, Exercising of TEAMS 2 Options, etc).

(IDIQ). Attachment IV will be revised to show estimates associated with LASER requirements for Base Mission Support only for TEAMS 2 contract Years 3 to 5.

NASA will include the language cited above in the cover letter for the final RFP. No additional contract language is necessary to convey NASA's current plan

21 Could the Government please provide a detailed list of direct labor on TEAMS related task orders during the last five years by labor category, labor category rates, and hours, yearly?

The Government will not be able to provide a detailed list of direct labor on the current TEAMS related task orders. Attachment IV provides direct labor estimates. The Offeror shall propose a workforce based on its management and technical approach to meeting the SOW requirements.

22 Paragraph L.15, would the Government be willing to exclude the The Government has increased the page count for Volume I (see

Page 5 of 24



Total Compensation Plan from the page count within Volume I? response to Question 10) to allow Offerors to sufficiently address the Total Compensation Plan. Therefore, the Total Compensation Plan will not be excluded from the page count in Volume I.

23 Given the importance of compliance with the Ostensible Contracting rule, recommend the insertion of a paragraph within Section H which reminds participants of the following: 1) evaluation of the amount of work to be performed by each party (reference FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting); evaluation of the proposal for clearly defined separate roles for proposed prime and subcontractors; and the importance of compliance with the Small Business Administration’s Seven Factor Test.

The RFP contains the Limitation on Subcontracting clause; it is incumbent upon offerors to comply with this clause and the SBA rules. No further language is necessary.

24 L.15.MGMT 4 states “This response shall include: (A) a list of all contracts currently held with NASA as a prime contractor or subcontractor and brief description of work”. Does the list of contracts include the Offeror only, the Offeror and Significant Subcontractors or the Offeror and all subcontractors?

The OCI plan must identify the offeror’s approach to identifying, mitigating and/or avoiding OCIs and personal conflicts of interest that may arise for the offeror and each significant subcontractor. Included in the requirement of L.15 MGMT 4 is the requirement that the Offeror’s approach for ensuring the processes and procedures contained in the plan are applied to each of the Offeror’s subcontractors and/or consultants. The manner in which the Offeror complies with these requirements is left to the Offeror.

25 Can the government provide an estimate on the total dollar amounts allocated for CLIN 001 and Option CLIN 003?

No.

Page 6 of 24



26

a) Is the prime contractor required to hold a Top Secret Security clearance for this contract or is it acceptable for a subcontractor to have Top Secret clearance.

b) If the prime is required to hold Top Secret clearance, can there be a phase-in period post-award?

Part a): The contract calls for a Top Secret clearance, therefore, the prime contractor must have a TS Facility clearance. A subcontractor may have a Top Secret clearance as well, but, the prime still must have a facility clearance equal to or greater than what the contract requires.

Part b): See response to question 63.

27 Do contractors supporting SACD- Advanced Aerospace Systems Branch have to possess a secret clearance?

The 8 on-site contractors identified in the Pre-solicitation Conference SACD organization chart (Slide number 6) require a Secret clearance; however, not all 8 contractors support the TEAMS contract. The on-site contractors referenced on this chart are distributed across multiple on-site contracts. See DD Form 254 for security clearance requirements.

28 Can the Government please clarify the definition of contract effective date?

Contract effective date means the date agreed upon by the parties for beginning of the period of performance under the contract (NFS 1804.170).

29 In Evaluation Criteria URTA 1, does the Government intend that the contractor should identify no more than 10 risks for the entire Statement of Work or each individual SOW element?

URTA 1 states that “the Offeror shall demonstrate its technical understanding of the requirements by identifying, prioritizing and explaining no more than the ten most significant technical risks associated with performing the SOW requirements . . .” The offeror shall identify no more than 10 risks, therefore, it is up to the Offeror to address applicable risks.

30 In the Section L instructions for the URTA 1 element of Subfactor 2 (Technical Understanding), Offerors are to identify and provide mitigation for the ten most significant “technical risks” associated with performing the TEAMS II SOW. For an engineering/technical services contract such as TEAMS II, a broad interpretation of the

The Offerors shall address risks identified in the RFP, Sections L and M, under MGMT 1 and URTA 1. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to identify those risks that it determines applicable to subfactors MGMT 1 and URTA 1.

Page 7 of 24



term “technical risks” could include risks that are more of an administrative and programmatic nature, such as forms of “subcontract management risks” and “risks associated with hiring key technical personnel in a timely manner.” On the other hand, a more narrow and purist interpretation of “technical risk” may exclude these administrative/programmatic type risks and exclusively focus on truly technical risks, such as “the risk that a high flow nitrogen pump design doesn’t meet specifications.” Please provide clarification of the types of risks Offerors are to identify – the broader interpretation that includes programmatic and administrative risks, or the narrower interpretation that focuses exclusively on engineering/technical risks.

31 NASA defines significant subcontractors as those with contracts over $12.5 Million in value. Is this $12.5M per year, for the first 3 or 5 years?

The $12.5M is for five years.

32 Section L.17 requires a list of the firms that will submit past performance questionnaires, along with the written consent of proposed subcontractors to allow NASA to discuss the subcontractors' past performance with the Offeror. Are the list and/or the written consent letters included in the page count for Volume III?

The list of firms and written consent letters are included in the page count.

33 The current limitation of three past performance questionnaires per offeror severely inhibits small business offerors’ capabilities to demonstrate the true breadth and depth of their experience on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to TEAMS 2. We understand that the Government intends to evaluate offerors’ past

The Government will revise the language in Section L.17(3) to “Each Offeror shall select up to five customers and up to 3 customers for each significant subcontractor ….” to clarify its intent. Please refer to the Final Solicitation for the changes.

Page 8 of 24



performance comprehensively across the scope of their past performance, and we feel that small business offerors can demonstrate their capabilities much more effectively and meaningfully through a broader base of past performance citations. Would the Government consider increasing the number of PPQs for prime contractors from three to six?

34 The Section L instructions for the Business Volume include information such as length of phase-in and phase-in cost allocation, and the Past Performance volume includes phase-in information for each formal past performance citation, indicating that phase-in is an important consideration, but there is no Phase-In Plan subfactor identified as a proposal deliverable. Does the Government anticipate the addition of a Phase-In Plan as an attachment to the Technical Volume? If the Government does intend to include a Phase-In Plan, we recommend a 10-page limit.

There is no Phase-In subfactor in this solicitation and a Phase-In Plan is not requested. If an Offeror chooses to propose Phase-In costs, the costs shall be proposed as a firm-fixed price and detailed and supported in Cost Form Attachment IIIa. See Section L.16(4)c. “Phase-In”.

35 In Section I.7, NASA 8% goal, would NASA include veteran-owned small business in this category as well?

No. Veteran-owned small businesses are not addressed in this NASA clause.

36 Will the final RFP specify a requirement for a proposal validity period?

The final solicitation will identify a 180 day offeror acceptance period.

37 Can the RFP be made available in a word format to help Offerors build their subcontract agreements?

The RFP will be posted in PDF and Microsoft Word 2007.

38 L.12(c) states “It is preferred that all electronic spreadsheets be provided in one file with as many workbooks as necessary.” The RFP includes several spreadsheet files: Exhibit H, Attachment 1, Attachment III and IIIa, and Attachment IV. Is it the Governments desire that all of these files be combined into a single spreadsheet or is the Government seeking to minimize the number of

Each of the Attachments and Exhibit H is a separate workbook (file) and shall be kept as separate files. Additional worksheets may be added to the workbooks (files) if needed to support the cost proposal. Refer to the final RFP for revised instructions.

Page 9 of 24



Contractor-supplied ancillary files?39 The CF Worksheets in Attachment III include columns to indicate

labor rates at the third WBS level (WYEs, Hours, Labor Rate, Cost) and summary columns at the second WBS level (WYEs, Hours, Cost). Since CF B1-Acoustics has only a single element, the worksheet appears to only include columns for WYEs, Hours, and Costs; there is no place to indicate the Labor Rate. Will the Government be adding additional columns to capture the third level information for CF B1-Acoustics or would the Government prefer that we only show the summary data?

The Cost Form has been corrected to include a column for Labor Rates and is included in this amendment to DRFP.

40 Is it the responsibility of the subcontractor to propose all or a subset of the labor categories identified in Exhibit I? Can the contractor propose labor categories outside of this list?

Offerors may propose labor categories other than those identified in Exhibit I. Offerors shall provide a description of each labor category not identified in Exhibit I, which will be incorporated into Exhibit I upon contract award. Refer to the final RFP for revised instructions.

41 Section L.16.b indicates there will be a 45 day Phase-In, while Exhibit K and Attachment IIIA assume a 90-day Phase-In. What is the correct Phase-In length?

The correct Phase-in period is 45 days. Attachment IIIa has been corrected to read 45 days.

42 If subcontract is <$12.5M, how much (if any) detail do they need to provide (and to whom)? Can they provide detail (of required) separately to NASA?

Subcontractors <$12.5M are not required to provide details to the Government for review. Offerors shall complete Attachment III, Cost Form E, identifying cost, fee and price for each subcontractor proposing less than $12.5M.

43 Does the government require all subcontractor teaming agreements to verify work percentages for the cost submission?

Offerors shall meet the requirements in FAR 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting” clause. See 13 CFR Part 125.6 paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(2) for information regarding the 50% rule.

44 Will the excel templates provided in the final RFP be changed by NASA to meet requirements otherwise (12 font, 1 inch margins) or

Offerors shall not use a font smaller than 8 point for the excel cost

Page 10 of 24



must offerors adjust these accordingly? templates (Attachment III, Attachment IIIa and Exhibit H). Margins are not applicable to the templates. Refer to the final RFP for revised instructions.

45 Where in the pricing or cost forms do you identify labor for program management and administration?

See DRFP Section L.16 (d) paragraph 4 and (e) paragraph 2.

46 Will a copy of the cost workshop slides be made available? Yes, the slides will be uploaded with the other slides from the pre-solicitation conference.

47 DCAA does not typically approve accounting systems for small businesses. What types of information should be provided?

FAR 16.301-3 requires that a contractor's accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost-reimbursement contract. Offerors must have an accounting system that is capable of accurately collecting, segregating and recording costs by contract and by individual task order. Offerors shall provide evidence of an adequate accounting system as determined by the cognizant administrative office for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. The Offeror can provide a pre-award survey, any DCAA audit reports discussing the adequacy of the accounting system or any other current information from the cognizant administrative office.

48 Can the Prime include Subcontractor proposals in its proposal? Yes. Significant Subcontractor proposals may be submitted by the Prime Offeror in separate binders and cross referenced to the Offeror’s Volume II Table of Contents. The separate binder shall clearly identify the significant subcontractor.

49 For Exhibit H, Subcontractors’ fully burdened rates shall include its subcontractor fee. Won’t this result in fee on fee?

Draft RFP Section G, Clause G.14 addresses establishment of award fee for task orders.

50 Does the ODC plug number for Consultants factor into the subcontracts; are consultants considered subcontractors?

For the purposes of FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, paragraph (b)(1), consultants are defined as subcontractors and are not

Page 11 of 24



“employees of the concern.” Also, see definition for subcontract in FAR part 44.101.

The following questions were received after February 8, 2011:51. Is it required that the EMIS reside on NASA servers? If so, will the

Government provide any “backbone” licenses for database management (e.g., Oracle, SQL Server, etc.), web portal (e.g., Sharepoint, Vignette), and/or other related applications?

Yes, the EMIS System will reside on NASA servers. The Government will not provide licenses. The details of the hardware and software environment, under which the system will be developed, will be provided in the RFP.

52. Reference PWS 3.2: “The Contractor shall develop and maintain documentation that reflects the current and future operational status of the Contractor’s EMIS, including both Contractor-provided and Government furnished applications.” What “Government furnished applications” are to be included in the EMIS?

The details of the hardware and software environment, under which the system will be developed, will be provided in the RFP.

53. Reference DRFP paragraph L.16.(4).d: “The Offeror may propose different labor categories and hours from those identified in Attachment IV, but the proposed labor categories and hours must be supported and consistent with its management approach…”

Reference NASA Response to TEAMS 2 Industry Day Question #16: “The additional hours associated with consultants, technical experts and sub contractors are provided as plug numbers that are to be used in the cost proposal. However, an offeror may propose a change to the plug numbers as long as the information is supported and consistent with its management approach …”

Question: We understand NASA’s desire not to inhibit innovation by prescribing that all bidders price the same fixed number of labor hours, labor categories, and ODCs, but in our experience allowing

Response: As identified in Section M, the SSA will select the Offeror that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered. Mission Suitability, Cost and Past Performance will be of essentially equal importance and all evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. Since we recognize that it would be difficult for Offerors to propose costs associated with other direct costs, the DRFP contains “plug numbers” for other direct costs and states that the offeror shall provide a detailed explanation of any additional ODC costs that are not included in the Government specified ODC plug numbers (Section L.16(4)f).

The RFP will also state that any changes to the Government specified ODC plug numbers must be supported and be consistent with Volume I.

Page 12 of 24



for deviations from plug numbers creates significant potential for cost “gaming.” For a contract such as TEAMS 2 it is very difficult for non-Government personnel, particularly non-incumbent contractors, to anticipate NASA’s view of contract workload details five years into the future, and thus to prove or disprove that the job can be done with fewer resources. To ensure fair competition and “apples to apples” comparison of competing proposals, what standards will be used to evaluate the “supporting information” submitted with bids offering a lesser skill mix, fewer labor hours, and/or lower ODCs?

The estimated direct labor hours (Attachment IV) and plug numbers for ODCs are provided for estimating and evaluation purposes only. If an Offeror chooses to propose its own direct labor hours and skill mixes, it should also provide adequate rationale to support those numbers in light of its technical proposal. Cost realism analysis will be performed to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. Cost realism analysis will be used to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. If proposed resources do not support the Offeror’s technical approach, Mission Suitability scores may be adversely affected and result in a cost realism adjustment under the cost factor.

If the SEB determines that a proposal does not adequately demonstrate that the offeror will be able to perform the work with the resources proposed, the SEB may identify a weakness under a Mission Suitability subfactor requiring a cost realism adjustment. Each SEB recommended cost realism adjustment will be provided to the price analyst for inclusion in the probable cost calculation. Therefore, proposals offering a lesser skill mix or fewer labor hours than identified in DRFP Attachment 4 or lower ODCs than the government provided ODC plug numbers, will be rated accordingly under the Mission Suitability Factor and if not substantiated sufficiently, may result in weaknesses to the Mission Suitability factor and corresponding probable cost adjustments.

Page 13 of 24



54. Page 63 of 91 at the top of the page, reference is made to clause 52.219-23, Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment. Procurement Information Circular (PIC) dated March 2009, that a class deviation was issued to suspend the use of Price Evaluation Adjustments because it was ruled arbitrary and capricious.

The language under PIC 09-07 applies when the acquisition is not set aside or will be accomplished under 8(a) program. Because this is 100% set aside for small business not under the 8(a) program, the PIC is not applicable and the clause is properly included in the RFP .

55. In the response provided for Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 you indicated that the font size would remain 12 point. However, you stated that we should refer to the final solicitation for any changes. During the preparation on a proposal page count and allocation of space is critical. The font size plays a significant part in the layout of the proposal, especially the graphics, charts and figures. As the font size will determine the amount of material, the orientation and space of these items, it would be helpful to know if you intend to change the font size for these items, if it changes with the release of the final RFP we will have to change all these items.

The Government will maintain the 12 point font type (including graphs, charts, tables etc.).

56. Section L.7(d) requires “… all services subcontractors (1) with proposed cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed price type subcontracts having a total potential value in excess of $500,000 and (2) … provide as part of their proposals the information identified in (a) through (c) of this provision.” Given that the subcontractors with value less than $12.5M are not necessary to submit separate Business Proposals, should this dollar threshold be $12.5M instead of $500,000?

The threshold of $500K is dictated by NASA FAR clause and cannot be changed.

57. When considering the “size” element of “size, scope, and complexity” of subcontracts for Past Performance, is the Government referring to the size of the Offeror’s contract or the contract under which an Offeror is working? As an example, if I

The Government will consider “the Offeror’s as well as each significant subcontractor’s past performance information.” To answer your question, the Government will consider the size of your subcontract (i.e., $10M based on your example).

Page 14 of 24



have a $10M subcontract of a $250M contract would the Government consider the size to be $10M or $250M?

58. In the worksheet Cost Form H, the columns are marked “Total Labor Hours and Costs by Discipline for CY”, yet the individual columns are only for hours and WYEs. We recommend the headings be changed to Total labor Hours and WYEs by Discipline for CY, or similar.

CF H will be revised to reflect Total Labor Hours and WYEs by Discipline for CY in the final RFP.

59. Attachment IV shows the Government’s labor estimate organized by discipline. It also includes hours for LASER BPAs and two Notes that indicate additional usage. In preparing our cost proposals, it is not clear how these three items are to be used: a. For the Note in Prog/Proj Support, you indicate 36,800 Consultant/Technical Expert hours. Are these hours contained in the Consultants plug number given in L.16 4.f, or should they be included in the labor hours of Attachment III, form CF B10-Program Project Support? b. The row LASER BPAs indicate a significant number of hours, yet there is no form or rows in Attachment III corresponding to this work. According Amendment 1, the answer to Question 20, these hours have been incorporated in the disciplines already. If so, the inclusion of the LASER BPAs row would, in effect, double count those hours. Are these hours to be separately considered? If so, where should they be addressed? c. The Note in the LASER BPAs row does not contain language that indicates that it only applies to LASER BPAs. Are these additional subcontractor hours limited to the LASER BPAs and are they covered contained in the Consultants plug number given in L.16 4.f .

Attachment IV LASER BPAs has been revised to: remove all IDIQ hours from LASER direct labor estimates; to move all LASER subcontract hours to LASER direct labor hours; and to further refine labor categories. The LASER IDIQ hours are already included in the total maximum value of CLIN 002 and CLIN 004 (see DRFP Clause B.4).

a) The 36,800 hours noted in Prog/Proj Support for Consultants/Technical Experts were the basis for generating the Consultants plug numbers given in L.16 4.f, table “ODCs for Base Mission:”. The hours should not be included in labor hours of Attachment III, CF B10-Program Project Support. Summary Cost Form A will be revised to add a row for Consultants hours (equivalent to the Consultants plug numbers in L.16 4.f).

b) The hours associated with the LASER BPAs are not included in the estimated direct labor hours for the 12 Disciplines shown in Attachment IV. The LASER BPA hours will not be broken down into disciplines; however, a crosswalk that maps the LASER tasks to the disciplines will be provided. For costs associated with LASER, additional cost forms will be provided in the final RFP, see CF B13 and CF A1.

c) Attachment IV has been modified to move LASER subcontractor

Page 15 of 24



hours to LASER direct labor hours. Since the LASER subcontractor hours were not included in the plug numbers for ODCs, this change has no impact on the ODC plug numbers.

60. In the TEAMS II DRFP Amendment-1 “Answers to Questions”, your response to Question-20 Part-1 states “The LASER requirements are already incorporated into the Statement of Work and Attachment IV, Direct labor Estimates. LASER requirements that migrate prior to BPA expiration (Years 1 and 2 of the TEAMS 2 contract), will be issued via Task Orders under CLIN 002 (IDIQ). Attachment IV will be revised to show estimates associated with LASER requirements for Base Mission Support only for TEAMS 2 contract Years 3 to 5.”Question-a) Will “LASER BPAs” be removed as a Discipline in Attachment IV since “it” is not a discipline in the same sense as the other 12 disciplines listed?Question-b) Will the hours associated with the LASER BPAs that remain in the revised Attachment IV for Years 3 to 5, be put into (i.e., spread across) the “hours” specifications for the 12 Disciplines or will they appear in a Row dedicated to “Laser BPAs”?Question-c) If the answer to question-b is that the LASER BPAs hours will appear in a dedicated Row for LASER BPAs, then will a worksheet for LASER BPAs be added to the Cost Forms file (e.g. will there be a worksheet CF 13 for LASER BPAs)? If not, in what worksheet should the hours be priced?

a) LASER is composed of two BPAs and is not a separate discipline; it is listed separately because the work will migrate from the existing BPAs to the TEAMS 2 contract. The LASER BPA hours will not be broken down into disciplines; however, a crosswalk that maps the LASER tasks to the disciplines will be provided in the final RFP.

b) The direct labor hours associated with the work migrating from the LASER BPAs will remain in a separate row dedicated to LASER BPAs.

c) For costs associated with LASER, additional cost forms will be provided in the final RFP, see CF B13 and CF A1.

61. The “Note” shown in Attachment IV in the “Prog/Proj Support” row is clearly addressing additional hours for Prog/Proj Support because you used the words “…to be utilized by this discipline each

Attachment IV has been revised to include all the LASER subcontractor hours in the LASER direct labor hours for the Base Mission CLINs of this contract. See answers to questions 59 and 60 for additional details.

Page 16 of 24



year”. But the Note in the “LASER BPAs” row does not include such language. Should this second Note be brought outside of the “LASER BPAs” row, to below the entire Spreadsheet, thus implying that the additional subcontractor hours are to be utilized across the first 12 disciplines? Are the additional hours specified in this second Note, entirely associated with the “LASER BPAs” work that will migrate to this contract, or are they associated both with the LASER BPA work that will migrate and with Non-“Laser BPA” work across the first 12 Disciplines?

62. DD Form 254 Section 5 has the NO block marked which states that this is NOT a follow-on contract. If that is correct, how will the TEAMS2 contractor receive classified material for continuity of work purposes?

For the purposes of completing the DD 254 this is not considered a Follow-On Contract. For the DD 254, block 5, a Follow-On Contract is a contract that is let to the same contractor or subcontractor for the same item or services as a preceding contract. For specific information regarding facility clearances and continuity of work, please refer to http://www.dss.mil/isp/odaa/documents/nispom2006-5220.pdf.

63. Our interpretation of FAR 52.204-2 and all referenced clauses, DD Form 441, DD Form 254, NFS 1852.204-75 and NFS 1852.204-76; it appears that the contractor awarded the contract can be sponsored by the Government for their Top Secret clearance post award. Is this accurate?

Your interpretation is accurate. A contractor or prospective contractor cannot apply for its own facility clearance. A procuring activity of the Government, or cleared contractor in the case of subcontracting, may request the clearance when a definite, classified procurement need has been established. For additional information, please refer to http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac _clear/per_sec_clear_proc_faqs.html .

64. Section L.14 (c) (3): Offerors are required to complete all shaded areas, there doesn’t appear to be any shaded areas for completion. In addition, there are a number of TBDs throughout the RFP, some require completion by the offeror and some by the Government. Please clarify where are the shaded areas in Sections B-H and Part II, Contract Clauses and also which TBDs require completion by the offeror?

Offerors shall complete all TBDs marked “TBD by the KTR”. The reference to “shaded areas” will be removed in the final RFP.

Offerors shall complete all placeholders identified by “****” in this solicitation

Page 17 of 24

http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/per_sec_clear_proc_faqs.html

http://www.dss.mil/isp/odaa/documents/nispom2006-5220.pdf



65. Section G.14 (b): The clause makes reference to “applying a fixed amount of (TBD)” should this state fixed percentage instead of fixed amount?

The final solicitation will be changed to state “The maximum award fee amount available to the Contractor on each task order will be established by applying a fixed amount of fee, based on a maximum percentage to be determined at time of contract award, to the total estimated cost of each task order agreed upon by both parties at the time of issuance.”

66. Section L.14 (a): The instructions require the Offerors to submit 9 electronic copies of the proposal. Please clarify if the Government is requesting each electronic copy (CD) to include the entire proposal submission or each CD copy contains a copy of each proposal volume, thereby requiring 27 CDs (3 volumes x 9 copies).

Each CD shall include the entire proposal submission, including all volumes (i.e., 9 CDs per Offeror).

67. What is the anticipated number of task orders that will be issued during the 45 day phase in period under the IDIQ portion?

The Government does not anticipate that any task orders will be issued during the Phase-In period.

68. Attachment IV contains hours for consultants/technical experts in the Prog/Proj support (36,800 hours) and Laser BPA sections (year 1 – 6,500, year 2-6,500, year 3 – 19,800, year 4 – 26,500, and year 5 – 26,500 hours) that are highlighted yellow. The NASA response for a DRFP industry question indicated that those hours are not included in the Base mission direct labor hours. Are the plug numbers for consultants (listed in section L.16.f) factoring in the costs for those hours? Or are the Offerors required to price them out?

Attachment IV has been revised to include all the LASER subcontractor hours in the LASER direct labor hours for the Base Mission CLINs of this contract. See answers to questions 59 and 60 for additional details.

69. How will the Government determine whether the work will go under LITES or TEAMS 2?

NASA will make the determination based on the experience and expertise required to optimally accomplish the work within the scope of the respective contract.

Page 18 of 24



70. Reference Section L, L.15, Subfactor 1, MGMT 2 (3): The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan which demonstrates the ability to attract, retain and motivate employees. The plan shall be compliant with FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees” and NFS 1852.231-71, “Determination of Compensation Reasonableness”. Significant subcontractors shall submit individual compensation plans if their employees are not covered by the prime Offeror's compensation plan.

Are the compensation plans of the significant subcontractors included in the page count for Volume I as well as the offeror’s compensation plan.

Yes - compensation plans of the significant subcontractors are included in the page count for Volume I.

71. Section L.15, MGMT 2 (3), Page 79 of 91 – The RFP states: “The plan shall be compliant with FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees” and NFS 1852.231-71, “Determination of Compensation Reasonableness”. NFS 1852.231-71 states: “The total compensation plan shall include the salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs proposed for each of these categories of labor”.

Does the government prefer (1) offerors place the salaries/wages information in the TCP as a part of the Mission Suitability Volume or (2) place the salaries/wages information in the Cost Volume with a reference in the TCP pointing to the pertinent section of the Cost Volume (since pricing information is not typically allowed or desired in Mission Suitability volumes)?

Since the Technical Proposal is not to contain cost/price information (RFP Section L.11), place all cost/price related information (i.e. salaries/wages) in the Cost/Price Volume with a reference in the total compensation plan pointing to the pertinent section of the Cost/Price Volume.

Page 19 of 24



72. Reference:1. Section L.7(a) page 68: Indicates that the TCP must be

submitted by all subcontractors (who meet criteria in either L.7(d) or L.15 MGMT 2 (3)) shall include the salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs proposed for each of these categories of labor.

2. The answer to Question 70, that states that the TCPs of significant subcontractors will be in the Technical Proposal Volume and included the page count of that Volume.

Question: Salaries/wages are proprietary data and not normally divulged to the prime contractor. Usually subcontractor TCPs are submitted separately in their Cost Proposal. To comply with the RFP instructions, is it acceptable to omit the subcontractor proprietary salaries/wages data from the TCP discussion in the Technical Proposal Volume and include it in the Subcontractor Cost Volume without having the information count against the page total in the Technical Proposal Volume.

See response to Question 71.

73 Please attach the applicable Wage Determination to this contract? As set forth in Title 29 CFR Part 4.113(a)(3), the Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply to contracts for services which are performed essentially by bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees, with the use of service employees being only a “minor factor” in the performance of the contract. The principal purpose of the TEAMS 2 contract is for support of research and technology development by a workforce largely composed of highly skilled and specialized engineers and scientists. Therefore, the SCA is not applicable and a Wage Determination is not attached.

Page 20 of 24



74 Please clarify which positions will be covered under the wage determination?

See response to question 73.

75 Are the “Additional 36,800 hours of Consultants/Technical Experts” mentioned in Attachment IV included in the $51,713,000 Consultants ODC plug number included in RFP Section L.16.f?

Yes. For additional information see response to question 59.

76 Please provide a more detailed composition of the $88M IDIQ Plug Number?

Should the contractor assume it has the same composition as the Base staffing? The question is the general composition concerning the work structure. There is general guidance that we can propose slightly different plug-in numbers but we have to justify the change. Without understanding the assumptions and content of this number, it will not be possible to assess and either accept or recommend a different value.

RFP Section B.4 “Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract Value/Limitations” identifies the total maximum values for CLIN 002 and Option CLIN 004 and $88M is the total estimated maximum amount for the IDIQ portion of the contract (CLIN 002/Option CLIN 004).

RFP Section L.16 (5) “IDIQ Schedule of Rates” provides cost instructions for the IDIQ section of the cost proposal and states that Offerors shall include a completed Exhibit H “Schedule of Rates” with their proposal. RFP Section L.16(5) also states that if the labor categories, labor rates and indirect rates in the Schedule (Exhibit H) are not consistent with those used to establish the Offeror’s proposed Base Mission Support Costs, the Offeror shall explain and support the inconsistencies.

RFP Section L.16 (4)(f) “Other Direct Costs (ODCs)” states that the Offeror may propose a change to the Government ODC plug number. This section only applies to Base Mission Support and not to the IDIQ CLINs.

After award of the contract, orders will be issued against CLIN 002/Option CLIN 004 as requirements develop. Exhibit H will be used to price task orders.

Page 21 of 24



77 Please provide the current average salaries for the provided labor categories?

See response to question 21. Refer to Exhibit I and Attachment IV for information regarding labor estimates and skill levels.

78 Please provide the seniority and demographics of the attached labor categories?

See response to question 21. Refer to Exhibit I and Attachment IV for information regarding labor estimates and skill levels.

79 Regarding RFP attachment IV, the government provided levels for Engineers, Engineering Supervisors, Administrative Associates, and Scientists. However, levels were not provided for the other labor categories. Please provide the Labor Category Levels for the rest of the Labor Categories shown in attachment IV?

For those labor categories identified in Attachment IV without category levels, experience levels vary based on the requirements identified in the Statement of Work (SOW) and it is up to the Offerors to propose appropriate labor categories and category levels to perform SOW requirements.

80 What is TEAMS 2 Contract start date to use in developing Business Proposal?

It is projected that the contract will be awarded in early September 2011 and contract start will be in late October 2011.

81 The solicitation includes instructions stating that management and administrative (M&A) costs directly supporting the overall contract should be allocated to the base mission support effort. However, there is no Cost Form that allows offerors to break out the M&A costs. Please provide some guidance on which Cost Form the M&A costs (if charged as direct costs) should be summarized. May we create a separate Cost Form to show these hours and costs and flow them into Cost Form A?

A separate cost form shall not be created for the management and administration costs (M&A). The M&A costs should be allocated to the Base Mission Support costs based on the Offeror’s accounting system and proposed approach to managing the contract. Refer to RFP Amend 2, for changes to direct labor instructions identified in Section L, Paragraph L-16(4)(d) .

82 Can a team (group) of small businesses be the PRIME contractor on this Solicitation #NNL11ZB1002J? We have reviewed the 2011 CFR and it has not answered our question (13 CFR 125.2 - pg. 487), which appears to ENCOURAGE teaming for largely bundled contract opportunities.

In general, a team of small businesses can propose as a prime as long as the team can certify that it is small business under the NAICS code “541712” and small business size standard of 1500 employees. However, please see the following regulations for additional information that you will need to consider: FAR clause 52.219-14

Page 22 of 24



"Limitations on Subcontracting" (in TEAMS 2 RFP); FAR Part 7.107 (Bundling); FAR Part 9.6 (Contractor Teaming Arrangement); 13 CFR 121 (Small Business Size Regulations); and 13 CFR 125 (Government Contracting Programs). Information about JVs can also be found in FAR 19.101 "Affiliates" paragraph (7)(i)) and 13 CFR 125.6(h).

The 13 CFR 121.103 provides information regarding how SBA determines affiliation. In particular, affiliation based on a joint venture (JV) is addressed in 13 CFR 121.103(h) and a ostensible subcontractor is addressed in 13 CFR 121.103(h)(4). The 13 CFR 125.6 addresses prime contractor performance in accordance with Limitations on Subcontracting.

Small Businesses are permitted to enter into a JV on larger procurements and not be considered affiliated. If a procurement has an employee based size standard and the estimated value of the procurement exceeds $10M, then the members of the JV are not considered affiliated as long as each member is small for the applicable NAICS code (13 CFR 121.103(h)(3)(B)(2)). NOTE: FAR 52.219-14 “Limitations on Subcontracting” applies to the JV and not each member of the JV.

The TEAMS 2 procurement is not considered a “bundled” procurement (FAR Part 7.107). Extensive market research was conducted including a sources sought synopsis issued on May 14, 2010 and review of capability information received in response to the synopsis. The capability information indicated that a reasonable expectation exists that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small

Page 23 of 24



business concerns, and award will be made at fair market prices. This was coordinated with LaRC Industry Assistance Office, and the SBA local Procurement Center Representative and the NASA Office of Small Business Programs.

83 There is confusion between the labor categories in Exhibit I and Attachment IV. Could you please verify that the following mapping between Direct Labor Classifications in Exhibit-I (Direct Labor Classification Descriptions) and the Labor Categories in Attachment-IV (Table of Estimated Direct Labor Hours in Base Mission Support and Historical Subject Matter Expert Listing) are correct?

a) Is the “Systems Analyst” in Exhibit-I the same as the “Sys Admin” in Attachment-IV?

b) Is the “Project Planner” in Exhibit-I the same as the “Project Planner/Scheduler” in Attachment-IV?

c) Is the “Scheduler/Cost Analyst” in Exhibit-I the same as the “Project Analyst” in Attachment-IV?

a) The “Systems Analyst” in Exhibit-I is the same as the “Sys Admin” in Attachment-IV.

b) The “Project Planner” in Exhibit-I is the same as the “Project Planner/Scheduler” in Attachment-IV.

c) The “Scheduler/Cost Analyst” in Exhibit-I is the same as the “Project Analyst” in Attachment-IV.

Page 24 of 24

prod.nais.nasa.gov · web viewthe 8 on-site contractors identified in the pre-solicitation ... in...

Documents