**Questions Submitted in Response to:**

**Synopsis Number NNJ07175222R**

**For the Constellation Technical Support Contract**

The following questions have been submitted in response to the
Constellation Technical Support Contract (CTSC) synopsis NNJ07175222R
dated June 28, 2007. Questions pertaining to the same subject matter
have been grouped together.

**QUESTION 1:** Are these new requirements or a re-competition?  If a
re-competition, please provide the following information:  the
incumbent, the contract number, the dates and the amount of the
contract.

ANSWER 1: This is a re-competition and the incumbents are:

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Contract number: T-502x

Contract value: \$48M

Period of performance: April 10, 2003 to April 10, 2008

Contractor: Wyle Laboratories

Contract number: NAS 9-02078

Contract value: IDIQ portion NTE value of \$560M

Period of performance: May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2011

**QUESTION 2:** Will the CTSC be a small business set-aside? 

ANSWER 2: The procurement is not a small business set-aside.

**QUESTION 3:** As system integrator, how will NASA implement SE&I
functions? What is the relationship between NASA and the support
contractor for this activity? To what degree will the contractor be able
to autonomously implement work activity?

ANSWER 3: A solicitation does not exist at this time. It is anticipated
that upon release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) sufficient detail
will be provided in the RFP and the Statement of Work (SOW). Continue to
monitor the JSC Procurement web page for current schedules and other
updates.

**QUESTION 4:** What are the anticipated requirements for small business
participation on this procurement?

ANSWER 4: Information related to Small Business and Small Disadvantaged
Business utilization will provided on release of the RFP.

**QUESTION 5:** What is the expected skill mix and skill level?

ANSWER 5: A solicitation does not exist at this time. Information
related to anticipated requirements and proposal preparation will be
provided in the RFP. Continue to monitor the JSC Procurement web page
for current schedules and other updates

**QUESTION 6:** What is the expected split between SE&I, Test and
Verification and Advanced Projects?

ANSWER 6: Please refer to the answer for question #5.

**QUESTION 7:** How much of the contract (\$43.8M) is labor vs.
materials/travel?

ANSWER 7: Please refer to the answer to question #5.

**QUESTION 8:** What is the civil service staffing level associated with
these functions?

ANSWER 8: The Civil Service staffing levels are not relevant for
responding to this planned acquisition. Note a solicitation does not
exist at this time. Continue to monitor the JSC Procurement web page for
current schedules and other updates.

**QUESTION 9:** What are the anticipated contractor staffing levels?

ANSWER 9: Please refer to the answer to question #5.

**QUESTION 10:** What percentage of the contractor workforce will be
located on-site vs. off-site?

ANSWER 10: A solicitation does not exist at this time. It is anticipated
that upon release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) sufficient detail
will be provided in the RFP for the offeror to estimate offsite office
requirements. Continue to monitor the JSC Procurement web page for
current schedules and other updates.

**QUESTION 11:** What timeframe will be expected for the phase-in of
this contract?

ANSWER 11: Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 12:** Given the importance of having a contractor who can
provide bias-free support, will Organizational Conflict of Interest
(OCI) be an issue?

ANSWER 12: Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) issues
are always a concern to NASA. For further reference, see FAR 9.5 and
NASA FAR 1809.5. Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 13:** What the relationship is between the SE&I support
contractor, NASA level III project offices and their prime contractors?

ANSWER 13: Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 14:** Is this a LOE driven contract or is it IDIQ?  If it is
IDIQ, what are the products that the SE&I contractor will be responsible
for?

ANSWER 14: Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 15:** How do you see the value of the contract being spread
among the required tasks? What is the expected contractor provided level
of support for each task area?

a\. Will the current (multiple contractor incumbent workforce)
engineering support continue under the new contract and be expected to
be absorbed by the wining contractor? If so, can you provide numbers and
skills data?

i\. For instance, the technical services currently provided to the CXP
under

1\. Wyle Life Sciences Contract,

2\. Boeing CAPPS contract and

> 3\. SAIC OSP PES contract, under the Constellation Technical Support
> Contract?
>
> b\. Recognizing there will be a single award: Will this award be
> exclusive and include all technical support services; or will other
> contract vehicles be employed in addition to provide CXTS services?
>
> i\. Will other major program elements (e.g., Lunar Lander, C3I, etc)
> activity later on seek (SE&I, T&V, etc.) support under this contract
> or go outside for support?

ANSWER 15: The scope of the existing contracts is different than the new
planned contract, and therefore the number and type of task orders would
not be indicative of the work to be expected under the new contract. For
all other questions please refer to the answer to question #3

**QUESTION 16:** What are the general evaluation criteria for this
procurement?

> a\. Is NASA looking for the proposing contractors to
> identify/formulate candidate (SE&I, T&V, etc) processes and provide
> corporate capability and intellectual property for specific tasks? Or
> will the RFP just request rates for specific skills with the intent
> NASA will issue Task Orders by labor category to accomplish requested
> engineering tasks in support of the Constellation Program?
>
> b\. Will the RFP contain scenarios? If so:
>
> i\. How many?
>
> ii\. Will there be technical scenarios?
>
> iii\. Will there be management scenarios?
>
> c\. Will this be a Best Value selection with Mission Suitability and
> Past Experience/Performance being significantly more important than
> Cost?

ANSWER 16: Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 17:** The NAICS Code 541330 "Engineering services" is
recognized and understood. The classification Code R "Professional,
administrative and management support services" however, appears
inconsistent with providing "necessary resources to conduct engineering
tasks in support of Constellation"; one of the largest and most complex
programs in history! Please explain

> a\. What is the scope and depth of tasks contained in the synopsis
> relative to this classification?
>
> b\. Are you seeking professional, administrative and management
> support in the areas of:
>
> i\. Hardware development?
>
> ii\. Software development?
>
> iii\. Test & Verification?
>
> iv\. Program management?
>
> v\. Program integration?
>
> vi\. Systems Engineering & Integration?

ANSWER 17: Please refer to the answer to question #3

**QUESTION 18:** Will a transition/phase-in plan be required?

a\. Please provide time frame

b\. Please indicate scope with respect to incumbency (final FTE count)

> c\. What are the CXTSC largest challenges/problems/skill gaps the
> contractor will be expected to address in providing/retaining
> incumbent, staffing?

ANSWER 18: Please refer to the answer to question #3

**QUESTION 19:** Will the contractor need to supply personnel at other
locations/Centers on a full time basis (other than JSC)?

a\. Will the personnel at JSC and offsite be housed in Government
facilities?

b\. How will they interface with other centers and their contractors?

> ANSWER 19: Please refer to the answer to question #3

**QUESTION 20:** Based on the information provided under official
questions and answers and the synopsis, it is my understanding this is
not a small business set aside. However, will NASA have any small
business goals for the prime contractor on the Constellation Technical
Support Contract?

ANSWER 20: Please refer to the answer to question #4..

**QUESTION 21:** Does Johnson Space Center still require this type of
service support?

ANSWER 21: Please refer to the answer to question #3. NASA has updated
the schedule on the JSC Procurement External web page to reflect the
current status of the acquisition.

**QUESTION 22:** When is the RFP for the contract projected to be
released?

ANSWER 22: Please refer to the answer to question #21.

**QUESTION 23:** Any words on the general status of this contract?

ANSWER 23: Please refer to the answer to question #21.

**QUESTION 24:** Will the contract still be named Constellation
Technical Support Services?

ANSWER 24: Yes, the current title is "Constellation Technical Support
Contract"

**QUESTION 25:** Will the contract be combined with other contracts?

ANSWER 25: No, Please refer to the answer to question #21.

**QUESTION 26:** Which branches/directories/division will new contract
support?

ANSWER 26: In support of the Constellation Program, the contractor shall
provide the necessary resources to conduct engineering tasks in support
of the Constellation Program Systems Engineering and Integration, & Test
and Evaluation. These tasks will require working with the Constellation
Program and Project Offices, other NASA Centers, and other contractor
organizations.

**QUESTION 27:** Has anything been eliminated from the scope of the
contract?

ANSWER 27: Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 28:** Will new SOW functions or requirements be incorporated?

ANSWER 28: Please refer to the answer to question #3..

**QUESTION 29:** What is the anticipated POP, size, type, and value of
the contract?

ANSWER 29: This information is contained in the synopsis. Additional
information will be provided on release of the RFP.

**QUESTION 30:** Is the contract anticipated to change to a small
business set aside (or Full and Open)?

ANSWER 30: This contract will be competed using full and open
competition.

**QUESTION 31:** Who is the present incumbent?

ANSWER 31: Please refer to the answer to question #1.

**QUESTION 32:** How many tasks have been issued on this contract?

ANSWER 32: Please refer to the answer for question #5.

**QUESTION 33:** What are the typical sizes of the tasks awarded?

ANSWER 33: Please refer to the answer for question #5.

**QUESTION 34:** What functional areas (types of support personnel) are
currently supplied on the contract?

ANSWER 34: Please refer to the answer for question #5.

**QUESTION 35:** Are you within contract spending plans? How much of the
current contracts value has been awarded?

ANSWER 35: Yes NASA is within the current spending plans for each
contract and these contracts have not exceeded their contract value.

**QUESTION 36:** Has task issuing slowed or sped up since award?

ANSWER 36: No contract has been awarded. Please refer to the answer for
question #5.

**QUESTION 37**: Will the contract require hardware development?

ANSWER 37: Please refer to the answer for question #5.

**QUESTION 38:** Who is the present technical point of contact?

ANSWER 38: Elizabeth Spence

**QUESTION 39:** The revised schedule has a footnote regarding \"updates
to the Acquisition Approach\". What has changed besides the schedule?

ANSWER 39: Please refer to the answer to question #3.

**QUESTION 40:** The new schedule adds a milestone identified as
\"Receive FPR\". What does \"FPR\" mean?

ANSWER 40: For the purposes of this synopsis FPR is the acronym for
"Final Proposal Revision."

**Question 41 :** Our company would like to submit a plan of anticipated
scope of participation in the contract and how we would meet the terms
of the OCI, prior to proposal due date. Would NASA provide us a
preliminary ruling on the plan, non contractual binding, prior to the
proposal due date? Will today's briefing at the CTSC pre-proposal
conference be posted on the CTSC procurement web site before the end of
the week?

ANSWER 41: No. The Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan is
part of the evaluation. A pre-decisional determination will not be made.
The OCI plan remains a deliverable with the proposal package. NASA will
not review any proposal materials prior to the closing date for receipt
of the proposal.

Charts from the Pre-Proposal Conference have been posted to the CTSC
website.

**QUESTION 42:** Some of the scenarios ask for cost. For these
scenarios, do you want BOEs associated with the cost? 

ANSWER 42: Yes, in Section L.19.1, for each scenario the offeror is to
provide discussion of all resources required, including the technical,
technical disciplines to be applied, management, and administrative
skills to perform the required work. Responses shall include rationale
for skills, approaches, and activities proposed and provide adequate
detail to demonstrate the Offeror's understanding of the requirements.
The rationale for skills includes the full time equivalents (FTE's) by
labor resource profile to demonstrate your understanding. You are not to
provide cost information for the FTE's related to the scenarios. You
will, however need to identify other program costs.

**QUESTION 43:** OCI feedback- When task orders are identified, will the
contracting office identify, if a specific task has OCI issues, or not?

ANSWER 43: The Government will take an active role in identifying OCI
issues in advance of issuing task orders; however it is ultimately the
offeror's responsibility to identify OCI issues. See Clause H.2 in the
final RFP.

**QUESTION 44:** Schedule-If RFP only slips a few days, holding 20 Dec
will be ok. If the slip is more than a couple of weeks --we should slip
the delivery date.

ANSWER 44: An updated schedule was posted to the CTSC web page on
November 9, 2007.

**QUESTION 45:** Does the government view "firewalling" as an acceptable
OCI mitigation approach for all areas of the CTSC SOW **?**

ANSWER 45: NASA will not make a determination on acceptable OCI conflict
mitigation approach prior to plan submittal. Since OCI issues and
approaches can have many factors to consider, a single response that one
approach to all plans is viable is not appropriate. Each offer will have
to submit a plan based on their individual conflicts and mitigation
approaches.

**QUESTION 46:** It seems that the SOW for this procurement matches the
content for NAICS 541710 Rev D. Why has the Government chosen to go with
NAICS 541330? Please reconsider the NAICS code for this work.

When will the SEB for this procurement be announced?

Will this a procurement have a local (JSC) SSA?

ANSWER 46: (a) An analysis was performed of the SOW and the NAICS code,
and the NAICS code assigned is deemed appropriate.

\(b\) The SEB for this procurement will be announced once it has been
approved.

\(c\) This procurement will have a local SSA.

**QUESTION 47:** Section B.4 Estimated Cost and Award Fee and B.5
Limitation of Fund (Fixed-Price Contract). You have stated that there
will be both cost reimbursable and fixed price task orders issued under
the CTSC IDIQ contract. Will the fixed price task orders be fixed price
for a specified scope of work and deliverables or fixed price rates for
a level of effort specified (FP LOE)?

ANSWER 47: Task orders issued as Fixed Price will be Firm Fixed Price
for a specific scope of work as defined in the task order. There will
not be any labor hour task orders.

**QUESTION 48:** The SB NAICS code and size limit may limit
opportunities for qualified businesses. Will any consideration be given
to adding an R & D NAICS code and /or raising the size limit?

ANSWER 48: An analysis was performed of the SOW requirements and the
NAICS code description, and the NAICS code assigned was deemed
appropriate.

**QUESTION 49:** Attachment J-2, DRD CTSC-PM-01, Phase-In Plan, "badging
and personnel clearances." Items (iii) and (iv) of this DRD seem to be
duplicative. Please clarify.

ANSWER 49: Items (iii) and (iv) were duplicative. Item (iv) will be
deleted in the final RFP. Please refer to DRD CTSC-PM-01 in the final
RFP for this change.

**QUESTION 50:** Attachment J-2, DRD CTSC-PR-01, Contract Close-Out
Plan. This DRD references RFP Clause F.7. This probably should refer to
Clause F.5. Please Clarify.

ANSWER 50: The reference should be to clause F.5 and will be corrected
in the final RFP. Please refer to DRD CTSC-PR-01 in the final RFP for
this change.

**QUESTION 51:** The Draft RFP indicates a 31 day phase-in implying
incumbent contractors. Please identify the incumbents.

ANSWER 51: See ANSWER 1.

**QUESTION 52:** CTSC administrative functions include some tasks also
addressed by the CPSC procurement. (e.g. CM, meeting support,
scheduling). Will these requirements remain independent of CPSC and the
Cx PP&C office?

ANSWER 52: The CTSC requirements for tasks such as CM, meeting support,
and scheduling are internal requirements and independent of the CPSC
contract.

**QUESTION 53:** Will the CTSC contractor work in Level 3 organizations
(Orion, Ares, CSSS, etc.) or is it strictly oversight of Level 3
products.

ANSWER 53: The CTSC contract is a Level 2 effort, with interfaces and
provides oversight of Level 3. If, in the future, there is a need to use
this as a contracting mechanism to support Level 3 tasks, Such tasks
would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure mitigation of an
OCI.

**QUESTION 54:** Section L:10 (a). Can the Government provide a list of
the positions covered by Union Agreement or Service Contract Act on the
incumbent contracts that CTSC will replace, and fundamentally staffed
with incumbent personnel?

ANSWER 54: The Government will not disclose specific personnel data from
the current contractors. The Government is unaware of any work currently
being performed under a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

**QUESTION 55:** Volume II/Part 4 Total Compensation Plan (MA2). The
Total Compensation Plan has to include company TCP information in
addition to the information specified in the RFP. If the Offeror has
significant teammates, teammate TCPs are also to be included. This
information constitutes more page count than appear to be allotted by
the Volume II page count. Will the government exclude the Corporate TCPs
from the page count?

ANSWER 55: The Total Compensation Plan will be excluded from the page
count for Volume II. Please refer to Section L.18, Table L-1 of the
final RFP.

**QUESTION 56:** Section F.6, Task Order Type. Can the Government
provide an indication of which of the SOW categories will be issued as
Fixed Price task orders?

ANSWER 56: This is unknown at this time. Task order type will be
determined at the time of issuance.

**QUESTION 57:** Section L.2 Instructions to Offerors -- (a) Contract
Award (1). The Government intends to award a contract or contracts
resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose
proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance
with the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. In light of the
multiple award potential, can the Government indicate whether some task
orders might be assigned to particular awardees or whether all task
orders will be completed by all awardees?

ANSWER 57: This solicitation will result in the award of a single
contract. Please see Section L.2 of the final RFP.

**QUESTION 58:** Data Requirements List (DRL) CTSC-BM-01 and CTSC-BM-2.
The distribution for these two DRDs includes LZ/Orion Resources. Is
Orion distribution correct or should it be a Constellation Resources
Code?

ANSWER 58: The LZ mail code is used for all Constellation resources. The
reference to Orion will be deleted in the final RFP. Please refer to the
DRL and these DRDs in the final RFP.

**QUESTION 59:** Section L.18 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations (b)
(2). A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 ½" x 11", with a least
one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type. No
font size is provided for tables and figures. Can the instructions be
modified to include a font size of 9 or 10 for tables and figures to
allow for a good representation of the information in the tables and
figures within the page size limitation and page count limitation?

ANSWER 59: Section L.18 of the final RFP will be updated to reflect that
offerors may not use font smaller than 10-point type for tables and
figures.

**QUESTION 60:** How does NASA intend to indemnify contract
organizations in regard to physical damage to GFE or other assets during
the course of approved performance of the contract?

ANSWER 60: NASA does not intend to indemnify contractors for damage to
Government property. Reference FAR 52.245-1 Government Property
paragraph (h) Contractor Liability for Government Property.

**QUESTION 61:** What collaboration tools are the SE&I and T&E
organizations currently using?

ANSWER 61: The SE&I and T&E organizations are using the Interactive
Collaborative Environment (ICE) suite of tools managed by ESMD. These
tools include: Cradle (systems engineering), Windchill (product
management), Primavera (integrated schedules), ProE (CAD) and IRMA (risk
management).

**QUESTION 62:** Possible support at other centers may be supplied. Is
this an RFP procurement? Is the support level defined? E.g. number of
offices supported? On site or off-site accommodations?

ANSWER 62: Yes, there is a limited amount of support that may be
required at other centers. While the specific centers can not be
identified at this time, the instructions contained in Section L, IDIQ
Pricing Methodology is revised to reflect the level of support. Specific
support and location will be identified in the individual task orders,
including on-site versus off-site accommodations.

**QUESTION 63:** What is the relationship and intersection with common
SOW tasks that are in CPSC?

ANSWER 63: See ANSWER 52

**QUESTION 64:** Will the JSC on-site accommodations be defined for the
contractor?

ANSWER 64: In accordance with J-10, NASA on-site space will be
identified with each task order. Please refer to the final RFP Section
L19.3 (b).

**QUESTION 65:** Have you considered separate rate tables reflecting JSC
on-site and off-site work?

ANSWER 65: We have added an off-site rate to the rate tables in Section
B. Please refer to the final RFP Section B and the instruction in
section L for pricing.

**QUESTION 66:** Do you intend to issue Cost Plus task orders for 1.3
and 1.4 routine support immediately upon contract award?

ANSWER 66: This is not known at this time.

**QUESTION 67:** What tools beside Cradle are being used by the SE&I and
T&E organizations today for scheduling, risk management, meeting
support, and configuration management, and how is Windchill currently
being used?

ANSWER 67: See ANSWER 61.

**QUESTION 68:** Can you re-look at limiting, the size standard? There
are a lot of SB/SDB companies in the 25-50 M range.

ANSWER 68: Size standards for NACIS are not determined by NASA. Please
refer to answer 46.

**QUESTION 69:** When in the submittal process is the size standard
fixed? For 8a? and SB/SBD? Is it at RFP release? Initial proposal
submitted?

ANSWER 69: See ANSWER 68

**QUESTION 70:** During the Industry Day Briefing, we were asked to
provide feedback concerning the current Schedule. Due to the anticipated
slip, that will place the preparation and delivery across two major
holidays. I realize that maintaining schedules is important to Cx
Program, but I feel that the program would receive substantially better
products in the form of the proposals, if they were prepared outside
this holiday window. Request that the Final RFP be delayed until 15 Jan
08, giving both the government and contractor personnel the ability to
enjoy the holidays and in the long run provide a better proposal to the
government.

ANSWER 70: A revised schedule was posted to the procurement website on
November 9, 2007. The schedule provides additional days for proposal
development to allow for holiday activities.

**QUESTION 71:** Does NASA-JSC intend to require the selected CTSC
contractor to manage analytical simulation data and processes for the
life cycle of the Program using a COTS database whereby such data is
traceable, retrievable and replicable to address mission critical
studies thought out the life of the Program. If so, such a requirement
is not stated in the draft RFP, where as, there is a reference to
product data management, namely Windchill, but we did not see a specific
reference to simulation data management. Based on our discussion, it
appears that managing analytical simulation data and processes is a
requirement, hence, \[delete\] makes the following recommendation; Add
an entry between Line 1.1.3.4 and Line 1.1.3.5 and/or Line 1.1.2.26 and
Line 1.1.2.27, the entry being *"The contractor shall store and manage
analytical simulation data and processes in a database, in a manner
sufficient to ensure that all validated analytical simulations used for
Program design decisions can be traceable, retrievable and replicable
over the life of the Program."*

ANSWER 71: The SOW will be updated in the final RFP to reflect SE&I's
requirements with regard to simulation data.

**QUESTION 72:** Does the Government know how much of the work will be
on-site and how much off-site and will we be provided data for us to
cost the facilities? Will the final RFP state the amount of work that
will be done at the different work locations?

ANSWER 72: See ANSWER 62

**QUESTION 73:** It seems to us that this Draft RFP is very similar in
format (SLC tables with hours etc.) to the OPIC and CPS RFP's other than
the evaluation criteria. Can you comment on this?

ANSWER 73: This solicitation stands on its own and is independent of
other procurements.

**QUESTION 75:** Did we hear it right this morning that while we propose
resources, the basis of estimate, reason for the resources and task
descriptions we are not required to cost the scenario in \$\$\$? What
did you mean by Basis of Estimate this morning?

ANSWER 75: That is correct. The responses to the scenarios are intended
to elicit the offeror's understanding of the technical requirements,
including the labor and non-labor resources required to accomplish the
work relevant to the SOW described in the scenarios. Please also refer
to ANSWER 42 for clarification on the BOE's.

**QUESTION 76:** We notice that the number of Labor categories is small.
Is it the Government's intent to add more categories for the final RFP
or do we need to map our multiple labor categories into the ones
specified?

ANSWER 76: Additional engineering and business analyst labor categories
will be added to the final RFP. Please see the final RFP, Section L
19.3, Table L-7. Each offeror will be required to map their labor
categories to the RFP standard labor categories (SLCs).

**QUESTION 77:** Section A, block 9, states that Volume III, Past
Performance and Section K, Representations and Certifications are due at
2pm on December 6, 2007. However, Section L.18(c), Table L-3, shows only
Volume III as being due on December 6^th^. Please clarify which volumes
and/or parts thereof are due on December 6, 2007.

ANSWER 77: Table L-3 of the final RFP has been updated to include
Section K (Representations and Certifications).

**QUESTION 78:** Section C: Please clarify if there will be vertical
integration requirements assigned to the contractor.

ANSWER 78: The SOW includes all requirements that may be levied on the
contractor. No unique requirements were identified for the Vertical
Integration WBS.

**QUESTION 79:** Section J, Attachment J-3, Applicable and Reference
Documents: The Constellation Flight Test Plan appears to be excluded
from Attachment J-3. Please clarify if this Plan should be included as a
reference document.

ANSWER 79: The Flight Test Plan will be added as a Reference document
for the final RFP. Please see Section J, Attachment J-3 of the final
RFP.

**QUESTION 80:** Section J, Attachment J-3, Applicable and Reference
Documents: JPR 7120.3, Project Management: Systems Engineering and
Project Control Processes and Requirements, document appears to be
excluded from Attachment J-3. Please clarify if this document should be
included as a reference document.

ANSWER 80: This document will not be used as either an applicable nor as
a reference document for this contract.

**QUESTION 81:** Section J, Attachment J-3, Applicable and Reference
Documents: NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, SP6105 appears to be
missing from Attachment J-3. Please clarify if this handbook should be
included as a reference document.

ANSWER 81: See ANSWER 80.

**QUESTION 82:** Section J, Attachment J-3, Applicable and Reference
Documents: The Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) appears to be missing as
part of the reference material. Please clarify it the IMS should be
included as a reference document.

ANSWER 82: The Integrated Master Schedule will be added as a Reference
document for the final RFP Please see Section J, Attachment J-3 of the
final RFP.

**QUESTION 83:** Section J, Attachment J-10, Installation Accountable
Government Property, includes ODIN seats as Government Furnished
Facilities.  Please clarify if NASA will furnish ODIN seats for off-site
office space as required within individual Task Orders.

ANSWER 83: The Government does not envision providing off-site ODIN
seats at this time.

**QUESTION 84:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 1, third paragraph, third
sentence, the offeror is asked to provide "...a modified Program
schedule showing all relevant milestones...." Does the term Program
schedule mean an Integrated Master Schedule? If so, Attachment J-2 does
not list an Integrated Master Schedule. Will a Master Schedule be
provided to modify?

ANSWER 84: The Integrated Master Schedule will be added to the Reference
document list in the final RFP. The IMS may be used as a reference for
the offeror to provide a modified schedule in the format of their choice
in response to this scenario. Please refer to the final RFP Section
L.19.1, Scenario 1 for further clarification.

**QUESTION 85:** Has this solicitation been determined as of yet to be
full and open, or is there a possibility that this may be issued as a
small business procurement?

ANSWER 85: This procurement is full and open.

**QUESTION 86:** Has a revised schedule been established?

ANSWER 86: See ANSWER 70.

**QUESTION 87:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 2: Are the resources in
Scenario 2 limited to Lunar Sortie Mission (LEO) to Moon to Return
resources for the space mission, or do they include ground support, or
do they also include programmatic support (funding, personnel, etc.)?

ANSWER 87: Scenario 2 will be rewritten for the final RFP to clarify.
Offerors may identify any additional assumptions they have made in
preparing their responses to the scenarios. Please refer to the final
RFP, Section L.19.1, Scenario 2 for further clarification.

**QUESTION 88:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 2: Does Scenario 2 start with
the vehicles and crews and systems in a state ready for earth to moon
deployment burn, or does it start with the vehicles just attaining LEO?

ANSWER 88: See ANSWER 87.

**QUESTION 89:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 2: What is the length of the
Lunar Sortie Mission in Scenario 2?

ANSWER 89: The scenario will be rewritten in the final RFP to specify a
7-day surface duration for the Lunar Sortie mission. See ANSWER 87.

**QUESTION 90:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 2: Is the assessment report in
Scenario 2 just pre-development, or does it go out to pre-launch?

ANSWER 90: See ANSWER 87.

**QUESTION 91:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 2: Please clarify if there are
baselined Program performance requirements?

ANSWER 91: There is currently a set of baselined requirements that
includes performance requirements. Requirements are defined in CxP
70000, Constellation Architecture Requirements Document.

**QUESTION 92:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 2, third paragraph, second
sentence, states "Include a schedule for development and delivery based
on flight phases and transportation, as well as surface hardware and
software." We interpret this statement to require the offeror to provide
a schedule for development and delivery for everything for the entire
lunar sortie mission, and not just for the "Integrated Model as a basis
for the architecture" to evaluate resources and produce the data for the
final deliverable. Please confirm that this is a valid interpretation.

ANSWER 92: This phrase will be deleted from the final RFP, and will be
replaced to clarify that the intent is delivery of analyses and resource
models. Please refer to Scenario 2 of the final RFP for further
clarification.

**QUESTION 93:** Section L.19.1, Scenario 3, does "... the incremental
buildup of capabilities" include all Program capabilities, or just those
necessary to add the additional flight test?

ANSWER 93: Scenario 3 will be rewritten in the final RFP. This phrase
will be replaced to clarify the products to be delivered. Please see
Scenario 3 in the final RFP for clarification.

**QUESTION 94:** Please explain what "guidelines only" means in
reference to Standard Labor Categories (SLC) on page L-23.  During
contract performance, will a contractor be required to certify that
personnel assigned meet the qualifications shown on page L-7? If the
contractor is required to certify, what methodology may be applied for
substituting a master's degree for experience?

ANSWER 94:

1.  In the instructions at L.19.3, Standard Labor Categories listed in
    the table L-7, are provided as "guidelines only" or meaning the
    "principle for determining" the mapping of the job description and
    training to the standard labor category outlined in the request for
    proposal.

2.  The table L-7, job description and mapping is provided for
    guidelines only. Per the instructions, the contractor is requested
    to provide a brief narrative of its labor category and how it maps
    to the RFP standard labor category. During contract performance the
    selected contractor will not be required to certify, only provide
    the skill necessary for excellent performance.

**QUESTION 95:** Regarding the Excel Pricing Model Template, on the IDIQ
Summary Cost Template (ISCT) why are only 5 of 9 labor categories shown
under the Fixed Hours and Fixed Rates section of that form?

ANSWER 95: These labor categories were inadvertently left out of the
draft RFP. Please see the final RFP Section L pricing templates for the
revised SLC.

**QUESTION 96:** Please clarify whether the JSC Offsite Facilities
Cost/Hour shown in the ISCT is intended to represent costs that are
billed to NASA as a direct charge ODC or as part of a separate
indirect/Overhead charge.

ANSWER 96: These rates will be used to populate the rate tables in the
contact clauses B.8 and B.9. Billing and submission of invoices will be
in accordance with the term of the contract.

**QUESTION 97:** Section L.19.3(c)(iii), top of page L-28, second to
last sentence beginning with "Note, major subcontractors..." this
sentence is incomplete. Please provide complete sentence.

ANSWER 97: Section L.19.3(c)(iii) of the final RFP will be updated to
provide a complete sentence.

**QUESTION 98:** Section L.19.3(c)(2)(iv), Phase-in Template (PIT),
indicates a 30-day contract phase-in period. Section B.3, Contract
Phase-in Fixed Price, indicates a 31-day contract phase-in period.
Please clarify correct number of days for phase-in period.

ANSWER 98: Section L.19.3(c)(2)(iv) of the final RFP will be updated to
reflect the 31-day contract phase-in period.

**QUESTION 99:** Section L.19, Page L-28, states for pricing purposes
offsite labor hours shall be calculated using the total hours per the
Government provided resource profile multiplied by 10% allocated as
offsite work. Section F.3 indicates that task and activities may be
distributed throughout the Agency as required by the individual task
orders. Does NASA envision resident off-site support being required at
NASA centers other than JSC? If so, please provide further details as to
how NASA envisions the 10% allocated for offsite work will be divided
among the various NASA sites. Also, please note that only JSC Wage
Determination is included in the draft RFP.

ANSWER 99: See ANSWER 62

**QUESTION 100:** Section L.19.4 (c ) Past Performance, Page L-32:
...one copy of each year's OSHA logs (OSHA form 300) for these past five
years as required  by 29CFR 1904.5 (d).  Are the OSHA form 300's
included in the page count for Past Performance?  (If so that means that
15 of the 30 pages will be devoted to these forms...)

ANSWER 100: Section L.18 of the final RFP has been update to have no
limit on number of pages for past performance inclusive of sections a-f.

**QUESTION 101:** Section L.19.4 (a) Past Performance, Page L-31:
...each shall provide information on past contracts, subject to the page
limit constraints). Are the page constraints for Past Performance for
section (a) only or do they apply to sections a-f?

ANSWER 101: Please see ANSWER 100.

**QUESTION 102:** Section L.18     PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, PAGE
LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES, Page L-12:  A page is defined as one
side of a sheet, 8 1/2\" x 11\", with at least one-inch margins on all
sides, using [not smaller than 12-point type]{.underline}. Foldouts
count as an equivalent number of 8 1/2\" x 11\" pages. The metric
standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8
1/2\" x 11\" size may also be used. May the text in tables and figures
be smaller than 12 point type as long as it is legible?

ANSWER 102: See ANSWER 59.

**QUESTION 103:** Section L.19.4 ( c ) ...A statement shall be made
regarding any OSHA citations of the company's operations during the past
five years. We are planning to limit the discussion of the company
referred to here and in the subsequent paragraphs of  section L.19.4 to
the business unit that will be addressed in the past performance rather
than the larger corporation as a whole.  Is this approach in agreement
with the government's intent?

ANSWER 103: The scope of the offeror's response will be evaluated
against FAR 23.9 and 23.10 and NFS subpart 23.10.

**QUESTION 104:** Section L, Table L-7: Standard labor Categories. The
table does not specify security clearance requirements.  What are the
clearance requirements (including levels) for each category called out
in the table?

ANSWER 104: Please refer to Section I, FAR clause 52.204-9 and
Attachment J-9 of the final RFP for security requirements.

**QUESTION 105:** Section L, Table L-7: Standard labor Categories. The
table does not specify citizenship requirements.  What are the
citizenship requirements for each category called out in the table?

ANSWER 105: Please refer to Section I, FAR clause 52.204-9 and
Attachment J-9 of the final RFP for citizenship requirements.

**QUESTION 106:** Section L, Table L-7: Standard labor Categories. Table
L-7, Standard Labor Categories identifies the most experienced
engineering labor code at Engineering III (BS plus 10 years), it is
anticipated that higher skilled and experienced resources will be
required to adequately address and meet certain requirement in the SOW
and scenarios.  Please consider adding one or two additional higher
skill categories, i.e. Eng. IV (BS+ 15 years), Eng V (MS+20 yrs)

ANSWER 106: See ANSWER 76.

**QUESTION 107:** Section C, SOW, 1.5 Place of Performance, states that"
Limited office space is available on-site.  Specific location
requirements will be specified within individual Task Orders. Should all
resources labor rates assume they will be located on-site, or will we
provide both on-site and off-site labor rates?

ANSWER 107: See ANSWER 62.

**QUESTION 108:** Section C, SOW, 1.5 Place of Performance, states that
"the Constellation Program is an NASA Agency-wide endeavor, involving
NASA ..." It goes on to say that "the contractor shall provide personnel
at locations where these tasks and activities are conducted, as
required". What assumptions should the contractor make relative to the
number of personnel located outside of the JSC area?

ANSWER 108: See ANSWER 62.

**QUESTION 109:** Section K.2 (a)(1,2) Annual Representations and
Certifications, Page K-1. Will the Government consider reclassifying the
NAICS code and size standard for this procurement to 541712 - Research
and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except
Biotechnology), and 1000 employees (space/missiles/propulsion)
respectively? Note: historically, the applicable NAICS code has been
541710, but the 2007 NAICS codes were refined by the US Census Bureau to
create a hierarchy, resulting in the new designation of 541712.

ANSWER 109: See ANSWER 46.

**QUESTION 110:** Section L.18 (b) Proposal Page Limitations, Page L-12.
Title pages and tables of contents are clearly excluded from page count.
However, in section (a) at the top of page L-12, the examples the
Government includes as not subject to page limitations includes acronym
lists. Are acronym lists excluded from page count?

ANSWER 110: Yes, please refer to Section L.18 (a) of the final RFP.

**QUESTION 111:** Section L.18 (b) Proposal Page Limitations, Page L-12.
The Government specifies use of no smaller than 12-point font. That font
size makes for very readable text, but for awkward and poorly displayed
tables and figures. Will the Government accept smaller than 12-point
font in tables and figures, with a requirement that the text is readable
within the context of the table or figure?

ANSWER 111: See Answer 59.

**QUESTION 112:** Sections D.2; E.1; E.2; F.1, FAR 52.247-34; F.2; F.4;
F.7; and I.10. These NASA-standard RFP clauses deal with shipping and
inspection; however, no SOW functional requirements address these types
of requirements. Should a SOW requirement be added to deal with these
functions?

ANSWER 112: These clauses are adequate and no SOW change is needed.

**QUESTION 113:** Section F.5.(b) Contractor Close Out. This section
references DRD CTSC-PR-01, Contract Close-Out Plan; however, this plan
is not included in the SOW as a contract deliverable. Also, please
clarify and confirm that a Contractor Close-Out Plan is not required to
be submitted with the proposal.

ANSWER 113: The Close-Out Plan is required per Clause F.5 of the
contract. As stated in DRD CTSC-PR-01, this plan is a one time delivery
at the discretion of the Contracting Officer and is not required with
your proposal submittal.

**QUESTION 114:** Section F.6 Task Order Type. Can the Government
provide an indication of which of the SOW categories will be issued as
Fixed Price task orders?

ANSWER 114: The Government cannot predetermine which parts of the SOW
will be will be Fixed Price task orders.

**QUESTION 115:** Sections G.1.II, FAR 1852.227-70, New Technology; and
G.4. These NASA-standard RFP clauses deal with new technology; however,
no SOW functional requirements address these types of requirements.
Should a SOW requirement be added to cover new technology functions?

ANSWER 115: These clauses are adequate and no SOW changes are needed.

**QUESTION 116:** Sections G.6; G.7; G.8; G.9; Attachment J-10; and K.3.
Attachment J-10 indicated that the only installation accountable
Government property will be physical seats and ODIN seats as specified
in each task order. Presumably, however, other property could also be
provided in contract task orders. Should a SOW requirement be added to
cover property management functions?

ANSWER 116: The property clauses in the RFP and the resultant contract
are sufficient to the handling of the Government Property. No SOW
requirement is necessary.

**QUESTION 117:** Sections G.10; G.11; H.1.II, FAR 1852.223-75; I.13,
I.16, I.17, and Attachment J-4. These RFP clauses deal with security;
however, other than requirement 1.9 of the Safety and Health Plan (DRD
CTSC-SA-1), no SOW functional requirements address security
requirements. Should a SOW requirement be added to cover security
functions?

ANSWER 117: The applicable clauses in the RFP and resultant contract are
sufficient to cover security requirements. No SOW requirement is
necessary.

**QUESTION 118:** Section H.1.II, FAR 1852.225-70. This NASA-standard
RFP clause deals with export technology; however, no SOW functional
requirements address these types of requirements. Should a SOW
requirement be added to cover export technology functions?

ANSWER 118: The applicable clauses in the RFP and resultant contract are
sufficient. No SOW requirement is necessary.

**QUESTION 119:** Attachment J-2, DRD CTSC-PM-01 Phase-In Plan "badging
and personnel clearances." Items (iii) and (iv) of this DRD seem to be
duplicative. Please clarify.

ANSWER 119: See ANSWER 49.

**QUESTION 120:** NAICS Code Determination: Why is the NAICS Code for
this effort different than the other Constellation procurements?
Specifically OPIC and CxPSC.

ANSWER 120: See ANSWER 46.

**QUESTION 121:** Section K.2 Annual Representations and Certifications.
We request that consideration be given to a NAICS Code of 541712
(previously 541710) for "experimental development in the engineering
sciences" for this acquisition due to the exploratory nature of the
scope of work and the RFP emphasis on innovation.

ANSWER 122: See ANSWER 46.

**QUESTION 123:** Since the draft RFP currently suggests a Small
Business size standard of \$25M, can you please explain the consequences
in terms of SB/SDB standing, having to submit a Subcontracting Plan with
the proposal offering, or other potential un-foreseen affects in the
event that revenues of the SB/SDB offeror exceed \$25M and you do not
change the NAICS Code, 541330?

ANSWER 123: A Company that is a Small Business under the NAICS code
541330 is not required to submit a Small Business subcontracting plan
with its proposal. However, the instruction in section L does request
additional topics that must be addressed in all proposals without regard
to the size standards.

In the event the offeror is not a small business, the offeror will be
required to submit a subcontract plan with its proposal.

# **QUESTION 124:** Section L.2 Instructions to Offerors, (f) Contract Award, (6). The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards. Does the Government seek or intend to make multiple awards? If so, would certain task orders would be awarded to specific awardees or would task orders will be competed by all awardees.

ANSWER 124: See ANSWER 57.

**QUESTION 125:** Section L.10, Determination of Compensation
Reasonableness, (a). Please provide a list of the positions on the
incumbent contracts that are currently staffed with incumbent personnel
who are (1) covered by an existing Union Agreement, or (2) covered by
the Service Contract Act.

ANSWER 125: See ANSWER 54.

**QUESTION 126:** Section L.18, Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations,
Copies, and Due Dates. Will the Government consider adding provisions
for a short Executive Summary/Proposal Introduction at the beginning of
Volume I?

ANSWER 126: The Offeror may choose to do so, but it will count against
the page limits defined.

**QUESTION 127:** Section L.18.(a), MA 2, Volume II/ Part 4 Total
Compensation Plan. The Total Compensation Plan proposal instructions
include a detailed list of topics to specifically be addressed. Since
this list is comprehensive, we suggest that the Total Compensation Plan
be excluded from the page allocation."

ANSWER 127: See ANSWER 55.

**QUESTION 128:** Section L.18 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations
(b) (2). A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2\" x 11\", with
at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point
type. No smaller font size is provided for tables and figures. Please
allow a font size of 9 for tables and figures.

ANSWER 128: See Answer 59.

**QUESTION 129:** Section L.19.1, Volume I: Technical, TA1, Overall
Technical Approach (Factor 1: Mission Suitability, Subfactor 1:
Technical Approach) The TA1 proposal requirement instructs offerors to
address a list of eight Technical Approach discussion topics (items (a)
through (h)). Items (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) must address
each SOW requirement. There are approximately 300 discrete SOW and
SOW-referenced specific DRD requirements. Furthermore, M.5.1.1
(Subfactor 1) indicates that this technical section will be evaluated
based on the nine criteria of "effectiveness, clarity, soundness,
comprehensiveness, feasibility, innovativeness, risk, realism, and
suitability". With approximately 15 pages allotted to each sample task
response, only 15 pages of the Volume I total 75 page allocation remains
available for the TA1 Overall Technical Approach. Will the Government
increase the Volume 1 page count to 125-150 pages to allow for responses
to address all instructions and evaluation criteria? Alternatively, NASA
could limit the proposal SOW requirement responses to the third
numbering level of SOW requirements (e,g, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.) rather
than the fourth (e.g., 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.2, etc.) or fifth (bulleted)
levels.

ANSWER 129: The page count will be increased to 100 pages for Volume I.
This change will be reflected in the final RFP. Please refer to Section
L.18, Table L-1 of the final RFP for page limitations.

**QUESTION 130:** Section L.19.2, Volume II: Management, MA1. The MA1
proposal instruction requires that the offerors, "Provide a Management
Plan, in accordance with the requirements of DRD CTSC-BM-02, ..." and
then the sentence continues with "... the following is required". The
three RFP instructions that follow are similar to, but different from
the list of items that are required to be addressed in DRD CTSC-BM-02 in
Attachment J-2. We suggest that the MA1 proposal requirements be changed
to just "Provide a Management Plan, in accordance with the requirements
of DRD CTSC-BM-02" with items (1) to (3) eliminated.

ANSWER 130: Section L.19.2, Volume II: Management, MA1 will be rewritten
for the final RFP to require submission of only the DRD CTSC-BM-02. The
DRD will be rewritten to include the intent of items 1-3 formerly
included in L.19.2, Volume II: Management, MA1. These changes will be
reflected in the final RFP.

**QUESTION 131:** Section L.19.2, Volume II: Management, MA1 (3); MA2
(3); and MA3 (6). These three paragraphs in MA1, MA2, and MA3 all
address managing personnel within a "geographically distributed
workforce." While the three RFP instructions are not worded identically,
they are quite similar. Given the page constraints of the proposal,
would the Government please confirm and/or clarify the similarity of
these three instructions.

ANSWER 131: Section L.19.2 will be revised in the final RFP; MA1 (3)
will be removed and incorporated into DRD CTSC-BM-02 (also see ANSWER
130); MA2 (3)- will be removed; MA3 (6)- no changes will be made. These
changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

**QUESTION 132:** Section L.19.2, Volume II: Management, SB 1. The first
sentence of the first paragraph reads, "All offerors, except for small
business, must complete the portion regarding Small Business
Subcontracting Plans. Please clarify the reference to "the portion."

ANSWER 132: "Portion" refers to section titled "Small Business
Subcontracting".

**QUESTION 133:** Section L.19.2, SB1, Small Business Utilization, Small
Business Contracting, (a), (2). Please clarify the percentages presented
in the table on page L-20. The "Total Small Business (SB) Goal" is
assessed at 15.7%; however, the total of the categories listed
underneath accumulate to a greater value, 21%.

ANSWER 133: The sub categories are not supposed to add up to the SB
overall of 15.7%, their percentages are of the total contract value. The
SB goal of 15.7% represents 15.7% of the *total contract value*. For
example the Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) is 4.5%, that is 4.5% of
the total contract value, not 4.5% of the 15.7% SB goal.

Please refer to Section L.19.2 SB1, Small Business Subcontracting (a)(7)
example.

**QUESTION 134:** Data Requirements List (DRL) CTSC-BM-01 and
CTSC-BM-02. The distribution for these two DRDs include LZ/Orion
Resources. Is Orion distribution correct or should it be a Constellation
Resources Code?

ANSWER 134: See ANSWER 58

**QUESTION 135:** Attachment J-10, Installation Accountable Government
Property. This attachment indicates that NASA on-site space will be
provided in accordance with each task order. Will desks, chairs, and
office supplies be included within the umbrella of "on-site space?" Will
NASA provide a long-term "management task" to accommodate on-site
program management and support efforts, or is off-site management and
support preferred?

ANSWER 135: Program management and task management is an inherent
function of the tasks orders issued, as such a task order for program
management or management will not be issued. Desks, chairs and
reasonable office supplies are provided for on-site space that is
provided. Each Offeror must propose its own approach to management and
use of the on-site space.

**QUESTION 136:** Section F.5 Phase-In and Close-out; Section J-2 DRD
Phase-In Plan; Section L.16 Period Covered by Procurement; Section
L.19.3 Volume III: Cost/Price, Section 2. Other Templates Instructions,
paragraph (iv). The Phase-In schedule is listed as "The Phase-In period
shall not exceed 31 calendar days prior to the start date of the base
contract period" in F.5. In L.16, the Phase-In plan from May 12, 2008 to
June 11, 2008 is 30 days. DRD CTSC-PM-01, calls for a 30 day plan. The
Phase-In Template on L.19.3, a 30 day phase-in period is requested. The
proposal schedule posted on the Procurement website provides 36 days,
5/12/08 to 6/18/08. Please clarify the Phase-In Plan timeframe.

ANSWER 136: See ANSWER 98.

**QUESTION 137:** Section J-2-1, Data Requirements List; Section J-2-27,
DRD Management Plan -- CTSC-BM-02; Section L.18, Table L-1: Overview of
Proposal Volumes and Page Limitations. The DRL states that the
Management Plan (CTSC-BM-02) is due 30 days after ATP, while the DRD
states that the Management Plan is due with Proposal submission. In
Section L.18, Table L-1, has the Management Plan included in Volume
II/Part 2, but is not discussed in Section L.19.2 Volume II: Management.
Please clarify when CTSC-BM-02 is due.

ANSWER 137: Section J-2, DRD CTSC-BM-02 of the final RFP has been
revised to state that the Initial management plan is due with the
submission of the proposal (this is also stated in Section L). An
updated report shall be submitted within 30 days after authorization to
proceed.

**QUESTION 138:** Section J-2 DRD Management Plan - CTSC-BM-02. The
Management Plan DRD (CTSC-BM-02) calls for discussion of organizational
structure in both para (iv) and the para (vi). Is this a duplication?

ANSWER 138: These are not duplications.

**QUESTION 139:** Section J-2 DRD Management Plan-- CTSC-BM-02. Did NASA
intend to say Safety and Health vs. Safety and Mission Assurance in DRD
BM-02 para (vi)?

ANSWER 139: Section J-2 DRD Management Plan-- CTSC-BM-02 has been
updated in the final RFP to reflect Safety, Quality Assurance\...

**QUESTION 140:** Section J-2 DRD Management Plan-- CTSC-BM-02. What is
the intent of the last statement in the Scope section of DRD BM-02,
"while adhering to all applicable laws, regulation and directives?"

ANSWER 140: The wording was selected to ensure the management approach
selected is not in conflict or in violation with any laws, regulations
or directives that are applicable to the contractor or NASA.

**QUESTION 141:** Section L.18.b.1 Proposal Arrangement, Page
Limitations, Copies, and Due Dates, Section (b) 2. Font size: A page is
defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2\" x 11\", with at least one-inch
margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type. Will smaller
font size be allowed for tables, graphics, etc?

ANSWER 141: See Answer 59.

**QUESTION 142:** Section L.18.c, Table L-3 Proposal Copies and Due
Dates. For the submittal the government requests 10 copies of the Past
Performance, including the Questionnaires. Since the Questionnaires are
coming directly from our references, is one copy of each Questionnaire
acceptable?

ANSWER 142: Section L.19.4 (c) of the final RFP has been updated to
state that 2 copies of each questionnaire are to be delivered to the
Contracting Officer.

**QUESTION 143:** Section L.19.1 Volume I: Technical. Does the Technical
Volume need to directly address each of the 181 individual "contractor
shall" statements in the SOW to be considered technically acceptable?

ANSWER 143: The Offeror is to submit information in their proposal in
response to the items listed in the proposal content section of the RFP.
The offeror should include information that demonstrates their
understanding of the work and their ability to perform it. We can not
direct you on the content you choose to provide

**QUESTION 144:** Section L, L-19.2, TCP MA2 (i).  Wage/salary
information and escalations will be provided in Volume III Cost/Price
Proposal.  Can we simply make reference to where this sensitive
information is located in Volume III?

ANSWER 144: Yes.

**QUESTION 145:** Section L, L-19.2, MA2 (3) and MA3 (6).  Para MA3 (6)
nearly duplicates MA2 (3) but stresses \"key\" skills.  Does NASA intend
that we address these requirements again but only in the context
of filling vacant Key Personnel positions? 

ANSWER 145: See Answer 131.

**QUESTION 146:** Section L.19.2 Volume II: Management, SB 1, Small
Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation, Paragraph (a). The text of
the paragraph refers to SDB targets and under represented areas, but the
referenced link addresses a September 2000 list of industries eligible
for 10% price evaluation adjustment. Is this link correct?

ANSWER 146: The link is correct. The last update was in 2000.

**QUESTION 147:** Section L.19.4 (b) Volume IV: Past Performance. \"In
addition to the information above, Offerors and any major
subcontractors, as defined above, shall each submit the Past Performance
Questionnaire, Attachment L-2\".  Is this one questionnaire per company
or one questionnaire per corporate qualification provided?

ANSWER 147: The offer is requested to provide a questionnaire for each
customer from previous or current contracts that the offeror has
performed. If it is from multiple locations or divisions please provide
a questionnaire for each location or division.

**QUESTION 148:** Section L.19.4 (b) Volume IV: Past Performance. For
the Past Performance Questionnaires, if we are a sub on a government
contract, can we have the government client complete the questionnaire
rather than the Prime?

ANSWER 148: No, we are looking for input from the prime company you
previously performed work under. A government point of contact may be
provided in addition.

**QUESTION 149:** Section L, Key Personnel Resume Template -- Attachment
L-1. In the Key Personnel resumes (Section L-1), would the government
consider using data from the past 5 years? Would the government consider
excluding the completed Key Personnel resume template from the
Management Volume page count?

ANSWER 149: a. The form at L-1, Key personnel Resume, requests the
offeror to provide a listing of work experience for the past 10 years in
chronological order.

b\. The Key Personnel Resume Template will be excluded from the page
count. However the information submitted is limited to the data
requested on the template. If it is determined that additional data is
submitted that should be listed else where in your proposal, NASA will
apply the data to that section and count it against the page count.

**QUESTION 150:** Section L, Scenario 2. Definition of the term
integrated model varies across aerospace applications. Does CxP have
content requirements for an integrated model at the architecture level?
Will a description of the current Lunar Sortie integrated model be made
available in the technical library?

ANSWER 150: The Integrated Program Model is being developed and will not
be included in the library. Please refer to the final RFP, paragraph
C.1.1.2.2 for clarification.

**QUESTION 151:** Section B.8, Rate Table for Pricing Task Orders and
B.9 Rate Table for Pricing Fixed Price Task Orders. The contractor must
identify maximum fee and maximum profit rates that are to be proposed
and this is then factored in the source selection evaluation. The FAR
sets maximum fee rates. Profit and fee, consistent with commercial
industry standards, are major drivers and motivators to allow focus and
commitment of the best resources to the task, to enable the success of
NASA and the mission. Does NASA intend to then further negotiate fee
rates downward from the maximum fee rates proposed by the Contractor for
each future task order (see Page L-27 1.i), even though the maximum fee
rate has already been competitively established?

ANSWER 151: Yes, The tables are intended to establish a not-to-exceed or
maximum fee percentage that is allowable in the negotiations of each
task order. While we will establish a NTE rate, the government intends
to negotiate fees based on the technical, management, and cost risks
posed by the individual task order.

**QUESTION 152:** Geographic Location Affect on Rate Tables - Please
better define the level of support anticipated at centers other than
JSC. JSC On-Site Accommodations - Recommend that the JSC on-site
accommodations be defined for the contractor in the RFP, to allow
contractors to evaluate levels of on-site vs off-site staffing for
establishing rates.

ANSWER 152: See ANSWER 62.