**[Answers to Questions]{.underline}**

Listed below are questions received from the FDOC website. Please check
the website link periodically for updates to this document.

**Updates to answers previously posted are identified below in red.**

[Q & A]{.underline}

1\. How will the Government handle synopsis submittals by the potential
bidders. Is it the government\'s intent to publicly disclose the
submittals (i.e. make available by posting in the Technical Library) or
will the submittals be treated as proprietary information?

**Answer: The Government will handle synopsis submittals from potential
bidders as proprietary information.**

2\. When will you be publishing guidance and sign-up procedures for the
FDOC Industry Day?

**Answer: The FDOC website will be updated soon (on or before 10-15-07)
outlining the Industry Day procedures. FDOC Industry Day has been
rescheduled for 10-30-07. Please continue to monitor the FDOC website
for updates.**

3\. What are the small business participation percentages contemplated
for FDOC?

**Answer: The small business participation percentages contemplated for
FDOC have not yet been coordinated with NASA Headquarters. The
percentages will be included in the Draft RFP which should be released
some time in December, 2007.**

4\. The NAICS code assigned to the FDOC, of 541710, seems too R&D
focused. Wouldn\'t NAICS 927110 Space Research and Technology be a
better fit for FDOC?

**Answer: Because FDOC is more related to Space Flight Systems vs. Space
Flight Vehicles and Operations, NASA believes we have identified the
proper NAICS code.**

5\. Regarding \"User Applications\" - we have not been able to find a
consistent definition for user application software. Would the following
definition help to clarify this term?

User Applications encompass software necessary to perform generic or
flight specific training and real-time support, and the supplemental
tools needed to support the Mission Control Center development
environment. Specifically excluded are the development and maintenance
for software used to directly support engineering analysis and design,
ancillary tools used to perform verification testing of engineering
analysis and design applications, and user-defined configuration and
data files for analysis and operational applications.

**Answer: This definition is not inclusive enough. Once released, please
refer to the Draft RFP for the definition of User Applications.**

6\. Please confirm the submittal due date and time for the FDOC
synopsis. It appears that all contractual and technical questions must
be submitted in writing no later than 12 Noon, CST, October 24, 2007 but
does not clearly state the date and time for submittal of the synopsis
response. Please advise as soon as possible.

**Answer: The date listed in the synopsis of "12 noon, CST, October 24,
2007" referred to providing specific questions in reference to the
synopsis---such as the questions listed in this document. Responses to
the 5 listed questions addressing how to best implement the contract
strategy can be provided to the Contracting Officer at any time between
now and the proposal due date. Responses to the 5 listed questions can
also be provided with your submitted proposal.**

7\. The Industry Day is currently scheduled for 10/30/07 from 8:30 to
10:30. This conflicts with the NASA JSC Small Business Roundtable
scheduled from 10:00 - 12:00 and sponsored by the JSC Procurement
Director. Is it possible to revise the times for one of these
activities?

**Answer: The FDOC Industry Day cannot be re-scheduled at this late
date. Questions concerning the Small Business Roundtable should be
addressed to the JSC Small Business Office.**

8\. When will the Government publish a MOD facility list that includes
equipment down to the Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) level and associated
software?

**Answer: The final RFP will include a list of GFP associated with the
FDOC Facilities.**

9\. Our business case analysis indicates that if FDOC small business
(SB/SDB) goals were defined as a percentage of total contract value,
NASA will be in a position to receive offers from a more diverse mix of
large and small business teams. This diverse mix will be able to offer
more benefits in terms of critical skill retention, synergy and savings
potential, and multiple avenues and resources for supporting MODs
institutional contracting approach. To achieve a stable SB/SDB business
base with growth potential over the life cycle of the project, will MOD
consider the establishment of a contract-level SB/SDB set of goals that
can be flowed-down to the major subcontractors (not minor
subcontractors) and recognition (SB/SDB credit) of those requirements
rolled up to the contract level?

**Answer: Decisions concerning establishment of the SB/SDB goals for
FDOC will be made at the NASA Headquarters level in conjunction with,
not by, the MOD at JSC. Also, credits will be taken at the first-tier
subcontracting level only.**

10\. The following files are not available from the updated Tech
Library.

MCCS_SEMP_110507wp.doc

MCCS_SRR_110807wp.ppt

**Answer: We will attempt to get these documents into the library as
soon as possible.**

11\. Is NASA holding to the schedule for issuance of the draft FDOC RFP
on 12/17/07?

**Answer: Yes NASA is currently holding to the schedule for issuance of
the draft FDOC RFP on 12-17-07.**

**UPDATE: Refer to the FDOC procurement website for the current FDOC
schedule.**

12\. Where may I locate the solicitation document for the opportunity
titled\
NNJ07221364R; Mission Operations Directorate Facilities Development and\
Operations Contract? If the solicitation has not been released when is
it expected?

**Answer: The Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) has not been released
yet. We anticipate a release of the DRFP to the NASA Electronic Posting
System (EPS) on Monday, 12-17-07.**

13\. For the facility tours, would it be possible to increase our number
of participants to six?

**Answer: Per the Pre-proposal Conference information on the FDOC
website: \"An individual company or a group of businesses planning to
team or subcontract may send a combined total of no more than four (4)
attendees on the facility tours.\"**

14\. I just saw a news release regarding the FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND
OPERATIONS CONTRACT (FDOC Sol. #: NNJ07221364R) program and it says that
Lockheed Martin and United Space Alliance are teaming for the job.  I
wanted to see if this press release is related to the solicitation
mentioned above.  A Draft RFP was released December 17, 2007, so will
there be a Final one released?

**Answer: The press release cited is related to the solicitation and the
final RFP is currently scheduled to be released 2-14-08.**

15\. To allow more time for proposal build, would NASA entertain a 90
day slip to the FDOC procurement schedule?

**Answer: NASA has reviewed the current schedule and we believe that it
is in the Government's best interest to extend the FDOC procurement
schedule by 90 days. Please refer to the updated "schedule" link on the
FDOC procurement website at: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/fdoc/**

16\. Will any sort of "observation period" of the current work being
performed be available to potential bidders?

**Answer: Shortly after the facility tours on 2-5-08, NASA will be
scheduling observation periods within the major FDOC facilities for all
potential offerors to attend. Please continue to monitor the FDOC
procurement website for information concerning the dates and times for
the observation periods and how to sign up.**

17\. The IPS Platform servers are located in the incumbent contractor
facility at 600 Gemini. Will they need to be moved or duplicated after
contract award?

**Answer: No. The FDOC contractor will be allowed access to 600 Gemini,
as is the case with the MSOC contractor today.**

18\. Will FDOC contractors be allowed to reside on site at JSC?

**Answer: Yes. Some space will be made available---the Final RFP will
specify the available on site space.**

19\. Will desk space be provided to FDOC user application software
developers within each Division?

**Answer: The provisioning of desk space for programmers will be
addressed individually at the Division level.**

20\. The FDOC website Schedule update has the FDOC Facilities Tours
moving to 2/5/08. The Updated Answers to Questions (Question #16) states
that the FDOC Facilities Tours will be conducted on 4/5/08. Please
confirm the date for the FDOC Facilities Tours are as stated in the
updated schedule \-- 2/5/08.

**Answer: Question 16 above contained a typo and has been corrected. The
facility tours are scheduled for 2-5-08.**

21\. Will there be any cross-waivers or Public Law 85-804
Indemnification (or similar, but differently authorized,
indemnification) provided by NASA?

**Answer: No, there will not be any cross-waivers or Public Law 85-804
Indemnification provided by NASA for FDOC.**

22\. The NTE amount stated in F.8 is \$109,562,000. The L.19 Table 5A
includes non-labor resources. Are these resources included in the NTE of
\$109,562,000? Does the F.8 NTE value include only the basic 4-year
period of performance?

**Answer: Yes, non-labor resources are included in the NTE of
\$109,562,000. Yes, the F.8 NTE value covers only the 4 year base.**

23\. With respect to "biased ground rules" OCI identified by NASA, and
potential disqualification of prime contractor and first tier
subcontractor for work in which contractor prepares SOW or Spec, has
NASA considered actions it could take to avoid the risk of disqualifying
the prime and subcontractor for future opportunities? For example, if
NASA uses multiple sources for SOW and Spec drafting, under current reg.
and case law the contractor need not be disqualified. Another example of
NASA actions that could mitigate this risk is to break out SOW or Spec
work and source to other than the prime; or filled by other means? If
not, will NASA accept contractor refusal of SOW or Spec writing tasks
under the RFP?

**Answer: The contractor will be responsible for completing all work
assigned pursuant to the FDOC SOW. NASA will partner with the FDOC
contractor, to the greatest extent possible, to mitigate, neutralize, or
avoid potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest that may arise as a
consequence of performing FDOC work.**

24\. It appears that the contract is mixed with both R&D work and
operations/services, with a large percentage of each. Would NASA include
the clause with Alternate 1 which states, "The Government authorizes and
consents to all use and manufacture of any invention described in and
covered by a United States patent in the performance of this contract or
any subcontract at any tier?"

**Answer: No, NASA does not intend to include the Alternate 1 to this
clause. There is no R&D-type work (inventing) required under FDOC.**

25\. Given the importance of quantitative process improvement in meeting
MOD's cost reduction and quality goals and since institutionalized
process improvement starts at CMMI Level 3, would NASA consider
increasing the requirement for a plan for Level 3?

**Answer: In accordance with the NASA Software Engineering Requirements
(NPR-7150.2), the Mission Operations Directorate Software Management
Plan (JSC-63756) requires an organization developing class A or B
software to be certified as Capability Maturity Model Integration for
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering (CMMI-SE/SW) Capability
Level 2 or higher. NASA does not anticipate levying a more stringent
requirement at this time.**

26\. A large volume of property is to be transferred during the 46-day
transition period. Please describe the date and status of the physical
inventory documentation that will be provided to the successful offeror.
Will the incumbent contractors provide the needed documents (i.e.,
1149s) to complete this transfer at contract award?

**Answer: The current property managed by the incumbent will be
transitioned from the NASA Equipment Management System (NEMS) to
Integrated Asset Management (IAM) before the new FDOC contract is
awarded. Yes, the incumbent contractors will provide 1149s to complete
property transfers during the 54 day phase-in period.**

27\. Did NASA intend for the Bidders to include WBS 1.3.6, Facility
Service Management, in the cost estimate, and if so, what is the work
content associated with this WBS?

**Answer: Yes, NASA intended for the offerors to include WBS 1.3.6,
Facility Service Management in the cost estimate, and the SOW-WBS cross
references are SOW 2.4, 2.5, 2.11, 2.13, 2.13.1, 2.13.2, 2.13.3, 2.14.
2.14.1, 2.14.2, 2.15, and 2.16. The complete cross reference will be
included in J-21 of the Final RFP.**

28\. We recommend NASA change SOW Section 1.1 from "Planning / Post
Flight -- Design, analysis, and management of trajectories, use of
vehicle systems, and flight and crew activities relative to mission
requirements, before and during missions" to "Planning -- Design,
analysis, and management of trajectories, use of vehicle systems, and
flight and crew activities relative to mission requirements, **before,
during and after missions**."

**Answer: NASA accepts the recommendation and will incorporate the above
change in the Final RFP.**

29\. Are the Integrated Planning System (IPS) Application Segment
subsystems governed by SOW 3.2.2. Planning and Automation System
Support, or SOW 3.2.11. User Applications and Supporting Data Files
Support?

**Answer: The IPS Application Segment is covered by SOW 3.2.11, User
Applications and Supporting Data Files Support. NASA will add a
clarification to the Final RFP.**

30\. It is recommended that the Government delegate source inspection to
the contractor. This step will increase the contractor's effectiveness
and reduce costs.

**Answer: Government Source Inspection (GSI) is an inherent
Government-only function. The Government will maintain that function on
this contract.**

31\. In SOW Section 3.1.10, the Draft RFP states that the Contractor
shall adhere to the latest revision of the following requirements
documents:

-   JSC-27029, Software Management Plan for Mission Control Center (MCC)
    Applications

-   JSC-63756, Mission Operations Directorate Software Management Plan
    (SMP)

-   JSC-64052, Facility Management Plan.

    This needs to be consistent with paragraph 3.2.11, which says that
    JSC-27029 applies to existing software and data files and JSC-63756
    applies to new software development.

**Answer: JSC-63756 is the governing document for all MOD software.
References to old Software Management Plan (SMP) (JSC-27029) are being
deleted. For existing software and supporting data files that are
currently in the maintenance phase, the MOD Project Review Board (PRB)
can grant a waiver to use a subset of the SMP or a previous SMP; the
contractor shall be responsible for requesting such waivers for the
affected software and supporting data files. The Final RFP will be
updated accordingly.**

32\. The COMSEC equipment and environment are unique to the MCC-H. They
require special security clearances. Shouldn't these requirements be
included?

**Answer: COMSEC requirements, including security clearances, are
covered in Section 2.6.3 of the SOW.**

33\. The training and certification requirement in SOW 3.2.11.8 is not
explicitly stated in any other part of the RFP and significant other
software in the facilities that come under FDOC. Examples include the
OST applications, GSDE development tools, SR tracking tools, etc. Does
this requirement apply only to user software?

**Answer: The training and certification requirement applies to all FDOC
facilities. That requirement will be moved to the generic section of the
SOW for the Final RFP.**

34\. Is it the Government's intent for property located in offsite JSC
facilities that are within five miles of JSC, to be tracked and recorded
in the Integrated Asset Management (IAM)?

**Answer: Yes, it is the Government's intent that property within 5
miles of JSC that is related to FAR 52.245-1 and NFS 1852.245-71 is to
be tracked and recorded in IAM. Property related to FAR 52.245-2 will
not be tracked and recorded in the IAM.**

35\. Clause G.15 says that any contractor (or sub) who is not a U.S.
Citizen may not be admitted without special arrangements. Does NASA's
definition of a U.S. Citizen include or exclude Green Card holders?
According to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Green
Card holders are afforded the same privileges as U.S. Citizens with
respect to access to technical data and do not require technology
control plans, etc.

**Answer: NASA's definition of a U.S. Citizen excludes Green Card
Holders. See NPR 1600.1 chapter 4 and NPR 1371.2A.**

36\. Would NASA consider adding FAR clause 52.219-10, titled Incentive
Subcontracting Program to the FDOC contract as an incentive to exceed
the subcontracting plans in the contract as opposed to evaluating this
performance in the Award Fee Plan?

**Answer: No, NASA does not intend to add FAR clause 52.219-10 to the
FDOC contract. Subcontracting achievements will be evaluated as part of
the award fee plan.**

37\. Clause I.11 requires the contractor to ensure that all SBU is
encrypted in both storage and transmission. Does this requirement also
apply to the information covered under Section I clauses 1852.237-72,
titled, Access to Sensitive Information, and 1852.237-73, titled,
Release of Sensitive Information?

**Answer: Yes, the I.11 requirement applies to all SBU information.**

38\. Block 9 of DRL 07 Technical Metrics Plan and Reports states:

• EVM Plan: Initial -- With Proposal; Frequency -- as required

• EVM Report: Close of the first period after approval of the plan + 10
days; Frequency -- due 10 days after the close of the period

Will NASA change this to read:

• Technical Metrics Plan: Initial -- With Proposal; Frequency -- as
required

• Technical Metrics Report: Initial - Close of the first period after
approval of the plan + 10 days; Frequency -- due 10 days after the close
of the period

**Answer: NASA agrees with the proposed wording and will update the
Final RFP accordingly.**

39\. What is the distinction between "government property" and
"government personal property"? If there is no distinction, delete the
word "personal" to avoid unnecessary confusion.

**Answer: There is no distinction. The word "personal" will be deleted
in the final RFP.**

**UPDATE: DRD-FDOC-0008 is being updated to remove the reference to
"personal" and will refer to Government property. However, please refer
to FAR 52.245-1 for the definition of government property, which covers
real property and personal property.**

40\. The Equipment Replacement Plan is a two-part document. However,
during the execution of the MSOC, Part II has never been delivered. NASA
accepted that Part II would not be delivered as documented in the
contract. Delivery of Part II would have diverted Systems Engineering
resources from other work. The current Equipment Replacement Plan
forecast and the yearly Tech Plan process provides adequate planning for
major equipment replacement projects. The NASA project lead is
responsible for developing the SE Management Plan for each major ER
project. IT is recommended that NASA Delete Part II from this DRD.

**Answer: NASA agrees to delete Part II from Equipment Replacement Plan
(DRD-FDOC-0048) and the final RFP will be updated accordingly.**

41\. The Equipment Replacement Plan is required to be submitted the
first week in August of each FY. This schedule under MSOC has caused the
ER Plan to be out of sync with the approved FY Tech Plan each year. It
is recommended that NASA change the yearly submission date to the first
week of November

**Answer: The Equipment Replacement Plan, which drives the Technical
Plan, must be done prior to the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, NASA
does not intend to change the submission date.**

42\. Block 8, paragraph C of DRD-FDOC-0056 states: "Decisions
[degrading]{.underline} the growth, evolution, and extensibility of
COTS/GOTS/custom software." What does the underlined word "degrading"
mean? This phrase is not clear.

**Answer: This was a typographical error. The word should be
"regarding", not "degrading." The Final RFP will be updated
accordingly.**

43\. DRD-FDOC-0057 Software Standards, Development, and Configuration
Management Plan states under Scope: "This document provides a
description of the software standards, software development management
plan, and configuration management plan for all software maintained by
the contractor. This document covers new software development,
modifications to existing software, and associated configuration data."
This DRD is only referenced in the User Applications section of the SOW.
What is the scope of the DRD, since it references all software? Please
clarify.

**Answer: DRD-FDOC-0057** **applies to all FDOC facilities. The
reference will be moved to the generic section of the SOW for the Final
RFP.**

44\. NPR 1600.1 prescribes NASA Security Program procedural requirements
to assist NASA Centers and component facilities in executing the NASA
security program to protect people, property, and information. It
establishes security program standards and specifications necessary to
achieve Agency-wide security program consistency and uniformity. A
significant portion of the NPR also deals with the handling of Sensitive
but Unclassified information. It also provides for the assignment of
management security responsibilities. Incorporation of these NPR
requirements could impact FDOC costs. Are all chapters of NPR 1600.1
applicable?

**Answer: Yes, all chapters of NPR 1600.1 are applicable. For
requirements regarding Sensitive but Unclassified controlled
information, see NPR 1600.1 Section 5.24.**

45\. To minimize the risk to the Shuttle Program and the Space Station
Program, the successor contractor must be able to capture the incumbent
workforce and transition them on "Day 1" of FDOC. Capture of the
incumbent workforce can be ensured, if and only if, their
salaries/wages, fringe benefits, and retirement are protected. It is
recommended that NASA add the following to Section M -- MA2:

"The evaluation will include a comparison of the offeror's planned total
compensation to the incumbent employee's total compensation. Where
differences between the plans create risks to a successful transition,
the offeror's probable costs will be adjusted."

**Answer: NASA does not intend to change the current MA2 language. All
necessary adjustments will be made in accordance with RFP Section M.5,
"Score Adjustment for Unrealistic Cost".**

46\. L.19, TA5. Constellation Training Facility Sample Task Order
states: "The offeror shall provide a Basis of Estimate table for the
sample task order resources as part of its narrative, following the
format of Attachment L-9, Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template. (Since this
task order is a sample, the Basis of Estimate shall be incorporated as
part of the narrative and not as a part of Volume I, Appendix A, nor
should any associated cost data be added to Volume III, Price/Cost.)" It
is recommended that NASA exclude the TA5 BOE from the Mission
Suitability page count limitations so an Offeror can provide credible
BOE responses.

**Answer: NASA's page estimate is based on one BOE page per CxTF WBS
element. NASA believes that the limitation is sufficient to receive
adequate BOE data for the task. Therefore, NASA does not intend to
increase the page limitation for the TA5 BOE.**

47\. 1) Will the workers' compensation experience modifier supporting
documentation be excluded from the Volume II page limitations? 2) Is the
workers' compensation experience modifier information to be provided for
the prime contractor only? Or Prime and all Major Subcontractors?

**Answer: No the workers' compensation experience modifier supporting
documentation will not be excluded from the Volume II page limitations.
The workers' compensation experience modifier information is required
from the Prime and all major subcontractors.**

**UPDATE: The Workers Compensation experience modifier is no longer a
requirement and will not be requested as part of the past performance
volume.**

48\. The LOE Workbook forms do not support the development of the
attachment J-20 Pre-Established Loaded Labor Rates (LOE) by standard
labor category. Recommend replacing the current LOE workbook forms with
forms that look similar to the IDIQ workbook forms.

**Answer: The LOE templates shall be updated in the Final RFP to allow
the offeror to meet the requirements in attachment J-20 Pre-Established
Loaded Labor Rates and will appear similar to the IDIQ templates.**

49\. We recommend that NASA require the prime to submit rates quotes
received from each named subcontractor as backup to the Minor
Subcontractor Template.

**Answer: The prime and major subcontractors are allowed to submit
back-up data in Volume III Cost/Price that is necessary to support their
cost proposal. The Minor Subcontractor Template is intended to provide
the SEB a concise assessment, scope, and substance of minor
subcontracts. Any major subcontractor with an estimated annual value
that exceeds \$10 million is required to provide all applicable cost
templates as well as supportive rationale which explains their cost
proposal. The prime offeror is required to include cost for their entire
team on their individual Prime Summary and Team Templates.**

50\. Cognizant Audit Office Template (CAOT): This template is required
for each prime contractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, and
major subcontractor that meets the major subcontractor threshold (\$10M
per year). This template is to be delivered with the Past Performance
Volume due March 14, 2008. Will the CAOTs be excluded from the Volume II
Past Performance page limitations?

**Answer: Due to the FDOC schedule changes, past performance is now due
June 9, 2008. The CAOTs are to be delivered by the same date as Volume
II, but are not considered part of Volume II. Therefore, the Volume II
page limitations are not applicable to the CAOTs. Section L will be
updated to clarify this distinction.**

51\. Attachment L-1 requires resumes for the following "Key Personnel":
Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Chief Engineer, and Business
Operations Manager. It allows one optional "Key Person." In Section H-5,
the Key Personnel list includes the above list, adds the Systems
Engineering Manager, and allows additional positions at the offeror's
discretion. It is requested that the Government reconcile H.5 and
Attachment L-1 \[as to the number of key personnel\].

**Answer: NASA concurs. H.5 is correct and Attachment L-1 will be
updated accordingly.**

52\. The OCI DRD (0032) states that the last sentence of the second
paragraph under c.) that the plan must support the MOD Procedural
Requirements for Mitigating and Responding to OCI. Is it possible that
the MOD procedural document be made available via the FDOC website?

**Answer: Yes, once the MOD OCI procedural document is reviewed and
approved by NASA, it will be posted to the FDOC website prior to final
RFP release.**

53\. The updated schedule on the FDOC website identifies an Observation
Period during the months of March, April, and May with the final RFP to
be released on 5-9-08. Please clarify if the observation period will
extend beyond the release date of the RFP.

**Answer: Due to the need for all communications regarding the RFP to be
formally addressed to the Contracting Officer, the observation period
will not extend beyond the release date of the RFP. The observation
opportunities will occur some time during March and/or April and
information related to the observations will be provided on the FDOC
website.**

54\. Page L-37 Volume II, Past Performance, Paragraph 3, Item 1 states,
"Offerors shall cite experience on current contracts or contracts
completed in the last 3 years that is relevant to this effort". In the
interest of encouraging competition, would the Government consider
modifying item 1 to: "Offerors shall cite experience from previous or
current contracts relevant to this effort"?

**Answer: Since contracts of this size and complexity are infrequently
competed, Item 1 has been modified to allow relevant past performance
back to January 1, 2000 to be cited.**

55\. Clause I.15 requires the contractor use an Earned Value Management
System (EVMS) in performance of the contract. It also requires
subcontracts with and estimated value of \$50M or more to comply. Would
NASA consider relaxing this requirement for those subcontracts whose
personnel are matrixed into the prime contractor workforce and do not
have any completion requirement per se?

**Answer: In a situation where the subcontractor will be largely in the
role of supplying "purchased labor" that the prime will manage, the
prime is responsible for earned value management.**

56\. The RFP Section M, TA3 and MA3, refer to MOD operations goals and
vision. Please provide what reference material should be the
authoritative source for these goals and vision that the offeror will be
evaluated against.

**Answer: UPDATE: The offerors will be evaluated against TA3 and MA3 of
RFP Section M. The MOD vision and goals are described in "MOD Vision"
and "LEO to Mars: A Vision for the Mission Operations Directorate's Next
25 Years", both of which have been posted to the FDOC technical
library.**

57\. SOW Section 2.13.2 states that "FDOC technical change management
system shall provide 'incorporation of existing Support Request (SR)
data for all facilities and systems'". Please clarify "incorporation of
existing SR data".

**Answer: NASA intends for the incumbent contractors to provide all
existing SR data from their current SR systems during phase-in. NASA
will add this as an item to be addressed by the offerors in the Phase In
Plan DRD-FDOC-0005.**

58\. Section I includes FAR clause 52.217-2, titled Cancellation Under
Multi-Year Contracts requires the contract schedule to reflect a
cancellation ceiling in the event of a termination of the contract. Will
FDOC be a multi-year contract and if so, does NASA plan to include a
cancellation ceiling in the Schedule?

**Answer: NASA does not plan to include a cancellation ceiling and FAR
clause 52.217-2 will be removed from the final RFP.**

59\. DRD Block 8, Paragraph. f, denotes due dates in terms of "weeks",
and "days". All such due periods should be consistent. In some cases,
there is implication of working days and some cases calendar days. Is
this consistent across DRD's? And does this apply regardless of whether
the end of the period falls on an official holiday or weekend day?

**Answer: In general, DRD's will not be expected to be delivered on
holidays or weekends. However, some time critical documents may not have
this exception. All DRD delivery requirements will be updated to specify
business versus calendar days in the final RFP.**

60\. Draft RFP Section 2.13.3-The government requests the contractor
utilize the current Discrepancy Report Tracking System (DARTS). For the
FDOC, is DARTS a Government Furnished product for the Contractor's use
free of charge? Are there any proprietary restrictions on DARTS?

**Answer: Yes, the Discrepancy Report Tracking System (DRTS) is
Government Furnished Property (GFP) and as such will be available for
use under this contract. No, there are no proprietary restrictions.**

61\. DRFP Section L, MA5 Phase-in Plan requires a 46 day phase-in plan.
Please clarify / confirm that the Phase in Period begins on November 7,
2008 and runs through January 1, 2009.

**Answer: Due to the FDOC schedule changes, the Phase-in period is now
54 calendar days beginning 11-7-08 and ending 12-31-08. MA5 will be
updated accordingly for the Final RFP.**

62\. DRFP Section L, Appendix C (page L-37), states that \"The offeror
shall submit a printed copy of information for each of the key personnel
listed in Section H.5 Key Personnel and Facilities, using the template
provided in Attachment L-1, Key Personnel Resumes.\" Special Provision
H.5, Key Personnel and Facilities (page H.6) lists the following
positions: Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Chief Engineer,
Business Operations Manager, Systems Engineering Manager, additional
positions at Offeror\'s discretion. DRFP Attachment L-1: Key Personnel
Resume states \"Submit resume information for each of the listed key
personnel: Required: Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Chief
Engineer, Business Operations Manager, one additional key personnel.\"
Please clarify if a resume is required for the Systems Engineering
Manager. Also, please clarify if resumes are required for each
additional key position identified at the Offeror\'s discretion and if
multiple other key personnel are acceptable or if it is limited to only
one other.

**Answer: H.5 is correct. A resume for the Systems Engineering Manager
is required. Multiple other key personnel are acceptable; a resume for
each additional personnel should be provided. The Final RFP will be
updated to reconcile Attachment L-1 and H.5.**

63\. DRFP, Section M, (page M-3) states "MA1. Staffing - The offeror
will be evaluated\...on the comprehensiveness of the critical skills
identified; on the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of obtaining and
retaining key skills..." Please clarify the NASA MOD definition of
\"critical skills\" and is there a NASA document that defines the
specific critical skills supporting MOD today? Please clarify/explain
the distinction between \"critical\" and \"key\".

**Answer: Critical skills are those skills which are mandatory to
accomplish the Statement of Work. They also are somewhat specialized and
not readily available "off the street." It is up to the offeror to
determine what those skills are (in accordance with instructions in
Section L). The term "key" will be replaced with "critical" in section
M.3.2 to describe skills.**

64\. What are the historical indicators of the cost, effort, quantity,
and frequency of TIRF volume defined in SOW 2.14.1?

**Answer: Historically, there has been minimal Transmittal/Information
Request Form (TIRF) traffic with respect to Government Furnished
Property (GFP). In the three years of MSOC contract performance, two
GFP-related TIRFs have been issued.**

65\. No mention is made of the Shuttle Emergency Mission Control Center
(EMCC). Does the Government intend to include support to this capability
in this solicitation?

**Answer: Yes, support for the Shuttle Emergency Mission Control Center
is an FDOC requirement; however, this support is limited to supplying
laptops if the EMCC is ever called up. The Final RFP will be updated to
clarify this support.**

66\. The DRL indicates that 19 DRD's are due with the proposal and
Appendix B specifies 9. Please clarify.

**Answer: There are 13 DRDs due with proposal: DRD-FDOC-0001, 0002,
0005, 0008, 0009, 0021, 0025, 0026, 0030, 0032, 0043, 0044, and 0057.
The DRD due dates in Attachments J-16 and J-17 and the Volume I Appendix
B list in Section L will be updated accordingly in the Final RFP.**

67\. The RFP indicates: "Administration -- Services provided to MOD that
consist of MOD software and information engineering services, desktop
services, server administration, and Mission Control Center -- Houston
(MCC-H) Automation System (MAS) support with associated service desks
available; configuration, installation, and maintenance of the unique
MOD software loads on Outsourcing Desktop Initiative for NASA (ODIN)
provided MAS workstations (e.g., electronic flight note (EFN), chits,
anomaly logs); operation, administration, and maintenance of MAS
development and production servers; MOD software load compatibility
testing for new applications; and floor space planning services."

1\) Do services pertain to MAS equipment and environment only, or other
IT engineering and desktop services? The paragraph above lists MAS last
on the list which implies that it pertains to more than just MAS
equipment. 2) Request clarification on services being provided by FDOC
contractor versus ODIN contractor. For example, does services include
the procurement of new equipment, procurement and installation of new
equipment (if scope expansion is requested by customer), or just
installation of new equipment for MAS environment?

**Answer: The services do pertain to more than the MAS equipment and do
include procurement of some new equipment. The SOW is being updated to
clarify those services that are to be provided by FDOC versus ODIN.**

68\. Is it NASA's intention to include the Robotics Planning Facility
(RPF) software within FDOC scope?

**Answer: Yes, NASA intends for the RPF to be one of the FDOC
facilities. The Final RFP will be updated to list the RPF as a subset of
Integrated Planning System (IPS).**

69\. SOW Section 3.2.11.2 \[(User Applications and Supporting Data Files
Support) Development, Modification, and Systems Engineering\] is common
to all the elements of the contract but may have a slightly different
meaning or connotation in the context of user software. In particular,
certain software applications may have complex algorithms (e.g., Kalman
Filters). In the past, most of these types of algorithms (typically
trajectory) were provided by the customer. Will the customer continue to
provide these complex algorithms?

**Answer: NASA will provide any required algorithms.**

70\. 1) Is it the Government's intent that the contractor will replace
GFP as it wears out with capital equipment that it purchases as an
indirect cost to the contract? 2) If the answer to a. above is yes,
recommend that the Government include a "buy-back" clause for use at the
end of the contract. 3) This infers that if the contractor intends on
acquiring Special Tooling, Special Test Equipment, or Plant Equipment
(not incorporated into a deliverable end item) that Contracting Officer
approval is required prior to contractor acquisition/fabrication. There
does not appear to be any guidance or direction for instances in which
no response is received from the Government.

**Answer: NASA intends for GFP to be replaced as a material direct cost
in accordance with the Equipment Replacement Plan that the contractor
will provide under DRD-0048. C.O. approval is not required for the
purchase of contractor capital equipment.**

71\. Is it NASA's intent that the source code itself be listed in the
Application Certification Notebook and accessible on the web or simply
list the location of the source code (e.g. CDE path\\filename)?

**Answer: Source code accessibility is a requirement for the Software
Development Folder (formerly known as the Application Certification
Notebook), as specified in JSC 63756, MOD Software Management Plan,
Section 11, Configuration Management.**

72\. Will the OSHA logs be excluded from the Volume II page limitations?

**Answer: NASA intends for the offeror to provide a thorough summary of
the OSHA logs for the prime and all subcontractors who provide \$1M or
more in services as described in Section L.19 under Past Performance.
This summary should cover the past three years. The summary is not
excluded from the Volume II page limitations. The Past Performance
instructions will be updated in the Final RFP to clarify NASA's request
for a summary versus actual OSHA logs.**

73\. The FDOC Technical Library does not contain several CxP Mission
Operations Project (MOP) documents. Since FDOC will provide early
development of the CxP elements for MOD, I request the following
documents be added to the FDOC Library:

JSC-63670 CxTF Vision Document

JSC-63664 CxTF Operations Concept Document

JSC-63640 CxTF Level A Requirements

JSC-63671 System Engineering Management Plan

CxP-72133 MOP Master Verification Plan

CxP-70016 MOP Requirements and Interface Management Plan

CxP-72136 MOP System Requirements Document

**Answer: NASA intended to release these documents. They are being added
to the FDOC Technical Library.**

74\. RFP Section L TA3. Synergy, Consolidation, and Technological
Innovations states "The offeror shall describe for day one of the
contract, end of year one of the contract and contract end, the
progression of consolidated and synergistic work efforts for
modification, sustaining, maintenance, reconfiguration, and operations
across all mission operations facilities, for the purpose of reducing
cost to meet the MOD vision while meeting all facility functionality,
performance and operations as specified in this SOW." Please clarify
what year is the "contract end" -- the end of contract base (2012) or
end of second option (2014)?

**Answer: As it relates to TA3, Synergy, Consolidation, and
Technological Innovations NASA's intent is for the offeror to propose on
the contract base period (ending 9/30/2012).**

75\. RFP Page L-37, General Past Performance Section, Subparagraph 2
(last sentence) states, "Preference will be given, where possible to
other U.S. Government contracts." Frequently, outstanding examples of
innovation stems from commercial work. These innovations target specific
commercial challenges to provide enhanced safety, decreased costs, and
greater operational flexibility. Giving preference to other U.S.
Government contracts over commercial contracts limits discussion of
experience vital to evaluation criteria found in TA-3 (Synergy,
Consolidations, and Technological Innovation) and MA-3 (Management
Innovations). Since the FAR allows for the government's evaluation of
Federal, State, local government and private past performance for
efforts similar to the Government requirements, would the government
delete the more restrictive wording giving preference to evaluation of
U.S. Government contracts?

**Answer: In the Past Performance Questionnaire, NASA intends, if
possible, for offerors to include both U.S. Government contracts and
commercial contracts. The statement regarding preference to government
contracts will be removed from the Final RFP.**

76\. RFP Section L page L-37, General Past Performance heading, third
paragraph states, "For each company (including joint-ventures and
subcontracts) associated with this offer, excluding minor sub-contracts
below \$10,000,000 per year, the following information shall be
provided:" Section L page L-38, under the Safety and Environmental Past
Performance heading, the first and second paragraphs state that injury
and illness logs and past environmental performance is needed for, "each
company that may provide either \$1,000,000 or more in contract value or
ten or more full-time equivalent employees". Does the government intend
to have both monetary standards apply?

**Answer: Yes, NASA intends different limits for general past
performance and for safety and environmental past performance.**

77\. The effectiveness of support to NASA/MOD's facilities and users is
enhanced by physically locating operations, maintenance, and sustaining
engineering personnel in close proximity to the systems and community
they serve. Please provide the current incumbent onsite facility
capacity housing contractor personnel and any NASA input regarding a
change to that footprint during period of performance.

**Answer: Attachment J-22 detailing the amount of floor space available
on-site will be released with the Final RFP. Currently, there are
approximately 100 SPOC training facilities personnel housed onsite in
Buildings 4S, 5S and 5N. There are about 280 MSOC personnel in the
Building 30 complex. Those numbers include personnel on different shifts
who share workspace. That availability should remain about the same for
FDOC.**

### 78. Topic: Installation Accountable Government Property, the RFP Indicates: "The procedural references for the NASA disposal process are called out in this Section"; however under the services provided portion of this same section disposal services are not listed. Is it the Government's intent for the contractor to utilize NASA Redistribution and Utilization for processing items determined excess to contract requirements? {#topic-installation-accountable-government-property-the-rfp-indicates-the-procedural-references-for-the-nasa-disposal-process-are-called-out-in-this-section-however-under-the-services-provided-portion-of-this-same-section-disposal-services-are-not-listed.-is-it-the-governments-intent-for-the-contractor-to-utilize-nasa-redistribution-and-utilization-for-processing-items-determined-excess-to-contract-requirements .Section-heading}

**Answer: Yes, it is the Government's intent that the contractor shall
utilize the NASA Redistribution and Utilization for items provided under
FAR 52.245-1 and NFS 1852.245-71. No update is required for the RFP.**

79\. The RFP indicates: "The Contractor shall identify all equipment to
be delivered to the Government using NASA Technical Handbook
([NASA-HDBK)](http://standards.nasa.gov/public/public_detail.taf?Documents_uid1=1737&doc_name=NASA-HDBK-6003#%23)
6003, Application of Data Matrix Identification Symbols to Aerospace
Parts Using Direct Part Marking Methods/Techniques, and NASA Standard
(NASA-STD) 6002, Applying Data Matrix Identification Symbols on
Aerospace Parts Handbook." Is it the Government's intent that this
marking be affixed to only contractor acquired and/or fabricated
equipment, excluding materials?

**Answer: Yes it is a requirement that this marking be affixed to only
contractor acquired and/or fabricated equipment, excluding materials.**

80\. G.10 says contractor may use GFE provided under Section J at JSC or
other locations as approved by the C.O.. Does the term "at JSC" include
facilities located within 5 miles of JSC (refer to G.7)?

**Answer: Yes the term "at JSC" includes facilities located within 5
miles of JSC for property under 52.245-1.**

81\. Is it the Government's intent to provide historical information to
the contractor for all GFP that meets the criteria stated in G.13?

**Answer: During phase-in, the current contractors shall transfer the
items to the new contract and identify items as potential artifacts and
provide a brief description of their use.**

82\. The wording in Sections 4 and 8.b of the DRD \[DRD-FDOC-0047\]
description appears to have different requirements -- "Facility Services
Functions" vs. "Systems Facility Services." Is that the intent?

**Answer: The wording was not intended to be different. DRD-FDOC-0047
will be updated in the final RFP to refer only to facility services.**

83\. The RFP states: "The Contractor shall provide user application
source code and supporting data files to NASA per Software Documentation
Delivery (DRD-FDOC-0062)." The Submission details in the DRD states:
"Final -- Within 24 hours of NASA request." Given the 24-hour timeframe,
is it expected that requests under this DRD \[Software Documentation
Delivery (DRD-FDOC-0062)\] will be limited to a few Configuration Items
at a time, versus a large number of Configuration Items?

**Answer: Historically, the current contract has dealt with 1 to 2
requests per year.**

84\. H.8 (a) requires SDB subcontracting targets to be incorporated into
the contract. Subparagraph (b) requires the SDB concerns to be
specifically identified in the contract. What is the purpose of this
clause? The successful offeror is required to submit and have approved
an SDB Plan in accordance with 52.219-9 that is incorporated into the
contract?

**Answer: The purpose of the H.8 clause is to identify both SDB targets
and concerns that are being proposed by the offeror so that the
offeror's proposed data can be evaluated as part of the sub-factor on
Small Business Utilization. Offerors can also refer to FAR 19.201 (a)
and (b)---this describes the general policy and purpose of the clause.
Part (a) describes that it is the Government's responsibility to provide
maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to all small
businesses in all small business categories. Part (b) identifies the
Department of Commerce as the federal agency that has the authority to
determine what SDB procurement mechanism will be used to determine the
price evaluation adjustments for SDB concerns.**

85\. Is it the Government's intent for the contractor to utilize the
Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) for obtaining vehicles used
in support of contract requirements?

**Answer: It is not anticipated that the use of Government vehicles will
be a requirement on FDOC.**

86\. Section J, Attachment J-17 of the RFP states: "Describe the
procedures and techniques to be taken to compile an inventory of hazards
associated with the work to be performed on this contract. This
inventory of hazards shall address the work specified in this contract
as well as operations and work environments in the vicinity or in close
proximity to contract operations. The results shall be reported to the
Government in a manner suitable for inclusion in facilities baseline
documentation as a permanent record of the facility." What is meant by
"manner suitable" in the last sentence that reads: "The results shall be
reported to the Government in a manner suitable for inclusion in
facilities baseline documentation as a permanent record of the
facility"?

**Answer: "Manner suitable" is defined as the data delivered is in a
common electronic format such as Microsoft Office or Adobe PDF.
DRD-FDOC-0021 will be updated accordingly.**

87\. The list of facilities appears to be incomplete in Attachment J-18.
Please update.

**Answer: The Draft RFP did not address offsite facilities that may be
moved after contract award. Attachment J-18 of the final RFP will be
updated to add the following facilities:**

**Ground Support Development Environment (GSDE) currently located at
595**

**Gemini Houston, TX; USA Logistics Facility currently located at
17155**

**Feathercraft Lane, Webster, TX; Lockheed Martin Logistics Facility
currently**

**located at 901 Bay Area Blvd, Houston, TX; SSTF Development String
currently**

**located at 600 Gemini -- Houston, TX.**

**Any other facilities will be added to the final RFP.**

88\. The RFP does not provide information that is adequate for accurate
estimating of sustaining material, Development / Modification material,
or travel. The Constellation requirements are also not adequately
defined for accurate projections. We recommend that the Government
require the offerors to use the Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
for sustaining material, development / modification material, and travel
as "plug" numbers and delete the requirement for a Basis of Estimate
(BOE) for these items.

**Answer: Offerors shall propose non-labor resources that align with the
labor resources and their proposed approach, by Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) element. NASA will update the Technical Library, including
software licenses and maintenance agreements, and equipment replacement
plans, to assist offerors in understanding current requirements.**

89\. On the sample Task Order: in the 8^th^ bullet (page L-2.3) under
"For the purpose of this exercise, the Offeror may assume", it states
"The major project milestone in this fiscal year for this FTT will be
the System Integration Review (SIR) in April 2011." In Sub-Task 13
titled System Integration Review, it states the two deliverables, SIR
package and SIR RID Review recommendations, are due 6-20-2011 and
9-12-2011 respectively. To be consistent with Sub-Tasks 14 and 15, these
two deliverables should be delivered before the SIR schedule for April
2011. Please Clarify.

**Answer: The IDIQ Sample Task Order is being updated to reflect the
corrections listed below:**

**• Changed sub-task 13 delivery dates as follows:**

**1. SIR package - 3/30/2011**

**2. SIR RID Review Recommendations - 4/30/2011**

**• Deleted RID-related tasks and deliverables in Sub-tasks 14 and 15**

**• Changed sub-task 14 delivery date for TRR package - 9/30/2011**

**• Changed sub-task 15 delivery date for SAR package - 9/30/2011**

**The Final RFP will be updated accordingly.**

90\. Sub-Task 15 in the IDIQ Sample Task Order is titled System
Acceptance Review but the wording and deliverables are Test Readiness
Review (TRR). Please clarify

**Answer: Sub-task 15 covers the System Acceptance Review. The IDIQ
Sample Task Order sub-task 15 is being updated to reflect a change from
Test Readiness Review to System Acceptance Review. The Final RFP will be
updated accordingly.**

91\. The two deliverables for Sub-Task 11 titled "Integration of the
Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Vehicle Simulations into the
Facility" have deliverable dates of 10-18-2011. Both of the dates are
outside of the FY 2011 timeframe assumption stated earlier in the IDIQ
Sample Task Order. Please clarify.

**Answer: The delivery dates for sub-task 11 in the IDIQ Sample Task
Order are being corrected to the following:**

**1. Simulation integration Plan -10/18/2010**

**2. Demonstration of simulation operation in CxTF - 12/1/2010**

**The Final RFP will be updated accordingly.**

92\. Please provide further definition in the description of the MCC-H
Automated System (MAS) (SOW 1.2.2.2), Day of Launch Initialization Load
("I-load") Update (DOLILU) (SOW 1.2.2.4), Common Development Environment
(CDE) (SOW 1.2.6.1), and Ground Systems Development Environment (GSDE)
(SOW 1.2.6.2) facilities. Should this include: configuration of
hardware/software, facility requirements, accessibility and
software/hardware licensing?

**Answer: The requirements for MAS and DOLILU systems and facilities are
defined in SOW Section 3.2. For CDE the requirements are specified in
Appendix I of JSC-12804 and Appendix F of JSC-63796. The GSDE
requirements are covered by the Level A requirements for the facilities
it supports.**

93\. RFP Section L Non-Labor Resources Independent Government Estimate
(IGE) for Completion Form (Baseline) states "Sustaining material
estimates include equipment spares and piece parts, electronic
components, recurring hardware and software license agreements, and
recurring maintenance depot agreements." What are the existing Mission
Support Operations Contract (MSOC) recurring hardware and software
license agreements and recurring maintenance depot agreements and are
they transferable to FDOC? What are the costs of each of these
agreements? What are the expiration dates for these agreements? Are
there any foreign licenses that require import/export control/compliance
considerations?

**Answer: The offerors shall negotiate license agreements necessary for
completion of the FDOC SOW. Software license agreements are owned by the
Government and thus are transferable. The third party hardware
maintenance agreements are the responsibility of the contractor. NASA
will be updating the current software licenses and maintenance
agreements in the Technical Library.**

94\. RFP Section L page L-38, Safety and Environmental Past Performance
paragraph states, \"A statement shall be made regarding any OSHA
citations of the company\'s operations during the past three years. For
those contracts cited above, records of the company\'s OSHA recordable
injuries and illnesses shall be included.\" If it is intended to include
in proposals OSHA's Form 300, that would require release of employee
names, violating requirements to protect employee personal information.
However, the referenced 29 CFR 1904.5(d) specifies a summary of
occupational injuries and illnesses. Can OSHA Form 300A be substituted
which provides a Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses?

**Answer: The format described in OSHA Form 300A should be used for
reporting occupational injuries and illnesses. The Past Performance
Volume in Section L of the Final RFP will be updated accordingly.**

95\. Technical Excellence and Quality - The offeror shall describe its
approach to obtain and maintain technical excellence through a workforce
training plan, addressing qualifications and/or certifications as
required for specific duties.\" What are all the positions for which
NASA requires qualifications and/or certifications and what are those
qualifications and/or certifications?

**Answer: Section 3.1.8 of the SOW references documents that delineate
certification requirements (Software engineering training and
certification requirements (JPR 2820.1) will be moved from SOW 3.2.11.8
to 3.1.8.). JPR 1700.1 chapter 5.8 defines the requirements for
hazardous operations.**

96\. The Key Personnel Section states "...The offeror shall show
evidence of the extent of commitment and availability of personnel." Is
the intent to show evidence of only "Key Personnel" commitment and
availability or to show evidence for "all" personnel?

**Answer: The offerors shall show evidence of commitment for Key
Personnel only. The statement in the question is being deleted from MA1
to avoid confusion about which personnel.**

97\. Safety and Environmental Past Performance heading, third paragraph,
last two sentences state: \"Information on the liability and lawsuit
history related to safety and health performance shall also be provided.
Data shall be provided in the form of a letter of certification from the
insurance carrier that is sent directly from the insurance carrier to
NASA Johnson Space Center. Lawsuit and liability history is not
voluntarily released by corporations or insurance carriers. In regards
to suppliers, it is not expected that this type of information could be
obtained during the proposal phase, and may not be able to be obtained
after subcontract award. We would also like to better understand how
this type of information will be used, particularly for evaluation
purposes. Could you please identify how this type of historical
information would be used for evaluation? Will it be normalized to
address differences in company size, span of products, unusually
hazardous risk work for the government, number of jurisdictions where
the company operates? Will a Certificate of Insurance (COI) satisfy the
requirement for a letter of certification? COIs can be provided by
offerors and subcontractors to NASA, but are not normally sent by
insurance carriers. Please clarify what is desired regarding \"safety
and health\" letters of certification sent directly to NASA by insurance
carriers.

**Answer: NASA will not request information on the liability and lawsuit
history related to safety and health performance as part of the past
performance volume. The final RFP will be updated accordingly.**

98\. In reviewing the Attachment L-9 Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template in
relationship to Attachment J-21 Work Breakdown Summary (WBS) there
appears to be inconsistencies between the two. For example, WBS 1.3,
1.4.9, 1.5 and 1.6 are summary levels with lower level tabs in the L-9
Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template, however 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5,
1.4.7, 1.4.8 also appear to be summary levels but do not have lower
level tabs in the Attachment L-9 Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template. Are
the summary BOE's (i.e., 1.5) required as separate BOE's, or are we
required to summarize all lower level BOE's without tabs as summary
level BOE's?

**Answer: In the Attachment L-9 BOE Template, tabs for WBS 1.3, 1.4,
1.5, and 1.6 are summary, or "rollup", tabs. NASA intends for the
offeror to complete the BOE templates as provided for the lower level
elements.**

99\. For the Attachment L-9 Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template, can the
"Non-Labor Resources \$ - Other Subs" line be expanded to provide
visibility into each of the minor subcontractor values?

**Answer: No, as NASA will obtain minor subcontractor data from the
other cost template provided entitled "Minor Subcontractor Template".**

100\. For the Attachment L-9 Basis of Estimate (BOE) Template are the
values for "Hours, FTE (1860 Hrs) and Labor (\$)\" only for the Prime?
And if so will we be incorporating all subcontract values under the
"other subs" line?

**Answer: On Attachment L-9, BOE Template, hours, FTEs, and labor
dollars cover all work performed by prime and any subcontractors.**

101\. Do contractors have to identify themselves as Prime to participate
in the observation periods?

**Answer: No, contractors do not have to identify themselves as Prime to
participate in the observations, but NASA is asking each contractor to
identify which offering team, if any, they support. It is up to the
partnering team to determine which members attend the observations. NASA
is limiting the number of attendees per offering team in order to
accommodate all interested parties in the various observation
opportunities.**

102\. The RFP states \"a non-labor resources IGE has also been developed
for Completion Form (Baseline) and Level of Effort (LOE) and is included
in Table 5 and 5a.\" Table 5 is the Completion Form (Baseline) non-labor
resource table but 5a is marked as IDIQ non-labor resources. Please
clarify if Table 5a is for LOE or is IDIQ the correct CLIN.

**Answer: The reference to LOE in the IGE paragraph in Section L is a
typographical error; Table 5a is for IDIQ non-labor resources. The Final
RFP is being updated accordingly to reflect this correction.**

103\. It is not clear as to what contract we will be slated to support,
IMOC or FDOC. Our organization provides \"Group Administration\" (GA)
support for flight controller personnel in the MCC.  The GA role
currently provides software CM, software builds, MCC workstation console
configuration (including installing data files developed by developers
and flight controllers), configure the workstation console per Flight
Controller requirements, general Flight Controller support on the
workstation console and when problems arise, analyze
software/configuration issues on the MCC workstation console.  So now
the question is, will all this GA work performed today be applied to one
contract or split among both contracts? If split, what general tasks
will be applied to each contract?

**Answer: All of the Group Administrator (GA) functions are covered
under FDOC (reference SOW sections 2.13, 3.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.7, 3.1.8, and
3.2.11.2). The GA responsibilities are specifically outlined in
JSC-63756, Mission Operations Directorate Software Management Plan (this
document is referenced in SOW section 3.1).**

104\. In L.19 Instruction to Offerors, is a copy of the letter of
certification from the insurance carrier to be included in the Volume II
proposal? If so, will it be excluded from the Volume II page
limitations? What is the date the letter of certification is due to Mr.
Carpentier? Is the letter of certification from the insurance carrier to
be provided by the insurance carrier of the Prime contractor only? Or
Prime and all Major Subcontractors?

**Answer: NASA will not request the letters of certification from
insurance carriers as part of the Past Performance proposal. The Final
RFP will be updated accordingly. The Contracting Officer will request
the letters from the winning offeror for the prime and major
subcontractors during the FDOC contract phase-in period.**

105\. SOW Section 3.2.1.10, Table 3.2.1.10 MCC-H Systems Level A/B/C
Requirements and Interface Control Documents (ICDs), Page 33 references
\"ISS Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Avionics Reconfiguration
System (IMARS)\" as \"JSC-37555, Integrated Planning System (IPS)
International Space Station (ISS) Mission Operations Directorate (MOD)
Avionics Reconfiguration Subsystem (IMARS) Data Products Interface
Specification - Cycle 7.4.\" Please confirm this is the correct
reference. Did the government intend to reference "JSC-36405, IPS ISS
Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Avionics Reconfiguration System
(IMARS) Data Products Interface Specification - Revision Q"?

**Answer: Yes, JSC-36405 supersedes JSC-37555 and the Final RFP and FDOC
Technical Library will be updated accordingly.**

106\. Please advise as to when the J-9 Attachment will be provided on
the FDOC website.

**Answer: Attachment J-9 will be released on May 9, 2008 as part of the
Final RFP.**

107\. DRFP J-17 Attachment Data Requirements Descriptions (DRD),
DRD-FDOC-0043 Change Control Process and Plan Block 7 states: \"7.
Interrelationships (e.g., with other DRDs) (Optional) SOW 2.13.2,
2.13.3, 2.15, and 3.1.6\". Please confirm this is the correct
interrelationship reference. Did the government intend to reference
paragraph 3.1.5 instead of 3.1.6, since paragraph 3.1.5 relates to
Support Requests (SRs) and the change process but paragraph 3.1.6 does
not?

**Answer: The reference 3.1.6 was incorrect; it should be 3.1.5. The
Final RFP is being updated accordingly.**

108\. It is our understanding that prototyping is being done in the OTF
to support new technologies and innovations for MCCx. Will these
projects be covered in the March 25th Constellation Briefing? If not,
when will they be presented or will you include the materials of this
ongoing activity in the Technical Library?

**Answer: There will be no data presented on this topic as it is a
Government-led activity that is speculative and does not require
contractor input.**

109\. Does SOW Section 2.7 and reference pertain to only MAS?

**Answer: No. NASA intends for the FDOC contractor to provide additional
office automation functions and equipment not provided by ODIN. This is
separate from MAS, which is covered as part of the Planning and
Automation Systems Support in SOW 3.2.2. SOW 2.7 is being updated to
reflect this clarification.**

110\. For SOW 2.7, will the Government provide metric data to be used in
the development of the BOE, e.g., the number of PCs, servers and
printers; number of support requests per year; etc.?

**Answer: The number of PCs, servers, and printers will be provided in
Attachment J-8. The number of support requests processed in FY07 was
75.**

**UPDATE: The number of support requests (SRs) processed in FY07 related
to servers and printers was 75. For IRD SR processing (PCs) averages
2,700 SRs per year.**

111\. In SOW 2.7, the system administration functionalities require root
level security access on devices. Since devices will be on shared
network infrastructure, will joint ownership or single ownership of root
level access be required? Who will own functionality?

**Answer: For SOW 2.7, System Administration functionality will be
shared with ODIN on office PCs for the MOD-installed applications and
will be solely FDOC on the MOD fileservers.**

112\. The first paragraph under Safety and Environmental Past
Performance, first sentence states, "Offerors shall provide a statement
of their past safety performance on contracts identified above for the
prime and all subcontractors." The "above" refers to the Past
Performance contracts cited for the offeror and subcontracts with annual
contract value at or above \$10M. The last sentence states, "If a joint
venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same
information shall be provided for each company that may provide either
\$1,000,000 or more in contract value or ten or more full-time
equivalent employees." For joint ventures or prime-subcontractor
relationships with the \$1M in total contract value or ten or more
full-time equivalent employees, please clarify instructions for
subcontractors to select their contracts for reporting safety
performance under this provision.

**Answer: NASA is clarifying the wording in the Safety and Environmental
Past Performance section contained in Section L of the Final RFP to the
following:**

**For each company (including joint-ventures and subcontracts)
associated with this offer, excluding very minor sub-contracts below \$1
million per year, the offeror shall provide a statement of safety and
environmental performance over the last three years on work that is
relevant to this effort, with special emphasis on the experience of the
division of the company which will perform the proposed contract.**

**The offeror shall also provide a summary of each company's
work-related injuries and illnesses, following the format of OSHA Form
300A, and any OSHA citations of each company's operations during the
past three years.**

**The offeror shall provide a statement regarding any
environmental-related citations of each company's operations in the past
three years. Examples of citation sources are federal, state, and local
environmental agencies.**

113\. Please make any Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA) and/or
export licenses accomplished under the Mission Support Operations
Contract (MSOC) available in the FDOC Technical Library.

**Answer: NASA expects that the nature of the work specified in the FDOC
SOW will not require Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) for its
contractors, because the work does not require direct interactions
(i.e., providing a "defense service") with International Partners
concerning items on the United States Munitions List (USML). Similarly,
there are no Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) needed or in place
for the work currently under MSOC.**

**Export licenses are covered under NASA's existing Export Control
process. See JSC Common Work Instruction J29W-01, "JSC Export Compliance
Work Instruction." This document is being added to the FDOC SOW and
Technical Library as an applicable document.**

114\. If identification of the SDB in the contract (other than in the SB
Plan) is required, what is the process for changing SDB concerns during
the period of performance on the contract?

**Answer: To request a change to the SDB concerns listed in clause H.8,
the contractor would submit a revision request for the Contracting
Officer's review and approval. If the Contracting Officer concurs with
the request, the C.O. will issue a bilateral, administrative
modification updating the clause in the contract.**

115\. Will the government consider a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal
(FPRP) in addition to a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) for
exemption in completing the Overhead and G&A Templates?

**Answer: If an offeror has a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, then the
offeror is not required to submit an Overhead and G&A template. However,
if an offeror does not have a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, then the
offeror is required to submit an Overhead and G&A template. Submission
of a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal does not meet the requirements in
Section L. Please refer to the Overhead and G&A template instructions.**

116\. Is it the Government's intent to provide calibration services
through its calibration lab or is it the Government's intent that the
contractor arrange for and estimate the cost of use of commercial
calibration facilities?

**Answer: For the various types of Government property, the contractor
should refer to JSC System Level Procedure (SLP) 4.11 (Updated to
JPR-1281.11 ). Contractor-owned property is to be calibrated at the
contractor's expense at the contractor's preferred location per the
standards defined in the Quality Assurance (QA) section of the FDOC SOW.
The QA section of the FDOC SOW is being updated for the final RFP to
clarify this distinction.**

117\. SOW Section 2.14.2 states that "The Contractor shall track capital
property separately from Government property" and "The Contractor shall
perform maintenance and calibration on the capital property for which
the Contractor is accountable." Please provide NASA's definition of
capital property.

**Answer: Contractor-owned capital property in this context means
property owned by the Contractor that is not purchased with FDOC funds
as a direct charge. NASA will add this definition to the Glossary in the
Final RFP, and will clarify SOW Section 2.14.2 to refer to
"Contractor-owned capital property" instead of "capital property".**

118\. SOW Section 2.10 states "The Contractor may request the use of the
Receiving Inspection and Test Facility (RITF) receiving inspection
services for metallic and nonmetallic material properties analysis,
destructive physical analysis, failure analysis of electronic
components, and screen burn-in of electrical and electronic parts and
components. The Contractor may negotiate use of the RITF training
services for nondestructive evaluation, hand soldering, and
electrostatic discharge, and other special processes for personnel
certification." Under which G Clause would we request the use of the
Receiving Inspection and Test Facility (RITF)? How is the cost of using
the RITF computed? Is the contractor encouraged to use the RITF instead
of instituting FDOC-based capabilities?

**Answer: RITF standard services as described in SOW Section 2.10 are
provided on a non-interference basis. Contractors would request use of
the RITF under Clause G.7(c)(7). There is no charge to the contractor
for RITF standard services for FDOC purposes. For all sections of the
proposal, assume use of the RITF on a no-cost basis.**

**UPDATE: The FDOC SOW section 2.11 (QA) has been updated to reflect the
fact that the contractor shall use the RITF facility for receiving
inspection services and training purposes.**

119\. In SOW 2.7, the system administration functionalities require root
level security access on devices. Since devices will be on shared
network infrastructure, will joint ownership or single ownership of root
level access be required? Who will own functionality?

**Answer: The Contractor shall be responsible for MOD-unique office
applications. In order to perform MOD unique office applications, the
Contractor shall have systems administration access on the office PC's.
The Information Resources Directorate (IRD) contractor will have network
access for standard software support. The SOW Section 2.7 will be
updated accordingly.**

120\. Please clarify the minimum ordering limitations for CLIN 003 IDIQ.
Clause F.6 (a) shows a \$25,000 amount vs. Clause F.8 (b) which shows a
\$10,000 amount.

**Answer: Clause F.6 (a) will be revised with the \$10,000 minimum order
amount. For clarification, clause F.6 refers to limitations per
individual IDIQ Delivery Order, while clause F.8 refers to limitations
for total IDIQ Delivery Orders over the life of the contract base
period.**

121\. It appears that changing Russian immigration law will impact
contractor personnel for HSR. What impact, if any, will the new Russian
immigration law have on the contractor personnel in Russia? Should
contractors cost estimate worst case scenario on visa time frames, or
will NASA be able to intervene?

**Answer: Potential offerors should consult with their legal counsel as
to the possible effects of Russian immigration law on their proposal.
The Final RFP is being updated to state that the contractor must
establish an Associated Contractor Agreement (ACA) with the Mission
Integration Contract (MIC) for handling of the visa and Letter of
Invitation (LOI) process.**

122\. In the Software Inventory -- Tech Library file in the Bidder's
Library, there are 162 applications comprising 1.6 million source lines
of code (MSLOC) which we believe are not FDOC scope. Those applications
are maintained on the Software Production Facility (SPF) platform by USA
Flight Software Personnel as part of their effort supporting the
Engineering Directorate, not MOD. Is it NASA's intention to transition
those applications to FDOC?

**Answer: Flight software utilized by Software Production Facility (SPF)
will not be transitioned to FDOC and has been removed from the MOD
Software Inventory List in the FDOC Technical Library.**

123\. Please identify the facilities containing cryptographic equipment
(ref. SOW 2.6) including the equipment and software provided at each
facility.

**Answer: The facilities containing cryptographic equipment are listed
in SOW section 2.6.3. The details concerning cryptographic equipment and
software are considered Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information
that is not releasable except to the contract awardee. For proposal
purposes, offeror's should assume 0.1 FTE for Engineer III, 2.0 FTE for
Manager, and 8.0 FTE for Technician III for all COMSEC work. Section
L.19 will be updated to reflect this assumption.**

**UPDATE: All COMSEC work is now located in the LOE Section of the SOW,
3.3.6. The manpower numbers have been removed from the baseline
(completion form) and are now included in LOE.**

124\. Request the latest revision of the MSOC Surveillance Plan be
placed in the FDOC Technical Library.

**Answer: The MSOC Surveillance Plan will be added to the FDOC Technical
Library on or before May 9, 2008.**

125\. Section L, page L-37, General Past Performance heading, first
paragraph states, "...when completing the Attachment L-3, Past
Performance Questionnaire..." and subparagraph 2 states, "Offerors shall
complete Attachment L-3 Past Performance Questionnaire, for at least
three contracts...". These two statements indicate the government wants
the offerors to submit, as part of their proposals, completed Attachment
L-3's.\
\
Please clarify the responsibility as to completion of Attachment L-3.

**Answer: It is the offeror's responsibility to provide their references
with copies of the questionnaire and ensure that the references submit
those questionnaires directly to The FDOC Contracting Officer by the due
date of the Past Performance volume. Any questionnaires received after
the Past Performance due date of June 9, 2008, will not be used for
evaluation purposes. The Final RFP is being updated to clarify this.**

126\. The following documents are not located in the Technical Library:
JSC COMSEC Maintenance Plan, STS COMSEC Key Control Agreement,
MSOC-PRO-0313 MSOC COMSEC Security Procedures, NPG 1620.1A NASA Security
Procedures and Guidelines, JSC-29234 MOD Information, Agency CIO
Applicable NASA IT Requirements (NITRs), CNSS TEMPEST Countermeasures
for Facilities and JSC-22621 NSTS Communications Security Logistics
Control Guide Attachment H.

In addition, there are other documents listed in J-2 Applicable
Documents that are not in the Technical Library. Can all the J-2
documents be added to the Technical Library and what is the schedule to
complete this action?

**Answer: COMSEC documents are not releasable to the public and will not
be provided in the FDOC technical library. NPG 1620.1A has been
superseded by NPR 1600.1 and is being removed as a reference from
DRD-FDOC-0030 and DRD-FDOC-0031. This change will be reflected in the
Final RFP. All other documents able to be posted will be added to the
FDOC Technical Library on or before May 9, 2008. J-2 will indicate the
status of those documents that will not be able to be posted.**

127\. In Section L.19, there are technical approach subfactors listed
for both systems engineering and user applications. Under which
subfactor should a discussion of systems engineering related to user
applications be included?

**Answer: The separate systems engineering subfactor has been eliminated
in the final RFP in order to minimize such overlap. Elements such as
systems engineering and innovation should now be discussed in terms of
specific facilities. Two new technical approach subfactors have been
added in order to focus proposals on two key facilities, the MCC-H and
SSTF.**

**The new subfactor for SSTF reads:**

***"The offeror shall describe its approach for meeting the technical
requirements of the SOW for the SSTF full task trainer (simulator). This
approach shall be organized according to Attachment J-21, Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS). The description shall include the offeror's specific
technological approaches and how they can safely achieve MOD's
functional, physical, and operational performance requirements within
cost and schedule constraints. In addition, the offeror shall
specifically address its approach to systems engineering relative to
hardware, software, data, and displays. The offeror shall describe its
approach for new development and innovation and for assuming
responsibility for legacy systems at contract start. Finally, the
offeror shall describe opportunities for synergy for all aspects within
the simulators."***

**The subfactor for the MCC is very similar. There continue to be
technical approach subfactors for user applications, the CxTF sample
delivery order, inter-facility synergy, and quality (which now also
includes configuration management and change control).**

128\. The FDOC draft RFP does not contain a DRD for a contractor
schedule for Constellation work.  The contractor is required to provide
ancillary schedule products, such as schedule performance metrics and
schedule risk.  However, they are not required to provide a schedule.
This allows only a low level of insight into the contractor's schedule.
Suggest that the contractor should be required to provide a schedule of
their activities to be integrated into the Mission Operations Project
(MOP) Integrated Management System (IMS).  An example DRD is found in
the NASA Schedule Management Handbook

**Answer: The Government will integrate the appropriate schedules
delivered by the contractor into the NASA/MOD master schedule for
Constellation work.**

129\. DRFP Section L.1 Listing of Clauses Incorporated by Reference NFS
clause 1852.215-78 Make or Buy Program Requirements requires supporting
documentation to be submitted the proposal. Please clarify which volume
this information should be located and if page limitations will be
adjusted.

**Answer: The NFS clause "1852.215-78 Make or Buy Program Requirements"
has been removed from the RFP. This change will be reflected in the
final release.**

130\. For DRFP Section F.10, page F-5 Option for Incremental Increase of
Effort (CLIN 005), please clarify the statement of work contemplated by
these flex options.

**Answer: If exercised, the LOE Flex options may be applied to any of
the work described in SOW Section 3.3.**

131\. DRFP Section H.2, page H-2 Task Ordering Procedure covers the
process and procedures for IDIQ. Please clarify the LOE task ordering
process and procedures for LOE task orders under CLIN 004 and CLIN 005.

**Answer: Clause H.3, Task Ordering Procedure, outlines the process for
IDIQ Delivery Orders and LOE Task Orders. The Final RFP is being updated
to clarify this.**

132\. Assuming the sequence of events (timeline) for the award of FDOC
is as follows:

Announcement of Contract Award -- 11/7/08

ATP -- 11/15/08

Start of Phase-In -- 11/15/08

Contract Start -- 1/1/09

Could the Government clarify the "time stamp" dates used throughout the
Draft RFP, and in particular the DRDs?

Specific examples:

1)  "Within 30 days of ATP" -- is ATP the 1/15/08 date?

2)  "CS + 30 days" -- is CS is 1/1/09 date?

3)  "CA + 90 days" -- is CA the 11/07/08 date?

If the above assumptions are true, shouldn't the time stamps be as of
the Contract Start date of 1/1/09?

**Answer: NASA's current schedule is to award FDOC on 11/7/08 and start
FDOC on 1/1/09. The initial submittal date for the Records Management
Plan, DRD-FDOC-0033, is being updated to read, "90 calendar days after
contract start." The Final RFP is being updated accordingly. (The above
was the only instance of "ATP" in the RFP.) Because some activities are
required to be executed during the phase-in period, some DRD due dates
are expressed relative to contract award. These dates are as expressed
in the RFP.**

133\. Section L Clause L.16 Government Property Management Information
(NFS 1852.245-80) (i) states "Existing Government Property may be
reviewed at the following locations, dates, and times: TBD". Request
Government to provide information relating the data, time and location
for when the existing government property may be reviewed in accordance
with L.16, NFS 1852.245.80 (i).

**Answer: Section L Clause L.16 covers Government property located in
off-site locations that NASA will make available for potential use by
the contractor in accordance with the information contained in Clause
L.17. NASA will provide an opportunity to view existing offsite
property, with dates and times to be published on the FDOC website.**

134\. Are there items missing from the property and software lists?

**Answer: Yes. The Final RFP will contain the updated property lists in
Attachments J-8 and J-9, and the software in J-10.**

135\. Some items and terms in the DRD-FDOC-0010 data requirements
description are inconsistent with standards and terminology described in
JSC-62818, MOD Info. Tech. Mgmt. Plan.

Example: DRD references PPBE while 62818 references POP

Recommend update data requirements description sheet in final RFP
release to reference JSC-62818 and revise terms as above. Otherwise,
offerors may not be responding to the correct or complete set of
requirements.

**Answer: The term "PPBE" has replaced "POP" as the budget cycle term.
JSC-62818 will be updated to reflect this on its normal update cycle.
JSC-62818 has been added as a reference to DRD-FDOC-0010.**

136\. DRFP Section I - RFP specifies a FAR 52-245-1 property system is
to be used. Section C.2.14.1 specifies the contractor shall use the NASA
IAM as a delegated property administrator. Section C.2.14.2 specifies
the contractor shall track Capital Property separately from Government
Property. Section J-8 Section I lists approximately 13,000 items, but
does not provide any NEMS numbers. Section J-8 section II lists
approximately 3,000 line items, all with NEMS numbers. Question and
answer #26 specifies all items currently in NEMS will be in IAM prior to
contract start.\
\
What is the definition of Capital Property as referenced in C.2.14.2?\
\
How many items in J-8 Section I are in NEMS and will be in IAM by
contract start?\
\
The J-8 list identifies roughly 13,000 items without providing any NEMS
reference. It is anticipated that 10,000 items will need to be managed
in a NASA sub-installation account (NEMS or IAM) (Reference G.7 aka NFS
1852.245-71). Will those items be populated into the Government\'s
Property system prior to the contract starting or will the offeror
contribute effort to transition these items into NEMS (IAM) after
contract start?

**Answer: Contractor-owned capital property in this context means
property owned by the Contractor that is not purchased with FDOC funds
as a direct charge. NASA will add this definition to the Glossary in the
Final RFP, and will clarify the SOW to refer to "Contractor-owned
capital property" instead of "capital property".**

**Attachment J-8 lists offsite property pursuant to NFS 1852-245-76 and
-77. This property is to be tracked in the contractor's tracking system
in accordance with SOW 2.15.1. NASA is clarifying the division of
property between Attachments J-8 and J-9; this will be reflected in the
Final RFP.**

137\. Please elaborate on the use of excess capacity by the Canadian
Space Agency. Please explain any existing practice/process in place and
provide any existing documentation, and discuss any future/planned
expansion of this practice.

**Answer: This is enabling language to allow the contractor to enter
into agreements with International Partner's to perform control center
work on a non-interference basis. The offerors do not need to account
for this effort in their proposals.**

**This entire requirement has been removed from the SOW.**

138\. Clause H.10 of the RFP states: The parties agree that,
notwithstanding the provisions of the "Changes" clause and the
"Government Property" clause, no change made pursuant to the "Changes"
clause shall give rise to an equitable adjustment in the estimated cost
or fee or any other contract provision when said change causes an
increase or decrease of \$500,000 or less in the estimated cost of this
contract. Each change shall be controlling in making this determination,
and such change shall not, for purposes of determining the applicability
of this clause, be added to any other changes(s). The parties recognize
that several changes may be grouped together in a bilateral modification
for definitization; however, the dollar value of each individual change
will be controlling in determining whether or not an equitable
adjustment is in order. Does the \$500K threshold apply only to CLIN
002?

**Answer: Yes, the \$500K threshold applies only to CLIN 002
(Baseline).**

139\. The current version (April 25, 2002) of NPR 8000.4 -- Risk
Management Procedural Requirements (Revalidated 2/1/07) expires April
25, 2008, prior to contract award. 

-   Is there another version which will be released in the near future,
    or will this one be revalidated?

Do we follow the Consequence Class scoring methodology defined in
paragraph 2.3.1.1 or do we follow the 5 x 5 Likelihood x Consequence
scoring methodology currently used in the Cx Program as defined on the
CxP Risk Summary Card?

**Answer: NPR 8000.4 is being revalidated through 2013. Offerors should
use the most current version of documents that are available when
preparing their proposals. The FDOC contractor shall use the risk
management process defined by each program. The Shuttle Program utilizes
National Space Transportation System (NSTS) 07700, Volume XIX, the Space
Station Program (SSP) utilizes SSP 50175, and the Constellation Program
utilizes an internal risk summary card. All three documents can be found
in the Supporting Documents folder of the FDOC Technical Library.**

140\. For the purposes of this proposal, what is the date, duration, and
destination of the last Shuttle flight before retirement?

**Answer: Per the current manifest, the last shuttle flight is scheduled
for July, 2010 for approximately two weeks to the International Space
Station.**

141\. Page L-10 of the NNJ08221364R guideline does not specifically
address type sizing of Graphic inserts and tables. May we use a minimum
of 8 point for non-narrative text in graphic inserts and tables? If not,
what size font is appropriate?

**Answer: Tables and labels inserted as a graphic or part of a graphic
may use no smaller than an 8 point font. Section L.11 has been updated
accordingly.**

142\. The role of uncompensated overtime was not addressed in your
discussion of the IGE. Was uncompensated overtime used to develop the
IGE; i.e. \"IGE was developed using...current approaches and
assumptions.\" If so, what uncompensated O.T. factor was used? In
addition, NASA has indicated that it is looking for the offeror to
propose a profile that reflects technological innovations. The
differences in company charging practices may skew the analysis of
efficiencies if uncompensated O.T. is not normalized. This apparent
efficiency approach doesn\'t seem to meet the MOD\'s objective of the
\"\...offeror to propose a profile that reflects technological
innovation and new ways of doing business\" against the IGE.

**Answer: Uncompensated overtime was not used in the development of the
IGE for Completion Form (Baseline) and Level of Effort. The IGE is the
Government's estimate of the labor resources (skill mix, full time
equivalents, and hours) required to perform the FDOC effort, without
incorporation of any one offeror's specific management approach,
technical approach, or efficiencies. Any efficiencies or technological
innovations (see Section L.19, Efficiency Template) proposed by an
offeror for the FDOC effort must be consistent with the offeror's
disclosure statement and proposed technical and management approach.**

143\. DRFP SOW 2.1.2 Customer Cost Report states, \"The Contractor shall
provide Customer Cost Reporting (DRD-FDOC-0015) that provides full cost
information by human spaceflight programs and projects.\" How does the
government define a program and project for the purpose of this
reporting requirement? Should we use the definitions defined in NPR
7120.5c NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements?

**Answer: For the purposes of FDOC, "Program" refers to Agency-wide
human spaceflight programs such as Shuttle, ISS, and Cx. "Projects"
generally refer to FDOC facilities such as Space Station Training
Facility (SSTF), Mission Control Center (MCC), and Software Production
Facility (SPF). There may also be "special projects" that deal with
upgrades or other significant changes. Yes, the definitions in NPR
7120.5 are applicable.**

144\. The FDOC DRFP states in SOW section 2.6.3 that, \"The Contractor
shall perform the necessary limited cryptographic maintenance (requires
a SECRET clearance, as described by the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between NASA and the U.S. Air Force\.....\" Is the referenced MOA
available for review? If so where is it located? What does limited
cryptographic maintenance mean?

**Answer: The referenced MOA is not available for review. The definition
of limited cryptographic maintenance will be released to the FDOC
contractor personnel that have the required clearance. Manpower
requirements to cover cryptographic maintenance and all other COMSEC
work will be listed under Table 2 in Section L.19 in the Final RFP.**

**All COMSEC work has been moved to the LOE portion of the SOW, Section
3.3.**

145\. DRFP SOW 2.8 Documentation Management states, \"For documents
requiring NASA approval (such as Type 1 DRDs and SRs), the Contractor
shall accommodate approval via electronic signature, where feasible. For
any documents that cannot be approved via electronic signature, the
Contractor shall submit for approval to the NASA Contracting Officer\'s
Technical Representative (COTR) a plan/schedule to enable that
capability.\" Please provide an inventory of documents requiring a plan
for moving to electronic signature.

**Answer: Currently, none of the Type 1 DRDs have electronic signature
capability, so there is no inventory to provide.**

146\. DRFP SOW 3.2.1.6 Test and Checkout states, \" The Contractor is
responsible for verification of all IP Interface Control Documents
(ICDs) and IT security capabilities. Please clarify what verification
techniques are used and required.

**Answer: The verification techniques depend on the specific interface
being tested.**

147\. Please confirm if the J-8 listing will be updated to differentiate
between \"Facility infrastructure\" (Ref Sect C, 1. 3rd Para.) and
general purpose tools and test equipment. Since FAR and G.6 (a) specify
a \"contractor shall provide all property required for the
performance\", is every item identified in J-8 authorized to be
replaced/exchanged as a direct charge? Are hand/general purpose tools
not meeting the NEMS/IAM tagging requirements considered government
property and a direct charge?

**Answer: Property listed in Attachment J-8 Part I is pursuant to FAR
52.245-1 and is replaceable as a direct charge. Property listed in Part
II is pursuant to FAR 52.245-2 and is not replaceable as a direct
charge. In accordance with Clause L.16(e) and (f), it is up to the
offeror in its proposal to "...disclose cost accounting practices that
allow for direct charging of commercially available equipment, when
commercially available equipment is to be used in performance of the
contract and the equipment is not a deliverable" and to "...identify, in
list form, any equipment that it intends to acquire and directly charge
to the Government under this contract."**

148\. During the Constellation Briefing on March 25, 2008, several
documents were listed within the briefings (e.g., JSC 63670 CxTF Vision
Document) and other \"Reference Documents\" were listed on the \"Backup
Slides\" at the end of the briefing. We were informed during the
presentation that these documents would be published in the technical
library. Please provide an estimated completion date when these
documents identified in the briefings will be published in the FDOC
technical library.\
\
SOURCE: Mission Control Center Systems (MCCS)\
Development for the Constellation Program (Cx), Summary Overview, March
25th, 2008\
• JSC-63796 MCCS Level A Requirements\
• MS SRD to MCCS Level A flowdown matrix\
• MS/MCCS Mission Concept Review (MCR) and Systems Requirements Review
(SRR)\
• JSC 63796 MCCS Level A Requirements\
• JSC 62655 Command (Volume 2,3)\
• JSC 13499 Communication FEP (Volumes 16,17)\
• JSC 64011 Communication CEM\
• JSC 13509 Communication TCS\
• JSC 64007 Configuration Management\
• JSC 63975 DDCS (Volumes 1,2)\
• JSC 63974 External Data Distribution System (Volumes 1,2)\
• JSC 63991 Timing\
• JSC 64006 Data Storage\
• JSC 63990 Video\
• JSC 64004 Voice\
• JSC 64000 Electronic Documentation Subsystem\
• JSC 64003 Weather

• JSC 63998 MCCS User Applications\
• JSC 63973 MCC Platform Services -- PSS (Volume 1)\
• JSC 63973 MCC Platform Services -- IDDS (Volume 2)\
• JSC 63973 MCC Platform Services -- OS & Security (Volume 3)\
• JSC 63986 Core Trajectory Subsystem\
• JSC 63997 Resource Utilization Planning & System Modeling\
• JSC 63996 Crew Mission Planning\
• JSC 64012 MCCS Platform Services\
• JSC 64017 MAS Planning Services for Mission Execution\
• JSC 64018 MAS Mission Execution Support Services\
• JSC 28865 OCA\
• CxP 72131 MOP Operational Concept\
• [MOP Interface Control Documents (Part 1)\
• MCCS Interface Control Documents (Part 2)]{.mark}\
• CxP 72134 MOP Architecture Description Document\
• MCCS System Design Notebook\
• [MSOC-DRD-0068 Test & Verification Plan (MCC, IPS)]{.mark}\
• CxP 72132 MOP System Engineering Plan\
• JSC 64019 MCCS System Engineering Management Plan\
• [MCCS Subsystem SEMPs]{.mark}\
• JSC 63756 MOP Software Management Plan

SOURCE: Constellation Training Facility (CxTF)\
For Crew and Flight Controller Training, Project Overview, March 25,
2008\
• CxP 70000 Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD)\
• CxP 70024 CxP Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR)\
• CxP 70076 CxP Integrated Modeling & Simulation Requirements\
• CxP 72132 Constellation Program (CxP) Mission Ops Project (MOP)
Systems Engineering Management Plan\
• JSC 63756 Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Software Management
Plan\
• DA-WI-18 MOD Risk Management Plan\
• NPR 7123.1 NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements\
• NPR 7120.5D NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management
Requirements\
• JPR 7120.3 Project Management: Systems Engineering & Project Control
Processes and Requirements\
• SP 6105 NASA Systems Engineering Handbook\
• NPR-8000.4 Risk Management Procedural Requirements\
• NPR 8705.2A Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems\
• NPD 1440.6G Records Retention\
• NPR 1441.1D NASA Records Retention Schedules (w/Change 3, 1/31/06)\
• NPR 7120.6 Lessons Learned Process\
• NPR 7150.2 NASA Software Engineering Requirements\
• NPD 7500.2 NASA Technology Commercialization Policy (Revalidated
4/26/04)\
• NPR 7500.1 NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/ Change 1
(4/9/04)

**Answer: The majority of these documents were posted to the FDOC
Technical Library on April 9, 2008. Documents highlighted in yellow
above have not been posted. Any request for documentation that has not
been posted in the FDOC Technical Library needs to be placed through the
NASA FOIA office.**

149\. Please provide an estimated completion date for updating the FDOC
technical library with the documents in the questions previously
answered by the Contracting Officer.\
\
Question #73\
JSC-63670 CxTF Vision Document\
JSC-63664 CxTF Operations Concept Document\
JSC-63640 CxTF Level A Requirements\
JSC-63671 System Engineering Management Plan\
CxP-72133 MOP Master Verification Plan\
CxP-70016 MOP Requirements and Interface Management Plan\
CxP-72136 MOP System Requirements Document\
\
Question #89\
Software licenses and maintenance agreements, and equipment replacement
plans\
\
Question #106\
JSC-36405, IPS ISS Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Avionics
Reconfiguration System (IMARS) Data Products Interface Specification -
Revision Q\
\
Question #114\
JSC Common Work Instruction J29W-01, "JSC Export Compliance Work
Instruction."

**Answer: The FDOC Technical Library was updated on April 9, 2008 and
all the indicated documents were posted. The software licenses,
maintenance agreements, and equipment replacement plans will be posted
by May 9, 2008.**

150\. Please clarify if the incumbent has any capital (Corporate owned)
tools and systems (Hardware) that are used to perform the FDOC SOW work?
If so, please provide an approximate value and a listing (inventory) for
what tools and systems are currently being furnished by the incumbent
(corporate owned). Data is needed to determine what will need to be
purchased immediately to support the program (if necessary).

**Answer: The government does not require the contractor to provide
detailed information on their capital property. It is up to the offeror
to determine any capital property required in performance of the
contract, given the property provided by the government. See Attachments
J-8, Off-Site Government Furnished Property; J-9, Installation
Accountable On-Site Government Furnished Property; and J-10, Custom and
COTS Software in the final RFP. The contractor should perform their own
assessment to determine what needs to be purchased based on the
attachments cited.**

151\. Will incumbent contractors hired by the prime or sub-contractors,
who currently have a PIV credential, be allowed to retain their PIV
under FDOC or will they have to be issued a new PIV? Will the HSPD-12
investigations for incumbent contractors who have a PIV badge be
acceptable for issue of a new PIV credential, if required?

**Answer: All personnel working under the new FDOC contract (including
incumbents) will need to be issued a new PIV. Previous investigations
will be acceptable for the new PIV. Offerors are reminded that the new
security and badging requirements take a long time to complete and all
security issues must be resolved and the workforce ready on day 1 of the
FDOC.**

152\. The Flight Operations and Integration Group (FOIG) Charter
document, Baseline dated December 2007 Appendix A, states that \"MOD is
an active participant (chair or voting member) in 174 boards and
panels\...\" Is it NASA\'S intent to apply these boards and panels in
support of FDOC? If not, please clarify the NASA MOD boards applicable
to the FDOC and provide the associated charters.

**Answer: The FOIG Charter is much broader than FDOC, and its scope need
not be considered by the offerors. All meetings applicable to FDOC are
included in the RFP and can be found in DRD-FDOC-0012 Status Reports and
Reviews; DRD-FDOC-0054 Design Review; SOW Section 3.2.1.7 Interface
Support; 3.2.1.9, 3.2.2.9, 3.2.3.9, 3.2.4.9 Metrics/Data and Reports;
and in SOW Section 3.3 Facility Engineering and Support Services
(LOE).**

### 153. *A. RFP Indicates:* {#a.-rfp-indicates .Section-heading}

DRD-FDOC-0051, Facility and Systems Test and Verification Procedures and
DRD-FDOC-0052, Facility and Systems Test and Verification Report, both
request requirement traceability.

### *B. Recommendation:* {#b.-recommendation .Section-heading}

1)  By the definition in JSC-63756 (see Note A. below) for Requirement
    Traceability, it is recommended that a bi-directional Requirement
    Traceability Matrix (RTM) be submitted for DRD--FDOC-0050, Facility
    and Systems Test and Verification Plan, and eliminated from
    DRD-FDOC-0051 or DRD-FDOC-0052 (see 2. below). This RTM will also
    include the method of verification, i.e., Analysis, Demonstration,
    Test, or Inspection.

2)  By the definition in JSC-63756 (see Note B. below) for Requirement
    Verification, both DRD-FDOC-0051 and DRD-FDOC-0052 will contain a
    Requirement Verification Matrix (RVM) that indicates a Document
    Number, a Requirement Number, a Test Case that verifies the
    requirement, and the Pass/Fail status for the requirement under
    test.

Note A: In JSC-63756, the definition of Requirement Traceability is: For
class A, B, and F (not OTS) software, the requirements must have
bi-directional traceability to parent requirements and vice versa.
\[SWE-052\] This can be implemented via a Requirements Traceability
Matrix in an SRD or IRD Appendix. \[SWE-109.d\] Safety critical
requirements must be designated as such in the matrix.

Note B: In JSC-63756, the definition of Requirement Verification is: For
class A, B, C, D, F and G software, the project must create and maintain
a Requirements Verification Matrix. This matrix maintains traceability
from the software requirements to the verification method and test case
number. It will be used to ensure all requirements are implemented. This
can be as simple as a spreadsheet which lists each requirement, hazard
report number, verification method, and test case number for testable
requirements. Safety critical requirements must be designated as such in
the matrix and include the hazard report number.

**Answer: For the final RFP, the following clarifications are being
made:**

**DRD-FDOC-0050, Facility Test and Verification Approach, is now
designed to be an overall approach to test and verification in FDOC
facilities, in accordance with SOW Section 3.1.6.**

**DRD-FDOC-0051, Test and Verification Plans and Procedures, contains
the specific test plans and procedures for formal testing of hardware
and software systems for the facilities covered in the SOW, in
accordance with JSC-63756, Mission Operations Directorate Software
Management Plan, Section 8, Testing. Details formerly contained in the
DRD are being removed in favor of the details contained in JSC-63756.**

**DRD-FDOC-0052, Test and Verification Report, documents the formal
testing results defined in DRD-FDOC-0051. As in the case previously,
details formerly contained in the DRD are being removed in favor of the
details contained in JSC-63756.**

154\. In the DRFP, SOW section 2.6.3, reads \"The Contractor shall
provide support for the daily operations and maintenance of the Secret
Internet Protocol Router System (SIPRNET)\". Is this support in addition
to the SIPRNET support provided by HQS OSPP through MSFC?

**Answer: Yes, the support is an addition to the maintenance support
provided by MSFC. The nature of the support in the SOW is maintenance
coordination.**

**All SIPRNET work has been moved to the LOE portion of the SOW, Section
3.3.**

155\. In order to prepare a responsive offer, offerors require detail on
any scheduled MSOC projects that extend beyond ATP of FDOC. Therefore,
in addition to the design and requirements documents in the Tech
Library, please provide NASA\'s baseline schedule and allocated hours
for planned system upgrades and modification for all MCC systems and
subsystems.

**Answer: A proposed project transition plan will be posted on the FDOC
website by May 9, 2008.**

### 156. *A. RFP Indicates:* {#a.-rfp-indicates-1 .Section-heading}

\>\> From J-17.96 DRD-FDOC-0051

\>\> 8.a Data Type: System Level -- 2, Subsystem level -- 3

\>\> 8.f.i Initial -- Draft, five working days prior to start of Dry Run

\>\> 8.f.ii Final -- Five working days prior to start of Formal Test

### *B. Comment / Recommendation:* {#b.-comment-recommendation .Section-heading}

*Comment:* Submitting Dry Run test procedures at the subsystem level is
inefficient. Test Procedure content may be changed during the Dry Run
period. Test content for the subsystem final test is also flexible up to
the final build. A formal delivery of test procedures can impact test
content and possibly delivery date.

*Recommendation:* Recommend that the Data Type 8.a read System Level --
2 only.

**Answer: DRD-FDOC-0051 is being updated to clarify the submittal
requirements as follows:**

**Initial & final submissions are for Type 2, only. The Type 3 will be
on request, only.**

### 157. *A. RFP Indicates:* {#a.-rfp-indicates-2 .Section-heading}

\>\> From J-17.96 DRD-FDOC-0052

\>\> 8.a Data Type: System Level -- 2, Subsystem level - 3

\>\> 8.f.ii Final System-- 30 days after test completion

### *B. State Question, Comment and/or Recommendation:* {#b.-state-question-comment-andor-recommendation .Section-heading}

*Question:* Should subsystems deliver test reports for each test they
conduct?

*Comment:* Subsystems generate numerous subsystem test reports monthly.
These reports, with the executed test procedures, may be very large.
These reports should be available on customer request, but probably not
required for delivery.

**Answer: DRD-FDOC-0052 is being updated to clarify the submittal
requirements as follows:**

**Initial & final submissions are for Type 2, only. The Type 3 will be
on request, only.**

158\. Please clarify if the J-8 listing in the final RFP will contain
the following data: Dollar value, Location (Bldg and Room #, should
correspond with J-18 facilities), Used on (system assignment), Property
tag/NEMS tag number, and condition. Data will assist in defining
hardware maintenance responsibilities by facilities (Local and Remote).
Data will also be used to support the requirements in the government
property clauses: 1852.245-80(c), (f) and (g) (Ref L. 16) and
1852.245-71 (ref G.7).

**Answer: The property data listed in Attachment J-8: Off-site Property
and Material Listing Part I and Part II is a combination of property
from the current MSOC and SPOC contracts. For the Final RFP release,
both parts will contain location, dollar value, and tracking tag number.
Neither lists the system to which the property is intended. Per NFS
1852.245-80, the GFP is provided "as is". It is up to the offeror to
decide per NFS 1852.245-81 whether or not to accept the property or to
propose other solutions.**

159\. In order for offerors to propose a low risk transition into the
FDOC, would you publish the current versions of the following MSOC plans
and reports in the FDOC technical library?\
\
MSOC-JSC-0001 Contract Work Breakdown Structure and Dictionary\
MSOC-JSC-0002 Management Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0003 Risk Management Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0005 Phase In Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0006 Performance Measurement Plan and Reports\
MSOC-JSC-0007 Metric and Status Reports\
MSOC-JSC-0008 Government Property Management Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0009 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports\
MSOC-JSC-0010 Information Technology (IT) Plan and Reports\
MSOC-JSC-0011 Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0012 Reports/Reviews\
MSOC-JSC-0013 Reprocurement Data Package\
MSOC-JSC-0023 Travel Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0024 Workforce Reports\
MSOC-JSC-0030 Safety and Health Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0031 Safety and Health Program, Self Evaluation\
MSOC-JSC-0032 Monthly Safety and Health Metrics\
MSOC-JSC-0033 System Safety Program Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0041 Quality Plan

MSOC-JSC-0042 Software Quality Assurance Plan & Reports\
MSOC-JSC-0044 GIDEP and NASA Advisory Problem Data Sharing and
Utilization Program Documentation and Reporting\
MSOC-JSC-0045 Non-conformance Record\
MSOC-JSC-0046 Safety Lessons Learned\
MSOC-JSC-0050 Certificate of Flight Readiness Endorsement\
MSOC-JSC-0051 Integrated Planning System (IPS) Facility Operations and
Procedures\
MSOC-JSC-0053 Training and Certification Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0063 Interface Control Document\
MSOC-JSC-0066 Equipment Replacement Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0067 Integrated Planning System (IPS) Future Facility Change
Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0068 Test and Verification Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0069 Test and Verification Procedures\
MSOC-JSC-0070 Test and Verification Report\
MSOC-JSC-0071 Acceptance Review Package\
MSOC-JSC-0072 Design Review\
MSOC-JSC-0073 Design Specifications\
MSOC-JSC-0074 Integrated Planning System Operations Concept\
MSOC-JSC-0080 Contractor Security Management Plan\
MSOC-JSC-0081 Facility Security Plan

MSOC Configuration Management Plan and Maintenance and Operation (M&O)
Plan

**Answer: Any request for documentation on an existing contract that has
not been posted in the FDOC Technical Library needs to be placed through
the NASA FOIA office.**

160\. The phase-in portion of the contract will be fixed price. However,
the terms and conditions primarily are for a cost-reimbursement
contract. Will there be another section of terms and conditions for the
fixed price work? For example there are Changes and Termination
provisions for cost-reimbursement work, but not for fixed price.

**Answer: NASA does not intend to add any fixed-price terms and
conditions to the RFP for the phase-in portion of the contract.**