NASA Solicitation: Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Phase II Call for Improvements: Amendment 2

Full documentation

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

A. Respond to questions received to date for the RFP

B. Update the RFP documentation-See below

A. QUESTIONS:

16. Question: Can we assume that the indented items listed in Section L.59, Paragraph 3 apply only to any new subcontractor/team member that was not listed in the Phase 1 proposal?

Answer: Yes, The indented items pertain to any new subcontractors that were not listed in the Phase 1 proposal. L.59 has been reworded for better clarification. Paragraph 3 discusses the self assessment for Phase 1 and any updates between submittal of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal.

17. Question: Can we assume that the Section L.59, Paragraph 4 requirements for addressing management attention and commitment to health and safety and to identify the lost time incident rate for the last three years apply only to a new subcontractor/teammate?

Answer: Offeror must address any changes that have occurred since delivery of the Phase 1 proposal. In addition, this will apply to any new subcontractors. NASA has updated L.59 to provide more clarification.

18. Question: Is NASA’s estimate of $500M for Schedule A2 flight spares, to be considered part of the Prime’s total detailed Estimate which must meet the 80% “detailed cost proposal” data requirement?

Answer: The NASA estimate for Schedule A Flight Spares of $500 Million (reference Section L, Part III, Paragraph 4.3.2.2, Section 8, Number 3) and their associated burdens (reference the Contract Cost Summary Template – A2 (CCST – A2) provided in the EPM) are to be excluded from both the numerator and the denominator in determining when and how the 80% requirement is met. NASA has updated the RFP to reflect this clarification in Section L. Part III, Paragraph 4.1.

19. Question: In Section L, Part III, Paragraph 5.3.1.1 it says “(b) Equipment” and “(c) Facilities” as defined in the RFP can fall in either Overhead (per a disclosure statement) or assumed provided “free” as Government Furnished Property or a Government Furnished Facility. What if the Offeror can list them in both categories? Would that mean that the Offeror would have to list and cost them on the Technical Resources Templates?

Answer: The proper reference to the question should be Paragraph 4.3.4 instead of Paragraph 5.3.1.1. Section L, Part III, Paragraph 4.3.4, Section 13 (Non-Labor Resources (NLR) Basis of Estimate (BOE)) “Equipment” and “Facilities” identified by the Offeror in accordance with the guidance provided in the RFP at Section 13, (b) and (c), and whose costs are covered via the application of an indirect rate, are to be identified in the required attachment at the end of Section 14 (Cost Summary Templates). For example: The Offeror has identified “Equipment item x” in accordance with the RFP instructions. The Offeror’s proper accounting requires that “Equipment item x” is included as part of “Overhead Pool Y”. It is the Government’s intention that the Offeror identify “Equipment item x” as part of the required attachment in Section 14 and indicate, on a cost basis, that the cost is “included in Overhead Y”. If the same type of situation exists for “Facilities”, the same procedure should be followed. Offerors are reminded that only Offeror provided “Equipment” and “Facilities” are to be priced in the Offeror’s cost proposal, whether as a direct cost item or via an indirect cost pool (thus part of an indirect rate calculation).

Regarding the “Facilities Template (FT)”, all items identified by the Offeror in the FT should be identified as either Offeror provided (by indicating “No” in the GFP column) or Government provided (by indicating “Yes” in the GFP column. All items should be traceable to the applicable SOW per the FT and the SOW Basis of Estimate (BOE). As to whether the cost(s) are included in an Offeror’s cost proposal, the cost basis of an Offeror provided direct cost item would be the cost itself; the cost basis of an Offeror provided cost included in an indirect cost pool would be indicated as “included in Overhead X”; and the cost of a GFP item would not be priced in the Offeror’s cost proposal since it is GFP.

Regarding the Technical Resources Template (TRT), only cost(s) included in the Offeror’s cost proposal are to be included in the TRT– and in the same manner as priced in the cost proposal. The only “Facility” costs that should be shown on a TRT are facility costs that are direct cost items, and not those that are priced via the application of an indirect rate.

20. Question: The Technical Resources, Volume V for Schedule A1 asks for the following in the Labor BOE part Section L, Part III, Paragraph 5.3.1.1 (e) – “provide the estimated total number of resources by flight unit”. Does this mean all DDT&E flights in J-16 or does it mean by flight variant, Block 1A versus 1B?

Answer: The estimated number of resources are to be provided by flight variant (i.e., Block 1A, Block 1B and Block 2). Section L, Part III Paragraph 5.3.1.1 was changed from “unit” to “variant” for more clarity. This includes resources for all DDT&E efforts for each variant, including the Schedule A flights in J-16.

21. Question: The Life Cycle Cost Template Startup category and sub-categories under Startup, DDT&E, Operations and Sustaining are not defined in J-5 appendix 1 or in the NASA Cost Estimating Handbook. As such, would it be possible to provide clarifying definitions?

Answer: The Section L Part III Life Cycle Cost Template (LCCT) was updated to include the major life cycle cost phases defined in attachment J-5, Appendix 1, Life Cycle Cost Analysis.

22. Question: Is the contractor required to sign a SF33 for its 3/20/06 submittal?

Answer: No, NASA has amended Tables L.8-1, 9-1, and 10-1 to show that the Offeror will send a transmittal letter signed by an agent authorized to negotiate on the behalf of the Offeror in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

23. Question: Should the Contractor provide change pages to the Model Contract along with the 4/20/06 Addendum proposals (Technical, Technical Resources, and Cost) or does NASA expect adjustments to the Model Contract to be made during discussions or the Final Proposal Revision?

24. Question: Is the contractor to assume that elements of the Contracts Volume (i.e. Contract values in Section B of each Schedule, SOW, Award Fee Plan, Applicable Documents, etc.) which may be impacted by the Addendum Proposal Submittal are to updated and submitted with April 2006 Addendum Proposal Submittal or is the contractor to assume that any Contracts Volume updates will be accomplished in the FPR?

Answer to 23 and 24: NASA would like for the changes in the Addendum Proposal and Model Contract to be identified in the Contracts Volume but by using the track changes feature in MS Office instead of change pages. NASA has updated L.9 Proposal format, Tables L.8-1, 9-1, and 10-1 to provide more clarification.

25. Question: With the further clarification that the J-16 dates are “not later than” dates and also given that NASA has encouraged Offerors to streamline CEV to meet a first crewed test flight as close 2010 as possible, will NASA allow the Offerors to change the flight dates in the “Contract Cost Summary Template- B (CCST- B)1” template? Currently the date fields are not identified (highlighted in yellow) as fields that may be changed by the Offeror.

Answer: Yes, NASA has updated the Schedule B Cost Summary Templates for each Block Variant (i.e., CST-B-BLK 1A, CST-B-BLK 1B and CST-B-BLK 2) to clarify that the provided flight dates are No-Later-Than (NLT) dates and that Offerors are to propose flight dates in accordance with their proposed technical approach.

26. Question: The following language, contained in J-1 SOW 6.5 Paragraph (j), is unclear: “Flight hardware and software (source code, executables, and build procedures) deliveries (1 ship set (i.e. 1 copy of every line replaceable unit))”. Please clarify the expected deliverables and when said deliverables are required.

Answer: J-1 SOW 6.5 Paragraph (j) was changed to read “Flight software (source code, executables, and build procedures) deliveries. Flight software deliveries shall start occurring at CDR and occur at a frequency of no less than every six months thereafter.” The following statement was added to J-1 SOW 6.4 Paragraph f) “The CAIL shall include two full operational rigs and a third development rig. The Contractor shall begin delivery of these three rigs to the CAIL facility at CDR and have these rigs fully operational no later than six months after CDR.”

27. Question: The last paragraph of L.72, Part II requests a technical design change summary for the addition of the CEV Spacecraft Adapter (SA). While attachment J-1 SOW was not updated to explicitly define this new scope or its assignment to the WBS, we are assuming that cost for the SA is to be included in the Addendum Proposal delivered on April 20, 2006. Is this correct? In what WBS element does NASA prefer to see these costs.

Answer: The J-1 SOW is updated with this amendment to add the SA as a CEV module. For the purpose of the 4/20/06 addendum, the Offeror shall provide a technical design change summary for the addition of the CEV SA as a new CEV Module. Cost for the module, including documentation additions, should be represented in the WBS element consistent with the other CEV modules (LAS, CM, SM).

28. Question: Is it correct to assume that updated/provided applicable documents in the Bidder’s Library not cited in the first paragraph of L.72 are to be addressed in the proposal due on March 20, 2006? That is, should the proposal due March 20, 2006 include treatment of the following:

– CXP-02019, Rqmts for Prep FMEA CIL
– CXP-12000, CEV Project Management Plan – Update
– CXP-02012, Hazard Analyses 011906

But exclude treatment of the following since they are to be covered only in the addendum proposal due April 20, 2006?

– CXP-10001, Systems Requirements for the Crew Exploration Vehicle Element
– CXP-15000, Crew Exploration Vehicle Crew Module Outer Mold Line
– CXP-01001, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to Crew Launch Vehicle (CEV) IRD
– CXP-01008, Low Impact Docking System Interface Definition Document

Answer: The March 20, 2006 Proposal includes treatment of the following:

– CXP-02019, Rqmts for Prep FMEA CIL
– CXP-12000, CEV Project Management Plan (Update)
– CXP-02012, Hazard Analyses 011906
– CXP-01008, Low Impact Docking System Interface Definition Document
– CXP-01001, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) IRD
– CXP-00004, Constellation Operations Concept Document

The April 20, 2006 Addendum Proposal includes treatment of the following:

– CXP-10001, Systems Requirement for the Crew Exploration Vehicle Element (Update)
– CXP-15000, Crew Exploration Vehicle Crew Module Outer Mold Line (Update)
– CXP-01001, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) IRD (SA addition only)
– CXP-01013, Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS) IDD

Section L, Paragraph L.72 has been updated to reflect this change.

29. Question: Attachment J-3, 1.1 Applicable Document Children, does not include data or dimensions for the CLV avionics ring or CEV stay-out zones. Can NASA provide additional CLV details regarding the physical interface to aide in the spacecraft adapter sizing.

Answer: For the purpose of this proposal the Offerors shall use the following interface definition of the Spacecraft Adapter (SA) to CLV interface.

The second to last paragraph of L.72, Part II Section L, has been modified to read “The Spacecraft Adapter to CLV Avionics Ring interface is a 216.54 in. (5.5m) diameter interface. No part of the spacecraft (e.g. engine nozzle) may protrude beyond the interface plane between the Spacecraft Adapter (SA) and the CLV Avionics Ring.”

30. Question: Does NASA expect TRTs for the CEV II Proposal to follow the same structure as the Addendum TRTs issued 2-9-06 (i.e. 6.2.1.A)?

Answer: NASA requires the three additional Technical Resource Templates (TRTs) issued via Amendment 1 (i.e., TRTs for 3.0A, 6.2.1A, 7.0A) to be provided with the Offeror’s proposal submittal required on March 20, 2006. The Offerors’ March 20, 2006 proposal would determine whether or not they are required for the April 20, 2006 proposal. Please refer to the Technical Resources Volume Addendum Proposal, Section L, Part III, Paragraph 5.6, for additional clarification.

31. Question: Clarify the evaluation process and criteria for Schedule B. Section M indicates that Schedule B will not be subject to cost realism and therefore NOT subject to any point adjustment. Please confirm.

Answer: The Schedule B Cost Volume will not be subject to cost realism, and therefore the Government’s assessed probable cost will be equivalent to an Offeror’s proposed cost for Schedule B. The only exception to this is if a mathematical error has been made in one of the Schedule B pricing templates, in which, a probable adjustment will be assessed to correct for the mathematical error, and this adjustment will be subject to a mission suitability points adjustment.

Additionally, in accordance with Section M, Paragraph M4.4 Cost Factor, a weakness or deficiency can be assessed based on proposed Schedule B prices that are unrealistic either due to an error, flawed assumptions or inconsistency with the Management Volume, Technical Volume, or the Model Contract. This weakness or deficiency will be assessed as a mission suitability weakness or deficiency under the Mission Suitability Subfactor M 4.2.1- Technical Approach or M 4.2.2- Management Approach.

Sections L and M have been updated to further clarify this response.

32. Question: Section L, Part II, Page 34 of 43 states: “The Offeror shall complete attachment J-9 by listing all deliverables in accordance with the statement of work. Each deliverable shall be listed and the date each deliverable is scheduled.

This implies that the Attachment J-9 Deliverable List should include each DRD deliverable (initial submittals, Type 1 & 2 re-submittals, updates, etc.) This requirement seems redundant in that DRDs and the associated DRD Delivery Matrix are a Contract Attachment (J-3) by themselves. Additionally, it would seem that the inclusion of the DRDs with delivery dates, some of which would be based on assumptions, in this Contract Attachment would be cumbersome from a contract administration perspective due to the fact that every time a milestone changes a Contract Modification would be required to change the DRD delivery date listed in this Attachment.

Answer: Provision L.64 refers to all deliverables except for Data Requirements listed in Attachment J-2. Provision L.64 has been modified to make this clear. Additionally, Offerors should include deliverables according to their specific technical approach and proposed delivery schedule. For example, SOW paragraph 9.2 asks for GSE deliveries, however your proposed Attachment J-9 should include more details about what GSE you propose to deliver and on what date. B. CHANGES TO THE RFP AND OTHER UPDATES: 1. Clause H.4 SUBCONTRACTING WITH RUSSIAN ENTITIES FOR GOODS OR SERVICES, in all schedules is deleted and replaced with the following:

“H.4 SUBCONTRACTING WITH RUSSIAN ENTITIES FOR GOODS OR SERVICES

(a) Definitions: In this provision:

i) The term “Russian entities” includes the following:

(1) The Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos),

(2) Any organization or entity under the jurisdiction or control of Roscosmos, or

(3) Any other organization, entity, or element of the Government of the Russian Federation.

ii) The term “Organization or entity under the jurisdiction or control of Roscosmos” means an organization or entity that:

(1) Was made part of the Russian Federal Space Agency upon its establishment on February 25, 1992;

(2) Was transferred to the Russian Federal Space Agency by decree of the Russian Government on July 25, 1994, or May 12, 1998;

(3) Was or is transferred to the Russian Aviation and Space Agency or Russian Federal Space Agency by decree of the Russian Government at any other time before, on, or after March 14, 2000; or

(4) Is a joint stock company in which the Russian Aviation and Space Agency or Russian Federal Space Agency has at any time held controlling interest.

iii) The term “extraordinary payments” means payments in cash or in kind made or to be made by the United States Government prior to January 1, 2012, for work to be performed or services to be rendered prior to that date necessary to meet United States obligations under the Agreement Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, with annex, signed at Washington January 29, 1998, and entered into force March 27, 2001, or any protocol, agreement, memorandum of understanding, or contract related thereto.

(b) This clause implements the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act (the Iran Nonproliferation Act as amended by the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005) to allow extraordinary payments prior to January 1, 2012 to Russian entities in connection with the International Space Station. NASA has applied the restrictions in the Act to include funding of Russian entities via U.S. contractors.

(c) (i) The Contractor shall not subcontract with Russian entities without first receiving written approval from the Contracting Officer. In order to obtain this written approval to subcontract with any Russian entity as defined in paragraphs (a), the Contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with the following information related to each planned new subcontract and any change to an existing subcontract with entities that fit the description in paragraphs (a):

(1) A detailed description of the subcontracting entity, including its name, address, and a point of contact, as well as a detailed description of the proposed subcontract including the specific purpose of payments that will made under the subcontract.

(2) The contractor shall provide certification that the subcontracting entity is not on any of the denied parties, specially designated nationals and entities of concern lists found at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/nasaecp/Welcome.html

Denied Parties, Specially Designated Nationals and Entities of Concern
BIS’s Listing of Entities of Concern
BIS’s List of Denied Parties
Debarred Parties Listing
OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals (Adobe PDF format)
List of Unverified Persons in Foreign Countries

(ii) Unless relief is granted by the Contracting Officer, the information necessary to obtain approval to subcontract shall be provided to the Contracting Officer 30 business days prior to executing any planned subcontract with entities defined in paragraph (a).

(d) After receiving approval to subcontract, the contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with a report every six-months which documents the individual extraordinary payments made to an entity in paragraph a. The reports are due on July 15th and January 15th. The July 15th report should document all of the individual extraordinary payments made from the previous January through June. The January 15th report should document all of the individual extraordinary payments made from the previous July through December. The content of the report shall provide the following information for each time an extraordinary payment is made to an entity in paragraph a:

(i) The name of the entity
(ii) The subcontract number
(iii) The amount of the payment
(iv) The date of the payment

(e) The Contracting Officer may direct the Contractor to provide additional information for any other prospective or existing subcontract at any tier. The Contracting Officer may direct the Contractor to terminate for the convenience of the government any subcontract at any tier with an entity described in paragraphs (a), subject to an equitable adjustment.

(f) Notwithstanding FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Cost and Payments,” on or after January 1, 2012 the contractor shall be responsible to make payments to entities defined in paragraphs (a) of this provision. Any subcontract with entities defined in paragraph (a), therefore, should be completed in sufficient time to permit the U.S. Government to make extraordinary payments on subcontracts with Russian entities on or before December 31, 2011.

(g) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause in all its subcontracts, and shall require such inclusion in all other subcontracts of any tier. The Contractor shall be responsible to obtain written approval from the Contracting Officer to enter into any tier subcontract that involves entities defined in paragraph (a).”

2. Clause 52.204-9 is added Section I by reference, 52.204-9 PERSONAL IDENTITY VERIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL, and Attachment J-16 PRIVACY IDENTITY VERIFICATION (PIV) CARD ISSUANCE PROCEDURES in response to NASA PIC 06-01 dated January 18, 2006.

3. Section J, J-1 Statement of Work is updated to include of the Spacecraft Adapter.

Scope

Second paragraph:

From:

1. Block 1A is a crewed, pressurized vehicle for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (including ISS crew change out) missions. This configuration includes:

A habitable Crew Module (CM)
A Service Module (SM)
A Launch Abort System (LAS) to provide a method for crew abort

2. Block 1B is an uninhabited, pressurized vehicle for ISS resupply missions. It uses an SM and an uninhabited CM.

3. Block 2 is a crewed, pressurized vehicle for lunar missions. It uses a habitable CM, LAS and SM to support lunar missions.

To:

1. Block 1A is a crewed, pressurized vehicle for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (including ISS crew change out) missions. This configuration includes:

A habitable Crew Module (CM)
A Service Module (SM)
A Launch Abort System (LAS) to provide a method for crew abort
A Spacecraft Adapter (SA) to provide connection to the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV)

2. Block 1B is an uninhabited, pressurized vehicle for ISS resupply missions. It uses an SM, an uninhabited CM, and an SA.

3. Block 2 is a crewed, pressurized vehicle for lunar missions. It uses a habitable CM, LAS, SM, and SA to support lunar missions.

Section 2.3 Requirements Definition and Management Figure 1

From:

Old Figure 1

To:

New Figure 1 adding Spacecraft Adapter

Section 6.4 Spacecraft Integration and Test Facilities Paragraph f

From:

f) The Contractor shall develop, install, certify, and deliver the CAIL, including all applicable operating procedures, instructions, and drawings, to NASA at a site to be chosen by NASA in a TBD location in Houston, Texas.

To:

f) The Contractor shall develop, install, certify, and deliver the CAIL, including all applicable operating procedures, instructions, and drawings, to NASA at a site to be chosen by NASA in a TBD location in Houston, Texas. The CAIL shall include two full operational rigs and a third development rig. The Contractor shall begin delivery of these three rigs to the CAIL facility at CDR and have these rigs fully operational no later than six months after CDR.

Section 6.5 Spacecraft Assembly, Integration, and Production Paragraph j)

From:

j) The Contractor shall deliver the following:

o 2 Flight Spacecraft
1A: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
1B: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250
o 2 Additional Production CEVs with requirements as defined in Section 10.0, Flight Test
RRF-2: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
RRF-3: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
o 1 Additional Production LAS
LAS-4: Refurbished Crew Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
o Structural Test Article (used for structural verification static and dynamic testing) Note: The Structural Test Article shall be delivered to NASA after the Contractor completes the structural test program.
o Flight Spares (1 ship set (i.e., 1 copy of every line replaceable unit)) (IDIQ)
o Flight hardware and software (source code, executables, and build procedures) deliveries (1 ship set (i.e., 1 copy of every line replaceable unit))
o Three ship sets of flight equivalent C&DH hardware and one ship set of flight equivalent D&C hardware (for the trainer)
o CEV emulators (including target processor and flight software) for interface testing, as required in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
o DD250 for each of the above
o Acceptance Data Packages (DRD CEV-T-040)
Service Module
Crew Module
LAS
RRF-2
RRF-3
LAS-4
1 RRF Flight Test Article

To:

j) The Contractor shall deliver the following:

o 2 Flight Spacecraft
1A: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250; Spacecraft Adapter + DD250
1B: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; Spacecraft Adapter + DD250
o 2 Additional Production CEVs with requirements as defined in Section 10.0, Flight Test
RRF-2: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250; Spacecraft Adapter + DD250
RRF-3: Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250; Spacecraft Adapter + DD250
o 1 Additional Production LAS
LAS-4: Refurbished Crew Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
o Structural Test Article (used for structural verification static and dynamic testing) Note: The Structural Test Article shall be delivered to NASA after the Contractor completes the structural test program.
o Flight Spares (1 ship set (i.e., 1 copy of every line replaceable unit)) (IDIQ)
o Flight software (source code, executables, and build procedures) deliveries. Flight software deliveries shall start occurring at CDR and occur at a frequency of no less than every six months thereafter.
o Three ship sets of flight equivalent C&DH hardware and one ship set of flight equivalent D&C hardware (for the trainer)
o CEV emulators (including target processor and flight software) for interface testing, as required in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
o DD250 for each of the above
o Acceptance Data Packages (DRD CEV-T-040)
Service Module
Crew Module
LAS
Spacecraft Adapter
RRF-2
RRF-3
LAS-4
1 RRF Flight Test Article

4. Section J, Attachment J-3 Applicable Documents is updated to reflect changes to the applicable documents list to include CXP-00004 Constellation Operations Document and CXP-01013 Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS) IDD.

5. Section J, Attachment J-13, updated to reflect addition of Spacecraft Adapter to the acronym list.

6. Section L, L.8 is modified to: (1) remove the requirement for the SF 33 form and replace it with a signed transmittal letter; (2) add page guidelines for the Volume VIII Completed Model Contract, Signed Transmittal Letter, and a Completed Section K Certification for the Addendum Proposal.

7. Section L, L.9 is modified to: (1) remove the requirement for the SF 33 form and replace it with a signed transmittal letter; (2) add the number of copies for the Volume VIII Completed Model Contract, Signed Transmittal Letter, and a Completed Section K Certification for the Addendum Proposal.

8. Section L, L.10 is modified to: (1) remove the requirement for the SF 33 form and replace it with a signed transmittal letter; (2) add due dates for the Volume VIII Completed Model Contract, Signed Transmittal Letter, and a Completed Section K Certification for the Addendum Proposal.

9. Section L, Part II, L.42 has been modified to added Paragraph (g) “The rationale for proposed variations from the NASA CXP-00004, Constellation Operations Concept Document.”

10. Section L.59 Part II, Paragraph 4 has been modified to better clarify that the Offeror only needs to address management attention and commitment to safety and health including corrective action of any new Phase 2 subcontractor/team member that were not listed in the Phase 1 proposal.

From:

The self-assessment shall describe any problems that were encountered in previous contracts and the steps that have been taken to ensure that the problems do not recur. The description of past performance and experience data shall cover the subcontractor’s qualifications in all areas of this RFP Work Statement, including, but not limited to:

• Past performance/unique capabilities relevant to the performance of the contemplated CEV effort;
• Past performance in identifying and mitigating technical and programmatic risks;
• Past performance in meeting cost and schedule goals;
• Past performance in human-rated space vehicles and human rating space certification plan development;
• Past performance in complying with subcontracting plan goals for socioeconomic business concerns,
• Past safety performance, recent OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses, and OSHA citations of company operations for the past three years;
• Extent to which proposed key personnel have worked together in the past as a team;
• Voluntary turnover history for employees for the past three years.

The Offeror shall address management attention and commitment to safety and health including corrective action. The Offeror shall identify its lost time incident rate for the last three years, including the associated Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

In addition, for any new Phase 2 subcontractor/team member that was not listed in the Phase 1 proposal, the Offeror is to complete attachment L A1, Past Performance Questionnaire, attached below. Along with completion of the form, the Offeror shall provide a listing of all contracts for that subcontractor terminated within the last three years including reasons thereof. The listings shall identify the contract, project, and names, addresses, and telephone numbers of responsible government technical personnel and Contracting Officers who have knowledge of the Contractor’s performance. To: The self-assessment shall describe any problems that were encountered since the Phase 1 past performance submittal and the steps that have been taken to ensure that the problems do not recur.

For any new Phase 2 prime or subcontractor/team member that was not listed in the Offeror’s Phase 1 proposal, the description of past performance and experience data shall cover the subcontractor/team member’s qualifications in all areas of this RFP Work Statement, including, but not limited to:

• Past performance/unique capabilities relevant to the performance of the contemplated CEV effort;
• Management attention and commitment to safety and health including corrective actions
• Identify its lost time incident rate for the last three years, including the associated Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
• Past performance in identifying and mitigating technical and programmatic risks;
• Past performance in meeting cost and schedule goals;
• Past performance in human-rated space vehicles and human rating space certification plan development;
• Past performance in complying with subcontracting plan goals for socioeconomic business concerns,
• Past safety performance, recent OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses, and OSHA citations of company operations for the past three years;
• Extent to which proposed key personnel have worked together in the past as a team;
• Voluntary turnover history for employees for the past three years.

The Offeror is to complete attachment L A1, Past Performance Questionnaire (attached below), for the subcontractor/team members. Along with completion of the form, the Offeror shall provide a listing of all contracts for that subcontractor terminated within the last three years including reasons thereof. The listings shall identify the contract, project, and names, addresses, and telephone numbers of responsible government technical personnel and Contracting Officers who have knowledge of the Contractor’s performance.

11. Section L, Part II, L.63 has been modified to reference L.55.1(a) for additional clarification.

12. Section L, Part II, L.64 has been modified to state that “Attachment J-9 does not include the list of data deliverables provided in Attachment J-2, Data Procurement Document.”

13. Section L, Part II, L.72 is modified to add additional proposal instructions for Amendment 1 Impact Assessment.

14. Section L, Part III, Paragraph 4.1 is modified to add the following language, “The NASA estimate for Schedule A Flight Spares of $500 Million is not to be included in either the numerator or the denominator for purposes of determining when and how the 80% requirement is met.” Section 11 is modified to include Upgrade for Commencement of Lunar Operations in Paragraph k. In Paragraph 5.3.1.1 the word “unit” has been replaced with “variant”.

15. Section L, Part III, Schedule B Cost Templates have been updated to reflect that Offerors may change the date fields (which are now highlighted in yellow) and a new footnote number 4 has been added for clarification and instructional purposes.

16. The Life Cycle Cost Template (LCCT) has been updated to reflect the four major phases of Life Cycle Costs reference in Attachment J-5, Appendix 1.

17. Section M, Paragraph M.4.4 was modified to provide more clarity:

From:

For Schedule B, the Government will perform a review of the NTE prices and determine if there are any potential performance risks as a result of unrealistic pricing. Each cost proposal (including resources proposed in Volume V, Technical Resources) will be evaluated for cost realism. However, no adjustment to your proposed Schedule B NTE amounts will be assessed.

To:

For Schedule B, the Government will perform a review of the NTE prices and determine if there are any potential performance risks as a result of unrealistic pricing. No adjustment to your proposed Schedule B NTE amounts will be assessed, and therefore the Government’s assessed probable cost will be equivalent to an Offeror’s proposed cost for Schedule B. The only exception to this is if a mathematical error has been made in one of the Schedule B pricing templates, in which, a probable adjustment will be assessed to correct for the mathematical error, and this adjustment will be subject to a mission suitability points adjustment.

From:

The Government will evaluate the high level data requested and assess whether your proposed NTE prices are realistic. If it is determined that your proposed prices are unrealistic either due to an error, flawed assumptions or inconsistency with the Management or Technical Volume, or the Model Contract, a mission suitability weakness or deficiency may be assessed under management or technical, respectively, as a performance risk.

To:

The Government will evaluate the high level data requested and assess whether your proposed NTE prices are realistic. If it is determined that your proposed prices are unrealistic either due to an error, flawed assumptions or inconsistency with the Management Volume, Technical Volume, or the Model Contract, a mission suitability weakness or deficiency may be assessed under the Management or Technical Subfactors, respectively, as a performance risk.