2024 09 05 Next Gen Final RFP.docx

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

80MSFC24R0005

September 5, 2024

PS51

You are invited to submit a proposal in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) George C. Marshall Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) Next Generation Scalable Data Engineering, Operations, and Informatics Support for Open Science (Next Gen) solicitation. The principal purpose of this hybrid research and development and services requirement is to provide resources ensuring the Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) maintains cutting-edge leadership in:

1. Science informatics;

2. Using machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques, including machine learning expertise with specialization in spatio-temporal algorithms;

3. Science data systems and domain science; and

4. Scientific data storage, archiving, and management.

NASA will conduct this acquisition as a small business set-aside competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541715 and the small business size standard is 1,000 employees.

This competitive acquisition will result in an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with the ability to issue firm-fixed price (FFP) task orders. The contract will have an effective ordering period of five years from the contract effective date to include a 24-month Base Period, a 12-month Option Period 1, a 12-month Option Period 2, and a 12-month Option Period 3.

The anticipated contract award date is July 23, 2025, with an August 15, 2025, contract effective date. The contract will be performed offsite at the Contractor’s facilities and other remote locations as approved in writing by the contracting officer.

Potential offerors should pay close attention to all solicitation instructions. The following requirements list is summarized to assist in proposal development. Please note that this list is not exhaustive, and the solicitation terms and conditions and provisions in sections L and M take precedence:

1. A 45-day phase-in period overlapping the current contract will be conducted. The phase-in period will have its own FFP CLIN. During the phase-in period the contractor will not be responsible for performance of the effort described elsewhere in the PWS.

2. Government Furnished Property (GFP) will not be provided for this effort.

3. NASA MSFC appreciates the comments received in response to the release of the Draft RFP. These comments resulted in improvements to the quality and content of the overall RFP. Offerors should review the RFP in its entirety, as its content has changed from the Draft RFP version. Attachment B identifies some areas where significant changes or clarifications have been made from the Draft RFP to this Final RFP that may not have been addressed in the Draft RFP questions and responses. This list is not intended to cover all changes nor describe all RFP requirements. Offerors should carefully review the RFP in its entirety.

4. Be advised, in accordance with provision Factor III – Past Performance Volume Instructions, Offerors need to encourage their references to submit their Past Performance Questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officer prior to proposal due date.

5. Below is a list of the source selection authority (SSA) and voting members along with their associated NASA MSFC organizational codes, for the Source Evaluation Board (SEB). The names provided are for informational purposes only and other than the Contracting Officer, Brad Vest, these individuals shall not be contacted regarding this acquisition. The Government may change personnel associated with this acquisition at its discretion.

SSA

Cindy Upton (ST10)

Voting Members David Hood (ST14) Brian Freitag (ST11) Aaron Kaulfus (ST11)

6. Offerors are required to have a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code that matches the corporate address submitted with its proposal.

Offerors are encouraged to refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS–COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION, and in particular paragraph (f)(4) which discusses the Government’s right to award a contract without discussions.

The Offeror’s Price Volume proposal shall include completed Price Volume exhibits in Microsoft Office Excel format with working cell formulas.

Documents related to this acquisition, including this letter, the solicitation, attachments, exhibits, any amendments and links to online reference/technical/bidders library will be attainable electronically from the World Wide Web through the Government-wide point of entry website at www.SAM.gov. Potential Offerors are requested to periodically monitor the websites for updates.

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.215-84, OMBUDSMAN, is applicable. The Center Ombudsman for this acquisition can be found at http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/Omb.html.

This RFP does not commit NASA MSFC to pay any proposal preparation costs, nor does it obligate NASA MSFC to procure or contract for these services. This request is not an authorization to proceed and does not authorize payment for any charges incurred by the offeror for performing any of the work called for in this solicitation.

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be due no later than October 16, 2024. Proposals for this solicitation are required to be submitted through NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (EFSS Box), a FedRAMP Moderate certified platform. Potential offerors, especially those that have not previously submitted a proposal utilizing NASA’s EFSS Box, are encouraged to review the solicitation instruction entitled “Electronic Proposal Delivery - Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box” which provides instructions related to the submission of proposal via EFSS Box. Offerors are encouraged to check with their corporate information technology (IT) staff to determine if there are firewall restrictions that would need to be addressed prior to the submission of proposal files through NASA’s EFSS Box.

In accordance with NFS 1815.201(f), a “Blackout Notice” has been issued to NASA personnel. All inquiries/communications pertaining to this acquisition shall be directed only to the Contracting Officer listed below.

All questions regarding this RFP should be submitted in writing, electronically to Brad Vest, Contracting Officer, at Bradley.D.Vest@nasa.gov no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Time, September 12, 2024. Offerors are encouraged to submit questions as soon as possible for consideration.

Thank you for your support. We look forward to receiving your proposals.

Kathryn Cooper Chief, Science & Technology Support Branch (PS51)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812

Base

ATTACHMENT A – CLARIFICATIONS TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS

Would SaaS be considered as an option for this solution?

No, software as a service (SaaS) does not meet the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Are there requirements in the RFP for secure document generation, digital signature, document workflows, or records management?

No, there are no requirements for secure document generation, digital signature, document workflows, or records management in this RFP.

Is this for MSFC or NASA enterprise?

This is an MSFC managed contract and not a NASA enterprise contract. The Next Gen contract supports NASA’s Open Science Initiative for the IMPACT Project with Open Source solutions used across NASA and other Government agencies.

For the offeror, referenced contract(s) shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least three of the seven PWS elements identified in the PWS WYE Percentage Assignment Table (i.e., PWS 2.0, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, and 3.4.6) to be considered relevant in content. For proposed subcontractor(s), relevancy will be determined relative to the content element(s) assigned to that subcontractor.

Therefore, Past Performance relevancy will be assessed relative the technical requirements of the PWS, not the notional tasks. During contract execution, the prime contractor will be required to comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and the Ostensible Subcontracting Rule (see Section L provision Acquisition Approach, paragraph (c)).

It’s not clear why the gov’t is requesting early submission of the PP and Mandatory Quals volumes given that the award is not going to be made for nearly a year from now.

With early submission of the PP Volume, does it imply that the PPQs needs to be completed earlier as well?

MFSC 52.215-91, Due Date for Receipt of Proposals, indicates that early submission of both volumes is requested but not required. Early submission would allow the Government to begin the assessment of both volumes early to expedite evaluation time, but such submission is at the discretion of the offeror and is not a pre-requisite for submission, provided that all volumes are submitted by the date and time specified in this provision. As Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are submitted directly to the Government by the customer completing the form, offerors should ensure that the completed PPQs are submitted no later than the due date and time specified.

The EPM breaks the base period into two separate years in order to capture the rates. The two base period travel values, when added together in the EPM, equal the value listed on Page B-2.

Will the Government revise the Basis of Award to state that the relevant importance of the factors is: “As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than both Past Performance and Price, which are essentially equal to each other.”?

An adjustment of the relative weighting of the evaluation factors is considered unnecessary.

FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) states-

Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

Therefore, assessment of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the effort is appropriately emphasized. However, size, content, and complexity thresholds are also appropriately established to allow all potential offerors to achieve the highest confidence level as described in NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

Note: The size relevancy threshold, for the offeror, was lowered as stated above.

(b) (p. L-22); and Part IV, Factor III, (a)

(p. M-5) Section L:

(b) The offeror’s past performance references shall be limited to no more than five described contracts and/or subcontracts, including those of any proposed subcontractors. At least two past performance references should be for the offeror.

Section M:

(a) In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2), the offeror’s past performance, including relevant federal, state, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and individual joint venture partners, if applicable, will be evaluated.

Section L requires two past performance references be provided for the “offeror” and Section M states the “offeror’s past performance…will be evaluated.”

Can NASA confirm the “offeror” past performance includes past performance of parent companies and other affiliates?

And in confirming will the government revise the Section L text to include verbiage similar to that provided in other NASA solicitations i.e. “If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an Offeror where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.”

Reference Section L provision, Factor III – Past Performance Factor Instructions, Section II, paragraph (3) states –

(3) When a referenced contract was awarded to or performed by a legal entity different from the offeror (or any proposed subcontractor), offerors shall thoroughly explain, in a manner that supports use of the referenced contract for the proposed effort (e.g., shared workforce, management, facilities, or other resources), the relationship between the other legal entity and the offeror (or any proposed subcontractor).

The language above therefore serves this purpose.

PWS Section 3 Technical Experience, and Section M, Factor V Mandatory Qualification Evaluation. Page M-7 Section L V (c) The offeror shall demonstrate the following mandatory qualifications. Each mandatory qualification shall be positively addressed.

Section M V The Government will evaluate the offeror’s responses resulting in a Pass/Fail rating under the Mandatory Qualification (MQ) criteria contained in the Mandatory Qualification volume. Failure by the offeror to satisfy each and all criteria will render the offeror’s proposal ineligible for award and the proposal will not be further evaluated.

The use of a Pass/Fail technical criteria, like that to be used in Volume V, will be burdensome on Small Business offerors, many of whom have limited bid and proposal (B&P) resources/budget. We recommend that the Government use a 2-step process rather than simultaneous with a Mission Suitability evaluation.

In other words, small business Offerors should be notified of whether they pass or fail mandatory qualification criteria, if any, as soon as possible. This will prevent SBs from incurring significant B&P costs for a proposal submission.

No, the Government will not utilize a two-step process. The identified Mandatory Qualifications are considered reasonable experience criteria to help ensure that potential offerors can perform the requirements. Additionally, potential offerors should refer to Section L provision Factor III – Past Performance Factor Instructions, regarding the size, content, and complexity criteria that will be utilized by the Government to assess the past performance of the offeror and proposed major subcontractors relative to the requirements specified in Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement. Leverage of the information provided in both provisions is considered sufficient to allow potential offerors to make an informed business decision regarding proposal submission.

Subfactor 1 (1) (ii) TA-2: Technical IDIQ Approach The offeror shall describe the approach to perform each of the 12 notional task orders identified in Attachment L-3.

While the Section L Instruction, along with Attachment L-3 Historical and Background Data, describes the IDIQ Tasks as “notional”, it appears this is not the case. In L-3, it is stated that “11 of these tasks are presently performed by incumbent contractors [sic], and estimated incumbent staffing for FY25 to execute those tasks are 15.25 work year equivalents (WYEs), exclusive of management overhead. Task 3 represents a new projected task [sic] estimated at 2.5 WYEs.”

Accordingly, the incumbents have access to non-public information and previously prepared task plans for the “notional” work, which is an unfair competitive advantage.

Please consider either developing new, truly sample or notional TOs or removing TA-2 altogether as an evaluation criterion.

The Government has provided the most realistic and probable “notional” (anticipated) tasks in Attachment L-3, which represent the tasks presently anticipated to be awarded during the phase-in period. The notional tasks will not be awarded concurrently with the contract. However, based on the IDIQ structure of the effort, requirements could fluctuate prior to commencement, or during the phase-in period.

Offerors are not required to propose a staffing plan associated with the notional task, only a technical approach to perform the realistic, notional tasks. Associated staffing for these notional tasks is built into the uniform EPM for competition pricing purposes only. Therefore, the incumbents are not considered to have an unfair competitive advantage.

Volume I: Mission Suitability 40 pages

TA-4 Risk Assessment Approach a risk assessment for the entire Mission Suitability approach (i.e., Technical Approach subfactor and Management Approach subfactor)…The analysis shall identify and describe risk factors within the offeror's control and proposed mitigation steps to manage the impact of the identified risks to include assessing the probability of occurrence, impact, and timeframe, as well as mitigation and management of risk.

As written, the section provides a broad and open-ended Risk Assessment, Identification, and Mitigation requirement. This will require offerors to present a wide variety of risks and mitigations, which will be difficult to evaluate.

In order to provide a more accurate comparison of each offeror’s understanding of the risks involved in executing this contract, will the Government consider requiring Offerors to identify and propose mitigations for the Top 5 Risks of the Offeror’s approach across the Mission Suitability Volume?

Factor I – Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) TA-4: Risk Assessment Approach, states in part –

The offeror shall submit a risk assessment for the entire Mission Suitability approach (i.e., Technical Approach subfactor and Management Approach subfactor).

As stated above, offerors are not required to identify risks and mitigations associated with contract execution. Rather, offerors are requested to identify any risks inherent to the proposed approaches of the offeror under both Mission Suitability subfactors.

Are Offerors to provide the TCP information in the Price Volume only, or in both the Mission Suitability and Price Volumes?

And if offerors are to provide information in both volumes, is the Offeror’s TCP subject to both Mission Suitability findings and a Price reasonableness/realism assessment?

Factor I – Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, paragraph (d)(2)(ii), MA-2: Compensation Approach, states in part-

The proposed TCP information shall be included in the offeror’s Price volume and the subcontractor’s Price volume, if applicable.

While total compensation plans will be evaluated under the Mission Suitability factor, all TCP information shall be submitted in the Price volume only, which is not page limited.

ATTACHMENT B – SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL SOLICITATION

This attachment delineates changes made to the draft solicitation, which was posted to www.SAM.gov on July 24, 2024. The changes are a result of comments and questions received from industry and internal reviews. These changes represent all significant changes, but are not intended to be all-inclusive. Grammatical, typographical, and other non-substantive changes have been corrected throughout the RFP.

Added column for CLIN.

Added column for Task Order Title.

Added Phase-In task order and period of performance.

Instructions.

For volume contents, see Section L, Volume II - Price Factor Instructions and Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d), Subfactor 2: Management and Compensation Approach, (ii) MA-2: Compensation Approach

(i) Updated to eliminate the requirement for submission of unnecessary information. Removed paragraphs (C), (F), (G), and (H). Sections have been re-lettered.

Removed:

(ii) Section 2 - Basis of Estimate (BOE) Summary – Removed:

(iii) Section 5 Profit

Updated the proposal due to from October 10, 2024 to October 16, 2024.

Is revised to require a submission of a Total Compensation Plan and associated Price volume for all proposed subcontractors providing one or more anticipated FY 2026 Work Year Equivalent (WYE) personnel.

Is revised to require a submission of a Price volume for all proposed subcontractors providing one or more anticipated FY 2026 Work Year Equivalent (WYE) personnel.

Revised to state, offerors determined to have failed the Mandatory Qualifications will be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Compentency (CoC) evaluation.

Added: This also applies to the Mandatory Qualification Evaluation in accordance with Section M, Volume V – Mandatory Qualification Evaluation.

(1) Size – For offerors, a referenced contract will be determined relevant if it has an average annual value of $1,500,000 or greater, and for proposed subcontractors, an average annual value of $500,000 or greater.

(3) Complexity - A referenced contract’s relevancy (e.g., management of geographically dispersed workforce; delivery of open source products; development of software solutions utilizing Earth observation and geospatial data; producing and distributing data within a cloud data environment at the terabyte level and above; and/or development of tooling to support cloud-based data workflows at a scale of 1 million files and 500 terabytes of data) will be determined based on how well the complexity of the effort performed aligns with the effort delineated in Attachments J-1, L-3 Background and Historical, and other pertinent sections of the solicitation.

(d)

(1) Size – For offerors, a referenced contract will be determined relevant if it has an average annual value of $1,250,000 or greater, and for proposed subcontractors, an average annual value of $500,000 or greater.

(3) Complexity – For offerors, a referenced contract’s relevancy (e.g., management of geographically dispersed workforce; delivery of open source products; development of software solutions utilizing Earth observation and geospatial data; producing and distributing data within a cloud data environment at the terabyte level and above; and/or development of tooling to support cloud-based data workflows at a scale of 500,000 files and 500 terabytes of data) will be determined based on how well the complexity of the effort performed aligns with the effort delineated in Attachments J-1, L-3 Background and Historical, and other pertinent sections of the solicitation.

For subcontractors, a referenced contract’s relevancy (e.g., management of geographically dispersed workforce; delivery of open source products; development of software solutions utilizing Earth observation and geospatial data; producing and distributing data within a cloud data environment at the terabyte level and above; and/or development of tooling to support cloud-based data workflows at a scale of 200,000 files and 200 terabytes of data) will be determined based on how well the complexity of the effort performed aligns with the effort delineated in Attachments J-1, L-3 Background and Historical, and other pertinent sections of the solicitation.

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

PAGE OF PAGES

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASENUMBERMSFC

5. DATE ISSUED

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB) INVITATION FOR BID

NEGOTIATED (RFP) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

3. SOLICITATION NUMBER

80MSFC24R0005

RATING

1. This Contract is a Rated Order under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) - Code of Federal Regulations - at 15 CFR 700.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Office of Procurement - Huntsville, AL 35812

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If other than item 7)

NASA

Marshall Space Flight Center Office of Procurement - Huntsville, AL 35812

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

(Hour) (Date) CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision Number 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR

INFORMATION CALL:

A. NAME

Brad Vest

Bradley.D.Vest@nasa.gov

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within 365 calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause Number 52.232-8)

15A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR

CODE

FACILITY

16. NAME AND THE TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER

(Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

28. AWARD DATE

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

Previous edition is unusable

STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 12/2022)

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.214 (c)

1852.216-78 FIRM FIXED PRICE (DEC 1988)

The total firm-fixed-price of this contract is $ To be Proposed (TBP).

Note: For purposes of the solicitation the offerors should only include the Phase-In value.

(End of clause)

MSFC 52.216-90 IDIQ CONTRACT VALUE BY PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (MAY 2017)

The maximum potential not-to-exceed (NTE) value of this contract including Options, is $76,000,000. This contract provides for performance of fixed price indefinite-delivery indefinite- quantity (IDIQ) task orders. The NTE value shall not be exceeded without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

The values for each period of performance are set forth below:

$250,000*** $19,741,500

10/1/2025 – 09/30/2027

$108,500

10/1/2027 – 09/30/2028

$13,445,750

10/1/2027 – 09/30/2028

$54,250

10/1/2028 – 09/30/2029

$15,445,750

10/1/2028 – 09/30/2029

$54,250

10/1/2029 – 09/30/2030

$17,945,750

10/1/2029 – 09/30/2030

$54,250

10/01/2030 – 03/31/2031**

$8,972,875

10/01/2030 – 03/31/2031

$27,125

Notes: * Unused IDIQ contract value may be rolled forward to any subsequent period, without change to the Maximum Potential NTE Value.

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B-14

** In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, if this option is utilized by NASA, it may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance under this option shall not exceed six months. Minimum and Maximum Values for periods of less than six months will be prorated to reflect the reduced term, whereas the total potential value of this period will not exceed one-half of the prior option period's minimum and maximum ordering values.

***Minimum Value of $250,000 is for the entire contract and not “by CLIN” value.

(End of clause) MSFC 52.216-91 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED AND TYPE OF CONTRACT (JUN 2017)

(a) The contractor shall provide all resources (except as may be expressly stated in the contract as furnished by the Government) necessary to perform and/or deliver the services in accordance with Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement.

(b) The effort will be performed utilizing an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed-price (FFP) task orders (TO).

(c) IDIQ ordering shall be performed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.216-18, Ordering, FAR Clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Clause 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure - Alternate II. A listing of TOs awarded will be maintained as Attachment J-1B, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Task Orders.

(d) IDIQ Labor Categories and Labor Rates: Labor categories and associated fully burdened labor rates to be used in development of IDIQ task orders are included in Attachment J-4, Schedule of Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Fully Burdened Labor Rates and Travel Burdens.

(e) Travel: All travel required to support this contract shall be authorized and accounted for within the travel IDIQ TOs. TO Travel burden rates shall not exceed those rates included in Attachment J- 4, Schedule of Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Fully Burdened Labor Rates and Travel Burdens. Profit shall not be applied to travel. Travel shall be performed in compliance with the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR). The Government will not pay for expenses that exceed FTRs.

(End of clause)

B-24

MSFC 52.216-92 MATRIX OF CONTRACT LINE ITEMS (CLINS) (OCT 2017)

The current total contract value is as specified below. To separately track the components of the value, separate CLINs have been established as follows: