80AFRC22R0002 DRFP Questions_Answers.pdf

For NASA use only

From To

1 Pricing Doc Are all positions currently filled by an incumbent? To our knowledge all positions at AFRC and ARC are currently filled by the incumbent contractors or their subcontractors.

2 RFP Letter 2 Pt 4

Can you clarify the secret clearance requirement within 90 days of award? We ask that you make an active secret clearance a requirement at proposal submission. We have found that obtaining a facility clearance takes way more than the 90 day period and can cause contract risk by a contractor not being able to perform on the contract due to clearance restrictions.

Facility clearance is not a requirement at time of award. The successful offeror will have 90 days to obtain the required clearance.

3 RFP Letter 2 #4 Will the government sponsor company clearances for contractors that do not currenlty have a clearance?

NASA will sponsor company clearances.

4 RFP Is a DCAA audited accounting system required for this contract? No. A Government approved estimating and/or accounting system is not a requirement for this contract.

5 RFP h 36 Can CPARS be submitted in lieu of past performance questionnaires?

See solicitation Section E.2(h)(iv)(D), NASA may use CPARS to evaluate past performance however offerors retain the burden of providing relevant references that NASA can contact to establish relevance.

6 PWS How many days will from contract award will the actual contract start date be?

The effective date of performance of the contract will begin after at least a 30 day phase in period.

Will CATSS be issued at all since I saw it being mentioned as part of the NASA Communications Services (NCS) contract? Maybe only a portion of will go to

NCS?

Although the NCS requirement contains some work similar in scope as the CATSS requirement, CATSS will be issued in its entirety at this time.

8 Draft RFP

ff. NFS 1852.235- 71 Key Personnel and Facilities

(MAR 1989)

13 8 Is it safe to assume the key personnel site manager is the program manager stated in the PWS?

The key personnel clause will be updated to maintain continuity of titles.

9 DRFP Past Perf 33 A

A minimum of three (3) relevant Government (Federal, State, and local) and private contracts, with similar size, complexity, and content to the CATSS III requirements that have on-going or completed work within the last three (3) years.

within the last 3 years within the last 5 years With COVID causing significant impacts on small business in the last two years request five year window to more fairly represent past capabilities

The solicitation will include a 5 year period for past performance.

10 DRFP Past Perf 39 B ...as well as which contracts were performed by the division of the company (if applicable) that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract.

contracts perfromed by the division of the copany that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract

Eliminate requirement

This infringes on the rights of ANCs and ther FAR regulations allowing them to utilize sister company past performances. There is no FAR requirement that requires identification .

ANCs may utilize sister company past performance provided their meaningful involvement in performance of this contract is established. See GAO B-409187.

11 DRFP Past Perf 39 D There is no mention of past performance questionnaires, but request the use of CPARS in place of questionnaires.

CPARS in lieu of questionnaires CPARS wilol be excepted in lieu of past perfromance questionnaires

Eliminates burdens on our customers

See solicitation Section E.2(h)(iv)(D), NASA may use CPARS to evaluate past performance however offerors retain the burden of providing relevant references that NASA can contact to establish relevance. The solicitation will be revised to include a questionnaire requirement.

The eMITS Pre-Proposal Conference held on 21 Mar 22 the CATSS's Contract NND16AA03B was listed as one of the foruteen (14) contracts to transition to eMITS (Sol. No.: 80TECH22R0001) with a tentative start date of 1 Jun 23 with the Phase -In during Contract Year 1 (Base Year). Please clarify if the plan to transition the CATSS contract to the eMITS Awardee in FY23 is correct.

Although the eMITS requirement contains some work similar in scope as the CATSS requirement, CATSS will be issued in its entirety at this time.

13 PWS Appendix A 25 8 Do the minimum quals listed here for program manager map to the minimum quals for the key personnel "Site Manager" ?

Yes, utilize Program Manager qualifications. The language will updated to maintain continuity of terminology.

14 RFP C.1 ff 13 8 Is a 'site manager" key personnel resume required for each site (Armstrong and Ames) ?

If proposing a site manager/program manager for each site provide key personnel resumes for both.

15 Pricing exhibit There is no labor category for site managers or a program manager. Is this an oversight?

Please clarify requirements for program managers and site managers in the final RFP,PWS & Pricing exhibit

Management is not subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards. All program management cost shall be factored in to the fixed price monthly labor rates for each labor category.

16 RFP h.4.A 35 Please consider allowing a 5 year look back for offerors relevant past performance contracts as opposed to the current 3 year period.

A minimum of three (3) relevant Government (Federal, State, and local) and private contracts, with similar size, complexity, and content to the CATSS III requirements that have on-going or completed work within the last three (3) years.

A minimum of three (3) relevant Government (Federal, State, and local) and private contracts, with similar size, complexity, and content to the CATSS III requirements that have on-going or completed work within the last five (5) years.

Qualified 8(a) firms under this NAICS code are overwhelmingly small UNLESS they are bidding as part of a JV. A 5 year look back will increase competition by encouraging non JV bidders to compete with JV bidders.

The solicitation will include a 5 year period for past performance.

17 RFP Cover Letter 2 10 Will any contract positions be identified as full time remote or off site ?

PWS Section 5.1 General Requirements will be updated to reflect that COR and customer must approve requests for contractor employees that telework full time or work from remote locations.

18 RFP E.4 (2) 39 16

NFS 1815.305(a)(2) gives NASA discretion to assign strengths and weaknesses to an offerors past performance. Will the government evaluate the relevancy of submitted past performance contracts for size, content and complexity equally -regardless of the identity of the government client? (i.e. will contracts submitted for NASA clients be rated higher than non-NASA agencies)

Strengths and weaknesses will not be used for past performance evaluation.

Past performance will be evaluated as stated in the solicitation.

19 RFP Cover Letter 1 20 Will the final RFP reflect the size standard increase for NAICS code 561110 to $11.0M?

The current size standard is currently $8M for NAICS 561110.

20 DRFP

h. Proposal Preparation

Instructions; v.

Price Volume

40 1 "Offerors shall propose a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), fully burdened monthly rate for each labor category and contract year…" Will the government accept monthly invoice amounts for FFP CLINS as annual amounts divided by 12?

N/A

The contractor shall invoice on a monthly basis at 1/12 of the price of the period of performance for Service CLINs 0002 & 0004.

Invoicing requirements affect price strategies, and defining firm-fixed price invoicing allows bidders to offer their most competitive prices.

Task Orders shall be priced in accordance with the firm-fixed price (FFP) rates identified under Attachment D-13 (AFRC) and Attachment D-14 (ARC). After award, task orders may be priced with a monthly rate (not to exceed the fully burdened monthly rates).

80AFRC22R0002 - California Regional Center Administrative and Technical Support Services (CATSS III)

April 8, 2022

Line #Page #Section Total comment #

Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP) Feedback Template

Change Text (if recommended) Document NASA's ResponseRationaleComment, Feedback, Input

21 DRFP

h. Proposal Preparation

Instructions; v.

Price Volume

40 1 Under what conditions would a FFP monthly invoice be discounted or reduced by the CO?

Task Orders shall be priced in accordance with the firm-fixed price (FFP) rates identified under Attachment D-13 (AFRC) and Attachment D-14 (ARC).

Successful offeror is allowed to provide discounts at the task order level.

22 DRFP

FAR 52.219-17

Section 8(a) Award

9 21

NASA is currently exceeding the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal by 2.4%, but is -1.4% below the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) goal. AFRC is -4.2% below the SDVOSB goal (Reference NASA OSBP Mobile App data). Please set aside this requirement for SDVOSB.

FAR 52.219-17 Section 8(a) Award

(OCT 2019) & FAR 52.219-18

Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Participants

(MAR2020)

FAR 52.219-27 - Notice of Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside

SDVOSB socio-economic category is also SDB.

Changing the set-aside to SDVOSB will significantly contribute to AFRC and NASA-wide small business goals. This solution will allow NASA to gain credit for both socio-economic categories.

Market research confirms there are multiple 8a vendors interested and capable of performing the CATSS III services. Additionally the procurement strategy has been approved to set aside this requirement for 8a business concerns.

23 DRFP

Cover letter &

SF1449

1 & 4 Box 10.

NAICS 541611 - Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services is the appropriate NAICS for the technical complexity of this work. 561110 is for Office Administrative Services, and does not adequately capture the analytical, training, and archiving requirements. Please use the

541611 NAICS.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 561110…

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541611…

541611 is the appropriate NAICS for administrative and technical support services.

Although there are some aspects of the requirement that fall under NAICS Code 541611, the NAICS Code for this requirement was assigned pursuant to FAR 19.102(b). The largest component of this requirement meets the criteria listed under NAICS 561110.

24 DRFP Cover Letter 2 20

The GAO has affirmed the SBA rule that allows a joint venture to rely on the security clearance of its member. The rule states: Facility security clearances. A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance. (ii) Where the security portion of the contract requiring a facility security clearance is ancillary to the principal purpose of the procurement, the partner to the joint venture that will perform that work must possess the required facility security clearance.

For proposals submitted as Joint Ventures, the facility clearance must be granted in the name of the Joint Venture.

For proposals submitted as a Joint Venture, the facility clearance may be granted in the name of the partner to the joint venture that will perform the classified work.

GAO ruling of SBA rule - (Ref.https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-419856.pdf )

The solicitation will be updated with the recommended change.

25 DRFP

h. Proposal Preparation

Instructions; B.

Management/Sta ffing Approach

38 18 Please confirm a total of three (3) resumes are required for evaluation of Site Manager, Chief Historian, and Auditor key personnel.

The contractor shall provide the resumes of the Key Personnel.

The contractor shall provide a resume for each Key Personnel position, for a total of three (3) resumes.

A minimum of 3 resumes is required. Offeror may propose more than the Government identified key personnel.

26 Draft RFP FF 16

NASA notes Site Manager, Chief Historian and Auditor as “key personnel”.

1. Would NASA please confirm if the incumbent vendors have any ‘non-competes’ in place with identified ‘key personnel’ staff, which would preclude them from supporting any follow-on vendor?

2. Would the government advise the requirements for (experience, duties and education) the ‘Site Manager’ LCAT? This title doesn’t match the positions in the PWS, possibly the ‘Program Manager’ position.

3. For the ‘Chief Historian’ position, given there are only a handful of perfectly qualified individuals and the incumbent resource support NASA would be the ideal candidate and give an unfair advantage to the incumbent and potentially limit competition. Would NASA consider staffing strategies to retain this key personnel, rather than a resume?

4. Would NASA allow substitution for Doctorate with a combination of lower education and experience, i.e. Bachelor’s with 10 year of relevant experience, or Master’s with 7 year of relevant experience?

5. Regarding the ‘Auditor’ LCAT, the government notes ‘AS9100 Certification’, but this certification is for organizations performing in the aerospace industry and not a an individual qualification. Upon reading of the role and duties, we request the government consider alternative certifications, such as ‘Six-sigma black belt’ or ‘Certified Internal Auditor’, or ‘Certified Government Financial Manager’. All these certifications are focused on process and validation/effectiveness of process.

1. There are no non-competes on the current contracts.

2. Site manager will be changed to program manager for continuity of labor categories.

3. A resume is required for the Chief Historian position.

4. The PWS will be revised to reflect a Master's in History or related field and 10 years of experience in Aerospace techonology or a Doctorate in History with 7 years of experience.

5.Qualification revised to reflect completion of AS9100 Aerospace Auditor Transition Training

27 Attachment D-4 – PWS 9.0 Training 19

Government requires ‘contract provided training’, but there is no specifics on the trainings, also for government systems and processes, will the government consider moving this to the ‘Government Provided Training’ section?

For trainings specifics to environmental, health and safety – to estimate the resources and cost burden, can government provide more details that the NASA center specifically has?

Contractor is expected to be knowledgeable and/or proficient in all software identified in the PWS. If new software platforms become available NASA will consider requests to provide this training.

Training for environmental, health, and safety requirements shall be in accordance with the Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Plan

(SHEMP).

28 Draft RFP H. iii 37 The word ‘Offeror’, we translate this to be the combination of the Prime and Major Subcontractors --- does the government agree with this definition?

Otherwise would the government confirm.

Offeror translates to prime and major subcontractor(s) performing 20% or more of the effort.

Draft RFP H iii.B. and H.iv. 38

The government requests ‘a comprehensive integration of all management systems of the prime and subcontractor’. The government allows Offerors to submit Past Performance for Prime and ‘significant subcontractor’.

Given that government is considering contributions from Prime and Major Subcontractor in the capability and execution, we request that at least one Past Performance be provided by Prime provided they are also a small business and the remainder may be provided by Major Subcontractors only --- and that government revise the evaluation of the Past Performance to be an ‘integrated assessment of Prime and Major Subcontractor’s Past Performance’ similar to the NASA Dual Administrative Support Services requirement – which is similar in size and scope.

As noted under Section E.4(b)(2) of the solicitation, past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

30 Draft RFP H.iv.A. 38

Government asks for ‘a minimum of three (3) relevant …. contracts… as CATSS III requirements…” The size of CATS III is contemplated at $50 Million for a period of 5-years, which translates to an annual of $10 Million. Given the applicable NAICS of 561110, its size standard of $8 Million --- as single past performance of relevant size will exclude any capable vendors from pursuing this requirement -- unless they have only been awarded in the last 2-years, let alone 3 such projects – which would surely exclude any qualified participants.

We request the NASA to revise this to Past Performance with total value of $25 Million or more and annual burn of more than $5 million, and to give preference to those contracts that may exceed value of $30 million.

The solicitation will include a 5 year period for past performance. The evaluation team will review the offeror’s Past Performance to determine the relevancy of the present/past performance to the task requirements of the PWS and solicitation and assign a Past Performance Relevancy Rating.

31 Draft RFP 38 Will the government consider past performance of a sister company for native owned entities as prime past performancer?

ANCs may utilize sister company past performance provided their meaningful involvement in performance of this contract is established. See GAO B-409187.

Prior Solicitation

Documents

(NND15520845R)

N/A N/A N/A

The NASA Acquisition Information Site (NAIS) directs users to check SAM.gov for the links to documents formerly located there. However, when I navigated to the inactive solicitation posting on SAM.gov, the links to the documents for NND15520845R take me back to the same NAIS page where I began. Is the Contracting Office able to post the solicitation documents for the prior competition of this work?

Posting the prior solicitation documents reduces the workload of the NASA FOIA office and helps bidders develop higher quality proposals.

Previous solicitation documents will not be provided.

33 Draft RFP E.2g 30 of 62 Does the Contracting Office anticipate requiring Past Performance Questionnaires completed by our Federal Government customers if our performance review is located in CPARS?

This prevents redundancy of past performance information and is considerate of our customers' time constraints.

See solicitation Section E.2(h)(iv)(D), NASA may use CPARS to evaluate past performance however offerors retain the burden of providing relevant references that NASA can contact to establish relevance. The solicitation will be revised to include a questionnaire requirement.

Attachment D-2 DRD and

Draft RFP Management

Plan E.4

Given the detailed description of the Management Plan in the DRD and its importance to delivering high-quality administrative and technical services, we respectfully request the Contracting Office reconsider the technically acceptable evaluation approach. We believe that there will be a broad range of technically acceptable proposals that will nevertheless contain important differences in mission suitability and effectiveness for AFRC and ARC. Using a technically acceptable/unacceptable approach will not capture these important differences among offers.

This will help AFRC get the best value for its budget for this work.

Noted. Evaluation criteria remains as written.

Add additional lines if necessary.