1. 80ARC024R0003 Amendment 1- SF30.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

80ARC0

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is hereby extended to January 29, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (PT)

NASA Ames Research Center M/S 241-1 Moffett Field CA 94035-0001

80ARC0240003

12/15/2023

See continuation sheet

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED Page 2 of 3

80ARC024R0003 Amendment 1

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate edits to sections B-K of the RFP and revise J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template and J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions as follows:

1. Section I:

a. FAR 52.219-4 NOTICE OF PRICE EVALUATION PREFERENCE FOR

HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. (OCT 2022) is hereby removed in its entirety.

b. The threshold in FAR 52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS. (OCT 1995) paragraph

(a) is hereby changed from $100,000 to $5,000.

c. FAR 52.217 OPTION 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE

CONTRACT. (MAR 2000) paragraph (a) is hereby changed to add “days” as follows: “….provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires.”

2. Section J:

a. J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template is revised to remove labor categories from Tab 1-4 Contract Management.

b. J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions is revised to be consistent with the labor categories in J.1(b) Att. 1 and update the descriptions/qualifications for Site Manager and Research Assistant.

3. Section L:

a. The table in NFS 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) is hereby changed to remove Item 4., update the RFP Location references, and change the electronic format from MS Word to PDF for Volume II: 1. Mission Suitability, 2. Technical Understanding, Volume III: 1. Past Performance Narrative, and Volume IV: 2. Cost/Price Narratives.

b. The proposal due date in L.1(a)(1) hereby changed from January 22, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (PT) to January 29, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (PT).

c. As a result of 1.a. above, L.2(a)(4) is hereby removed in its entirety and the subsequent numbering is updated.

d. L.2(a)5(iii) is hereby changed to remove reference to quality assurance as follows “Current GAA or ACO approval status of the following business systems: billing (internal controls), estimating, budget and financial control, and purchasing and quality assurance.”

e. L.2(a)(6)(ii) is hereby changed to add “not” as follows: “The Government has not identified specific actual or potential conflicts related to this contract in paragraphs ii and iii below.”

f. L.3A(g)(ii)(1)(iii) is hereby changed to clarify terms as follows:

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED Page 3 of 3

80ARC024R0003 Amendment 1

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

4. What are the safety and operational efficiency issues between the secure and terminal (airport terminal surface, i.e.ground) operation areas?

5. What issues would a safety management system need to resolve for the AAM and legacy aircraft in the mixed-vehicle terminal airspace area?

4. Section M:

a. As a result of 2.c. above, the references in M.2 are hereby updated.

b. The threshold in M.4 is hereby corrected as follows: “For a Prime Offeror’s individual past performance contract reference to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must have a total contract value equal to or greater than $20,000,000.”

5. The following contract change pages are provided and incorporated herein:

Section I: Pages I-4, I-13, and I-14 Section L; Pages L-4, L-5, L-10, L-14, L-16, L-23 Section M: Pages M-2, M-3, M-7 Section J: Attachments J.1(b) Att. 1 and J.1(b) Att. 2

(End of Amendment 1)

80ARC024R0003

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

I-4

52.215-19 NOTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP CHANGES. (OCT 1997)

52.215-21 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA AND DATA

OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA - MODIFICATIONS. (NOV 2021)

ALTERNATE III (OCT 1997)

52.215-23 LIMITATIONS ON PASS-THROUGH CHARGES. (JUN 2020)

52.216-7 ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT. (AUG 2018)

52.216-8 FIXED FEE. (JUN 2011)

52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES. (NOV 1999); 30 Days

52.219-4 NOTICE OF PRICE EVALUATION PREFERENCE FOR HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS CONCERNS. (OCT 2022)

52.219-6 NOTICE OF TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE. (NOV 2020)

52.219-8 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. (OCT 2022)

52.219-28 POST-AWARD SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REREPRESENTATION. (MAR

2023)

52.222-2 PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS. (JUL 1990)

52.222-3 CONVICT LABOR. (JUN 2003)

52.222-21 PROHIBITION OF SEGREGATED FACILITIES. (APR 2015)

52.222-26 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. (SEP 2016)

I-13

52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS. (OCT 1995)

(a) Minimum order. When the Government requires supplies or services covered by this contract in an amount of less than $5,000 the Government is not obligated to purchase, nor is the Contractor obligated to furnish, those supplies or services under the contract.

(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor -

(1) Any order for a single item in excess of $86,000,000.

(2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of $86,000,000; or

(3) A series of orders from the same ordering office within 30 days that together call for quantities exceeding the limitation in subparagraph (1) or (2) above.

(c) If this is a requirements contract (i.e., includes the Requirements clause at subsection 52.216-21 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)), the Government is not required to order a part of any one requirement from the Contractor if that requirement exceeds the maximum-order limitations in paragraph (b) above.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the Contractor shall honor any order exceeding the maximum order limitations in paragraph (b), unless that order (or orders) is returned to the ordering office within 5 days after issuance, with written notice stating the Contractor's intent not to ship the item (or items) called for and the reasons. Upon receiving this notice, the Government may acquire the supplies or services from another source.

(End of clause)

52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY. (OCT 1995)

(a) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified, and effective for the period stated, in the Schedule. The quantities of supplies and services specified in the Schedule are estimates only and are not purchased by this contract.

(b) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with the Ordering clause. The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the Schedule as the maximum. The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the Schedule as the minimum.

(c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.

(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The

I-14 contract shall govern the Contractor's and Government's rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract's effective period;

provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after one year from the end of the date of the contract. The period of performance of orders placed within the contract ordering period shall comply with the bona fide need rule and principles of federal appropriations law.

(End of clause)

52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT. (MAR 2000)

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 days; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 5 years.

(End of clause)

52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING. (OCT 2022)

(a) This clause does not apply to the unrestricted portion of a partial set-aside.

(b) Definition. Similarly situated entity, as used in this clause, means a first-tier subcontractor, including an independent contractor, that—

(1) Has the same small business program status as that which qualified the prime contractor for the award (e.g., for a small business set-aside contract, any small business concern, without regard to its socioeconomic status); and

(2) Is considered small for the size standard under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code the prime contractor assigned to the subcontract.

(c) Applicability. This clause applies only to—

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS

L-4

2. SF33 L.2(a)(2) N/A PDF

3. Section B L.2(a)(3) N/A PDF

4. Section I L.2(a)(4) N/A PDF

45. Section K L.2(a)(45) N/A PDF

56. Status of Offeror’s Management Systems

L.2(a)(56) N/A PDF

67. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Avoidance/Mitigation Plan

L.2(a)(67) N/A PDF

VOLUME II – Mission Suitability**

1. Management Approach

L.3A(ag)(i)

45 Pages (a)-(d)

PDFMS Word

(a) Organizational Structure/Partnerin g Approach

L.3A(ag)(i)(1)

(b) Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Training

L.3A(ag)(i)(2)

(c) Government Property Management Information Plan

L.3A(ag)(i)(3)

(d) Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software

L.3A(ag)(i)(4)

2. Technical Understanding L.3A(bg)(ii)

45 Pages (a)-(b)

PDFMS Word (c) (a) STO - Simulation of Advance Air Mobility and Legacy Aircraft Systems

L.3A(bg)(ii)(1)

VOLUME III – Past Performance**

1. Past Performance Narrative

L.3B(1) - (34) 15 Pages* PDFMS Word

2. Past Performance Relevancy Matrix

L.3B(4) and J.1(b) Attachment 7

N/A MS Excel

3. Past Performance L.3B(5) N/A PDF

L-5

Questionnaire VOLUME IV – Cost/Price

1. Cost/Price Narratives L.3C(1) N/A PDFMS Word

2. Cost/Price Workbook Templates

L.3C(2) N/A MS Excel

* The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractors have up to 5 pages for each past performance contract reference under section L.3B. This limit does NOT apply to past performance questionnaire responses and the past performance relevancy matrix.

Note: Microsoft (MS)

** Graphics, as defined as an image that is not predominately text, may have the captions as searchable. If the graphic is predominately text, the text must be searchable.

(b) A page is defined as one side of sheet, 8 1/2″ × 11″, with at least one-inch margins on all sides, Times New Roman font text in a size no smaller than 12 point Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8 1/2″ × 11″ pages. The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8 1/2″ × 11″ size may also be used. Other limitations/instructions identified as follows:

(1) The format for each proposal volume shall match the format provided in the table above in paragraph (a).

(2) Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, graphics, and photographs shall use Times New Roman font text in a size no smaller than 10-point. For this RFP, Times New Roman font is defined as Times New Roman font only and does not include any variation of Times New Roman font.

(3) All pages in each volume (I-IV) shall be numbered sequentially with Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.) for contents subject to page limitations and shall include the Offeror’s name, RFP number, and proposal submission date. Subsequent revisions, if requested, shall be similarly identified to show revision number and date in the header. A table of contents for each volume shall be provided with figures and tables listed separately. Blank sheets, tabs, or dividers will not count against the appropriate volume’s page limitations.

Additionally, any sheet, tab, or divider containing only a title or brief index information strictly for the section it designates will not count against the appropriate volume’s page limitations. However, any side of a sheet, tab, or divider containing proposal material or information will be counted as part of the appropriate volume’s page limitations.

Information that can be construed as belonging in one of the other sections of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that section's page limitation.

L-10

(a) Offeror shall submit with its proposal any representations of background Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software required under FAR 52.227-15 in accordance with the format set forth in DRD No. 31 for any data that it proposes to deliver as Limited Rights Data or Restricted Computer Software and shall specifically identify Limited Rights Data or Restricted Computer Software it proposes to incorporate into data deliverables.

(b) The Offeror shall propose any changes to the purposes, rights or limitations identified in the solicitation under FAR 52.227-14(g)(3) and (4).

(c) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information in its proposal to enable the Contracting Officer to determine the validity of the Offeror's assertions. In addition, the Offeror shall maintain all recorded information sufficient to justify the validity of limited rights data or restricted computer software that are subsequently delivered to NASA in performance of the resultant contract.

(d) Based on the Offeror’s actions or deliberate inaction, or a failure by the Offeror to identify, analyze, or verify data, including by omission, as described in this provision may be deemed as an act in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. The Offeror may not rely on past or commensurate actions or inaction by the Government regarding data not previously identified to the Government as limited rights data or restricted computer software yet delivered to the Government with restrictive or limiting markings and actually or constructively accepted by the Government.

(End of provision)

L.1 PROPOSAL GENERATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS –

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(a) PROPOSAL STRUCTURE AND DUE DATES

(1) The Offeror’s entire proposal is due by January 292, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (PT).

The delivery location is specified in Section L.1(b), PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS. Any proposal submitted after the due date and time will not be accepted nor evaluated.

(2) Completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be submitted any time after the date of RFP release, until the proposal due date and time stated in Section L.1(a)(1). PPQs shall be emailed to Rosalinda De Leon at rosalinda.r.deleon@nasa.gov and courtesy copy

(cc) to Noor Khazendar, noor.khazendar@nasa.gov. PPQs received after 2:00 p.m. PT on the proposal due date stated in Section L.1(a)(1) will not be evaluated.

L-14

iii. A statement of acceptance to all the terms and conditions of this RFP, including anticipated contract clauses and period of performance, or specific exceptions taken to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation and anticipated contract. The Government reserves the right to remove the proposal from consideration for award if exception is taken to any of the terms and conditions of this RFP.

iv. If the Offeror proposes a teaming arrangement, including use of subcontractor(s), then the Offeror shall describe and explain its approach to teaming and subcontracting and include the following:

1. Identification of points of contact for each corporate entity proposed as part of its teaming arrangement. Offerors shall identify which members of its teaming arrangement are Major Subcontractor(s). Major Subcontractors are defined as those subcontractors proposed to perform $10,000,000 or greater of the total proposed contract value covering a performance period of up to five (5) year performance period of this contract or $2,000,000 in any one year of this contract.

2. Business size of each Major Subcontractor

3. Identification of which party will be managing the contract, and

4. General description and percentage of the work to be performed by each corporate entity in the proposed teaming arrangement.

(2) Standard Form (SF) 33 – Include:

i. A completed copy of the SF33 signed by an official authorized to contractually bind the

Offeror.

ii. Written acknowledgment of all solicitation amendments that are issued in Box 14.

(3) Section B Include a completed response to the following Section B Clauses (note TBP means To Be Proposed by the Offeror; TBD will be completed by the Contracting Officer):

i. 1852.216-74 Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee proposed for CLINs 0002, 0003, 0005, 0006, 0007, and 0008.

ii. 1852.216-78 Firm Fixed Price proposed for CLIN 0001

(4) Section I – Include a completed response to Section I:

i. FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns.

(45) Section K – A completed response to Section K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements. If Representations and Certifications have been completed by the Offeror in System for Award Management (SAM), Offerors shall include a copy in Volume I of its proposal.

(56) Status of Offeror’s Management Systems – Offerors and any subcontractor that is proposed to receive a cost-reimbursement type contract must submit documents from the cognizant Government agency showing their accounting systems are approved for tracking and separating

L-16 action plan and any corrective actions that have been taken to date.

ii. Business Systems – Current GAA or ACO approval status of the following business systems: billing (internal controls), estimating, budget and financial control, and purchasing. and quality assurance system. The Offeror shall provide documentation of official Government approval for all approved systems to include (1) the current status of, (2) date of last review, and

(3) name, address, and phone number of the Governmental agency that performed the review and

(4) the audit report number. If approval of any of these business systems is not available, provide a statement of such and a brief rationale as to why these systems have not been approved, including the status of any current reviews. Describe any unapproved systems in detail.

(67) Organizational Conflicts of Interest Plan and Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest

i. The contracting officer (CO) has determined that this acquisition may give rise to an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). Accordingly, the attention of prospective offerors is invited to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5 Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Offerors are required to submit an acceptable OCI Plan in accordance with the requirements of Data Requirements Description (DRD 30), Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan.

ii. Paragraphs ii.1 – 3 below contain brief descriptions of each type of potential OCI and the reason it creates a concern. The Government has not identified specific actual or potential conflicts related to this contract in paragraphs ii and iii below.

1. Unequal Access to Information: An OCI due to “unequal access to information” is created when a contractor has access to nonpublic information that may provide the firm an unfair competitive advantage to compete against other companies, likely in the context of a later competition for a future Government contract.

2. Biased Ground Rules: An OCI due to “biased ground rules” is created when a firm, as part of its performance of a Government contract, has in some sense set the ground rules for another Government contract by, for example, writing the statement of work or the specifications. In these “biased ground rules” cases, the primary concern is that the firm could skew the future competition, whether intentionally or not, in favor of itself. These situations may also involve concerns that a firm, by virtue of its special knowledge of the agency’s future requirements, would have an unfair advantage in the competition for those requirements. Thus, both principles of bias and unfair competitive advantage may be present under certain circumstances.

3. Impaired Objectivity: An OCI due to “impaired objectivity” is created when a contractor, as part of its performance of a Government contract, has the opportunity to take action, or participate in contract activities, under circumstances where the contractor’s judgment or objectivity in performing the requirements may be impaired because the contractor’s actions might affect the interests of entities with which the contractor has a direct or indirect affiliation or a competitive posture. Under such circumstances, the contractor could positively impact its

L-23

3. Assume that the airport plans to convert existing taxiway and apron space into helipads with some addition construction to accommodate operations of these aircraft, which are capable of vertical takeoff and landing.

4. The airport has three runways with a north-south orientation, and two additional diagonal runways are oriented northwest-southeast.

5. The current arrival rate of legacy aircraft varies from 60 to 90 arrivals per hour.

6. To accommodate winds and weather, 60% of the time the airport operates in south flow (that is, departures and arrivals are headed south), 30% of the operations are in north flow, and 10% of the operations are in northwest flow.

7. Assume AAM and legacy aircraft use the same Terminal Approach Control (TRACON) arrival and departure fixes with dissimilar traffic flows vertically separated when necessary.

8. Assume the helipads are added to the secure area (taxiways and runways) that the FAA controls, but that an airline operator controls the current gate area and any vehicle/surface movement around the helipads.

9. Assume helipad occupancy times are 20 minutes, and legacy aircraft occupy their gates for one hour fifteen minutes.

(iii) STO Requirements:

Identify an approach to develop fast-time and real-time simulation models of this modified airport and its passenger movements that will provide possible answers to the following questions/issues:

1. If the ratio of AAM aircraft operations to legacy aircraft operations is 1.2 to 1.0, what configuration of the airport and its new helipad infrastructure would allow safe and efficient operations?

2. What are the passenger movement times between the AAM vehicle helipads and the existing legacy aircraft gates at the airport, assuming the AAM passengers have already been through security screening before arrival at the airport?

3. How would AAM aircraft receive electricity for charging? Assume 15% of the arrivals need to charge for eight hours. [Factors for space, power consumption. What other pieces of info would you need to know?]

4. What are the safety and operational efficiency issues between the secure and terminal (airport terminal surface, i.e.ground) operation areas?

5. What issues would a safety management system need to resolve for the AAM and legacy aircraft in the mixed-vehicle terminal airspacearea?

STO Deliverables:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-2 comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the criteria set forth in this

RFP

(5) Evaluation will be based on the material presented and substantiated in the Offeror’s proposal and not based on what may be implied. Vague statements will be interpreted as a lack of understanding on part of the Offeror and/or inability to demonstrate adequate qualifications and resources. The Offeror’s attention is directed to Section L, which provides the important instructions concerning proposal preparation.

(6) Any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in making a proposal ineligible for award.

(7) Offerors should note that any aspect of its proposal, if found to be unsatisfactory, may be the basis for rejection for an offer in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of unacceptable proposals.

(End of text)

M.2 PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ELIGITBILTY

STANDARDS (OCT 2021)

(a) The procedures for determining whether prospective contractors and subcontractors are responsible are set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.1 and NASA FAR Subpart 1809.1. Failure by the offeror to affirmatively demonstrate adequate compliance with the general standards of prospective contractor responsibility at FAR 9.104-1, and any special standards established for this acquisition under FAR 9.104-2, will result in a determination of non-responsibility. As with all aspects of prospective contractor responsibility, a finding of non-responsibility can be made at any time prior to contract award. Per FAR 9.103(b), if the prospective contractor is a small business concern, responsibility will be determined in accordance with Subpart 19.6, Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility.

If the prospective contractor is a Section 8(a) participant, see Subpart 19.8.

Specific Standards of responsibility for this Acquisition include the following:

• Status of Offeror’s Management Systems L.2(a)(56) – The Offeror’s accounting, billing (internal controls), estimating, budget and financial control, purchasing and quality assurance systems will be evaluated for acceptability as part of the Responsibility Determination under FAR 9.1.

M-3

• The Offeror’s proposed response to the requirements stated in NFS 1852.239-73

REVIEW OF THE OFFEROR’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

SUPPLY CHAIN (JAN 2020) (DEVIATION) will be evaluated for acceptability as part of the Responsibility Determination under FAR 9.1. NASA will only request the information required in NFS 1852.239-73 REVIEW OF THE OFFEROR’S

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS SUPPLY CHAIN (JAN 2020)

(DEVIATION) from the apparent successful offeror once selection is made, but prior to the contract award being made. (Note: Offerors shall not submit the information required under NFS 1852.239-73 REVIEW OF THE OFFEROR’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS SUPPLY CHAIN (JAN 2020) (DEVIATION) with its proposal)

(b) Additional requirements for eligibility have been established for this acquisition. The Government may communicate with offerors about the eligibility requirement(s) identified below outside of the evaluation process. This communication does not constitute discussions as defined in FAR 15.306. If the following eligibility requirements cannot be made acceptable to the Government, the offeror will be considered ineligible for award:

(1) The proposed Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan shall meet all requirements stated in DRD No. 30 and the Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Section L.2.(a)(68). The OCI plan will be evaluated for eligibility in accordance with FAR 9.5. The proposed OCI plan, DRD No. 30, shall be consistent with all other areas of the proposal. Material inconsistencies between the plan and other proposal areas may render the proposal invalid, resulting in an unacceptable proposal that is ineligible for award.

M.3 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR (VOLUME II) EVALUATION

(a) In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3 and NFS Subpart 1815.3, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the Mission Suitability subfactor requirements and approach for accomplishing those requirements, the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed resources, and associated programmatic risk. The Government will validate the consistency between all proposal volumes and any inconsistencies identified may indicate a lack of understanding and adversely impact the offeror’s adjectival rating(s) and score. Only that information provided within the proposal will be evaluated; any reference to previously submitted information, if any, will be considered only to the extent the information is resubmitted as part of the proposal. Information incorporated by reference will not be considered or evaluated. Proposal statements such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” do not indicate a sufficient level of awareness and understanding of the PWS and will not be considered an effective response to the solicitation. In addition, simply referencing prior experience does not demonstrate an understanding or a proposed

M-7

M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (VOLUME III) EVALUATION

An offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on FAR Part 15 and the evaluation criteria in this section. In order to be evaluated, all past performance references must be “recent” and meet or exceed the minimum total contract values identified below for both Prime Offeror and Major Subcontractor past performance contract references.

For purposes of past performance, the term “Offeror” refers to a prime contractor and its major subcontractors. Accordingly, the past performance of major subcontractors shall also be evaluated and attributed to the Offeror. The past performance of a major subcontractor will be compared to the PWS Section(s) proposed to be performed by that subcontractor on the NAMS- 2 contract and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance Level of Confidence rating to the Offeror. The past performance of any proposed small business first tier subcontractors below the dollar thresholds stated in Section L for a major subcontractor under the past performance factor will only be evaluated if the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime does not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance necessary for award.

A “recent” contract is a contract that is completed no more than three years prior to the proposal due date under this RFP or must be ongoing for at least for at least one full calendar year prior to the proposal due date stated in this RFP. Contracts completed more than three years prior to the proposal due date under this solicitation or which have not been on-going for at least one full calendar year will not be considered recent and therefore will not be evaluated.

A “relevant” contract depends on the size, content, and complexity of the contract with respect to this acquisition.

For a Prime Offeror’s individual past performance contract reference to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must have a total contract value equal to or greater than $3020,000,000.

For a Major Subcontractor’s individual past performance contract reference to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must have a total contract value equal to or greater than $5,000,000.

If the past performance contract reference is determined to be recent and meets the minimum total contract value requirements stated above, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size, content and complexity.

Content and complexity are more important than size in the evaluation of relevance. The terms “content” and “complexity” are interrelated and include the type of services, work, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation.