80ARC024R0003 NAMS-2 Q and A - Posted with Amendment 1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 80ARC024R0003
About this file
This document package includes a request for proposal (RFP) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Academic Mission Services 2 (NAMS-2) contract. The RFP seeks proposals for research and development support services related to air traffic management and urban air mobility. Proposals are due by January 29, 2024. The contract is a small business set-aside with an estimated total value of $124 million over a five-year base period and one six-month option. The RFP includes instructions for preparing and submitting proposals, evaluation criteria, templates for pricing information, and descriptions of required labor categories. Offerors are advised to carefully review all amendments and questions and answers that provide clarification on the RFP's requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question/ Comment # | Document Name and/or Attachment Number | Page # | Section | Paragraph Title | |||
| (e.g. clause/provision #) | Question-Please note that questions such "Can you clarify section B, clause XX, paragraph XX, etc. will not be answered. All questions shall specifically state what is it that you don’t understand about a specific area. | Response | |||||
| 1 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | B-1, B-2 | Section B.1 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED | Section B.1 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED | The Government provides a ceiling for the IDIQ under Section B.1: "The total maximum ordering quantity/value of IDIQ CLIN 0004 is $86,900,000." Is this ceiling relevant to the Total Evaluated Price? That is, is it the Government's intent that the ceiling divided by all of the hours for the 5 years plus the 6-month extension equal the average blended rate the Government anticipates for the IDIQ? | The ceiling is not relevant to the Total Evaluated Price. The labor hours provided and Total Evaluated Price are for evaluation purposes only. | |
| 2 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal |
NAMS-2+Q+and+A+-+80ARC024R003.xlsx I-4
| Q&A 13 | SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES | 52.219-4 | Consistent with the response to Q&A #13 in the Q&As, the final RFP includes clause 52.219-4, but the response to the question indicates that it was added because it is required for full and open competitions. Please clarify that this clause does not apply given that NAMS-2 is a Small Business set aside procurement. | FAR 52.219-4 Is not applicable to NAMS-2 and removed from the Amendment 1 of the RFP. | |||
| 3 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | I-14 | SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES | 52.217-9 (a) | A word appears to be missing from the text. Please confirm that the sentence should read "…extend at least 30 days before…" rather than "…extend at least 30 before…." | FAR 52.217-9 has been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to clarify that it is 30 days. | |
| 4 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-3, L-4 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | Because MS Word files can appear differently on different computers, we recommend that the Government allow all non-Excel files to be submitted as PDFs. This will help Offerors submit proposals that comply with formatting requirements. | NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in Amendemnt 1 of the RFP to reflect the change from MS Word to PDF. | ||||
| 5 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-3, L-4 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | The Table 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) Pages L-3 and L-4 lists the Proposal Price Narrative as an MS Word format document. The instructions for Section L-1 (a) (6) on page L-11 state, "Volume IV, Cost/Price workbooks shall be compatible with Microsoft Excel 2016. Volume IV, Cost/Price supporting narrative shall be submitted in Text Searchable Adobe Acrobat PDF." Please confirm that Offerors should submit the Cost/Price supporting narrative as a Text Searchable Adobe Acrobat PDF. | Confirm, the Cost/Price supporting narrative shall be in Text Searchable Adobe Acrobat PDF per the Final RFP. | ||||
| 6 | 2.+Final+80ARC024R0003+-+SF33+-+Request+for+Proposal | L-4, L-5 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | 1852.215-81 (a) | In The Table 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015), the limitations for Past Performance citations indicate 15 pages. The footnote further restricts the prime and each proposed major subcontractor to up to 5 pages for each citation. We recommend that ARC allow the prime and each major subcontractor limit their three Past Performance citations to no more than 15 pages total, but allow them flexibility in allocating the 15 pages across their individual citations. The rationale for this is that some citations may cover more elements of the NAMS-2 PWS than others and it would be advantageous for the offeror and for the Government to provide more detail in those citations. | The page limitations for Past Performance references in NFS 1852.215-81 remain unchanged. | ||||
| 7 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-4, L-5 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | Volume III Past Performance Narrative is limited to 15 pages. However, a note states, "The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractors have up to 5 pages for each past performance contract reference under section L.3B." Is the 15-page limit per company (15 for offeror and 15 for each major subcontractor, assuming each provides three references)? Or is the limit 15 pages for the entire narrative, including Offeror and major subcontractor references? | The language in NFS 1852.215-81 states that the prime offeror and each Major Sub have a page limitation of 15 pages total each for the past performance narrative which consists of up to 5 page for each reference with a max of 3 references. Therefore, the Prime Offeror has a limit of 15 pages for its past performance contract references and each major subcontractor also has a limit of 15 pages for all of its past performance referecnes. | ||||
| 8 | 2.+Final+80ARC024R0003+-+SF33+-+Request+for+Proposal | L-4, L-5 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | 1852.215-81 (a) | The Table at 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS limits the Electronic Format Mission Suitability, Past Performance Narrative, and Cost/Price Narratives to MS Word. However, Q&A #10 states, "The electronic format is updated in the RFP to reflect the requirement for PDF files for all files other than those in MS Excel format." Please confirm that these files may be submitted as PDFS. | NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to reflect the change from MS Word to PDF. | ||||
| 9 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-23 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | STO Requirements | Regarding the Government's stated requirement #4, “What are the safety and operational efficiency issues between the secure and terminal operation areas?”: Is the term “terminal” a reference to airport/AAM ground/passenger terminal or to terminal airspace? | The term in requirement #4 refers to the airport terminal surface (ground). L.3A(g)(ii) is updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to clarify. | ||||
| 10 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-24 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | ||||
| RESPONDENTS | STO Requirements | Regarding the Government's stated requirement #5, “What issues would a safety management system need to resolve for the AAM and legacy aircraft in the mixed-vehicle terminal area?”: Is the term “terminal area” meant to encompass the entire terminal airspace? The surface terminal area? Or other? | The term in requirement #5 refers to the terminal airspace. L.3A(g)(ii) is updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to clarify. | ||||
| 11 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-25 |
M-7 SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR
RESPONDENTS
| SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD | M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (VOLUME III) EVALUATION | Section L states that "a total contract value equal to or greater than | ||
| $20,000,000 shall be submitted for the Prime Offeror" (L-25). However, Section M states "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 $30,000,000." Please confirm that $20,000,000 is the correct value (which is also consistent with the Q&A #14 answer that the dollar value for the Prime has been changed). | The contract value in Section M.4 has been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with Section L and the Q&A. | |||
| 12 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-26 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | |
| RESPONDENTS | 5. Past Performance Questionnaires (Not to be Submitted in Past Performance Volume III) | Regarding the statement, "The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the customer with direct knowledge of your firm's performance on the applicable past performance reference": Please confirm that, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, if the Offeror performed as a subcontractor to a company that may also be competing for NAMS-2, the Offeror may send the questionnaire to a Government respondent (end customer of the contract being cited). This allowance will mitigate a conflict of interest on the part of the competing Offeror. | The questionnaire respondent is required to be from the customer with direct knowledge of the firm's performance. In the situation where the the customer on a given past performance reference is also competing on NAMS-2 then the Government Customer may complete the PPQ for that reference if they have direct knowledge of the firm's performance. | |
| 13 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal |
Att.+1+-+Cost-Price+Template+Workbook
Att.+2+-+NAMS-2+Labor+Category+Descriptions-Qualifications
| NAMS-2 Q and A - 80ARC024R0003 | L-31 | SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR | |
| RESPONDENTS | Paragraph beginning with CPFF Labor Rate Build-Up | In Q&A 20, the Government indicates that the final RFP was updated for consistency between the Cost-Price Template Workbook, Tab 1-7, and the Labor Category descriptions. However, there is a small difference in the labor category titles for Research Engineer (levels I, II, and III) in the Cost-Price Template Workbook and R&D Engineer (levels I, II, and III) in the labor category descriptions. Please confirm that Research Engineer categories correspond to R&D Engineer categories | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. |
| 14 | NAMS-2 Q and A - 80ARC024R0003 |
Att.+2+-+NAMS-2+Labor+Category+Descriptions-Qualifications Question 18 (related to p. 5 of Labor Cat. Descriptions)
| Page 1 of Att.+2 | Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications | Site Manager (ST) | The Description/Responsibilities still refer to "plants" and "production": "Sets policies and makes decisions guiding productivity, quality, and cost efficiency of plant operations. Directs, manages, and optimizes the overall operations of one or more plants or other production facilities. Leads the development and deployment of manufacturing practices focused on quality and continuous improvement. Establish systems to collect metrics, analyze productivity and set performance targets that will meet revenue and cost goals. In addition, ensures robust safety and security procedures and training are in place and that operations are in compliance with all required regulations. Leads any labor relations activities involving the plant. Directs level support functions including finance, engineering, materials, quality assurance, and human resources to ensure alignment with overall operations." Will the Government please remove “plant operations/production facilities” from NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att 2? | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 for Site Manager has been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP. |
| 15 | Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook.xlsx |
Att.+2+-+NAMS-2+Labor+Category+Descriptions-Qualifications
NAMS-2+Q+and+A+-+80ARC024R003.xlsx Q&A 59
Tab 1-6 CPFF IDIQ, Research Assistant
| Q&A 59 | J.1(b)+Att.+1+-+Cost-Price+Template+Workbook | For the Research Assistant labor category, the Government Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications define this position as a "A student enrolled in an accredited institution of higher learning and actively working toward a BS or higher degree in an appropriate scientific or engineering field. No experience is required." For a company, these would be interns. For an academic institution, these would be students. In Q&A 59, the Government stated another contract handles the interns. Would the Government please remove the hours for this labor category from the IDIQ LOE in the Cost-Price Template Workbook? | The response was in reference to providing interns as a NASA requirement. There is no direct requirement to provide interns or intern program on NAMS-2. If an Offeror fulfills the Research Assistant labor category with interns, is at its discretion. The Research Assistant requirement is updated in Att. 2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Amendment 1. of the RFP to clarify this flexiblity. |
| 16 | NAMS-2 Q and A - 80ARC024R0003 |
Att.+2+-+NAMS-2+Labor+Category+Descriptions-Qualifications Q&A 93 (related to p. 5 of Labor Cat. Descriptions)
Page 5 of Att.+2 Q&A 93
| Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications | Software Engineer I and II | The Government response to the comment that Software Engineer I and II have identical qualifications in the Labor Category Descriptions was as follows: "J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook is updated to reflect the appropriate years of experience for Software Engineer I." However, it is not clear where in J.1(b) Att 1 Labor Category qualifications are specified. Will the Government consider updating the J.1(b) Att 2 to reflect any differentiation between these two Labor Categories? | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | ||||
| 17 | Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook.xlsx | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab | Are the NASA Labor Categories listed in Column B supposed to match those in the Att 2 and the Tabs for 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6, as there are a few Labor Categories that are not in Att 2? Specifically, these are Aerospace Engineer II and Senior Data Scientist II. | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | |
| 18 | Att.+1+-+Cost-Price+Template+Workbook | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab and 1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt. | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab and 1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt. | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab and 1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt. | Are the NASA Labor Categories listed in Column B for Administrative Assistant, Contracts Manager, Human Resources Manager, Senior Financial Analyst, and Site Manager (ST) relevant any longer now that an Offeror can bid their own Labor Categories for tab 1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt.? | The labor categories included under tab 1-4 have been removed in Amendment 1 of the RFP. Offerors shall propose its own labor categories and hours for Core Contract Mgmt. | |
| 19 | Att.+2+-+NAMS-2+Labor+Category+Descriptions-Qualifications | Page 1 | Administrative Assistant, Contracts Manager, Human Resources Manager, Senior Financial Analyst and Site Manager (ST) | Administrative Assistant, Contracts Manager, Human Resources Manager, Senior Financial Analyst and Site Manager (ST) | Should NASA labor categories Administrative Assistant, Contracts Manager, Human Resources Manager, Senior Financial Analyst, and Site Manager (ST) be removed from Attachment 2 as the Offeror may bid their own labor categories? | The labor categories included under tab 1-4 of the Cost=Price worokbook have been removed in Amendment 1 of the RFP. Offerors shall propose its own labor categories and hours for Core Contract Mgmt. | |
| 20 | Att.+2+-+NAMS-2+Labor+Category+Descriptions-Qualifications | Page 5 | Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications | NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications | The Qualifications for Software Engineer I and II have identical qualifications, unlike all other Labor Categories with multiple levels that have differing qualifications. Both state: "Requires a bachelor's or Master's degree of engineering, Data Science, Human Factors Engineering, Computer Science or related degree. Minimum 2 - 4 years of related experience. Experience with Python, Matlab, Python data science packages, visualization tools, Java, C/C++, Linux. Experience with predictive analytics techniques, data mining, text analytics and predictive modeling. Expertise in software architecture, object-oriented design unit testing required. Experience with Atlassian tools Confluence, JIRA, cloud computing and AWS." Will the Government please update Engineer I and II qualifications to reflect the differing levels of experience required, as follows? |
-- Engineer I — Requires a bachelor's or Master's degree of engineering, Data Science, Human Factors Engineering, Computer Science or related degree. Minimum 0–2 years of related experience.
| -- Engineer II — Requires a bachelor's or Master's degree of engineering, Data Science, Human Factors Engineering, Computer Science or related degree. Minimum 2–4 years of related experience. | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | ||||||
| 21 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-10 and L-12 | L.1 | L.1(a)(1) and L.1(b)(d) | NASA originally contemplated a 45-day response period for proposals; however, the schedule shared at Industry Day assumed proposals would be due prior to major federal holidays in December and January. Given the schedule that includes three public holidays, along with the recommendation on page L-12 for Offerors to submit their proposals one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals, will NASA consider a three-week extension? | The proposal submission date is extended from January 22, 2024 to January 29, 2024 and updated in the amended RFP. | |
| 22 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-4 and L-5 | Q&A #10 | "The answer to question #10 in the Q&A stated, "The electronic format is updated in the RFP to reflect the requirement for PDF files for all files other than those in MS Excel format" however, the table on pages L-4 and L-5 under 1852.215-81 still contain MS Word requirements for Volumes II, III, and IV. |
| Can the table associated with 1852.215-81 be updated to align with the PDF requirements on page L-11 (ref: L.1(a)(6))?" | NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in Amendemnt 1 of the RFP to reflect the change from MS Word to PDF. | ||||
| 23 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-4 | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | "Can the Government confirm the following changes should be made to the table under clause 1852.215-81 for Volume II? Can an amendment be processed to capture these updates? |
1. Management Approach: should reference L.3A(g)(i) instead of L.3A(a)(i)
(a) Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach: should reference L.3A(g)(i)(1) instead of L.3A(a)(i)(1)
(b) Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Training: should reference L.3A(g)(i)(2) instead of L.3A(a)(i)(2)
(c) Government Property Management Information Plan: should reference L.3A(g)(i)(3) instead of L.3A(a)(i)(3)
(d) Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software: should reference L.3A(g)(i)(4) instead of L.3A(a)(i)(4)
2. Technical Understanding: should reference L.3A(g)(ii) instead of L.3A(b)(ii)
| (c) STO - Simulation of Advance Air Mobility and Legacy Aircraft Systems: should reference L.3A(g)(ii)(1) instead of L.3A(b)(ii)(1) and should be labeled as paragraph (a) instead of (c)" | NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to update the references. | ||||
| 24 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-4 | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | "Can the Government confirm the following changes should be made to the table under clause 1852.215-81 for Volume II? |
1. Past Performance Narrative: should reference L.3B(1) - (4) as the requirements in paragraph 4 are included in the narrative
| 2. Past Performance Relevancy Matrix: L.3B(4) and J.1(b), Attachment 7" | NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to update the references. | ||||||
| 25 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-4 and L-5 | Section L, 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations | The answer to Question #11 in the NAMS-2 Q&A confirmed that the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor have up to 5 pages each for past performance submissions. Would the Government consider allowing additional pages for each citation so that Offerors may effectively demonstrate relevancy for each citation across the 12 different PWS areas? | The page limitations for Past Performance references in NFS 1852.215-81 remain unchanged. | ||
| 26 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-4 and L-5 | Section L, 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations | To provide a better understanding of the complexities of each past performance contract reference and their respective relevance to the scope of NAMS-2 as defined in the PWS and Past Performance Questionnaire, will the Government allow Offerors to allocate the total 15 pages for each Prime Offeror and Major Subcontractor at their discretion? For example, may a Prime Offeror use 1 page for an introduction, 7 pages for the first contract reference, 4 pages for the second reference, and 3 pages for the third reference, resulting in a total of 15 pages? This would allow the government to better determine the confidence rating in an offeror's past performance as it relates to the scope of the NAMS 2 contract's ATM Core Technology Area Requirements and 9 IDIQ requirements. | The page limitations for Past Performance references in NFS 1852.215-81 remain unchanged. | ||
| 27 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | I-4 and L-14 | L.2 | L.2(a)(4) and Q&A#13 | Can the Government clarify its response to Question #13 in the NAMS-2 Q&A? The response states that 52.219-4 is required to be used for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition. Because NAMS-2 is a small business set-aside under FAR 52.219-6, please confirm that FAR 52.219-4 is not applicable and should be removed from page I-4 and the requirements on page L-14. | FAR 52.219-4 Is not applicable to NAMS-2 and removed from Amendment 1 of the RFP. | |
| 28 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-14 | L.2 | L.2(a)(4) | Can the Government confirm instructions relative to Section I and paragraph L.2(a)(4)? If an Offeror is not considered to be a HUBZone SB concern, is there any action to respond to Section I in Volume I? | FAR 52.219-4 Is not applicable to NAMS-2 and removed from Amendment 1 of the RFP. | |
| 29 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-14 | L.2 | L.2(a)(5) | Are Offerors required to provide both a completed response to Section K and a copy of their Representations and Certifications from SAM? Or is the copy of the Offerors' SAM record to be submitted in lieu of a completed response to Section K? | All offerors are required to provide a completed response to Section K. 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 along with the Section K response. | |
| 30 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-16 | L.2 | L.2(a)(7) | "The RFP appears to have conflicting statements on page L-16 and L-17 (i.e., "The Government has identified specific actual or potential conflicts related to this contract in paragraphs ii and iii below" AND "No OCIs have been identified by the Government at this time for this contract based on the requirements in the PWS" |
| Can the Government confirm the latter statement is accurate and that no specific OCIs have been identified at this time? Alternatively, if the Government has identified specific actual or potential conflicts, can additional information be provided so that Offerors may respond accordingly in their OCI Plans?" | The language in L.2(a)(7) of the Amended RFP is updated to clarify that the Government has not identified specific actual or potential conflicts. | ||||||
| 31 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-12 | L.1 | L.1(b)(e) | It is understood that the examples provided on page L-12 are not specific to the NAMS-2 solicitation; however, given their inclusion, could the Government confirm that Volume III should be combined into a single file that contains both the Prime Offeror's and Major Subcontractor(s) past performance citations? | Correct, all past performance reference, including the Major Subcontractor's, are to be included in the Volume III submission. | |
| 32 | 9. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-Up | J.1(b) | J.1(b) Att 1 | Can the Government provide more information to explain how Tab 1-7 of the Cost-Price Workbook should be populated if Offerors intend to utilize subcontractor support for a labor category? For example, the prime offeror's input for columns F through K may differ from a subcontractors, which could cause the sum total of columns to F through N to be either higher or lower than intended, depending on each subcontractor's pricing input. | Major subcontractors are required to complete its own Cost/Price proposal to the same level of detail as the prime offeror. For completing Tab 1-7, the prime offeror shall include the major and minor subcontractor loaded labor rate in the subtotal column (k) prior to the prime offerors burdens. The prime offeror shall then apply its applicable burdens. In addition, the major and minor subcontractor loaded labor rate included in the prime offerors proposal shall match those provided in the subcontractors quote/proposal. | |
| 33 | NAMS-2 Q and A - 80ARC024R0003 | NAMS-2 Q and A | "The answer to question #93 stated, J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook is updated to reflect the appropriate years of experience for Software Engineer I. |
| It is unclear where this change is reflected in Att 1. Can the Government please make the update in J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications?" | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | ||||||
| 34 | 9. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | 1-5 CPFF Core Technical | J.1(b) | J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | Tab 1-5 includes NASA Labor Category "Scientist, Senior II"; however, this category is not included on Tab 1-7 or in J.1(b) Att. 2. Can the Government confirm if "Scientist, Senior II" is referring to Senior Data Scientist II? If so, can this be updated within J.1(b) Att. 1? | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | |
| 35 | 9. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | 1-6 CPFF IDIQ | J.1(b) | J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | Tab 1-6 includes NASA Labor Category "Senior Scientist II"; however, this category is not included on Tab 1-7 or in J.1(b) Att. 2. Can the Government confirm if "Senior Scientist II" is referring to Senior Data Scientist II? If so, can this be updated within J.1(b) Att. 1? | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | |
| 36 | 9. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | 1-6 CPFF IDIQ | J.1(b) | J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook | Tab 1-6 includes NASA Labor Category "Researcher, Aerospace"; however, this category is not included on Tab 1-7 or in J.1(b) Att. 2. Can the Government confirm if "Researcher, Aerospace" is referring to Aerospace Engineer II? If so, can this be updated within J.1(b) Att. 1? | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | |
| 37 | 10. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications | Page 4 | J.1(b) | J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications | Please confirm that "Research Engineer" from J.1(b) Att. 1 (Cost-Price Template Workbook) aligns with the requirements stated for "R&D Engineer" on page 4 of J.1(b) Attachment 2. | The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. | |
| 38 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | L-26 | L.3B | L.3B(4) | "Page L-26 states, "Offeror shall complete the PWS Requirements/Past Performance Relevancy Matrix and include in the Past Performance Volume III". |
| 1852.215-81 states the matrix should be completed in Excel. Can the requirements on page L-26 be clarified to make it clear that the matrix is not to be submitted in Past Performance Volume III, even though it is a subfactor of Past Performance (i.e., similar to the note stating, "Past Performance Questionnaires (Not to be Submitted in Past Performance Volume III)"?" | The requirements remain unchanged. While the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix may be a separate file sicne it is in MS Excel file format, it is still required to be submitted as part of Volume III. | ||||||
| 39 | 2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal | M-10 | M.5 | M.5 | The RFP states “A price analysis will be conducted on the Firm-Fixed Price CLIN (Phase-In) to ensure a fair and reasonable price by the Government.” Absent a formal, evaluated Phase-In Plan, can the government clarify the mechanism or criteria to evaluate fairness or reasonability of the proposed FFP? Would the government consider adding a summary phase-in plan (major milestones, activities, staffing, risks and mitigations, and benefits to the government) in order to allow for a direct comparison of offerors' approaches? | The Government will perform a price analysis using techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b). The Government will not be performing a price realism or cost analysis on the proposed FFP CLIN. Therefore, no summary phase-in plan information is requested with the proposal.. | |
| 40 | Request for Proposal | L-4 - L-5 | L | Proposal Page Limitations | Can you clarify the page count for the Past Performance volume? Is the Past Performance narrative limit of 15 pages in addition to the 5 pages per contract allowed for the Prime Offeror and each Major Subcontractor? | The language in NFS 1852.215-81 states that the prime offeror and each Major Sub have a page limitation of 15 pages total each for the past performance narrative which consists of up to 5 page for each reference with a max of 3 references. Therefore, the Prime Offeror has a limit of 15 pages for its past performance contract references and each major subcontractor also has a limit of 15 pages for all of its past performance referecnes. | |
| 41 | Request for Proposal | L-25/M-7 | L.B.1/M.4 | B – PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME III) INSTRUCTIONS | Comment: This references your response to Question 14 from the Q&A attachment issued with the final RFP on 12/6/23. |
Question: To clarify, does the revised value for contracts by prospective prime offerors really equate to a "total contract value equal to or greater than $20,000,000"? This seems like this should be an annual value since NAMS 2 is projected to have a $124M ceiling and Section M.4 states that "A “relevant” contract depends on the size, content, and complexity of the contract with respect to this acquisition." And the value in Section M still states $30M.
| Even if size is of lesser importance than "content" and "complexity," relevance of a contract worth $20M cannot credibly be relevant in terms of size and management to a contract with a potential value of $124M and should not be able to merit a "Very High Level of Confidence," especially since you have asked offerors in the Volume 2 subfactor for Management to provide an approach to managing multiple concurrent task orders. Furthermore, a consequence of lowering the threshold to $20M is that customers of potential offerors are reluctant, and in some cases will refuse, to provide a questionnaire response for a contract whose size is an order of magnitude greater than the threshold but is actually in proximity to actual ceiling value. | The contract value in Section M.4 has been updated to be consistent with Section L and the Q&A. Note, Section M of the RFP states, 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. | |||||
| 42 | Request for Proposal | L-4 and L-5 | L | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | Comment: This references your response to Question 11 from the Q&A attachment issued with the final RFP on 12/6/23. |
| Question: To clarify, are offerors permitted to provide an introductory 15-page narrative in addition to the 5 pages for each past performance submission by the proposed prime and each major subcontractor? Providing past performance submissions without the context provided by a narrative favors submission by members of the incumbent contractor team since evaluators may be biased by work performed by incumbent entities and does not support the intent of the evaluation criteria in Section M.4 and FAR Part 15.305. Because of this opportunity for bias, it is customary for many agencies to allow an introductory narrative to the past performance response. As an example, recent NASA solicitation 80JSC022R0003 allowed 1 page of introductory material not included in the page count and apart from the matrix, questionnaire information, and consent letters. We are requesting 2 pages of introductory material for past performance to eliminate the potential for bias. | The 15 page narrative (up to 5 pages per reference, max of 3 references) requires the information in L.3B4. which includes a detailed description of the work performed. This narrative is intended to provide evaluators with the information and context of the reference in relation to the NAMS-2 contract. | |||||
| 43 | Request for Proposal | M-12 | M.6 | N/A | Comment: This references your response to Question 42 from the Q&A attachment issued with the final RFP on 12/6/23. |
| Question: Although it is not unusual to identify the members of the Source Evaluation Board or Source Selection Authority, we recognize you are not required to do so. However, at what level will the RFP responses be evaluated? Will they be evaluated at the Ames leadership level or at the code level? If responses will be evaluated at the code level, which codes will participate? This information is valuable to offerors who value partnering and take factors like entity recognition among customer representatives, evaluators and decision makers into account before submitting. | The government will adhere to the standard practice of not disclosing the Source Selection Authority or Source Evaluation Board members for NAMS-2 | |||||
| 44 | Request for Proposal | L-14 | L | L.2(a)(4) | Comment: This references your response to Question 13 from the Q&A attachment issued with the final RFP on 12/6/23, which reads: "The RFP is updated to included FAR 52.219-4 as the prescription requires use in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition." |
| Question: We understand NAMS 2 is a total small business set aside from your cover letter and SAM.gov information. Is NAMS 2 full and open or a small business set aside? If it is a set aside, is it appropriate to remove the inclusion of FAR 52.219-4 since it could provide potential prime offerors a significant pricing advantage? | FAR 52.219-4 Is not applicable to NAMS-2 and removed from the Amended RFP. | ||||||
| 45 | Request for Proposal | L-3, L-11 | L | 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE | |||
| LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015) | The table that starts on page L-3 of the RFP states Volume I is to be submitted as a PDF and Volumes II through IV are to be submitted in Word. On page L-11 all volumes except Excel files are to be submitted as PDF. Which is correct? | NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in the amended RFP to reflect the change from MS Word to PDF. | |||||
| 46 | Request for Proposal | L-33 | L | L.2. NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions - Subcontractors | For Major subcontractors submitting a non-cost type fixed rate contract, would the Government provide greater detail to what supporting documentation is expected to be submitted in their Cost/Price Volume/Quotes? | Per the RFP, "Offerors are required to provide all Minor subcontractor quotes detailing their fully loaded labor rates to enable the Government to verify the proposed Minor subcontractor’s fully loaded rates against the Offeror’s Cost/Price Template Workbook." In addition, Offerors and all subcontractors are instructed to “conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices” and “include the results of these analyses in the price proposal.” | |
| 47 | Request for Proposal | L-14 | L | L.2 PROPOSAL PREPARATION – REQUIRED PROPOSAL CONTENT, Volume I, (a)(6) | Comment: Within L.2’s instructions for proposal preparation of Volume I, (a)(6), the offeror’s management system status is requested. The last paragraph (ii) requests approval evidence for several business systems, including ‘quality assurance’. DFARS 252.242-7005 Contractor Business Systems, includes the following systems: (1) accounting, (2) EVM, (3) estimating, (4) material management, (5) property management, and (6) purchasing. |
Question: Please advise if NASA has an alternate definition of business systems applicable to these proposal instructions and for whom a government entity provides approval on a quality business system. If not, please remove the reference to the quality system. L.2(a)(5) (formerly L.2(a)(6) is updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to remove the reference to quality assurance.
Sheet2
| NFS 1852.215-81 in Section L has been updated in Amendemnt 1 of the RFP to reflect the change from MS Word to PDF. |
| The language in NFS 1852.215-81 states that the prime offeror and each Major Sub have a page limitation of 15 pages total each for the past performance narrative which consists of up to 5 page for each reference with a max of 3 references. Therefore, the Prime Offeror has a limit of 15 pages for its past performance contract references and each major subcontractor also has a limit of 15 pages for all of its past performance referecnes. |
| The Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications in Att.2 have been updated in Amendment 1 of the RFP to be consistent with the Labor Categories in the Cost-Price Template Workbook. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .