J.1(b)7 COSMC Question Disposition.pdf

Question # Reference Question Government Response Included in Amendment

1 RFP Reference: Attachment J.1(a)(4) - Wage Determination

The RFP calls out Wage Determination Number 2015-5641 Rev 23. This wage determination specifies 12 holidays instead of the Government standard 11 days of holidays. For consistency, does the Government intend that 12 holidays be provided for both the non-exempt and exempt employees on COSMC?

For non-exempt employees, the Wage Determination should be followed and apply 12 holidays accordingly. For exempt employees, refer to NFS 1852.242-72 DENIED

ACCESS TO NASA FACILITIES

subsection (a)(2)(i) - Federal public holidays for federal employees in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6103.

No change included in amendment

RFP Reference: Attachment J.1(a)(5) - Labor Categories

The function title “AFRC Level II” qualifications specify “May be any of the Level II functions above in Software Assurance & Software Safety, Systems Safety Engineer, Electrical Systems Safety Engineer.” There is no Level II System Safety Engineer or Electrical Systems Safety Engineer category. Are these two Level-II categories missing or should they be deleted from the “AFRC Level II” qualification?

The two Level-II categories will be removed from the AFRC Level II category.

Change included in Amendment

3 RFP Reference: Attachment J.1(a)(5) - Labor Categories

The “Health Physicist” on page 4 and the “Senior Health Physicist” on page 5 both have very similar years of experience requirements (5 years) and very similar qualification requirements. Will the Government change the “Health Physicist” or the “Senior Health Physicist” years of experience requirement so they can be distinguished when developing direct labor rates?

The labor category for Senior Health Physicist will be removed From attachment J.1(a)(5)

Change included in Amendment

4 RFP Reference: Attachment J.1(a)(5) - Labor Categories

Appears there is a typo on the “Software Assurance & Systems Safety Level I” title on page 5. There is already a “Systems Safety Engineer Level I” category. Will the Government change the “Software Assurance & Systems Safety Level I” title to “Software Assurance & Software Safety Level I”?

RFP Attachment J.1(a)(5) - Labor Categories will be updated to reference Software Assurance & Software Safety Level I. Additionally, Attachment J.1(b)1 will be updated to reflect this change.

Change included in Amendment

5 RFP Reference: Attachment J.1(a)1 - Performance Work Statement for

COSMC

The PWS table of Contents omits PWS 4.2.1 Emergency Response (ER) and PWS 4.7.9 Fire Protection Engineering (FPE) from the Contents list. While PWS 4.14 Computer, Software, and Information Technology Support is on the Contents list, there are no requirements provided in the PWS. Consequently, the paragraph numbering between the table of Contents and the actual PWS requirement narratives for all subsequent/remaining PWS sections, starting with Ames Quality Management System (AQMS) Support, are inconsistent. As a result, references to PWS sections in the solicitation, e.g., the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix - Section J.1(b)4, create confusion and could lead to proposal errors. Also, while the PWS includes requirements for Electrical Safety (PWS 4.18) on Page 86, the requirement is missing from the table of Contents. To prevent potential proposal errors in the references to the PWS, will the Government correct the above errors and omissions?

The table of contents will be reviewed and updated as necessary.

Change included in Amendment

6 Section L.14, C - Cost/Price (Volume IV) Instructions, Paragraph 2. Pricing Instructions [page L-45]

The referenced pricing instruction states that “If a major subcontractor is proposing a non-cost type fixed-rate contract (ex. FFP, T&M, etc.) with the prime Offeror, then the Offeror shall provide a copy of the subcontractor’s Cost/Price Volume/Quote to enable the Government to verify the proposed subcontractor’s fully loaded rates against the Offeror’s Cost/Price Template Workbook. Given the time necessary for small business partners to turn around on the RFP requirements, please confirm that the inclusion of the major subcontractor’s quote for fixed rate contracts (T&M) in the prime Offerors Cost/Price Volume removes the need for major subcontractor(s) to submit a separate Cost/Price Volume that includes complete cost narratives and cost templates.

Yes, only major subcontractors who are proposed to have a cost-type subcontract are required to submit a Cost/Price Volume that includes complete cost narratives and templates.

No change included in amendment

7 RFP Reference: Attachment J.1(b)1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook COSMC [tab 1-5 and tab 1-6] and Attachment J.1(a)(5) - Labor Categories [page 5]

Attachment J.1(a)(5) [page 5] calls out a “Senior Health Physicist” category. The “Senior Health Physicist” category is missing in tabs 1-5 and 1-6. Also, missing estimated hours in tab 1-5 for the missing “Senior Health Physicist” category. Will the Government update the Cost-Price template with the Senior Health Physicist labor category and estimated hours?

The labor category for Senior Health Physicist will be removed From attachment J.1(a)(5)

Change included in Amendment

8 RFP Reference: Section M.7 - Source Selection, Paragraph (b) Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors [page M-14]

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors – The above reference states that “As individual factors, the Cost/Price factor is more important than the Mission Suitability factor, which is more important that the Past Performance factor.” The significant weight placed on the Cost/Price factor could result in a source selection decision that favors an offer with only a slight advantage in Cost/Price over an offer with a considerable advantage in Mission Suitability. Given the highly technical nature of the COSMC PWS requirements, a more balanced weighting between Cost/Price and Mission Suitability factors would provide the Government with more flexibility and discretion in the COSMC source selection decision.

Will the Government consider revising the relative importance of the evaluation factors to place equal weight the Cost/Price and Mission Suitability evaluation factors?

No, the Government will not revise at this time.

No change included in amendment

9 RFP Reference: 1) Section L.14 - Proposal Preparation, A-Mission Suitability (Volume II) Instructions, Subparagraph (f) [page L-21]; 2) Section L.14 - Proposal Preparation, C Cost/Price (Volume IV) Instructions [pages L-39 through L-45]; and 3) Section M.6 - Cost/Price Factor (Volume IV) Evaluation, Paragraph d [page M-13]

Probable Cost Adjustment and corresponding Mission Suitability weakness for not adequately demonstrating understanding of resources to perform work – Reference 1 provides that the SEB may assign a Mission Suitability weakness in addition to making a probable cost adjustment if an Offeror does not propose sufficient resources to perform the work. There does not seem to be any similar language in the Section L instructions or the Section M evaluation criteria (References 2 and 3).

1) To clearly convey and authenticate the Government’s remedy for Offerors that underbid resources to perform the COSMC PWS requirements, shouldn’t language similar to that of Reference 1 be included in either the Cost/Price instructions (Section L) or evaluation criteria (Section M)?

2) Since the Government is providing an IDIQ model for the Offerors’ pricing purposes, by “resources” does the Government intend that to mean only the proposed level of WYEs for Core Contract Management, or does it also include the proposed total compensation necessary to attract and retain a qualified workforce?

1)In accordance with RFP section M.6, the Government intends to perform a cost realism analysis, which may include probable cost adjustments. We will update this paragraph to include additional language regarding the assignment of a Mission Suitability weakness. 2) For purposes of Total Compensation, "Resources" refer to all professional employees both in the Core and IDIQ.

No change included in amendment

10 RFP Reference: Section L.14 - Proposal Preparation, B-Past Performance (Volume III) Instructions, Paragraph 4(e) [page L-37]

The relevancy matrix does not include all COSMC PWS areas in which an Offeror may propose the use of a major subcontractor.

1) Are Offerors permitted to revise the relevancy matrix to include other PWS areas in which they intend to propose performance by a major subcontractor?

2) Since the relevancy matrix only includes the prime Offeror and major subcontractors, please confirm that the Government does not expect the Total Column to add to 100 percent.

1) Offerors are not permitted to revise the relevancy matrix. 2) The total column is not required to total to 100 percent. Please refer to Attachment J.1(b)4 Instructions to Offerors, which states "in any instance where the total for a PWS Section is less than 100% in Column H then the Government will conclude that the remaining percentage of work will be performed by the Offeror's subcontracts that do not meet the criteria to classify as a Major Subcontractor.".

No change included in amendment

11 Section L.12(b) - Proposal Submission Instructions [page L-13]

Will the Government verify if the NASA EFSS Box link provided in the RFP is accurate?

Offerors currently receive the following statement, “This shared file or folder link has been removed or is unavailable to you."

The government will revise the link to:

https://nasagov.app.box.com/f/f0d3 07b9097e4271b93096d8edaf7308

Change included in Amendment

12 RFP Reference: Section B.1 - Supplies and/or Services to be Provided, Section F.2 - Period of Performance, and other related solicitation clauses and instructions

The referenced sections and cost instructions do not provide the possibility that the Government may want to extend the contract for a period of six months upon completion of the 5-year period of performance. Does the Government intend to include a six-month extension period in the COSMC solicitation and resulting contract?

A separate CLIN will not be included in the solicitation or contract, as the option to extend is only exercised if required at the end of the contract period of performance. The pricing spreadsheet will automatically calculate an estimated cost for the management and IDIQ sections of the pricing sheets based on the total cost of year 5. The contractor is not required to separately price out each labor category for the option.

No change included in amendment

13 RFP Reference: Section L.14 - Proposal Preparation Specific Instructions for Volumes II-IV, A-Mission Suitability (Volume II) Instructions, paragraph (iii) Small Business Approach, subparagraph

a. Small Business Subcontracting Plan [page L-33]

The note on p. L-33 reads: (NOTE: FOR PURPOSES OF THE SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, THE PROPOSED GOALS SHALL BE STATED AS A PERCENT OF

TOTAL SUBCONTRACTS, NOT AS A PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, REFER TO

THE BELOW EXAMPLE). The example includes columns to show the proposed goals as both a percent of TCV and of the subcontracting value. Since the Contracting Officer’s assessment of appropriate COSMC subcontracting goals on page L-31 are expressed as a percentage of the TCV, shouldn’t the Offeror’s proposed goals in the subcontracting plan also be as a percentage of TCV?

The RFP will be revised to remove the note on Page L-33. The rest of the instructions will remain unchanged.

Change included in Amendment

14 RFP General Will the Government consider extending the due date of proposal submittal by two additional weeks since a Draft RFP was not posted

The government will extend the proposal due date to May 10, 2024.

Change included in Amendment

15 Attachment J.1(b)1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook COSMC

Please clarify whether the offeror is required to propose the hours contained in attachment J.1(b)1

Yes, the hours provided are for evaluation purposes only and should be used for all proposals.

No change included in amendment

16 Attachment J.1(b)1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook COSMC

In attachment J.1(b)1 tab 1-5 , please clarify that Quality Assurance Engineer Level I, Software Assurance & Systems Safety Level I, Systems Safety Engineer, Electrical Level I, Software Assurance & Software Safety Level II, Systems Safety Engineer Level I are the same labor categories as attachment J.1(b)1 tab 6 SME I - Quality Assurance Engineer, SME I - Software Assurance & Systems Safety, SME I - Systems Safety Engineer, Electrical, SME II - Software Assurance & Software Safety, SME II - Systems Safety Engineer

Yes, the labor categories are the same. The attachment will be updated to reflect the same labor category titles throughout.

Change included in Amendment

17 RFP Section L.14 Case Study C Section L.14 Case Study C states "State the process proposed to be used to locate, recruit, hire, and retain a Software Assurance & Software Safety Level II individual to lead the software assurance effort within 14 days of ARC being assigned the project and requesting support through a task request" Please confirm that the 14 day timeline is accurate.

Yes, due to the Ames acquiring the project late in the project lifestyle and shortly before PDR, it is essential to have staff working within 14 days.

No change included in amendment

18 RFP Section L.14 Case Study C Section L.14 Case Study C states "Identify the three technical risks that have the potential for the most significant negative impacts to the software development of this type of Project, methodologies used to identify these risks, and proposed approaches to mitigate the identified risks." Without further detail of the project, it is difficult to characterize the risks. Will the Government provide additional detail?

The Government will not revise the case study. Offerors should respond to the case study with a level of specificity commensurate with the information provided in the case study.

No change included in amendment

19 RFP Section L.14 Case Study B Section L.14 Case Study B states "iii. Provide a detailed narrative explaining the three most critical pieces of information to communicate to ARC civil service and contractor personnel through email distribution to accurately convey the results of the asbestos surveys, if the outcome of the sampling was “non-detectable”. " Please clarify if the intent of this statement is to provide a response based on a non-detectible sampling result.

Yes, the sampling result should be non-detectible.

No change included in amendment

20 RFP General Would the Government consider allowing five additional pages per case study response in section L.14?

No, the Government will not revise page limitations.

No change included in amendment