The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Question #
| 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 |
| 2 |
| Is there a page count for Mission Suitability or Case Study? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 3 |
| Will there be pricing associated with the case study? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 48 |
| GovWin Opportunity ID#146109 depicts the spend associated with the current contract NNA15BB23C from 2019-2024 to be ~$130M in total and average $21.7M per year. |
Question: Does the Government agree this contract spend is accurate for 2019-2024?
Please note that all forecasted dollar values are estimates only and are subject to change. Please also see acquisition forecast: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/forecast/
| 74 |
| How important is innovation and improvements? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP therefore there is no mechanism to evaluate proposed innovations. Any improvements or innovations can be discussed with the government during contract performance. |
| 83 |
| The Government RFI 80ARC024R0007 - AMES Facilities Support Services II (AFSS II) asked offerors to respond to any “Challenges or opportunities exist to partner with subcontractors that employ members of underserved communities as defined in Executive Order 13985? |
Question: Does the Government believe there are changes to this reference to Executive Order 13985, based on the January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump Executive Order 14151, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
This question references the "Summary Performance Work statement" issued December 2023. This document has been superseded by the J.1(a) Attachment 1 Ames Facilities Support Services Performance Work Statement in the AFSS II Draft RFP posted April 2025. Since that time there have been changes to various regulations and guidance from the white house. The Draft RFP was posted to sam.gov on April 3rd, 2025, and is consistent with current regulations and guidance as of that date.
| 101 |
| Enhancement Proposals. Will the Government evaluate and score the Contractor Proposed Enhancements (ARC 52.227-94) separately under Mission Suitability, or are they considered as part of the baseline technical approach? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 109 |
| Will the Government provide evaluation criteria for the PM and other key leadership roles, particularly regarding experience at NASA or in managing CPAF contracts? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 110 |
| Will the Government provide evaluation criteria for the three (3) Offeror-identified critical positions under MA-1 Organizational Structure, particularly regarding experience at NASA or in managing CPAF contracts. |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 114 |
| Are there any mission-critical areas that NASA considers higher risk under this contract that the management plan should address in detail? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 115 |
| Should the contractor propose a formal risk register and mitigation strategy as part of the initial proposal, or is that expected post-award? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 116 |
| What level of detail does NASA expect regarding subcontractor oversight, flow down of CPAF terms, and roles/responsibilities in the management plan? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 117 |
| Will the contractor be evaluated on how they manage small business or 8(a) subcontractor participation, beyond compliance with subcontracting goals? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 122 |
| Section L.3 L.3(a)(1)(iii) states: "The Offeror shall describe its proposed quality control approach to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of CMMS Maximo data entry requirements, per PWS Section 7.02.b.ii." are unable to find PWS Section 7.02.b.ii. Is this a clerical error? If not, will the Government provide this section? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 123 |
| Will the Government allow the use of landscaped pages sized 11"x17". If so, will such pages be counted as 1 page or 2? |
| The Government requires all pages to be the standard letter size of 8.5" x 11". However, using a landscaped orientation for these pages is acceptable. Pages sized 11" x 17" are not permitted. |
| 125 |
| Section L states: "The Offeror shall submit the information required by the Data Requirements Description (DRD No. 004), Government Property Management Information Plan." DRD No. 004 requires the submission of a complete Property Management Plan that includes Property Management (roles and responsibilities); Property outcomes (acquisition, receiving, records, physical inventory, subcontractor control, reporting, relief of stewardship responsibilities, utilization, maintenance, property closeout); All required content stated in NFS provision 1852.245-80, Government Property Information." To respond effectively to this requirement will require a substantial technical response from Offerors. Will the Government consider either excluding MA-6 from the page limitations or expand the page limitations for the Management Approach Subfactor to accommodate? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 128 |
| Will NASA include any technical case study, scenario-based response, or sample task order as part of the technical volume submission? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 135 |
| How will the Task Order Management Factor rate identified in PWS section 10.02.a be evaluated? |
| The proposed dollar value associated with the proposed management factor will be included in the total evaluated price per Section M. Additionally, Per PWS 10.02.a.i, the maximum percentage allowable for the management is factor is 5%. If any Offeror elects to propose more than 5%, the government will not adjust the percentage, or associated dollar value, downward for purposes of the calculation of the total evaluated price. However, the contractor will only be able to propose a maximum of 5% on any future FFP task order, per PWS 10.02.a.i. |
| 163 |
| Will the Government provide additional detail or a rubric explaining how the Case Study responses will be scored across the 600 points? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 164 |
| Are specific weightings applied to technical solution, innovation, risk management, or staffing within the Case Study score? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 165 |
| Should offerors assume that Maximo data provided is comprehensive, or are there known gaps/missing information we should account for? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 166 |
| Will the Government evaluate our ability to analyze and draw insights from the fictitious Maximo data, or focus more on our proposed actions and technical plan? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 167 |
| Are there specific performance benchmarks or historical KPIs we should compare against when analyzing the provided data? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 168 |
| Will NASA provide clarification or templates for the expected structure of the RCM program narrative (e.g., subheadings or DRD-style outline)? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 169 |
| Will a template or example of a completed MAXIMO asset integration be provided to guide the HVAC replacement task order portion of the response? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 170 |
| For the Room 219 research mitigation scenario, can NASA confirm whether utility shutoffs are allowable during certain hours, or must all systems be continuously online 24/7? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 171 |
| Can the Government clarify the expectations around use of CBM in Building 455 (e.g., is it assumed all Tier 2 systems must be monitored with CBM tech or only selected systems)? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 173 |
| Is there a scoring rubric for TA-1 that NASA can release to better understand the weight of each case study element in the Mission Suitability score? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 174 |
| Is the Case Study a forum to introduce proposed technical or process enhancements, or should we only respond within the constraints of the provided scenario? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 175 |
| How will proposed automation, energy savings initiatives, or predictive maintenance strategies be evaluated in the context of the Case Study? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 176 |
| Should the Case Study response include a risk register, schedule, or phasing plan? If so, are templates or expectations provided? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 177 |
| Is there a preferred format for describing contingency plans or operational continuity strategies in response to the scenario? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 178 |
| Should offerors identify which team members or subcontractors would perform specific functions in the Case Study, or keep the response anonymous? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 179 |
| Will the Government evaluate how well the Case Study allocates labor categories or integrates subcontractors? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 180 |
| Does the Case Study require offerors to demonstrate familiarity with NASA safety, environmental, and property control policies (e.g., NPR 8831.2, NPR 4300.1)? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 191 |
| Will the contractor be required to use a NASA-approved system (e.g., NEMS, SAP) for tracking divestitures, or can we use our own as long as it meets FAR 52.245-1 standards? |
| Offerors are required to use the front-end tool Equipment.nasa.gov for equipment assigned to contract individuals. |
| 244 |
| Will the Government provide any facilities and support during transition to be used for hiring and other administrative requirements, since the incumbent will still be using the government offices? |
| The government may provide limited facilities and support during the phase-in period. |
| 246 |
| Are the rates included in the Service Contract Act Wage Determination to be taken as reference or indexed against labor categories? |
| Offerors shall comply with current Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) labor and fringe rates for those Government Provided Labor Categories that are covered by SCLS, except when the labor category is covered by the CBAs provided in this RFP. As a reminder, the SCLS labor and fringe rates establish the minimum rates that shall be proposed for SCLS labor categories, except those covered by the CBAs provided in this RFP. |
| 255 |
| We estimate that the information needed to respond to NFS Provision 1852.245-80, Government Property Management Information will require most if not all of the 20 pages allocated by the Government for Volume II – Mission Suitability, Management Approach Subfactor. We respectfully request that the Government exclude MA-6: Government Property Management Information Plan from page count. |
| See answer to question 125. |
| 256 |
| Under Trouble calls item 1, please clarify "roof leak needs mitigated" given that we are not to specify repair of the roof. |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 257 |
| Under Trouble calls item 2, please provide the KVA rating of the transformer so that we can get a sense of the likely instrumentation and protection schemes. |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 258 |
| The reference to 6.a to 6.g appears to be a typo. |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 329 |
| Due to the limited page count for the Management Approach Subfactor, will the Government exclude the response to DRD 004 Government Property Management Plan from the 20-page limitation? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
| 330 |
| Due to the limited page count for the Management Approach Subfactor, will the Government exclude the response to DRD 013 Representation of the Limited Rights and Restricted Computer Software from the 20-page limitation? |
| Mission suitability is no longer an evaluation factor as part of the Final RFP |
AFSS II – Questions and Answers Original Posting 7_23 Page 1 of 20
