Question and Answer Submittal 918.pdf

Question #

Document Name and/or Attachment Number Page # Section

Paragraph Title (e.g.

clause/provisio n #) Question Final Response

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP

L-3 and L-17 L(a)

1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations

Will the government add Consent Letters (per L.3(a)(6)iii) to the table with N/A so that it is out of page count for either under Volume I - Business Proposal Information & Model Contract or Volume II - Past Performance Factor Proposal?

Yes, the Government will revise the RFP to state that the signed written consent letters from Major Subcontractors required in Section L.3(a)(6)iii will be excluded from the page count for the past performance volume.

Therefore, the last sentence of Note 1 under provision

1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS.

(APR 2015) will be revised to state “This limit does NOT apply to past performance questionnaire responses, the past performance relevancy matrix, and the subcontractor consent letters required in Section L.3(a)(6)iii.” This change will be made in an amendment to the RFP.

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP L-11

L.3,(a)(3) i

Business Systems

Will the government modify the language to remove "and each Major Subcontracto r" to allow for increased competition by being able to leverage key teammates/subcontractors that are industry recognized at the best value without limitations requiring an approved business system?

No, this requirement will not be changed and will remain as stated in the RFP.

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP L-12

L.3,(a)(3) ii

Accounting System

Will the government modify the language to remove "and each subcontractor (i.e., Major and Minor subcontractor ...)" to allow for increased competition by being able to leverage key teammates/subcontractors that are industry recognized at the best value without limitations requiring an approved DCMA accounting system?

No, this requirement will not be changed and will remain as stated in the RFP.

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II _RFP L-15 L.3(a)

Past Performance Factor

The government states for past performance, Major Subcontractors is defined as any subcontractors that are proposed to perform an estimated $15,000,000 or more of the PWS requirements over the five-year performance period of this contract or $3,000,000 or more in any one year of this contract. In order to clarify to the government the team arrangement, will the government allow an additional 1-page for Past Performance Narrative to include for all Prime Offerors to provide an Executive Summary with proposed Contractor Team Arrangement per FAR 9.6? All Offerors must clearly describe the entire teaming arrangement, to include major subcontractors, affiliated companies or operating division within the parent company or joint ventures.

Section L.2(a)(1)iv of the RFP requires Offerors, when applicable, to "describe and explain its approach to teaming and subcontracting" in Volume I of its proposal.

Therefore, the Government will not allow "an additional 1-page for Past Performance Narrative to include for all Prime Offerors to provide an Executive Summary with proposed Contractor Team Arrangement per FAR 9.6" as that information is already to be contained in Volume I of the proposal, if applicable.

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP L-17

L.3(a)(6)i ii

Past Performance Factor

Will the government modify the language to require written consent letter from each proposed Major Subcontractor, teaming partner, and joint venture partner authorizing the release of past performance information to the Offeror and to allow NASA to discuss the past performance information with the Prime Offeror?

Yes, the Government will revise the RFP to state that the signed written consent letters from Major Subcontractors required in Section L.3(a)(6)iii will be excluded from the page count for the past performance volume.

Therefore, the last sentence of Note 1 under provision

1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS.

(APR 2015) will be revised to state “This limit does NOT apply to past performance questionnaire responses, the past performance relevancy matrix, and the subcontractor consent letters required in Section L.3(a)(6)iii.” This change will be made in an amendment to the RFP.

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP J-1

SECTIO

N J -

LIST OF

ATTACH

MENTS J.1(a)

The RFP refers to two CBAs within the list of attachments: J.1(a) Attachment 6, Local 1414 Clerical CBA, and J.1(a) Attachment 7, Local 1414 Mechanical CBA; however, we did not see any provided with the FRFP documents.

Will the Government please provide these documents?

The two CBAs included as section J.1(a) Attachments 6 and 7 were unintentionally omitted from the original RFP posting SAM.gov in error. Therefore, these two Attachments have been posted to SAM.

80ARC025R0001 Q&A Submittal 9_18

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP L-8

PROPOS

AL

SUBMIS

SION

INSTRU

CTIONS

Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (OCT 2023)

"(3) The offeror shall submit all proposal files to: Ames Facilities Support Services II Box." The Box submission link does not work. Will the Government please check the hyperlink in the RFP document?

The Enterprise File sharing and sync box link was removed from the original RFP posting on Sam.gov in error. Therefore, the link has been fixed and will be reposted via an amendment to the RFP.

J.1(b)+Attachment +4+Past+Performa nce+Relevancy+M atrix

"Past Perform ance Ref Matrix" Tab Cell F3 N/A

In the "Past Performance Ref Matrix" tab of the attachment, the Government refers to "Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) (PWS 7.02.b)"; however, we are unable to find a section 7.02.b in the PWS. Please clarify the correct PWS section.

The column heading entitled "Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) (PWS 7.02.b)" is incorrect in the tab entitled "Past Performance Ref Matrix" of RFP Attachment J.1(b) Attachment 4. The column heading in this tab should be entitled "Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) Maximo (PWS 7.09.b)". The Government will correct this issue and post an updated RFP Attachment J.1(b) Attachment 4.

J.1(a)_Attachment_ 3_Performance_Re quirements_Summ ary N/A N/A N/A

We are having trouble opening this document and believe there may be some inherent protections embedded.

Will the Government please provide a viewable, unprotected J.1(a)+Attachment+3+Performance+Req uirements+Summary?

Section J.1(a) Attachment 3 has been deleted and replaced with a new version to correct certain permissions that may have prevented Offerors from opening the file included in the original RFP posting.

Ames_Facilities_S upport_Services_II

_RFP L-16

PROPOS

AL

SUBMIS

SION

INSTRU

CTIONS

Past Performance Factor

“Three (3) recent past performance contract ("contract” as defined in FAR 2.101) references, each with a total contract value equal to or greater than $30,000,000 shall be submitted for the Prime Offeror. For the Prime Offeror, only Federal Government contract references shall be submitted and considered for evaluation.”

Could you please confirm whether this means that only Federal Government contracts can be submitted and evaluated as past performance for the Prime Offeror, or whether the restriction applies solely to the references (i.e., points of contact)—while the past performance projects themselves could include non-federal contracts?

The Government believes the requirement in the RFP is clear and will remain unchanged. For purposes of clarification, the RFP requirement cited in this question means that the three contract references submitted by the Prime Offeror demonstrating its prior experience must be instances where it performed under a contract, as defined in FAR 2.101, issued by the Federal Government as either a Prime Contractor or subcontractor.