SETS Final RFP - Consolidated Q and A.pdf

80GRC021R0011

Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering and Technical Services (SETS)

Final Request for Proposal (RFP) Questions and Answers

Q1. [Regarding applicability of SOW Sections 4.0 and 5.0 to UR1 Evaluation Subfactor as well as the MP Evaluation Factor] Given the page limitations of the MS Volume, would the government consider limiting UR1 understanding to the technical requirements in SOW Section

3.0?

A1. The information requested in response to the Understanding Requirements and Management

Plan subfactors of the Mission Suitability Evaluation Factor is independently assigned to each subfactor. While both of these subfactors request information based upon sections 4.0 and 5.0 of

Attachment J.1-A – Statement of Work, each subfactor requires different information to be submitted and will be evaluated individually. Therefore, UR1 will not be limited only to Section

3.0 of Attachment J.1-A Statement of Work.

Q2. M.4 (b) states, "Consideration will be given to: the entity's role as prime or subcontractor, number of employees, value, contract type, recency, customer, scope, and complexity as compared to the overall requirements of the RFP." M.4 (c) states, "In addition, the Government will evaluate cost management history, problems and resolution, contract terminations, relationship with subcontractors, management of large subcontractors, task order administration, cooperation with prior clients, and timeliness of complete business products." The factors underlined in the above references are not listed as part of Section L.32, 1) Past Performance

Narrative (PPN) requirements; however, since they are identified as factors for evaluation, it appears that this additional information is necessary for each PP citation.

Question 2a. Will the Government include these additional contract citation requirements in

Section L.31 for clarity?

Question 2b. Given these additional contract citation requirements, will the Government increase the total number of pages for Volume III?

Answer 2a. The listed evaluation criteria are generalized to cover information provided on the

Past Performance Narratives (PPNs), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and Past

Performance Databases (PPDs). The submission requirements for PPNs are, as it relates to the referenced evaluation criteria, included in Final RFP Provision L.31 1) c. As these evaluation criteria must be generalized to cover the different sources of past performance information, they will not be changed to directly match the PPN submission requirements at L.31 1) c.

Answer 2b. Since no change will be made, no additional pages will be granted for the Past

Performance Volume.

Q3. L.22 (e) states, "Proposals shall be submitted in a format that addresses all the evaluation factors, in order, listed in Section M. Information pertinent to the factors shall be included in the proposal volume designated to that evaluation factor..." With regard to addresses evaluation factors, in order, as specified, would the Government consider a response to UR1 compliant if we describe our understanding of each SOW section, followed by a section describing overall staffing rationale and a section describing contract-wide innovations? Or must each SOW discussion of understanding contain its own staffing discussion and innovation discussion?

A3. Within a subfactor, each offeror may structure their proposal in any manner that they choose.

However, L.22(e) requires offerors to follow the factor and subfactor order presented in the solicitation. For the Mission Suitability Factor, the order listed in the Index at L.29 (c) shall be used.

Q4. L.22 (e) states, "Offerors may not circumvent page limitations set for a specific volume. As such, if the Offeror uses--"see paragraph X," or similar verbiage--as an answer to any given section, this part of the Offer will be redacted, and the Government will not evaluate it.” Is it the government's intent to disallow referencing information across volumes when addressing requirements? Or is the government truly disallowing references to pertinent, supporting information within a page-counted volume?

A4. To avoid assumptions and ambiguity during evaluation, references, even with in a volume, will not be evaluated. It was considered that this may lead to offerors reiterating certain information in their responses to multiple sections, and this consideration was accounted for in the page limitations included in the RFP.

Q5. The first table in the attachment provides the "Average Hourly Direct Labor Rate" for NSC positions. The second table provides the "Average Fully Burdened Labor Rate" for OSMA HQ positions. Will NASA please confirm that the first table is the average each person is directly paid and the second table is what NASA currently pays for each position?

A5. These tables are intended for use as a sample only and are not actual amounts that are currently paid to contract employees. Each offeror is responsible for creating and proposing a payment and benefit structure independent of Government direction. Both tables summarize the pay of contractor employees. Civil servant salaries or fully burdened rates are not addressed in either table.

Q6. The SETS Final RFP has a duplication for the Emergency Preparedness and Response with

Section C.3 and at the end of Section C.2.

A6. This is indeed a duplication. The Emergency Preparedness and Response at the end of C.2 has been removed. A revised Final RFP incorporating this change has been added to the

SAM.gov Final RFP posting.

Q7. The SETS Final RFP has a duplication for the List of Available Government Property with

Section L.21 and Section L.26.

A7. This is indeed a duplication. The List of Available Government Property at Section L.21 was be removed and replaced with a “reserved” clause to maintain consistent numbering of the following provisions in Section L. A revised Final RFP incorporating this change has been added to the SAM.gov Final RFP posting.

Q8. Past Performance Page Limitation: The instruction for the Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs) state, “The Offeror and each Major Subcontractor is responsible for ensuring that a minimum of two completed PPQs are submitted for each party for which Past Performance exists.” During the SETS Industry Day, it was stated that the Government intends to evaluate past performance of the Offeror teams as a body of work for determining content and complexity relevancy rather than on a contract-by-contract basis. The PPN page limitation appears to be based on the maximum of four (4) PPN records which does not allow for sufficient coverage of the Statement of Work (SOW) down to the fourth level for each citation. Will the Government consider increasing the Past Performance page limitation from 15 pages to 20 pages? Consider increasing the Past Performance page limit from 15 pages to 20 pages to provide an adequate number of pages to write PPNs on 5-6 records.

A8. The Government has not established a limit of four instances of past performance to be included in the Past Performance Narratives. The Government believes fifteen pages is sufficient for providing acceptable Past Performance Narrative information.

Q9. [Regarding Task Order Management Practices in Past Performance Narratives reference in

Final RFP section L.31 1) c.]

Question 9a. Will the Government provide additional instruction on the information Offerors are required to submit in response to Task Order Management Practices?

Question 9b. Is the Government simply asking whether Task Order Management Practices are applicable to the past performance record, the average number of Task Orders (TOs) issued per year under the IDIQ arrangement, or a detailed description of the types of TO management practices utilized for the past performance record?

Question 9c. If the Government requires more than a "Yes/No" response, or the average number of TO's, please increase the page limit for the Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Volume to accommodate descriptions of TO management practices.

Answer 9a. Like the other items in the list included at L.31 1) c. Task Order Management

Practices are one of several items to be included in an offeror’s Past Performance Narrative. This is only required if an offeror has had experience with task orders on a contract (or multiple contracts) included in the Past Performance Narrative. If Task Order Management Practices were applicable to a PPN contract, then that offeror should describe their overall history in managing task orders on that contract.

Answer 9b. Offerors may choose the level of detail they want to provide regarding their Task

Order Management Practices. However, it should be noted that a simple “Yes/No” response may not provide substantive information to significantly impact that offeror’s Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating during the Government’s past performance evaluation.

Answer 9c. The Government believes fifteen pages is sufficient for providing acceptable Past

Performance Narrative information including a description of Task Order Management Practices where applicable.

Q10. To ensure fairness in the evaluation across all Offeror proposals, does the Government intend to limit the evaluation of key personnel to the Offeror’s PM?

A10. Each offeror may decide which employees to consider key personnel in their approach to the proposal (within the limitations established in Final RFP section L.29(d)(B)MP3 and provide required information for those individuals.

Q11. Does the Government intend for Offerors to include in the page count of the Mission

Suitability Volume a brief description of their TCP with a reference to Addendum I, or all requirements of NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness (APR

2015)? If all of the requirements of NFS 1852.231-71 are not addressed in the page count of the

Mission Suitability Volume, could the Government assign weaknesses for compliance? Consider placing all TCP narrative, including the description in accordance with NFS 1852.231-71, in

Addendum I and avoid potential unequal approaches/disparate treatment among Offerors.

A11. The Government’s evaluation of TCPs in accordance with NFS 1852.231-71 will include both the brief description that is page limited and the full TCP that is not page limited. The page-limited brief description is intended to provide offerors a space to show how its TCP will “attract and maintain qualified staff needed to meet the requirements of Attachment J.1-A – Statement of

Work, Attachment J.1-B – Statement of Work Appendices, and [the] solicitation.” This portion will be considered by the Government in its evaluation of Mission Suitability.

Q12. Will the government change the font size restriction to text in graphics as to facilitate more flexibility in graphics layout? Being able to produce high quality graphics with 12-point font takes up more proposal space and disincentivizes offerors to include effective process-oriented graphics.

A12. No, the Government is not concerned with the appearance of proposals, only the content that is included. Tables, charts, etc. should be modified to meet the requirement for Times New

Roman 12-point font.

Q13. Since there are different regulations applicable to cost-reimbursement contract types than those of FFP - particularly as they relate to cost tracking and reporting, does the Government want to establish two CLINS for IDIQ, one for CPFF and one for FFP?

A13. NASA contractual and financial systems are capable of awarding both FFP and CPFF task orders under one CLIN. Contractually, each task order will reference the appropriate clauses applicable to its particular type. If necessary, an additional CLIN may be added at contract award to accommodate the Contractor's financial system, but that would need to be discussed during the contract award phase. No changes will be made to the CLIN structure proposed in the RFP at this time.

Q14. Phase-In Period: The referenced instruction states that the Phase-In Plan shall demonstrate an ability to assume full contract responsibility on August 1, 2022, whereas Section B clause states that the Phase-In period is August 1st – 31st with the contract effective date being

September 1, 2022. Does the Government intend for the Phase-In period to be August 1-31, 2022, and that full contract responsibility begins on September 1, 2022?

A14. This was an oversight; the two dates should align. Phase-in is expected to begin August 1, 2022 with full contract performance beginning September 1, 2022. This has been corrected. A revised Final RFP incorporating this change has been added to the SAM.gov Final RFP posting.

Q15. Are there be any labor categories covered by the Department of Labor (DOL) SCA?

A15. No, the preponderance of the work is professional services employees.

Q16. Project Manager Labor Category: Attachment J.2-C lists “Project Manager requiring >10 years” for NSC and “Project Manager requiring >15 years” for NASA HQ. Is the Project

Manager position at NASA HQs (OSMA) more similar in responsibility to the Program Manager position for the NSC than the NSC Project [Manager] position? For purposes of the Cost

Volume: If the Government intends to keep both Project Manager labor categories, please consider revising Attachment J.2-C to list them as NSC Project Manager and HQ Project

Manager.

A16. Attachment J.2-C has been provided to show position descriptions for individuals currently working on the active contract. It the responsibility of each offeror to determine the skill mix necessary to meet SETS requirements. Offerors are not required to fill every position identified on Attachment J.2-C as long as they can justify how their approach would meet the requirements set forth in Attachment J.1-A – Statement of Work, Attachment J.1-B – Statement of Work

Appendices, and the solicitation.

Q17. [Regarding Attachment J.2-B Contractor Space and Support Location] NASA HQ Office

Space: Specifies that “the contractor will be provided 1 private office and limited cubicle space”.

Can the Government clarify the number of cubicles that the contractor will be provided?

A17. A revised Attachment J.2-B has been added the SAM.gov Final RFP posting in order to provide offerors with all current information regarding expected cubicle and office space available.

Q18. NSC Office Space: Specifies that “limited hoteling/collaboration or shared workspaces are available”. Can the Government clarify the number of workspaces that the contractor will be provided?

A18. A revised Attachment J.2-B has been added the SAM.gov Final RFP posting in order to provide offerors with all current information regarding expected cubicle and office space available.

Q19. Telework Status: Specifies that NASA HQ and NSC are currently in a mandatory telework status. Can the Government provide the number of people on the contract required to work onsite? Also, will the Government allow for the remaining staff to continue with teleworking after work returns to normal status?

A19. A revised Attachment J.2-B has been added the SAM.gov Final RFP posting in order to provide offerors with all current information regarding expected cubicle and office space available. Offerors should also review Attachment J.2-A – Historical Staffing, which details expected support locations by position. This attachment has been updated to provide definitions for each type of position. The updated Attachment J.2-A has been added to the SAM.gov Final

RFP posting.

Q20. Does the estimated technical staffing include the current incumbent “Managerial and

Administrative staff”? Clarification [is] needed whether the technical staffing includes 1.0 WYE for Program Manager (appears to be management) and 1.0 WYE for Administrative Assistant.

A20. Yes, incumbent Managerial and Administrative Staff is accounted for in the Historical

Staffing Attachment. Please note that each offeror is responsible for determining the appropriate skill mix necessary to meet SETS requirements. Attachments J.2-A and J.2-C have been provided only as a historical reference.

Q21. [For the] Programmer Web Based Developer I, II, III category, will the Government review the “Programmer Web Based Developer II” and “Programmer Web Developer III” in

Attachment J.2-C to determine if there is a typographical error?

A21. This was an error and has been corrected. A revised Attachment J.2-C incorporating this change has been added to the SAM.gov Final RFP posting.

Q22. [Regarding Attachments J.2-A and J.2-C]

Question 22a. Will the Government review the Attachment J.2-A in comparison with Attachment

J.2-C to determine if the Standard Labor Categories need to be added? The following SLCs appear in the historical/estimated staffing but not included in Attachment J.2-C: Data Analyst II, Data Analyst III; ISD I; Multimedia Designer I; Programmer Web Based Developer I; Project

Coordinator I, Project Coordinator II; and Technical Writer II.

Question 22b. Should the labor descriptions for Video Producer I, II, and III read the same with the only differences being years of experience?

Answer 22a. Current position descriptions for these levels are not available as the levels are not currently in use. However, at least one level for that position has been provided. For example, potential offerors should review the position description of a Data Analyst I to identify the type of work expected for a Data Analyst II or III. Minor additional responsibilities may be required for these higher levels, but the same basic responsibilities will still apply.

Answer 22b. Yes, this position does not currently have additional work requirements for higher levels. Please note that each offeror may present their own position descriptions and levels within each position. These have been provided only for historical reference.

Q23. The Attachment J.2-E tab labels do not match the RFP. Could the Government revise

Attachment J.2-E tab labels to correspond with the RFP?

A23. These tab in Attachment J.2-E do correspond starting with Template 1: Total + IDIQ under

Cost Volume – Part 2: Cost Templates in the RFP.

Q24. Attachment J.1-B contains several responsibilities for the contractor that are prefaced with

“the contract will…”. Should Offerors view those as requirements prefaced with “the contractor shall…”? For example, Section C.2.1 (Manage and operate a single independent NSRS office and post office box) states, “The NSRS office will not be physically located at any NASA or

NASA contractor facility where the independence of the NSRS and/or the anonymity of the reporters might be questioned or jeopardized, but it must be within 50 miles of the current NSRS post office box in Bethesda Maryland”. As part of SETS contract support, are Offerors required to set up and maintain the single independent NSRS office?

A24. The NSRS post box is established. However, the requirements in Attachment J.1-B regarding an independent third-party location within 50 miles of the post office box are intended as strict requirements that must be followed by the contractor. This attachment has been updated changing the “will” statements to “shall” statements as they are binding Governmental requirements. A revised Attachment J.1-B incorporating this change has been added to the

SAM.gov Final RFP posting.

Q25. Comparing the Labor Category Descriptions listed in attachment J.2 – C Labor Category and Descriptions to the Labor Categories listed in Attachment J.2-A Historical Staffing, there are discrepancies. For Example, in J.2-C there is only a Data Analyst I, while in the J.2-A, there are

Data Analyst I, II & III. Please provide Labor Category Descriptions for each.

A25. Current position descriptions for these levels are not available as the levels are not currently in use. However, at least one level for that position has been provided. For example, potential offerors should review the position description of a Data Analyst I to identify the type of work expected for a Data Analyst II or III. Minor additional responsibilities may be required for these higher levels, but the same basic responsibilities will still apply.

Q26. Does the Level of Effort and Historical Data include both SM&A projects and Glenn & HQ facilities? If so, can a breakdown of the hours be provided for each project by location.

A26. Attachment J.2-A is separated into Brookpark, OH and Washington D.C locations. This provides historical WYE information for each location broken down by labor category. Please note offerors may present employee locations in any way they deem appropriate so long as the requirements of Attachment J.1-A – Statement of Work, Attachment J.1-B – Statement of Work

Appendices, and the solicitation are met.

Q27. Cover Letter: “The anticipated contract award date is August 1, 2022, with a September 1, 2022 contract effective date.” “1. A Phase-in period will be conducted for approximately thirty days prior to the start of the contract effective period.”

L.29 (d) (B) MP4 – Phase-In Plan: “The Phase-In plan shall clearly demonstrate an ability to assume full contract responsibility on August 1, 2022 with integration of ongoing OSMA HQ work acquired by August 31, 2022.”

These statements, taken together, imply that the contract phase-in period is August 1, 2022 through August 31, 2022. But these statements are not consistent with L.29 (d) (B) MP4-Phase-

In Plan which implies that the contract effective date is August 1, 2022. What is the official start date of contract phase-in? L.29 (d) (B) MP4-Phase-In Plan also implies that the NSCTSS2 contract phase-in is concurrent with the OSMA HQ work phase-in. Is this a correct assumption?

A27. This was an oversight; the two dates should align. Phase-in is expected to begin August 1, 2022 with full contract performance beginning September 1, 2022. This has been corrected. A revised Final RFP incorporating this change has been added to the SAM.gov Final RFP posting.

Q28. The Attachment J.2-A lists historical WYEs are not listed by individual labor category, but for all levels (I, II, II) within a labor category. We noticed that not all level I, II, and III are defined within the Attachment J.2-C. For example, Data Analyst I, II, and II are listed within

Attachment J.2-A, but only Data Analyst I is defined within Attachment J.2-C. Is it correct to assume that the historical WYE and Direct Labor range in Attachment J.C-A only applies to those labor categories defined within Attachment J.2-C? For example, the 2.0 WYE and $21-$28 is only applicable for Data Analyst I and not Data Analyst II and III. Please clarify and provide the detailed labor descriptions (including years of experience and education) for all SETS labor categories.

A28. This would be a correct assumption. All labor categories that are currently being utilized have an updated position description in Attachment J.2-C. Any labor categories without an updated position description are not currently being utilized. See Q and A 22a for more details.