Formal Question and Answers Contracting Cleaned.pdf

1. Question: We noted NASA is requesting a firm fixed price for Program Management

CLINs 2, 6, 8, and 10. However, the level of effort for Program Management is not necessarily consistent from month to month. Factors affecting the Program Management workload include: number of IDIQ task order proposals required, number of funding modifications, number of expected 533 revisions for additional capital assets, periodic requests for staffing changes, unexpected financial audits, etc. Are offerors required to make their own assumptions, or will NASA provide estimates of the number of IDIQ task orders, number of funding mods, etc. to ensure all offerors are pricing the same level of effort?

Answer: NASA is not requiring a specific level of effort. NASA has provided historical information regarding IDIQ task orders for informational purposes. Offerors are being asked to propose a solution reflecting the Offeror’s unique approach and assumptions regarding IDIQ task orders. NASA does not have exact estimates of future work orders.

NASA has added specific instructions regarding the pricing of PMO in the RFP. Please refer to L.30 VOLUME II – COST/PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, which will include the following language:

Section 7: Program Management Office

Offeror shall propose a PMO to cover all base services. Offerors that propose in unbalanced PMO, for example, anticipating that PMO cost will/could be recovered in IDIQ Task orders, will be considered a risk.

In addition, in B.1 NASA has been changed from “Program Management Office (PMO) is for Base Services. Additional PMO may be proposed by Offerors and may be negotiated at the task-order-level for the IDIQs.” to “Program Management Office (PMO) is for Base Services. For extenuating circumstances, additional PMO could be proposed by Offerors and may be negotiated at the task-order-level for the IDIQs, but it is not guaranteed (See Section 7 under L.30 VOLUME II – COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS).”

2. Question: Under L.22, it states “The offeror shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan as part of its proposal.” According to Attachment G (Data Requirements), however, a safety and health plan shall be submitted 30 days after contract award. Please confirm that a complete safety and health plan is not required for the proposal.

Answer: Per L.29 Instructions for Volume I – Mission Suitability, The Offeror shall provide a discussion of the approach to implementing the safety, health, and environmental requirements of the SOW. Note: This does NOT replace the Safety and Health Plan requirements of NFS 1852.223-73 Safety and Health Plan which is required within 30 days of contract award.

3. Question: There appears the Major Subcontractor(s)/Teaming Partner(s) to include contracts held within the past three (3) years of the solicitation issue date which had a minimum of six (6) months of contract performance during the same three (3) year period while M.6 states the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, Major Subcontractor’s and/or Teaming Partners’ experience over the past three (3) years from August 4, 2023 with a minimum of 1 year period of performance to determine relevancy to the overall requirements of the RFP. Please confirm which performance period is correct.

Answer: The Offeror and the Major Subcontractor(s)/Teaming Partner(s) shall only include contracts held within the past three (3) years of the solicitation issue date which had a minimum of one (1) year of contract performance during the same three (3) year period.

4. Question: For the past performance contracts featured in Volume III, if the contractor already has a completed CPARS in the government’s system, will NASA accept a copy of the CPARS report in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)? If so, will NASA accept interim CPARS for contracts at or near the end of their performance periods? Per

Answer: Per L.31 Preparation of Volume III – Relevant Experience and Past Performance “The Government is requesting a minimum of 3 PPQs from the Prime and 2 PPQs from Major Subcontractors and/or Team Partners.” In addition, “the Government will collect and review additional relevant experience and past performance information from Government databases as well as other sources of information available to the Government. These databases will be used for the Offeror and Major Subcontractor(s)/Teaming Partner(s).”

5. Question: RFP Page 129, Section 2.e contains a table that suggests 90% of the work supporting this contract will be performed at the contractor site with the remaining 10% of the work being conducted on the government site. Given that the majority of the work requires the contractor to oversee construction activities that occur at NASA, these percentages seem to be at odds with the perceived work environment. Please explain.

Answer: The RFP has been changed:

Work Site Work Percentage

Contractor Site 10%

Government Site 90%

6. Question: The sample task worksheet included in the Workbook only addresses labor allocations for the Sample Task. Does NASA want us to provide a cost buildup for the entire Sample Task in the event ODCs and/or subcontractor costs are also anticipated or is the Labor Estimate sufficient?

Answer: The Government is only asking for labor hours associated with the sample task, no cost pertaining to the sample task will be evaluated.

7. Question: Please confirm if the Cost Proposal (Volume 2) should be submitted as two separate files or should it be one file organized as two separate subsections.

Answer: The Cost Volume consists of 3 parts – Part 1: General Cost Information, Part 2:

Cost Templates, and Part 3: Contractor Basis of Estimate. Parts 1, 2, and 3 may be divided into separate files and should be properly identified (e.g., Volume II, Part I).

8. Question: For Past Performance, can the offeror utilize existing PPQ’s (similar but not identical to Attachment Y) from other solicitations? NASA’s response to Industry Question #48 suggests this is acceptable. If so, please confirm the desired submittal process to NASA.

Answer: Past Performance Questionnaires shall be identical to Attachment Y. Any PPQs submitted that are not identical to Attachment Y will not be evaluated and will be considered an omission from the Past Performance Volume . Please reference L.31 Preparation of Volume III – Relevant Experience and Past Performance for submittal instructions.

9. Question: On page 156 of the RFP it states: “Submitted PPQs will not be counted against the Offeror’s Relevant Experience and Past Performance Volume III page limitations.” However, since customer references are supposed to send completed PPQs directly to NASA, offerors will never see/receive the completed PPQs, making them unavailable to include in the proposal. What documentation, if any, is NASA requiring in Volume III with regard to PPQs?

Answer: Per L.31 Preparation of Volume III – Relevant Experience and Past Performance, Past Performance Questionnaires are directly submitted from the Offeror’s Customer/Client, therefore no PPQs are to be submitted as part as the proposal.

10. Question: Please confirm if a complete OCI Plan is required with the contract.

Answer: In accordance with Attachment G – Data Requirements List and L.23 Notice of Potential Organization Conflicts of Interest (Oct 2021) an Organization Conflict of Interest Plan shall be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal.

11. Question: Are offerors required to submit a copy of the Cost Proposal to their cognizant auditing agency?

Answer: No

12. Question: In the tables on page 122 and 123 (Volume IV) it states: “All information is to be submitted in Adobe PDF with the exception of Offeror Fill-Ins Sections B-K which will be submitted in Microsoft Word.” Other than the Reps & Certs (Section K), what other fill-in sections are required to be submitted in Volume IV of the proposal? Also, there was no Word file provided with the initial solicitation. Will NASA please furnish the Word file referenced in the table?

Answer: All highlighted portions of the RFP are Offeror Fill-Ins. NASA will not be providing the RFP in Word format.

13. Question: It seems that the EFSS Box instructions are not complete. Section L. 27 Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA Box states, “Please note that it is the Offeror’s responsibility to fully complete Steps 1 and 2 of the procedure described in Attachment W no later than 14 calendar days prior to the proposal submission deadline in Section L.25.” “Attachment W – 1. Click on URL provided in solicitation provision entitled “Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box”.” A URL was not provided in the solicitation. Will NASA be creating a folder in EFSS Box and providing the link?

Answer: Proposal Submission Link is https://nasagov.app.box.com/f/7aed97424a3d44168b9b5c0eac62a8ba

14. Question: Would NASA consider extending the period of performance for past performance projects from 3 years to 7 years? A longer past performance window is consistent with DoD past performance requirements for small business set-asides (see the Harshaw RFI, Great Lakes Optimized Remediation Contract RFP, USACE Design- Build MATOC RFP, USACE Louisville Environmental Remediation Services Contract RFP, USACE Kansas City SB Environmental Remediation Services MATOC RFP, USACE Kansas City Pre-Placed Remedial Action Contract RFP, East Florida Optimized Remediation Contract RFP, Luckey Site Remediation RFP). A greater SB performance window would support increased competition and allow SBs to more fully represent past performance that is directly relevant to the CMIST scope.

Answer: No

15. Question: Section L.22 GRC 1852.223-73 GRC MODIFICATION (9/16) TO NFS

1852.223-73 – SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN (SEP 2016) requires the offeror to submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan as part of its proposal. However, this is not included in the proposal preparation instructions. UTR1: FACILITY MANAGEMENT requests a discussion of the approach to implementing the safety, health, and environmental requirements of the SOW and MA1: MANAGEMENT PLAN requests a discussion of the Offeror’s approach to safety, health, and environmental management. Please confirm that a detailed safety and occupational health plan is not required as part of the proposal submission.

Answer: GRC 1852.223-73 GRC MODIFICATION (9/16) TO NFS 1852.223-73 – SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN (SEP 2016) has been removed from the RFP

16. Question: Would NASA consider that offerors use previous PPQs in lieu of requesting new ones?

Answer: Answer: Past Performance Questionnaires shall be identical to Attachment Y.

Any PPQs submitted that are not identical to Attachment Y will not be evaluated and will be considered an omission from the Past Performance Volume . Please reference L.31

Preparation of Volume III – Relevant Experience and Past Performance for submittal instructions.

17. Is the incumbent contractor allowed to continue on tasks awarded that have not been completed prior to award to a new contractor? If yes, does that mean that the incumbent contractor's personnel are not available to the new awarded contractor? This would have a significant impact on site knowledge that the incumbent personnel hold and would require a greater effort on the part of the new awarded contractor to transition the new work.

Answer: Per F.6 PHASE-IN AND PHASE-OUT “(1) Prior to contract completion, a successor Contract(s) may be selected to perform the work requirements covered by the SOW. The contractor shall conduct an orderly Phase-Out of all required activities prior to completion of this contract and coordinate with the successor Contractor to ensure a smooth transition of responsibilities. The Contractor shall remain responsible for the effort covered by the SOW and open base and delivery orders during Phase-Out activities.”

After phase-out, the incumbent will no longer be allowed to continue on tasks awarded prior to contract award.

18. Section L, p. 141 of the RFP states that contractors “should include costs that may be beyond the normal operation of the contract”. How is a contractor supposed to be able to forecast costs that are beyond the normal operation of the contract?

Answer: Costs “beyond the normal operation of the contract” would be considered those costs relating to an offeror’s unique technical approach and would include the cost of implementing new and innovative methods. These costs should be identified separately from other base costs.

19. On July 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee enjoined the SBA from applying a rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage to individuals of certain racial groups applying to the 8(a) Business Development program. SBA has temporarily suspended new 8(a) application submissions to comply with the Court’s decision. Reference: https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/8a-business- development-program. Could NASA please verify that this ruling has no impact on their agency being able to award an 8(a) contract? Small businesses in the SBA 8(a) program and other disadvantaged categories do not have unlimited resources to bid on opportunities that may not be able to be awarded.

Answer: CMIST-II is still an 8(a) Set-Aside

20. Please provide the Scope of Work for each ongoing project so the bidders can properly assess the level of effort and labor category needed to make the project successful. In addition, please provide the scope of work for the ongoing Program Management needs so a level of effort can be determined and the needed labor categories. The average FTE while very helpful does not allow us to determine staffing needs.

Answer: Please refer to Attachment Z – IDIQ Statements of Work CMIST-II

21. For onsite personnel, is the contractor required to pay the local earnings tax for Brook Park, OH?

Answer: Offeror’s shall consult their company’s tax experts in regard to what taxes is the contractor’s responsibility.

22. Question: As September 4 is recognized as a national holiday (Labor Day), would NASA consider extending the proposal due date to September 12 or thereafter?

Answer: The Proposal due date has been moved to September 11, 2023.

23. Question: Will the government provide 10 days between the response to questions and due date for the qualification statements?

24. Please consider adding an additional 2 weeks to the submission date.