Final MIST II Questions.pdf

Questions and Answers for DRFP MIST II, 80GSFC20R0006 Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submitted.

Page | 1

# RFP Reference Comment/ Question /Vendor Recommendation Government Response

1.

Cover Letter: pg. 2

DRFP

Section L.23(g)(1): pg. 99

The cover letter requires offerors to submit their "strategies" to address potential OCI in a 12-page document, but the two pieces of the OCI submission outlined in L.23.(g)(1) and L.23.(g).(2) refer to an "OCI Assessment" and "OCI Plan" respectively.

Will the Government confirm that that the OCI strategy referenced in the cover letter is the same as the OCI Assessment referred to in L.23.(g).(1)?

Cover Letter – The intent was to allow the offeror to submit a Draft OCI Plan to receive feedback from the Government prior to the release of the Final RFP.

An OCI Plan is required with proposal submission in accordance with the requirements in L.23.

2.

Cover Letter “Offerors should submit their OCI Mitigation Strategies not exceeding 12 pages.”

It is not unusual for a large subcontractor to have over 50 contracts and subcontracts to report that have been active within past 2 years. Including all this data in the OCI Mitigation Strategies requires more than 12 pages.

Will the Government exclude the contract and subcontract listing from the 12-page limit?

The 12 page limit applies to the Draft OCI Plan; the Final OCI Plan is part of the Offeror Volume where there is no page limitation.

3.

DRFP NASA GSFC’s Electrical Systems Engineering Services (ESES) III contract, awarded in August 2018, is similar in size ($493M), scope (NAICS Code 541715), and complexity to MIST II. The ESES III solicitation stipulated that contracts must have an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $8M in order to be considered minimally relevant. To gain the full scope of a Small Business prime’s ability to perform the MIST II requirements, and for consistency in solicitation requirements, we request the Government consider

L.30 and M.5 will be changed to $8 million in the Final RFP

Page | 2 lowering the past performance target threshold in the MIST II solicitation to $8M minimum average annual cost/fee incurred for past performance contracts with similar content to the MIST II draft Statement of Work.

4.

Cover Letter: pg. 2 The cover letter indicates that the final RFP may be released on or around 30 Jan 2019 with a response time of 30 calendar days. Since the DRFP was released a little later than anticipated, and owing to the holidays intervening, this leaves offerors less time to prepare solid proposal responses, in particular to the RTOs.

Will the Government consider providing a 45-day window for proposals in response to the final RFP?

No

5.

DRFP

Section I.40: pg. 56

The I.40 Clause is entitled “Post-Award Small Business Program Re-Representation”.

Will the Government confirm that this fill-in is not to be completed at the time of proposal submission?

The intent is for the clause to be filled in at the time of proposal submission.

6.

DRFP

Section L.20 (c): pg. 95

Determination of Compensation Reasonableness

Section states, "The offeror shall include the rationale for any conformance procedures used or those Service Contract Act employees proposed that do not fall within the scope of any classification listed in the applicable wage determination.

Are there current labor categories on the MIST contract that are under the SCA Wage Determination?

If so, could the Government provide the latest WD applicable for this contract?

There are no SCA Wage Determination applicable to this requirement.

7.

L.20(d)

Please confirm that the threshold for service contractors is $750,000 over the 5-year period for MIST II as opposed to an annual threshold of $750,000.

Neither are correct. NFS 1852.231-71 paragraph (d) will be changed in the final RFP to eliminate the FAR

Page | 3

15.403-4 reference and replace it with a total value of $2M as the threshold for service contractors submitting certified cost or pricing data.

8.

DRFP

Section L.23: pg.99-100

L.23.(g).2 states that the OCI Plan "shall be included as part of the proposal Offer Volume, or as a separate attachment….", but the L.26 instructions for the Offer Volume make no further mention of an OCI plan being required in that volume

Will the Government confirm that the OCI Plan is indeed to be submitted with the Offer Volume and update L.26 accordingly?

Yes, the OCI Plan is to be submitted as part of the Offeror Volume.

9.

DRFP

Section L. 23(g)(1)A

OCI Assessment

The requirement for completed and planned work with respect to the listing to be submitted is unclear. You could read that offerors are to assess completed/planned work, but not include this work within the listing required by Paragraph A of this section. The Offeror shall include a list of all of its and its proposed subcontractor’s NASA contracts and subcontracts in its submission. Section L.23(g)(1) instructs offerors to assess recently performed work (within 2 years prior to proposal date) and planned work (including future competitive proposals).

"Please clarify:

1. Should offerors include completed contracts within the listing required in paragraph A?

1. Yes, the Offeror shall include a list of all of its and its proposed subcontractor’s NASA contracts and subcontracts in its submission.

2. Yes, the offerors shall include a list of its proposals submitted and under evaluation. NASA considers the proposals to be future competitive proposal planned work.

3. Yes, subcontractors may submit its listings directly to the Government. The final RFP shall reflect the ability for subcontractors to

Page | 4

2. Should offerors include submitted proposals under evaluation within the listing required in Paragraph A?

3. If a listing of submitted proposals is required, can subcontractors submit this listing directly to the Government given the competition sensitive nature of the data?"

submit its listing directly to the Government.

10.

L. 23(g)(1) GSFC 52.209-301 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (Mar 2019)

The Offeror is required to identify and submit any organizational interests (financial, contractual or other) that would be affected by performance of the Statement of Work requirements, whether by it or its proposed subcontractors. This includes recently performed (within 2 years prior to the proposal due date), currently performed, or planned work (including future competitive proposals), whether as a prime contract holder or subcontractor.

Would the government consider modifying this requirement to be applicable only to subcontractor that are considered significant (as defined in the Cost Volume)?

Mitigation strategies for non-significant subcontractors can be easily managed by the utilization of a non-conflicted subcontractor versus a significant subcontractor upon which the offeror is heavily reliant on for past performance and critical capabilities.

No, all organizational conflicts must be identified early on to permit resolution of such.

11.

L. 23(g)(1) GSFC 52.209-301 Notice of Potential Organizational

Conflicts of Interest (Mar 2019)

No

Page | 5

The Offeror is required to include a list of all of its and its proposed subcontractors NASA contracts and subcontracts in its submission. Would the government consider changing the requirement to read “the Offeror shall list any of its and its proposed subcontractors contracts or subcontracts that may give rise to an OCI”, similar to the non-NASA requirement?

12.

DRFP

Section L.23(g)(2):

pg.100

There is no requirement "D".

Will the Government please confirm whether this is an error in section numbering, or if there is a missing requirement between requirements "C" and "E"?

Yes, this is a typographical error and it will be corrected in the final RFP.

13.

L.25

States: “As part of the Request for Proposal, the offer shall respond to how they would approach several Representative Task Orders (See Exhibit A)”

Request the government revise the reference to identify “Enclosure BB Combined RTOs Final.pdf”

Yes, your understanding is correct. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect “Enclosure BB Combined RTOs Final.pdf .”

14.

L.25(a)(2)

Please confirm that the additional copy for audit in this paragraph is the same as in the chart in L.25(a)(1) for the Cost Volume.

Yes, your understanding is correct.

15.

DRFP

Section L.25(b): pg. 104 Section L.25(a)(5): pg.

The table on page 104 states that the SOW compliance matrix is excluded from page limitations. L.25.(a).5 also states that the "proposal shall include a matrix…..", but it is not clear if this is applicable to each volume. Also, since the DRFP does not require offerors to address every IDIQ SOW element, it is not clear what the purpose of this matrix is.

Will the Government confirm in which volumes the SOW compliance matrix is to go, and what it is to include?

The portion of L.25 (a)(5) referenced will be removed in the Final RFP.

The SOW compliance matrix will be removed in the Final

RFP.

Page | 6

16.

DRFP

Section L. 25(b)(1): pg.

Section L. 28(c) B.9: pg.

Page Limitations Table and Position Qualifications (PQs)

Section L requires that "Offerors shall provide written Position Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance." Section L goes on to direct Offerors to include the PQs in the Cost Volume.

Please confirm our understanding of the instructions that PQs will be evaluated in Mission Suitability, but are to only be included in the Cost Volume. Please confirm that there is no content requirement for PQs in Mission Suitability.

Yes, NASA confirms that there is no content requirement for PQs in Mission Suitability. Your understanding is correct.

17.

Proposal Content and Page Limitations

The table does not exclude Position Qualifications (whether referred or included) from the Mission Suitability page count. Please confirm that it is the government’s intention to exclude Position Qualifications from the Mission Suitability page count.

The PQs are to be submitted as part of the Cost Volume.

There are no page limitations in the cost volume.

18.

DRFP

Section L.25(b)(2): pg.

The font size and type for narrative text is clearly required to be not smaller than 12-point Times New Roman. In the second paragraph of the referenced DRFP section, the requirement is that “text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point”. No mention is made of the font type.

Since Times New Roman is not visually appealing, can offerors use any font type (e.g. Arial, Arial Narrow, Calibri) in graphics, tables, diagrams, as long as they meet the font size restrictions?

Font type for text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs is at the Offeror discretion; however, it is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that it is legible.

19.

L.25 (b) L.25 GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation—General

Instructions (DEC 2018)

No.

Page | 7

Would the government consider lowering the font size in graphics to 8 pt. Arial Narrow?

20.

DRFP

Section L.25(b)(2): pg.

The DRFP states that “foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8 ½” x 11” pages”

Will the Government confirm that this means an 11”x17” foldout (the most common size and one that happens to be precisely double the size of a Letter page) counts as two pages for the purposes of determining page count?

Yes, NASA confirms that this means an 11”x17” foldout (the most common size and one that happens to be precisely double the size of a Letter page) counts as two pages for the purposes of determining page count.

Your understanding is correct.

21.

DRFP

Section L.28(c)A.1: pg.

There are several references to "Task Ordering Procedure clause in Section H of this solicitation", but there do not appear to be any TO ordering procedures contained within Section H

Did the Government intend to refer offerors to DRFP Section I.140 on page 73?

Yes, the Final RFP will be updated with the correct reference.

22.

Section L.28 (c) A.1 Subfactor A – Representative Task Orders (RTOs)

The DRFP states: “The Offeror shall provide Written Task Plans addressing each representative task included in Exhibit A. In accordance with the Task Ordering Procedure clause in Section H of this solicitation, each task plan.”

Are the correct references Exhibit BB (not Exhibit A) to the Task Ordering Procedures I.140 (not Section H)?

The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Enclosure BB as the correct reference.

23.

DRFP

Section L.28(c)B.10:

pg.113

Total Compensation Plan

Section states to utilize Exhibits B-13A and 13B and Exhibits B- 12A and 12B from the Cost Volume, which do not exist.

The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Exhibits 10A and 10B.

Page | 8

Assuming this should refer to Exhibits 10A and 10B from the GPM instructions in L.29.B.14, page 126, please confirm.

24.

Section L.29, (b) (2) Page

Section L.29, (b) (2) Page 118, Attachment B, “Section 5, the Prime Offeror shall include a fully loaded direct labor rate matrices for each Significant Subcontractor”.

If Attachment B is going to be used to price all task orders, should Section 5 also contain the rates of non- Significant Subcontractors?

No.

25.

Section L.29, (b) (2) Page

Section L.29, (b) (2) Page 118, Attachment B, should Section 6 contain the Position Qualification (PQs) of non-Significant Subcontractors as well?

No, per the requirement in Section 6, Offeror is to propose DLC specified in Section 1 and ALL significant subs

26.

L.29(b)(3) Cost Volume Proposal Format, Direct and Indirect Rate Substantiation

The Cost Volume Other Direct Costs (ODC) instructions and table provided on page 121, indicate that the Prime Offeror shall insert the unburdened GPM- Specified ODC into Exhibit 1B. Exhibit 1B has place holders for both the Prime and subcontractor to insert ODC amounts.

Are the ODC amounts listed in the RFP instructions to be proposed by the Prime only (as specified in the narrative instructions) or will the government update the ODC table to provide the amounts to be proposed by the Prime and the subcontractor for completion of Exhibit 1B?

The table will not be updated. It is at the discretion of the Offeror to determine its’ approach.

27.

L.29(b)(10) Cost Volume Proposal Format, Indirect Rate Expense

Pools

Yes, NASA confirms that if the joint venture does have specific data, parent

Page | 9

The RFP states under Exhibit 6A and Exhibit 6B “NOTE:

If a Small Business Administration Joint Venture (JV) or other Prime Offeror teaming arrangement is proposed, the actual expenses for the prior three years of both entities that comprise the JV or teaming arrangement must be provided in this exhibit; this portion cannot be left blank.”

Would the Government please confirm, that if the joint venture does have specific data, parent information is not required?

information is not required.

If a Joint Venture proposes and has been operating as that same JV for more than one year and can provide actual JV cost data to support proposed costs under Exhibit 6A and 6B, then additional parent information is not required, assuming the parents’ cost data is not relied upon to support proposed costs.

28.

DRFP

Section L.29(b)(12): pg.

Phase-In start date ‘on or about September 2020’.

Will the Government please confirm a 60 day Phase- In, with a start date on or about September 1, 2020 with a Contract start date of on or about November 2, 2020?

The Final RFP will be updated to reflect September 1, 2020 as the correct start date.

29.

Section L.29(b)(14) Fringe Benefits Exhibits

The RFP indicates in L.29(b)(14) that Exhibits 10A and 10B satisfy the TCP requirement at FAR 52.222-46 for the non-significant subcontractors.

Please confirm that Exhibits 10A and 10B also satisfy the TCP requirement for non-significant subcontractors under RFP L.20 NFS 1852.231-71(d) which requires a TCP from all service subcontractors for cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as set forth in FAR 15.403-4 as in previous solicitations?

Yes, NASA confirms that Exhibits 10A and 10B also satisfy the TCP requirement for non-significant subcontractors under RFP L.20 NFS 1852.231-71(d).

Your understanding is correct.

Page | 10

30.

Section L.30(b): pg.129

Referenced DRFP section states: "The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting Officer" (our emphasis). It is not common for a technical representative and a responsible contracting officer to be the same person, so it is unclear whether the questionnaire respondent is to be a technical customer, OR a responsible contracting officer, or both.

Will the Government please clarify how many questionnaires are required for each cited past performance contract and from whom?

One questionnaire should be provided from the CO and one questionnaire should be provided from the Technical Customer for each cited performance.

31.

Section L.30(a) page 127 Significant Subcontractor Definition

The last sentence in the second paragraph of section

(a) {shown below} indicates $10M, but we believe it was intended to be 10% to correlate with the example that immediately follows.

“The Offeror shall provide the information requested below for any significant subcontractor(s) for those similar efforts within the last 5 years of the RFP release date with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $10M of the estimated average annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract.”

Please confirm whether the above instructions should be 10% or $10M?

Yes, you are correct the Final RFP will be updated to reflect 10%.

32.

Section M.4: pg. 138

Phase-In costs are included in the GPM and part of Offeror total evaluated price. Given the inclusion of off-site labor in the GPM and the derived requirement for an office space and technical workspace including IT tools and equipment, phase-in costs are likely to be much more substantial for non-incumbent offerors

No

Page | 11 than for the incumbent performing to these same/similar requirements today.

Will the Government consider excluding Phase-In costs from the total evaluated price?

33.

Enclosure CC- MIST II CC

– GPM FINAL.pdf

GPM/LCATS

Page 3 is a duplicate of the last 3 LCATS on page 2.

Page 3 can be deleted.

The Final RFP will be updated to remove duplication.

34.

Enclosure CC GPM Specified Non- Management Direct Labor Categories and Direct Labor Hours By Site Location

The Labor Categories listed in the Hours By Site Location section are abbreviations of the titles in the GPM-Specified Non-Management Labor Position Descriptions.

Please confirm that we can use either of these versions of the labor category name, since DRFP instructions state (L.29.B.3, Page 119) that the offeror must use this information.

Yes, NASA confirms that offerors can use either of these versions of the labor category names. Your understanding is correct.

35.

DD254 The predecessor MIST Contract RFP required a Top Secret security classification. The MIST II DRFP requires a Secret security classification. Please confirm that this security classification is correct.

Yes, your understanding of this is correct.

36.

GSFC 52.215-203 ( c) (1) Would the government consider adding property control, purchasing, estimating, and employee compensation systems to this requirement?

No change is needed for the RFP in this area. When addressing “all business systems, including but not limited to accounting, property control, purchasing, estimating, and employee compensation”, a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror can explain the reliance on any JV team member’s system, if applicable.

Page | 12

37.

When is the Final RFP expected to be released? The Final RFP is anticipated to be released no earlier than 2/14/2020