Final RFP Q-A Responses.pdf

SESDA V

Responses to Final RFP Questions 80GSFC21R005

1. Questions related to L.26(c)(5):

(a) L.26(c)(5) (p. 94), Cover Letter (p. 1) - RFP Section L.26(c)(5) 8(a) Joint Ventures states, "Award of the contract will only be made to a SBA certified 8(a) program company or SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture" (p. 94). The Cover Letter states, "NASA will conduct this acquisition as a small-business set-aside competition" (p. 1). Considering this acquisition is not an 8(a) set-aside, please clarify or correct the language regarding 8(a) Joint Ventures.

(b) L.26(c)(5) (p. 94) - According to sba.gov, "SBA no longer approves joint venture agreements formed to pursue competitive 8(a) contracts." Is Section L.26(c)(5) 8(a) Joint

Ventures supposed to be directed to any SBA-approved Joint Venture? If so, should non-8(a)

JVs provide the information required at L.26(c)(5), including, per SBA requirements, the

Joint Venture Agreement?

Response: The Government has revised the language from L.26(c)(5) (p.94) and replaced it with the following:

If Offeror has proposed a joint venture agreement, the joint venture agreement(s) shall be provided in Offeror Volume.

2. Question: Item 4 in the Final RFP Cover Letter states: “The following list identifies some areas where significant changes or clarifications have been made from the Draft RFP to this final RFP that may not have been addressed in the Draft RFP questions and responses:

- Enclosure 6 has been included. (Sample Safety and Health Plan for GSFC Service or

Operations Contracts)

- Quality Assurance Plan is to be submitted 30 days after contract award

- Equity and Inclusion Plan is to be submitted 60 days after contract award

This list is not intended to cover all changes nor describe all RFP requirements. Offerors should carefully review the RFP in its entirety.”

RFP Section J.1 is consistent with the Cover Letter (i.e., Quality Assurance Plan to be submitted 30 days after contract effective date). However, RFP Section L.27 provides instructions for a Quality Assurance Plan to be submitted as part of the Mission Suitability

Volume (paragraph B.9). Similarly, RFP Section M.4 includes evaluation criteria for the

Quality Assurance Plan (paragraph B.9). Please remove paragraph B.9 from RFP Sections

L.27 and M.4 to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the Government’s expectation for the

Quality Assurance Plan.

RFP #80GSFC21R005

Response: The Government has revised L.27, B.9 and M.4, B.9 to RESERVED in Amendment

#2.

3. Question: L.25 (b) / Pg. 90 - Past Performance – please confirm that subcontractor consent letters/forms and small business subcontracting history are excluded from page count.

Response: The subcontractor consent letters/forms and small business subcontracting history information is excluded from the page count.

4. Question: L.29 (a) / Pg. 120 - Several Past Performance Appendices (customer evaluations, terminated or de-scoped contracts) are considered proprietary by our subcontractors. Please verify that these may be submitted directly to NASA via EFSS Box.

Response: Information considered proprietary by offerors or subcontractors can be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer specified in L.29 no later than the proposal submission date.

5. Question: Enclosure 3, PP Questionnaire, SOW Survey Relevance Ratings (p. 4) - Table shows nine (9) sub-elements for Statement of Work (SOW) element 3.1, while Attachment A

SOW has only eight (8) sub-elements. SOW element 3.1.4 (Attachment A) seems to have been split in the Questionnaire into elements 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. This makes the mapping 3.1.x in the Past Performance Questionnaire different from that of the SOW. Is this by design? If not, does the Government intend to modify the Questionnaire?

Response: The Government will not assess the 3.1.4 Production data processing separately on the Past Performance Questionnaire template. The Government will evaluate the SOW elements that correlate to the Attachment A - Statement of Work. Questionnaires received are not required to be resubmitted to the Contracting Officer

6. Question: L.29 (p. 121) - SF33 does not have a completed Block 9. Note that while the

Cover Letter spells out the due date and time, the past performance questionnaire instructions

(Section L. 29, page 121) refer to information in Block 9 of SF33. Should the proposer assume the deadline for Past Performance Questionnaire submission to be 5pm EST, Feb 22, 2022?

Will the government be issuing an Amendment 01 document, or an updated from the announcement on 1/25/2022. Or should the Offeror update the original SF 33 and add the

Amendment number and issue dates in Block 14?

Response: The Government will issue amendment 2 which updates the Past Performance

Questionnaire deadline. Offerors need to update the original SF 33 Block 14 with the amendment numbers, issue dates and acknowledgment of amendments.

7. Question: Enclosure 3, PP Questionnaire (p. 2) - Page 2 has a TBD for “return this questionnaire by” and the Attn, phone number, email, presently show TBD or “????”.

Would the Government update these forms so that the Offeror can provide the forms to the

PP Questionnaire evaluators?

Response: Amendment #2 incorporates the following already described in L.29:

RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

VIA EMAIL TO:

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Attn: Wanda Moore, Code 210.S

Email: wanda.b.moore@nasa.gov

BY: 2:00 PM EST on 2/23/22

8. Question: L.29(a), p. 118, First full paragraph - The RFP states “For the purposes of the Past

Performance Volume, a proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is and to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $5 million. Note, the definition of significant subcontractor for the past performance evaluation may be different than for the cost evaluation. 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 10% of the estimated average annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract.”

Please confirm our interpretation that the prime may include past performance for any significant subcontractor that meets this criterion, but that the prime is not required to include past performance for all significant subcontractors.

Response: The offeror is expected to provide past performance for any/all significant subcontractors that meet the criterion identified in the RFP.

9. Question: L.29(a), p. 118, 4th full paragraph, - RFP states “The Offeror shall provide an estimated value and percentage of work to be performed on this contract by the Prime

Offeror and each significant subcontractor. Indicate the primary functions (SOW, etc.) to be performed by the Prime Offeror and each proposed significant subcontractor. Indicate which contracts are most related (i.e. similar in size and content) and how they are related to the proposed effort, as well as which contracts were performed by the division of your company

(if applicable) that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract.”

Please confirm that this information needs to be provided even if we are not required to include a past performance citation as defined in L.29(a) on page 118.

Response: Information required in the past performance volume is limited to the prime Offeror and Significant Subcontractors, based on the Significant Subcontractor definition included in the

Past Performance instructions.

10. Question: If the Offeror is planning to use the labor category titles and position descriptions provided in Enclosure 1, does the government require that those position descriptions be repeated in the Cost Volume and the Mission Suitability Volume?

With the understanding that any new labor categories for PMO positions, etc. will be added.

Response: Yes, cost section only, while there are position descriptions and qualification criteria that will be evaluated in the Mission Suitability evaluation, the position descriptions are required in the Cost Volume, and do not need to be repeated in the Mission Suitability Volume.

11. Question: L.22 (g)(1), page 84, L.25 (b), page 90 - L.22 (g)(1) states “The Offeror’s OCI

Submission, which shall be considered part of the Offer Volume”.

Response: Yes, the OCI Plan should be considered part of the Offer Volume. The Government will remove the OCI language from the table in Mission Suitability Volume in L.25 (b).

12. Question: L25 (2) (b) / Pg 91, Please confirm that graphics’ and tables’ titles/captions are allowed to be in 10 point to match the content of that graphic/table.

Response: The Government has made no preference to graphics and table only font point “no smaller than 10 point”.

13. Question: RFP Reference: L.25 (b) (2) - RFP states “Line spacing or the amount of vertical space between lines of text shall not be less than single line (Microsoft Office Word's default line spacing).”

Please confirm that “vertical space between lines” refers to single spacing as shown below.

Response: L.25 (b) (2) Line spacing or the amount of vertical space between lines of text shall not be less than single line (Microsoft Office Word’s default line spacing). The Microsoft Office

Word’s default is as follows: Spacing Before: 0 pt – After: 0 pt - Line spacing: Single

14. Question: L.27 B.8 / 102 - Please confirm that Exhibits 10A and 10B satisfy the TCP requirement for non-significant subcontractors under 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. (Over $750,000)?

Response: As stated in NFS 1852.231-71(d), “The offeror shall require all service subcontractors provide, as part of their proposal, the information identified in (a) through (c) of this provision 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.” The threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data is

$750,000 for prime contracts awarded before July 1, 2018, and $2 million for prime contracts awarded on or after July 1, 2018.

15. Question: L.27 B.6 / Pg. 100 - Please confirm that the Staffing Plan section of the

Management Approach requires an approach to ‘a discussion of the personnel categories proposed under the contract and how the labor skill and mix will be employed to accomplish the work’, rather than a staffing table with FTE numbers.. A staffing table can only be repeating back the GPM provided with the RFP without knowing which Task Orders will be released under SESDA V.

Response: Yes, the Government is requiring the Offeror to provide a discussion rather than a staffing table.

16. Question: L.28, 112, RFP Section (3) Government Pricing Model L.28 Cost Volume- Will the government provide a detailed breakout of all consultant cost for calendar yr 5 or at least provide description of service?

Response: The Government provided the best estimate for Consultant costs per year based on historical data and will not be providing a detailed breakout of those costs. This category of costs generally involves specialty firms that provide highly specialized services or involves individuals with a unique skill or knowledge base.

17. Question: Will the government clarify if JV Partners are required to send consent letters on behalf of each-other in regards to PPQ?

Response: Consent letters are not required for JV Partners for past performance questionnaires.

18. Question: Can a JV submit GMP as well for the 2 JV partners so that Government can see the total price of each contract year?

Can we modify the GPM rows and columns to mirror our cost accounting and burdening methods?

Response: Each individual JV Partner must submit separate pricing to include direct and indirect rates; see RFP for additional guidelines for proposal pricing. The Government would need additional insight into the proposed modifications to properly respond to this question.