GISS Question and Answers as of April 6.pdf

Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Request for Proposal (80GSFC22R0003) Questions and Answers

1. Will the Government please either provide further guidance as to what the Small Business Subcontracting Plan History includes or remove the requirement?

Response: In accordance with FAR 52.219-9(a), the Small Business Subcontracting Plan history is not required because this competition is an 8(a) set-aside. An amendment is forthcoming to remove the requirement.

2. If one of the JV partners will be utilizing their parent or affiliate’s past performance, is the requirement on the discussion on how parent or affiliate will have “meaningful involvement” in performance and how that involvement will affect the performance part of the 15-page count under information from the offeror relating to past performance volume?

Response: In accordance with Section L.17(a), “Offerors may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.” This information, if provided, will be counted as part of the 15-page count for the Past Performance volume.

3. Can the Government please confirm when the IT Security Plan is due, as there is conflicting language in Section B and Table J-1 (Attachment E). Section B on Page 3 of the RFP has 30 days after Contract Effective Date (which implies after contract start, not during Phase In), but Section J on Page 48 indicates due 30 days after contract award which implies Phase In.

Response: The IT Security Plan will be due thirty (30) days after the contract effective date. An amendment is forthcoming to clarify the due date.

4. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the RFP be revised to reflect the SBA rules and procedures concerning JV approval. The current Solicitation requirement that “Award of the contract will only be made to an SBA certified 8(a) program company or SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture” conflicts with SBA regulations and it’s an unduly restrictive solicitation term that must be removed.

Response: In accordance with 13 CFR 124.513(e)(1), an amendment will be issued to remove the requirement that an “Award of the contract will only be made to an SBA certified 8(a) program company or SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture”.

5. B.3 refers to “Program Manager”. However, the labor categories provided do not have a “Program Manager” listed. Instead, there is a labor category for “Project Manager”. Please clarify which is the correct title to be utilized.

Response: Section B.3 1852.232-81 CONTRACT FUNDING (JUN 1990) does not mention a “Program Manager”. However, the Project Manager category should be utilized.

6. On Page 80 of the RFP, it references Exhibits 13A and 13B – Determination of Reasonableness, however, exhibits 13A and 13 B were not included in the attachments. Can the government please provide copies of these attachments?

Response: The correct reference is “Exhibits 11A and 11B – Determination of Compensation Reasonableness”. There are no Exhibits 13A and 13B, only the Past Performance Questionnaire which is Exhibit 13. An amendment is forthcoming to capture this change.

7. The SOW states that Library Services are only for the first year of the contract. Does this include all publication services and staff as well or just the Library Staff?

Response: In accordance with Attachment A, 3.1.3, some publications services are included along with the library staff.

8. SOW includes Library services (for one year) but Library Services are not included in the Proposal requirements. Please confirm that Library Services do not need to be addressed in proposals.

Response: In accordance with Sections L and M, the Library Services do not need to be addressed in the proposals. The solicitation identifies that the proposed technical approach shall address the techniques and procedures that will be used to accomplish the following critical elements of the Statement of Work (SOW) in enough detail to clearly and fully demonstrate that the Offeror understands the requirements and the inherent problems associated with the objectives of this procurement: (SOW 3.1.1) Scientific Programming and Analysis, (SOW 3.1.2) Computer Facility Services, and (SOW 3.1.4) Program Management.

9. Who is the contractor that is responsible for the performing the maintenance and support for the ACES owned equipment?

Response: The ACES contract has ended, and the new contract is the End User Services Office Enterprise (EUSO) contract. The equipment will be maintained and supported by the EUSO contractor.

10. The RFP states that the DE&I Plan is due 30 days after award; however, Attachment H states that the plan shall be submitted with the initial proposal. Please confirm that the DE&I Plan is due 30 days after contract award.

Response: The DE&I plan is due 30 days after the contract effective date. An amendment is forthcoming to clarify the due date.

11. Section L.13.(c)(2): Which agency does the Government require for the requirement of Cognizant Government audit agency? DCAA or DCMA? If you do not have an approved procurement system, do you reference the DCAA for our approved accounting system or leave these requirements blank?

Response: In accordance with Section L.16(b)(17), “Offerors shall complete Exhibits 12A and 12B and provide the requested information necessary to contact appropriate audit authorities regarding the Offeror’s business systems, status of financial disclosures, negotiated forward pricing rates, etc. Offerors must ensure that the information provide is current and accurate.”

12. Section L.16 (b)(1): For purposes of completing Exhibit 2A correctly, are all hours expected to be performed onsite at Government-provided offices? Would the Government confirm there is sufficient space to house all expected contract staff at the Government-provided facility?

Response: In accordance with Section F.3, “The services to be performed under this contact shall be performed at the following location(s): Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, New York.” There is sufficient space to house all expected contract staff at the provided location.

13. The implementation of NASA Headquarters and GSFC Code 700 security mandates are an ongoing process which includes System Administrators on the SESDA IV contract to coordinate with Code 700 and ensure all Code 600 computer systems are updated with security mandates.

There are no labor categories on the GISS contract for System Administrator. Please clarify if the planning, managing, and implementation of these security mandates falls under the SESDA IV contract or GISS III contract responsibility. If it falls under the GISS III contract, is it correct to assume that this will be performed by the System Programmers?

Response: Many of the security mandates are the responsibility of the SESDA IV contract with overall management of the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), including monitoring of and proper functioning of, along with user support services, provided by the Systems Programmers on the GISS contract, in accordance with SOW 3.1.2, Computer Facility Services.

14. Will there be any costs associated with the planned library transition?

Response: Projected costs for the planned library transition are inclusive of the library costs associated with Year 1 (contract base year), and any other costs should be absorbed through the agencywide library contract.

15. Will the research collaboration of GISS with Columbia University continue in term of this contract?

Response: Research collaboration will continue, and activity levels are contingent on available funding.

16. Computer Facility Operations (3.1.2) does not mention the joint use of both government-owned and university-owned computer hardware. Are the cooperative agreement(s) between GISS and Columbia University still in effect?

Response: GISS and Columbia University maintain three-year period of performance cooperative agreements, privy to federal regulatory changes and NASA regulatory changes.

17. Notwithstanding the RFP definition for a significant subcontractor, please confirm that past performance will be accepted and evaluated from a subcontractor with extremely relevant past performance but projected workshare below the threshold of significant subcontractor (i.e., greater than 30% of the projected average annual contract value)?

Response: Only a significant subcontractor’s past performance will be accepted and evaluated. A proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $1,000,000.

18. The stated threshold for a significant subcontractor ($1M/yr.) represents approximately one third of the historical contract value for GISS. While the RFP states that “for each…,” there actually could only be one significant subcontractor at this size for the 8(a) prime to realize 51% of the workshare. Respectfully, would the Government consider reducing the threshold to 10% or 15% of the average annual contract value, typical in many other NASA RFPs?

Response: The Government threshold for a significant subcontractor remains unchanged at an average annual cost/fee of $1,000,000.

19. Would the Government consider providing a conformed definition of a significant subcontractor that combines the description from the Cost Volume and Past Performance Volume? If there are reasons to maintain separate definitions, would the government please clarify the purpose of requiring the pricing of a potential subcontractor while excluding that subcontractor from adding helpful past experience?

Response: No, a conformed definition cannot be provided at this time. The Past Performance and Cost Volumes are evaluated differently. The requirements for the cost volume are stated in the RFP and all offerors are required to submit proposals that comply with the RFP instructions. The Government threshold for a significant subcontractor for Cost and Past Performance remains unchanged.