ATMOS RFP Q.A Final.pdf

Question/Comment Gov Responses Regarding GPM Cost Exhibits 1A and 1B. Traditionally GSFC GPM exhibits include NASA plug amounts for Other Direct Cost (ODC) items such Materials, Training, Travel, etc. which cannot be estimated by the offeror at the time of submission. This RFP does not include any plugs for these types of costs. How does NASA intend to fund the contract for these ODC costs during performance?

Amendment #1 issued to add ODC plug number to the GPM for use with Exhibits 1A/1B.

Based on the guidance in the RFP (Pg. 85), should the OCI Plan outlined in Attachment H.1 be submitted as a separate attachment? Yes, the OCI Plan shall be included as a separate attachment as identified on page 85 of the RFP.

Could you clarify where the following should be submitted Letters of assertion, List of all NASA contracts and subcontracts held by the prime and subcontractors. Should these items be included with the separate OCI Plan attachment, or should they be incorporated into Volume 1: Offer Volume as an appendix?

Yes, the letters of assertion and list of all NASA contracts and subcontracts shall be included with the OCI Plan attachment.

Does the Government require the listing of previous, current, and planned NASA contracts, or only previous and current? The OCI Plan requires previous and current NASA contracts.

If we can successfully access the EFSS Box link provided in the solicitation, does that confirm that our account is fully set up and ready for submission, or are there additional steps we should complete to ensure a smooth submission process?

Offerors are strongly advised to coordinate the submission of a test file with Jeffrey Kirk no later than five days before the proposal due date specified in the solicitation to allow sufficient time to address any submission issues.. Instructions -https //www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/other/EFSS-Box-Offeror- Proposal-Submission-Instructions.pdf

The provided link appears to be non-functional. Could the Government please confirm the correct URL or provide an alternative link for the EFSS Box Offeror Proposal Submission Instructions?

The link in question is current and works. Try using a different browser or copy/paste into the search field.

https //www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/other/EFSS-Box-Offeror- Proposal-Submission-Instructions.pdf

Can significant subcontractors submit their past performance evaluations (e.g., Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms) directly through the EFSS link, separate from the Prime s proposal package, if they prefer not to include them with the Prime s submission?

Yes, proprietary or sensitve information can be submitted seprately.

If the Offeror does not have any required fill-ins for Sections B through K, should the Offeror submit a statement confirming that no fill-ins are required?

It is the Contractor's responsibility to ensure compliance with the RFP requirements. No additional statements would be necessary.

Can the Government clarify the instructions under A.3, specifically regarding Scenario 1? The instructions state that the Offeror should focus on staffing and management rather than providing technical details. However, the overall instructions referenced in xxx request a technical approach.

Responses should focus on what is exactly is being asked for and stated in each scenario.

"List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default). Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers). Include contracts that were ""descoped"" by the customer because of performance or cost problems." Can the Government confirm if the significant subcontractors can submit this response in the EFSS link separately from the Prime if they have confidential information they do not want shared with the Prime?

Yes, proprietary or sensitve information can be submitted seprately.

Can the Government confirm whether the Position Qualifications and Descriptions provided in the Cost Volume must be repeated in the Mission Suitability (MS) Volume under B.7?

Position Qualifications are needed and evaluated in the MS Volume. you may submit position descriptions as a duplicate copy as reference and this wont be counted towards page limitations. Although not required to do so, the Prime Offeror may submit a duplicate copy of the Position Descriptions as an Attachment with the Mission Suitability Volume as reference. The duplicate copy will not be counted toward the page limitation.

Can the Government clarify the following wording regarding the definition of a Significant Subcontractor in the Cost Volume instructions? Specifically, as it relates to meeting or exceeding 20% of the total GPM estimated value “For the purposes of the Cost Volume a Significant Subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose estimated value causes the cumulative percentage of subcontractor work (from lowest to highest percentage of work) to meet or exceed 20% of the total GPM estimated value (basic and all options combined if applicable).” Based on Example 2, subcontractors E, F, and G are deemed significant because their cumulative percentage of subcontractor work meets or exceeds 20%. However, individually, each subcontractor's percentage of work is below 20%. We seek clarification on whether the cost information for each subcontractor in the Cost Proposal should reflect their individual work share or their cumulative percentage of work, as this appears to be causing confusion regarding the phrase “meet or exceed 20% of the total GPM estimated value.”

For any sub that is considered significant they shall provide a full cost proposal. They should not be cumulative. Once the 20% cumulative subcontract threshold is met then each subcontractor must submit an individual proposal.

Can the Government confirm whether Exhibit 10a and Exhibit 10b are required to be submitted in the Final RFP? Exhibits 10a and 10b have been removed from the final RFP.

Does the Offeror need to include the entire Section K with the proposal submission if the Representations and Certifications (REPS and CERTS) have already been completed in SAM? Alternatively, would a general statement confirming that REPS and CERTS are completed in SAM suffice?

Responses can just be the provision along with the fill-in portion(s). A statement is not necessary as we need to verify via SAM.GOV regardless of what is submitted.

GPM includes hours under the labor category Support Scientist, while the Position Descriptions identify the labor category as Support Scientist I. Please confirm that the entries in the GPM staffing tables should be Support Scientist I.

The entry in the GPM staffing table as Support Scientist is Support Scientist I.

The proposal content table on page L-9 lists the Safety and Health Plan as being part of the Mission Suitability. However, in B.3 (table, item 13), J.1, and L.11(c)(8) indicate the Safety and Health Plan is due within 30 days after contract award. Please confirm that the Safety and Health Plan is not required as part of the Mission Suitability Volume, and must be submitted in accordance with B.3, J.1, and L.11(c)(8) within 30 days after contract award.

The Safety and Health plan is to be submitted within 30 Days after award. See Aendment #2 which removes the language from the instructions table.

How do you wish to handle the security constraints going forward from a price and equipment standard? The security constraint is related to the VPN challenge with non-NASA computers. That is, will the offsite personnel and PMO members be provided a government laptop with connectivity to GSFC?

It is not necessary to have a government-issued laptop to connect to GSFC. Contractors can request access to the Agency VPN GSFC Partner Profile.

How much is the government willing to advance for travel This contract does not allow for advance payments for travel.

Can you please provide an extension to allow time to address questions in row 19 and 20? At this time, the proposal due date is not being extended.