Questions and Answers for Final RFP PAAC VI 9-29-25.pdf

Questions and Answers for Final RFP PAAC VI, 80GSFC24R0042 Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submitted.

September 29, 2025

# Final RFP Reference

Comment/Question/Vendor Recommendation

Government Response

1 Final RFP GPM Exhibits 1A-1B

GPM IDIQ

The Total hours for each Labor Category have been reduced by roughly 43%, with some Labor categories showing fractional FTE equivalents at 1,056 hours/Year. Is the government using this reduced hour amount for evaluation only, or are offerors instructed to assume part-time support in our rate development and subsequent price submission?

The GPM is a tool that is intended to be used for evaluation purposes only.

2 To ensure optimal competition, please confirm that NASA will allow for partnership bids formed under a “Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) as defined by FAR 9.601(1).”

Thank you for your consideration.

Offerors should review the Final RFP instructions regarding the Joint Venture requirements. For instance, refer to Clause 52.219-19 Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Participants (OCT 2022) and GSFC 52.215-203 Offer Volume (APR 2022).

3 Past Performance Volume, Section L and M

Respectfully, in discussions with other small business (SB) offerors regarding PAAC VI, Solicitation Number 80GSFC24R0042, there is concern about the SB requirement for the Prime and “significant subcontractor” in the past performance volume. Specifically, “… subcontractor for the past performance volume is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $10M,” appears quite high for many SBs and is typically met by large ANCs, such as the incumbent.

Please see page L-34 with “PART IV -

REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS,

CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO

OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS.”

This threshold may unintentionally limit competitive bids from capable SBs, including medium-sized ANCs, which could otherwise offer strong value to the government. Joint Ventures may have a distinct advantage under this structure, potentially narrowing the field of competition.

It may be in the government’s interest to consider a slightly broader definition

See Amendment 1.

or lower threshold to encourage more robust SB participation, thereby fostering greater competition and innovation in support of the IDIQ TOs and missions.

4 RFP Terms and Conditions, L-18 & L-20, A.5 Staffing, B.3 Innovations

The Final RFP added new requirements which were not included in the draft.

B.3 Innovations, in the Technical Approach and "approach to addressing the development and maintenance of competencies for all personnel" requirement in the Management Approach. These additional requirements were added without additional page allotments. Given the additional requirements, we respectfully request 5 more pages to be added to the Mission Suitability page limits to allow offerors to thoroughly address these new requirements.

The Government considers the current page limitations adequate; therefore, they will remain unchanged.

5 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, Page L-

The government advised in changes in the final RFP that the scenario has 4 instruments but on Page L-21 the scenario states 4 instruments and later in the scenario states "5 of 12" of the instruments. It appears the change made to 4 instruments was not made throughout the scenario. Would the government please confirm that there are only 4 instruments in the scenario and that references to more will be deleted from the scenario?

An amendment will be issued to correct the number of instruments listed in the scenario.

6 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, Page L-

The Page Limitation table within the Proposal Content and Page Limitations Section states that the Position Qualifications component is not to exceed ½ a page per labor category, however, it is not clear if it is still considered outside of page count as it was in the draft RFP.

Can the Government please confirm that the Position Qualifications component is still outside of the 50 page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume?

The position qualification is excluded from the 50-page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume; however each position qualification is limited to Not To Exceed (NTE) ½ page per labor category. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change.

7 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, Page L-

The Page Limitation table within the Proposal Content and Page Limitations Section states that the Phase-In Plan is not to exceed 15 pages, however, it is not clear if it is still considered outside of page count as it was in the draft RFP.

The phase-in plan is excluded from the 50-page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume;

however each position qualification is limited to Not To Exceed (NTE) ½ page per labor category.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change.

Can the Government please confirm that the Phase-In Plan is still outside of the 50 page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume?

8 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, Page L-

Section (b) Prior Customer Evaluations (Past Performance Questionnaires) of the Past Performance volume states “Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors' past performance evaluation with the Offeror”.

Can the Government please confirm that the Subcontractor Written Consent Letters are considered outside of page count?

The written consent letters will not count toward the page limit for the Past Performance volume. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change.

9 Final RFP Attachment A – Statement of Work, Section 4.2. Background provides a list of Scope areas that can be included on the subsequent PAAC contract.

However, Property and Logistics and Security: Compliance with Security Requirements, which are listed in the bullet list, are not referenced as individual SOW elements in the following 4.3-4.15.

Can the Government please incorporate these individual SOW elements into the SOW as their own standalone requirements?

The Government considers Property and Logistics to be adequately addressed under Sections 4.10.9, 4.10.10, and 4.10.11 of the Statement of Work (SOW), and therefore does not require a separate bullet point. Similarly, Security: Compliance with Security Requirements is covered under Section 5 of the SOW. The Government deems this sufficient, as the overall contract is expected to comply with all applicable security requirements.

10 Final RFP Attachment A – Statement of Work, Section 4.2. Background provides a list of Scope areas that can be included on the subsequent PAAC contract. Training is not included in this scope list but included as its own standalone requirement in SOW 4.15.

Can the Government please incorporate Training into the 4.2 Background bulleted list?

The Government considers the inclusion of training in Section 4.15 of the SOW to be sufficient, as the bulleted areas are not intended to represent the primary focus of the Statement of Work.

11 Final RFP Attachment A – Statement of Work, On page 12, Workforce is not numbered in the Section 4 numbering sequence.

Can the customer update the numbering?

Amendment 1 was issued on September 18, 2025.

12 Final RFP -

80GSFC24R0042 –

Terms &

Section (8) Contract Source of Personnel states “Exhibit 4 shows the Offeror’s plans to obtain the required personnel

Yes, while percentages are not required in Clause GSFC 52.215-223(b)(8), they are acceptable.

Conditions, Page L-at the contract level. The Offeror shall show the total number of staff proposed for each position, how many are available from within the company, how many are expected to be hired from the incumbent contract workforce, and how many will be newly hired.”

Can the Government confirm that percentages are acceptable for naming the amounts of staff that are available from within the company, hired from the incumbent workforce, and newly hired to match the percentage required in A.5 Staffing?

13 Final RFP -

80GSFC24R0042 –

Terms & Conditions, Page L-

Section (8) Contract Source of Personnel states “Exhibit 4 shows the Offeror’s plans to obtain the required personnel at the contract level. The Offeror shall show the total number of staff proposed for each position.”

Will the Government please provide the number of staff for each position and labor category?

The Government does not intend to provide the number of staff for each position or labor category. As stated in Section (8) – Contract Source of Personnel, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to propose the appropriate staffing levels and skill mix necessary to successfully perform the requirements of the contract.

14 Final RFP -

80GSFC24R0042 –

Terms & Conditions, Page L-

Section (8) Contract Source of Personnel states “Exhibit 4 shows the Offeror’s plans to obtain the required personnel at the contract level. The Offeror shall show … how many are expected to be hired from the incumbent contract workforce.”

Only the incumbent contractor would possess data on the number of incumbent contractors that are eligible for retention on the follow-on contract, and each of the individual labor categories they align to. We recommend the Government remove this column from Exhibit 4 so as not to provide an unfair advantage to the incumbent bidder.

The information requested is required from all offerors and does not confer any unfair advantage. Evaluations are based on each offeror’s proposed approach and plan for obtaining the required personnel. Accordingly, the Government will not be making any changes to this section/exhibit.

15 Final RFP Enclosure 1 – GPM, Page 2 &

Government-directed Non-Management Direct Labor Hours have been reduced across all labor categories, resulting in what appears to be a productive man-year of 1,056 hours. Can you clarify whether the Government intends this to reflect part-time support, or if the reduction was simply applied uniformly

The reduction was made uniformly across all labor categories. The GPM is intended to be a cost evaluation tool.

across all LCATs to align with the SOW hours distribution?

16 RFP Terms and Conditions Section B.4 Scenario, page L-21

The scenario in the final RFP has provided a December 2026 date for KDP-C which would be uncharacteristic for a launch date of February 2035. Can the Government please confirm both the KDP-C date and the intended launch date?

The Government confirms the December 2026 and February 2035 dates presented in the Scenario. A Class A or Flagship mission may span an extended timeframe. While the Government acknowledges that this duration is atypical, it is acceptable and does not warrant any changes to the proposed dates.

17 Final RFP -

80GSFC24R0042 –

Terms & Conditions, page L-

Section A.6 notes, “Offerors shall provide written Position Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance (NTE ½ per labor category). As provided in Table (b)(1) of provision 52.215.201 and the Cost Volume Instructions, the Offeror’s Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract Attachment entitled, “Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices,” which shall be submitted in the Cost Volume (per table (b)(1) of GSFC provision 52.215-201).

For purposes of the Mission Suitability factor evaluation, Offerors shall address the minimum requirements of the Position Qualifications, to include necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/licensing, minimum education and/or experience required for the position.”

Position descriptions are provided in Final RFP Enclosure 1 – GPM. Can the customer confirm they want Vendors to repeat the same position descriptions within the Mission Suitability Volume?

If yes, then would the customer please remove the NTE ½ page per labor category restriction, as many of the labor category descriptions in Enclosure 1 are already over half a page.

Offerors shall follow the cost instructions provided in the PAAC VI final RFP – Cost Volume Instructions. The Government does not require offerors to duplicate the position descriptions found in the GPM Enclosure.

Instead, the Prime and Significant Subcontractor(s) are to provide company specific Position Qualifications (PQ). These should not be the GPM-specified Position Descriptions (which are provided for GPM conversion and evaluation purposes only) if the Offerors are proposing to utilize their own, existing company-specific direct labor category titles and PQs.

18 Final RFP -

80GSFC24R0042 –

Terms & Conditions, page L-

Section A.6 notes, “Offerors shall provide written Position Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance (NTE ½ per labor category). As provided in Table (b)(1) of provision 52.215.201 and the Cost Volume Instructions, the Offeror’s Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract Attachment

A Position Qualifications (PQ) shall be proposed for each individual Prime Direct Labor Category and each individual Subcontractor Direct Labor Category. The Offerors are to provide company specific PQs. These should not be the GPM-specified Position Descriptions (which are provided for GPM conversion and evaluation purposes only) if the Offerors are proposing to utilize their own, existing company-specific entitled, “Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices,” which shall be submitted in the Cost Volume (per table (b)(1) of GSFC provision 52.215-201).

For purposes of the Mission Suitability factor evaluation, Offerors shall address the minimum requirements of the Position Qualifications, to include necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/licensing, minimum education and/or experience required for the position.”

Instead of repeating the provided labor category descriptions in Enclosure 1, are Vendors to focus only on including the labor category descriptions for our proposed Program Management support personnel?

direct labor category titles and PQs. However, the Offerors may propose direct labor category titles and PQs that match the GPM-Specified direct labor category titles and position descriptions if the Offerors are establishing new, identical direct labor category titles and PQs within their company for this specific contract effort (versus utilizing their own, existing company-specific direct labor categories and PQs and converting/mapping their categories to the GPM-Specified direct labor categories.

19 Final RFP -

80GSFC24R0042 –

Enclosure 2 – Contract Historical Data, page 3

In the provided Enclosure 2 document, rates are listed for all historical labor categories. On page 3 of Enclosure 2, the following positions are listed:

SENIOR MANAGER II

MANAGER III

SENIOR ASSOCIATE III

ASSOCIATE 1

ASSOCIATE II

MANAGER I

MANAGER II

These positions and their associated descriptions are not included in the Enclosure 1 position descriptions document. Can the customer please provide these descriptions, or clarify if these are the Program Management Support staff we are to develop and provide position descriptions for, particularly in Mission Suitability?

These positions are newly introduced Government position descriptions for the PAAC VI solicitation under this follow-on effort and were not part of the previous contract. They are distinct from the Program Management support staff to be developed.

20 RFP Terms and Conditions, page L-

The Draft RFP included an Attachment H that provided an OCI outline. The previous Q&A suggested offerors follow Attachment H outline and incorporate the associated DRD requirements. With that outline now absent in the final RFP, would the government confirm the Attachment H.1 OCI DRD is now the only official document driving the OCI response outline?

The Government confirms that Attachments H.1 and H.2 have replaced Attachment H from the Draft RFP. Attachment H.1 contains the OCI Plan Data Requirements Description (DRD), outlining the requirements for the offeror's OCI plan response. Attachment H.2 will be the approved OCI plan, which will be incorporated into the contract.

21 Standard Form 33 (SF33), Block 16

Block 16 is for the Offeror's name and title but that block has been filled in with the NASA payment office information. Will the government be issuing a revised SF33 leaving Block 16 blank so the offeror can fill in the signatory’s information as the instructions for that block indicate?

Amendment 1 was issued on September 18, 2025.

22 RFP Terms and Conditions, page L-

Per Section (b) Prior Customer Evaluations (PPQs), in the Past Performance Volume, please confirm that the government is expecting one PPQ for each contract cited, provided by either the CO or a technical representative with direct knowledge of our performance.

Per Clause 52.215-230(b) the offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) shall provide questionnaires to each of the references provided in their proposal based on Section (a) of this clause. The Government is expecting one PPQ for each contract cited by either the CO or technical representative.

23 Final+RFP+Enclosur e+1+-+GPM

The hours by Contract Year in the table do not match the hours for the SENIOR 3 SCHEDULING SPECIALIST in the Final+RFP+Exhibits+1A- 1B+GPM+IDIQ.xlsx for Contract Year 2 through 5. Should Offerors bid the hours provided by the Gov't in the Final+RFP+Exhibits+1A- 1B+GPM+IDIQ.xlsx and not the hours in the Enclosure 1 Table?

The discrepancies in the hours will be addressed with an upcoming amendment.

24 Final+RFP+Enclosur e+1+-+GPM Final+RFP+Exhibits +1A- 1B+GPM+IDIQ.xlsx

LOW GENERAL BUSINESS SPECIALIST is listed as a position for WFF in Enclosure 1 but does not include any hours.

Should there be yearly totals for this position? If so, should it also be added to the Final+RFP+Exhibits+1A- 1B+GPM+IDIQ.xlsx?

The Low General Business Specialist position will be removed from the GPM Enclosure 1. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the enclosure change.

25 Final+RFP+Exhibits +1A- 1B+GPM+IDIQ, Cell R51, R70, and R88

There are sum formulas in cell R51, R70, and R88 of the Exhibit 1A-1 through Exhibit 1A-5 of the Final+RFP+Exhibits+1A- 1B+GPM+IDIQ.xlsx. This causes a double count of the total in cell R89. May the Offeror correct the formula in R89 to sum cells R51, R70, and R88 versus the current formula which sums cells R16:R87?

The formula error will be corrected. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the updated exhibit.

26 Pg L-7 (a)

PROPOSAL

FORMAT AND

ORGANIZATION

“All pages of Volumes I, II, III, and IV shall be numbered and

Please confirm that Government documents (e.g., SF30s, SF33s, or RFP document fill-ins (e.g., Reps and Certs)) should not be altered except to fill in the required information.

The Government is confirming that the documents should not be altered.

identified with the Offeror’s name, RFP number and date.”

27 Pg L-9 (b)

PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND

PAGE LIMITATIONS

Will NASA allow headers and footers to be Times New Roman 10 point?

No, the Government state the font will be Times New Roman 10 point.

28 Pg L-8 (b)

PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND

PAGE LIMITATIONS

Will NASA allow phase-in (Section A.4) with a NTE 15 pages be included as an Attachment to Volume II Mission Suitability so that page count is accurate?

The Government will allow the Phase-in Plan as a separate attachment, as long as it is within the NTE 15-page limitation.

29 Pg L-5 NOTICE OF

POTENTIAL

ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST. (OCT

2021) Organization Conflict of Interest Instructions and Pg L-8 (b) (1)

PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND

PAGE LIMITATIONS

The NOTICE OF POTENTIAL

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST. (OCT 2021) states (d) “The proposed OCI Plan is not page limited and shall be included as a separate proposal Attachment.” However, Section L(b)(1) proposal content and page limits are included in the OCI in the Offer Volume.

Can NASA please clarify the submission requirements for the OCI Plan?

Clause GSFC 52.215-201(b)1 states that there are “NONE” for the page limitations to the Offer Volume and Organization Conflicts of Interest.

30 Pg. L-8 (b) (1)

PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND

PAGE LIMITATIONS

Cover Pages and acronym lists are cited as excluded from page count for the mission suitability and past performance volumes. However, there are no instructions pertaining to cover pages for Volume I and III.

Can NASA please confirm that cover pages and acronym lists are allowed for Volume I, Offer Information and Volume III, Cost Volume? And that they are excluded from page count?

The Government is confirming that the Cover Page and Acronym lists are allowed and are excluded from the page count in Volume I and Volume III.

31 Encl 2 Contract Historical Data

It appears that the Weighted Average Unburdened Rate for the Associate 1 and Associate 2 positions may be switched given the level 1 rate is higher than level 2.

Can NASA confirm if these rates are correct as provided?

The Government is confirming that these rates should be switched. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct Enclosure 2, Historical Data.

32 Pg L-33 (14)

FRINGE BENEFITS

EXHIBITS (Total Compensation Plan)

The last two sentences under (14) Fringe Benefits Exhibits (pasted below), indicate there are two exhibits to complete and Exhibits 11A and 11B were provided; however, only exhibit 11A is listed in the instructions but Exhibits 11A and 11B are provided with

The Government is confirming Exhibit 11A is the only Total Compensation Plan exhibit.

Exhibit 11B was inadvertently included. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to remove Exhibit 11B.

a title referencing only Exhibit 11A (Final+RFP+Exhibits+11A+Total+Compen sation+Rate+Build-up+Form.xlsx (Exhibits 11A and 11B).xls.

Can NASA confirm that offerors are required to complete the two Exhibits 11A and 11B (as applicable for exempt and non-exempt respectively)?

Two exhibits shall be submitted, in Exhibits 11A containing the average of fringe benefit information for all the exempt labor categories. These exhibits fulfill the Total Compensation Plan requirement under FAR provision 52.222-46 for Non- Significant Subcontractors.

33 Final+RFP+Exhibits +11A+Total+Compe nsation+Rate+Build -up+Form.xlsx (Exhibits 11A and 11B)

Exhibit 11B tab is titled: Exh 11B FB Nonexempt, however the title in the headers of this exhibit lists: EXHIBIT 10B.

Does NASA plan to update this, or is the offeror permitted to make this title adjustment?

Exhibit 11B was inadvertently included. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to remove Exhibit 11B.

34 Final_RFP_GPM_Ex hibits_2- 10_All_IDIQ_by_CY .xlsx (Exhibits 10A and 10B)

Exhibit 10A and 10B tabs are titled IAW with the Section L (15) COGNIZANT AGENCY INFORMATION, however the titles in the headers of each exhibit list EXHIBIT 11A and 11B respectively. Does NASA plan to update this, or is the offeror permitted to make this title adjustment?

The Government is confirming the error in the titles in Exhibit 10A and 10B. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the change to the exhibits.

35 Final_RFP_GPM_Ex hibits_2- 10_All_IDIQ_by_CY .xlsx (Exhibits 10A and 10B)

In row 3 of both Exhibit 10A and 10B a checkbox is listed for the Prime Offeror or Significant Subcontractor, however on page L-23 instructions state in part:

“Non-Significant Subcontractors shall complete and submit Exhibit 2C and, if applicable, Exhibits 2D, 10A and 10B.

Can NASA confirm that non-significant subcontractors are not required to submit Exhibits 10A and 10B?

Per Clause GSFC 52.215-223(a) “Non-Significant Subcontractors shall complete and submit Exhibit 2C and, if applicable, Exhibits 2D, 10A and 10B, which should be included with the Prime Offeror’s Cost Volume proposal.”

This is requiring Non-Significant Subcontractors to complete Exhibit 2C and if applicable, Exhibit 2D, 10A and 10B.

36 Exhibits 1A & 1B

GPM IDIQ

Exhibit 1B formulas are linked to Header rows in Exhibit 1A.

Should these formulas be linked to a subtotal row? If so, should Offerors add a subtotal row in the cost exhibits, or will NASA revise the Cost Exhibits to include this?

The formula error will be corrected. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the exhibit change.

37 Section L (12 – Phase-In Plan) p. L-

Phase-In Plan date is started on March, 17, 2026, however, the RFP cover letter indicates the Phase-in plan shall

The Government is confirming that this an error and an amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change. The correct commence 45-days prior to effective date of contract stated as August 1, 2026.

Can NASA clarify the Phase-In Plan start date?

language will be changed to “Offerors shall propose the total firm-fixed-price associated with the 45-day phase-in period, which will be performed under a separate, firm-fixed-price order. Exhibits 8 and 8A shall be used to state the proposed price for the phase-in."

38 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, L-36

Instructions on PPQs state: “The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of your firm's performance.” Does NASA intend for both a technical representative and a contracting officer to complete and return the PPQ? To reduce the burden on Government personnel, would NASA please consider clarifying the instructions to require only one PPQ response per Past Performance contract?

The Offeror shall submit a past performance questionnaire to both the technical representative and responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of your firm’s performance.

39 Final RFP Attachment C 533 Attach All IDIQ Both Onsite and Offsite; and Final RFP Attachment J Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL)

Attach J CDRLs include: OCI Plan, Security Requirements for Unclassified IT Resources, CITAR, Limitations on Subcontracting. Attachment C describes recurring submissions of 533 report.

Should Attachment J include 533 as a CDRL item?

Attachment J lists only the required Data Requirements Descriptions (DRDs) and the NF 533 report is not guided by a DRD. Therefore, Attachment J will not be including the NF 533.

40 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions Section C & Attachment J Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL)

Terms and conditions Section C Page C1 requires Monthly and Final Task Order Reports to be submitted on a periodic basis or as necessary. Should Attachment J include these reports as CDRL items?

Attachment J will not be including Monthly and Final Task Order Reports.

41 Page L-30, (7) GPM Basis of Estimate

(BOE)

For ease of page count evaluation and since the GPM BOE is the only page limited item in the Cost Volume, are offerors permitted to provide the GPM BOE for Program Management and Administrative Support and subcontracting as an Appendix to the Cost Volume?

Per Clause 52.215-233(b)(7), Program Management and Administrative Support and subcontracting BOEs are part of the Cost Volume with a page limitation of 50 pages.

Therefore, the GPM BOE for Program Management and Administrative Support and subcontracting shall be part of the Cost Volume.

42 Final RFP Attachment A, Statement of Work, General

What tools, systems, and technologies are currently used by NASA to fulfill all elements of the statement of work?

This is a sampling of the tools/systems:

ConcurGov

SAP

BOBJ

PowerBI

Empower Funds Control System 2 (FCS2) Reimbursable Budget Execution Tool (RBET) Property Management System

MOSI

NASA Conference Tracking System Funded Schedule Margin Tool

SPARTA

43 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, L-8

Will the Government please confirm that the 50 Page limit for (c) Basis of Estimates is the total limit of all Prime and Significant Subcontractor submissions combined?

The Government is confirming that the Basis of Estimates 50 page limitation is the total limit for the Prime and all Significant Subcontractors combined.

44 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, L19- L20

Is the reference to 2.4 ("Access to Sensitive and Proprietary Data") being a critical element of the SOW and requiring a specific technical approach narrative accurate? Or, was this a typo and meant to reference another critical element in Section 4 Scope of Work (Attachment A)?

The Government is confirming that referenced SOW Section 2.4, “Access to Sensitive and Propriety Data”, is not a typo. The requirements approach shall address the techniques and procedures that will be used to accomplish this critical element along with the other critical SOW elements listed in the RFP.

45 Attachment B – IDIQ Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices --- PDF

Does government require offeror to procure infrastructure and GFE which will be later reimbursed by government?

Would the government advise the total amount of tangible personal property that was acquired by incumbent contractor over the previous 5-years?

This purchase amount would be critical to aligning on Virginia and Local Sales Tax and management and administrative support necessary for successful execution.

Under the PAAC VI contract the Government does not requires the contractors to procure infrastructure and GFE.

46 GSFC 52.211-91

SCOPE OF WORK.

(FEB 2016)

What facilities does the incumbent contract provide and what does NASA expect offeror to provide, given staff will be on-site? What percentage of staff is expected to support off-site – whereby the vendor will be providing the infrastructure?

The work is on-site and therefore NASA will provide the space for employees that are onsite. The Government would expect that the contractors provide space for their staff managing the contract when they are working off-site.

47 Attachment D – Accountable government property

It's not clear, but can the government advise are all the accountable property listed in Attachment D – assets that contract will be managing? What portion of this inventory that contractor will be utilizing in contract performance?

All Installation-Accountable Government Property listed in Attachment D may be managed by the contractor while in their possession. This property may be used by the contractor in performance of the contract at no cost. However, its use is restricted to the physical location of the installation that provided it. Although the contractor will utilize the property, the Government will retain legal accountability for it.

48 Several labor categories nearly match SCA Wage Determination roles for Prince Georges County, MD, the U.S.

County where Goddard Space Flight Center (8800 Greenbelt Rd, Greenbelt, MD 20771) is located. Does any SCA Wage Determination apply to this procurement? If so, please provide it as an Attachment to the solicitation.

The SCA Wage Determination does not apply to this procurement.

49 There are significant differences in weighted average unburdened rates for the same labor category between GSFC/HQ and LaRC (e.g., SENIOR 2 ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST: 30.72 vs 20.12). Please clarify the reasons for this disparity and how offerors should address it.

The reason for the disparity is that the pay scales are much lower for Wallops and LaRC vs.

GSFC and NASA.

50 Final_RFP_Exhibits_1A- 1B_GPM_IDIQ.xls contains SENIOR 3 CM

SPECIALIST, JUNIOR GENERAL BUSINESS

SPECIALIST, and SENIOR 1 GENERAL BUSINESS SPECIALIST labor categories, but these are not present in Final_RFP_Enclosure_2_- _Contract_Historical_Data.pdf for WFF/LaRC. Please provide historical data for these or clarify if unavailable.

The number of WYE at WFF and LaRC are smaller than at GSFC and HQ. There may not be any WYE in those labor categories at those locations.

51 In Final_RFP_Exhibits_1A- 1B_GPM_IDIQ.xlsx, Cell B11 cites “Tab B and Tab I,” but these tabs do not exist.

Please clarify the correct reference or provide updated versions if tabs are missing.

This reference is in error and will be removed.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the updated exhibit.

52 Will the “historic” hours in the Final RFP GPM IDIQ file be used solely for evaluating proposal prices, or will they also be used to compare awarded firm performance on future task orders?

The Government is confirming they will be used solely for evaluation purposes.

53 Please confirm that the “significant subcontractor” thresholds for Cost Volume (≥20%) and Past Performance Volume (≥$10M/year or ≥10% of sub portion) are to be applied separately, and that a sub may be significant for one volume but not the other.

The Government is confirming that determination of a significant subcontractor may be different between the Cost Volume and the Past Performance Volume. Per the instructions for Past Performance in the RFP, “Note, the definition of significant subcontractor for the past performance evaluation may be different than for the cost evaluation.”

54 Please confirm the expected contract start and how soon after award the first task order is anticipated to commence.

The contract is expected to commence on August 1, 2026, with Task Orders to be issued thereafter.

55 Given the importance of offerors having adequate time to incorporate answers from the Q&A process and the complexity of the bid response, in favor of well-formed competitive responses, will NASA consider extending the proposal due date to at least two weeks after the final posting of responses to offeror questions?

Amendment 1, issued on September 18, 2025, extended the proposal due date to October 3, 2025. A second amendment will be released to allow additional time for proposal submission following the posting of responses to offerors' questions.

56 The equipment referenced in Attachment E marked as inactive, however, they are defined as still in use.

Can the Government please clarify?

The inactive column and dates listed on Attachment E are the dates that the hardware transferred to the current PAAC V contract and were placed inactive in the Goddard Equipment system. The in use column is a note that the equipment is in use and doesn’t need to be returned. The inactive column is being revised to “Transfer Effective Date” and the GFP list is being updated. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change.