Questions and Answers for PAAC VI DRFP Final.pdf

Ques�ons and Answers for DRFP PAAC VI, 80GSFC24R0042 Note: The ques�ons/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submited.

May 2, 2025

# DRFP Reference Comment/Ques�on/Vendor Recommenda�on

Government Response

1 Are you able to share with me the incumbent for the subject procurement? Also, how do I get the link to the list of businesses that are currently doing business with the NASA?

Yes, the incumbent is ASRC Federal System Solu�ons, LLC. Majority of the contractors that have awarded contracts with GSFC and Agencywide are on the Agency Acquisi�on Forecast (hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/forecast/NAF.html/) under the sec�on en�tled, “Award/Incumbent”.

2 Amendment 1 of the DRFP removed items B.4 Program Manager and B.7 Task Order Management from Sec�on L.

However, the corresponding evalua�on factors remain in Sec�on M. Please confirm that those evalua�on factors should be deleted from Sec�on M.

These dele�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

3 Given that offerors must address 7 SOW areas under A.1, significant poten�al risks and their management/mi�ga�on under A.2, a comprehensive Scenario under A.3, and 7 management factors under B.1 through B.7, it seems like a 50 page limita�on for Mission Suitability is insufficient to fully demonstrate offeror capabili�es and approach to accomplish the work. Would the Government consider increasing the page limit to 60 pages?

The Government believes the 50 page limita�on is sufficient and therefore will be unchanged.

4 To address the Scenario, offerors must iden�fy and describe the requirements to be supported by the PAAC VI contract. However, the Scenario descrip�on is insufficient to determine if those requirements should be limited to PAAC VI func�ons required to support the project in addressing the bulleted list of findings from the SRB’s evalua�on of readiness in

Offeror should address PAAC VI func�ons necessary to support a successful IBR and KDP-C.

prepara�on for the IBR and KDP-C, or the requirements to be addressed should cover the much broader set of func�ons required for project success.

Please clarify the scope of requirement #1 under the Scenario.

5 The Scenario does not provide a period of performance for the work. Based on the RFP, the period of performance for the PAAC VI contract is expected to be 5/1/2026 thru 4/30/2031, while the Scenario indicates Mission XYZ is in Phase-B at a point requiring ac�ons to address findings in prepara�on for IBR and KDP-C with an an�cipated launch in February 2035. Given that the PAAC VI contract is expected to end nearly 4 years before launch, can iden�fy what project life cycle phases are expected to be addressed as part of the Scenario? That informa�on is important in determining what requirements PAAC VI has to support.

Assume the date for KDP-C is December 2026.

6 PROSPECTIVE

CONTRACTOR

RESPONSIBILITY AND

ELIGIBILITY

STANDARDS (OCT

2021) (b)(2)

The RFP states “CO: List all eligibility standards, if applicable. Example: ISO 9001 Cer�fied”.

Where should this informa�on be included in the proposal ?

The clause will be revised in the final RFP to remove this statement.

7 Sec�on L Amendment 1 of the DRFP removed items B.4 Program Manager and B.7 Task Order Management from Sec�on L.

However, the corresponding evalua�on factors remain in Sec�on M.

Please confirm that those evalua�on factors should be deleted from Sec�on M.

These dele�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

8 Sec�on L Given that offerors must address 7 SOW areas under A.1, significant poten�al risks and their management/mi�ga�on under

The Government believes the 50 page limita�on is sufficient and therefore will be unchanged.

A.2, a comprehensive Scenario under A.3, and 7 management factors under B.1 through B.7, it seems like a 50-page limita�on for Mission Suitability is insufficient to fully demonstrate offeror capabili�es and approach to accomplish the work.

Would the Government consider increasing the page limit to 75 pages?

9 Sec�on L The Scenario does not provide a period of performance for the work. Based on the RFP, the period of performance for the PAAC VI contract is expected to be 5/1/2026 thru 4/30/2031, while the Scenario indicates Mission XYZ is in Phase-B at a point requiring ac�ons to address findings in prepara�on for IBR and KDP-C with an an�cipated launch in February 2035.

Given that the PAAC VI contract is expected to end nearly 4 years before launch, would the Government please clarify the Scenario period of performance?

Assume the date for KDP-C is December 2026.

10 Enclosure 1 The Posi�on Descrip�on (PD) for the Associate I labor category (LC) is the same as the PD for the Associate II labor category (LC). We believe this in error.

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

11 Enclosure 1 Could the Government please modify one of the PDs, so they are not the same?

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

12 Enclosure 1 The “Years of Experience Required” for the Senior Associate III LC is less than the “Years of Experience Required” for the Senior Associate I LC. We believe this is in error.

Could the Government please address this?

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

13 Enclosure 1 There are GPM Hours and PDs for the Senior Associate I and Senior Associate III LCs, but

There are currently no Senior Associate II’s on the contract.

there is no Senior Associate II LC (GPM hours or PD).

Would the Government consider adding a PD for a Senior Associate II LC so that the successful Offeror would have an appropriate LC to move a Senior Associate I into once he/she achieves the required years of experience without having to wait un�l achieving the years of experience required for the Senior Associate III?

14 Enclosure 1 The “Years Experience” requirement for the Senior Associate I, Senior Associate III, Associate I, and Associate II LCs, include the following text:

“Advanced Degree or cer�fica�on may be subs�tuted for 1 year of experience”.

Would the Government consider changing it to read:

“an appropriate cer�fica�on may be subs�tuted for 1-year of experience”. The “Advanced Degree” text is not appropriate since a bachelor’s degree would represent the required “Years Experience” for each of those LCs per earlier language in their stated “Years Experience” requirement.

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

15 Enclosure 1 The GPM has hours specified for a Project Execu�on Support III LC, but there is no PD for that LC.

Would the Government add a PD for Project Execu�on Support III?

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

16 Enclosure 1 The GPM has hours specified (in the sec�on for “@ WFF and LaRC”) for a Low CM Specialist LC, but there is no PD for that LC. Would the Government add a PD for Low CM Specialist?

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

17 Enclosure 1 The “Years Experience” requirement for the Project Execu�on Lead III, Project

Correc�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

Execu�on Senior Specialist I, Project Execu�on Senior Specialist II, and Project Execu�on Senior Specialist III LCs includes specific years of required “years of consul�ng”.

Should these required “years of consul�ng” be in addi�on to non-consul�ng years of experience? If so, what would the “non-consul�ng years of experience” requirement be?

18 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms & Condi�ons , GSFC

52.215-210 MISSION

SUITABILITY

PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS

(COMPETITIVE). (MAY

2022), A.1 Requirements Approach

Can the Government confirm the SOW references below are the sec�ons for the requirements approach?

Access to Sensi�ve and Proprietary Data (SOW 2.4) Filling Role of Coordinator/Facilitator/Advisor for IBRs (SOW 4.4.2) CMS Compliance (SOW 4.6.2) Support in the Func�onal Area of Risk Management (RM) Adhering to Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements and Center Risk Management Guidelines

(SOW 4.7.1)

Prepare Planning, Programming, Budge�ng, and Execu�on (PPBE) Submissions and Phasing Plans at the WBS or Funded Program Level (SOW 4.8.3) Analyze and Quan�fy Cost and Schedule Risks and Uncertain�es for Ongoing Mission Projects (SOW 4.9.6) Property Management (SOW 4.10.11)

Revisions to the SOW critical areas will be revised in the final RFP to: “Statement of Work critical elements include: 2.4, 4.4.6, 4.6.7, 4.7.2, 4.8.3, and 4.9.6”

19 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms & Condi�ons, Sec�on L No�ce of Poten�al Organiza�onal Conflict of Interest (L- 4 – L-5)

The dra� RFP states, “Offerors are required to submit an acceptable OCI Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Data Requirements Descrip�on (Atachment J) and the OCI Avoidance Plan (Atachment H).”

Can the customer confirm that the OCI Avoidance Plan should

Please include the OCI Plan under the Offer Volume I.

be incorporated as part of Volume I Offer Volume?

20 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms & Condi�ons, Sec�on L (L-20)

The dra� RFP states, “The staffing approach shall include a comprehensive hiring plan which presents the expected number of personnel to be hired from incumbents, those to be transferred from within the Offeror’s own organiza�on, and those from other sources, as well as the associated strategy for achieving each aspect of the proposed hiring plan.”

Can the customer provide the average number of vacancies so we can tailor our response to this requirement?

The average number of vacancies is not readily available; instead the final RFP will be revised to request that offeror hiring plan presents the percentage of personnel to be hired from the incumbent.

21 DRFP

& Condi�ons, Sec�on L (L-34)

Sec�on (a) Informa�on from the Offeror states, “Prime Offerors shall furnish the informa�on requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $10M that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date.”

The customer notes to provide “all of your most recent contracts”. Does the customer truly mean ‘ALL” contracts?

Providing ‘all’ contracts could decrease the amount of space available for efforts that are most applicable to this effort.

Would the Government consider establishing a maximum number of contracts to allow for adequate space to describe relevant contracts?

Yes, we mean “All”; however, the expecta�on is for offerors to provide all contracts that the offeror considers to be relevant to the PAAC VI requirements;

Please review the Past Performance criteria outlined in the RFP that the Offeror deems relevant.

22 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms & Condi�ons, Sec�on L (L-34)

Sec�on (a) Informa�on from the Offeror states, “A proposed significant subcontractor for the past performance volume is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is es�mated

Revision to the final RFP will reflect that the past performance average annual cost/fee for a significant subcontractor is $10M.

to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $25M.

Note, the defini�on of significant subcontractor for the past performance evalua�on may be different than for the cost evalua�on.

The Offeror shall provide the informa�on 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 es�mated average annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract.

For example (note, these example numbers may not relate to this specific procurement), if a procurement is valued at an average annual value of $50M and a proposed significant subcontractor for the effort has a proposed average annual cost/fee of $16M, the Offeror shall provide relevant current/past contract references that have a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred at/above $1.6M (10% of $16M) for that significant subcontractor.”

Taking into account contract growth while increasing compe��on for the solicita�on, and for ease of procurement evalua�on, will the government approve the requirement for a major subcontractor for past performance be adjusted to $8M average annual value of the proposed contract value?

23 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms

The dra� RFP notes, “If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past

If an affiliated company's past performance is u�lized, they don’t need to be a proposed subcontractor.

Refer to GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume

& Condi�ons, Sec�on L (L-35) 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.”

Can the customer confirm that if affiliate past performance is u�lized, they must be a proposed subcontractor? Also does that mean significant subcontractor?

Historically, bidding en��es opera�ng within an Alaskan-na�ve or tribally-owned corporate structure that includes Parent Company/Affiliate/Subsidiary may submit relevant past performance and corporate experience of an affiliate/subsidiary and have it considered in past performance evalua�on and source selec�on processes. As Supported by GAO decision File B-418486; B-418486.2; B-

418486.3 which concluded "An agency properly may atribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect the performance of the offeror.”

Addi�onally, this aligns with the Sec�on 865 of H.R. 2670:

Na�onal Defense Authoriza�on Act for Fiscal Year 2024 future amended.

(FEB 2025) for the meaning of what a significant subcontractor is regarding past performance.

24 DRFP

& Condi�ons, Sec�on M (M-4)

The dra� RFP notes, “(b) In accordance with NFS 1815.304-70(b)(1), subfactors will be numerically weighted and scored in accordance with the 1,000-point scale provided below. Subfactor Points Subfactor A: Understanding the Key Technical Requirements 400 Subfactor B:

Management Approach 600 Total 1,000.”

Can the customer provide a breakdown of the scoring for each element that makes up Subfactor A and Subfactor B?

Could the Government provide the Government’s scoring matrix for how points are earned/garnered?

Below the table on page M-4 states how the scoring is assessed, which is:

(c) In accordance with FAR 15.001, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies will be assessed based on the following definitions:

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Additionally, strengths and significant strengths will be assessed based on the following definitions:

Strength is an aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Significant strength is some aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

(d) The Government will assign adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each subfactor using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges set forth at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).

(e) The Government will establish a total Mission Suitability factor numerical score by adding all of the subfactor points assessed. A summary adjectival rating will not be assigned for this factor.

25 DRFP

& Condi�ons, Sec�on L (L-21)

Within the Mission Suitability Volume, the requirement for the TCP states, “The proposed TCP informa�on shall be included in the offeror’s Price or Cost Volume and the subcontractor’s Price or Cost volume, if applicable. Offerors and subcontractors shall ensure the informa�on provided in the TCP is consistent with the data provided in the respec�ve Price or Cost Volume (i.e., Government Pricing Model [GPM]). Offerors shall also ensure the proposed TCP(s) is consistent with other informa�on contained

The Offeror's proposed TCP data is requested within the Cost/Price Volume Exhibits to simplify the offeror's prepara�on of proposal package. However, TCP informa�on is evaluated under Mission Suitability. TCP requirements are detailed in Mission suitability volume. The Offeror's TCP narra�ve shall be included in Mission Suitability, while detailed cost informa�on is to be included in the Cost/Price Submission.

elsewhere in the offeror’s proposal.”

Please clarify whether offerors should provide their TCPs in the Mission Suitability Volume or the Cost Volume, or both.

26 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms & Condi�ons, Sec�on M (M-3)

Evalua�on Criteria for Program Manager Approach, and Task Order Management are s�ll reflected. Please update evalua�on criteria.

These dele�ons will be reflected in the final RFP.

27 Atachment B - IDIQ Cost-Type Rate Matrix--All IDIQ Contract (pg. 5)

Are Prime contractors allowed to include pass through cost (e.g. Material Handling rate) on top of the Subcontractor Fully Burdened rates? If so, these rates will be higher than that provided by the significant subcontract within their Cost Volume. Please clarify

Offerors applica�on of its Indirect Rates and/or its Cost Es�ma�ng Rela�onship shall adhere to the Offeror cost accoun�ng prac�ces and procedures.

The Offeror shall use the PAAC VI Cost Exhibits to provide detailed explana�ons of the basis of applica�on of the Offeror proposed Indirect Rates and/or Cost Es�ma�ng Rela�onships.

28 Atachment B - IDIQ Cost-Type Rate Matrix--All IDIQ Contract (pg. 5)

Are Prime contractors instructed to provide a

“SUBCONTRACTOR FULLY-

LOADED LABOR RATE MATRIX”

for EACH significant subcontractor?

Yes, for significant subcontractors only.

29 DRFP

80GSFC24R0042Terms & Condi�ons, Sec�on L (L-25)

Within the Cost Volume, the requirement for the atachment B states, “The direct labor and indirect rates and fee percentages included in Atachment B are "not to exceed" bid rates. (Note: this “not to exceed” designa�on does not apply to the reimbursement of actual costs in task performance, but only to the pricing of task es�mates and the nego�a�on of task values). During contract performance, Offerors will be permited to offer costs for task orders to be placed at lower rates/fees than are listed in these matrices…” Please clarify whether offerors will be reimbursed for actual cost that exceed the bid rates in task order execu�on.

Atachment B is for Bid/Task Pricing only. The Government will reimburse the allowable, allocable, and reasonable cost associated with the actual cost of performance for each individual task order.

30 With respect to leveling the playing field between JV and non-JV Primes/Offerors, will

The Government believes the past performance factor is sufficient and therefore will be unchanged.

the government consider equalizing the weight of Past Performance (PP) for Primes and their subcontract partners?

31 SOW Sec�on 4.7 (Risk Management):

It may help to provide clearer expecta�ons on what “many avenues” for analysis and assessment of risk entails if the expected Risk Management methodologies and frameworks are specified.

SOW Sec�on 4.7.2 describes that risks can show up in many different places that may have been overlooked previously.

32 SOW Section 4.14 (Special Projects)

Providing examples of what cons�tutes a “Special Project” would aid the contractor in ensuring appropriate support when required.

This would be an event, special team or review that was unknown at the �me, but all work would fall within the SOW capabili�es. It is expected that this would be of a shorter dura�on than a normal task.

33 Amendment 1 – Sec�on L; Subfactor B

– Management Approach B.6 Posi�on Qualifica�ons

Within Sec�on B.6 of Subfactor B, the RFP states, “For purposes of the Mission Suitability factor evalua�on, Offerors shall address the minimum requirements of the Posi�on Qualifica�ons, to include necessary experience, summary of du�es and responsibili�es, specific requirements/licensing, minimum educa�on and/or experience required for the posi�on.”

Within the Cost Volume Requirements, the RFP also states, “In Sec�on 6, provide Posi�on Qualifica�ons (PQs) for all Prime Offeror proposed direct labor categories specified in Sec�on 1 and all Significant Subcontractors’ proposed direct labor categories specified in Sec�on

5. Please note the Prime and Significant Subcontractor(s) are to insert company-specific PQs in Sec�on 6.”

Will the Government please confirm that a response is not required to the Subfactor B, Sec�on B.6 requirements since the Posi�on Qualifica�ons will

The Posi�on Qualifica�ons in Atachment B will be incorporated into the contract once the requirement is awarded. The Posi�on Qualifica�ons in Sec�on B.6 of Subfactor B is for evalua�on purposes. Therefore, Offeror’s shall provide posi�on descrip�ons in both B.6 and Atachment B.

be provided within Atachment B of the Cost Volume?

34 Amendment 1 – DRD- 001 and Atachment H OCI Plan OCI Plan

Historically, our experience is that the OCI Plan is expected to mirror the DRD Contents, in this case items 1 – 14 in Sec�on 11 of the DRD.

Atachment H however appears to show the desired outline for the OCI Plan.

Notwithstanding Sec�on 11 of the DRD-001 OCI Plan is it the governments intent that the submited OCI Plan is to follow the Atachment H outline and not follow the DRD Contents sec�on?

Atachment H is a template on how to outline the OCI Plan but the offeror’s must adhere to DRD-001 when crea�ng the plan.

35 Amendment 1 – Sec�on L; Volume II – Mission Suitability Mission Suitability Response Organiza�on

The dra� RFP Mission Suitability volume is organized with Subfactor A Technical Approach followed by Subfactor B Management Approach. There are elements in the Technical Approach, such as the scenario, that rely on the offerors unique approach that is presented in the Management Approach Sec�on, such as the organiza�onal structure. As organized the offeror will require page count in the Technical Approach to help the evaluator perform their review without referencing them to a sec�on later in the proposal they have not reviewed. Would the Government consider reorganizing the MS outline with the Management Approach as Subfactor A and Technical Approach as Subfactor B that will allow the offeror to present the overall management approach prior to presen�ng their technical approach?

In the final RFP, the Government will reorganize Mission Suitability. Subfactor A will be Management Approach and Subfactor B will be Technical Approach.

36 Amendment 1 – Sec�on L; Volume II – Mission Suitability Past Performance Vol

Under Sec�on (a) Informa�on from the Offeror, it states, “…a protégé prime partner proposed as part of a mentor protégé prime JV, shall follow

In the context of the Federal Acquisi�on Regula�on (FAR), a protégé, within the framework of the Small Business Administra�on (SBA)'s Mentor-Protégé Program, is considered a subcontractor, not a cons�tuent.

the instruc�ons for a significant subcontractor in this provision.” Please confirm that the protégé is cons�tuent to the Prime Offeror and not a significant subcontractor for the purposes of providing “an es�mated value and percentage of work to be performed” in the last paragraph of page L-34.

37 GSFC 52.215-223

COST VOLUME

INSTRUCTIONS. (JUL

2020) (a) instruc�ons, page L-24

In reference to the cited paragraph from Page L-24 pasted below, Can the government confirm whether Non-Significant Subcontractors are required to provide a Suppor�ng Cost Narra�ve or do Cost Exhibits 2C, 2D, 10A & 10B cover the Cost/Price requirement for non-significant subcontractors?

Page L-24 "In order to establish the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs, and the extent to which costs reflect performance addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume proposal, each Offeror, including proposed significant and non-significant subcontractors, shall submit the required other than cer�fied cost or pricing data (exhibits and suppor�ng narra�ve) set forth in this provision. These data requirements differ by prime offeror, significant subcontractors, and non-significant subcontractors, as indicated in Sec�on (b) below.

The government has revised the wording in the final RFP, dis�nguishing requirements between significant subcontractors and non-significant contractors.

38 GSFC 52.215-201

PROPOSAL

PREPARATION -

GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS. (APR

2022) (b) (1) page L-8, GSFC 52.215-210

MISSION SUITABILITY

In reference to Page L-8 (b)

PROPOSAL CONTENT AND

PAGE LIMITATIONS where the Total Compensation Plan is listed in the table to be included as a part of the Volume II Mission Suitability and from L-20-21 and L-33 (pasted below), where the

The Offeror's proposed TCP data is requested within the Cost/Price Volume Exhibits to simplify the offeror's prepara�on of proposal package. However, TCP informa�on is evaluated under Mission Suitability. TCP requirements are detailed in Mission suitability volume. The Offeror's TCP narra�ve shall be included in Mission Suitability, while detailed cost informa�on is to be included in the Cost/Price Submission.

PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS

(COMPETITIVE). (MAY

2022) (d) B.7, page L- 20 & 21

GSFC 52.215-223

COST VOLUME

INSTRUCTIONS. (JUL

2020) (b) (14) page L-

Total Compensation Plan is required to be included in Volume III Cost Volume;

Can the government confirm whether the Total Compensation Plan Narrative and Exhibit 11A is to be submitted in the offeror’s Volume II Mission Suitability or Volume III Cost?

From Mission Suitability - Page L-20 and 21 "The proposed TCP information shall be included in the offeror’s Price or Cost Volume and the subcontractor’s Price or Cost volume, if applicable. Offerors and subcontractors shall ensure the information provided in the TCP is consistent with the data provided in the respective Price or Cost Volume (i.e., Government Pricing Model [GPM]). Offerors shall also ensure the proposed TCP(s) is consistent with other information contained elsewhere in the offeror’s proposal.

From Cost - Page L-33 (14)

FRINGE BENEFITS EXHIBITS

(Total Compensation Plan) “As addressed in the Mission Suitability Volume Instructions provision Subfactor B, the Offeror and all Significant and Non-Significant service subcontractors meeting the definition in ,paragraph (d) of NFS provision 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, shall provide a detailed list of their fringe benefits and company estimated cost per hour, along with an itemization of the benefits that require employee contributions and the amount of that contribution as a percentage of the total cost of the benefits. 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.”