Questions and Answers No 2 for FRFP PAAC VI - 10-1-25.pdf

Questions and Answers #2 for Final RFP PAAC VI, 80GSFC24R0042 Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document where typed as they were submitted.

October 1, 2025

# Final RFP Reference

Comment/Question/Vendor Recommendation

Government Response

57 RFP Terms and Conditions, page L-18 and L-23

Section A.7 states: “This requirement also applies to each proposed subcontractor determined to be significant/major, in accordance with the definition for a significant/major subcontractor established in the Price or Cost Volume instructions, and which provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs).” Can the Government please confirm its intent: does a subcontractor need to meet both (1) the Cost Volume Instructions definition of a significant/major subcontractor and (2) provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or WYEs, in order to be required to submit a TCP?

Yes, per GSFC 52.215-210(A.7) this applies to each subcontractor determined to be 1) significant, in accordance with the definition for a significant/major subcontractor established in the Price or Cost Volume instructions; and 2) which provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs).

58 Final+RFP+80GS FC24R0042+Ter ms+and+Conditio ns, page L-23

For the purposes of the Cost Volume, is the 20% threshold for defining a “Significant Subcontractor” to be calculated against the Government’s total estimated contract value of $393.7M, as stated in the RFP, or the Offeror’s proposed value in Exhibit 1B?

See Amendment No.4 to the RFP.

59 Final_RFP_GPM _Exhibits_2- 10_All_IDIQ_by_ CY.xlsx (Exhibits 11A and 11B)

Exhibit 11A and 11B 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?

Exhibit 11A and 11B tabs are not titled as IAW with the Section L (15) COGNIZANT AGENCY INFORMATION. They are titled correctly: “Fringe Benefits (FB), Total Compensation Rate Build-Up Form”. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to remove Exhibit 11B.

60 Page L-31, Exhibit 6C Fringe Expense Pool

The RFP states “If more than one fringe pool is proposed, a separate Exhibit 6C shall be included for each pool. Include the rationale for multiple overhead pools. Examples of types of fringe expense pools include: Holiday, Sick, Jury Duty, Bereavement, etc.”

Can NASA please confirm that the sentence in Section L, Exhibit 6C Fringe Expense Pool “include the rationale for multiple overhead pools” is meant to actually be “include the rationale for multiple fringe rates.”

The Government is confirming that this sentence needs to be revised. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change.

61 Final RFP Exhibit 12 - Past Performance Questionnaire;

Final RFP Attachment A - Statement of Work

Elements listed on PPQ (4 SOW Survey Relevance Ratings) do not align 1:1 with SOW 4 Scope of Work. Risk Management (4.7), Special Projects (4.14), and Training (4.15) are not included. Should the PPQ be updated to match the SOW?

The Government has determined that the elements listed in the PPQ are sufficient to show if an offeror understands the work. The Government will not be including Risk Management, Special Projects or Training into the PPQ.

62 NFS clause 1852.231-71

L-33; PART IV -

REPRESENTATI

ONS AND

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L -

INSTRUCTIONS

, CONDITIONS,

AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS

OR

RESPONDENTS

L-33 (14)

FRINGE

BENEFITS

EXHIBITS (Total Compensation Plan)

QUESTION:

“1852.231-71 is marked 'reserved' on acquisition.gov;

Will NASA remove the references to this reserved NFS clause and rely on 52.222- 46 Evaluation of Compensation Reasonableness instead?”

See Amendment No.4 to the RFP.

63 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, L-25

"For labor categories for which no incumbent labor rates were provided or for those labor categories to be filled with other than incumbent labor, provide the basis for the direct labor rates proposed."

Will the Government please confirm that offerors may use the exact incumbent labor rates provided if proposing use of incumbent labor as their basis of direct labor, and will only be required to provide salary justification for labor categories for which incumbent staff are not proposed?

Offerors shall follow the instructions for the Direct And Indirect Rate Substantiation.

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

PDF

Can offeror re-produce these in MS Word for completion as these are not editable and not sufficient rows exist for LCATs?

Per instructions it states Section 5 is for ‘significant subcontractor’ - but the Attachment B doesn’t state ‘significant subcontractors’ – is Section 5 for all Subcontractors or only Significant Subcontractors?

In order to meet Section 6 requirements, the guidance in Sections L of Terms and

Yes, PDF files can be converted to MS. Word.

A response to a similar question has already been provided.

Per the instructions for Attachment B, In Section 5, the Prime Offeror shall include a fully-loaded direct labor rate matrices for each Significant Subcontractor. In Section 6, provide Position Qualifications (PQs) for all Prime Offeror proposed direct labor categories specified in Section 1 and all Significant Subcontractors’ proposed direct labor categories specified in Section 5. Please note the Prime and Significant Subcontractor(s) are to insert

Conditions has left us confused. Per the guidance prime and significant subcontractor are to insert ‘company-specific PQs’ and these shouldn’t be GPM-specific non-management DL position descriptions – which are for evaluation purposes only. Given that Offeror doesn’t have company specific PQs that meet the PAACS requirement and adopt the NASA identified PQs and map to same titles, does the offeror still need to complete Section 6 for all proposed non-management DL positions?

company-specific PQs in Section 6. These should not be the GPM-specified Non- Management DL Position Descriptions (which are provided for GPM conversion and evaluation purposes only) if the Prime and/or subcontractor(s) are proposing to utilize their own, existing company-specific direct labor category titles and PQs. However, the Prime and/or subcontractor(s) may propose direct labor category titles and PQs that match the GPM-Specified direct labor category titles and position descriptions if the Prime and/or subcontractors 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 in Exhibits 2A or 2C). In either case, the Offeror shall insert a PQ in Section 6 for each individual direct labor category listed in Sections 1 and 5.

65 Offerors are required to submit Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data pursuant to FAR 15.403-3.

Per Section L, Cost Volume requirements; “Final monetary extensions in the Cost Volume proposal should be expressed as the closest whole dollar amount, with cents omitted.” – please confirm to which fields and which exhibits is this specifically applicable? Is this applicable to the final GPM amounts? As omitting cents will make significant pricing difference to direct, fringe, overhead, G&A, and Fee amounts.

The Offeror should use its best judgment.

66 GPM Exhibits 2-

Need assistance with answering this.

Exh 2B Non-SS Offsite M&A and Exh 2D Non-SS Offsite M&A; both are asking for ‘Offsite M&A data’. Would the government check and confirm if 2B and 2D should be for Direct Bill resources? Per the instructions:

When completing this Exhibit 2B, Prime Offerors and Significant Subcontractors must specify the applicable site (onsite and offsite) and provide rates only for those labor categories specified in Exhibit 1A for the site indicated. (For instance, Prime Offerors and Significant Subcontractors should only propose a rate for the SR 3 Scheduling Specialist in the Exhibit 2A designated “Onsite” since no “Offsite” hours are specified for this position.)

Plus given Exhibits 1A-1B doesn’t identify any Direct Bill to be off-site, Management and Admin personnel is expected to be off-site. Therefore, all Prime Offerors must complete and submit Exhibit 2B, Offeror Management and Administrative Labor, for all Prime Offeror proposed management and/or administrative labor categories included in Exhibit 1A. If any Significant Subcontractor management and/or administrative labor categories are also proposed in Exhibit 1A, the respective Significant Subcontractor shall also complete and submit Exhibit 2B. The Prime Offerors' and Significant Subcontractors’ individual direct labor categories/rates and indirect rates used in Exhibit 2B must match those proposed in Attachment B DIRECT

LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES, AND

FEE MATRICES. The Fully Burdened Management and Administrative Bid Labor Rates derived in Exhibit 2B must match the Prime Offeror and/or Significant Subcontractor Fully Burdened Management and does the government want offerors to propose the off-site indirect cost? If yes, which spreadsheet and tab would the government like to see this in? We believe making copies of 2A and 2C, indicating ‘offsite’ for place of performance, while the original tabs can stay for ‘onsite’ may be a feasible approach.

Administrative Bid Labor Rates used in Exhibit 1A.

If any Non-Significant Subcontractor management and/or administrative labor categories are also proposed in Exhibit 1A, the respective Non-Significant Subcontractor shall complete and submit Exhibit 2D, Non- Significant Subcontractor Offeror Management and Administrative Labor. The Fully Burdened Management and Administrative Bid Labor Rates derived in Exhibit 2D must match the Non-Significant Subcontractor Fully Burdened Management and Administrative Bid Labor Rates used in Exhibit 1A.

For Exhibits 2B and 2D, all Offerors shall note that all Management labor categories shall be proposed using Onsite rates and all Administrative labor categories shall be proposed using Offsite rates.

67 Exhibit 2-10 6A – Overhead 6B – G&A 6C - Fringe

Given this data is for JV and there are multiple partners to the JV, how should each partner’s data be presented? Should the revenue and relevant Fringe, Overhead, G&A be combined to establish historical and future projected rates?

What if not all JV partners have gone through DCAA audit and their data is internally prepared, shouldn’t the data be limited to JV partner that has DCAA audited systems?

Would the government provide rational to use JV partners data vs. the data for a partner with DCAA approved system?

Each JV partner’s data should be presented separately, then rolled up for JV-level projections. Offerors should not just combine fringe/overhead/G&A without traceability.

JV partners without a DCAA audit must provide as much independent evidence as possible, i.e., internal audits, CPA firm reports, system descriptions, and proof of ability to segregate direct/indirect costs and exclude unallowable costs. If the JV contract structure anticipates both partners performing direct work and billing costs, the government will review each cost accounting system.

FAR 16.301-3 requires that a contractor's accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost-reimbursement contract. The Offeror shall provide evidence of an adequate accounting system as determined by the cognizant administrative office for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If an Offeror is relying on the accounting system adequacy of a Joint Venture team member, sister company, or any other affiliated company’s accounting system, they must specifically assert such an intended reliance for the performance of this contract and must demonstrate a convincing basis for using that system as a source for determining their own adequacy in this proposal volume. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion. It is a basic contract requirement with a pass/fail determination. A contract may only be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are determined to have an adequate accounting system.

Offerors who do not have an adequate accounting system determination shall provide evidence of any independent audit and system approvals as well as documented system ability to segregate and accrue costs by contract and segregate unallowable costs from allowable cots.

68 Cost Volume Pursuant to the clauses 52.215-21, 52.215-20 and 15-403-3, are offerors required to present the Cost Volume using Table 15-2 in accordance with FAR 15-408 or can offerors present the relevant information in their own format for the narrative portion?

Offerors shall follow the cost volume instructions. There is no requirement to present Cost Volume using Table 15-2 in accordance with 15-408. While the offerors proposals are not required to be cost certified, they are to be in sufficient detail to allow direct and indirect rate verification and audit of selected costs. The Cost Volume proposal should be prepared in a manner consistent with the offerors current accounting system.

69 Due to the contract value reduction from $745M to $393M and scope of work remaining the same: Will the prescribed level of effort/manhours be reduced accordingly in the cost exhibits? If not, is NASA expecting offerors to reduce LOE, or to propose to the stated hours?

The PAAC VI ceiling was increased.

Furthermore, the GMP is used for evaluation purposes only.

70 For Prime contractors with subcontractors, not with JVs, to level the Past Performance response with JV competitors, will the government provide the same weight to Prime and subcontractor Past Performance submissions?

Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in PAAC VI solicitation.

71 Are all subcontractors required to have a Secret facility security clearance at proposal submission, or only those performing classified work? Will NASA accept a DOE clearance in lieu of a DoD/NASA Secret clearance for subcontractors?

The Prime Offeror is responsible to possess and maintain a Secret level Facility Security Clearance throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall follow the instructions and requirements in the RFP. Attachment K, DD 254 is a DoD form.

Revised Responses from Questions and Answers posted on 9/29/25.

6 Final RFP

80GSFC24R0042

Terms and Conditions, Page L-8

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-8

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.

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

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.

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 12 point.