RFP 80HQTR20R0016 Q and A Set 2.pdf

U.S. Global Change Research Support Program National Coordination Office Support Services Solicitation 80HQTR20R0016

Set 2 RFP Questions and Responses

Question 1:

Exhibit 16, Technical Scenario: The Technical Scenario uses the phrase “and/or” in multiple locations in relation to support for the national and international assessment processes. In our budgeting, should we assume that support for both a national assessment and an international assessment should be provided? And should we use our best judgment in describing the full set of costs for both assessment processes, where those cost types may not be explicitly described in the Technical Scenario?

Question 1 Response:

The Government revised the Technical Scenario to provide more clarification for the proposed technical approach. Offerors are not required to price the technical scenario. In accordance with M.4 GSFC 52.215-324, only the total FFP Phase-in price and the proposed and probable Core cost assessment will be presented to the Source Selection Authority, as well as any cost risk associated with the proposal.

Question 2:

L.22.b.2 (page 95). 2. Work Breakdown Structure. Can the government please confirm that respondents provide WBS pricing only for the Core Requirement.

Question 2 Response:

In accordance with the RFP L.22(b)(1), “The Government does not intend to issue a separate task order for overall contract program management. Accordingly, in accordance with the Offeror’s current accounting system, clearly indicate how program management costs will be captured and charged on a task-by-task basis under the IDIQ portion of this contract.”

Question 3:

SOW – Overall. Can the government provide representative deliverables or work products for each SOW area?

Question 3 Response:

In accordance with SOW Attachment A Section 3 under Core Services, provides the deliverables and work products.

Question 4:

SOW – Overall. Can the government please provide the level of expectation at the IDIQ level itself (not including the expectations at each of the Core-SOW levels)? This may include, but not be limited to, scope, work products, deliverables, and other recurring activities to occur at the IDIQ level itself.

Question 4 Response:

In accordance with RFP Attachment A, Section 3. describes the IDIQ requirements to allow the Government to issue specific Task Orders related to USGCRP NCO support services outside of the daily core services.

Question 5:

SOW – 7. Can the government provide a representative list of IT requirements (i.e., the platforms, systems, applications used)?

Question 5 Response:

Representative IT platforms, systems, and applications are: laptops for all contractor personnel, Microsoft, Adobe Pro, Communications (e.g., BlueJeans, Webex), and Webdesign software. Hardware includes both PC and MAC OS as applicable.

Question 6:

Attachment 4. Sections L-M, L.21. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) contained in Attachment A of this solicitation shall be used to structure the Mission Suitability information within each area, consistent with the instructions for each area (e.g., if the instruction requires that only a subset of WBS elements be addressed, Offerors should not address the entire set of WBS elements in its response).” Can the government clarify what it is expecting for the WBS? There is no mention of WBS in Attachment A.

Question 6 Response:

The revised section L.21, removed “The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is contained” from paragraph.

Question 7:

Section L.21. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is said to be contained in Attachment A.

Can you please clarify that, of the items referred to in Attachment A, Items 1-6 are aligned with the Management Approach, and Item 7 is aligned with the Technical Approach? We do not see any reference in Attachment A that describes it as the WBS referred to in L.21.

Question 7 Response:

In accordance with the RFP Section L.21 (c)(B.1) under Management Approach, “The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing all aspects of the SOW.” The Government did not specify a WBS but provided the SOW as a basis to develop the WBS. In accordance with the RFP L.21 (c) (A.4) under Technical Approach, A.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach for the USGCRP’s IT requirements (SOW Section 7.0)…

Question 8:

NASA’s response to Question 48 indicates that the contractor’s response to the technical scenario should include “appropriate cost information.” However, it is unclear what cost information should be provided. Should we assume that these costs are included within the

$8 million IDIQ plug value? If no, what additional cost details should be provided?

Question 8 Response: Amendment 3 revised section L.21(c)(A.4) to remove the supplemental task order procedure clause. Offerors are not required to price out the Exhibit 16 Technical Scenario.

Question 9:

Does NASA intend to send the secure Large File Transfer (LFT) invitation and the link for

Accellion Applet on or before COB Monday, September 28, 2020?

Question 9 Response: Due to revised proposal due date extensions, the Government will release LFT invitations upon request, no earlier than five (5) days before the proposal due date. Amendment 3 revised the due date to October 9, 2020.

Question 10:

Neither the labor categories nor the position descriptions in the Contract Historical Data align with the smaller set of position descriptions in Attachment E. Therefore, if offerors are to retain the existing staffing, it will be challenging to assign many of the existing positions to the position descriptions in Attachment E. To ensure that all offerors assign the same positions to the same slots in Attachment E and to allow NASA to more easily assess the reasonableness and cost realism of all bids, may offerors use the labor categories and position descriptions provided in the Contract Historical Data?

Question 10 Response: Offerors shall propose a staffing plan that aligns with Attachment E and the Contract Historical Data. Please include the rationale for any deviation to the solicitation in accordance with L.19(b), “…the information requested in Section L. Include the reason for the exception, new terms, conditions, and/or clauses, including any proposed benefit to the Government. This list must include all exception(s), deviation(s) and/or conditional assumptions taken.”

Question 11:

If NASA wishes to use Attachment E and retain the present staffing profile, offerors will need to take considerable liberties in assigning multiple staff to the relatively narrow Attachment E position description definitions. Alternatively, should offerors assume that NASA wishes to change the mix and reduce the size of the NCO staffing due to the differences in position descriptions between Attachment E and the Contract Historical Data?

We note also that restricting offerors to the limited position descriptions in Attachment E would severely restrict the future contractor’s ability to adequately respond to IDIQ task orders.

Question 11 Response:

See Government’s response to question 10.