NRESS III Draft RFP Amendment1 SF30.pdf

Draft Solicitation 80HQTR25R7002

Amendment 01

The revisions are as follows, with changes indicated in bold and italics:

1. Enclosure 5 - RTO 1

Period of Performance: April 15, 2027 – September 30, 2029.

2. Section L.10 – GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

(COMPETITIVE). (MAY 2022)

(a) The offeror's response to the requirements of this factor shall be submitted as a separate proposal volume.

(b) The volume shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the Mission Suitability subfactor requirements delineated in paragraph (d) below and the offeror’s approach to effectively and efficiently accomplish those requirements, including full explanations of the techniques and procedures to be employed and the resources necessary to perform as proposed. Stating the offeror understands and will comply with the requirements, or paraphrasing the requirements is not acceptable. In addition, statements such as “standard procedures will be employed,” or “well-known techniques will be used,” are not acceptable. Information may not be incorporated by reference.

(c) The offeror shall provide, at the beginning of this volume using the table provided below, a detailed compliance matrix that cross-references the offeror’s numbering structure and corresponding volume page number with all requirements associated with each subfactor delineated in paragraph (d) below. The offeror may utilize its own unique numbering structure provided the compliance matrix provides clear traceability to each of the subfactor requirements described below.

Solicitation

Mission Suitability (MS)

Volume Requirement

Solicitation

Section L

Numbering

Nomenclature

Offeror MS

Volume

Numbering

Nomenclature

Offeror MS Volume

Page Number

Subfactor A-Technical

Approach (RTO 1 & 2)

L.10 (A1 - A.2)

Subfactor B-Management

Approach

L.10 (B1 –B.9)

Subfactor C-IT

Requirement Analysis

(RTO 3)

L.10 (C.1 - C.4)

(d) The offeror shall provide a detailed response to each of the following subfactor requirements utilizing the structure and order as provided below:

Subfactor A – Technical Approach (RTO 1 & 2)

Subfactor B – Management Approach

Subfactor C – IT Requirement Analysis (RTO 3)

The paragraph numbering, formatting, and sub-paragraphs within the subfactors below should not be construed as any indication of priority, weighting or as any establishment of elements or lower-level criteria. The paragraph numbering is only provided for clarity, traceability, and ease of reading between Mission Suitability Sections L and M.

Subfactor A – Technical Approach (RTO 1 & 2)

A.1 Risk Identification and Management

The Offeror shall identify the most significant potential risks under this contract and describe the risk management techniques that will be used to manage identified risks during contract performance. Offerors shall identify the methodology to manage each identified risk associated throughout the contract performance. Risk factors may be those inherent in the work or unique to the Offeror's chosen approach. General areas of possible risk that are of concern to NASA are technical, schedule, cost, and security (including personnel, information technology). The Offeror's proposal shall include a description of each risk factor and provide the Offeror's approach to managing the risk including the probability of the risk, impact and severity, and whether the Offeror accepts the risk or how the offeror will mitigate the risk.

A.2 RTO Task Plans

The Offeror shall provide written task plans addressing representative task orders 1 and 2, included as Enclosure 5 and 6. In accordance with the Task Ordering Procedure clause in

Section I of this solicitation, each task plan shall identify the technical approach, labor categories, projected hours, Government interface, and the flow of activities from start to completion (including timeline). The plan must be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete to demonstrate a clear and full understanding of the objectives; potential technical problems, risks, and critical issues; and possible problem mitigation/resolution. Any assumptions made in preparing a response to these representative task orders shall be clearly stated.

Subfactor B – Management Approach

B.1 Overall Management Approach

The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing the proposed work.

B.2 Significant Subcontractors

The Offeror shall describe its strategy for using (or not using) significant subcontractors

(based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions). If significant subcontractors are proposed, the Offeror shall identify the interfaces between its organizational structure and the significant subcontractors. Additionally, the proposal shall describe: the nature and extent of the work to be performed by the subcontractor, including split of responsibilities and the potential percentages of work to be performed. The Offeror shall discuss its plans for addressing any performance issues on subcontracted portions of the contract.

B.3 Management Structure

The Offeror shall discuss interrelationships of technical management, business management, and subcontract management. The proposal shall include an organizational chart that identifies where this contract fits in the corporate structure. In addition, the proposal shall contain an organizational chart for this contract identifying all managerial positions by title.

The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the responsibilities and authorities for management of this contract, from lower levels through intermediate management to top-level management. The Offeror should include such elements as the span of control, degree of autonomy, and lines of communication. All interfaces with GSFC personnel and subcontractors must be clearly delineated.

B.4 Program Manager

The management plan shall contain an in-depth discussion of the independence and autonomy of the Program Manager, including the type and degree of support and resources that are under his/her direct control in the performance of this contract. In addition, the plan shall clearly address the Program Manager's access to corporate officials and essential resources/functions necessary to accomplish the work, including the Program Manager's authority to utilize and redirect subcontract and/or Joint Venture resources (if applicable).

The plan shall also describe the process and timelines to be followed by the Program

Manager in obtaining decisions beyond his/her authority and in resolving priority conflicts for resources/functions not under the Program Manager’s direct control such as personnel, finances, and facilities.

B.5 Phase-in Plan

The Offeror shall provide a detailed phase-in plan that will ensure continuity and a smooth transition with the incumbent Contractor during the 60-day phase-in period. The phase-in plan shall clearly demonstrate an ability to assume full contract responsibility on the effective date of the contract. The phase-in plan shall also specifically address how ongoing work will be transitioned, the proposed management organization, schedule, orientation and training of personnel. If the phase-in plan assumes any dependency upon the incumbent contractor, please identify. Also, specify the extent of involvement of NASA personnel during this period. The 60-day phase-in period will be accomplished through the issuance of a separate firm fixed-price contract vehicle. The proposed phase-in plan will become an attachment and contractual requirement for the separate phase-in contract.

B.6 Staffing

The Offeror shall provide a complete staffing approach that describes how the Offeror intends to staff this effort and how the approach will allow the Offeror to meet the requirements of this contract. 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 organization, and those from other sources, as well as the associated strategy for achieving each aspect of the proposed hiring plan.

Additionally, please provide any staffing reach-back to corporate resources or supplemental capabilities to minimize staffing disruptions throughout contract performance.

B.7 Task Order Management

Task orders will be issued in accordance with the Task Ordering Procedure clause and the

Supplemental Task Ordering Procedures Clause in this solicitation. The Offeror shall detail its process for responding quickly and efficiently to requests for task plans. The Offeror shall address its plan for organizing, assigning staff, tracking, and managing task orders from task initiation to completion, including configuration control, subcontracting, schedule, and cost.

The Offeror shall describe the approach for managing multiple tasks simultaneously.

B.8 Position Qualifications

Offerors shall provide written Position Qualifications for each specific labor category proposed for contract performance. 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.

Subfactor C – IT Requirements Analysis (RTO 3)

C.1 RTO 3 Staffing

The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach for implementing and staffing

RTO 3, as outlined in Enclosure 7. In accordance with the Task Ordering Procedure clause in

Section I of this solicitation, the Offeror must include a clear technical approach that addresses the specific requirements of the task order. This should encompass the identification of labor categories, projected hours, and a staffing strategy aligned with the technical approach. Additionally, the Offeror must describe the government interface and outline the flow of activities from start to completion, including a timeline. The schedule for completing the effort must include key milestones and objectives. The Offeror should also identify any facilities, equipment, and other resources necessary to successfully accomplish the task. Furthermore, the Offeror must explain any proposed efficiencies, innovative methods, techniques, or technologies, and their impact on the performance of RTO 3. Any assumptions made in preparing the response should be clearly stated. The Offeror is required to provide a chart or table showing the proposed staffing for RTO 3, organized by labor category, and identify available personnel from the prime contractor or team members, consistent with the technical approach. The Offeror must also explain how it will determine the optimal skill mix based on the RTO’s requirements and how this mix aligns with the services and functions to be performed.

C.2 RTO 3 Risks

The Offeror shall identify the most significant risks associated with RTO 3. The Offeror must address the risks related to migrating to a second-generation NSPIRES system, and it is also responsible for identifying any other risks. For each identified risk, the Offeror must provide a management approach that includes an assessment of the probability, impact, severity, and a strategy for risk acceptance or mitigation.

C.3 Managing/Migration 2nd Generation of NSPIRES

The Offeror shall describe its approach to managing the changeover and migration to a second-generation NSPIRES system, including how it will ensure ongoing compliance, service availability, and security requirements. This approach should include a plan for collaboration with external development contractors and NSPIRES stakeholders.

C.4 IT Support for Panelist

The Offeror must provide a detailed plan for using software tools and IT solutions to manage panelists, including approaches for expertise matching, recruitment, and tracking past peer-review performance.

(End of text)

3. Section L.12 - GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME. (MAR 2020)

An Offeror’s past performance record indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of performing services or delivering products similar in size and content to the requirements of this acquisition.

The Offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the following information in support of its proposal to facilitate the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance as related to the requirements of the proposed contract.

(a) INFORMATION FROM THE OFFEROR

Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $7M that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date.

Joint Venture (JV) prime Offerors should provide at least one of the past performances referenced contracts required above in the name of the JV. If the JV is newly established and cannot provide past performance referenced contracts in the name of the JV, then past performance referenced contracts from individual prime partners of the JV should be submitted for consideration, with at least one of the JV past performance references from each JV partner. For the purposes of the Past Performance Volume, a protégé prime partner proposed as part of a mentor protégé prime JV, shall follow the instructions for a significant subcontractor in this provision.

A proposed significant subcontractor for the past performance volume is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $7M.

Note, the definition of significant subcontractor for the past performance evaluation may be different than for the cost evaluation. The Offeror shall provide the information 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 estimated 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.

If a prime Offeror or significant subcontractor is submitting past performance data on a current/past contract vehicle that includes multiple tasks, orders, etc, all effort under that contract vehicle may be consolidated for the purposes of meeting the average annual cost/fee incurred in the instructions above and for the purpose of evaluating contract relevance for the proposed requirement.

The Offeror shall provide an estimated value and percentage of work to be performed on this contract by the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor. Indicate the primary functions SOW to be performed by the Prime Offeror and each proposed significant subcontractor. Indicate which contracts are most related (i.e. similar in size and content) and how they are related to the proposed effort, as well as which contracts were performed by the division of your company (if applicable) that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract.

If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past 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. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

The Offeror shall provide the following information on all past/current contract references that meet the above criteria for the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor:

• Customer's name, E-mail address, and telephone number of both the lead contractual and technical personnel most familiar with the Offeror’s performance record. (Please verify the information provided is current and correct).

• Cage Code and/or DUNS Number of the contractor performing the work.

• Contract number, type, and total original and present or final contract value.

• The current contract expenditures incurred to date, the date in which the expenditures have been incurred through, and the Average Annual Cost/Fee Incurred to Date. For example

(note, these example numbers may not relate to this specific procurement):

A current five-year contract that you are performing has a total estimated value of

$100,000,000. As of the latest cost report which reflected cost/fee through the first 2 years and 4 months of performance, the total amount of cost/fee incurred by the Offeror over the duration of the contract was $43,500,000.

In this example, an Offeror would provide the following:

Current Contract Expenditures incurred to Date: $43,500,000

Date in which Expenditures have been incurred through: Insert Date of cost report that indicated cost/fee total of $43,500,000 after 2 years and 4 months of performance.

Average Annual Cost/Fee Incurred to Date: $18,669,528 ($43,500,000/2.33 years)

• Date of contract, place(s) of performance, and delivery dates or period of performance.

• Brief description of contract work and comparability to the proposed effort. It is not sufficient to state that it is comparable in magnitude and scope. Rationale must be provided to demonstrate that it is comparable.

• Method of acquisition: competitive or noncompetitive.

• Nature of award: initial or follow-on. If initial, indicate whether award was preceded by a

Government, customer, or Offeror financed study.

• Identify and explain major technical problems and how they were overcome. List any major deviations or waivers to technical requirements that were granted by the customer.

• Identify and explain completion successes and delays, including adherence to program schedules. Provide an assessment of the performance (technical and schedule) on these past programs and support these assessments with metrics such as award or incentive fees earned.

• Cost management history; identify and explain any cost overruns and underruns, and cost incentive history, if applicable.

• Average number of personnel on the contract per year and percent turnover of personnel per year.

• Recent customer evaluations of past performance including Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms, etc. (Excluded from the page limitation).

• 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.

(Excluded from the page limitation).

(a) PRIOR CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS (PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES)

The offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) [as defined in paragraph (a)] shall provide the questionnaires provided as Enclosure 3 to each of the above references to establish a record of past performance. The Offeror shall instruct each of its references to return the questionnaire directly to the Government Contracting Officer via email. The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of your firm's performance. If possible, the Offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) shall provide questionnaires to customers from NASA contracts, other Government contracts, and commercial contracts. For proposed significant subcontractor(s), references shall concern only work performed by the subcontractor’s business entity that will perform the work under this contract, if awarded.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and submitted, via email to chanda.m.cannon@nasa.gov no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in Block 9 of the SF 33.

The Offeror shall include a list of those to whom the questionnaires were sent, including name of individual, phone number, organization, and contract number. 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.

(End of provision)

4. Section M.5 – GSFC 52.215-330 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

(SERVICES) (MAY 2018).

An offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on FAR Part 15 and the evaluation criteria in this provision. All past performance references must meet the “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria provided below for both prime contractor references and significant subcontractor references in order to be evaluated.

For purposes of past performance, the term “Offeror” refers to a prime contractor and its significant subcontractors. Accordingly, the past performance of significant(s) subcontractors shall also be evaluated and attributed to the Offeror. The past performance of a significant subcontractor will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the

Offeror. The past performance of the prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than any significant subcontractor or combination of significant subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.

A “recent” contract is a contract that is ongoing or completed less than 5 years prior to the issuance of this RFP. Contracts completed more than 5 years prior to issuance of this RFP will not be considered recent and will not be considered or evaluated.

A “relevant” contract depends on the size and content of the contract with respect to this acquisition.

For a prime contractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $7M.

A proposed significant subcontractor for this procurement is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $7M. Note, the definition of significant subcontractor for the past performance evaluation may be different than for the cost evaluation.

For a significant subcontractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally

“relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least 10% of that portion of this procurement that the subcontractor is proposed (or estimated) to perform.

If the contract is deemed recent and meets the above minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria for size, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance -i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on content. Size will not be further evaluated beyond the minimum requirement. The term “content” means the type and complexity of services, work, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The

Government may consider past quantities and periods of performance in evaluating overall relevance.

The performance evaluation will be based primarily on customer satisfaction and/or contract data in meeting technical, schedule, cost, and management requirements. Additional performance factors may include contract administration, occupational health, safety, security, subcontracting plan goals and small disadvantaged business participation targets, if applicable, and other contract requirements.

The Government may review and consider past performance information on other contracts that it is aware of or that are made available from other sources and inquiries with previous customers. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

As part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) to the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s) where the proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

Offerors proposing as a joint venture will be evaluated on the past contracts performed by the joint venture and/or its prime joint venture partners. Joint Venture mentor/protégé proposals will evaluate the protégé partner as a significant subcontractor. JV partner.

An Offeror shall not be rated favorably or unfavorably if the offeror does not have a record of

“recent” and “relevant” past performance or if a record of past performance is unavailable. In such cases the offeror will receive a “Neutral” rating. However, an offeror with favorable, recent, and relevant past performance that meets the minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures indicated above may be considered more favorably than an offeror with no relevant past performance information.

The Government will consider an Offeror’s explanation of any problems encountered on any identified contracts, and any corrective actions taken by the offeror.

The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance (see below) will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation, if applicable; written narrative; past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires; and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information.

Past Performance Ratings – The level of confidence ratings set forth below will be used to evaluate the Past Performance factor for each Offeror.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” The following adjectival rating guidelines will be used when subjectively assessing both components.

Very High Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the

Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

(End of provision)

All other terms and conditions of the draft solicitation remain unchanged.

End of Amendment 01