NRESS III 80HQTR26R0002 Questions and Answers 1-164.pdf

NRESS III 80HQTR26R0002 Questions and Answers 1-164

# RFP REFERENCE QUESTIONS ANSWERS

1 RFP, Section L, L.8 Offer Volume, (8)

Information System Security Plan (pg. 43) It appears that Section (8) is listed as part of the Offer volume, meaning both an ISSP and a C-SCRM are due with proposal submission. However, the verbiage with the ISSP includes, “at the start of phase-in.” This is very confusing, and we are unclear when the two plans of (8) are to be submitted. When is the ISSP due?

When is the C-SCRM? At proposal submission (30 January 2026) or at Contract Phase-In? Or at another time? Please provide the date.

RFP Section L.8 (Offeror Volume), Section 8, requires offerors to submit both the Information System Security Plan (ISSP) and the Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) plan with the proposal by the proposal due. Although Attachment K (Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources DRD) references submission of the ISSP and C-SCRM “at the start of Phase-In,” submission of both documents with the proposal satisfies this requirement.

2 Enclosure 1-Contract Historical Data- Incumbent; Enclosure 3-GPM Labor Hours and PDs

There appears to be a significant difference in the GPM hours shown in Enclosure 3 with that of the estimated historical WYE in Enclosure 1. Should the hours in the GPM reflect the historical WYE, since SOW requirements have not changed?

The information presented in Enclosure 3 is correct.

3 RFP, Sections L.11(a) & L.11(14) In regards to non-significant subcontractors requirements for the Cost Volume, L.11(a) states: "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. However, Non-Significant Subcontractors may submit Exhibits 2C, 2D, 10A and 10B, if deemed proprietary cost data, under separate cover directly to the Government no later than the date and time specified in the instructions for receipt of proposals for this RFP."

and "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, may be requested to submit the required other than certified cost or pricing data (exhibits and supporting narrative) set forth in this provision. These data requirements differ by prime offeror, significant subcontractors, and non-significant subcontractors, as indicated in Section (b) below."

and In regards to L.11(14) as copied in part "Two exhibits shall be submitted, in Exhibits 10A containing the average of fringe benefit information for all the exempt labor categories, and Exhibit 10B containing the average of fringe benefit information for all the nonexempt labor categories. These exhibits fulfill the Total Compensation Plan requirement under FAR provision 52.222-46 for Non-Significant Subcontractors."

Can the Government confirm that Non-Significant Subcontractors are required to provide Cost Exhibits 2C, 2D, 10A and 10B and are not required to provide a Supporting Cost Narrative or Total Compensation Plan Narrative?

Non-Significant Subcontractor ARE required to provide Cost Exhibits 2C, 2D 10A and 10B. In accordance with RFP Provision L.11 (14), these exhibits fulfill the Total Compensation Plan requirement under FAR provision 52.222-46 for Non-Significant Subcontractors.

4 Enclosure 3-GPM Labor Hours and PDs;

Exhibit 1A-1B All IDIQ Std by CY;

NRESS III RFP 80HQTR26R0002

Enclosure 3 provides hours for 6 months following CY 5 as well as ODC costs for CY 6 provided in RFP Cost instructions to be included in Exhibit 1B. However, Exhibit 1B does not provide a column for CY 6 or the 6 Months. Where should offerors include the ODC costs and GPM hours for CY6?

The labor hours shown in Enclosure 3 for the six-month period following CY5 are provided solely for contingency purposes in the event the Government elects to exercise FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Offerors are not required to include GPM hours for this six-month period in Exhibit 1B. The Government is not requesting ODC costs for CY6, and therefore ODCs for CY6 should not be included in Exhibit 1B. However, offerors shall propose indirect rates applicable to CY6 in Attachment B – IDIQ Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices, as instructed.

No additional pricing entries for CY6 or the six-month extension period are required elsewhere in the proposal.

5 RFP, Section M.4 Section M does not include evaluation criteria for the ODC Costs or GPM hours for CY6. Can the Government provide clarification on evaluation of these costs?

The government intends to evaluate the indirect rates proposed by offerors in Exhibit 5 for CY1-CY6 for reasonableness and cost realism. The NRESS III RFP provides instructions for Exhibit 5 within provision L.10 Cost Volume Instructions (b)(5) Indirect Rate Expense Pool. Provision M.4 Cost Evaluation Factor states "Cost realism will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404- 19d at the overall proposed cost/price level. The Government will conduct a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating the Offeror's proposed cost/price, by element, to determine whether the estimated proposed cost/price are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the Offeror's technical proposal...."

6 RFP, Section B.1 Item 13; L.7 (b)(1);

L.9(d)

The RFP contains conflicting information regarding submission of the OCI Avoidance Plan. The table in Section B (item 13) states the plan is due 30 days after contract effective date. However, L.7(b)(1) and L.9(d) both state the plan shall be submitted with proposals. Please confirm the OCI Avoidance Plan is due with proposals and update Item 13 in Section B to state "Submit with proposal" in the Schedule Column.

The OCI plan should be submitted with the proposal. Item 13 has been updated to reflect the above.

7 RFP, Section L.7 (a)(3); L.9(d) L.9(d) it states, "the proposed OCI Plan is not page limited and shall be included as a separate proposal attachment. L.7(a)(3) states, "Each proposal volume shall be submitted in a single searchable Adobe Portable document Format (PDF) file..." Please confirm the OCI Plan should be included within the Offer Volume.

As instructed in RFP Provision L.7(b)(1), the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan shall be submitted within the Offeror Volume as a separate document. The OCI Plan is not subject to a page limitation.

8 Enclosure 1-Contract Historical Data- Incumbent; Enclosure 3-GPM Labor Hours and PDs

Enclosure 1 includes FTEs for the Business Manager, IT Operations Manager & Supervisor, Logistics Manager, Office Manager, Program Manager, Project Manager labor categories. These labor categories do not have direct labor hours within Enclosure 3. These labor categories are necessary to support SOW 3.0 Program Management. Will the Government update the GPM to include these missing positions?

Enclosure 3 is designated for non-management labor categories only. The Government will not update the GPM or Enclosure 3 to include the management labor categories identified.

9 RFP, Section L.7(b)(2) May bidders use a smaller but still readable font (i.e., TNR 9pt) for page headers and footers? As stated in RFP Provision L.7(b)(1), Proposal Content and Page Limitations, the proposal font shall be no smaller than 12-point Times New Roman. This requirement applies to the entire proposal, including page headers and footers.

10 RFP, Section L.14 Outside of the aforementioned files that must be provided in their native format (signature pages, prior award fee letters for past performance, DCAA/DCMA approval letters), can Government provided documents (e.g., signed SF 33) or other official company documents, policies, and signed letters from the offeror that are included in the proposal be provided in their original format, (i.e., original fonts and sizes, margins)?

Government-provided documents (e.g., signed SF 33) and other official company documents, policies, and signed letters included in the proposal may be submitted in their original format (including original fonts, sizes, and margins), provided they are among the documents identified as acceptable for submission in native or original form.

11 RFP, Section L.12(c) L.12(c) states the Government requires that the offeror provide past performance questionnaires (PPQ) from "...a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting Officer...". Will the Government consider requiring a PPQ from either the technical representative or CO to reduce the burden on Government personnel?

The questionnaire respondent may be either a representative from the technical customer or the responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of the Offeror's performance, or a coordinated response between both parties.

12 RFP, Section L.12(c) Because the Government is requiring the submission of "recent customer evaluations", if the offeror submits the latest CPAR for a contract, will the government accept the CPAR in lieu of a PPQ?

No, the Government requires the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to be completed in full, as it contains additional information beyond what is included in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). However, the Contracting Officer will review CPARS as supplementary documentation during the past performance evaluation.

13 Attachment A-SOW, Section 4.1.D.vii On page 18, it states under responsibilities of the peer review administrator: "(1) supporting the selection of a panel chair (Civil Servant)". The parentheses was not in the draft. Does the inclusion of civil servant in parentheses restrict the role of a panel chair to only a civil servant?

Yes. The panel chair is required to be a civil servant.

14 Enclosure 5 - RTO 1 Does the acronym "SC" in the 6th and 7th paragraphs of the "Assumptions" section refer to the science committee?

The "SC" in RTO 1 paragraphs 6 and 7 stands for Steering Committee.

15 Section L.7(b)(1)table, volume II Mission Suitability

Does the asterisk (*) in the fourth column (50 pages *) mean the Government is expecting different Volume II submittals from the prime and each significant subcontractor rather than one single integrated Volume II?

As stated in the asterisk under the table in the RFP Provision L.7, Proposal Preparation-General Instructions (b)(1) the page limitation is for "*Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually."

16 RFP and Enclosure 1, Section L.11(b)(1), The historical data for rates is a mix of direct labor (salary) for the prime and fully burdened for subcontractor. The instructions on P. 52 state that if the direct labor rates proposed are less than those shown in the historical data, then additional explanations are required. Would the Government please clarify is this applies only to the lines without an asterisk? If not, how is the offeror to determine the comparable salary rate?

As stated in the RFP provision 52.215-223 9b) (1) "Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure 1, Contract Historical Data-Incumbent, for those labor categories for which rates are provided, in order to better understand salary levels of the incumbent workforce. If the Offeror proposes direct labor rates for incumbent personnel that are lower than these provided rates, the Offeror should explain how they intend to attract and retain incumbent staff based on its Total Compensation Plan."

17 RFP and Enclosure 1, Section L.11(b)(1), The data in Enclosure 1 states that subcontractor data is burdened, while prime is not. The RFP states that if we intend to propose incumbent rates lower than the rates shown in Enclosure 1, the offeror must explain how they intend to attract and retain staff. By definition, for those labor categories with burdened subcontractor rates, the direct labor rate WILL BE less than the rate shown. Would the Government please clarify expectations as to the difference between direct labor rates and burdened rates in this Enclosure.

Incumbent labor categories refers to prime labor rates for the current NRESS II contractor.

18 SOW 3.4 OCIO Compliance Solicitation requires:

D. Provide support to NASA IT Security Offices for Contractor IT security incidents or investigations.

E. Notify the Security Operations Center (SOC) followed by the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), COR, and CO, within one hour upon discovery of an incident involving Sensitive But Unclassified(SBU)/(CU1), Personally Identifiable Information (PII), or Export Control information.

F. Submit an encrypted email with the initial assessment of event impacts and plan for mitigation within eight hours after acknowledgement after notifying the SOC, CISO, COR, and CO of an incident involving SBU/CU1, PII, or Export Control information, and provide continued support and status until the incident is resolved.

We are unclear if this applies only to GFE/GFP or all equipment associated with this program. Is this related only to incidents on FIS or does it include incidents on contractor equipment as well?

It applies to any systems where we might be implicating (i.e., storing, processing, transmitting) data that NASA has a responsibility for protecting the confidentiality, integrity, or availability.

19 Attachment K NIST SP 800-53 deals with cybersecurity for federal systems. Without access to NASA’s FIS, there is no possible way a contractor can build a valid security plan. We would need access to NASA’s network architecture for which the ISSP will be developed. When is the NIST 800-53 ISSP due? With proposal submission? At Phase-in? How many days after contract initiation?

NIST SP 800-53 is a catalog of controls we use to guide the creation of authorization packages for Federal information systems where we will implicate NASA data. Alternatively, 800-171 is a catalog tailored for non-FIS. The requirement to seek an authorization to operate (ATO) for systems implicating NASA data extends from NPD 2810 and the associated family of policy documents. NASA requires an ATO before a system can begin to implicate NASA data; This is not necessarily directly related to contract commencement timelines.

20 RFP Section L, Section L(b)(1), Page 39 Table says "Position Descriptions" are excluded from page count. Is this referring to Subfactor B.8 "Position Qualifications"?

No, "Position Description" details the duties to be performed for a particular labor categories and "Position Qualifications" outlines the certifications, experience, and education needed to qualify for a specific position. "Position Descriptions" are excluded from the page count but "Position Qualifications" are not excluded from the page count.

21 SOW Section L, Page 66 The RFP requests that offerors "List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years…." Does the government just want this list from the Prime or are significant subcontracts also required to provide this list?

The offeror shall submit a terminated contracts list should be provided for Prime and Significant subcontractors.

22 SOW Section L, Section L(b)(1), Page 39 The table states that the Past Performance Volume is to be 50 pages. However the * states "Prime Offeror individually and each significant subcontractor individually". Does the government intend for the offeror to submit multiple Past Performance Volumes, each with a 50 page limit? Or are we to submit one Past Performance Volume with a 50 page total limit, but clearly distinguish between Prime and Significant Subcontractor?

Please see the response to question 15.

23 SOW Section L, Page 66

The instructions state that the offeror should send a Past Performance Questionnaire to the contracting officer and technical customer. With the high volume of retirements within NASA in many instances are customers are no longer available to fill out a questionnaire. How will the government evaluate a past performance if they only receive questionnaires from a technical representative OR a contracting officer?

The Government will evaluate the references submitted in the Offerors Past Performance Volume for both the Prime and Signification Subcontractors. In addition, if the references are with a federal agency, then the Government will pull Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for those reference to also evaluate along with the information provided in the Past Performance Questionnaires.

24 SOW Section G, Section G.viii, Page 24 The SOW states "As enhancements to the system or replacements of the system are developed a design review shall be conducted for each release and the overall system design documentation amended to reflect the changes." Will NRESS III be required to develop a full Second-Gen NSPIRES System or primarily focus on system component replacements/enhancements versus a full system replacement?

No. NRESS III will not be required to develop a full Second- Generation NSPIRES system. The contractor will be responsible for maintaining the current system and implementing system component enhancements or replacements, as required, rather than performing a full system replacement.

25 RFP Section L, Section L.7(a)(3), Page 38 The instructions state that the Cost Volume Exhibits in Excel must also be converted to PDF. Would the Government please consider removing the requirement to convert the Excel file to PDF?

As instructed in RFP Provision L.7(a)(3), "the Cost Volume exhibits shall also be provided in Excel format (compatible with Excel 2016)." "Offerors shall submit all exhibits in Excel and the exhibits shall contain all formulas."

26 RTO Task Plans, Section L.10.A.2, Page

"L.10.A.2 (RTO Task Plans) describes what offerors must include in a Task Plan; plans are to be developed "in accordance with" Clause I.8 (Task Order Procedure). That clause stipulates a Task Plan must include "appropriate cost information." QUESTION: Given the prohibition on including pricing information in the Mission Suitability Volume, will the Government clarify what constitutes "appropriate cost information" to be included in the three RTO responses?"

The Government is only evaluating the offerors' technical approach to the RTOs ( including the proposed labor categories and hours) for this RFP and does not require any cost information be submitted for them.

27 RFP, Page 3 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 four weeks after the final posting of responses to offeror questions?

The proposal due date will not be extended at this time. Please continue to monitor SAM.gov for amendments to NRESS III as this status is subject to change.

28 RFP, Section L.7(b)(1), Page 39 The solicitation states that a Mission Suitability Volume, Past Performance Volume, and Cost Volume should be submitted by "*Prime Offeror individually and each Significant Subcontractor individually".

Please confirm that NASA requests that offerors submit one Mission Suitability Volume and one Past Performance Volume on behalf of the Offeror (including prime and its subcontractors) and the term "individually" refers to a separate section within those volumes distinguishing which prime or subcontractor entity is providing the response?

The Mission Suitability Volume, Past Performance Volume, and Cost Volume shall be submitted separately for the Prime Offeror and for each Significant Subcontractor. Information related to non-significant subcontractors shall be included within the Prime Offeror’s volumes for each respective section.

29 RFP, Section L.12(a), Page 66 The past performance instructions request a "List of contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default)…" Please confirm that this requirement refers to the specific contract being provided as a past performance reference.

No, this refers to any contracts that were terminated in the past 5 years.

30 SOW, Section 4.1.C.i, Page 15 What platform is the government currently using to manage proposal documents? The Government currently uses NSPIRES to manage proposal documents.

31 RFP, Section L.10, page 52 For the 60-day phase-in FFP period, what are the required deliverables and acceptance criteria (transition plan, staffing onboarding, system access, data transfer)?

Please see the instructions provided in L.10, Section B.5.

32 RFP, Section F.2, page 14 Will the Government confirm if the contract effective date still 12/01/2026, and is the 5-year ordering period measured from that effective date (not award date)?

Yes. The contract effective date remains 12/01/2026, and the five-year ordering period is measured from that effective date, not the award date.

33 RFP, Section L.14, pages 56, 71-72 For significant subcontractors submitting separately, should they upload to the same EFSS Box location and follow the same naming rules?

Yes, all submissions should be uploaded to the EFSS Box per the instructions in RFP Provision L.14.

34 N/A Can the offerors add LCATs throughout the duration of the IDIQ? If LCATs means Labor Categories than, yes. The selected offeror for the NRESS III contract may submit a request to the NRESS III Contracting Office with a written justification addressing why new labor categories should be added to the contract.

35 RFP, Section L.12(c), Page 66 The solicitation states that offerors and significant subcontractors must provide prior customer evaluations (past performance questionnaires) provided as Enclosure 3 for all above references included in the Past Performance Volume. Would NASA accept CPARS or annual client feedback evaluations in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires, if available for these references?

No. NASA requires submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires as specified in the RFP. These questionnaires provide additional, specific information that is often not captured in CPARS.

36 SOW, Section 4.1.A.iv, Page 14 Is the vendor responsible for NRESS III contracting venues/facilities for in-person peer reviews? Yes. Procuring venues and facilities for in-person peer reviews is the sole responsibility of the NRESS III Contractor.

37 RFP Section L.10(d) Subfactor B.2 Will the Government please confirm that all requirements of L.10 Section B.2 only apply to significant subcontractors?

Correct. The requirements of RFP Provision L.10, Section B.2 apply only to the use of significant subcontractors.

38 RFP, Section M.5, Past Performance Evaluation Factor

Under the evaluation for past performance, the Government provides, “Past Performance Ratings – The level of confidence ratings set forth below will be used to evaluate the Past Performance factor for each Offeror.” But it does not explain how the collection of past performance citations will be evaluated.

Will the Government score past performance on an individual basis? For example, if we submit five different past performance citations, will each be evaluated and scored independently? Or will the Government provide an aggregate score of all the past performances combined?

As instructed by provision M.5, Past Performance Evaluation Factor "The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror's Past Performance 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, the Government may contact for additional past performance information."

39 RFP The time for submission is listed as 12:00 PM EST on the SF33 form, but listed as 3:00PM EST on the cover letter of the solicitation.

Can the government please confirm the time of submission required?

Proposals are due at 3:00 PM EST on February 06, 2026.

40 RFP, Section L.14, page 71 Will the Government consider a two-week proposal due date extension after the amended files are released? The proposal due date has been extended through February 06, 2026 at 3:00 PM EST.

41 Attachment A-SOW, Section D, page 19 Are there mandated sources/systems for booking travel and venues (e.g., GSA, preferred travel system), or contractor discretion within FTR?

There are no mandated Government booking systems for contractors to use when arranging travel or venues. Contractors may use their own commercial booking systems, provided all travel and venue costs comply with GSA travel regulations (GSA.gov/travel) and rates (e.g., per diem, airfare, and hotel limits), the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) as applicable, FAR clause, and the terms and conditions of the contract.

42 RFP, Section L.14, page 71 Are spaces (single/double) allowed in filenames without breaking EFSS download, and are there any prohibited characters?

Please see instructions provided in RFP Provision L.14, Section (d).

43 RFP, Section F.2, page 9 Can task orders issued near the end of the ordering period extend beyond the ordering period, and is there a maximum TO POP length?

Yes. In accordance with RFP Clause I.5 FAR 52.216-22, Task orders may be issued up to the last day of the contract ordering period, and the period of performance for a task order may extend up to 12 months, even if it extends beyond the ordering period.

44 RFP, Section L.10, Subfactor B.5, page 52;

Attachment A-SOW; Attachment K- Security DRD

During phase-in, will the Government provide system accounts and access to required platforms (NSPIRES, iSite, SATERN, RISCS) and by what timeline?

Yes, the government will provide all applicable information at the start phase-in.

45 RFP, Section L.14, page 72 Will the Government provide an example of the expected file names? Is NASA requiring the exact file naming convention shown p.68, or is a substantially similar convention acceptable (e.g., Offeror Name_Solicitation Number_Volume II_Mission Suitability.pdf)? Specifically, do we need to follow the exact pattern (Prime Offeror name – solicitation number – Technical Volume.pdf), including punctuation and spacing?

Please follow all instructions provided in RFP Provision L.14 for electronic submission of proposals.

46 Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY.pdf; Exhibit 1A-1b All IDIQ Std by CY.pdf

Can the government provide the native MS Excel Cost Exhibit files (Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY and Exhibit 1A-1b All IDIQ by CY?

All cost exhibit files have been uploaded. Excel versions are provided in Amendment 2.

47 Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY.pdf; Exhibit 1A-1b All IDIQ Std by CY.pdf

The file titled: Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY file is missing Exhibits 6B-11B, can the government provide the complete file?

All cost exhibit files have been uploaded. Excel versions are provided in Amendment 2.

48 NRESS III RFP 80HQTR26R0002;

Attachment F-DOL Wage Determination 2015-4281

The Wage Determination 2015-4281 is included as an attachment but FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards (AUG 2018) is not incorporated by reference as it was in the draft. Is FAR 52.222-41 applicable to this RFP? If yes, please include.

Please see Amendment 2 for the updated T&Cs.

49 RFP, Sections G-I Section F header appears beyond Section F through Section I and is confusing to the reader. Will the government consider updating the headers on pages 10-28?

Headers have been updated. Please see Amendment 2 for the updated T&Cs.

50 Enclosure 6-RTO 2, Page 1 The RTO references Space Biology as being part of the SLPSRA division of SOMD; however, Space Biology is part of the BPS division of SMD (the SLPSRA name having been retired several years ago). Will the government update the RTO to reflect the current organizational structure of Space Biology?

Please see Amendment 2 for the updated Enclosure 6

51 Section L.12 Did the Government intentionally not include a section L.12(b) in the RFP? Please see Amendment 2 for the update to RFP Provision L.12.

52 Section L.10 Subfactor C.2 and Enclosure 7

RTO 3

Subfactor C, Section C.2 titled "RTO 3 Risks" asks the offeror to address the risks related to migrating to a second-generation NSPIRES system. This is the only time a second-generation NSPIRES system is mentioned in the RFP, and a second-generation NSPIRES system is not mentioned at all in RTO 3. Is RTO 3 intended to encompass migration to a second-generation NSPIRES system?

Please see Amendment 2 for updates to the RFP Provision L.10 Subfactor C.2.

53 Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ Std by CY Doc title (a .pdf) states it contains Exhibits 2-11 but only contains through 6B. The following appear to be missing: 6C, 7, 8, 8A, 9, 10, 11, 11B. NASA provided a draft ~summer 2025 that included an excel version of these files which does contain all of the exhibits. However, we need to know if these are still valid for this effort since they were excluded. If so, are the versions from ~summer 2025 the same or were they updated?

The Excel versions are provided in Amendment 2 and include all previously missing tabs.

54 RFP, Section L.7(b)(1), Pages 47–51 The solicitation states that significant subcontractors must submit individual information for the Mission Suitability Volume. Please confirm that significant subcontractors may provide relevant information within the Mission Suitability Volume specific to its organization, and that significant subcontractors are not required to submit separate sections for Subfactors A and B .

Please see the response to question 38 Amendment 2.

55 RFP, RFP Headers, pages 11-82 Will the Government confirm the official solicitation number to use for proposal submission labeling, as the cover reflects 80HQTR26R0002 while some pages reference 80HQTR25R7002.

The solicitation number is 80HQTR26R0002. Please see Amendment 2 for the updated T&Cs.

56 Attachment A - SOW, page 23, Section G.

iv

There is comment that states, “This is also about developing a security program. Please let me know if this acceptable to include.”

Please provide clarity around this? Is this included as a requirement? Is it rejected? Will the SOW be updated to remove the comment and either make it a requirement or reject it?

The language in the SOW has been updated. Please see Amendment 2.

57 RFP Subfactors A and C, Sections L.A.1 and L.C.2, p. 47 & 50

L A.1 asks us to evaluate RTO 1 and RTO 2 for risk identification and handling. L C.2 asks us to evaluate RTO 3 for risk identification and handling. Both sections ask us to "provide a management approach". Can we describe this approach in-depth in Subfactor A and then reference that approach in Subfactor C (saves on page count) or do we need to explicitly write out the approach in both Subfactors (in the event separate individuals are evaluating each Subfactor). Drafts of each subfactor currently contains the fully written approach and the output of the risk management approach for their respective RTOs.

The Mission Suitability Factor, Section C.3 of RFP Provision L.10 has been revised. Offerors are no longer required to propose risk identification and handling for RTO 3. Please refer to Amendment 2.

58 RFP In this section, it states that the offeror must explain if it proposes rates that are lower than the incumbent staff.

How does the offeror answer this for those positions that are being done by a subcontractor, since the wage was not provided and only the burdened rate was provided?

This requirement applies only to incumbent (Prime) labor categories and does not apply to subcontractor positions.

59 RFP, Sections L.7, p. 43 and L.10, p. 50 For the required compliance matrix at the beginning of the Mission Suitability volume, will the Government confirm what the matrix must capture: Section L requirements only (p. 50), or both Sections L and M?

Please also confirm whether the matrix must be mapped to the SOW (p. 43) and any additional solicitation requirements, such as enclosures and attachments.

The compliance matrix shall capture Section L Mission Suitability requirements only, as specified in Section L.11. The matrix shall be mapped to the applicable Section L instructions for the Mission Suitability Volume. The matrix is not required to be mapped to Section M evaluation criteria, the SOW, or other solicitation sections, enclosures, or attachments, unless expressly referenced in Section L.

60 Attachment A-SOW, Section 2, p. 2 The Government states it prefers iSite (or comparable) for IDIQ TO lifecycle— is iSite mandatory and will the Government provide licenses/access for contractor staff?

Use of iSite is not mandatory for NRESS III; however, it is the Government’s preferred tool. If the Contractor elects to use an alternative system, it must be comparable to iSite and provide equivalent functionality and flexibility. The NRESS III Contractor is responsible for obtaining and maintaining any licenses required for the tool used to manage task orders and subplans for the duration of the contract.

61 Enclosure 2-Past Performance Questionnaire

Does the Government require a minimum number of Past Performance references and/or PPQs? If so, please confirm the minimum quantity.

No. The NRESS III RFP does not require a minimum number of Past Performance references or PPQs to be submitted by Offerors.

62 Enclosure 5-RTO 1, p. 1 and Attachment C- Financial Management Reporting (NF 533),

p. 2

For RTO1/RTO2 expenditure reports, will the Government confirm if the format should reconcile directly to NF 533 reporting elements/cost categories?

No. Offerors are not required to provide expenditure reports or reconcile to NF 533 cost categories as part of the proposal.

Enclosure 5 (RTO 1 and RTO 2) requires Offerors to submit a technical approach only. No cost data or financial reporting is required for proposal evaluation. The requirements in Attachment C, Financial Management Reporting (NF 533), apply to monthly and quarterly reporting during contract performance, not to proposal submissions.

63 RFP, Section (7) GPM BASIS OF ESTIMATES (BOE), p. 58-62; Enclosure 3- GPM, p. 1-11

Are offerors permitted to adjust any Government Pricing Model (GPM) hours, or must Enclosure 3 labor hours be used exactly as provided?

No. As stated in RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, paragraph (b)(3) Government Pricing Model (GPM), the Exhibit 1A GPM-specified non-management direct labor categories and corresponding direct labor hours populated from Enclosure 3 shall not be changed.

64 Attachment B-DL Rates Indirect Rates and Fee, p. 2

Confirm Attachment B rates/factors are intended as contractual not-to-exceed ceilings for future task order proposals.

Correct. As stated in the first paragraph of Attachment B – IDIQ Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices, Task Plan proposals must utilize the not-to-exceed rates and factors identified in the attachment when pricing all task orders contemplated or issued in accordance with the Task Ordering Procedures and Supplemental Task Ordering Procedures clauses of the contract.

65 RFP, Section L.11, p. 55 Does the Government prefer full indirect rate build-ups by pool/base (fringe/OH/G&A) to support auditability, or is summary factor documentation sufficient?

Please refer to the guidance provided in RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, paragraph (10) Indirect Rate Expense Pools.

66 RFP, Section (7) GPM BASIS OF ESTIMATES (BOE), p. 62-64

Does the Government require submission of FPRA/FPRR/FPRP letters (if held) and explanation of variances from those rates?

Yes. As stated in the last paragraph of RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, paragraph (10) Indirect Rate Expense Pools, Offerors shall include any Forward Pricing Proposal (FPRP), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), or Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) with their Cognizant Agency. Any differences between an FPRA and the rates proposed must be explained. If an FPRA is not in effect, Offerors shall provide the basis for the proposed indirect rates, including three years of historical indirect rate data in the applicable proposal tab.

67 RFP, Section (10) INDIRECT RATE EXPENSE POOLS, p. 64-65

For multiple overhead/fringe pools, is there any restriction on the number of pools, and what level of justification is expected in Exhibits 6A/6C?

There is no restriction on the number of overhead or fringe pools.

As stated in RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, paragraph (10) Indirect Rate Expense Pools, if more than one overhead pool is proposed, a separate Exhibit 6A shall be included for each pool, and if more than one fringe pool is proposed, a separate Exhibit 6C shall be included for each pool.

68 RFP, Section M.4, p. 75 & 79 How will cost realism be performed using the Government Pricing Model, and what are the most common realism pitfalls the Government sees on NRESS-type procurements?

Cost realism will be evaluated in accordance with RFP Section M.4, GSFC 52.215-323, Cost Evaluation Factor, including use of the Government Pricing Model, as described in the solicitation.

The Government will not provide additional information regarding cost realism pitfalls.

69 RFP, Section L.11, p. 55 If the Offeror estimating practice differs, does the Government want a crosswalk mapping our model to the Government’s Exhibit 1/2/3/5/6 formats?

As stated in RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, paragraph (a), if an Offeror’s estimating and/or accounting practices differ from the required cost proposal format, costs may be computed using the Offeror’s normal practices, but must be captured in the required formats. Offerors shall provide explanations describing how costs are calculated and mapped to the required formats in accordance with their normal estimating and/or accounting systems.

70 RFP, Section (b) Cost Volume Proposal Format

(1) DIRECT AND INDIRECT RATE

SUBSTANTIATION, p. 56

Must all monetary calculations be rounded to whole dollars (no cents) across all exhibits, and is there a preferred rounding method (standard vs truncate)? Yes. As stated in RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost

Volume Instructions, paragraph (a), final monetary extensions in the Cost Volume proposal must be expressed as the nearest whole dollar, with cents omitted. Standard rounding is preferred.

71 Attachment B-DL Rates Indirect Rates and Fee, p. 5; Enclosure 3-GPM

Position Qualifications (TBP) are required for each prime and subcontractor direct labor category—does the Government expect alignment to Enclosure 3 PDs or offeror-defined qualifications?

Position Qualifications (TBPs) shall be proposed in Attachment B

– Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices. As stated in RFP Section L.11, GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, paragraph (2) Direct Labor, Rates, Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices, the Prime and Significant Subcontractor(s) shall insert company-specific Position Qualifications (PQs) in Section 6.

These should not be the GPM-specified non-management direct labor position descriptions, which are provided for GPM conversion and evaluation purposes only, unless the Prime and/or subcontractor(s) are establishing new, identical direct labor category titles and PQs specifically for this contract. Otherwise, Offerors may use their existing company-specific labor categories and PQs and map them to the GPM-specified categories as required.

72 RFP (2) DIRECT LABOR RATES,

INDIRECT RATES AND FEE

MATRICES, p. 57-58; Attachment A- SOW, Section D, p. 19

Should ODCs (travel, honoraria, meeting space) be included in the GPM exhibits or only addressed in TO proposals after award?

Offerors shall propose honoraria costs in row 12 of Exhibit 1B. All other Direct Costs (ODCs), including travel and meeting space, shall be proposed in Exhibit 3.

73 RFP, Section (4) NON-MANAGEMENT

DIRECT LABOR CATEGORY

CONVERSION, p. 61-62

Should management/admin labor (Exhibits 2B/2D) be priced using offsite rates only, and can the Government confirm any onsite rate usage is noncompliant?

Yes. All services under this requirement will be performed offsite.

Accordingly, the Government is requesting offsite rates only in Exhibits 2B and 2D. Onsite rates are not applicable for this requirement.

74 Exhibit 1A-1B All IDIQ Std by CY;

Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY

Can the Government please provide the Cost Volume Exhibits in Excel format (not PDF), specifically:

Exhibit 1A–1B (All IDIQ Std by CY) and Exhibits 2–11 (All IDIQ by CY), to ensure formulas, links, and Government Pricing Model structures are preserved and to reduce transcription risk?

Please see Amendment 2 for the Excel versions of the NRESS III RFP Cost Volume Exhibits.

75 RFP, (2) DIRECT LABOR RATES,

INDIRECT RATES AND FEE

MATRICES, p. 23 & 58

Attachment B requires offerors to propose not-to-exceed rates/factors by Contract Year (CY). The RFP incorporates FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services), which allows the Government to extend services for up to 6 months. Please clarify whether the CY6 columns in Attachment B are intended to be inclusive/representative of the potential 6-month (0.5 year) extension (i.e., a CY “5.5” concept), or if any FAR 52.217-8 extension—if exercised—would be priced using the final CY5 rates/factors without any separate/prorated column.

Correct. CY 6 rates will be used if FAR 52.217-8 is exercised to extend services for up to six months.

76 Attachment J-OCI DRD, p. 2 Does the Government have a preferred structure/outline for the OCI Avoidance Plan, or should offerors follow the OCI DRD sections verbatim?

No. NASA does not have an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan template. Offerors shall follow the instructions in RFP Section L.9, Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Attachment J, OCI Data Requirements Description (DRD) when preparing the OCI Plan.

77 Attachment J-OCI DRD, p. 2 For annual OCI plan reviews, is the review due on contract anniversary, calendar year, or per task order? OCI Plans shall be reviewed annually on the anniversary of the contract start date.

78 RFP Sections L.11 & L.14, p. 56 & 71-72 For subcontractor separate proprietary submissions, confirm submission process (file naming, upload location, linking to prime submission) and whether both prime and sub must notify intent to submit.

Please see the revised NRESS III RFP Section L.14, Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery through NASA’s EFSS Box, paragraph (b), in Amendment 2.

79 Exhibit 1A-1B All IDIQ Std by CY;

Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY

Can the Government please provide the Cost Volume Exhibits in Excel format (not PDF), specifically:

Exhibit 1A–1B (All IDIQ Std by CY) and Exhibits 2–11 (All IDIQ by CY), to ensure formulas, links, and Government Pricing Model structures are preserved and to reduce transcription risk?

Please see amendment 2 for the excel version of the NRESS III RFP Exhibits.

80 RFP, Section L.11, p. 56 We reviewed the Cost Volume workbook provided as “Exhibit 2-11 All IDIQ by CY” and noted that Exhibits 7–11 are not included in the file. Can the Government please provide an updated, complete attachment that contains all Cost Volume exhibits (Exhibits 2 through 11) in the same Excel package (or as separate Excel files), so offerors can ensure full compliance and consistent calculations?

Please see amendment 2 for the excel version of the NRESS III RFP Exhibits 2-11.

81 Enclosure 7 RTO 3 The "Background and Summary of the Requirements" section of RTO 3 references the NSPIRES system.

The "Description of Requirements" section of RTO 3 generically refers to an "IT System." Is the generic IT System intended for close-out the NSPIRES system?

Yes. The generic “IT system” referenced in RTO 3 is intended to address the close-out and transition of the NSPIRES system, including the return of all system data and supporting elements to the Government, as described in Enclosure 7.

82 RFP, Section L.11(b)(11), p. 62 In the GPM specific ODC table, the Government lists ODC estimates for "NRESS Off-Site Facilities."

Would the Government please provide information on what these facilities are and the intended use? Is this the cost of contractor off-site facilities or is this a different requirement for off-site facilities?

“NRESS Off-Site Facilities” refers to the contractor-operated leased locations in Crystal City, VA and a back location in Arlington, VA where the NSPIRE servers are located. The cost associated for leasing the Off-Site facilities shall be included in the Offerors proposed ODC cost.

83 RFP Subfactor C, Section C.3, p. 50 Section L states "The Offeror shall describe its approach to managing the changeover and migration of legacy system data". Pertaining to RTO3, should we assume the Second-Gen System is developed and operational to ingest legacy system data or is this a continuation within the existing NSPIRES System?

Yes. For RTO 3, the Offeror should assume that a second-generation system will be developed and operational to support ingestion of legacy system data, where feasible, rather than continuation solely within the existing NSPIRES system.

84 Attachment D – GFP Is the Government Furnished Property, specifically the servers and associated equipment, currently located at the contractor's facility or a Government Facility? If the equipment is located at the current contractor’s facility, should offerors detail plans and costs for transition? Will the Government Furnished Property System Configurations be provided to the awardee of NRESS III prior to contract transition?

"NRESS Off-Site Facilities" refers to the contractor-operated leased locations in Crystal City, VA and a backup location in Arlington, VA where the NSPIRES servers are located. The costs associated with leasing the Off-Site facilities shall be included in the Offeror's proposed ODC cost. Some information regarding the NSPIRES systems can be found within Elibrary 2- NSPIRES IT and Software Components, and Library 2-NSPIRES Systems Diagram. Additionally, sensitive information regarding the NSPIRES systems will be provided to the NRESS III contractor during Phase-In.

85 N/A Does NASA intend to use AI to screen or evaluate proposals? If so, (a) which tool(s) and (b) how will they be used to augment human evaluation?

No. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with Section M and applicable NASA Source Evaluation Board (SEB) procedures. The solicitation does not provide for the use of AI or automated tools to screen or evaluate proposals.

86 SOW, Section 4.1.C.iv, p. 15 What platform is the government currently using to assign reviewers proposal documents? The Government is currently using the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) to assign proposal documents to reviewers. Any future replacement of NSPIRES will be in accordance with Grants Quality Service Management Office (QSMO) requirements and approvals;

however, a specific replacement platform has not been selected or implemented at this time.

87 SOW, Section 4.1.D.i, p. 18 What software/platform is the government currently using for data management? For purposes of this SOW requirement, the Government currently uses NSPIRES as the primary system for managing proposal and proposer data. NSPIRES data is hosted on a Microsoft SQL Server–based environment operating on virtual machines located in contractor-operated facilities. Offerors should not assume or propose to a specific future data platform beyond what is required by the SOW.

88 Exhibit 1A-1B All IDIQ Std by CY In this document, it requests pricing for the honorarium. There are not to exceed rates provided in the Final_Attachment A-SOW B-DL rates_Indirect Rates_and Fee document, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the solicitation.

How should the contractor price the honorarium?

Offerors shall propose honorarium costs by contract year and a grand total in Exhibit 1B (row 12). Honoraria are treated as Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and are used to compensate non-Federal subject matter experts supporting proposal review panels. Specific honorarium amounts are established and approved at the task order level and will be subject to not-to-exceed rates. Standard daily honorarium rates have historically ranged from approximately $350 per panel day for reviewers and $400 per panel day for panel chairs, with higher rates applicable for certain mission proposal reviews. Actual rates may vary and are subject to change.

89 Attachment A-SOW, Section 4, p. 10 Can the Government provide historical or expected annual counts of virtual vs in-person peer review panels to support ODC/travel planning?

The Government will not provide historical data distinguishing virtual versus in-person peer review panels, as historical data are skewed by the COVID-19 period when peer reviews were conducted entirely virtually. Prospectively, on an annual basis, the combined total number of peer review panels (virtual and in-person) is not expected to exceed 15,000 events.

90 Attachment L-Requirements Statements List, p. 3-4

Does the Government anticipate any routine international travel under this contract, or should foreign travel be assumed rare/exception-only?

No routine international travel is expected under this contract;

however, occasional international travel may be required.

91 Attachment A-SOW, Section D, p. 20 For expedited peer reviews on accelerated schedules, can the Government define typical accelerated timelines and expected surge capacity expectations?

Expedited peer reviews are rare and generally occur only when programmatic constraints require accelerated decisions. NASA does not have formally defined “expedited” timelines or surge capacity thresholds. Surge needs are more commonly driven by clustering of proposal due dates rather than compressed schedules.

Under normal circumstances, the end-to-end peer review process may take several months; however, in limited cases and when advance…