Final RFP Questions and Answers.pdf

NASA Open Innovation Services 2 (NOIS2) Final Request for Proposal (RFP)

Questions and Answers

Q1. Final RFP Page 26: What Agencies are authorized to use the IDIQ?

A1. Any federal agency may enter into an agreement with NASA to obtain NOIS2 services under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535). Participation from other agencies will be managed by NASA’s Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (CoECI).

Q2. Final RFP General: Will the government decide the crowd-based methodology before or after each task order is awarded? Can the contractor recommended a crowd-based methodology before each task order?

A2. The Government reserves the right to specify a preferred methodology from the list in

Section 3.2 of the Statement of Work (SOW) in a Request for Task Plan (RFTP), but may not always do so. The Government intends to use a competitive process to determine the best technical approach in response to the RFTP, allowing the contractors to propose a crowd-based methodology in their response to the RFTP.

The contractor cannot recommend a crowd-based methodology before an RFTP is issued as Task Orders are competitively awarded and any pre-award decisions regarding requirements remains internal to the government.

Q3. Final RFP page 27: Is the contractor producing the end product or providing technical support to participants who will create the end product?

A3. RFP Section 3.2, Statement of Work, requires the contractor to have the ability to solicit crowd-based solutions to satisfy requirements of a specific task order. The contractor will be responsible for providing the delivery of the requested end product using at least one of the methodologies in Section 3.2 of the RFP. The contractor is responsible for ensuring delivery of the end product.

Q4. Given that we have an existing GSA contract, could future work be done under those contract terms?

A4. No, future work cannot be done under an Offeror’s existing GSA contract terms.

NOIS2 is not a GSA Schedules contract.

Q5. Or, if the NOIS2 RFP terms would govern future work, what is the procedure for providing slight deviations and additions to the RFP terms? Could this be deferred to a later stage?

A5. Offerors were encouraged to provide feedback on solicitation clauses during both the Questions and Answers period following the release of the Draft RFP and during the Questions and Answers period following the release of the Final RFP. Per Section 5.5 of the Final RFP, each offeror is required to submit a Model Contract, which includes completion of and signature on the SF 1449. The Offeror’s signature on the SF1449 indicates the Offeror’s agreement to and acceptance of all the terms and conditions set forth in the Government’s solicitation. Per Section 6.3 of the RFP, errors or inconsistencies in the Model Contract may result in an Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Q6. Section 6 Evaluation (#4) Will NASA require the contractor to provide prices, within the model contract, for contract services based on established catalog, market prices and/or GSA schedule rates at the IDIQ level?

A6. No, RFP Section 6, states that in accordance with Procurement Class Deviation 18-02, the

Government will not be evaluating price as an evaluation factor on the NOIS2 solicitation.

Price will be considered as one of the factors in the selection decision for each task order under the contract, in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E). Please follow the instructions found in Section 5.5 of the RFP on specific guidance for submission requirements for the Model Contract.

Q7. Due to the change in submittal format to CD-ROM, may we please move the proposal due date towards the end of January? January 10 will be difficult for many of our companies with executives required to review final Proposals returning from family holidays.

A7. The proposal deadline has been moved from January 10th, 2020 to January 22, 2020 1:30 PM

Eastern Time as indicated in NOIS2 RFP Amendment 1.

Q8. On page 62, Past Performance Record, the document reads “the entire past performance write-up shall not exceed one page in length”, should we infer this to mean a description of each of the 3 past performance contracts should in total be 1 page with all past performance information or 1 page per past performance write-up totaling 3 pages?

A8. Per RFP Section 5.4, the entire Past Performance Record write-up shall not exceed one page in length. The offeror is required to submit a brief summary of all 3 past contracts on one page.

Q9. If there is a government shutdown later this month, will be the impact on the proposal deadline and how will that be communicated?

A9. The Government will continue to utilize beta.sam.gov and the NOIS2 Procurement website as its communication channels in the event of a government shutdown. Please continue to monitor these sites for any updates to the schedule, potential Amendments to the RFP, and other messages and updates.

Q10. CD-ROMs - Given the already short timeline and with the upcoming holiday, having to deliver via CD-ROM further compresses the timeline. Can the due date be extended?

A10. Please see the answer to question 7.

Q11. Final RFP Page 29: Can you confirm the Government does want to include the international community as participants?

A11. Yes, the Government will be accepting proposals from non-restricted international offerors. Current legal restrictions can be found here:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/faq_10_page.aspx

Under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 8301-8305), the U.S. Federal Government has a long-standing preference for the purchase or acquisition of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States. However, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. § 2501 et seq.) provides the authority to waive discriminatory provisions for eligible products from countries that have signed an international trade agreement with the United States, or that meet certain other criteria, such as being a least developed country. The Government has determined that the NOIS2 acquisition is covered by the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement; therefore, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2512, NASA will only acquire U.S.-made or designated country end products or U.S. or designated country services, unless offers for such end products or services are either not received or are insufficient to fulfill the requirements (FAR 25.403(c)). Definitions of "U.S.-made end product," "designated country," and "designated country end product" are provided under FAR 25.003. The Final RFP contains clause FAR 52.225-5 Trade Agreements.

Q12. Final RFP page 61: can you confirm the project plan is part of the 15-page technical page count?

A12. Yes, Volume I in its entirety is limited to 15 pages in length; and includes the Technical

Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan.

Q13. Final RFP page 26: How many IDIQ awardees does the government anticipate?

A13. Per Section 6 of the RFP, the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying Offerors. A qualifying Offeror is one who is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically “Acceptable” proposal under the Technical Acceptability Factor, whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and provides the Contracting Officer with no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

Q14. Final RFP Page 62: Can you confirm past performances are valid within the past 5 years of performance?

A14. Per Section 5.4 of the RFP, Responsibility Considerations-Volume II, Offerors are to provide performance information on current contracts or contracts that ended within 3 years from the date of the NOIS2 original solicitation. The 3 year period is based on the past contract’s period of performance end date.

Q15. Final RFP General: Does the government anticipate soliciting similar task orders to those in the Technical Library?

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/faq_10_page.aspx

A15. Sample Task Orders from the current NOIS contract are provided in the technical library as a reference only, and should not be construed as to what future TOs will be.

Q16. Final RFP General: Does the government support IDIQ holders teaming with each other on task orders?

A16. There is not enough information in the question for the government to provide an answer.

It is up to the contractors to determine teaming/subcontractor arrangements.

Q17. Final RFP General: will the government score a higher response for the more end products the company can provide?

A17. Per Section 3.2.1 of the Statement of Work (SOW), the Contractor shall provide one or more of the products and services listed using one or more of the methodologies described in Section 3.2 of the SOW. Per Section 6 of the RFP, the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying Offerors. A qualifying Offeror is one who is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically “Acceptable” proposal under the Technical Acceptability Factor, whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and provides the Contracting Officer with no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

Q18. SF 1449: This is provided in PDF, but the instructions in the Final RFP require this to be completed in MS Word. Can an MS Word version be provided?

A18. No, the SF 1449 cannot be completed in MS Word. The RFP will be updated in

Amendment 2 to clarify that the SF1449 must be submitted in PDF format.

Q19. SF 1449: Can NASA confirm that Optional Form 336 does not need to be filled out?

(p.63 of 67) A19. The second page of the SF1449 is the OF336. The blank second page of the SF1449 will be removed in RFP Amendment 2.

Q20. 5.1 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due Dates: GPE: Can NASA specify what system will be used as the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) and / or provide a URL? (p.56 of 67) A20. RFP Amendment 1 changed the requirement for proposal submission from the

Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) to proposal submission using CD-ROMs sent directly to the Johnson Space Center. Please reference Amendment 1 for further details on the proposal submission requirements.

Q21. 5.1 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due Dates:

Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments. Should acknowledgement of receipt be submitted via the GPE with the proposal or via email to the CO upon receipt? (p.57 of 67) A21. In accordance with RFP Section 5.1, Offerors must acknowledge receipt of each amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or the amendment, by one of the following methods: (a) by completing items 8 and 15 of the SF30 and returning a copy of the amendment, (b) by acknowledging receipt of the amendment on each copy of the offer submitted, or (c) by separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of each amendment issued. Amendment 1 of the RFP changed the proposal submission instructions from the GPE to CD-ROMs. Therefore an offeror may either submit via email or with its proposal prior to the date specified in the amendment.

Q22. 5.1 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due Dates: Period of acceptance of offers: Is NASA requesting any pricing information, such as rate cards, as part of the proposal? (p.57 of 67) A22. No, please see answer to question 6.

Q23. 5.5 Model Contract Volume III, Table 5-2: Are a date and signature required in another place in addition to blocks 30a-c? . Blocks 30 a-c are mentioned to be completed, followed by instruction to sign and date the SF 1449. (p.63 of 67).

A23. No, blocks 30 a-c of the SF 1449 is where signature, name, and date are required to be provided.

Q24. For the Proposal Volume III, where I need to submit a model contract, I’ve typically structured business relationships where I anticipate smaller chunks of work over a longer course of time with a Framework Services Agreement and then dedicated Scopes of Work for each project.

A24. Please reference Section 5.5 of the RFP for instructions on preparation of the Model

Contract.

Q25. For the Model Contract where I need to incorporate the NOIS2 Sections 1-4, I plan to submit this incorporated into a Framework Services Agreement. The Framework Services Agreement will be in a form that will be appropriate to sign by both parties as it is. Given your instructions, it will be delivered to you with my signature already on it.

A25. Please see the answer to question 24. Per Section 5.5 of the RFP, all Offerors are required to submit the entire Model Contract inclusive of the SF 1449, a compilation of Sections 1-4 of the RFP in their entirety inclusive of all clauses, and agreement to the terms and conditions set forth in the Government’s solicitation. Proposals must conform to the requirements of the solicitation. Proposals with modifications to the Model Contract which do not conform to the requirements of the solicitation will not be considered for award. There is no mention of a Framework Services Agreement in Section 5.5 of the RFP; therefore such an agreement would not comply with the instructions. In accordance with Section 6 of the RFP, errors or inconsistencies in the Model Contract may result in an Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Q26. Would it be acceptable for me to additionally submit an example Scope of Work

(SOW) contract for the Proposal Volume III? This would be purely theoretical for you, but would give you an example of how I have previously structured my Scope of Work contracts for crowd-based challenges and prize competitions. I have had a lot of customers, and most recently I’ve even optimized my SOWs based on their feedback. I intend to submit an all-inclusive example.

A26. No, please only provide the information that is requested in RFP Section 5.5 Model

Contract-Volume III instructions, which requires a completed SF1449, Sections 1-4 of the RFP in their entirety inclusive of all clauses and completed fill-ins. Furthermore, per Section

5.2 of the RFP, information that can be construed as belonging in another volume of the proposal will be so construed and counted against the appropriate volume’s page limitation.

Q27. For the Proposal Volume II, “Past Performance Record,” I have significantly more than 3 past contracts over the past 3 years dedicated to crowd-based challenges and prize competitions. Can you confirm that it is acceptable for me to list more than 3?

A27. Yes, it is acceptable so submit more than 3 past contracts but the entire Past Performance

Record submission shall not exceed one page in length.

Q28. Would it be acceptable for me to give a ballpark contract value, like between “$100,000-150,000” instead of the exact contract value?

A28. Yes, it is acceptable to provide an estimate contract value in the Past Performance

Record.

Q29. Evaluation of my past performance is very important. I want to make sure that you are able to get the information you need, while also respecting the privacy of my past customers. Would it be acceptable for me to give you a list of names, titles, and preferred mode of contact (phone versus email) of past customers who I have discussed this proposal with and who will be prepared to talk with you?

A29. Yes, it is acceptable to provide a preferred mode of contact, but offerors are encouraged to provide the contact information requested by Section 5.4 of the RFP.

Q30. In Section 5, “Instructions to Offerors,” you state that proposals are to be submitted using the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) as defined in FAR 2.101. I looked up FAR 1.101, and I went here - https://www.acquisition.gov/content/2101-definitions, and am still confused. I apologize, but can you clarify where the Governmentwide Point of Entry is?

A30. The Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) transitioned from FBO.gov to beta.sam.

Gov. Please note that Amendment 1 of the RFP changes the proposal submission requirement from the GPE to CD-ROMS sent to JSC due to technical issues on beta.sam.gov.

Q31. This confusion may reside that I’m currently only registered in SAM.gov and am working to becoming “active.” Is SAM.gov where I will eventually be able to submit once I become “active”?

A31. No, SAM.gov is where companies register to be able to do business with the government.

Q32. Additionally, I am registered at beta.sam.gov, which is where I follow the NOIS2

Contract Opportunity, but it’s not clear to me that there’s a place to submit my proposal at beta.sam.gov. Is this where I’ll be submitting once I become “active” in SAM.gov, and it will become apparent at that time?

A32. No, in accordance with NOIS2 RFP Amendment 1, proposals must be submitted to JSC via CD-ROMs. The proposal submission functionality on beta.sam.gov is currently non-operational therefore the proposal submission instructions have been changed, please reference NOIS2 RFP Amendment 1 for further details.

Q33. The NOIS2 Draft Request for Proposal cover letter states that a Pre-Proposal Conference is anticipated to be held on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, virtually. I can’t find information around if that Pre-Proposal Conference occurred. Did it https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.acquisition.gov_content_2101-2Ddefinitions&d=DwMFAg&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=fALXMb7RtCRNQJwn91i46nPnMTudGDTa49pYjynJNVI&m=Oemu8fX9Pi0l71Xq2I5lhD401vOrj01pGGYEUAcqPKo&s=XbhRYn8Zj3FgPo8FIdK6mxdqTWmKNbIive0eHFu_H1I&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.acquisition.gov_content_2101-2Ddefinitions&d=DwMFAg&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=fALXMb7RtCRNQJwn91i46nPnMTudGDTa49pYjynJNVI&m=Oemu8fX9Pi0l71Xq2I5lhD401vOrj01pGGYEUAcqPKo&s=XbhRYn8Zj3FgPo8FIdK6mxdqTWmKNbIive0eHFu_H1I&e= already occur, and I missed it? Or do you plan on having one over the next few weeks?

A33. The NOIS2 Pre-Proposal Conference was held on Tuesday, December 10th at 2:00PM

Central time. Dial in and Skype information to join the virtual conference was provided on both beta.sam.gov and the NOIS2 Procurement website on December 6th via Modification 1 to the synopsis entitled NASA Open Innovation Services 2 (NOIS2) Combined Synopsis and Solicitation 80JSC020R0030. A copy of the NOIS2 Pre-Proposal Conference charts is available on both beta.sam.gov and the NOIS2 Procurement website.

Q34. In the STANDARD FORM 1449, the instructions say “Offeror to complete blocks

12, 17, 23, 24, &30.” For #12, you’ve already entered “Net 30.” Can you confirm that nothing else is needed for #12 outside of what you’ve already entered?

A34. The Standard Form 1449 is a template used across all Government agencies and has standard template language. Please use the instructions found in the RFP Section 5.5 to complete the form, which states that offerors shall appropriately complete blocks 17 a-b, and 30 a-c, provide an original signature, and date the SF 1449. RFP Amendment 2 updates Table 5-2 instructions to specify that Offerors do not need to fill out block 12 of the SF 1449.

Q35. In the STANDARD FORM 1449, the instructions say “Offeror to complete blocks

12, 17, 23, 24, &30.” For #17a, a “code” and a “faculty code” is requested. Can you confirm that the “code” you’re looking for is the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code? Or is there another code I should enter there? For the “Facility Code,” if I’m a private small business, can you confirm that I can leave the “Facility Code” empty?

A35. The Contractor/Offeror Code found in block 17a requires the offeror to fill in the offeror’s CAGE Code. RFP Amendment 2 updates Table 5-2 Model Contract Sections to clarify that block 17a of the SF 1449 “Facility Code” is not a required fill in.

Q36. In the STANDARD FORM 1449, the instructions say “Offeror to complete blocks

12, 17, 23, 24, &30.” For #23 and #24, since the “total award amount” is $0.00, can you confirm that I can leave #23 and #24 empty?

A36. Amendment 2 of the RFP updates Table 5-2 Model Contract Sections to clarify that

Blocks 23 and 24 of the SF1449 should not be filled out by the Offerors at this time.

Q37. For the continuation of the STANDARD FORM 1449, it seems there is an “OPTIONAL FORM 336” asking the offeror to list supplies/services. Can you confirm that this should be left blank?

A37. OF 336 is used as a continuation sheet for SF1449 and does not need to be filled out by the offeror. Per answer to question 19, the blank second page of the SF1449 will be removed in RFP Amendment 2.

Q38. For Section 5.1 Instructions to Offerors, you state that “proposals are to be submitted using the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE).” Can you confirm that this is the beta.sam.gov website? I am currently in the “entity registration” phase of the System for Award Management. I received an email that the CAGE Review is currently experiencing a high volume of registrations. Additionally, I know that the new SAM is in beta, and I have experienced significant difficulties , including repeatedly kicked out of SAM and being unable to sign back in because of multiple time outs and software bugs with the new SAM. Do you anticipate delays with offerors being able to register with SAM? Do you anticipate these delays will affect the offerors ability to meet the January 10 deadline?

A38. Please see answers to Questions 30, 32, and 7.

Q39. For Section 5.1 Instructions to Offerors, you state that “Block 11 of the SF30 requires Offeror acknowledgement of receipt of the amendment by one of the following methods…” A) Can you confirm that there are currently no amendments posted? B) Can you confirm that the offeror is responsible for checking for amendments on the beta.sam.gov and NOIS2 acquisition websites, and C) that we have to acknowledge if some are posted? D) And if there are amendments, then the SF30 will be apparent at that time? If not, can you clarify where I can find items 8 and 15 of SF30?

A39. A) Amendment 1 of the RFP was released on December 19th via Modification 4 to the synopsis entitled NASA Open Innovation Services 2 (NOIS2) Combined Synopsis and Solicitation 80JSC020R0030. The Government also anticipates issuing Amendment 2 to the RFP and may issue additional amendments at the Government’s discretion.

B) Yes, the offeror is responsible for monitoring the beta.sam.gov and NOIS2 acquisition websites for any amendments to the solicitation, updates to the schedule, and any other changes.

C) Yes, RFP Section 5 requires each offeror to acknowledge each amendments of the solicitation.

D) Amendments to the solicitation will be posted on beta.sam.gov via Standard Form 30 (SF30) Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract. The form will contain all necessary instructions for offeror acknowledgement.

Q40. I am reaching out for a quick question regarding the SF 1449 for Solicitation

80JSC020R0030. I downloaded the SF 1449 from the final RFP documents, but I am unable to edit the fields to insert our Contractor information (box 17a and 30b). Do you recommend that I download a blank, fillable copy of SF 1449, and re-enter the information for NOIS2?

A40. Offerors may manually edit the form and submit a scanned copy.

Q41. Table 5-1 indicates that all volumes should be provided in MS Word format. All of the documents to be incorporated were provided in PDF format. Can an MS Word version of the RFP be provided? (p.58 of 67)

A41. A MS Word version of the RFP will be provided with Amendment 2 of the RFP.

Q42. 5.4 Responsibility Considerations - Volume II: Past performance record If multiple task orders were conducted under an IDIQ (such as NOIS) would these all be considered one past contract or multiple (one per TO)? (page 62 of 67)

A42. Task Orders completed under one contract are considered one contract.

Q43. In the NOIS2 Final RFP Section 5.2 Formatting Instructions, you have instructions for us to provide a Cross Reference List. Are there examples that you can provide of what an ideal Cross Reference List looks like?

A43. A Cross Reference List is a mapping identifying the RFP Section and mapping it to section of the offeror’s response in the proposal. The Cross Reference list will be unique to each offeror’s response, and therefore an example will not be provided.

Q44. For the sample project plan, at what level of detailed zoom should the milestone based project schedule be developed as? Week to week? Month to month?

A44. Offerors are expected to provide a “milestone-based project schedule” commensurate with the “Offeror’s standard delivery approach” as stated in Section 5 of the RFP.

Q45. Technical Acceptability: A) Technical Understanding of Requirements, a.: Can NASA elaborate by what is meant by “business model” in this context? (p.61 of 67).

B) Sample project plan: What format and what type of information would NASA like in regards to the sample project plan? (p.61 of 67).

A45.

A) For the purposes of this RFP, "Business Model" means the offeror's standard operational process when working with clients

B) Regarding format, the sample project plan is subject to the formatting guidelines stated in Section 5.2 of the RFP. As stated in the RFP, the Government is requesting that offerors provide a sample project plan specific to its standard delivery approach.

Q46. In the NOIS2 Final RFP Section 5.2 Formatting Instructions, you have specific instructions around sound, video files, and graphics. Many of the past innovation challenges that I have produced are still openly available on the internet.

Specifically, you can see the past websites used to take the submission, and the videos and even full live streams of the past events I’ve produced. I would like your team to be able to see and experience these past open innovation challenges and the events. Is it acceptable to give you a list of URLs, and you can look at it on the open internet? Or would you prefer for me to take representative screenshots of the websites and the videos and embed it directly in my submitted proposal?

A46. No, URLs will not be accepted. The Technical Acceptability Factor (Volume 1) has strict page limitations and therefore any material included that is outside of that page limitation (including links to additional information) will not be evaluated by the Government as indicated in RFP Section 5.2 paragraph 5.

Q47. Final RFP Page 27: are the end products part of the “design” within the crowd-based methodology or the solution/output of the crowd-based methodology?

A47. The end products and services required to be delivered under this contract are specified in section 3.2.1 of the Statement of Work. The Government requires that an issued task order will result in the delivery of one or more of those end products or services listed.