Industry Q and A of AEGIS Draft RFP.pdf

Tracking Number Document / Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

Technical Library Links to SAE AS9003, Inspection and Test Quality System ;

Reference in DRFP in DRD for Quality Plan

Technical Library There is a cost of $83 for this document. Is it NASA's intent that Offerors pay for this document?

No, it is not NASA's intent for Offerors to pay for this document; therefore, NASA has deleted this reference in the requirement. Further, NASA has determined it is not applicable. The reference to SAE AS9003 in ATT J-1 DRD# QE-001, Quality Plan, has been deleted.

Deleted reference to SAE AS9003 in ATT J-1 DRD# QE-001, Quality Plan

Technical Library Links to NPR 1620.3B, Physical Security Requirements for NASA Facilities and Property

Technical Library

When the Offeror attempts to follow the link to obtain the referenced document, the following message is generated The document you are searching for has been designated as Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) in accordance with NID 1600.55 Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) Controlled Information and is not publicly available.

SBU designation applied by Kathy Healy, HQ OPS on June 20, 2011 FOR FULL ACCESS, PLEASE CONTACT NASA

PROTECTIVE SERVICES (202) 358-2188.

NASA has deleted this reference from PWS Section 8.7.34, Facility Access , because it requires permission from Protective Services to access and is not necessary for proposal submittal. Other publicly available documents provide sufficient information on facilities access for proposal submission.

Deleted reference to NPR 1620.3B, Physical Security Requirements for NASA Facilities and Property, from PWS Section 8.7.34, Facility Access .

NASA-STD-2818,

Digital Television for NASA Reference in PWS Section XX

Technical Library-broken link Link does not work; “Page not found” message NASA has updated the link on beta.SAM.gov to https //standards.nasa.gov/standard/ocio/nasa-std-2818. No change to RFP

NASA-HBK-2203,

Software Engineering Handbook Reference in PWS Section XX

Technical Library-broken link Link does not work; “Page not found” message

NASA has updated the link on beta.SAM.gov to https //standards.nasa.gov/standard/oce/nasa-hdbk-2203. No change to RFP

ISO/IEC 17025,

General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration

TechnicaLibrary-broken this Link to a website; cannot find document

NASA has determined that this document is not applicable for the RFP requirements and therefore has deleted the reference to this document from the ATT J-1 DRD # QE-001, Quality Plan.

Deleted reference to SAE AS9003 in ATT J-1 DRD# QE-001, Quality Plan.

6 RFP L.11.5.1_MA-2.e;

DRFP pg. L-33

Sect L.11.5.1-duplicative language

The first sentence of L.11.5.1_MA-2.e essentially repeats instructions in the first sentence of L.11.5.1_MA-2.b. Please clarify how offerors are to respond to requirements in these two sections. Sections L&M have been rewritten. Sections L&M have been rewritten

7 RFP L.11.5.1_MA-2.f;

DRFP pg. L-33

RFP Sections L&M;

Key Personnel

L.11.5.1_MA-2.f requires offerors to submit resumes for Key Personnel. In responding to this requirement, is it acceptable to simply reference resumes to be provided in Volume II, as requested in L.11.6 Past Performance Factor - Volume II (in accordance with L.11.5.1_MA-2.b)?

Yes, the resumes should be submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume II; therefore, in the Mission Suitability Volume just referencing the resumes is acceptable. The revised section L should provide this clarity.

Sections L&M have been rewritten

8 RFP L.11.5.1_MA-2.h;

DRFP pg. L-34 Key Personnel

L.11.5.1_MA-2.h requires a minimum of three personal references for each individual proposed for a key position. In responding to this requirement, is acceptable to simply reference the personal references included in resumes to be provided in Volume II, as requested in L.11.6 Past Performance Factor - Volume II (in accordance with L.11.5.1_MA-2.b)?

Same asnwer as #7 above Sections L&M have been rewritten

9 RFP L.11.5.1_MA-2.i;

DRFP pg. L-34

Sect L.11.5.1-duplicative language

Instructions in L.11.5.1_MA-2.i essentially repeat instructions in L.11.5.1_MA-2.g. Please clarify how offerors are to respond to requirements in these two sections.

NASA concurs, that the bullets were duplicative. NASA has revised section L. Sections L&M have been rewritten

10 RFP L.11.3(a)(2); DRFP pg.

L-29

RFP Sections L&M;

Proposal format-font

L.11.3(a)(2) states "Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size."

L.11.3(a)(5) states "Large tables, charts, graphs, plans, figures, diagrams, and schematics (not text) may be inserted in 11 x 17-inch pages. ... The tables, charts, graphs, plans, figures, diagrams, and schematics shall be in non-compressed Times New Roman font with single-spaced 10-point text." Will the Government revise L.11.3(a)(2) to also allow non-compressed Times New Roman font with single-spaced 10-point text for text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs on 8-1/2 x 11-inch electronic paper?

NASA agrees to this request for reduced font size in charts and diagrams on 8 1/2 X 11-inch paper.

Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size.

Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than non-compressed Times New Roman font with single-spaced 10-point text.

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

11 RFP

L.11.5.4 and L.11.5.4_SBU1(a);

DRFP pg. L-39

DRDs-misnumbered

DRD

Both of these sections refer to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as DRD-MA-032. According to Attachment J-1, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is DRD-MA-030. Please clarify the requirement.

The Small Business Subcontracting DRD is MA-030. The references in Section L.11.5.4, on page L-39 have been corrected, as well as references on page L-40 and in Section M.3.4 on page M-5.

(RFP pg L-39, L-40, M-5) Reference to "DRD MA-032" Revise Section L.11.5.4 to reference "DRD MA-030" as Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

12 RFP F.3 POP; DRFP pg F-1 Period of Performance Period of Performance end date for the base period is listed as July 9, 2024. Please clarify if this should read July 9, 2023 consistent with a 2-year Base Period.

Correct, the period of performance end date for the base year should be 2023 to reflect a 2-year base. In the Final RFP, the period of performance referenced in Section F.3 as well as through-out the RFP will be revised to align to the period of performance identified in the Cover Letter.

RFP pg F-1, has been revised to delete "July 9. 2024" in the statement, "The period of performance of this contract shall be July 10, 2021 through July 9, 2024."

replace with "July 9, 2023."

13 RFP

L.11.3(b)(2);

Instructions for Prep, DRFP pg L-30

RFP Sections L&M;

RFP-Format of Final

RFP

Model Contract is required in MS Word format. Portions of the RFP are images, not text. Will the government provide Sections A-J in MS Word?

Yes, NASA plans to provide the fillable documents in Word version for the Final RFP No Chg

14 RFP

L.11.7(a), Cost and Pricing Factor VIII;

DRFP pg L-44

RFP Sections L&M;

proposal-filename

The RFP states, in part, “See Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format, for the required file names. Table L-2 does not include a Column titled file name. Please clarify.

The Final RFP will update Table L-2 to provide filenames to be used for proposal submission. Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format, will be revised in Final RFP to include a "Filename" column

15 RFP

L.11.7(b)(4), Indirect Rate Historical Data And Analysis; DRFP pg L- 46- 47

RFP Sections L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

Is the offeor required to complete any information in the Indirect Rate Template (IRT) or General and Administrative Template (GAT) if offeror has an FPRA or FPRR?

If an FPRA or FPRR is used to price out the proposal, the IRT and GAT worksheets are only required for any years for which there is no FPRA or FPRR. Also, if an FPRA or FPRR is provided, the prior three years rate data are not required.

No change

16 RFP

L.11.7 (c )(2) Pricing for Core CPAF Component; DRFP pg L-49

RFP Sections L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

The RFP states, "Offerors shall provide, in Attachment Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format, its estimated level of resources necessary to perform the Core CPAF efforts with the appropriate skill mix, based on their unique technical approach. “ Table L-2 is not provided as an Attachment. Please clarify.

The cost/price instructions will be rewritten for Final RFP.

Offerors shall provide, in Attachment Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format, its estimate of the level of resources necessary to perform the Core CPAF efforts with the appropriate skill mix, based on their unique technical approach.

Sections L Cost/Price Instructions have been rewritten

17 ATT L-8

Att L-8 Cost+Price+Template, LPT tab

RFP Sections L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

The LPT includes a formula that links WYEs for CY2 – CY10 to the value inputted for CY1. Can offfeors change the number of proposed WYEs for CY2-CY10 to reflect their proposed efficiencies?

Yes - Offerors can change the WYEs over the course of the contract; a new template will be provided for each contract year and each PWS section Sections L Cost/Price Instructions have been rewritten and Attachment L-8 will be revised.

18 ATT L-8

Att L-8 Cost+Price+Template, CPT-CORE-CPAF tab

RFP Sections L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

The RFP states the proposed award fee rate will be applied to the fully burdened labor costs. The CPT-CORE-CPAF uses total costs as the Fee base. 1. Please confirm award fee rate can be applied to non-labor resources (ex. ODCs and materials)?

2. Can offerors modify the CPT-CORE-CPAF Template to change the Fee Base used to calculate award fee, ex remove costs or apply a different fee rate to different types of cost?

The template, and the template instructions, allow Offerors to apply fee to a base in accordance with their Accounting System and policies. It does not dictate what base an Offeror shall use. Also, it does not allow for the application of a different fee rate to different cost element.

Sections L Cost/Price Instructions have been rewritten and Attachment L-8 will be revised.

19 ATT L-8

Att J-1, DRD SA-001, pg J-1-79, 11. Initial Submission

DRDs Initital Submission references sections to be includes as 15.3.b.a, however there isn't a 15.3.b.a. Should this reference 15.3.b.1, instead? Yes, the DRD has been revised to correct the reference to 15.3.b.1. Revise ATT J-1 DRD #SA-001, Safety, Health, and Environmental

(SHE) Plan, to delete reference to 15.3.b.a Revise ATT J-1 DRD #SA-001, Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) Plan, to reference to 15.3.b.1

20 RFP

pg C-16 Sect 2.2 Critical Staffing Positions

Critical Staffing Positions; key personnel

Please confirm that there are no submission requirements for the critical positions, with the exception of Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager.

Correct, there are no resume submission requirements for the critical staffing positions with the exception of the key personnel Program Manager and the Deputy Program Manager. Section L.11.6, however, does require a discussion to include critical staffing positions.

No chg

21 RFP

pg C-16 Sect 2.2 Critical Staffing Positions

Critical Staffing Positions; Key Personnel

Because the incumbent has an inherent advantage with staff already in current critical staffing positions, please confirm that the critical staffing positions, with the exception of the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager, do not require resume submissions and may be part of the incumbent capture staff.

Correct, the RFP only identifies the Program Manager and the Deputy Program Manager as key positions, which require submission of resumes.

Offerors may propose additional key personnel if they so choose.

No Chg

22 RFP

pg H-4 Clause H.5

1852.235-71 KEY

PERSONNEL AND

FACILITIES (MAR

1989)

Key Personnel Please confirm that only 2 key personnel are required for submission.

Correct, resume submissions are required only for the two key personnel positions Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager. Section L.11.6, however, does require a discussion to include critical staffing positions.

No Chg

Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

23 RFP

pg H-4 clause H.5

1852.235-71 KEY

PERSONNEL AND

FACILITIES (MAR

1989)

Key Personnel Because of the enterprise nature of the AEGIS contract, please confirm that the two key personnel physical location in MFSC is not a daily requirement but considered ‘home base while also traveling to other centers as needed.

The AEGIS program office is anticipated to continue to be located at MSFC (currently at the off-site location on Wynn Drive). This would be the "home base". Management personnel must be co-located in the program office, but would occasionally travel to other NASA Centers as necessary to oversee contract management. The Customer Service Delivery Manager and Customer Service Representatives shall be located at their respective centers in accordance with the PWS Section 2.2, Critical Staffing Positions.

No Chg

24 RFP

pg C-16 Section 2.2 Critical Staffing Positions

Critical Staff Positions Because of the change in scope to the AEGIS solicitation requirements (e.g. section 8 expanded scope), please confirm that NASA accepts alignment of critical staff locations to the new AEGIS organizational management structure.

It is expected that the successful Offeror shall align their organizational structure with the AEGIS contract organizational structure at time of award. No Chg

25 RFP

pg H-4 Clause H.5

1852.235-71 KEY

PERSONNEL AND

FACILITIES (MAR

1989)

Key Personnel Limiting key personnel to a single location contradicts the enterprise nature of the AEGIS contract. Please confirm that the management team can be dispersed with expectation of traveling to MSFC as needed.

NASA does have a distributed management team with managers at each Center who work with the Contract Program Manager; Offerors are expected to have Customer Service Delivery Managers and Customer Service Delivery Representatives at the Centers as required in PWS 2.2. NASA expects the Contract Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager to be co-located with the AEGIS Program Office located at MSFC, Huntsville, AL.

No Chg

26 RFP

pg H-4 Clause H.5

1852.235-71 KEY

PERSONNEL AND

FACILITIES (MAR

1989)

B&H - Organizational Structure; critical staffing positions

Understanding NASA s AEGIS organizational management structure and locations would be very helpful as offerors align their management structure appropriately. Please consider providing the names/titles and locations of NASA s AEGIS management structure.

The AEGIS organizational structure will be part of the Offeror's management approach, which will incorporate the key personnel listed in Section H.5 and the critical staffing positions identified in PWS Section 2.2, Critical Staffing Positions. The list of key personnel positions under NICS will be added to the Background & Historical (B&H) documents in the Technical Library posted on beta.SAM.gov.

No Chg

27 RFP pg C-16 Sect 2.2 Critical positions Key Personnel Will offerors be evaluated more favorably for adding additional key personnel in addition to the two required key personnel?

No, adding additional key personnel will not necessarily result in a more favorable evaluation. NASA will evaluate each Offeror's Management Approach in accordance with Section M.3.1.

No Chg

28 RFP

pg H-4 Clause H.5

1852.235-71 KEY

PERSONNEL AND

FACILITIES (MAR

1989)

Key Personnel- Telework

Given NASA's successful telework posture during the pandemic, please confirm NASA will permit telework for the key personnel.

The Offeror shall adhere to Agency and local Center policy in terms of telework. No Chg

ATT L-1 LABOR

CATEGORY

POSITION

DESCRIPTIONS

pg L-1-17

ATTACHMENT L-1

LABOR CATEGORY

POSITION

DESCRIPTIONS

Key Personnel Will NASA allow substitution of additional years of relevant experience in lieu of an MA/MS without an evaluation penalty for the program manager key position?

Yes, provided the Offeror submits an exception with justification for approval by NASA. The Att L-1 will be updated for the Final RFP to reflect this allowance.

Attachment L-1 will be revised for Final RFP

ATT L-1 LABOR

CATEGORY

POSITION

DESCRIPTIONS

Att L-1; pg L-1-39 & L-1-40 Labor Categories

The Service Contract Act Non-exempt Category Mapping and Government Equivalents table on pgs L-1-39 and 40 includes 6 non-exempt labor categories (highlighted blue) that have incomplete data. Will the Government provide an updated table to include the appropriate SCA non-exempt mapping cateogories and Government equivalent for these labor categories?

Yes, the blue highlighted labor categories will be updated for the Final RFP. Attachment L-1 will be revised for Final RFP

31 RFP PWS 2.6 Procurement Services; DRFP Section 508 Standards There seems to be a cut and paste error from item 11. Can NASA clarify the tracking requirements for Section 508 Standards as described in PWS 2.6, table 9, item 15?

The two items are similar but item 15 is specific to Section 508 Standards.

Item 15 will updated for the Final RFP to add "Section 508 Compliance" for clarity.

PWS 2.6, Table 9, Item 15 will be revised

32 Technical Library Technical Reference Library on sam.gov Technical Library

Links for NASA- STD 8739.9 Software Formal Inspections Standard, NASA- STD 8739.8A Software Assurance & Software Safety Standard and NASA HBK-6003 Application of Data Matrix Identification Symbols to Aerospace Parts using Direct Part Marking Methods/Techniques all direct to a page that states "Page not Found."

The links have been fixed and NASA-HBK-6003 was determined to not be relevant to the RFP. No Chg technical library will be updated

ATT L-1 LABOR

CATEGORY

POSITION

DESCRIPTIONS

Att L-8 Cost-Price - IRAP Tab and others

RFP Sectons L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

We recommend that NASA modify the L-8 templates to accommodate the varying labor costs associated with all the locations mentioned in PWS 7.1 - 7.12 and 9.2. Currently the IRAP tab only accommodates one location. Assuming that resources will be supporting these centers locally, the labor costs at each site could vary significantly.

A possible solution may be to add multiple IRAP tabs to correspond with all desired work locations, and an additional level of detail in the LPT that allows offerors to allocate specific WYEs to specific locations

The cost/price instructions will be rewritten for Final RFP. Sections L Cost/Price Instructions have been rewritten and Attachment L-8 will be revised.

Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

34 ATT L-8, Cost-Price Instructions

Att L-8 Cost-Price - TRT Tab Instructions

RFP Sections L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

The embedded instructions do not align with requirements in the L-8 template (i.e. discussions of CLINs, Reference to column DQ, etc.) and appear to be artifacts from a different procurement. Please clarify these instructions to align with AEGIS requirements.

The cost/price instructions will be rewritten for Final RFP. Sections L Cost/Price Instructions have been rewritten and Attachment L-8 will be revised.

35 RFP RFP B-8, L-9, and L-8 CORE-FFP (AV) Tab

RFP Sections L&M;

Cost/Price Instructions

We request the following clarifications regarding FFP AV unit Prices described in B-8 and included in L-8 CORE-FFP (AV) Tab

-Please help clarify what is to be included in these items. RFP B-8 states Hardware and Support & Install Labor, but then goes on to say that "Design and installation" labor are consumables and will be borne separately. A possible consideration would be to have 2 prices for each an Installation/IMAC charge and a recurring support charge for recurring/O&M. This would be consistent with commercial managed service practices.

-The associated item descriptions in Attachment L-9 appear to be missing for AV10 - AV27. Also it appears that some of the text describing AV28 - 31 has been cut off. Please clarify or update.

- Please confirm that the template is requesting prices in Contract Years 8-10 (the shading in those years is different than the others).

Section B.8 will be deleted in the Final RFP and the information has been incorporated into the PWS. The PWS will provide further clarification. A new Attachment J-17, Audio Visual Descriptions for FFP AV1 - AV42, will be created to provide additional information.

Section B.8 will be deleted in the Final RFP and the information has been incorporated into the PWS. The PWS will provide further clarification. A new Attachment J-17, Audio Visual Descriptions for FFP AV1 - AV42, will be created to provide additional information.

36 RFP

RFP L-8 PCST, CPT-

CORE-CPAF, LPT and others

Period of Performance Please update the Period of Performance dates in these templates, as they currently have dates that differ from RFP section F.3 Period of Performance. These have been updated and will be in the revised EPM

Technical Library Document SAE AS9003, Inspection and Test Quality System

Technical Library Document SAE AS9003, Inspection and Test Quality System

Technical Library-cost for document

There is a cost of $83 for this document!

Update Changed the updated date to Aug 11, 2020 and deleted the link, but left the document name

NASA deleted the link in the Technical Libarary on beta.SAM.gov and NASA will remove the reference in the RFP/DRD Deleted reference to SAE AS9003 in ATT J-1 DRD# QE-001, Quality Plan

Technical Library Document NPR 1620.3B, Physical Security Requirements for NASA Facilities and Property

Technical Library Documents NPR 1620.3B, Physical Security Requirements for NASA Facilities and Property

Technical Library

The document you are searching for has been designated as Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) in accordance with NID

1600.55 Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) Controlled Information and is not publicly available.

SBU designation applied by Kathy Healy, HQ OPS on June 20, 2011 FOR FULL ACCESS, PLEASE CONTACT NASA

PROTECTIVE SERVICES (202) 358-2188.

Update Changed the updated date to Aug 11, 2020 and deleted the link, but left the document name

NASA has deleted this reference from PWS Section 8.7.34, Facility Access , because it requires permission from Protective Services to access and is not necessary for proposal submittal. Other publicly available documents provide sufficient information on facilities access for proposal submission.

Deleted reference to NPR 1620.3B, Physical Security Requirements for NASA Facilities and Property, from PWS Section 8.7.34, Facility Access .

Technical Library Document NASA- STD-2818 Digital Television for NASA

Technical Library Documents NASA- STD-2818 Digital Television for NASA

Technical Library -broken link

Link does not work; “Page not found” message Update Provided a new link. Document has been uploaded to the CCE.

NASA does not understand the acronym CCE, but the link was updated in the Technical Library on beta.SAM.gov. No change to RFP

Technical Library Document NASA- HBK-2203, Software Engineering Handbook

Technical Library Documents NASA- HBK-2203, Software Engineering Handbook

Technical Library-broken link

Link does not work; “Page not found” message Update Provided a new link which goes to the Handbook website but I don t see where there is a PDF version of the handbook. Website has a several tabs, but no PDF link.

Websites https //standards.nasa.gov/standard/oce/nasa-hdbk-2203 https //swehb.nasa.gov/ These docs were referenced •NASA Software Engineering Requirements, NPR 7150.2C (already in Tech Library) •NASA Software Assurance and Software Safety Standard requirements, NASA-STD-8739.8A (already in Tech Library)

The link was updated in the Technical Library on beta.SAM.gov. The vendor should follow the link and then download media….this is the handbook but has various info…vendor needs to review the various tabs.

There is no pdf version of the handbook.

No change to RFP

Technical Library Document ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories

Technical Library Documents ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories

Technical Library Link to a website Update Changed the updated date to Aug 11, 2020 and deleted the link, but left the document name

NASA has determined that this document is not applicable for the RFP requirements and therefore has deleted the reference to this document from the ATT J-1 DRD # QE-001, Quality Plan.

Deleted reference to SAE AS9003 in ATT J-1 DRD# QE-001, Quality Plan.

Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

42 RFP 8.3, Item 25; DRFP pg C-111

Managed Cloud Environment

Given that Managed Cloud Environments (MCE) currently handle Customer Relationship Management (CRM) through a combination of civil servants and subcontractors, does the government want solutions to replace the existing CRM for MCE's?

NASA is open to Offeror proposals that create efficiencies for NASA. No chg

43 RFP 8.4.2, Item #19; DRFP pg C-112 Performance Metrics Will SLA's be specified in the final RFP? Yes SLAs will be provided in the Final RFP for the cloud and data service requirements. YES

44 RFP 8.4.2, Item #21; DRFP, pg C-113 Performance Metrics Will agency define baseline standards/requirements for system images?

NASA will not provide baseline standards/requirements for system images as part of the RFP. However, NASA will provide the Agency defined baseline standards/requirements for system images at Contract award. Since system baseline configurations are subject to continuous updates and changes, the successful offeror is expected to utilize the approved NASA system of record to review and maintain compliance with NASA baseline standards and requirements.

No chg

45 ATT L-3 Att. L-3; pg. L-3-3 Key Personnel-PPQ The NOTE states Key Personnel "questions below need to be tailored accordingly." Will these revisions be provided in the final RFP, or is the offeror responsible for tailoring the questions?

In the Final RFP, NASA will remove the requirement for a past performance questionnaire for key personnel. NASA will remove the referenced language from ATT L-3.

ATT L-3 is revised to delete, "questions below need to be tailored accordingly."

46 RFP L.11.5.1; pg. L-33 RFP Section M;

Evaluation criteria

How does the statement "no individual item is more important than any other" relate to evaluation criteria and weighting among mission suitability subfactor weighting?

All areas of the management approach are equally important and so Offerors should respond to each area. No chg

47 RFP 5.2.3.4 VITS Managed Services; DRFP

FFP with economic price adjustment Will NASA Consider FFP with economic price adjustment based on CPI or other market constraints/escalations. No, NASA expects Offerors to provide the estimated FFP pricing for all contract years. No chg

48 RFP Section M.4 - Relevance; pg. M-5

RFP Sections L&M;

Evaluation criteria-relevance

This section contains references to "specific trades." What is the expectation for offerors regarding references to 'specific trades' within the context of the overall PWS, which includes both trades and exempt work requirements? NASA will revise Section M.4 Relevance to rewite the statement for clarity.

RFP Section M.4 Relevance has been changed from "Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only."

RFP Section M.4, Relevance bullet has been rewriten to "Contracts that exhibit all types of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific work only."

49 RFP

Section M.5(d) FFP Phase-In Price; pg. M-

RFP Sections L&M;

Phase-In price

This section states the evaluation consists of comparison to other offeror s proposed Phase-In price. How will the Government's estimate for Phase-In be used in the evaluation?

Per Section M.5, "The Government will perform price analysis on the proposed fixed price Phase-In cost. Reasonableness will be established by comparison to other Offerors' proposed Phase-In cost." Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal analysis technicques, and NASA FAR Supplement (NSF) 1815.404-1. Per Section M.5 (e), "The results of the Government's cost analysis and price analysis will be presented to the SSA [Source Selection Authority] for consideration in making a source selection." This information presented to the SSA will include the FFP Phase- In Price.

ATT L-8 Cost/Price Template has been revised and the instructions have been amended.

50 RFP Section B; pg. B-1 and B-2 CLINS The mapping of PWS elements to CLINs (CPAF, FFP, IDIQ FFP) are unclear. Will this information be presented in the final

RFP?

RFP Section B.5, Tables B-1 and B-2 have been revised to reflect the CLIN structure. The Core Services(CLIN2) are cost reimbursement and the WebEx and ViTS Managed Services (CLIN3) are Firm-Fixed Price. The IDIQ task orders (CLIN 4) are for future projects/work to be incorporated into the contract. Phase-In will be CLIN 1. The RFP does not include a CLIN structure by PWS. The AEGIS pricing model is different from NICS in that regard. See also revised pricing instructions in Section L and the Attachment L-8 Electronic Pricing Model, which provide additional clarity.

RFP Section B.5, Tables B-1 and B-2 have been revised to add the CLIN structure. The Core Services(CLIN2) are cost reimbursement and the WebEx and ViTS Managed Services (CLIN3) are Firm-Fixed Price. The IDIQ task orders (CLIN 4) are for future projects/work to be incorporated into the contract.

Phase-In will be CLIN 1. The RFP does not include a CLIN structure by PWS. The AEGIS pricing model is different from NICS in that regard. See also revised pricing instructions in Section L and the Attachment L-8 Electronic Pricing Model, which provide additional clarity on how Offerors will propose.

51 RFP General Proposal format-pdfs Many of the DRFP pages in PDF documents are images rather than searchable text, will the Government consider providing searchable PDFs and/or word documents in the final RFP.

Yes, NASA will provide some of the files in their native form (i.e., Excel).

ATT J-6, IAGP, will be provided in Excel.

52 RFP General IP Count What is the estimated IP count?

The estimated IP count is a very dynamic and difficult number to calculate, and changes frequently. It is estimated that NASA has approximately 475,000 used IP Addresses. This number includes the use of known RFC1918 address spaces.

53 RFP General PWS clarification-Data Center How many data centers are estimated after the data center consolidation is completed?

NASA has not fully developed the approach to rationalize data center consolidation and will be working with the successful offeror to develop that strategy. NASA does not anticipate datacenter reduction no sooner than year 3-5 of the contract. Currently, NASA is anticipating that 3-5 data centers will be required but may also need computing sites that will house a group of on-premise computing services at each NASA Center. NASA is not being perscriptive within the AEGIS PWS, but are requesting that potential bidders provide their approach to data center consolidation.

No Chg

54 RFP General NASA locations Do the offices/ locations listed require local DNS/ DHCP services?

Unknown which offices are being referred to. However, all Centers and tail sites that are managed within the trusted NASA boundary require DNS/DHCP services.

No Chg

55 RFP General DDI For the total DDI infrastructure, will they be virtual or appliance, or a combination of both. The DDI infrastructure primarily consists of physical servers/appliances.

56 RFP

Section C 2.2 Critical Staffing Positions, pg C

Critical Staff Positions RFP Text Table 2. lists the Critical Staffing Positions.

Would NASA consider adding a Cloud Architect and a Cloud Economist as a critical position?

Yes, NASA will add a Cloud Architect to Table 2, but will not add a Cloud Economist, to the critical postion list. PWS Section 2.2 Critical Staffing is revised to add a Cloud Architect

Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

57 RFP Section C 2.4.1 Item 18., pg C-19

GFE; Software Defined Networking

RFP text Conduct an annual physical inventory of the NASA LAN, WAN and Mission networks equipment and provide results to NASA COR.

a) Will the COR provide the last annual inventory of LAN, WAN and Mission Network gear as part of the final solicitation or place it within a digital reading room?

b) What percentage of equipment networking is not physical and done through Software Defined Networking (SDN)?

c) What SDN is currently being used for those not physical networking solutions?

d) How many devices or what is the percentage of the equipment that requires a waiver for inventory and has to be “pinged” to determine if the device is alive and active?

a.) The list of equipment as of Oct 1, 2019 is in Attachment J-6, a revised list of equipment will be provided for the Final RFP and at will be provided to the successful offeror at contract award.

b.) None of the equipment is done through Software Defined Networking (SDN) currently, withe exception of small early deployment at Langley.

c.) NASA does not understand the question. Please provide clarity.

d.) Estimated to be less than 3%

No Chg

58 RFP

Section C 2.6 Procurement Services , Table 9 Item 3, pg C-

Pre-existing contracts;

ELAs

RFP text Utilize Agency-wide or Government-wide contracts or site software license agreements for the systems assigned to the contractor.

Commodities or services of the types normally purchased under the AEGIS contract to support the AEGIS mission may be purchased for use outside of the AEGIS contract at the request of NASA.

a) Does NASA prefer a specific GWAC?

b) Does NASA plan to use any ELAs / BPA they may have in place from commercial software vendors as GFE for the AEGIS program?

a.) No, other than for the Networx/EIS pre-existing contracts.

b.) Yes, some existing ELAs should transfer to the AEGIS contractor, such as the Cisco maintenance ELA and several software ELAs.

In general, NASA provides the requirements and at times will review the Contractor's procurement process/plan, but NASA does not direct the Contractor on what subcontract vendor to award to.

59 RFP

Section C 2.6 Procurement Services, Table 9 Item 9, pg C-

Technical Library;

Procurement services

RFP text Ensure all products and vendors are validated against the existing Assessed and Cleared List (ACL) prior to acquisition and complete an NF1823, Request for Investigation (RFI)/IT Product Source Assessment, for supply chain verification for any products or vendors that do not already exist on the ACL..

a) Does the NF1823 need to be drafted and submitted with the response to the RFP, or will NASA provide a grace period post award for the NF1823 s to be submitted and approved?

b) Please provide the link to the ACL if there is a publicly facing link to ensure anything proposed as part of the solution is on the ACL.

a.) During contract performance, for planned procurements, the Contractor must first check the assessed and cleared list and submt the NF1823 RFI form.

b.) The website is an internal website which is not accessible. The list is contstantly changing, but a snapshot in time of the list was added to the technical library on 8/27/20 Access to this website will be provided to the successful offeror after award. Note-this list should not be used as the sole authoritative document for the procurement but is the first step of the procurement process.

Chg to technical library

60 RFP

Section C 2.7.2.2 Patch Management, Item 50, pg C-26

Patch management

RFP text Ensure that managed systems are rebooted on a regular basis, no less than weekly, to ensure patches are fully installed on systems and shall also provide deviation reporting and RBD requests in accordance with NASA policy for approval for mission-essential functions that would be adversely affected.

Modern application systems running in the cloud and container based would not require rebooting but instantiating another container to replace the current container that has the patched implemented.

a) Please clarify that this requirement is for physical devices, and not container-based systems that are managed by Kubernetes.

a.) This does apply to all AEGIS operated and maintained systems. The Contractor will need to ensure that when patches are applied, the systems are rebooted as required, even in the virtual environment.

Ensure that managed systems are rebooted on a regular basis, as necessary, to ensure patches are fully installed on systems and shall also provide deviation reporting and RBD requests in accordance with NASA policy for approval for mission-essential functions that would be adversely affected

61 RFP

Section C 2.7.2.2 Patch Management, Item 54;

pg C-26

Least privilege RFP Text Apply appropriate minimal level of system privileges in accordance with NASA policy and guidance, as noted in item 18 above.

Please clarify if “minimal” in this requirement is asking for “least privilege” implementations

Yes, the Final RFP will be updated to replace the terminology. PWS Section 2.7.2.2 bullet revised 54.Apply appropriate minimal-levelleast-privilege access of system privileges in accordance with NASA policy and guidance, as noted in item 18 above.

62 RFP

Section C 2.7.2.2 Patch Management, Item 57;

pg C-27

Patch management

RFP text Ensure the NASA-provided CDM solutions are installed and continue to function properly (based on NASA CSPP) on all supported IT devices and integrated with NASA reporting mechanisms, including RISCS and IT ITSEC-EDW.

a) If there is a newer tool on the DHS CDM APL that improves the cybersecurity posture of the system, would NASA entertain a substitution by the contractor?

b) Will the licensing costs for the CDM tools be provided as GFE?

a.) Yes, the Offeror could propose a newer tool as part of their solution.

B.) Yes, the Government will pay the cost of the licensing via GFE. No chg

63 RFP

Section C 3. Innovation Services, 2nd paragraph; pg C-33

Innovation services

RFP Text “…Innovations are brand new and emerging ideas that cannot be identified upfront and emerge through market changes or completely new mechanisms that can become applicable and value adding to NASA.”… Please clarify whether or not new features or enhancements to COTS software that would provide Value to NASA and are not currently known to the offeror (unpublished vendor road mapped items) , could satisfy definition of innovation and not continuous improvement.

No, a COTS software upgrade or a feature release would would be considered continuous improvement and would not qualify as an innovation. An innovation opportunity would be something unique or involving thought-leadership, a new way of implementing services, etc.

No chg

64 RFP

Section C 4.2 Service Design and Implementation, item 16; pg C-46

Technical Library;

Collaboration Tools

RFP text In coordination with NASA civil servant personnel, provide recommendations to update designs based on traffic analysis and capacity management modeling.

a) What tool do the NASA civil servants use for the traffic analysis and capacity management?

b) Please clarify how and when NASA will provide the latest traffic analysis and capacity management modeling results during the response phase of this procurement?

c) Please clarify if the successful respondent is able to propose another traffic analysis and capacity management tool and phase It in during the transition?

a.) Today NASA uses a collaboration of tools (Solarwinds, Splunk, etc) which can be found in the AEGIS B&H document in the Technical Library on beta.SAM.gov, but current tools may change through the life of the contract; therefore the successful Offeror may need to adapt to new tools and processes as approved by NASA.

b.) During contract performance, the Successful Offeror will work in coordination with NASA to satisfy this requirement.

c.) Yes, the Offeror can propose another traffic analysis tool in their technical approach.

No chg

65 RFP

Section C 4.3 Service Operations, item 17; pg C-46

Performance Metrics

RFP text Perform maintenance, management and operation of NASA s IT infrastructure to ensure delivery of services within the agreed upon service levels.

a) Please provide as part of the final RFP what the current service levels (SLA) agreed upon with the incumbent.

b) Does the current provider meet the existing SLAs?

a.) NASA provided the SLAs required under AEGIS in ATT J-12, Performance Measures .

b.) NASA will not provide past performance information on the incumbent.

No chg

Attachment

Reference Page #, Section, paragraph Keyword Question Answer RFP Change From RFP Change To

AEGIS Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers Note-the PWS was restructured/reorganized between Draft RFP and Final, so some sections may be renumbered in Final. Sections L&M were rewritten/reorganized, so numbering in Final may be different from Draft RFP.

66 RFP

Section C 4.6 Performance Management, Item 35.;

pg C-47

Patch management

RFP Text Perform software updates of AEGIS Managed Devices, as required and approved by NASA (e.g. based on vendor releases, Cybersecurity control changes, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) mandates).

Please clarify if NASA would like to keep software updates to no later than N-1 versions. (E.g., One version behind the latest version) to allow for internal testing and determining whether the newest features (Security patches aside) are needed.

Each application will be considered on a case by case basis.

67 RFP

Section C 4.6 Performance Management, Item 38;

pg C-47

Cybersecurity tools

RFP text Ensure all network and Cybersecurity infrastructure supported by AEGIS, provide adequate logging to NASA system of record, Data Discovery Exploration Engine (D2E2) and any internal NASA tools as required.

a) Please clarify if the D2E2 is a COTS application, and if so the name and version.

b) Please clarify if the D2E2 tool can be extended to other systems via exposed REST APIs?

a.) Yes, D2E2 is a suite of cybersecurity tools that today contains primarily Splunk Version 8.0.4.

b.) Yes, NASA's plan is for D2E2 to extend to other tools as approved by NASA and DHS.

No Chg

68 RFP

Section C 4.6 Maintenance, Item 47;

pg C-47

Trouble ticket systems

RFP Text Input into the trouble ticket system information on operational failures, incidents, discrepancies, and problem disposition and resolution, to include a daily log of all maintenance and repair activities.

a) Please clarify if the trouble ticketing system is a COTS application, and if so the name and version.

b) Is the current trouble ticketing system going to remain under the AEGIS program?

c) Please clarify if the trouble ticketing system can be extended or integrated via REST APIs.

a.) Yes, the current COTS systems for trouble ticketing are ServiceNow and Remedy.

b.) Yes, the AEGIs Contractor will continue to manage the current trouble ticketing systems.

c.) Yes, the systems are capable of supporting REST APIs.

NO chg

69 RFP

Section C 5.1.3.1 NASA End User Services and Technologies (NEST), item 3; pg C-53

Clarification of PWS-

NEST

RFP text This section identifies the AEGIS integration requirements with the NEST contractor or successor contractor. The NEST contract provides a variety of end-user services (e.g., e-mail and collaborative calendaring, end-to-end computing services and back-office infrastructure support) and IT product catalog services to NASA and NASA contractors. The contractor shall utilize the NEST services for end-user services.

Please clarify how the NEST End-User Services are to be used on AEGIS.

The Contractor will utilize NEST services for AEGIS Contractor personnel desktop devices, print services, mobile services, etc., as an end-user customer. No chg

70 RFP

Section C 5.1.3.2 Enterprise Applications Service Technologies 2 (EAST2) , item 7; pg C-

Clarification of PWS-

EAST2

RFP text Deploy EAST2 software distribution packages to end-user client desktops.

Please clarify and provide more details on the type of distribution package that is to be delivered.

NASA will revise PWS Table 33 Enterprise Services Integration to clarify the AEGIS requirements. PWS Table 33 Enterprise Services Integration will be revised to clarify.

71 RFP

Section 5.2.7 Corporate Management and Operations, item 4.2;

pg C-65

Clarification of PWS- Corporate Management and Ops

RFP Text Provide tiered network monitoring.

a) Please clarify what is meant by tiered.

b) Please clarify the tiers referenced in the requirement.

a.) NASA will revise the PWS to clarify "tiered".

b.) NASA will revise the PWS to clarify "tiers". Provided exampled descriptions of a "Tiered" support model in Section 5.2.7 #4.2

72 RFP

Section L.11.5.1, MA- 2 Key Personnel and Staffing Approach;

(b)(e); (g)(i); and (k)(n-p); pg L-33-34

RFP Sections L&M;

Section L.11.5.1-duplicative language

There are several redundancies in requested information in Section MA-2.

For example, the “approach and rationale for identifying, selecting, filling, and retaining Key Positions” language in MA-2

(b) and MA-2 (e) seems to be duplicated. Similarly, Section MA-2 (g) and MA-2 (i) appear to be exact duplicates.

Further, there are similarities and overlap in the information requested in Section MA-2 (k-p) such as the “ability to respond to fluctuating work requirements” in MA-2 (k) and approach to “accommodate workload fluctuations” in MA-2 (n), and request to provide a “multi-skilled workforce capable of cross-utilization” in MA-2 (k) and “cross-utilization of personnel” in MA-2 (o).

Would the Gov t please remove the redundancies, clarify the difference in requested information, and/or allow an additional 5 pages in order to respond effectively to each instance?

The Final RFP Section L.11.5 will be revised to remove duplications. Section L.11.5.1 was revised to delete duplications.

73 RFP

Section L.11.5.1, MA-2 Key Personnel and Staffing Approach (f) and Section L.11.6 (b);

pg L-33

Section L.11.5.1-duplicative language;

key personnel

Key Personnel resumes are required in both Volume I and II but seem to have different requirements. For example, resumes in Volume I, Section MA-2 (f) do not appear to have to follow the Attachment L-5 template while those resumes in Volume II, Past Performance (Section L.11.6 [b]) are required to follow the template. Will the Government please confirm if resumes are required in both Volumes? If yes, will the Government also confirm that resumes in Volume I do not have to follow the Attachment L-5 template and only have to address the information requested in DRFP Section L.11.5.1, MA-2 (f)?

Yes, the resumes should follow Attachment L-5.

f)For the proposed key personnel listed in Clause H.5, Key Personnel and Facilities, provide a resume stating their education (including licenses and certifications), current position, current significant responsibilities or projects, previous positions, and professional activities and achievements (including patents and significant publications).

f)For the proposed key personnel listed in Clause H.5, Key Personnel and Facilities, provide a resume in accordance with Attachment L-5, Key Personnel Resumes .

74 RFP Draft RFP Cover Letter, pg 1 Period of Performance

Per the Draft RFP cover letter “The AEGIS contract is anticipated to have a 2-year period of performance base (July 10, 2021, to July 9, 2023), one 1-year option (July 10, 2023, to July 9, 2024), and seven 1-year award terms (July 10, 2024, to July 9, 2031), with a phase-in period of 60-days (May 10, 2021, to July 9, 2021).” Attachment L-8, has contract periods of CY1 6/1/22 through 5/31/22, CY2 6/1/22 through 5/31/23, and out with a completion in CY10 of 5/31/31. This conflicts with the dates given in the Draft RFP cover letter. Can the Government confirm which period of performance is correct?

The period of performance will be corrected in Attachment L-8 for the Final

RFP.

75 RFP

SOW Section 2.2 Critical Staffing Positions; C-16

Critical Staff Positions

AEGIS Draft RFP Section A-M, Page C-16, 2.2 Critical Staffing Positions lists the following positions which have conflicts with the Labor Resources listed in Attachment L-8.

•Deputy Program…