MESC RFP QandA Final 9.20.21.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) Questions and Answers

Mission Enabling Services Contract (MESC)

4 This section of the RFP provides guidance on the

Streamlined Procurement Evaluation process, and includes the parenthetical clause “Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) or [emphasis added] Limited Tradeoff (LTO).”

Can the Government clarify the LTO process and incorporate the Value Characteristics (if applicable) in the evaluation of this procurement?

The title of this provision includes both SLPT and LTO wording.

MESC is using the SLPT process.

5 Page C-27 states “The Contractor shall possess a comprehensive working knowledge of the FOD project information system (Athena) and provide project support and integration with Program, Center and Agency systems." Although the sample reports from Athena are helpful, comprehensive working knowledge seems to require much more information. This requirement gives a distinct and unfair advantage to the JOIST incumbent since the Government has not provided user documentation, complete Athena software description, access to unique Athena data, or developer/working group information. Will the Government please provide this and any pertinent information regarding the use of Athena, SPICE, and other proprietary software called out in this RFP that is used to manage the MESC contract?

The Government will be adding an Athena's User Guide to the technical library that provides the information requested.

6 If an offeror plans to only bid on Baseline B, can the Government please clarify whether the offeror should delete or leave blank the tabs/worksheets related to Baseline A in their Attachment L-03 Baseline EPM Template submission?

Offerors should not modify the Government provided templates by deleting tabs/worksheets.

Complete only the Sections you are required to complete per the instructions.

7 Can the Government provide the applicable

Wage Determination for the Service Contract Act employees?

The Department of Labor (DOL) has a standard practice of 10-20% of service employees to determine if the Service Contract Labor Standards to apply. The percentage of non-exempt employees is below the DOL recommendation, therefore Service Contract Labor Standards do not apply to this procurement and a wage determination is not included in the

RFP.

8 Attachment L-04 IDIQ EPM Template contains additional LCATs that are not listed in Table J- 03-3: Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) for IDIQ found in the final RFP. Please advise which list of LCATs should be used for the IDIQ pricing.

The Government cannot identify any discrepancies between the lists referenced. Pricing shall be submitted in accordance with the EPM spreadsheet.

9 The RFP states that “All electronic submissions should be searchable and should not contain scanned documents, except those documents that must be provided in their native format”. The RFP also requests multiple files (e.g., Environmental and Safety Data, Insurance Information, PP Attachments, and Organizational Chart; Subcontracting Agreement Information, Company Information, Responsibility of Information, and Waiver of Rights to Inventions) to be submitted in their Native Format. Will the Government allow these native format pieces to be inserted into our Word file submission as images so that all pieces can be contained in one file for the volume? Or should all native format pieces be submitted as separate documents?

No, the Government will not allow the consolidation of images in into a single Word document, Refer to item d), Provision L.20.2.1 Electronic Submission Of Proposals

– Proposal Marking And Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box (Jul 2021).

10 The RFP states that “Electronic file names shall be limited to letters, numbers, and single spaces, with the exception of the period that is required before the file extension (e.g., .zip, .pdf), in order to successfully upload and download files from the EFSS Box system. The offeror shall not use special characters “/” or “\” in file names.”

However, the acceptable file names listed (e.g., “Prime Offeror name-solicitation number-TA-work area.doc”) include hyphens. Will the Government please clarify if hyphens are acceptable special characters or if we should eliminate these from our final files names?

Yes, hyphens should be used in the naming format as requested.

11 The RFP states that “Sections of the proposal which are page limited shall be prepared and submitted using noncompressed Arial font with single-spaced 12 point text.” Will the Government exclude company logos from this limitation?

Offerors should refer to Provision L.20.2.3 (b)(1) for formatting instructions regarding the use of Company logos.

12 The RFP states that “Title pages, table of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers that do not contain information that can be construed as proposal information will not be counted as part of the page limitations.” and “An electronic cover sheet should be contained as the first page of each electronic file.”

Will the Government confirm that this electronic cover sheet can be considered the title page and will not count towards the volume page limitations?

Yes, electronic cover sheet can be considered the title page and will not count towards the volume page limitations. Offerors should refer to Provision L.20.2.3 for proposal formatting instructions.

13 In the government draft Q/A response #18, the

Government response states: “In accordance with JPI 1852.231-71 Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, a TCP is not required for T&M subcontractors who meet the definition of paragraph (d) (1) & (2).”

However, in Attachment J-02 – DRD-02-1 – Abbreviated TCP under section 8b. SCOPE, it states the following: “The Abbreviated Total Compensation Plan shall be required for all professional employees from the offeror/team when the contract value is expected to exceed $750,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees, regardless of contract type.”

Question: Can the Government confirm if the requirement under DRD-02-1 stating, in summary, that a TCP is required for all subcontractors, regardless of contract type with a contract value exceeding $750,000 is accurate?

As indicated in DRD-02, T&M subcontractors are required to submit an Abbreviated TCP. This revises the Government’s previous answer over the answer provided in Draft RFP Q&A #18.

14 In the Past Performance Factor - Volume II section, it specifies that Environmental and Safety Data, Insurance Information, PP Attachments, and Organizational Chart should be submitted in Native Format. Please clarify whether or not the organizational chart should be submitted in its native format as an editable PowerPoint or Adobe Illustrator graphic or if a non-editable image in a Word or PDF file is acceptable.

The Government updated Table L-2 in the final RFP to specify for these items that, "Native Format files shall be compatible with the Microsoft Office Suite of applications or Adobe Page Description Format (PDF) applications."

15 Table L-2, Past Performance Factor-Volume II references PP Attachments. What are the PP Attachments?

Refer to MESC Q&A #14 and Provision L.20.5(f).

16 L.20.5(g) states that the past performance questionnaire is to be sent to all the point of contract references in paragraph (c) for Government Agencies this is the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Representative. Does the Government intend that offeror's must have both the CO and COR send a PPQ or can a PPQ be sent to only one person because many times the CO wants the COR to send the PPQ.

As defined in Section L.20.5(g), offerors should send the questionnaire to both the CO and COR for Government contracts.

17 Please confirm that only one Past Performance

Questionnaire will be required if the same contract is selected for more than one work area.

Only one PPQ is required per source contract.

18 Please confirm Offerors should include consent letters from all subcontractors, not just significant ones.

Offeror should refer to Section L.20.5(c)(12).

19 In a case where an offeror is proposing past performance from affiliated entities, please confirm Offerors should include consent letters from affiliated entities and not the parent company.

Offeror should refer to Section L.20.5(c)(12).

20 Please confirm it is acceptable to include meaningful involvement letters from affiliates (confirming that the affiliate will provide the meaningful involvement people, processes, or tools) and please confirm these letters are excluded from page count.

The “meaningful involvement” narrative required in L.20.5(e) is part of the page-limited past performances information.

21 In section L.20.2 (c), it states "Offerors shall arrange their proposals as set forth below in Table L.20.2.2." That structure is:

1. Environmental and Safety Data, Insurance Information, PP Attachments, and Organizational Chart

2. PP Information Spreadsheet

3. PP Introductory Material (7 page limit) The instructions also state that "Proposal sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume."

In Section L.20.5 on pages 362/L-29 through 365/L-32, though, the structure of the Past Performance response lists response requirements in the following order:

c) The contract data

d) Relevancy Rationale Explanation

e) Meaningful involvement response

f) An organizational chart and attachment L-08

f) PPQs

i) Introductory material (1 page limit in addition to the overall page limit)

j) Performance data that includes a) Environmental Data and b) Safety and Health Data Please clarify the requirements for the structure of the past performance response.

For example, we believe the introductory material should be first – in other words can the Offeror change this order so that the presentation makes the material presentation logical?

The introductory material will be removed due to an update to JSC 52.215-114, Past Performance Information. L.20.5 and Table L-2 will be updated in an amendment to the RFP to reflect these changes.

Only the past performance narrative material (contract data, relevancy rationale, meaningful involvement response, etc.) is page limited and required to be submitted in Microsoft Word.

The past performance attachments (environmental data, safety & health data, insurance information, organizational chart, and any consent letters) shall be submitted in their native format as separate files, and the relevancy matrix shall be submitted using Microsoft Excel in a separate file.

22 Instructions state "Offerors shall provide one response per proposal" for the Environmental and Safety and Health Data. Please confirm if what is meant is that if an Offeror is responding to more than one baseline, Offerors should only include the Environmental and Safety and Health Data once in the first baseline proposal and cross reference back to it in the others?

The Government anticipates an amendment to RFP to clarify Section L.20.5 Safety and Health Data (4)in the RFP.

23 In addition to the Environmental and Safety and

Health Data, please specify which other attachments should be one per proposal.

Offerors should refer to Section L.20.1 in the RFP., which states, "The Offeror shall submit one copy for all other documents unless otherwise denoted (e.g. Small Business Subcontracting Plan).”

24 Instructions state "Offerors shall provide one response per proposal" for the Environmental and Safety and Health Data. Please clarify - in submitting affiliated past performances, is the Government requesting affiliated entities provide data on all their contracts within the last three years or just data on the past performance reference contract being cited?

L.20.5(i) requires environmental and safety & health data "on contracts performed in the last three years", not just for those contracts specifically referenced in the offeror's past performance narrative. It also states, "If a joint venture or prime subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed.

25 Please clarify - Is only the bidding entity required to submit the Health Safety Insurance Data or is the Government requiring it from any affiliated entity performing the past performance contract being cited?

Refer to MESC Q&A #24.

26 L.20.5 c) requires Offerors to provide a large amount of contractual information regarding the past performance citation.

Question” The font required is 12-point front, which takes up a least a half page to provide this information which leaves less pages to address the relevance to each SOW area. Would the Government allow Offerors to put this information in a table with a 9- or 10-point font?

If the Government will not allow this table to be in a smaller font, will the Government increase the page count for past performance to take into consideration the amount of this information?

No, 12-point font is required.

Offerors should follow instruction as defined in L.20.2.3.

The Government does not anticipate increasing the page count for Past Performance.

27 L.20.5 e) requires the Offeror to provide information regarding meaningful involvement of an affiliate.

Question: Due to the page count limitations and the need to fully address this requirement, will the Government increase the page count for past performance? If the Government does not increase the page count for past performance, will the Government exclude this information from page count so that all Offerors are on a level playing field and have the same page count to address the relevance of the SOW sections?

The Government does not anticipate increasing the page count for Past Performance.

The Government does not anticipate excluding the information from the page count.

28 At the bottom of each Relevant Past Performance Matrix there is a box that states Legend of Resources Provided for Past Performance with rows for Workforce, Management, Other (please define).

Question 1: There are no instructions for this box. What information does the Government want included in this box?

Question 2. If the Government wants information in this box, should it be provided per each contract referenced in the Matrix?

The offerors should create/define their own Legend markers and use them in the Table to identify the areas of work where they have applicable past performance.

Yes, it should be provided for each contract referenced in the Matrix.

29 The Statement of Work for the IDIQ area states that the multiple-award IDIQ component has the same Baseline B scope and may be used for new content not identified at the time of contract award at discretion of the Government. The Attachment L-08 for IDIQ Relevant Past Performance Matrix does not include any of the Baseline B SOW sections.

Question: Please confirm that the past performance citations for the IDIQ area do not have to include any Baseline B SOW sections and should only address the IDIQ Statement of Work Sections.

Section 3.3.1 Management and Mission Support Services includes new content with in the general scope of Baseline B. The Past Performance citations should reference any contracts that support that activity or activities under 3.3.2 Advanced Research and Development Technology Report.

30 The instructions state complete the incorporated

Performance Relevancy Matrix, Attachment L- 08, as part of your response. In the event of a conflict between the narrative and the relevancy matrix, the narrative will take precedence as the Offeror’s intended response.

Question: In order to prove that the relevancy matrix is correct, each citation must cover all the areas of each of the SOW areas as shown in the Matrix and must cover the evaluation criteria that Section M states is more relevant. Will the Government increase the page count for past performance so all relevant information can be appropriately covered and evaluated?

The Government does not anticipate increasing the page count for Past Performance.

31 Under the definition of Relevance, the Government states “The term “content” considers the contract’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. 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.” This Section further states “Although information demonstrating experience in all areas of the Statement of Work may be submitted, past performance efforts in the following areas will be considered more relevant” Question 1: Because the “Although” sentence says although information demonstrating experience in all areas of the Statement of Work may be submitted, past performance efforts in the following areas will be considered more relevant. Does this mean an Offeror does not have to address all the areas of the SOW (even if relevant and checked in the Relevancy Matrix) because the Government is weighting the evaluation more heavily on the the two areas for Baseline A, the three areas for Baseline B, and the 5 areas for IDIQ? Question 2: Does this mean that the past performance citations that cover all or the majority of the SOW areas will be evaluated as less relevant if the they do not cover all the evaluation criteria that is going to be more relevant – the two areas for Baseline A, Offerors shall refer to instructions in Section L.20.5 and Section M.4.

the three areas for Baseline B, and the 5 areas for

IDIQ?

32 The evaluation criteria for the IDIQ Statement of Work states that the following “Although information demonstrating experience in all areas of the Statement of Work may be submitted, past performance efforts in the following areas will be considered more relevant:

1. Demonstrated application of highly specialized software engineering and research development of applications, solutions, and mission enabling services.

2. Computer simulation and modeling.

3. Intelligent systems.

4. Network modeling

5. Development and evaluation of crew display concepts Question: The IDIQ statement of work does not mention network modeling or development and evaluation of crew display concepts so why are these considered more relevant for evaluation?

The Government anticipates an amendment to update Section 3.3.2 of the SOW.

33 "e) Describe approach for ensuring completion of badging requirements and personnel security clearances to ensure employees are cleared for access to JSC and its associated facilities, as required, prior to start of the contract.";

"Personnel Clearance Procedures: A description of the procedures the Contractor will use if needed to identify and partition Contractor personnel requiring access to or participation in activities that would otherwise create an OCI issue; and"; "The contractor shall demonstrate an understanding of badging requirements and personnel security clearances to ensure employees are cleared for access to JSC and associated computing resources and facilities, as required." Question: Is a Secret Facility Clearance required for Prime offerors of Baseline A, Baseline B and/or IDIQ? Will a DD-254 be released for any of the baselines?

No, the Government does not anticipate Prime Offerors of Baseline A, Baseline B, and/or IDIQ to have a Secret Facility Clearance.

The Government does not anticipate a DD-254 for any of the baselines.

34 L.20.5g) states, “In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors, as defined above, the proposed program manager, and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company) which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-06, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (c) above.

In Question 2 of the Government’s answer to questions on the DRFP, the question asked was “In accordance with DRFP Section L.20.5 Past Performance Volume IL Baseline A and Baseline B Offerors shall provide information on up to three past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints). This past performance information can be in reference to individual contracts performed by the prime offerer (including joint ventures), major subcontractors, or the proposed program manager, but are limited to three past contracts per area of work per proposal. Please note: The Government anticipates that past performance citations for the proposed PM will not be required in Final RFP.

Because the requirement in the Final RFP is “This past performance information can be in reference to individual contracts performed by the prime offeror (including joint ventures) or major subcontractors, but are limited to three past contracts per area of work.” Therefore, the Government has deleted the requirement as related to the proposed program manager.

It has been our experience that PPQs are only required for the contracts being used as citations for the Past Performance Volume, not for a proposed program manager Question: Please confirm that the proposed program manager does not have to submit a Past Performance Questionnaire and that this requirement should be deleted from L.20.5g).

The Government anticipates removing the requirement for a PPQ for the Program Manager in a future amendment.

35 In the Final RFP section L.20.4 Technical

Acceptability Factor - Volume I (b), (ii) For Baseline B, (a) Factor: Operational Approach, 2.c. is still “Reserved” with no requirement.

Does the Government anticipate issuing a new requirement for 2.c or will the Government delete the “2.c. Reserved” sub section?

The Government does not anticipate an additional requirement and will remove the "Reserved" in a future amendment.

36 Apparent omission on M-13, stating CAS applies to B/L B, as well as A. Small business should only be subject to GAAP. CAS is not applicable to SB set-asides as SB are required to be GAAP compliant only. Would the Government please clarify?

The Government anticipates updating M-13 to "Not Applicable to Small Businesses."

37 Apparent error on L-37, stating 11 holidays, but then using 10 in the breakdown of 1,860 hours (2,080 total hours minus 80 hours for holidays…). Is it the intent of the Government to require all bidders to include 11 (88 hours) of holiday?

The Government anticipates a correction to the example in a future Amendment.

38 Section L.20.7.J refers to wage determinations attached to this contract. any part of MESC is a service contract and if so, would the Government please provide the required WD?

Refer to MESC Q&A #7

39 Given the answer To Question 18 from the DRFP that a TCP is not required for T&M subcontractors and DRD-02 stating that the IRAP and FBACP Templates are required as part of the abbreviated TCP, are minor T&M subcontractors required to complete and submit IRAP and FBACP Templates?

No. The minor T&M subcontractors are not required to complete and submit IRAP and FBACP Templates.

40 Given that the uncompensated overtime policy as described in the Abbreviated Total Compensation Plan DRD-02 section 8c.(3) is not part of the page count, does the Government recommend the offeror places this uncompensated overtime policy at the beginning or end of the Abbreviated TCP document on pages that have a separate numbering system, given by instructions in section L.20.2.3(b)(1) for sections which are not subject to page limitations?

The Government prefers the uncompensated overtime policy be placed at the end of the Abbreviated TCP.

Page numbering shall be in accordance with L.20.2.3(b)(1) to ensure pages are not subject to page limitations.

41 Apparent omission on DRD-04 in J

Attachments: DRD-04 SB subcontractor plan, should not be required for small businesses.

Would the Government please confirm?

The offeror should refer to Section L.20.4(b)(i)(b)(2)(c).

42 Considering that an offeror proposing in more than one work area is expected to provide a Responsibility and Considerations volume for each work area, please confirm that this also means a separate Abbreviated Total Compensation Plan is also required for each work area.

Yes, separate TCP's are required for each area of work proposed. See L.20.2.2 Table L-2 Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format

43 The latest version of the Baseline EPM Template does not seem to have an SAI template even though the RFP describes that it has been added-

- would the Government please provide an updated EPM for this purpose?

An updated Baseline EPM Template including SAI template will be posted with the RFP amendment.

44 Would the Government please provide further clarifying directions on how it expects the offeror to calculate Total Fully Burdened Labor Prices on the IDIQ SAI from the Specified resources considering the Fully Burdened costs on the TOPT-SR are calculated using the composite FBRs built in the FBR tab?

The Government expects the offerors to use specified hours in the TOPT-SR tab as the basis for SAI tab calculations.

45 The guidance in Attachment L-02, page 1, states that there is a 2- page limit for the "Technical Approach" (see below). Does the 2-Page limit also include items b. through d. listed on Page L- 30 or only the Technical Approach as stated in Attachment L-02? This guidance is incongruent with the guidance found in the table in Section L.20.2.2 Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format, page L-21 "IDIQ Technical Scenario – Attachment L-02: 2 pages per technical area and 1 page for Management Approach".

Final RFP Attachment L-02, page 1, IDIQ Technical Scenario states, Last Paragraph: "All offerors shall provide a response to Technical Areas 1 through 3 in the Table below. The page limit for the Technical Approach for Technical Areas 1 through 3 is two pages per Area (not to exceed six pages total)."

Attachment L-02, page 1, IDIQ Technical Scenario.

a. Provide a description detailing your proposed technical approach.

b. Provide the functional personnel descriptions and number of each position(s) assigned to the project, including roles ...

c. Provide a description of risks identified or anticipated in the performance of the work area.

Include a

d. Provide a description of the methodology for managing technical and schedule performance, Yes, the 2-page limit includes the items listed in Section L.20.4 iii) a) through d) and should match the information in the Technical Scenario.

46 The RFP states that “An electronic cover sheet should be contained as the first page of each electronic file.” Will the Government allow a cover letter to preceed this cover sheet? If a cover letter is allowed, will the Government confirm that it is excluded from any volume page limitations?

Offeror shall refer to L.20.2.3 JSC 52.215-113 Proposal Formatting Instructions.

47 L.20.5 has numerous requirements that must be addressed in order for the Past Performance Volume to be compliant. Once the acceptability of the Technical Volume is determined, the Past Performance Volume becomes most important.

However, for example, to cover all the Baseline B SOW areas (as shown on the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix and the evaluation criteria (such as complexity, performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance) as well as the contract information, we cannot successfully address all these requirements within the page count allotted. In addition, if an Offeror is submitting a major subcontractor past performance, that subcontractor may only be relevant to one or more SOW areas.

Question 1: Would the Government increase the page count for all Past Performance Volumes to no more than 10 pages in the aggregate, regardless of the number of citations submitted?

This would allow a more relevant citation to discuss its relevancy in more depth than a citation that does not cover all the SOW areas.

This permits a more equal playing field for all Offerors.

Question 2: If the Government will not allow the page count for each Past Performance Volume to be in the aggregate, would the Government increase the page count for each citation, so each citation is no more than 4 pages each?L.20.5 has numerous requirements that must be addressed in order for the Past Performance Volume to be compliant. Once the acceptability of the Technical Volume is determined, the Past Performance Volume becomes most important.

However, for example, to cover all the Baseline B SOW areas (as shown on the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix and the evaluation criteria (such as complexity, performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance) as well as the contract information, we cannot successfully address all these requirements within the page count allotted. In addition, if an Offeror is submitting a major

The Government does not anticipate increasing the page count for Past Performance.

subcontractor past performance, that subcontractor may only be relevant to one or more SOW areas.

48 On Tab FBAC, what numbers should the Proposer use for the Number of Proposed Personnel (WYE)?

49 is the number of Standard Labor Categories identified. 50 if the offerors use “other” and define a new labor category.

49 Should the FBAC tab be duplicated for Minor subcontractors?

A Total Compensation Plan, including any associated templates specified in the Abbreviated Total Compensation Plan DRD, is only required of those subcontractors who are contributing a meaningful number of professional employees who will work under the contract.

For purposes of this solicitation, the definition of "meaningful" will follow the general practice of the Department of Labor of 10% or greater for more than a minor use of employees.

50 Tab TOPT-SR has one WYE per category is this the number of incumbents for the IDIQ effort on

MESC?

No, the offerors shall provide the rate for 1 WYE for each category.

All IDIQ Task Orders will be firm-fixed price.

51 Can the Government identify the incumbent staffing by category for the IDIQ section for the consideration of Incumbent capture calculations?

No, there is no incumbency capture calculation for IDIQ due to the unknown nature of IDIQ. Offerors shall complete the TOPT-SR template for IDIQ.

52 What assumptions has the Government made in regards to the number of WYE for the IDIQ part of MESC?

The Government has made no assumptions for WYE as the IDIQ task orders have not been defined.

IDIQ task orders will be firm-fixed price.

53 For the IA tab, what number can the Government provide as the denominator for the percentage required for incumbent capture?

There is no incumbency capture calculation for IDIQ. For Baseline A and B, Offerors should refer to Attachment L-01 staffing assumptions and Attachment L-05 Government Resource Estimate (GRE), but develop their own incumbency capture approach.

54 Is the numerator for the percentage of incumbent capture?

There is no incumbency capture calculation for IDIQ. For Baseline A and B, Offerors should refer to Attachment L-01 staffing assumptions and Attachment L-05 Government Resource Estimate (GRE), but develop their own incumbency capture approach.

55 Can the Government provide the incumbent staffing level for year one of the IDIQ effort so the proposer can determine the percentage of incumbent capture?

The Government is not providing staffing levels for IDIQ.

56 How should our cost account for Remote work in our cost proposal? During COVID, which is ongoing today, remote work was encourage and sometimes required.

Offerors should refer to F.2. Place of performance. For the purpose of this RFP, remote work is considered the same as onsite work.

57 Is remote work considered Onsite work? Offerors should refer to F.2. Place of performance. For the purpose of this RFP, remote work is considered the same as onsite work.

58 If the contractor is bidding the IDIQ part of MESC, how should the cost proposal identify remote work costs if any?

Offerors should refer to F.2. Place of performance. For the purpose of this RFP, remote work is considered the same as onsite work.

59 The Government has provided a series of equipment in attachment J-XXX, but section L.11 still says there is no Government Furnished Property. Can you please clarify?

The Government does not anticipate providing Government Furnished Property (GFP) under MESC. The Government anticipates providing Installation Accountable Government Property (IAGP). Attachment J-05 includes the list of IAGP for the MESC. The list will include a title for clarity in an amendment to the RFP. Please reference NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.245-71 Installation-accountable Government property for further information related to IAGP.

60 Element d) says "This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Statement of Work, the prime, joint venture, and major subcontractors are responsible for." Please confirm that this information is to be included in the one-page introductory material rather than with each reference?

The information is expected to be included with each reference, not in introductory material.

61 Given the fact that the Lead, Software Quality Assurance Engineer requires previous knowledge of CMMI, can vendors provide their Corporate CMMI Development (CMMI ML3 DEV) certifications as a part of past performance evaluation?

CMMI level 3 (of higher) certification is due with Volume I - Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government does not intend to make a change to this requirement.

CMMI history can be shown in past performance narrative as well, however certification must be provided in the Volume I. DRD-19 Key Personnel for the position listed in the question, will be reviewed during Phase-in, not at proposal.

62 The Government has provided a EPM Model to propose Labor for the Prime, Major Subcontractor and Minor Subcontractor. Are we to "Add" LPT Tabs in the EPM Model for each Team Member or separate EPM Models with Links incorporated for each Team Members EPM Spreadsheet? Can you please clarify?

The offerors are to provide a separate Baseline EPM for each Major Subcontractor with or without links in addition to Prime Baseline EPM. The hours for the Minor Subcontractor can be summarize in the PCST tab.

63 If the vendor is not proposing an affiliated company, division or business do you still need to address section e or f?

No, please refer to Section L.20.5.

64 If yes, it this information to be included in the 1-page past performance introduction, or outside of the page count?

Refer to MESC Q&A #63 and #20.

65 The Government states in section I that "This introductory material is in addition to the page limitation constraints." however in the table in section L.20.2.2 there is a 1-page limitation on the introductory material. Can the Government please clarify?

The Government will correct this in an amendment to the RFP, removing the introductory material due to a provision update.

66 In order to provide the most accurate pricing information to NASA we ask that the Attachment L-03 spreadsheet be modified to include a calculation column for Fringe Benefits in all applicable schedules?

This question is not specific or clear enough for the Government to best address it.

67 H5 – c. List of Key Facilities, shown as OFI.

Attachment J-06 – List of Government Provided Facilities says none are identified at this time.

However, at industry day the Government indicated per G.3 that office space would be provided. Can the Government provide a list of the Key Facilities provided?

The Government anticipates an update to H-05 to remove OFI in an amendment to the RFP. Office space and storage space are not considered "Key Facilities".

68 Because of the subjective nature of rating and weighting a past performance citation as more recent than another, would NASA consider going back to using solely the language that is used in most all other procurements; A recent citation is anything within the last three years?

The Government does not anticipate making a change to this language; this has been the standard language at JSC since 2018.

69 Will the Government provide applicable wage determination(s)?

Refer to MESC Q&A #7

70 Will the Government increase the TCP page limitation to 15 pages?

The Government does not requirement.

71 Please clarify whether T&M subcontractors are required to submit an abbreviated TCP in accordance with DRD-02. If so, how does the Government define meaningful numbers of professional employees?

amendment to the RFP which will clarify the requirement.

72 Will the Government allow additional Key Personnel (KP) resumes (1 page per KP) other than the Program Manger (PM) to be submitted with the proposal?

No additional KP resumes are allowed to be submitted with the proposal other than the PM.

73 Does the Government desire “Native Format” sections to be provided as standalone attachments to the volume or do you prefer them to be embedded within the MS Word file?

The Government will not allow the consolidation of images in into a single Word document. Refer to item d) of Section L.20.2.1 Electronic Submission of Proposals

– Proposal Marking and Delivery.

74 MESC Baseline-B, Section DRD, DRD Line item No. 03, DRD Title: Contract Management & Staffing Plan, 8.c Describe the Offeror’s/Contractor’s approach to managing multiple and concurrent baseline(s) and/or task order(s), if applicable. QUESTION: We respectfully ask that the Government consider clearly defining the statement "approach to managing multiple and concurrent baseline(s) and/or task order(s)" in DRD Line item No.

0, item 8.c. to ensure that bidders accurately and completely address the DRD requirement.

If the offeror proposes on multiple areas of work (i.e Baseline A, B and/or IDIQ), the expectation is that the offeror should describe their approach to managing resources across those multiple areas.

75 L-04 IDIQ EPM Template:

L.20.6 Cost and Price Factor - Volume III (c) Pricing Methodology - 1. Pricing for Baseline A and Baseline B Effort states “A Government Resource Estimate (GRE) for WYEs and NLRs are provided in Attachment L-04, IDIQ EPM Template”. The Attachment L-04 template does not contain GRE values for NLRs. Page A-6 references Attachment L-05 Government Resources Estimate (GRE) that is included with the RFP attachments as part of the RFP document.

QUESTION: Please clarify whether a revised Attachment L-04 template will be provided that includes GRE values for NLRs or whether RFP page L-37 will be amended to include a reference to Attachment L-05 instead of L-04 for NLR GRE data.

The Government anticipates a change to the RFP to clarify the correct Attachment, L-03 Baseline EPM template. The Government is not providing GRE or NLR data for

IDIQ.

76 The solicitation lists two Government property clauses 52.245-1 and 52.245-1 (ALT 1) which is only applicable to the IDIQ award. Under FAR clause 52.245-1 the contractor is NOT liable for loss of GFP. However the language on pages 70- 73 (Section G.3) seems to apply 52.245-1 (ALT

1) to ALL GFP—even that property provided under a Cost Plus framework.

QUESTION: Please clarify the Government’s intent in regard to Government Property. Does the Contractor or the Government have risk of loss?

52.245-1 is for Government Property provided for offsite use, while 1852.245-71 is for installation-accountable government property, which is provided for use on-site. NFS 1845.107-70 states that "Government property provided for offsite use... is furnished under FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, and remains accountable to the contractor during its use on the contract. This Government property is not subject to he clause at 1852.245-71, Installation- Accountable Government Property."

The government is accountable and has the risk of loss on all installation-accountable government property listed in paragraph (c)(3) of 1852.245-71.

77 Table L-20.6.1 in section L.20.6 Cost and Price Factor – Volume III provides an hourly total for the IDIQ by LCAT by CY. The total at the bottom of the table is equal to 94,860, which is not equal to the total hours found in Attachment L-04 IDIQ EPM Template, which lists 93,000.

QUESTION: Please advise what total should be used for the IDIQ.

The Government anticipates a correction to the RFP to update Table L-20.6-1.

78 Attachment L-04 IDIQ EPM Template lists hours for a Standard Labor Category titled “Other: (Specify)”. QUESTION: Can the Government confirm that for any added LCATs to the IDIQ, the bidder should solely provide a rate and not add hours, resulting in the total hours for a CY being 91,140?

The offerors are to provide only the rate associated with "Other:

(Specify)" and not add hours.

Please identify the labor category for "Other: (Specify)."

79 L.20.6 Cost and Price Factor - Volume III (c)

Pricing Methodology - 1. Pricing for Baseline A and Baseline B Effort states “The GRE…is not considered to be a Government “plug number.”

It also states, “Offerors shall develop their own resource estimates that support their unique management and technical approaches and shall provide supporting rationale in narrative form even if the Offeror uses the GRE as the basis for their proposal.”

QUESTION – With respect to Non-Labor Resources (NLR) only, please clarify whether additional detail in the technical requirements will be provided to enable the bidder to develop their own basis for proposed NLRs or whether the RFP will be amended to observe the NLR contained in Attachment L-05 as “adequate assumptions for pricing purposes”.

Additional technical requirements will not be provided. The NLRs provided in Attachment L-05 is based on historical usage factors and/or the Government's estimated requirements for the core work. As stated in the RFP, Offerors shall develop their own resource estimates that support their unique management and technical approaches and provide supporting rationale in narrative form even if the Offeror uses the GRE as the basis for their proposal.

80 QUESTION: Attachment J4-0B and SF-33 do not export well into a Word document. Can we submit the Model Contract in Word or as a PDF?

An amendment will be issued specifying that the SF33 shall be submitted as PDF. The rest of the model contract (sections A-F excluding the SF33) shall be submitted in Microsoft Word.

81 Section L.20.5 of the RFP specifies a number of items that must be included the past performance volume for the each offeror’s proposal, including but not limited to, contract information (e.g., contract number, employee count, agency, POC, NAIC code, value, and other info under L.20.5(c)), description of the Offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort, delineation of work among teammates, meaningful involvement justifications, and a description of content and complexity as compared to the contracts’ scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror has a total of 6 pages (for all contracts) to address each of these items.

The Baseline B SOW provides a wide range of highly technical work requirements including, among others, “specialized IT end-user and back-end enabling infrastructure administration and support” and “sustaining, maintain, The Government does not requirement.

developing highly specialized, complex custom-developed software” written in a number of different languages. See RFP M.4(c). Offerors will need to be highly specific to fully address how a cited contract is similar in scope and complexity, and therefore relevant to the MESC Contract. Indeed, the incumbent JOIST contract solicitation provided offerors with [10] pages to address past performance. The less space afforded to contractors to address relevancy, the more challenging it will be for the Government to distinguish offerors and evaluate past performance. QUESTION: Will the Government consider increasing the Baseline B past performance volume page count from 6 pages to 10 pages, so that offerors can fully address relevancy for each citation in addition to the other requirements included in Section L.20.5?

82 Would the Government please confirm that H.6 OFI’s apply to Baseline A only?

Offerors should refer to Provision H.6 and L.20.8.

83 The DRL in section J for DRD 05 seems to have a typo in the submission box as it refers to the PMP. Would the Government please confirm?

The Government anticipates making a update to Section J of DRD 05 on the DRL in a future amendment to the RFP.

84 There is a possible DRD-09 submittal conflict:

the DRCOP is due 15 days after contract start with updates required during phase-in. Would the Gov't please clarify?

clarification to DRD-09 submittal in an amendment to the RFP.

85 The TRT-Baseline B tab shows references in columns B through J for SOW 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0. However, the SOW for Baseline B only has outline sections for 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and additional 3rd-level subsections. Would the Government please clarify the intended mapping of WYE per SOW section to be completed in the TRT-Baseline B?

making a correction to the TRT- Baseline B tab in the RFP.

86 JSC logistics contract handles all onsite deliveries, per their contract. However it is mentioned in the SOW and clarified in the Pre- Proposal Conference that MESC is responsible for transportation of all IAGP that is procured under the contract. Section F and Section G.3.b.1.i,ii appear to contradict SOW 2.5.5.

Would the Government please clarify the requirement for transportation of IAGP?

Section G.3(b)(1)(b)i & ii, states that if a contractor acquires property to transfer or deliver to JSC, they are to follow section (i) and (ii), to ensure the property is received by JSC prior to delivery to the organization. All deliveries to JSC must follow this practice, where they are to go through JSC Central receiving for Supply & Equipment Supply Office receiving and inspection.

Section 2.5.5 states that if a contractor providing support on the NFS 1852.245-71 requirements for onsite Installation-Accountable Government Property is to manage and maintain property onsite, they are to follow all NPR's, JPRs and JWI's listed in in paragraph a of the clause. More than likely, they are performing Property Custodian duties for the Government onsite.

87 Please clarify if the “Offeror”, “major and minor subcontractors” are to submit copies of any and all OSHA logs with explanatory remarks and a letter from the insurance carrier. 1. If yes, that major and minor subcontractors are required to submit these documents, is the Offeror allowed to provide a summary of the OSHA logs?

(Submitting all of a large business that can entail many pages of data.)

Are the logs to be submitted by anticipated Performance location?

Offerors should refer to L.20.5(b) Safety and Health Data.

88 Will the Government please clarify that the new date should be "by 12:00pm Central Time on 10/05/2021" to coincide with the new proposal due date?

update to the questionnaire due date in a future amendment.

PPC5 Since the requirement is to submit the Model contract in MS Word format, will the Government Provide an MS Word Version of the entire RFP document to facilitate this requirement?

The Government will provide a MS Word Version of the Model Contract, Sections A-K.

PPC6 For L.20.5 c) Past Performance - Volume II, please confirm that consent letters for subcontractors are to be included as past performance attachments, and therefore outside of the page count limitations?

Consent letters for subcontractors are to be included as past performance attachments and are outside of the page count limitations.

PPC7 The Q&A that was released on August 19th during the DRFP states that a TCP is not required for T&M subcontractors who meet the definition in paragraph

(d) (1) & (2) under JPI 1852.231-71. However, DRD- 02 Abbreviated TCP seems to indicate that subcontractors are required to submit TCP when the contract value is expected to exceed $750K and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees, regardless of contract type.

amendment to the RFP to clarify the requirement for T&M subcontractors to submit a TCP.

PPC8 Please clarify whether T&M subcontractors are required to submit an abbreviated TCP in accordance with DRD-02. If so, how does the Government define meaningful numbers of professional employees?

amendment to the RFP which will clarify the requirement.

PPC9 Ms. Mo indicated adjustments may be made to our cost volume...are there ever cases where our probable cost would be adjusted down from our bid cost? (ie. if we bid a rate higher than an incumbent rate?)

Offerors shall reference charts 66 and 67 of the Preproposal Conference.

PPC10 The latest version of the Baseline EPM Template does not seem to have an SAI template even though the RFP and these charts describes that it has been added-- would the Government please provide an updated EPM for this purpose?

Yes, the updated template will be included in the amendment to the

RFP.

PPC11 For Past Performance, to fully address the

Meaningful Involvement, we request that this be considered outside of page count as, when Meaningful Involvement is considered inside page count for past performance, it really doesn’t allow us to cite our past performance and address all the existing past performance requirements.

The Government doesn’t anticipate any changes Past Performance page count.

PPC12 For the past performance in the IDIQ area, can we use all ten pages if we submit less than 5 citations?

Yes, offerors may use all 10 pages for past performance in the IDIQ area.

PPC13 Would the Government please provide further clarifying directions on how it expects the offeror to calculate Total Fully Burdened Labor Prices per teammate on the IDIQ SAI from the specified resources considering the fully burdened costs on the TOPT-SR are calculated using the composite FBRs built in the FBR tab?

Refer to MESC Q&A #44.

PPC14 Can you please tell me where the answers are posted to these questions, we submitted on 9/1? Scott Stephens indicated they were addressed on the MESC website, but we cannot locate them. Thank you!

Some…