80JSC022R0011 QA-A0001.pdf

Environmental Compliance and Operations 3 (ECO3)

80JSC022R0011

Request for Proposal (RFP) and Preproposal Questions and Answers

Type Reference Question Answer *Cells filled-in with this color denotes updates made to the solicitation*

1 Procurement DRD-ECO3-009 Item 11 (7) requires a benefit table as part of the offeror’s Total Compensation Plan. As this is a large table with content that is specified by the DRD, would the government please consider removing the benefit table from the page count in Volume I, Technical Acceptability Factor?

No. Per Item 11 (7) bullet 5, “Each item must be addressed. Offerors may add fringe benefit categories to the table below but cannot delete benefit categories. The table may be modified to convey the information.” The Government anticipates the table to be no more than two pages and will remain part of the 40-page count limitation.

2 Procurement DRD ECO03-003 It is required that we provide loaded labor rates in the BOE. Since this is in the technical volume, we want to confirm that it is compliant to provide loaded labor rates in the BOE for TO1.

NASA updated Section L.19.4, Subfactor 1(a) to state: The requested information shall include requirements of DRD ECO3-003, with the exception of Section A.3 (loaded labor rates) and Section B (Resource Loaded Schedule).

3 Procurement Cover Letter, We request an extension of 2-4 weeks for the response submittal deadline beyond the current August 11, 2022, date. The requirements to prepare a proposal for this RFP are extremely complex and requires a significant effort to complete at the appropriate level of quality to be competitive and meet NASA expectations. We respectively request that a response be provided regarding an extension as soon as possible, rather than waiting to provide it with answers to other questions, as it may determine our ability to continue moving forward with a response.

NASA updated L.19.2 to extend the proposal due date to August 25, 2022, 12:00 pm MDT.

However, Offerors may deliver proposals earlier than this time and date to ensure successful delivery.

4 Procurement Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, pages B-2, B-3, B-7, B-8, B-10

Several tables in this section require OFI: Offeror Fill-in. Which volume are these tables to be included? Will they count against a page limit?

The RFP has been updated to allow offeror fill-in utilizing the Tool function in Adobe.

Per RFP Section L.19.2-2, Section B is to be included in Volume V, Model Contract.

5 Procurement Section L.9 Government Property Management, page L-5

Which volume are the responses to Section L.9 to be included? Will the responses count against a page limit?

NASA has removed the provision in L.9 in its entirety and marked it as “reserved”.

6 Procurement L.11(a)(3) Proposal Formatting Instructions

Please confirm the required electronic cover sheet will not be counted as part of the page limitations for any volume.

Reference L.11 52.215-113 Proposal Formatting Instructions, paragraph b (4) which states the following:

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.

However, these pages shall be numbered with lower case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.) in order to provide ease of reference for the Government.

7 Procurement Page L-19(g) The organization chart requested in Section L-19

(g) is not listed in the L.19.2-2 Overview. We assume that this is required to be provided subject to the 10-page count restriction—is that correct?

Yes, the organizational chart requested in Section L.19.5, Past Performance Volume II, paragraph (g) shall be included as part of the 10-page limitation for Past Performance.

8 Procurement L.19-5 L.19-6(b)

Please confirm major subcontractors are not required to submit Volumes I, II, and IV and are only required to submit Cost and Price Volume

III.

Per L.19-5, 52.215-114 Past Performance Information (h): “any major subcontractors… shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L.7, to all the point of contact references required in paragraph (c).” in addition to the Cost and Price Volume III requirement stated in L.19-6 (b).

9 Procurement Overview Table within L.19.2-2 on page L-15

It states that Questionnaires (L7) are to be included with the Past Performance Volume. This conflicts with Section L.19.5 (h) instructions, which state that L7 Questionnaires are to be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer.

Please clarify whether or not copies of the L7 Questionnaires need to be provided with the proposal as part of the Past Performance Volume.

As stated in section L.19.5(h) the Offeror is responsible for ensuring that all references are directed to return a copy of each questionnaire directly to the Contracting Officer by email.

Upon receipt of the questionnaires, NASA will include the questionnaire(s) (L7) that are received as part of the Offeror’s past performance volume.

10 Procurement L.19.5 If the Past Performance volume includes data on any affiliated company, division(s), business units, segments, or other organizations of your company, then provide a narrative to address what they will be responsible for and/or proposing to do and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that said parent et al will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.”

Question: Please confirm the referenced narrative will not be counted as part of the page limitations for Volume II.

Reference Table L.19.2-2

The following are the only areas not included in the 10-page limit: Past Performance Attachments, Past Performance Consent Letter(s) (L6), Questionnaire(s) (L7), Environmental and Safety and Health Data.

11 Procurement L.19.5 (b) We request expanding the period of performance for Prior Experience from 3 years to 5 years as it will foster more open competition and deliver the best value to the government.

No, NASA is utilizing a streamlined acquisition approach and has determined 3 years is sufficient to demonstrate recency.

12 Procurement L.19.5(g) Please confirm the organizational chart required for the Past Performance Volume will not be counted as part of the page limitations for Volume

II.

See response to question #7.

13 Procurement Section L.19.8 Model Contract - Volume V, page L-37

Contract Section A requires an original signature on the SF33. Please define what qualifies as an original signature.

In accordance with FAR 2.101, Signature or "signed" means the discrete, verifiable symbol of an individual that, when affixed to a writing with the knowledge and consent of the individual, indicates a present intention to authenticate the writing. NASA will accept an electronic or wet ink original signature on the SF33.

14 Procurement L.19.5(g) If a single company is self-performing all the work in a prime capacity with no proposed subcontractors, affiliates, or business units, is an organizational chart still needed?

Yes, as stated in paragraph (g): Provide an organizational chart displaying the relationships between the parent company, affiliate, and/or any other organizational entity (division(s), business units, or other segments of your company) which are proposed to perform the effort.

15 Procurement Attachment L-5 For the past performance evaluation, Offerors will provide Past performance examples that show relevant experience across twenty-nine areas. One of those will unintentionally exclude every competitor except the incumbent. While it is appropriate to have this as a requirement in the PWS, Task 3-8, Support to White Sands Complex (WSC), it is also listed as a requirement in Attachment L-5 (Past Performance Matrix of Relevant Experience). Since the current contract has been in effect for over four years and experience is limited to three years, the incumbent contractor is the only competitor able to annotate this past performance. Under the Streamlined Procurement Evaluation Factors (M.2 (f), Past Performance and Price will determine the selection among proposals that meet the criteria for Technical Acceptability. The requirement for a site-specific past performance (like WSC Support) gives the incumbent an unfair advantage over every competitor. We request the Government remove Section 3.8 (WSC Support) from Attachment L-5. This change will allow a more open competition and deliver the best value to the Government.

The place of performance, WSC, is not being evaluated. The ability to demonstrate past performance for the type of work performed at WSC is what is considered in the past performance evaluation section M.3. The type of work performed at WSC is described in the PWS Section 3.8 and the Workload Indicators, Attachment L-9.

16 Procurement Attachment L-5 While it is appropriate to have this as a requirement in the PWS, Support to White Sands Complex (WSC) is also listed as a requirement in Attachment L-5 (Past Performance Matrix of Relevant Experience). Since the current contract has been in effect for over four years and experience is limited to three years, the incumbent contractor is the only competitor able to annotate this past performance. Under the Streamlined Procurement Evaluation Factors (M.2 (f), Past Performance and Price will determine the selection among proposals that meet the acceptable criteria for Technical Acceptability.

The requirement for a site-specific past performance (like WSC Support) gives the incumbent an unfair advantage over every other competitor. We request the Government remove Section 3.8 (WSC Support) from Attachment L-

5. Government failure to address this critical discriminator will result in only the incumbent being eligible to submit. This is neither fair nor open competition. This will allow a more open competition and deliver the best value to the government.

See response to question #15.

17 Procurement Technical Resource Library

If there are files in the Technical Resource Library that are not subject to export-controlled content, will the Government please make these files publicly available on SAM.gov? Placing essential information behind an excessive access requirement is preventing fair and open competition.

NASA has removed restrictions for TRL documents available on a public domain.

Attachment J-11, TRL Index has been updated in its entirety.

18 Procurement Section M.3 (C) Would NASA consider a prime contract more similar than a second-tier subcontract?

NASA’s intent is not to compare a prime contract against a 2nd tier subcontract.

The three aspects taken into consideration when determining the offerors past performance confidence rating, as stated in M.3 (c) are:

Recency, Relevance, and Performance.

19 Procurement Section M.3 (C) Relevancy

On page M-5, the terms “content” and “complexity” are defined, but “size” is not. Will the Government please define this term as well?

Relevancy is comprised of several components, including size, content, and complexity. When evaluating past performance, those exhibiting more (or all) of the types required for the current acquisition will be considered more relevant than those exhibiting less.

The term “size” considers other effort not defined by “content” and “complexity” as the solicitation requires in M.3 (c). These efforts can include, full time employees, contract value and actual cost of work performed.

20 Procurement Section M.3 Is it correct to assume that size is defined as the actual cost/value of work performed, as opposed to total ceiling value?

See response to question 19.

21 Procurement Section M. 3 (a) Section M. 3 (a) states that “Past Performance indicates how well an offeror performed on earlier work and can be a significant indicator of how well it can be expected to perform the work at hand.” Will offerors that submit a higher quantity of projects receive greater consideration for past performance?

NASA will evaluate Past Performance received in accordance with section L.19.5 according to the evaluation criteria defined in Section M.3 which is comprised of a quality assessment of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

22 Procurement Page M-5 Performance: The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting…..”

Because this is a small business set-aside, and therefore, there are no requirements for second tier subcontracting to other small businesses, would NASA consider removing the small business subcontracting factor from the evaluation of past performance?

The cited language is consistent with JSC Procurement Instruction (JPI) 52.215-115, Past Performance Evaluation, subsection (c) discussing performance. The use of such language is not unique to this acquisition and is required for all solicitations issued by NASA Johnson Space Center.

23 Procurement L.19.2 Will a two-week extension to the proposal due date be considered due to the large volume of information required to provide a high-quality product to NASA?

See response to question #3.

24 Procurement F.2 Can a percentage of remote workers per Labor Category be provided?

Remote work is an internal business decision based on PWS requirement flexibility and super-flex work schedule guidelines provided in L.16, 52.242-90.

25 Procurement L-9 Workload Indicators

Are bidders required to use the workload indicators given in Attachment L-9 to estimate the non-labor costs (travel, materials, etc.)?

The Offeror is not required to use the workload indicators in Attachment L-9; however, L-9 was developed to provide offerors with NASA’s estimate of the PWS requirements.

26 Pricing Preproposal Slide

Typo identified in Workbook Template flowchart, Technical Resources Template – Task Order 1 and 2 states TRST, should be TRT-TO.

Corrected to TRT-TO.

27 Pricing Preproposal Conference Briefing

For the Cost/Price evaluation, today, we learned that the Government would ‘adjust’ our proposed Direct Labor Rate to match the Incumbent direct labor rates. Currently, only the incumbent has access to these direct labor rates. The provided NASA historical rates are incomplete and do not meet this requirement. While I appreciate the desire to keep incumbent personnel, especially in remote or challenging locations, this post-submission adjustment will place every competitor at a disadvantage as they develop their fully burdened rates. If NASA wants actual competition, it should provide all hourly direct labor rates for every position. Then each offeror can set their fully burdened rates from the same starting position. It will also eliminate the requirement for the Incumbency Retention and Pay (IRAP) Template, as they will be standardized across proposals. NASA will then be able to assess Cost/Pricing across a level playing field accurately.

Whether to retain the incumbent workforce or not is solely the Offeror’s business decision. The Government does not dictate how Offerors should propose. If the Offeror has indicated the intention of both retaining incumbents and paying incumbent direct labor rates, and has not utilized the incumbent direct labor rate, the Offeror’s proposed direct labor rate will be adjusted to reflect the incumbent direct labor rate. If the Offeror has indicated the intention of retaining incumbents and paying a different rate (higher or lower), then supporting rationale and/or documentation must be provided otherwise an adjustment could be made.

The NASA historical rates are not incomplete.

These rates serve as an assistance to the Offeror in preparation of the proposal and reflects existing ECO2 SLC rates mapped to ECO3 SLCs.

Specified resources has provided anticipated labor distribution for typical projects for a task order based on historical data. The current ECO2 workforce is very senior, but the future workforce for ECO3 may change. Hence, there are SLCs without historical data. However, those SLCs may become applicable or necessary over the course of ECO3 contract. Therefore, the Government is requesting Offerors to provide Fully Burdened Rates (FBRs) in Section B.11 and B.12 of the Model Contract.

The IRAP is still necessary to document the following:

1. The use of incumbents being proposed to be retained and paid at their current rate of pay.

2. The use of incumbents being proposed to be retained and paid at other than their current rate of pay; and

3. The use of non-incumbents being proposed and the source of the proposed direct labor rate. (i.e., WD Rate, CBA Rate, Third Party Rate Data, Contractor Rate Data)

28 Pricing TRL – Rates In reviewing the rates given in the library for incumbent salaries historic data, it appears that these rates are the current 2022 rates. The rates for the CY1 need to be the escalated rates from 2022.

For instance, the current salary of a technician 1 as required by the CBA is $26.04, but it increases to $26.95 on June 3, 2023. This represents the required 3.5% escalation per year in the CBA.

The same situation is in the exempt positions--the rates given are the current rates (2022), which need to be escalated to represent the CY1 rates.

The rates given in the library for incumbent salaries historic data are escalated to CY1 with a contract start date of June 1, 2023.