COSMOS - DRFP Q and A Part III.pdf

Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and Systems

(COSMOS)

DRFP Q&A Part 3 – October 29, 2024

Part 3 concludes DRFP Q&A

Other Clause H.4 and DRD-

COSMOS-

0017 Staffing and Cri�cal Skills Plan of 520 (Clause H.4);

118 Other Can NASA please confirm that the Key Personnel resume due at proposal submission is only for the Program Manager? The DRD-0017 states "resumes" vs "resume."

The only Key Personnel resume due at proposal submission is for the Program Manager, see H.4, L.20, Attachment L-1, and DRD- COSMOS-0017. All other Key personnel positions should be identified as part of proposal including name of the position and job description per DRD- COSMOS-0017. The remaining key personnel resumes are due at contract start.

Other Clause H.4 and DRD-

COSMOS-

0017 Staffing and Cri�cal Skills Plan of 520 (Clause H.4);

119 Other The DRD referenced seems to inadvertently contradict itself in Block 11, under �tle

"CONTENTS (10)": " AT

CONTRACT START, provide key personnel resumes FOR THIS DRD. Note: Key personnel resumes are NOT required

WITH PROPOSAL FOR THIS

DRD. Instead, key personnel resumes are provided as part of Volume I – Mission Suitability, Attachment L-1, Key Personnel Resume Template.

AT CONTRACT START, update this DRD to include personnel resumes (FOR THIS DRD

See ques�on 118.

resume format and content are at the Contractor’s discretion)."

Can the Government please confirm that key personnel resumes are to be provided as part of Volume II-Past Performance IAW Sec�on L?

Please clarify so that offerors may ensure proposal compliance.

Other Clause H.4 and DRD-

COSMOS-

0017 Staffing and Cri�cal Skills Plan of 520 (Clause H.4);

120 Other Given the cri�cality of the Program Manager's influence on the management of the COSMOS program, would the Government consider evalua�ng the Program Manager's resume under Volume I-Mission Suitability - Management Approach?

No, a�er careful considera�on of this ques�on, the Government re-affirms it will evaluate the Program Manager’s resume as part of L.20 Past Performance as stated in the DRFP.

Security (including informa�on technology security)

Dra� RFP

80JSC024R00

Atachment J- 6 DD Form 254, Department of Defense DoD Contract Security Classifica�on Specifica�on

Page 6 of 520, page

121 Request for addi�onal informa�on

The DD Form 254 provided with the Dra� Request for Proposal, was a blank form, without any security requirements. Will NASA provide a DRAFT DD Form 254 with security requirements?

See ques�on 74 of DRFP Q&A Part II.

Security (including informa�on technology security)

DRD-0030-

Contractor Security Management Plan

Page 3, paragraph 6, of

DRFP

dated Sep 12, 2024

122 Clarity DRFP states, "A Top Secret//Sensi�ve Compartmented Informa�on (SCI) facili�es clearance is required at proposal submission for this acquisi�on in accordance with the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classifica�on Specifica�on."

Is this referring to a company must have a "Top Secret FCL with Top Secret safeguarding" and the personnel with SCI eligibility?

See ques�on number 73 of DFRP Q&A Part II.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

DRD-

COSMOS-

L.17 (b)

J-17-8

L-13

123 Other Request that DRD-COSMOS- 0004 Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques be removed from page count so as to not limit the number of Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques that can be offered to NASA

DRD-COSMOS-0004 is included in the page limit and will not be unlimited.

However, the overall Page Limit for Mission Suitability will be increased from 115 to 165 pages in the COSMOS Final RFP.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

DRD-

COSMOS-

L.17 (b)

J-17-8

L-13

124 Other If DRD-COSMOS-0004 is removed from page count, request the Offeror be allowed to depict the Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques template in an Excel format for ease of viewing and evalua�on

DRD-COSMOS-0004 is included in the page limit for Mission Suitability and will not be unlimited. The format will remain as specified in Table L- 1.

Unique terms and condi�ons

J-25 400-402 125 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Does NASA an�cipate any addi�onal OCONUS loca�ons for temporary travel or long term deployment/permanent assignment in performance of this mission? Knowing this will assist offerors' readiness to respond to those travel requirements and assess risk mi�ga�on strategies, as needed.

See ques�on number 60 of DFRP Q&A Part II.

Unique terms and condi�ons

J-25 400-402 126 Request for addi�onal informa�on

The agency should encourage, & not unduly restrict, compe��on in contrac�ng.

Promo�ng compe��on is to the agency's benefit, as it

In response to part a, The cost of the support outlined in the COSMOS SOW is reflected in the existing rates table provided. The Government drives down cost, heightens innova�on & enables the agency to consider alterna�ve solu�ons in order to procure the best offering. In this spirit, we respec�ully raise the following concerns, ques�ons, and proposed solu�ons for the Government’s considera�on, given the dynamic geo-poli�cal condi�ons and evolving threats in and related to Russia, and resul�ng uncertainty associated with conduc�ng business & traveling there:

a) Would the Govt please consider providing a plug number for the Russian work scope to ensure balanced pricing across compe�tors and to eliminate disparate assessment of costs to meet performance obliga�ons among offerors?

b) Due to fundamental changes in the commercial landscape because of the Russia- Ukrainian conflict, would NASA please include Sec�on H clauses to excuse Contractor will not provide a plug number for the Russian work scope. In response to part b, the Government will not modify the RFP to include any additional Section H clauses related to work performed in Russia and refers potential offerors to Section I.1 Listing of Clauses Incorporated by Reference Clause Number 52.249-14 Excusable Delays.

from performance dependencies outside of Offeror’s control? Examples follow:

Force Majeure/Excusable Delays

(a) Except for defaults of contacts or subcontractors at any �er, the Contractor shall not be in default because of any failure to perform this contract under its terms if the failure arises from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.

Examples of these causes are

(1) acts of God or of the public enemy, (2) acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (3) fires, (4) floods,

(5) epidemics, (6) quaran�ne restric�ons, (7) strikes, (8) freight embargoes, (9) unusually severe weather, (10) war/armed conflict, (11) terrorist atacks, (12) civil unrest, (13) labor strikes, (14) infrastructure failures

(transporta�on, energy), etc..

In each instance, the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor. "Default" includes failure to make progress in the work so as to endanger performance.

(b) If the failure to perform is caused by the failure of a subcontractor at any �er to perform or make progress, and if the cause of the failure was beyond the control of both the Contractor and subcontractor, and without the fault or negligence of either, the Contractor shall not be deemed to be in default,-unless-

(1) The subcontracted supplies or services were obtainable from other sources;

(2) The Contrac�ng Officer ordered the Contractor in wri�ng to purchase these supplies or services from the other source; and

(3) The Contractor failed to comply reasonably with this order.

(c) Upon request of the Contractor, the Contrac�ng Officer shall ascertain the facts and extent of the failure. If the Contrac�ng Officer determines that any failure to perform results from one or more of the causes above, the delivery schedule shall be revised, subject to the rights of the Government under the termina�on clause of this contract.

(End of clause) Performance in High Threat Loca�ons

a. If at any �me during the period of performance the Contractor, in its good faith judgment, believes that the security risk at a performance loca�on is unreasonably high, the Contractor may give no�ce of its concerns regarding the adequacy of security to the Government CO. If, a�er 72 hours which may be shortened pursuant to the severity of the danger a�er receiving such no�ce from the

Contractor, the security threat is not reasonably mi�gated, the Contractor may, a�er determining in good faith that addi�onal ac�ons are required, take steps to ensure the safety of its personnel, including temporary withdrawal of its personnel from the area(s) of concern, un�l such �me as the security concern is adequately mi�gated. Any delay or disrup�on of performance as a result shall be excused and Contractor and will not be in default.

b. Contractor reserves the right to decline or stop performing services in an extreme threat loca�on for which adequate force protec�on is not provided to ensure the safety of our employees. Contractor will work with the Government to seek an alternate, safer loca�on.

c. Contractor personnel will be included in the US Government Emergency and Evacua�on plans when deployed in any extreme threat loca�ons.

(End of clause)

Sec�on L Proposal

Instruc�ons

L.16 (b): Table L-1; L.20(e)

L-17 ; L-

127 Other Past Performance Introductory Materials: In order to fully address the en�re team and present highly relevant past experience and to detail por�ons of the SOW specific team members are responsible for and other resources to be employed and relied upon, request the Government increase the Past Performance Introduc�on to three (3) pages.

After consideration of the suggestions , the Government decided an increase in the page limit for Past Performance Introductory Material will not be made at this time.

Sec�on L Proposal

Instruc�ons

L.16 (b): Table L-1; L.20(k)

L-17, L-36 128 Other In order to fully address the primes small business par�cipa�on over the last five years, relevant to this effort, request the Government allow the requirement (L.20(k) to be part of the material (e.g., Environmental and Safety data, Insurance Informa�on, PP Atachments and Organiza�on Chart) which is not included in page count.

The Small Business Participation submission page count is not limited.

Instruc�ons

L.17 L-13 129 Other The TCP has a 10 page limit;

however, based on the informa�on required to be included in the TCP from MA.2.2, it will be difficult to thoroughly cover all that is required within 10 pages. We request that the TCP be excluded from the page limita�ons or that the page limit be increased to 20 pages to allow offerors the ability to submit a compliant TCP.

The page count language for L.17 of the DRFP will remain 10 pages for the Prime and 10 Pages per each major subcontractor."

The following will be added as part of the Final RFP, "The supporting documentation (surveys, studies and sources used for the propose direct labor rates) provided are not included in the page count."

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.17 (b) L-13 130 Other Would the Government consider removing the DRD- COSMOS-0001 WBS from page count, as to allow for a comprehensive response.

No, the Government will not remove DRD-COSMOS-0001 WBS from the page count, however the WBS tree is the only portion of DRD-COSMOS- 0001 due with proposal and is included in the Mission Suitability Page Limit which has been revised to 165 pages.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.17 (b) L-13 131 Other Given the depth and breadth of requirements across the Mission Suitability volume, if the Government does not remove the DRD-COSMOS- 0001 WBS and DRD-COSMOS- 0004 Efficiencies and Improvements Template from

See answer to question 123.

page count, would the Government consider a 150-page limit for the Mission Suitability volume.

Sec�on L Proposal

Instruc�ons

L.17 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limita�ons, Copies, and

Due Date Table l-1

Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limita�ons, Format and

Cross Referencing, NA.2 TCP

L-14 132 Other Request the Government increase the page limit for the TCP from 10 to 20 pages in order to allow offerors to provide a fully compliant response that includes an overall demonstrated understanding incorpora�ng all required components to address FAR 52-222-46, FAR 22.1102, and 29 CFR 541.702.

See answer to ques�on number 129.

Sec�on L Proposal

Instruc�ons

L.17 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limita�ons, Copies, and Due Date, L.17 Table L-1

L-13 to L-

133 Other Table L-1 specifies a page limit of 115 pages for por�ons of Volume I Mission Suitability.

Specifically for parts of Subfactor 1, Overall Management Approach, and Subfactor 2, Technical Approach. Respec�ully request this 115-page limit be increased to 205 pages.

Ra�onale: We conducted an

See answer to ques�ons number 123.

analysis of DRDs that were required in the prior MSOC RFP. The MSOC RFP DRDs that are in common with the COSMOS DRFP DRDs include:

·Contract Management Plan [DRD-COSMOS-0002], ·Staffing and Cri�cal Skills Plan [DRD- COSMOS-0017], Phase-in Plan [DRD-COSMOS-0005], and So�ware Standards and Development Plan [DRD- COSMOS-0057]. We compared each of these COSMOS DRDs with the prior MSOC DRD versions. We noted they are substan�ally the same in terms of required content.

Then we noted the number of pages required to provide compliant responses to these four DRDs in our MSOC proposal was twice the number of pages that would be available with a 115-page limit.

In addi�on to the four DRDs listed above, there are two other DRDs that are included in the 115-page limit [Contractor Security Management Plan [DRD-COSMOS-0030] and

Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques [DRD-COSMOS- 0004]]. We compared each of these COSMOS DRDs with the prior MSOC DRD versions. We noted they are substan�ally the same in terms of required content. Then we noted the number of pages required to provide compliant responses to these four DRDs in our MSOC proposal was twice the number of pages that would be available with a 115-page limit.

In addi�on to the four DRDs listed above, there are two other DRDs that are included in the 115-page limit [Contractor Security Management Plan [DRD-COSMOS-0030] and Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques [DRD-COSMOS- 0004]]. We noted that there are three Management Areas of Emphasis [L.19.1,MA2.1] two Technical Areas of Emphasis [L.19.2, TA.2(a)], and two Technical Scenarios [L.19.2, TA.3]. Based on our experiences, each of these seven responses requires several �mes the pages used to detail the requirements in the referenced RFP sec�ons. Thus we request a significant increase in this 115-page limit to be able to provide more than minimally compliant proposal responses and convey the demonstrated understanding required in Sec�on M. In addi�on, the requested increase to 205 pages would help level the playing field, as page limits that are too restric�ve to allow compliant responses favor the incumbent, and thus are a disadvantage to other compe�tors.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.17 Table L-1 L.19.1 MA.2.2(b)(i-v)

L-14-15 L-26

134 Other Table L-1 states the TCP limit is 10 pages. The TCP instruc�ons on page L-26 require copies of all pages from the salary surveys used and also copies of all pages of salary data other than surveys and the items requested in items iii-v on page L-26. Request these items be excluded from the TCP page limit.

See answer to ques�on number 129.

Instruc�ons

L.17(b) L-19 135 Other Volume V Model Contract format submission requirement is MS Word.

Would the Government please provide the Model Contract in MS Word or change the submission requirement to PDF. When Offerors are asked to convert pdf files to MS Word for submission there may be anamolies due to the conversion process.

Per NASA Policy, all acquisition-related documents need to be released in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF).

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.17(b) Table L-1 Volume II Past Performance

L-13 136 Other Request the Government allow the requested introductory material to come before the 15 pages of past performance descrip�on in order to introduce our team prior to reading our past performance experience on specific programs.

The Government will consider this comment. If any changes are made we will disclose them as part of the Final RFP.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.18 (b) 5 L-22 137 Clarity L.18 (b) 5 states "(5) Provide a Cross Reference List that tracks the page and paragraph numbers of the Offer’s proposal to the page and paragraph numbers in the Government’s instruc�ons. A Cross Reference List shall be submited in each Volume for that par�cular volume. "

The Government confirms the Cross Reference List is excluded from the page count requirement as described in L.18 (a)(4).

Would you please confirm that the Cross-Reference List is excluded from page count as front mater listed in L.18 (a) 4?

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.19 L-24-27 138 Clarity Reference: 2 (b) (i) - (v) The Total Compensa�on Plan requires suppor�ng data used for the proposed direct labor rates in its na�ve format, such as 1(Na�onal, recognized na�onal survey (s) used for each labor category (ii) Salary data other than surveys, (if applicable)

1) Will the government please confirm that if the offeror has DCMA Direct Labor (DL) Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) and/or a DCMA DL Forward Pricing Rate Recommenda�on (FPRR), this sa�sfies the requirement for "suppor�ng documenta�on"?

2) If the DL FPRP and/or DL FPRR will sa�sfy this requirement, will the government please confirm that submi�ng the DL FPRP

Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) can be provided as supporting documentation. However, Offerors will need to provide additional documentation to support FPRP & FPRR.

Supporting documentation is not included in the page count.

and FPRR is excluded from the 10 page count limit for this sec�on.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.19 L-24-27 139 Other The Total Compensa�on Plans (TCP) page limita�on is stated as 10 pages. If the government excludes atachments from the page count there is s�ll a large amount of informa�on required in 10 pages. Will the government consider gran�ng an increase in page count to 20 pages? If the atachments will s�ll be included in the page limita�on will the government consider changing the page count to "Unlimited" for the TCP requirement?

See answer to ques�on number 129.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.19 L-26 140 Other The Fringe Benefits sec�on of the TCP require a build-up of the elements of the proposed fringe benefit cost by labor category. Ques�on: If the Offeror has an indirect FPRP and/or FPRR, will the government consider excluding the build up requirements of the Fringe Rate from the Offerors proposal? If the gov't will remove the Fringe build up

The Government will not remove the requirement for offerors to provide the build-up of the fringe rates, nor will it remove the requirement for any other indirect rates as currently stated in the DRFP.

requirements due to having an indirect FPRP and/or FPRR will the gov't also remove this requirement for G&A and Overhead if those rates are also included in the Offerors FPRP and/or FPRR as well?

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.19.1.MA.2.2 L-24-25 141 Would the government reconsider the use of incumbent rate data and reten�on % as the main method for evalua�ng the offeror’s ability to staff cri�cal personnel? The current method of evalua�on restricts non-incumbents' ability to provide a best-value bid that differen�ates from other compe�tors and demonstrates innova�on and/or efficiencies through their technical response.

Please consider the incumbent rate data as an example meant to assist Offeror understanding of the current rates. These rates should not be misconstrued as a government requirement nor indicative of a method of evaluation by the Government. Offerors shall provide their own competitive rates as part of their proposal submission, per L.21 Cost and Price Factor/Volume III.

Instruc�ons

L.19.2 Technical Approach (TA)

- Mission Suitability Subfactor 2, TA.3 Technical Scenarios

L-29 142 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Scenario b refers to equipment replacement and obsolescence planning, but SOW 3.1.1.5 Equipment Replacement/Obsolescence refers to the Equipment Replacement Plan (DRD- COSMOS-0048, System Lifecycle Process (DRD- COSMOS-0047), Change Control Process and Plan (DRD- COSMOS-0043), and Tech Plan and PPBE (DRD-COSMOS-0018) as the requirements for comple�ng this work. This requirement places the incumbent at a dis�nct advantage, since they uniquely have access to these cri�cal documents. To resolve this, will the Government either (1) modify the SOW language to reflect applicable JSC procedures (and provide those procedures to all offerors in the technical library) or (2) provide all offerors with a copy of the exis�ng deliverables?

The Government is looking for the Offerors approach to the Equipment and Replacement Plan. A representative Tech Plan/Equipment Replacement (ER) Plan example will be placed in the COSMOS Tech Library.

Instruc�ons

L.19.2, TA.2

(a)(1)(b)

L-28 143 Clarity Would the Government please clarify the intent of the requirement for ci�ng a single instance of automa�on--is this meant to be for a previously iden�fied implementa�on of automa�on or a future, proposed idea?

The Government’s is looking for an offeror’s proposed idea for implementing automation that is applicable to any area of the COSMOS SOW. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to determine how this automation would best benefit the Government. The offeror proposed idea is not restricted to but could include a previously implemented approach.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.20 JSC

52.215-114

PAST

PERFORMAN

CE

INFORMATIO

N (NOV 2022)

- VOLUME II

L-33 144 Clarity The solicita�on contains conflic�ng informa�on regarding the placement of Key Personnel Resumes.

Sec�on L.20 (Past Performance) requires offerors to "Provide the Program Manager’s resume and evidence of commitment via the Key Personnel Resume in Atachment L-1." However, DRD-COSMOS-0017 Staffing and Cri�cal Skills Plan states that "key personnel resumes are provided as part of Volume I – Mission Suitability, Atachment L-1, Key Personnel

Only one key personnel resume is requested with proposal, which is for the Program Manager to be included in Past Performance Volume II. DRD-COSMOS- 0017, Staffing and Cri�cal Skills, has been updated to state all other key personnel resumes (excluding the Program Manager Resume) are due at contract as part of this DRD deliverable.

Resume Template."

Can the Government clarify in which volume offerors should include the Key Personnel Resumes? Are they intended to be in the Past Performance Volume as part of the PP Atachments, or in the Mission Suitability Volume?

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.20(b) L-33 145 Clarity Please confirm that the Offerors Program Manager Resume (At L-1), with its associated 2 page limit, be included as a "PP Atachment(s)" in the Sec�on specified in Table L-1 as "Past Performance Environmental and Safety Data, Insurance Informa�on, PP Atachments, and Organiza�onal Chart ".

See ques�on 78 in DRFP Q&A Part II.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.20(d) L-33 146 Clarity The Government requests that Offerors provide DUNS Number, which is no longer a commonly used company iden�fier. Would the Government allow Offerors to provide the Offerors UEID instead?

See ques�on 19 in DRFP Q&A Part I.

Instruc�ons

L.20(d) L-34 147 Clarity Please confirm that the Past Performance Subcontractor Consent Leters are to be included as a "PP Atachment(s)" in the Sec�on specified in Table L-1 as "Past Performance Environmental and Safety Data, Insurance Informa�on, PP Atachments, and Organiza�onal Chart "

Please refer to updated Table L-1 in the Final RFP, which provides clarifica�on on where the PP Consent Leters are to be included.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.20(h), SC 52.215-114

PAST

PERFORMAN

CE

INFORMATIO

N

L-34 148 Gramma�cal "The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that all references are directed to return two copies of each ques�onnaire directly to the Contrac�ng Officer in a sealed envelope, or e-mail to the contact iden�fied in Provision L.15 Proposal Marking Instruc�ons." L.15 does not contain Proposal Marking Instruc�ons. Is this intended to point to Sec�on L.13?

Sec�on L.20(h), should refer to sec�on L.13 Electronic Submission of Proposals. This will be updated in the COSMOS Final Request for Proposal.

Instruc�ons

L.20.a L-34 149 Clarity L.20.a states "Offerors shall demonstrate past experience in all areas of the statement of work by submi�ng informa�on on up to five past contracts that best demonstrates their ability to perform the COSMOS work."

Would the Government confirm if this means up to five contracts total for prime contractor and subcontractors, or up to five contracts for the prime contractor, plus up to five contracts total for the subcontractors?

The limit in the instruc�ons applies to the complete proposal, including any applicable subcontractors.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.20.d, L.20.e, L.22.d.1.f, Past Performance Consent Leter

150 Clarity Please confirm that a "teaming partner" does not include minor subcontractors.

Teaming partners does not include minor subcontractors.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.20.e L-34 151 Clarity Please confirm that contract references can be submited from Minor Subcontractors in Vol II - Past Performance.

Per the DRFP, references are allowed by all major or minor subcontractors such that they all have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

Instruc�ons

L.20.f Past Performance Matrix;

Atachment L-

6 COSMOS

Past Performance Relevancy Matrix Excel file

152 Clarity In Atachment 'L-6 COSMOS Past Performance Relevancy Matrix', cell L4, the SOW sec�on is listed as "''1.3 SUBCONTRACTS"; however, in the Dra� SOW document, there is no sec�on 1.3 and subcontracts requirements are listed in sec�on '2.2.1 Subcontracts'. Would the Government please confirm the SOW sec�on for cell L4?

See ques�on 89 in DRFP Q&A Part II.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.21 L.38 and L.48

The DRFP states “In accordance with FAR 16.301-3, Limitations, an offeror’s (to include Joint Ventures, if applicable) and applicable Subcontractor’s accounting system shall be determined adequate for identifying and segregating costs prior to award of a cost reimbursement contract. … Offerors and applicable Subcontractors shall provide, if applicable, the audit report number and date of approval for their accounting system”. The DRFP also states "Offerors are responsible for flowing down FAR 16.301-3

The following sentence will be removed as part of the Final RFP, ""Offerors are responsible for flowing down FAR 16.301-3 Cost- Reimbursable Contracts, Limita�ons to subcontractors." The Government does not direct Offerors on the type of subcontracts they should award.

Cost-Reimbursable Contracts, Limitations to subcontractors.”

In order to ensure Offerors can provide the strongest technical team and in the interest of maximizing use of Small Businesses, please confirm that Subcontractors without DCMA-approved accounting systems must be awarded other-than-non-Cost Reimbursable type contracts.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.21 (c) L-42 154 Clarity What does the government define as a significant change regarding changes in indirect base and cost pools?

See ques�on number 99 in DRFP Q&A Part II.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.22

RESPONSIBILI

TY

CONSIDERATI

ONS -

VOLUME IV

L-49 155 Gramma�cal Item d., j), the requirements state, "Describe how the offeror will ensure compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limita�ons on Subcontrac�ng.

For the purposes of this RFP, JSC defines “costs of contract performance incurred80JSC024R0003." This appears to be an error or incomplete sentence. Please clarify.

The Final RFP will be revised to state the following for L.22

RESPONSIBILITY

CONSIDERATIONS - VOLUME

IV (j): "Describe how the offeror will ensure compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limita�ons on Subcontrac�ng.

For the purposes of this RFP, JSC defines “costs of contract performance incurred for personnel” to mean direct labor, labor overhead (including payroll taxes and benefits), and G&A.

“Employees of the concern” means actual direct employees iden�fied on the Offeror’s payroll records for which social security taxes are matched. JSC considers “cost of contract performance” to include all costs throughout contract comple�on (the full contract period of performance)."

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.22

RESPONSIBILI

TY

CONSIDERATI

ONS -

VOLUME IV

and M.7

RESPONSIBILI

TY

CONSIDERATI

ONS

(VOLUME IV)

g.

L-50, M.15

156 Clarity Sec�on L lists "Property Management Plan" as part of the "With Ini�al Proposal Submission," but the language in that sec�on states that "The Contrac�ng Officer will request" it. This same conflict exists in Sec�on M.7. Will the Government clarify if a Government Property Management Plan is due with the proposal?

See ques�on number 57 in DRFP Q&A Part II.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.22.d L-48 157 Request for addi�onal informa�on

The DRFP references Atachment L-7. Would the Government please provide Atachment L-7.

The Government will provide this atachment as part of the COSMOS Final Request for Proposal.

Instruc�ons

L.22.f Property Management Plan

L-47/L-50 158 Clarity Sec�on L.22 Responsibility Considera�ons Volume IV, With Ini�al Submission (f) states the "The Contrac�ng Officer will request a Property Management Plan (DRD- COSMOS-0008) from all offerors". Sec�on M Responsibility Informa�on (g) With Ini�al Submission, RFP states "The Contrac�ng Officer will request a Property Management Plan (DRD- COSMOS-0008) from all offerors in the compe��ve range or only from the Apparent Successful Offeror or from offerors deemed as necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision. The Government will review the plan to ensure that it complies with applicable FAR Part 45 requirements and other terms and condi�ons of this contract". Request the government clarify whether all offerors will be requested to submit a property management plan during the ini�al submital of the proposal

See ques�on number 57 in DRFP Q&A Part II.

or will only Offerors in the compe��ve range be requested to submit a Property Management Plan which would require the Plan to be submited post ini�al submital.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L.5 Preproposal Conference

L-4 159 Clarity L.5 sets the Preproposal Conference for November 8, 2024, just 5 days prior to final delivery of Volume II, Past Performance. This provides an extremely narrow window of �me to make any adjustments on what is heard at the conference.

Would you please consider moving Volume II due date to be at least 10 days a�er Preproposal Conference?

The Government does not an�cipate moving the Pre- Proposal Conference date.

The following will be updated as part of the Final RFP: "Per

L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT, PAGE

LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND

DUE DATES, The en�re proposal is due by December 9, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. Proposal Volume II, Past Performance is requested 2 weeks early, but not officially due un�l the proposal submital date."

Sec�on L Proposal

Instruc�ons

L-16 (b): Table L-1

L-17 160 Other Past Performance Descrip�on:

In order to provide the requested relevant program informa�on for the COSMOS SOW request the Government

After consideration of the suggestions , the Government will increase in the page limit for Past Performance Narrative, General increase the page count to 20 pages.

Information, and Org Chart page limit from 15 to 20 pages.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

L-19.1 L-24 161 Clarity Management Area of Emphasis c.iii states, "Any strategies that are suggested shall be documented and folded into either Con�nuous Improvement Plan (DRD- COSMOS-0020) and/or Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques (DRD-

COSMOS0004)."

DRD-COSMOS-0004 is submited with the COSMOS proposal submission. This requirement implies that DRD- COSMOS-0020 would be submited with the proposal, however 0020 is listed as due at contract start and is not contained in Table L-1. Please confirm that DRD-COSMOS- 0020 is not due with the COSMOS proposal submission.

DRD-COSMOS-0020,

Continuous Improvement Plan is not due at proposal. DRD- COSMOS-0020 will be removed from Section L.19.2, and will be required per the

DRD.

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.3 M-2 162 Clarity Can the Government please clarify the language related to which factors are more important than others? This language seems contradictory in that if Mission suitability is approximately equal to Cost which is more important than past performance then how can mission suitability and past performance be significantly more important than cost?

As noted in the RFP, all factors are important factors but of different weights. When you combine Mission Suitability and Past Performance together, they are significantly more important than Cost. However, as independent factors Cost and Mission Suitability are both more important than Past Performance.

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.4 M-3 163 Other Would the Government consider realloca�on of the 1000 points to enable beter differen�a�on among offeror's technical approaches by changing to the following; 350 for Management, 550 for Technical, and 100 for SBU?

This realloca�on would s�ll allow for sufficient differen�a�on in management and small business subfactors while simultaneously enabling the technical subfactor to have greater differen�a�on poten�al

The weigh�ng of Mission Suitability sub-factors will not be changed.

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.4.1 Overall Management Approach

M-5 164 Other Paragraph 1 says: "The Offeror’s response to MA1, MA2, and MA3 will be

MA.4 will be added to M.4.1 and will be evaluated as part evaluated for overall demonstrated understanding for reasonableness, feasibility and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government." Request the Government add MA4 to this list.

of the Offeror's Overall Management Approach.

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.4.1 Overall Management Approach

(MA) -

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1

M.5 165 Clarity Sec�on MA2 states that, "The Government will also evaluate the TCP for consistency with other informa�on contained elsewhere in the offeror’s proposal." To ensure offerors are able to ensure compliance before submital, will the Government specify which elements of the proposal should be consistent with the

TCP?

All elements of your proposal should be consistent with your TCP. The intent of this statement is the total compensa�on shall be realis�c based on the Offerors overall proposal.

Criteria

M.4.2 Technical Approach (TA)

- Mission Suitability Subfactor 2

M.5 166 Other DRD 57 refers to JSC-63756 (FOD So�ware Management Plan), which was provided as part of the technical library, and the plan contents require it to "contain the Contractor's implementa�on of the FOD SMP and FOD So�ware Standards." This standard is 116 pages long (longer than the en�re page-restricted por�on of the Mission Suitability Volume), and fully addressing the DRD requirement for "implementa�on of the FOD SMP" could include approaches to the en�rety of this content.

Currently, the evalua�on criteria for this deliverable includes "completeness" (IAW M.4.2 criteria). Without addi�onal clarifica�on on the evalua�on method or specific focus areas of interest, we are concerned that proposals will be evaluated at an unreasonable level of detail -which we do not believe is the Government's intent.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to utilize the page limitations to address all of the various requirements and summarize to the level the offeror deems most important. The Government is taking page count feedback into account and Offerors should reference Final RFP for final determination.

Please elaborate on the applica�on of "completeness" with regard to the TA1 Technical DRDs and expand on the evalua�on criteria for this deliverable. For example, will you be evalua�ng for strategic differen�ators such as "demonstrates understanding" or "a reasonable overarching approach"?

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.4.2 Technical Approach (TA)

- Mission Suitability Subfactor 2

M.5 167 Other We are greatly concerned that the evalua�on criteria for TA1 is defined only at a high level.

It includes "reasonableness, feasibility and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government." However, the two technical deliverables in this sec�on have extensive room for error given the amount of detail included in the Applicable Documents for each. DRD 30 includes 17 Applicable Documents, some of which cannot be shared with offerors for security reasons, and DRD 57 includes

The Government deems all applicable documents valid for either proposal and/or contract execu�on. The Government will provide no further direc�on on evalua�on criteria.

the FOD SMP and FOD So�ware Standards (both of which are large reference documents). For proposal purposes, we recognize that offerors cannot reasonably address every individual requirement, and that these documents will be updated a�er contract start leveraging incumbent exper�se. Will the Government consider iden�fying which por�ons of the Applicable Documents that best demonstrate Offeror's ability to perform the COSMOS SOW? Or will the Government consider providing more detailed evalua�on criteria for these sec�ons to clarify the level of detail expected, in par�cular form non-incumbent offerors?

Criteria

M.4.2 Technical Approach (TA)

- Mission Suitability Subfactor 2

M.6 168 Clarity The evalua�on of SF2 TA2 Technical Understanding, Efficiencies, and Innova�ve Techniques appears to include only two sec�ons: DRD 0004 and Technical Understanding of Requirements and Technical Areas of Emphasis. However, Sec�on L has a separate, requirement for offerors to "demonstrate their understanding of the requirements, and risks needed to successfully perform the requirements of this contract." Please clarify or confirm that this overarching requirement is addressed by the two evaluated sec�ons within TA2.

Section M4.2 Technical Approach was updated to clarify the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Narrative response, specific areas of emphasis, and DRD- COSMOS-0004 as part of the TA2 Technical Understanding, Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques, Narrative, and Areas of Emphasis. The requirements stated in L.19.2/TA.2 are covered by this evaluation.

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.5 JSC

52.215-115

PAST

PERFORMAN

CE

EVALUATION

(JUL 2022)

(VOLUME II)

M.8 169 Clarity The Relevance defini�on of "complexity" includes requirements not relevant to COSMOS, such as "underwater opera�ons" that appear to have come from another solicita�on.

Recommend the Government update the defini�on of Complexity to reflect your

The COSMOS Final Request for Proposal will be updated to remove the reference to underwater opera�ons.

specific evalua�on criteria for COSMOS, such as control center opera�ons and/or mul�-customer environments.

Sec�on M Evalua�on Criteria

M.5 Past Performance

M.7 170 Clarity M.5 (a) states "(a) 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. The evalua�on team will evaluate the past performance of the offeror and team members, as defined in L202. In accordance with the instruc�ons in Sec�on L201, the past performance of the proposed Program Manager will be evaluated."

Would you please clarify the reference to L201 and L202 since this is the only place they are found in the DRFP?

The COSMOS Final Request for Proposal was updated as follows: M.5 (a) states "(a) 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. The evalua�on team will evaluate the past performance of the offeror and team members, as defined in L.20. In accordance with the instruc�ons in Sec�on L.20, the past performance of the proposed Program Manager will be evaluated."

Criteria

M.6 M-11 171 Other Would the Government consider removing the phase-in costs from the TEP? If not, would the Government consider making the Phase-in cost a plug number where all offerors must bid the same value? This creates a cost advantage for the incumbent as they have litle to no phase-in costs

Phase-in cost will be evaluated as stated in the solicita�on.

Criteria

M.6 Cost and Price Factor (Volume III)

M.11 172 Clarity The Cost Realism evalua�on criteria includes an analysis of "specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost es�mate to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realis�c for the work to be performed. " However, the specific elements are not iden�fied. Will the Government please specify which cost elements are included in the cost realism analysis and associated probable cost adjustments? In par�cular, is Mission Suitability content such as the direct labor rates proposed as part of the TCP included in this analysis?

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), a cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evalua�ng specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost es�mate to determine whether proposed cost elements are realis�c for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

The elements of cost that this defini�on is referring to are typically direct labor, materials, indirect costs, and other costs (including but not limited to special tooling, travel, computer and consultant services, etc.).

The cost realism evalua�on and total compensa�on plan (TCP) evalua�on are separate analyses but may consider the same elements such as direct labor rates.

With regard to Mission Suitability, as stated in Sec�on M.4, a lack of resource realism may adversely affect the offeror's Mission Suitability score and result in cost realism adjustments under the Cost factor. In addi�on, the Government will validate the consistency between all proposal volumes and any inconsistencies iden�fied may indicate a lack of understanding and adversely impact the offeror’s adjec�val ra�ng(s) and score.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

MA.1

Contract Management

Page 445, 173 Clarity DRD-COSMOS-001 instruc�ons say only the tree is due with the proposal, but MA.1 in sec�on L and M.4.1 in sec�on M both refer to the "WBS and Dic�onary." Can the confirm that only the WBS tree is due with the proposal.

Only the WBS tree is due with proposal. The other references are referring to the complete name of DRD- COSMOS-0001 WBS and Dic�onary.

Security (including informa�on technology security)

Poten�al Offerors Leter, Item 6;

L.14 So�ware and Security Requirements and Instruc�ons to Offerors;

M.3 Source Evalua�on Board Evalua�on Factors for Award

Pages 3, 433, 506

174 Clarity The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) processes, issues and monitors the con�nued eligibility of en��es for a Facility Clearance (FCL). FCL's are issued at SECRET or TOP SECRET. A Personnel Security Clearance (PCL) may be issued at the TOP SECRET (TS) // Sensi�ve Compartmented Informa�on (SCI) level. L.14 is requiring offerors to possess an FCL that does not exist. Will NASA modify L.14 to reflect the language from 2.6 Security (page 31 of 520): The Contractor shall obtain and maintain Na�onal Security Facility Clearance Level (FCL) per Clause I.19 Security Classifica�on Requirements

(NFS 1852.204-75) (SEP 1989)

up to TOP SECRET and, as iden�fied by the Government, provide SECRET/TOP SECRET security clearances for personnel suppor�ng func�ons iden�fied by NASA as requiring this level of clearance. The

See ques�on 73 in DRFP Q&A Part II.

Contractor shall provide personnel that can obtain and maintain a Top Secret//Sensi�ve Compartmented Informa�on (SCI) clearance. NASA will sponsor SCI clearances.

Unique terms and condi�ons

Sec�on C, 2.14.2

36 of 520 175 Request for addi�onal informa�on

In accordance with Sec�on C requirements, it states "“The Contractor shall ensure that all products, pla�orms, services, and communica�ons delivered as part of this work statement that are Informa�on and Communica�on Technology (ICT) or contain ICT, conform to the Revised Sec�on 508 of the Rehabilita�on Act Standards, 36 C.F.R. § 1194.1 & Apps. A, C & D.”

Can NASA please provide a list of current 508 Informa�on and Communica�on Technology (ICT) on MSOC and specify if it currently meets or does not meet 508 Compliance standards?

A list of all current Informa�on and Communica�on Technology (ICT) equipment and 508 compliance status will not be provided. This contract provision applies to all ICT acquired or created during the performance of the COSMOS contract. Exis�ng projects may be required to meet compliance when modified as directed by the Government.

Unique terms and condi�ons

Sec�on C, 2.14.2

36 of 520 176 Request for addi�onal informa�on

In accordance with Sec�on C requirements, it states "“The Contractor shall ensure that all products, pla�orms, services, and communica�ons delivered as part of this work statement that are Informa�on and Communica�on Technology (ICT) or contain ICT, conform to the Revised Sec�on 508 of the Rehabilita�on Act Standards, 36 C.F.R. § 1194.1 & Apps. A, C & D.”

Can NASA please provide which sec�ons of Sec�on 508 need to be stra�fied for contract compliance (e.g., visual or hearing impairment, etc.) - as addressing all of the 508 standards will increase costs if not clearly delineated by the Government.

This contract provision and any applicable excep�ons or exemp�ons apply to all ICT acquired or created during the performance of COSMOS.

Unique terms and condi�ons

Sec�on C, 2.14.2

36 of 520 177 Request for addi�onal informa�on

If incumbent-related ICT deliverables do not meet Sec�on 508 Compliance standards, will the Government fund the awardee to update the ICT into 508 compliance?

Government authorized work performed or materials acquired during the execu�on of the contract will be reimbursed.

condi�ons

Sec�on C, 2.14.2

36 of 520 178 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Does the Government an�cipate any "Informa�on and Communica�on Technology" (ICT) to be delivered during the Transi�on- In period? This will be a determinate for es�ma�on of Phase-In level of effort and pricing.

The Government does not an�cipate the delivery of any ICT by the awardee during phase-in.

Other Sec�on C, 3.1.1.5

Equipment Replacement/ Obsolescence

C-23 179 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Request the Government provide a lis�ng of the current contractor-owned capital property along with the func�onality that it provides for maintenance and sustaining services.

There is no contractor-owned capital property.

Unique terms and condi�ons

Sec�on E.1 74 of 250 180 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Sec�on E.1 "Clauses Incorporated by Reference", includes FAR Clause 52.246-11 "Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement" which states that "the Contractor shall comply with SAE AS9100D, Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Avia�on, Space and Defense Organiza�ons." However, the remainder of the RFP states that the Contractor shall establish a Quality Assurance program that is compliant with

JPD 1280.1A JSC Quality Policy requires work performed under COSMOS be compliant with ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001 and with SAE AS9100.

ISO 9001. Please clarify which quality standard applies to this contract.

Unique terms and condi�ons

Sec�on H.10(c) and H.12(g)

H-13 and H-15

181 Clarity "If Contractor support is required to support the annexed ac�vity in accordance with clause H.12(g) "above"...Was it the Governments intent to point to H.12(g) "below"?

The COSMOS Final Request for Proposal will be updated so H.10(c) references H.12(g) below.

Export Control

Sec�on H.3

NFS

1852.225-70

EXPORT

LICENSES (FEB

2000)–

ALTERNATE I

(FEB 2000)

H-4 182 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Is NASA the Exporter of Record for any / all Export Licenses that are currently ac�ve for this contract? If not, request informa�on as to the number of any ac�ve Export Licenses including TAAs with the U.S.

Department of State that are in place through the incumbent contractor. If there are ac�ve licenses, what is an acceptable plan for a non-incumbent contractor to apply for a new license with State and maintain the export compliance requirements of the contract un�l State approves a new license?

NASA currently has several licenses that include the NASA support contractors (prime and subs). Those include ISS and Artemis licenses. The Government will coordinate with the Programs and JSC Export Control to update the licenses for any new contracts (prime and subs) once awarded.

There are no independent MSOC export licenses/TAAs.

condi�ons

Sec�on J: J-17

E.1

J-17.92

183 Clarity The RFP states that the Contractor shall comply with AS9100D in Sec�on E and Asks for ISO 9001 compliance in

DRD-COSMOS-0025.

Is the Contractor’s Quality Management System and Quality Plan expected to comply with SAE AS9100D or

ISO 9001?

See answer to ques�on number 180.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

Sec�on L, Table L-1 Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limita�ons, Format and Cross Referencing of 520

184 Request for addi�onal informa�on

Given the importance of DRD- COSMOS-0030 and the amount of informa�on requested to adequately address all Contractor Security Management Plan, would the Government please consider this DRD to be excluded from the 115 page limit and be "not limited" in page count?

DRD-COSMOS-0030 is included in the page limit and will not be unlimited.

Sec�on L Proposal Instruc�ons

Sec�on L.17(b);

L.19(b)

L-16, L- 27, 28

185 Clarity Table L-1 Row TA.2 Orders the Sec�on as Efficiencies and Innova�ve Techniques (DRD- COSMOS-0004), Specific Technical Understanding, Narra�ve and Technical Area of Emphasis. TA.2 request Narra�ve and Area of Emphasis, DRD-COSMOS-0004, Technical Understanding of

Order will be updated to be consistent in Final RFP.

Requirements and Technical Areas of Emphasis. Request the Government clarify the order of TA.2

Unique terms and condi�ons

Sec�on C 2.10 Quality Assurance

(QA)

C-16 186 Clarity The reference in Sec�on C,

2.10 refers to an old standard – ISO 9001:1994. Request the Government clarity that we will follow the latest version of the standard (which we can keep the program in compliance), ISO 9001:2015?

The Final RFP will be include reference to ASQ 9001:2015.