COSMOS - RFP Questions and Answers 11.22.2024.pdf

Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and Systems (COSMOS) RFP Q&A – November 22, 2024

Category Section Page Number

Type Question/Comment Response

1 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.9(b) L-7 Other Would the Government please consider making the questions due on 12 Nov 2024 to allow for time to ask questions following the pre-proposal conference which is currently occurring on the same day as the questions due data, 8

Nov 2024?

The Government will not extend the due date for pre-proposal conference questions. The Government made the pre-proposal conference charts available before the conference for prospective offerors to review and submit questions.

2 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.17 L-13 Clarity Section L.17 Increased the page limit for Volume I by

50 pages. Will the customer extend the due date from December 9 to December 23 so we can adjust to the almost 50% increase in page limit?"

The Government considered the request and will update the proposal due date to December 13, 2024.

3 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L17 J-23.1 Clarity J-23 says DRD-0008 is due with the proposal. The table in L-17 says J-008 is not due with initial proposal, but will be due with Final Proposal

Revision or from apparent awardee. Will the

DRD-COSMOS-0008

Government Property

Management Plan is not due with initial proposal but at the Contracting Officer request. The Contracting

Officer will request a Government Property

Government please confirm DRD-COSMOS- 0008 is not due with the initial proposal

Management Plan from all offerors in the competitive range. only from the Apparent Successful Offeror, or from an offeror deemed as necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision.

4 Section L

Proposal Instructions

L.20 L.35 Clarity The prime offeror shall provide a statement of small business participation (targets, record, and type of work subcontracted) over the last five years on work that is relevant to this effort, with special emphasis on the division of the company which will perform the proposed contract. Shall the actual documents be included?

Offerors are not required to include actual documentation. Offerors should refer to M.5 PAST

PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION (JSC 52.215-

115) (JUL 2022) (VOLUME

II) (b) which describes how the Government will obtain past performance information from the proposal data required by Section L.

5 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.21 L.37 Clarity The attachment L-5a Cost Price Template in the "10

Phase In Template" worksheet, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS states, "This

Template must be supported by a narrative basis of estimate (BOE)."

Section L-21 a) 2 instructions for completing the Cost Price Template states, " Offerors and Major Subcontractors shall include sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed (i.e. Basis of Estimate (BOEs)), giving figures and a narrative explanation."

Does the Government expect a narrative be included within the Excel-based template with

Worksheet and Cells or supported by a narrative in the MS Word based Cost volume in response to L21

In accordance with L.17

PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT, PAGE

LIMITATIONS, COPIES,

AND DUE DATES Offerors shall submit the narrative in

MS Word Cost Volume.

c) "Cost/Price – Narrative and Specific Cost

Instructions"?

6 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.1 L-25 Request for additional information

Table L.19-2 only provides data for the Prime

Incumbent. In order to ensure tenure is recognized properly for the entire team, can the Government please consider providing the data for the prime and all subs as you had done in

Table L.19-1.

All tenure data was not required by the Government in the MSOC Re- Procurement Package and therefore, the Government cannot provide this data for all subcontractors.

7 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.1 L-25 Request for additional information

To ensure personnel currently on the program are receiving same/like benefits, can the Government provide PTO at each of the experience bands. This will allow

Offerors to price accordingly to recognize current PTO for incumbent personnel.

The information requested is incumbent proprietary information, therefore, the Government can't provide this information.

8 Section L

Instructions

L.24 L-56 Clarity Item 5. in the Resume Template asks for

Chronological Work History (within the last 5 years); however, the Program Manager

(according to Table 1 on Page J-12.2) states PMs, "..normally possesses 10 years experience.." Will the Government consider allowing "within the last

10 years" for the Chronological Work

History?

The Government considered this comment, but 5 years of Work History will remain the requirement. However, the Offeror may simply list the years of experience as additional information.

9 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.14 L-11 Clarity Table L-1 calls for “DD254 Top Secret

Facility Clearance” with a reference to Section L.14.

Section L.14 states, in part, “In accordance with

Attachment J-6, Contract Security Classification

Specification (DD 254), Offerors shall possess a Top Secret (TS) Facility

Clearance Level (FCL) at proposal submission for

The Offeror shall submit a DD254 form as part of their proposal with their company specific information filled in including their CAGE code.

This form will be completed by the Government during

Phase-In and will be incorporated into the contract by the Contracting Officer after contract award and upon approval by the Government.

performance of this contract and this clearance shall be maintained throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall provide their CAGE code for verification of current security clearance status.

Offerors must have these required clearance credentials at the time of

Proposal submittal.”

Will the Government please confirm whether a completed draft DD Form 254 is required as part of the proposal submission for Offerors to provide their CAGE code for FCL verification (under 6.

CONTRACTOR) or whether Offerors should provide a NISS Facility

Clearance Verification with the proposal submission to satisfy the L.14 requirement?

10 Other C 2.14.1 C-17 Clarity Could the government provide the OCIO agency policy on Supply Chain

Risk Management that is referenced in 2.14.1 IT

Purchase Authorization? (" The Contractor shall ensure all IT products and services are approved or requested per the OCIO agency policy. This includes, but is not limited to, FITARA, Supply Chain Risk Management, IPv6, and 508 compliance.")

The information requested is included in DRD-COSMOS-

0031 under "Applicable Documents" section.

11 Other 3.1 Common Mission Systems Support

C-19 Request for additional information

Can the Government please provide a listing of the software classifications for each application required to be supported by COSMOS? The application listing is provided by the J-10 in the

Bidder's Library, but it does not include the classification. This information is needed to determine what software

A listing of the J-10 custom software items that are Class A are available in Technical

Library Part 10.

will need to follow CMMI Dev Level 3 processes to support Class A software development.

12 Section M Evaluation

Criteria

Cover letter, Section L.14 & M.3

Cover letter, L.11 & M.2

Clarity The cover letter states

- WRT DD Form 254 “…

For proposals submitted as a joint venture the Joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the

Joint venture that will perform the necessary security work must have a facility security clearance

- The cover letter also states that “… section L & M take precedence [over the cover letter]” Section L.14 has similar wording Section M.3 does not contain this language relative to a joint venture offer. It only says “…If the

Contracting Officer

The Government confirms the information listed in the cover letter and the instructions detailed in section L on this topic are valid. The Government will evaluate Offerors as set forth in section M. The term Prime in this instance is meant to be all-inclusive for any Offeror, i.e Joint

Venture.

determines an Offeror’s proposal does not represent a reasonable effort to address the essential requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) such as… or the Prime Contractor not possessing Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance…All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Are we correct in assuming that the joint venture language contained in the cover letter and section L will prevail in the proposal evaluation as Section M is silent on the acceptable terms of a joint venture submission?

13 Other H.4 H-5 Other This clause requires the

Name of the Program Manager to be filled in and submitted with the proposal. Request this fill in be changed to be due at

The Government will not change the due date for the Program Manager position.

contract start. This allows the offeror, after award, to select the best possible PM candidate to fill the PM position.

14 Section L Proposal

Instructions

DRD-COSMOS-

0017 Contents #6

J-17.65 Other This DRD instruction requires key personnel, and that the key personnel be named. Request this requirement be changed to require identification of key positions rather than key personnel. This allows the offeror to, after award, select the best people to fill these positions, including current incumbents, where they are the best candidates.

The Government will not change the requirement to key positions. Per L.20

PAST PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION (JSC

52.215-114) (NOV 2022) -

VOLUME II, only the

Program Manager name should be included in an offeror's proposal.

15 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT,

PAGE

LIMITATIONS,

COPIES, AND DUE

DATES.

L-13 Clarity L.17(b) states Offers shall arrange their proposals as set forth below in Table L-

1. Proposal Sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume.

Please confirm you are expecting to see DD254

Please reference Table L-1 in section L.17 for the delivery order. The Government requests that any sections that are excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume or sub-factor volume section.

Top Secret Facility Clearance, CMMI Level 3 certification and Section MA.4 DEIA Plan (DRD-

COSMOS-0016) after Section SBU.2.

16 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT,

PAGE

LIMITATIONS,

COPIES, AND DUE

DATES

L-15 Clarity Table L-1 in Section L.17 indicates the order of sections for TA.2 to be Efficiencies and Innovative

Techniques (DRD- COSMOS-0004), Specific Technical Understanding, Narrative and Technical

Areas of Emphasis;

however in L.19.2, TA.2 indicates 4 sections for

TA2: Technical Understanding, Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques (DRD-

COSMOS-0004),

Narrative, and Areas of Emphasis; and M.4.2 indicates "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Narrative response along with specific areas of

Please reference Table L-1 in section L.17 for summary of sub-factor content. While the order of the volumes and sub-factors shall be followed, if there are multiple deliveries within a sub-factor the order of those deliveries are not meant to be prescriptive.

emphasis detailed. The Government will evaluate requested sections of the

Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques (DRD-

COSMOS-0004). Can the government please clarify in L.17, Table L-1 that the order of sections expected for TA.2 begin with Technical Understanding instead of DRD-

COSMOS-0004?

17 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT,

PAGE

LIMITATIONS,

COPIES, AND DUE

DATES

L-15 Clarity Can the Government please clarify the expected order of TA.1 sections?

The table in L.17 lists Contractor Security

Management Plan (DRD- COSMOS-0030), Software Standard and Development

Plan (DRD-COSMOS- 0057); however L.19.2 (p L-27) instructions state

"The Offeror shall provide their Software Standard and Development Plan

(DRD-COSMOS-0057),

See question 16.

and Contractor Security Management Plan (DRD-

COSMOS-0030) requested sections per DRD instructions."

18 Section L

Proposal Instructions

L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT,

PAGE

LIMITATIONS,

COPIES, AND DUE

DATES.

L.20 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

L-16 L-32 to L-

Clarity L.17 Table L-1 Section II Past Performance states a page limit of 20 pages for

"Past Performance Narrative, General

Information, and Org Chart." L.20 (a) through

(k) are the specific instructions for Past

Performance volume. L.20

(g) requires the org chart.

What L.20 subsections map to the Table L-1 reference to "Past Performance Narrative," and what subsections map to "General Information."

Past Performance Narrative and General Information callouts are not restricted to one area of Section L.20 and are to be used at the offeror's discretion. Please refer to Table L-1 in section L.17, specifically the Past Performance Volume. All items in that section are the required deliverable to properly meet L.20

19 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT,

PAGE

LIMITATIONS,

COPIES, AND DUE

DATES.

L-16 & L- 17; L-34

Clarity L.17(b) states Offers shall arrange their proposals as set forth below in Table L-

1. The order of the Performance Volume in

Table L-1 is different than

Table L-1 in Section L.17

PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT, PAGE

LIMITATIONS, COPIES,

AND DUE DATES. Takes

L.20 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

the order in L.20 Past Performance Information.

Request the Government clarify which order (Table L-1 or L.20 (d-g) takes precedence in arranging our proposal response.

precedence for proposal arrangement.

20 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.18(b)(5); M.4(a) L-21; M-3 Clarity L.18(b)(5) instructs offerors to provide a cross reference list that is submitted in each volume for that particular volume.

M.4(a) states the Government will evaluate the consistency between all proposal volumes. M.4(a) also states "information incorporated by reference will not be considered or evaluated" Please clarify whether cross referencing within a specific volume will be evaluated.

Additionally, please clarify whether cross referencing within different volumes in our proposal response will be evaluated.

The Government will evaluate all content within the proposal, but any information referenced outside the specified volume will not be evaluated.

21 Section L

Instructions

L.20(a) and L.20(e) L-32, L-33 Clarify L.20(a) states offerors shall demonstrate past experience in all areas of the Statement of work by submitting information on up to five past contracts that best demonstrates their ability to perform the

COSMOS work. L.20 (e) states submit information on contracts that you consider relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed work. Please confirm that the information provided for (e) is part of general information and can be information on relevant contracts other than the up to 5 contracts submitted in response to L.20(a).

The information provided for L.20(e) is subject to the up to five past contracts in L.20(a).

22 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.20(b) L-33 Other This requires the identification of the

Program Manager along with a resume and commitment. Request this requirement be deleted.

See question 13.

This allows the offeror, after award, to select the best possible PM candidate to fill the PM position.

23 Section M Evaluation

Criteria

L.20(e), and M.5(c) L-33, M- 7&8

Clarify L.20(e) states This submission should clearly detail what portions of the statement of work the prime, major subcontractors, proposed program manager, teaming partner, and/ or joint venture partner are responsible for.... Section M.5(c) states the past performance of a prime or team member will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member and weighted accordingly. It also states Offerors with past performance as part of the joint venture will evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture. Please confirm

The Government will evaluate past performance as stated in section M.5 of the solicitation.

that each Joint Venture member's past performance reference will be evaluated against the work the member is proposed to be responsible for.

Additionally please confirm that the collective relevant references of the

JV members will be combined to evaluate the entirety of the work to be performed on COSMOS.

24 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.20.f and L-6 COSMOS Past Performance

Relevancy Matrix

L-34 Clarity L-6 Matrix states: "Leave cells "blank" if there is no Past Performance for that

Team Member for that contract" Are we to include teammates that are not providing past performance references in the L-6 matrix or only those members providing program references?

Offerors shall include Team Members in L-6 and leave cells "blank" if there is no

Past Performance.

25 Section L

Instructions

L.21(c) L-43 Clarify The RFP stipulates offerors shall identify the WYE assumptions utilized in the pricing of their Cost/Price proposals. Within this context, is the offeror synonymous with the prime, or does it also include major and minor subcontractors? If the offeror includes minor subcontractors, where are these WYE assumptions to be captured?

Offeror and Major Subcontractors (if applicable) are instructed to provide narrative support for all proposed estimates which include WYE assumptions.

26 Other COSMOS - DRFP Q and A Part II

Question

Request for additional information

In the Q&A Part II, the government indicated "We will provide a redacted summary of the Technical

Plan in the Technical Library as part of the

COSMOS Final Request for Proposal.", however this has not been released in the current Technical

Library. Can the government please provide a date of expected release?

The Government has provided a representative plan into the tech library, this file was part of COSMOS

Technical Library Part 9 and called Example Equipment

Replacement Plan.

27 Other Attachment J-12 Standard Labor

Categories

Clarity In Attachment J-12, each Standard Labor Category

(SLC) includes the Government's designation of Exempt/Non-exempt.

Can the Government please confirm the Offeror is to map their labor categories consistent with their company specific job profile structure (while maintaining compliance with the SLC description, education, and experience, and to meet the contract requirements) regardless of whether the designation of

Exempt/Non-exempt differs from the J-12 attachment?

Yes, Offerors are to map their labor categories regardless of whether the designation of Exempt/Non-exempt differs from the J-12 attachment.

28 Other L-5a COSMOS Cost Price Template, Tab

'5 IRAP'

Clarity On tab '5 IRAP', Column E indicates whether a labor category is Exempt (EX) or Non-Exempt (NE). The Note at the bottom of tab '5

IRAP', specifies that "Yellow shaded areas

Offerors shall not change column E of the IRAP tab. If the Offerors designation of Exempt/Non-exempt differs from the Government, Offerors can add an additional column, however denote RFP identified criteria - DO NOT

CHANGE'.

Can the Government please confirm that the

Offeror should indicate, by changing Column E (on tab '5 IRAP') the designation of Exempt

(EX) or Non-Exempt (NE) consistent with their company job profile structure?

no columns should be deleted.

29 Other Attachment L-5b & Q&A # 93

Clarify In cell D7 of Attachment L-5b, there is a pull-down that lists different types of contracts including, but not limited to, cost plus award fee and cost plus a fixed fee. The COSMOS contract includes both cost plus award and cost plus fixed fee depending upon specific periods of performance. If subcontractors are engaged under both cost plus award

The transition in subcontract type should be documented in Cell D8.

fee and cost plus fixed fee contract types for the first three contract years and the subsequent years, respectively, how should this be shown in cell D7?

30 Other Attachment L-5b Clarify The SubK Cost Details tab of Attachment 5b cell D 12 has the following stipulation:

(DO NOT CHANGE OR

ALTER - Only populate applicable Labor Classification(s) as assigned by the Prime Contractor)

Does the stipulation relating to changing or altering prohibit deleting the SLCs that the Prime contractor has not assigned to a specific subcontractor?

If so, are the minor subcontractors required to leave all SLCs in

In the event a specific SLC is not applicable to the subcontractor, the corresponding section shall be left blank. Please fill out the SLC that is relevant and applicable. No rows are to be deleted.

attachment 5b intact and only supply rates and corresponding subcontractor labor classifications for the categories the Prime has assigned to the minor subcontractor?

31 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.2, TA.3 L-28 Clarity Scenario b: The Government states

"Provide a strategy and an example as it comes to equipment replacement and obsolescence planning/cycle on both a developmental and operational system as appropriate to COSMOS

SOW."

Please clarify that "equipment replacement and obsolescence planning" refer to section

3.1.1.5 of the SOW section about obsolescence and not other types of equipment

The Government is looking for a novel approach to equipment replacement and obsolescence planning as it applies to the COSMOS requirements found in SOW

3.1.1.5.

replacement such as Tech Refresh.

32 Other J-17, DRD-

COSMOS-0032

J-17.113 Clarity “10. Include an assertion from the Contractor that to the best of their knowledge no OCIs exist currently, if applicable. Provide a list of all the prime’s and subcontractor’s NASA contracts and subcontracts, which would provide the

CO a better understanding of other NASA work performed by the Offeror that may give rise to an actual or potential conflict.

For each prime contract and subcontract listed, the Offeror shall: (1) identify the contract number; (2) describe the scope of work in sufficient detail to ascertain the likelihood of a conflict with performance of this contract; and (3) discuss any conflicts that may arise

There is no limitation provided the potential OCI could exist today or through the performance of this contract.

from performance of the listed contracts and award of this contract.”

Question: Is there a limitation on the number of years of previous performance contracts and subcontracts that the contractor needs to review and assert regarding a possible OCI?

33 Sec+C37:G40tion

L Proposal Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity We are submitting multiple questions related to the

CMMI language in Section L.14. For your consideration, we recommend simplifying this requirement to address all of the concerns/questions simultaneously as follows:

Per SOW, Section C 3.1 Common Mission Systems Support, All Offerors shall possess at proposal submission a non-expired

CMMI®-DEV Level 3

In accordance with Amendment 1 to the COSMOS RFP, the

Government, removed the following language from

L.14 SOFTWARE AND

SECURITY

REQUIREMENTS AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS second paragraph: "The CMMIDEV Level 3 rating or higher shall be at corporate level or at the specific corporate organizational unit(s) level responsible for performing the Class A software rating or higher for software, as measured by a CMMI® Institute Certified Lead Appraiser, required by the FOD SMP to support Class A software development. All Offerors shall post the results on the CMMI® Institute Website database, or provide an Appraisal Disclosure

Statement for verification of current rating status. For proposals submitted as joint ventures, the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture must have a CMMI Dev Level 3 rating or higher.

development." and "(e.g., at the corporate level or at the specific corporate organizational unit(s) level) that will perform the necessary software development work must".

34 Section L

Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity Is it the Government's intent that the offeror's appraised CMMI process govern their COSMOS

Class A software development?

Section L requirements imply that the offeror must use their existing appraised process to perform COSMOS work, and

"performance" is referenced three times in the paragraph in this context. However, this conflicts with the SOW, which states that the

"Contractor shall adhere to the standards and processes specified in JSC 63756, Flight Operations

Directorate Software Management Plan."

If not, recommend removing sentence 2, which requires that the

See question 33.

CMMI rating, "be at corporate level or at the specific corporate organizational unit(s) level responsible for performing the Class A software development." We also recommend removing "that will perform the necessary software development work" from the last sentence.

35 Section L

Proposal Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity Given that JSC 63756, Rev B and CA-WI-54 govern

COSMOS software development (SOW

Section 3.1), how will the CMMI appraisal conducted for external software processes be applied to this contract?

All CMMI appraisals conducted shall be compliant with FOD and agency level documentation.

36 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity Will a CMMI-DEV Level 3 appraisal of any scope or project suffice to meet this requirement?

We are concerned that the Government is willing to accept any CMMI-DEV

See questions 33 and 35.

Level 3 appraised process as sufficient, given the requirement in Section L to "maintain" this process for use on Class A software development under

COSMOS. CMMI

appraisals are conducted for a wide variety of applications, very few of which apply to NASA JSC software development.

37 Section L

Proposal Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity How long are offerors required to maintain their externally obtained CMMI appraisal for non- COSMOS work?

Section L requires both a non-expired appraisal at proposal submission and states that offerors shall

"maintain" this appraisal.

Without a clear end date, this could be interpreted to mean indefinite maintenance of an external appraisal outside the scope of the COSMOS contract.

The Offeror will be required to maintain the specified CMMI level required to perform requirements per the SOW starting at proposal and through the contracts period of performance or unless the CMMI appraisal is deemed no longer necessary by the

Government.

38 Section L

Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity How should offerors address expiration dates for submitted appraisals?

Given the "maintain" requirement and the fact that all appraisals by default have expiration dates, we are concerned that an expiration date for a specific appraisal will occur between proposal submission and proposal evaluation. It could also no longer be active at the time of a clarification or Final

Proposal Request.

See questions 33 and 35.

39 Section L Proposal

Instructions

DRD-COSMOS-

J-17.157 Clarity Will the Government address the conflict between the "implementation of the

FOD SMP and FOD Software Standards" required in the COSMOS Software Standards and

Development Plan, given the Section L requirement to perform work using appraised CMMI

The Government is not aware of any conflict between any of the documentation with respect to CMMI. If at any point a policy is updated or changed, the Government will ensure new policies does not conflict with contractual requirements. If at any point a conflict arises, the

Government will initiate a processes?

This is a concern because, if the SMP is updated (a significant update to NPR

7150.2 is projected for

2026), the offeror's appraised process would likely also need to be updated. This may present a problem for offerors, given that the appraised process would apply multiple, potentially conflicting software standards.

contract modification as needed and only if required.

40 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity How can a JV offeror with only one JV partner holding a non-expired appraisal delineate which partner will perform Class A software development, when all personnel are employed by the JV itself?

As written, Section L requires that the entity with the CMMI-DEV Level 3 rating be the entity "that

See question 33.

will perform the necessary software development work." But this may not be possible for a populated

JV.

Consider simplifying this requirement to avoid ambiguity but still satisfy evidence of capability. For example: "For proposals submitted as joint ventures, the joint venture itself or a partner to the JV with an ownership stake in the JV of 33% or greater must have a CMMI-DEV Level

3 rating or higher."

41 Section L

Proposal Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity If a Joint Venture has two members with non-expired appraisals, which appraised process will be selected as the governing standard for performance of COSMOS work? Should offerors present one as a "primary" appraisal?

Consider simplifying this

The Government will not prescribe the approach to which appraisal the Offeror should present in this specific example, but the Offeror shall ensure whichever appraisal is provided, it meets the

Governments requirements in the published solicitation.

requirement to avoid ambiguity but still satisfy evidence of capability. For example: "For proposals submitted as joint ventures, the joint venture itself or a partner to the JV with an ownership stake in the JV of 33% or greater must have a CMMI-DEV Level

3 rating or higher."

42 Section L

Proposal Instructions

L.14 Software and Security

Requirements and Instructions to

Offerors

L-11 Clarity Is the intent of this requirement to give the

Government confidence in an offeror's capability to achieve a CMMI appraisal? If so, we recommend removing from the Pass/Fail criteria list and adding a CMMI-DEV Level 3 appraisal to the list of content to be provided with Past Performance (Section L.20(d)) - this simple change would enable it to be evaluated as part of NASA's confidence level in the offeror.

See question 33. After consideration the government has determined it will evaluate CMMI as published, it will not be evaluated in Past Performance volume.

As an alternative to keep the requirement in Section L, consider the following language that focuses on the capability (rather than performance of SOW 3.1 using a process developed external to COSMOS):

"Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to comply with Section C 3.1 Common

Mission Systems Support by providing (1) active experience performing software development work on a similar scale and complexity IAW CMMI®- DEV Level 3 practices and

(2) the verifiable CMMI Appraisal ID governing that work. Acknowledging that Joint Venture offerors may have multiple relevant

CMMI appraisals, Joint Venture offerors shall provide the Appraisal ID for the approach most relevant to COSMOS."

43 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.17(b) Table L-1 and L.18(b)(2)

L.13 and L-

Clarity Would the Government please provide an editable DD254 Top Secret Facility Clearance file in order to allow conversion to MS

Word.

The Government cannot provide an alternate format as requested. As stated in the solicitation cover letter: "In order to control and protect sensitive data owned by the

Government and its Contractors, NASA policy requires all acquisition-related documents be released to the public in Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf), except the

Microsoft Excel documents."

44 Section J

Instructions J-17 J-17.8 Clarity DRD-COSMOS-0004

Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques Final

Submission is specified as "By Contract Award".

Government typically allows 5 business or calendar days after award for before final submission.

The Government considered this comment, but the deadline will not be altered.

45 Section L Instructions

L.17(b) L-18 Clarity Table L-1, Volume V Model Contract requires the proposal response format to be in MS Word even though the government provided version is in PDF. Due to the uncertainty of converting a PDF to Word and potential loss of data and document format, will the government consider revising the format instructions in Table L-1 from MS Word to PDF (native format) for the submission of Volume V Model Contract?

The Government considered this request, but the format for the Model Contract will remain MS Word.

46 Section L Instructions

L.22 (c) L-48 Clarity Cost Accounting Standards lists reference to FAR 52.215-17 (Waiver of

Facilities Capital Cost of Money) versus 52.230-1

(Cost Accounting Standards). Could the

Government please clarify.

The reference to 52.215-17 was corrected to 52.230-1 through RFP Amendment 1.

47 Section L

L.22 (c) L-48 Clarity Cost Accounting Standards instructions states: ....... If your CAS Disclosure Statement is currently not approved or there are some existing CAS non-compliance findings, please provide detailed explanation of the CAS non-compliance issues, corrective action status, and any potential impact on this procurement. A copy of the offeror’s disclosure statement applicable to the resultant contract shall be submitted and the offer shall clearly identify where in the disclosure statement where the following are addressed: Contractor

Purchasing.1 Requirements for Cost Tracking and

Accounting and Associated Business Systems.

Please confirm the requirement to submit the

Per RFP Amendment 1, removed the following was removed from paragraph (c) , "and the offer shall clearly identify where in the disclosure statement where the following are addressed: Contractor

Purchasing.1 Requirements for Cost

Tracking and Accounting and Associated Business

Systems.”

full disclosure statement as part of Volume IV

(including the requirement to identify where specific items are addressed) is only required if the

Offeror's CAS Disclosure Statement is currently not approved. Especially considering that Section

K.8 (c) provides selections for Offerors that have previously submitted its Disclosure Statement; and since the instructions for the L-5a Cost Price Template requires a copy of the DS letter under the

CFAOT tab 9. If it is required, would the government consider moving this requirement to be part of what should be submitted With Final Proposal Revision (FPR)?

48 Section L Instructions

L.23 L-54 Clarity Table on page, after Section H, shows Section II.1. Did the government

The Government updated this through RFP Amendment 1.

mean for this to show as H.1 instead?

49 Section L Instructions

L.23 and F-5 L-54 and F-

Clarity Table on page, Section F, for F.6 states offeror should fill in for Extend Period of Performance.

However, Section F.6 already has dates inserted.

Can the government confirm if F.6 was the intend clause referenced for this offeror fill in, or confirm a fill in for this clause is no longer required?

The Government removed F.6 fill-in as part of RFP

Amendment 1.

50 Section L Instructions

L.17 (b) Table L-1 and L-23

L-13 thru L- 16 and L-54 thru L-55

Clarity The instructions in L-23 for the Volume V Model Contract require that all required documents of

Section J be included in the model contract with the proposal submission.

Will the government consider modifying the requirement related to Section J for including

DRD required plans that are also required by other

The Government considered this comment, but the requirement will not be modified.

volumes, to be inserted into the model contract

With Final Proposal Revision or after award instead?

51 Section K required certification

K.11 K.19 Clarity Will the government please provide the regulatory citation or other agency directive requiring the certification found at

Section K.11?

The Government removed K.11 through RFP

Amendment 1.

52 Section L Instructions

L-18 (a)(2) L-19 Clarity The RFP states text shall be "Times New Roman font with single-spaced 12-point text" and that "text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than

12-point text size." Since the Government does not specify a font style for diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs, would it be compliant for the Offeror to use 12-point Arial Narrow font for diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs?

Please questions 76, 88, and 225 posted in Modifications 11 and 12. The Government will not change these formatting requirements.

53 Section L

L.19.1 L-22 Clarity In DRD-COSMOS-0001 and previous answers to questions, the Government has stated that only the

WBS Tree is to be included. However, the

WBS Tree was included in Attachment J-21. Would the Government please clarify the intended deliverable with DRD-

COSMOS-0001?

The offeror can add elements to the WBS tree provided to fit their proposed structure.

54 Section L Instructions

L.17 (b) Table L-1 L-16 Clarity The Final RFP included the Past Performance Org chart within Past Performance page count when it was not included during the Draft RFP.

Would the Government please consider removing it from page count so the

Offerors can concentrate their page count on providing relevancy content to the Past

Performance write-ups.

The Government considered this comment and updated the Past Performance Org chart deliverable to not be included in the page count

55 Other Attachment J-10 List of COSMOS

Software

J-10.1 Other The current J-10 is 91 pages in pdf format that is not renderable, so we cannot convert it to a searchable file. It is also important for developing our response to DRD- 0057. Would you please provide Attachment J-10 as an Excel file?

The Government considered this comment and published an excel file with this information in Technical

Library Part 10. However, the J-10 attachment will remain in PDF for contract purposes.

56 Section L Proposal

Instructions

MA.2.1.b, M.4.1 L-22, M-5 Clarity Please explain how the Government will evaluate a make-vs.-buy philosophy in the context of the MA2 Staffing and Critical Skills

Subfactor.

The Government cannot provide any additional evaluation criteria other than specified in Section M.4.1.

57 Other Attachment L-5a COSMOS Price

Template Attachment J-20:

Labor Rate Tables

Tab 2 IDIQ Summary

J-20-16

Clarity Within Attachment L-5a, on the "2 IDIQ Summary" tab, the instructions related to proposed fee state "The template currently assumes that the NTE fee rate is applied to all proposed dollars, excluding travel dollars which are RFP specified as non-fee bearing dollars." The formula within this tab

In accordance with Amendment 1 to the COSMOS RFP, The Government removed the following OFI + language “Proposals shall include a provision that all Sustaining Material purchases and Development and Modification Material purchases specifically then applies the fee rate to all costs except travel.

However, Attachment J-20 includes the following footnote: "+ OFI --- Proposals shall include a provision that all Sustaining Material purchases and Development and

Modification Material purchases specifically identified and directed by the Government shall be purchased without the application of fee".

Please remove the footnote in Attachment J-20 as the solicitation and pricing template allows offerors to propose fee on Materials.

identified and directed by the Government shall be purchased without the application of fee. " and replaced with, “ NTE Award

Fee Rate/ NTE Fixed Fee Rate will be applicable to the total cost and price (labor, non-labor, & indirect rates) of future task orders, excluding travel. In accordance with B.8

TRAVEL, No fee or profit shall be applied to the costs of travel "

58 Section L

Instructions

L.17 L-16 Clarity Table L-1 states there is a 20 page limit for "Past Performance Narrative, General Information, and Org Chart." The term

General Information does not appear elsewhere in the solicitation and it is unclear what Past

Performance content should be included here.

Will the Government confirm that the term general information applies to bullets under Section

L.20(d) or clarify the definition of General

Information?

The Government intends for that mention of General Information to not to be restricted to any sections and used at the discretion of the Offeror. The term general information is to allow offerors to include information which not be covered in other sections which an offeror believes is relevant to their past performance.

59 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.1 L-25 Clarity Table L.19-2 indicates there are 327.36 incumbent WYEs. For the purposes of estimating direct labor costs in the IRAP tab of

Attch L-5a, should bidders assume there are currently

327.36 WYEs in total on

the current contract?

The Offerors should make reference of the title of the quoted table as that data is only detailing the Prime

Incumbent's data. The offeror shall reference the hours detailed in Table L.5a:

Specified Resources Table - Hours within L.21 Cost and Price Factor - Volume III.

60 Section L

Instructions

L.21 L-5a Cost Price

Template Tab 9

CFAOT

Clarity Row 22 states, "Provide copy of recent cost proposal audit report...if not applicable, indicate as such." Please confirm that submission of recent cost proposal audit reports is not required if submitting Forward Pricing Rate

Proposal (FPRP) details as specified on Row 21

Both Row 21 and 22 should be addressed. If there are no recent cost proposal audits

(Row 22), offerors may indicate the row is not applicable.

61 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.21 L-5a Cost Price

Template Tab 9

CFAOT

Clarity Row 33 states, "Provide copy of recent cost proposal audit report...if not applicable, indicate as such." Please confirm that submission of recent cost proposal audit reports is not required if submitting most recent Accounting System audit details as specified on Row 33

Cell E33 was updated through RFP Amendment 1 to the following, "Provide copy of recent Accounting

System audit report; or status and brief description of audit issues; if not applicable, indicate such."

62 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.1 L-25 Clarity Table L.19-2 in the cost volume indicates there are over 600 WYEs for purposes of pricing and staffing the COSMOS contract. In the Final RFP, See question 59.

the government provided a seniority table reflecting

327.36 incumbent WYEs.

Would the government clarify which staffing level offerors are to use for pricing and staffing?

63 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.1, MA-2, 1.a L-22 Clarity NASA's intent (and desired responses) behind this question are confusing.

What "barriers" are NASA wanting offerors to address

(internal, external, programmatic, operational, etc.)?

The Government is unable to provide additional instruction other than that specified in section L as the Government is not intending to prescribe the barriers for the Offeror to propose/address.

64 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.19.1, MA-2, 1.a L-22 Clarity Additionally, it is unclear on what

"example/strategy" is being referenced. Does example/strategy refer to the to DRD-COSMOS- 0017 plan? If not, please clarify.

The Government intends for the Offeror to determine and propose the best example/strategy to address the Governments defined

Management Area of Emphasis.

65 Section L

Instructions

L.19.1.MA.2.2 L-24-25 Other Would the government reconsider the use of incumbent rate data and retention % as the main method for evaluating the offeror’s ability to staff critical personnel? The current method of evaluation restricts non-incumbents' ability to provide a best-value bid that differentiates from other competitors and demonstrates innovation and/or efficiencies through their technical response.

Please see DRFP question 141 in post Modification 12, as this question was previously answered.

66 Other J-17: DRD-

COSMOS-0004

J-17.8 Clarity Request the Government provide the factors needed for the Government to assess Return on

Investment for each suggested technical improvement.

The Government cannot provide any additional evaluation criteria other than specified in Section M.

67 Section L

Instructions

J-17 DRD-

COSMOS-0009

J-17.20 Clarity DRD-COSMOS-0009 states under Contents, "The Subcontracting plan must include the approach that the Contractor intends to use in meeting the subcontracting goals.

Subcontractors whose bid is part of this proposal should be identified. For each subcontractor, the percentage of the proposal and any small or small business subcategory classification should be identified..." This information is not required by the FAR, please confirm that the Offeror should include all DRD-

COSMOS-0009 Contents requirements within the

Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The Offeror shall supply all information as detailed in

DRD-COSMOS-0009.

68 Other J-17: DRD-

COSMOS-00016

J-17.65 Clarity Please clarify what ‘measurable performance metrics’ are expected in proposed DEI plans per DRD Description/Use phrase, “The plan shall include measurable performance metrics…will be utilized as an assessment tool by the contracting officer to monitor the Contractor’s progression in its commitment to diversifying its workforce…” We want to ensure our response complies with federal policies that protect sensitive personal information (e.g., gender, ethnicity), while providing a robust DEI plan with quantitative metrics.

Offerors shall propose a plan with performance metrics for the Government to consider while adhering to the appropriate Government policies referenced in the

DRD.

69 Other J-17: DRD-

COSMOS-00016

J-17.66 Clarity Please clarify the meaning and level of anticipated data ‘disaggregation’ over the COSMOS POP described in DRD Culture and Sustainability

Requirement 2, “Identify actionable opportunities to improve data collection, use, and sharing that would allow for disaggregation”?

We want to ensure our response complies with federal policies that protect sensitive personal information (e.g., gender, ethnicity), while providing a robust DEI plan with quantitative metrics that evolves over the POP.

"disaggregation" refers to how Offerors plan to separate actionable opportunities identified to improve data collection, use, and sharing.

70 Other J-17: DRD-

COSMOS-00016

J-17.66 Clarity Please provide clarification on the meaning of “data” in Culture and Sustainability Requirement 1, “Based on the data, what structures and strategies will be used to manage diversity, measure results, "data " refers to the data provided by the Offeror as their response to the DEIA

Plan.

refine approaches, and institutionalize a culture of inclusion?”

71 Other J-20 Labor Rate Table

J-20-5 and J-20-6

Clarity The J-20 Labor Rate Tables provide rows for the Offeror to identify Item 31 Overtime Premium Rates ($OFI), Item 32 Indirect

Cost Rate to be applied to Other Premium Costs

($OFI), Item 33 Indirect Cost Rate to be applied to

Other Premium Cost(s) (OFI%), and Item 34

Indirect Cost Rate to be applied to Non-Labor Resources (OFI%).

The Note, at the bottom of page J-20-6, '*** OFI' requires the Offeror to identify the basis of application for each

Indirect Cost Rate(s) to be applied to each Non-Labor

Resource and Other Premium Cost(s) (if any).

Yes, Offerors may use 32,33&34 if Offerors would like to include Other Premium Rates. If needed

Offerors may add additional rows.

Can the Government clarify, if an Offeror were to include Other Premium Rate(s), for example Shift

Premium, etc., that rate should be entered in Item

32 Indirect Cost Rate to be applied to Other Premium

Cost(s)? And, if necessary, the Offeror may add additional rows in J-20 to accommodate for Overtime Premium Rates for eligible labor categories, as well as Other Premium Rate(s)?

72 Other L-5a Minor Subcontractor Cost

Price Template

SubK Cost Details tab

Clarity The template requires minor subcontractors to supply SubK fringe benefit costs per hour and all applicable SubK indirects for each Government fiscal year. Considering that fringe benefits are typically considered an indirect labor cost, should the fringe benefit cost per hour in each labor category be

Fringe benefits are a type of indirect cost. The amount applicable to fringe benefits should be included in both the SubK Fringe benefits column as well as in the All Applicable SubK Indirects column. The All Applicable

SubK Indirects column should include all applicable indirect rates on a per hour basis (including but not included in the cells for all applicable SubK indirects in each fiscal year? If not, what should be included in the applicable SubK indirects cells for each fiscal year?

limited to fringe benefits, overhead, and G&A). The

SubK Fringe column should not be used to compute the Fully Burdened rate if the amount is also included in the All Applicable SubK

Indirects column.

73 Section L

Proposal Instructions

Attachment L-6 COSMOS Past Performance

Relevancy Matrix

Excel Sheet Columns D-

K

Clarity Please clarify if a response is expected for SOW

Section 1 of L.24 Attachment L-6 COSMOS

Past Performance Relevancy Matrix as SOW

Section 1 appears to be descriptions only.

The Government requests Offerors to assess all

Statement of Work sections as specified in the published

Attachment L-6 Past Performance Relevancy

Matrix

74 Section L Proposal

Instructions

L.24 Attachment L-7 Prime Subcontractor

Identification and SOW Division of

Work

Excel Sheet Columns F-

M

Clarity Please clarify if a response is expected for SOW

Section 1 of L.24 Attachment L-7 Prime

Subcontractor Identification and SOW

Division of Work as SOW Section 1 appears to be descriptions only.

See question 73.

75 Section L

Instructions

L.19.1MA.2.2(b) L-23 to L-

Clarity The RFP is requesting "Sources used for the proposed direct labor rates shall be supported with the following information to allow a complete understanding of, and establish traceability to, the proposed labor rates."

Please confirm that the actual proposed rates are not to be included in the

TCP but rather salary ranges.

Actual proposed rates are to be included in the TCP. If more than one individual is in a labor category with differing rates or if more than one method of estimating is used to compute the rate, the Offeror shall describe how the proposed rates are determined.

76 Section L Proposal

Instructions

Attachment L-9 Certification and

Critical Skills Reference

L-80 Clarity Can the Government clarify what portions of the SOW are the Atlas Support

Team responsible to support?

The Atlas Support Team is the support team associated with SOW C Section 3.1.4 Operations, specifically the reference to Support…