Attachment 13 - Pre-Proposal Questions and Answers_Phase 1 R1.pdf

Item

RFP Section Paragraph

SOW

Paragraph Other (Specify) RFI NASA Response / Comments

1 Section L L.4.3.a, Paragraph 1 Page 51 and 59

Is a recent project defined as one completed within the past three (3) years or within the past five (5) years? On the top of page 51 is a reference for five (5) years but near the bottom of page 59 the RFP states that “To be recent, the effort must have been completed or performed during the past three years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation.”

Section M, Factor 2 - Past Performance has been updated to clarify the recency requirement. Past Performance will be assessed based on projects completed within the past five (5) years.

2 Section M L.4, Volume III - Factor 2, M.4, Factor 2 Page 52 and 59

On page 59 is a paragraph that states: “Past performance of joint venture partners will be included in the aggregate evaluation. However, the past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors will not be considered.” Should this paragraph be removed? Other parts of the RFP indicate that past performance from teaming partners will be considered. For example, the paragraph on Past Performance Information in the middle of page 52 indicates “offerors should highlight relevant aspects of their own, their teaming partners', and joint venture participants' contract histories that best demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the current requirement.”

Section M.4, Factor 2 Past Performance has been updated to remove the statement that "The past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors will not be considered".

3 Section M M.4 Pgs 61-62, 4, 52, 59

The last paragraph of Section M.4 (on pages 61-62) notes that “Only the top-rated offerors in Phase 1 (maximum of five general contractors and three mechanical contractors) will be selected to submit proposals in Phase 2.” Does NASA intend to eliminate any offerors during Phase 2? Elsewhere (pages 4, 52, 59), the RFP indicates that the government intends to award eight (8) total contracts with five (5) of those set aside for 8(a) contractors.

NASA does not anticipate removing any offerors selected for Phase 2; however, the government reserves the right to do so if necessary. The government intends to award up to eight Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The pool will consist of five general contractors under an 8(a) set-aside and three mechanical contractors under a small business set-aside.

4 SF1442 Block 10 Page 1 Will the NAICS codes for all task orders be 236220? Or will the small mechanical task orders potentially be in NAICS code 238220 or other NAICS codes used for specialty trade contractors?

The NAICS code applicable to all task orders issued under this contract will be 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) in accordance with FAR 19.103(b).

5 SF1442 Block 10 Page 1

SF 1442 Block 10 notes that CLINs 0004-0006 will be reserved for 8(a) firms. Does this mean that NASA could complete task orders with sizes appropriate for CLINs 0001-0003 (i.e., below $350K in value) among either the pool of three TSB mechanical firms or the pool of five 8(a) firms or both pools?

Task Orders with sizes appropriate for CLINs 0001-0003 (below $350K) will be competed against all 8 IDIQ holders.

Since all 8(a) firms are also small businesses, should an 8(a) firm that would like to be considered for task orders in all CLINs submit one proposal or two pool-specific proposals (e.g., with the proposal for CLINs 0001-0003 featuring smaller mechanical projects and the proposal for CLINs 0004-0006 featuring somewhat larger more multi-discipline projects)?

Each offeror may only be awarded one IDIQ contract under this acquisition. However, an 8(a) firm that wishes to be considered for task orders across all CLINs does not need to submit two separate proposals.

Instead, the offeror should submit one proposal that addresses its capabilities for all relevant CLINs. This single proposal can include information demonstrating how the firm meets both the 8(a) and small business requirements, as required..

7 This RFP includes multiple references to the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) but does not specify what that level is. It is currently $350,000, correct?

The Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) is currently $350K, as defined in FAR 2.101.

Would task orders under the SAT that do not have any mechanical scope be directed to the pool of 3 small business contractors or would those task orders be directed to the pool of 8(a) contractors even if the task order values place them in CLINs 0001, 0002, or 0003?

All task orders under the SAT, whether mechanical or not, will be competed among all eight IDIQ holders.

9 Section L L.4.3.b and c

Section L.4.3.b lists the types of information to be provided for each relevant contract or subcontract being summarized for Factor 2 (Past Performance). Section L.4.3.c. states that “The Government requests the offeror send out the questionnaire (see Attachment 6) for each contract listed above.” For clarification, does this mean that the offeror should send the PEQ to three (3) POCs (government program manager, procuring contracting officer, and administrative contracting officer)?

Per section L.4, paragraph 3(c), the past performance volume of the proposal shall include a list of questionnaire recipients to include two current POCs and phone numbers for each contract reference provided. Identifying the individuals completing the PEQ satisfies this requirement.

10 Section L L.4.3.c Section L.4.3.c notes the inclusion of “A cover letter for transmitting the questionnaire to each POC is included.”

Please indicate where in the RFP the cover letter is located.

The statement stating a cover letter would be provided has been removed.

11 Has a site visit date and time been coordinated? We are currently in Phase 1 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. A site visit will be conducted for offerors who advance to Phase 2

12 Section L L.4, Paragaph 3c Page 51 and 64

It is very difficult to obtain PPQ/PEQ documents from Owners. Will you allow previously completed PPQs to serve in lieu of Attachment 6?

Amendment 02 Response: Offerors may submit previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), provided the performance referenced meets the solicitation’s recency requirement of five (5) years.

Amendment 03 Response: Offerors should submit PPQ's using attachment 6 as provide.

Attachment 6 has questions specific to this acquisition that would not be covered in previously completed PPQ's.

13 Section L 3.b Indicates Offerors provide a comprehensive list of up to 10 recent and relevant contracts; however, the provided Attachment 8 checklist (Volume III, item 1) indicates 5 recent and relevant and entire project listing for last 5 years. Please clarify the submission requirements for past performance.

Section L.4, Paragraph 3.b has been updated to reflect 5 recent and relevant contracts

14 Section L Vol III, 3.c If CPARS are provided in lieu of PEQ, do Offerors send them directly to the Government or include them in the proposal submission? If we are to include in proposal submission, do they count towards the 25 pg limit?

Offerors shall include Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) as an attachment to the Phase I proposal. This documentation must be submitted under Volume III – Past Performance and will be counted toward the 25-page limit.

15 Section M M.4, Factor 2

Can NASA clarify the definition of Past Performance recency as there are inconsistencies within the solicitation documents?

- Page 51 of 64 Section L.4.3, Volume III – Factor 2, a - five (5) years

- Page 59 of 64 Section M.4.. Factor 2 – Past Performance...To be recent, the effort must have been completed or performed during the past three years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation.

- Attachment 10 – Past Performance Assessment Tool – Recent (within 5 years)

Section M, Factor 2 - Past Performance has been updated to clarify the recency requirement. Past Performance will be assessed based on projects completed within the past five (5) years.

16 Section L L.4, 3. Volume III - Factor 2 Can NASA clarify if CPARS submittals are excluded from the Volume III 25-page count? CPARS submittals will be counted towards the 25 page limitation.

17 SF1442 13(b) Page 1 Item 13 (b) on SF1442 indicates an offer guarantee is required; however, it appears Phase 1, does not have a pricing factor included that the bid guarantee would be based on. Please advise whether an offer guarantee is required, and if so, what the amount should be.

Offerors are not required to submit a bid guarantee in phase 1 of the RFP. Bid guarantee will be required with the price proposal requested in phase 2 of the RFP.

18 Section L 3.c Can Offerors submit previously completed PPQs in lieu of PEQ Attachment 6? Many GPOCs will not complete additional performance questionnaires repeatedly after one has already been filled out.

Offerors may submit previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), provided the performance referenced meets the solicitation’s recency requirement of five (5) years.

19 Section L RFP makes several references to the 'Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT)'; however, there doesn't seem to be an explanation of what the SAT is exactly.

The SAT is currently $350K, as defined in FAR 2.101.

20 Section L L.4, 3 Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance states "Provide a comprehensive list of up to ten recent and relevant contracts". How many of these contracts must also have a CPARS or PEQ?

Requirement for 10 recent and relevant contracts has been updated to 5 recent and relevant contracts.

21 Section L L.4, 3 Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance

Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance states "Provide a comprehensive list of up to ten recent and relevant contracts", however Attachment 8 Proposal Submission Checklist states "Past Performance (5 recent and relevant and entire project listing for last 5 years). Summary (Prime)". These 2 documents provide conflicting guidance. Please advise if the Offeror is to provide 5 recent and relevant projects and its entire contract history for the last 5 years or if the Offeror is to provide up to 10 recent and relevant projects.

Section L.4, Volume III – Factor 2 Past Performance has been updated to require submission of five recent and relevant contracts. Attachment 8 has been revised to remove the previous requirement for a complete project listing covering the past five years. Offerors should now provide five recent and relevant projects that best demonstrate their past performance.

22 Section L L.4, 3 Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 2 Past Performance: requests recent and relevant projects within the past 5 years, however Section M.4 defines recent as "completed or performed during the past three years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation.". L and M provide conflicting guidance in regards to what is considered RECENT. Please advise if projects should be within 3 or 5 years.

Section M, Factor 2 - Past Performance has been updated to clarify the recency requirement. Past Performance will be assessed based on projects completed within the past five (5) years.

23 Section J Attachment 8 Proposal Submission Checklist Proposal Submission Checklist lists "Teaming Partners Project Listing (If Teaming)" as required documentation.

Is the Offeror required to provide project experience for its teaming partners, and if so, how many projects are required from each subcontractor?

The Offeror is required to submit five recent and relevant projects when a teaming arrangement is proposed. These projects should reflect contracts where both parties actively collaborated as teaming partners on the same effort.

24 Section L KSC 1852.223-73 Safety and Health Plan Page 54 of the RFP, KSC 1852.223-73 SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN - Additional Requirements Oct 2023: In addition to the Attachment 9 form, is the Offeror required to provide its full Safety and Health Plan with its Phase 1 proposal per the instructions in this clause?

No, the Offeror is not required to submit its full Safety and Health Plan with the Phase 1 proposal. The Safety and Health Plan will be required during Phase 2.

25 Section L L.4, 3 Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance Performance Evaluation Questionnaire: would NASA consider allowing previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires in lieu of obtaining new ones?

Offerors may submit previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), provided the performance referenced meets the solicitation’s recency requirement of five (5) years.

Amendment 0001 Questions and Answers Small Task Order Construction Contract (STOCC) II

26 Section L L.4, 3 Volume III - Factor 2 Past Performance L.4 states that CPARS are allowed in lieu of PEQs. Should the Offeror include these CPARS in their Phase 1 proposal submittal, or email them to the NASA POCs for this proposal?

Please include CPARS as an attachment to the phase 1 proposal. This should be captured under "Volume III - Past Performance".

27 RFP Document The solicitation released on January 16, 2026 still displays a ‘DRAFT’ watermark. Will a final version be issued, or should offerors treat the current document as the official solicitation?

RFP without the 'DRAFT' watermark was uploaded to SAM.gov.

If a company that is a small business is also a member of an 8(a) joint venture, can both entities compete in the separate small business and 8(a) set-aside pools for the referenced NASA opportunity (NAICS 236220, $45M size standard)?

An Offeror may submit one proposal and request inclusion in both the Small Business and 8(a) pools, but can only receive one IDIQ award, not two.

29 SF1442 Block 13 The solicitation (Block 13) indicates that an offer guarantee is required. Can we assume that a Bid Bond will not be required for the Phase I proposal, but that it will be required for Phase 2?

Offerors are not required to submit a bid guarantee in phase 1 of the RFP. Bid guarantee will be required with the price proposal requested in phase 2 of the RFP.

30 Section L L.2 Proposal Page Limitatons Reference Volume III, Factor 2, Past Performance, which is limited to 25 pages. Given that the requirement is for “up to ten recent and relevant contracts”, can we assume that CPARS and/or client PEQs will NOT count toward the 25 pages?

Requirement for 10 recent and relevant contracts have been updated to 5 recent and relevant contracts.

This will count towards the 25 page limitation.

31 SF1442 Block 13

SF1442, block 13 states, “Original + 1 copies” are required. Section L, paragraph L.2 indicates 1 copies required for all three volumes. Since this is an electronic submission via email, can the government please clarify if an Original is required or if one electronic copy of each volume will meet requirements?

Offerors may submit one electronic copy of each volume. Please note that NASA’s contract writing system cannot process a value less than “1” in block 13. While Block 13 still states “1 copy”, this is a system constraint and is not a requirement for this RFP.

32 Section L L.3

Section L, paragraph L.3 indicates, “The electronic offer must arrive at Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov, Benjamin.P.Crafton@nasa.gov and Jacqueline.A.Brooks@nasa.gov by the time specified in the solicitation.

However, Attachment 8, Proposal Submission Checklist indicates, “Email Transmission to KSC- IDIQbids@mail.nasa.gov.” Can the government please clarify whether offers must be emailed to the IDIQ bids email address in addition to the three email addresses required by L.3?

Offerors should send their electronic offer to Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov, Benjamin.P.Crafton@nasa.gov and Jacqueline.A.Brooks@nasa.gov.

Attachment 8 has been updated to remove KSC- IDIQbids@mail.nasa.gov.

33 Section L L.2

Section L, paragraph L.2., item (c) states that Table of Contents, Cover Page and Title Page are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (a) of the same section. Paragraph L.4 also states, “Proposal Volumes shall be consistent with the following structure and tabbed accordingly:” Can the government please confirm that tabs/section dividers used for organizational purposes will also be excluded from the page counts in L.2.

paragraph (a)?

The Government confirms that tabs or section dividers used solely for organizational purposes (i.e., to separate sections in accordance with the structure outlined in paragraph L.4) will be excluded from the page count specified in Section L.

34 Section L L.4

Section L, paragraph L.4, Volume I – Administrative (Required Documentation) lists bullets a. through g.

establishing the contents and order of 7 items in this volume. However, Attachment 8, the Proposal Submission Checklist, includes only 5 items. Can the government confirm that item e. Acknowledgment of all amendments issued (if applicable) and item f. Statement of the period for which the proposal is valid (not less than 180 calendar days) can be included on the SF1442 (item b) rather than providing separate SF30s or other documentation?

Amendments can be acknowledged on SF1442, Page 2, Block 18. A statement regarding the proposal validation period should be included in Volume I – Administrative Section of your proposal.

35 Section L L.4

Section L, paragraph L.4, Volume I – Administrative (Required Documentation) lists the required contents/structure, including c. Section G and d. Section K. Representations and Certifications. However, Attachment 8, the Proposal Submission Checklist, indicates to provide 3. “Completed Section K Reps and Certs” before 4. “Section G – Contract Admin Data.” Can the government please clarify the order of these two sections in Volume I?

The ordering of documents requested in attachment 8 have been revised to match section L.4. "Section G

- Contract Admin Data" has been placed above "Completed Section K Reps and Certs"

36 Section L L.2

Section L, paragraph L.2 indicates an “Unlimited” page limitation for Volume I. However, Attachment 8, Proposal Submission Checklist, provides page limits for various sections of Volume I. Can the government please clarify whether offerors are required to adhere to the page limitations set forth in Attachment 8?

Attachment 8 has been updated to reflect volume 1 has an unlimited page limitation.

37 Section J Attachment 8 Attachment 8, Proposal Submission Checklist, references including a DUNS in block 14 of the SF1442. Since the government has transitioned to UEI numbers, please confirm that a DUNS is no longer required in block 14 of the SF1442.

Attachment 8 has been revised to reflect the use of the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) in place of the DUNS number. Offerors are instructed to enter their UEI in Block 14 of the SF 1442.

38 Section G G.7 Section G, Paragraph G.7 requires a DUNS (RFP page 15). Since the government has transitioned to UEI numbers, please confirm that a UEI can be provided in place of the DUNS in this section.

Section G, Paragraph G.7 has been revised to remove references to the DUNS number and replace them with UEI. Offerors should provide their UEI in Paragraph G.7 in place of the DUNS.

39 We understand that per the newest guidance, 8(a) firms are allowed up to 60 days to establish a bona fide office in the state where the work will be conducted.

Correct.

40 Section L L.4 Volume III Attachment 6 / CPARS Are Performance Evaluation Questionnaires (PEQs) "required" for evaluation, or "requested" (optional)? Will the Government evaluate using CPARS or other sources if customer POCs do not return PEQs by the proposal due date?

PEQ's are required but a completed CPARS can be submitted in it's place. Government will evaluate PEQs and CPARS

41 Section L & M L.4 Volume II and M Factor 1

Please confirm the extent to which Design-Build approach details are required in Phase 1 Volume II, and whether Design-Build capabilities will be evaluated for all offerors in Phase 1 even though the seed project is evaluated in Phase 2.

The Design-Build approach details in Phase 1 Volume II should emphasize the offeror’s overall experience and capability with Design- Build, addressing the elements outlined in Section L of the RFP.

Evaluation of Design-Build specific to the seed project will occur in Phase

2. Design-build will be evaluated for all offerors in phase 1.

42 Section L L.1(1) RFI Due Date Section L.1 states questions must be submitted “no later than 10 calendar days from the RFP closing date.”

Please confirm the Government’s intent (e.g., 10 calendar days prior to the proposal due date) and provide the specific calendar date and time that questions are due.

Section L.1 has been revised to state that all questions must be submitted no later than Monday, February 16, 2026, by 2:00 PM EST

43 Section L L.1(2) RFI Responses and Due Date

With the current proposal due date of March 2, 2026, the requirement to submit questions 10 days PRIOR may not allow sufficient time to receive RFI responses and update our proposal. Could the Government please establish a question due date that ensures offerors have at least 10 days AFTER receipt of RFI responses to incorporate any necessary revisions?

Section L.1 has been revised to state that all questions must be submitted no later than Monday, February 16, 2026, by 2:00 PM EST

44 L and J L.4 Volume I; Attachment 1 Paragraph 9.0 9 SOW 9.0 states proposals must be valid 90 days, while RFP requires 180 days. Please clarify which applies to the base solicitation and which applies to post award TO proposals.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposals must remain valid for at least 180 calendar days. Once IDIQs are awarded, task order proposal must remain valid at least 90 days.

45 L & M L.4 Volume III; M.4 Factor II N/A

Section L states “RECENT” includes contracts performed within the past five (5) years, while Section M defines recency as within the past three (3) years from solicitation issuance (with criteria for ongoing work).

Please clarify which definition governs evaluation and whether projects older than 3 years but within 5 years will be considered.

Section L & M have been updated to reflect recency as contracts performed within the past 5 (five) years, 46 We understand that per the newest guidance, 8(a) firms are allowed up to 60 days to establish a bona fide office in the state where the work will be conducted.

Correct.

47 Pg 52 & 59 7 Past Performance Information

Pg 52 - Past Performance Information: When submitting past performance information, offerors should highlight relevant aspects of their own, their teaming partners', and joint venture participants' contract histories.

Pg 59 - However, the past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors will not be considered.

Would you confirm that performance information from Design teaming partner(s) will be considered as it part of the RFP requirements?

Teaming Partners past performance may be included but should be limited to partners that will be performing work on STOCC II.

48 Pg 56 Key Staff Qualifications

Key Staff Qualifications: Identifies key program and project management staff along with their qualifications, such as as education, training, licenses, and relevant experience.

Would you please provide a list of key staff positions to be included in this section?

Key staff should be identified by the offerors. Proposal should identify key program and project management staff along with their qualifications, such as education, training, licenses, and relevant experience for the tasks they will perform if awarded the contract.

49 Pg 50 b. Design-Build

B. Design-Build: The sub-factors and elements must address information on the offeror's design-build team, including management/organizational structure, qualifications of architects, engineers, accredited professionals, contractual arrangements, and lines of authority.

Would you please provide a list of A/E professionals to be included in this section?

The purpose of the Technical Approach Volume (Volume II) is to demonstrate the plan on how the requirements of this acquisition will be managed. Offeror should identify the A/E professionals in their proposal which supports their technical approach volume and covers the elements in Volume II, Subfactor 2, Paragraph B.

50 SF 1442 13.b

The SF 1442 indicates that an Offer Guarantee is required, however, there is no pricing in phase one of this solicitation.

Would you please confirm that an Offer Guarantee (bid bond) is not required; only requirement is a letter from approved surety?

See response to question 17 above.

Amendment 0002 Questions and Answers mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov mailto:Aaron.L.Kelley@nasa.gov

51 Attachment 8 Are we to submit Attachment 8 separate from the volumes? Attachment 8 is not required to be submitted with phase 1 proposals. Checklist is only a tool for offerors to use to ensure proposal is compliant. Government will verify all items in the checklist were received.

52 Section L L.4.3 Section L states to provide a list of up to 10 recent and relevant projects. Attachment 8 states to provide 5 recent and relevant projects and our entire project list for the last 5 years. Please confirm what is required to submit for Factor 2 Past Performance.

See response to question 1 above.

53 Section M Factor 2 Past Performance Recency Assesment

Section M states for a project to be recent it must have been completed during the past 3 years. Section L and Attachment 8 state for a project to be recent it must have been completed in the last 5 years. Attachment 10 states for a project to be recent it must have been completed during the past 5 years. Please confirm what is considered recent for past performance submissions.

See response to question 1 above.

54 L.2 (a) (a) Proposal Page Limitation Page Limitation There is a Volume I page limitation discrepancy. Section L.2(a) states Volume I is "unlimited" and attachment 8, provides page limitations for sub-sections.

In volume 1, the executive summary is limited to 3 pages and the remaining documents have no limit.

55 PEQ

May we submit these signed NAVFAC Southeast past performance questionnaires in lieu of requesting our customers complete Attachment 6, or is Attachment 6 required to be used without substitution? For several relevant projects, we have received recently completed and signed past performance questionnaires from NAVFAC Southeast that address performance quality, schedule, management, safety, and overall satisfaction.

These questionnaires contain substantially similar information to the requirements outlined in Attachment

[Question as received ends at "attachment"; government interpretation based on available context].

Offerors should submit PPQ's using attachment 6 as provide. Attachment 6 has questions specific to this acquisition that would not be covered in previously completed PPQ's.

56 Section J N/A 0.1, 17.0.3, 6.0, 1 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify early mobilization rules for Type 3. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

57 Section J N/A 5.1.2, 17.2, 18.0 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify review timeline and duration for Type 3 40% package. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

58 Section J N/A 6.0 and 17.2 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify review workflow, 30% vs 40% milestones. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

59 Section J N/A 0.3, 16.0.2, 6.0, 1 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify sealing requirements for Type 3 design. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

60 Section J N/A 8.0.2, 2.0, 17.0. Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify SpecsIntact/UFGS requirements at 40%. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

61 Section J N/A 8.0, 9.0, 18.0 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify whether Type 3 price is set at 40% or later. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

62 Section J N/A 6.0, 17.0, 17.2 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Clarify whether Type 3 requires 100% design before construction. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

63 Section J N/A 18.0 and 17.2 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Define acceptance criteria for 40% Type 3 package. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

64 Section J N/A 6.0, 16.0, 17.0 Attachment 1 – Master SOW Define intermediate engineering support for Type 3. The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

65 Section J N/A 18.0 and 17.2 Attachment 1 – Master SOW

Please define the Government’s acceptance criteria for the Type 3 40% design package (e.g., “accepted for construction,” “accepted for pricing,” or “accepted to proceed to final design”). Additionally, please confirm whether Government acceptance of the 40% package authorizes procurement of long-lead items and/or commencement of construction activities.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

66 Section J N/A .1, 2.0, 17.0, 19. Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 1.1 states standalone design services are not included, yet other SOW sections require design/EOR responsibilities and sealed packages. Please clarify the boundary between excluded standalone design services and required design obligations under STOCC TOs.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

67 Section J N/A 14.0.1 Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 14.0.1 requires outage requests 15 business days ahead but allows approval as late as the day before.

Please clarify how delayed approval affects schedule and whether excusable delay/time extension is applicable.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

68 Section J N/A 15.0.3 and 17.0.6 Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 15.0.3 requires the submittal register within 15 days of NTP, while SOW 17.0.6 requires COR accepted register prior to construction start. Please clarify timing/sequence and whether 15 day requirement may be adjusted at TO level.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

69 Section J N/A 6.0.2, 1.3, 17.0. Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 16.0.2 excludes sealed drawings from limited engineering support, yet SOW 1.3 and 17.0.3 require sealed drawings. Please clarify when sealed drawings are required and whether they are included or separately scoped at the TO level.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

70 Section J N/A 17.2 Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 17.2 states no field work may begin until all “critical path submittals” are approved but does not define them. Please clarify how critical path submittals will be identified at the TO level.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

71 Section J N/A 23.0 and 24.0.4 Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 23.0 requires as built documentation within 30 days after final inspection, while SOW 24.0.4 requires submission at final inspection. Please clarify which due date governs and which requirement controls payment/closeout.

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

72 Section J N/A 5.3 and 25.0 Attachment 1 – Master SOW SOW 5.3 references Section 24.0 as “Request for Information,” but RFI procedures appear in Section 25.0.

Please confirm: What is the correct RFI reference for 5.3? Should notifications in 5.3 be submitted as formal RFIs under Section 25.0?

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

73 Section J N/A 6.0 and 18.0 Attachment 1 – Master SOW

SOW 6.0 states Type 3 requires a “40% design package” but defines a 40% design as a “30% design and specification document… incorporating 30% design review comments,” while SOW 18.0 lists extensive multi-discipline drawings/specifications for the 40% package. Please clarify: What is the required design maturity for Type 3 (i.e., what “40%” means for this contract)? What are the minimum required deliverables for the Type 3 40% submittal?

The Master Statement of Work is a general overarching framework for the STOCC II program. Futher information will be clarified at the Task Order level.

74 Section J N/A TOC / Section 4.0 “Error! Bookmark not defined.” The Table of Contents shows a broken bookmark for GFE/GFP/GFM. Please confirm: Is GFE/GFP/GFM SOW content is missing? Will an updated GFE/GFP/GFM SOW be issued?

A Master SOW with a fixed link will be issued in a future amendment.

75 M & B M.4 Evaluation Process, B.2 Bid Schedule

The RFP states that three (3) of the (8) total awards will be reserved for offerers with demonstrated mechanical construction experience under the SAT. Section B.2 indicates three (3) awards are reserved for Small Business participants with mechanical experience, and five (5) awards are reserved for 8(a) participants.

Are the three (3) mechanical-focused awards exclusively within the small business set-aside pool (CLINs 0001- 0003)?

Correct, IAW Section B.2 Bid Schedule: This office intends to award a maximum of eight (8) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts from this solicitation. Three (3) awards will be reserved for Small Business Administration (SBA) certified Small Business (SB) participants with demonstrated experience in mechanical construction requirements valued under the SAT. The remaining five (5) awards will be reserved for SBA certified 8(a) participants

76 M & B M.4 Evaluation Process, B.2 Bid Schedule

The RFP states that three (3) of the (8) total awards will be reserved for offerers with demonstrated mechanical construction experience under the SAT. Section B.2 indicates three (3) awards are reserved for Small Business participants with mechanical experience, and five (5) awards are reserved for 8(a) participants.

Will the five (5) 8(a) awards (CLINS 0004-0006) be evaluated strictly on overall construction capabilities without preference for mechanical experience under the SAT?

The five (5) awards reserved for 8(a) participants will not require mechanical construction experience under the SAT as a preference criterion.

77 M & B M.4 Evaluation Process, B.2 Bid Schedule

The RFP states that three (3) of the (8) total awards will be reserved for offerers with demonstrated mechanical construction experience under the SAT. Section B.2 indicates three (3) awards are reserved for Small Business participants with mechanical experience, and five (5) awards are reserved for 8(a) participants.

Will mechanical experience under the SAT be a consideration across both the SB and 8(a) award pools?

Mechanical experience is specifically tied to the three (3) Small Business set-aside awards referenced in Section B.2. Those awards are reserved for firms demonstrating mechanical construction capability under the SAT threshold.

78 Will the government accept a Past Performance Questionnaire (from a Naval facility) that was previously received in lieu of the solicitation’s PEQ?

See response to question #55 above.

79 Attachment 8 Amendment 01 The revised Attachment 8 provided in Amendment 1 now contains an 8(a) SBA Office Eligibility Letter in the Volume I requirements however the revised RFP does not contain any guidance regarding this requirement.

Please advise what the Offeror is required to provide.

Amendment 02 issued on February 12 removed this requirement from the checklist.

80 Amendment 1

Amendment 1 Q&A # 14 and 16 states the CPARS are included in the Volume III 25-page limit. CPARS range from 3-7 pages in length. If CPARS are provided for all 5 projects this will significantly limit the amount of remaining pages for the project descriptions. Would NASA consider removing these from the page count since PPQs are not counted?

CPARs will be excluded from the 25-page limit in this RFP.

81 Section L.4 3. Volume III Factor 2 Paragraph b Attachment 8 - Proposal Submission Checklist Vol. III, Item #1

Section L.4 Proposal Preparation Instructions, 3. Volume III Factor 2- Past Performance Paragraph (b) Recent and Relevant Contracts ask to Provide a comprehensive list of up to ten (10) recent and relevant contracts.

Attachment 8 – Proposal Submission Checklist Volume III Past Performance, item #1 states Past Performance (5 recent and relevant and entire project listing for last 5 years) Summary (Prime).

Question: Is the check list correct in that it is requesting an entire project listing for the past five years? Please advise as to where in Sections L and M of the solicitation the requirement and instructions relating to this listing is provided.

Question: Also this section of the checklist references 5 past performance contracts verses the 10 contracts referenced in L.4. Please clarify.

See response to question 21 above.

82 Section M Factor 2 Attachment 8

Question: Is the check list correct in that a list of teaming partner projects is required? Please advise as to where in Sections L and M of the solicitation the instructions relating to this requirement are provided. Also Section M Factor 2 – Past Performance states “However, the past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors will not be considered.” This appears to contradict the requirement of a Teaming Partner Project List.

Amendment 02 removed the requirement for teaming partners project listing.

83 Could you please confirm whether this opportunity will be open to all qualified small business (SB) contractors, or if it is intended solely for 8(a) contractors?

CLINs 0001 - 0003 are reserved for Small Business only. CLINs 0004 - 0006 are reserved for 8(a) businesses only.

Requesting clarification on the Section K ‘Reps and Certs’. We pulled the FARS & DFARS report from SAMS, but it is 65+ pages. Should we include the whole report or is there a summary you are looking for. We intend to attach the entire report as an exhibit but wanted to confirm if there was a specific format.

Representations and Certifications are required in Volume I of the proposal, which has no page limitation restrictions. You may include the full report.

85 Section J Attachment 8 Proposal Submission Checklist Could you please kindly confirm that the 8(a) office eligibility letter listed in the Proposal Submission Checklist is the letter we received from the SBA stating that we have been accepted into the 8(a) program?

Amendment 02 removed this requirement.

86 Section L Vol III, 3.c. Attachment 13 - Answer to #14 Is it allowable to submit the CPARS as thumbnail images on 1 to 2 pages? Some CPARS are 4+ pages in length. If the CPARS count against the page count, that could easily take up 20+ pages of the 25 page maximum.

CPARS will no longer count towards the 25-page limit. Please submit the full CPARS in lieu of thumbnail images.

87 Section L L.2 (a) Please consider extending the page limitations for Volume II and Volume III to at least 35 pages.This will provide us ample space to provide adequate responses to the volume requirements.

Volume II and III page limitations remain unchanged but CPARS will no longer count towards the page limitation in volume III.

88 Section L L.2 (b) For Volumes II and III, please consider reducing the point size for tables and graphics to no smaller than 10 point type.

Font size remains no smaller than 12 point type.

For this proposal evaluation, may the Tribal 8a (Ma-Chis Gulf Coast) use past performance and experience from a sister company due to the fact that all of the tribal companies are owned and managed 100% by the Ma-Chis Tribe.

Recent and relevant past performance should be submitted for the company that will be performing the work at the Kennedy Space Center

Section I, paragraph (c) of the RFP states, "... A contracting officer may consider a joint venture for contract award. SBA does not approve joint ventures for competitive awards, but see 13 CFR 124.501(g) for SBA's determination of participant eligibility."

In order to be compliant with Proposal Submission Checklist, Volume I, Item 5 - 8(a) SBA Office Eligibility Letter, could the Government please confirm that you will accept the current annual review letter confirming continuing eligibility to participate in the 8(a) program for the 8(a) firm/managing member in our joint venture?

Amendment 02 removed the requirement for the 8(a) SBA Office Eligibility Letter.

91 Attachment 10

If we have NAVFAC Past Performance Questionnaires completed for past projects can these be included in our submission in lieu of requesting the Client complete the information again? Also, are we to provide CPARs or just the contract information so NASA can pull the CPAR reports?

Attachment 6 should be used for PPQ submissions, as it has been tailored for the STOCC II acquisition.

Alternatively, Offerors may submit a CPARS report in place of the PPQ. Please include any CPARS reports in Volume III, Section 2; these documents will not count toward the page limitation.

92 SF1442 Item 13b is marked "An offer guarantee is required", however, there is no pricing for phase 1. Is there a minimum Guarantee that is required so we can request from our Surety?

See response to question 17.

93 SF1442 Please comfirm that nothing is required under UNIT and PRICE for each CLIN. on pages 5 & 6 No inputs are required in the Unit and Price for each CLIN.

94 Attachment 8, Paragraph 1 What is required for the 8(a) SBA office eligibility letter? Is the 8(a) acceptance letter an appropriate document to submit?

Amendment 02 removed the requirement for the 8(a) SBA Office Eligibility Letter.

95 Attachment 12, Paragraph 1 Can we get clarification on the fiscal years included on the table for estimated task order volume and dollar ranges? Are these the correct years?

The estimates for STOCC II are based on the actuals from STOCC I. Fiscal years are correct and represent the number of orders each FY for STOCC I.

96 Section L L.2 , Paragraph B

A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type.

Does one-inch margins on all sides apply to headers, footers, page numbers, etc?

Yes

97 Section L L.2, Paragraph c

Identify any exclusions to the page limits that are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (a) of this provision (e.g. title pages, table of contents).

Would you please confirm that Tabs used to separate proposal sections will not be counted against allotted page count?

Confimed. Tabs which label proposal sections and do not contain information for evaluation will not be counted against the page limitation.

98 Section L L.4, Paragraph 1

The RFP states: "Current contracts or subcontracts performed, in whole or part, within the past five (5) years immediately preceding the issuance of this solicitation will be considered RECENT."

Question: As "in whole or part" allows Offerors to present projects that are not be 100% complete, could the Government please confirm that projects that are 90% complete would be acceptable as long as the relevant work has already been performed?

Correct. Offerors may submit active projects that are active and not yet fully complete if the offeror finds it relevant to the STOCC II.

99 Section L L.4, Paragraph 1 For Past Performance projects, could the Government please consider allowing projects performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance of this solicitation?

Recency remains 5 years from issuance of this solicitation.

100 SF1442 Page 1 Would the Government please consider providing a one-week extension to the proposal due date? Proposal due date has been extended to March 9, 2026 no later than 3:00PM EST.

101 Attachment 13 - Q&A, Question 12

The Government's response to question 13 states: "Offerors may submit previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) provided the performance referenced meets the solicitation’s recency requirement of five (5) years.

Question: Could the Government please confirm that previously completed PPQs are excluded from page count? Typically, PPQs are approximately 5 pages each, and if counted, would detract from the quality and content of these Offerors' Volume III 25-page responses.

PPQ's are not counted towards the page limit.

102 Attachment 13 - Q&A, Question 14

The Government's response to question 14 states: "Offerors shall include CPARS as an attachment to the Phase I proposal. This documentation must be submitted under Volume III – Past Performance and will be counted toward the 25-page limit."

Comment: Could the Government please reconsider excluding CPARS from the 25-page limit, as if counted, they would detract from the quality and content of Offerors' Volume III 25-page responses? As an example, for one of our projects, we have a 6-page CPAR from NASA due to extensive comments to support all "Exceptional" ratings.

CPARS will no longer count towards the 25-page limit.

103 Section L L.4.1(g), Paragraph 1 and 2

The section asks offerors to submit evidence of bonding capacity for this acquisition.

Could the Government clarify whether a Bid Bond/Guarantee will be required to be furnished when submitting proposals at the Task Order level under this contract?

A Bid Bond/Guarantee is not required for Phase 1 proposals but will be required in Phase 2. For Phase 1, please reference section L.4(1)(g).

104 Section L L.4.3©

The Government asks offerors to request the customer to complete the PEQ and return it to the Contracting Officer AT LEAST 10 DAYS prior to the proposal closing date/time, earlier if possible, but NO LATER THAN the proposal closing date.

In the event that the Point of Contact is delayed in providing the completed PEQ directly to the Government, would the Government permit the offeror to include the first page of the PEQ within the proposal as evidence that the request was submitted in good faith and in a timely manner?

The offeror is solely responsible for the accuracy of the contact information provided. Failure to obtain a quality rating on a recent and relevant record may impact the performance confidence assessment.

105 Attachment 8: Volume III: 1 & 3

Attachment 8: Volume III: Past Performance asks offerors to submit a summary (Prime) of 5 recent and relevant project listing for the last 5 years and a Teaming partners project listing (if teaming).

For Joint Venture offerors, could the Government clarify whether the required “Teaming Partners Project Listing (If Teaming)” must be submitted separately for each individual JV partner, and whether this listing is limited to all relevant projects performed within the past 5 years?

Amendment 02 removed the requirement for a teaming partners project listing.

106 Attachment 13 - Q&A, Question 14 & 16

In response to questions about inclusion of CPARS in lieu of PEQs, the Government clarified that CPARS submittals will be counted towards the 25-page limit.

Would the Government consider excluding CPARS from the proposal page count to allow offerors sufficient space within project narratives to clearly demonstrate the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance?

CPARS will no longer count towards the 25-page limit.

107 Joint Venture Agreements For Joint Venture offerors, could the Government confirm that the JV Agreement can be added to Volume 1:

Administrative (Required Documentation)?

A Joint Venture agreement is not required with the Phase 1 proposal submission.

108 Section L L.1.1, Paragraph 2

Amendment 1 indicates that questions regarding this solicitation are due on Monday, February 16, 2026 at 2:00 PM EST, approximately two weeks prior to the proposal submission deadline. Depending on the volume and complexity of Government responses and any resulting amendments, offerors may have limited time to fully incorporate the guidance into their proposals.

In the interest of receiving the most accurate and responsive proposals, would the Government consider extending the proposal due date?

Proposal due date has been extended to March 9, 2026 no later than 3:00PM EST.

109 Attachment 13 Pre-Proposal Questions and Answers

Reference to question 12: If we are providing previously completed PPQs do we include these in our proposal or do we need to submit them to the Contracting Officer 10 days prior to the bid due date?

IAW Section L.4(3)(c), Offerors shall request the customer to complete the questionnaire and return it to the Contracting Officer AT LEAST 10 DAYS prior to the proposal closing date /time, earlier if possible, but NO LATER THAN the proposal closing date. PPQs should be included in volume III - Past Performance as indicated in Attachment 8.

110 Section L L.4.3.c If we are providing previously completed PPQs and/or CPARS are we required to submit a list of questionnaire recipients/POCs with our past performance volume?

Correct,…