DRFP 80KSC027R0001 Questions 20261016.pdf

No. DRFP Area Section Paragraph

No.

Page

Question Response

1 Attachment J-

01 PWS

1.10.2 1 42 PWS states "Ensure at least two facility managers hold a Certified Facility Manager credential from the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) in compliance with the 40 United States Code (U.S.C.) 581, Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010."

Is there a grace period for obtaining this credential if assigned facility managers do not possess it at contract start?

No grace period will be permitted. All proposed facility managers must meet this qualification at contract start.

2 Attachment J-

01 PWS

1.10.2 2 42 PWS states "Ensure all facility managers hold the Facility Management Professional credential from IFMA or equivalent, as approved by the COR or

TMR."

Q#1: Is there a grace period for obtaining this credential if one or more assigned facility managers do not possess it at contract start?

See response to question No. 1. All proposed facility managers, regardless of title, must meet qualifications at contract start.

Q#2: Does this requirement apply only to facility managers and not associate facility managers?

3 Attachment J-

01 PWS

3.2.10.1 2 98 PWS states in part "Facility numbers M6-1623 through M6-1629 as identified in Attachment J-12, Government Furnished Facilities are blasting and protective coating facilities." The referenced attachment shows four (4) facilities listed as blasting and protective coating facilities: M6-1623, M6- 1625, M6-1627 and M6- 1628. There is not a facility M6-1629 on the list. Please clarify.

Attached J-12 Government Furnished Facilities will be revised to add facility M6- 1629, Compressor Building.

4 Section I FAR 52.219-9 N/A 41 Section I lists FAR 52.219-9 both as a January 2026 Deviation and as Alternate II dated November 2016, while Sections L and M require Alternate II. Which version governs the plan the Offeror must submit in Volume 4?

FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, applies. NASA’s contract writing system lists both the basic clause and its alternate, when an alternate applies.

5 Section L Attachment L-05 Fully burdened IDIQ labor rates

N/A Section M evaluates fully burdened IDIQ labor rates multiplied by Government provided BEQs, and Section B provides for task orders priced under Attachment J-06.

Attachment J-06 is a cover page only, Attachment L-05 contains no IDIQ fully burdened labor rate worksheet, and no BEQs by Government standard labor category are provided. Where is the Offeror to enter these rates, and what BEQs will the Government apply?

Section M evaluation criteria will be updated to clarify.

6 Section L NFS 1852.215-81

Proposal Page Limitations

(a) 71 The page limit table lists Management Approach and Technical Approach under Volume I with a 125-page limit; the 35-page limit applies to Volume II Past Performance.

However, Section L, Introduction and General Proposal Requirements, paragraph (b), names Volume 1 “Technical Acceptability,” and the Volume 1 instructions specify Contract Phase-In, Organizational Structure, Staffing Plan, and Business Operations and Scheduling. Will the Government align the table headings with these instructions and confirm that the 125-page limit applies collectively to the four Volume 1 sections, excluding content identified under Volume IV as stated in the table’s footnote 1?

The NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations provision will be updated to remove references to Mission Suitability.

7 Section L NFS 1852.215-81

Proposal Page Limitations

(a) 72 The Volume IV line of the page limit table reads "Data required by L.6.2 paragraph (b)(2)," and there is no Section L.6.2 in this solicitation. Will the Government correct the cross-reference?

NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (a) will be amended to clarify.

8 Section L NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations

(b)(8) 73 Paragraph (b)(8) states that the total page limitation for Mission Suitability, to include all subfactors, is combined and that the Offeror shall determine the appropriate page distribution among the subfactors. This solicitation contains no Mission Suitability factor or subfactors. Will the Government delete the paragraph?

The NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations provision will be updated to remove references to Mission Suitability.

9 Section B AbilityOne Subcontracting

(a) 28 The percentage entry in the AbilityOne Subcontracting clause (a) is blank while the clause narrative in (c) states at least 1 percent.

Will the Government populate the clause in (a) in the final RFP?

The Government will populate the fill-in in Section B, AbilityOne Subcontracting, paragraph

(a) to reflect the awardee’s AbilityOne goal included in its Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which must meet or exceed 1 percent.

10 Attachment J- 03, Contract Schedule Tables

Attachment J-03 CLIN 002 N/A Attachment J-03 identifies CLIN 002 as cost reimbursement while Section B describes it as Core Work under a fixed-price arrangement. Will the Government confirm and correct the contract type for each CLIN so that Section B, Attachment J- 03, and Attachment L-05 agree?

Attachment J-03 will be revised to clarify to align with Section B and Attachment L-05.

11 Section F Place of Performance

N/A 16 Section F identifies the place of performance as "Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Florida." Wallops Flight Facility is located in Virginia. Will the Government correct the state?

Yes. Section F will be revised to clarify.

12 Section L NFS 1852.219-73 (b) 73 NFS 1852.219-73 states that "the apparent low bidder must submit the complete plan within 15 calendar days after" request. This acquisition is a negotiated trade-off

The NFS 1852.219-73 Provision will be deleted.

procurement, and Section

L requires submission of the subcontracting plan in Volume 4 with the proposal. Since there is no “apparent low bidder” under this acquisition strategy, will the Government remove this provision or tailor it to align with the Volume 4 submission requirement?

13 Section L Volume 3 Price Instructions

(a) 65 Paragraph (a) of the Volume 3 Price Instructions runs from subparagraph (8) to subparagraph (10) with no subparagraph (9). Will the Government correct the numbering and confirm that no requirement has been omitted?

Yes. Volume 3 Pricing Instructions(a)(1-9) will be updated.

14 Section M NFS 1852.214-71 (a) and (b) 82 NFS 1852.214-71, Award Grouping, appears in Section M. The provision is drafted for sealed bidding:

it refers to an Invitation for Bids, to aggregate bids, and to rejection of a bid as nonresponsive, and its aggregate award entry

Provision1852.214-71, Award Grouping, will be deleted.

reads "Not Applicable." Will the Government delete the provision from this negotiated acquisition?

15 Sections L and M

Attachment J-01, PWS, Section

4.6.1 No. 27

(a)(1)(iii) 77 Section M identifies the Offeror’s response to Attachment J-01, PWS

4.6.1 No. 27, Use of

Artificial Intelligence (AI) During Contract Performance, as an award-eligibility requirement.

Section L does not provide detailed submission instructions for this response, although the NFS 1852.215-81 page limit table lists “Data required for Artificial Intelligence Solutions” under Volume IV, Plans and Other Data. Will the Government confirm that this Volume IV entry addresses the response required by PWS 4.6.1 No.

27 and specify the required content, applicable page limit, and file format?

1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations will be revised.

16 Attachment J-

02, Deduction Schedule

Attachment J-02 Deduction Schedule Items 4 and 5

N/A The note callouts in the Deduction Schedule are reversed. Item No. 4, Late or rejected Data Requirement, refers to Note 1, but Note 1 is titled as applying to Item No. 5 and lists the two financial deliverables. Item No. 5, Late or rejected financial Data Requirement, refers to Note 2, but Note 2 is titled as applying to Item No. 4 and lists the general deliverables. Will the Government swap the note references?

The Deduction Schedule will be revised.

17 Attachment J- 02, Deduction Schedule

Attachment J-02 Note 2 N/A Note 2 lists "2.2-02 Annual Work Plan" and "1.2-09 Facility Price Report."

Appendix J-01-04, Data Requirements List, numbers the Annual Work Plan as DRD 2.1-02 and titles DRD 1.2-09 the Facility Pricing Report. Will the Government correct the number and the title?

The Deduction schedule will be revised.

18 Section L Past Performance

Volume Instructions

(c ) (3) 62 The Past Performance volume requires a signed letter of commitment from parent/affilate as applicable, "(3) Include a signed letter of commitment from the parent/affiliate corporation in the case of workforce or other resources". Can the Government please clarify if these letters for each affiliate is considered outside of page count?

NASA FAR Supplement 1852 215-81 Proposal Page Limitations will be updated for the letter of commitment to be outside the page count.

19 Section L 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations. (Apr 2015)

73 Section (7) states "Text within graphics shall use a point type not smaller 10-point type. Text within tables shall use a point type not smaller than 12-point type." Would the Government consider revising the requirement to permit 10-point font for text within tables, consistent with the 10-point minimum permitted for graphics, to improve readability while maximizing the efficient

1852 215-81 Proposal Page Limitations(b)(7) will remain unchanged.

use of available proposal space?

20 Attachment J-

2.1.1.2 Computerized Maintenance Management System (Maximo)

1.a 46 PWS states "Within 30 days of contract effective date, update Maximo to ensure assets identified in Tech Exhibit 3.1-2, FSEU Asset Reference List are captured in Maximo." Does "within 30 days of contract effective date" mean within 30 days AFTER full contract start date?

Yes. See Appendix J-01-01 Glossary, for the term "contract effective date."

21 Attachment J-

01 PWS

2.1.1.2 Computerized Maintenance Management System (Maximo)

2.a 47 PWS states "Within 90 days of contract effective date, develop a workflow to ensure National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)-required PM reports for protective systems, excluding EPACS, are digitally reviewed and signed by the NASA fire protection engineer as the owner/owners representative prior to closing the PM work order."

Does "within 90 days of contract effective date"

See response to Question 20.

mean within 90 days AFTER full contract start date?

22 Attachment J-

3.2.7.3 System

Specific Operation

91-

PWS is numbered 3.2.7.3.1 through 3.2.7.3.4. The next subsections are numbered 2 and 3. Will the Government please correct this discrepancy in numbering sequence?

Yes. Attachment J-01 PWS will be updated.

23 Section L Other Proposal Instructions

1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations. (Apr 2015)

(a) Volume II Past Performance

72 Considering that Offerors must establish relevancy of up to 10 past performance efforts for Offerors, affiliates, and major subcontractors by providing narrative in 12 point font for the extensive list of items in Section L Volume 2 Past Performance:

(c) (1) through (3) [affiliate meaningful involvement including a detailed table of what resources will be responsible for PWS sections down to the third level];

The Government will retain the 35-page limit for Vol II Past Performance.

(d) (1) and (2) [recency and size];

(3) (i)(A) through (G) [technical areas];

(ii) through (v) [additional relevancy elements];

(e) (1) though (10) [specific contract information, description of work scope, and additional contract management performance elements];

(11) (ii) through (iv) [safety summary of OSHA citations, EMF rate, DART, and TRIR]

(12) [performance problems, corrective actions, delays, and terminations];

(13) [additional information]

AND

Section M Past Performance Evaluation (b)

(3) and (4) [Offeror cooperation and responsiveness to negotiating changes and submission of contract deliverbles and prevention and reduction in safety, health, quality assurance, and environmental problems]:

Will the Government consider increasing the page limitation from 35 pages to 50 pages for Volume II Past Performance?

24 Industry Engagement

DRFP Memo / SIMO acquisition website (technical/bidders library)

Pre-RFP industry engagement opportunities

N/A Will the Government host a site visit or facility familiarization opportunity accessible to prospective subcontractors (not only prime offerors) prior to final RFP release, since facility familiarity materially affects subcontractor pricing and teaming decisions?

Yes. SIMO Industry Days are October 13 - 14, 2026.

Detailed information is provided on the SIMO Procurement Site and sam.gov.

25 DRFP

Sections A-M

INTRODUCTION

AND GENERAL

PROPOSAL

REQUIREMENTS

a.b.5 59 This section identifying the required proposal volumes lists Volumes 1 through 4 and Volume 6, but does not include a Volume 5. Could the Government update the numbering as appropriate to ensure the proposal submission requirements are accurate and complete?

Introduction and General Requirements (b)(1-5) will be updated.

26 DRFP

Sections A-M

Page Limitations 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations.

(Apr 2015)

73 The solicitation states, "The total page limitation for Mission Suitability (to include all subfactors) is combined and the Offeror shall determine the appropriate page distribution among the subfactors." However, Mission Suitability is not identified as a proposal volume.

Could the Government please confirm whether this reference to Mission Suitability was intended to refer to Technical Acceptability, or otherwise clarify the applicable

The NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations provision will be updated to remove references to Mission Suitability.

volume and page limitation requirements?

27 DRFP

Sections A-M

VOLUME 3 PRICE

INSTRUCTIONS

Part 9 65 The referenced section skips from paragraph (8) to paragraph (10), with no paragraph (9) provided.

Could the Government please confirm whether paragraph (9) was inadvertently omitted and update the solicitation accordingly?

The paragraph structure under Volume 3 Price Instructions will be updated.

28 DRFP

Sections A-M

Page Limitations 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations.

(Apr 2015)

72 The Proposal Page Limitations table references "Data required by L.6.2 paragraph (b)(2)" under Volume IV Plans and Other Data. However, Offerors are unable to locate this referenced section within the Draft

RFP.

The NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations section will be updated.

Will the Government clarify the information required to be submitted under Volume IV, Plans and Other Data, including any applicable page limitations, and provide the missing content associated with L.6.2 paragraph (b)(2)?

29 PWS 7.1.1.11 Must offerors propose Wallops staffing?

Offerors are not requested to address undefined future Wallops support in their organizational structure, position descriptions, pricing, or staffing plan. Wallops support, if required, will be defined, proposed, and ordered as fully negotiated IDIQ Task order(s).

30 Section L Small Business Subcontracting

(a)(2) 68 Are the Government-directed non-proposed ODCs, totaling $61,664,404.79, included in total planned subcontracting dollars for purposes of the subcontracting plan goals?

Subcontracting plan goals are proposed by the Offeror in accordance with the DRFP instructions for Volume IV and FAR 52.219‑9, Alt II.

Government non‑proposed ODCs are identified separately and are not proposed by the Offeror; therefore, Offerors will include Government non‑proposed ODC plug values directly in planned subcontracting dollars. Offerors may recover associated costs or fees via other cost elements as instructed in the Price Volume.

31 Section B AbilityOne Subcontracting

(c) 28 The AbilityOne Subcontracting clause requires annual notification of the percentage of the total dollar obligated under the AbilityOne program, stated as at least 1 percent.

Confirm the denominator of that calculation, specifically whether it is total dollars obligated under the contract or total subcontracted dollars, and whether IDIQ task order value is included.

See response to question 9.

32 Small Business Participation

Section L (a)(2) — 25% minimum total small business utilization goal

69 The DRFP requires individual subcontracting plans to indicate, at a minimum, a 25 percent total small business utilization goal. Please confirm whether the 25 percent goal applies to total contract value (core firm-fixed-price CLINs plus IDIQ task orders) or to the core

The 25% minimum goal applies to total contract value.

firm-fixed-price requirement only.

33 Security Requirements

Section H (NFS 1852.240-75, Security Classification Requirements)

Application for security clearance submitted during contract phase-in

49 For small business subcontractors that do not hold a Secret facility clearance at time of award, please clarify the process and anticipated timing for sponsorship and initiation of the required facility and personnel security clearances. Will subcontractor personnel awaiting final clearance be permitted to perform unclassified portions of the work during the 45-day phase-in period, where otherwise authorized?

Sponsorship will be initiated by the Prime Contractor/Government during Phase-in. Personnel awaiting final clearance may perform unclassified work during phase in, if otherwise authorized and consistent with Section H and site access procedures.

34 Past Performance Section L — Volume 2 Past Performance Instructions

Past performance 'similar in size, content, and complexity'

61 For small business subcontractors whose directly relevant facilities O&M experience (e.g., work control, preventive maintenance planning/scheduling, procurement support) was performed at a smaller total contract value than SIMO, will the Government assess relevance at the work-area level in addition to total contract size?

Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with Section M using the proposal information required by Section

L. OTHER PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS/ELIGIBILITY

REQUIREMENTS (a)(1). The Government will not provide evaluation advice outside the published criteria.

35 Small Business Participation

Section L (a)(1)(ii) — enforceable vs.

non-enforceable subcontractor commitments

69 Under the Small Business Participation factor, will the Government evaluate enforceable small business subcontractor commitments (with acknowledgement signatures of both parties, as described in Section L(a)(1)(ii)) more favorably than non-enforceable commitments?

The Government will consider the strength of commitments (including enforceable, bilateral acknowledgements) when assessing credibility of SB participation, consistent with Section L OTHER PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS/ELIGIBILITY

REQUIREMENTS (a)(1)(ii).

36 Small Business Participation

Section L (a)(1)(ii) — enforceable subcontractor commitments;

post-award administration

69 If an offeror names specific small business subcontractors with enforceable commitments in its proposal, will post-award substitution or replacement of a named small business subcontractor require Contracting Officer

No, however, small business utilization is part of the annual CPARS evaluations.

approval?

37 DRFP Section A-M Section H, AbilityOne Subcontracting

Section H, AbilityOne Subcontracting (c)

28 "Section L, Other Proposal Instructions, paragraph (a)(2) states ""Individual subcontracting plans must indicate, at a minimum, a 25 percent total small business utilization goal within the plan. For individual subcontracting plans, the Offerors shall propose subcategory goals (VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone small business, SDB, WOSB, and HBCU/MSI) based on their independent assessment of the small business subcontracting opportunities for this requirement."" However, Section H, AbilityOne Subcontracting references reporting on AbilityOne participation and an ""at least 1%"" AbilityOne requirement.

See response to question 9.

38 DRFP Section H - Special Contract Requirements

Section H Ability One Subcontracting

28 "Section H, AbilityOne Subcontracting, establishes an AbilityOne participation requirement of at least 1%.

Given the nature of the SIMO requirement, including a workforce primarily consisting of craft labor and material purchases largely comprised of MRO commodities, Offerors may have limited opportunities to utilize AbilityOne sources. Will the Government consider removing the 1% AbilityOne requirement or, alternatively, revising the requirement to a best-efforts basis where participation is pursued to the maximum extent practicable?

No. The Government will retain an at least 1% participation requirement.

39 Draft RFP Section L 1852.219-73 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. (May 1999)

(a) 73 of

"The DRFP states, ""This provision is not applicable to small business concerns"" but Section M SMALL

BUSINESS PARTICIPATION,

AND SAFETY, HEALTH,

QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION (a) states, ""The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to small business participation for compliance

Provision 1852.219-73 is not applicable to this RFP and will be removed from the Final RFP.

with proposal instructions and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontract Plan, Alternate II"". Can NASA please clarify how prime small business concerns will be evaluated under Section M (a) Small business participation criteria? How will large business concerns be evaluated under this same requirement?

40 Draft RFP Section L 1852.219-73 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. (May 1999)

(b) 73 of

"The DRFP states ""....The apparent low bidder must submit the complete plan within 15 calendar days after request by the Contracting Officer. "" The Evaluation Process (c) (page

78) in Section M indicates a Best Value of Past Performance and Price trade-off. Does this mean the evaluation criteria in M only applies to the "low bidder" in price?

See response to question 39.

41 Draft RFP Section L, VOLUME 5 MODEL

CONTRACT

INSTRUCTIONS

OTHER

PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS/

ELIGIBILITY

REQUIREMENTS

(a) 68 of

"The DRFP has instructions for providing small business participation that are similar to and reference FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontract Plan, Alternate II, but the evaluation criteria in Section M does not align with Volume 5 Model Contract (page 81).

Yes. The Small Business Subcontract Plan is submitted with the proposal and evaluated for compliance in Volume V per Section M.

42 DRFP Sections A- M.pdf

"(a) Small business participation.

42 Page 68 indicates the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted with the proposal, but page 73 (NFS 1852.219-73) states that “The apparent low bidder must submit the complete plan within 15 calendar days after request by the Contracting Officer.”

Please clarify.

See response to question 39.

43 Section L Small Business Subcontracting

(a)(2) 68 Is IDIQ Work included in the base against which the subcontracting plan goals are measured, given that IDIQ Work quantities are not established at proposal submission?

Yes, the IDIQ estimated value is included in the base.

44 Section F Place of Performance

N/A 16 "Section B contemplates negotiation and issuance of task orders for services at Wallops Flight Facility, Section F lists Wallops Flight Facility as a place of performance, and Attachment J-03 provides a NASA/WFF CLIN 005 and a placeholder record for WFF-issued task orders.

Attachment J-01, PWS 7.1.1 No. 11 requires engineering and engineering support services at Wallops, but does not define the specific tasks, workload, or required disciplines.

Q#1: Will the Government provide the anticipated Wallops tasks, workload estimates, required labor categories and qualifications, and proposal pricing instructions before proposals are due?

Q#2: If the detailed scope will be defined after award, please clarify whether and how Offerors must address Wallops in their organizational structure, position descriptions, staffing plans, and other proposal responses.

Q#3: Has the contemplated

The Wallops scope has not been accounted for in the L-01 Minimum staffing requirements, only in the maximum contract value. The support at Wallops Flight Facility is not currently defined.

The government intends to negotiate an IDIQ Task Order in late 2027 to provide the required support. The estimated value of the Wallops Flight Facility support has been included in the maximum estimated IDIQ value.

However, Offerors are not requested or required to address Wallops in their organizational structure, position descriptions, staffing plans, and other proposal responses.

Wallops scope been accounted for in Attachment L-01, Minimum Staffing Requirements?

45 Attachment J-01, PWS Attachment J-01 Performance Standard No. 1

N/A Performance Standard No. 1 requires 99.5% to 100% completion of the total maintenance budget for each customer per fiscal year. Budget levels, funding timing, and customer demand are outside the Contractor's control. Please explain how the Contractor is held accountable for budget execution and how the standard is measured when a customer reduces or delays funding.

Performance Standard No. 1 will be updated to clarify that Government delays will be considered when calculating contractor compliance.

46 DRFP Sections A–M Section L, Vol. 3 instructions

(c)(6)(i)–(ii) 66 Confirm that L-05 BEQs are evaluation-only and that invoiceable MSR revenue equals Attachment J-04 unit price × Government-authorized, completed/closed MSRs, not the BEQ extended value.

Confirm that “no future adjustment … above or

The Government will not consider a unit price change.

below the BEQs” means no unit-price change, not a guaranteed BEQ payment.

47 DRFP Sections A–M Section B, MSRs clause

(a)(1)(iii)–(v) and (a)(3)

5 If combined MSR + IDIQ Work orders in a period fall below the stated IDIQ minimum ($75M base;

$100M options 1–3; $25M option 4), will the Government order additional IDIQ Work, pay a shortfall, or treat the minimum as already satisfied another way?

In accordance with Clause

52.216 22 paragraph B, "the Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies services designated in the schedule as the" minimum"."

48 Attachment J-01 PWS 2.1.1.4.b–d 49-50 Confirm the band is set from the contractor’s ROM / estimated direct craft hours (P&E function), not from actual hours at closeout;

that actuals are for validation only; and that after-the-fact upgrades will not be approved. If actual hours fall outside the assigned bracket, what is automatically recoded versus what needs COR/TMR approval?

If actual hours fall outside the initially assigned MSR range, the work order will be recoded within Maximo for accurate historical tracking, but recategorization requires explicit COR/TMR approval in advance and will not be granted retroactively. The Contractor is therefore responsible for accurate estimating to avoid mis‑categorization.

49 Attachment J-01 PWS 2.3, Outage Coordination and Processing

2.3.1.9 66 Entire section 2.3, and in particular 2.3.1.9, addresses significant contractor responsibilities for management, processing and coordination of outages. However, the SIMO scope summary on KSC SEB SIMO website still includes a statement that "NASA will also directly manage scheduling, outage coordination, infrastructure impacts, customer communications, transportation integration, and construction support activities." Please clarify as needed, and explain what role, if any, NASA will have in the outage approval process.

The Government will update the SIMO scope summary on the KSC SIMO SEB website.

SIMO’s role is limited to executing the outage coordination process for assigned FSEU, while NASA’s Spaceport Operations Center (SPOC) performs the broader, multi‑program integration function that extends beyond the SIMO contract scope.

50 bidders library file index-9

Row 37, Document Name - SIMO Historicals;

Portfolio - N/A;

Category - Historical Data and Info of 8

The SIMO Historicals file was not provided with the other documents in the Historical Data and Info category. Please provide at the governments earliest convenience.

See "Historical Data" file that was uploaded on August 18, 2026, under the "Historical Data and Information" section in the Bidders Library.

51 Section L - Instrs, Conds, and Notices to Offerors

VOLUME 1

TECHNICAL

ACCEPTABILITY

INSTRUCTIONS

(a)(1) 60 "Section L states that “Key positions within the Offeror's phase-in team must include the following, full-time position(s): Phase in Manager, Program Manager, IT Professional, Logistics Manager, and Business Analyst” Rather than dictating these specific phase-in team positions, would NASA instead consider allowing Offerors to designate and propose Phase-In Team members based on their own internal labor categories, corporate approaches, and historical success phasing in contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to SIMO?

At a minimum, NASA requires the specific phase-in team positions or equivalent positions that meet the Government’s SLCs and minimum education and experience qualifications for each position. Potential bidders are welcome to propose additional key positions based on their historical success phasing in contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to

SIMO.

52 bidders library file index-9

Row 219, Document Name - GSDO-

PLN-1002;

Portfolio - 3;

Category - KSC Documents of 8

The GSDO PLN 1002 file was not provided with the other documents in Portfolio 3.

Please provide this file at the Government's earliest convenience.

Government added the plan to the bidders library under the " Portfolio 3 FPL MOU, EGS (GSDO) and KSC Documents" section in the Bidders Library.

53 bidders library file index-9

Row 227, Document Name - GSDO-

PLN-1330;

Portfolio - TBD;

Category - KSC Documents of 8

The GSDO PLN 1330 file was not provided with the other Bidders Library documents.

Please provide this file at the Government's earliest convenience.

Government added a secure file location on sam.gov to place the CUI documents.

Organizations can request access through sam.gov.

54 Collective Bargaining Agreements

Collective Bargaining Agreements

N/A N/A Please provide the current collective bargaining agreements, including all wage and fringe benefit schedules, amendments, extensions, and successor agreements.

Current CBAs have been posted in sam.gov as CUI documents;

"Collective Bargaining Agreements". Organizations can request access through sam.gov.

55 L Attachments Attachment L-

Attachment L-

Summ ary

TAB

What percentage of the Government's total minimum labor hours in each contract year from FY 2027 (Contract Year 1) through FY2035 (Contract Year 9, Option 4) does the Government estimate supports MSR execution versus Core Work?

The Government will not be providing a minimum labor hour breakdown to this level.

Offerors have sufficient information to propose.

56 IT security – Contractor-operated systems

Question: Will the contractor operate or maintain any IT systems under SIMO (for example, work-control, CMMS or facility control systems listed in the bidders' library Control Systems Inventory) that require a NASA authorization to operate? If so, which cybersecurity standards apply? Identify any contractor-operated systems and applicable NASA IT security requirements and DRDs in the Final RFP.

Yes. Refer to Tech Exhibit 4.6-1 "SIMO Managed Application", PWS Section 4, and DRDs 4.6- 01, 4.6-02, 4.6-03, 4.6-04, 4.6- 05, 4.6-06, 4.6-07 and 4.6-08.

57 DRFP Section A-M Section M, Past Performance Evaluation

Section M, Past Performance Evaluation (5)

80 Section M indicates that the Government will consider the past performance of each JV member when the JV itself lacks relevant past performance. To ensure the evaluation accurately reflects performance risk, will the Government clarify whether the relevance and weight assigned to a JV member's past performance will be commensurate with that member's proposed ownership interest, managerial control, key personnel responsibilities, and percentage of contract performance? If this is the

The Government will weight JV member past performance commensurate with each member’s proposed role and contribution to SIMO execution (ownership, control, key personnel, percent of work), as described in Section M.

Government's intent, please consider revising Section M to expressly state that past performance will be weighted based on each JV member's anticipated role and contribution to contract execution.

58 DRFP Section A-M Section M, Past Performance Evaluation

Section M, Past Performance Evaluation

79 To ensure a fair assessment of performance risk, will the Government clarify that credit for Joint Venture past performance will be based on the offeror's actual performance contribution, including percentage of work performed, workforce provided, contract scope executed, and management responsibilities held?

Otherwise, offerors with limited participation in a large Joint Venture contract may receive the same credit as the managing partner responsible for the majority of contract performance, which may not accurately reflect the offeror's demonstrated capability to perform the requirements of this solicitation.

See response to question 57.

59 DRFP Section A-M Section L Volume 2

Section L Volume 2 (d)(1)

62 Section L, Volume 2 Past Performance Instructions states that "Recent is defined as performance no earlier than October 1, 2021." For purposes of evaluating recency, will the Government confirm that contracts with a period of performance end date on or after October 1, 2021 are considered recent?

Section L Volume 2 paragraph

(d) paragraph (1) will be revised in the final RFP to read as follows:

Recent is defined as performance within the last five years of proposal due date, with a minimum of one year of performance performed within the five-year period (excluding phase-in).

60 DRFP Section A-M Section L, Volume II

(a) 61 Could the Government please clarify the criteria that will be used to determine whether a subcontractor is performing “major or critical aspects of the requirement” and therefore qualifies as a major subcontractor? Is this determination based on workshare percentage, scope criticality, or a combination of factors?

A combination of factors will be considered: meaningful workshare percentage, critical scope areas, and essential responsibilities determine major subcontractor status for proposal and evaluation purposes.

61 DRFP Section A-M Section L, Volume II

(c) 62 What specific criteria will the Government use to determine whether a parent or affiliate company is participating "meaningfully" in contract performance?

Please see Section L Vol II "Past Performance Instructions" paragraph (c) (1, 2, 3).

62 DRFP Section A-M Price Evaluation (b)(7) Option to Extend; L-05 Summary K6

80 Section M's 6-month extension evaluation lists Core, ODCs, IDIQ tasks and IDIQ labor rates, but does not appear to include MSRs.

However, Attachment L-05 Summary includes MSRs in the extention pricing. Could the Government please clarify whether MSRs are intended to be included in the six-month extension evaluation?

Yes. MSRs will be included. Final RFP will be revised

63 DRFP Section A-M Price Evaluation (b)(6); L-05 Pricing Instructions table of contents item

80 Section M states that the extention evaluation will include both the IDIQ work task pricing and fully burdened IDIQ labor rates multiplied by the BEQs for FY 2035. However, the FY 2035 BEQs do not appear to be provided in Attachment L-05, and the referenced "IDIQ FBLR Blended" tab does not appear to be included in the pricing workbook. Could the Government please provide the missing information and clarify the intended evaluation methodology for the six-month extension period?

Section M PRICE EVALUATION paragraph (b)7(i-iv) will be revised to clarify in the final

RFP.

64 Attachment L-05 MSRs tab;

Summary tab

MSRs rows

132–147 (FY

2035 BEQs);

Summary K6

N/A (Excel)

FY 2035 represents a six-month period, but the associated MSR BEQs appear to reflect full-year quantities. Could the Government please confirm the intended FY 2035 MSR BEQs and update Attachment L-05 if necessary?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

65 Attachment L-05 Summary tab Summary B5, J5, K5 (Non-proposed ODCs)

N/A (Excel)

The 6-month Non-proposed ODC amounts are the annual amount ÷ 6. Should they be the annual amount ÷ 2?

This item will be revised to reflect the appropriate Non-proposed ODC amount for a 6 month period of performance.

66 Attachment L-05 IDIQ Work tab Col H BEQs, FY 2027 (rows 4–

45) and FY 2035 (rows 340–381)

N/A (Excel)

Pre-priced task BEQs are the same in the 6-month FY 2027 and FY 2035 periods as in full years. Should the half-year BEQs be halved, as the FY 2027 MSR BEQs are?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to reflect the appropriate BEQ amount for a 6 month period of performance.

67 Attachment L-05 /

PWS

MSRs tab Col F, MSR300 lower bound (FY

2027, FY 2029–

FY 2035)

N/A (Excel)

The MSR300 lower bound is 150 hours in every year except FY 2028, where the lower bound is identified as 200 hours. As a result, MSR300 overlaps with MSR200 (100–200). Which bounds apply?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

68 Attachment J-05 / L-

J-05 Task #39; L- 05 IDIQ Work

SINs y022–y030 N/A (Excel)

Attachment J-05 lists 43 catalog tasks (#17–#59);

however, Attachment L-05 includes rows for only 42 task. Specifically, Task #39 (KSC Event Planning and Management Support) has no L-05 row and does not appear to have a corresponding row in Attachment L-05. Could the Government please clarify whether Task #39 is intended to be priced and, if so, update Attachment L-05 accordingly?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

69 Attachment L-05 IDIQ Work tab Col AA (unit price) vs. col AB (extended price)

N/A (Excel)

The unit price in Column AA excludes Other Labor, while the extended price in Column AB includes it.

Could the Government please clarify whether Other Labor is intended to be included in the unit price calculation?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

70 Attachment J-05;

Section B

J-05 Tasks 35– 36; Section B Non-proposed ODCs (fuel)

J-05 Tasks 35– 36; Section B fuel exclusion

7 Tasks 35 and 36 reference "Work Task Nos. 34 or 35";

however, the buses are Tasks 33 and 34. In addition, the Section B fuel exclusion references pre-priced Tasks 33-37 and 67, while Attachment J-05 contains only 42 pre-priced tasks.

Could the Government please clarify the intended task references and identify which pre-priced tasks are required to include fuel costs in their pricing?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

71 Attachment L-06 All tabs Formula cells N/A (Excel)

About 1,728 formula cells in Attachment L-06 display #REF! errors. Will a corrected Attachment L-06 be issued?

Attachment L-06 will be revised

72 Attachment L-05 OCE tab L2:L3 (FY 2034) N/A (Excel)

The FY 2034 Core and MSR OCE subtotals sum the FY 2035 column (M) instead of FY 2034 (L). Will this be corrected?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

73 Attachment L-05 Blended FBLR Detail tab

Rows 14–18 (IDIQ block) vs.

tab instruction 3.1

N/A (Excel)

The "Blended FBLR Detail" tab has an IDIQ Work block;

however, Instruction 3.1 states that IDIQ labor is not to be included on this tab.

Could the Government please clarify whether the IDIQ Work section should be left blank, or whether specific IDIQ-related data is intended to be entered in that portion of the workbook?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

74 Attachment L-05 IDIQ Work tab ALL-years summary rows 425–426

N/A (Excel)

The summary includes two transportation review/permitting tasks (BEQ 0). These tasks do not appear in Attachment J-05 or in any of the yearly rows.

Could the Government please clarify whether these tasks are intended to be included in the pricing workbook? If not, should Offerors disregard these tasks for pricing purposes?

75 Attachment L-05 DropDown tab DropDown!A12

N/A (Excel)

The category 'Water & Waste Operator Mechanic' ends with a hidden line break, so it doesn't match exact-text entries. Will the list be corrected?

Attachment L-05 will be revised to clarify in the final RFP.

76 Attachment J-05 Pre-Priced Work Task #53-58

53-58 Could the Government please clarify whether these pre-priced estimates are intended to support NASA-managed projects, non-Core customers, or both?

77 Draft RFP Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, Additional Information/Not es, FAR 52.212-

2 EVALUATION-

COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL

SERVICES (NOV

2025)

(DEVIATION)

(a) p. 77 DRFP states "A trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.103-1, will be used in making source selection with respect to the Past Performance and Price factors." FAR 15.103-1 states, "The tradeoff approach to source selection is appropriate when it may be in the Government’s best interest to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost or non-price factors. The anticipated benefits of a higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost."

Question: How will Past Performance be evaluated using FAR 15.103-1 when this area addresses tradeoffs between cost or price and non-cost or non-price factors? Which requirements will be used to determine the Past Performance rating, and what weight will each be given?

Please see Section M "Evaluation Factors for Award," and FAR 52.212-2

"EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES" (NOV 2025)

(DEVIATION) (a) Evaluation factors.

78 Draft RFP, Section L Volume 3 Price Instructions

(a)(3) P. 64 The draft RFP states bidders must provide documentation that it has a material management and accounting system (MMAS).

MMAS is not found in the FAR or NFS, but instead in the DFARS at 252.242.7004.

MMAS requirements in the DFARS are geared much more toward manufacturing or production rather than the need for government and contractor property management typically required for base operations work. Given the scope of work on SIMO, we would expect that FAR requirements for government property at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, to meet the Government's needs here (along with NASA’s 48 CFR Part 1845, with the primary contract clauses at 1852.245‑70 and 1852.245‑71, governing how NASA‑furnished property is requested, used, and accounted). Will the Government confirm it requires an MMAS rather than a property management system?

The Government confirms the requirement that the Offeror provide documentation that affirms that it has a material management and accounting system (MMAS). The MMAS does not have to be an approved system.

79 Service Employees

(SCLS/CBA)

L – Volume 3 Price Instructions

(a)(6) and (a)(7) P. 64–

The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.222-41 and FAR 52.222-43 and provides Wage Determinations in Attachment J-09. Can NASA confirm whether incumbent employees performing the SIMO requirements are covered by existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs)? If so, can NASA please provide the applicable current CBAs and all amendments, wage schedules, and other documents affecting employee wages and fringe benefits prior to the RFP release to support accurate proposal pricing?

CBAs and wage determinations will be posted as controlled documents for Offeror pricing and planning (see Attachment J-09 and SAM notice).

80 Non-propposed ODCs L – Volume 3 Price Instructions

(a)(7) p. 66 Section states that the Government-provided non-proposed ODC values are non-fee bearing and are not subject to direct application of general and administrative expenses, overhead, profit or any other direct or indirect costs. The Offeror may recover costs or fees associated with the supply of non-proposed ODCs via a direct cost, indirect cost, or other cost element (OCE) under Core Work and MSRs

No. Please see Section L Volume 3 Pricing Instructions, (c)(7).

CLINs. Are Offerors allowed to assume that general and administrative expenses, overhead, profit or any other direct or indirect cost are covered in the Government-provided non-proposed ODC values?

81 Draft RFP, Section L VOLUME 2 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INSTRUCTIONS

(d)(11)(i) 63 of

The instructions ask for "A summary of OSHA Form 300A". However, note 2 to the page limitations table

(p. 72) says that the page limitation "Excludes OSHA’s Form 300A." Does the Government want the form itself or only a summary of the form?

VOLUME 2 PAST

PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS

(d)(11)(i) will be clarified in the final RFP.

82 Draft RFP, Section M PAST

PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION

79 of

The draft RFP states that Past Performance will be evaluated " in accordance with FAR 15.202(c) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Companion Guide (CG) 1815.23(d)". However, NFS CG 1815.23 does not appear to have a subsection (d).

Should this refer to (c) instead?

Government confirmed the reference, no change.

83 Draft RFP, Section L VOLUME 2 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INSTRUCTIONS

(e)(6) 63 of

"The draft RFP states, ""Average number of work-year-equivalents (WYE) on the contract and the average WYE directly performing work relevant in the areas described in paragraph (e)(9).""

The Offeror shall include:

average number of work-year-equivalents (WYE) on the contract and the average WYE directly performing work relevant in the areas described in paragraph (e)(9).

84 Draft RFP, Section L Volume 3 Price Instructions

(a)(3) P. 64 The draft RFP references a Material Management and Accounting System (MMAS).

Is the Agency intending for offerors to have a system consistent with DFARS 252.242.7004? If so, will the Agency confirm small businesses are exempt from this requirement consistent with DFARS 252.242.7004?

If not, will the Agency provide clarity as to what it's requirement for the MMAS is and what documentation it requires for the MMAS?

The Government confirms the requirement that the Offeror provides documentation that affirms that it has a material management and accounting system (MMAS). The MMAS does not have to be an approved system.

85 PWS PWS 1.2.1 17 12 "PWS 1.2.1 paragraph 17 states ""Provide near real-time reporting via the Government contract management portal (reference PWS Section

4.6.1 No. 12)"". Should this

requirement reference Section 4.6.1 No. 11 instead?

Attachment J-01 PWS will be revised to clarify in the final

RFP.