The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
80LARC20R0002 EASSS 3 Amendment 0002 EASSS 3 Request for Proposal (RFP) Questions and Answers As of April 17, 2020
| Final RFP Paragraph & Page Number |
| Question |
| Answer |
Previous Q&As, Amendment 0001
| 1 |
| Section L.9, p. 51-52 |
| In light of the increased logistical complexity (homes not fully equipped with office equipment/video conferencing for developing our proposals), no physical meetings, and prioritizing team health concerns (due to Covid-19 and Langley going to Stage-3), would you consider a greater than 45 day proposal response time? |
| Due to the current conditions regarding COVID-19, NASA will extend the proposal due date FROM 29 April 2020 TO 27 May 2020. Additionally, NASA will re-schedule the pre-proposal conference FROM 30 March 2020 TO 7 April 2020. Please see Amendment 0001 for the revised SF 33, revised Section L.9, and revised RFP Cover Letter reflecting the above changes. Sections L.8 and L.10 are also revised as a result of the above changes. |
| 2 |
| Section L.9, p. 51-52 |
| What is the estimated duration of the pre-proposal conference? |
| The pre-proposal conference will start at 2:00 PM EDT and is expected to end by 4:30 PM EDT. |
NEW Q&As, Amendment 0002
| 3 |
| Attachment L-2_Cost Forms |
| Can you verify that the downloaded file, 80LARC20R0002_EASSS 3_Attachment L-2_Cost Forms.xlsx, is not a draft? It is in the header of the file. |
| The file is not a draft, but is indeed a final version. Please see Rev1 of the form included with Amendment 0002, which corrects the header to read RFP 80LARC20R0002 instead of the incorrect reference to Draft RFP NNL15ZB1002R. |
| 4 |
| Exhibit A_SOW |
| In the SOW near the end of the long paragraph on p. 1, it says "…all panels typically member gather…." Do you mean "…all panel members typically gather…"? |
| Yes. Please see Rev1 of the SOW included in Amendment 0002. |
| 5 |
| Attachment L-2_Cost Forms |
| In regards to Cost Forms, Sheets A and C, we understand and very much appreciate the deviation regarding the Limitations on Subcontracting rules for similarly-situated entities. Would you please clarify the definitions and distinctions for “Consultants (Similarly Situated)” and “Consultants (Non-Similarly Situated)”? |
| Please see the definition in FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 19-02) (b) for a “similarly situated entity”. |
| 6 |
| Section L.19, p. 59-60 |
| Regarding Section L.19 and the $3.00M average annual price or cost/fee requirement, does the $3,000,000 refer to the value of individual contracts/subcontracts that we are using for past performance references and examples in the PP volume? |
| To be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent,” the value of the individual contract references must meet or exceed the thresholds provided in L.19 b)(12). |
| 7 |
| Section L.19, p. 59-60 |
| Regarding Section L.19 and the $3.00M average annual price or cost/fee requirement, would you consider decreasing the $3M PP Citation requirement to a lower value such as $1M? |
| Amendment 0002 revises the “Size” definition in L.19 b)(12). |
| 8 |
| Section L.19, p. 59-60 |
| Regarding Section L.19 and the $3.00M average annual price or cost/fee requirement, does the $3.00M clause apply to each of the seven (or 5 as the case may be) references? I.e., does each reference quoted need to be equal to or greater than this value? |
| “Size” as defined in L.19 applies to each reference. |
| 9 |
| Section L.19, p. 59-60 |
| Regarding Section L.19 and the $3.00M average annual price or cost/fee requirement, can one of the references satisfy the "size" requirement and others satisfy the "content" or "complexity" requirements? I.e., does each of the references need to satisfy all three? |
| Yes, each reference must meet all three: content, size, and complexity. |
| 10 |
| Section L.21(d)(2), p. 65 |
Section L.21(a)(a), p. 64 A copy of the DD Form 254 was not provided with the RFP. Since an Offeror is required to possess or meet the eligibility requirements contained in the DD Form 254 for a Facility Clearance at the Top Secret Level, does NASA intend to provide a copy of the DD Form 254 before the proposal submission date to advise Offerors of the required eligibility requirements?
Yes. Please see Amendment 0002 to the RFP which adds Exhibit G - Draft DD Form 254 to the solicitation.
| 11 |
| Section H.4(a) & (b), p. 17 |
| Registration with the Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR Part 122) is a precondition to submitting an application for an export license or other approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), or to use export exemptions. Should the Offeror provide verification of registration with |
the Department of State so NASA can confirm that it possesses or meets the eligibility requirements for the export license?
Although the utilization of U.S. person evaluators outside of the U.S. under EASSS 3 will require the export of export-controlled materials, registration with the Department of State is not a requirement for proposals. Upon award, the Prime Offeror will be required to initiate registration, if not already registered.
| 12 |
| Section L.16(b), Table L-1, Note 3, p. 55 |
| The allowable page count for submittal of the OCI/PCI Plan is 18 pages. A plan for demonstrating full compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.203-16 and NFS 1852.237-72 requires an appropriate level of detail and inclusion of the necessary compliance provisions and processes to ensure that the integrity of an evaluation or assessment is not compromised. The current page count does not allow for such. Will NASA consider raising the page count to 25 for the OCI/PCI plan? |
| Yes. Please see Amendment 0002 which revises the OCI/PCI plan page limit FROM 18 TO 25 pages in Section L.16(b), TABLE L-1, to include Note 3. |
| 13 |
| Section L.9(c), p 52 |
| Upon completion of the pre-proposal conference, does NASA intend to provide a list of all attendees? |
| Yes. A list of attendees was posted via beta.SAM.gov on April 10, 2020. |
Exhibit A_SOW para. 2.1
| Under Volume II – Past Performance, NASA intends to only assess the “pertinence” component for contract performance areas SOW 2.1, SOW 3.0, and SOW 4.0. and not SOW 5.0 Studies even though SOW 2.1 includes the requirement for evaluations, assessments, and studies. Can NASA confirm that SOW 5.0 Studies is not included in the assessment of pertinence in the Past Performance Volume? |
| SOW 5.0 Studies is not included in the assessment of pertinence in the Past Performance Volume. |
| 15 |
| Section L.19(b)(12), p. 59-60 |
| For demonstrating “complexity”, is the Offeror required to address relevance relative to the “technical performance areas” of only SOW areas 2.1, 3.0, and 4.0 or is the Offeror required to address relevance relative to all SOW areas |
(e.g., 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0)?
Please see Amendment 0002, Section L.19 b)(12), which revises “technical” performance areas to read “contract” performance areas. The offeror shall demonstrate relevance relative to the contract performance areas specified in L.19 b)(12), which consists of SOW areas 3.0 and 4.0.
| 16 |
| Section L.16(c), p. 55 |
| The Offeror can better describe more complex methods and processes with minimum text supplemented by figures, illustrations, flow charts, and tables. Will NASA consider revising the requirements to allow Offerors to use 10 pointfont in all volumes for figures, illustrations, flows charts, and tables? |
| NASA considered the request, however, determined that the font requirement will remain unchanged. |
| 17 |
| Section L.16(c), p. 55 |
| In MSWord, a “0 pt” spacing specifically refers to the space between paragraphs. MSWord defines line spacing as “single,” “1.5 lines,” “double,” “at least,” “exactly,” and “multiple”. The “default” line spacing in MSWord is “Single.” If the “exactly” line spacing function is chosen, the line spacing could be set to a specific number (e.g., as little as 0.7 and up). If chosen as such, there could be an extreme variation in the amount of content that can be included in a proposal. For example, if line spacing is set to 11 (with standard 12-point font), ~30% more content could be included. Is it NASA’s intent that the Offerors set the “line spacing” to the MSWord default which is “single” and the paragraph spacing to “0 pt”? |
| Please see Amendment 0002 for the revised Section L.16, which clarifies a “single” line spacing. |
Section M.7 para. 3, bullet 2, p. 73
| NASA intends to evaluate the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) under Volume III - Cost/Price which could potentially adversely impact an Offeror’s Mission Suitability score under Volume I – Technical. Offerors are required to submit and write all volumes on a stand-alone basis. Are Offerors required to include non-proprietary information to support the reasonableness of its TCP in Volume I or is this information only to be addressed in Volume III? |
| The Total Compensation Plan is only to be addressed in Volume III. |
| 19 |
| Section L.6(a) & (b), p. 50 |
Section M.5(c), p. 69
| To determine the realism of an Offerors’ total compensation plan in accordance with M.5 (c), is the Offeror required to provide the cost of their compensation plan in a cents-per-hour basis by labor classification (exempt, non-exempt, etc.) in its plan? |
| The Offeror is not required to provide the cost of their compensation plan in a cents-per-hour basis by labor classification in its plan. See the full text of FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, regarding realism considerations for compensation plans. |
| 20 |
| Section L.20(c)(1), p. 61 |
| The hours specified in Attachment L-2, Form B of 577,100 is an increase of 40.8% over the specified hours in the EASSS 2 solicitation and significantly higher than actual hours incurred. How will NASA evaluate size pertinence relative to actual performance? |
| NASA will evaluate actual annual value to assess size, in accordance with L.19 b)(12). |
| 21 |
| Section L.19(c), p. 60 |
Section L.21(c), p. 64
| Volume II - Past Performance (pg. 60) requires an Offeror to submit a consent letter for each proposed significant subcontractor. Volume IV - Business Proposal (p. 64) requires an Offeror to submit a consent letter for teaming partners and significant subcontractors. Can NASA clarify whether consent letters for Volume IV are required for both proposed significant subcontractors and teaming partners or significant subcontractors only? |
| In accordance with Section L.19 c), “The Offeror shall submit a written consent letter from each proposed significant subcontractor, and/or joint venture partner….” Please see Amendment 0002 for the revised Section L.16 Table L-1 and revised Section L.21 c). |
| 22 |
| Section L.16(c)(V), p. 55 |
| The SF 33 and Sections B - K of the model contract were provided in the RFP in Adobe pdf format. Table L-1 does not specify the format in which the Offeror is to submit these documents. Can NASA confirm that the SF 33 and contract Sections B - K are to be submitted in Adobe pdf format? |
| Please see Amendment 0002 for the revised L.16 (b) Section L.16 Table L-1, which clarifies submittal requirements. Additionally, Sections B-M will be provided as a Word document starting with Amendment 0002. |
| 23 |
| Section L.16, Table L-1, p. 55 |
Section L.21(a)(a), p. 64
| Can NASA clarify whether the Offeror is required to include a copy of the entire model contract (Sections A - K) in its Volume IV or just include a signed original copy of the SF 33, those pages that require fill-ins (shaded areas), and a completed Section K? |
| In accordance with Table L-1, Offerors are required to submit one signed original of the SF 33 with Items 12-18 completed and the pages with the required fill-ins completed in Sections B-J of the model contract, including executed Section K and all required Exhibits to be proposed by the Offeror. Please see Amendment 0002, L.21 a). |
| 24 |
| Section L.21(d)(1), p. 64-65 |
Section L.16(b) Table L-1, Note 3, p. 54-55
| The Format column under Table L-1 specifies that the Offeror is required to submit documents in its Volume III in either MS Excel or MS Word format. The Offeror may receive audit reports from the GAA or documentation from the ACO in a format other than MS Excel or MS Word such as PDF, E-mail, or scanned document. Is the Offeror permitted to include documentation from the GAA or the ACO in the format in which it was received? |
| Please see Amendment 0002 for the revised Section L.16 (b) Table L-1 in the RFP for clarifications. |
If consultants are proposed, Offerors shall develop the consultant costs based on the number of direct hours distributed for consultants by the Offeror and the hourly rates shown below. The rates are used for proposal purposes.
| Year 1 |
| Year 2 |
| Year 3 |
| Year 4 |
| Year 5 |
Is the offeror required to utilize the hourly rates specified in L.20 C07) for consultants for every labor category?
Yes.
Cost Form G Fully Burdened Labor Rates
Labor Categories-Base Labor Rate Subject Matter Expert (SME) Study Manager Sr. Scientist Scientist Sr. Engineer Engineer Cost Analyst Sr. Management Analyst Sr. Mathematician Analyst Mathemetician Analyst Editor/Technical Writer Data/Task Integrator
The SME Base Labor Rate is hardcoded as Contract Year 1 - $183 Contract Year 2 - $185 Contract Year 3 - $187 Contract Year 4 - $189 Contract Year 5 - $191
In Cost Form G, NASA has hardcoded the SME Base Labor Rate for each year of the contract. Should the Offeror use this rate for all hours regardless of proposed distribution between Prime Employee, Consultant, and Subcontractor?
Yes.