80LARC22R0003_RSES_DRFP_QAs_v3.2_20220512_sam.gov.pdf

80LARC22R0003

RSES Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP)

Q&A’s

No. Document Doc.

Reference Question Answer

PWS

In the NIA Cooperative agreement documents that were released to industry, p. 5, section C states that NIA is to “conduct seminars, lectures, colloquia, and visitor programs which support the institutes and NASA’s general mission and objectives, or which stimulate future research initiatives.”

The TSC organization provided in the RSES PWS clearly reflects the disciplines required; however it is not clear in the case of conferences, etc how those disciplines will be applied. Is it simply attend those types of events, or will offerors have to plan/conduct such events?

Conducting conferences is not in the RSES scope.

The scope of PWS 3.4 includes conducting/attending seminars, lectures, or workshops, etc., as requested by

NASA.

The RSES scope includes a requirement for training pursuant to Draft PWS 3.4, Training, which requires the contractor to “...provide specialized training to Government personnel regarding products including, but not limited to, tools, methods, procedures, and techniques developed and implement by the contractor.”

General Who performs the Security Analysis on this software that will be used reused?

NASA is unable to provide a comprehensive response due to the lack of clarity/detail provided. We would encourage industry to review the applicable clauses in the DRFP which may provide the answer. If it does not, please provide additional details for NASA review. For software that will integrate with NASA system, the appropriate NASA Information System Security Official (ISSO) would engage with the Agency OCIO Cybersecurity Service Line to scan the code or web site/application for vulnerabilities with the appropriate tools.

Also, reference PWS paragraph 3.5.3. Finally, the Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) includes a requirements for the contractor to provide an IT Security Management Plan and Software Management

Plan. The specific requirements and applicable regulations for these plans will be listed in Exhibit B of the DRFP.

3 General Will the Contractor awarded the contract have access to the Langley Labs during contract performance?

Yes, as needed for RSES performance.

4 General How detailed is the SMIRP need to be? Exhibit B of the DRFP will outline the detailed requirements of the SMIRP.

General The same question about open source code? Must it be certified?

NASA is unable to provide a comprehensive response due to the lack of clarity/detail provided. We would encourage industry to review the applicable clauses in the DRFP which may provide the answer. If it does not, please provide additional details for NASA review.

General Some GOV agencies gave software (i.e. Overflow II, Nastran). Do we need prior approval for GOTS and COES(8)? Can we use self-healing software?

NASA is unable to provide a comprehensive response due to the lack of clarity/detail provided. We would encourage industry to review the applicable clauses in the DRFP which may provide the answer. If it does not, please provide additional details for NASA review. Generally, the contractor would be responsible for follow the applicable Agency process for acquiring GOTS software and for keeping it patched/upgraded to address any vulnerabilities.

General Can we use other Government agencies (i.e., DoD, Inel and Department of Energy) for research?

In most cases, use of other Government Agencies would not be appropriate for the performance of RSES requirements. It is the contractor's responsibility to determine whether the use of other Government Agencies is appropriate for performance on RSES.

General I recently saw the subject RFI posting on SAM, and noticed that this is intended to be a total small business set aside. As I work for a large business, I am wondering if there is a similar upcoming RFI/RFP for traditional providers?

We do not anticipate NASA Langley Research Center issuing additional RFIs/RFPs for work similar in scope to RSES.

PWS/Gene ral

We request clarity on which of the following elements from the NIA Statement of Work are include in RSES?

Please see 9a - 9x for responses.

Please note that the Government's responses herein do not substitute for the potential offeror’s need to fully understand what is included in the RSES PWS regardless of the predecessor contracts.

9a

· Conduct leading-edge research to accomplish broad NASA objectives through stimulating or supporting the acquisition of knowledge or understanding of the subject

The scope of RSES includes "leading edge research" (see PWS 2.0) and related activities that may be required to meet NASA's mission needs via TDN/TOs.

9b

· Support graduate student research projects including those that are conducted with close mentorship by NASA researchers (Includes tuition, stipend, and reasonable faculty advisor support)

"Support[ing] graduate student research projects including those that are conducted with close mentorship by NASA researchers (Includes tuition, stipend, and reasonable faculty advisor support)" is not within the scope of RSES.

9c

· Initiate alliances that include industry or other associate members to concentrate research efforts on specific technical barrier problems

It is the prime contractor's responsibility to propose its approach to address the diverse RSES research needs.

See also PWS paragraph 2.0.

9d

· Recruit graduate students and implement a graduate research assistant program

"Implement[ing] a graduate research assistant program" is not within the scope of RSES.

However, specific RSES research may require specialized expertise from academia, including graduate research assistants. Historically, approximately 100 to 130 graduate students, at various levels of support, have been utilized annually.

9e

· Recruit world-class professors It is the prime contractor's responsibility to propose its approach to address the diverse RSES research needs.

While specific RSES research may require specialized expertise from academia, including world-class professors, programs like the Samuel P. Langley Professor Program and/or professors in residence are not within the scope of RSES.

9f

· Assign other faculty as needed It is the prime contractor's responsibility to propose its approach to address the diverse RSES research needs.

While specific RSES research may require specialized expertise from academia, “staffing faculty” is not within the scope of RSES.

9g

· Conduct seminars, lectures, colloquia, and visitor programs, which support the Institute’s and NASA’s general mission and objectives or which stimulate future research initiatives

See response to 1.

9h · Foster and advance the partnership of NASA with the research and education community

See response to 9c.

9i

· Conferences, lectures and seminars by distinguished visitors, local and non-local, in areas of leading-edge research of specific interest to NASA.

See response to 1.

9j Workshops and conferences for research conducted by the Institute for NASA, or in collaboration with NASA’s research and education interests

See response to 1.

9k

Identify and perform studies for decision makers that provide sensitive information such as architectures, advanced concepts, and systems and technology trades to NASA and other government agencies to enable informed programmatic and technical decisions.

Yes, this work is within the scope of RSES and addressed throughout the PWS that cover the research areas cited. Specific research needs will be defined at the TDN/TO level.

9l Key Emerging Technologies: See response to 9k.

9m - Campaign Assessment tools to enable Lunar and Mars campaigns

See response to 9k.

9n - Paradigm-shifting systems based on advanced concepts

See response to 9k.

9o - Safe and affordable transportation systems that enable travel between Earth and space

See response to 9k.

9p - Robotic system technologies that enable immersive virtual human exploration

See response to 9k.

9q Required Technical Capabilities: See response to 9k.

9r

- Aerospace systems analysis expertise addressing the full spectrum of NASA mission objectives from advanced aircraft design through planetary exploration

See response to 9c and 9k.

9s

- World Class experts, methods and tools to enable systems analysis in support of any key decision maker

See response to 9c and 9k.

9t - Campaign Analysis See response to 9k.

9u - Mission and Trade Study Analysis See response to 9k.

9v - Life Cycle Cost and Uncertainty Analysis See response to 9k.

9w - Risk Analysis See response to 9k.

9x - Technology Assessment/Portfolio Analysis See response to 9k.

General Do you happen to have a list of interested parties that you would be willing to share?

A list of interested participant who attended previous prior industry days is located at:

https://sam.gov/opp/d6b4eec1bc28437c8f510e97e82a1 21b/view

The list of attendees that attended the pre-solicitation conference has bee provided on sam.gov along with the presentation documents at:

https://sam.gov/opp/6b86df21aa554b4a8a900c73a03e1 05d/view

Under the National Institute of Aerospace’ Cooperative Agreement, Langley currently funds the following student competitions with research dollars.

RASC-AL

https://rascal.nianet.org/

BIG Idea Challenge https://bigidea.nianet.org/

Gateways to Blue Skies Challenge https://blueskies.nianet.org/

Moon-to-Mars Ice Prospecting Challenge https://specialedition.rascal.nianet.org/

Is it LaRC’s intent to continue to fund these under RSES? Are they considered to be a part of the IDIQ $50M ODC? If so, can you please clarify/include this requirement in the PWS?

Competitions/Challenges such as those described here are not within the scope of RSES. Student competitions/challenges are important to NASA and are in the process of being moved to another NASA contract.

We are performing independent research on the Presolicitation (80LARC22R0003).

We are hoping to find out if there is (was) an incumbent contractor performing these services, or if this is a brand new contract.

If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

RSES is a consolidation that includes elements of the following 4 incumbent contract vehicles:

- Technology, Engineering, and Aerospace Mission Support (TEAMS) III – Contract # 80LARC17C0003 with Analytical Mechanics Associates (AMA)

- Science, Technology and Research Support Services (STARSS) III – Contract # NNL16AA05C with Science Systems and Applications (SSAI)

- National Institute of Aerospace (NIA), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract NNL13AA08B, and Cooperative Agreement 80LARC17C0004 (transitioned from NCC1-02043, NNL09AA00A)

Information on these contracts can be found at:

Exhibit_A_

PWS_

Attachment 1- Applicable Docs

Will the Government provide the Applicable Documents (LAPDs/LPRs, etc.) listed in Exhibit A, as well as previous or current TDNs, TOs, etc. in the technical library?

Offerors are responsible for locating and being familiar with the Applicable Documents.

CO Letter Paragraph 9 (page 3 of 4)

Please provide the link to access the Technical Library.

The reference to the “technical library” was inadvertent. There is no separate library. All applicable documents are on Sam.gov at the RSES site.

Additional documentation is included at the predecessor site at:

PWS 5.0 Was the DEVELOP effort removed from the RSES scope?

No. This was an error of omission. The final PWS will include the same language in Section 5, regarding DEVELOP that was in the PWS that was released to industry on December 16, 2021.

General Does the Government intend to release historical staffing levels or a Government Resource Estimate

(GRE)?

Attachment 1 – Cost Form G-Labor Hour Summary is the Government Provided estimate for hours, based on individual labor categories. These hours are based on historical data.

DRFP Section B.8

(page 7) The Government provides the expected dollar amount for CLIN 0004 but not the IDIQ CLINs.

Will the Government provide an estimate for Total

CLIN 0004 is the IDIQ CLIN. The Government is not providing the overall estimated Total Contract Value (TCV). However, the IDIQ CLIN max value of $400M

Contract Value so that offerors can determine an accurate significant subcontractor annual dollar threshold?

is to be included in the TCV. Note, though, that $400M is the maximum IDIQ value, not the expected IDIQ obligation amount.

DRD

RSES-12,

Safety and Health Plan

The DRD says that the Safety and Health Plan is due with the proposal but Section L does not mention the Safety and Health Plan. Will a Safety and Health Plan be required at proposal submission?

Section L.24(d)(8) references the requirement for the Safety and Health Plan to be submitted with the proposal. The plan will be assessed as part of the offeror’s responsibility determination.

Total Compensat ion Plan Table L-1, MGMT (c), L.21 (g)

(page 89), (page 93), (page 94)

Please clarify whether the Total Compensation Plan shall be submitted in Cost Volume or the Mission Suitability Volume.

The Total Compensation Plan (TCP) shall be submitted with the Cost Volume, as outlined Table L- 1.

Past Performanc e Volume

Will the Government increase the Past Performance page limit to at least 40 pages so that offerors can adequately describe prime and major subcontractor Past Performance?

The Government intends to update the Final RFP to allow for 45 Pages for the Mission Suitability/Technical Volume, and 35 pages for the Past Performance Volume.

MGMT 4

(a) (b) (page 97) Workforce data (Demograp hics related to RSES diversity goals)

To assist in determining which groups are underserved/underrepresented at LaRC, and to assist in the development of realistic employment goals to improve diversity among the workforce, will the Government please provide data on current workforce demographics?

The government intends to provide additional resources on this topic as an Attachment with the Final RFP. As noted in the Pre-solicitation conference, some of this data can be found at:

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/workforce-data

MGMT 4

(b)

Will the Government provide any goals/metrics used to measure the success of LaRC DEIA strategies?

It is incumbent upon the offeror to develop the goals/metrics for measuring success. Reference DRD 28- DEIA Plan.

Solicitation L.21

G (Page 94)

Are offerors to respond to L.21(g) by providing an approach to Total Compensation within Volume I Technical - Mission Suitability?

The Government has determined that provision L.21(g) replicates what is already in Section M.

Provision L.21(g) will be removed from the Final RFP.

If so, how does this differ from the requirement to provide a Total Compensation Plan for the Offeror and each Significant Subcontractor in L.23(c)(6)?

Similarly, Provision M.6(d) will also be removed from the Final RFP.

To be clear, the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) shall be submitted with the Cost Volume, as outlined in Table L-1 and L.23(c)(6). Provision M.8(b)(2) will be updated in the Final RFP to be more clear that “the evaluation of the (TCP) may impact the offeror’s Mission Suitability score” This is consistent with the updates to be made to M.8 that are discussed in the response to Question 81 below.

Solicitation L.22, M.7

L.22(14);

M.7(b) Pages 98, Per 13CFR 125.8(e), "When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract."

Given the example table provided in L.22(14), p.98, it appears that the weighting of the prime offeror and JV Partner (if applicable) are not being evaluated in aggregate. Can the Government please explain how the weighting process (M.7(b)) is being performed?

Provision M.7(b) will be updated in the Final RFP to remove the language regarding “weighting” at the end of the last sentence of that paragraph.

In accordance with M.7(d)(1) in the DRFP, “in assessing pertinence, the Government will consider the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each significant subcontractor considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform…”

Solicitation L.22, 12

Page 97 Per 13CFR 125.8(e), “A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that

In order to comply with 13 CFR 125.8(e), NASA intends to update the Final RFP with the following language:

required of other offerors generally.” Accordingly, we believe that holding the protégé in a SBA All Smalls Mentor Protégé approved Joint Venture to the minimum size standards established for “Somewhat Pertinent” in L.22(12) is in conflict with the CFR and should be revised accordingly.

To be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent,” the prime contractor’s reference must have average annual dollar obligations of at least 15% of the total average annual amount proposed for the RSES contract, and a significant subcontractor’s reference(s) must have average annual dollar obligations of at least 15% of the average annual amount proposed for that entity under the RSES contract. References for protégé members of any proposed Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (MPJV) must meet the same threshold established for significant subcontractors.

L.22, D

Page 96 The limitation of a maximum of 3 past performance references by the prime offeror, who is expected to perform at least 50% of the contract, restricts primes from submitting . Given the relative importance of Past Performance to the overall best value determination, we recommend that the prime offeror be limited to a minimum of 3 references with no maximum, so long as all significant subcontractors are able to submit at least one reference each (for maximum total of 10 references for the entire team).

The Government will increase the maximum number of references for the prime offeror to five (5). The maximum of ten (10) references total will still remain.

Solicitation M.7

Page 109 Will Past Performance relevancy and pertinence be evaluated for each reference submitted individually, or will relevancy and pertinence be evaluated in aggregate across all references submitted?

The government will assess the relevancy/pertinence for each contract reference considering the work the entity is proposed to perform. A Pertinence rating (singular) will then be assigned based on the consideration of all references. Refer to M.7(d)(i): “A pertinence rating will be assigned…”.

M.7

Page 109 To determine the overall confidence rating, do you select the highest rating by any one contract, or confidence rating by the cumulative contract references?

See response to question 27 for offerors to demonstrate that the entities with relevant past performance in these areas are proposed to perform that work under RSES.

L.22, 14

Page 98 Given that the Government has not provided the percentage of work that will be requested in each technical area, it is not possible to identify the percentage of work to be performed by the offeror and each subcontractor in any given area. Until Task Orders are issued, offerors are not knowledgeable of the size/scope of the requested work. We recommend the Government remove the requirement to show % of work performed in each area of scope by prime/subcontractor.

The Government has provided the estimated labor categories and hours within each PWS TSC which is representative of the work to be performed. The Government will also add a cross-walk (see response to Question 29) to provide additional clarity on the alignment between the PWS and the Technical Performance Areas (TPAs).

PWS 5.0 Page 90 The Draft PWS published on 12/16/2021 included the DEVELOP National Program as part of Section

5.0 IDIQ; however DEVELOP is no longer

specifically identified in the PWS released on 3/29/2022. Please confirm if facilitation of the DEVELOP program is within the scope of the RSES contract.

No. This was an error of omission. The final PWS will include the same language in Section 5, regarding DEVELOP that was in the PWS that was released to industry on December 16, 2021.

B-3, table

B-1

Page 3 Section B of the DRFP states that CLINs 2 and 3 are for work corresponding to PWS section 4, and CLIN 4 corresponding to PWS section 5. Which CLIN corresponds to work associated with PWS Section

2.1 in support of the NESC?

Core work associated with the NESC corresponds to CLINs 2 and 3 as appropriate. Non-core (IDIQ) work associated with the NESC corresponds to CLIN 4.

33 Does the cost plug number for CLIN 4 include the estimated scope of work for PWS 2.1 (NESC)?

See response to 32.

Attachment 1 Cost Forms

Solicitation G.8, C

Page 22 How much office space will be provided by the Government for Contractor Program Management personnel (PWS 3.0)?

For proposal planning purposes, LaRC will provide office space for up to 350 on-site contract employees (WYE) at LaRC, and clause F.4 will be updated accordingly in the Final RFP. Additionally, clause F.4 will be updated to include the following language:

The contractor shall provide adequate space to accommodate any other WYEs whose RSES tasks require them to be in close proximity to NASA Langley. Solutions could include, but are not limited to: local office space, teleworking office space, local telecommuting and/or other satisfactory measures for contractor employees and other staff (e.g., Foreign Nationals, short-term/visiting staff) Close proximity to Langley is considered surrounding cities/counties in the Hampton Roads Peninsula Area limited to Hampton, Newport News, Poquoson, and Yorktown.

Provision L.23 will also be updated to include instructions for offerors to address the cost of any proposed off-site facility(ies).

Provision L.24(d) will also be updated to include instructions for offerors to include information on any proposed off-site facility(ies) as part of their business proposal under responsibility considerations.

, H.5, L.21, c, Pages 32 and 93

Section H.5c states that proposed key facilities are to be identified in MGMT 3; however the instructions in Subfactor 1 MGMT 3 do not ask about proposed

The Government will not evaluate contractor proposed facilities under MGMT 3. The language at H.5(c) will be updated to remove “Offeror to provide this info in

Subfactor 1

MGMT 3

facilities. What is the Government's expectation with regards to contractor proposed facilities, if any?

proposal under Subfactor 1: MGMT 3” from the “Key Facilities” line. However, if the offeror has any key facilities, it may be listed under H.5 in the offeror’s proposal.

See also response to Question 34.

Solicitation , L.21, Subfactor 1

MGMT 3

Page 93 Instructions provided in Subfactor 1 MGMT 3 state that offerors should identify the five most critical positions based on the proposed organizational structure. We believe that each offeror will propose unique approaches for contract management and organization, and do not expect that all will identify the same number of key positions. We recommend removing the requirement to identify five most critical positions and allow offerors to select the number of key positions based upon their proposed structure/approach.

NASA believes the five most critical positions represents a reasonable basis for evaluation while enabling offerors to propose unique approaches.

Solicitation , L.19, C

Pages 89-

Can offerors use 10pt font in headers, footers, logos, tables, and graphics?

The font requirements in the DRFP will remain as is, at 12 point font, for all portions of the proposal volumes.

Solicitation

PWS.

4.5.7.2

Page 33 Is there an existing development and integration lab for the UAS NAS Integration requirement? If so, could the Government provide facility requirements/specifications so that offerors understand what the facility requirements are? For example, if an existing lab is already in place, will the government be providing additional specifications for the equipment, data, and connectivity for the labs? Will existing equipment for these labs be transitioned during contract transition and/or will the new contractor be required to purchase the new equipment? Also, please clarify if the facility must account for performance of classified work and, if so, at what level.

PWS paragraph 4.5.7.2. “Maintain and operate a development lab and an integration lab at the Contractor’s facility to include providing systems administration and information technology services” is not a RSES requirement and will be removed from the PWS for the Final RFP.

PWS,

4.14.1.1.9

Page 69 Is there a current facility maintained for the Mission Science requirement? If so, could the Government provide facility requirements/specifications so that offerors understand what the facility requirements are? For example, what will be the retention requirements for the any backup data (how long does it need to be retained, how quickly does it need to be accessible, etc.)? Will data for missions on the current or previous contracts need to be maintained in the backup location and if so, how much legacy/historical data will be transitioned? With respect to data processing at this facility, can the government provide additional information detailing what “processing” entails for backup data. Finally, is there any classified data involved the missions that must be accounted for in the data backup?

PWS Paragraph 4.14.1.1.9 – “Provide a backup data collection and processing facility for mission operations” is not a requirement and will be removed from the PWS for the Final RFP. This PWS paragraph will be updated to read, “4.14.1.1.9 - Provide scalable backup data collection and processing capability for mission operations. This will require the staffing, use and/or support of a real or virtual government backup facility or outside services.”

L.24 (d)(7)

Page 105 In order to reduce the burden on the Government during evaluation, would the Government consider removing the requirement for submitting a Government Property Management Plan [GPMP] as part of the proposal for offerors that can demonstrate the status of the property control system as required in L.13?

The Government intends to remove the requirement from L.24(d)(7) for offerors to submit a GPMP as part of the proposal only if the offeror can demonstrate compliance with L.13(b). The RFP will be updated to clarify that if an offeror can provide the information required in L.13(b) then the offeror may defer submission of the GPMP until 30 days after contract award. If the offeror cannot provide the information in L.13(b) then they shall submit their GPMP as part of the proposal.

Solicitation L.22 (d)(3) and (d)(4)

Page 96 Can the Government clarify the differences in information expected between the points of contacts requested in L.22(d)(3) and L.22(d)(4)? It appears that both are asking for a contracting and technical POC for the reference.

L.22(d)(3) is referring to a non-government agency/entity that was the customer/requirements owner

I 1.II

Page 55 NFS 1852.228-75 defines minimum requirements for aircraft public and passenger liability insurance as well as requirements for passenger liability bodily injury when aircraft are used in connection with performing the contract. Can the Government clarify if this insurance is required when the aircraft are provided by NASA and not by the contractor?

Section (e) of this clause is not applicable to most work performed under RSES, and such insurance will not be required at the time of proposal submission. If, at a future time (e.g., issuance of a specific TDN), the contractor is required to perform work subject to Section (e) of 1852.228-75, NASA will require the contractor provide appropriate insurance at that time.

Solicitation

I 1.II

Page 55 If aircraft liability insurance is required, it is not possible to accurately price the insurance without knowing the number of seats or passengers (which ever is greater) per flight. Can NASA provide all offerors with this information in order to properly price insurance coverage for the contract?

See response to question 42.

H.5

And

L.21(f)(i)(3

(page 31- 32) And (page 93)

H.5 addresses Key Personnel and Facilities and indicates the Offerors should provide this information under Subfactor 1: MGMT 3. However, Section L.21(f)(i)(3) instructions only ask Offerors to address Key Positions. Can the Government please clarify what information related to Key Facilities must be provided under the MGMT 3 section?

See response to question 35 above

Section J (page 67- 68)

The solicitation does not provide an Attachment for the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Will the PPQ be provided with the Final RFP, or will the Government provide a questionnaire directly to the POC post submission?

A PPQ will not be attached to the RFP; however, may be used by the Government as stated in L.22(f) to collect past performance information from references.

Section K.2(a)(2) (page 69) and

Section K.2.(a)(2) says “The small business size standard is 1000”

The Cover letter says “the small business size standard in 1500”

K.2(a)(2) will be updated to reflect “The small business size standard is 1,500 employees.”

Cover letter (page 1)

Please de-conflict the size standards above.

47 L.19 (page 89)

The solicitation states that Mission Suitability Volume 1 shall be limited to 35 pages. Given that the Offeror has to include six programmatic risks, four management sub-factors, and one technical sub-factor, the Offeror requests the Government increase the page-limit to 50 pages to enable the Offeror to provide sufficient detail in the proposal.

See response to Question 20

48 L.19 (page 89)

The solicitation states that Past Performance Volume 2 shall be limited to 25 pages. Given the number of contract citations needed by prime and significant subcontractors to show the past performance of a broad contract such as RSES, as required by section L22, the Offeror requests the Government’s consideration to increase the page-limit to 40 pages to enable the Offeror to provide sufficient detail in the proposal.

Note that the TEAMS3 RFP had a limit of 30 pages for the Past Performance Volume and the STARSS 3 RFP had a limit of 20 pages for the prime and 10 pages for each significant subcontractor.

See response to Question 20

49 L.19(c) (page 89)

The solicitation does not specifically address the minimum font size to be used for Tables and Figures. Will the Government provide guidance on this matter? Given the large volume of information required by the RFP, we recommend that the Government allow the use of font size 10 point or larger for Tables and 8 point or larger for Figures.

See response to question 37.

50 L.19(c)(vii) (page 90)

The solicitation specifically excludes from the page count, “cross-reference matrices”. Does this page count exclusion apply to the detailed compliance matrix defined in section L.21.(c)?

The L.21(c) reference to “compliance matrix” will be changed to “cross-reference matrix” to match the terminology used in L.19(c)(vii). The matrix required by L.21(c) will not be included in the page count for that volume. Any information included this matrix will not be assessed as part of the mission suitability evaluation.

51 L.20(d) (page 91)

Solicitation refers to

“For Subcontractor Submissions:

Prime Offeror name-Subcontractor Name-solicitation number-MS Volume.docx

Prime Offeror name-Subcontractor Name-solicitation number - PP Volume.pdf

Prime Offeror name-Subcontractor Name-solicitation number - Cost Volume.xlsx

Prime Offeror name-Subcontractor Name-solicitation number-Business Volume.xlsx”

While the Cost Volume may be submitted by a significant subcontractor or a JV partner, the Offeror does not see any scenario where the Mission Suitability Volume, Past Performance Volume, and Business Volume would be submitted by a subcontractor or a JV partner other than the Offeror.

Is this correct? If yes, would the government reflect that in the solicitation? Additionally, if this assumption is not correct, are the page limits imposed by the government in L.19 for each of the submissions?

The only volume the Government would expect that a subcontractor would submit would be the Cost Volume. Provision L.20(d) will be updated to clarify this.

52 L.22(c) (page 95)

The solicitation says - “Contractor Team Arrangements – This instruction only applies if the

Yes, the language should have said “as defined in (b) above.” However, for the Final RFP, paragraph

Offeror is teaming as defined in FAR 9.6, which will include (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor or (2) significant subcontractors as defined in (d) below.”

Does the Government intend to say - “as defined in

(b) above”?

L.22(c) will be reduced to include only the following language:

(c) Contractor Team Arrangements – If a teaming arrangement is proposed, as defined in FAR 9.6, the Offeror shall clearly describe the teaming arrangement for affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures.

53 L.22(c) (page 95)

Based on FAR 9.601(2), a Prime/subcontractor teaming agreement would constitute a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA), whether the subcontractor is significant or not. Is this correct?

However, for the Past Performance Factor under this solicitation, only contracts performed by a significant subcontractor would be considered in the Past Performance evaluation. Is this correct?

Per L.22, the Government will only consider “significant subcontractors” (as defined in L.22(b)) for the past performance factor. Also see response to Question 52 above.

54 L.22(c) (page 95)

If the Offeror (Prime) intends to submit past performance data on recent and relevant contracts for itself and its significant subcontractors, but not those of a parent or affiliated company for neither the Prime nor the significant subcontractors, does the offeror have to address the seven (7) questions in this section?

No. Based on the response to Question 52 above, answering the seven (7) questions in L.22(c) is no longer required.

L.22 (d)(13) (page 97)

Did the Government intend for the elements in the two bullets below to be part of one sentence, i.e., Transition/phase-in for a large and complex contract ensuring no loss of work in progress (as well as personnel with clearances)?

o Transition/phase-in for a large and complex contract o Ensuring no loss of work in progress (as well as personnel with clearances)

Those two bullets are related, but were not meant to be included in the same sentence. “Ensuring no loss of work in progress (as well as personnel with clearances)” will be made as a sub-bullet to “Transition/phase-in for a large and complex contract.”

L.22 (d)(13) (page 97)

By “Business Relations”, does the Government mean business relations between Offeror on the cited contract and the customer or other vendors/contractors supporting the customer or both?

Business relations refers to relations between the offeror and customer on the cited contract. This is the same type of “business relations” as shown in FAR 45.1503(b)(2)(iv).

57 L.22(d)(14) (page 98)

It appears that Item (14) in the table should not be required for each citation, rather a separate item required for the overall Past Performance proposal content. Specifically, each Offeror will have just one such table (along with a cross-reference between three (3) performance work areas and the fifteen (15) PWS Technical Service Categories) in their Volume II, not for each contract citation. If the above assumption is correct, the Offeror requests the Government to change the RFP language/structure in L.22 to reflect this.

The stated assumption is correct. Only one table is needed for the overall Past Performance proposal content.

58 L.22(e) (page 98)

Solicitation says - “The Offeror shall submit a written consent letter from each proposed significant subcontractor, teaming partner, and joint venture partner authorizing the release of past performance information to the Offeror and to allow NASA to discuss the past performance information with the Offeror.”

Does a non-significant subcontractor (with a teaming agreement with Prime Offeror) constitute a teaming partner?

The requirement for the written consent letter described at L.22(e) does not apply to a non-significant subcontractor.

Attachment 1, Cost Form G

Attachment 1, Cost Form G has the following Technical Professional labor categories that are not defined in Attachment 9, Labor Descriptions: IT Software Engineer 3; IT Software Engineer 4.

“IT Software Engineer” as listed in Cost Form G should just be “Software Engineer” and listed under the Science Data Management Support Personnel category rather than Technical Professional. This will be updated in the Cost Forms for the Final RFP.

Attachment 1, Cost Form G

Attachment 1, Cost Form G has hours for IT Systems Engineer 5 identified as the Technical Professional, but Attachment 9, Labor Descriptions

The IT Systems Engineer should be under the Science Data Management Support Personnel category, as has that category identified as Science Data Management Support Personnel area. Please clarify the intended category.

identified in Attachment 9. This will be updated in the Cost Forms for the Final RFP.

Attachment 1, Cost Form G

Attachment 1, Cost Form G has hours for Field Campaign Specialist category but does not identify a specific level. Please clarify the intended level.

Cost Form G will be updated in the Final RFP to reflect Level 3 for the Field Campaign Specialist.

Section L.22.(b) (page 95)

Section L.22.(b) Significant Subcontractors states “For the purposes of this solicitation and for proposal preparation purposes, the term “significant subcontractor” only applies to the Past Performance Factor. For the Cost/Price Factor, all subcontract cost/pricing information shall be submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions. Under the Past Performance Factor, a “significant subcontractor” is defined as subcontractor proposed to perform $10M or more annually in value”.

Section L.23.b Cost/Price Proposal Instructions refers back to L.22.(b) for the definition of significant subcontractor. Can the Government please clarify the definition of a significant subcontractor for purposes of the Cost Volume?

The definition for a Significant Subcontractor identified in L.22(b) is the same as Significant Subcontractors in the Cost Volume. L.23(b) will be updated to say “…(as defined in L.22(b))…” to provide better clarification.

Section B.9 (Page 7)

Section B.9 Fully Burdened Rate Table for Pricing Task Orders references a table but there is no table presented in Section B.9. Please clarify.

This clause will be updated to reflect more accurate verbiage. This clause should point to Attachment 1 – Cost Form F – Schedule of Rates.

Attachment 1, Cost Form F

The Attachment 1, Cost Form F template only contains the labor categories with evaluation hours assigned, should all contract labor categories be included in the ID/IQ Schedule of Rates?

Yes. Attachment 1 – Cost Form F should include all labor categories. This will be updated for Final RFP.

Attachment 1, Cost Forms

Section I.9 (Page 61)

The cost forms in Attachment 1 require information for the 8-year POP. Section I.9(c) includes the possibility of an additional 6-month extension if Clause 52.217-8 were to be exercised. Will the Government require any cost data associated with the potential additional 6-month extension?

No.

1, Cost Form A

Attachment 1, Cost Form A Summary line 11 “Total Fee” only sums the Award Fee rows from Cost Form A1 and A2. Should the Total Fee on the Summary sheet sum both Fixed Fee and Award Fee? Note that both Cost Form A1 – Summary and Cost Form A2 – Summary adds up the Fixed Fee (row 39) and Award Fee (row 40) to obtain the Total Base Mission Support (row 42).

Cost Form’s A, A1, and A2 will show total for both Award Fee and Fixed Fee, independently. However, only the total Award Fee amount will be utilized in determining the Total Evaluated Cost/Price Value.

Attachment 1, Cost Form A1 and A2

Attachment 1 requires offerors to propose both award fee and fixed fee. For purposes of the proposal, should offerors assume that Clause H.28 will be invoked after Contract Year 1 to convert from award fee to fixed fee? If so, should award fee be proposed for Contract Year 1 and fixed fee for all subsequent contract years?

For purposes of the proposal, offerors should propose an award fee percentage for the life of the contract. In accordance with H.28, the earliest that Fixed Fee could be invoked would be in the second contract year (i.e., “Base Year 2” per Cost Forms A1 and A2).

Although the proposal will show both an Award Fee and a Fixed Fee amount, at no time during contract performance will the contractor be eligible for both the Award Fee and Fixed Fee (per H.28).

Only the award fee amount will be utilized in determining the Total Evaluated Cost/Price Value.

Section G.8 (Page 22), Exhibit K

The TEAMS 3, STARSS III, and NIA IDIQ contracts all included the clause titled

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICES (LaRC 52.245-97) (JUNE 2012) that indicated that “NASA Langley Research Center will furnish all necessary computers and related information technology services that will be connected to the NASA network infrastructure for all on-site contractors.” And further the clause also indicated that “For off-site contractors, NASA Langley Research Center will provide the access to appropriate NASA information and information systems via a client-based virtual private network

The clause LaRC 52.245-97 is no longer required, due to additional language added to the IT Security Management Plan Requirements (DRD # RSES 13).

The Government does intend to provide all necessary computers and related information technology services (currently through the NASA End User Services Program Office [EUSO]).

Regarding the list of IAGP: The laptops/computers are not included in any IAGP/GFP list, as those are not considered property, but rather part of the ESUO service.

(VPN) where necessary. The VPN system shall be operated and maintained by the Agency enterprise service provider with local oversight provided by the Langley Research Center CIO. Individual system and user access will be dependent upon compliance with NASA policies. Dedicated, site-to-site network connections from the contractor's off-site location to the NASA Langley Research Center network will not be allowed.” Is it the Government’s intent to provide computing equipment for onsite contractors and to add that clause to the RSES RFP?

Further, the list of IAGP included in Exhibit K appears to include only a fraction of the Government property associated with the TEAMS 3 contract (i.e., column G identifying the associated TDNs), and no IAGP associated with the STARSS III contract or the NIA contract and cooperative agreement. Please clarify if the Government will provide access to all necessary computers and related IT services for all onsite RSES contractors, and update the IAGP accordingly to include additional Government property associated with the TEAMS 3, STARSS III contract and the NIA contract and cooperative agreement.

Exhibit J has been updated to include GFP from the

NIA.

Exhibit A:

PWS

Attachment

The list of applicable documents includes several entries highlighted in red. Please clarify the meaning of the red highlighting.

Those items highlighted in red should have been removed or re-named. The final RFP will have these corrections.

Attachment 1, Cost Form G

Attachment 1, Instructions says “9. Cost Form G:

Provides the estimated hours by discipline, not to be manipulated by the contractor.”. However, the instructions on the right side of the Cost Forms E4.1

The hours for years 2-8 may not be adjusted by labor category, but offerors may re-distribute hours among the subs/partners in the out years as deemed

- Detail through Cost Form E4.15 - Detail seem to indicate that the offeror may adjust the hours in years 2-8. Can the Government provide guidance in the RFP on whether hours may be adjusted or not?

appropriate. The model assumes the same mix among subs/partners for years 1-8.

Section H In order to properly estimate offsite facility requirements and associated costs, will the Government indicate the current number of on-site and near-site contractors currently performing work scope that would fall under RSES?

See response to question 34.

1, CF B –

Labor Rates

Cell A1 says Cost Form C. Should this be Cost Form B?

This will be corrected in the Final RFP.

Section L.23 h) and Attachment 1, Cost Form F

The instructions state that "The bottom of the table includes indirect rates to be applied to any non-labor resources other than those listed in clause H.17 Contractor Purchasing, as required by task order, if applicable", however the tables on Cost Form F do not include the rows at the bottom. Will the Government provide amended Cost Forms, or should offerors add the appropriate rows for non-labor indirect burdens to comply with this instruction?

The reference to indirect rates at the bottom of the table will be deleted both here in L.23(h) and in B.9.

Exhibit B, page B-43

The DEIA Plan is not due until 30 days after award however the question asks:

“Described recruiting activities, objectives, and outcomes (e.g., number of participants, number interviewed and hired from underserved communities).”

For the number of participants and hires it does not specify a time frame for which such data is required.

Is there a specific time frame the government is looking for?

The intent is the initial submission will focus on the plan itself including planned “activities and objectives” and that later annual submissions will focus on the “outcomes” (e.g., number of participants and hires).

Section L, Per “For all cost forms/digital spreadsheets, it is preferred, but not required, that all information be provided under one file with as many workbooks as necessary.”

Should this read “worksheets” instead of “workbooks?”

This should read “worksheets” and will be corrected in the Final RFP.

Section L.21, page

MGMT3: Key Position: The Offeror shall identify the 5 most critical Positions for the successful performance of this contract, and how those positions fit into the organizational structure and overall integrated management approach (See

MGMT 2).

Does the Government intend to say “(See MGMT1)” instead of “(See MGMT 2)” above?

Yes, this reference should read “(MGMT 1)” and will be corrected for the Final RFP.

Section L.23(a)(4),

4) Phase-In costs, if proposed, shall be proposed as Firm Fixed Price and be fully detailed and supported in the Attachment 1, Cost Form i – Phase In. Phase-in will be awarded as CLIN 001. Therefore, costs associated with phase-in should only be identified in the Cost Form in Attachment 1, Cost Form i – Phase In.

Attachment 1 shows Phase-in costs under Cost Form K – Phase In. Recommend that the Government change the language above to reflect this.

The reference in final RFP L.23(a)(4) will be fixed in the Final RFP.

General Section 1C of the NIA Cooperative Agreement refers to conducting a “visitors program”. Our understanding is that over 400 faculty, student, and industry visitors have utilized that program for varying amounts of time to aid Langley in it research objectives. Is it Langley’s expectation that the RSES IDIQ would be used to fund faculty, student and

Visitors supporting RSES research objectives are within the scope of RSES.

industry visitors in the future to benefit Langley’s research projects?

Section H.5 (page 32) and

MGMT 3

(page 93)

Will the Government provide the exact requirements for the off-site facility (e.g., square footage, proximity to LaRC, number of personnel located off-site)?

See response to Question 71.

Section L.23 (d)(2)

The Draft RFP states (emphasis added): “The Offeror shall identify and discuss the method of charging costs associated with managing and administering this contract, including planning, estimating, and negotiating Task Orders. The Offeror shall propose these costs in accordance with its current accounting system and FAR 31.205-18. If these costs are charged as indirect, identify the indirect rate that includes these costs. If these costs are charged as direct, explain how these costs are included in the fully burdened labor rates on Attachment 1, Cost Form B Labor Rates and Cost Form F Schedule of Rates.” This requirement may cause issues with Offeror’s CAS Disclosure Statement. If program management functions are charged as a direct cost, they must be allocated to the cost element dictated in the Disclosure Statement. Is the Government suggesting that Offeror’s include Program Management and Administration costs in the fully burdened labor rate, essentially converting those costs to another indirect rate? Please clarify the government’s intent with respect to Program Management & Administration costs. In order to allow Offeror’s to propose costs consistently with their Disclosure Statement/accounting practices, would the Government consider allowing Offerors to add such labor costs to the proposed level of effort to

A program management worksheet will be added to the Cost Form. Offerors will identify labor positions assigned to program management and whether a direct or indirect charge to the contract.

be provided they are clearly identified as Program Management and Administration?

Section L23 (c)(1)

The Draft RFP instructs Offeror’s to “use the labor categories and hours shown in Attachment 1, Form G

- Labor Hour Summary for all direct labor to be performed.” Additionally, Section L.23(e) provides plug numbers for ODCs that must be utilized for…