80LARC24R0011 - QA (13 Feb 2025).pdf

80LARC24R0011 EASSS 4 As of Update 0005

EASSS 4 Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) Questions and Answers

As of February 13, 2025

DRFP Section &

Page Number

Question Answer

Q&As, November 21, 2024

1 Section L.21, Page

L-26

Would the government consider a proposal from a bidder with a recently inactivated Facility Security Clearance

(FCL) that can be activated with a classified contract?

Yes

2 Section L.21, Page

L-26

Would the government consider a proposal from a bidder with the prime contractor having the required FCL and sponsoring the FCL for the subcontractors?

Yes

3 Section L.21, Page

L-26

Would the government consider a proposal from a bidder that requires FCL sponsorship when company leadership hold the required clearance?

Yes, but if the individuals have the clearance, then their facility should also. The exception to this would be if their clearance is held via affiliation as a military reservist/national guardsman. In that case, their clearance cannot be used as an industry participant. would not be sufficient to meet the contract requirement. [Amended December 19, 2024.]

Q&As, November 27, 2024

4 Sections L.8 & L.9, Pages L-3 & L-4

The Draft RFP Letter specifies that questions on the DRFP are due by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 5, 2024; Section L.8 specifies that questions shall be submitted by December 5, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. ET; and Section L.9 specifies that questions on the DRFP are due no later than 2:00 p.m. ET on November 29, 2024.

Would the Government confirm the due date and time for questions to be submitted in response to the DRFP?

Section L.9 simply sets the requested due date and time for questions for the Pre-Solicitation

Conference so that NASA can answer as many questions as possible at the conference. It does not have bearing on the other cited due dates for the

DRFP.

Q&As, December 5, 2024

5 Section B.3, Page B-

The total maximum contract value for this requirement is listed as $99,750,000. Could you kindly confirm if this is correct, or if there is still a possibility for the value to change?

Yes, this is still correct. The $99.75M ceiling is unlikely to change.

6 Section B.3, Page B-

Is it the intent to structure the contract as a single-award

IDIQ?

Yes.

7 Section L.19, Page

L-18

The size threshold for a past performance reference to be

“somewhat pertinent” is 12.5%. Does a past performance reference need to reach a higher % to be considered

“highly pertinent”?

There is not a defined percentage for a past performance reference to be considered “highly pertinent” in regard to size. Section M.6 details how the Government will assess the degree of similarity of work performed on relevant contracts in terms of content, size, and complexity. [Amended December 19, 2024.]

8 Section L.19, Page

L-18

Currently, the government evaluates the relevancy of a prime or joint venture partner past performance reference's size based on a percentage of the proposed EASSS 4 price.

However, pricing could vary significantly across offerors.

To standardize comparison of past performance relevancy, will the government consider using a flat amount (for example, at least $3,000,000 in annual funding) to determine the relevancy of a past performance's size?

No.

9 Section L.19, Page

L-18

For the Past Performance volume, can the Government confirm that offerors should provide the total contract value, including all exercised and unexercised options, rather than funding to date?

Per L.19b)(10), all contract references shall include total contract value and total actual obligated dollars. Total contract value includes all exercised and unexercised options.

10 Section L.19, Page

L-18

For the Past Performance volume, can the Government confirm that offerors may reference the total value of contract vehicles, rather than individual task order(s), when demonstrating relevance to the RFP requirements?

Yes. Please see the answer to Question #49.

Offerors should reference the value of the work performed relative to the RFP requirements.

[Amended February 13, 2025.]

11 Section L.20, Page

L-21

The labor categories listed in Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates are significantly different from those on the current contract (4 LCATs vs. 12 LCATs). On page L-21, it states

No, the Government does not intend to add LCATs to the RFP. Additionally, the Government believes that a meeting facilitator and/or note-taker could

“The Offeror shall use the labor categories and hours shown in Attachment L-2, for all direct labor to be performed.” Given the broad scope of work under this contract, including the example Task 7, limiting work to those 4 LCATs could lead to staff that are not aligned with the SOW (for example, meeting facilitators and note takers), and increase cost. Would the government consider adding additional LCATs to capture the range of services requested?

fall under the Data/Task Integrator or

Editor/Technical Writer LCATs.

12 Section L.20, Page

L-21

The labor categories listed in Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates are significantly different from those on the current contract (4 LCATs vs. 12 LCATs). This results in a restrictive model for pricing that does not allow for career progression of full-time contract support, tailored approaches to meet the broad scope under this contract, nor variations in capabilities (and cost) of experts in different domains. Limiting offerors to those 4 categories could result in increased cost to the government and increased staff turnover. Could the government clarify if these 4 LCATS are used as a representative model for consistent comparison of price with the expectation of increased flexibility in task orders?

The Government intends to use the LCATs listed in the performance of the contract, with the understanding that the Exhibit C SME rate will be the composite average of SME rates across the capability and experience spectrum.

13 Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates

To ensure accurate and competitive task order proposals, please clarify how offerors should address anticipated consultant rates that may exceed the plug rates specified in

Section L.20(c)(5). Specifically, could you provide guidance on the appropriate methods for justifying and documenting higher rates for highly compensated consultants, particularly considering Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates, states “The rates in this schedule are used only for establishing estimated costs for task orders,” and it isn't clear if there will be flexibility at the task order level for more highly paid consultants.

The awardee will need to propose task orders using the Exhibit C rates. However, independent consultant SME rates will be considered on a task order basis and in accordance with FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts.

14 Section L.18, Page

L-14

Section L.18(e)(1)(d)(b)(2) states “In addition, the offeror and each applicable subcontractor shall identify the specific labor categories they propose to fill with incumbent personnel and the specific labor category is proposed to be filled with both incumbent and non-incumbent personnel, state the percentage of incumbent and non-incumbent labor being proposed for that labor category.” Will the government provide the list of independent consultant subject matter experts to facilitate discussions to ensure price realism?

No, the Government does not intend to provide this list. For reference, the Government is not performing a price realism analysis; the

Government is performing a cost realism analysis.

Note: incumbent capture is not intended to include independent consultants. The quoted reference has been removed from Section L.18. [Amended

December 19, 2024.]

15 Section L.18, Page

L-14

Section L.18(e)(1)(d)(b)(2) states “In addition, the offeror and each applicable subcontractor shall identify the specific labor categories they propose to fill with incumbent personnel and the specific labor category is proposed to be filled with both incumbent and non-incumbent personnel, state the percentage of incumbent and non-incumbent labor being proposed for that labor category.” Historical information is critical when submitting these complex bids; as such, will the government provide the historical annual LCATs and hours for independent consultant subject matter experts?

The Government does not intend to release any historical information. The quoted reference has been removed from Section L.18. [Amended

December 19, 2024.]

16 Section L.18, Page

L-14

Section L.18(e)(1)(d)(b)(2) states “In addition, the offeror and each applicable subcontractor shall identify the specific labor categories they propose to fill with incumbent personnel and the specific labor category is proposed to be filled with both incumbent and non-incumbent personnel, state the percentage of incumbent and non-incumbent labor being proposed for that labor category.” Historical information is critical when submitting these complex bids, as such will the government provide the historical annual LCATs and hours for incumbent staff?

The Government does not intend to release any historical information. The quoted reference has been removed from Section L.18. [Amended

December 19, 2024.]

17 Exhibit F, Labor

Categories

Could the government provide additional details regarding the qualifications for Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) outlined in Exhibit F, such as required educational degrees and minimum years of experience?

Additionally, would the government consider subdividing this labor category into distinct SME tiers or specializations based on varying expertise and qualifications, rather than maintaining a single, generalized

SME category?

There are not any required educational degrees or minimum years of experience for SMEs.

No, the Government does not intend to subdivide the LCATs into tiers.

18 Section L.20, Page

L-23

Section L.20 (d) (4). Forward Pricing Rate Submissions are not common with small businesses. If a company has not submitted a Forward Pricing Rate Submission/Proposal to DCMA/DCAA, is it required to do so concurrent with a proposal submission in response to this proposal or is the submission of three years of historical actual indirect rates sufficient?

If an Offeror has a Forward Pricing Rate

Submission, then they are required to provide it to the Government as well as three years of historical actuals. If an Offeror does not have a Forward

Pricing Rate Submission/Proposal, then three years of historical actuals is sufficient.

19 Section M.3 & M.4 NFS 1815.305-70 and -71 state the government can choose not to evaluate “unacceptable proposals” and choose to evaluate a single proposal. Rating definitions, criteria, and requirements, such as past performance, are not defined, leaving evaluation open to interpretation as to what is acceptable or unacceptable. This lends to the potential that any proposal could be deemed “unacceptable.” Will the government identify criteria, thresholds, and requirements for determining “acceptability?”

The Government will follow the three criteria noted in NFS 1815.305-70(a).

20 Section L-20 c) 5), Page L-21

Would the Government confirm that the Consultants hourly rates shown below are direct labor rates per hour

(i.e., are exclusive of Offeror’s burdens)?

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

$187 $192 $197 $202 $207

Yes, the cited independent consultant hourly rates are direct labor rates per hour and exclusive of the

Offeror’s burdens.

No, the hourly rates shown here are only for independent consultant SMEs and are inclusive of the independent consultant SME’s burdens.

To avoid the risk of an unrealistically low total compensation plan (specifically with the direct labor rate of the SMEs), would the Government consider utilizing the consultant hourly rates for all SMEs?

21 Section L-20 d) 4), Section L-4 a)

A Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) is generally not required for a small business. Would the Government explain why an Offeror is required to provide a current

FPRA in their proposal?

Section L provides other examples if an Offeror does not have a current FPRA, in addition to noting the “if applicable” qualifications throughout

Section L-20 d) 4). FPRAs are not required if they do not exist.

22 Section L, Cost/Price Forms, Tab 1-2 Total

Proposed Price, Tab

1-5 Travel and

ODCs

Tab 1-2 summarizes Total CPFF Labor, Travel, and ODCs for Total Proposed Price. The Unburdened Travel and

ODCs flows from Tab 1-5 Travel and ODCs.

Would the Government confirm that Travel and ODCs should be burdened in Column E-F-G on Tab 1-5 and should be added to the Total Evaluated Amount in Column

H on Tab 1-5?

Yes, Offerors shall fill in columns E & F with their burdens and add more columns if needed

(formulas are included for convenience).

23 Section L, Cost/Price Forms, Tab 1-3 CPFF Labor

Price

The Pricing Model provides Evaluated Hours by each

Contract Year. The Evaluated Hours for Contract Year 5 are significantly lower than the Evaluated Hours for

Contract Year 1, 2, 3, and 4. Would the Government confirm the hours in Contract Year 5?

Confirmed.

Q&As, December 19, 2024

24 Exhibit A, SOW

Para. 2.3

Would the government consider adjusting the facility clearance language to: “The Contractor shall maintain a

Facility Clearance rating at the Top Secret (TS) level and be able to provide and manage personnel at the Top

Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) level. There will be no safeguarding of any classified material required at the contractor site.”

Yes, the Government has incorporated the proposed changes. Please see Attachment 1, SOW

Rev 1, which revises SOW 2.3.

Rationale: The NISPOM does not describe a company

Facility Clearance at the TS/SCI level. The highest the

NISPOM lists for a Facility Clearance level is TS. We understand you want the contractor to be able to provide and manage personnel with SCI access, but that does not involve a TS/SCI Facility Clearance.

25 Section M.6(d) Past performance is evaluated as a “level of confidence rating” as set forth in NFS 1815.305. Each confidence rating has a "pertinence" component and “performance” component. However, NFS 1815.305 only provides

Adjectival rating definitions for an entire proposal. Will the government provide factors and criteria that delineate or constitute “Pertinence?” Past Performance Rating factors identify “highly pertinent” and “pertinent” within the table on page M-6. Lack of clarity on the rating definitions and criteria for past performance leaves the evaluation factors open to interpretation.

Will the government consider evaluating Past Performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and provide qualifying metrics that accomplish an Acceptable evaluation for Pertinence, and Performance?

Please see Sections A–M Rev 2, which revises

M.6, including definitions of the levels of relevance/pertinence.

The Government will not consider evaluating Past

Performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

26 Section H.9, Page H-

If an Offeror is a Joint Venture, then would the

Government confirm that the requirements of H.9 include the Joint Venture’s ownership companies?

Yes. The terms “Offeror” and “Contractor” include joint ventures throughout the RFP.

27 Section I.2

AUTHORIZED

DEVIATIONS IN

CLAUSES, FAR

Clause FAR 52.217-

8 Option to Extend

Services, Page I-3

Would the Government provide the period of time within which the Contracting Officer must provide written notice to the Contractor to exercise the option?

If the Government does exercise the Option to Extend

Services, would the Government confirm whether task orders can be issued during the Option Period?

Yes. The fill-in has been added to Sections A–M

Rev 2, stating “prior to the expiration of the contract.”

Yes, if the Government does exercise the Option to

Extend Services clause, then it extends the ordering period and task orders can be issued during the extended ordering period.

28 Exhibit A, SOW

Section 7.7, Page 7

Organizations purchase software licenses, software maintenance, hardware, and hardware maintenance (e.g., computers, computer maintenance agreements/warranties, and software such as Microsoft Office products and licenses) for internal operations (e.g., personnel management), as well as other operational activities that encompass multiple contracts.

Would the Government consider revising SOW 7.7?

Yes. The Government has revised SOW 7.7 to read “The Contractor shall only be reimbursed for software, software maintenance, hardware, or hardware maintenance necessary for the performance of this contract.” Please see

Attachment 1, SOW Rev 1.

29 Exhibit A, SOW

Section 7.7.1, Page 7

Organizations purchase licenses and applications to manage all aspects of company operations to include programs, contracts, and activities within the Corporation.

The purchase to own such licenses and subscriptions cannot be conveyed to the Government.

If, during performance of the contract, the Contractor is required to purchase a software license to be directly charged to a task, that license would be a right-to-use license for a set period of time for a named individual. It is highly unlikely that a commercial vendor will include language to the effect that NASA “owns” the license or subscription.

Would the Government consider limiting this requirement?

Yes. The Government has revised Section 7.7.1 to read “The Contractor shall ensure that NASA either owns the license(s) or subscription(s) for any software or applications purchased or is named as the organization for a right-to-use license.”

Please see Attachment 1, SOW Rev 1.

30 Exhibit A, SOW

Section 7.7.2, Page 7

Organizations often purchase hardware necessary to operate as an independent company.

Would the Government consider revising SOW 7.7.2?

Yes. The Government has revised Section 7.7.2 to read “The Contractor shall title all purchased hardware to NASA that is directly charged to the contract.” Please see Attachment 1, SOW Rev 1.

31 Section L.16, Table

L-1, Page L-7

For the OCI/PCI Avoidance Plan, would the Government consider increasing the page limit from 25 pages to 30 pages due to the complexities of Subfactor 2?

Yes. Please see Sections A–M Rev 2, which updates L.16.

32 Section L.16, Table

L-1, Page L-7

For the Past Performance Volume II, would the

Government consider increasing the page limit from 20 pages to 25?

Yes. Please see Sections A–M Rev 2.

33 Section L.18

SUBFACTOR 1 –

(1)(a)(1), Page L-13

This section specifies that “For independent consultant

Subject Matter Experts, Offerors and subcontractors should utilize the plug numbers in Section L.20(x)”.

Would the Government confirm that Section L.20(x) should read as Section L.20.c.5.?

Yes. Please see Sections A–M Rev 2.

34 Section L.18

SUBFACTOR 2 –

(1)(e), Page L-15

If a Joint Venture (JV) is proposed, then it is a separate organization that is co-owned and managed by parent and affiliated companies. The JV and Parent organizations have a management and financial relationship.

Would the Government consider revising the language in

L.18 (1) e)?

The Government has revised the language in L.18

(1) e) to read as “The Offeror must not expect that use of a firewall within its own organization to mitigate “impaired objectivity” OCIs will be acceptable to NASA, including under joint venture relationships.”

35 Section L.21 d)(1), Page L-26

L.21 d) states, “FAR 16.301-3 requires that a contractor's accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost-reimbursement contract. To receive a contract award, the

Offeror shall have an accounting system that is capable of:

(i) Accurately collecting, segregating, and recording costs by contract and by CLIN (as applicable); (ii) Excluding unallowable costs; and (iii) Meeting the requirements contained in FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment.

Therefore, to receive a contract award, the Offeror shall complete Attachment X, Cost Form X.” This Cost Form is not contained within the DRFP documents provided.

Would the Government provide Attachment X, Cost Form

X?

There is no reference. The sentence was included in error. Please see Sections A–M Rev 2.

36 Section L, Cost/Price Forms, Would the Government confirm that Contract Years 2 through 5 are not Option Periods?

Confirmed. Tab 1-6 has been updated to remove the “option” language.

Tab 1-6, Summary of Indirect Rates

37 Pre-Solicitation

Conference

Are the EASSS-3 actual values as summarized on slide 17 the basis for the labor hour numbers in the DRFP?

Essentially, except in the case of Evaluation tasks, where SMD projections are reflected in the

Planning List for SMD Solicitations on the SOMA website.

38 Pre-Solicitation

Conference

Is there anything specific Offerors should know about the single dedicated Service and Support TO under EASSS 3?

At least one dedicated Service and Support TO is expected under EASSS 4, but as it will no longer involve any physical archiving, it is expected to be somewhat smaller in scope.

39 Pre-Solicitation

Conference

Can you help us understand the rationale for the addition to the EASSS-4 clauses H.9 and H.2 of “and [interests] of its funders?”

Additionally, can you help define funders?

The changes were made to reinforce what L.18

FACTOR 1 - MISSION SUITABILITY

INSTRUCTIONS (VOLUME I) / SUBFACTOR

2: Management Approach (1) a) had already been required under EASSS 3 and which was retained for EASSS 4, with “A description of the Offeror’s current and planned work (including subcontracts) and its assessment of the potential risk for OCIs and PCIs this work may engender in the performance of EASSS 4.”

As described above, funders include organizations that the Offeror is currently or planning on performing work for. Task order issuers under

EASSS 3 (e.g., SMD, GSFC, MSFC, and LaRC) would naturally require attention, but so will other organizations that regularly propose to SMD AOs.

40 Pre-Solicitation

Conference

The DRFP speaks to subcontractors, yet the core management function of this effort appears small compared to the SME support. Is the government expecting significant subcontractors to provide SME support?

The Government will allow potential offerors to determine the most effective approach and make decisions regarding teaming arrangements to meet the Mission Suitability factors/subfactors and

SOW requirements.

Is the government expecting significant subcontractors or is a single prime acceptable/viable?

A single Prime Offeror would be both acceptable and viable.

41 Pre-Solicitation

Conference; Section

L. 18(e)(1)(d)(b)(2)

Section L.18(e)(1)(d)(b)(2) states “In addition, the offeror and each applicable subcontractor shall identify the specific labor categories they propose to fill with incumbent personnel and the specific labor category is proposed to be filled with both incumbent and nonincumbent personnel, state the percentage of incumbent and non-incumbent labor being proposed for that labor category.”

The government has stated in the QAs that no historical information will be provided. Would the government reconsider this or revise/remove this?

Without historical numbers, non-incumbents have zero insight into where incumbents exist and where they don't, making this a very difficult drill.

Please see Sections A–M Rev 2, which deletes the quoted reference.

42 Will the government consider making Past Performance evaluation criteria Pass/Fail and establish criteria? The existing confidence evaluation criteria lends itself to subjectivity and the potential assumption that nothing is as good as the incumbent.

Please see the answer to Question #25.

43 Pages H-2 – H-3, Clause H.3 NFS

1852.225-70

EXPORT

LICENSES (FEB

2000)

Would the Government confirm whether an Offeror must be registered with the Department of State Office of

Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DTCC) at the time of proposal submission to be considered eligible for contract award?

There are export compliance requirements on the contractor, but the Government does not interpret them to require DDTC registration at the time of proposal submission.

44 Page I-14, Clause I.8

1852.204-75

SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

Would the Government provide a timeframe in which an

Offeror has to obtain a Facility Clearance at the Top Secret

(TS) level to execute the contract requirements?

The Offeror must demonstrate their eligibility or commitment to obtaining an FCL within six months of contract award.

REQUIREMENT

(SEP 1989)

(Section J)-Exhibit

G, DD Form 254, Contract Security

Classification

Specification

Page L-26, Section

L.21 d) (2)

Would the Government provide the requirements for submitting a DD254 if an Offeror intends to propose as a

Joint Venture?

When proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), specific requirements must be met for submitting the

DD254 (Contract Security Classification

Specification), which governs classified work. Key considerations include:

• FCL for the JV Entity:

o The Joint Venture itself must obtain an FCL if it is the prime contractor or performing classified work. A JV cannot rely solely on the FCLs of its member companies.

o The government contracting activity (GCA) typically sponsors the JV for an FCL, and the JV must meet all requirements under the

National Industrial Security

Program Operating Manual

(NISPOM).

• Member Companies’ FCLs:

o If the JV does not yet have an FCL, then member companies with appropriate FCLs may perform classified work under their own clearances, subject to approval from the GCA.

o All companies participating in the

JV must provide detailed information in the proposal to demonstrate their security eligibility.

• DD254 Requirements for JV Proposal

Submission:

o The DD254 must accurately reflect the scope of classified work for the

JV, including which tasks involve classified information and whether

SCI access is required.

o The JV must disclose:

▪ Whether the JV itself holds an FCL or will need sponsorship.

▪ Details about the classified tasks to be performed and how security responsibilities will be managed among JV members.

▪ Any reliance on member companies' FCLs for interim performance.

• Security Structure of the JV:

o The JV must establish a formal security agreement among its members, detailing the security responsibilities for classified work.

o The agreement must align with the requirements outlined in the DD254 and ensure compliance with

NISPOM.

45 L.19 FACTOR 2 b), Page L-17

The Prime Offeror is required to include a “minimum” of three references. Would the Government consider revising the requirement for a Prime Offeror to include a

“maximum” of three references?

The Government has revised the language in L.19 b). Please see Sections A–M Rev 2.

46 Will the company awarded this opportunity collaborate closely with the leadership of the Science Office for

The first Historical Task, Science Office for

Mission Assessments (SOMA) Planning Task, Mission Assessments (SOMA), given its role in the decision-making process?

addresses collaborative long-term planning for staffing of all SOMA requirements.

47 C.1, Page C-1 Would NASA provide the referenced Attachment L-3

Communications Blackout Notice and Attachment L-4 SF

1408 – Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor

Accounting System?

Yes, the Government will provide both documents.

Q&As, February 13, 2025

48 L.18(e)(1)(d)(b)(1) Section L.18(e)(1)(d)(b)(1) states “If the firm proposes to capture incumbent employees and proposes direct labor/salary rates for incumbent personnel that are lower than incumbent rates, then explain how your firm intends to attract and retain incumbent staff.” To ensure a level playing field for all offerors, including those not currently employing incumbent personnel, and to avoid unintended cost adjustments due to lack of knowledge of incumbent rates, we respectfully request the government provide the historical incumbent direct labor/salary rates for the positions covered under this solicitation.

Please see Sections B-M Rev 4, which includes a revision to Section L.20 c) 6). The

Government will include all available historical, government-estimate rates in the RFP for reference. These are provided to assist offerors with proposal preparations.

49 L.19, Page L-18 Reference: Government Question #10 as of Update

0003: For the Past Performance volume, can the

Government confirm that offerors may reference the total value of contract vehicles, rather than individual task orders(s), when demonstrating relevance to the RFP requirements?

Government Response: Yes.

Follow-up Question: The total ceiling value of an individual Government Wide Acquisition Contract

(GWAC) may be in the billions of dollars or may be unlimited. Additionally, the GWAC Statement of Work

(SOW) is extremely broad and encompasses work that

Regarding Question #10, the answer is revised to

“Please see the answer to Question #49. Offerors should reference the value of the work performed relative to the RFP requirements.”

Question #49 Response: It is the offeror’s responsibility to demonstrate that each contract reference is relevant to the RFP requirements.

Typically, GWACs do not meet relevancy requirements, but individual orders may. Since only the offeror has sufficient insight into its performance history, it is the offeror’s responsibility to determine whether a “total contract” or “individual task order(s)” meet the may not be directly relevant/pertinent to the EASSS 4

SOW.

Would the Government clarify the answer to Question

#10 as it pertains to GWACs?

Additionally, would the Government clarify how it will evaluate pertinence of the GWAC contract with regards to the overall GWAC vehicle or individual awarded task orders?

RFP requirements. The offeror must clearly demonstrate and provide identifying information regarding the specific work (e.g., contract, order) that is relevant to the RFP requirements.

50 Cost/Price Forms

Tab 1-2 Total

Proposed Price

Tab 1-5 Travel and ODCs

Reference: Government Question #22 as of Update

0003: Tab 1-2 summarizes Total CPFF Labor, Travel, and ODCs for Total Proposed Price. The Unburdened

Travel and ODCs flows from Tab 1-5 Travel and ODCs.

Would the Government confirm that Travel and ODCs should be burdened in Column E-F-G on Tab 1-5 and should be added to the Total Evaluated Amount in

Column H on Tab 1-5?

Government Response: Yes. Offerors shall fill in columns E & F with their burdens and add more columns if needed (formulas are included for convenience).

Follow-up Question: Would the Government confirm that, in the RFP on Tab 1-5 Travel and ODCs, the

Evaluated Amount shown in Column H will not be hard-coded but will be a formula-driven amount of the sum of

Columns D through G?

Column H is auto-calculated based on the sum of Columns D and G. Offerors are responsible for verifying the calculated amounts in Column

G and their proposal.

Please note that there were some missing formulas in Attachment L-2 Pricing Model Rev

1, which have been addressed in Rev 2.

51 L-7, Section L.16

(b) Table L-1

For the Mission Suitability/Technical Proposal (Factor

1) – Volume I, would the Government consider increasing the page limit from 20 pages to 25 pages

Yes. Please see Sections B-M, Rev 4.

(excluding Subfactor 1 TCP and Subfactor 2 –

Management: (1) OCI and PCI Avoidance Plan)?

52 L-8, Section L.16

(c)

Would the Government consider a minimum of 10-point font (all volumes) for graphs/tables?

Yes. Please see Sections B-M Rev 4.

53 Section L.19 (b), Page L-17

“Potential offeror” submits this question in response to a change in the number of past performance references for

Prime Offerors from a minimum of three in DRFP

Update 0003, as follows.

The number of references within the maximum is at the discretion of the Offeror; however, the number of references must be within the page limitation for the past performance proposal. The references shall include a minimum of three (3) for the Offeror and a maximum of two (2) for each significant subcontractor. Offerors are encouraged/advised to provide at least one (1) reference for the prime Offeror, at least one (1) for the non-managing Joint Venture partner(s) (if applicable), and at least one (1) for each significant subcontractor. If the Offeror is a Joint

Venture, then at least one (1) of the Offeror’s contract references shall be from the managing partner. The combined total of all references cannot exceed the seven (7).

Can the Government provide the rationale behind this change?

The rationale behind this change is to ensure that the RFP does not unnecessarily restrict potential offerors that are unable to meet a minimum or maximum number. This change was made to enhance competition by maximizing flexibility for distributing contract references among members of any potential teaming arrangement.

54 Section H.12, Page H-14, Section I.9

1852.204-76

In order to address the IT Security Requirements to

Unclassified Information Technology Resources clause

(I.9), how should the NASA End User Services Office

(EUSO) Services And Assets clause (H.12) be interpreted?

Please see the revised 80LARC24R0011 –

Exhibit A (SOW) (12 Feb 25), which revises

SOW 2.2 to add and clarify Person Identity

Verification (PIV) and NASA Access

Management System (NAMS) requirements

DEVIATION 21-

01B within Identity and Access Management

(IdMAX). Upon demonstration or approval of a valid PIV, NASA assets/laptops will be provided for Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) evaluators; and potentially for assessment and study task orders. To meet the IT security requirements of the referenced clause, NASA will alternatively utilize Box to provide

Moderate data access for those Science panel evaluation, assessment, and study task orders where utilization of NASA-provided assets/laptops cannot be implemented.