80LARC24R0011 - QA (5 Dec 2024).pdf

80LARC24R0011 EASSS 4 As of Update 0002

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

As of December 5, 2024

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.

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-1

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-1 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.

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.

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-

No, the Government does not intend to add LCATs to the RFP.

Additionally, the Government

21, it states “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?

believes that a meeting facilitator and/or note-taker could 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

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.

flexibility at the task order level for more highly paid consultants.

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.

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.

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

The Government does not intend to release any historical information.

government provide the historical annual LCATs and hours for incumbent staff?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.