Attachment 10 RFP Questions and Answers.pdf

Amendment 3, Attachment 10, RFP Questions and Answers

# Section RFP Requirement Comment / Question/Suggestion JSHIFT Team Response

1 Attach 2, PPQ

DUNS # SAM Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) is used now instead of

DUNS #.

Correct. RFP Attachment 2 will be updated see Amendment 2.

2 RFP,

Section F

Period of Performance Start Date

CSFO II runs through 9/30/25.

Other than phase-in activities, how can JSHIFT contract performance and responsibility start on 9/15/25 in parallel with CSFO II’s performance and responsibility;

especially if the same personnel are on both contracts?

Seems like Phase-In period should be 9/15/25-9/30/25 and Base Period operationally starts 10/1/25?

The POP will be revised to be effective on 10-01-25; If the evaluation is completed earlier, the signature date and the effective will be different. Any days between can be used by the contractor for transition or phase-in at their cost. No official Phase- In Period is designated. See Section F and various sections of the contract will be updated and highlighted for a 10-01-25 start date.

3 RFP,

Section L.17

Section 1 Pricing Narrative requires “detail all pricing or estimating techniques.”

Section 2 BOE Summary requires “explain in detail all pricing and estimating techniques.”

Please explain the difference in what is expected to be presented in each of these sections.

Section 1 shall describe the techniques and Section 2 shall provide necessary details of those techniques to ensure the Government has sufficient information for its analysis. In any case, the BOE should be self-explanatory.

4 RFP,

Section L.9

Government Property Management Information

Is this information required in the proposal? If so, where should it go?

L.14 (b), table, Volume III, will add a row for property information. In addition, L.9 will be updated to complete paragraph (h).

5 RFP, B.4

and L.18.A.4

Table B.4 Contract Values

Please confirm that the offeror is not being asked to fill out Table B.4 in the Model Contract submittal in the Business Volume.

See L.14(b), Volume III instructions. Offerors are to complete B4 that correlates with their Attachment 4 and proposal submission. A signed contract cover page shall also be submitted in Volume III with the contract attached.

6 RFP,

Section G-5

Refers to Property listed in Exhibit E

There is not an Exhibit E. We assume it is Exhibit D?

There is no reference in Section G-5 to a Property Exhibit.

However, there is a reference in Section G-3 to Exhibit E which will be updated to reflect the correct Exhibit D.

7 RFP,

Section G-7

Refers to Exhibit E This is not an Exhibit E. We assume it is Exhibit D?

There is no G-7; G-6 will be updated.

8 RFP, Sect H-17 f)

Refers to Section H.3

The reference should be to Section H.2 for NFS 1852.209-71, Limitation of Future Contracting

H.17 f will be updated to indicate H.2.

9 RFP,

Section H.21

Sampling $ In the spirit of FFP, it seems like this ODC should be a separate CLIN outside of the core FFP since this is a variable cost “outside of the contractor’s control.”

This would eliminate the need for an equitable adjustment as the funding would simply be added/deleted from the Sampling CLIN as needed. This also benefits the Government in controlling the cost by only spending what is needed.

DRD 08 is amended to include sampling reporting. Clause H.21 requires an annual adjustment based on the monthly reporting.

While having a separate CLIN will eliminate the need for an equitable adjustment if needed, it also creates a separate funding stream which limits the government’s ability to utilize those funds for other areas of the contract since they will be obligated on another CLIN.

Having sampling in the same CLIN still allows the Government to control the cost.

10 CLINs ODCs In the spirit of FFP, it seems like the ODCs should be separate CLINs outside of the core FFP since most of the ODCs are variable costs outside of the contractor’s control.

This benefits the Government in controlling the cost by only spending what is needed. It also eliminates the administrative burden of equitable adjustments if additional funding is needed.

See question 9.

11 RFP,

Section L.17.9;

EPM Tab B.4 for Labor Buildup

All labor categories are listed as Professional Exempt Labor Categories in Section L.17.9 Tables and listed as Exempt in the EPM Tab Bs.

The following labor categories are currently identified as Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Determination Non-Exempt, Hourly Categories in the CSFO II Contract:

• Secretary III (DOL Secretary

III – 01313)

• Fire Protection Engineering Technician-Level I (DOL Electronics Technician Maintenance II – 23182)

• Fire Protection Engineering Technician-Level II) (DOL Electronics Technician Maintenance III-23183)

• Alarm Technicians (DOL Fire Alarm System Mechanic-23290)

• Technical Specialist / CAD (DOL Drafter/CAD Operator

III-30063)

• Fire Protection Specialists (DOL Firefighter – 27070)

We believe that DOL will require these to remain Non-Exempt.

Attachment 4, EPM, will be updated to correctly identify exempt and non-exempt. The non-exempt categories have been removed from the minimum acceptable direct labor rates tables L-1a-c in the RFP. The WD’s for GSFC, JSC, and LaRC have been added as Exhibit E.

Regarding Secretary III, the Admin Asst/Business Support Specialist will be deleted and reclassified as Secretary III. As a result, WDs will be added.

JSHIFT does not provide for the Fire Protection Engineering Technicians Level I and II; it provides for Fire Alarm Technician Level I (WD) and II (Exempt).

See comment above.

Fire Alarm Technician Level I WD will be added. Fire Alarm Technician Level II is not WD; it is Exempt. This is a new category for JSHIFT.

WD will be added for Technical Specialist/CAD.

WD will be added for Fire Protection Specialists Firefighter.

Furthermore, the Fire Protection Specialist labor category will be broken out by 1st, 2nd and 3rd shifts.

It is not anticipated that over time will be required for this effort.

However, a Fully Burdened

Overtime Rate columns will be

This determination is important as it drives minimum health and welfare amounts and will require time and half overtime rates.

We request that overtime rates be included in the EPM for these non-exempt categories for the FFP core build-ups as well as the IDIQ rate sheet.

added to Attachment 4 in the core and IDIQ tabs.

Any assumptions for OT shall be explained in the Basis of Estimate.

12 Attach 3 Historical Information, Historical Mgmt Supervision Tab; Attach

4 EPM, PM

pricing in the Center core tabs.

Attach 3 Historical FTE for LaRC PM only shows .5 instead of 1.

Additionally, there is only 1 PM spread across the 3 Centers in the EPM.

Historically, LaRC and JSC have operated with dedicated Program Managers (1 FTE at JSC and 1 FTE at LaRC) without designated Functional Lead categories.

Additionally, the LaRC PM is now overseeing GSFC operations with their LaRC PM splitting time between the 2 Centers.

The operations of this contract are very intensive “boots on the ground” requiring local oversight at each Center. (i.e., scheduling of teams, shifting priorities, overseeing physical activities of the teams, interfacing with the customers).

Therefore, reducing the PM hours to only 1 FTE and spreading the person across all three Centers to manage the day-to-day activities and contract requirements is not an effective approach introducing significant risk.

In addition to the 1 Program Manager at JSC required to manage JSC operations, we suggest accurately identifying that there is 1 FTE PM at LaRC in the historical file and keeping that 1 FTE Project Manager in the EPM Core Pricing Tabs that can be split between LaRC and GSFC while ensuring that JSC does not lose PM support.

Historical information is updated to reflect 1.0 at LaRC. Attachment 4 indicates one PM across all Centers. The enterprise philosophy may require different management approaches than the incumbents have. Each offeror will have to decide where the PM resides. It is not expected that 2 PMs are required for JSHIFT.

The ratio across the Centers is being updated to 10/80/10 for GSFC, JSC, and LaRC, respectively: see Attachment 4.

13 Attach 3 Historical Information, Historical Mgmt Supervision Tab; Attach 4 EPM, Tab C-2a JSC Core

Attach 3 JSC Historical FTEs for Admin Assist / Bus Analyst only shows 1 instead of 2.

Therefore, there is only 1 FTE in the EPM JSC Core Pricing Tab for an Admin Assist / Bus Analyst.

Historically, JSC has 1 Business Analyst and 1 Secretary III.

We do not see a reduction in scope, especially with the addition of two other Centers, to warrant the reduction of an FTE in this area.

Therefore, we suggest that there should be 2 FTE accurately identified in the historical file and 2 FTE included in the JSC core tab of the EPM for pricing.

Historical Info for JSC should indicate 2 as stated. However, future management approaches will need to be reviewed as stated above in question 12. Offerors have the option of adding personnel to their overhead or G&A rates.

14 Attach 4 EPM, Tab C-2a JSC Core

0 FTE shown for Database Analyst I

Historically and currently, there is a Database Analyst I on CSFO II.

We do not see a reduction in scope.

Therefore, we suggest that there should be 1 FTE included in EPM Tab C-2a JSC Core for pricing.

Attachment 4, Tab C2a will be updated to breakout the 2 Database Analyst II's to the following: 1 Data Analyst I and 1 Data Analyst II.

15 Attach 4 EPM, Tab C-2a JSC Core

9 FTE shown for Test Safety Officers

Historically and currently, there are

10.25 FTE Test Safety Officers

(TSOs) and there are efforts underway to quote for additional TSOs.

Therefore, since there is no reduction in scope or workload, we suggest that the FTE should be

10.25 in EPM Tab C-2a JSC Core for pricing.

(Additional Question, Rev 1) Historically there are 10.25 FTE Test Safety Officers (TSOs) and funding was just authorized for two

(2) more.

Therefore, since there is no reduction in scope or workload, we suggest that the FTE should be

12.25 in EPM Tab C-2a JSC Core for pricing.

Attachment 4, Tab C2a will be updated from 9 to 10 TSO categories. JSHIFT requires 10.

See comment above.

16 Attach 4 EPM, Tab C-2a JSC Core

There are 2 Safety Specialist I and 2 Safety Specialist II and 1 Safety Engineer

All positions at JSC are historically and currently Safety Engineers which require a CSP, CIH or Bachelor’s degree. This position also has a higher minimum direct labor rate.

Unless there is a reduction in scope as to the role of these positions, we suggest that the Safety Specialists in the EPM Tab C-2a JSC Core be reclassified to the Safety Engineer labor category as they are now.

The JSHIFT requirement for 2 Safety Specialist I and 2 Safety Specialist II remains unchanged.

Please note the 1 Safety Engineer will be removed and reclassified as a Test Safety Officer. The total number of Test Safety Officers is 10 for JSC as noted in the question above.

17 Exhibit D

IAGP, JSC

Equip Tab

List of JSC Equipment is missing a UTV.

Please confirm that the UTV currently used on the contract should be included on the JSC equipment list.

Exhibit D will be updated to add the UTV.

18 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

JSC Training Costs Please confirm that travel cost to the training classes is part of the $75,000 since there is not a separate Travel line item for training.

Attachment 3 will be updated to correct the amount to $50,000 which includes travel. A footnote was added to annotate travel is included.

19 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

GSFC Management Travel

There is no information in the Historical Travel tab supporting this $6K. Please clarify what this budget is for.

It is for travel to other off-site facilities and for general mgt travel as indicated on Attachment 3, Mgt. JSC and LaRC do not indicate travel since those Centers currently have managers on site.

Depending on where the PM is located, travel should be allocated accordingly across the Centers or put in overhead. In any case, the basis of estimate should be clear where general management travel is allocated. Furthermore, the $6K will be removed from attachment 3 and shall be estimated by offerors.

20 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

Management Travel Will there be an allowance for PM travel between the Centers throughout the year to manage the contract at 3 Centers and meet with the various NASA stakeholders?

Attachment 4, Tab A Summary, has ODC sections for each Center.

Travel should be allocated accordingly based on the offerors approach.

21 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab;

Exhibit D

IAGP, JSC

Equip Tab

6 Vehicles provided at JSC

There are 6 vehicles on the Government provided equipment list for JSC.

Typically, items on this list are provided to the contractor at no cost. However, these vehicles are designated as GSA Lease.

Is the contractor expected to obtain a GSA contract during the phase-in period and pay the lease payments for these GSA provided vehicles?

Are these costs included in the JSC Vehicles historical cost line item?

Correct; There are 6 vehicles at

JSC.

Correct; Exhibit D states GSA Lease is required.

Yes. The lease is obtained by the contractor and facilitated by JSC.

Total estimated cost is included in Attachment 3, “Historical ODC Data”.

Yes. See Attachment 3, for lease costs.

22 EPM,

Summary Tab

ODCs

Are we to escalate the ODCs annually? If so, are there escalation rates to utilize?

Yes. Table L-4 General Escalation Rates was added to section L.17 of the RFP.

23 ODC

CLINs

ODCs in FFP Core CLINs

Due to the uncertainty of the nation’s economy, especially the impact of possible tariffs, we request that ODCs be placed in separate CLINs outside of the FFP CLINs for core labor purposes.

This is a service contract; there is no anticipated tariff impact. If needed, an equitable adjustment may be utilized depending on the situation. The offerors shall estimate their ODCs and ensure their basis of estimate and all assumptions are clearly stated.

24 RFP L.17.4;

EPM

Each member of the JV shall submit complete Price volumes. The managing JV partner must include the total contract price in Attachment 4, Excel Pricing Model if partners are submitting directly to NASA

To confirm, each JV partner submits its own EPM and Cost Narrative?

If the partners are not submitting directly to NASA, please explain how the cost should be rolled up into the total contract price?

We were thinking of placing Managing Partner cost in the prime fields and the partners in the subcontractor fields in order to consolidate the total cost in the Managing Partner submittal.

The Government anticipated separate submission as most partners do not share certain data.

If separate submission is not provided, it is unclear how the Government would validate indirect rates and profit for the "sub" partner.

With that said, the approach listed herein is acceptable. The prime offerors shall ensure that there is a clear and sufficient basis of estimate if only one submission is provided. In this single approach, the basis of estimate must be clear in terms of relating to labor cost, indirect rates, and profit.

25 PWS,

Section

EAS13;

Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info

The contractor shall provide uniforms to identify first responders as emergency response personnel.

Please confirm that the cost of these uniforms will be a direct cost and added as a line item.

Historically, this cost has been part of the $3000 uniform ODC for the Fire Protection Specialists, Fire Protection Engineering Technicians and Alarm Technicians.

This historical cost needs to be added as a line item in Attach 3 Historical ODC Tab.

Attachment 3 Historical Information was only to provide industry insight into those ODC’s that would be hard to estimate. It was not an all-encompassing list for every ODC that may be applicable. Offerors are to estimate any and all ODCs they need to perform the effort.

Additional rows can be added to Attachment 4 for ODCs elements.

Attachment 3 will be revised to only include ODC’s that are hard to estimate.

26 ODCs

The Edwards Alarm System requires a $700 annual software license for each technician who accesses the system.

With 10 technicians accessing this system, this annual cost is $7000 for the first year.

Is this cost covered by the Government (i.e., NASA IT)? If not, this needs to be included as an ODC line item.

Correct, the cost of license for the Edwards Alarm System is borne by the Government directly and is not an expense that would be incurred by the future JSHIFT contractor.

27 PWS,

Section

EAS01

The contractor shall provide capability to respond to emergencies at the Center, to include emergencies in one multiple floor building or two simultaneous emergencies at non-multiple floor facilities.

At JSC, the budget was cut down to the following support:

• 2 Fire Protection Specialist (FPS) M-F first shift only.

• 1 FPS for night and weekend shifts.

This requirement would require 2 FPS on staff 24/7 to be able to respond to 2 simultaneous emergencies at any time.

Please confirm that JSC now wants 2 FPS on staff 24/7.

If yes, we also request that there needs to be an additional FPS (total of 9 FTE) to help coordinate the team (i.e., scheduling, training, backfill).

JSC will not require two FPS to be stationed onsite 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. JSHIFT, at JSC, will require 2 FPS during normal hours (Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and a single FPS at all other times."

See updated EAS01 and the Work Environment in Exhibit A PWS.

28 Exhibit B, DRD 11

The DRD listing on page 3 indicates that DRD 11 is applicable to all Centers.

However, the scope of DRD 11 only refers to requirements specific to LaRC.

Please clarify if DRD is just for LaRC or all Centers.

Exhibit B, DRD 11, Scope paragraph, was updated to obtain

WYE for all Centers. The report will be submitted to LaRC.

29 ODCs Software Licenses The following software licenses are currently used on the JSC contract. Please confirm that these licenses will be provided by the Government:

Nest Seat (2) Adobe Acrobat Pro (5) Adobe Photoshop CS6 (1) AUTOCAD Map 3D (1)

AUTOCAD LT (4)

Bluebeam Revu x64 (4) Edwards System Technology 4

(EST4) (10)

Correct, these licenses will be provided by the Government and is not an expense that would be incurred by the future JSHIFT contractor.

Except for the Edwards Alarm System see question 26.

30 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

JSC Historical ODC line items are missing

The following is a list of additional historical ODC expenses that should be included in the list:

- Fire Protection Specialists Insurance ($5000)

See question 25.

Please note it is not anticipated that the speakers and the calendar contest will be a part of JSHIFT.

- Fire Extinguisher Inspections ($6000 - $37000) depending on inspection cycles

- Technicians and Specialists Uniforms ($3000)

- Safety Awareness Supplies and Children’s Calendar Contest ($13,000)

- Safety and Health Day and Back in the Saddle Speakers ($18,000)

- Office Expenses and General Supplies ($2000)

- Personal Mileage ($3000)

31 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

JSC

Licenses/Certs/Dues

This amount needs to be increased to $10,000 (not including the Edwards Alarm System Licenses) to cover all required licenses and backups on the contract.

See question #29

The $2,500 for JSC represents certifications and due and only those licenses not listed above.

There are no additional certs and dues at GSFC and LaRC.

Attachment 3, ODC category was changed to Certs/Dues.

32 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

JSC Vehicles Historical GSA lease cost is $2500/month = $30K annual (this includes fuel and maintenance of the vehicles).

However, required non-owned insurance for non-Government drivers is $6250.

Maintenance and fuel estimated cost for the new UTV is $1000.

Therefore, total cost for JSC Vehicles ODC is $37,500.

See Attachment 3 for lease cost.

Insurance, maintenance, and fuel is to be estimated by the offerors.

Offeror shall estimate this cost.

Offeror shall estimate maintenance and fuel cost.

33 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

Langley/Goddard Historical ODC Costs

- Equipment Calibration

Currently calibration is handled as a cost reimbursable task due to the fluctuation of prices and then unknown service/repair that may be required for instruments. A fixed price for this support is not advisable based on 20 years of past experience.

The decision has been made to include calibration costs as part of the fixed price portion of the contract. A list of equipment has been provided and defined to allow contractors to develop costs for calibration. It should be noted, previous contracts at GSFC for these services have been historically fixed price.

34 Attach 3 Historical

Langley Travel The Langley travel column is blank. Is no travel anticipated for the

There has been no LaRC travel to other locations for PWS

Info, ODC Info Tab entire POP? Historically there has been some travel to NASA meetings.

requirements. Langley does not have other locations like Wallops or El Paso that requires travel for calibration and/or sampling for example. If management travel is needed for meeting participation, that type of travel is to be estimated and should be included in Attachment 4. Travel to support PM Management should be estimated; however, there is no LaRC historical values for “other location” travel.

35 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

Langley/Goddard ODC – Training and Licensing

The PWS lists numerous certifications and licenses that are provided by a variety of government and industry-based organizations the require recertification training or continuing education. There are no costs listed for licensing or training at LaRC and GSFC. Historically these areas have cost $2,500 per year for certification renewal/licensing at Langley and $1,500 per year at Goddard. The training cost for mandated refresher courses and continuing education is $8,000 per year at LaRC and $4,000 per year at

GSFC.

These are ODCs and shall be estimated by the Offerors.

Costs for certifications, licenses, and continuing education required by federal and state requirements are not typically billed directly.

These costs are typically budgeted for an organization’s fringe, overhead or G&A rates. Offerors are, where required, to bring certified personnel on Day 1 of the contract. These costs are not currently billed directly.

36 Attach 3 Historical Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

Langley PPE No PPE cost is listed for Langley.

For some position requirements, it is necessary to provide safety shoes/boots, safety glasses (prescription if needed), respirators, and other PPE. Historical cost is $5,000 per year.

See question 25.

37 Attach 3

Info, Historical ODC Info Tab

Langley Fire Supplies

No costs are listed for fire alarm supplies. There are materials, tools, and other consumables required for this work. Historical cost is $2,500

See question 25

38 Attach 3

Info, Historical

Goddard Physicals The IH Team are respirator users which require annual medical evaluation. No historical cost is listed. Estimated cost is $300 - $400 per physical.

See question 25

The requirement for a medical evaluation is an OSHA requirement and would be a requirement in

ODC Info industry. These costs are not typically charged directly to customers in industry. These costs are typically budgeted in a company’s overhead or G&A costs.

39 RFP, Section G.6;

Exhibit D

IAGP

The Government, however, agrees to provide EXISTING equipment as listed in as listed in Exhibit E in support of this contract. Any existing equipment items that reach the end of their useful life during the contract period, or which are beyond economical repair, shall be replaced by the Contractor, if the equipment is still needed for contract performance and as indicated in the Exhibit.

There are only two items in the three lists that have an * indicating that they need to be replaced by the contractor (two vehicles at GSFC).

Please confirm that all of the other items in the Center lists are not the responsibility of the contractor to replace.

Correct. Any item with an asterisk will not be replaced by the Government. In addition, if the remaining property becomes obsolete or beyond repair, the Government may not replace depending on usage and the number on hand. Not all equipment on the list that is the responsibility of the government would be replaced by the Government. The government would make a decision to replace based on need and funding. For example, some equipment on the list are spares.

Also, the government is not inferring equipment with an * MUST be replaced by the contractor if the equipment reaches its useful life. The offeror would determine if that equipment requires replacement to deliver services required of the contract.

40 Exhibit D

IAGP, GSFC

Equip List

Goddard Vehicles The equipment list indicates two vehicles are being provided with an indication that they will need to be replaced by the contractor at the end of useful life. On 5/1/25, three government vehicles were provided to the contractor. Can the vehicle situation at Goddard be clarified? What and how many vehicles should be on the Government provided list?

How is the contractor to bid FFP not knowing whether they will have to buy a vehicle at some point and not being able to fully depreciate a purchased vehicle over a contract of only 5 years duration.

Vehicles will only need to be replaced if the offeror determines it is needed; it may not be. Exhibit D, IAGP on the GSFC tab Line Item 87 will be added. GSFC now has a total of 3 vehicles.

Three for GSFC. The vehicle on Line Item 87 is older and may not last the full contract duration.

These vehicles will be provided as long as they are in safe, operational condition. These vehicles accumulate approximately 100 miles a month and are available to ensure personnel have the ability to transport equipment, supplies, and radiation sources when needed. If contractors utilize POVs, they are normally reimbursed which may be cheaper than procuring or depreciating. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine how travel is accomplished on center.

Buying replacement vehicles is not the only option.

41 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1a, 1b, and 1c

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates

With the intent of the minimum acceptable direct rates being set to ensure that the incumbent personnel can be retained and minimize phase-in risk, we recommend that the minimum acceptable direct rates be set at the incumbent direct rates.

Currently, the incumbent rates exceed the minimum acceptable direct rates in many of the labor categories. Therefore, if the minimum rates are bid, the incumbents will not be retained and the contract will not be staffed in a 2-week phase-in period.

The table at the end of the questions provides the incumbent rates compared to the RFP minimum acceptable direct labor rates for those categories where the incumbent rates are significantly higher.

The rate variances are due to reasons such as incumbent seniority far exceeding the min requirements, required certifications/licenses that are not reflected in the ERI salary survey, different labor categories being used than current. Follow-on comments/questions are provided for some labor categories that we have specific datapoints to explain the variances.

How will the offeror get credit for bidding to keep the incumbents and minimize phase-in risk and not be penalized in price by committing to hire the incumbent at their rate if the

The intent of the minimum acceptable direct rates is to ensure that offerors do not low-bid this effort and increase the probability of unrealistic pricing. Offerors may bid direct labor rates that exceed the minimum rates necessary to retain and reduce risk.

Please note the minimum acceptable direct labor rate tables will be revised to reflect the most current ERI data dated 05/27/2025 and they do not include incumbent data. Labor categories that have been determined to non-exempt have been removed from the table and shall use the WD’s provided in Exhibit E as the minimum rate.

Exhibit A, PWS Appendix A will be updated to state “at least” before the required years of experience to be more consistent in all the qualification descriptions. The Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates tables will be revised to base the ERI data on the minimum number of years experience required.

min rate is not adjusted to the incumbent rate?

42 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Administrative Assistant / Business Support Specialist

(JSC)

This position requires and currently has a Business Support Specialist (not just an administrative assistant). This position currently meets the requirements of providing business function support for planning, coordinating, and surveillance of overall activities to ensure disciplined performance of work as well as financial reporting and financial analysis. This position currently requires a degree and 3 years of experience. The incumbent person has a Masters in Business and 5 years of experience.

Therefore, the current CSFO II position qualifications and incumbent person far exceeds the JSHIFT requirement of only 2 years of experience and no degree. This results in the incumbent rate of $37.89 far exceeding the RFP min rate of $34.61.

The Administrative Assistant/Business Support Specialist will be reclassified as a Secretary Level III which has a WD (DOL 01313 Secretary Level III).

Attachment 4 and the Exhibit A PWS, and Exhibit C IDIQ Schedule of Rates have been updated to reflect the change. The JSHIFT requirement only requires 1 Secretary Level III WYE with 2 years experience. The labor category will be removed from the Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates tables and shall use the WD’s provided in Exhibit E.

However, offerors may bid direct labor rates that exceed the minimum rates necessary to retain and reduce risk.

43 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Safety Program Analyst (JSC)

The current position requires a degree in engineering or related field and the incumbent has over 30 years of experience and established relationships that facilitates her being able to run the JSC Safety Program Events on a shoe-string budget by getting donations and volunteers.

Therefore, the current CSFO II position qualification and incumbent person far exceeds the JSHIFT requirement of only 3-5 years of experience and no degree. This results in the incumbent rate of $44.92 far exceeding the RFP min rate of $40.30 which is only mapped to a Safety Analyst position and to only 3 years’ experience.

See question 41. The Government has determined that the SOW requirement can be met with a Safety Program Analyst. Offerors can propose higher than the minimum rates.

44 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates –

The current position requires a degree in computer science or related

See question 41.

Database Analyst II

(JSC)

field and the incumbent has over 17 years of experience.

Therefore, the current CSFO II position qualification and incumbent person far exceeds the JSHIFT requirement of only 3-5 years of experience and no degree. This results in the incumbent rate of $39.82 exceeding the RFP min rate of $39.02 which is mapped to an analyst of only 1 year.

45 RFP, Section

L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Safety Engineers

(JSC)

As mentioned in Question #16, JSC currently does not have any Safety Specialists. All 5 FTE are either Engineering Safety Specialist II or Engineering Safety Specialist III.

These positions currently require a range of safety engineering degrees and 5-10 years of experience and have incumbents up to 26 years of experience.

Therefore, the current CSFO II position qualification and incumbent person far exceeds the JSHIFT requirement of only 3-5 years of experience and non-safety degree.

This results in the incumbent rate of $52.35 exceeding the RFP min rate of $50.96 for a Safety Engineer and even a greater difference for a Safety Specialist I $42.69 and Safety Specialist II $48.29.

See Question 16.

See Question 41.

46 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Fire Protection Ops Manager (JSC)

This position is more than a fire protection engineer as mapped in JSHIFT as this position oversees both the Fire Protection Specialists and the Fire Protection Engineering Technicians. Therefore, this person must have experience in fire fighting and first response operations (including experience in safety plans, fire drills, etc.). They also have to have experience and a number of Texas certifications and licenses to be able to oversee the technicians

See Question 41.

In addition, Attachment 4, Tab C- 2a, Row 25 has a Fire Protection Ops Manager in addition to four Fire Protection Engineers.

(i.e., FAL, FEL-A, RME-I, NICET Level 2).

Therefore, these requirements exceed the JSHIFT requirements. Historically, this position has required a rate of $67.25 exceeding the RFP min rate of $61.04.

47 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Fire Alarm Technician Level II

(JSC)

These positions are currently Fire Protection Engineering Technicians that do more than fire alarm systems. In addition to being certified to maintain the JSC fire alarm system, these technicians also support the fire suppression systems. They must have Texas licenses for alarm, extinguishers and suppression systems. A Level II is also the lead of the technician team.

Note: the techs now must be trained in the industry standard EST4 which makes them more valuable in the market.

These current position requirements and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT requirement and mapping to just a fire alarm tech and to just 5 years of experience.

Therefore, the current position qualifications and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT requirement and mapping to just a fire alarm tech and to just 5 years of experience. This results in the incumbent rate of $38.44 exceeding the RFP min rate of $31.55.

See Question 41.

48 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Fire Alarm Technician Level I

(JSC)

These positions are currently Fire Protection Engineering Technicians that do more than fire alarm systems. In addition to being certified to maintain the JSC fire alarm system, these technicians also support the fire suppression

The Fire Alarm Technician Level I is now classed as WD (DOL 23290 Fire Alarm System Mechanic) and will be removed from the minimum acceptable labor Rates tables. The offeror shall use the minimum rate as provide in Exhibit E, WD.

systems. They must have Texas licenses for alarm, extinguishers and suppression systems.

Note: the techs now must be trained in the industry standard EST4 which makes them more valuable in the market.

These current position requirements and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT requirement and mapping to just a fire alarm tech and to just 3 years of experience.

Therefore, the current position qualifications and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT requirement and mapping to just a fire alarm tech and to just 3 years of experience. This results in the incumbent rate of $33.44 exceeding the RFP min rate of $28.04.

49 RFP, Section

L-1b

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Fire Suppression Technician (JSC)

These positions are currently Fire Alarm Technicians that support both the fire suppression systems and are certified to maintain the JSC fire alarm system. They must have Texas licenses for alarm, extinguisher, and suppression systems.

Note: the techs now must be trained in the industry standard EST4 which makes them more valuable in the market.

These current position requirements and incumbent personnel experience exceed the JSHIFT requirement and mapping to just a fire alarm tech and to just 3 years of experience.

Therefore, the current position qualifications and incumbent personnel experience far exceeds the JSHIFT requirement. This results in the incumbent rate of $26.08

See question 41.

exceeding the RFP min rate of $24.62.

50 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1a, 1c

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Certified Industrial Hygienist (LaRC and

GSFC)

The minimum salary table lists the ERI designation as a "Medical Industrial Hygienist." The JSHIFT position is not an industry standard position. This role requires > 15 years of experience and performs the responsibilities of a DOL 0690 Industrial hygienist at the GS-14 level. There is also a shortage of Certified Industrial Hygienists in the Mid-Atlantic that makes staffing a challenge.

Therefore, the actual position qualifications and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT qualifications. This results in the incumbent rate at LaRC of $65.50 exceeding the RFP min rate of $44.20 and at GSFC of $86.54 exceeding the RFP min rate of $53.86.

See Question 41.

51 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1a, 1c

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Safety Specialist II (LaRC and GSFC)

These positions require safety specialists with specific certifications and experience. This position provides leadership in technical occupational and safety and life safety disciplines and is similar in responsibility to a DOL 0018 at the GS-13 level.

Therefore, the actual position requirements and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT qualifications. This results in the incumbent rate at LaRC of $45.33 exceeding the RFP min rate of $34.61 and at GSFC of $60.29 exceeding the RFP min rate of $41.88.

See Question 41.

52 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1c

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Fire Alarm Technician I and II (LaRC)

The Fire Alarms and EARS systems that include toxic gas alarms at Langley are maintained and programmed by two highly skilled individuals with over 25 years of experience working with these

Fire Alarm Tech Level I- See question 48

Fire Alarm Tech Level II- See question 41; remains unchanged as it is an exempt position.

systems. The complexity and workload related with these systems and the independence (no technical lead on contract or NASA CS TM) required for this work is not possible with 2-5 years of experience.

Therefore, the actual position requirements and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT qualifications. This results in the incumbent rate of $35.71 exceeding the RFP min rate of $22.33 for Level I and $23.89 for Level II.

53 RFP, Section L.17.a.9 Table L-1c

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Safety Engineer (LaRC)

This position requires a degreed engineer or individual with specific certification (CIH/CSP) and experience in hazard analysis for complex high energy systems. This position provides leadership in technical occupational and safety and life safety disciplines and is similar in responsibility to a DOL 0803 at the GS-13 level.

Therefore, the actual position requirements and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT qualifications. This results in the incumbent rate of $49.87 exceeding the RFP min rate of $41.67.

See question 41

54 Exhibit A – PWS – Page

Minimum Acceptable Direct Labor Rates – Radiation Protection Personnel (LaRC)

The Radiation Protection personnel are listed as “Technicians” with only one position requiring a degree. Due to the complexity of this program and the high risk of many of the activities that pose hazards to NASA employees as well as the general public (high powered lasers in outdoor environments and ionizing radiation sources) please reconsider revising the position requirements. The current incumbent staff holds multiple degrees and many years of experience. There is

See Question 41.

also currently a lead position in place for this team.

Therefore, the actual position requirements and incumbent personnel experience far exceed the JSHIFT qualifications. This results in the incumbent rate of:

$57.69 for Level I and II $67.31 for Level III This exceeds the RFP min rates of:

$43.04 for Level I $48.56 for Level II $53.85 for Level III

55 RFP, Section M.6, Step 2;

Section M.8 (a)

Total Compensation Package

The Government is evaluating the proposal to ensure that offerors are bidding competitive wages to be able to recruit and retain personnel by establishing minimum acceptable direct rates and escalation rates.

However, we believe it is equally important to ensure that offers include competitive total compensation packages to be able to recruit and retain these professional personnel in a highly competitive market.

It is important that offerors’ fringe rate includes a total compensation package that includes:

• Medical insurance

• Dental insurance

• Vision insurance

• Long-term/Short-term disability insurance

• Life insurance options

• 401k

• Holidays

• Sick

• Vacation

• Tuition and Training reimbursements

• Morale items (spot-awards, company awards, incentive bonuses)

Provision 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensations for Professional Employees” was not included based on the prescription of the clause at FAR 22.1103. It was determined the majority, or a meaningful number of employees, weren’t subject to professional labor categories and a total compensation plan is not required.

How will the offeror get credit for having a total compensation package that ensures keeping the incumbent personnel and minimizing phase-in risk and not getting penalized on having a higher cost than someone who does not propose a competitive compensation package?

This RFP does not have a mission suitability factor. Total compensation is not being evaluated.

56 PWS, Section

FSS01-04

Currently there are several food establishments at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) that are inspected on FAIMOS II along with the GSFC facilities.

Are the WFF facilities part of the requirement for JSHIFT? If yes, the NASA CS IH lead has also mandated the use of a “third party” for the quarterly inspections due to the proprietary grading system they utilize.

Is the use of this third party going to continue to be an expectation for

JSHIFT?

Yes. WFF is included in JSHIFT.

GSFC contractors have historically used “third party” vendors that perform food inspections as a normal function of the services they provide on a daily basis. However, the requirements for JSHIFT are provided in Section 4 of the JSHIFT

Performance Work Statement. This includes providing food safety audits in accordance with NASA and Center requirements. As long as the contractor performs effective food inspections/audits, performed by qualified personnel as required by the Federal regulations (required by NASA requirements), NPR

1800.1, and GPR 1870.1D; there is no specific requirement for using a third party.

57 Attachment 4 EPM Direct Labor Rates

(JSC)

To currently support JSC operations on CSFO II, there are several other pay types required:

• Overtime rates for hourly employees (technicians and fire protection specialists):

required for when there is a call-out after normal hours and weekends

• On-call pay (technicians):

compensation for technicians on duty and carrying the on-call phone after hours and on weekends/holidays

• Premium/Hazard pay: for employees that are asked to stay onsite during disaster events such as hurricanes while away from their families

The EPM does not allow for these additional rates, hours and associated cost. We could add the cost as ODC lines but wanted to

See question 1l.

Being on call is not a requirement in Exhibit A PWS therefore on call pay is not required under JSHIFT.

If Premium/Hazard pay will be handled on an as needed basis under a separate task order.

ask how best to include these

58 EPM,

tabs C-1a, C-2a, C-3a

Prime Offeror Load (burdens) on Subcontractors

If our projected load on subcontractors varies slightly from year to year, is it acceptable to add rates by year and indicate each year?

Yes, it is acceptable for the Prime Offeror to include additional rates for its load on subcontractors by year.

Offerors shall provide the basis for the proposed load applied to subcontractor fully burdened rates by year.

59 EPM, Tab A-Summary

Handling/Burden If a company places different burdens on different categories of ODCs, is it acceptable to add lines into this spreadsheet to calculate these costs accordingly? We assume that this will need to be explained in the narrative.

Yes. Additional lines may be added to identify the different burdens applied to different categories of ODC.

The basis of the burdens shall be explained in the narrative.

60 L.16 (d) 13. Base, fixed, incentive and award fee available, if applicable. Incentive and award fee actually earned (by contract year), if applicable.

14. Base, fixed, incentive and award fee available, if applicable. Incentive and award fee actually earned (by contract year), if applicable

Items #13 and #14 are duplicated.

Please confirm this is an error and there are only fourteen items to address under “Past Performance Proposal Content”, rather than fifteen.

Question 13 on the RFP was corrected to change “earned” to AVAILABLE, if applicable.

61 L.16 (f) Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire A.

Contract Info/Company Being Evaluated and Contract Information has a line for “DUNS” number.

Please confirm that the UEI number is what should be in that space.

See question 1.

62 L.16 (b) Under the Past Performance Factor, a “significant subcontractor” is defined as any team

Is the intent of this requirement that the significant subcontractor perform 30% of the total labor price or does this requirement include the cost of ODC’s?

30% of the total contract price.

member performing 30% or greater of the total contract price.

63 Section L Instructions L.14 and L.16

Page Count Limitation of Past Performance Volume.

Section L.16 Instruction requires Offerors to provide information on 1) Contractor Team Arrangements (CTAs), 2) contract reference information on submitted records,

3) a detailed description of the work performed under each of the contract records providing a comparison to the (5) broad PWS areas of JSHIFT to demonstrate relevance/pertinence, and 4) additional information on General Performance areas. The page limit of 20 makes it nearly impossible for non-incumbent Offerors to adequately respond and provide the level of detail required for

(5) past performance records.

Question: In consideration of the significance of the Past Performance Factor in the best value tradeoff process, will NASA increase the page limit for the Past Performance Factor to 40 pages to provide Offerors with sufficient pages to comprehensively respond to the Section L Instructions?

Recommendation: Increase the Past Performance page limit to 40 pages.

The page limit remains unchanged at 20 pages.

That allows for an average of 4 pages per reference which is sufficient to describe past performance.

64 Section L Instruction L.16 Threshold for size relevancy of past performance contract citations.

Considering the combined value of the 3 contracts consolidated into JSHIFT, we believe a minimum threshold

Question: Consistent with the level of importance of the Past Performance Factor, will NASA consider increasing the minimum for size relevancy for the prime Offeror and for proposed subcontractors?

Recommendation: Increase the minimum threshold for size

The minimum threshold for size relevancy remains unchanged.

for size relevancy of $1.5M for each citation (prime and subcontractors) is very low.

relevancy to $5M average annual obligated value for the prime and $2.5M average annual obligated value for proposed subcontractors.

65 Section M Criteria M.7, paragraph d and associated Note.

Degree of relevancy related to the size of Past Performance records. It would be extremely unusual for NASA not to consider the degree of size compared to JSHIFT under the relevancy/pertinence evaluation, particularly considering the significant level of importance placed on the Past Performance Factor. Past performance records with a size equal to or greater than the JSHIFT contract value should have a higher degree of relevancy than records that are less than 50 percent of the JSHIFT value.

Question: Will NASA duly consider the degree of size of submitted performance records in comparison to JSHIFT as part of relevancy?

Recommendation: Consider the degree of size of past performance records compared to JSHIFT in the relevancy evaluation.

L.16 (d) (2) states the size standard is $1.5M to be considered relevant.

Increasing the threshold based on JSHIFT may make other small businesses ineligible for award.

66 Section M Criteria M.7, paragraph d and associated Note.

Degree of relevancy related to the recency of Past Performance records. While far less important than degree of size in the relevancy of past performance records, the RFP Reference states: “The Government may further consider recency related to pertinence and trends in performance.”

However, the requirements for the different levels of pertinence in the table on p.M-4 do not include any considerations of recency.

Question: Will NASA either include degrees of recency in the pertinence requirements table or remove the statement in the referenced paragraph/note?

Recommendation: Modify the pertinence table to include recency of the records in determination of relevancy/pertinence because a current contract or one in which performance ended recently should be more relevant than one that ended over 3 years prior to RFP release.

M.7, Paragraph d RFP Note will be revised to the state the following “NOTE: Size will be evaluated solely to determine if each contract reference is equal to, or greater than, the minimum size standard and the Government will not further assign or consider a degree of relevancy related to size.

With regard to recency, in addition to determining if the contract reference meets the recency requirement in the RFP, in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.”

67 Section M Criteria M.7, paragraph e (2) Performance definitions.

Inconsistency between Section M performance definitions and Attachment 2, PPQ Evaluation Ratings.

The (5) performance definitions of Section M.7 include EM, VE, E, MA, and DNM.

T…