EASS Questions and Answers Document 10.26.26.pdf

Evaluations, Assessments, and Support Services (EASS) Draft RFP Industry Questions/Comments and Government Responses

1. Industry Question: Technical Capabilities: What specific scientific, engineering, computational, and analytical capabilities are anticipated under the EASS contract?

Government Response: Technical capabilities are identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Attachment L-3 Sample IDIQ Task Orders.

2. Industry Question: Data Assimilation and Model Evaluation: Does the scope include evaluation and validation of numerical modeling and data assimilation (DA) systems, including model performance assessment, observation impact studies, and uncertainty quantification?

Government Response: Scope can be identified in the Performance Work Statement.

3. Industry Question: Satellite Data and AI/ML: Are there anticipated requirements for satellite data processing, scientific algorithm development, AI/ML applications, or environmental data analytics?

Government Response: No. Scope of Evaluations can be identified in the PWS.

4. Industry Question: Specialized Expertise: What specialized technical expertise and past-performance qualifications are expected from prospective contractors?

Government Response: See section L of the Draft RFP for all technical and past performance qualifications.

5. Industry Question: Will the government clarify what proportion of each of the subfactor scores will come from the subfactor response and the MTO response as detailed in M.6b and M.6f?

Government Response: As stated in section L.18 e (4) "The evaluation of the MTO will serve as a mechanism to evaluate the Offeror's technical understanding and management methodology for realistic mission requirements under the master IDIQ contract." Therefore, there is no segregation of points between each subfactor proposal and MTO proposal.

6. Industry Question: L.20(c)(1) requires offerors to use the four labor categories and hours shown in Attachment L-4, and I.12(c) recognizes that task orders may require expertise at rates other than those in the Schedule of Rates. To give the Government more flexibility and potential cost savings on future task orders, may offerors propose additional labor categories in Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates, with zero evaluated hours or will the Government permit labor categories not listed in Exhibit C to be added at the task order level when a task order requires them?

Government Response: Offerors may propose additional labor categories in Exhibit C with zero evaluated hours and supporting justification explaining why the categories may be needed. After award, use of a labor category not included in the awarded Schedule of Rates will require the Contracting Officer’s prior written approval through an appropriate contractual instrument. The final RFP will describe the applicable procedure.

7. Industry Question: Will the government assign pertinence ratings to each individual reference?

Government Response: Yes. NASA will assess each qualifying reference for pertinence and will then consider the qualifying references in the aggregate to determine the offeror’s overall pertinence assessment. Section M.7 will be revised to make this process clear.

8. Industry Question: How will the aggregate pertinence evaluation get assigned for each offeror? How will the references included build up to an aggregate score? For example, if the Prime's reference is evaluated as 'VHP' and a reference for significant sub 1 is evaluated as 'P', and another reference for significant sub 2 is evaluated as an 'NP' what will be the aggregate score?

Government Response: The aggregate pertinence assessment will be an integrated qualitative judgment and will not be determined through a mathematical average. NASA will consider the content and complexity of each qualifying reference, the work each entity is proposed to perform, and the percentage of the requirement allocated to that entity. The qualifying references will then be considered collectively to determine the overall pertinence assessment.

9. Industry Question: If one reference is deemed less that "somewhat pertinent" will the evaluation for performance continue excluding only that reference?

Government Response: Yes, the evaluation would not continue for the one reference deemed less than "somewhat pertinent".

10. Industry Question: Will the government provide a table describing the evaluation criteria used to determine the difference between Pertinence ratings [Very Highly Pertinent (VHP), Highly Pertinent (HP), Pertinent (P), Somewhat Pertinent (SP), Not Pertinent (NP), or Did Not Address (DNA)].

Government Response: Final RFP will be updated to include a definition table like the confidence ratings in M.7(g)(4).

11. Industry Question: Will the government provide a table describing the evaluation criteria used to determine the difference between performance ratings [Exemplary (EX), Very Effective (VE), Effective (E), Minimum Acceptable (M), or Does Not Meet (DNM)] ratings.

Government Response: Final RFP will use CPARS ratings and reference FAR42.1103, Table 42-1.

12. Industry Question: How do the performance and pertinence ratings map to the confidence ratings in M.g.4?

Government Response: M.7(g)(4) paragraph indicates, "Each of the Level of Confidence ratings has a “pertinence/relevance” component and "performance" component. The lowest assessment between pertinence and performance is the highest Level of Confidence rating that can be assigned. The Past Performance factor is not numerically weighted or scored."

13. Industry Question: For proposal/Phase A report evaluation task orders, key quantities (number of proposals received, panel size, and number of site visits) are typically not known when the task plan is priced. How does NASA intend to structure FFP evaluation task orders to address quantity variation (for example, unit pricing per proposal or a price adjustment when quantities change)? Please describe the approach in the final RFP so all offerors price this risk the same way.

Government Response: (PWS 3.0) Individual task orders for proposal evaluations will require TO mods to update quantities. Phase A reports are highly unlikely to require modifications. For Assessments (PWS 4.0), modifications may be required.

14. Industry Question: PWS 6.1.3 requires quick assessments and analyses to begin within 10 calendar days of a Contracting Officer notice to proceed, before a formal task order is in place.

Because task orders will be firm-fixed-price, how will the Government authorize, price and fund work performed before the task order is issued?

Government Response: PWS 6.0 is being deleted in its entirety for the Final RFP.

However, no contractor will be authorized to begin task-order performance before the Contracting Officer issues a funded task order or written task-order modification authorizing the work.

15. Industry Question: The cover letter states that a phase-in period will be conducted during the two months between contract award and the effective date. The DRFP contains no phase-in requirements, CLIN, or price form entry. Please describe the phase-in scope, state whether phase-in is separately priced and paid, and identify where it is to be proposed and priced.

Government Response: The contract will not include a formal phase in period but will include time between the award date and effective date so the contractor can be fully operational on the effective date. The contract will not have a separately priced phase-in/transition period, but offerors should consider this in their overall proposal.

16. Industry Question: L.20(c)(5) provides separate reference rates for In-House SME and Independent SME, but Attachment L-4 and Exhibit C provide a single SME labor category. The mix of in-house and independent SMEs, and the rates independent SMEs charge, will vary widely by task order depending on panel size and the disciplines required. A single fixed SME rate would require offerors to guess that mix for five years, which adds risk to the price.

Will the Government add a separate Independent SME labor category to Attachment L-4 and Exhibit C, with its own hours and a government mandated reference rate for evaluation purposes and allow independent SME rates to be proposed at the task order level under I.12(c), at the consultant’s actual rate plus the offeror’s approved burdens, with only the In-House SME rate fixed in Exhibit C?

Government Response: Final RFP section L.20(c) will be updated to list just SME vs In-House SME & Independent SME.

17. Industry Question: L.18 Subfactor 2 states that the Government will evaluate the offeror’s compensation approach using the labor rates and fringe benefits in Attachment L-4, and requires supporting documentation, historical data and market data. Under firm-fixed-price task orders, the contractor bears the risk of its labor costs, and the DRFP does not include FAR 52.222-46 or request a total compensation plan. Request that the Government remove the compensation evaluation from Mission Suitability. If the Government retains it, request that it be evaluated under the Price factor using the Attachment L-4 data and supporting narrative in Volume III, which has no page limit, rather than in the 15-page Staffing Approach subfactor.

Government Response: FAR 52.222-46 is now RESERVED in the FAR. Final RFP will be revised to remove "compensation approach" and be replaced with "Staffing approach".

18. Industry Question: Attachment L-5, Model Task Order (MTO), will not be provided until the final RFP. Because the MTO requires a 25-page technical response and a separate price submission, requests that NASA release a draft MTO statement of work before the final RFP.

Please also confirm (a) whether the MTO will prescribe hours and labor mix or offerors will propose them, (b) the MTO period of performance, since tab 1-7 spans five contract years, and

(c) whether MTO Travel and ODCs are offeror estimates or Government plugs.

Government Response: A Draft MTO will not be provided; the MTO will be provided at the final RFP. (a) Hours and labor mix shall be proposed in accordance with L.20(h), (b) POP will be provided in the MTO, (c) offeror shall propose travel and ODCs required, the Government will not provide plug numbers for the MTO.

19. Industry Question: PWS 2.3 and I.15 require a Top Secret facility clearance, while L.21(c)(2) and the cover letter refer to a TS/SCI facility clearance. PWS 2.3.1 also states that no safeguarding of classified material is required at the contractor site. Please confirm that (a) the requirement is a Top Secret facility clearance without safeguarding, and (b) SCI access is required only at the personnel level. Because a DD Form 254 is issued for a specific contract, please also confirm that offerors with an active facility clearance can meet L.21(c)(2) by providing their CAGE code for verification with DCSA.

Government Response: (a) Yes, no safeguarding of classified material is required at the contractor site. (b) Yes, SCI is required at the personnel level. Yes, offerors with an active facility clearance can meet L.21(c)(2) by providing their CAGE code for verification with DCSA. I.15 and L.21(c)(2) will be updated in the final RFP. In addition, a filled in version of the DD254 will be provided with the final RFP.

20. Industry Question: Because task orders will be firm-fixed-price, offerors will need historical workload data to price evaluation and assessment risk accurately. Please provide data from the current contract for recent evaluation task orders, including the number of proposals or Phase A reports evaluated, panel sizes, number of site visits, task order durations, and actual travel costs.

Government Response: This information will be presented in Pre-Sol Conference Slide

11. Travel costs vary by Contract year and by individual Task Orders. See section L.20 and M.8 in the Draft DRFP.

21. Industry Question: H.2 and H.9 apply to subcontractors at all tiers, including their parents, subsidiaries and affiliates. For a university or other nonprofit research institution proposed as a subcontractor, please clarify whether the H.2(c)(3) restrictions apply to the entire institution, or only to the department, center or individuals performing work under this contract.

Government Response: For universities with multiple campuses, a separate campus generally will not be considered to have an organizational conflict of interest solely because another campus within the same university system has a potentially conflicting role. NASA will evaluate any potential OCI based on the specific organizational relationship between the campuses and the work proposed.

22. Industry Question: We would like to know if this is a brand-new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

Government Response: A follow-on contract means a new contract awarded to an incumbent to continue services, usually in a non-competitive context. This is not a follow-on contract; this is a new contract. The current contract is the Evaluations, Assessments, Studies, Services, and Support 3 (EASSS 3), contract number is 80LARC20D0007.

23. Industry Question: The solicitation requires offerors to propose and the Government to evaluate SME labor rates. However, the solicitation also recognizes that actual SME requirements may necessitate rates above or below those proposed (L.12 1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedure (DEC 2025) (Deviation) and the contractor must provide rationale for such.

Given (1) the broad definition of the SME labor category, (2) the variable and unpredictable nature of SME task-order requirements, and (3) the limited pool of highly specialized experts whose compensation is generally driven by prevailing national market conditions rather than contractor-specific efficiencies, will the Government please provide its rationale for determining that the evaluation of proposed SME rates provides a meaningful and reliable basis for distinguishing among offerors and identifying the proposal representing the best value to the Government.

Additionally, will the Government please describe how the evaluation of SME labor rates ensure that offerors are competing on a common basis. Absent common staffing assumptions regarding the level of expertise to be represented by the SME labor category, offerors may reasonably base their proposed rates on materially different qualifications and experience levels, resulting in evaluated prices that are not directly comparable and may not reflect the rates ultimately required during contract performance.

Government Response: Please consult Section L.20 & Section M.8 which addresses the price proposal instructions and evaluation approach, for both the factor itself and for the Model Task Order.

For example, the proposed price in the Government Pricing Model (Attachment L-4) and the rates proposed in Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates for all contract years will be assessed to determine fair and reasonable pricing. Also, the total evaluated price used for the SSA’s selection of the best value is the sum of the evaluated price for FFP labor (note: hours are already provided in Attachment L-4 for the base contract, tab 1-3, however, offerors shall propose their own labor hours in tab 1-7 for the MTO), Travel, ODCs and the option to extend services. The final RFP will be updated to make the MTO labor hour proposal instructions clearer.

Finally, post-award, individual task orders (TOs) will have to be individually priced at the TO proposal level.

24. Industry Question: The subject solicitation 80LARC27R0003 Evaluations, Assessments and Support Services (EASS) contains clause H.9 LARC 52.227-96 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (JUN 2024). The prior solicitation 80LARC24R0011, Evaluations, Assessments, Studies, Services, and Support 4 (EASSS 4) contained a newer version of the clause, H.9 LARC 52.227-96 Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest (JUN 2024) (MODIFIED SEP 2024).

In the Final EASS RFP will NASA consider replacing the (JUN 2024) clause with the (JUN 2024) (MODIFIED SEP 2024) clause which includes the following language, “(4) Use of firewalls within its own organization to mitigate “impaired objectivity” OCIs except in extremely limited circumstances, prevents the Contractor from effectively managing its subcontractor(s), consultant(s), and individual tasks.”

If the (JUN 2024) (MODIFIED SEP 2024) clause will not be incorporated into the EASS solicitation, will the Government provide a ruling on the use of firewalls within its own and parent organization (if applicable) to mitigate “impaired objectivity” OCIs in extremely limited circumstances, prevents the Contractor from effectively managing its subcontractor(s), consultant(s), and individual tasks? Additionally, will the Government confirm if an OCI will convey to and from the parent organization?

Government Response: The September 2024 modified clause was for the EASSS-4 procurement, which was cancelled. The subject solicitation includes a tailored LaRC 52.227-96, Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest clause, and the impaired objectivity questions are addressed in Exhibit B, DRD No.: EASS 9, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan, Content Section 18.

25. Industry Question: The Draft RFP (Page 53 of 69) states that “For “Size”, the contract reference shall be greater than or equal to 12.5% for the PWS areas of the total potential contract value for the Prime Offeror or joint venture partner (if applicable).” Does “total potential contract value” mean the $99.75 million ceiling? Please confirm that prime offerors should submit references greater than or equal to $12,468,750 in contract value.

Government Response: The Final RFP will be revised to provide clarity. The contract reference shall be greater than or equal to 12.5% of the total maximum contract value for the Prime Offeror or joint venture partner (if applicable).

26. Industry Question: Under H.2 and DRD EASS 9, how would the "Full Limitation" apply to a university subcontractor proposed only for a bounded, unclassified support role? Would the restriction extend across the university's departments and research programs, and are any such participation arrangements permissible without relying on internal firewalls?

Government Response: A bounded or unclassified role does not automatically exempt a university subcontractor from the applicable OCI and limitation-of-future-contracting provisions.

NASA will evaluate the application of those restrictions based on the specific work, access, legal entity, organizational relationship, and proposed role. Consistent with the response to Question 21, a separate campus generally will not be considered affected solely because another campus within the same university system has a potentially conflicting role. Internal firewalls may be considered for unequal-access concerns but generally will not be sufficient to resolve an impaired-objectivity OCI except in extremely limited circumstances.

27. Industry Question: Please clarify the dollar base for the 12.5% prime/JV and 25% major-subcontractor past-performance thresholds in L.19(f)(2). Is the base the IDIQ ceiling, evaluated proposal price, or the value assigned to relevant PWS areas? How should these thresholds be applied to first-tier small-business references submitted under L.19(d)?

Government Response: See question 25 for the 12.5% clarification for the prime. The Final RFP will be revised to provide clarity. The major-subcontractor past performance threshold is 25% of what they are proposing to perform. For example: If a major sub is proposing to perform $8,000,000 of the work, the reference needs to be at least $2,000,000. The thresholds will apply to first-tier small businesses in accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.2(g).

28. Industry Question: For an offeror seeking NASA-sponsored clearance under L.21(c)(2), what specific documentation establishes eligibility by the proposal due date? Please also clarify whether a subcontractor restricted to unclassified support tasks must hold a facility clearance or provide TS/SCI-cleared personnel when its work and access do not involve classified information.

Government Response: See DRFP provision L.21(c)(2) for requirement instructions.

This is a prime requirement only; subcontractor requirements are the responsibility of the prime.

29. Industry Question: Please clarify the division of responsibility between EASS and the third-party information-system contractor identified in PWS section 5.5. May EASS develop or configure workflows for linking evaluation findings to supporting evidence and checking documentation consistency, or is its role limited to preparing information for Government-provided systems? What formats or interfaces will NASA provide?

Government Response: No, role is limited to preparing information for Government-provided systems. There is no standard format as this is required on a task order by task order basis.

30. Industry Question: Beyond the disclosure required by L.21(c)(1), what information should an offeror provide for NASA's review of proposed AI-assisted document-consistency or evidence-traceability support? Please identify applicable validation, human-review, data-handling and operating-environment requirements, and whether approval would occur at contract or individual-task-order level.

Government Response: See clause C.5 which requires written notice and Contracting Officer approval before implementing the technology during performance. Please note, C.5 and L.21 are being updated to remove reference to AI and will reference Super Intelligence (SI).

31. Industry Question: Under Section L.19(d), how may a newly formed minority/veteran-owned prime contractor demonstrate relevant experience and past performance through proposed teaming partners or subcontractors? What documentation and commitments should accompany the proposal?

Government Response: In accordance with M.7(g)(4), a prime or major subcontractor that cannot demonstrate the relevant experience and past performance will receive a neutral rating. Offerors shall follow the instructions in L.19 for past performance documentation requirements.

32. Industry Question: How will NASA distinguish and evaluate the company’s corporate experience, its proposed team members’ past performance, and the relevant federal and military experience of its owner and proposed key personnel?

Government Response: See evaluation criteria in Section M.7 of the DRFP.

33. Industry Question: At what stage must the prime contractor hold the required facility clearance— proposal submission, award, or performance—and is NASA sponsorship available for an otherwise eligible firm that does not currently hold one?

Government Response: See DRFP provision L.21(c)(2) for requirement instructions. Based on the current solicitation structure, an offeror need not possess the required FCL at proposal submission but must submit the required eligibility or sponsorship information with its proposal. NASA intends to sponsor an otherwise eligible awardee, and the contractor may not perform classified tasks until the required FCL is obtained.

34. Industry Question: What documentation and preliminary actions would NASA require from a firm seeking sponsorship, and what clearance requirements apply separately to proposed subcontractors?

Government Response: See DRFP provision L.21(c)(2) for requirement instructions. A subcontractor whose role is limited to unclassified work and that will not require access to classified information is not required to hold an FCL or provide cleared personnel. A subcontractor that will require access to classified information must possess or obtain the appropriate entity eligibility determination/FCL, and the applicable security requirements will be incorporated into the subcontract and DD Form 254 process. The prime contractor is responsible for identifying its proposed subcontractors’ classified-access requirements.

35. Industry Question: At proposal submission, which personnel must be identified by name, and what résumés, letters of commitment, or evidence of availability are required?

Government Response: See Instructions in Provision L.18(3)(b) and L.19 (g) and Attachment L-2, Teaming Partners/Major Subcontractors Consent Letter.

36. Industry Question: What level of detail and commitment must be demonstrated for proposed subcontractors, including their roles, work allocation, and teaming agreements?

Government Response: See Instructions in Provision L.18(3)(b) and L.19 (g) and Attachment L-2, Teaming Partners/Major Subcontractors Consent Letter.

37. Industry Question: Item #14 (p. 20 of 26) of DRD No.: EASS 9 states that “The offeror shall address how it will avoid, neutralize, or mitigate each potential OCI listed above.” Could the Government clarify if “listed above” refers to those elements listed directly above in #13, or if “listed above” refers to the entire DRD No.: EASS 9?

Government Response: The Final RFP for DRD No. EASS 9 will be revised to provide clarity. Item #14 of that DRD will instead state "The offeror shall address how it will avoid, neutralize, or mitigate each potential OCI listed in H.9 LARC 52.227(c)."

38. Industry Question: Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required by this solicitation. Will the government remove the requirement for “Exceptions from certified cost or pricing data” (Page 41 of 69) in the final RFP?

Government Response: 52.215-20 ALT IV is applicable to this procurement. See FAR 15.110(t)(4) for prescription. L.3 will be updated in the Final RFP to reflect ALT IV requirements and L.4 will be marked RESERVED.

Note: The next 15 questions contain multiple parts. For ease of numbering, the Government has treated each part as a separate question.

39. Industry Question: L.5 52.216-1 Type of Contract (NOV 2025) Deviation. This section states that the Government contemplates award of an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contract with the ability to award Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) task orders resulting from this solicitation.

(a) Will the Government confirm whether task orders under EASS may utilize contract types other than fixed-price when the requirement cannot be defined with sufficient certainty to support meaningful fixed-price pricing? If not, how does the Government intend to address requirements whose scope, level of effort, staffing composition, or technical approach cannot be reasonably estimated at the time of task-order issuance?"

Note: If the Government confirms that EASS is an IDIQ/FFP Task Order contract, then questions (a) through (d) also apply.

Government Response: No. EASS task orders will be firm-fixed-price. NASA will issue a task order only after defining the requirement, performance standards, workload assumptions, and other pricing parameters sufficiently to support a fair and reasonable fixed price. If NASA subsequently directs a change to the task order’s scope or stated Government assumptions, the Contracting Officer will address that change through a written task-order modification, as appropriate.

40. Industry Question: (b) The EASS contract appears to require the contractor to incur recurring contract-level costs associated with program management, contract administration, financial reporting, recruiting, and other infrastructure necessary to support future task orders. Because recovery of these costs appears dependent upon future task-order volume that is not guaranteed beyond the minimum contract value, offerors may adopt materially different assumptions regarding workload levels and cost recovery. Could the Government provide insight into how it was determined that the proposed pricing structure will result in meaningful and comparable price competition, and were alternative approaches considered to better align contract-level cost recovery with actual ordering activity?

Government Response: Per Executive Order 14369, “Ensuring American Space Superiority,” NASA will align contract structures, requirements and oversight models with technical maturity and market reality. As a result of this E.O., the NASA Administrator has issued an Acquisition Directive mandating the use of FFP contracts over Cost-Type where feasible. The Government is utilizing the Model Task Orders, together with the other price evaluation methodologies stated in Section M, to support meaningful and comparable price competition.

41. Industry Question: (c) If the contract is FFP should Exhibit C – Schedule of Rates be exclusive of fee and inclusive of Profit?

Government Response: Yes, Exhibit C Instructions will be updated to reflect profit vs fee.

42. Industry Question: (d) For Price Proposal Form 1-3 FFP Labor Price, will the Government consider providing a minimum number of hours per year?

Government Response: Estimated Hours for proposal preparation purposes are provided to the offeror in Attachment L-4, tab 1-3 FFP Labor Price.

43. Industry Question: (a) Given the evolving and often unpredictable nature of Agency support requirements, offerors may be unable to estimate with confidence the future mix of labor categories, specialized expertise, staffing levels, and response timelines that will be required during contract performance. As a result, offerors may either include significant pricing contingencies or accept substantial unquantifiable performance risk. How did the Government assess the suitability of a fixed-price pricing structure for these requirements, and were alternative contract structures considered that may better align contractor incentives with mission outcomes while reducing the impact of workload uncertainty.

Government Response: See question 40.

44. Industry Question: (b) Travel variables, such as destination, duration, and timing can fluctuate significantly during the task order period of performance, which is outside of the contractor’s control.

How can contractors with any level of confidence project these expenses accurately. Will the Government consider structuring travel on a Cost-Reimbursable (no-fee) basis in accordance with FAR Part 31.205- 46? This approach would ensure fair pricing, protect both parties from market fluctuations, and allow the Government to pay only for actual travel incurred.

Government Response: No, the Government provides the offeror plug numbers per year for Travel and ODCs. It is the offerors’ responsibility to apply any burdens to the numbers the Government has provided in their proposal. Although offerors should apply applicable burdens to the Government-provided Travel and ODC plug amounts, travel is not intended to be profit-bearing, consistent with L.20(e). Modifications may be authorized at the TO level for changes in travel.

45. Industry Question: The current SME definition appears broad enough to encompass individuals with significantly different education, experience, reputation, and technical credentials. Since these differences may result in substantial labor-rate disparities, how will the Government ensure that proposed SME rates represent personnel of comparable capability for evaluation purposes? Has the Government considered establishing minimum qualification standards or discipline-specific SME categories to ensure a common basis for competition?

Government Response: Exhibit E- MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR LABOR CATEGORIES are the minimum qualification standards that apply.

46. Industry Question: Invoicing instructions are unclear. Does the Government intend for the contractor to submit invoices monthly, against defined milestones, or on a progress payment basis?

Government Response: Invoices will be milestone based and defined in individual task orders.

47. Industry Question: (a) Will the Government please clarify the numbering in Section L.19 FACTOR 2 – Past Performance (VOLUME II) Instructions as it appears subparagraph f. Past Performance Proposal/Volume may be mislabeled and should instead be designated as subparagraph e.

Government Response: Thank you for catching that error. To prevent having to update references throughout the document and in previously answered questions. e. will be added to the Final RFP but will be marked "RESERVED"

48. Industry Question: (b) Will the Government please clarify the numbering in the chart contained in L.19 FACTOR 2 – Past Performance (VOLUME II) Instructions, (5) Past Performance Matrix for PWS Areas may be mislabeled Reference 5, Reference 6, and Reference 6 should instead be designated as Reference 4 and Reference 5.

Government Response: Thank you for catching that error, the DRFP should have said reference 4 & 5 vs 5 & 6. This will be updated in the final RFP.

49. Industry Question: (c) Will the Government please clarify the numbering in Section L.19 FACTOR 2 – Past Performance (VOLUME II) Instructions, (5) Past Performance Matrix for PWS Areas may be mislabeled as it appears that g., h., and i. should instead be designated as (6), (7), and (8).

Government Response: Numbering in L.19 is correct. The numbering scheme is as follows:

L.19 a. b. c. d. e. f. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), g. h. i.

50. Industry Question: Will the Government consider providing a copy of the MTO before the release of the Final RFTP so that offeror(s) have adequate time to thoroughly review and submit questions?

Government Response: A Draft MTO will not be provided prior to final RFP release; the MTO will be provided at the final RFP.

51. Industry Question: Will the Government please explain the meaning of this requirement, (4) the Offeror’s interfaces with NASA requiring organizations the efficient and effective management of all proposed entities.”?

Government Response: The Final RFP will be revised to provide clarity.

52. Industry Question: To ensure a fair and meaningful comparison of technical capability, how will the Government evaluate SME qualifications for the MTO when some offerors may propose specific individuals while others propose only labor categories or generic qualifications?

(a) Will the Government consider requiring offerors to identify a limited number of mission-critical SME positions as named personnel, with resumes evaluated separately from the page-limited technical narrative?

Government Response: No, the Government will not consider requiring offerors to identify a limited number of mission-critical SME positions as named personnel, with resumes evaluated separately from the page-limited technical narrative.

53. Industry Question: (b) If named personnel are evaluated, will the Government also require signed letters of commitment demonstrating the proposed individuals' intent to support contract performance upon award? Without such documentation, the evaluation may place disproportionate weight on resumes of individuals who are not contractually or otherwise committed to participate, potentially reducing the predictive value of the evaluation and creating unequal treatment among offerors.

Government Response: No, N/A, see question 52.

54. Industry Question: Each prime reference must be at least 12.5% of the total potential contract value, or about $12.5 million. On a small business set-aside, this excludes capable small firms whose relevant work was performed on smaller contracts. Would NASA consider lowering the threshold, allowing smaller references whose content and complexity are directly relevant, or allowing related contracts with the same customer to be combined toward the threshold?

Government Response: No, see question 31.

55. Industry Question: PWS 3.0 notes that many panel SMEs serve on occasional or part-time bases.

Please confirm how NASA will treat SMEs engaged as independent contractors versus part-time or on-call W-2 employees of the offeror when calculating compliance with the 50 percent limitation.

Government Response: See FAR 52.219-14 (NOV 2025) (Deviation) (d) and (e)(1)

56. Industry Question: Offerors may propose software tools that match SME qualifications to panel needs and screen candidates for organizational and personal conflicts of interest against proposing teams, with all decisions made by people. Would NASA accept disclosure and a request for approval of such tools in the proposal, and what hosting or authorization level would NASA expect for tools handling proposal-sensitive information?

Government Response: NASA will accept disclosure and request for approval of SI-enabled tools that match SME qualifications to panel needs and screen candidates for organizational and personal conflicts of interest against proposing teams. However, such tools may not utilize any CUI data for training. If hosted on non-NASA systems, those systems will be subject to NFS 1852.240-76 Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources and the IT-related elements of NFS 1852.226-73 Major Breach of Safety or Security.

57. Industry Question: Please confirm that an active Top Secret facility clearance, with personnel holding TS/SCI access as specified on the DD Form 254, meets the requirement described as a TS/SCI-level facility clearance.

Government Response: Yes, that is correct. See the Final RFP for revisions to clarify this requirement.

58. Industry Question: Would NASA release the Model Task Order (Attachment L-5) with the Final RFP at least 30 days before proposals are due, and confirm whether MTO pages count within the Mission Suitability page limit?

Government Response: MTO will be released with the Final RFP, and proposals will be due 30 days later. The MTO Technical Approach is limited to 25 pages in accordance with the table in provision L.10.

59. Industry Question: Volume II is due 15 days after RFP release. Would NASA consider aligning it with Volume I and III due date, given the time needed to obtain PPQs from customers?

Government Response: No, volume II will be due 15 days after final RFP release.

60. Industry Question: PWS 3.0 says evaluations must follow NFS Companion Guide Section 1872, which “will be available in the future.” When will NASA release it? Can offerors get it, or a draft, before proposals are due?

Government Response: NFS CG 1872 will be added as an attachment to the Final RFP. The PWS reference will be updated in the Final RFP as well.

61. Industry Question: PWS 3.0 says the contractor may need to staff up to about 200 panel positions at the same time. Can NASA provide historical data on typical workload? For example, the number of evaluations per year, panel sizes, and how many panels usually run at the same time.

Government Response: NASA provided historic data in the Pre-Solicitation Conference slides which will be posted on SAM.gov. NASA will not provide additional historical data in the RFP. Consult Attachment L-3 Sample IDIQ task orders for reference.

62. Industry Question: PWS 3.1.4 and 3.3 require “validated and approved” cost tools and independent cost estimates. Who validates and approves the tools? Will NASA provide its own tools (NICM, PCEC, MOCET) as government-furnished items? Or must the contractor obtain licenses, including for commercial tools like SEER-H?

Government Response: The tools are validated and approved by NASA. The requirement of which tools are listed on an individual TO basis, and those tools are all accessible via the NASA Software Catalog or shall be considered as an ODC in the offerors TO proposal.

63. Industry Question: PWS 3.0 says some SMEs may be non-U.S. persons. PWS 2.3 requires a Top Secret facility clearance and TS/SCI personnel. Which types of tasks are expected to need TS/SCI? Must the prime hold the TS facility clearance when it submits the proposal, or by award?

Government Response: Evaluation tasks are expected to need TS/SCI; the prime must hold the clearance by award. See Provision L.21 for specific facility clearance requirements.

64. Industry Question: PWS 4.1 covers assessments of current NASA programs. Will NASA identify the programs or projects it expects to assess? Offerors that already hold NASA contracts need this to judge OCI exposure under H.2(c)(3)(ii).

Government Response: NASA will not identify the Programs in the RFP. Programs NASA expects to assess are identified in the Pre-Solicitation Conference slides which will be posted on SAM.gov.

65. Industry Question: PWS 6.1.3 requires quick assessments to start within 10 calendar days of a notice to proceed, before a task order is in place. How often does NASA expect quick assessments? How will that work be priced and paid before the task order is issued?

Government Response: The Final RFP will be revised to remove the entire PWS Section 6.0.

66. Industry Question: PWS 5.4 requires the contractor to arrange secure, CUI-protected facilities for up to 100 attendees. Will NASA facilities be used when they’re available? Will facility costs be reimbursed as other direct costs under each task order?

Government Response: NASA may consider use of NASA facilities; however, that is not standard practice. Facility costs will be covered under each task order.

67. Industry Question: PWS 3.1.1 includes preparing solicitation materials. Under H.2(c)(1), that would bar the contractor from proposing on the resulting solicitation. Does this apply to all

SMD AOs the contractor supports? Does it extend to all team members and their parent companies and affiliates?

Government Response: Yes, this requirement applies to all SMD AOs the contractor supports.

This extends to the prime and major subcontractor team members, but not to independent consultants.

68. Industry Question: Past Performance submissions are due earlier than the remainder of the proposal. Will offerors be permitted to update references, contract information, or Past Performance questionnaires after submission of Volume II but prior to final proposal submission?

Government Response: No, all of volume II will be due 15 days after Final RFP release.

Changes to Volume II will not be permitted after 15 days.