Amendment_P00001_Attachment_A_and_B.pdf

80MSFC19R0010P00001

BLOCK 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (continued)

(a) The purpose of this amendment is to respond to Request for Proposal (RFP) questions and comments in relation to Consolidated Program Support Services (CPSS), Program, Planning, and Control (PP&C). Responses to questions/comments are provided in Attachment A, Responses to Industry RFP Questions. Resulting changes to the RFP are provided in

Attachment B, Summary of Changes between Final Solicitation and Amendment 1.

(b) In relation to Section L, Provision MSFC 52.205-90, Designated Point of Contact, paragraph (b), the period for questions or comments relative to this acquisition has closed (i.e., questions and comments relative to this acquisition were previously due no later than 2:00 p.m.

Central Time, October 11, 2019). At this time, the Government is no longer accepting additional questions or comments in relation to the solicitation, as released on October 4, 2019. That notwithstanding, new questions or comments are conditionally permitted, provided they are limited to Amendment P00001 changes/information contained herein. Submission of questions or comments in relation to Amendment P00001 shall be submitted via email to the designated point of contact (in accordance with the aforementioned provision), no later than 2:00 p.m.

Central Time, October 29, 2019.

(c) Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged.

ATTACHMENT A – RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY RFP QUESTIONS

Index Reference Question Answer

1 Section B, MSFC 52.216-91, Supplies And/Or Services To

Be Provided And Type Of

Contract

Many of the potential requirements defined in Attachment J-1, Section 6.1 –

General Programmatic SME tasks (6.1.1 – 6.1.14) are finite, with potentially well-defined requirements, measurements and objectives. The financial risks in the delivery of many of these tasks are likely to be insignificant and NASA should expect to have access to a cohort of experienced service providers who can price many of these tasks on a firm fixed price (FFP) basis. This practice would be in line with other NASA vehicles used to procure special studies, including HQ DATSS or the NextStep BAA, both of which commonly use fixed price task orders to procure similar services.

Fixed price SME IDIQ task orders would afford NASA price certainty, encourage schedule discipline, and transfer potential delivery risks to the

Offeror.

Would NASA consider changing the Programmatic SME IDIQ base and option period CLINs from T&M only to allow for the issuance of both T&M and FFP task orders under a hybrid FFP and T&M SME IDIQ?

In accordance with FAR 16.601 (c), “the use of time-and-materials is considered appropriate when it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of condidence.” See Volume I – Mission Suitability Volume

Instructions (MA-1)(9), regarding identification, tracking, and billing of hours for this type.

2 Section H, 1852.235-71, Key

Personnel and Facilities, page

H-3

Section L, Volume I - Mission

Suitability Factor Instructions

Is there any information required regarding resume, bio or key experience of the proposed Key Personnel?

No. Information related to specific individuals is not required. In accordance with Section L, Volume I – Mission Suitability Factor

Instructions, Subfactor 1 – Management Approach (MA), MA-1, paragraph (4), offerors are only required to provide rationale for designating positions other than program manager as key.

3 Attachment J-1, Performance

Work Statement, PWS Section

4.0, paragraph 4.4.8, page J-1-

PWS 4.4.8 states “Support all software applications for REDSTAR information located on MSFC servers.” Will the Government provide a list of

REDSTAR software applications?

The Government uses standard Microsoft based tools for maintaining and updating the REDSTAR library.

4 Attachment J-4, Indefinite-

Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity

(IDIQ) Rates

In relation to obtaining services for Subject Matter Experts across multiple

NASA centers, a suggested approach would be for the government to consider establishing a greater number of Labor Categories for Subject Matter

Experts with increased granularity, more accurate pricing levels, and potentially lower cost to the government.

Currently, use of the GSA schedule provides 14 individual labor categories for mapping into three SME categories. Since the GSA schedule is not an option going forward, would the Government consider establishing a broader range of labor categories and job descriptions for the Subject Matter Expert position classifications?

The Government will not add labor categories. The offeror is required to provide the mapping of labor categories to the

Government-provided labor categories as required in Section L, Volume I – Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, Subfactor 1 –

Management Approach (MA), MA-3, paragraph (3)(iv)(C) and

Volume II – Price Factor Instructions, paragraph (d), Section 1 –

Pricing Information (Narrative), paragraph (2).

5 Attachment J-4 (Indefinite-

Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity

(IDIQ Rates) and Attachment-

L (Excel Pricing Model)

Tabs C1 through C11

Tabs C1 through C11 in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) includes 1000 hours of a Documentation Librarian in each Tab. Specifically that is 1000 hours of a

Documentation Librarian at each of the 11 locations for all 5 years. That conflicts with RFP Attachment J-4, which lists the Labor Categories (LCs) by location (11 of them) and asks Offerors to provide Fully Burdened Labor Rate for each LC, for each year, for each location. The Documentation Librarian only appears in Attachment J-4 for the JSC, LaRC, MSFC and MAF locations. The Documentation Librarian LC is not included for AFRC, ARC, GRC, GSFC, NASA HQ, KSC and SSC. Please clarify the Librarian requirement.

The Documentation Librarian is a MSFC-unique position.

Attachment L-2, Excel Pricing Model (EPM), and Attachment J-4, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Rates, are updated as part of this amendment.

6 Attachment J-4, Indefinite-

Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity

(IDIQ) Rates

No provision is made in the IDIQ rates for a Program Manager labor category. Given the potential growth for this contract in PP&C and SME areas, it seems reasonable to expect additional program management support being required.

Would the government consider adding a PM labor category in IDIQ rates?

No. In accordance with Attachment J-3, Labor Category

Descriptions, the Program Manager is “Responsible for the performance of all mission and IDIQ task order activities and requirements, and organizes, directs, and coordinates planning and production of these activities.”

7 Volume II (Price Factor

Instructions) -3 Excel Pricing

Model (EPM), pages L-23 through L-25

A Program of this size and complexity requires a Program Management

Office (PMO) larger than a single Program Manager. However, the Excel

Pricing Model (EPM) only includes the Program Manager. How are offerors to reflect the cost of the remainder of the PMO staff? Are Offerors able to add

Rows to Tab B-1 and Tab B-2 to include additional PMO labor categories?

Offerors may leverage existing labor categories as described in

Attachment J-3, Labor Category Descriptions, or other means (e.g., offeror’s indirect rates in accordance with their customary business practices) to accommodate these functions. Offerors shall not add rows to B-1 and B-2 of the EPM.

8 Attachment J-8, Performance

Requirements Summary (PRS), paragraph G, page J-8-2

The Reference states “Deductions for incident(s) in either safety or security, incidents that result in notice of violation, major audit findings in other contract sections, fines, or failure to comply with Government regulations shall be full deductions from the Contractor’s end of contract period monthly invoice.”

1. Are these “deductions for incidents…” over and above the deductions set forth in the PRS?

2. What is meant by the term “shall be full deductions from the contractor’s end of contract period monthly invoice?” Is this a deduction of the total invoice for contract performance in the last month of a contract period including the Mission Services price and all IDIQ task orders?

3. Who determines if such a deduction is warranted?

4. How is the determination made?

1. Yes. Paragraph G is not specific to only those issues identified in

APL 6. APL 6 pertains to safety, security, theft, and harassment incidents of the Contractor or its employees in relation to the federal laws, regulations, and Redstone and NASA/Center directives identified therein. If the Contractor or subcontractor, including its employees, fail to comply with federal, state, or local laws and regulations (e.g., environmental laws, fraud identified during an audit), the company may be assessed fines related to incidents not identified in APL 6. However, it is conceivable that those same incidents may also violate federal laws, regulations, and Redstone and Agency/Center directives related to APL 6, and the Contractor may receive both penalties (i.e., a fine and PRS deductions simultaneously).

2. Paragraph A and G are revised to clarify the application of deductions as part of this amendment

3. Depending upon the circumstances, multiple individuals may provide input regarding the necessity of both APL 6 deductions and/or the fines/penalties alluded to in Paragraph G. Such individuals may include the Office of the Inspector General and other law enforcement agencies, the Contracting Officer and

Contracting Officer’s Representative, cognizant local, state, or federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, and various administrative and criminal tribunals.

4. The application of fines/penalties stated in Paragraph G is fact specific. The APL 6 deductions are determined by the Contracting

Officer.

9 Attachment J-8, Performance

Requirements Summary (PRS), Performance Element #2, page

J-8-4

Performance Element #2 (PE #2): Would the Government remove the requirement for Offerors to propose deduction percentages for both the

“Satisfactory” and “Good” performance levels? “Satisfactory” and “Good” ratings indicate the contractor has met or exceeded the requirements of the contract. Even the title of the Column, “Price Deduction for failure to meet

APLs”, infers that the deductions should be for “Not meeting requirements”.

Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, Performance

Element 2, will remain unchanged. Offerors should propose deduction percentages, to be evaluated by the Government, that it considers appropriate to motivate Excellent performance over the life of the contract.

10 Attachment J-8, Performance

Requirements Summary (PRS), Performance Element #2, page

J-8-4

Performance Element #2 (PE #2) is “Contractor maintenance of “Excellent” adjectival rating”. For this PE, how and to what level will the specified “Price

Deduction for failure to meet APLs” be applied? Will the ratings be performed at the Task level, CLIN level or Contract level? Will the deduction(s) be applied at the Task level, CLIN level or Contract level?

Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, paragraph A is revised to clarify the application of deductions as part of this amendment.

11 Attachment J-8, Performance

Requirements Summary (PRS), Performance Element #2, page

J-8-4

Section L, Volume I- Mission

Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (c), Subfactor 1 –

Management Approach (MA), MA-1, paragraph 8, page L-18

1. Reference (1) requires the contractor to maintain an “Excellent” adjectival rating based on an annual customer survey of “all CPSS PP&C contract customers.” Further, the PRS provides for deduction (by percentage from some unspecified value) for each annual customer survey adjective rating below Excellent.

2. Reference (2) requires offerors to propose the deduction percentages associated with the Reference (1) PE to be incorporated into the contract.

These proposed deduction percentages will be evaluated and could become a basis for source selection.

3. The term “all CPSS PP&C contract customers” is not defined. It is not clear if this is all customer organizational elements supported, a POC for each

MSFC requirement identified in Attachment J-1A and each IDIQ task order, or some other customer base.

4. The value from which the percentage deductions in Reference (1) are to be made is not specified. It is not clear if it is the total contract value including

Mission Services FFP and all IDIQ task orders issued, just the Mission

Services FFP, or an annual prorated share of some value.

5. Reference (1) states that survey inputs will be evaluated to determine an overall adjective rating. The RFP does not state who will determine the adjective rating - the Contracting Officer, COR, or someone else.

6. Since customer surveys are by nature inherently subjective, more than just a reference to a survey has been included in past MSFC contracts/RFPs where customer survey ratings were associated with price or fixed fee deductions.

Complete descriptions of the customer survey process and methodology

(including the customer survey form itself) have been included in these RFPs and made a part of the resulting contracts. Examples of the RFPs/contracts are (a) Engineering and Science Services and Skills Augmentation (ESSSA), Contract NNM11AA30C, where deductions were made from the fixed fee based on a customer survey (See clause B.5 and Attachments J-3 and J-4 of the ESSSA contract); and (b) Acquisition and Business Support Services

(ABSS) where deductions were made to the fixed price based on a customer survey. Providing a complete methodology and process definition is also consistent with the subjective evaluation of performance that is used in award

All Attachment J-8, Performance Requirement Summary, paragraph

A is revised to clarify the application of deductions as part of this amendment. Additionally, a notional customer survey form is provided as a Section J Attachment.

fee contracts where the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) process is clearly defined in the contract and the award fee plan is incorporated into the contract.

We respectfully request that the government define and describe the customer survey process and methodology and the value from which deductions will be taken, commensurate with the level of detail that was included in previous

MSFC RFPs and Contracts where contract value deductions were made (e.g., ESSA and ABSS). This will enable offerors to fully understand how performance will be assessed using customer surveys and to propose competitive deductions to the fixed price for performance that is below that of

“Excellent”.

12 Section L, 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-

Competitive Acquisitions, page

L-4

Section L, Acquisition

Approach, page L-15

Can the Government clarify its intent as to the number of awards to be made for the above named solicitation?. In Section L, page L-15 the solicitation states:

"The Government intends to make one award to a small business as a result of this solicitation", while on page L-4 the Solicitation states:

"The Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation".

Given the fact that the predecessor was a multiple-award contract please clarify whether or not this will be multiple-award.

In accordance with the provision entitled Acquisition Approach, paragraph (b), the Government intends to make one award to a small business as a result of this solicitation.

13 Section L, 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-

Competitive Acquisitions, paragraph (c)(2), page L-2

Volume I – Mission Suitability

Factor para (a) page L-16

For the overall proposal the RFP states, “(2) The first page of the proposal must show” then has a list of required data.

For Volume 1 the RFP states, “(a) This shall be a separate volume.”

Please confirm the requested introductory information preceding Volume 1 is not included in the 60 pages for Volume 1.

The introductory information in 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-

Competitive Acquisitions, paragraph (c)(2), shall be provided in

Volume IV – Contract Instructions, in accordance with paragraph

(c) SECTION I, paragraph (1) instructions for this volume.

14 Section L, 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, page L-6

For pricing purposes, will the Government consider providing the salaries of currently performing incumbent contractors? This is a customary practice for many RFPs released by NASA. Given the significant emphasis on not reducing incumbent salaries in 52.222-46, we recommend the Government provide the salaries of incumbent personnel. Otherwise, any evaluation emphasis on incumbent salaries significantly favors the incumbent(s). We recommend the Government provide this detailed salary information across all CLINs.

Offerors must propose total compensation in accordance with market research conducted, to include leveraging information contained in applicable salary surveys, which are to be provided in their native format as part of the offeror’s Mission Suitability

Volume, though such data is excluded from the established page limitation.

15 Section L, 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, (b), (6), (F)

Does that mean that offerors must put a 12 point single line space between each paragraph of text, or does it mean that offerors can do a regular return to start a new paragraph (with no space between paragraphs or only a small space [3 to 6 points] to make it easier for the evaluators to read), but if we do add a blank line (e.g., between sections of text, between citations, etc.), it has to be a 12 point single line space?

Offerors are not required to insert blank line spaces between paragraphs and should use a regular return to begin new paragraphs.

16 Section L, 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, (b), (6), (F), page L-9

Considering the page limitations would the Government consider allowing charts, tables, figures, and pictures be no smaller than 10-point font?

In accordance with paragraph (b)(6)(F) of NFS 1852.215-81, “font style shall be Times New Roman twelve (12)-point font for all text, charts, tables, figures, and pictures, or other objects.” Landscape format may be utilized to accommodate this restriction considering the limitations described in paragraph (b)(6)(C).

17 Section L, 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, (b), (6), (F), page L-9

“Font style shall be Times New Roman twelve (12)-point font for all text, charts, tables, figures, and pictures, or other objects.”

Would the Government consider changing the graphic font requirement to 10 point Arial to improve graphics readability?

In accordance with paragraph (b)(6)(F) of NFS 1852.215-81, “font style shall be Times New Roman twelve (12)-point font for all text, charts, tables, figures, and pictures, or other objects.” Landscape format may be utilized to accommodate this restriction considering the limitations described in paragraph (b)(6)(C).

18 RFP Cover Letter, Attachment

A, Clarifications to all potential offerors, Index #21

Your answer stated that “there are no exclusions to the established page limitations with the exception of the documents specified therein.” SECTION

L, 1852.215-81, PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS paragraph (c) states

“Identify any exclusions to the page limits that are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (a) of this provision (e.g., title pages, table of contents) as follows: Attachment L-3, Past Performance Questionnaire, is excluded from the Past Performance volume page limitation. Attachment L-5, Personnel and Fringe Benefit Forms, and copies of applicable salary surveys, are excluded from the Mission Suitability volume page limitation.”

Does this mean that the title pages, table of contents, Past Performance

Questionnaire, Attachment L-5, and copies of applicable salary surveys are all excluded, or does it mean that only the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-5, and copies of applicable salary surveys are excluded and title pages and tables of contents are included?

Only the Attachment L-3, Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment L-5, Personnel and Fringe Benefit Forms, and copies of salary surveys are excluded from the applicable page limitations.

19 Section L, Volume I- Mission paragraph (c), Subfactor 1 –

Management Approach (MA), MA-3 (3)(v), page L-20

Please confirm the Attachment L-5 Forms discussed in paragraph (V) submitted by prime and all subcontractors may be submitted as sealed packages and not included in the electronic submission of the Mission

Suitability Volume that would follow the last numbered page (i.e. page 60).

Subcontractors which consider information contained on the

Attachment L-5, Personnel and Fringe Benefit Forms, to be proprietary shall submit these forms through the offeror via sealed envelope. In accordance with NFS 1852.215-81, paragraph (b)(1), submission of data shall be via electronic Universal Serial Bus

(USB) drive, as the only permitted means of submitting proposal-related information to the Government (i.e., submission of hardcopy proposal-related information will be considered non-responsive to the Government requirements in relation to this solicitation). Any narrative information provided with these forms (e.g., relative to the subcontractor’s total compensation plan) will count against the established Mission Suitability page limitation.

20 Section L, 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, (b), (6), (F)

Paragraph (b) (4) of 1852.215-81, each volume page shall identify the

Offeror’s name, solicitation number, and date.

Margin restrictions cited in paragraph (b) of 1852.215-81

Paragraph (c) states that there are “No” exceptions to the 12-point font size rule

Will the Government please allow the information within the headers and footers (name, solicitation number, date, and proprietary statement) be no less than 10 point Times New Roman font?

In accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of NFS 1852.215-81, “each volume page, with the exception of the contract volume, shall be identified with the offeror’s name (company logo may utilize other than Times New Roman 12-point font within existing margin restrictions), solicitation number, and date.” as revised as part of this amendment. In place of the company name, the offeror’s company logo may be inserted in a format other than Times New Roman 12-point font within the header/footer only if the logo does not impact the margin restrictions cited in paragraph (b) of this provision.

21 Section L, 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, paragraph (c), page L-10

Section L, Volume I- Mission paragraph (c), Subfactor 1 –

Management Approach (MA), MA-3 (3)(iv), paragraphs (A) through (G), page L-20

RFP instructions on page L-10 states “…copies of applicable salary surveys, are excluded from the Mission Suitability volume page limitations.”

Please confirm that the Salary Survey data required in items (A) through (G) on page L-20 is excluded from the page limitations of the Mission Suitability

Volume.

In accordance with NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, paragraph (c), only Personnel and Fringe Benefit Forms

(Attachment L-5) and copies of applicable salary surveys are excluded from the Mission Suitability volume page limitation.

Therefore, the information required by MA-3 Staffing Approach, paragraph (3)(iv)(A) – (G) is included in the Mission Suitability page limitation.

22 (1) Section L: pg. L-8 and L-

10, 1852.215-81 Proposal Page

Limitations, para. (a) and (e)

(2) Section L: pg. L-16 through

L-21, Volume I – Mission

Suitability Factor Instructions

(3) Section L: Attachment L-4, Background and Historical

Data, pg. L-4-1

(4) Final RFP No.

80MSFC19R0011,

Consolidated Program Support

Services (CPSS) Project

Coordination (PC) Acquisition

1. Reference (1) para. (a) sets forth a “page limit” of 60 pages for Volume I –

Mission Suitability and states in para. (e) that “Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified…will not be evaluated…”

2. Reference (2) para. (b) and (c) require that the Mission Suitability volume

“should be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the Mission Suitability requirements and approach to effectively and efficiently accomplish those requirements, including full explanations of the techniques and procedures to be employed, as well as the resources necessary to perform as proposed.” Para. (c) further states “The offeror shall provide a detailed response to each subfactor…”

3. The Volume I page limit of 60 pages for Volume I is not sufficient to provide the comprehensive and detailed descriptions and explanations required to be fully responsive to the RFP.

4. The Reference (4) Draft RFP for CPSS-PC (which is a “sister” of this procurement) also sets forth a Volume I page limit of 60 pages with similar but fewer Volume I requirements. If the Government considers 60 pages to be minimally sufficient to provide a fully responsive proposal in accordance with the RFP requirements for the CPSS-PC RFP, then it is not reasonable for offerors to prepare a fully responsive Volume I proposal that is limited to 60 pages for this RFP. A comparison of the 2 RFPs make this clear.

a. For “Subfactor 1 – Management Approach, (MA-1) General Management

Approach,” the description of the general management approach for this RFP requires more pages than CPSS-PC since there are (i) 2 centers for which services are provided under the Mission Services portion of the contract; (ii) more than twice as many WYEs baselined in the Mission Services and Day 1

IDIQ requirements; and (iii) more complicated mission critical requirements provided. This alone increases complexity of the general management approach including more team members and subcontractors involved and a more complex and larger organizational structure that must be addressed to the level of detail required on page L-16.

b. For “Subfactor 1, (MA-2) Phase-in Plan,” the requirements of this RFP are significantly greater and more complex than CPSS-PC where there is only 1 predecessor contract versus 10 predecessor, geographically dispersed

The page limitation for Volume I – Mission Suitability, is revised as part of this amendment.

contracts and contractors identified in this RFP (see Reference 3 above). In addition to a larger baseline Mission Services workforce, the projected IDIQ requirements to be addressed are substantially greater, more dispersed, and complicated in this RFP than the CPSS-PC RFP. There is also an additional requirement to address potential contract phase-in start of the Section 6.0

Programmatic Subject Matter Experts that is not applicable to the CPSS-PC

RFP.

c. For “Subfactor 1, (MA-3) Staffing Approach,” the requirements of this

RFP are substantially greater and more complex than the CPSS-PC RFP.

There are (likely) more subcontractors that need to be addressed. In addition, there are 5 times as many labor categories (25 versus 5 in CPSS-PC) for which the “Methodology and rationale used for establishment of all proposed base labor rate ranges for each labor category…” must be addressed in accordance with para. (3)(iv), along with “a mapping from the government stated labor categories to the salary survey labor category (or categories) used.”

d. For “Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach,” the requirements of this RFP will necessitate more pages that the CPSS-PC RFP given that there are (i) more

“PP&C discipline areas” to be addressed; (ii) the PWS is twice the size of

CPSS-PC (68 pages versus 37 pages in CPSS-PC); (iii) the PP&C requirements are substantially more complicated than the CPSS-PC requirements; and (iv) there is an additional requirement to provide a

“Demonstrated understanding of the Programmatic Subject Matter Expert

(SME) discipline and the ability to provide the needed support to program management…” that is not applicable to CPSS-PC RFP.

Based on the above discussion, the page limit of 60 pages for Volume I-

Mission Suitability is neither sufficient nor reasonable to provide a fully responsive proposal commensurate with the requirements of the RFP. We respectfully ask that the government increase the Volume I-Mission

Suitability page limit to a minimum of 80 pages.

23 Section L, Volume I - Mission

Suitability Factor Instructions

The following was deleted from Phase-In (from the draft RFP version to the final RFP version: “(4) The approach for recruiting, interviewing, hiring, and retaining incumbent personnel and other employees, including personnel security clearances, if task orders under PWS Section 6.0, Programmatic

Subject Matter Experts (SME) Technical Requirements, are initiated to begin at contract start.”

Was this omission intentional?

Projected task order requirements under PWS Section 6.0, Programmatic Subject Matter Experts (SME) Technical

Requirements, have been added to Attachment L-2, Projected Task

Order Requirements. Therefore, Section L, Volume I - Mission

Suitability Factor Instructions, Subfactor 1 - Management Approach

(MA), MA-2, paragraph (3), now includes the referenced information.

24 Section L, Volume I - Mission

Suitability Factor Instructions, PWS Mission Services WYE

Assignment Matrix, page L-17

It is unclear what specifically is being requested with respect to WYEs in this table.

Do we populate this matrix based on the first year of WYEs for Mission

Services, the average WYEs for Mission Services over the life of the contract, or the total combined WYEs for Mission Services over the life of the contract?

The purpose of this table is to allow the Government an understanding of the allocation of all WYEs across the breadth of the offeror’s team and any changes to the assignment of effort over the life of the contract. The narrative in (MA-1), paragraph (3), note below table, is revised as part of this amendment to clarify the

Government’s requirements.

25 Section L, Volume II – Price

Factor Instructions, Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing

Model, Tab A-1

In Tab A-1, was it the Government’s intention that Rows 42 and 43 not be added into the “Total IDIQ Labor and Burden” calculated on Row-46. The comment in cell A51 says, “The IDIQ travel dollars are not included in the total price”, but we believe the values shown in Rows 42 and 43 represent values for ODCs other than Travel. The current calculation just adds in the

Burden amount.

The values shown in Rows 42 and 43 represent values for ODC dollars. The Excel Pricing Model (EPM) is updated as part of this amendment to reflect a change in the note to state:

“The IDIQ ODC dollars are not included in the total price.”

26 Section L, Volume II – Price

Factor Instructions, Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing

Model, Tab A-2

In Tab A-2, Row 8 pulls in “Total WYEs” from Row-30 in “Tab B1-JSC”, and Row 9 pulls in “WYEs” from Row-32 in “Tab B2-MSFC”. Because the top sections of these two Tabs/worksheets (Tab B1-JSC and Tab B2-MSFC) have the cells pre-populated (hard-coded and not highlighted in yellow) with the Total number of WYEs at both JSC and MSFC, the “Total WYE” values calculated in Tab A-2 Row 61 (Total for JSC) and Row 62 (Total for MSFC) will have the “Total WYEs” for all the Subcontractors counted twice per the calculation in those cells. Shouldn’t the WYEs in Rows 8-29 in Tab B1-JSC and Rows 8-31 in Tab B2-MSFC be highlighted in Yellow to allow manual entry of the Prime’s WYEs only? That would eliminate the double counting of Subcontractor WYEs.

Tab A-2 shall be completed by the offeror only. The tab is linked to

Tabs B-1 and B-2. Rows 8 through 14 compute the total WYEs and

Mission Labor Price for the individual company (offeror or applicable subcontractor (exceeding $15M over the life of the contract)) who is filling the EPM. Subcontractors do not need to input any information on Tab A-2. The EPM is updated as part of this amendment to provide further clarification in the notes on these tabs.

27 Section L, Volume II – Price

Factor Instructions, Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing

Model, Tab A-2

In Tab A-2, Row 12 pulls in “Total Labor Dollars” from Row-114 in “Tab

B1-JSC”, and Row 13 pulls in “Total Labor Dollars” from Row-124 in “Tab

B2-MSFC”. Because the top sections of these two Tabs/worksheets (Tab B1-

JSC and Tab B2-MSFC) have the cells pre-populated (hard-coded and not highlighted in yellow) with the Total number of WYEs at both JSC and

MSFC, the “Fully Burdened Labor – Mission” values calculated in Tab A-2

Row 65 (Total for JSC) and Row 66 (Total for MSFC) will have the “Fully

Burdened Labor – Mission” Costs for all the Subcontractors counted twice per the calculation in those cells. Shouldn’t the WYEs in Rows 8-29 in Tab

B1-JSC and Rows 8-31 in Tab B2-MSFC be highlighted in Yellow to allow manual entry of the Prime’s WYEs only? That would eliminate the double counting of Subcontractor Costs.

Tab B-1 shall be completed by the offeror and applicable subcontractors (i.e., those exceeding $15M over the life of the contract). Rows 8 through 29 are pre-filled with the total required

WYEs. These rows shall be revised to reflect the offeror or applicable subcontractor WYEs for their own workshare. Row 33 requires input of the offeror’s productive hours. Rows 39 through 60 generate labor hours. Rows 66 through 87 require input of the offeror’s fully burdened labor rates (FBLR) for the labor category that is included in their workshare. Rows 92 through 113 generate total proposed labor dollars.

Tab B-2 shall be completed by the offeror and applicable subcontractors. Rows 6 through 31 are pre-filled with the total required WYEs. These rows shall be revised to reflect the offeror or applicable subcontractor WYEs for their own workshare. Row 35 requires input of the offeror’s productive hours. Rows 39 through 64 generate labor hours. Rows 69 through 94 require input of the offeror’s fully burdened labor rates (FBLR) for the labor category that is included in their workshare. Rows 98 through 123 generate total proposed labor dollars.

28 Section L, Volume II – Price

Factor Instructions, Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing

Model, Tab A-2

h) Tab A2: Cell A67 contains the text “Mission Labor Price - Sub 5”. Should the text be changed to “Mission Labor Price – Total JSC and MSFC”?

Yes. The EPM is updated as part of this amendment to reflect a change in the text to state:

“Mission Labor Price.”

29 Section L, Volume II – Price

Factor Instructions, Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing

Model, Tabs B-1 and B-2

Does the Prime Offeror need to replicate the B-1 and B-2 tabs for the all

Subcontractors that have level of effort in the Mission Services Area? These additional B1 and B2 tabs for each Subcontractor would then be the source of

WYEs and Costs for each subcontractor that appears in Tab A-2. Separate B-

1 and B-2 Tabs for Subcontractors will allow pricing of Subcontractors at their unique hourly DL rates and unique “Number of Hours” in a WYE.

Additionally, is the Offeror able to change the number of WYEs in the

Prime’s Tab B-1 and Tab B-2 to account for the distribution of some of the

WYEs to the Subcontractors?

Yes, offerors shall replicate the B-1 and B-2 tabs for all applicable subcontractors (i.e., those exceeding $15M over the life of the contract).

Tab B-1 shall be completed by the offeror and applicable subcontractors (i.e., those exceeding $15M over the life of the contract). Rows 8 through 29 are pre-filled with the total required

WYEs. These rows shall be revised to reflect the offeror or applicable subcontractor WYEs for their own workshare. Row 33 requires input of the offeror’s productive hours. Rows 39 through 60 generate labor hours. Rows 66 through 87 require input of the offeror’s fully burdened labor rates (FBLR) for the labor category that is included in their workshare. Rows 92 through 113 generate subcontractors. Rows 6 through 31 are pre-filled with the total required WYEs. These rows shall be revised to reflect the offeror or applicable subcontractor WYEs for their own workshare. Row 35 requires input of the offeror’s productive hours. Rows 39 through

64 generate labor hours. Rows 69 through 94 require input of the offeror’s fully burdened labor rates (FBLR) for the labor category that is included in their workshare. Rows 98 through 123 generate

30 Section L, Volume III – Past

Performance Factor

Instructions, Past Performance

PWS Mission Services WYE

Assignment Matrix, page L-29

We understand that this chart is to be used for establishing relevancy of contracts referenced in Past Performance relative to the assignment of work.

This information is only requested for the base year of Mission Services.

However, a large piece of Mission Services work at JSC has been removed from the base year but is still included in Mission Services for Option 1-4.

Would the government consider asking for WYE Mission Services assignments for referenced subcontractors over the life of the contract, not just the first year? If not, what will be used to establish relevancy of Past

Performance records relative to the assignment of work across all Mission

Services?

In accordance with Section L, Volume III – Past Performance

Factor Instructions paragraph (2), “If a subcontractor with a past performance referenced contract or subcontract is assigned to perform effort(s) at JSC, then the offeror shall annotate such with a

“Note” below the PWS Mission Services WYE Assignment Matrix table and indicate the assignment of WYEs for Option Period 1 rather than the Base Period for that firm.” as revised in the amendment.

31 Section L, Volume III – Past

Performance Factor

Instructions, Section II, pargraphs (1), (2), and (3)

Request that the referenced paragraph (2) PWS Mission Services WYE

Assignment Matrix be expanded to include Projected TO Requirements included in Attachment L-2 and add a row for PWS 6.0 Programmatic

Subject Matter Experts (SME). This change would be consistent with the significant changes from the Draft RFP to the Final RFP that included: (1) moving the JSC PP&C effort from Mission Services CLIN 1 and Attachment

J-1A to Attachment L-2 for the base year (year 1) and continuing this support in the Mission Services CLINS and Attachment J-1A for all option years; and

(2) the significant increase in projected TO SME support in Attachment L-2 from 7.5 WYEs to over 61 WYEs.

The paragraph (3) PWS Assignment IDIQ Matrix does accurately capture the information consistent with these RFP changes since it only includes “an estimated percentage of IDIQ CLIN 2 and CLIN 3” maximum quantity values instead of an actual proposed allocation of WYEs included in Attachment L-

2. This is especially important for the JSC PP&C effort that is baselined in the

Mission Services price beyond the first year of the contract.

The matrix in paragraph (2) is specific to known Mission Services requirements only, while the matrix in paragraph (3) is for projected effort against only anticipated task order requirements. If a subcontractor with a past performance referenced contract or subcontract is assigned to perform effort(s) at JSC, offerors shall annotate such with a “Note” below the PWS Mission Services WYE

Assignment Matrix table and indicate the assignment of WYEs for

Option Period 1 rather than the Base Period for that firm. The changes described for Attachment L-2 relative to projected SME support provide for the full accounting of WYEs (as reflected in both Attachment J-1A and Attachment L-2) as indicated in

Attachment L-4, Background and Historical Data.

32 Section L, Attachment L-2, Projected Task Order

Requirements, AFRC

Requirements, page L-2-1

AFRC-6 is a double entry. Is this a duplication or intentional? The AFRC requirement is revised as part of this amendment to eliminate the duplication error.

33 Section M, Security

Classification Requirements, page M-2

The Evaluation Factors require “An active Top Secret Facility Clearance

(FCL) is required by the due date for receipt of proposals.”

Please clarify which part of the proposal offerors shall include this information?

In accordance with Section M, Security Classification Requirements, the Government will verify that the offeror possesses an active FCL using the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s

(DCSA) National Industrial Security System (NISS) utilizing the

CAGE code(s) provided as part of the transmittal letter required by

Section L, Volume IV – Contract Instructions, paragraph (c), Section I (1)(iii).

34 Purchase Order, Performance

Work Statement

“The Contractor shall provide a list of users that require access to the

ATOMS within the first ten (10) business days of the phase-in period. The

Government will provide Contractor user accounts and mandatory training to the Contractor users within the first thirty (30) days of the phase-in period.

During the phase-in period, the Contractor shall provide any task order plans in response to task order requests in accordance with NFS 1852.216-80, Task

Ordering Procedure-Alternate I, or NFS 1852.216-80 Task Ordering

Procedure-Alternate II, of the CPSS PP&C contract. It is anticipated that any task orders initiated and awarded during the phase-in period will begin on or after the effective date of the CPSS PP&C contract period of performance.”

If training is not finished until 30 days into the phase-in, we have lost 30 days of being able to respond to TORs from NASA and effectively reducing the

Phase-In period to 60 days.

Can the government provide training and user-account access immediately after contract award to ensure timeliness of TO process?

The selected Contractor will be required to provide a list of users that require access to the ATOMS on the first business day of the phase-in purchase order. The Government will provide user accounts and mandatory training to the Contractor users within the first fifteen (15) calendar days of the phase-in period. The Purchase

Order Performance Work Statement is revised as part of this amendment.

ATTACHMENT B – SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN FINAL SOLICITATION AND AMENDMENT 1

This attachment delineates changes made to the final solicitation, which was posted to FedBizOpps on October 4, 2019. The changes are a result of comments and questions received from industry and internal reviews. These changes represent all significant changes, but are not intended to be all-inclusive. Grammatical, typographical, and other non-substantive changes have been corrected throughout the RFP.

Index Section

Clause or

Provision From To

Page

Number(s)

Attachment J-1, Performance Work

Statement

4.2 Earned Value

Management N/A

4.2.21 Submit monthly EVM reports, the IPMR or the CPR

submittals to the Windchill central repository to enable additional independent analysis. Formats 1-4 shall be submitted in XML format and human readable format such as

Microsoft Word, Excel, or PDF file. Formats 5-7 shall be submitted in contractor or project native format.

J-1-10

Attachment J-1, Performance Work

Statement

4.5 Scheduling N/A

4.5.8 Submit program/project IMSs in native scheduling tool

formats (e.g., MS Project .mpp files and/or Primavera P6 files), including a fully integrated IMS or summary IMS with lower-level detailed schedules on a quarterly basis. IMS submissions are required starting after completion of System Requirements

Review (SRR) through completion of Launch Readiness

Review (LRR) for all NPR 7120.5 projects and single project programs over Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of $50 million dollars and all 7120.8 projects over LCC of $50 million dollars.

J-1-14

3 1

Attachment J-1, Performance Work

Statement

Appendix A

Center-Specific

Mission

Requirements

MSFC-6

N/A

12. Enhance in-house and contracted EVM surveillance. An annual EVM plan will be developed to assess overall compliance with the EIA-748 for total project, including in-house work.

13. Require submission of Program/project integrated master schedules in native scheduling tool formats (e.g., MS

Project, .mpp files and/or Primavera P6 files), including a fully integrated IMS or summary IMS with lower-level detailed schedules.

J-1-29

Provision From To

Page

Number(s)

Attachment J-1A, Mission Labor

Requirements

A.1 MSFC

Requirement #

MSFC-6

NOTE: *One PA 2 WYE is located at NASA HQ. **One PA 4

WYE is located at KSC.

NOTE: *One PA 2 WYE is located at KSC. **One PA 4 WYE is located at NASA HQ.

J-1A-2

5 2

Attachment J-4

Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity

(IDIQ) Rates

JSC

PP&C (FFP)

FULLY

BURDENED

LABOR RATES

Documentation Librarian Deleted row. J-4-6

6 3

Attachment J-4

Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity

(IDIQ) Rates

LaRC

BURDENED

LABOR RATES

Documentation Librarian Deleted row. J-4-8

7 4

Attachment J-4

Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity

(IDIQ) Rates

MSFC-MAF (New

Orleans, LA)

BURDENED

LABOR RATES

Documentation Librarian Deleted row. J-4-10

Attachment J-8

Performance

Requirements

Summary

Paragraph A

A. The Contractor is responsible for fulfilling the performance requirements of this contract. The Government will deduct from the Contractor’s invoice or otherwise withhold payment for items of nonconforming service for both Mission Services and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ). The

Government may apply surveillance techniques that covers all or part of the work to either assess the Contractor’s performance or determine the amount of payment due or both.

The defect rate for the purposes of assessing the Contractor’s performance will be the sum of all defects identified during the course of the work, expressed as a per defect basis for the monthly reporting period. Monthly reviews will be held to communicate Contractor’s performance (including a status of any deductions for the monthly performance period). Monthly reviews may either be conducted in-person or virtually as determined by the Government during contract performance.

The Contractor shall apply any deductions in the form of a credit to the following month’s invoice. For the purposes of the deduction percentages related to Performance Element 2, the deduction percentage shall be applied to the current contract value (i.e. Mission Services and IDIQ) for the period being assessed. Such deductions, if applicable, will be reflected by modification to the contract. If the quality level does not meet or exceed the Acceptable Performance Level (APL) in the PRS, the Contractor’s quality control is considered unsatisfactory.

The rights and remedies as defined in this PRS are in addition to those defined elsewhere in the contract. Failure to consistently maintain adequate quality control can result in termination for default.

A. The Contractor is responsible for fulfilling all performance requirements of this contract. This Performance Requirements

Summary (PRS) shall apply to both Mission Services and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) efforts.

Deductions shall apply separately to the mission services value and each Center’s cumulative IDIQ task order value for the monthly reporting period. The Government may apply surveillance techniques that covers all or part of the work to either assess the Contractor’s performance or determine the amount of payment due or both. The defect rate for the purposes of assessing the Contractor’s performance will be the sum of all defects identified during the course of the work, expressed as a per defect basis for the monthly reporting period.

Monthly reviews will be held to communicate Contractor’s performance (including a status of any deductions for the monthly performance period). Monthly reviews may either be conducted in-person or virtually as determined by the

Government during contract performance. The Contractor shall apply any deductions in the form of a credit to the following month’s invoice. Such deductions, if applicable, will be reflected by modification to the contract. If the quality level does not meet or exceed the Acceptable Performance Level

(APL) in the PRS, the Contractor’s quality control is considered unsatisfactory. The rights and remedies as defined in this PRS are in addition to those defined elsewhere in the contract.

Failure to consistently maintain adequate quality control can result in termination for default.

For PRS Performance Element No. 2, NASA customers will complete attachment J-12, Customer Survey, annually. The individual customer surveys for each instrument being assessed

(i.e., the contract for mission services work and each Center’s task order for IDIQ work) will be averaged to produce an overall adjectival rating for each instrument being assessed.

Based on the overall adjectival rating and recommendations from the COR, the CO will determine the final adjectival rating for each instrument being assessed, which may differ one level

J-8-1

Provision From To

Page

Number(s) in either direction from the overall adjectival rating. Percentage performance deductions shall be applied separately to the mission services value and to each Center’s cumulative IDIQ task order value for the annual rating period and shall be applied to the next invoice. For example, a 2% performance deduction applied to a $100,000 total cumulative annual awarded value for an instrument would result in a $2,000 deduction from the next monthly invoice.

9 5

Attachment J-8

Performance

Requirements

Summary

Paragraph G

G. Deductions for incident(s) in either safety or security, incidents that result in notice of violation, major audit findings in other contract sections, fines, or failure to comply with

Government regulations shall be full deductions from the

Contractor’s end of contract period monthly invoice. The

Contractor shall submit any credit(s) due the Government as a separate invoice concurrently with the standard invoice in accordance with NFS Clause 1852.232-80, Submission of

Vouchers/Invoices for Payment.

G. Deduction for incident(s) involving safety and security type incidents will be handled in accordance with PRS APL 6.

However, other incidents may arise during the administration of this contract that result in a notice of violation, major audit finding in other contract sections (e.g., fraud), fines (e.g., violation of environmental laws), or failure to comply with various local, state, and federal government regulations.