SRACES_80MSFC19R0024_-_Amendment_001_-_SF30.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

PAGE OF PAGES

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

FACILITY CODECODE

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and Zip Code)

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15A NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers extended.is not or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by orletter provided electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) is extended, copies to issuing office.

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

09/17/2019

NASA

Marshall Space Flight Center Office of Procurement Marshall Space Flight Center

AL 35812

NASA

Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center

AL 35812

X

80MSFC19R0024

09/05/2019

X X Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

n/a

X

Contracting Officer appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

CHECK ONE

(X)

For a complete description of Amendment 001, see Page 2.

, Amendment 001, to the Strategic Research and Analysis, Communications, and Exhibits Services (SRACES) solicitation, electronic communication, orlettereach

09/17/2019

SRACES #80MSFC19R0024 - Amendment 001 SF30, Page 2 of 2

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 the Strategic Research and Analysis, Communications, and Exhibits Services (SRACES) solicitation. Responses to questions/comments are provided in Attachment A, Clarifications to All Potential Offerors. Resulting changes to the RFP are provided in Attachment B, Summary of Changes Between RFP and Amendment 001.

(b) As a result of this amendment, the following section/clause/provision/attachment page(s) have been revised, with changes noted by a vertical line in the right column:

Section(s) / Clause(s) / Provision (s) / Attachment(s) Revised Page(s) Revised

Page(s) Substituted/Added

Section I, 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure (OCT 1996) Alternate (APR 2018)

I-16

(RFP)

I-16 (Amendment 001)

Section J, Attachment J-2, Data Procurement Document (DPD), Data Requirements Description (DRD) 1655MA-003, Re-Procurement Data Package

J-2-19 and J-2-20

(RFP)

J-2-19 and J-2-20 (Amendment 001)

Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), PRS #2, Acceptable Performance Level (APL)

J-3-2

(RFP)

J-3-2 (Amendment 001)

Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions, Offeror Fill-Ins (table), Section B, MSFC 52.216-92, Matrix of Contract Line Items (CLINs), Fill-In Required

L-39

(RFP)

L-39 through L-41 (Amendment 001)

Section L, Attachment L-3, Background and Historical, Historical COMMSS Staffing

L-3-2

(RFP)

L-3-2 (Amendment 001)

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

(END)

Attachment A - Page 1

ATTACHMENT A

CLARIFICATIONS TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section B, MSFC 52.216-91, Supplies and/or Services to be Provided and Type of Contract, and Section J, Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Could the Government please confirm that the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for Travel and Training (CLINs 004, 008, 012, 016, and 020) include the time charges for employees while participating in Training?

In accordance with Section J, Performance Work Statement (PWS), PWS Section 7.4, Travel and Training, paragraph (b) states, "Contractor labor associated with travel and/or training is a portion of either Mission Services or an IDIQ TO's established FFP, and therefore is not a reimbursable expense for travel and/or training."

Section B, MSFC 52.216-91, Supplies and/or Services to be Provided and Type of Contract

Can the Government confirm what items are not Materials, Equipment, and Supplies under Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 7.3 Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Maximum Ordering Value of $2M for each Option Period?

The contractor shall purchase any/all necessary in-scope materials, equipment, and/or supplies required for the performance of this PWS, as directed by the Government, in support of PWS Section 7.3. Items that will not to be purchased under PWS Section 7.3 include all efforts previously supplied by the contractor under Mission Services; Supplemental Communications Products and Services to be purchased under PWS Section 7.2; and Travel and Training to be purchased under PWS Section 7.4.

Attachment A, Clarifications to All Potential Offerors

Attachment A - Page 2

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section F, MSFC 52.237-91, Place of Performance

The RFP states, "The contractor shall perform the work under this contract at George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama;

National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC), Huntsville, Alabama, Wynn Drive (leased facilities), Huntsville, Alabama; Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF), New Orleans, Louisiana; and at such other locations as may be approved in writing by the contracting officer." The place of performance has a direct impact on the proposed staffing plan, as well as the proposed rates. Additionally, the risk of deductions for failing to adhere to the staffing plan increases performance risk. Will the Government provide additional information on percentage of work at MSFC vs MAF?

The SRACES Mission Services percentage of work effort should be approximated by Offerors in accordance with the appropriate Section J, Performance Work Statement (PWS), section(s) in alignment with Section J, Attachment J-1-A, Mission Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels. PWS Section 5.13 details the Mission Services effort for the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF).

All other PWS Mission Services sections currently support Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and its surrounding locations identified in Section F, MSFC 52.237-91, Place of Performance.

Section J, Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Section J, Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS), PWS Section 2.2., Work Order Management System (WOMS), states, "The Contractor shall administer the Government-provided NASA Integrated Service Management (NISM) electronic work order management system (WOMS) application for the paperless planning, processing, and management of PWS work order efforts in accordance with PWS Sections 2.3 and 7.1." Please provide additional details about the WOMS, such as: is the Government still using JobTraQ for this function? If not, please provide the vendor and product used for the NISM WOMS application.

In accordance with Section J, Attachment J-1, the contractor shall administer the Government-provided NASA Integrated Service Management (NISM) electronic work order management system (WOMS) application for the paperless planning, processing, and management of PWS work order efforts. There is no anticipated utilization of JobTraQ in performance of the SRACES WOMS. The SRACES WOMS to be utilized is entitled, "NASA Integrated Service Management (NISM)." NISM is not a vendor-related product. NISM is a NASA Agency Application Office (AAO) application.

Attachment A - Page 3

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section J, Attachment J-1, Performance Work

Statement (PWS), and Section J, Attachment J-1-A, Mission Services Estimated

Annual Banding Levels

Mission Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels and Price Realism - A reasonable interpretation of the references, taken collectively, is for Offerors to propose staffing and, therefore, a Firm Fixed Price for the Mission Services requirements based on the Estimated Annual Range of the listed deliverables provided in Section J, Attachment J-1-A, Mission Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels. A considerable portion of the contract scope cannot be identified with the deliverables listed for the various PWS sections. Has the Government considered that the banding levels provided for the Mission Services Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) may be misleading to Offerors and result in inadequate staffing levels and unrealistic pricing that brings significant risk to successful contract performance?

The SRACES Mission Services effort should be approximated and proposed by Offerors against the whole of the solicitation, to include factoring in all requirements contained within Section J, Performance Work Statement (PWS), in alignment with Section J, Attachment J-1-A, Mission Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, in addition to taking into consideration Section L, Attachment L-3, Background and Historical Information, when seeking to best understand the scope of the SRACES solicitation.

The Government believes the requirements currently provided in the SRACES solicitation, along with the background and historical information, to be adequate for Offerors to fully understand, and both adequately and effectively price the scope of the SRACES requirements, to include being able to identify and propose adequate staffing levels, as well as propose fair and reasonable pricing.

Of note: The Government will not be conducting "price realism" analysis when evaluating the price of SRACES proposal submissions from Offerors. The only aspect of an Offeror's proposal submission that will be evaluated for realism will be the Offeror's total compensation plan for professional employees (i.e., the salary/base labor range and total hourly fringe benefits) in accordance with Section M, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Evaluation, paragraph (c). In accordance with paragraphs

(a) and (b) of Section M, Volume II - Price Factor Evaluation, evaluation of the pricing of an Offeror's proposal will be limited to the Government performing price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, in order for the Government to determine if an Offeror's proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Attachment A - Page 4

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section J, Attachment J-2, Data Procurement

Document (DPD), and Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions

Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions, page L- 41, provides instructions for the Draft Government Property Management Plan, in accordance with Data Requirements Description (DRD) 1655LS-001, Government Property Management Plan, contained within Section J, Attachment J-2. Section L, 1852.245-80, Government Property Management Information (JAN 2011) Alternate I (JAN 2011), pages L-6 through L-8, list additional requirements. Please clarify if response to these requirements should be included in Volume IV's Draft Government Property Management Plan as part of proposal submission.

In accordance with Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions, each Offeror's Draft Government Property Management Plan shall be provided in accordance with its associated DRD contained within Section J, Attachment J-2, Data Procurement Document (DPD). In accordance with Section J, Attachment J-2, DRD 1655LS-001, Government Property Management Plan, Item 15.3, Contents, "the Government Property Management Plan shall satisfy the requirements of the documents listed in 15.2, and the contract." DRD 1655LS-001, Item 15.2, Applicable Documents, includes, but is not limited to, NFS 1852.245. As such, each Offeror is responsible for satisfying the requirements of any/all NFS 1852.245 requirements detailed throughout the solicitation (along with any/all other applicable documents detailed in DRD 1655LS-001) as part of their Volume IV's Draft Property Management Plan proposal submission.

Attachment A - Page 5

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

As written, the contractor will be penalized financially if any position is vacant for more than 10 days. With the low unemployment in the MSFC geographical area, a contractor will have to either/or both maintain a bench or increase the management reserve to cover penalties, which ultimately is passed on to the Government in a higher proposed cost.

Questions/Recommendation: at a minimum, can the Government rewrite Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), PRS #2, to state vacancies be filled within 15 business days (unless written exception provided by COR in accordance with CO)? This allows the contractor 5 business days to identify a backfill and follows industry practice of the selected candidate submitting a two week notice to current employer.

Or, will the Government consider restating the requirement to achieve their intent of maintaining staff in a way the provides a lower cost solution?

For example: the contractor must maintain a vacancy fill rate of 95% or better, with vacancies filled within 15 business days from the date the position becomes vacant (unless written exception provided by COR in accordance with CO). Such that there would be no penalties until the contractor dips below 95% in a closing month.

In accordance with Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), PRS #2 (in relation to the contractor providing and maintaining active employment of 100% of contractor staff), the current acceptable performance level (APL) of "vacancies not being filled within 10 business days" has been changed to "vacancies not being filled within 20 business days" to allow the contractor additional time to provide suitable staffing that meets all SRACES requirements.

Of note: the Government acknowledges that customary industry practice is for employees to provide a two week notice prior to leaving (where applicable), to include the resultant SRACES staffing to be provided by the contractor. Following industry practice, this should allow the contractor 10 business days to identify a backfill in advance of a vacancy existing. With the change in the APL level for this requirement, this will now allow the contractor a total of 30 business days to identify and provide a backfill prior to the contractor being subject to a potential financial penalty regarding backfill vacancies.

Attachment A - Page 6

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

As written, the contractor will be severely penalized financially if any new position is vacant for more than 15 days. With the low unemployment in the MSFC geographical area, a contractor will have to either/or both maintain a bench, or increase the management reserve to cover penalties, which ultimately is passed on to the Government in a higher proposed cost.

Questions/Recommendation: at a minimum, can the Government rewrite Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), PRS #3, to state vacancies be filled within 30 business days (unless written exception provided by COR in accordance with CO)? This allows the contractor 20 business days to advertise and identify a candidate, and follows industry practice of the selected candidate submitting a two week notice to current employer.

Or, will the Government consider restating the requirement to achieve their intent of maintaining staff in a way the provides a lower cost solution?

For example: the contractor must maintain a vacancy fill rate of 95% or better with new positions filled within 30 business days from the date the position becomes vacant (unless written exception provided by COR in accordance with CO). Such that there would be no penalties until the contractor dips below 95% in a closing month.

In accordance with Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), PRS #3 (in relation to the contractor providing new contractor staff (i.e., new hires for additional in-scope Mission Services requirements) or in response to Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) requirements), the current acceptable performance level (APL) of "0 incidents of new requirement positions not being filled within 15 business days of effective date of requirement" remains unchanged.

Of note: for all new contractor staffing requirements, the contractor will first be solicited by the Government (via either an RFP for changes to Mission Services efforts, or as a request for a task plan for IDIQ efforts, identifying the need for a new position), followed by the Government's evaluation of the contractor's response, in addition to processing time for award -all of which occur prior to the effective date of the requirement being established. This timeframe (in advance of the stated APL), in addition to the 15 business days provided in the APL after the effective date of the requirement, should allow the contractor adequate time to identify and provide new contractor staff.

Attachment A - Page 7

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section J, Attachment J-5, Labor Category Descriptions

The provided Section J, Attachment J-5, labor category descriptions do not include any education or experience substitutions. Will the Government please revise Section J, Attachment J-5, to include allowable substitutions, (e.g., 2 additional years of experience plus Associates degree substitution for a Bachelor's degree; Master's degree substitution for two years of experience) or at least include provision for Government approval for exceptions?

In accordance with Section J, Attachment J-5, Labor Category Descriptions, the minimum qualification requirements for each NASA labor category remain unchanged. Where acceptable to the Government (e.g., Purchasing Agent II, Writer/Editor III), minimum education/experience substitutions have already been provided.

Section J, Attachment J-15, Indefinite-Delivery

Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Task Order (TO) Summary

Is the Section J, Attachment J-15, summary of task orders matrix intended to be left empty?

In accordance with Section J, Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS), a summary of all task orders (TOs) issued under this contract will be incorporated in Section J, Attachment J-15, Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Task Order (TO) Summary. Until such time a TO is issued under SRACES, the IDIQ TO Summary table in Section J, Attachment J-15 will remain empty.

Attachment A - Page 8

Section L, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees

In the labor category descriptions (Section J, Attachment J-5), the senior levels have 10 years of experience as the minimum qualification. The years of experience is a key factor in all salary surveys for market salary rates. FAR Provision 52.222-46 states that professional employees should be "properly and fairly" compensated. Since a number of the incumbent staff have education or experience above the minimum requirements, there is the potential that a market salary considered proper and fair for the labor category as defined could be less than the current compensation. The FAR provision continues (paragraph (b)) that the compensation levels lower than those of the predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity.

When evaluating price realism, will the Government be utilizing market salaries based on the education and experience identified by the Government as meeting the requirements of the contract rather than salary levels of the current incumbent staff?

We are considering the education and experience defined by the Government in the labor category descriptions as "suitably qualified personnel." Based on the labor category descriptions, we fully expect that proposed rates would represent compensation less than the current contract. When evaluating the proposed salaries for each labor category for 52.222-46, would the Government deem salaries that meet the minimum requirements of each labor category as "proper and fair."

In recognizing a percentage of the existing/predecessor Strategic Analysis and Communications Support Services (COMMSS) contractor workforce having seniority/experience levels above those currently stated in SRACES requirements, the Government has provided supplemental background and historical information in relation to historical COMMSS staffing (see amended Section L, Attachment L-3, Background and Historical Information, paragraph (d)).

Of note: Offerors are cautioned that minimum qualification requirements for SRACES NASA labor categories, as provided in accordance with Section J, Attachment J-5, Labor Category Descriptions, differ from those of the predecessor COMMSS contract (i.e., COMMSS contractor labor requirements were previously based on "desired" levels of education and/or experience, whereas SRACES contractor labor requirements are based on "required" levels of education and/or experience).

In addition, the Government will not be conducting "price realism" analysis when evaluating the price of SRACES proposal submissions from Offerors. The only aspect of an Offeror's proposal submission that will be evaluated for realism will be the Offeror's total compensation plan for professional employees (i.e., the salary/base labor range and total hourly fringe benefits) in accordance with Section M, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Evaluation, paragraph (c). In relation to the Government evaluating the realism of professional employee's compensation, the Government will utilize information that is reasonably available (e.g., market salary survey information, professional compensation levels of current COMMSS contractor staff) in relation to SRACES labor requirements, when determining that professional employees are proposed to be properly and fairly compensated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

Attachment A - Page 9

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

1852.245-80, Government Property Management

Information

Section L, 1852.245-80, Government Property Management Information, paragraph (e) states "The offeror shall disclose cost accounting practices that allow for direct charging of commercially available equipment, when commercially available equipment is to be used …". Is the contractor required to disclose these cost accounting practices at time of proposal submission? Or only if, in the execution of the contract, commercially available equipment will be used?

Commercially available equipment, where the equipment is not a deliverable, will not be utilized in performance of the SRACES contract. In the event commercially available equipment is to be utilized (again, where the equipment is not a deliverable), the contractor will be advised of any reporting requirements during contract execution.

Section L, MSFC 52.215-91, Due Date for Receipt of Proposals or Quotations

Will the Government allow Offerors to hand deliver their proposals on October 4, 2019, one business day prior to the due date of October 7, 2019?

In accordance with Section L, MSFC 52.215-91, Due Date for Receipt of Proposals or Quotations, hand delivery of proposals will only be accepted between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Central Time on the dates indicated.

Section L - Volume I -

Mission Suitability Factor Instruction

Section L, FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, includes the statement "The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements." Is the "management approach" in the compensation plan the same management approach required in Volume I Subfactor 1 Management Approach? If not, then what are the Government’s expectations for this section in the compensation plan?

The Offeror's management approach to satisfying all SRACES requirements shall be supplied in accordance with Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(i). The Offeror's total compensation plan shall be supplied in accordance with Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2)(ii). A separate management approach should not be provided in the Offeror's total compensation plan.

Attachment A - Page 10

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume I -

Mission Suitability Factor Instructions

Please confirm that the Government does not require all Offerors to respond/write to the PWS Section 7.0, Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ), within their Technical Approach, and only respond/write to PWS Sections 2.0 through 6.0?

In accordance with Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(ii), the Offeror shall describe its overall technical approach to satisfying all requirements established in Section J, Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS). While there are no PWS Section 7.0, Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity, task order requirements included within the solicitation, the Government expects each Offeror to provide its technical approach to satisfying PWS Section 7.0 requirements as provided (e.g., each Offeror's capability to support up to the maximum annual ordering value of each IDIQ element).

Section L, Volume I -

Mission Suitability Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) requires overall technical approach to satisfying all requirements established in Section J, Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS). Does this include PWS Sections

2.0 - 6.0 only, or should Offerors also include their technical approach to PWS Section 7.0?

See response to Index #15.

Attachment A - Page 11

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume I -

Mission Suitability Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Instructions, paragraph (e) requires a detailed compliance matrix at the beginning of Volume I. Please confirm whether the compliance matrix is required for all three volumes (i.e., Volumes I through III) or just Volume I, and if the compliance matrix is included or not included in the page count?

In accordance with Section L's various volume instructions, a variety of matrices are required from each Offeror as part of both their Volume I - Mission Suitability and Volume III - Past Performance proposal submission. In the case of some required matrices, the information requested is the same between both volumes. In accordance with the Section L volume instructions, each required matrix shall be provided in its appropriate volume.

Of note: notwithstanding the Excel Pricing Model (EPM), there are no requested matrices in Volume II - Price. In accordance with Section L, NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, both Volume I and Volume III are page-limited volumes. In addition, in accordance with paragraph (c) of NFS 1852.215-81, there are no exclusions from the page limitations established for the page-limited volumes (i.e., 100% of the contents of Volume I and Volume III shall reside within the stated page limitation provided in NFS 1852.215-81).

Attachment A - Page 12

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume I -

Mission Suitability Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), the RFP instructions state that "the offeror and any subcontractor(s) shall include a narrative of employees' benefits proposed for both exempt and non-exempt employees (as defined by the Service Contract Act (29 CFR 4.113(b)) who will work on this contract." Complete descriptions of comprehensive benefits packages can be quite lengthy. Can these narratives be provided as separate attachments to the proposal and excluded from the page count limits? If not, would a table summarizing each benefit package item offered by each team member be sufficient?

In accordance with Section L, NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, Volume I is a page-limited volume. In accordance with paragraph (c) of NFS 1852.215-81, there are no exclusions from the page limitations established for page-limited volumes (i.e., 100% of the contents of Volume I shall reside within the stated page limitation provided in NFS 1852.215-81). In accordance with Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), "the offeror and any subcontractor(s) shall include a narrative of employees' benefits proposed for both exempt and non-exempt employees (as defined by the Service Contract Act (29 CFR 4.113(b)) who will work on this contract." In addition, "a table shall be provided by the offeror and any subcontractor(s) (if not utilizing an overall team-based approach for a Total Compensation Plan) detailing the hourly base salary ranges, along with the hourly breakout of fringe benefits that total to the hourly fringe benefits by NASA labor category (per year) that align with benefits provided" (with a table format provided in this Section L provision).

Attachment A - Page 13

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume I -

Mission Suitability Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), the RFP instructions state that "A table shall be provided by the offeror and any subcontractor(s) (if not utilizing an overall team-based approach for a Total Compensation Plan) detailing the hourly base salary ranges, along with the hourly breakout of fringe benefits that total to the hourly fringe benefits by NASA labor category (per year) that align with benefits provided." The cost breakdown of fringe benefits is considered proprietary and not the type of information we want to share publicly with other companies who might become potential competitors. Is it acceptable that any breakdown of fringe benefit costs be provided by team members as part of their individual sealed cost package submission and excluded from the page count?

Information provided to the Government as part of an Offeror's proposal submission is neither publically shared, nor shared with an Offeror's subcontractor(s) by the Government. It is the Offeror's prerogative to determine if it will share any part of its proposal submission with its subcontractor(s), as applicable. In accordance with Section L, FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, paragraph (a) states, "as part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract." As such, the fringe benefit information requested by the Government shall be provided by each Offeror for all professional employees who are envisioned to work under the contract. The information being requested in response to this requirement is part of the page-limited Volume I - Mission Services response (the information is not being utilized in evaluating Volume II - Price).

Of note: there is no instance relative to the SRACES solicitation where any proposed subcontractor(s) should supply any information directly to the Government as part of an Offeror's proposal submission.

Attachment A - Page 14

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor

Instructions, and Section J, Attachment J-7, Contractor's Management Plan

In DRD 1655MA-001, Management Plan, a draft submission is stated as due with the proposal. In the Volume I section of Section L, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) states that the response satisfies the Management Plan Contents requirements 15.3, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f). Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) states that the response satisfies the Management Plan Contents requirements 15.3, paragraphs (d) and (e). Is the DRD requirement requiring a separate document along with the proposal since the draft management plan is not listed in the draft plans for Volume IV?

Or does the content of the proposal meet the DRD requirement as the draft management plan?

In accordance with notes provided in Section L, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(1), and Section J, Attachment J-7, Contractor's Management Plan, the Offeror's Volume I response to the Management/Technical Approach and Innovation portion of Section L Provision, Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, will satisfy draft management plan submission requirements. Accordingly, a separate draft management plan should not be supplied with Volume IV. If an Offeror were to provide a draft management plan as part of Volume IV, that information would be construed as belonging in one of the other volumes of the proposal (i.e., Volume I - Mission Services) and would be counted against that volume's page limitation.

Section L, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Instructions

In accordance with Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, Complexity paragraph (d)(3), the RFP states, "For both an offeror and subcontractor's referenced contract complexity to be considered at least relevant, at least 66 percent or more of the PWS section(s) being evaluated for complexity relevancy shall have been performed at a level equal to or above the average number of minimum annual actions specified in the "SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy" table". Can the Government confirm that each Referenced Contract must be performed at a level equal to or above the average number of minimum annual actions for 66 percent of the PWS sections cited within the Referenced Contract, per the instructions provided in the aforementioned Content paragraph (d)(2)?

Yes, the Government confirms; in accordance with Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, Complexity paragraph (d)(3), for both an Offeror and subcontractor's referenced contract complexity to be considered at least relevant, at least 66 percent or more of the PWS section(s) being evaluated for complexity relevancy shall have been performed at a level equal to or above the average number of minimum annual actions specified in the "SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy" table, provided the referenced contract's content that is being evaluated for complexity was determined to be at least relevant for content in the aforementioned provision, paragraph (d)(2).

Attachment A - Page 15

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2), Content, description states "(see 'SRACES PWS Past Performance Section- Grouping for Offerors' table on the next page)". The table includes a Group 3 PWS Sections, but there is no reference to a relevancy of Group 3 in the aforementioned content description. Please consider updating paragraph (d)(2), Content, to include Group 3 relevance or removing Group 3 from the table.

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2), Content, remains unchanged. In order for a referenced contract to be considered at least relevant under Content, an Offeror's referenced contract shall demonstrate relevant experience in either: (i) three or more PWS sections identified in Group 1, or (ii) two PWS sections identified in Group 1 and two or more PWS sections in Group 2. The "SRACES PWS Past Performance Section-Grouping for Offerors" table provided in Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, relative to Group 3 accounts for the remainder of the SRACES PWS that will be additionally evaluated by the Government (if applicable to a referenced contractor) for Content relevancy above the level necessary to establish minimum relevancy.

Attachment A - Page 16

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraphs (d)(3) - is it the expectation that each section at the PWS X.X level in the complexity minimum relevancy table be covered at 66% of the average number actions or is it at the PWS X level covered at 66% of the actions.

In accordance with Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, Complexity paragraph (d)(3), "for both an offeror and subcontractor's referenced contract complexity to be considered at least relevant, at least 66 percent or more of the PWS section(s) being evaluated for complexity relevancy shall have been performed at a level equal to or above the average number of minimum annual actions specified in the 'SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy' table," provided the referenced contract's content that is being evaluated for complexity was determined to be at least relevant for content in the aforementioned provision, paragraph (d)(2).

Of note: the 66 percent is measured against the number of PWS sections being evaluated, not the associated average number of minimum annual actions in a PWS section (e.g., if three PWS sections are being evaluated against Complexity in a referenced contract, at least 66 percent (two of the three PWS sections) are required to have the average number of minimum annual actions in order for the referenced contract to be determined at least relevant in Complexity). In addition, all PWS sections being evaluated for Complexity are stated as annual actions at the second PWS level (i.e., PWS Section X.X) in the solicitation, not at the first level (i.e., PWS Section X).

Attachment A - Page 17

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraphs (d)(3) - if a small business (SB) has commercial work that they consider to be highly relevant to this acquisition, how do they show the minimum complexity for commercial work when the collection of annual actions by PWS area is not a requirement? Can the Offeror simply describe the complexity of the work they performed as it relates to each PWS area?

In accordance with Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(3), "for both an offeror and subcontractor's referenced contract complexity to be considered at least relevant, at least 66 percent or more of the PWS section(s) being evaluated for complexity relevancy shall have been performed at a level equal to or above the average number of minimum annual actions specified in the 'SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy' table". If the exact average number of annual actions is not known by an Offeror or subcontractor in relation to a referenced contract, the Offeror or subcontractor should approximate the average number of annual actions it performed under the referenced contract that aligns with the requirements of this acquisition. The relevancy of this complexity information may be independently verified by the Government in accordance with paragraph (a) of Section M, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Evaluation.

Attachment A - Page 18

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraphs (d)(3) - an Offeror’s past performance complexity relevancy ratings are established by the Government in comparison to the average number of minimum annual actions specified in the "SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy" table. Other similar NASA contracts do not have this same requirement and do not collect data that explicitly match the SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy table. Only the incumbent contractor can actually show numbers that match the PWS minimum annual actions. What options are available to non-incumbent offerors to be able to compete and get full credit for complexity relevancy ratings? Suggest the Government remove the complexity minimum relevancy banding levels to make the opportunity fair for all non-incumbent small business (SB) offerors. Each offeror can describe in words, supported by examples, how the work it has done on other contracts is highly relevant to each PWS area.

See response to Index #23 and #24.

Of note: the SRACES solicitation does not require that other contracts (be they NASA or otherwise) collect data that explicitly matches SRACES requirements in relation to Complexity minimum relevancy levels. Offerors are required to provide referenced contracts (for both Offerors and/or any subcontractor(s) in accordance with Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions) that have at least relevant Content (i.e., Content that is relevant to a given SRACES PWS Section). Following this, the Offeror shall provide for each referenced contract, the relevant average number of annual actions it has performed (in relation to the relevant Content) that aligns with the requirements of the SRACES acquisition. Any Offeror-provided narrative that supports the "what" or "how" aspect of relevant referenced contract work will be evaluated by the Government in determining the relevant Content of a given referenced contract. In comparison, the quantity of supported "examples" of the relevant work conducted under the referenced contract will be evaluated by the Government for Complexity, in accordance with the average number of minimum annual actions the Government has determined to be relevant in relation to SRACES requirements.

Attachment A - Page 19

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Instructions

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraphs (d)(3), should the Work Year Equivalents (WYEs) and banding levels reported align exactly with those described in Section J, Attachment J-1-A, Mission Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels?

In accordance with Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(3), the table titled "SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy" details the average number of minimum annual actions for a referenced contract's PWS to be determined at least relevant in relation to SRACES requirements. Section J, Attachment J-1-A, Mission Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, provides Offerors both a low and high estimate of various Mission Services products and services to be performed annually.

Of note: WYE levels necessary to perform SRACES requirements are not specified in Section J, Attachment J-1-A (the number of contractor WYEs necessary to satisfy SRACES requirements shall be independently determined by each Offeror in relation to the summation of information provided in the solicitation). In addition, the average number of minimum annual actions detailed in the Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, (the "SRACES PWS Complexity Minimum Relevancy" table) are only representative of the minimum number of annual actions necessary to establish minimum Complexity relevancy of an Offeror's referenced contract. In presenting all past performance information, an Offeror should provide the relevant number of annual actions performed in relation to its actual past performance.

Attachment A - Page 20

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor

Instructions, and Section M, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Evaluation

Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3) - are size, content, and complexity evaluated separately as part of the past performance, or must all three be met by the small business (SB) to be considered acceptable past performance.

In accordance with Section M, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Evaluation, in determining the overall relevancy of individual referenced contracts, each referenced contract will be evaluated in the order of size, content, and complexity. If a referenced contract is determined to be not relevant in either size, content, or complexity, it will be determined not relevant overall, and will not be further evaluated. As such, in order for a referenced contract to be evaluated by the Government to be at least relevant overall, size, content, and complexity are each required to be at least relevant in accordance with the details provided in Section L, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3).

Of note: the Offeror's past performance confidence level rating, as set forth at NFS 1815.305, Proposal Evaluation, paragraph (a)(2)(A), will be determined by the Government in accordance with Section M, Volume III - Past Performance Factor Evaluation.

This includes the Government assessing the Offeror's referenced contracts that have been determined to be at least relevant overall, the Offeror's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reportable injury rates, information contained in Federal CPARS database records, completed past performance questionnaires, and any other relevant information obtained independently by the Government.

Attachment A - Page 21

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) Question(s)/Comment(s) Response

Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions

The Offeror Fill-Ins instructions on page L-39 specify that only the base value for CLIN 001 is to be entered in the sections 1852.216-78, Firm Fixed Price, and MSFC 52.216-92, Matrix of Contract Line Items. However, the values to be proposed are highlighted for the option CLINS (005, 009,013, and 017). Would the Government please confirm that all CLINS except for CLIN 001 should not be entered in

MSFC 52.216-92.

Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions, Offeror Fill-Ins (table), Section B, MSFC 52.216-92, Matrix of Contract Line Items (CLINs), Fill-In Required has been corrected. The following values shall be populated in Section B, MSFC 52.216-92: Base Year CLIN 001 value; Option Period 1 CLIN 005 value; Option Period 2 CLIN 009 value; Option Period 3 CLIN 013 value; Option Period 4 CLIN 017 value; and Total Value of Base and All Exercised Options value (i.e., the value of the Base Year CLIN 001).

Section M, Volume III - Past

Performance Factor Evaluation

On page M-5 of the solicitation it appears that Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) may be used to evaluate past performance, but there are no instructions on how to include them in the Past Performance volume.

Should we provide hard copies of the full CPARS evaluations, or just links to the CPARS site?

Information contained within the CPARS system will be directly retrieved by the Government for use in evaluating an Offeror's past performance.

[End of Attachment]

Attachment B, Summary of Changes between RFP and Amendment 001

Attachment B - Page 1

ATTACHMENT B

SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN RFP AND AMENDMENT 001

Index Solicitation Reference

Section(s) From To

Section I, 1852.216-80, Task

Ordering Procedure (OCT 1996) Alternate (APR 2018)

(b) Prior to issuing a task order, the Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the following date:

(b) Prior to issuing a task order, the Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the following data:

Section J, Attachment J-2, Data Procurement

Document (DPD), Data Requirements Description (DRD) 1655MA-003, Re-

Procurement Data Package

[Re-Procurement Data Package DRD] [Re-Procurement Data Package DRD] with fringe benefits rate addition (multiple areas of incorporation)

Section J, Attachment J-3, Performance Requirements

Summary (PRS), PRS #2, Acceptable Performance

Level (APL)

0 incidents of vacancies not being filled within 10 business days

0 incidents of vacancies not being filled within 20 business days

Section L, Volume IV - Contract Instructions, Offeror Fill-Ins (table), Section B, MSFC 52.216-92, Matrix…