80MSFC23R0004-MLSS-II-Request for Proposal-Amendment-P0002.docx

80MSFC23R0004-P0002

i

ATTACHMENT A – RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY RFP QUESTIONS

[Company Name Edited] is submitting a proposal in response to RFP 80MSFC23R0004 and would like to coordinate a test file submittal. I followed the link in the RFP (https://nasagov.box.com/s/b6dtp7f0skv6jgx01hghv7e71tu35ucr) and got an error message saying the file or folder link had been removed or is not available to me. I have verified with our IT department that the site has been added to our safe list so it is not a firewall issue. Please let me know if you need any additional information from our end.

See Question #1.

On June 27, 2023, the Department of Labor issued an update indicating that the Health and Welfare (H&W) fringe benefit would increase to $4.98 per hour. Please clarify which H&W the bidders are to use for their proposals.

Offerors shall utilize the Health and Welfare (H&W) rates outlined in the current Wage Determination, WD 2015-4603 (Rev 23), included in the RFP.

Will the Government please provide the requirements for this CBA such that non-incumbent bidders can address the RFP requirements relating to supplying fringe benefit details in the RFP Attachment L-1?

The CBA is directly negotiated between the applicable union and contractor, therefore the Government does not have this information. Offerors should consult directly with the applicable CBA point of contact provided in L-3, Background and Historical Information.

Reference: SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES Within 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAR 2023): 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2022) (f)

Discussion: 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2022) (f) requires compliance with the limitations on subcontracting either “By the end of the base term of the contract and by the end of each subsequent option period; or by the end of the performance period for each task order issued under the contract” at the Contracting Officer’s discretion.

Question: As this will be an IDIQ award, can the Government provide guidance on which compliance term is anticipated?

The Government currently anticipates issuing a task order with a base terms and option periods, which would require compliance at the end of the base term and end of each subsequent option period. However, the nature of the IDIQ structure could result in an order that requires compliance at the end of the task order performance period.

Reference: Attachment L-1-Excel Pricing Model Tab A Summary

Discussion: Applicable Burden: Cell B22, B27, B29, B31, and B33.

Question: Would the government please confirm that the referenced cells represent the Applicable Burden for the Base Year?

The referenced EPM, Tab A cells represent applicable "placeholder" burden rates for all contract years. Offerors shall replace these values with their own applicable burdens, whether the same or different across contract years in Section B of Tab A.

Reference: Attachment L-1-Excel Pricing Model Tab A Summary

Discussion: Applicable Burden: Cell B22, B27, B29, B31, and B33.

Question: If the Contractor does not have a Forward Pricing Agreement or Forward Pricing Rate Proposals to support indirect rates for future periods, would the government allow annual upward or downward adjustments to the indirect rates at the beginning of each option period based on the Contractor’s DCAA approved provisional billing rates?

Yes, provided the offeror affirmatively states that the rates are budget rates which are reasonable for estimating purposes.

Reference: Attachment L-1-Excel Pricing Model Tab D Labor Calculation

Discussion: Total WYE

Question: The government provided a WYE per labor category. Would the government please confirm that the Offeror CANNOT change the total WYE per labor category? For example, in line 24, Buyer/Planner has 2 WYEs, is the Offeror expected to price the 2 WYEs?

Confirmed. Offerors shall not adjust the WYE specified per labor category. The WYEs provided in the Excel Pricing Model are provided for the establishment of a total proposed price for comparison purposes in accordance with Factor II – Price Volume Evaluation, paragraph (c).

Reference: RFP Factor II – Price Volume Instructions (a) General Instructions (4), page L-19

Discussion: The second sentence states: All offerors shall submit a Price volume. Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(c)(2), all proposed major subcontractors, to include interdivisional and/or intra-company effort, as defined in Section L, Factor III - Past Performance Volume Instructions, paragraph (b), shall submit a complete Price volume electronically in accordance with the provision entitled "Electronic Submission of Proposals - Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA's EFSS Box."

Question: Is a Subcontractor required to submit a Price volume through NASA’s EFSS Box if the total WYEs are less than 15%?

No. Only major subcontractors, which are defined as providing 15 percent of more of total anticipated FY24 Work Year Equivalents (WYEs), are required to submit a price volume to the Government.

Reference: Attachment L-1-Excel Pricing Model Tab C Composite IDIQ Rate Development

Discussion: This tab is designed to develop the composite indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) rates by contract year. The composite IDIQ rates will be used to complete Attachment J-7, Rates Schedule and Labor Categories. The Prime Offeror shall input any handling/profit proposed on subcontractors in cell B13.

Question: It is noted on line 78 that the Prime loaded FBL rate must match the FBL rate from Tab B. Labor categories with labor type SCLS and CBA not escalated in the out years. However, in tab C, Contract Year 2, the Escalation rate found in cells O13, P13, Q13, and R13 calculates for all labor categories, Exempt, SCLS, and CBA. Is it the government’s intent for the Offeror to escalate the composite wages in the out-years regardless of their Labor Type?

Rates for SCLS and CBA employees shall not be escalated.

Reference: RFP Factor II Price Volume Instructions (b) Price Volume Contents (2) General Price Information Section 1 – Section 5

Discussion: General, 8) Formatting of price/cost data …. Adobe Acrobat files in PDF format are not acceptable, except as provided for in the above referenced provision, paragraph (b)(2).

Question: Would the government please clarify if the response for Sections 1 through Section 5 be submitted in MSWord format?

All information required by Sections 1-4 shall be submitted in Microsoft Word format, with the exception of documents such as audited financial statements, which may be submitted in their native format in accordance with provision 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, Paragraph (b)(2).

Reference: Attachment L-2, Past Performance Interview/Questionnaire

Discussion: CPARs in lieu of Past Performance Interview/Questionnaires

Question: In order to expedite the Past Performance Volume submittal, would the Government please consider waiving the Past Performance Questionnaire requirement if the Offeror has recent CPARs for the referenced contracts?

No. In accordance with the solicitation, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) data, along with other data available to the Government, will be utilized to validate how the firm performed on the described contracts and/or subcontracts.

Reference: Page J-1-25.(c) Ensure personnel handling classified mail/material have the appropriate security clearance for the handling of classified mail/material IAW NPR 1600.2, NASA Classified National Security Information (CNSI).

Discussion: No DD 254 was provided with the solicitation

Question: Given that personnel handling classified mail/material need appropriate security clearances for handling classified material, will the Government be issuing a DD 254?

Amendment P0002 updates Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement, 6.6 General Provisions, Paragraph (c), and 8.2.4 Classified Shipments to reflect "Reserved".

Reference: Factor II – Price Volume Instructions, (b) Price Volume Contents (2) General Price Information, (i) Section 1 – Price Narrative and Supporting Data

Discussion: (E) The offeror and major subcontractors shall utilize the following uniform rates of change for Calendar Years 2025 through 2029 as provided in Table L-2, Escalation Rates, below which are considered reasonable escalation rates in accordance with IHS Markit Economic and Country Risk Forecast.

Question: Given that the first increase occurs at the beginning of Option Year 1, and the government automatically uses half of Option Year 4 pricing for the extension period, would the government please explain what the 2029 escalation percentage (2.94%) should be applied to?

Amendment P0002 updates Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, Table L-2 Escalation Rates to remove 2029 and the associated 2.94% escalation rate.

Reference: MA-1(F), The offeror, and subcontractors submitting a Price volume, shall submit compensation rates that comply with the required minimally acceptable direct labor rates as specified in Volume II - Price Factor Instructions.

Discussion: Pricing related information requested be included in Mission Suitability Volume

Question: Will the Government please confirm Offers are required to provide compensation rates in the Mission Suitability Volume?

Offerors are not required to provide compensation rates in the Mission Suitability Volume. However, compensation rates that are noted within the Price Volume for Exempt labor categories that are not in compliance with the stated minimums may be assessed as a Mission Suitability weakness which could impact the Mission Suitability score.

J-7-23 through J-7-25, Schedules A&B The RFP emphasizes the importance of the PWS 5.0 Life Cycle Logistics Specialist to identify and realize potential savings for NASA Programs and Projects and to meet NPD 7500.1. This importance is further explained in NASA’s Life Cycle Logistics Support Guidebook. The Life Cycle Logistics Specialist position description and duties explained on pages J-7-23 through J-7-25 of the RFP detail MSFC’s expectations and requirements to fill this position. After reviewing several sources of life cycle logistics career development references (i.e., Department of Navy’s Life Cycle Logistics Workforce FY2018-2023, Strategic Implementation Plan; the Air Force’s LCL Workforce Guidebook, and the Army’s Life Cycle Logistics Career Track), a journeyman Life Cycle Logistics professional to meet the RFP requirements grades out to a GS-12 for a Bachelor’s degree and 2 years of LCL experience, and to a GS13 for Core Level with a Bachelor’s degree and 4 years’ LCL experience and DAWIA Certification in LCL. A first step GS12 salary for the Huntsville area is $86,000/year, and a GS13 begins at $102,000/yr. Also, a respected job search website lists several life cycle logistics Industry vacancies requiring a bachelor’s degree and journeyman experience for an annual salary range between $80,000 and $90,000 for the Huntsville area. Our own HR Compensation Dept. grades the position to a mid $80,000 annual salary.

Information on page I-31 states the position is equivalent to a SCA 01270 Production Control Clerk. A review of the duties of the category “Administrative Support and Clerical Operations” 01270 position in the SCA Directory of Occupations, 5th edition, describes the duties of a SCA Production Control Clerk (SCA hourly rate of $23.45/hr or approx. $49,000/yr). These duties are inconsistent with the requirements listed in the RFP pages J-7-23 through J-7-25. Also, the Excel Pricing Model indicates the position to be a SCA position.

To better align the requirements listed in the RFP with a qualified professional, will the Government consider modifying the Life Cycle Logistics Specialist position to be a professional level Exempt position with a recommended base salary of an equivalent GS-12 Step 1 of $86,000/yr or $41.35/hr?

See Question #6.

The formula in the Attach L-1 Excel Pricing Model escalates at the beginning of each Option Period.

The answer to draft Question # 19 states “For pricing purposes, escalation is assumed to be applied at the start of each contract year rather than calendar year; however, this does not restrict the offeror to a certain date for salary increases. For example, offerors can use two separate escalation rates for each contract period based on the overlap of the calendar year start date of January 1.”

Please confirm that offerors are allowed to assume the escalation be applied at the start of each contract year rather than calendar year. This would be 2.95%, beginning with Option Year 1/Contract Year 2.

Confirmed. Escalation is assumed to be applied at the start of each contract year rather than calendar year; however, this does not restrict the offeror to a specific date for exempt labor category salary increases. For example, offerors can use two separate escalation rates for each contract period based on the overlap of the calendar year start date of January 1. Applicable uniform rates of change for calendar year 2025-2028 are provided in Table L-2, Escalation Rates.

Please confirm that Offerors should not escalate CBA rates beyond what is shown in the provided agreements.

See Question #17.

In addition to the 45-day initial submission request, would the Government also consider, as an alternative, this report be submitted monthly instead of weekly?

DRD 1807MA-005 updated to reflect a first submission date of no later than 45 days after contract effective date. Additionally, the submission frequency is revised from weekly to monthly.

FACTOR II - PRICE VOLUME EVALUATION

(a) The Government will perform a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques

FAR/CFR: 15.305(a)(1) Cost or price evaluation. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness.

15.404-1

(b) Price analysis.

(1) ….Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the offeror or contractor when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price. Contracting officers shall obtain data other than certified cost or pricing data from the offeror or contractor for all acquisitions (including commercial acquisitions), if that is the contracting officer’s only means to determine the price to be fair and reasonable.

Why is NASA is requesting the additional Excel Pricing sheets in violation of FAR 15.404-1 when adequate competition satisfied the requirement for a fair and reasonable price at FAR 15.403(b)(1) ?

In accordance with NFS 1815.403-3(b), Excel Pricing Model data obtained (i.e., Volume II, Tab B) may be utilized in future wage determination adjustments under FAR Clause 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards. The Government has changed what pricing information is required to ensure that only the minimum amount of information is being requested and as a result the EPM is updated.

(b)Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Price factor volumes will be considered in determining if the offeror's proposed price is fair and reasonable

15.404-1

(b) Price analysis.

(2) The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to, the following:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)).

(ii) Comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial products or commercial services including those “of a type” or when requiring minor modifications for commercial products.

Beyond the establishment of adequate competition, what authority is NASA using to further establish a fair and reasonable price based on consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Price factor?

See Question #34.

Submission of Excel Pricing breakdown

15.402 Pricing policy.

Contracting officers shall-

(a) Purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices. In establishing the reasonableness of the offered prices, the contracting officer-

(2) When certified cost or pricing data are not required by 15.403-4, shall obtain data other than certified cost or pricing data as necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price, generally using the following order of preference in determining the type of data required:

(i) No additional data from the offeror, if the price is based on adequate price competition, except as provided by 15.403-3(b).

(b) Adequate price competition. When adequate price competition exists (see 15.403-1(c)(1)), generally no additional data are necessary to determine the reasonableness of price. However, if there are unusual circumstances where it is concluded that additional data are necessary to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, obtain the additional data from sources other than the offeror. In addition, the contracting officer should request data to determine the cost realism of competing offers or to evaluate competing approaches.

Based on the nature of this commercial services acquisition, what does NASA consider the “unusual circumstance” that would warrant requesting and evaluating the additional cost or pricing data?

See Question #34.

16.202-1 Description.

A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties.

In this proposal evaluation technique where the government provides WYEs for each labor category, how does NASA consider and evaluate the requirement for the contractor to assume “maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss” when NASA dictates the WYEs for each labor category on a firm fixed price contract?

The WYEs provided in the Excel Pricing Model represent the anticipated labor mix of the MLSS II effort and are provided for the establishment of a total proposed price for comparison purposes in accordance with Factor II – Price Volume Evaluation, paragraph (c). The actual firm-fixed-price for performance of the contract will be established by task orders to be negotiated during the contract phase-in period, based on needs determined at that time. Upon establishment of the task order FFP value, the “maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss” will be placed on the contractor for performance at the established task order value.

To provide weekly financial reports for monitoring MLSS II program costs. The financial reports are the official cost documents used at NASA for cost type, price redetermination, and fixed price contracts.

16.202-1 Description.

A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties.

Considering the nature the minimum administrative burden when using a firm fixed price, why is NASA willing to pay the additional cost to require a weekly cost report on a firm fixed price contract ?

In accordance with Section 15.3, contents of DRD 1807MA-005, the purpose of the report is to account for non-labor and materials purchased using the T&M CLINs on this contract.

There are no points of contact for any of the Collective Bargaining Agreements provided in the DRFP.

Will NASA provide each union’s point of contact?

The point of contact information for each of the Collective Bargaining Agreements is provided in Section L, Attachment L-3, Background and Historical Information of the solicitation.

13 C.F.R. 125.8(e) Capabilities, past performance and experience. When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

Given the 13 C.F.R 125.8(e) will the government make a change to the DRFP to appropriately reflect the intent of considering all past performance from JV partners of the joint venture in the aggregate?

The Government will evaluate in accordance with 13 CFR 124.513(f) and 13 CFR 125.8(e). The language in Section L, Factor III – Past Performance Volume Instructions, will not be updated because the two references requested for the protégé managing partner are recommendations and not requirements. Past Performance evaluation of Joint Ventures was addressed during the Virtual Industry Day on April 26, 2023; the presentation was uploaded to SAM.gov under solicitation no. 80MSFC23R0004.

QUESTION: Can the Government please confirm that the one year of performance can be completed by the time of contract start?

In accordance with Factor III - Past Performance Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b), the five-year performance window is relative to the due date for receipt of proposals (i.e., August 21, 2023).

QUESTIONS:

• Is the calculation of the formula used based on the dates provided?

• Can the Government confirm that these are the appropriate total hours in each contract year to be used?

Yes, the total working hours per year are calculated using the formula “NETWORKDAYS” in Excel, which vary considering factors such as the actual day of the week that January 1 and December 31 fall on as well as whether the year is a leap year.

QUESTIONS:

• Can the Government confirm that offerors are to use the total number of WYEs as well as the distribution across the labor categories such that we do not change what the Government has prescribed as WYEs by labor category?

• Specifically, are offerors able to modify the WYE structure and content as provided by the Government or is this data not to be changed for evaluation purposes?

The WYEs provided in the Excel Pricing Model are provided for the establishment of a total proposed price for comparison purposes in accordance with Factor II – Price Volume Evaluation, paragraph (c). Accordingly, offerors shall not modify the delineated WYEs or associated skill mix.

QUESTIONS:

• What system is currently being utilized by the Government or the incumbent contractor?

• Will this system be provided under this contract?

• If not, what is the size and format of the legacy data set?

A list of NASA approved systems for work control program is provided at PWS 2.1.4(e). These systems are provided by the Government.

QUESTIONS:

• What system is currently being utilized by the Government or the incumbent contractor?

• Will this system be provided under this contract?

• If not, what is the size and format of the legacy data set?

See Question #45.

QUESTIONS:

• What system is currently being utilized by the Government or the incumbent contractor?

• Will this system be provided under this contract?

• If not, what is the size and format of the legacy data set?

See Question #45.

QUESTIONS:

• What purchasing system is currently being utilized by the Government or the incumbent contractor?

• Will this system be provided under this contract?

• If not, what is the size and format of the legacy data set?

There is no Government or incumbent purchasing system that is available for provision to the successful offeror. Volume I - Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) requires offerors to describe the policies, processes, and procedures to manage purchasing functions or systems while Paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) requires offerors to describe the technical approach to perform PWS 7.7 Purchasing. Should the approach to perform either requirement be redundant, offerors may refer the reader to that portion of their Mission Suitability Volume rather than repeat the information. Refer to the historical data provided in Section L, Attachment Background and Historical Information, for cost/purchasing information.

QUESTION:

• What are the make, model and number of GSA vehicles currently being supported?

Amendment P0002 includes Attachment L-3 which provides details related to GSA vehicles.

QUESTION:

• What are the make, model and number of Government transportation assets currently being supported?

Amendment P0002 revises Attachment L-3 to incorporate a listing of transportation assets to be supported.

QUESTION:

• What are the number of trips per day/week/month/year and the number of passengers required to be transported?

The Government does not currently have this information. However, as the contractor is only responsible for chartering these buses, such information is not considered necessary for proposal preparation.

In table L-2 escalation rates. In which contract year do we begin applying 2025 escalation rates.

See Question #25.

In the pricing spreadsheet Tab C is applying escalation to SCLS labor categories and CBA labor categories. Page L-22 of the RFP states “SCLS rates shall not be escalated in Tab C of the

EPM”.

See Question #17.

Comment: The Life Cycle Logistics Specialist position is classified as an SCLS - Job Code: 01270 Production Control Clerk.

Request: Due to the extensive job responsibilities as a 'specialist', rather than as a 'clerk', request consideration for this to be reclassified as Exempt.

See Question #6.

Comment: TA-1 (E) states, "The approach to provide vehicles and equipment to perform the requirements specified in the PWS (e.g., leased, purchased, provided by offeror) and quantity and types of vehicles considered necessary to perform these requirements which maximizes cost efficiency and best value to the Government." These requirements appear to be related to PWS 8.1.14.

Question 1: Will the Government please provide a list of the GSA vehicles currently utilized by the incumbent MLSS contractor?

Question 2: As each offeror’s proposed solution for vehicles and equipment could substantially vary, is it intentional for their price to not be included within the Price Template, or please identify how and where it should be priced?

Answer 1: There are no GSA vehicles used on the incumbent contract.

Answer 2: Yes. While the offeror's proposed vehicle solution will be evaluated for technical understanding under the Mission Suitability factor, the price associated with this solution will not be evaluated as offerors are not required to price this solution within the Price volume.

TA-1 (E) is updated for clarity.

Comment: On page I-2, Clause 52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors is followed by (NOV 2021). On page I-18 and I-26 this clause reference appears to have been updated to (MAR 2023) Question: Will the Government please revise RFP date on this clause from Nov 2021 to read as Mar 2023? Refer to FAC 2023-02 dated 14 FEB 23.

Amendment P0002 updates Clause 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Subcontractors to the March 2023 version.

Attachment L-1, Excel_Pricing_Model

Comment: Within Attachment J-7, the Life Cycle Logistics Specialist position is aligned to PWS 9.1. In the Attachment L-1, this position is aligned to PWS 5.0, as the most accurate association.

Question: Will the Government please deconflict the mapping of the LCAT: Life Cycle Logistics Specialist?

The Life Cycle Logistics Specialist position's alignment has been updated from PWS 9.1 to PSW 5.0 in Attachment J-7, Rates Schedule and Labor Categories, Schedule A, Labor Category Descriptions.

Comment: The RFP states, "Performance of referenced contracts shall be limited to that which occurred within five years of the due date for receipt of proposals. Additionally, each referenced contract shall have a minimum of one year of performance within the five-year period."

Question: Will the Government clarify if the start of performance, for the one year of performance requirement, may include the transition period or does performance begin on the first day of full performance (after conclusion of a transition period)?

See Question #42.

RFP, pg L-2 1-13

Comment: Section L provides instructions for sending a questionnaire to contract POCs. The questionnaire covers the same graded areas as a formal CPAR assessment.

Question: If a contract has received a formal CPAR assessment, can offerors state that CPARs are available for review in the Government system and forego sending a duplicative assessment form to the contract?

See Question #19.

Comment: Section L provides instructions for sending a questionnaire to identified recipients and states that submitted questionnaires are excluded from page count. However, it is unclear if the offeror is to include a copy of the sent questionnaires with the proposal.

Question: Will the Government clarify if offerors are to include a copy of the questionnaires sent to both POCs in their proposal?

No, the Past Performance Questionnaires should be completed by the contracting officer (CO) and contracting officer’s representative (COR), task monitor (TM), or other person(s) tasked with monitoring the contractor’s compliance with the requirements of the contract and sent directly to Max.D.Ledesma@nasa.gov.

Comment: The instructions do not allow offerors to modify the EPM to align it to their indirect or overhead structure. For instance, if there is more than a single OH type utilized for labor, offerors cannot capture this data.

Question: Will the Government allow offerors and major subcontractors to modify the EPM for consistency with their indirect or overhead structure?

Question 2: Specifically, can offerors add an additional column to accurately calculate the fully burdened labor rate?

Answer 1: Yes, Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) is revised to indicate offerors may insert additional columns to account for their indirect or overhead structure.

Answer 2: See answer above.

Question 1: How should offerors adjust the productive hours calculation to incorporate the anticipated turn-over of employees, due to the seniority on the majority of the incumbent workforce, commonly referred to as a ‘lapse’ or 'vacancy' rate?

Question 2: Would the Government please provide the historical vacancy rates?

Answer 1: Offerors shall not utilize a "lapse" or "vacancy" factor when determining their fully burdened labor rates.

Answer 2: The Government does not possess historical vacancy rates.

Comment: Over the contract’s total five years and through management and technical approaches from a new MLSS contractor, it is anticipated that the time to perform tasks will reduce.

Question: Within the EPM, where should offerors incorporate their ‘efficiency factors’?

Offerors shall not incorporate efficiency factors into the EPM. Please note the value of all IDIQ task orders for the base year will be negotiated during the phase-in period. Any recognized efficiencies during the base period will be negotiated and incorporated into the task order awarded for contract year 2 and beyond.

RFP, pg L-25, Section L (E) Total Compensation Rates

Comment: Directly from within the ERI software database, two of the positions have higher base wage recommendations than than the minimum rates provided in Attachment J-7, Schedule B and Section L, for the following positions: Financial Specialist and Logistics Analyst I.

Request: Please consider reviewing the base wages for these two positions to increase the minimum hourly rates for consistency across all offerors and to provide the awaree with the ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.

Please note that in accordance with Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(3)(i)(e) the minimally acceptable direct labor rates specified are established at the 25th percentile of the applicable ERI salary survey rate. Offerors are not prohibited from proposing rates higher than the specified minimums.

RFP, pg L-25, Section L (E) Total Compensation Rates

Comment: The ERI software database does not contain direct matches to the following positions: Flight Hardware Supervisor and Furniture Designer.

Request: Please advise of the ERI position title referenced to avoid wage disparity among offerors and to provide the awardee the ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.

Please note that in accordance with Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(3)(i)(e) the Flight Hardware Supervisor is mapped to ERI Logistics Supervisor and the Furniture Designer position is mapped to ERI Interior Designer. Note that minimally acceptable labor rates are provided for both labor categories.

Comment: 52.223-97 states, in part, "All contractor personnel performing work onsite at MSFC or Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) shall complete, in a timely manner, all applicable mandatory and required training courses listed . . . at https://nasa.sharepoint.com/sites/msfcohr/SitePages/Mandatory-Training.aspx ."

Question: May the offeror assume the labor cost for these training requirements will be paid by the Government, during contract performance? Or, should the costs for required training be included in an offeror's fully burdened hourly rate for each LCAT?

Training should be accounted for in an offeror's fully burdened labor rates. However, please note that the specified training delineated in Attachment L-3 is online training that may be taken during normal business hours.

Comment: Information is requested from the Offeror and its Major Subcontractors, with the last row identifying Major Subcontractors as "≥$1M".

Question: Is the definition of a Major Subcontractor for Factor II the same or different than the definition provided for Factor III, as "performing 15 percent or more of total anticipated FY24 Work Year Equivalents (WYEs)"?

Amendment P0002 updates Table L-3 to remove the last row referencing "Major Subcontractors".

"The Government will also evaluate compliance with required minimally acceptable direct labor rates as specified in Volume II - Price Factor Instructions using rates provided in the offerors or major subcontractors EPM."

Comment: The WYEs from each referenced contract, associated with the MLSS II PWS, is requested. However, the MLSS II WYEs are not provided for relevancy comparison, as the Past Performance content is not at the same PWS level as the staffing is provided in the…