CATTS Industry Day Questions and Answers.pdf

Number Section / Attachment Question Response

1 General Would you considered allowing any 1-on-1 meetings with industry as part of the CATTS industry day process. There may be bidders associated with a HUBZone set-aside that the NASA CATTS team is not fully aware of. We would appreciate the opportunity to go over the attached presentation with the program team as time permits.

One-on-one meetings are encouraged in accordance with FAR 15.201(c)(f) as an effective means of promoting an early exchange of information prior to the release of the final solicitation. Interested parties are requested to contact Jesica Henderson at jesica.l.pugh@nasa.gov as specified in the provision MSFC 52.204-90, Designated Point of Contact, at the earliest possible date to accomodate as many requests as possible prior to final RFP release.

2 DRFP Cover Letter The cover letter states, “Documents related to this acquisition, including this letter, the solicitation, attachments, exhibits, any amendments, and links to online reference/technical/ bidder’s library….” Would the government kindly grant instant access to the bidder's library so that potential offerors can analyze and assess the data to see if there is enough information and data accessible for a non-incumbent offeror to submit a competitive bid?

The cover letter is an Agency template which provides this listing as examples of related documents. However, as no documentation is considered necessary to post to a bidder's library, no such library has been established for the CATTS acquisition.

3 General Please confirm that it is acceptable for the Managing Partner to be EEO and VEVRAA compliant if the Offeror is a HUBZone Joint Venture.

For purposes of proposal submission, each joint venture entity is considered to be an offeror (however, see also provision Volume III - Past Performance Volume Evaluation, paragraph (b) regarding the past performance evaluation of protege members). EEO and VEVRAA compliance requirements apply to all federal contractors and subcontractors. EEO and VEVRAA do not have any bearing on the HUBZone offeror's whether in a joint venture or not.

4 DRFP Cover Letter and CATTS Industry Day Briefing Charts

On June 29, 2023, NASA released an update via SAM.gov regarding the planned solicitation timeline. Specifically, NASA indicated a planned release of a DRFP on or about July 5, 2023, and a planned final RFP release on or about August 28, 2023. Additionally, the Industry Day slide 82 indicates a final RFP release date on or about August 28, 2023. However, the DRFP Cover Letter reflects a planned final RFP release on or about July 25, 2023. Please clarify when NASA plans to release the final RFP.

The current planned release date of the final RFP is on or about August 28, 2023. Notice of the pending final RFP posting will be synopsized on SAM.gov in accordance with FAR 5.203(a).

5 CATTS Industry Day Briefing Charts The industry day charts state that If the firm proposes to capture incumbent employees and proposes direct labor/salary rates for incumbent personnel that are lower than incumbent rates, explain how your firm intends to attract and retain incumbent staff. Failure to provide supporting rationale for lower direct labor/salary rates may impact the evaluation. For cost-reimbursement contracts, it may also result in probable cost adjustments." Because the Government has not provided incumbent labor rates, offerors (other than the incumbent) cannot know whether their proposed rates are lower than incumbent rates. In order to effectively respond, can the Government provide average direct labor rates for incumbent personnel?

The Government does not have access to this information. Please see Section I, 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRE for information regarding Government Scale employee equivalent salary information.

6 CATTS Industry Day Briefing Charts During industry day, the Government provided an example of the specific SME support required PWS 5.0, and has requested pricing for SME support in the proposal. However, the Government has not provided a list of required SME fields to support pricing. Can the Government provide an average hourly labor cost (direct) for the current SME workforce, or if unavailable, Can the Government provide a list of specific SME fields required to assist with pricing?

The Government is unable to provide the average hourly labor cost for the current SME workforce. However, please Attachment J-5, Supplemental Mission Core Job Descriptions, 2. Technology Transfer Subject Matter Expert (SME), ERI Category: Subject Matter Expert Tech, for relevant information.

7 CATTS Industry Day Briefing Charts The Draft RFP states that Mission Suitability Volume page limit is 40; however, the industry day charts reflected a 30-page limit. Which limit is correct?

The DRFP page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume (i.e., 40 pages) is correct and acknowledges the typographical error in the Industry Day Briefing Charts.

8 CATTS Industry Day Briefing Charts The Draft RFP states that a Government Property Management Plan is due with the proposal, but the industry day charts indicated the OCI plan was the only one provided in the RFP. Should we expect the Final RFP to require a Property Management Plan as part of proposal submission or after contract award?

The Final RFP will be revised to indicate that the initial submission of the Government Property Management Plan will be no later than 15 days after the start of the phase-in period, with final submission no later than 60 days after the start of the phase-in period.

9 MSFC 52.216-92 MATRIX OF

CONTRACT LINE ITEMS (CLINS)

(OCT 2017); page B-3

“*Insert a value 50% of the proposed CLIN 014 value.” Given that CLIN 014 is for a 12-month period of performance, please explain the basis for CLIN 017 being 50% of the proposed CLIN 014 value when the period of performance for CLIN 017 is less than six months.

The total period of performance for CLIN 017 slightly exceeds six months. However, in accordance with the clause, the total period of this CLIN will be revised to total six months (i.e., 4/1/2029 -9/30/2029).

10 MSFC 52.216-90 IDIQ CONTRACT

VALUE BY PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE (MAY 2017); page B-4

Please clarify if the specified maximum values contained are the DRFP Section B is reflective of historical incumbent contractor burn rate or is this the government’s forecasted spending.

Known requirements (i.e., those services supporting Marshall Space Flight Center, Headquarters, and Stennis Space Center) will be performed as firm-fixed-price mission core services. The maximum values established in clause MSFC 52.216-90, IDIQ Contract Value by Period of Performance, are considered sufficient to accomodate the current workload of remaining centers should they be supported through the use of IDIQ task orders.

11 MSFC 52.237-92 DEDUCTIONS FOR

FAILURE TO MEET ACCEPTABLE

PERFORMANCE LEVELS (JUN 2017);

page B-5

“(a) The contractor’s performance will be evaluated on a monthly basis. The Government will apply deductions for failure to meet acceptable performance levels (APLs)….” As the Mission Core Services primarily represent the MSFC incumbent contract work, it would appear that the MSFC incumbent contractor has tremendous insight into the current APL performance metrics. As such, would the government provide the historical actual APL metrics using average ratings for PRS items 1 – 3?

The CATTS solicitation established a Performance Requirements Summary as Attachment J-3 which is a new approach for implementing a financial performance incentive. However, this structure is not being used on the incumbent contracts. Therefore, no such data can be provided.

12 1852.245-74 IDENTIFICATION AND

MARKING OF GOVERNMENT

EQUIPMENT (JAN 2011), paragraph (a); page D-1

Given the PWS requirements, it is unclear how “aerospace parts” are to be used in support of the CATTS contract.

Would the government consider deleting this requirement?

No aerospace parts will be used in support of the CATTS contract. However, in accordance with NFS 1845.107- 70(e), the clause is required when FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, is included. As the computers to be utilized are considered to be Government-Furnished Property, the FAR clause is required.

13 MSFC 52.211-94 PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE (MAY 2017)

“The period of performance for this contract is from 03/01/2024 through 03/30/2025.” This appears to be a 13-month Base Period. Please confirm the full period of performance for the CATTS contract is a 12-month Base Period plus four 1-year Option Periods, totaling five years if all options are exercised.

The total period of performance for the contract base period is 13 months. However, please note that this period includes a 30-day phase-in period (i.e., CLIN 001) which overlaps the incumbent contract by 30 days during which time the incumbent contractor is responsible for performance of the predecessor contract.

14 MSFC 52.237-91 PLACE OF

PERFORMANCE (JUL 2018)

“The contractor shall perform the work under this contract at Ames Research Center (ARC), Mountain View, CA….” PWS Section 1.1 indicates that the Core Mission Services includes services for NASA HQ, MSFC, and SSC. Although PWS Section 6.0 infers the potential for support at other NASA centers, it does not appear that each NASA center is required to use the CATTS contract for T2P support. With the exclusion of NASA HQ, MSFC, and SSC, would the government consider revising the requirement to reflect that contractors “may” provide services as the other cited locations?

The referenced clause will be revised for clarity.

The contractor shall perform the work under this contract at NASA Headquarters (HQ), Washington, DC;

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, AL; and Stennis Space Center (SSC), Bay St. Louis, MS. The contractor may also perform the work at Ames Research Center (ARC), Mountain View, CA; Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC), Edwards Air Force Base, CA; Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, MD; Glenn Research Center (GRC), Cleveland, OH; Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, TX; Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Merritt Island, FL; Langley Research Center (LaRC), Langley, VA; including Component Facilities and Technical & Service Support Centers, or alternate place of performance, and other locations approved in writing by the contracting officer.

15 1852.232-80 SUBMISSION OF

VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT (APR

2018)

Ref. Section G.(c), p.G-1. The invoicing instructions appear to be for cost type contracts. Given the resulting contract and IDIQ Task Orders will FFP, would the government revise the invoicing instructions to simply comply with FAR 32.905(b), which does not call for a detailed cost build up, including indirect rates?

The clause is required in accordance with NFS 1832.908-70. See also FAR 32.905.

16 J-1 PWS; 1.3 Place(s) of Performance and Industry Day Briefing

Attachment J-1 states, “The work under this contract shall be conducted in the United States and primarily virtually/remotely through collaboration tools such as Microsoft Teams and does not require on-site presence at NASA Headquarters or field Centers, including component and technical supporting facilities.” During Industry Day, the government indicated that staff supporting PWS 5.0 must be located within commuting distance to MSFC. Please clarify the requirement to be onsite and specify the frequency of onsite meetings and need to be onsite at MSFC.

While the position shall be within commuting distance of MSFC with the expectation of on-site presence note that in the pending revised telework policy, on-site presence is expected at no more than 3 days per week with the remaining days performed via telework.

17 J-1 PWS; 3.0.2 “Maintain a tracking spreadsheet with a “plan versus actuals” log for deliverables….” Please clarify what is meant by “plan versus actuals.” Is the contractor tracking planned deliverables and actual submission of deliverables?

The language relates to the actual vs planned deliverables for those items required by PWS 3.0. For example, on the first working day of each month, the contractor would be required to report the number of planned technology screening reports and the number or such reports actually processed during the preceding month.

The log is maintained over the life of the contract and updated monthly with this information.

18 J-1 PWS; 3.6 Direct Marketing (Low Intesity) Service, 3.7 Direct Marketing (Medium Intensity) Service, and 3.8 Direct Marketing (High Intensity) Service

As the incumbent MSFC T2P contractor would have tremendous insight into the existing volume of marketing calls, would the government consider providing the historical volumes of contacts over the past three years for low, medium, and high intensity direct marketing work?

This requirement is a new service that is required under CATTS. Please note that PWS 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 specify the anticipated volume of contacts required for Low, Medium, and High Intensity efforts, while Attachment J-1, Appendix A, indicates that the Government will require at least 9 direct marketing services for each type of contact. So, for example, for a High Intensity effort, the Government will require at least 900 contacts over the course of the performance year. As this requirement is new, historical information is not available.

19 On dRFP page 49, NASA discusses the Commercial Technology Assessment Reports (CTAR) service. Under the Expert Interviews bullet, NASA does not set the expectation of the average number of interview summaries that should appear in a single CTAR report on average. NASA has historically received 4-6 such summaries on average (quoting an average is typical given the situation varies per technology). It would seem in NASA’s best interests to make this “4-6 interviews per CTAR report on average” stipulation since, otherwise, the winner could just reach out to a few people, say no experts responded, and deliver a report with modest value for NASA (since working diligently to harvest such industry feedback is the centerpiece of the assessment service).

The Government would expect the selected offeror to put forth their best effort in completing the reports outlined in PWS 3.0.

CATTS Industry Day Questions and Answers

Cover Letter

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

SECTION J-1 - PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

20 J-1 PWS; Appendix A Estimated Annual Deliverables to be Provided under Section 3.0

Similar to PWS 3.0, would the government consider providing estimated annual deliverables to be provided under PWS 4.0?

PWS section 4.0 describes the day-to-day activities of the personnel required to perform the effort, which are further delineated as mandatory required staffing levels in Appendix B, Center-Specific Mission Requirements.

Therefore, the requested information is considered unnecessary.

21 DRD Number 1816LS-001 Considering the Government Property Management Plan is not referenced in Section L and is not an evaluated criteria in Section M, similar to the SHE Plan and other required plans, would the government consider revising the requirement to submit an “preliminary” Government Property Management Plan to “within 30 calendar days after contract award” rather than with the proposal submission?

See Question 9 above.

22 PRS-1 “PRS-1…No recurring incidents. Recurring incident is defined as an incident which is reported in three consecutive months.” Please explain what is considered to be an “incident?”

An incident would be considered as any failure to perform the requirements in accordance with any of the DRDs specified for PRS-1. This could include, for example, failure to submit the required documents in the time specified, failure to complete mandatory training within the timeframe specified, or failure to provide weekly notes of significant accomplishment.

23 PRS-2 In PRS-2, please confirm the reference to “1816” is inclusive of all 1816 DRDs, including CD, LS, MA, and SA. Confirmed, for any DRD deliverable required to be submitted on a monthly basis.

24 PRS-3 Although there are financial penalties for other than EXCELLENT customer satisfaction ratings, it is unclear how the government will measure customer satisfaction rating. Given the incumbent MSFC T2P contractor would have tremendous insight in the Customer Survey and associated measurement, would the government please consider providing the Customer Survey in the bidders library prior to the release of the final solicitation?

Customer Surveys are not being used on the incumbent HQ, MSFC, and SSC contracts, as the methodology is new for the CATTS effort. Therefore, the requested information is not available.

25 PRS-3 The RFP provides for as much as a 10% deduction on total invoice amounts based on customer reviews for "Technology Transfer Reports" Can the Government provide additional detail on these reports, including: (1) for which specific reports are customer reviews solicited (e.g., TTR, TSR, CTAR, TOPS)? (2) what is the response rate on customer reviews,

(3) what are current average reviews for these reports, and (4) are average responses calculated for each month, or is it an overall running total of averages?

For question 1, all products contained in PWS 3.0 and services contained in PWS 4.0 will be reviewed as indicated on the table on page J-3-4. For questions 2, 3, and 4, please see questions 12 and 25 above.

26 J-4, Customer Survey Please clarify who will administer and distribute the customer survey forms, the method of distribution (i.e., email, web form, etc.), and the frequency of distribution and measurement

The survey form will be distributed by the contracting officer's representative on a monthly basis via email to a Technical Monitor appointed for each Center (i.e., three for mission core services).

27 J-5, Labor Category Descriptions Given that nearly all of the education requirements for the CATTS contract labor categories call for a bachelor’s or master’s degree except for the Technology Transfer roles, would the government consider removing the requirement for degrees in specific disciplines such as engineering or science as our experience shows that practical experience performing similar work is more relevant than degree field of study?

Only six of the 24 labor category descriptions delineated in Attachment J-5 require specific types of degrees. Of those, each is considered relevant to the types of skills and credentials necessary to perform the effort.

28 J-5, Program Manager/Contractor Supervisor

Considering the anticipated size and complexity of the contract without certainty of support for all NASA centers, which is less than 40 FTEs, the requirement for a Master of Science or MBA degree and 20 years of experience for the Program Manager appears to be overly onerous and favors the incumbent MSFC contractor, would the government consider change the education requirements to a bachelor’s degree with 10+ years of experience?

The final RFP will be revised to revise the qualifications and experience requirements for the Program Manager position.

29 J-6, IDIQ Rates While Section MSFC 52.216-91(b) states, “The contract type will be firm-fixed-price (FFP) for both the mission core services and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) components,” and other parts of the solicitation call for the FFP Task Orders, Attachment J-6 calls for fully-loaded Time and Materials rates. Please clarify if the IDIQ Task Orders will be FFP or T&M. If the latter, would the government consider deleting Attachment J-6 in its entirety? Otherwise, would the government consider revising the solicitation to reflect T&M type for IDIQ Task Orders?

Attachment J-6 does not refer to fully-loaded time and materials rates and refers only to fully burdened labor rates.

30 J-6, IDIQ Rates The government specifies very specific labor categories by NASA field centers. Considering PWS 6.1 calls for support for “any of the tasks in Section 3 and 4,” it appears that the limited number of center-specific labor categories are not sufficient to perform the full scope of work for PWS 3.0 and 4.0. Would the government consider a common set of labor categories for IDIQ Task Orders that the contractor can use to propose on center-specific IDIQ Task Orders?

Labor categories specified for each performance location are those categories considered necessary to perform those activities required by each center. Should an additional center be added via IDIQ task order, the task order would cleary specify the limited scope within PWS sections 3.0 and 4.0 that those personnel would be expected to perform on that task order.

31 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE

LIMITATIONS (AUG 2022); (b)(4)

“Additionally, 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.” Would the government revise the DRFP instructions to allow Offerors the ability to utilize the company’s logo in the margins of Volume IV – Contract to ensure consistency of presentation across all four proposal volumes?

No. The transmittal letter only, prepared on the offeror's letterhead, may contain information such as company logo in the header or footer. However, all subsequent pages shall be provided as directed in paragraph (b) of this provision.

32 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE

LIMITATIONS (AUG 2022) (c)

The RFP states that offerors should "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-" It appears the remainder of this instruction was removed from the RFP. Can the Government clarify its intent on identifying excluded pages, including numbering on the page itself or elsewhere?

The Final RFP, paragraph (c) will be revised to state- "(c) 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-2, Past Performance Questionnaire, is excluded from the Past Performance volume page limitation. Total Compensation Plan information required by the Mission Suitability volume to be included in the Price volume does not count against the Mission Suitability volume page limitation. There are no other exclusions from the page limitations established for the page limited volumes. In addition, the Cost section of your proposal is not page limited. However, this section is to be strictly limited to cost and price information.

Information that can be construed as belonging in one of the other sections of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that section’s page limitation."

33 Section L, 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL

PAGE LIMITATIONS

Section L states that the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) information required by the Mission Suitability volume to be included in the Price volume does not count against the Mission Suitability volume page limitation. Is it suitable to reference in the Mission Suitability Volume that all TCP information is covered in the pricing volume?

Yes.

34 MSFC 52.215-90 SUMMARY OF

DEVIATIONS/EXCEPTIONS (DEC

20212)

“The offeror shall complete the table below if any exceptions exist. If no exceptions exist, the offeror shall insert “N/A” under each column.” Please confirm that including the referenced table reflecting Exceptions/Deviations in Volume IV – Contract is acceptable.

If the offeror takes any exceptions, deviations, and/or conditional assumptions with the solicitation, this table shall be provided in the Contract Volume in accordance with provision MSFC 52.215-90, Summary of Deviations/Exceptions. However, any exceptions, deviations, and/or conditional assumptions taken with respect to Price Volume instructions or requirements shall be in provided Section 1 of that volume in accordance with Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B).

36 MSFC 52.253-90 REQUIRED FORMS

(NOV 2018); (a)

“The form checked below is attached to the end of this solicitation and shall be submitted prior to award of any contract resulting from this solicitation….” Would the government please provide NASA Form 1018 to ensure currency.

Please note that paragraph (b) of the referenced clause requires no forms to be submitted prior to award.

Paragraph (c) indicates that the NASA form 1018 is only required in performance of this contract (i.e., after contract start).

36 MSFC 52.253-90 REQUIRED FORMS

(NOV 2018); (c)

“The form checked below is attached to the end of this solicitation and shall be submitted prior to award of any contract resulting from this solicitation, upon request from the responsible contracting office.” Unless the Offeror is the incumbent contractor, Offerors do not have the requisite data to complete NASA Form 1018. Please provide guidance on how Offerors can obtain the requisite information to complete and submit NASA Form 1018.

See question 36 above. Offerors are therefore not required to have any information at present in order to submit a proposal.

37 Subfactor 2 - Management and Compensation Approach (i)(A)

From our understanding of the RFP, the Government is evaluating the Total Compensation Plan as part of the Mission Suitability - Management approach, but the entirety of the Total Compensation Plan is included in the price volume and not page limited. Does the Government simply want a link to the TCP in Mission Suitability volume, or are there some aspects of the TCP that should be included in the page-limited portion of the Mission Suitability volume?

The offeror shall submit a total compensation plan (TCP) in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (see FAR 22.1102, 29 CFR 541.702, and Attachment J-5, Labor Category Descriptions). While the plan shall be provided in its entirety in the Price volume (for both the offeror and subcontractor), it will be evaluated under the Mission Suitability factor. The Government recognizes that the Price volume is not page limited. However, offerors should include only that information in the Price volume requested by the instructions contained in the provision Volume II -Price Factor Instructions, relating to the submission of the total compensation plan, in addition to that information required elsewhere by this provision. Offerors shall not provide a link in the Mission Suitability volume to the separate Price volume.

38 Subfactor 2 - Management and Compensation Approach (iii)

The RFP states that "the offeror shall describe the proposed organizational and teaming structure, interfaces to the Government…" Can the Government provide an organization chart showing expected Government interfaces for purposes of preparing this section?

The purpose of the requested proposed organizational structure is to allow offerors to propose an organizational structure that will allow for an efficient and effective means of performing and managing the contract while interfacing with the appropriate Government personnel.

39 Section L, Factor II (b)(2)(i)(D) “The offeror and all major subcontractors shall provide a copy of the latest approved forward pricing rate package (if applicable).” Given the anticipate CATTS contract is FFP with FFP Task Orders, would the government consider removing all requirements to provide forward pricing rate package and all requirements associated with Forwarding Pricing Rate Agreements and Proposals (FPRA/FPRP)?

The requested information is considered necessary to assist in the determination that the proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (b)(2)(vii).

40 Section L, Factor II (b)(2)(ii) “The offeror and all major subcontractors shall provide a pricing narrative BOE that explains in detail all pricing and estimating techniques.” Given the government provides staffing levels and Core Mission Services NTE amounts, would the government consider removing the requirement to provide a BOE?

The BOE is requested in support of pricing and not a proposed staffing solution.

41 Section L, Factor II (b)(3)(ii)(D) Since the solicitation indicates that the CATTS contract will be FFP for the Core Mission Services and FFP Task Orders for the IDIQ portion of the contract, would the government consider removing the requirement to provide fully burden labor rate build up information through fee?

The CATTS solicitation contains provision 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compenstation for Professional Employees which necessitates the provision of compensation rate information (i.e., direct labor and fringe benefit information) in order to assess the realism of the offeror's proposed compensation approach. Additionally, the information is necessary to confirm consistency between volumes.

ATTACHMENT J-3 - PEFROMANCE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT J-4 - CUSTOMER SURVEY

ATTACHMENT J-5 - LABOR CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS

ATTACHMENT J-6 - INDEFINITE-DELIVER, INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (IDIQ) RATES

ATTACHMENT J-2 - DATA PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

FACTOR II - PRICE VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

FACTOR III - PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

42 Section L, Factor III, Section II (1);

page L-30

“Past Performance Contracts Summary Table – Offerors shall provide a completed summary table of applicable past performance information….” Considering the qualifying past performance criteria and the size standard for the CATTS contract, the requirement to detail the number of FTEs for each contract clearly favors the incumbent MSFC contractor as they have nearly all of the required personnel while likely to unfairly prejudice the Source Selection Board’s evaluation of a non-incumbent Offeror’s capacity to successfully staff and perform work, would the government consider removing this requirement in its entirety?

Relevancy for offeror and subcontractor references will be in accordance with the criteria established in provision Factor III - Past Performance Volume Instructions, paragraph (d). The purpose of the information requested in Section II - Past Performance Contract Summary Table is to correlate the referenced contract's claim of experience in one or more applicable PWS areas with the existence of referenced WYEs in those PWS areas. Therefore capacity will not be measured, only correlated to the narrative description of the performance referenced. If a single WYE supports multiple PWS areas, the referenced WYEs should reflect the actual percentage of work being performed (e.g., 0.50 WYE support on PWS 3.6 and 0.50 WYE support on PWS 3.7).

43 Section L, Factor III On page L-28 Factor III, paragraph (b) it states …”Additionally, each referenced contract shall have a minimum of one (1) year of performance within the five (5)-year period. Performance of any effort outside the five (5)-year period will not be evaluated.”

On page L-29 it states “Size – For offerors, a referenced contract will be determined relevant if it has an average annual value of $500,000 or greater, and for proposed subcontractors, an average annual value of $200,000 or greater.”

Is the average annual value taken over all contract performance years up to 5 years? To clarify our concern, please consider the following situation:

Offeror#1 has one year of performance on the contract (minimum criteria) and its SIZE for that year is $550k and thus their average annual value is $550k. Offeror#2 has 3 years past performance on a contract with an average annual value of $450k over the 3 years of contract performance, but the value for the 3rd year of contract performance was $550k. Is offeror #2 past performance considered not relevant for size because their average annual value is less than $500k, while offeror #1 is relevant even though they only had one year of performance?

The average annual value is determined relative to the total (i.e., all) years of performance of the referenced contract provided that contract has at least one year of performance within the five year window relative to the due date for receipt of proposals. In this scenario, offeror #1 would be considered relevant, while offeror #2 would not be considered relevant.

44 Section L, Factor III (b) and (d)(1) The RFP states that past performance references "shall have a minimum of one (1) year of performance within the five (5)-year period" and "for offerors, a referenced contract will be determined relevant if it has an average annual value of $500,000 or greater, and for proposed subcontractors, an average annual value of $200,000 or greater." Would the Government consider amending this language to remove the minimum one year performance requirement if the offeror can demonstrate a value during the partial year that exceeds the annual value requirement?

Please see question 44 above. Additionally, the purpose of the required one-year performance window is to allow for an assessment of the contractor's performance over that period. Therefore, the requirement will not be revised.

45 Section L, Factor III (b) and (d)(2) The RFP States that "for the offeror, to be considered relevant content, referenced contracts shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least five (5) of the following 15 PWS elements: 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.0." Would the Government consider amending this language to demonstrate relevant experience in a minimum number of areas across the entire PWS, rather than just the specific elements listed?

No. The specified PWS areas are considered those most appropriate for the determination of content relevancy.

46 Section L, Factor III (b) and (d)(2) The RFP States that "for the offeror, to be considered relevant content, referenced contracts shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least five (5) of the following 15 PWS elements: 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.0." Given that 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 are identical with the exception of the number of contacts required, would the Government consider replacing 3.6 and 3.7 and add others that could improve overall value to the Government?

Section L, Factor III (b) and (d)(2) will be revised to remove PWS elements 3.6 and 3.8. To be considered relevant content, reference contracts shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least four (4) of the following 13 PWS elements: 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.0.

45 Section L, Factor III Will past performance be evaluated in any areas other than the 15 areas specifically called out in the RFP (for example, Section 6)? Or, should offerors tailor their past performance responses to only the specific 15 elements listed?

The 13 PWS elements referenced are considered the only applicable areas for the determination of content relevancy.

48 Historical and Background Information

On DRFP page 233, NASA articulates how SMEs have been used in support of PWS 3 services within the current contract. It would be more historically accurate and in NASA’s best interest to say that the entire 1.5 WYE of SMEs “consists of the hours to be utilized to leverage the cadre of SME labor over the course of the contract year” (i.e., not just the 0.5 WYE). It does not benefit NASA for an offeror to necessarily have 67% of the SME value (i.e., 1.0 out of 1.5) tied up in a single full-time person (which is what the current language would seem to request).

It was merely suggested in Historical and Background information how the SMEs currenlty operate. Please feel free to propose alternatives, especially when it comes to offering improved efficiencies for the Government.

49 Excel Pricing Model Considering throughout the DRFP, the solicitation indicates that the Core Mission Service and Task Orders are planned to be FFP, would the Government consider revising the pricing worksheet to eliminate the HQ or center-specific worksheets?

The requested information is necessary to assist in the determination of compensation realism for each labor rate for each location in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

50 Excel Pricing Model If the government plans for the IDIQ portion of the CATTS contract to be T&M with fully burden labor category rates, would the Government consider providing one inclusive list of labor categories to be used for center-specific Task Order requirements? This approach will enable the successful Offeror the flexibility to propose the necessary labor categories at the Task Order level to successfully perform work with minimum risk. For example, the current tab D1 ARC only contains the Technology Commercialization Manager labor category family. However, PWS 6.3 calls for support for Special Events, which is not consistent with the government’s provided position description of a Technology Commercialization Manager. Limiting ARC to one labor category for PWS 6.0 is likely to increase cost to the Government and increase risk of performance.

See question 30 above.

51 Section L, Volume IV (d)(2) The RFP States that the offeror should provide "(2) A listing of all current NASA contracts (includes contracts and subcontracts for the prime offeror and all subcontractors) with a contracting officer point of contact (i.e., name, phone number, and email address) for each member of the offeror’s team. Subcontractor teammates may provide this information separately to the individual identified in MSFC 52.205-90, Designated Point of Contact." For subcontract roles, subcontractors do not have privity nor a direct relationship with the CO, nor can the NASA CO be expected to provide an accurate review of the subcontractor's performance as distinct from the Prime contractor. Can the Government confirm that for NASA subcontracts, the Prime Contractor's Subcontract Administrator is the appropriate Point of Contact to include, rather than the Contract CO?

Confirmed.

52 Section M and J-1, PWS “…relative importance of these factors is: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance are considered essentially equal to each other.” The government-specified relative weighting of Past Performance is approximately 1/3 as all factors (i.e., Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance). Considering the relative weighting of Past Performance and the PWS (Attachment J-1) calls for agency-level support, which translates to past performance, the construct and relative weighting of the evaluation criteria clearly favors the incumbent MSFC T2P contractor. To maximize competition and to eliminate unfair advantages towards the incumbent MSFC T2P contractor, would the government revise the evaluation criteria to “Mission Suitability is significantly more important than price and past performance.

Price is more important than Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Price, when combined, are significantly more important that Past Performance?”

The relative weighting of the three factors provides a reasonable amount of flexibility to the Source Selection Authority in making the best value trade off decision. Please note that the Past Performance Factor evaluation delineates relevancy thresholds which adequately account for performance of effort which do not account for all of the applicable PWS areas and size of contracts which are significantly below the average annual value anticipated for the CATTS contract.

53 FACTOR III PAST PERFORMANCE

VOLUME EVALUATION (JUN 15

2023)

“Information provided to, or obtained by the Government, will be utilized to assess the relevant aspects of each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity…” Similar to the requirement in Section L to provide past performance contract staffing details, the specification of size, content, and complexity unfairly favors the incumbent MSFC T2P contractor. Would the government consider removing the criteria specifying size as an evaluation factor for determining relevancy?

Please see NFS 1815.304-70 (d)(1) which states "This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition."

54 Will the Final RFP provide any additional information related to the evaluation criteria for offerors, for example the technical evaluation criteria simply states, "NASA will evaluate the proposed technical approach.” Will the final RFP provide additional clarification as to what the evaluation is based on?

Additional clarification is considered unnecessary. The Government will evaluate all information provided by the offeror in response to the specific requirements delineated for the submission of the Mission Suitability volume.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT L-1 - EXCEL PRICING MODEL

VOLUME IV - CONTRACT

55 As per the Past Performance requirements detailed on page L-28, we understand that an offeror must have a minimum of two contracts meeting the requirements of size, content, and complexity. Contracts meeting these requirements are deemed relevant. Our confusion lies with the confidence ratings assigned to each offeror as detailed on pages M-6 and M-7. For easier discussion, we will detail our understanding and questions regarding the following cases:

Case 1: At Least Two Relevant Contracts If an offeror has at least two contracts deemed relevant, they are evaluated, and the offeror is placed into one of the six categories detailed on page M-5. These categorizations, ranging from Very High Confidence to Very Low Confidence, do not apply to each instance of past performance, but to the offeror’s past performance as a whole.

Case 2: Less Than Two Relevant Contracts If all contracts in an offeror’s past performance are deemed not relevant, then the offeror is placed into the Neutral category. Our question with this category is, what does this mean for the offeror? Is their proposal discarded? Is a Neutral assignment equivalent to another confidence ranking such as Very Low or Moderate? On page M-7, it is stated that, “in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance…the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” This suggests that an offeror with no relevant past performance could be ranked higher than an offeror meeting the minimum requirements for their contracts, as the Neutral offeror has no performance working for or against them.

Case 3: At Most One Relevant Contract In this case, an offeror submits one contract of past performance that meets the size, content, and complexity requirements, and another that falls short in one or more areas. By definition, the offeror cannot be placed into the Neutral category, as they do have relevant past performance. Is their proposal:

1. Evaluated only on their one relevant contract and categorized accordingly? For example, if the relevant contract they submit is of exceptional merit the offeror could receive a Very High Confidence rating despite not meeting the minimum requirements (2 relevant past performances).

2. Placed in the Very Low Confidence category, as they fail to meet the minimum requirements from page L-28?

3. Placed in the Neutral category, despite having relevant past performance?

4. Discarded? If this is the case, would failing to submit any past performance, thereby placing them into the Neutral category, benefit them over submitting only one relevant example?

Factor III-Past Peformance Volume Insturctions paragraph (b) indicate that at least two past performance references should be for the offeror. Therefore, this submission of two references is a request and not a requirement. The evaluation of past performance will consider the relevancy of each past performance referenced contract provided for the offeror's team while relevancy for the offeror and major subcontractors for each referenced contract will be determined in accordance with the thresholds established in paragraph (d) of this provision. The evaluation will also consider the performance history of each referenced contract determined to be at least relevant in size, content, and complexity. Upon the establishment of individual findings for each referenced contract, an assessment of confidence level for the offeror will be made in accordance with the definitions established in provision Factor III - Past Performance Volume Evaluation, which will consider the existence of strengths and/or weakenesses as well as other areas such as the breadth of relevant coverage across the applicable areas of the PWS and performance of the offeror as a prime contractor or subcontractor. In cases where no relevant performance is identified, the offeror will be assigned a rating of "Neutral" in accordance with the definitions established for this rating. The findings generated as well as the confidence level assigned to each offeror will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for consideration as part of their best value determination.

In conclusion, there are questions that arise in cases two and three given above, mostly caused by the meaning of the Neutral. For an offeror who submits only one relevant contract, which categories could they potentially fall into? Is a Neutral classification more favorable than a sub-moderate categorization? If so, would it benefit an offeror with only one relevant contract to submit no contract past performance? If an offeror submits past performance, but it is all deemed not relevant, would the offeror be eligible for the CATTS Contract Award?

CATTS