The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
DRFP 80MSFC24R0002
PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
National Aeronautics and Space Administration George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812 November 15, 2024
| TO: | All Potential Offerors |
| SUBJECT: | Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. 80MSFC24R0002, for Safety and Mission Assurance Services II (SMAS II) |
You are invited to submit a proposal in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) George C. Marshall Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) Safety and Mission Assurance Services II (SMAS II) solicitation.
NASA will conduct this acquisition as a small business set-aside competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541715 and the small business size standard is 1,300 employees.
This competitive acquisition will result in an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) and/or cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) task orders. The contract consists of a four-year base ordering period followed by two two-year option ordering periods.
The anticipated contract award date is August 17, 2025, with a September 1, 2025, contract effective date. The contract will be performed at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF), Stennis Space Center (SSC), MSFC efforts at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), MSFC Resident Management Offices (e.g., at prime contractor facilities in California [CA] and Utah [UT]), offsite at the SMAS II Contractor’s facilities, and at such other locations as may be approved in writing by the contracting officer.
Potential offerors should pay close attention to all solicitation instructions. The following requirements list is summarized to assist in proposal development. Please note that this list is not exhaustive, and the solicitation terms and conditions and provisions in sections L and M take precedence:
1. A phase-in period will be conducted. The phase-in period will be 60 days in duration and will be established on a separate Contract Line-Item Number.
2. The Government will make available existing Installation-Accountable Government Property (IAGP) for contract performance.
3. NASA MSFC appreciates the comments received in response to the release of the Draft RFP. These comments resulted in improvements to the quality and content of the overall RFP. Offerors should review the RFP in its entirety, as its content has changed from the Draft RFP version. Attachment B identifies some areas where significant changes or clarifications have been made from the Draft RFP to this Final RFP that may not have been addressed in the Draft RFP questions and responses. This list is not intended to cover all changes nor describe all RFP requirements. Offerors should carefully review the RFP in its entirety.
4. Below is a list of the source selection authority (SSA) and voting members along with their associated NASA MSFC organizational codes, for the Source Evaluation Board (SEB). The names provided are for informational purposes only and other than the contracting officer, Maranda McCord, these individuals shall not be contacted regarding this acquisition. The Government may change personnel associated with this acquisition at its discretion.
SSA
Roger Baird (DE01)
Voting Members Judith Roberts (QD35) Theodore Kublin (QD21) Madelyn Suttle (QD03)
5. Offerors are required to have a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code that matches the corporate address submitted with its proposal.
Offerors are encouraged to refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS–COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION, and in particular paragraph (f)(4) which discusses the Government’s intent to award a contract without discussions.
The Offeror’s Price Volume proposal shall include completed Price Volume exhibits in Microsoft Office Excel format with working cell formulas.
Documents related to this acquisition, including this letter, the solicitation, attachments, exhibits, any amendments and links to online reference/technical/bidder’s library will be attainable electronically from the World Wide Web through the Government-wide point of entry website at www.SAM.gov. Potential Offerors are requested to periodically monitor the websites for updates.
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.215-84, OMBUDSMAN, is applicable. The Center Ombudsman for this acquisition can be found at http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/Omb.html.
This RFP does not commit NASA MSFC to pay any proposal preparation costs, nor does it obligate NASA MSFC to procure or contract for these services. This request is not an authorization to proceed and does not authorize payment for any charges incurred by the offeror for performing any of the work called for in this solicitation.
Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be due no later than January 13, 2025. Proposals for this solicitation are required to be submitted through NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (EFSS Box), a FedRAMP Moderate certified platform. Potential offerors, especially those that have not previously submitted a proposal utilizing NASA’s EFSS Box, are encouraged to review the solicitation instruction entitled “Electronic Proposal Delivery - Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box” which provides instructions related to the submission of proposal via EFSS Box. Offerors are encouraged to check with their corporate information technology (IT) staff to determine if there are firewall restrictions that would need to be addressed prior to the submission of proposal files through NASA’s EFSS Box.
In accordance with NFS 1815.201(f), a “Blackout Notice” has been issued to NASA personnel. All inquiries/communications pertaining to this acquisition shall be directed only to the contracting officer listed below.
All questions regarding this RFP should be submitted in writing, electronically to Maranda McCord, contracting officer, at maranda.b.mccord@nasa.gov no later than 2:00 p.m., Central Time, November 22, 2024. Offerors are encouraged to submit questions as soon as possible for consideration.
Thank you for your support. We look forward to receiving your proposals.
Maranda McCord
Contracting Officer Template Version: Base Template Version: Base
ATTACHMENT A – CLARIFICATIONS TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS
| Index |
| Section |
| Clause or Provision |
| Question |
| Response |
B
| A 30-day phase in is very risky (unless you are the incumbent) for on-boarding over 250 employees and the other administrative tasks necessary. This will limit competition and we recommend 60 days if NASA really wants to embrace the competitive process. There should be no additional cost to the new contract if the extra time is added. There also may be issues with a notification of employees |
| References throughout the solicitation to duration of the phase-in period are revised to reflect a 60-day phase-in period. |
| It should be noted that if the incumbent is unsuccessful, there will be a 60-day period for notification of employees under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act). A 30-day phase in would be complicated by this legally required notification. |
| References throughout the solicitation to duration of the phase-in period are revised to reflect a 60-day phase-in period. |
| 3 |
| G |
| 1852.216-76 Award Fee for Service Contracts |
| The DRFP indicates that the Gov will determine the award fee amounts based on the Contractor's performance IAW TBD. What is the TBD source? |
| Section G clause 1852.216-76, Award Fee for Service Contracts, is revised to reference Attachment J-15, Award Fee Performance Evaluation Plan, in lieu of "TBD." |
| 4 |
| G |
| 1852.216-76 AWARD FEE FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS (JUN 2018) |
| Having an award fee plan with no floor is very risky to a small business and we recommend a minimum fee of 50% to mitigate this risk to the small business contractor. |
| Section G clause 1852.216-76, Award Fee for Service Contracts, paragraph (a) states - |
(a) The Contractor can earn award fee from a minimum of zero dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR Supplement clause “Estimated Cost and Award Fee” in this contract.
As such, the referenced language is contained within the NASA FAR Supplement clause.
| 5 |
| H |
| 1852.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting (DEC 1988) |
| Does MSFC expect the SMAS-II prime contractor to avoid work on the contracts identified in the ACA clause as either a prime or subcontractor because of potential impaired objectivity OCIs, or will MSFC consider mitigation strategies? If MSFC will consider mitigation strategies, will the strategy have to be approved by the SMAS-II contract CO prior to performance of work under those contracts? |
| Offerors should refer to Section H clause 1852.209-71, Limitation of Future Contracting, for information regarding the types of organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) that could result from performance of the SMAS II effort. Section H clause MSFC 52.209-91, Associate Contractor Agreement, relates primarily to establishment of working relationships between the selected offeror and the entities performing the efforts delineated therein. Were such relationships to result in an OCI, they should be addressed in the offeror's OCI plan submitted with the proposal or as necessitated by revision post award. |
| 6 |
| H |
| 1852.209-71 LIMITATION OF FUTURE CONTRACTING (DEC 1988) |
| SMA contracts rarely develop requirements or SOW for other contracts. Question Does this clause belong in the contract? |
| Yes, use of the clause was approved by the Procurement Officer in accordance with FAR 9.506(b). |
| 7 |
| H |
| 1852.209-71 LIMITATION OF FUTURE CONTRACTING (DEC 1988) |
| If this clause remains in the awarded contract, does it conflict with the submission of DRD NO.: 1854MA-008, Re-Procurement Incumbent Compensation Data Package as this Deliverable requires contractor developed re-procurement data to provide the NASA CO with "information on specific items and supporting documentation related to labor resources and associated cost information, to be used for follow-on procurement activities." Would this eliminate the incumbent from proposing on the next contract? For example the current contract says at DRD NO.: 1566MA-009 Re-Procurement Data Package says "The Re-Procurement Data Package provides requirements for delivery to MSFC for delivery of information on specific items and supporting documentation related to resource/cost information, to be used for re-procurement activities. " |
| No. The information required by DRD No.: 1854MA-008, Re-Procurement Incumbent Compensation Data Package, is used primarily to assist the Government in establishing the independent Government cost estimate for the follow-on effort and in performing the total compensation plan evaluation in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. |
| 8 |
| H |
| MSFC 52.223-97 MANDATORY AND REQUIRED TRAINING (NOV 2019) |
| It could possibly be very difficult for a successful awardee to be in compliance with all mandatory training that NASA does not provide. This clause is vague and should be clarified and the link was not accessible. Without the basic info on the mandatory training requirements, it is not possible to price outside training, if needed. This could affect the number of competitors for this acquisition. |
| The link provided in MSFC 52.223-97, Mandatory and Required Training, is an internal NASA link. The Government will provide access to this information to the successful offeror during the phase-in period. However, the document in the E-Library entitled Mandatory/Required Training provides a listing of training currently applicable to the SMAS II contractor as delineated in this clause. This list is subject to change during contract performance. The reference clause is replaced in its entirety to provide clarity. |
| 9 |
| Attachment J-1 |
| PWS 4.2 |
| In support of the Pressure Vessels and Systems (PVS) and Non-Destructive Examination Services (NDE), is the contractor required to have on staff a Certified ASNT Level 3 in NDE techniques and methods including visual (VT), magnetic particle (MT), dye penetrant (PT), ultrasonic test (UT), eddy current test (ET)? |
| Yes, the contractor is required to have Certified ASNT Level 3 staff in NDE techniques and methods including visual (VT), magnetic particle (MT), dye penetrant (PT), ultrasonic test (UT), and eddy current test (ET) for tasks that may occur at MSFC, SSC, and MAF. |
| 10 |
| Attachment J-1 |
| PWS 4.2 |
| Is Radiography performed by contractor personnel in support of the PVS program or are these services scheduled, provided, and contracted to an outside contractor? |
| The SMAS II contactor will be responsible for providing Radiographic Services. |
| 11 |
| Attachment J-1 |
| PWS 4.2 |
| The paragraph states. "The Government will specify the NDE techniques and the certification levels (i.e., ASNT Level 1, 2, or 3) required to properly staff the Pressure Vessels and Systems Program, Lifting Devices and Equipment (LDE) Program, and support construction activities. 1) How many current contractor's personnel are currently ASNT Level 1, 2, or 3 certified? 2) What are the ASNT Levels for each person and the location of these certified personnel. 3) Where are these personnel located, specifically, their ASNT Levels, and locations (i.e.,SSC, MSFC, and MAF)? |
| The Government will not provide the current certified personnel count. SMAS I is a full IDIQ contract; therefore, the personnel count, certifications levels, and geographical locations are variable and current counts are not necessarily reflective of future counts. Additionally, SMAS II labor categories are different from SMAS I. |
| Attachment J-1 |
| PWS 4.2 |
| Does the contract require the contractor to provide AWS Certified Welding Inspectors (CWIs) and/or Senior Certified Welding Inspectors (SCWIs) for visual weld inspection under the contract? If so, how many and where are these personnel located? |
| No, the contract does not require the contractor to provide AWS Certified Welding Inspectors (CWIs) and/or Senior Certified Welding Inspectors (SCWIs) for visual weld inspection. |
| The PWS has 288 “shall” statements, and 74 of them contain the word “support” with no specificity. There are other combined “shall” and “support” statements that provide the phrase “in accordance with the approved TOs” that is specific and can be quantified for proposal costing. Is it correct to assume that all task orders will be specific to required support tasking for on-contract costing? |
| Yes. Task orders will be specific relative to the required support tasking for on-contract costing. |
| The DRD number for the Product Assurance Plan is incorrectly listed as “1854MA-001”, instead of “1854RM-001” as it appears on the actual DRD (p. J-2-38). |
| DRD 1854RM-001 was removed in its entirety from the solicitation. |
| The product Assurance Plan is incorrectly referenced as 1854MA-001 instead of 1854RM-001, as noted on DRD and throughout the document. |
| DRD 1854RM-001 was removed in its entirety from the solicitation. |
| The distribution is noted as “Within 30 days of effective date of the contract". Is this intended to say, "Initial submittal within 30 days after the effective date of the contract"? If so, can this be updated? |
| The reference "Within 30 days of effective date of the contract" refers to the initial submission. All applicable references throughout the DPD is revised to reflect this change. |
| When the Government identifies “> XX years” as the requirement, does the Government intend for the requirement to be greater or equal, i.e. “> XX years”? |
| The Government intends for the requirement to be greater than or equal to. Attachment J-4 is revised accordingly. |
| The typical experience requirements for the CAP/A positions are confusing. Many of these LCs contain experience requirements at the CAP/A-2 level. For example, the CAP/A-4 category requires greater than 15 years at the CAP/A-2 level. The CAP/A-2 level requires greater than 3 years of experience. Do we add the 3 years of experience required at the CAP/A-2 level to the years of experience shown for the higher categories? Does this mean the CAP/A-4 labor category requires 18 years of experience (15+3 years of experience)? Similar verbiage is used for the typical experience requirements for the safety specialists and quality assurance specialists. Is it correct to assume that the updates in Rec Changes Tab for the labor categories is correct? |
| Attachment J-4, Description of Labor Categories, is revised. |
Does the Government intend for Offerors to submit a copy of its Facility Clearance letter with the proposal and, if so, should the clearance status be included in Volume IV, Contract Volume to demonstrate compliance with the security clearance requirements?
A Contract Security Classification Specification is not required by the time of proposal submission. PWS 2.1 indicates that the PWS tasks requiring this clearance will not be performed until the successful offeror has obtained the necessary clearance. The timeframe for submission of the Contract Security Classification Specification Form will be established in resulting task orders.
| The rate table does not include a column for Offerors to propose FBRs for the Option to Extend Services period. Does the Government intend to use the Offeror’s Option 2 Year 8 (10/01/32 – 9/30/2033) rates for the extension period or are Offerors required to develop/propose FBRs for the 6-month extension? |
| Offerors are not required to establish fully burden labor rates for the 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services period. In accordance with the clause, the Government will continue performance within the limits and the rates specified in the contract for the prior period regardless of the time the option is exercised. |
The Contract Management Overhead (CMO) rates are to be proposed separately by Offerors in Table J-6-2. Are the proposed J-6-1 Fully Burdened Labor Rates (non-CMO categories) inclusive of any CMO burden?
CMO should be included in the Fully Burdened Labor Rates. This is reflected in the EPM Tab B which builds up the fully burdened labor. The prime may also add CMO in Tab C as a burden on the subcontractor if that is appropriate to their proposed accounting approach. As referenced in Table J-6-2, Contract Negotiated Rates, CMO is applicable, “Dependent on proposed allocation base for Contract Management Overhead (CMO).”
| The second sentence refers to the Government Property Management Plan, should this be the SHE Plan? |
| Revised the sentence to reference the Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) Plan. |
| NAICS 541715 is for Research and Development as it relates to manufacturing, thus the size standard of 1300 employees. NAICS codes for manufacturing are measured by the magnitude of employees. NAICS codes for service contracts measure their size standards in terms of dollars. This acquisition is for predominantly services thus the clause on Page E-1 52.246-5 INSPECTION OF SERVICES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT (APR 1984). The scope of Section J-1 PWS is clearly predominantly services and we feel very strongly that a services type NAICS code such as 541330 exemption 1 ($47M) or even better the NAICS which specifically names safety services 541690 ($19M) are a much better classification for this work. This foundational element of the acquisition system must be as accurate as possible for expenditure reporting and to support small businesses in a small business set-aside procurement. |
| The Government assessed the NAICS code as established in the solicitation and determined it to be appropriate for this acquisition. |
| 24 |
| L |
| 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (APR 2015 |
| Will the Government allow an exception to the 12-point font requirement for embedded pictures and screenshots to ensure Offerors have ability to use them to adequately demonstrate the functionality and benefit of proposed tools, systems, methodologies? |
| No. Font for text used in charts, tables, figures, illustrations, or other embedded objects (e.g., pictures or screenshots) shall be no less than 12-point font. |
| 25 |
| L |
| Subfactor 1: Management Approach (MA); MA2: Management Systems and Approach, Paragraph (a) (p. L-12); and 2) Section L, Volume IV – Contract Instructions (JUN 10 2024), Paragraph (d) Section II, subparagraph (1), p. L-37 |
| There is significant duplication of information required by the Mission Suitability instructions for MA2 and the DRD 1854MA-001 Management Plan. |
| The Government believes the duplication referenced in the comment was addressed through revisions to the due date for the Management Plan. The Government also revised the due dates for the Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) Plan and Government Property Management Plan. |
| 26 |
| L |
| 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (APR 2015) |
| The referenced instruction states that Sample Tasks 1 through 3 are a subset of the 92-page limit and that the sample task responses are “expected” to be approximately 10-12 pages, distributed among the 3 tasks. Are the 12 pages for the Sample Task response (TA2) a maximum limit within the overall 92-page Mission Suitability limit for which Offerors shall not exceed or only intended as a guide for Offerors to follow in preparing their sample tasks? |
| The expected 10-12 pages per sample task must fall within the overall 92-page limit for the Mission Suitability Volume. However, the 10-12 pages is intended as a guide within the established page limitations. |
| 27 |
| L |
| 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (APR 2015) |
| The instruction states “For volume contents, see Section L, Volume II – Cost Factor and Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d), Subfactor 1: Management Approach, MA3: Retention, Staffing, Recruitment, and Total Compensation, Subparagraph (c) [sic]. Did the Government intend for the instruction to refer to Subparagraph (b) instead of Subparagraph (c)? |
| Yes. Revised from Subparagraph (c) to Subparagraph (b). |
| Draft RFP states, “Font style shall be Times New Roman, and the font size shall be twelve (12)-point for all text, including text used in charts, tables, figures, illustrations, or other embedded objects (e.g., picture or screenshots).” Would the Government consider a slightly smaller font for text used in graphics to accommodate graphics such as process flows? |
| No. Font for text used in charts, tables, figures, illustrations, or other embedded objects (e.g., pictures or screenshots) shall be no less than 12-point font. See NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, paragraph (b)(6)(F) which states – “non-compliant text will not be evaluated; however, any remaining content will be evaluated.” Chart graphics needing additional clarity may be explained using narrative below the graphic/chart. |
| 29 |
| L |
| MSFC 52.215-91, Due Date for Receipt of Proposals |
| If the RFP is released on or about Nov 22, 2024, 45 calendar days will encompass 3 government holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day). Would the Government consider extending the due date beyond the 6th in order to minimize the impact to all offerors over the holidays. A due date of January 6th is likely to require a significant effort during the last two weeks of the year coinciding with multiple Federal holidays. |
| Section L provision MSFC 52.215-91, Due Date for Receipt of Proposals, is revised to extend the proposal submission date to January 13, 2025. |
| 30 |
| L |
| 1) Section L, Subfactor 1: Management Approach (MA); MA2: Management Systems and Approach, Paragraph (c) (p. L-12 - L-13); and 2) Section M, Prospective Contractor Responsibility and Eligibility Standards (OCT 2021), Paragraph (b) |
| Reference 1 requires Offerors to provide an approach for implementing an industrial SHE Plan following contract award in accordance with DRD 1854SA-002 for evaluation under Mission Suitability Management Approach. Reference 2 requires Offerors to provide an On-site Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) Plan as an additional “eligibility standard.” Any Mission Suitability findings associated with the SHE Plan could be challenged because Section M states that the SHE Plan will be an eligibility requirement, i.e. pass or fail. |
| SHE Plan DRD initial submission date is changed to reflect initial submission after contract award. Reference to the SHE Plan as an eligibility requirement is deleted in the Section M provision. |
| The second sentence in the paragraph indicates that Attachment L-2 represents pricing strategy to include all subcontractors. The 3rd paragraph refers to tabs which are to be completed by the Offeror and major subcontracts. Should the 2nd sentence also refer to major subcontractors? |
| No. The integrated pricing strategy includes all subcontractors regardless of size. Note that “major subcontractors” is revised to "applicable subcontractors" in Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, as “Major subcontractors” and “applicable subcontractors” have differing thresholds. |
| 32 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| Given that the management structure and approach will vary between offerors, it is beneficial to tailor the CMO to best meet the needs of the contract as well as align with our strategy for effective contract execution. Can NASA confirm if offerors are allowed to propose a customized CMO with specific labor categories and hours that differ from those provided in the pricing model? |
| Offerors are not allowed to adjust the labor categories and associated labor hours specified in the CMO. |
| L |
| Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions |
| The term "major subcontractor" is used throughout the instructions for Volume II section, but a definition is not provided. Please confirm the definition of a "major subcontractor" for Volume II. |
| “Major subcontractor” is revised to "applicable subcontractor" in Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions. See Section L provision Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d), Subfactor 1, MA3: Retention, Staffing, Recruitment, and Total Compensation, subparagraph (b), for the established threshold for an applicable subcontractor. |
| What is the intent of the Major Subcontractors (>$1M) at the bottom of the table. Is this mislabeled? Is it correct to assume that the row should be titled "Business Size" as noted in the description and that the $1M applicable? |
| Section L provision Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d), Subfactor 1, MA3: Retention, Staffing, Recruitment, and Total Compensation, subparagraph (b), is revised to reference "applicable subcontractors" in lieu of "major subcontractors." Additionally, Section L provision Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions, is revised throughout to change references from "major subcontractors" to "applicable subcontractors." As part of this revision, Table L-3 is also updated to reflect this change. |
| 35 |
| L |
| Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions |
| Please confirm that the statement "The Offeror shall provide a summary of financial ratios including quick ratio, current ratio, summary of working capital, and debt to equity ratio for the three most recently completed fiscal years." is required for the Offeror only and does not include major subcontractors. |
| Section L provision Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(H)(iii), is revised for clarity to include applicable subcontractors. |
| The instructions at the top of the table indicate that the Offeror/major subcontractor shall fill in the italic areas in column 2. There are no italic areas in Column 2. Is it correct to assume that all of Column 2 is italiced? |
| The text in Column 2 is revised to be italicized. |
| 37 |
| L |
| Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions |
| Please confirm that the statement "In addition, the Offeror shall discuss the funding requirements, and limitation of liabilities, if any, of all participants." is only intended to be addressed by offeror's who is or will be a new business entity. |
| Confirmed. This requirement applies to the offeror only. |
To meet paragraph 3.ii, the L-1 spreadsheet is filled out for Prime and Major Subcontractors. What is considered Major Subcontractor? Is it the same definition used in Past Performance (10% work share)?
No. “Major subcontractors” is revised to "applicable subcontractors" in Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, as “major subcontractors” and “applicable subcontractors” have differing thresholds. See Section L provision Volume I- Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, paragraph (d), Subfactor 1, MA3: Retention, Staffing, Recruitment, and Total Compensation, subparagraph (b), for the established threshold for an applicable subcontractor.
| Can the Government provide additional details on the method used to develop the "blend of incumbent and Economic Research Institute [ERI] rates?" Was this an average of the incumbent-provided data and the ERI data or was there some other method utilized? |
| The specific methodology utilized for establishing benchmarks will not be provided. When applicable, the Government used a blended rate to include incumbent and ERI data as described in the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate table, in Section L provision Volume II-Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| Could you provide the specific years of experience considered when calculating the ERI rates for each labor category? When the tables list >15 years, what value was used in generating the ERI data. |
| See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| Can the Government provide the specific locations (city and/or zip code) used in generating the ERI values used in calculating the blended rates for AL, CA, FL, LA, MS, and UT. |
| Huntsville, AL |
Canoga Park, CA Merritt Island, FL New Orleans, LA Bay St. Louis, MS Ogden, UT ERI data does not include zip codes.
The Draft RFP states that offerors are to evaluate the benchmark labor rates provided on Page L-25 and L-26 in developing their labor rates for this proposal. These benchmark rates are developed using a blend of incumbent rates and ERI salary survey rates. Our concern is that ERI data typically represents a broader, national average, which may not accurately reflect the actual labor costs specific to this contract or the incumbent workforce. This can lead to labor rates that are significantly inflated, particularly in key labor categories. For example, the benchmark table provides two labor categories, each with three levels for Subject Matter Experts (SME). According to the hours provided in “Attachment L-1 Excel Pricing Model (EPM)” Tab B represents approximately 45% of the total contract workforce hours. Furthermore, the average salary for Levels 2 and 3 across these two SME labor categories is approximately $192,000, accounting for 40% of the SMAS workforce hours. Based on our analysis, these rates appear significantly above the anticipated direct labor rate for a Government services contract, particularly given the large number of hours associated with these positions. This raises concerns that the benchmark labor rates may not accurately reflect the true cost of the incumbent workforce and may skew proposals toward higher costs.
See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25.
| 43 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| Will NASA please update the benchmark rates considering the most recent ERI data utilizing, and the following specific locations of SMAS-II support and a performance start date of 11/01/25: Huntsville, AL; Canoga Park, CA; Cocoa Beach, FL; New Orleans, LA; Bay St. Louis, MS; Ogden, UT? |
| See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 44 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| The benchmark direct labor salary rate provided for the QAS-4 (AL) is $41.23 while the QAS-3 (AL) is provided at $44.35. The recent ERI data for a Quality Assurance Specialist >15 in Huntsville, AL is $49.98. |
| See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| The benchmark direct salary rate for the PM-1 position (location: LA) of $53.67 is significantly lower than the PM-2 (same location) benchmark rate of $92.53. As a point of reference, recent ERI data for a ERI Program Manager (Government Contractor) >15 in New Orleans, LA is $84.53. |
| See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 46 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| The benchmark direct salary rate for the PM-1 position (location: MS) of $53.48 is significantly lower than the PM-2 (same location) benchmark rate of $91.01. As a point of reference, recent ERI data for a ERI Program Manager (Government Contractor) >15 in in Bay St. Louis, MS is $83.23. |
| See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 47 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| Did the Government intend for the FL location SME 2 and SME 1 benchmark rates to exceed the benchmark rates of the SMES 2 and SMES 1 LCATs or to be equivalent? |
| Specialty SMEs are not equivalent to the SME rates. See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 48 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| Did the Government intend for the LA location SME 2 and SME 1 benchmark rates to exceed the benchmark rates of the SMES 2 and SMES 1 LCATS or to be equivalent? |
| Specialty SMEs are not equivalent to the SME rates. See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 49 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| Did the Government intend for the MS location SME 1 benchmark rate to exceed the benchmark rate of the SMES 1 LCAT or to be equivalent? |
| Specialty SMEs are not equivalent to the SME rates. See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 50 |
| L |
| Volume II – Cost Factor Instructions |
| Did the Government intend for the UT location SME 1 benchmark rate to exceed the benchmark rate of the SMES 1 LCAT or to be equivalent? |
| Specialty SMEs are not equivalent to the SME rates. See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 51 |
| L |
| Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions |
| Can you provide the years of experience used to determine the ERI rates for each labor grade? For example, if the experience required is >15, what years of experience was used? |
| See the revised Benchmark Direct Labor Rate Table in Section L provision Volume II- Cost Factor Instructions, Pages L-24 and L-25. |
| 52 |
| L |
| Past Performance Instructions |
| Is it the Government’s intent to document multiple contracts in the Past Performance Safety Record? |
| Each reference contract will be completed on its own form. |
Per the instructions, "For each referenced contract, provide in chart form as included with this solicitation as Past Performance Safety Record Table, the Days Away From Work Injury or Illness (DAFWII) and Total Case Rate (TCR) for each of the last three calendar years of contract performance...".
| 53 |
| L |
| Volume III Past Performance Instructions |
| Given the anticipated average annual value of the SMAS-II contract, the thresholds for size relevancy of contracts for Offerors and proposed subcontractors of $6M and $3M, respectively, are significantly low. |
| Thresholds for size relevancy of contracts is revised for Offerors and proposed subcontractors to $8M and $2M, respectively. |
| 54 |
| L |
| Section L, Volume IV – Contract Instructions (JUN 10 2024), Paragraph (d) Section II, subparagraph (1), p. L-37; and 2) Section M, Prospective Contractor Responsibility and Eligibility Standards (OCT 2021), Paragraph (b) |
| Eligibility standards for award of Government contracts are typically more objective than subjective, often with very specific criteria, e.g., facility clearance levels, certifications, etc. Requirements for plans in accordance with DRDs fall short of the objectivity typically necessary for eligibility determinations. Additionally, since the incumbent may have already submitted those plans under the current contract and received NASA CO approval, competitors could view requirements for those plans as an unfair competitive advantage. Finally, requirements for all DRD-based plans should be assessed for whether they will be important for award considerations as plans could be delivered during Phase-in and approved before the contract effective date. |
| The final RFP is revised to indicate that only the OCI Plan is to be submitted with initial proposal. |
| 55 |
| L |
| Section L, Volume IV – Contract Instructions (JUN 10 2024), Paragraph (d) Section II, subparagraph (1), p. L-37; and 2) Section M, Prospective Contractor Responsibility and Eligibility Standards (OCT 2021), Paragraph (b) |
| The referenced instruction requires a Total Compensation Plan for each proposed subcontractor that provides 5 percent or more of the anticipated FY26 WYEs, Is the Government referring to the anticipated FY26 WYEs as provided by Attachment L-2? |
| Yes. |
| Did the Government intend for the header over the last column on each of the C-2 through C-8 worksheets to read “Base Year”? |
| The EPM is replaced in its entirety. |
| Tab A includes Column J for the calculated cost of the 6 Mos. Extension. However, there is no accompanying Tab B worksheet providing the WYEs, hours, or rates. Does the Government intend to calculate the cost for the 6-month extension based on half of the Offeror’s Option 2 Yr 2 cost (column I)? |
| The EPM will calculate the 52.217-8 using half of the cost of Option 2, year 2, (contract year 8) for the 6-month extension period. |
| Rows 29, 30, 31, and 32 provide for the Offeror’s proposed Award Fee (AF) and Fixed Fee (FF) percentage and dollars. Does the Government intend for the Offerors to only complete the proposed AF and FF percentage rows with the AF and FF proposed dollars to be calculated by the Government based on the proposed percentages? Should the Offeror include the fee percentages for rows 29 and 30 and only show dollars for the Award Fee row 30 (leaving row 32 dollars at $0). |
| Offerors only need to provide percentages for the Award Fee and Fixed Fee Rows. The Government will select which year the fee rate will apply and make a calculation based on the subtotal shown in row 28. |
| Since the Base Ordering Period (BY1) is 11/01/25 – 09/30/26 (11 months), should the productive hours in Tab B-1 (cell K5), Tab D (cell K9), and Tab G (cell C10) reflect 1904 productive hours? |
| Yes, since the period of performance for BY1 is 11/01/2025 through 9/30/2026, the productive hours are 1,904. |
| Did the Government intend to exclude the column labeled “Offeror’s Labor Category” from Tabs B-1 and B-2? The column (Column B) is provided in Tabs B-3 through B-8. |
| The column is included in all B Tabs. The column was previously hidden but is shown in the revised EPM. |
| There are no PM-2/PM-1 categories in Tab B, the Tab C worksheets include Rows 56 and Row 57 for composite IDIQ rates for location Florida Program/Project Manager categories. |
| This labor category is included in Contract Management Overhead (CMO) and is added to Tab C. |
| Whereas Tab D Row 26 in the Attachment L-1 includes a ‘Documentation Specialist’ position in CA, the ‘Documentation Specialist’ CA category is not included in the Table J-6-1 Fully Burdened Labor Rates table (pgs. J-6-4 through J-6-5) or in Attachment L-5 Total Compensation Rate Build-up Form. |
| This labor category is included in CMO. |
| Whereas the Table J-6-1 Fully Burdened Labor Rates Table and Attachment L-5 TCP Build-Up Rate Form both includes the PM-2 and PM-1 categories for Florida, these categories are not included in Attachment L-1, Tab D. |
| This labor category is included in CMO and is added to Tab C. |
| The level of anticipated WYEs is missing for years 2030, 2031, 2032, and 2033. |
| The Government WYE estimate is the same for contract years 2029 through 2033. |
| The column headers for Columns K, M, O, Q, R, S, T, and U on Tab D state “Offer Fiscal Year”, whereas the WYEs and productive hour estimates provided by the Government are presumably by Contract Year. To ensure consistency among all Offerors and to allay confusion, recommend the Government label the column headers for Contract Year (CY1 through CY8), rather than Offeror’s fiscal year. |
| The EPM is replaced in its entirety. Additionally, warning labels have been inserted throughout to provide additional instructions to offerors. |
| Although Tab D indicates that the purpose of the worksheet is, in part, to convert the CMO rates developed by Offeror FY to CY, the exact methodology is unclear and could lead to inconsistency among Offerors. |
| Tab D, line 35, is updated to “Contract Rate.” Additionally, warning labels have been inserted throughout to provide additional instructions to offerors. |
| While Tab D allows Offerors to change the escalation rate applied to the CMO FBRs (cells M8, O8, Q8, R8, S8, T8, and U8), and unlike Tab B, the worksheet does not allow Offerors to propose any variation in applied fringe, overhead, and G&A rates. |
| The EPM is replaced in its entirety. Additionally, warning labels have been inserted throughout to provide additional instructions to offerors. |
| Tab H includes a template for the Offeror’s DCAA POC information. Does the Government need the Offeror’s DCMA POC information? |
| No. |
Instructions state: "Columns E - I apply fringe, overhead, CMO and G&A to the base labor rate. The final burdened rate by category should be shown in Column J."
In Tabs B-1 through B-2, Fringe is shown in column D and the final burdened rate is shown in Column I. For these two tabs, the ""Offeror's Labor Category"" column is missing and should be added as Column B.
The EPM is replaced in its entirety. Additionally, warning labels have been inserted throughout to provide additional instructions to offerors.
| The indirect rates are assumed to be the same for each year in the POP. Recommend that Tab D is revised to use the proposed contract year burden rates as calculated on Tab E. |
| The EPM is replaced in its entirety to address the recommendation. |
| In Column O, starting on row 19, the formula changes to go back to the FBR before prime fee in column H, multiplies by the hours in the year, multiplies by the WYE, and multiplies by the escalation rate. There are two errors in this formula. (1) the labor rate used is the 2026 rate vs. the 2027 rate and (2) the formula is not using the cell that contains escalation, instead the formula refers to a cell above the escalation rate. Please correct the formulas in rows 19-26. |
| The EPM is replaced in its entirety to address this issue. |
| Similar to comment above. In Column Q, starting on row 19, the formula changes to go back to the FBR before prime fee in column H, multiplies by the hours in the year, multiplies by the WYE, and multiplies by the escalation rate. There are two errors in this formula. (1) the labor rate used is the 2026 rate vs. the 2028 rate and (2) the formula is not using the cell that contains escalation, instead the formula refers to a cell above the escalation rate. Please correct the formulas in rows 19-26. |
| The EPM is replaced in its entirety to address this issue. |
Table L-1 Cost Volume Table of Contents does not match the outline contained in the paragraphs following the table. Recommend updating Table L-1 to reflect the paragraphs shown in Rec changes Tab of this spreadsheet.
Table L-1 is revised to match the index tab in the spreadsheet.
| Tab D, Line 26, Column A identifies a Documentation Specialist for CA. The burden tables for CA in Attachment J-6 do not contain a Documentation Specialist. Also the Benchmark data indicates CA as NA for Documentation Specialist. Is it correct to assume that Tab D should delete the Documentation Specialist for CA? |
| No. Attachment J-6, Schedule of Rates, reflects only anticipated labor categories necessary for the California location. The Benchmark table is revised to include Documentation Specialist which is necessary for calculation of the CMO rate on Tab D. |
| Tab D, Line 26, Column A identifies a Documentation Specialist for CA. The burden tables for CA in Attachment J-6 do not contain a Documentation Specialist. Also the Benchmark data indicates CA as NA for Documentation Specialist. If a Documentation Specialist is required at the CA Location, please update the benchmark data and applicable tables. |
| See response to Number 74 above. |
| Can you tell us if the anticipated FY26 WYEs matches the current workforce? If not, can you tell us if it is greater than or less than the current workforce? |
| No. The Government estimate of FY26 WYE by labor category does not reflect the current staffing levels and skill mix. The estimate is based on the Government’s best estimate for the staffing levels and skill mix to be required and is not intended to match current WYE staffing levels. By the IDIQ nature of the SMAS I contract, these current WYE numbers fluctuate with task load and it is anticipated that the same dynamic will occur in SMAS II. |
| What is the intent of the greater than or equal to $1M for the Major Subcontractors entry at the bottom of the table? |
| "Major subcontractors" is revised to "applicable subcontractors" in Volume II - Cost Factor Instructions. |
| Attachment L-5, Total Compensation Rate Build-Up Form appears to exceed the one-in margin restrictions. Will submission in this format be acceptable? |
| Yes. The Attachment L-5 form, which is provided in Landscape format, may be submitted as provided in the solicitation as the form is submitted in Volume II – Cost, which is not page limited. |
| Item c says "The Offeror shall describe the approach for implementing an industrial safety, occupational health, and environmental program that leads to successful submission of a SHE plan following contract award, in accordance with DRD 1854SA-002, On-site Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE)Plan." The DRD indicates that initial submission is with proposal (not after contract award). This appears to be contradictory. Is it correct to assume that the SHE is due with the proposal and not following contract award? |
| The Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) Plan DRD initial submission date is changed to reflect initial submission after the effective date of the contract, during the phase-in period. Reference to the SHE Plan as an eligibility requirement is deleted in the Section M provision Prospective Contractor Responsibility and Eligibility Standards. |
| There was some confusion on the process of the competitive range determination discussed during the Industry Day. Please re-cap the procedure of selecting the competitive range and how you determine the number of offerors in the competitive range. |
| The SMAS II solicitation includes FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition. Paragraph (f)(4) of this provision indicates the Government's intent to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the contracting officer later determines them to be necessary. NFS 1815.306(c)(2) indicates that a total of no more than three proposals is a working goal in establishing the competitive range. However, the circumstances of the acquisition will drive the determination regarding the establishment of the most highly rated proposal(s) in the competitive range by the contracting officer should discussions be determined necessary. |
ATTACHMENT B – SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL SOLICITATION
This attachment delineates changes made to the draft solicitation, which was posted to www.SAM.gov on September 11, 2024. The changes are a result of comments and questions received from industry and internal reviews. These changes represent all significant changes, but are not intended to be all-inclusive. Grammatical, typographical, and other non-substantive changes have been corrected throughout the RFP.
| Index |
| Section |
| Page |
| Clause or Provision |
| From |
| To |
| 1 |
| B |
| B-4 |
| MSFC 52.216-91 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED AND TYPE OF CONTRACT (JUN 2017) |
(b)…” This option exists on a contract year basis. However, the use of CPAF TOs will occur for no less than the first 11 months of the Base Ordering Period.” …
| 2 |
| F |
| F-1 |
| MSFC 52.211-94 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (MAY 2017) |
| The ordering period for this contract is from 10/1/2025 through 9/30/2029 for Phase-in and Base Ordering Period. The period of performance for the contract is defined at the individual task order level. |
| The ordering period for this contract is from 9/1/2025 through 9/30/2029 for Phase-in and Base Ordering Period. The periods of performance are defined at the individual task order level. |
| 3 |
| H |
| H-8 |
| MSFC 52.223-97 MANDATORY AND REQUIRED TRAINING |
Revised the entire clause.
| 4 |
| I |
| I-17 |
| 1852.204-76 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES (DEVIATION 21-01B) |
| Deviation 21-01A |
| Deviation 21-01B. Deleted subject to this contract from section (f) and added requiring physical access to NASA facilities or electronic access to NASA systems. |
| 5 |
| J |
| J-1-8 |
| 2.2.6.b |
| b. The Contractor shall support the maintenance of ISO 9001 and AS 9100 compliances. Assessment of compliance with AS9100 shall be performed every two years along with the development of the Declaration of Compliance memo to be signed by the MSFC Associate Director. This shall include, but not be limited to, training of Government... |
| b. The Contractor shall support the maintenance of ISO 9001 and AS 9100 compliances per MWI 1280. This support shall include, but not be limited to, training of Government ... |
| 6 |
| J |
| J-1-12 |
| 3.1 System Safety Engineering |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
