2024 09 20 Next Gen Final RFP - Amendment 1.docx

DOCX document 1 MB Posted Sep 20, 2024

Attached to: NEXT GENERATION SCALABLE DATA ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS, AND INFORMATICS SUPPORT FOR OPEN SCIENCE (NEXT GEN) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: 80MSFC24R0005
Issued by: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Sep 20, 2024

This document is a Federal Contract Opportunity for the Next Generation Scalable Data Engineering, Operations, and Informatics Support for Open Science (Next Gen) solicitation issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The principal purpose is to provide resources ensuring the Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) maintains cutting-edge leadership in science informatics, machine learning/AI with specialization in spatio-temporal algorithms, science data systems and domain science, and scientific data storage/archiving/management. The solicitation is a hybrid research and development and services requirement to be issued as a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed-price task orders. The Period of Performance is from August 15, 2025 through September 30, 2027, with three 1-year option periods and a 6-month Option to Extend Services. The total contract value, including options, is not to exceed $76 million. The solicitation is a total small business set-aside. Proposals are due on September 25, 2024.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to NEXT GENERATION SCALABLE DATA ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS, AND INFORMATICS SUPPORT FOR OPEN SCIENCE (NEXT GEN), newest first.
File	Type	Posted
2024 10 01 SF30 Amendment P00002.docx	DOCX document	Oct 1, 2024
2024 10 01 L-1 Excel Pricing Model Amendment 2.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Oct 1, 2024
2024 09 20 L-1 Excel Pricing Model Amendment 1.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Sep 20, 2024
2024 09 05 L-1 Excel Pricing Model.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Sep 5, 2024
Next Gen Consolidation DF.pdf	PDF	Sep 5, 2024
2024 09 05 Next Gen Final RFP.docx	DOCX document	Sep 5, 2024

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

80MSFC24R0005

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (CONTINUED):

(a) The primary purpose of this amendment is to respond to RFP questions and comments in relation to the MSFC Next Gen solicitation Amendment P00001.

(b) Attachment A, Responses to Industry RFP Questions, provides responses to questions and comments provided by industry. Attachment B, Summary of Changes, provides a From-To Matrix of the resulting changes made between the original RFP and Amendment P00001. Additionally, the Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing Model, is updated and replaced in its entirety (updates are noted in Attachment B). Potential offerors are allowed to submit questions only related to the changes outlined in Amendment P00001, no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Time, September 25, 2024.

(c) Failure by the offeror to acknowledge receipt of this amendment, either on the Standard Form 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Products and Commercial Services, SF30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, or transmittal letter by the due date for receipt of proposals may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award.

(d) All other terms and conditions of RFP 80MSFC24R0005 remain unchanged.

ATTACHMENT A – RESPONSE TO INDUSTRY RFP QUESTIONS

Question #

Section/Page #

Additional Reference Section

Question

NASA's Response

P. B-4

The estimated value for each year is much greater than the cost for 17.75 WYE that are to be priced and which is the basis for things like major subcontractors, small business plans, etc. Why was this very low number (which literally translates to 2.66 WYE for a major subcontractor) selected?

The maximum potential values by period as specified in MSFC 52.216-90 IDIQ Contract Value by Period of Performance, do not establish the estimated value by period. Rather, it establishes only the maximum potential value for each period. The Government determined that 15% or more of anticipated FY2026 WYEs was an appropriate benchmark to be used to determine whether a proposed subcontractor qualified as a major subcontractor for this effort, relative to the anticipated number of WYEs for the base period.

P. L-11

Since the tasks which generate the 17.75 WYE are notional, it's possible that none of those are ordered and that the allocation of expertise will not follow either the major subcontractor requirements or the small business plan when TOs are issued. How will the government take this into account during proposal evaluation?

As the pending contract will utilize an IDIQ format, the task orders to be awarded during the phase-in period could be different from the notional tasks in Attachment L-3. The Next Gen acquisition is a total small business set-aside, and a formal small business subcontracting plan is not required. Task order plans requested during the phase-in period should at that point reflect contract execution upon finalization of requirements when the task order plans are requested during phase-in. However, the prime contractor will be required to comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, and the Ostensible Subcontracting Rule (see Section L provision Acquisition Approach, paragraph (c)).

P. L-10

As Past Performance selection/requirements are tied to the notional tasks, how will the government account for differences in proposed team composition and the actual team membership which will be fulfilling any individual task order on this IDIQ?

Section L provision Factor III – Past Performance Factor Instructions, paragraph (d)(2) states in part-

For the offeror, referenced contract(s) shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least three of the seven PWS elements identified in the PWS WYE Percentage Assignment Table (i.e., PWS 2.0, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, and 3.4.6) to be considered relevant in content. For proposed subcontractor(s), relevancy will be determined relative to the content element(s) assigned to that subcontractor.

Therefore, Past Performance relevancy will be assessed relative the technical requirements of the PWS, not the notional tasks. During contract execution, the prime contractor will be required to comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and the Ostensible Subcontracting Rule (see Section L provision Acquisition Approach, paragraph (c)).

P.L-31

For Volume V, Mandatory experience, is it sufficient to submit a single reference for each mandatory experience item? Will offerors be graded differently if they submit more than one for each. If multiples are desired or required, how will they be evaluated?

Yes, single references may be submitted for one or more experience qualifications. Offerors are afforded latitude on how to best describe the team's experience in performing each element delineated in paragraph (c) of Section L provision Factor V - Mandatory Qualification Volume Instructions, within the established page limitation. Offerors will not be graded. Rather, proposals will be assigned a rating of either "Pass" or "Fail" based on the narrative provided in the Mandatory Qualification volume.

P.L-23

The past performance criteria require only $1.5M/year to be relevant. This is certainly appropriate for the individual task orders but does not provide the government with an ability to evaluate offerors ability to execute the overall IDIQ. Will the government consider changing the past performance criteria to include “One of the prime past performances must be of similar size to the anticipated contract and an IDIQ or Task-order based contract. Similar size in this case is >$7.5M per year.” $7.5M/year represents roughly 50% of the anticipated contract value and 50% has been a frequent benchmark in other RFPs to establish “similar size.”

The established size relevancy threshold for offerors is based on a percentage of the anticipated base year one value of the notional task orders as described in Attachment L-3. The percentage established is the lowest percentage relative to this value that the Government would consider for a referenced contract for the offeror to be considered relevant.

P.L-11

The management subfactor does not seem to require discussion on how the offeror will manage the scale and scope of this $76M IDIQ. If the notional tasks are representative of the size of task orders anticipated on this contract, proven Task Order management (quick math suggests as many as 200 TOs could be executed on this contract if they are truly 1-2FTE with 1 year PoP), customer communication and team management will be crucial for a successful offeror. Does the government consider the ability of an offeror to execute the entirety of this Single-Award IDIQ an important Management factor? Will evaluation criteria be added to ensure that an otherwise qualified offeror can successfully execute such a complicated IDIQ?

Attachment L-3 indicates that the notional tasks described consist of 12 potential task orders to be awarded during the phase-in period, consisting of 17.75 work year equivalent personnel. This attachment also indicates anticipated growth of approximately three WYEs for each succeeding year. However, the successful offeror will only be required to manage the active task orders applicable to each contract year, which the Government will replace with new task orders in the succeeding contract year. The Government anticipates reissuance of task orders for each yearly period regardless of the length of the contract period in which the task orders are issued. For example, this could be managing 12 task orders in year one, managing 15 tasks in year two, etc. The Government does not currently anticipate more than 20 active task orders at any given time. The management approach as required is considered sufficient to manage the relatively small number of task orders for each contract year.

P.L-23

Will the government consider using a past performance criterion of “1 full year of work within the past 5 years” vs. “1 full year of work within the past 4 years”? As currently written, this criterion is limiting and outside the norm (most solicitations allow for a 5-year currency for past performance) and effectively limits the work to only projects completed within the past 3 years.

NASA FAR Supplement 1815.304-70(d)(2)(i) states:

“(i) A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested contracts are limited to those awarded in the last three years. However, in acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate performance quality, such as hardware development, the time period should be tailored accordingly in the RFP.” (emphasis added)

The solicitation allowed for the capture of relevant references for an additional fourth year. The addition of a fifth year was not considered appropriate based on rapid advances in technology in the field associated with this effort.

P.M-2

There appear to be no specific evaluation factors for the notional tasks (Section M, TA-2). Can the Government please be specific about what will constitute a highly rated technical solution? Such as minimizing risk, cost effectiveness, securability, extensibility, knowledge of the background science, speed to delivery, etc.

Offerors are afforded the latitude to best describe the proposed approaches to perform the notional task orders and the Government will evaluate the proposed approaches, establishing findings in accordance with the definitions described in Section M provision Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Evaluation, paragraph (c). These findings will allow the reader (e.g., the source selection authority) to differentiate between the merits of the proposed approaches.

P.M-2

The technical evaluation factors for the PWS areas (Section M, TA-1) appear to lack specificity. Can the Government please provide more information on what will constitute a highly rated technical solution?

No. Offerors are afforded the latitude to best describe the proposed approaches to perform the PWS sections. Offerors will be differentiated based on the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the Mission Suitability subfactor requirements and approach for accomplishing those requirements, the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed resources, and associated programmatic risk, in accordance with Section M, Volume 1 – Mission Suitability Volume Evaluation, paragraph (a).

P.L-11

The Government states that it requires a TCP in the technical volume's Compensation Approach, but also requires a TCP in the price/cost narrative. TCPs typically require cost information, which cannot be included in the technical volume. Can the Government please clarify what compensation information is required in the technical volume vs the price/cost volume? Will the Government allow the technical TCP to be an appendix to either the technical volume or the price/cost volume which is excluded from page count?

Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Evaluation, paragraph (d), Subfactor 2: Management and Compensation Approach, subparagraph (ii), MA-2: Compensation Approach states:

The proposed TCP information shall be included in the offeror’s Price volume and the subcontractor’s Price volume, if applicable. Offerors and subcontractors shall ensure the information provided in the TCP is consistent with the data provided in the respective Price volume (i.e., Excel Pricing Model [EPM]). Offerors shall also ensure the proposed TCP(s) is consistent with other information contained elsewhere in the offeror’s proposal.

Therefore, no total compensation information is required to be submitted as part of Volume I - Mission Suitability. However, the total compensation plan will be evaluated as part of the Mission Suitability factor as stated in Section M, Volume I – Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the solicitation.

P.L-3-9

In the background and historical information section under Task Area 12: To whom is the "outreach" directed towards? Internal to Marshall/IMPACT external to Marshall, etc.?

The audience of the outreach refers to both internal and external end users utilizing the machine learning models developed as part of this task. This includes the respective science community.

P.L-27 & P.L-31

Volume IV (p L-27) and Factor V (p L-31) sections in the RFP say, “Headers and footers shall not contain any information other than the solicitation number and page number, as provided for in the solicitation.” However, the NASA FAR clause 1852.237-73, requires the language provided below.

“NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 1852.237-73 Release of Sensitive Information Mark the title page with the following legend:

This proposal or document includes sensitive information that NASA shall not disclose outside the Agency and its service providers that support management activities and administrative functions. To gain access to this sensitive information, a service provider's contract must contain the clause at NFS 1852.237–72, Access to Sensitive Information. Consistent with this clause, the service provider shall not duplicate, use, or disclose the information in whole or in part for any purpose other than to perform the services specified in its contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use this information if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The information subject to this restriction is contained in pages [insert page numbers or other identification of pages].

Mark each page of sensitive information the Contractor wishes to restrict with the following legend:

Use or disclosure of sensitive information contained on this page is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or document.”

Can the Government please allow for the inclusion of required FAR clause language in the headers and footers?

These instructions apply only to Volume IV - Contract. The solicitation is revised to delete the sentence from Factor V - Mandatory Qualification Volume Instructions, paragraph (b). Subsequent to award, if the contract volume is requested in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the contractor will be afforded the opportunity to identify any sensitive information considered inappropriate for release outside the Government.

P.L-6

The Draft RFP table that describes the proposal layout uses the term “Volume” for each section, but then each individual volume is actually called “Factor” within the document, except for Volume IV Contract Instructions. Can the Government please confirm if they would prefer Offerors use the term "Volume" or "Factor"?

“Volume” is the correct title to use for each section title. Prior to release of the final RFP, Sections L and M were updated to reference “Volume” instead of “Factor” for each section of the proposal. The solicitation delineates three evaluated factors (i.e., Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance). The information necessary to evaluate each factor is contained within its associated volume.

P.L-5

If a required document is marked CUI, is it acceptable to submit the document in the EFSS Box? If not, please advise how the document should be submitted.

Yes, documents marked CUI can be submitted in EFSS Box. Additionally, submission of proposals via EFSS Box is required.

P.L-29

In RFP Volume IV Contracts Documentation (d) Section II (2): For the NASA contracts where the offeror or teammate are the subcontractor, is prime contracting point of contact sufficient for the requirement since subcontractors do not have privity of contract with the Government?

Yes, the prime point of contact is acceptable.

Regarding Task 8 - Scientific Data Production at Scale: What types of scientific data products do you anticipate? The task doesn’t explicitly reference working with program scientists, but we expect that will be critical to the success of this task. Does NASA have any particular guidance on how we should engage and support the program scientists who develop these scientific algorithms? Or is this left as an exercise for the proposer?

Task 8 focuses on the technologies required to perform scientific data production in the cloud, rather than any specific science algorithm. During contract performance, the contractor would be expected to interact with science teams developing the data generating algorithms to understand and optimize data generation when performing the task. It is also expected that these algorithms will produce science quality data, as well as supporting metadata and documentation, such as those products found in the NASA Earth Science Data System Common Metadata Repository

Regarding Volume III Past Performance: Commercial clients sometimes use procurement vehicles that differ from government contracts. For the purposes of representing past performance, is it acceptable to aggregate a set of complementary task orders focused around a single product or program into a single past performance example, so long as these tasks, in aggregate, meet all of the size, content, and complexity requirements in the RFP?

Section L provision Volume III - Past Performance Volume Instructions, paragraph (e), Section I, subparagraph (1)(ii) states: "For ordering type contracts (e.g., indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), blanket purchasing agreement (BPA)), current/final contract value is defined as only the cumulative value of all task/delivery orders awarded." Therefore, this approach would be acceptable only if the aggregate set of task orders can be construed as tasks awarded under a single IDIQ or similarly structured single commercial procurement vehicle (similar to a single Government contract instrument) which occurred within four years of the due date for receipt of proposals. Such a vehicle would count as a single referenced contract relative to the five referenced contract limitation. Contact information for the referenced contract must be provided in accordance with Section L provision Volume III – Past Performance Volume Instructions, paragraph (e)(1)(i).

We note the mention of spatio-temporal in Attachment L3 as a request for contract support to upgrade the current Spatio-Temporal Asset Catalog (STAC) API with enhanced features. Would you entertain proposals that fall outside the notional tasks described in Attachment L3?

Potential offerors are advised to read the solicitation in its entirety to ascertain contract requirements as specified in Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement, as well as the requirements for offeror proposal submission as specified in Section L – Instructions to Offerors. Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.

Electronic Submission of Proposals, item B (page L-7)

(b) Prior to the submission of proposal files, offerors interested in submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation should notify Bradley Vest of their intent to submit a proposal at least 48 hours prior to the intended submission date, at the following email address: Bradley.D.Vest@nasa.gov.

Would the Government please clarify if the prime is allowed to submit an intent to bid on behalf of its entire team to simplify the coordination of this request? Example: the prime would submit a list of companies on the team along with the files each company would submit in the email to Mr. Vest expressing intent to bid.

Yes, the term "offeror" refers to the prime offeror submitting the proposal. The prime offeror should submit their intent to submit a proposal on behalf of its team.

Electronic Submission of Proposals, item C (page L-7)

Would the Government please confirm that the NASA EFSS website link is correct? When we attempted to log into the system, we were prompted to select whether we were part of NASA. We selected “Not a Part of NASA” and then selected “Sign Up.” When we did that, we were taken to the Box pricing page.

The link is correct. If offerors have issues with the link, under "Not Part of NASA," click sign up as "Individual" which allows the offeror to sign up for free.

Additionally, in accordance with Section L provision Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box, paragraph (b), offerors, especially those that have not previously submitted a proposal utilizing NASA’s EFSS Box, should coordinate the submission of a test file with Bradley Vest no less than seven days in advance of the proposal due date specified in the solicitation to allow time to work through any submission issues.

VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (pages L-21 and L-22)

(b) In determining the overall relevancy of individual referenced contracts, each referenced contract will be evaluated in the order of size, content, and complexity. If a referenced contract is determined to be not relevant in either size, content, or complexity, it will be determined not relevant overall and will not be further evaluated.

In Volume III – Past Performance Volume Instructions, the Government states that “each referenced contract will be evaluated in the order of size, content, and complexity.” When the Government further describes how an offeror’s referenced contract’s complexity will be evaluated, the Government states that “Complexity – For offerors, a referenced contract’s relevancy (e.g., management of geographically dispersed workforce; delivery of open source products; development of software solutions utilizing Earth observation and geospatial data; producing and distributing data within a cloud data environment at the terabyte level and above; and/or development of tooling to support cloud-based data workflows at a scale of 500,000 files and 500 terabytes of data) will be determined based on how well the complexity of the effort performed aligns with the effort delineated in Attachments J-1, L-3 Background and Historical, and other pertinent sections of the solicitation.”

Requiring the complexity of the citation to align with Attachment L-3 (Historical and Background Data and Notional Tasks) seems to contradict the Government’s response to question 14 (ATTACHMENT A – CLARIFICATIONS TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS), where the Government states, “Therefore, Past Performance relevancy will be assessed relative the technical requirements of the PWS, not the notional tasks. During contract execution, the prime contractor will be required to comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and the Ostensible Subcontracting Rule (see Section L provision Acquisition Approach, paragraph (c)).”

Would the Government please clarify how complexity will be evaluated?

Section L provision Volume III - Past Performance Volume Instructions, paragraph (d)(3), is revised to delete reference to Attachment L-3, Background and Historical, for both the offeror and subcontractors. Therefore, complexity will be evaluated based on alignment with Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement.

Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. 80MSFC24R0005, for Next Gen Letter (Page 1)

2. Government Furnished Property (GFP) will not be provided for this effort.

Will the Government provide additional support and guidance to ensure that proposed solutions meet their specific needs and requirements?

1. Cost contingencies: Will the Government provide additional funding to cover unexpected costs or changes in the project scope?

2. Pre-negotiated pricing: Does the Government have pre-determined prices for specific products or services that would impact cost certainty?

3. Relevant information: Will the Government provide additional information about software license requirements, cloud computing needs, and data storage requirements to help offerors align their solution with the Government's acquisition strategy?

This is an IDIQ contract with firm-fixed-price (FFP) task orders.

1. There are no cost contingencies, and no additional funding will be available to cover overruns.

2. Each FFP task order is a unique and stand-alone requirement. The rates proposed in Attachment J-4, Schedule of IDIQ Fully Burdened Labor Rates and Travel Burdens, will be included in the contract and used to negotiate the FFP of each task order. There are no predetermined prices for specific products or services.

3. As stated in the final RFP Attachment A, Clarification to All Potential Offerors, Questions 23 and 24, cloud computing and storage are part of the current infrastructure with no encumbered acquisition costs. Software licenses are not expected as part of IDIQ task solutions due to the open-source delivery requirements of PWS 3.2.

VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (page L-22)

Items (2) and (3)

Would the Government please clarify if offerors should address the relevancy areas described in item (3) Complexity (e.g., management of geographically dispersed workforce; delivery of open source products; development of software solutions utilizing Earth observation and geospatial data; producing and distributing data within a cloud data environment at the terabyte level and above; and/or development of tooling to support cloud-based data workflows at a scale of 500,000 files and 500 terabytes of data) separately from the PWS areas described in item (2) Content?

Offerors and subcontractors will be evaluated with content and complexity as separate considerations in accordance with the solicitation. Offerors should consider the examples provided in the parenthesis that the Government will consider when assessing the complexity of referenced contracts.

Section M

Volume II – Price Evaluation, paragraph c

Please confirm

a. That the total evaluated price consists of proposed prices for:

1. Phase-in (CLIN 1)

2. Base and Options 1-3 Labor (CLINs 2, 4, 6, 8)

3. Base and Options 1-3 Travel (CLINs 3, 5, 7, 9), which will include a calculated price for proposed contractor burdens

b. The calculated price for the Option to Extend Services (CLINs 10, 11) will NOT be included in the total evaluated price.

a. At award, only CLIN 001, Phase-in, will have a firm-fixed-price value as proposed by the offeror to be reflected in Section B clause 1852.216-78, Firm Fixed Price. No other values may be proposed by offerors in the contract section of the solicitation based on the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract structure. Rather, the Excel Pricing Model will establish a total proposed value for price comparison purposes consisting of the elements delineated in Section M provision Volume II - Price Evaluation, paragraph (c).

b. In accordance with Section M provision Volume II - Price Evaluation, paragraph (c), the total price will include a calculated value for the FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, period consistent with FAR 17.207(f).

Attachment J-3

Please confirm the years of experience used to estimate direct labor rates for the following labor categories:

• Senior UI/UX Software Engineer

• Senior UI Interface Designer

• Senior Machine Learning Engineer

• Principal Machine Learning Engineer

• Senior Geospatial Data Engineer

• Senior Geographic Information System Engineer

• Senior Solutions Architect

• Senior Technical Project Manager (PMO) The years of experience used to develop the benchmark rates for each labor category are listed on page L-19, paragraph (4)(a)(1). Additionally, the ERI years of experience is also listed in the Attachment J-3, Labor Category column. Note: The J-3 Labor Categories approximate ERI labor categories, and the years of experience do not align exactly to the Desired Education/Experience.

Section L

Volume II – Price Volume Instructions paragraph (b)(3) Excel Pricing Model (EPM)

Reference the final sentence of subparagraph (ii)(B) Tab B - Summary of Labor Build-up, "The Prime Offeror must account for minor subcontractors in their build-up of Tab B and Attachment L-4, TCP".

Will the Government please provide more information or instruction on how prime offerors are to account for minor subcontractors in our TCP?

All labor categories should be proposed with visibility into the base direct labor rate and fringe rate to account for the proposed total compensation for each labor category. If a minor subcontractor is assigned effort, that subcontractor should provide the prime offeror a basis for compensating the employees assigned to them. The prime offeror should factor the minor subcontractor into their direct labor and fringe rates based on the expected WYE/hours anticipated by the minor subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a TCP and Price volumes is required for any subcontractor anticipated to provide one WYE or more.

Section L

Volume II - Price Volume Instructions paragraph (b)(4) Total Compensation Plan subparagraph 1(v.)

Reference "How the geographic location for the rates proposed have sufficient population to support the use of the proposed rates given the experience qualifications required."

Will the Government please expand on what kind of information, data, or sources Offerors should provide/use to fulfill this requirement?

The information requested is for the Government to determine that a sufficiently qualified workforce can be leveraged from the population of the specified region to support the rates proposed. For example, utilization of compensation rates for a city with a population of 1,500 residents with few if any college degrees within this population could be considered insufficient justification for the proposed compensation relative to the benchmark rates delineated in the solicitation.

Attachment L-1

EPM – Tab A

Attachment L-1 has $298,375 of non-travel ODCs; please confirm prices for non-travel ODCs are to be included in CLINs 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10.

References to ODC are deleted. The total Travel line is provided in order for offerors to include the handling/burden rate on Travel. Therefore, there should not be any other "non-travel ODC." Line 10 of Tab A - Summary in the EPM is formula based and will be updated based on the burden rate entered in cell B9. Additionally, note that in accordance with MSFC 52.216-91, Supplies and/or Services to be Provided and Type of Contract, paragraph (e), profit shall not be applied to travel. As a result, the EPM is updated to remove profit on ODC and is also updated to ensure that travel cost and the proposed burden when combined do not exceed the maximum travel value established for each contract period.

Section L

Section (b)(4) – Total Compensation Plan

A thorough Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 provides all the information and details needed to assess the adequacy of a company's proposed compensation and fringe benefits. This includes, at a minimum, comprehensive information on all the items listed in Section L-(b)(4) Total Compensation Plan. It does not require an elemental build-up of categorized fringe costs.

The nature of fringe accounting is to cover a pool of employees who may not elect or qualify for the same benefits (example: family vs employee-only insurance or differences in 401k contributions). To complete Attachment L-4, several assumptions will have to be made that will largely be drawn from averages of current workforce behavior, and this may result in a discrepancy between the calculated fringe rate and the proposed fringe rate.

Additionally, fringe benefits and categories vary among companies. Attachment L-4 is not conducive to this variation and there are no standard definitions provided to describe the categories (example: supplemental pay - is this considered bonus pay, overtime pay, pay in lieu of other benefits?).

Would the Government consider either removing the TCP build-up (Attachment L-4) requirement or provide standard instructions describing how Offerors are to complete the form?

Total compensation rate build up forms are required for both the offeror and each applicable subcontractor. Each entity should account for the fringe benefit elements, as applicable, using their own standard accounting practice. The Attachment L-4 form is revised to include supplemental instructions.

The following note has been added to Attachment L-4:

Note: The five major categories listed above are examples and consist of the following: (1) Paid leave - vacation, holiday, sick, and personal leave; (2) Supplemental pay - overtime and premium, shift differentials, and nonproduction bonuses; (3) Insurance - life, health, short-term and long-term disability; (4) Retirement and savings - defined benefit and defined contribution; and (5) Legally required benefits - Social Security [refers to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program], Medicare, federal and state unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT (Page L-2-5)

To be completed by Government and/or Industry customer performing the evaluation

Section III of the Contractor Performance Report states that the form is “to be completed by Government and/or Industry customer performing the evaluation.” Would the Government please clarify if the Past Performance Interview/Questionnaire Form should be sent to the prime subcontractor if the offeror is citing a contract where it is a subcontractor or directly to the Government customer?

Questionnaires should be sent to the customer of the referenced contract. For references performed as a prime contractor, the questionnaire should be sent for completion to the commercial customer or Government customer. Questionnaires for referenced contracts performed as a subcontractor should be sent to the prime contractor (see also 13 CFR § 125.3(c)(1)(xiii)). In either case, completed questionnaires must be submitted directly to the Government point of contact (i.e., Brad Vest, bradley.d.vest@nasa.gov).

Regarding Subcontractor Past Performance: We are considering a potential subcontractor that has grants, but not “contracts” that meet the award size threshold. Would their grants qualify for a past performance example?

Volume III – Past Performance Volume Instructions, is updated to allow for the submission of non-contractual instruments (e.g., grants, cooperative agreements) as references. The original intent of the solicitation provision, based on market research previously conducted, was not to preclude these types of instruments as references. However, the submission of these types of instruments could impact the confidence level assigned to the offeror. Each referenced instrument will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established for the assessment of an offeror's or proposed subcontractor's past performance. Offerors should consider the information provided in the Section L provision for size, content, and complexity thresholds when determining whether to submit the reference for consideration relative to the five reference limitation. In cases where no performance ratings can be obtained for the reference, the reference will not be considered as part of the Past Performance evaluation.

Reference RFP Paragraph 2.3.2 Phase-out, Page J-1-6,

Can the Government provide an orderly phase out period consisting of at least 45-days prior to completion of the contract?

Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement, section 2.3.2 delineates the requirements/responsibilities of the contractor to be performed by the contractor prior to expiration of the contract. These activities will be accomplished within the contract period of performance, even if the contract is extended in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. If a follow-on effort is competed and awarded, that contract's phase-in period will overlap this contract's period of performance for the length of time specified for the phase-in period, similar to the approach utilized for this effort. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a separate phase-out period will be established for this contract effort.

Can the incumbent 2-contractors bid on this opportunity?

Yes, the two incumbents are allowed to both submit proposals for this solicitation.

Can the Government allow the Offeror to use the Open-Source Products and modify them as necessary to the PWS? If yes, will the Government allow the Offeror to publish the enhanced OS products in public? Please advise.

Yes, open-source solutions developed to support the PWS may include modifications of other open-source products provided they comply with the any applicable licensing. Modifications may be submitted back to the original solution or published as a new open-source product if there are substantial enhancements / modifications.

VOLUME II – Price Volume Instructions a) (7)

(b) Price Volume Contents

(3) (i) EPM

EPM Tab F

1 VOLUME II – Price Volume Instructions a) (7)

(b) Price Volume Contents

(3) (i) EPM

EPM Tab F

(a) General Instructions, (7) This volume shall include all Government-provided price templates which are hereby defined as the Excel Pricing Model (EPM), consisting of tabs which are found in Attachment L-1. The EPM will be utilized as the Government evaluation tool. Are the hours provided in the PMO tab for Project Manager (PMO) and Senior Technical Project Manager required or example numbers?

Can they be changed to reflect the offeror's PMO pricing approach?

The WYE/hours for PMO are anticipated to be the minimum WYE/hour necessary to manage the contract. In Tab F PMO, the offeror may propose additional hours and additional labor categories in accordance with their approach to managing the contract. No additional labor categories or hours are allowed in the direct labor categories.

VOLUME II – Price Volume Instructions (F) (4)(a)(i)

Offerors and subcontractors proposing to utilize the incumbent workforce should review the Economic Research Institute (ERI) benchmark average unburdened hourly direct labor rates (i.e., 90th percentile for San Francisco, CA., Washington D.C., Huntsville, AL.) provided below for those labor categories for which rates are provided, in order to better understand the current and anticipated salary levels of the incumbent workforce.

Can LCATS that are not included in the ERI table be added to PMO and used for calculation of PMO rate, so long as the Offeror provides a rationale of the rates used?

Yes, see response to question 35 related to PMO rate input.

RFP Section PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (Page M-2):

The RFP for this project outlines specific evaluation criteria VOLUME I - MISSION SUITABILITY VOLUME EVALUATION, Section (a), (i) TA-1: Technical Approach:

“Note: Offerors are cautioned that approaches which propose utilization of proprietary solutions may be considered a significant risk to performance and could negatively impact the offeror’s Mission Suitability score (see FAR 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software contained within 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications)”

This seems to include any/all proprietary solutions, noting that such approaches may be considered a significant risk to performance and could negatively impact the offeror’s Mission Suitability score.

However the following FAR clauses emphasize the preference for commercial software and non-developmental items, suggesting that agencies should prioritize commercially available solutions and conduct market research to this end:

FAR References:

1. FAR Part 12 - Acquisition of Commercial Items:

o Section 12.101: This section requires agencies to use Part 12 policies for acquiring supplies or services that meet the definition of "commercial items."

o Section 12.202: This section establishes that market research should focus on commercial software and that agencies must maximize the use of commercially available software before pursuing custom or non-commercial solutions.

o Section 12.207: This section covers the use of firm-fixed-price contracts or fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustments for commercial items, which applies to commercial software.

2. FAR Part 10 - Market Research:

o Section 10.002(b): This section mandates that agencies conduct market research to determine if commercial or non-developmental items can meet their needs, emphasizing a preference for commercial software.

3. FAR Part 39 - Acquisition of Information Technology:

o Section 39.101: This section reinforces the use of commercial software and non-developmental items when acquiring information technology, encouraging agencies to avoid custom software unless commercial software is unavailable or unsuitable.

Could you clarify how the evaluation of proprietary solutions aligns with the FAR requirements for commercial items and the acquisition of information technology? Specifically, how will the Government ensure that the evaluation process adheres to the FAR’s preference for commercial solutions and market research, while also assessing the use of proprietary solutions as outlined in the RFP?

The principal purpose of this hybrid research and development and services requirement is to provide resources ensuring the Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) maintains cutting-edge leadership in:

1. Science informatics;

2. Using machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques, including machine learning expertise with specialization in spatio-temporal algorithms;

3. Science data systems and domain science; and

4. Scientific data storage, archiving, and management.

Market research conducted prior to release of the solicitation indicated that a commercial software product meeting the requirements was not available and no responses were provided as a result of this research which indicated that the services to be acquired were available in the commercial marketplace. Therefore, FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items and FAR Part 39 Acquisition of Information Technology do not apply, as the software solutions have not been previously developed and made available in the commercial marketplace.

Accordingly, the solicitation indicates in Section L provision Acquisition Approach, paragraph (a), that the acquisition will be conducted under FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NFS 1815, Contracting by Negotiation. Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement, Section 3.0, Technical Requirements, thoroughly describes the services to be performed by the selected offeror. Based on the requirements delineated therein, the Next Gen solicitation is not for the acquisition of commercial software and is therefore not for the acquisition of a commercial item.

Offerors are reminded that per the solicitation, "approaches which propose utilization of proprietary solutions may be considered a significant risk to performance and could negatively impact the offeror’s Mission Suitability score (see FAR 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software contained within 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications).”

The existing program currently utilizes open-source software, with custom services and platforms built on top of this open-source foundation. Can you clarify how this existing custom open-source solution complies with the RFP requirements? Specifically, how does leveraging open-source software and adding custom components align with the RFP’s evaluation criteria? Are there particular aspects of the RFP that the use of open source and custom services must address to ensure compliance?

As stated in PWS 3.2, the selected contractor is expected to provide computer software solutions as open-source software consistent with SPD-41a, and this solicitation requirement applies to all solutions. Future indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract task orders may leverage existing open-source solutions developed for IMPACT, and any customization must remain an open-source solution.

Section L

Volume II – Price Volume Instructions, Paragraph (a)(4); pg L-12

In the draft RFP, the threshold for major subcontractors required to submit total pricing volumes was set at a 15% workshare, ensuring that only subcontractors handling a significant portion of the work would need to submit detailed pricing. However, in the final RFP, the threshold was changed to 1 WYE out of 17.75 total WYE in FY 2026, effectively reducing the workshare threshold to 5.6%. This change imposes a significant administrative burden on small subcontractors who have low workshare. Teaming was formed on the basis of 15% workshare for major subcontractors. Would the Government consider reverting to the original 15% workshare threshold, which strikes a better balance between transparency and efficiency, while still ensuring proper oversight of major subcontractors?

For sufficient insight into professional exempt workforce compensation, the revised workshare percentage was lowered from 15% of the anticipated WYE for the first contract year to one WYE or greater to better account for a comprehensive evaluation of the team's total compensation approach in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Therefore, the Government will not revert to the prior threshold.

Section L

Volume II - Price Volume Instructions, Section 2 - Financial Capability, Paragraph (b)(2)(ii); pg L-15

The instructions in Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) are somewhat unclear, particularly in relation to the scope of applicability. In sentence 4, "If the offeror is, or will be, a newly formed business entity…", could the Government clarify whether the subsequent sentences apply exclusively to newly formed business entities? Specifically, we are seeking clarity on the following instructions: "In addition, the offeror shall discuss the funding requirements, and limitation of liabilities, if any, of all participants. 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." Are these instructions intended solely for newly formed business entities, or do they also apply to the Prime and all subcontractors required to submit a total price volume?

Volume II – Price Volume Instructions Section 2 – Financial Capability, Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is updated to remove the requirement for submission of financial ratios. The Government will use the financial statements provided in order to determine the financial ratios.

Section L

Volume II - Price Volume Instructions, Section 2 - Financial Capability, Paragraph (b)(2)(ii); pg L-15

Could the Government clarify the intended purpose for the requirement of subcontractors to submit a full Financial Capability statement, as described in Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)? Given that adequate price competition is expected, we respectfully ask the Government to alternatively consider requiring only audited or unaudited financial statements for subcontractors.

Section L provision Volume II - Price Volume Instructions, paragraph (b)(2)(ii), indicates that for small businesses (i.e., applicable subcontractors required to submit total compensation plans and Price volumes), Small Business Administration submittals as well as unaudited financial statements are acceptable.

Section L

ATTACHMENT L-3 - Historical and Background Data and Notional Tasks; pg. L3-3

Could the Government provide clarification on the following statement: "Based on historical trends and anticipated growth, a year-to-year total increase of 3 WYEs is expected, but not guaranteed"? Specifically, will the Government indicate which of the 12 tasks the additional 3 WYEs will be applied to? Given the cost variations between labor categories assigned to each task, this information is critical to ensure that offerors submit pricing that can be evaluated on an equal basis.

Attachment L-3, Background and Historical and Notional Tasks, page L-3-3 indicates that based on historical trends and anticipated growth, year-to-year total increase of 3 WYEs is expected, but not guaranteed; generally, the WYE growth would be assigned to new IDIQ tasks. This information is provided only as a potential indicator of additional effort that may be awarded across contract years. Therefore, offerors are not required to price any effort associated with this potential growth. Proposed prices are based solely on the elements described in Section M provision Volume II - Price Evaluation, paragraph (c).

Section L Volume II – Price Volume Instructions (a)(5)

L-12

Page L-12 states that “…All indirect rates shall be expressed as percentages to the second decimal place (xx.xx%).” Would it be acceptable for Offerors to round Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCM) indirect rate percentages to the fourth decimal place due to the small values associated with FCCM?

No, all indirect rates shall be rounded to two decimal places per Section L Volume II – Price Volume Instructions, paragraph (a)(5).

Section L Volume II – Price Volume Instructions (b)(2)(ii)) “Section 2 – Financial Capability”

L-15

Page L-15 requires audited financial statements. Please confirm that publicly traded companies can satisfy this requirement by providing links to publicly available financial statements.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Sep 20, 2024.