80MSFC25R0005 FOMSS II Request for Proposal_Amendment P00001.docx

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

80MSFC25R0005

80MSFC25R0005-P00001

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (CONTINUED):

(a) The purpose(s) of this amendment is as follows:

(b) Attachment A, Responses to Industry RFP Questions, provides responses to questions and comments provided by industry. Attachment B, Change Log, provides a summary of resulting changes made between the original RFP and Amendment P00001. Additionally, 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, January 03, 2025.

(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 80MSFC25R0005 remain unchanged.

ATTACHMENT A – RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY RFP QUESTIONS

The Government's answers to questions, Summary of Changes, and instructions on Attachment L-2 Past Performance Interview/Questionnaire state that only one PPQ (“a single comprehensive assessment”) is required for each referenced contract. However, the final RFP (Factor III, Section II (6) on p. L-40) states that Offerors should "forward [PPQs] to the applicable contracting officer and contracting officer’s representative."

Will the Government please update the RFP to reflect the change in PPQ submission requirements?

Factor III - Past Performance Volume Instructions, Section II (6), is revised to require PPQ submission to the "applicable customer" to align with language in Attachment L-2.

In the following references, is the Government intending the term volume to refer to the contract A-K or M document or to the entire Contract Volume IV? This question is asked because of the requirement for only using the RFP's headers/footers.

Does the Government intend that only the Form and A-K or L document only contain the RFP's headers/footers?

i. Question 162 (“The volume shall be submitted in its entirety, to include all Section A through J pages and attachments provided in the solicitation as well as Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors." Additionally, paragraph (b) states - "Headers and footers shall not contain any information other than the solicitation number and page number, as provided for in the solicitation." Therefore, for the entire Volume IV submission, headers and footers shall contain only solicitation number (i.e., top) and page number (i.e., bottom) as provided in the solicitation.”)

Are there any significant security or safety risks associated with working at this facility? For example, exposure to chemicals, radiation, etc?

In Attachment J-1, "Performance Work Statement (PWS)," there is reference to current conditions in paragraph 1.1.A. There are buried unexploded munitions (referred to as UXOs). This site uses several classes of industrial chemicals and does perform operations with explosives. Extensive instruction and training by Government experts is available to contractor personnel to help personnel mitigate and avoid these hazards. Furthermore, there are significant controls in place to limit access to areas where hazardous test operations take place.

In the event of a point repair, how thick will the asphalt and rock be?

Refer to the definition of "Basic Utilities" in Section 2.0 and PWS paragraph 9.1, "General Requirements," in Attachment J-1 regarding information of utility system repair and maintenance responsibilities for NASA and the Redstone Arsenal Department of Public Works. All such work will be performed as IDIQ. Pavement thicknesses vary across MSFC as a consequence of varying soil conditions, road usage requirements, and the pavement standards in force at the time of construction. Information on pavement depth and utility locations (including communications lines) will be available to the FOMSS II contractor.

Has there been any damage to the foundations of the structures?

Generally, the facilities at MSFC have sound foundations. In the rare instances where this is not the case, it will not be the responsibility of the FOMSS II contractor to repair foundation damage unless engaged to do so via an IDIQ work request.

The PWS for FOMSS II addresses work and labor categories that, depending on the square footage or other thresholds for the work, may be considered as Davis Bacon type work. Such types of work may include pavement, roadwork, interior and exterior painting, electrical work, carpeting, etc., and the labor categories may include bricklayer, carpenter, electrician, millwright, painter, and pipefitter, etc.

Does the Government intend on incorporating the Davis Bacon FAR clauses and a Davis Bacon Wage Determination into the solicitation?

No, the Government has determined that the Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) statute (formerly known as the Davis Bacon Act) is not appliable to the FOMSS II solicitation.

The PWS mentions tiers for categorizing some system maintenance. Are there definitions of the meaning of each tier?

Maintenance tiers are an approach to resource allocation to ensure that facilities and their equipment are maintained based on their criticality to NASA's mission. Refer to PWS paragraph 1.2.E for an explanation of critical facilities and tiers.

The PWS 1.2.E says “MSFC has a number of facilities that are considered critical. The maintenance tier for the equipment in those buildings is reflected in the “Maintenance Tier” column in Attachment J-19, “Preventive Maintenance.”

Which tier (tiers 1,2, 3 or 4) corresponds to the critical facilities and or systems?

PWS paragraph 1.2.E, "Critical Facilities and Building System Availability," is revised to include a NOTE to clarify which facilities and equipment are critical.

Table J-1-A of the PWS says “The Contractor needs to coordinate a planned outage in one or more of MSFC's critical facilities (buildings 4207, 4208, 4629, and 4663).” Are these the only critical facilities at MSFC? Is this the same critical as defined in PWS paragraph 1.2.E?

Activity 2.A of Table J-1-A is revised to clarify that the buildings listed are the only ones that have this notification requirement.

Honor Agreements Reached During Discussion states, "The Contractor shall ensure implementation of any requirements agreed to during discussions that are required by the effective date of the contract."

Can the government please expand on what this Phase-In requirement means? Is this referring to new requirements added during the Phase In period (post award)?

The Government's intends to award without discussions. In the event of discussions, any changes made to your proposal as the result of discussions are required to be implemented at the appropriate time after the effective date of the contract (e.g., a new phase-in approach provided during discussions would need to be implemented at phase-in.)

Note 2 was added to clarify the rationale for not turning in work on behalf of others. Will the Government confirm that this is for all work, or just work that will be "user funded"? Also, how will the Government prevent a potential incorrect assumption that routine work was turned in on behalf of an end user when it was actually generated from a technician or engineer observation?

This requirement is for all work requests, regardless of who is funding it. Per the PWS, government personnel will review each work order for completeness, which includes the fields that provide information on the customer.

Contract Element (PIN - X.0302) CMMS Operations and Management. <<(3.12) PRS 1b, 95%, 10%> The Contractor shall maintain and manage data in the CMMS to reflect all work performed (including work performed by other contractors, or the Government, related to facilities maintenance, if notified). The Contractor shall continuously update the CMMS to reflect any and all equipment failures and corrective actions taken. All data shall be accurate and current.> <<(3.13) PRS 2a, 0, $100> No data, except data entered in error by the Contractor, shall be deleted from the database without the written consent of the COR. The Contractor shall use all modules and features of the CMMS unless given permission to otherwise by the COR in writing.>

Question: Will the Goverment a comprehensive list what CMMS Maximo modules are provided for Contractor use?

Attachment J-1, "Performance Work Statement," (PWS) paragraph 3.2.A.2 is revised to include a new NOTE that provides additional information about CMMS Maximo.

What is the area (square footage) of the parking areas and access paths to be serviced as described in the PWS included for snow and ice removal?

As indicated in the response to Index Question 106 in Attachment A of the solicitation, Attachment J-18, “Snow and Ice Removal,” provides the parking areas and access paths. However, the maps provided in Attachment J-18 do not provide the requested data as no such measurements have been conducted. Offeror(s) may use any estimating tools at their disposal (e.g., Google Earth) to determine the scale needed to calculate quantities.

Will the government provide storage space for salt/de-icing supplies and snow removal equipment?

PWS paragraph 9.4.A is revised to include a NOTE that provides additional information about storage space for associated supplies and equipment.

PWS 12.2.C.4, Water Heating Equipment Tiered Maintenance, has a sub paragraph alpha list numbered as 12.2.D.4.a-d. There is already a 12.2.D.4.a-d, concerning Cooling Tower Circulating Pump PM.

Will the Government confirm that 12.2.C.4, Water Heating Equipment Tiered Maintenance, sub paragraphs should be 12.2.C.4.a-d?

The reference paragraph is revised to correct associated subparagraphs to reflect "C" instead of "D" in the numbering.

A DRD mentions “Critical and unresolved issues” (DRD NO.: 1856EE-012) What is the definition of critical in this case?

Section 15.3 (b)(1)(a) of the reference DRD is revised to define "Critical and unresolved issues."

Can the Government please release the CBA under the COBA contract (80MSFC20D0007)?

An incorrect version was provided in the RFP. Attachment J-3, Part 2 is replaced in its entirety to include the COBA CBA and the recently updated FOMSS I IUOE CBA.

The Schedule A in the CBA with the NABTC needs updated to the most current. The latest became effective July1, 2024. Will the Gov't provide in order to ensure correct wage and fringe allocation is possible?

Offerors shall utilize the CBA hourly labor rates and applicable wage determinations provided in the solicitation per Section L provision Factor II - Price Volume Instructions (a)(6). Reference Section L provision Factor II - Price Volume Instructions (a)(6) for more information.

Will the Gov't provide an explanation to the tier structure as it appears there are only 4 maintenance tiers; however, TAB A lists considerable Tier 5 equipment and many blank tiers?

All references to maintenance Tier 5 are removed. Maintenance tiers are an approach to resource allocation to ensure that facilities and their equipment are maintained based on their criticality to NASA's mission. A tier 1 asset's maintenance and repair requirements will have a higher priority and receive a greater share of resources than 2, 3, or 4 assets.

In Attachment J-16 worksheet “Tab A-Locations and Tiers” there are over 3900 entries for Tier 5 yet there are no support worksheets for the Tier 5 items. There are only worksheets for Tiers 1-4. What are bidders to do with the Tier 5 locations?

All references to maintenance Tier 5 are removed from the referenced attachment.

Attachment J-16 lists Tiers 1-5 in the worksheet “Tab A Location/Tier” yet there are no support worksheets for the Tier 5 items. There are only worksheets for Tiers 1-4. What are bidders to do with the Tier 5 facilities and systems?

Refer to the answer in Question 20.

In Attachment J-16 worksheet “Tab A-Locations and Tiers” there are over 7000 blank entries for the column "Tier." Is this correct?

PWS paragraph 1.2.E, "Critical Facilities and Building System Availability," is revised to include a note to clarify what tiers mean and why some assets do not have tiers associated with them.

In Attachment J-16 worksheet “Tab B-Preventive Maintenance” there are over 300 blank entries for location, Tier, pmnum, and pmdescription. Is this correct?

Attachment J-16 is revised to correct these errors to the maximum extent possible.

The duration columns in Attachment J-16 worksheets “Tab D.1-Tier 1 Job Plans”, Tab D.2-Tier 2 Job Plans”, Tab D.3-Tier 3 Job Plans and Tab D.4-Tier 4 Job Plans” all show “0” hours. Are bidders to use their estimated durations for this?

The duration columns in the Attachment J-16 are removed. The duration of maintenance tasks can be estimated based on the offerors' proposed approach using commercially available tools and the offerors' experiences performing these tasks.

Do the durations in Attachment J-16 worksheets “Tab D.1-Tier 1 Job Plans”, Tab D.2-Tier 2 Job Plans”, Tab D.3-Tier 3 Job Plans and Tab D.4-Tier 4 Job Plans” include travel time?

Refer to the answer to Question 24.

Attachment J-16 list some system maintenance task by tier yet not all systems (for example some steam systems are shown in attachment J-16 worksheet “Tab D.2-Tier 2 Job Plans” but not mentioned in the PWS.) Is this an omission of the PWS?

PWS paragraph 12.1 is revised to add language to clarify that unit heaters include steam heaters.

Question is regarding Table J-22 column, NASA Labor Category. Several LCATS have "PIN, IDIQ and MSWR Maintenance."

What is meant by "MSWR Maintenance" in this context?

The references in the first column of Table J-22 are explained in the Notes section at the end of that table. "MSWR" and "Maintenance" are two separate items. "MSWR" is a reference to the types of work the labor category will perform and "Maintenance" refers to the labor category's "department." Refer to Section 2.0 of Attachment J-1 for the definition of MSWR.

In Attachment J-22, within Table J-22 "Government Identified Labor Category Descriptions" (page J-22-16), the Gov't included the following Education/Experience for the BAS Operations Manager: "Three to Five Years of Related Experience", which does not align to the 10 years of experience that the Gov't used for ERI for the Acceptable Average DL Rate.

Can the Government please confirm the expected years of experience for the BAS Operation Manager?

NASA Labor Category, BAS Operations Manager (in Table J-22), is revised to reflect "seven to ten years of related experience" in the "Education and Experience Requirements" column.

For the Information Security Analyst LCAT, there appears to be a discrepancy between the ERI Mapping/ERI years of experience used as the basis for the minimum acceptable average DL rates within Table J-23-A - "Schedule A Minimally Acceptable Average Direct Labor Rates" (RFP, page J-23-2).

Can the Government confirm that they mapped the "Information Security Analyst" NASA LCAT to the "Mechanical Engineer" ERI LCAT?

Can the Government confirm that they used 10 years in ERI, as the LCAT Descriptions provided in Attachment J-22 (page J-22-17) state the required minimum years of experience for the "Information Security Analyst" LCAT is 3-5 years of related experience and not 10 years of experience.

Please confirm the ERI mapping in Table J-23-A or consider updating the required minimum years of experience in Attachment J-22 for the "Information Security Analyst" LCAT.

NASA Labor Category, Information Security Analyst (in Table J-22), is revised to reflect "seven to ten years of related experience" in the "Education and Experience Requirements" column.

In addition, the previously referenced NASA Labor Category (in Table J-23-A) is updated to reflect the correct ERI mapping of Information Security Analyst for NASA in the "ERI Mapping and/or Incumbent / Years of Experience" column. Table J-23-A is replaced in its entirety.

The RFP states that "Margins shall be justified with the exception of information contained within tables."

Do margins in figures, illustrations, graphics, charts, call-out boxes, etc. also need to be justified?

No. However, offerors shall ensure that no material is provided within the one-inch margin.

Will the Government please clarify that offers is permitted to provide FAR 52-215-1(e) "Restriction on disclosure and use of data" in the footer of the proposal?

As stated in Volume IV - Contract Instructions (b), "Headers and footers shall not contain any information other than the solicitation number and page number, as provided for in the solicitation." This applies to pages, regardless of whether they contain proprietary data.

Would the Government please confirm that the term "IDIQ Contract Requirements" refers to the "IDIQ Work" sections of the PWS?

Confirmed.

In several instances, the RFP suggests that offerors may propose to transition the currently CBA-covered workforce to a non-CBA covered workforce. See, e.g. L-17 (mentioning “changing to a non-union workforce” as a potential innovation).

Given the significant legal and practical risks to such an approach, how will the Government evaluate whether proposed cost savings are realistic and able to be implemented without jeopardizing program performance?

Will the Government considering conducting a price realism evaluation or a technical risk evaluation so it can consider the risks associated with such an approach in its award decision?

The referenced language in the note of Table MTA-6: Innovations Summary and SC-1 are removed.

The Government will evaluate MTA-6 Innovations as specified in Section M, Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Evaluation. The Government will not be conducting a price realism assessment for Subfactor A - Management and Technology Approach (MTA)

Considering the Government provided 85 labor categories across multiple work categories, the requirement to provide Table SC-1.1: Staffing BOE for each year of the period of performance will take a large number of pages in the Mission Suitability volume.

Will the government please exclude Table SC-1.1 from the page limitations for Volume I?

NOTE: This information is also captured under the Attachment L-1 submitted under Volume II.

Table SC-1.1: Staffing BOE is excluded from the Mission Suitability volume page limitation (which shall be provided after the last numbered page). Section L, NFS Provision 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, paragraph (c), is revised to indicate this exclusion.

The notes for Table SC-1.1 state "State which PWS work category the personnel are performing work under: (a) Core Mission Services (if so, state which PIN [e.g., X.0301, X.0501, X.0601]), (b) IDIQ, or (c) overhead (annotate this with the PWS section number [e.g. 3.0, 6.0, 11.0] that the overhead will be distributed to)."

Since bidders are required to use the hours provided in EPM, Tab I, would the government please remove the requirement for the Staffing BOE for the IDIQ in Table SC-1.1?

The Table SC-1.1 note three is revised to only require stating which PWS work category the personnel are performing work under Core Mission Services and overhead. Item (b) "IDIQ" is removed.

Note 3 of Table SC-1.1 requires "a separate line entry for each PIN in the table", as well as a "separate line entry for each PWS section" for personnel supporting more than one PIN or PWS section, and offerors "shall not combine information on Core Mission Services, IDIQ, and/or overhead in a single entry," and "If a labor category provides work under several work categories, the offeror shall provide a line entry for each work category such that the labor category’s work contributions throughout the PWS are separate and fully understood by the reviewer."

Considering there are 85 labor categories, 14 PWS areas, and 116 PINs, this table will be thousands of lines to comply with the "separate line entry" requirements of Note 3. For example, our Table SC-1.1 for base year 1 alone is over 400 lines. We estimate the total length of the table to be over 2000 lines for the base and all option years. In landscape format (as the table is provided in the RFP), there are approximately ~25 lines per page (if each row is only one line). This would equate to approximately 80 pages (best case scenario).

We respectfully request that the proposal instructions be updated to allow Offerors to provide Table SC-1.1 as a separate appendix (or separate MS Excel file) to the Mission Suitability volume and excluded this table from the 150-page page count restriction.

Or that the page restriction for this volume be increased by 100 pages to account for the potential size of Table SC-1.1.

Refer to the answer in Question #34. The page limitation for the Mission Suitability is also increased to 160 pages, to accommodate additional narrative to support offeror's staffing approach.

Please provide details on how the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) will be evaluated as part of the Mission Suitability volume when it is submitted as part of the Pricing Volume.

Offerors should refer to Section M provision Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Evaluation, paragraph (a)(2)(iv), which provides information regarding the Government's evaluation of offeror's and applicable subcontractor's Total Compensation plans. While the information is provided in the Price volume (which is not page limited), the information will be evaluated under the Mission Suitability factor, which allows for the establishment of findings (e.g., strengths, weaknesses) with corresponding impacts to Subfactor B ratings and scores.

As SC-4 Total Compensation Plan (TCP) is to be submitted as part of Volume II Price Volume, our assumption is that the TCP does not count towards the 150-page page restriction of the Mission Suitability volume. Please confirm this assumption.

Confirmed. As stated in the response to Index Question 142 in Attachment A of the solicitation, the referenced section indicates the proposed TCP information shall be included in the offeror's and applicable subcontractor's Price volume. Section L provision 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, paragraph (a), further indicates that Price volumes are not page limited.

In the RFP Section L, Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, within Table L-2 - "Escalation Rates" (page L-27), the Gov't provided updated Escalation Rates for Years 2025 - 2029. However, in Attachment L-1 EPM, within Tab B Labor Build-up, the escalation rates provided in cells S3, AG3, E94, and S94 do not match the updated escalation rates provided in the Final RFP, Table L-2, for Years 2026 - 2029.

Will the Government please update the Escalation rates in Attachment L-1 EPM Tab B, cells S3, AG3, E94, and S94 so the escalation rates in this tab match the escalation rates provided in the RFP, Table L-2 for Years 2026 - 2029?

Tab B of Attachment L-1 is revised to reflect the updated escalation rates in Table L-2 of the Price Volume.

The labor escalation rates in Attachment L-1 EPM Tab B Labor Build-up do not align with the labor escalation rates in Solicitation 80MSFC25R00005, Factor II – Price Volume Instructions(b)(2)(i)(D) Table L-2 Escalation Rates.

Is it the government’s intent for bidders to develop composite escalation rates that blend the calendar year escalation rates in Table L-2 Escalation Rates with the period of performance dates provided in the solicitation and enter into Attachment L-1 EPM Tab B Labor Build-up?

Refer to the answer to Question 39. Offerors "shall utilize" the labor escalation rates listed in Table L-2 Escalation Rates in the Price volume, as stated in Section L provision Factor II - Price Volume Instructions, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D).

The RFP states, "The offeror and applicable subcontractors shall submit one copy of their audited financial statements and accompanying notes for the last three most recently completed fiscal years (for small businesses, Small Business Administration submittals, as well as unaudited financial statements are acceptable). In addition, the offeror shall provide data showing the amount of established and/or available credit, the financial institution extending the line, and the dollar amount (if any) presently in use. If a line of credit is available, the offeror shall provide a copy of the letter with the name of the institution and the amount of credit extended to the offeror's company for this proposed effort. If the offeror is, or will be, a newly formed business entity, a financial statement relating thereto shall accompany the offer showing the contribution that each participant is required to make with regard to the entity's capital and equity, amount pledged or paid in to date by each of the participants, and the working capital availability. 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."

Question: Would the Government please clarify how offerors (not joint ventures) who have completed less than three fiscal years of financial history should respond to the financial capability requirements? As written, the language related to “newly formed business entities” appears to be tailored only to JVs based on the references to participants and the requirement for three years of financial ratios, which would not be available for new entities.

Offerors who have less than three fiscal years of financial history should provide as much information as possible.

The fourth row, left column of Table L-3, Offeror/Applicable Subcontractors Information Summary states, "15" which appears to be a typo.

Would the Government revise the text to, "Project:"?

Table L-3 is updated to correct the fourth row title to reflect "Project:"

The solicitation states “Performance of referenced contracts shall be limited to that which occurred within three years of the due date for receipt of proposals. Additionally, each referenced contract shall have a minimum of six months of performance within the three-year period. Performance of any effort outside the three-year period will not be evaluated.”

We respectfully request clarification on whether the Government would consider evaluating relevant performance that began prior to the three-year period but continued into or remains active during the three-year evaluation window. If so, could the Government confirm whether the portion of performance outside the three-year window may be included to provide additional context and demonstrate long-term contract success?

Yes. Provided the reference contract has at least six months of performance overlapping the beginning of the three year window, consideration will be given to the contract in its entirety.

Factor III Past Performance Volume Instructions in (b) states “Performance of referenced contracts shall be limited to that which occurred within three years of the due date for receipt of proposals.”

Question: The due date for receipt of proposals is subject to change. Would the Government change the requirement to “Three years from the date of issuance of the FOMSS II solicitation (12/04/2024)" so there is a set date for this requirement?

The Government considered the suggestion to change the requirement but the language will remain the same.

In the Volume III Past Performance instructions, the RFP states subcontractor references will be determined Relevant if they have "an average annual value of $2,500,000 or greater." The relevancy determination for a subcontractor reference should correlate to their allocated workshare and corresponding dollar value proposed on the FOMSS II contract.

We suggest that the Government allow subcontractor references of any dollar value, and the Government makes a relevancy determination of whether that dollar value is deemed Relevant in accordance with that subcontractors proposed work they will perform on FOMSS II.

The establishment of a dollar threshold for subcontractors was made relative to the anticipated average annual value of the FOMSS II Core Mission Services requirements. Utilization of a floating threshold would result in subcontractor references being held to differing size thresholds, which is not considered to be an appropriate benchmark to establish size relevancy.

The last row of the table, Period of Performance (POP), does not include column breaks for each referenced contract. Since each refereneced contract will have a different POP, can we add column breaks to this row? Should the POP we use in this table ONLY cover the three year period prior to proposal due date (01/08/2022-01/08/2025)?

How should WYE be calculated (e.g., average over life of contract, average over three year period, WYE for the most recent year, WYEs for each of the three years, etc.?

The Past Performance Contracts Summary Table is revised to remove the "Example Contract" column and add the example data to the "Referenced Contract" column. Additional columns breaks are added to the Period of Performance row, which correspond to the period of performances for each referenced contract. The periods of performance should comply with Section L, Factor III - Past Performance Volume Instructions paragraph (b).

The WYEs for the Past Performance Contracts Summary Table should reflect the average WYEs for the applicable period of performance as defined in Section L, Factor III - Past Performance Volume Instructions paragraph (b).

Related to the format of Volume IV, will the Government please confirm that the following understanding is correct?

i. Normally we would have a Contract Volume IV with cover page and TOC and within that volume there would be text that addresses each requirement and that text would either refer the reader to an attachment or provide the information as text within the Contract Volume (and this Contract Volume would have the proposal page numbers and proposal headers and footers).

ii. The entirely of Section I would be presented as attachments: the transmittal letter; the Authorized Standard Forms; and the A-K or M document with all of its attachments. The transmittal letter will contain proprietary information, so the attachment with the letter would contain the standard disclosure statement, while the Forms and A-K or M document would be attachments using the RFP’s word document received from the Government and would have only the RFP’s page numbers and headers and footers.

The Government will not provide input on proposal structure outside of what is already required by the solicitation.

(c) Section I, contains subparagraph (1) for a transmittal letter to include the information in subparagraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x). However, the requirements for (c) Section I also include subparagraphs (c)(2) “Authorized Standard Form(s)”, and (c)(3) “All contract sections and attachments with all fill-ins completed”. The requirements for Volume IV also include (d) Section II which contains requirements in subparagraphs (1) through (7).

Will the Government please confirm that only the information contained in (c)(1) is to be included in the transmission letter?

Confirmed, only the information contained in Volume IV (c)(1) should be submitted with the transmittal letter. Volume IV (d) Section II should be submitted separately.

Volume IV, (c)(3) states the following: “All contract sections and attachments with all offeror fill-ins complete as specified in the table below. The volume shall be submitted in its entirety, to include all Section A through J pages and attachments provided in the solicitation as well as Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.”

However, the Offeror Fill-Ins table provided in this paragraph includes 2 Section L items that are Fill-Ins: 52.215-90 Summary of Deviations/Exceptions; and Attachment L-4 Total Compensation Rate Build-Up Form.

Will the Government please clarify the inconsistency between the instructions to return Sections A-K versus the 2 fill-ins in Section L?

Attachment L-4, “Total Compensation Rate Build-Up Form,” shall be provided in the offeror's and applicable subcontractors’ Price volumes. The Offer Fill-ins table, at Section L provision Volume IV - Contract Instructions, paragraph (c)(3), is updated to remove Attachment L-4.

Will the Government please confirm the following?:

i. In Section II of Volume IV, there are multiple executed documents being requested, such as Joint Venture Agreement, Mentor-Protégé Agreement, Contractor Teaming Agreements that are in PDF. These contain proprietary information and, therefore, those attachments would include the standard disclosure statement. These will be presented as attachments in PDF with the standard disclosure statement.

ii. The OCI Plan which contains proprietary information will also be presented as an attachment with the standard proprietary language, and it can be presented in Word.

iii. The remainder of Section II requirements which contain proprietary information would be presented as text within the Volume IV with the standard proprietary language.

The Government declines to provide confirmation on these statements. Offerors are referred to the Volume IV Contract Instructions.

Will the Government please consider adding "(IBEW/BAS)" to the LCAT Title for Apprentice 1st year, Apprentice 2nd year, Apprentice 3rd year, Apprentice 4th year, and Apprentice 5th year for the IBEW/BAS CBA LCATs and add "(BAS)" to the LCAT title for the Apprentice 1st year, Apprentice 2nd year, Apprentice 3rd year, and Apprentice 4th year for the BAS CBA LCATs within Attachment L-1 EPM, Tab B, Tab C, Tab D-1 through D-5, and Tab I IDIQ to avoid any confusion with having the same LCAT title?

For example, will the Government update all tabs within Attachment L-1 to include "Apprentice 1st year (IBEW/BAS)" and "Apprentice 1st year (BAS)"?

The apprentice labor category titles throughout the RFP, including Attachment L-1, are revised to show a clear differentiation between the apprentice labor categories by adding the terms “BAS” or “BTC” where appropriate.

In Tab D-1 through Tab D-5, in row 200, the Gov't labeled the row "Total Core Mission Price Proposed" and the formula in row 200 includes the total of "Total ODCs" plus "Total Burdens on ODCs" plus "Profit on ODCs" and not the Total Core Mission Price Proposed including Labor, Overtime/Shift, and ODCs plus burdens and profit on ODCs.

Is it the Government's intent for the Offeror to include the Total ODCs plus burdens and fee on ODCs in row 200 or the total of the CORE Labor plus ODCs plug burdens and profit on ODCs?

The bottom section of each of the referenced worksheets, "Non-Labor Items" [previously “Other Direct Cost” in the original RFP] is substantially revised. Attachment L-1 is replaced in its entirety.

All formulas provided within the cells link to the Base Period Composite Rates within Tab C Composite Rate and not the respective Option Period Composite Rates. Will the government please update Attachment L-1 EPM?

The Government reviewed the question and verified that all formulas in rows 94 through 178 of Tab D-2 through D-5 worksheets reflect the correct Tab C references and do not require any changes.

All formulas provided within the cells link to the Base Period Productive within Tab E Productive Factor and not the respective Option Period Productive Hours. Will the government please update Attachment L-1 EPM?

Yes, all formulas in rows 94 through 178 of Tab D-2 through D-5 worksheets are revised to incorporate updated Tab E references.

All formulas provided within the cells link to WYE counts in Tab D-2 and not the respective WYE counts within each tab.

Will the government please update Attachment L-1 EPM?

The Government reviewed the question and verified that all formulas in rows 94 through 178 of Tab D-2 through D-5 worksheets are counting WYEs correctly and do not require any changes.

The period of performance dates in Attachment L-1 EPM Tab E – Productive Factor do not align with the period of performance dates in Solicitation 80MSFC25R00005.

Will the government please update the period of performance dates in Attachment L-1 EPM?

Tab E of Attachment L-1 is revised to update the period of performance dates to align with the period of performance dates in the solicitation.

In Attachment L-1, Tab I IDIQ, in cell A17, there is a typo for the "Appentice 1st Year" LCAT.

Will the Gov't update the LCAT title to "Apprentice 1st Year" or will the Government allow the Offeror to update so that the LCAT title is consistent for the Base and all Option Years in Tab I IDIQ?

Cell A17 of Tab I of Attachment L-1 is updated to reflect "Apprentice."

In Attachment L-1, Tab I IDIQ, within the Other Direct IDIQ Cost table (rows 122 - 130), can the Government please confirm that Material Burden Rate (row 125) and Subcontract Services Rate (row 128) that the Offeror is to populate is inclusive of Fee/Profit?

Or will the Government provide a row for the Offeror to separately apply Fee/Profit related to FFP IDIQ orders to Materials and Subcontract Services within Tab I IDIQ?

The bottom section of the referenced tab, "Non-Labor IDIQ Items" [previously Other Direct IDIQ Cost in the original RFP] is substantially revised to include lines for applicable Profit Rates and Profit amounts. Attachment L-1 is replaced in its entirety.

When an offeror has a past performance reference which includes an entire three continuous years prior to the planned date of the FOMSS II proposal submission (1/8/22 - 1/8/25), will the Government evaluate one past performance citatation/reference when the continuous three years includes two separate contract numbers where a FOMSS II offeror was successful for their recompete?

If an offeror must submit this as two separate citations, there will be duplicative information submitted. If we can submit one reference for a contract and its follow on, please clarify that a CO will be able to reference both contracts under one Attachment L-2, “Past Performance Questionnaire”.

No. A separate Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is requested for each referenced contract provided in the Past Performance volume. Provided each reference contract has at least six months of performance within the three year window, both referenced contracts may be submitted for consideration within the limit of five referenced contracts.

Can the Government please provide Attachment L-2 Past Performance Interview/Questionnaire as a separate file?

Offerors are requested to copy Attachment L-2 in its entirety and paste to a separate Word document for provision to the applicable customer for completion and submission to the Government.

Are the mandatory and required traings listed in TAB F to be considered all-inclusive of the current NASA Training requirements for the FOMSS II Contract?

Tab F of Attachment L-3 is revised to add additional text to further clarify training requirements.

Please confirm that the Seniority List includes all employees (Professional Exempt, Exempt, SCLS, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)) working FOMSS I and BAS as of the RFP release date. If not, can the Government please provide a Seniority List for the full workforce?

Confirmed. The Seniority List provided in Tab G of Attachment L-3 represents the combined workforce of both FOMSS I and BAS.

In Factor III Past Performance volume Evaluation, it states, “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.”

Question:

Would the Government change the requirement, so the Government evaluates the contract as either Very Relevant (meeting the size, content, complexity), Relevant (meeting at least 2 of size, content, or complexity), Somewhat Relevant (meeting at least 1 of the size, content, complexity), Not Relevant (does not meet size, content, or complexity)?

Each referenced contract must be considered relevant in size, content, and complexity in order to be considered relevant overall. If relevant, the referenced contract will be further evaluated for performance history.

Attachment A, page 1

ATTACHMENT B – CHANGE LOG