Final_RFP_QUESTIONS_(3-6-18)(Amend_1).pdf

NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER

RFP 80NSSC18R0025

AGENCY ACQUISITION SUPPORT SERVICES

The answers provide herein are for clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation.

Q1: In page 29 it is mentioned that proposals shall be presented in bounded volumes, but in page 30 it is mentioned that Paper / hard copy proposals will not be accepted. Please clarify the proposal instructions.

A1: The RFP language has been updated via Amendment 1 to reflect that all volumes shall be submitted electronically.

Q2: VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE: Page Limit - 10 (Excluding Questionnaire)

1449; Page 30 of 63. Is there any page limitation per contract?

A2: The page limit of 10 if for the Past Performance volume, not per contract.

Q3: Attachment Q and Attachment R are not provided with the solicitation. Can you please provide these attachments?

A3: Amended versions of Attachments Q, and R are available on FBO.

Q4: Can one copy of each volume be combined on each CD (i.e., 5 CDs total), or does each volume and copy need to be on a separate CD (i.e., 20 CDs total)?

A4: All volumes shall be included on 1 CD for a total of 5 CDs. Each volume should be labeled accordingly. The RFP language has been updated via Amendment 1.

Q5: Attachment (D) does not include the position descriptions for Purchasing Agent 1/2.

Please provide.

A5: The Purchasing Agent I and II labor categories have been removed from the final RFP.

Q6: Attachment (D), page 3, includes position descriptions for Business Systems Support

Specialist I and Admin Assistant I/II, but these positions are not included on Attachment

(B) – Pricing Schedule, and are not included in the labor breakout estimate provided on page 34. Please clarify if these positions are required?

A6: Attachment B has been amended to reflect the additional labor categories. The labor breakout provided on page 34 has been updated via Amendment 1.

Q7: Please provide the DOL Wage Determinations (WD) that match the chart in

Attachment H. All of the provided WDs are incorrect as they should all end in odd numbers but the ones provided end in even numbers (for example, WD for Washington DC is shown as 15-4281, but the one provided is actually 15-4282).

A7: Attachment H has been amended to reflect the updated numbers as of January 18, 2018.

Q8: Please provide an updated Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires. The ones provided all contain three labor categories not included in the Solicitation (Administrative

Assistant I, Administrative Assistant II, and Business Systems Support I), and do not include two labor categories that are included in the Solicitation (Purchasing Agent 1, and

Purchasing Agent 2).

A8: The Purchasing Agent 1 and 2 labor categories have been removed from the final solicitation. The Administrative Assistant I, Administrative Assistant II, and Business Systems

Support I have been added. The labor breakout provided on page 34 and the Attachment B has been updated accordingly via Amendment 1.

Q9: Please confirm that the Government considers 1883 hours to be considered to be one work year equivalent (WYE), or a man-year.

A9: The Government considers 1883 hours to be one work year equivalent (WYE).

Q10: In the portion of the RFP entitled Proposal Preparation – General Instructions, in the section addressing Volume III and the paragraph entitled “Financial Capability”, the proposal instructions state, “The offeror shall provide a copy of its audited financial statements and accompanying notes for the last two fiscal years…” The vast majority of

8(a) businesses have “compiled” financial statements as opposed to “audited” financial statements. Will the Government accept “compiled” financial statements to meet this requirement?

A10: Compiled financial statements will be acceptable. The RFP language has been updated via

Amendment 1.

Q11: Please confirm that the key positions of Program Manager and Deputy Program

Manager are not billable.

A11: Confirmed. Key personnel shall not be a direct charge to the Government.

Q12: In the portion of the RFP entitled Proposal Preparation – General Instructions, in the section entitled Volume I Mission Suitability and paragraph 2, MS-2 Phase-In Approach, proposal preparation instructions ask for a Phase-In Plan of activities that will be conducted within 60 days of award. Because this is an IDIQ contract, the Awardee could potentially be phasing-in multiple task orders. Please clarify what work the Phase-In Plan should address, or, if the response should be descriptive of a Task Order Phase-In Plan that will be put into place for each Task Order that is awarded.

A12: The Phase-In Plan requirements are delineated in Attachment C, DRD #10. Attachment C is being updated via Amendment 1.

Q13: In the portion of the RFP entitled Proposal Preparation – General Instructions, in the section entitled Volume I Mission Suitability and paragraph 1, MS-1 Staffing, Recruitment and Retention, the second bullet addressing the Staffing Plan states, “…the Offeror shall provide personal commitment letters (form not provided), signed by the individuals listed as key personnel.” Please clarify whether or not letters of commitment are still required if the key personnel are both current employees of the Offeror’s business entity.

A13: Commitment letters are required for key personnel regardless as to whether they are currently employed by the company. For existing employees being proposed as key personnel, the letters shall address each individual’s commitment in the management of the contract.

Q14: Please explain why Goddard Space Center rates are being used for price evaluation? Will the majority of the positions be located there?

A14: Goddard was selected as a means to extract a total evaluated price for each offeror during proposal evaluation and set a contract ceiling at award. Offerors should not assume that the majority of the positions will be located there. As stated in FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Volume

IV: PRICE, para (c), in addition to completing the Attachment B, Offeror’s shall provide the basis for estimate to determine their labor rates for each Center (including NASA HQ), Field

Activity, and Offsite. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2, under Factor 3 – Price, the basis for estimate for the rates proposed for each Center (including NASA HQ), Field Activity, and Offsite will be reviewed as a point of reference and may be used as part of price analysis.

Q15: Do you require a format for the Past Performance references? If so, please provide.

A15: Attachments Q and R were missing in the initial FBO notice as a result of administrative error; they have since been added to the final RFP and are now posted to FBO. Amendment 1 makes updates/changes to Attachments Q and R.

Q16: Given the RFP states this requirement exceeds existing positions, please provide estimated work distribution by location.

A16: There is no current estimation for each Center. While acquisition support services are available under the existing contract, usage was limited to only a few locations. The Agency envisions a significant expansion under the resulting contract awarded against this solicitation, but accurate historical data to derive work distribution at each Center is not available. Please note that the contract labor distribution provided for under FAR 52.212-1, Volume IV: PRICE, para (c), specifically states that “the Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of man-hours shown for individual labor categories or the total estimated staff hours.”

Q17: Please clarify whether Public Trust security level is required for all positions at time of award.

A17: There are no requirements for contractor employees to be cleared in a position of public trust prior to or at the time of award. However, security requirements vary at each NASA

Center. For example, in instances, a contractor who requires ongoing access to the NASA installation will be required to have a National Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI).

Because each NASA Center has its own unique security requirements, the contractor will be required to coordinate with the Security Office at each Center to determine the Security pre-requisites for onsite employees. Specific Center clauses are included in the RFP, but additional security requirements may apply.

Q18: Please extend RFP due date because answers to above is critical to our mission suitability and pricing strategy.

A18: The proposal due date will be extended to 27 March. The due date has been updated via

Q19: The Answer to Question # 55 (Q&A for Draft RFP, issued on 15 February 2018) indicates that only GSFC rates will be used in evaluating total price. Does this mean that no work will be performed at the other sites? This seems to invite materially unbalanced pricing, since a bidder will not be penalized for pricing the other locations higher than prevailing market rates as it cannot impact their price evaluations.

A19: Goddard was selected as a means to extract a total evaluated price for each offeror during proposal evaluation and set a contract ceiling at award. Offerors should not assume that the majority of the positions will be located there. As stated in FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Volume

IV: PRICE, para (c), in addition to completing the Attachment B, Offeror’s shall provide the basis for estimate to determine their labor rates for each Center (including NASA HQ), Field

Activity, and Offsite. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2, under Factor 3 – Price, the basis for estimate for the rates proposed for each Center (including NASA HQ), Field Activity, and Offsite will be reviewed as a point of reference and may be used as part of price analysis.

Q20: Attachment B (Pricing) indicates that Band 2 will be used to calculate total evaluated price. How will NASA evaluate the pricing for the other bands, or will they not be evaluated?

A20: Correct, Band 2 will be used to calculate the total evaluated price.

Q21: For the Cost/Price Analysts I & II Labor Categories, Attachment D appears to allow additional years of experience in lieu of a Bachelor’s degree. How many years of additional experience are needed to offset the degree requirement?

A21: The Government will not dictate the years of experience to offset the bachelor’s degree requirement. The vendor shall use their experience and expertise to ensure that the individual provided either has a bachelor’s degree or through a combination of equivalent education and experience, can effectively perform the duties outlined as part of the labor category position description.

Q22: For Attachment G, what was the contractor’s Level of Effort (by labor categories and

FTEs) required to complete the closed documents for 2017? Were these staffing levels deemed adequate to meet NASA’s requirements? What was the average time to close a contract, by contract type, in 2017?

A22: The current contract has a different pricing model than what is set forth in the solicitation.

Therefore, a comparison cannot be made.

Q23: For Attachment G, please clarify between CAT 1, and CAT 2. Does CAT 2 cover the

BPA and IDIQ contracts themselves, and CAT 1 covers all TOs issued under the IDIQs and all Call Orders issued under the BPAs?

A23: Yes, CAT 2 covers the BPA and FFP IDIQ master contracts themselves, and CAT 1 covers all TOs issued under the IDIQs and all Call Orders issued under the BPAs? Additionally, CAT 3 will cover the Cost reimbursement IDIQ master contracts.

Q24: Attachment C page 9 DRD 9 (Training Plan) and Attachment O both say Training

Plan Draft is due with the proposal, but the answer to Question 19 and Attachment M say it is due 30 days after award. Do bidders need to submit a Training Plan Draft with their

Proposal?

A24: The Training plan will not be required with submission of proposals. The Attachment C language has been updated via Amendment 1.

Q25: Because the contractor’s ability to invoice for closeouts is contingent on the timeliness of the Government officially closing out each contract file, will the Government revise the

PWS to include the number of days that the Government has to close out a file once it is delivered to the CO for signature? Primarily, because for an 8(a)-small business, the invoicing and payment process is dependent upon how quickly the Government closes a file

(once it is delivered for signature), which potentially puts the 8(a)-small business at risk for meeting its payroll requirements should there be any delays.

A25: Vendors have the ability to submit Band pricing based on a range of closeouts estimated per year. Vendors should base their pricing strategies so that they can meet their internal commitments (e.g., payroll) should the total number of closeouts fall within any respective Band.

Q26: What is the projected amount of the current backlog that is expected to be closed out by the time the current contract ends? What is the Government’s closeout priorities? The currently expiring contracts (in 2018) or the backlog?

A26: The contractor will assume the responsibility of effectively closing out all open instruments.

Priorities will be coordinated with the COR. Any issues preventing effective closeout shall be brought to the attention of the COR.

Q27: On the FBO page, this appears to be a draft (see below). However, there is a due date of 3/20/18. Would the government please clarify if this is a DRAFT RFP of not?

A27: This is the FINAL RFP. The word DRAFT over the attachments is an FBO systems glitch that was corrected.

Q28: How does the government benchmark service band pricing to determine price reasonableness for any closeout volume efficiency improvement?

A28: Price reasonableness will be established in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Q29: Can the government provide a conformed package of the RFP, PWS and all attachments to consolidate all changes referenced in the Q&A released on Feb 15?

A29: The FINAL RFP package issued 15 February 2018 on FBO included conformed copies of all documents that included all changes based on the Q&A submitted by industry and changes as a result of internal NASA reviews. In the Q&A, the Government specifically stated in the answer if the question resulted in a change to the RFP or an accompanying attachment.

Q30: Concerning the requirements under Volume III Solicitation Documents: Financial

Capability, p. 34 of 63:

a. Does the government required financial capability information from the subcontractors as well as the prime, or only from the prime?

A30: The Government requires financial capability information from only the prime contractor.

Q31: Is the Phase-In plan, Attachment K, to be delivered as an appendix to Mission

Suitability or as a standalone document named Attachment K?

A31: The Phase-In Plan shall be proposed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum) and included as part of Volume I, Mission Suitability. Attachment K is included in the solicitation as a placeholder. Attachment K states, “The Offeror’s Phase-In Plan dated [Offeror to Complete], submitted as part of the Offeror’s response to RFP 80NSSC18R0025, Agency-wide Acquisition

Support Services, on [Offeror to Complete], is incorporated by reference with the same force and effect as if it was in full text.” Upon award, it will incorporate into the contract the successful offeror’s Phase-In Plan.

Q32: When are the past performance volume and questionnaires due?

A32: The Past Performance Volume and questionnaires are due on 27 March 2018.

Q33: Should proposals be submitted electronically via FBO in addition to the CD-Rs being delivered to Ms. Neal in Greenbelt?

A33: Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Methods of

Proposal Delivery.

Q34: Please provide the SCA occupation codes for the labor categories.

A34: The Government has provided the applicable wage determinations and identified applicable labor categories. The labor category titles used in the solicitation may not match the titles used by a particular firm. The offeror may propose different labor categories; however, the offeror shall clearly indicate its proposed differences and provide supporting written rationale. As a result, the firm must determine if each labor category they ultimately propose is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Q35: Are there any applicable collective bargaining agreements in place?

A35: No

Q36: Please confirm completed Attachment J Organizational Conflict of Interest

Mitigation Plan is to be included in Volume III Solicitation Documents.

A36: The OCI Plan shall be proposed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum) and included as part of Volume III, Solicitation Documents. Attachment J is included in the solicitation as a placeholder. Attachment J states, “The Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of

Interest Mitigation Plan, dated [Offeror to Complete], submitted as part of the Offeror’s response to RFP 80NSSC18R0025, Agency-wide Acquisition Support Services, on [Offeror to

Complete], is incorporated by reference with the same force and effect as if it was in full text.”

Upon award, it will incorporate into the contract the successful offeror’s OCI Plan

Q37: Reference: Form 1449, The Form reflects a Solicitation Number of 80NSSC18R0025.

At the top of page 29, it states a RFP No. 80NSSC18R0031. Question: Can the government please clarify which is the correct RFP number for this solicitation?

A37: There was a typo on page 29. The correct solicitation number is 80NSSC18R0025. The

RFP language has been updated via Amendment 1.

Q38: Reference: Attachment (R) – Performance Questionnaire, The form forces offerors to fill in the Contract Specialists’ information. There is no fax number provided in the solicitation or within Attachment (R) for the Contract Specialist. Question: Can the government please provide a facsimile number for agencies to fax their responses to?

A38: Attachment R has been revised to reflect the Contract Specialist information and how forms shall be submitted.

Q39: Concerning 52.212-1 (Addendum) Additional Instructions to Offerors-Commercial

Items: Volume II Past Performance, p 31-32: to ensure the Government receives past performance information in a timely manner and to reduce effort for our customer agencies, is it acceptable to submit CPARs in lieu of Past Performance questionnaires?

A39: The contractor does not need to submit CPARS/PPIRS information. The Government will review the PPIRS database for all recent contracts submitted by each offeror. The Past

Performance Questionnaire is not mandatory. The purpose of the Questionnaire is to give offerors the ability to provide past performance information in addition to what is in PPIRS, allow other customer representatives to provide feedback, or allow vendors to provide feedback on contracts that otherwise would not be in PPIRS (i.e., contracts with non-government entities).

Q40: Is Attachment I Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Employees for Agency-

Wide Acquisition Support Services intended to be used as a benchmark to determine price reasonableness?

A40: No. Price reasonableness will be established in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Q41: Concerning Attachment B Price Schedule: Since pricing on Tab B-2 Agency Acq

Support will be evaluated based on the GSFC (Maryland) rates:

b. What is the historical percentage of contract work performed at GSFC?

c. What is the historical spend on the current contract for work performed at

GSFC?

d. What is the current number of FTEs performing at GSFC?

A41: Goddard was selected as a means to extract a total evaluated price for each offeror during proposal evaluation and set a contract ceiling at award. Accurate historical data to derive work distribution at each Center under the resulting contract is not available.

Q42: Can the government provide the historical spend of Contract Closeout activity ranges per band? Can the government recommend a number of work hours to calculate for each contract closeout action, for the purpose of pricing in Attachment B Price Schedule, Tab B-

1 Closeout?

A42: The current contract has a different pricing model than what is set forth in the solicitation.

Data for band pricing does not exist.

Q43: Can the government provide additional details related to the incumbent’s performance

(average timing, duration of specific or aggregate processes, etc.) against the processes outlined in the document referenced in the PWS, “Agency-wide Contract Closeout Service

Delivery Guide”?

A43: The government will not provide performance data on the incumbent contractor.

Q44: What basis will the government use to perform price reasonableness for service rate band pricing? Can the government make those benchmarks publicly available?

A44: Price reasonableness will be established in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Q45: What historic basis does the government use to determine that service band cost decreases as volume of closeout procedures increases?

e. Specifically, is there an assumption of efficiency related to specific closeout procedure volumes?

f. If so, how does the government determine that efficiency improvement for benchmarking price reasonableness?

A45: Attachment O to the RFP is provided to demonstrate to Offerors how the “actual utilization” methodology will work and support proposal development. Offerors should not construe

Attachment O as a signal of the Government’s expectation that service band costs will decrease as the volume of closeout increases. Offerors are encouraged to price their proposals in the most competitive way possible aligned to their individual business objectives. Price reasonableness will be established in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Q46: Referencing Attachment Q from the Draft RFP (Past Performance Data Sheet), please confirm that offerors may use the same reference for blocks 9a and 9b if the project’s technical and contracting point of contact are the same person.

A46: If the technical and contracting point of contact are the same person those fields will be identical.

Q47: In the Government’s Questions and Answers released with the Final RFP, Q43 states that the utilization of small business concerns requirement has been removed from the

Final RFP. The requirement still remains on Attachment Q from the Draft RFP (Past

Performance Data Sheet). Will the Government update Attachment Q, accordingly?

A47: This was an administrative oversight. An updated Attachment Q is provided with

Q48: Since hard copies of proposals are not being accepted, would the government allow for electronic submission of proposals via email?

A48: Email submission shall not be accepted. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with

FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Methods of Proposal Delivery.

Q49: The RFP states that “The pages are to be typewritten; no less than 1 ½ line spacing.”

Will the Government consider allowing typewritten pages to be single-spaced?

A49: The spacing shall be no less than 1 ½ line spacing as indicated in the RFP.

Q50: Will the Government extend the page count limitations to allow a more thorough and thoughtful response to the requirements?

A50: The page limitations shall not be extended to include more pages.

Q51: Proposal Preparation – General Instructions state, “Resumes and past performance data, if applicable, may be single-spaced.” Please confirm that content provided in tables, graphics, charts, text/call out boxes, figures, and captions may also be single-spaced.

A51: Yes, The RFP language has been updated via Amendment 1.

A52: Can NASA clarify if pricing for all non-GSFC locations will (or will not) be evaluated as part of the price evaluation of offerors? If pricing for all centers will be assessed, how specifically will the non-GSFC pricing be scored and evaluated beyond just being a “point of reference”?

A52: Goddard will be used to determine the total evaluated price for each offeror during proposal evaluation and set a contract ceiling at award. The basis for estimate for the rates proposed for each Center (including NASA HQ), Field Activity, and Offsite will be reviewed as a point of reference and may be used as part of price analysis. The purpose of the basis of estimate is to allow the Government to discuss all elements of the price proposal if during the price evaluation the Government has concerns regarding the accuracy of specific rates.

Offerors are encouraged to submit their most competitive rates possible.

Q53: Section 9.0 Quality Assurance states that “A Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP) will be developed and implemented by the Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR) as part of the contract administration and monitoring activities conducted…” Will the Government provide the QASP to offerors before the proposal submission date?

A53: Per the PWS, the QASP “will be developed and implemented by the COR as part of contract administration to ensure that the Government receives services that conform to the contract requirements.” As this is a best value procurement, elements in the offeror’s proposal that exceed the performance levels outlined in the PWS will be incorporated into the final contract and included as part of quality assurance activities.

Q54: The price for labor to perform contract closeout services is dependent on variances in the cost of labor by locality. Accordingly, can the government clarify whether the closeout workload will be performed on-site at any particular center (Stennis); or at each center location as provided in Attachment G; or pursuant to some other workload breakout? Where will NASA require the closeout workload to be performed?

A54: NASA is not dictating where the contract closeout services need to be performed. Per FAR

52.212-1 (Addendum), Volume IV: PRICE, (b) Core Services, Offerors may price transactions based on the utilization of onsite personnel, offsite personnel, or a combination of both.

Q55: If the Government requires bidders submit a Draft Training Plan with their proposals per Att. C – Document Procurement Document will the Government grant additional page count to accommodate this requirement?

A55: The Training plan will not be required with submission of proposals. The Attachment C

Q56: Page #17 of Attachment C states an IT Security Plan “Draft [is] due with proposal submission and final due 30 days after contract award.” However, a Draft IT Security Plan is not required according to the Data Requirement List on page 9 (of Attachment C) and neither is a Draft referenced in the Reporting Deliverables table on Page 6 of the PWS.

Does the Government require a Draft IT Security Plan and if so, when is it due? Please clarify when the Final IT Security Plan is due.

A56: The IT Security Plan will not be required with submission of proposals. The Attachment C

Q57: Page 38 of the SF1449.pdf incorrectly refers to the Data Procurement Document as

“Attachment J-2”. Will the Government correct this reference (as it should be Attachment

C)?

A57: The correction has been made via Amendment 1 to reflect DPD to be attachment C.

Q58: Will the Government please confirm Phase-In Plan requirements for a Draft plan, a

Final plan, and the timeline for submission of these documents?

A58: The Phase-In Plan will be required with submission of proposals. There is no draft plan;

the proposal should include the offeror’s final Phase-In plan should it be awarded the contract.

Attachment C language has been updated via Amendment 1.

Q59: The education column for multiple labor categories contains the following language

“Bachelor’s degree in business or related equivalent education, training, or experience combination.” Can NASA clarify what training or experience can substitute for a bachelor’s degree?

A59: The Government will not dictate the years of experience to offset the bachelor’s degree requirement. The vendor shall use its experience and expertise to ensure that the individual provided either has a bachelor’s degree or through a combination of equivalent education and experience, can effectively perform the duties outlined as part of the labor category position description.

Q60: The Government did not list separate labor categories for the Program Manager and

Deputy Program Manager. Will there be labor categories and associated descriptions provided for the Key Personnel?

A60: The cost of key personnel shall not be a direct charge to the Government.

Q61: Attachment O discusses the Contract Year modification to reflect actual utilization.

Please explain how this works as it relates to any Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task. If all work has been completed, all funding allocated for that FFP task is to be paid out. If funds are to be refunded/returned, by default, doesn’t that make it an FFP/Level of Effort (LOE) task?

A61: The examples provided via Attachment O do not apply to FFP Task Orders. They apply to

FFP-LOE Acquisition Support Services and Transactional Core Services: Contract Closeout

Support Services.

Q62: Line 6 of the DRD table states the Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan is “required with proposal submission and for FFP/FFP-LOE Task Orders specific plans when required. If required, for FFP/FFP-LOE Task Orders, the updated plan shall be submitted within 10 days after award of the order.” It appears the OCI plan requirement is relevant at the task order level due to potential OCI conflicts across NASA centers and field activity. Please confirm our understanding that the OCI Plan is not required with this overarching proposal.

A62: This is incorrect. DRD #6 states that an OCI Plan is “required with proposal submission.”

It further states that it is also required “for FFP/FFP-LOE Task Orders specific plans when required.” OCI is discussed on Pages 4 and 5 of the RFP. Submission requirements are outlined in FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum). FAR 52.212-2 explains how the Government will conduct the Evaluation of Proposals for Avoiding, Neutralizing or Mitigating Organizational

Conflicts Of Interest

Q63: Do NASA’s systems and procedures allow for remote electronic closeout of closeout actions apart from the physical location of contract files and/or awarding office? If so, may offerors propose a consolidation to the closeout workforce at a certain center?

A63: Not all NASA Centers have transitioned to electronic files, and traditionally closeouts have been conducted onsite at each Center. However, this solicitation allows Offerors to price transactions based on the utilization of onsite personnel, offsite personnel, or a combination of both. Offerors may propose a consolidation of the closeout workforce to a certain center, or at some other offsite location or locations, if desired. NASA is driving towards 100% electronic contract files; however, until that goal is achieved, if a contract is issued to a vendor that proposes an offsite support solution, a combination of electronic files and utilization of commercial shipping of paper files to the contractor site will be utilized in the interim.

Q64: The links listed below could not be opened – will the Government provide correct links?

Agency-wide Contract Closeout Service Delivery

Guide: https://searchnssc.nssc.nasa.gov/servlet/search?REQUEST=DETAILED&FI

ELD1=SM_ID&TEXT1=h1000d1732224&LAYUP=sta

Grants and Cooperative Agreement Manual

(GCAM): https://naistst1.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/srba/index.html

A64: The links were all operational when tested by the Government. However, the Agency-wide Contract Closeout Service Delivery Guide can also be found via the NSSC Website:

https://answers.nssc.nasa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/6331. The GCAM can be found via the NSSC website at: https://answers.nssc.nasa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/6487

Q65: Currently, the experience level for several labor categories requires 0-2 (Contracts

Administrator I) or 0-4 (Business Systems Support Specialist I) years of experience while the job description requires proficiency and in depth working knowledge in the acquisition application. Since it is unlikely that a candidate with 0 years of experience is proficient or has in depth working knowledge in any acquisition processes, would the https://searchnssc.nssc.nasa.gov/servlet/search?REQUEST=DETAILED&FIELD1=SM_ID&TEXT1=h1000d1732224&LAYUP=sta https://searchnssc.nssc.nasa.gov/servlet/search?REQUEST=DETAILED&FIELD1=SM_ID&TEXT1=h1000d1732224&LAYUP=sta https://naistst1.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/srba/index.html https://answers.nssc.nasa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/6331 https://answers.nssc.nasa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/6487

Government consider increasing the minimal experience level to 1-2 years and 1-4 years, respectively, to ensure candidates can provide the services NASA requires?

A65: At this time the minimal experience levels will not be changed.

Q66: Can the Government confirm that Attachment H contains the most current/applicable Wage Determination Revisions? It appears that a number of the listed Wage Determinations were revised in December 2017 and that current revision is not included.

A66: Attachment H has been updated via Amendment 1 to reflect the updated numbers as of

January 18, 2018.