Questions_and_Answers_-_Acquisition_Support_Draft_RFP_(2-14-18).pdf

NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER

RFP 80NSSC18R0031

AGENCY ACQUISITION SUPPORT SERVICES

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ON DRAFT RFP ISSUED 29 NOVEMBER 2017

The answers provide herein are for clarification only questions received in response to the DRAFT

RFP.

Q1 - Does the government have the option to split the award as there are 2 CLINs involved?

A1 – It is the Government’s intention to award a single contract in performance of both the closeout support services and acquisition support services.

Q2 - Regarding the requirements for closeout service levels, does the contractor have the right to

"stop the clock" when circumstances beyond the contractor's control make closeout transaction completion impossible?

A2 – It is expected that the contractor will provide services that meet the regulatory requirements and align with established metrics.

Q3 - Are resumes for the CPM and DPM required?

A3 – Yes, resumes are required. See FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), MS-1 Staffing, Recruiting and Retention in the final RFP. The final RFP has been updated to make this clear.

Q4 - Should the resumes be included in the staffing approach section

A4 – Resumes should be included as part of Volume 1, Mission Suitability, of the offeror’s proposal.

Q5 - Will the Government please confirm what it considers as a man-year? Tab B-2 of the

Attachment B – Price Schedule indicates 1883 hours.

A5 - The Government considers 1,883 hours a work year equivalent (WYE).

Q6 - Would the Government please confirm the anticipated level of effort for all contract years?

Tab B-2 of the Attachment B – Price Schedule would indicate 660 people in Contract Year 1 and

1080 people in Contract Years 2-5.

A6 – The Attachment B in the Draft RFP had errors. The estimated hours of acquisition support for all contract years is 414,260 hours, or 82,852 hours per contract period. This equates to 44 WYE’s per contract period assuming the Government orders up to the contract ceiling. The Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of man-hours shown for individual labor categories or the total estimated staff hours. The final RFP has been updated to ensure offerors understand the estimated level of effort.

Q7 - Will all employees be required to be located at the various sites? Is teleworking allowed for any of these positions?

For the closeout support services, the offeror is encouraged to propose its desired approach, to include utilization of onsite personnel, offsite personnel, or a combination of both. This is delineated in the proposal instructions, FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Volume IV. For acquisition support services, unless otherwise delineated in the RFQ issued for a specific Task Order, these services may be provided via utilization of onsite personnel, offsite personnel, or a combination of both. Section 5.1 of the Final PWS

(Attachment A) had been updated to make this more clear. Additionally, the Final Pricing Schedule

(Attachment B) has been updated to allow for an “Offsite Location” rate for each labor category.

Q8 - Does NASA have a current strategic plan or process for securing work with the outside agencies listed on page 3 of the PWS?

A8 – NASA has interagency agreements in place for the support DCMA, DCAA and DOI provides.

Q9 - How does NASA currently gather, store and update its best practices and procedures outlined in Section 4.6 of the PWS?

A9 – NASA has a repository of contractor deliverables from the current contract, to include monthly status reports. This documentation can be made available to the successful offeror at start of performance of the new contract.

Q10 - Does NASA currently have a set of implemented and successful SOPs, as discussed in Section

4.10 of the PWS or will the contractor be creating and implementing new SOPs?

A10 – The current published SOP for Contract Closeout is the “Agency-wide Contract Closeout Service

Delivery Guide.” The guide is publicly available; a link was included in the Draft PWS. The new contract envisions a significant expansion for acquisition support. The successful offeror should be prepared to develop new SOP’s at both the contract level for the Agency and the Task Order level for individual Centers, as required.

Q11 - At which site location does NASA envision key personnel to be embedded or does the agency envision that these positions will be mobile?

A11: NASA will not dictate to offerors how they should posture key personnel. An Offeror, as part of its proposal, shall provide a staffing plan that demonstrates the offeror’s approach for ensuring commitment of key personnel in the management of the contract, to include the extent of their availability, and company commitment (e.g., percentage of time, duration of time on the contract). The contract will be administered out of the NSSC at Stennis Space Center, MS. The COR shall be located at NASA HQ, Washington, DC.

Q12 - Does NASA have a SOP for replacement time for personnel? Requirements for resume submission timelines? Does NASA anticipate interviewing candidates before placement?

A12 – The Guidance for replacing Key Personnel is found in section 6.2.1 of Attachment A (PWS).

Requirements for replacement of personnel not designated as “key personnel” is not delineated in the

PWS. As this is a performance based service contract, it is expected that the vendor will complete assigned tasks in accordance with contract requirements and any additional requirements delineated in specific Task Orders. The vendor shall determine how to properly manage resources to ensure the requirements outlined in the PWS are met.

Q13 - Are closeout operations conducted at a central location or per site? Currently, how many personnel are performing this transactional based work?

A13 - For the closeout support services, the offeror is encouraged to propose it desired approach, to include utilization of onsite personnel, offsite personnel, or a combination of both. This approach is delineated in the proposal instructions, FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Volume IV. The current contract includes the provision of onsite personnel. Disclosing the current number of employees assigned by the incumbent contractor is not germane to the task in the subject RFP. Offerros shall use their expertise to develop an approach to successfully ensure they can meet the requirements for closeout delineated in the

Q14 - Regarding the Staffing plan, (MS-1) will the Government need to review and approve any replacement key personnel prior to them working on the contract?

A14 - The Guidance for replacing Key Personnel is found in section 6.2 of Attachment A (PWS).

Specifically, 6.2.2 states the following: “6.2.2 REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION: All requests for substitutions must provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitution, a resume for the proposed substitute, and any other information-requested by the

Contracting officer. All proposed substitutes must have qualifications equal to or higher than the qualifications of the person to be replaced. The Contracting Officer or his/her authorized representative will evaluate such requests and promptly notify the Contractor of his/her approval or disapproval thereof.”

Q15 - Regarding Volume II, Past Performance, the Draft RFP states that relevant contracts in terms of magnitude is “the measure of the similarity of the volume, dollar value and/or duration of the work actually performed under the offeror’s submitted contracts to the PWS.” Would a contract with a value of less than approximately $40 million not be considered relevant?

A15 - The dollar value is not the only variable of evaluation. Scope and complexity are also used to determine relevancy. There is no specific dollar threshold that will make an offeror relevant. However, it is accurate to assume that performance under a contract similar in magnitude, to include dollar value, will be evaluated as more relevant.

Q16 - What positions under this contract are applicable to the Service Contract Act?

A16 – The Government has determined that the Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly Service

Contract Act) apply to this acquisition. The applicable and most up to date Wage Determinations will be included upon issuance of the final RFP. It is up to the offeror to determine if the positions being proposed are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Q17 - How will the Government evaluate the OCI Plan (Attachment J) that is required as part of the response to the solicitation?

A17 - The Government will evaluate the OCI Plan in accordance with the criteria delineated in FAR

52.212-2, specifically identified as “Evaluation of Proposals for Avoiding, Neutralizing or Mitigating

Organization Conflicts of Interest.”

Q18 - How will the Government evaluate the Safety and Health Plan (Attachment L) that is required as part of the response to the solicitation?

A18 - There were inconsistencies between the Paragraph on Reporting Deliverables in the DRAFT PWS, Section 4.5, Attachment C (DRD/DRP), and the instructions listed in the Attachment (L). That inconsistency has been corrected for the Final RFP. The Safety and Health Plan is due 30 days after contract award. A Safety and Health Plan is not due with submission of proposals.

Q19 - How will the Government evaluate the Training Plan (Attachment M) that is required as part of the response to the solicitation?

A19 - There were inconsistencies between the Paragraph on Reporting Deliverables in the DRAFT PWS, Section 4.5, Attachment C (DRD/DRP), and the instructions listed in the Attachment (M). That inconsistency has been corrected for the Final RFP. The Training Plan due 30 days after contract award. A Training Plan is not due with submission of proposals.

Q20 - How will the Government evaluate the IT Security Plan (Attachment N) that is required as part of the response to the solicitation?

A20 - There were inconsistencies between the Paragraph on Reporting Deliverables in the DRAFT PWS, Section 4.5, Attachment C (DRD/DRP), and the instructions listed in the Attachment (N). That inconsistency has been corrected for the Final RFP. The IT Security Plan is due 30 days after contract award. An IT Security Plan is not due with submission of proposals.

Q21 - Would the government consider removing the Service Contract Labor Standards requirements for one or more of the labor categories based on the exemptions for bona fide administrative, professional, and executive employees?

A21: Based on the Government’s analysis of the requirement and contract history, it has been determined that this acquisition is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute.

Q22 - The Procurement Clerk I position requires a high school diploma or equivalent and 0-3 years’ experience, while Purchasing Agent I and Contracts Administrator I require a Bachelor's

Degree and 0-2 years’ experience. Are these limited requirements for education and experience accurate?

A22 - Yes, the requirements are accurate based on the Government’s knowledge of this requirement.

Q23 - The draft RFP indicates that there are 4 volumes, and of those Volume 1 is the only that appears to ask for bidders to write to specific areas having to do with Staffing, Recruiting, Retention, and Phase-In. Is there an expectation that bidders also provide their approach to the functional areas cited as:

5.1 – Acquisition Support Services

5.1.1 - Requirements Document Development Support

5.1.2 - Administrative Support Services

5.1.3 - Policy Support Services

5.1.4 - Acquisition System and Reporting Services

5.1.5 - Procurement Operations Support Services

5.1.6 - Source Selection Support Services

5.1.7 - Cost/Pricing Support Services

5.2 – Contract / Grant / Cooperative Agreement Closeout Services

Will the final RFP provide clarity as to where we are to respond to those functional areas or is the expectation that we cover those in the Phase-In portion?

A23 - The Government has clearly outlined what offerors shall provide for the Mission Suitability Factor in FAR 52.2121 (Addendum), Volume 1. There are no significant revisions to this section of the RFP.

Q24 - Do the hours in Tab B-2, Agency Acq Support represent existing incumbent staff or does it represent a forecasted staff, or a mixture of both?

A24 - The new contract envisions a significant expansion for acquisition support, and therefore historical data is limited. The hours delineated in Attachment (B), Tab B-2, are Government’s best estimate of labor hours and labor categories for the complete solicitation requirement. The Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of man-hours shown for individual labor categories or the total estimated staff hours.

Q25 - If the hours in Tab B-2, Agency Acq Support are forecasted hours, do the requirements need to be filled in the first year of award, or will it be task order driven?

A25 - Requirements for acquisition support will be fulfilled via the issuance of FFP or FFP-LOE task orders. These services will be issued in accordance with NFS 1852.216-80, Task Ordeing Procedure

(Oct 1996) Alt 1, included in the RFP. The RFP also includes additional ordering procedures for FFP-

LOE acquisition support services (see page 2 of the final RFP).

Q26 – The RFP states under, Special Requirements for Contractor Personnel, Para (c), “Additionally, all Contractor work spaces located on NASA facilities shall be clearly identified.”

Will NASA provide this work spaces identification or is this a contractor responsibility?

A26 – In most instances, NASA will provide the work space identification via issuance of placards / name tags for cubicle / office space. Some Centers may require the contractor to provide their own placards / name tags.

Q27 – KSC 52.204-96, does the Training Class mentioned in this section take place onsite at the individual work locations?

A27 - The location of the training is Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and applies only to KSC. Each NASA facility may have unique security / badging the requirements that the contractor will be required to fulfill in order to gain the necessary access to perform onsite tasks.

Q28 – KSC 52.204-96 states that “The total training will not exceed four hours.” Will the Training

Class mentioned in this section be considered productive work hours?

A28 – Yes, for employees involved in acquisition support. Costs associated with any onsite employees that will perform contract closeout services should be accounted for in the fixed unit transactional rate.

Q29 - Are there any SCA labor categories on any acquisition or contract close-out related contract(s) that will be required to be offered the “Right of First Refusal” under the Presidential

Executive Order 13495 “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers under Service Contracts”?

If yes, please identify the following:

• How many SCA positions are at each location listed in Attachment B – Price Schedule?

• What are the labor categories of the current SCA positions identified in Attachment H – SCA

Wage Determinations?

A29: FAR 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers, has been incorporated into the RFP. The successful contractor will have 60 days to phase-in services once the contract is awarded. This phase-in period should allow the successful offeror the necessary time to implement their staffing plan while meeting the requirements outlined in the clause.

Q30: Attachment B, Tab 2 does not include hours for the two key personnel positions (Program

Manager and Deputy Program Manager). How would the Government like the Offeror to price for these two positions?

A30: The cost of key personnel shall not be a direct charge to the Government.

Q31 - In order to ensure NASA receives the appropriate level of program management expertise and to minimize program risk, the Offeror recommends the Program Manager qualifications be revised to include a Bachelor’s degree and 12 years’ experience. The Offeror also recommends the

Deputy Program Manager qualifications be revised to include a Bachelor’s degree and 10 years’ experience.

A31 - The qualifications are deemed to be appropriate to ensure the correct mix of experience and education.

Q32 - In order to make available key personnel who have experience and best practices at other agencies than NASA, would the Government consider revising the desired skills section to say, “Management experience supporting NASA or other agencies for programs of a similar nature.”

A32 - The minimum requirements for key personnel under para 6.1 in Attachment (A) has been changed to “Experience leading projects and programs of a similar nature for NASA, DOD and / or other Federal

Agencies.

Q33 - There does not appear to be a minimum requirement for the number of previous

Government contracts. Would the Government consider a minimum of at least 3 Government contracts from the Prime offeror?

A33 – The RFP will not require a minimum.

Q34 - It appears that the relevance weighting of Prime subcontracts and commercial contracts is the same as Prime Federal contracts for the Past Performance factor. Is this the case? If so, would the Government consider giving greater weight to Federal Prime contracts, lesser weight to Federal subcontracts, and the least weight to commercial contracts as this suggested stratification would have relevance in evaluating ability to perform on a contract of this size and scope?

A34: The RFP does not specify that the relevance weighting of prime subcontracts and commercial contracts is the same as Prime Federal contracts for the Past Performance factor. Under FAR 52.212-1

(Addendum), Volume II, the RFP states for purposes of proposal submission, “If the offeror has not had 5

Government contracts within the last 3 years, information on recent and relevant subcontracts and/or commercial contracts may be submitted” The Government will evaluate each offeror’s past performance in accordance with the criteria delineated under FAR 52.212-2.

Q35 - Can the Government explain why it appears the weighting of predecessor companies and key personnel is the same as Prime Federal contracts for the Past Performance factor? Does the

Government consider predecessor companies and key personnel experience to be of equal magnitude to Prime Federal contract experience? This appears to be somewhat unusual and overly expansive.

A35 - The Government has broad discretion to review past performance holistically and assess the offeror’s probability of meeting solicitation requirements. As part of that assessment, FAR 52.212-2 delineates what the Government will consider in assigning a confidence level.

Q36 - Due to the nature of Cost Reimbursable closeouts and the potential for a protracted timeline for completion, would the Government consider incremental progress payments based on completion milestones?

A36 – Transactional rates for closeouts will be paid on a completion basis.

Q37 - CLAUSE APPLIED: The AbilityOne Program is implemented by the Code of Federal

Regulations (41 CFR Ch. 51), prioritized under FAR 8.002, also adheres use by contract vendors through FAR 8.005/Clause 52.208-9 Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services.

Why isn’t CLAUSE 25.208-9 incorporated in the requirement?

A37 – This is requirement is for a suite of acquisition support services being procured in accordance with

FAR Part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Items) as a competitive 8(a) set-aside. Clause analysis was conducted using FAR subpart 52.3 (Provisions and Clause Matrix). In accordance with the FAR guidance, FAR 52.208-9 is not required for commercial item acquisitions.

Q38 - Setting aside a percentage of Work as a goal or subcontract plan: though 8(a) contracts do not require a subcontract plan, would a 1% – 5% subcontract plan be out of line?

A38 – The contractor is encouraged to submit any approach it deems necessary to meet the requirements of the RFP and provide the Government best value. The Government will evaluate each proposal in accordance with criteria delineated in FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum) and FAR 52.212-2.

Q39 - 1) The draft RFP is not clear on what should be included Volume I Mission Suitability. My reason for saying this is it states “The Mission Suitability Volume shall be organized in three sections as outlined in Table L-3. The information to be addressed in each section is identified in

Paragraphs (a) – (h) below.” Well there is no Table L-3 or an (a) – (h). There is however a table below this sentence but only includes MS-1- Staffing, Recruitment and Retention and MS-2 - Phase-

In Approach. However under the heading Proposal Preparation General Instructions it says “The proposal must demonstrate an understanding of and ability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) referenced herein, convey the company’s capabilities for transforming understanding into accomplishment; provide in detail, the plans and methods for so doing; and provide, as requested below, the cost/price associated. So that’s kind of unclear or ambiguous. Likewise the evaluation criteria on pages 33 through 37 state This factor is used to evaluate an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS in a manner that satisfies established quality standards, meets established timelines and schedules, maximizes value for each dollar spent, and minimizes overall program risk. There are two sub-factors which will be used to evaluate an Offeror’s overall mission suitability. However further down it clearly states they are only giving points and adjectival ratings for MS-1- Staffing, Recruitment and Retention and MS-2 - Phase-In Approach. So this may be a good area to dig into.

A-39 – This answer is divided into two responses:

1) “The Mission Suitability Volume shall be organized in three sections as outlined in Table L-3.

The information to be addressed in each section is identified in Paragraphs (a) – (h) below.” Well there is no Table L-3 or an (a) – (h). There is however a table below this sentence but only includes MS-1- Staffing, Recruitment and Retention and MS-2 - Phase-In Approach.

Response: This was an error in the Draft RFP and has been corrected.

2) Under the heading Proposal Preparation General Instructions it says “The proposal must demonstrate an understanding of and ability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS) referenced herein, convey the company’s capabilities for transforming understanding into accomplishment; provide in detail, the plans and methods for so doing; and provide, as requested below, the cost/price associated. So that’s kind of unclear or ambiguous. Likewise the evaluation criteria on pages 33 through 37 state This factor is used to evaluate an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS in a manner that satisfies established quality standards, meets established timelines and schedules, maximizes value for each dollar spent, and minimizes overall program risk. There are two sub-factors which will be used to evaluate an Offeror’s overall mission suitability. However further down it clearly states they are only giving points and adjectival ratings for MS-1- Staffing, Recruitment and

Retention and MS-2 - Phase-In Approach. So this may be a good area to dig into.

Response: The Government is not asking specifically for a technical approach because it believes the functional requirements will be met via the provision of qualified individuals who understand the concepts and processes involved with federal acquisition / contracting. The mission suitability factor is focused on those areas where the Government believes additional value can be provided to ensure successful completion of contract requirements. The Government believes that by fully explaining its approach to staffing, recruitment and retention, and it phase-in approach, the vendor will have demonstrated its capacity and capability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the PWS. It is expected that each proposal demonstrate a complete understanding of the PWS requirements.

Q40 - The Draft Solicitation states on the SF1449 that this is an 8a contract, implying FAR Part 8 and in other information it states Part 12, which would imply full and open. Can the government please clarify whether this contract is going to be a completive 8a or full and open requirement.

Knowing this information will help industry form teams, and prepare higher quality and competitive responses in a timely manner.

A-40 – This contract will be a Competitive 8(a) set-aside procured in accordance with FAR Part 12

(Acquisition of Commercial Items) using FAR Part 15 procedures. The clause at 52.219-18

NOTIFICATION OF COMPETITION LIMITED TO ELIGIBLE 8(A) PARTICIPANTS (JAN 20177) was in the draft RFP and will be in the final RFP.

Q41 - Does not include a Technical Approach in the proposal preparation. Will the Technical

Approach be part of the evaluation criteria? Please clarify.

A41 - The Government is not asking specifically for a technical approach because it believes the functional requirements will be met via the provision of qualified individuals who understand the concepts and processes involved with federal acquisition / contracting. The mission suitability factor is focused on those areas where the Government believes additional value can be provided to ensure successful completion of contract requirements. The Government believes that by fully explaining its approach to staffing, recruitment and retention, and it phase-in approach, the vendor will have demonstrated its capacity and capability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the PWS. It is expected that each proposal demonstrate a complete understanding of the PWS requirements. If the vendor believes there is additional information it must provide to ensure it can demonstrate its capabilities to successfully perform, it should include that information as part of its proposal and in accordance with the established page limitations delineated in FAR 52.212-1(Addendum).

Q42 – FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), sentence states “…shall be organized in three sections as outlined in Table L-3” yet there are only two sections in Table L-3. Please clarify.

A42 - This was an error in the Draft RFP and has been corrected.

Q43 - Reference: Factor 2 Performance (4), page 37, The Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns).

Why is this an evaluation factor when the prime must be an 8(a) Certified Small Business? Please clarify.

A43 – This section has been removed from the final RFP.

Q44 - Evaluation of Phase-In Services cost seems to give the incumbent an advantage even when they are a subcontractor because they are already (even as a sub) located at these sites and therefore they will not have to incur travel costs charged to the Government as other bidders will.

Would the Government consider excluding travel costs from the price evaluation of Phase-In

Services? Please clarify.

A44 – The Government will evaluate the total price for phase-in. This will include all costs plus profit associated with the phase-in services, including travel and the phase-in plan.

Q45 - Are the hours provided in Tab B-2 realistic? Please clarify.

A45 - The new contract envisions a significant expansion for acquisition support, and therefore historical data was limited. The hours delineated in Attachment (B), Tab B-2, are Government’s best estimate of labor hours and labor categories for the complete solicitation requirement. However, the Attachment B in the Draft RFP had errors. The estimated hours of acquisition support for all contract years is 414,260 hours, or 82,852 hours per contract period. This equates to 44 WYE’s per contract period assuming the

Government orders up to the contract ceiling. The Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of man-hours shown for individual labor categories or the total estimated staff hours. The final

RFP has been updated to ensure offerors understand the estimated level of effort.

Q46 – Attachment D is mislabeled. Please clarify.

A46 – The Government has reviewed all attachments to ensure they are labeled correctly.

Q47 - Is this GFP list for Transactional Services: Close-Out only? Please clarify

A47 – GFP will be provided in accordance with NFS 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION – ACCOUNTABLE

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JAN 2011) ALTERNATE 1. Attachment E has been removed from the final

Q48 – Attachment N is mislabeled. Please clarify.

A48 - The Government has reviewed all attachments to ensure they are labeled correctly. Additionally, there were inconsistencies between the Paragraph on Reporting Deliverables in the DRAFT PWS, Section 4.5, Attachment C (DRD/DRP), and the instructions listed in the Attachment (N). That inconsistency has been corrected for the Final RFP. The IT Security Plan is due 30 days after contract award. An IT Security Plan is not due with submission of proposals.

Q49 - Will an Industry Day or Pre-Proposal Conference be held prior to final RFP release?

A49 – There is no plan for an Industry Day to be held. The draft RFP was provided for contractor feedback.

Q50 - Are any of the labor categories/anticipated positions considered Service Contract Act (SCA) or Wage Determination (WD)? Is SCA/WD invoked or will SCA/WD be used in order to establish fair and reasonable rates?

A50 - The Government has determined that the Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly Service

Contract Act) apply to this acquisition. The applicable and most up to date Wage Determinations will be included upon issuance of the final RFP. It is up to the offeror to determine if the positions being proposed are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards. Price reasonableness will be determined as prescribed by FAR 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis for Commercial and Non-Commercial Items. It is expected that the vendors will comply with the Service Contract Labor Standards when applicable.

Q51 - Page 4 of the draft RFP indicates that “Contract Closeout Services …are to be provided on a

“completion basis” and require the contractor to complete and deliver the required service for the rate specified.” FAR 4.804-5 provides that completing the closure of some contract files requires action by the contracting officer including signature by the contracting officer. Since final completion of a closeout therefore often requires action on the part of the government and not the closeout contractor, could NASA provide a standard definition of when the closeout contractor can consider a contract closed for purposes of the anticipated award?

A51 – A closeout shall be considered “complete” in accordance with the applicable regulations and policies. NASA’s intention is not to deviate from regulation and policy in the performance of this contract.

Q52 - At which Center does the COR reside?

A52 - The COR Resides in the Office of Procurement, NASA HQ, Washington, DC.

Q53 - Where, historically, have the contractor PM and Deputy PM been located? Do they reside onsite (NASA Center/location) or offsite (contractor location)?

A53 – The Contractor PM and Deputy PM reside at the NASA Shared Services Center, Stennis Space

Center, MS, under the current contract.

Q54 - In Attachment B, there is a list of labor categories and hours for each location. The sum total of FTEs, using 1883 as the annual billable hours per FTE, is over 600. Given the published total contract value of $46.51M, there seems to be a discrepancy. Would the Government please provide the current contract staffing levels per Center? Would the Government also please provide the annual spending, by Center, on the current contract?

A54 - The new contract envisions a significant expansion for acquisition support, and therefore historical data was limited. The hours delineated in Attachment (B), Tab B-2, are Government’s best estimate of labor hours and labor categories for the complete solicitation requirement. However, the Attachment B in the Draft RFP had errors. The estimated hours of acquisition support for all contract years is 414,260 hours, or 82,852 hours per contract period. This equates to 44 WYE’s per contract period assuming the

Government orders up to the contract ceiling. The Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of man-hours shown for individual labor categories or the total estimated staff hours. The final

RFP has been updated to ensure offerors understand the estimated level of effort.

Q55 - Attachment B states: “Note: GSFC rates will be used to calculate total evaluated price.” Does this mean ONLY GSFC rates will be used in evaluating total price?

A55 - Yes

Q56 - What are the OCI’s associated with this contract, if any? Or, is the requirement to provide an OCI Plan that firewalls any individual or collection of individuals (division or segment of a company)?

A56 – As delineated in the Draft RFP, NASA has determined that this acquisition may give rise to an

OCI, to include unequal access to information and biased ground rules. Please review the requirements delineated in FAR 52.212-1 (Addendum), Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and

FAR 52.212-2 of the RFP, Evaluation Of Proposals For Avoiding, Neutralizing Or Mitigating

Organizational Conflicts Of Interest.

Q57 - Given the Agency-wide focus of this program, would the Government please clarify if a bidder and/or eventual contract awardee would be prevented from bidding or winning on the

NASA Goddard procurement PAAC V, given the access to “non-public” information? Would the

Government also clarify the impact to bidding on any future NASA opportunities?

A57 – It is not NASA’s intention to neutralize potential OCI’s via a wholesale exclusion of the contractor from all other future NASA solicitations. A contractor’s ability to participate in other NASA acquisitions as a bidder cannot be determined at this stage in the procurement process. Decisions on participation in future NASA acquisitions will be made on a case by case basis and in accordance with the approved OCI

Mitigation Plan of the successful offeror.

Q58 - Is it the Government’s intent to have bidders submit DRAFT version of both their IT

Security Plan and Training Plan, per DRD Number 7 and DRD Number 9, respectively? If so, since these would be DRAFT versions, would they be evaluated?

A58 - There were inconsistencies between the Paragraph on Reporting Deliverables in the DRAFT PWS, Section 4.5, Attachment C (DRD/DRP), and the instructions listed in the Attachment (N). That inconsistency has been corrected for the Final RFP. The IT Security Plan and Training Plan are due 30 days after contract award. An IT Security Plan is not due with submission of proposals and will not be part of the evaluation.

Q59 - Would the government consider changing the NAICS code from 541611 to 561110?

A59 – The Government has determined 541611 to be the most appropriate NAICS code for this acquisition.

Q60 - The number of hours for support do not align up with the requirement and size, for each option year the hours add to more than a 1 million hours per year, would the government review this for accuracy? Also, Option year hours are consistently at 23,000+ for each location, which does not seem right.

A60 - The Attachment B in the Draft RFP had errors. The estimated hours of acquisition support for all contract years is 414,260 hours, or 82,852 hours per contract period. This equates to 44 WYE’s per contract period assuming the Government orders up to the contract ceiling. The Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of man-hours shown for individual labor categories or the total estimated staff hours. The final RFP has been updated to ensure offerors understand the estimated level of effort.

Q61 - Attachment O - These numbers suggest that the Government’s expectation is that pricing will go down as the contractor processes more closeouts. Most offerors will likely assume quantity discounts are the expectation and price accordingly.

A61 – Offerors should not construe Attachment O as a signal of the Government’s expectation. The purpose of Attachment O is to demonstrate to Offeror’s how the “actual utilization” methodology will work and support proposal development. Offerors are encouraged to price their proposals in the most competitive way possible aligned to their individual business objectives.