80NSSC22R0013 FRFP Combined QA.pdf

Question RFP Attachment

Name Section Number Page

Number Question (for submission to NSSC) Response

SOW Last paragraph 5 Has NASA performed Value-stream Mapping or otherwise Design Thinking Facilitations? If so can this prior work be provided to Offerors?

OCHCO has done some value-stream mapping/design thinking for some functional areas. However, these activities are not recent and were generally stovepiped within a specific functional area.

SOW Section 2.1 7 Are we allowed to restructure existing workforce, bring in newer technology solutions as required and agreed to under the new SOW?

OCHCO is continuing to work towards operating as an enterprise post MAP. As such, it is anticipated that the OCHCO org structure will change over the next few years.

Contract workforce will be expected to shift accordingly to enable continued support within the OCHCO structure.

3 SOW Section 2.1 8 Can offerors select mix of on-site or remote support provided metrics are met? Each TO will clearly specify if the work can be done remotely or if onsite support is required.

SOW Section 2.1 8

Can we get details how NASA is presently organized, specifically remote vs onsite (pre Covid)?

OCHCO is currently a mix of onsite and remote. The Enterprise organizations typically consist of more remote workers while the Center HROs typically consist of more onsite workers. This may change as the Agency continues to evaluate the work of the Future or Work team.

SOW Section 2.1 8 Is the Offeror restricted from proposing and implementing technologies or approach if a Business Case can be made? Example Slack or any other virtual collaboration tool.

It is up to the offeror to propose solutions or innovations to meet the requirements in the SOW. Any technologies that are proposed must be authorized by the OCIO prior to implementation.

SOW Section 2.1 8 Do we assume Offerors need to adhere to the https://www.telework.gov/guidance-legislation/telework-guidance/telework-guide/ & https://www.nasa.gov/office/procurement/covid19-contractor-eo-questions ?

Yes. Offerors need to adhere to all NASA policies and regulations.

7 SOW Section 4.5 13 Can Offerors present business case that justifies incorporating updated technologies in lieu of or that augments NASA's representative systems? See response to question #5.

8 SOW Section 4.6 13 Can we implement dashboards for real-time insights?

It is up to the offeror to propose solutions or innovations to meet the requirements in the SOW.

9 SOW Section 4.11 15 Can we implement dashboards for real-time insights?

It is up to the offeror to propose solutions or innovations to meet the requirements in the SOW.

SOW Section 4.13 16 Can Offerors be provided any prior or existing continuous improvement initiatives upon execution of

SOW?

If any prior continuous improvement initatives exist in a specific functaional area, this information will be shared upon TO award.

11 SOW Section 5.3 17 Can Offerors be provided any prior or existing continuous improvement initiatives upon execution of SOW? This information can be shared upon TO award.

12 SOW Sections 5.9 and 5.10 22 Is the Offeror restricted from proposing and implementing technologies or approach if a Business Case can be made? See response to question #5.

13 SOW Section 5.12 24 Is the Offeror restricted from proposing and implementing technologies or approach if a Business Case can be made? Example Slack or any other virtual collaboration tool. See response to question #5.

Attachment 11 Knowledge and Expertise 1

Can other Coaching Experience or Certification satisfy "Coaches should be International Coaching Federation (ICF) credentialed; minimum of Associate Certified Coach (ACC), Professional Certified Coach (PCC), or Master Certified Coach (MCC) preferred."? No

Attachment 11 Purpose 1 What are the differences between the coaching engagements you will be running internally with the 50 NASA Practitioners? Are the coachees the same audience and what you are expecting differently from the external coaches? Please provide any additional insight into the internal program vs the external.

There is no difference in how we source internal and external coaches. The audience is the same.

16 Attachment 11 Purpose 1 Are the internal coaches going to need the same requirements—ability to be scheduled by a coachee within 90 minutes, be ICF certified, etc?

90 min scheduling does not apply to internal coaches. ICF certification is managed internally

17 Attachment 11 Requirements 2 1:1 engagements, will be anywhere from 6-12 months, how will you determine how long each engagement will be?

Minimum of 6 months with the option to extend to 12

Attachment 11 Requirements 2

What are you looking to be included in the peer-to-peer access in between sessions?

Peer-to-peer access references the persistent contact/connection coachees need to have on platform. For example, peers in coaching circles should have persistent access to resources on platform between official sessions and/or engaegments

Attachment 11 Requirements 2

What could be examples or scenarios in which a coachee would need a coaching session within 90 minutes of a request? And would they already be included in the intended audience or would this be for new target audiences?

Coachee has a difficult conversation with an employee and needs support to prepare for this discussion; available to current coaching engagements

20 Attachment 11 Requirements 2 Is there a minimum number of times each coachee is expected to meet with their coach during the engagement? No

Section III Instructions to

Offerors Past performance 12

The RFP states “Offerors shall submit past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.” NSSC answered questions on the submission of subcontractor past performance such that "Past Performance proposals should be submitted from the prime offeror only" & "Only the prime's past performance will be evaluated." Additionally, Section IV Evaluation Criteria does not explicitly state that subcontractor past performance submitted with the proposal will be evaluated, which leaves ambiguity compared to the Section III Instructions to Offerors. Disallowing the past performance of teaming partners/subcontractors severely limits competition. We would ask that for the sake of fair and reasonable competition the contracting officer reconsider their answers and reinstate the evaluation of subcontractor past performance.

The Offerors can disregard the response to questions submitted to the draft RFP.

Section III Instructions to Offerors Section 7.2 clearly states offerors shall submit past performance information regarding predeccsor, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquistion.

Section IV Evalaution Factors for Award clearly describe the method how the government will evaluate the past performance proposals.

Section IV Evaluation Criteria Past performance 10

The RFP states " The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of performance of work Three aspects are taken into consideration by the evaluation team when determining the Offeror’s past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and quality." However, the description of how quality will be evaluated is not detailed. Please provide this missing description within Section IV.

Section IV Evaluation Criteria for Award para 6.0 Past Performance factor has been revised.

Past Performance

SBA regulation 13 C.F.R. 125.2 states the following: “Capabilities, past performance, and experience.

When an offer of a small business prime contractor includes a proposed team of small business subcontractors and specifically identifies the first-tier subcontractor(s) in the proposal, the head of the agency must consider the capabilities, past performance, and experience of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime contractor if the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime does not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance necessary for award.” However, the Industry Day/Draft RFP Q&A (#2) included with the solicitation states that “Past Performances should be submitted from the Prime offeror only.” Can the Government clarify if past performances will be allowed from subcontractors? See response to question 21.

The Government has included FAR clause 52.222-46. Could the Government please clarify where in the proposal the Compensation Plan should be included?

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document

Attachment 03 lists a Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan and a Safety & Health Plan that are required to be submitted with the proposal. Could the Government please clarify where in the proposal these plans should be included?

Attachment 3 has been revised to reflect the initial submission date for this plan to be 15 days after Phase-in start.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document Attachment 03 lists a Management Plan that is required to be submitted with the proposal. Could the

Government please clarify where in the proposal this plan should be included?

Attachment 3 has been revised to reflect the initial submission date for this plan to be 15 days after Phase-in start.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document

The Attachment 03 description of the Management Plan includes a Quality Control Plan (in accordance with DRD QC/S-1, Contractor Quality Plan) that is required with the proposal. Could the Government please clarify where the Quality Control Plan should be included in the proposal ?

Attachment 3 has been revised to reflect the initial submission date for this plan to be 15 days after Phase-in start.

The Compensation Plan should be included with the Model contract.

SOW - Attachment 5 - Attachment 2

Can the Government please define the places of performance? Section 2, pages 6-7 of the Attachment 01 SOW lists 19 facilities. The attachment 05 wage determinations shows 14 facilities. And the Attachment 02 Price Schedule lists 13 facilities. Disconnects include the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that is listed in Attachment 05 but not in attachments 01 or 02, or the Michoud Assembly Facility which is listed in attachment 01 but is not listed in attachments 02 or 05, or the White Sands Test Facility that is listed in attachment 01 and attachment 05, but is not listed in attachment 02.

Onsite HR work, if required, will only be performed at the the main NASA Centers and WFF. HR needs at all other facilities will be performed remotely.

29 Instructions Would the Government allow less than 12-point font in tables and graphics as long as they are still legible? No, see 52.212-1 Sec 8 para c

Past Performance Can the Government please clarify if Past Performances will be evaluated as similar in size, scope and complexity to the IDIQ as a whole, or whether they will be considered similar in size, scope, and complexity to the task orders to be issued?

Past Performance will be considered similar in size, scope and complexity based on the task orders to be issued. Estimated annual task order awards to include options will range between $5 -$10 million.

31 Past Performance can the government describe how the task orders are to be issued so that offerors can select past performances that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the task order that will be issued?

Task Orders will issued based on Enterprise/Functional area or Center HRO need.

32 Attachment 11 Will all coaching services require ICF credentialed coaching? All 1-on-1 coaching services require ICF credentialing.

Attachment 11 Does NASA have its own 360-assessment mapped to its ECQs, or will the vendor be expected to develop or offer a tailored 360?

This should be included by the vendor as part of the standard 1-on-1 coaching engagement and should be mapped to the ECQs.

Attachment 11 There is reference to a “robust data analytics and data reporting benchmarked across government and industry”? Can you expand on what kinds of data analytics and reporting will be required for the coaching program?

We are looking to the vendor to help determine what type of data we should collect and analyze as part of this service.

Minimum analytics should include: progress against coaching goals and ECQs; impacts to leader, others, business.

35 Attachment 11 Does NASA already have a “Manager Dashboard Capability” or will this need to be developed by the vendor?

This will need to be developed.

36 Attachment 11 Is there an expectation that the contractor will certify members of the NASA team to be internal coaches as part of the development of this program? No. NASA determins internal coaches.

NEHCSS_DRFP_and_

Industry_day_Q&A

Attachment: Section_III_NEHCSS_52.212-1-_Instruction_to_Offerors_Final_RFP has a list of requirements for MS-4 Phase-In Plan, and does not reflect what is stated in Q&A 24. Please confirm that no Phase-In Plan is required under this solicitation.

Section III Instructions to Offerors requires offerors to submit a phase-in plan in their Mission Suitability proposal.

NEHCSS_DRFP_and_

Industry_day_Q&A Attachment: Section_III_NEHCSS_52.212-1-_Instruction_to_Offerors_Final_RFP does not reflect this threshold amount. Please confirm the magnitude for the past performance to be used in $5-10 Million.

This is correect an estimated annual contract value between $5- 10 million.

NEHCSS_Final_RFP_

Cover_Letter.pdf We request that the government consider extending the due dates of the response by 3 weeks from the time Q&A are released. No.

Section_III_NEHCSS_ 52.212-1-

_Instruction_to_Offeror s_Final_RFP

The DE&I plan is listed in the general instructions table on page 7 of Section_III_NEHCSS_52.212-1- _Instruction_to_Offerors_Final_RFP. However, there is no additional reference to this plan within the instructions. Please confirm that the DE&I plan is not a requirement under this solicitation.

The DE&I plan is a required plan is support of Executive Order 13985 and the information to be included is contained in Attachment 03 DRD CM-07.

Section_III_NEHCSS_ 52.212-1-

_Instruction_to_Offeror s_Final_RFP;

7(c) Given the page limitations for the proposal and the amount of information requested, we ask that the Government consider allowing graphics, tables, charts, etc. to be no less than 10-point font. No, see 52.212-1 Sec 8 para c

Section_III_NEHCSS_ 52.212-1-

_Instruction_to_Offeror s_Final_RFP;

7.1, MS-1 Technical Approach and Attachment

2, Pricing Schedule

Given that the technical approach is a response to the IDIQ, it would be challenging to detail the equipment, materials, supplies, etc., that are not covered by the SOW when the work on each of the existing TOs is unknown to Offeror’s. Please provide a list of the additional ODC’s currently being provided by the contractor given that the project is on Government site to prevent an unfair advantage to the incumbent. Additionally, Attachment 2, Pricing Schedule only allows for ODCs at the TO level, thus, please provide a list of the ODC that the Contractor currently provides for the Sample TOs specifically.

Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule has been revised to remove ODCs from Sample RTOs.

Section_III_NEHCSS_ 52.212-1-

_Instruction_to_Offeror s_Final_RFP;

7.1, MS-2 Management Approach

Offerors would not know the level of effort or proposed staff related to the Task Orders the Government has yet to define to create an organization structure chart that could include the information requested.

Please consider revising the requirement to be consistent with the type of information Offeror’s would be able to provide for an IDIQ organizational chart, such as leadership, corporate departments, lines of authority, communication lines, task order management and project management.

It is inherent upon the offerors to propose an organizational structure that addresses all requirements in the Statement of Work.

44 Attachment 1 SOW Section 2.1 Please confirm that employees performing work remotely will be equipped with a Government issued equipment (e.g., laptop) to perform the services.

Yes. Remote employees will be furnished with Government issued equipment.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document

Providing a Plan and drafting an approach that has similar requirements to the plan referenced in this attachment are two different documents and serve similar but different purposes. Given the page constraints for this RFP, please confirm that the Government is looking for Offeror’s to respond to the approach requirements as outlined in Section III and Section IV and not separate plans as described in Attachment 3. In the event of the latter, we request that the Government allow the plan to be an attachment incorporated by reference in the proposal and outside the page count. The offeror will need to clarify the specific plans in question.

Attachment 11, Sample RTO 1 and Attachment

12, Sample RTO 2 Would the Government please provide a list of the labor categories, number of staff, and hours for the current TOs used for the sample Task Order contracts at Attachments 11 and 12?

These are sample task orders only that represent new Enterprise work requirements.

Attachment 2, Pricing

Schedule

To fairly evaluate the total evaluated price for all offerors using a consistent baseline, please provide a mapping of the applicable labor categories to the Service Contract Act (SCA) wage determination labor categories. Not doing so will result in submissions that vary greatly based on potentially incorrect SCA mapping and could have a major impact on price and possibly DOL audits and protests. It also gives the incumbents an unfair advantage in knowing which positions are currently mapped to the SCA. Further in response to the Government’s response to Question 45, SCA is not a FLSA determination and the DOL Prevailing Wage Resource Book starting at page 14 describes the process that contracting agencies should follow in obtaining SCA wage determinations. Having an agency identify the positions does not alleviate contractors from ensuring the positions are properly classified and employees paid correctly but it does start the process of ensuring there is a common understanding of the mapping on the contract.

The current labor categoeries and descriptions do not include any SCA wage determination labor categories Attachment 04 Labor Categories and Descriptions.

Attachment 02 Price Schedule has been revised to remove tab 02-6.

Section+III+NEHCSS+ 52.212-1-

+Instruction+to+Offero rs+Final+RFP

RFP - “Offerors shall provide the basis for estimate to determine their labor rates for NASA’s geographically dispersed and remote locations (including virtual) for each Center (including NASA HQ), each Field Activity, and virtual/remote locations.” Question – please confirm that offerors can provide their overall explanation/approach of how labor rates were built/established and do not need to address each location/field activity separately.

Offerors can provide their overall explanation/approach to labor rate build out and do not need to address each location/field activity.

Attachment+02+OCHC O+Price+Schedule+rev

7.xlsx Will the Government please confirm that offerors do not need to show a breakdown of the phase-in services and only need to provide a one-time lump sum/total cost in cell C8 “Phase-In Evaluated Price”?

Correct the one-time lump sum/total cost for RTO#2 will be used for pricing evaluation purposes only.

Attachment+02+OCHC O+Price+Schedule+rev

7.xlsx Please confirm that offerors are to enter the details of every non-exempt labor category proposed and NOT just the Service Contract Act governed positions. See response to question 47.

Attachment+02+OCHC O+Price+Schedule+rev

7.xlsx

Will the Government please explain what is supposed to be entered in the column “Labor Category Mapping (Section X of the SOW)”? There do not appear to be clearly marked sections/tasks outlined in each sample task order.

Attachment 02 Price Schedule, has been revised to remove offerors labor category mapping from tab 02-3, 02-4, and 02- 5.

Section+III+NEHCSS+ 52.212-1-

+Instruction+to+Offero rs+Final+RFP

Given that February only have 28 days, and offerors will be losing a day due to the President’s day holiday, Will the Government consider extending the due date for proposal submission?

No, extra time was already built into the due date to account for the holiday.

Section+III+NEHCSS+ 52.212-1-

+Instruction+to+Offero rs+Final+RFP

Will the Government consider extending the due date for Past Performance questionnaires to coincide with the proposal submission date? Extending the PPQ due date will allow offerors to be respectful of our government client’s busy schedules and ensure PPQs are submitted.

Section IV Evaluation Factors for Award Section 6.0 para 4 states the government reserves the right to consider past performance questionnaires received after the due date for recipt of proposals.

Attachment+02+OCHC O+Price+Schedule+rev

7.xlsx Does the Government intend to award the Sample Task Orders, or will those estimates be utilized for evaluation purposes only?

The sample RTOs will be utilized for price evaluation purposes only.

55 Section III Instructions In Section III-Instructions document, there is 'DRAFT' watermark on each page. Please confirm this is in error and that the Section III document is indeed final.

Section III Instruction to Offerors has been revised to remove 'Draft' watermark.

Section III Instructions, SOW 7, 15

In the Table on Page 7, "OCI Mitigation Plan" and "DE&I Plan" are listed under Volume IV Model Contract, however neither plan is described as a proposal requirement in 7.4. SOW 4.10 (table on page

15) states DEI Plan should be submitted with Staffing Approach (at 10 pages this would significantly cut in 50-page allowance for Volume I). Please clarify where and under what circumstances these plans should be included in the proposal.

Table 4.10 in SOW has been revised to align due dates with Data Procurement Document Attachment 03.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document 31

The QC-S-4 "Safety and Health Plan" DRD states "Plan shall be submitted with the initial proposal."

However, the Safety and Health Plan is not mentioned in the Instructions (Section III) as to where in the proposal it should be included and whether it exempt from page count. Would the Government consider making this requirement upon award, rather then upon proposal submission? See response to question 25.

Section III Instructions 10, 11

Under MS-2 it states "The offeror shall describe the responsibilities and authority, as well as the qualifications and experience (resume), of the Contract Program Manager (KeyPersonnel)." Under MS-3 it states, "Resume of the individual proposed as Key Personnel shall describe the individual’s specialized experience, qualifications, and education as it relates specifically to the duties assigned under the SOW."

Under what header should the key personnel resume be included? See Section III Instructions to Offerors section 7.0 table III-1.

Section III Instructions 15 Section III, 7.4, f on page 15: May audited financial statements be submitted in lieu of a company’s annual report to prove financial capability?

Yes audited financial statements may be provided, however the offeror must provide enough supporting documentation for the Government to evaluate each offerors financial capabilities in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(a).

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document 27 If the Government is requesting a full Quality Control Plan (DRD No.: QC/S-1) submitted with the proposal, would the Government consider making the pages exempt from the 50 page limit of Volume I? See response to question 27.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document 3

Is the "Management Plan" (CM-1) due with proposal with same as the "Management Approach" (MS-2)?

If so, may the Government align the expected contents between Attachment03 and the Instructions? If not, should the Management Plan be submitted as a seperate document or integrated in proposal? See response to question 26.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document 31

The QC-S-3 "Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)" DRD states "Plan shall be submitted with the initial proposal." However, the COOP is not mentioned in the Instructions (Section III) as to where in the proposal it should be included and whether it exempt from page count. Would the Government consider making this requirement upon award, rather then upon proposal submission? See response to question 25.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document

In the Data Procurement Document, "BM" and "BP" are used interchangeably for Item/DRD numbers.

Please clarify which notation Offerors should use in the proposal. Attachment 03 Data Procurment Document has been revised to remove reference to 'BP'.

64 Attachment 11 For RTO 1, of the 600 annual coaching participants, what is the estimated % of a) executives and management, b) Supervisors and emerging leaders, and c) employees?

300 executives and mngt; 300 supervisors;

65 Attachment 11 For RTO 1, please confirm that the up to 600 coaching participants is the number of annual participants to be coached by contractor coaches. Yes, that is correct.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document 10

For the Staffing Approach, the Instructions request "The Offeror’s approach shall address on-site and virtual/remote locations and shall ensure its staffing plan clearly depicts the total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and labor hours for each proposed labor category, including any subcontracted efforts." As the specific number of FTE and labor hours for an IDIQ cannot be shown, what is the Government's intention with this proposal requirement?

Section III Instruction to Offerors has been revised to remove lanaguage.

SOW 5.9 22

Are training and talent development programs designed and developed for the workforce nationwide, across all locations or are these programs designed to be site specific? Will talent development contractors likely to work on-site or from contractor site?

At the time a task is generated, a determination will be made whether the programs/offerings will be virtual across all locations or designed to be site specific. There are many factors that play into this including the need for hands on training, environmental health risks, program objectives, availability of training room, security requirements, technology, etc. Talent development contractors will most likely work remotely. However, there may be occasional travel involved.

SOW 5.9 22

Does NASA have an estimate for how much new training is needed?

Does NASA have an estimate for the scope of existing training to be updated or revised?

How much time to NASA personnel (from workforce charts) spend in training per year? Per month?

It is hard to predict how much new training is needed at NASA due to having 10 NASA centers that operate with their own training budgets. In addition there are enterprise offerings, as well. Most of agency offerings are new. Since NASA Talent Development is moving to an Enterprise model, the expectation is that most offerings will be reviewed to see if it makes sense to design from scratch, or refresh and update.

This will not happen overnight, but it is important to keep learners engaged with relevant content. NASA personnel spend approximately 41.7 hours per year in training.

SOW 6 25 The RFP states that the Contract Program Manager shall have, "Experience (10 to 12 years) leading projects and programs of a similar nature for NASA, DOD and / or other Federal Agencies."

Is the "experience" referneced meant to be for leading IDIQ Projects and Programs, or is it referring to single award contracts that may be similar to NEHCCSS task orders?

Refer to Education and experience requirements in Attachment 04.

Instructions 7 11 “Relevant” is defined as a contract that is of similar scope, magnitude, complexity to the requirements as set forth in this solicitation.

For relevance to scope and magnitude, is the government looking for IDIQ contracts or will single award contracts relevant to the scope in the SOW be sufficient?

Offerors are requested to submit recent and relevant past performance regardless of contract type.

SOW

5 24 How will we track the executive coaching with quantitative and quality metrics and how can these metrics be captured in database platform?

This is the question we have posed to our vendor/industry partners to bring solutions for our consideration. Their should describe in their response how they will track quantitative and quality metrics around the coaching services as part of their integrated platform.

Section III NEHCSS 52.212-1- Instruction to Offerors Final RFP

7.1 MS-3 (a) 9-10

Possible change to Marty's question. The RFP states, "The Offeror’s approach shall address on-site and virtual/remote locations and shall ensure its staffing plan clearly depicts the total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and labor hours for each proposed labor category, including any subcontracted efforts.

Qualification requirements for the labor categories that will be used to perform HC support services are identified in Attachment (04) Proposed Labor Categories and Descriptions." With no RTO technical approach being presented to explain our execution approach and/or awardable TOs this level of granularity is not possible to evaluate. Would the government please remove or clarify its intent ? See response to question 66.

Section III NEHCSS 52.212-1- Instruction to Offerors Final RFP

MS-2 Management Approach. Requirement

(b)

MS-2 Management Approach. Requirement (b) states, A description of the Offeror’s approach to managing all aspects of the contract, to include management of diverse efforts, which may involve fragmentation of services at NASA’s geographically dispersed and remote locations, risk and issue management across all SOW requirements while maintaining the quality of work. Requirement (c1) states, 1. How the Offeror intends to effectively manage the SOW requirements with performance at geographically dispersed and remote locations and ensure standardization and quality of services.

Locations include on-site and virtual/remote environments. These two requirements seem to cover the same topic. Do we need to address both in two separate areas of just once?

Offeror should address all aspects of MS-2 Management Approach in thier Mission Suitability response.

NEHCSS+DRFP+and+ Industry+day+QA Question 11 and 24 1

Q&A response #11(and 24), , page 1 of 18 states, The phase-in requirement has been removed from the SOW as well as revised in Attachment 08. No days are given now. The initial plan shall be submitted with the proposal. Phase-in activities will occur at the Task order level and the duration of the Phase-In period will be dictated by the individual task order. However, the NEHCSS Final RFP Cover letter, page 2, states, A Phase-in period will be conducted. A 30-day Phase-In period will be included as part of the base period. What number of days do we use in our general phase-in plan that we can then tailor at the TO level?

There will be a 30 day phase-in included in the base period and each task order will have any phase-in period identiified.

Section III NEHCSS 52.212-1- Instruction to Offerors Final RFP

Volume I n/a Should our Phase-in Plan be a separate 10-page document using Attachment 08 as the cover page or do we include our phase-in plan with our technical volume and add Attachment 08 cover page after award? Phase-in plan will be included with Vol I.

Attachment 01 NEHCSS SOW (v 12.1

Jan 2022)

4.10 15

Attachment 1, SOW 4.10 Reporting Deliverables, page 15 of 25, table, row 7 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan. Section L provides no guidance on what is included and Section M provides no guidance on how it will be evaluated. Will the government make this a contract deliverable due 30 days after IDIQ award to engage in a discussion/review of the requirement and its content? See reponse to question 40.

Attachment 01 NEHCSS SOW (v 12.1

Jan 2022)

4.10 15 Attachment 1, SOW 4.10 Reporting Deliverables, page 15 of 25, table, row 7 Diversity, Equity, and

Inclusion Plan. The table notes the plan should be included with Staffing Approach. Section L states it should be part of Volume IV, Model contract. Please confirm it is part of Volume IV Model Contract?

Attachment 01 SOW has been revised. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan should be submitted with the model contract.

Attachment 01 NEHCSS SOW (v 12.1

Jan 2022)

4.10 15

Attachment 1, SOW 4.10 Reporting Deliverables, page 15 of 25, table, row 13, Contractor Quality Plan states it is due at time of proposal. However, Section L does not call for a quality plan. MS-2 Management Approach calls for quality control metrics, but not a Quality Control Plan. Does the Government require a full Contractor Quality Plan per QC/S-1 or just a high level plan that will become the basis for our QC/S-1 submission after award? See response to question 27.

Attachment 01 NEHCSS SOW (v 12.1

Jan 2022)

4.10 15

Attachment 1, SOW 4.10 Reporting Deliverables, page 15 of 25, table, row 13, Contractor Quality Plan states it is due at time of proposal. However, Section L does not call for a quality plan. MS-2 Management Approach calls for quality control metrics, but not a Quality Control Plan. If a plan is required, can the government make the plan a contract deliverable 30 days after IDIQ award? See response to question 27.

Attachment 01 NEHCSS SOW (v 12.1

Jan 2022)

4.10 15

Attachment 1, SOW 4.10 Reporting Deliverables, page 15 of 25, table, row 16 Safety and Health Plan.

The table notes it is due with the proposal (as does Attachment 3, DPD, QC/S-4); however, there is no mention of the plan in Section L. Since the Safety and Health Plan is geared toward an award of Task Order efforts and is driven by the contents of the task order work and location(s), can this particular plan be provided during the First awarded Task Order vice with the initial IDIQ contract? See response to question 25.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document v2

DPD CM-1 3

Attachment 3, DPD, CM-1 Management Plan. The plan is due with the initial proposal. The format of the plan in the DPD is not a 1-for-1 alignment with Section L and M outline. Can the government confirm Offerors should use Section L and M outline for our proposal Management Plan? See response to question 26.

Attachment 13 Requirements

Traceability Matrix Template

Line 57-60 n/a Attachment 13, Line 57-60 note BP-01 to BP-05. However, Attachment 3, DPD lists BM-1 to BM-5.

Should we change them on Attachment 13 or will you publish a new Attachment 13?

Attachment 03 and Attachment 13 have been revised to remove reference to 'BP'.

Attachment 03 Data Procurement Document v2

DPD QC/S-3 30

Attachment 3, DPD, QC/S-3, Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is due with the initial proposal.

However, Section L does not talk to a requirement for a COOP and SOW 4.10 Reporting Deliverables states it is due annually. Since the COOP is specific to support NASA centers and field offices, and access to and understanding of their needs is not open unless you have an active contract, can this plan be published with the first Task Order award and not with the IDIQ contract proposal? See response to question 25.

Section III NEHCSS 52.212-1- Instruction to Offerors Final RFP

& Attachment 02 OCHCO Price

Schedule, Tab 02-1

Multiple

Will the government reconcile the following conflicting guidance?

Section L.7(d) states: The Government will calculate a total price follows:

Phase-In Services. Price will be evaluated based on the FFP lump sum proposed.

Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule, Tab 02-1 Total evaluated price links to respectively the total price for each of the two representative task orders, and not to the Phase-In Services total for each task order.”

Is it the government’s intent to include the total cost of both RTOs in the Total Evaluated Price? If so, recommend that the Evaluation Criteria be amended to read:

“The Government will calculate a total price follows:

• Sample RTO L&T Development. Price will be evaluated based on the FFP lump sum proposed.

• Sample RTO Executive Coaching -6. Price will be evaluated based on the FFP lump sum proposed.”

Section III Instruction to Offerors para 7.3 (d) has been revised.

Cover Letter

The RFP cover letter states the anticipated contract award date is July 1, 2022 with a contract effective date of August 1, 2022. Attachment 02 indicates a Year 1 start date of July 1, 2022. If performance will not begin until August 1, 2022, will NASA update Attachment 02 to reflect August 1 as the start date for each year for labor rate prices? Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule has been revised.

Section III NEHCSS

Instructions to Offerors MS-2 Management

Approach

Section (a) states: “An organizational structure chart which clearly depicts assigned responsibilities, subcontracted positions, relevant experience, qualifications and credentials of proposed staff and lines of communication and supervision to the lowest level of support in order to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness in managing the work, onsite and virtually/remotely, particularly across the multiple sites (NASA Centers).”

With this being an IDIQ solicitation, “lowest level of support” would not be known since task orders are not yet known. Please confirm that the structure should depict proposed staff and lines of communication and supervision at the IDIQ level.

Section III Instructions to Offerors para 7.1 MS-2 has been revised.

Section III NEHCSS

Instructions to Offerors MS-2 Management

Approach

Section (a) states: “The offeror shall describe its proposed interfaces with its subcontractors and identify the specific sections the prime and each subcontractor is proposed to perform.”

With this being an IDIQ solicitation, “sections the prime and each subcontractor is proposed to perform” may vary dramatically at the task order level depending on NASA’s specific needs. Can this requirement be removed and only focus on the interfaces with its subcontractors at the IDIQ level?

Section III Instructions to Offerors para 7.1 MS-2 has been revised.

Section III NEHCSS Instructions to Offerors

MS-3 Staffing Approach

The instructions under (a) for Staffing Approach, in the fourth bullet state:

“The offerors proposal shall demonstrate an approach to a commitment to diversity and inclusion that is aligned with NASA’s Policy Statement…” As if it might belong in Volume I - Mission Suitability.

However, the DE&I plan is shown on page 7 as being a part of the Volume IV - Model Contract (Table

III)

Please clarify if the mention of diversity in MS-3 is a reference to evaluation criteria or if the DE&I plan should be part of Volume I. See response to question 40.

Section III NEHCSS Instructions to Offerors

MS-3 Staffing Approach

This section includes “The staffing approach shall describe how the Offeror intends to staff this effort and how the approach will allow the Offeror to meet the future requirements of this contract. The staffing approach shall include a comprehensive hiring plan which presents the expected number of personnel to be hired from incumbents (if any), those to be transferred from within the Offeror’s own organization, and those from other sources.”

Additionally, “The Offeror’s approach shall address on-site and virtual/remote locations and shall ensure its staffing plan clearly depicts the total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and labor hours for each proposed labor category, including any subcontracted efforts.”

With this being an IDIQ solicitation and “efforts” not yet defined, please explain what NASA would like offerors to produce for this requirement. In particular, “...hiring plan which presents the expected number of personnel to be hired from incumbents...” Until efforts are defined, this is not possible for IDIQ offerors to address as it would assume nothing is changing with NASA’s future requirements for the

IDIQ.

The evaluation criteria for this section seems much more aligned with an IDIQ approach than the proposal instructions. We request that NASA review the proposal instructions to better state them for an IDIQ solicitation without specific tasks and volume and location of specific tasks known.

Section III Instructions to Offerors para 7.1 MS-3 Staffing Approach has been revised.

NEHCSS DRFP and

Industry Day QA

The Q&A file has over two dozen questions regarding the evaluation of Past Performance of the prime offeror only. Your response to most of these were: Only the prime's past performance will be evaluated” or “Past Performance proposals should be submitted from the prime offeror only” Section III Instructions to Offers for past performance only refers to “offerors”. Is NASA defining an offeror as only the prime contractor for this section since no text exists limiting the past performances to only the prime?” See response to question 21.

91 Section III Section 7.2

The RFP states that offerors “shall submit past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.” While the Q&A states that past performance information should be submitted for the prime offeror only, we understand that the Q&A was provided only for convenience and does not change the terms or conditions of the Final RFP. Can you please confirm that the Government will accept and consider past performance from predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition? See response to question 21.

Section IV, NEHCSS

Evaluation Criteria

6.0 Past Performance

Factor

Under recency is this statement: “The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.” What is meant by this statement and why is it under recency? What is meant by documented performance history?

Section IV Evaluation Factors for Award Section 6.0 clearly states systems that the government will utilize to obtain performance history.

Attachment 12 Sample RTO2 - Leadership and

Supervisor Development

Offering One – Supervisor Learning

Sprints

RTO 2 states, “Design, develop and deliver and evaluate two (2) four-hour Supervisor Learning Sprints for up to 50 Supervisors in each “Sprint”. Is it expected that the content for each 4-hour sprint is identical and just presented to different audiences? Or, is the audience the same and the content changes for each sprint?

The content will stay the same, however the audience will be different.

Attachment 12 Sample RTO2 - Leadership and

Supervisor Development

Does NASA’s BetterUp platform support synchronous virtual learning (i.e., live virtual classrooms)? If not, is the vendor expected to provide the virtual meeting platform (e.g., Adobe Connect, MS Teams, WebEx)? Are there any platforms that are not acceptable?

Yes. The BetterUp platform supports synchronous virtual learning. For all other types of learning, the vendor is expected to provide and manage the platform in accordance with NASA’s security and privacy requirements.

Attachment 12 Sample RTO2 - Leadership and

Supervisor Development

Are there any requirements related to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for this RTO? For example, do all participant materials need to be made Section 508 compliant so that they are accessible to individuals with disabilities?

As a standard all courses and offerings should be 508 compliant including materials.

Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule rev7

The instructions for RTO 2 state, “The Offeror shall also propose a Phase-In price and any applicable ODCs for the RTO which will be included in the overall evaluated price for the RTO.” However, Attachment 12 Sample RTO2 - Leadership and Supervisor Development indicated that a phase-in period is not applicable. Please clarify whether phase-in pricing should be included for RTO 2.

Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule tab 02-5 has been revised.

Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule rev7

In instructions state, “GREEN FIELDS are to be completed by the Offeror.” and “WHITE FIELD are information only no actions are required.” However, on both sample RTO tabs, the Labor Category, Center, and Labor Category Mapping columns are white. Should these columns be green to indicate that offerors should complete them?

Attachement 02 OCHCO Price Schedule has been revised to highlight fields.

Attachment 02 Pricing

Since the Contract Program Manager (Key Personnel) is at the IDIQ level, would the offer only price the location where the IDIQ Contract Program Manager will be located or is that labor category intended to include Task Order Project Managers at the ordering level? It doesn’t appear that a Task Order Project Manager exists in the pricing schedule. Please explain NASA’s intentions with that labor category, especially since c) of the pricing instructions since all must have proposed pricing.

Offerors would propose pricing for Contract Program Manager only at the location they would reside.

Cover Letter P2 Cover Letter 4.a.

Cover letter states, “ Sample RTOs for pricing evaluation only” If a need still exists after the IDIQ awards will these two RTO’s be competed using the ordering procedures described in the model contract S.3.4? Yes. All task orders will be competed amongst all awardees.

100 Model Contract P17 Model Contract 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.0 states “The method of evaluation shall be price only ” Please confirm there will be no non-price evaluation factors for IDIQ task orders.

Task orders will be competed amongst all awardees and based on price and non-price factors.

Model Contract P18 Model Contract 3.4 3.5 If actual DPLH utilization exceeds the FFP LOE proposal number will the total value of the individual LOE task order be revised up to pay the contractor based on the actual LOE number?

No, the DPLH ordered by the government will be FFP LOE and will not be revised up unless there is a modification processed to increase the hours prior to exceeding the ordered hours.

Model Contract P18 Model Contract 4.1

Please clarify, can a task order be awarded at any time within the IDIQ ordering period with a period of performance that will run beyond 180 days past the end of the IDIQ 5 year ordering period?

For example - Can a task order issued on the last day of year 5 of the contract ordering period have a period of performance that runs longer than 180 days?

Yes, task orders will have there own periods of performance and can be ordered up to the last day of the ordering period.

Instructions P13 &

RTO#2 P4

Instructions S 7.3 -v-

RTO#2

S. 7.3(e) states “In accordance with section 4.14 of the SOW, the Offeror shall provide a price for Phase- In services for the sample RTOs as a part of Attachment (02) Price Schedule” SOW Section 4.14 states “ Phase-In: The majority of Phase-in activities will occur at the Task order level and the duration of the Phase-In period will be dictated by the individual task order” RTO#2 states “ Phase In Not Applicable”.

Is this an error or should we simply state a zero dollar figure for RTO#2 phase-in? Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Schedule has been revised.

Attachment 12, RTO#2 Offerings It is indicated that there are five distinct populations covered under this support effort but only two courses are included in the Sample RTO. Is this correct?

Yes that is correct. There are multiple populations with the potential for multiple offerings on various topics. This RTO is just a sample offering.

Atachment 11, RTO#1 P3 Deliverable 1

Does NASA anticipate standing up a new virtual infrastructure that will run concurrently with the current BetterUp platform or will we be transitioning all services from BetterUp to the new platform within the first 3 months to get to full operational capacity?

we intend to use one single platform for this service once the vendor is selected; We intend to complete any engagements currently under contract

Attachmen 11, RTO#1 P4 Phase-In To ensure continuity of services does NASA anticipate running the current BetterUp platform concurrently with the new virtual infrastructure for a period longer than 30 days? If so, how long?

We intend to complete any engagements currently under contract; all new engagements will immediate begin concurrently under the new virtual infrastructure

Attachment 11, RTO#1 P4 Phase-In

If NASA anticipates transitioning all the work and artefacts currently housed within the BetterUp platform to the new virtual infrastructure within the 30 day transition period, will you release essential elements of the BetterUp phase-out timeline and activities so we can accurately scope and price our phase-in activities?

We intend to complete any engagements currently under contract; all new engagements will immediate begin concurrently under the new virtual infrastructure.

Attachment 11, RTO #1 P1 Requirements

It is indicated that the vendor will “develop” NASA’s internal coaches. What type of development does NASA require for their internal coaches? Are the internal coaches certified and how many internal coaches are in NASA’s cadre?

The RTO does not state the vendor will "develop" NASA's internal coaches, this is not a requirement. The RTO states "our internal coaching and development activities."

109 Instructions P.13 Instructions 7.3 (e) RTO#2 states “Phase In Not Applicable ”. Should we simply state a zero dollar figure for RTO#2 phase-in? Attachment 02 OCHCO Price Scheulde has been revised.

Instructions P.11 MS-4 Phase-In plan

Please clarify – MS-4 states “ Offerors are required to provide a Phase-in price for the sample RTOs as part of Attachment (02) Price Schedule.