NEHCSS DRFP and Industry day QA.pdf

Question Question Submitted Vendor Referenced RFP Element (if Applicable) Amendment # Government Response

1 How many awards do you plan to make? # of awards See section 52.212-2 para 4.0

2 The DRFP says up to 5 pp references. How many must be from the prime?

past performance Past Performance proposals should be submitted from the prime offeror only.

3 Will you require key personnel resumes? labor categories key personnel

The SOW , Section III NEHCSS DRFP 52.212-1 and Section IV NEHCSS DRFP 52.212-2 have been revised to reflect key personnel requirements.

4 as past performance is to be submitted early& is pass/fail, will NASA notify offers before proposal submission of exclusion from further consideration based on failed past performance eval?

past performance Past Performance will be due before proposals but will not preclude offerors from submitting proposals as offerors will not be notified prior to submission deadline for proposals.

5 Are key personnel full time? labor categories key personnel

It is up to the offeror in their proposal on the best management and staffing approach? There is no full time requirement dictated for any personnel.

6 Is NASA seeking a price proposal narrative in addition to spreadsheet?

pricing narrative See Section III, 7.3 Volume III: Price Proposal Instructions

7 Are the keys (key personnel) expected to be in person or can they be remote?

labor categories key personnel

The Offeror oversight approach should explain how it intends to effectively manage the SOW requirements and RTOs with performance at geographically dispersed and remote locations to ensure standardization and quality of services.

8 In view of the vast core competencies required by the statement of work, respectively, will the Government accept the subcontractor’s past performance reference in addition to the prime’s past performance references? Subcontractors are integral to our team.

past performance: Reference

8.2 Past Performance

Only the prime's past performance will be evaluated.

9 What platform of virtual delivery is used? Attachment 11 RTO #1 exec coaching

We are currently using the technology-based environment/platform provided by BetterUp

10 How many languages are required for coaching? Attachment 11 RTO #1 exec coaching

English is the only language that is required.

11 Paragraph three notes, The anticipated contract award date is 04/1/2022, with a contract effective date of 06/01/2022. Is the 60-days between 4/1/2022 and 6/1/2022 the phase-in period or does the 60-day phase-in start 6/1/2022?

Cover Letter, pg 2 The phase-in requirement has been removed from the SOW as well as revised in Attachment 08. No days are given now.

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.

12 Para 3, #1. Is the 60-day phase-in period for the IDIQ or each resulting Task Order?

Cover Letter, pg 2 The phase-in requirement has been removed from the SOW as well as revised in Attachment 08. No days are given now.

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.

13 Para 3, #2. Can the government elaborate on what's included in

GFP?

Cover Letter, pg 2 see Sec I para 5.0

Attachment 14 List of GFP added 14 Will the government revise "All graphics, tables, charts, diagrams …. Shall be 12-point Times New Roman font." to "All graphics, tables, charts, diagrams …. Shall be no less than 8-point Times New Roman font?"

Section L, Page 7, (c) See 52.212-1 sec 8 para c

15 Understanding this is a new enterprise level contract, what predecessor incumbent companies are working in whole or part of the legacy work? What are the associated contract numbers? What is the historical LOE by contract? This level of insight is critical to developing executable Phase-In Plans that ensure continuity of services and the offeror's ability to retain high-performing incumbent personnel.

Section L, Page 9, MS-1 (a)

RTO #1

Please refer to the Industry Day slides where contract numbers are provided.

All contract information can be found on SAM.gov.

The historical LOE by contract is Center-centric and not in alignmment with an enterprise-level concept. The sample RTOs now provide estimates for WYE for pricing purposes.

16 What LOE does the government anticipate is necessary to satisfy this requirement?

Section L, Page 9, MS-1 (a)

RTO #1

Qualitative requirements for pricing evaluation are included in the sample RTO for Executive Coaching. The Contractor must determine what skill mix from the full listing of labor categories to propose in order to price the requirements for this sample RTO.

17 When Section L states, The Offeror shall submit a separate technical proposal for each RTO provided, does this mean each RTO proposal is a standalone file (i.e., three technical files will be submitted, one for SOW, one for RTO #1, and one for RTO #2) or is it one file, but three separate and distinct sections (SOW, RTO #1, and RTO #2)?

Section L, pg 9. The offeror is not required to submit a technical proposal, only pricing information for the sample RTOs

18 Understanding this is a new enterprise level contract, what predecessor incumbent companies are working in whole or part of the legacy work? What are the associated contract numbers? What is the historical LOE by contract? This level of insight is critical to developing executable Phase-In Plans that ensure continuity of services and the offerors ability to retain high-performing incumbent personnel.

Section L, Page 10, MS-1 (a)

RTO #2

Please refer to the Industry Day slides where contractor names and contract numbers are provided. All contract information can be found on SAM.gov.

The historical LOE by contract is Center-centric and not in alignmment with an enterprise-level concept. The sample RTOs now provide estimates for WYE for pricing purposes.

19 It seems that Section L and corresponding Section M requirements are not in alignment. Section M, MS-2 talk to (a) Organizational Structure, and (b) Management and Organization processes and procedures; however, the corresponding Section L asks for (a) Approach to managing all aspects of the contract and (b) Contract management oversight approach. Section L, MS-3, Subsection (a) details requirements for an organizational structure chart. However, Section M, MS- 3 talks to (a) Staffing Approach and (b) Diversity & Inclusion and not how the government will evaluate subsection (a). Will you reconcile the Section L requirements with the evaluation criteria?

Section MS-3 Staffing Approach, pg 11 Sections III and IV have been updated to be in sync. Please see 52.212-1 Sec 7.1 MS-2 for specifics.

20 The section states, Contract Program Manager and Learning and Talent Development Program Manager (Key Personnel).

However, SOW para 6.0 states the Key Personnel are Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager. Will the Government clarify what two LCATS are Key Personnel?

Section L, MS-3 Staffing Approach, subsection (a), pg

The SOW , Section III NEHCSS 52.212-1 and Section IV NEHCSS DRFP 52.212-2 have been revised to reflect key personnel requirements.

21 Phase-In Plan, continuity of service, and pricing is contingent upon the Gov't ensuring offerors have insight into current support. Will the government provide detailed information to legacy contracts that will roll into each RTO by contract, Level of Effort (LOE), center supported, and onsite/offsite/remote site(s) used?

Section L, Page 12, MS-4 Phase-in Plan

The historical LOE by contract is Center-centric and not in alignmment with an enterprise-level concept. The sample RTOs now provide estimates for WYE for pricing purposes.

22 NEHCSS is consolidating center focused support into a multiple award IDIQ that will result in Task Orders that will likely result in TO to multiple Primes. As such TO size / magnitude is an unknown at this time. Can the Gov't confirm that PPs magnitude most clear a $1M threshold to be considered significant for submission.

Section L, Page 12, Past Performance

See 52.212-1 sec 7.2

23 In the case of past performance, the government asks "for no more than 5 previous government contracts … " As an enterprise level WOSB contract, prime offerors are going to lean more collectively on their proposed team on capabilities, staffing, IT, and innovative ideas that lead to greater efficiency.

As such, will the government revise the requirement to read "no more than 5 previous contracts total with two or more from the Prime offeror and up to three from significant subcontractors executing 20% or greater workshare on the SOW or RTOs?"

Section L, Page 12, Past Performance

Only the prime's past performance will be evaluated.

24 Section L directs offerors to provide phase-in pricing in Attachment 2 and references the SOW and DRD #CM-2. CM- 2 references a 30-day period under 8. d. but Section L and the SOW indicate 60 days. Please confirm 60 days is accurate.

Section III, DRFP Section L,

8.1 MS-4 Phase-In Plan (pg.

12)

The phase-in requirement has been removed from the SOW as well as revised in Attachment 08.

25 Page 13 mentions a past performance questionnaire. Will the government provide the questionnaire template/attachment in the final RFP?

Section L, 8.2, Past Performance, Page 13

PPQ has been created and is included as attachment 15.

26 Will the Government confirm that the anticipated contract type for each RTO is a Firm- Fixed Price completion basis?

Section III 8.3 Price Proposal Instructions, pg 13 The sample RTOs, for pricing evaluation only, now indicate the type of award.

Task orders awarded will identify either firm fixed price (FFP) completion or firm fixed price (FFP) level-of-effort

27 Please state if the offeror is required to provide "sufficient detail to support and explain all proposed costs" for the FFP Phase-In CLIN? Our recommendation is that this is not required as the Phase-In Approach provided in Volume I provides the plan with key milestones and tasks.

Section III 8.3 (a) and (d) Price Proposal Instructions, pg 13 & 14 has key milestones are there, but not costs. Phase-In minimal for contract start

up. Phase-In may be at the task level

28 Under Unbalanced Pricing, second paragraph, the government states "The proposed labor categories with hours Attachment

(12) represents the Government’s estimate of labor hours and labor categories for the complete solicitation requirement."

However, Attachment 12 describes RTO 1, Enterprise Organizational Development. Is there a missing attachment or additional references that are missing?

Section III 8.3 Price Proposal Instructions, pg 14

The correct reference for the labor categories is Attachment 2, Price Schedule, and has been corrected.

29 The Draft RFP states "If utilizing other than 1920 productive hours per FTE per year, then the Offeror shall provide its calculation of productive hours per year." In order to level the playing field in determining the total evaluated price for the IDIQ summary, we request the government mandate that the hours not be changed for the IDIQ pricing schedule but permit adjustment for an offeror's productive hours per year at the RTO level with proper justification.

Section III 8.3 Price Proposal Instructions, "Unbalanced Pricing", pg 14

Removed this language to have all offerors provide pricing to the 1920 hours on pricing sheet

30 The SOW, RFP, and Attachment 3 all have different due dates when an OCI plan is required. Can the government reconcile and confirm that an OCI plan is due post-award, during Phase-in?

Section III 8.4 (g), OCI, pg

The initial OCI Plan is due at the time of proposal and all documents now correspond with this due date.

31 Instructions L 8.1 MS-2 states "The proposal must provide clearly defined management and organization processes and procedures, and quality control metrics that ensure that the Offeror can meet the stated performance objectives overall for the SOW, and for all task orders."

Similarly, L 8.1 MS-3 states, "The proposal must provide clearly defined management and organization processes and procedures, and quality control metrics that ensure that the Offeror can meet the stated performance objectives separately for the SOW, for each of the RTOs, and subsequently any additional task orders awarded"

Evaluation criteria aligned to these instructions currently reside within M 5.1 MS-2 (b), "Management and organization processes and procedures. "

Can the Government please clarify whether these requirements should be addressed and evaluated within MS-2 or MS-3?

Section+III+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+L+- +Instruction+to+Offerors+11- 19-21 Section+IV+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+M+- +Evaluation+Criteria+11-19-

L 8.1 MS-2

L 8.2 MS-3

M 5.1 MS-2 (b)

Management Approach will be evaluated in MS-2 see 52.212-2 sec 5

Staffing Approach will be evaluated in MS-3 see 52.212-2 sec 5

32 Instructions L 8.1 MS-3 (a) asks for "An organizational structure.."

Evaluation M 5.1 MS-2 (a) a states, "(a) Organizational Structure. The extent to which the proposal includes an organizational structure chart..."

Can the Government please clarify which Subfactor the Organizational Structure should be addressed?

Section+III+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+L+- +Instruction+to+Offerors+11- 19-21 Section+IV+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+M+- +Evaluation+Criteria+11-19- L 8.1 MS-3 (a) M 5.1 MS-2 (a)" see 52.212-1 sec 7.1

33 Can the Government please allow smaller font in graphics, tables, charts, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. to aid in clarity of responses provided?

Section+III+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+L+- +Instruction+to+Offerors+11- 19-21 L 8.0 (c)

See 52.212-1 sec 8 para c

34 Due to page constraints within RTO #1 and RTO #2 and the comprehensive requirements in sections MS-2, MS3, and MS-4 that must be included in each Mission Suitability volume, can the Government please confirm that referencing across Volume I documents is allowable?

Section+III+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+L+- +Instruction+to+Offerors+11- 19-21 L 8.0

Referenceing across volumes is not allowable.

With the change to Sample RTOs for pricing evaluation only there should be no need to reference across Volumes now.

35 "Instructions L 8.0 (d) states, ""The offerors proposal shall be presented in four (4) separate electronic volumes.."" while the table states six electronic copies are required (three versions of Volume I [one for each SOW, RTO #1, RTO #2], one for Volume II, one for Volume III, one for Volume IV).

Can the Government please clarify whether the Volume I submission should be in a single document, consistent with the requirement for four volumes, or in three separate documents consistent with the table?"

Section+III+NEHCSS+DRF P+Section+L+- +Instruction+to+Offerors+11- 19-21 L 8.0 (d)

See Sec 52.212-1 Table III-1

36 As the first HC enterprise level contract for NASA, the stakes of selecting the right two to four vendors is critically important.

Having the non-price factors approximately equal to price may jeopardize selecting vendors that offer superior capability, especially when the price is a ceiling price and not a Task Order competition price, which would clearly be lower than the IDIQ ceiling prices. Additionally, on slide 30 of the industry day presentation it states, “Mission Suitability when combined with Past Performance, is significantly more important than Price…". As such, would the government clarify and reconcile if non-price factors (mission suitability and past performance) are significantly more important than price?

Section M Evaluation Criteria, Page 3 The Procurement strategy was approved for mission suitability and past performance when combined to be approximately equal to price.

37 Paragraph (d) states, "The Government will calculate a total price follows: IDIQ (Task Orders): – FFP and FFP-LOE. Price will be evaluated based on the sum of the labor rates proposed for each labor category multiplied by the Government estimated hours delineated in Attachment (02) using the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) rates." Tabs "IDIQ Summary" and "IDIQ Pricing Schedule" in Attachment 2 roll up all of the labor categories rates and hours for all locations. Will the government revise Attachment 2 to only include labor category rates for GSFC, as required for the total evaluated price?

Section IV, 7.0 Price Factor, pg 12

The reference to GSFC was an error and has been removed. It is intended that pricing be provided at the Center level. Please note the Price Schedule has also been revised and now combines Centers/Field Locations based upon proximity to one another.

38 To avoid the quality and and enterprise risk issues that often result from LPTA considerations, would NASA consider making non-price factors (Mission Suitability and Past Performance) significantly more important than price? Please find below sample language from a previous NASA procurement:

"The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This procurement shall be conducted utilizing a combination of mission suitability, past performance and cost/price evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award.

The Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor when combined are significantly more important than the Cost or Price factor. As individual factors, Past Performance is equal to Mission Suitability which is more important than Cost/Price.”

Section IV, Evaluation Factors, section 4.0(a) The Procurement strategy was approved for mission suitability and past performance when combined to be approximately equal to price.

39 To appropriately reflect enterprise and execution risk, would NASA consider changing the Past Performance evaluation factor to be rated with an adjectival scale?

(Currently: "Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. A proposal that receives, an unacceptable Past Performance rating will be ineligible for award.")

Section IV, Evaluation Factors, section 4.0(a)

The Procurement strategy was approved for the use of acceptable/unacceptable.

40 First Table on pg 6. Are the Approximate Center HRO Workforce numbers the contractor workforce required or are these Government HR personnel assigned to the listed NASA Centers? In other words, if you add up all the Approx Center HRO workforce, is this the total contractor workforce required annually to support the represented Centers?

Attachment 1 - SOW, pg 6. Refer to the introductory paragraph above the table for this explanation.

41 The table states a Risk Malmanagement Plan is due "at time of proposal". However, the Section L instructions do not list the requirement for a Risk Management Plan. Can the government confirm that a Risk Management Plan is due post-award during Phase-in like all the other plans?

Attachment 1 - SOW page 14, deliverable table in 4.10

Technical Approach subfactor Risk Management DRD removed

42 - For the purposes of completing Attachment 02, should offerors assume all phase-in costs are inclusive of the RTO (Attachments 11 and 12) Phase-In activities within the "Phase- In" tab or just the IDIQ Phase-in costs?

- Should offerors account for RTO Phase-In costs by inserting columns before Column D labeled "Base Period" for each of the two RTO tabs within Attachment 02 or are the RTO phase-in costs lumped together with the IDIQ phase-in costs?

Attachment 2 OCHCO Price Schedule, The solicitation will include two sample RTOs for price evaluation purposes only.

Phase in costs are at the IDIQ contract level only

43 To avoid inadvertently driving LPTA analysis, would NASA consider decreasing number of regions being considered for labor categories (LCATS) to just "Metropolitan" and "Non Metropolitan"?

Attachment 2 IDIQ Pricing Schedule Tab

NASA anticpates offerors to propose a firm fixed price labor rate per labor category per supported location identified in Attachment 02

44 Attachment 4 includes varying education/experience substitutions in the labor category descriptions. Will the Government provide a consistent approach across all labor categories for experience in lieu of education and for education in lieu of experience? We recommend the following substitution:

Bachelor’s: Associates degree plus two years’ experience or four years’ experience Master’s: Bachelor’s degree plus two years’ experience PhD/Doctorate: Master’s degree plus two years’ experience or Bachelor’s degree plus four years’ experience

Attachment 4 Labor Category Descriptions

No. The listed labor categories represent a broad range of skills, some of which require more experience in order to be the equivalent of a degree.

45 Will NASA identify the "non-exempt" LCATs that are subject to wage determination requirements?

labor category Descriptions No. NASA does not make FLSA determinations for contractors.

46 What is the historical level of effort of labor provided by the incumbent contractor(s) in the performance of the services described in RTO 2 (variously referred to as "Executive Services" and "Executive Coaching Services")?

Attachment 11 - RTO Exec Serv

Also review for responses to other "historical" data requests

OCHO is embarking on an Enterprise transformation focusing on efficiency, agility and customer service. This transformative process requires using technology innovations, re-tooling business process and the use of best practices. Concurrently, the Agency is developing a Future of Work model that is anticipated to influence how and where work would be performed. All things considered, the data available is as of the end of FY 21 and does not represent the current contractor FTEs. The government is not anticipating the number of FTEs across the IDIQ orders due to the evolving business environment.

47 This is a multiple award IDIQ. As such is this going to be the sole TO related to Exec Coaching across the IDIQ?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO

The Executive Coaching requirement is only a sample RTO for pricing evaluation purposes only. Our intent is to only have one task order for our exec coaching services; however, others may be issued over the course of the contract but that is not known at this time.

48 Is this specific RTO or similar SOW currently being executed by an Incumbent? If so, whom and what contract number(s)

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO

Yes, BetterUp is the current incumbent. Please refer to the Industry Day presentation.

49 Under Background. Can NASA define a "single-source vendor"? Does "single source vendor" mean the offeror is not permitted to use teammates and consultants in their offering?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO, pg 1

Single-source vendor means we would like a single point of contact, management, administration, and hosting of all coaching services for the organization. Whatever coordination/partnership is necessary for the vendor is not our concern.

50 Under Knowledge and Expertise, what languages should be included?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching Services RTO, pg

English is the only language that must be included. Please see the revised sample RTO.

51 To assess transition risk and additional costs in TO execution, will the government provide insight into what virtual platform, software and/or hardware are currently or historically have been used to execute coaching services.

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO

This is provided as part of the BetterUp coaching platform.

52 What is currently being used as the administrative dashboard? Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO, pg 2

This is provided as part of the BetterUp coaching platform; we do not have an internal coaching platform currently.

53 What is currently being used as the manager's dashboard that allows leaders to provide input on coaching goals and progress?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO, pg 2

This is provided as part of the BetterUp coaching platform; we do not have an internal coaching platform currently being used.

54 Under Knowledge and Expertise. Can the government clarify where the 4 out of 5 point user satisfaction rating is being derived? Is this in execution?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO, pg 3

This is in execution to ensure quality of coaches and coaching experience

55 Many of items listed under deliverables are services and/or expectations. Can the government clarify actual deliverables, frequencies?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO, pg 3

Please see the revised sample RTO.

56 In the statement, "NASA requires the support of an internal infrastructure and management tool …" Is NASA using such a tool currently/historically? If so, please list?

Attachment 11, Exec Coaching RTO, pg 3

We are not currently using a tool. Internal coaching engagements are currently tracked/managed using spreadsheets

57 There are multiple references to a "technology platform" that is described as "a virtual, technology-based environment, providing a wide-range of development options in a single environment including but not limited to:

● Individual 1-on-1 executive coaching

● Small group coaching and learning circles

● 360 Assessment mapped to the ECQs

● Access to curated materials and resources on relevant development topics

● Access to topical trainings, guided workshops, mentorship, and community groups

● On-demand coaching

● Access to specialist coaches (e.g., communication, diversity and inclusion specialists)

● Robust data analytics and data reporting capability benchmarked across Government and Industry

● Direct access to customer service and technical support teams

● NASA employees matched to coaches based upon employee learning style and needs

● AI driven program insights delivered via real-time program administrative dashboards

● Program support team to include: program deployment support, behavioral science support, NASA coach support, external coach support, and day-to-day ongoing program support"

- You noted during the Industry Day there is no software development required. Is the platform commercially available, a government furnished platform, or is it a custom developed, contractor-owned that the Government has used on a predecessor contract? Will the Government please provide the name of the platform and the appropriate ownership (commercial, government, or proprietary and to whom)? If development is required/allowed, will the government add LCATs that support software development.

Attachment 11 - RTO Exec Serv

We are currently using the technology-based environment/platform provided by BetterUp.

No, development of HC IT systems is not a requirement under this contract.

58 Can the government provide greater clarity in the example RTO concerning Level of Effort? As drafted, it is very hard to determine the LOE required to meet the government's requirements and expectations. Example given, in the requirements paragraph it says consulting services on "as-needed basis" and then later in the document the government doesn't specify the number and/or frequency of support and/or deliverables. The lack of specificity on this RTO will make conducting a trade-off analysis of price / tech approach very challenging at best.

Attachment 12, OD RTO The Organizational Development (OD) RTO under the draft RFP has been replaced with a Sample RTO for Talent Development and is for price evaluation only.

59 Please list software and hardware, to include assessment tools that are currently being used to fulfill the requirements specified in paragraphs 1 through 3

Attachment 12, OD RTO, pgs 2-3

The Organizational Development (OD) RTO under the draft RFP has been replaced with a Sample RTO for Talent Development and is for price evaluation only.

60 Attachment 12 RTO for OD 11-19-21 appears to be missing information. On pg. 3 is states, "The estimated number of consulting hours is xxxxx". On pg. 4 it states, "The Contractor shall provide assessment tools as necessary for organization development activities. Assessment tools for organization development activities shall not exceed an estimated cost of xxxxx" and states "TBD " under Period of Performance. Will the Government update to include the additional information needed to determine costs?

Attachment 12 RTO for OD 11-19-21 (pg 3) and Section III NEHCSS DRFP Section L, 8.3 a) RTOs

See response to Q. 59. The period of performance in the sample RTO for Leadership and Supervisor Development is one year from date of award.

61 The anticipated duration/period of performance of RTO 1 (variously referred to as "Learning and Talent Development" and "Enterprise Organization Development") is listed as "TBD" in Attachment 12. However, Attachment 2 includes columns for pricing a two year base period and three option years.

Please specify period of performance

Attachment 12 RTO for OD, (pg 4) and Attachment 2 OCHCO Price Schedule rev1., pg 8

See response to Q. 59. Attachment 2 has been updated to reflect the new Sample RTO with a one year period of performance.

62 As a WOSB set-aside, Offerors need to reflect workshare percentages across the team for the RTOs to ensure the SB commitments are being managed? Will the government update Section M to require staffing to show 51% committed to

WOSB?

evaluation - RTOs Yes 51% percent of the work should be completed by the Prime. RTOs are for pricing purposes only now.

63 In the industry day slides, the Government lists 8 contracts being consolidated. Is this the full and comprehensive list? If so, under which of those contracts was work performed as represented by RTO 1 and RTO 2? If not, will the Government please provide the contract number(s) for any of the predecessor contracts?

Industry Day Slides - General Refer to the Industry day slides 20.

64 Please confirm that Offerors should write to the 4 subfactors (Technical, Management, Staffing, and Phase-In) for each of SOW and RTOs.

Instructions Offerors should write to the 4 subfactors for the SOW only. The sample RTOs will be utilized for price evaluation only.

65 May the government consider allowing graphics, tables, charts, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. to be size 9 or 10 Times New Roman (or another agreeable font)?

Instructions See 52.212-1 sec 8 para c

66 Will the Government provide a Past performance questionnaire template?

Instructions PPQ Attachment 15 provided

67 For Volume III-Price the Government indicates a 30 page limit.

Please confirm that the Government will accept a written pricing narrative in addition to the Attachment 02 Price Schedule, per the Industry Day guidance.

Instructions Yes pricing narrative will be in addition to attachemnt 02 Price schedule.

See 52.212-1 Table III-1

68 The Evaluation Criteria states, "Contract Program Manager and Learning and Talent Development Program Manager (Key Personnel)."SOW section 6.1 lists just Program Manager as key personnel. Please clarify how many, the title, and qualifications of key personnel positions.

Evaluation The SOW, Section III NEHCSS DRFP 52.212-1 and Section IV NEHCSS DRFP 52.212-2 have been revised to reflect key personnel requirements.

69 Attachment 2 requests rates for all locations for the contract-level PM. However, there is only one contract-level PM. Please confirm contract-level PM means IDIQ-level. If so, will the government consider revising Attachment 2 to ask offerors to bid a single rate for the PM in an offsite location?

Attachment 2 IDIQ Pricing Schedule Tab

For each contract awarded, a Program Manager is required once a task is awarded.

70 From Section L, Section 8.4: "The Offeror shall provide a copy of its audited financial statements and accompanying notes for the last two fiscal years." Given the set-aside status of WOSB, the requirement for audited financial statements is an undue burden, as all offerors are small for-profit private companies that are not generally required to have a formal audit. Would the Government consider eliminating this requirement?

Instructions See 52.212-1 sec 7.4 (f)

71 If the Government requires financial statements, would the Government consider Unaudited financial statement or financial statements that have been reviewed by a third party, rather than Audited financial statements?

Instructions See 52.212-1 sec 7.4 (f)

72 If reviewed or audited financial statements are required, may financial statements be submitted at time of award rather than time of submission?

Instructions See 52.212-1 sec 7.4 (f)

73 Page 4 of Section IV-Evaluation states Organizational Structure falls under the Management Approach section (MS-2). However, in the Instructions (page 11) the similarly titled 'organizational structure chart' falls under the Staffing Approach section (MS-3). Further the Evaluation factors for MS-3 and MS-2 do not align with the requirements listed in the Instructions. Given the page limitation, please align Proposal Instructions with the Evaluation Factors so Offerors may correctly focus on what matters to the Government

Evaluation Updated see 52.212-1 sec 7.1

74 Under MS-2 and MS-3 section of the Instuctuctions, it reads:"The proposal must provide clearly defined management and organization processes and procedures, and quality control metrics that ensure that the Offeror can meet the stated performance objectives overall for the SOW, and for all task orders." However there are no labeled performance objectives within the SOW. May the Government specify the performance objectives to which it is referring?

Instructions Performance objectives will be established at the task level only.

75 Under SOW 4.6, the progress report is due within five business days after the end of the month. In Attachment 03, the progress report (BM-

2) is due ten calendar days following the end of each month for the first six months, and thereafter, ten calendar days following the end of each quarter to follow. Please clarify which is correct.

Attachment 1 - SOW Plese see the revisions to the SOW and Attachment 3.

76 Given the Government is not requiring WOSB prime offerors to possess the GSA MAS schedule NAICS 541612, will the Government require Prime offerors to submit their own past performance (as opposed to a subcontractor) in order to show they possess relevant capabilities and experience?

Cover Letter Past Performance proposals should be submitted from the prime offeror only.

77 May Offerors use IDIQ contract, including task orders, as a past performance? Would this count as one past performance or would each Task Order be counted as a separate past performance?

Instructions An IDIQ to include task orders should be submitted as one past performance submission.

78 May the Prime Offeror use past performances they performed as a subcontractor?

We possess significant relevant past performances in which we were a subcontractor providing all human capital enterprise services to a broader scoped contract.

Instructions Yes, this is capture in the Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 15.

79 Given the broad scope within Attachment 12 Enterprise Organization Development, Please confirm that it is the government's intent to provide Estimated consulting hours by LCAT on page 3 of attachment 12 as well as within Attachment 2 in the Enterprise Org Development RTO worksheet.

Attachment 12 Ent. Org. Dev.

RTO

See responses to Q. 47 and Q. 59.

80 On page 11 when discussing the staffing approach, the instructions state, "The Offeror’s approach shall address on-site, off-site and 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."

In attachment 2, the IDIQ includes 1 FTE for each location for each LCAT. Does this statement imply that we are to propose a staffing plan for 1,178 FTE? Is that indicative of the level of effort task orders that will post on this IDIQ? Instead, should we propose a staffing plan that shows we are able to staff each LCAT and each location, but not to the level indicated in Attachment 2 for the IDIQ evaluation purposes?

Instructions No, Attachment 02 Price Schedule (cite to tab) is for price evaluation only.

No, task orders will vary in complexity and will be competed on a firm fixed price completion basis or firm fixed price level of effort, the IDIQ contractors should propose the LCATS and labor hours necessary to complete such tasks.

Yes

81 On page 12, the instructions state that resumes will be limited to three pages and will not acount against page limits. Please confirm that this is 3 pages per each key personnel. Please confirm the number and title of key personnel at the IDIQ level and for each RTO.

resume and key personnel Yes, it is 3 pages per key personnel position. The key personnel, Section 6.0 of the SOW, has been updated to only reflect one key personnel position (Contract Program Manager). The sample RTOs are for price evaluation only.

For evaluation purposes, the key personnel is the same for both the sample RTOs and for contract award at the IDIQ level.

82 Please list the key personnel for the Coaching RTO and detail the required qualifications.

Attachment 12 Coaching RTO There are no key personnel for the sample RTOs. There is only one key personnel, the contract-level Program Manager who is effected upon the contractor's first task award.

83 Please list the key personnel for the Enterprise Organizational Development RTO and detail the required qualifications.

Attachment 12 Ent. Org. Dev.

RTO

See response to Q. 59. Revised attachment 12 does not have a key personnel requirement.

84 Page 12 Section MS-4 Phase-In plan requires development of a Phase- In plan. What phase-in activities does the government anticipate at the IDIQ level or is the request to provide a generic phase-in to show generic approach that would be customized for the task orders? Are there incumbents for the two sample RTOs and thus does the phase in require an element of a transition plan or are the RTOs new requirements?

Instructions The sample RTOs will not be awarded and are for price evaluation only. Phase- In costs should be included with each sample RTO. The Phase-In Plan narrative should address phase-in at the IDIQ level, and the required content is addressed in Attachment 3, Phase-In Plan DRD.

85 Page 12 Section 8.2 provides details on the past performance section including past performance questionnaires. It further states, "Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance of for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.” The evaluation criteria states that this section is a rated as a acceptable or unacceptable. Given that an offeror is granted an acceptable rating if they provide no past performance, should this section be removed or the criteria be changed?

Instructions Language has been updated. Please see Sec 52.212-1 para 7.2.

86 Given this RFP is not posting on the GSA MAS schedule requiring a 541612 NAICs where relevant past performance has been proven, would the government consider changing the past/fail criteria and requiring the prime to provide relevant past performance specific to the statement of work? If yes, then provide both the minumum and maximum number of relevant past performances allowed.

Instructions see 52.212-1 para 7.2

87 Page 12 of section 8.2 a) states "If the offeror has not had 5 Government contracts within the last 3 years." Please complete this sentence.

Instructions Section 52.212-1 para 7.2 has been revised

88 Page 14 Section 8.3 states, "The proposed labor categories with hours Attachment (12) represents the Government’s estimate of labor hours and labor categories for the complete solicitation requirement."

Please confirm that LCATS and estimated hours will be added to attachment 12 for the Enterprise Organizational Development RTO.

Instructions The correct attachment reference for the labor categories is Attachment 2. The offeror is responsible for determining the proposed labor mix/hours based upon the detail provided for each sample RTO.

89 Page 7 of the instructions states that the page limit for RTO #2 is a limit of 10 pages inclusive of technical approach, management approach, staffing approach, and phase-in plan. Given there are 9 possible activities to write to and three main areas, would the government consider increasing the page count?

Instructions 52.212-1 para 7.1 has been revised.

RTO #2 will be a sample RTO that does not require a technical proposal.

The offeror shall complete attachment 2 price schedule (cite tab #) for price evaluation purposes only.

90 Page 3 of the evaluation criteria states that "The Government will award three (3) to four (4) multiple award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts resulting from this solicitation."

To ensure adequate competition on Task Order, would the government consider increasing the number of anticiapted awards at the IDIQ level?

Evaluation Criteria See Sec 52.212-2 sec 4.0

91 Page 7 of Section M states that the organizational structure is evaluated in the Management Approach subfactor. Section L states that the organizational structure chart is to be included in the Staffing approach. Please align section L and section M and clarify which section is to include the organizational chart.

Evaluation Criteria review and update as needed

52.212-1 and 52.212-2 language adjusted to align on both documents.

Organizational structure will fall under the Management Approach subfactor.

92 Page 8 of Section M states that the management and organization processes and procedures is evaluated in the Management Approach subfactor. Section L states that the clearly defined management and organization processes and procedures, and quality control metrics is to be included in both the Staffing approach and Management approach. Please align section L and section M and clarify which section is to include the management and organization processes and procedures.

Evaluation Criteria review and update as needed see 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 langauge has been updated.

93 Page 8 of Section M states that the offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an approach to a commitment to diversity and inclusion. Please consider adding this criteria within Section L in the instructions for the staffing section.

Evaluation Criteria added langauge to 52.212-1

94 Section 5.3, 5.5 and 5.10: All mention aspects of training specific to those task areas. Would that be different in scope to what is described in section 5.9, Training and Talent Development?

Attachment 1 - SOW Training under Section 5.9 is specific to technical training for the overall development of employees. All other references to training are specific to the functional areas within the SOW.

95 Section 5.9: Regarding the evaluation of programs, what levels of evaluation is the Government seeking to conduct? Would those levels differ depending on the training program being developed or assessed?

Attachment 1 - SOW Using the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation, most NASA courses and classes (95%) use Level 1 Reaction which measures how participants react to the training (e.g., satisfaction). For long term or significant investment type courses/programs, the vendor would work with NASA to determine which of the other 3 levels (Level 2 Learning analyzes if they truly understood the training (e.g., increase in knowledge, skills or experience; Level 3 Behavior looks at if they are utilizing what they learned at work (e.g., change in behaviors); and Level 4 Results determines if the material had a positive impact on the mission/agency) of the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation is most appropriate.

96 Section 5.9: The SOW mentions "human capital related technology as appropriate." Has the Government identified these technologies? If proposed, how may an offeror price those tools? Or would that be specific to task order?

Attachment 1 - SOW This section has been revised to place emphasis on "existing" technology that NASA already possesses.

97 Section 5.9: Is the Government looking for asynchronous eLearning development?

Attachment 1 - SOW Where our primary focus is on synchronous online learning, meaning that participants are required to log in and participate in class at a specific time, a situation may warrant that we provide asynchronous online learning to allow participants to view instructional materials at any time they choose and does not include a live video lecture component.

98 Section 5.9: Is training development going to be focused on existing training materials? Or developing new programs?

Attachment 1 - SOW Refer to the second paragraph in this section which includes "...creating, delivering and administering of a comprehensive talent develoment and engagement program…"

99 Within Attachment 11, the Coaching & Development Services RTO, Page 2 states services provided can anticipate up to 600 concurrent 1-on-1 dedicated coaching engagements. Please confirm if this is 600 hours of coaching annually or 600 participants with about 8-12 hours of coaching per participant. How many of those coaching engagements are staffed with vendor coaches and how many by the NASA coaches?

Attachment 12 Coaching RTO

600 concurrent participants with about 8-12 hours of coaching per participant. This is a high-level estimate for us but important for the vendors to be able to scale to this level of service as we continue to see increased demand and usage of coaching across all levels of leaders. The intention here is for all 600 participnts to be coached by the vendor.

100 Within Attachment 11, the Coaching & Development Services RTO, Page 1 states, "Internal Coaching and Development Services provided by up to 50 NASA practitioners". However, page 2 states the services provided can anticipate up to 600 concurrent 1-on-1 dedicated coaching engagements, up to 300 concurrent leaders participating in small group learning cohorts, and up to 150 concurrent requests for specialized coaching. Please clarify the services to be provided by the vendor versus the services to be provided by the NASA coach practitioners. Please clarify the number of participants in the 1-on-1 dedicated coaching program annually and number of coaching hours provided to each participant, the number of small group learning cohorts and number of small group sessions. Please also clarify if the 150 concurrent requests for specialized coaching is part of the 1-on-1 dedicated coaching engagements or separate and additional. Is the on-demand coaching part of the 600 concurrent engagements or in addition to the 600?

Attachment 12 Coaching RTO Coaching services for the 600 participnts are to be provided by the vendor.

In 2021 we hosted 150 1-on-1 dedicated coaching engagements between 8-12 hours each. Each of these engagements also had access to on-demand, specialized coaching for the length of their engagement. We anticipate this number to continue to increase and need to be able to scale to 600 concurrent 1-on-1 engagements across the leadership pipeline.

We offered 150 executives the opportunity to sign-up for small group learning cohorts with approximately 6-8 sessions for each cohort. We are currently announcing for these.

The on-demand coaching/specialized coaching should be made available to leaders involved in 1-on-1 coaching engagements. The coach may be different depending on the expertise requested. For example, a leader may be in a 1-on- 1 coaching engagement with his/her primary coach and, at the same time, request an additional 1-on-1 coaching conversation with a specialized coach.

101 On page 1 within the background, the RTO states, “The need to provide a single virtual infrastructure for both internal and external coaching and development services continues to be an emerging need for the NASA. NASA prefers a single vendor to provide internal coaching and develop NASA’s internal coaches through the vendor’s program as well.” How many NASA internal coaches will the vendor be developing annually? Are there multiple platforms in use today? If yes, what are they? Please confirm the single platform needs to be developed or offered by the vendor.

Attachment 12 Coaching RTO There are approximately 35-50 internal coaches in the NASA system. The vendor should anticipate 50 for planning purposes. There is no internal platform in use today. Yes, a single, integrated platform should be provided by the vendor for both internal and external (vendor provided) coaches/coaching services.

102 Within Attachment 11, the Coaching & Development Services RTO, Page 1 states, "Internal Coaching and Development Services provided by up to 50 NASA practitioners". How many total internal coaches are currently prepared (e.g. certified, trained) to support the anticipated 600 concurrent 1-on-1 dedicated coaching engagements, up to 300 concurrent leaders participating in small group learning cohorts, and up to 150 concurrent requests for specialized coaching?

Attachment 12 Coaching RTO Revision from Exec Serv.

There are approximately 35-50 internal coaches within NASA . The vendor should anticipate 50 for planning purposes. There is no internal platform in use. Yes, a single, integrated platform should be provided by the vendor for both internal and external (vendor provided) coaches/coaching services.

103 Within Attachment 11, the Coaching & Development Services RTO on page 2 states, the services provided can anticipate for up to 150 concurrent requests for specialized coaching. Additionally, on-demand coaching (within 90 minutes) is identified as a requirement on page 3. Please confirm that these are two separate items and if so, how many on-demand coaching sessions might be anticipated.

Attachment 12 Coaching RTO Revision from Exec Serv:

Specialized coaching and on-demand coaching are two separate services.

Specialized coaching is 1:1 coaching targeted around developing a specific skillset (e.g.