Questions Draft RFP-1072022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Draft RFP - NASA Transformational Shared Services (NTSS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC22R0026
About this file
This document is a draft request for proposal for transformational shared services issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Shared Services Center. The solicitation seeks proposals to support a broad range of functional activities including financial management, human resources, procurement, intelligent automation services, and agency business services. The eight-year contract will be a single-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Proposals are due in response to a final RFP expected to be released on SAM.gov. The draft includes the model contract, performance work statement, data requirements description, performance requirements summary, and workload data. It provides labor categories, transaction and labor rate templates, and outlines small business subcontracting goals. Incumbent contractors currently support the requirements. The document requests industry feedback to enhance the final RFP.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Draft RFP - NASA Transformational Shared Services (NTSS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet3
| Number | DRFP Reference | Question | Response |
| 1 | General | Would NASA be open to an all-small Joint Venture (JV) offeror as the prime on this procurement? | Although this is a full and open competition, a small business prime or joint venture is a business decision. |
| 2 | Evaluation Factors for Award | Would NASA be open to revisiting the point allocated to Subcontracting Management and Goals in evaluation factor 1? | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 3 | General | Would NASA be open to augmenting the language regarding the small business subcontracting plan and make 38% small business participation a requirement instead of a goal? | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 4 | General | Would NASA view partnering with an HBCU as an “innovative” approach regarding diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity? | The current RFP includes a goal of 1% of total contract value to be subcontracted to HBCU’s/MI’s. |
The NTSS SEB will consider your question and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly.
| 5 | General | Will NASA confirm if an OCI plan a pre or post award requirement? | An OCI plan is required to be submitted with an offeror’s proposal. The OCI plan shall be submitted with the Model Contract. |
| 6 | General | Additional Historical Information Request: The current draft solicitation requires a contractor to provide a fixed price for service elements. Although historical data is provided on transactions, the incumbent has a significant advantage given they have data on the mix of personnel required and the degree of complexity for the transactions involved. It would significantly enhance competition and level the playing field if the mix of LCATS and WYEs that supported the historical transactions is provided. Each contractor could still provide their approach and BOE to drive efficiencies. | The historic WYE count per functional area has been posted in the Bidders Library. |
| 7 | General | Several additional documents needed to better understand the processes supporting the PWS requirements are not available. Request that the government make Service Delivery Guides, Automation Bots, and any/all other operational support documents available in a Bidder’s Library as soon as possible. | Additional background and historical information have been posted in the Bidders Library in SAM.gov with the draft RFP 80NSSC22R0026. |
| 8 | Attachment I-28 | Historical transaction data was given for a single year (or a snapshot in time). For Attachment I-28 and the calculation of “transition costs” for all 8 years of the contract period of performance, should the bidder use the fixed transaction counts for Year 1 and the successive 7 years of the contract? | This question is unclear as it relates to “transition costs”. |
| 9 | dPWS 3.8 New Business and Special Projects | With respect to proposing innovations, will the government identify any existing/ongoing innovation efforts in progress? This ensures that vendors don’t propose duplicative innovations to those already being implemented. | A list of innovations has been posted in the Bidders Library in SAM.gov with the draft RFP (80NSSC22R0026). |
| 10 | dPWS 3.3.7.5 | Relative to this PWS element, does the SP provide source evaluation board (SEB) support for Agency contracts? | There is no requirement for the NTSS SP to provide SEB support for Agency contracts. |
| 11 | Attachment I-12 | Is the Government willing to allow a trade-off of experience for education for the Procurement Specialist 3 and Procurement Specialist 4 as was done for the Functional SME positions? Same question applies to the Quality Assurance Specialist 3 and 4; all of the Training Specialists; HRIS; and Property Management personnel. | All offerors should review the note at the top of page 1 of Attachment I-12 (Labor Categories). |
| 12 | dPWS Section 3.1 | In reference to PWS Section 3.1, can the government identify NASA’s current Financial Management System or software product(s) being used, for both a custom-code solution(s) or customized COTS product(s)? | The current Financial Management Systems or software product(s) being used, for both a custom-code solution(s) or customized COTS product(s) can be found in Attachment I-25 (IT Systems and Applications). |
| 13 | dPWS Section 3.2.4 | In reference to PWS Section 3.2.4, can the government identify NASA’s current Human Capital Information System or software product(s) being used, for both a custom-code solution(s) or customized COTS product(s)? | OCHCO custom systems currently utilize ColdFusion, Ruby on Rails, and Microsoft Dot Net. The customized COTS software in use is the ServiceNow HRSD module, SAP Success Factor LMS and OrgPublisher. |
IT systems and applications are referenced in the I-25.
14 DPWS 3.10.2 and 3.10.3 Please provide historical and projected workload requirements for IAS and NEAS support. A list of automations has been posted in the Bidders Library in SAM.gov with the draft RFP (80NSSC22R0026).
The projected workload requirements for IAS and NEAS will be updated in Attachment I-21 (Workload Data).
15 Attachment I-14 (CLINs) In order for the bidders to provide rates as required in Attachment I-14, ODCs must be specified at the Service Element level. A review of other support data for building service rates, such as Service Element definitions makes no mention of the ODC requirements or estimated cost at this lower level. Will historical ODC data be provided at the Service Element level? The government will complete Attachment I-14 (CLINs) to place the annual order for FUP and LOE services.
ODC’s for FUP and LOE services will be included in the order.
Offerors are not required to complete Attachment I-14 for proposal submission.
A copy of the FY 23 order for FUP and LOE Services under NexGen Contract to reflect the number of FUP transactions along with the labor categories and labor hours for LOE services will be posted in the Bidders Library
| 16 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 11.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), page 9 | Small Business Subcontracting Plans must comply with both the RFP and the requirements at FAR 52.219-9. To show compliance with the FAR clause, this document is often more than 15 pages. To ensure that Offerors can adequately provide the appropriate level of detail in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, would NASA consider eliminating the page limit requirement? | The Instructions to Offerors has been revised to increase the page limitation regarding the small business subcontracting plan to 20 pages. |
| 17 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 11.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), Page 9 | To ensure that Offerors can adequately provide the appropriate level of detail in the OCI Plan, would NASA consider eliminating the page limit restriction? | The page limitation for the OCI Plan will remain at 15 pages. |
| 18 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 11.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), Page 9 | To ensure that Offerors can adequately depict detailed process and approach interactions, would NASA consider revising this sentence to allow graphics, tables, chart, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. to utilize ten (10)-point Times New Roman font? | The font size will remain at twelve (12) point Times New Roman for graphics, tables, chart, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. |
| 19 | Section III – Instructions to Offerors, 11.1.2 Mission Suitability Subfactor 2- Technical Approach, a) TA-1 Shared Services Administration, 5), third bullet, page 15 | The clause designates “describing ideas” in plurality. How will the Government evaluate one Offeror’s undefined number of innovative ideas against other Offerors’ submission? For instance, will one Offeror’s 10 great ideas be rated more favorably than another Offeror’s 5 great ideas? | The Government will evaluate the quality of all innovative ideas in totality regardless of quantity of ideas. |
| 20 | Section IV- Evaluation Factors for Award, 7.0 Price Factor, page 14 | As part of the price evaluation, will NASA review the staffing mix to determine if the SCA to non-SCA ratio provides the appropriate mix of skillsets to successfully complete the work outlined in the PWS? | The Offerors should propose the appropriate mix of skillsets to support their management and technical approaches. |
| 21 | Section IV- Evaluation Factors for Award, 7.0 Price Factor, Page 14 | The current hiring environment includes rising inflation, increased competitiveness in hiring qualified individuals, and differing Wage Determinations based on the physical location at the time the employee is working. For the Price Risk evaluation will NASA assess the execution risk of proposing salaries at Wage Determination minimums, as opposed to higher, more realistic salaries that are required to recruit and retain staff in the Hancock County market and other markets? | The Government will evaluate the labor rates proposed for SCA-covered labor categories to ensure compliance with the applicable DOL wage determinations. |
The Offerors may propose labor rates that exceed the DOL wage determinations as they see fit to recruit and retain the workforce necessary to deliver the NTSS requirements.
22 Attachment I-01 (PWS), 3.10.3 NASA Enterprise Automation Service, pages 87 & 88 Section 3.10.3 suggests that the work performed is directed by NEAS or NASA subject matter experts and that the automation work is strictly in the context of the in-scope services in Sections 3.1-3.9. It is not clear as to where the pipeline of work is managed or prioritized from – NEAS, NSSC, or the contractor. If this is strictly staff augmentation, is there a history of NEAS work and a future demand of work to be scoped into the staffing models to build a basis of estimate to support the work and price it accordingly to conduct a fair evaluation between Offerors? The NSSC IAS team, comprised of civil servants and contractors, manages the pipeline of automation work. In conjunction with the functional areas, automations are prioritized and developed accordingly.
Historical and projected workload requirements will be included in Attachment I-21 (Workload Data).
The list of automations has been posted to the Bidders Library.
23 Attachment I-02 (Data Requirements Description (DRD) Contract Data Requirements List, pages I-2-76 to I-2-99 11 of the 12 new DRDs for the PCard Service (LOE) require the extensive use of a series of MS Excel spreadsheets to manually collect, manage, and report information. How will NASA resolve DRD Requirements in LOE Services given that the government controls the staffing levels? There are automations currently in development that will reduce the need for manual collection, management, and reporting of PCard information.
The government will order the appropriate WYE level to perform all PWS requirements in support of the PCard Program.
| 24 | Attachment I-02 (Data Requirements Description (DRD) Contract Data Requirements List, pages I-2-76 to I-2-99 | 11 of the 12 new DRDs for the PCard Service (LOE) require the extensive use of a series of MS Excel spreadsheets to manually collect, manage, and report information. Does this group of Excel Spreadsheets represent a system of record? | The Service Provider will be responsible for collecting and managing data. Spreadsheets are currently used to manage the majority of Purchase Card data; however, the Government expects the SP to propose innovative and transformational solutions to effectively manage this data. |
| 25 | Attachment I-02 (Data Requirements Description (DRD) Contract Data Requirements List, pages I-2-76 to I-2-99 | 11 of the 12 new DRDs for the PCard Service (LOE) require the extensive use of a series of MS Excel spreadsheets to manually collect, manage, and report information. Is the NTSS Service Provider required to manually collect, manage, and report data using these Excel spreadsheets? | The Service Provider is responsible for collecting and managing data. Spreadsheets are currently used to manage the majority of Purchase Card data; however, the Government expects the offerors to propose innovative and transformational solutions to effectively manage the data. |
| 26 | Attachment I-02 (Data Requirements Description (DRD), DRD 2.5-2, page I-2-20 | DRD 2.5-2 states the following for Maintenance: “maintain in a data warehouse, dashboards, and analytics and/or other electronic repositories as agreed to with the Government.” Is it the government’s intent to provide the NTSS Service Provider administrative access to the various repositories to maintain them? | Yes. DRDs 2.5-1 and 2.5-2 will be updated and combined into one DRD. |
There is a dashboard available to provide the NTSS SP administrative access to the various repositories to maintain
| 27 | Attachment I-02 (Data Requirements Description (DRD), DRD 3.3.13-7, pages I-2-88 & I-2-89 | DRD 3.3.13-7 states the following for Description/Use: “This document is used to evaluate how many Help Desk Tickets are answered at Level 1 –vs- Level 2 and Level 3.” For the NTSS Service Provider to meet this DRD, access to Tier 1 data will be required. Will that level of administrative access be granted to the NTSS Service Provider? | The NTSS SP will not have administrative access however, they will have appropriate access to data in order to meet the requirements for DRD 3.3.13-7. |
| 28 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 11 | Two IAS Performance Measures appear to be in conflict: · 100% of initial automation solutions shall be developed within 3 business days · 100% of automation solutions shall be completed within the timeframe outlined in the complexity model Please clarify. Additionally, three (3) business days for development will drive extremely small automations and greatly reduce the value of investment. | Attachment I-3 (PRS) has been revised, and will be posted with the RFP |
Automation solutions shall be completed within the timeframe outlined in the complexity model. "Easy" projects are to be developed within 2-4 workweeks; "moderate" projects are to be developed within 4-6 workweeks; "difficult" projects are to be developed within 6-8 workweeks. This refers to the development work only.
| 29 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10, pages 11 & 12 | The 21 IAS Performance Measures will drive a waterfall approach to Innovation and Continuous Improvement. To enable growth of the NSSC’s IAS and allow for flexibility in the size and scope of the automations that are developed, these performance measures should focus on identifying and assessing business challenges well suited for automation, increasing stakeholder engagement and demand generation, increasing the impact of automations being developed and implemented, and increasing program efficiency and the customer experience. To do this, we recommend establishing metrics that align with the recommendations of the Federal RPA Community of Practice’s RPA Program Playbook (starting on page 49). | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 30 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.1.2- Accounts Receivable Debt Waiver Request, page 2 | This Service Level Indicator states: “SP has 10 business days of touch time to process Debt Waiver packages. This includes: Create Draft Debt Waiver Summary Template, obtain and upload supporting documentation to route to applicable functional area, upon receipt of completed debt waiver summary template from the functional area, combine Debt Waiver package, route to applicable functional area for review, route for approval/denial decision, and notify customer and Department of Interior of final decision.” How will touch time be measured/captured? | Touch time will be captured in Service Now by assignment group and age of task. |
See Attachment I-22 refences and I-26 Business Rules for specific debt waiver processes and rules.
31 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.1.7- Suitability (Reciprocity Packages), page 4 The Performance Measure states: “Upon notification from the Center, 98% of reciprocity actions shall be verified within current investigation systems and reciprocity packages shall be prepared and forwarded to CS within 3 business days.” Will NASA confirm that the NTSS Service Provider will receive this notification via a ServiceNow ticket or System of Record to begin work or should the NTSS Offerors approximate staffing levels needed to create their own tickets? Yes, ServiceNow tickets are generated from system of record.
Performance Measures are calculated in ServiceNow based on the processes set forth in the Service Delivery Guide.
32 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.1.8- Suitability (Employee Investigations Initiated Due to a Change in Risk Level), page 5 The Performance Measure states: “98%of Investigations shall be initiated within 14 Calendar days of notification to NSSC by the center of an employee or appointee who experiences a change to a new position.” Will NASA confirm that the NTSS Service Provider will receive this notification via a ServiceNow ticket or System of Record to begin work or should the NTSS Offerors approximate staffing levels needed to create their own tickets? ServiceNow tickets are generated from system of record.
Performance Measures are calculated in ServiceNow based on the processes set forth in the Service Delivery Guide.
33 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.5.2- Personnel Action Request, page 5 The Service Level Indicator states: “97% of personnel transactions and service requests that are received by the NSSC by the established dead line shall be processed within 5 business days from the effective dates.” Will NASA confirm that the NTSS Service Provider will receive this notification via a ServiceNow ticket or System of Record to begin work or should the NTSS Offerors approximate staffing levels needed to create their own tickets? ServiceNow tickets are generated from system of record.
Performance Measures are calculated in ServiceNow based on the processes set forth in the Service Delivery Guide.
34 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.5.2- Personnel Action Request, page 5 The Service Level Indicator states: “97% of personnel transactions and service requests that are received by the NSSC by the established deadline shall be processed within 5 business days from the effective dates.” Because ESD/CCC is going to be a separate contract, the Level 1 and Level 2 Service Providers will need separate metrics so that both can be measured accurately and independently. Separate Performance Measures will be established for each contract.
The SLI for NTSS will focus on receipt of the ServiceNow HRSD Case ticket from the ESD/CCC.
35 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.5.2- Personnel Action Request, page 5 The Service Level Indicator states: “97% of personnel corrections and cancellation transactions that are received with all documentation by the NSSC shall be processed within 2 pay periods.” Because ESD/CCC is going to be a separate contract, the Level 1 and Level 2 Service Providers will need separate metrics so that both can be measured accurately and independently. Separate Performance Measures will be established for each contract.
The SLI for NTSS will focus on receipt of the ServiceNow HRSD Case ticket from the ESD/CCC.
| 36 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.13.1- Off-site Training Purchases (information data requests), page 6 | The Performance Measure states: “90% of completed Information Data Requests (IDR Form 0063) received at the NSSC shall be forwarded to NSSC Financial Management Division within 3 business days.” This ticket would go directly from Level 1 to Level 3. We recommend removing this metric from the NTSS contract. | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 37 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.2.13.1- Off-site Training Purchases (information data requests), page 6 | The Performance Measure states: “90% of completed Information Data Requests (IDR Form 0063) received at the NSSC shall be forwarded to NSSC Financial Management Division within 3 business days.” If this metric is kept (see #39), will NASA confirm that the NTSS Service Provider will receive this notification via a ServiceNow ticket or System of Record to begin work or should the NTSS Offerors approximate staffing levels needed to create their own tickets? | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 38 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 11 | The Performance Measure states: “100% of final testing results shall meet the design specifications, operating as intended, and accepted by the customer within 2 business days.” Since this is a Performance Measure (not SLI), how will the NTSS Service Provider meet this metric when the Service Provider has no control over customer timelines? | Attachment I-03 (PRS) Section 3.10.2 has been revised. |
| 39 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 11 | The Service Level Indicator states: “100% of deployed automations shall be updated and shall be fixed within 1 business day or as otherwise outlined in the SLA/SPWI for the process.” Will the SLA/SPWI be provided? | Although “SPWI” was not found in the RFP, the SLA and/or APWI is generated when automations are developed and deployed. |
NTSS Service Provider will have access to prior copies upon contract award.
40 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 11 The Service Level Indicator states: “100% of deployed automations shall be updated and shall be fixed within 1 business day or as otherwise outlined in the SLA/SPWI for the process.” To meet this SLI the NTSS Service Provider will need a large staff of developers fully knowledgeable on the implemented automations. Because underlying technologies are controlled outside of the NTSS contract, significant staff would be necessary to meet a 1 business day deadline. For instance, an SAP update could impact multiple automations at once requiring a significant level of effort by multiple staff members and other Service Providers to fix in 1 business day. Attachment I-03 (PRS) Section 3.10.2 has been revised.
Historically, most automation incidents have been able to be rectified within 1 business day. Larger scale outages are categorized as problems and may not need to abide by the 1 business day deadline. Other exceptions may apply.
The term “SPWI” cannot be found in the RFP.
41 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 12 The Performance Measure states: “98% of licenses, applications, tools, roles and waivers shall be updated once per week.” It is our understanding that licenses, applications, tools, roles, and waivers will be the responsibility of the NCAPS Service Provider. We recommend removal of this Performance Measure. Pursuant to PWS 3.10.2 and 3.10.3, IAS has the responsibility to maintain the digital workforce, which will include licenses, applications, tools, roles, and waivers.
Additionally, Attachment I-03 (PRS) Sections 3.10.2 and 3.10.3 have been revised.
42 Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 12 The Performance Measure states: “98% of licenses, applications, tools, roles and waivers shall be accurately documented. The Surveillance Method is “Compare the tracker against Orchestrator and other tools.” If this metric is kept (see #41), please confirm a separate tracking tool is used to validate Orchestrator and other tools. The tracking tool is an internal document to keep the IAS team organized with regard to licenses, applications, tools, roles and waivers.
The government expects the Orchestrator and “other tools” will validate the tracker (or real-time dashboard).
The offerors may propose a new way to track these items.
| 43 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 12 | The Performance Measure states: “98% of software shall be up-to-date prior to the patching schedule (Note that some waivers will apply) Monitor SN patches that have been deployed” It is our understanding that software will be the responsibility of the NCAPS Service Provider. We recommend removal of this Performance Measure. | Attachment I-3 (PRS) has been revised accordingly to reflect the coordination between the NTSS Contractor and the Enterprise IT Services Contractor responsible for patching systems prior to the patching schedule. |
| 44 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.10.2- IAS Support, page 12 | The Performance Measure states: “98% of the metrics dashboard shall reflect accurate and up-to-date data.” It is our understanding that the NCAPS Service Provider will be responsible for the maintenance of the dashboard software. We recommend removal of this Performance Measure. | The NTSS SP will be responsible for accurate and up to date data for the dashboard. |
| 45 | Attachment I-17 (Service Definitions) | There are no service definitions for PWS Sections 3.9 and 3.10. Will the Government be providing the missing definition in the final version of this document? | Service definitions are for fixed unit price services only. |
PWS in 3.9 and 3.10 are LOE.
| 46 | Attachment I-17 (Service Definitions) | Attachment I-17 (Service Definitions) has one reference to automation in a specific service, most prominently in 3.1.5.1 Domestic Travel Disbursement Services: “Historically, the majority of this process is performed by an automation. The transaction cost includes the maintenance of the automation.” Please confirm existing automation maintenance costs should be included in level of effort. | The government will be responsible for the maintenance of the automations. |
| 47 | Attachment I-20 (Definitions), page 1 | On page 1 of Attachment I-20, "accurate” is defined as: “100% error free.” Perfection is extremely rare for work performed by human beings and meeting this accuracy rate will increase cost due to the need for a higher skillset, more time per transaction, and more resources to offset more time per transaction. We recommend this be changed to 97% for performance measurements. | Accuracy is defined as 100% error free. |
The NTSS SEB will consider your additional recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly.
48 Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) Does NASA plan to address material differences in billable to non-billable ratio of work against the Utilization Required to Use for RFP Purposes Per Year by annually adjusting the price of FUP services? Offeror are expected to propose a firm fixed price for each FUP service inclusive of all secondary tasks.
Each FUP service is unique and may contain a different number of secondary tasks.
| 49 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) | Attachment I-21 makes clear that services include both “component” tasks which can be charged for, and “secondary” tasks which cannot be charged for. The actual cost per transaction will depend on the number of secondary tasks required for each service; however, it appears that there is no limit on the number of secondary tasks that could be requested. We recommend that NASA include in each service definition an upper limit on the number and kind of secondary tasks that can be requested for each component task. | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 50 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), pages 3, 26 | Attachment I-21 includes historical service counts with detailed information for each service by fiscal year, and then a final summary which shows the breakdown of FY21 by month. However, these numbers don’t match. For instance, on page 26 of the attachment, it states an FY21 total of 70,917 for Accounts Payable. However, on page 3 Accounts Payable shows an FY21 count of 84,124, with none of the subcomponents matching the number shown in the later table. Please explain the discrepancy. | An updated Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) will be posted with the RFP. |
| 51 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), page 3 | Attachment I-21 explains that “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service.” For some services, however, the sum of the individual components does not match the total. For instance, for Accounts Payable, the Components for RFP utilization add up to 80,504, however the total is listed as 87,566. Are there additional Components not represented in this attachment that are included in the total numbers? | An updated Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) will be posted with the RFP. |
| 52 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 2.6- Innovation and Continuous Improvement, page 2 | Attachment I-21 specifies workload data for PWS 2.6 - Innovation and Continuous Improvement. Should this workload data be associated with PWS 3.10.1 - Innovation and Continuous Improvement? | An update has been made to move the workload data from PWS 2.6 to PWS 3.10. Attachment I-21 has been updated accordingly. |
| 53 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 2.27- Audio/Visual Support, page 2 | Audio/Visual Support is not described in PWS. Please add the description into PWS. | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) has been revised to remove audio visual support. |
| 54 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.1.1- Accounts Payable page 3 | Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.1.1- Accounts Payable, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? | An updated Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) will be posted with the RFP. |
| 55 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.1.2- Accounts Receivable, pages 3-5 | Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.1.2- Accounts Receivable, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? | An updated Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) will be posted with the RFP. |
| 56 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.2.1.1- Drug Testing Administration, page 10 | Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.2.1.1- Drug Testing Administration, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? | Yes, the sum of the component tasks equals the billable utilization. |
Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) has been revised and will be posted with the RFP.
57 Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.2.1.4.1- Administrative Support for Agency Awards Program, page 11 Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.2.1.4.1- Administrative Support for Agency Awards Program, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? Yes, the sum of the component tasks equals the billable utilization.
All workload for 3.2.1.4.1 has been moved 3.2.1.4.
3.2.1.4.1 has been removed from Attachment I-21.
Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) has been revised and will be posted with the RFP.
58 Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.2.3.1- Benefits Counseling and Processing, page 11 Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.2.3.1- Benefits Counseling and Processing, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? Yes, the sum of the component tasks equals the billable utilization.
Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) has been revised and will be posted with the RFP.
59 Attachment I-21(Workload Data), 3.2.3.1- Benefits Counseling and Processing, page 11 For 3.2.3.1- Benefits Counseling and Processing, how many inquiries/counseling sessions and average length of session should be used for proposal/pricing purposes? I-21 Workload Data provides the number of inquiries/counseling sessions for the last three years.
Historically, inquiry and counseling sessions average 10 minutes per transaction and often result in a component transaction.
| 60 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.2.3.2- Retirements Counseling and Processing, page 11 | Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.2.3.2- Retirements Counseling and Processing, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? | Yes, the sum of the component tasks equals the billable utilization. |
| 61 | Attachment I-21(Workload Data), 3.2.3.2- Retirement Counseling and Processing, pages 11 | For 3.2.3.2- Retirement Counseling and Processing, how many inquiries/counseling sessions and average length of session should be used for proposal/pricing purposes? | Historically, inquiry sessions average 15 minutes. |
| 62 | Attachment I-21(Workload Data), 3.2.3.2- Retirement Counseling and Processing, pages 11 | For 3.2.3.2- Retirement Counseling and Processing, recognizing that the duration of counseling sessions can vary greatly due to the nature of the service, we recommend counseling sessions be level of effort to ensure customers receive the attention needed without concern for handle time. | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 63 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.2.5.1- Maintenance of Official Employee and Performance Records, pages 12 & 13 | Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.2.5.1- Maintenance of Official Employee and Performance Records, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? | Yes, the sum of the component tasks equals the billable utilization. |
Attachment I-21 (Workload Data) has been revised and will be posted with the RFP.
| 64 | Attachment I-21 (Workload Data), 3.2.22.4- Internal (on-site) Training Purchases Greater Than $25K, page 16 | Page 1 of Attachment I-21 states: “A component action is an action that rolls into the totals provided in the billable transaction for a service. Components may represent a variety in the type of billable transaction or an additional requirement for a portion of the billable transactions. A secondary action is work critical to providing a service that does not result in a billable transaction.” For 3.2.22.4- Internal (on-site) Training Purchases Greater Than $25K, should the sum of the component tasks equal the billable utilization? | PWS Section 3.2.22.4 has been removed from all Attachments. |
| 65 | Section III, 11.1.3.b.1.ii, Pg 19 | Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) / Minority Institutions – Which colleges/universities / minority institutions are you currently working with on the current NSSC contract and where are they currently performing and to what capacity? | There are no HBCU/MIs performing on the NSSC NexGen contract. |
| 66 | Section III, 11.2.b | Given the importance of Human Resources in this draft solicitation, would NSSC be willing to give greater weight to Human Resources content in past performance relevancy? | No. Relevancy for past performance applies to all areas of the PWS. |
| 67 | Att. 1, PWS, 2.2 – Records, Documents & Forms Management | Is there a current Electronic Document management system that is in place, or will a new system be deployed within this PWS? | There is an electronic document management system in place. |
| 68 | Att. 1, PWS, 2.5 – Workload Data Report /Performance Metrics | An internally developed system is mentioned for Invoice Validation. Will the SP have access to this tool, and will there be training provided? | The invoice validation tool is a government tool that is managed and maintained by the government. The SP may be granted access to the invoice validation tool and training will be provided if such access will be granted. |
| 69 | Att. 1, PWS, 2.5 – Workload Data Report /Performance Metrics | An internally developed system is mentioned for Invoice Validation. Will the SP be required to maintain this internally developed tool? | No, this is a government tool and it is managed and maintained at that level. The requirement is for information needed to update the tool. SP's are not expected to manage/maintain. |
| 70 | Att. 1, PWS, 2.19 – Property & Asset Management | Regarding the Property Management Plan (PMP) and IT Seats & System Hardware Asset Plan: What software is being used for this work? | The system is called Equiptment (formerly Nprop). |
| 71 | Att. 1, PWS, 2.21 – Customer Relationship Management Support | The listed work consists of Writing, Editing, video, graphics, printing, and newsletter support. Will there be software / hardware provided for this work? | The government will provide software licenses for Microsoft Office Suite and Adobe Creative Cloud. There is also an onsite, government owned Plotter that can be used for printing and visual material. |
| 72 | General – Time-to-Hire | One of the core requirements in the Human Resources section of the PWS is the critical function of recruitment and hiring. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has a long-established benchmark for an 80-day “time-to-hire” process. Can NASA share with us performance in this key processing indicator over the last three fiscal years? | NASA transitioned to USA Staffing in FY21. The average time to hire since this transition is 94 days in FY21 and 85 days in FY22. |
| 73 | General | Why does the government contend that a single-award contract for a broad, eight-year contract represents the “best value to the government” rather than a multiple-award IDIQ that fosters ongoing competition? | Based on market research and inquires with industry, NASA decided to solicit the NTSS requirement as a single award IDIQ. The Acquisition strategy will remain unchanged. |
| 74 | General | Will the government please clarify the expectation for onsite delivery, including number of days on site for contractors, support for fully remote delivery, and use of collaboration tools? | A vast majority of services may be performed by the service provider remotely. |
Onsite presence may be required of all service providers for specific events.
| 75 | Attachments I-3, I-21 | Will the government please provide the number of current contractor FTEs supporting each type of transaction identified in the Performance Requirements Summary and the Workload Data attachments? | The government will provide the current WYE count at the functional area level. (e.g., Finance, HR, Procurement, etc.) Specific WYE breakout by the PRS and workload data attachments is proprietary to the incumbent contractor. |
| 76 | Evaluation Criteria Table IV-1 | Why did the government choose to establish Classifications of Findings which are not in the FAR or NFS, and which therefore do not have objective definitions, usage, and standards? | The definitions of a significant strength and strength are suggested definitions as provided in the NASA Source Selection Guide (Dec 2020) |
| 77 | Industry Day Question | If NASA sees there are multiple qualified small businesses after Industry Day would you consider making this procurement a small business set aside? | Based on market research and inquires with industry, NASA decided to solicit the NTSS requirement as full and open competition. The Acquisition strategy will remain unchanged. |
Small businesses are encouraged to submit a proposal, so long as the proposal meets all RFP requirements.
78 Industry Day Question I just want to clarify a statement by Kenneth Newton. He stated that 98% of the services are now virtual. Is that true with regards to the contracted workforce? Prior to the 2019 Covid Pandemic a vast majority of SPs performed their work onsite with limited telework opportunities.
During and post pandemic a vast majority of the contractor workforce has worked remotely.
| 79 | Industry Day Question | Will the government consider requiring the facilities clearance at the Task Order level? | The facilities clearance is required at the contract level. |
| 80 | Industry Day Question | Would the government consider replacing the secret facility level clearance with a Data Governance / Data Use Agreement? | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 81 | Industry Day Question | Would the government please clarify the FAR requirement for incumbent contractors? Is there an incumbent on this contract? | Currently there is no FAR requirement for retention of incumbent employees. |
The offerors proposals will be evaluated on incumbent capture as it relates to its staffing approach to ensure continuity of service delivery.
GDIT is the incumbent contractor under contract NNX16MA01B.
| 82 | Industry Day Question | Has the government considered awarding a multiple award IDIQ in place of a single award to ensure fair competition and best value to the government? | Based on market research and inquires with industry, NASA decided to solicit the NTSS requirement as a single award IDIQ. The Acquisition strategy will remain unchanged. |
| 83 | Industry Day Question | Will NTSS contracting officer publish the Industry Day attendee list? | NASA has published a list of interested parties to facilitate potential subcontracting opportunities and teaming arrangements. For the interested parties that indicated their information should not be provided have been excluded from the list of Industry Day attendees. |
| 84 | Industry Day Question | What are the small business goals? What is the break down by socioeconomic groups for percentage and dollar goals? | The Small Business goals are identified in Section III, Instructions to Offerors 11.1.3 Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 – Subcontracting Management and Goals. |
| 85 | Industry Day Question | Given that the past performance is due 2 weeks before the other volumes, will NASA let the bidders know if they will continue in the competition? Will past performance serve as a gate for the procurement? | The past performance evaluation will not serve as a gate for the Procurement. |
86 Industry Day Question Are subcontractors allowed to submit proposals? No – only the prime offeror whether a large or small business should submit a proposal.
For past performance, the prime offeror may include performance of a subcontractor provided that work was performed as a prime contractor.
| 87 | Industry Day Question | How will the main contractor connect with sub contractors that may be interested? | NASA has published a list of interested parties to facilitate potential subcontracting opportunities and teaming arrangements. |
| 88 | Industry Day Question | Is there a way to connect with sub contractors in attendance of this event? Networking? | NASA has published a list of interested parties to facilitate potential subcontracting opportunities and teaming arrangements. |
| 89 | Industry Day Question | Is there a current need for staffing placement services? | No. |
| 90 | Industry Day Question | Will you consider a contractor providing staffing services only? | The NTSS SEB will consider your recommendation and if accepted, will update the RFP accordingly. |
| 91 | Industry Day Question | When a contractor submits a proposal to provide staffing services, what exactly would you like to see in that particular proposal relevant to those services? | The offerors proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP. |
https://digital.gov/pdf/rpa-playbook.pdf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .