The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Sheet1
| Number | RFP Reference | Question | Response | Posted with Amendment # |
| 1 | Section III, Page 24, 10.3 (c) Financial Capability | We are a large business and we are not a publicly traded company. We have no requirement for audited financial statements. We do have reviewed financial statements through 2021. We also have a DCAA approved accounting system and DCAA approved final indirect rates through December 2021. Will the Government allow reviewed financial statements from an outside accounting for other than Small Businesses? With proof of DCAA Accounting System approval? | Pursuant to Section III, Financial Capability (P-1B),"... the Offeror shall provide a copy of its audited financial statements and accompanying notes for the last two (2) fiscal years. In addition, the Offeror shall provide information documenting the amount of established and/or available credit, the financial institution extending the line and the dollar amount (if any) presently in use." | |
| Any additional information is at the Offeror's discretion. | Amendment 00001 | | |
| 2 | Section III Instruction to Offerors, Section 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions, 10.b, paragraph 3 | In paragraph 3 of Section 10.b it states ". . .Twelve (12)-point Times New Roman font shall be utilized for all standard text with normal kerning (spacing between individual characters). All graphics, tables, charts, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. shall be twelve (12)-point Times New Roman font." |
| For identification text, disclosure, page numbers, and date in the headers and footers areas of a page, may we use a reduced font of 9-point Times New Roman | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation, and the font size will remain unchanged. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 3 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Section 3.9..2.B, page 88 | PWS 3.9.2.B refers to DRD 3.9.2-2 for Monthly Utilization and Billing Report deliverable. In Attachment I-02, the correct Billing Report deliverable is DRD 3.9.2-1. | Attachment I-01 (PWS), PWS 3.9.2.B, DRD reference has been updated from DRD 3.9.2-2 to DRD 3.9.2-1 | Amendment 00001 |
| 4 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Section 3.9..2.B, page 88 | PWS 3.9.2.B refers to DRD 3.9.2-5 for the Financial Status Report deliverable. Attachment I-02 only has 4 DRDs for 3.9.2 and the correct DRD reference is 3.9.2.4. | Attachment I-01 (PWS), PWS 3.9.2.B, DRD reference has been updated from DRD 3.9.2-5 to DRD 3.9.2-4 | Amendment 00001 |
| 5 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Section 3.9..2.J, page 89 | PWS 3.9.2.J refers to DRD 3.9.2-4 for the Economic Impact Report deliverable. According to Attachment I-02, the correct DRD reference is 3.9.2.3. | Attachment I-01 (PWS), PWS 3.9.2.J, DRD reference has been updated from DRD 3.9.2-4 to DRD 3.9.2-3 | Amendment 00001 |
| 6 | Section III - Instructions to Offerors.pdf, Section 10.1.1.b.3, pages 11-12 | Commitment from Key Personnel for 8 years does not account for real world considerations such as known underlying medical conditions, Near-term retirement (5-ish years away) whom could still provide the best leadership during transition and initial years of execution, etc. | Section I, Model Contract clause 6.7 1852.235-71(a) Key Personnel describes the process for removing, replacing or diverting any key personnel. | Amendment 00001 |
| 7 | Section III - Instructions to Offerors.pdf, Section 10.1.1.b.3, pages 11 | Will the government consider removing the requirement that Letters of Intent for Key Personnel not be included in page count (this would take 5-6 pages rather than providing valuable staffing information for evaluation. | Section III, Instructions to Offerors, TABLE III- 1 PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, has been updated to exclude "signed letters of intent from all proposed Key Personnel" from the 125 page count | Amendment 00001 |
| 8 | Section III - Instructions to Offerors.pdf, Section 10.1.1.b.3, pages 11 | With respect to the current and future HubZone requirement and the hiring incumbent, has the government considered the impacts on Hubzone contracts that hire those incumbents if the incumbent employees do not live in a HubZone and those HubZone companies being able to recertify in the future? | The government realizes the HubZone certifications and eligibility are evolving, however, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure their company meets the SBA requirements for HubZone eligibility for certification. | Amendment 00001 |
| 9 | Section I Model Contract.pdf, 6.5 1852.209-71 LIMITATION OF FUTURE CONTRACTING (c) | For OCI, limitations for personnel working on the contract, does limit for supporting BD, Capture, or proposal for any NASA opportunity end when that person no longer supports the contract or does it extend throughout the PoP. Suggest 12 month limit. | Section I Model Contract.pdf, 6.5 1852.209-71 LIMITATION OF FUTURE CONTRACTING paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) have been replaced in their entirety. | Amendment 00001 |
| 10 | WYE NNX16MA01B.PDF | Would the customer please provide how many personnel are located at each site for transition? | This question is unclear, please clarify. | Amendment 00001 |
| 11 | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template), “Burdened Labor Rate Summary” tab | The “Burdened Labor Rate Summary” tab does not allow Offerors to differentiate rates between the prime contractor and any subcontractors. Since we are to show only one rate, does NASA expect the rates that are only subcontractors to just be a FBLR to include profit? The Base rate and Indirect Rates would be considered proprietary to the subcontractor and will not be shown in the Prime workbook? How does NASA want this information shown on this Tab? Should we have the Subcontractor FBLR rate as the Direct Rate and add any Prime Pass through in the indirect column? | NASA expects one rate per labor category. | Amendment 00001 |
| 12 | Section IV - Evaluation Factors for Award.PDF, Section 5.2(b)(1) TA-2: Financial Management Services , pages 8 | This paragraph asks the Offeror to "demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use various major systems used by NASA." During the 10/25 call with Industry the Contracting Officer stated that the government had removed the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of NASA . | The RFP states "Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS Financial Management Services." | |
A requirement still exists to demonstrate knowledge of and capability to use various major system reference in Attachment I-25 in the performance of the NTSS PWS requirements.
| The RFP removed the evaluation factor for offerors to provide experience in performing NSSC requirements as stated in the draft RFP. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 13 | Section IV - Evaluation Factors for Award.PDF, Section 5.2(c)(1) TA-3: Human Resource Services , page 9 | This paragraph asks the Offeror to "demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use various major systems used by NASA." During the 10/25 call with Industry the Contracting Officer stated that the government had removed the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of NASA . | The RFP states "Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS Human Resource Services." |
A requirement still exists to demonstrate knowledge of and capability to use various major system reference in Attachment I-25 in the performance of the NTSS PWS requirements.
| The RFP removed the evaluation factor for offerors to provide experience in performing NSSC requirements as stated in the draft RFP. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 14 | Section IV - Evaluation Factors for Award.PDF, Section 5.2(d) (1) TA-4: Procurement Services, pages | This paragraph asks the Offeror to "demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use various major systems used by NASA." During the 10/25 call with Industry the Contracting Officer stated that the government had removed the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of NASA . | The RFP states "Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS Procurement Services." |
A requirement still exists to demonstrate knowledge of and capability to use various major system reference in Attachment I-25 in the performance of the NTSS PWS requirements.
| The RFP removed the evaluation factor for offerors to provide experience in performing NSSC requirements. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 15 | Section IV - Evaluation Factors for Award.PDF, Section 5.2(e)(1) TA-5: Agency Business Services , page 9 | This paragraph asks the Offeror to "demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use various major systems used by NASA." During the 10/25 call with Industry the Contracting Officer stated that the government had removed the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of NASA . | The RFP states "Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS Agency Business Services." |
A requirement still exists to demonstrate knowledge of and capability to use various major system reference in Attachment I-25 in the performance of the NTSS PWS requirements.
| The RFP removed the evaluation factor for offerors to provide experience in performing NSSC requirements as stated in the draft RFP. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 16 | Section IV - Evaluation Factors for Award.PDF, Section 5.2(3)(1), page 9 | This paragraph asks the Offeror to "demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use various major systems used by NASA." During the 10/25 call with Industry the Contracting Officer stated that the government had removed the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of NASA systems. | Regarding Section 5.2(f)(1) (vice "Section 5.2(3)(1)"), the RFP states "Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS Enterprise Services." |
A requirement still exists to demonstrate knowledge of and capability to use various major system reference in Attachment I-25 in the performance of the NTSS PWS requirements.
| The RFP removed the evaluation factor for offerors to provide experience in performing NSSC requirements as stated in the draft RFP. | Amendment 00001 | | | | |
| 17 | WYE NNX16MA01B.PDF | The NNX16MA01B - NSSC NexGen WYE summary for FM has a total of 59 WYE. Does that number include WYE support to Internal Controls (NexGen PWS 3.1.7) that is provided under the NexGen contract? | NTSS PWS 3.1.7 has been marked "Reserved" as Internal Controls is not a requirement under NTSS. | Amendment 00001 |
| 18 | NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.XLSX | The Bidders Guide LOE information includes 5,700 hours (3 WYE) for Internal Controls (NexGen PWS 3.1.7) support under the NexGen contract. The NTSS PWS does not include 3.1.7. Is Internal Controls support still needed under NTSS? Has that support been realigned to other PWS? | NTSS PWS 3.1.7 has been marked "Reserved" as Internal Controls is not a requirement under NTSS. | Amendment 00001 |
| 19 | WYE NNX16MA01B.PDF | The NNX16MA01B - NSSC NexGen WYE summary for HR has a total of 116 WYE. Does that number include WYE support to HR Administration (NexGen PWS 3.2.16.2) that is provided under the NexGen contract? | NTSS requirements are different than NexGen requirements. | |
| Please clarify your question as it applies to NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 20 | WYE NNX16MA01B.PDF | The NNX16MA01B - NSSC NexGen WYE summary for HR has a total of 116 WYE. Does that number include WYE support to Training Data Entry and Administration (NexGen PWS 3.2.2.1) that is provided under the under the NexGen contract? | NTSS requirements are different than NexGen requirements. |
| Please clarify your question as it applies to NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | | | | |
| 21 | NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.XLSX | The Bidders Guide LOE information includes 5,700 hours (3 WYE) for Internal Controls (NexGen PWS 3.1.7) support under the NexGen contract. The NTSS PWS does not include 3.1.7. Is Internal Controls support still needed under NTSS? Has that support been realigned to other PWS? | NTSS PWS 3.1.7 has been marked "Reserved" as Internal Controls is not a requirement under NTSS. | Amendment 00001 |
| 22 | NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.XLSX | The Bidders Guide LOE information includes 15,200 hours (8 WYE) for HR Administration (NexGen PWS 3.2.16.2) support under the NexGen contract. The NTSS PWS does not include PWS 3.2.16.2. Is HR Administration support still needed under NTSS? Has that support been realigned to other PWS? | HR Administration is a requirement under NTSS PWS 3.2.5.2 and 3.2.16. | Amendment 00001 |
| 23 | NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.XLSX | The Bidders Guide LOE information includes 36,100 hours (19 WYE) for Training Data Entry and Administration (NexGen PWS 3.2.2.1) support under the NexGen contract. The NTSS PWS does not include PWS 3.2.2.1. Is Training Data Entry and Administration support still needed under NTSS? Has that support been realigned to other PWS? | Training Administration is a requirement under NTSS PWS 3.2.22.2, 3.2.22.3, and 3.2.22.4. | Amendment 00001 |
| 24 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Sections 3.1-3.3, pages 24-84 | Within the PWS there are several section that identify the civil servant to contractor ratio for a specific PWS element. However, this ratio is not defined for many PWS sections. Will the government provide a complete list of ratios for the entire PWS? | The civil servant to contractor ratios are only provided when the civil servant and contractor perform the same requirements per the NTSS PWS. | |
| The only NTSS PWS requirements that provide a ratio of civil servant and SP employees are NTSS PWS 3.2.5.2 (Personnel Action Request) and NTSS PWS 3.2.16 (Staffing). | Amendment 00001 | | |
| 25 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 2.6.1 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Innovation and CI Support". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | The LOE for Innovation and CI Support is mapped to NTSS PWS 3.10.1 in Attachment I-28. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 26 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 2.20 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Mail Handling/Distribution". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | "Mail Handling/Distribution" is not a requirement for NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 27 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.1.1.1 Accounts Payable (AP Escalation) ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Escalation for Accounts Payable is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.1.1 paragraph KK. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 28 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.1.4.1 Funds Balance with Treasury Escalation". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Funds Balance with Treasury Escalation is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.1.4 paragraph I. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 29 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.1.7 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Internal Controls". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | NTSS PWS 3.1.7 has been marked "Reserved" as Internal Controls is not a requirement under NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 30 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.2.1.6 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Development of Information Materials". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Development of Information Materials is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.2.21.2. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 31 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.2.2 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Formerly Employee Development and Training". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Employee Development and Training is a requirement under NTSS PWS 3.2.22.2, 3.2.22.3, 3.2.22.4, and 3.2.21.4. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 32 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.2.3.7 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Workers Compensation". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Workers Compensation is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.2.20. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 33 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.2.12 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "On Line Course Management". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. This function seems to have moved to 3.2.22.1. Please verify. | Online Course Management is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.2.22.1. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 34 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.2.19 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Presidential Rank Awards". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Presidential Rank Award Support is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.2.23.3. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 35 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.3.7.1 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Agency Contracting Awards". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Agency Contracting is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.3.7.5. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 36 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 3.3.7.2 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Agency Contracting Administration". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Agency Contracting is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.3.7.5. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 37 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
PWS 3.3.12 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Simplified Acquisitions". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. Simplified Acquisitions is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.3.15.
| All PWS requirements for Simplified Acquisitions shall be included in the Fixed Unit Price. | Amendment 00001 | | |
| 38 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
In the PWS 3.4 NTSS IT Support was added to the RFP , however there are no tabs in Attachment I-28 for entering that cost. Is this correct? Also NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx has 3.4 entries for LOE hrs - are those hours still correct? The language in PWS 3.4 NTSS IT Support was added to ensure IT support was in scope of the NTSS PWS.
| All IT support will be order under NTSS PWS 3.8 New Business and Special Projects. | Amendment 00001 | | |
| 39 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| PWS 2.20 shows “Reserved” but NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows "Mail Handling/Distribution". There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | "Mail Handling/Distribution" is not a requirement for NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 40 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.2.14.3 HR Payroll Services ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. HR Payroll Services is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.2.14.
| All PWS requirements for HR Payroll Services shall be included in the Fixed Unit Price. | Amendment 00001 | | |
| 41 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.2.16.1 HR Staffing ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | HR Staffing is a requirement under NTSS PWS Section 3.2.16. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 42 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.2.16.2 HR Administration ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | HR Administration is a requirement under NTSS PWS 3.2.5.2 and 3.2.16. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 43 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.7.3.4.2 OCSS ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | OCSS was a special project under NexGen and is not a requirement under NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 44 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.7.3.4.3 Legacy Case Support ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Legacy Case Support was a special project under NexGen and is not a requirement under NTSS. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 45 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There appears to be some inconsistencies in the RFP relative to how elements are mapped across the 3 documents - the PWS, Attachment I-28, and NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services files. Specific examples include: |
| NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx shows “3.8.6.1 Intelligent Automation ”. There is also no entry in the Attachment I-28 workbook for this element. This inconsistency may affect costing efforts. Please provide guidance as to what is the correct reference to use. | Intelligent Automation is a requirement under NTSS PWS 3.10.2. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 46 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template),NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | There are several LOE elements specified in the Attachment I-28 document that have no references/ entries in the |
NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx with hrs and LCATS specified. Without this LOE information (as was provided for other element) pricing will not accurate. Specific examples include:
3.2.20 FWCP and UC
3.2.21.2 Development of Information Materials
3.2.21.3 Direct Support for OCHCO Communications
3.2.21.4 OCHCO Support to Surveys and Assessments
3.2.22.1 Training Data and Administration
3.2.22.5 Admin of the LMS
3.2.22.6 On-line Course Management
3.2.23.1 Senior Executive Administrative Support
3.2..23.3 Presidential Rank Award
3.3.7.5 Agency Contracting
3.9.2 NCCIPS Business Services
3.10 Enterprise Services (includes (3.10.1 - 3.10.3) The PWS identified in this comment are LOE services under NTSS.
The projected LOE hours have been prepopulated in Attachment I-28 (i.e., "plug numbers"), under the appropriate Tabs, which are highlighted in yellow. The hours are for pricing purposes only.
| PWS 3.10.1 Innovation and Continuous Improvement is the only LOE service the offeror shall propose pricing for innovations including in their proposal. | Amendment 00001 | | | | | |
| 47 | NNX16MA01B FY 23 Order for FUP and LOE Services.xlsx | For the FUP services would the government provide a cost element breakout of the service rate for each service. For example: the FY22 AP transaction(service) rate is $69.18. Our understanding is that the $69.18 rate is comprised of many elements of costs - CS salaries, IT costs, Overhead, contractor costs, etc. A breakout of those costs would allow the bidder to better understand and bid a more accurate price for a specific FUP service. | The FY22 AP Transaction (service) rate is the rate the NSSC charges its customer for each AP transaction. This rate is comprised of many elements to include contractors cost to the government for each AP Transaction. The breakout of those cost will not be provided as the contractors cost per transaction is proprietary. | Amendment 00001 | |
| 48 | Section III Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 | PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS (GENERAL) b) Page Limitations and Formatting | Regarding the requirement that, "All graphics, tables, charts, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. shall be twelve (12)-point Times New Roman font", it is typical that images are excluded from this restriction due to limitations in content access to make changes. This is particularly challenging when screen shots are used within a proposal. Would the government consider excluding images from this requirement and provide a separate requirement that font in images be legible? | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation, and the font size will remain unchanged. | Amendment 00001 |
| 49 | Section I - Model Contract; 3.5 Other Direct Costs (ODCs), page 18 | Industry’s provisional indirect rates may be adjusted over a course of a year to be in line with projected indirect costs. This is to ensure only small deviations between provisional and final audited indirect rates. Offeror requests that NASA remove language stating indirect rates are fixed as of contract date. Recommended edit is as follows: | | | |
| (c) The Government will pay actual price paid for the supplies and services that are expressly identified by this contract up to the level previously approved by the CO. This actual price may apply indirect rates (applied in accordance with normal accounting practice) and are non-profit bearing. | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation, and the clause will remain unchanged. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 50 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) Table III, page 7 | NASA's answers to industry questions indicated that the page limit for the small business subcontracting plan had been increased to 20 pages. However, the final RFP indicates 15 pages. Please confirm the page limit has been increased to 20 pages. | Section III, Instructions to Offerors, TABLE III- 1 PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, small business subcontracting plan has been revised from a 15 page count to a 20 page count | Amendment 00001 |
| 51 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), page 8; Attachment I-02 Data Requirements Description (DRD) 1.0-1 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan | In order to sufficiently respond to DRD No. 1.0-1 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan and the requirements of FAR Subpart 9.5, NFS 1852.209-71, 1852.237-72, and 1852.237-73, Offeror requests that NASA increase the page count of the OCI Plan to 20 pages. | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation, and the page count will remain unchanged. | Amendment 00001 |
| 52 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), page 8 | The Instructions to Offerors specify that Volume III (Pricing) has a page limit of 25. While this limit excludes each "Offeror’s cognizant Government audit report of forward pricing rate agreement," the remainder of P-1B (Narrative – Financial Capability) is included in the page count. However, in order to satisfy the requirements of this section, Offeror's may need to submit significant documentation beyond audit reports. To allow offerors to submit all documentation required for compliance, we recommend the Government excludes P-1B from page count. | Section III, Financial Capability, P-1B page count has been removed. | |
See TABLE III- 1 PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT and
| TABLE III-4 PRICE VOLUME ORGANIZATION. | Amendment 00001 | | | | |
| 53 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), page 8 | Section 10.0.b states “Offerors shall tab each section within each volume for ease of reference.” This seems to be an instruction related to a hard copy submission. There does not seem to be any method for creating “tabs” in a Microsoft Word file. Recommend the Government deletes this requirement. | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b) has been updated from "tab" to "title". | Amendment 00001 |
| 54 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), page 8 | Section 10.0.b states “All graphics, tables, charts, diagrams, figures, images, inserts, etc. shall be twelve (12)-point Times New Roman font.” While we asked a question about this requirement previously, we would appreciate your re-consideration. We recommend a change to ten (10)-point font for graphics, tables, charts, diagrams, figures, and inserts. | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation, and the font size will remain unchanged. | Amendment 00001 |
| 55 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (c), page 9 & 10.4 Volume IV: Model Contract Instructions, page 25 | Instructions for Volume IV indicate that the Att. I-13 Labor and Transaction Rates shall be submitted with the Model Contract. In Section 10.0 Proposal Instructions, Att. I-13 must be submitted in excel format. Please confirm that Att. I-13 can be submitted as a separate excel file and not packaged in one consolidated file. | Att. I-13 Labor and Transaction Rates can be submitted as a separate Excel file. | Amendment 00001 |
| 56 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b), page 9 | Section 10.0.b states “All files shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Open XML file format, such as Microsoft Word, Excel, etc.” Since Volume IV – Signed Model Contract consists of a signed copy of a Government-provided pdf file and attachments, likewise, are mostly in pdf format, can the Government confirm that Volume IV should be submitted as a pdf file? | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions (General) (b) has been updated to add For Volume IV, Signed Model Contract the SF 1449 and all SF 30s shall be submitted in Adobe PDF. | Amendment 00001 |
| 57 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.1.2- Mission Suitability Subfactor 2- Technical Approach, (f) TA-6: Enterprise Services, item (5), page 18 | For the Technical Approach, the Instructions to Offerors state that proposals should include ideas for innovation, and that "Ideas shall be clearly identified by service, shall include a description of any initial investment cost required, the expected return on investment and the impact on service price." However, the PWS also states that "The SP shall share with the government in any net cost savings realized from approved and implemented ITPs" (Innovative and Transformational Projects). Is the impact on service price required in the Technical Approach intended to account for the Shared Cost Savings stipulated in the PWS? If so, would the Government please specify how this should be calculated? | For the initial proposal, Offerors shall include ideas for innovation and transformational solutions, and such ideas will be evaluated by the SEB per the evaluation factors. | |
| The NTSS PWS Section 3.10.1.1 Shared Cost Savings requires the SP to share in the cost savings for Innovative and Transformational Projects (ITPS) proposed and accepted by the Government during NTSS contract performance. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 58 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.1.2- Mission Suitability Subfactor 2- Technical Approach, (f) TA-6: Enterprise Services, item (5), page 18 | For the Technical Approach, the Instructions to Offerors state that proposals should include ideas for innovation, and that "Ideas shall be clearly identified by service, shall include a description of any initial investment cost required, the expected return on investment and the impact on service price." In questions 104 and 105 of the Draft RFP, NASA stated that offerors should include the cost savings due to innovations in their service pricing. However, in the final RFP, the PWS makes clear that in execution, innovations will be submitted to the Government as proposals, which may not be accepted and implemented. This means that an Offeror could propose several unrealistic innovations to significantly lower their bid FUP price, even though those proposals may not be accepted by NASA. This creates the potential for "apples-to-oranges" pricing which increases risk in the evaluation. To remove this risk, we recommend that NASA stipulate that all innovations included in the Technical Approach (as well as all innovations that are contingent on NASA approval post-award) should not be included in the service pricing. | For the initial proposal, Offerors shall include ideas for innovation and transformational solutions, and such ideas will be evaluated by the SEB per the evaluation factors. |
| The NTSS PWS Section 3.10.1.1 Shared Cost Savings requires the SP to share in the cost savings for Innovative and Transformational Projects (ITPS) proposed and accepted by the Government during NTSS contract performance. | Amendment 00001 | | | | |
| 59 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.2 Volume II: Past Performance Proposal Instructions, page 22 | Instructions to Offerors 10.2 a) suggests that a small business managing partner over a joint venture arrangement may not need to meet size, magnitude, and complexity for their past performances but instead may rely on their joint venture teaming partners for past performances that partially meet size, magnitude, and complexity. Will the Government consider changing the requirement to clarify that the small business prime under a joint venture arrangement must meet 10.2 b) relevancy for at least one of the prime's past performances? For reference, 10.2 b) states, "For relevancy, the Offeror shall consider the size or magnitude, content, services provided and complexity of the contracts or subcontracts as they relate specifically to the RFP requirements". | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation regarding Section III Instructions to Offerors, 10.2 Volume III: Past Performance Proposal Instructions, however, this section will remain unchanged. | Amendment 00001 |
| 60 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.3 Volume III Price Proposal Instructions, page 23 | A new Executive Order (EO) came out that makes required base pay for anyone supporting the gov to be $16.20. Please confirm that bidders will be required to submit their proposals in accordance with the EO effective 1/1/2023. Reference: Model Contract FAR 52.222-55, Minimum Wages for Contractor Workers Under Executive Order 14026 (Jan 2022). | Although the Department of Labor has published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that, beginning January 1, 2023, the Executive Order 14026 Minimum Wage Rate will increase to $16.20 per hour, the proposed wage increase has not yet been updated in the Wage Determination. | |
| Pursuant to FAR 52.212-4 (q) Other compliances. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, executive orders, rules and regulations applicable to its performance under this contract. | Amendment 00001 | | | | |
| 61 | Section III- Instructions to Offerors, 10.4 Volume IV: Model Contract Instructions, page 25 | The instructions state that the Offeror shall submit a copy of the completed model contract. Does this include copies of all Section 8 attachments in one consolidated file? | Section II (2.1 - 2.8), Representations and Certifications shall be submitted in one consolidated file. | Amendment 00001 |
| 62 | Attachment I-01 (PWS), 3.2.1.4 Administrative Support for Agency Awards Program, page 42 | Because additional onsite labor is required for collaboration when award ceremonies are held on-site, we recommend that NASA consider separate billable rates for virtual and on-site ceremonies to provide NASA flexibility in bill rates, providing savings when ceremonies are held virtually. | The SEB has reviewed your recommendation, however there shall be only one labor rate proposed for each labor category. | Amendment 00001 |
| 63 | Attachment I-03 (PRS), 3.1.4 Fund Balance with Treasury Escalation, page 2 | 3.1.4 states "The SP shall ensure 90% of all FBwT differences are no less than 30 days old." Was the Government's intent to specify "no more than 30 days" as opposed to "no less than 30 days"? | Attachment I-3 (PRS) has been modified to read "The SP shall ensure 90% of all FBwT differences are no more than 30 days old." | Amendment 00001 |
| 64 | Attachments I-21 (Workload Data), PR tab and I-28 (Pricing Template), 3.3.15 tabs | Attachment I-21 states an RFP Utilization volume of 3,090 and 1,270 for SAT Awards and SAT Administration respectively. However, Attachment I-28 uses evaluation volumes of 986 for both of these services. Would the Government please clarify what volumes should be used for these services? | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template) Tab 3.3.15.1 SAT Awards, and Tab 3.3.15.2 SAT Admin have been updated. | Amendment 00001 |
| 65 | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template), tab 3.2.23.1 SES Admin Tab | Should 3.2.23.1 SES Admin tab be yellow? | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template) Tab 3.2.23.1 SES Admin Tab has been updated to yellow and does not require fill in by Offerors. | Amendment 00001 |
| 66 | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template), tab 3.3 Summary | In Attachment I-28, tab 3.3 Summary, the Government is adding CLINs 3.9 Summary and 3.10 Summary ODC dollars (Row 7). These ODC dollars are also added in the 3.0 Summary Tab. This is double counting the dollars for the 3.0 Summary. Will the Government please update the formulas in 3.3 Summary tab to remove any reference to CLINs 3.9 and 3.10? | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template) 3.3 Summary Tab ODC row, formulas have been updated to remove reference to 3.9 and 3.10. | Amendment 00001 |
| 67 | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template), tab 3.3.15.1 SAT Awards | In Attachment I-28, tab 3.3.15.1 SAT Awards, the Evaluated Transactions for Bands 2 and Band 3 do not fall within the Band Volume range. Will the Government please update the Evaluated Transactions? | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template) Tab 3.3.15.1 SAT Awards transactions counts have been updated for all Bands. | Amendment 00001 |
| 68 | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template), Tab 3.2.1.7 Suitability | In Attachment I-28, should the 3.2.1.7 Suitability tab be highlighted yellow instead of highlighted green? | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template) 3.2.1.7 Suitability Tab has been updated to yellow and does not require fill in by Offerors. | Amendment 00001 |
| 69 | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template), Phase-in Price tab | In Attachment I-28, Phase-in Price tab, the Government has inserted 459 Hours for the Accounting Clerk 1. Is it the government's intention to have the bidders use 459 Hours for the Accounting Clerk 1 in the Phase-In Price? | Attachment I-28 (Pricing Template) Phase-In Price Tab, the 459 hours for the Accounting Clerk 1 have been removed. | Amendment 00001 |
| 70 | Section III - Instructions to Offerors | 10.2, Past Performance Proposal Instructions, page 22 requires that past performances include the percent of turnover per year. Can this requirement be removed for all if not at least for small businesses that have limited systems to track this data? In advocating for its complete removal, it's very difficult to track and there is no universal definition of "turnover". For example, if an employee stays with the company but moves to a new contract, is that turnover? If the federal agency supported hires the contractor's employee as a federal employee, is that turnover? When the contract ends, but the recompete is won by the incumbent and all staff stay supporting the same agency under a different contract, is that turnover? If it's T&M and on-demand, does a short-term action ending and no follow-on action for the personnel to take on constitute turnover? Would a project that uses consultants instead of full-time employees count consultants as part of the turnover? As you can see, this is difficult and will be inconsistent across offerors which creates issues for the evaluators in using the information in a meaningful way. We respectfully request its removal. Note that with the past performance volume due first, this is a critical question to answer prior to those responses being due. | Section III, 10.2 b) "bullet 8" has been updated as follows: "Average number of personnel on the contract per year and percent of estimated turnover of personnel per year". | Amendment 00001 |
| 71 | Attachment I-03 | 3.3.x - whenever contract or grant files are "transferred", please confirm that this is only electronic files. | NSSC Procurement transitioned to electronic files in April 2014. | |
| There are very few paper contract files that were awarded prior to April 2014. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 72 | Attachment I-03 | 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.3.1 - Please confirm that this would be from receipt of a complete and actionable technical requirements package/requirements package. | The Service Level Indicator (SLI) for NTSS PWS 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.3.1 is measured from receipt of a technical requirements package/requirements package. |
| The 29 calendar days for NTSS PWS 3.3.2.1 and the 30 calendar days for NTSS PWS 3.3.3.1 Phase 1 awards are to allow NTSS SP to gather any missing documentation and prepare the package for Grant/Contracting Officer Approval. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 73 | Attachment I-21 | Can the government clarify the discrepancy between the FY21 monthly sheet and FM/ HR/ etc. sheets in Attachment I-21? Discrepancies in FY21 totals remain. For example, cell G64 in the FM sheet is different from cell D5 of the FY21 sheet; G25 in the FM sheet is different from cell D4 of the FY21 sheet and so on. | Although there are discrepancies between the FY21 monthly Tab and the FY 21 totals in Attachment I-21, Offerors should rely upon the "Utilization to use for RFP Purposes per Contract Year" column in the functional tabs for pricing for FUP services. |
| The values in FY 21 totals were intended to provide a month by month breakout of workload fluctuations for each FUP service. | Amendment 00001 | | | |
| 74 | Attachment I-24 | The GFP and GFE list includes Office Space. Can the government confirm that contract performance will be at a government site/ remote, and bidders do not have to account for leasing additional facilities? | The PWS identifies SP work that requires on-site performance. |
| It is solely up to the offerors to determine how they propose to manage their workforce when performing off-site. | Amendment 00001 | | | | |
| 75 | Attachment I-25 | The Enhanced Procurement Data Warehouse description mentions CMM/PRISM. What is CMM as it doesn't appear on the acronyms list? Which of the tools in I-25 is PRISM? | Attachment I-25, The Enhanced Procurement Data Warehouse description has been updated to remove the reference to "CMM/PRISM". | Amendment 00001 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
