80SSC019R0007 DASS DRFP Questions & Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 65 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Dual Administrative Support Services (DASS)
- Solicitation number
- 80SSC019R0007
View the file
Other files
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| No. | Document | Page | DRFP Section/ | ||||
| Paragraph | Narrative (if applicable) | Question | Government Response | Change to RFP (Y/N) | |||
| 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | If we didn’t attend the industry day does that preclude us from responding or lessen our chances of winning? I notice this is expected to be released in January, is that still the targeted deadline? | Not attending Industry Day or the upcoming Pre-Proposal Conference does not preclude a vendor from submitting a proposal or lessen their chance for an award. |
| The release of the final RFP is now planned for the month of February, continue to monitor beta.sam.gov. | N | |||||||
| 2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The FBO guidance states: The NAICS Code and Size Standard are 561110 and $8.0M, respectively. All responsible 8(a) sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by this agency. “All responsible 8(a) sources” indicates any and all 8(a)s can compete. Does this really mean only 8a companies under the $8M threshold can compete? | Offers are solicited only from small business concerns expressly certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in the SBA's 8(a) Program. | N | |
| 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | With the DRFP being released on 18 December and questions due 7 January, is the final RFP still planned for release on/about 28 January 2020? | The release of the final RFP is now planned for the month of February, continue to monitor beta.sam.gov. | N | |
| 4 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | In order to assist JSC and Stennis in meeting their Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) goals, and promote WOSB contracting at NASA, please consider setting DASS aside for Woman-Owned Small Businesses. | The Government considered all socio-economic categories during acquisition strategy development. The Government determined this procurement will be conducted as an 8(a) set-aside. | N | |
| 5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Due to the complexity and size of the effort, we kindly request that NAICS 541611-Administrative Management and General Management Consulting, be considered for the DASS solicitation. NAICS 541611 aligns with the requirements as outlined in the Draft PWS, whereas the 561110 NAICS only covers the office administrative services. | The Government considered multiple NAICS during acquisition strategy development. The Government determined NAICS 561110 is the most appropriate for this acquisition. | N | |
| 6 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | In order to maximize the number of Offerors and to obtain a true Best Value offer, can the government provide the current average Direct Labor rates for each Labor Category. | The ranges of the composite labor rates and average seniority based on Government data is provided at Attachment 4.17 Historical Pricing Data of the final RFP. | Y | |
| 7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Some NASA contracts have requirements that generally reflect the concept of first right of refusal for incumbent contract employees. Please clarify if and how the concept of first right of refusal for incumbent contract employees applies to the DASS effort. | FAR 52.207-3 Right of First Refusal Employement has been added to the final RFP. | Y | |
| 8 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | New Mexico has a Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) based on revenue. Some government entities have an exemption they can pass down and some don’t. Will the work in New Mexico will be subject to NMGRT? | There is no exemption for this acquisition. FAR 52.229-10, State of New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax does not apply to this acquisition. | N | |
| 9 | DASS DRFP | 2-1 to 2-14 | ||||||
| (5-18 of 69) | 2.A | N/A | It appears that clauses are only appropriated to JSC and not Stennis. Uniformity is usually required in contracts governed by the SCA. Is it the Government’s intention to make all clauses applicable to all locations under this contract? | The core duties to be performed at each location under this acquisition are the same. There are differences in policies between Centers as noted in the clauses identified as unique to JSC. | N | |||
| 10 | DASS DRFP | 2-12 | ||||||
| (16 of 69) | 2.A.17 | “For any contract requiring a Facility Clearance Level (FCL) for access to Classified National Security Information (CNSI), the contractor shall adhere to the Agency-wide program policy and guidance related to the protection of CNSI by complying with the following: • NPR 1600.2, NASA Classified National Security Information” | Does this opportunity require a clearance? | This opportunity does not require a security clearance. | N | |||
| 11 | DASS DRFP | 2-13 | ||||||
| (17 of 69) | 2.A.17 (e ) | (e) Credentials will be issued at the following locations: |
• NASA Badging & Visitor Control Office, located in Building 110 at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding holidays
• Sonny Carter Training Facility (SCTF) 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding holidays
• Ellington Field (EFD), Building 265, 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Monday through Friday excluding holidays
| • White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), Protective Services Office Building (PSOB), Building 108, Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. excluding holidays and off every other Friday due to 9/80 hour scheduling. WSTF visitor credentials will be issued on a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day basis. | 2.A.17 (e ). This section is missing the Stennis (SSC) credentials location. | JSC 52.204-92, NASA Security Program and Identification of Employees applies to JSC only. Information for SSC will be provided to the awardee during the phase-in period. | N | |
| 12 | DASS DRFP | 2-14 | ||
| (18 of 69) | 2.A.18 | JSC 52.242-94 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE (SEP 2008) | The DRFP contains JSC-only contract clause, 52.242-94 Administrative Leave (Sep 2008). What will be applied to Stennis? | This clause is specific to JSC. At SSC, NFS 1852.242-72 Denied Access to NASA Facilities (OCT 2015) is applicable. |
| N | |||||
| 13 | DASS DRFP | 2-4 | |||
| (8 of 69) | 2.A.9 | 1852.216-80 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES (OCT 1996) – ALTERNATE II (APR 2018) | 1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedures: Does the customer have an estimate of number of task orders to be issued under the resultant contract? We kindly request consolidation of task orders when reasonable in order to promote ease of administrative burden for both the contractor and the government. | SSC currently intends to issue one (1) Task Order, annually. JSC (which will include support for WSTF) currently intends to issue three (3) Task Orders annually (one Task Order each for Full-Time employees, Part-Time employees and Temporary employees). | N |
| 14 | DASS DRFP | 3-6 | |||
| (24 of 69) | 3.1 | (3) 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (May 2014) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67). | Is clause 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires applicable? This clause is usually applicable in solicitations and contracts if the contract amount is expected to be over $2,500 and the Service Contract Labor Standards statute is applicable. | Clause 52.222-42 is applicable and is included in the RFP. | N |
| 15 | DASS DRFP | 5-10 | |||
| (36 of 69) | 5.14.2 | Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Date | Which version of MS Office (word and excel) should be used to ensure it’s compatible with the Government? | The Government utilizes the most current version of Microsoft Office. Offerors should ensure that the version of Microsoft Office used to prepare their proposals is compatible with the most current Microsoft Office applications at the time of proposal submission. | N |
| 16 | DASS DRFP | 5-10 | |||
| (37 of 69) | 5.14.2 (d) | d) Proposal shall be prepared and submitted in Microsoft Office® applications (Word and Excel). Further, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format, and not in a scanned Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF file. The Offeror shall not embed sound or video files into the proposal files. Minimize the use of scanned images and keep embedded graphics as simple as possible. | Will the Government allow all non-price Volumes I, II, and IV to be submitted as PDF documents? | Offerors must submit all documents in Microsoft Word or Excel as instructed in the final RFP. | N |
| 17 | DASS DRFP | 5-11 to 5-12 | |||
| (38-39 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 | a) Past Performance Matrix: Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Matrix identifying a maximum of five (5) recent and relevant contracts involving administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative services required by this solicitation. The matrix shall identify the Customer, Contract Number, Name/Title of the project, Value, and state if the Offeror or its Subcontractor completed the project. The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M. |
| 2. Relevant Experience: The accomplishment of administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative support services required by this solicitation. Relevant size is defined as projects over $5 million. Relevant scope is defined as administrative services. Providing past administrative services experience that includes administrative services for executive level personnel, travel coordination, and safeguarding of sensitive information will receive additional consideration. Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program. Providing past experience that includes services at multiple geographic locations under a single contract will receive additional consideration. | In the spirit of encouraging an open competition between true 8(a) companies who are on a growth path, we recommend clarifying this size to be the lower value of $4M. Most growing 8(a) small businesses that meet the size standard for this opportunity can more readily meet the lower past performance contract value with more than one relevant project. Since past performance is extremely important in the evaluation criteria of this contract, would the Government please clarify the value to be the $4M value? | Relevant size is $4M or greater. The final RFP has been amended accordingly. | Y |
| 18 | DASS DRFP | 5-11 - 5-12 | |
| (38-39 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 | a) Past Performance Matrix: Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Matrix identifying a maximum of five (5) recent and relevant contracts involving administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative services required by this solicitation. The matrix shall identify the Customer, Contract Number, Name/Title of the project, Value, and state if the Offeror or its Subcontractor completed the project. The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M. |
| 2. Relevant Experience: The accomplishment of administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative support services required by this solicitation. Relevant size is defined as projects over $5 million. Relevant scope is defined as administrative services. Providing past administrative services experience that includes administrative services for executive level personnel, travel coordination, and safeguarding of sensitive information will receive additional consideration. Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program. Providing past experience that includes services at multiple geographic locations under a single contract will receive additional consideration. | List item "a)" references $4M; however, "a) 2." references $5 million. Please clarify whether the minimum contract value is $4M or $5M. | Relevant size is $4M or greater. The final RFP has been amended accordingly. | Y | ||
| 19 | DASS DRFP | 5-11 - 5-12 | |||
| (38-39 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (a) | a) Past Performance Matrix: Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Matrix identifying a maximum of five (5) recent and relevant contracts involving administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative services required by this solicitation. The matrix shall identify the Customer, Contract Number, Name/Title of the project, Value, and state if the Offeror or its Subcontractor completed the project. The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M. | The instructions for the Attachment 5 Matrix provided on pages 5-11 and 5-12 does not address how Offerors are supposed to complete the last four columns of the matrix (i.e., Admin. Services, Admin. Services to executive personnel, Travel Coord., Safeguarding of Sensitive Information). Does the Government want Offerors to simply complete the matrix with a “Yes” or “No” in these columns? | Complete the last four columns of the matrix with a "Yes" or "No". Both the final RFP and the Matrix have been updated. | Y |
| 20 | DASS DRFP | 5-11 | |||
| (38 of 69) | 5.14.3.1 | • Quality Plan | |||
| Offerors shall provide a quality plan that describes the methods and/or procedures it will implement to measure and report customer service and customer satisfaction. | Many offerors have standard Quality Plans based on their corporate Quality Management System. Will the Government consider allowing offerors to submit the Quality Plan as an attachment and therefore outside of the 20-page limit of the Management Operating Plan? | Quality Plans may not be submitted as attachments. Offerors must follow the proposal instructions identified in Section 5 of the final RFP. | N | ||
| 21 | DASS DRFP | 5-11 | |||
| (38 of 69) | 5.14.3.1 (b) Staffing Plan | Staffing Plan | |||
| Offerors shall submit a staffing plan that describes their proposed approach to recruit, train, and retain a qualified workforce to perform the requirements of the DASS contract. The staffing plan shall be consistent with the information submitted in the Fully Burdened Rate (FBR) Template, the Summary Price Template (SPT) and the Total Compensation (TC) Templates provided in the EPM workbook at Attachment 5. Offeror shall also include in staffing plan written support to demonstrate that proposed compensation is reasonable. | The Draft RFP states, “If the Offeror’s approach is to staff the contract, wholly or partially, with incumbent personnel currently employed under existing NASA contract(s), the Offeror shall identify the NASA Center at which those personnel work and state if the Offeror’s intent is to recognize the seniority and levels of compensation those personnel currently earn.” Will the Government provide a total headcount per labor category associated with each center? | Yes, the number of personnel in each labor category is currently estimated as follows: | |||
| JSC: Secretary 2 - 34; Secretary 3 - 68.5; Admin Assistant ("Senior Secretary") - 23.5; Admin Assistant 1 - 8; Admin Assistant 2 - 1. WSTF: Secretary 3 - 5; Admin Assistant ("Senior Secretary") - 1. SSC: Admin Assistant - 13; Sect 3 - 2. | N | ||||
| 22 | DASS DRFP | 5-12 | 5.14.3.2 | a) Past Performance Matrix: Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Matrix identifying a maximum of five (5) recent and relevant contracts involving administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative services required by this solicitation. The matrix shall identify the Customer, Contract Number, Name/Title of the project, Value, and state if the Offeror or its Subcontractor completed the project. The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M. |
2. Relevant Experience: The accomplishment of administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative support services required by this solicitation. Relevant size is defined as projects over $5 million. Relevant scope is defined as administrative services. Providing past administrative services experience that includes administrative services for executive level personnel, travel coordination, and safeguarding of sensitive information will receive additional consideration. Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program. Providing past experience that includes services at multiple geographic locations under a single contract will receive additional consideration. DRFP states “The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M.” It also states, “Relevant size is defined as projects over $5 million.” Please clarify which amount will be used for evaluation. Additionally, please clarify if the contract value is annual or total. Relevant size is $4M and greater. The final RFP has been updated accordingly.
| Contract value is defined as the total, ceiling value of a contract, inclusive of all options. See Attachment 4.9 Glossary of the final RFP. | Y | ||||
| 23 | DASS DRFP | 5-12 | |||
| (39 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (a) 2. | Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program. | Draft RFP page 5-12 (39) states – “Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program.” Can the Government please clarify what constitutes an employee-training program? Is this an HR function, i.e., providing training to our employees upon onboarding? Or are we to demonstrate experience providing training to external stakeholders? | While the DASS contract is not a Human Resources (HR) contract, the successful offeror will be responsible for providing employee onboarding and continuing training to its own employees. The past performance area of the RFP also requires offerors to demonstrate relevant experience in providing training to their employees. The RFP does not require offerors to demonstrate experience providing training to external stakeholders. | N |
| 24 | DASS DRFP | 5-12 | |||
| (39 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (a) | The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M. | Can the government please clarify if “contract value” is defined as the ceiling value of the contract or the actual spend? | Contract value is defined as the total, ceiling value of a contract, inclusive of all options. See Attachment 4.9 Glossary of the final RFP. | Y |
| 25 | DASS DRFP | 5-12 | |||
| (39 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (a)2. | 2. Relevant Experience: The accomplishment of administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative support services required by this solicitation. Relevant size is defined as projects over $5 million. Relevant scope is defined as administrative services. Providing past administrative services experience that includes administrative services for executive level personnel, travel coordination, and safeguarding of sensitive information will receive additional consideration. Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program. Providing past experience that includes services at multiple geographic locations under a single contract will receive additional consideration. | Most growing 8(a) companies who are on a growth path, and who meet the size standard, do not possess past performance including a single contract with services at multiple geographic locations. If the prime proposes a subcontractor’s contract which meets these requirements, and involves the subcontractor in an advisory management role, would the Government give this approach additional consideration? | The Government will give additional consideration for relevant experience as stated in paragraph 5.15.3.3 of the final RFP. (Note, in the DRFP this info was found in pragraph 5.14.3.2) | N |
| 26 | DASS DRFP | 5-12 | |||
| (69 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (a) 2. | 2. Relevant Experience: The accomplishment of administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative support services required by this solicitation. Relevant size is defined as projects over $5 million. Relevant scope is defined as administrative services. Providing past administrative services experience that includes administrative services for executive level personnel, travel coordination, and safeguarding of sensitive information will receive additional consideration. Relevant complexity is defined as administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee-training program. Providing past experience that includes services at multiple geographic locations under a single contract will receive additional consideration. | The Government defines relevant complexity as “administrative services at multiple geographic locations and employee training program.” Are these the only two indicators of complexity and what does the Government mean by simply stating “employee training program” as a definition of complexity? | Yes, these are the only two indicators of complexity. |
| An employee training program is a program that helps employees learn specific knowledge and skills to improve performance in their current roles. | N | |||||||
| 27 | DASS DRFP | 5-13 | ||||||
| (40 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (f) | f) Past Performance Matrix – Respondent: Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Matrix which includes the contact information for each contract used as a reference including the point-of-contact (POC) name, phone number, and email address. Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 5 PPQ) will only be accepted for the references provided in the Past Performance Matrix. | Should the underlined heading for this item read as “Past Performance Questionnaire - Respondent” instead of “Past Performance Matrix - Respondent”? | The heading has been updated in the final RFP. | Y | |||
| 28 | DASS DRFP | 5-13 | ||||||
| (40 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (f) | f) Past Performance Matrix – Respondent: Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Matrix which includes the contact information for each contract used as a reference including the point-of-contact (POC) name, phone number, and email address. Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 5 PPQ) will only be accepted for the references provided in the Past Performance Matrix. | The Past Performance Matrix template provided does not have fields for the following information which is being requested in item (f): POC name, phone number, and email address. Where does the Government want Offerors to provide the information listed in item (f)? | The Attachment 5 Matrix does not require POC information. Section 5.15.3.2 of the final RFP has been updated to clarify the POC submission requirements. | Y | |||
| 29 | DASS DRFP | 5-13 | ||||||
| (40 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (h) | Respondents or POCs must submit the completed Past Performance Questionnaire via email directly to the NASA Contract specialist, Ms. Rachel Clayton at rachel.clayton@nasa.gov. Questionnaires can be submitted early but must be received no later than the proposal due date/time specified in this solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow-up with the POC to ensure the questionnaire is completed and submitted to the Contract Specialist in a timely manner. The Contracting Officer will not accept completed Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by the Offeror. | If an offeror’s subcontractor does not provide a past performance reference, will the offeror receive a lower best value evaluation rating? | Offerors will not receive a lower rating simply by virtue of a subcontractor failing to provide a past performance reference. All information provided and/or available to the Government will be evaluated in accordance with Section 6 of the final RFP. | N | |||
| 30 | DASS DRFP | 5-13 | ||||||
| (40 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (j) | j) Offerors are reminded that both independently obtained data as well as data provided by Offerors in their proposal may be used to assess the Offeror’s past and current performance. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to validate all information provided by the Offeror, including telephone numbers and addresses for points of contacts. | Item (j) indicates Offerors are responsible for validating all information provided, including “addresses” for points of contacts, however, the Government did not request this information to be provided from Offerors. Where should Offerors include addresses for points of contacts? | The Offeror is to create the point of contact Matrix. See Section 5.15.3.2(f) of the final RFP which has been updated to clarify this requirement. | Y | |||
| 31 | DASS DRFP | 5-14 | ||||||
| (41 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (m) | Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.) | Draft RFP page 5-14 (41) states – “Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.)”. Can the Government please clarify the requirement for “successfully applying DOL guidance? | This section has been revised. See final RFP. | Y | |||
| 32 | DASS DRFP | 5-14 | ||||||
| (41 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (m) | Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.) | Draft RFP page 5-14 (41) states – “Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.)”. With the evaluation coming down to a past performance / price best value tradeoff, can the Government please remove ‘etc.’ as to clarify the exact requirements for past performance? This will help offerors down select their most relevant past performance contracts and remove any ambiguities during evaluation. | This section has been revised. See final RFP. | Y | |||
| 33 | DASS DRFP | 5-14 | ||||||
| (41 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (m) | m) Only recent and relevant (as those terms are defined herein) past performance efforts will be evaluated. In evaluating what Past Performance Level of Confidence rating will be given to an offeror, the evaluation team will determine the level of pertinency of the relevant and recent past performance efforts. Information to determine the level of pertinency of relevant past performance will be obtained from the Past Performance Matrix, the offeror’s Self-Assessments, Past Performance Questionnaires, and information independently obtained by the Contracting Officer/evaluation team. Factors used to determine the level of pertinency to this acquisition include, but are not necessarily limited to: statements/rationales provided by the offeror, Respondents, and found in other past performance sources of information independently obtained by the Contracting Officer/evaluation team, discussing the comparability of the past effort(s) to the proposed effort, especially in terms of size, scope and complexity. Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.) | The last sentence of item (m) states that “other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.),” however there are no references to the Services Contract Act or DOL guidance in Section 5.14.3.2. Can the Government please clarify what other factors it plans to use in determining pertinency? | This section has been revised. See final RFP. | Y | |||
| 34 | DASS DRFP | 5-14 | ||||||
| (41 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 (m) | m) Only recent and relevant (as those terms are defined herein) past performance efforts will be evaluated. In evaluating what Past Performance Level of Confidence rating will be given to an offeror, the evaluation team will determine the level of pertinency of the relevant and recent past performance efforts. Information to determine the level of pertinency of relevant past performance will be obtained from the Past Performance Matrix, the offeror’s Self-Assessments, Past Performance Questionnaires, and information independently obtained by the Contracting Officer/evaluation team. Factors used to determine the level of pertinency to this acquisition include, but are not necessarily limited to: statements/rationales provided by the offeror, Respondents, and found in other past performance sources of information independently obtained by the Contracting Officer/evaluation team, discussing the comparability of the past effort(s) to the proposed effort, especially in terms of size, scope and complexity. Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.) | List item "m)" states "Other factors that can be used to determine the level of pertinency are found in Section 5.14.3.2 (i.e., experience performing under the Service Contract Act, successfully applying DOL guidance, etc.)"; however, the pervious references in Section 5.14.3.2 do not mention the other factors regarding pertinency. Please provide this missing information. | This section has been revised. See final RFP. | Y | |||
| 35 | DASS DRFP | 5-33 | ||||||
| (38 of 69) | 5.14.3.2 | Past Performance - Volume II | Will the government accept and evaluate past performance that is not specifically defined as administrative services, but contains administrative services responsibilities and requirements? For example, a budget support or records management contract that includes significant administrative support components. This will increase the number and type of 8(a) companies that can compete for this work. | Past performance information will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in Section 5 of the final RFP. | N | |||
| 36 | DASS DRFP | 5-4 | 5.4 | N/A | DASS DRFP states “The Government contemplates award of an IDIQ contract with FFP task orders as a result of this solicitation”. This is a services contract and there is insufficient information to provide FFP costs with acceptable risk to the contractor. Additionally, the current JASS contract is not FFP. Recommend the Government consider a cost-plus contract. | The Government considered various contract types during acquisition strategy development. The Government determined an IDIQ contract with FFP task orders is appropriate for this acquisition. As a clarification, the current JASS contract is a fixed-price IDIQ contract, not a cost reimbursable contract, as suggested by the question, with the only reimbursable item under that contract being actual travel expenditures. | N | |
| 37 | DASS DRFP | 5-4 | 5.6 | JSC 52.242-90 Superflex Work Schedule (AUG 2018) |
(a) Through Super-flex, JSC civil servants are encouraged to utilize the current civil service schedule to work 80 hours in a pay period, while “flexing” every other Friday simultaneously with the Center (first Friday of the JSC pay period). These Fridays are called “Flex Fridays”. Super-flex also expands the use of Work from Anywhere (WFA)/telework.
| (b) JSC does not require that our contractor team members adopt a matching schedule. However, Offerors should be aware that many civil servant customers will not be onsite on “Flex Fridays” and the center will go in “weekend mode” on “Flex Fridays”. "Flex Friday weekend mode" provides exceptions for some buildings. For more information on "Flex Friday weekend mode" and Super-flex, reference http://jscpeople.jsc.nasa.gov/Docs/telework/Super%20Flex%20Phase%202%20Updated.pdf | Is Superflex only allowed at JSC? Is there any consideration for Superflex at Stennis? | Superflex is not currently allowed at SSC. | N |
| 38 | DASS DRFP | 5-4 | |
| (31 OF 69) | 5.4 | 52.216-1 Type of Contract (APR 1984) | |
| The Government contemplates award of an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed-price task orders as a result of this solicitation. The phase-in plan will be firm-fixed-price. | 52.216-1 Type Of Contract: IDIQ contract with firm-fixed price task orders. Please confirm that, as FFP task orders, invoices should be billed as total annual dollar amount divided by 12 (months) on a monthly basis, with no adjustments based on unforeseen events such as site-closures. | Invoices must be submitted in accordance with NFS 1852.232-80, Submission of Vouchers/Invoices for Payment. The Government will provide guidance should any unforseeen events arise. | N |
| 39 | DASS DRFP | 5-5 | |
| (32 of 69) | 5.8 | 5.8 1852.215-77 PREPROPOSAL/PRE-BID CONFERENCE. (APR 2015) |
(a) A preproposal conference will be held as indicated below:
Date: {TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL RFP} (Approximately two weeks from posting of Final RFP) Time: {TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL RFP}
| Location: {Stennis Space Center, MS} | This section states the preproposal conference will take place two weeks prior to the Final RFP release, however, the TBD Date and Time indicate information will be provided with Final RFP release. Please confirm the government plans to announce the prepropsal conference prior to Final RFP release. | The Government will provide information pertaining to the preproposal conference in the final RFP. The Draft RFP states that a preproposal conference will be held "approximately two weeks from posting of Final RFP." This means the Preproposal conference will take place approximately two weeks AFTER the release of the final RFP. It is anticipated that the preproposal conference will be held at SSC. | Y |
| 40 | DASS DRFP | 5-5 | |
| (32 of 69) | 5.8 | 5.8 1852.215-77 PREPROPOSAL/PRE-BID CONFERENCE. (APR 2015) |
(a) A preproposal conference will be held as indicated below:
Date: {TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL RFP} (Approximately two weeks from posting of Final RFP) Time: {TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL RFP}
| Location: {Stennis Space Center, MS} | 5.8 indicates that the preproposal conference will be approximately two weeks from posting of Final RFP with date and time to be provided in Final RFP. Please confirm this timeline. | The Government will provide information pertaining to the preproposal conference in the final RFP. | Y |
| 41 | DASS DRFP | 5-5 | |
| (32 of 69) | 5.8 | 5.8 1852.215-77 PREPROPOSAL/PRE-BID CONFERENCE. (APR 2015) |
(a) A preproposal conference will be held as indicated below:
Date: {TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL RFP} (Approximately two weeks from posting of Final RFP) Time: {TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL RFP}
| Location: {Stennis Space Center, MS} | Please confirm there will be a pre-proposal conference at Stennis Space Center and provide a date, if possible. | The Government will provide information pertaining to the preproposal conference in the final RFP. It is anticipated that the preproposal conference will be held at SSC. | Y | ||
| 42 | DASS DRFP | 5-6 | |||
| (33 of 69) | 5.14.2 (b) | Tables, charts, graphs, plans, figures, diagrams and schematics may be used wherever practicable to depict organizations, systems, layout, and implementation schedules. These displays shall contain font sizes no smaller than non-compressed Arial 11 point, be uncomplicated, legible, and appropriate for the subject matter. | Will the Government please allow tables, graphics, and charts to be in 10pt font? | Per NFS 1815.204-70, Offerors may use a smaller font size for non-standard text, but nothing smaller than 8-point. The final RFP has been amended to clarify the requirements. | Y |
| 43 | DASS DRFP | 5-6 | |||
| (33 of 69) | 5.9 (a) | Offerors shall submit only electronic versions of their proposal via NASA’s secure Large File Transfer (LFT). Electronic submissions shall not contain hidden formulas, tables, be locked, be protected or contain links to data not included in the electronic copy. All electronic submissions must be searchable and will not contain scanned documents. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure documents are free from virus and malware as documents determined by NASA to contain a virus or malware will not be opened. Documents received after the exact date and time specified for the receipt of proposals will be administered in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition.” | This section states "Electronic submissions shall not contain hidden formulas, tables…" Please confirm that text tables within Word files are allowed. | Text tables within Word are allowed. Per instructions in the final RFP, Offerors should ensure that text tables do not include any hidden data. | N |
| 44 | DASS DRFP | 5-6 | |||
| (33 of 69) | 5.9 (a) | Proposal Delivery |
1. Offerors interested in submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall request a Large File Transfer (LFT) invitation email from Ms. Rachel Clayton at the following email address: rachel.clayton@nasa.gov. Offerors must courtesy copy (cc) Ms. Beth Bradley at beth.l.bradley@nasa.gov to ensure requests are accommodated timely.
| 2. Upon receipt of the invitation email, Offerors must click the link in the email to access the LFT website and register for an account. Offerors must then create their own password. After logging in, click the Send File tab to enter the recipient email address, compose a message to the recipient, and attach files. Note: LFT sessions expire after 15 minutes of inactivity. | Will the Government allow a minimum of two logins/ accounts per offeror to allow offerors to perform compliance on the uploaded documents and ensure a back up login is available should technical issues occur? | Offerors should provide the email address for individuals who are authorized to submit a proposal. If multiple proposals are submitted via the LFT, only the last proposal submission will be accepted. | N | ||
| 45 | DASS DRFP | 5-9 | |||
| (36 of 69) | 5.14.2 | Table 5-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, and Due Dates | Please confirm there is no page count minimum or maximum for Volume II Past Performance. | Page limits have been identified in Section 5 of the final RFP. | Y |
| 46 | DASS DRFP | 5-9 | |||
| (36 of 69) | 5.14.2 (b) | ...all volumes shall be prepared and submitted using a non-compressed Arial font with single-spaced 11 point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch pages with one inch margins on all sides. | Will the Government allow Garamond font with single-spaced 11 point on standard 8.5 by 11-inch pages with one-inch margins on all sides? | Offerors shall comply with the font requirements identified in Section 5 of the final RFP. | N |
| 47 | DASS DRFP | 5-9 | |||
| (36 of 69) | 5.14.2 (b) | A suitable table of contents shall be provided with each volume for ready reference to sections, tables, and figures. | Will the Government confirm that a table of contents within each volume is not included within page count? | Tables of Contents will not be included in page limitations. Reference the final RFP. | Y |
| 48 | DASS DRFP | 5-9 | |||
| (36 of 69) | 5.14.2 (b) | (b) Except for Volume III Price Proposal, all volumes shall be prepared and submitted using a non-compressed Arial font with single-spaced 11 point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch pages with one inch margins on all sides. All pages shall be numbered sequentially within each volume. Offerors shall clearly mark and identify each of the pages subject to the page limitations. |
Tables, charts, graphs, plans, figures, diagrams and schematics may be used wherever practicable to depict organizations, systems, layout, and implementation schedules. These displays shall contain font sizes no smaller than non-compressed Arial 11 point, be uncomplicated, legible, and appropriate for the subject matter.
The only exception to font and font size is company logos, headers and footers as these items will not be evaluated.
| Information should not be incorporated by reference. A suitable table of contents shall be provided with each volume for ready reference to sections, tables, and figures. Pages shall be formatted in a standard page style, without the use of columns. All pages in each volume can be numbered sequentially with Arabic numerals for contents. | Will the Government please clarify the intent to the first line in paragraph four of Section 5.14.2 (b), “Information should not be incorporated by reference.”? | All applicable information shall be incorporated into Offeror's proposal. There shall be no references to documents which were not submitted with the Offeror's proposal. | N |
| 49 | DASS DRFP | 5-9 |
(36 of 69) 5-10 (37 of 69) 6-1 (44 of 69) Table 5-2
5.14.3.1
6.1.1 N/A Table 5-2 identifies a Management Operation Plan, 5.14.3.1 (b) Identifies a Management Operating Plan, and 6.1.1 identifies a Management Plan. Please clarify if these are all the same document. Additionally, please confirm there is no DRD associated with this document(s). These are the same documents. The final RFP has been corrected to state "Management Plan."
| There is no DRD associated with this document. | Y | ||
| 50 | DASS DRFP | 6-1 | |
| (44 of 69) | 6.1 | 6.1 Price Performance Trade-off (PPTO) Evaluation and Award | |
| Basis for Contract Award. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, FAR Subpart 15.1, and NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is determined, by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria to represent the Best Value to the Government, consistent with Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) procedures. | The solicitation references NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305 in the Basis for Contract Award section. Does inclusion of this reference mean that the Government’s source selection evaluation team will “identify and document the numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission Suitability subfactor” in addition to providing a rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable? | Mission Suitability is not applicable to the evaluation of this requirement. While NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305 is applicable, the Government will not, “identify and document the numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission Suitability subfactor” as the selection process will utilize the PPTO process identified in Section 6 of the RFP. | N |
| 51 | DASS DRFP | 6-1 | |
| (44 of 69) | 6.1.1 (c) | The following technical acceptability subfactors apply: |
1. Phase-In Plan: The proposed Phase-in Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness. A technically acceptable Phase-in Plan will be at a level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.
| 2. Management Plan: The proposed Management Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness. A technically acceptable Management Plan will be at a level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. | Item (c) in Section 6.1.1 establishes two subfactors are utilized under the Technical Acceptability evaluation factor, however, the solicitation did not provide the relative importance of each subfactor to one another as required by NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305. What is the relative importance of the Phase-In Plan subfactor and Management Plan subfactor under the Technical Acceptability evaluation factor? | NFS 1815.305 does not require the relative importance of technical subfactors to be identified as Technical Acceptability is to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Reference Section 6.1.1 a) of the final RFP. | N | ||
| 52 | DASS DRFP | 6-2 to 6-4 | |||
| (45-47 of 69) | 6.1.2 | Past Performance (Volume II) | There is information provided in the Instructions for Past Performance that resembles evaluation criteria, however, the Evaluation Factors established in Section 6 do not have the same level of detail about how the Government intends to evaluate Offerors’ past performance information. For example, the instructions indicate two items that would merit additional consideration, but these items are not mentioned Section 6. Would the Government consider revising the language of its Evaluation Factors for Award to more directly align with the information requested in the instructions? | The Government reviewed the language and determined the instructions define recent and relevant past performance and identify items that would merit additional consideration. Section 6, on the other hand, provides the definition for strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and the level of confidence to be assigned based on an integrated assessment of the past performance information submitted by the offeror. Section 6 also identifies the trade-off evaluation methodology to be utilized in selecting the best value offeror. | N |
| 53 | DASS DRFP | 6-2 | |||
| (45 of 69) | 6.1.1 (d) | The rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s Strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposed Technical Acceptability Volume. |
Strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies are defined as follows:
Significant Strength: An aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.
Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the probability of successful contract performance.
Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unacceptable contract performance.
Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unacceptable contract performance.
| Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance | Item (d) in the Evaluation Factor for Technical Acceptability indicates the Acceptable/Unacceptable rating “will be based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposed Technical Acceptability Volume,” however the solicitation also defines significant strength and significant weakness. Are significant strengths and weaknesses also considered in the integrated assessment? | Strengths and weaknesses have been deleted from the Technical Acceptability instructions and evaluation criteria. The final RFP has been amended acccordingly. | Y | |||||
| 54 | DASS DRFP | 6-2 | ||||||
| (45 of 69) | 6.1.1 (d) | How many strengths and/or significant strengths are required for an Offeror’s Technical Acceptability Volume to be considered Acceptable? | Technical acceptability will be assigned a rating of pass or fail. Strengths, weaknesses, etc. have been deleted from the RFP. | Y | ||||
| 55 | DASS DRFP | 6-3 | ||||||
| (46 of 69) | 6.1.2 | Past Performance (Volume II) | Will the Government be assigning strengths and weaknesses as part of its evaluation of Past Performance? | In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the final RFP, the Government may assign strengths and weaknesses as part of its Past Performance evaluation. | N | |||
| 56 | DASS DRFP | 6-5 | 6.2 | N/A | The Government states “Next the Government will rank the technically acceptable proposals by price from lowest to highest. Next the Government will evaluate price fairness and reasonableness of the three lowest technically “Acceptable” proposals.” Will the Government consider performing a price “fairness and reasonableness” evaluation prior to ranking the technically acceptable proposals? Ranking without performing a price “fairness and reasonableness” evaluation could result in an offeror being evaluated that does not represent the best value to the Government. | The Government will perform a price “fairness and reasonableness” evaluation after ranking the technically acceptable proposals. The government will evaluate proposals in accordance with Section 6 of the final RFP. | N | |
| 57 | DASS DRFP | 6-5 | ||||||
| (48 of 69) | 6.2 (b) | If all three of the lowest Offeror’s past performance are not assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” the Government will then evaluate the next lowest priced Offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and past performance. The Government will continue evaluating the next lowest priced Offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and past performance until three Offerors are assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”. At that point, the evaluation is complete and the SSA proceeds with an integrated best value assessment of all evaluated offers. Award shall be made to the Offeror that represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process is complete without further consideration of any other offers. Therefore, the remaining Offeror’s past performance proposal will not be evaluated. | Draft RFP page 6-5 (48) states – “The Government will continue evaluating the next lowest priced Offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and past performance until three Offerors are assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”. At that point, the evaluation is complete and the SSA proceeds with an integrated best value assessment of all evaluated offers.” Can the Government please clarify what parts of the proposal are included in the ‘integrated best value’ assessment of all evaluated offers? i.e., does this include the Technical (previously evaluated as pass/fail), or is it a Past Performance/Price tradeoff? | Per Section 6.2 of the final RFP, the integrated best value assessment includes only past performance and price. If, during the the first step of the PPTO process, an offeror is assigned a technical rating of "Unacceptable" that offer will no longer be considered for award. | N | |||
| 58 | DASS DRFP | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the Government include the clause for Continuity of Operations (COOP) requirements? | FAR 52.237-3 Continuity of Services is included in the final RFP. | N | |
| 59 | DASS DRFP | N/A | N/A | N/A | No mention of Lapse of Appropriations requirements or actions. Will directions be provided? | The Agency will issue guidance in the event of a lapse of appropriations. | N | |
| 60 | DASS DRFP | N/A | N/A | N/A | Telework and Alternative schedules are not covered by SCA at this time. How will it be allowable under this contract? | The Service Contract Act (SCA) does not preclude telework or alternative schedules. | N | |
| 61 | DASS DRFP | N/A | N/A | N/A | NASA has the authority to make accelerated payments to small business which is critical to managing cash flow in a contract of this size. Please consider adding clause 52.232-40 PROVIDING ACCELERATED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTORS (DEC 2013) to assist small businesses. | FAR 52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors is included in the Final RFP. | Y |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .