DASS_RFP_Questions_AND_Answers_P00001_(1-122).pdf

80SSC020R0007

Amendment 00001

DASS RFP

Questions & Answers

1. Reference: Section 5.15.2(a), page 5-8

Question: The Proposal Arrangement Table is limited to two Excel files for Volume III Price

Proposal. Section 5.15.3.3(d) states Offeror are to “Explain in detail all pricing and estimating techniques”, “Disclose the basis of all projections, rates, ratios, percentages, and factors”, “Include a narrative portion that explains all judgmental elements.” These requirements indicate a Cost Narrative is required to explain wages, application of indirect burden rates, and other factors used to develop our pricing. Does the Government require a Cost Narrative for Volume

III?

Answer: Offerors are permitted to include narrative information in a Word document as may be necessary to provide information requested by the RFP in Volume III. The page limitations prescribed for Volume III in the table at 5.15.2 (a) allows for additional material.

2. Reference: Attachment 5, EPM, FBR worksheet

Question: Cell B62, B105, B148, and B191 are titled “Temporary”, but cell B18 is not. Did the

Government intend for the word “Temporary” to be included in the referenced cells?

Answer: The word “Temporary” should not have been included in cells B62, B105, B148, and

B191. The Fully Burdened Rates (FBR) template will be updated to remove the word

“Temporary” from cells B62, B105, B148, and B191.

3. Reference: Section 1.4, page 1-1; Attachment 4.12

Question: The Period of Performance ending date of 9/30/2025 in Section 1.4 conflicts with the ending date of 10/31/2025 in Attachment 4.12. Would the Government please clarify the PoP ending date?

Answer: RFP Section 1.4, Period of Performance will be changed to October 31, 2025.

4. Reference: Section 3.1(c)(1), 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers, page 3-6

Question: On 10/31/2019, President Trump revoked Executive Order 13495, which required successor federal contractors to offer a “right of first refusal” of employment to certain service employees who worked on predecessor contracts. While most contractors hire from the incumbent workforce, the revocation of EO 13495 provides flexibility in workforce management and/or staffing decisions. Will the Government please remove FAR 52.222-17 from the RFP and subsequent contract?

Answer: The Government will not amend the solicitation to remove the clause at this time as the

Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) has not yet been issued. The contract will not include the clause if the FAC is issued.

5. Reference: Section 3.1(c)(2), 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards, and Section

3.1(c)(7), 52.222-53 Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards, page

3-6

Question: A conflict exists by incorporation of both clauses in the RFP. Did the Government intend to include both of these clauses in the RFP?

Answer: The Service Contract Act clause will apply. FAR 52.222-53 Exemption from

Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards will be removed from the RFP.

6. Reference: 5.15.3.2 Past Performance; Page 5-13

Question: Will an offeror that provides 3 Past Performance examples be rated at the same level as an offeror that provides 5 Past Performance examples? In other words, will 3 very strong Past

Performance examples give the same level of confidence as 5 strong to very strong examples?

Answer: Each offeror will be evaluated based on information submitted. The evaluation team will evaluate past performance using performance information submitted by the Offeror, respondents to the questionnaire, and performance information independently obtained by the

Government in accordance with RFP Section 6.1.2, Past Performance Volume II. The evaluation team will then assign Offerors one of the confidence assessment rating identified in

RFP Section 6.1.2.

7. Reference: 5.15.3.2 Past Performance – Volume II, page 5-11

Question: We assume that the majority JV partner can provide all five past performance references. Please confirm.

Answer: Reference RFP Section 5.15.3.2(d).

8. Reference: 5.15.3.1 (b) Management Plan/Staffing Plan, page 5-10

Question: If the Offeror’s intent is to staff the contract with a mixture of incumbent and non-incumbent personnel, the plan shall identify the percentage for each source. Will the proposed percentage of incumbent/non-incumbent personnel be evaluated?

Answer: The Staffing Plan is a subset of the Management Plan and in accordance with RFP

Section 6.1.1.(c)(2), 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.

9. Reference: RFP 5.15.2, page 5-8

Question: Please clarify the instruction to "Offerors shall clearly mark and identify each of the pages subject to the page limitations." Is it the Government's intent that each page include a statement that it is included in the page count? Or is a sequential page numbering system sufficient? If a statement is required, please consider removing this requirement due to the amount of space it will take within each limited section.

Answer: All pages shall be numbered sequentially within each volume.

10. Reference: RFP, 5.15.3.3, page 5-13

Question: Instruction numbers 3 - 7 require detailed narrative descriptions. Currently, Volume

III Price Proposal is limited to the Excel spreadsheets. May Offerors submit a narrative volume in Word format to address these instructions, including the "description of the proposed profit structure" as required in Attachment 5 – EPM Instructions?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 1.

11. Reference: RFP 5.16, page 5-15

Question: Should the required Financial Institution Letter be included in Volume IV Model

Contract?

Answer: Include letter(s) from Offeror’s financial institution(s) with Volume I.

12. Reference: Attachment 5 – EPM Instructions

Question: 1) Instructions state: "Provide a description of the proposed profit structure." Please clarify what information the Government is requesting in this description. 2) Is this explanation to be provided in the EPM, or can this be provided in a narrative Pricing Volume in Word format?

13. Reference: Attachment 5 – EPM Instructions, 2. Summary Price Template (SPT)

Question: The following instructions appear to be a mix of two separate sentences. Please provide the full two sentences. – "If appropriate, and in accordance with the Offeror’s

Accounting System and Accounting Policies, an indirect rate (E.g. G&A rate), and profit may be applied to the travel cost Included in the template are three exempt labor categories, Program

Manager, Supervisor, and Training Specialist."

Answer: The sentence will be changed to read: If appropriate, and in accordance with the

Offeror’s Accounting System and Accounting Policies, an indirect rate (E.g. G&A rate), and profit may be applied to the travel cost. Included in the template are three exempt labor categories, Program Manager, Supervisor, and Training Specialist."

14. Reference: Attachment 5 – EPM Instructions, 4. Compensation Template (b): FRINGE

BENEFITS ANALYSIS OF COMPENSATION PACKAGE – Contract Year 1: TC(b)

Question: The instructions state: "A separate template (TC(c)) shall be completed for exempt, non-exempt nonunion, and non-exempt union direct labor." Please confirm the correct template is the tab titled "TC(b)".

Answer: The sentence will be changed to read (TC(b)).

15. Reference: Attachment 5 – EPM Instructions, Workbook Acronyms

Question: The instructions provide the naming convention for the worksheet tabs within the

EPM workbook. The example given is "SPT-ABC.xls". Is it the government's intent for each worksheet tab to be saved as a separate .xls workbook?

Answer: Reference Attachment 5 – EPM Instructions, Workbook Acronyms. The Offeror shall use the template acronyms in naming individual worksheets/tabs within the Excel file/workbook.

16. Reference: RFP 5.15.3.2 (b) and 6.1.2, pages 5-11 and 6-2

Question: Successful Offerors have to receive a rating of "Very High Confidence" in the past performance evaluation to be considered for award, yet the government is only allowing for a 1 page "Self-Evaluation" per performance reference. Would the government consider increasing the page limit to allow for a more detailed description of comparable work considering the high importance of the past performance references?

Answer: Self-Assessment page limitations are as identified at RFP Section 5.15.3.2 (b), Self-

Assessment – Five Relevant/Pertinent References.

17. Reference: NASA DASS Answers to Draft RFP questions

Question: Could the government review the process of conforming the "Administrative

Assistant" within the WDs to the skill levels identified for Admin, Admin I, and Admin II, as addressed in answer #129 from the published Industry Questions/Answers?

Answer: A conformance is not necessary.

18. Reference: PWS 2.5 and DASS DRD 2

Question: Will the incumbent contractor be required to provide the current "How To" Resource

Guides during Phase-In?

Answer: No. The DASS contractor shall comply with DRD-2, DASS How-to Resources Guide.

19. Reference: Attachment 4.10

Question: Attachment 4.10 (Installation-Accountable Government Property (NFS1852.245-71)

Attachment to Section 2, Item 2.A.14 of the RFP) does not seem to be a complete document;

reference the document begins with "2.A.14.c(3) continued". Can the Gov't provide the complete document?

Answer: Reference RFP Section 2.A.14.(c)(3), Property.

20. Reference: 5.15.3.3.a; 5.15.3.3.b; Page 5-13 and 5-14

Question: The price proposal instructions state that the price proposal shall consist of: 1)

Attachment 4.12 – Fully Burdened Rates IDIQ Pricing Table; 2) Phase-in price; and 3)

Attachment 5 – Excel Pricing Model (EPM). Further instructions note that a suitable price proposal should include certain explanations, e.g. detail pricing and estimating techniques, judgmental elements of price projections and profit policies, and others. Please confirm that a narrative submission is acceptable in the price proposal in addition to the three pricing items listed earlier.

21. Reference: 5.16; Page 5-15

Question: Should the financial institution letters be included in the price volume? If not, please advise which volume should include the financial institution letter.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 11.

22. Reference: Past Performance Questionnaire; Page 1

Question: The Government’s answer to Question 155 from the Q&A indicated that the technical performance section of the PPQ had been revised, however, there are not any changes to this section in the PPQ provided with the RFP. Does the Government intend to rename the column header on the PPQ so it makes sense for rows 8-14?

Answer: Reference the submission requirements at RFP Section 5.15.3.2, Past Performance

Volume II, in the Final RFP.

23. Reference: 5.15.3.2.b; Page 5-11

Question: For the Self-Assessment of Relevant/Pertinent References, are contractors allowed to utilize all five pages if submitting fewer than five contracts?

Answer: No. Reference RFP Section 5.15.3.2(b), Self-Assessment – Five Relevant/Pertinent

References.

24. Reference: 2.A.2 52.216-18 ORDERING (OCT 1995); Page 2-3

Question: Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the schedule. Such orders may be issued from November 1, 2020 through October 31,2025. This appears to be outside POP. Please confirm.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 3.

25. Reference: 5.15.2; Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, And Due Date, page 5-

Question: Are PDF files acceptable for submission? Specifically, for submission for Volumes I, II, & IV.

Answer: Reference RFP Section 5.15.2 Proposal Arrangement, Page limitations, Copies, and

Due Date.

26. Reference: Section 2.A NASA FAR Supplement Clause 1852.228.75, page 2-1

Question: Regarding Minimum Insurance Coverage, will this be a requirement for this engagement? (e) When aircraft are used in connection with performing the contract, aircraft public and passenger liability insurance of at least $200,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability, and $200,000 per occurrence for property damage. Coverage for passenger liability bodily injury shall be at least $200,000 multiplied by the number of seats or passengers, whichever is greater.

Answer: Offerors shall comply with NFS 1852.228-75 Minimum Insurance Coverage.

27. Reference: Section 6.2, page 6-4

Question: How many awards does the government plan on awarding?

Answer: The DASS procurement is a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) procurement.

28. Reference: Section 5.15.3.2, page 5-11

Question: Will the government consider removing the $4 million minimum for past performance references?

Answer: No. The Government’s past performance requirement is identified at RFP Section

5.15.3.2 Past Performance Volume II.

29. Reference: Attachment 5 EPM

Question: How many FTEs are providing this support now?

Answer: Reference the summary Price Template (SPT) tab at Attachment 5, Excel Pricing

Model (EPM).

30. Reference: Attachment 4.12

Question: To ensure conformity of price proposals, would the government consider providing the Occupation Codes per the applicable Wage Determination and/or GS equivalent for the labor categories outlined in RFP Attachment 4.12?

Answer: Reference updates to RFP Attachment 4.17, Historical Pricing Data.

31. Reference: Reference is made to Section 5.15.3.2, Sub-Section (a) and (a.2), page 5-11

Question: Reference is made to Section 5.15.3.2 (Past Performance), Sub-Section (a) and (a.2), wherein the Government states, that “the contract value (provided) to substantiate contractor

'past performance' shall be contracts over $4M". Offerors must assume that the government's intent here is to establish a framework to measure experiential qualification(s) by “contract scale” relative to NASA’s expected requirement. Typically, the government uses this metric in a construct which anticipates a Base Year and 4 Option Years, (equivalent to $800K/per year), as a baseline as opposed to, for reference, a Single Base year of $4M. It follows that there are many levels of “scale” between these positions. For example, a contractor could execute a contract where they provide administrative support services using a Base Year with 2 Option Years valued at $1.2M per year which would only have a $3.6M total contract value, but would actually be 50% larger by scale per (operating) year. This framework would punish (rate lower) the experience of the contractor with the superior scale simply because of the shorter contract period.

Accordingly, and given the government's desire to gain accurate measures of contractor experience and operational scale, would the government be willing to accept past performance references with a contract value of over $4M total or greater than $800K per year?

Answer: Reference the Government’s requirement at RFP Section 5.15.3.2 Past Performance

Volume II.

32. Reference: Section 6.2 – PPTO evaluation, page 6-4

Question: The evaluation methodology states that there will be an “integrated best value” trade-off for three “Very High Level of Confidence” responses, however, there are no explanations of what the trade-off would be. If three responses are “Very High Level of Confidence,” what would be the rationale for why the lowest price proposal would not be selected for award. The

RFP does not define any criteria for selecting a higher priced offer, but only states that the

Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced offeror.

Answer: As stated in RFP Section 6.2 Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) Evaluation

Methodology, if the first three (3) Offerors are assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” the evaluation will be complete and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) proceeds with an integrated best value assessment of all evaluated offers.

The question states the evaluation methodology provides no explanations of what the trade-off would be. Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) provides for the ability to trade-off between price and past performance. As stated is section 6.2 the Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced Offeror if a lower priced Offeror has a lower or equal performance confidence assessment rating.

The agency’s adjectival rating as described in levels of confidence represent an integrated assessment of (1) the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance and (2) the recent and relevant performance of any major subcontractor(s) whose efforts will significantly influence performance of the contract. The agency adjectival ratings are guides to intelligent decision making; the qualitative information underlying those ratings is information the source selection official considers, in addition to ratings, to enable them to determine whether and to what extent meaningful difference exist between proposals. Proposals with the same adjectival ratings are not necessarily of equal quality. The source selection official may consider specific advantages that make one proposal of higher quality than another in determining that an offeror represents the best value for the Government.

33. Reference: DASS Draft RFP Questions 129, 130, 131, Attachment 4.8, and Attachment 5

EPM SPT

Question: Since the SOW does not provide details sufficient to determine the LR/LS levels in the Directory of Occupations guidelines, we are assuming that the Government has mapped the

WYE’s listed for the standard labor categories according to the LR/LS level table. Thus, the

Secretary I SLC would map to the Secretary I Title in the Directory of Occupations and Wage

Determination Table. Likewise, the Secretary II and Administrative Assistants would map to

Secretary II and Administrative Assistant title respectively. Can the Government confirm this assumption?

Answer: Correct. All positions on DASS map to either Secretary 01310 SLC or Administrative

Assistant 01020 SLC.

34. Reference: DASS Draft RFP Question 138 and Attachment 5 EPM

Question: The Government states that a consolidate fringe rate is preferred. However, with the

Wage Determination, a fixed Health and Welfare cost creates a variance in fringe rate based on the WD Minimum wage. For example, the H&W rate represents a 27.6% factor for an SSC

Secretary I vs. 18.8% for an SSC Administrative Assistant. For pricing positions where the wage determination H&W rate applies, we calculate a fringe rate by position rather than a consolidated fringe rate. Will the Government accept this methodology? Will the Government adversely evaluate a price proposal without a consolidated fringe rate.

Answer: Although the answer to DRAFT RFP question 138 acknowledged that offerors are permitted to consolidate fringe benefits where appropriate, that answer also did not require offerors to propose a consolidated fringe benefit. Each offeror is responsible for proposing fringe benefits that satisfy Department of Labor requirements consistent with its own proposal.

35. Reference: Attachment 5, EPM, Table TC(b)

Question: For SCA positions with the Health and Welfare requirement in the wage determination, the individual elements of Health and Welfare are irrelevant – the bona fide benefits must meet the minimum requirement or be provided as “Cash in Lieu”. Also, the wage determination specifies both the Holidays and the Vacation requirement. The Sick Leave executive order specifies sick leave requirements. Therefore, the fringe benefit portion of the compensation package is prescribed by the Government. Since tab TC(b) is irrelevant for review of the compensation package would the Government remove the requirement to complete this tab for the Non-Exempt Non-Union positions.

Answer: The Government does not plan to remove the requirement for submission of the TC(b) template as part of Volume III Price. Notwithstanding the flexibilities offerors may have in complying with Service Contract Act (SCA) requirements, the RFP at 6.1.1(b) also informs offerors that Volume I will be evaluated for consistency with the Price volume.

36. Reference: Section 5.15.3(B) Staffing Plan, page 5-10

Question: This section states that “Offeror shall include written support to demonstrate that proposed compensation is reasonable.” Since the majority of the staff is subject to the

SCA/SCLS and Wage Determinations, compensation at or above the minimum rate in the wage determination provided by the Department of Labor should be considered reasonable. Would the

Government kindly remove this requirement or provide explanation about what is required to demonstrate reasonableness or how this statement is to be evaluated.

Answer: The Staffing Plan will be evaluated under the Technical Acceptability evaluation factor. Reasonability in the context of the Technical Acceptability evaluation factor is described in Section 6 of the RFP at 6.1.1. This is distinct from price reasonableness. Regarding the requirement for a Staffing Plan, as stated in the RFP, each offeror may propose its own approach to recruiting, training or retaining a qualified workforce.

37. Reference: Section 5.15.39B) Staffing Plan, page 5-10

Question: This section also states that Offeror should state “intent to recognize the “seniority and levels of compensation those personnel currently earn.”

a. By seniority, we are assuming that the Government is referring to crediting years on the contract for purpose of vacation/benefit calculation. Since the majority of the staff is subject to the SCA/SCLS, these acts require successor contractors to credit years of service on the predecessor contracts. Therefore, the offeror has no choice but to recognize years of service. Would the Government please remove this reference to Seniority or define the concern of the Government.

b. A non-incumbent contractor can state that we intend to recognize levels of compensation, however non-incumbent contractors have no data other than the Wage Determination and ranges provided in Attachment 4.8 for current compensation of staff. The WD minimum rate is within or above the range shown in Attachment 4.17 for all positions except the

Administrative Assistant II at JSC. Therefore, it appears that proposing WD rates meets this intent. Would the Government remove the requirement for this statement or provide more information in Sections 5 or 6 on how this statement is to be evaluated.

Answer: Regarding the requirement for a Staffing Plan, as stated in the RFP, each offeror may propose its own approach to recruiting, training or retaining a qualified workforce. All offerors should follow all applicable laws, statutes, regulations in proposing including complying with

DOL WDs. To assist offerors in understanding historical pricing data and seniority information of predecessor contracts, the DASS, RFP Attachment 4.17 provides historical ranges of compensation and seniority for each labor classification. This is the most specific information related to historical actual information that the Government can provide offerors while still safeguarding all personally identifiable information and the sensitive business information of incumbent contractors.

38. Reference: RFP 5.15.3.2(a), page 5-11

Question: We have reviewed the Q&A and found that each past performance contract value should be $4Million and above. We have three past performance with the contract value more than $3.98 and $3.99 Million. Could you please suggest with these past performance would we be eligible to bid and for the award.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 31.

39. Reference: RFP 5.15.2, page 5-8

Question: We would like to request that in order to effectively communicate our Past performance, can the government consider increasing the page limitations to 2 pages for each

Past performance.

Alternatively, as a minimum, 8 pages for the 5 Past performances.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 28.

40. Reference: RFP 5.15.3.2, page 5-11

Question: How does FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) apply to this procurement?

Can Offerors provide (as one of the 5 Past performances), the Past Performance of personnel who will play a key role on DASS?

Answer: The DASS RFP does not identify a requirement for key personnel.

41. Reference: Attachment 4.1 SOW, 1.2 & 2.4, Page 2 & Page 4

Question: Can NASA confirm that the Management Plan to be submitted as a part of Volume 1 is, in fact, what will be incorporated as Attachment 4.14 to the SOW.

Answer: Yes, per Section 4 of the RFP, the Management Plan that is part of Volume 1 will be

Attachment 4.14 to the contract.

42. Reference: DASS RFP, 1.4; as it relates to 2.A.2; and 2.A.4, Page 1-1; Page 2-3; Page 2-4

Question: Please confirm the Section 1.4 period of performance end date. Based upon the relationship of these three sections, it would seem that the Period of Performance in section 1.4 should end on October 31, 2025. If the September 30, 2025 date is correct, could you please confirm the dates in sections 2.A.2) and 2.A.4)

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 3.

43. Reference: DASS RFP, 5.15.2 (b), 5-8

Question: (b) Except for Volume III Price Proposal, all volumes shall be prepared and submitted by using…. Should this more correctly read” (b) Except for Volume III Price Proposal and

Volume IV Model Contract, all volumes….” Can the Model Contract pages be completed and resubmitted in their current Adobe pdf format? Or can the Government provide a Word version of the Model Contract?

Answer: The Model Contract should be completed and provided as a PDF.

44. Reference: DASS RFP and DASS_RFP_Attt_5_ExcelPricing_Model_(EPM), DASS RFP

Section 5.3, 52.215-20 – Alternate 1. AND EPM Worksheet FBR, RFP Page 5-3. EPM

Worksheet FBR

Question: In light of the clause 52.215-20, included in the Model Contract, and its relationship back to FAR Sections 15.403-3, paragraphs b., and c., regarding the requirement for Other than

Certified Cost and Pricing Data in both competitive and commercial items procurements, and also considering FAR 15.402 (3), the amount of cost detail required for the Firm Fixed Price rates seems substantial. Our understanding is that this contract will be awarded based upon adequate price competition and as a commercial items procurement. Additionally, price reasonableness would seem to be achievable from comparisons to other offered unit rates and predecessor contract rates. Please confirm the necessity to supply cost data as detailed in the

EPM worksheet.

Related to the prior data, if all requested data is required, please confirm that the unit price worksheet that will be incorporated into the resultant contract will reflect fully burdened FFP rates and will not specify or dictate indirect rate percentages.

Answer: The government has requested the information necessary to determine the proposed prices are fair and reasonable. Please provide all information as requested per the RFP. The final rates identified in the contract will only be the fully burdened rates, per RFP section 5.15.3.3.

45. Reference: Attachment EPM Instructions, Template Acronyms, Page 1

Question: States title “TC(b) Compensation Template(b) Salaries and Wages- Exempt'; however in the workbook the tab “TC(b) when opened is “Compensation Template (b): Fringe Benefits

Analysis of Compensation Package”. Which is correct? Workbook or instructions? Please provide correction.

Answer: The template acronyms table in Attachment 5 EPM Instructions has been updated to

Compensation Template (b): Fringe Benefits Analysis of Compensation Package.

46. Reference: Attachment EPM Instructions, Sec. 4; Page 7-4

Question: Step four is titled: “Compensation Template (b): Fringe Benefits Analysis of

Compensation Package”; however, in the paragraph it states, “A separate template (TC(c)) shall be completed....” Please provide the correct names of all tabs in the EPM workbook.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 14.

47. Reference: Attachment 4.4_DRD_4_DASS Monthly Management Report

Question: Reporting requirements are outside the scope of a firm fixed price award. We would like to request elimination of weekly references specifically (c) Weekly Rates and (f) Number of

Labor Weeks” as invoicing period is on a monthly basis. Also, the removal of (j) Total Leave without Pay. Leave without pay is monitored and managed by contractor.

Answer: DRD 4, DASS Monthly Management Report, will remain as written. The information requested in the DRD is necessary to verify accuracy of invoices in order to make payment.

48. Reference: DASS RFP, Sec 5.16, Page 5-15

Question: “Offeror’s proposal shall include a letter from their financial institution on letterhead identifying Offeror’s line of credit...” When Offeror is proposing as Joint Venture would letters of credit from Joint Venture members be acceptable?

Answer: A letter for a Joint Venture member from their financial institution is acceptable.

49. Reference: EPM Workbook, Tab FBR, Column AD

Question: Column titled “Composite Prime & Sub FBR/hr.” Q: Are these the rates that will ultimately end up in Attachment 4.12_Fully Burdened Rates IDIQ Pricing Table?

Answer: Yes, the rates identified in Attachment 4.12 Fully Burdened Rates IDIQ Pricing Table should match the rates in the EPM Workbook, Tab FBR.

50. Question: If the government begins evaluation with the three lowest priced, technically acceptable bids, proposers will bid the minimum SCA wage determination rates in order to remain competitive. In order to encourage incumbent retention and contract performance continuity, would NASA consider increasing the number of lowest bids evaluated based on anticipated number of offers received?

Answer: The evaluation methodology remains unchanged. Past performance is significantly more important than price. A range of the currently paid rates was provided in the RFP as

Attachment 4.17 Historical Pricing Data.

51. Question: For the 2 subcontractors past performance evaluations, does the subcontractor have to be a major subcontractor?

Answer: Yes. Specific guidance was provided in the RFP at 5.15.3.2.

52. Question: There have been significant changes in Past Performance and Pricing requirements since the Draft RFP, page limits, content, evaluation details. Please give another 2 weeks for proposal submission to get adequate good proposals.

Answer: Currently, the proposal submission date remains the same.

53. Question: Will the government reduce the number of Past Performance requirements from 5 to 4?

Answer: There is no minimum established, only a maximum.

54. Question: How will background check be handled for short duration employees?

Answer: Reference RFP 2.A.16, JSC 52.204-92 NASA Security Program and Identification of

Employees (AUG 2018) and Attachment 4.11 PIV.

55. Question: Will NASA consider performing any work (particularly ADHOC/Temporary) off-site at offerors Top Secret Facility?

Answer: All work is to be performed at the designated site per the RFP.

56. Question: Is it a requirement to have a Supervisor at each physical location?

Answer: Each offeror will determine and propose their staffing plan.

57. Question: Does NASA have an expectation of what percent of incumbent population will be retained?

Answer: Each offeror should propose their own methodology.

58. Question: Is there an expectation on NASA’s part that incumbent staff that are kept retain net credit service date at NASA with regard to benefits?

Answer: The SCA Wage Determination states, “Length of service includes the whole span of continuous service with the present contractor or successor wherever employed and with the predecessor contractors in the performance of similar work at the same Federal facility. (Reg. 29

CFR 4.173).

59. Question: Will SCA minimum rates be considered “fair and reasonable” given the government desires to retain incumbent personnel.

Answer: The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable based on FAR 15.404-1.

60. Question: How is evaluation best value if the government doesn’t evaluate all offerors past performance submissions? Past Performance is supposed to be rated “significantly” higher then price, but the stated evaluation process short cuts the analysis. This seems like LPTA.

Answer: LPTA does not have a trade-off process. The best value trade-off analysis for this requirement will be performed in accordance with the evaluation criteria of Section 6 of the RFP.

61. Question: If employees are located at different locations, the rates may vary. Would NASA require pricing at the center level?

Answer: Yes. IAW with Attachment 4.12 Fully Burdened Labor Rates IDIQ Pricing Table and

Attachment 5 EPM, rates are requested for all locations.

62. Question: If an offeror submits 3 past performances that are rated ‘Very High level of confidence’ as opposed to an offeror that submits 5 past performances evaluations which are rated ‘very high’. Will both offerors be rated the same or 4 high will be favored?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 6.

63. Question: Are there any union employees at SSC or JSC?

Answer: There are union employees located at both SSC and JSC. However, there are no union employees performing this requirement.

64. Question: Would you share who is part of the SEB and who is the lead?

Answer: No, individual names will not be provided. Unless otherwise specified, all questions must be submitted in writing to Rachel Clayton at rachel.clayton@nasa.gov per the RFP.

65. Question: For past performance evaluations will multiple submissions be combined for an overall numerical average score?

Answer: Overall numerical average scores will not be assigned. The evaluation team will review submission and provide an overall level of confidence for each Offeror IAW the RFP.

66. Question: Does the technically acceptable technical approach feed strengths into the best value tradeoff?

Answer: No. The Technical Acceptability factor is pass/fail. Per the RFP, the best value tradeoff is solely between price and past performance.

67. Question: Will the past performance assessment of “very high level of confidence” be based on an integrated assessment of all submitted past performances?

Answer: Yes. Per the RFP 6.1.2, “The rating represents an integrated assessment of (1) the

Offeror’s recent and relevant performance and (2) the recent and relevant performance of any major subcontractor(s) whose efforts will significantly influence performance of the contract.”

68. Question: The contract value for past performance needs to be greater than $4M. Please confirm that it is the Government Contract value, not offerors share of the subcontractor. If

Prime has 3 prime past performances, why can’t they use all 5 pages?

Answer: The contract value for past performance remains at $4M per the RFP. If the Offeror’s share of a contract meets the $4M minimum it can be used as a past performance reference. No, offerors must follow the directions per the RFP when submitting past performance references.

Reference the answer to Question # 80.

69. Question: From your experience what percent fail technical acceptance?

Answer: Each RFP is unique and failure rates of technical proposals are not tracked.

mailto:rachel.clayton@nasa.gov

70. Question: Can you please update the Excel price sheet to include fringe, G&A, overhead and fee. Also standardize the worksheet.

Answer: The Excel file has been standardized as much as possible but as provided did not include a separate column for a fringe rate in addition to an overhead rate and G&A rate. Should an Offeror propose additional burdens, then the appropriate columns shall be added to accommodate the additional burdens. Offerors should propose all aspects, including pricing, according to their unique approach being proposed. Also reference the answer to Questions #1, #34 and #35.

71. Question: Can a major subcontractor bid with multiple Prime?

Answer: This is at the discretion of the Offeror.

72. Question: You have asked price from the major subcontractor. How will the agency utilize the subcontractor price?

Answer: As stated in RFP Attachment 5, EPM Instructions, section D.1, for major subcontractors over $500,000, “The subcontractor’s fully-burdened rates are to be provided to the Prime Offeror for inclusion into the development of the Prime Offeror’s composite fully-burdened rates.” This other than certified cost or pricing data will be analyzed as part of the price analysis per FAR 15.404-1 when offerors propose major subcontracts.

73. Question: Will the gov’t inform offerors they are still competitive after technical evaluations and when they are one of three down selects? Or eliminated from competition?

Answer: Notifications will be made upon contract award.

74. Question: Section 5.15.3.1b, please clarify the requirement for the training plan. Is this (a) a general template for how we build and audit training or (b) a matrix of specific training requirements per SOW administrative positions?

Answer: See SOW Section 2.5 for instructions.

75. Question: On 10/31/2019 President Trump canceled Executive Order 13495 for SCA first right of refusal. Please clarify the reason to retain FAR 52.222-17 for SCA First Right of

Refusal.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 4.

76. Question: For 8(a) Joint Ventures, is it acceptable for the managing venture to submit all past performance citations? The RFP states that for new joint ventures both JV partners may submit past performance citations.

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 7.

77. Question: How will the Government evaluate a Past Performance that is not $4M in value?

Is it negative or neutral? Is the $4M per year or for 5 years?

Answer: Past Performance less than the $4M threshold will not be considered relevant. The $4M threshold is the total contract value, regardless of the duration of the contract.

78. Question: Can an offeror propose a 500K past performance that ran 3 months? This past performance annualizes to $2M year and $10M over 5 years. Follow-on question: Will there be annualization?

Answer: Refer the answer to Question # 77.

79. Question: For proposal submission: Will someone be available over the weekend should there be issues with LFT?

Answer: No, there will be no support available on the weekend. Offerors shall follow-up with the Government on the next business day if they experience problems. NASA will acknowledge receipt of all proposals.

80. Question: With Past Performance being most important would the Government allow additional pages for past performance details of performance?

Answer: Considering the significance of past performance in the evaluation, Offerors will be allowed to submit two pages for each past performance reference.

81. Question: Will you allow time for clarifying question after Q&A amendment is released?

(Assuming it will be after March 10)

Answer: Any questions received after the deadline of March 10, 2020 will be accepted and considered. However, the Government may not post responses.

82. Question: Will the Government please provide the current number of supervisors currently supporting the Johnson contract?

Answer: Reference Attachment 4.17 Historical Pricing Data.

83. Question: If PP is significantly more important than price, why is the Government ranking offerors by price before considering PP?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 32.

84. Question: Will the Government perform a price evaluation/adjustment prior to ranking by price?

Answer: There will be no adjustments made unless there is a discrepancy in pricing as described in the RFP at 6.1.3(b).

85. Question: Would NASA consider performing a price evaluation on all bidders that have a very high confidence rating prior to ranking bidders by price? This would ensure a level playing field for price.

Answer: The Government will evaluate offers IAW the RFP.

86. Question: Can the Government please validate that the fully-burdened rates are to be provided in Attachment 4.11 of the RFP, which is the PIV document?

Answer: Reference to Attachment 4.11 in Attachment 5 EPM Instructions is erroneous. The reference will be changed to Attachment 4.12 via an Amendment.

87. Question: Will the Government please update the WDs listed in Section 4.

Answer: The most current Wage Determination are included in the RFP and will be updated accordingly for contract award.

88. Question: Will the Government allow offerors to submit the Cost Narrative in a Word Doc.

Format.

89. Question: How is the government going to evaluate price realism?

Answer: Price realism will not be performed.

90. Question: Does the Government have its own Government Independent Pricing Assessment?

How was it determined?

Answer: Yes, the Government has its own Independent Government Estimate (IGE). However, it is internal to the Government.

91. Question: Why did consolidate the two contracts? What do you want to get from this?

Answer: It was determined to be in the best interest of the government to consolidate these contracts.

92. Question: How will the USG view and grade innovations and certifications as part of best value?

Answer: Innovations and/or certifications will not be considered as part of the best value analysis.

93. Question: Will the government provide recurrent staffing by position, labor category, numbers to ensure realism and balance?

Answer: This information is provided in the EPM workbook on the SPT Tab.

94. Question: How will the government determine an offerors pricing is not “low balled”?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 59.

95. Question: Will the USG provide the number of supervisors and sections?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 37.

96. Question: What is your integrated assessment approach review for best value?

Answer: Reference RFP Section 6.

97. Question: Will the USG increase page count for past performance from 1 page to 2 pages for each past performance for a total of 10 pages?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 80.

98. Question: There is no mention of acronym lists in the RFP Are acronyms lists excluded from page limitations?

Answer: Acronym lists will be allowed and are excluded from page limitations.

99. Question: There are no mention of cover pages in the RFP. Are cover pages excluded from page limitations if included?

Answer: Reference RFP Section 5.15.2 (a).

100. Question: Reference 5.16, page 5-15, Offerors proposal shall include a letter from their financial institution on letterhead, identifying offeror’s line of credit and available balance.

There are no instructions in the RFP where they will count towards page limitations and do the count towards page limitations?

Answer: Per RFP Section 5.15.2 (g), Letters from Financial Institutions are not included in the page limitations.

101. Question: DRD DASS-8 paragraph 11(a), Instructions state, “smooth Phase-in consistent with maintaining efficient continuity of services for the 45-day period prior to Task Order Start.

Should Task Order be change to contract?

Answer: Phase-in will begin 45 days prior to commencement of performance. The DRD will be updated accordingly to reflect this change.

102. Question: Past Performance Volume II, paragraph 5.15.3.2 Reference describes information to be submitted in this volume. However, there is no allowance for a short introduction to introduce the entity submitting this proposal. This information is important to provide the evaluator the information that follows. Will the Government allow a one page introduction to the volume?

Answer: The RFP has been updated to include a one-page introduction to Volume II.

103. Question: DRD DASS-8, Phase-in Plan, paragraph 1) (d). This instruction requires

“approach for ensuring completion of badging requirements and personnel security clearances to ensure employees are cleared for access to each center and its associated facilities, as required, prior to contract start.” There is no mention anywhere else in the RFP of positions requiring security clearances. Do any positions require security clearances? If not, we recommend the

DRD be changed to delete the security clearance requirement.

Answer: Security clearances are not currently required to perform this work.

104. Question: Will the sign-in sheet be posted to beta.SAM

Answer: Yes. The sign-in sheet for the Pre-Proposal Conference will be posted.

105. Question: If you have more than one major subcontractor can you provided two past performance examples each or only two for all subcontractors?

Answer: See RFP Section 5.15.3.2 for submission requirements.

106. Question: What is the role of the part-time employee?

Answer: The general scope of work or duties performed by a part-time employee would be the same as those performed by a full-time employee, e.g., a part-time Secretary 2 performs the same duties as a full-time Secretary 2, just works fewer hours per week on a permanent part-time basis.

107. Question: Will the Government consider accepting and grading past performances older than 3 years old?

Answer: Reference RFP Section 5.15.3.2 (a). Past performance older than 3 years will not be considered relevant.

108. Question: During a recent industry day there was mention of consolidating product service lines throughout the Agency. Will this requirement be affected by the consolidation now or throughout the life of the contract? If so will there be a possibility of individuals needing a security clearance (i.e. public trust, secret, TS) in the future?

Answer: Impacts to this requirement are unknown at this time.

109. Question: Will the government consider commercial past performance?

Answer: Commercial past performance will be considered.

110. Question: Will the Government consider a minimum price differential between low price 3 and 4? I.e. if the difference between 3 and 4 is less than $100 both would have PP evaluated?

Answer: No. Methodology will be conducted IAW RFP Section 6.

111. Question: What subjective factors would the SSA use to determine Best Value of the 3 lowest price/very high level of confidence offerors?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 32.

112. Question: EPM Instructions and template indicates columns can be added for more subs, but is it acceptable to delete columns if you only have one sub?

Answer: Utilize the columns necessary to complete EPM Worksheet.

113. Question: How are offerors supposed to determine supervisors if we haven’t been provided the organizations construct of each center?

Answer: Center Organizational Charts have been provided in the Pre-Proposal Conference slides. Additionally, the EPM worksheet identifies the number FTE’s, per labor category per site.

114. Question:

The evaluation criteria currently is:

I. Accept/Fail based on Technical

II. Lowest three price offers technically acceptable

III. Very high confidence based on past performance — recommend: Very high confidence based on past performance and management approach in technical

This helps the new 8(a) organizations who have good technical and management approaches to enter the Federal market — this I feel is the true intent of the 8(a) program.

Answer: The Government will utilize the evaluation criteria and methodology identified in RFP

Section 6, Evaluation Factors For Award.

115. Reference RFP 5.9 Paragraph (b)(12) Submission of Offers Paragraph (b):

Question: Will the government consider extending the proposal submission date one week to

4:00 p.m. Central Time on March 31, 2020 to allow sufficient time to analyze the information gathered at the March 5th Pre-proposal Conference, and Answers submitted to the Questions on

March 10th?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 52.

116. Reference 5.15.3.2 Past Performance - Volume II Paragraph (d):

Question: For a newly formed 8(a) business entity, will the government consider the past performance data of the predecessor business entity, if the executive of the newly formed 8(a) business entity was previously employed by the predecessor business entity, and was totally responsible for the program management for the past performance under consideration? Also, the newly formed 8(a) business entity has formed an SBA approved small business mentor protégé agreement (SB MPA) with the predecessor business entity.

Answer: Reference RFP Section 5.15.3.2 (d).

117. Question: Executive Order 13495 providing the Right of First Refusal to contractor personnel was rescinded via follow on Executive Order issued on 31 October 2019. However, 52.207-3, MAY 2006, which covers the Right of First Refusal, is contained within the cited FAR clauses on DASS RFP, Section 2 – Commercial Terms and Conditions page 2-2. Is FAR 52.207-

3 still applicable under this solicitation?

Answer: Reference the answer to Question # 4.

118. Question: If right of first refusal is applicable, will the Government provide a list of contract service anniversary dates and current wage data for all current staff in order for offerors to properly account for PTO accrual rates in concert with SCA – Area Wage Determination requirements?

Answer: Reference DASS RFP Attachment 4.17 Historical Pricing Data.

119. Question: Furthermore, the provision of the employee seniority list with contract service dates and existing wage rates is critical information if offerors are to satisfy the Government’s requirement within the Staffing Plan component of the Volume 1 – Management Plan. In order for offerors to evaluate a staffing approach that incorporates retaining incumbent personnel, staffing with all new personnel, or a blend of both, offerors would need to know what the pay structure and benefits are of the incumbent personnel in order to evaluate if it is possible to recognize the current wages and benefits of those personnel and remain in compliance with referenced Area Wage Determinations. Will the government provide the current wage and benefit information of personnel currently working on the project sites so offerors can evaluate conformed wages of incumbent personnel?

Answer: Reference DASS RFP Attachment 4.17 Historical Pricing Data and the answer to

Question # 37.

120. Question: Section 5.15.2 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations,…