10_80SSC024R0001-0003_MCASS_RFP_QandA.pdf

80SSC024R0001-0003 MCASS QUESTIONS and ANSWERS 1

No. Document Title Page Section/ Paragraph

Narrative from RFP (if applicable) Question Government Response Change to

RFP (Y/N)

1 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-17 5.15.3.2(f), 5.15.3.2(g) - Past Performance Volume II

N/A Will the government accept CPARs in lieu of PPQs? Response provided in DRFP Q & A #79 N

2 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-12 15.5.2(a) - Proposal arrangement, page limitations, copies, and due date;

5.15.3.2(c) - Past Performance Volume II

N/A In 5.15.3.2(c), the government is asking for offerors to submit relevant/pertinent past/current performance for no more than five contracts. However in section 5.15.2(a) the government does not provide a page count for the individual references. Can the government please clarify if a narrative is required for the past performance references?

For narrative requirements reference the RFP Section 5.15.3.2 a) Cover Letter. N

3 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-12 & 5-15 5.15.2(a) -Proposal arrangement, page limitations, copies, and due dates;

5.15.3.2(a) - Past Performance Volume - II

N/A In 5.15.2(a) the government allocates 3 pages for Volume II - Past Performance for the cover page, however in 5.15.3.2(a) the government notes the page count as 2 pages. Can the government please clarify how many pages are allotted for the cover letter/introduction for the Past Performance Volume?

See Response to Q & A # 47 posted in Amendment 0002 N

4 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-15 5.15.3.2(b) - Past Performance Volume II

N/A Can the government please clarify if the references in the past performance matrix (attachment 5.2) can be the same projects as our relevant references provided in the volume?

Yes. The Past Performance Matrix should identify the reference for which the Offeror has requested a PPQ to completed and submitted to the Government.

N

5 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-16 5.15.3.2(e) - Past Performance Volume II

"For newly formed businesses (including Joint Ventures) having little or no past performance data of the predecessor business entity (or in the case of joint ventures, the past performance of each joint participant)".

Our team is bidding as a funded Joint Venture who has been awarded a contract -can the government please confirm we can use past performance from individual joint venture members alongside our JV contract?

Yes, provided you comply with the requirements of paragraph 5.15.3.2(e) in the RFP. N

6 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-16 5.15.3.2(c) - Past Performance Volume II

N/A Can the government please provide a definition for a major subcontractor? Major Subcontract is defined in Attachment 4.12, Glossary as "A company that the Contractor anticipates providing at least 10% of the contract value in support of the Performance Work Statement effort."

N

7 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-16 5.15.3.2(c) - Past Performance Volume II

N/A Amendment 1 released 7/24/2024, now defines relevant/pertinent size as projects having an annual value equal to or greater than $8M. As this solicitation is an 8(a) set-aside with a NAICS code 561110 size standard of $12.5M, we believe that requiring past performance with an annual value of $8M is unreasonable for the majority of 8(a) companies. Many 8(a) contractors, even those nearing the upper limit of the size standard, typically do not have past performance contracts of this magnitude.

Would the government consider modifying this requirement to better align with the capabilities of 8(a) contractors? Specifically, we suggest either:

1. Adjusting the requirement to a total contract value of $8M: This would allow for a broader range of relevant past performance experiences, considering multi-year contracts that smaller companies can realistically handle.

2. Reducing the annual value requirement to $2M: This adjustment would more accurately reflect the typical contract sizes managed by 8(a) contractors and promote a more inclusive competitive environment.

We believe these modifications will help ensure that capable and qualified 8(a) companies are not inadvertently excluded from consideration, thereby supporting the goals of the 8(a) program to foster small business growth and competition.

See Response to Q & A #1 posted in Amendment 0002 N

8 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-16, 5-17 5.15.3.2(e) - Past Performance Volume II

N/A Can the government please confirm as long as our 8(a) Mentor Protege Joint Venture Agreement is approved by the SBA, we are eligible for award? In a final ruling, issued by the SBA on 4/27/2023, the SBA no longer requires approval for Joint Ventures in competitive awards IAW 13 CFR 124.501(g) and will not review joint venture agreements for compliance for competitive 8(a) awards.

The government cannot confirm eligibility without reviewing the proposal, once we have an apparent successful offeror, the Contracting Officer requests a determination from the SBA District Office (FAR 19.805-2(b)). Per 13 CFR 124.501(g), Where a joint venture is the apparent successful offeror in connection with a competitive 8(a) procurement, the SBA will determine whether the 8(a) partner to the joint venture is eligible for award. I recommend you have questions about their 8(a) Program status they contact your SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS). In addition the government does not cover any proposal preparation cost. Section 5.15.3.2 of the RFP has been updated accordingly in Amendment 0003.

Y

9 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A In attachment 5.4 Excel Pricing Sheet NASA request we provide direct labor hours.

IAW with DOL direct labor hours are those hours directly attributed to the project.?

Direct labor hours are hours worked, excluding all leave hours (vacation, sick, holiday, jury duty, etc)

N

10 N/A N/A N/A N/A For clarification can the government confirm that non direct hours would be the following:

88 hrs (11 Federal holidays) 56 sick hrs Any vacation hours

Yes, the examples provided are correct examples of non direct hours, also commonly referred to as nonproductive hours.

N

11 N/A N/A N/A Can the government confirm direct labor hours will total 1936 hours in the base year (2080- 88)-56

Response provided in DRFP Q & A #115 N

12 N/A N/A N/A N/A For the post award conference can NASA provide the location or if the conference will be held virtually?

Reference the post award conference in CLIN 0001. Offerors will be provided the opportunity to attend the post award conference at Stennis Space Center MS, or attend the conference virtually. CLIN 0001 has been updated in this amendment 0003

Y

13 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A In the excel pricing worksheet, NASA request a dedicated PM in Kennedy. Can the government confirm that this position is not part of the PMO and will require a separate person that is directly billed to Kennedy?

See question 46 and question 22 in Ammendment 0002. Correct. KSC is the only center that currently requires a dedicated PM. This cost for this dedicated PM should not be included in the PMO pricing tab.

N

80SSC024R0001-0003 MCASS QUESTIONS and ANSWERS 2

Paragraph

Narrative from RFP (if applicable) Question Government Response Change to

RFP (Y/N)

14 N/A N/A N/A N/A Can the government accept a site supervisor in lieu of a PM in Kennedy? Offeror's shall propose their own unique approach, to include supervision, in their Management Plan based on the minimum requirements identified in the RFP.

N

15 N/A N/A N/A N/A Will all the sites require a supervisor on site that is attributed to the PMO? Offeror's should propose their own unique approach, to inclde supervision, in their Management Plan based on the minimum requirements identified in the RFP.

N

16 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-14 5.15.3.1 Technical Acceptability

– Volume I, (a) Phase-In Plan

N/A Please confirm that Task Orders will be awarded on a staggered basis versus all Task Orders being awarded simultaneously.

Post-Award Conference and Phase-In Task Orders will be issued seperately. Subsequent Task Orders will be issued by the Centers based on the contract years established in Attachment 4.15 Fully Burdened Rate IDIQ Pricing Table and Attachment 5.4 EPM.

N

17 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A Question: On the Marshall tab, all Total Fully Burdened Labor cells (J20, K32, J48, K58, K71, and K84) are tied to the Kennedy tab rather than calculating the sum. All other sheets simply calculate the total in those cells. Should the cells on the Marshall tab be revised?

Attachment 5.4 EPM has been corrected in Amendment 0003. Y

18 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A Question: On the Marshall tab, in the final table on rows 92-100, the PMO Office column and the Fully Burdened Labor Rate WITH PMO/Profit column have formulas adding together data from empty cells. All other sheets have no calculations in those cells simply calculate the total cost in column J. Should the cells on the Marshall tab be revised?

Attachment 5.4 EPM has been corrected in Amendment 0003. Y

19 6_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Att_4.15_FBR_ IDIQ_Pricing_Table

N/A N/A N/A Question: all locations request labor rates for the same positions except MAF which excludes Administrative Assistant IV. Please confirm that labor rates for Administrative Assistant IV are not required for the MAF location.

This was an omission error. MAF does require pricing for Administrative Assistant IV.

Attachment 4.15 Fully Burdened Rate IDIQ Pricing Table has been updated in Amenement 0003.

Y

20 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A Question: Project Coordinator II is listed as a labor category for KSC, however unlike all other positions listed in all other locations, it has no WYEs. Please confirm that KSC does not need any Project Coordinator II to be priced.

KSC has a requirement for one (1) Project Coordinator II in Attachment 5.4 EPM. There is also a line on the Kennedy Tab of the EPM for a Project Coordiantor III which does not have a requirement at this time and should remain blank.

N

21 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A Please confirm that the $2,500 listed on the “Post Award Conf-Phase-In Price” tab is a set value for the Post Award Conference only and the phase-in costs are at the contractor's discretion.

Correct. The Post-Award Conference will be a fixed price of $2,500 which will be added to the the Offerros proposed Phase-In price.

N

22 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 & 5-15 5.15.2 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Date (a) Proposal Arrangement Table

5.15.3.2 Past Performance -

Volume II a) Cover Letter

N/A Volume II Past Performance Cover Letter/Introductions states the page limit is three (3) pages.

States, “Offerors shall submit a two (2) page cover letter identifying each of the five references provided in the Past Performance Matrix, to include any highlights or information to help determine relevance and pertinence.”

Please confirm that the Cover Letter is limited to three (3) pages.

See Response to Q & A # 47 posted in Amendment 0002 N

23 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A Each location has an NTE value for travel.

Question: Is the NTE provided a yearly allotment or is it to be divided out between the contract years?

The provided NTE value for travel in Attachment 5.4 EPM is a sum for the entire five year period of performance. Any contract related travel must be pre-approved by the appropriate center Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's Representative and will be reimbursed based on actuals.

N

24 N/A N/A N/A N/A There is only 1 labor category on the WD for Administrative Assistant but in the price file we have Administrative Assistant, Administrative Assistant I, Administrative Assistant II, Administrative Assistant III, and Administrative Assistant IV.

Question: Are bidders to place a percentage on top of the rates to account for the increased years experience?

See Response to Q & A # 142 posted in Amendment 0002 N

25 N/A N/A N/A N/A There is only 1 labor category on the WD for Administrative Assistant but in the price file we have Administrative Assistant, Administrative Assistant I, Administrative Assistant II, Administrative Assistant III, and Administrative Assistant IV.

Question: How much of an increase should we use for each level?

See Response to Q & A # 142 posted in Amendment 0002 N

26 N/A N/A N/A N/A NAICS code 561110 With a size standard of $12.5 million dollars, we feel that this is a small dollar value for this magnitude of a contract. Are you desiring to target smaller 8(a) companies with this selection?

Size standards are determined by the Small Business Administration, not NASA. This procurement is being conducted as a competitive, 8(a) set-aside.

N

27 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 6-5 6.2 (b) Step 2: Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) Evaluation Methodology Can you please define the confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” ?

Is this a defined and standard rating?

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Levels are defined in the RFP Section 6.1.2.

N

28 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-16 5.15.3.2( c) Past Performance N/A Can an IDIQ (MAS) be considered a “project” when compiling past performance of the value designated in this instruction ($8M).

Yes, providing it demonstrates $8M annually N

29 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-17 5.15.3.2 (j) Past Performance N/A Will CPARS be accepted as past performance information? If so, do you wish for the offerors to provide this?

Response provided in DRFP Q & A #79 N

30 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-16 5.15.3.2, Past Performance – Volume II, Paragraph c)

N/A We noted that NASA has changed the past performance relevancy requirement with Amendment 1, and unfortunately, this becomes extremely challenging for any firm that is still a small business in the required NAICS 561110 Office Administrative Services $12.5m size standard. A past performance relevancy requirement of $8m annually is very close to the $12.5m NAICS size standard. This in effect eliminates nearly all 8(a) bidders, except perhaps for those in a Mentor Protégé Joint Venture or Alaska Native firms. We believe NASA desires broader competition among potential 8(a) bidders. We request that NASA consider changing the relevancy requirement to $15m total contract value for past performance relevance to better align with the NAICS requirement.

See Response to Q & A #1 posted in Amendment 0002 N

80SSC024R0001-0003 MCASS QUESTIONS and ANSWERS 3

Paragraph

Narrative from RFP (if applicable) Question Government Response Change to

RFP (Y/N)

31 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-16 5.15.3.2, Past Performance – Volume II, Paragraph c)

N/A To assist 8(a) small businesses in strengthening their team, we request that NASA change this requirement as follows: “Offerors shall submit relevant/pertinent past/current performance on no more than three (3) contracts performed by the Offeror’s organization and no more than three (3) contracts performed by the major subcontractor(s) or teaming arrangement. No more than five (5) relevant/pertinent past/current performance contracts may be submitted in total.

If the Offeror is not proposing any subcontractor(s) or teaming arrangements, Offeror may submit five of its own past performance references.”

Past Performance requirements remain unchanged. N

32 N/A N/A N/A N/A What is NASA’s anticipated or potential timeline for Task Orders to be added at sites beyond the first Task Order at KSC?

The initial Task Order will be for Phase-In (including the Post-Award Conference) which will cover all centers. Upon Phase-In completion, all centers will issue a Task Order for their respective centers requirements.

N

33 N/A N/A N/A N/A Is there a scheduled contract transition for other sites or is the transition to MCASS open ended and/or optional for the other sites?

All centers will be transitioned at the same time. See RFP Sections 1.6, 5.15.3.1 and DRD- 9 for all Phase-In requirements.

N

34 N/A N/A N/A N/A Are the other sites besides KSC going to be required to transition to MCASS at some future date and if so, what is the schedule for contract transition?

All centers will be transitioned at the same time. See RFP Sections 1.6, 5.15.3.1 and DRD- 9 for all Phase-In requirements.

N

35 N/A N/A N/A N/A We notice that there are IDIQ values for each site at contract award. Based on this assumption, when does the Government intend to award Task Orders at each site?

The initial Task Order will be for Phase-In (including the Post-Award Conference) which will cover all centers. Upon Phase-In completion, all centers will issue a Task Order for their respective centers requirements.

N

36 N/A N/A N/A N/A During the MCASS Virtual Industry Day, the DASS (Dual Administrative Support Services) Contract was identified as the incumbent contract for the MCASS procurement. Earlier in the process, the CASS II (Center Administrative Support Services) contract had also been mentioned as an incumbent contract. This contract supporting Marchall and Michoud will be active when MCASS is awarded.

Will it be phased out or merged into the MCASS contract?

CASS II is no longer an active contract. The DASS contract currently provides administrative supportive services to both Marshall and Michoud.

N

37 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 5.15.2 N/A Volume Title/Cover Pages are not mentioned in the Solicitation. Will Volume Title/Cover Pages be accepted and not considered part of page limits?

Volume separation pages (Volume I, Volume II..) are not included in the page count, however cover pages are addressed in the solicitation. See the Model Contract, Section

5.15.2 "Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due Date" of the RFP.

N

38 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 & 5-15 5.15.2 &

5.15.3.2 a

Proposal Arrangement Table (Page 5-12) indicates that for Volume II Past Performance the Cover Letter/Introduction is limited to 3 pages.

Would the Government please clarify if Volume II Past Performance is to include a Cover Letter or an Introduction, and what the page limit is?

See the Model Contract, Section 5.15.2 "Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due Date" of the RFP.

N

39 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 & 5-15 5.15.2 Proposal arrangement, a)

5.15.3.2 Past Performance -

Volume II, a)

N/A Volume II Cover Letter – limited to 3 pages.

Cover Letter: Offerors shall submit a two (2) page cover letter

Will the government confirm that the Past Performance cover letter is limited to 3 pages?

See Response to Q & A # 47 posted in Amendment 0002 N

40 4_80SSC024R0001_0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.1, PWS

4.1 pg. 8 of 35 4.1, PWS 2.2 (8) N/A Will the current desk top procedures/manual for each position/LCAT be made available to new contractor for review, use, duplication and publication with required updates at contract award or no later than first day of Phase-In period?

See Response to Q & A # 68 posted in Amendment 0002 N

41 4_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.4 Data Requirements Documents

N/A DRD 10 N/A DRD 10, IT Security Management Plan (Government Furnished Services), defines “Scope” that says Contractor to submit IT Security Management Plan, etc., but page 2 of DRD (page 94 of Attachment 4), under “Contents” includes guidance for contracts that do not contain IT and where IT equipment and support is provided by NASA or another NASA contract, which expressly states that: “Normally an ITSMP is required to be delivered at the beginning of a contract. For “non-IT” contracts it is not required. In its place the following…”. Please confirm MCASS does not contain IT and an IT Security Management Plan (ITSMP) is not required on

MCASS.

An IT Security Management Plan (ITSMP) is not required. N

42 4_80SSC024R0001_0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.1, PWS

4.1 pg. 8 of 35 4.1, PWS 2.2 N/A In order to price our PMO adequately could the Government please provide a workload indicator for the number of TOs issued by each site annually?

Attachment 5.4 EPM provides the ancitipated amount of resources required per center.

Each Center (JSC, KSC, MFSC, and SSC will issue their own task order annually.

N

43 4_80SSC024R0001_0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.1, PWS

4.1 pg. 8 of 35 4.1, PWS 2.2 N/A In order to price our PMO adequately could the Government please provide a workload indicator for the number of SRs issued by each site annually?

SRs are generated annually, to inniate each centers requirements. Attachment 5.4 EPM provides the ancitipated amount of resources required per center.

N

44 4_80SSC024R0001_0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.1, PWS

4.1 pg. 8 of 35 4.1, PWS 2.2 (10) N/A In order to price our PMO adequately could the Government please indicate the attrition/turnover rate for the current contract for each site?

Available information has been provided. Attachment 5.4 EPM provides the ancitipated amount of resources required per center.

N

45 4_80SSC024R0001_0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.1, PWS

4.1 pg. 10 of 35 4.1, PWS 2.6(8) N/A Will the “How to” Resource Guide (DRD-04) be made available to new contractor for review and consideration at contract award or no later than first day of Phase- In period?

See Response to Q & A # 68 posted in Amendment 0002 N

46 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-8 5.9,(d) (d) Immediately after all files have been uploaded and the proposal has been submitted in its entirety, the offeror shall notify Rachel Clayton at the following email address: Rachel.clayton@nasa.gov with a listing of all documents that were submitted via EFSS Box. The offeror shall courtesy copy

(cc) Johnny Hisaw at johnny.m.hisaw@nasa.gov on this communication. If any problems are experienced with the EFSS Box system (e.g., login, file transfer), please contact Rachel Clayton and a cc copy to Johnny Hisaw via e-mail as soon as possible.

Subsection (d) indicates that there may be a possible login for the site provided to upload proposals. We have been able to access the site but would the Government please confirm that there is no pre-registration or login required?

Confirmed. There is no pre-registration or log-in required. Offerors may submit a test document in advance to test the process.

N

47 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

N/A N/A N/A Some of the positions are in New Mexico which requires a gross receipt tax to be applied. How would the Government like to see this tax applied in the pricing workbook?

It is the Offerors responsibility to ensure any applicable indirect cost and profit are included in Markup column of the EPM. The EPM instructions have been updated accordingly in Amendment 0003.

Y

48 4_80SSC024R0001_0001 MCASS Section 4 Attachments, Att. 4.11, PWS Annex

4.1.1 pg 15 of

2.3.9 N/A PWS identifies the need for a contractor “Administrative Officer” (AO) to assist and act “as an alternate POC” for the NASA AO.

Noted. N

49 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 7_80SSC024R0001_MCASS_Attachment 5.4_Excel Pricing Model-rev2

1-1 1.1 N/A The pricing excel spreadsheet and Section 1.1 SCHEDULE OF SERVICES do not match. Specifically, the CLIN 0001 Post-Award Conference/Phase-In and WSTF are not included in the Schedule. Please confirm what the CLINS are.

WSTF positions are included in the Johsnon Tab of the EPM. The sum of cells K26 and K27 in Attachment 5.4 EPM make up CLIN 0001 Post-Award Conference/Phase-In.

N

50 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 & 5-15 5.15.2 & 5.15.3.3 N/A Can the government confirm whether each volume should be submitted in a single file or in multiple files?

Each volume should be submitted in a single file with the exception of Volume III, as described in Section 5.15.2 of the RFP.

N

80SSC024R0001-0003 MCASS QUESTIONS and ANSWERS 4

Paragraph

Narrative from RFP (if applicable) Question Government Response Change to

RFP (Y/N)

51 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 12-May 5.15.2 N/A Is the title/cover page for each volume excluded from the page count? See response to #37 above. N 52 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 5.15.2(a) N/A 5.15.2(a) shows the Proposal Checklist file type as “MS Excel,” however it was provided in PDF. Can the Government please provide the Proposal Checklist in a MS Excel file?

See Response to Q & A # 45 posted in Amendment 0002 N

53 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 & 5-15 5.15.2 & 5.15.3.3 N/A Can the government confirm if the Volume II Cover Letter/Introduction is 2 pages or 3 pages?

See Response to Q & A #45 and #124 posted in Amendment 0002 N

54 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 5-12 5.15.2(a) N/A Can the Government please provide the Past Performance Matrix in MS Word? See Response to Q & A #45 and #124 posted in Amendment 0002 N

55 3_80SSC024R0001_0001_MCASS_Model_Contract 5-18 5.15.3.3(a)(1) "Attachment 4.15 – Fully Burdened Rates IDIQ Pricing Table. Note: The attachment includes seven (7) tabs. All seven (7) tabs shall be completed."

This section states that "Attachment 4.15 includes nine (9) tabs. All nine (9) tabs should be completed." However, it only includes 7 tabs, not 9.

There are seven (7) tabs in Attachment 4.15. Section 5.15.3.3(a)(1) of the Model Contract has been updated accordingly in Amendment 0003.

Y

56 3_80SSC024R0001 MCASS Model Contract 6-4 6.1.3 N/A Will the government conduct a price realism analysis? No. N