8_80SSC024R0001 MCASS DRFP Questions _Answers.pdf

No. Document Page Section/ Paragraph

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

RFP (Y/N)

1 Att. 4.7 DOL WD 2015-5447

Page 10 of Wage Determination and page 2 of Article 17

Is the offeror required to honor the New Mexico Section 50, Article 17, Healthy Workplaces requirement for a minimum of 64 hours of sick leave since the MCASS employees work on a Federal Reservation, White Sands Test Facility?

NASA cannot waive requirement. Contractor's are required by law to follow all DOL wage determination requirements.

N

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Executive Assistant does not include a level. This is an exempt position. Executive I and II have been added but are reserved, and Executive Assistant III has been defined.

Attachments 4.11, 4.15 and 5.4 were updated accordingly in the Final RFP.

Y

3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Project Coordinator does not include a level. Need two line items for Project Coordinator I and II

Attachments 4.11, 4.15 and 5.4 were updated accordingly in the Final RFP.

Y

4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Please provide the RFP files in MS Word format. Attachments 5.1 PPQ and 5.2 Matrix will be in MS Word format in the final RFP.

N

5 N/A N/A N/A N/A The pricing tables identify Administrative Assistant Levels II, III and IV and that they are non-exempt; the job descriptions provide some delineation between education and experience for the levels. However, there is only one Administrative Assistant wage determination labor category (no levels).

Therefore, what categories and associated minimum rates do these other levels map to?

All Administrative Assistant positions/levels map to SLC 01020 from the applicable DOL Wage Determinations. DOL LR and LS guidance assists the government and contractor in differentiating the appropriate position levels along with the position requirements captured in the Service Requests.

N

6 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(b) N/A It is important that the historical pricing that is to be provided in Attachment

4.20 of the RFP provides the incumbent rates for ALL labor categories (including the wage determination positions) as well as the years of seniority for all incumbent personnel.

New information necessary for Offeror's to submit an accurate and competitive proposal have been provided in Att. 4.20 Historical Data/Equivalent Rates

Y

7 DRFP Cover Letter

N/A N/A N/A Will the government identify the Source Selection Authority and the MCASS evaluator team?

Yes, this information will be identified in the Final RFP Cover Letter.

N

8 Att. 4.1 PWS 5 of 34 2.1 (3) Providing continuity of administrative support services when there is an absence of fulltime or part-time employees as specified by customer requirements.

Is "continuity of administrative support services" in the context of this paragraph intended to address coverage for personal leave, illness, or employee termination? How soon after an absence occurs is continuity coverage expected to begin? Is the requirement to cover required services, or to provide replacement staffing if an absence occurs?

Attachment 4.1 PWS, Section 2.1(3) has been updated in the Final RFP to read as follows: Providing continuity of administatrive support services when there is a absence of fulltime or part-time employees as specified by customer requirements. This shall include providing cross utilization for personnel for phone coverage, calendar maintenance, and other miscellaneous temporary coverage as applicable.

Y

9 Att. 4.1 PWS 6 of 34 2.2 N/A Will the government make available a copy of the Service Request form intended for use on MCASS?

A sample Service Request (SR) form will be provided in the Final RFP as an attachment to the PWS.

Y

10 Att. 4.1 PWS 13 of 34 3.3 (7) Contractor personnel shall maintain records of the documentation as required by center policy and procedures.

What documentation does PWS paragraph 3.3(7) refer to? The word "documentation" in 3.3(7) is refering to documentation for foreign national visitors referenced in 3.3(6) above. The final RFP has been modified to clarify.

Y

11 Att. 4.16 Safety and Health Plan

1 of 1 N/A N/A This attachment indicates that the Safety and Health Plan, DRD-03, is to be proposed by the offeror and submitted with the proposal. Attachment 4.3, Contract Data Requirements List, states that DRD 03 is due within 10 days of the start of the contract performance period. Please resolve the apparent discrepancy in delivery dates. Also, please clarify whether "within 10 business days of start of contract performance period" is intended to be 10 days before or 10 days after the start of the period.

Typographical Error and Both DRD-03 and Attachment 4.16 have been corrected to Reflect the Appropriate due date. (Due within 10 business days after start of Phase-In period.)

Y

12 DRFP 2-11 to 2-16 (15-22 of 78)

2.A.14 to 2.A.20 N/A These paragraphs appear to apply primarily to specific centers, but the language is written such that they can be read to apply to the entire MCASS contract. Please clarify the specific applicability of each of these paragraphs

As stated in the note on page 2-1 of the DRFP, "NOTE: Clauses identified with a specific center acronym (JSC, KSC, MSFC, SSC, etc) are applicable only to that center and associated Task Order(s)."

N

13 DRFP 5-8

(41 of 78)

5.14 Unless otherwise specified, all questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted electronically to Ms. Rachel Clayton at e-mail rachel.clayton@nasa.gov no later than May XX, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. Central Time. Oral questions are not desirable due to the possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Questions shall not be directed to the technical activity personnel. All questions should reference the applicable RFP section and/or attachment.

The deadline for submitting questions in this paragraph is before the projected release date for the final RFP. Please update this paragraph with the correct submittal deadline

Accurate submission due dates will be provided in the Final RFP. Y

14 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(a) Phase-In Plan Offerors shall submit a phase-in plan that identifies its methodology and the actions it will take to ensure a timely and successful phase-in. The phase-in plan shall include the requirements detailed in DRD-8 – Phase-in Plan. In addition, the phase-in plan shall be consistent with the information submitted in the Phase-In Template (PIT) provided in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) workbook at Attachment 5 - EPM.

This paragraph refers to the Phase-In Plan as DRD 8. In the Contract Data Requirements List, the Phase-In Plan is DRD 9. Please verify the correct reference for the Phase-In Plan

Paragraph 5.15.3.1(a) has been correted in the Final RFP. Y

15 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.1(b) Training Plan Offeror shall provide a Training Plan addressing all requirements and timelines stated in PWS

2.5 as well as addressing timelines for attaining proficiency levels commensurate with labor categories and level of duties performed by that labor category.

This paragraph directs offerors to provide a Training Plan that addresses the requirements of PWS 2.5. PWS 2.5 addresses Process Management, not training. Please provide the correct reference we should use for the Training Plan

This is a typographical error. Section 5.15.3.1(b) Training plan, PWS 2.5 has been changed to read 2.6 in the Final RFP.

Y

16 DRFP 6-3 to 6-4 (54-56 of 78)

6 N/A Following the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table, the text from "Strengths, weaknesses and deficiences are defined as follows" through the end of the section seems out of place considering that the evaluation model is using a pass/fail evaluation for Technical Acceptability and there is no acceptability factor in the Past Performance evaluation. We recommend deleting this language from the RFP.

Thank you for your recommendation. This was a formatting error which has been corrected. This paragraph was moved to 6.1

Y

17 DRFP 1-1

(3 of 78)

1.3 Place of Performance

The Contractor shall perform the work under this contract at the Government’s site, defined as NASA’s Space Flight Region which includes: Stennis Space Center (SSC); Johnson Space Center (JSC) (including Government-maintained facilities in the immediate JSC area (including the Sonny Carter Training Facility and Ellington Field)); White Sands Test Facility located in Las Cruces, New Mexico; Kennedy Space Center (KSC); Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF). The Contractor may be required to perform services at other NASA operating locations or alternate work locations not currently specified including locations outside of NASA’s Space Flight Region. In the event services are required at other NASA operating locations or alternate work locations the Government and the Contractor shall negotiate the FBR for the location.

Will the NASA MCASS requirement support other NASA Centers (besides Stennis Space Center, Johnson Space Center/White Sands, Kennedy Space Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center/Michoud Assembly Facility)? Will there be other NASA Centers using the MCASS acquisition vehicle in the future?

NASA Requires performance at the identified locations. If other locations require services at a later time those services may be added via modification to the contract per section 1.3 Place of Performance, "services at additional locations may be required in the future. In the event services are required at other NASA operating locations, or alternate work locations, the Government and the Contractor shall negotiate the FBR (Fully Burdened Rates) for the location at that time."

N

18 Att. 4.1 PWS 15 of 34 3.5 Mail Services/Information Dissemination Which LCAT(s) are to perform the mail functions? This requirement may be performed by any labor category on contract. It is not a full time role, but a portion of larger duties performed by an administrative positon. The contractor personnel are picking up and/or distributing mail for their specific organization's inter-office mail. They are not responsible for delivering all mail throughout the center.

N

19 Attachment

4.13 IAGP

1 of 1 Transportation Government vehicles will be available as necessary in performance of the Performance Work Statement.

Are Government vehicles provided in order to perform tasks outlined in 3.5 Mail Services/Information Dissemination?

Mail services are primarily for inter-office mail and will not likely require a Govenrment vehicle.

N

20 Att. 4.1 PWS 15 of 34 3.5 N/A If Government vehicles are required for mail and/or other services and if vehicles are not available, what is the alternative solution and how will this impact contractor's performance ratings if task cannot be completed?

Mail services are primarily for inter-office mail and will not likely require a Govenrment vehicle. Government vehicles are available in a pool and can be checked out via a kiosk.

Government Vehicle availability is not expected to be a hinderance to the performance of this task.

N

21 Att. 4.1 PWS 15 of 34 3.5 N/A Are postage meters required and if so, are they to be contractor furnished? If yes, does the contractor set up and maintain the Pitney Bowes or any third party account necessary?

The contractor is not responsible for the mail services for the center or manaing third party accounts. They are only responsible for dissimination within their specific organization.

N

22 Att. 4.1 PWS 15 of 34 3.5 N/A Are FedEx, UPS and/or any other third party vendor accounts to be contractor furnished?

See answer to question 21. N

23 Att. 4.1 PWS 15 of 34 3.5 N/A Is FedEx account to be contractor furnished? See answer to question 21. N 24 Att. 4.1 PWS 22 of 34 8 Is the contractor to provide labor to physically move office equipment/furniture?

No. The contractor is responsible for coordinating with other contractors on center to oversee the move coordination for their specific organization. The facilities contractor on site will be responsible for the physical labor.

N

25 Att. 5.4 EPM Worksheet Tabs - Marshall, Johnson, and Stennis

N/A N/A Kennedy provided WD/Exempt designations for each labor category. Will Marshall, Johnson, and Stennis do that same or shall Offerors designate WD/Exempt?

No. At this time, excluding PMO positions, there are no exempt requirments at any other centers.

N

26 N/A N/A N/A N/A Will the Government be utilizing a Government-provided electronic contract administration system to faciliate contract administration, task order control and oversight for the contract?

No N

27 Att. 5.4 EPM Worksheet Tabs - PMO (Base Year, Contract Years 1 - 5)

N/A N/A The PMO charge/hour has a formula of Total Fully Burdened Labor MINUS Productive Hours for program. Should this formula be Total Fully Burdened Labor divided by Productive Hours for program to calculate a PMO rate/hour?

The formulas in G22, G38, G54, G70, G86, and G102 should be to divide the numbers, not subtract as identified in the question.

The spreadsheet will be corrected with the Final RFP.

28 Att. 5.4 EPM Worksheet Tabs - Kennedy, Marshall, Johnson, and Stennis

N/A N/A Can the government provide specific productive hours per WYE for exempt and WD positions in order to ensure a level playing field among bidders?

Offerors may have differing productive hours based on their specific leave policies. Offerors should provide their productive hours based on their specific policies and provide rationale.

29 Section 4 Attachments

N/A N/A N/A Request inserting the number of days allotted for the Phase-in timeline in the final RFP.

Per Section 4, Attachment 4.4, DRD-09 the timeline for phase-in is 60 days.

N

30 DRFP 2-14

(18 of 78)

2.A.16(b) 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 (current version)

Does NASA require a FCL by the Offeror at time of proposal submittal? No, FCL is not required for this contract. N

31 Att. 4.11 SLC Descriptions

1 of 9 N/A N/A Can personnel provide part-time services to the Task Order and part-time services to the Overhead Lead function?

This is up to the offerors to propose in their management plan based on the requirements identified in Attachment 5.4 EPM.

Currently on the DASS, the Team Lead function is an additional duty assigned to one of the positions at each center.

N

32 N/A N/A N/A N/A Is it appropriate for one of the positions listed in each of the pricing workbook site tabs to be designated as a site lead or is it the Government's expectation that the management of the individual sites be included in the PMO structure?

See answer to Question 31. N

33 DRFP 5-10

43 of 78)

5.15.2 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Date Could the Government add a 1-page introduction to the Past Performance Volumn?

Per Section 5.15.2 of the RFP, a one page introduction to the Past Performance Volume is allowed.

N

34 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.1(b) Training Plan Offeror shall provide a Training Plan addressing all requirements and timelines stated in PWS

2.5 as well as addressing timelines for attaining proficiency levels commensurate with labor categories and level of duties performed by that labor category.

Will the government please confirm that the referenced requirement should be 2.6 Training Management?

See answer to Question 15. N

35 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(b) N/A Please identify all key personnel labor categories. NASA FAR supplement 1852.235-71 Key Personnel and Facilities is not included in this requirement. While all positions are important there are no Key Personnel requirements.

N

36 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(b) Staffing Plan Identify the intended source(s) for staffing the contract (e.g. hire incumbent personnel under existing NASA contract(s), existing company personnel, new hire, or other sources). 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. For any approach that proposes to recruit and retain incumbent personnel at levels of compensation or seniority that is less than what is currently earned under incumbent contract(s), Offerors shall describe their approach to ensure the successful recruitment and retention of those personnel.

Will the government incumbent seniority levels and direct labor costs per labor category? Given the requirement for offerors to address proposed pay/seniority levels as they relate to the incumbents, this information is necessary.

See answer to Question 6. N

37 Att. 5.1 PPQ 2 of 3 C. Past Performance Evaluation

Quality Ratings:

A = Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit.

B = Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit.

C = Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements.

D = Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

E = Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements.

F = NA: Not Applicable.

Are Past Performance Quality Ratings (A through F) equally important to one another?

As stated in the RFP Section 5.15.3.2, k, “The past performance quality ratings indicate whether work performed met or exceed the contract requirements.

N

38 Att. 4.4, DRD

(d) CLIN 005 Materials, Equipment and Other Non-labor Costs

Please provide a list and historical or anticipated amounts for non-labor cost items.

There are no historical or anticipated data to provide for non-labor cost. NASA has include an estimated value to cover the cost for any non-labor (Travel and Materials) for the respective centers. Reference Attachment 5.4, Summary Tab, Cell J10, which has been changed to read Non-Labor Costs (Travel & Material) along with a prepopulated value for Non-Labor cost i.e.

Travel & Material at their respective centers.

N

39 Att. 5.1 PPQ N/A N/A N/A Where shall proposed subcontractors indicate the name of the Prime offeror on the PPQ form?

Attachment 5.1 PPQ will be updated in final RFP to include a section to identify the Prime Offeror.

Y

40 DRFP 5-14

(47 of 78)

5.15.3.2(b) Self-Assessment – Five Relevant/Pertinent References: Offerors shall complete and submit a two (2) page self-assessment for each relevant/pertinent reference included in the Past Performance Matrix (a total of ten pages). The self-assessment shall include a brief description of the relevant/pertinent contract work and describe its comparability to the proposed effort. It is not enough for Offerors to only state that the work is comparable in size, scope and complexity. Offerors shall provide their rationale for stating that the work is comparable with this requirement. Offerors’ self-assessment should identify any relevant/pertinent process, procedure or capability, described in its past performance, that will be utilized or applied to this acquisition.

In addition, Offerors should explain any technical or managerial performance issues experienced during the execution of the contract and methods to resolve said issues.

NOTE: For data provided on subcontractors, the narrative description of relevant/pertinent contract work and comparability to the proposed effort should be limited to the scope for which the subcontractor will be performing on this project.

Please confirm that self-assessments are not part of Attachment 5. Reference to the Self-Assessment requirement has been removed in the Final RFP, and the Cover Letter page limitation has been increased from one to three pages. The pertinent information will be obtained from information included in the Cover Letter, the Past Performance Matrix and responses received from PPQs.

N

41 DRFP 5-13 to 5-16 (46-48 of 78)

5.15.3.2 N/A How does NASA define major and minor subcontractors? See Att. 4.12 Glossary for the definition of Major Subcontractor. Y

42 Att. 5.4 EPM N/A N/A N/A Why are the following three LCATs and FTEs needed in Contract Year 2 only?

Project Manager, Supervisor, Training Specialist

This was a typographical error. Removed from the SSC tab and shall be provided on PMO tab in final RFP.

Y

43 Att. 5.4 EPM N/A N/A N/A Please provide the current/historical PMO costs from the incumbent contracts See answer to Question 6. N

44 Att. 5.4 EPM N/A N/A N/A Is it NASA’s intent to exclude locations from the EPM? E.g., White Sands and Michoud.

The referenced WSTF and MAF are included under the respective centers they are associated. WSTF is included on the JSC tab and MAF is included on the MSFC Tab

N

45 Att. 4.1 PWS 33 of 34 17.6 KSC Professional Support Team

(PST)

Please provide access instructions for viewing the KSC SharePoint tool in the NASA Launchpad. The following notice was received after clicking the link provided in the PWS: “Access is blocked by the organization: The nasa.onmicrosoft.com administrator has restricted which organizations can access their tenant. Contact the nasa.onmicrosoft.com IT department to request access.”

The KSC Sharepoint is an internal website. It cannot be viewed prior to award. The information found on the PST website includes tools, tips, and helpful links for the administrative professionals to use in the execution of their day to day tasks.

Examples include guidance for correspndence preparation, document preparation, directories, facility locator and links to other helpful internal websites.

N

46 Att. 4.1 PWS 23 of 24 8.1 Directorate Facilities Utilization Manager (DFUM)/Alternate (ADFUM) Support Will NASA please provide a labor description for the Directorate Facilities Utilization Manager?

Directorate Facilities Utilization Manager (DFUM) and Alternate (ADFUM) duties may be performed by different labor categories depending on the size and complexity of the organization being supported. The DFUM duties are described in PWS section 8.1.

N

47 Att. 4.1 PWS 25 of 34 10.0 (4) Understand and assist supervisors with IT systems including but not limited to:

• Standard Performance Appraisal Communication Environment (SPACE)

• Agency’s Web-Based Electronic Time and Attendance System (WebTADS)

• Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS)

• Executive Performance Appraisal System (EPAS)

• Electronic Position Description System (ePDS)

Please provide more detail about the tools referenced: SPACE, WebTADS, FPPS, EPAS, EPDS

Each of the listed systems are internal NASA systems utilized for personnel management:

• Standard Performance Appraisal Communication Environment (SPACE)-utilized for managing civil servant performance appraisals

• Agency’s Web-Based Electronic Time and Attendance System (WebTADS)-utlilized for managing civil servant timecards and attendance

• Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS)- A comprehensive, mainframe-based, integrated online/real-time personnel and payroll system

• Executive Performance Appraisal System (EPAS)- automated executive performance management solution used to document performance plans, progress reviews, and appraisals, as well as calculates compensation adjustments for senior executives and senior professionals

• Electronic Position Description System (ePDS)-used to create and publish civil servant position descriptions

The Final RFP, Attachment 4.1 PWS has been updated accordingly.

Y

48 Att. 4.21 KSC GFS POC List

SECTION_4_ATTA

CHMENTS,

Attachment J-XX

GFS

What do the yellow and green highlights indicate in the Government Furnished Services tables?

The yellow and green highlights were indicators of sections of the DRFP that were not finalized. The yellow and green highlights will be removed when the finalize version is issued.

Y

49 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.2(a) Past Performance Matrix – Attachment 5: Offerors shall submit a one (1) page Past Performance Matrix identifying a maximum of five (5) recent and relevant/pertinent contracts involving administrative support services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the administrative services required by this solicitation (Attachment 5 – Past Performance Matrix). The matrix shall identify the Customer, Contract Number, Name/Title of the project, Value, state if the Offeror or its Subcontractor completed the project and identify the services/activities performed on each effort. The contract value for each of the contracts provided in the matrix shall be greater than $4M.

Relevant/pertinent size is defined as projects over $4M. We suggest to clarify that the project value be set as an annual value versus total contract value.

The Final RFP has been changed to read the following, "Relevant/pertinent size is defined as past performance having a similar number of WYEs performing at several geographically separated locations and having a contractual value similar to that of this solicitation."

Y

50 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.2(a)(1) Recent Performance: Past or current performance within three (3) years of the date proposals are due.

Recent Performance is defined as "Past or current performance within three

(3) years of the date proposals are due", we suggest that more common in similar procurements would be within five (5) years.

The 3 year Past Performance will remain to be consistent with the FAR 42.1503(c)(2)(g).

N

51 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.2(a)(1) Recent Performance: Past or current performance within three (3) years of the date proposals are due.

Offerors shall submit relevant/pertinent past/current performance on no more than three (3) contracts performed by the Offeror’s organization. We suggest that based on the RFP based on the smaller NAICS of this procurement that bidders would likely only have two (2) contracts.

There are no minimum past performance requirements. N

52 N/A N/A N/A N/A Due to the quality focused natured of this contract, we suggest that NASA consider mandating ISO 9001:2015 certification from the prime offeror.

Noted. The Government does not intend to make ISO 9001 certification a requirement at this time.

N

53 N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 1.4 indicates that “the period of performance for the contract shall be from April 1, 2025, to May 31, 2030.” Other areas of the documents indicate that performance will be from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2030. Please clarify.

Sections 1.4, 2.A.2 and 2.A.4 have been corrected in the Final RFP to reflect a March 31, 2030 end date.

Y

54 Att. 5.4 EPM N/A N/A N/A The contract provides CLIN’s for ODCs, but the pricing spreadsheets only have travel ODC’s. Please clarify whether travel is the only kind of ODC contemplated in the contract.

Reference Attachment 5.4, Summary Tab, Cell J10, which has been changed to read Non-Labor Costs (Travel & Material) along with a prepopulated value for Non-Labor cost i.e. Travel & Material at their respective centers.

N

55 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(b) N/A Offerors are asked to price our labor and substantiate the price. Further, we are asked to state whether it is our intent to recognize seniority and levels of compensation for incumbents that are hired. This is a solid approach, but it can only be adequately answered by the incumbent. The incumbent knows the current seniority and rate information and can compare them to the AWD. In order for all offerors to have some level of knowledge of the costs, please provide seniority levels and wages, by labor category and by location.

See answer to Question 6. Y

56 DRFP 5-14

(47 of 78)

5.15.3.2(b) Self-Assessment – Five Relevant/Pertinent References: Offerors shall complete and submit a two (2) page self-assessment for each relevant/pertinent reference included in the Past Performance Matrix (a total of ten pages). The self-assessment shall include a brief description of the relevant/pertinent contract work and describe its comparability to the proposed effort. It is not enough for Offerors to only state that the work is comparable in size, scope and complexity. Offerors shall provide their rationale for stating that the work is comparable with this requirement. Offerors’ self-assessment should identify any relevant/pertinent process, procedure or capability, described in its past performance, that will be utilized or applied to this acquisition.

Past Performance is significantly more important than price. Offerors are asked to describe each cited program, explain why it is relevant, cover services and complexity, compare it to MCASS, and to identify any relevant/pertinent process, procedure or capability, described in its past performance, that will be utilized or applied to this acquisition. We are given only 2 pages to describe each program. Would NASA consider allowing 3 pages per for each relevant/pertinent reference?

Reference to the Self-Assessment requirement has been removed in the Final RFP, and the Cover Letter page limitation has been increased from one to three pages.

The pertinent information will be obtained from information included in the Cover Letter, the Past Performance Matrix and responses received from PPQs.

Note, there is no page limitation to PPQ responses.

N

57 DRFP 5-17

(50 of 78)

5.15.3.3.c N/A We understand that this is an IDIQ contract and that the labor resources are based on historical information. Is there a possibility that future work could be larger than the historical information you have provided? Does the government plan to add ceiling value to the final contract to account for that possibility? Will the final RFP have specified levels to support that potential for IDIQ growth?

1) Yes, there is the possibility that future work may exceed historical information. That is why the government has chosen an Idenfinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract vehicle since the exact quantities of future services are not known at this time.

2) See Paragraph 1.6 of the RFP for maximum value.

3) Future requirements are not known at this time.

N

58 DRFP 6-1

(52 of 78)

6.1 Price Performance Trade-off (PPTO) Evaluation and Award You state that Past Performance is significantly more important than Price, but you limit the evaluation to the lowest 3 prices. Given that DASS had 37 proposals submitted, there are likely more than 3 companies with an insignificant price delta to the lowest price, but there may be considerable differences in the relevant performance. Will the government consider comparing the lowest 6 prices to determine whether the Best Value may lie beyond the third lowest price? Alternatively, will the government consider comparing companies whose cost is within 10% of the lowest acceptable cost?

The government will follow the methodology in Paragraph 6.2 b). We believe having 3 of the highest rated offerors to select from should provide adequate grouping to make best a value determination and selection.

N

59 DRFP 6-2

(53 of 78)

6.1.2 Using performance information submitted by the Offeror, respondents to the questionnaire, and performance information independently obtained by the Government, past performance will be evaluated, and Offerors will be assigned one of the confidence assessment ratings described below. The rating represents an integrated assessment of (1) the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance and (2) the recent and relevant performance of any principal subcontractor(s) whose efforts will significantly influence performance of the contract.

‘Recent’ and ‘Relevant’ are defined earlier herein. Offerors with no recent relevant past or present performance history shall receive a Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

What happens if the contracting office does not receive a response from an entity/organization listed as a reference to verify past performance?

Reference Section 6.1.2 of the final RFP which states, "Offerors with no recent relevant past or present performance history shall receive a Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably." Therefore, it is the offerors' responsibility to stress the importance of completing and returning the PPQs in a timely manner. The government reserves the right to use all information available to them.

N

60 DRFP 6-1 to 6-5 (52-56 of 78)

6 N/A Evaluation Criteria: Will you provide more detail on the weight of each evaluation criterion listed in Section 6?

Section 6, Evaluation Criteria, of the Final RFP will remain the same. As stated, Technical Acceptability will be assessed on a pass/fail basis, and Past Performance is significantly more important than price.

N

61 N/A N/A N/A N/A Pricing Challenges: What challenges have previous contractors faced in pricing similar contracts, and how can these be addressed in this solicitation?

The Government has no information related to this question. N

62 N/A N/A N/A N/A Are there specific areas where NASA is looking for innovative solutions or approaches?

No. N

63 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(a) “The phase-in plan shall include the requirements detailed in DRD-8 – Phase-In Plan.” The phase-in plan is listed as DRD-9 in the draft PWS document. Please confirm which DRD is correct.

See Answer to Question 14. N

64 Att. 4.1 PWS N/A N/A N/A General Information: Performance Standards: How will performance standards be monitored and evaluated consistently across multiple NASA centers?

See Att. 4.2 Performance Requirements Summary. N

65 Att. 4.1 PWS 4 of 34 2.1 N/A Program Management Office (PMO): What are the specific expectations for the PMO at each center? Are there differences in requirements or processes that we should be aware of?

Program Management requirements are defined in Attachment 4.1, Section 2.0 of the Final RFP.

Y

66 Att. 4.1 PWS 6 of 34

2.2

17.1.5

Task Order Authorization: Will you clarify the process and timeline for obtaining task order authorizations and handling service requests?

Service Requests and Task Orders are defined in Attachment 4.1, section 2.2. For clarification, the title of this section has been updated accordingly in the Final RFP.

Y

67 Att. 4.1 PWS 8 of 34 2.3 Contractor personnel may be authorized to work remotely, via telework, on a situational, temporary, or permanent basis.

Telework Arrangements: What roles are eligible for telework? Telework requirements are determined by the customer and will be identified on the Service Request and resultant Task Order.

Many positions, at multiple locations, will perform hybrid roles that telework part of the week and report to the office part of the week. Telework requirements are subject to change based on the customers needs.

N

68 Att. 4.1 PWS 13 of 34 3.3 Visitor Services Are there specific protocols for handling high-profile visitors or classified meetings?

No. Protocol for high profile visitors and classified meetings are customer specific. Guidelines will be provided when and if necessary during contract performance. MCASS personnel will not have the appropriate security clearance to be privy to classified information/meetings, but may be required to coordinate with the Office of Protective Services for scheduling purposes.

69 Att. 4.1 PWS 18 of 34 4.0 Data Management Services Data Security: What are the specific data security requirements for managing sensitive and classified information, especially for correspondence and records management?

Reference PWS 2.6 (7). MCASS personnel will receive NASA provided training specific to records management as applicable to the PWS. Also reference DRD-10 IT Security Management Plan.

N

70 Att. 4.1 PWS 18 of 34 4.0 Data Management Services Records Retention: Will you clarify the specific retention periods and disposal procedures for different types of records?

See Section 3.8 (1) Records Management of Att. 4.1 PWS. N

71 Att. 4.1 PWS 20 of 34 5.0 Travel Coordination Travel Policies: Are there any travel restrictions or special approvals required for international travel, especially for countries with heightened security concerns?

It is not anticipated that MCASS personnel will be traveling internationally.

N

72 Att. 4.1 PWS 29 of 34 17.1.1 KSC Training Process Training Approval: What is the process for getting NASA-specific training approved, and are there any pre-approved training programs or providers?

Attachment 4.1 PWS, Section 2.6(5) describes the overall process for NASA required training which should be coordinated with the applicable COR.

Section 17.1.1 of the PWS decribes the KSC specific approval process for training. All training must be NASA-specific.

Approved training courses are generally required by the NASA customer to ensure the contractor personnel are able to perform their duties in accordance with the NASA specific requirements.

N

73 Att. 4.1 PWS 25 of 34 10.0 (4) Understand and assist supervisors with IT systems including but not limited to:

• Standard Performance Appraisal Communication Environment (SPACE)

• Agency’s Web-Based Electronic Time and Attendance System (WebTADS)

• Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS)

• Executive Performance Appraisal System (EPAS)

• Electronic Position Description System (ePDS)

IT Support: Will you provide more details on the types of IT issues the contractor is expected to handle, and the level of support required for each system listed?

Examples of IT support include: responding to maintenance requests, arranging for repairs, and assist employees with submitting help tickets with the Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) if needed. May also assist in helping employees get back in touch with the technician who completed their equipment refresh.

May also direct employees to the orgnanization's IT Technical Liaison to trouble shoot issues before going to ESD.

N

74 Att. 4.1 PWS Customer Service: Performance Metrics: What specific metrics will be used to measure customer service performance, and how frequently will these be reviewed?

See Att. 4.2 Performance Requirements Summary for how Customer Service will be monitored.

N

75 Att. 4.1 PWS 26 of 34 12.0 Special Events Coordination Event Types: Will you provide examples of past events that required contractor support, and any lessons learned or best practices?

Special Events will vary based on the customer needs. Examples include Holiday or End of Year celebrations, awards ceremonies and astronaut visits.

N

76 Att. 4.1 PWS N/A Specific Center Requirements: Center-Specific Processes: Are there any unique processes or requirements for each NASA center that could impact how services are delivered?

There are center specific requirements identified throughout the RFP and its attachments.

N

77 Att. 4.1 PWS 33 or 34 17.5 KSC Launch Services Specific Center Requirements: KSC Launch Services: What specific support is required for Kennedy Space Center launch services, and how should contractors prepare for these tasks?

PWS 17.5 KSC Launch Services describes the specific support required for Kennedy Space Center Launch Services as:

(5) Provide support by answering the phones, assisting volunteers with knowledge of the office area and supplies.

(6) Prepare for special guests and staff (usually NASA Headquarters’ personnel).

(7) Coordinate with the News Chief to gather appropriate messaging for specific activities such as a launch or major event.

N

78 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.2(a)(2) Offeror shall submit relevant/pertinent past/current past performance up to 3 contracts performed by the offerors ‘organization and no more than 2 contracts performed by the major subs or teaming agreement.

What are the criteria that designates a major subcontractor? Does this mean that a teammate with a signed teaming agreement, regardless of the size of their participation, may submit past performance?

See answer to Question 41. N

79 Att. 5 PPQ N/A N/A N/A Will NASA accept DOD/DHS CPARS in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires? No, the Government will not accept CPARS in lieu of Past Performance Quesionnaires. The PPQ provides details Specific to our project , and not readily found in CPARS

Y

80 DRFP N/A N/A N/A How will the government phase in the other designated sites for the performance of this contract? Will the requirements be identified in the final RFP? If not, how are they to be included in the pricing?

It is the Offeror's responsibility to propose a Phase-In Plan in accordance with RFP. The requirements found in section 5.15.3.1(a) and DRD-09. Offerors are responsible for providing Specific resource/labor requirements identified in Attachment

5.4 EPM, Phase-In Tab, which will populate the summary tab.

N

81 DRFP 6-1

(52 of 78)

6.1 Price Performance Trade-off (PPTO) Evaluation and Award Is the MCASS opportunity considered a best value or LPTA acquisition by the Government?

This procurement uses Price Performance Trade Off, (PPTO) as outlined in section 6.1 of the solicitation. PPTO utilizes best value. The solicitation reads: "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."

82 N/A N/A N/A N/A Since MCASS is the follow-on contract to DASS, who is the DASS incumbent contractor?

The incumbent contractor is CBF Partners JV, LLC. N

83 DRFP N/A N/A N/A Is the MCASS contractor's Program Manager required to be located on-site at Stennis?

No. This is up to the Offeror to propose in their Management Plan based on the requirements identified in Attachment 4.5 EPM. Currently, on the DASS, both JSC and SSC share a PM that is on-site at JSC and supports SSC remotely. KSC and MSFC each have their own, on-site Program Manager.

N

84 DRFP 6-2

(53 of 78)

6.1.2 Using performance information submitted by the Offeror, respondents to the questionnaire, and performance information independently obtained by the Government, past performance will be evaluated, and Offerors will be assigned one of the confidence assessment ratings described below. The rating represents an integrated assessment of (1) the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance and (2) the recent and relevant performance of any principal subcontractor(s) whose efforts will significantly influence performance of the contract.

‘Recent’ and ‘Relevant’ are defined earlier herein. Offerors with no recent relevant past or present performance history shall receive a Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

What happens if the contracting office does not receive a response from an entity/organization listed as a reference to verify past performance?

See answer to question 59.

85 N/A N/A N/A N/A Is it mandatory to be an 8a certified entity in order to qualify for the Program Manager or Project Coordinator (PC1, PCII, PCIII) Offeror positions?

(Attachment 4.11 Table 1)

Refer to the SBA 8(a) program requirements. N

86 DRFP 5-13

(46 of 78)

5.15.3.2(a)(1) Recent Performance: Past or current performance within three (3) years of the date proposals are due.

Please consider using past or current performance within the past five (5) years as Recent Performance.

See answer to Question 50. N

87 DRFP 5-18

(51 of 78)

5.16 Financial Institution Letter(s)

Offeror’s proposal shall include a letter from their financial institution, on letterhead, identifying the Offeror’s line of credit and available balance. The information will be utilized to assist the Contracting Officer in completing the responsibility determination required by

FAR 9.104-1.

In determining responsibility, FAR 9.104-1 indicates that a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. In addition to Financial Institution Letter(s), please consider adding additional proof of adequate financial resources such as financial statements, summary of available working capital, etc.

NASA will follow FAR 9.104. N

88 DRFP Cover Letter

2 “Offerors should ensure its company is listed in the online database(s) for the following:”

SAM, US DOL Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, DUNS/UEI.

Please clarify if that includes the JV as a whole or only its participating members.

This requirement can be met either by the JV as a whole or its participating members.

N

89 DRFP 5-12

(45 of 78)

5.15.3.1(a) “Offerors shall submit a phase-in plan that identifies its methodology and the actions it will take to ensure a timely and successful phase-in. The phase-in plan shall include the requirements detailed in DRD-8 – Phase-in Plan. In addition, the phase-in plan shall be consistent with the information submitted in the Phase-In Template (PIT) provided in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) workbook at Attachment 5 - EPM.”

DRD 8 refers to Reprocurement Data Package instead of Phase-In Plan. The Phase-In Plan is DRD 9.

See Answer to Question 14. N

90 DRFP 5-10

(43 of 78)

5.15.2(a) Table N/A Given that the instructions require Offerors to submit a Tech Volume, including a Management Plan consisting of the Staffing Plan, Quality Plan, and Training Plan, all limited to 20 pages, will the Government consider increasing the page limit to 25 pages? This would allow the inclusion of all necessary tables, graphs, and figures to ensure the content is thoroughly supported.

No. The page limitations will remain the same. N

91 DRFP 5-13 - 5-14

(46-47 of 78)

5.15.3.2(a)(c) and (d)

“a) 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 two (2) contracts performed by the major subcontractor(s) or teaming agreement. If the Offeror is not proposing any subcontractor(s) or teaming agreements, Offeror may submit five of its own past performance references.”

And:

“c) Offerors which are subsidiaries or affiliates of other business entities may submit the past performance data of such other business entities for consideration, but such past performance shall only be considered to the extent that the proposal clearly demonstrates that the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the other companies will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract.

d) For newly formed businesses (including joint ventures) having little or no past performance as the new business entity, the Offeror may submit the past performance data of the predecessor business entity (or, in the case of joint ventures, the past performance of each joint venture participant). The Offeror shall also submit a thorough and clear explanation of why such information should be considered predictive of the Offeror’s performance under a contract resulting from this solicitation and, if applicable, the Offeror (i.e. joint venture participant) shall demonstrate a history of successfully performing joint ventures. For any joint venture, the 8(a) participant(s) to an 8(a) JV shall be certified at the time of proposal submission, and in accordance with 13 CFR 124.513(e)(1), the SBA shall approve the 8(a) JV agreement prior to contract award.”

Is there a limit for each JV participant? If so, will the “no more than 2” still apply for each participant?

Per the RFP instructions of section 5.15.3.2, a total of (5) recent and relevant/pertinent contracts are allowed.

N

92 N/A N/A N/A N/A Historically, has there been travel required for this contract, or does the Government foresee travel needed?

Travel may be required and is authorized by Task Order only. See Attachment 4.1 PWS, Sections 2.7 Mission Related Travel and

17.1.2 KSC Travel Process. Attachment 5.4 EPM, Summary Tab, Column J, contains an estimated amount of non-labor cost (Travel/material). Therefore, offerors do not need to consider travel in their pricing.

93 DRFP 5-10

(43 of 78)

5.15.2(a) Table N/A Contract Model Volume IV requires Offerors to complete fill-ins for Sections 1- 4 and 7. Section 4 is a list of “Contract Documents, Exhibits, or Attachments”.

• Does the Government wish for the Offeror to complete the fill-ins for Section 5?

• If so, does the Government only require Offerors to complete the ones in full text that are provided, or does the Offeror also need to complete and provide clauses that are provided by reference listed under Section 5?

Yes, Section 5 fill-in's should be completed. FAR 52.209-11 has been changed from incorporation by reference to full text.

Y

94 Att. 4.1 PWS Will the Government require offerors to have an FCL?

whole?

See Question 30 N

95 N/A N/A N/A N/A Are CASS and DASS combined/folded into this pending contract? DASS

(80SSC020D0002) CASS (80MSFC21DA004)

No N

96 N/A N/A N/A N/A Are there CBAs associated with the current contract(s). Will participating unions change on successor contracts?

No there are no CBAs. N

97 N/A N/A N/A N/A In the industry briefing held earlier this year, there was a lot of information on the DASS (80SSC020D0002) contract, but little was provided on the CASS (80MSFC21DA004) contract. Is it possible to get more insight into the CASS contract?

This is not a follow on to the CASS. N

98 N/A N/A N/A N/A Can the government provide the current seniority list for the locations listed in the DRFP?

See answer to Question 6. N

99 DRFP 4 1.4 N/A Referenced sentence is ambigious. Suggest adding clarification language.

Recommendation includes xxx

The Government does not understand the question. There is no "xxx" reference in the DRFP.

N

100 DRFP 6-2

(53 of 78)

6.1.2 Using performance information submitted by the Offeror, respondents to the questionnaire, and performance information independently obtained by the Government, past performance will be evaluated, and Offerors will be assigned one of the confidence assessment ratings described below. The rating represents an integrated assessment of (1) the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance and (2) the recent and relevant performance of any principal subcontractor(s) whose efforts will significantly influence performance of the contract.

‘Recent’ and ‘Relevant’ are…