eMITS QA for DRFP 80TECH22R0001.pdf

eMITS Draft Request for Proposal 80TECH22R0001 – Questions and Answers

Ques. # Section Section # or Reference

Question/Comment/Suggestion Response

1 PWS - Other All Could the eMITS team clarify ownership / licensing requirements for data and archive repositories wherever media, information, reports, and quality metrics are stored? Are all systems NASA owned and operated? Are some systems NASA owned and Contractor operated? Are some Contractor provided?

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA-07 has been updated for clarification.

Attachment J-H, J-I, and J-J will be updated to describe the property and systems to be maintained by the contract.

2 PWS - Other Section 3.6 Cloud Service Providers (CSPs), such as AWS, can equip the OCIO with tools to visualize and analyze cost and usage data and accurately charge back to appropriate entities (e.g., customer, project, product).

Rather than centrally monitoring costs, the OCIO can provide real-time cost data that makes sense to their engineering, application, and research teams. To ensure offerors incorporate services focused on cost savings and resource optimization, NASA can include a statement similar to the following in the PWS:

“The contractor shall empower data-driven strategic decisions and intentional IT operating model choices that enable cost savings over the period of performance.”

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

3 PWS Section

4.1 NODIS is a repository for not only

policy documents but also procedures, interim directives, charters, and others. In this section, some references are made to policies only and some references to policies and procedures. Can Government describe precisely which documents are being referenced.

Generic terminology for all documents housed in NODIS is "those documents defined in NPR 1400.1".

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA-07 has been updated for clarification.

4 PWS Section

4.1.10 What waivers are being referenced

here? IT waivers only?

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government.

Additional clarification to DRD and PWS will be provided.

5 PWS Section

4.1.12 What waivers are being referenced

here? IT waivers only?

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government.

Additional clarification to DRD and PWS will be provided.

6 PWS Section

4.2 Clarify that this refers to IT

Governance and Boards not only at the Agency level but also at the Center/facility level.

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government.

Additional clarification to DRD and PWS will be provided.

7 PWS Section

Section 4 NASA should seek a solution provider and partner who can provide NASA with direct access to a CSP’s vast training and consulting resources. These resources include AWS Competency Partners, who are able to deliver solutions and provide specific expertise in using the AWS Cloud.

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

8 PWS Section

Section 4 In order to ensure that NASA is getting the most innovative, scalable, and cost-effective solutions for eMITS, we recommend including the following requirement in the final Performance Work Statement

(PWS):

“Offerors are encouraged to leverage emerging technologies, such as cloud-based solutions, into their response to PWS requirements.

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the

Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

9 PWS Section

Section 4 Cloud-based applications and platform services can offer NASA a better way to automate, scale, reduce costs, build applications, and respond to customers faster and in a more secure manner. We recommend including a statement in the PWS, similar to the statement provided below, that encourages offerors to include cloud-based applications and platforms services in their offering:

“The contractor shall offer capabilities that leverage applications and platform services, including cloud-based services, and techniques to scale quickly, manage large amounts of data, and respond to change quickly. These services must have global availability and enable NASA to continue to innovate over the period of performance…”

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

10 PWS Section

4.4.3 This sentence doesn't appear to be

complete. Maybe it was edited incorrectly. Please clarify.

PWS Section 4 will be modified for clarity.

11 PWS Section

4.9.2 "The IT Risk Management processes will encompass all areas of IT Services provided for on this contract". Please clarify this is for the eMits contract only and not for the Risk Management processes applicable to other NASA IT contracts?

The requirement clearly states it is for this contract. eMITS is a service provider as defined in PWS and by eMITS catalog DRD MA- 27.

12 PWS - Other Sections 6.2- 6.3

AWS is already the CSP of choice for the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA’s) federal-wide transition to electronic records per Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/NARA Memorandum M-19- 21 (which the eMITS prime will support). As a result, we have already created a Records- Management-as-a-Service (RMaaS) solution that will provide NASA with a playbook on how best to comply with the Electronic Records Archives (ERA) mandate, and transition their data most efficiently into the AWS Cloud. We encourage NASA to consider requesting that offerors facilitate the storage of data in a capacity that will be efficient for NASA to transition the appropriate data easily to NARA ERA.

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

13 PWS Section

7 3 categories of Multimedia Services are identified: Mission, Institutional and Communications.

A additional paragraph to define the service is stated for Mission and Institutional but not Communications.

The PWS will be updated to provide clarity.

14 PWS Section

7 Would the government please provide historical or estimated data regarding the number of communication products and services to be requested each year? Would the government please provide the historical or estimated breakdown of requests by PWS task area and NASA Center making the request?

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA-07 has been updated for

15 PWS Section

7.00 This section says: "The Contractor

shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate coordination and delegation of work requests between contract vehicles." The instruction regarding "delegation of work requests between contract vehicles" seems to conflict with Section H.9(d), page 51, which states: "Contractor personnel are not authorized to direct another Contractor in any manner."

Wouldn't delegating work requests be directing another Contractor?

PWS 7.0 refers to collaboration and coordination among teams, via ACAs, clause H.11, if necessary.

Touch points and handoffs of work is expected across contracts. Delegation represents the touchpoint that would result in communicating and dissecting the total work for respective team to complete.

16 PWS Section

7.1.4 States "The Contractor shall

perform multimedia services as described in the following sections". Which of the following sections? Are they 7.1.5 - 7.1.8?

The PWS will be updated to provide clarity.

17 PWS Section

7.2 Can the Govt. be more specific

regarding NPR 7120. There are multiple 7120 documents. Possibly the reference intended NPR 7120.7 NASA Information Technology Program and Project Management Requirements

Per Attachment J-B Applicable Documents, 7120.5, .6, .7, and .8 are applicable to the PWS.

The requirements defined in the Annual Work Plan (DRD MA-

007) will be further detailed in work packages. Each work package will include its own PWS with associated NPRs.

18 PWS Section

7.2 and 7.10 Would the government please specify which SMPTE standards should be used?

Per the PWS, the contractor is expected to "Apply best practices and standards in publications by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), Electronic Industries Association (EIA), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Response."

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government.

19 PWS Section

7.4 Should Section 1.4.4 be numbered

as 7.4.4?

This should be 7.4.4.

The PWS will be updated to reflect 7.4.4.

20 PWS Section

Section 7.4 NASA will be working, reviewing, providing, offering thousands of documents, images, and other media on eMITS. While these contain valuable information for users, it is often difficult to index and search this content. One challenge is interpreting the data intelligently, and another issue is processing these files at scale. By leveraging cloud-based solutions, NASA can gain significant insights from the data processed on the eMITS contract. Once the data is on the cloud, it becomes more searchable, indexable, and scalable. We encourage NASA to indicate that Offerors should consider cloud-based solutions in order to offer better insights and allow eMITS to improve its cataloging over the long-term.

NASA could consider the following statement, prior to sub-sections:

"To ensure access, all NASA imagery must be catalogued. In support of this requirement, the Contractor should consider cloud-based solutions and shall..."

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

21 PWS Section

7.5 Is the sentence that begins, "Coordinate and implement accession of program, project, and center imagery and associated metadata…." part of 7.5.1 or should it have a different number?"

The sentence referenced should be

7.5.2. This will affect the

numbering of all the following sections in PWS 7.5., therefore, the numbering will be updated.

22 PWS Section

Section 7.5 We recommend that the eMITS prime contractor leverage cloud-based solutions, particularly Prospective offeror, for the migration destination post conversion. This will facilitate the transition of the data to NARA ERA.

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific cloud service requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

23 PWS Section

7.8.1.3 Please clarify "perform ISS mission

operations". We interpret this is only multimedia support.

Per the section heading, this requirement applies to Multimedia Mission Services.

24 PWS Section

7.9.2.4, 7.9.2.5, 7.9.2.6

These sections relate to photographic chemicals used in photographic operations. Can the Government identify which centers have facilities for photographic processing using chemicals?

Data will be provided in accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government.

25 PWS Section

7.20.4.2 Is the facility at Johnson Space

Center the only one to be operated?

It is not clear which section is being questioned as no

7.20.4.2 exists.

However, the requirements for preventative maintenance in section

7.2.4.2 applies to all Centers with multimedia systems. If question refers to 7.10.4.2, then the Motion Picture preservation, film digitization facilities are located at the Johnson Space Center.

26 PWS Section

7.10.5.2 Is the specialized protective

equipment GFE? Or is it to be provided by the contractor?

Data will be provided in accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government.

27 PWS Section

7.11.1.3 Does this imply that all facility

drawings and engineering drawings will be performed under this contract? Or will this contract simply support output of drawings produced by another organization

This contract is not responsible for all facility or engineering drawings. Per the PWS the contractor must be able to produce engineering drawings and facility drawings.

28 PWS Section

7.11.1.16 and 7.13.4.1

These sections reference exhibit fabrication; however, there are no exhibit fabricator or exhibit technician labor categories identified in Enclosure 1 -- Labor Categories. Will the Government update Enclosure 1 to included these labor categories?

Enclosure 1 Labor Categories will be updated to include these labor categories.

29 PWS Section

7.12.4 Is the Newsletter referenced here

electronic or print or both? Is the distribution list provided by NASA?

Who maintains the distribution list?

All newsletters are made available electronically; however, some field centers also publish print versions.

The initial distribution list will be provided by NASA, but the vendor will be expected to maintain the list.

30 PWS Section

7.12.8.1 Please clarify the work to be

performed. Imagery, video, and text sound like components of app content. This requirement references app design but not development and maintenance.

This requirement encompasses end-to-end design, development, and maintenance, including, but not limited to, the technical back end and source code. PWS will be updated to clarify.

31 PWS Section

7.12.8.1 Please clarify the scope of work for

app design. Does this include all apps across the centers or only apps supporting OCOMM?

The scope includes the NASA App and any other apps supported or maintained by OCOMM organizations across the agency.

32 PWS Section

7.13.3 Will more detail be provided for

the scope and scale of 3-D Printing Operations?

In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA-07 has been

33 PWS Section

7.13.4.1.3 and 7.13.4.1.4

These sections refer to fabrication equipment and use of NASA facilities along with Government-provided equipment, including operating existing on-site workshops at certain centers, as well as maintaining similar capability at the contractor's workplace. Similar requirements are also noted in the NASA Communications Services (NSC) Draft RFP, Section 4.2.3.2 on page 40 which mentions using NASA facilities at GRC, MSFC, and JSC. Will the Government provide a list of the centers with on-site workshops that will be assigned to the eMITS Contractor? Is it the intent of the Government to have both NCS and eMITS use the same facilities? Can the Government clarify the duplication of effort between NCS and eMITS?

PWS 7.13.4 describes the nature of exhibit work NASA anticipates will be assigned to the eMITS and describes the coordination NASA desires to prevent or minimize duplication of effort with the NCS contract. In accordance with DRD-MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA-07 has been

34 PWS Section

7.13.4.1.4 Will the Government also provide

the equipment necessary for the capability at the contractor's workplace?

No, the Government will not be providing equipment for the contractor’s workplace.

35 RFP - Other RFP and Enclosure 2 Performance and Award Fee Evaluation Plan

When will the customer clarify what part of the PWS is CORE versus the IDIQ?

All requirements in the PWS are considered CORE. The IDIQ portion of the contract will primarily be used for short term, unplanned requirements that occasionally come up and are within the scope of the contract. In accordance with DRD- MA-07 - Annual Work Plan, detailed requirements will be further defined utilizing an annual work plan that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA-007 - Annual Work

Plan has been updated for clarification.

36 RFP - Other Enclosure 2 Performance and Award Fee Evaluation Plan

Performance and award fee plan states the PEB membership role of recommendations and findings.

Would the Government clarify their structure for management of the contract?

Enclosure 2, Performance Evaluation Plan is provided for informational purpose.

No additional information to be provided regarding NASA management structure.

37 RFP - Other B.2 B.3 B.6 B.7 B.8

The identified CLIN structure includes CLIN numbers X01 (with X=1,2,…8) for the CPAF portion of the contract and also CLIN numbers 601 and 602 for the IDIQ portion of the contract. Thus there is a CLIN numbered 601 under Core Requirements for services during the option period 03/01/28 through 02/28/29, but also a CLIN numbered 601 for IDIQ services during the entire period of performance 3/1/23 through 2/28/32. Please clarify the scope and duration of CLIN 601.

CLIN structure for IDIQ has been updated to reflect IDIQ CLINS as 002 and 003 for CPAF and FFP IDIQ, respectively.

38 RFP - Other B.2 B.3 B.6 B.7 B.8

The identified CLIN structure includes CLIN numbers X01 (with X=1,2,…8) for the CPAF portion of the contract and also CLIN numbers 601 and 602 for the IDIQ portion of the contract. Thus, there is a CLIN numbered 601 under Core Requirements for services during the option period 03/01/28 through 02/28/29, but also a CLIN numbered 601 for IDIQ services during the entire period of performance 3/1/23 through 2/28/32. Please clarify the scope and duration of CLIN 601.

CLIN structure for IDIQ has been updated to reflect IDIQ CLINS as 002 and 003 for CPAF and FFP IDIQ, respectively.

39 RFP - Other B.2 Item 002 in the Contract Data Deliverables table identifies iSite as the delivery method for Task Plans.

We are familiar with iSite which is used as a contract electronic management system on multiple contracts across different NASA Centers. Section H.40 indicates that the Annual Work Plan shall be maintained in the Contractor-provided Electronic Management System (ECMS). Please clarify what requirement there is for Offerors to provide an ECMS, and if there is such a requirement, please provide details on what functions the system must support. Additionally, please identify any requirement to develop interfaces between iSite and the ECMS.

Clause H.40 (d) has been updated to reflect iSite. Updated language will include, The AWP shall be managed in iSite.

40 RFP - Other F.4 Will the period of performance be adjusted for Leap Years (2024 & 2028)?

Clause F.4, GSFC 52.217-

92 PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE/EFFECTI

VE ORDERING

PERIOD has been updated to reflect leap years.

41 RFP - Other F4 Period of performance. Table doesn’t reflect (Leap) years where Feb has 29 days? 2024 and 2028.

Table should be updated to reflect Leap Years.

The period of performance has been updated to reflect leap years.

42 RFP - Other F.5 The Government has listed work locations. Please confirm that all contractor employees supporting eMITS will work at these locations.

Can they work remote. Please confirm that the Government provides office space, furniture, stationery & supplies, telephone, and internet.

For proposal purposes, assume all personnel will reside on-site at one of the NASA Centers.

The Government is updating the RFP to include Installation Accountable Government Property.

43 RFP - Other RFP G.13. c The following property and services are provided if checked:"

No boxes are checked. Should we assume the Government is not providing any of the items listed?

G.13 1852.245-71

INSTALLATION-

ACCOUNTABLE

GOVERNMENT

PROPERTY has been updated to include the property and services that the Government will provide for onsite work.

44 RFP -

GFE/GFP/IAG

P

G.19 The Government has listed vehicle information for each NASA center.

For some centers, it was stated that vehicles will not be provided.

Does it mean vehicles are not required for the work performed.

Please clarify this.

The Contractor is responsible for performance of the contract. The Government will not be providing dedicated vehicles to the Contractor as stated in Clause G.19 CENTER-

SPECIFIC SHIPPING AND

RECEIVING

PROCEDURES.

45 RFP - Other H.9 Clause H.9 appears to be a clause from the LaRC TEAMS 3 RFP requiring cooperation between the TEAMS 3 contractor and the contractors holding other LaRC contracts. It does not seem to be an appropriate clause to for the eMITS RFP. Please clarify.

The RFP will be updated to provide clarity.

46 RFP - ACA H 11(2) From the write up in H 11 (2) it reads like the government expects the eMITS contractor to negotiate ACA's with the 4 contracts that are transitioning at start of contract.

Can the government clarify the intent of this requirement since some of these contracts won't exist after 3/1/23?

H.11 Associate Contractor Agreements states that not all content will be moving from existing contracts to eMITS. If the contract is continuing and requires interfaces to eMITS, then the contactor will determine if ACA is necessary. The clause will be updated to provide clarity.

47 RFP - ACA H 11 (3) This section lists a number of centers where the contracts needing ACA's is shown at TBD.

When will the TBD information be provided or the TBD's removed? If there are no specific center contracts that need ACA's then the

Updates will be provided in RFP.

TBD should be replaced with "None".

48 RFP -

GFE/GFP/IAG

P

Section L In order for the contractor to address the TO's and determine off site facility requirements, NASA needs to define what on-site facilities (number of seats) and equipment will be available at each center.

For proposal purposes, assume all personnel will reside on-site at one of the primary NASA Centers.

49 RFP -

GFE/GFP/IAG

P

L.24 and Att.

I

The list of available Government property included in Attachment I only identifies property at two locations (tabs labelled SRACES and HITTS2016). Given the broad nature of eMITS support, including support for numerous NASA Centers, it seems likely that the Government property list would include property at multiple Centers. Please confirm that only the items currently listed in Attachment I must be considered.

This information is necessary to properly scope the property management function and staff it accordingly.

The Government acknowledges that the lists are incomplete at the time of DRFP. The lists will be updated to include at a minimum, the contracts transitioning in the first year of performance.

50 RFP -

GFE/GFP/IAG

P

JI The GFP list doesn't show GFP for many of the contracts transitioning to eMITS and does include GFP for SRACES which is not shown as one of the contracts transitioning to eMITS. When will an updated Attachment J I (GFP) be available?

The Government acknowledges that the lists are incomplete at the time of DRFP. The lists will be updated to include at a minimum, the contracts transitioning in the first year of performance.

51 RFP -

GFE/GFP/IAG

P

JJ The IAGP list doesn't show IAGP for many of the contracts transitioning to eMITS and does include IAGP for SRACES which is not shown as one of the contracts transitioning to eMITS. When will an updated Attachment J J (IAGP) be available?

The Government acknowledges that the lists are incomplete at the time of DRFP. The lists will be updated to include at a minimum, the contracts transitioning in the first year of performance.

52 RFP -

GFE/GFP/IAG

P

JH It was noted that the GFE list was very limited and did not include many items such as vehicles, computers, video cameras, data center equipment, etc. currently used to perform the work. Is the offeror expected to provide and cost any/all equipment needed for the job that is not listed in the GFE list?

The Government acknowledges that the lists are incomplete at the time of DRFP. The lists will be updated to include at a minimum, the contracts transitioning in the first year of performance.

53 RFP - Other Attachment J-C;

DRAFT RFP,

B.3 MA-3

Staffing Plan, B.3.c

Attachment J-C references a Diversity Equity and Inclusion Plan to be submitted with the initial proposal. However, the DRAFT RFP does not specifically provide for the DE&I Plan to be evaluated. We request that the DE&I Plan be referenced under B.3 MA-3 Staffing Plan, B.3.c, so that the Government can specifically evaluate offerors' Plans.

Updates to the DRD that will be incorporated into the RFP. The initial submission will be updated to "Plan shall be submitted within 30 days after contract award."

54 RFP - Other H.36 5% of work is going from CPAF to FFP. Would the Government please clarify how the 5% target is computed over the contract period? Does the base for it decrease as the content goes FFP?

Reference to Clause H.36 is CONVERSION

FROM COST-PLUS-

AWARD-FEE TO COST-

PLUS-FIXED FEE. If the Government decides to transition to a FFP the Government will be utilizing H.37 ADVANCE

AGREEMENT TO

TRANSITION FIXED

PRICE WORK PACKAGES.

Clause H.37 and DRD MA-020 will be revised for the RFP.

55 RFP - Other I.147 Will Juneteenth be added as a holiday?

Yes, Juneteenth will be added to the Federal Holidays listed in Clause I.147 52.222-42

STATEMENT OF

EQUIVALENT RATES FOR

FEDERAL HIRES

56 RFP - Other Sections L and M

Prospective offeror recommends structuring this procurement so metrics are based on performance.

Within the evaluation criteria, we suggest applying performance-based metrics during contract execution to ensure contractors are working toward delivery based on NASA’s desired outcomes rather than against deliverable-based reporting and service level agreements (SLAs). In addition, we recommend that NASA evaluate whether the contractor can provide transparent and up-to-date pricing, which would allow NASA to evaluate overall pricing accordingly. NASA can include a statement like the following in the instructions or Section L:

“The contractor shall provide NASA mechanisms and tools to measure metrics based on service availability and transparent service pricing.”

The Government will be evaluating contractors that offer the best value to the Government that can meet all the requirements defined in the eMITS RFP. Specific requirements will be identified in an annual work plan (refer to DRD- MA-07) that covers all the requirements defined in work packages issued by the Government. DRD MA- 07 has been updated for clarification.

57 RFP - Other Sections L and M

Expanding NASA awareness to new and global audiences would benefit greatly from partners capable of leveraging cloud-based, such as AWS, data analysis, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to drive actionable intelligence to influence communication strategies. Cloud-based analytics is another competency NASA should consider in partner responses.

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and Technical approach in their proposals.

58 RFP - Other Sections L

Cloud-based digital media competency partners, such as the AWS Digital Media Competency Partners, have demonstrated success in building solutions to create, manage, and distribute digital media and entertainment content. These Competency Partners can give NASA access to innovative, cloud-based solutions for digital media projects and workflows. They can help to accelerate creation, streamline production, and optimize content delivery with cloud-based, such as AWS, solutions. We recommend adding requirement(s) and evaluation criteria to ensure offerors have familiarity and experience with digital media competency in order to provide the best outcomes for NASA.

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and Technical approach in their proposals.

59 RFP - Other Sections L and M

Given eMITS will have to transition some digital media data and records to NARA ERA, and in order for NASA to continue to drive efficiencies in the digital multimedia and IT communications services space over the long-term, we recommend adding requirement(s) and evaluation criteria to ensure offerors have familiarity and experience with migration competency in order to provide the best outcomes for NASA. Authorized partners that work with CSPs, such as AWS Partners, with a Migration Competency accelerate customer cloud adoption journey by providing business expertise, migration and modernization tools, education, and support to customers in the form of professional services.

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and

60 RFP - Other Sections L

CSPs and CSP-certified partners can provide NASA with cloud-based multimedia and technical communications services to offer a better way to automate, scale, reduce costs, deliver multimedia communications across the Agency, and respond to customers faster and in a more secure manner. We recommend including a statement in the instructions and evaluation criteria, similar to the statement provided below, that encourages offerors to include descriptions of CSP partnerships:

“The Contractor shall describe any partnerships with cloud service providers, such as being a part of an established partner network, through which the offeror will drive innovation, specifically for digital multimedia and technical communications services, improve service delivery and operational efficiencies, and reduce costs….”

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and Technical approach in their proposals.

61 RFP - Other Sections L and M

We encourage NASA to tie together potential optimizations across the RFP. When requiring bidders to demonstrate a partnership with a CSP, NASA can also specify that evidence of this partnership will be evaluated as part of the evaluation criteria based on language similar to the following:

“The Contractor’s approach to CSP partnerships in the project scope will be evaluated for its demonstrated potential to supply NASA with cloud and customer enablement services and potential to deliver NASA continuous innovation over the term of the contract.”

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and

62 RFP - Other Sections L

NASA can require offerors to describe CSP competencies that attest to their ability to operate and innovate cloud-based multimedia and communciations services. For example, NASA can incorporate the following language:

“Contractors should demonstrate a partnership with a CSP, including proof of participating in a CSP partner network and specific competencies that align with the digital multimedia and IT communications services requirements outlined in the scope.”

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and Technical approach in their proposals.

63 RFP - Other Sections L and M

To be sure NASA rewards innovative thinking that meets eMITS objectives during proposal evaluation, we recommend including the following evaluation criteria for the evaluation of the offeror’s technical approach:

“Offerors who leverage emerging technologies, including cloud-based solutions, into their response to PWS requirements will receive a higher rating.”

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and Technical approach in their proposals.

64 RFP - Other Sections L and M

Emphasis should be placed on the types of technical and management areas, such as use of cloud services or cloud system management, that are similar to the requirements identified in the eMITS PWS.

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and

65 RFP - Other Sections L

NASA should also consider requiring offerors to demonstrate the ways in which they have delivered innovative services and outcomes in their past performance references. For example, NASA could add the following requirement:

“…emphasis should be placed on the following technical management areas that are similar to the requirements identified in Attachment A, PWS. Emphasis should also be placed on the specific ways in which the Offeror has delivered innovative services throughout the period of performance, particularly leveraging cloud services…”

Offerors will have the opportunity to describe their Management and Technical approach in their proposals.

66 RFP - Other L.27 The cover letter, SF-33, title pages, tables of contents, cover pages, indices, Mission Suitability compliance matrix, PWS Compliance Matrix, Glossary/List of Acronyms, Cost/Price Volume, List of those sent Past Performance Questionnaires, Customer Evaluations, enforceable commitments, are excluded from the page counts specified in the table below. (1) Are the Mission Suitability compliance matrix and the PWS compliance matrix two separate matrices, and if yes, where is the PWS compliance matrix intended to be included? (2) Would the Government please clarify what is meant by enforceable commitments? (3) Since the Phase-In Plan is show separately with separate page limitations, we assume that it is not part of the Mission Suitability page count. Would the Government please confirm this assumption?

(1) Yes, Refer to L.30

GSFC 52.215-210

MISSION SUITABILITY

VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

paragraph (c) for Mission Suitability compliance matrix and L.32 Past performance Volume paragraph (f) for the PWS Past Performance Matrix (2) Enforceable Commitments is not applicable to eMITS.

The RFP section L.27(b)(1) will be updated to remove enforceable commitments. (3) L.27

GSFC 52.215-201 (ALT I)

PROPOSAL

PREPARATION—

GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS

(ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL

DELIVERY) has been updated to clarify Mission Suitability

Volume. Although the Phase-In Plan and Total Compensation Plan are included in Subfactor B, the page count for each are separate from the page count for the remaining Management Approach Section.

67 RFP - Other L.27, (b) (1) Are insignificant subcontractors required to submit a Total Compensation Plan (TCP)?

Yes, refer to L.21 1852.231-71

DETERMINATION OF

COMPENSATION

REASONABLENESS

paragraph (d).

68 RFP -

Scenario

A.1 T-1 Scenario 1

Given that this is a commercial space launch, the assumption is that the commercial entity will be performing their own live mission coverage. Is there an existing MOA identifying the roles and responsibilities for each commercial entity vs NASA roles and responsibilities.

The assumption is incorrect. NASA is engaged in coverage of any and every commercial crew launch and mission involving NASA components, personnel, and experiments onboard.

The Government will be responsible for negotiating roles and responsibilities between NASA and commercial launch providers.

69 RFP -

Scenario

A.1 T-1 Scenario 1

The description for Scenario 1 assumes use of NASA TV, photography, web and social media services. However there are no bulleted details for NASA TV but there are details for photo, web, and social media. Is this an omission?

This is not an omission.

OCOMM operates in an integrated fashion where live coverage includes but is not limited to, TV, web, social media, and photography. Events typically require coverage across all mediums. The vendor will be responsible for ensuring distribution according to NASA’s requirements. Flexibility is key.

70 RFP -

Scenario

A.1 T-1 Scenario 1

Will there be video capture for other than live NASA TV?

Video capture is conducted on all digital platforms, including, but not limited to, streaming for web and social media and video-on-demand.

71 RFP -

Scenario

A.1 T-1 Scenario 1

Can further information be provided about the locations of the briefings? Will all locations be at NASA facilities or will some be at commercial locations?

For purpose of the scenario, assume the location is a NASA facility.

72 RFP -

Managemen t Approach

L.30.2 The Management Approach instructions include the following requirement "The Offeror should include such elements as the span of control, degree of autonomy (specifically the Program Manager, including proposed on-site center), and lines of communication. All interfaces with all contractor personnel and subcontractors must be clearly delineated." under both Sub-elements B.1.a and B.1.c. We recommend that the requirement be included under only one sub-element.

The RFP has been updated by removing "The Offeror should include such elements as the span of control, degree of autonomy (specifically the Program Manager, including proposed on-site center), and lines of communication. All interfaces with all contractor personnel and subcontractors must be clearly delineated." from B.1.c.

73 RFP -

Managemen t Approach

L.30.2 Within the Management Approach, the requirement to describe "The Offeror should include such elements as the span of control, degree of autonomy (specifically the Program Manager, including proposed on-site center), and lines of communication." there appears to be some missing text within the parenthesis. Please clarify what is meant by "including proposed on-site center" or provide the complete wording for the requirement

L.30.2 "including proposed onsite center" is requesting if the PM will be onsite, and if so, identify what center.

74 RFP -

Managemen t Approach

L.30.2 The DRFP instructions for Management Approach include requirements to describe teaming arrangements, interfaces with significant subcontractors, and the nature and extent of work to be performed by significant subcontractors under sub-element B.1.a. Subsequently, B.1.b requires Offerors to describe its teaming approach and its approach to manage subcontractors and identify and resolve subcontract problems. Then under sub-element B.1.c, Offerors are to address interfaces with subcontractors again. We recommend that the Government incorporate all requirements related to subcontracting into a single sub-element to avoid duplication of items in the response.

The RFP has been updated by removing "The Offeror should include such elements as the span of control, degree of autonomy (specifically the Program Manager, including proposed on-site center), and lines of communication. All interfaces with all contractor personnel and subcontractors must be clearly delineated." from B.1.c.

75 RFP - Other L.30.2 M.4

Instructions for Subfactor B - Management Approach in L.30.2 include sub-elements B.1.a, B.1.b, B.1.c, B.1.e, B.1.f, and B.1.h, while the evaluation criteria in M.4 include sub-elements B.1.a, B.1.b, B.1.c, B.1.d, B.1.e, B.1.f, B.1.g, and B.1.h. Please provide the missing instructions for sub-elements B.1.d and B.1.g in L.30.2.

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected.

76 RFP - Other L.30.2 M.4

The evaluation criteria in M.4 include a sub-element for B.3.d related to the approach for reach-back, but the Instructions under L.30.2 do not include a corresponding sub-element B.3.d.

Please provide the missing instructions for sub-element B.3.d

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected.

77 RFP - Other L.30.2 Subfactor B Managemen t Approach

(MA) B.1

MA-1

Section L goes from B.1.c to B.1.e.

Evaluation criteria includes B.1.d for utilization of off-site operations and/or utilization of existing resources and references Section L.30.2, Subfactor B, MA-1 Management Plan, Paragraph

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected.

t Plan: B.1.d

B.1.d. It appears as though instructions are missing in Section L. Please provided associated Section L instructions, as intended.

78 RFP - Other L.30.2.B.2/M A 02

There are differences in the text write up in the DRFP L.30.2.B.2 and the content described in MA 02.

Since the draft Phase In Plan is due at proposal submittal, shouldn't the DRFP write up (Section L) and the DRD (MA 02) content be the same?

The DRD calls for a 57 day transition, and the DRD calls for a 60 day transition.

The DRFP calls for "phase in organization, roles and responsibilities and deliverables and the DRD does not.

The DRD calls for; GFP inventory, completion of all certification and license requirements, proposed FFP for the Phase In Plan, Risks and the DRFP does not list these items.

The DRFP allows 10 pages for the Phase In Plan. This is a very small number of pages for the enterprise scope of eMITS and the content called for in the DRFP and DRD.

Recommend DRD page count be changed to 15 to 20 pages. ie, a detailed 57 day schedule can take 4 to 6 pages alone.

RFP and DRD will be updated to resolve discrepancies.

79 RFP - Other L.30.2 Within the Section L requirements for Subfactor B, the RFP appears to be missing sections B.1.d, B.1.g, and B.3.d, which align to the following sections in the Evaluation Criteria, M.4.B.1.d, M.4.B.1.g, and M.4.B.3.d. Will the Government add the missing requirements in Section L or remove the respective sections from Section M?

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected.

80 RFP - Other L.30.2 MA.1 subsections B.1.d and B.1.g appear to be missing in Section L but evaluation criteria are present for them in Section M. When will the instructions for these sections be provided?

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected. Section M has been updated to correspond with Section L.30.2.

81 RFP -

Managemen t Approach

L.30.2 The requirement under sub-element B.1.e of the Management Approach requires Offerors to describe their approach "to increase consolidation of OCIO and OCOM services…" This requirement seems to be beyond the scope of what a contractor should do since the determination of what work is consolidated under a given contract is an inherently governmental function. We recommend that NASA clarify the language to define the requirement as describing the approach to enhance the execution of the consolidation process defined by NASA.

The sub element B.1.e will be updated to provide clarity.

82 RFP -

Managemen t Approach

L.30.2.B.1.e This section asks the Offeror shall describe their approach in accordance with the eMITS transition schedule (included in Attachment A, Performance Work Statement and DRD MA-01) to increase consolidation of Enterprise and Center OCIO and OCOM services transformation while respecting Agency and Center IT Governance, unique technical requirements, and ensuring effective utilization of a distributed workforce to achieve maximum efficiencies. Will NASA provide the IT Governance Contracts, in addition to the list already provided in Attachment J-

The contractor will not be asked to perform requirements from other contracts not listed in the transition schedule. If additional contracts are identified after award, a modification will be issued. Clause H.11 ACAs identifies known contracts which may have touchpoints with eMITS requiring agreements.

P, where eMITS will be assuming center related IT Governance?

83 RFP -

Managemen t Approach

L.30.2 B.3.a The Offeror shall clearly define the proposed labor classification titles, mapping to the labor classifications provided in the RFP, PWS area assigned, qualifications, and number of WYEs for each assigned PWS area (Offeror shall provide staffing to WBS Level 2 (e.g., 1.1, 2.1, etc.) for PWS sections of the Attachment A

– Performance Work Statement).

Offerors shall address the minimum requirements of the position qualifications, to include necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirement certifications, minimum education and/or experience required for the position. This Staffing matrix is a very large matrix with multiple pages that are potentially 11x17.

Would the Government please consider excluding this matrix from the page count or increasing the page count by at least 20 pages?

RFP section B.3.a will be removed.

84 RFP - Phase-in

J-c; DRD MA- 02 Phase-in Plan - 11.

Contents #3

The DRD MA-02 states “Discuss proposed key personnel and demonstrate that they are committed to employment prior to start of contract.” Will the Government provide a list of Key Positions (to be filled with Key Personnel) with the Final RFP or will the offerors be required to propose those? Please confirm that you will be expecting each Offeror submit Key Personnel Resumes and Commitment Letters with the proposal?

Per the Content of DRD MA-02, please discuss your proposed key personnel and their commitment to the contract. There is no requirement for resumes or commitment letters.

85 RFP - Other L.29(d) RFP section L.29(d) provides examples of acceptable file names listing example names for the subcontractor submission of the Mission Suitability (MS) Volume, the Past Performance (PP) Volume, and the Cost/Price Volume. Would the government please clarify if subcontractors are expected to submit their contributions to these three (3) volumes separate from the prime contractors?

Refer to L.29.a. for details of Prime and Significant subcontractor submittal. Also refer to L.29.d for example naming nomenclatures.

86 RFP -

t Approach

L.30.2.B.3.a RFP section L.30.2.B.3.a states:

"The Offeror shall clearly define the proposed labor classification titles, mapping to the labor classifications provided in the RFP, PWS area assigned, qualifications, and number of WYEs for each assigned PWS area (Offeror shall provide staffing to WBS Level 2 (e.g., 1.1, 2.1, etc.) for PWS sections of the Attachment A – Performance Work Statement)."

Would the government please clarify if the staffing should reflect the labor categories and the hours provided on pages 154-158?

RFP section B.3.a will be removed.

87 RFP - Other B.3 MA-3 Attach J

CDRLS, MA

requirements for staffing plan and staffing details are mentioned several times. Can the staffing plan portion of the proposal be Non-page counted? Or can it be referenced in one section so as to save pages and avoid duplication?

RFP section B.3.a will be removed.

88 RFP - Other L.30.2 MA-3 subsection B.3.d appears to be missing from Section L but evaluation criteria exist for this subsection in Section M. When will the instructions for this subsection be provided?

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected. Section M has been updated to correspond with Section L.30.2.

89 RFP - Other L.30.2 Subfactor MA.4 appears to be missing. Is this the case and will it be provided with the Final RFP or is subfactor MA.5 misnumbered?

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected. Section M has been updated to correspond with Section L.30.2.

90 RFP - Other L.30.2 Subfactor B Managemen t Approach

(MA) B.3

MA-3

Staffing Approach:

B.3.d

There is no Section L instructions/requirement for approach for reach-back yet there is evaluation criteria as M.4.B Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) B.3.d. Since all other B.3 MA-3 elements have a one for one mapping from Section L to Section M, it is assumed Section L instructions were intended for B.3.d. Please provided associated Section L instructions, as intended.

The sub elements listed in Clause L.30.2 Subfactor B – Management Approach (MA) have been corrected. Section M has been updated to correspond with Section L.30.2.

91 RFP -

Cost/Labor

Encl 1 - Program Manager

Minimum education is listed as BS/MA/BS. Should this be

BA/MA/BS?

Yes, this should be BA/BS/MS. Enclosure 1 has been updated.

92 RFP - Other L.31 Will the period of performance be adjusted for Leap Years (2024 & 2028)?

The dates have been updated in Clause L.31

COST/PRICE VOLUME

INSTRUCTIONS

(VOLUME III).

93 RFP -

Cost/Labor

L.31 The DRFP cost instructions indicate that Offerors shall propose a single rate for each provided labor category.