Questions and Answers for 80TECH22R0001 - Amendment 02.pdf

#` Section # or Reference Comment/Suggestion Response

Form 1 Proposed Effort There is no level provided for the "Graphic Design Specialist" LCAT in Cell A58. Please Indicate whether this is to be a Graphic Design Specialist I, II, III, IV, or V

Amendment 0001 revised Form 1 to designate levels.

Form 1 Proposed Effort There is no level provided for the "Multimedia Producer/Senior Multimedia Producer" LCAT in Cell A80.

Please Indicate whether this is to be a Multimedia Producer/Senior Multimedia Producer I, II, III, or IV

Amendment 0001 revised Form 1 to designate levels.

Form 1 Proposed Effort There is no level provided for the "Project Coordinator" LCAT in Cell A107. Please Indicate whether this is to be a Project Coordinator I, II, III, or IV

Amendment 0001 revised Form 1 to designate levels.

Form 1 Proposed Effort The "Property Administrator" LCAT listed in Cell A144 does not have a description or minimum requirements provided in the "Enclosure+1+Labor+Categories.xlsx" file. Please provide the job description and minimum requirements for this LCAT

Amendment 0001 revised Exhibit 2, Property Administrator was revised to Property Specialist II.

Form 2 – Composite Rate Schedule """ iii. The proposed profit rate for FFP task orders."" The calculations on Form 2 do not include a place to provide the proposed profit rate for FFP task orders. Should offerors add a row to include the proposed profit as listed in iii.?"

Amendment 0001 revised the direction in section L.31(2)(c), Form 2.

The offer is not required to provide the profit rate for FFP task orders.

FFP labor rates will be proposed at the annual work plan/package level and negotiated with the Government at that time.

Form 5 Summary of Indirects There is only one row provided for llisting the "Fee". May offerors add an additional row to provide both our proposed profit rate for FFP task orders and our proposed fee rate for CPAF task orders?

Amendment 0001 revised the direction in section L.31(2)(c), Form 2.

The offer is not required to provide information related to FFP labor rates.

FFP labor rates will be proposed at the annual work plan/package level and negotiated with the Government at that time.

Enterprise Multimedia and Integrated Technical Services (eMITS) Request for Proposal

SCA and CBA Covered LCATs In the pre-bid Q&A it was stated that a list of the labor categories for which the SCA Wage Determinations are applicable would be provided. The released solicitation does not seem to include said list. Can the list of SCA Wage

SCA labor categories will be identified during the annual work plan and work package development process. However, Section I.149 of the RFP lists the anticipated SCA covered labor category details.

SCA and CBA Covered LCATs In the pre-bid Q&A #103 and 112 the government provided that the Annual Work Plan will define SCA/CBA-covered LCATs and required hours. Said information is not provided with the released soilcitation and Cost/Price Form. Please

SCA labor categories will be identified during the annual work plan and work package development process.

L.31 Cost/Price Volume Instructions """For proposal purposes, significant subcontractor are defined as subcontractor or Inter-/Intra- Work Transfer Authorizations (IWTA) having a contract value equal to or greater than an average annual value of $15 Million. Nonsignificant subcontractor are defined as subcontractor having a contract value less than an average annual value of $15 Million.""

Please provide clarification on how the ""annual value of $15 Million"" is to be calculated - is this the estimated subcontractor annual IDIQ workshare %? For IDIQ bid, specific subK amount is determinated at the task order level, since task order aren't defined at this stage, what

The subcontractor average annual value will be substantiated by the costs proposed in the cost volume. See revised language in the RFP.

Reference Section L.31 (page 159) and Section L.32.a (page 175)

Both Cost and Past Performance requirements define a Significant Subcontractor as having a contract value equal to or greater than an average annual value of $15 million.

Reference Section L.31 (page 159) and Section L.32.a (page 175). Definitions of a Significant Subcontractor may be different for past performance and cost evaluation. With that in mind, please clarify that the $15 million annual contract value threshold for cost and for past performance pertains to work only on the proposed eMITS contract. In other words that “having a contract value equal to or greater than an average annual value of $15 Million” from Section L.31 relates to work to be assigned to the

Refer to RFP L.31 paragraph 5 defines the difference between the Significant and Nonsignificant subcontractor. Refer to L.32 paragraph (a).

This average annual value of $15M is work performed on eMITS only.

Page 12 Section IV Would the government be amendable to providing offers a min/max range of possible award fee rates?

L.31(i) provides the following direction on fee, "Offerors shall provide rationale for the proposed amounts and detail how FCCOM (if applicable) was considered in the calculation of the proposed profit/fee."

in the “Non-Management Hours-Govt Directed” list of LCATs there are 58 LCATs missing from Enclosure 1 list of LCATs. And from the Enclosure 1, there are 4 LCATs missing from the Exhibit 2. If this was intentional, is the offeror to assume these two file have LCAT structure that are independent of each other? Would the government provide clarification and further guidance in regards how to treat these two file in relation to offerors’ response?

The labor categories and hours provided in the Cost Forms are for evaluation purposes only and are not indicative of the requirements for performance. Labor categories and hours will be determined during the annual work plan/package development.

May the offeror update any of the formulas in any of the tabs they need to represent their prices accurately according to their cost estimating practices?

Contractors should adjust formulas on the Government Cost Forms in a manner which aligns with their established estimating policy/procedure.

If the offeror has more than 2 subcontractors may the offeror add additional tabs to provide the rates for the rest of those subcontractors?

RFP Section L.31 provides instruction on incorporation of Significant and Non-Significant Subcontractor information.

Contractors should add the tabs necessary to reflect the Offerors unique team proposed.

Please confirm that there are no hours for Phase-In period for “Form 1 Proposed Effort”.

Form 6 provides a template for the Offeror to propose their unique Phase- In labor costs.

Form 6, Phase In Tab Please confirm that row 21 should be updated to state

“Profit Rate” since the Phase-In is FFP The Government confirms Phase-In cost is FFP.

Page 162, Subpoint iii “The proposed profit rate for FFP task orders”, would the government consider removing this requirement since this will be FFP, unless it is anticipated that the government will be defining this rate.

Refer to Amendment 001 which deleted the statement "The proposed profit rate for FFP task orders".

Page 163, Form 3, Paragraph 2 For Forms 3a and 3b, etc. please confirm that this is indeed only for significantly subcontractors, and non-significant subcontractors should not be included as part Form 2 composite rate calculation.

RFP Section L.31(c) states Form 3 shall be submitted by each significant subcontractor.

Form 2 is a table of composite burdened labor rates, and should reflect a singular rate representing the estimated cost per hour by labor category.

Directions for Form 2 identify the singular rate should be inclusive of Prime, Significant, and Non-significant subcontractors (if applicable). RFP Section L.31(c)provides instruction to Offerors on how to include the labor rate information for Prime, Significant, and Non-Significant Subcontractors.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 What specific functions do the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) referenced in Scenario 3 perform? Do the APIs interface between the Dalet and IO systems to pull still imagery from video files to import into IO?

L.30.1 A.3 Paragraph 1 describes the functionality of the API for this scenario.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 What system is in place to covert the video files stored within the Dalet database to still images used by IO?

IO contains both still and video files.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 mentions that NCAPS is in the process of implementing an Agency cloud-based architecture for Dalet. Cloud implies hosting at a 3rd party location to remove the burden of infrastructure management.

However, Scenario 3 also says the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Mission requires locally managed infrastructure. Does this mean the “cloud” is hosted within the physical confines of OCIO or is it a secured, virtual designation over the Internet hosted by a 3rd party?

It is a hybrid cloud system.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 The introduction to Secenario 3 states that "Imagery Online (IO), which is a searchable interface for still and motion imagery within the gates of NASA …". Pease clarify the meaning/interpretation for the phrase "within the gates of NASA ." For example, does it mean: 1) all imagery generated within or by all of the NASA suborganizations, 2) the IO functionality is only useable by staff internal to NASA, 3) the IO system must be implemented on hardware/software hosted within NASA-owned facilities, or

4) something else?

IO is available to address the available space within the NASA network.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 The scenario indicates that the IO Oracle Database is end of life (EOL) in Fiscal Year 24 (FY24). Please clarify if IO is using Oracle 19c (Long Term Release) for which Premier Support ends in April 2024.

Current version is 11g. Support will end April 2024.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 The scenario indicates that the Dalet Digital Asset Management (DAM) system will be EOL in FY24. Please clarify which specific Dalet product and version number are currently in use by NASA/JSC.

The current Dalet system is Galaxy 5.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 The scenario states that "The JSC Mission requires the system to have local managed infrastructure ." Please clarify if that statement 1) requires the new system to be entirely located on-premises at JSC, 2) the system can be cloud-based/off-premises as long as it is "locally managed" by JSC, or 3) something else.

The scenario is designed for offerors to provide their unique approach.

L.30.1.A.3 Scenario 3 The scenario states that "NCAPS is in the process of implementing an Agency cloud-based solution fo Dalet" but also indicates that that solution is "not related to this problem [i.e., the scenario] or existing JSC architecture. Are we to assume that JSC will not be using the Agency Dalet solution but will require its own updated version of Dalet to interface with the updated IO?

The scenario is designed for offerors to provide their unique approach.

L..31.k For submission, the RFP states that Offerors are to provide a letter from a certified US Bank indicating the available amount of credit for the business. Does the term US Bank include a qualified and licensed facility company, such as, Action Capital?

Refer to FAR 9.104-1 and 9.104-3.

L.27.b.2 Will the Government decrease the font size for diagrams and graphics to 8pt TNR opposed to 10pt?

No, refer to RFP section L.27(b)(2).

SF 33 Cover Page for RFP Will the Government provide a 2-week extension with a submit date of July 14th to ensure small business offerors enough time on the back end to analyze and process answers to questions and make adjustments within their proposals, if necessary?

Amendment 0001 extended the due date to July 11, 2022.

L.31 Cost/Price Volume Instructions The instructions provide that "Offerors are to add labor categories and related formulas to the Offeror determined Program Management portion of the cost elements, beginning in cell A14 of Form 1." Please confirm that the Offeror may proposed LCATs that are not included on Enclosure+1+Labor+Categories document as required by our Technical Approach.

Offerors are to propose labor categories to support their unique program management approach from the categories available in Enclosure 1. RFP Section L.31(d) states, "Offerors shall provide a crosswalk from the represented labor categories to the labor categories in the Offeror’s current accounting system".

L.31 Cost/Price Volume Instructions The instructions provide that "Acceptable [responsibility determination disclosure] information includes letters from certified United States banks indicating the available amount of credit for the business and the company’s annual report." Please clarify, is the annual report refers to the company financial statements?

Refer to FAR 9.104-1 and 9.104-3.

B.11 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM

INDEFINITE DELIVERY, INDEFINITE

QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT VALUE

(IDIQ CLINs 002 and 003)

This section seems to indicate the maximum value of all task orders under the IDIQ portion of the contract is $100M. Based on the level of efforts detailed in the Exhibit+2+Cost+Forms.xlsx file, the total estimated for the contract seems to be much higher than this estimate.

Please clarify:

1) Is the $100M + 20% room for adjustment present the IDIQ total value (over the life of the contract) or the annual NTE? 2) Is this the figure the Government used as the basis to compute the $15M value establishing the significant subcontractor defintion for Cost/Price purposes?

Clause B.11 provides the maximum amount of supplies and services that thhe Government can order during the effective period. In refernce to the second question please refer to RFP section L.31.

Section L.32.e.1.a The final RFP included 2 additional past performance criteria that were not part of the draft RFP. One of the additional criteria poses a significant burden on small business teams that were already formed that must now pivot to accommodate a partner that brings geographically distributed television studios. Unless offerors had inside knowledge of this change, they would not have built such a team. Would NASA consider removing the following item from past performance volume and evaluation that requires the team demonstrate past performance history with Operating geographically distributed television studios; creating and producing live telecasts and recorded programs suitable for broadcast on a national scale; and around-the-clock program distribution to cable, satellite, and internet television systems.

As stated in RFP section L.32, offeror's are required to provide a description of its team's relevant past performance history in the defined requirement areas.

Questions 62 & 80 (amendment 0001) In reference to Q&A #62 and 80 as well as the instructions for Form 2, can you please confirm that bidders must price direct labor as a weighted average assuming onsite performance at the respective centers by labor category by center as provided in the Cost Forms under Form 4a and that offerors cannot deviate the weighted average rates from the breakout in Form 4a?

Any deviation by offerors to propose a weighted average rate that is not directly corelated to the prescribed hours by center in the GPM may result in challenges in evaluating realism, an issue that could be magnified as the solicitation does not require inclusion of the development of the weighted average rates?

RFP Section L. 31(c), Form 1 states Offerors are to propose the Non- Management Hours as provided.

Form 2 is a table of composite burdened labor rates, and should reflect a singular rate representing the estimated cost per hour by labor category.

Directions for Form 2 identify the singular rate should be inclusive of Prime, Significant, and Non-significant subcontractors (if applicable). RFP Section L.31(c)provides instruction to Offerors on how to include the labor rate information for Prime, Significant, and Non-Significant Subcontractors.

Past Performance Qustionnaire RFP / Amendment 1 / Past Performance Questionnaire / Page 1 Due Date shows 06/30/2022. We believe this is an oversight. Please confirm the due date for submitting Qustionnaire is now July 11,2022.

The PPQ due date has been extended from June 30, 2022 to July 11, 2022

Question #35 Per Q&A # 35, the Government stated that “Attachment J- Q has been updated to include the IBEW CBA.” This attachment now no longer includes the Local 780 Graphics, PAO Writers, Forms, Printing & Micrographics, Engineering Documentation Center and Library schedule or CBA data.

Was this information deliberately removed? We believe we need this information in order for us to adequately align CBA requirements in our pricing submission.

RFP Attachment J-Q has been updated.

Questions #26 & #27 Answers provided on 6/27/2022 in response to bidder questions state in several locations that “GFP will not transition on to the contract during the phase-in period.

However, the GFP transitioning will be determined during the annual work package development process. The list provided in the RFP package represents data available at the time of RFP release.”

Question: This language appears to contradict DRD MA-02 instructions that require the eMITS contractor to “accomplish all tasks required to begin work pursuant to this contract”, and to “assume a minimum of 100 work packages to be issued prior to contract start date.” This guidance also conflicts with DRD MA-02 required plan detail #6, “Complete a physical inventory of Government-furnished (property); provide evidence of a system to manage property in its possession, and sign for accountability of the property prior to start of contract.”

Phase-in is defined per B.2 MA-2 Phase-in Plan that at the end of which is the point when prime must have the “ability to assume full contract responsibility”. Assuming control of GFP from outgoing incumbent contractors seems to be a necessary step in preparation for execution of work packages. It also is fundamental to ensuring proper accountability of Government Property. Please clarify the G ’ i i i i

The Government will be transitioning GFP and IAGP on to the contract during the phase-in period for several of the contracts specified in attachment J-P to be defined in the initial work packages. The list provided in the RFP package represents data available at the time of RFP release.