NCAPS DRFP Questions Consolidated.pdf

# Document Section # or Reference Page # Comment/Suggestion Government's Response

1. RFP 2 Page 8-10

Could you further explain NASA's strategy to Procure new innovative software versus plans for additional support around services to continue support of current applications. Will procurement of new software be a separate contract vehicle to support key mission objectives mentioned in the NCAPS DRFP?

The plan is for NCAPS to be the contract the OCIO will use to procure new software development activities.

That said, NCAPS is another method for the Government to procure COTS software.

2. RFP

L.32 Instruction for

Volume III - Past Performance pages 177-

Due to the scale and complexity of the NCAPS contract, we recommend raising the minimum average annual Contract value from $60M to $100M.

The minimum average contract value will not be raised to $100M. To the extent there are any inconsistencies between the draft RFP (DRFP) and the final RFP (RFP or Solicitation), the RFP/Solicitation will govern.

3. RFP

L.32 Instruction for

Volume III - Past Performance pages 177-

We recommend limiting the number of commercial past performance citations because while similar commercial programs demonstrate technical understanding and capability, the Federal Government environment is markedly different and unique, requiring Bidder's to demonstrate their direct understanding and expertise in such a complex, mission-first environment.

The allowability of commercial past performance citations will not be changed. To the extent there are any inconsistencies between the DRFP and the RFP, the RFP will govern.

4. RFP

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award;

Entirety of Subfactor B: Technical Approach and Subfactor C:

Management

Approach pages 191-

How does NASA intend to evaluate resource realism (ref. pg 191), as well as innovation realism given the BOE requirement has been removed?

The Management Approach will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria detailed in section M of the RFP.

5. RFP

L.31.C Subfactor C:

Management

Approach (MA); C.1 MA-1 Management

Plan pages 170-

We recommend that NASA require all Bidders to provide a customer relationship management (CRM) and outreach plan within Subfactor C: Management Approach (MA), to be focused on cultural/organizational change management and adoption management.

NASA will not require a customer relationship management and outreach plan.

6. ATT S - Application Inventory Excel File Entire workbook

If NASA has conducted application dependency mapping as well as the associated business impact analysis, will NASA provide access to the reports within the data library?

Each Center has been managing its own application inventory to meet its needs; therefore, mappings are not uniformly available.

7. ATT S - Application Inventory Excel File Entire workbook

Has NASA conducted an assessment regarding existing technical debt and mitigation strategies If so, have you assessed the cost implications of the immediate solution versus the long-term, specifically focusing on risk and long-term spending?

Each Center has been managing its own application inventory to meet its needs; therefore, assessments are not uniformly available.

8. ATT A - PWS 1.2 Goals and Objectives pages 8-9

It is assumed that at each key stakeholder level within NASA OCIO, there are goals and expectations around application modernization and optimization. Can NASA please articulate this baseline under the "Goals and Objectives" section of the PWS so that Bidders have a better understanding of NASA's needs and desires?

These are overall goals to be achieved.

The key NASA and stakeholder goals are to consolidate applications as much as possible, realizing that there may not be a single application that will satisfy all of the Government’s requirements.

9. ATT A - PWS

5 Innovation Services;

6 Application, Web, Platform Services pages 40-

We recommend adding a requirement for all Bidders to explain their test environment capabilities, specifically what their test lab capabilities are and how a lab will be utilized on the program to support requirements stated within Section 5 Innovation Services and Section 6 Application, Web, Platform Services.

The Government will not change the RFP to include an additional requirement.

10. RFP Section L.29.B.c 153

This paragraph states the Excel spreadsheets shall be converted to PDF and submitted as part of Volume III.

Question: Would the Government confirm that this should state Volume IV instead of Volume III?

Yes, this should state Volume IV. The Solicitation will be updated to correct this.

11. RFP Section L.29.B.f and Section L.31.D 154

RFP Section L Paragraph B.f Page Limitations on page 154 includes Subfactor D:

Small Business Utilization as part of the Mission Suitability Volume II 50-page limitation. Offeror has a Government approved Master Small Business Subcontracting Plan that we use for all proposals and awarded contracts. This Master Plan is 14 pages of unalterable text. It also includes an appendix to tailor the Master Plan in response to the individual requirements of each solicitation.

This appendix essentially customizes the Master Plan so that it becomes an Individual Contract Plan. This, along with the other requirements articulated in the solicitation significantly impacts on the remaining pages available to respond to in the Mission Suitability Volume Subfactors B (Technical Approach) and Subfactor C (Management Approach) requirements. The current draft RFP provides for the exclusion of the Phase-in-Plan and the Total Compensation Plan from the 50-page limitation placed on Subfactor C.

Question: Request the Government consider excluding Subfactor D.1 SBU-1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan from the 50-page limit, and including only Subfactor D.2 SBU-2 Commitment to the Small Business Program in the 50-page limit assigned to Subfactors B, C, and D.

The RFP will be updated to clarify this.

To the extent there are any inconsistencies between the DRFP and the RFP, the RFP will govern.

12. RFP Section L30.c.7 158

This paragraph states that the Offeror shall provide a list of all subcontractors and the subcontract Core/Government Pricing Model (GPM) value associated with each entity.

Question: Would the Government clarify this requirement given that the Government Pricing Model consists of only rate cards (one rate/labor category) and does not breakout detailed pricing by Prime/Subcontractor for the FFP/CPFF rates or FFP Catalog Items?

The RFP has been updated for clarity.

13. RFP L.31.A 161

Per DRFP L.31.A, "The Offeror shall have the proposed Program Manager and up to four of the Offerors’ proposed personnel (shall be listed in the Offeror’s Organization Chart required on Section L.31.C.1.a of the Offerors’ Management Approach) present the video presentation (limit of five (5) presenters) per Technical Scenario Presentation."

Question: Please clarify that the total number of presenters allowed is 5 for the entire video presentation (vs 5 for Scenario 1 and 5 for Scenario 2).

The total number of presenters allowed for the entire video presentation is five (5). The RFP will be updated to clarify this.

14. RFP L.31.A 161 Must the names of all five presenters appear on an Offeror’s Management Organizational Chart in the Mission Suitability Volume?

L.31.A states, "The Offeror shall have the proposed Program Manager and up to four of the Offerors’ proposed personnel (shall be listed in the Offeror’s Organization Chart required on Section L.31.C.1.a of the Offerors’ Management Approach)…"

15. RFP L.31.C.1.a 170

The RFP states "C. l .a The Offeror shall describe its overall management, organizational, and supervisory structure, including teaming arrangements, and subcontractors (as defined in Section L.33 INSTRUCTION FOR VOLUME V - COST/PRICE) that will be employed to perform the NCAPS requirements. If significant subcontractors are proposed, the Offeror shall identify the interfaces between its organizational structure and those of its subcontractors." The Government provides a definition of significant subcontractors specifically for Volume III Past Performance, but not other Volumes.

Question: Please provide an exact definition of "significant subcontractors" for each Volume.

The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this.

16. RFP L.31.C.1.a 170

The RFP states "C. l .a The Offeror shall describe its overall management, organizational, and supervisory structure, including teaming arrangements, and subcontractors (as defined in Section L.33 INSTRUCTION FOR VOLUME V - COST/PRICE) that will be employed to perform the NCAPS requirements. If significant subcontractors are proposed, the Offeror shall identify the interfaces between its organizational structure and those of its subcontractors."

Question: Please confirm that Cost/Price is Volume IV vs. Volume V.

Cost/Price is Volume V. The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this.

17. RFP L.31.C.2 15, 171

Per Page 15, "CLIN 001 Services and Deliverables in accordance with Attachment H, Phase-in Plan..."

Per Page 171, "The 90-day Phase-in period will be accomplished as a separately priced firm-fixed price (FFP) CLIN under the NCAPS Contract. The proposed plan will be a Contractual requirement as defined herein Attachment H."

Attachment H is blank.

Question: Will the Government provide an updated Attachment H or is it the Government's intent that Attachment H will be updated post-award with the awarded Contractor's approved Phase-in Plan.?

In accordance with J.1 of the DRFP, the Phase-in Plan is To Be Proposed (TBP).

Once approved, Attachment H will be updated to incorporate the awardee's Phase-in Plan.

18. RFP Section L33 183

This paragraph states "For pricing purposes, the anticipated Contract start date is September 18, 2023." However, in the Table below this paragraph, the Phase-In period has a start date of November 1, 2023.

Question: Would the Government clarify the correct contract start date for the purposes of pricing?

The contract start date is January 31, 2024. The Solicitation will be updated to correct this.

19. ATT A - PWS; RFP L.33; 1.1 Scope RPF Page

183; PWS

DRFP2 shows the 90-Day Phase-In is November 1, 2023 - January 30, 2024, where contract start would be January 31, 2024. It says for pricing, the Contract start date is anticipated 9/18/2023. The PWS notional table shows the most likely Center contracts transition dates with KSC and NSSC in the 2023/4Q transitions.

Question: Will the Government update the PWS notional table XYZ in accordance with new start date?

The PWS will be updated in the RFP.

20. ATT A - PWS; RFP L.33; 1.1 Scope RFP Page

183; PWS

DRFP2 shows the 90-Day Phase-In is November 1, 2023 - January 30, 2024, where contract start would be January 31, 2024. It says for pricing, the Contract start date is anticipated 9/18/2023. The PWS notional table shows the most likely Center contracts transition dates with KSC and NSSC in the 2023/4Q transitions.

Will those also be transitioning during the formal 90-day Phase-In period or those notional dates adjusted to 2024/2Q or other timeframe?

The PWS will be updated in the RFP.

21. RFP Section L33 187

The second paragraph on page 187 states "The Offeror shall also identify in its price schedule all non-exempt labor categories and provide sufficient supporting data for the Government to evaluate and verify that these categories comply with the current Department of Labor wage determinations. This includes the location and wage determination number used in calculating the rate.

Question: Would the Government clarify this requirement given that all the labor categories provided in the NCAPS Pricing Matrix are defined as Exempt labor categories based on the labor category descriptions provided in Attachment U of the solicitation package?

Offerors shall propose in accordance with RFP section L.33, which includes supporting a non-exempt labor category if proposed. The Offeror may map its current labor categories to the labor categories provided in the RFP, which may include non-exempt labor.

22. RFP Section L33 187

The third paragraph on page 187 states "The CPFF labor rates proposed under NCAPS Pricing Matrix tab "1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Schedule" will be incorporated into the Contract under CLIN X03-NCAPS CPFF Core Services and CLIN X04 IDIQ with CPFF Task Orders."

Question: Is it the Government's intent that the proposed CPFF Labor Rates are to be "Ceiling Rates" for the contract for all locations and team members for the duration of the contract?

The Offeror/prime contractor shall propose in accordance with the RFP for pricing all CPFF task orders and CPFF Core Services.

23. RFP Section L33 188

The third paragraph on page 188 (Subcontractors) states "The Offeror shall identify all subcontractors proposed under the CPFF labor portion of this solicitation, as well as the Contract type for each subcontractor."

Question: Would the Government confirm that if all of the CPFF Labor Rates are based on the Prime's proposed pricing (no subcontractors rates identified as the basis for the proposed CPFF rates), then the Subcontractors are not required to submit a Cost/Price Volume (or proposal) to the Government?

Yes, if the Offeror does not propose any subcontractors that meet the threshold in L.33.

24.

RFP; Exhibit 1 NCAPS Pricing Matrix ATT I

Section B & Excel Tab 1-9 ODCs

RFP Page

The RFP in Section B states that the ODC CLIN NTE value is $135,784,523, but in the NCAPS Pricing Matrix, Tab 1-9 requires the Offeror to enter the Indirect Rate that will be applied to the ODCs which results in the Evaluated Amount exceeding the NTE value stated in the RFP.

Question: Would the Government clarify the ODC NTE value to include the Offeror's indirect rate burdens or alter the Excel file to include the indirect burdens within the ODC amount rather than in addition to the ODC values in the Pricing Matrix?

The ODC NTE values in the RFP differ from the pricing matrix. The ODC values in the pricing matrix are for evaluation purposes only. Offerors shall propose their indirect rates in accordance with the RFP.

25.

Exhibit 2 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan Goals

Exhibit 2 provides the Ordering Value of $2,022,327,665.05.

Question: Would the Government confirm that the Offeror should base their proposed "Percentage of Total Contract Values" based on the Ordering Value provided in Exhibit 2 and not the Offeror's Total Evaluated Price from Exhibit 1?

Offerors shall base their proposed values on Exhibit 2 Ordering Value.

26. ATT A - PWS Section 2.1 Page 10

The first paragraph of this sections states "The contractor shall perform all duties remotely, to the maximum extent possible, unless otherwise state within work packages, AWPs and/or herein."

Question: Would the Government confirm that the Place of Performance for the purposes of pricing should be "Contractor Site" and/or "remote locations" and/or "Government-specified facility" since no indication is provided in the Pricing Matrix or Section L?

The Government is not limiting work to a specific geography or place of performance.

Per ATT A, the Contractor shall perform all duties remotely, to the maximum extent possible, unless otherwise stated within work packages, AWPs, and/or herein.

27. ATT C Wage determinations 1 Wage determinations provided are as of 7/27/22. Will NASA incorporate an updated Wage Determination schedule into the NCAPS prime contract?

The Wage Determinations will be updated in the RFP.

28. ATT L Introduction 1

The Government States: Applicable PWS Requirement(s) o NOTE: The requirements of PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 apply to all NCAPS products and services and, as such, are not specifically enumerated.

Question: Is it the Government's intent that PWS Items 1.0 through 4.0 are incorporated into the pricing for PWS Items 5.0 through 11.0 as a fixed Management Fee? This puts contractors at the risk of being unable to recoup their NCAPS Management and Cybersecurity costs.

The Offeror shall propose in accordance with its cost and accounting standards for PWS Sections 1 through 3. The Government does not plan to have a separate CLIN to capture Program Management costs for NCAPS. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, PWS Section 4 shall be proposed by work package in accordance with the labor categories proposed. The RFP will be updated in this regard.

29. ATT A - PWS 2.1 Ordering & Services Delivery 10

The Government States: Task Orders will define performance based work in terms of Work Packages and an Annual Work Plan consisting of current or anticipated Work Packages.

Questions: Given the Government's desire to employ SAFe software development methods is the work package equivalent to the SAFe Program Increment (PI) and is the Annual Work Plan equivalent to the SAFe Program Increment Plans and Roadmaps for a solution value stream?

Work packages are not equivalent to a SAFe Program Increment.

An Annual Work Plan is not equivalent to SAFe Program Increment Plans and Roadmaps for a solution value stream.

An Annual Work Plan addresses how all work will be performed across the entire contract.

30. RFP Section L.31.A & L.31.B 163, 169

The third paragraph on page 163 states "The Offeror's proposed approach shall be consistent with its proposed Cost/Price proposal. All cost estimate information shall be included in the Cost/Price Proposal." This is also repeated on page 169 in the fourth paragraph.

Question: This statement is taken to mean that various technical solutions / approaches may result in different pricing approaches, however the pricing matrix, as currently stated, requires that each offeror propose the same labor categories, catalog items, and associated rates. Will the Government please clarify what is requested and how offerors may distinguish their approaches in the Cost / Price Proposal?

The Offeror's Technical approach and solution shall align with one of the numerous deliverables in the pricing matrix and catalog. The Offeror's solution shall align with the deliverable(s) described in RFP CLINs.

31. ATT B - DRDs MA-019 54

The DRD MA-019 states “The Total Compensation Plan, Incumbent Retention and Pay (IRAP) and Fringe Benefits Analysis of Compensation Plan (FBACP) Templates shall be required for the prime team members when the total potential value is expected to exceed the certified cost or pricing data threshold set forth in FAR 15.403-4*, Requiring certified cost or pricing data. The IRAP and FBACP templates shall be provided as part of the Cost/Price Volume of the proposal and will be evaluated as part of the Total Compensation Plan. The TCP should be consistent with both templates.”

Question: Would the Government clarify where in the Cost/Price Volume these templates should be included since they are not mentioned in the Cost/Price Volume Section L Instructions? In addition, could the Government provide a copy of the templates that are being required?

The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this. The DRD will be removed and new instructions will be included.

32. ATT A - PWS;

Exhibit 1 1, 2, 3 and 4 5 - 40

The PWS provides requirements for PWS 1 Scope, Goals and Objectives, PWS 2 Contract Management, PWS 3 Technical Performance Management and PWS 4 Cybersecurity Services that apply across all the other PWS Sections 5 through 11 requirements. These are shared management, technical and cybersecurity services that apply across all PWS Sections 5 through 11 requirements and support all NCAPS planning, scheduling, reporting, and service delivery activities.

Question: Exhibit 1 provides no CLINs to cover PWS 1 through 4 requirements and services. How would the Government like to see the cost associated with PWS 1 through 4 requirements.

The Offeror shall propose in accordance with its cost and accounting standards for PWS Sections 1 through 3. The Government does not plan to have a separate CLIN to capture Program Management costs for NCAPS. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, PWS Section 4 shall be proposed by work package in accordance with the labor categories proposed. The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this.

33. RFP L.30(a)(1) 156 Per the latest Draft, an SF 33 is required vs an SF 1449 and there is no longer a reference to a requirement for a Cover Letter. Please confirm that Offerors are still able to provide a Cover Letter.

A proposal cover letter is not required;

however, if one is submitted, it will be excluded from the page count. The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this.

34. RFP L.32(a) 178

The new definition of significant subcontractor for past performance is now set at a threshold that has the potential to limit small businesses from being characterized as significant subcontractors / partners.

Question: Is NASA open to changing the definition of a significant subcontractor for the past performance away from requiring a $25M / year workshare towards a definition that includes relevancy in terms of scope and complexity?

For Past Performance, NASA will not change the average annual value for significant subcontractors.

35. ATT A - PWS 2.1 10

Pertaining to the statement about utilizing remote resources as much as possible unless otherwise specified (PWS 2.1, page 10), can the Government estimate the percentage of the work to be done at each location? How can we merge this with the instruction to align to the centers and use remote workers as much as possible?

The Government is not limiting work to a specific geography or place of performance.

Per ATT A, the Contractor shall perform all duties remotely, to the maximum extent possible, unless otherwise stated within work packages, AWPs, and/or herein.

36. ATT A - PWS 6.5 50

Regarding a common or standard database configuration for the DBMS environment. Is it the intent of the government to standardize on a single DBMS platform or will there be standards support for various commercial, non-commercial, and open-source database platforms (Oracle MySQL, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, other) and types (relational, object-oriented, NoSQL, other)?

There will be standard support for various database platforms, though efficiencies during the contract’s period of performance are encouraged.

37. ATT A - PWS 3.A 24

Throughout the PWS, many references to DRDs do not align with DRDs listed in Att. B DRDs. Examples:

-- The reference to DRD MA-022, NCAPS Systems Readiness Support, in PWS 3.A.vi does not align with DRD MA-022 in DRFP Att. B DRDs. Instead, it aligns with DRD MA-035 in Att. B.

-- The reference to DRD MA-009, Documentation, in PWS 3.A.vii does not align with DRD MA-009 in DRFP Att. B DRDs. Instead, it aligns with DRD MA-014 in Att.

B.

Will the government align the documents to avoid confusion?

The Solicitation will be updated to correct this.

38. ATT A - PWS 3.A 24

Throughout the PWS, many references to DRDs do not align with DRDs listed in Att. B DRDs. Examples:

-- The reference to DRD MA-022, NCAPS Systems Readiness Support, in PWS 3.A.vi does not align with DRD MA-022 in DRFP Att. B DRDs. Instead, it aligns with DRD MA-035 in Att. B.

-- The reference to DRD MA-009, Documentation, in PWS 3.A.vii does not align with DRD MA-009 in DRFP Att. B DRDs. Instead, it aligns with DRD MA-014 in Att.

B.

Will the government align the documents to avoid confusion?

Same as response to Question 36.

39. RFP B.2.b 170

Will the government please clarify and provide more detail on the following RFP requirement?

"Describe the Offeror's proposed approach to meet a unified innovation and strategy generation and deployment requirements and processes across the NCAPS Contract, while offering more agile, secure, and efficient IT solutions."

The PWS will be updated in the RFP.

40. RFP

L.29.B.f and

L.31.A and

The DRFP page limitations table (p. 153) does not list a submission requirement for Technical Scenario Video Presentation slides. However, Section L.31.A states, "The Offeror shall electronically submit the Recorded Video Technical Scenario Presentation slides as a separate file," and, "Recorded Video Technical Scenario Presentation slides presented that differ from the slides submitted in the written proposal will not be evaluated."

Please confirm slides are to be submitted and if so, where in proposals the slides shall be submitted.

Yes, slides are to be submitted. The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this and provide further details.

41. RFP L.30 156-158 Please confirm the OCI plan is to be submitted as part of Volume 1: Offer Volume and is not page limited

The OCI Plan is to be submitted as part of Volume I Offer Volume and does not have a page limit.

42. RFP L.30 (7) Subcontractor Listing 158

The RFP states: The Offeror shall provide a summary listing (by name and address) of all subcontractors (regardless of dollar value) that have been identified throughout the Offeror's proposal and the subcontract Core/Government Pricing Model value associated with each entity.

The pricing model requires subcontractor breakouts for subcontractor costs only in the CPFF portion of the contract.

For item (7) Subcontractor Listing in Volume I (Offer Volume), please confirm the requirement for the 'subcontract Core/Government Pricing Model (GPM) value associated with each entity' is applicable to only subcontractors proposed under the CPFF portion of the contract.

Volume I is separate from Volume IV.

The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this. The requirements of 80TECH23R0002 are outlined in the DRFP. To the extent there are any inconsistencies between the DRFP and the RFP, the RFP will govern.

43. RFP L.31.B, B.1 169

TA-2 under B.2 is clearly tied to PWS 5.0, however, it is unclear if under B.1 items 1 through f Offerors should be addressing the entire PWS or if responses should be limited to the specific requirements identified in a-f under B.1 TA-1. Please clarify.

Per the DRFP, B1 TA-1 B.1.e Approach to increase development and deployment efficiencies. Detailed descriptions of disciplines, skills, and techniques the Offeror plans to use in the performance of this work. The Offeror’s approach shall contain information specific to each of the performance areas (PWS SECTIONS) in Attachment A, PWS.

44. RFP L.31.B, B.1 169 The S4 Hanna migration is not addressed in TA-1, items a-f. Is the S4 Hanna migration a proposal requirement?

The S4 Hanna migration is a NCAPS requirement.

45. RFP L.31.B, B.1 (d) 169

Item (d) references 'implementation and transition planning' specific to ITIL, Agile and SAFe frameworks. Is this a tie back to the Offeror's transition in plan or is this requirement more specific to transition approaches for ITIL, Agile and SAFe frameworks?

The RFP will be updated to clarify this.

46. RFP L.31.D 174-177

The DRFP Page Limitations, Sub factor B: Technical Approach, Sub factor C:

Management Approach, D: Small Business Utilization is included in the 50 page limitation. SBU section L.31 D.1 and D.2 require the Individual Small Business Plan, the DCMA approved Master Subcontracting Plan, the Subcontracting Goals expressed as a Percent of Total Contract Value, Dollar Value, and Percent of Subcontracting value, plus descriptions of the firms commitment to SB Utilization, including the planned participation in the NASA Mentor Protege Program.

The SBU response is anticipated to be more than 20 pages.

Will the Government consider excluding Sub factor D: SBU from page count?

Yes. The RFP will be updated to clarify

47. RFP L.31.D 174-177

The DRFP Page Limitations, Subfactor B: Technical Approach, Subfactor C:

Management Approach, D: Small Business Utilization is included in the 50 page limitation. SBU section L.31 D.1 and D.2 require the Individual Small Business Plan, the DCMA approved Master Subcontracting Plan, the Subcontracting Goals expressed as a Percent of Total Contract Value, Dollar Value, and Percent of Subcontracting value, plus descriptions of the firms commitment to SB Utilization, including the planned participation in the NASA Mentor Protege Protege. The SBU response is anticipated to be more than 20 pages Will the Government consider excluding Subfactor D: SBU from page count?

Same response as for Question 40.

48. RFP L.33 188

Paragraph 'Subcontractors': "The Offeror shall identify all subcontractors proposed under the CPFF labor portion of this solicitation" followed by specific instructions regarding the pricing supporting information required. Please confirm the requirements of this paragraph do not apply to subcontractors proposed under the fixed price portions of this contract.

This understanding is correct.

49. ATT B - DRDs MA-001 13

Contract Management Plan DRD states that the outline for the Contract Management Plan should be submitted with the proposal, however, Section L of the Draft RFP does not specify where to include this outline and Section M, the evaluation criteria, does not specify how the Contract Management Outline will be evaluated. Please specify if it is acceptable to include the Contract Management Plan (DRD MA-001) Outline as an Attachment/Appendix to Mission Suitability and it can be excluded from the page count?

The successful Offeror is required to provide a Contract Management Plan 30 days after award. The RFP will be updated to clarify this.

50. ATT B - DRDs MA-001 13

Contract Management Plan DRD states that the outline for the Contract Management Plan should be submitted with the proposal, however, Section L of the Draft RFP does not specify where to include this outline and Section M, the evaluation criteria, does not specify how the Contract Management Outline will be evaluated. Please specify if it is acceptable to include the Contract Management Plan (DRD MA-001) Outline as an Attachment/Appendix to Mission Suitability and it can be excluded from the page count?

Same as response to Question 39.

51. ATT B - DRDs MA-019 54

The DRD states that "For hybrid contracts: A TCP is not required for the subcontractors that provide support for only the fixed portion of this procurement. IF the subcontractors provide support for the fixed price and the cost reimbursable portion, a TCP is required.

If subcontractors are proposed as T&M to the prime for support under the CPFF portion of the contract, are those T&M subcontractors required to submit a TCP?

Please clarify under what conditions subcontractor TCPs are required.

The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this. The DRD will be removed and new instructions will be included in the RFP.

52. ATT U Project Manager labor categories 15-17

Project Manager labor category descriptions state: "The Project Manager role may also serve as the Product Manager or Scrum Master on Agile teams. The product owners manage the product development process to ensure that customers' needs are met. Product owners also work with agile teams to determine product features and manage product backlog, as well as communicate with stakeholders. Scrum masters serve as facilitators for agile teams utilizing the scrum methodology. They are responsible for understanding the big picture of each sprint. A Scrum Master facilitates the communication and collaboration between leadership and team players to ensure a successful outcome."

However, Attachment A PWS 7.1.H describes Product Manager and Product Owner as "non-NCAPS roles or roles provided by other Government Contractors."

While the LCAT description states project managers may serve in the role of Product Manager, the PWS at 7.1.H states these roles are 'provided by other Government Contractors'. Please clarify.

The labor categories described in Attachment U are generic labor category descriptions and apply to the entire NCAPS contract. Specific PWS sections have unique requirements that may differ slightly from the generic roles defined in Attachment U.

53. RFP Section L.29 (B) (g) 155

Draft RFP states: "Text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point font.”

Please confirm that the offerors can use Arial or Arial Narrow font type in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, or photographs in all proposal content (i.e.. Orals and written)?

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

54. RFP Section L.29 (B) (g) 155

Draft RFP states: "Text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point font.”

Please confirm that the offerors can use Arial or Arial Narrow font type in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, or photographs in all proposal content (i.e. Orals and written)?

No. Offerors may not use Arial or Arial Narrow font type in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, or photographs in this section.

55. RFP Sections L.31.B, M.4.B 169, 192

Draft RFP Section L instructions state: "The Offeror shall address Applications Development, Security and Operations (TA-1) and Innovation Services Approach (TA-2) to allow the Government the greatest insight into these areas of the PWS."

Draft RFP Section M evaluation criteria state: "The Government will evaluate the Offeror 's Technical Approach to determine the Offeror's understanding of the contract's technical requirements as set forth in the PWS."

Please confirm that the PWS requirements the Technical Approach needs to cover are those described in TA-1 and TA-2 only, and Offeror's do not need to provide an approach for all other PWS requirements (outside of TA-1 and TA-2 scope)?

Offerors shall address all requirements set forth in TA-1 and TA-2 of the RFP.

56. RFP Sections L.31.B, M.4.B 169, 192

Draft RFP Section L instructions state: "The Offeror shall address Applications Development, Security and Operations (TA-1) and Innovation Services Approach (TA-2) to allow the Government the greatest insight into these areas of the PWS."

Draft RFP Section M evaluation criteria state: "The Government will evaluate the Offeror 's Technical Approach to determine the Offeror's understanding of the contract's technical requirements as set forth in the PWS."

Please confirm that the PWS requirements the Technical Approach needs to cover are those described in TA-1 and TA-2 only, and Offeror's do not need to provide an approach for all other PWS requirements (outside of TA-1 and TA-2 scope)?

Same as response to Question 38.

57. ATT L SP-001, SP-002 31

SP-001 and SP-002 appear to be focused on providing SharePoint Collections for end users, however many elements of PWS 8.4 involve SharePoint Farm and/or server administration. Please clarify whether these catalog items represent just the work associated with establishing and supporting SharePoint Collections and user facing activities, or whether they also include all hosting site O&M activities such as SharePoint Farm administration, server administration, and infrastructure administration.

The PWS will be updated in the RFP.

58. ATT L SP-001, SP-002 31 Please identify which specific NASA SharePoint Farms will be used to provide SharePoint Collections under NCAPS

Offerors should refer to background and historical provided in the DRFP.

59. RFP Transitioning Centers

With regards to the transitioning of centers to NCAPS, is the expectation that this will be a 'lift and shift' to NCAPS such that the first TO/Work Package for the transitioning center will be under the Core CPFF IDIQ CLINs and then convert to catalog FFP services or will the initial TO/Work Package for the transitioning center be at the catalog FFP services?

Center transitions to NCAPS that are not part of the initial contract phase in will be handled on an individual basis and may result in new Work Packages and or the purchase of additional catalog items, depending on the size and complexity of the Center transition.

60. ATT S - Application Inventory All Will the government please provide a legible version of Attachment S? Many of the entries are missing letters, the bottom row of text is cut off, etc.

In response to multiple Industry comments identifying corrupted text, an updated ATT S was uploaded to sam.gov on 3 Feb 2023 with the associated statement, "The purpose of this notice is to provide an updated Attachment S - Application Inventory.

The previous attachment contained missing and illegible information."

61. RFP L.32(a), L.32(e)(1), M.5, M.5.iv

178, 179, Experience in transformation efforts and specific experience with relevant systems/processes are required for Financial Management Upgrade/Modernization and SAFe implementation for large ERP programs (e.g., SAP S/4HANA upgrade).

According to Federal program information (using FPDS data), there are only 4 Federal Financial Management ERP programs with annual Contract values > $60M. One of these programs utilizes Oracle EBS ERP while the other three leverage SAP ERP as the core solution. However, none of the SAP ERP programs has yet started the SAP S4 upgrade transformation phase of contracted work.

Similarly, reviewing SAFe implementations across the Federal agencies, only 5 programs meet the threshold of average annual Contract value > $60M.

Important, none of these 5 programs include SAFe implementation for business and enterprise systems.

A recommended approach to capturing both transformation expertise and specific experience is provided below. (Underlines are suggested new text, strikethroughs are suggested removals)

Change in the RFP L.32.e.1 (Paragraph 2) "Prime Offerors shall Furnish the past performance information request for similar efforts with a minimum average annual Contract value of $60M" to "Prime Offerors shall Furnish the past performance information request for similar Federal efforts with at least 1 minimum average annual Contract value of $60M. All 3 federal past performance submissions from the prime collectively should cover RFP L.32.e.1. A-F. Each remaining past performance submission must have an average annual contract value of at least $20M"

A revision would also be needed, to cover Section M.5 iv.: "For a prime Contractor's Contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally "relevant", one of the references it must meet/exceed an average annual Contract value of at least $60M and the remaining 2 each must meet/exceed $20M average annual Contract Value"

The Government does not accept this suggested change. The language in the RFP will remain unchanged.

62. RFP L.29.B.f 154

RFP Section L.29.B.f (p. 154) sets a 15-page limit for Part A of the past performance volume. Part A conveys the past performance references for the prime (up to three (3) references) and significant subcontractors (up to three (3) references) for a potential total of six (6) references. At 15 pages, this allots about 2.5 pages for each of the potential six (6) references. This is a very tight space for fully responding to the depth of quantitative and qualitative information requested for the past performance references, and for providing an adequate response that would allow the Government to evaluate the contractor’s capabilities.

Recommend the Government increase the allowable page count for Part A (Past Performance References) from 15 to 30 pages. This increases the allowable page count to approximately 5 pages per past performance reference.

The Government will not increase the page count for the Past Performance volume as the current page count is sufficient. However, the RFP will include updated instructions.

63. RFP L.29.B.g 155

The Government states: "The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8-1/2" x 11" size may also be used. Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs may be reduced and, if necessary, run landscape to eliminate oversize pages. Text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point font. Diagrams, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal." As noted by the Government, Exhibit 2 and Enclosures 1 and 2 use Arial font sizes of 9-12 points are used.

Offeror requests that the Government allow the same freedom to use Arial font sizes of 9-12 in diagrams, tables, artworks, and photographs.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

64. RFP

L.29 PROPOSAL

PREPARATION-

GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS

(ELECTRONIC

PROPOSAL DELIVERY)

B. PROPOSAL FORMAT

AND ORGANIZATION

Since the historical WYEs are over 1200 and the resulting organization will need to be large.

Recommend the following underlined change "g. When page limitations apply to a volume or specific section, a page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8-1/2" x 11 ", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type Times New Roman font. One 11x17 page will be permitted counting as a single page."

The Government does not accept this recommendation. The language that defines page size as stated in the DRFP will remain unchanged.

65. RFP L.31.A 161

Offeror requests that the Government allow bidders to submit the softcopy of the slides with the written proposal at the due date prescribed by NASA. All offerors' presenters are likely to be focused on preparing the written content for submission. In addition, since often there are amendments to RFPs, Offerors will expect some changes to the RFP and PWS from the original and that could impact the presentation. In addition, given the time and expense of video production, to include presentation training, filming, editing, et al., offeror requests that the video submission of the .MP4 file be delivered two weeks after the written proposal.

The Government will not alter the due dates as the current due dates are sufficient. However, please refer to final RFP for guidance.

66. RFP L.31.C.3.a 173

If the contractor has to show for each team member the percentage of WYEs that are coming over to NCAPS will the Government allow an additional 5 pages to the Mission Suitability Volume increasing the page limitation, as stated in L.29.B.f from 50 to 55 to account for offerors' team size. Alternatively would the Government consider excluding the Sourcing Table from the Mission Suitability page limitation of 50 pages (L.29.b.f) and allow no more than 5 pages to be (Excluded from Subfactor C: Management Approach page limit)?

The Government will not alter these requirements as the current requirements are sufficient. However, please refer to final RFP for guidance.

67. RFP L.31.C.3.a 173

This instruction asks the offeror to identify personnel sourcing for the contract.

Please confirm item "(d) percentage each of team members and subcontractors" refers to only those subcontractors (i.e. team members) that will be providing labor on this contract.

No, a team member is not necessarily a subcontractor.

68. ATT B - DRDs MA-019 54

The DRD MA-019 States the following: Total Compensation Plan states: The Total Compensation Plan, Incumbent Retention and Pay (IRAP) and Fringe Benefits Analysis of Compensation Plan (FBACP) Templates shall be required for the prime team members when the total potential value is expected to exceed the ce1iified cost or pricing data threshold set forth in FAR 15.403-4 *, Requiring certified cost or pricing data. The IRAP and FBACP templates shall be provided as part 1 of the Cost/Price Volume of the proposal and will be evaluated as part 1 of the Total Compensation Plan. The TCP should be consistent with both templates.

Question: The IRAP and FBACP templates have not been provided as part of the pricing template but are referenced in the DRD MA-019 as being required as the Part 1 submission of the Cost/Price Volume submission. Will the government please clarify whether these templates are required and if so please provide the template? If the templates are required will the government consider to exclude them from the given limit for the Total Compensation Plan? Additionally, would the government please consider to increase the page count for the Total Compensation Plan to 20 pages?

The Government deems the page limit sufficient and will not increase the page limits for TCP. The Solicitation will be updated to clarify this. In the RFP, the DRD will be removed and new instructions will be included.

69. RFP C.4 199

The Total Compensation Plan requirements (TCP) state the following, "The evaluation criteria described in FAR 52.222-46 for professional employees will be applied to all labor categories (including those personnel subject to union agreements, the Service Contract Act, and those exempt from both) in evaluating the total compensation proposed."

DRD-019 Applicable Documents reference NASA FAR Supplement "Successorship with Incumbent Contractor Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Question: Will the government clarify if there are any union agreements that are existing today at any of the NASA centers that will be transferring to the NCAPS contract? If so will the government please provide the current agreements?

There are no known existing union agreements transitioning to the NCAPS contract.

70. ATT B - DRDs; RFP L.31.D and MA-018 174

Subfactor D requires both a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (D.1) and Commitment to the Small Business Program (D.2). MA-018 requires the Small Business Subcontracting Plan at proposal submission, compliant with FAR 52.219- 9 and NFS 1852.219-75.

Question: Based on the extensive requirements, will the Government allow for

Yes, the RFP will include updated page limitations for Subfactor D.

Subfactor D to be excluded from the Volume II 50 page limit and allowed a separate 15 page limit?

71. ATT A - PWS 7.1.Q.i-iv 53

The AAO Background and Historical 1 Document (Pages 103-113) shows every team's expected output for an iteration is adjusted for Days out (including holidays) which is a SAFe best practice.

Offeror recommends adding language to the PWS section 7.1 Q i, ii, iii, iv to incorporate this SAFe best practice as expressed in the AAO Background and Historical 1 Document.

Underlined portion below is the recommended addition:

X-small team Expected output 24+ Story points adjusted for Days out (including Holidays) Small team Expected output 40+ Story points adjusted for Days out (including Holidays) Medium team Expected output 56+ Story points adjusted for Days out (including Holidays) Large team Expected output 72+ Story points adjusted for Days out (including Holidays)

Historical and background information is provided to Offerors for reference purposes only.

However, this information may not represent the entirety of the NCAPS requirements. Such requirements will be contained in the NCAPS final RFP &

PWS.

72. RFP Section B.3 21 For the CPFF CLINs, will the Government clarify how it intends to establish the total Fixed Fee amounts on individual Task Orders; i.e., does the Government intend to primarily utilize Completion or Term forms?

The Offeror will propose the fixed fee in its CPFF Labor Category. The Government will approve the fixed fee based on the proposals submitted to the Government through iSite for all CPFF Work Packages and tasks.

73. RFP RFP Section B.6 RFP Pages 24 and 25

The updated NTE amounts in RFP Section B.6 ramp-up steeply year-over-year.

Question: Is this ramp-up based on the anticipated timing of contracts transitioning to the NCAPS program? If so, by what date does the Government anticipate all center contracts to have transitioned to NCAPS?

There are multiple factors used to develop the Government's estimate (e.g., escalation, etc.). Additionally, the RFP will include the most current contract transition dates.

74. ATT A - PWS; RFP PWS Section 1.1; RFP Section B.6

PWS Page

8; RFP

Pages 24 and 25

The dates listed in the table at the end of PWS Section 1.1 indicate that all center contracts will transition to NCAPS by the end of the NCAPS Base Period. This transition timeline does not align to the year-over year ramp-up of NTE amounts provided in RFP Section B.6, which implies a more gradual transition of center contracts.

Question: Will the Government update the table in PWS Section 1.1 to better inform Offerors' transition planning?

The RFP will include the most current contract transition dates.

The RFP will be updated to clarify this.

75. RFP RFP Section B.6 RFP Pages 24 and 25

Option Period 7 includes a significant increase to its NTE amounts vs Option Period 6.

Question: Does this additional funding represent a planned scope increase in Option Period 7, or does it serve a contingency purpose to establish adequate ceiling for unforeseen or emerging requirements?

It does not necessarily indicate a scope increase. There are multiple factors used to develop the Government's estimate (e.g., escalation, etc.).

76. RFP L.31.D.1.b and L.31.D.1.f 174/175

Subfactor D.1.b provides the Contracting Officer's assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition.

Question: Please clarify that a Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)/Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) is not required to be a Small Business under NAICS Code 541512?

Correct; HBCUs/MSIs are not required to be a small business. Generally, universities are considered to be “other than a small business.”

77. RFP L.33 183

The Cost/Price Volume Instructions state "for pricing purposes, the anticipated Contract start date is September 18, 2023." However, the table in the Cost/Price Volume Instructions shows the Phase-In as November 1, 2023.

Question: Will the government please confirm that the anticipated start date is November 1, 2023?

The anticipated NCAPS contract start date is January 31, 2024, and the Solicitation will be updated to correct

78. RFP L.33 188

FAR 15.404-3(b),Per FAR 15.404-3(b), Offerors and all Subcontractors are instructed to "conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices" and "include the results of these analyses in the price proposal." The proposal shall provide details and a discussion of all adjustments made to the subcontractor's Price/Cost proposal, including any adjustments made based on technical findings, rate adjustments, and fee adjustments. The proposal shall provide a discussion on the use or non-use of any adjustments based on the Offerer's history with the subcontractor.

Question: Is a Subcontractor Price Analysis required for Subcontractors that are only proposed against the FFP CLINs?

No, subcontractor cost/price analysis is only required on CPFF requirements.

79.

Additional

Background and Historical Draft

4. KSC SharePoint Sites 9

The…