Question and Answers for Request for Proposals 80TECH23R0002.pdf

Area in Question Page # Question Government's Response

Att B, DRD MA- 014, Item 13

DRD MA-014 references FAR Clause 52.203-16, which is not included in the NCAPS solicitation and does not appear applicable to this acquisition. Will the Government consider removing this reference?

The Government has removed the reference to FAR 52.203-16 in Attachment B. The RFP has been updated.

L.30.c.11, Att F 161

The RFP states: "The Offeror shall submit ATT F Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan in the Offer Volume." Attachment F is a cover page only for the OCI Plan. Please confirm the OCI plan is to be submitted as Attachment F to the Offer Volume in Contractor format provided it addresses all requirements of DRD MA-014.

The Offeror shall submit its Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan as ATT F in the Offer Volume. A cover page has been provided in the RFP.

Att B, DRD MA- 014, Item 14

Item 14 of the DRD requires an appendix to the OCI Plan to identify the strategy for resolving any OCI identified in the solicitation or created by the requirements of the solicitation/contract. Please confirm this appendix is not required if no conflict is identified and that the appendix may be added during execution if a conflict is identified post award based on specific scope/tasking issued under the NCAPS contract.

In accordance with L.25 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, the Government has identified specific actual or potential conflicts related to this Contract. The OCI plan shall specifically address the potential OCI issues identified in section

(d) of this clause and any additional OCI information required in L.25 and the RFP.

L.31.C.4.d and L.31.cC.4.g

Please confirm the supporting information 'such as recognized national, regional, and local compesnation surveys and studies' is outside the 15 page limit for TCPs and may be included as an appendix or other attachment to the TCP.

This understanding is correct, and the RFP has been updated.

L.31.C.4 174 The RFP requires TCPs in accordance with 1852.231-71 and 52.222-46. Both clauses require the salaries for each labor category be included in the TCP. Please confirm salaries may be reflected in the pricing workbook and referenced in the TCP.

The information required in the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) cannot be included by reference. The Offeror shall provide a TCP for all personnel proposed, in accordance with NFS 1852.231-71, “Determination of Compensation Reasonableness,” and FAR 52.222- 46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.”

NSF 1852.231-71

and FAR 52.222-

In accordance with 1852.231-71 and 52.222-46, please confirm TCPs are not required from subcontractors proposing T&M subcontracts that are competed by the Prime.

No. In accordance with 52.222-46 provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract, this would include any and all subcontractors that employ professional employees. The prime can direct the subcontractor to submit the subcontractor’s total compensation plan directly to the government PCO for evaluation to protect any proprietary rate and salary information.

L.31.D 154, 174, 179

In order to comply with requirements of FAR 19.704 and FAR Clause 52.219-9, Offerors may have a DCMA approved corporate Master Subcontracting Plan along with an individual subcontracting plan (ISP) to satisfy requirements of L.31.D. In order to comply with the size limitations established for D1 and D2, please confirm offerors may include the DCMA approved Master Subcontracting Plan (MSP) and Individual Subcontracting Plan (ISP) may be excluded from the 15 page limit for D.1 and D.2? Alternately, please increase the page limit to 30 pages for D.1 and D.2 response.

Section L.29 of the RFP has been updated to reflect changes to the page limitations.

NCAPS RFP 80TECH23R0002

2.8 c 17 Is TPOC that is referenced in the PWS the same as the Task Monitor referenced in Section L?

Section L should state TPOC, and the RFP has been updated.

L.31.a.c(2)b 159 Please confirm an Offeror's Cognizant DCMA office and point of contact is sufficient for item b.: "Cognizant Government inspection agency" .

This understanding is correct.

ATT A -

Performance

Work Statement 1 through 4

May the Offeror assume that it would need to submit the proposal response against all tasks in the Performance Work Statement to qualify for consideration?

Offerors are responsible for addressing all requirements in the RFP.

Exhibit 3 - Past Performance

Questionnaire Instructions

N/A What is the minimum number of past performance questionnaires that the Offeror needs to submit?

The Offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) shall provide the questionnaires (Exhibit 3) for each reference submitted.

The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of your firm's performance.

RFP Response Format

N/A Is there a specific format that the proposal response document needs to adhere to? For instance, will it be an MS Word, or PowerPoint document? How many pages and what font type and font size?

Refer to L.29 PROPOSAL PREPARATION—GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL DELIVERY).

ATT A -

Performance

Work Statement 5 and 6

What is the current status of the redesign of the NASA's IT Operating Model? How far along is OCIO in its transformation journey?

The Government does not have specific information on the status of the redesign of NASA's IT Operating Model; however, refer to the NASA OCIO websites below for information:

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocio/home/index.html and https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

NCAPS RFP 80TECH12R0002

L.29.b 154

Reference: Section L.29 (b), Proposal Content and Page Limitations, identifies Subfactor D as Small Business Utilization with a 15-page limitation that is "excluded from the 50 page limit" of the Mission Suitability Volume. Subfactor D has two subcomponents. Subfactor D.1, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, requires the submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9 that includes the associated subcontracting percentage goals and subcontracting dollars. Subfactor D.2, Commitment to the Small Business, requires responses to specific questions regarding the work that small businesses will perform, commitment to use the subcontractors, a description of procedures and organizational structure for small business outreach, support for the development of small business concerns, and fostering of long-term business relationships between the Offeror and specified small business categories (e.g., SDBs, WOSBs, HUBZoneSBs, etc). Discussion: Offeror has a Government-approved (Small Business Administration) Master Subcontracting Plan that is used for all our Federal Government contracts. The Master Plan, which responds to FAR clause 52.219-9 requirements, is 14 pages in length. Attachment 1 to our Master Small Business Subcontrating Plan provides additional information the solicitation requests. This attachment incorporates responses to requirements specific to the solicitation (e.g., "associated subcontracting percentage goals and subcontracting dollars"). This attachment essentially establishes an "Individual Plan."

This increases the Offeror's response to Subfactor D.1 to over 15 pages. Question/Request:

Including the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the 15-page limit asssigned to Subfactor D precludes our ability to provide a response to Subfactor D.2 without further exceeding the allowed page limit. Request the Government revise the table that appears on pages 153 - 155 to reflect that there is no page limit on Subfactor D.1, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and make a statement that the 15-page limit assigned to Mission Suitability Subfactor D only applies to the Subfactor D.2 response.

Section L.29 of the RFP has been updated to reflect changes to the page limitations.

RFP, L.33 184 Would the Government please confirm that Column 3 (Dates) for Option Periods 1-7 is intended to be "December 1."

The Government has updated the dates in L.33, and the RFP has been revised.

PWS, Sections 1 to 4

Would the Government please confirm that the costs related to performing functions such as Program Management and Cybersecurity will be included as part of the Annual Work Plan in accordance with the Labor Categories and Rates proposed within the NCAPS IDIQ Rate Card?

The RFP has been updated. The requirements of PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 apply to all NCAPS products and services and, as such, are not specifically enumerated, unless otherwise specified in the Catalog item.

RFP, Section B.9 31 Would the Government provide a high-level breakout of the historical ODC expenditures in terms of the percentage of Software Licenses, Software Products, Travel, etc.?

The Government will not provide a breakout. Offerors shall propose a composite rate for all ODCs.

RFP, Section B.11, (c)

This section states "The Contractor shall use only those appropriate labor and indirect cost rates, which may be less than but shall not exceed the rates in the Contract to calculate the proposed estimated costs/price for all task orders issued in accordance with the “Task Ordering Procedure” clause of this Contract."

Question: Would the Government please confirm that the proposed indirect rates are not ceiling rates for execution of the CPFF task orders but will be used only for preparing the task order cost estimates?

This understanding is correct. During task order execution, the Contractor will invoice the Government its actual incurred costs.

RFP, Section L.3, (c), (7)

"Based upon this language in the RFP ""The Offeror shall provide a summary listing (by name and address) of all subcontractors (regardless of dollar value) and total proposed subcontract values,"" we request clarification of the Government's intention providing the proposed options below.

Proposed Option 1: Would the Government remove the requirement for the ""total proposed subcontract values"" given this is an IDIQ Contract (Rate Card)?

Proposed Option 2: Would the Government change the requirement to ""provide estimated subcontractor percentages of Total Contract Value?"""

The Government will not amend this requirement. The Offeror shall provide a summary listing (by name and address) of all subcontractors (regardless of dollar value) and total proposed subcontract values.

RFP, Section L.33 186

The RFP states "The Cost/Price volume shall include all supporting documentation and the basis of the proposed prices." Then the next sentence states "The Cost/Price volume shall include a detailed narrative and supporting documentation for each cost element (direct labor, G&A, etc.) being proposed under the Cost-plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs."

Question: Would the Government confirm that both of these sentences refer to the proposed prices for the CPFF Rates and not the FFP Catalog Items and FFP Rates?

A detailed narrative and supporting documentation is required for the cost type CLINs. For the FFP CLINs, offerors may be required to provide supporting documentation based on their proposal content

(ex. unbalanced pricing).

DRFP Questions Consolidated & Exhibit 1 Pricing

Matrix

42-43, 48

Answers to Questions 135, 136 and 169 indicate that the Offeror may add additional rows to the CPFF tabs to allocate the total hours across the Prime and subcontractor's for a single CPFF labor category as long as the hours for each Labor Category remains unchanged.

Question: Should the Offeror include the additional rows in all of the CPFF related tabs (Tabs 1-6, 1-7, 1-8) as well as the IDIQ Rate Card (Tab 1-10)?

Only one rate per labor category will be included in Attachment I. For the CPFF sections, Offerors shall provide the build-up of that composite rate between the Prime and subs in tab 1-8 CPFF Labor Rate Schedule. For the FFP sections, only one rate per labor category shall be proposed. Each Offeror shall calculate its composite rate for the FFP sections and include that rate in the proposal.

Atte L & Exhibit 1 23 & Tab 1-4

Atte L has a Catalog ID for the Incremental Team Unit (ITU) Scrum Master Support catalog item as "ITU-SM" while the Exhibit 1 Pricing Matrix has the Catalog ID as "ITU-003."

Question: Would the Government please clarify the correct Catalog ID that should be used in both documents?

The Pricing Matrix has been updated to ITU-SM.

L.32 180

In Volume III - Past Performance Instructions, the RFP states, "The Offeror shall provide an estimated value and percentage of work to be performed on this contract by the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor. Indicate the primary functions to be performed by the Prime Offeror and each proposed significant subcontractor. Indicate which contracts are most related (i.e., similar in size and content) and how they are related to the proposed effort, as well as which contracts were performed by the division of your company (if applicable) that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract." We recognize the importance of including this content within the Past Performance Volume III. However, we recommend NASA exclude this content from the 15 page limit for Past Performance. To fully respond to this request in a meaningful and useful way, the Offerors will require Page Count that will significantly take away from the Page Count for the Past Experience Reference write-ups. Given the Past Performance References are a critical way for Offerors to demonstrate a reduced risk of delivery to NASA, will NASA please consider removing this requirement from page count or expanding the page count for the Past Performance Volume III to allow for the meaningful addition of this information?

The Government will not amend this requirement.

L.29.b.1, L.32 155, 181

In the Proposal Content and Page Limitations table (page 155), NASA excludes "Cover Page, Indices, Table of Contents, List of those sent Past Performance Questionnaires, Small Business Subcontracting Plan History, Termination/Descope information, List of Acronyms, and Past Performance Matrix" from the Past Performance Volume III 15 page limit. In the Past Performance instructions (page 181), NASA indicates that "Recent customer evaluations of past performance including Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms, etc." should also be excluded from page count. Can NASA please update the Proposal Content and Page Limitations table on page 155 to reflect this additional content that is excluded from 15 page limit for Past Performance?

The RFP has been updated. Recent customer evaluations of past performance include Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, and Annual Performance Evaluation Forms. (Excluded from the page limitation).

Pricing template TAB 1-4 Core Serv. Catalog

Row 106

Please confirm that Catalog ID should read "KSC-OCT-A" to match the column B Catalog Description reflecting OCT (Apps).

The Pricing template has been updated to include both KSC-OCT-A and KSC-OCT-S with the correct descriptions.

Pricing template TAB 1-4 Core Serv. Catalog

Row 106

Please confirm that a row should be added for Catalog ID- "KSC-OCT-S" and reflect the description in Column B for OCT (Systems). These line items should align with the KSC-OCT- A and KSC-OCT-S Infrastructure and Application O&M Bundled Services (Group Names) Detailed in Attach L : Service Catalog Descriptions; Page 24 Group Naming descriptions.

The Pricing template has been updated to include both KSC-OCT-A and KSC-OCT-S with the correct descriptions.

Attach L: ITU-002 23 In the Unique Considerations section, the second sentence states, "All other work that does not fall…are to be accomplished using ITU Support-Specialized(ITU-002)". Please confirm that this should read "…using Incremental Team Unit (ITU) support- (ITU-001)".

Attachment L should have referenced Incremental Team Unit (ITU) support (ITU-001) instead of ITU Support - Specialized (ITU-002). The Government has updated Attachment L of the RFP.

Attach L: KSC Bundled Services

In the Unique Considerations section, the first sentence states, "must order Ancillary catalog offering Infrastructure and Application O&M Services (A-001)." Please confirm that this should read "Application O&M Services (OM-001)"

Attachment L should have stated "catalog offering Application O&M Services (A-001)." The Government has updated Attachment L of the

RFP.

Attach L: IDU Application

Development

(DEV-002)

In the Unique Considerations section, the second sentence states, "Infrastructure and Application O&M Bundled Services (001-S) or must be ordered in combination with Infrastructure and Application". Please confirm that this should read "KSC Infrastructure and Application O&M Bundled Services (Group name) -S or Application O&M Services (OM- 001)."

This will remain unchanged. This item has been identified correctly in Attachment L. This was left non-Center specific as NASA Langley Research Center was planning to have O&M Bundles; the RFP will remain flexible as to other Centers having O&M Bundles.

Attach L: IDU Application

Development

(DEV-002)

In the Unique Considerations section, the third sentence, please confirm that this should read " Application O&M Services (OM-001) if the Government requires services provided under the O&M catalog item."

Attachment L should have stated "Application O&M Services (A- 001)." Attachment L of the RFP has been updated.

Pricing template

TAB 1-4 Core Serv. Catalog add rows between Rows

70-71

The pricing template is missing rows for the Service Catalog item "Specialized Shared Services Team Two-Week Sprints/Iterations (Various Sizes)." Can NASA please update the Pricing Template to account for the additional rows for Catalog IDs: FPT-SAT-S, FPT-SAT-M, FPT-SAT-L?

The Government has updated Attachment I of the RFP.

L.29(a)(2) 152 This section states, "Each proposal volume shall be submitted in a single…with appropriate bookmarks…." What is considered to be appropriate bookmarks?

The RFP has been updated; appropriate bookmarks have been changed to appropriate titles.

The RFP states, “Cost/Price Volume exhibits shall also be provided in Excel format. Offerors shall submit all exhibits in Excel.” Can the government please confirm that offerors are allowed to submit Cost/Price Volume supporting documentation attachments, such as Forward Pricing Rate Submission/Proposal, in PDF format?

This understanding is correct.

L.29 (a) 4) 153

The RFP states, "The format for each proposal volume shall parallel, to the greatest extent possible, the format of the evaluation factors contained in Section L of this solicitation."

Can NASA please confirm that the RFP should state, "The format for each proposal volume shall parallel, to the greatest extent possible, the format of the instructions contained in Section L of this solicitation?"

The RFP will remain unchanged.

L.31.A 163 Can NASA please increase the video time to 45 minutes? The 15 additional minutes will allow for a more comprehensive response and added exposure to Offeror's proposed personnel providing NASA more visibility to each Offeror's qualifications and solution.

The Government will not alter the TECHNICAL SCENARIO VIDEO PRESENTATION time as the time allotted is sufficient.

L.32 (a) 179

The RFP states, "Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $50M that your company has had within the last 3 years of the RFP release date." Further, it states, "The combined total of the Offeror's (including JVs) and proposed significant subcontractors' past prime or subcontract experiences shall be limited to no more than three (3) references for the Offeror (including JVs) and no more than one (1) reference Contract for each significant subcontractor for which performance occurred within the last three (3) years of the release date of the final NCAPS RFP." Can NASA please confirm that the maximum number of contracts for which information should be provided is no more than three from the prime and one from each significant subcontractor?

This understanding is correct. The combined total of the Offeror’s (including Joint Ventures (JVs)) and proposed significant subcontractors’ past prime or subcontract experiences shall be limited to no more than three (3) reference contracts for the Offeror (including JVs) and no more than one (1) reference Contract for each significant subcontractor for which performance occurred within the last three (3) years of the release date of the final NCAPS RFP.

L.30.c.1 159

The RFP states, "Provide the date of acceptance/approval for each system and the cognizant contract administration office. Explain any existing conditional acceptances/approvals and the compliance status of any systems(s) for which acceptance or approval is currently withheld...The Offeror shall provide evidence of an adequate accounting system as determined by the cognizant administrative office for accumulating and reporting incurred costs." Can NASA please clarify that Offerors only need to provide the date of acceptance/approval for each system and cognizant contract administration, and do not need to submit any other certifications of approval?

This understanding is correct. Each Offeror shall provide the date of acceptance/approval for each system and the cognizant contract administration office. Any existing conditional acceptances/approvals shall be explained and the compliance status of any systems(s) for which acceptance or approval is currently withheld.

Given that NASA has added an additional section to Subfactor B (TA-1 B.1.g) and page count was already limited for the level of detail required in Sections L and M in addition to addressing PWS elements. Can NASA please increase the page limit for Subfactors B and C to 60 pages?

No. The page limits will remain unchanged.

L.29.B.1 155 Per the instructions in the table on page 155, can NASA please confirm that a compliance matrix is required ONLY for the Mission Suitability volume?

This understanding is correct.

L.29.B.1 155 Per the instructions in the table on page 155, can NASA please confirm that a list of acronyms is required ONLY for the Past Performance volume?

This understanding is correct.

Exhibit 1 NCAPS Pricing Matrix;

IDIQ CPFF Labor Rates

Tab 1-6, 1-7 and 1-8

For the CPFF tabs 1-6 through 1-8, if the Contractor's staffing solution includes utilization of multiple companies to staff a given IDIQ labor category, may additional rows be added to the worksheets, provided total evaluated hours by labor category remains unchanged? In questions to the draft RFP multiple questions were asked related to this question and NASA's answer was "Yes, as long as the sum of the Government- provided evaluated hours for each Labor Category remains unchanged." Can NASA please reconfirm the same answer for the final RFP?

Only one rate per labor category will be included in Attachment I. For the CPFF sections, Offerors shall provide the build-up of that composite rate between the Prime and subs in tab 1-8 CPFF Labor Rate Schedule. For the FFP sections, only one rate shall be proposed per labor category; each Offeror shall calculate its composite rates and include those rates in the proposal.

Attachment L p.16 The Inspect & Adapt (I&A) Team One-Week Event (Various Sizes) does not include FPT-I&A- ART line item that is included in the Pricing Catalog. Can NASA please include?

These are two separate catalog items because there will be instances where an I&A Team works without being part of an Agile Release Train (ART).

L.29.B.1 155

The RFP states "....using not smaller than 12 point type Times New Roman font.... The margins may contain headers and footers, but shall not contain any proposal content to be evaluated.... Text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point type Times New Roman font. Given Times New Roman 10 point font is allowed for graphics and tables, can NASA please confirm that TNR 10 point font for headers and footers is acceptable?

The RFP has been updated to include Headers and Footers.

RFP A.2.b.ii.2. VP- 2 Scenario 2

RFP 169 Item A.2.b.ii.2 states "Describe the user of PI Objectives." Should it read "use" or "usage" instead of "user"?

Yes, and the RFP has been updated.

RFP, L.29.b. (1), L.32.b

153, 184

The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table indicate that for the Past Performance Volume III, List of those sent Past Performance Questionnaires are excluded from page count. This requirement is referenced in RFP L.32.b, Prior Customer Evaluations (Past Performance Questionnaires), which states, "The Offeror shall include a list of those to whom the questionnaires were sent, including name of the individual, phone number, email address, organization, and contract number. Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors' past performance evaluation with the Offeror." Would the Government allow these written consent documents to be excluded from the 15-page limit?

The RFP has been updated to exclude letters of consent from the page limit.

RFP, L.23, L.24,

L.30.b.5

144-145, 159-

Section L.30.b.(5) Government Property requires Offeror's to submit information on an Offeror's Government property management procedures as required by NFS provisions 1852.245-80 and 1852.245-81. However, L.24 lists Government property available for use as "N/A." Could the Government remove the Section L.30.b.(5) requirement for Government property procedures and all related clauses (L.23 1852.245-80 and L.24) if there is no Government Property to be used in support of NCAPS?

No. Each Offeror shall have a system of internal controls in place to manage (control, use, preserve, protect, repair, and maintain) Government property in its possession. Section L of the RFP contains

NFS 1852.245

80, “Government Property Management Information” and 1852.245-81, “List of Available Government Property.” The information regarding the Offeror’s Government property management procedures required by these two provisions shall be included in this volume. However, if an analysis of the Offeror’s property management policies, procedures, practices, and systems has not been previously performed by the Government, the Offeror shall describe its internal processes, systems, procedures, records, and methodologies to be employed to ensure effective and efficient control of Government property under this contract in accordance with the requirements specified in FAR 52.245-1, Government Property.

Although the Property Management procedures will not be evaluated under the Mission Suitability factor, the Government will review the submitted information to verify each Offeror’s compliance with NFS 1852.245-80 and 1852.245-81.

RFP, L.29.b 155

Section L.29.b Proposal Content and Page Limitations includes a table of proposal components. The Mission Suitability volume includes "Enforceable/Non-enforceable Commitments" that are excluded from the 50-page limit. We assume the format and content of these commitments is Offeror-defined without any associated and specific Section L instructions. Is our assumption correct? If no, please clarify the requirements for the commitments.

This understanding is correct.

RFP, H.41

Applicable

Documentation

H.41, pertaining to JSC, in the RFP (page 91) states: "SATERN provides web-based access to many required training courses. Contractor employees may be provided access to SATERN."

G.16, pertaining to MSFC, in the RFP (page 53) states: "The FSO/DO needing identity requester rights, must complete the following training in SATERN."

Will NASA please confirm to the extent which SATERN will be available to bidding contractors and if it will be available at none, some, select or all NASA Centers under this bid?

A list of required training will be provided to the Contractor after award.

RFP, L.31.C.3 173

To assist Offerors in responding to the L.31.C.3.a requirement to provide a table denoting the total workforce percentage it plans to recruit from "(c) the current incumbent contract workforce (per contract)", request that NASA provide the contract names and associated headcount for each contract. The Historical IT WYEs.pdf file does not list specific contracts, only location (e.g., Center or HQ) or office (e.g., AAO or WSO). Also, Attachment A lists five contracts transitioning in 2024/Q4 with the remainder being from EAST 2, but no details are given on specific headcounts per contract to assist offerors in estimating workforce percentages.

The RFP has removed "per contract" from L.31.C.3.a. Additionally, Offerors shall propose to the requirements in the RFP. The Historical IT WYEs document attached to the RFP is for reference and estimating purposes only, and is not limited to the Agency's Applications Services WYEs. The Government has exhausted its data inquiry into the IT WYEs across the agency; this information may not be current at RFP release or contract award.

Exhibit 3 PPQ 1

Exhibit 3 Past Performance Questionnaire page 1, Section 2 requests "Does a corporate or business relationship exist between the firm being evaluated and your organization?"

Please clarify this question. Who should answer this question? Please define "corporate or business relationship."

For Offeror's that submit commercial past performance references, the respondent shall identify if there is an existing corporate or business relationship between the firm being evaluated and the Respondent's organization.

RFP, L.31.D.1 176

The Contracting Officer's assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition, expressed as a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (NTE CORE basic and all options combined plus IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value basic and all options combined)

Question: in the event that a contractor's proposed price is less than the Government-provided NTE, should the SB allocation be based on the proposed price or the provided NTE value?

The evaluation of the Subcontracting Plan will be based on TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (CORE basic and all options combined plus IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value basic and all options combined).

RFP, B.9 and Pricing Matrix (1-

9)

In section B.9 of the RFP, the Government states that all ODCs plug numbers are NTE values. However, when an offeror adds their allowable burden to the ODCs values in the Pricing Matrix (tab 1-9), the total evaluated ODCs cost exceeds the NTE values.

Can the Government please clarify?

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

RFP L.33 - NCAPS

CPFF Core

Services Labor (CLIN X03) and

IDIQ CPFF (CLIN

X04):

Can the government provide insight into how contractors can show the subs’ contribution to our price if their rates are a part but not the whole of the contractors’ Service Catalog pricing or FFP Labor Rates?

Only one rate per labor category will be included in Attachment I. For the CPFF sections, offerors shall provide the build-up of that composite rate between the prime and subs in tab 1-8 CPFF Labor Rate Schedule. For the FFP sections, only one rate shall be proposed per labor category. Each Offeror shall calculate its composite rates and include these rates in the proposal.

RFP L.33 - NCAPS

CPFF Core

Services Labor (CLIN X03) and

IDIQ CPFF (CLIN

X04):

Given that the performance risks associated with FFP and T&M contract types are on the contractor, will the government please consider removing this requirement for non-cost type subs?

Reference L.33, Subcontractors proposed as FFP or T&M type contracts are not required to provide other than cost or pricing data.

However, if the subcontract value is above $15M, the subcontractor shall provide a copy of the proposal/quote to the Government so the Government can verify the subcontractor's rates against those rates proposed by the prime Offeror.

RFP L.32; L.32 (h) P177; P182

The RFP states the offeror must provide the Customer’s name, email address and phone number in the past performance volume. This information is considered sensitive and can only be released to NASA. Would NASA allow our significant sub to submit the Customer name and details directly to NASA like the RFP allows in the pricing information.

If a subcontractor does not want to disclose its past performance information to the Offeror, the Subcontractor may submit directly to the Government no later than the proposal due date set forth in the solicitation. The information submitted by the Subcontractor will count towards the page limitation in L.29 of the RFP.

ATT L - Service Catalog

Description;

Catalog ID SP-001

This Catalog item states that the catalog offering "includes all software, licensing, hosting, and custom components necessary to deliver the Site Collection."

Question: a) Does NASA envision the hosting to be located at a NASA facility and will provide space, or should the contractor accomplish the hosting at a commercial-grade hosting location? b) If the requirement is for an external hosting location, will the contractor be responsible for providing the telecommunications circuit and associated networking HW/SW for connectivity to NASA's network?

SP-001 and SP-002 have been changed to "This catalog offering includes all support and custom components necessary to deliver the Site Collection." The Government has updated Attachment L of the

RFP.

Att A - PWS, 8.4.Y.i.

Att L - Service Catalog

Descriptions, SP-

Att A pg. 67, Att L pg. 32

There is a discrepancy on the topic of SharePoint High Availability Model capabilities. PWS Section 8.4.Y. states, "Ensure patches and updates are implemented utilizing the SharePoint High Availability Model capabilities to eliminate or minimize customer downtime. (Mission Farm). i. To be provided as a capability within 6 months of the contract start date."

SP-002 in the Service Catalog Descriptions states, "To be provided within 1 year of the contract start date."

Would NASA please deconflict these two statements and provide clarification on the requirement?

Attachment L of the RFP has been updated to state within 6 months of the contract start date.

L.31.D.1 177

Please confirm that when calculating the HBCU/MSI dollars, that they should also be counted in the SDB and Other Small Business Concerns Categories per the solicitation table example? Furthermore, please confirm that Other Small Business is the equivalent of SB Concerns as defined per FAR 52.219-8?

Subcontracting dollars are counted for each applicable category. For instance, if a proposed subcontractor entity is both a SDB and WOSB, dollars would be counted for SB, SDB, and WOSB categories. A firm may rely on the information contained in SAM as an accurate representation of the subcontractor concern’s size and ownership characteristics for purposes of maintaining a small, veteran-owned small, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business source list (FAR 52.219-9(d)(5)).

The table in L.31.D.1 states "Other than Small Business Concerns."

L.31.D.1; Exhibit 2 Small Business Subcontracting

Plan

The Government states: "Offeror shall complete Exhibit 2, SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS, which provide a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals..." Please confirm that the completed Exhibit 2 shall be submitted with the Mission Suitability Volume as an MS Excel attachment and is excluded from the 15 page limit under Subfactor D: Small Business Utilization.

(Note: L.29.a.2, L.29.a.3, p. 152-153 specifiies that Cost/Price Exhibits shall also be provided in Excel, but the Exhibit 2 is a non-Cost/Price Exhibit.)

Exhibit 2, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals, shall be submitted as an exhibit and included in Volume IV. This exhibit is excluded from page limitations.

L.29 (Proposal Content and Page Limitations) and L.31.D Subfactor

D

P. 155 and P. 175-176

Due to the information required by 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (OCT 2022) - ALTERNATE II (NOV 2016), as well as the tables required by said FAR clause for an Individual Subcontracting Plan, in addition to the required Exhibit 2, would the Government consider adding 10 pages to the 15 page limit (25 pages total)? In accordance to the FAR Clause, the tables have to be broken down with a separate part for the basic contract and each option.

The page limits will remain unchanged.

L.32.b 184 Please confirm that written consent [letters] from proposed significant subcontractors can be included in part (b) items listed in L.29.b.1 and thereby excluded from the page count.

The RFP has been updated to exclude letters of consent.

L.31.A.2.b.ii.2 169 The Government states: "Discuss the user of PI Objectives". Did the government intend "user" or should this instead be "use." If agreed, will the Government please update to "Discuss the use of PI Objectives."

The Government has updated the RFP.

L.31.A 162

The Government states the following: "Each slide shall be a single page of the PDF presentation and shall not exceed 8 1/2" x 11" format. Slides shall contain Times New Roman text with a size not smaller than 12 point... Diagrams, charts, tables, photographs, headers, and footers shall contain Times New Roman font text in a size no smaller than 11 point."

We interpret this to mean that font sizes cannot be shrunk or condensed when PPT files are converted to PDF. Therefore, we need to use the Standard (4:3) vs. Widescreen (16:9) aspect ratio in PPT. Will the Government please confirm this has been interpreted correctly

Font sizes cannot be shrunk or condensed.

ATT L 16 There is not an I&A catalog item for the Agile Release Train (ART) FPT-ART for the 1 week event. Please add or confirm it's intentional.

The Government has updated Attachment I of the RFP.

L.32a 181 para 9, bullet 8 requests the following for past/current contract reference: Nature of award: initial or follow-on. If initial, indicate whether award was preceded by a Government, customer, or Offeror financed study. Can the Government confirm whether initial award is defined as new award to the Contractor, or an initial award for the Government's requirement?

The RFP has been updated.

L.32a 181 In para 9, bullet 8, in regards to a Government or customer financed study, how do we determine if a financed study was conducted? A predecessor study may not have been disclosed in an initial award of a new contract. Please clarify.

The RFP has been updated.

ATT S

The government did not provide a list of applications for Center SSC within the attachment.

In an amended Attachment S, will the Government identify the applications supported at SSC under the ITS21 contract?

ATT S of the RFP has been updated.

L.31.C.3.a 173

The Government requests that offerors provide the percentage of total NCAPS workforce that will be drawn from specific sources. These sources include:

"a) the Offeror's own resources; b) other divisions of the company; c) the current incumbent contractor workforce (per contract); and d) percentage of each team members and subcontractor(s); and e) outside hires."

Please clarify if the Government intends that (a) through (e) include all possible sources of program staff?

Yes. The Government intends that (a) through (e) include all possible sources of program staff. However, if the Offeror identifies alternate sources, this shall be identified in their proposal.

L.31.C.3.a 173 Does the Government intend that there be no overlap between (a) through (e), such that the sum of all the Offeror's percentages equals 100%?

The sum of the Offeror's percentage shall equal 100%; otherwise, an explanation shall be provided as to why it does not.

L.31.C.3.a 173

The Government requests that offerors provide the percentage of total NCAPS workforce that will be drawn from specific sources. Source (c) requests “the current incumbent contractor workforce (per contract)” – providing the Government details about how much of the offeror’s total staff will be sourced from which contracts. Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to also provide details about where those incumbents will be distributed (or placed) across the offeror’s proposed team?

No, that is not the Government's intent.

L.31.D.1 (Small Business

Subcontracting Plan)

P. 175-176 Offerors are instructed to use the Core Requirements Plus IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value NTE amount in Exhibit 2 as well as in L.31.D.1. Please confirm that offerors only need to provide the completed Exhibit 2 and not tables for the basic contract and each option.

Both. Offerors shall provide a completed Exhibit 2 as well as tables for the basic contract and each option in their subcontracting plan.

PWS 8 and ATTJ Are Technical Monitors/Task Monitors referenced in Attachment J and TPOCs referenced in PWS Section 8 the same individuals as each document represents them doing similar roles in the IDU Process?

Attachment J of the RFP has been updated.

L.31.B.1.g p.170

Since the government added L.31.B.1.g in the RFP instructions, will the government add an L.31.B.1.h for PWS 11? We recommend " Approach to proposed development, tools, innovations, and automations to support Financial System Management Upgrade in accordance with the performance area (PWS Section 11) in Attachment A, PWS." and add 5 pages to the technical volume to cover these additions.

No, since the Government is developing a Business Case Analysis, which should be complete by the end of the contract transition period. This will define the requirements and strategy.

L.33 p.184 Will the governement please confirm that Option Periods 1 through 7 begin on December 1 and not March 1 as shown in the Table on page 184?

The Government has updated the dates in section L.33 of the RFP.

M.5 PAST

PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION

FACTOR

The final RFP ties the overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance to "a subjective evaluation of the information contained in an oral presentation, if applicable..."

Will the Government confirm that its confidence rating for Volume III Past Performance is not applicable to the Volume II, Mission Suitability, Subfactor A - Technical Scenario Video Presentation.

The RFP states, "The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance (see below) will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation, if applicable; written narrative; past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires; and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information." This statement applies to Volume III - Past Performance.

L.31 175

C.1 Section L.31 C.4.d Total Compensation Plan (Separate Attachment Page Limits) requires providing supporting data, such as recognized national, regional, and local compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total professional compensation structure.

1) Will the government please confirm that if the offeror has DCMA Direct Labor (DL) Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) and a DCMA DL Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), this satisfies the requirement for "supporting documentation"?

2) If the DL FPRP and DL FPRR will satisfy this requirement, will the government please confirm that submitting the DL FPRP and FPRR is excluded from the 15 limit page count for this section.

Offeror shall provide supporting data such as recognized national, regional, and local compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total professional compensation structure. The RFP provides the above examples of supporting documentation, however this is not restrictive. Section L.29 of the RFP has been updated to exclude Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRP) and Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR) from the page count.

L.32.a; L.32.a.(1) Table 2

180; 182

The Government states: The Offeror shall provide an estimated value and percentage of work to be performed on this contract by the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor. Indicate the primary functions to be performed by the Prime Offeror and each proposed significant subcontractor. Indicate which contracts are most related (i.e., similar in size and content) and how they are related to the proposed effort, as well as which contracts were performed by the division of your company (if applicable) that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract."

The Government also requests a Past Performance Matrix, as identified in Table 2, and provides a Sample but with prescribed elements including Contract Number and primary work "elements". These two requirements in Past Performance seemingly overlap and could be provided in a single table.

Will the Government allow Offerors to combine the date required in the above requirements into one Past Performance Matrix

No, the Government will not allow Offerors to combine the requested data into one Past Performance Matrix.

ATT L - PWS

Elements 1.0 -through 4.0

The Government's response to DRFP Question 28 states that "PWS Section 4 shall be proposed by work package in accordance with the labor categories proposed. The RFP will be updated in this regard." However, the RFP was not updated to reflect this change.

Please revise ATT L to remove PWS Section 4 from Applicable PWS Requirement(s).

The RFP has been updated to clarify this area. The requirements of PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 apply to all NCAPS products and services and, as such, are not specifically enumerated, unless otherwise specified in the Catalog item.

ATT L - PWS

Elements 1.0 -through 4.0

The Government's response to DRFP Question 28 states that "The Offeror shall propose in accordance with its cost and accounting standards for PWS Sections 1 through 3." However, the revised RFP language contained in ATT L, page 5, states that these PWS sections are "considered indirect charge." Where it is not appropriate to classify these costs as Indirect, please confirm that Offerors can propose in accordance with their cost accounting standards.

The RFP has been updated to clarify this area. The requirements of PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 apply to all NCAPS products and services and, as such, are not specifically enumerated, unless otherwise specified in the Catalog item.

ATT L - PWS

Elements 1.0 -through 4.0

Please confirm our understanding that all costs associated with PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0, where applicable to catalog items, should be built into the proposed prices for those catalog items.

This understanding is correct, and the RFP has been updated to clarify this area. The requirements of PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 apply to all NCAPS products and services and, as such, are not specifically enumerated, unless otherwise specified in the Catalog item.

ATT L - PWS

Elements 1.0 -through 4.0

If all costs associated with PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0, where applicable to catalog items, should be built into the proposed prices for those catalog items, please consider an alternative approach: Because the NCAPS Service Catalog does not incorporate volume-based tiered pricing, and the costs associated with PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 do not scale linearly, these costs will not be accounted for accurately. Costs will either be under-stated, leading to performance risk, or over-stated, leading to excessive prices being paid by the Government. As a result, we recommend that PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 instead be proposed via work packages using labor categories on an FFP or CPFF basis as required.

The Government does not accept this recommendation. However, the RFP has been updated to clarify this area. The requirements of PWS elements 1.0 through 4.0 apply to all NCAPS products and services and, as such, are not specifically enumerated, unless otherwise specified in the Catalog item.

Att B, DRD MA- 014, Item 14

Item 10 in the DRD requests submission of 'a list of all of the prime's and subcontractor's NASA contracts and subcontracts, which would provide the CO a better understanding of other NASA work performed by the Offeror that may give rise to an actual or potential conflict'. This is requested in the context of item 10 which is the assertion of no existing conflict. Please clarify if the list of contracts is required if the Offeror and all subcontractors assert 'no conflict'?

All Offerors shall provide a list of all NASA contracts and subcontracts held by the prime offeror and all of its proposed subcontractors.

L.31.C.3.a 173

The Government instructs Offerors to provide a table delineating its sources of staffing.

Among the sources, the Government requests to know the Offeror's percentage of "(c) the current incumbent contractor workforce (per contract)." The Government has previously released information such as "Enclosure 1 Labor History (consolidated) - Draft.xlsx" and "4.0 Contract Transition Schedule.pdf"—documents that Offerors could use to aqcuire the contract names and estimate the percentage of incumbent staff per contract. The final RFP and attached solicitation documents do not include the IT contract historical Work Year Equivalent (WYE) data or updated list of contract names needed for Offerors to accurately provide the percentage of incumbent contractor workforce (per contract). Given the updates to PWS 1.1, would the Government please confirm that these previously issued resources are still valid or direct Offerors to the information they require to estimate the percentage of incumbents—per contract—that will be part of their total NCAPS workforce?

RFP section L.31.C.3.a has been updated to remove "per contract."

Additionally, the Historical IT WYEs document attached to the RFP is for reference and estimating purposes only, and is not limited to the Agency's Application Services WYEs. Offerors shall propose to the requirements in the RFP.