ATMOS DRFP Questions.Answers.pdf

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

ATMOSPHERE SUPPORT

(ATMOS)

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC24R0037

OCTOBER 2024

Section Question/Comment Gov Responses

L.12, Subfactor A, A.1 Key SOW requirements listed in this section do not map to Attachment A SOW sections II.2 and III.1.2. Furthermore, the key SOW requirements are not included in the SOW. Please clarify. There was a typing error. SOW Section IV.2 is the correct section

L.14 (a)

Past performance is requested for the most recent contracts of similar effort with minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $3.0M in last 3 years. The GLOMAS DRFP sets the minimum average annual cost/fee requirement at $1.5M. Given the equivalent size of these two contracts based on the provided GPMs (ATMOS ~494K total hrs; GLOMAS ~554K total hrs), we recommend the government make the minimum average annual cost/fee requirement equal between the two acquisitions at $1.5M.

ATMOS and GLOMAS are not equivalent in size. Therefore, the past performance minimum average cost/fee is different.

Att. H.1 (11); DRFP B.3, Item 22 OCI Avoidance Plan

Att. H.1 OCI DRD states that the "Initial Submission Plan shall be submitted with the initial proposal" while DRFP-ATMOS states that the OCI plan is due 30 days after contract award. Please clarify.

If the initial OCI plan is due at proposal (as defined in H.1), then in what volume should the contractor submit the plan (e.g., Vol. I Offer)?

The OCI plan shall be submitted with the initial proposal. The Final RFP will be updated accordingly.

Exhibit BB (GPM by Site Location) and Exhibit AA (Contract Historical Data)

Exhibit BB lists the labor categories Science Engagement Specialists I-IV, however, Exhibit AA does not list these categories and its not clear how these map between the documents. Please provide the crosswalk from these labor categories to the labor categories listed in Exhibit AA. Exhitbit AA will be updated with labor categories consistent wth Exhibit BB in the final RFP

Section L.14 Would the Government consider moving the past performance relevancy to 5 years. The current 3 years is less than most GSFC and NASA procurements have allowed and limits small business competition. Language in the final RFP will be updated to increase past performance relevancy to 5 years.

Section L(b).1 The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table references several sections excluded from page count, including a Small Business Subcontracting Plan History. This is the only reference to the plan in the solicitation. Can you please clarify content required?

The government's intention is to set aside for small business; therefore, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan history outlined in the table will be removed during the release of the final RFP.

Section L.13 Does the govt intend to have a TCP to fully document the compensation captured in L13, Cost volume instructions and Exhibit 10 A&B.

Typically NASA has asked for TCPs in the Management volume to ensure employee continutity of benefits for incumbent employees.

All requirements for the TCP will be removed in the final RFP. Both Exhibit 10a and Exhibit 10b will also be removed.

Section L.12, B.3 Can we propose different Labor Categories (i.e., for our PMO staff) than those referenced in the RFP? Yes.

Section L.12, A.1 Does the govt want all of SOW II.2 and III.1.2 fully addressed or just the bulleted items referenced in Section L.12 of the DRFP? The offeror should provide a proposal response in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section L.12 and only address the areas listed within the bulleted areas.

L.12 Subfactor A, A.1

L.12 Subfactor A, A.1 lists SOW Section II.2 as one of the key SOW requirements. The requirements include four bullets of items to be addressed (development and testing of remote sensing methods and science algorithms, optimization of workflows leveraging AI/ML and cloud-based techniques, ability to create integrated solutions, and delivery of validated science results). However, Section II.2 of the SOW is about Earth System Modeling, Data Processing and Analysis with requirements that are different to what is required in L.12 Subfactor A, A.1. Please clarify what Offerors must address under this subfactor.

The offeror should provide a proposal response in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section L.12 and only address the areas listed within the bulleted areas.

L.13(b)(3), Enclosure BB –GPM, Enclosure AA – Contract Historical Data

The SAMDA Historical Data (Enclosure AA) identifies ~147 WYEs (using the cited productive work year of 1849 hours) and notes this figure does not include subcontractor hours. Based on our own research on the opportunity, we estimate the total SAMDA staffing, including subcontractors, to be approximately 180 WYEs. The ATMOS GPM (Enclosure BB) represents ~54 WYEs (combined onsite and offsite hours).

For reference the GLOMAS DRP includes a GPM with ~60 WYEs. Together, these GPMs represent ~114 WYES, which is substantially smaller than the SAMDA Historical Data indicates. An accurate understanding of the anticipated contract staffing level is essential to develop an optimal Management and Administration staffing level for the contract. Given the large difference between current SAMDA staffing levels and those corresponding to the combined ATMOS and GLOMAS GPMs, we request that the Government please clarify if the ~54 WYEs in the ATMOS GPM is an accurate staffing level.

The GPM will be updated in the Final RFP to reflect a more accurate staffing level.

Enclosure CC – GPM

The GPM includes hours under several labor categories that do not appear in the table of labor categories and position descriptions for ATMOS. Namely, the Onsite staffing includes hours for Scientist IV and Software Engineer II which do not appear in the table of position descriptions. Similarly, the Offsite staffing includes hours for Software Engineer III which do not appear in the table of position descriptions.

These appear to be legacy SAMDA labor categories related to the GMAO support and were likely reserved for the GLOMAS solicitation.

Scientist IV and Software Engineer II & III will be replaced with Support Scientist IV and Programmer/Analysis II & III, respectively, in the final RFP.

SOW

The first paragraph of the SOW indicates that ATMOS will support the Earth Science Division-Atmospheres (Code 610AT), including the three atmospheric science Laboratories (Codes 612, 613, and 614). The current SAMDA contract also includes support for Codes 606, 619, and several of the Labs within Code 610HBG. Please clarify if ATMOS will include support for organizations outside of Code 610AT.

Scientists and engineers at 610AT are actively collaborating with other Labs outside of 610AT, and ATMOS will support such collaborative works. The paragraph will be revised in the final RFP.

L.10(b)(1), L.12 The Mission Suitability Volume shows excluded page limitations on “Small Business Utilization Subfactor”, however, there are no instructions for this subfactor in L.12. Furthermore, given the ATMOS contract is a small business set aside, should this element of small business utilization subfactor be deleted?

The Small Business Utilization Subfactor will be deleted.

L.10(b)(1) , L.14 The Past Performance Volume shows excluded page limitations on “Small Business Subcontracting Plan History”, however, there are no instructions for this subfactor in L.14. Furthermore, given the ATMOS contract is a small business set aside, should this element of small business subcontracting plan history be deleted?

The Small Business Subcontrating Plan History will be deleted.

L.12 / L-21 Please confirm that the Position Qualifications are only required to be included in “Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices” as part of the Cost Volume and are not required as part of the Mission Suitability Volume? Position qualifications are not required as part of the mission suitabilitly volume.

L.12

Requirement SOW Section III.1.2 Support the development of instrument systems for atmospheric remote sensing and in-situ observations.

Focus on creating designs that optimize performance, reliability, and cost-efficiency while ensuring seamless integration with existing GSFC infrastructure. Emphasize the offeror's ability to deliver innovative, modular, commercial-off-the- shelf (COTS) solutions that enhance system flexibility and adaptability for a wide range of mission requirements. Question: Can the Government please clarify if under A.1 Key statement of work requirement SOW Section III 1.2 correlates to Section III 1. in detail?

First bullet does map to Attachment A SOW sections III.1.2 and the second and third bullets are to guide the offeror in providing detail in answering the first bullet

L.13 L.14 +B28B28A28A28 E28A28 D29A28 C29A28 C28

Can the Government confirm the threshold for the significant subcontract is different between the Past Performance Volume and Cost Volume.

Correct, the thresholds are different. 20% total GPM estimated value inclusive of fee for PPV and minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of at least 10% of the estimated average annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract for CV

L.14 Requirement Recent customer evaluations of past performance including Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms, etc. (Excluded from the page limitation). Question: If the offeror has received recent evaluations as a subcontractor, can they include the assessments completed by their Prime Contractor?

Yes, if the offeror has received recent evaluations as a subcontractor, they include the assessments completed by their Prime Contractor.

L.14 Can the Government please confirm sending PPQ s to the Prime Contractor – where the offeror performed as the subcontractor – is acceptable? Yes, the offeror can submit PPQ s to the Prime Contractor where the offeror performed as the subcontractor.