Enclosure 2 Questions and Responses.pdf

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2 Response to Questions Received in Response to the Draft RFP and During One-on-one Exchanges

No. DRFP Area Section Paragraph Page Question Response

1 Cover Letter Cover Letter

NA 2 Reference states "The anticipated contract award date is December 30, 2022, with a March 1, 2023 contract effective date." Reference also states 1. A Phase-in period will be conducted. The Government anticipates a phase-in period not exceeding 60 days prior to contract start to ensure contract performance on contract start date. Can NASA please clarify the difference between contract start date and contract effective date?

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

2 NACE 541820 – appropriate for PAO – but Core services aren’t reflective of that. Tech approach and mission suitability put emphasis on Library ---The PWS emphasizes more than just PAO. 541990 all other professional services might be more appropriate

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code will remain unchanged.

3 Draft RFP SF 1449 N/A N/A Given the nation-wide scope and large scale of this program, making it an 8(a) set aside would appear to create unnecessary risk as 8(a) firms would lack the nationwide resources necessary to successfully perform a project of this size, scope and complexity

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

4 What strategy went into picking it 8A? We we’re caught off guard. – It will be helpful to understand the strategy so we are more prepared to develop proposal

This acquisition strategy was based on market research (refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10.002) and pursuant to the policies and procedures of FAR part 19 as supplemented by NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) part 1819 and NFS Appendix A-102.17.

5 Draft RFP B.1 1 7 We strongly recommend that NASA consider a different contract type for the core services. Firm-Fixed-Price requires bidders to make numerous assumptions and this can increase risk to successful performance if these assumptions are incorrect. We strongly recommend NASA consider T&M or a cost reimbursable contract type

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

6 Will core services be FFP? Yes, refer to clause B.1 Contract Type.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

7 The core work period of performance is variable with options;

however, the IDIQ has a 5 year ordering period. Can the Government align the Core and IDIQ so both align/include options?

No

8 Will some task orders be FFP and other be T&M? See response to question 6.

9 Draft RFP Section B.2

SCHEDUL

E OF

SUPPLIES

/SERVICE

S, (e)

8 Are we expected to provide a price or will the funding ceiling be provided by the government?

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

10 Draft RFP C.26 (a) 45 Will incumbents for eany of the associated contracts listed in this section be restricted from bidding on this vehicle?

No.

11 NCS and eMITS relation – what does it look like for collaboration purposes?

Refer to clause C.26 Associated Contractor Agreements (ACAs) and Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement.

12 Will the Gov’t facilitate ACAs with existing contractors?

Explain incumbent relationships.

No, refer to clause C.26 Associated Contractor Agreements (ACAs). Information regarding incumbent relationships will not be provided.

13 ACAs – How will the government enforce the ACA requirement if the eMITS award is delayed?

Refer to clause C.26 Associated Contractor Agreements (ACAs). Note: the clause provides in part that “the Contractor will enter into ACAs with contractors . . . .” There is no requirement to enter into an ACA with a contractor if a contract does not exist.

14 Draft RFP E.11 (a) 118 Since the government emphasizes the importance of the compensation for retained staff, will NASA please provide equivalent rates or historic data on compensations levels?

NASA will not provide equivalent rates or historical data on compensation levels.

15 Section F - Proposal Instructions

N/A N/A 122 Based on the strategic communications and mission-critical engagement of stakeholders including citizens and congress, could the Government require at a minimum Top-Secret FCL.

No.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

16 [Prospective Offeror] would like to know if product samples are required with proposal submission, per F.3. (d).

No, product samples are not required.

17 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

(h) 128 To confirm NCS will be a single award IDIQ?

Why was this option chosen?

Would the government be better served by a multi-vendor award?

Refer to provision F.4 paragraphs (e) and (h). See also response to question 4.

18 Solicitation F.4.b h (h) 128 Would the government concider making this a multiple award contract vehicle in order to ensure best value on TOs released on this contract?

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

19 Multi-Award versus Single Award. We believe that NASA will receive better support and diversity of Task Order solutions and competitive pricing by awarding this contract as a multi-award versus single award contract. This way NASA can receive different solutions to requirements issued as subsequent Task Orders while also not being tied to just one contractor team that puts NASA at a disadvantage in terms of competitive pricing due to no pressures of bidder competition.

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

20 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

F.5.;

F.6.1.;

F.6.4.

Phase-in plan and Total Compensation Plans go in both Volume 1 and Volume 4?

Provisions F.5 NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations and F.6.4. Volume 4 Other Plans and Data have been updated to clarify.

21 Section F Section F

F.6.1,(e),(1 ) ii

133 This section requires a Phase-In Approach to be included in Volume I, Subfactor 1 – Management. The Volume 1 page limit is 80 pages. F.6.4. VOLUME 4. OTHER PLANS AND DATA states that each item listed in NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, must be identified within this volume. The information contained within this volume will be evaluated within the applicable mission suitability subfactor or as described in Section F. It is not clear where the Phase-In Plan is to be included or what the page limitation is. Can NASA please clarify where the Phase-In Plan is to be included and whether the Phase-In Plan is included in the 80-page Volume 1 limitation.

See response to question 20.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

22 F.6.1; F.5 Phase-in Approach

133, The Phase in is directed as part of volume 1 and volume 4. Can NASA clarify?

See response to question 20.

23 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

(1) Subfactor 1 Manageme nt Paragraph (F)

131 There is reference to, "...the following portions of the draft management plan required at the time of proposal submission…" the draft management plan is only mentioned in this one place. Is the government going to give instructions on what they require and were to put this in the RFP? Is this the same as the Project Management Approach?

The solicitation has been updated to remove note under provision F.6.1 (e)(1)(i)(F).

24 Draft RFP F F.6.1(e)(1)( i)(F)

131 Note: the offeror's response to this subfactor's supporting requirements shall satisfy the following portions of the draft management plan required at the time of proposal submission (in accordance with Section D, Attachment D- 2, Data Requirements List, DRD 003-OAM, Management Plan) as follows: Item 11., Contents, paragraphs (e).DRD 003_OAM indicates that the initial submission of this DRD is 30 days after the date of the Phase-In Purchase Order.

Can NASA please clarify the date for initial submission of

DRD 003-OAM ?

See response to question 23.

25 Section F Section F

F.6.1,(e),(1 ) iii

133 F.6.1,(e),(1) iii Total Compensation Plan. This section requires a Total Compensation Plan to be included in Volume I, Subfactor 1 – Management. NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations indicates that the Total Compensation Plan shall be included in Volume 4. Can NASA please clarify where the Total Compensation Plan is to be included.

See response to question 20.

26 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

F.6.1.

(iii)

133 If offerors use a GSA schedule to set labor rates can we use that as part of the Total Compensation Plan?

Refer to provision F.6.1(e)(1)(iii) for the information to be included in the Total Compensation Plan.

27 Draft RFP F.6.1 (e)(1)(iii) 132 How does the Government intend to define a Major subcontractor for the purposes of a Total Compensation Plan?

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

28 F6.1 What happens if I think I have a potential OCI conflict? What do I do?

Refer to provision F.6.6. Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

29 Draft RFP Section F

Subfactor 1

- (ii) (A)

134 The ACA Clause is C.26 not C.27 The solicitation has been updated.

30 Draft RFP F F.6.1(e).(2) .(i).(B)

134 This requirement states that The Offeror (including subcontractor(s) as applicable) shall complete Attachment F-1, Key Personnel Résumé Template, for the following key positions: Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Business Manager. Individuals proposed shall meet or exceed the Contract Manager, Deputy Contract Manager, and Business Manager qualifications contained in Attachment D-6, Standard Labor Categories. Attachment D-6 does not contain Contract Manager and Deputy Contract Manager Labor categories.

Can NASA please clarify this requirement?

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

31 If additional key personnel are proposed beyond those required, will NASA accept additional resumes?

No.

32 Draft RFP F F.6.1(e)(2)( ii)(B)

136 This paragraph requests - Rationale for the proposed skill mix (labor classifications) and distribution (labor hours) for performing the core work requirements by PWS section and how the staffing plan correlates with the proposed organizational structure and technical approachs. Does this require the rationale, skill mix and labor hours be presented in this section or is this requirement only the rationale for the estimates provided in Attachment F-4, Core Services worksheet?

In accordance with provision F.6.1(e)(2)(ii) staffing is proposed in the pricing templates (labor classifications and hours). Refer also to provision F.6.3 Volume 3. Price. Therefore, provision F.6.1(e)(2)(ii)(B) is limited to only rationale.

33 Draft RFP F F.6.1(e)(2)( ii)(B)

136 This paragraph requests - Rationale for the proposed skill mix (labor classifications) and distribution (labor hours) for performing the core work requirements by PWS section and how the staffing plan correlates with the proposed organizational structure and technical approach. Can NASA please clarify what is meant by "staffing plan?"

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

34 Various Why are some areas listed, not represented in the technical approach Specific areas in PWS that aren’t in the technical approach? Examples

• NISP

• Org analysis

• Internal comm

• SB

• History and archives

• Speaking engagements

There are many requirements specified in Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, for which the contractor is responsible. The NCS solicitation focuses on a select number of those requirements to streamline the acquisition process (i.e., reduces the size and content of the solicitation, and increases efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, negotiation, and contract award).

Limiting proposal requirements to specific technical requirements will facilitate an effective and efficient selection of an offeror who can demonstrate best value to the Government in the key areas that are essential for successful contract performance.

35 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

(2) Subfactor 2

- (B)

135 Is it a Program Manager or a Contract Manager? "Program" is listed once in this paragraph and in attachment D-6 but "Contract" is listed twice in this paragraph.

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

36 Vol 1- Mission Suitability / Vol 2-Past Performance

Subfact or 2 - Technic al Approa ch

2.(i).A / 2

(i) and (ii)

134, 135 /

We note that the Technical section specifically request the offeror to address a subset of the PWS requirements (per page 134/135 of Draft RFP) which says “Describe Offeror’s approach to performing following PWS requirements.” The Past Performance section (page 137) also directs the offeror to address a specific subset of the PWS requirements in the cited related experience. However, the Technical and Past Performance requirements reference overlapping but different sections of the PWS. Is this intentional?

See response to question 34.

37 Draft RFP F.6.1 (e)(2)(i)(A) 134 Can the Government explain the rationale bethind requireing only some of the task areas for the technical approach? I note that some tasks identified as part of the Core Services (e.g., PWS 4.1.1 for Strategic Communications and 4.6 Freedom of Information Act) are not in the list of required tasks. This places risk on the government obtaining support from firms that don't have a solid understanding of the technical area.

See response to question 34.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

38 Draft RFP F.6.1 (e)(2)(i)(B) 135 The Government appears to use both Program Manager and Contract Manager to refer to the same role. Can the Government clarify if these are two separate positions or the same? If the same, will the Government provide their preferred title.

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

39 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

F.6.2. 139 Can the government accept CPARS instead of PPQ? No. Refer to provision F.7.2 (b).

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

40 F.6.2 Volum2 2.

Paster Performance c 1 136 RE: Page 136; F.6.2. VOLUME 2. PAST PERFORMANCE

(c) (1) Recent is defined as performance within the last 5 years prior to this contract’s initial RFP release date, with a minimum of 12 months of performance performed within the last 5 years prior to this contract’s initial RFP release date.

Question:

We respectfully request that the Government clarify or remove the clause “with a minimum of “ 12 months of performance within the last 5 years”. An acceptable past performance or experience that is within the five (5) year time limit that has at least 12 months of performance against should be fully qualified to reference as a past performance. As written it is very unclear of the government is intending to state the last full 12 months of the 5 year old past performance must have been fully executed at the date of the NCS RFQ. This would make it a 4 year past performance window vs the 5 year as stated.

Additionally, leaving the language as currently written will clause unduly restricts small businesses from putting forth their best qualifications as reflected in their Past Performance citations.

For example, a 5 year contract that was awarded on February 1, 2013 and ended on Feb 1, 2018 would fall short of the “12 months of performance” (assuming a March 28 RFP release date) by a mere 2 months. Furthermore, should the Government’s target RFP release date get pushed back into the April or May timeframes, a small business prime whose past performance citation originally met the “12 month performance window” would now no longer be able to submit this past performance citation potentially resulting in a “No Bid” decision by the company after the company already spent significant resources preparing for the NCS procurement.

The uncertainty surrounding RFP release dates is understandable but the inclusion of the “12 month performance

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2 window” incorporates another variable. By simply removing the “12 month performance window” and defining the “Recency” of submitted past performance citations to “within the past 5 years from the date of RFP release” enables small businesses to move forward with a greater degree of certainty in responding to the solicitation and submitting their most relevant past performance.

Also, per NASA’s NCS procurement web site:

“NASA will implement a dual-approach between the OCOMM NCS acquisition, and the OCIO eMITS acquisition.” Given the similarities of NCS and eMITS, it is likely many bidders will pursue both opportunities; therefore, the same Past Performance criteria should apply to both.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

41 F.6.2 Volum2 2.

Paster Performance c 1 136 We recognize that it is common for procurements such as NCS, including other procurements conducted by NASA and various defense agencies, to define “recency” in the context of Past Performance as occurring within the past five years. What is unusual about the draft language, however, is the requirement that “a minimum of 12 months of performance [must have been] performed within the last 5 years.” Unless removed or otherwise revised, this language would have the effect of converting the five-year look-back period into a four-year look-back period. In order to preserve the intention of the standard five-year look-back and not to unduly limit offerors’ ability to submit highly relevant Past Performance references, could NASA please revise the draft language in one or more of the following ways:

• Simply delete the language referring to 12 months of performance, so that the requirement merely states that the referenced contract cannot have been completed more than five years ago; or

• Revise the requirement to specify that the total period of performance of any submitted reference must have been at least 12 months, which may have been NASA’s intent with the draft language.

We believe that the implementation of one or more of these revisions to the draft language in question will ensure that NASA receives robust competition for this requirement and has an opportunity to consider the greatest number of highly-relevant Past Performance references.

Since NASA’s response to this question will significantly impact contractor teaming decisions, we respectfully request an expedited answer, preferably at this week’s Pre-Proposal Conference.

See response to question 40.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

42 Alaska native Companies and Tribal companies seem to reinvent themselves as 8A – How will govt evaluate past performance if they have separate CAGE and DUNS numbers,

- They may outgrow a NACE code, but still have relevant past performance. How will we evaluate?

Refer to paragraph F.6.2.(e) for information regarding how the Government will consider related business entities including parent or affiliate companies or corporations, divisions, business units, or segments.

43 F6.2 F.6.2 – Criteria for determining major subcontractor Would the govt describe the criteria for Major subs can provide – What constitutes a “Major subcontractor?”

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

44 Prime offeror must provide experience in 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 – this seems too restrictive – Can we change that to be reflective of the entire team, not just the prime?

The solicitation has been updated.

45 Section F Section F

F.6.2.d,(10) 138 This instruction requires offerors to provide the last three full years of OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. The OSHA 300A shall include the injury and illness data of the offeror its and major subcontractor(s).

As stated, this requires all forms for the offeror and major subcontractors for the entire company. Recommend that NASA avoid the unnecessary copying of forms and permit the offeror and subcontractors to provide the data in an equivalent format.

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

46 6.3 – cost proposals – would we consider as well as plug numbers - Can we provide GMP and plug numbers for ODCs for an apples to apples comparison

The solicitation has been updated to provide plug numbers.

47 DRFP F.6.3.

VOLU

ME 3.

PRICE

140 Will NSA provide approximate BEQ information so the offerer can better align and anticipate teaming assignments and scale the management plan accordingly?

The solicitation has been updated to provide IDIQ Best Estimated Quanities.

48 Section F - Proposal Instructions

F.6.3.

VOLU

ME 3.

PRICE

F.6.3./2.3 140 Regarding the pricing, would the Government consider using ceiling rates rather than requiring rates from all subcontractors?

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

49 Section F - Proposal Instructions

F.6.3.

VOLU

ME 3.

PRICE

F.6.3./a 139 Regarding the Core Services tab, are offerors to propose the number of hours to meet each Core Service? If so, we recommend removing this requirement as it would be impossible to accurately estimate the number of hours for general requirements.

Yes. Refer to Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels.

50 Section F Section F

Paragraph F.6.4

140 F.6.4 states that each item listed in NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, must be identified within this volume (volume 4). Paragraph F.5 NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations lists the entire proposal. Can NASA please clarify what is meant by “must be identified within this volume.”

And what specific documents are required in Volume 5?

See response to question 20. Additionally provision F.6.5 Volume 5. Model Contract has been updated.

51 Section F Section F

F.6.5 141 Paragraph F.5, NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations indicates that the OCI Assessment and Mitigation Plan shall be included in Volume 4.

F.6.4. VOLUME 4. OTHER PLANS AND DATA does not contain instructions to submit and OCI Assessment and Mitigation Plan.

F.6.6. NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST requires OCI assessment and mitigation but does not state where in the proposal this information is to be included.

Can NASA please clarify where in the proposal the OCI Assessment and Mitigation is to be included?

See response to question 20. Additionally provision F.6.6 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest has been updated to clarify.

52 Attachment D-1, F.6.6

OCI

Plan c 10 Considering the nature NCS and eMITS along with the timing of these solicitations. Will NASA consider making an OCI assessment prior to proposal submission to protect the procurement integrity off both?

NASA will assess potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest in accordance with provision F.6.6 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

53 F.6.6. F.6.6. page

We highly recommend that NASA clarifies and elaborates on potential OCI issues between NCS and eMITS to ensure the development of an effective OCI avoidance plan especially considering the same serivices are being performed under single contracts currently.

NASA will not further elaborate on any potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) between NCS and eMITS. Offerors must submit an OCI assessment and OCI Mitigation Plan in accordance with provision F.6.6 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest of the solicitation.

NASA will assess potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest in accordance with the FAR and provision F.6.6. of the solicitation.

54 Draft RFP SECTI

ON F

F.6.6. (c) Responsibil ity of the offeror

142 We recommend in order to reduce risk that a requirement of a evidence of responsibility come from Prime

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

55 Is there a conflict of interest between NCS scope and eMITS?

Could same vendor perform both contracts?

Refer to provision F.6.6 Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

56 F.6.7.

Respons ibility Determi nation

In the draft F.6.7. Responsibility Determination we noted that this requirement for one of the past performances must be a certain dollar value and relevant to the 4.1-4.2-4.3 PWS task areas. We believe the government would be best served by ensuring that this past performance come from the prime contractor versus a subcontractor. This ensures that the prime contractor has the requisite expertise to lead this important effort for NASA in the task areas noted.

1) At least one (1) contract performed by the offeror or its major subcontractor that:

(i) was completed within the last five (5) years prior to this contract’s initial RFP release date, with a minimum of twelve

(12) months of performance performed within the last 5 years prior to this contract’s initial RFP release date;

(ii) was valued greater than or equal to $7 million; and

(iii) demonstrates experience, as a prime contractor or subcontractor, satisfactorily performing the communications services provided in PWS Sections:

• 4.1 Strategic Communications, Planning, and Integration;

• 4.2 Engagement - Stakeholder Relations and Public Engagement; and

• 4.3 Media Relations

The Government will not limit provision F.6.7 Responsibility Determination to only contracts performed by the offeror.

57 Solicitation F.6.7.

RESPO

NSIBIL

ITY

DETER

MINAT

ION.

(1) At least one (1) contract performed

143 We believe that it would be better served for the government for this experience come from the Prime. We also believe when there are JVs involved, the requirement must be met by the 8(a) Prime. Prime not a JV should have the communications experience, with a sizable contract to minimize risk to the government.

See response to question 56.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

58 Draft RFP F.6.7.

RESPO

NSIBIL

ITY

DETER

MINAT

ION.

143 We believe that it would be better served for the government for this experience come from the Prime. We also believe when there are JVs involved, the requirement must be met by the 8(a) Prime. Prime not a JV should have the communications experience, with a sizable contract to minimize risk to the government.

See response to question 56.

59 Draft RFP F.6.7 (b)(1)(iii) 143 Since library and history/archives are distinct service areas very different from strategic communications and media relations, we strongly encourage adding them to the list here so that NASA can be assured that offerors meet a minimum level of responsibility for this work.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

60 DRFP F.6.7 F.6.7.b.i 143 We believe that it is common for procurements such as this one, including procurements conducted by NASA and various defense agencies, to define “recency” in the context of Past Performance as occurring within the past five years. What is unusual about the draft language, however, is the requirement that “a minimum of 12 months of performance [must have been] performed within the last 5 years.” Unless removed or otherwise revised, this language would have the effect of converting the five-year look-back period into a four-year look-back period. In order to preserve the intention of the standard five-year look-back and not to unduly limit offerors’ ability to submit highly relevant Past Performance references, could NASA please revise the draft language in one or more of the following ways: • Simply delete the language referring to 12 months of performance, so that the requirement merely states that the referenced contract cannot have been completed more than five years ago; or • Revise the requirement to specify that the total period of performance of any submitted reference must have been at least 12 months, which may have been NASA’s intent with the draft language; or We believe that the implementation of one or more of these revisions to the draft language in question will ensure that NASA receives robust competition for this requirement and has an opportunity to consider the greatest number of highly-relevant Past Performance references.

Also, per NASA’s NCS procurement web site:

“NASA will implement a dual-approach between the OCOMM NCS acquisition, and the OCIO eMITS acquisition.”

Given the similarities of NCS and eMITS, it is likely many bidders will pursue both opportunities; therefore, the same Past Performance criteria should apply to both.

Since NASA’s response to this question will affect potential teaming decisions, we respectfully request an expedited answer, preferably at this week’s NCS Pre-Proposal Conference.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

61 DRFP F.6.7 F.6.7.b.iii 143 It appears only PWS sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 have any evaluated consideration on the Past Performance Responsibility Determination and other PWS areas do not contribute to the scoring although other sections are required in F.6.2. Is this accurate? Should th Past Performance citation reference all applicable areas?

The question references a “Past Performance Responsibility Determination,” which is inaccurate, and the past performance evaluation factor is not scored.

The evaluation of past performance and the responsibility determination are not synonymous.

Refer to provisions F.6.2 Volume 2. Past Performance and F.7.2 Past Performance for instructions and evaluation criteria associated with the past performance evaluation factor, and provision F.6.7 Responsibility Determination for instructions regarding the responsibility determination.

Provision F.6.2 Volume 2. Past Performance has been updated to clarify instructions and required PWS sections. The past performance factor is not scored.

62 Section F - Proposal Instructions

F.6.7. F.6.7/b.1.i 143 Regarding the Responsibility Determination requirement for a contract value greater than $7 million, can the Government confirm that IDIQ contract values would meet this requirement?

Provision F.6.7 Responsibility Determination has been updated to clarify.

63 Section F - Proposal Instructions

F.7.1.

MISSIO

N

SUITA

BILITY

F.7.1. /b.1 144 Similar Best-In-Class contracts require contractors to show maturity by requiring relevant industry certifications such as ISO9001, ISO20000, ISO27001 or CMMI Level 3 for Services. Would the Government add these as either Go/No Requirements or as points in the evaluation scoring for subfactor 1 or 2.

No.

64 F.7.

Evaluation Factors for Award

F.7. NASA

evaluation team

Identification of the NASA NCS evaluation team will help contractors avoid improprieties.

The names of the NCS evaluation team members will not be released.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

65 Section F - Proposal Instructions

F.7.1.

MISSIO

N

SUITA

BILITY

F.7.1./b.1.i.

a

144 Could the Government clarify the requirement for property storage within 50 miles of the applicable NASA center or satellite location. Will this be a go/no-go evaluation or will the Government be evaluating the quality of the location, such as being closer than another offeror?

Refer to Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, section 3.5, Property Management, regarding property storage requirements. The Government will not evaluate the proximity of property storage facilities within the 50 mile radius.

66 Section F - Proposal Instructions

F.7.2. F.7.2./b 148 Would the Government consider CPARs in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires?

No.

67 Draft RFP F.7 F.7(d) 144 Given the broad scope of this program and its diverse range of technical requirements, we feel that it is a significant risk to NASA to make this a single award as it is unlikely that any single 8(a) firm will have the capabilities to manage such a large, nation-wide program with such a diverse range of tasks.

We strongly recommend a multiple award vehicle with task orders so that the Government has the best chance of getting optimal performance for each program area.

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

68 F.7. Price Realism

Will NASA consider adding a price realism evaluation criteria? The solicitation will remain unchanged.

69 Attachment D-1

1.0

INTRO

ENGAGE

MORE

PEOPLE

MORE

EFFECTIV

ELY:

3 Does NASA have audience profiles that can be shared? No. NASA Authorization Act of 1958, Section 203(a)(3), 51 U.S.C. § 20112(a)(3), directs NASA to “provide the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”

70 Who are some of the more diverse audiences that you’d like to reach? Who would you like to be more successful in reaching?

Refer to the NASA Authorization Act of 1958, Section 203(a)(3), 51 U.S.C. § 20112(a)(3), which directs NASA to “provide the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

71 Attachment D-1

1.0

INTRO

Last paragraph before 2.0

SCOPE

4 "The Government has identified synergies and efficiencies with the Enterprise Multimedia and Integrated Technical Services (eMITS) enterprise acquisition that is in development within the Office of the Chief Information Officer. As such, communication services, including, but not limited to, Digital Media, Communication Technology, and Public Information Products are under the purview outside the scope of this NCS contract and within the scope of the eMITS contractor."

Does the government have an estimate on how much work will come under NCS versus eMITS?

Does the government have an estimated value of services for NCS versus eMITS?

Does the government have an estimated date of award for eMITS?Is it a multi or single award IDIQ?

NCS estimates will not be provided. Information regarding the eMITS acquisition can be found on SAM.gov.

72 Attachment D-1

2.0

SCOPE

Paragraph

4 "Are we to assume that tasks listed as Core Services are services/contracts/task orders currently being done by and for NASA?” The tasks listed to write about in the technical are not all the same as the Core Services.

Refer to Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, for more information.

Provision F.6.1 paragragh (e)(2)(i) supports core and IDIQ requirements.

73 Draft RFP Attach ment D-

1 PWS,

Attach ment D- 1A Banding Levels

4.2.1.5, 4.3.4

All Attachment D-1A indicates that PWS 4.2.1.5 and 4.3.4 are "Core Services." But Attachment D-1 does not indicate that these PWS sections are core. Can NASA please clarify what PWS sections are Core Services?"

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

74 Attachment D-1

Banding does not precisely align with the core PWS services.

Will NASA review the bands to be sure they are provided for all core services?

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

75 Attachment D-1

3.1.19 iSite

8141 Can isite be customized and expanded within the current license agreement?

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

76 Attachment D-1

3.1.19 iSite

8141 Does NASA have a timeline or expectations of when iSite will be implemented at all Centers? Will it be operational at all locations at contract start?

Yes, iSite will be able to support all centers/locations at contract start.

77 iSite references PWS Section 6. There is not Section 6. The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

78 Attachment D-1

Will NASA provide information regarding the preferred/in use work task request and tracking system for each center? Will nasa provide information about current licensing agreements that are available so it is not redundantly included in the offerors pricing.

Refer to Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, section 3.1.19. iSite is a Government-furnished system.

79 Attachment D-1 Performance Work Statement

3 3.1.2 6 PWS 3/1/2 states "Develop, implement, and maintain continuous improvement processes to increase efficiency and effectiveness and streamline work processes in accordance with DRD 011-QAM, Continuous Improvement Plan.

Attachment D-2 indicates that DRD 011-QAM is the Performance Assessment Report. Can NASA please clarify the PWS 3.1.2 requirement?

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

80 Attachment D-1 Performance Work Statement

3 3.2.2.a 12 This PWS paragraph refers to PWS 6.2. The current PWS ends at 5.3. Can NASA please clarify this PWS requirement?

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

81 PWS

4.1.2;

4.2.3;

4.2.2.3

There appears to be overlap between the eMITS and NCS contracts. How would we address the overlap in scope in the areas of exhibits, speakers bureau and events?

Refer to Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, for NCS requirements. Information regarding eMITS requirements can be found on SAM.gov.

82 PWS

4.1.1.2

Does eMITS create communication products and services for NASA overall? Which contract, eMITS or NCS, is responsible for creating content?

See response to question 81.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

83 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

NASA

Integrat ed Strategi c Commu nication s

4.1.1 16 It may be helpful to note what "Government-identified strategic research and analysis data" will be available to contractors.

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

84 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

NASA

Integrat ed Strategi c Commu nication s

4.1.1.1 16 It would be useful to know what is mean by "support" here. No further information will be provided. It is the responsibility of prospective offerors to clearly and fully demonstrate its understanding of requirements and propose an approach to effectively and efficiently accomplish those requirements.

85 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

Commu nication Strategy

4.1.2.1 17 It would be helpful to understand what is mean by each of these tasks: researching, planning, implementing, and evaluating. For example, the kinds of research that might be conducted, the kinds of tasks that fall into planning and implementing, and how evaluation typically takes place.

See response to question 84.

86 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

Commu nication Strategy

4.1.2.2 17 It would be helpful to understand what is meant by "strategic communications processes"

See response to question 84.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

87 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

Strategi c Researc h and Analysi s

4.1.3 18 It is unclear what is meant by "collective internal and external environments." It would be helpful to understand if this is audiences only or also market research and internal audits for example.

See response to question 84.

88 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

Strategi c Researc h and Analysi s

4.1.3.4 d 18 It is unclear what is meant by "regular environmental characterizations" within the context of this section.

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

89 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

NASA

Style and Graphic s Standar ds

4.1.10 25 It would be helpful to understand the relationship the contractor will have with existing communications functions with the Agency and what types of materials outside contractor communiations plans that the contractor will be responsible for.

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

90 COMMUNI

CATIONS

TECHNICA

L

REQUIRE

MENTS

NASA

Style and Graphic s Standar ds

4.1.10.4 26 It would be helpful to understand the exact purview of this task and whether it is for all partnerships or just those that fall under the communications described by this RFP.

The solicitation will remain unchanged. Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, section 4.1.10.4 is not limited to partnerships.

91 4.1.11 Supplemental strategic communication services - what does that look like in reality – example?

See response to question 84.

92 Will partners and allies be specified in 4.2.1? No.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

93 What is the relationship with “NASA Speaker’s Bureau” (4.2.2.6-4.2.2.8) Clarify – what does that mean?

The solicitation has been updated to clarify. Refer to Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, section 4.2.2.3. PWS sections 4.2.2.7 and 4.2.2.8, as referenced in the question, do not exist.

94 Public tours – which tours? How much script work for those?

Modification of existing or new scripts? PWS 4.2.2.9

Public tours are part of the IDIQ work scope.

Specific requirements for public tours will be defined in the request(s) for task plan(s) (refer to clause B.8.2 NFS 1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedure-Alternate

II).

95 Attachment D-1

4.2.2.5.

36 The exhibits function appears in the NCS and eMITS PWS.

Can NASA clarify the roles of each contract PWS?

See response to question 81.

96 Attachment D-1

4.5 Library Services

4.5 Gen

eral

Will vendors be responsible for the development of the NASA Digital Library Portal under this contract?

No.

97 Attachment D-1

4.5 Gen

eral

This section speaks of a "NASA Library" while there multiple separate libraries currently managed separately. Does the government anticipate separate task orders for the individual libraries or will they be rolled into one task order?

The Government has not determined the approach.

98 Attachment D-1

4.5 Library Services

4.5.1.6 54 This section number is repeated twice. The solicitation has been updated to correct error.

99 Attachment D-1

4.5 Library Services

4.5.1.6 54 Will the vendor be responsible for paying for subscriptions and other purchases on behalf of the government? If so, will the Government be providing an estiamted annual cost for all acquisitions and subscriptions based on historic levels?

No.

100 Attachment D-1

5.1 59 Will NASA allow SME categories to be added to meet this section? The current structure of the RFP would mean when special reports or supplemental products are required the only labor categories and prices are those included in the table.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

Without additional SME labor category and rates it is difficult to provide the requested products for NASA.

101 Attachment D-1A

The banding levels show a high and low value. What is the intent of each? Is it reasonable to presume the offeror should propose staffing to meet the high level of services? What is expected if these levels are not reached or exceeded?

The banding levels provided in Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, is for information purposes only to assist prospective offerors in gauging the volume of core services that may occur in various areas of the Performance Work Statement during contract performance. However, the information provided in Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, is not to be construed as a limit or guarantee of future work or the actual or estimated volume of core services required, nor is it representative of an obligation or commitment of the Government. Attachment D-1A and other supplemental information provided in the attachment and NCS Bidders Library is not intended to be a comprehensive representation of all work performed by the contractor. It is the responsibility of the offeror to understand requirements and propose adequate resources to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Attachment D-1A has been updated to revise ranges or bands, and to provide additional information where applicable.

102 Attachment D-1A

N/A General N/A Can the Government please provide an explanation of the term "Annual Banding Levels" as used to describe estimated service levels?

See response to question 101.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

103 Attachment D-1A

N/A General N/A The Government provides an "estiamted annual range (Low/High # of products) for the core tasks. Can the government provide more detail as "product" is a generic term and the referenced task areas. This increases the risk that offerors will be unable to properly staff the projects.

See response to question 101.

104 Attachment D-1A

N/A General N/A Will the Government provide historic staffing levels for the core service areas?

Yes, refer to bidder's library "Other Resources" tab for historical WYE information for core services.

Also see response to question 101.

105 Attachment D-1A

N/A On-Ramp Waterfall Chart

5 This list excludes multiple existing NASA contracts that would logically be included due to task areas, especially for the various NASA libraries. Does the Government anticipate that all NASA libraries (excluding the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) will be migrated to this contract vehicle?

Library services are not part of the Core Services, and have been excluded from Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels. All NASA libraries will be supported under NCS via IDIQ (excluding Jet Propulsion Laboratory and White Sands Test Facility).

106 Attachments Portfolio

Attach ment D- 1A On Ramp waterfal l chart last page

With regards to staffing and considering the on ramp waterfall chart, is it the intent that incumbent capture be a high priority as work transistions from each of the existing contracts to the NCS contract?

Refer to provision F.6.1 paragraph (e)(2)(ii). It is the responsibility of the Offeror to propose an approach that reflects a clear understanding of requirements and how to effectively and efficiently accomplish those requirements including full explanations of the resources necessary to perform as proposed.

107 Attachment D-1A

Banding for

PWS

4.3.4

Many of the band levels list for PWS 4.3.4 contain very large variations. Sometimes as much a a factor of 10 (SRACES 590- 5950). Can the government give some indication of what may cause this swing or clarify what is considered a "band"?

Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, has been updated to clarify.

108 Attachment D-1A

Banding for Core Functio n 4.1.1

The list of bands does not include a band estimate for 4.1.1 NISCP. Can the government give some indication of the required banding for this requirement?

Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, has been updated to clarify.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

109 Attachment D-1A

N/A N/A All Should we assume all contracts listed in D-1A are going to come under NCS or are only some of these contracts going to come out under NCS? Are contracts listed as "Civil Servant" being completed by NASA employees and are they going to stay that way? Are any of these contracts going to come out under eMITS?

Attachment D-1A, Core Services Estimated Annual Banding Levels, identifies select requirements from existing contracts that will be incorporated into the NCS contract. Portions identified as Civil Servant will be performed by a Civil Servant. Information regarding the eMITS acquisition can be found on SAM.gov.

110 Attachment D-1A

N/A N/A All It is our understanding that the Core Services for the contract will be a FFP. Although the government provided attachment D-1A Core Services, we don’t believe we have enough information to price. Which will make it difficult for the government to compare price proposals. The work products vary widely in scope so just having a quantity of products is not enough, we would need visibility to the type of product and the location where they are produced. For core service Contracts the products are provided but its difficult to determine LOE. We need more specifications on FTE, Labor Hours.

Refer to bidder's library for historical WYE information for core services. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to clearly and fully demonstrate its understanding of requirements. See response to question 101.

111 Attachment D-2 Data Requirement s

DRD -

014-

YAM

11 34 DRD 014-YAM Reprocurement Data Package indicates first submission is 30 days after contract award. Is this the correct initial submission date?

The solicitation has been updated to correct the error.

112 Attachment D-6, Standard Labor Categories

N/A General N/A Based on our incumbency at NASA for some of the work to be consolidated, the list provided here is missing some important labor categories. Are offerors permitted to propose additional labor categories?

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

113 Attachment D-6, Standard Labor Categories

N/A General N/A We note that for Library and Archival services, only degreed, professional labor categories are provided. To provide the most efficient and effective services possible, our experience has shown that paraprofessionals (library technicians, clerks, aides) are essential. We strongly recommend adding these additional labor categories or permitting vendors to propose them.

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

114 Attachment D-6

N/A N/A All Does the government expect each position to be at each location? Which positions will be offsite? Which positions will be onsite and at which facility?

The Government cannot predetermine the classification to be performed at each location.

Therefore, onsite pricing for all labor classifications for all locations is required, except as provided in Attachment F-4, NCS Price Proposal Template, where the offeror may determine the work location consistent with its approach. Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, has been updated to address teleworking.

115 How much executive speech writing will be needed? Does it warrant a speech writer Labor category?

Executive communications are part of the IDIQ work scope. Specific requirements will be defined in the request(s) for task plan(s) (refer to clause B.8.2 NFS 1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedure-Alternate II).

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

116 Attachement D-7 Wage Deterination s

All All All Will offerors propose which labor categories would be subject to the Service Contract Act?

Yes, refer to Attachment F-4, NCS Price Proposal Template.

117 Attachment D-8 and

PWS 3.2.2

paragraph f.

paragra ph f.

Provide a copy of Collective Bargaining Agreement s (CBA), if any,…

PWS

Page of

Identification of the labor categories that are currently covered under a CBA and their corresponding tasks is needed to ensure adherence to this requirement.

Collective bargaining agreements have been uploaded to the bidders library. Collectively bargained wage rates and fringe benefits will follow identifiable contract work under the NCS contract. It is the responsibility of the offeror to map classifications subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute to the government provided labor categories.

NCS 80KSC022R0012 Enclosure 2

118 Attachment F - Price Form

Will NASA consider the addition on and off site rates to improve pricing accuracy?

Onsite pricing for all labor classifications for all locations is required, except as provided in Attachment F-4, NCS Price Proposal Template, where the offeror may determine the work location consistent with its approach. Attachment D-1, Performance Work Statement, has been updated to address teleworking.

119 Attachment

F-4 NCS

Price Proposal Template

Labor Rates

(FY 23)

Tab: Labor Rates

(GFY 23)

N/A Considering the follow on contract with be fixed price (Draft RFP, B.1, pg 7), NCS should consider removing the requirement for providing fringe benefits/profit on each labor category.

The solicitation will remain unchanged.

120 Request/Sug gestion paragra ph f.

Provide a copy of Collective Bargaining Agreement s (CBA), if any,…

PWS

Page of

Since Volume 5 is to be delivered in MS Word format and includes contract fill-ins - will NASA consider providing this portion in Word format with the RFP to avoid errrors and inconsistencies that could be introduced when converting a PDF to Word during the creation of Volume 5?

The solicitation has been updated to clarify.

121 Attachment

D-17 IDIQ

Rates

All tabs All tabs

The Government lists…