ETIS IV DRFP QA (3rd Batch).pdf

Environmental Test and Integration Services

(ETIS) IV

Draft Request for Proposal Questions and Answers (Q&A)

80GSFC24R0012

May 1, 2025

Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document were typed as they were submitted excluding contractor names.

1. Question: Will the Government please confirm that the March 2016 date on the cover of the enclosure is correct and that the contents of the enclosure date to March 2016?

Response: The March 2016 date on the cover letter was an inadvertent error. The Final RFP will provide an updated Enclosure CC - GPM Specified Non-Mgmt DL to correct this error in addition and to capturing revisions due to the decrease in ceiling from $329M to $163M as a result of the cancelling of programs.

2. Question: Can the Government please confirm these are the most up to date "Equivalent

Rates for Federal Hires?"

Response: The DRFP Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires reflected Calendar Year 2024. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Calendar Year 2025.

3. Question: What challenges or concerns do you have on the current contract that you would like to see addressed on ETIS IV?

Response: The current RFP was drafted in a manner that captures all challenges the Government would like to have address in ETIS IV.

4. Question: The scenario states, “Assume that there are insufficient in-house resources

(facilities and labor) to accommodate the needs of projects X, Y, and Z simultaneously.” What is the maximum capacity of the existing I&T facilities?

Response: The maximum capacity of the existing test facilities is based upon the number of projects utilizing the test facilities and the labor available to support those projects.

5. Question: If the hours specified for "Manufacturing Onsite" are specific to a certain set of "Groups of Employees" working the Contract (for example: the Advanced Manufacturing Group), will the Government specify which set of Groups are supported by "Manufacturing Onsite" GPM hours? Similarly, If the hours specified for "Onsite" are specific to a certain set of "Groups of Employees" working the Contract, will the Government specify which set of Groups are supported by "Manufacturing Onsite" GPM hours?

Response: The Final RFP will be updated to remove Manufacturing Onsite Table.

6. Question: Using a Productive Manyear of 1820, the hours specified in the GPM tables

(Onsite and Manufacturing Onsite) equal 269 FTEs (Full-time Equivalents) in Contract Year-1. Given the recent slight downsizing that we believe has occurred on ETIS III, isn't the current number of Non-Management FTEs lower? If so, does the Government expect the ETIS IV Offeror to increase manpower to around 269 FTE for the first contract year?

Response: Enclosure CC will be updated at Final RFP release and is only reflective of labor hours. This enclosure does not indicate a productive man year calculation. Please refer to Exhibit 9 with instructions for the offeror to provide their productive work year calculation.

7. Question: Enclosure CC includes a Drafter II however Enclosure CC does not include hours for pricing this position in the GPM. Please confirm that this position will not be priced in the GPM.

Response: The Final RFP will be updated to remove Drafter II from Enclosure CC.

8. Question: Enclosure CC includes a Janitor/Clean Room Assistant however

Enclsoure CC does not include hours for pricing this position in the GPM.

Please confirm that this position will not be priced in the GPM.

Response: The Final RFP will be updated to reflect hours associated with the Janitor/Clean Room Assistant in Enclosure CC.

9. Question: The table provided in this enclosure shows the positions of Administrative Assistant, Business Support Specialist, Network Administrator, and Principal Engineer as both Non-Union Exempt and Non-Union Non-Exempt with hourly rates the same for both categories. Please verify that this information is correct.

Response: Yes, this information is correct.

10. Question: M.4 (a) A.1 states, “The Government will evaluate the effectiveness, or innovative methodologies including the management area.” Does the Government plan to evaluate Subfactors A and B separately, or will they be evaluated together? Based on the language quoted above, the Offeror’s management approach for the Scenario will be an element of the overall Subfactor A evaluation. If a separate evaluation is intended, then there will be some redundancy across Offerors’ responses to each Subfactor. If management processes, tools, and approaches that will be used by Offerors in their Subfactor A solution can be referenced from Subfactor B’s more detailed management content, would the Government find that compliant and responsive, or would such referenced management content in Subfactor A be considered inadequate adversely impacting Subfactor A scoring/evaluation? Specific clarification on the evaluation approach will enable Offerors to better understand the Government’s evaluation intent for management content across the two relevant subfactors.

Response: Yes, the response to management areas in the Subfactor A Scenario may cross reference the management approach from Subfactor B.

11. Question: Enclosure EE provides historical labor and performance data. Does the Government expect Offerors to use this data as a benchmark for proposal pricing? Or are Offerors encouraged to develop their own cost structures independent of historical data?

Response: Please refer to the cost proposal instructions in cost provision L.30 (b)(1) paragraph one (1) for guidance related to Enclosure EE.

12. Question: L.22 (a) states, “The proposal shall include a total compensation plan.

This plan shall address all proposed labor categories, including those personnel subject to union agreements, the Service Contract Act, and those exempt from both of the above.” M.4 (B.9) states, “The Total Compensation Plan (TCP) required by NFS 1852.231-71 will be evaluated for adequacy, reasonableness, and effectiveness for obtaining and maintaining qualified personnel to meet contract requirements.”

Will the Government please clarify whether discrepancies between the compensation proposed for exempt and non-exempt employees could lead to a determination of unreasonableness? What level of variance would be acceptable?

Response: As stated, the proposed TCP will be evaluated for adequacy, reasonableness, and effectiveness for obtaining and maintaining qualified personnel to meet contract requirements. Hypothetical questions related to potential discrepancies or variances will not be addressed. The proposal should fully address the Offeror's TCP approach.

13. Question: This draft’s current small business size standard is 500 employees and

$15M. We have consulting services expertise in Validation, Engineering and Project Management. We are an EDWOSB, that possesses the skills and capabilities necessary to perform those stated requirements. We respectfully request consideration that a portion of this solicitation be set-aside for EDWOSB. If the opportunity presents itself to the Government and in accordance with the authority granted under

19.1506 for EDWOSB, authorized or required by statue we respectfully request for a noncompetitive procurement to our company as an EDWOSB

Response: The DRFP Cover letter inadvertently stated the following: "The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is 500 employees and $15M." The ETIS IV procurement is a full and open competition. The Final RFP cover letter will be updated to reflect a NAICS code of 541330 with a small business size standard of $25.5M.

14. Question: The Cover Letter states that the phase-in period is anticipated to be conducted

60 days prior to the assumed effective day of the contract which is stated as October 3, 2025. From this it is assumed that the phase-in period will commence on or about the indicated contract award date of August 1, 2025. However, Section L.30 (b)(12) Phase-In Plan states that the phase-in period is expected to commence on or about January 31, 2025.

Will the Government please confirm which date is the correct one?

Response: The Cover Letter/Phase-In Plan date referenced was incorrect, however the ETIS IV final RFP has been placed on hold until further notice while the Government reassess the current strategy.

15. Question: DRFP M.6 states, “As part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) to the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s) where the proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.” We recommend the following alternate language: Offerors which are subsidiaries or affiliates of other business entities may submit the past performance of such other business entities for consideration, but such past performance shall be considered only to the extent that the proposal clearly demonstrates that the resources (e.g., financial resources, overall oversight and management, or other resources) of the other companies will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract.

Response: The RFP will remain unchanged.

16. Question: During the ETIS IV Industry Day I&T Facility Tour, we did not see some test areas/systems. Based on our one-on-one discussion, we understand the Industry Day presentation does have system descriptions for the various flight hardware test systems, and that the presentation slides will be provided on SAM.gov. Will the Government also consider providing the offerors with data on age, condition, and any technical issues?

Response: The Government believes that it has provided all information regarding test areas/systems to allow all experienced Offerors within the Environmental Test and Integration Services Industry to provide a proposal on the ETIS IV requirement. As such, no additional data beyond the information already posted on SAM.gov within the ETIS IV SOW and from Industry Day shall be provided.

17. Question: The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) included with the dRFP ends in

September 2025. Does this current CBA provide hourly rate and benefit pricing for

FY2026?

Response: This is correct, as the current CBA provides hourly rate and benefit pricing through September 2025. Upon award of ETIS IV the current CBA will be utilized until the new contractor gets an updated CBA established.

18. Question: Can we get insight / details on what is required for the large companies to have in their small business set asides?

Response: ETIS IV is full and open competition; large companies based on the NAICS code will be required to submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 19.704.

19. Question: 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 $25M that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date. Would the Government consider a recency duration of 7 years for contracts references provided in the Past Performance response?

Unanticipated delays in the acquisition of the ETIS IV contract have prolonged the timeline, impacting the contract references industry partners would utilize in their ETIS IV proposals. Extending the reference period to a recency of seven years aligns with the previously anticipated timeline for ETIS IV, allowing all industry partners to use contract references that were originally planned for the acquisition.

Response: Yes, the Government will update the final RFP to allow Past Performance references to reflect a duration of 7 years.

20. Question: Can the Govt please share an Excel version of Exhibit 1A-1C?

Response: The Government will provide an Excel version of all cost exhibits in the Final

RFP.

21. Question: Will the government provide the attachment and/or link to OSHA's

Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSHA 29 CFR 1910) and OSHA's Safety and Health Regulations for Construction (OSHA 29 CFR 1926)?

Response: OSHA 29 CFR 1910: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910 OSHA 29 CFR 1926: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926

22. Question: The scenario states, “Assume that there are insufficient in-house resources

(facilities and labor) to accommodate the needs of projects X, Y, and Z simultaneously.” Will the Government provide details on the specific types of in-house resources (e.g., types of facilities or labor categories) that are insufficient? What is the maximum capacity of the existing I&T facilities? Will the Government confirm if any exceptions or waivers are required based on GSFC-STD-7000B regarding the allocation of in-house resources for specific tests in this scenario?

Response: The scenario enables offerors to assume the nature of the insufficiencies provided that they meet scenario requirements. As such, the specific types of insufficient in-house resources were intentionally not provided to provide each offeror the opportunity to propose as they saw fit based on the offeror's unique approach. The offeror shall determine what insufficient in-house resources are necessary to complete the scenario based on its understanding and approach to meeting the scenario requirements. Industry Day charts 26-34 provide the list of I&T test facilities available, which are posted on SAM.gov under Environmental Test and Integration Services (ETIS) IV Industry Day – Amendment 1. The maximum capacity of the existing test facilities is based upon the number of projects utilizing the test facilities and the labor available to support those projects. The eLibrary will be updated to include the Environmental Test and Integration Facilities Handbook which has additional information for the maximum capacity of the existing I&T facilities. For more information please visit:

https://environmentaltest.gsfc.nasa.gov/. The Government confirms there are no exceptions/waivers required, etc.

23. Question: L.31 (a), Pg 136, 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 $25M…" While M.6, Pg 148, states "For a prime contractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $22M." Is the prime contractor past performance citation reference threshold $25M annually as stated in L.31 or $22M annually as stated in M.6?

Response: We anticipate that the final RFP will reflect a maximum ordering value (ceiling) of $163M. As such, prime offerors shall furnish the information requested for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $7M. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $7M.

24. Question: What is the maximum ordering value?

Response: The anticipated maximum ordering value is $163M and will be updated in the final RFP.

25. Question: The Historical Rate table does not include historical DL rates for the labor categories (LCs) of Computer Programmer III, Computer Programmer IV, Designer III, Designer IV, Drafter II, and Janitor/Clean Room Assistant. If the current ETIS III contract utilizes these LC's, will the Government please provide the historical DL rates for these LC's?

Response: The Drafter Labor Category will be removed from Enclosure CC - GPM, thus there are no anticipated hours for this labor category. Employees who provided the functional support for the Computer Programmer IV, Designer III and Designer IV labor categories were captured in the Network Administrator, Engineer III or Engineer IV labor categories at the discretion of the current contractor. The Government provides historical data on labor categories utilized within the last twelve months for work completed by the Prime and Significant Subcontractor(s).

For any labor categories not provided in Enclosure EE - Contract Historical Data, it can be assumed that those labor categories were not utilized within the last twelve months or not performed by the Prime or Significant Subcontractor.

26. Question: Attachment N indicates that historical labor category descriptions and rates will be used for the follow-on solicitation. However, there seems to be a lack of specific labor categories and rate matrices in the documents reviewed thus far. To ensure accurate pricing, will the Government please provide more specific details about the labor categories that will apply to this new contract?

Response: Attachment N intentionally does not include labor category descriptions and rates. As this attachment serves as information and instructions for the ETIS IV successful offeror regarding notification that the successful contractor will be required to provide historical data that would be used if a competitive solicitation for follow-on to ETIS IV was to occur. Enclosure EE - Contract Historical Data provides the historical data information as it relates to the ETIS IV Solicitation.

27. Question: Enclosure FF provides detailed safety and health requirements, yet it is not clear whether specific certifications (e.g., OSHA VPP) are mandatory or optional. Will the Government please clarify which certifications are mandatory and must be provided with the initial proposal?

Response: OSHA VPP certification is not mandatory, however, compliance with all applicable OSHA and Federal and State regulations is required, including all NPR’s and GPR’s referenced in the RFP.

28. Question: Exhibit 12 provides a goal structure based on the IDIQ maximum ordering value. However, the dollar amounts for the goals are marked as “TBP” (to be provided).

When will specific subcontracting values be available for Offerors to incorporate into their small business plans?

Response: In Exhibit 12 the "TBP" is to be proposed. Please refer to L.29 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions, Subfactor C - Small Business Utilization (A) which provides instructions regarding subcontracting goals inclusive of the Contracting Officer's assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals (in percentages) for this acquisition.

29. Question: Please clarify if subcontractor teammates are required to submit a Total

Compensation Plan. If so, is a plan required from both minor and major subcontractors? If subcontractor plans are required, may they be directly submitted to the Government because of proprietary information?

Response: Yes, in accordance with L.30, B.14 FRINGE BENEFITS EXHIBITS (Total Compensation Plan) the Offeror and all Significant and Non-Significant service subcontractors meeting the definition in paragraph (d) of NFS provision 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, shall provide a detailed list of their fringe benefits and company estimated cost per hour, along with an itemization of the benefits that require employee contributions and the amount of that contribution as a percentage of the total cost of the benefits. Subcontractor plans may be directly submitted to the Government.