FDSSIV_DRFP QAs.FINAL.pdf

No. Reference in DRFP Question Government Response

1 N/A

Regarding the TS/SCI facility clearance, does that have to reside with the Prime or can a Subcontractor hold the clearance and facilities? Additionally, if the Subcontractor can hold the clearance and facilities, can that work be done from locations like Chantilly, Colorado Springs, and El Segundo while we work on getting facilities near GSFC or would we need the facilities near GSFC on day 1 of the contract?

The Prime is required to have the Top Secret clearance.

2 N/A

Can a subcontractor be above/larger than the small business size standard?

Subcontracting cost are part of the receipts and employment and cannot be excluded from the size standard calculation.

3 DRFP L.29(b)(1), Page 129

Will the government add the "Enclosure EE, Contract Historical Data" to the Draft RFP documents?

Enclosure EE - Historical data has been posted to sam.gov.

DRFP L.29 (b)(6), Page 141 All Prime Offeror or JV Entity and JV partners shall complete Exhibit 3, Government Pricing Model by Elements of Cost.

DRFP Exhibit 3 heading has a check box for Significant Subcontractors. Are Significant Subcontractors required to complete Exhibit 3?

Significant Subcontractors are not required to complete Exhibit 3.

Per DRFP L. 29(b)(6) All Prime Offeror or JV Entity and JV partners shall complete Exhibit 3.

DRFP L.29 (b)(7), Page 141-142 For any significant subcontract that has a potential estimated value in excess of the threshold stated in Section (a) instructions above, BOEs must be provided by that significant subcontract following the above specified format and shall comply with the BOE page limitations set forth in the “Proposal Preparation—General Instructions” provision of this

RFP.

May offerors submit a combined BOE for the prime and significant subcontractors within one document?

No, BOE for the prime and significant subcontractors shall be submitted separately.

6 Cover Letter

For an unpopulated JV, would each partner company within the JV be separately responsible for the EEO clearance?

Yes, each partner within the JV are responsible for the EEO clearance.

RFP L.25 (b) (1), Page 111 Proposal Content and Page Limitations table

In the proposal content and page limitations table it is stated the Safety and Health Plan is excluded from page limitations.

However, on page 117, it is stated the Safety and Health Plan is due 30 days after contract award. Please confirm that the Safety and Health Plan is not due with the proposal submission and is due 30 days after contract award.

Safety and Health Plan is due 30 days after contract award.

Language will be removed from the proposal content and page limitations table.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 1

RFP L.25 (b) (1), Page 111 Proposal Content and Page Limitations table

In the proposal content and page limitations table it is stated the Small Business Utilization Subfactor is excluded from page limitations. However, there are no instructions/requirements for the submission of this subfactor and this is a total SB set-aside contract. Please confirm offerors do not need to submit Small Business Utilization Subfactor as part of the proposal.

The small business utilitization does not apply and that requirement will be removed from the Final RFP.

Section M, Subfactor A, A.3.1;

Page 155. “The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the staffing philosophy and the consistency of the Offeror’s specific adaptation of these principles in their mission Implementation."

Evaluation criteria for A.3.1 evaluates the consistency of the "specific adaptation of these principles in their mission implementation". This implies that the Offeror needs to describe their overall approach to mission implementation for Scenario 1. Please confirm that a specific approach to mission implementation is required to be provided to fairly and consistently evaluate offerors staffing philosophies.

Yes, the government confirms that a specific approach is required.

•Cover letter •DRFP F.2; Cover Letter(pg 7), DRFP F.2 (pg 28)

Cover letter: The anticipated contract award date is January 5, 2026, with a March 6, 2026 contract effective date.

Cover letter: Phase-in will be 60 days and will be performed under a separate Firm Fixed Price contractual vehicle F.2: The effective ordering period of this contract shall be for a period of 5 years from the contract effective date of TBD

Will the government confirm the POP for FDSS IV execution is as follows to ensure consistent POP assumptions across teams for pricing labor rates?

•Phase-in: 1/5/2026-3/5/2026

•CY1: 3/6/2026-3/5/2027

•CY2: 3/6/2027-3/5/2028

•CY3: 3/6/2028-3/5/2029

•CY4: 3/6/2029-3/5/2030

•CY5: 3/6/2030-3/5/2031

The anticpated POP is confirmed to be consistent with the dates provided.

DRFP L.29 (b)(12); Page 144 L.29(b)(12): Exhibits 8 and 8A shall be used to state the proposed price for the phase-in, which is expected to commence on or about March 1, 2025.

Will the government update the referenced Phase-in start date in section L.29 (b)(12) to be consistent with the contract period of performance referenced in the cover letter?

Yes, it will be updated to read as follows: "The Phase In start date states "on or about March 1, 2026" as an anticipated date and will remain unchanged.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 2

DRFP L.29 (b)(1), Page 133 Any Offeror proposing to use the incumbent workforce should review the incumbent labor rates provided in Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data, for those labor categories for which rates are provided, in order to better understand salary levels of the incumbent workforce. If the Offeror proposes direct labor rates for incumbent personnel that are lower than these provided rates, the Offeror should explain how they intend to attract and retain incumbent staff based on its Total Compensation Plan.

Will the government provide a mapping of the labor categories and rates included in Enclosure DD, Contract Historical Data to the GPM-specified Non-Management DL Position Descriptions included in Enclosure

CC?

The Government will provide mapping as Enclosure FF - Labor Category Mapping

DRFP M.3, Subfactor A, A.3.1, Page 154 The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the staffing philosophy and the consistency of the Offeror’s specific adaptation of these principles in their mission implementation

Please confirm that M.3, Subfactor A, A.3.1 evaluation criteria only apply to Scenario 1 and no “Staffing Philosophy” is required for Scenario 2.

Yes, the government confirms, and no Staffing Philosophy is required for Scenario 2.

Subfactor A, A.3 Scenarios, Page 122 Scenario A.3.1

The CLV has a launch date of September 5, 2025. This is before the award and start of FDSS IV. Does NASA intend to stay with this date? Suggest the launch date be adjusted to occur after contract start.

The CLV launch date will be changed to September 5, 2028.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 3

15 Subfactor A – Technical Approach, Page 153

The DRFP offers detailed evaluation criteria for the 3rd question in the first scenario (A.3.1) but appears absent of evaluation criteria for the remainder of A.3.1 and A.3.2. Would NASA provide detailed evaluation criteria for the remaining questions of both scenarios?

The Government has revised the language for section A.3 as follows and will be reflected in the final RFP.

A.3 – Scenarios The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to the questions specified in Section L.28, Subfactor A, paragraph Scenario A.3.1 and A.3.2 for effectiveness, and technical comprehensiveness and reasonableness, and cost efficiency. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proven efficiencies and/or innovative methodologies.

For Scenario A.3.1, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the staffing philosophy and the consistency of the Offeror’s specific adaptation of these principles in their mission implementation.

16 DRFP Exhibit 12

This solicitation is a small business set-aside. However, the government included Cost Exhibit 12 for Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals. There are no instructions to complete this exhibit in Section L.29. We request that the government remove Exhibit 12 in the Final

RFP.

Exhibit 12 will be removed from the final RFP.

17 L.23

In which Volume would the Government like us to include the OCI plan? As a non-page limited appendix to the Offer Volume?

The Offer Volume

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 4

18 Section L.28, B.7

Section L.28, B.7 has been updated to include the following new language that does not appear in other Code 500 RFPs:

"The offeror shall also provide strategy for matching staff with the six functional areas identified in the SOW (systems engineering, analysis, operations, software, infrastructure, and strategic initiatives) based on subject-matter expertise, educational background, and work experience."

Requiring the offeror to match staff with the six functional areas of the SOW and provide details on "subject-matter expertise, educational background, and work experience" as noted in B.7, allows the incumbent to use their current knowledge of the Task Order Staffing profiles that are approved by the government Task Monitors.

Will the government consider removing this special requirement from the FDSSIV RFP and align the Section L Staffing requirement to be consistent with recent Code 500 RFPs?

No, all Code 500 contracts are not the same. The language in the RFP will remain. It is important the offeror demonstrates they understand how the skills in each of the six areas have common and distinct characteristics.

19 L.28 (d) A.3.1

While the shift from RTOs to Scenarios in the technical volume is a postive step, Scenario 1 is still requesting specific information about labor competencies and certifications under the new "staffing philosophy" requirement. The incumbent would be uniquely suited to provide this using their current knowledge of the Task Order Staffing profiles that are approved by the government Task Monitors. Will the Government consider striking this question or modifying it to "How would an offeror ensure they provide appropriate and adequate staff" or "How the offeror ensures staff have the necessary skills for technical execution" similar to requirements used on other NASA RFPs?

No, the information stated under the scenarios remain the same.

L.28 (d) B.10

Please confirm that per the RFP instructions the response for position descriptions are provided within the unlimited cost volume narrative and not within the mission suitability volume?

The Government confirms position qualifications are to be provided within the unlimited cost volume.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 5

L.28 (d) B.11

We have noticed that GSFC has recently worked to reduce the burden on both the Government and Contractors by eliminating elements from proposal responses. For example, the ATMOS and GLOMAS proposals eliminated TCP and QAP plans and instead required them after award. Would the Government consider doing something similar for FDSS IV?

The government will remove the TCP plan, however the QAP will remain and will be received at the time of proposal.

L.30 (a)

Under information requested of the contractor for past performance, the government asks for the DUNS number of the contractor, is the UEI acceptable instead?

The Government will revise the language to accept UEI.

L.30 (b)

To reduce the burden on our customers, would the government accept any recent CPARs reports, provided in an appendix outside of page count, in lieu of a PPQ?

No, the government has access to the CPAR system and any required information. The past performance questionnaire provides additional information outside of the CPARs, as such the government will require that past performance questionnaires be submitted.

L.30 (a)

Typically GSFC requests Letters of consent from significant subcontractors to discuss past performance with the prime, does NASA require these letters for FDSS IV, and will they be outside of page limitations?

No, NASA does not require Letters of Consent from significant subcontractors.

L.28 (d)

Under Subfactor A Technical Approach, due to the volume of requirements within the entirety of the SOW, please confirm that offerors are to provide their understanding and approach to performing only the five critical SOW elements which have been highlighted vs. "all the elements" of the SOW? This would be consistent with recent procurements such as SESDA V.

The Government confirms that only five critical SOW elements are to be addressed and will be evaluated. However, offerors shall organize and accomplish all the elements in the SOW.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 6

L.28 Subfactor A and Subfactor B

Bidders on previous FDSS solicitations received weaknesses for incorrect use of NASA terminology and lack of understanding of NASA processes.

Will the government please provide, well before the final RFP, documentation on NASA systems, processes, etc. to enable a response that can demonstrate understanding of the environment?

Examples of documentation include systems architecture documentation, interface control documents, relevant processes and policies, the current state of systems and any transition or implementation plans, MOUs, and plans, tools and documents listed in current task order SOWs.

For instance, at the Industry Day, Conrad Schiff briefly displayed a "Readme file" listing resources and documents important to the environment. It was stated that only "some are publicly available". Since the government considers the list important, please provide the list and the items within it as part of the documentation requested.

Other examples include the Conjunction

All documentation will be posted to the elibrary. The "Readme file" is a guide to show what has been released in the elibrary by the elements of work.

M.3 (b)

Given the significant importance of incumbent capture and managing the risk of identifying and retaining staff on NASA GSFC contracts, would the government consider adjusting the allocation of points between Technical and Management, similar to the approach for scoring the recent ESES IV, OMES III, and ATMOS acquisitions? For instance, 400 points on Technical and 600 on Management.

No, the point allocation will remain at 550 for Technical Approach and 450 for Management Approach.

28 Section L Scenario A.3.2

The Section L requirement states: "As the contractor, you will be responsible for developing a framework that provides wrappers so that various flight dynamics tools can be integrated together in a coherent tool and the corresponding design methodology for creating design reference missions (DRMs). The generation of a DRM is done using a suite of tools with varying degrees of fidelity and speed". The government provided a list of six tools in the RFP Section L Scenario A.3.2.1. Will the government confirm if this list is an complete list of all tools currently used or is the list a sample of the tools? If the list is a sample of the tools, will the governmet provide an complete list of all tools used?

Yes, this is a complete list.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 7

29 Section L Scenario A.3.2

Will the government post system documentation and information on these tools in the Bidder's Library for all Offerors to use as source of information?

The Government will post all available documentation to the elibrary.

30 L.25 (b) (1) P111, L.25

The table that summarizes the proposal content on page 111 indicates that a small business utilization subfactor is outside of page count for mission suitability. As a small business set aside, is there still a requirement for small business utilization?

Small Business Utilitization Subfactor is not a requirement and will be removed in the final

RFP.

31 L.25 (b) (1) P111, L.26 (c)(9)

The table that summarizes the proposal content on page 111 indicates that the safety and health (S&H) plan is excluded from the page count of mission suitability, however in Section B it states that the S&H plan is due 30 days after award. Please confirm that the S&H is due 30 days after award.

Safety and Health Plan is due 30 days after award. Safety and Health Plan langauge will be removed from Mission Suitability Volume.

32 Section L Scenario A.3.1

What method is planned for how the Pebbles know where they are with respect to the hub spacecraft?

Section L Scenario A.3.1 Clearly states the "The Pebbles plan to use Two Line Elements (TLEs) for navigation while the hub spacecraft will utilize S-band for ground-based tracking and commanding." It is not stated that the Pebbles need to know where the hub spacecraft is.

33 Section L Scenario A.3.1

What is the lifetime of the mission, and how does it compare to the solar cycle?

This mission parameter will drive some assumptions.

This is not relevant to the requirments in the scenario. All pertient information is provided in the scenario and shall be addressed.

34 Section L Scenario A.3.1

What is the planned altitude range for spacecraft operation?

This is not relevant to the requirments in the scenario. All pertient information is provided in the scenario and shall be addressed.

35 Section L Scenario A.3.1

If power generated by solar power, how long can the spacecraft survive in orbital night?

This is not relevant to the requirments in the scenario. All pertient information is provided in the scenario and shall be addressed.

FDSS IV - Q&A Batch 1 Posting pg. 8