GLOMAS GOV RESPONSES.pdf

Submitted Questions and Answers

GLObal Modeling and Assimilation Support

(GLOMAS)

Solicitation No. 80GSFC24R0036

October 2024

Questions Answers

Q1

The Draft RFP suggests that the Mission Suitability Volume response should only cover the subset to tasks listed in Section L10(d), specifically:

a.Atmospheric data assimila on system development and experimentation (Section II.1 of the SOW) b.Model development (Sec on II.7 of the SOW) c.GMAO Produc on Systems Development and Maintenance

(Section III.1 of the SOW) d.“Scenario #1” from the dra RFP on adding a modular ocean-only data assimilation component to the existing framework using the new coupled high-resolution atmosphere-ocean Nature Run.

We would like to confirm the GLOMAS contract scope will still cover all of the SOW elements, but for evaluation purposes NASA is only asking offerors to respond within their proposals on the subset of the SOW and Scenario 1, listed in Section L as specified above.

For evaluation purposes, the Government is requesting that the offeror provide a detailed narrative response demonstrating an understanding of each key functional requirement, anticipated task requirements, scenarios, and other areas specified in Section L.

However, the scope of the GLOMAS contract will cover all SOW elements specified in Attachment A.

Q2

Attachment H List+of+IAGP identifies 47 laptops the government will make available for contractor use on the contract. However, the GPM identifies ~60 FTEs. Will the government provide IAGP for all contractor staff, which will require additional IAGP beyond those items included in Attachment H?

The government will be providing IAGP for all contractor staff if necessary, whether for laptops or desktops, in addition to the IAGP list included in Attachment H.

Q3

The DRFP instructions require files submitted in PDF format to be compatible with Adobe Reader version DC or 2017. Given that the current version of Adobe Reader is version 24.3.20112.0, will the government consider updating the requirement to indicate compatibility with a more recent version of Adobe Reader?

The government will be adding language to the final RFP, which will state (compatible with Adobe Reader version DC, 2017, or later)

Q4

The DRFP instructions require files submitted in Excel format to be compatible with Excel 2016. Given that the current version of Excel is version 2408, will the government consider updating the requirement to indicate compatibility with a more recent version of Excel?

The government will be adding language to the final RFP, which will state (compatible with Excel 2016 or later)

Q5

The Page Limitations table lists the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) as being excluded from the page count but as part of the Mission Suitability Volume. However, the requirements for the TCP appear in the Cost Volume instructions. Please clarify in which Volume offerors should include the TCP

The government’s intention was not to include the TCP plan;

therefore, all requirements for the TCP have been removed from the final RFP. The mission suitability volume table will remove the Total Compensation Plan, and L.11(b)(14) will be removed. Both Exhibit 10a and Exhibit 10b will also be removed.

Q6 The table (L.8(b)(1)) shows that the Cover Page is excluded from page count for Volumes II and IV. Is it also excluded for Volume III Cost?

The cover page for Cost Volume III is excluded from the page count.

Q7

The table at L.8(b)(1) lists the Safety and Health Plan as part of Volume II and is excluded from the page count, but J.1 shows that the Safety and Health Plan is “Due 30 Days After Contract Award” and L.9(c)(8) states that it is due “within 30 days after contract award.” To streamline proposal development and evaluation processes, we recommend that the Plan be required following award.

The Safety and Health Plan will not be part of the evaluation criteria.

The government will be revising L.9(c)(8) from 'within 30 days after contract award' to '30 days after contract award' for consistency and clarity of intention.

Q8

The table at L.8(b)(1) lists a Small Business Subcontracting Plan History as part of Volume IV (Past Performance), but there is no description of this requirement in Section L.12. Because this solicitation is set aside for small business, we recommend that there not be a requirement for this history.

The government's intention is to set aside for small businesses;

therefore, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan history outlined in the table at L.8(b)(1) will be removed during the release of the final

RFP.

Q9

The table at L.8(b)(1) lists a Small Business Utilization Subfactor.

Because this is a small business set-aside contract, we recommend deleting this requirement. Furthermore, there are no instructions to this subfactor.

The government's intention is to set aside for small businesses;

therefore, the Small Business Utilization Subfactor outlined in the table at L.8(b)(1) will be removed during the release of the final RFP.

Q10

Offerors are required to provide the DUNS number of the contractor performing the work. Because the Government phased out DUNS numbers in favor of Unique Entity Identifiers (UEI), should Offerors identify UEIs rather than DUNS numbers?

The DUNS number will be replaced by the UEI, which can be obtained via SAM.gov. This decision aims to streamline the business identification process without relying on a third party, such as D&B.

Q11

The GPM includes hours under several labor categories that do not appear in the table of labor categories and position descriptions. 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 does not appear in the table of position descriptions. Please clarify.

According to the GPM, the position description for Scientist IV is on page 12, while the description for Software Engineer II is on page 13.

The GPM does not include offsite staffing for Software Engineer III;

however, the position description for this role can also be found on page 13.

Q12 Draft RFP, page L-10: For Offerors submitting the Standard Form 1408 prepared by a CPA, can the last audit be dated within the last 10 years?

Yes, an audit can be dated within the last 10 years. NASA will consider the audit timing and content in its evaluation.

Q13

Draft RFP, page L-14: The contractor responsibilities include “adoption of more advanced versions of the Community Radiative Transfer Model (CRTM)”. Could the Government clarify if this is just a generic guidance for adopting future/newer versions of CRTM or if it is referring to any specific advanced versions of the CRTM (while such information may not be available to non-incumbents)?

This request is generic guidance for the proposal to account for adopting and updating to the latest version of CRTM throughout the period of the contract.

Q14

Draft RFP, page L-30: Are recent customer evaluations required? Please confirm that CPARS are considered as a customer evaluation - “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)”

Any past performance information, whether from state government, corporate entities, or other sources, is highly encouraged. It is advised that, per FAR 13.305(a)(2)(iv), 'In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.' CPAR is considered past performance information. As for L.12(b), the government is requesting the completion of past performance questionnaires along with any additional documents if the offeror plans to submit their past performance information.

Q15

Draft RFP, page L-30: “List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default). Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers). Include contracts that were "descoped" by the customer because of performance or cost problems. (Excluded from the page limitation).” - Please confirm this item is not specific to each individual past performance project but pertains to all terminated contracts within the past 5 years.

The government is requesting offerors to submit 'all' contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past five years, along with the basis for termination (convenience or default).

Q16

The DRFP says “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 $1.5M that your company has had within the last 3 years of the RFP release date.

For the purposes of the Past Performance Volume, a proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $1.5M. The Offeror shall provide the information requested below for any significant subcontractor(s) for those similar efforts within the last 5 years of the RFP release date with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of at least 10% of the estimated average annual dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract.”

Because prime contractor past performance recency is 3 years, should the significant subcontractor past performance recency be also 3 years instead of 5 years. Note that Section M of the DRFP only mentions 3 years recency, independent of prime or significant subcontractor performance.

The 'recent' requirement outlined in Section M.4, paragraph 3, in addition to the past performance requirement specified in L.12 GSFC 52.215-230, will be revised to five years for both the prime offeror and significant subcontractors to allow flexibility. A 'recent' contract for the prime offeror is defined as a contract that is either ongoing or has been completed within the last five years prior to the issuance of this RFP. For any significant subcontractor(s), a 'recent' contract is defined as one that is ongoing or has been completed within the last five years. Contracts completed more than five years prior to the issuance of this RFP will not be considered recent and will not be evaluated.

Q17

Dra RFP: Please define what is considered a "prime offeror teaming arrangement."

Regarding the teaming agreement, it seems that the language used is from an outdated template. The government has decided to remove this language since we either have a joint venture, as discussed, or a prime/sub arrangement, which is addressed through instructions incorporated or referenced in the FAR.

Q18

Draft RFP, page L-35: “(c) The offeror shall submit all proposal files to: TBD. The Offeror shall follow instructions regarding proposal submission found at https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/other/EFSS-Box- Offeror-Proposal-SubmissionInstructions.pdf.”

The URL does not currently work. How can new vendors access the NASA's EFSS? Will the Government provide a user guide to access EFSS?

The link is active, but the period at the end of the word 'pdf' needs to be removed for it to function properly. The government plans to remove the period to minimize any confusion in the final RFP.

Q19

Dra RFP, page L-3: Sec on L.6 of the Dra RFP contains instructions for submittal of Government Property Management information but it does not specify which proposal volume/section to submit it in. The detailed Offer Volume instructions do not reference Section L.6. Please confirm whether Section L.6 needs to be addressed in the proposals and in which volume should it reside in?

Per section L.9(c) (8) (pg L-11), it states that the information regarding the Offeror’s government property management procedures required by these two provisions shall be included in the Offer volume.

Q20

Dra RFP, page B-5: On Page B-5 of the Dra RFP it is stated that the OCI Avoidance Plan should be submitted with the proposal. However, it does not state which volume it should be a part of. Please clarify whether the OCI Avoidance Plan should be an Appendix to the Offer Volume, or a standalone Plan/Document?

Please refer to Attachment J.1, ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI) DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION (DRD). In addition, the proposed OCI Plan is not page-limited and shall be included as a separate proposal attachment (Pg.L-39, Section L.15).

Q21

Dra RFP Sec on L – Past Performance Informa on: The DRFP requests this information "Average number of personnel on the contract per year and percent turnover of personnel per year." - Would the Government please clarify if the number of personnel and percentage turnover rate pertains to the offeror's portion of the contract?

The number of personnel and percentage turnover rate pertain to the Offeror's portion of the contract that the Offeror submits for their past performance.

Q22 Does the contractor have to provide on-site and off-site rates? The offeror should propose rates ( onsite and offsite) based on their approach to the scope of the work

Q23

The existing framework described in A.3 Scenario uses the MITgcm ocean modelThe weakly-coupled DA ecosystem being developed for the operational products rely on the JEDI framework which exclusively uses the MOM6 model. Is there a preferred model/approach by the government? Supporting multiple models might require different strategies in terms of technical aspects.

The MOM6/SOCA version with the GMAO coupled model has not yet been fully tested. Therefore, responders should assume that this version of the MITgcm (mentioned in the Scenario) is the nature run ocean model for this project. In addition, they should utilize Version 3 of the subseasonal to seasonal prediction system (for details see Hackert et al., 2023 -https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JC020 039)

Q24

Could the Government clarify the temporal scales on which this scenario should be addressed? The approach would be very different if the target of future observations to be evaluated in the OSSE framework were improvements in medium and long-range forecast, S2S, or a deeper understanding of interannual predictability.

This OSSE framework should address how ocean observations impact coupled forecasts on the weekly to subseasonal timescales.

Q25 Does the government want proposals to be in single column or can the contractor use two-column format and stay within the page count to respond?

There is no column format preference, as long as the proposal instructions are followed (e.g. page limits, margins, font sizes, etc.).

Q26

The Scenario description includes underlined, blue text that presumably was intended to be links to the Prive et al.

publication, the Nature Run documentation, and the NASA open science strategy and goals. But the DRFP document does not include links. Please clarify if these are intended to be links and, if so, please provide the links to the reference materials.

The scenario under section L.10(d), Subfactor A, A.3, will be updated to include the full URL link next to the text associated with the link.

Q27

Attachment B, Section 6: Please clarify the number of contract years (6) in Attachment B, Section 6 since the performance period is 5 years.

Under the incorporated FAR Clause 52.217-9, the government may extend services, if deemed necessary. Attachment B includes year 6 rates in the event that this clause will be invoked or if task orders require an extension.