NAMS-2 Q and A - 80ARC024R0003.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted Dec 6, 2023

Attached to: NASA Academic Mission Services 2 (NAMS-2) - Request for Proposal Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: 80ARC024R0003
Issued by: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 21, 2023

This request for proposal solicits offers to provide NASA Academic Mission Services 2 (NAMS-2). The solicitation requires support services across several core technology areas including air traffic management research, advanced technological systems, nanoelectronics and devices, advanced software for digital twin systems, quantum computing technology, and artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data mining. Offerors must propose their own staffing plans, labor categories, and pricing to support the requirements defined in the performance work statement. Proposals are due by the specified date, and the agency intends to award a single indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with both cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price task order types for a base period of 24 months and two 12-month option periods. The solicitation is designated as a small business set-aside.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to NASA Academic Mission Services 2 (NAMS-2) - Request for Proposal, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
1. 80ARC024R0003 Amendment 1- SF30.pdf	PDF	Jan 10, 2024
80ARC024R0003 NAMS-2 Q and A - Posted with Amendment 1.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 10, 2024
2. 80ARC024R0003 Amendment 1 - J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook - Amendment 1.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 10, 2024
3. 80ARC024R0003 Amendment 1 - J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions.pdf	PDF	Jan 10, 2024
15. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 7 - Past Performance Relevency Matrix.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 6, 2023
10. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
9. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 6, 2023
6. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 4 - Installation Acctountable Government Property.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
14. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 6 - Past Performance Questionaire.docx	DOCX document	Dec 6, 2023
12. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 4 - FORM CASB-CMF.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
7. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 5 - Technical Reference Documents.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
2. Final 80ARC024R0003 - SF33 - Request for Proposal.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
1. Final Request For Proposal (RFP) Cover Letter.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
13. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 5 - DD Form 1861.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
4. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 2 - CDRL.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
11. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(b) Att. 3 - SF1408 Preaward Survey.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
8. Final 80ARC0240003 - J.1(a) Att. 6 - Government Furnished Software.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
5. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 3 - Government-Furnished Property List.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023
3. Final 80ARC024R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf	PDF	Dec 6, 2023

Show all 19

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

	Question/ Comment #	Document Name and/or Attachment Number	Page #	Section	Paragraph Title
(e.g. clause/provision #)	Question-Please note that questions such "Can you clarify section B, clause XX, paragraph XX, etc. will not be answered. All questions shall specifically state what is it that you don’t understand about a specific area.	Response
	1	Request for Proposal	M-1 to M-9	M	Mission Suitability	The PWS makes mention of "Academic Methods", however Section M has no mention of it. How will NASA evaluate an offerors plans, strategies, and/or approaches to carrying out this requirement?	The Mission Suitability evaluation criteria in sections L&M remains unchanged.
	2	Performance Work Statement	All	PWS	Requirements	The name of the soliciation is NASA Academic Mission Services. The PWS makes mention of "Academic Methods" How will NASA evaluate an offerors plans, strategies, and/or approaches to carrying out this requirement?	The Mission Suitability evaluation criteria in sections L&M remains unchanged.
	3	Request for Proposal	M-1 to M-9	M	Mission Suitability	What are the requirements associated with Academic engagement? How will NASA evaluate an offerors plans to meet the requirements associated with Academic Methods?	The Mission Suitability evaluation criteria in sections L&M remains unchanged.
	4	Request for Proposal			Mission Suitability	Will NASA employ the use of oral presentations to evaluate an offferors abilty to carry out the scope of requirments?	No, proposal instructions remain unchanged.
	5	CDRL	3 and 4	Introduction	Introduction, Items 4 and 5	Paragraph 4 under the Data Type Descriptions indicates that the S&H Plan shall be incorporated into the contract if determined to be acceptable by Code QH. However, paragraph 5 in the same list indicates that the S&H Plan shall not be incorporated into the contract. Please deconflict these two statements	The information in the introduction is a key for the different data types. The data type applicable to each data deliverable is located in Block 3. of the DRD. In this case, the DRD for the S&H Plan is designated as Data Type 5 and will not be incorporated into the contract.
	6	CDRL	32	DRD No.: 13	DRD 13	States, "The Contractor shall submit a Phase-in Plan with the proposal that describes all milestones and associated dates that will be completed to enable contractors to perform full contract performance by the end of phase-in." Section L does not require a phase-in plan. Where is the plan supposed to be included? Is it subject to page limitations?	The Phase-in DRD No. 13 has been updated in te final RFP to revise the initial submission date to "within 7 calendar days after the first day of phase-in".
	7	Request for Proposal	I-4 and L-1	Cost/Price Volume	52.222-2 PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS. (JUL 1990)
52.237-10 IDENTIFICATION OF UNCOMPENSATED OVERTIME. (MAR 2015)	Is it the Government's expectation that Offerors are bidding straight time only and no Overtime or Uncompensated Overtime?	Offerors shall bid straight time and in accordance with thier own estimating procedures.
	8	Request for Proposal	I-5	Section I - Contract Clauses	52.222-41 SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS. (AUG 2018)
52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES. (MAY 2014)	In accordance with FAR 52.222-42, will the Government please provide the Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires for the SCLS positions?	The NAMS-2 RFP does not anticipate any SCLS positions. Offerors should propose in accordance with thier own estimating procedures and identify all non-exempt labor cateogries being proposed. Offerors shall also provide the basis for the rate as well as the applicable wage determination.
	9	Request for Proposal	L-1	Cost/Price Volume	52.237-10 IDENTIFICATION OF UNCOMPENSATED OVERTIME. (MAR 2015)	In which section of the Cost/Price Volume should Offerors provide their Uncompensated Overtime Policy?	The section L.3C(1)(b) Cost/Price Proposal Instructions and Requirements.
	10	Request for Proposal	L-3	L	1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015)	The table beginning on page L.3 identifies the electronic format for each document, a mix of MS Word, PDF, and Excel. Given that PDF files have better portability and offer consistent view across platforms, we recommend that Offerors be allowed to submit all files other than the Cost-Price Workbook (Excel) in PDF format.	The electronic format is updated in the RFP to reflect the requirement for PDF files for all files other than those in MS Excel format.
	11	Request for Proposal	L-4 and L-5	L	1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015)	The Table for Volume III Past Performance says 10 pages* for the Past Performance Narrative. But the asterisk footnote on page L-5 says that "The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractors have up to 15 pages each for past performance submissions under Section L3B." Please confirm that 10 pages in the table is the correct page limit.	The RFP is updated to clarify that the page limit for past performance narrative is 15 pages. The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractors have up to 5 pages each for past performance submissions under section L.3B.
	12	Request for Proposal	L-11	L	L-1(6)	The DRFP states, "The Offeror shall not lock, or password protect any file. PDF documents must be submitted in Text Searchable Adobe Acrobat PDFs. All elements of the file must be searchable for text." Many graphics cannot be searched, such as screenshots. Is it acceptable for captions to be searchable rather than graphics?	Graphics, as defined as an image that is not predominately text, may have the captions as searchable. If the graphic is predominately text, the text must be searchable.
	13	Request for Proposal	L-14	L	L.2(a)(4)	Section L.2(a)(4) requires a completed response to Section I and cites FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business
Concerns. However, Section I does not include FAR 52.219-4. Please confirm that FAR 52.219-4 is not applicable considering this procurement is a Small Business set-aside and not a HUBZone Small Business set aside	The RFP is updated to included FAR 52.219-4 as the prescription requires use in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition.
	14	Request for Proposal	L-25	L.B.1	B – PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME III) INSTRUCTIONS	In Section L.3.B.1, the draft RFP requires three recent past performance contract references, each with a value of $30,000,000+ for the Prime Offeror. Given that this is a small-business contract, this threshold may preclude well-qualified prospective offerors from providing suitable evidence of their relevant past performances, which would help the Government make a more-informed evaluation and promote competition amongst a greater number of qualified vendors. Would the Government consider a threshold of $20,000,000? For reference, two recent large NASA procurements had a smaller threshold or no threshold at all: Aircraft Systems and Spaceflight Engineering Support Services (ASSESS) and Research, Science, and Engineering Services (RSES). Both were competed under the same small business NAICS code (541715). The very comparable in size ASSESS had a past performance threshold of $20,000,000 and the much larger (~$1.5B) RSES did not have a threshold value for past performance references/contracts. We believe that a lower past performance threshold will enhance competition and provide NASA with a more thorough understanding of industry capabilities. Thank you for your consideration.	The dollar value for the Prime has been changed in the RFP.
	15	Request for Proposal	L-25	L	L.3.B	The DRFP states, "In order for a past performance contract reference to be considered recent, it shall be completed no more than three (3) years prior to the proposal due date under this RFP or must be on-going for at least one (1) full calendar year prior to the proposal due date under this RFP." If the offeror has a past performance citation that has a completed award fee period (6 months), would the Government be willing to relax the one (1) full calendar year requirement to six (6) months?	No, the past performance recency requirements remain as stated.
	16	Request for Proposal	L-30	L	L.3.C.2 and J.1(b)_Att_1_-_Cost-Price_Template_Workbook	Under the paragraph titled Core Contract Management (CLINs 0002, 0005, and 0007), the RFP indicates that "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours required to meet the requirements of the solicitation." If offerors propose labor categories that differ from those listed in Exhibit 1-7, are they limited to use only labor categories contained in Attachment 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications? If an offeror proposes different labor categories, how will the Government evaluate the adequacy of those labor categories to fulfill the NAMS-2 requirements? Recommend having all offerors price the same staffing profiles and hours, for proposal purposes only, to facilitate the Government's evaluation and avoid scenarios where the inherent uncertainty in the technical requirements of the PWS make it difficult to complete a quantitative cost realism analysis.	The data provided in the DRFP for the Contract Management CLINs is informational to show funtionality of the workbook and will not be included in the Final RFP. The Government intends for each Offeror to propose its own labor categories and hours for the Core Contract Management CLINs that it needs to successfully perform its proposed approach to perform the Contract Management Reuirements in the PWS. Per the RFP, "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours required to meet the requirements of the solicitation." Offerors shall include those labor categories and element of cost data in Exhibit 1-7."
	17	Cost-Price Template Workbook	L-30 and J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook	2.NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions
Tab 1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt.	Core Contract Management (CLINs 0002, 0005, and 0007	The Cost/Price template provided is already populated with labor categories and hours; however, the instructions state "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours." The Instruction on Tab 1-1 Instructions states, "c. 1-4 Core Contract Management: The Offerors shall complete all sections highlighted in GREEN with your most favorable pricing for each line item. The evaluated price for the Core Contract Management is auto-calculated and offerors shall not adjust the estimated hours included." QUESTION: Are the labor categories and hours in the Cost/Price template reflective of the current work being performed? Are you expecting offerors the propose their own skill mix and level of effort based on the solicitation documents?	The data provided in the DRFP for the Contract Management CLINs is informational to show funtionality of the workbook and will not be included in the Final RFP. The Government intends for each Offeror to propose its own labor categories and hours for the Core Contract Management CLINs that it needs to successfully perform its proposed approach to perform the Contract Management Reuirements in the PWS. Per the RFP, "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours required to meet the requirements of the solicitation." Offerors shall include those labor categories and element of cost data in Exhibit 1-7."
	18	Cost-Price Template Workbook	L-30 and J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook	2.NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions
Tab 1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt.	Core Contract Management (CLINs 0002, 0005, and 0007	The Cost/Price template is populated with labor categories and hours for "Core Contract Management" for Site Manager (ST), Contracts Manager, and Human Resources Manager in Base Period Year 1 CLIN 0002 that exceed one Work Year Equivalent (1860) by 480 hours. Is this intentional or should the extra 480 hours per position be deleted or included on the 1-2 Phase-In Tab? Additionally, the Administrative Assistant hours in Year 1 are 420 hours more than in Year 2. Is this intentional or should the extra 420 hours be deleted or included on the 1-2 Phase-In Tab?	The data provided in the DRFP for the Contract Management CLINs is informational to show funtionality of the workbook and will not be included in the Final RFP. The Government intends for each Offeror to propose its own labor categories and hours for the Core Contract Management CLINs that it needs to successfully perform its proposed approach to perform the Contract Management Reuirements in the PWS. Per the RFP, "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours required to meet the requirements of the solicitation." Offerors shall include those labor categories and element of cost data in Exhibit 1-7."
	19	Request for Proposal	L-30, L-31	L	L.3.C.2	Given that the Government cannot guarantee the estimated quantities of person-hours shown for individual labor categories for Core Technical Requirements (CLINs 0003, 0006, and 0008) and for IDIQ CPFF Task Orders (CLIN 0004), how does the Government intend to accurately evaluate cost realism if all offerors can adjust staffing profiles and hours? We recommend that for proposal purposes only, the Government require all offerors to price the same staffing profiles as included in the "1-5 CPFF Core Technical" and "1-6 CPFF IDIQ" tabs in the Cost/Price Template Workbook. If all offerors price the same staffing profiles, this will facilitate the Government's evaluation and avoid scenarios where the inherent uncertainty in the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) makes it difficult to complete a quantitative cost realism analysis.	The instructions (Tab 1-1) in J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook state that the offeror shall not adjust the estimated hours which includes the labor categories assigned ot the hours for propsing to Core Technical and IDIQ CLINS.
	20	Request for Proposal	L-31	L	L.3.C.2 and J.1(b)_Att_1_-_Cost-Price_Template_Workbook and Attachment 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications	Under the paragraph titled CPFF Labor Rate Build-Up, the instructions for Tab 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up require offerors to provide unburdened direct labor rates. Tab 1-7 includes a list of 28 labor categories. However, that list of labor categories is slightly different than the list of 28 labor categories included in Attachment 2 - NAMS-2 Labor Category Descriptions/Qualifications. Specifically, the following labor categories appear to align, but the naming is slightly different. Will the Government please confirm if these are the same labor categories and which name is correct?
	Tab 1-7 of J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook and the NAMS-2 Labor category Descriptions/Qualifications are updated in the RFP for consistency between the documents.
	21	Request for Proposal	L-31	2.NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions	Direct Labor	Will the Government please provide the name of the salary survey and the percentile range(s) they have selected from the "readily available market data" being used for cost analysis?	The Government will not be providing market data in the RFP. Offerors are to propose in accordance with thier own estimating procedures.
	22	Request for Proposal	L-31	2.NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions	Direct Labor	Will the Government please provide the historical direct labor rates for the incumbent staff for Calendar Year 2023?	The Government will not be providing historical direct labor rates.
	23	Request for Proposal	L-31	2.NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions	Direct Labor	Will the Government please provide a list of all current SCLS applicable labor categories and the length of service so that fringe costs can be adequately estimated? Per the wage determination, paid time off (PTO) allowances are based on length of service; without these data we cannot accurately determine proper fringe costs.	The NAMS-2 RFP does not anticipate any SCLS positions. Offerors should propose in accordance with thier own estimating procedures and identify all non-exempt labor cateogries being proposed. Offerors shall also provide the basis for the rate as well as the applicable wage determination.
	24	Request for Proposal	L-32	2.NAMS-2 Pricing Instructions	Escalation	What is the Government using as the methodology for the "readily available escalation data" for cost analysis? Please provide the referenced source.	The Government will not be providing market data in the RFP. Offerors are to propose in accordance with their own estimating procedures. Cost Realism methodolgy can be found in FAR 15.404-1(d).
	25	Request for Proposal	M-7	M	M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (VOLUME III) EVALUATION	The third paragraph under this clause identifies a "recent" contract as one completed no more than three years prior to the proposal due date or ongoing for at least one full calendar year prior to the proposal due date. The next sentence, however, refers to contracts completed more than five years prior to the proposal due date. Please deconflict the apparent discrepancy to three years versus five years.	The RFP is updated to clarify that the requirement is three years, not five.
	26	Request for Proposal	M-10 and M-11	M	M.5 and J.1(b)_Att_1_-_Cost-Price_Template_Workbook	Under the fourth paragraph under M.5, it lists the elements included in calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and does NOT include the price of the option to extend services. On page M-11, the methodology does include the option to extend services. Will the Government please clarify what will be included in the Total Evaluated Price? We recommend that the Cost-Price Template be updated to reflect the Total Evaluated Price for ease of evaluation.	The RFP is updated to clarify that the evaluated prices for Core Contract Management, Core Technical ATM Research, and IDIQ with CPFF Task Orders include the option to extend services evaluated amounts in accordance with section M,4
	27	Cost-Price Template Workbook			1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up (Column D header)	The 1-7 CPFF Labor Rate Build-up Tab, Column D header lists CBAs. Are there any applicable CBAs for this effort?	Each individual offeror may or may not have CBAs with thier workforce. J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook Tab 1-7 only needs to be documented for CBAs if an offeror has an existing CBA and its the basis of thier direct labor rate.The current NAMS contract does not have CBAs.
	28	Request for Proposal	1	Cover Letter	First paragraph, second sentence	Comment: The sentence reads: "The principal purpose of this requirement is to provide support to NASA ARC in the performance of aeronautics and technology mission objectives, particularly the improvement of aircraft and airspace safety as well as the transition of advanced aeronautics technologies into future air vehicles."

Question: How important are the academic methods from SOW 4.1 to this principal purpose?	The Mission Suitability evaluation criteria in sections L&M remains unchanged.
	29	Request for Proposal	F-2	F.4	PLACE OF PERFORMANCE - SERVICES	Question: What percentage of the current NAMS workforce is physically on-site full-time?	The onsite requirements are based on the requirement and the offerors policies. In accordance with the RFP, the Contractor shall perform the work under this contract at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-0001 and at other locations as directed in writing by the Contracting Officer.
	30	Request for Proposal	F-2	F.4	PLACE OF PERFORMANCE - SERVICES	Question: What are the current work rules at Ames Research Center regarding working remotely?	The onsite requirements are based on the requirement and the offerors policies. In accordance with the RFP, the Contractor shall perform the work under this contract at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-0001 and at other locations as directed in writing by the Contracting Officer.
	31	Request for Proposal	L-21	L.3 A. (ii)	Technical Understanding	Comment: the paragraph reads, in part: "Offerors are advised that the following two Sample Task Orders (STO) are representative of typical task order requirements under this contract." Only one sample task is included.

Question: Is there a second sample task, and if so, where is it?	The RFP is updated to clarify that there is only one Sample Task Order.
	32	Request for Proposal	L-25	L.3 B-PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME III) INSTRUCTIONS 1.	Paragraph 1.	Questions: Should the three contracts referenced for the Prime Offeror be prime contracts only rather than subcontracts since prime contracts include contract management?	No, there is no requirement for past performance references proposed by Prime Offerors to be for prime contracts, only. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.4 of the RFP which states that the Government will then determine the degree of relevance of the contract based on size, content and complexity. This requirement will remain unchanged in the Final RFP
	33	Performance Work Statement	L-25	L.3 B-PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME III) INSTRUCTIONS 1.	Paragraph 1.	Question: Can contracts cited by Major Subcontractors include prime contracts and subcontracts?	Yes, major subcontracts may submit past performance references for contracts where it performed as a prime contract and a subcontractor.
	34	Request for Proposal	L-25	L.3 B-PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME III) INSTRUCTIONS 1.	Paragraph 1.	Comment: Section L says relevant contracts should be completed no more than 3 years ago, whereas Section M reads, "A “recent” contract is a contract that is completed no more than three years prior to the proposal due date under this RFP or must be ongoing for at least for at least one full calendar year prior to the proposal due date stated in this RFP. Contracts completed more than five years prior to the proposal due date under this solicitation or which have not been on-going for at least one full calendar year will not be considered recent and therefore will not be evaluated."

Question: Why is 5 years referenced in the second sentence? We agree that 3 years is the appropriate time span since the pace technology changes rapidly in correlation to your scope.	The RFP is updated to clarify that the requirement is three years, not five.
	35	Labor Category Descriptions-Qualifications	1	Site Manager	Description/Responsibilities	Comment: the requirement reads, in part: "Sets policies and makes decisions guiding productivity, quality, and cost efficiency of plant operations. Directs, manages, and optimizes the overall operations of one or more plants or other production facilities."

Question: Please define "plant operations" as it relates to the NAMS 2 scope of work.	The reference to plant operations is removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement in the Final RFP.
	36	Request for Proposal	M-7	M.4	paragraph 5	Question: Should the $30,000,000 value be an annual value rather than a "total contract value"? For a contract with a ceiling value of $124M, contracts worth a quarter of that value do not seem especially relevant.	No, the value is not annual. For a Prime Offeror’s individual past performance contract reference to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must have a total contract value equal to or greater than $30,000,000.
	37	Request for Proposal	M-7	M.4	paragraph 5	Question: Will prime contracts cited by potential prime offers be rated more favorably than subcontracts since prime contracts require contract management, whereas subcontracts do not?	Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.4 of the RFP which states that the Government will then determine the degree of relevance of the contract based on size, content and complexity.
	38	Request for Proposal	M-7	M.3	(c)	Question: Since the majority of the personnel expected to perform core services for NAMS 2 are already supporting NAMS, should Management Approach be worth more points than Technical Understanding since a major discriminator between offerors will be how these people are managed?	Point allocations between Management Approach and Technical Understanding will remain as-is.
	39	Request for Proposal	M-7	M.3	(c)	Question: Since there is only one Sample Task Order for Technical Understanding, should Technical Understanding's assigned weight be less than the Management Approach, which has several components?	Point allocations between Management Approach and Technical Understanding will remain as-is.
	40	Request for Proposal	M-11	M.6	Phase-in (CLIN 001)	Question: Would the Government please provide a plug number for phase-in or exclude phase-in costs from the evaluation? Including phase-in costs provides members of the incumbent team a pricing advantage.	The instructions in J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook require the Offeror's most favorable pricing for Phase-In. No plug numbers will be provided. In accordance with section M.5 of the RFP, Phase-in is included in the total evaluated price.
	41	Request for Proposal	M-11	M.6	Unbalanced Pricing	Question: Would proposing Phase-in costs for CLIN 001 at no cost or at an unrealistically low cost be an example of a significantly understated cost that could result in a proposal being rejected?	Offerors should provide enough rationale and documentation to support their proposed prices.
	42	Request for Proposal	M-12	M.6	N/A	Question: Who are the members of the Source Evaluation Board, and who is the Source Selection Authority?	The Source Evaluation Board and Source Selection Authority will not be provided.
	43	CDRL	J.1(a), Att. 2 – Page 32	DRD Title: Phase-in Plan	Initial Submission: At proposal submission	Question: Where in the RFP response should the offeror's Phase-In Plan be included?	The Phase-in DRD No. 13 has been updated in te final RFP to revise the initial submission date to "within 7 calendar days after the first day of phase-in".
	44	Installation Accountable Government Property (IAGP)	1	N/A	N/A	Question: Which of the equipment listed is allocated for employees working remotely?	All NAMS-2 contractor employees will be provided a standard laptop, associated periphals, necessary software. Other devices such as cell-phones and hot spot devices are provided only if necessary on a case by case basis.
	45	Installation Accountable Government Property (IAGP)	1	N/A	N/A	Question: Is the equipment on this list assigned to employees on an individual basis?	The RFP is updated. Yes, equipment on the list will be assigned to employees on an individual basis.
	46	Installation Accountable Government Property (IAGP)	1	N/A	N/A	Question: Which devices are accessed by multiple employees?	Equipment listed on the Installation Accountable Government Property (IAGP) list is assigned to a individual users.
	47	Installation Accountable Government Property (IAGP)	1	N/A	N/A	Question: Do any employees have access to multiple devices? If so, which ones?	All NAMS-2 contractor employees will be provided a standard laptop, associated periphals, necessary software. Other devices such as cell-phones and hot spot devices are provided only if necessary on a case by case basis.
	48	Performance Work Statement	10	3.2	Core Technology Area Requirements: Air Traffic Management Research	Question: What is the average spending for the core requirements for the past 3 years for the current NAMS contract? Since the current incumbent is ineligible to serve as prime for NAMS 2, it is important for the competitive field to understand the spending for the current contract.	J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains the estimated hours and labor categories for the Core Technical requirements.
	49	Performance Work Statement	18	4.3	Advanced Technological Systems (ATS)	Question: What is the average spending for Advanced Technological Systems for the past 3 years for the current NAMS contract?	The J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains the estimated hours and labor categories for the IDIQ requirements.
	50	Performance Work Statement	18	4.3	Advanced Technological Systems (ATS)	Question: What are examples of some of the deliverables for Advanced Technological Systems under the current NAMS contract?	All currently known data deliverables are defined in the CDRL document, Final 80ARC023R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 2 - CDRL. Any deliverables related to the IDIQ portion will be defined in future task orders.
	51	Performance Work Statement	18	4.4	Nanoelectronics and Devices	Question: What is the average spending for Nanoelectronics and Devices for the past 3 years for the current NAMS contract?	J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains the estimated hours and labor categories for the IDIQ requirements.
	52	Performance Work Statement	18	4.4	Nanoelectronics and Devices	Question: What are examples of some of the deliverables for Nanoelectronics and Devices under the current NAMS contract?	All currently known data deliverables are defined in the CDRL document, Final 80ARC023R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 2 - CDRL. Any deliverables related to the IDIQ portion will be defined in future task orders.
	53	Performance Work Statement	19	4.5	Advanced Software for Digital Twin Systems	Question: What is the average spending for Advanced Software for Digital Twin Systems for the past 3 years for the current NAMS contract?	J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains the estimated hours and labor categories for the IDIQ requirements.
	54	Performance Work Statement	19	4.5	Advanced Software for Digital Twin Systems	Question: What are examples of some of the deliverables for Advanced Software for Digital Twin Systems under the current NAMS contract?	All currently known data deliverables are defined in the CDRL document, Final 80ARC023R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 2 - CDRL. Any deliverables related to the IDIQ portion will be defined in future task orders.
	55	Performance Work Statement	19	4.6	Quantum Computing Technology	Question: What is the average spending for Quantum Computing Technology for the past 3 years for the current NAMS contract?	J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains the estimated hours and labor categories for the IDIQ requirements.
	56	Performance Work Statement	19	4.6	Quantum Computing Technology	Question: What are examples of some of the deliverables for Quantum Computing Technology under the current NAMS contract?	All currently known data deliverables are defined in the CDRL document, Final 80ARC023R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 2 - CDRL. Any deliverables related to the IDIQ portion will be defined in future task orders.
	57	Performance Work Statement	21	4.8	Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Data Mining	Question: What is the average spending for Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Data Mining for the past 3 years for the current NAMS contract?	J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains the estimated hours and labor categories for the IDIQ requirements.
	58	Performance Work Statement	21	4.8	Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Data Mining	Question: What are examples of some of the deliverables for Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Data Mining under the current NAMS contract?	All currently known data deliverables are defined in the CDRL document, Final 80ARC023R0003 - J.1(a) Att. 2 - CDRL. Any deliverables related to the IDIQ portion will be defined in future task orders.
	59	Performance Work Statement	16	4.1	Academic Methods	Question: On average, how many interns annually support the NAMS contract?	The requirement for providing interns is now managed on an Agency-wide contract and is not part of the NAMS-2 scope.
	60	Performance Work Statement	24	6.1	Acronyms	Question: The acronym NTX for the North Texas Research Station is listed in your acronym list but is mentioned nowhere else. Is the NTX expected to be part of NAMS 2? If so, which scope area is it under, how many people support that work, and what is the average annual spending for the past 3 years?	Removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Secction 6.1 Acronym list in the Final RFP.
	61	Performance Work Statement	24	6.1	Acronyms	Question: The acronym QAFS for the Quantum Annealing Feasibility Study is listed in your acronym list but is mentioned nowhere else. Is the QAFS expected to be part of NAMS 2? If so, which scope area is it under, how many people support that work, and what is the average annual spending for the past 3 years?	Removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Secction 6.1 Acronym list in the Final RFP.
	62	Performance Work Statement	24	6.1	Acronyms	Question: The acronym QuAIL for the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory is listed in your acronym list but is mentioned nowhere else. Is the QuAIL expected to be part of NAMS 2? If so, which scope area is it under, how many people support that facility, and what is the average annual spending for the past 3 years?	Removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Secction 6.1 Acronym list in the Final RFP.
	63	Performance Work Statement	24	6.1	Acronyms	Question: The acronym QAFS for the Quantum Annealing Feasibility Study is listed in your acronym list but is mentioned nowhere else. Is the QAFS expected to be part of NAMS 2? If so, which scope area is it under, how many people support that work, and what is the average annual spending for the past 3 years?	Removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Secction 6.1 Acronym list in the Final RFP.
	64	Performance Work Statement	24	6.1	Acronyms	Question: The acronym SAAM for the Scheduling Applications with Advanced Mixers is listed in your acronym list but is mentioned nowhere else. Is SAAM expected to be part of NAMS 2? If so, which scope area is it under, how many people support that work, and what is the average annual spending for the past 3 years?	Removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Secction 6.1 Acronym list in the Final RFP.
	65	Performance Work Statement	24	6.1	Acronyms	Question: The acronym TACP for the Transformative Aeronautical Concepts Program is listed in your acronym list but is mentioned nowhere else. Is the TACP expected to be part of NAMS 2? If so, which scope area is it under, how many people support that work, and what is the average annual spending for the past 3 years?	Removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Secction 6.1 Acronym list in the Final RFP.
	66	Performance Work Statement	5	3.1.1	Contract Management and Administration	Question: Can offerors operate their management systems behind NASA’s firewall and what types of interfaces are allowable?	The offeror's management systems will not operate behind NASA's firewall on NASA systems.
	67	Performance Work Statement	4	3	Core Requirements	Requirement: “The Contractor shall meet the requirements specified in this PWS in conformance with industry standards, equipment manufacturers’ recommendations …”
Question: Which equipment manufacturers does the current NAMS contractor work with and under what type of agreement?	Reference to equipment manufacturers recommendations is not applicable. Statement removed from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement in the Final RFP.
	68	Performance Work Statement	6	3.1.4	Contract Compliance, Quality Assurance, and Workforce Qualifications	Requirement: “The Contractor shall meet applicable directives to ensure that all foreign national visitors and all employees have completed the required background checks, approvals, and clearance requirements for access to worksites (e.g., NASA Ames Research Center).”
Question: How many foreign national visitors have supported the current NAMS contract, and have there been any issues?	The PWS has been updated to make it clear that it is the contractors decision to utilize support from foreign national employees and or visitors.
	69	Performance Work Statement	7	3.1.6	Travel	Questions: 1. Since travel costs vary wildly over time, making it hard to evaluate for reasonableness, will NASA provide a plug number for Travel? 2. How much international travel and to where has this occurred under the current NAMS contract?	Tab 1-11 of J.1(b) Att. 1 - Cost-Price Template Workbook contains estimated values for ODCs, including Travel for the Core Technical and IDIQ.
	70	Performance Work Statement	7	3.1.8	Resource Acquisitions	Question: Will NASA provide a plug number for contractors to “acquire resources not otherwise provided by the requesting organization …”?	No, Nasa will not provide plug numbers (e.g., labor hours, ODC, etc.) for the Core contract management CLINs.
	71	Performance Work Statement	10	3.2	Core Technology Area Requirements: Air Traffic Management Research (ATM)	Questions: 1. What is the current level of collaboration between the current NAMS contractor and the FAA? 2. What is the anticipated level of collaboration between the FAA and the NAMS 2 contractor? 3. Is the collaboration between the NAMS contractor currently or expected to be transactional?	The scope of NAMS-2 does not require any direct collaboration with the FAA. NASA collaborates with the FAA on various programs and projects and the contractor will support NASA's role in the collaboration.
	72	Performance Work Statement	11	3.2	Core Technology Area Requirements: Air Traffic Management Research (ATM)	Question: Are you currently working with a “committed airline service supplier” to develop a reference information of a digital information platform? If yes, who is the supplier? If not, do you have a supplier preference?	No, the Government works with all stakeholders to develop reference information for a digital platform.
	73	Performance Work Statement	22	5.1	Phase-in	Requirement: “The incoming contractor is responsible for providing a qualified contractor staff by the end of the phase-in period …”
Question: Is there a qualified contractor staff currently performing core and IDIQ services for NAMS? If so, is it NASA’s desire that members of the current staff be retained?	RFP L.3A(g)(i)(2)(a) includes the proposal instructions related to incumbant capture.
	74	Performance Work Statement	25	6.2	Applicable Documents	Question: We cannot access the following documents: APR 7170.1 Human Research Planning and Approval Guidelines and APD 4200.2 Equipment Management. Would you please provide those documents?	Removed APR 7170.1 and APD 4200.2 from J.1(a) Att. 1 - Performance Work Statement Section 6.2 Applicable Documents
	75	Cost-Price Template Workbook	Worksheets 1.9 and 1.10			Question: There are 8 fiscal years accounted for in this file. Given the 5-yr structure, should this two worksheets only require 6 fiscal years of cost information?	Offerors shall fill out the form as needed. Extra rows were provided to account for offerors unique fiscal years.
	76	Cost-Price Template Workbook	Worksheet 1.11			Question: Would the government please confirm that the "estimated amounts" column represents prescribed ODC amounts all Offerors will use?	The ODC amounts provided in worksheet 1.11 are the Government provided estimated ODC amounts.
	77	Request for Proposal	J-1	J.1(b) Attachment 3	SF1408 Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System	Question: Section J.1(b) states, "The following documents, exhibits, and attachments are included only in the solicitation." Is there a requirement for this attachment (Attachment 3) to be included with the proposal submission or will this be addressed only by the Offeror once an award decision is made?	The proposal instructions for the SF1408 are located in L.2(a)(6).
	78	Request for Proposal	G-3	Clause 1852.245-71	1852.245-71 Installation-Accountable Government Property (JUN 2018)	Question: Section (c) states, "The following property and services are provided if checked:", but then a list of 1-11 is provided with nothing checked. Can you clarify which items, if any, should be checked?	The selections for NFS 1852.245-71 are now clarified in the Final RFP.
	79	Request for Proposal	L-14	L.2(a)(6)	Status of Offeror's Management Systems	Question: In the case of an unpopulated joint venture (JV), should this information be provided for each of the JV members?	The information should be provided in accordance with the policies and agreements as established with the JV for the business systems proposed to be used on the contract.
	80	Request for Proposal	L-2	L	1852.228-80	Section L includes this provision: 1852.228-80 Insurance - Immunity from Tort Liability. Considering this is a provision in Section L of the Draft RFP, can Offeror's assume that this clause will not carry forward into the subsequent contract considering liability is already addressed in Section I with FAR clause 52.228-7 Insurance - Liability to Third Persons?	Yes, NFS 1852.228-80 is a provision only included in the solicitation.
	81	Request for Proposal	L-16	L.2(a)(7)	OCI Plan	The DRFP states the OCI Plan shall be included as a separate proposal attachment. Can the Government confirm if "separate proposal attachment" refers to a separate file or a separate element included in the same file as other Volume I material?	A separate element included in Volume I.
	82	Request for Proposal	M-3	M.2(a)	REVIEW OF THE OFFEROR’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS SUPPLY CHAIN	How long will the apparent successful offeror have to respond to the request made in accordance with NFS 1852.239-73?	Section M.2 states the information will be requested from the apparent successful offeror once selection is made, but prior to the contract award being made.
	83	Request for Proposal	I-30	I	1852.216-80 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE. (OCT 1996)	The fill-in related to the timeline for task plan responses (ref. paragraph (c)) is blank. Is the Government able to populate this paragraph or is the deadline expected to vary by request?	The RFP is updated to include the fill-in for the clause.
	84	Request for Proposal	L-30	L.3(C)(2)	Core Contract Management (CLINs 0002, 0005, and 0007)	The Core Contract Management (CLINs 0002, 0005, and 0007) paragraph contains an incomplete sentence. Can the Government update and/or provide confirmation that the first sentence should state, "NAMS-2 Cost/Price Template Workbook exhibit “1-4 CPFF Core Contract Mgmt.” provides the Government’s estimate of labor hours and labor categories needed to meet the solicitation’s requirements..."	The data provided in the DRFP for the Contract Management CLINs is informational to show funtionality of the workbook and will not be included in the Final RFP. The Government intends for each Offeror to propose its own labor categories and hours for the Core Contract Management CLINs that it needs to successfully perform its proposed approach to perform the Contract Management Reuirements in the PWS. Per the RFP, "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours required to meet the requirements of the solicitation." Offerors shall include those labor categories and element of cost data in Exhibit 1-7."
	85	Request for Proposal	L-30 and L-31	L.3(C)(2)	NAMS Pricing Instructions, Core Contract Management (CLINs 0002, 0005, and 0007)	Pricing instructions for CLINs 0003, 0004, 0006, and 0008 state, "The Labor Category titles used in this solicitation and table may not match the titles used by an Offeror. The Offeror may propose different labor categories; however, the Offeror shall clearly indicate its proposed differences and provide supporting written rationale for those."

This same language is not included in the instructions for CLINs 0002, 0005, 0007; is this intentional? Can NASA confirm if Offerors are able to propose different labor categories for the Core Contract Management CLINs within tab 1-4 of the Cost/Price Template Workbook?	The data provided in the DRFP for the Contract Management CLINs is informational to show funtionality of the workbook and will not be included in the Final RFP. The Government intends for each Offeror to propose its own labor categories and hours for the Core Contract Management CLINs that it needs to successfully perform its proposed approach to perform the Contract Management Reuirements in the PWS. Per the RFP, "Offerors shall propose their Core Contract Management labor categories and hours required to meet the requirements of the solicitation." Offerors shall include those labor categories and element of cost data in Exhibit 1-7."
	86	Request for Proposal	M-7	M.4	PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (VOLUME III) EVALUATION	The third paragraph of this section states, "A “recent” contract is a contract that is completed no more than three years prior to the proposal due date…". The next sentence then states, "Contracts completed more than five years prior to the proposal due date…will not be considered recent..."

Please confirm the second sentence should state three years instead of five years.	The RFP is updated to clarify that the requirement is three years, not five.
	87	Performance Work Statement	L-29 and L-33	L.3(C)(1) and L.3(C)(2)	Cost/Price Proposal Instructions and Requirements	Page L-29 states, "All Major Subcontractors shall provide a Cost/Price proposal using the subsequently specified format with the same level of detail as the Prime Offeror."

Page L-33 states, "If a Major subcontractor is proposing a non-cost type fixed rate contract (ex. FFP, T&M, etc.) with the prime Offeror, then the Offeror shall provide a copy of the subcontractor’s Cost/Price Volume/Quote to enable the Government to verify the proposed subcontractor’s fully loaded rates against the Offeror’s Cost/Price Template Workbook."

Can the statement on page L-29 be removed so as not to conflict with the guidance on page L-33 that only requires Major Subcontractors to submit a Cost/Price Volume with the same level of detail as the Prime in cases where that subcontractor is proposing a cost-plus type contact?	Final RFP will be corrected. The sentence in L-29 ""All Major Subcontractors shall provide a Cost/Price proposal using the subsequently specified format with the same level of detail as the Prime Offeror." was removed and offerors shall follow the instructions in L-33.
	88	Request for Proposal	L-4 and L-5	L	1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015)	Can NASA clarify the authorized page count for each past performance submission in the Past Performance Narrative of Volume III? The table on page L-4 states 10 Pages; however, the asterisk on page L-5 states, "15 pages each for past performance submissions under section L.3B."	The RFP is updated to clarify that the page limit for past performance narrative is 15 pages. The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractors have up to 5 pages each for past performance submissions under section L.3B.
	89	Request for Proposal	L-21	L.3A(g)(ii)	Technical Understanding	The requirements for the Technical Understanding state that there are two Sample Task Orders (STO); however, the section only includes one STO for Simulation of Advance Air Mobility and Legacy Aircraft Systems. Will the government be including a second STO, and if so, will that be provided to potential offerors prior to release of the Final RFP?	The RFP is updated to clarify that there is only one Sample Task Order.
	90	Request for Proposal	L-20	L.3(A)(i)(2)	Management Approach Subfactor, Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Training	Given that NASA will perform a cost realism analysis for Volume IV and that Offerors shall ensure the information submitted in Volume II is consistent with information
submitted in other volumes, it is recommended the Government modify the requirements for the Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Training component of the Management Approach subfactor in Volume II to ensure all Offerors provide a summary of their compensation approach and benefits packages that aligns with the indirect rate summary included in Volume IV. These cost elements have a significant impact on Offerors' overall proposed price as well as their ability to capture and retain incumbent contractor staff. It is in the Government's best interest to require all Offerors to address these topics directly.	NASA will not request additional information from Offerors regarding compensation approach and benefits package beyond what is already stated in the DRFP. FAR 52.222-46 is not applicable to this RFP.
	91	J.1(b) Att. 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire	Multiple	CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE	PERFORMANCE RATING	The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) seeks performance ratings in relation to the NAMS-2 Performance Work Statement requirements. Since cited contracts are unlikely to have an identical scope to NAMS-2, please confirm that areas with an 'N/A' performance rating will not be weighted negatively in the Past Performance confidence evaluation.	M.4 of the RFP states, "an offeror with favorable, recent, and relevant past performance that meets the total contract value requirements stated above may be considered more favorably than an offeror with no relevant past performance information."
	92	J.1(b) Att. 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire	9 of 13	CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE	#5	ATM Research is included in the NAMS-2 PWS as a Core Technology area requirement with separate research areas for UAM Airspace, Autonomous Piloted Aircraft Operations, More Collaborative Traffic Management, and Development of a Digital Transformation of the NAS. The current structure of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) includes a single rating that encompasses all of these areas under the ATM Research Core Technology area.

In order to ensure that NASA can appropriately evaluate offeror capabilities in these areas and enable a best value determination, we recommend the PPQ include separate ratings for each of the individual research areas under the ATM Research Core Technology Area. It is also recommended to update the requirements of the Past Performance volume accordingly.

The Past Performance Questionnaire will remain as-is.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Dec 6, 2023.