80AFRC21R0009P00001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

PAGE OF PAGES

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

FACILITY CODECODE

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and Zip Code)

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15A NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

is not

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by orletter provided electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible )

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) is extended, copies to issuing office.

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

1 1

P00001

NASA

Armstrong Flight Research Center P.O. Box 273, M/S 4811-140 Edwards CA 93523-0273

NASA

Armstrong Flight Research Center P.O. Box 273, M/S 4811-140 Edwards CA 93523-0273

X

80AFRC21R0009

02/23/2021

X X

See Continuation Sheet If Applicable appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

CHECK ONE

(X)

The purpose of this modification is to 1) provide answers to questions submitted from Industry day held on 10 Dec 2020; and 2) to extend the proposal response date as follows:

“Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically to the Contracting Officer James G. Williams (email: james.g.williams-1@nasa.gov) via the NASA Large File Transfer system no later than: 2:00 pm Pacific Time, 11 May 2021. Only electronic submitted proposals will be accepted. Offerors are required to submit a request for access to the Large File Transfer system no later than 1:00 pm Pacific Time, 04 May 2021. The request for access shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer via email.”

Potential Offerors shall monitor beta.SAM.gov for any amendments to this solicitation.

electronic communica ion, orlettereach

19 Mar 2021

Procurement

No. Question or Concern

Question 1 Are you going to post the list of questions that were asked during the Industry Day ahead of closing the official Q&A period?

Answer The closing date for the Q&A period was 16 Dec 2020 and it has passed.

Question 2

Page 40 ‐‐ Under the “Buy American” clauses of the RFP, if a US company has employees that do not reside in the USA and are not “US persons” can their labor be charged under the contract?

Answer Yes. When submitting these cost they have to be in US dollars.

Question 3 Where do we include fringe in the cost estimate?

Answer This decision is based on your established cost accounting procedures.

Question 4 What is the process for billing more frequently as a small business?

Answer Invoice submittal shall be based on the guidance of the payment clause of the contract.

Question 5

Can you define for us what’s allowable under cost share?

○ What categories: in‐kind, materials, test facili es, test aircra , employee compensation, real estate, etc.?

○ What me period: for example if the test equipment was purchased in 2018 but is being used for this project can that count towards the cost share?

○ What usage amount: for example if test equipment is used but not exclusively for the project, what fraction can be allocated to the project?

○ Are there other limita ons / requirements for the cost share?

Answer

The cost‐share can only include cost of performance of the contract. Reference NFS

1852.216‐73 (a) It is estimated that the total cost of performing the work under this contract will be $____;and NFS 1852.216‐73 (c) Costs contributed by the Contractor shall not be charged to the Government under any other grant, contract, or agreement

(including allocation to other grants, contracts, or agreements as part of an independent research and development program).

Question 6 DRD‐SE‐24 What is the method to establish “agreed upon file formats for other data” in advance of the proposal?

Answer

DRD SE‐24 has been renumbered to DRD SE‐07. The final file format for the DRD will be specified at solicitation release. Upon award, final file formats will be determined.

Question 7

DRD-PM-02 Is it possible for a small business to request some relief on the frequency of reporting on the IPMDAR to be quarterly or bi-monthly to reduce the overhead burden?

Answer

Monthly reporting is required. The Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis

Report (IPMDAR) contains data for measuring contractors' cost and schedule performance on NASA acquisition contracts. The IPMDAR is a direct reflection of the contractors’ program management.

Question 8 DRD‐PM‐02 Is it required for the contractor to use EVM to manage the program?

Answer

Title 48. Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 18. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Subchapter F. SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING, Part 1834. MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION, Subpart 1834.2. Earned Value Management

System, 1834.201 Policy, (a) NASA requires use of an Earned Value Management System

(EVMS) on contracts for development or production work, including development or production work for flight and ground support systems and components, prototypes, and institutional investments (facilities, IT infrastructure, etc.)

Question 9

The pre‐solicitation states that awards will include a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN as well as a Cost‐Share CLIN which includes a 50% Industry Contribution. A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract would be considered a FAR Part 15 Procurement contract in which FAR Cost

Principles apply to the transaction regarding allowability and allocability of IRAD. By definition in FAR 31.205‐18, “Independent Research and Development and Bid and

Proposal Costs” applies. This cost principle states that Independent Research and

Development (IR&D) “does not include the costs of effort sponsored by a grant or required in the performance of a contract”. If the IR&D project is required in the performance of a procurement contract as it would be for this effort, per FAR the projects cannot be cost classified as IR&D, as they are not “independent” of a contract or grant. Given this restriction on the use of IR&D on a FFP contract, would the Government allow the use of a SAA or OTA not governed by FAR 15, so that contractors can utilize

IR&D?

Answer

No the Government will not use a Space Act Agreement (SAA) or Other Transaction

Authority (OTA) for performance of this contract. A SAA or OTA is not applicable for this requirement. Based on NASA's research and understanding of the requirement it was determined that CLIN 0001 could be an FFP CLIN and CLIN 0002 could be a cost‐share

CLIN. CLIN 0001 does not require the use of IR&D funds and has no affect on the type of funds used by the Offeror under CLIN 0002. The contract is not a FFP contract, it is a

Hybrid contract. The contract type solicited is not a IR&D but a R&D where it is intended for all allocable, reasonable, and allowable cost associated with performance of the contract will be shared.

Question 10

Due to the significant economic downturn, there are significant financial challenges and constraints on investments making the 50% contribution extremely challenging. Would

NASA consider modifying the solicitation and allowing an Industry contribution of less than 50%?

Answer

NASA will consider this recommendation. Offerors shall also be aware that ultimately it is the Offeror's company and partners that will benefit from the award of one of these contracts. Any funding provided by NASA reduces the awardee's investment cost. The

Offeror's company has to make a determination of their potential investment and priority for the development of EPFD.

Question 11

Industry has made significant investments in this technology area that are critical to the success of this program. As industry brings the content of this contribution to the program, is there a way for it to be counted towards our cost share on this program?

Answer

No, only cost associated with the performance of the contract can be counted toward the cost share. The cost‐share can only include cost of performance of the contract.

Reference NFS 1852.216‐73 (a) It is estimated that the total cost of performing the work under this contract will be $____;and NFS 1852.216‐73 (c) Costs contributed by the

Contractor shall not be charged to the Government under any other grant, contract, or agreement (including allocation to other grants, contracts, or agreements as part of an independent research and development program)

Question 12

I listened to the presentations on Thursday and Friday of last week, and I was just wondering if the airplane itself needs to be a United States manufactured airplane or if the airplane could be built in another country?

Answer No, the type and manufacturing location for the aircraft to be used for the EPFD is not specified.

Question 13

DRD‐PM‐12 Can a small business request some relief on the monthly reporting requirement for the risk registry to be quarterly or bi‐monthly to reduce the overhead burden?

Answer No. The DRD details the reporting requirements and these requirements must be met.

Question 14 Would NASA consider a full proposal submittal on the due date, plus an optional task proposal at a later date?

Answer No, The Offeror shall comply with the solicitation requirements to be considered for award.

Question 15

Due to the number of documents expected to be released with the final solicitation and the potential release date of the solicitation as late as end of January per guidance from Industry Day, would NASA consider providing at least 60 days from release of RFP to submit proposal?

Answer NASA will consider this request.

Question 16

The FAR clause on this document does not match what is in draft RFP, which clause is intended? If Alt. II is to be used, will NASA accept the comprehensive Small Business Plan maintained by industry partners set forth in DFARS 252.219-7004

Answer The clause in the document is FAR Clause 52.219-9 which is the same clause listed on page 11 of the Draft RFP . DFAR clauses are not applicable to NASA.

Question 17 Please provide definition of project life cycle for cost sharing purposes. To confirm, CLIN 1001 is the intended start date for the 50% cost share for the total life cycle.

Answer CLIN 0002 is the start of the 50% cost share requirement of the contract.

Question 18 Please provide rationale for firm‐fixed price within the contemplated hybrid contract type?

The Contracting Officer does not agree with this assessment. Firm‐Fixed‐Price through CDR is the appropriate contract type for this requirement. It is the

Government's determination that the risk associated with the performance of

CLIN 0001 is not at a level that requires other than a firm‐fixed priced contract.

Question 19 Will the Q&A count towards the 3 hour limit?

Is there a limit to the number of presenters and attendees that can joint the oral presentation?

Will oral presentation slides count toward the 25 page limit?

Answer The 3 hour limit includes Q&A. There has not been a limit set on the number of attendees that can join the oral presentation. (Reference Final Solicitation for additional information and updates) Oral presentation slides will not count toward the 25‐page limit.

Question 20 Please confirm whether the detailed data specified for inclusion in the proposal by DRD documents should be incorporated into the proposal itself, or as supplemental materials.

Answer Submitted proposals shall follow the solicitation requirements.

Question 21 Engagement of small business depends on program maturity Answer Small business subcontracting will be based on FAR 52.219‐9 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan

Question 22 Will the scope of the initial contract award include spiral developments that extend into 2025?

Answer No. Any spiral development will be performed under a separate action.

Question 23 A selection of the entities competing for the potential future award have made significant investment in developing technology that would be part of the flight vehicle programs consistent with a '23‐'24 flight. As such, would the government consider government purpose rights/ specifically negotiated rights?

Answer NASA will follow the Data Rights outlined under FAR 52.227‐14 Rights in Data‐

General

Question 24 As to Distribution of documents: To confirm, the NASA roles identified are USG employees only – similar to DoD Distribution Statement B.

Answer NASA will follow the Data Rights outlined under FAR 52.227‐14 Rights in Data‐

General

Question 25 A number of the topics identified would likely be regarded as proprietary information by a potential awardee. This would require data rights dialogues;

non‐disclosure acknowledgement agreement from NASA.

Answer NASA will follow the Data Rights outlined under FAR 52.227‐14 Rights in Data‐

General

Programmatic

Question 1 DRD‐PM‐04 Can NASA provide a boilerplate WBS to be used in generating the contractor

WBS structure for the program?

Answer

NASA will not provide a boilerplate WBS. Every proposal is different and unique; therefore, proposer WBS reflects more accurately and specifically the definition and organization of the proposal. Proposer WBS captures the strength of the proposer’s approach and help with assigning responsibilities, resource allocation, monitoring the project, and controlling the project; furthermore, proposer’s WBS makes the deliverables more precise and concrete which allows for better cost and schedule estimating.

Question 2

DRD‐PM‐12 Can a small business request some relief on the monthly reporting requirement for the risk registry to be quarterly or bi‐monthly to reduce the overhead burden?

Answer No. The DRD details the reporting requirements and are these requirements must be met.

FYI this Risk Management DRD has been renumbered to be DRD‐PM‐10.

Question 3

DRD‐PM‐12, Risk Registry, Risk Information Sheet

○What does this mean?: “The risks shall provide logical linkage to IMS task(s) using the

Schedule Unique Identification Data (UID) of the risk information sheet.”

○What does it mean by Accept, Distribu on, and Data Prepara on Informa on?

Answer

Each task in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) should have a Schedule Unique ID (UID).

When considering a risk, you want to consider it's potential impact on the schedule not just by anticipating the delay, but by identifying the task/s within your IMS where that delay will occur (if possible). If you can anticipate which task/s will be impacted, their UIDs should be recorded on the risk information sheet. This simplifies any schedule analysis effort that includes risk like a Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA) or a Joint Confidence Level Analysis (JCL).

The Accept, Distribution and Data Preparation Information on the DRD Template are as follows: Accept: The data required in the DRD is delivered to NASA and NASA will accept upon review that it is providing the data requested in the appropriate form, fit and function per the Data Preparation Information specified in the body of the DRD.

Distribution: Identifies the NASA Project personnel that will receive/have access to the data required in the DRD.

Data Preparation Information: Describes the data specified and the required form, fit and function to be delivered as specified in this section of the DRD.

Question 4

DRD‐PM‐02, Integrated Program Management Data Analysis Report (IPMDAR)

○When is Authority to Proceed (ATP) expected rela ve to contract award?

○Do the Contract Performance Dataset JSON package and the "Alterna ve to IPMDAR

Submittals" provide the same value to NASA? Does NASA prefer one over the other?

Programmatic

ATP is expected in the 4Q of Fiscal Year 2021. Note that the Government Fiscal Year starts on Oct 1 and ends on Sep 30th.

If the Contractor meets the thresholds specified in the DRD PM‐03 EVM, a JSON package is required. The “Alternative” is provided, if the contractor system or processes are not capable of producing the Contract Performance Dataset (CPD) JSON package; therefore, if the contractor is capable of JSON package, the contractor shall submit JSON.

Question 5

Under the SRD, section 1.4, it states "Any changes after baseline will go through a Configuration Control Board review". Will the contractor be part of the Configuration Control Board?

Answer

The contractors will be invited to participate in any Engineering Review Board when technical topics of discussion could impact them, so they have an opportunity to asses and provide any impact. These will be inputs to the CCB process. IN addition, as part of the CCB, when the CR is created, there is also an opportunity for the contractors to add any impacts as part of the CR process.

Question 6 The timing of RFP submission does not align with availability of documents and quantity of requirements

Answer Project plans to release final DRDs and appropriate documents in early Feb, providing industry a short window for follow‐on questions and answers

Question 7 The timing of any potential award will be a driving factor in timeline to flight

Answer

NASA has targeted a first flight test window between Dec 2023 and August 2024.

Industry proposals should address feasibility to achieving first flight in this timeframe. NASA expects the flight test campaigns to be performed between Dec

2023 and no later than June 2025. It is anticipated that post flight evaluation and analysis will be conducted in the 4Q of FY25. The EPFD's Project completion date is

September 30th, 2025.

Question 8

Recognizing NASA would like to embrace existing industry best practices, which document(s) would NASA recommend industry modify to address those instances where industry procedures are planned for use in place of NASA procedures?

Answer

Industry should plan their project using their own best practices. Where standards, practices and procedures are lacking, they may develop their own, seek best practices from

NASA or other sources.

Systems Engineering

Question 1

Page 2 ‐‐ Is there a NASA definition of when CDR should occur in the program or is this to be defined by the contractor based on the workflow and progress towards flight demonstration cost?

Answer

We expect the contractor to define and explain as part of their systems engineering approach and processes, and their schedule, when they will be ready for the life cycle reviews such as PDR, CDR, based on the scope, objectives , criteria as defined in the reference document NPR 7123.1C. ; demonstrating as well on that schedule how the plans for those life cycle reviews supports readiness for flight demonstrations by 2025.

Question 2 Page 4, C.2.1.A: What do they mean by “supporting documentation”?

Answer

Section C.2.1.A refers to the requirement for the submittal of cost vouchers and must be followed for payment. The “Breakdown of billed labor costs and associated contractor generated supporting documentation for billed direct labor costs to include rates used and number of hours incurred.” This statement means that you must provide documentation to support the cost regarding labor and any other items identified on the voucher.

Question 3 What key decision points should be included in the program other than CDR?

Answer

There are the life cycle reviews, such as SRR, PDR, CDR. Please refer to NPR 7123.1c for all the life cycle reviews. The EPFD Project will also NASA programmatic reviews that will require inputs from the selected industry teams including IBR (Integrated Baseline Review), KDP‐C ( Authority to Proceed). Please refer to NPR 7120.5e for the EPFD Project Level

Programmatic Reviews.

Question 4

It is our understanding that the following DRD responses need to be included with the proposal. Are there others we need to submit?

○DRD‐PM‐02 Integrated Program Management Data Analysis Report (IPMDAR)

○DRD‐PM‐04 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS Dic onary DELETED?

○DRD‐PM‐05 Joint Confidence Level (JCL) Analysis Results and Inputs

○DRD‐PM‐10 Risk Exposure/Posture and Reserve (REPR) Report

○DRD‐PM‐11 Risk Management Plan (RMP)

○DRD‐PM‐12 Risk Registry, Risk Informa on Sheet

○DRD‐SE‐02EAP Regula ons and Standards Gap Analysis Document

○DRD‐SE‐03System and Subsystem Requirements Documents

○DRD‐TE‐02Capability and Technology Development Plan

○DRD‐SE‐06Airworthiness Approach, Airworthiness Plan and Airworthiness Data Products

○DRD‐TE‐03Data Management Plan (DMP)

DRD changes:

○DRD‐PM‐04 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS Dic onary DELETED. rolled into IMPDAR DRD ○DRD‐PM‐08 Risk Exposure/Posture and Reserve (REPR) Report‐ new number ○DRD‐PM‐09 Risk Management Plan (RMP)

○DRD‐PM‐12 Risk Registry, Risk Informa on Sheet‐ DELETED rolled into DRD PM-09 Renamed: DRD TE-03 to Data Requirements And Reporting Plan Additional DRDs due at proposal identified at the 12/10 Industry Day include: PM-01:

Insight Implementation Plan Since 12/16 Q&A: additional DRDs due at Proposal include:

DRD TE‐01: Vision Vehicle Description and Validation Report

DRD SM‐02: Safety and Mission Assurance Approach and Processes

DRD SM‐03: Hazard Analysis Products

DRD: SE‐01: Human Systems Integration Approach and Plan

DRD: SE‐04: Systems Engineering Approach and Processes

Question 5

Our planned EPFD program could contain multiple flight or ground demos that have different CDR dates. The CDR for the integrated flight demonstrator aircraft would be earlier than the MW Hybrid Electric Lab demo CDR. How would the difference in the CDR dates impact the switch from CLIN 0001 to CLIN 0002?

Answer CLIN 0001 is not broken into separate CDR's for subsystems. The project as a whole has to pass CDR prior to moving to CLIN 0002.

Question 6

SRD‐12 & section 2.1 of SRD indicate AFOP‐7900.3‐004 (in addition to DO‐160) as an applicable document for evaluating required environmental tests in support airworthiness. AFOP‐7900.3‐004 does not appear to be available in the public domain Answer The EPFD Project has identified compliance with DO‐160 is required.

Question 7

SRD‐13 "Structural Airworthiness Requirements" references AFG‐7123.1‐001

"Aircraft structural safety of flight guidelines" for guidance.

To confirm, AFG‐7123.1‐001 is intended as a general guidance document and industry can leverage internal structural design and analysis methods and demonstrate airworthiness that is tailorable to the application.

Are there any sections of AFG‐7123.1‐001 that must be complied with in all scenarios?

Answer The AFG‐7123.1‐001 will be made available as a reference, and is not a requirement.

As long as the industry partner develops a reasonable approach that results in an airworthy structure, they may use whatever standards they choose.

Question 8

DRD‐SE‐22 Option 4. states: NASA AFRC reviews and establishes airworthiness of the flight test aircraft per AFOP 7900.2‐0023 with the Independent Review

Board/Flight Readiness Review Board approach.

How will members be identified in order to best protect proprietary information?

Answer

Steve: SE‐22 has been renumbered to by DRD SE‐06. The Airworthiness DRD SE‐06 has been updated to provide guidance on how membership of the independent review board and flight readiness review board will be determined.

Question 9

DRD‐SE‐22 Option 3 includes review by NASA HQ IAOP to establish and airworthiness process in addition to a CAA experimental airworthiness or supplemental type certificate. 7900.3D Section 9.1.1.2 states IAOP reviews of CAS operators shall be funded by the project or program procuring the services.

Answer DRD SE‐22 has been renumbered to SE‐06. This option is not longer available per

NASA's Aircraft Management Division (AMD).

Question 10

DRD‐SE‐22 Option 1 indicates there may still be a requirement to have a NASA

Airworthiness and Flight Safety Review Board (AFSRB) review. (Option 2 highlights a contractual requirement)

What is the criteria through which NASA will determine if a NASA AFSRB review is required if the industry partner pursues Option 1?

If a review is needed, what "level of review" is envisioned (reference AFOP 7900.3‐

023 Section 5.1) for Option 1 and Option 2?

Answer DRD SE‐22 has been renumbered to SE‐06. Please read SE‐06 which describes the airworthiness and flight release process.

Technical

Question 1

Page 56 — Is “cross walk” the name of a specific type of figure?

○“The SOW’s traceability, alignment, and relevance to the four other mission suitability subfactors. Offeror shall provide a cross walk to show how the specific activities in the SOW address the other mission suitability subfactors.”

Answer A cross walk is a table that shows how the elements of the proposed SOW map to the four other mission suitability subfactors.

Question 2 Page 62 ‐‐ Does NASA define the barrier risks or does the contractor have ability to evaluate and define barrier risks?

Answer The contractor should define the barrier risks based on their vision vehicle. The barrier risks

NASA shared were simply for information purposes based on internal assessments.

Question 3 What is the definition of the “hybrid electric powertrain”

Answer A hybrid eclectic powertrain is a powertrain which use two types of energy storage, chemical in the form of fuel and an electrical energy storage method.

Question 4 How is altitude capability defined in the Key Performance Parameters? Is it altitude capability at any airspeed and weight combination?

Answer

It is a general indication of the altitude that the integrated MW‐class powertrain can operate at under the conditions expected in the Vision Vehicle defined by the proposing company.

Question 5

In the draft Statement of Objectives, the first sentence of Goal 2 and 3 are identical. Should

Goal 3 refer to flight testing and not ground testing? (i.e. “Conduct necessary flight demonstrations”)

Answer Thanks for reporting the error. The entire first sentence of Goal 3 will be replaced

Question 6

"Note that NASA will not be providing any hardware, and will not take possession of any hardware associated with the ground and flight demonstrations." Does this assume contractor would have title to hardware that was created/developed under the program?

Answer No. The solicitation and potential contract awarded will have clauses, as applicable, that will provide guidance on title ownership.

Question 7 Goal 2 and Goal 3 read the same. Assume Goal 3 should be "Flight test" rather than "Ground Test"?

Answer Thanks for reporting the error. The entire first sentence of Goal 3 will be replaced

Question 8 In the MOE document, for KPP-1 shown in table 5, is full success value shown based on a per-engine or per-aircraft level?

Answer KPP-1 is on a per aircraft basis.

Question 9 In the MOE document, for MOP-1 shown in table 6, is this a NASA program level or individual project level requirement?

Answer MOP-1 in table 6 is an EPFD project requirement not an individual contract level activity.

Question 10 In the MOE document, for TPM-5 shown in table7, Can the battery system be excluded from this specific power requirement? Batteries will be sized on energy not power.

As stated batteries are primarily sized based on energy. It is understood and acceptable that systems designed with a large amount of batteries won't meet this metric. The company should define the system boundary (in line with EPFD-02-06 EPFD Technical Measures of Effectiveness Figure 1)for their specific system in line with the example provided and project the expected performance for the proposed integrated MW-class powertrain system.

Question 11 In the MOE document, for TPM-5 shown in table7, what elements of the system are included in the Full Success value (1.25kW/kg)?

Answer The company should define the system boundary (in line with EPFD-02-06 EPFD Technical Measures of Effectiveness Figure 1) for their specific system of provided and project the expected performance for the proposed integrated MW-class powertrain system.

Question 12 Under the SRD, section 3.4, what is the success criteria for the thermal management system under DR-5?

Answer

The thermal management system must support the overall integrated MW class powertrain system that is proposed. There are not specific thermal success criteria, but the thermal system associated with the integrated MW-class powertrain is part of the overall metrics.

Reference in line with EPFD-02-06 EPFD Technical Measures of Effectiveness Figure 1.

Question 13 Under the SRD, section 3.4, what will be used to effectively measure success of DR-8 & DR- 9?

Answer

NASA will perform its own analysis based on data provided by the industry partners to determine if sufficient progress has been made to contribute to updated regulations/standards, and validation of NASA modelling tools. This will require NASA SMEs to proactively collaborate with industry throughout the execution of the project to ensure proper data are collected to meet these two driving requirements.

Question 14

EFPD flight test altitudes and Mach numbers should be representative of EAP vision vehicle. It is likely that flight demonstrators will not completely represent the vision product, rather, they will offer significant risk reduction for a future platform. As such would propose that altitude should be as representative as possible. Would also suggest that flying a representative electrical system does not require flying at the vision vehicle Mach number, which would drive unnecessary cost into proposals.

Answer

The separate definition of the Vision Vehicle and the flight test system are done intentionally to allow proposal to have a flight test configuration that is different from the Vision Vehicle and identify the progress made under the ground and flight test to retire the Vision Vehicle Barrier Technical Risks.

Question 15

SRD‐08 indicates that the electrified powertrain shall have the capability to demonstrate EAP during any phase of ground or flight operations that would be used for the vision vehicle (taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing)

Significant differences between Vision Vehicle and ground and flight test should be identified. Under EPFD the intent is to reach TRL6, not complete the TRL9 Vision

Vehicle product. The differences can be communicated through the projection and

TRL levels and barrier risk reduction through the lifecycle of the project.

Question 16 Please clarify the system boundary for the computation of KPP 1,2, 5, and 6 in tables

5 and 7 related to system power density.

Answer

The proposer should define the system boundary for their specific implementation with consideration of the example provided. For systems which use a significant amount of battery energy storage it is understood that the some metrics may not meet the objectives. Expected performance against the metrics should also be provided along with a brief explanation of the source of the difference between the expected performance and the NASA performance metric values.

Question 17 Tables 5 and 7 on MOE, please provide clarification on the meaning of KPP 1, 5 and

6 and what is intended to be included in those components.

Answer

1: Total power level means the sum of the powers of the individual electrical machines. For example if 5 electrical machines, each rated at 200kW in the system, the total power = 1MW

5: The specific power is the ratio of the total power/total mass of the elements included in the system boundary as defined by the proposer for their system.

6: The end to end losses are the total electrical losses / the total power level for the elements included in the system boundary as defined by the proposer for their system.

Question 18 Data management plans are typically developed under contract per the negotiated frequency of data delivery.

Answer

The DRD‐TE‐03 (Formerly SE‐24) was revised and a data management plan will be due after contract award; however, NASA is interested a preliminary data list to be collected as outlined in DRD TE‐03: Data Requirements, Management, and

Reporting.

Question 19

The Regulations and Standards Data Plan states the contractor "shall develop a design of experiments framework from which the data are justified for the applicable standard to be developed".

The implications of a "design of experiments" framework on the project's cost and schedule are challenging to anticipate at this phase of a program. This requirement may not be optimal/practical in all situations.

The proposed Response should clarify that NASA is not asking for a formal DOE, rather NASA is asking for an experimental framework that shows the path from gap to standard‐objective to data collection. And, again, NASA is not asking for the industry’s CERTIFICATION plan. NASA is instead asking for a clear path from prioritized regulatory‐standards gap to proposed standard to data that supports the standards gap. NASA is not implying anything more by “…shall develop a design of experiments framework from which the data are justified for the applicable standard to be developed…,” than the development of a data planning framework from which data are collected to support the development of a draft standards document. The data plan should show the applicable gap in regulations and/or standards, the proposed objective for a standard to close the gap, and proposed data and proposed test plan to collect the data and assess it to address the proposed objective.

Question 20

The Regulations and Standards Development Plan (Baseline) shall "document the plan necessary to develop the approved standards", however, direction to create an industry standard is subject to the consensus of the publishing standards body (e.g.

SAE, ASTM, RTCA) and the industry or government participants. The decision to create a new standard, and plan to do so, is not entirely within the purview of the contractor.

Answer

DRD SE‐02 EAP Regulations And Stds Gap Analysis, Closure Approach and Resultant

Stds Development describes NASA's expectations w.r.t. standards and regulation planning. The proposed Response should address more than “…participation in standards committees…,” as industry will need to provide a plan with concrete steps and documentation as appropriate for industry and NASA to jointly together advocate to the appropriate standards development organizations. Of course, a standard is built by consensus supported by industry‐Government standards development organizations. Documenting “…the plan necessary to inform the development of the approved standards” is meant to develop a document that is based on the Contractor's prioritized regulatory and/or standards gaps, and based on the analysis, synthesis and prioritization of the gaps, to provide a plan on an approach to close those gaps with a draft standard‐like document. The document would, of course, show the shortfall in current standards, describe the proposed objective of the standard, and show how the data from the Contractor's ground and flight demonstration informs the standard’s objective.

Question 21

The Regulations and Standards Development Plan includes consideration of the

"expected regulatory approach for those gaps" with examples to approach as a special condition, or as an Airworthiness Validation Plan.

The purpose of this aspect of the regulations and standards development plan is not well understood and clarification is requested.

NASA doesn’t want to see an industry CERTIFICATION approach. NASA needs to see which technology areas that industry is willing to move forward into standards as a

Means of Compliance, and which technology areas are company private and proprietary that industry will only pursue through a Special Condition with the FAA.

NASA would like to understand how much consideration is being considered by industry for a Special Condition (SC) versus the development of standards that would support Means of Compliance (MOC). This provides NASA with the information necessary to advocate for proposed standards that would support

MOC. If industry is reluctant to pursue a publicly‐developed standard in an area, and prefers pursuing a SC, then NASA will not rely on that technology area’s insights for standards development.

Question 22

DRD‐SE‐02 submission frequency includes a regulations and standards data plans are due to 28 days prior to specified reviews and data reports due 28 days after each ground engine and flight test.

Answer

NASA only seeks to see the data plans in anticipation of the reviews, to ensure that

NASA has insight for the subsequent data reports. NASA expects that the industry will have data plans developed internally that are used by the testing organization.

These test plans would be provided to NASA for NASA's use in preparing to review the subsequent Regulations and Standards Data reports.

Please refer to the data reporting intervals as specified in DRD TE‐03,Data

Requirements And Reporting Plan, SE‐02 EAP Regulations And Stds Gap Analysis, Closure Approach and Resultant Stds Development and Airworthiness Approach, Airworthiness Plan and Airworthiness Products .