SFD AFPP Industry Questions Final.xlsx

Questions_Responses

"This Agreement becomes effective upon the date of the last signature below ("effective date") and shall remain in effect until the completion of all obligations of both Parties hereto, or seven years from the effective date, whichever comes first."

2. Project dates are firm.

b. In the alternative, will a “dramatic[ ] reduction” be evaluated on a relative scale among proposals - i.e., whereby a Proposer’s reduction of 25% would not be “dramatic” relative to a competing Proposer’s 40% reduction?

b. If a proposer’s Vision System dramatically reduces noise below Stage 5, does NASA measure it more favorably than another Vision System that meets Stage 5?

c. How does NASA define Vision System lifecycle? Is lifecycle defined from EIS to end of production to end of service? d. If a proposer’s Vision System dramatically reduces noise starting at EIS and throughout the entire Vision System lifecycle, does NASA measure it more favorably than a proposer who performs upgrades to propulsion that reduces noise later in the Vision System lifecycle? In section 2.2.1 "Capable of operations within restrictive acoustics airport environments over the Vision System lifecycle", the Vision System lifecycle refers to the operating life of the Vision System during which it would be impacting fleet emissions.

The proposer is responsible for identifying anticipated operating constraints on their proposed Vision System associated with noise over the lifecycle. Reference section 5.2.1.6 of the announcement, Aviation System Compatibility, for evaluation criteria associated with noise. As part of evaluation subfactor 5.2.1.6, NASA will assess "any unique commercial operational benefits".

Per the evaluation factor in Section 5.2.4.2 "Magnitude and percentage of the total industry cost proposed to be contributed by NASA over the SFD project lifecycle.", a lower NASA cost share of the Industry cost would be rated more favorably for this evaluation factor.

14 3.2 9 The direct purchase of supplies and/or services, which do not constitute research, from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted. Can you confirm that sub-contracted non-recurring engineering (NRE) for design or engineering work, from non-U.S. companies/entities is acceptable? As stated in Section 3.2 of the Announcement and Article 18(E) of the template Funded Space Act Agreement, NASA funding may not support research efforts, including travel, by non-U.S. organizations, including sub-Partners, at any level. The direct purchase of supplies and/or services, which do not constitute research, from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted.

Section 4.2 of the Announcement requires that the Eligibility and Compliance Certification questionnaire be completed by each of the Proposer’s partners listed in the proposal’s Teaming Approach that will be supporting research and technology development efforts. NASA will review the Eligibility and Compliance Certification forms during the Initial Compliance Review phase of the evaluation (Section 5.1.2. of the Announcement).

15 3.3, 2.3, 3.8 Duplicative Funding can you please further define “duplicative funding”? a. Section 2.3 makes reference to “NASA’s funding contribution” and to “private funding.” May industry obtain other government funding in addition to NASA funds with respect to the SFD goals? For example: If NASA funds XX% of a specific proposed milestone, may other government funds be used to fund any portion of the balance?

b. Would funds received from U.S. Federal, State, or Local Governments to a Proposer to develop a similar airframe for non-commercial use be considered payments made “for the same purpose,” as that phrase is used in Section 3.3?

c. If not, can you provide examples of what would be considered duplicative funding?

d. Section 1, Background, and Section 3.8 Award Funding, specifies that “NASA anticipates entering into one Agreement, with potentially more, with industry to support development of the advanced airframe and related technologies to maximize the potential and probability for commercial entry into service (EIS) in the 2030s.”

e. By what criteria will NASA determine whether to enter into more than one Agreement?

f. If there are two proposals that both meet the goals and objectives of the project by demonstrating a dramatic improvement to fuel burn and emissions and potential for commercial entry into service in the 2030s, by what criteria will NASA determine that more than one award is given? By what criteria will NASA select between two equally promising technical and commercial options versus selecting more than one? g. Section 3.8 says “the amount of funding allocated to any Partner awarded a FSAA will be solely at NASA’s discretion.” By what criteria will NASA determine to exercise its discretion in relation to allocated funding? Duplicative Funding is funding that is paid by NASA or another Government Agency to cover work performed under another contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other funded agreement that duplicates work under the SFD FSAA.

If NASA provides funding for a specific milestone, other Government funds cannot be used to fund any portion of the milestone.

Upon identification of a duplicative funding issue with another government agency effort, the Partner should notify the NASA SFD Agreements Officer.

Reference Announcement Section 5 Evaluation for information on evaluation criteria.

a. Does NASA intend to evaluate efficiency for lift over drag (L/D) as a metric for emissions reduction?

b. Does NASA intend to evaluate efficiency for specific fuel consumption (SFC) as a metric for emissions reduction?

c. Does NASA intend to weight L/D (airframe improvement) higher than propulsion SFC improvement? If so, what is the weighting between airframe and propulsion efficiency improvements? The focus is on the integration of technologies for a viable vision system with an entry into service in the 2030s. Proposers will be responsible for identifying the technologies relative to the project goals. Refer to project goals in section 1 of the announcement.

NASA will evaluate proposals per the Announcement Evaluation Criteria. See section 5.2 of the announcement.

18 4.3.3.2 17 Impact on Fuel Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Section 4.3.3.2 states “If the proposer’s Vision System takes advantage of power generation from electric propulsion, then CO2 emissions associated with ground charging must be included in the accounting.” and Section 4.3.3.3 states “Provide annual impact on CO2 over the expected life of the vision system broken out by contribution (technology, fuels, & operations).” Does NASA also plan to include the CO2 emissions associated with the generation of other fuels such as SAF, Jet-A, and hydrogen along the same lines as electric propulsion? The focus is on impact to fuel/energy efficiency and carbon emissions from fleet operations (i.e. emissions due to energy used for operations).

NASA will evaluate proposals per the Announcement Evaluation Criteria. See section 5.2 of the announcement.

a. If a proposal is not selected for further consideration, will the eliminated Proposer be notified at that time?

a. Are all three factors rated/weighted equally?

b. If not, how are the factors ranked or weighted?

a. Based on the currently provided description of the Past Performance evaluation factor, will a potential partner be evaluated less favorably if it does not have federal government contracting past performance? b. With respect to the reference to “and/or any other reasonable basis,” may a proposer submit information? If so, in which section of the proposal should such past performance information be included?

d. NASA specifies that: “Further definition of the evaluation criteria that will be used for Technical and Management and Project Resources is outlined in the following subsection.” Will NASA provide further definition of the evaluation criteria that will be used for the Past Performance evaluation factor?

e. Will past performance of a Proposer’s partners, subcontractors, team members, etc., be factored into the evaluation of Past Performance?

f. Will past performance of a Proposer’s personnel be factored into the evaluation of Past Performance? For example, if key personnel have previously successfully managed complex NASA projects, will that be favorably considered in the evaluation of Past Performance? There was no request for a proposer to provide past performance information under the Past Performance Evaluation Factor. NASA will obtain the required information for this evaluation. A Proposer will not be evaluated less favorably if it does not have previous government contracting experience.

Per section 4.3.5.3 Specialized Experience, the proposer will provide company and key staff experience related to the proposed effort. Key staff may include "any major team member". Evaluation of this information is described in section 5.2.3.3.