QuestionsFromIndustry_28Sep2023_Final.pdf

80AFRC23R0001

# Question Government Response

Are companies like ours eligible for this call? We are an American company based in Reno NV and have flight certified hardware (payloads) for suborbital and orbital vehicles to help implement customers, academics, etc.

Eligible companies include those that are able to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Does this solicitation also include opportunities for parabolic flights?

Parabolic flight profiles are not within the scope of the PWS.

[Company] has not yet done business activities with any public companies or U S Government agencies or national Labs therefore no past performance. [Company] is interested in submitting a proposal to this solicitation,( 80AFRC23R0001 ) in regards to a patent application that was PULLED by the USPTO pending a (L&R),license & review that may issue exclusive license to DOD,DOE & NASA as per my patent attorney. I don't know if I may be able to fully comply and or submit a proper full proposal by August 27th. Please let me know if [Company] may qualify to submit to this proposal.

Any company may submit a proposal to be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation. Evaluation of the proposal will determine if contractors can meet the technical requirements of the PWS. On‐ramp opportunites will exist for contractors who later meet the requirements.

My launch vehicle has not yet launched above 80km. However, it does have the capability. Does this immediately disqualify any proposal we submit to the IDIQ 4?

Any company may submit a proposal to be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

Qualified vehicles must meet the minimum criteria for one or more flight profiles as described in the PWS, but companies are not required to have the capability to support all flight profiles. The minimum requirements for each profile are different and there are flight profiles that do not require 80km altitude.

We are a launch service provider in the process of building a suborbital launch vehicle. Are we eligible for an award if do not yet have a commercial launch license and have not yet qualified with any part of the government to be a launch provider, but are in the process of acquiring our CFR 450 license with the FAA?

Any company may submit a proposal to be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

Per Volume I: Technical of the RFP, the offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates ‐‐ by successful flight(s) ‐‐ that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the PWS.

“Successful flights” shall be test flights demonstrated by a fully operational vehicle or flights for pay that meet or exceed one or more of the flight profile requirements specified in the PWS, were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact (as applicable for Orbital Platforms), and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics.

Also, see RFP section C.11 On‐Ramp of New Contractors.

Does the Proposal Guidance in 80AFRC23R0001 – RFP TCs_Final.pdf pertain to the proposals to win a pool seat (IDIQ Award) or for future specific Task Orders?

The resulting award will be a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract to multiple contractors. (See RFP Basis of Award.) An ordering guide will be provided to detail how future task orders will be awarded once all FO IDIQ awards are made.

[Company] outsources our host spacecraft operations to our parent company based in Luxembourg. Is that a problem?

See PWS Section 5.1 Qualified Vehicles (QV) and Qualified Vehicle Families.

All QV / QVF and orbital launch vehicles must be owned and operated by a U.S.

commercial provider, as defined by 51 U.S.C. § 50101(7). In addition, the QV / QVF or orbital launch vehicle shall be majority (51% or more by value) manufactured or assembled in the United States by a U.S. entity.

Could a European‐built host spacecraft with 51% value of U.S.

components in BOM (build of materials) be considered a QV?

See PWS Section 5.1 Qualified Vehicles (QV) and Qualified Vehicle Families.

All QV / QVF and orbital launch vehicles must be owned and operated by a U.S.

commercial provider, as defined by 51 U.S.C. § 50101(7). In addition, the QV / QVF or orbital launch vehicle shall be majority (51% or more by value) manufactured or assembled in the United States by a U.S. entity.

NASA has flown hosted payloads on European‐built and European‐owned spacecraft (i.e. GOLD), does the budget source for FO IDIQ4 prohibit this?

See PWS Section 5.1 Qualified Vehicles (QV) and Qualified Vehicle Families.

All QV / QVF and orbital launch vehicles must be owned and operated by a U.S.

commercial provider, as defined by 51 U.S.C. § 50101(7). In addition, the QV / QVF or orbital launch vehicle shall be majority (51% or more by value) manufactured or assembled in the United States by a U.S. entity.

Would long‐life NASA Earth Sciences missions such at GLIMR be outside of the scope of FO IDIQ4?

Specific details for mission requirements will be outlined as part of the task order process.

Has AFRC coordinated with NASA Goddard regarding orbital payloads for the GeoXO program?

This solicitation will result in contracts that will serve a wide range of missions across NASA and other government agencies within the parameters of the PWS.

Are the payloads being considered for FO IDIQ4 considered, low‐ value disposable test articles looking for a short‐mission moderate risk rides or are some of the payloads looking for long‐ life high‐reliability missions (such as hosting on commercial communications satellites designed for more than a decade of operational service?

Payload requirements will vary and be dependent upon actual QV capabilities as defined in the MRD.

Payloads are generally risk‐tolerant technology demonstration payloads. Unless otherwise specified in the task order, payloads are considered expendable.

However, the payloads have value to NASA and the objective is to get sufficant test data from the payload to advance its technical readiness. Mission duration will be specified during the task order process. All payload requirements are as specified in PWS Section 5.3.

What are representative SWaPs (size, weight and power) of FO IDIQ4 payloads suitable for high‐confidence hosting at MEO and GEO? What are typical downlink data rates?

Minimum requirements for each Flight Profile are provided in the PWS. Actual size, weight, power, data, and other requirements, including mission duration, will vary and be defined in the Manifest Requirements Document (MRD). Actual QV capabilities on awarded FO IDIQ4 contracts will be used in defining the MRD.

Payloads are generally risk‐tolerant technology demonstration payloads. Unless otherwise specified in the task order, payloads are considered expendable.

However, the payloads have value to NASA and the objective is to get sufficant test data from the payload to advance its technical readiness. All payload requirements are as specified in PWS Section 5.3.

Since mission specific requirements will be defined in Mission Requirements Documents provided with the TO Proposal request, how will Offerors account for and price the mission specific or unique requirements in Section B FFP pricing?

For Standard Services in Sections B.1 and B.2, the Offeror shall define what supplies and services are included with a "standard payload slot" and "standard seat". This definition shall be based on the offeror’s most basic configuration with no non‐standard services.. (See revised RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐ 1 Instructions to Offerors‐Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume III: Pricing.)

Any deviations from standard will be addressed at a task order level using the "B.3 Non‐standard Services Schedule" and "B.4 Fixed Hourly Labor Schedule" pricing.

Will NASA establish the limitation of funds at the IDIQ level, the TO level or both?

Funding is provided at the task order level. Accounting and Appropriation Data for the funding amount is to be provided in the task order. When applicable, NFS 1852.232‐77 LIMITATION OF FUNDS (FIXED‐PRICE CONTRACT) (MAR 1989) is used to incrementally fund a task order.

Will NASA consider the inclusion of additional addenda under FAR 52.212‐4, SF 1449, Block 27a to clarify {n} regarding Title?

From “Title. Unless specified elsewhere in this contract, title to items furnished under this contract shall pass to the Government upon acceptance, regardless of when or where the Government takes physical possession.”

To “Title. Unless specified elsewhere in this contract, title to items furnished under this contract shall be retained by the Contractor regardless of when or where the Government conducts final acceptance.”

FAR 52.212‐4(n) will not be tailored for this requirement. Concerns and/or clarifications regarding FAR 52.212‐4(n) may be addressed at the task order level through the MRD process.

The RFP includes FAR clauses 52.222‐43. 52.222‐41, 52.222‐42 and 52.204‐15 relating to Service Contract Act. The commercial space service requirements defined in the solicitation PWS do not include services as defined in 41 USC 6702. How are these applicable to commercial space services and why has NASA included these FAR clauses?

The government has determined that FAR 52.222‐43, 52.222‐41, and 52.204‐15 may be applicable to tasks performed under the resultant contract. Should an offeror take exception to any solicitation requirement, the exception must be clearly identified, and complete accompanying rationale must be provided with their proposal.

The RFP request Offerors to provide pricing for the parameters listed for each proposed QV or QVF for each of the items listed (a

– d). Does the pricing volume only include the completed Section B, tables? Won’t “fair and reasonable” be determined by adequate price competition such that no other pricing information is required with the initial response (noting the USG’s right to subsequently request additional cost/pricing information)?

Instructions for the Pricing Volume are provided in revised RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume III: Pricing and revised RFP Section E.3.1 Instructions to Offerors and Section E.4 Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial products and Commercial Services. If, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional pricing information will be requested. (See RFP Section E.4 Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial products and Commercial Services.)

How will the USG evaluate non‐standard services or are these not evaluated? Does the USG intend to conduct a price analysis for non‐standard services?

The fully burdened hourly rates and the prices for non‐standard services will be evaluated in accordance with RFP Section E.4 Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

How will NASA evaluate Offerors who do not have at least three

(3) past performance responses? Will an Offeror be deemed “non‐ compliant” if it only submits one past performance, or will it be evaluated on the one past performance and “neutral” on the requirement for the other two?

See revised RFP Section E.3.1 Instructions to Offerors and Section E.4 Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial products and Commercial Services.

The offeror’s proposal shall include an itemized listing and summary of a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) current or past contracts performing the same or similar tasks to the Suborbital/Hosted Orbital Flight and Payload Integration Services PWS and solicitation requirements within the last three (3) years. Offerors that do not submit at least one current or past contract performing the same or similar tasks to the Suborbital/Hosted Orbital Flight and Payload Integration Services PWS will be identified as an unacceptable proposal in accordance with NFS 1815.305‐70.

The RFP states fully burdened hourly rates for non‐standard services will be evaluated for reasonableness for selected purposes; however, most common non‐standard commercial space services are not priced on an hourly basis and not all Offerors will propose the same non‐standard services. How will the USG evaluate the reasonableness of rates amongst the Offerors when offerors propose non‐standard services that are unique to their offering?

If at any time during this solicitation the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit other than cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness. (See RFP Section E.4 Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services.)

The PWS does not define a maximum period for mission operations or mission operation requirements. How will Offerors account for and price mission operations which exceed the minimum “at least one orbit around the Earth” noted in this section?

For Standard Services in Sections B.1 and B.2, the Offeror shall define what supplies and services are included with a "standard payload slot" and "standard seat". This definition shall be based on the offeror’s most basic configuration with no non‐standard services. (See revised RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐ 1 Instructions to Offerors‐Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume III: Pricing.)

Any deviations from standard will be addressed at a task order level using the "B.3 Non‐standard Services Schedule" and "B.4 Fixed Hourly Labor Schedule" pricing. Specific payload requirements will be addressed at the individual task order level. The specific requirements for a flight test will be outlined in the MRD, and each of the Contractors for that profile will have the opportunity to outline their proposed process for providing the services to meet those requirements within the MID as part of the task order process.

The PWS states the Contractor shall operate independently from the Government, except that payloads may be Government‐ owned or Government‐provided and Government Suborbital Research Specialists, if any, will be authorized by the applicable government agency. The PWS, as currently issued, does not identify any GFE/GFP/GFI. Will the USG identify the GFE/GFP/GFI at the task order level in order for the Contractor to meet this PWS requirement?

Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Property (GFP), and Government Furnished Information (GFI) are not anticipated as part of this contract. Payload requirements and payload information will be provided at the task order level.

Under a FFP contract, how does the Offeror price a requirement which is not defined. Can the USG provide the number of government observers, frequency of visits (i.e., design review, etc.) and duration of visits Offerors should assume in order to adequately price this requirement?

For Standard Services in Sections B.1 and B.2, the Offeror shall define what supplies and services are included with a "standard payload slot" and "standard seat". This definition shall be based on the offeror’s most basic configuration with no non‐standard services. (See revised RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐ 1 Instructions to Offerors‐Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume III: Pricing.)

Any deviations from standard will be addressed at a task order level using the "B.3 Non‐standard Services Schedule" and "B.4 Fixed Hourly Labor Schedule" pricing.

Is submission of a Payload User Guide (PUG required no later than thirty (30) days after IDIQ contract award or Task Order award?

For each QV or QVF, the Contractor shall submit to the Government a Payload User Guide (PUG; see definition in PWS Section 9) for review and approval by the Government no later than thirty (30) days after contract award and upon any updates/revisions to the PUG. (See PWS Section 7.2.1.)

Since the payloads will be provided by the USG, what is the mechanism a Contractor will use to ensure payloads meet the PUG and/or ICD? Please define ensure in the context of this requirement. Compliance with this requirement will be reliant on

GFE/GFP/GFI.

Each offeror must propose its process for ensuring that a payload will meet the requirements of its Payload User Guide (PUG) or Interface Control Document (ICD) as part of the payload acceptance process. (See PWS Section 7.4 Payload Integration)

Since the payloads will be provided by the USG, what is the mechanism a Contractor will use to ensure that the payload, as integrated and while operating, does not interfere with in any way with the vehicle systems and other payloads. Please define ensure in the context of this requirement. Compliance with this requirement will be reliant on GFE/GFP/GFI.

Each offeror must propose its process for ensuring that a payload will meet the requirements of its Payload User Guide (PUG) or Interface Control Document (ICD) as part of the payload acceptance process. (See PWS Section 7.4 Payload Integration)

Would this IDIQ include the option to offer pressurized payload flight opportunities via a commercial space station?

The government is interested in all services that meet the minimum requirements of the profiles outlined in the PWS.

This RFP as written shows preference to the selection of single vehicle operators. To give NASA the best service, is it recommended that launch agnostic solutions be accepted?

See PWS for the minimum government requirements for this solicitation.

All proposals must specify the Qualified Vehicle(s) that are being proposed for a particular profile and demonstrate how the offeror will meet the requirements as outlined in the solicitation and PWS. Subcontracting of services to one or more providers is allowed for this RFP, but partners, vehicles, and pricing must be specified as required in the PWS and RFP.

Note that per the PWS SEction 5.1, for hosted orbital payloads, the orbital launch vehicle used to place the orbital platform in orbit is not considered to be a component of the QV / QVF, unless it is the exclusive U.S. commercial option for launching the particular orbital QV / QVF. The launch vehicle is not included as part of the qualified vehicle (QV) and contractors will be able to select the most appropriate launch vehicle to meet mission requirements outlined as part of the task order process.

For suborbital flight profiles, will offerings that propose launch‐ agnostic solutions without specific mention of flight or Qualified Vehicle be deemed non‐compliant?

See PWS for the minimum government requirements for this solicitation.

All proposals must specify the Qualified Vehicle(s) that are being proposed for a particular profile and demonstrate how the offeror will meet the requirements as outlined in the solicitation and PWS. Subcontracting of services to one or more providers is allowed for this RFP, but partners, vehicles, and pricing must be specified as required in the PWS and RFP.

Note that per PWS Section 5.1, for hosted orbital payloads, the orbital launch vehicle used to place the orbital platform in orbit is not considered to be a component of the QV / QVF, unless it is the exclusive U.S. commercial option for launching the particular orbital QV / QVF. The launch vehicle is not included as part of the qualified vehicle (QV) and contractors will be able to select the most appropriate launch vehicle to meet mission requirements outlined as part of the task order process.

What agreements with Qualified Vehicle providers does an integrator need at the time of proposal submission where the integrator intends to subcontract?

The offeror must provide sufficient evidence to meet the minimum government requirements for this solicitation.

If the offeror intends to subcontract any portion of the services proposed in this RFP, agreements with these services providers must be in place at the time of proposal submission as part of the evidence that the offeror can meet the requirements of the PWS and solicitation.

For flight profile 6, if a government entity has purchased a commercially‐built orbital rocket for launch services and allows another commercial entity to utilize extra space for delivery of on orbit hosted payloads and securing their own customers, would the manifest slots be considered commercially procured?

Services proposed shall be in accordance with PWS Section 5.2.1 Independent Operations and Section 6 Flight Profile Requirements.

Commercial operation of QV and/or QVFs may include government‐funded commercial service missions as long as the vehicles performing the mission are in accordance with the PWS (in particular, PWS Section 5.2.1) and are not being conducted on a government‐provided platform. PWS Section 10 Definitions defines a Standard Flight Payload Slot as "the payload space and interfaces on a QV offered as a standard commercial product by the flight services provider." If the contractor has already received, or has a contract to receive, government funding for same or similar services, the contractor shall not propose pricing for same or similar work through this requirement.

Will NASA accept existing government‐funded commercial service missions?

Services procured shall be in accordance with PWS Section 5.2.1 Independent Operations and Section 6 Flight Profile Requirements.

Commercial operation of QV and/or QVFs may include government‐funded commercial service missions as long as the vehicles performing the mission are in accordance with PWS Section 5.2.1 and are not being conducted on a government‐provided platform.

Does a platform have to be operational at the time of submission; or asked alternatively: will NASA accept vehicles that will be operational within the next five years that meet the RFP requirements?

Eligible companies include those that are able to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and Performance Work Statement.

Per Volume I: Technical of the RFP, the offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates ‐‐ by successful flight(s) ‐‐ that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profilesas defined in the PWS.

“Successful flights” shall be test flights demonstrated by a fully operational vehicle or flights for pay that meet or exceed one or more of the flight profile requirements specified in the PWS, were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact (as applicable for Orbital Platforms), and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics.

Also, see RFP section C.11 On‐Ramp of New Contractors.

Is this plan required for the submission on 28 August, or in response to follow‐up DO/TOs for payloads that require a propulsion capability?

The plan to protect the command uplink shall be submitted as part of the task order process.

The Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 5.1.3 High‐ Altitude Balloons states “High‐altitude balloon vehicles must be capable of operating at a minimum latitude of 18.3km (60,000ft) and may include both crewed and uncrewed vehicles. Crewed high‐altitude balloons must be licensed to operate commercial flights for compensation or hire in the U.S. or possess applicable FAA documentation to fly as part of the process of being licensed to operate commercial flights for compensation or hire in the U.S.” The PWS Section 5.4.1 Flightworthiness & Flight Safety Approvals for Operations with Government Suborbital Research Specialist states “Task Orders that include Government Suborbital Research Specialists will be limited to those providers that have demonstrated that they meet all NASA Safety Objectives as determined by the NASA Suborbital Crew Program and have received written approval from NASA that they are eligible to fly Government Suborbital Research Specialists.” Will crewed high‐altitude balloon providers be required to qualify their vehicles under NASA’s Suborbital Crew program?

PWS Section 5.4.1 applies to all Task Orders that include Government Suborbital Research Specialists regardless of the vehicle type or flight profile. (See PWS Section 5.4.1.)

The PWS Section 9.3 states “Contractor shall provide a preliminary Flight Data Report (see Section 10) for each flight/orbital test performed under this contract within 3 business days after the conclusion of each flight, and a final Flight Data Report within 30 business days.” What is the definition of a “preliminary Flight Data Report” versus a “final Flight Data Report”?

See Attachment 1_PWS_21Sep2023.pdf. See PWS Section 9.3 Flight Report for revisions to this section.

The preliminary report shall include initial impressions and preliminary data from the flight(s) (e.g., to facilitate prompt analysis of flight test by researchers), whereas the final report shall provide a finalized detailed summary of the flight test and all data required per the MRD. (See PWS Section 9.3 Flight Report).

Section 10 of the PWS defines the Flight Report as a summary of the flight operation as related to the requirements of the MID and the Task Order. This report contains detailed information regarding the flight profiles flown, including the type of profile(s); reduced gravity duration, level, and quality (if applicable);

and formatted data item deliverables as specified in the Task Order. A summary of any unexpected issues encountered as well as lessons learned from each flight will also be included.

The document entitled “80AFRC23R0001 – RFP TCs_Final.pdf” begins with page 2 of 65 and Section B. Will you please post page 1 of 65 and Section A of this document?

See 80AFRC23R0001_SF1449.pdf for page 1.

In the document entitled “80AFRC23R0001 – RFP TCs_Final.pdf”, Section D.1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS includes a Payload Users Guide (PUG). Should the offeror’s response include their PUG as an attachment to their RFP response? If so, the PWS Section 7.2.1 states “For each QV or QV family (as necessary), the Contractor shall submit to the Government a Payload User Guide (PUG; see definition in PWS Section 9) for review and approval by the Government no later than thirty (30) days after contract award and upon any updates/revisions.” Therefore, is it acceptable if the PUG submitted in response to Section D.1 does not align with the requirements in PWS Section 7.2.1 at the time of the RFP response?

RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors ‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services provides solicitation instructions. Contract awardees will be required to submit a PUG in accordance with PWS Section 7.2.1 for incorporation into D.1 List of Attachments. A PUG is not required with proposal submission. See Answer to Question No. 25.

In the document entitled “80AFRC23R0001 – RFP TCs_Final.pdf”, Section E.3, NFS 1852.215‐81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS (APR 2015) item (b) states “A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 ½” x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point font.” Is there a required font style that must be used for the response?

No.

In the document entitled “80AFRC23R0001 – RFP TCs_Final.pdf”, Section E.3, Volume II: PAST PERFORMANCE, it states “The offeror’s proposal shall include an itemized listing and summary of three (3) current or past contracts performing the same or similar tasks to the Suborbital/Hosted Orbital Flight and Payload Integration Services PWS and solicitation requirements within the last three (3) years… NASA has provided a Past Performance Questionnaire that the offeror will submit to their customer(s) for each of the three (3) current or past contracts provided in the summary.” May the Past Performance examples include a program from a non‐U.S. customer and therefore may a non‐U.S.

customer complete the Past Performance Questionnaire?

Yes.

PWS Section 5.2.1.2 states that 'All end items and services provided through this contract, including (but not limited to)… shall not be Government provided, owned, or operated.' Commercial platforms that are operating on ISS are provided certain services (launch/return to/from ISS, airlock access, ISS robotics support, etc.) under existing agreements with the ISSNL and NASA. Since these government‐ provided services would not be provided through this contract, could you please confirm that commercial platforms on ISS that use these services could still meet the requirements for a QV?

Services procured shall be in accordance with PWS Section 5.2.1 Independent Operations and Section 6 Flight Profile Requirements.

Commercial services on the International Space Station (ISS) do not meet the requirements of PWS Section 5.2.1 because the commercial service on ISS is not operated independently of the Government (i.e., ISS is a government‐provided platform). In addition, access to commercial facilities aboard the ISS is provided via other NASA contracts.

Please confirm that we will be able to use the attached CPARS rating as one of our Past Performance references in lieu of the questionnaire.

This language is a bit unclear to me:

“Past Performance information may be obtained from the Governmentwide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and any other reasonable basis.

Offerors shall provide the CAGE Code and UEI Number of the facility that will be identified on the potential contract.”

We are planning to submit two other past performance references using the questionnaire, we are just hoping to use CPARS for third reference. Please advise. Thank you very much.

See RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume II: Past Performance for specific instructions as to what must be included in the past performance volume. The Past Performance Questionnaire is a stand‐alone document. CPARS ratings cannot be used in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire.

In the paragraph below and in the RFP I didn’t see any specific requirements for previous space heritage.

5.1.4. Orbital Platforms Orbital platforms hosting payloads must be able to provide power and communications to the payload (e.g., payload telemetry, payload command and control), as well as perform at least one orbit around the Earth. Payloads may remain attached to the orbital stage(s) of a launch vehicle or be hosted on a satellite. Orbital platforms must be owned and operated by a U.S. commercial entity and must use FAA‐licensed U.S. commercial launch services. There shall be a plan for safe end‐of‐mission disposal at the end of the orbital platform’s operational lifetime, such as defined in NASA STD‐8719.14 or equivalent documents. For orbital platforms with propulsive capability, a plan to protect the command uplink shall be submitted for Government approval. Plan submittal deadline will be specified in the MRD.

Our first OTV with hosted payload capability will fly on Transporter‐9 this Nov 2023. Before submitting to this call, please confirm that space heritage prior to submitting is not required.

See RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume I: Technical.

Per Volume I: Technical of the RFP, the offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates ‐‐ by successful flight(s) ‐‐ that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the PWS.

“Successful flights” shall be test flights demonstrated by a fully operational vehicle or flights for pay that meet or exceed one or more of the flight profile requirements specified in the PWS, were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact (as applicable for Orbital Platforms), and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics.

Also, see RFP section C.11 On‐Ramp of New Contractors.

I'm the cofounder of an early‐stage space startup, with our first launch planned for 2027. Since we don't have flight heritage, are we ineligible for the RFP, or are you interested in capabilities under development?

See RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume I: Technical.

Per Volume I: Technical of the RFP, the offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates ‐‐ by successful flight(s) ‐‐ that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the PWS.

“Successful flights” shall be test flights demonstrated by a fully operational vehicle or flights for pay that meet or exceed one or more of the flight profile requirements specified in the PWS, were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact (as applicable for Orbital Platforms), and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics.

Also, see RFP section C.11 On‐Ramp of New Contractors.

In order to be considered a qualified vehicle, does the platform have to have accomplished a profile representative, successful flight prior to proposal submission? Or can we bid a platform that will reach qualified status upon completion of a 2024 flight campaign?

See RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume I: Technical.

Per Volume I: Technical of the RFP, the offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates ‐‐ by successful flight(s) ‐‐ that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the PWS.

“Successful flights” shall be test flights demonstrated by a fully operational vehicle or flights for pay that meet or exceed one or more of the flight profile requirements specified in the PWS, were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact (as applicable for Orbital Platforms), and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics.

Also, see RFP section C.11 On‐Ramp of New Contractors.

If the platform is not rated a “qualified vehicle” upon proposal submission, does that automatically result in an “Unacceptable” rating for Technical?

The technical acceptability rating will be determined after an evaluation of the technical approach in the proposal. Vehicles not meeting the requirements defined in the PWS will result in an "Unacceptable" rating. (See RFP Section E.4 Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services.) On‐ramp opportunites will exist for contractors who later meet the requirements.

If a qualified platform was built and flown by a “Company A” that was recently acquired by “Company B”, does that limit the qualified platform to just one past performance reference due to the “predecessor company” instruction in the RFP? Does this still apply if Company B has now taken over operations of the vehicle(s) in question?

See revised RFP Section E.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors‐ Commercial Products and Commercial Services ‐ Volume II: Past Performance.

Excerpts from this section of the solicitation are as follows:

The offeror’s proposal shall include an itemized listing and summary of a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) current or past contracts performing the same or similar tasks to the Suborbital/Hosted Orbital Flight and Payload Integration Services PWS and solicitation requirements within the last three (3) years. Offerors that do not submit at least one current or past contract performing the same or similar tasks to the Suborbital/Hosted Orbital Flight and Payload Integration Services PWS will be identified as an unacceptable proposal in accordance with NFS 1815.305‐70.

For one of the current or past contracts, the offeror may use information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Information regarding predecessor companies cannot include work originally performed by the offeror.

We understand that the Government may periodically provide opportunities for additional contractors and/or Qualified Vehicles to be added to the Provider Pool (On‐Ramp). Can we reasonably expect to see an on‐ramp opportunity in 2024? Are we correct in identifying the “on‐ramp” opportunities as the mechanism to participate in this program once platforms become qualified over the next few years?

Each anniversary date during the life of this contract or at any other time established via synopsis, the Government may issue a request for and accept proposals from new flight service providers. (See RFP C.11 On‐Ramp of New Contractors.)

Contractors are license‐limited on the number of individuals a site can have, request the following changes to existing language to align with Contractors procedures, policies and safety requirements: The Contractor shall provide Government observers access to Contractor facilities on a non‐interference, ad hoc basis with advance coordination. Space is limited dependent on launch activities.

See Attachment 1_PWS_21Sep2023.pdf. Portions of PWS Section 5.2.2 have been revised.

Request the following changes to existing language to align with Contractors procedures, policies and safety requirements: The Contractor shall make be responsible effort to for communicating and coordinating with the Government in regard to the proposed payload manifest for each flight that incorporates Government payloads.

Similarly, in the event that circumstances require any Government payload(s) to be de‐manifested from a flight, the Contractor shall directly communicate and coordinate with the Government prior to proposing or executing any manifest changes of Government‐ contracted payloads to the extent possible. The Contractor is responsible at its sole discretion for final manifest.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.

Request the following changes to existing language to align with Contractors procedures, policies and safety requirements: A Government Suborbital Research Specialist may undertake approved tasks outlined by the Contractor such as tending a technology payload (i.e., payload mounted to the vehicle or in a locker or other rack) or conducting procedural or operational tests and/or observations that may include handheld or on‐person tools/equipment.

For one of the current or past contracts, the offeror may use information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Information regarding predecessor companies cannot include work originally performed by the offeror.

Request the following addition to existing language to align with Contractors procedures, policies and safety requirements: SFP's and their experiment shall not interfere with other SFP's experience.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.

The contractor is responsible for the safe conduct of their flight operation.

Ensuring noninterference with other elements of a manifest is the contractor's responsibility.

1. NASA to confirm and support the requirements of the Contractor to obtain and maintain documentation to fly for a Government sponsor, SFP and Payload Provider in support of FAA regulations. These documents will be a gating criteria in allowing a payload or SFP or Government Astronaut to fly.

2. How will NASA keep confidential documents confidential to include public announcements?

Questions are ambiguous but the Government provides the following information:

Specific Government Suborbital Research Specialist and/or payload requirements will be addressed at the individual task order level. The specific requirements for a flight test will be outlined in the MRD, and each of the Contractors for that profile will have the opportunity to outline their proposed process for providing the services to meet those requirements within the MID as part of the task order process.

Request the following changes: The Contractor shall be responsible for communicating and coordinating with the SFP, the Government selected Point of Contact, who will advise the Government in regard to the proposed manifest for each flight that incorporates SFP/Government Suborbital Research Specialists.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government. As defined in Section 10 of the PWS (as revised in Attachment 1_PWS_21Sep2023.pdf), a Government Suborbital Research Specialist is an individual who is carried within a commercial suborbital vehicle/QV/QVF, who is employed by the Government or contracted by the Government to conduct research, technology testing, training, or other activities onboard the vehicle. This excludes those individuals who are the commercially employed crew of the suborbital vehicle. The Contractor will not be required to carry individuals who are not defined as Government Suborbital Research Specialists. The US Government will be the contractual point of contact.

Request the following changes: Similarly, in the event that circumstances require any SFP/Government Suborbital Research Specialist to be demanifested from a flight, the Contractor shall communicate with the SFP, the Government select Point of Contact, and to the extent possible will directly communicate and coordinate with the Government prior to when executing any manifest changes of the SFP/Government Suborbital Research Specialist.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government. As defined in Section 10 of the PWS (as revised in Attachment 1_PWS_21Sep2023.pdf), a Government Suborbital Research Specialist is an individual who is carried within a commercial suborbital vehicle/QV/QVF, who is employed by the Government or contracted by the Government to conduct research, technology testing, training, or other activities onboard the vehicle. This excludes those individuals who are the commercially employed crew of the suborbital vehicle. The Contractor will not be required to carry individuals who are not defined as Government Suborbital Research Specialists. The US Government will be the contractual point of contact.

Request the following changes to align with FAA regulations: The Contractor shall conduct an investigation for any event that meets the requirements of the FAA. The Contractor may invite shall allow NASA participation in the investigation and make all data and resulting reports available to NASA. The Contractor is not required to include in any report an expression of opinion as to the fault or negligence of any employee.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.

Pursuant to PWS Section 5.6 Mishap‐Related Requirements, the contractor shall follow all processes and procedures related to any occurrence detailed in Section 5.6.1, to include conducting an investigation of a mishap, fatality, or close call involving government personnel, including Government Suborbital Research Specialists. This responsibility is separate from any statutory requirement the Contractor may be subject to such as a FAA or NTSB investigation.

Request the following change: The Contractor may shall allow the Government to observe and ask questions during the PRR and approval process for Government payloads and will provide any associated documentation. Upon written request, the Contractor shall may allow the Government to observe the Flight Readiness Review or equivalent activity on a non‐interference basis.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.

NASA requires insight to assess the level of risk related to mission success. For information regarding Payload Readiness Reviews, see PWS Section 7.2.3.

Request the following changes: The Contractor shall conduct a Flight Readiness Review (FRR) following their internal process. The Contractor shall allow the Government to observe and ask questions during the FRR for flights with Government Suborbital Research Specialists and will provide any associated documentation to ensure that NASA representatives have an appropriate level of insight into any changes or previous flight anomalies that might affect the risk of any given mission and qualified vehicle.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.

NASA requires insight to assess the safety of government personnel, to include Government Suborbital Research Specialists. For information regarding Flight Readiness Review for Flight with Government Suborbital Research Specialists, see PWS Section 7.2.4.

Request the following changes: The Contractor, or their subcontractor(s) as applicable, shall obtain and maintain and provide to a the Government upon request written evidence of all required flight / mission approvals, including (but not limited to) permits, licenses, export licenses, or waivers for operation, as applicable, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other appropriate governing authority for the flight activity. The Contractor will provide agency appropriate documents upon written request to the inspection division.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.

NASA requires documentation to verify the requirements of PWS Section 7.3 Flight Service Requirements, in particular Section 7.3.1 Flight/Mission Approvals.

Request the following change: The Contractor shall manage an interface control document (ICD) to be identified between the payload and the QV that captures the payload/flight specific interface requirements and associated verification requirements. In the event the PUG satisfies this intent and reflects the specific requirements for the payload/flight, then it will be considered the ICD. The Contractor shall provide this document to the Government upon request.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the Government. The Government has determined there is no additional impact with the proposed language to the

PWS.

Request the following change: The Contractor will evaluate that the Payload Provider's shall ensure that the payload meets the interface requirements of the Payload User’s Guide (PUG) and/or the interface control document (ICD).

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government. See Answer to Question No. 26.

Pre/Post‐Flight Payload Support Facilities: The Contractor shall provide offer payload providers appropriate facilities as defined in the PUG for preparing/analyzing samples, as well as inspecting, preparing, and testing their payloads and/or instruments prior to and after each flight, as specified in the MRD where applicable. Facilities and resources shall include but are not limited to electrical power, adequate lighting, payload servicing space, sample processing space, and internet connectivity.

See Attachment 1_PWS_21Sep2023.pdf. Portions of PWS Section 7.4.5 have been revised.

Request the following change: The Payload Provider shall ensure and demonstrate to the Contractor shall ensure that the payload, as integrated and while operating, does not interfere in any way (including EMI, physically, structurally, etc.) with the vehicle systems and other payloads.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government. See Answer to Question No. 26.

Request the following change: The Contractor may shall perform on a case by case basis necessary modifications or additions to payload slots, interfaces, or seats to accommodate unique payload or Suborbital Research Specialist requirements, within the general capabilities of the QV but not within the definition of a Standard Flight Payload Slot or Seat . There are some NSS that are frequently requested (termed “common”) and others that are infrequent or unusual in nature (termed “uncommon”). Uncommon NSS cannot be anticipated prior to assignment of payloads or Suborbital Research Specialists. The requirements for NSS shall be further delineated by the MRD/MID process.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government. For Standard Services in Sections B.1 and B.2, the Offeror shall define what supplies and services are included with a "standard payload slot" and "standard seat". This definition shall be based on the offeror’s most basic configuration with no non‐standard services.

The offeror may also propose fixed hourly labor rates for uncommon non‐ standard services and special projects.

Request the following change: Contractor shall provide a preliminary Flight Data Report (see Section 10) for each flight/ orbital test performed under this contract within 3 business days after the conclusion of each flight, and a final Flight Data Report within 30 business days.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government. See Answer to Question 37.

Request the following change: Flight Data Report is defined as a summary of the flight operation as related to the requirements of the MID and the Task Order. This report contains detailed information regarding the flight profiles flown, including the type of profile(s);

reduced gravity duration, level, and quality (if applicable); and formatted data item deliverables as specified in the Task Order. A summary of any unexpected issues encountered as well as lessons learned from each flight will also be included.

PWS revision request was not accepted by the government.