AACES FINAL NRA QUESTIONS_final.pdf

AACES FINAL NRA QUESTIONS

1. Can a proposer be awarded Topic 5.3 only? If yes, what degree of collaboration with Topic 5.1 and 5.2 winners would be expected?

Yes, as stated in the NRA Section 11.3, NASA reserves the right “to select a portfolio of proposals that best meets the objectives of the AACES 2050 NRA”. Awardees within each topic area may be asked to collaborate with NRA awardees in other topics, the level of collaboration would be discussed during negotiations. NASA could make multiple awards in each topic area subject to funding availability.

2. Since Topics 5.1 and 5.2 are required in the proposal response, do proposers need to submit two separate SOW and budgets, or can proposer combine them into one SOW and budget?

Per NRA Section 9.3, “each topic being proposed from Section 5 must have a separate Statement of Work (SOW), schedule, and cost document for evaluation purposes.”

Similarly, Section 10.2 states: “A separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model Contract shall be provided in the proposal for each technical topic area from Section 5. If multiple study activities are being proposed under one topic area, those activities shall have a separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model contract as well.”

3. If proposer is awarded only Topic 5.2, what degree of collaboration with Topic 5.1 winner would be expected?

Awardees within each topic area may be asked to collaborate with NRA awardees in other topics.

4. Per 10.1(b): All individuals intending to submit proposal content to NASA on behalf of an shall create a Box account.

Question: If a subcontractor submits information directly to the offeror, i.e. cost proposal, does the subcontractor still need to submit via Box…or since they provided directly to the Offeror the information does not need to be submitted via Box? Submitting via Box appears to be optional if the subcontractor submits directly to the offeror.

NASA does not have a preference on whether the subcontractor submits its proposal content in Box, or whether the Offeror submits subcontractor’s proposal content on the subcontractor’s behalf in Box. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all proposal content is submitted to NASA in compliance with the solicitation instructions. If the Offeror’s proposal contains all subcontractor proposal information, the subcontractor is not required to submit anything in Box.

If the subcontractor will be submitting documents in Box separately from the prime Offeror they should clearly specify who they are partnering with in their documents.

5. Per 10.2, Section V – Business Volume, 3 – Contract Administration (b): Cognizant Government inspection agency.

Question: Please confirm the Cognizant Inspection Agency information is the offerors Cognizant Security Office, i.e. DCSA.

Cognizant Inspection Agency would be the agency that performs the source inspection ie.

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

6. Is the proposed CLIN structure required to be aligned to the technical topic areas in Section 5?

i.e. CLIN1 must cover the tasks defined in 5.1, CLIN2 5.2, and CLIN3 5.3? Can the proposed work plans be divided into more than 3 CLINs?

Yes, NASA requires CLINs to be aligned with the technical topic areas, meaning if the Offeror proposes to all three topic areas there would be at least three CLINs in the proposal. A proposal may contain more than 1 CLIN, or SUBCLIN per technical topic area.

7. Under Section 12 Provisions, 12.15 states that the offeror shall submit a hard copy 300-word Executive Technical Summary. However, this Executive Technical Summary is not listed under the Table 1 Summary of Proposal Content. Is this summary required? If so, to whom do we send the hard (paper) copy and the electronic copy in Microsoft Word on a CD-ROM? Is there a required post-marked date? Or can this 300-word summary simply be uploaded to NASA Box instead?

The “Executive Technical Summary” should be considered “Executive Summary” which is included in Section 10.2 Proposal Content and Format and 11.2.1 Evaluation Criteria. The Executive Summary should be included as part of the proposal package and submitted in Box.

8. In Section 8, under Reports, the second bullet requires “Topic completion report documenting the results of each topic, including the final data and/or models, technical results, recommendations, and conclusions.” However, the fourth bullet requires “Final data and/or models, along with associated documentation.” Is the fourth bullet redundant to the second bullet?

The topic completion report deliverables are intended to be produced at the completion of the work in each topic area and shall document the results, final data, models, recommendations, and conclusions. The final report, data, and model deliverables are intended to be a compilation of the topic completion reports, including any revisions to these reports produced throughout the remainder of the NRA award.

9. There is no mission level deliverable for Topic 5.2. Does this mean that for mission-level impact trade studies we would need to include Topic 5.3 in the proposal in addition to Topics 5.1 and 5.2, along with a separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and Model Contract?

Yes, mission level impact trade studies fall under Topic 5.3. Topics 5.1 and 5.2 are required in all proposals. Topic 5.3 is not required in proposals; however, if a proposal includes topic 5.3, then the proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the NRA requirements for topic 5.3 and section 11.

Per NRA Section 9.3, “each topic being proposed from Section 5 must have a separate Statement of Work (SOW), schedule, and cost document for evaluation purposes.”

Similarly, Section 10.2 states: “A separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model Contract shall be provided in the proposal for each technical topic area from Section 5. If multiple study

10. Follow-up to question 1: if the answer to the question above is that Topic 5.3 needs to be included, then if we include Topic 5.3 to perform system-level trade studies on the chosen technologies (which are vehicle and mission dependent), can we scope it such that the emphasis is on technology evaluation at the system level for our reference aircraft, or do we have to include development and analysis of new aircraft concepts as well?

The proposed work will be evaluated based on the requirements of the NRA, including but not limited to the ability to produce the deliverables specified in Topic 5.3 and Appendix B.

11. On page 18, under Table 1, it is stated that:

“A separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model Contract shall be provided in the proposal for each technical topic area from Section 5. If multiple study activities are being proposed under one topic area, those activities shall have a separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model contract as well. The Offeror’s Proposed Work Plan is intended to become the Statement of Work (SOW) on any awarded contract(s).”

Since Topic areas 5.1 and 5.2 are now required for all proposals, is it still required to have a separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model Contract for 5.1 and 5.2 each?

Per NRA Section 9.3, “each topic being proposed from Section 5 must have a separate Statement of Work (SOW), schedule, and cost document for evaluation purposes.”

Similarly, Section 10.2 states: “A separate Work Plan, Cost Proposal, and signed Model Contract shall be provided in the proposal for each technical topic area from Section 5. If multiple study

12. Question on cost - Attachment B requires costs to be broken down by CLIN/Year. We would appreciate some clarification on what is meant by “Year”. Would this be project year, government fiscal year, contractor fiscal year, or calendar year? For example, do we count first 12 months from the start of the performance (expected to be April if awarded per the cover letter) as first year, and then the remaining six months until the 18-month period is complete as second year?

There is no requirement as to what Offerors use for “Years” in Attachment B. However, it is preferred that proposals be set up using project years.

13. Section 4.1: Phase I – Advanced Concept Development

The final NRA indicates that “NASA will be using the Probabilistic Technology Investment Ranking System (PTIRS) to evaluate direct operating cost plus interest (DOC+I) for advanced aircraft concepts. PTIRS is a complete life cycle cost model for commercial aircraft development, production, and operations.”

• Are there references available to understand this tool, how it operates and what assumptions are entailed?

P. Frederic, G. M. Bezos-O’Connor, C. Nickol, “Cost Analysis Approach in the Development of Advanced Technologies for Green Aviation Aircraft.” Encyclopedia of

Aerospace Engineering – Green Aviation Volume. June 2015 (https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686652.eae1078)

• Is there an existing reference that illustrates how NASA intended to use it to evaluate the AACES 2050 proposals?

NASA will not be using the PTIRS tool to evaluate and select proposals to this NRA.

NASA will use PTIRS to conduct independent assessments based on the final results produced by awarded proposals. Appendix B identifies the data NASA is requesting be produced/provided as output from awarded proposals to complete cost as well as other independent assessments following completion of the NRA awards.

14. Can FAR Clause 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General be added to the solicitation?

This clause is in the Model Contract on page 33.

15. Can NASA Clause 1852.204-76 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES (APR 2021) be replaced by DFARS 252.204-

7012/NIST 800-171.

No, we cannot include any DFARS Clauses in NASA Contracts.