Rapid_IV_DRFP_QC_Disposition_Rev3.pdf

Rapid IV DRFP #80GSFC19R0016 Questions and Answers

Q # Document Section Page Requirement Question-Comment Government Response/Action Items

1 DRFP H.12 34 H.12 PAYBACK/REPLACEMENT OF SPACECRAFT

A payback of the total price or a replacement spacecraft for a mission shall be required if the spacecraft acceptance criteria are not met as determined by the Contracting Officer. Where the Government requires payback for the mission, this amount shall be equivalent to the respective spacecraft price in the delivery order, excluding any performance based milestone payments in Clause H.9, not made to date. The Government's election and terms and conditions for payback or replacement will be set forth in the RFO and resulting delivery order.

In the event of an on-orbit spacecraft failure, the contractor shall not be liable for the payback or replacement of the government provided instrument and government provided launch service.

In order to mitigate the risk inherent in this clause, contractors will be forced to include insurance costs in their bid prices thereby increasing the Government's cost. In addition, rates for special studies and any negotiated contract changes affecting price will also have to include the cost of insurance.

Additionally, it is unclear if smaller, single string spacecraft will be insurable at affordable rates. Given this the proposed clause will 1) Increase the Government's cost and 2) limit the Government's choice. We suggest the Rapid III clause under which only the final milestone payment of 10% of the initial contract value is forfeit be used.

As part of its initial planning phase for each of the delivery orders under RSDO IV, NASA will assess, determine and inform the potetial offerors whether contract clause H.12 is applicable. If contract clause H.12 is not applicable, the delivery order will indicate the percentage of the final milestone payment that may be witheld by the Government.

2 DRFP L.18 92 "Section L.18 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS (APR 2015) A page is defined as one side of sheet, 81⁄2 ″ × 11″, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type."

We suggest 8 point font be allowed for tables and figures. This is legible and will allow vendors to use existing graphics.

Section L.18 will be revised in the final RFP to allow 8 point font for tables and figures only.

3 DRFP and Attach C L.18 Section

1.3

92 "Section L.18 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS (APR 2015) A page is defined as one side of sheet, 81⁄2 ″ × 11″, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type." and Attachment C Section 1.3 Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) Overview, Item b) “Much of the information requested in the DIDs may already exist in your documentation and in your own format. Existing documents and formats may be used if they meet the intent of DID requirements.”

Many existing CDRL documents do not meet the “one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type” requirements. We suggest this requirement not apply to existing documents submitted as part of the vendor’s proposal

The requirements will not apply to the vendor's pre-existing documents. The final RFP will be updated.

4 DRFP H.13 34-35 Following the award of the Rapid IV contracts... For each Core Spacecraft, the Contractor shall provide publically releasable Spacecraft Data consisting of:

(a) Rapid IV Spacecraft Summary Data Sheet;

(b) Rapid IV Core System Performance Characteristics & Subsystem Details;

(c) Spacecraft Image File

Clause H.13 contains deliverables that were in previous Rapid proposal the content of DO#1. Does the Government intend the contractor to provide these as part of a funded delivery order or are they deliverable under the contact at no cost to the Government?

The final RFP will reflect a revised minimum guanrateed. A Delivery Order will be issued for those deliveables

5 DRFP J.1 78 The IT Security Management Plan be delivered 30 days after contract award.

We suggest the IT Security Management Plan be delivered as part of the delivery order as IT Security is DO specific.

The IT Security Management Plan will be required as part of the delivery order. The final RFP will be updated accordingly.

6 DRFP H.13

J.1

34-35

Following the award of the Rapid IV contracts... For each Core Spacecraft, the Contractor shall provide publically releasable Spacecraft Data consisting of: . . .

(c) Spacecraft Image File

The Spacecraft Image File does not appear in Table contained in Section J.1 GSFC 52.211-101 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (FEB 2016)

The Spacecraft Image File was ommited from the table in Section J.1. The final RFP will be updated to include the Spacecraft Image File as "Attachment I".

7 DRFP L.24 100 a. The offeror shall provide a narrative description which details its technical approach to satisfying all subsections of SOW Section 4.0. The narrative shall demonstrate the offeror’s ability to comply with and implement each specific SOW section identified in the SOW.

Note: In response to SOW Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 only, the offeror may provide existing or modified internal documents that cover the content of the Project Management Plan (CDRL 21), Systems Engineering Plan (CDRL 22) and Systems Assurance Plan (CDRL 23) as separate attachments to the Technical Volume. These plans will not be included in the page count limitation. A matrix shall be provided that ties the offeror’s internal documents to the requirements of CDRL 21, 22, and 23"

Other sections of 4.0 are addressed by CDRLs items delivered with the proposal. Specifically: 4.3.4 Spacecraft Systems Implementation by the SPACECRAFT PERFORMANCE

VERIFICATION PLAN (CDRL 3), SPACECRAFT INTEGRATION &

TEST (I&T) PLAN (CDRL 4), and STORAGE, SHIPMENT AND

HANDLING PLAN (CDRL 13), OBSERVATORY LAUNCH SITE

OPERATIONS AND TEST PLAN (CDRL 14) and 4.3.6.1 FLIGHT OPERATIONS SUPPORT PLAN (CDRL 16). May these addressed by reference to the relevant appendix?

No

8 SOW 4.1 6 Provide an Implementation Schedule denoting the following program phases: Systems Engineering & Design; Fabrication, Assembly & Test; Core Spacecraft Integration & Test;

Observatory Integration & Test; Shipment & Launch Site Support; Launch & Flight Operations Support including Spacecraft Checkout. Include in the schedule the contractually required and additional proposed payment milestones.

If the core spacecraft and its heritage system is designed to accommodate more than one instrument may this be submitted as technical documentation provided?

Yes

9 DRFP L.20 94 (2) states " All pages of Volumes I, II, and III shall be numbered and identified with the offeror’s name, RFP number and date. Subsequent revisions, if requested, shall be similarly identified to show revision number and date. A table of contents shall be provided with figures and tables listed separately."

Does the marking requirement apply existing documents provided in the appendices such as the Project Management Plan (CDRL 21), Systems Engineering Plan (CDRL 22) and Systems Assurance Plan (CDRL 23)

Yes

10 CDRL CDRL 1 12 1.1 Observatory (or Mission) Level Performance (Complete EXCEL Spreadsheet “CDRL 1 enclosure.xls” Part 1 provided as Enclosure 1 to this DID)

1.2 Core Spacecraft Major Systems Performance (Complete

EXCEL Spreadsheet “CDRL 1 enclosure.xls” Part 2 provided as Enclosure 1 to this DID)

The CDRL refers to two spreadsheets Enclosure 1 Part 1 and Part 2 but they are not provided. However the data requested is similar to that in Attachment K are these synonymous?

Yes, CDRL 1 Enclosure 1 is synonymous with Attachment K. CDRL 1 Enclosure 1 was omitted from the DRFP and will be included in the final

RFP.

11 DRFP L.23 99, 101,

"(3) The offeror shall provide a technical description of its Core Spacecraft offer ..." and (6) c. "Core Spacecraft Systems Overview - The offeror shall provide an overview of the design ... of the proposed core spacecraft offering as detailed in the Core System Performance Specification, CDRL

1. ... A system block diagram down to the component box level shall be included."

The technical description of the core spacecraft appears to be requested in both (3) and (6) c. Please clarify where this information should be presented.

The technical description of the core spacecraft information should be presented in (6) c.

TAS (3) "The offeror shall provide a technical description of its Core Spacecraft offer ..." will be deleted and the final RFP Sections L.23 and M.4 will be updated accordingly.

12 DRFP and

CDRL

L.23

L.23 Item (2): The offeror shall provide a top-level implementation schedule that shall include as a minimum:

Spacecraft System Requirements/System Definition Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Instrument Integration Readiness Review, Observatory Pre- Environmental Review, Observatory Pre-Shipment Review, Launch, On-Orbit Checkout, and Observatory Acceptance Review; as well as the primary activities of System Engineering and Design, Fabrication, Assembly and Test;

Core Spacecraft Integration and Test; Core Spacecraft Comprehensive Testing; Observatory Integration and Test, Shipment and Launch Site Activities. (Not subject to page count limitation.)

CDRL 21: Provide an Implementation Schedule denoting the following program phases: Systems Engineering & Design;

Fabrication, Assembly & Test; Core Spacecraft Integration & Test; Observatory Integration & Test; Shipment & Launch Site Support; Launch & Flight Operations Support including Spacecraft Checkout. Include in the schedule the contractually required and additional proposed payment milestones.

The DRFP requires an Implementation Schedule to be submitted in Section L.23 Item (2) and in the CDRL 21 Project Management Plan. Can the requirement for an Implementation Schedule in CDRL 21 be eliminated ?

No. The Project Management Plan is incorporated as part of the contract in Attachment D (a) in Section J.1.

13 DRFP L.24 102 "Relevant past performance information includes any past performance history on Government and/or Commercial contracts for the offeror’s proposed core spacecraft bus. The offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the below information on past/current contract references that your company has had within the last 10 years of the RFP release date."

Should the 10 year period be read to include contract extensions for engineering support on spacecraft delivered and launched before the 10 year window? Will the Government make provision for the delivery of classified past performance?

Yes, it may included those contracts.

Unfortunately, classified Past Performance information cannot be accommodated.

14 DRFP L.21 97 (8) Eligibility for Inclusion into the RSDO IV Catalog - NASA/GSFC Rapid IV contract award is limited to spacecraft Offerors that can demonstrate a minimum of two successful spacecraft developments, as an aerospace company. In order for an offeror’s spacecraft design to be eligible to be proposed for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, the offeror’ shall have developed and flown, at least TWO spacecraft successfully through on-orbit checkout and acceptance.

Since the NASA/GSFC Rapid IV contract award is limited to spacecraft Offerors that can demonstrate a minimum of two successful spacecraft developments:

1) Must Volume III contain past performance of two prior/current contracts, or is one contract sufficient ?

2) Must Volume III contain past performance of the prior/current contracts that are used to justify NASA/GSFC Rapid IV contract award [Section L.21, Item (8), page 97] ?

3) Must Volume III contain past performance specifically for the Heritage Spececraft [described in L.23, Item (8) page 100] ?

1) No. the provision states that following:

"The offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the below information on past/current contract references that your company has had within the last 10 years of the RFP release date. The below information shall be provided for each core spacecraft bus being proposed for the Rapid IV contract."

2) Please refer to item 1) above.

3) Yes

Note: The provision will be revised for clarity in the final RFP.

15 L.24 102 Relevant past performance information includes any past performance history on Government and/or Commercial contracts for the offeror’s proposed core spacecraft bus. The offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the below information on past/current contract references that your company has had within the last 10 years of the RFP release date.

Must past performance be provided on all relevant programs with performance in the last 10 years or must the two spacecraft used in L.21 be in the last 10 years? If all programs in the last 10 years can this be limited to unclassified programs or can classified past performance be submitted?

See response to Question 14.

We are not able to accommodate classified past performance information.

16 DRFP L.21 97 "The offeror shall provide the Spacecraft Verification Questionnaires provided as Exhibit 1 to each of its customers. The Offeror shall provide at least two Spacecraft Verification Questionnaires per spacecraft being proposed for incorporation into the Rapid IV catalog. The Offeror shall instruct each of its references to return the questionnaire directly to the Government."

Will the Government make provision for the delivery of classified Spacecraft Verification Questionnaires ?

We are not able to accommodate classified Spacecraft Verification Questionnaires.

17 SOW

DRFP

Attach J

4.1 H.13

SOW “For this contract, the effort to produce a Rapid IV Core Spacecraft with selected Rapid IV Core Spacecraft Options...”

DRFP H.13 "Mission capability alterations associated with Rapid IV contract options may also be included if appropriately noted as contract optional capability."

The SOW 4.1, DRFP H.13, and the Attachment J summary data sheet all mention options to the core spacecraft. However, DRFP section L is silent on how or if contract options should be included or described.

There are no contract options required for the Rapid IV solicitation. Therefore, all language pertaining to "options to the core spacecraft," will be removed from the SOW and final RFP.

18 DRFP G.10(b)( 2)(B)

L.23(B)(9

Per FAR 19.705-1(b) and 19.705-2(e): The contracting officer shall require a subcontracting plan for each indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (including task or delivery order contracts, FSS, GWACs, and MACs), when the estimated value of the contract meets the subcontracting plan thresholds and small business subcontracting opportunities exist. A contract may not have more than one subcontracting plan. However, a contracting officer may establish separate subcontracting goals for each order under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.

RFO procedures - G.10(b)(2)(B): Should be revised to state “Small Business Subcontracting Goals” and remove all references to the requirement for a separate subcontracting plan.

Tech Standards Volume – L.23(B)(9): Should be revised to allow for an Individual Subcontracting Plan with subcontracting goals determined with each Delivery Order.

For the Rapid IV core contracts, Offerors are required to submit a Master subcontracting plan, which contains all the required elements of an individual subcontracting plan, except goals.

Offerors will be required to submit an Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan at the Delivery Order level.

19 CDRL CDRL The CDRL and the DIDs; M&PL requirements. The CDRL does not require an M&P list, however, the EIDP DID requires an as-built materials list be included. Is there a requirement for the content and/or format for the materials list?

No materials and parts list is required at the contract level. The End Item Acceptance Data Package requires both. (See CDRL 18 DID and Table 1 for delivery).

20 CDRL CDRL#1

DID

Core Spacecraft Performance Specification Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of CDRL 1 DID asks to complete excel spreadsheet "CDRL 1 enclosure.xls". There is no CDRL 1 enclosure provided with the RFP but the description looks like Attachment J. Is the CDRL 1 DID referncing Attachment J?

No, CDRL 1 DID is not referencing Attachment J.

See the response to Question 10.

21 CDRL DID 10 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL)

The CDRL indicates delivery 30 calendar days prior to related Spacecraft Systems Review. Is the intent that the CDRL submittal frequency would apply to specific reviews or all reviews in Spacecraft Systems Reviews (SOW 4.3.1.4.2)?

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are required prior to each Spacecraft Systems Review, per CDRL Section 2.1

TABLE 1.

22 RFP H.13 Rapid IV Database and Catalogue Set-up Instructions say that Attachments J&K shall be submitted after Rapid IV contract awards. Does this mean that Attachments J and K (Spacecraft Summary Data Sheet and Performance table) are not requested as part of the Rapid IV proposal?

Yes, that is correct. Attachments J & K will be reviewed after contract award for entry into the online Rapid IV catalog.

Also see response to Questions 4 and 6.

23 RFP H.10;

Para. 4

Acceptance and Final Payment Request revision From: "The Contractor shall not be held liable for the degradation of the Observatory nor for the risk of loss of the Observatory due to failure of the Government provided launch vehicle, Government provided instrument(s), or Government provided ground operations"; To: "Upon ignition of the launch vehicle and thereafter, the Contractor shall not be liable for any degradation, damage or loss to the mission spacecraft or observatory that arises out of or results from the Government-provided launch vehicle, Government-provided instrument(s) or Government-provided ground operations, whether such degradation, damage or loss occurs prior to, upon or after ignition of the launch vehicle.”

The language will remain as written; However, it may be tweaked at the delivery order level.

24 RFP H.10;

Para. 5

Acceptance and Final Payment Revise "observatory" references to "spacecraft" since, under this clause, the contractor is providing a spacecraft, not the instruments and the value of the DO is based on the spacecraft price.

The language will remain as written; However, it may be tweaked at the delivery order level.

25 RFP H.13 Rapid IV Database and Catalogue Set-up Will a DO be awarded for the Catalog Set-Up? Yes; the clause will be revised upon release of the final RFP.

26 RFP I.33 Notice of Price Eval Preference for Hubzone SB Concerns Would this actually apply at the delivery order level and could be moved to Attachment H?

Yes, the clause may be applicable at the delivery orders and will be moved to Attachment H in the final RFP.

27 RFP E. 6 GSFC 52.246-93- Acceptance Locations Would this actually apply at the delivery order level and could be moved to Attachment H?

Yes, the clause applys to delivery orders and will be moved to Attachment H in the final RFP.

28 RFP I. 106 52.223-3- Hazmat ID Is this required for the IDIQ proposal/contract or does is actually apply at the DO level and can be moved to Attachment H?

Yes, the clause does apply to delivery orders and will be moved to Attachment H in the final RFP.

29 RFP Pricing Information Please confirm that Core Spacecraft pricing will not be required for the IDIQ proposal.

Confirmed. Core Spacecraft pricing is not be required for the IDIQ proposal submitted in response to the Rapid IV RFP.

30 RFP H.8 Launch Delays Recommend the addition of the following language to avoid ambiguitiy as to who makes the final decision on launch delays.

"NASA will make the final go or no-go decision for each launch under delivery orders. "

The clause will remain as written; however, it may be tweaked at the delivery order level.

31 SOW 2.1 Contractor Definition and Responsibilities. Specifically the requirement to provide "… full range of observatory (Spacecraft plus Payload) level testing."

What constitutes "full range"? Can you provide a list of system-level tests that are minimally required? Is there any requirement that the tests be done at the contractor's facility (ie, does the Contractor need to have these capabilities or can they subcontract the efforts)?

The words "full range" will be deleted from SOW Section 2.1 in the final RFP.

In SOW Section 4.3.4.4 Observatory Integration and Test, this section provides a list of the minimum test program.

No. Please refer to final RFP, Provision.

32 SOW 4.3.4.2 Core S/C Interface Simulator Is this item deliverable or can it be a Contractor asset that is made available to the program?

The simulator can be a contractor asset that is made available to the program unless the program requires a simulator be developed and delivered to the program.

33 SOW 4.1.4 The Contractor shall integrate the mission payload-instrument(s) with the mission specific core spacecraft, qualify the resulting Observatory, ship the Observatory to the launch site, provide launch support and flight operations support, perform on-orbit spacecraft checkout, support instrument/payload checkout, conduct on-orbit acceptance review, and satisfy all of the requirements of Section 4.3.

What constitutes "qualify the resulting Observatory"? Is proto-flight considered acceptable qualified?

The answer to both questions is that the Observatory qualification will be specified at the delivery order level.

34 SOW 4.3.3.1 EEE As Built Parts List CDRL 9 doesn't indicate a submittal frequency. Is the intent that a final as-built parts list is a one-time submittal?

No. CDRL 9 submittal is defined in the notes of CDRL Section 2.1, Table 1.

35 SOW 4.3.1.2 Control of Sensitive Information Recommend deleting this paragraph from the SOW. This is addressed in more detail in the contract, i.e. 1852.237-72 and 1852.237-73.

The final RFP will be updated accordingly.

36 For current offering listed on the RAPID III contract: will the government allow offerors the ability to submit proposal change pages from RAPID III proposals that resulted in RAPID III awards/listing to the RAPID III catalog in lieu of a complete proposal package submission?

No. Offerors should follow the proposal instructions as outlined in the Rapid IV RFP.

37 Rapid III solicitation requested that NTE pricing be provided for each spacecraft offering. Draft Rapid IV solicitation does not state this requirement. What type of pricing will the government accept for each spacecraft offering? Is NTE pricing for each spacecraft offering an acceptable approach for Rapid

IV?

The Rapid IV solicitation does not require any pricing. A Firm-Fixed Price will be requested in solicitations for each mission at the delivery order level.

38 RAPID_IV_DRFP_R

ev6_Final.pdf

L.21

GSFC

52.215-

OFFER

VOLUME

(MAR

2019)

97 In the first paragraph of L21(c)(8) :

"...Rapid IV contract award is limited to spacecraft Offerors that can demonstrate a minimum of two successful spacecraft developments, as an aerospace company. In order for an offeror’s spacecraft design to be eligible to be proposed for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, the offeror’ shall have developed and flown, at least TWO spacecraft successfully through on-orbit checkout and acceptance."

In the second paragraph of L21(c)(8): "The Offeror shall provide at least two Spacecraft Verification Questionnaires per spacecraft being proposed for incorporation into the Rapid IV catalog."

The Spacecraft Verification Questionnaires in Section L, Exhibit 1 (document Rapid_IV-DRFP_Section-L- Enclosure_1_Rev1.pdf) refers to two separate spacecraft developments as well.

The requirement for a contractor to have developed and flown two spacecraft successfully through on-orbit checkout and acceptance has moved from the Technical Volume in Rapid III to the Offer Volume in Rapid IV.

• The subsection L21(c)(8) (Eligibility for Inclusion into the RSDO IV Catalog ), defines the eligibility requirements for vendors to be included in the Rapid IV catalog. The first paragraph in L21(c)(8) refers to minimum two different spacecraft developed and flown by the offeror; however, the second paragraph in L21(c)(8) seems to refer to the same spacecraft being flown at least twice.

Please clarify if the new text requires that in order to be eligible for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, a company needs to demonstrate that:

(a ) each spacecraft proposed for Rapid IV has been flown in at least two successful missions OR (b ) the contractor has successfully developed and flown at least two spacecraft, each of them to be flown at least once.

Recommendation: If the intent is that a spacecraft must have flown twice to be accepted into Rapid IV, we strongly recommend that this not be the requirement and that RSDO maintain the long held requirement of one successful heritage flight for each submitted spacecraft. Requiring two flights per spacecraft will severely limit submissions to the catalog particularly for larger spacecraft, and will not add any benefit.

One successful flight qualifies a spacecraft/subsystems to the highest TRL.

For clarity, the text will be revised in the final RFP to read as follows:

"In order for an offeror's company to be eligible for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, the offeror's company shall have developed and flown, at least TWO spacecraft successfully through on-orbit checkout and acceptance. In order for the offeror’s heritage design to be eligible to be proposed for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, the offeror’s heritage spacecraft design shall have successfully flown, at least ONCE, through on-orbit checkout and acceptance."

39 Rapid_IV_DRFP_Co ver_Letter_Rev4_F inal.pdf

Paragraph 1 A notional on-ramp schedule would allow vendors to plan resources and prepare for new spacecraft submissions in advance. Extending on-ramp request to vendors who have not submitted spacecraft to the Rapid IV catalog would provide opportunities to submit new spacecraft that are are in development, but are not flight-proven by the due date for receipt of Rapid IV proposals. This would facilitate and accelerate the expansion of the pool of available spacecraft in the catalog.

Vendors can request an on-ramp, provided they are already awarded a Rapid IV contract, i.e., have a spacecraft in the Rapid IV catalog.

Would it be possible to request (and get it granted) an on-ramp for Rapid IV after Rapid III expires, based on having spacecraft in the Rapid III catalog (but not in the Rapid IV catalog)?

Recommendation: We recommend RSDO provide potential vendors with a notional on-ramp schedule for the period of the Rapid IV IDIQ including options (i.e., 10 years). This will allow vendors to plan for new spacecraft submissions to the catalog as new vehicles gain heritage flight. This could also include allowing non-IDIQ vendors to request on-ramp.

The government anticipates conducting periodic on-ramps as the need arises, but does not plan to issue a specific schedule. However, any commercial spacecraft provider may request an on-ramp.

40 Rapid_IV_DRFP_At tach_A_SOW_Rev1

.pdf

3.1 5 The MAR has been removed from the core spacecraft requirements and replaced with the contractors' Systems Assurance Plan. However, The Statement of Work shows the MAR as a mission specific applicable document.

Will the mission specific MAR reflect closely the original version and supersede the contractors' Systems Assurance Plan?

Recommendation : In the spirit of reducing the complexity of commercial acquisitions, we recommend dropping the MAR requirement and allowing mission specific tailoring of the Systems Assurance Plan for RFOs.

The mission-specific MAR will supersede the Systems Assurance Plan.

41 Rapid_IV_DRFP_At tach_C_CDRL_Rev

2.pdf

Table 2.1, CDRL 10

8, 22 The title for CDRL #10 in Table 2.1 calls for a Failure Mode Effects & Criticality Analysis (FEMCA) while the detailed description asks for a Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA). Is it a FMECA or FMEA that is required?

FMEA is required. The title will be corrected in the final RFP.

42 RAPID_IV_DRFP_R

ev6_Final.pdf

H.13

RAPID IV

SPACECR

AFT

DATABA

SE &

CATALO

G SET-UP

36 A minimum acceptable list of information to be included, bullet 13 reads: "Contract baseline delivery schedule, ARO through launch and on-orbit checkout, showing Rapid III required reviews. " Is this a typo, i.e., should "Rapid III" be replaced with "Rapid

IV"?

The typo will be corrected in the final RFP.

43 Rapid_IV_DRFP_Co ver_Letter_Rev4_F inal.pdf

Paragrap h 4

2 The current planned release date for the Final RFP is on or about late September 2019, with proposals being due approximately 30 calendar days later.

The 30-day RFP release/proposal schedule will be very difficult to meet given the complexity of the DRFP. The current state of the DRFP and associated requirements are very much like a full mission proposal which would have a 60-90 day turn around.

Recommendation: Barring significant changes to the Rapid IV DRFP, we recommend extending the proposal due date to 60 to 90 days after final RFP release given the complexity of the current DRFP.

The Final RFP is anticipated to be relesaed on November 12 and the proposal due date is expeted to be in early Janaury 2020.

44 Rapid III Vendor Letter to RSDO dated 07/19/2019

The DRFP is very complex relative to the intent of RSDO as a more commercial approach to acquisition of demonstrated spacecraft. A complex IDIQ submission coupled with a complex mission RFO can drive cost into vendors bids.

We recommend a simplified Rapid IV proposal process, especially for those vendors who are interested in (re)submitting current Rapid III spacecraft to the Rapid IV catalog. A streamlined approach to the proposal would enable efficient use of resources for both vendors and the RSDO acquisition office. Specifically:

• For those Rapid III spacecraft that satisfy Rapid IV requirements, we recommend the RSDO office allow the option for interested vendors to submit a reduced scope proposal.

• This could be limited to submission of the pricing volume for the core spacecraft and options, labor rates (non-standard services), and any new Rapid IV requirements (e.g., elimination of MAR at Master contract level).

The Rapid IV RFP will remain as it is written.

Offerors shall submit all requested documents, since no carryover from Rapid III will be allowed.

44 Continued from Above

Continuation from above:

• Obsolescence and upgrades to components and subsystems could be highlighted and any new flight heritage could be identified. Spacecraft brochures could be updated to reflect those changes.

• Allowing for a reduced scope proposal would free vendor resources for the submittal of new spacecraft and lessen RSDO efforts evaluating known spacecraft to focus on new entrants.

This is especially important given the expansion of the catalog to smaller vehicles, such as cubesats.

We recommend a meeting with Rapid III vendors to discuss this topic prior to final RFP release.

See response above.

45 Rapid_IV_DRFP_At tach_C_CDRL_Rev 2.pdf

For spacecraft that are currently in the Rapid III catalog that satisfy Rapid IV requirements, we request the following spacecraft-specific sections of the Rapid IV proposal to be carried over from the Rapid III proposals:

• INSTRUMENT INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENT (CDRL 2)

• SPACECRAFT PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION PLAN (CDRL 3)

• STORAGE, SHIPMENT AND HANDLING PLAN (CDRL 13)

• OBSERVATORY LAUNCH SITE OPERATIONS AND TEST PLAN

(CDRL 14)

• FLIGHT OPERATIONS SUPPORT PLAN (CDRL 16)

The referenced CDRLs cannot be carried over from prior Rapid III proposals.

See response to Question 44.

46 RAPID_IV_DRFP_R

ev6_Final.pdf and Commercial Lunar Payload Services

(CLPS) Solicitation

80HQTR18R0011R

(NASA Johnson Space Center)

Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) Solicitation

80HQTR18R0011R

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=c ore&id=46b23a8f2c06da6ac08e1d1d2ae97d35&tab=documents &tabmode=list

FAR - Part 12 (acquisition of supplies or services that meet the definition of commercial items)

• NASA JSC's implementation of the FAR - Part 12 commercial-like contract structure for CLPS contract was intended to improve the speed and efficiency by relying more on their vendors.

We also ask RSDO to consider simplifying the Rapid IV RFP process and proposal structure by modifying the IDIQ contract -the NASA JSC CLPS contract structure for Rapid IV may serve as an example and a possible starting point.

• For CLPS program, NASA JSC has implemented a FAR - Part 12 commercial-like contract structure which requests fewer requirements from their vendors than the FAR - Part 15, which is the current contract structure the Rapid IV program. There is no need for Certified Cost or Price Data in the CLPS program (as not applicable in competitive environment), because the contract and subsequent Task Orders will be competitive.

The Rapid IV RFP will remain as written.

46 Continued from Above

Continuation from above:

• Since FAR - Part 12 prescribes policies and procedures unique to the acquisition of commercial items by establishing acquisition policies more closely resembling those of the commercial marketplace, we believe that FAR - Part 12 structure would bring additional efficiencies and flexibility to the RSDO procurement of spacecraft, payload, equipment and services in support of NASA and/or other Federal Government agencies' space missions.

See response above.

Sheet1