COR Questions and Responses rev 2.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. 80GSFC22R0054, for Coronagraph (COR) Instrument Phase A Study

Industry Questions 2

1) Would the Government consider us compliant if we submit two notional study schedules? One would describe the eight-month plan and the second would describe the 12-month plan.

➢ The Government has no restriction on submitting your schedule in this format.

2) Would the Government consider explaining when an awardee would know that the additional four months was going to be awarded? Is there a triggering event? Or would an offeror know once awarded the Phase A study?

➢ Section B of the RFP provides the following clause, B.4 GSFC 52.217-90 OPTION TO EXTEND (SEP 2013) please review Option 1 and the SOW

3) Will the Government clarify which requirements in the SPEC are the navigation requirements discussed in CDRL 13?

➢ The SOW has been previously updated to address this question.

4) Will the Government clarify if the instrument developer will be responsible for the pointing platform for the coronagraph?

➢ The Space Craft (S/C) will maintain pointing to the Sun at required accuracy so no pointing platform will be required by the instrument developer.

Attachment+A+Coro nagraph+SWFO- MGMT-SOW-0007; The introduction states "NOAA and NASA acknowledge that there may be industry interest to either collaborate in the use of compact coronagraph (CCOR) technology developed by Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) or to independently develop or use their own coronagraph technology or solution"

5) When will the technical design data package for the Navy Research Laboratory (NRL) compact coronagraph (CCOR) technology be provided to the bidders for review prior to submitting a firm proposal? If a design package will not be made available in the RFP bidders’ library, please provide a point of contact at NRL (name, email, and phone number) to enable bidders to coordinate and better understand the existing design.

Does the technical data package from NRL include performance models, mechanical CAD design models, build and assembly drawings, electronics schematics and layouts, instrument build and test procedures?

➢ As stated on page 8 of the SOW, “Any industry partner that wishes to collaborate with NRL or use CCOR technology from NRL is required to be certified in the Joint Certification Program (JCP). The Joint Certification Program (JCP) certifies United States (U.S.) contractors for access to unclassified military technical data belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). An active DD2345 "Military Critical Technical Data Agreement" is required to access unclassified technical data with military or space application and may be required to partner with NRL. Any partnership with NRL, like any subcontracting agreement, is the sole responsibility of the industry partner; NOAA has no preference or preferred method of implementing the commercial Coronagraph development, other than to assure mission success, minimize cost, and meet schedule and mitigate risks.”

Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. 80GSFC22R0054, for Coronagraph (COR) Instrument Phase A Study

Industry Questions 2

➢ NRL Technology Transfer Office webpage: https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Doing-

Business/Technology-Transfer/ This information is provided for reference only, NASA does not maintain or check this site and has no preference or preferred method of formulation or implementation.

6) If offering is based on Tech transfer from NRL and there is a delay of receiving documentation post ATP will NASA give schedule relief?

➢ See above

7) What is the process for putting a Government entity such as NRL under contract? We recommend it would be considered Government Furnished support. If NRL will charge the bidder for their support, how much should bidders assume NRL will charge the bidder to provide support?

➢ See above

8) Reference: I.92 52.223-99 ENSURING ADEQUATE COVID-19 SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR FEDERAL

CONTRACTORS (DEVIATION 21-03)) It is our understanding that this clause is no longer valid, per the NASA Memo, Subject: Update on NASA Implementation of Executive Order 14042 on Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors – Nationwide Injunction Issued by the District Court of the Southern District of Georgia, dated 09 Dec 2021. Recommend this clause be deleted.

➢ The NASA clause has been deleted.

9) This RFP includes (33) CDRLs, which are similar in number to the on-going Geo-XO Phase A Study contracts. Further, typical study contracts have been funded to ($5M), while this study contract is only funded to ($800K). Is it acceptable for the bidder to propose a reduced number of CDRLs that are submitted for review and/or information only and aligned with the limited available funding? Please confirm that best effort is acceptable

➢ No update to the SOW is anticipated, propose your best approach.

10) Is it acceptable for the bidder to propose shorter durations for reviews: Monthly, MTR and FSR, to be consistent with limited available funding?

➢ No update to the SOW is anticipated, propose your best approach.

11) Previous DRFP Question: Can a government agency and civil servants within, e.g.

NASA/GSFC, JPL, et el., bid or be a team member in response to this procurement call?

➢ Response: In accordance with the Space Weather Program’s intended procurement strategy and development of commercial Coronagraph instrument options, no NASA center or civil servant (or any other government agency or center) shall be considered as lead or principal investigator (or other role in the proposal) for this effort. Regarding Compact Coronagraph technology transfer from the Naval Research Lab (NRL), any interaction with NRL, is the sole responsibility of the instrument provider, as outlined in the SOW; and NASA and NOAA have no preference or preferred method of formulating and implementing the commercial Coronagraph.

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Doing-Business/Technology-Transfer/ https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Doing-Business/Technology-Transfer/