GeoXO SC Question and Answer EXCEL Sheet.pdf

# Document Reference Question / Comment Government Response

1 General Please provide an update on the partner payload, if available.

No updated information exists at this time or is anticipated for the Final RFP.

2 General

Under FAR 45 the contractor is responsible for the spacecraft and GFE instrument (as Government Property) while it is in our possession and further the liability does not pass to the Government until delivery.

The SOW states acceptance happens after the post launch acceptance review.

Will NASA assume risk of loss upon delivery of the integrated space vehicle and GFE instrument between the period of launch through PLAR, and by which mechanism would the Government compensate the Instrument provider should there be a failure?

The contractor is responsible for the spacecraft and instruments through the Post Launch Acceptance Review (PLAR). In accordance with 45.104, generally the Government assumes loss under a cost type contract.

3 Cover Letter What assumptions, if any, should the developer make regarding funding profiles for the program? Is continuous funding anticipated?

If available, any information related to funding profiles for the program will be provided in the Final RFP.

Cover Letter and

Attachment A SOW

The shift from parts and materials procurement for all spacecraft authorized at base contract ATP, as defined in Phase A, to delaying parts and material procurement for SV4‐7 to the time when the options are exercised, with an additional possibility of funding profile limits for FY24‐26, will impact our overall ability to optimize cost for the government. To support the government and minimize risk, please provide funding limitations (i.e. funding profile) ahead of the Final RFP?

If that is not be possible, we request that the time between Final RFP and proposal delivery be increased to at least 60 days. This will allow time for vendors to effectively engage their supply chains for cost efficiencies.

If available, any information related to the funding profile for the program will be provided in the Final RFP. The Government will take into consideration the request for 60 days.

5 Cover Letter

“The current planned release date for the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) is on or about mid to late September 2023 with proposals being due approximately 45 calendar days after RFP release.”

Offeror requests consideration to provide 60 days to respond

The Government will take into consideration the request for 60 days.

Solicitation Section B.1

Please confirm this table accurately represents the base contract plus spares strategy plus options:

Portions of this table are incorrect.

The base contract includes 3 spacecraft (GeoI1, GeoI2, and GeoS1) and an additional 3 full sets of parts and materials to be used as spares. The 3 additional sets of parts and materials are required to be for two GeoI spacecraft and one GeoS spacecraft.

Any leftover spares bought on the base contract will be used towards the options should they be exercised. The Contractor shall propose additional parts and materials as needed for the Options based on anticipated consumption of spares from the base contract and any additional spares based on the Contractor's sparing philosophy.

This table references "CLINs". A WBS structure will be used.

This table references "SV" for the base contract and options. The contract requires specific GeoI and GeoS spacecraft for the base contract and the options as well as specific naming conventions.

Option 4 is to have GeoS3 delivered at the Contractor facility in accordance with the date in the B.1 clause.

As relates to special studies this table is correct.

Solicitation Section H.6

In accordance with the DRFP instructions (pdf page 36), could you please provide copies of the current issuances of the GPD/GPRs if Vendors do not have access to a GSFC Government Facility onsite computer to obtain them.

Clause H.6 is being removed from the RFP because these requirements are applicable to on‐site work at GSFC. Only the GPDs and GPRs referenced in the RFP will be posted on SAM.gov.

Solicitation Section H.12

Are there any “no earlier than” dates that can be provided for the exercise of Option spacecraft #4 ‐ #7?

The Final RFP will be updated. For bidding purposes, the Contractor should use the "No Later Than Dates" listed in H.12 as the dates the options are exercised.

Solicitation Section H.12

The clause currently lists "No Later Than" exercise dates, our interpretation is that the government is requesting the contractors to provide firm option exercise dates within the No Later Than date listed. Please confirm or clarify.

The Final RFP will be updated. For bidding purposes, the Contractor should use the "No Later Than Dates" listed in H.12 as the dates the options are exercised.

Solicitation Section H.12

Recommend updating the following sentence in clause H.12 from "Option 1 shall be exercised prior to Option 2 unless the period for exercising Option 1 has expired, and so forth." to "Option 1 shall be exercised prior to Option 2, and so forth."

If any option is not exercised, this would affect the contractor's pricing for subsequent options.

No change is expected.

Solicitation Section H.13

Section H.13 shows a plug number of $35M for special studies but the cost exhibits show $25M for the same scope.

Which value is correct?

The correct number is $35M and will be updated in the Final RFP.

Solicitation

Exhibit 3 in Section L There is a discrepency between for the Base contract Special Study Task Support dollar amount. In Final Draft RFP (H.13) it is defined as $35,000,000. While in Cost Exhibit 3, the number is $25,000,000. Please clarify.

The correct number is $35M and will be updated in the Final RFP.

Solicitation

Section H.12 and H.13 Does the Government want the contractor to include the $8M in Special Studies for Options 5‐8 in Cost Exhibit 3? No. The cost should be included in H.13.

Solicitation

Section L.11 (C), Paragraph 7

Contractors without an approved EVM system shall not be eliminated from evaluation however the Prime and its significant subcontractors (>$100M) are required to implement their EVM plan upon contract award. The government will conduct a compliance review of contractor’s EVMS and if the plan is non‐conforming, the contractor will be docked award fee.

Is this requirement applicable to subs with fixed price subcontracts >$100M?

No. EVM is not required on fixed price contracts.

Solicitation

Section L.10 and L.13

L.10 (b)(4) states that “The format for each proposal volume shall parallel, to the greatest extent possible, the format of the evaluation factors contained in Section L of this solicitation.” Should the Cost Volume outline be aligned to L.13 (b) subsections (1) through (11), or should the Cost Volume outline be aligned with the table in section L.10 (b) (1) per Proposal Components (a): Table of contents, Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Labor Rates and Fee Matrices, (b): Cost Exhibits, and (c): Basis of Estimates?

The Cost Volume shall include all of the information in both L.10 and L.13. The way it's set up is up to the vendor.

Solicitation

Section L.14 and M.5

Section L.14 specifies a “recent” Past Performance as being within 7‐years of the RFP release date. Section M.5 provides a 5‐year timeline.

Would the Government please clarify the Past Performance time period?

The correct timeline is 7 years. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect 7 years.

Attachment A SCSOW

SSOW13 c)

A complete set of parts and materials for each spacecraft to be used as spares to ensure the readiness and launch cadence

Can NASA clarify whether the rolling management of spare hardware (as part of Spares Plan and List management plan CDRL PM‐07) is acceptable so long as launch cadence is ensured?

Does NASA define “complete set … to ensure launch readiness” to be a full of bill of material, or spares as defined in sparing management plan (CDRL PM‐07)?

Rolling management of spare hardware is acceptable. See

SCSOW916.

NASA defines a "complete set of parts and materials for each spacecraft" as stated in SCSOW13 c) as a full set of parts and materials for the entire spacecraft. Thus, the base contract includes 3 spacecraft (GeoI1, GeoI2, and GeoS1) and an additional 3 full sets of parts and materials to be used as spares.

The 3 additional sets of parts and materials are required to be for two GeoI spacecraft and one GeoS spacecraft.

The Spares Plan and List as required in CDRL PM‐07 should describe the Contractor's approach to sparing. The approach to sparing shall include the purchase of the 3 sets of parts and materials for the spares and any additional spares that the Contractor deems are required.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW13 c)

The SOW requests "a complete set of parts and materials for each spacecraft to be used as spares to ensure the readiness and launch cadence of GeoI1, GeoI2, and GeoS1." Does NASA intend the contractor to provide 1 or 3 complete sets of spares as part of the base contract?

Per the requirement, the Contractor is required to provide 3 spacecraft (GeoI1, GeoI2 and GeoS1) and 3 additional full sets of parts and materials to be used as spares. The 3 additional spare sets shall include two sets of parts and materials for a GeoI spacecraft and one set of parts and materials for a GeoS spacecraft.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW90

When is the TDAS intended to be fully operational?

For each vehicle, how long is the TDAS intended to be operational?

The TDAS must be operational to support all of I&T and must be available through the launch of each spacecraft. Attachment A will be updated for the Final RFP.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW228

Please clarify the definitions of “level 4 through level 6" as it applied to DOORS requirements flow‐down are consistent with NASA‐HDBK‐1005

Government Contractual documents are Level 3. The Spacecraft System Specifications are Level 4, and the derived detailed requirements are at Levels 5 and lower. Attachment A will be updated for the Final RFP.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW239

Is an indentured list format acceptable for drawing trees?

The Drawing Tree must be in compliance with the requirements of Attachment B, 418‐XO‐SCCDRL‐0053, SE‐SPEC‐01‐5 Drawing Tree.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW 423

SCSOW423: Please provide a sample/draft XTCE file as a reference template?

No sample file can be provided. For further information please see Attachment B, SCCDRL982 item #1.

Attachment A SOW

Section 7.4 2

It is understood that the spacecraft shall have the ability to be stored on the ground for up to 5 years. Shall 5 years of ground storage and associated testing be costed, or shall storage only be costed in alignment to the program IMS and outside of any planned funded margin?

Storage and testing only needs to be costed in alignment with Contractor proposed IMS.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW647

For spacecraft stored for extended duration, please clarify how early the TVAC test should be performed relative to ship date

Please see SCSOW647 ‐ the Thermal Vacuum test is required for storage greater than 4 years and is not related to the ship date.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW707

SCSOW707 asks for three, 10‐day Spacecraft Operations Training sessions at NSOF; Are the 3 training sessions meant to cover GeoI1, GeoI2, and GeoS1 per SCSOW13 or just GeoI1? Suspect it’s the former, but can the GeoXO Program clarify?

A total of three Spacecraft Operations Training sessions at NSOF (per SCSOW707) are required for each spacecraft.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW743

Can government provide guidance on the assumed spread of the assumed 12 anomalies over the mission life?

The SOW will be updated to state that for bidding purposes, the Contractor should assume one anomaly per year for each spacecraft starting at launch.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW747

Will NASA have contracts in place with Instrument providers to support on‐orbit anomalies with the spacecraft provider? Yes.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW781

Does "concurrent testing" imply concurrent testing of one or more performance tests on separate communications services? Or is the intent of the requirement to ensure the ability to apply simultaenous uplinks and downlinks for one or more communications services?

The EGSE needs to be able to test any communication service with all other communication services operating simultaneously.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW826

and Solicitation Section B.1

Recommendation: Please provide need dates for SIIS delivery/deliveries to DRFP Section B.1, e.g. LRD ‐ XX months. Needed for defining development/delivery schedule for SIIS.

Justification: The SCSOW826 asks to "prepare and provide" Spacecraft Interface Simulator(s) (SIIS) to support instrument interface development and testing. The use of the word "provide" implies that the SIIS are required to be delivered…either in place at the Contractor Facility or externally to a customer (or instrument vendor) site.

Question: The use of the (s) at the endof Simulator(s) also implies that more than one SIIS is required, is more than one SIIS required?

The SOW will be updated to provide a general need date and the intent of the SIIS unit. The SIIS is not a deliverable. The number of units needed is up to the Contractor and should be proposed.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW828

and Attachment C PSPEC

SCFPS630

Disconnect between SIIS operational and survival power interfaces in the SOW and SCFPS for the SIIS as well as Instrument Hardware Simulator descriptions; SCSOW828, found under the SCSOW825 section header for the SIIS, requires the development of a "simulator that emulates spacecraft level electrical interfaces including operational power, survival power, timing, and SpaceWire."; SCFPS630 specifies that the SIIS shall interface with non‐flight GFE instrument hardware through a flight‐like interface in accordance with the GIRD [1] Section 3.2.5 Command and Data Handling; Section 3.2 5 does not include interfaces for Operational Power and Survival Power interfaces; Instrument Hardware Simulator (IHS) requirements in various Instrument Performance and Operational Requirement Documents (PORD) specify the use of commercial power for the IHSs but do not specify any interfaces for operational or survival power

The SOW will be updated to reflect that the SIIS emulates the Spacecraft C&DH interface only.

The connection between the SHS and the IHS is C&DH only and does not include operational or survival power interface.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW832

and Solicitation Section B.1

Recommend adding SCTS delivery/deliveries to DRFP Section B.1; SCSOW832 asks to "prepare and provide" Spacecraft Command and Telemetry Simulators (SCTSs) to support launch vehicle interface development and testing; The use of the word "provide" implies that the SCTS are required to be delivered…either in place at the Contractor Facility or externally to a customer (or launch vehicle contractor) site; Need dates, e.g. LRD ‐ X months required to understand development/delivery schedule for SCTS; The use of the (s) at the end of simulator(s) also implies that more than one SCTS is required; Is more than one SCTS required?

The SOW will be updated to provide a general need date. The SCTS is not a deliverable. The number of units needed is up to the Contractor and should be proposed.

Attachment A SCSOW

SCSOW847

When an MRB escalates into an FRB, does prior MRB material get duplicated into FRB entry? Yes.

Attachment A SCSOW and

Attachment N WBS Dictionary

SOW tasks for GSE (section 9) are specifically excluded from all vehicles.

However, the WBS table (RFP Attachment N) indicates GSE tasks on all vehicles.

Should all GSE development and deployment be completed in WBS A.06 as NRE, and only GSE maintenance and updates may be required for subsequent vehicles?

Yes initial set(s) of GSE should be developed under A.06.

Maintenance and updates of GSE should be recorded under the subsequent vehicle. If additional GSE units are needed for subsequent vehicle(s), they should be reported under that vehicle WBS.

Attachment B CDRL and Attachment H SCMAR

If the developer chooses to integrate various CDRLs into a single mission assurance plan document is this allowed?

Would this single document be submitted under each CDRL or as a separate item?

Yes deliverables may be combined in accordance with SCMAR51.

A single document can be submitted, but all delivery dates and revisions of the individual CDRLs must still be met.

Attachment B CDRL

SCCDRL714

Recommend adding delivery dates for instrument models (e.g. PDR ‐ 6 months). Delivery dates impact the development of the DISTM and subsequent analyses.

The CDRL will be updated to provide the expected delivery timeframe of instrument models. The Government will provide instrument models no later than 3 months prior to each of the following Spacecraft milestones: Subsystem PDR, Spacecraft CDR, and PER.

Attachment B CDRL

SCCDRL735

What is the intent of the following wording: "corresponding submodel level time constants shall agree with 98%"? Can additional defition/description be provided?

The CDRL will be updated to provide clarity. The text will now read "b) Corresponding submodel level thermal mass constants shall agree with 98%."

Attachment B CDRL

SCCDRL741

A discussion of correlation of both the RISTM and DISTM to TVAC data is asked for, but there is no prior requirement to correlate the DISTM to TVAC data. Is the intent to correlate both models to TVAC data or just the RISTM?

Yes, the DISTM must be correlated to the TVAC data in accordance with CDRL ‐ see SCCDRL724.

Attachment D GIRD

GIRD506

Recommend adjusting this requirement to better balance LV and Spacecraft contamination levels. Recommend that this be at most 0 3%AC on Instrument Mounting Platform and "up", and leave 1.0%AC for rest of spacecraft. Spacecraft and instrument contamination control approach can be simplified thereby reducing risk to flight hardware while sustaining mission performance.

No change is expected.

Attachment D GIRD

GIRD507

Recommend adjusting this requirement to better balance LV and Spacecraft contamination levels. Recommend that this be at most 0.15%AC on Instrument Mounting Platform and "up", and leave 0.5%AC for rest of spacecraft. Spacecraft and instrument contamination control approach can be simplified thereby reducing risk to flight hardware while sustaining mission performance.

No change is expected.

Attachment D GIRD

GIRD510, 511 and 512 Replace "instrument" with "spacecraft and instrument" (or just "satellite") throughout GIRD510, GIRD511, and GIRD512, to place the Spacecraft and instrument providers on the same analysis basis.

No change is expected.

As stated in the GIRD, these are guidelines for instrument analyses. The spacecraft is responsible for its own contamination flow down to contamination sensitive assemblies.

41 Attachment F PPXUIID Please provide a PPXUIID dma file or excel file output?

No additional file types will be provided for the Partner Payload UIID. DOORs files will be provided post award.

Attachment H SCMAR

Section 1.7 In which CDRL is the GMIP plan intended to be captured assuming the CDRL list supersedes the DID list in the MAR?

The GMIP Plan is not a CDRL, but is documentation that must be provided to the Government and is subject to approval in accordance with SCMAR33.

Attachment H SCMAR

Section 1.9 If an entire subsystem is proposed as identical to prior implementations, can Inherited Items review be held at subsystem level?

Yes.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR36

SCMAR36 lists specific GMIPs without allowances to deviate based on Customer approval or Customer risk assessments which could decrease GMIP flexibility later in the program based on performance. Many programs keep the language in the contract quality requirements high level so that future LODs can govern GMIP specifics as needed.

Recommend changing to something similar to what is used on the Mars Sample Return program: “GSFC S&MA shall identify the GMIPs applicable to the program. Based on risk assessment planning activities between the contractor, GSFC, and DCMA, MIPs may include but are not limited to….” [list MIPs already shown in SCMAR36]

No change is expected. GMIP flexibility exists as outlined in Enclosure 2, Section 2.3 item e).

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR47

Appendix B of attachment H contains a DID listing.

How should this listing be interpreted vs. the CDRL listing provided as attachment B?

Updated version of Attachment H was provided on August 17, 2023 in SAM.gov.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR81

Please quantify the time period for approval of standard repairs by the NWAPES?

Submission of standard repair procedures can be started as soon as the contract is awarded and usually takes 4‐6 weeks once all paperwork is submitted.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR107

“Major hardware nonconformance beginning with the first application of power at the component level”

Would NASA accept reporting of Power‐on nonconformance following unit acceptance review by the Offeror & NASA?

No.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR173

What assumptions should be made regarding Instrument suppliers providing listings of hazardous integration operations, if any?

Instruments will be required to deliver Hazardous Procedures for Payload I&T and Pre‐Launch Processing per their own respective

CDRL.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR195

Please provide a list of trend data to meet the intent of this requirement.

Trend data is determined by the Contractor ‐ see Attachment B, 418‐XO‐SCCDRL‐0053, SE‐PLAN‐02‐8 Trend Analysis Plan.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR251

SCMAR251 was updated. Recommend clarifying by making the following change to ensure consistent interpretation.

"Note: Section 6 of NASA‐STD‐8739.6 establishes requirements which augment or modify the requirements found in J‐STD‐ 001, Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Assemblies and J‐STD‐001xS, Space and Military Applications Electronic Hardware Addendum. The requirements of NASA‐STD‐8739.6 Section 6 take precedence over these IPC standards, except where noted within this MAR."

Impact: By clarifying this element it prevents confusion about the entirety of NASA‐STD‐8739.6 taking precedence. This would permit non‐standard deviations to J‐STD based electronics processing for polymerics and conformal coating.

No change is expected. The entire NASA‐STD‐8739.6B takes precedence over IPC J‐STD‐001; e.g. NASA‐STD‐8739.6B Section 8 has an exception to IPC J‐STD‐001G Sections 10, 11, and 5.6.3, i.e. NASA‐STD‐8739.6B takes precedence over IPC J‐STD‐001G with respect to polymeric applications.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR266

Please clarify if delivery of results to the CSO is intended to follow the requirements of the CDRL listing or the indicated DIDs.

What is the required timing of the delivery?

Updated version of Attachment H was provided on August 17, 2023 in SAM.gov.

Attachment H SCMAR

SCMAR360

Does the inherited products requirement in Par 1.9 supersede how Par 7 3.3 is utilized? Yes.

53 Attachment K Is the content of Attachment K (FPGA design review method) applicable to items intended to be addressed by the inherited item risk assessment process (SCMAR, 1.4.0‐1)?

Attachment K is based on engineering requirements which is outside the scope of the SCMAR (Mission Assurance Requirements). Attachment K must still be met if the Inherited Items process is used.

54 Attachment K In cases of disagreement between the Appendix K and the SCMAR which document supersedes?

Attachment K and the SCMAR represent requirements for two different areas of technical authority. One document does not supersede the other. If there are specific concerns of requirement disagreement, please bring those to the Government's attention.

Attachment N WBS Dictionary

Can we have clarification for WBS for X.09?

Long Term Support – Long term mission support including any management, business management support, systems engineering etc that is not unique to a particular mission.

Please clarify if NASA intended to include “not” in the above section. Or is as‐written sentence conveying that Long Term Support should assume GeoI & GeoS as a single type of mission?

Long term support is the support needed for all on orbit spacecraft. Long Term support will be clarified in the WBS Dictionary.

Attachment N WBS Dictionary

Given that the WBS no longer has a spares section at Level 2, can NASA provide specific guidance on how spares should be captured in the costing?

The WBS Dictionary will be updated to add Spares and will be posted with the Final RFP.

Attachment N WBS Dictionary

Should it be assumed that unit costs should be allocated to each GEO vehicle once serial number applicability is identified per the WBS indicated?

Yes.

Attachment N WBS Dictionary

Can it be assumed that variance reporting should be performed at Level 4 of the WBS as outlined or is a different level of reporting required to meet the EVMS implementation requirements on GeoXO?

Yes Level 4 is correct.

Attachment P TAM Table

Please provide an excel version of the TAM table?

The Final RFP cover letter will include information to contact the CO Via E‐mail and request the TAM in EXCEL

60 Attachment Q MEL Can NASA provide a copy of the MEL chart in an excel format, or, in another readable format?

The Final RFP cover letter will include information to contact the CO Via E‐mail and request the MEL in EXCEL

Attachment R Link Budget

There are several pages on this attachment which are very difficult to read (pages, 10, 11, and 13)

Can the government provide an updated copy of this attachment that resolves this issue?

May we have a copy of the link budget chart in excel?

The Final RFP cover letter will include information to contact the CO Via E‐mail and request the MEL in EXCEL

Attachment R Link Budget

The PDF link budget file does not export cleanly to Excel when instructions are followed ‐ many formulas are broken and text is garbled. Can Customer provide link budget file in Excel (.xls*) format?

The Final RFP cover letter will be updated to contact the CO Via E‐ mail and request the Link Budget in EXCEL

Attachment Z IT Security

Please clarify if the IT security documents list is intended to apply to GSE or other non‐flight ground equipment that may interface with communication networks.

Any hardware or software that will interface with the NASA IT Network must be accounted for in the IT Security Management Plan.

Attachment AC Gov’t Property

Is there any information that can be provided about availability date of Instrument Hardware Simulators? Updates will be provided in the Final RFP.