GeoXO Spacecraft DRFP Questions and Answers Set 3and Clarificationsdocx.pdf

GeoXO Spacecraft DRFP Questions and Answers Set #3 and Clarifications

Question #1-Pertaining to Solicitation Section L.14

Paragraph states relevant past performance is for efforts with a “minimum annual cost/fee incurred of $250,000,000”

Can “annual” be removed as a qualifier? This would make it consistent with Section M.5

Can minimum threshold be reduced to $50,000,000?

Answer #1-

The clause at L.14, GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME (MAR 2020) was the incorrect clause. This will be corrected in the final RFP. The correct clause does not contain the word “annual”.

The minimum threshold cannot be reduced to $50,000,000 however, the Government will lower the minimum threshold to $150,000,000.

Question #2-Pertaining to Solicitation Section M.5

Paragraph states relevant past performance is for efforts with that will meet/exceed a “total cost/fee of $250,000,000”

Can minimum threshold be reduced to $50,000,000

Answer #2-

See Answer #1

Question #3- Pertaining to Attachment C -SCFPS712

Can the previous Figure SCFPS712 that was in the Phase A documentation remain a valid reference figure to correspond to the definitions provided in SCFPS714 & SCFPS715

Answer #3-

No – utilize the current figure in SCFPS712. The SCFPS is in process of being updated to add a requirement that corresponds to the “Qualification (prototype)” testing shown in the figure. Definitions for protoflight, prototype and qualification are in the Spacecraft Statement of

Work (SOW). The GeoI1 and GeoS1 spacecraft are required to be protoflight units.

Question #4-Pertaining to: Attachment C-SCFPS665-Primary and secondary structures fabricated from nonmetallic composites, beryllium, or containing bonded joints or bonded inserts shall be proof tested in accordance with Section 2.4.1.4.1 of GSFC-STD-7000B [20].

Seeking to verify that NASA will allow for the utilization of GEVS GSFC-STD-7000B, section

2.4.1.4.1.d.1 as a path to compliance for metal-metal & metal-nonmetal bonds?

From GEVS 2.4.1.4.1.d.1:

“... As a minimum, at least one of each type of bonded joint in the flight article shall be tested to

1.25 times the maximum predicted limit load for that joint type. The remainder of the bonded joints may then be considered to be qualified by similarity.”

Answer #4-

As stated per GEVs, the preferred approach is proof test each joint. However, in cases where proof testing individual joints is not necessary, provisions in 2.4.1.4.1.d.1 may be followed. Provisions #2 and #3 must also be followed. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to demonstrate to the Government why it is not necessary to test each individual joint.

Clarifications

#1-Clarifying requirement SCFPS161 in Attachment C

This requirement allows for maintaining and monitoring battery health when the spacecraft is in a condition where it cannot be powered (e.g. working an issue with other spacecraft hardware.)

Please note that the Government considers the battery to be discharging even when the spacecraft is powered off.

#2- Clarifying requirement SCMAR42 in Attachment H

EEE parts for components, assemblies and/or subsystems that are accepted by the Government for the Inherited Items Risk Assessment Process do NOT need to go through the EPCB approval process unless a risk for a EEE part has been identified.

The Government reserves the right to accept or reject components, assemblies and/or subsystems for the Inherited Risk Assessment Process based on the extent of the heritage, need date of the risk assessments and government resources available to perform the assessments.

#3-Clarifiying requirement SCFPS282 in Attachment C.

Due to the Class B risk classification, the GeoXO project requires positive indication of mechanism stowed /caged position on orbit as well as during ground testing.