GeoXO Spacecraft Final RFP Questions and Answers Two (002).pdf

GeoXO Spacecraft Final RFP Questions and Answers #2

Question:

In table of Section A (2), VOSB goals are set at 0.2% and SDVOSB goals are set at

1.5%. SDVOSB goals are a subset of VOSB goals, and therefore cannot be higher than VOSB. Can you confirm these socio-economic goals in FRFP are accurate?

Answer:

Section L.12 is Electronic Submission of Proposals and (C) is the submittal address.

Assuming you are referring to L.13. The information provided is incorrect. The table at A.2 will be updated as follows:

Small Businesses (SB) 15.4%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Concerns 1.8%

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Concerns 1.2%

HUBzone 0.2%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Concerns 1.5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Concerns 0.2%"

Question:

The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table in L.10(b) indicates that

Appendix A for block diagrams for the Spacecraft Design is limited to 20 pages.

Please confirm that the 20-page Appendix A is outside of the 150 pages for the

Mission Suitability volume.

Answer:

The 20 pages for Appendix A for block diagrams for the Spacecraft Design are outside of the 150 pages for Mission Suitability.

Question:

The Proposal Content and Page Limitations table in L.10(b) requests an Acronym

List in the Past Performance volume that is excluded from page limit/page count.

1) Would the government permit acronym lists to be included with the other volumes to support evaluation and context for the material?

2) Would the government permit these acronym lists for the other volumes to be similarly excluded from page limit/page count?

Answer:

Yes, the Government agrees with providing acronym lists in each volume and yes, the acronym lists are excluded from the page count.

Question:

SCSOW809 is showing 3 Dual Sided testbeds while also stating which SHS require decryption and intermediate frequency capabilities. This is in contrast to

SCFPS500, SCFPS806, and SCFPS563 in the functional performance spec that intimate that only a single SHS requires these capabilities. Recommend removing

SCFPS500, 806, and 563 as they are non-functional requirements that are in conflict with the SOW.

Answer:

The F&PS requirement state "an instantiation" which is equivalent to configuration. In this case, instantiation in the F&PS does not dictate the quantity. The quantity of each instantiation is dictated in the SOW.

Question:

In the latest MEL template, the % New Design Column is highlighted. Is the column to be removed? If it does remain, can additional guidance be provided on the expected content?

Answer:

No, this column should not be removed - this column should be filled out for the proposal. There is no significance to the highlight. The entry in this column should reflect the percentage of the hardware and software that is a "New" design. A

"New" design requires Non-Recurring Engineering or has not been flown before.

Please provide percentages for the amount of new hardware and new software

(only if applicable) separately.

Question:

Within Appendix C Mission Assurance Compliance Matrix, directions state to

“Indicate the method used to verify compliance (Inspection, Test, Analysis, Demonstration)”. Would it be possible to get definitions of those verification methods? Many Mission Assurance requirements are verified or setup through procedure documentation and it is not entirely clear which selection one would use for that option.

Answer:

Per the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook:

1. Inspection: The visual examination of a realized end product. Inspection is generally used to verify physical design features or specific manufacturer identification. For example, if there is a requirement that the safety arming pin has a red flag with the words “Remove Before Flight” stenciled on the flag in black letters, a visual inspection of the arming pin flag can be used to determine if this requirement was met.

2. Test: The use of a realized end product to obtain detailed data to verify or validate performance or to provide sufficient information to verify or validate performance through further analysis.

3. Analysis: Use of mathematical modeling and analytical techniques to predict the compliance of a design to its requirements based on calculated data or data derived from lower system structure end product validations.

4. Demonstration: Showing that the use of an end product achieves the individual specified requirement (verification) or stakeholder expectation (validation). It is generally a basic confirmation of performance capability, differentiated from testing by the lack of detailed data gathering. Demonstrations can involve the use of physical models or mock-ups; for example, a requirement that all controls shall be reachable by the pilot could be verified by having a pilot perform flight-related tasks in a cockpit mock-up or simulator. A demonstration could also be the actual operation of the end product by highly qualified personnel, such as test pilots, who perform a one-time event that demonstrates a capability to operate at extreme limits of system performance.

Answer:

The spreadsheet is correct as written. The correct number is 20.5. The vendor may be looking at old version of C3SIRD. The document has been updated.

SAM.gov has the correct version posted. The version on SAM.gov matches the spreadsheet as follows:

End Questions and Answers #2