OCX Instrument Draft RFP QA.pdf

OCX Instrument Implementation Draft RFP Q&A dependent on proposed Instrument design activation needs, the Offeror’s recommended PLTs, needed data analysis for report generation, trending and analysis associated with the designed instrument PLT, PLT anomaly investigations. Efforts will include generation of OPS- 06, OPS-07, OPS-08 CDRLs, and any updates required for OPS- 03, OPS-04 and OPS-05 CDRLs.

Level of support is to be proposed based on the above considerations.

13 Attachment A

SOW/OCXSOW220

Attachment A

SOW/OCXSOW525

OCXSOW220 and OCXSOW525 state that "The Contractor shall participate in 24 monthly technical interchange teleconferences…". Is it meant to be a daily telecon, if not, please clarify text and intent?

Monthly. Note this is for planning purposes. Actual cadence may vary. Also note that OCXSOW220 and OCXSOW528 are not the same meetings. OCXSOW220 are general technical meetings and OCXSOW528 is calibration and ops working group meetings.

14 Attachment A

SOW/OCXSOW513

"The Contractor shall obtain concurrence from the Government for the entity and process for obtaining the independent measurements."

Please define what is "the entity"?

Entity = organization, agency, company. selected for independent calibration.

15 Attachment A

SOW/OCXSOW542

Attachment A

SOW/OCXSOW546

OCXSOW542 and OCXSOW546 each state 5 years and it implies a 10-year ground storage.

Is the period for total ground storage 5yrs or 10yrs (Total Ground Storage = Contractor's Facility+Spacecraft Contractor Facility)? Please clarify if the Total ground storage period is 5 years or 10 years total.

Two periods of up to five years each.

16 Attachment A SOW/OCXSOW570 and

OCXSOW571

OCXSOW570 states 24/7 onsite support is required for data analysis at the Spacecraft Contractor's facility during all Satellite Environmental testing. OCXSOW571 lists the testing included as part of Satellite Environmental testing but only provides a duration for Thermal vacuum testing. What is the total duration that should be assumed for ALL Satellite Environmental testing by test?

Instrument planned support during SC environmental testing:

Sine: up to 5d Acoustics: up to 3d Shock: up to 3 days EMI: up to 5 days TVAC: up to 60d

17 Attachment A

SOW/OCXSOW695

"The Contractor shall provide 2 weeks of support for the initial integration of the ISS with the SSS, and ISS with the SHS…."

Is the duration 2weeks of support for initial integration of the ISS with SSS and another 2 weeks of support for initial integration of the ISS with SHS, thus a total of 4 weeks, or a total of 2 weeks for both integrations?

4 weeks total: [2 weeks ISS with SSS + 2 weeks ISS with

HIS]

18 Attachment A SOW / 1.2.1 Section 1.2.1 #2 of the SOW lists the PORD document number as 418-XO-OCXPORD-0119, yet the PORD provided with the RFP is Draft, 418-XO-OCXPORD-0110. Please clarify which document number is correct.

Typo will be corrected in the final RFP.

19 Attachment A SOW / 1.7 SOW paragraph 1.7 references Contract clause H.13 of the Contract for Special Engineering Analysis / Task Orders, however this is incorrect reference. The correct reference should be H.14 Special Task Support Requirements of the Contract, please confirm.

Typo will be corrected in the final RFP.

20 Attachment A SOW / 6.3.4 (6.3.4.0-7)

CDRL reference is missing from SOW Section 6.3.4 0-7 and should be updated to add SE to read: CDRL # SE 4-7. Typo will be corrected in the final RFP.

21 Attachment A SOW

SOW is missing reference to CDRL RM-05 Contract Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). It is called out in Attachment F in Section 2 Table and DID but not the SOW.

RM05 is reserved. The IMS is now part of RM03 IPMDAR.

22 Attachment A SOW / 6.1.1.0- 6 h)

CDRL # SE 4-9 title within the SOW and Attachment F do not match. To align with Attachment F, CDRL # SE 4-9 Test reports should be retitled as: Component and Subassembly Test Reports for all Subcontracted Items.

Perhaps this is due to the water mark issue that has been fixed This will be reflected in the final RFP.

23 Attachment B PORD 1 OCXPORD1345 states the OCX shall observe all spatial and spectral samples over the OCX FOV without missing all spectral samples at any single spectral sample location and without missing all spatial samples in the orthogonal direction. Should this be "at any single spatial sample location"?

The requirement is intended to prevent a bad row or bad column in the FPA.

24 Attachment B PORD 1 OCXPORD1346 states the OCX shall implement an adjustable and commandable scan optimization that accepts priorities from operations and avoids clouds in illuminated regions using an uploaded cloud mask for the cases of a) faster coverage, b) targeted regions of interest.

Please confirm whether cloud mask priority/adjudication must take place onboard.

The short answer is NO. Cloud mask priority/adjudication does not need to take place onboard. The intent is to command an updated cloud mask in an efficient manner, using the GXI cloud mask as input. On orbit OCX will observe the clear regions based on dial settings uploaded from the ground.

25 Attachment B PORD 1 OCXPORD144 or both the North/South and East/West edges, the OCX shall not overshoot the top of an edge or undershoot the bottom of edge by more than 2% of the height of the edge where: Appears to have a typo or missing words

This issue appears to be related to the watermark issue seen in SAM.gov. All text will be present in the final RFP.

26 Attachment E IMAR / ID # IMAR 50 and IMAR 53

Currently, the IMAR does not provide language defining Minor and Major nonconformances. Given GeoXO OCX is Class C, recommend adding language defining minor and major nonconformances and allowing contractor authority to disposition minor "Repair” and “Use- As-is” dispositions at the Preliminary Review Board level (ID# IMAR 53). ID # IMAR 50 requires ALL nonconformances to be reported per CDRL MA 2-1 and recommend this be revised to limit to MRB actions only. As currently written, cost and schedule impact to the contractor, suppliers, and subcontractors can be significant. To support/justify authority to disposition minor repair and use-as-is nonconformances at the preliminary review level, a monthly report summarizing all PMR actions can be provided to the Government. It is also recognized that the Government reserves the right to change classification to Major, if warranted.

No changes will be made for the final RFP.

27 Attachment F CDRL Please provide a version of the CDRL without the Draft watermark, as the watermark makes it difficult to read the document Updated CDRL was provided to sam gov.

28 Attachment F CDRL / Section

3.2.3 RM-03

Unable to read full text due to DRAFT watermark..."Within each subsystem CWBS elem th shall be lower level CWBS elements that are defined for Parts/M als coded as XX, subsystem GSE coded as XX, and XX."

Is the expectation that these CWBS elements would extend down to Level 5?

The Gov’t requires the CWBS at Level 4.

29 Attachment F CDRL /Section 2 CDRL # SE 5-5 title within the SOW and Attachment F do not match. Recommend changing CDRL title within Attachment F to align with the SOW and retitled as: Ground System Software Acceptance Test Plan Input.

Perhaps this is due to the water mark issue that will be fixed for the final RFP.

30 Attachment F CDRL / Section

CDRL # SE 5-7 Visualization Algorithm and CDRL # SE 5-8 Visualization Algorithm Test and Validation Plan are missing from Section 2 Table. They are listed in the DIDs (3.4.5.7 and 3.4.5.8 respectively) and TOC but not within Section 2. Please update Section 2.

This will be corrected in the final RFP.

31 Attachment G Attachment G incorrectly refers to Section 4 of the SOW. Section 4 of the SOW pertains to Parts and Spares Procurement; however, Section 5 references the Engineering Development Program. The correct reference should be to SOW Section 5, please confirm.

This will be corrected in the final RFP.

32 Attachment O (CWBS) / Section 2

Within ATTACHMENT O (CWBS) Section 2 (Preparation Information) Level 3 WBS is explained as "X.10 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 which section of the SOW defines the Long-Term Support and request NASA provide level of support "hours" contractors should bid.

OCX SOW 7.4 refers to long term support. The offeror should propose hours necessary to meet the requirements in 7.4

(OCXSOW623, OCXSOW624,

OCXSOW625, OCXSOW632).

33 Attachment O (CWBS) Please provide clarification on the Level 3 numbering for Mission Assurance and Systems Engineering. Page 3 notes X.02 for Systems Engineering and X.03 for Mission Assurance whereas the table on page 4 notes X.02 for Mission Assurance and X.03 for Systems Engineering.

The table will be updated in the final RFP.

34 Enclosure B OCX PEP Draft

Attachment B.3 Recommend SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE FACTOR be removed as an award fee score factor for the POST DELIVERY SUPPORT EVALUATION CRITERIA. We believe that internal resources are best fit to execute this scope of work.

To be considered.

35 Enclosure B OCX PEP Draft What are the expected durations for each on-orbit period? Is the entire duration of each FM's On-Orbit Performance period 15 years or 10 years?

The performance is for 10 years of operations+5years of on-orbit storage.

36 Enclosure B OCX PEP Draft Given the contractor level of support (e.g 24/7, 1 shift, 5 days vs 7 days, number of personnel required for support, etc.) for on-orbit storage period of 5 years and 10 years of on-orbit operational support is not defined in the RFP, can NASA provide level of support "hours" contractors should bid?

Level of support to be proposed.

37 Class B versus Class C Mission Given most of the requirements (e.g. SOW, CDRL, DRFP, IMAR) are identical to GXI FRFP which was class B mission versus OCX which is a class C mission, what guidance can you provide to differentiate the "Class B" versus "Class C"?

*See note to #37 below

38 Class B versus Class C Mission Please provide a DOORs compatible, .dma file format, that includes all requirements (PORD, UIID, GIRD, IMAR, SOW) with Final RFP.

No. These will be provided in Phase-B, upon contract award.

39 Attachment

F/CDRL/SECTION

We will evaluate this request and modify the final RFP if needed.

40 SOW Sec. 1.0-4 & 1.0-5

1.0-4 contains parts and materials for ALL FOUR units. 1.0-5 says contractor shall PROVIDE MATERIALS and DESIGN for FM-3 and FM-4. Does this mean that the options contain only RE to fab/assy/test/deliver FM-3 and FM-4?

See Q 7.

41 SOW Sec. 1.4 There is no reference to EM-05, Contract Integrated Master Schedule. Is this an intentional omission? The IMS is part of the Integrated Program Manager Report (RM-

03) and is required by

OCXSOW61.

42 DRFP Section L.13- Subfactor C

Line item 18 refers to “Shipping/Storage Containers/Purge Carts Option 3 FMS”. This 5th unit is not in the SOW. Should this line be deleted?

Yes, this was a typo. The correction will be made in the final RFP.

43 DRFP Section L.13, Subfactor C

The recommended goal for Women Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) was 0.7 for GXI and GXS but jumped to 2.6% for OCX. All other categories remained consistent between the three procurements. Was this an intentional change for OCX?

This will be corrected in the final RFP.

44 DRFP Section L.10

The 4th Bullet at the bottom of page 92 states, “Present the fixed price associated with so doing.” But the Cover Letter refers to a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee contract type. Should the word “fixed” be removed from this statement?

This will be corrected in the final RFP.

DRFP Will GSFC allow contractors to provide cost exhibit content that includes all the required information, but in a format or ordering that better match to the contractor’s financial systems?

Yes, but ALL the required information must be listed and be clear to the government including all formulas/links etc.

46 DRFP, Sec B.1 Item 10, Instrument Software Simulator Development Environment (SSDE) References Section 8.7 of the SOW. Sec. 8.7 Instrument Software Simulator (ISS) does not mention the SSDE. Can you please define the SSDE and expected delivery?

The SSDE has been removed as a deliverable for

OCX.

47 DRFP Section B.1, Item 37

Currently 52.244-2 is included. Will GSFC consider adding 52.244-2 Alt 1 for any non-critical, minor, or non-complex procurements? See final RFP.

48 DRFP Should the OCI Avoidance Plan be submitted as a standalone PDF or as an Appendix to the Offer Volume? Standalone

PDF.

49 SOW Sec. 9.05 Should 24-hour anomaly notification be reserved for major anomalies only? Anomalies shall be reported within 24 hours.

50 IMAR 764 ,Obj.

1.6.0-4 IMAR19; Obj.

1.6.0-5

IMAR 764 states that facility operations and quality metrics shall be delivered. IMAR 19 describes the content of these reports. Does the government expect the contractor to respond to actions that arise from these reports? Can the government define those actions?

PMSRS will give an opportunity to discuss status of facility operations.

51 IMAR86 Should non-conformance reporting continue through government acceptance on orbit only for major anomalies that affect on-orbit performance? The conditions of IMAR apply “All non-conformances”

52 Exhibit 3D, Cost Exhibits

On pg. 117 of the RFP, there is a reference to Exhibit 3D for the cost exhibits, however we do not see a 3D within the available cost exhibits of the DRFP. Was this erroneous or will you be adding an exhibit 3D?

There will not be a 3D exhibit in the final RFP.

53 OCX Draft RFP/Section B.1

Section B.1 of the RFP, Item 8 / Instrument Hardware Simulator (IHS), states there will be a total of 4 and further breaks these 4 out further as 1) 1-S/C vendor 2) 1-Ground 3) vendor

4) 2-NSOF. This same breakout language/requirement is not consistent within the SOW (8.6 vs Attach G Section B and Attach G Section F.3) and believe that it should be revised to make consistent.

The response has been updated to be consistent with the SOW.

54 OCX Draft RFP/Section B.1

Section B.1 of the RFP lists Item 10 / Instrument Software Simulator Development Environment (SSDE), and refers to Section 8.7 of the SOW, which is listed as ISS, not SSDE.

There is no reference for SSDE or reference to Development Environment within the SOW. One of these should be updated to reflect correct reference.

See Q. 46

55 L.14 GSFC

52.215-221 Cost Volume nstructions

Exhibit 3D summarizes the Non-Labor Costs by WBS. Exhibit 3D is not provided in the DRPF OCX Cost Exhibits file. Please provide Cost Exhibit 3D. There will not be a 3D exhibit in the final RFP.

*NOTE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ITEM #37: Class B versus Class C Mission

Distinction is mostly found in the IMAR with some changes to the PORD and CDRL as well. In short:

- Eliminated MRR for PCBs from the SOW

- Reduced TRR requirements in the SOW (TRR required for major env. tests)

- Simplified GMIPs requirements in IMAR for class C

- Simplified surveillance requirements for Class C

- Simplified monthly MA reporting for facility status

- Updated QASP GMIP table: Class B – 19 MIPS + 1 notification; Class C – 8 MIPS + 8 notifications

- Govt a voting member in FRB/MRB after box level testing complete for Class C

- Modified SOW for Class C to state that startup SW and health safety are critical/Class B and the rest of the FSW is Class C

- Eliminated the MA Plan portion of CDRL for Class C (kept the IMAR compliance matrix)

- Eliminated 2 I&T CDRLs (ESTE manual, purge cart procedures and ops manual), and FPGA Dev. Plan (kept the FPGA checklist)

- Class 2 or Class 3 parts