Draft RFP Questions and Answers 80GSFC24R0001.pdf

SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SERVICES (SMAS) III

“Issuance of responses to questions/comments received on Draft Request for Proposal-80GSFC24R0001”

Questions or Comments Responses

1. SECTION J-LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

GSFC 52.211-101 List of Attachments (NOV 2022) – TBS vs. TBP

Several attachments listed Section J-List of Attachments has “TBP**” and there is no explanatory note for the TBP** in the legend.

Please clarify. Please provide further definition in the Section J legend for

“TBP**”.

1. Section J – List of Attachments refers to some documents as TBP. It is defined as follows: TBP = TO BE PROPOSED. The documents marked TBP** are documents “To Be Proposed” by the Offeror and shall be submitted with its proposal.

2. SECTION L.21-1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

Does the Government intend for Offeror’s to submit a Government Property Management Plan with the proposal or after contract award?

2. The information regarding the Offeror’s Government property management procedures required by the provision shall be submitted with the proposal and included in the Offer volume.

3. SECTION L.23-GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation - General Instructions, Paragraph (b)(1)

Are the Phase-In and S&H Plans to be provided as attachments to the Mission Suitability Volume or co-mingled with Subfactor B-Management Approach requirements that are within the 90-page limitation?

3. Per L.23 GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION—GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (APR 2022), both the Phase-In Plan and Safety and Health Plan are excluded from 90 page limitation and can be included as attachments under the Mission Suitability Volume.

4. SECTION L.24-1852.SOL-INS-1 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF

PROPOSALS – PROPOSAL MARKING AND DELIVERY

THROUGH NASA’S EFSS BOX

There are two paragraphs labeled (e) on Page 89. Please clarify.

4. The second paragraph labeled (e) is an error and will be corrected in the Final RFP. The second paragraph will be (f) and the subsequent and final paragraph (g).

5. SECTION L.25-GSFC 52.215-203 Offer Volume [Page 91] +

SECTION L.30-Notice of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Paragraph (d)

OCI Plan Attachment – Section L.30 provides that the OCI Plan will not be page limited and included as an attachment to the Offer Volume.

However, the OCI Plan is not listed under Section L.25-Paragraph (c) Additional Information To Be Furnished list

Should the OCI Plan be a subparagraph of Section L.25(c)?

5. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) is not included in provision L.25 and has its own separate provision L.30 NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCT 2021) included in the draft solicitation. However, the proposed OCI Plan is not page limited and shall be included as a separate proposal attachment under the Offer Volume.

6. RFP Reference: SECTION L.26-GSFC 52.215-210 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions, Paragraph (d), Subfactor B- Management Approach, B.2 + SECTION L.28-GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume, Paragraph (a) + SECTION L.27-GSFC 52.215- 223 Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph (a)

Definition of Significant Subcontractors – The referenced instruction states that Offerors are to use the definition of Significant Subcontractors as provided in the Cost Volume instructions but requires information (e.g., split of responsibilities and percentages of work) that is very similar to the Past Performance Volume instructions for Significant Subcontractors.

Question: In order for the information on responsibilities, percentage of work, etc., between the Mission Suitability and Past Performance to be the same/consistent, will NASA make the definition of Significant Subcontractor in Mission Suitability the same as in Past Performance (i.e., annual value that meets/exceeds $7M)?

6. The instructions in SECTION L.26-GSFC 52.215-210 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions, Paragraph (d), Subfactor B-Management Approach, B.2 will remain the following: “The Offeror shall describe its strategy for using (or not using) significant subcontractors (based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions).”

7. RFP Reference: SECTION L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume

Instructions, Paragraph (b)(3)-Government Pricing Model [Page 104] + Exhibit 1B, Prime Offeror, Loadings on GPM-Specified Other Direct Costs

Unburdened Government estimate for Material ODC - Section L.27 instruction provides NASA estimates for Travel and Other ODCs for populating Exhibit 1B, but does not provide an estimate for Materials to be purchased by Prime and Subcontractors.

Question: Will NASA provide an estimate by contract year for Material ODCs?

7. The GPM-Specified Other Direct Costs (ODCs) are the Government’s best estimate of the unburdened ODCs that may be required to perform task orders under this contract by Contract Year (CY). Material ODCs are anticipated to be minimal.

8. RFP Reference: Section L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions (including Exhibits 1A-1C and Exhibits 2A-10B) + ATTACHMENT B-IDIQ Direct Labor rates, Indirect rates, and Fee matrices + ENCLOSURE E-GPM – Specified Non-management Direct Labor Categories, Direct Labor Hours, and Position Descriptions

Inconsistency/confusion in performance period for cost proposal and evaluation purposes - Attachment B includes a column for Contract Year (CY) 6 rate information. Certain Cost Exhibits (e.g., 5, 6A, 6B,7, and 9) also enable CY6 calculations. However, Enclosure E provides no estimates of the non-management labor hours for CY6, and the cost instructions provides no detail on whether that calculation should be ½ of the CY5 labor hour estimates. In addition, Cost Exhibit 3 and, most importantly, the GPM Exhibit 1C do not include a CY6 column.

Question: Does NASA intend for Offerors to provide fully burdened labor rates for CY6 (six-month extension period) for the cost evaluation? Does NASA want a completed Exhibit 2A and 2C for CY6? If NASA does want fully burdened labor rates for CY6, should the contractor use half of the Enclosure E CY5 GPM labor hours (and half of the CY5 ODC plug) to develop fully burdened rates for CY6?

8. As per Clause 52.216-22(d), the Government may issue task orders that may exceed the ordering period which results in the need for contract year 6 rates to be provided by the offeror and included in the Attachment B - IDIQ Direct Labor rates, Indirect rates, and Fee matrices. Any order issued during the effective period of the contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. For evaluation purposes, the Offeror shall complete the Exhibits for each Contract Year (CY) through CY5.

9. SECTION L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions +

ATTACHMENT B-IDIQ Direct Labor rates, Indirect rates and Fee matrices, Section 5 [Page 4]

Subcontractor FBDL Rates - The Prime Offeror and Significant Subcontractor are instructed to complete Exhibits 2A, 2B, and 4 through 10, as applicable. The Non-significant Subcontractors are instructed to complete Exhibit 2C and, if applicable, Exhibits 10A and 10B. These exhibits provide supporting labor category and cost information for the GPM, Exhibits 1A-1C. Accordingly, all subcontractors are included in the total composite rates for non-management and management/administrative labor costs (Exhibit A) as well as the loads on ODCs (Exhibit B).

Therefore, for cost evaluation purposes, the GPM grand total (Exhibit C) includes all subcontractors, significant as well as non-significant.

However, the information Offerors are to provide in Attachment B excludes Non-significant Subcontractors. Paragraph (b)(2) of Section L.27 instruction on page 104 requires that Section 5 of Attachment B include only the fully burdened rates of Significant Subcontractors.

Since the Non-significant Subcontractors' FBDL rates are included in the cost evaluation/competition of the GPM, does NASA intend to revise Attachment B to include a FBDL rate table for all subcontractors or, alternatively, have a single NTE composite rate table for the entire Offeror team?

9. At this time, NASA does not intend to revise Attachment B to include a Fully Burdened Direct Labor rate table for all subcontractors. The prime shall include a fully-loaded direct labor rate matrices for each Significant Subcontractor.

10. Section L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph

(b)(3)-Government Pricing Model (GPM) + Exhibit 1A-Prime Offeror Government Pricing Model (GPM)

Estimated Management and Administrative Direct Labor Hours - Exhibit 1A requires Offerors to provide loaded rates and estimated Management/Administrative labor hours. However, no historical information or descriptions of the SMAS-unique management/administrative responsibilities are provided for the common understanding of all Offerors. To the degree that programmatic/ administrative requirements for such tasks as task order processing, support to Code 301 Systems Review, labor relations, etc., would impact an Offeror’s proposed staffing; any historical metric-related information and/or a full description of those anticipated functions would ensure all Offerors propose realistic and reasonable Management and Administrative direct labor hours.

Question: Will NASA provide more information on the anticipated functions/responsibilities to be covered by the Offeror’s proposed estimated Management and Administrative direct labor hours?

10. Historical data (ex. task order requirements) can be found in the documentation provided in the SMAS III e-library.

11. Section L.26-GSFC 52.215-210 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions, Paragraph (d), Subfactor B-Management Approach, B.6-Staffing

Employees under CBA - The referenced instruction requires Offerors to provide a staffing approach for meeting the requirements of the SMAS-III contract. However, there is no specific statement regarding employees covered by the CBA.

Question: Does NASA intend for Offerors to include in their staffing approach any specific approach(es) related to hiring and managing the represented workforce?

11. The Offeror shall provide a complete staffing approach that describes how the Offeror intends to staff this effort and how the approach will allow the Offeror to meet the requirements of this contract. The staffing approach shall include a comprehensive hiring plan which presents the expected number of personnel to be hired from incumbents, those to be transferred from within the Offeror’s own organization, and those from other sources, as well as the associated strategy for achieving each aspect of the proposed hiring plan.

12. Section L.23-GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation—General

Instructions, Paragraph (b)(1) Cost Volume (c) + Section L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(7)-GPM Basis of Estimates (BOE)

Content of BOEs - It is unclear what information is required by Section L.27 for the Prime Offeror and Significant Subcontractors’ BOEs and subject to the 30-page limitation.

Question: 1) Does information for the BOEs include the entirety of the Offeror’s Cost Narrative in accordance with Section L.27, or does it only apply to the estimating methodology utilized to determine the Management and Administration effort? 2) If the BOEs are only required for the M&A proposed costs, is it necessary for Significant Subcontractors to submit a BOE, particularly if the Prime Offeror is not proposing any subcontractor M&A direct labor?

12. The 30 page limitation for the Cost Volume will be clarified in the Final RFP to address the potential inclusion of the L.27 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS. (JUL 2020) (b)(1) DIRECT AND INDIRECT

RATE SUBSTANTIATION.

13. Section L.23-GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation—General Instructions, Paragraph (b)(1) Cost Volume (c) + Section L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(7)-GPM Basis of Estimates (BOE)

BOE for Significant Subcontractors - Section L.27 requires BOEs be provided by Significant Subcontractors following the specified format and within the page limitations set forth in Section L.23.

Question: Are Significant Subcontractors provided 30 pages for their BOEs in addition to the 30 pages provided to the Prime Offeror? Will NASA permit an integrated BOE to include the Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors?

13. The Basis of Estimate (BOE) page limitation is for Prime Offeror and all Significant Subcontractors (page limitation is for the total component (Prime and Significant Subcontractors)). Offerors are not restricted from submitting an integrated BOE.

14. Section L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph

(a) + Exhibit B-GPM Exhibits 2A through 10B

Completion of Cost Exhibit 3 - While Exhibit 3 includes a check box for the Prime Offeror or Significant Subcontractor; Section L.27 instruction states that proposed Significant Subcontractors shall complete and submit Exhibits 2A, 2B, and 4 through 10B; specifically excluding Exhibit 3.

Question: Will NASA please clarify whether Significant Subcontractors are to complete and submit an Exhibit 3?

14 . All Prime Offerors shall complete Exhibit 3, Government Pricing Model by Elements of Cost, to include Direct Labor Hours, Direct Labor Dollars, Fringe Benefits (if separate), Overhead, Other Direct Costs, G&A and fixed fee.

15. Section M.4-GSFC 52.215-323 Cost Evaluation Factor (IDIQ Services

- GPM)

Evaluation of Cost - Referenced evaluation clause states “The total FFP Phase-In price and the proposed and probable Government Pricing Model evaluated cost including proposed fee amount) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority as well as any cost risk associated with the proposal.” It is unclear as to whether NASA’s cost evaluation will consider Offerors’ proposed phase-in price.

Question: Will NASA consider/evaluate phase-in price as part of the Cost Evaluation or is it simply additional information to be provided to the Source Selection Authority?

15. The cost evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B).

16. SECTION L.28-GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume, Paragraph (a) Information From the Offeror

Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA Recordable Injuries and Illnesses for the past 3 years.

Please confirm that the Government intends for Offeror’s to submit the Total Recordable Case (TRC) and Days Away, Restricted Activity, or Job Transfer (DART) rates for the past 3 years.

16. Offerors shall submit data (ex. Total Recordable Cases, Days Away, Restricted Activity, or Job Transfer rates) meeting the OSHA general recording criteria.

17. SECTION L.28-GSFC 52.215-230 Past Performance Volume

For items excluded from the Past Performance Volume page limitation (e.g., Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, etc.), should Offerors include the documents as attachments?

17. Per L.28 GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME, recent customer evaluations of past performance including Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms are excluded from the page limitation and can be included as an attachment under the Past Performance Volume.

18. SMAS III Industry Day Slides

The procurement schedule indicates the contract award is November 2024, yet the current contract expires in November 2024. How will the 60-day phase-in period be covered?

18. An award will be made be made in time to allow for a reasonable 60-day time for phase-in efforts. The final RFP will address the anticipated contract award and effective date(s).

19. ATTACHMENT J-Wage Determination/Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA)

ATTACHMENT J-Wage Determination/Collective Bargaining Agreement

(CBA)

Are there service positions in the SMAS III contract covered by an SCA Wage Determination? If yes, please provide. Attachment J only provides the CBA.

Which SMAS III labor categories are covered by the CBA-2023-709? Is it only the Engineering Technician categories (I, II, III, IV, V, VI)

19. Enclosure E Government Pricing Model (GPM) – Specified Non- Management Direct Labor Categories, Direct Labor Hours, and Position Descriptions; Onsite GPM-Specified Non-Management includes (ex. Engineer Tech I – VI) the service positions in the SMAS III contract covered.

20. Enclosure E

Enclosure E states that years of experience cannot be substituted for degree requirements. Would the government consider removing this requirement or augmenting with “unless approved by the CO.” We have identified degree requirements as one of primary barriers to entry for minorities when looking for NASA positions. Additionally, will the Government consider making the years of experienced desired experience.

This will provide better flexibility in managing the resources requirements in support of SMAS III.

20. It is the desire for the Government to enable the contractor to formulate the best team to support our SMA needs. We understand the degree requirement can be restrictive and may consider allowing Offerors to propose equivalencies to meet the Position Qualifications requirements. If equivalencies are proposed, the Offeror shall provide the same level of detail.

21. SMAS III Industry Day Slides

The presentation outlines multiple off-site TDY and vendor related activities for contractor personnel. The draft only request labor rates. Are those costs covered in the SMAS contract or will travel and associated expenses be separate by individual task orders?

21. Per the solicitation, the Government is requesting direct and indirect labor rates and the fixed fee that will be incorporated in the contract via Attachment B, IDIQ Rate Matrix.

If there is travel associated with the task requirement, the travel will be specified in each task order.

22. Enclosure E – GPM Non-Mgmt Labor Cat Hours and PDs; OFFSITE GPM-Specified Non-Management

Planned direct labor hours for many labor categories are significantly less than a full time equivalent person (FTE).

For some of these labor categories, telework may be the most efficient

22. The specific conditions of telework will be dictated by specific IDIQ tasks.

If the work and communication can achieved via telework there is no mandate for an on-center presence. However, there will some instances where teleworkers will need to be on center to support SMA requirements.

option to provide required service, but telework is not addressed in the Draft RFP.

Please clarify that telework is authorized in performance of the SMAS III contract and specify the conditions under which it will be authorized.

23. Sections B-M, Paragragh L.27(b)(2)

Onsite is defined as NASA Goddard Space Flight Center or Wallops Flight Facility. Offsite is defined as the Contractor’s facility. No information is provided regarding a requirement for proximity of the contractor’s facility to GSFC or WFF.

Please define how close the Contractor’s facility must be to one or both government facilities, or specify that the location of the Contractor’s facility is at the discretion of the offeror.

23. The contractor’s facility is at the discretion of the offeror. However, consideration should be given to achieving the management and oversight of the offeror’s and their subcontractor personnel and work as mentioned in the

SOW.

24. SECTION L.26-GSFC 52.215-210 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions, Paragraph (d), Subfactor B-Management Approach, B.9-Total Compensation Plan [Page 98]; SECTION L.27-GSFC 52.215-223 Cost Volume Instructions, Paragraph (b)(14) Total Compensation Plan [Page 112]

Evaluation of TCP – There are instructions regarding the TCP in both the Mission Suitability and Cost Volumes

Which instruction takes precedent? Will the TCP be subject to both findings and scoring under Mission Suitability as well as probable cost adjustments in the Cost evaluation?

24 . The TCP will be subject to both findings and scoring under Mission Suitability as well as probable cost adjustments in the Cost evaluation. If there is a discrepancy between cost and mission suitability it will be noted and adjustments to cost to match the offeror’s approach may be warranted.

25. Scenario 1, Enclosure G

Scenario 1, Enclosure G, states “Each Sun-Tower satellite will launch from French Guiana using ESA launch services, so it will not follow the standard NASA ELV payload safety review process.” Is the expectation that the contract must still ensure this process meets NASA requirements or is utilization of the ESA safety process and corresponding requirements acceptable to meeting the NASA requirement? Can the Government please provide the applicable ESA safety documents to the technical library including the Risk Management Plan, Safety Requirements,

25. Per Enclosure G, “each Sun-Tower satellite will launch from French Guiana using ESA launch services, so it will not follow the standard NASA ELV payload safety review process,” and will follow a modified approach like on JWST/GPM. In these cases, NASA negotiated with the launch/range provider up front and established equivalence between the US and European requirements and allowed NASA to demonstrate compliance to US requirements and address any specific areas where a European requirement might be more stringent for establishing range safety in collaboration with their review process. Conversely, the US ground station(s) will be a launched via any NASA Artemis launch. Nominally, that would mean following NASA requirements and safety process. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP

Launch Vehicle Integration, launch site operations, etc. scenario description.

26. Scenario 1, Enclosure G

In Scenario I, Enclosure G, is the development of the ground station also included within the scope or are we to assume that is handled through a separate effort and out of scope for this scenario? The scenario states “Lunar surface and Gateway systems will be launched via Artemis planned missions.” Is this anticipated to be on the SLS or another vehicle used as part of the Artemis architecture?

26. Ground stations are included in the scenario. Since as stated in Enclosure G, each will be “integrated with planned lunar facilities” it can be assumed it could be one or more and that each is not a stand-alone system but an integrated control panel/system for ground and space systems that will likely use lunar facility communication capabilities. The rectenna and lunar power grid ground systems are out of scope. The ground stations will be a launched via any NASA Artemis launch. Nominally, that would be SLS and use US range facilities. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

27. Scenario 1, Enclosure G

In Scenario 1, Enclosure G, should we assume that the Ground assets have arrived prior to the SSP such that during the 30-day post lunar insertion we are able to complete a full system check out of the SSP, communication with the ground station, and potentially initial power transfer?

27. Per Enclosure G, “The SPP mission operations will be performed out of the Goddard Space Flight Center and in collaboration with NASA’s ARTEMIS’ Gateway and JSC-ARTEMIS control,” the full system check-out and deployment is not contingent on ground assets being in place. It can be assumed that the rectennas and power grid are in place. The only caveat to full operations would be that in-situ user would not have control. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

28. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

Scenario 2, Enclosure G, indicates that the period of performance begins once the facility is instantiated, can we assume that the SMAS contractor was involved in the design and construction of the facility, and we can leverage this experience and insight in executing the SMA process going forward.

28. While there is an advantage to having SMA and SMAS contractor support during instantiation (or built not operational) of a new manufacturing facility that should not be assumed. What can be assumed is that all instantiation is complete at the time of the task order and instantiation representatives and documentation are available for use in establishing assurance at the new facility.

29. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

In Scenario 2, Enclosure G, will 100% of the assembly be executed by automated robots? The human interaction is monitoring and quality inspection only?

29. Nominally, per Enclosure G, 100% of assembly, test, and quality inspections are automated but human monitored. However, components/buses that fail will be sidelined for issue identification by engineer/technicians and repair, and human quality acceptance/inspection. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

30. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

In Scenario 2, Enclosure G, what class of mission hardware is anticipated to be developed in the facility?

30. All mission class hardware is anticipated to manufactured in the facility. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

31. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

In Scenario 2, Enclosure G, what is the timeline or initial facility operation?

31. Since scenario 2 is an effort to develop, deploy, and expand the current infrastructure of GSFC and the applicability of its assurance programs, the timeline would start after the facility build/instantiation is complete and operations would be dependent on when assurance and other practices are proven with a goal of full operations by 2040 at the latest. Therefore, in terms of the task-scenario timeline the task would start after the task-proposal is approved and the remaining timeline would be dependent on the approach proposed (incremental, phased, standard, modified, proactive, reactive, etc.) to define and deploy effective assurance at the facility, not the calendar/years (keep in mind the task is limited to 5 years per the contract POP). – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

32. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

In Scenario 2, Enclosure G, Who are the anticipated user of the Satellite Buses manufactured in this new facility? Commercial, NASA, Other, mix?

32. Initially, NASA and its international partners, but others like universities could also use the facility or its products. Commercial user could be considered but that would need additional competition considerations that are beyond the scenario for establishing and supporting an operational facility. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

33. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

In Scenario 2, Enclosure G, is the goal of the facility to support an increase in production rates? Lower cost? Is there a desire to trade system reliability for lower cost? Is there a desire to have the capability to change these answers in response to customer requirements?

33. NASA does not desire to trade system reliability for lower cost. This facility is intended to provide consistency, efficiency, and the production rate NASA needs at any time, while ensuring excellence, quality, and safety. – NASA has clarified this in the final RFP scenario description.

34. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

Section 3-Technical Challenges in Scenario 2, GSFC/WFF Infrastructure Extension Support starts with 3.4 Excessive Fallout and appears to be missing headings 3.1 through 3.3. Please clarify.

34. There are 3 technical challenges to be addressed in scenario 2: Excessive Fallout, Audit, and Mishap. Nothing is missing from the enclosure. NASA has corrected numbering to 3.1 – 3.3.

35. N/A

How do you see future commercial space and new partnerships impacting the role of SMA and the services provided by Code 300?

35. There’s a two-part answer to this question. One is the commercial partnerships that we’re forming at Wallops to be able to launch future vehicles under the new FAA rules. Two is collaborating with commercial partners on our spacecraft missions and basically leveraging the commercial sector and perhaps trying to let them do some of our work that they can already do and that they’ve proven they can do and try to let Goddard do the things that they can’t do. One area of this might be optics. We have some specialized expertise in optics and that’s going to be one of our interest areas as we go on to develop habitable worlds. Because of the tightening budgets and commercial industries increasing expertise in various areas we should try to leverage commercial partnerships to our advantage.

Let us go back to Wallops for a little bit. We had the inaugural launch from US soil of the Electron earlier this January, which was a commercial launch under FAA Part 417. Next, we’re trying to bring in the Neutron and Neutron is going to be the first one under new Part 450, which states the FAA is responsible for public safety. It sounds kind of easy but the roles are complicated between us, the FAA, DoD, commercial space and Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, especially because WFF will still be responsible for personnel and assets on our Center. So, there’s a lot of discussion and a few MOAs we are working on in in conjunction with these new roles. But if that continues to work well then, we’ll see more commercial customers come to Wallops under Part 450.

36. N/A

What do you see as the primary supply chain risk today and is there anything changing since COVID?

36. Supply chain risks are constantly in flux and also vary depending on the particular suppliers and components however in general SMA’s main concern is any systemic risks that may adversely impact quality of one or more products. During COVID the main risk to quality was the immobility of our quality inspectors and thus the inability to conduct on-site inspections. Post- COVID the risks to quality continue to be ever-changing and multi-faceted but one overarching risk is the cost-constrained environment that our products are being developed in today which drives our suppliers to lean quality assurance approaches that could produce latent quality issues that lead to failures late in the development cycle or possibly make their way to orbit. As we continue to evolve our design approaches and introduce new technologies new supply chain risks are sure to emerge during the contract POP. In giving this answer the government is not emphasizing any particular risk in this area for offerors to address or focus on but expect each offeror to consider supply chain risks and the impact of those on their proposed support approach independently.

37. SOW (Editorial)

There is no paragraph 2.1.4. The SOW numbering goes from 2.1.3 to

2.1.5. Please clarify.

There are two SOW headings 6.4 (Quality Inspections and Managing/Communicating Non-conformances). Please clarify.

The SOW numbering for MTE Calibration, Maintenance and Repair Support is 7.5.3. SOW 7.5.3 should really be numbered 7.6.3. Please clarify.

There is no paragraph 7.6.5. The SOW numbering goes from 7.6.4 to

7.6.6. Please clarify.

37. NASA has reviewed the SOW and adjusted numbering inconsistencies.