Draft RFP Questions and Answers 80GSFC24R0001 - Set 2.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. Scenario 1, Enclosure G

Scenario 1 states “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.” Can the Government clarify the specific facility that will be used for operations at the GSFC and can the Government please confirm that the Artemis Gateway and JSC-Artemis operations will be performed from the JSC Mission Control Center.

1. It is appropriate to assume that the Artemis Gateway and JSC-Artemis operations will be out of a JSC. To clarify GSFC operations will be out of one of the existing Greenbelt operations centers. Enclosure G updates will be conducted via the Final RFP.

2. Scenario 1, Enclosure G

Please verify if the University of Maryland payload is still flown in Technical Challenge 3.1 Rescopes and the statement “only deploy the ESA Plasma instrument on the SPP.” was only to indicate that the ESA Plasma will only be flown on the SSP and not the Gateway.

2. Since the instrument-payload originally planned for the SPP was an ESA instrument and a UMD instrument, the statement that “only deploy the ESA Plasma instrument on the SPP.” was intended to indicate a descope of the UMD instrument. Enclosure G updates will be conducted via the Final RFP.

3. L.26 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE), Subfactor B – Management Approach

RFP states "The Offeror shall detail its process for ensuring unified support between the Offeror and its subcontractors." Since Section B.2 is focused on significant subcontractors, is this question regarding unified support referring to Significant subcontracts or all subcontractors?

3. Section B.2 is focused on significant subcontractors and the offeror’s strategy for using (or not using) significant subcontractors.

4. Scenario 2, Enclosure G

In Scenario 2, Section 2 Infrastructure Assurance Project, RFP indicates the scenario starts once the facility has been “instantiated”. Can the Government provide additional clarification on the readiness of the facility and infrastructure systems based on the use of the term instantiated?

4. Instantiated was used in the draft to mean built, supplied, and ready for initial manufacturing operations. This has been replaced with instituted (not proven) to convey that meaning more clearly. Operations in this context will be manufacturing activities, after initial faciality certification since part of the task is to support “the continual advancement and maintenance of current infrastructure certifications.” Enclosure G updates will be conducted via the Final RFP.

5. Enclosure G and Statement of Work

In the SOW and Scenario 2, there are multiple reference to AS9001.

Should this be in reference to AS9100?

5. Yes the Statement of Work and Enclosure G Scenario 2 should reference AS9100. Both documents updates will be conducted via the Final RFP.

6. L.26 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE), Subfactor B – Management Approach, Subfactor B.9 Total Compensation Plan

Section B.9 states: “This requirement also applies to each proposed subcontractor determined to be significant/major, in accordance with the definition for a significant/major subcontractor established in the Cost Volume instructions, and which provide at least 20% of the total estimated professional direct labor hours or work year equivalents (WYEs).” This definition conflicts with the Cost Volume instructions for Significant Subcontractor which is based on a cumulative threshold of 10% of total value. We suggest these definitions be synced to be 20% of total contract value. A 10% cumulative threshold is lower than other recent RFPs from

GSFC.

6. At this time, NASA does not intend to revise the definitions.

7. Past Performance Volume

Section L.28 states: “For the purposes of the Past Performance Volume, a proposed significant subcontractor is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $7M.” Would the Government consider making the significant subcontractor threshold for the Past Performance volume to be $3M per year? A $7M threshold represents a significant portion of the estimated SMAS III effort. A $3M per year threshold is consistent with previous SMAS RFPs at GSFC.

7. At this time, NASA does not intend to revise the significant subcontractor threshold.

8. L.26 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE), Subfactor B – Management Approach, B.8 Position Qualifications

The Position Qualifications are currently included in the 90 page Mission Suitability limitation. Would the Government consider excluding the Position Qualifications from the page count limitation? This section could be 15-20 pages, representing a significant portion of the Mission Suitability volume.

8. Subfactor B – Management Approach B.8 Position Qualifications states:

“As provided in Table (b)(1) of provision 52.215-201 and the Cost Volume Instructions, the Offeror’s Position Qualifications are to be included in the contract Attachment entitled, “Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices,” which shall be submitted in the Cost Volume (per table (b)(1) of GSFC provision 52.215-201).”

There is no page limitation for the Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, and Fee Matrices (Attachment B) under the Cost Volume.

9. DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES AND FEE

MATRICES

Section L.27 states: “Offsite is defined as the Contractor’s facility.” The GPM contains a number of “Offsite” positions and hours, that appear to be less than full time employees. Can the Government please confirm if these employees are to be housed in Contractor’s facilities or are intended to be remote employees?

9. The contractor’s facility and usage is at the discretion of the offeror.

However, consideration should be given to achieving the work as mentioned in the SMAS III Statement of Work and task requirements within IDIQ tasks.

10. Enclosure E - GPM Non-Mgmt Labor Cat Hours and PDs

Many of the degree requirements in Enclosure E, Position Descriptions, are inconsistent or conflicting….Would the Government consider updating the education requirements for all engineering positions to state:

BA/BS Degree in Engineering or related field?

10. 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 requirements can be vast 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. Any updates to Enclosure E will be conducted via the Final RFP.

11. Scenario 1, Enclosure G

Please clarify the Scenario 1 SPP spacecraft CONOPS. In particular:

Scenario 1 states that "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." Does this mean that for the purposes of SOW element 3.1.2, Ground System Assurance, the "ground system" is limited to GSFC and contractor ground elements that directly relate to the SPP? Scenario 1 appears to use the term "ground system" in reference to the lunar surface power receiving station ("The SPP ground system will be a single ground station integrated with planned lunar facilities for each international partner..."), however we have been told during Industry Day that the lunar surface elements are not part of the SMAS III SPP scope.

Also, please clarify how "SPP control from Lunar Gateway" is to be implemented. Is Gateway intended to be crewed full time in the 2030 timeframe (and thus the local crew would be performing the SPP control function) or is it still only occasionally crewed, in which case SPP control would be from GSFC and Gateway is only a comms relay to the SPP?

11. SPP specific Ground Systems will be at GSFC and that will need to be addressed. In addition, since control of the SPP will also be supported by Gateway and Artemis capabilities and this is a GSFC managed mission there will be some level of assurance needed for that support.

Lunar surface element references have been updated to ground stations and are not part of the scope of this scenario.