SMAS III Draft RFP Questions and Answers Set 3.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

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.

Enclosure G Scenario 1 and the three listed Q&A responses are not clear with respect to what “ground stations” are, and what part of them is withing the scope of this Scenario.

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?

1. SPP specific Ground Systems will be at GSFC and that will need to be include in the response. 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 task.

Note a Ground system consists of ground stations and control centers (which has telemetry and data initial processing, commanding, and monitoring) while ground stations are only radio wave reception/repeater posts/antennas.

2. Can the Government provide some additional clarification on their answer to Question #31: Can the Government provide the definition for Instantiation in reference to Scenario 2?

Can the Government clarify if the desire is for our response to include our support from instantiation to full operations or to limit the response to the SMAS III POP? Limiting the response to only the POP of the SMAS III contract would potentially result in inconsistent responses making it difficult for the Government to evaluate the merits of each proposal.

2. Q&A set 1 #26 answer dealt with instantiation: 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.

See also Q&A #4 from set 2: Instantiated was used in the draft to mean built, supplied, and ready for initial manufacturing operations.

Q&A set 1 #31 answer: 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.

3. Section L, Section A.2 asks for “the flow of activities from start to completion (including timeline),” is the Government requesting details on the flow of activities and not the specific “calendar/years” required to execute these tasks?

3. The government is requesting a task plan for the entirety of the work. If the work is time or iteration dependent then the timing/iteration should be relative to the activity and shown.

4. Can the government please clarify the answer in Question 19? It seems that the answer was inadvertently cut off as it does not seem to be a complete sentence.

4. From Q&A Set 1 #19: 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 as required in B.8 Position Qualifications.

5. Enclosure E

The experience and education requirements for Engineer Tech’s are not consistent across the labor category levels. For example, Engineer Tech II requires an Associates Degree, but the Engineer Tech III (a more senior position) requires only a High School Degree. Additionally, Engineer Tech III and IV education and experience are focused on Lifting Devices and Pressure vessels, while Engineer Tech I and II are generic. Can the government clarify whether these were intended to be two separate sets of labor categories?

5. Engineering Tech qualifications revised to reflect a consistent ladder.

Updates to Enclosure E will be conducted via the Final RFP.

6. Enclosure E

The description and position requirements for the Junior Engineer, Engineer, Senior Engineer, and Principal Engineer position are not consistent across the labor category levels. Principal and Senior Engineer descriptions refer to supporting Quality Assurance Efforts for the Mission Assurance Branch, while the Engineer and Junior Engineer levels seem to be referring to supporting the Lifting Devices and Pressure Vessels activities. Since these two areas are distinct from each other and the LDE/PVS support is covered by a CBA, can the Government please clarify if these positions should be split into two separate sets (one covered by the CBA and one Exempt)?

6 . All principal and senior positions education requirement have been made consistent. Generic engineering titles have been improved with “assurance” to make them unique positions with general SMA responsibilities. Updates to Enclosure E will be conducted via the Final RFP.

7. Can you confirm that it is the Government’s intent to allow Offerors to estimate prime contract and significant subcontract percentages and value based on an assumption that the contract will meet the Maximum Ordering Value and performance will reflect all areas of the Statement of Work as was allowed in a recent GSFC/WFF RFP (WRC - 80GSFC23R0009)?

7. It is reasonable for an offeror to assume the maximum ordering value of $226M when providing the estimated value and percentage of work to be performed on the SMAS III contract by the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor.