MTN - RFP Questions and Answers (06-01-2026).pdf

Question No. RFP Document Section/Page Number Question Government Response

1 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal L.9(b)(1) / L.11.3(1)

The Table shows Volume II (d) Additional Written Documentation and Information as including three elements (1 - 3); however, the specific instructions describe a fourth element "… trajectory and vehicle performance parameters and binary spice file(s) as described in Exhibit 1 ...). Blue Origin respectfully requests that the RFP be updated to resolve this inconsistency, including showing that this information is "Excluded" from page limits.

Section L.9(b)(1), Table Section (d)(1) has been revised to state, “Radio Frequency link budget from template – Attachment B – Appendix B; and Mission Trajectory Data Package – Exhibit 1” indicating that both elements are “Excluded” from page limitations.

The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.

Attachment B: MARS

TELECOMMUNICATIO

NS NETWORK

OBJECTIVES AND

REQUIREMENTS

DOCUMENT

NASA's MTN-REQ-016 Cybersecurity and Command Protection requirement could be interpreted as requiring a FIPS Compliant solution. With this approach the system could implement cryptographic algorithms and practices consistent with FIPS 140-3 level 1 standards, without requiring a formal Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) certificate. This flexible implementation, which adheres to the security intent of FIPS standards, could be preferred. An alternative approach is FIPS 140-3 level 1 Certified, meaning cryptographic modules must appear on NIST's CMVP validated modules list with a formal certificate number. Please confirm that this interpretation is correct.

The requirement is to utilize cybersecurity and command link encryption practices consistent with industry best practices. NASA MTN is encouraging offeror's to implement existing industry practices where appropriate and NASA-approved security is required to protect MTN commanding, data integrity, and authentication against unauthorized access and data compromise. AES-256 utilizing a 256-bit cryptogragraphic Traffic Encryption Key (TEK) per NIST FIPS PUB 197 certified for FIPS-140-3 level 1 is provided as an example of one of those best practices, but is not explicitly required. A formal Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) certificate is not required.

Attachment B: MARS

TELECOMMUNICATIO

NS NETWORK

OBJECTIVES AND

REQUIREMENTS

DOCUMENT

In Table B-1, the DWE Return Link template specifies "Input -0.5 dB at X-band or -5 dB at Ka-band" with a comment this refers to Atmospheric Loss at DSS-55, MDSCC. In the DSN Telecommunications Link Design Handbook 810-005, Section 105 Table 18 shows the attenuation at zenith for Madrid. The -5 dB corresponds to slightly more than the year average 99th percentile weather availability at an elevation angle of 20 degrees.

For this same elevation, the 95th percentile weather attentuation would yield a loss of -

1.92 dB at Ka-Band. Based on this documentation, we recommend amending this line in the template to -2 dB instead.

NASA maintains -0.5 dB for X-band and -5 dB for Ka-band for the link budget template. NASA calculated atmospheric loss assuming (a) the 95th cumulative distribution, (b) worst-case month statistics at each DSN site and (c) a 10-degree elevation. Ka-band weather statistics for DSN are provided in the DSN Telecommunications Link Design Handbook 810-005, Section 105 Revision E, Tables 16, 17, and 18 for Goldstone, Canberra and Madrid, respectively. A similar analysis applies for the X-band atmospheric loss of -

0.5 dB across the three sites.

Mars Telecommunications Network (MTN) Request for Proposal: 80GSFC26R0011

Questions and Answers June 01, 2026

Attachment B: MARS

TELECOMMUNICATIO

NS NETWORK

OBJECTIVES AND

REQUIREMENTS

DOCUMENT

Pages 27 and 40

In Table B-6, the user EIRP is specified as -1 dBW, with the footnote that "The EIRP listed here is a use case and will be used to compare link budget results across all vendors. This value should be used as a constraint for design of the system." MTN-REQ- 031 states as a threshold requirement "MTN shall support UHF Proximity Link communications services for surface and orbital assets at Mars with per-user data rates up to at least 2 Mbps under nominal conditions at zenith, with the zenith distance defined to be the closest approach radial distance of MTN to the surface or orbital asset." Given the phrase "up to at least", is it NASA's intention that the 2 Mbps link be closeable for the -1 dBW asset, or are there distinct use cases where either the -1 dBW or the 2 Mbps apply?

The “up to at least 2 Mbps” refers to providing variable data rates up to 2 Mbps, but not necessarily limited to 2 Mbps. The intent of the threshold requirement is for the given data rate (≤ 2Mbps, minimum) to occur simultaneously with a user EIRP of -1 dBW to close the UHF proximity link per MTN-REQ-031. Higher rates than 2 Mbps would contribute towards the Goal Requirement (up to at least 8 Mbps), that would also close at -1 dBW, EIRP.

5 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal L.10 (a)(2) / pg. 68

This section states "Provide information addressing all of the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility. Provide Line of Credit information required under (b)(2) of Subfactor B of this provision." Please clarify the Line of Credit information being requested. There is no Subfactor B (b)(2) of FAR 9.104 (the prior sentence), or within L.10 (the provision this is under), and Line of Credit is not referenced in any other place within this document.

Provide information addressing all of the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility. Provide evidence of adequate security for Government financing (e.g. an irrevocable letter of credit from a federally insured financial institution or other acceptable form IAW FAR 32.202-4).

6 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal L.10 (a)(2) / pg. 68

This second sentence of this section is requesting Line of Credit information which assumes the contractor is planning to finance milestones for advance payments. Can this be an optional requirement and only applicable if a contractor intends to finance milestones?

Any milestone payments proposed prior to the final delivery payment for each line item are Government financing payments. IAW clause FAR 52.232-29, adequate security is required for Government financing (e.g.

an irrevocable letter of credit from a federally insured financial institution or other acceptable form IAW FAR 32.202-4.)

7 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal

Please provide full text for all clauses incorporated by reference within the contract that aren't readily available as a standard to the public and fully updated in the Code of Federal Regulations. The NFS deviation clauses (such as 1852.245-78 (Deviation ), NFS 1852.227-70 (Deviation ), and NFS 1852.227-72 (Deviation )) can be found in the link provided (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/NFS.pdf), but given this link is for a document that states it was last updated April 6, 2026, and is still subject to change, we will need this information in full text for this contract to fully evaluate contract risk and gain approval to submit our proposal. Any future changes to clauses (should they occur) can be addressed through a mutually agreed to contract modification.

The full-text version of all clauses incorporated by reference, including current deviations, can be found in the NASA FAR Supplement, last updated in April 2026. Procurement Class Deviation (PCD) language is contained in the PCD section of the NASA FAR Supplement. The Government acknowledges that any future clause modifications arising from the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) shall be executed through bilateral contract modifications with mutual consent of both parties.

8 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal B.4 / pg. 5

Please clarify the table incorporated into "GSFC 52.217-91 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY". Options (1A - 5) are tied to CLINs related to mission operations. Should these be in a separated table for Performance Incentives, not Schedule Incentives (current title of column 3)?

The Column 3 title has been revised to "Schedule Incentive / Performance Incentive Amount." Complete this column with either the Schedule Incentive Amount or Performance Incentive Amount, as appropriate.

The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.

10 Attachment D: Data Procurement Document 5.6 / pg. 19 Description/Use of DRD-PM-06 within Attachment D appears to be incorrect - please verify and update if appropriate.

This is an error. The text has been amended to read, "To provide the details of how formal design reviews, as defined and described by the Contractor, will be conducted (including roles and responsibilities), entrance and exit success criteria, and what data will be delivered in support of each one. This includes any contractor defined milestones associated with their milestone payment plan."

Attachment D, Data Procurement Document, has been updated and redesignated as Rev B.

11 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal L.9(b)(1) Does the 90-slide limit for the Oral Technical Proposal Presentation include the title slide and section title slides?

The title slide and section divider slide(s) for the Oral Technical Proposal Presentation are excluded from the 90 page limitation.

12 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal M.1(a)(3)

Can you please clarify the treatment of incentive pricing for the Total Evaluated Price?

Section L.12(b)(2) of the RFP appears to define the “Total Proposed Price” for CLIN 0001 as the amount in Clause B.1, separate from the schedule incentive. This interpretation seems consistent with Section M.1(a)(3), which outlines the elements of the price evaluation without explicitly including incentives. However, the formulas within the provided “Price Exhibit(s) 2-9.xlsx” file incorporate the incentive values into the Total Proposed Price. This creates a potential discrepancy between the RFP text and the pricing submission tool.

Please clarify if proposed incentive values should be included in the calculation of the Total Proposed Price and, consequently, the Total Evaluated Price.

The Total Evaluated Price includes all the price and incentives proposed by the Offeror. For clarification, RFP Section L.12(b)(2) has been revised.

The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.

Please clarify the table placement in sections B.6. The table currently included in "B.6

SCHEDULE INCENTIVE (CLIN 0001 – MARS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

NETWORK DELIVERY)" references CLINs 0004-0008 and is formatted for Performance Incentives with monthly payments, which appears inconsistent with a Schedule Incentive for CLIN 0001. Should this table be relocated to "B.8

PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE (MISSION OPERATIONS)"?

B.6 / pg. 8 and B.8 / pg. 9

The table under Section B.6 was incorporated there in error and has been moved to its correct location under Section B.8.

The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.

80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal9

13 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal M.1(a)

The following typo was identified in Section M. Please revise for clarity.

"Offerors that have that are in compliant with the eligibility requirements as Offerors requirements mandated by 51 U.S.C § 20306 are eligible for award."

RFP Section M.1(a) and has been revised to state, "Offerors that are in compliance with the eligibility requirements mandated by 51 U.S.C § 20306 are eligible for award."

The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.

14 Attachment B - Objectives and Requirements Appendix B Appendix B has been revised to correct the formula in Tables B-1 and B-3 (line 17) Attachment B, MTN Objectives and Requirements, has been updated and redesignated as Rev D.

15 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal M.1(a)(2) The past performance evaluation criteria has been edited to capture the Government's intent for evaluation. The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.

16 80GSFC26R0011 -

Request for Proposal H.10

Section H.10, Cross-Waiver Of Liability For Science Or Space Exploration Activities Unrelated To The International Space Station. (SEP 2025) (Deviation), has been replaced in its entirety with, NFS 1852.228-78 Cross-Waiver Of Liability For Science Or Space Exploration Activities Unrelated To The International Space Station (SEP 2025) (Deviation).

The revised RFP labeled “Revision 1” identifies changes in red text.