ENCLOSURE_2_Original_CLPS_Solicitation_No._80HQTR18R0011R_Q&A.pdf

Commercial Lunar Payload Services

Questions and Responses 1 through 45

CLPS Q and A Posting 1

Below NASA is providing responses to 45 questions submitted by Industry regarding the

Commercial Lunar Payload Services Draft Solicitation and Industry Day. This is the first posting and other Questions and Responses will be posted prior to the RFP being released.

There will be an additional Q&A period of two weeks following the release of the RFP.

A revised SOW is anticipated to be posted next week.

1. Was the WebEx session from Industry Day recorded; and is there a link to access it?

Government (Govt) Response: The content of all WebEx slide presentations are posted on the following link: CLPS eLibrary .

2. When do you expect NASA payloads will be available?

Govt Response: NASA anticipates having payloads available for lander missions by mid to late 2019. Additionally, NASA will be ready to engage in manifest discussions and issue task order requests for proposals soon after contract award, in early 2019.

3. Will NASA put multiple payloads on a single mission?

Govt Response: Yes, in many cases NASA may combine multiple payloads on a single mission opportunity.

4. Will there be standardized payload interfaces?

Govt Response: NASA does not plan to define payload interface standards for the

CLPS contracts.

5. Will NASA want to send payloads to the far side of the Moon? Will communication services be provided for those missions or any lunar missions?

Govt Response: NASA may choose to send payloads to any place on the Moon, including the far side. Specifics about communication needs will be defined in each task order. NASA expects vendors to arrange communication links as a part of their end-to-end services.

6. Will the vendor be responsible for insuring NASA payloads?

ENCLOSURE 2 - Original CLPS Solicitation 80HQTR18R0011R Q&A

Govt Response: No, NASA does not anticipate requiring contractors to provide insurance for NASA payloads.

7. What role does NASA expect to play in risk management for missions procured under the CLPS contract?

Govt Response: NASA is contracting for commercial end-to-end delivery services, from launch through landing on the Moon. Managing risk across that mission portfolio will be the responsibility of the vendor selected for each mission task order.

8. Will NASA charter an entire mission? Does NASA want to manage excess payload capacity?

Govt Response: NASA is contracting for delivery of specific payloads to the

Moon. It is up to the vendor to determine if the NASA payload will require full utilization of the vendor’s delivery capability. It will also be up to the vendor to determine what to do with any excess capacity that may be available.

9. Does NASA intend to control/dictate the vendor’s launch schedule (with NASA payloads)?

Govt Response: As a marginal customer, NASA does not expect to have control over schedule. NASA is purchasing commercial transportation services under this contract. As such, NASA does not expect or want to manage launch schedules for the vendor. When delivering a payload to a specific destination by a certain date is critical to achieving NASA’s goal, it will be specified in the task order.

10. Will NASA combine multiple lunar flights into a single task order?

Govt Response: NASA anticipates that most mission task orders will be for one flight to the Moon. However, when warranted by payload or agency considerations, NASA may choose to ask for a series of flights to be performed under a single mission task order.

11. What is the split between mission and non-mission task orders?

Govt Response: The standard services on the contract are for transportation of

NASA’s payloads to the lunar surface. There will be some non-mission services

(refer to Attachment A, SOW) and the percentage is anticipated to be small in relation to standard mission services.

12. What is the task order process?

Govt Response: See Clauses I.24 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE and I.41

SUPPLEMENTAL TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES in the draft RFP.

13. How often will NASA release task orders? When will the first task orders be released on this contract? Does NASA plan a defined cadence? How far in advance will NASA ask for services?

Govt Response: NASA currently intends to release the first non-mission task order almost immediately after contract award. Over the life of the contract, NASA anticipates a wide range of payload opportunities. At this time, NASA does not have a planned cadence of missions. Some of NASA’s payloads will be defined well in advance of actual mission dates, allowing the vendors the opportunity to manage complex mission plans or integration needs. Some mission task orders may seek to take advantage of industry-planned missions and will have less lead-time. The task order proposal response times and mission launch and delivery schedules will vary based on the specific task requirements.

14. How long will vendors have to respond to a request for task plan?

Govt Response: Please see NFS clause 1852.216-80. Each request for task plan will define how long vendors have to respond, based on the complexity and urgency of the task. Typical mission tasks that do not have unusual urgency may allow at least 30 days for a task plan proposal. Some less complex or more urgent requirements may have a shorter response time.

15. What is the schedule for the first on-ramping opportunities; and are there anticipated changes in the standards for the on ramping?

Govt Response: NASA currently intends to assess the market for a potential on-ramp within 2 years of the original master contract date. If capable vendors exist prior to two years, NASA may issue an on-ramp opportunity earlier. The on-ramp standards will be the same, although the reference mission payload delivery date will be appropriately adjusted for Technical Standard 1.

16. Will all of potential services described in the SOW be evaluated for award of master contracts?

Govt Response: No. Not all services required in the SOW will be evaluated. See

Section V.2 Technical Acceptability Evaluation of the DRFP for clarity.

17. Can vendors bid on only portions of a task order? Can a vendor be selected for the master contract if they can perform key portions of the SOW and not deliver payloads all the way to the surface of the Moon?

Govt Response: No, vendors cannot bid on portions of a task order. NASA is contracting for end-to-end delivery services, from launch through landing on the

Moon. All vendors selected for the master contract will have demonstrated the ability to deliver payloads to the surface of the Moon.

18. Clarify the NAICS small business standard as dollars or number of employees.

Govt Response: The NAICS Code 481212 has a 1500 employee size standard and is not based on dollars. The size standard will be corrected in the Final Request for

Proposal (RFP).

19. What happens if a vendor’s small business status changes during the life of the contract in regards to small business contracting?

Govt Response: A contractor that represented itself as a small business concern before contract award must re-represent its size status for the North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code in the contract within 60 to 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the contract. Therefore, if there is a change in size status for a small business to a large business during the first 5 years of the contract, the contract dollars are considered obligations to small business until the concern recertifies at the end of the fifth year. For contract periods of performance that go beyond 5 years in which a small business recertifies to a large business, the contract dollars are considered obligations to large business.

20. Clarify task order vs total overall contract values in regards to sub-contracting goals.

Govt Response: The goals in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be stated as a percentage of total (maximum) contract value and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars. The proposed plan shall indicate if phasing is appropriate, and if so, indicate the appropriate phasing goals.

21. Will there be performance-based payments on task orders?

Govt Response: Yes, performance-based payments milestones are anticipated in standard task orders (e.g. mission task order delivering payload to the moon). See

Clause I.26 Performance-Based Payments and Clause I.27 Performance-Based

Payment Events and Completion Criteria of the DRFP.

22. What type of fixed price contract will this be?

Govt Response: See DRFP Section IV.3 TYPE OF CONTRACT (FAR 52.216-1)

(APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of multiple firm fixed price Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contracts resulting from this solicitation.

23. Clarify clause I.3 Ordering Limitations - regarding the Cover letter’s request for vendors to comment.

Govt Response: NASA’s intent was to request industry feedback on the appropriate fill-in values that were not completed in this clause in the draft RFP. In the final RFP, the Order Limitations clause will identify the minimum and maximum amount (value) that the Contractor is required to perform for a single task or for multiple tasks.

24. Can you provide more clarity about surveillance plans?

Govt Response A Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (Enclosure 1 of the DRFP) is required. The plan provides the contractor “information only” on how the Government intends to surveil the services.

25. When will the blackout period start for this procurement?

Govt Response: The blackout period will start the day of the CLPS Final RFP release, which is currently anticipated in mid/late July, 2018.

26. What is the difference between the CLPS effort and the NASA Launch Services

Program Commercial Launch Service procurements? What is NASA’s expectation for oversight?

Govt Response: The NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) procures dedicated commercial launch services for NASA’s payloads through the NASA Launch

Services II (NLS II) and other individual dedicated contracts (e.g. Venture Class

Launch Services (VCLS)) contracts. These contracts provide NASA with launch vehicle certification and oversight in accordance with NPD 8610.7, NPD 8610.23 and 8610.24. NLS II contracts are used to procure launch services for Class A-D, and technology demonstration payloads requiring a Category II or III Certified launch vehicle in accordance with NPD 8610.7. For higher risk tolerant missions

(e.g. Class D, technology demonstrations, etc.) NASA LSP uses individual contracts to procure fully commercial - FAA licensed - launch services with significantly reduced government oversight compared to the NLS II contract requirements. These launch vehicles may or may not be required to achieve

Category I NASA certification depending upon the mission’s risk tolerance.

Additionally, NASA LSP uses individual contracts to procure any NASA mission requiring a launch service that is not on-ramped onto the NLS II contract – regardless of mission risk class (A-D, technology demonstration, etc.).

However, these LSP contracts are not intended for end-to-end lunar landed payload services but are for individual launch services.

The intent of the CLPS procurement is to buy commercially available hosted end-to-end landed payload services from existing or planned commercial payloads headed to the lunar surface. The launch service associated with this service would therefore be fully commercial, FAA-licensed with no intent for additional launch vehicle oversight.

27. What is the relationship between CLPS and the Lunar Orbiting Platform –

Gateway (LOP-G)?

Govt Response: There is no direct relationship between CLPS and LOP-G.

Together with the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion, the Lunar Orbiting

Platform - Gateway is central to advancing and sustaining human space exploration, and is the unifying single stepping off point in the architecture for human cislunar operations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. The

Gateway will include opportunities for utilization of the capabilities that it provides, including communications relay capabilities. The CLPS procurement is seeking end-to-end lunar payload services, and if contractors intend to incorporate any existing or future NASA support/capabilities into proposals to fulfill task orders, it will be their responsibility to negotiate agreements for such support, separate from the CLPS contract.

28. Provide clarity on HEOMD mid-size lander procurement timing and plans.

Will the mid-sized landers HEOMD is developing with industry be able to on-ramp onto CLPS in the future?

Govt Response: Human Exploration Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) intends to release a solicitation during the summer of 2018. The initial HEOMD lander demo is planned for 2022 followed by another demo of increased capability in 2024. Yes, in the future, industry partners may choose to propose the mid-size lander (or a version of the mid-size lander) as an on-ramp to CLPS in addition to the HEOMD capability demonstration.

29. Is the HEOMD budget for mid-sized landers separate from the CLPS budget?

Govt Response: Yes, the HEOMD budget line for mid-sized landers is separate from the budget for CLPS.

30. What kind of schedules does NASA expect to see under technical standard #1?

Govt Response: For technical standard #1, NASA is expecting to see detailed schedule content that shows how the vendor plans to deliver payloads to the Moon by December 31, 2021. The schedules should include margins where relevant.

31. What kind of schedules are expected to be provided in the contract deliverable for Quarterly Capability updates?

Govt Response: NASA is looking for a basic manifest outline with notional launch dates and available payload space (if any).

32. What is NASA looking for in the reference mission mentioned in technical standard #1? What kind of capabilities does NASA expect to be included? Is the reference mission become the first mission task order?

Govt Response: The reference mission must demonstrate the ability to deliver at least 10 kg of payload by December 31st, 2021. Beyond that, the reference mission requested under technical standard #1 is for each Offeror to define. Its purpose is to allow an Offeror to demonstrate their ability to define an end-to-end mission to the lunar surface. The reference mission should show the type of capabilities the

Offeror expects to use when delivering a payload to the Moon.

The Offeror is not required to discuss all of their potential lunar capabilities in the reference mission.

The reference mission is not intended to be an actual mission plan. It will NOT be used as the first mission task order by NASA.

33. Clarify the intent of financial standard; what needs to be submitted as evidence?

Govt Response: The intent is for NASA to understand that the contractor has a plan for the resources needed to complete the services as required by the contract.

The Offeror needs to submit a plan or documentation that shows the contractor has the resources to provide end-to-end lunar services, including launch. This could include revenue reports, pro-forma income statements, letters of credit, or the plan for obtaining such.

34. Is there further information on how and when the CLPS program expects to do readiness reviews with the contractors?

Govt Response: The first part of the service readiness assessment will occur almost immediately after contract award, requesting each vendor provide a User’s

Guide to outline the breadth of vendor’s capabilities for delivering services under this contract. Mission Task Order requests for proposal competitions will evaluate the readiness/capability of the offeror to complete the defined task requirements.

35. Can the reference mission be a lunar surface impactor?

Govt Response: No, the reference mission payload must be delivered via a soft landing.

36. Will the CLPS contract be used to deliver humans to the moon?

Govt Response: No, the CLPS acquisition does not include human spaceflight.

37. What does “deployed payloads” mean for this contract?

Govt Response: Deployed payloads are any type of payload that will separate from the lander/transport vehicle at some phase during the mission. Payloads may be deployed in space or on the lunar surface. Specifics will be provided in relevant task orders.

38. Clarify what is meant by “environmental controls”

Govt Response: Environmental controls is being revised in the SOW as follows: The

Contractor shall specify and provide definitions for environmental controls or passive protections available from Contractor’s systems on a specific mission. These can include, but are not limited to pressure, thermal, aerothermal, aerodynamic, plasma charging, radiation, magnetic field, lighting, and cleanliness. Payloads will be exposed to a variety of environment conditions that may affect the payload’s ability to operate.

Some of those environmental conditions are inherent to the physical location (e.g.

radiation), some may be a byproduct of the transport vehicles (e.g. vibrations or thermal load). Each Contractor may offer specific mitigations in their lander design to environmental conditions. NASA will be interested in understanding these mitigations

/controls and the Contractor is expected to document them in the User’s Guide. There may also be specific mitigations or controls enabled via mission design that would be elaborated as part of the mission planning process for a specific task order. NASA payload requirements for environmental control will also be specified in the task orders.

39. Does NASA require on-site representative at contractor facilities?

Govt Response: No.

40. Can the page count for Technical Standard 3 be reduced to 3-pages and that the page-count savings be moved to Technical Standard 1, 4, 5?

Govt Response: The page counts will be adjusted in the final RFP and the 31 pages may be used at the contractor’s discretion.

41. Will NASA revise the public affairs notification clause by adding a NASA response time?

Govt Response: No

42. Does NASA plan to provide additional details about the specific tasks required for each mission (e.g., something like a supplementary SOW) as part of each task order?

Govt Response: Yes, task orders will provide a specific statement of work related to the requirements for that task.

43. Clarify if NASA is responsible for NASA payload specific licensing and permitting and unique ITAR/Export Control provisions.

Govt Response: As per SOW section 1.1 Scope, the Contractor is responsible for obtaining all licenses and approvals. When necessary, NASA will provide any data related to NASA payloads needed to support the Contractor’s efforts to obtain licenses and approvals.

44. Provide clarification if there will be a required insurance regimen protecting the value of the NASA provided payloads

Govt Response: See response to question 6.

45. Will NASA lower the established small business goals?

Govt Response: Other NASA efforts were considered in establishing appropriate goals. The established goals for the procurement will not change. As the solicitation cites, Offerors shall include in their proposal their independent assessment of the small business subcontracting opportunities for this requirement pursuant with their standard company practices. However, the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan instructions in the final RFP will add language that requires

Offerors to provide a rationale for any goal proposed that is less than the

Contracting Officer’s recommended goal in any category.

46. Comment/Request: We propose that the first technical acceptability standard be revised to the following: “The offeror’s ability to provide an intact lunar landed mission that delivers at least 10 kg of NASA payload before December 31, 2024.”

Govt Response: Technical Acceptability Standard 1 will not be revised. However, this standard is not intended to limit payload size for lunar Missions.

47. We propose a more specific on-ramp schedule, specifically that an on-ramp for

CLPS will be open every year, starting in 2019.

Govt Response: On ramping will not occur in 2019. Please reference the Govt Response

Posting 1, Q&A #15.

48. We encourage that the risk approach for mission one will be at or below a traditional NASA Class D risk classification, similar to a NASA Research and

Technology (R&T) project informed by the contractor’s own internal systems engineering approaches.

Govt Response: Please reference the Govt Response to Posting 1, Q&A #7 on Q and A

Posting 1.

49. Comment: Launch vehicles offered for these missions can be commercial launch vehicle procurements, and do not have to be obtained through NASA Launch Services

Program (LSP).

Govt Response: Correct, launch vehicles offered for CLPS missions do not have to be obtained through NASA Launch Services Program (LSP).

50. Comment: It is recommended/requested that the Government remove the requirement to submit hardcopies of the proposal volumes as well as the requirement to mail a CD-ROM containing the electronic files of the proposal volumes. Electronic submittal through NSPIRES or through a dedicated proposal email address should be sufficient. The requirement for physical proposal submittal is unnecessarily burdensome.

Govt Response: The requirement to submit hardcopies will not be removed. Proposals must be submitted as required in the RFP.

51. Comment: It is recommended/requested that the Government remove 52.219-9 and instead rely on 52.219-8 to meet NASA objectives for small business subcontracting.

Govt Response: Clause 52-219-9 is a required clause and will not be removed.

52. Comment: The last sentence of Paragraph (d) specifies that “…the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after no more than one

(1) year from the end of the contract’s effective ordering period…” It is recommended/requested that the 1 year timeframe be extended to 3 years. If a task order is issued in the final months of the ordering period it is unlikely that this 1 year limitation will allow a sufficient period of performance to complete a lunar payload delivery. Considering the timeframe for payload delivery, integration with the launch vehicle and lunar lander system (if applicable), and launch vehicle availability, It is recommended/requested feels that the Government should consider extending this 1 year limitation to 3 years in order to provide the

Government maximum flexibility for issuing task orders throughout the length of the ordering period.

Govt Response: The clause will not be changed. NASA does not intend to issue task orders that cannot be completed within one year of the end of the contract’s effective ordering period.

53. RESERVED

54. Comment/Request Supplemental Financial Reporting (I)I.23 SUPPLEMENTAL

FINANCIAL REPORTING OF NASA PROPERTY IN THE

CUSTODY OF CONTRACTORS (GSFC 52.245-99) (MAR 2017) “ (a) In addition to the annual 1018 reporting required under clause NFS 1852.245-73 of this contract, the

Contractor shall submit monthly property financial reports as described below if, at either award or any time during contract performance, the cumulative amount of

NASA property is $10 million or more.” Since NASA property under this program is likely the payloads themselves, this type of increased reporting may not be appropriate for this type contract. Please consider relaxing or deleting.

Govt Response: GSFC Clause 52.245-99 will be removed from the final RFP. The NASA payloads will not be furnished to contractor as Government Furnished Property. NFS

1852.245–72, Liability for Government Property Furnished for Repair or Other Services will be added to the final RFP. NASA payloads for Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) will be furnished IAW NFS 1852.245–72, Liability for Government Property Furnished for

Repair or Other Services. Such property, hereinafter referred to as “Government property furnished for servicing,” shall not be subject to FAR 52.245–1, Government Property.

55. Comment/Request Supplemental Financial Reporting (II)

I.23 SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL REPORTING OF NASA PROPERTY IN THE

CUSTODY OF CONTRACTORS (GSFC 52.245-99) (MAR 2017) “ (2) Monthly data shall also be submitted for items of any acquisition cost in the classifications of materials and contract work-in-process (WIP). Specifically, itemized monthly data is required for materials and WIP line items when the estimated total acquisition cost of any item at completion will be $500,000 or more.”

Since NASA property would likely be limited to payloads, this type of increased reporting may not be appropriate for this type of contract.

Please consider relaxing or deleting.

Govt Response: See response to question 54 above.

56. Comment/Request Type of Contract

I.39 LIMITATION OF FUNDS (FIXED-PRICE CONTRACT) (NFS 1852.232-77)

(MAR 1989): Since as we understand it, the IDIQ is a fixed-price Task Order based contract, this appears to be applicable at the Task Order level only, as is I.26.

Govt Response: Yes, both clauses are applicable at the Task Order level.

57. Accident Prevention

I.42 ACCIDENT PREVENTION (FAR 52.236-13) (NOV 1991)

Since work related to the CLPS program is anticipated to be done by the commercial company at the company’s facilities, NASA should be careful to apply this clause requirement only in the case that hazardous work is done on

Government facilities. Please consider relaxing or deleting the clause or determine the applicability on a task order basis.

Govt Response: The clause 52.236-13 Accident Prevention will be removed from the Final

RFP. All services will be provided off-site and the clause is not needed.

58. Property Management Plan

IV.7 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION (NFS

1852.245-80) (JAN 2011): “ NOTE: Information required in this NFS 1852.245-80 shall be submitted as a separate tab after the Property Management Plan”

Since Government property being handled will be limited to payloads in a process described elsewhere in the RFP, we wonder if this clause is necessary or applicable. Please consider deleting.

Govt Response: Provision 1852.245-80 will be removed from the Final RFP.

59. Solicitation Form 1449

IV.13 OFFER VOLUME “ This must be a separate volume. (a) STANDARD FORM

(SF) 1449, OFFEROR FILL INS AND SECTION III SF 1449 - The Offeror shall appropriately complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24, and 30 and return the completed SF

1449 with the proposal/quotation. “Blocks 23 and 24 are Unit Price and Amount respectively, which is not required for an unpriced proposal. Please consider also determining if block 20 is appropriate.

Govt Response: The SF 1449 will be revised; Blocks 23 and 24 are not required to be filled in and there will no changes in box 20, as it is appropriate.

60. Options V.3 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (FAR 52.217-5) (JUL 1990):

This provision requires pricing data. Please consider deleting.

Govt Response: Provision 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options will be removed from the Final

RFP.

61. Scope

1.1 Scope: “ The Contractor shall be responsible for all taxes, licenses, permits, and approvals necessary to perform the mission.” Please clarify if NASA is responsible for NASA payload-specific licensing and permitting and unique ITAR/Export Control provisions.

Govt Response: Please reference the Govt Response to Posting 1, Q&A #43.

62. NAICS Size Standard

Page 1 of the cover letter for the draft RFP states that, “ [t]he North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 481212 and the small business size standard is $15M.” The Small Business Administration’s online table of size standards ( https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards ) shows that NAICS code 481212 (Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation) uses an employee-based size standard of 1,500.

Govt Response: Please reference the Govt Response to Posting 1, Q&A #18. The CLPS

NAICS code is 481212 and the size standard will be changed in the final RFP to 1500 employees.

63. Insurance

Please provide clarification if there will be a required insurance regimen protecting the value of the NASA provided payloads, and if so please provide details.

Govt Response: Please reference the Govt Response to Posting 1, Q&A #6.

64. Comment/Request: Given that the services to be delivered to NASA under the

CLPS program will not include the delivery or development of any new technology, It is requested that NASA confirm that 51 U.S. Code § 20135 – “Property rights in inventions” is not applicable to the contract, and that each party retain intellectual property rights to its inventions that may be developed throughout the contractual term of the CLPS program.

Govt Response: First, in a contract of this nature, it cannot be definitively stated that no new inventions will be invented. For work performed under SOW, it is possible that vendors will create inventions as a direct consequence of Government direction/funding. Second, if there are no inventions developed in the performance of the contract, then the invention rights clause(s) do not apply and the issue is moot. If however, there are inventions first developed under SOW, at the very least the Government must retain Government purpose rights that are otherwise lost if the clauses are not included. The rights in inventions clauses will remain unchanged. The clauses would only apply to new inventions developed with the use of

Government funding at the Government's direction under the CLPS contract. Please see

Q94 below for additional information.

65. It is requested that NASA strike the following FAR and NASA FAR Supplement clauses:

o FAR 52.227-11: PATENT RIGHTS – OWNERSHIP BY THE

CONTRACTOR, as modified by 1852.227-11 (MAY 2014) o NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-11: PATENT RIGHTS—OWNERSHIP BY

THE CONTRACTOR (APR 2015)

o NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-70: NEW TECHNOLOGY—OTHER THAN A

SMALL BUSINESS FIRM OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION (APR 2015)

Govt Response: The invention rights clauses must remain. Please note that small business and non-profit contractors are allowed to elect title i.e. “own” inventions created under a contract if the contractor files a patent application covering the invention(s). Moreover, large entity contractors may petition for advance and/or single waivers to inventions first developed under contract.

66. PACKAGING AND HANDLING LIMITATIONS

It is recommended that 48 CFR 1852.211-70 be stricken from the CLPS program because our company has its own procedures for handling payloads as part of its end-to-end payload delivery service. It is recommended that NASA specify any extraordinary handling requirements in the task orders, and that the company’s approach to handling NASA equipment and payloads be approved by the CO as a program procedure.

Govt Response: The clause will not be removed. The clause at 1852.211-70, Packaging, Handling, and Transportation, must be included in solicitations and contracts for deliverable items, including software, designated as Class I (mission essential), Class II (delicate or sensitive), or Class III (requires special handling or monitoring). This clause is only applicable if a hardware or software deliverable is provided under a task order.

67. CONTRACTOR REQUESTS FOR GOVERNMENT -FURNISHED

PROPERTY It is recommended that the CLPS program reduce the complexity of obtaining equipment loans, which in turn reduces overhead costs for the Government

’s payload delivery service as much as possible. If there is a simpler FAR available for lending Government equipment, it is recommended that NASA reconsider its use of 48

CFR 1852.245-70 in order to reduce complexity and overhead costs. Also recommends that, “IV.7 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION (NFS 1852.245- 80) (JAN 2011)” be stricken from the CLPS program, because it creates an onerous reporting requirement that is not congruous with a service buy.

Govt Response: NFS clause 1852.245-70 is required and will not be removed. NFS provision

1852.245-80 will be removed from the Final RFP.

68. Comment: “I.8 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED (GSFC

52.211-90)” be amended to ensure task plans are limited to a quarterly basis at-most, in order to prevent disruptions in the execution of the program. It is recommended 30-calendar days be provided for contractors to deliver task order plans. Given the products requested under I.8, it is also recommended that the availability for auditing requirement be stricken from the CLPS program, given that this is an end-to-end delivery program and not a development program.

Govt Response: The clause will not be amended; NASA’s requirements will drive how often requests for task plans are issued. Additionally, please reference the Govt Responses to

Posting 1, Q&A #13 and #14.

69. Acceptance Reviews: We recommend that all acceptance reviews as specified in

“I.14 ACCEPTANCE—LOCATION(S) (GSFC 52.246-93) (SEPT 2013)” take place at the contractor facilities. This would be in alignment with how the company plans to conduct Payload Acceptance Reviews with its other non-NASA commercial payload customers as specified in their existing Statements of Work. It is recommended that acceptance review participation by the Government be strictly limited to CO, COR and the payload manager.

Govt Response: NASA anticipates that acceptance reviews will take place at the contractor facilities, however; the review location will be specified in Task Orders. Government participation will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

70. Order Limitations Within the section, “I.3 ORDER LIMITATIONS (52.216-19)

(OCT 1995)” It is recommended that the limit set forth in this term be put in terms of payload delivery mass (kilograms).

Govt Response: The limit set forth in this term will not be put in terms of payload delivery mass (kilograms). The limits will be dollar values.

71. Comment: It is recommended that the page count for Technical Standard 3 be reduced to 3-pages and that the page-count savings be moved to Technical Standard 1, 4, 5 as NASA sees fit. Launch vehicle arrangements for providers will be commercial procurements of service that do not require a significant background.

Govt Response: The final RFP page counts will be revised and will allow the contractor to use the 31 pages at their discretion. Vendors are free to distribute the 31 pages across the 5 technical standards in whatever manner they wish.

72. Within the section, “I.5 PUBLIC AFFAIRS” it is requested that this be amended to state (amendments in bold):

(1) The Contractor shall coordinate with the NASA designated Public Affairs Office

(PAO) 5-business days prior to major media releases, media interviews, news conferences, contingency statements, media scouts, photo opportunities and film crew activities regarding NASA Commercial Lunar Payload related efforts. PAO will respond to any coordination requests within 2-business days of the initial request by the Contractor.

Govt Response: No change in this clause will occur.

73. It is recommended that “I.24 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE (NFS 1852.216-

80) (OCT 1996), ALTERNATE II (MAR 2018) (DEVIATION)” that in the following provision the TBD be amended to 30-calender days:

“(c) Within TBD calendar days after receipt of the Contracting Officer's request, the

Contractor shall submit a task plan conforming to the request.”

Govt Response: The TBD will not be amended. Additionally, please reference the Govt

Responses to Posting 1, Q&A #13 and #14.

74. Comment/Request: It is recommended that within provision, “I.27

PERFORMANCE-BASED PAYMENT EVENTS AND COMPLETION CRITERIA,”

the CO be required to issue at least 90% of all payments before the launch of each delivery mission. It is recognized the need for payments to be linked to interim and major events, but because a significant portion of the delivery price for payloads is passed through to a launch provider, financing and cash flow must be predictable and dependable once task orders have been won. Should a sum greater than 10% of the task order financing be issued after the completion, the contractor may be unable to make contracted payments to launch providers, and the execution of the task order to deliver payload made impossible.

Govt Response: Task Orders will specify performance based payments percentages and schedule. Contractors will have the opportunity to provide feedback on individual task order requests. At least 10% of the task value will be held for final payment after successful task completion.

75. It is recommended that NASA strike (7) 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting

Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts (Oct 2016) (Pub. L. 111-117, section

743 of Div.C), within “CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO

IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(52.212-5) (JAN 2018)” from the CLPS program. FAR 52.204-15 is incongruous with a procurement of service because it requires the reporting of our pricing in terms of labor hours. This information is not typically furnished in commercial service procurements and is irrelevant.

Govt Response: The Government will not remove clause 52.204-15. Service Contracting

Reporting Requirements for IDIQ must be met in accordance with FAR 4.1703 Reporting

Requirements and 4.1705 Contract clauses. CLPS does not meet any of the exceptions at FAR

4.1705(b) for excluding the clause.

76. Comment/Concern: It is a concern that the Government QASP provided with the draft RFP is an open-ended tool that doesn’t align with the fixed price, end-to-end service buy model. NASA’s option to initiate additional insight or oversight on an “as-needed” basis based upon circumstances and data collected appears once again to be an open-ended caveat. What are the thresholds for adverse trends or negative data points?

Will the Government ’s expectations on CLPS be calibrated to NASA’s quality management systems?

Govt Response: Please reference the Govt Response to Posting 1, Q&A #24. Given the open nature of the contract where deliverables and mission success criteria will be defined at the task order level over the life of the contract, the surveillance process necessarily will be open-ended as well. Nevertheless, as stated in the QASP provided with the draft RFP, NASA’s intent is to rely on the vendor’s quality assurance process. The vendor can and should define a process that is consistent with their business demands. When a failure in the vendor’s process is identified by either the Government or the vendor, both parties will review how to best proceed in the context of a specific mission task order. Again, given the varied nature of services to be delivered under this IDIQ contract, the methods for identifying a process failure cannot be specified up front in the QASP. The language about ‘adverse trends or negative data points’ are merely meant as exemplars of the type of data that might indicate weaknesses in the quality assurance process. The Government’s expectation is that the vendor intends to meet the requirements specified in each task order and the vendor will define their plans for assuring the quality of the services for each task order.

77. Comment: Delete 1852.245-70 and replace with an H clause, which includes the key aspects of this clause but also allows for test and return items to be provided without the contractor providing payment or consideration. The Commercial Crew

Transportation Capabilities contract includes such a clause.

Govt Response: The clause will not be deleted or replaced. See the response to Q67.

78. Delete 1852.245-74 and replace it with a clause allowing for contractor-approved identification and markings.

Govt Response: The clause will not be deleted or replaced. The clause may be applicable at the task order level.

79. Comment: Delete INSPECTION SYSTEM RECORDS (GSFC 52.246-102) (APR

2013)

Govt Response: The clause will be deleted in the final RFP.

80. Comment: Replace I.20 Financial Reporting NASA FAR Sup clause with the Jan

2011 version.

Govt Response: The clause NFS 1852.245-73) (JAN 2017) will not be deleted or changed in the Final RFP.

81. Comment: Delete Supplemental Finance Reporting, GFSC 52.245-99

Govt Response: The clause will be deleted in the Final RFP. See response to Q54 and Q80 above.

82. Comment: Do not use either Alternative I or Alternative II (included in dRFP).

TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE (NFS 1852.216-80) (OCT 1996), ALTERNATE II

(MAR 2018) (DEVIATION)

Govt Response: The clause with its Alternate II will not be removed from the Final CLPS

RFP. Please reference the Govt Responses to Posting 1, Q&A #13 and #14.

83. Comment: Delete SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN AND

REPORTS (GSFC 52.219-90) (NOV 2016)

Govt Response: The clause will be deleted and replaced with JSC Clause 52.219-90.

84. Comment: PERFORMANCE-BASED PAYMENTS (52.232-32) (APR 2012)

Change "30th" day to as short as possible (e.g., "7th").

Govt Response: The Government will not change to less than 30 days.

85. Comment: UPDATES OF CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES Delete "The reports shall include any updates to capabilities, projections of future missions the contractor intends to fly and descriptions of any potential payload opportunities those missions might offer NASA."

Govt Response: The quoted sentence will not be deleted. However, the clause will be revised in the final RFP.

86. Comment: UPDATES OF CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES Delete this clause or make it permissive on the contractor's part.

Govt Response: UPDATES OF CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES clause will be revised in the final RFP, however, it will not be deleted.

87. Delete the I.37 On-Ramping Clause or make it permissible on the contractor’s part.

Govt Response: The I.37 clause and I.38 clause (On-Ramping) will not be deleted or made permissible on the contractor’s part.

88. Comment: Delete Clauses I.37 and I.38 and replace with something similar to the

NLS II on-ramp and off-ramp clauses, which allow contractors to update service offerings on an annual basis

Govt Response: Clauses I.37 and I.38 of the DRFP will not be replaced and are applicable to the CLPS RFP.

89. Comment: Clause I.41 Recommend including a time after the Government 's receipt of contractor's proposal by which a task order must be ordered (e.g., 30 days).

Govt Response: A time will not be included and the clause will not be revised. Each task order request for proposal will request a proposal validity date that allows for the competitive evaluation process. Contractors can provide feedback on the requested validity date for each task order proposal.

90. Comment: Consider increasing total page limit for the Technical Volume to 50 pages, proportionately distributed among the five specified Technical Standards.

Govt Response: The total page limit will not be increased.

91. Comment: Downward adjust the stated goals for Small-Disabled Veteran-Owned

Small Business Concerns.

Govt Response: The goals will not be downward adjusted. Please reference the Govt

Response to Posting 1, Q&A #45.

92. Comment: Request information regarding whether or not on-site representative(s) will be required, how many and what must be provided (e.g., phone, computer, desk space).

Govt Response: On-site representatives are not required.

93. Will NASA payloads be treated as reportable property under clause I.20?

The Q and As above were submitted in regards to the CLPS DRFP and Industry Day.

A final set of questions and a revised SOW is anticipated to be posted prior to the final RFP release.

The RFP is anticipated to be posted mid-July 2018, with proposals due in mid-August.

During the posting of the Final RFP a period will be allowed for additional questions to be submitted.

Govt Response: No. NASA payloads that are delivered to the vendor for integration into vendor systems will be transferred to the vendor under NASA Form 1149 for accountability purposes and is not reportable under clause I.20 (NASA Form 1018).

94. Clarify Intellectual Property provision; are there any waivers available for small businesses? (Regarding provision 1852.227-71)

Govt Response: The clauses referred to in the DRFP 1852.227-70 (New Technology) and

1852.227-71 (Requests for Waiver of Rights to Inventions), for large entities, apply only to new inventions developed under the contract, and not to any existing inventions/intellectual property that the contractor may employ in support of providing services to NASA under the contract. There are scenarios described in the draft SOW in which the development of new technology may occur. For example, Section 7.0(b) of the Draft SOW states that NASA may issue task orders that require the “development, fabrication, and test of hardware/software to support planning studies, special tests, and/or flight equipment for NASA Payloads or obtained services.” In this case, any subject inventions made should be reported, and the contractor should be aware of its right to request a patent waiver if so desired.

NASA is not obtaining rights in preexisting contractor Intellectual property, even with these clauses included in the contract. The clauses would only apply to new inventions developed with the use of government funding at the government direction under the contract.

95. Hosted Payloads and Domestic Source Criteria and Compliance -

We respectfully request that NASA clarify in the final CLPS solicitation documents whether there is a complete ban on the use of foreign launch vehicles to deliver NASA payloads under this program, or whether the

Exemption and hosted payload exception could apply in certain situations.

Govt Response: The Hosted payload exception is not currently being made available on the

CLPS program. No foreign launch vehicles or landers are allowed under the program. CLPS service provider and any manufacturer of space transportation vehicles to perform CLPS must remain in compliance with our domestic source limitations as set forth in the solicitation.

96. Would it be possible to also provide guidance on how the Secretary of

Transportation would find that a subsidiary “has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through”, and how a company considering proposal would request such a finding?

(I) investments in the United States in long-term research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components and subassemblies); and

(II) significant contributions to employment in the United States;”

Govt Response: NASA does not provide guidance on other Agencies.

97. APPLICABILITY OF RIGHTS IN DATA – SPECIAL WORKS (GSFC 52.227-

93) (MAR 2008) Either delete references to Rights in Data - Special Works clauses or explain when/why Special Works clause applies since data rights under Special

Works differ substantially from Rights in Data-General.

Govt Response: The GSFC clause will be removed from the final RFP.

98. Delete Limited Rights Data Or Restricted Computer Software (GSFC 52.227-90)

(Mar 2008)

Govt Response: The GSFC clause will be removed from the final RFP.

99. RIGHTS IN DATA (GSFC 52.227-99) (JUN 2012) Either delete references to

Rights in Data - Special Works clauses or explain when/why Special Works clause applies since data rights under Special Works differ substantially from Rights in

Data-General.

Govt Response: The GSFC 52.227-99 clause will be removed from the final RFP and replaced by a Rights in Data clause that reads: The default Data Rights clause under this contract is FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data – General, with Alternates II and III as modified by

NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-14. Any exceptions to this clause will be negotiated and agreed to by the parties and will be covered by FAR 52.227-17 Rights in Data – Special

Works as modified by NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-17.

100. Can a US contractor buy a spacecraft bus from a foreign source?

Govt Response: The final RFP will be clarified to indicate that foreign launch vehicles or landers are not allowed under the CLPS program. CLPS service providers and any manufacturer of space transportation vehicles to perform CLPS must remain in compliance with our domestic source limitations as set forth in the solicitation.

101. The certification Statement says that a ‘United States commercial provider’ means a commercial provider organized under US law, and is “more than 50 percent owned by United States nationals.” What is the precise definition of

‘United States nationals’ in this context? I could not find a definition in the DRFP, NASA Policy directives, the FAR, or NFARs. Is the term ‘United States nationals’ limited to US citizens, or does it include green-card holders?

Govt Response: Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders) are considered US Nationals for purposes of this procurement.

102. LIMITED RIGHTS DATA OR RESTRICTED COMPUTER SOFTWARE

(GSFC 52.227-90) (MAR 2008) - (see also I.35, I.36, III.4, and the following listed in I.1: 52.227-11, 52.227-14, 52.227-17, 1852.227-72):

This is a services contract in which NASA intends to be a customer. Please consider limiting delivery of company limited/restricted rights items (Background

IP) and rely on a vibrant competitive environment to protect Government interests. Within the context of provisions dealing with Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software, we recommend these provisions at least be streamlined to limit the need for delivery of proprietary data/software to only what is needed for NASA collaboration with commercial-led missions. Provisions should not be based on a Work-For-Hire procurement scenario, but rather a commercial purchase of lunar payload services with little need for proprietary details. Protecting commercial IP is important to external investment.

Govt Response: First, the choice to deliver limited rights over data first produced under the contract rests with the contractor. Second, the Rights in Data clause (52.227-14) does not jeopardize the contractor’s existing proprietary rights and thus the contractor’s commercial IP remains uncompromised. NASA is not obtaining rights in preexisting contractor Intellectual property, even with these clauses included in the contract. The clauses would only apply to new inventions developed with the use of government funding at the government’s direction under the contract. Special Works clause (52.227-17) may be required during the course of the contract and will not be removed.