Responses to xEVAS Final RFP Questions.pdf

Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) Question and Answer Log No. 5

Responses to Final RFP Questions

October 20, 2021

General Questions

1. Reference: RFP and Cover Letter

Question: On page 72 and the cover letter of the RFP, it is stated the Contract shall perform a crewed vacuum chamber test in support of Milestone 4 (Critical Design Review). In the posted xEVAS Pre-proposal Conference QandA, it is stated in the answer to question #3, a thermal vacuum chamber run is expected in support of Milestone 5 (Design Certification Review).

Respectfully request Government clarify the timing of the thermal vacuum test requirement.

Answer: The crewed vacuum chamber test in support of Milestone 4 (Critical Design Review) is intended to provide NASA with an early indication of the Contractor’s ability to successfully meet xEVA requirements and to remain on schedule. The Milestone 4 vacuum chamber event is not a full duration EVA simulation and is not required to be performed in chamber capable of generating extreme thermal environments. The thermal vacuum chamber run in support of Milestone 5 (Design Certification Review) is intended to provide NASA with the qualification data in support of the Contractor’s first planned use of the xEVA System in space.

2. Reference: RFP

Question: The Final RFP mentions in many places that the xEVAS provider shall supply EVA tools. However, this capability does not appear in the Key Service Capabilities Table, and it remains unclear if the cost for these tools should be provided with CLIN-2A/B or if these would be developed through CLIN-4 special studies. Can the Government please clarify if vendors are to include estimated costing of the list of tools provided in the SRD in CLIN-2, or if this should be omitted?

Answer: Pursuant to Clause B.5, Artemis Program EVA Capability, "[T]the price represents the price the Government will pay for the full suite of mission services defined in the PWS...".

PWS Section 4.1 states “The Contractor shall provide the required xEVA System tools and crew aids to perform NASA mission objectives such as vehicle ingress/egress, traversing (walking), construction, science, and contingency operations.” Attachment J-25, Key Service Capabilities, lists xEVA System hardware which by definition includes tools. The tools listed in the SRD requirements are considered the Base tools for CLIN 2A/2B and shall be priced in CLIN 2A/2B. New tool capabilities beyond what is currently captured in the Attachment J-02, System Requirements Document, will be assessed thru CLIN 4 Special Studies. If required, new tool capabilities will be provided thru CLIN #C.

Section C: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

3. Reference: Section 2.5.4

Question: This section of the PWS refers to multiple documents that require NASA approval, but these documents are not associated with DRDs and the type of approval (Type 1 or Type

2) is not defined. Specifically, items (3) xEVA System Integration Plan (SIP), (4) xEVA System-to-ISS/Artemis ICDs, and (6) xEVA System Software (SW) ICD. Please clarify for these if there are any document requirements and which type of NASA approval applies.

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for managing the documents listed in the question.

NASA approval of contractor-managed ICDs will be completed as a part of SRD RQMT-059 and RQMT-097 VCNs. Additional approvals will happen in support of DRDs xEVAS-ENG- 06 IDD, xEVAS-PM-04, and xEVAS-PM-05.

4. Reference: Section 4.4.5

Question: Requirement begins with text about a late-named crewmember but concludes with vacuum chamber runs. It appears that the header for an additional vacuum run was accidently deleted. Is this a single requirement or two requirements?

Answer: The PWS has been updated to correct the accidently deleted title header and accurately reflect the two separate requirements.

Section H

5. Reference: H.11

Question: The title for H.11 indicates that the clause is only applicable to CLINs 2 and 3.

However, the postponement fee schedule contained within H.11 addresses mission delays. Is CLIN 1B exempted from the delay penalties specified in H.11?

Answer: Correct, H.11, EVA Mission Windows, is only applicable to CLINs 2 and 3, as CLIN 1 EVA mission requirements are pre-determined to represent a full year of EVA capability.

Any contract adjustments attributable to delays under CLIN 1 are covered by the other terms and conditions of the contract, including, but not limited to, FAR 52.242-17, Government Delay of Work, incorporated by reference in Clause G.1, and FAR 52.249-8, Default (Fixed- Price Supply and Service), incorporated by reference in Clause I.1.

6. Reference: H.16

Question: Can you further clarify the degree of support that can be provided from NASA through EVA-savvy civil servants in regard to all areas: Engineering, Training and Flight Control. And regardless of such levels of wo/man-power support provided, does it have to be requested via a GTA form from the JSC Partnership Office, or are the GTAs mainly for booking the facilities and requesting specific hardware?

The JSC competencies in the Government Task Agreements presentation included "people, processes, tools and facilities", so how much civil servant labor can we expect to receive?

Answer: For the proposal, the Government Task Agreements (GTA) document the unique NASA Center capabilities, such as test chambers, training environments, specialized Government equipment, etc, and licensing agreements. These requests must be worked through the appropriate NASA Center Partnership Office point of contact and may include some level of NASA-provided services to facilitate the requested GTA scope.

Clause H.16, Use of Government Resources, states “… the Contractor may request the use of up to twenty-five (25) full-time NASA employees for “targeted advisory support during contract performance (“collaboration”).” Provision L.18.4.1.TA.4, is evaluated, in part, based on the Offeror’s submission of Data Requirement Descriptions (DRD) xEVAS-PM-02, Insight and Collaboration Implementation Plan. This DRD requires, among other items, the Offeror to address their plan to coordinate and collaborate with NASA, including specifying, “[A]all proposed areas where the Contractor specifically plans to leverage specific NASA expertise in “Collaboration” designated roles (as defined by the Offeror/Contractor), where insight levels are maximized (in accordance with H.16, Use of Government Resources).” While the Offeror is required to describe the plan for collaboration with NASA, including the use of the (up to) 25 FTE, there is no requirement to request these resources in the proposal. The successful Offeror(s) may request the use of these resources after award through a collaboration request to be effectuated through a GTA. These resources will be provided at no cost.

To clarify NASA’s proposal requirements, Clause H.16, Use of Government Resources, in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) has been revised to change the reference from “In its proposal and during contractor performance” to “During contractor performance”. This change is reflected in Amendment 0002.

7. Reference: H.16

Question: The RFP describes the process and points of contact for Offerors to engage with JSC to establish a GTA to provide unique capabilities only offered by the center. However, there are some cases where JSC offers excess capacity for commercial use of capabilities like the Neutral Buoyance Lab. Can industry request use of those facilities/services through those types of mechanisms in addition to or instead of a GTA?

Answer: NASA has established the GTA process as a streamlined way to provide Industry the option to utilize JSC’s unique capabilities. That said, NASA is in no way directing the use of GTAs as the sole means of acquiring these services and does not preclude the use of other avenues that currently exist – such as excess capacity clauses in existing JSC contracts.

Offerors will note that GTAs are funded by NASA, and while there is no cost to the use of those resources (i.e. the cost shall not be included in the proposed prices), the GTA will establish a price to be used in the calculation of the total evaluated price, per Provisions L.18.3 and M.2. There could be a direct cost to the Offeror if the Offeror chooses to propose alternative mechanisms to utilize JSC resources.

Attachment J-01, Data Requirement Descriptions (DRD)

8. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 / Table DRD XEVAS-ENG-01-01

Question: The table calls out for the responder to Identify subject area for the standard/specification and the NASA reference it addresses. For cases where we are using the same NASA standard or specification do we still need to fill these out or can we just put "N/A" if we "Accept" the NASA recommended standard as specified in the last column?

Answer: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01, Table xEVAS-ENG-01-01, final column, has been updated to state “Mark Accept” for NASA Standards where the Contractor accepts applicability as-is.

9. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 / Table DRD XEVAS-ENG-01-01

Question: The final column in the table says "Contractor acceptance of NASA recommended standard or proposed alternate standard and justification of suitability". If we respond for a given standard and Accept the NASA recommendation do we still need to justify suitability?

Answer: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01, Table xEVAS-ENG-01-01, final column, has been updated in Amendment 0002 to state, “Contractor acceptance of NASA recommended standard (Mark Accept) OR proposed alternate standard with justification of suitability". Justification suitability is not required in cases where the Offeror accepts the NASA standard “as-is”.

10. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 / Table DRD XEVAS-ENG-01-02

Question: The Final added a Notes column. Several of the notes added specify applicability.

Sometimes, like for GP 11461, the Applicability column was updated to match the applicability called out in the notes. However, several other standards, like JSC 65828, have notes which specifically call out sections that do not apply but the applicability cell was not updated to match (i.e. the Applicability column still says "ALL" while the Notes says "...The following sections of JSC 65828 are not applicable: 3.27..."). Since the applicability and Notes columns appear to conflict, request clarification on which we are required to respond to.

Answer: The applicability column governs what parts of the document are applicable as a whole to the xEVA System. The notes column reflects the intended tailoring for the NASA GFE xEMU design and is provided as guidance to the xEVAS offeror. The offeror is to propose what parts of the applicable standards apply to their proposed xEVA System and how the Offeror’s process meets those standards.

11. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 / Table DRD XEVAS-ENG-01-02

Question: Final added a notes column. (1) The note for the JSC 67035 standard specifies that it should be treated as a recommendation rather than a standard or specification which must be rigidly followed. The applicability column for this standard still says ALL implying it must be rigidly followed. (2) The note for the SMC-S-016 specifies exceptions to the standard. The applicability column still says ALL. (3) The note for JSC-0909-2 limits the applicability however the applicability column still says ALL. (4) The note for MSFC-DWG-20M02540 changes the requirements specified in the standard for acceptable life however the applicability column still says ALL. In each case which one should we respond to?

Answer: See response to Question #10.

12. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 / Table DRD XEVAS-ENG-01-02

Question: The Draft RFP specified Revision B of NASA-STD-6016. The Final specifies Revision A. No notes were added to specify why an older version of the standard was being selected. Does NASA intend to specify an older revision of their standard?

Answer: JSC Materials and Processes experts determined the changes to Rev B were not applicable to EVA. NASA-STD-6030 has been added to the list of applicable standards and has information related to additive manufacturing.

13. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-02, Content clause (y)(5)

Question: This sentence appears to be part of clause (y)(3), Task Capability Assessment by CDR, rather than a stand-alone test event. Please clarify.

Answer: SRD requirement RQMT-007 provides the task capability requirement for ISS and RQMT-025 specifies equivalent or better mobility than the current ISS EMU performance. For DRD xEVAS-ENG-02, Content clause (y)(5), NASA expects Crew to evaluate the ability to complete ISS tasks throughout the DDT&E process in addition to specific milestones of PDR and CDR for formal NASA agreement that the design is progressing as expected up until DCR.

DRD xEVAS-ENG-02, Content clause (y)(5) has been updated to add the following sentence 'Testing is expected to be on-going throughout each Demo milestone up until DCR.

14. Reference: DRD xEVAS-ENG-06

Question: On page. 50 DRD xEVAS-ENG-06 states, “CLlN #B: Baseline due at EBR. CLIN #B: Baseline updates at MIR. Final due at MRR.” However, it’s shown on page. 171, 174, and 177 that updates are due for DRD xEVAS-ENG-06. Please clarify when baseline, updates, and final for DRD xEVAS-ENG-06 are due.

Answer: DRD xEVAS-ENG-06, System Interface Definition Document (IDD), initial submission, has been updated to delete “CLIN #B baseline due at EBR”. Submission frequency has been updated to include “Final update at EBR, MIR & MRR”.

15. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-01

Question: The scope of the PMP includes "indirects management" which seems inconsistent with a FFP contract. Since the Government deleted the cost management requirements from the PMP, request the Government remove "indirects management" from the scope.

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-01 has been updated to delete “indirects management”.

16. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-03

Question: The second paragraph is not a full sentence and doesn't contain a "shall" statement.

Is this information only or does it contain a requirement for completing the MIOMP section?

Answer: Section 5.7.3.7 in the MIOMP DRD (xEVAS-PM-03) has been updated to delete the second paragraph.

17. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-04

Question: On page. 15 DRD xEVAS-EC-01 states “Baseline due at Proposal.”, but on page.

143 it’s shown that DRD xEVAS-EC-01 as “Baselined”. Is the baseline due at Proposal or at

MC?

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-04, Mission Concept Milestone for CLIN #A, has been updated to show “Final DRD xEVAS-EC-01, Export Control Plan and Audit Results”.

18. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-04

Question: On page. 223 DRD xEVAS-SMA-02 states “Final due at Proposal.”, but on page.

143 it’s shown that DRD xEVAS-SMA-02 states “Baseline update”. Is this an update to the xEVAS-SMA-02 baseline or an update to the final?

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-04, Mission Concept Milestone for CLIN #A, has been updated to show “Final update DRD xEVAS-SMA-02, Safety and Mission Assurance Plan”.

19. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-04

Question: On page. 129 DRD xEVAS-PM-03 states “Final due at CBR; Final update due at DCR…”, but on page. 154 it’s shown that DRD xEVAS-PM-03 Final is due at CDR, and the DRD is not mentioned at DCR. Which phase is the final and final update due for DRD xEVAS-

PM-03?

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-04, Certification Baseline Review for CLIN #A, has been updated to show “Final DRD xEVAS-PM-03, MIOMP”. DRD xEVAS-PM-04, Design Certification Review for CLIN #A, has been updated to show “Final update DRD xEVAS-

PM-03, MIOMP”.

DRD xEVAS-PM-03, MIOMP, submissions frequency, has been updated to “Final update due at CDR & DCR”.

20. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-04

Question: On page. 78, DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 states, “FPCP: Baseline Due at MC, Nutritional Analysis and Report: Final due at PDR. Microbial Analysis and Report: Final as required below.” On page. 150 it shows DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 as being baselined for PDR. Also, on page. 154 it’s shown that DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 final is due at CDR. Please clarify when the baseline and finals are due for xEVAS-HHP-04 and its sub documents.

Answer: The specific sub-parts of xEVAS-HHP-04 were not identified in xEVAS-PM-04, and xEVAS-PM-04 has been updated as follows:

• Baseline FPCP for DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 due at MC

• Final FPCP for DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 due at CBR

• Baseline Nutritional Analysis and Report for DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 due at PDR

• Final Nutritional Analysis and Report for DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 due at CDR

Microbial Analysis and Report for DRD xEVAS-HHP-04 is due as described in DRD xEVAS-

HHP-04

21. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-05

Question: On page. 53 DRD xEVAS-ENG-07 states, “CLIN #B: Baseline Updates due at EBR. Final due at MIR. Final Update (if required) due at MRR.” However, on page. 171, it’s shown that Final update is due for DRD xEVAS-ENG-07, and on page. 177 the DRD requires an update. The final for DRD xEVAS-ENG-07 is not mentioned in DRD xEVAS-

PM-05.

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-05, Mission Readiness Review milestone for CLIN #B, has been updated to show “Updated as required by DRD xEVAS-ENG-07, MRAD”.

22. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PM-05

Question: On page. 188 DRD xEVAS-PM-07 states, “CLIN #B: Imagery Plan Final update due at EBR for each mission. Imagery Plan Final Update due at MIR: Update as required thereafter for currency.” However, on page 171, DRD xEVAS-PM-07 is shown as being “initial” and as “Update” on page. 177 under MRR. Please clarify when baseline, updates, and final are due for xEVAS-PM-07.

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-05, EVA Baseline Review & Mission Integration Review milestones for CLIN #B, has been updated to show “Final update DRD xEVAS-PM-07, Imagery Plan”.

23. Reference: DRD xEVAS-PC-02

Question: In the last bullet of page 104, there is a requirement to describe "ground rules".

Within this construct, what is the definition of "ground rules"?

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PC-02 has been updated to replace “ground rules & constraints” with “assumptions”.

Attachment J-02, xEVAS System Requirement Document (SRD)

24. Reference: RQMT-003

Question: For what Artemis mission does a 4-crew EVA (all at once) begin?

Answer: NASA does not have specific details of the Artemis manifest, specifically when a four (4)-crew EVA may be planned. The xEVAS contract is designed as an IDIQ in order to allow flexibility, NASA will communicate anticipated needs with potential xEVAS awardee(s) ahead of the potential order of a CLIN 2B, Increased Capability mission service.

25. Reference: RQMT-016

Question: Is there an aspect of this requirement that is not specifically covered by subsequent requirements regarding temperature, pressure, atmospheric quality, communications, etc. and that would/could be verified? Maybe this statement is a "will", instead of a "shall"?

Answer: Despite subsequent requirements, RQMT-016 remains in effect to assure the integrated habitable environment. This requirement addresses any threats to habitability that are not covered by the subsequent requirements. NASA’s preferred method of verification that the interior environment of the suit is safe and habitable is a combination of analysis and testing.

26. Reference: RQMT-028

Question: As written, this requirement states that ground and IVA personnel have the same capability to monitor, operate, and control suit functions as the crewmember in the suit. If more than monitor applies to ground and IVA personnel, does this only apply when these personnel physically interact with the nominal suit controls (from outside the suit), or does it also require remote operation and control of the suit via the suit data link?

Answer: This is an improper interpretation of RQMT-028. The requirement states that the same process will be used to determine monitor, operate, and control requirements for three

(3) specific groups of people: suited crewmember, ground, and IVA support. The ability of the three (3) groups to monitor, operate, and control xEVA systems is not required to be the same. What is required is that the needs of items (a)-(c) are met by all three (3) groups. An additonal two sentences were added to the rationale to help clarify the intent of RQMT-028.

27. Reference: RQMT-058 and RQMT-003

Question: Table 3.6.1-1 lists 0 kg for both Artemis Lunar Ascent and Earth Landing Mass.

Does this mean that we must assume the xEVAS suit will be left on the lunar surface and can not be returned, or that the ascent mass must be no greater than the descent mass (i.e. this is a delta value, like the packaging mass)? RQMT-003 rationale implies that the xEVAS suit would be used for a "jettison" EVA, otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement for the xEVAS suit to support another EVA, so it couldn't be part of the items removed from the HLS. That is inconsistent with the rationale in this requirement that suggests the IVA suit would be used for "jettison" EVA. Please clarify.

Answer: The offeror should assume no nominal NASA return of xEVA System hardware to lunar orbit due to the 0 kg Lunar Ascent requirment. NASA use of the xEVA System for jettison of hardware during the mission remains a NASA option, plans for contigency Lunar Orbit EVA remain in work. Offerors are reminded NASA has a goal to establish a sustainable Lunar architecture. The ability of xEVA system hardware to be stored on the Lunar surface and used across multiple Atremis missions may be advantageous to NASA.

28. Reference: RQMT-058, Figure 1.5.2-1, Question: ” Mass for Lunar Ascent is 0 kg, and the rationale "assumes lunar landers use a dual suit architecture". This implies that an LEA suit will be used for Artemis Descent and Ascent, and that the EVA suit will be left on the lunar surface. In addition, Figure 1.5.2-1 shows no vent loop interfaces between the EVA suit and the HLS. Please verify that nominal operations will not bring the EVA Suit (PLSS & PGS) back from the lunar surface. Also, are there contingency scenarios, such as a failure to re-press the airlock, that would require the crew to remain in their EVA suits to return to Gateway? If so, what services and interfaces are available for that contingency? Will the EVA system need to be designed for that scenario, including gloved hand operation of vehicle controls and suit tethers for dynamic phases of flight?

Answer: See response to Question #27.

29. Reference: RQMT-058

Question: What is the significance of the phrase "with post-launch life" relative to control masses?

Answer: The words "with post-launch life" were an attempt to provide clarity that the control mass included the sparing items required to meet the totality of the SRD requirements. Since all SRD requirements are all concurrently applied per their applicablity, these words have been deleted to improved clarity.

30. Reference: RQMT-058

Question: Table 3.6.1-1 lists 15 kg for Artemis Earth Launch Packaging.

a. Is this 15 kg packaging mass per crewmember (assuming 1 suit per EVA crewmember), or per mission (i.e. 15 kg for all suits and suit equipment)?

b. Is this packaging mass linked to any particular launch vehicle, or is it applicable to any manned or unmanned vehicle that delivers the suit equpment to lunar orbit?"

Answer: The table was missing a “per crewmember” reference on the Artemis Earth Launch Packaging line. That reference has been updated in Ammendment 0002 to clarify the requirement.

31. Reference: RQMT-059

Question: Current ISS interface state is unclear. EVA-EXP-0032 hints at upgrades, but does not explicitly state the current state of the ISS airlock. Request clarification on the ISS interface.

Answer: The Offeror shall respond to the requirements listed in J-02, xEVAS-SRD-001, with regards to the ISS & Artemis interfaces. SRD RQMT-059 provides the following as defining the interface with ISS: SSP 51080, xEMU-ISS Interface Requirement Control Document, SSP 30256, ISS EVA Standard ICD, EVA-EXP-0032, EVA-ISS Interface Definition, EVA-EXP- 0035 EVA Office Exploration EVA System Compatibility, EVA Tool Catalog, and SSP 57000, Pressurized Payloads Interface Requirements Document, Appendix I, Command and Data Handling Interface Requirements. These documents describe the state of the ISS airlock interface.

Attachment J-04, Definitions

32. Reference: Attachment J-04

Question: Attachment J-04 does not include a definition for System Architecture, but it does include a definition for the xEVA System. The System is defined as "all Contractor provided, accountable or managed systems required to deliver xEVAS services..." One interpretation is that 'accountable and managed systems' might include, for example, the Offeror's procurement, shipping, receiving, design systems, inventory, and other systems associated with a typical engineering development and product/service business. QUESTIONS: Is this interpretation of the breadth of the "xEVA System" definition in J-04 accurate? If so, does the Government intend that the scope of "System Architecture" in TA.1 should include the all of "accountable and managed systems" the Contractor provides to ensure xEVA system delivery?

Answer: NASA is seeking to procure EVA capability as a service. The xEVA System is defined in J-04 as: Includes all Contractor provided, accountable or managed systems required to deliver xEVAS services… The description of the System Architecture of that Service is the goal of TA.1. The specific intended system design to meet the NASA needs of the EVA Service are of particular interest as requested in TA.1.

Attachment J-25, Key Service Capabilities

33. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: ISS EVA Services (CLIN 1B) stipulates that bidders provide a quantity of services, time frames, and crew members for reduced capacity services. In the header of this table, there is a requirement for such services to meet or exceed 2x the minimum. This appears to be a conflict--How can reduced capacity be greater than the minimums?

Answer: This has been corrected to “meets or exceeds 0.5x the minimum” in Amendment 0002.

34. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: The J-25 charts list Crew naming on pages 260, 264, 268 and 272. Is this crew naming refer to the list of possible crew that could fly on the next mission or the actual list of assigned crew for that mission?

Answer: This represents the actual list of prime/backup crew.

35. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: Attachment J-25 contains a requirement to provide quantities for reduced capability in CLIN 1B and increased capability in CLIN 2B. However, there is no indication of what constitutes reduced or increased capability. Without indication of what changes in reduced and increased capabilities, bidders have to make assumptions that may not be aligned to NASA expectations. In addition, the basis for inputs will be widely divergent, which prevents meaningful comparisons. We respectfully request that the Government provide descriptions of what constitutes reduced and increased capability within Attachment J-25.

Answer: Reference Attachment J-25, column header, which states that CLIN 1B reduced capability is defined as “meets or exceed 0.5x minimum.” Attachement J-25, in the column header, states that CLIN 2B increased capability is defined as “meets or exceeds 2x minimum.”

36. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: Page 265 states the need to support 80 assigned crewmember training events and 70 NASA personnel events. In draft RFP this same chart (Section C page 58) listed quantities and alluded to that these events are per mission (year). The final RFP does not have these qualifiers. Do we assume that these training event quantities are per year in our response?

CLIN B also does not qualify the number of events as per mission or per year.

Answer: Per the title of Attachment J-25 tables, which say specify “per CLIN ## task order”, the training events are describing the service capabilities for each applicable task order.

37. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: How, if at all, are costs to be included for the Increased Capabilities?

Answer: The instructions in Provision L.18.3(c)(3)(vii) and Attachment L-03, Pricing Template, includes directions on providing pricing for increased capability for Artemis EVA Services. Table B.5.2, Artemis EVA Services (SubCLIN 2B) Schedule, includes a row for incorporating the price into the contract schedule. The proposed prices shall reflect the price to provide the increased capability proposed in J-25, Key Service Capabilities.

38. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: Attachment J-25 CLIN 1B and CLIN 2B Number (minimum), Number Base Capability, and Number Increased Capability. It is unclear what permutation should be used for costing. If the quantities in the base capability column are to be used, how will the bidders be evaluated on a comparable basis since the price template is designed to favor the lowest cost, yet a higher quantity in Attachment J-25 may present a greater value to the Government.

Answer: Per Provision M.1, “The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award.

The Price factor is approximately equal to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor. As individual factors, Mission Suitability factor is more important than Past Performance factor.” Proposals that exceed Government minimums established in Attachment J-25 may result in a more highly rated proposal with respect to the Mission Suitability factor. For pricing, offerors shall follow the instructions in L.18.3(c)(3) which addresses the base, increased, and reduced capabilities shall be priced and adopted in Attachment L-03, Pricing Template and Tables B.4.2, ISS EVA Services (SubCLIN 1B) Schedule, and B.5.2, Artemis EVA Services (SubCLIN 2B) Schedule. Offerors’s price will be evaluated pursuant to Provision M.2.

39. Reference: Attachment J-25

Question: Respectfully request NASA allow offerors to include notes and assumptions in the key service capabilities. As the table is currently structured in addition to requirements in PWS, the table is open ended and the values could significantly change pending on the assumptions made.

Answer: Offeror’s To-Be-Proposed (TBP) input values shall both conform to the requirements in Attachment J-25, Key Service Capabilities, inclusive of the Government-defined Notes, and shall be reflective of the offeror’s proposed xEVA System and Key Service Capabilities. For pricing, offerors shall follow the instructions in L.18.3(c)(3) which addresses the base, increased, and reduced capabilities shall be priced and adopted in Attachment L-03, Pricing Template and Tables B.4.2, ISS EVA Services (SubCLIN 1B) Schedule, and B.5.2, Artemis EVA Services (SubCLIN 2B) Schedule.

Section L

40. Reference: Provision L.13

Question: Please clarify any file size restrictions for uploading documents to the EFSS. We belive some submission files could be in excess of 100 MB and would like to confirm this will not be an issue for the site to handle.

Answer: Per the instructions in Provision L.13,Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery through NASA’s EFSS Box, individual files cannot exceed 150GB (gigabytes) per file. The instructions also that Offerors compress all files into a single zip file for transmission to the Government while maintaining the individual file naming convention described in the same provision.

41. Reference: Provision L.18.1

Question: TA.5 requires offerors to address DRD xEVAS-ENG-01-01, which includes Table "DRD xEVAS-ENG-01-01 Summary of Design and Construction Standards and Specifications" (Attachment A). Request NASA allow this table to be excluded from page count restrictions.

Answer: NASA has updated Table L-2, Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format, to exclude Table xEVAS-ENG-01-01 of DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 from the page count limit.

42. Reference: Provision L 18.3 (a )

Question: Clause stipulates that within the price narrative, "The Offeror may document any relevant assumptions that are major drivers of the price; however, Section B prices will not be subject to future equitable adjustment based on "ground rules" or assumptions documented in the proposal. " Within this context, what is the definition of "ground rules"?

Answer: Relevant Section B clauses and Provision L.18.3, Price Factor – Volume I, have been updated to delete “ground rules”.

43. Reference: Provision L.18.4.1 TA.1

Question: L.18.4.1 TA.1 is titled System Architecture, but five subsections ((a) through (e)) are described. The first subsection of TA.1(a) refers to System Design (not system architecture). Subsection (b) ISS Specific Assessment, (c) Artemis Specific Assessment, (d) Application of Heritage Designs, and (e) ISS and Artemis Key Service Capabilities are included under System Architecture. This implies all of these subsections are part of System Architecture. However, the final paragraph of TA.1 instructions separates sub-section(e) ISS and Artemis Key Service Capabilities from the 4 other System Architecture subsections, thereby implying that it is not part of System Architecture. While the subsection topics are individually clear, the overall context of all subsections as a System Architecture is unclear.

QUESTIONS: Would the government please clarify its expectation as to what is included in the System Architecture? Is it all of TA.1 (a) through (e) or only (a) through (d) or something else?

Answer: Provision L.18.4.1.TA.1, System Architecture, includes all the specific items listed in (a) through (e). NASA expects all items to be addressed as required in the solicitation.

44. Reference: Provision L.18.4.1 TA.1

Question: L.18.4.1 TA.1 is titled "System Architecture", but a definition is not defined in Attachment J-04. System Architectures typically involve an architectural 'framework' that contains multiple different 'views' or 'perspectives' (Ref: NASA System Engineering Handbook), and include multiple 'levels' of detail. QUESTIONS: Would the government please clarify its expectation of how the System Architecture for TA.1 should be presented?

Should TA.1 responses follow a formal architecture framework with perspectives/views and levels? Or is a System Design Description for the product elements of xEVAS expected rather than an architecture?

Answer: NASA is seeking to procure EVA capability as a service; the description of the System Architecture of that Service is the goal of TA.1. The specific intended system design to meet the NASA needs of the EVA Service are of particular interest as requested in TA.1.

45. Reference: Provision L.18.4.1 TA.2

Question: Several areas of the L.18 ask the Offeror to describe risks or approach to handling risks. But TA.2 Services Approach seems to provide the most comprehensive requests for a risk register, risk quantification (ratings), and handling strategies that would be typical of established NASA Risk Management practices and Risk-Informed Decision Making. The risk paragraph at the bottom of page 311 is the concern. The paragraph does not specifically mention "Services", but it is within TA.2 Services Approach, inplying that it is limited to Services. Please clarify the scope of the risk information requested in TA.2? Is the paragraph at the bottom of page 311 to be interpreted as applicable only to Services, or is the response expected to comprehensively address risks across Mission Suitability or across the Contract?

What is the scope of the risks to be addressed in this paragraph?

Answer: The xEVAS requirement is intended to prepare the Offeror for providing reoccurring EVA mission services. The risks described in TA.2, Services Approach, shall be comprehensive to describe the risks and mitigations associated with the Offerors approach to develop and deliver xEVAS services.

46. Reference: Provision L.18.4.1 TA.2

Question: The last paragraph of Page 311 contains two sentences that use the term "their mission": "The Offeror’s proposal shall include description of the technical, schedule, and safety-related risks associated with their mission and include the risk level (low, medium, or high) along with a strategy to mitigate each risk." and "The Offeror shall specifically identify any aspects of their mission strategy that are dependent on or can be significantly affected by external factors or dependencies." The RFP describes several missions (e.g. EVAs, ISS, Artemis) but it is unclear which 'mission' the Government is referring to with the terminology "their mission ..." The implication is the Offeror is expected to have a mission strategy.

QUESTION: Would the Government please clarify the specific mission they are referring to in these two sentences? What is meant by an Offeror's mission strategy? Is this intended to be a Services strategy?

Answer: See answer to Question 45.

47. Reference: Provision TA.3

Question: The Pre-Solicitation Q&A Response to Question 2 included "anticipated changes that will be made in the Final RFP TA.3 (Sections L & M) Extensibility Plan"; however, only the Section M anticipated change was incorporated into the Final RFP. Requesting clarification if the Final RFP correctly omitted the Section L "anticipated changes" and if the Final RFP correctly included the Section M "anticipated changes."

Answer: The Final RFP only included the Section M changes, the non-inclusion in Section L is intentional. Offerors are reminded that the Final RFP and its amendments take precedence over any questions, answers, or other communications submitted that may conflict.

48. Reference: Provision L.18.4.1 TA.5 / DRD xEVAS-ENG-01

Question: The Final RFP specifies a submission of "Data Items 1-5 of DRD xEVAS-ENG- 01"; however, the DRD xEVAS-ENG-01 changed from 1-8 to a-h. Please clarify if Data Items 1-5 are intended to mean data items a-e?

Answer: Yes, there was a reorganization of numbering and the reference did not get updated appropriately. Items (a)-(e) shall be delivered with the proposal. The reference in TA.5, Engineering Approach, has been updated from “(1)-(5)” to “(a)-(e)”.

49. Reference: Provision L.18.5 & Provision M.4

Question: When submitting as a Joint Venture (prime) with subcontractors, do all parties on this proposal receive evaluation on relevant past performance and how is it then weighted between prime and contractors?

Answer: NASA will evaluate the past performance of the offeror and team members. Major subcontractors are defined as those companies expected to contribute $25M or more towards performance of the effort captured in the total evaluated price.

Provision L.18.5(a)(2) states, in part, the Offeror’s proposal “… shall clearly detail what portions of the Performance Work Statement, the prime, major/minor subcontractors, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort.”

Section M.4(c) states, “The past performance of an existing joint venture will be weighted more heavily than work performed by its joint venture partners separately.”

NASA will evaluate past performance based on the information provided based on the work the entity is proposed to perform NASA will not consider past performance of work that the entity is not proposed to perform under the xEVAS contract. For example, if Subcontractor A has recent and relevant past performance in PWS 2.3, Mission Integration and Operations, & 3.4, ISS Mission Unique Capabilities (SubCLIN 1C), but is only proposed to perform work only in PWS 2.3, then NASA will only consider their performance for that element in their evaluation.

50. Reference: Provision L.18.5(a)(2)

Question: L.18.6(a) requests, "on up to three (3) past contracts that best demonstrates their ability to perform the xEVAS work.". L.18.6(a)(2) requires, "include rationale supporting the Offeror’s assertion of relevance to the xEVAS scope. This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Performance Work Statement, the prime, major/minor subcontractors teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort. If the Past Performance volume includes data on any affiliated company, division(s), business units, segments, or other organizations of your company, then provide a narrative to address what they will be responsible for and/or proposing to do and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that said parent et al will have meaningful involvement in contract performance."

Is the information required in L.18.6(a)(2) limited to the three (3) contracts requested in L.18.6(a)?

Answer: Yes. In addition to providing “up to three (3) past contracts that best demonstrates their ability to perform the xEVAS work”. Paragraph (a)(2) is requesting additional information to be provided in the proposal that NASA will use in evaluating the relevance of past contract performance.

51. Reference: Provision L.18.5(a)(2)

Question: The second sentence reads in the future tense "This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Performance Work Statement, the prime, major/minor subcontractor steaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort."

Answer: See answer to Question 50.

52. Reference: Provision L.18.5(a), L.18.6(f), M.3

Question: Frequent references are made to the "Statement of Work." Could you define what part of Section C comprises the Statement of Work. Is it all of Section C?

Answer: Provision L.18.5(a), L.18.6(f), & M.3 have been updated to state “Performance Work Statement” instead of “Statement of Work”.

53. Reference: Provision L.18.5(a)(2) and L.18.5(a)(3)

Question: Will the Government please clarify the difference between the content required for the information required in L.18.5(a)(2) and L.18.5(a)(3), Attachment L-2, Past Performance Matrix? Both are asking for past performance information related to work being performed on xEVAS. Will the Government confirm that both of these requirements are limited to the three

(3) contracts referenced in the principle requirement, L.18.5(a)?

Answer: All requirements L.18.5(a)(1), L.18.5(a)(2), and L.18.5(a)(3) are limited to the three (3) contracts referenced in L.18.5(a).

54. Reference: Provision L.18.6(b) and (c) and various DRDs

Question: L.18.6 (b) and (c) states that the Offeror should submit the information required by the respective DRDs "through submission of an OCI Avoidance/Mitigation Plan that will be incorporated into any resultant contract as Attachment J-24, OCI Avoidance/Mitigation Plan" and similar wording for the Export Control Plan. Does the Government expect to see all DRDs that require a "plan" submitted as "baseline due at proposal" to be formatted as a plan (i.e., including a table of contents, acronym list, etc.] rather than a response to the DRD? Please clarify.

Answer: Proposals shall include the information required in the Section L provisions and the DRD instructions. Provision L.18.2(a)(4) states, “Title pages, table of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers that do not contain information that can be construed as proposal information will not be counted as part of the page limitations. However, these pages shall be numbered with lower case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.) in order to provide ease of reference for the Government.”

55. Reference: Provision L.18.6(g)

Question: The second bullet under (g) Company Information asks for "type". Please clarify what the government means by "type".

Answer: By “type”, the Offeror is requested to represent whether each entity is a small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, EDWOSB concern, or WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program.

Section M

56. Reference: Provision M.3(b)

Question: States "GTAs must be submitted to the applicable Center Partnership Office Point of Contact no later than 15 days after initial solicitation release. NASA will disposition all requests and notify Offerors in writing within 7 days prior to proposal due date. Respectfully request the last sentence be changed from "7 days before proposal due date" to "21 days before proposal due date."

Answer: For those GTAs received by the due date established in the RFP, the Government intends to disposition requests and return approved GTAs to Offerors as early as possible and will make its best effort to provide them by Wednesday, November 17, 2021. However, the commitment as stated in the RFP will remain seven (7) days before proposal due date.

57. Reference: Provision M.3.2

Question: Section M.3.2 references L.18.3(f)(1)i and L.18.3(f)(1)(ii). There are no provisions for L.18.3(f)(1)i and L.18.3(f)(1)ii. Please correct

Answer: Amendment 0002 to the RFP has corrected the reference to L.18.3(g)(1)i and L.18.3(g)(1)(ii).

58. Reference: Provision M.3.3

Question: SBU.2 states: "The Government will evaluate the potential risks or impacts to performance throughout the site when subcontracting out such efforts and the associated mitigations of those risks." Please calrify to what "site" the sentence above is referring? Is this a cut/paste error?

Answer: Provision M.3.3.SBU.2, Commitment to the Small Business Program in, has been updated to delete “throughout the site”.