LTVS Final RFP Questions and Answers.pdf

Lunar Terrain Vehicle Services (LTVS) 80JSC023R0004 – Final RFP Questions and Answers

# Section Question NASA Response

1 Final RFP

Please provide an editable version of the RFP, or at least the Model Contract, so that Offerors may populate the required fields for proposal submittals.

In order to control and protect sensitive data owned by the Government and its Contractors, NASA policy requires all acquisition-related documents be released in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). The Offeror will be required to provide the model contract back to NASA in MS-Word.

EHP-20012 LTV

SMA Plan Section

4.6.1.m.1 from March 2023

This document from March 2023 added three new DRDs that are not in Attachment J-01 Data Requirements Descriptions (DRDs)

(a) DRD tbd Flight Software Simulator

(b) DRD tbd Avionics Emulator and Acceptance Data Package

(c) DRD tbd LTV Acceptance Data Package In order to provide a firm fixed price estimate, a complete list of all required LTV DRDs in Attachment J-01 is necessary.

This standard is not finalized, and if new DRDs are going to be added in standards documents and requirements documents that are not yet finalized, Offerors cannot provide a high-confidence cost estimate (or a complete schedule).

EHP-20012 will be updated to remove the old DRD references. Disregard the references to the following:

(a) DRD tbd Flight Software Simulator

(b) DRD tbd Avionics Emulator and Acceptance Data Package

(c) DRD tbd LTV Acceptance Data Package

3 N/A Can NASA provide a copy of HLS-RQMT-006 as a reference document to understand HLS requirements in the context of LTV interfaces (e.g., communications)?

NASA will provide the document with a future RFP Amendment in the LTVS RFP Technical Library on SAM.gov.

4 5.6.1.8, LTV

Vehicle Mockup

Section 5.6.1.8 of the LTSV PWS references SVMF- POL0043. Can NASA please provide this document, to facilitate bidders' cost estimation, schedule development, and proposed solution? Having a grounding understanding of the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility Mockup Development Requirements Policy is key in understanding the requirements for this and related deliverables, and all associated planning and costing.

NASA will provide the document with Amendment 0002 in the LTVS RFP Technical Library on SAM.gov.

PWS 4.2.1,

Milestone 1 - Certification

Baseline Review (CBR); SubCLIN

1A:LTVS

Demonstration

Mission Work Plan

PWS 4.2.1 says “The Contractor’s CBR shall occur within one month of ATP for the LTVS Demonstration Mission (SubCLIN 1A).”However, the milestone chart on RFP page 316 shows TBP. The shall statement and the milestone chart TBP are in conflict. Milestone deliverables per the DRD being 45 days prior to the milestone also make this situation untenable as Contractors will not be able to deliver products prior to contact award and ATP. We recommend NASA deconflict the two source files by stating that the SubCLIN 1A: LTVS Demonstration Mission Work Plan (pg. 316 of the RFP) takes precedence over the PWS in matters of milestone timing (or by issuing an amendment that corrects the erroneous PWS reference).

The statement in PWS 4.2.1 will be deleted from the PWS in RFP Amendment 0002.

PWS 2.3.3.3

Adjudication of Standards; ITO

Table L.19.1-1 and

ITO TA.4

PWS section 2.3.3.3 states "Proposed alternate or tailored standards are delivered to the Government with initial proposals (with an indication if they have been previously accepted by NASA)." Attachment J-01 Data Requirements Description (DRDs) states that the initial DRD content is " Baseline of Content Item numbers a through e due with proposal (Attachment A completed to identify the Contractor’s proposed compliance and tailoring to NASA standards and specifications). Items a-e are related to identifying which standards will be tailored, with rationale, proccess for tailoring and ensuring adequacy. TABLE L.19.1-1 in the RFP is consistent with the DRD LTVDE-001 initial delivery instructions. The instructions in L.19.4.1 MS SUBFACTOR 1

– TECHNICAL APPROACH (TA) for TA.4 Engineering Approach reference the DRD LTVDE-001 initial delivery instructions.Please confirm that for initial proposal delivery, Table L.19.1-1 and the ITO take precedence over the PWS in this instance (or, alternatively, issue a correction to the PWS).

PWS section 2.3.3.3 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to state "Proposed alternate or tailored standards shall be identified with initial proposals per DRD LTVDE-001 (with an indication if they have been previously accepted by NASA)."

SRD, LTV-SYS-

111 Teleoperations from Locations Other than Earth

The definition for "Fully controllable" here differs from the one in LTV-SYS-002 (pg 12) in that the use of the manipulator is not mentioned. Is it required that the manipulator be operated from Locations Other than Earth?

The software required to safely operate the manipulator may require a more capable ROC (e.g., large screen, 6DOF input device).

The manipulator is not expected to be controlled from locations other than Earth.

SRD, LTV-SYS-

118 Cumulative

EVA Time

What is the significance of the "per crewmember" part of the requirement and rationale? As written, this would require the rover to be available for 48 hours per 7-day period if there were two crewmemebers. Please confirm if that was NASA's intent.

Each crewmember will support up to 24 hours of EVA in a seven-day period. However, EVAs are conducted with a minimum of two crewmembers and crew time will be accrued simultaneously for each crew member in the pair. E.g., An EVA with an eight-hour duration and two crew members would equate to 16 crew hours (8 hours each per crewmember).

9 PWS, 5.6.1 Crew Training

PWS Section 5.6.1 states that crew training will occur at NASA JSC. Can NASA clarify if all crew training must take place at JSC, or whether bidders may propose alternate locations if they result in savings (cost, schedule, manpower) to NASA?

All crew training must occur at JSC due to Artemis crew training scheduling.

10 L.16

The last date of the ordering period is November 26, 2036, and the total period of performance extends an additional 2 years until November 26, 2038. The PWS Section 1.0 (last paragraph on page 23) indicates that the total mission length, inclusive of activities starting two years prior to lunar service, is three years.

Please confirm the respective dates, as it appears that an order placed in 2036 cannot be completed by the anticipated total period of performance, which ends in 2038, unless the last ordered mission does not run for a full three-year period.

The contract period of performance will be 15 years from ATP. Offerors should propose prices and NTEs as specified in the RFP. The last ordered mission is intended to be a full three-year period. NASA does not intend to order a Standard Mission if there is less than three years remaining in the contract period of performance.

11 Comm IRD, TV-

COM-321

Requirement text states, "LTV shall allocate at least 16 Mbps of dedicated LTV return link bandwidth to relay data from other lunar surface assets during NASA crewed and uncrewed operations." Does this imply that providing relayed data via LCRNS/ Gateway/ LEGS/ NSN/DSN are all required to be sized to support 16 Mbps?

The requirement dictates a minimum amount of data the LTV must be capable of relaying.

The LTVS RFP communication specification only specifies requirements to the LTV system. Requirements for other assets are handled via other contractual mechanisms. NASA has the responsibility to ensure the data paths are sized appropriately across the lunar relays.

Comm IRD, LTV-

COM-310, -311, -

Updated requirements reference negative elevation angles "with respect to the LTV x-y plane." Do these requirements consider the capability of the LTV system to level its x-y plane to align with the lunar local horizontal plane using independent wheel actuation?

The requirement takes into account a worst-case scenario in order to define upper and lower bounds on the elevation angles of the antenna pattern. It is up to the Offerors to trade and propose how they would meet this requirement.

13 Attachment L-03 Price Templates

The title or SubCLIN 001 .A indicates that the pricing is for "missions." Since this is plural, is the requirement for multiple or single missions? If multiple missions are required, how many missions are required and what is the duration of each mission?

Attachment L-03 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to replace the words Demonstration Missions with Demonstration Mission. Table B.3-1: Services To Be Provided and Contract Value/Total Amount Awarded references a single Demonstration Mission.

14 N/A

So that bidders can better tailor their responses, can NASA provide an organization chart that depicts the structure of the Government counterparts with whom industry will be interfacing during contract execution?

NASA will provide the current LTV Project and EHP Program organizational charts in the Technical Library with Amendment 0002.

15 N/A

Given the material changes to the final version of the LTVS PWS and the new process for accessing CUI and Export- Controlled files in the LTVS final library unveiled on May 26, 2023, with final RFP release, we would like to request an extension of at least 4 days for initial proposal submittals, to still provide adequate time for fully responsive proposals.

See the answer to Question 112.

Comm IRD, LTV-

COM-309, -312, -

Requirement text references "bidirectional telemetry."

Typically telemetry uni-directional on a return link. Can NASA clarify what kinds of "telemetry" is expected on a forward link?

The scenario envisioned in this requirement is the LTV receiving EVA, Payload, or other lunar assets’ telemetry and forwarding the data to a ground station via a relay or direct to Earth.

17 Section L, Table

19.1-1; TA.4

Can NASA confirm that Attachment A to DRD LTVDE-001:

NASA Standards and Specifications Compliance and Tailoring is outside the 150-page count for Vol II?

DRD LTVDE-001, including the listing required in Appendix A, is included in the page count for Volume II.

18 L.19.2

To help better differentiate narrative body text from diagrams, charts and tables, may bidders use their own font size, at no smaller than 9-point text size?

NASA will not allow a font size smaller than 12 for diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs. Reference L.19.2 JSC Procurement Instruction 52.215-113(b)(1) - Proposal Formatting Instruction.

2.6.3 and 4.1 and

DRD LTVOP-103

• The RFP Section 2.6.3 and 4.1 and DRD LTVOP-103 require placement of the Mockup at JSC Bldg 5 and the Simulator at MTC for the life of the contract. They also require a GTA with JSC for Simulator ICD development and integration of the Mockup and Simulator in the JSC facilities.

• However, the JSC GTA focal has informed us there is no space allocated for LTV items in either building at this time, and as such, they cannot provide a GTA.

Could you provide some guidance as to whether NASA is going to revise the RFP to remove the GTA requirements or work with JSC to ensure facilities are available ?

NASA will be accepting and responding to GTAs involving floor space at JSC. NASA has corrected the internal issue that resulted in the initial response to the GTA requests. No change to the RFP will be made.

20 2.3 Data Fidelity

Could NASA please define "Summary" along with the other data fidelity definitions at the bottom of Page 5? Table 7-01 includes a data type named "Summary," but the fidelity for this is undefined.

Section 2.3 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to add: Summary means a brief statement or account of the main points.

21 L.19.2

The RFP reads, "Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size." No font type is specified in this sentence. Is it acceptable to use font types other than Times New Roman in figures, so long as it is 12-point font size? (Two sentences above the one quoted here, the RFP specifies Times New Roman, but that sentence seems to apply to paragraph-form prose rather than figures.)

We encourage NASA to allow font type flexibility in figures because Times is not the default in many modeling and plot-producing programs from which vendors may have already rendered figures.

See response to Question 18.

22 Table L.19.1-1

Could NASA provide an exact list of the separate files they would like delivered upon proposal submission? For example, it is not always clear if attachments or content excluded from the page count should be attached at the end of a given volume, or submitted as their own files, particularly when they are of the same file type. Some examples: Key Service Capabilities, DRD LTVSA-002 (SMA Plan), Work Plan --should we attach these to the end of (i.e. within) the same *.docx file as Volume II (but with Roman numeral page numbering) or submit them each as separate files?

The organization of the proposal and files is up to the Offeror, provided that the files are clearly labeled in accordance with the RFP. Proposals will be checked for completeness and adherence to L.19.1 PROPOSAL ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES AND

DUE DATES.

23 L.19.5(a)

The RFP reads, "Offerors shall demonstrate past experience in all areas of the performance work statement by submitting information on up to five (5) past contracts for the proposal team (prime and all team members)..." This verbiage is unclear. Could NASA clarify if it is 5 past contracts *per* team member -- i.e. 5 for the prime, 5 for the first team member, 5 for the second team member, etc. -- or if it is 5 for the prime and all team members *combined*. Furthermore, both of these possible interpretations are inconsistent with the final form of the file "Att L-02 Past Performance Matrix.xlsx", which includes fill-ins for 3 past contracts per team member.

Section L.19.5(a) means five total past contracts for the Offeror team (Prime and Subcontractors). The five contracts are for the prime and all team members combined. The five contracts can be performed by any member of the proposal team (prime, subcontractor, joint venture partner, etc.). The proposal team will decide which contracts to cite in their Past Performance Volume.

24 L.19.3(d)(1)

Can NASA provide any further insight into the spreadsheets provided for basis of cost estimate. What type of content does NASA want included in the EPM? Could a template be provided?

Offerors are required to provide the information specified in the Attachment L-03 Price Templates. No additional data is required as this is a competitive fixed price acquisition.

Refer to the Final RFP requirements for additional guidance.

25 PWS Section C

The Contractor shall provide and support the following Video, Data, & Telemetry performance needs during the NASA Crewed Expedition:• Minimum of two video streams (HD quality) in real-time • Voice Streams from Crew in real-time• Real-time telemetry data from the LTV VehicleCan NASA provide a specification for what NASA intends by "real-time"?

Latency, Redundancy, Bandwidth Requirements may be implicitly embedded in the term; and additional clarity would help bidders better define the scope of their solution

Low-latency and high-latency real-time are defined in the glossary of the LTV Communication SRS. There could be delays in attempting to transmit real-time data, such as larger distances or processing delays, that make low-latency impossible to achieve. The Communication SRS defines the requirements of the communication systems.

26 EHP-10022/ LTV-

COM-306

EHP-10022 requirement LTV-COM-306 states that “LTV shall act as a communications relay in accordance with Error!

Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. (ACD 50002, Artemis Campaign Development (ACD) Lunar Exploration Requirements, ACD-R-53). Can NASA provide the proper references? Is it Table 3-2 on the following page? Is ACD-R-53 being applied to LTV directly or is this just identifying the parent requirement? If EHP-10022 Table 3-2 applies or ACD-R-53 tables apply:• They require LTV to communicate with HDL PR, Surface Habitats, GFE, TH, but there are no details in EHP-10022 and there is a TBR, indicating there is insufficient definition to specify requirements or process for the PR and HDL. Is EHP-10022 requiring we develop this capability under the fixed price contract? If so, can NASA provide the necessary details.• LTV is to “use” files, telemetry and video – but no definition of how or why the LTV is required to use these is provided. Can NASA provide details as to whether this required and what are the specific requirements on the use of these capabilities?• LTV is to receive audio, commands, files, telemetry, and video from Gateway for pass-through. This doesn’t appear to be in any other EHP-10022 requirements. Is LTV required to be a relay from Gateway to other systems? Can NASA specify which system(s) is LTV required to pass each of these data types to?• LTV is to pass through commands, files, telemetry, and video from HLS. Is LTV required to be a relay from HLS to other systems for this type of data? Also, which system(s) is LTV required to pass each of these data types to?• LTV is to send files and video to the EVA suits. Is LTV required to send these types of data to the EVA suits and is LTV to create this data? If LTV is not creating this data, which system is creating it?• LTV to send commands to the HLS. Is LTV required to send commands to HLS and is LTV to create these commands? If LTV is not creating these commands, which system is creating the commands?

LTV-COM-306 should state:

LTV shall act as a communications relay in accordance with Table 3-2 and Table 3-3:

Functional Data Exchange Requirements Between Systems – LTV Receives (ACD 50002, Artemis Campaign Development (ACD) Lunar Exploration Requirements, ACD-R-53).

Table 3-2 and 3-3 are LTV specific items extracted from ACD-R-53.

The LTV System is required to comply with LTV-COM-306.

For items LTV is required to ""send”, the information could originate from another asset (received by LTV per Table 3-3 and passed through) or it could be generated by LTV (if applicable).

The wording of LTV-COM-306 will be updated in the next revision of the document.

27 EHP-10022/

LTV-COM-297

EHP-10022 LTV-COM-297 requires support of simulation infrastructure in accordance with ACD-50013, but ACD- 50013 is not provided. Can NASA either provide ACD-50013 and which specific elements of the plan apply; or provide an LTV-specific requirement?

NASA will provide the document with a future RFP Amendment in the LTVS RFP Technical Library on SAM.gov.

28 EHP-10022/

LTV-COM-200

EHP-10022 LTV-COM-200 indicates compliance with HEOMD-003-02 “where necessary to interface with other compliant assets”. Is EHP-10022 missing requirements where HEOMD-003-02 compliance would be needed for communication with any of the following: HLS, EVA Suits, NASA Payloads, LCRNS, Gateway, or DSN? If so, can NASA identify which vehicles and which requirements need compliance for each vehicle?

Appendix C lists the ICSIS requirements applicable to LTV. ICSIS is an interoperability standard that is applicable to all Artemis assets. The other assets working in particular frequency bands will adhere to the same requirements in ICSIS.

29 N/A

Can NASA provide a list of which systems, apart from HLS, EVA Suits, NASA Payloads, LCRNS, Gateway, and DSN, the LTV needs to use HEOMD-003-002 to work with and which specific requirements need to be met for each system?

See response to Question 28.

30 EHP-10022/

LTV-COM-322

EHP-10022 LTV-COM-322 references a TBR-EHP-10022-22 document. Can NASA provide this document?

This document is currently being written and will be made available after Contractor ATP.

31 EHP-10022/

LTV-COM-212

EHP-10022 LTV-COM-212 indicates LTV shall be electromagnetically compatible with other LSAs and cislunar assets. Can NASA provide the RF radiated emission susceptibility ranges and limits for each of these assets?

This information is not available at this time. This information will be created with the IRCDs between LTV and the Lunar Surface Assets (see answer to Question 32).

32 EHP-10022/

LTV-COM-328

EHP-10022 LTV-COM-328, LTV-COM-327, LTV-COM-

326, and LTV-COM-307 requires compliance with an LTV- LCRNS IRCD, an LTV-Gateway IRCD, an LTV-HLS IRCD, and an LTV-xEVA IRCD respectively. Are these jointly developed documents or are these specifications provided by NASA? If they are provided by NASA, can NASA provide the documents ahead of initial proposal submittals?

The interface requirements control documents will be jointly developed between the Contractor and the Artemis asset, after Contractor ATP.

33 EHP-10022/

LTV-COM-275

EHP-10022 LTV-COM-275 require an EVA communication range of 2km. This doesn’t appear feasible unless the EVA system has specialized directional systems with sufficient power. The EHP-10033 also indicates this is likely to be <1km when considering the resources (height, power, etc.) an HLS can provide. Can NASA provide the details of the EVA systems to determine if LTV can provide “transmit and receive performance” for 2km range. We would also recommend re-evaluating this requirement based on typical expected ranges for these systems or perhaps advance 3GPP instead of implementing UHF.

The LTV Communication SRS requires Ultra High Frequency (UHF). Initial analysis completed at NASA has shown the difficulty of closing the link at 2 km with UHF.

There is an ongoing effort to evaluate 3GPP within NASA. Details of the EVA suit design for Artemis V are not known at this time.

34 DRD

LTVOP-102

Can NASA clarify if a GTA is required for the LTV System Operations Console for use at MCC-H? LTVOP-102 indicates "A GTA is required for the integration of Contractor provided products to MCC-H and or MTC.” But PWS 5.6.1 indicates "NASA will provide a storage location for all training hardware required to be located at NASA JSC, at no cost." So it appears that the GTA is required for coordination of an interface document and is not for a facility or GFP. Is that correct or is there something more to the GTA required by

LTVOP-102?

A Government Task Agreement (GTA) is required for coordination of an interface document or interfacing hardware. A GTA is not required for console space in MCC-H nor for storage of training hardware.

C, 2.2, Para. 17, Small Business Subcontracting

Plan

As noted in the RFP, instructions in the LTVMA-009, and per FAR 52.219-9 et cetera, a small business is not required to submit a small business subcontracting plan. Please confirm that no text in the contract stating otherwise, such as the referenced paragraph (PWS 2.2., Para 17), nonetheless requires a small business to submit a small business subcontracting plan.

NASA confirms that a small business is not required to submit a small business subcontracting plan. In order to be considered a small business, the Prime Offeror must meet the small business size standard for NAICS Code 336414 (no more than 1,250 employees) and perform the primary and vital requirements for the contract [refer to the Subcontractor arrangement information stated in L.19.6(f)(1)(a)].

C, 2.2.5 Para.

Contract Status, Contract Status and Life-Cycle

Cost for each Task Order

While NASA's assurance that its contractors remain financially viable to successfully perform the contract, the edits to the proposed approach would reduce redundant or unnecessary work for both sides while providing more accurate, thus helpful information to the Government. To achieve this end, we recommend-replacing the current bullets under "An assessment of the contract price including:" with the following.--Current contracted baseline price (contract level summary and by task order--Clearly identify and forecast potential cost growth from the contract value, highlightingany changes since the previous Program Management Review or milestone.--Detail the contractor’s risk mitigation strategies associated with potential cost growth,including planned methods of resolving potential cash flow needs and potential impacts to currentTask Orders.--Provide an integrated assessment of the cost growth and its impact(s) to the mostcurrent IMS.--Provide details of progress of corporate commitments.Doing so will eliminate the contractor's need to predict future new contract actions which may come from NASA, and providing specific invoicing and actuals regarding each Task Order which is more in line with a cost reimbursement contract and creates additional burden and cost to the contract's performance.

PWS section 2.2.5 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to streamline the financial capability requirements.

37 C 2.10

The bidders are required to support 1 minor event each month and 4 annual events. The contractors are required to supply LTV mockups suitable for public affairs.

No location for these events is identified. Please indicate where the events are located so the bidders can accurately price work elements such as guest relations.

Monthly events will be JSC/local Houston area. The four Annual Events can be both JSC/Houston Area or other NASA supported events (e.g., Space Symposium, IAC, AIAA Ascend).

PWS 2.10 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to specify that these events are at JSC.

38 C 2.10

The bidders are required to support 1 minor event each month and 4 annual events. The contractors are required to supply LTV mockups suitable for public affairs.Where will the Mockups be displayed? This is not defined, and if the mockups are required to be transported to multiple locations, bidders will need to know where units are required so that shipping and associated transportation costs can be included in the prices for this function. If NASA will transport the mockups, this should be stipulated.

See answer to Question 37.

39 C 2.10

The bidders are required to support 1 minor event each month and 4 annual events. The contractors must supply LTV mockups suitable for public affairs and other public outreach functions, including guest operations.

There is no indication as to what the scope of guest relations.

This is an open-ended requirement. What is the scope of guest relations such that the bidders have a clear indication to accurately price this requirement?

Guest relations will include the Offeror serving as an LTV System SME at a NASA exhibit/booth at a conference and answering questions from the public and possibly the media.

PWS 2.10 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to specify what Guest relations consist of.

40 5.6.1.3; 5.6.1.4;

5.6.1.7; 5.6.1.8

Now that the training assets are required to go to NASA JSC per the PWS, are GTAs required for LTV provider asset deployment and support at JSC?

GTAs are NOT required for storing or deploying Crew training Hardware at NASA JSC. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining the training assets. See also Question 34.

41 5.6.1.7

Can NASA confirm that the Artemis Training Simulator referenced in section 5.6.1.7 of the PWS is the same as the system referenced in DRD LTVOP-102 LTV Mission Training System?

NASA confirms that the LTV Artemis Training Simulator referenced in section 5.6.1.7 of the PWS is the same as the system referenced as LTV Training Simulator in DRD LTVOP-102 Integrated Operations Training

42 5.6.1.7

5.6.1.7 says "LTV Artemis Training Simulator will be for NASA usage and not require Contractor support". Can NASA specify who is responsible for repairs if the simulator is damaged when Contractor support is not present?

The Contractor is responsible for maintaining and repairing the training assets. It is up to the Offeror on how they meet this requirement. If an investigation demonstrated that negligent actions on the part of NASA caused damage to the simulator, then the Contractor would be able to submit a Request for Equitable Adjustment.

43 5.1.2

This requirement reads: "Monitor, support, and provide advice in MCC-H during the LTV System Operations using the LTV Remote Operation Console". Does this mean that 1) The Contractor can connect the remote operations console in MCC-H to monitor and send commands; 2) The Contractor must use the remote operation console in MCC-H as the method for monitoring/commanding instead of a Contractor provided ground monitoring/operations system; 3) this type of support from MCC-H does not require a GTA?

The intent of 5.1.2 sentence, "Monitor, support, and provide advice in MCC-H during the LTV System Operations using the LTV Remote Operation Console" follows:

1) ROC, if ordered as a Mission Unique Capability CLIN1C, is used by the NASA crew on the Lunar Surface during the NASA Crewed Expedition from locations other than on the LTV Vehicle. Section 5.1.2 states that the Contractor is expected to support the real-time LTV operations performed by the crew using the ROC.

2) It is up to the Contractor to determine the method for monitoring and commanding the LTV Vehicle from Earth.

3) Providing support in MCC-H during the NASA Crew's use of the ROC does not require a

GTA.

44 4.1, 5.6.1.8

PWS 4.1 and PWS 5.6.1.8 requires the CDR Fidelity mockup and the LTV Vehicle Mockup to comply with SVMF-POL- 0043. This document has not been provided. Can NASA provide this document in order for Contractors to properly determine the impact of this document.

See the response to Question 4.

45 4.1.2

PWS 4.1.2 LTV Vehicle Simulator requires the Contractor to provide a "High-Fidelity drivable LTV Vehicle Simulator".

The description of driving in simulated Lunar Terrain and Lighting conditions and the fact that it is referred to as a Simulator and not a Drivable Unit as used in 5.6.1.3 seems to indicate this is intended to be simulation where the "driving" is the crew interacting with the crew interfaces and the vehicle is moving within a simulation. Is this the correct interpretation?

Or is the intent for NASA to test this unit in a JSC physical simulation of the lunar environment (including lighting and surface)?

Yes, this is the correct interpretation of a "High-Fidelity drivable LTV Vehicle Simulator" is a simulator in a virtual environment, not a physically drivable unit (which is covered by

5.6.1.3 Drivable Unit).

H.9 Mission Success

Determination, para. (a)(3)(iii.)

Please confirm or correct: should a second mission failure occur, FAR 52-246.4 (e) and (f) would not be remedies. I.e., the contractor would not have to reperform the mission itself nor provide "cover damages" allowed in (f) (1).

Under the conditions specified in the clause this interpretation is correct.

47 H.28 and H.29 (f)

We request NASA remove these insurance requirements, as most of the contract performance will not involve situations where both parties will be engaging in Protected Space Operations where there is a risk of Damage to Government property. Since the highest risk to Government property occurs during times when the FAA license and insurance obligations are in effect, the insurance requirements as presented are overly burdensome in cost, amount and duration.

(Importantly and as analogs, note that although the CRS2 and CCtCap contracts included these clauses, they have not been invoked/used during the approximate decade of contract performance. )

NASA will not remove the insurance requirements in Clauses H.28 and H.29.

48 H.28 and H.29 (f)

It is overly costly and burdensome for a contractor to have 2 insurance policies each up to $100M. Should the insurance requirements not be removed, is the contractor expected to have two separate policies of up to $100M? Or would one policy of up to $100M suffice?

A single insurance policy of up to $100M would meet the requirements of both Clauses H.28 and H.29.

49 H.28 and H.29 (f)

What specific property is the Government needing to be insured for under theses clause subsections? Insurers need to understand the property and property value they are being asked to cover by insurance. Without specifics, these clauses are impracticable.

The insurance should cover any Government property that might be impacted by performance of the contract. Examples include, but are not limited to, test facilities, launch pads, Lunar Surface assets, Payloads on LTV, etc.

50 I.9

To increase NASA's critical goal of enabling a robust US commercial space industry by fostering it such that NASA is one of many customers; and to provide the needed rights that protect the commercial value of US companies, industry asks that NASA reconsider the current data licensing rights in 52.227-14 and replace them with the rights under the groundbreaking Artemis Human Landing System contracts, specifically where such rights pertain to unlimited and government purpose rights. i.e.: (from HLS contracts): 2) Government purpose rights in technical data. (i) Except when the Government is entitled to unlimited rights in technical data asprovided in section (b)(1) of this clause, the Government shall have government purpose rights in—(A) Technical data that are developed exclusively with Government funds in theperformance of this contract;(B) Technical data that are developed with mixed funding in the performance of thiscontract;(C) Technical data that are studies, analyses, test data, or similar data produced forthis contract, when the study, analysis, test, or similar work was specified as an element of performance;(D) Technical data that are corrections or changes to technical data furnished to theContractor by the Government; and(E) All other technical data required to be delivered under this contract, unless suchdata is delivered with limited rights in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of this clause.

After careful consideration of your proposed changes to clause 52.227-14, the Government has decided to keep the clause as currently written in the RFP.

51 L.19.4.2, MA.4,

item (3)

Can NASA confirm that if bidders are not proposing any milestones beyond those captured by NASA in DRD LTVMA-002, Development Milestone Review Plan, then bidders do not need to submit a copy of NASA's LVMA-002 DRD as Attachment J-11 to the Model Contract?

The initial submission of the Development Milestone Review Plan required by DRD LTVMA-002 is as specified in Attachment J-01 DATA REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTIONS (DRDs). Attachment J-11 is not required with the proposal (see L.19.7). However, Offerors are required to update DRD LTVMA-002 in Attachment J-01 with corresponding update(s) (if any) to reflect Offeror proposed milestones per L.19.4.2 MS SUBFACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH (MA) MA.4. If no updates are required (because no interim milestones are proposed) Offerors include Attachment J-01 in the model contract unchanged.

52 L.19.2

Can NASA confirm that bidders may use section headings (titles and subtitles) that are not Times New Roman at 12pts, as these elements would not be for evaluation in direct response to the RFP, whereas paragraphs and graphics (which are required in Times New Roman, at 12pts) would be in direct response to the RFP.

Offerors may use a font type and size other than Times New Roman/12 point for section headings. The font type and size for the headings shall be readable per L.19.2.

53 L.19.4.2, MA.4,

item (3)

The RFP and associated DRD LTVMA -010 requires that a commercialization plan be developed with a baseline provided with the proposal. Can the bidders supply the details that support the viability their commercialization plan in a free-standing commercialization model in MS Excel to address items such revenue stream, cashflow, and sources of capital such that a viable business case can be demonstrated?

No, Volume II is required to be submitted in MS Word per L.19.1, TABLE L.19.1-1:

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL VOLUMES, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES AND

FORMAT. Excel tables can be pasted into the MS Word document.

LTV-SYS-112,

LTV-SYS-114,

Table 3-1

Please confirm that soil and rock collection end effectors are provided by NASA, not the contractor, and are counted as part of the Qty 3 Manipulator end-effectors in Table 3-1.

The soil and rock collection are base capabilities of the manipulator provided by the Contractor per Requirements LTV-SYS-112 and LTV-SYS-114. Per LTV-SYS-53, the end effectors shall be exchangeable. The Qty 3 end effectors in Table 3-1 are for NASA provided end effectors and are in addition to the base capability provided by the Contractor.

See also Table 3-1 Note 4 for specific guidance on Contractor provided manipulation capability and NASA provided end effectors.

55 L.19.5(g)

The paragraph states, “For all work performed during the past three years, offerors shall provide the following:”"Environmental Data. Copies of any and all environmental non-compliance correspondence and citations from federal, state or local agencies or authorities with explanatory remarks.” Recommend this request should be directed to the specific business area/unit or division of the corporate entity performing this work.

NASA will update Paragraph (g) of Provision L.19.5 - Past Performance Information in RFP Amendment 0002 to state that the Environmental Data and Safety and Health Data can be provided for either 1) the specific business area/unit or division of the company entity proposed to perform the LTVS work or 2) the contracts cited in Attachment L-02 Past Performance Matrix.

56 L.19.5(g)

The paragraph states, “For all work performed during the past three years, offerors shall provide the following:...

Safety and Health Data.

1) Copies of any and all OSHA citations with explanatory remarks.

2) Records of the company’s occupational injuries and illnesses. These records shall include, for each worksite, as a minimum, injury log (you may redact employee names), number of occupational injuries and illness (broken down by Days Away, Restricted or Transfer, and Other OSHA Recordable), annual average number of employees at the worksite, total hours worked by all employees, and applicable NAICS code. Provide records for the past three complete calendar years with signature of a company executive. Provide explanatory remarks of adverse performance and methods being used to improve performance. Format may be a copy of each year’s OSHA logs (Forms 300 and 300A) or equivalent occupational injury and illness data.”

Recommend this request should be directed to the specific business area/unit or division of the corporate entity performing this work.

See the response to Question 55.

57 L.19.5(g)

The paragraph states, “(g) Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last three (3) years. Offerors shall identify the applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract.” Recommend this request should be directed to the specific business area/unit or division of the corporate entity performing this work.

See the response to Question 55.

EHP-10021 LTV

SRD, LTV-SYS-

Is the requirement for ten years of operational support tied to a specific date window (e.g. from the required landing date of August 2028 to August 2038) or is it tied to the actual LTV landing date, even if sooner than the required date (e.g. if the LTV landed in August 2027 is it only required to operate until August 2037, or still until August 2038)? If not tied to the actual landing date, please clarify the required 10-year window start and end points.If the NASA desired landing date of August 2028 is changed to a later date due to Artemis program delays, this will not impact the required operational window for the LTV, which could arrive prior to the the Artemis Crewed Landing. Would the required ending date of operation change, effectively extending the operational period beyond 10 years (e.g. if the LTV landed in August 2027 but the Artemis Crewed landings were delayed, would the operational period requirement extend out to a later date, for example 2040, essentially requiring 13 years of operations)?

10-year operational service life is the planned duration, tied to LTVS post-demonstration/commencement of Lunar Surface operations (i.e., Lunar Surface operations under Standard Mission task orders). If the Contractor successfully completes all Demonstration Mission task order milestones (operational readiness with NASA Payload integrated on the LTV) in order to begin Standard Mission Lunar Surface operations, but NASA crew landings are delayed, NASA has the option to convert Crewed Expedition time to Uncrewed Expedition time as needed. The LTVS period of performance will be 15 years from contract start regardless of changes to the Artemis schedule.

59 Final RFP Please confirm that NASA communication assets (e.g., DSN and LEGS) will be available for “Ride Along” (commercial) portions of NASA's standard missions.

NASA confirms that communication assets (e.g., DSN and LEGS) will be available for “Ride Along” (commercial) portions of NASA's standard missions.

60 Final RFP, 2.4.5 (ref 2.7.7)

Document SMD-LUN-101 Artemis Contamination Control and Contamination Knowledge is not currently available for review, and is not listed in any indices of CUI documents.

Please provide this document so that it can be accessed for review.

NASA will provide the document with RFP Amendment 0002 in the LTVS RFP Technical Library on SAM.gov.

61 L.19.6(c) - Export Control Plan

Document DRD LTVEC-001 - Please clarify the definition of “Affected Subcontractors”

“Affected Subcontractors” means all Subcontractors subject to the LTVS Export Control Plan.

L.19.6(c) - Export

Control Plan /

DRD LTVEC-001

An LTVS Offeror conducts audits and investigations as necessary to ensure the health of the export compliance program. Contractually mandating a program specific audit and reporting requirement poses legal issues with the integrity of the USG’s voluntary disclosure programs and results in contract cost increases at the subcontractor and prime contractor levels. This requirement is unprecedented in federal contracting. Please confirm if a bidder will be deemed non-compliant if the bidder does not conduct such an audit.

NASA is looking for the Contractors to perform audits and provide NASA with the audit process and audit findings to ensure the health of the Contractors Export Control process.

The Offerors are able to decide how they perform the audits (internal, third party, etc.).

L.19.6(c) - Export

Control Plan /

DRD LTVEC-001

An LTVS Offeror has a comprehensive Export Internal Control Plan (ICP). It is expected that the LTVS Export Control Plan would refer back to specific sections of our ICP rather than creating unique program export control processes.

Please confirm this is an acceptable approach.

The Offerors are able to decide how they meet the requirement to provide an Export Control Plan.

64 SRD, LTV-SMA-

Please clarify the intent of the requirement on stated reliability over a period of one year. Is NASA's position that the reliability requirement must be met for every individual year of the required 10 year service life?

The intent of the requirement is to provide a reliability value that has to be met each year of the required service life. This value can then be used to determine the predicted reliability expected between any maintenance or vehicle replacement events. This should be used in combination with requirements LTV-SYS-70 and LTV-SYS-122. In the rationale, an MTBF of 81,000 hours is provided and expected to be constant over the operational life.

65 DRD LTVMA-

004, TA.2

Please clarify the expectation for what constitutes a "summary" level schedule in PDF form in MA-004. Please confirm that no MS Project file is expected with the final delivery.

DRD LTVMA-004 and L.19.4.1 TA-2 (10) will be updated in RFP Amendment 0002 to specify that a Summary Master Schedule (per Section 15.3 b 1) will be delivered with the proposal.

66 TABLE DRD

LTVDE-001-01

Please clarify the intent of the column heading: "Identify the Subject NASA Reference Standard(s) that the Contractor Standard Addresses".

The purpose of the "Identify the Subject NASA Reference Standard(s) that the Contractor Standard Addresses'" column is for the Contractor to indicate which NASA Reference Standard(s) the proposed alternative standard has equivalent subject matter to.

It is understood that alternative standards may not have a direct one- to-one correlation to the subjects included within NASA standards.

15.3a

TABLE DRD

LTVDE-001-02

The DRD description requires that the contractor address the standards listed in TABLE DRD LTVDE-001-02; however, the PWS requires standards adjudication for SMA and HMTA (ref. PWS 2.3.3.3), included in SRD Appendix Table C-3 and Appendix Table E-2. Please confirm it is acceptable to provide just the data requested in the DRD description.

The sentence referenced from PWS 2.3.3.3 is descriptive and not a requirement. Offerors should provide data per DRD LTVDE-001.

68 L.19.2(a)(2)

The RFP states that "Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size."

Recommend allowing Offerors to utilize 8-point text size as many of these items are detailed in nature and large 12-point text size will make these items harder for customer to review in a meaningful way as it will require more images, take more page count, and crowd the text and make it hard to read.

Additionally, the data requested in the DRDs is significantly impacted by the graphic/table text size. Alternatively, raising the Volume II page limit back to the original DRFP value of 200 pages would accommodate the larger font size.

See the response to Question 18.

NASA will update RFP Amendment 0002 to increase the page count for Volume II.

H.09 Mission Success

Determination & H.14 Off Ramp

Confirm that the off ramp termination described in H.09 and H.14 is a termination for convenience, not a termination for default.

Section H.14 details the options and requirements to secure an early end date of the Ordering Period of the contract. It is not a termination for default.

EHP-10022 LTV

Comm SRS, LTV-

COM-300

Please provide the document “SCaNPROCESS- 0001, Lunar Spectrum Management Plan (Level 1)” as referenced in requirement LTV-COM-300.” It is currently not available anywhere.

NASA will provide the document in a new data drop to the LTVS RFP Technical Library on SAM.gov.

Lunar Relay Services

Requirements Document (SRD), ESC-LCRNS-

REQ-0090,

revision B; Table 3-6

The 2.0 Documents section in EHP-10022 LTV Comm SRS identifies ESC-LCRNS-REQ-0090 LCRNS SRD as a Reference document. However, requirement LTV-COM-254 states that the "LTV shall be compatible with LCRNS-REQ- 0090". Is LCRNS-REQ-0090 a reference only, or is it an applicable document such that Table 3-6, Reference User System Performance and Data Rate Requirements must be used to determine required link performance between LTV and LCRNS?

Compatibility with LCRNS-REQ-0090 is a requirement. In the next revision of the LTV Communications SRS, NASA will update applicable documents list to include LCRNS-REQ- 0090 and will remove it from the refence document list.

Lunar Relay Services

Requirements Document (SRD), ESC-LCRNS-

REQ-0090,

revision B; Table 3-6

Does the EIRP and G/T values shown in Table 3-6, Reference User System Performance and Data Rate Requirements, located in the Lunar Relay Services Requirements Document (SRD), ESC-LCRNS-REQ-0090, revision B already account for the suggested 8 dB of multipath fading loss that is described in note 7 at the bottom of Table 3-6? If it does, can we assume at higher elevation angles above where multipath would have an impact, that the minimum LCRNS performance as provided in Table 3-6 would improve by 8 dB?

The relay would need to account for multipath (and therefore carry extra margin) given the EIRP and G/T values shown in the SRD. A higher rate would be achievable if you apply a higher elevation mask constraint. Please note the following caveats:

(a) The 8 dB value is a recommendation. A proposer could use a lower value, as long as they justify why (for example, they might apply a higher elevation constraint themselves).

(b) Applying a higher elevation constraint will decrease coverage. The amount of decrease in coverage depends on the relay orbit.

Lunar Relay Services

Requirements Document (SRD), ESC-LCRNS-

REQ-0090,

revision B; Table 3-6

Do the data rates and corresponding EIRP and G/T shown in Table 3-6, Reference User System Performance and Data Rate Requirements, located in the Lunar Relay Services Requirements Document (SRD), ESC-LCRNS-REQ-0090 exclude FEC encoding overhead, i.e. are they before the FEC encoder or after the FEC decoder?

Data rates are prior to FEC coding, but after packetization.

74 PWS, Section 3.4.3

The RFP states that “The Contractor shall provide flight and ground support equipment and any other hardware needed to process and deliver the NASA LTV Payloads after handover.”

Does this include specialized support equipment needed specifically by their payloads?

Per PWS 2.4.3.6, the hardware required by the Contractor is all hardware needed to process, integrate, and deliver the NASA Payloads with the LTV Vehicle. Specialized support equipment beyond this requirement is not anticipated to be needed at this time, but would be provided by the Payload provider if needed.

75 PWS, Section 3.1.1.1

The date for C2A-TO#-3 (MS3) LTV Mockup NASA Post- Test Review moved from A+6 months in the DRFP to A+8 months in the Final RFP. However, the language in 3.1.1.1 is unchanged and states, "The Contractor shall provide and maintain a mockup of the LTV Vehicle for NASA HITL Testing to NASA JSC, no later than LTVS Feasibility Study ATP + 4 months." Was it the intent that the delivery date should have moved to ATP + 6 months or is it still the intent that the mockup is delivered at ATP + 4 months and testing grew from 2 to 4 months?

NASA determined that additional time was needed between the events to allow a workable schedule and hold a productive review. NASA anticipates completing the test within one month of receiving the hardware, however NASA cannot guarantee an early test if hardware is delivered earlier than scheduled. Per PWS Section 3.1.1.1, the Test Report will be delivered from NASA to the Contractor within two months of completing the test.

76 PWS, Section 5.6.1.2

The requirement states "The Contractor shall support at least fifty…