LTVS DRFP Questions and Answers.pdf

Lunar Terrain Vehicle Services (LTVS) 80JSC023RLTVS - DRFP Questions and Answers

This document is divided into three sections:

• Section 1 - NASA responses to questions received to the LTVS Draft Request For Proposal <80JSC023RLTVS>.

• Section 2 - A listing of recommendations received by NASA that are being taken into consideration. Any updates based on these recommendations will be reflected in the Final RFP.

• Section 3 – Questions and comments received that NASA cannot provide a complete answer.

*The numbers in the first column are for NASA internal tracking.

Section 1

# Document Section Question/Comment Response to Industry (Details) 7 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-206,

LTV-COM-207,

LTV-COM-208,

LTV-COM-209

We propose text be modified to include the following: Proposed text “The LTV system provider shall design a communications system that can guarantee link margin, frame error rates and error correction schemes suitable for the mission objectives. Tests shall be performed that verify these key performance metrics pre-flight.”

ICSIS includes minimum frame error rates, link margin, and error correction requirements for cis-lunar and direct to Earth, which will be included in the Communication IRD.

9 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-219,

LTV-COM-220

In the following text (emphasis added), is the link with Earth implied to mean "direct to Earth," or is it meant to be a link to Earth by any means (e.g., via relay?): “The LTV communications system shall be capable of exchanging EVA suit audio and critical telemetry data with Earth after any single failure that could result in a catastrophic hazard.”

“The LTV communications system shall be capable of exchanging critical LTV telemetry and commands from Earth after any single failure that could result in a catastrophic hazard”

NASA is not dictating design nor implementation solutions.

11 Communic ation IRD

3.2.5, LTV-

COM-225

Requirement LTV-COM-225 governs crew exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rationale states removal of safety margin for "children population" that is not applicable to astronauts. Can any additional safety margin be added for astronauts interacting with the LTV given that they will be wearing suits?

Not at this time. The design details for future suits have not been determined.

Therefore, the RFP will reference the existing standard.

13 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-233 Text states that “The LTV communications system cryptographic modules shall provide a key loading interface that meets the Electronic Key Management System (EKMS) Data Tagging and Delivery Standard 308, DS-101 electrical and physical interface requirements, to support transferring of NASA-provided cryptographic keys.”CCSDS-350-6G-1 suggests other key management concepts for space applications that may not include physical/electrical interfaces called out by the DS-101 standard. Would NASA be open to allowing commercial providers to implement alternative encryption key management approaches that meet the same level of encryption standards?

Adjudication of NASA Standards is covered in Section 2.3.3.3 of the PWS.

14 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-239 Text states that “The LTV communication system shall support real-time video feedback teleoperation from a remote control terminal onboard Gateway, HLS, and other surface assets, for links experiencing less than or equal to 500 ms two-way latency when sufficient bandwidth is available.”

Do links supporting real-time operation need to remain connected while the vehicle is in motion? What data types are required to determine “sufficient bandwidth?”

The link will need to be maintained while in motion. The data types to determine sufficient bandwidth will be addressed in the Final RFP.

18 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-255,

LTV-COM-268

Text states that “The LTV communications system shall be compatible with relay services provided by Gateway as specified in GP 10046, Gateway to Lunar Systems RF Interface Requirements Document" and “The LTV communications system shall be compatible with direct communication services provided by Gateway as specified in GP 10046, Gateway to Lunar Systems RF Interface Requirements Document.”

Is GP 10046 available to assess the Gateway communication link interface?

NASA intends to post any missing reference information with the Final

RFP.

19 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-259 Text states that “The LTV communications system shall be compatible with the subset of HLS communication interfaces which are utilized by HLS for RTS communications, as specified in HLS-IRD-008”

Is HLS-IRD-008 available to assess the HLS communication link interface?

HLS-IRD-008 was posted on SAM.gov in CUI files on Nov 1, 2022. Interested Parties need to request access to view these files.

20 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-261 “The LTV communications system shall utilize the Lunar Exploration Ground Stations (LEGS) whenever DTE communications is required. Use of DSN will only be for contingency DTE communications.”Can NASA clarify whether LTV providers are expected to independently procure services from commercial ground station providers who have been certified to the LEGS specifications? Or will LEGS operate as an entity within NASA to provide communication services (similar to TDRS)?

SCAN services (including LEGS) are available through NASA using a Government Task Agreement (GTA).

21 Communic ation IRD

3.2.11.1.1, LTV-COM-265

Please provide the table referenced in LTV-COM-265, as it is currently missing from the document. This will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP. Figure will be included in the Final RFP.

22 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-266,

LTV-COM-267

Text states that “The LTV communications system shall be compatible with services provided by (TBR-EHP- 10022-0010), in accordance with the LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LIS) .”

“The LTV communications system shall be compatible with services provided by DSN and shall perform its DTE communications functions considering use of the 34m ground stations only.”

Are active interfaces to LEGS, NSN, and DSN all required? Or are added interfaces specified for contingencies?

Will LTV providers be expected to certify system compatibility (i.e., “compat test”) to NSN and DSN if they are considered backup?

Yes, interfaces to LEGS, NSN, and DSN are required. Certification to the systems is required.

23 Communic ation IRD

3.2.13.1 Previous versions of NASA LEGS brochures released publicly suggested S-band frequencies in the Space Research bands would be supported (2025 - 2120 MHz uplink & 2200 - 2300 MHz downlink); however, the LEGS table shown in EHP-10022 page 39 does not include S-band frequencies. The DSN table on page 40 does include S-band frequencies. Notwithstanding the issues surrounding licensing in S-band, can NASA comment on whether S-band frequencies would be supported through NASA LEGS? Is S-band in contingency operations an option?

The NASA spectrum team does not want S-band to be used for communications to direct to earth. There is a concern of congestion in the band as more assets use it.

24 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-272 Can NASA provide a higher-resolution of Table 3-8? As presented, the text is not readable. This will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP. A figure is being created that will make the data in the table related to LTV readable.

26 Communic ation IRD

3.4, LTV-COM-

LTV-COM-283 states provider mission systems must provide a record of all command and data exchanged with the LTV. Will there be exceptions made for data and commands pertaining to commercial payloads that may wish to remain proprietary?

The Communication IRD will be updated to be specific to the LTV system and will not include commercial payload data.

28 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-286 Text states that “If the LTV is utilizing NASA communications assets (ex. DSN and LEGS), then the Provider Mission Systems shall interface to those assets through NASA Mission systems at MCC-H for forward and return links” If an LTV provider subscribes to LEGS/DSN services, will interfaces routed through MCC-H be active/supported during the ride-along expedition phase (non-NASA) or after the contracted mission (i.e., times when a provider is engaged in commercial activities)?

MCC-H services can be requested through a GTA.

29 Communic ation IRD

3.1.2 Will the transfer of a communication link be performed manually and/or autonomously? NASA is not dictating design or implementation solutions.

30 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-202 Why compressed and non-compressed, instead of only compressed TV signals? Because of interoperability?

Has a trade study been conducted comparing end-to-end system performance?

Compressed and non-compressed is due to interoperability. NASA's internal trade studies will not be shared with potential offerors.

33 Communic ation IRD

General Will the Proposer be charged for the operation of communication infrastructure when the LTV is used by NASA and non-NASA organizations?

SCAN services (including LEGS) are available through NASA using a GTA.

34 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-272 Table 3-8 is not readable. This will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP. A figure is being created that will make the data in the table related to LTV readable.

35 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-279 Will critical/complex operations be only scheduled during times of maximum COM coverage? NASA will attempt to schedule critical/complex operations during periods of better communication coverage.

36 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-224 For crewed missions, will contractors be allowed to mitigate non-ionizing (R.F.) radiation exposure via procedures or will the mitigation also need to be performed autonomously?

NASA is not dictating design solutions.

Mitigation to non-ionizing radiation exposure must pass NASA safety review process.

37 Communic ation IRD

LTV-COM-288 What is the maximum amount of stored data in combination with real time, that the vehicle shall be required to transmit?

NASA is not dictating design solutions. It will be at the discretion of the Flight Director to prioritize the data downlink within the LTV capabilities which meet the published NASA requirements.

38 Communic ation IRD

TBR-EHP-

10022-016, TBR-EHP-

10022-001, and TBR-EHP- 10022-003

Are these documents available for download? EHP-10022 was posted on SAM.gov in CUI files on Nov 1, 2022. Interested parties will need to request access to view these files.

40 Communic ation IRD

Figure 3-1-1 - LTV to other

LSA

Figure 3-1-1 and table 3.1.1.1 show X-band link is optional, while there are requirement called out X-band in the EHP-10022. Does it mean the LTV does not have to comply with X-band link if the LTV provider choose other spectrum?

X-band is optional. The Communication IRD is being updated such that if x-band is utilized the x-band requirements become applicable.

42 DRD All In keeping with the intended Commercial focus of the procurement, will NASA consider changing all the Type 1 deliverables to Type 2 and Type 2 deliverables to Type 3 to support more agile decision-making and progress? Furthermore, for Type 2, NASA should consider reducing the review time below 45 days. Allowing time for initial NASA review plus possible corrections and NASA re-review will impact schedules by driving release dates at least 3 months before intended need. This is particularly concerning for CAD drawings (LTVCM-001). Trouble is foreseen when large numbers of documents/drawings are released at major design reviews. Can NASA provide timely review of many documents at these times?

The data type definitions and the number of deliverables classified as Type 1 or 2 in the DRFP will have significant impacts on contractor cost and schedule.

Recommendations:

• Reduce most Type 1 deliverables to Type 2 and Type 2 deliverables to Type 3

• Reduce the approval time for Type 2 to 21 days

• Exclude releases for major design reviews (PDR, CDR, etc.) from individual NASA review by setting entry and exit criteria that meet NASA's review needs without need to approve every drawing individually

NASA will reevaluate the DRD requirements. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

43 DRD DRD LTVMA-

001 (Insight and Collaboration Implementati on Plan)

Potentially unbounded Insight provisions may challenge both NASA and providers to maintain desired LTVS development and certification schedules and are not in keeping with a commercially provided service. Will NASA consider adding Insight constraints to support agility appropriate to the commercial intent of the program? As examples, such constraints might include providing a NASA LTVS liaison to field and filter broader non-program NASA requests for Insight, clear role definition for reviewers and observers having insight (including technical focus versus cost management in the FFP environment), use of a shared server for delivery of review products versus open access to commercial partner IT systems, limiting the level of direct insight to key suppliers, and hoteling versus dedicated office space in contractor facilities.

The contractor is responsible for defining the insight implementation plan per DRD LTVMA-001 Insight and Collaboration Implementation Plan, bounding the insight provisions while still meeting the requirements of the Insight Clause H.8 and PWS Section

2.2.2 Insight and Approval.

44 DRD 1.3 “Type 1 and Type 2 data may be placed under NASA configuration management control when designated by NASA.” Placing contractor engineering under NASA configuration control introduces significant impacts and places NASA in the critical path of commercial LTV development. Much more definition of the configuration management control process that NASA proposes is needed for the contractor to adequately assess the potential cost and schedule impacts. At a minimum, NASA must rigorously define the configuration management process, particularly including the change process. Alternatively, NASA could tailor this requirement for contractors with well-established configuration management control processes, to lessen the burden on them, or remove it entirely.

If NASA places the DRDs under configuration control, it will be done so on the NASA side after the contractor delivers the DRDs. NASA would do this to keep track of the documents and to control how feedback is provided within

NASA.

45 DRD 2.2.3 Recommend detailed IMS end point be defined as the intial checkout of the Rover on the lunar surface. The RFP will be updated to reflect that the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that is due with the proposal will go from ATP through the Operational Readiness Review milestone.

46 DRD LTVHS-102

Human Error Analysis (HEA) Reports and Analyses

In the Initial Submission section: Initial at SRR is too soon as typically there are no results at that early phase. We recommend changing this to initial at PDR. Additionally, the submission frequency of “45 days prior” to PDR, CDR, and DCR is overly constrictive and should be need-based, such as, “interim discussions on an as-needed basis”.

In the Scope section: Similar to the comment on LTVHS-101, request defining and understanding the “ground processing operations”. Who is doing the “ground processing” the Service Provider or NASA?

Together with LTV-HMTA-3102, these two DRDs can easily drive increased cost and schedule. Given this is a services contract, we concur with delivering HEA Report and Analysis, but depth of the report should be tailored for mission scope. Please see note on LTV-HMTA-3102.

NASA will reevaluate the DRD requirements to determine if an update is required. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

47 DRD LTVHS-103

Task Analysis

In the Scope section: the mission scope should be edited to reflect only surface operations. Flight and landing operations are uncrewed and the responsibility of the commercial provider.

In the Initial Submission section: An initial submission of SRR will likely be a very early draft/skeleton outline.

Additionally, the submission frequency of “45 days prior” to PDR, CDR, and DCR is overly constrictive and should be changed to as-needed.

In the Contents section: This definition is too prescriptive. We recommend the description is changed to "should include such contents as: ..." (similar phrasing was used in other DRD contents descriptions). As written, this list appears helpful but seems excessive; also it mentions that we need to populate a spreadsheet with “appropriate values identified for each of the fields” – this is a lot of overhead and can drive cost.

Recommend contractor-provided format.

Additionally the wording, “and submitted with applicable verification test plans and closure notices” drives extra cost and work via documentation and delivery.

NASA will reevaluate the DRD requirements to determine if an update is required. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

48 DRD LTVHS-104

Development al HITL Testing

A strategic HITL plan and substantial NASA insight is fully supported, however we recommend that a DRD is not the best mechanism as it will drive unnecessary cost and schedule. Recommend a joint Provider-NASA Working Group or other pre-defined meeting where HITL products are posted on sharing platform for review and comment during the regularly scheduled meeting. This will include the Strategic HITL Plan, and Event HITL pre-HITL Test Plan & post-HITL Test Report. Additionally, a posted calendar where NASA would have insight into upcoming HITLs as part of meeting both the Strategic HITL Plan and the Event HITL Plan. See "HSI Working Group" in the LTVHS-106 DRD description.In the Contents section: #2 test measures should be updated to state "as appropriate". These test measures are not appropriate for every HITL. Language like, "the strategy, individual event test plans, and test results are to be delivered for NASA insight and feedback to the system design and requirement compliance progress” is a significant cost and schedule driver and isn't consistent with the approach of this RFP. We recommend only doing this when the test is at a NASA facility or uses NASA personnel like crew trials. All in-house testing will be reviewed at typical design review. The “HITL Plan delivered 21 days prior to each test” and “HITL report 30 days after each test” is too specific and will drive excess work/cost; Suggest something like “documentation will be provided in a timely manner relative to the HITL”.

NASA will reevaluate the DRD requirements to determine if an update is required. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

49 DRD LTVHS-105

Crew Operational Loads Report

Recommend deleting this DRD in lieu of a joint Provider-NASA Working Group where Crew Loads products are posted on sharing platform for review and comment. See "HSI Working Group" in the LTVHS-106 DRD description.

Language specifying “iterative summaries of modeling, analysis, and evaluations for NASA insight into technical details of human-systems integration throughout the design process” can be accomodated by NASA insight and save overall cost.

NASA will reevaluate the DRD requirements to determine if an update is required. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

50 DRD LTVHS-106

Human System Integration (HSI) Plan

Contents section d (HSI Activities and Products) seems too prescriptive - this list should not be a minimum, but a recommendation. Allow the Provider to define.

NASA will reevaluate the DRD requirements to determine if an update is required. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

51 DRD DRD LTVSE-

and DRFP Section C, Page 53, Section 2.3.7.1, Verification, Validation and Certification Planning and Closures

Requirement for prime contractor's VVCP to encompass LTV Delivery System requirements as outlined in the LTV System Requirements Document is incompatible with a commercial delivery service. Certification is out of scope in the commercial arena; recommend removing this scope, or defining a mechanism by which the LTV Delivery Service can be certified independently of the prime contractor.

There are a minimum set of LTV Delivery System related requirements in the SRD that require verification. The Prime contractor is still responsible for the overall scope although with agreement of the Prime Contractor, the subcontractor can provide data directly to NASA. The subcontractor can pass the verification data with the prime contractor’s concurrence. The term certification is being removed from the LTV Delivery System section of the PWS.

52 DRD Section 2.2 The requirement for the prime contractor to review and validate detailed launch and lander data requirements, including at the subsystem/subcomponent level, is incompatible with a commercial delivery service obtained by the LTV provider and raises concerns about the protection of competition-sensitive data.

We strongly recommend enabling an alternative mechanism for NASA to work directly with subcontractors for data verification and validation activities where appropriate, or consider contracting separately for LTV delivery services.

The Prime Contractor is responsible for the end-to-end service which includes delivering the LTV to the lunar surface.

The prime contractor will need to work with the Subcontracted launch/landing providers to determine what information is needed by the Prime Contractor versus what is only needed by NASA. With agreement of the Prime Contractor, the subcontractor can provide data directly to NASA. This direct data delivery would not absolve the LTVS Contractor from any LTVS responsibilities or requirements including the responsibility for overall mission success.

53 DRD Section H.8(i), NASA Insight and Approval

The value of having a resident office at the LTV prime contractor is clear; the value of having a resident office at the LTV Delivery Service contractor is less clear relative to the cost to NASA and the subcontractor.

Furthermore, this is incompatible with a commercial delivery service obtained by the LTV provider. We recommend NASA eliminate this requirement for the LTV Delivery Service contractor. Alternatively, if this requirement is absolutely required, NASA should contract for the delivery service directly, ideally using an existing NASA contract which already contains this scope and well bounded oversight and insight requirements.

NASA has consciously limited nearly all approval authority and DRDs to NASA interfaces such as LTV System design and operations. However, insight into major contributors to mission success such as Delivery System requires NASA insight to understand risks to NASA's investment and is consistent with similar contracts involving both spacecraft and launch vehicle.

54 DRD Section H.8(f), NASA Insight and Approval

Can NASA more clearly define what is meant by the words "contractor-initiated" and "fleet" in H.8 (f)? If a LTV prime contractor partners with a commercially-available launch & landing system, is this clause intended to require that NASA have insight into commercial, non-NASA related contract activities that utilize the same hardware?

NASA Insight into the Contractor's fleet is standard across NASA human spaceflight commercial transportation contracts and other contracts in order to maintain general awareness of emerging issues and independently assess impacts to NASA missions.

55 DRD Section H.8(f), NASA Insight and Approval

The level of change insight requested is incompatible with a commercial delivery service obtained by the LTV provider and is highly duplicative to oversight regimes under existing NASA contracts (HLS, CLPS, NLS2, VADR).

This will limit competition for these services, drive unnecessary cost to the government, and place an undue burden on service providers, including a disproportionately large impact on delivery systems which are the most mature, likely slowing down the rate of LTVS progress. The implications of this are enormous -depending on the definition of "LTV Delivery System Fleet" - it may require providing insight for the LTV program to tens of thousands of individual launch system configuration updates across hundreds of missions for dozens of commercial customers and many NASA missions that already have their own oversight and configuration control requirements independent of the LTV program. We strongly recommend eliminating this insight clause or, if a higher level of insight is desired, consider contracting separately for LTV delivery services.

NASA has consciously limited nearly all approval authority and DRDs to NASA interfaces such as LTV System design and operations. However, insight into major contributors to mission success such as Delivery System requires NASA insight to understand risks to NASA's investment.

56 DRD All The data requirements deliverables associated with the LTV Delivery System throughout J-01 are excessive.

The industry standard for commercial space transportation services is an ICD and a brief contract containing standard terms and conditions with a relatively small number of mission unique services to be provided. The level of data deliverables required is wholly misaligned with provision of commercial delivery services and poses great risk to the subcontractor in terms of protection of competition-sensitive and proprietary data given the state of the government purpose rights clause of the contract. Accordingly, competition for launch and landing will be limited and the cost for these services will be quite high due to the burden of work these DRDs create above and beyond a standard commercial space transportation service. This increased overhead will also have a disproportionately large impact on delivery systems which are the most mature, to the detriment of NASA, potentially slowing down LTVS overall progress.

NASA has consciously limited nearly all approval authority and DRDs to NASA interfaces such as LTV System design and operations. The DRD related to the lander is specifically tailored to provide effectively to NASA data to perform an assessment to understand the risks to the overall mission due to the low technology maturity of landers with this payload capability.

57 DRD DRD No.

LTVMA-010,

Commercializ ation Plan

It was indicated at Industry Day that the Commercialization Approach would be matured during the Feasibility Assessment phase, and NASA stated within the answers to Industry Day questions that “The Expectation is that NASA will have to help the development of the lunar marketplace.” It now appears based on Section L instructions (including DRD LTVMA-010) and Section M evaluation criteria, that a much more mature Commercialization plan is required. Please clarify whether a complete plan as defined within DRD LTVMA-010 is required with the proposal submittal, or is it understood to be an initial plan that will be matured and expanded upon throughout the Feasibility Assessment and Demonstration Mission phases of the contract.

The initial Commercialization Plan is due with the Proposal per LTVMA-010 and L.19.4 and it will be evaluated in accordance with section MA.3 of the RFP. It is understood that the plan will mature over time.

58 DRD NA The DRD document states that the initial Risk Management Plan is due at the time of proposal submittal.

However, this DRD (LTVMA-005) is not called out in the “LTVS Draft Request for Proposal” document as a proposal deliverable. Please either update the DRD file to delete this deliverable as being due with the proposal; or update “LTVS Draft Request for Proposal” to include reference to DRD LTVMA-005 in the table of proposal deliverables; the pertinent section of Volume II where it is to be included; and also specify if the DRD will count toward the 200-pg limit for Volume II or be excluded from it.

LTVMA-005 will be due after contract award. This will be updated in the Final

RFP.

59 DRD NA The DRD document states that initial Risk Reports are due at the time of proposal submittal. However, this DRD (LTVMA-06) is not called out in the “LTVS Draft Request for Proposal” document as a proposal deliverable. Please update the DRD document to reflect this item will not be due at the time of proposal delivery.

LTVMA-006 will be due after contract award. This will be updated in the Final

RFP.

60 DRD LTVDE-001 LTVDE-001 references an “Attachment A” that contractors are to complete. Can NASA provide this attachment ahead of final RFP drop, for planning and reference purposes/to avoid bidder nonconcurrence?

Attachment A for this DRD will be accurately identified in the Final RFP and provided with the release of the Final RFP.

61 DRD LTVDE-001 LTVDE-001 references an “Attachment b” that contractors are to complete. Can NASA provide this attachment ahead of final RFP drop, for planning and reference purposes/to avoid bidder nonconcurrence?

Attachment B for this DRD will be accurately identified in the Final RFP.

Attachment B is not for the contractors to complete, it is the NASA D&C standards list.

62 DRD LTVMA-004 Since the work to be performed is already captured in the NASA-provided Performance Work Statement and the LTV contract is anticipated to be firm, fixed price (FFP), consider deleting the requirement for a work breakdown structure as well, as this deliverable would be redundant to the PWS (and the contractor’s IMS)

NASA will reevaluate the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) DRD requirements to determine if an update is required. Any changes made to the DRD requirements will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP..

63 DRD LTVDE-001 The table listing deliverables that begins on pg. 13 and DRD LTVDE-001 are not in sync. Please update the table listing deliverables to be the same as the cadence for deliverables captured in LTVDE-001.

The Final RFP will be updated such that the DRD table and DRD LTVDE-001 are consistent regarding the frequency of the DRD delivery.

64 DRD LTVOP-102 For the purposes of setting up thorough cost estimates, can NASA provide clarification on whether use and cost of facilities for crew training hardware and equipment will come from NASA? As a specific example, DRD LTVOP-102, Integrated Operations Training, states that: “For the Training Systems and mockups located at JSC, NASA will provide the floor space basic services facility integration.” (pg. 2 of 3). But what does this provision entail?

This will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP. NASA will provide a more detailed listing of the available services.

Any NASA services required by LTVS Contractors for crew training beyond the items listed in the Final RFP will require a GTA.

65 DRD LTVSA-001 The system safety DRD has to take into account xEVAS hazards. If the suit design/development is behind schedule, is there a path forward for LTV hazard analysis to move forward without specific suit information.

More broadly speaking, can NASA lay out the path for progress on LTV design that doesn't hinge on xEVAS progress as well?

NASA is responsible for the integrated hazards between the suit and LTV.

Contractors are only responsible for the LTV hazards.

66 DRD LTVMA-010

Paragraph

15.3 1

States - The LTV commercialization plan shall include LTV Market Opportunities including a full itemized listing of opportunities. Not just groups or summaries.

Comment - Two issues 1) revealing details of commercial partners and opportunities makes us uncomfortable that the information will not be properly protected. 2) It is very early in the process to be expecting many specific commitments.

NASA will limit the distribution of the commercialization plan to reduce its distribution. It is understood that the Commercialization plan will mature over time. An "Initial" commercialization plan is required with the initial proposal. This will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

67 DRD LTVMA-010

Paragraph

15.5 a

We do not believe a commercialization plan should include a requirement for pricing. At this stage, it would be considered competition sensitive information that should be protected like a proposal, not like a contractual DRD which offers Contractors less protection. We recommend that any pricing tied to a commercialization plan be provided in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information. Additionally, similar to commercial acquisitions (FAR Part 12), we recommend that any pricing tied to a commercialization plan be at the pricing level without needing BOEs or detailed pricing information.

NASA is updating the Final RFP to move LTVMA-010 Paragraph 15.5 into Section L (Pricing Volume Section). This will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP.

68 DRD NA "3-Feb" in the table starting on pg. 13 appears to be a typographical error. Please correct or clarify its meaning.

This error will be corrected as an update to the Final RFP. The statement should have read "2/3".

69 DRD LTVDE-001,

LTVMA-009

DRDs LTVDE-001 and LTVMA-009 reference an Attachment A to be completed with submission. This document is not included in the solicitation files. Can NASA provide Attachment A to Offerors?

Attachment A to this DRD will be accurately identified in the Final RFP.

Attachment A is the wrong reference for LTVMA-009. The correct reference will be updated in the Final RFP and any reference documents will be provided at that time.

70 DRD LTVDE-001 LTVDE-001 references an Attachment B that is included with this DRD. This document is not included in the solicitation files. Can NASA provide Attachment B to offerors?

Attachment B to this DRD will be accurately identified in the Final RFP.

Attachment B is not for the contractors to complete, it is the NASA D&C standards list. This will be provided with the Final RFP.

71 DRD LTVMA-101 DRD LTVMA-101, Rules of Operation, references DRD LTVDE-101 (it is also referenced in LTVDE-102, LTVDE- 103, LTVLV-001, LTVMA-101). However, DRD LTVDE-101 is not in the DRD package that was released with the DRFP. Should DRD LTVDE-101 be included in the RFP, or are the references to it in error?

The correct reference is LTVDE-002. All references to LTVDE-001 will be corrected to LTVDE-002 in the Final RFP.

72 DRFP

Section A

A NASA requested feedback specifically with respect to the Schedule B pricing structure. Required pricing for the 13-year ordering period is challenging given the lack of maturity of the LTV and how it will be used specifically by NASA. Recommend firm pricing for SubCLIN 2A with ROMs for all other SubCLINs until which point enough information is available to provide firm pricing. The requirement for 15 years of firm pricing will drive additional risk to be priced based on the unknowns, driving an increase to the total cost which otherwise may be avoided.

NASA does not intend to update the (Not-to-Exceed) NTE rates at any time during the contracts period of performance. Each awarded offeror will have an opportunity to propose prices at or lower than their contracted NTE amounts on task orders. Each offeror should make their own risk assessment and price accordingly.

76 DRFP

Section A

All Given the complexity of the RFP, we recommend NASA hold a second industry day to allow for Contractor's to see NASA's proposed updates and provide additional feedback prior to Final RFP release. This allows for continued industry collaboration without impacting NASA's procurement or execution schedules.

NASA has decided not to hold a second industry day prior to the Final RFP.

However, industry can comment and submit questions on the Final RFP.

77 DRFP

Section A

Section 2.2.2, NASA Insight and Approval

The level of insight required into detailed launch and lander data, including at the subsystem/subcomponent level, is incompatible with a commercial delivery service obtained by the LTV provider and is duplicative to oversight regimes under existing NASA contracts (HLS, CLPS, NLS2, VADR). This will hinder a commercial services model for delivery services and significantly drive cost, and will have a disproportionately large impact on delivery systems which are the most mature, to the detriment of NASA. Further, this would require a launch and landing service provider's highly competition sensitive competition design data to be passed through an LTV prime contractor in the likely instances where the LTV prime contractor subcontracts for these services. We strongly recommend NASA limiting this insight clause to the information absolutely necessary (e.g., ICD), and establish a contractual construct for an insight relationship directly with launch and landing provider that does not involve the prime contractor where such contractor is different from a delivery service provider. Ideally, the programmatic approach should leverage insight NASA already gains through existing contracts (HLS, NL2, GLS, etc.). If a higher level of insight is desired, consider contracting separately for LTV delivery services, perhaps using these existing contracts which already contain sufficient scope for LTV delivery services.

NASA has consciously limited nearly all approval authority and DRDs to NASA interfaces such as LTV System design and operations. However, Insight into major contributors to mission success such as Delivery System requires NASA Insight to understand risks to NASA's investment under the LTVS contract and is consistent with similar contracts involving both spacecraft and launch vehicle, such as NASA's commercial cargo and crew delivery services contracts. If NASA Delivery System insight/DRD requirements on LTVS are beyond those needed by the Prime Contractor to meet their overall contract performance responsibilities that data may be passed directly to NASA upon agreement with the Prime.

This direct data delivery would not absolve the prime from their overall mission success responsibilities of the entire contract scope.

83 DRFP

Section A

A NASA requested feedback on liability, insurance, waiver, and indemnification clauses. We recommend these concepts be subject to a specific discussion as part of a second industry day. This would help provide clarity regarding each of the cross-waivers and help industry provide appropriate feedback. If cross-waivers do not apply for commercial customers, industry will need to flow the risk to commercial customers for any activities performed on the lunar surface. To not provide a waiver of liability for lunar service activities would reduce commercial customers willingness to enter the market.

The cross waivers will apply and extend to any "Related Entity", which includes commercial customers. Please refer to H.27(a)(4)(ii), H.28(b)(12)(ii), and H.29(b)(11)(ii).

84 DRFP

Section A

A NASA requested feedback on deviated clause I.9, Rights in Data – General. We recommend a significant update with respect to data rights in the RFP. The variation of data in special works and remotely sensed data could significantly limit the Contractor's ability to commercialize data produced with a Contractor owned vehicle. We are recommending removal of these clauses for that reason. At a minimum, NASA's rights should be limited to only data which is delivered for the specific service that NASA actually funds. The deviated clause I.9, Rights in Data does not appear to limit the Government's rights materially for delivered data. If NASA has a specific use case for the Contractor's delivered data, especially if related to the vehicle itself, Limited Rights or a specifically negotiated license may be a better alternative given the services nature of the contract as well as the amount of Contractor/Non-NASA funding which is expected to be required.

Data developed at private expense and data not related to the performance of work under this contract may be delivered with Limited Rights if delivery is required. Data "developed with mixed funding in the performance of this contract" will be delivered with Government Purpose Rights rather than with unlimited rights to the Government.

86 DRFP

Section A

A NASA requested feedback on Guaranteed minimum. We agree with the phased methodology to the guaranteed minimum, however, we recommend that the minimum be set to 5 standard missions.

This issue will be addressed as an update to the Final RFP that raises the guaranteed minimum to three (3) standard missions.

87 DRFP

Section A

A NASA requested feedback on Certified cost and pricing data. The inclusion of the CCPoD requirement drives additional time and cost into the proposal preparation processes. Given the commercial model being employed for this contract, recommend removal of this requirement.

This contract will be awarded using FAR Part 15 procedures. Certified cost or pricing data would only apply if there was no exception in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Competitive procurements typically do not require CCPoD. NASA is not requiring CCPoD with initial proposals. However, a determination will be made whether an exemption applies after proposals are received.

88 DRFP

Section A

A NASA requested feedback on Small Business subcontracting goals. We do not recommend increasing the small business subcontracting goals for SubCLIN 1A and again for SubCLIN 1B. Increasing the use of small business subcontracting should be based on value and credibility of the small business(es) to contribute to the overall solution in a cost effective and reliable way. This limits cost and risk to NASA.

NASA strives to promote Small Businesses in the commercial space industry. Therefore, NASA does not anticipate revising our strategy towards the Small Business Goals for this contract.

90 DRFP

Section A

A Given the services approach to LTVS, industry is significantly incentivized to develop LTV solutions that meet high internal standards that will lead to a safe and reliable solution. We recommend that the NASA D&CS standards should be made as reference and a helpful resource for industry; but not prescribed as a required solution the needs to go through the lengthy standards adjudication process. Specific interfaces intended for interoperability with other Artemis elements should be specified in the SRD.

NASA intends to levy D&C standards as requirements, with an option for the Contractor to tailor to corporate standards per standards adjudication process described in Section C 2.3.3.3.

92 DRFP

Section A

Global/NA On the subject of data rights and in an effort to help ensure bidders' ongoing commercial viability, we recommend NASA consider taking the same approach as it has on HLS (rather than making Government Purpose Rights the baseline). This different approach would mean providing broad strokes guidelines to bidders along the lines of: "The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how it will offer data rights in TD/CS/CSD for all hardware, software, and interfaces that will be developed under the LTV contract and otherwise incorporated into the final LTV. It is the Government’s desire that all HLS TD/CS/CSD be delivered with Government Purpose Rights (GPR) as defined in contract clause FAR 52.227-14 (Deviated) or better. If the Offeror proposes to deliver commercial TD/CS/CSD, it is the Government’s desire to obtain a license to the commercial TD/CS/CSD that would grant the Government the equivalent of GPR."If the Offeror provides assertions pertaining to delivery of any TD/CS/CSD with less than GPR in its Assertion Notice, the Offeror shall furnish a written explanation with its proposal separate from and in addition to the Assertion Notice for any restriction asserted by the Contractor or its subcontractors on the right of the United States or others to use that TD/CS/CSD and the detailed basis for that right. ..."

NASA's approach to data rights under this solicitation is comparable to the approach under the xEVAS contract. A comprehensive approach to the delivery of technical data, computer software, and computer software documentation is described as part of an evaluation factor in MA.1 as well as DRD LTVMA- 011.

93 DRFP

Section A

Global/NA Where are the instructions and evaluation criteria for the task order proposal to be included with the IDIQ proposal? Is the expectation for the task order to simply review the task order then formulate pricing for submittal to NASA as part of the completed LTV model contract? If not, what is the expectation for the task order proposal?

The feasibility study will be evaluated as part of the total evaluated price. If an offeror receives a contract award, the feasibility study will be awarded as a task order around the same time as contract award. This process will be updated in section M in the Final RFP.

94 DRFP

Section A

A Will the government consider more time (e.g., 45 or 60 days) before the proposal due date from RFP release date instead of the stated 30 days?

The Final RFP will include a 45-day period from the Final RFP release date to the proposal submittal due date.

96 DRFP

Section A

Industry Feedback

The industry has seen contracts with similar CLIN structures (fully burdened rates for fixed price task orders).

However, due to the fixed price nature of the CLIN, the requirements and scope of work need to be clearly defined to the level of detail expected in a fixed price pursuit. If NASA does not foresee these CLINs having exactly defined requirements, the fixed price structure would only work for contracts that do not require certified pricing so that the Contractor can incorporate the appropriate amount of risk in the pricing.

Otherwise, the CLIN would have to be cost reimbursable.

This contract will be awarded using FAR Part 15 procedures. Certified cost or pricing data would only apply if there was no exception in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Competitive procurements typically do not require CCPoD. NASA is not requiring CCPoD with initial proposals. However, a determination will be made whether an exemption applies after proposals are received.

97 DRFP

Section A

Industry Feedback

Certified cost or pricing data limits the Contractor’s ability to be flexible during contract performance.

Certified pricing requires more in-depth proposals with significantly more defined performance requirements.

Task orders and changes would take significantly more time to definitize thus slowing schedule and increasing costs.

Additionally, Section I.15(c) calls for Contractor’s to submit task order proposals NLT 14 days after receipt of the RFTOP. If certified pricing was required, this turnaround would be virtually impossible. Certified proposals typically take 2-3 months depending on the value and complexity of the effort.

Please note a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is not required as part of the initial contract award, provided that more than one proposal is received.

If a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is required for a task order, this certificate would not be required with the initial task order proposal and would not be subject to the 14-day timeframe.

This certificate would be submitted once NASA and the contractor finalized the negotiation of the task order.

98 DRFP

Section A

Industry Feedback

We would recommend not including the requirement for increasing small business goals for subsequent Task Orders as it would place undue burden on the Contractors to obtain small business support where not practical, particularly considering the goals as outlined in the RFP are already challenging. Additional small business suppliers/subcontractors will need to be onboarded and approved to support subsequent missions and/or the existing small business suppliers will need to take on additional scope, which could grow them to the point that they will no longer be considered small for follow-on procurements.

We would also recommend removing the small business deviation on page 4: “NASA is also seeking approval to include a deviation from the requirement at FAR 19.702(a)(1)(i) to allow Subcontracting Plan(s) to be updated in six-month intervals instead of with each modification exceeding $750K.”

We recommend establishing goals at the ceiling value and/or update the goals (dollars/%) with each TO award. The 6 month reporting requirement would likely increase Contractor pricing; performing the exercise with each TO award instead would be more cost efficient.

NASA strives to promote Small Businesses in the commercial space industry. Therefore, NASA does not anticipate revising our strategy towards the Small Business Goals for this contract.

99 DRFP

Section B

B.3 (d) Fully burdened wrap rates through 2036 not subject to any upwards adjustment adds significant risk due to inflation rate and other factors outside of contractors control affecting future estimates. The ordering period may lead to excessive NTE rates considering the POP length. Recommend adding an opportunity to update contractual rates every 3 years.

NASA does not intend to update the Not-to-Exceed (NTE) rates at any time during the contracts period of performance. Each offeror should make their own risk assessment and price accordingly.

100 DRFP

Section B

B.5 Please clarify how the expected discount is used in ordering for requests beyond 1,000 hours or between levels in Table B.5.1. Please also clarify the rationale for discounting the IDIQ rates when the work scope is non -recurring analysis, special studies, tests, etc.

The Final RFP will be updated to provide clarification to reflect the exact quantity ranges the discounts apply to.

101 DRFP

Section B

B.6 Please provide additional detail regarding typical skill codes that are expected to be classified as technical or administrative. Do touch manufacturing, manufacturing support, and quality all fall under technical? Is project management considered administrative?

NASA utilizes the Department of Labor's Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations definitions for "technical" and "administrative".

102 DRFP

Section B

B.4 Given that the LTVS is a development contract, there are many risks that are beyond the control of the offeror. The initial length of the ordering period coupled with the immaturity of the system results in an imbalance in the risk ratio between industry and NASA.