xEVAS Pre-Solicitation Conference Questions and Responses.pdf

Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS)

Question and Answer Log No. 2

08/12/2021

1. Q: Does the IDIQ ceiling of $3.1B apply to each individual awardee, or in total for the sum of all awardees?

A. In the case that multiple contracts are awarded, the not to exceed (NTE) value is the sum of all contract awards.

2. Q: When pricing the Artemis demo CLIN, is it a correct assumption that the ISS demo CLIN task order would already have been awarded and funded? Or do the two demonstration CLINs need to be priced completely independently from each other?

A. The Demonstration SubCLINs (1A & 2A) are intended to be dependent on each other, forming a total xEVAS Demonstration price. The Extensibility Plan should provide further details associated with an Offeror’s approach, specifically the preferred starting point (ISS and/or Artemis), any interdependencies, and how/when requirements will be met by this approach. The Offeror should clearly denote any constraints associated with their proposed solution, including timing between the start/finish/overlap of either CLIN, and any assumptions associated with timing for the award of subsequent mission services (ISS and/or Artemis).

Anticipated changes that will be made in the Final RFP TA.3 (Sections L & M) Extensibility Plan are in bold red text below.

L.18.4.1.TA.3 Extensibility Plan (Contract Attachment J-07)

Offeror shall provide the proposed approach to incrementally develop and demonstrate their xEVAS System architecture solution across both the ISS & Artemis CLINs (CLIN1 & CLIN2). Specifically the Offeror shall describe their desired starting point (ISS or Artemis), where development efforts will run in parallel, and the specific timeline for testing, qualification, and demonstration to enable extensibility of their design from this initial starting approach (ISS or Artemis) to the final design solution with relevant extensibility across both ISS and Artemis. The Offeror shall describe any proposed constraints associated with the timing and/or maximum gaps between the start/stop of either CLIN, associated with their solution. The Offeror shall describe configuration changes that are required along with an assessment of the risk associated with their extensibility between these two configurations during design, qualification, testing, and operations, including integrated schedule for supporting training and operations of multiple systems at the same time, and/or multiple xEVA System operations simultaneously, following certification of the proposed capability across both ISS and Artemis. The Offeror shall discuss their approach and feasibility to adapt both their ISS microgravity and Artemis partial gravity space suits to meet future requirements to perform microgravity EVAs at the Gateway. Further, Offerors shall describe how their solutions minimize risk for: schedule and technical design, and interface changes for crew use, operations training, and host vehicle hardware.

The Extensibility Plan shall be submitted in the Mission Suitability proposal (Volume II) and incorporated into the Model Contract (Volume V) as Attachment J-07, xEVAS Extensibility Plan.

M.3.1.TA.3 Extensibility Plan

The Offeror’s proposed Extensibility Plan to meet both ISS & Artemis requirements will be evaluted.

Solutions maximizing extensibility between both the ISS and Artemis requirements may be rated more favorably if it is determined to be advantageous to the Government.

Proposed solutions that minimize constraints to the Government’s flexibility in awarding task orders based on established Schedule B CLIN1A and CLIN2A prices may receive a more favorable evaluation if it is determined to be advantageous to the Government.

3. Q: Today's slides mentioned contract award of March 5th, but the draft RFP says May 5th. Can you confirm the correct date?

A. The xEVAS Pre-Solicitation Conference slides mention contract award March 5, 2022, which assumes the Government awards the contract(s) based on initial offers. The May 5, 2022 date assumes award after the Government establishes a competitive range with discussions. These are anticipated dates and subject to change.

4. Q: How are SubCLIN 1B, Reduced Capability and SubCLIN 1B, Full capability differentiated / defined? Different line items are identified in price table but did not see any clarification of this in the PWS.

A. The PWS and Attachment L-05 in the draft RFP describe the minimum key service capabilities.

The Offerors are required to fill in their proposed capability (to meet or exceed the minimum) via a submission of the Key Service Capabilities, per the L-05 attachment, which will become the J-25 attachment at contract award. The CLIN 1B “Reduced Capability” and the CLIN 2B “Increased Capability” have been updated in Attachment L-05, now reflecting how they relate to the minimum requirement, and the corresponding “Full Capability” for CLIN 1B & CLIN 2B respectfully. The CLIN 1B “Reduced Capability” now specifies a minimum of half the capability relative to the values in the “Number (minimum)” column (though Offerors can propose higher).

The CLIN 2B “Increased Capability” now specifies a minimum of double the capability relative to the values in the “Number (minimum)” column (though Offerors can propose higher).

Anticipated changes to Attachment L-05 in bold red text below.

7. Q: What is the specified max range (in km and hours if possible) from base for the suit?

A. The draft System Requirements Document (Attachment J-02) specifies a one-hour requirement for contingency return (RQMT-040 and RQMT-041) in response to human or hardware emergencies, citing that it can take crew up to 1 hour to traverse up to 2km to return to the HLS Airlock and repress. In addition, the draft SRD specifies a 2km minimum communication range for the xEVA System in all terrain types for exploration destinations (RQMT-071). Per EVA-EXP- 0042, Exploration EVA System Concept of Operations, traverse distance from the lander during early Artemis campaigns is ~1.5 km. As Program/mission assets allow for longer traverse distances through increased capabilities, such as an unpressurized rover, there is the potential for increased distances from the lander that still meet the 1 hour contingency return requirement.

8. Q: The Total Evaluated Price is calculated by summing CLIN rows, however it does not appear to consider adjustments made by offerors for number of EVAs / crew members and min order numbers. How can the Government mitigate this potential difficulty to compare vendor pricing during the evaluation?

A. Offeror price proposals will be evaluated based upon the minimum required capabilities (not any proposed capabilities that exceed the minimum). Any potential exceedances to the minimum will be evaluated in the Mission Suitability proposal (reference TA.1, xEVA System Architecture), in order to assure no price advantage is given to solutions that may exceed the required minimum key service capabilities.

9. Q: Is it NASA’s intent that the page-limited elements of the Mission Suitability Volume (TA.1-TA.6 and MA.1-MA.3) represent the entire contents of their respective Section J attachments to the Model contract, or do proposal responses TA.1-TA.6 and MA.1-MA.3 describe highlights of the Section J attachments which are then incorporated into the full plans specified by the relevant DRDs governing those Section J attachments? As an example, should the response to TA.2 include the full MIOMP, the full IMS, the full Integrated Operations Training Plan and the full Human Error Analysis Plan as included in Attachment J-10, or does the response to TA.2 describe the Proposer’s approach to developing those plans?

A: NASA understands that the Offerors may not have a complete solution for each of the DRD submissions given that the design decision are still to be made. Offerors shall provide details in their proposals that are sufficient for the Government to evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding, reasonability and feasibility of each proposed Technical or Management Approach.

The Volume II proposal responses shall be captured, in full, in the Volume V submission within their corresponding Section J Attachments, such that there is no difference between the submissions in the Volume II proposal and the applicable J attachment submitted in Volume V.

Per the applicable DRD, DR revisions that provide additional details will be required during the period of performance of the xEVAS contract, with the Government retaining approval authority regarding any future changes in approach in order to assure full contract compliance associated with what was submitted with the xEVAS proposal.