xEVAS Responses to Industry DRFP Questions.pdf

Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS)

Question and Answer Log No. 3

September 29, 2021

Within this document are the Government’s official responses to the questions submitted in response to the xEVAS Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP). In addition to questions, many respondents provided their responses to the Government’s questions that were in the Cover Letter to the DRFP. The Government has considered all these responses in drafting the Final RFP.

Generic Questions

1. Reference: DRFP & Cover Letter

Question: We are not clear if the initial award will include an actual task order for CLIN 1A and/or CLIN 2A, or will it then have to be competed as a task order with an additional proposal? Can NASA please provide clarifying information in the RFP? We do recommend that NASA turn on the initial orders for the Demonstration phases (CLINS 1A and 2A) with initial award as a means to accelerate schedule. This enables industry to show up early and be ready to go on the first day after win.

Answer: NASA is not planning to award an initial task order with the award of the contract.

The IDIQ nature of the contract and the pricing structure are meant to provide NASA the flexibility to place orders based upon Government needs. Assuming adequate budget, NASA intends to issue a streamlined request for task order proposal shortly after contract award. Samples of request for task order proposals will be provided in the procurement library as a reference.

2. Reference: DRFP

Question: Our understanding is that this FFP IDIQ contract award will not include a Task Order for SubCLIN 1A or SubCLIN 2A pending availability of funding. What is the anticipated period for SubCLIN 1A or SubCLIN 2A to receive an ATP and will there be billable contract actions ongoing during the wait period?

Answer: See Answer to Question 1. If there is a delay in the issuance of the task order for either SubCLIN 1A or SubCLIN 2A, the Government may issue special studies task orders under CLIN 4.

3. Reference: DRFP & Cover Letter

Question: Cover Letter page 5 states the proposal is due on or around 30 days after final RFP release. Provision M.3(b) states the contractor must submit GTAs by 15 days after final RFP release, and that the JSC Partnership Office will return the GTAs to the contractor 7 days prior to the proposal due date. Respectfully request the proposal due date be 60 days after release of the final RFP. A 60-day response time combined with GTAs due 15 days after final RFP release and GTAs due back to offerors 18 days prior to proposal due date (to allow sufficient time to fully incorporate the GTAs) would allow the JSC Partnership Office 17 days to process all GTAs to offerors.

Answer: NASA has updated the RFP to extend the proposal due date to accommodate an approximately 60-day proposal due date. The GTA due date is the date by which GTAs must be submitted to guarantee a NASA response. Potential Offerors are highly encouraged to begin engagement with the GTA Center points of contact as soon as possible.

4. Reference: DRFP & Cover Letter

Question: We recommend NASA require the presentation of a working prototype for testing within 90 days of award. This requirement will further emphasize the importance of and commitment to schedule.

Answer: Provision L.18.4.1, paragraph (d) requires Offerors to "describe the heritage of space and commercial components currently used in analog environment systems". NASA intends to include capability assessments as part of the PDR and CDR milestones. The Offerors may propose interim milestones for additional demonstrations. The timing of these assessments and demonstrations should be included as part of the Offeror’s Work Plans per Provision L.18.4.2.MA.3 Work Plans. Work Plans will be evaluated per Provision M.3.2.MA.3 Work Plans.

5. Reference: DRFP & Cover Letter

Question: The Draft RFP references only SSP 50833 as the requirements document for integration with transportation vehicles as cargo. Cargo integration with transport vehicles for soft and hard mounted cargo utilizes multiple documents including SSP 57000 and vehicle specific pressurized cargo requirements documents. Consider adding these other documents for completeness.

Answer: NASA has updated Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.3.2 to cite the specific documents for ISS cargo integration.

6. Reference: DRFP

Question: Our understanding is that existing ISS tools and Servicing, Performance, and Checkout Equipment (SPCE) will remain under NASA control, but at some point, sustaining and mission support would be transferred to an xEVAS service provider and that any new ‘mission unique’ tools would likely be awarded to an xEVAS service provider. What is the planned "trigger point", or milestone that will enable the transfer of responsibility to the xEVAS provider?

Answer: The sustaining engineering and mission support of existing ISS EVA tools, crew aids and SPCE is not considered at this time for the current xEVAS Solicitation. The Government has not made any decisions at this time with respect to future procurement strategies for these services.

7. Reference: DRFP

Question: Our understanding is that NASA could award a contractor xEVAS ISS CLIN 1A, B, & 1C award and/or a separate Artemis CLIN 2A, 2B & 2 C award. In this case, will NASA require the selected EVA system hardware developed under the xEVAS contract to be used for all NASA Astronaut missions? (example: if a Commercial Space Station or Lunar Transportation Company develops its own EVA capability, would NASA astronauts use those suits or the xEVAS provided hardware?)

Answer: NASA intends to use the xEVAS contract for all NASA human exploration needs; however, this is not a requirements contract and the “contract guaranteed minimum amount” in clause B.2 represents NASA’s guaranteed commitment to this contract.

8. Reference: DRFP

Question: Can NASA provide clarification on the hardware quantity outlined in tables 3.2- 1 row 1 and 3.3-1 row 1 which state supporting "hardware for 4 crew members with 2 prime and 2 backup" vs "hardware for 10 unique crewmembers not designated for EVA in previous two ISS missions". Is NASA requiring 10 entire suits including PLSS, DCU, etc.

or does this imply suit sizing logistics to fit 10 unique crew members and a minimum number of PLSS units?

Answer: NASA is not specifying the number of suits. NASA is specifying the capability the contractor is required to meet with their proposed solution. For offerors cognizance, the key services capabilities table previously an Attachment L-05 is now Attachment J-25, Key Service Capabilities, and has been updated.

9. Reference: DRFP

Question: Within various sections of the DRFP, NASA uses wording such as "includes but not limited to," "but not limited to," and "but is/are not limited to." In order to provide clarity, can these kinds of phrases be restated to clearly define NASA's requirements?

Answer: NASA has reviewed the Final RFP and made updates where appropriate.

Section B

10. Reference: Clause B.2

Question: Given the multi-CLIN and sub-CLIN structure - what limitations (if any) are there on minimums to be asserted on the respective CLINs? Is it correct to understand the only contract minimum is in dollar value?

Answer: The contract minimum is expressed in dollars only. The minimum applies to the total contract value. There are no restrictions at the CLIN and sub-CLIN levels. The instructions provided in Provision L.18.3 establish the basis for the minimum to be expressed in dollars.

11. Reference: Clause B.3 (d)

Question: The Table of Contents lists attachment J-24 as being an Organizational Conflict of Interest. Throughout the other parts of the DRFP, Attachment J-24 refers to Key Service Capabilities. The template is provided as Attachment L-06 starting on page 278 of the DRFP. The Attachment J-24 that bidders must provide with their submission is identified on page 228. Please clarify if J-24 references the Organizational Conflict of Interest. Please revise the DRFP to change the references from Attachment J-24 Key Service Capabilities to Attachment L-05 Key Services throughout the document.

Answer: References to J-24 and J-25 have been corrected. Attachment J-24 is the OCI Avoidance/Mitigation Plan. Attachment J-25 is the Key Service Capabilities.

12. Reference: Clauses B.4 & B.5; Tables B.4.2, B.4.3, B.5.2, & B.5.3

Question: Clauses B.4 and B.5 stipulate ceiling rates provided in the applicable tables be used for the full suite of missions services ordered within a specific ordering period.

Missions will likely span multiple calendar years with associated escalation costs.

For example, if NASA orders a series of missions in January 2023 and December 2024 with durations that exceed 12 months, there will be a different cost basis for each of these orders. How are bidders to provide fixed prices when the EVA mission start periods may be in different periods?

In addition, as currently written, the language in Section B and the form of contract does not limit the ordering period. It is possible for services to be ordered in 2023 yet delivered in 2030. Considering this construct, how are bidders to provide fixed prices when the potential delivery periods are not defined.

Answer: Section B (with the exception of Clause B.8) has been updated to clarify that the prices reflects the year ordered for services that comply with period of performance durations as defined in J-08, Work Plans. For example, any work turned on in CY 2022 would have to be performed within the schedule established in the associated Work Plan.

13. Reference: Clauses B.4 through B.8

Question: The long-time ordering horizon of this contract and the associated uncertainty of when orders will be made is a huge uncertainty driver. The current issue is severe enough to be to the detriment to affordability or competition/participation. It is simply not practical to ask a company to provide firm, fixed pricing for a major development effort (or multiple efforts) that could be ordered any time in the next several years and extend for a decade.

Even fundamental technological approaches could be different for a development effort that is to begin immediately versus one that is to begin in several years. Offeror strongly suggests NASA bound the time commitment much more tightly, and perhaps allow for on-ramps/off-ramps, options, and/or extensions in order to provide the flexibility to NASA needed over the next decade and to result in the best outcome for the Government.

Answer: Section B pricing tables and instructions in Provision L.18.3 have been updated to include a reduced ordering period for ISS Demonstration (SubCLIN 1A) and Artemis Demonstration (SubCLIN 2A). If these requirements are ever needed in the out-year dates, they may be added either via on-ramp or via the negotiation of a task order proposal using the Clause B.8 fully-burdened rates.

14. Reference: Clause B.5.1

Question: There are two tables numbered B.4.1 ISS EVA Demonstration (SUBCLIN 1A) and ARTEMIS EVA Demonstration (SUBCLIN 2A) respectively. The second instance of table B.4.1 on page 12 appears as if it should be Table B.5.1. Please clarify.

Answer: The first table in Clause B.5 has been corrected to B.5.1 for the final RFP.

15. Reference: Clause B.7

Question: Since contract tasks may be executed for two additional years [ie, period of performance is 12 years], respectfully request NASA consider requesting fully burdened rates for these additional two years.

Answer: Table B.8.1 has been updated to add proposal fill-ins for calendar years 2033 and 2034.

16. Reference: Clause B.7

Question: Clause B.7 stipulate ceiling rates provided in the applicable table be used for the additional IDIQ services that do not have established prices in the preceding clauses.

For these services, the Government will define the overall requirements. For example, if a task order is issued in the last month of contract year 3 with a period of performance of 12 months, will the rates for the task order be based on the contract year 3 rates or a combination blending of the rates between the two years? In cases where the task order is longer than 12 months. How will the prices for the task orders be developed during execution if the rates in Table B.8.1 are ceilings that are not be exceeded?

Answer: Unlike the mission prices, the fully-burdened rates in Clause B.8 are not meant to be established on the year ordered. The rates will be used in task order proposals. The Contractor’s proposal may not exceed these ceiling rates and those rates will be applied by the Contractor, in a Task Order proposal, based on the calendar year the work is proposed to be performed.

17. Reference: Clause B.8

Question: To assist industry with calculating the fully burdened composite labor rates, can NASA please clarify which standard labor categories do they want included in for Technical and which SLCs NASA wants included Administrative category?

Answer: Note, the RFP has been updated to change the composite, fully burdened labor rates in Table 8-1. Offerors must map their own standard labor categories to the percentage split between technical and administrative functions for each composite rate provided in the tables.

Section C: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

18. Reference: Clause C.1.4, Table 1.4-1

Question: The table on page 21 does not match the corresponding paragraph numbers/section descriptions shown on pages 22-52 of the PWS. Please correct.

Answer: These are corrected.

19. Reference: Clause C.2.2

Question: In item (7) of areas requiring Government approval, is NASA referring to xEVA hardware provided by the contractor to fulfill NASA's xEVA service requirements as "NASA xEVA System"? Can NASA define the term "NASA xEVA System" for the purpose of this clause?

Answer: NASA approval is required when the contractor proposes to use their xEVA system (specific hardware and components, not the general usage of the technology) provided to NASA under xEVAS for use on non-NASA missions and with non-NASA crew. Item (7) has been updated to state “non-NASA (i.e. private/commercial missions) use of an xEVA System provided under the xEVAS contract to support NASA missions.”

20. Reference: Clause C.2.2

Question: With regard to the following statement: "The Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating with NASA for approval of all commercial activities to be conducted within NASA programs," please provide clarity on whether NASA is requiring approval authority for activities outside of the xEVAS contract performance but involving the technologies developed to meet xEVAS requirements.

Answer: See answer to Question #19.

21. Reference: Clause C.2.3

Question: The RFP text states that NASA is responsible for manifesting while Contractor is responsible for integration. How will integration impacts on other contractors / systems be assessed? Given impacts on CRS vehicles to accommodate the SEMU will these costs be responsibility of the contractor? If xEVAS impacts existing HLS vehicle design will these costs be the responsibility of the contractor?

Answer: The Offeror is required to meet the interface requirements as specified in the Attachment J-02, System Requirements Document (SRD). If the Offeror does not meet the interface requirements and proposes a change to the interface requirements, the Offeror is required to request those interface changes via Government Task Agreement (GTA) and SRD variance, which includes Government programmatic approval. The costs to the Government associated with the Offeror not meeting the interface requirements would be the responsibility of the successful Offeror.

22. Reference: Clause C.2.4.1

Question: It appears that there is an expectation for “formal system safety (i.e., Hazard Analysis (HA) based) residual safety risk” to be managed/accepted via the risk management system. Is this true (which would be a departure from previous Agency process)? Or is the information contained within the HA meant to be used by and supportive of the more informal/"living” risk management process (which would be in line with previous Agency process)?

Question: Residual safety risk identified by hazard analysis will be managed/accepted via the standard safety processes managed by SSP 30599 and the various equivalent documents for the Artemis programs.

23. Reference: Clause C.3.2, Table 3.2-1

Question: Page 290 indicates that NASA will evaluate offerors submissions of Attachment L-06 Key Service Capabilities. The Attachment L-06 provided with the DRFP is the Government Task Order Agreement Form. Attachment L-05 starting on page 278 contains the Key Service Capabilities Table that the bidders are required to complete and submit.

Page 278 indicates that this Attachment L-05 must be submitted with the Mission Suitability (Volume II). Please correct the reference on page 290 to indicate that this is Attachment L-05.

Answer: The Key Services Capabilities table has now been updated with various corrections to structure and to be resolved (TBRs). The table is now included as Attachment J-25. Attachment L-05 has been deleted.

24. Reference: Clause C.3.2, Table 3.2-1; Clause C.3.3, Table 3.3-1; Clause C.4.2

Question: Key Services Capabilities Tables- column 2 is labeled Number (minimum).

However multiple rows provide a range of values. How should this range be interpreted?

Is the range the expected NASA need and the minimum capability for each contractor the minimum of the range and the maximum the amount that NASA needs? Is the maximum the maximum needed from each contractor?

Answer: See Answer to Question 23.

25. Reference: Clause C.3.3, Table 3.3-1

Question: Some rows of the key capability are provided on a "per mission" basis. EVAs per year was provided but how many EVAs usually fit per mission?

26. Reference: Clause C.3.3.2

Question: The contractor is required to lead, with NASA as an approving co-chair, a Certification Baseline Review (CBR) after SRR. There is no timeframe or milestone provided for the SRR. We respectfully request that NASA provide clarification on the timing of the SRR and associated milestone.

Answer: The reference to SRR has been deleted.

27. Reference: Clause C.3.4.4

Question: On page 61 there is an Additional EVA hardware training reference that points to PWS 3.4.4. On page 261 the EVA hardware references points to PWS 3.3.7.2. Request the Government confirm which reference is correct.

Answer: Clause C.3.4.4 is the correct reference. Page 261 has been updated to correct this error.

28. Reference: Clause C.4.2.7

Question: Clause C.4.2.7 states “The demonstration EVA(s) will complete the flight test objectives as specified in DRDxEVAS-PM04, Demonstration Milestone Review Plan. The demonstration(s) shall be a complete mission set of EVAs and associated activities as part of an integrated Artemis mission." These sound like the demo is on the Lunar Surface or Gateway. The DRD for CLIN 1A and 2A (PM-04, page 107) shows an Analog Demo (Milestone 5) and an Artemis Demo (Milestone 7) - two separate demos, the second sounds like it is either on the Lunar Surface or on Gateway. Does NASA require that Milestone 7 for CLIN 2A be performed on an actual Artemis mission (Lunar surface or Gateway) or is a relevant environment acceptable? If a relevant environment is acceptable, can NASA provide examples of acceptable relevant environments?

Answer: The xEVAS demonstration CLINs (1A & 2A) are designed to enable demonstration in a relevant environment (Milestone 5), as well as first use of the system prior to entering the services period (Milestone 7). Milestone 7 for one of the demonstration CLINs (1A or 2A) could overlap with Milestone 5 of the other demonstration CLIN (1A or 2A), if appropriate to meet requirements given an Offeror’s unique solution.

29. Reference: Clause C.4.3, Table 4.3-1

Question: Is "Training Suit Event Support," "Suited Training Event," "Tool Training Event" per EVA?

Answer: This table is now located in Attachment J-25, Key Services Capabilities. The row item and the description have been updated to reflect that one row is for “development" of training while the other row is for “generic” and/or “mission-specific” training objectives.

30. Reference: Clause C.4.3, Table 4.3-1

Question: How should minimum of "Hardware for 4/8 Crew" be interpreted. Is the minimum four crew? Eight crew?

Answer: See the Answer to Question 23.

31. Reference: Clause C.4.4.5

Question: Key Services Capabilities Tables- column 2 is labeled Number (minimum).

However multiple rows provide a range of values. How should this range be interpreted?

Is the range the expected NASA need and the minimum capability for each contractor the minimum of the range and the maximum the amount that NASA needs? Is the maximum the maximum needed from each contractor?

Section D

32. Reference: Section D

Question: There appears to be no designated FOB in the contract terms. Can the appropriate FOB clause be added?

Answer: The xEVAS contract is for services. FOB delivery terms are for deliverable items/supplies and not applicable to the xEVAS solicitation. If delivery/acceptance of hardware to the Government is determined necessary, the applicable terms and conditions will be included in the contract after award.

33. Reference: Clause D.2

Question: Can NASA clarify whether the Identification and Marking requirements in this clause are intended to apply to the contractor equipment provided to NASA in delivery of the services for this contract?

Answer: This requirement is solely for Government Property. It does not apply to Contractor-owned equipment.

Section H

34. Reference: Clause H.6

Question: We recommend increasing the small business subcontracting goal to a minimum of 15%, with a minimum goal of 5% for Women-Owned Small Businesses

Answer: The Government performed a detailed review and determined the listed small business goals for the contract are accurately aligned to balance competition and small business development for the xEVAS requirement.

35. Reference: Clause H.8(c)

Question: Request clarification of NASA approval being applicable to the scope of work associated with the Task Orders on this contract and not including any commercial work being performed in parallel.

Answer: NASA approval as discussed in clause H.8 is related to the performance of services on this contract, however NASA retains insight to all commercial work being performed in parallel using like systems, reference clause H.8 (f). This also includes any commercial use of the same hardware or systems pursuant to clause H.17, in order to ensure safety of the crew and mission success of NASA requirements.

36. Reference: Clause H.8(c)

Question: Request clarification of NASA approval required for contractor requested uses of assets allocated for NASA use, not to/for other contractor assets.

Answer: For Offeror’s cognizance, clause H.8 has been updated to refer to the PWS. PWS 2.2.2, has been updated to clarify that NASA approval is required when the contractor proposes to use their xEVA system (specific hardware and components, not the general usage of the technology) provided to NASA under xEVAS for use on non-NASA missions and with non-NASA crew. Item (7) has been updated to state “non-NASA (i.e.

private/commercial missions) use of an xEVA System provided under the xEVAS contract to support NASA missions.” Additionally, clause H.17 further describes NASA’s approval authority for contractor requested use for non-NASA objectives.

37. Reference: Clause H.17a, MA.2

Question: The RFP text is inconsistent in the commercialization stance. The H.17.a paragraph effectively baselines no commercial use of the suits, with an exception to use for commercial purposes, while the latter encourages the commercialization of the suits.

It's understandable that any commercial use must not maintain mission success to the NASA objectives however, the statement made in clause H.17.a goes well beyond that and actively discourages the commercial use of suits. Later sections encourage commercial use of the suits and it is a direct portion of the evaluation criteria.

Answer: NASA has updated the first sentence of clause H.17a. See Answer to Question 36 for additional context regarding NASA’s approval requirements.

38. Reference: Clause H.17a

Question: Although it's unclear how this would specifically manifest itself, the unilateral statement that NASA has rights to excess performance seems antithetical to the rest of the performance work statement, and the overall commercial approach of the solicitation as one of many users. Given the services approach excess performance or capability added to suits later may have additional costs on the contractor.

Answer: See Answer to Question 36.

39. Reference: Clause H.11

Question: NASA identified a Postponement Fee of $1000/day to be applied against contractors, should they be the cause, and a potential credit to Contractors if the delay is caused by the Government. The same provision essentially negates FAR 52.242-17, Government Delay of Work. The FAR clause allows claims for equitable adjustment to be made if delays caused by Government actions impact Contractors. Rather than no limitation, we suggest insertion of an upper limit to the penalty. We recommend 10% of the potential value of the affected milestone.

Answer: Clause H.11 is updated to include Table H.11-2 which provides an increasing postponement fee instead of the linear approach from the draft RFP.

40. Reference: Clause H.18b

Question: Clarify if the xEVA service provider must arrange for transmitting suit telemetry and camera data to Earth as part of the service, or if this will be accomplished by the host vehicles via a nominal interface with the suit systems.

Answer: The xEVAS contract PWS, Clause C.2.3.5.6, Mission Systems has been updated to require the xEVA System to use the NASA standards processes of the vehicle and ground segment ICDs for all exchanged data and communications.

Attachment J-01, Data Requirement Descriptions (DRD)

41. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-ENG-05

Question: The Independent V&V effort is defined as an optional task/product, which may be requested beyond the V&V performed by the contractor with insight & approval from NASA. Would NASA request this as a CLIN #C task order, or do bidders need to account for this potential work within CLIN #A? Recommendation: Designate this work as part of

CLIN #C.

Answer: The referenced option is the Government’s choice to perform additional IV&V on data delivered. NASA does not intend to issue a specific task order for this effort nor a mission unique under SubCLIN #C. NASA requires the submittal of the DRD xEVAS- ENG-05, in order to allow the Government assessment.

42. Reference: xEVAS DRD-PM-01

Question: The cover letter indicates that it is NASA's intent is to procure "EVA as a Service" through task order(s) to provide recurring EVA services for use of certified suits by NASA crew members in EVAs; mission planning; support to ground operations (fitting, training, etc.); and support to real-time EVA operations. The referenced DRD item requires bidders provide all technical data, computer software, and computer software documentation developed under this contract or otherwise incorporated with a system provided under this contract. Since NASA is requesting services and insights, the requirement to provide software appears to be incongruous to the intent of this contract.

Thus respectfully request the requirement to provide the computer software and associated documentation should be deleted from the referenced DRD and section MA.1 of the DRFP.

Answer: The Government anticipates the need for the xEVAS Contractor to deliver software as part of its Verification and Validation effort. For example, software in response to DRD xEVAS-ENG-05, Data Input for NASA Integration and Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) and Integrated Simulation model in response to DRD xEVAS-OPS- 01, Integrated Operations and Training Plan. There could be other examples of software deliverable requirements dependent on the Offeror’s proposed approach.

43. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-02

Question: It appears that the provider is allowed to have a commercial, third party perform IV&V (versus NASA IV&V)? Will the government please confirm?

Answer: The Contractors are not prohibited from performing their own Independent Validation & Verification. NASA may elect to do its own IV&V per Question 41.

44. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-PM-01

Question: The referenced DRD xEVAS-PM-01 item requires the bidders to identify controls applicable to tasks, activities and projects exceeding established costs or schedule baselines and discuss approaches and methods to recover. Since firm-fixed task orders will be issued under this IDIQ contract, there is no need to include the requirement for cost control since the contractor is at risk for any cost overages and any such increases will be passed onto the Government. Respectfully request the reference for cost controls be deleted from Contents item (p) of this DRD.

Answer: DRD xEVAS-PM-01 has been updated to remove the reference to cost controls from item (p).

45. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-02

Question: It appears that there is an expectation to include in the SMA Plan a typical Mishap Preparedness and Contingency Planning (MPCP), which typically is a more “living” document that goes beyond process and includes appendices with call trees and names/roles/etc. Is this understanding correct?

Answer: SMA-02 does not require a Mishap Preparedness and Contingency Plan (MPCP).

Offeror’s plans in response to xEVAS-SMA-01 Safety and Health Plan and xEVAS-PM- 01 Program Management Plan shall contain mishap preparedness and contingency planning requirements.

46. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-02

Question: It appears that there is an expectation, within the reliability section, to perform “modeling” of crew “survivability capabilities”? Is that true?

Answer: The S&MA Plan requires “modeling”; however, specific crew “survivability capabilities” analysis required to support human rating is a deliverable per DRD xEVAS-

HHP-02.

47. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-02

Question: It appears that there is an open-ended expectation to show “progressive improvement throughout lifecycle” (Reliability & Maintainability) beyond stated requirements? Is that true? Can the Government provide any clarification as to how much improvement is expected (and when)?

Answer: The Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) requirements are written intentionally to enable the offerors to propose their own R&M techniques and demonstrate how those activities will enhance the performance of the system throughout the life of the contract.

48. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-02 & Attachment J-05 Applicable Documents List

Question: Should the referenced NASA standard be NASA-STD-8739.8A in both places? Is it correct that NASA STD 8739.8A superseded and combined the other two documents?

Answer: NASA has updated the Final RFP to include NASA-STD-8739.8A Software Assurance and Quality Standards which has superseded NASA-STD-8719.1 NASA Software Safety Standard.

49. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-03

Question: DRD xEVAS-SMA-03, SSAR stipulates a deliverable approach, expectation, and timeline that that requires the entire phase safety report to be pre-delivered several weeks (i.e., 45 or 30 days) prior to a very large, singular phase safety review. This has proven to be poorly aligned with the agile/incremental approach to design and safety maturation utilized in typical current commercial developments. As an example, we have worked with the ISS SRP via a hybrid process that fully recognizes the spirit of Phase 1/2/3 safety reviews, but allows incremental deliveries to facilitate review of the right hazard material at the right time and in manageable chunks. Respectfully request these types of tailored options for SRP review be used for xEVAS.

Answer: The Contractor’s proposal shall conform to the requirements and instructions in DRD xEVAS-SMA-03.

50. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-SMA-04

Question: The DRD information appears to require that the Commercial Provider develops/delivers to NASA the actual full-scope PRA models to be then integrated into larger models. This approach seems counter to recent NASA Artemis policy where Commercial Providers merely provide data access/insight (i.e., hardware reliability data, etc.) for NASA to then develop the PRA models per NASA standards and practices, and for NASA to own/control the PRA models. Can the government please clarify/confirm this interpretation?

Answer: The Government confirms that the purpose of the DRD xEVAS-SMA-004 is to provide NASA all of the necessary PRA models and data needed to integrate into NASA analyses.

51. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-HHP-01

Question: The Human Error Analysis section, part (a) indicates that "appropriate values identified for each of the fields in the attached Task Analysis Template spreadsheet."

We request that the government provide the indicated template, or provide clarification on the requirements or format of the requested template.

Answer: The RFP has been updated to include the referenced template in DRD xEVAS-

HHP-01.

52. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-HHP-02

Question: Will the government please clarify the delineation of responsibilities between NASA and the Commercial Provider with respect to Human Rating, specifically addressing whether the Commercial Provider will be delivering the Human Rating package, or whether the Commercial Provider will be contributing pieces to a NASA developed Human Rating package, or whether the Commercial Provider will merely provide data access/insight for NASA to develop Human Rating package?

Answer: The Commercial provider will be responsible for contributing data via the submission of data products per xEVAS-DRD-HHP-02, Human Rating Data Products. NASA will develop the overall Human Rating Data package for integration/submission to the Agency.

53. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-OPS-01

Question: Respectfully request NASA provide further clarification to describe the difference between the Integrated Simulator model of xEVA System and the Caution and Warning (CWS) Simulator.

Answer: The integrated simulator model provides multi-system capability while caution and warning simulator (CWS) provides part task training for time critical procedure review.

The RFP has been updated to include clarifications on the various types of simulators in the descriptions field of the tables where they are listed.

54. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-OPS-01

Question: Paragraph (b) Training Hardware Support Plan indicates "For additional details reference 'Artemis EVA Training Schedule Timeline' and 'Training Suit Draft Requirements' in the xEVA Tech Library."

We have searched the Bidders Library and the xEVA Tech Library and have found no documents with this title. Please identify the source document numbers, and provide the source documents if they are not in the xEVA Tech Library.

Answer: The RFP has been updated to delete these references.

55. Reference: J-01, DRD xEVAS-OPS-01

Question: In the Training Hardware Support Plan section, the DRD references "For additional details reference “Artemis EVA Training Schedule Timeline” and “Training Suit Draft Requirements” in the xEVA Tech Library." Can NASA clarify the availability of these documents?

Answer: See Answer to Question 54.

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

56. Reference: J-02, SRD

Question: There is no overarching reliability requirement, such as mean-time between failures (MTBF), in the xEVAS SRD. Does NASA intend to levy an overarching reliability requirement?

Answer: The Commercial Providers, under the commercial services model, have the authority and accountability over how they intend to manage their systems, including the logistics and sparing posture. Instead NASA’s focus is on EVA availability, as required in RQMT-005. NASA does not intend to levy reliability requirements.

57. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-001

Question: What is the definition of "mixed EVA crew complement"? (Also in RQMT- 003.) Recommendation: Remove reference to "mixed crew". Being able to fit the full anthro range and specific crewmembers are already requirements.

Answer: The SRD has been updated to include rationale.

58. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-002

Question: What are the crew assignment assumptions for the consecutive EVAs? (Same crew members or different crew members for each EVA?). Is there a requirement for the number of days until the next EVA after completion of the 4 EVA series?

Answer: This SRD requirement has moved to RQMT-003 and the rationale has been updated in RQMT-003 and RQMT-004.

59. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-009

Question: Requires 50% reduction in maintenance however this list includes maintenance for airlock systems. Even if the contractor can eliminate EMU loop scrubs there is still the requirement for airlock loop scrubs. Also LCVG fill should not be included as maintenance but as prep for EVA. How was the 50 % rate number determined and was airlock maintenance taken into account?

Answer: The SRD has been updated to include rationale.

60. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-010

Question: This requirement really belongs in a SOW and not in the suit SRD.

Recommendation: Please add to SOW or develop a requirement that meets the intent.

Answer: This requirement has been moved into the PWS.

61. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-011

Question: This requirement really belongs in a SOW and not in the suit SRD.

Recommendation: Please add to SOW or develop a requirement that meets the intent.

Answer: This requirement has been moved into the PWS.

62. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-0016d

Question: SS-2029 does not exist. Needs to be SS-2062. Recommendation: Correct the reference to SS-2029.

Answer: The SRD no longer contains reference to SS-“XXXX”.

63. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-0027

Question: Is this a requirement for all CLINs (suit configurations)? Are there any time limits for unassisted suit operations?

Answer: Yes, the unassisted suit operations applies to all CLINs. In the support of Concept of Operations Demonstration defined in the Integration and Test Plan DRD, the Contractor shall demonstrate, using moderate fidelity training hardware, end to end operations from the beginning of EVA preparation, through EVA execution, to the completion of post EVA cleanup. There is a timeline limit for day of EVA (SRD RQMT-009). There is also a crew time allocation for maintenance (SRD RQMT-009).

64. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-003

Question: How long must the capability to support EMU be maintained? The nominal objective of CLIN 1B is to replace the EMU capability. Recommendation: State that this requirement expires when EMU is retired and removed from the ISS.

Answer: The capability to revert to an EMU or alternate EVA Service Provider will remain in place for the life of the xEVAS contract. If ISS mods are required to make a design concept functional to meet SRD RQMT-003, the offerers shall request these mods via

GTA.

65. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-036

Question: Can NASA provide further clarification to the requirement "provide lunar exploration tools"? (i.e., will the contractor be required to develop, certify, build, and provide? or simply build and provide NASA developed and certified hardware?)

Answer: NASA expectation is that the Contractor will develop, build, certify, and provide the Lunar exploration tools.

66. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-041

Question: Specifying a total suit leak rate, rather than a hole size (i.e. 1/4"), is a recommended alternative approach for this requirement.

Answer: Hole size is used to remain generic with respect to suit pressure.

67. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-042

Question: Is the plan for NASA to leave the PLSS on the lunar surface as previously discussed or will it return in the vehicle? This question is for both CLINs 2A and 2B.

Answer: NASA has a goal to establish a sustainable Lunar Architecture. A reusable or disposable xEVA System architecture shall be determined by the contractor. Currently the Orion spacecraft has earth return mass capabilities that will drive NASA's ability to return xEVAS hardware from the lunar surface to earth for re-use. The limit for Orion based hardware return will be added to the System Requirements Document (SRD) as a requirement. This does not prohibit contractor solutions that utilize other commercial return methods.

68. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-042

Question: Who will be responsible for ISS SAFER services (NASA or the xEVA contractor)? If xEVA contractor, does NASA intend to provide existing SAFER units or does NASA intend the xEVAS contractor to build and provide their own SAFER units?

Who will be responsible for any potential ISS SAFER modifications and/or upgrades required due to xEVA suit variations (e.g., CG locations, mass, ...)?

Answer: Use of SAFER in the Contractor's solution should be negotiated via the GTA and provided in the Offerors proposal, pursuant to Section L instructions. The Offerors approach including any hardware/software updates as well as any sustaining engineering will be considered as part of the Offerors technical approach, inclusive of the use of GTAs, pursuant to Provision M.3(b).

69. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-042

Question: Who is responsible for the SAFER software updates that would be required for incorporation into our suit?

Answer: See response to Question 73.

70. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-042

Question: Will NASA require SAFER or SAFER-like piece of hardware for other micro-gravity environments outside of ISS?

Answer: The requirement for crew self-rescue will be determined based on specific risk assessment for micro-gravity environments outside ISS.

71. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-048

Question: Will NASA require the contractor to supply contaminant measurement kits, like Drager tubes?

Answer: This is the Contractor’s responsibility. If the Offeror intends to use the government kits, this should be requested through the GTA process.

72. Reference: J-02, SRD RQMT-055

Question: What is the difference between “accommodate or provide” for crew nutrition in this requirement?

Answer: An in-suit nutrition product has not been developed by NASA at this time that the Contractor would need to accommodate for use in the xEVA Suit. The Contractor will be responsible for developing the nutrition product and how the nutrition product will be delivered to the crew while in the xEVA Suit. The SRD has been updated to better reflect the requirements for the nutrition. A corresponding section in the PWS has been added on In-Suit Nutrition to allow for a GTA with the JSC-Food Lab to help with development of a nutrition product

Other J Attachments

73. Reference: Attachment J-04

Question: Collaboration designated roles is not defined in Attachment J-04 Definitions, will the government provide the definition for collaboration designated roles?

Answer: Attachment J-04, Definitions, has been updated to include the definition of collaboration. DRD xEVAS-PM-02, Insight and Collaboration Implementation Plan, has been updated to require the Offeror to define the designated roles, if proposed.

74. Reference: Attachment J-05

Question: Attachment J-05, Applicable Document List references current dates and revisions. The last sentence in PWS Clause C.2.2 related to Attachment J-05, Applicable Document List states that Task Orders will assume the latest version of the ADL-listed document. To be consistent with requirements for defined scope on Firm Fixed Price contracts, we recommend that the last sentence be edited to state that any changes to the Attachment J-05, Applicable Document List will be subject to a bilateral change to the contract.

Answer: Clause C.2.2 has been updated to state any changes to the Attachment J-05, Applicable Document List, will be subject to bilateral change to the contract.

75. Reference: Attachment J-08

Question: The work plan milestone payments contained in Attachment J-08 for CLINs 1B and 2B are presented as a single table, though the period of performance is at least ten years. Should the bidders duplicate the CLIN 1B and 2B tables for each year? If not, how are these tables to be completed?

Answer: No duplication is required. Attachment J-08 has been updated to delete the “TBP”s in the “Payment Amount” columns. Those values will be filled-in by the NASA Contracting Officer at the time of task order award, based on the Schedule B prices and application of the percentages in the “Payment Percentage for Milestone” column.

Paragraph (c) of clause H.3 provides additional detail on how established Work Plans (J-

08) will be utilized in task orders.

76. Reference: Attachment J-08

Question: The EVA Technical Library contains multiple references to Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR) that have been completed. In the Draft RFP, Milestone 3 - Preliminary Design Review requires that a PDR must be completed. If the PDRs have been completed for NASA-developed designs that the bidder intends to use without modification, is another PDR required on impacted systems?

Answer: The PDR milestone in the xEVAS solicitation/contract is for the Contractor proposed overall xEVA System. A PDR for an overall Contractor xEVA System has not been conducted at this time. The Contractor is responsible for its entire design and that the design meets the applicable NASA requirements and milestones. The Offeror may request to license the use of the data furnished in the EVA Technical Library through submission of a GTA. The Contractor must demonstrate how their overall xEVA System design meets the requirements in this milestone.

77. Reference: Attachment J-08, Work Plans

Question: Is an xEMU-based suit design required to go through all milestones? For example, since xEMU completed its PDR milestone, is another PDR required?

Answer: See Answer to Question 76.

78. Reference: Attachment J-11

Question: Request the government clarify if Attachment J-11, Milestone Review, is only required in the Model Contract or if it should also be submitted with the Work Plans in the Mission Suitability volume.

Answer: MA.3 has been updated to state that the Demonstration Milestone Review Plan and Mission Milestone Review Plan shall be delivered in accordance with DRDs xEVAS- PM-04 and xEVAS-PM-05 as part of J-11, Milestone Review Plans, in the Model Contract (Volume V) and the Mission Suitability (Volume II) proposal.

79. Reference: Attachment J-14

Question: Request the government clarify what is required in Attachment J-14 for the Installation-Accountable Government Property (IAGP).

Answer: Attachment J-14 of the RFP includes the property that will be provided as Installation-Accountable Government Property. Offerors are not to propose additional IAGP to the Attachment J-14.

80. Reference: Attachment J-19

Question: Will the Government clarify what is required for the submission of Attachment J-19 and the format that the attachment should be submitted.

Answer: Attachment J-19 has been updated to remove the reference to submission in the Offeror’s proposal. Section K has been updated to add a representation whereby Offerors shall make any assertions to limited rights or restricted rights data. This information shall be submitted in the proposal along with all required representations and certifications.

Attachment J-19 will be updated after contract award to incorporate all Government approvals.

81. Reference: Attachment J-21, Deliverable Item List

Question: Request the Government clarify what is required in Attachment J-21, Deliverable Items List.

Answer: Attachment J-21, Deliverable Items List will be used during the administration of the contract to cover any potential deliverables required. It is administrative in nature and the Offeror is not required to submit with proposal.

Section L

82. Reference: Provision L.13(a); Provision L.18.1(a)

Question: Suggest allowing Offerors to submit via an alternative secure send server as an Offeror's information security may not have approved use of BOX due to ITAR/EAR concerns.

Answer: EFSS Box is currently the only agency approved platform to accept electronic proposals. As mentioned in the draft RFP cover letter, potential offerors are advised to test the system prior to the delivery date to ensure there will be no perturbations that would result in a late proposal that would be excluded from evaluation, pursuant to FAR 52.215- 1(c)(3). Box has been evaluated by independent third-party assessors and authorized through the FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program) and the Department of Defense (DoD) Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (SRG) certification programs. Box’s DoD authorization is at Impact Level 4 which is for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and includes Export Control information as part of this category. These assessments and authorizations attest that the controls supporting the infrastructure and operations of Box are capable and approved for processing government customer data including ITAR or EAR data.

83. Reference: Provision L.18.1 (Table L.18.1)

Question: DRFP Provision L.18.1 states, “Offerors shall arrange their proposals as set forth below in Table L-2: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Copies, and Format. Proposal sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume.” However, for Past Performance, DRFP Provision L.18.5 does not align with the table referenced in Provision L.18.1. Will the government please confirm that the Table in Provision L.18.1 (Table L-2) is not intended as an outline and the offeror should base the proposal outline on RFP Provision L.18.5?

Answer: Neither Table L-2 nor Provision L.18.5 are meant to serve as an outline for proposals. Table L-2 provides instructions and page limitations while Provision L.18.5 describes the content required in proposals, including some areas that are excluded from the page limitations.

84. Reference: Provision L.18.1, L18.4, Attachment L-04 Business Case Template

Question: The volume of where Attachment L-04 should be submitted is not specified within the RFP or "Overview Instructions".