80KSC019R0002_Amend_03.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

OP-LS

See page 2, SF30 CONTINUATION PAGE.

NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Procurement Office, Mail Code: OP-LS Attn: Scott Syring Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899

NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Procurement Office, Mail Code: OP-LS Attn: Scott Syring Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899

80KSC019R0002

1 2

09/24/2019

08/16/2019

RFP 80KSC019R0002 Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services

SF30 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. The purpose of Amendment 03 is to answer questions and make the following updates:

a. Revise RFP section 2.2.1 to delete NFS 1852.215-84, Ombudsman (Nov 2011) – Alternate I (Jun 2000) and add FAR clause FAR 52.216-32, Task-Order and Delivery-Order Ombudsman (Sep 2019).

b. Revise RFP section 2.2.7 to update the “Limited Rights Notice” under paragraph (g)(3) of clause 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General – Alternate II.

c. Revise RFP section 6.2.15(b)(2)(ii)(C) to limit the proposal requirement for signed commitments to only those major team members, subcontractors, sub-tier contractors, or suppliers expected to contribute $50M or more towards performance of the effort captured in the total evaluated price. Signed commitments from manufacturers of critical vehicle components is no longer required with proposals

2. RFP replacement pages 9, 18 and 96 are attached. Changes are annotated with change bars.

3. Attachment 01, Statement of Work, replacement pages 15, 18-20, and 23 are attached.

Changes are annotated with change bars. (Note: Page 20 is included to capture overflow resulting from changes on pages 18 and 19.)

4. Attachment 02, Data Rights Descriptions, has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with Attachment 02, Data Rights Descriptions, Amendment 03. Changes are annotated in red and with change bars.

5. Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements, has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001C1, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements. Refer to page 3 of document for a summary of revisions.

6. Attachment 08, Work Plan, replacement page 2 is attached. The change is annotated with a change bar.

7. Responses to questions are attached.

8. All other information within the RFP remains unchanged.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 Section 2 Gateway Logistics Services Amendment 03

FAR 52.211-15 DEFENSE PRIORITY AND ALLOCATION REQUIREMENTS

(APR 2008)

FAR 52.215-21 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA

AND DATA OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA

–MODIFICATIONS (OCT 2010) ALTERNATE IV (OCT 2010)

(b) Provide data described below: Defined at time of modification

FAR 52.216-32 TASK-ORDER AND DELIVERY-ORDER OMBUDSMAN (SEP 2019)

Ombudsman: http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/Omb.html

FAR 52.227-1 AUTHORIZATION AND CONSENT (DEC 2007)

FAR 52.227-2 NOTICE AND ASSISTANCE REGARDING PATENT AND

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (DEC 2007)

FAR 52.227-16 ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIREMENTS (JUNE 1987)

FAR 52.232-40 PROVIDING ACCELERATED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTORS (DEC 2013)

FAR 52.242-13 BANKRUPTCY (JUL 1995)

FAR 52.243-1 CHANGES – FIXED – PRICE (AUG 1987) – ALTERNATE I (APR 1984)

FAR 52.245-1 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JAN 2017) – ALTERNATE I (APR 2012)

FAR 52.245-9 USE AND CHARGES (APR 2012)

FAR 52.246-4 INSPECTION OF SERVICES – FIXED-PRICE (AUG. 1996)

FAR 52.246-25 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – SERVICES (FEB 1997)

II. NASA FAR SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 18) CLAUSES:

NFS 1852.204-76 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES JAN 2011)

NFS 1852.219-75 INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING REPORTS (APR 2015)

(Only applicable to contractors without an approved commercial subcontracting plan)

NFS 1852.223-70 SAFETY AND HEALTH MEASURES AND MISHAP

REPORTING (DEC 2015)

NFS 1852.223-75 MAJOR BREACH OF SAFETY OR SECURITY (FEB 2002)

ALTERNATE I (FEB 2006)

NFS 1852.228-78 CROSS-WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR SCIENCE OR SPACE

EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES UNRELATED TO THE

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (OCT 2012)

NFS 1852.237-72 ACCESS TO SENSITIVE INFORMATION (JUN 2005)

NFS 1852.237-73 RELEASE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION (JUN 2005)

NFS 1852.245-75 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHANGES (JAN 2011)

NFS 1852.245-78 PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CAPITAL PERSONAL PROPERTY

(AUG 2015)

2.2.2 FAR 52.216-18 -- ORDERING (OCT 1995)

(a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued for a period of twelve years from date of contract award.

(b) All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event

RFP 80KSC019R0002 Section 2

(i) Identify the data being withheld; and

(ii) Furnish form, fit, and function data instead.

(2) Limited rights data that are formatted as a computer database for delivery to the Government shall be treated as limited rights data and not restricted computer software.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1) of this clause, the contract may identify and specify the delivery of limited rights data, or the Contracting Officer may require by written request the delivery of limited rights data that has been withheld or would otherwise be entitled to be withheld.

If delivery of that data is required, the Contractor shall affix the following “Limited Rights Notice” to the data and the Government will treat the data, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this clause, in accordance with the notice:

LIMITED RIGHTS NOTICE (DEC 2007)

(a) These data are submitted with limited rights under Government Contract No. TBD (and subcontract TBD, if appropriate). These data may be reproduced and used by the Government with the express limitation that they will not, without written permission of the Contractor, be used for purposes of manufacture nor disclosed outside the Government; except that the Government may disclose these data outside the Government for the following purposes, if any; provided that the Government makes such disclosure subject to prohibition against further use and disclosure:

(i) Use (except for manufacture) by support service contractors.

(ii) Evaluation by nongovernment evaluators to support evaluation of GLS Task Order Proposals.

(iii) Use (except for manufacture) by other contractors participating in the Government’s program of which the specific contract is a part.

(iv) Release to a foreign government, or its instrumentalities, if required in support of delivering an international partner’s cargo/payload to Gateway.

(b) This notice shall be marked on any reproduction of these data, in whole or in part.

(End of notice)

(4)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1) of this clause, the contract may identify and specify the delivery of restricted computer software, or the Contracting Officer may require by written request the delivery of restricted computer software that has been withheld or would otherwise be entitled to be withheld. If delivery of that computer software is required, the Contractor shall affix the following “Restricted Rights Notice” to the computer software and the Government will treat the computer software, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) of this clause, in accordance with the notice:

Restricted Rights Notice (Dec 2007)

(a) This computer software is submitted with restricted rights under Government Contract No. ______ (and subcontract _______, if appropriate). It may not be used, RFP 80KSC019R0002 Section 6 terms and conditions and regulations, and key business characteristics that demonstrate long-term sustainability of the proposed solution for the duration of this contract. The plan shall address the following areas:

(A) Organizational Structure: The Offeror shall provide their proposed organizational structure and overall project management approach for managing the SOW requirements under a fixed-price contract along with supporting rationale. Any risks associated with the approach should be identified and impacts addressed. The Offeror shall also address the ability to manage a fixed-priced contract.

(B) Associate Contractor Agreements: The Offeror shall describe its approach for implementing the necessary Associate Contactor Agreements in accordance with clause, 2.2.35, Associate Contractor Agreements.

(C) Subcontract Management Plan (Contract Attachment 09): The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing subcontractors, including the flow down of requirements and schedule management. This shall include subcontract/teaming arrangements, communication channels, reporting relationships, and roles and responsibilities of any proposed subcontractors, team members, or joint venture partners. The Contractor shall identify all NASA and other local, state, federal and foreign government agreements required to perform the service. To the extent available, the Offeror shall provide evidence of subcontracting/teaming arrangements and include signed commitments to comply with the insight and approval requirements (clause 2.2.19, NASA Insight and Approval, and SOW paragraphs 4.3, NASA Insight and Approval For Gateway Logistics Services Missions, and 6.3, NASA Insight and Approval For Specialized Delivery Missions) from any major team member, subcontractor, sub-tier contractor, or supplier expected to contribute $50M or more towards performance of the effort captured in the total evaluated price. The signed commitments are excluded from the total page count. The Offeror shall explain how NASA will be granted access to any subcontractor, or sub-tier contractors, regardless of dollar value, when insight and approval is required.

(D) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Plans: The Offeror shall provide their approach to safety and mission assurance via submission of their corporate S&MA Plans (Safety, Quality, Reliability, and Software) as described in DRD GLS-004, Safety and Mission Assurance Plan(s), including additional information needed specific to the GLS requirements. The S&MA Plans are excluded from the total page count.

(E) Government Property Management Information: The Offeror shall submit the information required in NFS provision 1852.245-80, Government Property Management Information.

(iii) Subfactor C – Small Business

Attachment 01: Statement of Work RFP 80KSC019R0002 Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services quality information to NASA (via remote computer access) wherein such Quality Assurance online information systems exist and to which the Contractor has regular and timely input. An example is an online Problem/Failure Reporting system.

The Contractor shall identify all nonconformances that affect the form, fit, or function of the logistics vehicle to Gateway Interface, including but not limited to: propulsion, mechanical, electrical, software, radio frequency (RF), environmental, and communication/telemetry components.

The Contractor shall make available to NASA an As Built Configuration List (ABCL) of each logistics vehicle for NASA review.

The Contractor and its major subcontractors shall participate in the Government/Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP).

3.7.3 RELIABILITY PROGRAM

The Contractor shall provide a Reliability Plan, as part of DRD GLS-004, Safety and Mission Assurance Plan(s), that establishes a robust Reliability Program as an integral part of the entire lifecycle. The Contractor’s reliability program and analyses shall facilitate evaluation of the Contractor and subcontractor’s programs to determine if the logistics service meets quantitative reliability requirements. Overall vehicle reliability predictions shall be provided to NASA as part of the DRD GLS-006, Safety Data Package (SDP) deliveries and shall be incrementally revised to reflect design modifications.

3.7.4 PROBABALISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA)

In addition to information provided in Safety Data Packages, DRD GLS-006, the Contractor shall provide technical information in support of the PRA to be performed by the NASA Gateway Program. This support information shall include (but not be limited to) a detailed description of the logistics vehicle architecture, ConOps (concept of operations), logistics vehicle critical functions, component functions, and functional flow diagrams.

3.7.5 SOFTWARE ASSURANCE PROGRAM

The Contractor shall establish and maintain a Software Safety and Mission Assurance Plan (SSMAP) as a standalone document or part of other S&MA plans as described in DRD GLS-004, Safety and Mission Assurance Plan(s). The Contractor shall have a Software Quality Management system in accordance with AS9115, Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations - Deliverable Software (Supplement to AS9100) and a Software Assurance Plan in accordance with IEEE 730-2014 Standard for Software Quality Assurance Processes. Safety Critical Software shall be in accordance with NASA-STD-8719.13C, NASA Software Safety Standard.

The Contractor shall provide read-only Software Assurance information to NASA (via remote computer access) wherein such online information systems exist and to which the Contractor has

Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services

4.1.1.10 The Contractor shall provide telemetry data from powered payloads and the capability to command powered payloads after handover, during transit and while docked to the Gateway as specified in GLS-RQMT-001, with minimal periods of interruption.

4.1.2 REQUIRED CAPABILITY - PRESSURIZED DISPOSAL

4.1.2.1 The Logistics Vehicle shall provide a minimum usable pressurized cargo disposal mass and volume that is equivalent or greater to that provided for pressurized mass and volume delivery as specified in GLS-RQMT-001.

4.1.2.2 The Logistics Vehicle shall provide stowage volume, attach points, and restraint systems within the pressurized volume for contained trash as specified in GLS-

RQMT-001.

4.1.2.3 While docked and prior to departure, the pressurized volume of the Logistics Vehicle designated for trash stowage shall be organized, readily accessible and easy to use by the crew at the Gateway as specified in GLS-RQMT-001.

4.1.2.4 The pressurized volume of the Logistics Vehicle designated for trash stowage shall be kept separated from the cargo and payloads as specified in GLS-RQMT-001 until the cargo or payloads are permanently removed prior to departure.

4.1.2.5 The Pressurized Volume Area shall allow for the safe translation and mobility of crew to perform expected trash stowage tasks as specified in GLS-RQMT-001.

4.1.3 REQUIRED CAPABILITIY - UNPRESSURIZED CARGO DELIVERY AND

DISPOSAL MASS

4.1.3.1 Contractor shall provide a capability to deliver a minimum of 1,000 kg of unpressurized cargo to the Gateway within the overall constraints as defined in

GLS-RQMT-001.

4.1.3.2 The Contractor shall provide disposal of unpressurized cargo, up to a disposal mass that is equivalent or greater to that provided for unpressurized upmass delivery.

4.1.3.3 The Contractor shall provide cargo and payload services and interfaces to transport unpressurized cargo as specified in GLS-RQMT-001.

4.1.3.4 The Contractor shall have the capability to provide power, telemetry data, and commanding for unpressurized payloads after hand-over, during transit and while docked to the Gateway as specified in GLS-RQMT-001, with minimal periods of interruption.

4.1.3.5 The Contractor shall provide a capability to maintain the thermal environment of unpressurized cargo in the range from -50 deg C (-58 deg F) to +50 deg C (+122 deg F) during transit to the Gateway and limit exposure while docked in order to

Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services maintain thermal conditioning. Methods to control environment may include attitude control during transit, enclosures or other active or passive means.

4.1.3.6 The Contractor shall provide the necessary services and hardware including Flight Support Equipment (FSE), if required, to integrate the cargo to the unpressurized volume of the visiting vehicle as specified in GLS-RQMT-001.

4.1.3.7 For payloads that are intended for handling by the Gateway Extravehicular Robotics (EVR) System the Contractor shall accommodate EVR-compatible inerfaces as specified in GLS-RQMT-001 and CSA-GWY-ID-0001 to allow unpressurized cargo to be robotically manipulated for transfer between the unpressurized volume and Gateway while not requiring Extravehicular Activity

(EVA).

4.1.3.7.1 For Small Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) Robotic Interface (SORI) based unpressurized cargo, the Contractor shall accommodate the minimum volume and mass for each SORI-based payload or ORU to be transported to Gateway per CSA-GWY-ID-0001.

4.1.3.7.2 For Large ORU Robotic Interface (LORI) based unpressurized cargo, the Contractor shall:

a. Accommodate a minimum of 210kg (150kg for the payload/ORU and 60kg for the LORI) for each LORI-based payload or ORU to be transported to Gateway.

b. Accommodate a minimum volume of 1200 x 650 x 650 mm (payload/ORU volume and LORI volume) for each LORI-based payload or ORU to be transported to Gateway.

4.1.3.7.3 The Contractor shall provide a clearance envelope around the unpressurized cargo per CSA-GWY-ID-0001 that is clear of intrusions such that each payload or ORU can be robotically manipulated when docked to Gateway.

4.1.3.7.4 The Contractor shall provide the capability to command the release of the SORI/LORI launch latches when docked to Gateway.

4.1.3.8Access shall be provided to unpressurized cargo up to the latest time defined in the

GLS Space System Architecture contract attachment, nominally L-4 days, for final pre-launch cargo preparation, as specified in GLS-RQMT-001.

4.2 CARGO INTEGRATION

The Contractor shall safely integrate NASA cargo into the logistics module and/or unpressurized carriers. NASA will provide packed pressurized cargo to the Contractor. NASA will provide unpressurized cargo without flight support equipment to the Contractor. The Contractor should

Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services consider approaches that provide flexibility for assignment, reassignment, packing, and repacking of cargo and payloads by Gateway crew. The Contractor should consider approaches that provide flexibility for post Vehicle Baseline Review (VBR) changes to the unpressurized cargo manifest.

4.2.1 CARGO ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION

The Contractor shall perform the analysis and integration tasks required to safely integrate pressurized and unpressurized cargo for delivery to and disposal from the Gateway consistent with DRD GLS-003, Mission Integration and Operations Management Plan (MIOMP) and DRD GLS- 106, Mission Resource Allocation Document (MRAD).

The Contractor shall submit a DRD GLS-103, Vehicle Interface Definition Document (IDD) which will describe the standard interface requirements, capabilities, interfaces, constraints, and environments of the launch and logistics vehicles, as they pertain to pressurized and unpressurized cargo. NASA will use this data to assess the compatibility of NASA cargo with the launch and logistics vehicles.

NASA will provide the Contractor with the preliminary unpressurized cargo complement No Later Than (NLT) L-24 months and a notional pressurized cargo complement NLT L-13 months (for the first GLS mission only). The Contractor shall perform an assessment of the total cargo complement (NASA-sponsored and Contractor-provided) at the individual cargo item level, assessing resource requirements to validate that vehicle resources are adequate to ensure safe delivery of the cargo complement.

The pressurized cargo complement will define a representative manifest consisting of distribution of standard cargo units and masses consistent with the logistics module capability, the number of powered and unpowered cargo containers, and pressurized cargo or payloads that require special accommodation such as hard mounting. For cargo requiring hard mounting, the associated resource, operational, interface verification, ground processing requirements, and orientation constraints will also be provided at this time.

NASA will provide an updated pressurized cargo launch complement NLT L-5 months. This complement will be more defined in nature, but is still considered preliminary.

At L-6 weeks, NASA will provide the final pressurized cargo launch complement to reflect the as-packed cargo for turnover to the Contractor at L-30 days. At L-2 weeks NASA will update the cargo launch complement to reflect changes to manifest for cargo turned over at the time defined in the GLS Space System Architecture contract attachment.

At each cargo complement delivery time point, NASA will identify cargo items that will have special handling, orientation, and early crew access requirements.

The Contractor shall perform the following:

(a) Analyses of all cargo test and analytical data as it pertains to the physical (structural) and environmental (thermal, acoustics, electromagnetic interference and compatibility

Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services

(1) For permanently mounted cargo that is not intended for EVR interaction, the Contractor shall install FSE onto the cargo (dependent on actual cargo design), and complete final integration onto the logistics vehicle. NASA will deliver the cargo as defined in the GLS Space System Architecture contract attachment. NASA will provide integration drawings and procedures needed for cargo integration.

(2) For cargo intended for handling by the Gateway Extravehicular Robotics (EVR) System, NASA will deliver the EVR fixture-side of the SORI/LORI, defined by CSA- GWY-ID-0001, to the Contractor for integration onto the logistics vehicle at no later than L-18 months. NASA and/or Payload Developer will integrate the cargo onto the cargo-side of the SORI/LORI interface and turn over the cargo, integrated with its SORI/LORI interface, to the Contractor as defined in the GLS Space System Architecture contract attachment. The Contractor shall complete final integration of the cargo onto the logistics vehicle through the SORI/LORI interface. NASA will provide integration drawings and procedures needed for SORI/LORI cargo integration.

4.3 NASA INSIGHT AND APPROVAL FOR GATEWAY LOGISTICS SERVICES

MISSIONS

As part of the Gateway Logistics Service, the Contractor shall provide the data, documentation, drawings, analytical models, and support services as necessary to accommodate the requirements specified under clause 2.2.19, NASA Insight and Approval. The Contractor shall provide this information for all aspects of the design, development, test, evaluation, and operations of the end-to-end service, including, upon request, those used on non-NASA missions of similar systems.

NASA retains approval authority over portions of the logistics service that interface with Gateway hardware, cargo and operations. The Contractor shall grant insight into evidence that the vehicle system propulsion, avionics, flight controls, separation systems, their subsystems and components, and integrated function with software at the vehicle system level, were verified in a manner consistent with how they will be used in flight, have sufficient margin to their maximum expected environments and to their minimum required performance, and are acceptable for flight.

Specific areas requiring Government approval are:

(a) Interface requirements between Gateway and the logistics vehicle, including mission operations (GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements)

(b) Interface requirements between NASA cargo and the logistics vehicle (GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements)

(c) Contractor objectives unrelated to GLS missions and non-NASA cargo (clause 2.2.26, Contractor Objectives on GLS Missions)

Specific areas to be open to Government insight are:

(a) Baseline, changes from the baseline and mission unique vehicle and system design, analyses, and configuration management.

Attachment 08: Work Plans RFP 80KSC019R0002 Amendment 03 Gateway Logistics Services

ATTACHMENT 08: Work Plans

INITIAL GLS MISSION WORK PLAN

Payment Number Program Event (Launch +/- months) 1 Accomplishment Criteria1

1 L-“X” / L-48

ATP / Award Authority to Proceed received from the Contracting Officer.

Launch slot reserved.

2 L-42 System Requirements Review

(SRR)

System Requirement Review complete.

Applicable section in DRD GLS-101

3 L-36 Preliminary Design Review

(PDR)

Preliminary Design Review complete.

4 L-30 Critical Design Review (CDR) Critical Design Review complete.

5 L-20 System Certification Review

(SCR)

System Certification Review complete.

6 L-18 Vehicle Baseline Review (VBR) Vehicle Baseline Review complete.

Applicable section in DRD GLS-102

7 L-12 Mission Integration Review

(MIR)

Mission Integration Review complete.

8 L-10 Unpressurized Cargo Integration Review (UCIR) (if applicable)

Unpressurized Cargo Integration Review complete.

Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) - 80KSC019R0002 - Response to Questions (Amendment 03) Question

Reference Document Section Question / Comment NASA Response

Attachment 01, GLS Statement of Work

6.4.1.2.. 6.4.1.3, and 6.4.1.4 Due to factors such as a fixed-priced, milestone payment contract type, combined with the complexity of the initial missions and the current immaturity of the requirements, the criteria for Mission Technical Reviews could put the Offeror's financial position at risk for a single open action.

Examples:

L-18 MSPDR (approval until all actions have been closed & 30% design release).

L-12 MSCDR (approval until all actions have been closed and 90% mission unique drawings released);

L- 6 SAR (approval until all actions closed)

Recommendation: Recommend changing from ‘all actions have been closed’ to ‘disposition of actions’, which is consistent with Commercial Crew Program payment milestone criteria.

The requirement will remain as written.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 1.3 In section 1.3, the requirements for three (3) prior successful CLV flights of a common launch vehicle configuration before each mission is a beneficial activity to reduce mission risk. A similar requirement should be placed on higher risk activities such as those associated with Rendezvous and Docking.

Recommendation: Mission criticality of rendezvous and successfully docking to the Gateway in a lunar orbit seems to be another significant risk that should be explicitly addressed in the minimum requirements in the RFP.

The requirement will remain as written.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 2.2.13, 2.2.21, and 6.2.15(a)(5)

The response to question 89 of Responses to Questions 3 cited historical information and the Gateway budget profile as the source of the percentages in clause 2.2.21. The response also stated that Offerors may update the milestone schedule in clause 2.2.21, Payments, Events, and Completion Criteria, however, the percentage shall not exceed the cumulative percentage for events already established in the clause. In reviewing the NFS 1852-232-77 Limitation of Funds clause, it states that the timing of Government funding will be as required by the payment schedule in contract clause 2.2.21. It further states that in a Government Termination for Convenience scenario, the total amount payable by the Government would be limited to the funding allotted at that time. NASA’s response to question 89 suggests that the current percentages established in Clause 2.2.21 Payments, Events, and Completion Criteria schedule will expose contractors to an unacceptable negative cash position creating an artificial barrier to compete. If Offerors are not allowed to change the percentages to cover termination liability as allowed in the Limitation of Funds clause, how does NASA plan to ensure recovery of termination liability in a Termination of Convenience?

In accordance with clause 2.2.13, NFS 1852.232-77, Limitation of Funds, when additional funds are allotted from time to time for continued performance of the work under this contract, the parties shall agree on the applicable period of contract performance to be covered by these funds, thus ensuring all potential termination liability costs for the contract are covered. The commercial interim payments available under clause 2.2.21, Payments, Events, and Completion Criteria, are separate from required funding to meet potential termination liability costs.

Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements

2.0 Recommendation: Requirement documents require dates to establish baseline. Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements, has been updated with document dates if available. Offerors should use August 16, 2019 as the baseline date for all documents in the Bidder's Library without a date.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 2.2.21(c) The Contracting Officer’s determination of Program Event completion will include, but is not limited to, the Accomplishment Criteria listed in the Work Plan for the major Program Events.

Recommendation: Completion criteria should be clearly documented in Work Plan to establish a baseline.

The requirement will remain as written.

Attachment 01, GLS Statement of Work

4.3 NASA Insight and Approval clause is 2.2.16

Recommendation: Should be 2.2.19

The RFP has been amended to correct the clause reference in the Statement of Work.

Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements

L3-GLS-102 Question: Should this requirement be interpreted as only extending the Gateway Wi-Fi networks (2.4/5 GHz) to the Logistics module, or also RFID, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi (900 MHz), & LTE eNodeB?

Recommendation: Limit the scope of the requirement to Wi-Fi (2.4/5 GHz) and RFID only

The requirement is inclusive of RFID, Bluetooth, 900 MHz Wi-Fi and the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard. The Bluetooth requirement is To Be Resolved (TBR) and the applicability of LTE and 900 MHz Wi-Fi requirements are To Be Determined (TBD). The offerror's assumptions should be clearly documented in their proposal.

Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements

L3-GLS-0022 Question: Is the intention for the LM to provide the fan for IMV or for the Gateway to provide the fan? The requirements in DSG-SPEC-ECLS-007 indicate the Gateway provides the IMV fan (L2-ECLS-USUM-0306, L2-ECLS-IHAB-0303, L2-ECLS-USHAB- 0304 use the phrase “shall exchange” vs. L2-ECLS-LM-0302 which uses the phrase “shall accommodate”).

Recommendation: Recommend providing a clearer interpretation of the LM requirement to clarify that the Gateway provides the IMV fan and the LM only provides ducts and open hatch for return flow to the Gateway.

No, document DSG-SPEC-ECLS-007 does not require the LM to supply an IMV fan. The RFP is amended to remove requirement L3-GLS-0022 from the GLS-RQMT-001 document.

GP-10031, Gateway to Visiting Vehicle

IRD (DRAFT)

In the GP-10031, Gateway to Visiting Vehicle IRD (DRAFT) it states that the GW to VV message format will be C3I and Rate Constrained. Should this only apply to Orion and not HLS and LM? Doesn’t this conflict with the Interoperability Standards and general flight software requirements specified in: DSG-SPEC-FSW- 014 GATEWAY PROGRAM SUBSYSTEM

SPECIFICATION FOR FLIGHT SOFTWARE (FSW)?

Recommendation: Requirements: L2-FSWVV-0001 and L2-FSW-VV-0002 state that the Orion, HLS and LM are required to use the Orion message formats which are not compatible with the GW CCSDS messaging format. Recommend opening up the GW VV messaging format to use the native GW FSW CCSDS messaging format.

The C3I and Rate Constrained requirements apply only to Orion. GP-10031, Gateway to Visiting Vehicle IRD (DRAFT) will be updated post-award. For Logistics Module message formats, Offerors should refer to reference document DSG-SPEC-FSW-014, Gateway Program Subsystem Specification for Flight Software (FSW), for proposal development.

DSG-SPEC-COMM-005, Gateway Program Subsystem Specification for Communications (COMM)

L2-COMM-LM-0058 Question: For the vehicle to vehicle link, what data rates and capabilities are needed to be supported over the 400km? Is there a gradient of needs over different distances?

Recommendation: Define the data rate and ranging/ranging rate capabilities needed at multiple distance thresholds.

Data rates, capabilities, and gradients are TBD. The offeror's assumptions should be clearly documented in their proposal.

How does NASA fairly evaluate the varying lengths of nominal mission offerings given the only requirement is a specific launch date? Providing more specific delivery dates rather than launch dates would provide a more equitable and balanced evaluation.

Refer to Section 7 of the solicitation.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 Section 2.2.7 Rights in Data, Alt II, Additional Purposes:

(i) Support Contractors. Would these support services contractors be assigned to GLS only or other NASA Programs?

(ii) Evaluation by nongovernment evaluators: Please define nongovernment evaluators and if these evaluators would only be supporting GLS.

(iii) Use (except for manufacture) by other contractors participating in the Government’s program of which the specific contract is a part.

NASA included the Clause 2.2.35 Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) in the RFP allowing contractors to share information, data, and technical knowledge with participating Gateway Contractors. Recommend deletion of (iii) as data will be shared via the ACAs.

(iv) Release to a foreign government, or its instrumentalities, if required to serve the interests of the U.S. Government, for information or evaluation Is there an International Agreement in place with the foreign entities? For what purpose would the foreign government require limited rights data for information and evaluation?

***Cont'd below***

(i) Support services contractors may be assigned to other NASA Programs in addition to GLS.

(ii) The term, “nongovernment evaluator” refers to non-government employees used to evaluate proposals received under section 2.2.18 of the RFP. The RFP has been amended to clarify that nongovernment evaluators may be used to support evaluation of GLS Task Order Proposals. These evaluators are not limited to supporting only GLS.

(iii) This item will remain as written.

(iv) The RFP has been amended to clarify that information may be released to Gateway international partners when needed in support of delivering an international partner's cargo/payload to Gateway.

***Cont'd***

Recommendation: In addition to our recommendation to delete (iii) Use (except for manufacture) by other contractors participating in the Government’s program of which the specific contract is a part., we also recommend the following companion clause to the 52.227-14, Alt II to ensure protection of Contractor data. (This language was agreed to on the NASA NextSTEP2, Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Appendix E: Human Landing System Studies, Risk Reduction, Development, and Demonstration Contract#NNH19ZCQ001K_APP-E).

H. XXX

(a) With respect to FAR 52.227-14 Alternate II, the Government’s obligation to prohibit further use and disclosure identified in the Limited Rights Notice will, at a minimum, include the use of NASA FAR Supplement 1852.237-72 Access to Sensitive Information in contracts with nongovernment evaluators and support service contractors.

(b) In accordance with FAR 52.227-14 Alternate II, the following nongovernment evaluators and support service contractors may need access to limited rights data. The Contracting Officer may unilaterally change or update nongovernment evaluators or support service contractors by providing written notice to the Contractor. (Include current List)

These clauses will not be added to the solicitation.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 6.0 The GLS RFP was revised and removed the requirement to perform Specialized Mission delivery of Lunar Enterprise Elements [section 6.2.15(b)(2)(i)(C)], yet the SOW [section 6.0] requires the contractor to provide specialized delivery services in support of NASA’s Gateway Program and other Lunar Enterprise Programs.

• What NASA contract is providing the lunar transfer delivery service vehicle for the Gateway Minimal Habitation Module (MHM), scheduled to occur in 2023?

• Does NASA intend to issue an open and competitive RFP for the MHM lunar transfer delivery service vehicle?

• Will NASA be funding a contractor, directly or indirectly, to develop a lunar transfer delivery service vehicle for MHM?

• As the GLS RFP missions are not until 2024, is it NASA’s intention to have a MHM lunar transfer delivery service contractor develop a transport capability as well as a GLS contractor?

Refer to solicitation number 80JSC019GTWYHAB at www.fbo.gov for information regarding the Minimal Habitation Module.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 &

DRFP Q&A #3

2.2.2

Question #70

Reference: (a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued for a period of twelve years from date of contract award.

Contractor requested clarification that 2026 was the last year that missions could be ordered. NASA responded [in question 70] that "no, orders may be issued for a period of twelve years from contract award".

Please clarify this statement. The Pricing Table in Section 1.2.2 provides for "Fixed-Price in Calendar Year Ordered" through 2025. Therefore, shouldn't the last year that a mission can be ordered be 2025? We understand that orders placed during the Ordering Period (through 2025), may have a mission duration of 12 years from the date the Contract/Task Order is awarded, but how can NASA order a mission in any year beyond 2025 without established pricing? Please confirm that 2025 is the last year that a mission can be ORDERED.

As described in clause 2.2.2, FAR 52.216-18, Ordering, orders may be issued for a period of twelve years from date of contract award. Pricing for GLS missions beyond 2025 will be obtained upon request by the Contracting Officer as stated in section 1.8, GLS IDIQ Capabilities and Price Updates.

RFP 80KSC019R0002

DRFP Q&A #3

2.2.2

Question #70

Reference: (a) "Such orders may be issued for a period of twelve years from date of contract award."

Please define how NASA arrived at the 12 year period and what effort is expected during this period?

The twelve year ordering period was determined based on anticipated Gateway requirements. During this period, NASA may issue task orders for specific logistics services as described in clause 2.2.18, Gateway Logistics Task Ordering Procedures. The task orders will specify the required effort.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 2.2.2

2.2.4

Reference:

(a) "Such orders may be issued for a period of twelve years from date of contract award."

(d) "…, the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract beyond fifteen years from date of award."

Please clarify the difference between the twelve year period in Clause 2.2.2, paragraph (a) and the fifteen year period in Clause 2.2.4, paragraph (d).

The "ordering period" in clause 2.2.2 is the timeframe in which NASA may issue task orders, while the "fifteen years" in clause 2.2.4 is the point in time after award that the Contractor is not required to make any further deliveries under the contract.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 2.2.22 Reference: (f) (2) Launch vehicle failure investigation, provided NASA retains its original position in the order of the queue sequence and that all data related to the failure investigation is made available to NASA without restriction

Please confirm that the "launch vehicle failure investigation" pertains to a launch vehicle as used for GLS missions.

No, the referenced clause does not limit the "launch vehicle failure investigation" to the launch vehicle used for GLS missions.

Attachment 03, GLS-RQMT-001, Gateway Logistics Services Requirements

3.07 Reference: L3-GLS-1045 Vestibule Pressurization is new requirement (was not in the draft of GLS-RQMT-001) for the docked LM to remotely pressurize the vestibule to a certain pressure range, at least twice.

What is the volume of the Gateway side of the LM-Gateway vestibule?

The Gateway vestibule volume is currently undefined. The requirements and specifications provided represent the current set of requirements for proposal development and pricing purposes. The offeror's assumptions should be clearly documented in their proposal.

Attachment 01, GLS Statement of Work

4.1.3.7.4 The Contractor shall provide a clearance envelope around the unpressurized cargo as per Figure 4.3 in CSA-GWY-ID-0001 that is clear of intrusions such that each payload or ORU can be robotically manipulated when docked to Gateway. The Contractor shall provide the capability to command the release of the SORI/LORI launch latches when docked to Gateway.

Figure 4-3 in CSA-GWY-ID-0001 is specific to the Common Large Robotic Fixture.

Does the clearance envelope in Figure 4-3 apply to SORI and LORI payloads? If so, where is the origin of the user stay-out zone located?

If not, which interfaces does this apply to? Can NASA provide the clearance envelopes for a SORI and LORI?

The RFP is amended under SOW section 4.1.3.7.4 to remove the reference to Figure 4-3 in CSA-GWY-ID- 0001. SORI and LORI clearances are TBD. The offeror's assumptions should be clearly documented in their proposal.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 7.3(d) Reference Section 7.3(d) Factor 2, Mission Suitability, Section (1)(ii)(1) the government states: "NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management team as well as its organizational structure and its effectiveness in being able to manage a fixed-price contract.” Can the government provide instructions regarding the level of detail that should be submitted regarding our proposed management team? Are resumes required, and if so, can they be excluded from the page count?

This question is in reference to a section in the Draft RFP that was updated in the final RFP under section 7.3(d)2(i). "The Offeror's proposed management team" is no longer part of the evaluation.

Attachment 08, Work Plan NASA provided 3 months span between PDR and CDR. Does NASA have any driving requirements for this span or can we propose an alternate schedule to meet your overall objective?

The RFP is amended to move the PDR Program Event from L-33 to L-36 months to allow a 6-month span between PDR and CDR. RFP section 6.2.15(b)(2)(i)(F) and Attachment 08, under note 1, allows Offerors to propose changes within specified limits.

Attachment 01, GLS Statement of Work

4.0 How frequently do you expect to order GLS missions? Do you anticipate requiring more than one standard mission per year?

The required frequency of GLS missions and the number of standard missions that will be required per year is TBD. A notional Artemis Manifest was provided during Industry Day and is available on www.fbo.gov under the 80KSC019R0002-DRAFT posting; however, Offerors are cautioned that this manifest is subject to change as Artemis mission requirements become better defined.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 6.0 Reference: “(vi) The Government will compare the electronic and paper copies to the “Original” proposal; if a variation in content between the “Original” proposal and the paper/electronic copies is noted, the “Original” proposal shall be considered as the submitted proposal. Page count is determined by the “Original” proposal.”

Recommendation: Specify that the PDF is considered the electronic original.

Rationale: Earlier in the RFP, NASA requested a PDF, MS Word and Paper original. Often MS Word paginates differently on different computer systems depending on version of Windows, fonts loaded, etc. Conceivably, the proposal could be page compliant when viewed on offerors computers, while not compliant when viewed on NASA computers. Since NASA wants both PDF and MS word originals, what if the MS word original has a different page count than the PDF and Paper original?

The requirement will remain as written.

Attachment 02, Data Requirements Descriptions

GLS-008 Safety Documentation to non-NASA entities

Question: [This DRD] Requires submission of system safety documentation to be delivered to applicable non-NASA entities. Contractors performing operations for NASA shall make available required safety documentation for logistics and launch vehicle systems and associated ground support equipment. What is the intent of this clause? This clause seems duplicate to other requirements in the RFP. Unclear what the trigger event applies to this DRD?

Recommendation: Recommend removal of the DRD as this type of data is covered in other DRDs (i.e. Mishap GLS-006).

Additionally, this type of data would be made available to these entities as part of Contractor scope in clause 2.2.28 USE OF

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, FACILITIES, ASSETS, OR

SERVICES, 2.2.31 LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSURANCE

FOR A LAUNCH SERVICE OPERATOR and the data rights clause 52.227-14.

The requirement will remain as written. The deliverable directs the Contractor to provide safety documentation to NASA when requested. There is not a specific “trigger event” that applies to this DRD. The full content of this DRD may not be required for every mission and requests for the deliverable may not be necessary presuming the Contractor provides NASA access to this data as part of insight.

GP-10031 Gateway to Visiting Vehicle

IRD (DRAFT)

3.2.7-43 Question: IRD requirements L2-COMM-VV-0056 and -0057 levy requirements for DTN/LTP delay-tolerant networking protocols on the Gateway-VV link. Can you clarify whether this is intended to be required for the LM?

Recommendation: Recommend not required for LM and allow LM offerors to propose alternate solutions.

The requirement will remain as written.

RFP 80KSC019R0002 6.0 How should excluded pages that are included in Volume II, Mission Suitability be identified without interfering with the total 175-page limit while still meeting the RFP outline requirements indicated in Section 6.2.15? Excluded pages are as follows: signed commitments within the Subcontract Management Plan section under Subfactor B; the corporate S&MA Plan with the S&MA Plans section under Subfactor B, and; the Small Business Subcontracting Plan under Subfactor C.

Offerors may determine the most appropriate way to identify pages excluded from the total page count.

Attachment 02, Data Requirements Descriptions

3.0 RFP Statement: Nothing contained in this DRL provision shall relieve the Contractor from furnishing data not identified and described in the DRL attachment but called for by, or under the authority of, other provisions or as specified elsewhere in this contract.

Recommendation: We recommend deleting this statement as all data delivery, format and content requirements should be stated clearly to allow Offerors to appropriately address in a fixed price contract as well as identify the data rights associated with such data.

The statement will remain as written.

Attachment 02, Data Requirements Descriptions

GLS-002 Mission Success Criteria &

Determination Methodology

This DRD references clause 2.2.17 KSC 52.242-90 CONTROLS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES (JUL 2018). Do not see the correlation between this DRD and Clause 2.2.17.

The RFP is amended to change the reference in Attachment 02, Data Requirements Descriptions, under GLS-002 from 2.2.17 to 2.2.20.

Attachment 02, Data Requirements Descriptions

GLS-108 Launch Vehicle Flight

Software Input for

IV&V

DRD: Implementation – Source code, under a mutually agreed Data…