CAPSTONE RFP RESPONSES 12.20.2019.pdf

CAPSTONE QUESTIONS & RESPONSES 12.20.2019 80KSC020R0003

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.6 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH STANDARDS

Question:

In the first sentence, please change "the Offeror's commercial practices" to "the Contractor's commercial practices." This maintains the consistency of referring to the Contractor rather than the Offeror in the contract.

Response:

RFP has been amended to replace “Offeror’s” with “Contractor’s.”

H.8 ADJUSTMENTS TO LAUNCH SCHEDULE

Can the Government confirm in Section H.8.1 that delay fees would be applied on a pro-rated basis, and not the same amount of delay fees for a delay of anywhere from 1-30 days of delay?

The delay fees are for a 30 day period. A 1-day delay would result in the same amount as a 30-day delay. If applicable, the delay fees begin after the 7 grace days are used.

In H.8.1, please clarify what is meant by "the counteroffer becomes a new request for postponement of the launch date." Is this intended to apportion the responsibility for a delay? For example, if NASA requests a 20-day delay and the Contractor then requests an additional 10 days, is NASA responsible for the first 20 days and the Contractor responsible for the additional 10 days?

The interpretation in the question is correct, if NASA requests a 20-day delay and the Contractor then requests an additional 10 days, NASA is responsible for the first 20 days and the Contractor is responsible for the additional 10 days. If applicable, this would be after the 7 grace days are used. The following further explains the intent of the clause as it pertains to the example:

If a delay is requested prior to L-60 days, and the counteroffer has a new launch date that is within the launch period (i.e. before March 31), then there are no fees to either party. For a 20 day delay request submitted by NASA within L-60 days, the Contractor could counteroffer a different date within the 7 day grace period of the requested date at no penalty, then NASA is accountable for a full 30 day period of launch delay. If the contractor requests 8 to 30 days of delay, then each party has an equal penalty, so the delay is essentially no penalty to either party.

Questions:

In H.8.1, in the fourth paragraph, please change "after the L-60" to "after L-60."

RFP has been amended to remove “the” before L-60.

In H.8.1, it states that the liquidated damages apply "for each requested 30 calendar day period, or part thereof, of delay." For periods of less than 30 days, are the liquidated damages applied on a prorated basis? If not, please confirm that a 1-day delay would result in the same amount of damages as a 30-day delay.

The delay fees are for a 30 day period. A 1-day delay would result in the same amount as a 30-day delay. If applicable, the delay fees begin after the 7 grace days are used.

In H.8.1, please change the last sentence to: "Each postponement request by the Contractor or NASA, to the extent it postpones the launch date to no later than June 30, 2021, and that is not the result of paragraph H.8.2 herein is subject to the liquidated damages defined above." This clarifies which delays are subject to H.8.1 and which are subject to H.8.3. A similar change is proposed for H.8.3.

In H.8.3, please change the last sentence to: "Each postponement request by the Contractor or NASA, to the extent it postpones the launch date later than June 30, 2021, and that is not the result of paragraph H.8.2 herein is subject to the liquidated damages defined above." This clarifies which delays are subject to H.8.1 and which are subject to H.8.3. A similar change is proposed for H.8.1.

RFP has been amended to include the following language “to the extent it postpones the launch date to no later than June 30, 2021.”

Questions:

In H.8.2, please add to the definition of excusable delay: "or a 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." This is consistent with other LSP contracts.

The RFP will not be changed.

SECTION I – CLAUSES INCORPORATD BY REFERENCE

For FAR 52.227-14 Alternate II, paragraph (g)(3), please list the additional purposes for the limited rights notice or state "none."

RFP has been amended.

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A – SOW

3.0 LAUNCH VEHICLE ANALYSIS, DESIGN

There were questions asked regarding this previously, but there is still some ambiguity.

Item 3.D states that the LV will supply power for the heaters. Who is responsible for the thermostatical control of those heaters -- is that to be done by the LV or by the dispenser/satellite? Please note that the existence of thermistor lines in the harness does not, by itself, imply that the LV is providing control, as these could be pass-throughs to satellite ground EGSE for ground monitoring.

The payload is responsible for the thermostatical control of the heaters, as the thermostats are within the dispenser.

Attachment A.1 Trajectory Requirements

The target insertion orbit parameters for AoP and RAAN show sets of numbers separated by a slash ("/"). Please confirm that valid values are anywhere within the range specified by the slash and not restricted to the two specific values separated by a slash (e.g.

anywhere between -20 deg and + 20 deg [inclusive] AoP is acceptable).

Response:

Attachment A.1, Trajectory Requirements has been amended to AoP is between –20 and +20 degrees or between 160 and 200 degrees inclusive.

Attachment A.2 Launch Requirements

Slide 8: We would like to confirm our understanding of the pinouts. Please confirm the intention of pins 9 and 10 as the primary separation signal, pins 22 and 23 as the backup separation signal, and pins 11-12 as a loopback circuit?

Pins 9 and 10 are for the primary separation signal from the LV to the dispenser and pins 22 and 23 are the backup signal. Pins 11 and 12 are for the dispenser deployment switch status lines. There is not a requirement to monitor the switch status lines.

Slide 8: If the LVC is required to provide close loop control based on the thermistor lines, please indicate the thermistor model number or type.

The payload is responsible for the thermostatical control of the heaters, as the thermostats are within the dispenser.

Attachment C Milestone Deliverable Descriptions and Requirements

Attachment C suggests that Mission Critical Design Review (CDR), it is our understanding that a Mission CDR should only cover the payload-specific interfaces and analyses. Please confirm it is the case. If not, please clarify what interfaces/hardware should be covered. What is the level of review of the TLI stage design expected in the Mission CDR for instance?

Response:

The requirements for the Mission CDR include the payload specific interface, but as stated in the description of the milestone, the CDR must also include the mission design: “The Contractor shall present a final detailed design based on drawings, analyses, and evaluation testing that shows the mission design meets final performance and interface specifications, safety requirements, and mission objectives. The Contractor shall identify and describe all planned mission qualification and acceptance tests to be performed to prove validity.”

NASA does not require the detailed design of the entire TLI stage to be presented, but the effects of the TLI stage on the interfaces defined in the ICD must be addressed. Mass, thrust, ISP, control capability would be examples of how the TLI stage effects the trajectory design which is used to meet the ICD requirements. To the extent the TLI stage meets a criteria in items i. thru vii, then those items are also required to be presented at the CDR. As an example, if there is a technical design problem or development anomaly in the TLI stage that is associated with meeting the loads, environments, performance, or orbit dispersions in the ICD, then those problems and anomalies must be included in the CDR.

Mission Critical Design Review (CDR), in sub-section iii., Please clarify the scope of the "software simulations and prototyping results" required to be presented.

If there is unique software required to meet the CAPSTONE ICD requirements, then the Contractor would be required to describe the software simulations or prototyping they choose to perform to ensure that the mission requirements will be met. The contractor is required to identify associated risks to a successful mission.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS

L.6 NFS 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS. (APR 2015)

Please confirm that offerors are to submit 6 total CDs (two for each volume:

Technical/Management Capability, Price and Other Plans and Data), and update the page limitations table in Section L.6 accordingly. As written, It reads as though offerors are to submit separate CDS for each line item under Volume III, Other Plans and Data.

Is the intent that separate CDs are required for each subsection within Volume III or can all subsections be consolidated on a single CD?

RFP has been amended.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.3 VOLUME III, PRICE

Per Section M.3 of the Solicitation, we understand that the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for all of the offeror’s proposed prices, including the delay prices proposed in Section H.8, to ensure that the price evaluation accounts for benefit and/or risk to the Government. Can the Government please confirm this is correct?

How will delay prices be factored into the price evaluation?

Price will be evaluated in accordance with M.3 Volume II, Price.

Section H.8 Adjustments to Launch Schedule, will be evaluated in accordance with M.2 VOLUME I, Technical/Management Capability.