CAPSTONE DRFP RESPONSES Version 01.pdf

CAPSTONE DRFP QUESTIONS & RESPONSES Version 01 80KSC020R0003

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Questions:

Please clarify if offerors can submit multiple proposals.

Would NASA entertain two solutions in one RFP submission? If so, it is expected that NASA would pick one solution moving forward looking at the technical and schedule trade-offs.

Response:

No, only one proposal with one solution is permissible per offeror.

Question:

For an NLS contract, NASA issues a separate request for proposal (RFP) for payload processing facility (PPF) services. Please clarify that the Government is not going to issue a separate RFP for PPF services, and that Section 7 of this SOW encompasses all PPF services the Government needs, and offerors should account for those services in the pricing for this proposal.

No, the Government is not providing a PPF or a separate RFP. Yes, the requirement for PPF is included in the SOW 7.0.

SECTION B – SUPPLIES/SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

Section B.2 of the DRFP addresses the launch month but not the launch date. Does NASA envision a process to specify a launch date within the launch month post-award and, if so, can NASA clarify how the launch date within the launch month will be determined in the final RFP?

RFP has been updated for offeror to specify launch date.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 SCOPE OF WORK

All response are located in Section J

C.2 CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)

Change the first sentence of paragraph (b) to: "The Government reserves the right to reasonably defer the date of delivery of any or all items of data specified in the CDRL within the period of performance." This clarifies that the Government may not require deliveries outside of the period of performance.

The RFP has been updated to include “within the period of performance” and with Attachment B, Contract Data Requirements List.

C.2.(b) states that the Government reserves the right to add to the requirement for any or all items of data specified in the CDRL. This requirement does not align with an FFP type contract. How should offerors estimate for this requirement? Will the Government issue an RFP for contractors to estimate for additional requirements?

Change the last sentence of paragraph (b) to: "The Government also reserves the right to terminate or add to the requirement for any or all items of data specified in the CDRL."

Any addition would be a change and may require an equitable adjustment to the price, schedule, or both.

The Government has removed the above sentence in paragraph (b) of the above section.

SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.2 MILESTONE PAYMENTS, EVENTS AND COMPLETION CRITERIA

The "Payment Name" called out in Table G-2, Launch Service Payment Schedule are different in some cases then the corresponding "Payment Name" called out in the Attachment C table. Should they be the same to avoid any confusion in the future. The deliverables for each payment are called out later in Attachment C.

The Government has removed the table in Attachment C and has updated the Table in G.2 to be consistent with what had previously been in Attachment C.

In the note to Table G-2, add: "Withholding of the final payment is the sole remedy of the Government for a failed mission determination." This is necessary to clarify the limit of the contractor's liability and is consistent with other LSP contracts.

The G-2 Table “NOTE” infers that withholding of the final payment is the remedy of the Government for a failed mission determination by the note statement: “In the event of a failed mission, the final payment shall be forfeited by the Contractor and is not recoupable.” None of the previously invoice payments will be affected.

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.4 ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING REGARDING TERMINATION SETTLEMENT

UNDER FAR 52.212-4 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS- COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (OCT 2018) SECTION (L)

How does the requirement to refund a portion of the milestone-based payment after a termination for convenience comply with FAR 52.212-4(l), when FAR 52.212-4(l) states that the contractor shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination?

Since FAR 52.212-4, as prescribed in FAR 12.302(b), allows tailoring except for a list of seven (7) items of which “termination for convenience” is not one of the seven. Therefore, the tailored portion of this clause shall be the agreed upon terms and conditions for CAPSTONE’s contract.

H.5 LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSURANCE FOR A LAUNCH SERVICE

OPERATOR

H.5.(b) requires the Contractor to provide the NASA Contracting Officer with a copy of the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) determination and a certificate of such insurance once it has been obtained. At what point is this deliverable due?

The copy will be due to Contracting Officer upon the availability through the FAA licensing process.

H.8 ADJUSTMENTS TO LAUNCH SCHEDULE

For all of the $TBP delay fees in section H.8, is the intent that the delay fee for each 30-day period be the same or can offerors propose a variable delay fee for each 30-day period?

Response:

Same fee for each 30 day period, but as always, offerors may propose exceptions to any clause and NASA will evaluate.

The liquidated damages in H.8.1 and the liquidated damages for NASA's request for a postponement in H.8.2 are measured in 30-day delays. However, the liquidated damages for the contractor's request for a postponement in H.8.2 does not have a time period.

Should the contract measure the liquidated damages for this situation by 30 days?

In section H.8.3, specific to the Contractor requests for postponement and the related $TBP delay fee, it is ambiguous whether the $TBP delay fee applies on 30-day intervals or to the entire period (as is clear for the delay fees associated with NASA requests for postponement in section H.8.3) – – can you clarify in the final RFP?

No, in the case where the Contractor delays the launch past June 30, 2021, NASA has the right to Terminate for Convenience and the Contractor has a one-time penalty for not meeting the date. Section H.8.3 reflects NASA’s requirement.

In H.8.1, modify the delay fee structure to include increased delay fees for postponement requests that are made within L-60 days. The contractor incurs substantial costs for delays that occur close to the launch date. Late delay notices also adversely impact the contractor's launch manifest.

In H.8.1, limit NASA's right of approval to any revision in its position to delays caused by the contractor. If NASA postpones the launch, it should not be permitted to further disrupt the contractor's launch manifest by deciding on its new position.

RFP has been revised to reflect the intent of the comment plus additional revisions as a result of this new timeframe for delay determination.

In Section H.8.2 - clarify what mission rule requirements means and the source of mission rule requirements.

The RFP has been updated to state: “payload or launch vehicle launch day mission rules/constraints documented in the Contractor’s countdown procedure/process”

In section H.8.3, should the statement “A postponement request by the Contractor or NASA that is not the result of paragraph H.8.2 herein is subject to the liquidated damages defined in H.8.1.” read “A postponement request by the Contractor or NASA that is not the result of paragraph H.8.2 herein is subject to the liquidated damages defined in H.8.3”?

RFP has been updated for clarity.

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A Statement of Work

From item E, eliminate "A report on the performance of subcontractors shall be included as part of any program reviews." Commercial practices do not give detailed reports on performance of subcontractors.

RFP has been updated to eliminate this report from 2.1, Program Management, E.

Clarify if the taxes and transfer costs listed in 2.1.H apply just to the launch vehicle or also the CAPSTONE spacecraft/dispenser transportation/logistics costs? Suggest clearly specifying using a "will" statement what government/spacecraft team will deliver and where.

Response:

NASA is responsible for all costs associated with delivery of the CAPSTONE spacecraft assembly and any associated personnel and Ground Support Equipment to the launch site.

The statement of work (SOW) indicates no need/desire for a mechanical or electrical fit /function check prior to the launch campaign. A functional check is particularly advisable given the active heating units in the dispenser. Could the dispenser be made available for early mechanical/electrical interface tests (well prior to the launch campaign)? If so, when?

[Section 2.1, Program Management] Item C. begins with an incomplete sentence with no shall or will statement "The mechanical interface between the payload dispenser and the LV, as referenced in Attachment A.2."

Item D. begins with an incomplete sentence with no shall or will statement "The electrical interface between the payload dispenser and the LV, as referenced in Attachment A.2".

Item D. "The payload dispenser has thermostatically controlled heaters that must be powered by the LV during flight, prior to separation." should be made a shall statement if it is a requirement.

Add E. The TLI stage shall perform passivation and deterministic disposal post-separation.

No, for the Item C & D, the sentence above letter A. states "The Contractor shall meet the following requirements for the launch service", therefore, the shall is applied to the A. through D.

As for the “add E”, no, this requirement would be established between Contractor and the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA).

[Section 2.2, Compliance Documents] In item C., clarify scope of applicability of NPR 8621.1 - does the requirement apply to the entire scope of work or just scope that includes NASA personnel/property? Is the CAPSTONE spacecraft and dispenser considered NASA property?

No, NPR 8621.1 does not apply to the entire scope of work. Yes, it only applies NASA personnel/property. Additionally, CAPSTONE spacecraft and dispenser is not considered NASA property.

Clarify applicability of NPR 8715.6 - the parenthetical suggests it applies to the payload/spacecraft and not the Launch Vehicle; is the intend to expand the orbital debris requirements beyond the FAA licensing process? Is compliance to NPD 8020.7 and NPR

8020.12 also expected? If FAA licensing requirements are adequate, strike through compliance to NPR 8715.6.

The spacecraft is not NASA property. Advanced Space will retain ownership. As such, they are responsible for ensuring that the spacecraft meets all applicable planetary protection and orbital debris requirements.

[Section 3, Launch Vehicle Analysis, Design] Strikethrough the following sentence "The Contractor shall provide the design of the launch vehicle, including but not limited to the following subsystems: structures, mechanisms, fluids/propulsion, electrical/electronics, guidance/navigation/control, flight termination, and software." It is a significant deviation to provide the design of the launch vehicle as part of a commercial launch service.

Section 3.0 of the SOW states that "The Contractor shall provide the design of the launch vehicle, including but not limited to the following subsystems: structures, mechanisms, fluids/propulsion, electrical/electronics, guidance/navigation/control, flight termination, and software." Please clarify the intent of this requirement. Does it mean that the Contractor is responsible for performing the design of all launch vehicle systems, structures and components or that the Contractor shall provide NASA with all documentation related to the design and validation of the launch vehicle? If the latter, please add a CDRL that defines the required design documentation, analysis, test reports, quality records and standards that the Contractor must provide and clarify the Government's intent for using this documentation.

RFP has been updated from “provide” to “be responsible for”.

Under 3.0 A. Environments - Provide Document ID, Revision, etc. for GEVS document and specific reference to applicable section/requirements.

The RFP has been updated to provide the GEVS ID and revision (GSFC-STD- 7000 Rev A).

[3.0, Launch Vehicle Analysis, Design] In item A.b, revise the FMH from 1135 W/m2 to 1367W/m2 1367W/m2 is equivalent to solar irradiance and is the standard criteria used for fairing separation.

No change, the spacecraft FMH requirement is 1135 W/m2.

Clarify if the Launch Service Contractor shall provide the MGSE that interfaces directly to CAPSTONE SC/Dispenser for integration to launch vehicle, such as for lifting operations, or if this is planned to be provided as GFE or by the SC Contractor.

Clarify if Launch Service Contractor is responsible for integrating the CAPSTONE spacecraft into the dispenser or if Launch Service Contractor is just responsible for providing facilities to the government/spacecraft contractor team to perform integration of spacecraft into dispenser or if the spacecraft will be delivered already integrated into the dispenser.

Clarify that the Government intends to use Launch Service Contractor cleanroom facility for spacecraft to dispenser integration.

No, the Contractor is not responsible for integrating the CAPSTONE spacecraft into the dispenser. This will occur in the Contractor provided clean room after delivery of the spacecraft and dispenser to the launch site.

Clarify if CAPSTONE is powered for launch. Clarify if on-pad trickle charge or other post-encapsulation powered-on SC checkout is required for CAPSTONE.

No, the spacecraft is not powered for launch but the launch vehicle will be powering the dispenser heaters. No, there is no on-pad trickle charge or other post-encapsulation powered-on SC checkout.

Clarify the key integration tasks that will be completed by the government/spacecraft contractor team after delivery of the dispenser/spacecraft to the LSC facilities, and the amount of time required by the government/spacecraft contractor team (this is a key input into the schedule and may impact the critical path for launch) for each task.

Attachment A.1 Trajectory Requirements

Attachment A.1 specifies that the total SC body rate shall not exceed 10 deg/sec at loss of contact between the LV and the SC. Since the total SC body rate after deployment (i.e., loss of contact) is a function of LV body rates and rates imparted by the SC deployer it is not possible to determine compliance with this requirement without understanding potential contribution of the deployer. Please provide the maximum tipoff rate contribution from the deployer or specify the maximum total body rate of the LV/SC stack immediately prior to payload deployment.

Tipoff Rates - The dispenser separation dynamics including ejection spring and alignment characteristics are a significant contributor to CubeSat deployment tipoff rates out of dispensers. Since the dispenser is not supplied by the launch service contractor, the tipoff rates requirement should be decomposed to the interface, e.g., SC body rates at time of separation command - the things the launch service contractor is responsible for.

Page 2 lists a requirement for spacecraft (SC) tip off rates after separation. Please note that post-separation tip off rates are a combination of upper stage vehicle rates plus rates imparted by the separation system. In fact, typically, separation system rates dominate for cubsats. However, the SC team is providing the separation system. Therefore, the launch vehicle contractor (LVC) is unable to provide any verification for this requirement, nor does the LVC understand if it is at risk in this requirement. Instead, recommend changing to a tip off rate requirement on the upper stage immediately prior to separation.

The tip-off rate requirement in the RFP is for the launch vehicle only. Additional tip-off rates induced by the dispenser will be separately accounted for by the spacecraft project.

The dimensional view of the spacecraft/dispenser on the left side of Page 2 of Attachment A.1 shows what appears to be an antenna protruding from the top of the dispenser. In this view the antenna appears to be slightly wider than the 34.36 cm dimension specified for the bottom of the dispenser. The view on the right side of Page 2 shows the antenna from above. In this view the antenna is shown as a 33 cm square which would be smaller than the footprint of the dispenser. Please provide clarification on the size or diameter of the antenna.

The RFP has been modified to reflect the current spacecraft design.

Page 8 of Attachment A.1 states that the payload dispenser has thermostatically controlled heaters that must be powered by the LV during flight. Please clarify whether the LV is required to provide power only or provide power, temperature monitoring and thermostatic control of the heaters. Please provide the temperature setpoint range of the thermostats (e.g., on below / off above temperature) or the required dispenser temperature range if the LV is responsible for providing thermostatic control of the heaters.

Mission Thermal Requirements - Attachment A.2 requires support of survival heaters -update this section to describe the concept of operations for the heaters; identify any requirements to telemeter either the thermistor temperatures or monitor heater on/off states (such as through current monitoring)

Specification of post-injection spacecraft concept of operations and, in particular, the trajectory correction maneuver plan can help better mature and communicate the maturity of the launch/TLI concept of operations.

The first spacecraft TCM is expected to occur between 12 and 24 hours after deployment.

Reference Mass - dispenser mass listed as 9.3 kg is inconsistent with mass listed in Attachment A.2 of 8.6 kg.

The empty dispenser mass is 9.2 kg.

Update C3 dispersion from +/- 0.1 km^2/sec^2 to +/- 0.01 km^2/sec^2 to save delta-V, reduce risk, and improve mission lifetime for the CAPSTONE spacecraft.

No. The spacecraft’s C3 requirement is -0.6 +/- 0.1 km2/sec2.

Update WGS-84 to J2000 or ICF because J2000 is an Earth-centered inertial frame.

The project can support WGS-84, J2000, and ICF.

Change the Launch Opportunities section from "The launch vehicle (LV) shall support a launch attempt on any day of the year." " to: "The launch vehicle (LV) shall support a launch attempt on any day within the Launch Period." This is necessary to be consistent with B.2 and H.8.

RFP has been updated to “The launch vehicle (LV) shall support a launch attempt on any day within the launch period.”

Attachment A.2 Launch Requirements

Electrical Interface Requirements - Clarify survival heater description, provide end circuits for each heater, provide tolerances on resistance values, and clarify that the nominal rated dissipation for each heater for 20 W (vs. all of the heaters adding up to 20 W); provide expected orbit average dissipation and expected peak dissipation; provide THERMO TV0104PA drawing within Attachment A.2.

Att A2 states, "The payload dispenser has thermostatically controlled 20W heaters." The wiring table indicates 3 pairs of heater lines. Is the total max power draw required across all three pairs of lines 20 W or 60 W?

Att A2 states, "The payload dispenser has thermostatically controlled 20W heaters." Can NASA indicate the expected time averaged power required for each heater?

Alternatively, can the temperature ranges that the units are to be kept within be provided?

Mechanical Interface Requirements - allow the dispenser and separation hardware to be optionally provided by the Launch Service Contractor - the isolation is likely not necessary, particularly for dedicated small like vehicles and lower mass separation hardware options are available that will improve launch vehicle performance margins -the isolation may even amplify quasi-static loads.

The dispenser is already being procured with the spacecraft and the integration between the spacecraft and the dispenser is the responsibility of that provider.

Electrical Interface Requirements - provide SAIA BURGESS V4NSY1UL and GLENAIR 067-019 drawings/specifications/end circuits within Attachment A.2

The data sheet for the SAIA BURGESS V4NSY1UL is available online. The data sheet for the GLENAIR 067-019 cannot be provided without a NDA as it is a custom part.

Clarify the need for an umbilical interface for post encapsulation to launch processing, spacecraft checkout, trickle charge requirements, etc. Clarify if the spacecraft will be powered at any time between encapsulation and separation.

As stated in Question 27, the spacecraft is not powered for launch but the launch vehicle will be powering the dispenser heaters. No, there is no on-pad trickle charge or other post-encapsulation powered-on SC checkout.

The spacecraft has no electrical interface with either the dispenser or the launch vehicle and will not be powered between encapsulation and separation.

Provide specific reference to Tyvak 12U Dispenser User Guide (Rev, release date, Doc ID, etc.)

The latest Tyvak 12U Dispenser Users Guide (TYVAK-8005-Rev1) will be provided with the RFP.

Grounding requirements - clarify by writing clear shall statements for any grounding requirements including coatings and bonding verification requirements that will drive testing.

The project will work with the launch provider in terms of determining the appropriate grounding requirements. At this point, the preference is for the dispenser/spacecraft combination to be grounded to the launch vehicle with a measured resistance of less than 0.1 ohms.

Att A2 Launch Requirements states that the space vehicle contractor (SVC) team will provide a harness to terminate with a launch vehicle (LV)-defined connector (singular), and the LV is to define the length of said harness. Is it allowable for the harness to split to multiple connectors?

The dispenser electrical interface is a single connector. The LV provided harness may be split to multiple connectors on the LV end of the interface.

Attachment B Contract Data Requirements List

Performance and Guidance Accuracy Analysis (PGAA) - relax requirement for final delivery to be LVRR instead of QDR/PFDR.

Final Flight Report - clarify scope of thermal requirements for pre-flight and post-flight reporting (Core Stage/TLI stage only or including dispenser/SC), if the launch service contractor is responsible for thermal environments predictions, and other expectations.

Performance and Guidance Accuracy Analysis (PGAA) - clarify what "end of mission maneuvers" in Item E.

Response:

RFP has been updated. Any further update performed by the offeror is required to be provided to NASA as indicated in the table.

CDRL C-7 - D. Fairing installation. This seems redundant with B. Payload encapsulation.

RFP has been updated.

Presentation Packages delivery requirements - relax delivery requirement to 1 day before reviews (or conform to At Each Review, per the TABLE: CDRL INDEX), in particular for QDR, given the likely compressed schedule - or make provision for preliminary and final deliveries as review packages tend to be worked up until the review.

No change made. NASA requires one package, if a QDR is required based on the maturity of the launch vehicle, a week in advance to prepare for the review. Other formal presentation packages (ie PFDR, CDR) only 3 days in advance.

Performance and Guidance Accuracy Analysis (PGAA) - eliminate item M. Input File as a deliverable - this file is proprietary and should not be deliverable.

No change in requirement.

Attachment C Milestone Deliverable Descriptions and Requirements

Clarify scope of Qualification Data Review - Is the scope only core stages or does it also include the TLI stage?

Clarify scope of Qualification Data Review - does the review require a complete as-design/as-built list for the CAPSTONE flight vehicle?

Response:

The QDR is only required if the Contractor has not had a previous flight of a vehicle using the same core stage engines (within 10% thrust and burn duration) and core stages. The only items required to be presented are as listed in the description “the core stage engines and tanks, flight computer, Inertia Navigation Unit (INU), engine actuators, main batteries, separation systems, and flight software processes/test.” The as built vs as designed comparison is only for the listed items and requires the Contractor compare the flight hardware design to the build of the tested qualification hardware.

Mission Critical Design Review - suggested relaxing requirement for CDR to begin before "significant fabrication of mission interface hardware begins" or significant schedule risk is likely to be driven into the execution; launch service contractor must be allowed to manage its own production schedule.

RFP has been updated.

Page 4 CDR - Can the term "mission interface hardware" be clearly defined?

RFP has been revised to delete the statement that the CDR must be held before “significant fabrication of mission interface hardware begins.”

Page 7 Mission Success Criteria - The dispenser / separation system is not provided by the Launch Service Contractor so the following statement should not be used to measure success/failure: "Cannot be separated from the launch vehicle"

RFP has been updated to reflect that the separation system is not provided by the Contractor and to be consistent with changes made in Attachment B, CDRL CAPSTONE-6 Final Flight Report.

D Acronym and Definitions List

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER

STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

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

RESPONDENTS

The sentence "In the event that subcontractors are proposed as being involved in conducting this work, their relationship during the effort shall be explained and their proposed contributions to the work shall be identified and integrated into each part of the proposal, as appropriate" deviates significantly from commercial practice. Suggest updating this sentence and clearly limiting scope, such as identification of unique subcontractors/partners/team members/etc. who are important for non-standard elements of the proposed efforts/for work that deviates from a standard commercial launch solution.

RFP has been updated to reflect only subcontractors associated with specific high-risk elements of the launch vehicle: core stage engines and tanks, flight computer, Inertia Navigation Unit (INU), engine actuators, main batteries, separation systems, and flight software.

The instructions in Section L.12 state that the offerer shall include detailed rationale on the proposed launch delay prices and an approach for securing financing in Volume I.

These topics seem more appropriate for Volume II. Is it acceptable to include these topics in Volume II instead of Volume I?

No, it is not acceptable to move topics into other Volumes in the RFP.

In Item 1. vii. Clarify the scope of the thermal environment definition.

RFP has been updated to clarify the scope of the thermal environment definition.

Update Item 1. xi. from "A 3 Degree of Freedom (DoF) trajectory and performance analysis" to "A 3 Degree of Freedom (DoF) or higher trajectory and performance analysis"

RFP was updated.

Item ii. is currently written as, "Proposed Launch Vehicle's system requirements' are identified and defined to a level adequate to verify launch vehicle permanence capabilities." The word "requirements" is unclear, as it suggests the interface requirements of the service and these are detailed further in items iv, v, etc. The vehicle should not be imposing requirements on the satellite team other than the interface.

Suggest changing this from "requirements" to "characteristics" or "specifications" to clarify that the intent is to understand the core capabilities of the vehicle, if that is the Government's intent.

RFP has been updated to include system "characteristics, specifications, and/or requirements" for clarity.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The statement "All factors other than price when combined are approximately equal to price" seems to be in conflict with "The relative order of importance of these factors is Technical/Management Capability is slightly more than Price". Can you clarify one or both of these statements?

Approximately is not exactly. Approximately has its roots in the Latin word proximus, meaning "nearly." So, approximately means "about" or "close to."

Additionally, slightly means "to a small degree; not considerably."

Offerors understand that the proposed price for H.8 Adjustments to Launch Schedule will be an evaluation factor in determining reasonableness in the overall firm fixed price. How will the Government consider the proposed prices in H.8 to determine a reasonable price?

Response:

RFP has been updated to remove tables in Volume II, Price in both L.13 and M.3.

However, in Section L.12, “the Offeror shall provide a detailed rationale on the proposed delay prices as in H.8 Adjustments To Launch Schedule and, if any, benefit and/or risk to the Government” Still remains.