Europa Clipper Questions and Answers.pdf

# RFP Reference Question Response to Industry

E2 Instructions, Conditions, and Notices

Per Attachment E2: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices, Section 9.1, Sections A, B, C, D, and E of the model contract should be included in Volume 4, Model Contract. However, per 6.3(A), Section D, Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 and Attachments D2, D3, D5, D6, D7, D8 should be included in Volume 1. Do you want us to include these items in both Volume 1 and Volume 4, or would you like us to reference them in one volume only?

The RFP instructions 6.3(A) and 9.1 have been updated.

Attachment E2, Section 6.3, Page E2-18

Please clarify in which volume Offerors should include Attachment D9 Most Favored Customer Cert Plan. Currently, Attachment D9 is not listed in Table E2-A. Please also confirm that it will not be page limited.

Please also confirm that Attachments 10 and Attachments 11 do not need to be submitted with the proposal. Alternatively, if these are to be included in the proposal, please confirm they are to be included in the Mission Suitability volume and that they will be excluded from page count.

The RFP instructionsin Table E2-A and 9.1 have been updated.

Attachments D10 and D11 do not need to be submitted with the proposal.

See response to Question 4 for page count changes.

E2 paragraph 6.3.b.v

Requesting clarification regarding the header information per Section E2 Para 6.3.b.v. Does this page header information instruction also apply to Volume IV - Model Contract documents? Or should we use NASA-provided headers for contract documents (e.g. Contract Number, Exhibit, etc?)

Offerors should include the information required by the referenced instruction in all contract volumes and should also include the section and title on each page (e.g. Section C Contract Terms and Conditions). The referenced E2 Paragraph 6.3.b.v has been updated to reflect this change and to correct the numbering to 6.3.b.vii. See also the response to Question 1.

Attachment E2, Section 6.3, Page E2-18

Please remove page limitations for Volume I, Mission Suitability and Volume IV, Model Contract for contract documents.

The page limit to the Mission Suitability volume is currently 175 pages (minus Att D5, D6 and D7). However, the sum of page counts in just D1, D2 and D3 prior to Contractors filling in "TBPs" is 90 pages:

-D1 PWS: 28 pages (without the Exhibit page counts) -D2 CDRL: 50 pages -D3: SDRL: 12 pages

Further, LSIRD Section 3 is 23 pages long with only the interface requirements, not including Contractor responses. So Exhibit 9 will also be a large file if Contractors respond comprehensively.

As too will Exhibits 1 and 2.

The current page limitations to Volume I severely limit the ability of contractors to respond to all required items in the RFP within the stated page counts.

Recommend following the precedent set by prior NASA RFPs for the NLS II contract and Solar Probe Plus mission – to which the Europa Clipper RFP is similar – and not provide page limitations for Volume I contract documents (Atts D1-D8 or Exhibits) and Volume IV. Current NLS II requests for launch service proposal (RLSPs) also do not place limits on the contract documents or technical volume.

The RFP page count limits for Volume 1 have been revised. Refer to the RFP for more information.

5 E2-18

For ease of Government evaluation of the proposal, we would recommend listing the PWS and LSIRD requirements with a response below each. The PWS and LSIRD requirements alone are approximently 120 pages. Would NASA consider increasingt he Mission Suitability Volume page count referenced on page E2-18 fo the RFP from 175 to 300 to allow for inclusion of all the requirements in the PWS and LSIRD in our proposal?

See response to Question 4.

Request that Exhibit 7 be excluded from the page count of Volume 1 and Volume 4 in order to provide NASA a full and comprehensive plan to allow additional insight. If the pages cannot be excluded, would NASA consider adding an additional 40 pages to the Volume 1 and Volume 4 page counts?

See response to Question 4.

Attachment E2, Section 8.3, Page E2-22

Section 8.3 Mission Unique Services requires that the "Offerors Technical Volume shall include Basis of Estimates (BOEs) for each Mission Unique Service that is proposed for Europa Clipper."

Because this is price-related content, please confirm/allow this BOE information to be excluded from page count for the Mission Suitability volume.

See response to Question 4; the Volume 1, Mission Suitability, page limitation has been increased to allow for BOE information to be included in the Mission Suitability Volume. Refer to the updated instructions in Section E2 Paragraph 6.3(A)

E2 paragraph 6.3.b.vi

Requesting clarification regarding the page numbering requirement per Section E2 para 6.3.b.vi. Does this page number instruction also apply to Volume IV-Model Contract?

Or should each Exhibit or Attachment have its own page numbering within a given volume. For example, Exhibit D1 Page 1.

Each Exhibit or Attachment should have it's own page numbering within a given volume (e.g. Volume 1, Attachment D2, Page 1 of 25). The RFP instructions have been updated to reflect this.

Attachment D, Section 3.0

Attachment D, Section 3.0 Information Technology Security references NPR 2810.1. Please provide a definition of "NASA data" and please provide examples of "NASA Data" that the contractor might receive under this contract that would need to be protected per NPR 2810.1.

Attachment D, Section 3.0 Information Technology Security, references "NASA information." NPR 2810.1 defines NASA Information as any data which is collected, generated, maintained, or controlled on behalf of the Agency. Some examples of NASA Information that the contractor might receive under this contract include, but are not limited to, spacecraft design information, target specifications, spacecraft coupled loads and thermal models, and NASA tracking and data relay asset/ground station information.

Can NASA provide clarification on any "most important" or "most critical" requirements for Europa Clipper?

Refer to Section E3, Evaluation Criteria.

LSIRD Table 3.3.1.1-1

Confirm if the LSIRD Table 3.3.1.1-1 ECLS maxiumum gas temperature requirement of 69.8 F applies prior to ECLS/LV mate when the SV is traditionally powered off.

Yes, these temperature limits also apply prior to ECLS/LV mate.

LSIRD Table 3.3.1.2-1

Clarify when the SV will be dissipating power and when the HRS Table 3.3.1.2-1 in the LSIRD requirements apply.

The SV will be dissipating heat during all powered on events. This includes periods of time for SV electrical testing and checkout which will be defined during mission integration. Once the battery plugs are installed, the SV is continuously powered on from that point forward. Note that the SV can be powered down via the EGSE. The HRS thermal requirements apply when the SV is powered on as stated in the LSIRD.

Attachment E2, Section 6.3, Page E2-19;

Section 10.1(D), Page E2-26

Please confirm that the single/master list or chart noted in Section 6.3(C) is not page limited. Please also confirm that the cross reference matrix requested in Section 10.1(D) is not part of the page limitations for the Mission Suitability volume.

In accordance with 6.3(B)(iii) title pages, pages without proposal material, or tables of contents are excluded from page counts.

The single/master list noted in Section 6.3(C) and the cross reference matrix in Section 10.1(D) are not part of the page limitations for the Mission Suitability Volume.

Attachment E2, Section 6.5, Page E2-20

Please clarify what is meant by the following sentence: "The proposal shall include at least one copy of contract replacement pages in MS Office Word." As the mission is not yet on contract, this requirement is unclear as written.

The subject sentence has been deleted.

Attachment E2, Section 6.5, Page E2-20

Please confirm the correct dates for proposal submittal.

Currently, page E2-20 of the RFP and the beta.SAM solicitation page states April 16 as the submittal date, but the cover letter states April 15.

Refer to E2, section 6.5.

Attachment E3, Section 10.1(E), Page E2-29

Please delete the following item:

"(E) The Offeror shall provide a detailed response to each of the following subfactor requirements utilizing the structure and order as provided below:

a. Technical Approach

b. Management Approach

c. Small Business Utilization"

This requirement does not correspond to the structure outlined in the rest of Section 10.0 regarding the structure of the Mission Suitability Volume. It appears to be from the Evaluation Criteria.

Further, please note that, as currently written, all small business information has been requested as part of Volume IV, Model Contract (IAW Section 9.5 of Attachment E2). Thus, the list above contradicts other sections of the RFP.

The RFP has been amended to clarify. See response to Question 1.

Attachment D1 PWS, Section 2.4.2.1;

Attachment E2, Section 10.2.4.2.1

There is a PWS Section 2.4.2.1 that discusses the payload processing facility for Europa Clipper. However, Section

10.2.4.2.1 in the Mission Suitability Instructions is "Reserved."

Please confirm that Offerors do not need to respond to PWS Section 2.4.2.1 in Volume I, Mission Suitability.

Offerors do not need to respond to PWS Section 2.4.2.1.

Section C, Terms and Conditions, Section 7.4, Page C-13

The second part of this subsection provides: "Alternatively, if delivery or performance is so delayed by the Contractor, NASA may terminate this contract in whole or in part under contract Section C, Clause 1.0(m), Termination for Cause, of this contract and in that event, the Contractor shall be liable for any and all rights and remedies provided by law." Would these include cover damages such that the USG would procure a new launch service and charge the terminated contractor? Is there a limit to Contractor liability under this clause?

Please see the relevant section (19.4) which states: ‘the Contractor shall be liable for any and all rights and remedies provided by law.’ Any liability is fact dependent and will be in accordance with all rights and remedies provided by law.

Attachment E3, Section 5.1, Page E3-3

This section states that: "Information and findings generated from any LSP launch vehicle certification process, NASA Space Act Agreement or other NASA contracts may be used in the evaluation of the Offeror's proposal." Would these be evaluated under Mission Suitability or Past Performance?

Information and findings that inform NASA's evaluation of the viability of the Offeror's approach and technical risk to the mission may be used as justification for mission suitability findings. Information related to previous contract past performance, as described in Section E3, Paragraph 6 may be used as part of the past performance evaluation.

Attachment E2, Section 1.0, Page E2-1

Table D2-A: CDRL index states that the AS9100 Certification Certificate (C3-3) is due at "Contract Award +45 days."

However, the second paragraph in E2-1, 1.0 requires as a "Minimum Contract Requirement", to " Provide evidence of AS9100 third party certification from a Registrar that is accredited by a body recognized by either the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) or the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG), for any corporation, corporate divisions, subsidiaries, joint ventures, partner(s) and/or other business entity actually performing launch vehicle manufacturing, management, payload/launch vehicle integration, testing and launch."

Please confirm that the CDRL submission fulfills the minimum contract requirement for "evidence of AS9100 third party certificate….".

The AS9100 Certification Certificate is evidence of meeting the minimum contract requirement. The CDRL delivery date has been updated to submit the certificate with the proposal.

LSIRD Section 3.4.1.1

Can NASA please provide the information required to calculate the figure of merit for the launch targets provided, the opening and close of the launch window. Based on previous experience with JPL interplanetary missions, this is provided by the spacecraft team in the form of a 3x6 W matrix, which enables the launch vehicle to map it’s TIP state covariance to spacecraft dV for the first trajectory correction maneuver

(TCM-1).

A spacecraft matrix cannot be provided at this time. The RFP instructions in Section E2, Paragraph 10.10.4 have been updated.