Amendment 2.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Provide responses to industry's questions.

2. Provide changes to Request for Proposal documents reflected in the Change Log.

3. Extended proposal due date/time from May 28, 2021 to July 2, 2021 at 4:00 PM EDT.

NASA

Kennedy Space Center Office of Procurement Mail Code: OP Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899

NASA

Kennedy Space Center Office of Procurement Mail Code: OP Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899

80KSC021R0034

1 6

06/22/2021

05/27/2021

Colum RFP Section SOW Section Attachment Comment/Question RESPONSE

6.4.12 VOLUME II,

PRICE

Can a specific launch vehicle configuration be offered for only certain types of missions? Eg, can the Offeror propose a specific configuration that is only available for dedicated launches, and/or a configuration that is only available for rideshare launches?

Responses to the RFP do not require vehicle configurations to be specific to dedicated, primary, or rideshare. Offerors will be provided the opportunity to propose to missions via task orders, and at that time, shall designate the type of configuration that best suits the mission solution provided. The RFP has been updated to clarify that the NTE prices for CLIN 1 are not launch vehicle configuration specific.

Do you know if/when there may be an additional VADR on-ramp opportunity? Are you aware of any other upcoming NASA small launch opportunities geared towards earlier staged companies?

No, we do not have an estimated timeline for on-ramps. NASA reserves the right to conduct on-ramps at any time during the ordering period based on interest and capabilities.

Companies interested in other opportunities should monitorwww.SAM.gov.

Are Major Subcontractors (companies that provide a launch vehicle proposed under this contract) also required to ask customer references to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire for the Major Subcontractor's past performance efforts included in the Offeror’s proposal? Or are Past Performance Questionnaires only required to be completed by customer references for the past performance efforts performed by the Offeror?

Section 6.4.13, paragraph (b) applies to the contracts, task orders and/or agreements submitted by the Offeror as well as those submitted by its Major Subcontractor(s), as defined in Section 6.4.13(a).

Note: Typos have been corrected in Section 6.4.13.

SOW pg. 8 of the SOW states that the contractor is to conduct technical mission integration coordination teleconferences every two weeks beginning at L-12 m. Can NASA clarify if these telecons are expected to continue during the launch campaign as well? Or do these coordination telecons get superseded by readiness reviews and other meetings at the launch site?

Beginning at L-12 months, the Contractor shall conduct technical mission integration coordination teleconferences with the Government every two weeks. Readiness reviews and other meetings at the launch site are not intended to replace these meetings.

SOW In Section 2.3 #6, can NASA provide a required or desired time at which NASA would like the coordination teleconferences to start being held at a cadence of 2 weeks?

Establishing when this is expected will help bidders both in terms of planning and costing.

Coordination teleconferences for CLIN 2 streamlined Cubesat missions begin at launch service task order award

Attachment 2 - Meetings and Formal Reviews

To best meet the intent of NASA's goals, can NASA provide clarity on its desired or required timeline for the different reviews (MSDR, MIRR, LPRR)? For instance, the Launch Readiness Review section (pg. 4) states that it will be held "TBP days before launch." Can NASA provide information on when the number of days before launch will be announced? Or will all of this information vary so much order by task order that for the initial IDIQ on-ramp, NASA is only expecting notional timelines for reviews from all bidders?

The milestone schedules in Tables 2.20-1 and 2.20-2, provide a timeline for each review (e.g. MSDR, MIRR and LPRR) and are based on each tables' respective integration timeline.

For Launch Readiness Review, the contractor shall propose the timeline based on their commercial approach.

"TBP" means To Be Proposed

Attachment 2 - Meetings and Formal Reviews

To avoid nonconcurrence or confusion over the course of mission execution on individual task orders, in the Meetings and Reviews, we recommend NASA provide clarification on its expectations for "chair" in "conduct and chair reviews". In other words, can NASA provide clarity on the distinction it is making between "conducting" and "chairing". If there is no distinction, then we recommend striking "and chair" from the statement. If there are certain obligations or expectations implied by inclusion of "chairing", recommend NASA add relevant reference or definition to "chairing" activity.

The purpose of these terms is to clarify that the contractor is responsible for conducting these meetings and chairing them. NASA will not fill the chair or co-chair role. No changes will be made to the RFP.

Attachment 3 -

CDRLS

For pg. 3 of the CDRL attachment and for the purposes of avoiding nonconcurrence with NASA's requirements, can NASA provide clarity on what would constitute "equivalent data requirements" that NASA would accept? How and when would contractor expect to be notified if their existing documentation does not contain equivalent data requirements?

The data requirements are specific to each Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). CDRL approval may be assumed unless the Contractor is notified by NASA of disapproval within thirty (30) days, as stated in the CDRLs.

Attachment 3 -

CDRLS

Regarding VADR 1-4 #2 on pg. 12 and for the purposes of avoiding nonconcurrence with NASA's requirements and expectations, can NASA provide more detailed guidance on what would constitute interdependencies for production with other missions in the queue and with other product lines? Also, can NASA confirm the schedule deliverable can be in the contractor's format? If not, can NASA specify what format (file type) it will require for the schedule deliverable.

Interdependencies for production with other missions and with other product lines refers to vehicles and/or its subsystems in production that will also be used in other (non-VADR) missions and commercial product lines.

Contractor format is acceptable.

Attachment 3 -

CDRLS

In Table A3-1 (pgs. 4 and 5 of Att 03), both VADR 1-1 and VADR 1-11 state that CDRL submittal is to be as required in the CDRL. However, the CDRL descriptions (pgs. 6 and 19) do not specify submittal dates. Can NASA provide additional guidance for the submittal dates for these two CDRLs or clarify if offerors may propose notional submittal dates instead?

CDRL VADR 1-1 does not specify the dates for submission; this CDRL should be reviewed in combination with the tables under clause 2.20, MILESTONE PAYMENTS, EVENTS AND COMPLETION CRITERIA, and Attachment 02, Meetings and Formal Reviews.

CDRL VADR 1-11 in Attachment 3 has been updated.

In connection with the Launch Vehicle Certification document and for the purposes of planning and future staffing, can NASA provide a rough, very notional list of Engineering Review Boards (ERBs) offerors might need to support/participate in?

No. Launch vehicle certification is not provided under this contract and participation in ERBs is not required under this contract. Information about attaining a NASA Category 1 certification should be coordinated through LSP separate from this acquisition effort.

6.4.6 NFS 1852.215-

81 PROPOSAL

PAGE

LIMITATIONS

(APR 2015)

Does NASA have an outline or general guidance for the contents of Attachment 06, Safety and Health Plan it can provide to interested bidders? Or is it enough for bidders to follow the guidance of 48 CFR § 1852.223-70 in developing this document?

Refer to NFS clauses 1852.223-73, Safety and Health Plan and 1852.223-70, Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting, for more information.

6.4.7

SUBMISSION

INSTRUCTIONS

FOR PROPOSALS

For the purposes of using the correct markings on proposal cover sheets and throughout, can NASA advise as to whether the content of proposals will be maintained as confidential? If so, are there particular legends, markings or labels bidders should be applying?

Contractor bid or proposal information as defined in FAR 3.104-1, regardless of markings, is safeguarded and protected from unauthorized disclosure (except where the proposal or parts thereof are set forth or incorporated by reference in the contract). Therefore, separate markings or labels are not required to safeguard an offeror's proposal.

6.4.14 VOLUME

IV,

ADMINISTRATIO

N / MODEL

CONTRACT

Paragraph (a) of this section references "copies of the signed SF 1449". Can NASA confirm only one copy of the SF would be expected with proposal submittal, and correct the text in Paragraph (a) to "a copy" accordingly?

Yes, only one copy is required to be returned. The RFP has been updated to clarify.

2.2 LISTING OF

CLAUSES

INCORPORATED

BY REFERENCE

FAR 52.227-14 Limited Rights Notice - Recommend clarifying intent of permitted use of Limited Rights data "by other contractors participating in the Government's program of which the specific contract is a part." Would this include other competitors selected pursuant to this RFP?

No, it would be specific to the Government's program (i.e., spacecraft project) for mission planning purposes and in support of the spacecraft project's launch service task order.

If an offeror is planning to provide a parent guarantee as a form of security, what data does NASA require to support this RFP requirement?

Refer to FAR 32.202-4 for examples of types of security that could be provided. As specified in clause 2.10.2, it is the offerors responsibility to propose adequate security for payments made under this contract as directed and specified in RFP Section 6.4.11.4(c).

Past Performance: Can we provide past performances for contracts that are not yet included [sic]?

Past Performance can be submitted for contracts that are not yet concluded.

Attachment 05 Will be allowed to propose future launch vehicle configurations not addressed in Attachment 05 on upcoming task order bids within VADR?

No, however, Offerors may incorporate modification(s) and upgrade(s) (as defined in Attachment 4) to existing common launch vehicle configuration(s) as part of a proposed solution to a mission under a task order.

Additional configuration(s) and change(s) to the existing common launch vehicle configuration(s)(as defined in Attachment 4) on contract will need to be added to the contract via modification prior to proposing to a task order.

Clause 2.11, On-Ramp and Technology insertion has been updated to reflect the above information.

19 On page 5 of the RFP, Must we propose prices for all 5 years of the contract? Yes

20 On page 5 of the RFP, Can you confirm that we are not to submit any prices for CLIN 2?

No prices are required to be submitted for CLIN 2

On page 76 of the RFP, it states,"For captions and respective text within graphics and figures, any 10-point, font may be used; however, this information shall be limited to clarifying the purpose of the graphics and figures, and shall not be used to convey proposal information submitted for evaluation as described in Section 6 and Section 7."

Question 1: Labels and captions are critical to communicating various aspects of a graphic/figure and how it shows compliance to requirements. Is this instruction aiming to prevent narrative text from being placed inside graphics/figures to circumvent the font requirement? If so, can the instruction be revised to say, “"For captions and respective text within graphics and figures, any 10-point, font may be used; however, this information shall be limited to clarifying the purpose of the graphics and figures, and shall not be used to convey narrative proposal information submitted for evaluation as described in Section 6 and Section 7."

The RFP has been updated to added "narrative", as requested.

On page 77 of the RFP, it states, “Electronic file names shall be limited to letters, numbers, and single spaces, with the exception of the period that is required before the file extension (e.g., .pdf), in order to successfully upload and download files from the EFSS Box system. The offeror shall not use special characters “/” or “\” in file names.

The offeror shall clearly label the contents of the file and include the name of the offeror and subcontractor name (if applicable) in the file name. Examples of acceptable file names are as follows (not specific to this solicitation): For Prime Offeror Submissions:

Offeror name - solicitation number - MS Volume.doc Offeror name - solicitation number - PP Volume.pdf Offeror name - solicitation number - Cost-Price Volume.xlsx”Question 1: Can offeror name be abbreviated?Question 2: Can we omit the spaces between the hyphens and text?

Question 1: Yes Question 2: Yes

On page 83 of the RFP, para 6.4.13. Can you confirm there is no (a) or (b) in the Past Performance section?

Section 6.4.13 paragraph (c) should be (a). The RFP has been updated to correct this error.

Attachment 5, Launch services capabilities, specifications, and environments: Page 7 and 8, can you clarify what is meant by “Flight-Level” in Tables A5-8, 5-9, and 5-10?

"Maximum Flight-Level" means the maximum predicted environment (MPE) during flight of the launch vehicle

Does the requirement for "consent letters" only apply for companies that are leveraging the "launch provider experience" of a major subcontractor versus solely "component suppliers"?

The requirement for consent letters only applies to companies that are leveraging the launch provider's experience as a major subcontractor

Page count limitations for Volume I make it impractical to include formal launch site Lease Agreement(s) in this section. Is it sufficient to provide references to the Lease Agreement(s) and/or provide the agreement(s) in a non-page limited attachment?"

Launch site agreements are exempt from page count limitations. The RFP has been updated to reflect this change.

CONTRACT

PRICING

Table 1-2 requests the fully burdened composite labor rate including skill mix.

However, it does not specify different skill mixes. Will NASA specify different skill mixes? If not, should offerors propose various skill mixes, or should they propose a single composite labor rate for all special task assignments? If the latter, will NASA update the model contract to remove the reference to skill mixes, or should offerors ignore this instruction and await correction in the awarded contract?

Offerors should propose a single composite labor rate for all special task assignments. The RFP has been updated to remove the reference to skill mixes in Table 1-2.

2.4 FCC Consulting

Services

The model contract states in clause 2.14(a) that license “[a]pprovals required by the payload are the responsibility of NASA.” Similarly, in section 2.2 of the Statement of Work, item 6 states that “[t]he CubeSat project will be responsible for obtaining all spacecraft Radio Frequency and remote sensing regulatory licensing required by the US Government.” Section 2.4 of the SOW, however, requires the Contractor to submit the CubeSat’s license application to the FCC and to acquire all required licenses by the agreed integration date. To avoid a conflict between these provisions, can NASA please confirm that although the Contractor is submitting the application on behalf of the CubeSat project, the CubeSat project remains responsible for obtaining all licenses and permits required by the CubeSat, including the FCC license? In addition, can NASA please confirm that the CubeSat project, and not the Contractor, is responsible for obtaining all required licenses by the agreed integration date?

Clause 2.14 is specific to licenses and permits required to provide the launch service; it does not cover licensing and permits for the payloads. As stated in SOW section 2.2, for streamlined CubeSat Launch Services, the CubeSat project is responsible for obtaining all spacecraft Radio Frequency and remote sensing regulatory licensing required by the US Government. Section 2.4 describes the launch services providers support role to the project and obtaining their FCC license.

If a launch service provider (LSP) proposes a single launch vehicle, fairing, and payload adapter configuration, is the LSP limited to this exact configuration for all task orders under NASA VADR? If the LSP develops additional configurations in the future, would those configurations only be eligible to compete for future task orders as part of a separate onboard opportunity?

See response to question 18.

In case of “Mission Failure” as defined in Section 2.9, will contractors be required to refund any payments already made, or is the consequence only forfeiting the LFF and FFR payments not already made?

As stated in the notes under tables 2.20.-1 and 2.20-2, the final payment shall be forfeited by the Contractor and is not recoupable.

In case of “Mission Failure” or postponement beyond the allowed periods, if NASA took a security interest in exchange for commercial interim payments already made, how will the security interests be dispositioned upon termination of the contract?

The Government will determine the disposition of securities on a case-by-case basis. The Contracting Officer may collect or liquidate such security that has been provided.

Can NASA confirm if the milestone payments or “commercial interim payments” in Table 2.20-1 are considered financing payments under Section 2.10.2.

Yes, milestone payments or "commercial interim payments" are financing payments.

Will NASA specify what kind of security interest may be required for financing payments under Section 2.10.2?

See response to question 16.

If a contractor’s financial condition may be adequate security, will NASA specify what documentation is necessary to show adequate financial condition?

See response to question 16.

Are the termination for convenience repayments in Table 2.20-1 and/or the postponement fees in Table 2.22-1 negotiable?

No

For the sake of clarity, do postponement fees apply during the grace period, excusable delays, and 12-month additional period, or do they apply only once these periods have expired?

The postponement fees begin after the grace days have been used. If a delay includes a combination of NASA/Contractor delay and excusable delay then excusable delays may occur in combination with grace days and/or postponement fees. The 12 month additional period begins after the grace days have been used and does not include excusable delays.

6.4.10 PROPOSAL

CONTENT

If an Offeror is bidding multiple LV configurations, is the Offeror still limited to only 50 pages in Volume I?

Given the amount of data requested, can the government allow an additional 15 pages in Volume I for each additional launch vehicle configuration proposed?

The RFP posted on sam.gov (dated May 27, 2021) increased the Volume 1 page count to 60 pages. Additional increases will not be made.

Attachment 3, CDRLS

In the VADR 1-2 ICD, should the contractor provide Load Factors/Quasi-static loads? The requirements for Load Factors/Quasi-static loads can be found in 3.1.2.4 SC Load Factors.

6.4.7

ELECTRONIC

SUBMISSION OF

PROPOSALS –

PROPOSAL

MARKING AND

DELIVERY

THROUGH

NASA’S EFSS

BOX (MAY 2021)

Can Offerors submit proposals using large file transfer systems other than "Box". No

40 6.4.8 Proposal Due Date

Will NASA allow Offerors another week to submit proposals? The RFP due date/time is extended through July 2, 2021 at 4:00pm EDT. Additional extensions will not be made. The RFP has been updated.