For reference_original VADR Questions and Responses.pdf

ID DRFP Section SOW Section Attachment Comment/Question RESPONSE 1 6.4.11.2 Launch Vehicle Overview Attachment 5 ‐ Launch Service Capabilities (To Be

Proposed) The Dra RFP reference and the associated A achment 5 instruc ons lack clarity on the amount of information required to satisfy the instructions. Attachment 5, page 2, at e. states "Describe the generic rideshare payload characteristics and interfaces for each proposed launch vehicle configuration." Given the existence of many "standard" (such as ESPA) adapters and custom adapters for rideshare missions, does NASA anticipate that bidders will identify every known possible rideshare payload interface compatible with the proposed common launch vehicle configuration? If so, does NASA expect that the environmental data required in Figures A4‐1 through A4‐12 will be repeated for all identified rideshare payload adapters?

We suggest clarifying that Attachment 5 Figures A4‐1 through A4‐12 should include data for the baseline common launch vehicle configuration, with modifications and additional data tables added to the contract as other rideshare payload dispenser systems are identified and proposed.

Alternatively, we suggest that NASA limit the proposal inputs in Attachment 5 Figures A4‐1 through A4‐12 to one rideshare adapter solution (such as ESPA) to ensure commonality among respondents and limit the amount of total content that will be submitted.

A achment 5 has been updated to require only the commercial payload adapter(s) and separation system(s) the offeror intends to use under this contract. The environmental data required in attachment 5 is for the launch vehicle(s). Attachment 5 has been updated to clarify.

2 6.4.12 VOLUME II, PRICE Section 6.4.12(c)(NOTE) Will NASA provide a draft version of the task order with the RFP? No, a draft version of the task order will not be posted.

3 7.4 VOLUME III, PAST PERFORMANCE If an offeror has not yet conducted a launch of the common vehicle configuration, will past performance be evaluated as neutral or as unacceptable? Put another way, is a successful launch required in order to avoid an "unaccetable" past performance rating?

See response to question 12 in document titled "Industry Day Q and As" previously posted on beta.SAM.gov under opportunity number 80KSC020R0058‐DRFP (Draft Request for Proposal).

4 6.4.11.1 Minimum Launch Service Criteria Will detailed data plots from subscale develpoment tests at the complete engine assembly level for all core stage engines be acceptable?

No, the Request for Proposal (RFP) has been updated to clarify that full‐scale development tests are required.

5 2.11 On‐Ramp and Technology Insertion Can NASA provide an estimate of when the first round of on‐ramp interest may be requested? No, we do not have an es mated meline for on‐ramps. Na onal Aeronau cs and Space Administration (NASA) reserves the right to conduct on‐ramps at any time during the ordering period based on interest and capabilities.

6.4.11.1 Minimum Launch Service Criteria Must engine test data come from full scale engine tests to be evaluated as acceptable? Yes, the RFP has been updated to clarify.

7 6.4.11.1 VADR DRFP 6.4.11.1 Minimum Launch Service Criteria, quick look items (b)1 and (b)2 are clearly stated, but item (b)3 is unclear in four ways First, do you include engines for all stages of the launch vehicle proposed?

Second, do you require engine configurations be exactly what is planned to be flown? (Not a prior block version or different nozzle configuration.)

Third, single engine firings are acceptable and full stage firings of multiple engines are unnecessary?

Fourth, any duration firings are acceptable and full duration firings are unnecessary?

Venture‐Class Acquisi on of Dedicated and Rideshare (VADR) DRFP 6.4.11.1 (b) (3) requires data plots for all core stage engines of the launch vehicle. The engine configurations should be part of the common launch vehicle configuration that is being proposed on the VADR contract.

The Offeror should provide the data for the common launch vehicle configuration being proposed. As stated in RFP 6.4.11.1 (b) (3), the engine data should be from the common launch vehicle configuration being proposed. While the test data does not have to be "exactly what is flown", any variations to the engine data provided should not result in Common Launch Vehicle Configuration Changes as defined in Attachment 04, Definitions.

Single engine firing is acceptable.

There is no minimum requirement for engine firing duration.

8 2.2 LISTING OF CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The text presented on slide 21 of the Industry Day presentation stipulates the definition of a US commercial supplier can be met by criteria defined by the Secretary of Transportation for a subsidiary of a foreign company. The text of the Draft RFP in Section 2.21 does not reflect this.

Can you please clarify the discrepancy for domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies and the specific criteria defined by the Secretary of Transportation to be applied?

The criteria required by the Secretary of Transporta on is found under Public Law 105‐303 as referenced in 2.21, DOMESTIC SOURCE CRITERIA.

9 2.10 SECURITY FOR LAUNCH SERVICE PAYMENT FINANCING This clause requires the contracting officer to specify in the solicitation the type of security the Government will accept, and if the USG is willing to accept more than one form of security, state the same. The DRFP includes the designation TBP To be Proposed. What is the USG expectation as to what will constitute adequate security for a Launch Service?

The Government is willing to accept more than one form of security. Refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (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).

10 2.10 SECURITY FOR LAUNCH SERVICE PAYMENT FINANCING Under section 2.10.3 of the draft RFP, can you confirm that no additional named insured will be requested for Contractor's insurance, and also more clearly define what is determined as "adequate?"

RFP Section 2.10.3 has been removed.

11 2.20 MILESTONE PAYMENTS, EVENTS AND COMPLETION

CRITERIA

Can NASA provide methodology for the percentages assigned for the milestone payments and termination repayment as defined in Tables 2.20‐1 and 2.20‐2.

No, the requested informa on will not be provided.

12 2.22 ADJUSTMENTS TO LAUNCH SCHEDULE Section 2.22 has dramatically different terms for Dedicated and Rideshare missions common to all contracts. NASA has indicated that evaluation of Dedicated or Rideshare missions would be done on a Task Order basis. Can a minimum consideration for the terms applied to all contracts be specified in the IDIQ to establish a baseline of evaluation for delay intolerant missions?

The terms and condi ons of the contract apply to all task orders to be awarded on this contract.

Any mission specific terms and conditions will be determined at the time of task order solicitation.

13 2.22 ADJUSTMENTS TO LAUNCH SCHEDULE Can NASA elaborate on the evaluation criteria for CLIN 2, the streamlined launch service? The evalua on criteria under sec on 7.2, VOLUME I, TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY, is not CLIN specific. CLIN specific requirements, and evaluation criteria for missions will be implemented at the task order level.

14 1.1 Scope of Standard Launch Services Attachment 1 ‐ SOW What criteria will NASA use in determining which missions will fall under CLIN 1 Standard Launch Services and CLIN 2 Streamlined CubeSat Launch Services?

There is not a pre‐defined set of criteria and the applicable CLIN will be determined at the me of the Request for Launch Service Proposal (RLSP) release.

15 1.1 Scope of Standard Launch Services Attachment 1 ‐ SOW Will NASA provide criteria to help contractor determine that there are no compatibility issues that impact NASA payloads for primary or rideshare missions?

No, NASA will not provide criteria to determine compa bility with other payloads. A Launch Service Interface Requirements Document (LSIRD) for the payload will be provided as part of the RLSP. The LSIRD combined with the contract requirements and the Interface Control Document (ICD) can be used by the Offeror to assess compatibility during mission integration. As stated in Statement of Work (SOW) 1.1, "For all rideshare missions, the Contractor shall ensure that there are no compatibility issues that impact NASA payload(s)".

16 1.8 Payload Separation Systems Attachment 1 ‐ SOW Will NASA specify the location of the mechanical and electrical fit check when Task Orders are released?

Yes.

17 1.8 Payload Separation Systems Attachment 1 ‐ SOW For dispenser systems, does NASA anticipate specifying a specific dispenser type (railed or tab) or a specific dispenser vendor for each task order? The genesis for this question is due to the fact that contractors may have specific dispensers qualified already.

The Government will provide the interface requirements in the RLSP.

1.8 Payload Separation Systems Attachment 1 ‐ SOW Would NASA be open to adjusting the required meetings or criteria for required missions specified in CLIN 1 for primary and rideshare missions?

No.

3.0 SPECIAL TASK ASSIGNMENT (CLIN 3) Attachment 1 ‐ SOW Under SOW paragraph 3.0 Special tasks assignments may include providing material and/or fabrication of hardware. Given the nature of this CLIN which establishing labor rates only, how will Special Task Assignments requiring material and/or fabrication be accounted for and compensated?

Any requirements that include materials, or fabrication of hardware in support of a Special Task Assignment, will be identified in the RFP for Special Task Assignment and associated costs would then be included in the resultant proposal.

6.4.11.2 Launch Vehicle Overview Attachment 5 ‐ Launch Service Capabilities (To Be Proposed)

For proposals submitted by aggregators (i.e. aggregator service) companies (per 6.4.11.1.c), mulitple launch vehicle may be proposed. Will a multiple Attachment 5 submittals be required for each launch vehicle available via a given aggregator?

Contractor format is acceptable; therefore, multiple configurations can be included as single attachment.

6.4.11.2 Launch Vehicle Overview b) Common LV Configuraiton If an aggregator proposed to utilize a Common Launch Vehicle that has a NASA Category 1‐4 cerfication that is procured commercially from a separate the launch vehicle providerwill they also not need to provide the information in items 1‐4, as noted?

If brokers (aggregators) propose a LV (launch vehicle)(s) that is certified, then they are not required to provide the items stated in section 6.4.11.2. If the launch vehicle is not certified, then brokers will need to provide the items in section 6.4.11.2.

CONTRACT PRICING 2.2 Streamlined CubeSat Launch Services Ground Rules The applicability of the Stremline Cubesat processed relative to the Dedicated, Primary Rideshare, and Traditionaly Rideshare launch services is not defined. Could the Streamlined process apply to a Primary Rideshare launch ‐ or even a Dedicated launch in which a CubeSat is the Primary or Dedicated payload?

Yes.

2.8 KSC 52.242‐90 CONTROLS APPLICABLE TO

CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES (JUL 2018)

Identity and Credential Management‐ because the nature of this work is IDIQ, and there is no guarantee of a task order, this provision requires extra costs to get everyone a PIV credential.

We don't believe we'll need physical/logical access for more than 180 calendar days in a 365 day period at the NASA site. Can this be waived?

KSC (Kennedy Space Center) 52.242‐90 CONTROLS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES (JUL 2018) has been removed.

2.8 KSC 52.242‐90 CONTROLS APPLICABLE TO

CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES (JUL 2018)

Comprehensive Emergency Mgt Can a copy be provided? KSC 52.242‐90 CONTROLS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES (JUL 2018) has been removed.

2.10 SECURITY FOR LAUNCH SERVICE PAYMENT FINANCING Is NASA looking for a parent guaranty? A performance bond? This is required to price accordingling.

See response in ID number 9.

6.4.7 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSALS Please confirm that offerors may use fonts other than Times New Roman in graphics, figures and tables to be in line with their company's style guide.

The RFP has been updated to clarify.

2.11 ON‐RAMP AND TECHNOLOGY INSERTION What will be the frequency of on‐ramp opportunities? For example, will offerors be allowed to submit proposals for on‐ramp annually, or more frequent than that?

See response in ID number 5.

2.4 FAR 52.216‐19 ‐‐ ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995) Can NASA clarify what is meant by "an amount less than one Mission or one Special Task and Study"? What would be an example of this amount?

The RFP has been updated to clarify.

1.4 Technical Oversight If the proposed launch vehicle is already certified by NASA, do all of the specific areas requiring Government approval and insight in the SOW and CDRL for CLIN1 still apply?

Yes.

2.3 Streamlined CubeSat Launch Services Requirements Attachment 1 ‐ SOW Significant increase in work scope relative to typical cubesat integration services. Are biweekly coordination telecons, test and spare hardware, and a fit check/environmental testing support truly required?

Yes.

1.1 Scope of Standard Launch Services Attachment 1 ‐ SOW What is the technical rationale that will be used to determine if a task order is required to be “dedicated”, requiring all the excess performance on the launch vehicle? Can NASA instead specify the schedule authority, excess performance, or technical requirements needed?

Requiring a "dedicated" vehicle as currently defined could drive meaningful cost increases and/or unnecessarily limit NASA's launch options.

See response to question 6 in document titled "Industry Day Q (questions) and A (answers)s" previously posted on beta.SAM.gov under opportunity number 80KSC020R0058‐DRFP.

1.1 Scope of Standard Launch Services Attachment 1 ‐ SOW Why would a task order require a dedicated launch but not be an NLS II mission? VADR allows NASA to procure Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) licensed launch services and follows a different mission assurance model than NLSII.

2.22 ADJUSTMENTS TO LAUNCH SCHEDULE While each party may request to re‐manifest, it is not clear what the process or expectations are for confirming re‐booking. Can additional information or expectations be provided.

The RFP has been updated to remove sec on 2.22.2 TRADITIONAL RIDESHARE LAUNCH DELAYS.

6.4.10 PROPOSAL CONTENT We assume each item listed in Table 6.4.6‐1 should be submitted as a separate electronic file.

Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct.

Yes, each volume shall be summi ed as a separate electronic file. The RFP has been updated to reflect this change.

Contract Table 1‐1 NTE Table Question Given that the Standard Dedicated launch is most likely the most expensive approach, should line 1.0 of the subject table reflect a dedicated launch, or is the LVP requested to provide additional rows for Standard primary/anchor Rideshares as well as Standard traditional rideshares?

Offeror shall propose a CLIN 1.0 (Not‐to‐Exceed) NTE price for a dedicated launch only (no additional rows are require). The RFP has been updated to clarify this proposal requirement.

Contract Table 2.20‐2 Getting to a signed baseline ICD for the Streamlined mission in 2 Months seems very unlikely unless there are a series a standard interfaces agreed to by all parties prior to ATP.

Question What is the assumed POP for a streamlined mission and can the Baseline ICD be moved later in the flow?

The assumed integra on cycle for CLIN 1 is 24 months plus or minus 3 months. The assumed integration cycle for CLIN 2 is 15 months plus or minus 3 months. The RFP has been updated to reflect this information.

No, the estimated completion for the Baseline ICD milestone cannot be moved later in the flow for the contract. The Government reserves the right to make changes to milestone requirements at the task order level based on the mission.

Contract Table 2.20‐2. The Cost of failure for a Streamlined (High risk, short POP) Launch service is 25% of the cost of the launch service, whereas the cost of failure for a standard launch service is only 15%. It would seem like the cost of failure for the streamlined launch service should be lower.

Question Can it be changed to 10% or eliminated all together?

No.

1.8 Payload Separation Systems Payload Separation Systems, states, “The Contractor shall provide a qualified payload separation system. Separation system interfaces will be specified at the Task Order level and may include but are not limited to separation ring interfaces, CubeSat interfaces, or other payload interfaces.”

Question The requirement in Para. 1.8 to provide a “qualified payload separation system” for an undefined (and per the requirement definition, unlimited) interface places excessive cost risk on the Bidder. Is it NASA’s intention that the Bidder include the cost of an undefined separation system qualification in their Launch Services NTE?

The NTE for a dedicated launch services includes cost of an separation system.

2.22.2 RIDESHARE LAUNCH DELAYS Question Will a mass simulator be provided for any Rideshare delays or re‐manifesting? RFP Section 2.22.2 has been removed.

1.8 Payload Separation Systems In reference to the "Payload sep system"

Question Does NASA currently have a list of candidate interfaces (15’ Clampband, 24” Clampband, multi point sep nut, etc), and payload mass/cg ranges? If the answer is "yes", recommend providing this information as part of the Final RFP.

No.

2.3 Streamlined CubeSat Launch Services Requirements In reference to Sec on 2.3.1, "Contractor will provide the dispenser" and Sec on 2.3.11, "Contractor will integrate CubeSat into the dispenser"

Question Does NASA have a candidate list of CubeSat sizes they are considering? 1U to 12U? If the answer is "yes", recommend providing as part of the Final RFP.

NASA will specify the CubeSat size(s) at the task order level.

1.2 Planning Question Who is responsible for Orbital Debris Mitigation and Orbit Lifetime? The FAA licensing process will specify how the Contractor complies with Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) in the National Space Policy.

2.2 Streamlined CubeSat Launch Services Ground Rules Question Given that each LVP will provide a different Cubesat dispenser with different interfaces, will the CubeSats be compatible with all LV provided dispensers?

The CubeSat interfaces are unknown at this time. SOW section 2.3, has been updated to state, "The contractor shall... Provide the CubeSat dispenser that is qualified to the predicted launch environments and meets the detailed interface requirements that will be identified at the Task Order level."

General

When submi ng a proposal to the contract do I need to submit a CLIN specific proposal? No, in accordance with section 6.4.11, Offerors are not required to submit Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) specific proposals.

General After contract award, is there any limitation on which CLINs a company can bid on for a launch service?

No, offerors who are awarded a contract may propose to RLSPs under any CLIN. The RLSP for each task order will specify which CLIN will be used.