Amendment 1 - Question and Reponses.pdf

INTENT

The intent of this notification is to provide clarification on the request for quote.

To all Offerors, the Statement of Work (SOW) is not requesting, directing, or authorizing the design or construction of a Payload Processing Facility (PPF) for NASA. Therefore, the Government is not seeking to acquire architectural designs, engineering development, concept for a government-owned facility or acquiring a facility to process any nuclear mission. The sole purpose of this study is for NASA to gain insight into an existing or currently planned (completed by January 1, 2028) Contractor-owned PPF’s capability that could provide future use to NASA for nuclear missions. However, NASA emphasizes that participation in this study is not procuring a payload processing facility nor guaranteeing NASA will use the PPF for any mission.

Offerors are reminded to review the purchase order in its entirety, specifically, Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2025) (Deviation)

Technical:

1. Proposed approach to meet Statement of Work.

2. Proof of location of the proposed built/potential facility that will be capable to support a

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) / Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) to transport nuclear material nuclear in accordance with Idaho National Laboratory to KSC/CCSFS by January 1, 2028.

3. Provide a lease agreement or proof of ownership.

Price:

Offeror to provide a price for- Item 1: Nuclear Study per Statement of Work Item 2: TAA with an internation partner based on ESA/AirBus.

Any PPF described under this effort must be owned, developed, and operated by the contractor, not NASA.

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

This Purchase Order (PO) is for:

NASA requires insight into existing/potential Offeror owned PPFs that will possess the capability to process a Spacecraft with nuclear material by January 1, 2028. Per Statement of Work, the Contractor’s facility shall be located on, or in the vicinity of, Kennedy Space Center (KSC) / Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) and have a means to transport the encapsulated Spacecraft to a launch pad on KSC/CCSFS in accordance with Idaho National Laboratory requirements.

The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive ground-operations concept of flow describing how an offeror-provided PPF would be utilized to process a spacecraft containing nuclear material.

The Contractor shall detail how the proposed facility will generate and deliver all required technical support, analyses, and documentation necessary to meet the requirements of the Department of Energy (DOE), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and NASA to facilitate attainment of a Hazard Category 3 designation for the processing of nuclear material no later than January 1, 2028.

Questions:

1. Does the scope need for the PPF to handle any nuclear payloads beyond LWRHUs (Light

Weight)? Specifically, does the study need to address the PPF being able to handle any larger RHUs, radioisotope power systems, or fission reactor payloads?

2. The solicitation specifies LWRHU, but not any larger RHU systems or fission systems. Is the focus of this RFQ specific to LWRHU systems only? Should other larger RPS and fission systems be addressed in responses?

3. Does NASA intend for this PPF to handle any nuclear payloads beyond LWRHUs?

Specifically, is this PPF intended to be able to handle any larger RHUs, radioisotope power systems, or fission reactor payloads?

Response for Q’s 1-3: NASA has no intention for any PPF or its capabilities. This study is for insight only to a PPF that has a LWRHU’s capability.

4. Is the scope of this solicitation strictly for the ESA Rosalind Franklin Mission, or is the intent for other (future) nuclear payloads to be processed in the derived facility solution (radioisotope and/or fission)? If the use is exclusively for Rosalind Franklin, what is the intended use after the mission has launched, or will it be dismantled? If reuse/repurposing is desired, should the solution design consider flexible use or other types of payloads?

Response for Q’s 5-24: This study is only for procuring insight into a Contractor’s existing PPF or potential future construction of a PPF that will be built and fully functional by January 1, 2028 to support any future nuclear missions. It is not to procure a PPF nor for a solution design.

This study is not procuring a payload processing facility nor guaranteeing the Government will use the PPF for any mission. This study is for planning purposes only to provide NASA insight and requirements to PPFs with nuclear capabilities or future PPFs that are designed to have the capability for nuclear missions.

Therefore, NASA does not have nor will have the following to provide, except for the bounding requirements as stated in the SOW:

5. Will the Government provide available facility as-builts, specifications, utility data, crane data, and cleanroom records for facilities evaluated under the study?

6. Will the Government provide payload envelope, mass properties, lift points, handling constraints, and access requirements? Particularly, the GSE used to integrate the payload, encapsulate fairings, install RHUs, etc. will drive facility dimensions and arrangements.

Is this equipment defined or will it be developed in parallel with facility specification?

7. Will the Government provide the planned LWRHU/RHU quantities, sizes, thermal conditions, installation location(s) and required access envelopes?

8. Will details and specifications of the payload adapter, fairings, encapsulations stands, GSE, and transport interfaces be provided?

9. Will NASA identify expected approval authorities and review stakeholders for the HazCat 3 DSA approval path?

10. Will the Government provide applicable security, badging, escort, export control, and foreign national access requirements?

11. Should the study assume international partner access is required within the payload processing facility?

12. Will monopropellant type, quantity, loading timing and fueling GSE assumptions be provided?

13. Will DOE/INL transport requirements or constraints be provided for this study?

14. Will existing emergency response, fire protection, radiological response, and evacuation planning assumptions be provided?

15. Will existing NEPA, safety, hazardous operations, explosive safety, and facility hazard documentation be provided where available?

16. Does the Government have estimations for the required durations of each phase of

ATLO?

17. Will the Government provide specifications for any cooling systems/equipment that may be necessary between RHU integration and launch?

18. Part Number – Is there a specific part number or reference number that should be used for this services-based requirement?

19. Part Name – Should this be completed as "Feasibility Study – Payload Processing

Facility for Nuclear Operations," or is there a standard government identifier for this type of service?

20. Quote Quantities – Since this is a study and not a physical part, should the quantity be stated as "1 Lump Sum" or "1 Study"?

21. Current drawings would be helpful – The SOW does not explicitly require drawings unless offering an existing facility. Should drawings be submitted only if applicable, or are they required for all offerors? "current drawings would be helpful," I actually meant that we need photos of your facility so we can review the actual space and confirm it meets the SOW requirements (ISO Class 7 cleanroom, processing bay dimensions, fairing encapsulation area, etc.).

22. For this quote, is NASA seeking the offeror to include efforts for handling/logistics of nuclear material in their facilities, licensing, test support, etc.?

23. Are the facility requirements (dimensions etc.) derived for a specific program, or are they intended to be encompassing of a specific set of space nuclear payloads?

24. Would NASA be able to share who the international partners are and their corresponding missions?