Attachment 3 - Industry Feedback Request.pdf

NASA is seeking feedback from well qualified firms based on the informaƟon requests contained in this document. For context in preparing responses, review the statement of work (SOW) aƩached to the

SAM.gov RFI posƟng along with the background informaƟon provided in this request. Responses should be organized to match the secƟon headings below and be limited to no more than 20 pages, single-space, 12-point Times New Roman font.

Background: As menƟoned in the RFI, the operaƟon and maintenance of the DSN and NSN will be managed under the Unified Network and NavigaƟon OperaƟons (UNNO) construct. There are two cost-type contracts currently supporƟng these efforts, 80NM0018D0004 (DSN) and 80GSFC19C0063 (NSN), that will be replaced by UNNO. UNNO will be structured as a hybrid firm fixed price (FFP)/Cost, MulƟple

Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). The work will be divided into two categories with award(s) made under each as follows:

Category 1 - OperaƟon and Maintenance. Performance-based services with detailed Performance Work

Statement (PWS) FFP Task Orders. NASA anƟcipates a single award under this category. CLIN structure will include an O&M FFP CLIN, Emergency and Non-Baseline O&M Cost Plus CLIN and Mission Surge

Support (FFP or Cost Plus as appropriate) CLIN.

Category 2 – Development and ModernizaƟon. Statement of Work based Cost-Plus or FFP Task Orders as appropriate. NASA anƟcipates mulƟple awards and fair opportunity for each TO. Any cost-type TO must have a path toward FFP sustainment.

The UNNO MATOC will funcƟon with a single firm responsible for sustaining operaƟons and maintenance for the unified network and mulƟple firms providing R&D and modernizaƟon. CollaboraƟon and data exchange between Category 1 and Category 2 TOs will be a criƟcal component in successful contract performance.

Requested Feedback:

Automa on, Digitaliza on, and Cost Reduc on

NASA has an interest in evaluaƟng how automaƟon could be used to streamline effort, improve quality, reduce cycle Ɵme, and lower total cost including but not limited to: arƟficial intelligence, machine learning, model-based engineering, digital twins, predicƟve analyƟcs, or autonomous operaƟons tools with human in command capability. Examples may include, but are not limited to: monitoring, ƟckeƟng, scheduling, workflow, maintenance, logisƟcs, cyber defense, test, reporƟng, analyƟcs, mission planning, and configuraƟon management.

What informaƟon would your firm need from NASA to enable proposing innovaƟve approaches that provide measurable value?

Proposal Evalua on

NASA is commiƩed to efficient proposal evaluaƟon. Given a preference for efficient and Ɵme sensiƟve evaluaƟons, what format and evaluaƟon factors would best convey the unique approaches and abiliƟes your firm could offer NASA?

Transi on Risk and Transi on Planning

IdenƟfy the principal transiƟon risks associated with transiƟoning to UNNO, including risks related to incumbent knowledge transfer, staffing, clearances, faciliƟes, IT and OT systems, toolsets, supply chain, mission conƟnuity, cerƟficaƟons, and geographically distributed operaƟons.

Provide recommendaƟons for miƟgaƟng transiƟon risk before award, during phase-in, and during early operaƟons.

Recommend an appropriate transiƟon period and describe what acƟviƟes should occur during that period.

IdenƟfy any work areas for which transiƟon should occur in phases rather than in a single event and explain why.

Mul -Partner Space Network Environment

IdenƟfy challenges associated with working across mulƟple partners providing O&M, development and modernizaƟon, including technical, governance, contracƟng, scheduling, interoperability, cybersecurity, mission priority, data sharing, and decision authority challenges.

Recommend pracƟcal soluƟons, governance structures, interface mechanisms, standards, or performance management approaches to address those challenges.

Describe what contract clauses, data-sharing constructs, dispute-resoluƟon mechanisms, or integrated planning forums would improve execuƟon across mulƟple partners.

Contract Structure, Type and Pricing Considera ons

In following the direcƟon of EO 14402, a significaƟon porƟon of the requirements will be transiƟoned from Cost-Plus to FFP.

What informaƟon is necessary to enable your firm to provide a FFP proposal for operaƟon and maintenance of this network?

IdenƟfy which porƟons of the contemplated scope are best suited for Category 1 and Category 2.

In keeping with the direcƟon in EO 14402, provide any categorical structure changes your firm would recommend and the reasoning.

IdenƟfy the challenges associated with using a firm-fixed-price approach for this type of requirement.

For each idenƟfied challenge, recommend a miƟgaƟon strategy or alternaƟve contract structure.

Describe any pricing assumpƟons, cost drivers, workload variability issues, technology refresh issues, operaƟonal uncertainty, mission tempo factors, or Government-furnished property and informaƟon issues that would materially affect pricing.

Performance Metrics and Incen ves

Recommend performance metrics or service level measures that would appropriately drive mission outcomes, service reliability, safety, cybersecurity, and cost control without creaƟng unintended consequences.

IdenƟfy any metrics that should be avoided because they may distort contractor behavior or undermine mission objecƟves.

Other Recommenda ons

IdenƟfy any draŌ requirements that appear unclear, conflicƟng, duplicaƟve, overly prescripƟve, or likely to increase cost or schedule risk without commensurate mission benefit.

Provide any recommended changes to the draŌ scope structure, secƟon organizaƟon, or requirement allocaƟon.

Provide any addiƟonal comments or recommendaƟons the Government should consider.