DRAFT SpaceTech-REDDI-2023 Appendix 80HQTR23NOA01_23TDM_A1_June 23 2023.pdf

DRAFT

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Power Conversion Technology for Fission Systems

Appendix to

NASA Research Announcement (NRA): Space Technology Research, Development, Demonstration, and Infusion - 2023 (SpaceTech-REDDI-2023), 80HQTR23NOA01

APPENDIX NUMBER: 80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Appendix Issued: July 07, 2023

Proposal Due: August 07, 2023 (5:00 pm Eastern)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 43.012 OMB Approval Number 2700-0092 NAICS: 541715/1,000 employees

Power Conversion Technology for Fission Systems – SpaceTech-REDDI-2023 Appendix

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Summary of Key Information

Appendix Name: “Power Conversion Technology for Fission Systems” hereafter called “Appendix” to the SpaceTech-REDDI-2023 umbrella NRA, hereafter called “REDDI.”

Goal/Intent: The intent of this appendix is to push the state of the art in space closed cycle Brayton technology to leverage future higher temperature space reactors and radiators.

Eligibility: All categories of U.S organizations may apply to Appendix 80HQTR23NOA01- 23FSPACBC. FSP-ACBC Principal Investigators (PIs), also known as FSP-ACBC Fellows, and team members may be affiliated with any type of U.S organization. Non-U.S. organizations may partner in, or lead, FSP-ACBC studies on a no-exchange of funds basis, and subject to NASA’s policy on foreign participation (see Section 3.3 of SpaceTech-REDDI-2023).

Key Dates:

Appendix Release Date:

Proposal Due:

Selection Announcement:

Award Date:

July 07, 2023 August 07, 2023 (5:00 pm Eastern) September 25, 2023 (target) September 2023 (target)

ACBC Capability - Turbine Working Fluid Inlet Temperature: Greater than 1500K and less than 1700K.

Technology Readiness Level (TRL): Components, subsystems, or system level technologies are anticipated to be low TRL levels and the proposal will include a plan for maturing to TRL 6.

Award Details:

Award Type: Firm-Fixed Priced Contracts.

NASA Selection Official: Space Technology Mission Directorate Associate Administrator, or designee.

Questions and Comments: Questions and comments related to this Appendix shall be submitted via email to: lindsay.k.kaldon@nasa.gov and copy ian.park@nasa.gov. Written responses will be posted on NSPIRES.

Proposal Submission & Evaluation Process: Internal NASA Panel Review mailto:lindsay.k.kaldon@nasa.gov mailto:ian.park@nasa.gov

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2. CAPABILITIES AND DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL GOALS

2.1. ACBC Capabilities and Design and Operation Goals

Table 2.1 ACBC Capabilities

Table 2.2 ACBC Design and Operation Goals (DG)

3. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES

3.1. Contractor Work Scope

3.2 Required Meetings

3.3 Data Product Documents

3.3.1 DPD Summary Table

Table 3.3.1 DPD Summary Table

3.3.2 DPD Description Table

Table 3.3.2 DPD Descriptions

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

4.1 Process and Overall Requirements

4.2 Proposal Submittal

4.2.1 NSPIRES Registration Instructions

4.3. Proposal Requirements

4.3.1 Title Page

4.3.2 Offeror’s Executive Summary

4.3.3 Offeror’s Past Experience

4.3.5 Proposed Work Plan (Statement of Work)

4.3.6 Price Proposal(s)

4.3.7 Signed Model Contract(s)

5. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.1.1 Technical Evaluation

5.1.2 Overall Evaluation for Award

5.2 Partial Awards and Participation with Others

6. SUMMARY OF AWARD INFORMATION

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

7. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Lunar Environment Conditions

Attachment B – Launch and Landing Loads

Attachment C – Minimum Radiation Tolerance

Attachment D – Model Contract Template

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Offerors are reminded:

Per Section 4.3.1 of the umbrella NRA solicitation 80HQTR23NOA01 and the requirements of this Appendix, all proposals submitted via email or any means other than the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) will not be accepted.

Additionally, this section states:

“All proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must be submitted in electronic form by the AOR [Authorized Organizational Representative] at the proposing PI's [principal investigator’s] organization who is authorized, and identified within NSPIRES with this role, to make such a submission; electronic submission of the proposal by the AOR serves as the required original signature by an authorized official of the proposing organization. No hard copy of the proposal will be accepted. Proposals submitted via email or any means other than NSPIRES . . . will not be accepted.

The proposal submission process is complex and involves multiple steps to be carried out by all participants in the proposal. Therefore, proposers are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the system and begin the submittal process early, well in advance of the deadline. While every effort is made to ensure the reliability and accessibility of submission systems and to provide a help center via email and telephone, difficulties may arise at any point, including the user’s own equipment.”

Difficulty in registering or using the NSPIRES proposal submission system is not a sufficient reason for NASA to consider a proposal submitted after the deadline. Proposals received after the deadline will not be reviewed. NASA support service contractors may have access to the Mandatory Preliminary Proposal, Full Proposal, and subsequent proposal information.

Information received in response to this solicitation that is marked ‘Proprietary' will be handled and protected accordingly. NASA support service contractors are obligated to protect third-party proprietary information. By submitting a proposal, the responder is deemed to have consented to release of proprietary information to such NASA support service contractors.

NOTE: To ensure receipt of all NSPIRES email notifications, it is recommended that offerors add “nasaprs.com” to the “never block” or “safe senders” domain list in their email client.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

OVERVIEW

This NASA Research Announcement (NRA) opportunity is issued in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisitions Regulations (NFS) 1835.016-71. This NRA shall be used to announce a design opportunity for an Advanced Closed Brayton Convertor (ACBC). Unlike a traditional Request for Proposal (RFP) containing a fully defined statement of work (SOW) or specification to which Offerors are to respond, this NRA provides for the submission of competitive project ideas, conceived by the Offerors.

Additionally, whereas a traditional RFP provides the Government’s defined SOW within Section C of the RFP, this NRA is requesting that Offerors submit a Work Plan in the form of a Statement of Work (SOW) as part of their proposal that, if selected, is intended to become the SOW included in Section C on any awarded contract(s). In addition, this NRA includes a model contract (see Attachment A) with all potential clauses that will be included in the final contract(s) to inform Offerors of NASA’s expectations to expedite contract award at the conclusion of this NRA. There is a possibility NASA under this NRA may award other Research and Development work on behalf of other government agencies. Therefore, our Research and Development work may be subject to different and/or other terms and conditions than what is currently in the model contract. If applicable, this possibility will be addressed during negotiations.

Upon completion of the appendix proposal evaluations, NASA intends to award firm fixed-price contract(s) to the Offeror(s) who best meet the goals set forth in this NRA. In accordance with NFS 1835.016-71(d)(4), a competitive range will not be established, and final proposal revisions shall not be requested/accepted. The value of each contract is a maximum of $1,000,000 and the expected period of performance (POP) shall be one year.

If an Offeror’s proposal is selected at the conclusion of the Final NRA evaluation period, NASA will advise the Offeror that the Government intends on entering negotiations and will follow up with a contract that includes (if necessary), modifications contemplated in the Offeror's Statement of Work, and request agreement or identification of any exceptions. NASA will request the Offeror to complete and return certifications and representations and Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. If FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, is required for the resultant contract, the Offeror shall provide a subcontracting plan. Any necessary negotiations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subparts 15.3 and 15.4.

Issuing Office: NASA Glenn Research Center Office of Procurement, MS 60-1 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3127

Agency Contact:

Ian Park, Contracting Officer, Phone – (216) 433-3130, Email –ian.park@nasa.gov mailto:%E2%80%93ian.park@nasa.gov

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This appendix is issued in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisitions Regulations (NFS) 1835.016-71.

This NRA shall be used to announce Space Technology Research, Development, Demonstration, and Infusion 2023 (SpaceTech-REDDI-2023). is the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) umbrella NRA solicitation. .

This Appendix is for a design of a Fission Surface Power (FSP) Advanced Closed Brayton Convertor (ACBC) system with industry partners. The FSP project goals are consistent with Space Policy Directive 6 (SPD-6), which states:

“…demonstrate a fission power system on the surface of the Moon that is scalable to a power range of 40 kWe and higher to support sustained lunar presence and exploration of Mars.”

This design effort shall culminate with each successful industry team submitting an FSP ACBC design package having engineering content sufficient to establish a high degree of confidence in the innovativeness, suitability, and price as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. The design package shall include estimates for the technical, schedule, and price requirements to design, build, and test an Engineering Development Unit (EDU) needed to advance the technology readiness level (TRL).

The intent of this NRA is to push the state of the art in space closed cycle Brayton technology to leverage future higher temperature space reactors and radiators. Offerors are strongly encouraged to apply advanced technologies (e.g., turbine active cooling, high temperature refractory turbine materials and coatings, novel manufacturing methods, high temperature generator, high voltage rad-hard components, etc.) that improve performance, specific mass, scalability, and robustness to their designs.

2. CAPABILITIES AND DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL GOALS

The technical content of a proposed FSP ACBC effort should establish design fidelity for an integrated power system with sufficient engineering confidence that the system will meet operational requirements for the lunar and Martian surface. Section 2 sets forth design and operability capabilities for the FSP ACBC that form the basis for the proposed technical and programmatic content. These requirements define the target environments and functional capability of the integrated power system. The engineering design and analysis methods used to achieve the capabilities provided in this Section shall be consistent with NASA flight safety standards.

Section 3 provides information on deliverables; these product deliverables shall have sufficient engineering rigor to confidently demonstrate the design is both feasible and achievable for technology advancement to achieve a flight qualified unit (ACBC-FQ) for a future lunar and Martian mission with a common scalable architecture.

A set of technical measures were identified to provide insight into the progress of the definition and development of the technical solution, ongoing assessment of the associated risks and issues, and the likelihood of meeting the critical objectives of the stakeholder. These technical measures are comprised of ACBC Capabilities and ACBC Design and Operation Goals.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

2.1. ACBC Capabilities and Design and Operation Goals

This section defines the design capabilities for a FSP ACBC system, consisting of an advanced turbo-alternator-compressor assembly, recuperator, hot-side heat exchanger, cold-side heat exchanger, controller, power processing unit, and optional auxiliary cooler (if needed) system having a common scalable architecture capable of providing between 10 to 25 kilowatts of continuous electric power at the PPU at end of life. Multiple parallel connected Brayton power conversion units of the single unit shown in Fig.1 are expected to achieve a greater overall system power generation capability (e.g., 40 to 100 kilowatts) and to provide system redundancy for fault tolerance:

Figure 1. Notional Single, Scalable, 10-25kW Advanced Closed Brayton Convertor Diagram

Specifically, the in-scope contracted effort includes the design of the following components that meet the advanced design and operational requirements and goals listed in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. The Agency is most interested in innovations in the Turbo-Alternator-Compressor followed by the other components in the order below:

1. Turbo-Alternator-Compressor (TAC) consisting of a Brayton cycle compressor, alternator, turbine, working fluid, bearings, and seals to generate AC power from reactor heat,

2. Recuperator to transfer turbine exit working fluid heat to compressor exit working fluid,

3. Controller to maintain a constant load on the TAC and to initiate startup/shutdown cycles,

4. Hot Side Heat Exchanger (HSHX) to transfer reactor heat to Brayton cycle working fluid,

5. Cold Side Heat Exchanger (CSHX) to transfer working fluid heat to the radiator,

6. Auxiliary cooler if needed for bearings and/or alternator, and o Documentation for all components including full PCS analysis, design, test results, and startup/continuous/shutdown operation details.

Table 2.1 lists design and operational capabilities established to assure a level of performance, reliability and robustness that is consistent with enabling future lunar and Martian FSP missions. Minimally successful design efforts can focus on the mandatory design requirements provided in Table 2.1; design goals (DG’s) that should demonstrate operational feasibility of the overall integrated system are provided in Table 2.2.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Table 2.1 ACBC Capabilities

ACBC

Capability-

Title Capability Details

ACBC-1 Power Single ACBC unit operational at a minimum power of 10 kWe up to a maximum power of 25 kWe and compatible with the environments detailed in Attachment B.

ACBC-2 Launch and Landing Loads

The ACBC shall be designed to withstand structural loads as detailed in Attachment C.

ACBC-3 Radiation Tolerance

The ACBC shall be designed with a radiation tolerance as detailed in Attachment D

ACBC-4 Turbine Inlet Temperature Greater than 1500K and less than 1700K

ACBC-5 Compressor Inlet Temperature Greater than 400K

ACBC-6 Exergy Efficiency Greater than 35%

ACBC-7 Specific Mass The total specific mass of all ACBC components shown in Fig. 1 should not exceed 10 kg/kW.

ACBC-8 Life At least 10 years without maintenance at full power

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Table 2.2 ACBC Design and Operation Goals (DG)

DG-# Title Goal Details

DG-1 Power Cycles The ACBC should be capable of surviving 1000 on/off power cycles.

DG-2 User Load The ACBC should be capable of supporting user loads from zero to 100% power at the user interface.

DG-3 Fault Detection & Tolerance

The ACBC should minimize single-point failure modes, should be capable of detecting and responding to system faults, and have the capability to recover from faults and produce full or partial power.

DG-4 System Compatibility

The ACBC should be capable of integrating with space reactors, high voltage power management and distribution (PMAD) systems, and space radiators.

There is no requirement for reactor, PMAD, or radiator designs, but proposals should clearly articulate the integration of their ACBC design consistent with overall FSP mission alignment. Each design should include an assessment of technical maturity relative to current technology and the major development risks expected to achieve the ACBC capability.

3. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES

The offeror’s proposal shall describe the technical approach for performing the work scope described in Section 3.1 and for delivering the products identified in Section 3.3.

3.1. Contractor Work Scope

Proposed work scope should assure that the ACBC design and supporting analyses will meet the Capabilities and Design and Operation Goals of Section 2.1. The data product documents listed below in Section 3.3 encompass major design products of interest within the effort. The scope of work and design products listed are not intended to be prescriptive. The contractor should prioritize the depth of analysis for design feature based on an engineering judgement of technical maturity and risk balanced against the fidelity of the information required to demonstrate confidence and feasibility of the design. Industry teams are encouraged to provide any additional information deemed relevant to the mission.

If proprietary data or models are used, the contractor shall demonstrate, to a high degree of engineering confidence, that proprietary practice will satisfy the target design and operation requirements.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

3.2 Required Meetings

The contractor shall participate in the following meetings:

1) bi-weekly meetings with a small team to discuss technical results and progress with respect to the schedule, and

2) 1-day project review meeting at the trimester points in the contract performance period.

3.3 Data Product Documents

The product of this contract is a design report to be delivered approximately 12 months after the project initiation. Quality and content of the design report assures fidelity of the resulting design and establishes confidence that the design will fulfill the requirements listed in Section 2.1. This section provides guidelines and requirements for preparing the Design Report. The design report is envisioned to contain a summary description document (DPD-001) accompanied by the remaining supporting technical assessments listed in Table 3.3.1 and described in more detail in Table 3.3.2.

3.3.1 DPD Summary Table

The data product documents (DPDs) listed in Table 3.3.1 shall be deliverables under this contract.

Results of analyses described in Section 3.1 shall be summarized into the DPDs listed in this section.

Each DPD description provides a detailed narrative for the technical and programmatic information that must be addressed. Where applicable, reference documents are provided to serve as design and analysis guidelines.

Table 3.3.1 DPD Summary Table DPD # Title DPD-001 Advanced Closed Brayton Convertor Design Document DPD-002 System and Subsystem Requirements and Verification DPD-003 Interface Requirements DPD-004 Mass Properties Report DPD-005 System and Subsystem Drawing Package DPD-006 Technology Readiness Assessment DPD-007 Price and Schedule Estimate for ACBC-EDU

3.3.2 DPD Description Table

Each DPD provides a detailed narrative for the technical and programmatic information that must be addressed. The content quality and quantity vary for each DPD based on the value-added importance to understand critical aspects of the integrated power system design.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Table 3.3.2 DPD Descriptions DPD-001: ACBC System Design Document (SDD)

Description/Use: The contractor shall develop the power conversion subsystem architecture and subsystem designs that accomplish the operational goals and design requirements detailed in the RFP. This includes a turbo-alternator-compressor assembly, recuperator, hot-side heat exchanger, cold-side heat exchanger, controller, PPU, auxiliary cooler (if needed), system health monitoring;

instrumentation and controls; and other design-specific hardware or software control subsystems. Additionally, the SDD shall include qualitative discussion of the contractor approaches/considerations for the following areas: (a) Mars operational extensibility (Attachment E), and (b) identify the power scalability-limiting design components assessment of technical risks (probability and consequence). Advanced Brayton Convertor technology scalable from 10-25 kW. A point design is requested to assess scalability and determine the ACBC- EDU and ACBC-FQ prices in support of FSP and NEP consistent with the requirements and goals listed in Table 2.1 and 2.2.

Reference Documents:

None

Remarks: Final report should provide a written detailed narrative describing the ACBC design elements including functionality and interconnectivity for subsystems.

This document will serve as the overall summary report supported by data provided in the following supporting DPDs.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

DPD-002: System and Subsystem Requirements and Verification Description/Use: The contractor shall establish design requirements for the system and subsystems and provide system-derived lower-level performance requirements.

The contractor shall complete the engineering and design analyses needed to clearly demonstrate and document how integrated subsystems and functional components satisfy the required operation of a full ACBC-FQ system (e.g., thermal, dynamic, structural, and electrical). The contractor shall also include a requirements traceability matrix that details how requirements are implemented.

This shall also include design standards and guidance used in the design of systems, subsystems, structures, and components.

This DPD shall include at a minimum:

• Component analyses containing calculations supporting operational lifetime; rotor and bearing dynamics; control system behavior for startup; steady-state operation; shutdown and power maneuvers; and analysis of control system response for off-nominal and casualties.

• Thermal analyses that include heat transfer mechanisms from reactor, power conversion system performance, cooling loops, and radiators.

Include thermal impacts on the surroundings and the ground.

• Structural analyses demonstrating the ability to withstand launch loads, entry, descent and landing loads, and nominal surface operations. Also include an analysis demonstrating acceptable structural performance with radiation effects through end of life.

• Electrical and Magnetic analyses describing the electrical output of the alternator subsystem and any power electronics or control systems.

Reference Documents:

None

Remarks: The requirements traceability matrix should include:

• Identification of the design requirements that are the limiting performance drivers in the design

• An interface impacts field identifying all systems and subsystems that may be affected by a proposed change to the requirement

• Identification of the parent requirement.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

DPD-003: Interface Requirements Description/Use: The contractor shall prepare interface requirements documents (IRD) which document the physical, functional, and operational interface designs. The IRDs shall provide the detailed text and diagrams that fully describe the interface implementation. The IRDs shall address all engineering disciplines associated with the interface design.

Remarks: The IRD should address the following class of interfaces:

• Physical – Interfaces involving physical mating and spatial relationships between interconnecting parts of interfacing end items.

• Functional – Interfaces involving the interaction or influence of conditions imposed by a component or higher-level assembly upon another or by external sources such as fluids, thermal, electrical, environmental, data, and loads.

• Operational – Interfaces involving critical sequence of events occurring in assembly, disassembly, alignment, service operations, and computer programs.

DPD-004: Mass Properties Report Description/Use: The contractor shall establish and document a mass estimate for the ACBC including mass growth allowance.

Reference Documents:

ANSI/AIAA S-120A-2015 Standard, Mass Properties Control for Space Systems.

Remarks: The mass properties report should provide engineering information consistent with ANSI/AIAA standards for space systems. Mass report should include a sensitivity analysis that quantifies the impact of assumptions related to technology readiness, safety margin, and dose limits.

DPD-005: System and Subsystem Drawing Package Description/Use: The contractor shall establish CAD models for the ACBC concept designs that show mechanical and structural interfaces and component positioning. Designs are not expected to be build-ready models of the ACBC, instead a design of sufficient fidelity to provide necessary performance information within a narrow range.

Industry standard CAD software should be used to author the geometries for both low power and high power ACBC systems with a focus on deriving a common scalable architecture.

Reference Documents:

None

Remarks: The contractor should show views of stowed and deployed configurations

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

DPD-006: Technology Readiness Assessment Description/Use: The contractor shall provide a report defining the state-of-the-art, technology readiness level (TRL), and advancement degree of difficulty (ADD) for all components, subsystems, or system level technologies that are below TRL 6 and plan for maturing to TRL 6. This assessment is not based on a particular launch date.

Additionally, this report shall provide design/technology trades considered during the design process, including hardware heritage description for any existing technology considered as part of the concept designs.

Reference Documents: Attachment D

Remarks:

DPD-007: Price & Schedule Assessment for Engineering Development Unit (EDU) Description/Use: The contractor shall provide a price estimate and schedule to deliver an ACBC-

EDU. This assessment should include all the points listed below:

1. The estimated development cost for the ACBC-EDU, including any technology maturation phase, qualification, and environmental prototype demonstration. The contractor is expected to work with national laboratories to identify facilities for ground testing. This should include development and programmatic risks that may affect cost.

2. The estimated ACBC development schedule (risk informed) from approval to proceed (ATP) to ACBC-EDU demonstration date.

3. The key insights for testing and evaluating systems, structures, and components judged to be critical for mission delivery.

4. The test plan for both the ACBC-EDU including any infrastructure requirements and needs. The contractor shall pay particular attention to the scope of the ground environmental testing.

5. The plans for handling, transportation, and storage of the ACBC-EDU hardware.

Reference Documents: None

Remarks: This price and schedule estimates are needed to inform government planning and budget purposes.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

All deliverables shall be delivered in the expected period of performance of the contract.

Data Rights Identification

No change from Section 2.5 in the NRA.

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

The following information supplements the information provided in Section 4.0 of the NRA. Note that in instances where this Appendix and the NRA or 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers differ, the Appendix takes precedence.

4.1 Process and Overall Requirements

This is a single-step process. Proposers must submit a proposal for evaluation through NSPIRES. A Notice of Intent is not requested. All evaluations and award selections will be announced via NSPIRES.

Proposal submissions must be electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) file types. Submissions should not exceed 10MB.

Page limits are defined for 8.5”x11” paper. Reviewers will not consider any content beyond the page limits specified. Font style should be standard (e.g., Arial), size should be legible (12-point for the text, and no less than 10- point for figure captions), line spacing should be no less than single-spaced, and margins should be reasonable (1” or greater).

4.2 Proposal Submittal

NASA will not issue paper copies of this announcement nor accept paper copies of proposals. NASA provides no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will not be returned. NASA will treat proposals with appropriate markings as proprietary to the extent permitted by law.

4.2.1 NSPIRES Registration Instructions

Prospective offerors shall submit proposals online, electronically, via the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES). Information on how to access and submit proposals via NSPIRES can be found at the NSPIRES FAQ page which is found by following “NSPIRES Help” and then “FAQs.” Every organization, including partner organizations that are part of the proposal team in response to this announcement, must also be registered in NSPIRES. Details of the multi-step registration process can be found on the NSPIRES website noted above by following the link to the NRA/CAN Proposer’s Guidebook under Site News.

Registration in NSPIRES cannot be completed until each applicable institution obtains a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) (previously Data Universal Number (DUNS)) and registers in the System for Award Management (SAM). Please provide sufficient time to ensure completion of this step prior to the submission deadlines.

The electronic proposal must be submitted by the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the proposing Principal Investigator’s (PI’s) organization who is authorized to make such a submission;

electronic submission of the proposal by the AOR serves as the required original signature by an

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

authorized official of the proposing organization. No hard copy of the proposal will be accepted.

Proposals submitted via email or any means other than NSPIRES will not be accepted.

Each individual team member, including all personnel named on the proposal’s electronic cover page, must be individually registered, and affiliated with their organization in NSPIRES. Such individuals must perform the registration themselves; no one may register a second party, not even the PI of the proposal on which that person is committed to participate.

Each individual team member, including all personnel named on the proposal’s electronic cover page, must specify an organizational affiliation. The organizational affiliation specified on the cover page must be the organization through which the team member would work and normally receive funding while participating in the proposed effort. If the individual has multiple affiliations, then this organization may be different from the individual’s primary employer or preferred mailing address. Team members are asked to ensure that their contact information in NSPIRES is up to date. Changes can be made using the "Account Management" link on the "NSPIRES Options" page.

Submission of proposals requires action by both the PI and the AOR. First, the PI must complete all required electronic forms, and upload the required PDF file(s). Second, the AOR must submit the electronic proposal on behalf of the PI. Coordination between the PI and the AOR on the final editing and submission of the proposal materials is facilitated through their respective accounts in NSPIRES.

Note that if one individual is acting in both the PI and AOR roles, he/she must ensure that all steps in the process are taken, including submitting the proposal from the organization.

Participants should be sure to allow adequate time for coordination between the PI and AOR. Depending on the organization and its internal review process, this can take several days. The PIs are encouraged to begin this coordination at the outset of the proposal preparation.

The proposal submission process is complex and involves multiple steps to be carried out by all participants in the proposal. Therefore, participants are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the system and begin the submittal process early, well in advance of the deadline. While every effort is made to ensure the reliability and accessibility of submission systems, and to provide a help center via e-mail and telephone, difficulties may arise at any point, including the user’s own equipment. Difficulty in registering or using NSPIRES is not a sufficient reason for NASA to consider a proposal submitted after the deadline.

4.3. Proposal Requirements

All proposals shall be valid for at least 280 calendar days from the proposal due date, as indicated on Sam.gov. Submissions shall include the following documents:

• NSPIRES Proposal Cover Page (as generated by NSPIRES, see REDDI section 4.3.4)

• Proposal Document

• Signed Model Contract(s)

Proposal submissions shall include the following, in the order listed. If a Final Proposal does not contain the items listed below, the proposal may be deemed non-compliant. A cover page (without proposal information) can be provided and does not count against the page count.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Reference Proposal Section Maximum Page

Length

4.3.1 Title Page 1

4.3.2 Offeror’s Executive Summary 2

4.3.3 Offeror’s Past Experience 3

4.3.4 Technical Approach and Capabilities 10

4.3.5 Proposed Work Plan 15

4.3.6 Price Proposal(s) As needed

4.3.7 Signed Model Contract(s)

NOTE: This section 4.3.7 will be a separate upload as an Attachment to the Proposal Document

As needed

4.3.8 Optional Appendix to the SOW As needed

NOTE: The Proposal shall be self-contained (distinct and standalone) and shall not reference other documents or be contingent on any other potential awards, to satisfy proposal requirements.

Reviewers will not consider/evaluate any content in excess of the page limits specified in the table above and any excess pages will be removed from the proposal prior to forwarding for evaluation. A cover page/title page prior to the Table of Contents will not count against the page count as long as it does not include any proposal response information.

4.3.1 Title Page

The Title Page shall include the following information:

• Any notice of restriction on use and disclosure of proposal information,

• An optional graphic image, if desired by the Offeror,

• The Offeror’s name of the proposal or proposed project,

• The date of the proposal,

• The title and solicitation number,

• The Offeror’s name and address, and

• The Offeror’s point of contact’s name, title, e-mail address, and phone number.

4.3.2 Offeror’s Executive Summary

Describe the proposal’s prominent and distinguishing features. The executive summary should provide an overview of the proposed effort that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the proposal be selected.

4.3.3 Offeror’s Past Experience

Describe the Offeror’s experience providing services performed in the past that are of a similar size, scope, and complexity to the technology demonstration proposed, including any work related to the proposed technology area such as current and pending support.

4.3.4 Technical Approach and Capabilities

a. Describe the technical approach to perform the proposed work.

b. Describe the capability required to perform the work, key risks, and the facility and techniques needed to achieve the proposed objectives.

c. Describe NASA’s involvement, partnership, and insight/oversight role.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

d. Identify NASA facilities and expertise needed to perform the work, if applicable.

e. Describe the Offeror’s team qualifications

4.3.5 Proposed Work Plan (Statement of Work)

A Work Plan in the form of a Statement of Work (SOW) shall be provided in the proposal for the solicited topic, including a schedule and price proposal. If any additional background or rationale is required to support the SOW, please provide it as an additional appendix to the SOW.

a. Describe the work plan to perform the proposed work. This includes the use of resources, management approach, key personnel for meeting the objectives.

b. Provide a proposed schedule to complete the contract objectives. This includes time to kickoff and ramp up the contracted effort.

c. Describe key tasks, milestones, deliverables, and contract options (if applicable).

d. Identify intellectual property that will be limited and publicly available at the conclusion of the work. Data Rights Assertions shall be captured and included as an attachment to the Offeror’s submitted model contract.

e. Describe the plans to document the final results which shall include at a minimum a publicly available final report.

f. Provide in Word document.

4.3.6 Price Proposal(s)

The Offerors proposal shall provide a budget justification for each phase/year of the proposed effort and shall be supported by appropriate details by category. The Price proposal shall identify the Offeror’s estimated price. Any in-kind contributions shall be identified in the proposal.

4.3.7 Signed Model Contract(s)

The Offeror shall utilize Attachment D, the Model Contract Template, to complete and return the proposed contract terms and conditions. This document will need to be signed by a cognizant official that has the authority to bind the Offeror in a contractual agreement.

5. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

Each proposal will be evaluated by a NASA panel to assess the proposal’s intrinsic scientific and technical merit, its relevance to the appendix’s objectives, and its price reasonableness. These factors will also go into evaluating the proposal’s best value to the agency. Each proposal will be evaluated and scored on its own merits using the criteria described below.

Although the Price Factor is not numerically scored nor receives an adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required. The Price Factor is used to determine what the Offeror’s proposal will likely cost the Government, should it be selected for award.

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

The proposed price for the base effort will be assessed to determine reasonableness, as well as form the basis for selection. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and NFS 1815.404.

The total proposed price for the base effort and the option period (if proposed) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority, as well as any price assessment associated with the proposal.

The Source Selection Authority (selection official) shall be designated via the specific opportunity defined in each Appendix.

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.1.1 Technical Evaluation

A. Experience: (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine the relevance of the Offeror’s experience relative to the ACBC Capabilities and Design and Operation Goals in Section 2.1. Failure to show experience performed in the past three (3) years that is of a similar size, scope, and complexity to the technology development proposed will receive an “unacceptable” rating and the proposal will be disqualified from any further evaluation for contract award.

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s experience record, NASA has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror is technically capable of performing the required effort.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s experience record, NASA has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror is technically capable of performing the required effort.

B. Relevance, Potential for Implementation, and Impact: (40%)

B. 1: Relevance to NASA goals and metrics: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine if there is a clear link between the proposed work and research topic.

Additionally, the proposal will be evaluated on the comprehensiveness of the work and should show its relevance to the ACBC Capabilities and Design and Operation Goals in Section 2.1.

(50% of Relevance Score)

B.2 Technology Readiness Level: NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine if the proposal includes enough detail to assure work will mature the technologies. The proposal will be assessed to ensure the current maturity and anticipated development of the technology portfolio is described with a basis for the TRL ranking.

(50% of Relevance Score)

C. Technical Merit and Capabilities: (30%)

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

C.1 Overall Approach: NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine if there is a comprehensive and credible technical approach to perform the proposed technology advancement. This also includes the ability to perform the work, address key risks, and subject matter expertise needed to achieve the proposed objectives. Note that, as the purpose of this study is to push the limits of the technology, NASA will favorably account for lower TRL approaches that have strong potential to improve performance without sacrificing engineering credibility and operational feasibility.

(75% of Technical Merit Score)

C.2 Team Qualifications: NASA will evaluate the proposal on experience and breadth of the proposed team. This includes describing the proposed team’s ability and experience, and how this contributes to successful completion of the proposed technical approach.

(25% of Technical Merit Score)

D. Work Plan (SOW): (30%)

D.1 Overall Work Plan (SOW): NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a comprehensive Statement of Work, effective use of resources, a clear management approach, and a proposed schedule for meeting the objectives.

(60% of Work Plan Score)

D.2 Technology Assessment: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a clear plan to mature the technology.

(30% of Work Plan Score)

D.4 Intellectual Property: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a clear statement of intellectual property that will be limited and publicly available at the work’s conclusion. It is NASA’s preference that all deliverables under the contract be provided to NASA with unrestricted/unlimited rights; any restrictions must demonstrate a significant net benefit to the Government.

(10% of Work Plan Score)

The technical evaluation for each element and sub-element will be given a numerical score and evaluation rating as defined in Table 5.

Table 5. Evaluation Score and Rating Definitions

Score Ratings Definition 10 Exceptional Strong response with no risks, deficiencies, or weaknesses.

Comprehensive response that provides strong degree of confidence in the Offeror’s capability to integrate and demonstrate the core technologies.

8-9 Good Substantial response. Response provides a high degree of confidence in the Offeror’s capability to integrate and demonstrate the core technologies. The response has many strengths; however, a small

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

number of risks, deficiencies/weaknesses were found. Overall, the strengths outweigh the risks, deficiencies/ weaknesses.

6-7 Fair Moderate response. Response provides a moderate degree of confidence in the Offeror’s capability to integrate and demonstrate the core technologies. The response has some strengths; however, risks, deficiencies/ weaknesses were found that should be addressed.

4-5 Poor Marginal response. Response provides a low degree of confidence in the Offeror’s capability to integrate and demonstrate the core technologies. The response has few strengths and many risks, deficiencies/ weaknesses were found that outweigh any strengths.

5.1.2 Overall Evaluation for Award

In deciding which offer(s) represents the best overall value to NASA, price and other factors will be considered. NASA will consider technical merit to be significantly more important than evaluated price.

The best value selection decision will be made with these considerations:

A numerical scoring system will be used, as described in 5.1.1 Technical Evaluation to identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks and determine the overall technical merit of the proposal.

If there are significant differences in technical merit among competing proposals, a more expensive proposal may be selected for award if the value of the selected proposal is deemed to be worth the price differential.

Conversely, as technical scores become closer, differences in price increases in importance. Total evaluated price will be the determining factor for award where all proposals are considered equal from a technical merit standpoint.

NASA reserves the right to make award to other than lowest priced Offeror(s) or the highest rated Offeror(s), if deemed to be in the best interest of NASA.

5.2 Partial Awards and Participation with Others

NASA reserves the right to select only a portion of a proposed activity, usually at a level of support reduced from that requested in the original proposal. Offerors should specify if a proposal is offered as a non-separable package of work. Additionally, NASA may decide to award an effort for less than the full period of the proposal. In these cases, the Offeror will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such selection. If the Offeror accepts such an offer, a revised budget and SOW may be required before funding action on the proposal can be initiated. If the Offeror declines the offer of a partial selection, or participation in a joint investigation, the offer of selection may be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA.

6. SUMMARY OF AWARD INFORMATION

Award type Firm Fixed Price NASA points of contact (POC) Email questions to: ian.park@nasa.gov

*NASA will post any Q&A on-line so that all Offerors will have access to the same information.

Written responses will be posted on NSPIRES.

mailto:ian.park@nasa.gov

7. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Lunar Environment Conditions Attachment B: Launch and Landing Loads Attachment C: Minimum Radiation Tolerance Attachment D: Model Contract

Attachment A – Lunar Environment Conditions

Parameter Value

Declination Angle 1.5° Lunar Orbital Eccentricity 0.0549 Day Length 708.33 hours Distance from Earth

Perigee Apogee

363,300 km 405,500 km

Total Days (earth) to revolve around the sun 365.25 Earth Days

Orbital Eccentricity of Earth/Moon system Orbit 0.0167 Average Orbital Radius of Earth/Moon System about the Sun 1.496E8 km Surface Gravity 1.623 m/s2

Lunar to Earth Gravity Ratio 0.165 Surface Temperature Min 102 K Surface Temperature Max 385 K Sky Temperature 4 K Surface Daytime Average Sink Temperature 270 K Surface Nighttime Average Sink Temperature 84 K Shadowed Crater Temperature 40 K Lunar Radius 1,737 km Lunar Surface Albedo 0.3 The mean solar intensity at Earth’s orbital location 1353 W/m2

80HQTR23NOA01-23TDM-A1

Attachment B – Launch and Landing Loads

Random Vibration Loads Frequency

(Hz) Power Spectral Density

(g^2/Hz)

20 0.005 100 0.005 300 0.02 600 0.02 800 0.06

1150 0.06 1300 0.02 2000 0.02 grms 7.63

Acceleration Loads Axial (g) Lateral (g)

-2 -0.6,0.6 -2 -0.5,0.5

-1.5 -0.5,0.5 -1.5 -2,2

3.5 -2,2 4 -0.5,0.5 6 -0.5,0.5

Landing Deceleration Level: 4g

Attachment C – Minimum Radiation Tolerance

Parameter Value ACBC except PPU (Neutron >100 keV) 5e14 n/cm2 ACBC except PPU (Gamma) 25 Mrad PPU/Controller (Neutron >100 keV) 1e12 n/cm2 PPU/Controller (Gamma) 100 krad

Attachment D – Model Contract Template

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 1852.216-78 FIRM FIXED PRICE. (DEC 1988)

The total firm fixed price of this contract is $ [Insert the appropriate amount].

(End of clause)

B.2 CLIN LINE-ITEM NUMBER STRUCTURE-

Offeror to provide list of items and/or services to be delivered to the Government. The tasks included in SOW should be linked to the CLINs offerors propose.

CLIN Structure Option [Y/N]

Associated Task(s)

Price

[OFI] N

Total

(End of clause)

(End of Section B)

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 Work Plan

Offeror Work Plan to be inserted.

C.2 GSR 1-1 TECHNICAL DIRECTION (APRIL 2016)

(a) Performance of the work under this contract is subject to the technical direction of the Contracting Officer (CO) or the designated Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

(b) "Technical direction" means a directive to the Contractor that provides clarification of the contract’s general description of the scope of work, to include approaches, solutions, designs, refinements or shifts within tasks, or inquiries related to the general tasks and requirements in the statement of work or specifications.

(c) Technical Direction does not include any instruction that--

(1) Constitutes an assignment of additional work outside the statement of work (i.e. “new work”;

(2) Constitutes a change as defined in the changes clause;

(3) Constitutes a basis for any increase or decrease in the total price, any milestone price, or the time required for performance or delivery;

(4) Changes any of the expressed terms, conditions, or specifications of the contract; or

(5) Interferes with the contractor's rights to perform the terms and conditions of the contract.

(6) Changes any performance-based requirement.

(d) All technical direction will be issued in writing by the CO or the designated COR.

(e) The Contractor shall proceed promptly with the performance of technical direction issued by the CO or COR, unless, in the Contractor's opinion, any instruction or direction falls within any of the categories defined in paragraph (c) of this clause. In the latter event, the Contractor shall not proceed but shall within 5 working days notify the CO in writing of the basis for its opinion.

Within 30 calendar days of receiving this notification, the CO will either amend the technical direction, request a proposal for an amendment to the contract or Task Order, advise the Contractor in writing that the technical direction is considered to be within the limits of this clause and that the Contractor should proceed promptly with its performance, or rescind the technical direction in its entirety.

(f) A failure of the Contractor and CO to agree that the instruction or direction is both within the requirements of the contract and does not constitute a change under the changes clause, or a failure to agree upon the contract action to be taken with respect to the instruction or direction, shall be subject to the Disputes clause of this contract.

(g) Any action(s) taken by the Contractor in response to any direction given by any person other than the CO or the designated COR shall be at the Contractor's risk.

(End of Clause)

(End of Section C)

SECTION E – INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 52.246-9 INSPECTION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SHORT FORM).