DraftHWOTAS.pdf

D.19-1

D.19 DRAFT HABITABLE WORLDS OBSERVATORY SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS

AND MISSION ARCHITECTURE STUDIES NNH25ZDA003J

NOTICE: Amended October 9, 2024. This amendment presents DRAFT text of a new program element in ROSES-2024 for community comment. Comments and questions are due to Julie Crooke (Julie.a.crooke@nasa.gov) by October 23, 2024, two weeks after the release of this draft text. Approximately 2-4 weeks later, the final text for this amendment will be released 90 days ahead of the proposal due date; see Section 4.8.

Only for-profit U.S. organizations are eligible to submit proposals to this program element, but there are no restrictions on the types of organizations that may participate as subcontractors; see Section

4.1. Awards will be fixed-price contracts; see Section 4.5. No Open Science and Data Management Plan is requested with proposals.

The page limit and content of proposals differs from the ROSES default in several ways, see Section 4.2.

1. Introduction

The Astrophysics Division (APD) in NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is soliciting industry-led proposals to carry out (1) system-level critical technology demonstrations for ultra-stable observatories and/or (2) mission architecture studies for system-level ultra-stable observatory approaches for the Habitable Worlds Observatory

(HWO).

The solicited system-level technology demonstrations under (1) are expected to increase the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) of technologies required to close crucial technology gaps as identified in Section 3.3.1. These technology maturation efforts are expected to inform architecture trades, retire or mitigate project risks, and/or decrease fabrication lead times and overall cost in implementing technologies necessary for HWO.

The solicited mission architecture studies under (2) are expected to advance HWO’s Concept Maturity Levels (CMLs) by assessing the benefits, sensitivities, and risks of NASA-provided HWO mission architecture concepts and associated parameter studies that are currently under consideration. As identified in Section 3.3.2, the HWO Technology Maturation Project Office (HWOTM) will make available the initial three different mission architecture “Exploratory Analytic Case” (EAC) models (EACs 1-3), and eventually, EACs 4-5, which all fall under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), thus, proposal teams are restricted to U.S. organizations and US persons (see Section 4.1).

NASA recognizes that U.S. industry has innovative ideas and substantial capabilities that may be relevant to HWO. The solicited advancements under (1) and (2) above will inform the values/benefits, sensitivities, complexities, and risks associated with potential technology investments and implementation strategies.

mailto:Julie.a.crooke@nasa.gov https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_001D_&page_name=AppendixE https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2232_Session-2_1_Linking_Science_and_Mission_Architecture-John_Ziemer.pdf

D.19-2

2. Background of Program

HWO is the highest priority large space mission recommended to NASA by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine “Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s” Decadal Survey (Astro2020) to begin implementation in the decade 2023-2033.

In 2017, APD began a series of system-level risk reduction solicitations to advance relevant technologies for future and ambitious large space observatories. APD has since issued several solicitations to industry, starting with “System-Level Segmented Telescope Design” (ROSES-2017, D.15) and continued under "System-Level Segmented Telescope Design - Technology Maturation” (ROSES-2019, D.13) and “Critical Technologies for Large Telescopes” (ROSES-2023, D.19). In these program elements, APD was interested in developing end-to-end integrated telescope/coronagraph systems-level engineering designs, conducting modeling studies, implementing testbed demonstrations, and advancing the technology maturation of critical components.

This solicitation is a follow-on of those efforts focusing on demonstrations of the most critical system-level technologies and assessments of the most recent mission architecture concepts currently being explored for HWO.

NASA is committed to environmentally sustainable solutions. Therefore, NASA seeks to understand the offeror’s strategy and approach to produce realizable and reasonable solutions - to the greatest extent possible when they exist - that enable environmentally preferable energy sources, sustainable materials, and/or services the offeror intends to use to reduce impact on human health, the environment, and HWO’s mission cost effectiveness.

3. Program Scope

The overall goal of this solicitation is to increase several HWO’s enabling ultrastable observatory system-level technologies to TRL5 to achieve the needed 1010 high contrast coronagraphy required to directly image and characterize Earth-sized planets around Sun-like stars in our solar neighborhood.

3.1 General Scope Considerations

Offerors must justify their proposed efforts based upon advancing against the state-of-the-art, which must employ lessons learned from previous reports including the SMD Large Mission Study Report, LUVOIR Final Report, Chapter 12, Evolving management strategies to improve NASA flagship’s cost and schedule performance…, Funding Strategy Impacts and Alternative Funding Approaches for NASA’s Future Flagship Mission Developments, Challenges and Potential Solutions to Develop and Fund NASA Flagship Missions), including:

o Building upon NASA flagship lessons learned and TRL6-9 technology investments relevant to HWO;

o Segmented optical telescope systems, for example, building upon and evolving from the James Webb Space Telescope;

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26141/pathways-to-discovery-in-astronomy-and-astrophysics-for-the-2020s https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26141/pathways-to-discovery-in-astronomy-and-astrophysics-for-the-2020s https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary!init.do?solId=%7b7537A31C-AA12-E8D0-F3CF-2BD999B21B0A%7d&path=open https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary!init.do?solId=%7b7537A31C-AA12-E8D0-F3CF-2BD999B21B0A%7d&path=open https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?solId=%7bE879B8CD-FC43-BAB4-679E-39B4C90D567E%7d&path=&method=init https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?solId=%7bE879B8CD-FC43-BAB4-679E-39B4C90D567E%7d&path=&method=init https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?solId=%7b7FF7A769-0D6A-AED7-1B6A-FE12CE6F7847%7d&path=&method=init https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SMD_LMS_eBook_report2.pdf https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SMD_LMS_eBook_report2.pdf https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/luvoir/reports/LUVOIR_FinalReport_2019-08-26.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190029649/downloads/20190029649.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190029649/downloads/20190029649.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190033098/downloads/20190033098.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190033098/downloads/20190033098.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190033098/downloads/20190033098.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190001455/downloads/20190001455.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190001455/downloads/20190001455.pdf https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/programs/habitable-worlds-observatory/start-tag-kickoff-meeting-october-2023/ https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/programs/habitable-worlds-observatory/start-tag-kickoff-meeting-october-2023/

D.19-3 o High contrast imaging technologies, for example, building from the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Coronagraph Instrument;

o Developing modular systems to (1) reduce HWO risk with parallel ground integration and testing (I&T) development, and (2) develop multiple subject matter expert teams.

Offerors must consider Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) when relevant. For technology demonstrations, in addition to addressing the TRLs of components, subsystems, and/or full systems, MRLs must be considered and weighed in the context of potential future solutions. If applicable, offerors may state the ease or difficulty of increasing the MRLs of their proposed efforts.

3.2 Use of Specialized Government Facilities

Proposing teams are encouraged to test technologies using proven government facilities specialized for the technical scope in Section 3.3, when they exist. To do this, the offeror must contact the HWO Technology Maturation (HWOTM) Project Office point of contact (POC) Lee Feinberg (Lee.D.Feinberg@nasa.gov) and J. Scott Smith (Jeffrey.S.Smith@nasa.gov). A list of available facilities will be provided with the final version of this program element. The HWOTM Project Office will coordinate points of contacts to the appropriate NASA Centers that will identify capabilities and provide each offeror’s proposal a letter of commitment to demonstrate access to those facilities along with the assumed additional costs of that facility and its personnel. Offerors must include the costs of use of government facilities by requesting them from the government point of contact. Government Furnished Facilities and Equipment (GFF and GFE) must be itemized in the proposal, and operational costs are directed from the award. Offerors must also pay for transportation of their test articles to the government facility. The offeror will support the test with personnel and provide all Ground Support Equipment (GSE) related to the test article for testing and coordinated in advance with the POCs above.. The government will lead the test with personnel and its facilities. Details for cost assumptions can be worked through the POCs above.

3.3 Technical Scope

Based on the current state-of-the-art for relevant technologies, information provided by the HWO technology roadmaps (including the output of the Ultrastable Observatory Roadmap (USORT) prior accomplishments, and maturity achieved by the preceding awards, the proposals must focus on constituents from Sections 3.3.1 and/or 3.3.2 below.

Export control regulations, Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and /or International Traffic in Arms Regulations (TAR) as applicable, must be complied with.

3.3.1 Ultra-stable Observatory System Technology Demonstrations

The following technology gaps are aimed at demonstrating the critical constituents of an HWO ultrastable observatory. Proposed efforts must trace to the activities of the HWO START and TAG and related NASA roadmaps like the USORT roadmap and efforts of the TAG Technology Matrix (slide 13). Offerors must propose technologies, components, and/or subsystems that are amenable to demonstration via either (1) scalable fabrication and/or (2) subset/subscale demonstration and/or (3) verification via relevant environmental testing and/or (4) relevant physics modeling and model validation. Priorities include:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210015639/downloads/AIAA%20Total%20Technology%20Readiness%20Level%20Paper%20Final.docx.pdf mailto:Lee.D.Feinberg@nasa.gov mailto:Jeffrey.S.Smith@nasa.gov https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230011036/downloads/HIGH%20CONTRAST%20WORKSHOP%20PRESENTATION%20USORT.pptx https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VRftDKZddeqKEP0mClvjSLOEmqgTTpbu/view

D.19-4

• A TRL-5 ultrastable sensing and control demonstration that is accomplished with a 3-segment mirror, demonstrating sensing and control with traceable degrees of freedom at roughly a 1-m diameter scale including traceable HWO stability goals (e.g., roughly 2 picometers (pm) RMS, 6- degree of freedom (DOF) sensing and control, 100 to .001Hz, 20 degrees Celsius (C)). Note that TRL-5 implies understanding key physics and traceable specs. The government will provide an ultrastable test facility to test this system in vacuum. Please contact the POCs in Section 3.2 for details.

• An TRL-5 ultrastable mirror demonstration with a goal to achieve and build a 1-meter class mirror cell including thermal control (a rough goal would be < 3 picometers RMS from 100hz to .001hz for the first 7 cycles per segment, 20 degrees C nominal, 20 Angstrom surface roughness and at least one edge that is good to 1mm). The government will provide an ultrastable test facility to test this system in vacuum. Please contact the POCs and see cost assumptions in Section

3.2 above.

• A TRL-5 ultrastable laser metrology demonstration of a laser metrology system to validate the laser metrology needs between the primary mirror and secondary mirror that are traceable to HWO goals as described in the first bullet (above) for sensing and control. The mirrors need to be traceable to and meet the goals of HWO in degrees of freedom and stability. The individual optics of this system do not need to be full scale. Some form of independent metrology is encouraged.

• A TRL-5 isolation demonstration between the payload and the spacecraft to demonstrate 6-degree of freedom isolation including a harness across the interface.

This could be a combined set of demonstrations and must be traceable to the isolation needs of HWO as described in the Ultrastable Observatory Roadmap Team’s (USORT). While the demonstration portion does not need to be full scale, the overall effort including accompanying analyses and target demonstrations does need to address scalability. This effort or set of efforts must include addressing low temporal frequency modes (e.g., .01-0.1 Hz).

• Other technology efforts critical to the HWO observatory and ultrastable telescope can be proposed as separable items. These must trace to goals from the activities of the HWO START and TAG and related NASA roadmaps like the USORT roadmap and efforts of the TAG Technology Matrix (slide 13). This can include additional efforts to already planned (ROSES-23 D.19 CT4LT) funded efforts.

Areas that are considered most enabling must be prioritized. An example of an area of interest is low disturbance microthrusters or long-life gas thrusters, but such areas must be justified in the context of the HWO system goals. Other possible areas are deployable barrel materials and approaches consistent with thermal and micrometeoroid needs.

3.3.2 System Exploratory Analysis Cases and Key Parameter Studies

In addition to fulfilling technology gaps, this solicitation allows proposers to perform studies associated with the HWO TAG identified Exploratory Analytic Cases (EACs) and the parameter studies associated with them for error budgeting, integrated modeling, and key engineering parameter studies based on guidance from the TAG team in terms of architecture assumptions, interfaces, and priorities. EAC’s 1-3 concepts have been https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230011036/downloads/HIGH%20CONTRAST%20WORKSHOP%20PRESENTATION%20USORT.pptx https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VRftDKZddeqKEP0mClvjSLOEmqgTTpbu/view https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?solId=%7b7FF7A769-0D6A-AED7-1B6A-FE12CE6F7847%7d&path=&method=init

D.19-5 described at publicly available HWO Face-to-Face meetings and EAC4-5 will be available by the end of CY2025. NASA HWOTM Project Office will make the EAC models to awardees available via Box given they are ITAR (U.S. Persons and organizations only). To request models and up to date schedules, please contact Alice Liu at kuo-chia.liu-1@nasa.gov.

Examples of the highest priority areas of study for EACs 1-3, and eventually, EACs 4-5, include:

• Assess end-to-end performance including on-orbit wavefront stability using the EAC models and outputs. This includes multi-discipline modeling, sensitivity study evaluations, and error budgets (structural, thermal, optical, dynamics across all temporal frequencies) that can help guide TRL assessments, architecture, and system assessments. The government team will make available the following models:

o Mechanical, Thermal, and Optical Designs for EAC1 are available now (ITAR) o Optical Sensitivities and Coronagraph Sensitivities: Available no earlier than

(NET) 1/1/25 (ITAR)

o EAC2 and 3 conceptual designs will be available NET 3/1/25 (ITAR) o EAC2 and 3 Optical Sensitivities including Coronagraph Sensitivities, will be available NET 6/1/25 (ITAR)

• Provide system assessments including risk evaluations of the EACs. It is desired that offeror evaluations of EAC1-3, of what models are available by March 2025, be provided by June 2025 to be useful in advising future cases. Risk assessments must use standard NASA risk evaluation criteria and attempt to be comprehensive.

• Provide targeted parameter studies of items that effect technology specifications or future EAC cases. In this case, the contractor must define parameter studies that they consider high priority at this early state. These parameter studies must be relevant to key hard questions (like wavelength cutoffs, temperature, aperture size, on- vs. off-axis, robotic servicing architectures, etc.) and EAC case definition issues (like mirror geometry). Examples of possible studies include:

o Deployable barrels compatible with each EAC;

o Studies of the secondary mirror tower including how it will address thermal stability, stiffness;

o Deployment for each of the EAC’s (all 3 require a deployed secondary);

o Methods for achieving a high stiffness backplane and a fully stable backplane given the volume constraints consistent with the EAC rocket assumptions.

o Note: EAC1 attempts to minimize mass. EAC models will be provided by the government and must be used as a starting point when feasible.

• Studies of novel approaches to telescope stability and observatory needs such as laser guide stars, out-of-field wavefront sensing approaches, feed-forward methods, AI/ML methods, high speed computational capabilities, etc. This could include analysis, error budgeting, modeling, or even targeted demonstrations.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/programs/habitable-worlds-observatory/meetings/ mailto:kuo-chia.liu-1@nasa.gov?subject=D.19%20HWO%20model%20request

D.19-6

3.4 Intellectual Property Resulting from Awards

The offerors shall submit a list containing any and all data rights assertions other than "unlimited rights" for this acquisition. The Government reserves the right to review and confirm any assertions made. Assertions submitted by the offeror will not be automatically incorporated into any resulting contract. If a list is not provided, the offeror is in agreement that the Government will have unlimited rights to any technical data or computer data created under this contract. Normally, the Government has unlimited rights to technical data or computer software created under a government contract.

4. Programmatic Information

4.1 Eligibility of Applicants

To be eligible, the proposing organization in response to this program element is limited to for-profit U.S. industrial organizations of any size, although partnership with and/or subcontracts to other types of organizations is permitted. The work/technical content in this ROSES-24 D.19 program element is restricted to U.S. organizations and persons given that technical content of proposals falls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

4.2 Proposal Content and Format

Table 1 of ROSES-24 provides a checklist of default required components of ROSES proposals, with one exception: an Open Science and Data Management Plan is not requested.

Except as noted in this program element, proposals submitted to ROSES must strictly conform to the formatting rules outlined in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2024 Summary of Solicitation. Proposals that violate the rules may be rejected without review or declined following review if violations are detected during the evaluation process.

The following modifications to the standard default proposal components (given in Table 1 of ROSES-24) apply to this program element:

• The second component of the proposal, the Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section allocates different max number of pages per below rather than the default 15 pages. The different page limits for proposals that address Sections

3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

o For Section 3.3.1 (Technology Demonstrations), the max page limit for the

S/T/M section is 20 pages.

o For Section 3.3.2 (Architecture Studies), the max page limit for the S/T/M section is 10 pages.

o If offeror proposes from both sections (3.3.1 and 3.3.2), the max is 30 pages.

• The ninth component of the proposal, the Budget Narrative or Budget Justification, must include all budget details from the “Total” Budget (see Section IV(b)(iii) of ROSES-24) and must not be redacted i.e., values for salary, fringe, or overhead must be included. No separate “Total Budget” PDF file is to be uploaded. The Budget Narrative or Budget Justification in the proposal should contain all budget details.

• The proposal must be uploaded as a single PDF document including all required and optional sections. No separate PDF appendices are requested or permitted.

https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=980036&solicitationId=%7bEE77611A-DA28-E724-A4B6-F838EF9CD1DD%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=983947&solicitationId=%7bEE77611A-DA28-E724-A4B6-F838EF9CD1DD%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=983947&solicitationId=%7bEE77611A-DA28-E724-A4B6-F838EF9CD1DD%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=980036&solicitationId=%7bEE77611A-DA28-E724-A4B6-F838EF9CD1DD%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=980036&solicitationId=%7bEE77611A-DA28-E724-A4B6-F838EF9CD1DD%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1

D.19-7

• The High-End Computing (HEC) Appendix Document is neither requested nor permitted.

• As this program element will not be evaluated using Dual Anonymous Peer Review, the Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized Document is neither requested nor permitted.

• The offeror must check that all page limits are consistent with the Section 5 Table.

The offeror must propose milestones and associated margined schedules for each and every effort proposed to in Sections 3.3.1 and/or Section 3.3.2 along with proposed recommended milestone payment requirements.

The offeror must provide the qualifications, capabilities, past performance, and related expertise (e.g., publications, delivered products, and other measures of productivity and/or expertise) of personnel named in the proposal that would affect the likelihood of achieving the objectives.

Classified material is not requested nor permitted as part of the proposal content or submission for this solicitation.

Outyear budgets and appropriations are unknowable. For planning purposes, NASA aims to advance these technologies both within and beyond this solicitation. As part of the single pdf upload, all offerors shall submit a supplemental proposal outline (up to 5 pages) after the Budget Narrative Section outlining a notional technical and funding plan for how the offeror would proceed if the budget were to increase by 100% in year 2 then 200% in year 3, within the 3-year award period of this solicitation. If additional funding became available, this would be aligned with Astro2020’s recommendations for technology maturation for HWO. Should additional funding become available, awarded companies will be asked to provide a detailed firm fixed price supplemental proposal consistent with the outline provided.

Proposals that do not comply with the rules shall be returned without review.

4.3 Proposal Submission

Proposals must be submitted electronically via NASA's Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES). Potential applicants are urged to access this site well in advance of the proposal due date to familiarize themselves with its structure and enter the requested identifier information. Potential PIs must ensure that their organization is registered in NSPIRES and the System for Award Management (SAM.gov). Only a registered Authorized Organization Representative from the PI's organization, not usually the PI, can submit a proposal. See ROSES-2024, especially Section IV(b)(iv) of the ROSES-24 Summary of Solicitation, for instructions on proposal submission.

Proposals submitted after the proposal due date and deadline will be labeled "late" by the NSPIRES system and proposals that are late will be handled in accordance with the SMD Policy on Late Proposals. The vast majority of late proposals are rejected without review.

https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/ https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary!init.do?solId=%7b600EE5E5-E9D5-FF55-0CAD-764F6D4BEEA9%7d&path=open https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=983947&solicitationId=%7bEE77611A-DA28-E724-A4B6-F838EF9CD1DD%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1

D.19-8

4.4 Proposal Evaluation

The evaluation criteria considered in evaluating every compliant eligible proposal are those in the list that appears below. The failure of a proposal to be rated highly in any one of these areas is sufficient cause for the proposal to be declined.

4.4.1 Strategic Value

Strategic value to HWO and NASA's and Astro2020’s objectives for the HWO is defined as developing the highest priority strategic technologies, defined in Section 3.3.1, and maturing the highest priority strategic studies, defined in Section 3.3.2.

4.4.2 Cost Reasonableness

Effective resource planning and utilization includes:

• Cost reasonableness

• Basis of cost estimates

• Realistic and coherent development and funding plans for each effort

• Clearly stated assumptions about cost and schedule reserves

4.4.3 Intrinsic Merit

• Degree of enabling, scientific performance value, risk-reduction value, TRL progress, etc. of the proposed work that ultimately increases the scientific productivity while decreasing mission risk.

• The extent to which the proposed work would advance TRL (Section 3.3.1) and/or CML (Section 3.3.2) for the HWO mission, with consideration of MRL impacts.

• Strategic timing: Addressing the hardest and most critical challenges up front that are urgent or are long-lead developments.

• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the capacity to ensure achieving repeatable system-level TRL-5 demonstrations from Section 3.3.1, if applicable.

• Overall technical quality of the proposed work, including, but not limited to, the quality of the management plan, the breadth of the proposed work, project timeline for carrying out the work, and the effectiveness and resilience of the proposed experimental designs, methods, techniques, and approaches for achieving the proposed technology maturation and testbed demonstrations. Quality is defined as the offeror’s justified understanding of the (i) technical scope and difficulty of the solicited technology demonstrations and architecture studies in Section 3.3; (ii) management scope, planned forethought of needed milestone phasing, cost, schedule, and risk margin, planned resiliency, contingency, and mitigation plans.

• The extent to which existing facilities, instruments, equipment, capital investment, other resources, or support systems presented in the proposal would increase the likelihood of success. Development of new facilities that overlap with existing facilities or capabilities within the U.S. must be well justified.

4.4.4 Risk Assessment

Identify the risks and opportunities associated with the chosen implementation to achieve overall lower risk and the degree to which the offeror’s solutions will be able to reduce complexity and demonstrate repeatable results.

D.19-9

4.4.5 Demonstrated Past Performance and Expertise

• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the proposers’ areas of proven expertise match the proposed work

• The qualifications, capabilities, experience, and related expertise of personnel as demonstrated in the proposal (e.g., publications, delivered products, and other measures of productivity and/or expertise) that would affect the likelihood of achieving the objectives.

4.5 Award Type and Budget

It is acceptable for proposals to address a subset of efforts of Sections 3.3.1 and/or Section 3.3.2. The proposal shall identify which section(s) their effort advances.

The government reserves the right to not select any, or to make a partial selection of proposals addressing solicited activities from Section(s) 3.3.1 and/or 3.3.2.

4.5.1 Award Type

Successful responses to this program element will result in firm-fixed-price contract awards made according to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS). These contracts shall be incrementally funded through milestone payments as proposed by the offeror (See Section 4.2).

4.5.2 Budget

The total budget anticipated to be available for awards resulting from this program element is up to $25M annually, to be carried out over a three-year period, for a total budget of up to $75M over the three-year period.

Superseding the default in the ROSES-2024 Summary of Solicitation, budgets are not to be “redacted”, i.e., all budget information must be presented, including values for salary, fringe, or overhead. No separate “Total Budget” PDF file is to be uploaded.

The submitted proposals must clearly delineate each price per focus area/effort of Sections 3.3.1 and/or Section 3.3.2. It is essential for each offeror to distinctly itemize the price for different technology maturations/demonstrations and/or architectural studies, detailing the financial needs for each proposed area/effort.

Therefore, the total cost of efforts by section must be separated by focus area. The effort may include a design phase and manufacturing and assembly phase with a goal of no more than 3 years to completion and ready for testing (some areas should be sooner).

- Technology Maturation/Demonstration Efforts: The available budget for all technology demonstration awards (See Section 3.3.1) made under this solicitation is expected to not exceed approximately $20M total per year. For example, an estimate of the range of possible annual award sizes could be $1M-$8M each.

Thus, over a 3-year period, the total allocation for multiple technology demonstration awards may be up to $60 million. The total number of awards may vary depending on the scope and proposed effort of each proposal received and awarded. Each of these contracts may vary in value depending on the scope annually.

D.19-10

- Studies: The available budget for all study awards (See Section 3.3.2) made under this solicitation is expected to not exceed approximately $5M total per year. For example, an estimate of the range of possible annual award sizes could be $250K- $1.5M each. Thus, over a 3-year period, the total allocation for multiple study awards may be up to $15M. The total number of awards may vary depending on the scope and proposed effort of each proposal received and awarded. Each of these contracts may vary in value depending on the scope annually.

4.6 Reporting Requirements

The reporting after selection and funding from this program element must include, as applicable:

• Twice yearly in-person status briefings alternating between contractor and government site, unless otherwise approved by the contracting officer.

• A monthly virtual meeting to report out on progress in all areas. The meeting will go over the technical progress, budget, and schedule aspects of the effort. As part of this, all teams must provide a monthly virtual reporting package including cost, schedule, and technical.

• An annual final report for each analysis and each technology effort and an overall final report at the end of each effort’s lifetime during this solicitation cycle. This must include a discussion of complexity and risk, identification of required new developments, relevant existing heritage, and an assessment of TRL of systems and technologies proposed and/or an assessment of CML (and MRL if relevant) progression and future steps needed. The final report, due at the expiration of an award, will be submitted to the NASA Contracting Officer(s) and Contracting Officer’s Representative.

The Final Report shall include how the chosen implementation was able to achieve overall lower technical risk and the degree to which the offeror’s solutions was able to:

o reduce complexity o demonstrate repeatable results o accurately characterize the environmental conditions and limitations on the demonstrated performance (level of vibration isolation stability, thermal stability, humidity stability, measured stray light environment, etc.)

o demonstrate the hardware’s performance sensitivity results to external characteristics including workmanship o achieve higher MRL: evaluate and discuss the current MRL and path to achieving higher MRL solutions

• A risk matrix for each EAC along with including mitigation suggestions for risks.

• A list of additional deliverables and delivery dates.

• Information on and an assessment of each effort’s approach of energy and materials sourcing if environmentally preferable products and/or services are available that are intended to be used to have a reduced impact on human health, environmental health, and mission cost effectiveness in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 23.103.

D.19-11

Offerors can assume that the product of their work will be treated as both competition sensitive and restricted as applicable to comply with the requirements of the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR), unless the offeror requests otherwise. A summary portion of each progress report and the final report must be provided with no such restrictions so that NASA may make public the progress on the contracted effort. Successful teams are encouraged to make further presentations of unrestricted material derived from this activity at suitable public conferences or workshops that could be coordinated with the NASA point of contact.

In coordination with the NASA point of contact, a more restricted presentation of the progress reports or the final report of the results of the study may be requested by the contractor.

4.7 Planned Follow-on Activities

There should be no expectation that the proposing teams, participating organizations, or groups responding to this program element will necessarily participate in the eventual HWO mission development.

4.8 Draft Solicitation for Comments, Question & Answer Period

This draft ROSES-2024 D.19 program element is being released for comments and questions. Please send any questions or comments regarding this draft text by Month XX, 2024 (2 weeks after the release of this draft) to Julie.A.Crooke@nasa.gov, with the subject line "ROSES-2024 D.19 HWO Draft". All comments and questions will be collected, consolidated and organized, then anonymized questions and responses will be posted on the NSPIRES webpage for this program element. An amended version of this program element with the final text will be posted for proposal submission no sooner than a month after the comment deadline.

4.9 Model Contract

A Model Contract will be provided for the final release of this program element.

5. Summary of Key Information

Expected program budget for awards Approximately a total of $25M per year for 3 years totaling $75M. See Section 4.5.2

Expected number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit

Multiple awards, depending on the quality and number of proposals received. Expected number of awards is no fewer than 2 studies and 2 technology demonstrations

Maximum duration of awards Up to 36 months

Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program

Due date for comments on draft text October 23, 2024

Due date for electronic submission of proposal

See Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2024

Anticipated selection date Month XX, 202X

Anticipated award date Month XX, 202X (target)

Anticipated first progress report due Month XX, 202X (target) mailto:Julie.A.Crooke@nasa.gov?subject=ROSES-2024%20D.19%20HWO%20Draft https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary!init.do?solId=%7b90F5A9B0-8948-3EBB-C15F-3A89573DB223%7d&path=open https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2024table2 https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2024table3

D.19-12

Anticipated award end date and final written report due

Month XX, 202X (target)

Potential oral presentation to NASA senior leadership

Month XX, 202X (target)

Page limit for the central Science, Technical, and Management (S/T/M) sections

20 pp for Section 3.2.1; 10 pp for Section 3.3.2;

30 pp with the 20/10 allocation if both. See also Section 4.2.

Relevance This program is relevant to the highest priority recommendation of the Astro 2020 Decadal Survey. Proposals that are relevant to this activity are, by definition, relevant to NASA.

General information and overview of this solicitation

See the ROSES-2024 Summary of Solicitation

General requirements for content of proposals

See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program Overview and Section 4.2, above.

Detailed instructions for the submission of proposals

See NSPIRES Online Help, Section 11.4.1 of the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual that replaced the NASA Proposer’s Guide and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required in PDF format; no hard copy is permitted.

Website for submission of proposals via

NSPIRES

https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or 202- 479-9376)

Point of contact concerning this program Julie A. Crooke Astrophysics Division Science Mission Directorate NASA Headquarters Washington, DC 20546-0001

Telephone: (301) 325-0806 Email: Julie.A.Crooke@nasa.gov https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=983947&solicitationId=%7b2AD6E1EA-BCF5-E1D6-BB78-FA329297BEDF%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=974340&solicitationId=%7b3C497801-DB33-9F39-7636-1208E074A711%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=974340&solicitationId=%7b3C497801-DB33-9F39-7636-1208E074A711%7d&viewSolicitationDocument=1 https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/externalhelp/public/index.htm#t=First_Topic.htm https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/nasa-grant-and-cooperative-agreement-manual-oct-2024.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/nasa-grant-and-cooperative-agreement-manual-oct-2024.pdf https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ mailto:nspires-help@nasaprs.com mailto:Julie.A.Crooke@nasa.gov?subject=ROSES-2024%20D.19%20HWO%20Draft

3.4 Intellectual Property Resulting from Awards

5. Summary of Key Information