Amendment 16 - Acq Strategy Change and DRFP QA.pdf

Acquisition Strategy Change

The acquisition strategy for the Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications (SMBA) procurement has undergone significant changes due to new funding constraints and updated directives. Below is the Government’s planned go-forward on the contract structure pending final strategy approval. The Final Request for Proposal and its terms and conditions will supersede any statements in this document.

1. Number of Contractors: Single Award

2. Down-Select: Eliminated

3. Contract Type: Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) through SMBA Flight Model (FM) 1 and

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for subsequent FMs

4. Additional Fee: Schedule Incentive for FM 1

5. Number of Units: Up to Eight

6. Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure: To be determined (TBD)

7. Batching of work within CLINs (e.g, number of FMs, non-recurring engineering, engineering units, long lead items, etc…): TBD

8. Batching of CLINs within Core and Options: TBD

The Government continues to welcome feedback. In particular, the Government would like feedback as soon as possible on when the Vendor community believes the best time is to switch from CPFF to FFP.

1. Questions related to the old contract structure

The Government considers all previous questions and answers related to the old contract structure obsolete and will not address them.

2. Will Offerors be expected to price the entire effort through FM 8 Yes. Regardless of the final CLIN and Option structure, the Government intends to have Offerors price the effort through FM 8.

3. Has the timeline for this procurement changed?

The current timeline is as follows:

• Request for Proposal (RFP) Release – Q1 CY 2026

• Proposals Due – 45 calendar days later

• Award – Q2 CY 2027

4. Will there be another Industry Day and opportunity for One-on-One discussions with the Government?

Yes, an Industry Day is planned for January 5th at 12pm ET. The Government Team continues to invite One on One discussions until the RFP is released. One-on-One discussions scheduled before January 7th would be most beneficial. Please contact

Bruce Tsai (bruce.b.tsai@nasa.gov) for information on joining the Industry Day and to schedule a One-on-One discussion.

5. Which Statement of Work (SoW) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) sections are associated with the Cost Plus portion of the contract and which sections are associated with Fixed Price portion of the contract? Will there be a separate SoW and CDRL for each portion?

There will not be a separate SoW and CDRL for the Cost Plus and Firm Fixed Price portions of the work. Instead, the next iteration of the contract will batch CLINs by Development, Production, or Task Order and the next iteration of the SoW and CDRL will note which CLIN types (Development, Production, or Task Order) apply to each SoW section and each CDRL deliverable.

6. Can the Government clarify expectations for the Engineering Test Unit (ETU)?

The Government plans to move from an ETU to an Engineering Development Unit (EDU). The EDU will be form, fit, function, and flight-like. It will include one ambient thermal cycle. The EDU is expected to be assembled and functionally tested before Critical Design Review. Further testing and upgrades to the unit from an EDU to an ETU (a form, fit, function, flight-qualifiable instrument) may be incorporated into the contract as pre-priced changes or options.

7. Is the Government using “Award” and “ATP” as meaning the same thing? If so, does NASA intend to do a selection notice sooner?

The Government is using “Award” and “ATP” as meaning the same thing. The Government intends to issue a selection notice shortly before Award.

8. Why is the Government requiring access to Vendor Information Technology systems such as those responsible for document sharing, risk data bases, and engineering drawings?

This has been removed from the next iteration of the RFP and requirements documents.

9. Why is the Government requesting lower-level details (e.g., cost element) for financial reporting and the proposal cost volume for Firm Fixed Price subcontractors? This information is not available for Firm Fixed Price contracts.

This has been removed from the next iteration of the RFP and requirements documents.

10. Why is the Government requiring participation in Vendor led reviews such as Engineering Peer Reviews (EPRs), Failure Review Boards (FRBs), Anomaly Review Boards (ARBs), and Material Review Boards (MRBs)?

In most cases, the Government’s risk posture has driven it to use Vendor processes in lieu of Government dictated processes. The Government intends to rely on reviews and test data to provide SMBA performance assurance. For that reason, the mailto:bruce.b.tsai@nasa.gov

Government is requiring an invite to (but not voting membership on) some Vendor led reviews including EPRs, FRBs, ARBs, and MRBs. The Vendor will define critical subsystems in the EPR Plan deliverable.

11. Why is the Government requiring access to instrument Source Code and Engineering Drawings?

The Source Code and Engineering Drawings are no longer required deliverables in the next iteration of the SoW and CDRL. The Government will exercise its rights under the Inspection clauses (52.246-6, 52.246-2, and 52.246-8) and Rights In Data clauses (52.227-14 Alts II, III, and V) on the contract as applicable and as needed.

12. Because much of the contract will be Firm Fixed Price, could the Government clarify the expected level of effort?

Yes, the SoW and CDRL now include more defined performance-based requirements (as much as practical).

13. Why were suggestions from the initial Draft RFP release not included in the Draft RFP Amendment 13 update?

Draft RFP Amendment 13 was primarily intended to show the impacts of the multi award, down select approach on the contract structure. To provide this information as quickly as possible, the Government did not review all suggestions prior to Draft RFP Amendment 13 release. The Government has since reviewed all suggestions.

The next iteration of the SoW, CDRL, and Performance Requirements Document will reflect this review.

14. Because Government led reviews are time consuming, can the milestone reviews be Contractor led?

The milestone reviews will still be Government led, HOWEVER the Government plans for these reviews to be Project Team led, NOT NASA Systems Review Board or Goddard Systems Review Team led reviews. The Project Team review board will also include a voting member from the Vendor team. This means that the people performing the reviews will be familiar with the ongoing work. The SoW also requires GSFC-STD-1001, but does not require the appendices. The Government and Vendor teams will collaborate to finalize the exact exit criteria for each review with the intent to use as much from the Vendor’s standard review process as possible. Finally, the SoW does not require any pre-reviews and chart flips. The reviews should be open discussions not rehearsed performances. Taken together, the Government’s intent is to reduce review time and additional burden on the Vendor.

15. Can you extend the proposal due date?

The Government will provide a proposal due date with adequate time to address the change to the acquisition strategy.

16. Will the Government consider lowering the $250M past performance threshold for size relevancy?

The Government will consider a lower past performance threshold for size relevancy.