Attachment 5 SPLASH QA.pdf

SPLASH Questions and Answers

FA2521-26-Q-0010

Question # RFP Section Page Number Question Answer

1 Section L.05 (e) 3 of 10 Will the Government permit Offerors to use a font size less than 12-point for tables and figures?

Yes

2 SOW 3.6 (TIMs) 4 of 7

In order to plan for the Contractor Team to attend 2 in-person meetings in the PN, we need to price these trips into the FFP cost. Will the Government identify where the in-person meetings will take place or provide a plug number for the pricing?

Location avaialable in CUI Statement of Work

3 L.05.c. 3 May offerors include a Table of Contents and Acronym List that will not count toward page limits?

Yes

4 L.05.e. 3 May offerors use 10-point Times New Roman font in tables and graphics?

Yes

5 L.05.g.4. 4 What specific CUI categories or marking requirements will apply to SPLASH deliverables (e.g., CTI, OPSEC, PROPIN)?

PROPIN, INTL

6 N/A N/A

Given the technical nature of the work and the requirements for secure, collaborative exchanges of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), is it possible for the Government to provide workstations and government network accounts (e.g., IL5/NIPRNET) for at least four to six core members of our proposed team?

No

7 N/A N/A

As we have only just seen the notice and the suspense for submission of questions has already passed, would it be possible to extend the deadline for vendor questions until Monday?

No, based on the number of and type of questions received, the Government believes there is sufficient information available in order for any offeror to submit a competitive quote.

8 N/A N/A

For purposes of Attachment 3's OCI restrictions, can the Government clarify the definition and boundary of the “system” under this requirement, including whether an awardee would be precluded from future spacecraft mission integration, launch integration, or prime-contract work for the Partner Nation outside the specific SPLASH recommendations and acquisitions developed under this contract?

The restrictions could apply to future competitive contract actions carried out by the US Government related to any items, systems, processes, etc.

involved as a part of this study; however, the restrictions do not preclude non-competitive, direct, contract actions if such an action is able to be justified. Most importantly however, the restrictions DO NOT apply to contract actions carried out directly by the foreign PN- as the basis for the restrictions are US government regulations which would not apply to the PN.

SOW Sections

3.1 and 3.2 N/A

Baseline Standards: Is there a specific USSF directive, standard, or instruction (e.g., SMC-S-016, AFSPCMAN 91- 710, or equivalent Space Systems Command criteria) that the PAE expects to serve as the foundational baseline for this evaluation, prior to tailoring?

The contractor is expected to use all relevant USSF and SSC guidance regarding National Security launch processes and requirements as the baseline to be tailored.

SOW Sections

3.1 and 3.2 N/A

Risk Tolerance Baseline: SOW Section 3.3 requires us to "recommend a mission assurance approach" based on the Partner Nation's (PN) risk tolerance. Will the USG provide an initial classified or unclassified briefing on the specific PN National Security payloads (e.g., mass, orbit, sensitivity) anticipated for this spaceport, or should we base our risk tolerance assumptions on a generic NSSL reference mission?

The expectation is that the contractor will assess the Partner’s risk tolerance through direct communication at one of the in-person or virtual meetings.

SOW Section

3.1 N/A

LSP Selection Status: Has a specific U.S. CLV provider (or providers) already been down-selected or identified by the PN/USG for this assessment, or are offerors expected to evaluate a broad portfolio of potential U.S. commercial vehicles?

This information is available in the CUI version of the SOW, available upon receipt of signed NDA and contracting officer approval.

SOW Section

3.1 N/A

NDA Facilitation: SOW Section 7 requires the contractor to enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with the LSP. Will the USG (PAE Space Access) facilitate the initial introductions and data-sharing agreements with the LSP, or is the contractor expected to independently negotiate data access rights for CLV manufacturing and vehicle mating data, especially for mission assurance/pedigree flight readiness type reviews? Will the LSP be expected to resubmit their ITAR license for new signatories?

PAE Space Access will facilitate initial introductions and share existing relevant information. Further requests for technical data will be directed to the LSP IAW independently negotiated agreements

SOW Section

3.2 N/A

Cybersecurity Baseline for the Spaceport: When assessing the spaceport's "ability to meet physical and cyber security requirements," is the spaceport expected to meet NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3/CMMC standards (as required for the contractor in Section 6), or are there specific PN national security IT frameworks we must map against U.S. standards?

The contractor is expected to use all relevant USSF and SSC guidance regarding National Security launch processes and requirements as the baseline to be tailored to suit the Partner’s requirements and risk tolerance.

SOW Section

3.2 N/A

Commodity Infrastructure: The SOW highlights assessing the spaceport's ability to handle commodities like LOX, Hydrazine, and LN2. Should our assessment assume the spaceport operator will be solely responsible for the procurement and transport of these commodities to the pad, or should we evaluate the broader PN national supply chain and port/rail infrastructure feeding the spaceport?

Assessments should focus on the existing infrastructure and processes of the spaceport operator. External supply chain and transportation logistics are outside of the scope of this study

SOW Section

3.6 N/A

CONUS PAE Meetings: The SOW states "Additional progress review and kickoff/closeout meetings with the PAE/SA case team will be required with at least 2 in-person." Where are the PAE/SA case team in-person meetings expected to take place (e.g., Los Angeles AFB, Pentagon, Patrick SFB), so we can accurately build out CLIN 0007 (Travel)?

For planning purposes, assume USG meetings will be held at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL

SOW Section

3.6 N/A

PN Representation at TIMs: During the 10 virtual TIMs with the PN and spaceport operator, will USG/PAE representatives be present, or will the contractor be conducting these technical engagements directly with the PN under USG delegated authority?

All TIMS will include, at a minimum, the PAE project manager, however the contractor will be expected to coordinate and execute the logistics.

17 SOW Section 6 N/A

PN Access to the Secure Workspace: Will the PN personnel accessing our secure workspace be using U.S.

Government-furnished credentials (e.g., CAC/PIV), or must the contractor's secure IT enclave provision and manage secure identity and access management (IAM) credentials for foreign nationals?

PN personnel will not be provided CAC or NIPR access. It is expected that the contractor provide a secure enclave to store, manage, and distribute relevant study materials

18 SOW Section 6 N/A

CDRL Acceptance Cycle: SOW Section 5.0 states deliverables will be accepted upon "written confirmation from the PN and Space Access Project Manager." What is the anticipated review cycle duration (e.g., 14 or 30 days) for the USG and PN to review draft CDRLs prior to providing final written acceptance?

Document review timelines will be dependent on the contractor’s proposed schedule and complexity of the deliverable. Assume an average of 14 days.

SOW Sections

3.3 and 3.5 N/A

Existing Export Authorizations: Are the necessary export licenses, specifically a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) covering the exchange of launch vehicle and mission assurance technical data between the U.S.

commercial Launch Service Providers (LSPs), the U.S.

Government, the contractor team, and the PN, currently in place and approved by the Department of State

(DDTC)?

A Technology Safeguards Agreement and Technical Assistance Agreement exist between the Partner and the US, as well as the LSP. The Office of the Under Secretary of War (OUSW) Acquisition & Sustainment (A&S) reviewed the SOW and agreed that the scope does not cross the threshold of a Technology Transfer Control Program (TTCP) requirement. There will be a requirement for the contractor to obtain appropriate export control licenses (ITAR and CCL) and to comply with the existing TSA.

SOW Sections

3.3 and 3.5 N/A

Contractor Responsibilities: If the required TAAs or export licenses are not currently in place, is it the Government’s expectation that the contractor will be responsible for drafting and submitting the TAA applications, or will the USG and/or the selected LSPs serve as the primary applicants for these export authorizations prior to the commencement of OCONUS Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs)?

N/A, TAA already in place

21 SF 1449 N/A

We're writing to request a one-week extension to the current submission deadline of noon EDT on September 18, 2026, moving the due date to noon EDT on September 25, 2026.

Solictation has been extended to noon, Monday, 21 Sep 26.

22 SOW Section 7

Please confirm whether NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 is intentionally required as a contract-specific requirement notwithstanding DoD Class Deviation 2024-O0013, Revision 1, which maintains NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 as the applicable DFARS 252.204-7012 baseline.

Defer to CONS guidance on DFARS requirements

23 SF 1449

Our company is interested in participating in the Solicitation no. FA252126Q0010 -Spaceport and Launch Assessment & Strategic Help (SPLASH). We have reviewed the bid posting site and noted that the submission due date is Sep 18, 2026, 03:00 pm EDT.

Could you please confirm if this date is correct and if there have been any updates or amendments that may not have been posted yet?

Solictation has been extended to noon, Monday, 21 Sep 26.

24 SF 1449

The SF1449 that was provided for the SPLASH opportunity is password protected. Is it possible to get the password to add the necessary information to it?

The SF 1449 has been updated. If this is still an issue, please convert the PDF to a Word document as a workaround.

25 SF 1449

Based on the CUI SOW it seems that listing the PN by name makes the document CUI. Can you please confirm if this is correct. If so, we will mark our submission CUI and handle accordingly. Otherwise I will just email the quote direct to you as outlined in the RFQ.

Awaiting guidance from IP office

26 SF 1449

If we do need to submit CUI, how would you prefer we do that? We have several options I would recommend:

a.Password protect CUI Word doc and email direct.

Send password in separate email.

b.Email direct from our new email accounts we have set up on GCC High. I think (probably need your security to confirm) this is acceptable.

c.Upload files to a Sharepoint or Box folder and provide instructions for you to download.

Reciept of CUI material via password protected documents or DoD SAFE is preferred