FA255326RB001 Q and A 3 April 2026.pdf

Solicitation # FA255326RB001, NITE-STAR Capability Development IDIQ Questions and Answers

# Solicitation Reference Offeror Question Government Response

1 Section M - Security Compliance

I am starting to prepare my company’s response to the NITE-STAR RFP and having read Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, the document states the pass/fail criteria of having a TS FCL. Currently my company has a SECRET FCL only. However, we do have TS/SCI cleared personnel who can and do travel to TS/SCI FCL (either DoW or industry) to fulfil work at this level. Question: does the lack of TS FCL mean a response to the RFP would be unsuccessful/futile? Or would my company be considered based on what I outlined above, and how we would still be able to operate at TS/SCI (albeit not at our site).

The Offeror must demonstrate a minimum facility clearance (FCL) of TOP SECRET and possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) as of the proposal submission date. Lack of a FCL at the level of TS/SCI at the time of proposal submission will deem the proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2 General RFP As much as possible, we would like to have xGEO and cislunar represented as applicable domains in the RFP.

The only acceptable QRPs in response to this solicitation are the Space System QRP and the Ground System QRP. For the Space System QRP, the space system must have operated in one of the following regimes: Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Geostationary Orbit (GEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), or Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO).

Section L, paragraph 5.2.2 Subfactor 2: Qualifying Relevant Projects (QRPs) states, "The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system."

Our business is a 501(c)3 nonprofit business entity and affiliated with a University. As the prime, we provide program management, security and compliance capabilities for the University. As the prime contractor, can we utilize past performance from the University to meet the QRP requirement?

When evaluating the work experience submitted for the QRPs, the Government will only consider work experience performed as the prime contractor. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations.

3 April 2026

Section L, paragraph 5.2.2 states that Qualifying Relevant Projects “shall be a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten

(10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for the overall system integration and mission operations.”

Will the Government please clarify whether the "manufactured the vehicle or payload" requirement must have also occurred within the past ten (10) years to meet the QRPs criteria? Given the long developmental timelines and operational lifecycles inherent to space systems, while the manufacturing work for a highly relevant project might have been completed beyond the ten-year window, the integration and ongoing mission support remains highly relevant for demonstrating capabilities in system development, manufacturing, integration, and mission support. Excluding projects whereby the manufacturing effort was completed prior to 2016 may inadvertently discount highly applicable and successful experience in delivering complex space systems.

If the Government determines that the manufacturing work must be performed within the ten-year window, we recommend allowing Offerors to reference multiple projects to collectively cover the full scope of the requirements.

The Government will evaluate two (2) QRPs and determine if the Offeror’s work experience demonstrates a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten (10) years as from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If the Offeror’s work experience is outside the required time period, it will not be further evaluated.

Attachment 7, Section M

4.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Qualifying

Relevant Projects (QRPs)

The referenced section 4.3.2 begins 'The Government will evaluate two (2) QRPs and determine if the Offeror’s work experience....."

Please clarify how the government defines 'Offeror' related to the QRPs.

Specifically, if an Offeror is comprised of multiple team members, please confirm whether the Space System QRP and the Grounds Systems QRP may be from different prime contractors on the same team for the purposes of meeting the evaluation criteria of the base IDIQ award.

The company who submits the proposal is considered the Offeror. The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system. The Offeror must have been the prime on both QRPs submitted. Each QRP must have a contract number associated with each QRP: Only one contract number may be submitted for each Space QRP, and only one contract number may be submitted for the Ground QRP.

6 General RFP

We do not build spacecraft or payloads in-house but have out-sourced spacecraft production while we served as a prime for multiple flight programs, managing the program, overseeing systems engineering, leading mission design, and other aspects critical to multiple customer bases. Considering that, are we still eligible to bid as a prime? “The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations.”

Per Sections L&M, the Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or payload, and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations.

7 Section L or M - Security Compliance

Regarding the NITE-STAR opportunity, I understand you are seeking contractors with a FCL. While we are currently in the process of obtaining our FCL, we would like to clarify if an active clearance is required at the time of the proposal, or if our pending status meets your security compliance requirements.

The Offeror shall provide evidence of a minimum facility clearance level (FCL) of TOP SECRET and possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) as of the proposal submission date. Evidence shall be submitted in the form of an FCL letter. Proof of SCIF is acceptable in the form of a redacted SCIF accreditation letter.

Attachment 7 - Section M Paragraph 4. Volume II - Technical Factor

4.3.3 Space System QRP and

4.3.4 Ground System QRP

These sections require successful bidders to demonstrate qualifications in the Space System QRP AND the Ground System QRP. This eliminates Ground System providers that do not fly their own Spacecraft. To promote the Government's ability to access a wide range of competition for TOs, would the Government consider modifying the Subfactor 2 criteria such that bidders will be qualified if they meet either of the two QRPs?

At this time, the NS RFP Sections L&M require that an Offeror must submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system.

Solicitation - Section B, Items 0001 and 1001 and Attachment 4 - Ordering Procedures, Last Paragraph

Since the USG "reserves the right to use any contract type described in FAR Part 16", please confirm that the following changes clauses will be added to the contract: 52.243-1 Changes Fixed Price, 52.243-3 Changes Time and Materials or Labor Hours, 52.243-4 Changes

FAR 52.243-1 will be added as we plan to use this contract type.

However FAR 52.243-3 and 52.243-4 do not apply to this solicitation.

Section M, 4.3.3. Space QRP states "The work experience must include, at a minimum, system development (vehicle or payload) and integration.

Additionally, the space system must have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities:

� Operating in one (1) of the following regimes: Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Geostationary Orbit (GEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), or Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) � Single vehicle mass at or above 100kg..."

Will the government relax or reduce the "Single vehicle mass at or above 100kg" space system QRP requirement at all? Section M requires that the single vehicle mass be at or above 100kg.

Section M, 4.3.1 Security Compliance Requirements states, "Offeror demonstrated all the following criteria at time of proposal submission:

• Minimum TOP SECRET FCL

• Possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to

TS/SCI

• Ability to perform cybersecurity and RMF type of work IAW NIST SP 800-37 and NIST SP 800-53 regulations"

Would the government consider changing the Security Compliance Requirement to TS/SCI safeguarding being done at government sites rather than contractor sites (e.g. Possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to TS/SCI)?

Section M requires that an Offeror be in possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to TS/SCI.

Section M, 4.3.1 Security Compliance Requirements states, "Offeror demonstrated all the following criteria at time of proposal submission:

• Minimum TOP SECRET FCL

• Possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to

TS/SCI

• Ability to perform cybersecurity and RMF type of work IAW NIST SP 800-37 and NIST SP 800-53 regulations"

Can a sub satisfy the FCL requirement for a prime on a proposing team?

The NS RFP Section M requires the Offeror shall provide evidence of a minimum facility clearance level (FCL) of TOP SECRET and that an Offeror be in possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to TS/SCI. This cannot be fulfilled via a sub.

SOW, section 3.5 states, "Enterprise and Range Enhancements The contractor shall provide enterprise-level and range capability enhancements to support space and ground, test, training, and operational readiness objectives. The contractor shall focus on improving range infrastructure, automation, interoperability, connectivity, cybersecurity, and digital transformation to ensure test and training environments remain mission ready."

Will the evaluation criteria related to Technical subfactor 2 be modified to align with this statement in the SOW? As it currently stands, criteria and QRP significantly limit the companies and expertise that will be qualified in this acquisition.

The technical subfactors will not be changed at this time.

14 Attachment 7 - Section M

4.3.3 Space System QRP: The Space System QRP communicates a requirement for the offerors' space system experience to "have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities". Specifically referencing the requirement around a single mass at or above 100kg, does the government intend to communicate that the space system requirement either has flown or has the plan to fly at the following parameters outlined in the space system QRP? Would a space system that has yet to fly but complies to the requirements to fly on track to launch meet the requirements as a pass?

For the initial vendor pool, the Government does not intend to evaluate future on-orbit capabilities. The space system QRP must have demonstrated the requirements listed in 4.3.3 by the time of proposal submission.

Section L 5.2.1 states "The Offeror shall provide evidence of a minimum facility clearance level (FCL) of TOP SECRET and possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) as of the proposal submission date."

Is the government simply looking for 1 FCL to indicate the offeror's ability to operate a classified facility or is 1 FCL required for each physical location where offerors might be planning to perform work on future TOs of the NITE-STAR contract?

The NS RFP Sections L&M state that the Offeror must demonstrate a minimum facility clearance (FCL) of TOP SECRET and possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) at time of proposal submission. If a contract is awarded, the Offeror is expected to fill out the DD254 with the appropriate performance locations where the TO or DO work will be performed.

Section M 4.3.3 states "the space system must have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities:

Sensing capabilities:

- In-situ

- Communication relay, or remoting sensing capabilities in any phenomenology"

Is the government looking for both in-situ AND communication relay/remote sensing capabilities?

The Government is looking for in-situ, or communication relay, or remote sensing capabilities.

Section M 4.3.3 states "the space system must have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities:

Sensing capabilities:

- In-situ

- Communication relay, or remoting sensing capabilities in any phenomenology"

Does the government have a preference between remote sensing satellites vs communications satellites, or will either suffice?

The Government has no preference for how the Offeror demonstrates the requirements listed in Section M 4.3.3.

Section M 4.3.2 states "Offeror’s work experience demonstrates a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten (10) years as from the date of issuance of this solicitation…" Section M 4.3.3 states "Additionally, the space system must have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities:

Completion of uplink and downlink for Telemetry, Tracking & Commanding (TT&C) and mission data via commercial or Government-owned satellite control networks"

"Completion of uplink and downlink for TT&C and mission data" makes it sound like the QRPs need to have already launched, but "must have the following attributes" and "6 months of continuous contract performance" make it sound as though programs in design/development might also be acceptable. Can you confirm whether QRPs must have launched already and if so, is the desired time window still within the past 10 years?

To qualify for the initial vendor pool, the Government does not intend to evaluate future on-orbit capabilities. The space system QRP must have demonstrated the requirements listed in Section M 4.3.3.

Section M 4.3.2 states "The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or payload, and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations."

Can the government please clarify what it is specifically looking for in the "mission operations" statement?

Mission operations is in reference to requirements listed in the Ground System QRP, please refer to Section M 4.3.4.

Section M 4.3.2 states "The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or payload, and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations."

Does this mean that the offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or payload for the Ground System QRP in Section 4.3.4?

The Ground System QRP does not necessarily have to support the Space System QRP, but it may, as long as the Offeror meets all other Section M 4.3 requirements and contract numbers are identified for both QRPs.

DD Form 254 mentions JWICS multiple times Is CWAN an acceptable TS/SCI accredited alternative to JWICS?

As long as your system can process, safeguard, and communicate information across at the TS/SCI level, it is permissible at the IDIQ level. Other accesses or networks that will be required will be specified at the task order level, per the approved/signed DD254.

IDIQ SOW Section 5.4 states "The contractor shall … coordinate with the Government for sufficient and necessary number of SCI billets"

Is SI/TK/HCS/G required for personnel? If yes, will sponsorship be provided? Any additional security level requirements will be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

DD Form 254 references the SCI Addendum (Attachment 1) (CUI) How do offerors access the CUI SCI addendum for DD Form 254? The SCI addendum will be provided if an Offeror is notified that they have qualified as a participant in the vendor pool.

24 SOW, Section 5, 5.1 This section states that the contractor shall have possession of a SCIF accredited for TS/SCI information at time of contract award. Does having an office in a shared SCIF facility qualify this requirement?

The offeror must have an FCL accredited for TS/SCI and have possession of their own facility at time of proposal submission.

Standard Form 33, Section B, CLIN 0001 and 1001 (page 3) and Section L, Para 1.1 (Page 4)

Section B of the solicitation (page 3) identifies the Pricing Arrangement for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 1001 as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). However, the notes in Section B state: "CLIN structure shall be determined at the task/delivery order level. The designation of this CLIN as Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) does not limit the ability to award any type of contract on subsequent task/delivery orders IAW the terms of the basic contract". Furthermore, the Government explicitly plans to utilize Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) and Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF), among others. Given that our firm does not bid on cost-reimbursable efforts, can the Government confirm that Offerors may be awarded a Basic IDIQ contract and subsequently compete for and be awarded Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) task orders exclusively?

Yes, you can still be awarded a basic IDIQ contract and compete for FFP task orders.

Section L, Paragraph 6.7 (Page 14); and Section B, CLIN 0001/1001 (Page 3)

Paragraph 6.7 requires Offerors to provide a summary of their accounting system and "submit a copy of applicable Government approvals/determinations".

However, our firm intends to compete exclusively for Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) task orders as permitted in Section L, Paragraph 1.1. Will the Government waive the requirement for a formal Government-approved accounting system for Offerors who certify they will only bid on Fixed-Price task/delivery orders?

Not a requirement to submit proof of an approved accounting system if Offerors are only responding to FFP TOs. But if you do have an approved accounting system, the Offeror shall provide a summary description of its accounting system. For a cost type contract, you must have an approved accounting system.

27 Sections L & M Is it permissible to include QRPs from other business entities under the same company (e.g., QRPs can be satisfied through the work of two entities with separate CAGE Codes, but the entities are under the same parent company)?

The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system. The Offeror must have been the prime on both QRPs submitted.

28 Sections L & M Is it permissible to include teammates/subcontractors' experience as QRPs?

When evaluating the work experience submitted for the QRPs, the Government will only consider work experience performed as the prime contractor. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations.

29 On ramp/Off ramp procedures

We are in the process of getting an approved FCL at the solicitation's required level, but won't have the approval by the time of proposal submission. Are we out of luck to participate on NS, or will we have any future opportunities to participate?

Offerors that are not able to submit a proposal due to FCL requirements now but will have a qualifying FCL in the future, may be eligible for vendor pool inclusion at a later date. Based on the on the NITE-STAR ramp/off ramp procedures and continuous market research, the Government may consider bringing on more vendors at a later date. The Government does not guarantee this will take place and it will be at the sole discretion of the Government.

30 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 3 What specific capabilities are expected from the contractor in terms of space-based and ground-based systems development? This will be specified at the task order/delivery order level.

31 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 4 What documentation or evidence will the contractor be required to submit to demonstrate compliance with the specified DoW and USSF standards? This will be specified at the task order/delivery order level.

32 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 5 3.3.5: Are preferred networks identified and able to be shared? Will Government assist with standing up nodes for these preferred networks as needed? This will be specified at the task order/delivery order level.

33 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 5 3.3.5: Will OTTI be releasing a data strategy document? Depending on the task order requirements, this may be made available at the task order/delivery order level.

34 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 6

4.1: With respect to the statement “The contractor should share interactive digital engineering dashboards allowing real time access to systems architectures, models dependencies, and status with the Government.” What is the definition of “access?” Will contractors be required to provide contractor network access to the Gov’t or Aerospace Corporation? Will contractors be expected to formally deliver engineering dashboards to the Government or Aerospace?

This will be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

35 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 6 4.4: Are there examples of Government-approved requirements management tools? This will be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

36 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 8 11.1: Is the training to be provided primarily for train-the-trainer/maintainer or also training for guardians? Training recipients include range operators and end users.

37 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 8 13: Could the ACA be at the IDIQ level? Could ACA be generic in terms of protecting other company data vs specific roles and responsibilities? We believe this could lead to easier integration between various TOs and DOs.

ACAs will be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

38 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 11

ANNEX A: Will Aerospace be providing system level integration SE&I support between TO/DOs, and this is not an expectation in general on the TO/DO? If Aerospace will not be in the SE&I role, will that be fulfilled by the Government or is the Government looking for a Prime to provide that role?

Integration requirements will be identified at the TO/DO level. Annex A is a standard annex included in this SOW and contract, and cannot be changed at this time.

39 ATCH 1 SOW - pg 12 ANNEX A: Is "Subcontractor Requirement" meant to encompass major subcontractors vs material suppliers?

Yes, Annex A encompasses all succeeding levels of subcontractors and suppliers.

40 DD254 Is there no expectation to need SAP access, just TS and SCI? Additional security requirements will be specified at the task order/delivery order level.

41 DD254 Will terminals/access to JWICS/NIPR and SIPR be provided by the customer, or expected to be acquired by the contractors?

Contractors are generally expected to provide their own terminals/access. Any exceptions will be specified at the task order/delivery order level.

42 ATCH 4 Ordering Procedures - pg

What is the process for issuing Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) under this IDIQ contract (i.e. will a Draft RFP be released prior to a final RFP)? Is there a standard timeline anticipated for each opportunity (i.e. 30 day response, 60 day response, etc)?

Process will be determined once the vendor pool has been established.

43 ATCH 5 On/Off Ramp - pg 1, 2 What processes will be in place for notifying contractors about the On-Ramp and Off-Ramp decisions, and how will these processes ensure transparency?

Process will be determined once the vendor pool has been established, and will be provided to all awardees. All future announcements will be made on SAM.gov.

44 ATCH 5 On/Off Ramp - pg 2 Could a potential government shutdown result in off-ramps? No.

45 ATCH 5 On/Off Ramp - pg 2

Can "Failure to actively participate in order competitions" be explained? Does this mean that if a contractor does not submit proposals for one TO that they can be off ramped, or is there a different metric? Is it mandatory that a contractor provide a bid for every TO/DO RFP or is a response of no bid acceptable?

No, you will not be off-ramped for not submitting a proposal for every single TO/DO; it is not mandatory to bid on every TO/DO.

46 ATCH 6 Sec L - pg 6 What is the expected timeline for the award decision following the submission of proposals?

Estimated June/July timeframe, pending further discussions or other circumstances.

47 ATCH 6 Sec L - pg 10

"Certification documents, such as a signed Authorization to Operate (ATO) letter or an executive summary of a System Security Plan (SSP) from previous systems, are acceptable." Our ATO and SSP are held at a higher classification level. Is there something else we can provide to show we are capable of performing NIST related work? Would we need to write a narrative of how we would approach it instead?

A signed, CUI-level assertion of completed ATO / RMF compliance aligned with NIST SP 800-37 and NIST SP 800-53 regulations can be provided.

48 ATCH 6 Sec L - pg 10 "Only one contract number may be submitted for each Space QRP" - should this say "Only one contract number may be submitted for the Space QRP"

Acknowledged, but the Government will not make this change at this time.

49 ATCH 6 Sec L - pg 10 What if the contract number is classified? Classified proposal information will not be accepted in response to this solicitation.

50 ATCH 6 Sec L - pg 11 Can we submit a proposal with teammates? Are we allowed to add/remove teammates at will (i.e. for individual TO/DO), or do all teammates need to be identified upon IDIQ Award?

When evaluating the work experience submitted for the QRPs, the Government will only consider work experience performed as the prime contractor. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations. Teaming arrangements do not need to be identified at the IDIQ level, and can be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

51 ATCH 6 Sec L - pg 12 Why is this list of Non-Government Advisors different from the list of Advisory and Assistance Services contractors on page 9 of the ATCH 1 SOW?

The list of NGAs in Section L refers to the advisors that will support the source selection. The list in the SOW refers to the contractors that will support the overall contract performance.

52 ATCH 7 Sec M - pg 3 Is there any sort of blackout period associated with this RFP or are we free to engage with customers?

No discussions should be had concerning NITE-STAR until post-award.

53 ATCH 7 Sec M - pg 5 4.3.1: Our SCIF accreditation documents are above the CUI level. Can we provide our SCIF ID for proof of an accredited facility that can process SCI?

Yes, submitting a SCIF ID (must not include information above CUI) or a redacted SCIF accreditation letter classified no higher than CUI is acceptable.

54 ATCH 7 Sec M - pg 6 4.3.2: With respect to the statement “Government will only consider work experience performed as the prime contractor”, will the Government consider work experience performed by a wholly owned subsidiary of the prime contract?

Yes. The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system. The Offeror must have been the prime on both QRPs submitted.

55 ATCH 7 Sec M - pg 6 4.3.3: For sensing capabilities, is it In-situ OR Communication relay, or remoting sensing capabilities in any phenomenology, or do we need to demonstrate both?

The Government is looking for in-situ, or communication relay, or remote sensing capabilities.

56 ATCH 9 TO 01 - pg 2 1.1: Is there any more detail on the scale of ranges/capabilities that the Government would want contractors to include? This will be specified at the task order/delivery order level.

57 ATCH 9 TO 01 - pg 2 1.1: Has the owner of the infrastructure already been identified? Can this information be provided?

This information will not be provided at this time. The owner of the infrastructure is not required to submit a qualified proposal.

58 ATCH 9 TO 01 - pg 2 2.0: Will this kickoff meeting have any classified elements? No.

59 ATCH 9 TO 01 - pg 2 2.1.1: When/how will awarded contractors learn of other awarded contractor teams and their capabilities?

If required, this will be provided after the vendor pool is established and awards have been made.

60 ATCH 9 TO 01 - pg 3 2.2.2: Can more description be provided about the goal/scope of the capabilities overview presentation?

The scope and deliverables are outlined in Attachment 9 of this solicitation.

Attachment 7, Section M

4.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Qualifying

Relevant Projects (QRPs)

Can a prime contract with a foreign government satisfy the past performance qualification requirements? Yes, pending fulfillment of other requirements listed in Sections L&M.

Attachment 7, Section M

4.3.1 Subfactor 1 & 4.3.2

Subfactor 2

Will an offeror be considered a Qualifying Offeror under Section M if the prime contractor satisfies Subfactor 1 (Gate 1): Security Compliance Requirements and meets one of the Subfactor 2 Qualifying Relevant Projects (QRPs), while a subcontractor on the team meets the remaining Subfactor 2 QRP?

No. The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system. The Offeror must have been the prime on both QRPs submitted.

63 Attachment 6, Section L.3.5 - Table of Contents

Referencing Section L.3.5 – Would the government update the Table of Content requirements from requiring delineation by subparagraph to delineating by section and subsection?

The Government does not intend to change this section.

SF33, Pg 3, Section B indicates:

Pricing Arrangement: "NITE- STAR MA IDIQ Base Ordering Period . . NITE-STAR MA IDIQ Optional Ordering" Period . . . Cost Plus Fixed Fee

The pricing arrangement for the Base IDIQ and Optional Ordering Period is indicated as Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Is the Government amenable to awarding the Basic MA-IDIQ Contract as another appropriate contract pricing structure, such as Firm-Fixed Price?

Yes, the Government is amenable to awarding the basic contract as a

FFP.

65 N/A Will it be required for offerors to establish teaming up front with the initial proposal submission, or can successful offerors coordinate additional subcontracting later on?

Successful offerors may coordinate additional subcontracting later on.

Attachment M, Pg 6, QRP Subfactor 2, QRP requirement Sensing Capabilities: in Situ

Unclear on what is meant by in situ sensing capabilities. I'm interpreting the answer to be a closed loop capability to perform a specific mission without the need for a ground contact. Please clarify.

If in situ is an unknown term or technology, please consider the other sensing capabilities within the Space System QRP. Also refer to other resources, such as Space Mission Analysis and Design (SMAD), for more information about in-situ as a sensing capability.

Attachment L, Pg. 14, Section 6.7, "IAW FAR 16.104(i), the Offeror shall provide a summary description of its accounting system and submit a copy of applicable Government approvals / determinations"

Is proof of an approved accounting system is needed if offerors only intending to respond to Firm-Fixed Price FOPRs?

Not a requirement to submit proof of an approved accounting system if Offerors are only responding to FFP TOs. But if you do have an approved accounting system, the Offeror shall provide a summary description of its accounting system. For a cost type contract, you must have an approved accounting system.

Section L, 5.2.1 states: The Offeror shall provide evidence of a minimum facility clearance level (FCL) of TOP SECRET and possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI).

Offeror has a clearance level (FCL) of TOP SECRET to perform Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Will the government accept Offeror's safeguarding based on an executed Co-Utilization Agreement with an accredited facility up to TS/SCI?

No, because Co-Utilization Agreements can be rescinded at any time.

The Offeror must have an FCL accredited for TS/SCI and have possession of their own facility at time of proposal submission.

Attachment 6, Section L, 5.2.1 Attachment 7, Section M, 4.3.1

Please clarify the specific documentation required at proposal submission to demonstrate compliance with Gate 1 security requirements in Section L 5.2.1 / Section M 4.3.1, including acceptable evidence for TOP SECRET FCL, TS/SCI-accredited facility, and NIST SP 800-37 / 800-53 RMF implementation, and whether such evidence must be held directly by the prime offeror.

Please refer to Section L 5.2.1 to see the list of specific requirements and documentation that an Offeror must submit. This evidence must be submitted by the Offeror.

Attachment 6, Section L, 5.2.2 Attachment 7, Section M, 4.3.2

Please clarify whether the QRP requirements in Section L 5.2.2 / Section M 4.3.2 must be met by the submitting offeror entity itself, or whether the Government wil consider qualifying prime-contractor experience from a JV member, parent, affiliate, predecessor, or committed teammate.

When evaluating the work experience submitted for the QRPs, the Government will only consider work experience performed as the prime contractor. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or payload, and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations.

71 Attachment 6, Section L, 5.2.2 Attachment 7, Section M, 4.3.4

Section L 5.2.2 requires submission of one Ground QRP under a single contract number, and Section M 4.3.4 identifies multiple required ground-system attributes/capabilities. Please clarify whether a single Ground QRP contract must demonstrate every listed attribute/capability in Section M 4.3.4 to receive a Pass rating, or whether the Government will evaluate whether the contract demonstrates substantially similar ground-system experience in the aggregate.

The QRPs must include the contract numbers for the work experience demonstrated in the QRPs. Only one contract number may be submitted for each Space QRP, and only one contract number may be submitted for the Ground QRP. All attributes/capabilities under the Ground QRP must be met.

72 Attachment 6, Section L, 5.2.2 Attachment 7, Section M, 4.3.3

Section L 5.2.2 directs offerors to the Space QRP attributes/capabilities identified in Section M 4.3.3. Please clarify whether each listed attribute/capability in Section M 4.3.3 is mandatory for a Pass rating, including the 100 kg threshold, one-year design life, sensing capability, and TT&C uplink/downlink requirement, or whether the Government will consider substantially similar space-system experience that does not match every listed attribute.

Yes. The Offeror must submit one Space QRP focused on work experience including, at a minimum, system development (vehicle or payload) and integration, and the attributes or capabilities outlined in Section M paragraph 4.3.3.

Attachment 1, SOW, Sections 2 and 3.3–3.6 Attachment 6, Section L, 5.2.2 Attachment 7, Section M, 4.3.2–4.3.4

Sections L and M establish qualifying relevant project experience requirements that appear significantly narrower than the overall scope described in the SOW.

Please confirm that the qualifying experience requirements in Section L 5.2.2 / Section M 4.3.2–4.3.4 are intended to serve as mandatory eligibility gates for the broader IDIQ scope described in the SOW.

Yes, the qualifying experiences outlined in Sections L&M are intended to serve as mandatory eligibility requirements for the IDIQ vendor pool.

74 Attachment 7, Section M, Section

Section M states that the Government intends to use artificial intelligence as a tool to assist with proposal evaluation. Please clarify the scope of such use, including whether AI will be limited to administrative functions such as organizing or summarizing proposal content, or whether it will be used substantively in the assessment of compliance or pass/fail criteria. Please also clarify what safeguards will apply to protect proprietary proposal information and ensure that evaluation judgments remain under human control.

The Government will be utilizing approved Department of War AI tools for this source selection. Additional information into the internal Government source selection processes is not required to submit a qualified proposal.

Solicitation, DFARS 252.204- Solicitation, DFARS 252.204- Attachment 1, SOW, CMMC compliance language

The solicitation clauses addressing CMMC appear to require CMMC Level 2 (Self), including current SPRS status, affirmation, and associated CMMC UID information, while the SOW uses somewhat different wording regarding Level 2 compliance and self-assessment documentation. Please clarify the exact CMMC requirement applicable to this solicitation and identify the specific evidence that must be included with the proposal to demonstrate compliance.

CMMC Level 2 is not required as a subfactor, but CMMC requirements must be included for all contracts per DFARS 252.204- 7012, as a mandatory requirement handling CUI.

RFP Attachment 1 - NITE-STAR IDIQ SoW, page 5, section 3.3.5 states, "The contractor shall integrate, leverage, and deploy Government furnished property/information (GFP/GFI) to support Space and Ground Systems activities outlined in 3.3.1 through 3.3.4. This includes the associated network(s), cryptography, data transport, data storage, data archive, and software development in accordance with the OTTI data strategy to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the Government."

Can the government provide the referenced OTTI data strategy? Depending on the task order requirements, this may be made available at the task order/delivery order level.

RFP Attachment 6 Section L, page 6, section 2.4 Electronic Proposal states, "The proposal volumes should be submitted in Adobe Acrobat portable document file (pdf) searchable text format."

When submitting original evidence with locked signatures, some text may not be searchable. As an example, documents that are Docusigned may result in the removal of official signatures that invalidate the documents (typical problem areas include with supporting documentation, such as certifications received, SF-328 forms, evidence, contracts, etc.). Is this exception permitted?

Please submit the signed documents in a way that remain searchable.

RFP Attachment 7 Section M, page 4, section 2 Evaluation Methodology states, "The Government intends to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation."

Does the government intend to use AI tools to assist in evaluating proposals solely at the IDIQ level (for IDIQ onboarding) as well as future TO/DOs? If used in future TO/DOs, will it be restricted to source selection using LPTA or could it be used to evaluate best value as well?

The Government intends to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The AI tool(s) will be used to support the human evaluators in assessing proposals against the evaluation criteria established in Section M of this solicitation. How the Government uses AI at the TO/DO level will be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

RFP Attachment 7 Section M, page 4, section 2 Evaluation Methodology states, "The Government intends to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation."

Please clarify whether all proposals will be evaluated using the same AI prompts, inputs, and evaluation process, applied consistently across all offerors.

Yes AI prompts/inputs/process will be applied consistently across all offerors. The Government intends to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The AI tool(s) will be used to support the human evaluators in assessing proposals against the evaluation criteria established in Section M of this solicitation.

RFP Attachment 7 Section M, page 4, section 2 Evaluation Methodology states, "The Government intends to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation."

Please clarify whether human evaluators will independently assess each proposal prior to or concurrent with AI-assisted review, or whether AI output will inform the human assessment prior to independent human review.

All proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by human reviewers.

Additional information into the internal Government source selection processes is not required to submit a qualified proposal.

81 Atch 6, Section L, paragraph 2.4 Section 2.4 states that each volume must be unclassified. Does that include CUI as being able to be part of the proposal? Yes CUI is acceptable.

82 Section L, paragraph 5.2 Do all the items in the work experience need to be with the same spacecraft?

The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system. The Offeror must have been the prime on both QRPs submitted.

83 Section L, paragraph 5.2.2 As a payload provider, can the Single vehicle mass at or above 100kg requirement include the bus provider we integrated with? The requirement isn't seeking 100 kg payloads, correct?

Single vehicle mass should be interpreted to include both bus & payload, with a total single vehicle mass at or above 100kg.

84 Atch 6, Section L, paragraph 2.4 Will the government reconsider allowing classified submissions for QRPs? Some of the payloads our company has produced are for classified customers but would meet the spirit and intent of OTTI

Classified proposal information will not be accepted in response to this solicitation.

85 Section L, paragraph 5.2.1 Does the evidence of ATOs and SSPs have to tie directly to the programs chosen for space and ground QRPs? We have other programs with applicable ATOs and SSPs.

No, it does not need to tie directly.

Section L, Paragraph 5.2.2 states that QRPs "shall be a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for the overall system integration and mission operations.”

Will the Government please clarify whether the "manufactured the vehicle or payload" requirement must have also occurred within the past ten (10) years to meet the QRPs criteria? Considering the long developmental timelines and operational lifecycles inherent to space systems, many highly relevant and operational projects may involve manufacturing efforts completed outside the ten-year window.

If all the manufacturing/development/integration/etc that an offeror desires to submit was completed outside of the 10 years, then it will not qualify as a QRP. The Government will evaluate two (2) QRPs and determine if the Offeror’s work experience demonstrates a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten (10) years as from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If the Offeror’s work experience is outside the required time period, it will not be further evaluated.

Section L, Paragraph 5.2.2 states that QRPs "shall be a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or the payload and have been responsible for the overall system integration and mission operations.”

If the Government determines that the manufacturing work must have occurred within the ten-year window, will the Government allow Offerors to reference multiple projects that, when combined, demonstrate the full scope of the requirements for a single QRP (e.g., manufacturing, system integration, and mission operations)?

The Offeror shall submit evidence of two (2) QRPs detailing work experience, as the Prime contractor, responsible for system development and integration of a space system (consisting of a space vehicle or payload) and a ground system. The Offeror must have been the prime on both QRPs submitted. Only one contract number may be submitted for each Space QRP, and only one contract number may be submitted for the Ground QRP.

Attachment 1 SOW, Section 13 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan); Attachment 4 Ordering Procedures, page 1 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements)

Given that the Government will analyze small business participation goals for each task order and prime contractors will be required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans, does the Government intend to compile and provide to prime awardees a list of qualified small businesses — including those with relevant SBIR Phase II/III technologies, SDVOSB/VOSB certifications, and demonstrated capabilities in the NITE-STAR SOW scope areas (e.g., MBSE, digital engineering, DevSecOps, cybersecurity) — to facilitate meaningful small business inclusion in task order proposals?

No, the Government will not provide a list of qualified small businesses. Please consider other organizations that could provide this information, such as SBA.

Attachment 4 Ordering Procedures, page 1 (Exception to Fair Opportunity); FAR 16.507-2;

15 U.S.C. § 638(r)

Will the Government consider SBIR Phase III sole-source authority (15 U.S.C. § 638(r)) as a valid Exception to Fair Opportunity (EFO) basis for issuing task orders under this IDIQ to small businesses with qualifying SBIR Phase II technologies that are relevant to specific NITE-STAR task order requirements? If so, what is the process for a prime contractor or small business subcontractor to nominate an SBIR-derived technology for a task order?

No, the Government will not consider SBIR sole source authority as a valid exception to fair opportunity under this IDIQ.

Attachment 1 SOW, Section 4.1 (Guidance and Best Practices — MBSE/Digital Engineering);

Section 12.1 (Documentation — model-based systems engineering processes)

Section 4.1 states the contractor 'should' leverage MBSE and digital engineering tools to develop end-to-end systems architectures with full traceability and share interactive digital engineering dashboards with the Government. Will the Government specify preferred or mandated MBSE toolsets (e.g., Cameo Systems Modeler, Sparx Enterprise Architect) at the IDIQ level, or will tool selection be defined at each task order? Additionally, does the Government intend to establish a common MBSE modeling standard or metamodel across NITE-STAR contractors to ensure interoperability of digital engineering artifacts across task orders?

This will be determined at the task order/delivery order level.

Attachment 5 On-Ramp & Off- Ramp Procedures, Section 1.1;

Attachment 7 Section M, paragraph 4.3.2 (QRP Requirements)

The QRP requirements in Section M require offerors to demonstrate prime contractor experience manufacturing a space vehicle or payload (≥100kg, ≥1 year design life) and developing ground system software supporting on-orbit operations. These requirements effectively limit IDIQ awards to large businesses and a small number of mid-tier firms. Will the Government consider structuring future on-ramp opportunities with modified evaluation criteria that enable qualified small businesses with specialized capabilities (e.g., MBSE, digital engineering, cybersecurity, AI/ML) to compete for IDIQ awards, consistent with the Government's small business participation objectives?

Offerors that do not qualify now but may qualify in the future, may be eligible for vendor pool inclusion at a later date. Based on the on the NITE-STAR ramp/off ramp procedures and continuous market research, the Government may consider bringing on more vendors at a later date. The Government does not guarantee this will take place and it will be at the sole discretion of the Government.

Attachment 6 Section L, paragraph

6.2 (Company Cover Letter — Partners); Attachment 1 SOW, Section 13 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan)

Section L paragraph 6.2 requires offerors to identify subcontractors and entities contributing to the proposal. Are prime offerors permitted to identify small business teaming partners at the IDIQ base contract level — including SDVOSB, HUBZone, 8(a), and SBIR Phase II/III awardees — that they intend to utilize across future task orders? If so, will the Government give favorable consideration to teams that demonstrate robust small business teaming arrangements at the IDIQ level?

No, an Offeror is not required to identify teaming arrangements at the IDIQ level. No, an Offeror will not receive favorable consideration at the IDIQ level.

Attachment 1 SOW, Section 3.3.4 (Digital Twins); Section 4.1 (MBSE/Digital Engineering)

Section 3.3.4 requires the contractor to develop digital twins for real-time system representations, predictive performance analysis, and adaptive training environments.