DRFP Cover Letter_FDSSIV_FINAL.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771

November 26, 2024 Reply to Attn of: 175

TO: All Potential Offerors

SUBJECT: Re-Release of Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP), Solicitation No.

80GSFC24R0027, for Flight Dynamics Support Services (FDSS) IV

You are invited to review and comment on the re-release of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center’s Flight Dynamics Support Services (FDSS) IV solicitation. The principal purpose of this requirement is to acquire flight dynamics support and related services under Code 590, Mission Engineering and Systems Analysis (MESA) Division and Code 500 Engineering Technology Directorate (ETD) at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) to support both external and internal stakeholders including the four main GSFC science Lines of Business (LOBs): Astrophysics, Earth Science, Heliophysics and Planetary Science. The contractor shall provide the following scope of work requirements in the flight dynamics discipline: systems engineering, analysis & algorithm development, software tool development, operations support, conjunction assessment, infrastructure maintenance, and strategic technology advancements.

NASA will conduct this acquisition as a small business set-aside. This competitive acquisition will result in a Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract. The contract will have an effective ordering period of 5 years from the contract effective date. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 without the Exception 1 (Military and Aerospace Equipment) and the small business size standard is $25.5M.

Industry Feedback

NASA GSFC appreciates the comments received in response to the release of the Draft RFP.

These comments resulted in improvements to the quality and content of the overall requirement. While offerors should review the updated Draft RFP in its entirety, this list is intended to help pinpoint changed content from the initial Draft RFP version posted on July 8, 2024. The following list identifies areas where significant changes or clarifications have been made from the Draft RFP to this updated Draft RFP:

• Section L.28, A.3 and M.3, A.3 have changed from Representative Task

Orders (RTOs) to Scenarios and have been reduced from three to two. All reference to RTOs throughout the DRFP has been deleted and updated accordingly.

• Section L.28, A.3 has been added to include:

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS

The Offeror shall address the following scenarios in such a manner as to allow the government the greatest insight into the Offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements of the contract. This should include proven efficiencies and/or innovative methodologies. The Offeror’s response should maximize technical performance and cost efficiency.

No cost estimates should result from the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing the hypothetical scenario.

Any assumptions made in preparing a response to these questions must be clearly stated.

Scenario A.3.1:

Context: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center in collaboration with NOAA and Spacegrass University is designing the EarthRock Mission to be launched from the new NASA-owned Clutch Launch Vehicle (CLV) on September 5, 2025. EarthRock will feature a “hub” spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and eight cubesats deployed from it. Together, the fleet will measure fluctuations in the Earth’s atmosphere and how they contribute to catastrophic weather events. The eight cubesats, called Pebbles 1-8, each contain gravimeters to collect multipoint observations, with the hub satellite communicating with deployed ground assets. The Pebbles plan to use Two Line Elements (TLEs) for navigation while the hub spacecraft will utilize S-band for ground-based tracking and commanding.

Contractor Responsibility: As the contractor, you are responsible for working with FDF management to assess the mission and launch vehicle requirements in order to: 1) develop the ground system requirements, 2) analyze and document mission readiness including an assessment of gaps and risks in both the operational support and the ground system, and 3) execute the flight dynamics operations support for the CLV as well as launch and early orbit phase (LEOP) operations for the EarthRock Mission.

Response A.3.1:

1. In order of importance, what are the top technical challenges to successfully support the CLV launch? Explain the rationale for your selections and the rationale for the order in which they are listed. Elaborate in detail on how you would plan to manage or address each of these challenges. Include and describe significant trade, technology, or other studies that would have to be completed and the key decisions they would support.

2. In order of importance, what are the top technical challenges to successfully support the LEOP phase of EarthRock? Explain the rationale for your selections and the rationale for the order in which they are listed.

What technical approaches would you take to ensure that the navigation tasks associated with the hub and pebbles meet requirements. Identify the key risks, their potential likelihoods and impacts, and mitigation strategies to address them.

3. Provide a staffing philosophy for all phases including development, pre-launch preparations and rehearsals, and real time operational support.

Identify key training competencies, the need for certifications, and how staffing redundancy (defined as how much overlap or cross-training in the required competencies is needed to mitigate personnel absences) will be handled.

Scenario A.3.2:

Context: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is developing infrastructure for the Guardian Mission. Guardian consists of a constellation consisting of a yet-to-be-determined number of spacecraft in low-Earth orbit. The goal of the Guardian Mission is to provide real time situational awareness and context-specific data to assist in catastrophic land change events in the United States.

The overall concept of operations consists of a fleet of Guardian Spacecraft in orbit around the Earth that are equipped with a sensor suite and corresponding processing software to detect land change and to promote the raw data to actionable Level 2 (L2) products for supporting first responders with no more than 1 hour latency. It is generally expected that no single Guardian Spacecraft will have sufficient time to completely characterize and process an event. So, the fleet, as a whole, will be tasked to act in concert with the primary means of enabling this being inter-spacecraft communications links supplemented by key deployed ground assets.

Contractor Responsibility: As the contractor, you will be responsible for developing a framework that provides wrappers so that various flight dynamics tools can be integrated together in a coherent tool and the corresponding design methodology for creating design reference missions (DRMs). The generation of a DRM is done using a suite of tools with varying degrees of fidelity and speed. Some tools function as first-guess utilities defining either the constellation in its operational orbit or the transfer trajectories of individual spacecraft, assumed to be launched separately or in pairs. Other tools provide a full-ephemeris model needed for detailed mission analysis of items such as maneuver frequency and size, percent coverage of the earth surface as a function of time, direct-to-earth downlink opportunities, etc. or as a way of evaluating the amount of tracking required for either ground-based or onboard orbit estimation to achieve a certain definitive accuracy. Each DRM must be evaluated for performance relative to a set of defined metrics and generate a variety of reports to support the systems engineering analysis.

The high-level notion for what the government is seeking is represented in the following figure:

Our current list of tools to include:

• Mission Analysis Environment (MAnE) – indirect trajectory optimization method

• Evolutionary Mission Trajectory Generator (EMTG) – direct trajectory optimization method

• Goddard Lie (GLie) – long duration modeling tool used to check compliance with limiting orbital debris (e.g, the 25-year lifetime)

• General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) – general-purpose, high-fidelity flight dynamics tool

• Orbit Determination Error Analysis System (ODEAS) – linear propagation of error tool for ground-based orbit determination analysis

• Goddard Enhanced Onboard Navigation System (GEONS) – onboard orbit determination system.

Response A.3.2:

1. Identify and describe the software design methodology for this framework that is, in your judgment, best suited for this project. Explain the rationale for your arguments and discuss what risks exist in performing this work.

2. Identify and describe any innovative technologies that would enhance the generation of the DRMs. These technologies can either be better flight dynamics approaches and/or better computing approaches. Rank the technologies based on impact and explain the rationale for the ranking.

• Section M.3, A.3 has been added to include:

SECTION M – EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to the questions specified in Section L.28, Subfactor A, paragraph Scenario A.3.1 and A.3.2 for effectiveness and technical comprehensiveness and reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proven efficiencies and/or innovative methodologies.

A.3.1

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the staffing philosophy and the consistency of the Offeror’s specific adaptation of these principles in their mission implementation.

• Enclosure DD – Representative Task Orders has been deleted

• Section L.28 (d) Subfactor A – Technical Approach has been updated to reflect the critical elements from seven to five. While the following elements remain in the SOW, they have been removed from the critical elements:

SOW Section 2.4.2.1 Flight Dynamics Facility SOW Section 2.4.4.3.2 CARA Software

• Section L.28, B.7 has been updated to include the following language:

The offeror shall also provide strategy for matching staff with the six functional areas identified in the SOW (systems engineering, analysis, operations, software, infrastructure, and strategic initiatives) based on subject-matter expertise, educational background, and work experience.

• Section J – List of Attachments has been updated to include Attachment O –

GFP COTS Software Licenses.

COTS software licenses are procured outside of the FDSS contract by the government and those licenses are provided for contractor and civil servant use when appropriate. Therefore, there is no "pricing" of the tool that would be required. This list is a representative sample of expected COTS licenses that may transfer as a result of work performed on task orders. However, licenses that are provided may differ based on project need.

• Section B.4 GSFC 52.216-90 maximum amount has been decreased $265M to $247M

• Section L.30(a) has been updated to decrease the threshold for the Prime from a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $5M to $2.5M.

• Section L.30(a) has been updated to update the definition of a proposed significant subcontractor form meeting/exceeding and average annual cost/fee of $8M to meeting/exceeding and average annual cost/fee of $2.5M.

• Section M.5 has been updated to decrease the threshold for a prime contractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, meeting/exceeding an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $5M to meeting/exceeding an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $2.5M.

This list is not intended to cover all changes nor describe all updated Draft RFP requirements. Offerors should carefully review the updated Draft RFP in its entirety.

The following list is provided for industry awareness of assignments for SEB voting members:

Daniel Solomon, AST, Aerospace Engineer, Code 599, SEB Chairperson Samuel Schreiber, AST, Flight Systems Operations, Code 595 John Van Eepoel, AST, Mission Support Requirements & Dev, Code 584 Maryam Bakhtiari-nejad, AST, Nav Guidance & Control Systems, Code 591 Linh Nguyen, AST, Flight Data Systems, Code 596

The Government is open to meet with potential contractors, if you would like to schedule a one-on-one please do so by contacting Jonnelle.C.Goff@nasa.gov.

Given our strong commitment to having a fair and open competition for the follow-on contract of Flight Dynamics Support Services (FDSS), the government requirement development team has proactively taken tangible steps to encourage a wider range of companies to bid. These following steps, which consist of removing barriers to competition, are:

1) A comprehensive restructuring of the FDSS Statement of Work (SOW) was completed to ensure an accurate and clear reflection of how flight dynamics work is executed at GSFC and how the government views this development of flight dynamics work into the future. The SOW was restructured to highlight key areas of flight dynamics support including systems engineering, analysis, software, infrastructure, operations, and strategic initiatives. Each of these areas were clearly broken out and more fully defined. In addition, Goddard-specific jargon that may require previous exposure was identified and either defined along with possible examples or removed.

2) The Orbital Safety Analysis (OSA) work out of the Vandenberg and Dahlgren Airforce bases on the current FDSS-III contract was identified as a particularly steep barrier to entry given the narrow technical expertise required and the corresponding Department of Defense (DoD) security clearance requirements. When considering the scope of work for the follow-on contract, the government took immediate steps to remove this work from the FDSS-IV

SOW.

mailto:Jonnelle.C.Goff@nasa.gov

3) A complete and thorough consolidation and redefinition of the labor categories and descriptions was completed by the government to provide clarity for companies to more easily map their internal labor categories into the ones being used on FDSS-IV.

Finally, it is important to note that when it comes to the flight dynamics tools used to support NASA missions, the Center is tool agnostic, not dictating the use of one specific tool over another. There are a plethora of tools that can be used for flight dynamics mission support that are utilized based upon the specific mission’s requirements. The Navigation and Mission Design Branch would like to emphasize that it is much more important that any potential bidder demonstrate fundamental technical soundness in response to the RFP and the evaluation factors set forth in Section L.

Potential offerors are encouraged to comment on all aspects of the draft solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal instructions, and evaluation approaches, any perceived safety, occupational health, security (including information technology security), environmental, export control, and/or other programmatic risk issues associated with performance of the work. Potential offerors should identify any unnecessary or inefficient requirements.

Potential offerors should ensure its company is listed in the online database(s) for the following:

(1) System for award management: https://www.sam.gov/SAM/

(2) U.S. Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, VETS-4212

Reports: https://vets4212.dol.gov/vets4212/

(3) Date Universal Numbering System (and the transition to the US Government’s unique entity identifier (UEI)):

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/organization/federal-acquisition-service/technology-transformation-services/integrated-award-environment-iae/iae-systems-information-kit/unique-entity-identifier-update

The successful offeror must pass an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) clearance before contract award (See FAR 22.805).

The current planned release date for the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) is on or about February 12, 2025, with proposals being due approximately 30 calendar days later.

The anticipated contract award date is January 5, 2026, with a March 6, 2026 contract effective date. The contract will be performed onsite at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and offsite at the Contractor’s facilities.

The following additional information is provided to assist in understanding this acquisition:

1. A Phase-in period will be conducted. Phase-in will be 60 days and will be performed under a separate Firm Fixed Price contractual vehicle.

2. The Government will make available existing Installation-Accountable Government Property (IAGP) for onsite contract performance [and Government Furnished Property (GFP) for offsite use at the Contractor’s facility as described in the DRFP.

https://www.sam.gov/SAM/ https://vets4212.dol.gov/vets4212/

3. Industry Day was held on July 17, 2024, and all Industry Day Charts and Industry

Day Q&As can be found on SAM.gov announcement titled “Flight Dynamics Support Services (FDSS) IV – 80GSFC24R0027 elibrary”.

4. NASA has determined that this acquisition may give rise to a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI). Offerors should refer to NFS clause 1852.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting, for a description of the potential conflict(s) and any restrictions on future contracting.

5. Please note a TOP SECRET facilities clearance is required for this acquisition in accordance with the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification.

Offerors shall, at a minimum, have an established Secret facility clearance at the time of proposal submittal. If the selected offeror does not have a Top-Secret facility clearance at the time of selection, the offeror shall obtain one prior to performance of any tasks requiring a Top-Secret facility clearance. This clearance shall be maintained throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall include in their proposal, their CAGE code for verification of current security clearance status. No Offeror will be considered for award who does not have at least a Secret level facility clearance in place by the due date for receipt of proposals. In accordance with CFR 121.103(h)(4), a joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance.

Since the facility security clearance is required to perform primary and vital FDSS IV requirements, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.

6. Proposals for this solicitation are required to be submitted through NASA’s

Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (EFSS Box), a FedRAMP Moderate certified platform. Potential offerors, especially those that have not previously submitted a proposal utilizing NASA’s EFSS Box, are encouraged to review the solicitation instruction entitled “Electronic Proposal Delivery - Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box” which provides instructions related to the submission of proposal via EFSS Box. Offerors are encouraged to check with their corporate IT staff to determine if there are firewall restrictions that would need to be addressed prior to the submission of proposal files through NASA’s EFSS Box.

In order to control and protect sensitive data owned by the Government and its Contractors, NASA policy requires all acquisition-related documents be released in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF).

Documents related to this acquisition, including this letter, the solicitation, attachments, exhibits, any amendments and links to online reference/technical/bidders library will be attainable electronically from the World Wide Web through the Government-wide point of entry website at www.SAM.gov. Potential Offerors are requested to periodically monitor the websites for updates.

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.215-84, OMBUDSMAN, is applicable. The Ombudsman for this acquisition is Ray Rubilotta, Associate Director, Raymond.j.rubilotta@nasa.gov.

This DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals. This DRFP does not commit NASA GSFC to pay any proposal preparation costs, nor does it obligate NASA GSFC to procure or contract for this requirement. This request is not an authorization to proceed, and does not authorize payment for any charges incurred by the offeror for performing any of the work called for in this solicitation.

Any comments regarding the DRFP should be submitted electronically in writing, to Jonnelle Goff, Contracting Officer, at Jonnelle.C.Goff@nasa.gov, within 14 calendar days after the release of this DRFP. If a respondent believes their comments contain confidential, proprietary, competition sensitive, or business information, those questions/comments shall be marked appropriately. However, questions that are marked as containing confidential, proprietary, competition sensitive or business information will not be provided a Government response. The Government will consider all comments received in preparation of the Final RFP. To the extent a comment leads the Government to revise the acquisition approach or requirements, the change will be reflected in the Final RFP. Some DRFP questions and comments may receive a posted response to the GPE if the Contracting Officer determines that a response would facilitate additional understanding of the solicitation. The Government may also respond via the GPE to comments and/or questions received following the issuance of the Final Request for Proposal (RFP).

Jonnelle Goff Contracting Officer

Enclosure:

Draft RFP# 80GSFC24R0027 mailto:Jonnelle.C.Goff@nasa.gov