L10 DRFP Question and Govt Responses.pdf

RFP Vendor Questions Government Responses

SRD-878: 50% additional memory could be significant cost driver Is NASA open to considering alternative approach/solution in proposals? IM recommends relaxing requirement or definitive language of what NASA would be willing to alternatively accept

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment C - L10 Spacecraft Requirements Document (SC SRD)

3 5 REDUNDANCY AND SINGLE-FAULT TOLERANCE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

SRD-68

Can the Government provide clarification on applicability in an effort to propose cost effective responses? What can a contractor define in their redundancy scheme to ensure success throughout the entire mission, while allowing for cost efficiencies?

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment X - Non-Technical Contract Data Requirements List MISSION SUITABILITY VOLUME & Gate Criteria

The Gate Criteria list includes four (4) items, however, the directions in the document refer to to demonstrating that only three (3) criteria are met Is this (" demonstrate they have met the three (3) gate criteria below ") a typo or do only three (3) out of four (4)criteria must be met?

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 1 1 Spacecraft Development, Integration, and Test

SCSOW_61

Can the upper number or total test duration (and scope/test names) of SORTs be specified? The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 2 2 Instrument Accommodation and Integration SCSOW-missing

What clarification can the Government provide regarding the expectation for integration of Instrument command and telemetry databases, including any expected format conversions or SC contractor specification to the Instruments?

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions Mission suitability Volume

Is MS Project the required format for the delivered Integrated Master Schedule, and does the IMS count towards page-limit?

IMS is not included in the page limitation MS Project format is the desired format

Attachment T - L10 Major Payment Events Payment Schedule and Completion Criteria Events 18-21 The Completion Criteria for payments associated with Vibe, EMI/EMC, TVAC and Acoustic tests all list completion of a post-test CPT

Will Limited Performance Tests be acceptable between environmental tests, or is a CPT truly required at each transition?

The Government will define the necessary testing in between Observatory environmental tests for the final RFP

Attachment T - L10 Major Payment Events Payment Schedule and Completion Criteria Event 24 - Launch Site CPT The Observatory has completed the CPT at the launch site in accordance with the SOW

The SOW calls for an LPT at the launch site Should the payment milestone be revised to match the SOW? Yes

9 Attachment Q, Simplified Instrument MICD

Previous versions of the SC-IRD clearly defined instrument deck and flexures to be provided by the instrument provider Attachment Q and Attachment D lack statements on flexures or instruments being provided The GFE list indicates instrument attachment hardware is GFE, but excludes definition The MICD also shows limited/no information on instrument interface to the spacecraft Can NASA please explain and provide guiding information on what the interface is between spacecraft and instrument?

The flexures are provided by the instrument This will be clarified in the final RFP

Attachment D: SCIRD 3 2 5 1 1 1 General, 3 2 5 1 1 3 Spacecraft to LandIS Telemetry Bus SCIRD-744: The TCDBs shall run at 921600 baud rate SCIRD-709: The spacecraft shall receive housekeeping data packets from LandIS on the TCDB at a rate not to exceed 5 kilobits per second (kbps) while LandIS is in operational mode

Can NASA clarify the apparent discrepancy between these two requirements, or expand upon the SCIRD-744?

There doesn't appear to be any other requirement in the SCIRD that would require the ~921 kilobaud rate

The requirement language will be updated to clarify the maximum line rate and the frequency and size of the housekeeping packet delivered to the SC by the instrument

Attachment C: SC SRD 3 16 1 2 Attitude Maneuvers SRD-1328: The spacecraft shall hold a yaw offset attitude relative to LVLH during earth-pointing operations

What is the maximum magnitude of the yaw offset, so that impact on solar array can be assessed? The requirement will be updated to include the yaw offset for the final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) The Contractor shall submit a Safety and Mission Assurance Plan (SMAP)

The SOW calls for a SMAP, but there is no SMAP in the CDRL list Please clarify SMAP will not be added to the CDRL list The SOW requirement language will be updated to clarify a time frame for delivery

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) The Contractor shall ensure that NASA retains ownership of the license(s) or subscriptions for any software or applications purchased

In an FFP contract it is not traditional to provide more than the items in the DIL Please clarify NASA's intent with this clause

The Government will reevaluate this requirement and clarify for the final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) The Contractor shall ensure that all hardware developed in the scope of this contract is titled to NASA

In an FFP contract it is not traditional to provide more than the items in the DIL Please clarify NASA's intent with this clause

The Government will reevaluate this requirement and clarify for the final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-70 The Contractor shall incorporate the Mini-Design Reference Case (mini-DRC) into all Observatory CPTs that can be executed with either instrument simulators or the flight instrument

Duration of mini DRC is not defined Is this mini DRC part of the 24 hour instrument CPT described in SOW Table 4 2 2-1 (Instrument Functional Tests)?

Yes The SOW will be updated for the final RFP It is no less than 5 orbits in duration It is not part of the 24 hour instrument CPT

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-102 The Contractor shall provide testing periods prior to, during, and after each environmental test for instrument functional testing at the durations defined in the table above Note: Instrument functional testing will be executed as part of each Observatory performance test that occurs as part of the Observatory environmental test flow

What test will instrumentation groups run after each environmental test? LPT or CPT? What is assumed between each axis vibe for random vibe?

SOW language will be clarified for final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-174 The Contractor shall accommodate ground system GSE that will be used to interface between the SC and the ground system This includes the Ground System to Spacecraft Integration Test Racks (GSSIR) and the MOC Command and Telemetry Processor (MOC CTP)

Can you provide a description of the GSSIR and what interfaces are required to support its integration? The Government will provide additional details for the GSSIR for the final RFP

After reviewing Attachment G (Appendix A Applicability Matrix), can the USG please confirm that there is no requirement for the SoPS or OOPS to support active encryption/decryption? We note a discrepancy where the introductory language states no encryption is required, but subsequent requirements suggest a level of crypto-unit simulation that would necessitate encryption support

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP and provide clarification in the SOW

In SCSOW-172, the requirement calls for remote access to Observatory real time and stored SOH telemetry Is the USG intent to have access to stored RT and SOH files for data analysis or is the intent to have a real time data flow of Observatory data to remote locations?

The intent is to have real time monitoring of the observatory I&T activities The government will update the requirement to make it more clear

In SCSOW-249, the requirement states "Performance of first-motion tests for all deployable Observatory assemblies" at the launch site First motion testing of any booms or solar arrays in the design will require significant MGSE to be shipped to the launch site at significant cost/schedule impacts to the launch campaign Would first motion test conducted prior to shipment and retain/release system torque checks at the launch site be sufficient to meet the intent of the requirement? ObsERD-1201 calls out similar motion tests "prior to shipment to the launch site" SCSOW-120 also mentions designing so

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP and provide an update

Can the USG please confirm that under the requirement "Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use During Contract Performance Offerors are required to disclose any intent to propose, or plan to use, Artificial Intelligence (AI) to perform contract requirements " the request for disclosure is not applicable to standard back office applications, such as Microsoft Office 365 tools which can and are used for creation and dissemination of things like MPRs, CDRLs, etc ? Specifically, can the USG please clarify what type of AI this clause would apply to? Currently, we are interpreting this to mean only software in which the content output is FULL - AI generated the entire work from scratch and there were no human inputs, limited human oversight, and the output remained unedited Additionally, in that instance, can the USG please confirm that our Disclosure for anything in the FULL category should include the following: Content Affected, Action Taken, AI Tool/Platform, Purpose of the Use, and Human Oversight? There is significant concern that this requirement left undefined would turn into a major cost driver due to the amount of time necessary for the Prime and any Subcontractors to complete such Disclosures

AI disclosure requirements are no longer applicable and have been removed from the

SOW

Will the USG allow proposers to add additional milestones into the Proposed Milestone Payment Table?

Specifically, will the USG allow for earlier milestones to be added for things like a Kickoff Meeting to allow for an earlier payment and positive cash flow for the proposer's organization?

Offerors shall provide a proposal that meets the funding profile provided with the RFP If the mission requirements can not be met using this funding profile provided in the RFP, offerors should identify which requirements they can not meet (technical, cost, schedule due to this constraint) and also provide a profile that would meet the mission level requirements as an alternate; all within the page limitations identified in the RFP

SRD-1271 and 1273 in Section 3 18 of Attachment C (SRD) do not appear to be related to RF Telecommunications System requirements Can the USG please clarify if these are more general spacecraft level requirements?

These requirements apply generally at spacecraft level and will be adjusted for the final RFP

In prior NASA RFPs, the instructions excluded IMS and AI&T flow from the page count of the mission suitability volume Will NASA consider excluding those two items in order to ensure page count can be used for text content vs the foldouts necessary for the IMS and the AI&T flow charts?

IMS and I&T flow is not part of the 50-page limit for the mission suitability I&T flow as a separate diagram will be added to the RFP

Recommend that the response due date to the Final RFP be no earlier than 60 days from release This ensures the use of accurate and best practice costing, particularly within Supply Chain

The Government will review requests for extensions after the release of the RFP

Supply Chain quote validity typically does not extend past 90 days If award date is after Supply Chain Firm- Fixed Price (FFP) validity date expirations, will NASA be open to an equitable adjustment if Supply Chain cost-basis changes upon requote?

No Since this is a firm fixed price contract the Government would not be open to an equitable adjustment as a result of increases in supply chain quotes Offerors are expected to manage Supply Chain pricing risk within their Firm‑Fixed‑Price proposal

Supply Chain quote validity typically does not extend past 90 days If hardware procurement date is to be paced in accordance to Landsat Budget profile and aligned with lead-times, then it is possible the hardware procurement date will occur after Supply Chain FFP validity dates have expired Will NASA be open to an equitable adjustment if Supply Chain cost-basis changes upon requote?

No Since this is a firm fixed price contract the Government would not be open to an equitable adjustment as a result of increases in supply chain quotes Offerors are expected to manage Supply Chain pricing risk within their Firm‑Fixed‑Price proposal

Recommend that NASA alternatively allow companies to use their internal processes and standards related to deliverables and execution of the Landsat 10 requirements To ensure quality and reliability, proposed company processes should trace back to successful flight heritage programs Also recommend definitive language of what NASA would be willing to alternatively accept

Noted

Attachment C - L10 Spacecraft Requirements Document (SC SRD)

3 5 REDUNDANCY AND SINGLE-FAULT TOLERANCE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

SRD-878

Question #1: Does the 50% additional memory in the mass storage refer to the memory for the Mission Data (combined Science Data with SC Ancillary Data)?

Question #2: Is this additional 4Tb in addition to the required 8Tb (SRD-628)?

Question #1: Yes, it is the combined science and ancillary data Question #2: Yes, 4Tb is in addition to the 8Tb

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 9 5 3 Reliability Design Margins

SCSOW-839

Is this requirement one of the exceptions to a Class C Mission which the Government mentioned during Industry Day?

L10 requirements for limited life items is defined in the SOW

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 1 1 Spacecraft Development, Integration, and Test

SCSOW-888

Can the Government provide a definition of first usage of DRC? Design Reference Case (DRC)

80GSFC26R0015 Landsat 10 DRFP Questions and Responses

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 2 2 Instrument Accommodation and Integration

SCSOW-78

Can the upper bound or a range of number of expected scripts be defined?

The Government will not be able to provide a bounding requirement Each offeror is expected to use their own estimate for the proposal purposes based on their previous experiences on similar work

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 2 5 End to End Mission Readiness Testing SCSOW-118

Can the upper number and/or test durations (and scope/test names) of End-to-End tests be specified? The test durations are bounded in SCSOW-168

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work 4 7 3 Mission Simulations SCSOW_290

Which, if any, of the mission simulations require travel for onsite support? All mission simulations are performed at the MOC, and would require travel

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work

SCSOW-206

Can the Government provide clarification regarding FPGA updates and their proposed timing during the program?

The timing and frequency will be dependent on the prospective contractor's plans for FPGA development and updates

Landsat-10_80GSFC26R0015_DRFP_Terms_and_Conditions Past Performance Volume, a) Information from the Offeror Pages 85-86

Would the USG consider increasing the dollar value of both offeror and significant subcontractor contracts, as a higher value would be consistent with both the scope and rigor of the Landsat 10 requirements? A suggestion might be a threshold dollar value of $100M value for similar contracts for offerors, and $100M estimated subcontract value to define "significant subcontractors," with the threshold value for significant subcontractor contracts for past performance to be calculated as provided on p 85-86 of the Terms and Conditions

The government will not change the threshhold for significant subcontractors

Landsat-10_80GSFC26R0015_DRFP_Terms_and_Conditions Past Performance Volume, a) Information from the Offeror Pages 85-87

Would the Government consider providing a cap to the number of Past Performance to alleviate proposal review and preparation burdens? A suggestion might be 5 PPQs for the offeror and 1 from each significant subcontractor

The Government is not limiting the number of Past Performances but there is a page limitation to the "Information from Offeror" section within the Past Peformance Volume

38 GENERAL PROPOSAL Question Will the Government be using any AI tools to assess proposals, and if so, may the names of the models being used be provided to the Offerors?

The Government will not utilize AI to evaluate proposals

NASA’s proposed Class C, overarching technical, and other administrative requirements create challenges to leveraging established commercial best practices and technologies without compromising their heritage or introducing cost or schedule risks Furthermore, delivering a mission as critical as Landsat 10 demands the high standards of quality assurance and reliability

The offeror believes that to balance these interests, the final RFP should provide an option for respondents to leverage existing commercial processes, approaches, and technologies that may deviate from the standards reflected in the RFP provided that they have sufficient demonstrated heritage and low risk

The Draft RFP contains over 60 CDRL requirements, many requiring multiple submissions and/or approval loops As the government considers more commercial models by Executive Order, there might be an opportunity to reduce the number and frequency of CDRL submittals to better align with commercial development timelines for data retention and review Further, for those CDRLs that NASA may deem absolutely critical, NASA should consider evaluating equivalent commercial best practices proposed by respondents as satisfactory This consideration arises from our concern that such requirements have potential to conflict with heritage solutions and processes with a proven track record of cost reduction and technical success Consequently, this mechanism may counterproductively introduce risk to cost and schedule targets

Acknowledged

Ground Network Implementation: Regarding ground networks, the use of existing Ground Station Networks either in lieu of, or in complement to NASA and USGS’s planned network, could provide an incredibly affordable, reliable, and flexible solution

Acknowledged

While any satellite bus will likely require significant modifications due to the LandIS instrument’s unique requirements and design, satellite manufacturers and operators who can leverage heritage and compatible technologies for both the Landsat 10 MOC and Landsat 10 spacecraft and ground network offer a substantially lower risk, lower cost, and higher performance solution

Accordingly, NASA should prioritize proposals from respondents with integrated spacecraft manufacturing and mission operations capabilities, and especially those recommending use of heritage designs, modified for Landsat 10’s requirements

MOC is USGS' responsibility That scope is not part of this procurement

While the provided Draft RFP may be more traditional when considering NASA’s SaaS initiative, the offeror believes that Landsat 10 may provide significant benefits to some RFP respondents’ commercial businesses As a result, the offeror recommends NASA considers and requests feedback on how development of the Landsat 10 spacecraft affects respondents’ commercial roadmaps and how those may also support other NASA science missions in the future The offeror also recommends NASA consider respondents’ ability to support deployment of spare or additional LandIS instruments in a more commercial-centric fashion in a Government-Commercial architecture For example, NASA could provide consideration for vendors with an interest and ability in supporting future LandIS deployments as commercially fulfilled Science Mission-as-a-Service contracts, which can leverage the Landsat 10 design and efficiently scale future capabilities in a lower risk and cost service model

Acknowledged

Required New Technology Development: Despite the spacecraft and process heritage we also recognize the need for strong oversight and validation To optimize speed, cost, and risk while balancing with programmatic overhead, we recommend that NASA invite alternative approaches that leverage proven heritage to satisfy administrative and technical requirements For example, in lieu of some traditional, milestone-driven design reviews and development gates, the Government could consider demonstration flights of all new technologies developed for the Landsat 10 program without impacting the primary mission’s launch schedule

Acknowledged

44 Cover Letter Request to extend to 45 days for a compliant proposal in line with requested information within the draft request for proposal documentation

The Government will review requests for extensions after the release of the RFP

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions Proposal Content and Page Limitations

The Small Business Subcontract Plan is not part of Exhibits 2-6 Does it count toward the total page limit for the proposal?

Small Business Subcontracting plan does not count towards the page limit

Attachment T - L10 Major Payment Events Payment Schedule and Completion Criteria Milestone Payment Schedule

Can alternate milestone schedule events be proposed?

Yes, within the funding profile provided Major deviations may not be acceptable to the Government

Enclosure 3 - L10 Design Reference Case - DRC-18 Definition Appendix B, DRC 18 Table

The embedded DRC excel file is not available, nor does the link work to obtain the excel file Can the DRC-18 excel file be provided?

The DRC-18 excel file will be provided with the final RFP

48 Attachment Q, Simplified Instrument MICD In lieu of the Simplified Mechanical ICD, can NASA provide a simplified CAD model for vendors to use in proposal development This will reduce contractor time and ensure that there is no confusion (i e , multiple coordinate systems defined in the SCIRD) when developing the proposal concept

No, a publicly releasable version will not be possible to provide as part of the RFP

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions A 1 Spacecraft Top Level Design Description The Offeror shall provide a description and details of the spacecraft architecture and design, to include the following:

• 11" x 17" System Block Diagram (excluded from page count limit)

• Block diagrams, redundancy, and the mission unique modifications to each subsystem required to meet the L10 requirements

Question #1: There is an explicit instruction for spacecraft block diagram in 11x17 form factor Is this a singular spacecraft block diagram, or can the foldout include the block diagram and additional information on the spacecraft?

Question #2: In addition, the following sub-bullet requires subsystem block diagrams May those be included in the overall spacecraft block diagram?

Question #1: Proposal Mission Suitability content should not be conveyed through the block diagram Question #2: The subsystem black diagrams can be conveyed through the overall SC block diagram The project will change the format requirement The intent is to receive a block diagram that is detailed enough and legible

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions INSTRUCTIONS provision of this RFP Text in Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 10 point type Times New Roman font

May a space efficient font, such as Arial Narrow, be used? 8-point sizing is often used in figures Please refer to the font and sizing requirement in RFP proposal instructiions under Addendum to FAR Part 52 212-1

Attachment E: SC-Ground IRD Table 5 1-1, "Polarization: Dual Polarization"

Question #1: Ka Wideband Dual-polarization requirement is interpreted as downlink data rate evenly divided between LHCP and RHCP signals Is this the correct interpretation?

Question #2: For Ka wideband downlink, can a single polarization solution be proposed? This would allow higher heritage, lower risk solutions to be offered

Question #1: YES Question #2: NO

Attachment C: SC SRD 3 16 1 2 Attitude Maneuvers SRD-406 The spacecraft anti-Sun side shall be limited to no more than 1 minute of direct solar exposure once every orbit

Does this requirement apply only in operational mode, or also in delta V mode? In particular, does this apply when a posigrade delta V maneuver is required?

All modes, all DV

Attachment G - L10 SC Sim RD Introduction “Further detail on the LOpS may be found in the Simulator appendix of the Landsat 10 Mission Operations Concept Document (L10-SYS-PLAN-0007)"

May we get a copy of L10-SYS-PLAN-0007? This document will not available until contract award

Attachment G Spacecraft Simulator Req Doc 3 11 The CTP interface will comply with the Landsat 10 Simulator and Ground Test Equipment Interface Control Document, L10-SYS-ICD-0017

Please provide copy: L10-SYS-ICD-0017 This document is not available It is a product that will be developed jointly with SC Contractor and the project after SC contract award

Attachment E Spacecraft to Ground Interface Req Doc Applicable Document 457-UG-DTES NSN Government Owned Direct To Earth (G-DTE) Services User’s Guide (UG)

Please provide a copy: 457-UG-DTES Yes This will be provided with the final RFP

Attachment M - GFE List GFI List

Should S-Band and Ka-Band RF frequencies be added as GFI?

The frequency range is part of the requirements set It does not need to be captured in the GFE list

DRFP L10 80GSFC26R0015 Cover Letter Sgn Offers shall construct their proposal in a manner that does not exceed the GFY funding limits listed in the Landsat 10 Spacecraft Funding Profile

If the provided GFY funding limits cause schedule delays and thus increase program costs is NASA willing to entertain an alternate funding profile?

Offerors shall provide a proposal that meets the funding profile provided with the RFP If the mission requirements can not be met using this funding profile provided in the RFP, the prospective contractors should identify which requirements they can not meet (technical, cost, schedule due to this constraint) and also provide a profile that would meet the mission level requirements as an alternate; all within the page limitations identified in the RFP

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company's OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years

Please clarify if "contract" refers to contracts listed in the past performance Additionally, is the requested OSHA report company wide or limited to similar programs?

The term “contract” in this context is not limited to the contracts listed in the Past Performance section The requested OSHA data should be company‑wide, covering the offerors OSHA‑recordable injuries and illnesses for the past three years

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default) Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers) Include contracts that were "descoped" by the customer because of performance or cost problems

Please clarify if "contract" refers to contracts listed in the past performance or should it include to other relevant, analogous products

The term “contract” in this context is not limited to the contracts listed in the Past Performance section Offerors must report any relevant contracts within the past 5 years that were Terminated in whole or in part (for convenience or for default), and basis for the termination This includes contracts beyond those selected as Past Performance examples, if they meet the criteria above

Attachment M - GFE List The GFE list does not show any ground encryption units to be used for bus and/or observatory I&T (or simulators) Will encryptors be provided at a specified quantity and date by government?

Offerors must supply the encryptor to verify the requirements for SC bus, Observatory I&T and simulators The Government will not provide encryptors for I&T

If there are changes to the RFP documents between the draft and the final, will the USG consider adding additional response time for respondents (we are also being cognizant of the 4th of July holiday where we anticipate higher-than-normal numbers of people out of the office due to America's 250th celebration)?

The Government will review requests for extensions after the release of the RFP

After reviewing Attachment G (Appendix A Applicability Matrix), is a modeled mass storage system replicating the unit's physical memory locations acceptable rather than an engineering model mass storage system?

Yes

After reviewing Attachment G (Appendix A Applicability Matrix), can the USG please confirm if the simulator is expected to model Antenna Field of View (FOV) and simulate flight-like contact windows?

No, the simulator is not expected to model Antenna Field of View (FOV) and simulate flight-like contact windows

In SRD Modification (SRD-646), can the USG please clarify the intent of the RAM test as included, as the RAM test can take a long time, on the order of half a minute or more If it is partial RAM failure, it can be mitigated Will the USG consider rewording the requirement to "The spacecraft shall be able to continue to operate in the event of partial RAM failure "

SRD-646 applies to a cold boot The intent of the requirement is explained in the rationale The requirement will not be revised

In SCSOW-168, MRTs are defined as 176 hours over the course of the Program No definition was found for number and/or durations of SORTs or total EEIS tests Is there a target number of SORTs (and/or EEIS) tests for schedule planning purposes?

Offerors are responsible for the development and validation of the SC and Obs operations products as specified in the SOW The SORTS must be scoped to validate all prospective contractor developed operations products

Attachment E (SC to GND IRD) references swept uplink frequency rate which implies a varying uplink center frequency Can the USG please clarify if the intent is to switch the uplink frequency during a ground station pass or would it be fixed at a frequency for any one ground station pass This relates to level of complexity for software and has other implications if it switches dynamically during a pass

There are no plans to vary the uplink frequency The sweep is to account for Doppler

Would the USG consider removing the less commercial-like requirements in the SOW, CDRL, SRD, DID, and other similar DRFP attachments as they did in the Mission Assurance area, to help ensure unnecessary cost drivers and schedule impacts can be removed or minimized?

The Government is revisiting some of the requirements Please review the final RFP and cover letter for udpates/revisions

Will the USG consider holding 52 212-4, (h) Patent Indemnity, as Reserved, given the data rights assertions and protections that are already being included with the proposal and the heavy amount of prior interal investment by industry and their partners and suppliers into the overall end-product heritage?

No FAR 52 212-4(h) Patent Indemnity is a standard federal requirement to protect the Government from third-party patent infringement claims Data rights assertions and prior investment do not typically remove the Government’s need for patent indemnification

Can the USG please define "merchantable" under 52 212-4, (o)? This is an unusual inclusion given the end-intent of the spacecraft and its use, so we would appreciate your clarification on the inclusion of that clause

FAR 52 212-4 is a mandatory clause for commercial acquisitions (FAR Part 12) Under FAR 52 212 4(o), “merchantable” refers to the standard Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) concept of merchantability, which is incorporated into the FAR clause for commercial product acquisitions In this context, “merchantable” means that the product is of acceptable quality within its trade and is "fit for the ordinary purposes" for which it is used Its inclusion ensures that baseline commercial warranty concepts apply

Will the USG please consider removing the "Final Report" requirement under 52 235-91? There are CDRLs that already meet the intent of this requirement making this redundant and a cost driver

Offerors can provide a final report while referring to previous deliveries made in the execution of this contract that would satisfy the contents of this deliverable The Government will not make changes to the clause

Will the USG please remove the required Safety and Health Reporting under 52 211-90 line item 14? This is unnecessary since the work being completed is not being completed at a NASA center

At this time, the Safety and Health Reporting requirement at Line Item 14, which incorporates NFS 1852 226‑73, will remain in the solicitation Although major contract work is not being performed at a NASA Center, NASA safety policy requires contractors to report mishaps, close calls, and other relevant safety information when performing NASA work, regardless of location The clause provides the Agency with needed visibility into safety‑related incidents that could affect mission execution, hardware, personnel involved in the work, or Government‑furnished property

72 Will the USG consider adding 52 215-16 into the final RFP terms and conditions? This clause is not applicable to this requirement

Space charging requirements are more stringent than a typical LEO program This will require practices more typical of a MEO/GEO program Can the USG please clarify what is driving these requirements that will impact harnessing, solar arrays, and thermal control surfaces?

Landsat 10 space charging requirements are specified for a sun-synchronous near-polar orbit, and informed by extensive testing performed for other GSFC missions and lessons learned from Landsats 8/9 and the JPSS program

74 Gate Criteria Please confirm whether an offeror may satisfy Exhibit 4 gate criteria through a major subcontractor or committed spacecraft-bus product-line partner, provided the final proposal includes executed teaming evidence and relevant past performance documentation

No

75 AI Disclosure / CAIRIA

Please confirm whether AI used only for engineering support, requirements analysis, test-log triage, anomaly trend detection, or non-commanding decision support is treated as Baseline AI, and whether deterministic requirements-based FDIR is outside the scope of commercial AI reporting unless AI components are embedded in the flight loop

AI usage requirement and disclosure is detailed in the proposal requirements

76 Wideband Commercial Compatibility Please identify any preferred commercial Ka-band equipment qualification assumptions, interface standards, or downlink data-rate closure assumptions that NASA expects offerors to use when responding to the updated spacecraft wideband requirements

The Ka Band requirements are detailed within project documentation

77 Funding Profile Flexibility Please confirm whether offerors may propose alternate payment-event phasing that remains within total fiscal-year constraints while improving technical risk retirement prior to LandIS integration

Yes, within the funding profile provided Major deviations may not be acceptable to the Government

78 T&M Special Studies Please confirm whether engineering/impact analyses associated with payload interface changes, risk mitigations, and requirements changes are expected under a separate T&M CLIN with a $5M not-to-exceed ceiling or another ceiling defined in the final RFP

Yes

79 SCV Reporting Please confirm whether NASA expects initial supplier visibility reporting to include Tier 3 suppliers for all flight-critical parts, all IT/cyber components, or all direct suppliers regardless of criticality

Yes

80 Cybersecurity Baseline Please confirm the required cybersecurity control baseline for contractor-owned systems used to process unclassified NASA data, including whether NIST SP 800-171, NIST SP 800-53, FISMA impact categorization, FedRAMP Moderate, or agency-specific requirements will govern each data type

The SOW defines all security requirements

81 Simulator Delivery Dates Please clarify desired delivery sequence and maturity expectations for OOpS, SOpS, SoftSim, CTSS, LVIS, and RF Suitcase assets relative to SRR, PDR, CDR, LandIS integration, ground readiness tests, and mission simulations

The SOW and the DIL defines all deliverable requirements

82 DRC-18 and WRS-3 Design Closure Please confirm whether offerors should treat the DRC-18 acquisition case as binding for mass memory/downlink sizing or as a reference case subject to final ground network contact and acquisition-plan assumptions

Storage size and downlink rate is defined in L10 requirements

83 Launch Delay Options Please confirm labor categories, minimum support posture, and deliverable expectations during each one-month launch-delay option period

Offerors are to make their own assumptions for the launch delay periods based on the necessary workload

84 ALTO Optional Launch-Resilience CLIN Please confirm whether NASA will allow offerors to propose an optional spacecraft-side post-separation orbit-acquisition and launch-path flexibility module, compatible with NASA-approved launch services, as a separately priced option that is not part of the mandatory baseline spacecraft requirement

No

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-710 The Contractor shall provide a Spacecraft Single Point Failure (SPF)/Critical Items List (CIL), including controls and mitigations, as part of all milestone reviews and the End Items Data Package (EIDP)

Recommend limiting this requirement to only those spacecraft design elements that must be redundant or have no single-point failures per the SRD

Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment F-L10 ObsERD 2 3 1 One thousand (1000) hours of operating/power-on time shall be accumulated

One thousand hours for all A and B sides of spacecraft and instrument components adds cost and schedule We request this be reduced, at least for some components

Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment F (ObserERD) specifies operating hours that are above and beyond our commercial product line standard practices Would the USG consider removing these, lowering, and/or setting them as goals?

Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-911 The Contractor shall provide their FPGA development processes at the request of the Government, and allow Government participation in all FPGA peer reviews and technical interchange meetings

Does this apply to our vendors as well? This directly conflicts with a commercial approach to the spacecraft YES The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-837 The Contractor shall report major anomalies beginning with the first application of power at the component or board level, flight software acceptance testing and when interfacing with flight hardware, and the first mechanical operation

Recommend limiting this to no lower than component level Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 10 6 Government Residence Office

SCSOW-426

In order to save cost, in the government residential office requirements, can we propose alternatives to yield cost savings?

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

DRFP Landsat 10 80GSFC26R0015 Terms and Conditions Past Performance Volume; (a) Information from the Offeror Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below for all of your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a total cost/fee incurred of $48,000,000 that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date

Can the scope "all" include classified contracts? If so how will NASA make provision for the delivery of the requested data?

Yes NASA has the proper security procedures and protocols in place to evaluate classified past performance

92 Attachment R - L10 Spacecraft Contractor Standards Populating a complete artifact compliant with all elements within this table would prove challenging within the time allotted Recommendation to relax requirement or open delivery date to CDR

Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

T&C Section C 2:

The Offeror shall describe the process and plan for software assurance, including which process is to be followed If the Offeror proposes using a different standard for software assurance than NASA-STD-8739 8, the proposal shall include a description of how that alternate standard compares and meets the intent of NASA-STD-8739 8

Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment-A L10 Statement of Work Section 4 7 1 Flight Operations Readiness, Databases, and Procedures

SCSOW-281

Would the Government consider an addition of the following language to this section: "or provide change log for all controlled/official database and ops products "

Yes The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-281 The Contractor shall invite the Government to all database and ops products Change Control Board (CCB) meetings

Does this start at Observatory I&T? Does government have voting authority at CCB? Acknowledged The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

T&C Section A 1 3:

The Offeror shall identify how fault tolerance, graceful degradation, and redundancy has been incorporated into the spacecraft design, and how these meet the letter and intent of the reliability requirement inherent in the controlled-deorbit design, as well as the ability of the observatory to continue to meet mission objectives in the presence of faults The Offeror shall identify single points of failure within the Offeror's proposed design, and methods for managing or mitigating the inherent risks

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

SCSOW-414 Class 1 changes impact functional, operational, or performance requirements, system safety, schedule, single point failures, external interfaces, and shall require government approval prior to implementation of the change

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

SCSOW-412 The Contractor shall notify the Government of Configuration Control Board (CCB) meetings and allow Government participation at all CCB meetings for Class 1 changes

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

SCSOW-413 The Contractor shall have a change classification and impact assessment process that results in Class 1 Configuration Change Requests (CCRs) being forwarded to NASA prior to being boarded

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

100 Additional Comments The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

SCSOW-682 The Contractor Non-Conformance and Anomaly Review Board shall include the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer (CSO) or delegate, who will provide approval of Class I changes as defined in the Spacecraft Statement of Work (SOW) as well as actions involving major anomalies of Critical Interfaces as defined in the Spacecraft

SOW

The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

102 ECP in CDRL The Government will reevaluate this requirement for the final RFP

L10-SW-01: we recommend option to use companies’ internal processes and standards that have been demonstrated on heritage flight programs Using these approaches will allow NASA to realize maximum efficiencies

Acknowledged

L10-SW-03: Recommend option to use companies’ internal processes and standards that have been demonstrated on heritage flight programs Using these approaches will allow NASA to realize maximum efficiencies

Acknowledged

Launch Configuration: For example, launching in a powered-off configuration is an increasingly common practice in commercial space, including for more than 650 successfully deployed satellites This dramatically simplifies safety measures and testing required, significantly reducing costs and development time, while also reducing complexity of launch operations

Acknowledged

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-965 The Contractor shall deliver a final and complete Spacecraft End Item Data Package (EIDP) per CDRL L10- SA-10 to demonstrate readiness for instrument integration and transition to Observatory I&T

Is the intent for the government to approve bus development up to this point? What is purpose of an EIDP at this point in time?

Yes Approval of the EIDP is a major criteria for the IIRR, to ensure that the SC is complete and ready for integration of the instrument

Attachment A - L10 Statement of Work (SOW) SCSOW-992 The Contractor shall share with the government any deviation from or update to their own established and documented internal standards and processes prior to use

Does this start after the stated "hands-off" period leading into Observatory I&T? Starts after contract award

Part Selection and Validation: Offerors leverage common components when scaling for new mission requirements, only modifying where required While there are certainly significant developments needed to support the LandIS instrument, offeror recommends NASA allows for the use of heritage components, even if they do not meet Class C or associated EEE Part requirements This requirement may also be paired with industry best practices, such as replacing stress testing of all tested parts with lot testing of production or COTS components

All heritage parts need to meet L10 mission requirements as written

After reviewing Attachment B (L10 SC CDRL and DID) CDRL# L10-SW-03, can the SBOMs for subsystem vendors be removed from the CDRL list, as that is not a standard deliverable for COTS items?

The Government will not reconsider these requirements

Spacecraft Operations requirements in section 3 4 of Attachment C (SRD) do not directly relate to collection, storage, downlink of Landsat 10 data and are more about spacecraft design, production and test that may or may not be consistent with a commercial product line offering Some may already be met, the intent may be met, and/or it may drive non-recurring engineering and cost Will the USG please consider removing some or all of the related requirements to be more compatible with a commercial-like spacecraft offer?

Acknowledged The USG is not considering any changes to these requirements

Redundancy and single-fault tolerance design requirements in section 3 5 of Attachment C (SRD) do not directly relate to collection, storage, downlink of Landsat 10 data and are more about spacecraft design, production and test that may or may not be consistent with a commercial product line offering Some may already be met, the intent may be met, and/or it may drive non-recurring engineering and cost Will the USG please consider removing some or all of the related requirements to be more compatible with a commercial-like spacecraft offer?

Acknowledged The Government is not considering any changes to these requirements

Fault Management requirements in section 3 6 of Attachment C (SRD) do not directly relate to collection, storage, downlink of Landsat 10 data and are more about spacecraft design, production and test that may or may not be consistent with a commercial product line offering Some may already be met, the intent may be met, and/or it may drive non-recurring engineering and cost Will the USG please consider deleting all requirements, including SRD-85 as it will be documented in ICDs, to be more compatible with a commercial-like spacecraft offer?

Acknowledged The Government is not considering any changes to these requirements

Structural and Mechanical Systems requirements in section 3 9 of Attachment C (SRD) do not directly relate to collection, storage, downlink of Landsat 10 data and are more about spacecraft design, production and test that may or may not be consistent with a commercial product line offering Some may already be met, the intent may be met, and/or it may drive non-recurring engineering and cost Will the USG please consider removing both requirements to be more compatible with a commercial-like spacecraft offer?

Acknowledged The Government is not considering any changes to these requirements

Some Thermal System requirements in section 3 10 of Attachment C (SRD) do not directly relate to collection, storage, downlink of Landsat 10 data and are more about spacecraft design, production and test that may or may not be consistent with a commercial product line offering Some may already be met, the intent may be met, and/or it may drive non-recurring engineering and cost Will the USG consider deleting all of the requirements including SRD-143, as it is already captured in the IRD, to be more compatible with a commercial-like spacecraft offer?

Acknowledged The Government is not considering any changes to these requirements

Electrical System requirements in section 3 11 of Attachment C (SRD) do not directly relate to collection, storage, downlink of Landsat 10 data and are more about spacecraft design, production and test that may or may not be consistent with a commercial product line offering Some may already be met, the intent may be met, and/or it may drive non-recurring engineering and cost Will the USG please consider removing some or all of the related requirements to be more compatible with a commercial-like spacecraft offer?

Acknowledged The Government is not considering any changes to these requirements

Flight Software requirements in section 3…