NNA16574335R-000001_(Q A).pdf

(x)

NNA16574335R

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

ARC

Moffett Field CA 94035-0001 M/S 241-1 Acquisition Division NASA/Ames Research Center

NNA16574335R03/15/2016000001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

02/12/2016

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

A. Answer questions received in response to the RFP.

B. Make the following changes/corrections to solicitation:

1. Update Section G - Contract Administration Data

2. Update Section I - Contract Clauses

3. Update Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments

4. Update Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statement of Offerors

5. Update Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

6. Update Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

C. Extend the closing date.

See Continuation Pages

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Umetria Y. Thomas

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

2016-Mar-15

Amendment 00001 – CONTINUATION PAGES...

A. Answer the following questions received in response to the RFP.

1. Will non‐US owned companies be allowed to bid as a Prime Bidder?

FAR clauses 52.225‐5, 52.225‐8, and 52.225.18 have been added to this RFP via amendment 000001.

Offers for non‐US made items will be evaluated in accordance with procedures identified in FAR Subpart

25.5. It is anticipated that certain PTD requirements, such as integration of US‐made payloads, may involve technology that falls within International Traffic in Arms (ITAR)/Export Administration

Regulations (EAR). All offerors are advised that proposal/contractor teams involving non‐US companies must provide an acceptable plan to comply with all ITAR/export regulations. Absence of an acceptable plan may result in a determination that a proposal is non‐compliant and therefore, unacceptable. In accordance with the instructions included in Section L, all offerors must clearly address their ability to comply with all US Export Laws and Regulations.

2. Will non‐US owned companies be allowed to bid as a Sub‐Contractor?

In accordance with the RFP instructions, Section L.7 (c), “Offerors proposing as a team, subcontract(s), or other such business arrangement, shall fully describe this team, subcontract(s) or arrangement by outlining the relationship, commitment, and responsibilities of the parties.” All offerors shall be responsible for ensuring that offered end‐products meet the requirements of FAR Part 25. All offers clearly address their ability to comply with all US Export Laws and Regulations.

3. We have two questions about the timing of payments under this contract. Page 12 of the solicitation says that payment will be made for "separately priced items" that have been accepted by NASA.

a. Can bidders submit proposals that separately price CLINs 001a, 001b, 001c and 001d and be paid upon acceptance of each?

Yes. Although, the total proposed firm fixed price for CLIN 001 is the sum of Tasks 1 through 5, milestone payments will be made upon successful completion and acceptance of the work associated with each task.

b. Can bidders break apart any of the 001a, 001b, 001c and 001d tasks to create subtasks that would trigger payment upon acceptance? For example, Task 3 might have an intermediate task of receipt/fabrication of all required components to trigger payment, prior to the "comprehensive systems test" and completion of the SIR/PER reviews at the end of this task.

Yes, Offerors may propose a milestone payment schedule to accommodate subtasks within CLIN 0001 (and subCLINs). The proposed schedule will be evaluated with the offeror’s proposal and negotiated prior to contract award.

4. In reviewing the documentation, the price of $377k per the four options came up. Is the option there to propose at a higher dollar amount for the four follow on units or does this make a proposal noncompliant?

The $377k per flight is the NASA estimated cost for development, implementation, Integration and

Test, deployment and flight operations costs for default NASA‐provided NEN S‐Band GDS and operations support. This has no impact on an offeror’s bus costs beyond the requirement to provide a NEN‐compatible S‐Band radio as part of their bus solution (bus radio is not included in the $377k per flight NASA‐provided GDS solution). Offerors may propose their own GDS solution in accordance with section 1.1 of the SOW, L1/L2 requirements spreadsheet tab “7.0 Mission Ops

(Vendor GDS)”, CDRLs 15‐19 in the SOW, with costs captured in WBS 9.0.

5. If we choose to integrate into NASA's ground station architecture, is our bid noncompliant if it exceeds the "quoted" price for the first unit and the $377k for each option unit?

No. The $377k represents the cost associated with a NASA‐provided ground data system (GDS) solution. Offerors may propose their own solution. The offerors’ proposed price is independent of the NASA‐provided NEN‐GDS solution. All offers will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria identified in the solicitation.

6. What are the metrics used for compliance / non‐compliance in the proposal, with respect to requirements? Does a single requirement not met mean non‐compliance? 80% met is sufficient for compliance? Please elaborate.

In accordance with NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305‐70 (a)(1) and (3) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable because it does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements; or it contains major deficiencies or omissions or out‐of‐line costs which discussions with the offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure.

All offers will be evaluated in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section M – Evaluation

Factors for Award. The Mission Suitability factor (and sub‐factors), will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges defined in section M.3. In accordance with RFP

Section M.3, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach to meeting the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for technical merit, reasonableness, thoroughness, and effectiveness on how well it demonstrates its understanding of the requirements.

As stated in the RFP (Section L.7, Volume II – Mission Suitability, Subfactor A – Technical Approach

(Paragraph (C)(4))), Offerors should “Show how the characteristics of and requirements on the spacecraft are traceable to the project level 2 requirements. In the event of non‐compliance to a requirement, alternative solutions that meet the intent of the Level 2 requirement(s) should be discussed.”

The SOW also states: “This Statement of Work outlines the technical content, documentation, meetings, and deliverables normally expected. Proposers should base their proposal response, schedule and cost on these requirements making a best effort to streamline approaches that meet stated requirements with sufficient consideration to cost and schedule. NASA will consider alternative approaches to meeting the requirements for technical content, documentation, meetings, and deliverables if these approaches still meet the intent of our processes and products while improving quality and/or reduce cost or schedule with no significant increase in risk.”

7. Does an 11”x17” foldout count as 1 or 2 pages towards the total page limit for Volume II – Mission

Suitability?

The 11”x17” will count as 1 page. Offers shall adhere to font limitations as provided in amendment

000001.

8. Requirement 6.4.11 states that the PTD shall support a torque‐only attitude control mode. Can you provide more clarification regarding this attitude control mode? For example, is this mode intended for controlled maneuvering of the spacecraft, is it intended for reducing spacecraft body rates, or is there some other attitude control purpose?

Requirement 6.4.11 has been updated for clarification:

“6.4.11 PTD shall support a torque‐rod only course attitude control mode capable of supporting stellar inertial and nadir pointing submodes.”

9. Is a sun synchronous orbit to be assumed for all missions, or are there other orbital inclinations that should be considered?

Orbital inclinations will be based on available CubeSat launch opportunities aboard USA launch vehicles. As stated in the included Operational Concept, “350‐800 km, any RAAN or Beta angle, (98 or 51 or 45) degree inclinations cover most available launch scenarios”. L2 Requirement 7.1.16 has been clarified:

“7.1.16 The Vendor GDS shall be capable of accommodating any LEO launch manifest assigned to PTD with an orbital inclination 40deg or higher.”

10. Requirement 6.6.20 states that the CubeSat center of gravity should be within 2cm of its geometric center. Figure 3‐3 (PTD MICD – Sheet 1) of the Spacecraft to Payload ICD is interpreted to indicate that the center of gravity is only allowed to deviate more than +/‐0.030” from the center of geometry in the positive X axis. This limit is also not bounded in the +X direction within Figure 3‐3.

Does requirement 6.6.20 limit this amount to 2cm, and if so, does it only pertain to the +X direction, as indicated in Figure 3‐3?

Requirement 6.6.20 is correct as stated in that the center of gravity is to be within 2cm of geometric center and applies to all axis. This requirement is for the integrated SC Bus and Payload as a whole. The ± 0.030 references in Figure 3.3 of the ICD drawing are Payload thrust vector alignment accuracy limits specific to propulsion Payload providers.

11. Requirement 6.4.6 states that during fixed Earth‐point tracking mode, the S/C shall accept pointing error updates provide by the payload at 30 Hz (TBR) to implement attitude corrections. Is the payload providing absolute or relative pointing errors? Additionally, what accuracy of the pointing errors should we assume?

L2 Requirement 6.4.6 has been clarified to indicate error updates are relative and not absolute:

“6.4.6 During fixed Earth‐point tracking mode, the S/C shall accept pointing error updates, with a relative accuracy of +/‐ 2 microradians (TBR), provided by the payload at 30Hz (TBR) to implement attitude corrections.”

12. Requirement 6.4.7 states that during fixed Earth‐point tracking mode, S/C shall point (within 1 Hz (TBR) bandwidth), once tracked to Payload error updates, to < 10 microradians RMS. Is this an absolute or relative pointing accuracy requirement?

This is an absolute pointing requirement.. L2 requirement 6.4.7 has been clarified:

“6.4.7 During fixed Earth‐point tracking mode, S/C shall point (within 1 Hz (TBR) bandwidth), once tracked to Payload error updates, to < 10 microradians RMS absolute pointing error”

13. With respect to the L2 requirements identified in Attachment J.1 (a) 4 (PTD L1 and L2

Requirements), what leeway is available in meeting the requirements? Can some of the capabilities come close to our design capability and, if so, will that be the new specification?

As stated in the RFP (Section L.7, Volume II – Mission Suitability, Subfactor A – Technical Approach

(Paragraph (C)(4))), Offerors should “Show how the characteristics of and requirements on the spacecraft are traceable to the project level 2 requirements. In the event of non‐compliance to a requirement, alternative solutions that meet the intent of the Level 2 requirement(s) should be discussed.”

The SOW also states: “This Statement of Work outlines the technical content, documentation, meetings, and deliverables normally expected. Proposers should base their proposal response, schedule and cost on these requirements making a best effort to streamline approaches that meet stated requirements with sufficient consideration to cost and schedule. NASA will consider alternative approaches to meeting the requirements for technical content, documentation, meetings, and deliverables if these approaches still meet the intent of our processes and products while improving quality and/or reduce cost or schedule with no significant increase in risk.”

14. How will Small Businesses be evaluated in regard to Subfactor C ‐ Small Business Utilization? Does a small business automatically receive the full 100 points for this criteria?

All Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the RFP. Small Businesses will be evaluated for their commitment to small business. Small business will not automatically receive the full 100 points for this criteria. In accordance with Subfactor C: Small Business Utilization, paragraph

(1)(2), “Small businesses are not required to submit subcontracting plans. NASA will only evaluate the amount of work that the small business prime and any small businesses propose to perform at the first tier subcontract level. The proposed amount of work that the prime small business and first tier small business subcontractors will perform will be evaluated against the Contracting Officer’s assessment of the overall subcontracting goal for this procurement. Individual subcontracting goals by small business categories will not be evaluated for small business primes and their first tier subcontractors.”

15. In the cost spreadsheets, should subcontractor labor be entered under “Labor” or “Procurement”?

Reference RFP Instructions for Volume IV – Price Proposal, any subcontracts will be included with

“Procurement”.

16. Page 48 states “Offerors shall provide supporting cost information and an integrated master schedule to support the proposed total firm fixed price.” Please confirm that the IMS should be shown in the Cost Volume rather than Mission Suitability.

Section L has been updated to reflect requirement to include the integrated master schedule as item

7 in the Mission Suitability Factor (Subfactor B – Management Approach).

In Mission Suitability‐ Subfactor B‐Management Approach (Item 2), offerors will “discuss” the schedule and workflow for the complete mission life cycle, interdependencies, critical paths, schedule margins and long lead procurements.

17. Will the government consider progress payments or the application of Facilities Capital Cost of

Money (FCCM)?

Offerors may propose milestone payments to be negotiated prior to contract award. The application of FCCM will not apply to the resultant Firm Fixed Price (FFP) award.

18. Can you provide an unprotected the Excel workbook?

An unprotected version of the workbook is not available. The workbook contains pre‐set formulas and templates for submission of offers by WBS.

19. Question regarding what is implied by PTD requirements 7.1.6, 7.1.7 and 7.1.16 for the option for a vendor‐provided GDS. Nothing is implied, the requirements are as stated.

a. Do these requirements mean that we must propose a number and location of GDS communication stations that are capable of providing up to 14 line‐of‐site contacts each day for a satellite in any orbit in the 0‐90 degree inclination and 350‐800 km altitude range? And if so, with what minimum mask angle?

The driving L2 requirement for the GDS solution is “6.2.1.4 The Spacecraft shall be capable of radiating telemetry to the ground at a rate and duration able to downlink 250Mbits per day”. L2 requirements 7.1.6 and 7.17 have been clarified:

“7.1.6 The Vendor GDS shall support the necessary quantity of daily data downlink passes to meet spacecraft downlink throughput.”

“7.1.7 The PTD MOC and vendor GDS shall be able to support scheduling activities for the number of communication contact opportunities available daily for the duration of flight.”

Mask angles are dependent on the ground antenna capability, the spectrum approval, applicable communications and safety laws, and regulations in place at their respective locations and not specified by NASA.

Orbital inclination has been clarified in requirement 7.1.16. See response to question 9.

b. Alternatively, do these requirements simply imply that the GDS must be able to support up to that number apart from the line‐of‐sight availability that results from the proposed number/locations of communication stations?

Refer to response to part “a.” of this question.

20. We wish to know the potential for foreign companies, especially those currently working with NASA, for participation in the project.

a. Can XXX provide a prime bid for an experiment or support a US entity (government or commercial) as a subcontractor in a bid?

At this time, the Government is not soliciting offers for the payloads only. With regard to the question of foreign participation, please refer to questions 1 and 2 above.

b. What types of agreements, if any, need to be in place with NASA or other parts of the US government, before contract award?

The successful offeror, through its proposal, will address their understanding, adherence, and agreement to all of the regulations, policies, and procedures identified in the solicitation prior to contract award.

21. CDRL 19, FISMA Compliance Documentation, What are the NASA Certification steps required for moderate system characterization?

This could vary widely depending on the maturity and documented security practices the offeror already has in place. Please reference the following links: FISMA Federal Information Security

Management Act (FISMA) Implementation Project (http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html) and (http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/fisma/index.html).

22. NASA PTD Payload states 20W OAP (TBD). Does NASA have a more accurate nominal and peak load for the NASA Payload (Busek propulsion system) and when the propulsion system is active? How many minutes per orbit will the propulsion system be active.

For bus design considerations, the bus should be built to accommodate a payload consumption of

45W on‐orbit‐average as stated in L2 requirement “6.5.6 PTD shall supply the Payload at least 45

(TBR) Watts on‐orbit‐average power.” Depending on the payload, this load could be continuous and for many orbits, or could be a higher load for shorter periods of time duty‐cycled so as not to exceed the 45W on‐orbit‐average. As stated in the ICD, payload peak load will not be allowed to exceed

180W. The bus solar array(s) and batteries should be sized appropriately for these requirements.

23. The solicitation on page 37 says that Volume IV shall be compatible with Microsoft Excel.

a. How do you want the required paper copies of the "J1b_8_‐

_PTD_RFP_Costing_and_Staffing_Tables.xlsx" to be submitted? It seems locked in a way that prevents copying an entire spreadsheet for pasting into a Word doc, so it can co‐exist with the "supporting costing information" and "integrated master schedule" Should we just use Excel's print function?

The Excel workbook is locked for editing. For submission purposes, the Excel print function is acceptable for submission of the paper copies.

b. The solicitation on page 48 says we are to provide supporting costing information and an integrated master schedule. For the electronic copies, is this information supposed to be typed into an Excel workbook, say as an add on to

"J1b_8__PTD_RFP_Costing_and_Staffing_Tables.xlsx"? Should this workbook just be relabeled as Volume IV.xlsx?

The integrated master schedule has been moved to the Mission Suitability Factor. The excel workbooks should be relabeled as Volume IV.

B. Make the following changes/corrections to solicitation.

1. Update Section G – “Contract Administration Data” to incorporate the following provisions/clause by reference:

i. 1852.245–73 Financial Reporting of NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors

(JAN 2011)

2. Update Section I – “Contract Clauses” to incorporate the following provisions/clauses by reference:

i. FAR 52.225‐5 Trade Agreements (FEB 2016)

ii. FAR 52.225‐8 Duty Free Entry (OCT 2010)

iii. FAR 52.245‐1 Government Property (APR 2012)

iv. FAR 52.245‐9 Use and Charges (APR 2012)

3. Update Section J, attachment 1a4 – L1 and L2 Requirements

4. Update Section K to incorporate the following provisions/clauses by full text:

i. FAR 52.225‐18 Place of Manufacture (MAR 2015)

5. Update Section L as follows:

i. Paragraph L.6 (b) to include the following language. “…using not smaller than Arial

12 point type applied for all texts, diagrams, graphics, charts, tables, photograph tables, illustrations, headers and footers.”

ii. Paragraph L.7, Volume I – Cover Letter

iii. Paragraph L.7, Volume II – Mission Suitability (Subfactor B)

iv. Paragraph L.7, Volume IV – Price Proposal

6. Update Section M as follows:

i. Paragraph M.3, Mission Suitability Factor (Subfactor B)

C. Extend the RFP closing date to Monday, April 04, 2016 at 1100AM PT.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.