NND17616105R_LBFD_Draft_RFP_Responses_to_Feedback_Received.pdf

From To

The PWS states the Contractor shall develop plans that are "compatible" with NASA's

LBFD Project plans and documentation, what specifically does "compatible' mean in this context?

The Government expects to form close working relationships between the NASA and Contractor teams for this effort and the Contractor developed and delivered planning documentation will help enable this close working relationship. Compatible in this context means proposed approaches need not mirror a copy of the Government Furnished Information (GFI), but should be consistent with the plans and documentation in overall approach and function.

What is the purpose of the Design and Analysis Cycles prior to CDR that are called for in the PWS?

The design and analysis cycles prior to CDR represent planned checkpoints at which time the NASA Concept Assessment team will conduct a concept performance assessment and reconciliation with the Contractor. This activity is intended to help align the NASA and Contractor teams, identify technical risk areas, and help enable an efficient evaluation post-CDR for the purposes of the incentive fee determination. The Government envisions up to two design cycle iterations prior to CDR, however bidders may propose alternate approaches that result in a more technically viable or cost effective schedule that can be substantiated by the bidder.

The PWS requires a large number of deliverables, including many planning documents that could be combined or eliminated without negative impacts to the program. Can the bidder propose alternate approaches that are more innovative and efficient?

Part of the purpose of releasing the draft RFP is to encourage potential bidders to submit suggestions for streamlining and innovative approaches to reduce overhead and improve efficiency. All suggestions and comments received have been considered for incorporation in the final RFP. All proposals should be fully responsive to the final RFP requirements.

4 General Do we have access to LM’s software from the research that is being provided regardless of proposing our own design or using NASA’s / LM’s? This would entail access to the GFI

Toolset that predicts the requirements and specifications mentioned in the RFQ.

The software utilized for sonic boom prediction is available to potential bidders and is described in LBFD-04-006-NFPM (Near Field Prediction Method) and LBFD-

04-004-SBCalc (LBFD Baseline Sonic Boom Prediction and Loudness Level

Calculation Methods). These documents have been provided to the potential bidders on the Responsible Vendors List.

5 General Are there mandatory GFE items from NASA?

There are no mandatory GFE items beyond the items stated in PWS Section

3.4.5, "Provisions for NASA-Provided Flight Systems". These are the Flight Test

Instrumentation System (FTIS) and Fiber Optic Sensing System (FOSS) and associated Power Distribution System (PDS) that will be detailed in the FTIS, FOSS, and PDS System Description Documents provided with the final RFP. The external camera-based Vision System (XVS) will be detailed in the XVS SDD.

Additionally, NASA believes that the NASA-provided GFE listed in the PWS could help facilitate a cost-effective solution, but the listed GFE is not mandatory.

6 J-1 PWS 3.0 8 4

How is NASA ensuring that a non-LM based design is given fair treatment during this procurement process?

All proposals will be evaluated utilizing the published performance-based evaluation criteria. The requirement is not build-to-print, the LM preliminary design data is not required to be utilized in the proposal. The Government is interested in all potential solutions that meet the requirements stipulated in the

RFP.

7 General Is the purpose of Phase I to develop a demonstrator solely to ensure the low-sonic boom characteristics can be achieved in various situations, and not to be a replica of a commercialized, productionized jet? Are there other objectives for the demonstrator?

The demonstrator’s ultimate purpose is to generate the specified sonic boom characteristics to enable community response testing. The purpose is not to be a prototype or “replica of a commercialized, productionized jet”. The Needs, Goals, and Objectives are provided in the draft Program Management Plan. All of the listed objectives are priorities for this project.

8 General Is/Are there any secondary objectives to the above question?

The Needs, Goals, and Objectives are provided in the draft Program

Management Plan. All of the listed objectives are priorities for this project.

9 General LM has developed software to evaluate how the sonic boom signature of a scaled aircraft would appear on a larger equivalent aircraft. Do we have access to that software and/or documentation?

The software utilized for sonic boom prediction is available to potential bidders and is described in LBFD-04-006-NFPM (Near Field Prediction Method) and LBFD-

04-004-SBCalc (LBFD Baseline Sonic Boom Prediction and Loudness Level

Calculation Methods). These documents have been provided to the potential bidders on the Responsible Vendors List.

10 General Will this be evaluated at high latitudes (65+ N/S degrees)? The community response testing is planned for CONUS latitudes only

11 General What equipment will the aircraft need to carry for test purposes (weight & size)?

PWS Section 3.4.5 and ASRD Section 3.4.1 address this question, in addition, System Description Documents (SDDs) for FTIS, FOSS, XVS and PDS will be released to potential bidders on the Responsible Vendors List (RVL) with the final RFP.

12 General What specific requirements are there on aircraft load, max load, ultimate load?

Design flight and ground loads will be derived requirements based on the NASA

SRD Mission Requirements and the ARC 5.1.1 Design Flight and Ground Loads requirement.

13 General What requirements on Vn, AoA, flight altitude, banking speed, max g, range, etc.

See the SRD, specifically SRD-5, SRD-6, SRD-7, SRD-12, SRD-13 and the ConOps for definitions of the baseline mission from which to derive these parameters.

14 General What is the required lifespan and max number of take-offs and landings? What is the number of hours of flight time required?

See SRD-1021, "Service Life".

15 General Currently, the LM design handles 1 person as a pilot, what is the max number of crew for flight demonstration / testing? Just the pilot, or additional flight test engineers?

There is no requirement for the number of crew other than the pilot. The number of crew should be a fall out of the design approach selected to meet the

SRD requirements.

16 General

Will NASA make all results public at conclusion of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III? NASA intends to share as much of the testing results as possible through publications and conference presentations. In addition, NASA intends to share

Phase II and Phase III data broadly with the domestic and international community. See Section H, Paragraph 6 for details on the Government's intellectual property and data rights position.

17 General What additional data will be provided from the Preliminary Design phase to potential bidders? How will it be provided?

The data package provided to the Responsible Vendors List in April will be updated to include any new preliminary design data available as of the final RFP release, and be provided to the RVL along with the final RFP. Data will be provided in a similar manner to that used for the initial data release to the RVL in April.

Line #Page #Section Total comment #

Change Text (if recommended) Document NASA's ResponseRationaleComment, Feedback, Input

18 General How will the transfer of engineering data occur for the existing LBFD research? Will the

QueSST data come with case studies?

Data will be provided in a similar manner to that used for the initial data release to the RVL in April.

19 Do you intend to procure a second aircraft? When will that decision be made?

NASA does not intend to procure a second aircraft at this time, however the

PWS Section 3.8 discusses the requirement for a second aircraft study that will inform future decisions and include a timeframe for making those decisions.

Section 3.8 also requires the Contractor to include provisions for a second aircraft so as not to preclude the possibility if the decision is made to procure a second aircraft in the future.

20 Can you provide more details on NASA's airworthiness certification process?

NASA will release a draft Airworthiness Certification Plan (ACP) with the final

RFP that will contain more details on the NASA process.

21 Is this requirement set aside for small businesses?

This procurement will be a full and open requirement and has not been set aside for small businesses. Proposals will be accepted from large and small businesses.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

B.2 1852.216-84 3

Not clear on what is meant by cost sharing for cost underruns? If underrun occurs there is less cost to share. This is confusing.

The cost sharing for cost underruns is:

This is a cost plus incentive fee contract type. The contractor will be paid for actual costs incurred in performance of this contract. The incentive fee will be awarded after a technical and cost evaluation have occurred. If the contractor meets the technical objective for the CLIN, an assessment of cost control will be performed. The cost over and under run will be compared to the estimated target cost. If there is an overrun to the target cost, the target incentive fee will be reduced, until the minimum fee is reached. If there is an underrun to the target cost, the target incentive fee may be increased up to the maximum incentive fee available. The share ratio will be determined at contract award.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

B.2 1852.216-84 and M.3 3, 63 What if the offeror proposes a smaller fee than the minimum? How will that be scored?

There appears to be no incentive to reduce costs below what is stipulated in section B.2 1852.216-84.

The cost volume will be evaluated for cost realism. Offerors may propose a minimum and maximum fee, which will be evaluated for cost realism.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

L.2 52.216-1 38

Does a Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract allow cost match? It is unclear if there is any mechanism for a contractor to share the financial cost.

The Government contemplates award of a CPIF contract resulting from this solicitation

The Government contemplates award of a

CPIF contract with consideration for cost match.

Cost match would bring down the overall cost of the procurement to the American people.

The CPIF contract identified in the RFP does not allow for cost match. The contractor will receive actual costs in the performance of the contract, and through the incentive fee will share in cost over and under runs based on actual costs compared to target costs, provided the technical performance requirements have been met. The share ratio will be determined at contract award. Offerors shall include any exceptions to the CPIF contract type and the supporting rationale, and include their alternate approach with their proposals for the Government's evaluation.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

L.11 44 45 days is not sufficient time to produce a proposal of this magnitude and value. September 15, 2017 October 15, 2017 (~75 days)

There is a low probability for a new contractor (i.e. one who has not been involved in the preliminary design) to write a winning proposal, get firm fixed bids from subcontractors, and develop appropriate plans in only 45 days. Also, since it is not an electronic delivery, additional day(s) will be unavailable to use for proposal development.

NASA believes the 45 day timeframe is challenging, but possible, since prospective offerors have had the technical data for several months. An additional 30 days would significantly impede the project's schedule. NASA will extend the proposal due date 60 days after release of the RFP.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

L11 47

Will NASA provide an updated data package for the Preliminary Design concept (Lockheed

Martin concept) that includes outcomes from the preliminary design review, PDR presentation charts, updated data from the high speed wind tunnel test, and data from the low-speed test when its available? In addition, will NASA identify the strengths and weaknesses of the preliminary design concept that have been identified at the PDR and through-out the 18-month preliminary design phase?

Without this information a new entrant proposing the

Lockheed Martin design will be at a disadvantage to properly provide a description of the concept as requested in Subfactor A, item 1, 2, 3, and 4 on page 47.

The data package provided to the Responsible Vendors List in April will be updated to include any new preliminary design data available as of the final RFP release, and be provided to the RVL along with the final RFP. Data will be provided in a similar manner to that used for the initial data release to the RVL in April.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

L11 -FACTOR 2-

Cost (Volume II) - H

Incentive Fee

Can a contractor propose cost share or cost match along with the incentive fees as stated in this section? Will NASA be stipulating any guidelines on what level of fee that can be proposed? What is meant by "share" in the sentence "The offeror shall provide its fee percentage and supporting rationale for the proposed fee percentages and share lines in the cost narrative within Volume II."

Cost share or cost match needs to be addressed in addition to the fee. This could save the American people money on this procurement.

The CPIF contract identified in the RFP does not allow for cost match. The contractor will receive actual costs in the performance of the contract, and through the incentive fee will share in cost over and under runs based on actual costs compared to target costs, provided the technical requirements have been met. If there is an overrun to the target cost, the target incentive fee will be reduced, until the minimum fee is reached. If there is an underrun to the target cost, the target incentive fee may be increased up to the maximum incentive fee available. The share ratio will be determined at contract award.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

M.2 Evaluation

Factors, Factor 3:

Past Performance

Will past performance only be evaluated on work completed on government contracts?

Can an offeror use internally funded aircraft programs for past performance? If these types of past performance are allowed, will they be evaluated differently then past performance on government contracts?

Include language that allows internally funded aircraft programs in addition to

Government contracts

Internally funded aircraft programs could be more relevant to this procurement in demonstrating our ability to perform.

In accordance with NFS 1815.304-70(d)(2), offerors may submit data from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private contracts that can be used to evaluate their past performance.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

M.2 Evaluation

Factors, Factor 3:

Past Performance

63 The Past Performance Factor needs to be numerically weighted and scored The Past Performance Factor is not to be numerically weighted or scored.

The Past Performance Factor weight is XXX and scored based on the following point system. (Note, the value of the weighting and scoring will be up to NASA to decide.)

The evaluation will be too subjective without a weight and score for past performance.

Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement

1815.305(a)(2)(A). Each offeror will be assigned a Level of Confidence Rating.

This factor will not be numerically weighted and scored.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

M.2 Evaluation

Factors, Factor 3:

Past Performance

Both cost and past performance need to be weighted and scored, otherwise the process is too subjective.

Because aspects of the Mission Suitability factor must provide for effective evaluation of diverse technical approaches, which will require subjective evaluations, they will be weighted and scored in accordance with the numerical system established below. The other factors (Cost and Past Performance) are not similarly weighted or numerically scored.

NASA needs to develop a weighting and scoring system for cost and past performance

The evaluation will be too subjective without a weight and score for cost and past performance. Criteria need to be developed for these categories and input from past program offices should be included to reduce the subjectivity of these evaluation categories.

Cost will be evaluated in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a(1)(A)&(B). A cost realism analysis will be performed to assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. Cost will not be numerically weighted and scored.

Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement

1815.305(a)(2)(A). Each offeror will be assigned a Level of Confidence Rating.

Past Performance will not be numerically weighted and scored.

NND17616105R LBFD Draft

RFP

M.3 Weighting and

Scoring

Please explain why the weighting system defined in this section will only be used as a guide? This statement makes it unclear on what the actual award scoring will be graded on.

The weights will be utilized by the SSA only as a guide.

remove this sentence

Why have a weighting system if you are not going to adhere to it?

It is the SSA’s responsibility to decide which of the proposals submitted in response to the solicitation is most advantageous to the Government after carefully considering the evaluation factors and their relative importance as stated in the RFP. The decision may require the SSA to make trade-off judgments among competing offerors, based upon the evaluation factors (e.g. Mission

Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors).

LBFD Attachment J-1

PWS.pdf

3.0 9 20

A Delta PDR < 4 months after contract award will be difficult for a new concept or a new entrant utilizing the preliminary design concept <=4 after contract award

<= 6 after contract award - preliminary design concept

<= 9 after contract award - new concept

Only the preliminary design contractor would have enough intimate knowledge of a LBFD concept to complete this in 4 months or less.

The Contractor may propose an alternate milestone schedule, for consideration, if a more technically viable or cost effective schedule can be substantiated by the Contractor. (See PWS Section 3.0) However, the technical maturity of the proposed concept will be evaluated and the maturity of the proposed concept is expected to be consistent with a preliminary design level of development.

34 RFP L.10(c ) 43 n/a The intent of this section is to provide instructions for Offerors to identify any exclusions to the page limits but appears to be incomplete.

Proposal format clarity. NASA will revise the RFP to include the pages excluded from the page count.

35 RFP L.11(A)(7) 46 n/a

This section states that the electronic files shall be exact duplicates of the paper copies and hard copy data will take precedence. Some of the financial spreadsheets intended to be submitted with the Cost Proposal may be very large and thus difficult to print and include with the hard copy of the proposal. Would it be acceptable for the hard copy of the Cost Proposal to make reference to spreadsheets provided separately as electronic files on the CD without including those printouts within the hard copy?

Proposal format clarity.

A paper copy of the cost volume, in addition to the electronic copy, must be submitted with the proposal. Font size of these spreadsheets may be reduced to 8 point and may be printed on larger scale paper to reduce the number of pages for this volume. There is no page limit assigned to the cost volume. The

RFP will be modified to use the electronic version as the official proposal submission.

36 PWS 3.0 9 20

The last row of Table 3-1 indicates a Final Report is to be submitted 3 months after the

Systems Acceptance Review (SAR). However, there is no associated deliverable data item listed in Section 4 of the PWS nor mentioned anywhere else in the PWS. Clarification requested.

Ensure clarity of proposal deliverables. A DRD will be added for the final report.

37 RFP L.11(B) 46 n/a

This section indicates that Offerors may recommend changes to the PWS in instances where such changes would improve performance. Recommend clarification be provided that recommended PWS changes will be negotiated and incorporated after contract award.

Offerors may recommend changes to the

Performance Work Statement in instances where such changes would improve performance, provided they are specifically identified together with the wording and a justification for the change.

Offerors may recommend changes to the

Performance Work Statement in instances where such changes would improve performance, provided they are specifically identified together with the wording and a justification for the change.

Any changes to the PWS will be negotiated separately after contract award.

Offerors proposals need to be evaluated based upon identical requirements specified in a common PWS.

The Contractor should propose approaches (including deliverables, schedule, etc.) which most effectively meet the Government's requirements as stated in the PWS. If a more technically viable or cost effective approach can be substantiated by the Contractor they should propose for NASA's evaluation.

38 PWS 3.7 28 33

Potentially open ended list of documentation required for NASA to operate and maintain the aircraft without contractor support for the foreseen operations scenarios over the expected life of the aircraft. Recommend a specific list of deliverables be included to satisfy this requirement.

Scope of task potentially unclear or ambiguous.

From the PWS, "The LBFD aircraft system shall be delivered with the documentation required for NASA to operate and maintain the aircraft without continued Contractor support for foreseen operations scenarios over the expected life of the aircraft." The Contractor should propose approaches for operations and maintenance which most effectively meet this requirement. If a more technically viable or cost effective approach can be substantiated by the

Contractor they should propose for NASA's evaluation.

39 RFP L.11(B)C.1.a.ii 48 n/a The small business subcontract goal of 20%-25% appears difficult to achieve based on the scope of the effort and program requirements. Request consideration of a lower target.

The proposed small business subcontracting goals are considered challenging but achievable, however NASA will consider this request and may make adjustments in the final RFP.

40 RFP H.4 15 n/a

1852.235-71 Key Personnel and Facilities - This clause as written is overly restrictive and places a burden on the Contractor’s ability to manage their workforce. Flexibility is required to manage a changing workforce efficiently and to provide the best skills available for each project as the needs arise. As programs move through different phases, a different skill mix is required and adaptability is key to manage the changing priorities quickly.

Clause 1852.235-71 language

(a) The Contractor shall notify the

Contracting Officer prior to making any change in key personnel. Key personnel are defined as follows:

Position/Title

Program Manager

Chief Engineer

Lead Low Boom Design Engineer

Lead Integrated Propulsion Engineer

Manufacturing Lead

Operations Lead

NAMES TO BE PROPOSED

(b) For any changes the Contractor must demonstrate that the qualifications of the prospective personnel are equal to or better than the qualifications of the personnel being replaced.

The Key Personnel clause is copied directly from the NASA FAR Supplement and is not tailorable absent a NFS Deviation.

41 RFP L.11(B)B.3 48 n/a

In an at-will employment state it is difficult to make representations about how long an employee will remain with a company, site, or project. Recommend that the treatment of key personnel is appropriately addressed in the Key Personnel clause of the model contract.

3. Identify key project personnel for

Program Manager, Chief Engineer, Lead

Low-Boom Design Engineer, Lead

Integrated Propulsion Engineer, Manufacturing Lead, and Operations

Lead. Include one page resume for each person and their level of commitment for the project life cycle.

3. Identify key project personnel for

Program Manager, Chief Engineer, Lead

Low Boom Design Engineer, Lead

Integrated Propulsion Engineer, Manufacturing Lead, and Operations Lead.

Include one page resume for each person for the purpose of evaluating their professional expertise and personnel qualifications.

NASA will evaluate the level of commitment of the proposed Key Personnel.

42 RFP L.11(B)C.1.a.i 48 n/a

This section states the Small Business Subcontracting Plan , "shall be submitted with the proposal." Section J of the RFP indicates this plan will be Attachment J-6 to contract. It is unclear if the SB Subcontracting Plan is to be included in the 125-page limited Mission

Suitability Proposal, or if it is to be a separate document submitted as an attachment to the model contract.

Proposal format clarity.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be excluded from the Page Count for the Mission Suitability Volume.

43 Misc. How can we get a firm approved for the AFRC Qualified Vendor's List for Aircraft Parts

Vendors interested in getting approved for AFRC Qualified Vendor's List for

Aircraft Parts may contact AFRC Procurement Quality Assurance to obtain the documents to complete for inclusion.

44 Misc. What areas of Intellectual Property are negotiable Offerors shall include any exceptions they take to the Government's Intellectual

Property Rights and their supporting rationale with their proposals.

45 Misc Will Lockheed Martin be involved in the selection process, or is this purely a NASA based decision?

Lockheed Martin will not be involved in the Source Selection Decision. NASA will be exclusively responsible for the decision.

46 Misc Is there weight towards having Lockheed Martin design as our selection? Can you expand on why or why not?

There is not a preference for the LM design.

47 Misc What is the process / schedule change NASA would be keen to if we propose a new design since this would restart the PDR phase?

The technical maturity of the proposed concept, whether a design based on the

LM preliminary design effort or a different design, will be assessed as part of the evaluation process. NASA does not intend to conduct another preliminary design phase.

48 Misc

When is it possible to set up a one-on-one meeting with the TPOC’s at NASA with our team, and is there a specific format to this meeting or information we should provide?

One on one meetings will be scheduled upon request. Instructions were provided to POCs on the Responsible Vendor's List on how to request a meeting.

49 RFP Small Business 47

Under Small Business contract goals, please clarify the requirements if a small business were to submit a proposal. Is the goal to award 20-25% to small businesses from the top of this line, or is it a percent for each of these in this table, for example 33.5% minimum requirement all together is required. Must we have the required representation in all small business categories if we are a small business?

If a small business submits a proposal, the small business will not be required to submit a subcontracting plan or how the small business intends to meet the all small business goals. The small business will be required to show how they intend to utilize small businesses in their proposal.

56 RFP

Recommend changing the contract type to a Cost + Fixed Fee and Incentive program, as that is more valuable to getting small businesses to be able to join

NASA selected the most appropriate contract type to achieve the Government's objectives. The current guidelines allow the Contractor to propose a minimum and maximum fee as well as a share ratio.