Restore_L_-_IR_Cam_-_Amendment_No__6_QA.pdf

RFP NNG16598592R

Amendment No. 6

We received the following comments/question in regards to RFP No. NNG16598592R. We are posting our response to the question in red below for all offerors interested in this solicitation.

1. Question: The RFP cover letter cites FFP type contract, yet all the other documents cite a cost reimbursement type contract. Please clarify the contract type to be proposed.

Response: The contract type to be proposed is Cost Plus Fixed Fee.

2. Question: SF_30 document cites Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). The term CPFF usually refers to fixed fee. Document “NASA Restore-L Final IR_Cam_RFP_-Cost_Reimbursement…” cites fixed fee in section B.1. Is NASA contemplating an award fee or fixed fee type contract?

Response: We contemplate a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) type contract.

3. Question: What was the rationale for changing the mounting configuration in spec paragraph

3.5.5?

Response: The original wording for Requirement 3.5.5, “Mechanical Mounting” from document

Restore-L-SPEC-001981, Rev – was carry over language from a similar Restore-L sensor specification document. The Restore-L RPO IRCam will be mounted in a “vertical” configuration with the camera’s optical boresight perpendicular to its mounting interface. Therefore, Requirement 3.5.5 was updated to reflect that and Requirement 3.5.10, “Electrical Connector” was deleted since a side connector configuration is now acceptable.

4. Question: SF_30 indicates that 3.8.8.3 was changed. However, it doesn’t appear there was a change. Was a change intended that did not get communicated?

Response: SF_30 contains an error. Requirement 3.8.8.3 of 483-SPEC-001981 was not changed nor was intended to be changed. The correct reference is 3.8.8.5.”

5. In section J.1 of document “NASA Restore-L Final IR_Cam_RFP_-Cost_Reimbursement…”, items

E, F and H are marked with “**”. The mark “**” is defined below as “To Be Submitted with

Proposal.” However, in the Date column TBP is entered. TBP is defined as To Be Proposed. Are items E, F and H to be included in the proposal or is the contractor to provide a date when they will be delivered?

Response: Items E,F, and H are to be submitted with the proposal.

6. In section L, Value Characteristic D (VCD) – Small Business Utilization (SBU) (a), a small business subcontracting plan is called out. Predefined Value Characteristics (Volume IV) has a 10-page limitation. A small business subcontracting plan that addresses the required submission of a

Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the Section I, FAR clause 52.219-9

(Deviation)--Alternate II, cannot be accomplished within the 10-page limit set for Volume IV. Is the small business subcontracting plan meant to be included in that page limitation?

Response: No. The small business subcontracting plan is separate from the 10-page limitation.

7. Would NASA consider an approach which allow EEE part quality to be selected on other than a blanket application of EEE-INST-002 with level 2 parts quality?

RFP NNG16598592R

Amendment No. 6

Response: The vendor should submit a proposal for an infrared camera system fully compliant to the technical specification and statement of work, including the Restore-L Mission Assurance

Requirements (MAR). That is, the desire is indeed for a camera system with a uniform application of

EEE-INST-002 level 2 parts. NASA recognizes that some parts, such as the focal plane array, may not be fully compliant with EEE-INST-002. As part of the design review process after award, the vendor’s

IRCam parts list will be evaluated by a GSFC Parts Control Board (PCB). The government reserves the right to make decisions on part usage to weigh technical reliability, contract cost, or program schedule as part of the PCB process. This will be done on a case by case, part by part basis. As such, the final product may contain parts not fully compliant to EEE-INST-002 with an approved

Government waiver. However, for the formal proposal, the vendor should indeed assume as blanket application of EEE-INST-002.

8. Would NASA consider an approach which does not impose a requirement for destructive LET with a threshold of 75MeV*cm^2/mg?

Response: No. As the various Request For Proposal (RFP) documents state, these are applicable requirements for the Restore-L IRCam program. As stated above, once under contract, the

Government reserves the right to evaluate the proposed camera design and request modifications to balance cost, schedule and reliability.