NNH16ZCQ001K-Appendix-R-1-Questions and Answers.pdf

ID Question Answer

Would it be too late to submit an intent to bid now? Can we partner with another company as a sub?

It is past the deadline to submit a formal intent to bid; however, the solicitation is currently open, and there is nothing that excludes your from submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation. A company is free to partner with another company as a

Subcontractor.

With regard to Section VI of the proposal, it is specified that a signed model contract should be included. In the PDF of the Model Contract included in the RFP, there do not appear to be any sections with the text [OFI] or “Offeror Fill-Ins” as described in the Proposal Instructions (RFP Section

6.1.1). Can you please provide guidance?

There are 3 clauses within the model contract that require Offeror Fill-Ins (OFI). The clauses are B.2, 1852.216-78 FIRM FIXED PRICE (DEC 1988) - TBD; C.1, GSFC 52.211-91

SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016) - TBP; and H.3, 1852.232-77 LIMITATION OF FUNDS (FIXED-PRICE CONTRACT) (MAR 1989)(a) - TBD & (c) - TBD.

With regard to the signed model contract, is it anticipated that the signed contract will be incorporated into the body of the proposal since it is noted as Section VI or can it be submitted as a separate attachment similar to the other required Proposal Attachments?

The model contract should be submitted within the overall proposal as a single signed document.

In the event that the prime contractor is a small business, will G.1 in the final contract still include 1852.227-70 - NEW TECHNOLOGY—OTHER THAN

A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION (APR 2015)?

This clause will not be in a contract for a small business prime - - see FAR 1827.303(d)(1).

Is a US organization eligible to bid for the Appendix R: Lunar Logistics and

Mobility Studies (NNH16ZCQ001K-Appendix-R) program if the organization is owned by Canadian citizens with no permanent US status?

Response Pending

6 Is it allowed to attach Letter of Supports to the proposal? Letters of support are allowable as part of a proposal, but not required.

Solicitation and Q&A documents have the proposal due date as 16, 18, and

22 October 2024. Can you clarify the correct date please?

Proposals in response to Solicitation No. NNH16ZCQ001K-Appendix-R-1 are due by

12pm EDT on October 22, 2024.

Is it acceptable for a large company to submit distinct separate proposals as long as they have different cage codes?

Per the answer provided to Question 25 in the Appendix R_Questions and Responses file, for the purposes of this procurement, NASA is considering any business entity with a unique Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code as a separate "company." Therefore, NASA will accept only one proposal per CAGE code.

What/Who/When “joint working groups” will be established and who can participate in CLINs 1-6? Does that mean that restriction does not exist for

CLIN 7?

Domain-specific joint working groups are intended to foster technical exchange between NASA subject matter experts and partners. These working groups will be established at NASA's discretion. Amendment 01 to the RFP clarifies that working groups may be employed for any of the CLINs. Any more substantive participation or collaboration would be addressed through post-award contract modification, as described in the RFP, section 5.1.

10 Can you please advise on where we can locate that document?

The Omnibus BAA is located at the following link:

https://sam.gov/opp/9cdc02f913d74b30b573d766e81cade1/view

Are companies still eligible to submit proposals for the Lunar Logistics and

Mobility Studies if we did not submit our intent to bid on 6 Sept 2024?

Companies are eligible to submit proposals for the Lunar Logistics and Mobility

Studies solicitation if they did not submit an intent to bid on September 6, 2024.

For NNH16ZCQ001K-Appendix-R, is the file Attachment A_Appendix R.pdf uploaded on Aug 16 considered to be the final RFP or is there a final RFP file yet to be uploaded to SAM.gov? Also, the due date for proposals is Oct 22, correct? Not Oct 16 or Oct 18 as specified in the aforementioned PDF?

No. The Request for Proposa (RFP)/Solicitation No. NNH16ZCQ001K-Appendix-R-1, Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Broad Agency

Announcement (BAA) Appendix R, was posted to SAM.gov on September 20, 2024.

The due date for proposals is October 22, 2024.

Paragraph VII. Price Proposal (p.11) of Section 6.1.1 Proposal Format and Contents instructs that: “The Offeror shall provide total direct labor hours by skill mix, travel, and subcontracts in accordance with the price proposal sample format set forth in the omnibus BAA, Attachment A.” We could not locate an attachment with the referenced price proposal sample format.

Please advise.

Response Pending

Given the complexity of the proposal requirements, would the Government kindly consider extending the due date 10-14 days to allow vendors more time to prepare their response?

The Government does not intend to extend the due date for proposals at this time.

Please continue to monitor SAM.gov for updates.

The Sep 27 version of the subject RFP document (Appendix R) states: “A Model Contract is provided in Attachment E of this Appendix. Please be advised that all sections designated with the text [OFI] represent “Offeror Fill-Ins”. Offerors should fill in [OFI]’s and submit as part of the signed model contract with the proposal submittal.” However, the model contract NASA provided with the RFP documents does not seem to contain any OFI designations nor any places for offerors to fill in blanks. Can you please clarify whether another document will be posted by NASA or if different instructions will be provided to offerors?

Response Pending

Could you please confirm that it is acceptable for a large company to submit distinct separate proposals as long as they have different cage codes?

Per the answer provided to Question 25 in the Appendix R_Questions and Responses file, for the purposes of this procurement, NASA is considering any business entity with a unique Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code as a separate "company." Therefore, NASA will accept only one proposal per CAGE code.

Does NASA anticipate any potential delay to the proposal due date, currently October 22, 2024?

The Government does not anticipate any potential delays to the proposal due date at this time. Please continue to monitor SAM.gov for updates.

Regarding pricing inputs for subcontractors to primes, is a ROM sufficient with a stated full time equivalent level of effort to the study proposal?

These are Fixed Price proposals. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss.

Is there a process where subcontractors can provide specifics on pricing to NASA, if required, separately to protect proprietary information on rates, G&A, overhead, etc?

Appendix R pricing instructions reference NextSTEP-2 omnibus Attachment A for pricing formating. Subcontractor information is not being requested by cost element on a fixed price contract.

Can NASA please provide clarification concerning Appendix R; pgs 18 and 19, Midpoint and Final Study Reports. What objectives does NASA require the contractor to map to? 2.1 or 2.2?

By addressing the objectives identified in Section 2.2, the studies should incorporate the goals identified in Section 2.1.

The Final RFP, Section 6, VII. Price Proposal, clarified the Offeror shall provide "total direct labor hours by skill mix, travel, and subcontracts in accordance with the price proposal sample format set forth in the omnibus BAA, Attachment A." The Government's response to Questions #32 and #33 indicate that certified cost or pricing data is not required, as long as adequate competition exists. Omnibus BAA, Attachment A Price Proposal

Sample Format identifies cost elements, both price and rate percentage be identified, which is consistent with certified cost or pricing data. Can the Government clarify if Offerors are permitted to modify the Omnibus BAA

Price Proposal Sample Format consistent with a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), while maintaining compliance with Section 6, VII. Price Proposal instructions?

Response Pending

The Final RFP, Section 6, VII. Price Proposal, clarified the Offeror shall provide "total direct labor hours by skill mix, travel, and subcontracts in accordance with the price proposal sample format set forth in the omnibus BAA, Attachment A." The Government's response to Question #34 states that Offerors FFP proposals will be evaluated in conjunction with FAR 15.404-1(b). FAR 15.404-1(b) evaluates a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit, providing adequate price competition exists. Per FFP proposals in the FAR 15.404-1(b) clause, can we eliminate visibility into direct, indirect, and profit assumptions?

Response Pending

We request the government provide clarification regarding what information it desires for qualifications of the key personnel. For example, does the government wish to see specific education, years of experience, relevant work experience, etc?

When providing qualifications for the key personnel, Offerors should include information, including education, experience, expertise, credentials, that they believe is applicable to the Appendix R scope.

In Section III, where NASA refers to the capabilities of the company, is the Agency looking for company capabilities; or are they looking for capabilities to perform implementation, design, manufacturing, and testing in the future?

When describing corporate capabilities, Offerors should describe those resources and assets that will enable them to successfully execute the scope of Appendix R.

Implementation, design, manufacturing and testing are not within this scope of work;

however, experience and expertise in those areas could add credence to the Offeror's proposal.

For Attachments B and C, is NASA expecting a rollup for the entire study – including all CLINs? Or is NASA looking for a per-CLIN payment schedule that includes milestones and deliverables?

NASA is expecting an integrated milestone payment schedule and set of deliverables that address the Offeror's entire study effort.

Given that NASA doesn’t intend to ‘cherry pick’ studies within an individual proposal that includes multiple CLINS, may we propose an integrated milestone payment plan that includes work done on all CLINS for each proposed payment milestone?

NASA is expecting an integrated milestone payment schedule and set of deliverables that address the Offeror's entire study effort.

The Sep 27 version of the subject RFP document (Appendix R) states: “A Model Contract is provided in Attachment E of this Appendix. Please be advised that all sections designated with the text [OFI] represent “Offeror Fill-Ins”. Offerors should fill in [OFI]’s and submit as part of the signed model contract with the proposal submittal.” However, the model contract NASA provided with the RFP documents does not seem to contain any OFI designations nor any places for offerors to fill in blanks. Can you please clarify whether another document will be posted by NASA or if different instructions will be provided to offerors? However, the model contract

NASA provided with the RFP documents does not seem to contain any OFI designations nor any places for offerors to fill in blanks. Can you please clarify whether another document will be posted by NASA or if different instructions will be provided to offerors?

Response Pending

If awarded CLIN 7, can deliverables for CLIN 7 incorporate all other CLINs addressed as opposed to individual deliverables for each CLIN awarded?

NASA is expecting an integrated milestone payment schedule and set of deliverables that address the Offeror's entire study effort.

Will NASA consider renaming the CLINs to Studies or something other than

CLINs as this study effort does not really align to CLINs?

The soliction structure is intended to reflect the individual areas of focus that NASA would like our partners to study.

NASA participation in Joint Working Groups vs NASA participation in

Maturation Phase vs Development phase - what does that mean? What are the Joint Working Groups?

Domain-specific joint working groups are intended to foster technical exchange between NASA subject matter experts and partners. These working groups will be established at NASA's discretion. Amendment 01 to the RFP clarifies that working groups may be employed for any of the CLINs. Any more substantive participation or collaboration would be addressed through post-award contract modification, as described in the RFP, section 5.1.

Should Gateway be used/considered as an interim point for assets/logistics delivery/staging and be included in the studies?

NASA has intentionally left the trade space open to solicit the most efficient architectures and solutions from our study partners.

At the Midpoint Review, it is stated in the RFP that “Contractor shall provide an estimated rough order of magnitude cost for each conceptual system from ATP through first flight demonstration of each applicable system” - this seems challenging to develop a ROM through first flight demonstration at this early study phase. Will NASA consider modifying this language to reflect ROM cost through initial design phase of each applicable concept?

NASA is seeking ROM costs throught the first flight demonstration in order to assist with resource planning and program affordability decisions. NASA understands that there would be more uncertainty associated with costs in later program phases.

What is NASA’s approach for collaboration across selected CLINs? Given there may be synergies or opportunities to align on concept maturation, will these opportunities be managed by NASA with insight provided to help maturation where synergies exist? For example, if a concept for CLIN 006 selected would benefit for concepts from CLIN 003 but these are separate companies, will NASA facilitate engagements or a forum for all studies to be reviewed at the appropriate level?

NASA does not intend to facilitate collaboration between multiple study efforts. As logistics and mobility concepts mature, NASA will manage and facilitate integration activities for any subsequent development.

(Previously submitted this question on Sept 30) NASA Blackout notice: A blackout notice was issued on Friday, Sep 27 concerning the NS2 App R BAA prohibiting all NASA personnel from communications with non-NASA entities concerning this acquisition. The acquisition, Q&A and Industry Day discusses the ability to have NASA SMEs participate as part of an industry team and that any costs associated with that support should be included in the Industry prime offeror’s price - we cannot accomplish this without being able to communicate with NASA personnel. Please clarify how we are to move forward in this area.

Domain-specific joint working groups are intended to foster technical exchange between NASA subject matter experts and partners. These working groups will be established at NASA's discretion. Amendment 01 to the RFP clarifies that working groups may be employed for any of the CLINs. Any more substantive participation or collaboration would be addressed through post-award contract modification, as described in the RFP, section 5.1.

Contractor possesses a standing IDIQ contract vehicle with NASA that all NASA centers, divisions, directorates, etc. may use to place Task Orders on that contract. The IDIQ allows for Cost plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Task Orders.

Would NASA consider awarding a CPFF task order under the NASA IDIQ?

NASA intends to make award via the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) model contract provided in the solicitation.

In Section 6.1.1 Proposal Format and Contents, it states “Offerors shall identify their proposal as Company Name – TBD Proposal Submission and complete all required information field sin the online submission portal.”

Am I naming the concept study file “ZIN – Proposal Submission”? As for proposal attachments A-F, what is the file title template: “ZIN – Attachment

Proposal files should follow the naming convention "Offeror Name_File Description".

For example "ACME Corporation_Technical Proposal", "ACME

Corporation_Attachment A", etc.

Paragraph VII. Price Proposal (p.11) of Section 6.1.1 Proposal Format and Contents instructs that: “The Offeror shall provide total direct labor hours by skill mix, travel, and subcontracts in accordance with the price proposal sample format set forth in the omnibus BAA, Attachment A.” We could not locate an attachment with the referenced price proposal sample format.

Please advise.

Response Pending

Could you tell me if NASA intends to release the answers to Offeror questions regarding the Next Space Technologies for Exploration

Partnerships -2 (NextSTEP-2) BAA for Appendix R: Lunar Logistics and Mobility Studies (NNH16ZCQ001K-Appendix-R)?

NASA is currently in the process of compiling questions received in response to the solicitation. All questions and answers will be posted to SAM.gov. Please continue to monitor SAM.gov for updates.

I am interested in submitting a proposal for one of the CLIN’s of the NextStep-2 Appendix R opportunity. I didn’t realize we are in a black-out period limiting interaction with NASA employees. I was under the impression it is OK (if not encouraged) to have NASA SME’s on the proposal (i.e., budgeted). Am I able to communicate with a NASA employee about this?

Domain-specific joint working groups are intended to foster technical exchange between NASA subject matter experts and partners. These working groups will be established at NASA's discretion. Amendment 01 to the RFP clarifies that working groups may be employed for any of the CLINs. Any more substantive participation or collaboration would be addressed through post-award contract modification, as described in the RFP, section 5.1.

I am interested in submitting a proposal for one of the CLIN’s of the NextStep-2 Appendix R opportunity. I didn’t realize we are in a black-out period limiting interaction with NASA employees. I was under the impression it is OK (if not encouraged) to have NASA SME’s on the proposal (i.e., budgeted). Am I able to communicate with a NASA employee about this?

Domain-specific joint working groups are intended to foster technical exchange between NASA subject matter experts and partners. These working groups will be established at NASA's discretion. Amendment 01 to the RFP clarifies that working groups may be employed for any of the CLINs. Any more substantive participation or collaboration would be addressed through post-award contract modification, as described in the RFP, section 5.1.

Sheet1