FF DRFP q&a 1-13-20.docx

Q&A for NextSTEP-2 Appendix K, LEO Free Flyer DRFP & One-on-One Mtgs.

Questions

1. Question: The synopsis states one of the primary objectives to be “to successfully develop commercial markets through demonstration of products and services in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in habitable commercial destinations”. The question is whether the demonstration mission proposed has to be of a “habitable” destination, or is it sufficient to show migration to a full habitable platform. There are commercial markets that do not require a habitable platform that can be demonstrated under the demonstration program, and could later be made habitable with addition of appropriate environmental control systems.

Answer: The requested demonstration is of a habitable destination. Should the proposer’s design not be immediately habitable, the plan and timeline for habitability shall be well described and shall be completed during the demonstration mission.

2. Question: When will final Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) be released?

Answer: Final Request for Proposal (RFP) release is still TBD. However, NASA anticipates a final RFP release towards early December, pending approval from the Agency.

3. Question: Will there be a 90 day proposal response time?

Answer: Yes. Proposals will be due 90 days after the release of the final RFP.

4. Question: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) relative to estimating after task order 1, Mission Concept—how is that rippled into the scope and price of remaining task orders?

Answer: Offerors should build the proposal that best meets NASA’s requirements and best spells out their business case. Offerors should request the funding or other resources needed from NASA that supports their business case.

5. Question: Will we have the right to adjust price based on what comes out of the Mission Concept task order?

Answer: Contractors may request equitable adjustments or the re-negotiation of a task order, even in the FFP contract structure, assuming there is adequate rationale. NASA wants to receive proposals as described in the solicitation and will address unforeseen issues as they arise in the execution of the contract.

6. Question: The stated budget is $561M through 2024 to cover Appendix I & K. How will that be adjudicated?

Answer: The funding for Appendix I & K is part of the overall funding for Commercial LEO Development. The Agency will make a portfolio decision sometime in the future. The $561M is an estimate of available funds based on the runout of the FY 2020 budget request through 2024, but should not be treated as an absolute constraint. Offerors should propose what they feel is required to close their business case.

7. Question: Appendix I appears to transition to FF, and Appendix K is the FF. We envision a melding of these two solicitations. Is there an effort to look across the two solicitations to benefit each other? If they’re tied together in a submitted proposal, would that be seen as a positive?

Answer: NASA is looking for the best innovations from industry. NASA is treating these as two separate procurements that post award would be looked at as an overall portfolio decision.

8. Question: NASA coming out with using task orders for FF. Is timing identified? When would NASA ID when they’re looking for services?

Answer: The service contract portion of FF is being reviewed by NASA, but no date has yet been determined.

9. Question: Appendix H has an explicit re-opener after PDR. Given the uncertainty of FF development, would NASA consider an explicit statement addressing re-openers with regard to the FF task orders?

Answer: The use of re-openers with regard to the FF task orders is being reviewed by NASA. At this time, NASA wants to receive proposals as described in the solicitation and address unforeseen issues as they arise in the execution of the contract.

10. Question: Going to 2034 with accuracy will be challenging. Can offerors create placeholder values based on their understanding of NASA demand?

Answer: Offerors should propose their business case as they see fit. Business relevance will be one of 3 factors reviewed by NASA.

11. Question: Task orders are large. Is there a possibility for intermediate billing for milestone payments?

Answer: Milestone schedules can be negotiated and interim milestone payments can be proposed.

12. Question: Can final RFP drop be moved to after Christmas?

Answer: The final RFP release date is still TBD and depends on the number of DRFP comments received, dispositioned, and updates made to the final RFP. The team is targeting a readiness date for early December release. Regardless of posting date, offerors will have 90 days to build their proposals.

13. Question: If a company creates a subsidiary company to respond to the RFP, would legacy of the original company carry over?

Answer: Offerors should propose what they feel is appropriate.

14. Question: How much does past performance count?

Answer: Past performance is not part of the business factor and is not an evaluation criteria. The intention is to open this up to a broad set of traditional and new aerospace entities. The viability of a business plan may include the reliance upon or proposed use of proven, accomplished facilities or practices that may lead to a greater likelihood of overall success.

15. Question: Reached out to Center Point of Contact (POCs) for appendix I. When will Center POCs be released for Request for Services (RFSs) under appendix K?

Answer: The POCs are listed in attachment I of the DRFP to appendix K and NASA does not anticipate those POCs to change.

16. Question: Can we articulate tech strategies later?

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to propose their best technical solutions.

17. Question: On the Financial side: what team will evaluate?

Answer: The FF team assigned to handle procurement will evaluate proposals and will reach out to Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) as needed.

18, Question: Appendix I, J, & K are perceived to be from the same budget. How does that all work together. Awarded at the same time?

Answer: Appendix I, J, & K are all part of the same Commercial LEO Development budget. The $561M is an estimate of available funds for Appendix I & K through 2024 based on the FY 2020 budget request. Offerors are advised to not treat that as a fixed constraint. Awards for various procurement are not anticipated to be made at the same time.

19. Question: Do you feel you have Congressional support for this effort?

Answer: Yes.

20. Question: What will be the total number of awardees?

Answer: That will be dependent on the number of proposals we receive and what proposal are deemed viable. The FF Solicitation allows flexibility for multiple awardees.

21. Question: Is it allowable to bid on K as a prime and also be on a team for I?

Answer: Yes. Appendix I & K are being treated as two separate solicitations.

22. Question: The Cross Waiver liability insurance value is $100M- what is that based on? Can we change based on the total value of the spacecraft?

Answer: The cross waiver value is based on historical use of the clause for similar activities. The goal is to be adequately insured, not over insured.

23. Question: With the possible extension of the International Space Station (ISS) to 2030, is it still of potential interest to utilize ISS on something commercially hosted? Dismantling and using pieces/nodes with remaining useful life?

Answer: NASA will not dictate solutions and is open to offerors’ creative solutions.

24. Question: Services contracts- is there an ability to talk about what those are?

Answer: NASA’s needs were defined in the demand forecast as part of the 5-part plan in June 2019. Ref: https://www.nasa.gov/leo-economy/low-earth-orbit-economy

25. Question: What is the total anticipated budget for Appendix K?

Answer: The only budget line item known at this time is the publically stated number of $561M for both Appendix I & K through 2024, estimated based on the FY2020 budget request. It should not be treated as a fixed constraint. Offerors should propose what they feel is required to close their business case.

26. Question: Minimum Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) of $125,000, does that apply to each TO?

Answer: No, $125K is the minimum for the initial TO award and covers the minimum buy for the contract.

27. Question: Should the initial proposal value cover all TOs or will there be a subsequent proposal?

Answer: NASA requests a proposal value for all TOs up front, then awards and down selects will occur.

28. Question: What is the number of contracts NASA expects to establish?

Answer: There is no set number. NASA will select awardees based on the review of proposals.

29. Question: Does NASA's LEO commercialization strategy preclude NASA participation on supply side?

Answer: NASA would partner to demonstrate these capabilities; industry would then own and operate. NASA does not intend to compete with US corporate entities.

30. Question: How are the ISS International Partners (IPs) viewing this commercialization agenda?

Answer: The General response from the IPs has been a general understanding of our plan.

31. Question: The model contract contains the acronym "OFI". What does this stand for?

Answer: OFI- Offeror Fill-In.

32. Question: Must proposers be AS9100 certified?

Answer: The premise of development was to provide industry best practice examples but AS9100 certification is not a requirement.

33. Question: We have a small innovative team, but are concerned with chasing an unobtainable target. Do smaller companies with no prior relationship with NASA have a chance at an award?

Answer: NASA has no pre-conceived notions about who develops or how commercialization in LEO occurs. NASA is hoping for competition and creative ideas.

34. Question: The requirement for the Executive Summary discusses the potential for automatic disqualification if the objectives of section 1.3 are not proposed accordingly. Is that a possibility?

Answer: NASA advises all offerors to be compliant with goals and objectives of section 1.3.

35. Question: Will any preference given to current NextSTEP BAA participants?

Answer: No.

36. Question: Will any preference be given to current or past SBIR participants?

Answer: No.

37. Question: What is NASA’s best case scenario regarding proposals?

Answer: That your proposal meets our needs while providing flexibility to be a viable commercial entity.

38. Question: Is it ok to assume some progress in regulatory hurdles, or identify challenges?

Answer: If you see regulatory challenges, highlight the constraints in your proposal.

39. Question: What Government agencies will regulate this LEO Commercialization environment?

Answer: Regulation of the LEO Commercialization environment is TBD.

40. Question: Should ISS continue to be viable through 2024 or 2025, will ISS be terminated as a Commercial host in spirit of not competing with industry?

Answer: NASA’s intent is not to compete with industry, but to help enable commercial destinations.

41. Question: What are the expectations with Public Private Partnerships in Appendix K?

Answer: This is laid out explicitly in Appendix K. NASA is not procuring hardware, but providing funding for insight and a demonstration of capabilities.

42. Question: Are the FF elements open to other Government agencies (as customer)?

Answer: Potential customers will be based on a company's business plan and may include other Government Agencies.

43. Question: CRS2 services, do we assume that's available for the FF?

Answer: No, contracted CRS2 services are specific to Station deliverables.

44. Question: What about options to utilize Space Launch Systems (SLS) to get to LEO?

Answer: Offerors are free to propose what they feel is appropriate as part of their business plan.

45. Question: Is NASA anticipating overlap between Appendix I and Appendix K?

Answer: There will be concurrent I & K activities prior to agency portfolio decisions and possibly beyond.

46. Question: Would NASA consider phased build-up?

Answer: Companies should propose what works best for their business plan. If multiple launches are necessary and fit with the business plan, then propose accordingly.

47. Question: Are there any limits on business such as communication services, external platforms with material science, satellite servicing?

Answer: No.

48. Question: Is FF primarily for NASA or Commercial astronauts?

Answer: NASA is open to all possible solutions.

49. Question: Will there be funding for Appendix K if Station is extended to 2030?

Answer: Yes.

50. Question: For a FF mission, is there a minimum time for remaining in LEO?

Answer: FF is the demonstration of commercial viability in LEO, with the full intention of future use by NASA and other users.

51. Question: What are the plans for how NASA will validate business plans?

Answer: NASA will pull in appropriate SMEs to evaluate the proposals. Whoever is awarded Appendix K will help facilitate the growth of these markets.

52. Question: Does NASA foresee a published annual forecast use of FF?

Answer: That is available at the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/forecasting_future_nasa_demand_in_low-earth_orbit_revision_two_-_quantifying_demand.pdf. There may be future updates to the forecast but the timing is TBD.

53. Question: Does NASA foresee Orion going to the FF?

Answers: Decisions regarding NASA vehicles visiting the commercial FF would be determined during the follow-on service contract discussions.

54. Question: If we do a subcontractor role, would NASA recommend specific companies to engage with?

Answer: NASA cannot provide any recommendations. That is a company decision.

55. Question: Regarding appropriations, it appears FF will be awarded before the appropriations process works itself out. How will this work?

Answer: NASA deals with uncertainty in appropriations each year. Industry should come forward in their proposal to indicate what they need to meet their business case.

56. Question: Is NASA really only focused on LEO market applications?

Answer: FF’s primary focus is accommodating NASA’s needs in LEO along with the needs of other customers.

57. Question: Our company's business case might not close with this one habitat. May be considered an R&D investment for Mars and future missions—could that be proposed?

Answer: Offerors should include all assumptions and how they inform their business case and NASA will evaluate according to FF evaluation criteria.

58. Question: Regarding the Executive Summary compliance review—is it NASA’s intent to remove non-credible proposals?

Answer: NASA expects compliance with section 1.3.

59. Question: It is unclear beyond TO1 how further gates would be handled. Will there be competition for the subsequent TO's?

Answer: All TOs should be addressed in the TO proposal as there is no intention to compete subsequent TOs.

60. Question: RFP states NASA doesn’t want to be only contributor of funds. However, no corporate contribution was dictated. Was this intentional?

Answer: Industry is expected to provide a significant financial commitment to the public/private partnership. For Appendix K, a corporate contribution is required; however, there is no mandatory minimum contribution required for eligibility.

61. Question: What does NASA anticipate from docking con-op's?

Answer: Beyond requiring International Docking Systems Standard (IDSS) compatibility, NASA is intentionally non-prescriptive regarding docking con-ops or any other docking con-ops.

62. Question: Is it reasonable to provide both a habitation and transportation solution?

Answer: Proposals should include the full technical approach and business case to demonstrate commercial FF viability.

63. Question: What is the forecast for future services?

Answer: Reference: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/forecasting_future_nasa_demand_in_low-earth_orbit_revision_two_-_quantifying_demand.pdf

64. Question: Does NASA realize that the breakout of the $561M being classified in the appropriate manner can greatly affect a company’s decision to propose on this work?

Answer: The $561M projection is not a hard constraint. Offerors should propose what they feel is required to close their business case.

65. Question: Is Port ahead of FF in schedule?

Answer: Port and FF are two separate procurements on two different schedules; However, there is an intent of portfolio comparison downstream after both awards are made. Appendix I has already released its solicitation and received proposals.

66. Question: Since NASA support (facilities, property, workforce) is "non-binding," the contractor cannot use NASA support for baseline effort. Can NASA provide a mechanism for requesting and committing NASA support during the entire period of performance, permitting a broader use of these capabilities?

Answer: The LOI is considered “non-binding”. Contingencies include the contractor’s proposal being selected and the TOs being authorized. Any agreements established with the Government would be solidified during negotiations prior to contract award.

67. Question: Please clarify the following highlighted portion of this statement: “NASA intends to select one or more Offerors for award of a contract with performance ordered and executed through the issuance of Task Order(s). All selected awardees will receive an initial Task Order, at a minimum. Following a portfolio-based decision on the future capabilities potentially available to NASA at both the ISS port and FF, awardees may be issued future Task Orders.” Does NASA mean that potentially it may determine at a later time that all required portfolio services are available to it on the ISS port and therefore further progress of the free flyer milestones is unnecessary? If this is a possibility, even a remote one, then what process would NASA employ to make such a decision?

Answer: A future decision is expected to be made between Appendix I and Appendix K to determine which and how many contractors proceed to full execution of the contracts under those appendices. The process for those decisions are TBD.

68. Question: With the understanding that a Firm-Fixed price is required for the initial proposal, is there any thought to allowing updates to the FFP coming out of the Study Phase due to possible changes driven by the Study Phase outcome?

Answer: Specific updates with regard to the FF task orders is being reviewed by NASA. At this time, NASA wants to receive proposals as described in the solicitation and address unforeseen issues as they arise in the execution of the contract.

69. Question: Can NASA provide a specific definition of the public-private partnership envisioned here?

Answer: Per the NextSTEP overview webpage at https://www.nasa.gov/content/nextstep-overview: “A key component of the NextSTEP partnership model is that it provides an opportunity for NASA and industry to partner to develop capabilities that meet NASA human space exploration objectives while also supporting industry commercialization plans.” NASA is not procuring hardware, only insight and a demonstration of capabilities. The facility would be contractor owned and operated. Offerors should obtain the balance of contributions to allow their business plans to close.

70. Question: Please provide a few examples of possible clarifications or provide more information on how these would relate to requiring the Contractor to “proceed promptly" with the performance of technical direction.

Answer: The “proceed promptly” language can be different on every contract and can be revised during negotiations with an awardee to determine the proper amount of time agreeable to all parties to respond to technical direction.

71. Question: Does NASA’s inclusion of “upon assignment to the crew for a specific government mission” mean NASA intends or expects to assign or otherwise have USG personnel acting as crew (e.g. pilot, commander, etc.,) of the FF?

Answer: It will depend on the business model of the proposer as well as the follow-on services contracts for utilizing the free flyer.

72. Question: If the Contractor already has an approved Commercial Plan, would this be able to be used under Appendix K?

Answer: Yes.

73. Question: May companies propose to go to ISS as part of Appendix K or is that only for Appendix I?

Answer: Proposals may include an ISS component or activities. However, the component or activity must be for a short, temporary time-frame and companies may not propose to use the commercial port location of Node 2 Forward—that is for Appendix I. Any docking or berthing proposals would need to meet ISS Visiting Vehicle requirements. A clarification of this point will be added to the final version the Appendix K RFP.

74. Appendix H has an explicit re-opener after PDR. Given the uncertainty of FF development, would NASA consider an explicit statement addressing re-openers with regard to the FF task orders?

Answer: The use of re-openers with regard to the FF task orders was reviewed by NASA and at this time, NASA will not be utilizing re-openers for FF and wants to receive proposals in the manner described in the solicitation once the final RFP is released.

75. Please confirm Offerors can submit their own labor categories and number of such categories.

Answer: Offerors can submit their own labor categories and number of such categories.

76. Will NASA add language to the FF model contract allowing contractors to ‘no bid’ a Request for Task Plan (RFTP)?

Answer: No, all tasks should be bid upon in the proposal. However, should circumstances dictate that a contractor must withdraw from task orders not yet awarded, the contractor should inform the Government and the contractor and Government will alleviate the requirement through the mechanism described in Sec. 1.4 of the main volume of Appendix K and H.16 found in the model contract.

77. Clause H.21(b)1 references a liability waiver. Can NASA specify which liability waiver is being referenced?

Answer: There is no standard liability waiver. The waiver referenced here will be drafted based upon the specific offeror’s provided crew training plan. The clause language has been updated to reflect that.