ISM_FabLab_NextSTEP-2_BAA_AMENDMENT_2.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

Advanced Exploration Systems Division, Human Exploration and Operations Mission

Directorate and the Space Technology Mission Directorate

300 E ST SW

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships -2

(NextSTEP-2)

Broad Agency Announcement NNH16ZCQ001K-ISM FabLab

Appendix B: In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) Multi-material

Fabrication Laboratory (FabLab)

Amendment 2

Originally Issued: May 3, 2017

Amendment 1: July 14, 2017

Amendment 2: August 28, 2017

NOIs Due: June 16, 2017, 5:00 PM Eastern Time

Proposals Due: Sepetember 15, 2017, 5:00 PM Eastern Time

NextSTEP-2 Appendix B: ISM Fabrication Laboratory NNH16ZCQ001K-ISM FabLab

NextSTEP-2 Appendix B: ISM FabLab Change Log

Version Description of Changes Date

Original Release ----- May 3, 2017

Amendment 1 Change solicitation number and extend delivery date July 14, 2017

Amendment 2 Extend delivery date due to natural disaster August 28, 2017

Introduction and Background

1.1 Background

NASA supports public-private partnerships for achieving its strategic goals and objectives for expanding the frontiers of knowledge, capability, and opportunities in space. The next step for human spaceflight beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is into cislunar space and destinations to planetary bodies. An important part of NASA’s strategy is to stimulate the commercial space industry while leveraging those commercial capabilities through public-private partnerships and potentially through future contracts to deliver mission capabilities at lower costs. NASA’s ultimate goal is to develop capabilities that will enable missions that are not reliant on resupply from Earth thus making them more sustainable and affordable. NASA is employing a capability-driven approach to its human spaceflight strategy. This approach is based on developing a suite of evolving capabilities that provide specific functions to solve exploration challenges. These investments in initial capabilities can continuously be leveraged and reused, enabling more complex operations over time and exploration of more distant solar system destinations.

Through the continual human presence of humans on the ISS for almost two decades, significant strides have been made in understanding the reliability of human support technologies and the development of human health countermeasures to combat long-duration microgravity effects. To further increase reliability of space-based earth-independent missions, on-demand manufacturing capabilities will become a critical component of the architecture. NASA has already demonstrated that on-demand manufacturing can be performed in microgravity. Some key technical challenges to make in-space manufacturing as part of routine operations include the ability to manufacture components of various geometries with materials that meet the standards for use in space.

To that end and to engage Private Industry, NASA issues this appendix for an In-Space

Manufacturing (ISM) Multi-Material Fabrication Laboratory (FabLab). This solicitation provides details about the specific manufacturing technologies needed to support the goals of the Next

Space Technologies for Exploration Partnership (NextSTEP). The ISM FabLab supports the guiding principles outlined in section 1.1 of the NextSTEP-2 Omnibus. ISM FabLab specifically supports: Fiscal Realism; Technology Push and Pull; Gradual Build Up of Capability; and

Architecture Openness and Resilience.

1.2 The Mission of In-Space Manufacturing (ISM)

NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) project, conducted in partnership with joint workforce sponsored by the Space Technology Mission

Directorate (STMD), has been established with the objective to identify and implement on-demand manufacturing solutions for fabrication, maintenance, and repair required for sustainable Exploration Missions.

Sustainable, long-duration human spaceflight missions require on-demand manufacturing capabilities that will provide solutions for fabrication and repair of components, electronics, consumables, tools, and structures. The ability to produce parts and components on-demand during missions has the potential to significantly reduce mission logistics mass, increase reliability, mitigate risk, and enable novel capabilities by taking advantage of the unique and unforeseen opportunities created by in-space manufacturing.

Current logistics operations for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) systems, such as the ISS, rely on regular resupply missions from Earth. NASA recognizes that a new manufacturing, design, and sustainment paradigm must be embraced in order to achieve Earth-independent missions.

1.3 Program Objective and Acquisition Strategy

NASA is soliciting proposals for the development of a multi-material fabrication laboratory

(FabLab) capable of end-to-end manufacturing during space missions. The ISM FabLab will be demonstrated on the International Space Station (ISS). This ISM FabLab will be the first step toward development and testing of a fully-integrated, on-demand manufacturing capability that is able to produce finished, ready to use, products for Exploration Missions. NASA’s strategy is to implement a phased approach of incrementally increasing capabilities toward fulfilling the durations and missions required for missions in cis-lunar space and beyond. This BAA process will follow its own three-phased approach.

The objective of the first phase, Phase A, is to demonstrate a scalable ground-based prototype of an ISM FabLab system (with the capabilities described in section 2.1) in order for NASA to better assess and facilitate development of this technology. In addition, a limited number of the awarded ground prototype development units may be requested for government testing to validate or capture lessons learned in form, fit, and functionality of the prototypes and interfaces.

All proposers should include the option for this additional NASA on-site testing.

The objective of Phase B is to further mature technologies identified throughout this document to a pre-flight deliverable. The specific details of Phase B and the path or path(s) needed will be released under a follow-on BAA.

Phase C will be a flight demonstration on the ISS to demonstrate the feasibility of ISM, to fully categorize the risk to crew, and to develop, refine, and create standards for the manufacturing processes and properties of materials produced in a controlled microgravity environment, as well as the ability to fabricate integrated circuits as described in section 2.2. The specific details of

Phase C may change as informed by the results of Phase B. The Phase C details will be released as a follow-on BAA or other acquisition vehicle.

It is anticipated that the development of the desired capabilities within a singular facility will require the integration of multiple enabling technologies. Thus, partnering between industries with complementary technologies, as well as with academic research units, will result in the most competitive proposals and is strongly encouraged.

This appendix is currently only requesting proposals for the Phase A ground based demonstrations with a measurable ability to mature into flight demonstrations on the ISS within three years. Future follow-on BAAs may be utilized to further evolve the ISS demonstration into next generation Fabrication Laboratory systems for Deep Space systems and

Earth Independent systems.

Table 1. ISM FabLab BAA Award Phases

Phase A Phase B Phase C

18-month period of performance with a continuation review at 12 months.

Minimum deliverables include: An operational bench-top/lab-level prototype, Preliminary Design

Review (PDR) package including a

Concept of Operations, characterization and test articles, Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Assessments of capabilities and integrated system with defined maturation paths, and a full report of development and test data. NASA may elect to extend one or more awardees for additional period of performance in Phase A Technology development if it is deemed in the best interest of the Government.

12-18 month period of performance. Minimum deliverables include: An

Engineering Test Unit

(ETU) Prototype, characterization and test articles, Critical Design

Review (CDR) package, Minimum of TRL 4-5 for the integrated system.

18-month period of performance.

Minimum Deliverables include: Flight certified

ISM FabLab

Technology

Demonstration System to fly on board the ISS, operations support, Minimum of TRL 6-7.

Note that this BAA is for phase A ONLY. The results of phase A will inform the criteria for Phase B, and similarly, the results of Phase B will inform the criteria for Phase C.

These updated criteria will be released in a follow-on BAA. TRL Levels are defined in

NPR 7123.1B Appendix E

2 Funding Opportunity Description of Solicitation Topic

2.1 Description of Solicitation Topic

NASA is seeking proposals to provide a feasible design and demonstration of a first-generation

In-space Manufacturing Fabrication Laboratory for demonstration on the ISS with the capabilities depicted in Table 2. The desired capabilities are divided into Minimum Target capabilities, which all Phase A proposals must address, and Objective Target Capabilities, which are highly desired. Given that the ultimate goal is an integrated system to support long-duration human spaceflight missions, the incorporation of as many of these as possible will increase the overall merit of the Phase A proposal. If any of these capabilities cannot be met in the initial design, a credible technology and design maturation path (e.g. using modularity or upgradability) should be addressed. Evaluation criteria and weighting details can be found in Section 5.

The following is a listing of objectives for this phase of the habitation system development:

Table 2. ISM FabLab System Capabilities

Minimum Target Capabilities for a Ground Based Demonstration Prototype at End of Phase A

Objective Target Capabilities Flight Demonstration on the ISS Express Rack for Phase C

I. The system should have the ability for on-demand manufacturing of metallic components, designed to work in the micro gravity environment.

I. On-demand manufacturing of multiple materials in micro gravity, including various aerospace-grade metallics, polymers, composites and conductive

(i.e. ‘digital’) inks are highly desired.

II. ISM FabLab Design must meet ISS

Express Rack operational constraints

(i.e. volume, power, etc.) as defined in Attachment 1 and maintain a minimum build envelope of

6”x6”x6”.

II. ISM FabLab Design must meet ISS

Express Rack operational constraints

(i.e. volume, power, etc.) as defined in

Attachment 1 and provide as large of a build volume as possible.

III. The system should limit required astronaut operations by optimizing

Earth-based remote commanding capability for all nominal tasks, including part removal and handling.

No nominal task should require more than 15 minutes of astronaut tended time.

III. In addition to the minimum objective, the system will incorporate earth-based remote commanding and/or autonomous capability for all nominal, maintenance, off-nominal† tasks, including part removal and handling.

IV. The system should incorporate remote and/or autonomous validation

& verification capabilities to assure

IV. The system should incorporate remediation capability for defects identified during the in-line validation for a Ground Based Demonstration Prototype at End of Phase A

Objective Target Capabilities Flight Demonstration on the ISS Express Rack for Phase C quality control (tolerances, voids, etc.) of parts produced.

and verification (quality control) process.

† Off-Nominal conditions will be determined on a case by case basis after award of Phase A.

NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 7120.8 defines a prototype as: “A high fidelity unit that demonstrates critical aspects of the engineering processes involved in the development of the operational unit. Engineering test units are intended to closely resemble the final product

(hardware/software) to the maximum extent possible and are built and tested so as to establish confidence that the design will function in the expected environments.”

It is understood that respondents may not have complete access or knowledge of NASA safety, interface, and operational requirements for flight payloads. Thus, upon selection, awardees will be provided a NASA interface consultant with expertise in designing payloads to meet the

NASA unique requirements with the intent of streamlining the flight integration process for the awardee and mitigating cost and schedule risks due to a steep learning curve of NASA processes.

2.2 Phase B and C Target Capabilities

Phase A does not require inclusion of on-demand electronics fabrication or in-situ resource utilization; however, they are currently being considered as highly desirable target capabilities for Phase B and C. Therefore, these areas will be addressed in proposals for Phase A as part of the technology and design maturation path (see section 4.2.1.2. Phase A Deliverables).

On-demand Electronics Fabrication: The ability to fabricate and/or repair complex electronics will be necessary for long-duration missions. Although Phase A only addresses this capability as an “Objective Target”, this ability to manufacture and/or repair electronic components on-demand is being considered for Phase B and/or C. Thus, inclusion of this capability in the Phase

A design/approach will strengthen the merit of the proposal.

On-demand electronics fabrication should address: energy storage and capture; simple sensors, actuators, and switches; a controllable range of capacitance, inductance, and resistance, and;

wireless communication and power transmission. Integrating existing integrated circuits (IC’s) and utilizing pick and place capabilities are also desirable. Please note that every capability listed here does not have to be addressed for a submission to be considered.

In-Situ Resource Utilization: Phase B or C awards, or future BAA releases, may take into consideration the ability to utilize feedstock prepared from in-situ raw resources on a destination surface system, such as processed Lunar or Martian regolith, including extracted metals such as

Iron, Silicon, Aluminum, Titanium, and Magnesium. Martian and Lunar simulants, such as NU-

LHT and JSC Mars-1A, which represent certain chemical, mineralogical, or mechanical properties of these surface destination should be addressed for consideration from a partially to minimally processed state.

To reiterate, the results of phase A will inform the criteria for Phase B, and similarly, the results of Phase B will inform the criteria for Phase C. Therefore, this provides insight into future award desirements and/or requirements.

2.3 General Information for Participants

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Announcement Title: NextSTEP-2 BAA, Appendix B: In-space Manufacturing (ISM)

Fabrication Laboratory (FabLab)

Responsible Office: Advanced Exploration Systems Division

Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate

Washington, DC 20546

Point of Contact: Jason Crusan

Director, Advanced Exploration Systems

Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate

E-mail: HQ-NextSTEP-BAA@mail.nasa.gov

Notice of Intent: Due June 16th, 5:00pm Eastern Time. To assist in the planning of the proposal evaluation process, NASA strongly encourages the submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose by all prospective offerors. The NOI should contain the following information: name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and institutional affiliation of the offeror, and the solicitation topic in which you intend to propose (NextSTEP-2, Appendix B: ISM FabLab). NOIs shall be submitted electronically to the Point of Contact e-mail address above. Please note that NOIs are strongly encouraged, but are not required. Not submitting an NOI will not impact the selection process.

Inquiries: Due June 2, 2017 5:00pm Eastern Time. There will be an opportunity to submit written questions for each appendix released. The questions shall not contain proprietary information nor require proprietary information in the response. NASA will not provide evaluations, opinions, or recommendations regarding any suggested approaches or concepts. All questions shall be directed to the NextSTEP e-mail box HQ-

NextSTEP-BAA@mail.nasa.gov no later than the date specified above. Inquiries shall identify the BAA number and this Appendix in the subject field of e-mails.

Industry Forum: A NextSTEP-2 Partnership virtual forum will be held for this

Appendix and proposers will have a chance to ask questions about this particular mailto:HQ-nextstep-baa@mail.nasa.gov solicitation. The tentative date for the forum is May 23, 2017 11:00am Eastern Time.

The meeting agenda and related information will be posted to the NextSTEP website.

Proposals Due: Proposals must be submitted electronically in accordance with instructions no later than September 15, 2017, 5:00pm Eastern Time to the NextSTEP e-mail box HQ-NextSTEP-BAA@mail.nasa.gov. The e-mail submission shall include the

BAA number and “Appendix B – ISM FabLab Proposal” in the subject field of the e-mail.

3 Eligibility Information

3.1 Eligibility of Applicants

This solicitation topic is open to non-Government U.S. institutions (companies, universities, nonprofit organizations) and foreign institutions. NASA civil servants, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

(JPL) employees, national laboratories, and Federally Funded Research and development Centers

(FFRDCs) shall not be proposed as a Prime Contractor on any effort associated with this announcement but may participate as a team member. Proposals from foreign organizations must comply with Section 3.2, Guidelines for International Participation, of the omnibus portion of this BAA. Other eligibility information is also included in the omnibus portion of this BAA.

3.2 Corporate Resources

Offerors are required to show a minimum of 20% corporate contribution (10% for a Small

Business as defined by the SBIR small business eligibility, as posted here:

http://sbir.nasa.gov/content/nasa-sbirsttr-program-definitions), made within the last five years, that is directly relevant to the proposed effort. 50% of the Corporate Contribution must be invested coincident with the period of performance of this effort. Offerors shall describe how they intend to meet this eligibility requirement in Section II of the proposal. An appendix to the proposal shall provide documentation in an attachment showing proof of corporate contribution.

Corporate contribution may be in the form of direct labor, travel, consumables or other in-kind contributions. Also, other reasonable forms of corporate contribution may include investments in special facilities or equipment, tooling or other prior private investment, and internally funded technology maturation such as Independent Research and Development (IRAD) are deemed acceptable for this effort. For this BAA, state and local government contributions may be included with private corporate resources.

The value of participation by federally funded government funded participants and/or the use of federal government facilities shall be added to the price to the government for determining whether the 20% required corporate contribution has been met.

Criteria and procedures for the allowability and allocability of cash and non-cash contributions shall be governed by FAR Parts 30 and 31, and NFS Parts 1830 and 1831 NASA reserves the right to hold due diligence discussions to make reasonable determinations regarding corporate contributions.

mailto:HQ-NextSTEP-BAA@mail.nasa.gov http://sbir.nasa.gov/content/nasa-sbirsttr-program-definitions

4 Proposal Submission Information

4.1 Instructions for Proposals

See omnibus BAA for general instructions. Where instructions are different, the specific instructions in this section are in addition to or supersede the general instructions in the omnibus

BAA.

4.1.1 Proposal Format and Contents

The proposal format and content requirements as outlined in this section below are specific to this appendix. The required sections of the proposal must be submitted as one searchable, unlocked PDF file with edit permission enabled. Applicants must comply with the format and page limit requirements described in the omnibus BAA, as well as any additional requirements specified in this appendix. The provisions in this appendix will supersede any conflicting provisions in the omnibus solicitation, and apply to this appendix only.

There is no limit for file size limit for proposals (This is an exception to Section 2.3.1(c) of the

NASA Guidebook for Proposers). Only attachments that are specifically requested either in this solicitation or in appendices to this solicitation should be submitted.

Requirements in this appendix supersede any requirements in the NASA Guidebook for

Proposers or in the omnibus solicitation.

Proposal Section Page Limitations

Title Page 1

Executive Summary (Section I) 4

Proof of Eligibility (Section II) 3

System Concept, Technical Approach, Business Addendum (Sections III-V) 20

Capabilities (Section VI) 5

Data Rights (Section VII) 1

Price Proposal (Section VIII) No limit

Attachments: No limit

A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11" with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point font, with the exception of tables and figures, which may use 8-point font. Pages in excess of the page limits for each section will not be evaluated.

Proposals received by the Government after the published date and time for receipt will not be accepted.

4.1.1.1 Title Page:

• Include any Notice of Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal Information.

• An optional graphic image may be included.

• The Proposer’s name of the proposal or proposed project

• Date of the proposal

• The title, solicitation number and Appendix being responded to of this

Announcement

• Organization name and address.

• Proposer Point of Contact name, title, e-mail address, and phone number.

4.1.1.2 Executive Summary: Describe the proposal’s prominent and distinguishing features.

The Executive Summary should provide an overview of the proposed effort that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the proposal be selected.

4.1.1.3 Proof of Eligibility: Provide information showing that the Respondent and all team members are eligible participants as stipulated in Section 3 of the omnibus BAA and this Appendix. Describe compliance with participation requirements as needed. Explain how the required corporate contribution resources will be satisfied.

4.1.1.4 System Concept: The offeror shall describe the overall system concept and its functions (concept of deployment and operation), how it addresses the objectives and requirements in this Announcement, and its maturity (Technology Readiness Level, if appropriate). Proposers should describe how the proposed system is on the path to a long duration deep space FabLab.

4.1.1.5 Technical Approach: The offeror shall describe the approach and schedule for designing, analyzing, and testing the proposed system concept, including the plans to mature key technologies. At a minimum, the following items should be addressed:

• ISM FabLab Design and Operations Concept;

• Material Selections and Characterization Approach;

• Technical and analytical details to support the proposed ISM FabLab processes and design. This should include technical rationale for the design and process choices relative to meeting the objectives as defined in Section

1 and the corresponding Figures of Merit (FOMs) defined in Section 5.

• Technology and Design Maturation Path: TRL Assessment and

Maturation Path thru Phase C ISS Flight Demonstration. Clearly describe plan to accomplish all items in table 2, including On-Demand Electronics fabrication and in-situ resource utilization for phase B and C. Include brief summary of any past activities and tests that are relevant to these areas.

• End-to-end development schedule with estimated price for follow on phases developing flight unit(s)

• Technical Risks and corresponding mitigation approach to risks identified

4.1.1.6 Business Addendum: The offeror shall describe how this activity advances the intent of the public-private partnership concept and meets NASA’s strategy to stimulate the commercial space industry while leveraging those same commercial capabilities through this partnership and future contracts to deliver mission capabilities, by:

• Providing a business overview

• Defining customer/partnership model

• Listing business case(s) that are leveraged by the hardware development

• Explaining business risks

4.1.1.7 Capabilities: The offeror shall include any previous experience designing and developing space-qualified systems applicable to the objectives of this Announcement.

4.1.1.8 Intellectual Property: The offeror shall describe the approach for data rights and inventions, and how they meet the objectives outlined under the Omnibus BAA in

Section 2.3, Intellectual Property.

4.1.1.9 Price Proposal: The price proposal shall include the overall firm fixed price for the capability/technology development project. The offeror shall provide total direct labor hours by skill mix, travel, and subcontracts in accordance with the sample format set forth in omnibus Attachment B.

• For proposals exceeding $750K, fully certified cost or pricing data will be required. Offerors should reference corporate resources described in

Section II (Eligibility).

• Pricing shall be structured by Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and sub-CLINs such that the Government may select execution of CLINs based on programmatic requirements and availability of resources

• In the Price Forms contained in the omnibus BAA instructions, the offeror shall add a table listing the breakout and value of corporate resources

• In the Price Forms contained in the omnibus BAA instructions, the offeror shall add a list of government-contributed resources, including GFE/GFP, and the estimated value

4.1.1.10 Attachments:

• Draft Statement-of-Work: The offeror shall provide a draft statement-of-work that includes a work breakdown structure and a description of the major tasks, and products linked to the milestone achievements. The draft SOW shall also contain proposed milestones and deliverables.

o Proposed Technical and Payment Milestones: The offeror shall provide a list of proposed capability/technology development and demonstration milestones. Each milestone shall include a descriptive title, objective entrance/success criteria, and planned achievement dates (month and year). Milestones should represent significant technical and business progress in the program. At least one milestone per calendar quarter is recommended. The proposal shall also include payment milestones with a title, associated objective success criteria/deliverables, payment amount, and planned dates for completion of the milestone.

o Deliverables: Describe the products to be delivered and estimated delivery dates.

Unless specified in the Appendix, format is assumed to be contractor format with approval by the Government. Exemplar deliverables could include: routine status and/or technical reports and briefings, Technical Interchange Meeting presentations and notes, action items, design, integration and test documentation, final briefings, technical data and papers.

• Resumes: Resumes may be included for key personnel. In general, resumes should be limited to no more than 2 pages each.

• Corporate Resources documentation (as necessary): This attachment should include documents containing verifiable evidence of the corporate contributions that are being proposed.

• Key Facilities and Equipment (as necessary): Facilities critical to the proposed effort or with unique features and/or capabilities should be identified and described here

• Requested GFP/GFE: Include a SOW or description of tasks, government facilities and equipment, or other Government in-kind contributions and a related cost estimate for those resources and any associated letters of commitment and associated points of contact.

4.2 Additional Proposal Guidance

4.2.1.1 Contract Structure

• Proposals shall structure the SOW tasks, sub-system development and associated activities and deliverables into severable CLINs broken out by the FabLab Target

Capabilities as defined in Table 2 in order for the government to be able to efficiently negotiate and activate CLINs based on programmatic priorities and funding availability. Inclusion of “No Later Than” Start dates for each CLIN will facilitate government decisions.

• Phase A will consist of an 18-month development effort with a continuation review to be held at 12 months. It is the intent to continue with Phase B and C options with additional details provided after the 12-month continuation review.

• Offerors are to propose fixed price performance based milestones that mature the design and development of the system concept up to a full-size ground prototype unit(s)

• Payment milestones should occur approximately every quarter, but not more frequently than monthly

• Payment milestones should reference technical milestones accomplished for that payment

• Exemplar technical milestones include: subsystem development and test, hardware or software testing, design reviews, integration milestones.

• May use NASA NPR 7123 as reference/lessons learned on design review content

• May propose optional fixed price performance based milestones that provide additional system maturation or risk reduction

4.2.1.2 Phase A Deliverables:

4.2.1.2.1 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) package including integrated ISM FabLab system design documentation for hardware/software and Concept of Operations. (See NPR

7123.1B in References)

4.2.1.2.2 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment with defined maturation path thru

Phase C ISS Flight Demonstration. (See NPR 7123.1B Appendix E in References)

4.2.1.2.3 Operational bench-top/lab-level Demonstration. One or more operational ground demonstration units will be delivered to NASA for verification and checkout.

4.2.1.2.4 ISM FabLab Test Articles Characterization & Design Database:

• ISM FabLab Test Articles: Test Articles will be fabricated via the proposed process and will be delivered to NASA for independent characterization and testing. The specific quantity and type of test items will be determined after award based upon the proposed ISM FabLab process(es). Tests will adhere to the relevant ASTM standards based upon the material type and process. A range coupon, such as the example depicted in Figure 1, will be used to assess the tolerances and capabilities of the prototype Fab Lab system(s), such as: overall dimensional accuracy, surface roughness, small feature resolution, and the ability to fabricate overhanging features with limited or no support structures.

• Material Characterization Report: A Material Characterization Plan shall be delivered with the test articles and should address, at a minimum, material strength, modulus, Poisson’s ratio, strain, and z-direction (through-thickness) tensile strength, accounting for anisotropy, if applicable. Characterization plans should also assess the microstructures, emphasizing the cross-sectional analysis of the material phases, as applicable. NASA personnel will work with awardees to refine the material characterization plan(s) and test articles/range coupons based on the processes selected.

• Test Articles Design Database: All test articles delivered to NASA should include a

Design Database which contains all the design file (stl) and all relevant data required for reproducing the as-built part. The specific Design Database format and content will be determined by the manufacturing processes selected and/or the requirements of the

Lap Top/Bench Top prototype, but should include at a minimum, dimensions, thermal constraints, and desired material properties.

Figure 1. Example Range Coupon

4.2.1.2.5 Challenge Build: As part of the 12-month continuation review, the awardee will be provided interface and functional requirements for five functional parts and asked to design and build the parts using the ISM FabLab processes proposed, ideally utilizing the bench top prototype if feasible. This challenge will simulate the utility of an on-demand ISM FabLab capability analogous to scenarios that may arise during

Exploration missions where a crew member identifies a manufacturing and/or repair need. The requirements of the challenge build will be appropriately scaled to the build volume of the ISM FabLab design. NASA will maintain the rights to broadcast any live and/or recorded video of the Challenge Build for broadcast on all platforms

(television, social media, websites, etc.)

The challenge build functional and interface requirements may result in designs similar to Figure 2. The function and interface requirements will be selected to test out the range of capabilities of the awarded ISM FabLab design.

The challenge build will help inform entrance criteria for Phase B and may be open to a broader audience than just the awardee for Phase A.

Figure 2. Example of Complex Component for a Challenge Build

Figure 2 shows a strut attachment, which is an example of a component to keep in mind when considering the mandatory and augmented system capabilities. Such a part could be harder to additively manufacture, given the overhang on the top of the strut. Figure

2 is only an example, and not a deliverable in and of itself.

4.2.1.2.6 Routine Deliverables: In addition to the fixed price performance based milestones and major deliverables above, offerors shall propose routine deliverables as well as the technical data and engineering briefings, minutes and reports on the development:

o Quarterly project status/technical briefings in contractor format (past quarters activities, upcoming activities, risks retired, financials, other) o Quarterly technical reports (NASA will provide a format) o Monthly progress/status reports (NASA will provide an abbreviated format) o Bi-weekly coordination telecons with NASA o Integrated Final Report to address accomplishments, risks, and proposed follow-on effort.

4.2.1.2.7 Safety and Health Plans: Offerors shall include appropriate documentation to address hazardous materials/activities, environmental and facilities considerations commensurate with their proposal and in accordance with NASA policy and regulations.

4.2.1.2.8 Software and Firmware: Proposers shall include all software required for operating and designing to the ISM FabLab. Software includes the firmware required to operate the ISM FabLab, as well as all software required to interface and design to the ISM

FabLab. NASA will provide the necessary software guidance and documentation required for commanding and telemetry for the ISM FabLab on ISS (See

RAPTR/TReK Attachment 4 for further details).

4.2.1.3 Government Testing.

After the 12 month base period of the contracts in Phase A, NASA may exercise an option to purchase a limited number of the prototypes being developed for independent government testing. This designation does not constitute a downselect decision and all contractors will continue to execute the CLINs and options agreed to in the terms and conditions of their contracts. The nature of the testing has not been fully decided, but testing is anticipated to occur at the end of or after completion of the contractor’s testing in Phases 1 (approximately ATP +12 months). The contractor shall include an option for a priced sub-CLIN to provide potential support for shipping of selected modules to a NASA center. Note: For purpose of pricing this option, the government intends to pay for shipping as part of the resulting awards under this solicitation and the contractor will be responsible for providing a shipping concept, developing associated shipping hardware (special fittings), and preparing and packaging the article for shipping. Alternatively or in addition, NASA may participate in or observe contractor testing of ground prototypes and development and testing of material characterization test articles.

4.2.1.4 ISS Flight Requirements.

See ‘ISS Demonstration ISM FabLab System Guidelines’ attachment 1 for details.

4.2.1.5 GFP/GFE/NASA Subject Matter Expertise.

Offerors may request access to Government facilities or Government services in their proposals. It is the responsibility of offerors to determine the availability of any

Government facilities or Government services. Offerors proposing to use Government facilities and Government services shall ensure the Government effort is a discrete effort/SOW.

4.2.1.6 Access to Research Results/Data Management Plan.

Offerors will not be required to provide a Data Management Plan with proposals for this Appendix.

5 Proposal Review Information

5.1 Proposals Reviews Information

NASA will execute proposal review as defined in the omnibus BAA section 5. Omnibus BAA

Section 5.5.3 Factor 2 –Scientific/Technical Merit will be evaluated against the following criteria and weights:

5.2 Scientific/Technical Merit Criteria and Weighting

The scientific/technical criteria and weighting used in scoring the proposals is summarized in

Table 3.0. Offerors will be judged in these areas on the quality and detail of their responses. The

Figures of Merit (FOMs) were derived from the NASA ISM mission as described in section 1, therefore proposals must provide technical and analytical details to support the proposed solution and design. This should include a feasible TRL maturation path and technical rationale for the design choices relative to meeting the following FOMs.

Proposed designs that are fundamentally unsafe, or inadequately address risk mitigation for potential harm to crew will be rejected.

Table 3. Weighted ISM FabLab Proposal Technical Evaluation Criteria for Phase A

Criteria Weight

Area

Subtotals

5.2.1 Target Capability I.

On-Demand Manufacturing of Metallics and other materials in the micro gravity environment

5.2.1.1 The system should have the ability for on-demand

manufacturing of components using a variety of materials including but not limited to metallics.

5.2.1.2 Material form, Safety, Waste Management, and

containability

5.2.1.3 Range of metals for in-space applications 5

5.2.1.4 Reduced gravity environment (ISS) 15

5.2.2 Target Capability II.

Minimum Build Envelope of 6”x6”x6”

5.2.2.1 Internal or external build envelope that is as large as possible.

5.2.2.2 High geometric part complexity and accuracy 5

5.2.2.2 System scalability (EXPRESS rack constraints) 5

5.2.3 Target Capability III.

Earth-Based remote Commanding

5.2.3.1 The system should include the capability for Earth-based remote commanding for all nominal tasks, including part removal and handling.

5.2.3.2 Post-processing requirements on crew for part readiness 15

5.2.4 Target Capability IV.

In-Line Remote/Autonomous Inspection and Quality

Control

5.2.4.1 The system should incorporate inspection/verification capabilities to assure quality control (tolerances, voids, etc.).

5.2.4.2 Metallurgical quality 5

Total

Weight:

5.2.1 Target Capability I. On-Demand Manufacturing of Metallics and other materials in the micro gravity environment.

Overall Weight 45%

5.2.1.1 The system should have the ability for on-demand manufacturing of components using a variety of materials including but not limited to metallics. –Weight 15%

This criterion is the core of this solicitation. Proposed solutions must include the minimum target capability. The government reserves the right to not consider a proposal that does not address metallics at a minimum. Credit will be given to proposed systems that utilize multiple materials, especially metallics. Proposals should quantifiably and analytically address the extent of their proposed solution, the viability of their proposed solution and the justification for the design choices they made.

A quality proposal will quantify and qualify the range of materials that can be fabricated, the range of their properties, the range of processes that are utilized, and the range of control over fabrication variables, such as fabrication rate, thermal controls, power, and other quantifiable processes.

Additional credit will be given to proposals that tie their fabrication capabilities to their system maintenance requirements, to include the ability to fabricate a high percentage of the ISM

FabLab’s own spare parts, and specifically identifying spare parts that are critical points of failure or that have the highest failure rate.

5.2.1.2 Material Form, Safety, Waste Management, and Containability –Weight 10%

Raw feedstock forms and handling must be addressed in detail (i.e. wire, sheet, billet, powder, etc). Respondents must address the advantages and disadvantages of source materials in terms of material handling, efficiency of use, and ease of disposal. Additionally, proposed method(s) for material handling and storage system for safety must be addressed. Containment methods for any potential nanoparticles that could be released into the ISS habitable volume must addressed (such as vacuum, filtration sytems, etc.). Specific guidance releative to particle size can be found in the attached ‘Guidance for Evaluation of Particles/Dust in Habitable Spacecraft’ memo from ISS

Payload Safety Review Panel. Technologies that propose any form of powder as source material

Minimum Target Capabilities for a Ground Based Demonstration at End of Phase A

Objective Target Capabilities for demonstration On orbit in the ISS Express

Rack for Phase C

I. The system should have the ability for on-demand manufacturing of metallic components, designed to work in the micro gravity environment.

I. On-demand manufacturing of multiple materials in micro gravity, including various aerospace-grade metallics, polymers, composites and/or conductive (i.e. ‘digital’) inks is highly desired.

present unique challenges relative to utilization and containment in micrograviy and require additional technical and operational details in the proposal in order to adequately address how these issues/concerns would be overcome.

Materials, such as metals in powder form are potentially hazardous, and containment is crucial.

A reactive metal powder escaping from containment into the oxygen-rich environment of the ISS would pose a significant hazard and would not be acceptable. A quality response will address the containment requirements needed for the range of materials and processes that are being proposed, to include assessing the mass flow rate of escaped particles, while the ISM FabLab is in an operational and stowed configuration, of powders, vapors, off gassing, liquids, volatiles, or any other potential particulate hazards of escaping containment and will further assess the particulate size of those particles that do escape.

Technologies that require gasses or chemicals to operate would need to have those gases and chemicals safely removed from the system and, ideally, reused. Containment and disposal of waste needs to be addressed. Safe containment of all materials must be addressed. Proposals that are clearly unsafe, or inadequately address risk mitigation of potential harm to crew will be rejected as an irrelevant response.

5.2.1.3 Range of metals for in-space applications – Weight 5%

Materials required for future in-space applications include types of steel used for hand tools to aerospace-grade metals used for a range of parts and structures. Typical aerospace-grade metals include alloys of aluminum, titanium, and nickel. For example, most of the structural metal parts on the ISS are made from the aluminum alloy 7075, the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V (aka Ti64), and the nickel-based superalloy Inconel 718. The melting point for aluminum alloys such as 7075 is about 550°C. The melting point for Inconel 718 is about 1250°C. The melting point for Ti-6-4 is about 1600°C.

The ideal metal system on the ISS would be capable of producing parts in these (and similar) materials. Some candidate technologies may be incapable of producing parts in these metals because of thermal limitations. Other options may not be capable today, but have the potential for further development to produce aerospace-grade metal parts in space.

A quality proposal will quantify and qualify the range of metals that can be fabricated, the range of their properties, the range of processes that are utilized, and the range of control over fabrication variables, such as fabrication rate, thermal controls, power, or other quantifiable processes.

5.2.1.4 Reduced gravity environment –Weight 15%

Given that the intended use of the proposed system is for in-space manufacturing and will eventually be demonstrated on the ISS for future use on long duration deep space missions, it must be designed with the capability to operate in a microgravity environment. For the purposes of this effort, feasibility can be demonstrated in a number of different ways. For example, computer simulations or multi-orientation (e.g. “free fall”) bench-top testing may be used to demonstrate that the manufacturing process is robust to changes in the gravity vector. There may also be an opportunity to demonstrate operational feasibility via a reduced-gravity flight thru

NASA’s Flight Opportunity Program

Zero, or reduced, gravity has both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, it allows a reduction in the mass of the system (and a consequent reduction in power requirements). On the negative side, it makes the containment of powder, chips, fluids, and gases, more difficult.

It should also be noted that zero gravity does not necessarily remove the need for supports in those processes that require supports/anchors in a gravity environment. The material in motion, unconstrained by gravity, will continue moving in the direction from which it was being propelled until something stops it, such as a support material. Potential solutions to overcome this include using an AM system uses a 5-axis deposition system.

For Phase A, the minimum requirement to be addressed is to present a clear path towards enabling the technology to work in a microgravity environment with no fundamental inhibitors to the proposed processing working effectively in microgravity.

5.2.2 Target Capability II. Minimum Build Envelope of 6”x6”x6”

Overall Weight 20% for a Ground Based Demonstration at End of Phase A

Objective Target Capabilities for demonstration On orbit in the ISS Express

Rack for Phase C

II. ISM FabLab Design must meet

ISS Express Rack operational constraints (i.e. volume, power, etc.) as defined in Attachment 1 and maintain a minimum build envelope of 6”x6”x6”.

II. ISM FabLab Design must meet ISS

Express Rack operational constraints

(i.e. volume, power, etc.) as defined in Attachment 1 and provide as large of a build volume as possible.

5.2.2.1 ISM FabLab Design meets ISS Express Rack operational constrains as defined in

Attachment 1 while maintaining a minimum build envelope of 6”x6”x6”- Weight

10%

It is challenging to meet the ISS operational constraints (power, volume, interfaces, etc.) and still provide a meaningful build envelope. The ISM FabLab design reflected in the TRL maturation path must meet the ISS Express Rack Operational Constraints addressed in Attachment 1 and provide a minimum build envelope of 6”x6”x6”. Ultimately, larger build envelopes and/or novel approaches to maximizing the size of the final, as-built part is desired. Design trades addressing operational constraints relative to build envelopes are encouraged.

5.2.2.2 High geometric part accuracy and complexity–Weight 5%

The ability to produce complex parts is highly desirable. Merit will be given for consideration of how to leverage the microgravity environment as an advantage for fabrication of highly complex and accurate components in order to match (at a minimum) or exceed (desirable) terrestrial capabilities on Earth. Considerations will be made for the ability to demonstrate complex geometry, such as deliberate voids, threading and tapping, curved surfaces, and geometries that would be considered unmanufacturable in a standard gravity environment (no flat surfaces, or obvious fabrication directionality).

Proposals should include an estimate on the current level of accuracy (dimensional/volumetric tolerances) and complexity they can attain with their proposed fabrication solution(s), and an estimate of the levels of accuracy and complexity they can attain with a future build, coupled with a detailed solution on how they will verify and validate these accuracies (see 5.2.4.1).

Specific parameters proposers address will be based upon their proposed manufacturing solutions. Proposals should be as specific as possible about what their proposed process(es) can and cannot do and the accuracy of their process(es). Considerations will be made for the post processing (pre-crew time) dimensional accuracies on internal and external surfaces (to include curved surfaces), threading and tapping accuracies (and tolerances), and surface roughness.

Proposals should address how they will obtain the precision detailed. Quality proposals will tie this metric to 5.2.4.1; incorporation of inspection/verification capabilities to assure quality control.

5.2.2.3 System scalability (EXPRESS rack constraints) – Weight 5%

The system’s part-building capability should be scalable. The ideal system would be able to manufacture the smallest metal part on the ISS, as well as relatively large metal parts. (The maximum part size will be limited by other factors, such as system size, heat treatment furnace size, post-machining, etc.) EXPRESS rack constraints have been provided in section 2.2 of this

BAA.

The system scalability criterion must consider the physical size, mass, and power requirements of each technology. On a space station, physical space is always at a premium, so the physical size of the system and its ancillary equipment is important. This is an area where reduced gravity and vacuum environments could potentially be leveraged to reduce the size of the system.