NEXUS Appendix E Solicitation 80MSFC26R0006 Questions and Answers.pdf

80MSFC26R0006, Amendment 01

(PS60 Rev. 2020-03-03)

(a) The purpose(s) of this amendment is to publish answers to questions received during the question window of June 4-9, 2026.

(b) Attachment A, RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS, provides responses to questions and comments provided by industry. Attachment B, CHANGE LOG, provides a From-To Matrix of changes made to the solicitation.

(c) In relation to NextSTEP-3 Appendix E: NEXUS Backward-Compatible Ka-Band Relay Section 1.2, General Information for Participants, third bullet Point of Contact, and seventh bullet, Inquiries, the five (5) calendar day period for questions or comments relative to this acquisition has closed (i.e., questions and comments relative to this acquisition were previously due no later than June 9, 2026). At this time, the Government is no longer accepting additional questions or comments in relation to the solicitation, as released on June 4, 2026.

However, questions or comments are conditionally permitted, provided they are limited to the Amendment 01 information contained herein. Submission of questions or comments in relation to Amendment 01 shall be submitted via email to the designated point(s) of contact no later than 5:00 P.M. Central Time, June 25, 2026.

(d) All other terms and conditions of solicitation 80MSFC26R0006 remain unchanged.

ATTACHMENT A – RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY RFP QUESTIONS

Index Industry-Provided RFP Reference Question Response

1 SCAN-MSFC-0001,

Attachment F

What are the FFP contract values expect to be for CLIN 1, 2 and 3?

The Government is not authorized to disclose the total funding available for this competitive procurement. Offerors must provide separate proposed pricing for each CLIN, including distinct pricing for CLIN 2 and the optional CLIN 3 demonstration extension and service‑validation phase. See Section 4.6, Volume III, Price Volume.

2 SCAN-MSFC-0001 How much does project NEXUS expect to contribute toward obtaining 8 Sci Ka comms links?

The Government is not authorized to disclose the total funding available for this competitive procurement. The Government’s contributions are dependent upon the number of contracts awarded, if any, and the individual solution(s) offered Furthermore, in accordance with Section 4.1, the Government will not respond to an offeror regarding evaluations, opinions, or recommendations related to any proposed approaches or concepts.

3 _NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80 MSFC26R0006, 4.3 Pr oposal Format and Contents

Please clarify it the font size for graphics and charts is 12-points.

The Times New Roman font style and 12-point font size will apply to all information provided in the offeror’s page limited Volumes in accordance with Section 4.3 Instructions for the page limited volumes. For example, graphics and charts shall be in 12-point, Times New Roman font.

RFP Reference Question Response

4 _NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 5.1

Evaluation, C.

Corporate Contribution

BAA Section 5.1, Part C states, “To receive a Pass, the Offeror must demonstrate that it is making a meaningful corporate contribution that is directly relevant to the proposed NEXUS effort.” Meaningful and directly relevant are subjective terms and there is no indication of how Offerors corporate contributions will be rated meaningful ore directly relevant. Will NASA provide clear evaluation criteria regarding corporate contribution to include what makes proposed corporate contributions meaningful, directly relevant, and what exact information is required to provide sufficient information for NASA to evaluate?

Revised Sections 4.4.3(g) and 5.1 C for clarity.

5 _NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 5.1

Evaluation, Volume

III – PRICE

VOLUME

BAA Section 5.1, Volume III – PRICE VOLUME states, “In connection with the price reasonableness evaluation, NASA will assess the impact of the Offeror’s proposed corporate contributions on price reasonableness.”

It is unclear how corporate contributions will affect proposed evaluated price or how corporate contributions will be used to assess price reasonableness. It is our understanding that corporate contributions are commercial investments that the Offeror makes that may benefit the solution for this BAA, without charging NASA for the entirety of the commercial investment. If this assumption is correct, any costs directly associated with the requirements of this program would be directly charged in the price proposal for this BAA. As such, corporate contributions should not be added to the total evaluated price, or be used in the assessment of price reasonableness.

Will NASA confirm that corporate contributions proposed will not be added to the total evaluated price in Attachment J?

NASA confirms that proposed corporate contributions will not be added to the Net Proposed Price in Attachment J. Please note that this solicitation does not utilize the term “Total Evaluated Price.”

As outlined in Section 5.1 (Evaluation, Volume III

– Price Volume), NASA will evaluate overall price reasonableness in an integrated manner. This evaluation considers available funds, CLIN pricing, corporate contributions, milestone payment structures, and consistency with the technical approach. Corporate contributions explain the difference between the total resources required to perform the technical scope and the direct price proposed to the Government.

Per Solicitation Section 4.6 (Volume III – Price Volume, General Instructions), any corporate contribution that affects a CLIN’s cost must be fully reflected in the proposed CLIN price. The narrative must clearly explain how contributions were applied, and the pricing model must show those impacts mathematically and consistently across all CLINs.

To achieve this, Attachment J, Tab 6 “Corporate Contributions” Worksheet is provided to fully delineate these contributions. As indicated in the Attachment J instructions, the Offeror must document if they have included any corporate contributions in the proposed price.

RFP Reference Question Response

Attachment J (Pricing Model) has been modified via this amendment to reflect this mathematically.

Offerors must enter the total price of the CLIN (including the cost of corporate contributions) and use the designated reduction line to subtract the corporate contribution. This ensures the contribution acts as a cost reduction, leaving only the net direct price in the Net Proposed Price.

6 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 4.4.3

(g) Corporate Contribution

Section (g), Corporate Contributions, states that NASA expects proposals to include a mix of in-kind contributions to the proposed effort "as opposed to claiming all corporate contributions based on prior investments."

Could NASA clarify how offerors should account for and receive evaluation credit for substantial pre-existing corporate investments that directly enable performance of the NEXUS service, such as operational ground infrastructure, network operations centers, mission operations systems, terrestrial connectivity, cybersecurity capabilities, and other facilities or equipment already developed and funded at private expense?

Specifically, may offerors identify and quantify the value of such existing infrastructure and capabilities as corporate contributions when those assets will be used to support NEXUS performance, and if so, what methodology or level of supporting detail does NASA expect for evaluation purposes?

See Section 4.4.3(g), Corporate Contributions. Pre-existing corporate investments may be proposed as corporate contributions only to the extent they are directly relevant to, and will be used in support of, the proposed NEXUS effort.

Offerors should not claim the full historical development cost of broader commercial infrastructure, systems, facilities, or capabilities as a NEXUS corporate contribution. Instead, Offerors should identify and value only the estimated specific portion, use, service, or incremental cost being contributed to support NEXUS performance.

For example, an Offeror should not claim the full development cost of a launch vehicle, ground network, or operations center solely because that capability may support the proposed approach.

However, the Offeror may identify and value the specific launch service, dedicated ground support, operational capacity, or other directly relevant contribution being provided to NEXUS.

Offerors should clearly identify the proposed contribution, describe how it supports NEXUS performance, provide the estimated value being contributed, and explain the basis for that value.

Corporate contributions must be documented in Attachment I, Corporate Contribution Worksheet, and reflected in the pricing model, as applicable.

NASA’s expectation for a mix of in-kind contributions remains unchanged. NASA will evaluate corporate contributions in accordance with the solicitation.

RFP Reference Question Response

7 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 2.2

Emphasis of Appendix E

Given that Offerors must submit firm-fixed-price CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 pricing prior to completion of CLIN 1 concept maturation and risk reduction activities, how does NASA intend to address the pricing uncertainty associated with long-lead procurements, launch commitments, and supplier selection decisions that may occur before CLIN 1 is completed?

NASA will evaluate overall price reasonableness using the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404‑1(b). NASA may consider the reasonableness of the price in relation to available funds, proposed CLIN pricing, proposed corporate contributions, milestone payment structure, and consistency between the proposed price, schedule, and technical approach. in accordance with the solicitation’s requirements seen in Volume III.

A FFP acquisition is appropriate when performance uncertainties can be identified and estimated.

Therefore, an Offeror should identify its uncertainties and estimate accordingly.

8 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 2.2

Emphasis of Appendix E

If NASA awards multiple CLIN 1 contracts, what criteria will be used to determine which contractors, if any, receive CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 option exercises? Does NASA anticipate a competitive down-select process, independent assessments of each performer, or another approach?

Please refer to Section 6.2, Post Award, 6.2.1, Use of Options. Any contract(s) awarded as a result of this solicitation will include pricing for CLINs 1, 2, and 3. In accordance with this section, the Government is not obligated to award CLINs 2 and 3 under any resulting contract. Therefore, down-select procedures do not apply.

RFP Reference Question Response

9 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 4.5,

(2) (iii) Transition to Service and Business Approach

1. NASA states that NEXUS will inform future decisions regarding sustained relay services but does not establish a follow-on acquisition.

2. When does NASA currently envision a future procurement for operational relay services?

3. What level of interoperability among multiple providers is NASA seeking to preserve?

1. See Section 2.2, Emphasis of Appendix E. This solicitation does not establish or guarantee a follow-on acquisition for sustained operational relay services.

2, Future decisions regarding sustained operational relay services will be impacted by the results of this effort, NASA mission needs at the time, demonstrated performance, commercial viability of proposed solutions, and standard acquisition planning processes.

3. The Offeror must describe how backward compatibility and interoperability will be achieved and tested with legacy TDRS-compatible Ka-band users without requiring modification to customer vehicle onboard systems, including interfaces, acquisition and tracking considerations, and how compatibility will be demonstrated during testing and on-orbit validation.

See Section 4.5, Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach, (1)(iv).

RFP Reference Question Response

10 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 5.1,

Volume II, Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach, (2) (iii) - Transition to Service and Business Approach

What factors will NASA consider when evaluating whether a proposed relay architecture represents a commercially sustainable solution? For example, will NASA consider non-NASA revenue opportunities, commercial customer diversification, production scalability, or reliance on future Government demand?

See Section 4.5, Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach,

(2) (iii), Transition to Service and Business Approach.

The Offeror must describe the approach for transitioning from demonstration to sustained service, including the technical, operational, interoperability, continuity, and commercial business elements needed to support scalability, sustainment, mission assurance, and long-term service delivery. The response must address how the proposed approach supports a successful and economical relay capability with commercially sustainable spacecraft design, production, deployment, and operations.

The Offeror must describe an approach that enables service scalability beyond NASA for other Government or authorized mission users, as applicable, without providing or implying commercial access to NEXUS Ka-band frequencies reserved for Government mission use.

RFP Reference Question Response

11 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 4.4.3

Eligibility Information

(f) Launch Vehicle and Deployment

For hosted-payload approaches, how will NASA evaluate the risks associated with dependence on a host spacecraft operator relative to architectures in which the offeror owns and controls the relay spacecraft platform?

See SOO Section 4.4.

Other hosted payloads are permitted and encouraged; however, such payloads must not degrade, interfere with, constrain, delay, or otherwise adversely affect the NEXUS relay service or the Offeror’s ability to meet NEXUS performance, availability, cybersecurity, schedule, operational, or service continuity requirements.

Spacecraft commodities can be shared with hosted payloads, but hosted payload anomalies, failures, operating modes, resource demands, mission requirements, or associated ground/user interfaces must not propagate to or impact the NEXUS relay service, operations, or availability.

NASA will evaluate proposals consistent with Section 5 of the solicitation.

RFP Reference Question Response

12 NextSTEP-

3+APPENDIX+E_NE

XUS+BC+Ka- Band+Relay+BAA_80

MSFC26R0006, 2.6.1

Data Rights

Could NASA clarify the scope of the Government purpose and reprocurement rights it anticipates requiring for capabilities developed under the NEXUS effort, particularly for systems that build upon pre-existing commercial infrastructure and intellectual property?

For any item, component, or process, the Government will have all data rights necessary to maintain, repair, or overhaul the item, component, or process. If mixed funding (i.e., funding from both the Government and the contractor) is involved with the development of an item, component, or process, the Government will also have the rights to conduct a competitive procurement for replacement of the item, component, or process using the related data. For “systems that build upon pre-existing commercial infrastructure and intellectual property,” the system will have to be evaluated at the item, component, or process level to determine whether mixed funding was involved in the development. Reference FAR 52.227-14, Alternate II.

RFP Reference Question Response

13 SOO 1. Purpose The SOO encourages hosted payloads and additional service lines on the relay platform and rewards commercially sustainable, scalable solutions. How will NASA evaluate the relative benefit of delivering NEXUS as an incremental service on mature, multi-customer commercial infrastructure already in operation and/or with operator experience already providing this type of service?

The SOO establishes what must be achieved through demonstration to validate service readiness and inform transition to sustained commercially provided relay services.

Regarding how the Government will evaluate, see Section 4.5, Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach, (2) (iii), Transition to Service and Business Approach.

The Offeror must describe the approach for transitioning from demonstration to sustained service, including the technical, operational, interoperability, continuity, and commercial business elements needed to support scalability, sustainment, mission assurance, and long-term service delivery. The response must address how the proposed approach supports a successful and economical relay capability with commercially sustainable spacecraft design, production, deployment, and operations.

NASA is not assigning inherent preference to any specific ownership model, deployment status, or business structure. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in Section 5, based on the overall credibility and suitability of the proposed approach to meet NASA mission needs.

RFP Reference Question Response

14 Appendix E Section 2.2

1. CLIN 3 / Phase 3: Additional Demonstration, Anomaly Resolution, and Service Validation mentions that Attachment F contains "milestones, associated deliverables, payment structure, and acceptance criteria".

Attachment F makes no mention of CLIN 3.

2. What are the expected milestones, associated deliverables, payment structure, and acceptance criteria for CLIN 3?

1. There are no payment milestones associated with CLIN 3. Therefore, this language has been removed from Appendix E Section 2.2, CLIN 3.

CLIN 3 Deliverables are consistent with Attachment H, Model Contract, NFS 1852.235-73, Final Scientific and Technical Reports, Alternate II (Deviation).

Payment Structure is consistent with Attachment H, Model Contract, NFS 1852.232-80, Submission of Vouchers/Invoices for Payment. (APR 2018)

2. The above documents can be referenced to find the expected milestones, associated deliverables, payment structure, and acceptance criteria for CLIN 3.

15 SRD Is the DIFI standard an acceptable implementation of the preferred VITA- 49.2?

The SRD does not preclude the DIFI standard or implementation.

Further, in accordance with Section 4.1, the Government will not respond to an offeror to provide an individual response that will not be provided to other potential offerors. Additionally, the Government will not provide evaluations, opinions, or recommendations regarding any suggested approaches or concepts.

RFP Reference Question Response

16 N/A Will NASA support contractors obtaining orbital slots and licensing at non-TDRS locations?

NASA is not prescribing a specific orbital architecture, deployment approach, ownership model, or technical solution. Offerors must propose the architecture and implementation approach they determine best satisfies the NEXUS requirements, provided the proposed solution supports the service needs of legacy TDRS-compatible users without requiring modifications to current, legacy Government user spacecraft. NASA will evaluate proposals based on feasibility, risk, scalability, operational suitability, interoperability, long-term service flexibility, and the ability to meet the stated requirements and demonstration objectives (See Section 2.1, Acquisition Approach and Scope) In regard to licensing, please refer to the Government’s response to Question #17.

RFP Reference Question Response

17 N/A Is it feasible for NASA to influence the licensing of non-standard orbital altitudes for a contractor to provide an optimal NEXUS solution?

As seen in Attachment A1, SOO, Section 4.1, the Offeror must be responsible for securing the appropriate spectrum authorizations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), or other applicable regulatory entities, as well as associated ITU filings, for all other aspects of the overall system.

Consistent with the above-referenced section, Offerors are responsible for obtaining all required licenses, authorizations, and regulatory approvals for their proposed orbital approach at their own cost and risk. Non-standard orbital altitudes or regimes are permissible if the Offeror demonstrates a credible licensing and operational strategy.

NASA does not license commercial satellite systems and cannot guarantee approval of any specific orbital approach. NASA may participate, as appropriate, in Government coordination processes related to spectrum usage and protection of NASA missions and assets.

Consistent with Section 5, proposals will be evaluated on the overall credibility and feasibility of the proposed approach, including the regulatory strategy and operational viability of the orbital concept.

RFP Reference Question Response

18 J_Pricing Model and Appendix E Solicitation, Section 2.2

Previous drafts of Appendix E included "Please note that no additional proposals will be requested for Phase 2 and Phase 3."

That language is not present in the official RFP release; does this indicate that offerors are able to submit updated proposals for CLIN2 and CLIN3 during CLIN 1 or after the completion of CLIN 1?

Offerors will not be allowed to submit revised proposals for CLIN2 and/or CLIN3. After completing its market research, the Government redrafted the solicitation to remove the phased downselect approach that was previously included in the draft solicitation.

See 6.2, Post-Award, Subsection 6.2.1 Use of Options, “…this solicitation includes two option CLINs which will not be exercised at the time of contract award but will be evaluated as part of this initial competition as authorized by FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options.”

19 Appendix E Solicitation

Would NASA consider giving a 2-week extension due to the level of effort of this opportunity, the changes that have occurred between the draft and final versions, and the July 4th Holiday?

The Government is currently reviewing the proposal submission deadline. Offerors will be notified promptly if any changes are made. At this time, Offerors should continue to plan for and work toward the current published deadline.

RFP Reference Question Response

20 Attachment H, Model Contract

Attachment H, Model Contract still has "Draft" markings.

Are offerors supposed to do fill-ins into this Draft version or is a final Model Contract going to be released soon?

Understanding that filling-in "TBD" is reserved for NASA, could NASA advise where in the Model Contract offerors are expected to provide fillin information?

Note: there are no "To be proposed" "TBP" or similar indicators in Attachment H

The NASA Contract Writing System (NCMS) will have a “Draft” marking on all SF-26 contracts that have not been awarded; therefore, the Government cannot alter these documents. As this is the Final Solicitation model contract attachment, any resulting award will require update for tailoring specific to selected offeror(s).

Offerors are required to propose CLIN values and complete applicable clauses that require insertion of other contractor specific information (e.g., data assertions). See Section 4.7, Section II.

21 Attachment F, Payment Milestones and Acceptance Criteria

Is the CLIN 3 information missing from the document?

NextSTEP-3 Appendix E, page 10 mentioned CLIN 3 milestones would be in attachment F, but they appear to be missing.

There are no payment milestones for CLIN 3 in this solicitation as reflected in Attachment F as well as Attachment H, Model Contract, clause NFS 1852.232-77.

A revised Attachment F has been included to reflect a CLIN 3 section clearly identifying there are no payment milestones.

Section 2.2, CLIN 3 has also been revised to identify that there are no payment milestones in

CLIN 3.

RFP Reference Question Response

22 Attachment B, Data Procurement Document, page B-13

(DRL)

The DRL incorrectly lists NEXUS-DRD-07 as the Security Architecture Definitions (SAD). It is actually the Intellectual Property & Data Rights Management Plan (IPDRMP) (per the DRD).

Please clarify and/or correct.

This is a typographical error. NEXUS-DRD-005 is the SAD, and NEXUS-DRD-007 is the IPDRMP.

The Data Procurement Document (DPD) has been revised to correct the typo in the Table of Contents.

23 Attachment J, Pricing Model

Does the direct labor element cover all labor, or only labor remaining that may not fall under the other cost elements?

The direct labor (row 4) on Tab 3_Cost_Info_by_CLIN of Attachment J Pricing Model covers only the remaining labor that does not fall under the cost elements below it.

24 Attachment J, Pricing Model

Can additional rows be added to the table to increase the labor category amount?

Yes. Offerors are permitted to add additional rows to Tab 3_Cost_Info_by_CLIN of Attachment J Pricing Model to reflect proposed labor necessary to fulfill NEXUS requirements.

When inserting rows, the Offeror is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of formulas and figures, which includes update of any underlying Excel formulas, cell references, or summary totals.

25 Attachment J, Pricing Model

What impacts should be captured in Tab 5 of the pricing sheet?

Is it just cost related or all impacts?

In accordance with the Tab 5 of the Pricing Model, price related impacts need to be addressed in relation to the price drivers in Column A.

RFP Reference Question Response

26 Appendix E, Section

4.3 Proposal Format &

Contents (Table 4.1, page 18);

Section 4.4.1 Transmittal Letter (vi) (viii (D) page 21;

Section 4.7 Volume IV Section II "Small Business Utilization" p.35)

Given that a portion of the scope may be funded by corporate contribution which reduces the potential small business subcontracting opportunities, would it be acceptable for offerors to propose a Commercial Plan (as per FAR 52.219-9) in place of an Individual Subcontracting Plan which is contract specific?

NEXUS is FAR Part 35 solicitation, not a FAR Part 12 solicitation. The NEXUS user capability does not exist in the commercial marketplace. FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II requires that the Offeror submit a Business Subcontracting Plan with the proposal.

27 SRD Need clarification on proper data handling for program information since the SRD is not portion-marked. Please provide a Security Classification Guide or other guidance as to what specific facts are CUI within the SRD.

The entire document is ITAR and CUI as reflected on the cover page. Security Classification Guides (SCGs) are specifically for classified information, not for CUI or Export Controlled information. CUI is governed by Executive Order 13556 and 32 CFR 2002, and is not classified, but still requires special safeguarding.

Offerors are responsible for storing, handling, and understanding the data properly as reflected on the cover page of the document and in accordance with their ITAR registration agreements. This includes, but is not limited to, electronic communications to the Government. Offerors must not handle this data in open electronic communications.

Attachment A.2, NEXUS SRD has added the CUI marking to its headers and footers as well.

RFP Reference Question Response

28 SRD 2.2.13 The text states that A_o "accounts for items such as loss of system redundancy during failover" but we believe it should state "loss of system availability during failover".

It is expected that there is a loss of redundancy during failover since redundancy is a strategy to maintain availability if one piece of the redundant system is unavailable.

Operational Availability is intended to account for the operational impacts associated with failover events. Loss of redundancy alone does not necessarily reduce availability.

29 SRD KaRS-13, KaFS- 14, Allowable Degradation

Can NASA clarify if the requirements KaRS-13 and KaFS-14 are intended to size the Space to Ground Link capacity? Or, is this requirement mean to bound only the effects of distortion and interference degradation caused by the relay satellite and ground side processes?

The context specifies "excluding free space path loss", yet also specifies "all the hardware and processes in between the ground demarcation and the space demarcation"

If KaRS-13 and KaFS-14 are not intended to size the SGL capacity, is there a target maximum C/N0 or C/N that the link shall support?

KaRS-13 and KaFS-14 are not intended to size the SGL but rather bound the total effects due to distortion and other degradations caused by the NEXUS relay satellite and ground systems, exclusive of free space and atmospheric losses. See Attachment A.2 NEXUS SRD, 3.3 Ka-Band Return Service, KaRS-13 and KaRS-14.

The SRD does not address a target C/No or C/N.

RFP Reference Question Response

30 SRD KaRS-8, KaFS- 10, Axial Ratio

Is the intent of KaRS-8, KaFS-10 requirement (Axial Ratio over 3-dB Beamwidth) to specify an axial ratio over the tracking beamwidth? What is the significance to the customer of the 3-dB beamwidth vs the expected system tracking beamwidth?

The intent of the axial ratio requirements is to bound the worst-case, expected axial ratio for the NEXUS SSL antenna during tracking (i.e., bound the worst-case polarization mismatch loss expected by the NEXUS customers to meet RF link performance).

31 Attachment B, Data Requirements

List (DRL), pg B-13

NEXUS-DRD-007 is listed as Security Architecture Definition (SAD) in the DRD list, but DRD-007 is Intellectual Property & Data Rights Management Plan (IPDRMP).

SAD is DRD-005.

Refer to the response to Question 22 above.

32 Appendix E, 3.1 May offerors designate ground entry points in data centers located in each region, at sites of their choosing?

Minimizing the length of the data connection from the remote ground stations to the ground entry point is important for maintaining an acceptable Frame Loss rate.

If ground entry points are limited to existing NASA PoPs, there may be significantly more complexity required to maintain an acceptable Frame Loss rate from the remote site to the ground entry point.

An Offeror must propose its solution subject to the constraints in Country Group D of SOO Section 4.2 and SRD CS-11.

RFP Reference Question Response

33 Appendix E, 4.3 For Volume 1, the transmittal letter is often a separate file or attachment to the proposal rather than directly included in Volume 1.

Can the transmittal letter be submitted separately given the letterhead requirements which may differ from the proposal header/footers?

As the transmittal letter is specifically excluded from the page limitation established for Volume I, the transmittal letter may be included in Volume I.

However, the transmittal letter must not be submitted as a separate file or attachment from Volume I. See the first paragraph of Section 4.3, Proposal Format and Contents.

34 Appendix E, 4.3 For Volume 1, Table 4.1 states the Transmittal Letter and Executive Summary are both Excluded Items from the page count, while the page numbering instructions state the page number shall start at "1" and increase sequentially.

For excluded items, should the page number stay within the sequential numbering, or can the page number be set to a different format such as "i, ii, etc." with sequential numbering starting at the pages included in the page limit?

The following change has been made to the solicitation: All pages must be consecutively numbered, starting with “1” (one) on the first page of each volume with the exception of the Cover Page, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, and the Transmittal Letter. Offerors must number these pages using Roman numerals (i.e., [i, ii, iii]) in order to differentiate these pages from the page limited pages which starts with “1.”

Regarding the Launch Vehicle and Deployment evidence, provide these documents after the last Volume I numbered page. Offerors may utilize their own differing numbering nomenclature given these documents are excluded from the Volume I page limitation. See Section 4.3, Proposal Format and Contents.

RFP Reference Question Response

35 Appendix E, 4.3 Typically, individual volumes will have a cover page including data rights assertions on the volume as part of the document.

Table 4.1 does not explicitly exclude the cover page, nor table of contents from the page limit.

Will cover pages and table of (contents / figures / tables) be counted against page limits?

See Government’s response to Question #34.

36 Appendix E, 4.3 Are all Graphics required to have text in 12 font? Most current art work is legible as is but changing to TNR-12 will require significant rework and render most unuseable. Is this a correct interpretation of the instructions?

The Times New Roman, 12-point font will apply to all information, including graphics, provided in the offeror’s page limited Volumes in accordance with Section 4.3, Instructions for page limited volumes (i.e., Volumes I and II).

RFP Reference Question Response

37 Appendix E, 4.3 and 4.5d

Section 4.3 states that Volumes II and III must be structured by CLIN; however, Section 4.5.d states that Volume II must be structured by Subfactor. These appear to contradict in the case of Volume II. Is Volume II intended to be organized by CLIN or by Technical and Management Subfactors?

There may be additional confusion created by the final sentence of 4.5.c, which states "In addition, the Offeror must clearly identify how its proposed approach aligns each below subfactor with the Government identified CLIN structure and the stated goals for each CLIN, demonstrating how their unique approach supports, without deviating from, the CLIN specific objectives and performance."

Does this along with 4.3 and 4.5.d imply that the Section 4.5.d ordering must be fully repeated for each CLIN?

Section 4.3 is revised to indicate that only Volume III must be structured by CLIN.

Sections 4.3 and 4.5(c) are also revised for clarity.

38 Appendix E, 4.3, Table 4.1

This item "Infrastructure Validation," is vague and unclear. Can NASA provide more direction or guidance in what they expect for this item?

The Government removed the Infrastructure Validation bullet from the Table 4.1, Volume IV - Contract Volume in Section 4.3, Proposal Format and Contents.

39 Appendix E, 4.6 The total number of vendors and suppliers with proposed prices below $20M (categorized as "non-significant subcontractors" in Section 4.6) used for supplies, materials, and equipment in a spacecraft program is in the hundreds, if not thousands. As defined in Section 4.6, the nearly limitless level of detail into the Offeror's supply chain is excessive for a commercial services offering. Recommend limiting separate proposal pricing details to only significant subcontractors and not include sub-tier vendors and suppliers.

The proposal instructions in Section 4.6 remain unchanged.

Section 4.6 requires complete price breakdowns and detailed cost narratives for significant subcontractors, which is consistent with FAR 15.404-8(b)(1)(i).

For non-significant subcontractors, Offerors must separately identify each subcontractor in the pricing forms and describe the scope and level of support in the narrative Basis of Estimate. Full separate price breakdowns and detailed BOEs are not required for non-significant subcontractors.

The solicitation does not require a list of every general vendor or material supplier that provides commodities (e.g., nuts and bolts). Traditional subcontractors (i.e., those performing a specific, substantive portion of the project scope) are typically limited in number; an Offeror will likely have a small number of nonsignificant subcontractors to identify rather than a large number. Since the request is limited to identifying the nonsignificant subcontractors along with their defined scope of work, without requiring a complex pricing breakdown or a detailed Basis of Estimate (BOE), the Government considers its request to be reasonable.

Offerors are responsible for providing sufficient information to support the Government’s assessment of the reasonableness, completeness, RFP Reference Question Response and credibility of the proposed price in accordance with Section 4.6 Volume III – Price Volume, Non- Significant Subcontractor Information.

40 Appendix E, 4.6 Attachment I is required to be submitted in Vol II as well as Vol IV, Section II. Please clarify if Attachment I must be submitted in both volumes.

Attachment I is required to be submitted in two separate volumes:

• Volume III – Price Volume: The completed Attachment I must be provided as part of the Price Volume submission (along with Attachment J). This supports the price narrative and demonstrates how corporate contributions are reflected in the proposed CLIN prices.

• Volume IV – Contract Volume:

Attachment I must also be provided as part of the Contract Volume submission. This documents the Offeror’s proposed corporate contribution commitments that would be incorporated into the contract if selected.

Attachment I is not required in Volume II (Technical and Management Approach Volume).

Offerors must ensure that Attachment I is included in both the Price Volume and Contract Volume as specified above.

RFP Reference Question Response

41 Appendix E, 4.7 Section I and Section II both list Attachment H Model Contract as a required submission.

Please clarify if Vol IV must include the Model Contract in both Section I and Section II of the submission.

Volume IV is one (1) volume, but it includes three sections (i.e., Sections I, II, and III) within that one

(1) volume.

Appendix E, Table 4.1 has been revised to reflect that Attachment H Model Contract is an attachment to Volume IV.

42 Appendix E, 4.7 IMS is listed in both Sections II and III.

Please clarify if the IMS must be submitted in both sections.

The Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) should be submitted in the Volume IV – Contract Volume. In 4.7, Sections II and III both mention the IMS;

however, the IMS will only need to be submitted once in accordance with NEXUS-DRD-019.

Table 4.1 has been revised to remove the IMS from Volume II and add the IMS to Volume IV.

Note:

If selected for award, the proposed IMS will be incorporated into the contract as a Section J attachment for the baseline. Therefore, Attachment H, Model Contract, has also been revised to reflect Section J, Attachment J, Integrated Master Schedule (Baseline).

43 Appendix E, 5.1 May offerors self-identify strengths and weaknesses for NASA to consider, along with any additional that NASA may identify in its review?

Offerors should not assume that self-identified strengths and weaknesses will be adopted as evaluation findings.

Offerors are advised to submit proposals that reflect their most favorable terms per the evaluation criteria in Section 5.1.

RFP Reference Question Response

44 Is it permissible for an Offeror to share NASA provided Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), including CUI//SPEXPT, with foreign-owned parent or subsidiary entities, provided the Offeror complies with all applicable export control laws, distribution restrictions, and security requirements?

Offerors and proposed subcontractors (i.e., who require access to export controlled information) must be a U.S. entity to be eligible to participate in this requirement. See Section 3.1, paragraphs (a) and (b).

45 Appendix E Solicitation, section

3.1 (a) Eligibility of Offerors

Can U.S. entities subcontract with non-U.S.

entities provided data export control regulations are followed?

Please refer to the Government's response to Question 44.

46 Could you please clarify your expectations for Phase 2 and Phase 3 in the initial proposal, particularly regarding both pricing and technical content?

As the RFP is currently written, a full cost breakdown of Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 are required in this initial submission;

however, scope of Phase 2 and Phase 3 will significantly be impacted during Phase 1 execution. Is this the government's intent, or would a detailed cost breakdown limited to Phase 1 be acceptable with Phase 2 and Phase 3 to be re-bid or refined later?

See 2.2, Emphasis of Appendix E, “…structured with a base CLIN and two separately priced option CLINs.”

See 4.3, Proposal Format and Contents.

See 6.2, Post-Award, Subsection 6.2.1 Use of Options, “…this solicitation includes two option CLINs which will not be exercised at the time of contract award but will be evaluated as part of this initial competition as authorized by FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options.”

Therefore, revised pricing for CLINs 2 and 3 subsequent to any award will not be allowed.

RFP Reference Question Response

47 Given that the Phase 2 and Phase 3 scope, design, and demonstration configuration may evolve based on the results and trades performed during Phase 1, what level of technical and management detail do you expect in Volume II for Phase 2 and Phase 3?

Do you anticipate the same depth as for Phase 1, or is a higher-level description with notional pricing acceptable, to be revisited after completion of Phase 1?

Question 46.

48 Can you please provide more information on the corporate contributions: are these only within Phase 1, if this is a long term contribution beyond Project NEXUS, or during Phase 1, Phase 2, and/or Phase 3 of Project NEXUS?

In accordance with Section 4.4.3 (g) Corporate Contributions, corporate contributions apply to the overall NEXUS effort proposed under this solicitation (i.e., Phases 1, 2, and 3 / CLINs 1, 2, and 3).

RFP Reference Question Response

49 H_NEXUS TDRS-BC

Model Contract_

80MSFC26R000X

For contractors that do not have Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) compliant systems, and plan to propose only a commercial Firm-Fixed Pricing solution, we request all clauses associated with a non-commercial solution be removed, or at minimum notated to not apply to providers awarded under FAR Part 12 (SF 1449), or that are providing a commercial solution, to include FAR Part 30 and 31 derived clauses (e.g. 52.230-2, 52.230-6, 52.244-2, 52.215-

21) and any NFS equivalents or supplements.

We also request confirmation that offerors of commercial solutions shall only be required to submit Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

NEXUS is a FAR Part 35 “Research and Development Contracting” solicitation and not a FAR Part 12 “Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services” effort. Therefore, the award(s), if any, will be made consistent with the solicitation for this requirement, the relevant clauses that align with the Omnibus, and the current Revolutionary FAR Overhaul.

In accordance with Section 5.1 Evaluation, Volume III – Price Volume, certified cost or pricing data is not required due to anticipated competition.

However, the Government reserves the right to request “data other than certified cost or pricing data.”

50 H_NEXUS TDRS-BC

Model Contract_

80MSFC26R000X

In support of the commercial solution this RFP solicits, we request the Government add relevant FAR Part 12 commercial acquisition clauses, including but not limited to: 52.212-4, 52.212-5, 52.232-29, and 52.232-31.

Please refer to the Government’s response to Question 49.

RFP Reference Question Response

51 B_Data Procurement Document (DPD)

The DRD-008 Service Financial & Pricing Structure Definition (SFPSD) requirement contains many cost-type contract reporting requirements that are dependent on CAS and certified cost and pricing data systems, meaning, the SFPSD was drafted assuming cost-plus service pricing.

Request to remove DRD-008, or, at a minimum, rework to allow for FFP services pricing models.

Please note that Attachment B, DPD, is revised.

The revised NEXUS-DRD-008, paragraph 7, states the following: “The SFPSD provides the Government with sufficient insight to assess commercial viability, affordability, long-term service sustainability, and potential pricing-related risks to future service availability. The SFPSD is intended for use in evaluating whether the proposed service pricing approach is practical, scalable, and supportable over time within a commercial fixed-price service acquisition framework. This DRD does not require certified cost or pricing data, cost-accounting system information, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) compliance information, indirect rate data, detailed cost build-ups, corporate financial statements, profit calculations, return-on-investment analysis, break-even analysis, EBITDA projections, or open-book accounting information.”

RFP Reference Question Response

52 _NextSTEP-3

APPENDIX

E_NEXUS BC Ka- Band Relay

BAA_80MSFC26R00

06, Section 4.4.3(g)

Corporate contributions are more commonly seen with Grants, CRADAs, or Space Act Agreements. Requesting to remove this requirement from the BAA.

This change would also be reflected in the Contract (CLINs) and Pricing Model (sheet

6) docs.

The corporate contributions requirement will remain unchanged.

Corporate contributions are a deliberate element of this BAA and the NextSTEP partnership model.

The requirement is intended to demonstrate industry commitment, support commercial viability, and provide a credible basis for long-term service sustainability.

Offerors must propose corporate contributions in accordance with the solicitation. NASA will evaluate the requirement as stated in the solicitation. See Section 5.1, Volume I, paragraph C. Corporate Contribution, and Section 5.1, Volume III – Price Volume, and Attachment J – Pricing Model.

53 J_Pricing Model, Tab

Firm Fixed Pricing proposals do not have pricing breakouts by Cost Elements, or include Fee information. Request to remove Tab 3.

Tab 3 will not be removed. As stated in Section 5 of the solicitation, while certified cost or pricing data is not required due to anticipated competition, NASA reserves the right to request “data other than certified cost or pricing data.”.

RFP Reference Question Response

54 J_Pricing Model, Tab

Request to increase the number of milestones per CLIN to align milestone events with key deliverables.

The current payment milestones, as established in Solicitation, Attachment F, have been established by the Government, to include non-payment milestones. However, Offerors may propose additional milestones consistent with their proposed approach.

Section 2.2 indicates that an Offeror’s proposed SOWs shall include the Offeror’s proposed milestones for each CLIN.

55 _NextSTEP-3

APPENDIX

E_NEXUS BC Ka- Band Relay

BAA_80MSFC26R00

06, Section 5

NASA is requiring FFP pricing, a detailed schedule, and offeror SOW for each CLIN, however, the scope of CLIN 3 is determined by NASA if additional demonstration, anomaly resolution, retest, extended performance measurement, expanded user interaction, or closeout evidence is needed.

Offerors will not be able to provide accurate schedule, SOW, or pricing for CLIN 3 until NASA determines the scope of CLIN 3 on an offeror-by-offeror basis.

Recommend schedule, pricing, and SOW not be required for CLIN 3 at this time.

Rescheduling, repricing, and/or rescoping will not be allowed. See Section 2.2, which describes CLIN 3 as an optional demonstration extension and service-validation phase if NASA determines that additional demonstration, anomaly resolution, retest, extended performance measurement, expanded user interaction, or closeout evidence is needed.

RFP Reference Question Response

56 _NextSTEP-3

APPENDIX

E_NEXUS BC Ka- Band Relay

BAA_80MSFC26R00

06, Table 4.1

Table 4.1 Proposal Submission Context includes a far right-hand side column titled "Excluded Items, Attachments, & Pages" however, it does not indicate which items listed in that column are excluded, attachments, or pages of content. This will lead to confusion.

Recommend additional clarity on what is excluded vs an attachment or content page

Every item listed in the Excluded Items, Attachments, & Pages column is specifically excluded from the page limitation for the relevant page limited volumes (i.e., Volumes I and II) or non-page limited volumes (i.e., Volumes III and

IV).

Offerors should note, however, that all Excluded Items, Attachments, & Pages relevant to the two, page limited volumes (i.e., Volumes I and II) must comply with the Times New Roman, 12-point font requirements in accordance with Section 4.3.

57 SRD AP-4 Onboard Proximity Sensors: Are there any requirements for this sensor? i.e.

resolve an object of at least X cm at a distance of at most Y km?

Per SRD Section 3.7 AP-4, the NEXUS System shall possess onboard proximity sensors capable of continuously monitoring the orbital environment and providing real-time detection and alerting of close-approach (conjunction) events (e.g., meteoroid approaches not reported by existing external warning systems) to support the safety of relay satellite operations.

58 SRD AP-7 Additional Customer Vehicle- Imposed Operational Constraints: For the Demonstration, should this requirement be considered at face value? Or should architectures assume the >20% coverage at any time value in the SOO for sizing purposes?

“The demonstration must deploy enough assets to service at least 20 percent of the full-service volume at any given time, assuming the user could be at 0km or up to 900km altitude,” (SOO Section 3.1, Representative service volume validation) while simultaneously meeting the contact duration thresholds defined in SRD AP-7.

RFP Reference Question Response

59 SRD For AP-7, Additional Customer Vehicle- Imposed Operational Constraints: may an Offeror rely on other potential providers, architectures, or future awards to satisfy the requirement, or must each Offeror demonstrate that its own proposed end-to-end solution satisfies AP-7?

Consistent with Section 2.1 of the solicitation, NASA is not prescribing a specific orbital architecture. Offerors may propose any architecture that provides an end-to-end solution meeting the solicitation requirements and demonstration objectives.

Each Offeror is responsible for demonstrating how its proposed end-to-end solution satisfies the applicable requirements, including AP-7. Offerors may not rely on other Offerors’ proposed architectures, potential providers, or future awards to satisfy requirements within their own proposal.

60 SOO 3.1 Simultaneous User Support, including CONUS: for the legacy customer within region A, is persistent coverage required for this user for the demo?