Ground Systems and Mission Operations-4 (GSMO-4)

This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way.  The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request.

Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)  is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement.

Background

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses.

The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities.

Functions

FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services

     A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies

     B. Ground Systems Support Services

     C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services

FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services

     A. Operations Systems Engineering

     B. Launch and Early Operations Support

     C. Flight Operations

     D. Flight Dynamics Support Services

     E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution

     F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering

     G. Systems Administration and IT Security

     H. Database Administration

RFI Response Instructions

The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience.  Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed above.  Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages.

Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)

The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks.  The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach.

Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following:

1. Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty.
2. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP?
3. Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale.
4. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal?
5. What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach?
6. What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement?
7. Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts.
8. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP?
9. Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable.
10. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure.

Requirements/Specifications

Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources:

The Government maintains operations resources listed above.  RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources.  For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources.

Update as of 10/1/26

Submission Format Requirements

1. Use Times New Roman, 12‑point font for all text.
2. Maintain 1‑inch margins on all sides of every page.
3. The Cover Page and Table of Contents do not count toward the 30‑page limit.
   • Please do not paginate these two sections.
4. Submit your response in both PDF and Word (.docx) formats.
5. Email all submissions directly to daniel.s.han@nasa.gov.
6. In the email subject line, format the title exactly as:
   “Response to GSMO‑4 RFI [Company Name, CAGE Code]”

Scope Guidance

• NASA welcomes submissions that provide limited scope information for internal market research.
• If your response covers only a portion of the contract scope, please clearly indicate “Limited Scope” on the Cover Page, along with a brief description of the capabilities included.

Q&A Sessions

The program intends to hold formal one‑on‑one Q&A sessions with vendors capable of delivering the full contract scope once the RFI period closes. Dates and duration for these sessions are TBD.

This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way.  The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request.

Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)  is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement.

Background

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses.

The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities.

Functions

FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services

     A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies

     B. Ground Systems Support Services

     C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services

FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services

     A. Operations Systems Engineering

     B. Launch and Early Operations Support

     C. Flight Operations

     D. Flight Dynamics Support Services

     E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution

     F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering

     G. Systems Administration and IT Security

     H. Database Administration

RFI Response Instructions

The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience.  Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed below.  Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages.

Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)

The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks.  The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach.

Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following:

1. Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty.
2. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP?
3. Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale.
4. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal?
5. What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach?
6. What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement?
7. Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts.
8. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP?
9. Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable.
10. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure.

Requirements/Specifications

Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources:

The Government maintains operations resources listed below.  RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources.  For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources.

Update as of 10/1/26

Submission Format Requirements

1. Use Times New Roman, 12‑point font for all text.
2. Maintain 1‑inch margins on all sides of every page.
3. The Cover Page and Table of Contents do not count toward the 30‑page limit.
   • Please do not paginate these two sections.
4. Submit your response in both PDF and Word (.docx) formats.
5. Email all submissions directly to daniel.s.han@nasa.gov.
6. In the email subject line, format the title exactly as:
   “Response to GSMO‑4 RFI [Company Name, CAGE Code]”

Scope Guidance

• NASA welcomes submissions that provide limited scope information for internal market research.
• If your response covers only a portion of the contract scope, please clearly indicate “Limited Scope” on the Cover Page, along with a brief description of the capabilities included.

Q&A Sessions

The program intends to hold formal one‑on‑one Q&A sessions with vendors capable of delivering the full contract scope once the RFI period closes. Dates and duration for these sessions are TBD.

This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way.  The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request.

Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)  is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement.

Background

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses.

The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities.

Functions

FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services

     A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies

     B. Ground Systems Support Services

     C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services

FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services

     A. Operations Systems Engineering

     B. Launch and Early Operations Support

     C. Flight Operations

     D. Flight Dynamics Support Services

     E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution

     F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering

     G. Systems Administration and IT Security

     H. Database Administration

RFI Response Instructions

The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience.  Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed below.  Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages.

Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)

The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks.  The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach.

Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following:

1. Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty.
2. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP?
3. Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale.
4. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal?
5. What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach?
6. What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement?
7. Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts.
8. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP?
9. Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable.
10. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure.

Requirements/Specifications

Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources:

The Government maintains operations resources listed below.  RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources.  For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources.