NASA CEV Phase II Call for Improvements: Amendment 1
The purpose of this Amendment is to:
1. Update the RFP documentation associated with the following requirement changes:
- The CEV Outer Mold Line change and associated Weight Limit and Delta V Table update.
- Change in the range requirements for rendezvous and real time communication.
- The Additional requirement for the use of the Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS).
2. Respond to questions received to date for the RFP and in response to the CEV OML change. 3. Make other changes to the RFP
A. QUESTIONS:
1. Question (a) Clarify your expectations of the Addendum Proposal. (b) Which Volumes are expected for submittal? (c) Our assumption is that NASA does not expect that the Addendum Proposal will include subcontractor inputs in accordance with the 80%/$80M rule?
Answer: (1a) The expectation of the Addendum Proposal is to receive a delta proposal, based upon the initial proposal due March 20, 2006, that addresses the impacts as a result of the OML change. A delta proposal is defined as a proposal that reflects the differences, either positive or negative, versus the initial proposal. For example: If in your initial Technical Resources Volume proposal you propose 100 FTE in the Technical Resources Template (TRT) for SOW 1.0. As a result of a requirements change, you propose a reduction of 5 FTEs in the TRT for SOW 1.0. Hence, the Addendum Proposal would reflect a reduction of 5 FTE (i.e., -5 FTE) in SOW 1.0 and not the net FTE of 95 (i.e., 100 FTE minus 5 FTE). Likewise, for example: If in your initial Cost Volume proposal submittal you propose 1000 hours for an Engineer 2 in the Cost Summary Template for Schedule A (i.e., A1). As a result of a requirements change, you propose a reduction of 200 hours in the Engineer 2 position. Hence, the Addendum Proposal would reflect a reduction of 200 hours (i.e., -200 hours) for Engineer 2, and not the net result of 800 hours (i.e., 1000 hours minus 200 hours).
NASA is providing cost and technical resources templates at the summary level to be used in Addendum Proposal submittal. NASA is also providing new templates (i.e., delta matrix templates) to assist NASA in tracking total proposal costs and resources.
Answer: (1b) NASA requires an Addendum Proposal for the following volumes: Technical, Technical Resources and Cost Volumes. This Addendum Proposal is not an alternate proposal; instead it will be combined with the Initial Proposal due on March 20, 2006 and will be evaluated as one proposal.
Answer: (1c) The 80%/$80M rule remains applicable from a pricing standpoint. However, the only submittal required is that of the Prime Offeror. The distinction between major and minor subs still exists and the level of information is still warranted. It is the responsibility of the Prime Offeror to integrate all pricing information related to subcontractors into the Addendum Proposal.
NASA has updated the RFP to reflect this clarification.
2. Question: (a) What are the requirements for the Cost Volume for the 20 April submittal? (b) What level of detail, templates, etc will be required?
Answer: (2a) See the answers to questions 1a, 1b, and 1c above.
Answer: (2b) See the answers to questions 1a, 1b, and 1c above.
3. Question: Please provide an explanation of the FPR and your expectations/timing.
Answer: The Government will evaluate both the Initial and Addendum Proposal prior to initiating discussions with each Offeror. These discussions may include give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, or other terms of a proposed contract. Discussions may be about written findings and any assumptions made in your approach. This description is illustrative only and should not be taken as a limitation on discussions or as an expectation of the range of discussions. After discussions are completed a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be requested and will require clear traceability from the Initial Proposal. The Government will give full details at the time of the FPR request. Offerors may choose to stand by their initial proposal or to submit final revisions. As for timing, see response to question 12.
4. Question: Will the No-Later-Than Phase 2 milestone dates listed in Attachment J-16 be revised to include an SRR in Phase 2 Feb 6th RFQ amendment?
Answer: See response to question 5.
5. Question: Will the SRR be included in the 6 Feb RFQ amendment?
Answer to questions 4 and 5: No, SRR will remain a Phase 1 activity. However, this amendment includes two changes to Attachment J-16, Integrated Project Schedule. First, Phase 1 Milestones (for reference only) data has been deleted from Table J-16-1. Second, the introductory paragraph has been modified to better define that the “not later than dates” apply only to ISS-1 Flight (1A) and subsequent flights, and should be considered as each offeror develops a new J-16 reflecting their proposal.
6. Question: We assume that the new CEV requirements, to be provided under Phase 2, will also be provided under Phase 1.
Answer: Your assumption is correct.
7. Question: We would like to discuss the page limitations for the Technical Volume Addendum.
Answer: NASA has reviewed the page guidance for the CEV OML change. The page guideline adjustment in section L.8 is as follows: Technical Volume for the Addendum is 40 pages, Technical Resources Volume for the Addendum is 30 pages. This information is provided in section L.8 Proposal Page Guidelines.
8. Question: Are the Contractors allowed to bid a Base Fee in addition to Award Fee?
Answer: No, clause B.3 as written does not contemplate base fee. NASA modified this clause to further clarify that a base fee is not applicable.
9. Question: General Comment: Attachment J-2, the DRD submittal requirements matrix requires final submittals of S-001 and S-004 90 days prior to SDR. Based upon the dates identified in Attachment J-16 these end up being prior to ATP and prior to the update submittal of S-001 and prior to the initial submittal of S-004. This has significant impacts to the IMS.
Answer: The J-2 DRD Matrix is updated to correct this conflict. 10. Question: Will there be change to the target weight requirement as a result of the change to the OML? If so, can the contractors obtain the preliminary weight targets prior to 6 Feb 06?
Answer: Yes, the weight target changed, the new requirements are provided in this amendment with the updated CXP-10001 Systems Requirement Document for the Crew Exploration Vehicle Element (CEV SRD).
11. Question: Can NASA provide an approximate date on the release of aero data? Will it be provided prior to discussions/negotiations?
Answer: NASA has provided instructions in Section L.72 that address the data necessary for your proposal as it relates to the aero data.
12. Question: Can NASA provide a preliminary top level schedule (fact find, discussions/negotiations, final price revision, etc) prior to the 6 Feb RFQ Amendment?
Answer: The schedule is now being refined and will be provided at a later date under a separate cover letter.
13. Question: Question 13 has been broken into subsections to better respond and add clarification.
Question (13a): Per discussions with Lee Pagel on January 6th and with Keith Hutto on January 9th, it is our understanding that the estimating methodology, to be reflected in the Cost Volume, desired by NASA is that the estimated NTE values in support of the Schedule B Production activity are to be based upon the “best” possible case within the schedule constraints set forth in Attachment J-16 (i.e. assume efficiencies, assume multiple vehicles are ordered at the same time allowing for the procurement of hardware in bulk buys, assume no gap in production, etc.).
Answer (13a): NASA does not view the Flight Manifest (Attachment J-16) nor the “Assumption” for Contract Pricing (Clause B.8) as “best case” versus “worst case” scenarios. For Schedule B, the Offeror shall price the Integrated Project Schedule (Attachment J-16) per the Offeror’s technical approach. Any assumptions related to your approach to meet Attachment J-16 must be captured in the Technical Volume, Technical Resource Volume and Pricing sections of your proposal to support the Integrated Project Schedule. As indicated by Section M of the RFP, the Offeror’s proposed Schedule B NTE prices, per the Cost Volume, will be utilized for selection purposes.
Question (13b): Additionally, it is our understanding that the NTE values reflected in the Contracts Volume should be values based upon the “worst” case scenario (i.e. vehicles order 1 at a time, etc.) with the constraints of Attachment J-16.
Answer (13b): NASA does not view the Flight Manifest (Attachment J-16) nor the “Assumption” for Contract Pricing (Clause B.8) as “best case” versus “worst case” scenarios. The NTE values to be included in Clause B.8 are to be based on NASA ordering 1 vehicle or refurbished unit as applicable for the respective year. This number would not assume a flight schedule. NASA realizes the NTE values included in the Cost Volume may differ from the NTE values provided in Clause B.8. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to include a narrative explanation regarding any differences.
Question (13c ): Additionally, it is our understanding that NASA desires a reconciliation of the values to identify the differences between the two volumes.
Answer (13c ): Your assumption is correct. NASA requires reconciliation of the NTE values between the estimates provided in the Cost Volume and those provided in the Model Contract, Clause B.8. Also see answer to 13b.
Question (13d): Furthermore, it is our understanding that the NTE values set forth in the Contracts Volume will be excluded from consideration by the Source Selection Evaluation Board. Please confirm the above items.
Answer (13d): Your assumption is incorrect. The Contracts Volume is not excluded from consideration by the Source Evaluation Board. The Offeror is required to reconcile the NTE values set forth in the Contracts Volume with the NTE values included in the Cost Volume. Also see answer to 13b and 13c.
NASA has updated the RFP to reflect these clarifications.
14. Question: Section M, Paragraph M4.4: Will Schedule B be included in the Probable Cost analysis for Selection Purposes as stated in the section entitle “Probable Cost for Selection Purposes”? This appears to be in conflict with other language in M4.4 which indicates that Schedule B is subject to Cost Realism only.
Answer: Yes, it will be included as part of the probable cost for selection purposes. There is no conflict with other language in M4.4. For Schedules A and C, a cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with Section M4.4, paragraph 2. For Schedule B, the Government will perform a review of the NTE prices and determine if there are any potential performance risks as a result of unrealistic pricing. If it is determined that your proposed NTE values are not adequately explained and result in unrealistic estimates, a mission suitability weakness or deficiency may be assessed under management or technical, respectively, as a performance risk. However, no adjustment to your proposed Schedule B NTE amounts will be assessed.
NASA has updated the RFP to reflect this clarification. 15. Question: Background: In the RFP SOW, Section 2.2, External Integration, is broken out into 2.2.1, CEV to Constellation Program Integration and 2.2.2, CEV to International Space Station Program Integration. Section 2.2.1 includes the Crew Launch Vehicle as an external interface within the Constellation Program. In the RFP Section L Part II, L.33 Systems Engineering and Integration (SOW 2.0), subparagraph a) instructs the offeror to discuss their support of CEV to CLV integration and subparagraph b) instructs the offeror to discuss their support of Constellation element integration wit the CEV. Included in subparagraph b) is CXP-01007, International Space Station (ISS) to Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Interface Requirements Document (IRD). Question: When referring to the Constellation Program, do we include ISS? Answer: L.33 b) does not intend to imply that the ISS Program is part of the Constellation Program. L.33 has been updated to clarify.
B. Changes to the RFP and other updates:
1. Clause B.3 in schedules A and C clarifies that Base Fee will not be proposed.
2. Clause H.13, SPACE FLIGHT AWARENESS PROGRAM, in all schedules is deleted and replaced with the following:
The Contractor shall establish a program for Space Flight Awareness (SFA). The Program’s goals and objectives are to:
- Ensure every employee involved in human space flight is aware of the importance of their role in promoting safety, quality and mission success.
- Participation in NASA-Industry Space Flight Awarness Program.
- Increase awareness of the Human Space Flight Program accomplishments, milestones and objectives with a focus on safety and mission success.
- Conduct events and products that motivate and recognize the workforce, and enhance employee morale.
- Function as an internal communications team to disseminate key educational, program/management safety, quality, and mission success messages and themes.
3. Section J, J-1 Statement of Work is updated for the following sections. Track changes on to identify specific changes: Paragraphs 1.1.4, 2.1.9.4, 2.2.1, 6.0, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.6, and 6.2.10.
4. Section J, J-2 Data Requirements Document, Delivery dates for DRD CEV-S-001 & 004 have been updated and some administrative corrections.
5. Section J, Attachment J-3 Applicable Documents is updated to reflect changes to the applicable documents list.
a. CXP-01008, LIDS IDD Draft is now added to the Bidders’ Library.
b. CXP-10001, CEV SRD Revised version added. Track changes on.
c. CXP-12000, CEV Project Management Plan Revised version added. Track Changes on.
d. CXP-01013, Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS) Interface Definition Document (IDD).
e. J-3, Paragraph 1.1, Applicable Documents Children; CXP-01001 is added to the list.
f. J-3, Approved Children Table has been updated to reflect titles in the Bidder Library (P.13-34).
g. RAA Acronym changed to reflect proper acronym of RRA, Range Reference Atmosphere.
6. Section J, Attachment J-11, paragraph 2.0 is modified to update the GFP table to account for APAS changes.
7. Section J, Attachment J-13, updated to reflect addition of EEST and APAS to the acronym list.
8. Section J, Attachment J-16, Introduction paragraph is changed.
a. From: This attachment shall be used by the Contractor to develop an integrated project schedule that reflects any efficiency gained as a result of the Contractor’s streamlining plan in Attachment J-2, DRD CEV-M-001, CEV Prime Project Management Plan. The dates in Table J-16-1, CEV Project Milestones, and Table J-16-2, CEV Project Lunar Outpost Milestones, should be considered “no later than dates”. Technical discussion related to the proposed schedule to meet a first crewed test flight as close to 2010 as possible, but no later than 2012, will be discussed in the Contractor’s technical proposal volume and technical resources volume.
To: This attachment shall be used by the Contractor to develop an integrated project schedule that reflects any efficiency gained as a result of the Contractor’s streamlining plan in Attachment J-2, DRD CEV-M-001, CEV Prime Project Management Plan. The ISS-1 and subsequent launch dates in Table J-16-1, CEV Project Milestones, and Table J-16-2, CEV Project Lunar Outpost Milestones, should be considered “no later than dates”. Technical discussion related to the proposed schedule to meet a first crewed test flight as close to 2010 as possible, but no later than 2012, will be discussed in the Contractor’s technical proposal volume and technical resources volume.
b. Delete Phase 1 milestone.
9. Section L, L Part I FAR Clause 52.215-1 has the ALT 1 added. ALT 1 states discussions will be conducted with Offerors in the competitive range.
10. Section L, L.5 is modified to clarify that questions shall be submitted no later than February 24, 2006.
11. Section L, L.8 is modified to add page guidelines for the Addendum Proposal.
12. Section L, L.9 is modified to add the number of copies of the Addendum Proposal that need to be delivered.
13. Section L, L.10 is modified to add due dates for the Addendum Proposal, and to clarify if hand carried, delivery is to the Johnson Space Center.
14. Section L, L.33 is modified to clarify proposal instruction for Constellation IRDs and IDDs, and to add a new applicable document, CXP-01013, Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System Interface Definition Document (IDD).
15. Section L, L.72 is modified to add proposal instructions for Amendment 1 Impact Assessment.
16. Section L, L Part III, Paragraph 4.2 is modified to address the changes in the RFP as a result of this amendment.
17. Section L, L Part III, Paragraph 4.3.5 is added to the Cost Volume to address the changes in the RFP as a result of this amendment.
18. Section L, L Part III, Table L5-3 (SOW 6.1.5 and 6.2.1) is revised to correct the data requirements (i.e., TA, BOE).
19. Section L, L Part III; Paragraph 5.6 has been added to reflect the changes in the RFP as a result of this amendment.
20. Section L, L Part III, Appendix II, Technical Resources Templates (TRT) have been revised to include three additional TRTs. See the note with two asterisks (**NOTE) immediately following Table L5-3.
21. Section L, L Part III, Appendix I, Support Data Workbook, Summary Technical Resources Templates A1, B, and C are modified to add a row to capture Prime Offeror FTEs, which allows for correct “Validation Row” calculation.
22. Section M, M4.2.1 has been modified to delete reference to the Cargo Delivery Vehicle.
23. Section M, M4.4 has been modified to further clarify evaluation criteria.
24. The following documents have been updated/provided in the Bidders Library:
a. AMS2772 – Document Title Update
b. CXP-01008 LIDS IDD
c. CXP-01013 APAS IDD – Place holder for document to be added at a later date.
d. CXP-02019_Rqmts for Prep FMEA CIL.
e. CXP-10001 CEV SRD – Update
f. CXP-12000 CEV Project Management Plan – Update
g. RRA – Document Title Update
h. CXP-02012 Hazard Analyses 011906
i. SAE-ARP-5412 – Document Title Update
j. CXP-01001 CEV/CLV IRD
k. CXP-15000 CEV Crew Module Outer Mold Line
