Anonymous Questions All questions are posted as they were submitted to the Government. Question 1: The recent update to the Technical Library on 9/11/06 did not have notification as an amendment to the RFP as stated in the technical library. Is that an error or will NASA update the library and it is the contractors responsiblity to monitor the procurement website for update notices? Response: Prior to issuing the draft RFP or the RFP, the Government will make every attempt to populate the Technical Library with the most current documents available that may help an offeror understand the requirement. However it is the offeror’s responsibility to monitor the Technical Library for new documents or updated documents prior to release of the draft RFP or RFP. . Once the draft RFP or RFP is issued, the Government will provide amendments to the draft RFP or RFP to notify potential offerors of document changes that may affect the way in which a potential offeror may propose. The Technical Library Legend will be amended to accurately reflect the above. In all cases, potential offerors should monitor the webpage for updates to the Technical Library or amendments to the draft RFP or RFP. Question 2: As identified in the CSSS RFI solicitation responses are due by e- mail on September 18. Is there any document size limitations with the NASA e- mail system that will prevent the receipt of responses? We want to make sure that our response will be received and therefore want the document to be below any NASA and/or Government limitations. Response: All forms of responses are due by 9/18/06, whether they are email or hardcopy. For responses that are emailed, the file may not exceed 20 megabytes. Question 3: In the Suit Systems presentation from Industry day, page 4-9 states that the current version of the Constellation Operations Concepts Document (CxP70007) will be posted to the procurement website. Is that still the plan? Is there a time frame for this posting? Response: The estimated planned release date for the Constellation Operations Concept Document is the end of January. The document will be posted after that time. Question 4: A recent posting of the JSC FY'07 Acquisition Forecast has listed a procurement for Exploration Space Suit System as a deletion for the 4th quarter of '06. Is this being deleted because of the nomenclature change to the Constellation Space Suit System or that the DRFP that the RFI reported as being posted in Dec. '06 will not be posted? Response: The name Exploration Space Suit System (ESSS) has been changed to Constellation Space Suit System (CSSS), while the procurement has remained the same. When a procurement is made public through a synopsis, the procurement is deleted from the Acquisition Forecast. The Acquisition Forecast provides advance notice that a procurement is being contemplated. The procurement schedule has not been posted as yet but will be posted soon. The procurement schedule is tied to the Space Suit Systems Requirements Review (SRR) scheduled in the fourth quarter of FY 2007. Question 5: The above referenced document (the architecture presentation NASA posted) does not provide mass or volume requirements for the CSSS with respect to the CEV seat, stowage, etc. Can NASA advise how and when these mass and volume requirements will be developed? For example, will they be developed jointly by NASA and provided in the CSSS RFP, at contract award, or will they be developed jointly by NASA and the CEV and CSSS primes? Response: The mass and volume requirements for the EVA Systems hardware which will fly on the CEV will be documented in CxP 70033 Constellation Program Crew Exploration Vehicle - To - Extravehicular Activity Systems Interface Requirements Document (CEV to EVA IRD). The IRD is currently in draft and includes placeholder mass and volume requirements. The IRD will continue to be developed and is planned to be baselined by December 2007. While NASA plans to baseline the mass and volume requirements prior to award of the CSSS contract, the CSSS prime will have an opportunity to influence these requirements as they continue to mature. NASA intends to provide sufficient data from the IRD to allow potential CSSS bidders to develop their proposals. NASA plans to post the draft document or pertinent sections of the draft document to the CSSS technical library prior to RFP release. Question 6 : The EVA Systems Project Schedule on page 11 of the 11/1/06 EVA System Architecture identifies “Contracts Award” for the EVA Level III instead of “Contract Award” following “RFP Release.” Is there an intent to award multiple contracts for CSSS? Response: No, that is an error. The schedule should say "Contract Award" Question 7: If the CEV program schedule is moving to the right, (i.e. 1 or 2 years) will this effect CSSS program schedule? Response: While the first flight date of the CSSS hardware is obviously tied to CEV, the hardware certification and delivery dates are not necessarily tied to the CEV schedule. If the CEV schedule changes the Constellation Program will determine whether or not to adjust the schedules of the related projects and contracts. The CSSS first flight dates and certification dates have not changed from the dates on the schedule in the 11/1/06 EVA System Architecture presentation. Question 8: Are there limitations on the length of contract that NASA can enter into including priced options? Response: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 17.204(e) states the following: “Unless otherwise approved in accordance with agency procedures, the total of the basic and option periods shall not exceed 5 years in the case of services, and the total of the basic and option quantities shall not exceed the requirement for 5 years in the case of supplies. These limitations do not apply to information technology contracts. However, statutes applicable to various classes of contracts, for example, the Service Contract Act (see 22.1002-1), may place additional restrictions on the length of contracts.” NASA FAR 1817.204(e)(iii) states the following: “Requests for deviations from the 5-year limitation policy shall be sent to the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) and shall include justification for exceeding five years. The justification shall discuss planned future assessment of continued performance either prior to exercise of options or at the mid-term of a basic contract with no options. Evidence shall also be included showing that the extended years can be reasonably priced.” The CSSS Procurement Development Team plans to request a deviation from the five year maximum in order to contract for the stated requirements to meet the space suit system architecture described in modification 5 to synopsis NNJ06161022R. Question 9: Will training be part of the CSSS RFP? Response: The conduct of training will not be part of the RFP, but the provisioning and sustaining of suits and hardware for training is in the RFP. Question 10: In past RFPs NASA has specified WI-023 as a requirement for program management requirements? Will WI-023 be a requirement for CSSS management? Response: NASA does not intend to make EA-WI-023 an applicable document on the CSSS contract. CSSS project management will be in accordance with NPR 7120.5D and NPR 7123.1. The philosophy of disciplined, process oriented hardware development will be described in detail in the EVA Systems Project Management Plan and the Constellation Program EVA Systems Engineering Management Plan which will be applicable documents on the CSSS contract. EA-WI-023 will likely be listed as a reference document. Also, any GFE that is supplied to the Contractor to integrate will be developed in accordance with EA- WI-023. Question 11: The NASA has posted many technical documents to date on the website, which provides the community with much insight into NASA's thoughts but there is some confusion on the nomenclature that is being used. Errata sheets were used on some of the trade study documents replacing the Constellation Space Suit System with Constellation Space Suit Element. Which one will be used for this procurement and what will the name of the contract be? Response: The contract will be named Constellation Space Suit System. The term Constellation Space Suit Element refers to one of the hardware elements being developed by the EVA Systems Project Office. The hardware development hierarchy used by the Constellation Program is: System Element Subsystem Assembly Subassembly Component Part The hierarchy will be documented in CxP 72180 EVA Systems Project System Engineering Management Plan. The contract name will remain Constellation Space Suit System, though it does not represent a system under the Constellation hierarchy. The contract will include some, but not all of the effort required to supply the EVA System for the Constellation Program. The Elements of the EVA System have been defined as the Suit Element, the Vehicle Interface Element and the Tools and Equipment Element. The Suit Element of the EVA System is sometimes informally referred to as the Constellation Space Suit Element and the team currently working to define requirements for the Suit Element refers to itself as the Constellation Space Suit Element Team. Question 12: Reference Section L, Part III, 4.1 General Instructions, please clarify the definition of Major Subcontractor in this section with the definition in Sect L.10 (e). Is the value $50 million or $80 Million to be a major subcontractor. Response: Section L, Part III, Paragraph 4.1 General Instructions and Section L Parts I and II, Paragraph L.10 should both have identified Major Subcontractors as those subcontractors having a value equal to or greater than $80 million. Paragraph L.10 will be changed to read $80 million in the Final RFP instructions. Question 13: Reference Section L 10 (e) Submittal requirements. What specifically does the Government expect major subcontractors to submit as their proposal, just a Cost Proposal with pricing, or 6 Volumes responding to the DRFP? Response: Major Subcontractors are required to submit a Cost Proposal (Volume IV) only. The prime is responsible for providing all volumes. Question 14: Reference L. Part III, Para 4.3.3, Offeror Pricing Model (OPM). Does the OPM require a favorable DCAA audit as to its accuracy, since the Govt requires the Cost proposal to be submitted to DCAA as well? Response: The Offeror's Pricing Model (OPM) is one component of an Offeror's submitted cost data, and as such, is a potential source of data that an Auditor may look at. Therefore, it should be as accurate as possible to prevent potential negative audit findings and/or comments. However, per Section L Part III, Paragraph 4.1 (4th paragraph) of the Draft RFP, Offerors are reminded that should there be discrepancies between an Offeror's submitted data the hardcopy version takes precedence over the electronic version and the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) data takes precedence over the OPM data. Question 15: Reference Section L, Part III, Excel Pricing Model, would the Government consider one-on-one meetings with Offeror Cost/Pricing Teams to make sure the estimating accuracy required for the EPM is completely understood? Response: The Government did consider one-on-one meetings with Offerors regarding the EPM templates; however, the Government does not believe they are necessary at this time. Offerors may submit questions regarding the EPM templates for those areas that are not completely understood by the Offeror. Question 16: What is the projected Total Contract Value for the Base Contract and each option period? Response: The Government will not provide an estimated contract value. The contract value will be determined by the winning proposal. Question 17: General what is the Governments estimated Total Contract Value for CSSS? Proposal resource expenditure, work allocation to subcontractors, and small business subcontracting decisions are dependent upon this estimate. Response: The Government will not provide an estimated contract value. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine the work to be allocated to subcontractors, and to make small business subcontracting decisions accordingly. Question 18: Reference Section L, Part III, Technical Resources Volume instructions Estimating the work required to engineer the Cx EVA System could take months of effort. At this time, a complete SRD for the Cx EVA System is not available. In an effort to provide as accurate a bid for the program as possible, we suggest the Government contemplate extending the due date for the Cost and Technical Resources Volume. Response: Although updates to the SRD are contemplated, the existing version of the SRD is substantially complete. Further, drafts of the Element Requirements Documents (ERDs) will be posted to the technical library in mid- August, much earlier than originally forecast. There are conflicting factors acting on the proposal due date. Extending the proposal due date will result in more detailed and accurate bids up to a point. On the other hand, extending the due date delays the ATP date and thus adds cost and schedule risk to the DDT&E effort. NASA believes that the current schedule strikes the appropriate balance between these factors. Question 19: Reference L.13.C MA3 and Appendix per J-2, DRD CSSS-B-003, the requirements for a fully resource loaded Program Management framework (IMP/IMS and CPR) indicate the level of rigor required of a major $1B plus contract. These proposal requirements seem out of synch with the expected Design and Development effort that was communicated to industry earlier this year. Please explain the reasoning for this level of program planning detail. Response: The program planning detail described in the draft RFP is required by the Constellation Program. Question 20: The present SOW issued in the Draft RFP calls for the following documents: CxP 72208, Constellation EVA Systems Suit Element Requirements Document CxP 72207, Constellation EVA Systems Vehicle Interface Element Requirements Document. These documents are not available in the technical library. Can NASA state when they will be available for review and comment? Response: Drafts of CxP 72208, Constellation Space Suit Element Requirements Document (ERD) and CxP 72207, Constellation Program Vehicle Interface Element (VIE) Element Requirements Document (ERD) will be posted to the technical library within a few days. The drafts will be the versions of the documents being reviewed in the EVA Level IV Systems Requirements Review (SRR). The kickoff presentation for the SRR is also being posted. This presentation should help put the ERD drafts in context. As described in modification 10 to the synopsis, the baseline ERDs will be posted to the technical library around November 1, 2007, along with an amendment to the Final RFP. The Attachment J-19, SRD/ERD Requirements Applicability and Verification Participation Matrix, included with the draft RFP, does not include the ERD requirements. Attachment J-19 will be updated as part of the amendment when the baselined ERDs are posted to the technical library. Question 21: Reference Sect L.13.B and L.13.C: the overall impression of the response requirements for the DRFP seems to indicate the Government is seeking an industry partner to systems engineer the Cx EVA System requirements into a specification for later production, O&M, sustainment and life- cycle support. Previously, the indications were that the Government was seeking a suit designer-developer. Please clarify the CSSS contractor’s main role with the Government: life-cycle systems engineer or designer-developer. Respnse: The CSSS contractor is responsible for DDT&E, production and sustaining engineering for the hardware and software identified in the draft RFP. We have reviewed Sect L.13.B and L.13.C and have not been able to identify where they are misleading. Question 22: Please clarify your intent with the term “dissimilar” in requirement [CA3283-PO]. This requirement states: EVA System shall communicate using an independent, dissimilar, voice only system. We are concerned that this requirement could drive the need for two unique voice communication radio systems. Response: This requirement is the parent of requirement [EVA2051]. The wording of this requirement and its associated verification clearly contemplate two independent systems. The verification of this requirement from the current revision of CxP 72002 is: [EVA2051V] Draft The ability of the Suit Element to communicate using an independent, dissimilar, voice only system during lunar surface operations shall be verified by demonstration. The demonstration shall consist of disabling the primary voice communication system and operating the secondary system over a (TBD-EVA-050) distance. The verification shall be considered successful when the demonstration shows that the Suit Element can communicate using an independent, dissimilar, voice only system during lunar surface operations Rationale: Demonstrating the capabilities of the secondary voice loop with the primary communication system disabled will show the independence of the secondary loop. Question 23: Requirement [EVA1081] appears to be an issue as stated. (For example vacuum thermal control systems may not meet all requirements at pressure.) Please clarify the intended CSSS operating modes and as sociated pressure environments (e.g. IVA, EVA, NBL). Response: In the current revision of CxP72002, requirement [EVA1081] states: The EVA System shall meet its requirements in an external pressure environment ranging from 0.0 to 105 (TBR-EVA-009) kPa (15.2 psia). Rationale: The EVA System is required to operate within standard vehicle conditions as well as during microgravity operations performed at vacuum. The maximum pressure experienced on the ISS is 15.2 psia. While this requirement does require that the EVA System operate at all stated pressure regimes, it does not require that all sub elements of the system operate at all regimes. This requirement is decomposed in the current revision of CxP 72208 to the Suit Element as CSSE0079: CSSE0079 Environmental Pressure Range The Suit Element shall meet its requirements in a pressure environment ranging from 0.0 to 105 (TBR-EVA-009) kPa (15.2 psia). Rationale: The Suit Element is required to operate within standard vehicle conditions, as well as during in-space operations performed at vacuum. The maximum pressure identified on the ISS is 15.2 psia. Applicability: This requirement is applicable during the following mission phase(s): LEA, Microgravity EVA, Lunar EVA, IVA CSSE0079 is allocated to the suit subsystems. It is expected that this requirement will be further decomposed in lower level contractor developed specifications. For example, while the PLSS must provide thermal control, it would be reasonable for the requirements to be decomposed such that at vacuum the PLSS is solely responsible for thermal control and at other regimes heat rejection will be accomplished with resources from an umbilical. Question 24: CxP 72002, Section 184.108.40.206, Table 1 appears to be inconsistent with Table 3.3.1-1 in CxP70033. Please clarify. Response: These two requirements are related. One is the requirement for the EVA System receiving power from Orion, and the other is for the power being supplied to the Suit Element within the EVA System. These requirements are in work and are intended to be clarified in the next revisions of CxP72002 and CxP70033. The Vehicle Interface Element will be responsible for conditioning the power to bridge the gap, if any, between the requirements. Question 25: Requirements for ISS missions do not require the ability to detect control forces imposed for other missions. This could compromise mission safety on those missions. Since Configuration 1 suits will also support lunar missions the application of the same tactility requirements to ISS missions seems appropriate. CxP 72002 Appendix C Mission Applicability Matrix. Suit detect force applied at hand [EVA 2070]. Response: This omission is an error; EVA2070 is applicable to the ISS mission. Appendix C is intended to be corrected in the next revision of CxP72002. Question 26: The unit conversion in CxP requirements EVA3021 and EVA3035 appear to be incorrect. [EVA3021] The Vehicle Interface Element breathing gas pressure drop during IVA operations shall be a maximum of 20 Pa (TBR-EVA-046) (80 in-H2O) at 0.127 m3/min +0.01 m3/min/-0 m3/min (4.5 ft3/min +0.4 ft3/min/-0 ft3/min), 101 kPa ±5 kPa (14.7 psia ±0.7 psi), and 21ºC +4ºC/-2ºC (70ºF ±5ºF). [EVA3035] The Vehicle Interface Element breathing gas pressure drop during EVA operations shall be a maximum of 44.5 Pa (TBR-EVA-040) (179 in-H2O) at 0.17 m3/min +0.02 m3/min/-0 m3/min (6 ft3/min +0.7 ft3/min/-0 ft3/min), 101 kPa ±5 kPa (14.7 psia ±0.7 psi), and 21ºC +4ºC/-2ºC (70ºF ±5ºF). Response: The units for the initial value are in error. The initial value in each requirement should be in KPa rather than Pa. This value will be corrected in the next revision of CxP72002. Question 27: Recommend a revision to [EVA2030] Draft: The Suit Element shall have support a bit error rate of not greater than 1E-8 (TBR-EVA-023) for end-to-end communications by complying with CxP 70022-01. Response: [EVA2030] is a direct flow-down of CARD requirement CA3043-PO. This requirement has changed in the latest version of the CARD, and is intended to be updated in the next revision of CxP72002. [CA3043-PO] The Constellation Architecture shall have a Packet Loss Rate (PLR) of not greater than 1 E-5 (TBR-001-105) given 1500 byte packets (TBR- 001-105) for end-to-end communications. Rationale: Internet Protocol (IP) based communications requires well defined end-to-end communication performance. Constellation communications concepts are based on multi-hop, packet switched, routed communication paths between systems. It is necessary to specify performance of the entire path from source to destination rather than hop-by-hop to ensure reliable data delivery. This packet loss number is determined based on IDAC2, TDS SIG-13-201. Question 28: Please clarify [EVA2100] The Suit Element shall have a maximum design pressure of 30 (TBR-EVA-028) psig for low pressure gas systems. Are the pressure suit, LSS vent loop, etc. included as low pressure gas systems? To which subsystems of the Suit Element is this requirement intended to apply? Response: This requirement is being updated in CxP 72002 to the following: The Suit Element shall have a maximum acceptable working pressure of (TBD) kPa (TBD psid) for low pressure gas systems. Rationale: The Suit Element is subject to the full pressure range that may be imparted by the vehicle ECLSS while receiving umbilical services. The Suit Element must be able to operate nominally after experiencing the specified maximum pressure delta between the internal suit and the external cabin environments. While this requirement does not indicate the nominal working pressure, the full EVA System must be structurally robust such that a pressure spike or a single failure of the vehicle ECLSS will not cause permanent structural damage. Verification: The maximum acceptable working pressure of the Suit Element for low pressure breathing gas systems shall be verified by inspection. The inspection shall review the design and verify that the maximum acceptable working pressure is (TBD) kPa (TBD psid) for low pressure breathing gas systems. The verification shall be considered successful when the inspection shows that the Suit Element has a maximum acceptable working pressure of (TBD) kPa (TBD psid) for low pressure breathing gas systems. Rationale: Inspecting that the Suit Element provides a maximum acceptable working pressure of (TBD) kPa (TBD psid) for low pressure breathing gas systems will ensure that this requirement is met. This requirement will be decomposed in the Suit ERD. The draft version of the Suit ERD decomposes it to CSSE3089 for the Vent Loop. CSSE3089 is currently in work. The baseline version of the Suit ERD will also decompose it to the PGS, PLSS and PCAI. Question 29: In order to most efficiently support the imagery requirements in RFP Attachment J-1 section 6.0 paragraph (f), we request that the building 8 imagery facility and capabilities be added to the "List of Facilities, Installation Accountable Property, and Services" in Attachment J-10. Response: Current contractors use digital cameras to meet similar requirements. It is believed that using Building 8 support would be more expensive. When Building 8 support is required (like for flight video), a request can be submitted as is currently done . Question 30: RFP Attachment J-1, paragraph 220.127.116.11 (m) states "The Contractor shall establish and maintain a plan for tracking the configuration of Class III hardware to document any differences between flight and training hardware." To minimize program cost, should this requirement be clarified to limit configuration tracking to Class IIIw hardware only? Response: Mission Operations must be aware of differences between flight and training hardware in order to properly conduct training and to be able to certify that training has been properly completed in the Mission Operation CoFR statement. This requirement intends to include both Class III and Class IIIW. Question 31: Section L.10 paragraph (e) states that the electronic copy be submitted in CD format. Would DVD format also be acceptable? Response: No. Question 32: Total pressure specified for the low flow condition (0.1 - 1 PSIA) in the Vehicle Source Breathing Gas Requirements Table referenced by requirement [EVA3014 appears to be incompatible with life support requirements and with corresponding information in CxP70033 Table 3.4.1-1. Is PSID intended here? Please clarify. Response: The measuring units of psid was intended rather than psia. This error will be corrected in the next revision of CxP72002. Question 33: Requirement EVA2037 states: “[EVA2037] The Suit Element shall have a gas leakage rate less than 1000 (TBR-EVA-025) sccm at 30 (TBR-EVA- 026) kPa (4.35 psid) above ambient pressure.” This leakage rate appears high for a flight application. Please clarify the suit configurations to which it applies. Response: This requirement applies to the suit element as a whole. The numbers have To Be Resolved (TBR)s and may change. The requirement is being decomposed in CxP72208. The decomposed requirements levy a much lower leakage rate. The decomposed requirements in the current revision of CxP72208 are: CSSE1000 Microgravity Leakage Rate The Pressure Garment Subsystem (PGS) shall have a maximum leakage rate of 95 (TBR-CSSE-001) SCCM of O2 in a vacuum environment with the suit pressurized to 29.6 (TBR-CSSE-004) kPa-d (4.30 psid). Rationale: Consumables planning and tracking is dependent on characterization of human physiology and suit characteristics such as leakage. Excessive leakage could curtail microgravity EVA operations or potentially pose a hazard to the crew by causing consumables to be depleted prematurely. This requirement will affect design of seals and suit connectors. CSSE3070 Ventilation Loop Leakage The Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) shall limit ventilation loop oxygen leakage rates, while at vacuum, to the maximum rates defined for each pressure mode in the Modes and Leakage Table (TBD-CSSE-129). Rationale: Ventilation loop leakage combined with PGS leakage drives the sizing of the primary oxygen subsystem and the emergency oxygen subsystem. Question 34: CxP 72002 "EVA System Requirements Document", paragraph 18.104.22.168.2 Suit Element Crew Survival states [EVA2011] "The Suit Element shall provide 24 hours of personal flotation for water landings." Does this requirement allow the use of ancillary equipment, other than the Life Preserver Unit (LPU) specified in the Deliverable Items List, (e.g., a life raft)? Response: The intent of the requirement is that the suit element must independently meet this requirement without separate hardware such as a life raft. Question 35: When will NASA release the next version of the EVA Project Office Integrated Master Plan (IMP)? Will the Offeror have any opportunity to discuss the IMP content with NASA prior to submitting the proposal? Response: The next release of the IMP/Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Implementation Plan (CxP 72179, EVA Systems Project Plan, Annex 3) will be no later than Nov. 1, 2007. Offerors may ask anonymous questions related to the Implementation Plan via the CSSS website. Such questions should be submitted by November 15, 2007 to ensure that NASA has adequate time to respond before the required proposal submission date. Question 36: RFP Attachment J-1, paragraph 6.5.2 (g) states “In addition to ensuring the availability of hardware required by subsection a), the Contractor shall resolve DRs in a timely manner to ensure that a minimum of 90% of the inventory is available for use.” Specifiying a minimum hardware availability level could be a large cost driver towards fleet sizing. Recommend reconsidering this 90% requirement and replacing it with a requirement for an inventory management approach that supports 6.5.2(a). Response: The intention of this requirement is not to drive fleet sizing, but to require that discrepancy reports (DRs) are resolved in a timely manner. Failure to resolve DRs in a timely manner can result in large quantities of hardware being unavailable for use which would adversely drive fleet sizing and cost. NASA believes that 90% is an appropriate requirement for hardware availability. NASA will monitor this requirement during contract execution to ensure that 90% is an appropriate level. Question 37: In the final RFP, Table L.13-1 states that the Past Performance Volume is due 12/20/2007. However, L.13 paragraph (d) states "Offerors are requested to submit Volume VI (Past Performance) by 11/13/2007". Can you please let the offerors know which is the correct date? Response: The Government requests that the past performance proposals be submitted by11:00 a.m. local time on November 13, 2007, but they will not be considered late until after 11:00 a.m. local time on December 20, 2007. Question 38: The cover letter for the CSSS Solicitation states that "Questions/comments must be received by the Contracting Officer no later than November 15, 2007." However, the RFP Section L.8 states "QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION MUST BE PRESENTED IN WRITING and should be submitted to the above address within ten days of the RFP issue date ...," which would be October 11th. Can you please clarify which is the correct date? Also, should we continue to use the Anonymous Question submittal form on the procurement site or should we submit all of our questions directly to you by email? Response: Section L, provision L.8 has been revised to indicate that questions are requested by November 15, 2007. The revised Section L has been posted. The language in the Request for Proposal (RFP) takes precedence over the language in the RFP cover letter. Questions should be submitted in writing through the anonymous question capability on the CSSS procurement webpage, the Contracting Officer’s email address, or formal written letter addressed to the Contracting Officer. Question 39: Reference DRD CSSS-M-001, Management Plan, para 12 [INTERRELATIONSHIP: SOW Paragraphs: 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 10.1]. There is no SOW 2.1.1 in the DRFP. Is this a typo and you are actually referring to either 1.1.2 or 1.2? Answer: This reference was a typographical error in the draft RFP. It has been corrected in the final RFP to read: INTERRELATIONSHIP: SOW Paragraphs: 1.1.1, 2.1 Question 40: RFP Section L, Part III, Table L5-2 states that a complete TRT Package goes at the end of each SOW tabbed section which we interpret as requiring a hardcopy of each SOW TRT to be included in the Technical Resources Volume. The full TRT package includes 170 pages. Do these pages count towards the overall Technical Resources Volume page limit of 250? If so, we request that the overall volume page limit be increased to 420 pages to allow sufficient detail in the Technical Approach and Basis of Estimate narratives. Answer: All documentation provided in the Technical Resources Volume (Volume V) in support of providing Technical Approach (TA), Basis of Estimate (BOE), and Resources (R) data count toward the page limitation associated with Volume V. The page limitation associated with the Technical Resources Volume has been increased to 490 and is reflected in the Section L instructions, paragraph L.11 in the final RFP. Question 41: Would appreciate clarification from NASA on Tables L4-6, and L4- 7. The NASA provided these estimates for the The Basic Contract Period IDIQ, and the Option 1 Period IDIQ. Are these the government's estimates for the contractor efforts within these IDIQ activities or are they estimates for the government's participation in the IDIQ activities? Answer: The estimates represent the Government's approximation of the contractor resources (labor and non labor resources (NLR)) that will be needed by an Offeror to accomplish the IDIQ tasks that the Government anticipates authorizing under the Basic Contract Period and Option 1 Period. They are not estimates associated with the Government's participation in the IDIQ activities. Question 42: Some of the EVA System Requirements Document (SRD) requirements listed in RFP Attachment J-19 “SRD/ERD Requirements Applicability and Verification Participation Matrix” pertaining to Mars are listed as N/A and some are not. Which, if any, of the Mars requirements are applicable? Answer: NASA does not intend to levy any specific requirements which are unique to the Mars mission on the CSSS contract. Question 43: Per RFP Attachment J-2 DRD CSSS-B-003 (Contractor Integrated Master Schedule and Contract Performance Report) of the Five CPR formats required, Format 2 shall provide data to measure cost and schedule performance by Organization Breakdown Structure (OBS). The NASA Earned Value Management System (EVMS) website provides an example of an OBS, but the organizational categories are phases of a project (i.e. Design, Development, and Deployment) rather than organizations. Format 1 covers EVMS based on the NASA organizations identified in the WBS structure. Please clarify and/or provide a CSSS example of a desired contractor OBS. Answer: Format 1 will be per the prescribed Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) in attachment J-4. J-4 in the Draft RFP was created to conform to the SOW breakdown. A revision to J-4 has been provided in the Final RFP to characterize the WBS to be used during contract administration. J-4 will provide the mapping of scope from the SOW to the final CWBS. Again this mapping is for purposes of contract administration only. After award of the contract, cost data submitted in the final proposal will align with the final SOW organization. The final CWBS will only be prescribed to a certain level by NASA; it is up to the contractor to develop Work Package (lower level) assignments. Format 2 will be per the contractor's internal organization breakdown structure (OBS). An OBS is typically a functionally-oriented breakdown of the contractor's organization established to perform the work on a specific contract. For the non-prime effort, for example, the NASA OBS is comprised of the several division / branches providing deliverables and/or matrix support. For the contractor, typical OBS breakdown would include functional groups such as systems engineering, design engineering, manufacturing, test, facility support, etc. NASA will not prescribe a desired contractor OBS. We agree that the example list within Format 1 and Format 2 on the referenced NASA EVM website may appear to be identical, since example data within those templates are identical; however, in some cases the WBS and OBS may align, especially if the implementing organization is created around a WBS structure. Question 44: The J-16 draft deliverables list includes definition of the Configuration 1 Suit System Element and lists Arm pairs definition but does not define bearing quantities in the listing. Are there quantities of Scye bearings and Arm bearings that should be accounted for? Answer: The J-16 Deliverable Items List (DIL) released with the draft RFP designated Arms (pairs) as a Contract End Item (CEI). The DIL is based on EVA System Reference 1 (ESR1). In ESR1 arms are made up of a scye bearing, upper arm, arm bearing, lower arm and glove disconnect. The DIL only specifies quantities at the CEI level, which is the level that NASA intends to order hardware. Question 45: In the milestone schedule on page 2 of J-12, rows 3 and 6-9 appear to correspond to the draft IMP Significant Accomplishments B02, B04, B03, B05, and B06, respectively. Will the next release of the IMP include Significant Accomplishments under Event B for the milestones in rows 4 and 5 of the transition plan schedule? Will this impact the numbering of the other Significant Accomplishments? Answer: The IMP and the Transition Plan have matured since the draft RFP release. The next release of the IMP will include a Significant Accomplishment (SA) for "Government/Prime Technical Transition Complete" in the Award and Transition event in the Initial Capability IMP. This SA will include accomplishment criteria (ACs) for the VIE and Suit Design Status Reviews (DSRs), the EVA Integrated Baseline Review (IBR), and the Technical Reconciliation event listed in the Transition Plan. As activities have been added or moved in the IMP, the IMP activity codes will be adjusted. Question 46: Referring to the IMP provided in the procurement technical library, do the "planning" accomplishment criteria (B03a, B04a, etc.) apply to the entire accomplishment, or just to conducting the meeting? Answer: The "planning" accomplishment criteria (B03a, B04a, etc) apply to the entire accomplishment. Detailed tasks included under this accomplishment criteria include, for example, facility coordination and tool set-up for the entire review. Question 47: Referring to the IMP provided in the procurement technical library, should "VIE Delta" be "Suit Configuration 1" in accomplishment criteria B05d? Answer: Yes. Accomplishment criteria B05d should read "Suit Configuration 1 PDR SRB Activities Complete". It will be corrected in the next release of the EVA IMP. Question 48: Referring to the IMP provided in the procurement technical library, two accomplishments appear to be redundant: B08: "Suit Configuration 1 Interim Design Review (IDR)" and C02: "Suit Configuration 1 IDR." We request clarification. Answer: This redundancy will be addressed as follows: B08, "Suit Configuration 1 Interim Design Review (IDR)" will be removed in the next version of the IMP. Question 49: Referring to the IMP provided in the procurement technical library, two accomplishment criteria appear to be redundant: A06g: "EVA Systems Post SDR Activities Complete" and B06a: "EVA [Systems] SDR Actions Complete" - What scope is different between these two criteria? Answer: This apparent redundancy is explained as follows: after further development and refinement of the EVA Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), the two accomplishment criteria (A06g and B06a) and their supporting detailed tasks were combined. All similar pairs of post activities wrapping up a review and action complete activities kicking off the following review will be combined as well. The activities within the accomplishment criteria for post review activities will be moved to the planning/actions complete accomplishment criteria introducing the next review in the Project life cycle. The next release of the EVA IMP will show all updates. Question 50: Referring to the IMP provided in the procurement technical library, B05, the "Suit Configuration 1 PDR" accomplishment appears to be missing a "Study / Analysis Complete" accomplishment criteria, similar to the one in the "VIE Delta PDR" accomplishment. We request clarification. Answer: The clarification is as follows: as the IMP matured, an accomplishment criteria covering testing and development activities in preparation for the Suit Configuration 1 PDR was added. This accomplishment criteria will be seen in the final RFP release of the IMP. Question 51: The RFP does not address alternate proposals, will they be accepted? Response: Alternate proposals will not be accepted. Section L, provision 52.215-1 was not altered to accept alternate proposals. Question 52: The CSSS Draft RFP Attachment J-1, paragraph 3.4 references "CxP 70059, Constellation Program Integrated Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) Requirements," which is not currently in the Technical Library. Additionally, "CxP 72183, EVA Systems Project Risk Management Plan," which is in the Technical Library, references "CxP 70056, Constellation Program Risk Management Plan" and "CxP 70071, Constellation Program Management Requirements, Section 1: Risk Management," which are not currently in the Technical Library. Answer: CxP 70059 and CxP 70056 have now been posted to the technical library. CxP 70071 has been cancelled and will be deleted from CxP 72183 in the next revision. (The next revision of CxP72183 will not be available by December 20, 2007). Question 53: The CSSE Thermal Study, CX-5107, in the Technical Library references the JSC version of the Wissler Human Thermal Model software program and a Data Package for Constellation Space Suit Element Parametric Thermal Study. Will these be added to the Technical Library or otherwise made available to potential bidders? Answer: The JSC version of the Wissler Human Thermal Model software program cannot be released as part of the RFP because it is for internal NASA use only. NASA intends to post JSC-65483 CSSE Parametric Thermal Study to the technical library prior to November 1, 2007. Question 54: “CxP 72208, Constellation Program Space Suit Element Requirements Document", section 22.214.171.124.2 PLSS/PGS Interfaces references JSC-65564, PLSS Packaging Phase 2. Will this study be made available to potential offerors? Answer: NASA has posted JSC-65564, PLSS Packaging Phase 2 to the technical library. Question 55: On Communication, Avionics, and Informatics: For the Configuration 2 it is not clear that a helmet mounted display is required. Assuming a display is needed as in the present EMU, is there a requirement for the display in the helmet? Answer: EVA System Reference 1 (ESR1) used a heads up display as an implementation approach. The implementation approaches selected in ESR1 are not requirements. Detailed suit requirements are defined in the Suit Element Requirements Document (ERD). Question 56: In Section L.13, table L.13-1- Proposal Due Dates, states the Past Performance Volume is due on 12/20/07; however, in paragraph (d) of that same section the RFP states "As explained in paragraph (a), the due date for every volume is 12/20/07, but Offerors are requested to submit Volume VI (Past Performance) by 11/13/07." Is NASA requiring the Past Performance volume be submitted on 11/13/07, or is it a request to have the volume submitted earlier than 12/20/07 if possible? Based on the NASA response to the aforementioned question, when are the past performance questionnaires due? Answer: The Government is requesting that the Past Performance Proposal Volume VI be delivered by November13, 2007. Past Performance Questionnaires are requested to be provided at the same time that the Past Performance Volume is provided. The due date for such items is December 20, 2007. Question 57: Reference Attachment J-16, Deliverable Items List: The MS Word file titled "121486-SOL-001-020" and the MS Excel file "121486-SOL-001-021" do not align with respect to Table 1. Vehicle Interface Element Basic and Option 2. Please clarify which is the correct file. If "121486-SOL-001-021" is the correct file, should the reference WBS for FY 2011 be 126.96.36.199 as opposed to 188.8.131.52? Answer: The MS Word file should now match the MS Excel file with regard to table 1. Yes, the reference WBS for FY2011 should be 184.108.40.206. Question 58: Instructions for the Overhead template (OHT) and G&A template (GAT) state "This template is required of the Prime Offeror, Major Sub...only if a FPRA/FPRP is not utilized for pricing the Basic Period, the Option Period 1, and the Option Period 2 effort." FPRAs are usually valid for X number of years and are updated / negotiated annually. We currently are utilizing an FPRA valid for the next three (3) years, our FPRA is the basis for our out year FPR projections. What is our requirement to completing the aforementioned templates? Answer: Offerors shall provide the basis for all out year rates not covered by the FPRA in their proposal. This requirement can be done in narrative form or the OHT and GAT may be used. However in this situation, these templates are not required as long as the basis for the out year rates are the FRPA rates. Question 59: This question is to recommend that the OPM requirement to be self-calculating be withdrawn. Electronic and hard copy cost and fee summaries following the format specified in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408 from our government approved pricing system (OPM) should suffice as they did on another recent NASA procurement (see NASA RFP NNM07190940R ). The CSSS RFP requires we propose utilizing our approved estimating, pricing, and accounting systems and submitting proposals that allow for DCAA verification of our FPRA. A self-calculating CSSS OPM will not match our government approved OPM due to monthly versus annual calculations and will not allow for DCAA FPRA verification absent much detailed explanation. Our proposal will include hard copy cost and fee summaries from our government approved OPM for audit. A self calculating CSSS OPM will require us to provide three (3) different cost and fee reports. The cost differences are very, very, minor. If the CSSS OPM is still to be self-calculating, please explain its value add over the EPM. If our fiscal year was the same as the contract year than our EPM and the CSSS OPM would be identical. The paragraphs below were taken from the NASA IUA RFP NNM07190940R Volume III - Cost Factor ,1. Introduction, paragraphs i and j and Section 9, where a single submission (EPM) was determined adequate (absent an government approved OPM) to meet the requirement and the OPM is no longer required to be self calculating. Can the below requirement be included in the CSSS RFP, as the CSSS OPM is very costly to prepare. Thank you for your consideration . i. Offerors shall develop their pricing estimates using their established estimating systems detailing the cost elements in their OPMs. j. ..If an Offeror or subcontractor does not have a Government-approved OPM, that entity may use the EPM as its OPM. In this case, a single submission would meet the requirement for both EPM and OPM. Cost Volume Part 3, Section 9 Offeror s Pricing Model (OPM) The Offeror s Pricing Model (OPM) shall be time-phased by Offeror fiscal year, and separated by CLIN. Additionally, it should follow the format specified in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408. Offerors may incorporate as many of the EPM templates as necessary and/or desired. Unlike the EPM, the OPM is not required to be self-calculating. Answer: NASA has considered your request and the requirement for the OPM to be self calculating will not be withdrawn. The OPM provides NASA insight into the offeror's estimating approach. NASA realizes that the two models (EPM & OPM) may differ in their output either due to year used (fiscal or contractor year) or rounding; however, each model provides valuable insight into the offeror’s cost structure and estimates. A non-calculating OPM would be useless to NASA; therefore, the requirement will not be changed. Question 60: REF Attachment J-2, Submissions Events table, page 1, DRD CSSS-B-0005, Government Property Management Plan. This table indicates the initial submittal of this document is due with the proposal; however, Section L was not updated to indicate which volume should include this document. Please clarify. Answer: Attachment J-2 is correct. Section L, Parts I and II, Provision L.15 has been updated to add DRD CSSS-B-005 as Part 6 of the Appendix to the Management Volume. Question 61: REF Attachment J-2, Submissions Events table, page 9, DRD CSSS-T-001, Contractor Systems Engineering Management Plan. This table indicates the initial submittal is with the proposal and 60 days after ATP. Since Section L requires submittal with the proposal, is the initial submittal 60 days after ATP in error? Answer: Attachment J-2, Submissions Events table, page 9, should indicate that the initial submittal of DRD CSSS-T-001, Contractor Systems Engineering Management Plan is with the proposal and that an update is required 60 days after ATP. This table will be updated in an upcoming RFP amendment. Question 62: In section L Part III Cost volume Instructions for Cost Volume page 27 of 55 "Item 2. Option Period 2 - Production Effort (PE) NTE IDIQ Templates" and Item a. Cost Summary Template (CST-OP2PE) specifies that the PE is IDIQ and consists of Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) or Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders. The cost summary template requests a NTE price, but there is only one line to report this information. Should we use Cost Plus Award Fee pricing or Firm Fixed Price pricing, or should there be a line item for CPAF and FFP? Answer: In accordance with Section B, Clause B.8 (as updated in RFP Amendment 4), Offerors are reminded that NASA may issue delivery orders as either FFP or CPAF. Offerors shall take this fact into consideration in proposing an NTE that is applicable for both FFP and CPAF delivery orders. Offerors shall propose in accordance with the RFP instructions. Question 63: On page 1 of Section L, Part III, Volume IV: Cost Volume, it states "...while CLIN 3 is two years (24 months), with a start date of October 1, 2013 and an end date of September 30, 2014". The 24 months is inconsistent with the start and end date. Answer: This inconsistency has been corrected with an updated version of Section L, Part III Paragraph 4.0 posted with Amendment 4 of the RFP. Question 64: NASA has identified two types of displays: Cuff and Helmet- Mounted Display (HMD). Is it the intent to provide both or consider comparing them? Answer: The cuff checklist and HMD are options that have been considered in trade studies and architecture references. Offerors should propose to the requirements specified in the RFP. Question 65: Attachment J-16, Table 3 Suit Element Basic Period and Option 2 for FY2010, Quarter 2 lists 3 1-g and 1 Neutral Buoyancy Development Units for all of the Pressure Garment Subsystem Assemblies except for the Helmet Subassembly which only lists 3 1-g Development Units. Should there also be a Neutral Buoyancy Development Unit listed for the Helmet Subassembly? Answer: Yes, but NASA does not intend to further update RFP Attachment J-16. Offerors are reminded that per Section L, Part II Provision L.15.k.G.4, the RFP’s Attachment J-16 is a sample DIL for the suit element. Offerors are to propose a DIL for the suit element that meets the requirements specified in the RFP. Question 66: Section L, subsection F, paragraph 2 states that "The Offeror shall submit one "Past Performance Interview/Questionnaire Form", to customer references, for up to ten of the Offeror's most relevant contracts..." In cases where the contract work was performed for our CSSS competitor, is it permissible to send the questionnaire directly to the NASA reference for the overall prime contract rather than the competitor reference? Answer: Offerors should submit Past Performance questionnaires regarding their prime contracts with the Government to the Government customer. Offerors that provided effort to the Government as a subcontractor would provide Past Performance Questionnaires to the prime contractor for the effort. In addition to contractor-provided references, the government Past Performance Database and references known to the SEB will be checked as deemed necessary. Question 67: Are the dollar values for the non-labor BOE's in the cost volume and the technical resource volume to be fully burdened through fee or are they unloaded cost? Answer: The non-labor resource (NLR) dollars included in the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) cost templates are to show NLR dollars for the indicated cost categories (i.e., materials, equipment, travel, and other direct costs) without applicable burdens or fee. Separate line items are to be added for burdens applicable to NLR costs, and not included elsewhere in the EPM cost template (i.e., G&A expense). Applicable fee is to be included on the fee line of the EPM cost template. The Basis of Estimate (BOE) portion of the cost proposal (i.e., Section 13) is to identify the required NLR dollars without applicable burdens or fee. The NLR dollars included in the Technical Resources Templates (TRT) are to show NLR dollars for the indicated cost categories (i.e., materials, equipment, travel, and other direct costs) without applicable burdens or fee. Applicable NLR burden and fee dollars would be included only on the "Total estimated cost and fee ($)" line of the TRT. Question 68: Section L states that SC1 - Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation and Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be part of the Management Volume. We have a Government approved Master Subcontracting Plan and format, which is a separate stand alone document. Is it NASA’s intent that this document will be included in the page limited section of the Management Volume, or can we just refer to relevant portions of this plan in the Management Volume, and include the actual plan in the Management Volume Appendix? Answer: The discussion of the Offeror’s approach should be provided as part of the proposal in Volume III Management and will be subject to the page count limitations. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted with the proposal shall be incorporated into the model contract in attachment J-9 and will become part of the contract.