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 associated 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 3.7.2.4, 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 6.3.2.1 (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 3.7.1.2.2 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 3.7.3.4.2 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 6.5.3.3 as opposed to 6.5.3.2?

**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 6.5.3.3.

**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.