This is a modification to the synopsis entitled Human & Robotic Technology which was posted on June 29, 2004. You are notified that the following changes are made: Posting of additional Questions and Answers.
The due date for response is not extended.
Documents related to this procurement will be available over the Internet. These documents will reside on a World Wide Web (WWW) server, which may be accessed using a WWW browser application. The Internet site, or URL, for the NASA/HQ Business Opportunities home page is http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin;=04
Offerors are responsible for monitoring this site for the release of the solicitation and any amendments. Potential offerors are responsible for downloading their own copy of the solicitation and amendments (if any).
A link to briefing charts and further datails is located at:
https://naccsli1.msfc.nasa.gov/ExplorationPortal
I. Questions/Answers, cont'd
Q57. I’m ready to submit an NOI to the H&RT; BAA but I’m confused as to what NASA is looking for under the headings of “Phase I Deliverables” and “Phase II Deliverables.” What is NASA looking for here?
Likewise, I’m confused as to how a proposer is to select “Secondary” project type. If a proposer is doing ASTP proposals, is the “secondary” a compatible program in TMP into which a proposer would hope to propose follow-on work at the conclusion of the ASTP work?
A57. Proposers should indicate deliverables as described in section C-2 of the BAA.
The identification of secondary project types is required to facilitate the assigning of the appropriate evaluators. The secondary project types can point to compatible projects working with either more mature technologies or less mature technologies.
Q58. Intellectual property has been transferred to a university spin-out company which will act as the BAA project partner, i.e. performing a sub-contracting R&D; role to who will perform the majority of work. As the spin-out is based in the United Kingdom, does NASA envisage any problems with it acting in this capacity, i.e. probably undertaking around 15% of the budgeted work? Does NASA feel it might jeopardize the approval of the project in any way, or would the proposer be advised to establish a U.S. company instead.
A58. This is only an intellectual property issue to the extent inventive activity is performed in the UK.
Q59. On page 2 of the BAA it states: “This BAA solicits research and technology development proposals from NASA investigators in support of……..”, has this statement been included in error?
A59. The statement has been amended to read: “This BAA solicits research and technology development proposals from external NASA investigators in support of the following H&RT; Programs”.
Q60. Appendix C of the BAA seems to have been written for the internal NASA BAA. For instance, in section 2 under the Lead Individual it states “Name of Other Relevant NASA Personal”. Is there an NOI specifically for the external BAA?
A60. This NOI applies to the external BAA. Part 1-3 requires you to list the Key individuals that are not NASA, and Part 2a requires you to provide the summaries of all the key individuals, including your NASA partners.
Q61. Will any system design tools that support these technology activities be measured on a similar TRL schedule?
A61. No, system design tools will not be measured on a similar TRL scale, Reference Section VIII.5 of the BAA. It is not NASA’s intention to change the scope of the BAA in answering this question.
Q62. Is there an expectation of discussing the commercialization potential of these tools in these proposals similar to the way SBIRs technology solicitations are crafted?
A62. The detailed goals and objectives that are applicable to SBIR are somewhat different than the overall H&RT; portfolio. The H&RT; formulation plan outlines overarching goals and objectives that promote sound technology investments that will allow NASA to pursue its exploration vision, and at the same time have a sound positive impact to the U.S. economy.
Q63. In responding to the cost portion of the proposal, is NASA looking for a tight range or within plus minus 10 percent and is it sufficient to say that it is within range of what is proposed?
A63. NASA is looking for a range on the white paper. On the final proposal, NASA is expecting a proposers full proposal would be the basis for the contract and expect a proposer to have full confidence in that number.
Q64. International participation: The BAA says that “foreign participation will be on a ‘no –exchange-funds’ basis” but you have announced a ‘direct funding waiver’. Please Clarify?
A64. See section 2.3 of the BAA, a proposer can request for funding or have a sponsoring government provide the funding.
Q65. Page 37 of the pre-proposal conference slides mentions contracts and cooperative agreements, is the BAA open to grants?
A65. This BAA is only open to contracts and cooperative agreements.
Q66. In regards to the proposal outline, if a proposer is already a small business does the section for small business goals still apply?
A66. A small business plan will not be required but NASA would like a company to identify any small business partners.
Q67. The proposal outline has small business percentage goals; does this imply in each award that a company will have to have a small business partner?
A67. A proposer who is a large business will have a subcontracting plan and will have goals to meet during the contract as a percent of the contract value.
Q68. It seems that NASA can fund foreign companies directly. What is the process for a U.S. prime and foreign sub-contractor?
A68. The same rules apply, whether it is a prime or a sub.
Q69. Considering small business goals, if for example a proposal had 10 percent participation and one of the four categories is not met is that considered non compliant.
A69. NASA expects that all goals are met and a proposer would get a weakness in the evaluation to the extent that the proposer didn’t meet some of the goals. However, it is not a go/no go deficiency were a proposer is not eligible for award.
Q70. Are NOIs protected as proprietary information and will they ever be made public?
A70. The NOIs are protected like a proposal and they will not be released to the public.
Q71. How can small businesses announce their capability and intent to team up with the BAA participants?
A71. Contact the H&RT; pre-proposal attendees listed on NASA’s website http://exploration.nasa.gov .
Q72. Does the anticipated contract value ranges include the Government Task Agreements and will GTAs be funded through the contract?
A72. The GTA is part of the project cost and will be captured in the GTA. The money will stay internal to NASA and flow to the centers directly.
Q73. How many past performance contracts need to be listed, especially in the NOI?
A73. The H&RT; BAA doesn’t specify for NOIs but does for full proposals, see section III.C.11 of the BAA.
Q74. Is there a list of the H&RT; pre-proposal attendees with contact information available to promote collaboration?
A74. Yes, a list of attendees is posted on NASA’s web site http://exploration.nasa.gov
Q75. The Industry Day presentation showed four categories under the TMP (page 38), while the BAA appears to have three TMP Categories (page19/20). It appears that the category for small ($2-4M) design and definition studies has been deleted or at least merged with the infrastructure/carrier definition studies. Is it the correct interpretation that $2-4M TFE design studies are only related to development of key infrastructures and carriers?
A75. TFE design studies are not just related to development of key infrastructures and carriers, see BAA definition located on Appendix A-21.
Q76. At Industry Day a clear description was given of how NASA partner funding should be included in the cost of the proposal. Is the small business goal of ten percent, the total cost of the proposal or of the total minus the NASA center funding?
A76. The small business goal of ten percent applies to the total contract value.
