Request for Proposal 80GSFC25R0001 - Space Weather Geostationary (SWGEO) PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Study
Archived on December 31, 2025. Original response deadline: . Full description on SAM.gov.
Description
You are invited to submit a proposal in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) Space Weather Geostationary (SW GEO) PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Study solicitation. The principal purpose of this requirement is to provide a Phase A instrument study which may be later used by NASA GSFC to solicit for development of the PHOMI Instrument.
NASA will conduct this acquisition as a full and open competitive acquisition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is $25.5 million.
This competitive acquisition will result in a Firm-fixed Price requirement. The contract will have a total potential period of performance of nine months.
The anticipated contract award date is in February 2026, with a contract effective date of February 2026. The contract will be performed offsite at the Contractor’s facilities.
Potential offerors should pay close attention to all solicitation instructions; however, the following requirements list is summarized to assist in proposal development. Please note that this list is not exhaustive, and the solicitation terms and conditions and provisions in sections L and M take precedence:
- NASA has determined that this acquisition may give rise to a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI). Offerors should refer to NFS clause 1852.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting, for a description of the potential conflict(s) and any restrictions on future contracting.
- NASA GSFC appreciates the comments received in response to the release of the Draft Requet for Proposal (DRFP). These comments resulted in improvements to the quality and content of the overall final Request for Propsoal (RFP). Offerors should review the RFP in its entirety, as its content has changed from the DRFP version. The attached document titled, “80GSFC25R0001 - Draft RFP Government Responses” list identifies some areas where significant changes or clarifications have been made from the DRFP to this final RFP that may not have been addressed in the DRFP questions and responses. The list is not intended to cover all changes nor describe all RFP requirements. Offerors should carefully review the RFP in its entirety.
- Offerors are required to have a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code that matches the corporate address submitted with its proposal.
Offerors are encouraged to refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS–COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION, in particular paragraph (f)(4) which discusses the Government’s right to award a contract without discussions.
In order to control and protect sensitive data owned by the Government and its Contractors, NASA policy required all acquisition-related documents be released in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). While the RFP’s Price Volume exhibits are in PDF format, the Offeror’s Price Volume proposal shall include completed Price Volume exhibits in Microsoft Office Excel format with working cell formulas.
Documents related to this acquisition, including this letter, the solicitation, attachments, exhibits, any amendments and links to online reference/technical/bidders library will be attainable electronically from the World Wide Web through the Government-wide point of entry website at www.SAM.gov. Potential offerors are requested to periodically monitor the websites for updates.
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, is applicable. The Center Ombudsman for this acquisition can be found at https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/Procurement-Ombuds-Comp-Advocate-Listing.pdf.
This RFP does not commit NASA GSFC to pay any proposal preparation costs, nor does it obligate NASA GSFC to procure or contract for these services. This request is not an authorization to proceed and does not authorize payment for any charges incurred by the offeror for performing any of the work called for in this solicitation.
Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be due no later than December 05, 2025, at 3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. Proposals for this solicitation are required to be submitted through NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (EFSS Box), a FedRAMP Moderate certified platform. Potential offerors, especially those that have not previously submitted a proposal utilizing NASA’s EFSS Box, are encouraged to review the solicitation instruction entitled “Electronic Proposal Delivery - Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box” which provides instructions related to the submission of proposal via EFSS Box. Offerors are encouraged to check with their corporate IT staff to determine if there are firewall restrictions that would need to be addressed prior to the submission of proposal files through NASA’s EFSS Box.
In accordance with NFS 1815.201(f), a “Blackout Notice” has been issued to NASA personnel. All inquiries/ communications pertaining to this acquisition shall be directed only to the Contracting Officer listed below.
All questions regarding this RFP should be submitted in writing, electronically to as per the instructions on the Cover Letter on or before 14 calendar days from the date of the release of this RFP. Offerors are encouraged to submit questions as soon as possible for consideration.
Thank you for your support. We look forward to receiving your proposals.
-----
Amendment 1:
The purpose of Amendment 1 to the subject solicitation is to revise:
- Clause 52.217-9 titled, "Option to Extend the Term of the Contract,"
- The Provision titled, "Price Proposal Instructions,"
- Provision GSFC 52.215-300 titled, "Source Selection And Evaluation Factors - General."
See the signed Standard Form 30 (SF30) Amendment 1 in the attachments section for further details.
Amendment 2:
The purpose of Amendment 2 to the subject solicitation is to:
- Delete and replace Attachment A, Statement of Work
- Extend the proposal due date indefinitely based on the Government shutdown and the uncertain schedule duration of the shutdown. When the shutdown ends, a new amendment will be issued and the due date for proposals may be extended beyond the original due date.
- Revise Provision titled, "Contractor Proposed Technology Development and Risk Mitigation Efforts"
- Revise clause GSFC 52.211-101, List of Attachments.
- Revise Provision titled "Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box"
Amendment 3:
The purpose of Amendment 3 to the subject solicition is to:
- Extend the proposal due date to December 05, 2025, at 3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
- Revise the Section L provision titled, "Electronic Submission of Proposals – Proposal Marking and Delivery Through NASA’s EFSS Box. (NOV 2024)."
Overview
Award Overview
Possible prior contracts
Sign in to see possible prior contracts for this requirement (matched by agency, NAICS and place of performance; not confirmed).
Contacts
Contracting Officer
Primary Contact
Secondary Contact
Documents
Showing 10 of 21 items
Document | Source | Agency | Posted Date | File Size | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Special Notice | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | - | |||
| Solicitation | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | 502.19 KB | |||
| Solicitation | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | 443.38 KB | |||
| Solicitation | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | Nov 14, 2025 | 683.32 KB |
Showing 1 to 10 of 21 results
Lifecycle
80GSFC25R0001- Pre-Solicitation
- Solicitation
Award typically follows within 30–90 days after the response deadline. (estimate)
- Pre-SolicitationMay 7, 2025
Pre-Solicitation Synopsis 80GSFC25R0001 - Space Weather Geostationary (SWGEO) PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Study
- Special NoticeJun 16, 2025
Draft Request for Proposal 80GSFC25R0001 - Space Weather Geostationary (SWGEO) PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Study
- 5×SolicitationCurrentSep 12, 2025
Request for Proposal 80GSFC25R0001 - Space Weather Geostationary (SWGEO) PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Study
Similar Opportunities
Title | Phase | Agency | NAICS | Set Aside | Posted | Deadline | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request. Introduction The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement. Background The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses. The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities. Functions FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies B. Ground Systems Support Services C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services A. Operations Systems Engineering B. Launch and Early Operations Support C. Flight Operations D. Flight Dynamics Support Services E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering G. Systems Administration and IT Security H. Database Administration RFI Response Instructions The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience. Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed above. Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages. Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks. The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach. Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following: Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP? Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal? What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach? What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement? Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP? Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure. Requirements/Specifications Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources: The Government maintains operations resources listed above. RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources. For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources. Update as of 10/1/26 Submission Format Requirements Use Times New Roman, 12‑point font for all text. Maintain 1‑inch margins on all sides of every page. The Cover Page and Table of Contents do not count toward the 30‑page limit. Please do not paginate these two sections. Submit your response in both PDF and Word (.docx) formats. Email all submissions directly to daniel.s.han@nasa.gov. In the email subject line, format the title exactly as: “Response to GSMO‑4 RFI [Company Name, CAGE Code]” Scope Guidance NASA welcomes submissions that provide limited scope information for internal market research. If your response covers only a portion of the contract scope, please clearly indicate “Limited Scope” on the Cover Page, along with a brief description of the capabilities included. Q&A Sessions The program intends to hold one‑on‑one Q&A sessions with vendors once the RFI period closes. Dates and duration for these sessions are TBD. | Market Research | 541330 | No Set-Aside | 10/07/2026 | 10/26/2026 | - | |
This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request. Introduction The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement. Background The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses. The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities. Functions FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies B. Ground Systems Support Services C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services A. Operations Systems Engineering B. Launch and Early Operations Support C. Flight Operations D. Flight Dynamics Support Services E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering G. Systems Administration and IT Security H. Database Administration RFI Response Instructions The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience. Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed above. Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages. Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks. The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach. Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following: Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP? Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal? What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach? What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement? Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP? Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure. Requirements/Specifications Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources: The Government maintains operations resources listed above. RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources. For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources. Update as of 10/1/26 Submission Format Requirements Use Times New Roman, 12‑point font for all text. Maintain 1‑inch margins on all sides of every page. The Cover Page and Table of Contents do not count toward the 30‑page limit. Please do not paginate these two sections. Submit your response in both PDF and Word (.docx) formats. Email all submissions directly to daniel.s.han@nasa.gov. In the email subject line, format the title exactly as: “Response to GSMO‑4 RFI [Company Name, CAGE Code]” Scope Guidance NASA welcomes submissions that provide limited scope information for internal market research. If your response covers only a portion of the contract scope, please clearly indicate “Limited Scope” on the Cover Page, along with a brief description of the capabilities included. Q&A Sessions The program intends to hold formal one‑on‑one Q&A sessions with vendors capable of delivering the full contract scope once the RFI period closes. Dates and duration for these sessions are TBD. | Market Research | 541330 | No Set-Aside | 10/06/2026 | 10/26/2026 | - | |
This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request. Introduction The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement. Background The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses. The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities. Functions FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies B. Ground Systems Support Services C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services A. Operations Systems Engineering B. Launch and Early Operations Support C. Flight Operations D. Flight Dynamics Support Services E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering G. Systems Administration and IT Security H. Database Administration RFI Response Instructions The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience. Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed below. Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages. Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks. The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach. Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following: Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP? Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal? What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach? What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement? Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP? Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure. Requirements/Specifications Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources: The Government maintains operations resources listed below. RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources. For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources. Update as of 10/1/26 Submission Format Requirements Use Times New Roman, 12‑point font for all text. Maintain 1‑inch margins on all sides of every page. The Cover Page and Table of Contents do not count toward the 30‑page limit. Please do not paginate these two sections. Submit your response in both PDF and Word (.docx) formats. Email all submissions directly to daniel.s.han@nasa.gov. In the email subject line, format the title exactly as: “Response to GSMO‑4 RFI [Company Name, CAGE Code]” Scope Guidance NASA welcomes submissions that provide limited scope information for internal market research. If your response covers only a portion of the contract scope, please clearly indicate “Limited Scope” on the Cover Page, along with a brief description of the capabilities included. Q&A Sessions The program intends to hold formal one‑on‑one Q&A sessions with vendors capable of delivering the full contract scope once the RFI period closes. Dates and duration for these sessions are TBD. | Market Research | 541330 | No Set-Aside | 10/01/2026 | 10/26/2026 | - | |
This RFI is for informational purposes only. It is not a request for proposals or a solicitation for a contract or grant award and it does not obligate the Government in any way. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this request. Introduction The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is seeking information from qualified vendors capable of supporting science and Earth science missions including, but not limited to: Earth Observing System; Earth Observing System Data and Operations System; Magnetospheric Multi-Scale mission; Global Precipitation Measurement mission; Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; James Webb Space Telescope; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (built by NASA for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope; and Solar Dynamics Observatory. This RFI is intended to gather market intelligence, technical approaches, and rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) considerations to inform a potential future procurement. Background The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently acquires mission operations support through the Goddard Space Mission Operations (GSMO‑3) contract. GSMO‑3 provides comprehensive, end‑to‑end mission operations services spanning the entire mission life cycle. The scope of work includes systems and facility engineering; launch and early‑orbit operations support; flight operations and flight dynamics services; sustaining engineering; and mission operations studies, design, integration, and testing of ground systems. Additional services include mission data collection and distribution, system administration, and information technology security and engineering analyses. The GSMO‑3 contract supports a broad portfolio of NASA science and Earth science missions, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Magnetospheric Multi‑Scale (MMS), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Fermi Gamma‑ray Space Telescope, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). These services are essential to sustaining and advancing NASA’s ground data systems and mission operations infrastructure, ensuring reliable communication, data processing, and mission control capabilities for ongoing and future missions. The contract also supports mission decommissioning and long‑term sustaining engineering required to maintain operational readiness for systems with multidecade lifespans. The scope also increasingly encompasses cloud infrastructure management, continuous cybersecurity monitoring, DevSecOps automation, and advanced collision avoidance/conjunction assessment activities. Functions FUNCTION 1- Mission Ground System Support Services A. Ground Systems Engineering and Engineering Studies B. Ground Systems Support Services C. Ground Systems Integration and Test Services FUNCTION 2 - Mission Operations System Support Services A. Operations Systems Engineering B. Launch and Early Operations Support C. Flight Operations D. Flight Dynamics Support Services E. Mission Data Collection and Distribution F. Mission Systems Sustaining Engineering G. Systems Administration and IT Security H. Database Administration RFI Response Instructions The Government is seeking feedback from contractors with relevant mission capabilities and experience. Responses should include the vendor implementation approach and rough order magnitude costs of performing the functions listed below. Responses should be limited to no more than 30 pages. Transition from Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) The Government is evaluating the feasibility of transitioning the follow-on GSMO-4 requirement from a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, either in whole or in part, including the use of Performance Based Payments for FFP Tasks. The Government seeks industry feedback regarding the practicality of such an approach. Specifically, respondents are requested to address the following: Is the current GSMO-4 scope sufficiently defined and stable to support an FFP contract? If not, identify the areas of uncertainty. What technical, programmatic, schedule, or cost risks would your organization associate with transitioning this requirement from CPAF to FFP? Which portions of the requirement, if any, do you believe are well-suited for FFP, and which portions would be more appropriately performed under another contract type (e.g., Time-and-Materials)? Please explain your rationale. What assumptions or Government-provided information (e.g., historical workload, staffing profiles, performance metrics, technical baseline, service level agreements, demand forecasts, configuration data) would be necessary for your organization to develop a realistic fixed-price proposal? What contract incentives or performance metrics would improve the viability of an FFP approach? What acquisition or contract structure would best balance cost control, performance, innovation, and risk allocation for this requirement? Please identify any lessons learned or best practices from similar transitions from Cost-Reimbursement to Firm-Fixed-Price contracts. Are there specific contract provisions or performance requirements that should be modified to enable a successful transition to FFP? Catalog Pricing Structure: The Government is exploring a 'Catalog-style' pricing structure for routine Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) operations, where missions are priced based on their Risk Classification (e.g., Class B, C, D). What are the benefits, risks, and potential cost-drivers your firm would associate with pricing mission operations by Class? What specific parameters, boundaries, or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be required in the catalog definitions to make this pricing model viable. Core vs. IDIQ Structure: The Government is considering a contract structure that establishes highly stable, long-term flagship missions as the baseline 'Core' requirement, with all other missions and development efforts issued as IDIQ task orders. How would this Core-plus-IDIQ structure impact your pricing, workforce retention, and risk allocation strategies compared to a 100% IDIQ structure. Requirements/Specifications Available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Resources: The Government maintains operations resources listed below. RFI responses may include the use of these GFE resources. For any GFE resources incorporated in their response, the vendor should include any GSMO implementation costs and the cost differences/savings as compared to the vendor providing all ground resources. | Market Research | 541330 | No Set-Aside | 09/24/2026 | 10/26/2026 | - | |
In support of conjunction assessment and collision avoidance for NASA, the contractor will provide conjunction assessment screening services for all NASA uncrewed spacecraft, provide support of human spaceflight activities, and provide orbital safety analysis support to the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Space Commerce. Requirements include performing screening of protected assets against the space object catalog (classified and unclassified portions), performing scripting and other analysis using catalog data, supporting launch and reentry activities, and supporting breakups and other events in addition to ensuring all personnel will be trained on all applicable mission systems required to perform OSA duties, inclusive of future missions. | Sole Source / J&A | 541330 | No Set-Aside | 10/08/2026 | Open | Greenbelt, MD |
Additional Details
Solicitation Number
80GSFC25R0001
Archive Date
Dec 31, 2025
Office Address
GREENBELT, MD, 20771