Amendment 0002 - SWO-MOS RFP 1332KP24R0034 Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Space Weather Observations - Mission Operations Services (SWO-MOS) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
- Solicitation number
- 1332KP24R0034
About this file
This document is an Amendment 0002 Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the Space Weather Observations - Mission Operations Services (SWO-MOS) Request for Proposal (RFP). The amendment addresses multiple clarifications and modifications to the original RFP, including changes to proposal preparation instructions, CLIN structures, evaluation criteria, and submission requirements. Key updates include extending the proposal submission deadline to October 9, 2025 at 1:00 PM ET, revising the Management Proposal page count to 30 pages, clarifying Supply Chain Risk Assessment information submission requirements, and providing detailed guidance on pricing for Task Orders TO-01 and TO-03.
The solicitation is for a single-award, Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide a multi-mission operations service architecture supporting Space Weather Next (SW Next) space weather environmental observations. Offerors must respond to both Task Order 01 (Enterprise Integration) and Task Order 03 (Ground Services as a Service/GSaaS), with specific requirements for each, including detailed technical, management, and cost proposal instructions. The contract will support multiple missions, with a focus on the SOLAR-A spacecraft and associated mission operations services, and includes provisions for capability development, maintenance, and sustainment across different contract years.
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Amendment 0002 Q&A SWO-MOS Request for Proposal Question and Comment Template
| No. | Document | Section(s) | PDF Pg. | Paragraph | Question / Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | SWO-MOS-LIST-0004_ | ||||||
| GFP-GFI_02-27-2025 | 3 | 10/12 | This section is missing reference to the GEO ground system (with prior existing SWFO L1 modifications) being provided as GFP to support integration, test, and launch support, without which the scope of TO 1 and TO2 cannot be performed. | Where the vendor's solution requires access to resources within the GEO Ground system for integration and testing, they should indicate that in their proposal for the Government to evaluate. | |||
| 2 | RFP 1332KP24R0034.pdf | L CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) | 140 | 3.iii.A.3.f.3 Teaming Agreements | The RFP requires offerors to "Submit any letters of intent, teaming agreements, or other evidence of commitment by subcontractors, if applicable." The required teaming agreements are not listed as being excluded from the volume page count limits, but will likely far exceed the 20 page limit for the volume, regardless of any other volume content. We recommend that these be included as an appendix and excluded from the page count limits. | Any submitted letters of intent, teaming agreements, or other evidence of commitment by subcontractors are now excluded from the page count. The RFP has been revised to reflect this change by adding the language under bullet (J) on page 138 which allows for an Attachment 5 that does not include a page limit. The RFP has also been revised to reflect this change by adding the following language to page 141, #3: "Attachment 5 - Letters of intent, teaming agreements, or other evidence of commitment by subcontractors is excluded from any page count limitations." | |
| 3 | Attachment J.3 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) | 5.34 | 60 | The DMR Package shall: | Attachment J.3 states that the DMR package shall "Comply with the PDR requirements of NPR 7123.1 Appendix G-6". However, the TO-01 PWS states in paragraph 3.3 "The DMR shall satisfy PDR and CDR requirements as specified in the SWO-MOS CDRL." Is it correct to assume that the DMR will contain PDR-level detail but will satisfy the requirements for both PDR and CDR for TO1? | Attachment J.3 CDRL is updated (Rev B) for the RE-03 DMR Package to cite the CDR requirements of NPR 7120.5 Table I-4, which is the more appropriate source for product maturity per review. In addition, the inconsistencies of review references in the CDRL Summary List table have been fixed. The statement in the TO-1 PWS section 3.3 is correct. | |
| 4 | Attachment J.18 TO Cost & Pricing Template. | N/A | TO-1 Tab | N/A | Attachment J.19 TO-01 CLIN Structure includes 1 year option CLIN from 4/13/2031-4/12/2032; however the Attachment J.20 TO-1 tab only has us pricing the first 5 years. Does the customer want the Offeror's to price out the option CLINs? | Yes, the Government requires the Offerors to price out the Option CLIN with a period of performance running from 4/13/2031-4/12/2032. This is outlined in J.19 for the CLIN structure of TO-01. Attachment J.18 has been updated to reflect this requirement. |
However, the question addresses TO-01 tab on Attachment J.20 but this is an incorrect reference as Attachment J.20 outlines the TO-03 CLIN structure where this option CLIN does not apply.
| 5 | J.1 Base PWS | 1.3 | 3 | 4 | This section lists "SWO-MOS solution operational components may be instantiated in a commercial cloud or on commercial or government premises". Does the term "commercial cloud" include the option to deploy the operational MOS into the NOAA5050 AWS GovCloud environment? | NOAA5050 does not include AWS GovCloud; it is for hosting on-premises systems. The requirement for cloud-hosted solutions is a commercial cloud environment. The requirement stands as written. |
| 6 | J.2 requirement MOSRD-80 | 23 | MOSRD-80 references "a maximum…downtime of two (2) hours in Level 0 mission data processing". We assume this is a data availability requirement analogous to MOSRD-81, meaning the two hours is measured after any retransmit/reprocessing activities. Is this assumption correct, or is this a data latency requirement, meaning any data not processed in the nominal operational datastream count against the 2-hour requirement? | MOSRD-80 is a requirement on the availability of MOS functions, which includes level 0 processing. MOSRD-80 augments MOSRD-77 requirement for minimum Data Availability of 99.5% over any 30-day period, to limit the consecutive data outage resulting from MOS functions. MOSRD-81 is an additional performance requirement on MOS functions during the NWS-declared Critical Space Weather Days. Nominal MOS operations require near-realtime level 0 data handling. Retransmission and/or reprocessing of the data is not counted toward availability of the system, it is a response to an outage. | ||
| 7 | RFP 1332KP24R0034.pdf | L.6 Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information | 123 | Section L.6 states that Supply Chain Risk Assessment information is due either with the proposal or after award. "The offeror/contractor shall submit the following information with its proposal or after award at the Government's request:" Are we required to submit the SCRA information with our proposal? | The RFP at Section L.6 has been updated to reflect that Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information must be submitted with an offeror's proposal AND made available after award at the Government's request. Please note this information has now been updated and should be included with the Business Proposal as Supplemental Information as outlined in (1) VOLUME I - BUSINESS PROPOSAL, (C) Supplemental Information, (2) Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information. This supplemental information is excluded from the page count. |
CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has also been updated to include the following language at
(1) VOLUME I - BUSINESS PROPOSAL, (C) Supplemental Information, (2) Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information:
A)
1. Its identity, including that of each parent and/or subsidiary corporate entities.
2. The identity of any proposed subcontractors (including but not limited to suppliers, distributors, and manufacturers) involved in its supply chain.
3. The percentage any foreign ownership in or control of the entities identified under (A)(1) or (2).
4. The means and method for physically delivering any information system, IT hardware, and/or software under the contract or task order must include the name(s) of any entity responsible for transport or storage. This information should address whether the information system, IT hardware and/or software will be direct-shipped to the Department. The means and method for virtually delivering any information system, IT hardware, and/or software under the contract or task order must include how the Department securely accesses the hardware and/or software.
5. Whether the proposed information system, IT hardware and/or software includes a service agreement required by the contract or task order, and, if so, the identity of the contractor/subcontractor(s) who will provide this follow-on service, and how the services will be delivered/deployed (e.g., via on-site service? Remotely via internet?)
(B) Upon the Government’s request, the offeror/contractor shall provide additional information if requested.
(C) The offeror/contractor shall include this language in all subcontracts (including but not limited to those with suppliers, distributors, and manufacturers) involving the development and delivery of an IT system, IT hardware and/or software under this acquisition.
(D) Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information shall be marked as contractor bid proposal information and source selection information in accordance with FAR 3.104-4 and securely transmitted to the contracting officer.
(E) By submission of its offer and/or acceptance of this contract or contract modification, the offeror/contractor represents this information is accurate and complete. Offerors and contractors shall have a continuing obligation to amend any information that changes during the evaluation period prior to award and/or during the period of performance of the contract or task order(s).
(F) This supplemental information is excluded from the page count.
| 8 | SE-07 | 4.2.2.1.2.15 Encryptors | 51 | 1 | This lists the encryptor for SWFO-L1 was Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Authentication Unit (AAU) - Ground Encryption / Decryption Unit (GEDU) Modification, is there a specific bill of material for the specific unit used? | It is unclear at this time what vendor/model of encryptor will be selected by the SOLAR spacecraft builder. We do not at this time have the bill of material for the modifications made to the SWFO-L1 encryptor. | |
| 9 | Attachment J.07 TO-03 PWS | 3.2 | 11 | May the GSaaS capability provided under TO-3 be deployed to Government premises and/or to the AWS GovCloud NOAA5050 environment? | The Base PWS specifies "SWO-MOS solution operational components may be instantiated in a commercial cloud or on commercial or government premises." Note that NOAA5050 does not include AWS GovCloud. | ||
| 10 | Attachment J.06 TO-01 PWS | ||||||
| Attachment J.07 TO-03 PWS | 4.2 | The TO-1 and TO-3 PWS includes delivery of cryptographic devices for spacecraft communication. In many cases, these crypto devices are provided as GFE to ensure compatibility between the ground and space segments, and then integrated by the contractor into the delivered system. Is the Government providing these devices as GFE or is the contractor expected to procure them? | The MOS Contractor is expected to procure the cryptographic devices (and spares) for spacecraft encrypted communications. The Government will not provide these devices as Government Furnished Property. | ||||
| 11 | To comply with the requirements of the RFP, does an offeror have to respond to both Task Orders? | Yes, an offeror must respond to BOTH Task Orders to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. | |||||
| 12 | Would the Government consider allowing vendors the opportunity to bid either of the task orders separately which would encourage a broader set of responses from industry, thus benefiting the Government? Would the Government consider a multiple award IDIQ versus a single award IDIQ to broaden the competitive industrial base? | The Government has considered allowing vendors the opportunity to bid either of the task orders separately, however, due to the needs of the Government it was decided that an offeror must propose to both task orders. |
The Government has considered awarding a multiple-award IDIQ versus a single-award IDIQ, however, it was decided that a single-award IDIQ was in the best interest of the Government.
| 13 | Can the Government offer an additional 30 days for proposal responses? | The Government has granted an extension of an additional 21 days to the proposal submission deadline. Offerors are instructed that the revised proposal deadline is October 9, 2025 at 1:00PM ET. This was revised in Amendment 0001 but also in the RFP at Sections L.1. and L.2. | ||||
| 14 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Section I - Contract Clauses | 46 | FAR 52.222-42 | Given the clauses 52.222-41, 52.222-42, and 52.222-43 are listed in the RFP, do you expect any of the Labor Categories in Attachment J.11 to be covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)? If so, please indicate which LCATS and provide the information required by FAR 52.222-42. | We do not currently anticipate that any of the LCATs are covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards, however, a future task order may potentially require a SCLS covered LCAT and these clauses must be included in the parent IDIQ in the event that they are needed on a future Task Order. The applicable and relevant information will be provided at that time. |
| 15 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Section I - Contract Clauses | 46 | FAR 52.222-41 | Given the clauses 52.222-41, 52.222-42, and 52.222-43 are listed in the RFP, if any of the Labor Categories in Attachment J.11 are covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS), please provide any applicable SCLS Area Wage Determinations and/or Collaborative Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). | We do not currently anticipate that any of the LCATs are covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards, however, a future task order may potentially require a SCLS covered LCAT and these clauses must be included in the parent IDIQ in the event that they are needed on a future Task Order. The applicable and relevant information will be provided at that time. |
| 16 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | L.6 CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation | 127 | (a) General Instructions | There are several requirements added to the Management Proposal to specifically address TO 01 and TO 03 approaches separately. However, there were no additional page counts allotted for this additional content. We respectfully request 15 pages be added to the Management Proposal for the total of 35 pages. | We will allow the addition of 10 more pages for the Management Proposal for a total of 30 pages for Volume III. All references to 20 pages for the Management Proposal have been revised to 30 pages throughout the RFP. |
| 17 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | (A) Evaluation Factor 2 | 138 | 1) b.6 | With TO-03 being FFP we suggest the IMS not be required to be resource loaded. | CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to remove the requrement for resource loading and remove the following language: (3) Volume III - Management Proposal (iii) (A) (1) (b.6) |
"Identifies planned staffing resources required to execute the identified IMS tasks" 18 RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf (2) Task Order Management (Element E) 139 (c) The following requirement was added in the final RFP :"This shall include traceability across different task order approaches and business models, such as between the enterprise integration approach of TO-01 and the service delivery approach of TO-03." The RFP also states that either TO-01 OR TO-03 will be awarded, therefore there should not be any integration or traceability across those two Task Orders. Could you please provide additional clarification what is meant by this requirement or strike it from the RFP document?
CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been revised to add the following language: (3) Volume III - Management Proposal, (iii), (A), (2)
c. Offerors shall describe their approach to managing clear traceability of work within and across similar task orders, recognizing that this IDIQ is scoped to support multiple missions concurrently. This approach shall address:
1. Clear tracking of work, costs, and deliverables specific to each task order;
2. Managing distinct accounting for each task while appropriately allocating shared development costs, common infrastructure, and baseline modifications that benefit multiple missions; and
3. Coordinating between different task order types (enterprise integration vs. service delivery approaches) that may execute concurrently.
| 19 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | (3) Approach to SB Participation & Subcontract Management (Element F) | 140 | Paragraph (f), 2. Teaming Plan | The final RFP added a requirement for a Teaming Plan. The contents of the Teaming Plan are largely redundant/overlap what is already being asked in the Approach to SB Participation & Subcontract Management (Element F). For example: subcontractor management, cost control, etc. Would the Government allow the Teaming Plan to reference the Approach to SB Participation & Subcontract Management (Element F)? Or alternatively clarify the differences between what is being asked for in Element F vs. the Teaming Plan and how it is different? | Provide all relevant and essential information for each requirement to be evaluated. This includes details for the Teaming Plan and Approach to SB Participation & Subcontract Management, even if there is overlap or redundancy. |
| 20 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | (4) Volume IV - Past Performance | 143 | (B), (1), (2), (2) | In accordance with "FAR Subpart 42.15 (Contractor Performance Information)," Government agencies are directed to prepare past performance evaluations at least annually, using the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). As a result, many Government agencies no longer complete Customer Past Performance Surveys, since the requirement is to enter this data into a CPAR which is then stored for Government use in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In addition, Survey data is not materially different than data collected via the CPAR/CPARS process. Requiring reference clients to complete a PPQ places an unnecessary burden on Government personnel. We request the Government incorporate the following: "If the referenced Past Performance contract has received a CPAR evaluation within the past 5 years, a PPQ is not required.” Or “If a CPAR for a referenced contract is published in the federal CPAR system, will the government allow us to use the CPAR instead of a PPQ?” | CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to add the following language: (4) Volume IV Past Performance, (iii), (B), (4) If a CPAR for a referenced contract is published in the CPAR system, the Government will allow the use of the CPAR with the submission of the PPQ. The Offeror should complete Sections I and II and attach the relevant CPAR to that PPQ submission. |
| 21 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | 3. Evaluation Factor 3 - Past Performance | 165 | The RFP states, "Relevant is defined as work efforts that are similar in nature, size, and complexity to the supplies/services being procured under this solicitation. For TO-01 Enterprise Integration proposals, relevant experience includes enterprise system integration projects, Government facility-based work, evolutionary development of existing systems, and collaborative partnerships with Government technical teams. For TO-03 GSaaS Solution proposals, relevant experience includes end-to-end mission operations services, GSaaS or contractor-operated missions, independent service delivery contracts, and full mission responsibility engagements." The term nature is assumed to be the scope of work given in each PWS for TO1 and TO3. Will the government please define size and complexity? | The definition of the word size is the relative extent and/or magnitude. Please also refer to CAR 1352.216-75 Minimum and maximum contract amounts. (APR 2010). The definition of complexity is the degree to which something possesses many different and interconnected parts/processes/systems. |
CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation.(APR 2010) has been updated to revise the second sentence in (4) Volume IV Past Performance, (iii), (A) Evaluation Factor 3 - Past Performance: "The Government defines “relevant” as work efforts that are similar in nature, size (i.e., relative extent and/or magnitude), and complexity (i.e., degree to which something possess many different and interconnected parts/processes/systems) to the supplies/services being procured under this solicitation; and defines “recent” as work in process or that was completed within 5 years of the date of issuance of this solicitation, and for either case has at least six (6) months of performance."
| 22 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Other information | 150-152 | L(5)(iii)(2)i.4. | It appears that the BOE requirements should be listed as item number 5 and the total compensation plan as item number 6, instead of being under item number 4. which addresses the proposal of administrative support as a direct cost IAW the Offerors' Disclosure Statement. Please confirm. | Correct, the RFP will revise CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) to add a paragraph 5 for the BOE requirements and pargaraph 6 for the Total Compensation Plan. You can find these new paragraphs at (5) VOLUME V – COST PROPOSAL, (iii), (A), (2) Cost/Price Narrative, (h) Other Information, (5) and (6). |
| 23 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | 2. i. "Other information" | 149-152 | 4 | Normally on FFP proposal (TO-03) one would provide hours by LCAT but not BOE narratives. Is it the Government's intention that a full set of BOEs be submitted the same as required for TO1? | CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to add the following language: (5) VOLUME V – COST PROPOSAL, (iii), (A), (2) Cost/Price Narrative, (h) Other Information, (5): For the TO-03 Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) proposal, offerors should provide hours broken down by Labor Category (LCAT) and have the option to include Basis of Estimate (BOE) narratives. |
| 24 | Attachment_J.3_Contract_Data_Requirements_List_(CDRL).pdf | 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, multiple | 15 | For CDRL DIDs that do not specify a standard format, is it assumed that Contractor format will suffice? | See CDRL Section 3.8 which addresses CDRL file formats when the format is not specfied in a particular data item description. | |
| 25 | Attachment_J.7_TO-03_PWS.pdf | All | All | All | To level the playing field for TO-03 for the firm fixed price, can the government clarify what are the service elements (variables) that the government purchases in the AS-A-Service model and what is the exact amount of each service element that each competitive bidders use to calculate the firm price. | The MOSRD and Communication Requirements Document describe the functional services and performance required. The Concept of Operations describes the expected operations concept. The offeror may propose what services approach will meet these requirements. |
| 26 | Attachment_J.19_TO-01_CLIN Structure.pdf | 17. Schedule | All | CLINs | Attachment J.19 provides separate CLINS for CPFF and Fixed Fee. Do you expect the Fixed Fee for the CPFF CLINs to be listed separately under the Fixed Fee CLINs and only include the Cost portion of the CPFF on the CPFF CLINs? | Correct, Offerors shall list the Fixed fee separately under the Fixed Fee CLINs and only include the Cost reimbursable portion on the Cost CLINs. |
| 27 | Attachment_J.20_TO-03_CLIN_Structure.pdf | 20. Schedule of Supplies/ Services | 2 of 2 | CLINs | CLIN 0001's POP is truncated. Please confirm it is supposed to read 04/13/2026-04/12/2031. | Correct, CLIN 0001's Estimated Period of Performance is 04/13/2026 through 04/12/2031. Attachment_J.20 will be revised to reflect this change. |
| 28 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf |
Attachment_J.19_TO-01_CLIN Structure.pdf Attachment_J.20_TO-03_CLIN_Structure.pdf 20. Schedule of Supplies/ Services
17. Schedule
20. Schedule of Supplies/ Services 1-5 of 167 All
| All | B CLINs, L(5) (i); | In the IDIQ CLINs 0001 & 1001 are Non-Commercial FFP, CLINs 0002 & 1002 are Non-Commercial T&M, CLINs 0003 & 1003 are CR, CLINs 0004 & 1004 are CPFF, CLINs 0005 & 1005 are Commercial FFP, and CLINs 0006 & 1006 are Commercial T&M. These do not align with the CLINs structure and types in Attachments J.19 CLINs 0001, 0003, & 1001 are CPFF, CLINs 0002, 0004, and 1002 are Fixed Fee, and CLIN 0005 and 1003 are Cost) and J.20 (CLIN 0001 is FFP and CLIN 0002 is ODCS and Travel/ Cost), which list the TO-01 and TO-03 CLINs. Section L(5)(i) states "Offerors’ cost proposals must generally adhere to the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure established on this solicitation’s SF 33." Paragraph L(5)(iii)(1)a.1. states "Offerors shall provide a completely populated Cost Exhibit - Attachment J.18. All costs shall be proposed IAW the hours populated on the SF 33." Paragraph L(5)(iii)(1)a.2 states "Each Task Order and CLIN must be addressed and completed in order for the Offeror to be considered for award." Please clarify if the CLINs to be priced are the ones in the Section B of the RFP/IDIQ or the CLINs structures listed in Attachment J.19 and J.20 for TO-01 and TO-03 respectively. | The contract writing system that is used requires us to establish the potential contract type CLINs at the IDIQ level. Each Task Order will be comprised of a separate and distinct CLIN structure than that of the parent IDIQ. The CLIN structures established in Attachments J.19 and J.20 are the CLINs that must be priced out. | ||||
| 29 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Approach to SB Participation & Subcontract Management (Element F) | 140 | g. | The government is asking the offeror to "describe their historical goal achievement through eSRS". Will the government please clarify if this is specifically for NOAA/NASA programs or overall subcontracting? | The description of the Offeror's historical goal achievement through eSRS should reflect the Offeror's overall subcontracting goal achievements and not be limited to NOAA/NASA programs only. | |
| 30 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Section J - List of Document, Exhibit, and Other Attachments | 76 | 1 | The Section J lists attachments J.1 thru J.20. The J.17 U.S. Department of Commerce Template for Individual Subcontracting Plan is missing. Could the government please provide J.17? | The Government posted Attachment J.17 with the solicitation on August 11, 2025. It is still included with the solicitation documents on sam.gov under the Attachments/Links section of the posting. | |
| 31 | Attachment_J.10_GFP_and_GFI_List.pdf | 3 Government-Furnished Property | 4 | Based on GFP list provided, only GFP item is SWFO-L1 C2 software baseline. Can the Government confirm this GFP software baseline will be the only item provided to support instantiation of the initial SWO-MOS factory? | The GFP & GFI List (Rev. B) posted with the RFP includes the SOLAR-A Observatory Simulator and the Software-Only Simulator for the MOS vendor development site, with deliveries as stated. The List is updated to Rev C now to include post-award access to assess the GOES/SWFO systems and infrastructure. |
32 RFP 1332KP24R0034 iiiA3 140 and 145 g. RFP states:"Offerors that are "Large Businesses" (LB), shall submit a SB Subcontracting Plan (excluding cost/price data) IAW FAR 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan - Alternate II) and NAM 1330-52.208-70 as a part of their Volume III Section J". But also in Volume V, J1 also indicates that the SB Subcontracting Plan is to be provided in this volume. Please clarify whether we are to provide the SB Subcontracting Plan in both Volume III and Volume V or indicate in which volume we should provide the SB Subcontracting Plan. Volume III requires the SB Subcontracting Plan to be submitted within that volume and should not contain any cost/price data. Volume V must include cost/price data relevant to the Subcontracting Plan but not the actual SB Subcontracting Plan.
CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to strike the following language at
(5) VOLUME V - COST PROPOSAL, (4): SB Subcontracting. This section is titled "Subcontracting" which is separate and distinct from SB Subcontracting of Volume III.
CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to strike the following language at
(5) VOLUME V - COST PROPOSAL, (4) Subcontracting, paragraph: a. SB Subcontracting Plan. The SB Subcontracting Plan (see FAR 52.219-9), submitted by Large Business Offerors, shall meet the reuqirements of FAR Part 19.
| 33 | RFP 1332KP24R0034 | Volume I | 129 | 1 | RFP states to include an original signed copy of the SF-33 Form as the cover of Volume I - Business Proposal. The final RFP did not provide the SF-33 Form instead it is the SF-1449. Please confirm that we are to use the SF-1449 as the cover of Volume I. | Please use SF-1449 as the cover of Volume I. All references to SF-33 have been revised to SF-1449 throughout the RFP. |
| 34 | RFP 1332KP24R0034 | CAR 1352.215-72 Inquiries. | 153 | 1 | RFP provides for one opportunity to make inquires. Is there another avenue after the stated date (August 25, 2025) to ask questions/ seek clarity? | There is not another avenue after the August 25, 2025 question deadline to ask questions or seek clarity. |
| 35 | Are there any known significant spacecraft interfaces (including test interfaces) or communication changes for SOL-A vs SWFO/GOES such as different method of handling FSW/table loads, files of data, etc? | There are no significant changes expected. The requirement for 8012 bulk security standard is the most impactful change, as specified in the Communications Requirement Document. | ||||
| 36 | MOSRD-29 | TO-ALL | 3.1.0-6 | Provides ground services to support concurrent operations for SWO missions, initially up to three observatories at Sun-Earth | We'd like to understand if you are talking about a specific enterprise solution (GMSEC or something)? | The rationale describes the scope of "scalable and extensible". There is no assumed enterprise solution implied there. |
| 37 | MOSRD-43 | TO-01 | 3.1.2.0-7 | Mission Operations Services shall provide the capability for gap-free observatory monitoring during operator transition at a workstation. | Is this ensuring there's a group log-in? Does this imply 24/7? | This requirement stands as written. It applies during any operator transition. All IT security requirements also apply. |
| 38 | MOSRD-63 | TO-01 TO-03 | 3.1.5.0-3 | Mission Operations Services shall have the capability for automated fault detection and reporting of ground network communications infrastructure status. | Automated fault responses on the ground, we sort of do this with PSP, please clarify exactly what you are looking to gain. | The requirement is as written. The offeror may propose a solution to meet the requirement. |
| 39 | MOSRD-89 | TO-01 TO-03 | 3.4.1.0-3 | Mission Operations Services shall be capable of receiving downlink telemetry from designated non-NOAA antenna resources. | For TO-03 this could be multi-interfaces needed and for TO-01 testing impacts? | The SWO Antenna Network (SAN), as implemented for SWFO and to be updated for SOLAR-A, includes a set of servers performing various antenna services management functions across all antennas that support the mission (NOAA, commercial, partner). The SAN Director server handles service requests and responses, acquisition data distribution, and tracking data forwarding. A SAN Director service response to MOS is planned to include the scheduled antenna service and the IP address and port to listen to a specific FEP (e.g., 13m NOAA antenna FEP, Partner FEP) for telemetry. The FEP will multicast real-time telemetry to a distribution group. In this way the SAN Director helps standardize the telemetry interface for MOS. |
| 40 | MOSRD-91 | TO-01 | 3.4.1.0-5 | Mission Operations Services shall accommodate a minimum of 50 concurrent operator sessions across each Mission Operations Services instance. | Assumed this means that there is a minimum of 50 visual connections to the operational system, not 50 operator sessions. Please clarify. | That is a correct interpretation. The system must accommodate 50 operators to view status and telemetry for any mission, but not all to command. |
| 41 | MOSRD-166 | TO-01 | 3.4.7.0-5 | Mission Operations Services shall provide authorized operators remote access to telemetry and telemetry analysis tools per mission. Allows operators to review spacecraft and instrument telemetry health and status when not located at a GS- authorized site, but from within the NOAA corporate network, which helps in quickly identifying any faults or problems. This requirement applies only to NOAA-secured terminals outside of the MOS security boundary. |
Operators will use existing NOAA VPN systems to access the NOAA corporate network from the
| Internet. | NOAA corporate network is something I'd like more info on. Is this similar to or identical to the NASA network? | Satellite Operators on current NOAA missions have the capability to remotely log into the NOAA corporate network, and after that validation they can separately log into a repository of telemetry and information. We do not have the information about the NASA remote access to assess whether it is similar or identical to the NOAA remote access. | |||||
| 42 | MOSRD-212 | TO-01 TO-03 | 3.4.11.0-1 | Mission Operations Services shall generate instrument command sequences from instrument vendor calibration tables. Necessary to incorporate the work performed by the Calibration Working Group (CWG). The instrument calibration tables will primarily be delivered to the Mission Operations Services directly from instrument vendors. There will not be a permanent, electronic interface between Mission Operations Services and instrument vendors. | The phrasing in the rationale is odd. It is a direct delivery from the instrument team, but not electronic. This may be a clarification, though it could just be they hand you a form. Is an ICD required for this? | Command sequences must be generated using the information in instrument calibration tables. This is separate from the method by which that information is received and input to MOS. | |
| 43 | MOSRD-240 | TO-01 TO-03 | 3.4.12.0-20 | Mission Operations Services shall make available operator-selected data to external users. | This should be defined early. Who, what cadence, what method, etc.? Any requirements related to this should be defined (volume, latency). Please clarify. | The provision of selected information to external users is an ad hoc activity, and the info made available may include selected telemetry, charts, memory dumps, etc. The method of making such data available may be proposed by the offeror. | |
| 44 | MOSRD-292 | TO-01 TO-03 | 3.6.3.0-5 | Mission Operations Services shall automatically generate detailed ground anomaly reports that include timestamps, system state, error messages, operator actions, and all telemetry data captured during ground system anomaly events. | This seems to lay a minimum of just who/when/what, which is usually just an alarm reporter. Please clarify what other requirements are needed here. | The requirement describes the minimum capability. The offeror may propose their approach to satisfy the requirement. | |
| 45 | Attachment_J.1-Base_Performance_Work_Statement_(PWS).pdf | Tasks Management | 8 | 3.3 | Attachment J.1 Section 3 covers the Contract Wide Requirements of the IDIQ, including the requirement in 3.3 "The contractor shall designate a Project Manager for the overall success of the Solution and a Task Lead for each awarded Task Order. The Project Manager shall serve as the responsible point of contact for technical, programmatic, and fiscal issues. The contractor shall perform general contract management including preparing progress reports and CDRL deliverables in accordance with Task Order requirements, summarizing technical performance, identifying risks and associated mitigating actions, and reporting financial status of the Task Order. The contractor shall track and allocate the cost of base IDIQ PWS work across all active Task Orders similar to overhead." Request that the Government allow allocating 100% of this cost to TO-01/TO-03 for the PM (and programmatic labor). | There is no "program management task" but rather all work is by task order. Thus there is no place to allocate Base PWS costs and program cost must be apportioned across the active task orders. | |
| 46 | Attachment_J.6_TO-01_PWS.pdf | 3.3 | 5 | 3 | TO-1 PWS defines requirements for MUCR. One of the requirements states “Assess scope to expand GFP infrastructure to multi-mission architecture”, however there is no infrastructure included in the GFP list provided, only software. A second MUCR requirement states “Evaluate all equipment (routers, switches, modems, servers, etc.) that can be expanded for multi-mission and re-used or would require replacement to meet overall objectives”. Assumption is SWO-MOS Contractor would need full access to current SWFO-L1 Infrastructure and Systems which are tightly integrated with heritage GOES-R NOAA5050 system to accurately perform this scope assessment and evaluation. In order to provide fair competition to all competitors, will the Government provide the SWO-MOS contractor full access to heritage GOES-R NOAA5050 system and allow SWO-MOS contractor to modify that system for SWO-MOS if necessary to meet overall objectives? | The Government intends to provide, to the awarded SWO-MOS contractor, access to existing GOES/SWFO systems and infrastructure after award. Any proposed modifications will be considered under the operational configuration management process. |
The GFP List is updated to reflect the system access.
47 Attachment)J.18_Task_Order_Cost_and_Pricing_Sheet_Template.xlsx All All All Are we allowed to change the cost model to allow for the cost build-up in accordance with our company disclosure statement? Ie add/delete columns, change format?
Are we allowed to include all additional tabs and information required by the RFP, such as Salary Summary tab, FFP Task 3 by Labor category hours and rates, hours and costs by GFY by CLIN? Please note that the current model is not set-up to allow for information required by the RFP instructions to include the following:
• Required CLIN information
• Split TO1 costs for CY5 between two separate CLINs (0001 & 0003), or it
• Does not have CY6 costs which would be needed for pricing CLINs (1001, 1002, 1003) that appear required by Attachment J.19
• Does not allow to segregate the costs for TO 1 between CPFF, Fixed Fee, and CR CLINs and for TO 3 by FFP and CR CLINs, as per Attachments J.19 and J.20 Attachment J.18 on Amendment 0002 changes now provide: (1) seperate CLINs for Costs and Fee for the Capability separately from the Costs and Fee for the Maintenance and Sustainement and (2) Cost Reimburseable CLINs, and Fixed Fee CLINs for TO-01 and FFP and Cost Reimburseable CLINs for TO-03.
"Please note Attachment J.19 has been revised to reflect (Amendment 0002) the separation of the Maintenance and Sustainment for CY5, as well as, adding a CLIN for ODCs for this work and period of performance.
Please see Table of Contents Tab of Attachment J.18 (Amendment 0002) which details all CLINs which should be priced and covered in the BOEs for each Task Order.
Please see Attachment J.18 change: The option year work (performed in CY6) can now be priced out in TO-01 via new tab TO-01 M&S CY6 Only.
A new Maintenance and Sustainment Tab (TO-01 M&S CY5 only) has been added to provide costs associated with revised CLINs 0004-0006 for CY5 performance.
Please price/estimate CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 covering SOL-A Capability for CYs 1-5. Please also price/estimate CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 covering SOL-A Capability -- Maintenance and Sustainment for CY5. Please also price/estimate CLINs 1001, 1002, and 1003 covering SOL-A Capability -- Maintenance and Sustainment for CY6 (OY1).
Any Maintenance and Sustainment costs incurred prior to CY5 (CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006) should be covered in CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003.
Do we need to price CLINs 1001/1002/1003 Covering Maintenance and Sustainment and ODCs and Travel for CY6, which is not in Attachment J.18?
Yes, please price Maintenance and Sustainment, Fixed Fee, and Other Direct Costs for CY6 via CLINs 1001, 1002, and 1003 which are now found in Attachment J.18, Tab TO-01 M&S CY6 Only."
| 48 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Section L 4 Past Performance (iii) Specific Areas Addressed (A) Evaluation Factor 3 and Section M 3. Evaluation Factor 3 - Past Performance | 142 & 165 | Section L and Section M have 2 different Relevancy Definitions - Section L "For this solicitation, relevance shall specifically include consideration of experience with both TO-01 Enterprise Integration approaches (Government facility-based operations, NESDIS system integration, operator training and collaboration) and TO-03 GSaaS Solution approaches (independent flight operations, commercial service delivery, contractor facility operations)." and Section M, "Relevant is defined as work efforts that are similar in nature, size, and complexity to the supplies/services being procured under this solicitation. For TO-01 Enterprise Integration proposals, relevant experience includes enterprise system integration projects, Government facility-based work, evolutionary development of existing systems, and collaborative partnerships with Government technical teams. For TO-03 GSaaS Solution proposals, relevant experience includes end-to-end mission operations services, GSaaS or contractor-operated missions, independent service delivery contracts, and full mission responsibility engagements." Can the Government please make the relevancy definitions consistent between Section L and M for Past Performance? | Section L (4) Volume IV - PAST PERFORMANCE paragraph (A) Evaluation Factor 3 has been revised to match the definition provided in Section M and states: "Relevant is defined as work efforts that are similar in nature, size, and complexity to the supplies/services being procured under this solicitation. For TO-01 Enterprise Integration proposals, relevant experience includes enterprise system integration projects, Government facility-based work, evolutionary development of existing systems, and collaborative partnerships with Government technical teams. For TO-03 GSaaS Solution proposals, relevant experience includes end-to-end mission operations services, GSaaS or contractor-operated missions, independent service delivery contracts, and full mission responsibility engagements." | |
| 49 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | Volume II - Technical Proposal & Volume III - Management | 131 & 137 | (ii) (F) | The Volume II listed the Attachment 1: List of Materials and the Volume III lists the Attachment 1: Staffing Matrix. Will the government please confirm it is the intent to have two Attachment 1? | Yes, List of Materials is Attachment 1 of Volume II, while the Staffing Matrix is the Attachment 1 for Volume III. Please include each attachment in their respective Volume as listed in the RFP. |
| 50 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | 124-125 | Based on the requirements on pages 124-125 of the RFP, please confirm that the fully burdened Labor Rates in Attachment J.18 are T&M/Labor Hour and will only be used for T&M/Labor Hour task orders. | The RFP is revised to strike FAR 52.216-30 Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Other Than Commercial Acquisition Without Adequate Price Competition. (NOV 2021) |
and instead include FAR 52.216-29 Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Other Than Commercial Acquisition With Adequate Price Competition (NOV 2021). It is the intent to use these rates throughout the ordering period of the IDIQ for any relevant Task Order contract types.
| 51 | Attachment_J.6_TO-01 PWS.pdf | |||
| Attachment _J.7_TO-03_PWS SOL-A.pdf | 1.3.3 Places of Performance | 2 | ||
| 9 | 1.3.3 B. | For other remote work locations does the government anticipate foreign travel for either the bullet SOL-A Spacecraft and Instrument vendor facilities or the bullet End-to-end test locations? | No foreign travel is anticipated. | |
| 52 | RFP_1332KP24R0034.pdf | |||
| Attachment_J.6_TO-01_PWS.pdf | multiple | multiple | See question | The TO-01 PWS implies that the TO-01 effort could cover more than the first 5 years of the IDIQ Period of Performance (PoP). Section 1.1 of the TO-01 PWS states that SOL-A is intended to launch no earlier than June 2029 and Figure 1 shows Phase C/D starting in late 2025, LRD taking place in 2029, Primary mission starting in 2030 and ending in 2034 and Extended Mission starting in 2035 and ending in 2039. Table 2, MOS Reviews, Capabilities, and Releases aligned to SOL-A Events, states Solution meets all requirements on 12/30/2029. |
Attachment J.18 Cost model TO-01 sheet only lists CY1-CY5 as priced years (CY1 is 4/13/2026-4/12/2027 and CY5 is 4/13/2030-4/12/2031).
Attachment J.19 shows CLINs 0001 (SOL-A Capability - CPFF), 0002 (SOL-A Capability - Fixed Fee), and 0005 (SOL-A Capability Other Direct Costs and Travel - Cost) covering 4/13/2026-4/12/2031, CLINs 0003 (SOL-A Capability Maintenance & Sustainment - CPFF) and 0004 (SOL-A Capability Maintenance and Sustainment - Fixed Fee) covering 4/13/2030-4/12/2031, CLINs 1001 (SOL-A Capability Maintenance and Sustainment - CPFF), 1002 (SOL-A Capability Maintenance and Sustainment Fixed Fee), and 1003 (SOL-A Capability Other Direct Costs and Travel - Cost) covering 4/13/2031-4/12/2032.
Section L(5)(iii)(1)a.2. states "Cost/price proposals shall adhere to the pricing structure established within each Task Order. Each Task Order contains information on period of performance, place of performance, and travel requirements. The Offeror shall fill out all tabs of the cost and pricing sheets provided within Attachment J-18 for each Task Order and tab within the template, to include all labor categories identified in Attachment J-12*, in an original MS Excel copy (which includes a flat file). Each Task Order and CLIN must be addressed and completed in order for the Offeror to be considered for award." * Note - Labor Categories are in Attachment J.11, while J.12 is the Q&A template.
In order to ensure full compliance with the RFP requirements, can you clarify which TO-01 CLINs and CYs are to be priced in the Cost Model and covered in the BOEs?
Do we only Price/Estimate CLINs 0001/0002/0005 covering SOL-A Capability for CY1-CY5 or do we need to also price/estimate CLINs 0003/0004 covering Maintenance & Sustainment for CY5?
Assuming Maintenance and Sustainment would start 12/31/2029 (after full delivery of SOL-A on 12/30/2029), where would we cover the maintenance and sustainment cost for the period of 12/31/2029 to 4/12/2030? Should it be charged to CLIN 0001 given CLIN 00003 starts 4/13/2030?
Do we need to price CLINs 1001/1002/1003 Covering Maintenance and Sustainment and ODCs and Travel for CY6, which is not in Attachment J.18? Please note Attachment J.19 has been revised to reflect (Amendment 0002) the separation of the Maintenance and Sustainment for CY5, as well as, adding a CLIN for ODCs for this work and period of performance.
Please see Table of Contents Tab of Attachment J.18 (Amendment 0002) which details all CLINs which should be priced and covered in the BOEs for each Task Order.
Please see Attachment J.18 change: The option year work (performed in CY6) can now be priced out in TO-01 via new tab TO-01 M&S CY6 Only.
A new Maintenance and Sustainment Tab (TO-01 M&S CY5 only) has been added to provide costs associated with revised CLINs 0004-0006 for CY5 performance.
Please price/estimate CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 covering SOL-A Capability for CYs 1-5. Please also price/estimate CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 covering SOL-A Capability -- Maintenance and Sustainment for CY5. Please also price/estimate CLINs 1001, 1002, and 1003 covering SOL-A Capability -- Maintenance and Sustainment for CY6 (OY1).
Any Maintenance and Sustainment costs incurred prior to CY5 (CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006) should be covered in CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003.
Do we need to price CLINs 1001/1002/1003 Covering Maintenance and Sustainment and ODCs and Travel for CY6, which is not in Attachment J.18?
Yes, please price Maintenance and Sustainment, Fixed Fee, and Other Direct Costs for CY6 via CLINs 1001, 1002, and 1003 which are now found in Attachment J.18, Tab TO-01 M&S CY6 Only.
53 RFP 1332KP24R0034.pdf L CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) 128 (b) Overall Arrangement of Proposal The RFP states "All font, including tables, diagrams, artwork, photographs, schedules, and graphics are to be Times New Roman 11 pt font with no exceptions." Headers, footers and the cover page will include CUI statements, proprietary information statements, etc. which will not fit well within the typical page sections. Additionally, the SF33, SF30s and cost volume attachments (e.g. FPRA/FPRR/FPRP) are not typically in this required font. Can we assume that this font requirement does not apply to proposal information such as the above? CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to include the following language at (b): All font is to be Times New Roman 11 pt font with the exception of tables, diagrams, artwork, photographs, schedules, and graphics where the font should be no smaller than 9 pt font. All submissions must be machine readable, allowing for the ability to search all text within the document and to the extent possible including images. Offerors shall not use tables to provide narrative information.
54 RFP 1332KP24R0034.pdf L CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) 128 (b) Overall Arrangement of Proposal The RFP states "All font, including tables, diagrams, artwork, photographs, schedules, and graphics are to be Times New Roman 11 pt font with no exceptions." With TNR 11 in graphics, the text may obscure the graphic. Smaller fonts will often make the graphics more informative. We request that graphics be allowed smaller fonts such as 8 point. CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation. (APR 2010) has been updated to include the following language at (b): All font is to be Times New Roman 11 pt font with the exception of tables, diagrams, artwork, photographs, schedules, and graphics where the font should be no smaller than 9 pt font. All submissions must be machine readable, allowing for the ability to search all text within the document and to the extent possible including images. Offerors shall not use tables to provide narrative information.
| 55 | RFP 1332KP24R0034.pdf and Attachment J.18 | L Cost Proposal | 143 | Cost/Price Narrative - h. Cost Summary by GFY | There is a discrepancy in the language between the RFP and Attachment J.18, Tabs TO-01, TO-03. The RFP states The Offeror shall provide a total cost and fee summary for each CLIN by Government FY (i.e., 1 | ||
| October 20XX – 30 September 20XX)" and that the "summary shall align with all other Attachment J.18." However, Attachment J.18 references Contract Year and not GFY. Please confirm that we can provide our cost summary by calendar year. | All references to Government Fiscal Year have been revised to Contract Year. The cost summary should be provided by Contract Year and not Government Fiscal Year nor Calendar Year. | ||||||
| 56 | Attachment J.18 | TO-03 Tab | N/A | N/A | Formula error in Cell F7. Formula picks up monthly rate in Cell C7 instead of Cell E7. Is it acceptable for offerors to correct the error? | Attachment J.18 tab "TO-03" has been revised to correct the Formula error in Cell F7. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .