Solicitation 1332KP25R0021_Vendor Questions.pdf

Solicitation 1332KP25R0021

Vendor Questions

1. Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

This is a follow-on requirement from 2023. Incumbent information can be found here.

2. We are performing independent research on the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (1332KP25R0021).

We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

This is a follow-on requirement from 2023. Incumbent information can be found here.

3. It is noted that [this solicitation] is currently marked as a Total Small Business Set-Aside. Are you able to release the RFP ‘Unrestricted’? Alternatively, use a NAICS code that has a size standard based on number of employees (e.g. 541714)?

This solicitation has been amended to remove “total small business set-aside concern.” It is now a full and open competition, RESERVED for one small business concern. Therefore, if multiple awards are a result of this solicitation, one award will be set aside for one small business concern.

The NAICS code remains 518210.

4. Ref. Section C - 0001 SOW - Section IV.1.d.): Can the L1 data files contain both ocean and land data with an accompanying surface type flag embedded in the file, as is standard in CYGNSS L1 data files, rather than two separate L1 file types for ocean and land tracks?

For the ocean/land data flag, L1 data files could either be two separate files or have a surface type flag as is standard for CYGNSS.

5. Regarding Section C.III.D and C.IX (Data Delivery Protocols): Can NOAA provide the NESDIS Common Cloud Framework (NCCF) ICD or detailed specifications for secure ingest protocols and required metadata formats to ensure precise alignment with the technical environment?

NOAA will work closely with the selected vendor/vendors, including providing detailed formatting and protocol information, to ensure that data can be delivered to meet NCCF requirements.

6. Regarding Section C.I (Available Commercial GNSS-R Observations): Can NOAA clarify which specific 'available commercial GNSS-R observations' (e.g., from commercial providers or satellite constellations) are of highest interest for this pilot study?

This section refers to satellite GNSS-R data from commercial satellite data providers. ‘Available commercial GNSS-R observations’ specifically refers to data from vendor-owned satellites with GNSS-R sensors that are currently in orbit and capable of providing data during the Pilot period.

7. Regarding Sections C.II and C.V (Objective vs. Threshold Requirements): Can NOAA provide insight into the relative importance or weighting of meeting the 'objective' data/observation requirements, particularly concerning higher data quantities and faster latency, during the evaluation process?

https://sam.gov/opp/7f06a1fc837744c4b571f274b22eb84b/view

The Objective Requirements in Section V. of the Statement of Work represent desired levels of performance with increased utility. Due to the nature of this being a pilot for GNSS-R applications, it is understood that contractors may not be able to meet all objective requirements. During the evaluation process, each proposer’s ability to provide data that meets the Pilot goal of assessing the quality and impact of GNSS-R observations for the determination of OSW characteristics will be evaluated. This includes assessing the impact of antenna gain in GNSS-R systems on data signal to noise ratio (SNR) and on the ability to retrieve tropical cyclone winds. So, while all the Objective Requirements are important, it is the overall capability of the proposer to best meet the Pilot goals that will be evaluated.

8. Regarding Section C.III.C (Quality Flags and ATBDs): Can NOAA provide specific guidance or templates for the expected level of detail and format for 'Quality flags' and 'Algorithm Theoretical Basis Documents (ATBDs)', including any existing NOAA standards or preferences?

Upon award NOAA can provide to the awardee specific guidance and/or templates for the level of detail and format for 'Quality flags' and 'Algorithm Theoretical Basis Documents (ATBDs).

9. Regarding Section I, Clause 1352.204-74 (SCRA Requirements): Is there a preferred format or template for submitting the Supply Chain Risk Assessment information, or is a narrative response addressing each point sufficient? What is the expected timeline for updates if changes occur during evaluation or performance?

There is no specific format for the Supply Chain Risk Assessment. However, a detailed response is preferred that identifies, evaluates, and mitigates potential disruptions that could impact the sourcing, delivery, or continuity of data provided.

It is expected that the awardee will have a close working relationship with NOAA which would include meetings and near-real time updates if important changes occur during evaluation or performance.

10. Regarding Section I, Clause 1352.204-74 (f) (Non-Destructive and Destructive Testing): Can NOAA elaborate on the scope or typical nature of non-destructive and destructive testing for commercial GNSS-R data products, and identify any specific data types or system components that would be prioritized?

As a data as a service (DaaS) contract, testing will be non-destructive. Thorough testing of the GNSS-R data delivered will be conducted by NOAA, including calibration and validation and comparison against other GNSS-R datasets (i.e., CYGNSS) and OSW products from other satellite, aerial, and ground sources.

11. Regarding Section C.IV.B (Place of Performance for Data Collection): While data delivery requirements are clear, does NOAA have a preference for the geographic location of the contractor's primary data collection or initial processing efforts (e.g., CONUS vs. global capabilities), assuming all security and latency requirements are met?

NOAA must conform to U.S. Government regulations regarding a contractor’s ownership and geographic location of the contractor's primary data collection or initial processing efforts.

● NOAA's Commercial Space Policy v1.1 (2020) states that: “NOAA will prioritize procurement from U.S. commercial space companies and apply interagency review when foreign data is proposed for operational use.” NOAA must assess foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) under NESDIS's Commercial Data Acquisition procedures. Data vendors subject to

FOCI concerns or flagged by national security entities may be disqualified after interagency review (including DoD and ODNI input).

● FAR Subpart 25.7 and Buy American Act may limit foreign procurement in favor of domestic suppliers.

● Appropriations legislation and provisions in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) include restrictions on procurement from certain countries. For example, Section 889 of the FY19 NDAA prohibits federal agencies from contracting with entities that use equipment or services from specific Chinese companies, which may include space-related services. Section 805 of the FY 24 NDAA reinforces this by expanding prohibitions to firms tied to the Chinese military-industrial complex and subsystems or support services sourced from those manufacturers. Sections 833 and 835 require domestic sourcing and visibility into supply chains.

12. SOW III §1 (a)(i)(ii): What specific delay × Doppler span (chips × Hz) should the “compressed DDMs with a reduced range of delay and Doppler” cover so we can size files and ensure scientific utility?

Upon award, NOAA will work closely with the offeror to determine the specific characteristics of compressed DDMs. The offeror should include in their proposal the range of characteristics that can be provided along with a recommendation and rationale for the Pilot to ensure scientific utility.

13. SOW III §1 (b)(i): What maximum radiometric‑calibration uncertainty (e.g., dB RMS for NBRCS) is acceptable for the fully‑calibrated Level‑1 DDMs?

The maximum radiometric‑calibration uncertainty is one aspect of system performance reviewed as part of the Pilot. The offeror should include in their proposal the expected radiometric calibration uncertainty for L1 DDMs.

14. SOW III §1 (b)(i): What horizontal and vertical geolocation accuracy (km) must the specular‑reflection point estimates meet, and which geodetic reference frame (e.g., WGS‑84) should be used?

The RFP SOW states a threshold requirement of GNSS-R observation capabilities of spatial resolution of 25 km x 25 km or better for OSW determination. As a general rule for satellite remote sensing data, geolocation accuracy should be better than half the spatial resolution. However, this is not a stated requirement and, for the response to this RFP, the offeror should present their system’s horizontal and vertical accuracy as part of the response to spatial resolution.

The WGS‑84 geodetic reference frame will likely be used, and will be definitively determined closely after award.

15. SOW III §1 (c)(i): Does NOAA require a specific schema or controlled vocabulary (e.g., CF conventions) for quality flags, or may the contractor define new flags provided they are fully documented?

NOAA does require specific schemas and controlled vocabularies for quality flags in satellite datasets particularly when those datasets are being archived, distributed, or operationally integrated. The most widely used NOAA-endorsed schema is the Climate and Forecast (CF) Metadata Convention, alongside other structured metadata and quality flagging practices depending on the data type and mission.

Upon award, NOAA will work closely with the offeror on the definition and documentation of quality flags.

16. SOW III §2 (a): When will NESDIS release the final NCCF secure‑ingest interface‑control document so our team can align file‑naming conventions and API endpoints before the 24‑hour sample‑data test?

Upon award, NOAA will work closely with the offeror on the file‑naming conventions and API endpoints required for datasets including the 24-hour sample test.

17. SOW III §2 (a): Will the NCCF ingest destination be hosted in AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, or another enclave, and must the contractor host pre‑staging storage in the same environment?

The NESDIS Cloud System (NCS) data ingest and data distribution services, also known as the NCCF operational environment, provides common services such as data ingest, product generation, and data distribution in the cloud to support NESDIS missions. The NCS Data Ingest and Data Distribution Services are NESDIS implementations to ingest data, perform data format validity checking and verification, and distribute data to consumers. NCCF is an enterprise system with multiple logical components located primarily at external Cloud Service Provider (CSP) facilities. The specific operational architecture is based upon the NOAA Enterprise Architecture Committee’s (NEAC) approved Secure Ingest Gateway Pilot (SIGP) Project architecture. SIGP leverages a commercial cloud computing environment in an Amazon Web Services (AWS) moderate impact FedRAMP approved Cloud Services (S3, SQS, SNS, VPC, EC2). NCS is hosted entirely on AWS Cloud Service Provider infrastructure.

The offeror should expect to host pre staging storage in the same environment. Upon award, NOAA will work closely with the offeror on NCCF ingest details.

18. SOW IV §1 (a) & V §1 (d): Does NOAA prefer continuous real‑time streaming or periodic bulk uploads in order to meet the <6‑hour threshold and <140‑minute objective latency requirements?

As this is a Pilot, data delivery should be focused on maximizing the number of observations collected.

Some data not meeting latency requirements may be more likely with periodic bulk uploads, but should still be collected and distributed. Offerors should describe their data delivery process and how it prioritizes maximizing data collection.

19. SOW IV §1 (c): How does NOAA define one “track” (e.g., contiguous specular‑point time series versus a single DDM snapshot) for purposes of the ≥200 tracks day⁻¹ metric?

A track is defined as the trajectory of the specular reflection point over time (geographic contiguous specular‑point time series), formed by the interaction of a GNSS transmitter, receiver platform (e.g., CYGNSS), and the Earth’s surface.

20. SOW IV §1 (c) & V §1 (a‑b): Are daily‑track counts evaluated per individual spacecraft or summed across the entire offered constellation?

Daily‑track counts will be summed across the entire offered constellation.

21. SOW IV §1 (d): Should land and ocean data be delivered via separate storage buckets/prefixes, or is a metadata flag sufficient if a single data stream is provided?

For the ocean/land data flag, L1 data files could either be two separate files or have a surface type flag as is standard for CYGNSS.

22. SOW IV §1 (e)(i): What methodology will NOAA use to verify compliance with the 25 km × 25 km spatial‑resolution requirement so we can provide supporting analysis?

Verifying spatial resolution is part of the calibration and validation process (cal/val) which is essential in ensuring satellite data is reliable and decision-ready. NOAA will perform a detailed cal/val for pilot GNSS-R data which has been used with other previously evaluated GNSS-R datasets. This includes DDM analysis and comparison with data from other sensors and predictive models. For this pilot, NOAA will value the ability to work closely with the offeror to complete cal/val for the provided data.

23. SOW IV §1 (f): What documentary evidence will NOAA accept to confirm that purchased GNSS‑R observations are “unique” and not provided to U.S. Government entities under other contracts?

NOAA will accept an offeror statement declaring that the provided GNSS-R observations are unique and a list of the offeror’s other contracts to supply GNSS-R data.

24. SOW VI §6 (b‑c): Is ANTEX format version 1.4 mandatory for antenna phase‑center and gain data, and may proprietary antenna‑gain pattern files be submitted under protective legends?

The offeror is requested to follow SOW Section VI., GENERAL MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENTS for formatting. The Government will hold information identified as proprietary by the offeror as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

25. General: Please confirm that this is new work and there is no incumbent. If this is wrong, please provide the name of the incumbent and their contract number.

This is a follow-on requirement from 2023. Incumbent information can be found here.

26. FAR 52.212-2 Addenda: The solicitation states "(a) Only offerors who have operational capabilities to provide data at the time this RFP is released will be considered for an award." What evidence is the Government seeking to support an offeror's claim that it has adequate "operational capabilities"?

Operational capabilities mean that the offeror possesses a satellite or satellites with a near-nadir GNSS-R sensor currently in orbit and able to collect and download GNSS-R data during the Pilot period. Systems that are pre-launch or in the planning phase will not be considered. Evidence would include a detailed description of the satellite system including development history, sensor design, launch date, estimated lifespan, and COSPAR/NORAD ID.

27. The request for proposal calls for two classes of GNSS-R payload. The CYGNSS-class antenna requirement (>12 dBi peak antenna gain) and the high gain (>18 dBi peak antenna gain). Would NOAA consider reducing the CYGNSS-class antenna requirement from 12 dBi peak antenna gain to 10 dBi?

As this is a proposal requesting for CYGNSS-class GNSS-R data and for higher gain data, we would accept submission of proposals with data quality similar to CYGNSS data. As there are many variables that make up data quality, submission of data from a system with 10dBi peak antenna gain would be acceptable if it could be demonstrated as having similar characteristics to CYGNSS. Alternatively, a submission including data with 10dBi peak antenna gain would be acceptable if this data data can be shown to help increase the total number of tracks per day that the vendor can deliver.

28. (Ref Sect. L - B.1.(b) - Do we need to include the "Price/Availability Schedule" table in the Business Volume and the Pricing Volume? Or can we simply reference the Pricing Volume with the pricing table in the Business Volume?

The pricing information should solely be in the Price Volume.