Questions_and_Answers-NEMO.pdf

Question Answer

If an offeror elects to submit two white papers—one addressing the Geostationary mission set and one addressing the JPSS/Space Weather mission set—does the 10-page maximum apply separately to each white paper (i.e., up to 10 pages per white paper), or is the 10-page maximum cumulative across both white papers?

Each white paper can be 10 pages

We respectfully request an extension for our response to the NESDIS Enterprise Mission Operations (NEMO) from the current due date of October 19, 2026, to November 2, 2026.

The requested extension would allow our team to perform thorough analysis of requirements and develop a more comprehensive and responsive whitepaper and ROM.

We understand the importance of your timeline and assure you that this extension will result in a higher quality response that better addresses NESDIS's needs.

Could you please confirm if this extension to November 2, 2026, is acceptable?

The Government can extend the responses through October 26, 2026 at 1200 EDT.

Is the percent (%) Offer Contribution calculated on the total contract value, or only on the portion associated with establishing and implementing the NEMO solution—i.e., does the cost-share apply solely to the transition effort?

The Offeror Contribution applies to the total agreement value including all option periods and may include both cash and in-kind contributions

What are the period of performances for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 ROM submissions?

As described in the SOO, "NOAA desires solutions that facilitate commercial satellite operations service for all of NOAA’s currently operational satellites no later than calendar year 2029, with demonstrations beginning no later than calendar year 2028. The POP will be dependent on the activities identified in whitepaper and negotiated prior to OTA issuance."

Please refer to the linked flyout charts for information on constellation lifetimes and planned launches.

What are the details/procedures and duration of the spacecraft decommissioning for JPSS and Solar?

For the Purposes of the White Paper Responses, please reference the JPSS, GOES-R and SOLAR-1 Disposal Plans as detailed in the NESDIS Satellite Decommissioning and Disposal Policy

Are ‘Lights Out’ ConOps acceptable for the JPSS and Solar Missions? Offerors may propose approaches that meet SOO key performance requirements.

Are the Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, and Acronyms included in the page count? No

Is it acceptable to use an 8-point font in graphics and tables? Yes

Please define the delineation of responsibility between NESDIS and the contractor for GOES rebroadcast capability.

The NEMO vendor will only maintain the spacecraft-side services (i.e. on-orbit spacecraft communication transponders). NESDIS will continue to independently operate GEO Systems such as HRIT/EMWIN and

DCS.

Does NOAA anticipate the underlying IT requirements for C2 and mission management to be fulfilled through NEMO OTA?

NOAA anticipates that NEMO will be provided as a service, with the commercial provider operating any necessary IT requirements as a part of their commercial offering.

Does NOAA anticipate that the Command and Control (C2) requirements identified under the DISCOS RFI will be removed from DISCOS and fulfilled through NEMO?

Vendors must address the requirements exactly as they are currently documented under each respective solicitation. Until the government formally amends the NEMO or issues the DISCOS, vendors should treat the requirements as separate, while anticipating future interoperability standards between the two vehicles.

Past OTA have been restricted to Research & Development (R&D) activities. Does NOAA's current OTA authority have any such restrictions that would preclude vendors from pricing taking over operational responsibilities of C2?

NOAA's authority is approved for the construction, use, operation, or procurement of new, improved, innovative, or value-added systems, including satellites, instrumentation, ground stations, data, and data processing.

It is the Government's expectation that C2 operational responsibilities will be addressed and priced as described in the SOO.

Is the Government going to own the FISMA Boundary requirements, or does the government expect for the commercial vendor to own the FISMA boundaries?

The proposed commercial service will not reside within an NOAA FISMA Boundary. The Government expects that the vendor's commercial service will be required to interface with other NESDIS FISMA systems.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/s3/2025-01/NESDIS-OSPO-SAT-001V1.pdf

RPP

Appendix 003, Phase I, Item 2, Cover Page (p. 14); Appendix 002, Item H (p. 12) Eligibility Is a commercial C2 platform developed by a non-U.S. parent company eligible if it is hosted and operated in the U.S. by U.S. persons? Are there foreign ownership, ITAR, or EAR restrictions NOAA expects to apply?

The offerors commercial service must be authorized to host ITAR and EAR information. The proposed approach to supporting ITAR/EAR Compliance must be approved by the Government.

SOO

III, JPSS/SWO Objective 1.d; Geostationary Objective 1.d Security Which governs, FISMA High under NIST 800-53 or NIST 800-171? Will NOAA sponsor the Authority to Operate (ATO), and should offerors assume FedRAMP High hosting?

Security requirements are as stated in the OTA's Appendix SOO, and consistent with a FISMA High Impact Level and with the appropriate NIST 800-53 IT Security Controls and/or commercial equivalents under NIST SP 800-171. The proposed commercial service will not reside within an NOAA FISMA Boundary.

SOO

III, JPSS/SWO Objective 1.a.i; Geostationary Objective 1.a.i Operations Does NOAA expect the offeror to provide 24x7 flight operations staff, or only the C2 service, with Government and existing contractor staff doing the operating?

Offerors may propose approaches that meet SOO key performance requirements.

SOO

III, JPSS/SWO Objectives 1.a and 1.c; Geostationary Objectives 1.a and 1.c Operations How will NEMO mission scheduling interface with the NAaaS scheduling system? Who owns enterprise-wide schedule deconfliction across missions?

Vendors should identify their proposed approach to scheduling and utilization of Government NAaaS resources. The vendor should also identify and describe advantages to their scheduling approach via the vendor provided commercial service.

SOO

IV, Period of Performance; V, Performance Objective 2.b Demonstration Which spacecraft is the "tertiary asset" for the 2028 demonstration? When will offerors get access to spacecraft databases, interface documents, and flight procedures?

NOAA-20 (JPSS-1), GOES-17 (GOES-S) and SOLAR-1. The Government anticipates providing access to all spacecraft products, databases, etc... at Award for an vendor to utilize.

SOO

III, JPSS/SWO Objectives 1.a and 4; Geostationary Objectives 1.a and 3; Appendix A (GOES-R #5, #7; GeoXO #4, #5, #7) Scope Do telemetry trending and analysis, image navigation and registration (INR) and product monitoring, and Level 0 data generation fall within NEMO, or do they stay with the existing GOES-R and JPSS ground systems?

The NEMO vendor will perform trending of housekeeping and engineering telemetry data. INR, product monitoring, and Level 0 data generation will be performed by NESDIS

SOO

III, JPSS/SWO Objective 1.b; Geostationary Objective 1.b; Appendix A (JPSS #5, GOES-R #8) Scope For direct broadcast and Unique Payload Services (GOES Rebroadcast, HRIT/EMWIN, DCS, GEOSAR), does the offeror operate the ground-side elements, or only maintain the spacecraft-side services?

The NEMO vendor will only maintain the spacecraft-side services (i.e. communication transponders).

NESDIS will operate the ground-side elements.

RPP / SOO

RPP Phase I (p. 6); RPP Appendix 003, Phase I, Item 6 (p. 14); SOO IV, Period of Performance Pricing What period should the ROM cover: demo through full operational capability only, or include a number of years of steady-state operations? Should it be broken out by phase?

As described in the SOO, "NOAA desires solutions that facilitate commercial satellite operations service for all of NOAA’s currently operational satellites no later than calendar year 2029, with demonstrations beginning no later than calendar year 2028. The POP will be dependent on the activities identified in whitepaper and negotiated prior to OTA issuance."

Please refer to the linked NESDIS Satellite Flyout charts for information on constellation lifetimes and planned launches.

RPP

Phase II, Basis for Evaluation B.3 (p. 9); Appendix 003, Phase II (c) (p. 16) Data Rights What data rights does NOAA expect for a commercial C2 platform delivered as a service?

The Government expects to procure a existing operational commercial service under NEMO, not a deliverable system. The Government would expect to negotiate any data rights for deliverables under any Agreements as a part of the agreement development during Phase 2.

SOO

III JPSS/SWO Objectives also GEO Objectives Data Processing Does the NEMO system need to do any L0 or L1 processing before handing off to the NOAA data processing?

The NEMO OTA vendor does not need to perform L0 and L1 processing. The NESDIS Antenna as a Service (NAaaS) will receive the telemetry downlink and generate and distribute L0 data.

SOO

SOO (General)

GFE

What spacecraft modeling will be provided (e.g. for development of command and telemetry databases)?

Command and Telemetry databases and operations handbooks will be provided to the OTA vendor(s).

OTA vendors will be responsible for ingesting the provided databases into their systems.

SOO

SOO (General)

GFE

Are spacecraft simulators provided as GFE? Or is there an expectation that simulators are developed as part of this effort?

Spacecraft simulators will be provided as GFE to the OTA vendor(s), with coordination to ensure non-interference with current operations.

RPP

RPP(General) Scope How does NEMO relate to the recent DISCOS RFI?

Vendors must address the requirements exactly as they are currently documented under each respective solicitation. Until the government formally amends the NEMO or issues the DISCOS , vendors should treat the requirements as separate, while anticipating future interoperability standards between the two vehicles.

RPP

Appendix 003, Phase 1, Item 1 (p. 14) Guidelines Is smaller than 12-point font in graphics acceptable so long as text is clearly legible?

Yes

RPP

Appendix 003, Phase 1, Item 1 (p. 14) Guidelines Is 10-point font acceptable for Tables?

Yes

RPP instructions state "Font size shall be no smaller than 12-point". The instructions also state "Use of diagrams or figures to depict the essence of the proposed solution is encouraged."

Will the Government please confirm that the font size for tables is 10-point and the font size for diagrams and figures is 8-point.

Confirmed

SOO states the following "…based on shared contributions from both the Government and industry partners."

In addition to the NAaaS, are there other Government and industry partner contributions such as Anomaly support, Payload mission planning, Mission planning applications, Payload-specific engineering, and Spacecraft vendor/OEM access?

Industry partner in this context refers to the OTA vendor, not third parties.

RPP limits the white paper to ten pages, excludes the cover page, and separately identifies required content sections Will the Government please permit the submission of the ROMs in Excel format and exclude them from the page limitation?

The RPP should include top level ROM costs in the white paper. Supporting information may be provided in Excel format and be excluded from the page count. Detailed pricing information will be expected as a part of Phase 2 proposal development.

The Government requires Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing during this Phase. The ROM should include a total price summary of the solution.

Would the government provide specific/placeholder dates, such as future specific launch dates, to be used forschedule and pricing or should the contractor use best judgement and provide their assumptions accordingly?

Please refer to the NESDIS Satellite Flyout Charts referenced in the NEMO Statement of Objectives Appendix 001

Use of Aerospace Corp. and Ascendant Engineering as contractor support.

Will the Government please consider requiring the offerors to state in its Phase I white papers that no actual or potential OCIs are identified for themselves and their proposed subcontractors? We recommend NOAA take an avoidance stance pertaining to OCIs to ensure acquisition integrity, and to prohibit the two entities listed on page 13 of the RWPP as well as any other entities who have actual or potential OCIs from participating in the pursuit of the opportunity.

NOAA is actively managing OCIs. Offerors are encouraged to early identify any perceived OCIs with their submissions. They may do so in writing to the designated Agreements Officer and Specialist.

All FFRDC and support contractors supporting the NEMO OTA development effort will be placed under NDA with appropriate limitations on future contracting for the NEMO effort.

Government and contractor access is required; operational responsibility boundaries need further clarification.

Does NOAA intend for NEMO contractor operators to perform primary operations with Federal personnel retaining oversight?

The NEMO contractor will be responsible for performing all aspects of the operation as a commercial service. The Government will retain a management and engineering oversight role.

Mission performance depends on both NEMO and NAaaS services.

Where is the SLA demarcation between NEMO and NAaaS for availability and latency?

The demarcation between NEMO and the services provided by NAaaS will be discussed during the Phase 2 agreement development and in the initial phases of the NEMO effort. Any assumptions made by the NEMO vendor should be documented in the white paper response.

NOAA requires demonstration using a tertiary asset without identifying the spacecraft.

Which tertiary asset does NOAA envision for each mission-set demonstration? Can a contractor provide their own Type-1 crypto enabled on-orbit Spacecraft asset for demonstration?

Tertiary assets in the FY2028-FY2029 timeframe are expected to include NOAA-20 and GOES-17.

The use of a contractor-provided, non-NOAA on-orbit satellite for demonstration purposes is not permitted. The Government will provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to support the required Cryptographic Uplink Encryption to the Government's Tertiary Satellites.

Phase I identifies capability and ROM criteria without explicitly scoring contributions.

How will offeror contributions affect Phase I evaluation?

Evaluation criteria are as specified in the RFPP. The OTA process will enable discussion and clarification of agreement contents, including offeror contributions, throughout the process.

Mission-unique planning tools may contain proprietary IP, restricting transfer or rehosting within commercial NEMO.

Do any existing mission planning or flight dynamics tools contain proprietary IP, or does NOAA possess sufficient Government Purpose Rights (GPR) to provide, modify, and rehost these tools within NEMO?

Government is procuring NEMO as a service and does not intend to rehost, or continue procuring specific software tools on behalf of the Contractor. Offerors are not prescribed or required to utilize existing Government tools for mission planning or flight dynamics. Instead, vendors are expected to identify and propose their own cost-effective technical solutions and toolsets to meet the performance requirements of the solicitation. Additional discussion on viable approaches may occur during phase II agreement development. Vendors should identify any planned GFP as a part of their proposed response.

Separate mission-set awards may duplicate infrastructure, staffing, software, and sustainment costs.

Would NOAA consider a common commercial C2 solution across both mission sets to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency?

If a vendor intends to propose to both mission sets, then any cost efficiencies should be captured and segregated as a part of Phase 2 pricing. Common system efficiencies may be discussed in each Phase 1 white paper/ROM, but each white paper should stand on its own in terms of the proposed solution.

Would the government allow a 10 pt font in graphics and tables? Yes With the introduction of a Company-funded contribution, would the government consider a week extension? The Government can extend the responses through October 26, 2026 at 1200 EDT.

RPP-Nemo_Attachment_Request for White Paper Proposal - Pg 5 Objectives For the Polar and Space Weather missions, we assume that NOAA's intent is for vendors to provide a single white paper describing an approach that would support both the JPSS and SOLAR-x missions. Is this the correct interpretation?

Correct

RPP-Nemo_Attachment_Request for White Paper Proposal - Pg 9 Phase II - Basis for Evaluation Phase II identifies Data Rights/Intellectual Property as an evaluation factor. How will data rights be evaluated?

Additional information on Phase 2 will be provided as a part of Phase 2 proposal instructions for selected vendors.

RPP-Nemo_Attachment_Request for White Paper Proposal - Pg 15 Phase I Whitepaper Format Please clarify the role of the Offeror Contribution described in Appendix 003. Is an Offeror Contribution required as a condition of eligibility for award, an evaluation factor, a negotiated term of the Project Agreement, or some combination?

NOAA intends to incorporate either cash or in-kind contributions as a part of its other transaction authority agreements, consistent with NOAA's OTA authority. Contributions will be negotiated per the terms of the agreement and may affect the favorability of a proposed approach.

Is the facility to host the operations center(s) expected to be provided by the offeror, or will the government provide these locations (such as the NSOF, WCDAS and CBU)?

NEMO seeks a commercial satellite mission operations service. Offerors are expected to primarily provide the facilities and infrastructure needed to host and deliver their proposed operations service. Any expected GFP/GFE (including facilities) requested of the Government should be captured in the proposed approach, including adequate justification. The Government will review the favorability of the proposed approach.

If the facility is to be provided by the offeror, are geographically disperse backup facilities required as well?

It is expected that the Offeror's commercial service provides resilience to meet the OTA's objectives identified within the Appendix #1 SOO. This includes the ability to maintain continuity of operations consistent with achieving the Government Requirements as detailed in the SOO's Appendix A: Key and Driving Mission Requirements.

If the facility is to be provided by the offeror, what is the largest expected capacity that the facility must accommodate?

There are no facility requirements established by NOAA for the NEMO RFPP. NEMO seeks a commercial satellite mission operations service. Offerors are expected to primarily provide the facilities and infrastructure needed to host and deliver their proposed operations service.

Is continuous on-premises physical security monitoring required as part of the FFP?

Security requirements are as stated in the OTA's Appendix SOO, and consistent with a FISMA High Impact Level. The offerors commercial service must be authorized to host ITAR and EAR information.

The proposed approach to supporting ITAR/EAR Compliance must be approved by the Government.

Is the offeror's support expected to include the spacecraft specific knowledge to provide creation, maintenance, and CM of all relevant mission operations products and the associated staff to perform observatory operations?

The Government will retain a management and engineering oversight and reachback to the spacecraft and instrument vendors. This includes providing offerors the existing procedures and operations products to support migration from Government systems to commercial services. However the offerors are required to perform translation, configuration management, and baseline management of all procedures within their proposed commercial service.

If Mission Operations Services (as defined in Question 2) is expected, what phases does this include? (pre-launch, launch & commissioning, nominal operations?

These include the stages defined in the RPP. This will include JPSS-3 and SOLAR-A/B launches, decommissioning/deorbit for missions at end of life. GEO mission phases include pre-launch (GeoXO), launch (GeoXO), orbit raising (GeoXO), post-launch testing (GeoXO), nominal operations (GOES-R and GeoXO), and decommissioning/deorbit operations (GOES-R and GeoXO).

Is training of the use of the C2 system by an external operations team required as part of the SLA?

SOO requires the commercial C2 capabilities to support access by both Government and Contractor staff. Offerors should describe how personnel who will use their C2 service would be prepared to do so, including any training, documentation, or support included in the proposed service.

Is the C2 system expected to provide remote access capabilities?

The Offeror will need to identify how Government and Contractor staff can access Commercial C2 Capabilities to support nominal operations. This may occur via remote access or some other alternative, as proposed by the offeror. The Government will review the favorability of the proposed approach.

Is the C2 system expected to connect to spacecraft vendor factory locations to support prelaunch testing and on orbit telemetry data feeds?

The service is expected to support pre-launch testing, and interface with GFP for any spacecraft factory interfaces.

Extension request: To support the development of thorough and well-informed Phase I submissions that address the technical, operational, and transition requirements across both mission sets, would the Government consider extending the Phase I White Paper submission deadline by two weeks?

The Government can extend the responses through October 26, 2026 at 1200 EDT.

Schedule: Can the Government provide an estimated schedule for Phase I down-select notifications, the anticipated proposal response timeframe for Phase II, and the target award date for the resulting Project Agreement(s)?

The Government intends to provide Phase II notifications approximately 4-6 weeks after the White Paper due date.

The Government intends to provide Phase II invitees 4 weeks to submit their Project Proposals.

The Government’s target award timeframe is around Q2 of FY 2027.

Technical Documentation: To support transition planning and operational risk reduction during Phase II, will the Government make existing constellation interface control documents (ICDs), command/telemetry databases, and operational procedure baselines available to offerors invited to Phase II?

A subset of mission documentation, operational products, etc can be made available to Phase II vendors to aid in agreement development upon request.

Cost Share: Can the Government confirm whether a minimum Offeror Contribution percentage is required, or whether Offeror Contributions (cash and/or in-kind) will be assessed as part of the Government’s overall evaluation of value and technical merit?

NOAA intends to incorporate either cash or in-kind contributions as a part of its other transaction authority agreements, consistent with NOAA's OTA authority. Contributions will be negotiated per the terms of the agreement and may affect the favorability of a proposed approach.

NAaaS Integration: Appendix 001 requires the proposed system to interface with the NESDIS Antennas as a Service (NAaaS) project. Will the Government provide the NAaaS Interface Control Documents (ICDs) or API specifications to offerors selected for Phase II to ensure accurate integration pricing?

The demarcation between NEMO and the services provided by NAaaS will be discussed during the Phase 2 agreement development and in the initial phases of the NEMO effort. Any assumptions made by the NEMO vendor should be documented in the white paper response.

FISMA High Boundaries: Appendix 001 also notes that commercial C2 capabilities must be maintained consistent with FISMA High and/or NIST SP 800-171 equivalents. During Phase II, will the Government require the offeror to achieve a standalone commercial Authority to Operate (ATO), or will the solution inherit controls from an existing NOAA authorization boundary?

Multiple approaches may be proposed in order to ensure adequate security of the commercial service.

The proposed commercial service will not reside within a NOAA FISMA Boundary.

Offerors should describe their proposed system boundary, authorization approach, any existing accreditation, applicable security controls, and any controls they propose to inherit from legacy Government systems or services within their commercial boundary. Proposed control inheritance should identify the responsible party and the basis for that assumption.

GFP Documentation: If an offeror’s phased transition solution relies on utilizing existing NOAA Mission Operations Centers (such as NSOF consoles) as Government Furnished Property (GFP), should this GFP request be detailed in the 10-page Phase I White Paper, or is it exclusively required in the Phase II final proposal?

NEMO seeks a commercial satellite mission operations service. Offerors are expected to primarily provide the facilities and infrastructure needed to host and deliver their proposed operations service. Any expected GFP/GFE (including facilities) requested of the Government should be captured in the proposed approach, including adequate justification. The Government will review the favorability of the proposed approach.

Phase I markings and handling. Appendix 003 requires proprietary documents to be marked only in Phase II (item g). Will the Government honor proprietary or restrictive legends on Phase I white papers? Is there a specific legend offerors should use? Will the Government limit use and disclosure of white paper content to evaluating this announcement?

All information in the RPP process for both Phases 1 and 2 will be managed under confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements and the Government will limit disclosure and use as specified in Appendix

002. Any proprietary information included in Phase I will be treated consistent with Offeror markings, and no specific markings are required.

Retention of non-selected proposals. Please confirm that when the Government considers Category 2 proposals for up to one year, it won’t disclose proprietary content to other offerors or use it in other solicitations. Please also confirm how submissions will be returned or destroyed after that year.

The Government confirms that proprietary content will not be disclosed to other offerors and will not be used in other solicitations. In the event this becomes necessary, the Government will seek authorization from the proprietor beforehand.

The Government does not intend to return or destroy submissions after the one (1) year period has lapsed. In the event that the offeror requests the return or destruction of the submission, the Government will retain a copy of the submission for its records.

Whether the IP article can be negotiated. If selected for Phase II, will offerors have the opportunity to negotiate the IP/Data Rights article as part of Project Agreement negotiations? If the Government anticipates using a standard OTA IP/Data Rights article, can it be provided for planning purposes?

The Government will negotiate data rights and intellectual property during Phase II agreement development. A draft project agreement will be provided with the invitation to Phase II.

Technical scope: Does the Government envision NEMO completely replacing existing ground C2 sustainment and operations for JPSS and GOES-R by CY2029, or will the NEMO commercial capability interface with and run in parallel with the legacy ground segment elements during a phased migration? This information is required to properly bound the white paper and ROM.

The transition timeline is dependent on the proposed approach and schedule from the Offerors. It is anticipated that some parallel operations will be required in order to reduce risk and manage limited resources such as encryption devices and satellite simulators.

Procedural: To realize enterprise cost savings and economies of scale across GEO, LEO and SWO missions, our solution utilizes a unified commercial C2 architecture. Does the Government prefer that offerors present such integrated capabilities via two separate 10-page White Papers reflecting common core platform architecture, or would the Government permit a single 20-page Enterprise White Paper encompassing both mission sets?

If a vendor intends to propose to both mission sets, then any cost efficiencies should be captured and segregated as a part of Phase 2 pricing. Common system efficiencies may be discussed in each Phase 1 white paper/ROM, but each white paper should stand on its own in terms of the proposed solution.

Separate white papers are expected for the separate mission sets.

Given the overlap in scope and NESDIS programs supported (GOES-R, JPSS, SOLAR), is NEMO meant to augment or replace the EOGSS pursuit?

NEMO is the result of NESDIS market research efforts including those performed under the CEOGSS RFI conducted in 2025.

How does NESDIS envision NEMO integrating with selected DISCOS provider(s) across the proposed data management, infrastructure, and platform architecture? More specifically, how will C2 capabilities delivered through NEMO across missions interface with selected DISCOS C2 solutions?

NEMO provides commercial mission operations (command and control) services for NOAA satellite systems. This is expected to include NOAA's operational polar, L1, and geostationary missions (GOES- R/GeoXO, JPSS, and SOLAR). These services are expected to receive data from ground stations (operated and maintained by NCAGSS) and provide science data to NOAA data processing systems (maintained under DISCOS).

DISCOS is expected to provide operations, maintenance, and sustainment for existing NESDIS on-premises and cloud-based systems, including legacy command and control systems and data processing systems and in the future incorporation of any commercial service that may be procured under NEMO.

DISCOS is also expected to provide various services for NESDIS' ground enterprise including systems engineering, cybersecurity, enterprise infrastructure, spectrum management, science operations, and spacecraft/instrument reachback support.

As Offerers to this RPP will be evaluated on cost, can the Government provide an estimated budget for each mission area?

A budget for each mission area has not been established. The Government will work with potential vendors to ensure alignment between available funding as a part of Phase II agreement negotiations.

The RPP Problem Statement notes that "Vendors may submit one or two white papers" addressing each mission set separately, but the SOO groups JPSS and SWO Mission Operations together with a separate section for Geo Mission Operations. Are the up to two white papers addressing JPSS and SWO together and Geostationary separately, or should vendors read these as three distinct mission areas?

JPSS and SWO are one mission area and GEO is a second mission area. White papers should align with this division of responsibility. Separate white papers are required for each mission area.

Based on the FISMA High compliance requirement in the SOO, is NESDIS expecting an on-premises, cloud-based, or hybrid deployment model, or are a variety of vendor proposed deployment models being assessed?

Security requirements are as stated in the OTA's Appendix SOO, and consistent with a FISMA High Impact Level and with the appropriate NIST 800-53 IT Security Controls and/or commercial equivalents under NIST SP 800-171.

Is the FFP ROM expected to cover the cost of the demonstration period and operational cutover by 2029? Is NESDIS willing to consider prize-based awards for successful demonstration periods to lead into a production contract?

The ROM is expected to cover both the demonstration period and operations for the life of the constellations as defined in the SOO referenced NESDIS Satellite Flyout charts. A prize-based approach is not anticipated at this time.

Does NESDIS anticipate any OCI challenges for NCAGSS respondents (prime or subcontractor) seeking to pursue NEMO given the highlighted NAaaS integration scope?

Given that the NCAGSS vendor will not establish requirements for or evaluate potential NEMO solutions, and the Government project offices will manage the integration between NCAGSS and NEMO, no OCI is expected at this time. Should an offeror identify a current or potential OCI issue, they should notify the Government points of contact identified in the RPP.

Will NOAA confirm that the primary scope is commercial flight operations and engineering, with Government-provided ground segment as external interfaces?

The OTA Statement of Objectives (SOO) describes the scope of work, objectives, and tasks desired by NOAA for the delivery of a multi-constellation commercial satellite operations service. This includes interfaces with the NESDIS Antennas as a Service (NAaaS) for RF Resources, and Government Science Data Processing Systems.

Will NOAA confirm that the primary scope is commercial flight operations and engineering, with Government-provided stations and NOAA science data processing systems treated as external interfaces?

The OTA Statement of Objectives (SOO) describes the scope of work, objectives, and tasks desired by NOAA for the delivery of a multi-constellation commercial satellite operations service. This includes interfaces with the NESDIS Antennas as a Service (NAaaS) for RF Resources, and Government Science Data Processing Systems.

The Request for White paper proposal notes that GEO missions (GOES-R/GeoXO) must be evaluated separately from Polar/Space Weather missions (JPSS/SOLAR). Does NOAA intend to award a single primary OTA covering all satellite fleets, or separate OTAs dedicated to specific mission sets?

NOAA intends to enter into one or more OTA agreements as a part of this effort. It is expected that separate OTAs dedicated to the described mission sets will be developed.

What level of security clearance will contractor staff require to perform C2 operations?

NOAA mission operations occur at the unclassified level. NOAA satellites require Type 1 encryption, and the handling of keys and key material at a commercial facility may require additional security. The Offeror should consider potential COMSEC encryption and key management solution requirements, including security, as a part of their response.

Does the Government envision the operations centers to be located within government facilities or commercial operators' facilities?

NEMO seeks a commercial satellite mission operations service. Offerors are expected to primarily provide the facilities and infrastructure needed to host and deliver their proposed operations service. Any expected GFP/GFE (including facilities) requested of the Government should be captured in the proposed approach, including adequate justification. The Government will review the favorability of the proposed approach.

How and when will Interface Control Documents (ICDs) and API specifications for the NESDIS Antenna as a Service (NAaaS) program be distributed to offerors so they can evaluate C2-to-Ground integration requirements?

The Government will provide information on NAaaS services as a part of agreement development during Phase II.

SOO includes the objective to maintain the operational GEO satellites’ Unique Payload Services (UPS), including GOES Rebroadcast, and future GeoXO UPS. Does the Government intends to transition these and future related GEO systems such as HRIT/Emwin and DCS to the commercial operator or retain these are Government owned systems?

The NEMO vendor will only maintain the spacecraft-side services (i.e. on-orbit spacecraft communication transponders). NESDIS will continue to independently operate GEO Systems such as HRIT/EMWIN and

DCS.

How does the Government envision the operational authorization process for the commercial solution to interface with the space, ground, and data segments?

Interfaces between the commercial service and NOAA systems will be captured in Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs) and Interface Control Documents (ICDs) as required to meet the proposed solution.

Is there a minimum required percentage for vendor cost-matching under Section 301 Other Transaction Authority, or is cost share evaluated strictly as a qualitative discriminator?

While a minimum required cost-share percentage is not mandated by NOAA's Other Transaction Authority, prior NOAA OTA agreements have targeted a minimum 15% vendor contribution (cash or in-kind).

With NEMO commercial operations being reliant on government-managed ground and science data processing segments, how does the Government envision streamlined accountability of handling anomalies, especially those impacting the NEMO SLAs?

NOAA will engage with the NEMO commercial service providers in the same way as other existing NOAA commercial service providers and partners, via the use of a negotiated Service Level Agreement (SLA).

Offerers are expected to initate anomaly investiation when observed, and can be elevated when characterized as an issue with an Government Interface. Offerors should document and provide their assumptions to facilitate the scope of NEMO within their white paper responses using a SLA approach.

Will the Government provide access to future missions pre-launch and pre-operational phases teams and data for early integration and testing allowing adequate time and maturity to support launch, early orbit, and activation phases?

Yes, it is expected that the NEMO commercial service will support pre-launch and pre-operational activities as identified in the NESDIS Satellite Flyout charts. The Government involvement will be limited to providing access to Government spacecraft & instrument development teams, as well as operations engineering staff, to support mission readiness or commissioning activities.

Will the Government retain the ability to make decisions related to spacecraft and instrument configurations and decommissioning? Yes. The Government will retain ownership of all spacecraft and instruments.

Will the Government continue to provide Cal/Val capabilities for the satellite instruments once the satellites are commercialized? Yes. The Government will retain calibration and validation of satellite observations.

Please clarify whether the NEMO contractor will be responsible for developing and submitting satellite contact schedules to NAaaS, or whether NAaaS will independently manage contact scheduling. Please also clarify the expected coordination and interface responsibilities between NEMO and NAaaS.

The offerors commercial service must develop a satellite contact schedule, which will be submitted to the Governments NAaaS Scheduling Interface. For the white papers, vendors can identify there proposed approach to utilized Government NAaaS resources via the vendors commercial service.

Please clarify whether the requirement to maintain JPSS direct broadcast is limited to onboard High Rate Data (HRD) configuration, commanding, and monitoring, or whether the NEMO contractor will also be responsible for any associated ground segment equipment, infrastructure, or operations.

The NEMO vendor will only maintain the spacecraft-side services (i.e. on-orbit satellite communication transponders).

Appendix 003, Phase I: White Paper Format, Section 1.a specifies a minimum 12-point font size but does not address font requirements for tables, figures, graphics, captions, or footnotes. Would the Government permit a smaller font size of 8–10 points for these elements, provided the text remains legible?

Yes

Do any in-scope missions require Government Furnished Equipment (e.g. command link encryption devices) to be hosted at the offeror’s facilities? If so, what facility, personnel and handling requirements apply?

NOAA satellites require Type 1 COMSEC encryption, and the handling of keys and key material at a commercial facility may require additional security. The Offeror should consider potential encryption and key management solution requirements, including security, as a part of their response. Offerors should identify any Government furnished equipment/property/facility requirements necessary to implement their proposed solution.

SOO 1.d cites FISMA High with NIST SP 800-53 controls “and/or commercial equivalents under NIST SP 800-171”. Which baseline governs? Is FedRAMP High required for cloud-hosted components? Must an ATO be in place before the 2028 demonstration?

Security requirements are as stated in the OTA's Appendix SOO, and consistent with a FISMA High Impact Level and with the appropriate NIST 800-53 IT Security Controls and/or commercial equivalents under NIST SP 800-171.

SOO 1.a.i refers to “operations by Government and Contractor staff accessing Commercial C2 Capabilities”. Which operational functions does the Government expect to be performed by Government or Government-contractor staff, and which by the offeror? Or is the offeror free to propose this division of responsibilities?

The NEMO contractor will be responsible for performing all aspects of the operation as a commercial service. The Government will retain a management and engineering oversight role.

How will liability for spacecraft anomalies, damage or loss be allocated under a firm fixed price agreement? Will liability be capped or indemnified? Any liability issues will be addressed as a part of agreement development during Phase II Negotiations.

Will the Government furnish command and telemetry databases, operational procedures, and spacecraft simulators to the offeror for current missions?

Yes. Offerors should describe any required Government-furnished property/equipment/information as a part of their response.

May the offeror reuse elements of the existing Government ground system C2, or is a full replacement expected? If a reuse of the current C2 is possible, would it be a GFE delivery or would the offeror need to establish it independent subcontracts with the respective C2 providers?

The Government expects to acquire a set of already operational commercial services as apart of NEMO.

Existing Government Command and Control (C2) systems could be made available to the Offeror in whole or in part, but transition of which would be deconflicted to avoid impacts to existing operational activities prior to transition. Any requirements for the Government to provide support to Government-furnished equipment/property long-term should be identified as a part of the agreement development.

Will spacecraft manufacturer engineering support (e.g. anomaly resolution) remain under Government contract? Yes

JPSS/SWO Objective 4 asks the offeror to deliver science data from Government-provided ground stations to cloud-based Government processing systems. What is the service boundary for data delivery? Since ground station services are provided under NAaaS, may the offeror assume that terrestrial network transport from the ground stations to the data delivery point is provided by the NAaaS provider(s)?

The networks providing data transport from ground stations to cloud-based data processing systems are expected to be external to NEMO.

Scope Definition: “Appendix 003 requires offerors to provide Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing, including a total price summary of the proposed solution. The RPP does not specify a required period of performance, a number of operational years, or the expected lifecycle to be included in the ROM. To ensure alignment with NOAA’s expectations, could the Government clarify whether the ROM should reflect:

a) one-time system installation and stand-up costs only, (i.e. No mission integration)

b) (a) + integration of each mission into the system to an operational state

c) b + a specific number of years of operational services (e.g., 3 years, 5 years),

d) a period of performance defined by the offeror based on its proposed solution architecture?

Any guidance on NOAA’s expected ROM timeframe will ensure consistent and comparable submissions.

The proposed pricing should include all effort necessary to establish the service for the specified missions, transition the system to operations, operate, and meet the mission lifetimes and milestones defined in the NESDIS Satellite Flyout charts referenced in the SOO.

Scope Definition: Is conducting mission operations within the scope of the OTA? Yes NAaaS interface: What interface will NAaaS stations present to the C2 provider (scheduling API, data-plane protocol such as CLTU/CADU over TCP or CCSDS SLE), and will NOAA furnish it as GFI before demonstrations?

NOAA will work with Offerors to provide interface specific information and resolve any necessary clarifications as a part of Phase II agreement development.

Cloud Implementation: Both the CBU and cloud-based operations are mentioned along with the MaxTTR’s, does this mean we are required to install a separate solution at CBU or is a multi-region cloud solution with access points from all locations sufficient?

It is expected that the Offeror's commercial service provides resilience to meet the OTA's objectives identified within the Appendix #1 SOO. This includes the ability to maintain continuity of operations consistent with achieving the Government Requirements as detailed in the SOO's Appendix A: Key and Driving Mission Requirements.

Facilities. Request mentions both civil servant and contractor operators, must operations run from NSOF, WCDAS and CBU, or may the provider operate remotely from its own facilities and cloud?

The Government will maintain its Government Engineering support out of the Government's Mission Critical Facilities. However the offeror must ensure its commercial service is accessible to Government staff.

NEMO seeks a commercial satellite mission operations service. Offerors are expected to primarily provide the facilities and infrastructure needed to host and deliver their proposed operations service. Any expected GFP/GFE (including facilities) requested of the Government should be captured in the proposed approach, including adequate justification. The Government will review the favorability of the proposed approach.

Command security: Will NOAA furnish the command encryption and key-management equipment and interfaces as GFE/GFI?

NOAA satellites require Type 1 COMSEC encryption, and the handling of keys and key material at a commercial facility may require additional security. The Offeror should consider potential encryption and key management solution requirements, including security, as a part of their response. Offerors should identify any Government furnished equipment/property/facility requirements necessary to implement their proposed solution.

Conjunction analysis: Should conjunction analysis consume TraCSS screening, and is the provider responsible for maneuver decisions or only for recommendation and execution?

Conjunction analysis solutions may be proposed by the offeror. The provider will be responsible for recommendation and execution, while the Government will retain decision authority.

SOO III.1 states: Provide Command and Control (C2) capabilities to facilitate nominal, 24x7x365 NOAA JPSS and SOLAR-1 satellite operations through a commercial service approach defined via Service Level Agreement (SLA) – does this imply that the solution provider is only providing the system/service but not conducting mission operations?

a) Notes that III.1.a.i states: Facilitate operations by Government and Contractor staff accessing Commercial C2 Capabilities – so this may not be a valid Q but an assumption?

The NEMO contractor will be responsible for performing all aspects of the operation as a commercial service. The Government will retain a management and engineering oversight role.

SOO III.1.b What is required to maintain JPSS direct broadcast service?

a) Similarly, what is required to Maintain the operational GEO satellites’ Unique Payload Services (UPS), including GOES Rebroadcast, and future GeoXO UPS? SOO III Geo 1.b

The NEMO vendor will only maintain the spacecraft-side services (i.e. on-orbit spacecraft communication transponders). NESDIS will continue to independently operate GEO Systems such as HRIT/Emwin and

DCS.

SOO III.1.c states solution will interface with Govt-provided ground stations – does this include data transport/communications network or is that intended to be provided by the commercial operations service provider?

The existing data transport/communications networks in place for operations (e.g., NOAA NWAVE, SWO SD-WAN, LCOMMS) are expected to remain in place as Government-furnished services. NEMO vendors will be responsible for any additional communications service requirements, or will need to state any assumed GFP services as a part of their proposed approach.

RPP-NEMO Objectives states: Vendor white papers should address each mission set separately. Vendors may submit one or two white papers. Is the intend to require separate papers if you’re proposing solutions on the two mission set or can a single paper include both mission sets and long as they are differentiated distinctly in the single paper?

JPSS and SWO are one mission area and GEO is a second mission area. Separate white papers are required for each mission area.

We respectfully request an extension for our response to the NESDIS Enterprise Mission Operations (NEMO) from the current due date of October 19, 2026, to November 2, 2026.

The requested extension would allow our team to incorporate the responses to questions, perform thorough analysis of requirements, and develop a more comprehensive and responsive whitepaper and ROM

The Government can extend the responses through October 26, 2026 at 1200 EDT.

Can…