SSPEDI_SpS_QandA_Vol2_1DEC2017.pdf

80ARC018R0007 December 1, 2017

Small Spacecraft Prototyping Engineering Development & Integration (SSPEDI) Space Solutions (SpS)

Questions and Answers, November 29, 2017

This document contains answers to questions regarding the SpS procurement that were received after the September 29, 2017 release of the draft Statement of Work (SOW), and associated documents, for the ORS-8 Space Segment.

RFP

1. Q: The table that defines the SpS Index of Subfactors does not consistently list Organizational Conflict of Interest with the SpS Table on Page L-7. Can the Government update Page L-7 and Page L-24 to make the tables consistent?

A: This is corrected in the final RFP. The OCI Plan has been removed from the Index of Subfactors and is now part of the cover letter submission.

2. Q: Upon additional review of the anticipated SSPEDI small business pool, we consider the SpS Small Business goals provided in the Draft RFP unlikely to be achieved by any awardee. These SpE goals are challenging, but realistic, and attainable for any potential awardee.

A: The Small Business Subcontracting Goals were established based on NPD 5000.2D and approved by the SBA based on the total contract value of this acquisition. The Government does not intend to revise the Small Business Subcontracting Goals for the SSPEDI SpS acquisition.

3. Q: Section L states, "Include a narrative portion that explains all judgment-based elements of cost/price projections and profit policies including any proposed price ceilings and team fee sharing arrangements."

Can the Government restate this section as follows? "Include a narrative portion that explains all judgment-based elements of cost/price projections and profit policies including any proposed price ceilings and team fee sharing arrangements. This narrative portion is only applicable to CPIF and CPFF CLINs."

A: The Government did not revise the language in L.3 (c)A.(4) in the final RFP. The narrative requirements are still applicable to the Cost/Price Volume. The CLIN exhibits include additional instructions appropriate for the complexity of the requirement and contract type.

4. Q: The SpS Proposal Component Table has a No Limit Section for Organizational Conflict of Interest in the middle of a page limited Volume I (Mission Suitability).

If the SpS Proposal Component outline instruction is followed, then there is likely confusion regarding evaluation of proposals being within the 100 limit.

Could the Government revise the SpS Proposal Component outline to segregate the page limited from the No Limit components? For example, remove the OCI component from Volume I page limited component to a No page limit attachment to Volume I.

80ARC018R0007 Solicitation Questions and Answers November 29, 2017

A: The page count limits have been clarified in the RFP, Section L.

5. Q: Section L states that, "Diagrams, charts, tables, and photographs shall contain Arial font text in a size no smaller than 12-point."

Is it acceptable to propose the font for diagrams, charts, tables, and photographs to contain Arial font text in a size no smaller than 8-point?

A: The RFP indicates that proposal font shall be no smaller than 10-point font for diagrams, charts, tables, and photographs.

6. Q: The Draft RFP contains several clauses relating to who bear’s [sic] the responsibility for risk of loss. These clauses are:

Responsibility for Supplies: FAR 52.246-16 (E-1) FOB Destination: FAR 52.247-34 (Page F1 ) Can the Government clarify specifically what the final delivery and acceptance points are for all CLINs?

A: As indicated in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW Section 3.5.4, inspection and acceptance for the ORS-8 Space Vehicle will take place at the launch site.

7. Q: Will offerors be compliant with the RFP if Task Order 2 is not bid with the SSPEDI basic contract?

A: No. Offerors are requiredto submit full proposal volumes as indicated in the proposal instructions in Section L of the RFP. SpS proposals that do not include a response to all task requirements will be considered non-responsive.

8. Q: Is the broader SSPEDI Draft RFP and the associated contract clauses found in document NNA17608320R_-_SSPEDI_DRFP_B-M_26_April_17.pdf from the April documentation still applicable?

A: NNA17608320R Draft RFP is no longer applicable. The final RFP and attachments associated with 80ARC018R0007, and any amendments if issued, are applicable to this requirement.

ORS-8 Capability Requirements Document (CRD)

9. Q: What is meant by “extended commissioning periods which would postpone production of useful data shall be considered in lieu of ILC”? Is this consistent with CRD 4.1: Schedule?

A: The CRD is provided as guidance. The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW defines the requirements.

10. Q: Which requirement takes precedence: the Area of Regard or global coverage for Gap 1? Please define “global support for Gap 2 coverage”.

A: The requirements in the ORS-8 Space Segment Technical Requirements Document (TRD), as referenced in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW, take precedence over the CRD, which is provided as guidance. Global support for Gap 2 coverage is defined in the TRD, section 2.1.3.2 (SSTRD-09)

ORS-8 Space Segment SOW

11. Q: The SOW states: "Mission Data Management (MDM) includes software, hardware, materials, training, and support to enable Ground Segment operations including Telemetry, Tracking and Control (TT&C) of the Space Vehicle;

downlink of Space Vehicle Real-Time Telemetry (RTLM) and Stored Telemetry (S-TLM); downlink, delivery and initial processing of the Weather Data (WxD) through the Weather Data Processing Center; and delivery of processed data to the dissemination server. MDM includes the Mission Unique Software (MUS) for TT&C and WxD Processing Software required to deliver WxD to complete initial processing and upload to the weather dissemination server."

The Government lists TT&C as part of MDM but has "TT&C Services" listed in GFS list. What is the definition of TT&C Services, as listed in the GFS list?

A: The GFS list has been removed. Section 2.3.2, Mission Data Management, includes the Mission Unique Software as a deliverable, not MMSOC 2.1. The MMSOC 2.1 ground system is used for Space Vehicle TT&C. Mission Unique Software provides the interface between the Space Vehicle and MMSOC 2.1.

12. Q: The SOW states, "Delivery of Ground Segment elements and components are procured on other contracts but interfaces are a significant part of the ORS-8 Task Order on the SSPEDI contract. The Ground Segment consists of all Multi- Mission Satellite Operations Center (MMSOC) 2.1 components and ground based datalinks.

What components are included in "MMSOC 2.1 components"?

A: MMSOC 2.1 is described in the MMSOC Service Interface Specification Document, 25 Apr 17, included in the Technical Document Library, which is available on request at FBO.gov.

13. Q: The SOW states, "The Contractor shall provide a hardware-in-loop Flight Vehicle Testbed (FVT) including primary weather payload and DRO, capable of modification to meet program's software verification and validation, and complete test plan procedure requirements. At a minimum, the FVT shall consist of an Engineering Development Unit (EDU) processor with all other functions (e.g., star trackers, IMUs, solar array, transponders, sensors, etc.) and flight software.

The Contractor shall support the FVT for use in payload integration, test, ground segment interface testing, operations rehearsals, and on-obit operations. The contractor shall maintain the FVT at the contractor’s facility through the period of performance of this contract then deliver to the Government."

The requirement states that the FVT shall consist of EDU with "all other functions" and flight software.” Can the Government elaborate on what is specifically meant by "all other functions" (interface verification vs full functionality)?

A: The FVT will be required to have "full functionality" to allow for testing, including interface verification.

14. Q: The CRD states “mission implementation cost including space vehicle, ground system, launch and first year of operations shall not exceed $175M”. What is the not to exceed cost for the deliverables specified in SOW Table 5.1.?

A: The CRD indicates the direction for the total ORS-8 program, including ground and launch support services not acquired on the SSPEDI SpS contract. The Government does not intend to release specific cost estimates related to the ORS-8 Space Segment.

15. Q: Where can a copy of the ECP ICD, Spec, CONOPS, development schedule, and reliability assessment be obtained?

Does the ECP meet the TRL 5-7 maturity?

A: Since the ECP is GFE, it will not be considered part of the space vehicle reliability calculations. The Government has not selected an ECP vendor, but expects to do so by the ORS-8 Systems Requirement Review (SRR). The TRD provides details on expected ECP Space, Weight and Power (SWaP) as well as telemetry requirements sufficient to allow offerors to include ECP integration in their proposals.

16. Q: Is there a System Operational Requirements Documents (SORD) for ORS-8 and when will it be made available?

A: There is no System Operational Requirements Document for ORS-8, nor does the Government plan to provide one in the future.

17. Q: Are both the Minotaur I and Minotaur IV potential launch vehicles for the ORS-8 space vehicle? How does limiting the launch vehicle to only one of these impact proposal scoring?

A: Yes. The ORS Office used the Minotaur I and IV User's Guides and launch environmental data in order to bound the interface and environmental requirements for the ORS-8 Space Vehicle. Proposal scoring is defined in Section M of the RFP.

18. Q: When will the launch vehicle selection been made? Prior to SV PDR or later?

A: Launch vehicle selection will be made approximately 30 months before the Initial Launch Capability (ILC).

19. Q: Is the option for 24 months of on-orbit support that is discussed in 3.1.1 Period of Performance paragraph 2 expected to be included in the proposal as options or are they anticipated to be future opportunities to be offered at a later date?

A: The two one-year options for mission support operations are included and will be evaluated as part of the response to the RFP.

20. Q: In section 6.0 Applicable Documents, how are the terms “Reference” and “Guidance” defined?

A: The Applicable Documents Appendix was amended to remove Reference and now only contains Compliance and Guidance. Guidance documents are included in order to provide additional information to the offerors, but do not represent requirements.

21. Q: Section 3.3.4, Risk Management, calls out MIL-STD-882E, which is a system safety standard. Is this the correct reference standard?

A: No, MIL-STD-882E is not the correct standard and it has been removed from Section 3.3.4. The appropriate standards are described in the CDRL associated with the risk management requirement (CDRL 009).

22. Q: Section 3.3.11, Contamination Control, calls out IAW ASTM E 1548-2009. Is it acceptable to instead use IEST-STD-CC1246?

A: ASTM E 1548-2009 is a compliance document for the ORS-8 Space Segment task order. However, tailoring is allowed, contingent upon approval by the Government.

23. Q: Will Data Item Descriptions (DID) or Data Requirements Descriptions (DRD) be provided for the CDRLs or are they to be defined by the contractor since this is a Class C mission?

A: Each CDRL provides guidance on tailoring and use of contractor format.

24. Q: Is it possible to utilize the existing Weather Data processing capability and capacity in order to provide a cost savings to the Government? This capability will reduce NRE and network costs; as well as minimizing the operational impacts on the data processing and dissemination to users.

A: The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW has been updated to clarify potential use of existing ground infrastructure.

25. Q: When will a specification and ICD document for the ECP payload be provided?

A: The Government will provide the specification and ICD for the ECP payload at the System Requirements Review (SRR).

26. Q: The contractor envisions that the Ground Support Equipment provided shall also consist of the Mission Data Management hardware required for TT&C and WxD processing. Is this assumption correct?

A: Ground Support Equipment does not include Mission Data Management Hardware. GSE description has been updated to clarify.

27. Q: The Flight Vehicle Testbed (FVT) description can be interpreted various ways. It is anticipated that the FVT is Hardware-In-Loop (HWIL) utilizing actual flight representative hardware for performance simulation of the ORS-8 space vehicle.

Is this assumption correct? As a cost savings to the Government, are engineering units an acceptable replacement for flight hardware as long as the functionality is identical?

A: Full identical functionality is required, but engineering units and a payload emulator are acceptable. The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW has been updated to clarify Government intent.

28. Q: This section makes reference to “Lightweight hand held terminals” which does not correspond with the contractor understanding of the Mark-IVB, SMQ-11, or FMQ-17. Additionally, in the SSPEDI SOW there is a reference (section 2.4.2) to “The Small Tactical Terminals”. The terminology does not appear to be consistent within the provided documentation contrasted against the stated requirements. More specifically, will ORS-8 be required to support DIRECT READ OUT to Basic – Small Tactical Terminals (B-STT) or upgraded STT utilized across the DoD?

A: Per the ORS-8 Space Segment TRD, ORS-8 will support the Mark IVB, SMC-11 and FMQ-17. The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW has been updated to clarify.

29. Q: The System Engineering requirements & CDRLs imply that the ORS-8 mission is not a Class C program. Is it the intent of the Government to follow the Aerospace Mission Risk - Class C documentation as specified in the ORS-8 CRD or the SOW (dated 29 Sept 17) listed CDRL documentation?

A: The requirements in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW take precedence over the

ORS-8 CRD.

30. Q: What is the intent of the statement “The contractor shall provide a hardware-in-the-loop Flight Vehicle Testbed including primary weather payload and DIRECT READ OUT,…”. Is it the intent of the Government that the contractor is to provide an additional primary payload for the hardware-in-the-loop Flight Vehicle Testbed? What is the intent of the “direct read out” provision?

A: The Government modified the FVT requirement to allow for a full functionality payload emulator. The FVT shall also include the DRO broadcast capability.

31. Q: Is the hardware-in-the-loop Flight Vehicle Testbed capability a fully functioning hardware & software system, or is the intent to capture all functionality with V&V being performed as software functional testing?

A: The FVT is a fully functional system.

32. Q: To reduce cost, may the contractor use specialty equipment procured on company capital funds, (e.g. testing and diagnostic equipment) OR should the contractor purchase all required equipment and include it in the company hardware to be delivered as GSE delivery requirement.

A: The requirement (3.4.2.1) was modified to allow for use of existing equipment.

The contractor will only deliver equipment to the Government that was developed or procured using Government funds.

33. Q: Will the Government please clarify the statement made in the first paragraph quoted in 19.a. below? Specifically, is it anticipated that the contractor will provide a network from each ground receive station to a central WxD processing center located at Kirtland, AFB?

a. “The Contractor shall provide and sustain the capability to downlink and deliver the WxD from the SV to the WxD processing center. This includes any subcontracts required to support downlink and delivery of the WxD. The Contractor shall identify any treaty implications, special conditions or additional approvals applicable to the proposed downlink and delivery architecture.”

A: This draft ORS-8 Space Segment SOW requirement has been updated in the final release. See SOW Section 3.4.4.2.

The Contractor is responsible for determining the ground architecture elements necessary for downlink and delivery to the WxD Processing Center. The Contractor is also responsible for establishing processing capability at the WxD Processing Center for initial processing of the WxD.

The Contractor may consider leveraging existing architectures or propose new architecture elements. It is expected that the contractor will provide sufficient detail to validate their architectural solution.

34. Q: Will the contractor be required to support “weekly” Ground System IPT teleconferences, and additionally support 3 ground system design reviews for a maximum of 3 days each?

A: Yes. The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW has been updated.

35. Q: Will the Government specify the encryption devices or will contractor have the option of selecting NSA-approved, (GFE) encryption devices?

A: The Government will work with the Contractor and appropriate Government agencies to determine which devices to use, reference ORS-8 Space Segment

SOW 4.3.

36. Q: Section 2.2 describes Mission Data to include SV TLM being collected by the spacecraft. According to Figure 1, there's a separate path for TT&C data via the AFSCN to SMC/AD. There doesn't seem to be a path from the On Orbit vehicle to the Mission Data Management for TLM. Is the MUS connection to SMC/AD intended to be a backup to the AFSCN or is the MDM the primary? Or is the connection from On Orbit to MDM via the MMSOC?

A: As described the SOW there are four types of data. Figure 1 shows a notional architecture for how those four types of data are transmitted from the Space Vehicle. The Contractor will develop the final architecture to ensure all data is delivered to the appropriate location.

MUS is the interface software between the Space Vehicle and the MMSOC 2.1 ground system providing TT&C.

There is no requirement for a backup TT&C or WxD processing capability.

37. Q: Are there additional candidate launch vehicles besides Minotaur I and Minotaur

IV?

A: No. The ORS Office used the Minotaur I and IV User's Guides and launch environmental data in order to bound the interface and environmental requirements for the ORS-8 Space Vehicle.

38. Q: Are any Project Management reviews identified in 3.7 stipulated to be in-person reviews? Is Government Program manager or representative expected to have on-site representation at these reviews? Recommend setting common expectations for travel to meet with ORS Office.

A: PMRs will be hosted at the contractor facility. The Government may attend in person or via telecon. The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW has been updated.

39. Q: The GFS table in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW should be expanded to include all supporting documentation, test equipment, and stimulators.

A: A list of documentation is included in Appendix A of the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW, and the documents themselves are in the Technical Document Library.

The Government will not provide test equipment or simulators.

40. Q: Language in multiple sections implies a single satellite solution. Would the Government consider a multi-satellite solution to be an acceptable approach?

A: The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW uses the term "Space Vehicle" in the singular form however multiple Space Vehicle solutions are acceptable. The SOW has been updated to reflect his change.

41. Q: Just to confirm understanding, "10 months of on-orbit operations" is on-orbit operations SUPPORT, per 3.6.4. Same comment for 24 months support option.

A: Yes, the initial 10 months of on-orbit operations is “support”, as defined in Section 3.6.4 or the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW. The language has been updated in Section 3.1.1 of the SOW to add the word “support”.

42. Q: The statement "…converting program system objectives into comprehensive system requirements…." seems inconsistent with a TRD. Doesn't the TRD represent program level threshold requirements and not objectives?

A: TRD defines all of the technical requirements for the Space Segment parameters. The Critical Performance Parameters table (Appendix E) in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW lists those parameters that have a defined trade space.

43. Q: Will the Government be providing an ORS-8 Program Protection Plan (PPP) as an input to contractors developing a Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPIP)? Security Classification Guides (SCGs) are not intended to dictate what is included in a PPIP which should be broader than just protecting classified data.

A: Agree. Government will provide the ORS-8 PPP after contract award.

44. Q: Please provide the ORS-8 Security Classification Guide (SCG).

A: The SCG will be provided after contract award.

45. Q: Is the shipping container a deliverable on the contract? Can Contractor use/modify an appropriate existing shipping container if it meets the mission package requirements?

A: Yes, the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW Section 3.4.2 has been modified to allow for use of existing equipment and only deliver equipment to the Government that was manufactured or procured using ORS-8 funds.

46. Q: IEEE Std 15288.1 and 15288.2 are identified as guidance documents but carry the note "Compliance requires tailoring to need". Please clarify how this should be interpreted.

A: IEEE Std 15288.1 and 15288.2 are now compliance documents with tailoring guidance provided by SMC-T-006 and SMC-T-007.

47. Q: Some docs that are "Guidance" have a "Tailoring Authorized" notation while others do not. If "guidance" means that Contractor processes can be used that are generally consistent with the cited document, "Tailoring Authorized" does not seem to provide a real distinction. Please clarify how we need to respond to the presence or absence of the "Tailoring Authorized" note, or clarify that it applies to all Guidance documents.

A: Guidance documents allow for use of Contractor processes that are consistent with the cited document. Compliance documents with Tailoring Authorized require Government approval for tailoring. The Applicable Documents list has been updated to be consistent.

48. Q: SOW Fig 1 shows an external interface between the space segment via “TBD Network” and the MDM and another between the MDM and the Ground Segment.

Should offers assume that these interfaces are TBD GFE Networks connecting the AFSCN sites that DMSP currently uses for stored data downlink to the MDM and GFE Networks connecting the MDM to NOAA or the 557th Weather Wing?”

A: Figure 1 has been updated to clarify the requirement. Also see the answer to Question #33.

49. Q: The note at the bottom of page 5 of the SOW states that users shall not be required to modify or replace existing ground terminal equipment.

a) Is this intended to apply to RT-WxD or to both RT-WxD and WxD?

A: The CRD reference has been removed in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW.

The CRD reference was specific to the RT-WxD only.

50. Q: Is the intent of SOW Section 3.4.2 to require an engineering model primary weather payload to be maintained as part of the Flight Vehicle Testbed (FVT) throughout the period of performance and then to be delivered to the Government at the end of the period of performance?

A: Yes, the FVT requirements and descriptions in the SOW and TRD have been modified to clarify the need for a full-functionality payload emulator.

51. Q: Is the intent to have the primary weather payload portion of the flight vehicle testbed capable of visible and infrared sensing of simulated targets?

A: Yes. See the answer to Question #50.

52. Q: Has the Government accounted for the cost of a full form, fit, and function primary weather payload as part of the Flight Vehicle Testbed?

A: The offerors are required to propose their full cost, as described in RFP Section L. The Government will evaluate those costs, as described in RFP Section M.

Also see the answer to Question #50.

53. Q: There is an apparent conflict between 3.4.2 and 5.1. Is the term “spacecraft simulator” intended to include a primary weather payload unit, simulator, or neither?

A: See the answer to Question #50.

54. Q: Ground support equipment used in space vehicle integration and test is usually capital equipment of the space vehicle manufacturer. Has the Government accounted for the cost of a full set of ground support equipment for integration and test of the space vehicle?

A: The offerors are required to propose their full cost, as described in RFP Section L. The Government will evaluate those costs, as described in RFP Section M.

Also see the answer to Question #32.

55. Q: SOW Section 3.4.5.2 The Contractor shall provide and sustain the capability to downlink and deliver the WxD from the SV to the WxD processing center. This includes any subcontracts required to support downlink and delivery of the WxD.

The Contractor shall identify any treaty implications, special conditions or additional approvals applicable to the proposed downlink and delivery architecture.

a) Does this mean the Space Segment provider is responsible for delivery of the information from the physical Ground Entry Point to the WxD processing center?

b) Or is this part of the ground segment?

c) If responsible, is the associated cost for the first 12 months of operations (2 mo LEO, 10 Mo Ops)?

A: See the answer to Question #33 for parts a. & b. The contractor is responsible for the costs of the ORS-8 Space Segment during the contract period of performance.

56. Q: Section 4.0 lists Government Furnished Equipment/ Government Furnished Services. Encryption devices and associated keys are listed as GFE.

a) The table states “Encryption devices…” Does this include decryption equipment as well? If yes suggest making it “COMSEC Equipment…”

b) Has the make or model of intended equipment been identified?

c) Has the quantity of equipment been identified or is it the responsibility of the Space Segment provider to identify needs?

A: The Government will provide encryption and decryption devices as needed.

Final devices are not selected yet. The Government will work with the contractor and appropriate Government agencies to determine the make and model, and quantity, of devices to use. The ORS-8 Space Segment SOW has been updated.

ORS-8 Technical Requirements Document (TRD)

57. Q: The TRD states, "Spectral bands shall include at least three bands in the combined visible, near-infrared, and shortwave infrared; and four bands in the combined midwave infrared (3 – 8 microns) and longwave infrared (8 – 15 microns), specifically including bands at 3.7, 6.6, and 10.8 microns."

The requirements included are unduly restrictive. Are Contractors authorized to propose or equivalent bands that meet the desired mission product for each of these bands?

A: The three bands mentioned best support the CC and TWI missions and meet the Government’s requirements. Additional bands to these three are acceptable.

Note: The TRD has been corrected to read "6.7 microns". The 6.6 micron value was incorrect.

58. Q: The TRD states “The bus shall transmit S-TLM data when transmitting to AFSCN/USB ground stations.”

This is the first time USB ground stations are mentioned. There is nothing in the TRD stating that the downlink be compatible with the NEN or USN where USB is utilized.

A: The TRD has been updated to remove the USB reference.

59. Q: What is the encryption certification required, NSA type 1 or NIST?

A: NSA-approved encryption is required. See TRD Section 2.1.4.

60. Q: Which document takes precedence between the Capability Requirements Document (CRD) and the Technical Requirements Document (TRD)?

A: The TRD, as referenced in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW Section 3.1, takes precedence.

61. Q: Is the horizontal cell size (HCS) requirement less intended to be than or equal to 1 km at any point in the scan for the visible bands and less than or equal to 2 km for infrared bands or is it less than or equal to 2 km for all bands?

A: Resolution requirement is the same in all bands. The TRD has been updated to clarify.

62. Q: SV components limit TRL upon SV AI&T and delivery; are there similar MDM or MUS TRL requirements?

A: No.

63. Q: Is the Mission Data Management (MDM) system the same as “Ground Segment” in Figure 1: ORS-8 Architecture and Contract Structure?

A: No. Please refer to SOW Figure 1, which denotes the MDM as sub-segment of the Space Segment, separate from the Ground Segment.

64. Q: Will missing documents referenced in the TRD be provided?

A: The referenced documents in the TRD are provided in the final Technical Document Library, which is available on request at FBO.gov.

65. Q: MDM system is compatible with MMSOC 2.1; should it be inferred that it’s not expected to be integrated with it as part of this SOW?

A: TT&C is processed at the RSC with offeror-provided MUS, which shall be compatible with MMSOC 2.1. The MUS and integration of the MUS are part of this SOW.

Stored Weather Data is processed at the weather data processing facility (location to be proposed by offeror), and is part of this SOW.

66. Q: What data product is generated by the 6.6 micron band?

A: The TRD had been corrected to "6.7 micron" band; the value 6.6 was incorrect.

67. Q: The TRD makes mention of a SWIR band and the CRD does not. Is a SWIR band required?

A: The TRD, as referenced in the SOW, takes precedence.

68. Q: 3.3.4 TRDSS-076 states the MDM will generate and disseminate CC and TWI products to the weather centrals. CC and TWI are defined in TRDS-007 as products that would typically be Level 2+. TRDSS-078 requires generation of Level 0 and Level 1 data products. How are Level 0, Level 1, and CC and TWI products defined?

A: These requirements have been clarified in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW and

TRD.

69. Q: 1.1.5.3 Direct Readout Tactical Terminals: How does the Ground Terminal Equipment (a.k.a. DRO) software currently handle data? Does it look for specific content or is it generic?

A: Additional information about the terminals, including the Mark IVB ICD, is included in the Technical Document Library, which is available on request at FBO.gov.

70. Q: Is the Weather Data Processing Center where the MDM processing takes place?

Where is the Weather Data Processing Center located? Is it in one of the existing locations in 1.1.3 or is it another processing center?

A: Stored Weather Data is processed at the weather data processing facility (location to be proposed by offeror), and is part of this SOW (section 3.4.4.2).

Also see answer to Question #24.

71. Q: In 2.1.3.1 Cloud Data Spectral Bands SSTRD-08, only 3 specific wavelengths are called out for the mid and long wave infrared bands. Could the fourth band be in the visible, near-infrared, or shortwave infrared band if mission product performance is met?

A: The TRD is updated for clarity, specifying a minimum of six bands total: at least three in the visible through SWIR; and at least three specific bands in the MWIR-

LWIR.

72. Q: In 3.2.7, it states compliance with NASA GEVS GSFC-STD-7000A is required.

Is this tailorable considering it is a Class C mission?

A: Yes, the standard is tailorable contingent upon Government approval.

73. Q: In 3.3.4 WxD processing, TRDSS-083 discusses how different resolutions are handled. What is meant by co-sample at the higher resolution? We would expect down sampling (down scaling) to the lower resolution.

A: The weather data processing algorithms require all data to be at the same spatial resolution. When data having higher spatial resolution are used with lower spatial resolution data, the higher spatial resolution data must be down-sampled, or sub-sampled, to the lowest spatial resolution available, which is a Level 3 process and beyond the scope of this procurement.

74. Q: Please define more specifically the 'family of LEO Weather Electro Optical/Infra- Red (EOIR) cloud imaging systems', including current orbits, referenced in

TRDSS-004.

TRDSS-004: The ORS-8 System shall have a sun-synchronous orbit with a dawn-dusk equator crossing local solar time such that the time between data collection by the family of LEO Weather Electro Optical/Infra-Red (EOIR) cloud imaging systems (NASA/NOAA & EUMETSAT) will be less than four hours 75% of the time.

A: This is an ORS-8 program architecture-level requirement and has been removed from the Space Segment TRD.

75. Q: Please provide a reference document or example on how to make the confidence calculations necessary to demonstrate compliance with SSTRD-034.

SSTRD-034: The SV shall have an on-orbit mission design life of full capability for three years at least 80% confidence.

A: It is up to the offerors to propose an approach to determining the confidence level for the space vehicle design life.

76. Q: Please add the documents referenced in the TRD to the data supplied with the RFP. Specifically:

- ORS-8 DRO ICD - Referenced in SSTRD-054

- Specifications for the SMQ-11, and FMQ-17 referenced in SSTRD-059

- ORS Mission Assurance Framework referenced in TRDSS-03

A: The DRO ICD will be created as a part of the program as a CDRL. Specification documents have been added to the Technical Document Library. See Question #104 in response to Mission Assurance Framework.

77. Q: In reference to TRDSS-042, industry does not currently provide a M-code receiver at a price point or availability appropriate for this mission class (Class C). In light of the significant cost of the current offerings, would the Government consider furnishing the M-Code GPS receiver as GFE?

TRDSS-042: If a GPS receiver is used for ORS-8, it shall be compatible with M code.

A: This requirement has been removed.

78. Q: SSTRD-020 states that all stored weather data downlinked to Antarctica Ground Stations (>50 degrees south) shall be unencrypted, please confirm this is correct?

A: Yes, the requirement is correct.

79. Q: When the Direct Read-Out broadcast payload is specified, it is assumed by the contractor that the L or S-Band broadcast RF system is the Direct Read-Out broadcast payload described. If this is not the case, please advise if there is a third payload in addition to the primary EO/IR payload and secondary ECP payload.

A: The TRD has been updated and now specifies S-Band; L-band is removed.

References to DRO as a "payload" have been removed. It is up to each offeror in its design to decide if it chooses to refer to the DRO capability as part of the bus or as a separate payload.

80. Q: It is assumed by the contractor that the ORS-8 Direct Read Out-ICD will be developed jointly by the contractor and the Government team prior to the SRR.

Is that correct?

A: Yes.

81. Q: It is envisioned that the Mission Data Management weather dissemination will be completed using existing networks between data users. Is this correct?

A: See the answer to Question #33.

82. Q: (MDM) Description refers to initial processing of the primary payload cloud data including data product generation, archiving and uploading the data. It is envisioned that the Mission Data Management weather dissemination will be completed using existing networks between data users / processing centers?

Sequentially, will ICDs and data description documents be provided to describe the interface to the weather dissemination server along with product format and processing requirements?

A: This requirement has been clarified in SOW and TRD. Also see the answer to Question #33.

83. Q: Reference is made to the conversion of the weather data to the “SDR” product.

Please define SDR.

A: The terminology has been defined in the SOW and TRD.

84. Q: The MMSOC Interface Support Document is not on the Technical Document Library. Please provide.

A: The document is included in the final Technical Document Library, which is available on request at FBO.gov.

85. Q: Is there a Government recommended or preferred M-Code compatible GPS unit?

A: The M-code requirement has been removed from the TRD.

86. Q: This requirement appears to imply the spacecraft can provide either L- or S- Band broadcast to the direct read out(s) but does not require both. Please verify.

A: The TRD has been updated and now specifies S-Band; L-band is removed.

87. Q: Is there a specific list of CC and TWI end products, or minimal set of capabilities, required?

A: These requirements have been clarified in the SOW and TRD.

88. Q: What is the list of data products required to meet SSTRD-015 (TRD 2.1.3.7)?

A: These requirements have been clarified in the SOW and TRD.

89. Q: Do the requirements of the TRD represent threshold or objective requirements?

In Space Segment SOW Table 6, it states under Comments/Tailoring for ORS-8 TRD "Recommend tailoring by contractor with rationale for changes by SRR."

Would this also include declaring objective vs threshold requirements subject to Government approval at SRR?

A: The TRD defines all of the technical requirements for the Space Segment parameters. The Critical Performance Parameters table (Appendix E) in the ORS-8 Space Segment SOW lists those parameters that have a defined trade space. Offerors shall consider the TRD to be a compliance document, for the purposes of the proposal response. Any contractor-proposed tailoring of the TRD will be subject to program office approval after contact award but before

SRR.

90. Q: What level of clock synchronization is required - assuming this is being driven by synchronizing for mission data processing purposes?

A: Clock synchronization is an allocated requirement based on the offeror’s system engineering process.

91. Q: Please clarify meaning of "suppression of solar glare in the data."

A: Solar glare, or stray light, shall be suppressed from entering the telescope to the extent needed to meet sensor performance requirements.

92. Q: SSTRD-01 and SSTRD-02 requirements in section 2.1 refer to the term “SDR” in the context “…to convert raw data to SDR and …”.

a) What is the definition of SDR?

b) Which document is SDR described?

A: The requirement has been clarified in the SOW and TRD.

93. Q: SSTRD-08: Spectral bands shall include at least three bands in the combined visible, near-infrared, and shortwave infrared; and four bands in the combined midwave infrared (3 – 8 microns) and longwave infrared (8 – 15microns), specifically including bands at 3.7, 6.6, and 10.8 microns.

a) Is there a typographical error in SSTRD-08? It was anticipated that four visible, near-infrared, and shortwave infrared bands would be required and that three midwave/longwave bands would be required, specifically including 3.7, 6.7, and 10.8 micron wavelengths.

A: The TRD has been corrected to read "6.7 microns." The 6.6 micron value was incorrect. Also see the answer to Question #71.

94. Q: SSTRD-10: The ORS-8 System cloud sensor sampling horizontal cell size (HCS) shall be equal to or less than 2 km at any point in the scan.

a) Is the intent of SSTRD-10 met if at least one visible band provides an HCS less than two kilometers, or must all seven bands provide an HCS less than two kilometers?

A: All bands must meet the resolution requirements.

95. Q: SSTRD-19: ORS-8 System stored WxD downlink shall be encryptable and the application of encryption shall be selectable.

SSTRD-21: ORS-8 DRO broadcast shall be encryptable and the application of encryption shall be selectable.

a) Does the GFE encryption equipment inherently support the bypass of encryption process to allow plain-text to flow through?

b) What level of encryption is required to be compliant with SSTRD-19?

c) What level of encryption is required to be compliant with SSTRD-21?

A: a) No. Bypass shall be implemented as a hardware solution that is then approved by the NSA.

b & c) NSA-approved encryption will be required to be compliant.

96. Q: SSTRD-24: ORS-8 System TT&C data uplink and downlink shall be encrypted (NSA approved).

This requirement explicitly states “NSA approved” whereas SSTRD-19 and SSTRD-21 do not. Is NSA approved encryption necessary for WxD and DRO links?

A: NSA-approved encryption is required for WxD and DRO links.

97. Q: SSTRD-33: The SV shall downlink raw sensor data to the MDM system.

a) Does SSTRD-33 preclude the use of lossless data compression for downlink of stored WxD?

A: No, the requirement does not preclude using lossless data compression.

98. Q: SSTRD-51: The bus shall downlink data in open Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) packets with headers to support routing of encrypted data.

a) Does GFE encryption equipment support plain-text pass through of headers to support routing of encrypted data?

A: The headers of the CCSDS packets can be unencrypted, and post encryption packetization of data transmitted from the space vehicle is acceptable.

99. Q: SSTRD-62: The ORS-8 DRO ICD development shall use existing L-band or S-band frequencies, after considering CCSDS formatting reuse from MetOp A-RPT or NASA MODIS/VIIRS. Contractor to determine with approval of the Government the spatial and spectral content of the DRO broadcast.

a) Does this allow the supplier to support one frequency band, either L-band or S-band, for the DRO link or do both L-band and S-band frequencies need to be supported?

A: The TRD has been updated and now specifies S-Band; L-band is removed.

100. Q: Can additional performance information of the direct readout terminals (Mark IVB, SMQ-11, and FMQ-17) be provided? For example: Ground G/T and Decryption algorithms supported?

A: Additional information about the terminals, including the Mark IVB ICD, is included in the Technical Document Library, which is available on request at FBO.gov.

Technical Document Library

101. Q: Will all documents referenced in the CRD be provided within the Bidders Library prior to RFP release?

A: The CRD is provided as guidance. Some of the documents referenced in the CRD are provided in the Technical Document Library (TDL). The Government has determined that the referenced documents that are not provided in the TDL are not necessary for the offeror to respond to the RFP. The necessary information from all the CRD referenced documents has been captured in the ORS-8 SOW and TRD.

102. Q: Can this file be provided in an MS Office format or a version that has active hyperlinks and is searchable?

A: Yes, the final release of the Technical Document Library is in a searchable PDF format with active hyperlinks.

103. Q: Library is missing ICDs for several existing programs: MMSOC, RSC, NOAA/557

WW, NASA/NOAA, AFSCN, ECD

A: The necessary documents were added to the final Technical Document Library, which is available on request at FBO.gov.

104. Q: Did not see ORS Mission Assurance Framework in the Technical Document Library List. Please provide.

A: The Aerospace TOR 2010(1531)-1 will be provided in the Technical Document Library as a reference for tailoring mission assurance.