Amendment 1 - RFP 80GSFC210005R Questions and Answers.pdf

Questions and Answers on RFP 80GSFC21R0005, GEO-XO Imager Phase A Study

Question 1:

PORD Appendix 1: GXIPORD663 The SNR requirement for a higher-resolution 0.64 micron channel may be decreased to 250:1, instead of the 300:1 requirement in GXIPORD163. For all other channels with increased spatial resolution in Appendix 1, the SNR values have “(TBR)”, indicating the SNR requirement for these optional enhancements should be evaluated and commented on during Phase A. This was not included in the 0.64 micron channel SNR requirement.

Can the Government clarify why this channel did not include “(TBR)”? We recommend the “(TBR)” be added to GXIPORD663 for evaluation during Phase A.

Response: GXIPORD663 will be updated to include the “TBR”.

Amendment 1 will reflect this update.

Question 2:

The SNR requirement for a higher-resolution 0.64 micron channel may be decreased to 250:1, instead of the 300:1 requirement in GXIPORD163. (TBR)

PORD Appendix 1: GXIPORD694 If implemented, the higher-resolution 10.35 micron channel shall have the same MTF requirements as those given for other 1 km emissive channels in GXIPORD182 and the same Fixed Grid definitions as those given for the 3.9 micron channel in GXIPORD26.

In the draft PORD provided with the earlier RFI, the higher-resolution 10.35 micron channel had relaxed MTF requirements, “The imager may have increased resolution on the 10.35 micron channel, with angular separation and channel-to-channel registration corresponding to 1 km, but with MTF values degraded to 1.5 km resolution, as shown in the replacement column below for the MTF table from

GXIPORD125.”

Can the Government please clarify why this was removed? If the relaxation is not included in the PORD, we respectfully request this requirement include a “(TBR)” for evaluation during Phase A.

Response: GXIPORD694 will be updated to include the “TBR”.

Amendment 1 will reflect this update.

Question 3:

GIRD: Instruments shall survive an anomaly resulting in a static instrument line-of-sight (LOS) such that the sun passes through the LOS at orbit rate. This requirement is waived for the current imager.

Can the Government please include a “(TBR)” for evaluation during Phase A in this requirement?

Response: This requirement is correct as written. The intent is for the GXI Imager to meet this requirement.

Question 4: Can the Government please clarify SOW section 2.4.2 which calls out ‘the program level milestones shown in 1.1.1.b’? SOW section 1.1.1.b is the Top-Level Summary of Work Required. We believe the correct reference in this section should be 1.1.2.b (Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program).

Response: This is a valid comment and request. The reference in the SOW is incorrect. The correct reference is 1.1.2.b

Amendment 1 will reflect this update.

Question 5: IMAR paragraph 1.1.0-2 indicates that the mission assurance program applies to Flight hardware and software. Can NASA please provide clarification on the IMAR applicability to the study phase effort beyond the compliance summary identified in Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph 2.2.3.?

Response: The mission assurance program applies to the eventual development contract. For the Phase A study, the contractor only provides a compliance summary as specified in the SOW paragraph 2.2.3.

Question 6: Is there a specific risk metric that is expected to be compliant with the proposal? i.e. GPR 7120.4D. If so, please provide the guiding document.

Response: The SOW Section 2.4.1 describes the risk identification and ranking requirements.

Question 7: GXIPORD572: Requirement states that heater duty cycle less than 70% at worst cold case and minimum voltage shall be demonstrated. This is in conflict with GXIPORD364, which states that heaters shall be sized to have 25% margin for worst case conditions. That is 80% duty cycle. (80% * 1.25 = 100%). This in effect oversizes heaters and creates higher peak current draws. Can NASA please clarify which requirement prevails?

Response: GXIPORD364 is the overriding requirement. The heaters should be sized to remain less than 70% duty cycle for all conditions.

Question 8: GXIPORD633: measured, characterized, and understood to +/- 2% of what?

Response: GXIPORD633 will be updated to state the following:

The hot and cold simulated environment shall be measured, characterized and understood to ±2% of the instrument thermal model values.

Amendment 1 will reflect this update.

Question/Comment 9: GXIPORD644: Please provide clear image or text to avoid ambiguity.

Response: a clear version of the tables is provided below.

Question 10: Given that Attachment F - Contractor-Proposed Technology Development and Risk Mitigation Efforts is not required under the contract, can NASA please clarify if Attachment F will become part of contract requirements if completed and proposed by offerors?

Response: The SOW sections 2.3 and 2.4 specify the requirements for any Proposed Technology Development and Risk Mitigation Efforts. These efforts, if proposed, will become part of the study contract requirements.

Question 11: In the first paragraph of L.13, NASA states that failure to properly complete clause B.3 may result in the Offeror's proposal deemed non-responsive and removed from further consideration. M.5 states that deviations to the contract percentage under clause B.3 may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability, preclude award to an offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect an offeror's competitive standing. May an offeror propose a different contract value allocation to each milestone based on the offeror's planned study efforts should those proposed efforts result in a cash flow that necessitates a different allocation to ensure the offeror does not have a contract that is cash flow negative at any point? Alternatively, would NASA consider allowing an Offeror to request FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments (JUN 2020), which provides for 90% progress payments for large businesses and 95% progress payments for small businesses, such that the Offeror does not ever become cash flow negative in the performance of this study effort? If NASA considers either of these alternatives permissible, would NASA please change L.13 first paragraph and M.5 to clarify that an alternative payment approach will not render a proposal to be deemed non-responsive or unacceptable and removed from further consideration or precluded from award?

Response: The language used in L.13 and M.5 includes the term “may” which indicates the possibility or probability. Therefore, the offeror is not precluded from taking exceptions in their proposal. L.13 and M.5 remains unchanged. See Section L.9 GSFC 52.215.203 Offer Volume (b) Summary of Exceptions.

Question 12: NASA requests the Offeror submit a notional schedule in both PDF and MS Project. Is this schedule included in the 25 page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume or may it be excluded from the volume page count limitation in addition to the cover page, indices and SOW compliance matrix?

Response: The notional schedule is excluded from the 25 page limitation for the Mission Suitability Volume. Amendment 1 will reflect this update.

Question 13: NASA requests that information be provided on past/current references that meet the above criteria for the prime offeror. Yet the last bullet asks to "list any contracts terminated…". It also asks to include contracts that were "descoped". "Any" is inconsistent with providing up to five (5) contract references. Is NASA requesting this information about "any" contract for an entire corporation or for just the product line under which the GEO-XO study contract will be performed? Corporations can be complex and may have numerous businesses, wholly owned subsidiaries, joint ventures and other legal structures within the corporation.

Response: The Offeror is to list ANY contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default). Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers). Include contracts that were "descoped" by the customer because of performance or cost problems. (Excluded from the page limitation). This is not limited to the product line under which the GEO-XO study contract will be performed. It applies to the Offeror submitting the proposal.

Question 14: Given that the Information Technology (IT) Security Management Plan, which is required within 30 days after the contract effective date, is subject to NASA review and acceptance, can NASA please clarify if the IT Security Management Plan should be added to the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) in Statement of Work (SOW) section 3.1.6?

Response: The IT Security Management Plan is a separate contract deliverable and will not be added to the CDRL in the SOW section 3.1.6.

Question 15: If an Offeror's representative has an existing NASA Large File Transfer (LFT) account, does the Offeror's representative need to request an LFT account in accordance with RFP Section L.10 GSFC 52.215-205 (ALT I) Electronic Proposal Delivery (NOV 2020)?

Response: In accordance with L.10 GSFC 52.215-205 (ALT I) Electronic Proposal Delivery (NOV 2020) , Offerors interested in submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall request a LFT invitation email from Tiffanie Ferrell at the following email address: Tiffanie.c.ferrell@nasa.gov. Offerors must courtesy copy (cc) Ann Haase at Elizabeth.a.haase@nasa.gov to ensure requests are accommodated timely. All Offerors must submit their request for an LFT invitation to the aforementioned emails, no later than 10 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. After logging into LFT, the Offeror should click the Send File tab to enter the recipient’s email address of Tiffanie.c.ferrell@nasa.gov and a cc copy to Elizabeth.a.haase.nasa.gov compose a message to the recipient, and attach files. In the “Subject” block of the “Send File” tab state “GEO-XO Imager Phase A Proposal - Insert Company Name”.

Question 16: Can Offerors request more than one NASA Large File Transfer (LFT) account per Offeror?

Response: Offerors can only request one NASA LFT account per Offeror.

Question 17: Can NASA please clarify if a Contractor-owned, internal information system would be included under the NASA definition of an "external information system" under Section 1.5.3 of the IT Security Management Plan Template?

Response: Yes, it is considered an external system. With that said, does that system process or store NASA data? Depending on the answer, you will select the appropriate option under this section.

Question 18: Can NASA please provide a copy of the correct year and version or the location of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Sections 515 and 516) in the IT Security Management Plan?

Response: An updated version of the IT Security Management Plan Template has been uploaded. The updated version does not include the location of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Sections 515 and 516). Please use the following link to access sections 515 and 516 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Consolidated+Appropriations+Act%22%5D%7D&r=2

Question 19: With respect to H.4 quoted above, please advise in what circumstance an exception to the default data rights clause (identified as FAR 52.227-14) would apply (where FAR 52.227-17 RIGHTS IN DATA- SPECIAL WORKS would apply rather than FAR 52.227-14)? Exceptions are mentioned, however mailto:Tiffanie.c.ferrell@nasa.gov mailto:Elizabeth.a.haase@nasa.gov https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Consolidated+Appropriations+Act%22%5D%7D&r=2 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Consolidated+Appropriations+Act%22%5D%7D&r=2 not described or defined. For instance, if the contractor asserts certain data is Limited Rights Data, in what circumstance would an “exception” apply which would impact the contractor’s limited rights data assertion?

Response: clause 52.227-17 and corresponding clause 52.227-93 has been removed in its entirety.

Amendment 1 will reflect this change.

Question/Comment 20: Please advise the basis for including FAR 52.227-17 in this Solicitation. The immediate procurement does not qualify as a Special Works Contract per the guidance under FAR 27.409(e) and 27.405-1. We respectfully request that this clause and references thereto be removed from the solicitation.

Response: clause 52.227-17 and corresponding clause 52.227-93 has been removed in its entirety.

Question 21:

Section L.9, subsection (c)(2) requests the Offeror “Provide information addressing all of the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility (address the elements under this section that are not addressed in another proposal volume).”

If the Offeror has a current active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), which addresses all elements of FAR 9.104 (specifically 52.209-5, 52.209-7, 52.209-9, 52.209-11, and 52.209-

12) and certifies Offerors responsibility, will confirmation of the Offeror’s current active SAM registration fulfill the requirements of subsection L.9(c)(2)?

Response: As cited in section L.9 subsection (c)(2), the Offeror shall provide information addressing all of the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility.

Question 22: With respect to FAR 52.227-17, Contractor cannot agree to this clause without additional understanding of its applicability and discussion with our subcontractors (once its applicability is understood), given the possible impact of 52.227-17 which restricts use of program data. Please provide guidance on the applicability of FAR 52.227-17, specifically the release and use restrictions referenced in subsection (d). In what circumstances would use, release, reproduction, distribution or publication of data first produced in the performance of this contract be restricted?

Response: clause 52.227-17 and corresponding clause 52.227-93 has been removed in its entirety.

Question 23: Would Government consider specifically negotiated license rights in lieu of utilizing FAR 52.227-17?

Response: clause 52.227-17 and corresponding clause 52.227-93 has been removed in its entirety.