COR RFP Questions and Responses 02092022 posting.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. 80GSFC22R0054, for Coronagraph (COR) Instrument Phase A Study

Industry Questions

• The MAR lists the risk classification as “TBR”. Risk classification is well known to drive cost and schedule, in all mission phases including Phase A. Please indicate the notional risk class to which the mission should be designed.

➢ Feasibility of a 7-year mission duration is the focus of this formulation study. Mission Risk Classification is “TBR” and will be determined for the Implementation RFP based on results of the 7-year trade study outlined in the Formulation SOW.

• Environmental conditions for launch drive engineering design and therefore cost of the final project. These conditions are not fully specified in the SPEC. Is it sufficient to use GEVS values for unspecified aspects of the environment?

➢ Yes

• Is estimated cost of the follow-on project (if selected by the Government) an element of the evaluation? If so, what costing methodology should be used and what contract vehicle should be used (e.g. FFP or CPFF)?

➢ No, anticipated cost of the implementation phase is NOT an evaluation factor for this Formulation Phase RFP. At this time the Government anticipates a Cost-Plus contract for the implementation phase and will make a final determination at the end of the formulation phase study.

• Latency is specified as 13 minutes after acquisition. It is not clear from the RFP or SPEC (4.1.6) language whether the specification of 13 minutes latency applies to the interval to deliver data from the instrument detector to the host spacecraft, or the entire interval from the instrument to display at a NOAA analysis center. If the latter, what latency should be assumed for transfer from the instrument to the relevant ground facility for processing?

➢ The overall latency requirement for the coronal white light product(s) starting from the time the last image is received by the coronagraph and ending with a level 2 product deliver to the space weather forecasters is 15 minutes. It is assumed that the transit time through the spacecraft and ground systems is 2 minutes.

The 13-minute latency encompasses: 1) the time requirement for image processing within the instrument and associated time to output the image to the spacecraft and 2) the time required for implementing vendor provided algorithms on the ground to achieve the measurement requirements levied on the vendor.

• Both the SOW and the SPEC refer to specification of ground processing algorithms. Please clarify whether the bid should include software and/or hardware to carry out the ground processing, or only a specification of the required algorithm.

➢ The Government will require the software but not the hardware to run it.

Demonstration of the software on vendor owned hardware is required but delivery of that hardware to the Government is not required.

• Section B.2 (Page 56) of the RFP document calls for both a “notional study schedule that shows completion of all major tasks…to meet the SOW requirements” and also a “…detailed time schedule for performance by phases or parts of the program or contract requirements”. Three questions:

➢ The sentence “The Offeror shall submit a detailed time schedule for performance by phases or parts of the program or contract requirements. The schedule shall identify interrelationships among phases.” on page 56 of Section B.2 is a typo. This will be corrected through an Amendment to the RFP.

o Is the second schedule the “implementation phase schedule” named in Section 2.4 of the SOW?

See above response.

o No format is specified for delivery of the second schedule. Should it be delivered as a

PDF and Project file?

See above response.

• To which volume should the pdf of the schedule(s) be attached, or is it a standalone document?

If attached, does it count against the page limit for the corresponding volume?

➢ Standalone attachment and excluded from page count, see chart reference page 49 of

RFP.

• In M.3 (p. 61) of the RFP document, there are two pointers to section L.11 for technical and management approach evaluation. Section L.11 is a pointer to document “1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION” that doesn’t appear relevant. Section L.21 is a much better match. Is this a typo?

➢ Yes, this is a typo, and should read Section L.21. An amendment to the RFP shall be provided to correct the reference.

• In Section 2.2 of the SOW, there is a requirement: “The Contractor shall describe the systems approach to meeting all navigation requirements in the SPEC.” The word “navigation” does not occur in the SPEC, nor does “pointing”. Please clarify which requirements in the SPEC are meant.

➢ The sentence “The Contractor shall describe the systems approach to meeting all navigation requirements in the SPEC. Such descriptions, including a preliminary error budget, will span relevant flight hardware characteristics, operational aspects, and ground processing. (CDRL 13)” on page 14 of Section 2.2 of the SOW is a typo, and can be ignored in the RFP.

• The SOW calls out flight hardware contract award on 1-Jan-24 (SOW Section 1.2B, p. 10).

However, award of the study contract is stated as 1-May-2023 in the Cover Letter. An 8-month study contract plus a 4-month extension thus yields a start date of 1-May-2024 for the flight hardware contract. Please clarify the planning date for start of the flight hardware contract.

Further, if Phase B begins 1-May 2024 (mid Q3FY2024) rather than 1-Jan 2024 (start Q2FY2024) shouldn't other required milestones’ target dates shift as well?

➢ Dates may be adjusted accordingly after Formulation phase contract award; all dates are notional and have a TBR to allow for review and update.

• Is the target Pre-Ship Review date for the Flight Unit 1 also for Flight Unit 2? Or is there a separate target for Flight Unit 2?

➢ There will be a separate target Pre-Ship Review date for Flight Unit 2.

• Can we assume Phase B-D can be awarded as Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)?

➢ There has been no approved determination of the contract type for Phase B-D currently.

• Digital Signatures on proposal documents are acceptable