Government Responses to Offeror Questions.pdf

# Document Page Section Question Government Responses 1 Enclosure 1 -

RFP Sections B-M

67 L.10 A.3 Attachment C consists of what appears to be a cover page only. Would the government please provide a full version of the Attachment C format for contractor completion?

Alternatively, if the contractor is to develop its own format, what information needs to be included to fulfill the requirements to 'include Attachment C as part of the model contract?'

The contractor shall develop their own format includings sections covering Technical Scope, Plans, Milestones, and Reporting. Information included should be in accorddance with RFP Section L.8(d). "The Contractor shall describe the technical scope and plan of RR&D effort consistent with the proposed effort in accordance with L.10 Section A.3. The Contractor shall provide detailed schedule showing two sets of milestones: (1) the technical accomplishment milestones consistent with the scope and plan and (2) the reporting milestones in accordance with B.2 Item 6."

2 Enclosure 1 - RFP Sections B-M

67 L.10 A.6 Would NASA consider relevant work performed beyond 3 years.

NASA will revise the solicitation to allow work performed within the last 5 years.

3 Attachment A

(SOW)

14 4.4 The scope of the mission and radar design trades includes consideration of various orbits, RF frequencies and coverage/swath sizes. As such, the best choice of associated risk and/or demonstration tasks might depend to some extent on the outcome of these trades. If RR&D effort(s) are proposed, is the contractor expected to make a best estimate of what technologies and/or analyses will be most important going forward and provide an associated rationale?

Yes. The government expects offerer to propose their best assessment of the important technology and analyses needed to meet Performance Targets (Attachment B) and their approach and rationale to RR&D in accordance with RFP Section L.10, Subsection A.3 "The offeror shall describe the scope of the effort, the associated benefits, the desired results and a discussion of how the proposed demonstration and/or risk reduction relates to the risk assessment deliverables as stated in the SOW. The expectation is that the offeror propose their lowest risk approach to fulfill "Instrument concepts should be TRL 5 or above at time of a potential spaceflight development contract award and must reach TRL 6 by PDR" - SOW Section 3.6

4 Attachment A

(SOW)

18, 22 5.2.5, 5.3 The guidance in the SOW suggests that the contractor is free to define an RR&D schedule in parellel with the core study with a RR&D Kick Off Meeting at either month 2, 4 or 6 (at one of the Check Point reviews) and with a Final Report due at month

18. Is the contractor free to define a shorter schedule? Is it OK to complete RR&D activities earlier, for example at month 12? Is there any associated advantage to earlier completion from the government's perspective?

Is the contractor free to define a shorter schedule?

Yes, the contractor is free to define a shorter schedule.

Is it OK to complete RR&D activities earlier, for example at month 12?

Yes, it is OK to complete RR&D activities earlier than 18 months.

Is there any associated advantage to earlier completion from the government's perspective?

This is a firm fixed price solicitation and schedule will be evaluated in accordacne with RFP Section M.3(a), Subsection A.4.

5 Enclosure 1 - RFP Sections B-M

65 L.10 (c) Can the compliance matrix be excluded from page count? The compliance matrix is excluded from the pagecount. Refer to table under RFP Section L.7 b (1) Mission Suitability.

6 Attachment A

(SOW)

Will the contractor be expected to exchange any information with France, Canada, Japan or other international partners during the ACCP Study envisaged mission stage of this project?

At this phase of the project we do not foresee a need to share information with AOS foreign partners.

7 Enclosure 1 - RFP Sections B-M

67 L.10 A.6 Would the government allow the submission of a classified addendum to the Mission Suitability volume? If yes, would the government please provide guidance on how offerors should submit this?

No, NASA does not have the ability to accept classified information under this procurement.

8 Is GSFC able to provide any guidance for the levels of the antenna sidelobes?

The government has not yet derived a sidelobe requirement and is planning to do so in the time leading up to and during the early instrument concept study period. The government recognizes the antenna pattern sidelobe performance can be a driving antenna requirement. As such, a trade study to be performed is requested in Attachment A, Section 4.2.3, and the offeror should respond in accordance with RFP Section L.10, Subsection A.1.

9 Do acronym lists (if provided) count against the page limit? No, the acronym list will not count against the page limit and the Government will issue an amendment to reflect this.

10 Will the heritage data and similar experience material (past performance) count as part of the Mission Suitability page limit or is it excluded from the page count?

Yes, the heritage data is part of the Mission Suitability page limitation.