CSDA DRFP_Industry Questions_Part I.pdf

No. Question RFP Reference Final Government Response Change to Solicitation?

Regarding the anticipated RFP release date/due date of "on or about early December, with proposals being due approximately 30 calendar days later," because industry tends to be resource-constrained during the holiday season, will the Government please consider releasing the RFP in January 2023?

RFP Cover Letter

The government intends to issue the RFP in January 2023 with a 30 calendar days response date.

Yes, final RFP (FRFP) cover letter will be revised.

Regarding the comprehensive catalog of data, our global archive, which houses more than 39,000 images since 2019, is updated on a weekly basis. However, the DRFP SOW scope requires any updates to this catalog to be approved by the CO and COR. Would the Government consider either a weekly approval of the new catalog entries or a blanket approval for adding new datasets to the catalog to enable government analysts access to the most recent archive data?

Attachment A, SOW

The offeror shall maintain a fresh catalog of images/scenes (with acquisition dates of 30 days or older), which may be updated as needed. However, if the update is for new type of products, or different processing levels incorporated into the contract at award, this will be done via an official contract modification. These will be assessed on a case by case basis, depending on the Government's needs/requirements. No.

In the SOW, is there a distinction between "must" statements and "shall" statements?

All Per FAR 2.1 "Shall denotes the imperative". "Must" is defined as - (see "shall"). Both words are imperative and describe what one party or more parties to the contract are required to perform. In these cases, both 'shall' & 'must' are imperatives. The word 'imperative' is not defined by the FAR, so we seek guidance in the dictionary, which describes an imperative as, "An authoritative command". No.

Can you provide more details on how a bidder is selected for an evaluation phase task order vs a task order that is post-evaluation (in what circumstances would a bidder would skip the evaluation phase)?

I. Introduction

Following contract award, Evaluation Phase task orders will not be competed. All vendors' data that has not successfully been evaluated by an existing CSDA Program contract must go through an evaluation phase to reach a post-evaluation (sustainment phase) task order. Sustainment Phase task orders are conditional upon successful completion of the evaluation phase, offerors will be eligible to compete for task orders in the Sustainment Phase based on NASA data requirements.

Please note 1.16 states that "However, in case of significant change(s) between the evaluated and currently available data, NASA reserves the right to re-evaluate the currently available data (i.e., significant changes to the satellite(s), entirely new commercial product available, etc.)." TBD, this is currently being reviewed.

Can you delineate the SOW expectations of the evaluation phase vs the follow on post-evaluation phase?

I. Introduction See No. 4 TBD, this is currently being reviewed.

Can you clarify your requirements for the existing constellation, specifically:

III.

Requirements Per 111.1.0 - The operating satellites must have been launched, commissioned, and existing/routinely be collecting data. No.

A. What temporal cadence and spatial coverage is required by NASA Earth Science Division? This information will help bidders make an assessment against any future constellation sizes and configurations.

The temporal cadence and spatial coverage of NASA instruments vary, but at a high level can be grouped as 1) daily revisit at ~km scale and 2) bi-weekly revisit at ~10m scale. No.

C. For this statement: ""For orbits that do not provide such global coverage, a minimum of near-continental-scale (3800 km spatial extent) acquisition capability is required, with a minimum temporal resolution that corresponds to the orbital period"", we interpret the revisit rate to be approximately ~90 minutes consistent with the orbit period. Is this correct?

We do not understand what ""near continental-scale acquisition capability"" means. Does this mean the minimum size of region we can provide data that will be useful? Please clarify statement.

Near-continental-scale acquisition capability refers to the area from which observations can be made from a proposers constellation if their orbital coverage is not global. One example of this would be a satellite in geostationary orbit, which will not provide global coverage. No.

Which contractual phase does the requirement of "Data from the operating satellite(s) must cover a period of at least nine (9) continuous months, since 1 June 2016" apply to: pre-contract (i.e. existing capability), evaluation phase (initial task order), post-evaluation phase?

III.

Requirements

This must be demonstrated at the time that this soilictation's proposal is submitted. No.

For the comprehensive catalog of commercial Earth Observation data products, please provide definitions for the following requirements: data cadence, data latency, and area coverage. Is data cadence how often a particular lat/long is revisited? Is data latency the time from collect? Does area coverage mean percent global coverage or another metric?

2.0 Comprehensive Digital Catalog

Data cadence is how often a given ground point is revisited. Data latency is how long it takes from a data order to data collection to data delivery for a tasked satellite. In the event that a satellite is not tasked (i.e. is 'always on'), this simplifies to the time from data collection to data delivery. More information on data latency can be found on:

https://www.earthdata nasa.gov/learn/backgrounders/data-latency. TBD, this is currently being reviewed.

Does NASA expect Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) to provide homogeneity of products? If so, how do you expect that to be measured?

2.0 Comprehensive Digital Catalog

The homogeneity of the products refer to the absolute and relative calibration accuracy of a SAR instrument. The absolute calibration accuracy may be validated over a homogeneous target (e.g. Amazon Forest) and calibration targets across the swath.

Relative accuracy is related to temporal and spatial variation of the acquired images over such targets. No.

It's not clear from the DRFP if data package deliveries are a one-time deliverable or a delivery through a continuous pipe in the cloud, or if intended to be ambiguous. Would like more clarity here.

V. Deliverables Data delivery is required to be continuous. NASA approved users will request and access data using vendor system. Vendor will deliver a copy of requested data to NASA for archival. Delivery requirements will be specified on each task order issued. No.

This clause is required for services IDIQ and requests the report to provide "The number of Contractor direct labor hours expended on the services performed during the previous Government fiscal year". Request to remove clause as not applicable to data delivery services.

Clause 52.204- 15 Service Contract Reporting Requirements for IDIQ Contracts

This clause will remain in the RFP.

Per FAR 4.1705(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, in solicitations and indefinite-delivery contracts for services (including construction) where one or more orders issued thereunder are expected to each meet or exceed the thresholds at 4.1703. This clause is not required for actions entirely funded by DoD, contracts awarded with a generic entity identifier, or in classified solicitations, contracts, or orders.

Per FAR 4.1703: (2) Reporting is required according to the following thresholds: (C) Awarded or issued in Fiscal Year 2016, and subsequent years, with an estimated total value of $500,000 or greater. No.

If the current planned release date for the RFP is on or about early December 2022, we would respectfully request that proposals are due 45 calendar days later, in order to account for the December holiday period. See No. 1

Yes, the FRFP Cover Letter will be revised.

If a contractor replies with several product offerings, will NASA make an award based on an all-or-nothing award, or make an award(s) by individual products?

Vendors' catalog should be all-encompassing in accordance with the requirements in the solicitation. Task Orders issued after award may be for a subset of product offerings. No.

Can NASA provide more guidance on the on-ramp frequency? Will this be done once a year, at a fixed date, or more frequently?

On-ramps will occur, per the clause at I.23, as necessary, based on market research. The government will notify contractors when onramps are expected to occur. No.

Can NASA order a custom product that is not available via a user interface and/or API?

Custom products, as long as they have been included in the vendor's catalog and pricing incorporated into the resultant contract, are allowed. The delivery method will be determined/specified in each task order issued thereafter. Any products not in the contract will have to be added via contract modification, if the government determines it necessary. No.

Will NASA require data-delivery to a Secure Cloud Bucket? Yes, the vendor will deliver data to NASA secure storage/interface. No.

Can NASA comment on Attachment H (IT Security) and how it is linked to the DRFP?

There is no linking reference to Attachment H in the SOW, or any other documents.

Attachment H, Applicable Documents List (ADL) lists all applicable requirements, regulations, policies, and guidelines. It is referenced under clause 1852.204-76 in the DRFP. No.

If the contractor is only pushing data to NASA, please confirm if (NFS 1852.204-76) ITSMP is required?

Yes, the ITSMP is required. Per the prescription at NASA FAR 1804.470-4, (a) Insert the clause at 1852.204-76, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources, in all solicitations and awards when contract performance requires contractors to—

(2) Use information systems to generate, store, process, or exchange data with NASA or on behalf of NASA, regardless of whether the data resides on a NASA or a contractor's information system. No.

Can a sensor located as a hosted payload on a larger orbital platform (such as the ISS or other commercial transfer vehicle) be considered a free-flying satellite?

SOW Section

III

Requirements

1.0 (a) "“Comprised of a minimum of at least one Low Earth Orbit (LEO) operating satellites. The operating satellites must have been launched, commissioned, and routinely be collecting data.”

Yes. Offeror's will have to illustrate that any ISS-based (or other commercial transfer vehicle) instrument is making valid, scientific measurements. No.

Is [vendor] able to respond to the RFI with the future expectation of a free-flying satellite launched in 2023?

Any vendor currently meeting the requirements specified in the solicitation may respond to the RFP. Evaluation Criteria is specified in Section IV of the solicitation. No.

[vendor] expects to begin operations of its in-orbit sensor in September 2023. Assuming a CSDA RFP is released in October 2023, is [vendor] eligible to respond to the 2023 RFP with the expectation of nine continuous months in early 2024?

III. 1.0 (d), "Data from the operating satellite(s) must cover a period of at least nine

(9) continuous months, since 1 June 2016 – data products covering longer temporal spans, with minimal gaps, and with high temporal resolution are required."

All requirements specified in the solicitation must be met at the time of proposal submission. No.

Do you expect a 5th RFI to be released in Q3 2023? If we are not eligible for this 4th RFI based on the above questions, we believe we could then be eligible for that year

CSDA AMS

Town Hall program update presentation (Jan 2022 by Kevin Murphy)

This DRFP is independent from the BPA RFIs previously issued. No additional BPA RFIs are anticipated as the government intends to procure these services under the IDIQ contract once it is in place. A RFP will be released for each on-ramp to allow new vendors to propose for an award opportunity. No

Does “area coverage” refer to existing archive imagery or locations contractors have the ability to task new imagery?

Section II.

Scope The "area coverage" refers to the ability for a vendor to take measurements. So in the event that their fleet is tasked, it's the ability to task globally, or within the constraints of their orbital coverage. No.

Does “data latency” refer to time from order or from capture? Or time for an existing product to deliver?

In the event that a satellite is tasked, data latency should include the time from order to capture to delivery. In the event that a satellite is not tasked, this simplifies to the time from capture to delivery. Times should be representative. No.

Several of the current CSDA BPA awardees currently have existing End User License Agreements (EULAS) to expand on the Government’s use cases for data. May a potential future offeror also propose prices and data products to be licensed under the existing EULAs in addition to the EULAs contained in Attachment B to ensure the Government can continue with these known use cases?

No. The existing BPAs and this IDIQ are separate acquisitions, each with its own set of Attachments. Once the IDIQ contract is awarded, the government will phase out the BPAs and the requirements will be acquired under this new contract vehicle. No.

Section I.9 of the draft RFP requires an IDIQ awardee Contractor to submit a task plan that “conforms to the request” of the Contracting Officer for a potential task order. However, Section I.16 of the draft RFP also allows for competitive bidding of potential task orders, but allows a Contractor to “No Bid” a request for a particular task plan. Should a future offeror make the assumption that Section I.16 will supersede the “shall submit a task plan” language of Section I.9 if the IDIQ awardee Contractor desires to no bid a particular request for task plan?

Section I.16 provides supplemental instructions to Section 1.9 Task Ordering Procedures. Contractors reserve the right to bid or not bid on a task order request. No.

Section I.24 of the draft RFP requires an IDIQ awardee Contractor to submit annual reports on current services and updates to capabilities, whereby the new capabilities may be on-ramped through Section I.23 to an IDIQ awardee Contractor. As spacecraft may frequently encounter their end of mission life during performance of the IDIQ (and either be replenished or upgraded), how does the Government envision aligning/replacing the existing data products to align with spacecraft end of life services? Either via the onramp process or contract modification, as determined by the government on a case by case basis. No.

Section I.19(d) of the draft RFP states that the Government will not make payment until “accomplishment and acceptance of the item by the Government”. With many data products being delivered electronically and/or through access to an online graphical user interface via a data as a subscription model; may potential future offerors assume that acceptance can be tied to provisioning of access accounts and that payment can be promptly made at the beginning of the subscription period? Each task order will specify acceptance criteria/payment schedule, in accordance with the contract's payment/invoice clauses. No.

The draft RFP currently contains requirements for submission of other than certified cost or pricing data in Part III.4. Through FAR 15.402, Pricing Policy, can the Government provide more information on why 15.402(a)(2)(i) is not satisfied since prices will be based on price competition (in both the RFP and then when competing for task orders) and some current CSDA BPA awardees have already had their pricing evaluated by NASA as fair and reasonable? If other than cost or price data are required, can NASA share the preferred format for a potential future offeror to submit a waiver from this provision?

For RFP purposes, the government is required to validate that the prices offered are in accordance to the contractor's available commercial pricing. Data other than certified cost/pricing data as stated in the solicitation, is being requested to help validate this information. Offerors are encouraged to submit information from various sources. Determination of acceptability by NASA in the past does not equate to acceptance for this proposal as contractor's prices/market conditions could have changed. Contractors should provide as much information as possible to validate their proposed prices as their most current/best. Price competition per se, will occur at the task order level when orders are competed amongst vendors. Per the solicitation, the offeror's format is acceptable. No.

Part II of the draft RFP contains several FAR clauses, namely 52.204-14, 52.204-15, and 52.222-53 (as well as Service Contract Reporting as Item 10 in I.12). Will the Government be placing Wage Determinations in the resultant IDIQ? If not, does the exemption contained in FAR 52.222-53 mean that an IDIQ awardee Contractor will not need to comply with the reporting requirements contained in Item 10 and 52.204-14/15 of the draft RFP in SAM?

52.204-14 is N/A for IDIQ and it's not marked in the solicitation. 52.204-15 is required for IDIQ service contracts (see FAR 4.1705(b)), as such Service Contract Reporting is still required. 52.222-53 is not applicable to this acquisition and will be removed from the Final RFP.

Yes, 52.222-53 will be removed from the Final RFP.

Part III.10 (c)(5), Item I.12, and Part I, I.1 all require potential IDIQ awardees to comply with NASA Supplemental agency clause 1852.204-76. Section (d) requires the Contractor to allow the Government access to Contractor’s databases, installations, etc. for an IT inspection. Is the Government’s intent to audit compliance only against the IT Security Management Plan (personnel and processes) in lieu of auditing the entire Contractor’s IT ecosystem?

It is the government's intent to rely on the information provided in the ITSMP, which will be evaluated by NASA HQs for compliance. No.

At first glance, this clause appears to be overly burdensome; as commercial Contractors likely will only be providing access to its licensed spacecraft imagery and data for NASA’s download and use into NASA’s systems. This also conflicts with the Attachment A Statement of Work where Section VI states that Vendors will not have any logical access to internal NASA IT systems. Further, the IT Security Management Plan will require documentation of the Contractor’s IT resources (even things that may be internal only to the Contractor).

Per the prescription at NASA FAR 1804.470-4, (a) Insert the clause at 1852.204-76, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources, in all solicitations and awards when contract performance requires contractors to—

(2) Use information systems to generate, store, process, or exchange data with NASA or on behalf of NASA, regardless of whether the data resides on a NASA or a contractor's information system. No.

May a potential offeror provide an assumption or request in their proposal that they do not intend to have access to NASA Electronic Information nor any NASA IT resources during IDIQ and task order performance; thereby not needing to prepare the plan? Or does NASA have a waiver process or accept other certifications from other agencies (e.g. the Supplier Performance Risk System with Dept of Defense) for NIST 800-171?

The requirements of the clause include more than just having access to NASA internal systems. As specified in the clause, it is required when "contract performance requires contractors to—

(2) Use information systems to generate, store, process, or exchange data with NASA or on behalf of NASA, regardless of whether the data resides on a NASA or a contractor's information system" No waivers or other certifications will be accepted. An IT security plan must be submitted in accordance with the solicitation. No.

Further, the IT Security Management Plan does not appear in the Attachment F Contract Data Requirements List, does this indicate that a waiver process is available?

Although the Agency CDRL Template only mentions the DEIA and OCI Plans at the moment (the latter not required in this RFP), the ITSMP is still a contract requirement under clause 1852.204-76. It is also highlighted in the deliverables under clause GSFC 52.211-90 SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED (SEP 2017). No.

In each of the End User License Agreements (EULAs), there is a statement that the Government has a unilateral right to “uplift” licensed material. With Task Orders being awarded under a Firm Fixed Price methodology, how does the Government intend to increase the total contract value to the Contractor to ensure congruence with total price, funded value, and paid value of the task orders?

The total contract value should remain unaffected/unchanged, as it is a maximum ordering value. Any changes to the task orders awarded will be handled via an official modification, which could allow the opportunity to revise the task order pricing according to the revisions requested, if applicable. This doesn’t affect the overall maximum ordering value, only the negotiated task orders. No.

How does the Government intend to tailor 52.212-4 with potential Offerors for use in the IDIQ (e.g. title and warranty since the data products are to be licensed)?

52.212-4 will be tailored (as prescribed in FAR 12.302) in accordance with market practices and to eliminate inconsistencies with the terms in the End User License Agreement (EULA) attachment. Offerors must comply with this clause, deviations or waivers will not be accepted.

Yes, 52.212-4 will be revised and provided in full text in the FRFP.

Is NASA requesting an actual “list” be included to satisfy “Each volume of the proposal shall specify the evaluation criteria being addressed.”

DRFP, III.8.A.4

The offeror shall describe, as specified in the solicitation, how each criteria is met. No.

Is NASA seeking yet-to-be gathered data, either of the same data type otherwise proposed or new data types, that would be collected from future satellites?

SOW III.1.0 f Vendor catalog submitted with the proposal should only include existing data. Even though NASA will have interest in future data collections from the vendor's collections, future plans may be addressed as specified in clause I.24 Updates of Contractors Capabilities, during contract performance. No.

We assume we should price all three data rights options, and if an uplift is done, pricing will jump to the new data rights level of pricing. Is this correct?

Offerors should provide pricing for all items in their catalog under each individual EULA. Any upflits required during performance will be processed via an official task order modification which will provide an opportunity to revise price if needed.

Yes, NASA will provide a Price List template as a reference in the FRFP.

The contractor’s costs for data hosting and delivery include costs for each access by each researcher. Will it be permissible for the contract pricing to include access charges commensurate with the contractor’s costs? Offerors should provide their best (all-inclusive) commercial pricing, as specified in the solicitation. No

Does the requirement to provide access to data terminate when a delivery order expires? Data access requirements will be specified in each task order issued (within the task POP parameters). No.

Can NASA provide us with a list of investigators who are presently using commercial data?

A list of the current users will not be provided at this time. After contract award, during the evaluation phase, vendors will be provided a list of users in order to set up accounts. Vendors will only be aware of the users of their own data. No.

How often will the on-ramps be that provide us the opportunity to offer new data products? See No. 16 No.

Can new capabilities (e.g., new data types) be proposed when available, or only on an on-ramp cycle? See No. 16 No.

[Vendor] suggests that NASA establish an annual cadence for CSDA On-Ramp to allow commercial satellite data providers the opportunity to plan for a timely entry to the CSDA program at least once a year.

Commercial satellite data providers have the ability to respond quickly to market demand and can design and launch satellites as quickly as six months from conception. The DRFP does not specify the On-Ramp cadence and therefore does not allow commercial satellite data providers to plan accordingly and increases risk to meeting NASA’s goals for the CSDA program.

I.23 CSDA ON-

RAMPING

See No. 16 No.

[Vendor] suggests that the requirements be revised to allow commercial satellite data providers the opportunity to furnish unique data to NASA that are not envisioned by the requirements in the DRFP. These include data that are collected in a specific region of interest, for targeted campaigns, or for other applications that do not necessarily require global coverage and nine (9) months of continuous data collection. An example is raw intermediate frequency (IF) data collected by a software-defined radio occultation or reflectometry payload that does not sample globally but instead is intended to capture unique data over specific targets or regions of interest for flexible post-processing by NASA’s research community. These data are highly valuable and in demand (e.g., the CYGNSS program is often requested to collect raw IF GNSS reflectometry data from unique surfaces to improve retrieval algorithms).

SOW. III

Requirements

1.0 a through e

Requirements will remain as is. The requirement is the ability to take data globally based on the orbits of the satellites. For a tasked product, like Raw IF collections, global coverage is not required but rather the ability to take the measurements globally. No.

Continuation...The CSDA program also has previously demonstrated this type of use case by acquiring a single sample of UHF raw IF data from a unique Spire satellite that was significantly different from other L-band Spire data evaluated and purchased under the CSDA contract. These data were highly valuable in support of the upcoming NASA SNOOPI mission https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/202 20920005265/en/Spire-Expands-Contract-with- NASA-for-Earth-Observation-Data Therefore, [Vendor] urges NASA to relax the requirements of nine months of continuous data collection with global sampling in order to not preclude these unique, more sparsely sampled data collections.

continuation of the above

See 48. No.

Section III.9 (a) states, All electronic submissions should be searchable and should not contain scanned documents, except those documents that must be provided in their native format (e.g., signature pages, prior award fee letters for past performance, DCAA/DCMA approval letters, as applicable). Will "prior award fee letters for past performance" be required with this proposal?

Draft RFP III.9

(p. 45)

The RFP does not require past performance information however, this could be required at the task order level, as appropriate. No.

"Attachment E, IT Security Management Plan (ITSMP), is marked “TBS**” meaning To Be Submitted with proposal; however, the cover of Attachment E (separate document provided with the DRFP) is marked TBP (To be Proposed by the Contractor).

Please confirm that ""TBS**"" and ""TBP"" are the same and that both mean 'to be proposed by the contract with the proposal'.

The List of Attachments on page 24 has a confusing legend in that ""TBP"" (To Be Proposed) appears to be the same as ""TBS**"" (To Be Submitted with proposal). Please confirm Attachments C and D (marked TBP**) as well as Attachment E (marked TBS**) are all required to be submitted with the proposal."

Draft RFP I.25

GSFC 52.211-

101 LIST OF

ATTACHMEN

TS (FEB 2016)

(p. 24)

Documents required with the proposal will be marked TBP** for consistency purposes. All the Attachments mentioned are to be submitted with the proposal and will be marked accordingly. TBS will be reserved for deliverables required after contract award.

Yes, clause I.25 GSFC 52.211-101

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (FEB

2016) will be revised in the FRFP.

We recommend the Government allow Arial font in tables, diagrams, charts, graphics, and schedules as it is much easier to read than smaller Times New Roman font.

III.8(b) Proposal Content and Page Limitations (p.

44)

Arial or Times New Roman will be acceptable for "text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs", as long as the information provided is still legible.

Yes, Section III.8(b) Proposal Content and Page Limitations will be revised in the FRFP.

Will the Government accept 9 point (min.) text in tables, diagrams, charts, graphics, and schedules? 10 point is still too large for more complex architectural and CONOPS graphics.

III.8(b) Proposal Content and Page Limitations (p.

44)

9 point will be acceptable for "text in diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs", as long as the information provided is still legible.

Yes, Section III.8(b) Proposal Content and Page Limitations will be revised in the FRFP.

[Vendor] has noted that the request includes the pre-award draft EULAs from the EOCL proposal rather than the final awarded EULAs.

Can the Government confirm whether NASA means to use the final versions of the EOCL family of licenses?

EULA

The EULA attachment included in the solicitation is the most current (final) version of the document being used by NASA for all future CSDA contracts. No.