CSDA On-Ramp 1_ RFP Q-As_Part I_mdcS.pdf

No. RFP Reference Requirement Question Government Response RFP Change?

1 RFP I 5 Clauses, Pg 13

I 5 FAR 52 204-21 BASIC SAFEGUARDING OF

COVERED CONTRACTOR INFORMATION

SYSTEMS (NOV 2021)

This FAR applies to protecting FCI Please describe examples of Federal Contract Information that would be subjected to this FAR

All contract information and correspondence related to the contract is subject to this clause (see FAR 52 204-21 "Definitions" and the prescription at FAR 4 1903) No

2 Enclosure 1_ITSMP_Template (5) Information Technology (IT) Security Management Plan

Is NASA expecting contractor to fulfill both ITSMP requirements and FAR 52-204-21?

Yes, offerors are expected to fulfill all contract requirements in their entirety No

3 RFP I 1 Clauses, Pg 11 NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clauses: 1852 204-76

Is NASA expecting contractor to fullfill all NFS 1852 204- 76 requirements besides providing an ITSMP Is NASA expecting contractor to provide an IT Security Plan as well (NFS 1852 204-76 point (c)(4)? If so can you provide a template for such document?

If the ITSMP reveals an IT System, then yes, an IT Security Plan (separate from the ITSMP) is required If a system is revealed in the ITSMP and no System Security Plan (SSP) currently exists for the system, the SSP should be created and maintained as an Authorization Package in the NASA RISCS system This is also true of the deliverable if it uses Information Technology/Operational Technology (OT)

No

4 Enclosure 1_ITSMP_Template 1 5 1 Information System Please define what "NASA data" is (eg: PII, imagery coordinates, etc )

All data created or used for the purpose of fulfilling the deliverables of the contract, unless otherwise specified in the terms of the contract (i e design documents and associated patents remain proprietary)

No

5 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 1 0 (d) Data from the satellite constellation must cover a period of at least nine (9) continuous months, since 1 June 2016

What is the definition of "continuous?" Is "continuous" restricted to a specified area of interest? Is there a level of related to "continuous" coverage?

"Nine Continuous months" is relative to the constellation's routine collection of data from space No

6 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 2 0 (third bullet)

Data products shall have at least continental-scale (3800 km spatial extent) coverage – nearglobal coverage is preferred (within the constraints of the constellation orbit)

Is the 3800km the length of each scene from a single capture from a single satellite? Or does 3800km coverage include a constellation of satellites?

3800 km (i e continental-scale) is the minimum width on the overall ground-relative coverage (i e ability to sample) of the vendor's constellation depending on the orbital coverage This is not per-scene, but the overall capability of the vendor's constellation

No

7 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 2 0 (fourth bullet)

Data products must cover a period of at least 9 continuous months, beginning no earlier than 1 June 2016 – data products covering longer temporal spans, with minimal gaps, and with high temporal resolution are required

Are there specific areas of interests where this requirement applies?

There are no predefined areas of interest regarding this requirement No

8 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 2 0 (eighth bullet)

Quantification, to the extent possible, of the data uncertainty based on independent data validation shall be provided

Can you define "uncertainty" or the categories and metrics that will be used?

Uncertainty is relative to the precision and accuracy of the observations being offered This varies by observation type

No

9 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 2 0

The catalogue, incorporated into the contract as Attachment C, may include one or more of the following (Level definitions are available from https://go usa gov/xnsJK):

Do product formats need to match what NASA defines, exactly? Does NASA allow partnership/development during evaluation phase to align to NASA definitions?

Yes, the product processing level should align with what is listed in the table in the provided link There is no collaboration after award

No

10 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 3 0 (second bullet)

The vendor shall support reformatting data into NASA standard science formats (https://go usa gov/xnHCb ), including GeoTIFF

Do product formats need to match what NASA defines, exactly? Does NASA allow partnership/development during evaluation phase to align to NASA definitions?

Yes, NASA Earth Science data is recommended to follow the standards identified/acknowledged by the ESDIS Standards Coordination Office (ESCO) (link provided in SOW) ESCO recommends the listed formats for adoption as a NASA Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) community standard By providing data in these formats ensures data interoperability and enables use by the research community Once awarded there is no collaboration on product format

No

11 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 1 0 (e) e Satellite data must be nearly globally-acquirable within the revisit constraints of the constellation orbits and observing geometry 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 (e g daily for geostationary orbits)

Does point target collection across the 3800km area count as continental coverage?

The ability of the constellation to measure across the 3800 km area would count as continental coverage, so long as the point target measurements can be readily acquired across the 3800 km area

No

CSDA On-Ramp 1 - RFP Industry Questions (PART I)

12 Attachment A - SOW / III Requirements 3 0 (second bullet)

The vendor shall support reformatting data into NASA standard science formats (https://go usa gov/xnHCb ), including GeoTIFF

In what format does NASA expect/prefer hyperspectral imagery data (with 400+ bands at Level 1) to be delivered?

NASA Earth Science processed data is recommended to follow the standards identified/acknowledged by the ESDIS Standards Coordination Office (ESCO) (provided link) ESCO recommends the netCDF-4/Hierarchical Data Format Version 5 (HDF5) File Format for adoption as a NASA Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) community standard Some examples of NASA hyperspectral data, ECOSTRESS data are in HDF 5 format, and PACE are planned to be in NetCDF4

No

13 RFP III 11 Technical Volume 2(2)(a), Pg 56

a) The offeror shall provide detailed information to demonstrate that the data from the satellite constellation cover a period of at least nine (9) continuous months, starting after June 1, 2016 –

Does the data for the 9 continuous months of coverage have to be over the same area of interest or is data collected at various sites across the globe acceptable?

The constellation should demonstrate the spatial requirements, and the constellation should demonstrate the continuous coverage requirement These requirements are separately defined

No

14 RFP III 11 Technical Volume 2(4)(d), Pg 58

d) The offeror shall describe its ability to provide internet access to data with a total bandwidth of no less than 2 5GBps

Must the 2 5GBps internet bandwidth be available during the evaluation phase?

UPDATE from Industry Session response - Yes, otherwise it could impact the timeframe to properly download and evaluate the data The speed mentioned is indeed specified in GigaBYTES (GB) per second This speed refers to the data transfer rate at which the vendor hosts the data for download, meaning it is the rate at which data can be downloaded from the vendor's servers To assess compliance with the specified speed, NASA will conduct performance tests during contract performance to measure the actual data transfer rate during the download process These tests will be conducted under typical usage conditions to ensure that the speed meets or exceeds the specified threshold

No

15 General General Can you please address the planned number of awards and dollar amount over GFY24 and 25?

There is no definitive planned number of awards and dollar amount at this time, this will be determined by an approved program budget

No

16 General General

Considering the awardees technology and respective phenomenology, what is NASA’s perspective regarding missing technologies and/or additive technologies of interest?

NASA will keep open lines of communication with the vendors on science technologies that NASA is interested in seeing in the future

No

17 RFP III Technical Volume 2(3)(a)ii, Pg 56

ii) The data catalog shall contain quantifiable representations of the data holdings including constellation level sampling cadence, data latency, data volume, spatial coverage, and data usage policy

In Technical Acceptability Standard 3 a ii can the Government clarify what its request for that for “quantifiable representations of the data holdings”? Does this mean a total count of the number of records in the satellite data archive

There should be some sort of interpretable representation of the quantified amount of data available to the agency through this contractual measurement This could include, but is not limited to, time series of data counts/volume/etc , spatial maps of data holdings, tabular quantifications of data holdings, etc

No

18 RFP III Technical Volume 2(3)(b)i, Pg 57

i) The offeror shall include a table with all the metadata fields, description, data type, and units, following the NASA Metadata Standards (https://go usa gov/xnHCb)

What type of supplementary information related to the metadata profiles need to be provided?

As provided in the RFP, the NASA Metadata Standards are provided at https://www earthdata nasa gov/esdis/esco/standards-and-practices#metadata Minimal metadata fields required is provided in the RFP on page 57 in (3)(b)(i)(1) Vendors are strongly encouraged to have additional metadata following schemas from the Unified Metadata Model (UMM) and fields identified in the Data Producers Developers Guide provided on the site The GCMD keywords also provides a set of controlled Earth Science vocabularies that help ensure Earth science data, services, and variables are described in a consistent and comprehensive manner

19 RFP III Technical Volume 2(3)(a)vii, Pg 57 The offeror shall provide supplementary information related to the metadata profiles What information? What is meant by ‘metadata profiles’?

Metadata profiles refers to the metadata elements used to describe the association with the data If there is additional metadata information beyond the minimal required metadata, then provide further information such as the schema used and the version used

No

20 General General How many task orders have been awarded to date since October 2023?

To date, each of the current IDIQ contract holders has received the initial Task Order in accordance with RFP / III 10 Offer Volume (c)(7)

No

21 General General Will the Q&A from this PPT be publicly posted following the presentation? Yes, the Q&A will be posted on sam gov No

22 RFP III Technical Volume 2(3)(b)iv, Pg 57 iv) The offeror shall provide low-level satellite diagnostic information necessary for low-level data processing

What does the government mean by satellite diagnostic information necessary for low level data processing?

For low level data products, the offeror shall provide the necessary low level diagnostic information to correct for system specific biases during low-level data processing

No

23 RFP III Technical Volume 2(1)(e), Pg 55

e) The offeror shall provide evidence of research and application conducted using the data from its satellites and instrumentation

What constitutes evidence of research and application?

Examples from the vendor of actual usage of the data and applicability to some of the research areas, particularly NASA's - utility of the data itself would be considered evidence of research and application

No

24 RFP III Technical Volume 2(3), Pg 56

3) The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide a comprehensive catalog of its commercial Earth Observation data products in accordance with Section 2 0 of the CSDA IDIQ SOW

Does the government expect a complete Data Catalog?

Could be very large if they include delivery with the RFP response? The file size for some archives could be very large

The Data Catalog is excluded from the page limitation for the Technical Volume The Data Catalog needs to include all data products available for purchase at the time of proposal submission in accordance with RFP Section III 11 Technical Volume, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3) Offerors are encouraged to include all individual proposal files within a single zip file Individual files cannot exceed 150GB per file (see RFP Section III 8 General Instructions (b)(1) and Section III 9 Electronic Submission of Proposals, Paragraph (d))

No

25 RFP III Technical Volume 2(2)vii, Pg 56 vii) The offeror shall describe in detail plans for future satellites

If future satellites are planned for 2025 should we include that pricing information now?

The Contract Price List should only include the pricing for products that are available for purchase at the time of proposal submission

No

26 RFP III 8 General Instructions (b)(2), Pg 49 General - Proposal Format On the format of proposal is times roman font necessary -or just a comparable size as times roman

RFP Section III 8 General Instructions Paragraph (b)(2) specifies the instructions related to font Deviation is acceptable for smaller font in artwork and photographs, provided that the font is legible

No

27 RFP III Technical Volume 2(3)(a)v, Pg 57

v) The offeror shall provide technical and scientific documentation for data processing (e g , instrument calibration methodology documentation, Algorithm Theoretical Basis Documents) that describes the methods applied to process the data between measurement and delivery to NASA, including any homogenization approaches used across the constellation, if applicable

Are there any requirements or further clarification of what must be included in an Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document beyond the high-level language in the solicitation currently?

The solicitation provides a link to NASA Earthdata at https://www earthdata nasa gov/engage/new-missions/adding-data-standards-templates which provides several examples for ATBDs under the Orbital Missions section

No

28 RFP III 8 General Instructions (b)(1), Pg 49 Technical Volume (a) Technical Acceptability Standards - Page limit is 25 Pages (clean version) Please clarify what is meant by "(clean version)" "Clean version" is a final version with no track changes, edits, etc No

29 RFP III 12 Price Volume, Pg 58 General For multi-year contracts vendors often include nominal year-over-year standard price increases Is this allowed for the IDIQ? Please confirm if this is acceptable

All proposed prices shall be based on commercially available pricing and must be validated as indicated in RFP Section III 12 Price Volume The negotiated rates will remain in effect for the duration of the contract

30 General General - Existing Contract Holders

Are existing providers to update the relevant product documents, associated pricing sheet, etc regarding new products they want to place on contract? Or is the expectation that all providers (including existing ones) resubmit all documents again (to include any relevant updates)?

In addition to meeting the requirements of Contract Clause entitled "Updates of Contractor Capabilities Reports", existing contract holders must also provide an updated metadata deliverable for newly proposed products No additional Task Order will be issued for this deliverable

Existing contract holders proposing new data products are to propose an amendment to their existing IDIQ Data Catalog and Price List for only newly proposed products A conformed version of the Data Catalog and Price List to include newly proposed products are not required and should not be provided

No

31 RFP I 25 List of Attachments, Pg 29 and RFP Section III 10 Offer Volume (a)(2), Pg 52

List Attachments:

Attachment C (in table) says TBP which, per definition below table means “To Be Provided with Proposal” on III 10, TBP is intended to mean “To Be Proposed by the Contractor ” This is causing varied interpretation of intent for the proposal content vs first deliverable (TO)

Does NASA intend for these two acronym definitions to be synonymous?

RFP Item I 25 "List of Attachments" footnote definition of TBP = To Be Provided with Proposal is intended for Attachments C, D and E as indicated in the table RFP Item III 10 Paragraph (a) Subparagraph (2), TBP = To Be Proposed By the Contractor is referring to any other areas of the contract that may use the term TBP and not have it defined If "first deliverable (TO)" is intended to mean the "Delivery of Metadata for Archive" requirement, as indicated in RFP Section III 10 Paragraph (c) Subparagraph (7), the Delivery of Metadata for Archive is due with the proposal submission

No

RFP I 25 List of Attachments, Pg 29 and Attachment A - SOW III Requirements 2 0

DRFP and Scope refer to different terms, Comprehensive Data Catalog in I 25 DRFP and Attachment C) and Comprehensive Digital Catalogue in SOW

Does NASA intend for these terms to be synonymous?

Comprehensive Data Catalog and Comprehensive Digital Catalogue are synonymous throughout the solicitation in meaning a comprehensive digital data catalog Please note the On-Ramp 1 does not have a DRFP A single RFP for this requirement was posted on February 23, 2024

No

RFP / III 11 Technical Volume 2(3), Pg 56 and Attachment A - SOW III Requirements 2 0

3) The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide a comprehensive catalog of its commercial Earth Observation data products in accordance with Section 2 0 of the CSDA IDIQ SOW

Instructions are to “… demonstrate its ability to provide a comprehensive catalog…” with the proposal Attachment C contains the “Comprehensive Data Catalog” vs Attachment A Scope of Work (upon award) is deliver a “Comprehensive Digital Catalog”

This is causing varied interpretation of intent for what is to provided with the proposal (Attachment C) vs first deliverable TO (upon award) “Comprehensive Digital Catalog”

Does reference to “demonstrate ability” require that the proposal (Attachment C) enumerate the entire listing of our 100’s of products? OR

Is the comprehensive catalogue (that is be provided WITH the proposal) intended to mean a framework, schema, and metadata dictionary for the imagery as a whole taxonomy of products (versus a table or rows listing the name of each)?

"The offeror shall provide a comprehensive Digital Catalog of its data holdings" with its proposal and in accordance with RFP / III 11 Technical Volume Paragraph 2 Subparagraph 3)(a) which will be incorporated as Attachment C to the contract To demonstrate ability, the proposal needs to address all items required under RFP section III 11 Technical Volume

Comprehensive Data Catalog and Comprehensive Digital Catalogue are synonymous throughout the solicitation in meaning a comprehensive digital data catalog

The Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog needs to include all products available for purchase at the time of proposal submission Separate from the required Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog (Attachment C), NASA requests with the proposal the "Delivery of Metadata for Archive" in accordance with RFP Section III 10 Offer Volume Paragraph (c) subparagraph (7)

RFP III 11 Technical Volume 2(3), Pg 56 and Attachment A - SOW III Requirements 2 0

3) The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide a comprehensive catalog of its commercial Earth Observation data products in accordance with Section 2 0 of the CSDA IDIQ SOW

Instructions are to “… demonstrate its ability to provide a comprehensive catalog…” with the proposal

Attachment C contains the “Comprehensive Data Catalog”

Attachment A Scope of Work (upon award) is deliver a “Comprehensive Digital Catalog”

This is causing varied interpretation of intent for what is to provided with the proposal (attachment C) vs first deliverable TO (upon award) It would seem we are performing the work in the SOW as part of the Proposal content (Attachment C) Three questions which may likely be answered combined

Is the wording intended to imply that the SOW deliverable “Comprehensive Data Catalog” is to be delivered with the proposal “Attachment C, Comprehensive Data Catalog”?

Does this mean we are submitting, essentially, a draft of the SOW deliverable with the proposal?

Is the entirety of what is described in the SOW Section III 2 0 (Comprehensive Digital Catalog) to be delivered as part of Attachment C (TBP)?

"The offeror shall provide a comprehensive Digital Catalog of its data holdings" with its proposal and in accordance with RFP / III 11 Technical Volume Paragraph 2 Subparagraph 3)(a) which will be incorporated as Attachment C to the contract To demonstrate ability, the proposal needs to address all items required under RFP section III 11 Technical Volume

Comprehensive Data Catalog and Comprehensive Digital Catalogue are synonymous throughout the solicitation in meaning a comprehensive digital data catalog

The Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog needs to include all products available for purchase at the time of proposal submission Separate from the required Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog (Attachment C), NASA requests with the proposal the "Delivery of Metadata for Archive" in accordance with RFP Section III 10 Offer Volume Paragraph (c) subparagraph (7)

No

35 Enclosure 1_ITSMP_Template (5) Information Technology (IT) Security Management Plan

Is the ITSMP template available as either a word document or an editable PDF so we can utilize the format?

The editable version of the ITSMP was posted on sam gov in the Attachments section of the CSDA IDIQ On-Ramp 1 solicitation on March 8, 2024

No

36 General General

We diligently monitored the GPE site as directed and did not see any announcements posted about “release” and “amendments ”

It wasn’t until we contacted NASA that were promptly informed that there was another SAM gov site and provided the link For that we are appreciative We did note that was a brief note that the bottom of the original solicitation page under “history” that provided a link to a different site We did not intuitively look at “history section” when awaiting a future announcement We’d expected the GPE page title to change with new dates under General Information at the top While accept accountability, this puts us at a disadvantage in providing the government the highest quality proposal

Would the government consider a 1 week extension for those of us who were monitoring the site and missed the history part of the page redirecting to another site?

As indicated in the Pre-Solicitation Notice posted on sam gov on January 9, 2024, "It is the offeror's responsibility to monitor this website for the release of the solicitation and amendments (if any) Potential offerors will be responsible for downloading their own copy of the solicitation and amendments (if any) " As such, the government does not intend to extend the due date for the submission of proposals

37 RFP II 10 Offer Volume (c)(7), Pg 54 and RFP III 11 Technical Volume 2(3)(a), Pg 56

7) Delivery of Metadata for Archive

a) The offeror shall provide a Comprehensive Digital Catalog of its data holdings

Reference RFP Offer Volume I, III 10 c 7 “Delivery of Metadata for Archive” request “Relevant Data for ALL the data in Vendor’s holdings” should be submitted with proposal as part of Volume 1

However, per RFP Section III 11 3 a Volume 2, the Attachment C, Comprehensive Digital Catalog, is described the same way as what is to be delivered in Volume I, “Metadata for Archive ” This seems like we are submitting the same thing twice, one in Volume I and one in Volume II

Can NASA clarify what are the differences between 1 Volume I, “delivery of metadata for archive” due with proposal?

2 Volume II, Comprehensive Digital Catalog, Attachment C, due with proposal?

The Delivery of Metadata for Archive referenced in RFP Section II 10 Offer Volume Paragraph (c) Subparagraph

(7) is for the delivery of relevant metadata for all the data that is in the vendor's archive to date and is available to NASA researchers If the offeror receives a contract award, NASA will issue a one-time Task Order for this Metadata Deliverable

The Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog referenced in RFP Section III 11 Technical Volume Paragraph 2 Subparagraph (3) is for a catalog of the vendors complete data holdings that are available for purchase at the time of proposal submission and will be incorporated into the contract as Attachment C

No

38 RFP III 11 Technical Volume 2(3)(a) & (b), Pgs 56-57

a) The offeror shall provide a Comprehensive Digital Catalog of its data holdings

b) The offeror shall provide detailed description of the data, metadata and other ancillary information

Based on the Reference description, would the government agree that both subparagraphs a and b are to be entered into the Attachment C, Comprehensive Digital Catalog?

Can the Vendor cross reference Attachment C when addressing Technical Acceptability Standards 1-4 (especially TAS 3)?

RFP Section III 11 Technical Volume Paragraph 2 Subparagraphs (3)(a) & (b) are part of the requirement to demonstrate ability to provide a comprehensive catalog

In the Technical Volume, a top level description of how the standard will be met can be provided and point to/cross-reference where the supporting information can be found in the Catalog

No

39 RFP I 16 Supplemental Task Ordering Procedures, Pg 22 I 16 Supplemental Task Ordering Procedures

With reference to the Evaluation Phase under Section I 16, could NASA provide more information on what factors NASA uses to determine the utility of the data for ESD research and applied science applications What metrics and standards are used for evaluation?

The quality of the data is assessed on data attributes such as geolocation accuracy, radiometric accuracy, and platform intercalibration Data quality evaluation will use the ESA-NASA Evaluation Guidelines The utility of the data is assessed by competitively selected PI's who are assessing the usefulness of data for advancing Earth system science research and applications and the ability of data to support Earth system science research and applications activities

No

40 General General

Contractor currently has two radar satellites on orbit and plans to launch additional satellites in 3Q 2024 through 2026 The additional satellites the contractor plans to launch will include second generation radar satellites as well as microwave sounders If selected in this year’s on-ramp, will the contractor have to go through subsequent 1 year evaluation phases as new satellites come online? Or will this year’s evaluation phase serve to qualify all future additions to our constellation?

NASA is refining our data evaluation process Once a vendor goes through sustainment and expands their catalog there will be a reduced data evaluation period for new products

No

41 General General

Can NASA share additional details on CSDA program budget for this year? Specifically, how many new companies does NASA expect to on-ramp this year? How may total awards/task orders are expected this year, and what is the average award size?

NASA will not be able to provide additional information at this time on the budget or the expected number of task orders

On-ramping outcomes can vary depending on the number of responses received to on-ramping opportunities and the offeror's ability to satisfy the RFP requirements

42 RFP III 10 Offer Volume Item (c)(1)a-c, Pg 53

(c) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE

FURNISHED

(1) Contract Administration, if applicable Furnish the information listed below:

a Cognizant Government audit agency with mailing address, email address, telephone number, and fax number b Cognizant Government inspection agency with mailing address, email address, telephone number, and fax number c Cognizant Government Administrative Contracting Officer by name with mailing address, email address, telephone number, and fax number

Regarding information request included in the Offer Volume (c)(1)(a-c); is this information only required if the proposing provider has such contacts from prior contracts?

The information requested in RFP Section III 10 Offer Volume Paragraph (c) Subparagraphs (1)a-c should be provided if available and applicable If not applicable, denoting that item "N/A" is a sufficient response

No

43 RFP III 8 General Instructions (b)(1), Pgs 48-49 General - Proposal Content and Page Limitation

In the technical volume we are limited to 25 pages for the Technical Acceptability Standards, but excludes the cover page, indices, table of contents, and comprehensive digital catalog

In the RFP, section III 11, sub-bullet 2 it describes the technical proposal instructions and says “…shall respond to the Technical Acceptability Standards 1 – 4 below…”

However, item 3 is all references to the Digital Catalog which include information for metadata and processing information and would take up a lot of pages

So there seems to be an inconsistency here in the page limit for Technical Acceptability Standards (and what is excluded) and then later what is being asked of us to respond in the Technical Acceptability Standards (i e 1 – 4)

Can you please clarify the digital catalog and its impact on the size of the Technical Acceptability Standards?

The Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog is part of the Technical Volume and is excluded from the page limitation for the volume as noted in RFP III 8 General Instructions (b)(1)

In the Section III 11 Technical Volume a top level description of how the standard will be met can be provided and point to/cross-reference where the supporting information can be found in the Catalog

The Comprehensive Digital/Data Catalog should be provided as an Attachment or Appendix to the Technical Volume as it will be incorporated as Attachment C to the contract