80HQTR25R7003-CSDA ON RAMP 2 Q-A 1-60.pdf

No. RFP Reference Requirement Question Response RFP 1 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities It is our understanding that in order to add additional capabilities/products, vendors who are currently in the program (have been previously on-ramped) will submit a streamlined response that comprises only an updated

Attachment D (Price List) excel document and a brief description of the new products.. Is this correct?

CSDA Current Contract Holders: Current CSDA contract holders that are proposing new constellation(s) with new sensor capabilities are required to submit the following documents at the time of proposal submission: 1) Technical Volume (See Enclosure 4, which outlines what is required to be included with proposal submission; Note: The

Technical Volume for new constellation/sensor capabilities should include the information that is required in RFP section III.11

2(a)(i)(ii)(iv)(v)(vi), the information in section III.11 2(a)(iii) and

2(a)(vii) is not required; 2) Updated Price List (Attachment D); 3)

Updated Comprehensive Digital Catalog (Attachment C) describing information for each product/collection, not by granule.

Current CSDA contract holders that are not proposing new constellation(s) and are only proposing new data products on existing constellations already on contract, are required to submit the following documents at the time of proposal: 1)Updated Price List (Attachment

D); 2) Updated Comprehensive Digital Catalog (Attachment C) describing information for each product/collection, not by granule; 3)

Supplemental technical document for each product submitted.

CSDA Current Contract Holders and Newly Awarded Contract Holders:

Seven (7) days after contract award an Algorithm Theoretical Basis

Document (ATBD) is required for each new Level 1, Level 2, and Level

3 data product.

Note: ATBD Template was included in Amendment 2 for Industry use.

No

2 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities Can NASA list and clarify all documents expected to be submitted in order to add additional capabilities/products?

See No. 1 No

3 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities For vendors already part of the CSDA Program can we use On-Ramp 2 to put new products onto our existing product schedule?

Yes. See No. 1 No

4 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities Please advise if there are any specific submission guidances that current vendors who are on ramping new products only should follow

? Or do current vendors need to submit the full package with the new product additions?

See No. 1 No

CSDA: On-Ramp

2_RFP Q&A

5 111.11 Technical

Volume

Demonstrate its ability to comply with Sections 1.0.d-1.0.f of the

CSDA IDIQ SOW

Is the CSDA on-ramp RFP only for small satellite operators? Or is it also for NASA to acquire layered analytics and fused data? As a small company, we need to ensure we are very judicious with our time, and do not want to spend valuable time and resources submitting a proposal for an RFP that is not intended for our services.

The RFP requirements state the vendor needs to have at least 1 satellite in LEO, GEO, HEO, or MEO orbit and have demonstrated 9 months of continual observation capability after June 1, 2016. See 111.00

Technical Volume.

No

6 111.11 Technical

Volume

Demonstrate its ability to comply with Sections 1.0.d-1.0.f of the

CSDA IDIQ SOW

I came across the RFP in the subject and have reviewed the documentation. From what I understand, NASA is seeking companies that already have satellites in orbit.

See No. 5. No

7 RFP Cover Letter Multi-contract award that will result in new contracts

We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

This be a multi-contract award that will result in new contracts, as they are not follow-on contracts for the CSDA program.

No

8 111.11 Technical

Volume

Proposal submission content for current CSDA contract holders

Is it a requirement for current CSDA vendors to submit a Technical Volume for a new satellite and sensor that has previously not been on-ramped?

See No. 1 No

9 111.11 Technical

Volume

ATBD If ATBDs are a mandatory requirement, is the template provided mandatory or does it serve as guidance for response?

See No. 1 No

10 111.11 Technical

Volume

ATBD If ATBDs in the template provided are mandatory, it is a significant amount of work to complete in the timeline provided. May we respectfully ask for a three (3) week extension in order to complete?

See No. 1 No

11 Attachment A, SOW

Deliverables

"The vendor shall provide data system capabilities for search, discovery, and access of the data via

(i) user interface and (ii) application programming interface."

Does NASA require a user interface for GNSS data?

No, there is not a user interface requirement for GNSS data. No

12 Attachment A, SOW III(3), Attachment D

Price List

Template, and

RFP I.17

3.0 Professional Services and

Support

Does NASA CSDA expect pricing for professional services support to be included in the IDIQ price volume? Alternatively, does

NASA expect that professional services support will be priced based on support specified in each task order issued?

The pricing should be the price for the product. Support and services should be built into the product pricing. Data should be provided in a standard usable format, if there are any further requirements outside of normal product support services, it will be built into a task order.

No

13 Attachment A, SOW III(3)

The vendor shall provide, at a minimum, regular metrics of the purchased data and user access

(where applicable).

What are NASA's metrics of interest related to user access data? Please define the term regular as used in the below requirement.

The task order monthly report shall include monthly metrics of the purchased data. The metrics shall include but not limited to: number of users, number of downloads (by data record, spatiotemporal extent, and data volume), Area of Interests (AOIs), and user identification. For user identification, as long as there is an identifier for the user, the CSDA program can map to further catagories. See RFP section I.21 - Reports of Works.

Yes

14 Attachment A, SOW III(1)(d-f)

9-month coverage and collection requirement

Following up on a question from industry days, is an improved sensor capability for a satellite, that does not meet the nine month coverage and routine data collection requirement, included in our product list for an enhanced product that will become available within the months following contract award still be compliant?

As long as one of your products from the constellation can demonstrate data acquisition for at least nine continual months after June 2016, you can include other capabilities in the price list, however, the capability or product cannot be in commisioning phase. If you are already a CSDA contract holder, please refer to the new product guidance . If you are not an existing CSDA contact holder, please proivde all capabilities in your proposal that meet these requirements.

No

15 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities Are current CSDA contract holders required to submit an Algorithm Theoretical Based document (ATBD), or is this documentation optional?

See No. 1 No

16 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities Does the ATBD template include all required fields, or is it meant to serve as guidance for response?

Yes, the ATBD template includes all required fields. See No. 1. No

17 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities For vendors with an existing CSDA contract that would like to on-ramp new products, can

NASA clarify what documents are required for submission?

See No. 1 No

18 No RFP Reference N/A In addition to providing data and to help NASA advance its scientific goals, are vendors permitted to on-ramp software products?

No, the on-ramp 2 requirement does not permit software products. No

19 Solicitation

Instructions -

III.10 Offer

Volume: (2)

Responsibility

Information.

Responsibility Information: FAR

9.104

You request the contractor to 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). It is not clear to me what specific documents we need to provide in order to demonstrate all the elements under FAR 9. 104. Could you please clarify?

See FAR Clause at 9.104 for clarification. No

20 Solicitation

Instructions -

Offer

Volume: (6) Deliv ery of Metadata

Metadata Delivery NASA requests with the proposal submission the delivery of relevant metadata for all the data that is in the vendor’s archive to date and is available to NASA researchers. Could this metadata be from sample data that is fully representative of that collected by our satellite?

My assumption is we need to deliver sample metadata for each of the product categories we could potentially deliver to NASA if awarded, not all the metadata currently in our archives.

Please clarify.

At time of submission, the proposal should include the fields in the metadata representative of all products that are being proposed. It does not have to be the metadata from each file in the catalog. See the RFP

III.11.3b for the minimum required metadata, and additional requirements for this portion of the submission.

No

21 SOW -

Requirements: Re quirement 1.0 d)

Section III.11.2a Data from the satellite constellation must cover a period of at least nine (9) continuous months, since 1 June 2016. Does this mean that the satellite must have been acquiring data for at least 9 months in a row? Over which AOI or area? The reason I'm asking is that, even if our satellite was launched in 2023 and has been acquiring data since then, we might have data gaps for some regions since our service is mainly taskable.

Data gaps is acceptable, there is no required AOI. See section III.11.2a which outlines submissions should include constellation information, evidence of routine data collection (this can be in the form of a heat map, chart, or other representation of collection over a minimum period of 9 months, and other requirements).

No

22 SOW -

Requirements: Re quirement 1.0 e)

3800 km Requirement 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). It might be related to the previous requirement, and I already asked this during the session, but I'm still not sure I understand this requirement. How are those

3800 Km measured? Over which time period?

Our satellites are LEO 500 Km altitude, so have the capability of covering the globe but a timeframe needs to be defined (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly).

The phrase "near-continental-coverage 3800km" refers to the scale or extent of geophysical coverage that spans approximately 3800km along or across a contentinal region. The observational capabilities should be that the sensor can cover along an area that represents the full extent of a continent over a timeframe designated by the constellation, but not necessarily cover the entire continent. To monitor near-continental scale areas of approximately 3,800 km, satellites typically rely on repeat orbital passes (via polar orbits or constellations) to cover the entire area over hours or days. Temporal resolution (frequency of revisits) is influenced by swath width and orbital paths.

No

23 N/A N/A In the Q&A that was included with the solicitation, it references Attachment H:

NASA’s IT security and data protection requirements. However, we are not seeing this attachment in the package?

The Q&A included with the solicitation is for on-ramp 1, not on-ramp

2. IT Security and Data protection is not a requirement under on-ramp

2.

24 Volume II Page limitation for ATBD Our understanding is that although Volume II has a page limitation, we can include appendices and we can submit them as a separate file. One example would be our Algorithm Theoretical

Basis Document (ATBD) which is extensive.

If you submit an ATBD it will not be included as part of the page count.

It can be included in either manner, as an appendix or separate file.

No

25 Attachment C:

Digital Catalogue.

Metadata Delivery Format Do we submit a STAC-compliant catalog of all data products, or a description of how it would be organized/delivered and its contents?

1 If a STAC catalog:

1 Organize into datasets/collections?

2. Provide a JSON file with all entries (> 40

MB)?

2 If a descriptive document instead:

1 What information is needed, given that most details (API, metadata, coverage, temporal depth, processing levels) will be in Volume II?

See No. 1 and 35. No

26 I.25 Updates of Contractor Capabilities Can you clarify which portions of the RFP must be submitted for Vendors that intend to update their existing product schedule?

See No. 1 No

27 RFP Cover Letter RFP proposal submission Can you confirm the due date for submittals in

August 18, 2025 at 2:00 PM?

The due date for submittals is no later than September 5th at 10am, EST. See Amendment 3.

Yes

28 RFP Cover Letter RFP Proposal Submission Could you please let me know if there are any way that the final proposal to this RFP could be sent out after August 29, 2025?

See No. 27 No

29 III.11 Question 2.a Product Descriptions III.11 Question 2.a.ii Can you provide additional information on this item? Is this product descriptions?

This pertains to information on the satellite fleet, launch information of platforms that consist of the constellation (or of the one platform if not a constellation), and evidence of routine data collection (this can be in the form of a heat map, chart, or other representation of collection over a minimum period of 9 months).

30 RFP FAR Clauses N/A We have reviewed Solicitation No.

80HQTR25R7003 and noted the following FAR clauses and references in the solicitation package: FAR 52.202-1, 52.204-13, 52.204-15, 52.204-16, 52.204-18, 52.204-24, 52.204-25, 52.204-26, 52.207-6, 52.209-7, 52.209-12, 52.211-91, 52.212-1, 52.212-3, 52.212-4, 52.212-5, 52.215-20, 52.216-1, 52.216-19, 52.217-8, 52.232-34, 52.232-39, 52.233-1, 52.252-1, and 52.252-2, as well as FAR references 2.101, 3.900, 4.904, 9.104-1, 12.203, 15.305, 15.306, 15.404, 15.5, 16.505, 19.702, 22.100, 22.805, and 32.60. Could you please confirm whether these are the only FAR requirements we must comply with for this solicitation, or if there are any additional FAR clauses or requirements that apply?

The solicitation is inclusive of all FAR requirements. No other FAR clauses or requirements apply if not explicitly stated in the RFP.

No

31 TCs, III.8 b (1) IT Security Management Plan The Information Technology Security

Management Plan that is to be included references Part III.10 (c)(5) as what needs to be included. III.10(c)(5) is a restatement of the

2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy.

Where is the description of the IT Security

Management Plan requirements that are to be included in volume 1?

The IT Security Managment Plan is not requirement for on-ramp 2. Yes

32 TCs, III.8 b (1) Metadata Delivery The Delivery of Metadata for Archive item that is to be included in volume 1 refers to

III.10(c)(7) for requirements. There is no

III.10(c)(7). III.10(c)(6) is titled “Delivery of

Metadata for Archive”. That seems to be the appropriate section. Is that correct?

That is correct, the table at 8(b)(1) will be updated to reflect III.10c (6) Yes

33 TCs, III.10 c (6) Metadata Delivery Parameters Delivery of Metadata for Archive is to include

“parameters related to the observing sensor”.

What is the definition for these parameters?

The key parameters related to the observing sensor for the metadata of a remote sensing product typically include: Sensor Identification: Name, type, and model of the sensor that acquired the data; Sensor Calibration

Parameters: Details for radiometric calibration, such as gain, offset, and radiometric correction coefficients, which are used to convert raw digital numbers (DN) to physical units like radiance or reflectance;

Spectral Characteristics: Information on spectral bands (wavelength ranges), number of bands, and their spectral resolution.

34 SOW, Section V End User License Agreements

(EULA)

How is user provisioning performed to allow access? Do we get to specify how users are provisioned or are there requirements for this?

The IDIQ contract requires all commercial partners to agree to the End

User Licence Agreements (EULA) under which the data will be purchased. Users that have an interest in the data need to be authorized by the NASA CSDA program, and must fall under a catagory identified under the appropriate license the data is purchased under.

No

35 TCs, III.11 (3) Metadata Delivery Format Is there a preferred format for describing metadata, for example GeoJSON?

Metadata can be provided in JSON, GeoJSON, XML, etc. For the purposes of submission of the proposal it can be submitted in ASCII.

No

36 TCs, I.10 Task Orders Procedures Can you please clarify if task orders includes specific sets of users? For example, at time of task order will the data provider be provided a list of users to provision?

Task orders are determined based on evaluation and programmatic needs. The NASA CSDA Data Management team manages the approval process to authorized users and will work in conjunction with the commercial partner on the appropriate ways to provide data for that task order. The CSDA Data Management team will align user catagorizations with data needs.

No

37 SOW, Section V Task Orders Procedures How long must a provider continue to provide hosting & support for users? Task orders may be submitted for approximately 3 years post-award, but hosting does not have a specified timeline.

API access is required during the task order period of performance.

Data acquired under the task order is ingested to the CSDA archive and the CSDA program will provide conitnued user support outside the task order period of performance.

No

38 TCs, I.10 Task Orders Procedures Would the provider have an option to not pursue any individual task orders on contract? Or is the provider required to pursue all task orders?

The provider can choose what task order to pursue or compete on by responding to a task order request for task plan.

No

39 TCs, I.17 Task Orders Procedures What gap should we expect between program award and work program start? Eg. If awarded in December, would the evaluation phase begin in December or later?

This can vary dependent on programmatic needs and budget. NASA will issue a one-time Task Order for Catalog Metadata Deliverable to all successful offerors that will cover the minimum value guarantee in accordance with clause I.14 GSFC 52.216-92 MINIMUM/MAXIMUM

AMOUNT OF SUPPLIES OR SERVICES (FIXED PRICE) (APR

2008).

40 TCs, I.17 Evaluation Phase How long is the evaluation phase? The CSDA program strives to complete evaluation within 12 months. No

41 TCs, I.12 3.0 Professional Services and

Support

The RFP describes pricing as a fixed price per image (with different price points based on image characteristics & license), but the delivery appears to be an ongoing service of image hosting with unknown numbers of users. Can providers charge based for software platform access, ongoing support costs or number of users? Can product pricing vary based on the number of users?

See No. 12 No

42 TCs, III.11 1b The offeror shall provide information about its satellites and instrumentation and demonstrate how the data will enhance NASA

Earth Science research and application.

If the satellites are already in orbit, what milestones shall be provided? Is there an expectation to provide historical milestones such as CDR, PDR, and launch review?

See III.11.2a, The offerer shall provide a detail description of satellite and instrumentation, of pre-launch characterization and calibration, and launch information. Pre-launch milestone reviews outside this scope are not necessary.

No

43 TCs, III.11 3b The offeror shall provide detailed description of the data, metadata and other ancillary information.

What sort of low-level diagnostic information should be provided? Is this to be provided for every delivered collect? And is this metadata related to image/geo processing only or related to general spacecraft health?

Remote sensing low-level satellite diagnostic information is necessary for low-level data processing generally refers to the raw or minimally processed data collected from satellite sensors that are essential for further data interpretation and scientific use. These data are commonly referred to as Level 0 or Level 1a data, and Level 1b data:

Level 0: Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument and payload data at full resolution with communication artifacts removed.

Level 1a: The same as Level 0, but time-referenced and annotated with calibration and ancillary info, though calibration is not yet applied.

Level 1b: Data processed to sensor units (e.g., brightness temperature or reflectance) but still raw in terms of geophysical interpretation.

This low-level diagnostic information is crucial as a foundation for higher-level processing, such as deriving geophysical variables (Level

2), mapping onto uniform grids (Level 3), or combining with model outputs (Level 4), which are necessary for scientific applications and interpretation.

44 80HQTR25R7003

Attachment A

SOW.pdf, Section

I. Introduction

Contractors with previously NASA evaluated data via the CSDA

Program will not be required to complete the evaluation phase. In case of significant change(s) to the previously evaluated data (e.g., a change to the sensor, the use of different instruments, or new data product types), NASA reserves the right to re-evaluate the currently available data.

For existing CSDA IDIQ awardees, does this clause mean that vendors may submit new products without submitting a full proposal package? If a full package is still required, please clarify which components must be submitted.

See No. 1 No

45 80HQTR25R7003

Attachment A

SOW.pdf, Section

I. Introduction

Contractors with previously NASA evaluated data via the CSDA

Program will not be required to complete the evaluation phase. In case of significant change(s) to the previously evaluated data (e.g., a change to the sensor, the use of different instruments, or new data product types), NASA reserves the right to re-evaluate the currently available data.

What specifically qualifies as a “significant change” that would trigger re-evaluation for an existing vendor? Does this include adding a new data product based on an existing sensor, or changing characteristics such as latency, resolution, or delivery format?

The NASA CSDA program is assessing a continual re-evaluation process of previously assessed data. This does not change the promotion to "sustainement" from evaluation phase. The program will determine what products proposed will go through evaluation.

No

46 80HQTR25R7003

Attachment A

SOW.pdf, Section

II. Scope

Any revisions or updates to the catalogue shall be coordinated with the Contracting Officer (CO) and

Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR).

Does “coordination” with the CO and COR mean that formal approval is required before submitting a revised Attachment C (Digital

Catalog) and Attachment D (Price List), or can those revisions be submitted as part of the On-

Ramp 2 proposal package?

No, formal approval to submit a revised Attachement C or D is not required. The revisions may be submitted as part of the On-Ramp 2 proposal package.

No

47 80HQTR25R7003

Attachment A

SOW.pdf, Section

II. Scope

Any revisions or updates to the catalogue shall be coordinated with the Contracting Officer (CO) and

Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR).

If a current CSDA vendor is not changing any existing products or pricing, but is proposing new ones, can the new items be appended to the existing catalog and price list without affecting previously approved entries?

See No. 1 No

48 SAM.gov posting, 80HQTR25R7003

- CSDA RFP

RAMP 2 Cover

Letter.pdf, 80HQTR25R7003

- CSDA RFP

RAMP 2 SF1449

TCs.pdf, Combined

Synopsis/Solicitati on; “Proposals

Submitted in

Response to this

Solicitation”

RFP proposal submission Multiple documents provide conflicting proposal due dates. Which date is the official and controlling deadline for proposal submission? Will NASA issue an amendment to clarify?

See No. 27 No

49 SAM.gov posting, 80HQTR25R7003

- CSDA RFP

RAMP 2 Cover

Letter.pdf, Combined

Synopsis/Solicitati on; Proposal

Submission

Instructions

SAM.gov says questions are due

August 11, 2025 at 2:00 PM EST.

The Cover Letter also refers to

August 11 as the due date for questions prior to a virtual session, but then states final questions are due August 18, 2025.

Which date is the final deadline for submitting questions: August 11 or August 18? Will questions received after August 11 but before

August 18 be accepted?

The deadline for submitting questions for the RFP is August 18th, 2025. See the RFP Cover Letter, posted on sam.gov.

No

50 80HQTR25R7003

Attachment G

2003 CRSP On

Ramp 2.pdf, Section 1.2

Technical

Approach

The Technical Volume shall describe the offeror’s technical approach for how they intend to meet the requirements defined in Attachment

A – Statement of Work (SOW) and

Attachment B – End User License

Agreements (EULAs).

For existing IDIQ holders only proposing new products, is submission of a new Technical

Volume mandatory, or only required if offering fundamentally different product classes or capabilities?

See No. 1 No

51 RFP Cover Letter RFP proposal submission The solicitation posting on SAM.gov states

“responses to this combined synopsis/solicitation must be received via email no later than 2:00PM EST on August 18, 2025”, however, the downloaded cover letter states

“proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be due no later than August 29, 2025, at 10:00AM, EST” and that “proposals for this solicitation are required to be submitted through NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and

Sync Box (EFSS Box).”

See No. 27 No

52 Volume II Page limitation for ATBD Does the ATBD information count towards the tech volume page limit? We have a stand alone

ATBD doc that we could provide if that would be preferred.

See No. 24 No

53 III.11 Offer

Volume

Security Statement Should we include the Security Statement in the

Offeror Volume? The solicitation asks for it, but during the industry day someone mentioned it should not be included.

A Security Statement is not a requirement in the Offeror Volume. No

54 TCs, III.11 3b The offeror shall provide detailed description of the data, metadata and other ancillary information.

What is an example of low-level satellite diagnostic information necessary for low level data processing? Could you please expand on what this looks like?

See No. 43 No

55 SOW 3.0 Professional Services and

Support

HSI may not be a good fit for the suggested formats. Would the customer be willing to accpet ENVI formal until such time we have a

NASA format that works well for CDSA customers.

ENVI, GeoTIFF, NetCDF4/HDF5 are acceptable formats. No

56 TCs Section III.11 2. Technical Proposal Instructions

Technical Acceptability Standards 3

Please confirm if the following RFP requirements (Technical Acceptability

Standards 3) are to be addressed in Attachment

C, in it's entirety, rather than the Technical

Volume narrative. Otherwise, please advise what requirement sections shall be incorporated into

Attachment C.

The Technical Acceptability Standards are to be addressed in the

Technical Volume. Attachment C - Comprehensive Digital Catalog is to be proposed by the Offeror.

No

57 SOW 2.0 Comprehensive Digital

Catalogue

We are providing a Level 1 product, can you confirm it does not require a ATBD.

See No. 1 No

58 SOW 2.0 Comprehensive Digital

Catalogue

If we do include a ATBD for a Level 1 product where does it get included and does it become part of our page count.

See No. 24 No

59 SOW 2.0 Comprehensive Digital

Catalogue

Is there a way to propose additional products that are used internally and are not ready as external products, in our proposal, such that we do not need to re-propose.

No, the products need to be available for delivery if it is determined to be included in an acquisition by the program.

No

60 TCs, III.11 (3) Metadata Delivery Format For the attachement including the cataloge listing, is there a perferred format?

See No. 35 No